You are on page 1of 156

LOPE E.

FEBLE
Former Dean, MLQU School of Law

The following notes are intended for exclusive use of MLQU bar
reviewees. All rights reserved.

1
EVIDENCE
Matters of
Evidence Judicial
judicial
introduced by Admission
notice.
(S. 1, 2 & 3 parties (Sec. 4, R 129)
Rule 129
Exclusionary rules

Documentary
Object Testimonial
S2-3 R130
S1, R130 S20, 21 & 36, R 130

Best Secondary Parol


Evidence Evidence Evidence
Rule. s2 Rule, s5 Rule. s9

Similar Admission
Testimonial DQ of Opinion Character Hearsay
Acts Rule and
Privilege Witness Rule Evidence Rule
Conduct Confession
PFP-S25 S22 - 24 S49 - 50 S51 s36
S34-35 S26-33
3

Requisites for admissibility

Relevant Competent

Exclusionary Best Disqualifi-


Rule Hearsay Parol
Constitution
Evidence cation
Rule Evidence Rule
& Laws Rule

NOTE: Additional requisite for admissibility for doc. & object evidence:
(1) authentication (2) by a competent witness. (formal offer-common to
all).
KINDS OF EVIDENCE

 1. Direct – proves a fact by itself w/o inference or


presumption
 2. Circumstantial- that which indirectly proves a fact
thru inference drawn from the evidence established (P
v. Matito [2004])
 3. Cumulative – evidence of the same kind which tend
to prove the same fact.
 4. Corroborative – additional evidence to prove the
same fact
 5. Prima Facie – evidence which, if uncontradicted, is
sufficient to maintain a proposition.
 6. Conclusive – evidence which the law does not allow
to be contradicted
 7. Positive – affirmation of a fact did occur or exist
 8. Negative – denial of existence of a fact
 9. Primary – Best evidence Rule
 10. Secondary – Substitutionary evidence (S5, R130)
General Principles
Rule 128
 Rule 128 of the Rules of court defines evidence as the
means, sanctioned by the rules of court, of ascertaining
in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of
fact (Sec. 1). It therefore refers to the procedures which a
party must observe in every action and proceeding to
prove his cause of action, which procedures are uniform
in all courts in all trials and hearings, except where there
are laws or rules providing for different procedures to be
observe [sec. 2, r 128] (examples: rules of summary
procedure, rules on small claims, actions and
proceedings in sharia’ courts, proceedings in writs of
amparo, writs of habeas data, election laws, cadastral
and land registration, naturalization and insolvency
proceedings [the last 4 are specifically mentioned in Sec. 4, Rule 1, ROC) The
rules of evidence must likewise be liberally construed (sec.
6, Rule 1).
General Principles Continued
 Simply stated, anything that exist in this world can be used as
evidence provided that it complies with the rules of admissibility.
Sec. 3 thereof provides the requisites for admissibility of evidence,
which are: relevancy and competency. Evidence can be said to be
relevant if it has relation to the fact in issue as to induce a
belief of its existence or non-existence. This is the
reason why sec. 4 of Rule 128 generally prohibits
introduction of evidence which are merely collateral to
the fact in issue. The exception to this prohibition is when such
evidence tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability
or improbability of the fact in issue (id.). Necessarily, evidence must
have rational probative value to the fact in issue and must not be
prohibited by law or the rules. There is no vested rights in the rules
of evidence unless the changes in the rules will constitute an ex
post facto law (S.22, Art. III, Const).
Collateral Matters (S4, R128)

 What is a collateral matter which is generally


disallowed by the rules? It simply refers to matters
which has no direct connection between the
evidence and the fact in issue. The most common
examples of these are motive, character or
reputation of a person. Nevertheless, while these
are considered collateral matters it can be admitted
if it will corroborate or supplement facts
established by other evidence, or to some extent,
(as provided by sec. 4, R128) will induce a belief as
the probability or improbability of a fact in issue. It
therefore depends on the value that can be drawn
if such matters are presented for determination by
the court.
Collateral Matters; Exceptions

 However, the rules of court itself provides


for admission of character evidence, which
to some degree may be collateral. s51(a
[1]), R130 provides that good moral
character of the accused is admissible in
cases where his character is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged.
In civil action, evidence of moral character
of a party is admissible when pertinent to
the issue of character involved in the action
S51 (a[b]).
Relevancy vs. Materiality of Evidence

 Evidence may still be objected to for


being immaterial. Materiality should be
determined whether the fact sought to
be prove by such evidence is in issue
or not. As to whether a fact is in issue
or not is in turn determined by
substantive law, by pleadings, by pre-
trial order, or/and admissions or
confessions (Regalado, Rem. Law
Comp., p. 579).
S is indebted to a bank.
10 When the obligation falls
due, he fails to pay and the bank sues for collection.
As part of the evidence of the bank, the accountant
of “S” is placed on a witness stand and in the course
of his examination he is asked if he in turn is also
indebted to the bank.
The lawyer of S interposes two objections to the
question (1) that it is impertinent (2) it would
therefore be improper to let him testify against
himself.
If you were the judge, how would you rule on the
objections. (Sec. 3, Rule 128; Evidence is admissible
when its relevant (test of relevancy) and is not
excluded ( test of competency) by the rules)
11

Under the Constitution and Statutes


1. Right against illegal searches and seizures
(Sec. 2, Art. III, Const.)
2. Right against privacy of communication (Sec.
3, Art. III, Const.)
a. Editorial’s Privilege [RA 53 as amended by
RA 1477]
b. Informer’s Privilege [Pp. v. Ong, G.R. No.
137348, June 21, 2004]

c. Anti Wire Tapping Law ([R.A. 4200]Torralba v.


Pp. G.R. No. 153699 August 22, 2005)
Exclusionary Rule
3. Right against self incrimination (Sec.
17, Art. III, Cons.;In re: Sabio).
4. Confession and admission illegally
obtained [Sec. 12, Art. III].
5. R.A. 1405 [Law on Secrecy of Bank
Deposits] and RA 6426.
6. Sec. 201 of Tax Reform Act of 1997.
7. Child Witness Rule/Rape Shield
Rule.
PRECLUSIONARY RULE
All evidence intended to be presented,
whether for the prosecution or the
accused must be named/marked during
the pre-trial, otherwise they cannot be
allowed presentation, much less admission
during the trial, unless for good cause.
Note, however, that with respect to new
trial on newly discovered evidence, the
rule on preclusion of evidence does not
apply (A.M. No. 03-1-09 SC, effective Aug.
16, 2004).
13
Search and Seizures
 The Constitution secures every person against
illegal search and seizures (S. 2, Art. III,
Const.). Any evidence obtained in violation of
this constitutional protection is a product of
“poisonous tree” and therefore inadmissible in
evidence in any proceedings (S3[2), Art. III).
The requirement of search warrant therefore
serves as a limitation on the power of the state
to gather evidence as a general rule (Sec. 2,
Art. III and Rule 126[s4] Rules of Court).
However, this right can be waive and subject
to several exceptions. These are:
Exceptions to warrantless search and
seizures (11 exceptions)
 Warrantless search incidental to lawful arrest;
 Consented search;
 Search of moving vehicle;
 Check points; body checks in airports & seaports;
 Seizure of evidence in plain view [Plainview doctrine];
 Stop and frisk situation;
 Enforcement of customs laws;
 Emergency cases [based on probable cause and extraordinary
cases];
 Those incident to inspection;
 In times of war within the area of military operation
 Enforcement of health and sanitary laws.
Privacy of Communications and
Correspondence
 Sec. 3[1] Art. III of the Const. secures all
persons against invasion of their privacy so
far as communications and correspondence
are concerned. This means that for every
words or letters spoken or written that are
made in private, the constitutional guaranty
apply. Accordingly, evidence obtained in
violation of this guaranty is inadmissible in
any proceedings (S3[2], Art. III)
Exceptions to privacy of comm. &
correspondence
 The exception to this is (1) when there is
lawful order of the court, or (2) when public
safety and order requires such invasion as
prescribe by law.
 R.A. 4200 [S4] (Anti-Wire Tapping Act) makes
every evidence obtained by using a device
commonly known as a dictaphone or
dictagraph or walkie-talkie or tape recording
in violation of the said law inadmissible. It
does not, however, cover conversation
obtained thru a party line (of a landline
telephones).
Requisites for Admissibility of Tape
Recordings [Torralba v. Pp.]
 1) a showing that the recording device was capable of
taking testimony;
 (2) a showing that the operator of the device was
competent;
 (3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness
of the recording;
 (4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions
have not been made;
 (5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of
the recording;
 (6) identification of the speakers; and
 (7) a showing that the testimony elicited was
voluntarily made without any kind of inducement
Exceptions to privacy of comm.
 R.A. 9372- Human Security Act of 2007 –
limits the authority of the Court of Appeals to
issue authorization respecting surveillance
and tapping of communications in cases of
suspected terrorism activities. It cannot be
done against lawyers-clients, doctors-
patients, journalists and confidential business
correspondence [s7]. The authority given is
valid only for 30 days subject to renewal.
Thus, evidence obtained in violation of this
law is likewise inadmissible in evidence.
Exceptions continued
 R.A. No. 53 [Amended by RA 1477] – Press
Freedom – grants journalists the right to
refuse disclosure of their sources of
information, unless the security of the State
is involved. Any evidence breaching this
confidentiality is inadmissible in evidence.
However, this right does not include refusal
to a subpoena issued for the journalist to
appear in an investigation or hearing
relating to the matter published, or his
possible prosecution for libel for untruthful
and defamatory article (A.M. No. 93-2-037 SC
April 6, 1995,IN RE Emil (Emiliano) P. JURADO )
Right against self incrimination
 Sec. 17, Art. III, Const. – also secures every
person against testimonial compulsion,
which means that he cannot be forced to
give any statement against his will if the
matter involved might subject him to
criminal prosecution, as this would be
considered as illegally obtained confessions.
However, this does not cover compulsion so
far as mechanical acts are concerned, i.e.
handwriting, biological samples, etc. This
right is connected with the right to be
presumed innocent (Sec. 14[2], Art. III)
Right vs. Self-Incrimination; Continued
 Sec. 17, Rule 119, ROC – State Witness Rule
 R.A. 1379 – grants immunity to
witnesses in forfeiture of ill-gotten
cases.
 P.D. 739 – also grants immunity in
bribery and graft cases.
 R.A. 6981 (Witness Protection, Security
and Benefits Act [witness protection
program].
Rt. vs. Self-Incrimination; Immunity;
continued
 Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 explicitly provides:
 No member or staff of the Commission shall be
required to testify or produce evidence in any
judicial legislative or administrative proceeding
concerning matters within its official
cognizance. (was declared unconstitutional In
re: Sabio vs. Gordon, et al. G.R. No. 174340 October 17,
2006). The right vs. self-incrimination does
cover refusal to attend hearings called by the
Senate. It can be invoked only when questions
are propounded.

