Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 Session. Araneta-Evidence - Custodio - AY 2015 - 2016 - Term 2 1
1 Session. Araneta-Evidence - Custodio - AY 2015 - 2016 - Term 2 1
evidence)
Rule 128 Section 1. Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of The result of the probative effect of See definition
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of a fact. evidence and is the conviction of
persuasion of the mind resulting fro
Other definitions a consideration of the matter
Anything that may legally be submitted to a court to prove an assertion When the requisite quantum of
about a matter of fact. evidence of a particular fact has
Any knowable fact or group of facts, not a legal or logical principle been duly admitted ad given weight,
considered with a view to its being offered before the tribunal for the the result is the proof of that fact
purposes of producing persuasion, positive or negative, on the part of the
tribunal as to the truth of a proposition, not of law of logic, on which the
determination of the tribunal is to be asked. Section 2. The rules in evidence shall be the same in all courts and on all trials and
hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these Rules.
Not all facts connected with the truth or falsity of a fact is considered as
evidence. To be considered as such it must be sanctioned by the rules of
Principle of uniformity
court or by law.
GR: the same for the trial of civil and of criminal cases not only principle,
but also in spirit—that is the relation between the Evidentialry fact and the
Purpose: to ascertain the truth repsecting a mater of fact in a judicial
Proposition is always the same without regard to any kind of litigation.
proceeding
Not however that Section 4 of Rule 1 provides for the non-applicability
o the truth is to be determined by the rules of admissibility and and of the Rules of Court, including the rules on evidence to specified
proceedings such as:
proof
o Election cases, land registration proccedings, cadastral,
o court is not aware of the veracity of the facts involved in the case
naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases , except
hence, incumbent upon the parties to prove a fact in issue through
in analogy or in a suppletory character
presentation of evidence
o Administrative agencies are not also bound by the technical rules
o to ascertain the judicial or legal truth: the limitation of human
of evidence, it can choose to give weight or disregard evidence,
judicial systems cannot always guarantee knowledge of the actual
depending on the trustworthiness
or real truth; legal truth is what is proven by the evidence
admitted to the court
Difference between Factum Probandum and Factum Probans
Sources Evidence is always a relative term and it signifies a relation between two
1. Constitution facts, the factum probandum and the factum probans
2. General Laws Factum probandum Factum probans
Proposition to be established Materials evidencing the proposition
3. Special Laws
Necessarily hypothetical; it is that which brought forward as a reality to convince
4.
one party affirms or denies the tribunal that the fact being asserted is
real
What is the difference between proof and evidence?
Competent Evidence
1 Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
st
2
One that is not excluded by the rules under the present rules, there are facts which the courts must now take
If relevance is determined by logic, competence is determined by law judicial notice and of which they may take judicial notice
Note however that in usage, there is no incompetent evidence but only purpose: convenience and expediency
inadmissible evidence. Incompetence refers to the person who could not be requisites:
a witness a. must be a matter of common knowledge
b. it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubted or
Doctrines: uncertain
c. it must be known within the limited jurisdiction of the courts
1. Multiple admissibility
Evidence proffered is admissible for two or more purposes
Evidence may also be admissible for one party and inadmissible for
another (e.g., extrajudicial admission of one of the two accused only What Need Not Be Proved
binds him, not the other one—res inter alios acta rule)
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take judicial
2. Conditional Admissibility notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial
The proponent of the evidence may ask the court that the evidence be extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of
conditionally admitted in the meantime subject to the condition that he nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world
is going to establish its relevancy and competency at a later and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the
o When relevance of a piece of evidence is not apparent at the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines,
time it is offered, but the relevance of which will readily be the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.
seen when connected to the other pieces of evidence not yet
offered Mandatory Judicial Notice
no motion or hearing necessary for the court to take judicial notice of the
3. Curative Admissibility fact
Doctrine allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to however, the court may receive evidence upon any of the following
answer the opposing party’s previous introduction of inadmissible subjects, when it shall find it necessary for its own information, and may
evidence if it would remove any unfair prejudice caused by the resort for its aid to appropriate books or documents for reference:
admission of the earlier introduced inadmissible evidence a. existence and territorial extent of states
b. their political history
c. forms of government and symbols of nationality
d. the law of nations (general principles of international law under the
constition)
RULE 129 SECTIONS 1 & 2 – JUDICIAL NOTICE e. the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals
f. the political constitution and history of the Philippines
Judicial Notice; in general g. the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments
it is the cognizance of certain facts by the courts without proof because of the Philippines
they are facts, which by common experience, are of universal
knowledge or that which the courts already have knowledge h. the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical
divisions
The Court has likewise taken judicial notice of the Filipinas inbred modesty and
shyness and her antipathy in publicly airing acts which blemish her honor and virtue.
When made
Elements: (a) in pleadings and motions
1. party: it must be made by one of the parties to the case (admission by a Acknowledgment or recognition by one party of the truth of some matter
non- party is not what is contemplated by this Rule) alleged by the opposite party, made in pleading, the effect of which is to
2. same case: the admission, to be judicial, must be made in the course of the narrow the area of facts of allegations required to be proved by evidence
proceedings in the same case in which it is offered. (statements in the pleadings uncontroverted is deemed admitted)
3. No particular form: it may be done orally or in writing Allegation not denied is deemed not controverted, and the silence of the
4. When made: (a)in the pleadings; (b)during the trial by verbal or written pleader is deemed as and admission against him
manifestations or stipulations; (c)in other stages of the judicial proceeding o Exceptions: immaterial allegations, conclusions, non-ultimate
facts, amount of unliquidated damages
Admissions made by a party to his pleading cannot be controverted by the
“made in the same case in which it is offered” party making such admission in conclusive as to him; all other proofs
Admission made in another judicial proceedings will not be deemed a submitted by him inconsistent with such admission shall be ignored
judicial admission in another case where the admission was not made. (remember however, the exceptions, when they may be allowed to be
Instead it will be considered as an extrajudicial admission for purposes of controverted by the admitter)
other proceedings where such admission is offered Note however that an answer is a mere statement of a fact which the party
Judicial admissions made in one case is admissible at the trial of another filing it expects to prove. And in spite the presence of judicial admissions in
case provided that: a party’s pleading, the trial court is still given leeway to consider other
a) They are proved and evidence presented
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 9
[doctrine] In the case at bench, we find that the respondent Court of Appeals
(b) during trial committed an error in appreciating the "Answer" filed by the lawyer of Intertrade as
an admission of corporate liability for the subject loan. A careful study of the
(c) other stages of the trial responsive pleading filed by Atty. Francisco Pangilinan, counsel for Intertrade,
would reveal that there was neither express nor implied admission of corporate
liability warranting the application of the general rule. Thus, the alleged judicial
1. Pretrial admission may be contradicted and controverted because it was taken out of context
Facts subject of a stipulation or agreement entered into by the parties at and no admission was made at all.
the pre-trial of the case constitute judicial admissions by them
In criminal cases, an admission made by the accused in the pre-trial of a CASE 04: Aguenza vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. (1997)
criminal case must be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and
counsel to be admitted. However, this does not apply equally to FACTS:
stipulation of facts made during trial. 1. The board of directors of Intertrade authorized and empowered Aguenza (the
President thereof) and Arrieta (Executive VP thereof) to jointly apply for and
2. Modes of Discovery open credit lines with Metrobank.
Admissions in written interrogatories, depositions, or requests for 2. Pursuant to such authority, the two executed several trust receipts with Intertrade
admissions are considered as judicial admissions as entrustee and Metrobank as entruster. The two also executed a Continuing
Suretyship Agreement whereby both bound themselves jointly and severally
3. offer of plea of guilt with Intertrade to pay Metrobank whatever obligation Intertrade incurs.
3. The aforementioned LOC covered by said trust receipts were settled fully up to
this point.
How are judicial admission controverted? 4. Later, Arrieta (the VP) and one Lilia Perez (a bookkeeper of the same company)
General Rule as to the effects of judicial admission: obtained a P500k loan from Metrobank. Both executed a Promissory Note in
1. they do not require proof favor of the bank promising to pay the said amount plus interest per annum.
2. they cannot be contradicted because they are conclusive upon the party 5. Arrieta and Perez defaulted which prompted Metrobank to file a case against
making it Intertrade, Arrieta, Lilia Perez and her husband to collect the unpaid principal
Exceptions; How they may be controverted obligation, interests, fees, penalties and exemplary damages. Later, Metrobank
1. by showing that the admission made by palpable mistake also impleaded Aguenza as liable on the account of the Continuing Surety
one that is clear to the mind or plain to see Agreement previously executed by him.
readily perceived by the senses or the mind 6. The trial court absolved Aguenza and Intertrade from liability and dismissed
2. by showing that no such admissions was made Metrobank’s complaint as against both and found Arrieta and the Perez as
such that when the statement of the person taken out of the context jointly liable for the amounts in their personal capacity.
or that his statement was made not in the sense it is made to appear 7. Arrieta and Perez appealed the foregoing to the CA.
by the other party 8. The CA REVERSED the TC decision holding Aguenza and Intertrade jointly
not denying the statement but the meaning attached to his and severally liable to Metrobank and in turn absolved Arrieta and Perez. The
statement as what appears to or made by the adverse party CA found that Intertrade admitted in its answer that the loan in question was
a corporate liability.
The Decision states: “it seems clear from its answer that the loan
1. Aguenza vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. – 271 S 1 evidenced by the note was a corporate liability. Paragraph 1.3 of the
answer admits 'x x x defendant's obtention of the loan from the plaintiff
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 10
x x x'; the affirmative defenses admit default, and invoking the defense would authorize or even ratify such admission. In the absence of such ratification or
of usury, plead adjustment of excessive interest which Intertrade authority, such admission does not bind the corporation.
refused to make.
On the basis of this admission, it is no longer in point to discuss … o The respondent appellate court likewise adjudged Intertrade liable because
the question of the capacity in which Arrieta and Perez signed the of the two letters emanating from the office of Mr. Arrieta which the
promissory note, Intertrade's admission of its corporate liability being respondent court considered "as indicating the corporate liability of the
admission also that the signatories signed the note in a representative corporation.
capacity. The Bank itself gave corroboration with its insistence on
Intertrade's liability under the note. x x x” "Ratification can never be made on the part of the corporation by the
same persons who wrongfully assume the power to make the contract,
DOCTRINE: The general rule that "the allegations, statements, or admissions but the ratification must be by the officer as governing body having
contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader” is not an absolute and authority to make such contract." (Vicente vs. Geraldez)
inflexible rule and is subject to exceptions. Rule 129, Section 4, of the Rules of The unauthorized act of respondent Arrieta can only be ratified by the
Evidence, provides: action of the Board of Directors and/or petitioner Aguenza jointly with
private respondent Arrieta (which was the practice of the company).
