Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DEFINITION:
In this case, it is beyond doubt that all the circumstances taken together
point to the singular conclusion that appellant Solano, to the exclusion of
all others, committed the crime. As found by the trial court and affirmed by
the appellate court, the victim was last seen in the presence of the
appellant Solano. Edwin Jr. saw appellant Solano chasing the victim.
Nestor also saw appellant Solano dragging the motionless body of ―AAA.
The body of the victim was eventually found buried in the mud near the
place where she was last seen with Solano. Solano admitted holding a
grudge against the family of ―AAA‖ because he believes that a relative of
―AAA‖ had raped his sister. The autopsy report showed that ―AAA‖ was
raped and strangled. Likewise, Solano could not ascribe any ill–motive on
the part of prosecution witnesses Edwin Jr., Edwin Sr. and Nestor whom
he even considered as friends. (People v. Solano, Jr., GR No. 199871,
06/02/2014).
Although based on the evidence adduced by both
parties, no direct evidence points to Almojuela as the
one who stabbed Quejong. A finding of guilt is still
possible despite the absence of direct evidence.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence may
result if sufficient circumstances, proven and taken
together, create an unbroken chain leading to the
reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the
exclusion of all others, was the author of the crime.
(Almojuela v. People, GR No. 183202, 06/02/2014).
Under the Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statement, if the purpose of
placing the statement on the record is merely to establish the fact that
the statement, or the tenor of such statement, was made. Regardless of
the truth or falsity of a statement, when what is relevant is the fact that such
statement has been made, the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement
may be shown. Thus, the statement of an NBI Agent that a witness confided
to him that the latter heard the accused in a murder case tell the other
suspect that “ayoko nang abutin pa ng bukas yang si [victim].”, while they
were armed with firearms and boarding a car, is independently relevant and
proves what the witness heard, and not the truthfulness or falsity of the
statement.
1. In a case where the accused set up denial and alibi being then
in Manila, court may take judicial notice that normal travel time by
bus from Manila to Baguio City is between 6 to 7 hours
1. The need to protect Filipino OFWs as a primary reason behind the Migrant
Workers Act or the increase in the incidence of drug related crimes as reason for
the increase in the penalty for violation of the drug law
2. That the passage of the Anti Terrorism Law and the Anti-Money Laundering Law
were influenced by the demands of the international community
5. The policy of the law as regards bail in heinous crimes or of the policy of the
state against the use of illegal means to obtain evidence
3. Grants of amnesty
1. laws relating to science which are so well known such as that the DNA of each
person being distinct, or blood groupings as proof of filiation; or of finger prints and
dententures being distinct and dissimilar from one person to another.
B. Requirements:
A. As To Foreign Laws.
b. When the foreign law has been previously ruled upon the court as
to have acquired actual knowledge of it. For example: Knowledge
of the Texan law on succession based on the Christiansen cases;
notice of the existence of the Nevada Divorce Law
c. The foreign law has been previously applied in the Philippines e.g.
the Spanish Codigo Penal
d. The foreign law is the source of the Philippine Law e.g. the
California Law on Insurance, the Spanish Civil Code
b. For the RTCs: they may do so only when a case has been
appealed to them and the lower court has taken notice
thereof
1. The closure of banks on Saturdays and Sundays and of the banking hours being until
3:00 P.M.
4. The practice of requiring tickets for persons to enter theaters and movie houses or to
ride in public transports
5. The holding of graduation exercises by schools and universities every end of the
semester
7. Courts take judicial notice that before a bank grants a loan secured by a land, it first
undertakes a careful examination of the title, as well as a physical and on-the-spot
investigation of the land offered as security. Hence it cannot claim to be a mortgagee
in good faith as against the actual possessor of the land ( Erasustada vs. C.A., 495
SCRA 319)
E. Customs, Habits and Practices of People: Notice may be
taken only of those which are generally known and
established and uniformly acted upon.
1. Variations in handwriting
2. That the Pope is the titular head of the Catholic Church while
the Dalai Llama is head of the Tibetan Monks; Mecca is the
Holiest City of the Muslims; the Muslim belief in Ramadan;
the belief in reincarnation among the Hindus and Buddhists
while the Christians believe in resurrection after death;
whereas Christians believe in heaven the Buddhist have their
Nirvana. Notice is proper of the Christian Bible and the
Muslim Koran as their respective Holy Books.