Confessions to be ADMISSIBLE
 Confessions to be admissible must comply
with Sec. 12, Art. III (the Miranda Doctrine)
and R.A. 7834(An Act Defining the Rights of
Arrested Person, Detained or Under Custodial
Investigation; 4/27/92). The suspect must be
informed of his right to remain silent,
provided with independent and competent
counsel preferably of his choice (this right
cannot be waived except in writing with
assistance of counsel [Morales vs. Enrile; p. v.
Sison]. It must be voluntary.
Exclusionary Rule under Bank Deposits
Act
 R.A. 1405 [Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits]
and R.A. 6426 [Foreign Currency Deposit Act]
prohibits bank official or employee from
disclosing to any person any information
concerning deposits, including investments in
bond issued by the Government, and its
political subdivisions and instrumentalities, and
may not be examined, inquired or looked into
by any person, government official, bureau or
office.
Exceptions to bank secrecy deposit
 However, under any of the following instances
deposits may be examined:
 1. Upon permission by the depositor;
 2. In cases of impeachment;
 3. By order of a competent court in cases of bribery
or dereliction of duty by public officials;
 4. In cases where the deposit or investment is the
subject matter of litigation;
 5. Examination of a bank authorized by the Monetary
Board based on reasonable ground that bank fraud or
serious irregularity has been or is being committed;
 6. In cases of unexplained wealth (Sec. 8, RA3019);
Exceptions continued (bank secrecy)
 7. Examination by independent auditors on banks
 8. Reporting of bank accounts to the Anti-Money Laundering
Council respecting covered transactions in cash or other
equivalent monetary instrument involving a total amount in
excess of Five hundred thousand pesos (PhP 500,000.00) within
one (1) banking day, or suspicious transactions regardless of
the amount, and examination under the said law by AMLC upon
order by competent court (RA9194);
 9. Examination made by the BIR Commissioner under Section
F(c) of NIRC on accounts of a decedent to determine his gross
estate, and a taxpayer who has filed an application to
compromise his tax liability by reason of financial incapacity to
pay his tax liability;
 10. Inquiry into bank deposits, trusts or investment funds, or
banking transactions based on reasonable ground that they
have been used in support or in furtherance of the December
1989 coup d’ etat, under RA 6832
28

 Rules on examination of child witness


SEXUAL ABUSE SHIELD RULE ALSO KNOWN AS RAPE SHIELD RULE:

The following are inadmissible in any criminal


proceeding involving the alleged child sexual abuse:
1. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim
engaged in other sexual behavior;
2. Evidence offered to prove the sexual
predisposition of the alleged victim.

Exception: evidence of specific instance of sexual


behavior by 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.
2. Under the Rules of Court
29

2.1. Mental incapacity or immaturity (Sec. 21, R130


- Compare with S2, R92)
2.2. Marital Disqualification or Spousal Immunity
(Note:Alvarez v. Ramirez)
2.3. Dead Man’s Statute ([S23]Icard v. Masigan)
2.4. Privileged Communication (S.24)
2.4.1. Husband and Wife
2.4.2. Lawyer-Client (note the last link doctrine)
2.4.3. Doctor-Patient
2.4.4. Priest-Confessant
2.4.5.Public Interest Privilege
( Neri vs. Senate: Operational Proximity Test and
Presidential Communications Privilege; Senate v.
Ermita)
2.5. Parental and Filial Privilege (Sec. 25, R130).
Exclusionary rules ROC
 NOTE: All persons who can perceive, and
perceiving, can make known their
perceptions to others may be a witness
(S20, R130). The qualifications or
disqualifications of a witness is determined
at the time he is presented in court or the
taking of their depositions (it is submitted
however that if the witness is a child of
tender years his competence at the time of
the occurrence of the fact being testified
should be considered). Generally, the
interest of a witness in the subject matter of
the action does not disqualify him to testify,
except when it is covered by the
Survivorship Disqualification Rule (S23).
Exclusionary under ROC; continued
 S21, R130, ROC – The following cannot be
a witness:
 1. Those whose mental conditions at the
time they are to testify are incapable of
intelligently making known their perception
to others;

 2. Children whose mental maturity rendering


them incapable of perceiving the facts they
are being examined and to relate them
truthfully.
Compared with Incompetents under
Rule 92, Section 2(guardianship)
 Sec. 2. Incompetent includes persons
suffering the penalty of civil interdiction or
hospitalized lepers, prodigals, deaf and
dumb who are unable to read and write,
those who are of unsound mind, even
though they have lucid intervals, and
persons not being of unsound mind, by
reason of age, disease, weak mind, and
other similar causes, cannot, without
outside aid, care themselves and manage
their property, becoming thereby an easy
prey for deceit and exploitation.
Marital Disqualification; Disqualification
applies only during the marriage (S22, R130)
 “During their marriage, neither the husband nor the
wife may testify for or against the other without the
content of the affected spouse, except in a civil
case by one against the other, or in a criminal case
for a crime committed by one against the other or
the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.”
NOTE: THIS RULE IS SUBJECT TO WAIVER (P. v.
Francisco, 78 Phil. 694). Also, a co-defendant wife
cannot be called to testify as adverse witness
(Lezama, etal. v. Rodriguez, et al., June 27, 1968).
Sec. 22 continued
 S22 of R130, disqualify a spouse from
testifying against his spouse who is a party
to an action, during the lifetime of their
marriage, adverse or favorable testimony,
and whether it is crim. or civil cases. It also
apply whether the facts to be testified occurs
before or during their marriage.
 EXCEPTIONS:
 1. In a civil case between the spouses;
 In a criminal case committed by a spouse vs.
the other, or the latter’s direct descendants
or descendants.
Continued. . . .
 G.R. No. 143439 October 14, 2005, Alvarez
vs. Ramirez – When there is no more harmony
and tranquility to protect and preserve. “It
should be stressed that as shown by the
records, prior to the commission of the
offense, the relationship between petitioner
and his wife was already strained. In fact, they
were separated de facto almost six months
before the incident. Indeed, the evidence and
facts presented reveal that the preservation of
the marriage between parties is no longer an
interest the State aims to protect.”
DEAD MAN’S STATUTE (Survivorship Disqualification Rule)