"Section 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in
the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The o The enabling corporate act on this transaction has not been obtained (VP
admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable alone without concurrence from the President).
mistake or that no such admission was made." (Underlining supplied)
2. Philamgen vs. Sweet Lines, Inc. – 212 S 195
In other words, an admission in a pleading on which a party goes to trial may be
contradicted by showing that it was made by improvidence or mistake or that 1. A maritime suit was commenced by the herein petitioner against the
no such admission was made, i.e., "not in the sense in which the admission was respondents. The former is seeking recovery of the cost of lost or damaged
made to appear or the admission was taken out of context." shipment plus exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs allegedly due to
defendants' negligence.
ISSUE: WON there was an admission in the answer by Intertrade’s counsel as to the 2. It would appear that in or about March 1977, the vessel SS "VISHVA
corporate liability of the same on the loan obtained by Arrieta and Perez. YASH" belonging to or operated by the foreign common carrier, took on
board at Baton Rouge, LA, certain cargoes which belonged to Tagum
RULING: NO. The Court of Appeals committed an error in appreciating the Plastics (one of the petitioners). The cargoes were likewise insured by the
"Answer" filed by the lawyer of Intertrade as an admission of corporate liability for Tagum Plastics Inc. with plaintiff Philippine American General Insurance
the subject loan. A careful study of the responsive pleading filed by Atty. Francisco Co., Inc.
Pangilinan, counsel for Intertrade, would reveal that there was neither express nor 3. In the course of time, the said vessel arrived at Manila and discharged its
implied admission of corporate liability warranting the application of the general cargoes in the Port of Manila for transshipment to Davao City. For this
rule. Thus, the alleged judicial admission may be contradicted and controverted purpose, the foreign carrier awaited and made use of the services of the
because it was taken out of context and no admission was made at all. vessel called M/V "Sweet Love" owned and operated by defendant
interisland carrier.
Assuming arguendo that there was an admission, the same may not still be given 4. Subject cargoes were loaded in Holds Nos. 2 and 3 of the interisland carrier.
effect at all. The alleged admission made in the answer by the counsel for Intertrade These were commingled with similar cargoes belonging to Evergreen
was "without any enabling act or attendant ratification of corporate act,” as Plantation and also Standfilco.
RATIO: This Court answers both questions in the negative. By its very nature, an There are four sources of evidence that may be presented in court:
1. Real or Object Evidence- the presentation of a physical object in court
"admission is the mere acknowledgment of a fact or of circumstance from which
2. Testimonial Evidence- testimony of persons whether oral or written
guilt may be inferred, tending to incriminate the speaker, but not sufficient of itself to
3. Circumstantial evidence- by inference from other facts which are known
establish his guilt." In other words, it is a "statement by defendant of fact or facts 4. Documentary evidence- offer of documents
pertinent to issues pending, in connection with proof of other facts or circumstances,
to prove guilt, but which is, of itself, insufficient to authorize conviction." From the
above principles, this Court can infer that an admission in criminal cases is RULE 130 SECTION 1 – OBJECT EVIDENCE
insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime charged.
Section 1. Objects as evidence are addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is
Moreover, said admission is extra-judicial in nature. As such, it does not fall under relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to or examined or viewed by the court.
Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court which states: An admission,
What is object evidence?
verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the trial or other proceedings in
Evidence furnished by the thing the things themselves, on view or inspection
the same case does not require proof. Is what which is directly to the senses of the court, as by actual sight, hearing, taste,
smell, or touch
Not being a judicial admission, said statement by accused-appellant does not prove
beyond reasonable doubt the second element of illegal possession of firearm. It does In contrast with other sources of evidence:
not even establish a prima facie case. It merely bolsters the case for the prosecution It is not a description of them by the mouth of a witness
but does not stand as proof of the fact of absence or lack of a license. It does not refer to a perception of the witness and a recollection of that perception
Not a reconstruction of past events as related by a witness
This Court agrees with the argument of the Solicitor General that "while the
What is the rationale behind the admissibility of Real/ Object Evidence?
prosecution was able to establish the fact that the subject firearm was seized by the It allows the court, instead of relying on the recollection of the witness, to have
police from the possession of appellant, without the latter being able to present any its own firsthand perception of the evidence
license or permit to possess the same, such fact alone is not conclusive proof that he to a rational man of perfect organization, the best and the highest proof of which any
was not lawfully authorized to carry such firearm. In other words, such fact does not fact is susceptible is the evidence of his senses.
relieve the prosecution from its duty to establish the lack of a license or permit to o This is the ultimate test of truth, and is, therefore, the first principle in the
carry the firearm by clear and convincing evidence, like a certification from the philosophy of evidence
government agency concerned." o The evidence from one’s own senses furnishes the strongest probability
and indeed the only perfect and indubitable certainty of the existence of
Putting it differently, "when a negative is averred in a pleading, or a plaintiff's case any sensible fact
Some examples:
depends upon the establishment of a negative, and the means of proving the fact are
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 15
1. exhibition of the person to show his missing limbs, scars, wounds, skin color a. but if viewing is necessary in the interest of justice, the evidence may be
2. the weapon used in attacking the victim exhibited by the court may exclude the public from such view
3. in infringement cases of musical compositions, the music may be listened to by the b. viewing may not be refused if the indecent or immoral object constitutes
court the very basis for the criminal or civil action
4. examination of the anatomy of a person or of any sibstance taken therefrom 2. If it would result in delays, inconvenience and expenses out of proportion to the
5. conduct of tests, demostrations, or experiments evidentiary value of the object
6. examination of representative portrayals of the object in question 3. Such would be confusing or misleading
7. Documents—only of the same are presented for the following purposes: 4. Testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays the object
a. To prove their existence or condition or the nature of the handwritings as to render viewing unnecessary
b. To determine the age of the paper used or the blemishes or alterations
Categories of Object Evidence
1. Unique Objects- readily identifiable marks
Probative Value of Object Evidence a. Ex: caliber revolver with serial number
Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in 2. Objects made Unique- objects that are made readily identifiable
our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence such that when physical evidence contradicts a. Ex: knife with the name of the owner
the testimonial evidence, the physical evidence should prevail 3. Non-Unique Objects – objects with no identifying marks and cannot be marked
but failure to present will not necessarily weaken the evidence presented a. Ex: Drugs in powder form
Presumption of regularity, standing alone cannot defeat the presumption of innocence Issue: Should the appellant be acquitted by reason of the failure to present physical evidence
•The presumption that the police officers regularly performed their duty cannot, standing that he indeed fired the gun that killed the two victims?
alone, defeat the presumption of innocence of the accused. Generally, law enforcers are
presumed to have regularly performed their duty, but this is a mere procedural presumption Ruling: No.
which cannot overturn the constitutionally recognized presumption of innocence of the
accused where lapses in the buy bust operation are shown. An effect of this lapse, as held in The absence of physical evidence showing that he fired a gun would not prove his innocence.
Lopez v. People, is to negate the presumption that official duties have been regularly In fact, even if he were subjected to a paraffin test and the same yields a negative finding, it
performed by the police officers. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and cannot be definitely concluded that he had not fired a gun as it is possible for one to fire a gun
should make the presumption unavailable (People v. Martin, G.R. No. 193234, 19 October and yet be negative for the presence of nitrates as when the hands are washed before the test.
2011).
The Court has even recognized the great possibility that there will be no paraffin traces on the
hand if, as in the instant case, the bullet was fired from a .45 Caliber pistol
5. People vs. Manalo – 219 S 656 People vs. Malimit – 264 S 167
Facts: Facts:
Facts:
1. the Appellant Jianggo Flores was charged with the crime of Murder of Antonio
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Garcia using a handgun
2. it was established during the trial that: RULE 130 SECTION 3 – BEST EVIDENCE RULE
a. Antonio Garcia, the victim, was celebrating his birthday and having a
drinking spree with his invited guests. They were all at the backyard of the Take note of the pre-trial provision:
house of Garcia. “No Evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial in support of a
b. Myla is the daughter of Jianggo who positively identified him as the party’s evidence in- chief other than those that had been earlier identified and pre-marked
assailant when, according to her testimony, she saw Flores stading at arms during the pre-trial except if allowed by the court for good cause shown.”
length away from her and 3 arms length away from his father holding and Note however, that this rule will not apply for documents presented and offered as
pointing a gun towards him. rebuttal or sur-rebuttal evidence.
c. She tried to warn his father but Jianggo already fired his gun.
d. He died of hemorrhage due to gunshot wound caused by a bullet fired B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
from a handgun believed to be a .38 caliber. The bullet hit first the left arm
of Antonio Garcia towards the left side of his stomach and landed on his Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence consist of writing or any
left lung. A deformed slug measuring 0.2 centimeter by 2 centimeters was material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written
extracted from his left leg. expression offered as proof of their contents.
3. The trial court found him guilty of the murder of Antonio Garcia.
4. Hence the present appeal by the appellant Jianggo Flores contending among all What is a documentary evidence?
others, that the gun supposedly used to kill the victim and the slugs were never Documents as evidence not only refer to writing but also any other material like objects as
presented in evidence as well as he tested negative during the paraffin test. long as it contains letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written
expression and offered as proof of their contents.
Issue: Was the prosecution able to establish the guilt of the appellant? RA 8792 gave recognition of the admissibility of electronic documents and
electronic data messages as evidence. It shall function equivalent to a written paper-
based document under existing laws.
Ruling: Yes. The fact that accusedappellant tested negative in the paraffin test; that the
prosecution did not present the gun used in the commission of the crime and the slug
recovered from the body of the victim is of no moment. Purpose
Applies only when the contents of a document is the subject of inquiry
It must be offered as the proof of their contents .
How should the best evidence rule be applied? Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence in case of loss, destruction, or
unavailability of the original
First. Determine the matter inquired into. If it involves a document, and the contents
thereof are the subjects of the inquiry, then the best evidence must be applied. 1. the offeror must prove the execution and the existence of the original document
The rule requires that the original document must be presented and not merely a 2. the offeror must show the cause of its unavailability or loss
copy thereof. 3. the offeror must show that the unavailability was not caused by his bad faith
Other evidence can be substituted for the original for as long as the latter is
available. after establishing the said requisites, the contents of the documents may now be proven by
Second. If for one reason or another, the original document cannot be presented in court, the secondary evidence.
party must:
a. find an adequate legal excuse for the failure to present the original of the The hierarchy of preferred secondary evidence must be strictly followed:
document and 1. copy of the original
b. present secondary evidence as provided for by the Rules of Court 2. a recital of the contents of the document in some authentic document
3. testimony of witnesses.