Section 3. When Hearing Is Necessary
a). “ The rule on judicial admissions found its way into black-
letter law only in 1964 but its content is supplied by case law
much older and in many instances more explicit than the
present codal provision. In the early case of Irlanda vs.
Pitarque (1918) this court laid down the doctrine that acts or
facts admitted does not require proof and cannot be
contradicted unless it can be shown that the admission was
made through palpable mistake. The rule was more forcibly
stated …in the 1918 decision in Ramirez vs. Orientalist Co. “
an admission made in a pleading cannot be controverted by
the party making such admission, and all proof submitted by
him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should simply
be ignored by the court, whether objection was interposed by
the opposite party or not” (Heirs of Clemenia vs. Heirs of
Bien, 501 SCRA 405)
b). Joshua Alfelor vs. Hosefina Halasan (March 31, 2006)
Issue: Was there need to prove the existence of the first marriage?
Held: No. The admission in the Reply in Intervention and the
testimony of Teresita as to the previous marriage qualifies as
a Judicial Admission.
A. Voluntary Admissions
(1) Competent evidence is one that is not excluded by law or the rules. In
the law of evidence, competency means the presence of those
characteristics, or the absence of those disabilities, which render a
witness legally fit and qualified to give testimony in a court of justice;
which is applied, in the same sense, to documents or other written
evidence (Balck‘s Law Dictionary). Exclusionary rule makes evidence
illegally obtained as inadmissible in evidence, hence, not competent.
(3) Trial courts may allow a person to testify as a witness upon a given
matter because he is competent, but may thereafter decide whether to
believe or not to believe his testimony. Credibility depends on the
appreciation of his testimony and arises from the brief conclusion of the
court that said witness is telling the truth (Gonzales vs. CA, 90 SCRA
183).
2002 Bar: Acting on a tip by an informant, police officers stopped a
car being driven by D and ordered him to open the trunk. The
officers found a bag containing several kilos of cocaine. They
seized the car and the cocaine as evidence. Without advising him
of his right to remain silent and to have the assistance of an
attorney, they questioned him regarding the cocaine. In reply, D
said, ― I don‘t know anything about it. It isn‘t even in my car. D
was charged with illegal possession of cocaine, a prohibited drug.
Upon motion of D, the court suppressed the use of cocaine as
evidence and dismissed the charges against him. D commenced
proceedings against the police for the recovery of his car. In his
direct examination, D testified that he owned the car but had
registered it in the name of his friend for convenience. On cross-
examination, the attorney representing the police asked, ― After
your arrest, did you not tell the arresting officers that it wasn‘t your
car?
If you were D‘s attorney, would you object to the question? Why?
(5%)
Answer: Yes, because his admission made when he
was questioned after he was placed under arrest
was in violation of his constitutional rights to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have a
competent and independent counsel of his own
choice. Hence, it is inadmissible in evidence (Art.
III, Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution; People vs. Mahinay,
302 SCREA 455).
A lie detector test is based on the theory that an
individual will undergo physiological changes,
capable of being monitored by sensors attached to
his body, to detect when he is not telling the truth.
The result of a lie detector test is not given faith
credit inasmuch as it has not been accepted by the
scientific community as an accurate means of
ascertaining truth or deception (People v. Carpo
[2000]).
Photographs are admissible in evidence in motor
vehicle accidents cases when they appear to have
been accurately taken and are proved to be a
faithful and clear representation of the subject,
which cannot itself be produced. And are of such
nature as to throw light upon a disputed point.
Before a photograph may be admitted in evidence,
however, its accurateness or correctness must be
proved, and it must first be authenticated or verified
(Macalinao v. Ong [2005]).
Multiple admissibility
(1) Where two or more evidentiary facts are so connected under the
issues that the relevancy of one depends upon another not yet
evidenced, and the party is unable to introduce them both at the
same moment, the offering counsel may be required by the court,
as a condition precedent (a) to state the supposed connecting
facts; and (b) to promise to evidence them later. If a promise thus
made is not fulfilled, the court may strike out the evidence thus
conditionally admitted, if a motion is made by the opposite party.
Thus, evidence of facts and declarations may not become material
or admissible until shown to be those of an agent of the other
party, and a copy of a writing may not become competent
evidence until the original is proven to be lost or destroyed
(Wigmore on Evidence).
(1) Court litigations are primarily for the search of truth, and a
liberal interpretation of the rules by which both parties are given
the fullest opportunity to adduce proofs is the best way to ferret
out the truth (People vs. Ebias, 342 SCRA 675).