 S23, R130 –”Disqualification by reason of


death or insanity. – Parties or assignors of
parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf
a case is prosecuted, against an executor or
administrator or other representative of a
deceased, 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.”
Dead Man’s Statute
 This exclusionary rule (disqualification)
applies only to a civil action or special
proceeding. REQUISITES:
 1. Defendant is the exec. or adm. or rep. of
the deceased or of unsound mind;
 2. The case is upon a claim by the plaintiff
against the estate of such persons;
 3. Witness is the plaintiff, assignor of the
latter or a person in whose behalf the case is
prosecuted.
 4. The subject of the testimony are matters
occurring before the death or before the
person became of unsound mind.
Representatives of the deceased
 Executors, Administrators, Assignees, Heirs,
or those who acts as representative capacity
or succeeds the deceased or person of
unsound mind.
 Thus, even if the property has already been
judicially adjudicated to the heirs, they can
still invoked the disqualification as they are
considered as the representatives of the
deceased (Goñi, et al. vs. CA, Sept. 23, 1986)
Icard vs. Masigan -G.R. No. L-47442April 8, 1941
Dead Man’s Statute (Exception)
 Rule 130, section 23 of the Rules of Court, is
designed to close the lips of the party plaintiff
when death has closed the lips of the party
defendant, in order to remove from the surviving
party the temptation to falsehood and the
possibility of fictitious claims against the deceased.
Where, as in the instant case, the purpose of the
oral testimony is to prove a lesser claim than what
might be warranted by clear written evidence, to
avoid prejudice to the estate of the deceased, the
law has certainly no reason for its application.
Ratione cessante, cessat ipsa lex.
Dead Man’s Statute – Exceptions
 – It does not apply when testimony is
intended to prove fraudulent transaction of
the deceased (Ong Chua v. Carr G.R. No.
29512- 1/17/29), provided such fraud is
first established by evidence aliunde
(Babao vs. Perez, 102 Phil. 756). It has no
application to a mere witness (Reyes vs.
Wells, 54 Phil. 102 Reyes vs. Wells, 54
Phil. 102).It does not apply when witness
is the respondent or where there is
waiver by reason of cross-examination
(Londres, et al. v. CA, G.R. No. 136427, 12/17/02).
Dead Man’s Statute-Exceptions
 The prohibition does not apply also where the
witness is an oppositors in land registration
cases as they are considered defendants and
therefore may testify against the petitioners
(Nañagas v. Mun. of San Narciso, 53 Phil. 719).
It does not apply also in cadastral cases, there
being no plaintiff or defendant therein (Tongco
v. Vianzon, 50 Phil. 698).
Privilege Communications [S24] Matters
learned in CONFIDENCE
 1. Marital privileged communications – “The
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 in crim. case for a
crime committed by one against the other or
the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.”
 Here, the objection is against the testimony,
not of being a witness under S22.
Marital Privilege
 REQUISITES:
 A. Valid marriage bet. the spouses;
 B. Communication made in confidence by one to the
other;
 C. It must be made during the marriage;
 NOTE: The privileged extends beyond the existence of
the marriage and does not require a spouse to be a
party to a case. However, communications not
intended to be confidential are not covered (U.S. v.
Antipolo, 37 Phil. 726) or where communications is
overheard or comes into the hands of a third party
(People vs. Carlos, 47 Phil. 626. It is necessary,
however, that there is no collusion between the
spouse and the third party Regalado, p. 614).
Lawyer-Client privilege
 “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.”

 2. Requisites:
 A. Lawyer-Client relationship;
 B. Matters involves confidential information during the course
of professional employment;
 C. Client did not give consent to lawyer’s testimony; or if it is
the lawyers sec, clerk, stenographer that is sought to be
examined the client and the lawyer have not consented thereto.
 N.B. The privilege covers verbal statements, docs. or papers
entrusted to the lawyer and facts learned therefrom.
Lawyer-Client
 Note that the privilege will not cover intended
crimes to be committed [but only past
crimes] as the engagement must be for lawful
purpose. Future crimes destroys the lawful
purpose of the engagement because it is the
duty of every person to report the
commission of a crime.

 The Last Link Doctrine – the identity of the


client is protected (as to confidentiality) if
revelation of such information would result to
revealing the privileged communication.
Lawyer-client privilege-exceptions
 Client identity is privileged where a
strong probability exists that revealing
the client's name would implicate that
client in the very activity for which he
sought the lawyer's advice;
 Where disclosure would open the
client to civil liability;
Exceptions continued
 Where the government's lawyers have
no case against an attorney's client
unless, by revealing the client's name,
the said name would furnish the only
link that would form the chain of
testimony necessary to convict an
individual of a crime, the client's name
is privileged [Regala, ANGARA, et al. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN,
et al. G.R. No. 105938 September 20, 1996].
Exceptions Continued
 The privilege does not apply also to
communications which are:

1. Intended to be made public;


 2. Intended to be communicated to others;
 3. Intended for an unlawful purpose;
 4. received from third persons not acting in
behalf or agents of the client;
 5. made in the presence of third parties who
are strangers to the lawyer-client relationship
(Regalado, p.616)
BAR QUESTION (2008)
 On August 15, 2008, Edgardo committed estafa against
Petronilo in the amount of P3M. Petronilo brought his
complaint to the NBI which found that Edgardo had
visited his lawyer twice, the first time on August 14,
2008 and the second on August 16, 2008; and that
both visits concerned the swindling of Petronilo.
During the trial of Edgardo, the RTC issued a subpoena
ad testificandum to Edgardo’s lawyer for him to testify
on the conversations during their first and second
meetings. May the subpoena be quashed on the
ground of privileged communication? Explain fully.

49
Doctor-Patient Privilege
(c) “A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery,
or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, with the consent
of the patient, be examined as to advice or treat-
ment given by him or any information which he may
have acquired in attending such patient in a profes-
sional capacity, which information was necessary to
enable him to act in that capacity, and which would
blacken the reputation of the patient.”

Lim vs. CA, [G.R. No. 91114, 25 September 1992, 214 SCRA 273] laid
down the ff. requisites:

 (a) the privilege is claimed in a civil case;


 (b) the person against whom the privilege
is claimed is one duly authorized to
practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
Doctor-Patient Priv.-continued
(c) such person acquired the informat-
ion while he was attending to the
patient in his professional capacity;
(d) the information was necessary to
enable him to act in that capacity; and
(e) the information was confidential
and, if disclosed, would blacken the
reputation (formerly character) of the
patient. (see also Krohn v. CA, 233 scra 146; Sec.
4, Rule 28)
Doctor – Patient

 Krohn vs. CA -
FACTS:
Petitioner seeks to enjoin the presentation and disclosure
of the contents of the psychiatric report (BY HER
HUSBAND) and prays for the admission of her Statement.
She argues that since Sec. 24, par. (c), Rule 130, of the
Rules of Court prohibits a physician "WITH MORE REASON
should be third person (like respondent-husband be
prohibited from testifying on privileged matters between a
physician and patient or from submitting any medical
report, findings or evaluation prepared by a physician
which the latter has acquired as a result of confidential and
privileged relation with a patient.
KROHN VS. CA
 RULING:
 Petitioner's discourse while exhaustive is however
misplaced. Lim v. Court of Appeals 22 clearly lays
down the requisites in order that the privilege may be
successfully invoked: (a) the privilege is claimed in a
civil case; (b) the person against whom the privilege is
claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine,
surgery or obstetrics; (c) such person acquired the
information while he was attending to the patient in his
professional capacity; (d) the information was
necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and, (e)
the information was confidential and, if disclosed,
would blacken the reputation (formerly character) of
the patient.
Exceptions to Doctor-Patient Privilege

 The privilege does not apply where comm.:


 1. Is not given in confidence;
 2. Irrelevant to the professional employment;
 3. Made for unlawful purpose;
 4. Intended to be made public; or
 5. There was waiver either by contract or law.
 Accordingly, Examinations under Rule 28
(Modes of discovery) or post mortem
examination are not covered by the privilege
(Regalado, p. 617).
Priest – Penitent Privileged
 “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.”
Priest-Penitent Privilege
 Requisites: Communication must be:
 1. Made in the course of religious duty (prof.
Capacity) enjoined by a sect or denomi-
nation to which the priest belong (Priest-
Penitent relationship);
 2. Priest must be licensed (authorized by his
denomination/sect;
 3. Communication must be confidential and
penitential in character.
 Note: Matters discussed outside the scope
of the foregoing can not be privileged.
Public Officers Privilege
 “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.
Public Officers Privilege
 Requisites:
 1. It was made to pub. officers in Official
Confidence;
 Public interest would suffer by the disclosure
of such communication.
 A) Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board [142 scra
528 (1986)] - Public interest means more than
a mere curiosity; it means something in which
the public, the community at large, has some
pecuniary interest by which their legal rights
or liabilities are affected.
 Note: the privilege is for the protection of the
office not the officer.
State Secrets – Public Office
 Pp. v. Ong [G.R. 137348, 6/21/04](citing U.S.
v. Nixon) – On the disclosure of confidential
informer identity vs. right of the accused to
confront witnesses.
 the scope of the privilege is limited by its
underlying purpose: 1) If disclosure of the
contents of the communication will not tend
to reveal the identity of an informer, the
contents are not privileged; 2) once the
identity of the informer has been disclosed
to those who would have cause to resent the
communication, the privilege is no longer
applicable;
State Privileged; continued
 3. Where the disclosure of an informer’s identity, or
the contents of his communication, is relevant and
helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential
to a fair determination of a cause, the privilege must
give way.

 there must be balancing of the state interest in


protecting people from crimes against the
individual’s right to prepare his defense. The balance
must be adjusted by giving due weight to the
following factors, among others: (1) the crime
charged, (2) the possible defenses, (3) the possible
significance of the informer’s testimony, and (4)
other relevant factors
State Privilege; continued
 executive privilege as "the power of the
Government to withhold information from the
public, the courts, and the Congress. There is
presumptive privilege for Presidential com-
munications. There is non below the
president. The doctrine of "operational prox-
imity" (which must go with organizational
test) requires the determination how close a
public official to the president and what
communications took place to determine
whether or not the privilege should apply
(neri v. senate committee; senate v. ermita).
Parental & Filial Privilege
2.5. Parental and Filial Privilege – The
privilege given not to testify against
direct ascendants, parents, children
and other direct descendants.

Note, however, that under Art. 215 of


the Family Code they may be
compelled to testify vs. parents or
grandparents if indispensable in
prosecuting a crime.
Judicial Notice and Judicial Admission
There are matters in an action or proceeding which
can be prove without presenting evidence [or need
not be proved]. These are covered either by:

1. Mandatory [S.1] or Discretionary Judicial Notice


[Secs. 2-3, Rule 129].
2. Facts admitted or not denied, if they are
sufficiently alleged [Sec.1, Rule 8].
3. Facts legally presumed [sec. 3, Rule 131].
4. Judicial Admissions [Sec. 4, Rule 129]

 Presumed facts – R131


◦ 3.1. Conclusive Presumptions
◦ 3.2. Disputable Presumptions
Facts Covered By Mand. Jud. Notice
Judicial notice – R129 [S1]
 Mandatory –

1. The existence and territorial extent of states;


2. Political history, forms of government and symbols of
nationality of states;
3. The law of nations (note: laws of other states-doctrine of
processual presumption);
4. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
5. Political constitution and history of the Philippines;
6. Official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments
of the Philippines;
7. Laws of nature;
8. Measure of time;
9. Geographical divisions.
Rationale for Judicial Notice

 Judicial notice is simply based on considerations of


expediency and convenience. Courts and parties
litigants should not be burdened of trying facts
that are already known. For example, there is no
need to prove territory comprising the Philippine
archipelago, the Islands of Mindanao, Visayas and
Luzon, nor the various States of USA. Neither
would evidence be required what kind or form of
government do we have and how it was
established. There is likewise no need to prove the
law of nations, treatises and executive agreements
we entered into because they are deemed part of
the law of the land pursuant to Sec. 2, Art. II of the
Const. However, we must distinguish international
law, treaties and executive agreements from a
domestic law of a foreign state.
DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL
PRESUMPTION
 Under the doctrine of processual presumption
a law of a foreign State must be prove. This is
so because issue of what are these foreign law
is a question of fact, not question of law [PCIB
V. ESCOLIN, March, 29, 1974]. To prove these
foreign law it must be prove either: 1] by its
official publication, or 2] by its duly attested
and authenticated copy, pursuant to Secs. 24
and 25 of Rule 132 of the ROC providing that:
 Sec. 24. Proof of official Record. The record of
public documents referred to in par. a of Sec.
19 , when admissible for any purpose, may be
How to prove foreign law
 evidenced by an official publication thereof or
by a copy attested by the officer having the
legal custody of the record, or by his deputy,
and accompanied, if the office is not kept in
the Phil., with a certificate that such officer has
the custody. If the office in which the record is
kept is in foreign country, the certificate may
be made by a secretary of the embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul,
or consular agent or by any officer in the
foreign service of the Phils. stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is kept,
and authenticated by the seal of his office.
Continued……
 Par. a of Sec. 19 (public docs.) refers to
“written official acts, or records of the official
acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies
and tribunals, and public officers, whether of
the Phils., or of a foreign country.
 Sec. 25. What attestation of copy must state-
Whenever a copy of a document or record is
attested for the purpose of evidence, the
attestation must state, in substance, 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
Continued …………..
 the clerk of court having a seal, under the seal of
such court.

 Exception: when the said laws are already within the


actual knowledge of the court, such as when they are
well and generally known or they have been actually
ruled upon in other cases before it and none of the
parties claim otherwise [PCIB v. Escolin, supra, citing
Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court].
Accordingly, under this doctrine if that foreign law is
not prove by evidence then it will be presumed that
it is the same as our law, in which case our law shall
be applied.
Rationale [Examples of Mand. JUD.
NOTICE] Continued
 there is no need to prove that Congress passed a bill,
and there is no need to prove that such bill was
signed by the President into law, nor CJ Corona was
convicted by the Senate sitting as impeachment
court. Neither should the court be burdened by a
litigant to receive evidence that the Supreme Court
had passed judgment on the validity of the Martial
Law proclamation by Pres. Marcos because courts are
even mandated to know the decisions of the SC,
which are deemed part of the law of the land
pursuant to Art. 8 of the Civil Code.

judicial notice
 Clearly therefore, Judicial notice substitutes
the requisite evidence to prove a fact. When
judicial notice is properly invoked by a party
to an action his obligation to prove a fact by
evidence is dispensed with. However, judicial
notice can not deprive the adverse party to
prove a disputed fact. Thus, when a matter in
dispute is covered by mandatory judicial
notice courts must therefore take cognizance
of such fact. This does not require notice and
hearing.
Judicial notice
 In contrast, where matters is merely a subject
of discretionary judicial notice the court may
take the same motu proprio or by motion of a
party. During trial, the court may announce
its intention to take judicial notice of any
matter, and the court may allow parties to be
heard (sec. 3, R129). The hearing is not to
prove the issue in the case but merely to
determine the propriety of taking judicial
notice. Under Sec. 2, Rule 129 a court may
take discretionary judicial notice where:
Facts Covered By Mand. Jud. Notice
Judicial notice – R129 [S1]
 Mandatory –

1. The existence and territorial extent of states;


2. Political history, forms of government and
symbols of nationality of states;
3. The law of nations (note: laws of other states-
doctrine of processual presumption);
4. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world
and their seals;
5. Political constitution and history of the
Philippines;
6. Official acts of legislative, executive and
judicial departments of the Philippines;
7. Laws of nature;
8. Measure of time;
9. Geographical divisions.
Discretionary judicial notice
 1. matters are of public knowledge;
 2. matters are capable of unquestionable
demonstration;
 3. matters ought to be known to judges by reason
of their judicial functions (Sec. 2, Rule 129).