What are the adequate legal excuses for the failure to present the original of the
document for the court to allow presentation of substitutes or secondary evidence?
Hence, certified true copies issued by the public officer is sufficient as secondary 2. The trial court rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty as charged.
evidence 3. The Sandiganbayan upheld the decision of the lower court in finding guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
4. Hence, the present action by the accused Borje arguing that:
Requisites for presenting secondary evidence for originals consisting of numerous a. The prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crime charged
accounts because of its failure to present the original copies of the alleged falsified
(1) Original consists of numerous accounts or other documents documents.
(2) They cannot be examined in court without great loss of time b. And the accused, as the Provincial Plant Officer merely affixed his
(3) The fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole signature as part of the Standard Operating Procedure of the office payroll.
Hence, in this case, the court may allow a witness to offer a summary of a number of He contended that there was no actual order known by him that Ducusin
documents. Note however that the voluminous records must be made available to the was already detailed in another position to the effect that it would be
adverse party for verification and tested for cross examination. established that Ducusin was no longer entitled to incentives and payroll
Example: accountant may present a written summary of some sales invoices
Issue: Was the prosecution able to adduce evidence sufficient to convict the accused Appellant
Borje of guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. — A party who calls for the
production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. Ruling: No.
Facts: After careful re-examination of the evidence of record and applicable rules of evidence, the
1. Widora filed before the RTC an application for registration of title of a parcel of Court considers that the word "secondary evidence" was inaccurate. The copy of OCT No. 351
land alleging that they have acquired the subject parcel of land from the heirs of the offered by Ortigas was a certified true copy of the original thereof found in the Registration
registered owner, Mariano San Pedro as seen in the Titulo Propriedad Numero 4136 Book of the Register of Deeds of Rizal. 18 The admissibility of such a copy in court
or OCT no. 351. They prayed that the parcel of land be registered in Widora’s name. proceedings is an exception to the ordinary rule on secondary evidence; 19 such admissibility
2. Opposition by Ortigas: Ortigas field a motion to dismiss alleging that land being is in fact mandated by Section 47 of Act No. 496 (The Land Registration Act). 20 Under the
applied for registration by Widora have already been registered under the TCT Land Registration Act which was in force at the time OCT No. 351 was issued, the original
77652and TCT 77653 by the Decree 1425. Hence, the trial court had no jurisdiction thereof found in the Registration Book of the Register of Deeds of Rizal was an official
to decide on such. transcript of Decree No. 1425, with respect to the land covered by such decree situated in the
a. Ortigas submitted the following evidence to establish the contents of Province of Rizal. 21
Decree 1425 which purportedly included his lands in OCT 351: plan
submitted by respondent Ortigas, testimony of its surveyor and OCT 351. Thus, OCT No. 351 constitutes direct proof of the existence of Decree No. 1425 upon which
The decree itself was not submitted as evidence. the Ortigas TCTs (Nos. 77652 and 77653) are based. We believe further that the Court of
3. Decision by the trial court: denied that motion to dismiss of the petitioner Ortigas Appeals was justified in relying upon the plotting prepared by Engineer Carlos Angeles and
holding that the TCTs registered in the name of Ortigas were not derivatives of the his testimony explaining the significance thereof, notwithstanding the secondary nature of that
subject property and are in fact derivatives of other parcels of land. plotting and testimony. For, as will be seen shortly, authenticity and correctness of this survey
4. Not satisfied, Ortigas filed an action for certiorari before the CA to annul the plans and of Engineer Angeles's explanation thereof had already been judicially sustained in
decision of the RTC. previously decided cases.
1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
2. 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;
3. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot
be examined in court without great loss of time, and the fact sought to be established
from them is only the general result of the whole; and
4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded
in a public office.
In the present case, the originals of the alleged forged checks had to be produced, since it
was never shown that any of these exceptions was present. What the private respondent
offered were mere photocopies of the checks in question marked as Exhibits A, B, and C.
It never explained the reason why it could not produce the originals of the checks.
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and Hence, the basic qualifications of a witness as provided for in this rule:
1. can perceive
agreement of the parties thereto;
o a witness must be able to perceive an event
o the witness must have personal knowledge of the the facts surrounding the
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or subject matter of the testimony; those which were derived from his own
perception
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in
2. and in perceiving, can make known his perception to others.
interest after the execution of the written agreement. o This process involved two factors: First, ability to remember what he
perceived; and (2) ability to communicate the remembered perception
The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a) i. Deafmutes are not necessarily incompetent as witnesses if
they can understand and appreciate the sanctity of the oath;
comprehend the facts; they are going to testify to; and
1. Inciong, Jr. vs. CA – 257 S 578 communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter
2. National Irrigation Administration vs. Gamit – 215 S 436
3. possesses none of the disqualifications provided for by the rules
3. Gurango vs. IAC – 215 S 332
4. CKH Industrial and Development Corp. vs. CA – 272 S 333 4. must take either an oath or an affirmation as provided by the Rules
o necessary for the witness to recognize the obligation to tell the truth
o must understand the nature of the oath and realizes the moral duty to tell the
truth, and understands the prospects of being punished for falsehood
o oath if with religion; affirmation if no belief
RULE 130 SECTION 20 – WITNESSES
Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as provided in the next take note of the difference between competence and credibility
succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known Competence Credibility
perception to others, may be witnesses.
Matter of law or rule refers to the weight and trustworthiness;
reliability of the testimony
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless
o hence, a witness with varying and
otherwise provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification. (18a)
conflicting testimonies is still a
competent witness. However, his
Testimonial Evidence
testimonies may not be given that
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 26
much weight
Has reference to the basic qualifications of a Believability of the witness and has nothing Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. — The
witness as his capacity to perceive and to do with the rules following persons cannot be witnesses:
communicate what he perceived; as well as
the absence of any of the disqualifications (a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination,
imposed upon a witness is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to
Provided by the rules Discretion of the court: the manner of others;
assigning values to the declarations of
witnesses is best and competently performed (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of
by the trial judge who has the unique and perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them
unmatched opportunity to observe the truthfully.
demeanor of the witnesses and assess their
credibility (hence, observations of trial court o Note that in both cases, the incapacity that is referred must be at the time he is
judges are given weight when the cases are produced in court to testify and not at the time the subject of the testimony
put on appeal) happened. However, the incapacity during the occurrence of the event may affect his
credibility
Other factors not affecting the competency of witnesses
Disqualifications of Witnesses
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 27
A child witness 2. People vs. Balanon – 233 S 679- MEDRANO
o is any person who, at the time of giving testimony, is below the age of eighteen (18)
1. Appellant Dioneda was charged with the crime of rape of a minor, 6 years of age, They could, in fact, be badges of truth for they manifest spontaneity and erase any
named in the case as AAA. suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.
2. During the trial of the case, it was established that:
a. AAA, on August 27, 2000, went to the 3- storey house of their neighbor As long as the inconsistencies are immaterial or irrelevant to the elements of the crime and do
Ruth Dajao to play with latter’s child named Iking in Novaliches, Quezon not touch on material facts crucial to the guilt or innocence of the accused as in the present
City. case, these are not valid grounds to reverse a conviction.
b. Upon reaching the first floor of the house, AAA met Dioneda, 17 y/o who
was the helper of the Dajao family.
c. AAA then proceeded to the third floor of the house and discovered that In the present case, The place where AAA met appellant when she was about to leave the
Iking was already asleep. Hence, she decided to just go home. Dajao residence, whether on the ground or second floor is a trivial matter.
During the direct examination, AAA stated that when she went down
the house and reached the first floor, Dioneda prevented her and forced her
to return to the second floor.
However, during the cross examination, AAA stated that she met
Dioneda in the 2nd floor and that is where she was prevented from going
home.
d. nonetheless, AAA was brought by Dioneda to the 2nd floor bed room into
his double-deck bed and there he had carnal knowledge of her.
e. She went home crying and told her mother that her vagina was aching and
that “kuya jong” referring to Dioneda, did something to her.
3. The RTC rendered a decision finding the appellant Dioneda guilty of rape as
charged but his minority during the time of the rape mitigated the penalty.
a. The RTC gave full credence to the testimony of AAA and the Expert
witnesses.
4. The CA upheld the conviction of the accused Dioneda.
5. Hence, the present action by Dioneda arguing that the both lower courts erred in
giving full credence to the testimony of AAA considering that there were
inconsistencies in her statements as to her account of the events prior to the
rape, specifically, as to the floor where she was prevented to go down (kung sa
1st floor or sa second floor).
Issue: Should the testimony of AAA still be considered in view of the inconsistency
between the statements as alleged by the accused Dioneda?
Ruling: Yes. The place where AAA met appellant when she was about to leave the Dajao
residence, whether on the ground or second floor is a trivial matter. AAA, a child of tender
age, could not be expected to give a perfect recollection of the exact floor of the house where
she met appellant.
Ratio: the inconsistencies were immaterial and inconsequential and do not affect the
credibility of the witness. Forthright witnesses are not immune from committing minor
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 30
RULE 130 SECTION 22 – DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MARRIAGE a. hence, it does not cover illicit cohabitation
b. but it does cover spouses who were estranged as separation de facto does
Marital Disqualification Rule not sever marital relations
3. that the case is not one against the other
Section 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. — During their marriage, neither the
husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected
spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime Requisites in order for the Privilege under Section 24 (a) be applied:
committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. 1. there must be a valid marriage between the husband and the wife
2. there is a communication received in confidence by one form the other (clearly, not
There are two types of incompetency by reason of marital relations under this rule but of and with third persons);
must be differentiated as different rules apply: 3. the confidential communication was received during the marriage
Requisites in order for the Marital Privilege under Section 22 be applied: 1. Avelino Ordono was charged in the MTC of San Gabriel La Union for having raped
1. that the spouse for or against whom the testimony of the other is offered, is a party his daughter Leonora.
to the case
2. that the spouses are legally married
Issue: was the trial court correct in disqualifying Victoria, wife of the accused, to testify
The rule that the injury must amount to a physical wrong upon the person is too narrow; and against her husband in the Falsification case filed by her?
the rule that any offense remotely or indirectly affecting domestic harmony comes within the
exception is too broad. The better rule is that, when an offense directly attack or directly Ruling: NO, the trial court erred in disqualifying her as a witness because the crime of
and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, it comes within the exception to the statute that Falsification of Public Document that she filed against her husband may be considered as a
one shall not be a witness against the other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime criminal case for a crime committed by a husband against his wife and, therefore, an exception
committed (by) one against the other. to the rule on marital disqualification.
Ratio and explanation as to what may fall under the exceptions of Marital
Thus, in this case, the rape of the daughter by the father is an undeniably abominable and Disqualification:
revolting crime with incestuous implications andpositively undermines the connubial
relationship, is a proposition too obvious to require much elucidation. The rule that the injury must amount to a physical wrong upon the is too narrow; and the rule
that any offense remotely or indirectly affecting domestic within the exception is too broad.
The better rule is that, WHEN AN OFFENSE DIRECTLY ATTACKS, OR DIRECTLY AND
VITALLY IMPAIRS, THE CONJUGAL RELATION, IT COMES WITHIN THE
As an exception, that the civil case or criminal case is one not against the other, EXCEPTION to the statute that one shall not be a witness against the other except in a
therefore, although the marital relations exists, one of the spouses may still testify for or criminal prosecution for a crime committed (by) one against the other.
against the other without the other spouse’s consent if:
There is a dictum that "where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that In the present case, The act complained of as constituting the crime of Falsification of Public
there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be Document is the forgery by the accused of his wife's signature in a deed of sale, thereby
disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony and tranquility fails. In such a case making it appear therein that said wife consented to the sale of a house and lot belonging to
identity of interests disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based on that their conjugal partnership when in fact and in truth she did not. It must be noted that had the
identity is nonexistent. Likewise, in such a situation, the security and confidences of sale of the said house and lot, and the signing of the wife's name by her husband in the deed of
sale, been made with the consent of the wife, no crime could have been charged against said
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 32
husband Clearly, therefore, it is the husband's breach of his wife's confidence which gave rise
to the offense charged. And it is this same breach of trust which prompted the wife to make the
necessary complaint with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal which, accordingly, filed the
aforesaid criminal case with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. To rule, therefore, that
such criminal case is not one for a crime committed by one spouse against the other is to
advance a conclusion which completely disregards the factual antecedents of the instant case.
With more reason must the exception apply to the instant case where the victim of the
crime and the person who stands to be directly prejudiced by the falsification is not a
third person but the wife herself. And it is undeniable that the act comp of had the effect of
directly and vitally impairing the conjugal relation. This is apparent not only in the act Of the
wife in personally lodging her complaint with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, but also in
her insistent efforts in connection with the instant petition, which seeks to set aside the order
disqualified her from testifying against her husband.
2. the suit is a civil action or special proceedings upon a claim by the plaintiff Facts:
against the estate of the deceased person or person of unsound mind 1. Vicente Chuidian, the administrator of the estate of decedent Juan T. Chuidian, filed
what is contemplated is a suit against the estate, its administrator or an action against the defendants Razon for them to be ordered to deliver certificates
executor, but not when the administrator or executor files an action of stocks representing the shareholding of the Juan T. Chuidian.
against another’s estate 2. It was the defense of Razon that during Juan’s lifetime, they have agreed that Juan
necessarily therefore, the action is civil and not criminal because it is will be one of the nominal shareholders of the corporation considering that the
a claim against the estate original incorporators started to withdraw from the corporation.
a. Furthermore, they argue that it was Razon who actually paid for the
3. the witness is the plaintiff in whose behalf the case is prosecuted; and shares, hence, he has the possession of the certificates of stock to show
hence, if the witness being called for the prosecution is a third person, signify his ownership. However, this was not registered in the books of the
present rule will not apply corporation.
intended exclusively for the plaintiff, the assignors of the case, or 3. The RTC of Manila rendered a decision declaring Razon as the owner of the stocks
persons whose behalf the case is prosecuted subject of the case and dismissed the complaint of administrator Chuidian.
4. the subject of the testimony is as to any matter of fact occurring before the 4. However, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC and ruled in favour of Chuidian.
death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind It applied the Deadman’s Statute against Razon.
(and adverse) 5. Hence, the present action by the petitioner Razon assailing the appellate court's
prohibited matters: are those occurring in the presence or within the decision on its alleged misapplication of the dead man's statute rule under Section
hearing of the decedent/ insane person 20(a) Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. According to him, the "dead man's statute"
Ruling: No.
Section 20(a) Rule 130 of the Rules of Court (Section 23 of the Revised Rules on Evidence)
States:
Sec. 20. Disqualification by reason of interest or relationship — The following persons cannot
testify as to matters in which they are interested directly or indirectly, as herein enumerated.
(a) 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 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 accruing before the death of such deceased
person or before such person became of unsound mind."
in the present case, the case is filed by the administrator of the estate of the decedent, not
against the decedent’s estate.
The testimony excluded by the appellate court is that of the defendant (petitioner
herein) to the affect that the late Juan Chuidian, (the father of private respondent
Vicente Chuidian, the administrator of the estate of Juan Chuidian) and the
defendant agreed in the lifetime of Juan Chuidian that the 1,500 shares of stock in E.
Razon, Inc. are actually owned by the defendant unless the deceased Juan Chuidian
opted to pay the same which never happened. The case was filed by the
administrator of the estate of the late Juan Chuidian to recover shares of stock in E.
Razon, Inc. allegedly owned by the late Juan T. Chuidian.
It is clear, therefore, that the testimony of the petitioner is not within the prohibition
of the rule. The case was not filed against the administrator of the estate, nor was it
filed upon claims against the estate.
Secondly, the plaintiff is deemed to have waived his objections to the testimonies made by
Razon.
The records show that the private respondent never objected to the testimony of the
petitioner as regards the true nature of his transaction with the late elder Chuidian.
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 35
RULE 130 SECTION 24 – DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED the protection of the privilege does not apply when the communications is
COMMUNICATION made in the presence of third persons
overhearing accidentally, unintended, unknown by the spouses, through a
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. — The voice carrying device- the third person may be examined
following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following to commit conversation to a third person to be transmitted to his wife destroys
cases: the protection already
communication intended for third persons although transmitted through the
(1) husband and wife wife is not privileged so far as it was to be told to others
(2) attorney-client
(3) physician-patient
(4) priest/ minister-penitent Waiver of the privilege
Who has the right to invoke this privilege? The spouse who communicated the
Object of the Rule: privileged communication to the other spouse, the addressee of the
communications originate in confidence, the confidence is essential to the relation; communication
the relation is a proper object of encouragement by the law and the injury that would The addressee of the communication is not entitled to object, unless his silence is
injure it by disclosure is probably greater than the benefit that would result in the considered or treated as an assent and an adoption of the statement, which this
judicial investigation of the truth makes it doubly a communication and doubly privilege
the purpose is to insure subjectively the free and unrestrained privacy of
communication, divested of any apprehension of compulsory nature
and if the communication is not intended to be a private one, the privilege has not (b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any
application to it 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
A. Husband-Wife knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity;
(a) 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 B. attorney-client relationship
during the marriage 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; (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
Object: with a view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer,
secure domestic happiness by placing the protecting seal of the law upon all or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any
communication between husband and wife; and whatever has come to the fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity;
knowledge of either by means of hollowed confidence which the relation inspires
protection of freedom of private communication; prevent compulsion for each one to
share what one knows with the other and this has nothing to do with the duty of Wigmore’s statement of the rule:
fidelity that each owes to the other 1. where legal adcise of any kind is sought
2. from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such,
3. the communication relating to that purpose
Elements 4. made in confidence
1. there must be a valid marriage between the husband and the wife 5. by the client
2. there is a communication received in confidence by one from the other 6. are at his instance permanently protected
it is proper that all marital communications be presumed as confidential unless 7. from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser
the contrary appears 8. except that the protection may be waived
3. the confidential communication was received during marriage
4. that the action where the privilege is claimed is not by one against the other Requisites:
1. there must be a communication made by the client or the attorney, or an advice
given by the attorney to the client
Effect of third persons: 2. the communication or advice must be given in the course of the professional
employment or with the view to professional employment
This case does not fall with the text of the statute or the reason upon which it is based. The
purpose of section 58 is to protect accused persons against statements made in the confidence
engendered by the marital relation, and to relieve the husband or wife to whom such
confidential communications might have been made from the obligation of revealing them to
the prejudice of the other spouse. Obviously, when a person at the point of death as a result of
injuries he has suffered makes a statement regarding the manner in which he received those
injuries, the communication so made is in no sense confidential. On the contrary, such a
communication is made for the express purpose that it may be communicated after the death of
the declarant to the authorities concerned in inquiring into the cause of his death.
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 37
On grounds of public policy the wife cannot testify against her husband as to what came to her 8. The CA upheld the decision of the RTC Judge in allowing the testimony of the
from him confidentially or by reason of the marriage relation, but this rule does not apply to a Dra. Acampado when the petitioner filed before the said court a petition for
dying communication made by the husband to the wife on the trial of the one who killed him. certiorari and prohibition to nullify the order denying the motion to exclude Dra.
The declaration of the deceased made in extremes in such cases is a thing to be proven, and Acampado. It stated that:
this proof may be made by any competent witness who heard the statement. The wife may a. First, the petitioner failed to establish the confidential nature of the
testify for the state in cases of this character as to any other fact known to her. . . . It cannot be testimony of Dra. Acampado
contended that the dying declaration testified to by the witness was a confidential b. Secondly, the statements that Dra. Acampado gave do not fall within the
communication made to her; on the contrary, it was evidently made in the furtherance of realm of privileged communication because the information she disclosed
justice for the express purpose that it should be testified to in the prosecution of the defendant. were not obtained from the patient while attending her in her professional
capacity and neither where the information necessary to enable the
physicial to prescribe or give treatment of the patient Nelly Lim. And
neither does the information obtained from the physician tend to blacken
2. Nelly Lim vs. CA, Judge Victorio of RTC of Pangasinan, and Juan the character of the patient or bring disgrace to her or invite reproach.
Lim – 214 S 273 9. Hence, the present action by the petitioner Nelly Lim.
Facts: Issue: Is Dra. Acampado, the attending psychiatrist of the petitioner, be a witness in the
1. petitioner Nelly Lim and Juan Lim were lawfully married to each other. present case of annulment?