◦ Apparently, the matter of discretionary judicial


notice rests on sound judicial discretion and
wisdom of the court. It must, however, be
exercised with caution. Any doubt whether taking
judicial notice is proper or not must be resolved
against the taking of judicial notice (State
Prosecutors vs. Muro; A.M. RTJ-92-876; 9/19/94).
time to take judicial notice
 Judicial notice can be taken by a court during
the trial, after the trial, and before judgment,
or on appeal (Sec. 3, Rule 129).
 During trial, the court may take judicial notice
on any matter that is relevant to the fact in
issue.
 After the trial, and before judgment, or on
appeal, however, the court can take judicial
notice on any matter which is decisive of a
material issue in the case.
Judicial Admissions (s4, R129)
 Judicial admissions are admissions, written or
oral, made by a party in the course of judicial
proceedings. S4, R129 provides that “An
admission, verbal or written, made by a party
in the course of judicial proceedings in the
same case, does not require proof. The
admission may be contradicted only by
showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or that no such admission was
made.
 NOTE THAT ADMISSION MUST BE MADE IN
THE SAME CASE.
77

S26, R130: the act, declaration or omission of a party


as to relevant fact may be given in evidence [Estrada
vs. Desierto, 356 SCRA 108].

 Forms of Admissions
◦ Admission by conduct [Sec. 34, R132]
◦ Offer of compromise [Sec. 27, ]
◦ Admission by silence [Sec. 32]

** Admission against interest vs. declaration


against interest [S38, R130; Ong vs. CA].
Res Inter Alios Acta Alteri Nocere Non
Debet [S28, R130]; Exceptions

 Admission by co-partner or agent


of a party [s29]
 Admission by co-conspirator [s30;
Art. 8, RPC]

 Admission by privy of party [s31]


80

 Similar Acts Rule


Evidence that one did or did not do a
certain thing at one time is not admissible to
prove that he did or did not do the same or
similar thing at another time;

Exceptions: specific intent, plan, knowledge,


Identity, scheme, system, habit, custom,
usage and the like
86

 What are electronic documents?


◦ MCC Industrial Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp., 17 October 2007 (Nachura, J.) = it does not
include fax transmission unless computer-generated and telexes.
◦ RA 8792 does not make the internet a medium for publishing laws, rules and
regulations ( Garcillano vs. House of Rep. Comm on Public Info, 575SCRA170, 2008)

 Admissibility/ Applicability
◦ Same as under the Rules of Court (Sec. 2, Rule 1 of REE)
◦ Authentication under REE
 Requisites of authentication, to present:
 Evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported
to have signed the same;
 Evidence that other appropriate security procedures for
authentication were applied to the documents
 Other evidence showing integrity and reliability
87

 P, a court employee sent text messages to A demanding one


million pesos in exchange for the release of L, A’s relative, from
the National Penitentiary. P admitted sending the text
messages to A. The Investigating Officer, in finding P guilty of
inefficiency and gross misconduct, considered the text
messages sent by P to A.

 Text messages have been classified as “ephemeral electronic


communication” under the REE and “shall be proven by the testimony
of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge
thereof. Any question as to the admissibility of such messages is
now moot and academic, as the respondent himself, as well as his
counsel, already admitted that he was the sender of the txt message.
88

 Post-Conviction DNA Testing may be available without need of


prior court order, to the prosecution of any person convicted by
final and executory judgment provided that:
1. A biological sample exists;
2. Such sample is relevant to the case; and
3. The testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of
the judgment of conviction.

 DNA Testing Result


 If the value of probability of paternity is less than 99.9% the results
of the DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence.
 If equivalent to 99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable
presumption of paternity.
DNA RULE – VALLEJO DOCTRINE
Under AM No. 06-11-5 SC the courts are
authorized, motu proprio or upon application of
any person who has legal interest in the matter in
litigation, to order a DNA testing (Effective: October
15, 2007).
 Reliability of DNA testing methodology as
enunciated in the case of Pp. vs. Vallejo (2002):
◦ How samples were collected
◦ How samples were handled
◦ Possibility of contamination of samples
◦ Procedure followed in analyzing samples
◦ Qualification of analyst who conducted the test.
90

 No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing

which was not attached to or submitted together with

the Claim, UNLESS good cause is shown for the

admission of additional evidence.


 When does it apply ? 91
When the contents of the document is the subject of inquiry the orig.
doc. must be presented (Secs. 3 & 4, Rule 130)

 Exceptions:
1. Loss, destruction or unavailability
2. Original is in the custody or control of adverse party
3. Original consists of numerous accounts
4. Original is a public record or recorded in public office

 Introduction of secondary evidence (Sec. 5)


1. Requisites:
1.1. Proof of execution and existence
1.2. Cause of unavailability
1.3. Absence of bad faith

2. Order of presentation
2.1 Copy of original
2.2. Recital of contents of document in some authentic document
2.3. Testimony of witness
 When does it apply? 92

 applies to contracts only (prior and


contemporaneous agreement which are deemed to
have been merged in the writing conformably to
the “integration of the agreement rule”)
 applies only to contracting parties or their privies
to the contract whose interest are adverse and not
to strangers.
 Exceptions (Provided it is put in issue in the
pleadings):
1. Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection
2. Failure to express true intent of the parties
3. Validity of written agreement
4. Terms agreed after the execution of the written
agreement
93

 Statement of the rule and rationale


 Exceptions and their requisites:
1. Dying declaration (Sec. 37)
2. Declaration against interest (Sec. 38)
3. Acts or declaration about pedigree (Sec. 39)
4. Entries in the course of business (Sec. 43)
5. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding (Sec.47)
6. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree (Sec.
40)
7. Common reputation (sec. 41)
8. Parts of res gestae (Sec. 42)
9. Entries in official records (Sec. 44)
10. Commercial list and the like (Sec. 45)
11. Learned treatises (Sec. 46)
12. Opinion (Secs. 49 & 50)
13. Rule on DNA Evidence
** items number 1 to 5 requires death / unavailability of
declarant.
94

 DYING DECLARATION
Declarant should die
Declarant conscious of impending death
Declaration relates to cause and circumstances
surrounding declarant’s death.
Declarant must otherwise be competent.
 A statement which is not admissible as a dying
declaration may be admitted as part of the res gestae
95

 DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST


◦ As distinguished from party admission which is
made by a party, a declaration against interest is
made by a non-party who is dead or unable to
testify, who was aware that his declaration was
against his interest [Ong v. CA, G.R. 47674].
◦ Against interest means against the declarant’s
pecuniary, moral and penal interest.
96

 ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE


◦ The declaration must be about the pedigree of a
relative, that is a person related to the declarant by
birth or marriage;
◦ The declarant’s relation by birth or marriage to the
relative must be preliminarily proved by
independent evidence other than the declaration.
◦ the word "pedigree" includes relationship, family genealogy, birth,
marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these facts
occurred, and the names of the relatives [ Ducusin v. CA, G.R. No. L-
58286 May 16, 1983].
BUSINESS ENTRIES
97

Entries made at or near the time of the transactions
to which they refer, by a person deceased or unable
to testify, who was in the position to know the facts
stated therein.
The entrant must have made entries in his
professional capacity or in the performance of duty
and in the ordinary or regular course of business or
duty.
Entrant should have personal knowledge of the
information he is entering.
Not limited to business in the ordinary sense of the
word (jueteng bookie is a business record)
98

 FORMER TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION


◦ Testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or
unable to testify, given in a former case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative involving the
same parties and subject matter, may be given in
evidence against the adverse party who had the
opportunity to cross examine the witness.
◦ Toledo, Jr. v. People and Judge R. Kapunan, Jr.
(9/30/780) Where the witness are available but
refused to testify they do not come under this
exception. Inability to testify should proceed from
grave cause (almost death, old age and lost his
power of speech.
99

 RES GESTAE “things have been done”


◦ Two exceptions
 Excited utterances
 Verbal acts
 Reason for exception- truth of the verbal act is irrelevant,
what is impt. is that the statement gives legal significance to
the equivocal act, even if the one uttering the statement did
not mean it to be true.
100

 FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION


REGARDING PEDIGREE
◦ The witness testifying thereto must be a member,
by consanguinity or affinity of the same family as
the subject;
◦ Such reputation or tradition must have existed in
that family ante litem motam.
101

 COMMON REPUTATION

◦ Existing previous to the controversy, respecting


facts of public or general interest more than 30 y/o
or respecting marriage or moral character, may be
given in evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in
public places may be received as evidence of
common reputation.
102

 OFFICIAL RECORDS

◦ Entries were made by a public officer in the


performance of his duties or by a person in the
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law.
◦ Entrant had personal knowledge of the facts stated
by him or such facts were acquired by him from
reports made by persons under a legal duty to
submit the same.
◦ Such entries were duly entered in a regular manner
in the official records.
103

 LEARNED TREATISES
◦ A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a
subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible
as tending to prove the 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.
104

 COMMERCIAL LIST
◦ A statement of matters of interest to person
engaged in occupation;
◦ Such statement is contained in a list, register,
periodical or other published communication
◦ Said compilation is published for the use of
persons engaged in that occupation
◦ It is generally used and relied upon by persons in
the same occupation
 Expert witness (Sec. 49, Rule 130)105
◦ Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive; When faced with
conflicting expert opinions, courts give more weight and credence to
that which is more complete, thorough and scientific (Bacalso vs
Padigos (552 SCRA 185, 2008; ) It is not enough he belongs to the
profession or calling which is the subj. matter of inquiry. The
following factors are required for expert to qualify: 1) training and
education; 2) particular first-hand familiarity with the facts of the
present case; and 3) presentation of authorities or standards on
which his opinion are based.

 Ordinary witness (Sec. 50, Rule 130), as to :


◦ Handwriting
◦ Identity
◦ Sanity

 Witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion,


behavior, condition or appearance
107

GENERAL RULE: Document or object evidence to


be considered must be formally offered. The
purpose must be specified.

THREEFOLD PURPOSE OF OFFER OF EVIDENCE:


1. To notify the party of possible objection, and
for the offeror to make necessary correction at
the trial level to meet the objection.
2. To allow the trial judge to rule properly
3. To lay basis for appeal so that the appellate
court can decided intelligently.
FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE

Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court,


provides that "[t]he court shall consider no
evidence which has not been formally." A formal
offer is necessary, since judges are required to
base their findings of fact and their judgment
solely and strictly upon the evidence offered by
the parties at the trial.
To allow parties to attach any document to their pleadings
and then expect the court to consider it as evidence, even
without formal offer and admission, may draw
unwarranted consequences. Opposing parties will be
deprived of their chance to examine the document and to
object to its admissibility. On the other hand, the appellate
court will have difficulty reviewing documents not
previously scrutinized by the court below (Candido v.
Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 78, 82-83, February 1, 1996;
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 255 SCRA 438, 456, March 29,
1996).
EXCEPTION TO FORMAL OFFER
Exception:
When the evidence was previously
identified (testified/authenticated) by the
witness and marked, and is incorporated
in the records.
111

 When to offer evidence


◦ Testimonial evidence- at the time the witness is called to testify
◦ Documentary and object – after the presentation of party’s
testimonial evidence and before he rests

 Objections (Sec. 36, R132)


◦ Testimonial:
 1st: When the offer is made
 2nd: When an objectionable question is asked of the witness
◦ Documentary and object evidence
 When the document is offered in evidence
112

 AUTHENTICATION & PROOF OF DOCS


 Classes of documents
a. Public Document (S19, R132;Pp. v. Cayabyab –BC is a
pub. record)
b. Private Document
1. Proof of private document
2. Ancient Document Rule : private document which
need not be authenticated
114

 Preponderance of evidence (Rule 133)

 Proof beyond reasonable doubt

 Substantial evidence

 Clear and convincing evidence

- - END-
Multiple Choice Questions

11
5
During the testimony of the defendant in a case for
damages, the defense counsel presented a
document to support the defendant’s testimony
which marked as Exhibit D. The plaintiff’s counsel
then moved against the admission of said Exhibit
on the ground that the same is irrelevant to the
case. Decide.

a. The plaintiff’s motion should be overruled for being


premature.
b. The plaintiff’s motion should not be overruled
because Exhibit “D” is irrelevant.
c. The plaintiff’s motion should be overruled for being
improper.
d. The plaintiff’s motion should be overruled because
there is no formal offer of evidence.
Viva voce evidence is also known as:

a. Documentary evidence.
b. Object evidence
c. Testimonial evidence.
d. Hearsay evidence.
In a civil case, Mrs. Juan Tamad was made a witness to
prove the existence of a purchase contract of a person
of land in Cebu entered into during the lifetime of her
deceased husband Juan Tamad. The counsel for the
opposing party questioned the competence of Mrs.
Juan Tamad to take the witness stand invoking the
marital disqualification rule. Decide.
a. The objection should be sustained because the rule on
marital disqualification under Section 22 of Rule 130
binds Mrs. Juan Tamad from testifying for her husband.
b. The objection should not be sustained because the marital
privilege rule under Section 22 of Rule 130 applies only
when the marriage is existing at the time of the giving of
testimony.
c. The objection should be sustained because Mr. And Mrs.
Juan Tamad is not a party to the contract subject of the
civil case.
d. The objection should be sustained because Mr. And Mrs.
Juan Tamad are legally married.
In a criminal case for illegal possession of firearms filed
against John, the prosecution presented John’s extrajudicial
confession. Likewise, the testimony of the arresting officer
that the caught John carrying the firearm was presented in
court to sustain a conviction. Which of the following
statements is correct?

a. John should not be convicted because the evidence


presented does not satisfy the burden of proof established
by law in criminal cases.

b. John should not be convicted because there is no showing that


his rights were protected when he made his confession

c. John should no be convicted because it was not proven that


John was carrying a weapon without a permit/license.

d. John should not be convicted because extrajudicial confessions


are inadmissible.
Marimar is twenty years old with a mental age
of an eight-year old. She accused Henaro of
raping her and testified on her harrowing
experience in open court. The counsel for the
defense attacked the credibility of Marimar on
the ground that she is mentally retarded. Is
Marimar a credible witness?
a. No, she is disqualified to take the witness stand
because of her mental incapacity.
b. Yes, mental retardation per se does not affect
credibility.
c. No, she is incapable of perceiving and making
known her perception to others.
d. Yes, she is presumed to be competent.
Jane was accused of murdering John. The prosecutor
handling the case offered in evidence the gun used in killing
John, the findings of the forensic (DNA) expert putting Jane
at the scene of the crime, and printed copies of the emails
sent by Jane to John threatening to kill him. Counsel for
the accused objected to the admissibility of the email on the
ground that the Rules on Electronic Evidence do not apply to
criminal cases. Decide.

a. The printed copies of the email are admissible because


electronic documents are the functional equivalent of paper
based documents.
b. The printed copies of the email are admissible because the
printed copies are considered original copies.
c. The printed copies of the email are admissible because the
death threats are relevant evidence to pointing the murder,
a criminal case.
d. The printed copies of the email are admissible because
electronic now covers original copies.
In a case for support by the mother against the father,
the defendants counsel objected to the admissibility of
the results of the DNA tests submitted by the
petitioner’s counsel on the ground that the latter
offered only the original copy of the results of the DNA
tests which state that the defendant is the child’s father.
Decide.
a. The DNA results are admissible as the same are original
copies thereof.
b. The DNA results are inadmissible as the same was not
authenticated.
c. The DNA results are inadmissible for being hearsay.
d. The DNA results are admissible because 99.0% probability
of paternity is a disputable presumption of paternity.
Clark Manalo is being charged with the frustrated murder of
Peter Santos. The prosecutions lone witness, Celeste Matute
testified to having seen Clark pour rubbing alcohol
scrumptiously into Peter’s orange juice. The counsel for
defense sought the disqualification of Celeste as witness on
the ground of her previous conviction of falsification of a
document is the contention of the Clark’s counsel tenable?

a. Yes, Celeste’s previous conviction of a crime disqualifies her


as a competent witness.
b. No, Celeste previous conviction of falsification of documents is
not a factor that affects her competency as a witness.
c. Yes, Conviction of falsification of documents is one of the
exceptions expressly provided by law.
d. No, Celeste’s previous conviction is not connected with the
charge against Clark.
Alibi is considered the weakest defense. For it to prosper,
it must be exonerating and alright. Determine which
of the following statements is the strongest alibi.

a. Sleeping at home when the crime is committed.