2. petition for annulment: the Juan Lim then filed a petition for annulment Controlling Issue: is she barred by the privileged communication rule?
of their marriage on the ground that his wife, the petitioner, was suffering
from schizophrenia “before, during, and after the celevration of the Ruling: Dra. Acampado is not disqualified from testifying because she testified as an expert
marriage, and until the present” witness and the information she disclosed did not fall within the privileged communication
3. the expert witness: during the trial, the private respondent presented 3 rule.
witnesses, among them was Dra. Acampado who is a Medical Specialist
II and in-charge of the Female Service of the National Center for Mental Ratio:
Health a fellow of the Philippine Psychiatrist Association and a Diplomate
of the Philippine Board of Psychiatrists. She was summoned as an expert The Law, Rules of Court, Rule 130:
witness. However, she also happened to be the attending psychiatrist
of the petitioner Nelly Lim. "SECTION 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. — The following
4. Motion to quash subpoena and suspend proceedings: the counsel of the persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
petitioner then filed a motion to quash subpoena to be issued for Dra.
Acampado so that she may not be allowed to appear as a witness in court. (c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil
5. During the hearing for the motion: case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment
a. Argument of the petitioner: Dra. Acampado is barred from given by him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such
testifying under the rule on the confidentiality of a physician- patient in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to
patient relationship act in that capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the
b. Argument of respondent: Dra. Acampado is appearing as an patient."
expert witness and would not be testifying on any information
acquired while attending to her patient Nelly Lim in her
professional capacity. The object of the law: intended to facilitate and make safe full and confidential disclosure by
6. Denial of the motion by the RTC Judge: the trial court judge denied the the patient to the physician of all facts, circumstances and symptoms, untrammeled by
motion and stated in his order that: “the respondent’s motion [is denied] apprehension of their subsequent and enforced disclosure and publication on the witness stand,
and forthwith allowed Dr. Acampado to testify. However, the Court to the end that the physician may form a correct opinion, and be enabled safely and
advised counsel for respondent to interpose his objection once it becomes efficaciously to treat his patient
apparent that the testimony sought to be elicited is covered by the
privileged communication rule. Therefore, in order that this privilege be invoked successfully, the following requisites
7. Dra. Acampado then took the witness stand and it was established by the RTC must concur:
and the CA that Dra. Acampado was qualified by counsel for private
respondent as an expert witness and was asked hypothetical questions related 1. the privilege is claimed in a civil case;
to her field of expertise. She neither revealed the illness she examined and 2. the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice
treated the petitioner for nor disclosed the results of her examination and the medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
medicines she had prescribed.
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 38
3. such person acquired the information while he was attending to the patient in his Ma. Paz underwent psychological testing purportedly in an effort to ease the marital strain.
professional capacity; The effort however proved futile. In 1973, they finally separated in fact.
4. the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; andthe In 1975, Edgar was able to secure a copy of the confidential psychiatric report on Ma. Paz
information was confidential, and, if disclosed, would blacken the reputation prepared and signed by Drs. Cornelio Banaag, Jr., and Baltazar Reyes.
(formerly character) of the patient." On 2 November 1978, presenting the report among others, he obtained a decree
("Conclusion") from the Tribunal Metropolitanum Matrimoniale in Manila nullifying his
In relation to requisite no. 1, what are the requisites in order to be considered as a church marriage with Ma. Paz on the ground of "incapacitas assumendi onera conjugalia due
privileged communication? to lack of due discretion existent at the time of the wedding and thereafter." The decree was
1. The communications must originate in a confidence that they will not be disclosed. confirmed and pronounced "Final and Definite."
2. This element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory Meanwhile, on 30 July 1982, the then RTC issued an order granting the voluntary dissolution
maintenance of the relation between the parties. of the conjugal partnership.
3. The relation must be one which in the opinion of the community ought to be On 23 October 1990, Edgar filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage with Ma. Paz
sedulously fostered before the trial court. In his petition, he cited the Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation Report
4. The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the communications which Ma. Paz merely denied in her Answer as "either unfounded or irrelevant."
must be greater than the benefit thereby gained for the correct disposal of litigation At the hearing, Edgar took the witness stand and tried to testify on the contents of the
Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation Report.
In the present case, the said requisites were not complied with. -This was objected to on the ground that it violated the rule on privileged
communication between physician and patient.
Firstly, Dra. Acampado was presented and qualified as an expert witness. As correctly held by Subsequently, Ma. Paz filed a Manifestation expressing her "continuing objection" to any
the Court of Appeals, she did not disclose anything obtained in the course of her examination, evidence, oral or documentary, "that would thwart the physician-patient privileged
interview and treatment of the petitioner; moreover, the facts and conditions alleged in the communication rule," and thereafter submitted a Statement for the Record asserting among
hypothetical problem did not refer to and had no bearing on whatever information or findings others that "there is no factual or legal basis whatsoever for petitioner (Edgar) to claim
the doctor obtained while attending to the patient. 'psychological incapacity' to annul their marriage, such ground being completely false,
fabricated and merely an afterthought." 6 Before leaving for Spain where she has since resided
Secondly, it is quite clear from Dr. Acampado’s testimony that the petitioner was never after their separation, Ma. Paz also authorized and instructed her counsel to oppose the suit
interviewed alone. Nelly would go together with his father, Dr. Lim. There is authority to the and pursue her counterclaim even during her absence.
effect that information elicited during consultation with a physician in the presence of third Edgar opposed Ma. Paz' motion to disallow the introduction of the confidential psychiatric
parties removes such information from the mantle of the privilege. report as evidence, and afterwards moved to strike out Ma. Paz' Statement for the Record.
The RTC issued an Order admitting the Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation Report in
Thirdly, nothing specific or concrete was offered by the petitioner to show that indeed, the evidence. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.
information obtained from Dr. Acampado would blacken the former’s "character" (or Petitioner’s claim: Petitioner now seeks to enjoin the presentation and disclosure of the
"reputation"). Dr. Acampado never disclosed any information obtained from the petitioner contents of the psychiatric report and prays for the admission of her Statement for the Record
regarding the latter’s ailment and the treatment recommended therefor. to form part of the records of the case. She argues that since Sec. 24, par. (c), Rule 130, of the
Rules of Court 11 prohibits a physician from testifying on matters which he may have
Lastly, it would appear that the counsel made no objections to the questions asked to Dra. acquired in attending to a patient in a professional capacity, "WITH MORE REASON should
Acampado on that ground that it elicited an answer what would violate the privilege, despite be third person (like respondent-husband in this particular instance) be PROHIBITED from
the trial court’s advise that the said counsel may interpose his objection to the testimony "once testifying on privileged matters between a physician and patient or from submitting any
it becomes apparent that the testimony, sought to be elicited is covered by the privileged medical report, findings or evaluation prepared by a physician which the latter has acquired as
communication rule. Since the object of the privilege is to protect the patient, it may be a result of his confidential and privileged relation with a patient."
waived if no timely objection is made to the physician’s testimony. Respondent’s defense: The rules are very explicit: the prohibition applies only to a physician.
Thus . . . the legal prohibition to testify is not applicable to the case at bar where the person
sought to be barred from testifying on the privileged communication is the husband and not
3. Krohn vs. CA – 233 S 146 the physician of the petitioner."
ISSUE/S: WON the husband can be enjoined to disclose the contents of the psychiatric report
KROHN v. CA (1994) on the ground that it violated the rule on privileged communication between physician and
FACTS: patient.
On 14 June 1964, Edgar Krohn, Jr., and Ma. Paz Fernandez were married at the Saint Vincent
de Paul Church in San Marcelino, Manila. The union produced three children. Their blessings HELD: No.
notwithstanding, the relationship between the couple developed into a stormy one. In 1971,
While the law presumes every defamatory imputation to be malicious, there are exceptions.
The case at bar falls under the settled exceptions to the rule: the private respondent’s inter-
office memorandum falls within the ambit of privileged communication rule.
4. Fortich vs. CA – 268 S 152 A privileged communication is one made bona fide upon any subject matter in which the party
communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty. In Mercado vs. CFI of
FORTICH vs. CA (1997) Rizal, the court explained that: “Even when the statements are found to be false, if there is
probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge is made in good faith, the mantle
FACTS: of privilege may still cover the mistake of the individual. But the statements must be made
1. Petitioner Stanley Fortich was employed as an area salesman of soft drinks division under an honest sense of duty;”
of San Miguel Corp., a job which required him to collect various sums of money
from the retailers and buyers of the company along his designated route. In the instant case, the private respondent was, as the District Sales Supervisor in Dipolog
2. One day, petitioner received a Memo ordering him to stop plying his route and City, immediate supervisor of petitioner. In this capacity, respondent was charged with the
collecting sums owed by customers to the company because of “Non-issuance of duty to carry out and enforce company rules and policies, including the duty to undertake
either change refund nor official receipt for empties retrieved from outlets with initial investigation of possible irregularities in customer accounts in order to suggest further
temporary credit sales.” It likewise directed petitioner to instead report directly “to action which could be taken by the company. In fact, the communications initially submitted
the sales office every working day at the prescribed company time.” by the private respondent to his superiors prompted the investigation which eventually led to
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 40
petitioner’s preventive suspension and to the decision by the company’s proper officers to 7. Atty. Cajucom assisted Agustin during the said investigation and the stenographic
terminate the latter’s employment. reporter took down stenographic notes.
8. Agustin allegedly narrated his knowledge of the shooting and revealed identities of his
Even granting that the questioned memorandum contains statements which could be cohorts in the crime.
slanderous and therefore actionable were they not protected by the rule on privileged 9. The stenographic notes consisting of 22 pages was signed by Agustin. The same was
communications, still as no malice was shown, the Court agreed with the respondent court’s subsequently transcribed and later offered into evidence.
conclusion that the assailed memorandum report was an official act done in good faith, an 10. Before Quiano could be arraigned, he was able to escape. The consolidated cases
honest innocent statement arising from a moral and legal obligation which the private proceeded only against Agustin.
respondent certainly owed to the company in the performance of his duties. 11. Agustin impugned the validity of his extrajudicial statement for allegedly having been
given in violation of his Constitutional rights, alleging:
a) That he was a farmer whose highest educational attainment was grade 4;
b) That in the morning of his “arrest,” two armed men picked him up and taken to a car
2. Testimonial Privilege where two more armed men were waiting;
c) That along Kennon Road, he was made to kneel at gunpoint in order to admit his
Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. — No person may be compelled to testify involvement in the shooting, which he did out of fear;
against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. (20a) d) That he was brought to the City Fiscal of Baguio, where the armed men stayed with
him, which deterred him from telling the investigating fiscal that he was being
threatened;
RULE 130 SECTION 26 – ADMISSIONS OF A PARTY e) That Atty. Cajucom who supposedly assisted him and who was not his own choice,
only stayed with him for 2 minutes and interviewed him in English and Tagalog, but
not Ilocano, the dialect he understands;
3. Admissions and Confessions f) That he was told and promised by his captors that he would be discharged as state
witness if he cooperates, but the plan did not push through since Quiano escaped.
Section 26. Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or omission of a party as 12. Agustin’s wife corroborated his story.
to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. (22) 13. The Trial Court nevertheless admitted Agustin’s extrajudicial statement, and gave
scant consideration to his claim of force, intimidation and other irregularities. The TC
concluded that there was conspiracy and the accused was a direct participant in the crime,
that his “extrajudicial confession” shows that “he was in on the plan” and even “expected
1. People vs. Agustin – 240 S 541- PASCUAL to be paid” and that he “decided to give a statement only when he was not given money.”
14. TC convicted Agustin of murder.
PEOPLE vs. AGUSTIN (1995)
ISSUE: WON the extrajudicial “confession” is admissible. (N) If so, should he be acquitted?
FACTS: (Y)
1. In 5 separate informations, the accused were charged with murder in two cases, frustrated
murder in another, and attempted murder in two more cases. HELD: The extrajudicial statement is inadmissible in evidence because it was obtained in
2. The crimes were allegedly committed in Baguio City and resulted in the deaths of Dr. violation of Section 12 (1), Article III of the Constitution. Since it is the only evidence which
Bayquen and Anna Francisco, and the wounding of three others. links him to the crimes of which he was convicted, he must then be acquitted.
3. The informations in the murder cases charged the accused, Jaime Agustin, as having
acted in conspiracy with the alleged shooter, Wilfredo Quiano. RATIO: The extrajudicial ADMISSION — NOT extrajudicial confession — of the
4. Quiano allegedly confessed during the investigation conducted by the Baguio City fiscal appellant, which is the only evidence of the prosecution linking him to the commission of the
in his office, that he was the triggerman in the fatal shooting, but claims he was engaged crime charged, is wholly inadmissible because it was taken in violation of Section 12, Article
to kill Dr. Bayquen for a fee by a “bagman” and also named Freddie Cartel who provided III of the Constitution. We also see in these cases a blatant disregard of the appellant's right
him with the armalite. He also implicated a certain “Jimmy,” who turned out to be Jaime under Section 2 of Article III when he was unlawfully arrested.
Agustin, herein accused.
5. Quiano was assisted by Atty. Cajucom and a stenographic reporter who took down The SC pointed out that, contrary to the pronouncement of the trial court and the
stenographic notes of the proceedings. Her transcription became the sworn statement of characterization given by the appellant himself, the assailed extrajudicial statement is not
Quiano, which he signed. extrajudicial confession. It is only an extrajudicial admission.
6. On the basis of Quiano’s confession, Jaime Agustin was picked up by military personnel
in Pangasinan and brought to Baguio City where he was taken to the City Fiscal and In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt of the accused or of the criminal
investigated in connection with the said crime. intent to commit the offense with which he is charged. Wharton defines a confession as
follows:
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 41
o for not bringing up the warrantless arrest and pushing for Agustin’s
A confession is an acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in a criminal case, immediate release; it was very apparent that such was the case (the
of his guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a statement by the accused, shooting having been 5 months prior to the arrest).
direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue, and tending, in connection with Agustin was arrested 5 months after the shooting, there should have been a warrant
proof of other facts, to prove his guilt. In other words, and admission is something of arrest.
less than a confession, and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance
which in itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction, and which tends only to
establish the ultimate fact of guilt.
Nothing in Agustin’s extrajudicial statement indicates that he expressly acknowledged his 2. Tuason vs. CA – 241 S 695- SALTERAS
guilt; he merely admitted some facts or circumstances which in themselves are
insufficient to authorize a conviction and which can only tend to establish the ultimate FACTS:
fact of guilt. 1. Private respondent Maria Victoria Lopez Tuason filed with the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 149, Makati a petition for annulment or declaration of nullity of her marriage
Nevertheless, when what is involved is the issue of admissibly in evidence under Section 12, to petitioner Emilio R. Tuason.
Article III of the Constitution, the distinction is irrelevant because Paragraph 3 thereof 2. CONTENTION OF WFE: She alleged that petitioner was already psychologically
expressly refers to both confession and admission. Thus: incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations which became
manifest afterward and resulted in violent fights between husband and wife; that in
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof one of their fights, petitioner inflicted physical injuries on private respondent which
shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. impelled her to file a criminal case for physical injuries against him; that petitioner
used prohibited drugs, was apprehended by the authorities and sentenced to a one-
The first two paragraphs of Section 12 read: year suspended penalty and has not been rehabilitated; that petitioner was a
womanizer, and in 1984, he left the conjugal home and cohabited with three women
Sec. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall in succession, one of whom he presented to the public as his wife; that after he left
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and the conjugal dwelling, petitioner gave minimal support to the family and even
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the refused to pay for the tuition fees of their children compelling private respondent to
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived accept donations and dole-outs from her family and friends; that petitioner likewise
except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (2) No torture, force, violence, became a spendthrift and abused his administration of the conjugal partnership by
threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used alienating some of their assets and incurring large obligations with banks, credit card
against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar companies and other financial institutions, without private respondents consent; that
forms of detention are prohibited. attempts at reconciliation were made but they all failed because of petitioners refusal
to reform. In addition to her prayer for annulment of marriage, private respondent
CONSIDERATIONS: prayed for powers of administration to save the conjugal properties from further
Agustine was not fully and properly informed of his rights. dissipation
o He was not explicitly told of his right to have 3. CONTENTION OF HUSBAND: Petitioner answered denying the imputations
a competent and independent counsel of his choice. against him. As affirmative defense, he claimed that he and private respondent were
o He was not categorically informed that he could waive his rights to remain a normal married couple during the first ten years of their marriage and actually
silent and to counsel and that this waiver must be in writing and in the begot two children during this period; that it was only in 1982 that they began to
presence of his counsel. have serious personal differences when his wife did not accord the respect and
o He had, in fact, waived his right to remain silent by agreeing to be dignity due him as a husband but treated him like a persona non grata.
investigated. Yet, no written waiver of such right appears in the transcript 4. The wife presented four witnesses, namely, herself; Dr. Samuel Wiley, a Canon Law
and no other independent evidence was offered to prove its existence. expert and marriage counselor of both private respondent and petitioner; Ms. Adelita
That there is doubt that Atty, Cajucom is “independent counsel” and his willingness Prieto, a close friend of the spouses, and Atty. Jose F. Racela IV, private respondents
to assist the accused is questionable: counsel. Private respondent likewise submitted documentary evidence consisting of
o he being an associate of the private prosecutor in that case; newspaper articles of her husband’s relationship with other women, his
o doubtful that Agustin even understood him when he was informed of his apprehension by the authorities for illegal possession of drugs; and copies of a prior
Constitutional Rights in English and Tagalog, when the dialect he church annulment decree. The parties’ marriage was clerically annulled by the
understood was Ilocano, nor were the same properly explained. Tribunal Metropolitanum Matrimoniale which was affirmed by the National
o it also appears that the lawyer made it seem to Agustin that he was a Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal in 1986.
witness rather than an accused.
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 42
5. RULING OF THE RTC: the trial court, on the ground of psychological incapacity, 2. During the pre-trial, as indicated in the pre-trial order, prosecution and defense
rendered judgment declaring the nullity of private respondent’s marriage to agreed to stipulate on the and make the markings of the following prosecution's
petitioner and awarding custody of the children to private respondent. exhibits: “The five (5) plastic bags with markings containing methamphetamine
6. RULING OF THE CA: affirmed the decision of the RTC.
hydrochloride with a total weight of 401 grams”.
7. Hence, the present petition. He argues that he was deprived of due process because
he was not given the opportunity to present his evidence. It is worth noting that the a. The parties also agreed that they dispense with the testimony of Forensic
reason why he was not able to present evidence is due to the fact that he was absent chemist Bravo and that the same need not testify in court. they admitted,
in the supposed hearings of the said annulment case. instead, as evidence the final report of the said chemist.
b. However, said pretrial order was not signed
ISSUE/S: WON respondent court erred in affirming the decision of the RTC. 3. During the trial, the prosecution provided as witnesses the policemen who did the
HELD: NO. The CA did not err in affirming the decision of the RTC.
RATIO: In the case at bar, the decision annulling petitioners marriage to private respondent buy-bust operation, as well the marked 5 transparent bags of shabu. On the other
had already become final and executory when petitioner failed to appeal during the hand, the defense was trying to establish that the buy bust operation set him up and
reglementary period. Petitioner however claims that the decision of the trial court was null and those confiscated plastic bags were all planted in his attaché case.
void for violation of his right to due process. He contends he was denied due process when, 4. Decision of the trial court: found as credible the witnesses of the prosecution and
after failing to appear on two scheduled hearings, the trial court deemed him to have waived convicted the accused. It also cited the Final Report of the Forensic Chemist Bravo
his right to present evidence and rendered judgment on the basis of the evidence for private that the packets of Shabu bought and tested from Chua was tested positive for
respondent. Petitioner justifies his absence at the hearings on the ground that he was then
metamphetamine hydrochloride.
confined for medical and/or rehabilitation reasons.
The failure of petitioners counsel to notify him on time of the adverse judgment to enable him 5. By reason of the penalty of the crime, the case was automatically elevated up to
to appeal therefrom is negligence which is not excusable. Notice sent to counsel of record is the Supreme Court.
binding upon the client and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse
judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment
valid and regular on its face. Among the arguments of Chua, he now contends that since the NBI Forensic Chemist did not
Petitioner also refutes the testimonies of private respondents witnesses, particularly Dr. testify, his findings that the specimens submitted to him were indeed shabu and weighed so
Samuel Wiley and Ms. Adelita Prieto, as biased, incredible and hearsay.Petitioner alleges that
much, did not longer have probative value.
if he were able to present his evidence, he could have testified that he was not psychologically
incapacitated at the time of the marriage as indicated by the fact that during their first ten He also insists that he never waived the presentation of the chemist during the pre-
years, he and private respondent lived together with their children as one normal and happy trial and that they only stipulated that the said confiscated bags be marked as part of
family, that he continued supporting his family even after he left the conjugal dwelling and the prosecution’s evidence.
that his work as owner and operator of a radio and television corporation places him in the
public eye and makes him a good subject for malicious gossip linking him with various On the other hand, it is the argument of the OSG for the People that when the parties
women. These facts, according to petitioner, should disprove the ground for annulment of his
stipulated during the trial that the said plastic bags be marked as evidence for the
marriage to petitioner.