b. Left for the United States months before the crime was
committed and returned to the Philippines after more
than a year of vacation.
c. Was at a fiesta in a neighboring barangay at exactly the
time the crime was committed.
d.Playing mahjong with friends at the crime was
committed.
Alex Santos was charged with rape. During the pre-
trial , Alex’s father, Mr. Warlito Andejas personally
offered P 2 million to the private prosecutor to settle
the case. The private prosecutor immediately put the
offer on record in the presence of the trial judge. Is
Mr. Warlito’s offer a judicial admission of his son’s
guilt?

a. Yes, it is a judicial admission considering that it was


made in the course of the proceeding of the case
being faced by his son.
b. No, it is not a judicial admission because the act was
verbal.
c. Yes, it is a judicial admission because it is verbal.
d. No, it is not a judicial admission because it was not
made by a party to the case.
Alex Santos was charged with rape. During the pre-
trial , Alex’s father, Mr. Warlito Andejas personally
offered P 2 million to the private prosecutor to settle
the case. The private prosecutor immediately put the
offer on record in the presence of the trial judge. Is
Mr. Warlito’s offer a judicial admission of his son’s
guilt?

a. Yes, it is a judicial admission considering that it was


made in the course of the proceeding of the case
being faced by his son.
b. No, it is not a judicial admission because the act was
verbal.
c. Yes, it is a judicial admission because it is verbal.
d. No, it is not a judicial admission because it was not
made by a party to the case.
Two weeks after a successful robbery of a high-profile
bank, A was arrested. During a radio interview, he
admitted his participation in the robbery and
implicated three others, namely, X, Y and Z as his
other companions in planning and executing the
robbery. Decide on the admissibility Of A’s
statement.
a. A’s statement is admissible as to him but not to X,Y, and
Z.
b. A’s statement is admissible to him and to X,Y and Z as
well.
c. A’s statement is neither admissible to him nor to X, Y
and Z
d. A’s statement is not admissible as to him, but
admissible against X,Y and Z.
Determine which of the following statements is
incorrect.

a. Print-out of facsimile transmissions is


considered as electronic evidence.
b. Proof beyond reasonable doubt only requires
moral certainty.
c. Jurisprudence rejects the results of polygraph
test when offered in evidence because it has
not yet attained scientific acceptance as an
accurate means of ascertaining truth.
d. The “best evidence rule” is considered as a
misnomer
This is where an improper evidence was
admitted over the objection of the
opposing party, the other party should
be permitted to contradict if with similar
improper evidence.

a. Multiple admissibility.
b. Curative admissibility.
c. Conditional admissibility
d. Total admissibility.
There is a reversal of burden of proof in the following
instances except.

a. In a civil case, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff


action is barred by estoppel.
b. In a criminal case, the accused moves for the dismissal
of the information against him because no trial has
yet to commence after more than 200 days from the
time he was arraigned.
c. In a civil case, the defendant claims that the plaintiff
assumed himself to be in danger.
d. In a civil case, the defendant denies the claim of
indebtedness against him by the plaintiff.
The first branch of res inter alios acta
rule has reference to the following
except:

a. Extrajudicial admissions
b. Statements made in open court
c. Admissions by a co-partner
d. Admissions by a co-conspirator.
Determine which of the following
evidentiary concepts is not involved in
the presentation of documentary
evidence:

a. Best evidence rule


b. Parole evidence rule
c. Survivorship disqualification rule
d. Hearsay rule
After the prosecution declared that it has completed its direct
examination of its star witness Abel, Atty. Cain , who was
present, did not cross-examine Abel but rather moved to
reset the cross-examination on a later date. From there,
the schedule of cross-examination of Abel, the latter died
due to heart attack. Atty. Cain then moved that Abel’s
testimony be stricken out. Is Atty. Cain correct?

a. yes, the right of a party to cross-examine the witness of his


adversary is important and is a right guaranteed under the
Bill of Rights.
b. Yes, there was denial of due process due to the unavailability
of Abel to be cross-examined.
c. No, the loss of the opportunity to cross-examine Abel was
wholly through the fruit of the adverse party.
d. No, it appears that the adverse party has waived its right to
cross-examine Abel.
This inadmissible evidence pertains to
similar conduct which does not even
sufficiently establish a plan or scheme.

a. Evidence aliunde
b. Propensity evidence
c. Circumstantial evidence
d. Negative evidence
Mario was charged with the rape of Princess. Luigi,
Mario’s father, approached Yoshi, Princess’ s father
during the preliminary investigation and offered
P500,000.00 to settle the case , Yoshi refused the
offer. May the offer be admissible in evidence against
Mario as an implied admission guilt?
a. Yes, an offer of compromise in a criminal case may be
received in evidence as an admission of guilt.
b. No, because the party of the alleged vistim did not
accept the offer,
c. Yes, because the offer was made during the preliminary
stages of the proceeding.
d. No, it was not the accused, Mario, but rather his father,
Luigi, who made the offer.
Disqualification by reason of marriage is
characterized by the following except:

a. Can be claimed even after the marriage is


dissolved.
b. Can be invoked only if one of the spouses is a
party to the action.
c. Constitutes a total prohibition for or against the
spouse of the witness.
d. The objection would be raised on the ground of
marriage.
When Susan loaned a sum of money to Sandra, Susan typed
a single copy of the promissory note, which they both
signed. Susan made two photocopies of the promissory
note, giving one copy to Sandra and retaining the other
copy. Susan entrusted the typewritten copy to her counsel,
Atty. Matias for safekeeping. However, the copy kept by
Atty. Matias was destroyed when the law office was burned.
Comment on the documents found in the instant case.

a. The original is the one typed and signed by both parties which
was lost while the duplicate originals are the photocopies.
b. The original is the one typed and signed by both parties which
was lost while the photocopies are not duplicate originals.
c. The original is the photocopy retained by Susan while the
duplicate original is the one given to Sandra.
d. The typewritten promissory note and the two photocopies of
such are all considered original.
In the conduct of the examination of a child
witness, the following are allowed except:

a. No objections to questions asked to the child-


witness may be sustained.
b. Only the judge is allowed to ask questions to a
child witness during the preliminary
examination.
c. An emotional security item may be used by the
child in giving his testimony.
d. Leading questions may be asked in any stage of
the child witness’examination
Which is admissible in evidence further proof
of due execution or genuineness?

a. Unblemished receipt dated January 1, 1990


signed by the promise, showing payment of a
loan, found among the well-kept file of the
promissory.
b. Documents acknowledged before A Notary
Public in China.
c. Baptismal certificates.
d. Official record of the Philippine Embassy in
China certified by the Consul with official seal.
Which of the following admissions made by a
party in the course of judicial proceedings is a
judicial admission?

a. An admission in a pleading in another case


between the same parties.
b. Admissions made in a pleading signed by the
party and his counsel intended to be filed.
c. Admissions made in a complaint superceded by
an amended complaint.
d. Admissions made by a counsel in open court.
H was charged by G with bigamy for a prior subsisting
marriage with W. G presented X and Y, neighbors of
H and W in Davao City, that H and W cohabited there
and that they established a reputation as husband and
wife. Can G prove bigamy by the evidence presented?

a. No, the circumstances evidence is not enough to support


a conviction for bigamy.
b. No, the circumstantial evidence is not enough to support
a conviction for bigamy.
c. No, at least one direct evidence and two circumstantial
evidence are required to support a conviction for
bigamy.
d. No, the circumstantial evidence cannot overcome the
lack of direct evidence in any criminal case
To prove payment of a debt, Hiro testified that
he heard Hansel say, as the latter was handling
over money to Quaker, that it was payment of
debt. Is Hiro’s testimony admissible in
evidence?
a. Yes, since what Hansel said and did is an
independently relevant statement.
b. No, since Hiro’s testimony of what Ambo said
and did is hearsay.
c. No. since Hiro’s testimony of what Ambo said
and did is hearsay.
d. Yes, since Hansel’s statement and action,
subject of Hiro’s testimony, constitutes a
verbal act.
Considering the qualifications required of a
would-be witness, who among the following is
incompetent to testify?

a. A person under the influence of drugs when the


event he is asked to testify on took place.
b. A person convicted of perjury who will testify as
an attesting witness to a will.
c. A deaf and dumb.
d. A mental retardate
During trial, plaintiff offered evidence that appeared
irrelevant at that time but he said he was eventually
going to relate to the issue in the case by some future
evidence. The defendant objected. Should the trial
court reject the evidence in question on ground of
irrelevance?