Suffice it to state that the finding of the trial court as to the existence or non-existence of prosecution, and that the chemist Bravo no longer be presented in court, such is
petitioners psychological incapacity at the time of the marriage is final and binding on considered as an admission of the findings of Bravo that those were indeed shabu and
us. Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the trial courts factual findings and evaluation of that the said plastic bags containing the shabu were the drugs that were confiscated from
the testimonies of private respondent’s witnesses vis-a-vis petitioners defenses are clearly and him.
manifestly erroneous.
Issue: did the act of stipulating during the pre-trial by the parties that the plastic bags be
marked as well the non-presentation of the chemist amount to admission of the findings of the
3. People vs. Chua Uy – 327 S 335- ARANETA said Chemist as well as the same being the actual evidence confiscated from him?
1. Chua was arrested in a buy bust operation by the elements of the Anti- Narcotics It may at once be noted that neither Chua nor his counsel made express admission that
Units of the Philippine National Police. He was charged with drug pushing and the contents of the plastic bags to "be marked" as contain methamphetamine
illegal possession of shabu. hydrochloride (shabu).
FACTS:
HELD: Yes.
1. Conchita Mahomoc claims that at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of April 2, 1994,
RATIO: Accused-appellant's allegation of an illicit amorous relationship is too shopworn to
Dante Cepeda went to her house at Buhang, Magallanes, Agusan del Norte, and asked her to
deserve serious consideration and is totally unworthy of credence. A circumspect scrutiny of
[go to] his house to massage (hilot) his wife who was suffering from stomach ache.
the record discloses that the 'illicit love affair' angle appears as a fabrication by accused-
2. Regina Carba, her neighbor, was in her house and she asked her to go with her. appellant. As an affirmative defense, the alleged 'love affair' needs convincing proof. Having
admitted to having had carnal knowledge of the complainant several times, accused-
3. Cepeda was at his kitchen door when they reached his house. He told Gina to leave as his appellant bears the burden of proving his defense by substantial evidence. The record
wife, who was Muslim, would get angry if there were many people in their home. He insisted shows that other than his self-serving assertions, there is no evidence to support the claim
on this many times so that Gina had to leave. that accused-appellant and private complainant were in love.
4. Cepeda led the complainant to his bedroom. At the door, Conchita peeped inside and saw a It must be noted that accused-appellant and private complainant are both married and are
figure covered by a blanket whom she presumed was Cepeda's wife. living together with their respective spouses. In this case, other than accused-appellant's self-
5. At that instance, accused immediately placed his left arm around her shoulders and pointed serving testimony, no other evidence like love letters, mementos or pictures were presented to
a knife at the pit of her stomach saying: "Just keep quiet, do not make any noise, otherwise I prove his alleged amorous relationship with private complainant. Neither was there any
will kill you." She elbowed him, stooped and shouted "Help!" three times but Cepeda covered corroborative testimony supporting this pretended illicit affair. If accused-appellant were
her mouth then carried her to the room by her armpits. Shaking herself free from his grasp, she really the paramour of private complainant, she would not have gone to the extent of bringing
hit her left shin at the edge of the floor of the bedroom. this criminal action which inevitably exposed her to humiliation of recounting in public the
In a prosecution for rape, the evaluation of the evidence presented during trial ultimately
revolves around the credibility of the complaining witness. When a woman says she has been Judicial Admissions Extrajudicial Admissions
raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony One made in pleadings filed or in the Made one out of the court or in another
alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to convict the progress of the trial or course of the judicial proceeding
accused. proceeding so as to dispense with the
introduction of evidence otherwise
necessary to dispense with some rule of
Admissions, Confessions, and the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule practice necessary to be observed and
complied with
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 45
Generally conclusive against the party May be disputed and there must be proof o furthermore, an offer of compromise does not ordinarily proceed from an implied
making them belief that the adversary’s claim is well founded, but rather the belied that the further
prosecution of the claim whether well founded or not will cause more annoyance—
desire for peace and not concession of the wrong done
Manner o not a proof of the debt or the obligation unless coupled with such recognition of the
Express Implied Adoptive debt
Made by a One in which may be A third party’s statement becomes the
positive inferred from the party’s admissions when: Reason for the rule in criminal cases, why admissible as evidence against the accused:
statement declarations or acts of a 1. the party expressly agrees to a or
or act person concurs in in an oral statement made o in the matter of public crimes, which directly affects public interst, insofar as public
by another vengeance and private interests are concerned, no compromise whatever may be
2. hears a statement and later on entered into as regards the penal action, however it may be with respect to the civil
essentially repeats it liability
3. replies by way of rebuttal to some o exceptions, if allowed by statute, the compromise is not admissible against the
specific points raised by another but accused:
ignores the further points which he or a. opium and usury laws allowing compromise
she has heard the other made b. criminal laws regarding customs
4. reads and subsequently signs a written
statement by another 1. People vs. Lase – 219 S 584
Conduct, silence,
acquiescence Facts:
1. The accused was charged with murder of for the stabbing of Dante Huelva.
2. During the trial, one of the prosecution witnesses, Godofredo Huelva the relative of
Effects of admissions made by a party the victim, stated that the accused offered to settle the case for the sum of
Generally, they would no longer require proof and cannot be contradicted P10,000.00 for which he refused.
Unless, it is previously shown that such was made through palpable mistake, ignorance or a. The accused only offered alibi as a defense
innocent mistake b. But as a surrebuttal to the testimony of Godofredo Huelva, denied having
made the offer, but he did insinuate that he could offer a higher amount.
RULE 130 SECTION 27 – OFFER OF COMPROMISE NOT ADMISSIBLE “even if it is true, I am going to pay them P50k”
3. The trial court rendered a decision convicting him of murder.
4. Hence the present action by the appellant.
Rule 130. Section 27. OFFER TO COMPROMISE NOT ADMISSION
In relation to our topic: THE SC UPHELD THE FINDING OF GUILT of the accused by
In a civil case, an offer to compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not sufficient evidence of the guilt to prove such beyond reasonable doubt.
admissible in evidence against the offer.
Among such evidence that worked against the accused was the offer of compromise made by
In Criminal Cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those Lase to the family of the victim.
allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in
evidence as an implied admission of the guilt. The accused appellant offered to compromise the case for the amount of P10k. The second
paragraph of Section 27 Rule 130 states:
A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense,
is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. In Criminal Cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those
allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury evidence as an implied admission of the guilt.
is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
Murder is not among those criminal cases which may be compromised.
Reason for the rule in civil cases:
o it is the policy of the law to favour the settlement of disputes, to foster compromises
and to promote peace. To permit the introduction of offers to of compromise tends to
discourage the adjustment of suits and for that reason, against public policy
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 46
2. Trans Pacific Industrial Supplies, Inc. vs. CA and the Associated Bank – 235 S note that the right of prosecution and punishment for a crime is one of the attributes that by a
494 natural law belongs to the sovereign power instinctly charged by the common will of the
members of society to look after, guard and defend the interest of the community, the
Facts: individual and social rights and liberties of every citizen and the guaranty of the exercise of his
1. Transpacific Industrial obtained several loans from the Associated Bank in the rights. The cardinal principle which states that to the State belongs the power to prosecute and
amount of P1.3 Million pesos secured by several promissory notes and mortgages. punish crimes should not be overlooked since a criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereign
2. The loans were restructured such that the total amount was lessened. Three State. As provided by the Civil Code of the Philippines:
promissory notes were issued by Transpacific.
3. The Associated Bank then filed a complaint for the collection of sum of money Art. 2034. There may be a compromise upon the civil liability arising from an offense; but
against Transpacific. such compromise shall not extinguish the public action for the imposition of the legal penalty.
4. During the trial, Transpacific argued that they have already made the payments to
the Bank by the selling of the parcels of land used as security prior to the
restructuring of the loans. 4. People vs. Amaca – 277 S 215
a. That as proof of the payment, the three duplicate copies of the promissory
notes were returned by the Bank to Transpacific with the stamp “PAID” 2 branches of the res inter alios acta rule:
5. On the other hand, the respondents argue that:
a. the stamp were merely on the duplicate copies First: rights of the party cannot be prejudiced by the act, declaration, or omission of another
b. submitted also as evidence the letter of the petitioner offering as a (Section 28)
settlement or payment by way of dacion en pago, expressly stating therein
that they recognize their obligations and that they have not faithfully Second: Evidence of previous conduct, or similar conduct at one time is not admissible to
complied with them. prove that one did or di not do the same act at another time. (Section 34)
6. The RTC upheld the presumption of payment
7. The CA reversed by reason of the letter.
Section 28. Admission by third party. — The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced
Issue: Should the offer of compromise in the letter by Transpacific be admitted against them? by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.
Ruling: yes. Res inter alios acta alteri necere non debet- the transaction between two parties will not
operate to the disadvantage of the third
The petitioner claims that in civil cases, an offer of compromise is not admissible against the
party making the offer. Reason for the rule:
o A man’s own acts, declaration and conduct, are binding upon him as a matter of
However, such rule is not an iron-clad rule and admits of exceptions. good faith and mutual convenience.
o Yet it would not only rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust that a man
To determine the admissibility and the non-admissibility of a an offer to compromise, the should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers
circumstances of the case and the intent of the party making the offer must be considered. Note however that this rule only applies to extrajudicial declarations. Hence, statements
made in an open court by a witness implicating persons aside from his own admissions, are
Thus, if a party making the offer for the purpose of buying peace and avoiding litigation, the admissible as declarations from one who has personal knowledge of the facts testified to.
same is not admissible.
Exceptions to this rule:
However, if in the course of the offer, the party making the offer admits to the liability, then 1. Admission by partner, agent, or other person jointly interested with the party
the offer of compromise is admissible against the party making the offer. 2. Admission by co-conspirator
3. Admission by successor- in-interest
Complaints Bernardo Salazar and Richard Quillope may have a change of heart insofar as the
offense wrought on their person is concerned when they executed their joint affidavit of
desistance but this will not affect the public prosecution of the offense itself. It is relevant to
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 47
Section 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. — The act or declaration of a partner Similarly this rule applies only in extrajudicial confessions/admissions. Why? Because he
or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the may well be considered as a regular witness testifying to the facts known to him.
partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or
agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the
act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the Section 31. Admission by privies. — Where one derives title to property from another, the
party. (26a) act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is
evidence against the former. (28)
Requisites for Admissibility:
What are privies?