a. Not, it should reserve its ruling until the relevance is


shown.
b. Yes, since the plaintiff could anyway subsequently
present the evidence anew.
c. Yes, since irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
d. No, it should admit it conditionally until its relevance is
shown.
During trial, plaintiff offered evidence that appeared
irrelevant at that time but he said he was eventually
going to relate to the issue in the case by some future
evidence. The defendant objected. Should the trial
court reject the evidence in question on ground of
irrelevance?

a. Not, it should reserve its ruling until the relevance is


shown.
b. Yes, since the plaintiff could anyway subsequently
present the evidence anew.
c. Yes, since irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
d. No, it should admit it conditionally until its relevance is
shown.
What is the quantum of evidence
required in a petition for writ of
amparo.

a. Proof is the quantum of evidence required in


a petition for writ of amparo?
b. Preponderance of evidence.
c. Clear and convincing evidence.
d. Substantial evidence.
In which of the following situations is the
declaration of a deceased person against his
interest not admissible against him or his
successors and against third persons?

a. Declaration of a joint debtor while the debt


subsisted.
b. Declaration of a joint owner in the course of
ownership.
c. Declaration of a former co-partner after the
partnership has been dissolved.
d. Declaration of an agent within the scope of his
authority.
In Cholo’s testimony, it was showed that a
month after the robbery , Coco, one of the
accused, told him that King was one of those
who committed the crime with him. Is Cholo’s
testimony regarding what Coco told him
admissible in evidence against King?
a. No, since it is hearsay.
b. No, since Coco did not make the statement during
the conspiracy.
c. Yes, since it constitutes admission against a co-
conspirator.
d. Yes, since it part of the res gestae.
Which of the following cannot be disputably
presumed under the rules of evidence?

a. That the thing once proved to exist continues as


long as it is usual with things of that nature.
b. That the law has been obeyed.
c. That a writing is truly dated.
d. That a young person absent for 5 years, it being
unknown whether he still lives, it considered
dead for purposes of succession.
Character evidence is admissible:

a. In criminal case, the accused may prove his


good moral character trait involved in the
offense charged.
b. In criminal cases, the prosecution may prove
the bad moral character of the accused to
prove his criminal predisposition.
c. In criminal cases, the bad moral character of a
witness even prior to impeachment.
To prove the identity of the assailant in a crime
of homicide, a police officer testified that,
Andy, who did not testify in court pointed a
finger at the accused in a police lineup. Is the
police officer’s testimony regarding Andy’s
identification of the accused admissible
evidence?
a. yes, since it is based on his personal knowledge of
Andy’s identification of the accused.
b. yes, since it constitutes as independently relevant
statement.
c. No, since the police had the accused identified
without him of his rights.
d. No, since the testimony is hearsay.
In which of the following cases is the testimony
in a case involving a deceased barred by the
Survivorship Disqualification Rule or Dead Man
Statute?

a. Testimony against the heirs of the deceased


defendant who are substituted for the latter.
b. The testimony of a mere witness who is neither a
party to the case is in privity with the latter.
c. The testimony of an oppositor in a land
registration case filed by the decedent’s heirs.
d. The testimony is offered to prove a claim less
than what is established under a written
document signed by the decedent.
To prove that Susan stabbed her husband
Elmer, Rico testified that he heard Leon
running down the street, shouting excitedly,
“Sinasaksak daw ni Susan ang asawa niya! ( I
heard that Susan is stabbing her husband!)” Is
Leon’s statement as narrated by Rico
admissible?
a. No , since the startling event had passed.
b. Yes, as part of the res gestae.
c. No, since the excited statement is itself hearsay.
d. Yes, as an independently relevant statement.
To prove payment of a debt, Hiro testified that
he heard Hansel say, as the latter was handling
over money to Quaker, that it was payment of
debt. Is Hiro’s testimony admissible in
evidence?
a. Yes, since what Hansel said and did is an
independently relevant statement.
b. No, since Hiro’s testimony of what Ambo said
and did is hearsay.
c. No. since Hiro’s testimony of what Ambo said
and did is hearsay.
d. Yes, since Hansel’s statement and action,
subject of Hiro’s testimony, constitutes a
verbal act.
Considering the qualifications required of a
would-be witness, who among the following is
incompetent to testify?

a. A person under the influence of drugs when the


event he is asked to testify on took place.
b. A person convicted of perjury who will testify as
an attesting witness to a will.
c. A deaf and dumb.
d. A mental retardate
During trial, plaintiff offered evidence that appeared
irrelevant at that time but he said he was eventually
going to relate to the issue in the case by some future
evidence. The defendant objected. Should the trial
court reject the evidence in question on ground of
irrelevance?

a. Not, it should reserve its ruling until the relevance is


shown.
b. Yes, since the plaintiff could anyway subsequently
present the evidence anew.
c. Yes, since irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
d. No, it should admit it conditionally until its relevance is
shown.
During trial, plaintiff offered evidence that appeared
irrelevant at that time but he said he was eventually
going to relate to the issue in the case by some future
evidence. The defendant objected. Should the trial
court reject the evidence in question on ground of
irrelevance?

a. Not, it should reserve its ruling until the relevance is


shown.
b. Yes, since the plaintiff could anyway subsequently
present the evidence anew.
c. Yes, since irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
d. No, it should admit it conditionally until its relevance is
shown.
What is the quantum of evidence
required in a petition for writ of
amparo.

a. Proof is the quantum of evidence required in


a petition for writ of amparo?
b. Preponderance of evidence.
c. Clear and convincing evidence.
d. Substantial evidence.
In which of the following situations is the
declaration of a deceased person against his
interest not admissible against him or his
successors and against third persons?

a. Declaration of a joint debtor while the debt


subsisted.
b. Declaration of a joint owner in the course of
ownership.
c. Declaration of a former co-partner after the
partnership has been dissolved.
d. Declaration of an agent within the scope of his
authority.
In Cholo’s testimony, it was showed that a
month after the robbery , Coco, one of the
accused, told him that King was one of those
who committed the crime with him. Is Cholo’s
testimony regarding what Coco told him
admissible in evidence against King?
a. No, since it is hearsay.
b. No, since Coco did not make the statement during
the conspiracy.
c. Yes, since it constitutes admission against a co-
conspirator.
d. Yes, since it part of the res gestae.
Which of the following cannot be disputable
presumed under the rules of evidence?

a. That the thing once proved to exist continues as


long as is usual with things of that nature.
b. That the law has been obeyed.
c. That a writing is truly dated.
d. That a young person absent for 5 years, it being
unknown whether he still lives, it considered
dead for purposes of succession.
Character evidence is admissible:

a. In criminal case, the accused may prove his


good moral character trait involved in the
offense charged.
b. In criminal cases, the prosecution may prove
the bad moral character of the accused to
prove his criminal predisposition.
c. In criminal cases, the bad moral character of a
witness even prior to impeachment.
To prove the identity of the assailant in a crime
of homicide, a police officer testified that,
Andy, who did not testify in court pointed a
finger at the accused in a police lineup. Is the
police officer’s testimony regarding Andy’s
identification of the accused admissible
evidence?
a. yes, since it is based on his personal knowledge of
Andy’s identification of the accused.
b. yes, since it constitutes as independently relevant
statement.
c. No, since the police had the accused identified
without him of his rights.
d. No, since the testimony is hearsay.
In which of the following cases is the testimony
in a case involving a deceased barred by the
Survivorship Disqualification Rule or Dead Man
Statute?

a. Testimony against the heirs of the deceased


defendant who are substituted for the latter.
b. The testimony of a mere witness who is neither a
party to the case is in privity with the latter.
c. The testimony of an oppositor in a land
registration case filed by the decedent’s heirs.
d. The testimony is offered to prove a claim less
than what is established under a written
document signed by the decedent.
To prove that Susan stabbed her husband
Elmer, Rico testified that he heard Leon
running down the street, shouting excitedly,
“Sinasaksak daw ni Susan ang asawa niya! ( I
heard that Susan is stabbing her husband!)” Is
Leon’s statement as narrated by Rico
admissible?
a. No , since the startling event had passed.
b. Yes, as part of the res gestae.
c. No, since the excited statement is itself hearsay.
d. Yes, as an independently relevant statement.