First, that the partnership, agency, or joint interest is proven by evidence other than o Are persons who are partakers or have an interest in the any action or thing, or any
the act or declaration sought to be admitted; relation to another
o Pertains not only to succession in right of heirship or testamentary legacy, but also
Second, that the admission is within the scope of the partnership, agency, or joint by virtue of acts inter vivos such as assignment, subrogation, or purchase
interests
Requisites in order that the admissions of predecessor-in-interest be admissible against
Third, that the admission was made while the agency, partnership, or joint interest the successor-in-interest:
was in existence. 1. FIRST: there must be an act, declaration or omission by a predecessor in interest
2. SECOND: the act, declaration or omission of the predecessor must have occurred
while he was holding the title to the property
RULE 130 SECTION 30 – ADMISSION BY CONSPIRATOR 3. THIRD: the act, omission or declaration, must be in relations to property
Section 30. Admission by conspirator. — The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to o the property must still be holding title to the property when he made such act,
the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator declaration or omission. Otherwise, the general rule of res alios inter acta will apply.
after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.
Requisites for admissibility: Extrajudicial confessions, independently made without collusion, which are identical with
each other in their essential details and are corroborated by other evidence on record, are
First, that the conspiracy is first proven by evidence other than the admission itself; admissible as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated to show the probability of
the latter's actual participation in the commission of the crime. As this Court has said:
Second, that the admission relates to the common object;
While confession of a coconspirator are not ordinarily admissible as evidence
Third, that it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the against another coconspirator, the fact that they implicate the latter and were made
conspiracy soon after the commission of the crime, is circumstantial evidence to show the
probability of their coconspirator having actually participated therein.
Conspiracy, defined. The commission of the crime was attended by treachery. The act of the accused in suddenly
o Exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission rushing towards the victim, then two of them, each holding the hands of the victim, and the
of a felony and decide to commit it. third of them stabbed the victim, is characterized by treachery insuring the accomplishment of
o Once the conspiracy is proven the act of one is the act of all. Hence, an their purpose without risk to themselves from any defense or retaliation the victim might offer.
exception to the res inter alios acta rule.
The conspiracy among the accused is evident and equally proven. Their acts collectively and
individually executed have clearly demonstrated the existence of a common design towards
Second, the confessions of appellant Arcadio Puesca (Exhibit "L"), appellant Magno Montaño Requisites for admissibility:
(Exhibit "Q") and appellant Jose Gustilo (Exhibit "R") admit their participation in the 1. he heard and understood the statement;
commission of the crime at the house of Macias (pp. 924992, 9881133, t.s.n.). The confession 2. he was at liberty to interpose a denial;
of Jose Gustilo, however, was the only one which was unsigned as he afterwards refused to 3. that the statement was in respect to some matter affecting his rights or in which he
affix his signature thereto; but his confession was tape recorded and from the replay of the was then interested, and calling naturally for an answer
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 49
4. that the facts are within his knowledge; and i. Are those made in conformity with the law before a court in the
5. that the fact admitted or the influence to be drawn from his silence would be course of legal proceedings
material to the issue. b. Extrajudicial- those made by a party elsewhere other than before a court
c. When an extrajudicial confession is repeated in court, it is converted
into a judicial confession.
1. US vs. Bay – 27 P 495
B. How done (without reference to admissibility, definition only)
In a prosecution for rape it appears that a party, having been attracted by the cries of the
alleged offended party, wne tot the scene of the crim, and that one of them, seeing the 1. Implied Confession
defendant, got up form the alleged place where the woman claimed the crime was committed, o Where the defendant, in a case not capital, does not plead guilty but indirectly
and asked, “What is this?” and the defendant made no explanation of his conduct or his admits his guilt by placing himself at the mercy of the court and asking for a
presence there, and left the place fortwith. light sentence
o Nature of plea bargaining inasmuch as confession is already express and
Held: the unexplained silence of a man surprised in company with a woman by whom he is direct, never implied.
there and then charged with rape, under circumstance which would naturally call for an
indignant denial of such a charge by an innocent man, is evidence tending to establish the guilt 2. Indirect confession
of the crime thus charged. o One inferred from the counsel of the defendant
In criminal cases:
o Acknowledgment in express words by the accused of the truth of the offense RULE 130 SECTION 43. ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OR THE
charges, or of some essential part thereof. BUSINESS RECORDS RULE
o Voluntary statement made by a person charged with the commission of the crime or
misdemeanor, communicated to another person wherein he acknowledges himself to Section 43. Entries in the course of business. — Entries made at, or near the time of
be guilty of the offense charged, and discloses the circumstances of the act or thr transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a
share and participation which he had in it position to know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such
person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the
In civil procedure: ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
o a formal admission of some allegations made by the other side.
Reasons for Admissibility:
Classification of Confessions:
They were made in the course of the business and part of the res gestae
A. When made: Necessity: they are the best available evidence
a. Judicial o When the entrant cannot be had, to testify in court, a necessity arises to
take such other evidence from him as his entries supply
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 50
Reliability and trustworthiness: the habit and system of making regular entries for independent evidence only when
business purposes produces usually a correct statement by the very trouble and the enterer had personal
difficulty of making false statement frequently, and by the usual absence of motive knowledge of the facts entered,
to do so. and when it is his duty to inform
o An erroneous entry, if made, is likely to be detected and disputed by the himself of the truth of the
associates or customers of the entrant matters he had undertaken to
o When the entry is by a clerk or agent, his responsibility to his superior record
produces additional caution (6) there must be more than one entry Entries must be a part of a series of entries
or reports, not casual or isolated; not
Requisites of Admissibility: sporadic, and out of usual order in which
the transactions o f the business are
Requisite Discussion recorded; why? Regularity of the record
(1) the person who made the entry must be may be evidenced by the inspection and
dead or is unable to testify the fulfillment of this requirement
(2) the entrant made the entries in his made the entries in his
professional capacity or duty professional capacity, regular
duty, or special duty enjoined by Will the Best Evidence Rule and/or parol evidence find application in this case?
law, or other regular and Yes.
ordinary duties
there must have been a special Other Notes:
duty devolving upon the entrant Rules on Electronic evidence also expressly exempt business records from the
to make the entries that are application of the hearsay rule
sought to be introduced
e.g. of not regular, hence, not admissibile:
saloon keeper entered in his books items What is the probative value?
for games and corn and money; private Creates a prima facie evidence of the fact stated therein
diary of the employee about the Considered as the truth on face value unless otherwise proven to be untrue
circumstances on such; bookkeeping But may still be questioned by putting in issue the veracity and the truth of the facts
entries by the treasurer which do not come o Or other points showing that the entry was wrong
within his authority
(3) the entries were made in the ordinary Entries must be in the way of business
course of business or duty Defined to mean a course of transactions RULE 130 SECTION 44 – ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
performed in one’s habitual relations with
others and as a natural part of one’s mode Section 44. Entries in official records. — Entries in official records made in the performance
of obtaining livelihood of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty
No reference as to the type of business or specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
occupation done; but refers to the act of
“keeping records” as part of the business Reason for Admissibility
operations
(4) the entries were made at or near the Records are made contemporaneously with Necessity
time of the transaction to which it relates the transactions and assures a fairly Litigations are unlimited in which the testimony of public officials would be daily
(before the controversy arose) accurate recollection of the matter as well needed
as trustworthiness If there is no exception for official statements, hosts of officials would be found
devoting the greater part attending as witness in court and delivering their
Hence, entries made by a party after the depositions
rights of an opposite party had already Their work will suffer
accrued, after the dispute has arisen, or an
action begun, are inadmissible
(5) the entrant must be in a position to Why? “competency of the entrant”
know the facts stated therein entry is competent as an original Trustworthiness
1 Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
st
51
the law reposes a particular confidence upon public officers that it presumes they
will discharge their duties with accuracy and fidelity
1. People vs. Bernaldez – 294 S 317
Issue: was the trial court correct in convicting the accused appellant?
Hence, the present action by the petitioner arguing that his constitutional rights are being
Ruling: Yes. violated for his continued detention without the valid copies of the judgment convicting him.
In relation to the arguments and our topic: What is the significance of the said documents
presented by the prosecution? Issue: was there sufficient evidence showing his conviction and thereby justifyinghis
continued incarceration?
The death certificate and the notes issued by Dr. Santos after his external examination of the
body of the victim establish the cause of death of the deceased contrary to the contention of Ruling: Yes.
the appellant.
Based on the records and the hearing conducted by the trial court, there is sufficient evidence
In this jurisdiction such death certificate and notes issued by said municipal health on record to establish the fact of conviction of petitioner which serves as the legal basis for his
officer in the regular performance of his duty are prima facie evidence of the cause of detention. Petitioner made judicial admissions, both verbal and written, that he was charged
death of the victim. with and convicted of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment “habang buhay.”
(1) The records contain a certified true copy of the Monthly Report dated January
198519 of then Judge Rosalio A. De Leon, attesting to the fact that petitioner was
5. Feria vs. CA – 325 S 525 convicted of the crime of Robbery with Homicide on January 11, 1985.
a. Such Monthly Report constitutes an entry in official records under
Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, which is prima
Facts: facie evidence of facts therein stated.
(1) Petitioner Norberto Feria y Pacquing has been under detention since May 21, 1981,
up to present by reason of his conviction of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, in Other bases that the court used to prove the existence of conviction:
Criminal Case No. 60677, by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2, for the
jeepney holdup and killing of United States Peace Corps Volunteer Margaret A. Admissions:
Viviene Carmona.
(2) However, it was later on discovered that the files and records of the petitioner in
relation to his charge and his conviction of the robbery (information, commitment
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 54
“During the trial and on manifestation and arguments made by the accused, his learned
counsel and Solicitor Alexander G. Gesmundo who appeared for the respondents, it appears
clear and indubitable that:
(A) Petitioner had been charged with Robbery with Homicide in Criminal Case No.
60677, Illegal Possession of Firearm in Criminal Case No. 60678 and Robbery
in Band in Criminal Case No. 60867. . . . In Criminal Case No. 60677 (Robbery
with Homicide) the accused admitted in open Court that a decision was read to
him in open Court by a personnel of the respondent Court (RTC Branch II)
sentencing him to Life Imprisonment (Habang buhay) . . .”
Petitioner’s declarations as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him under
Section 23 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
B. Hearsay
Public respondents likewise presented a certified true copy of People’s Journal dated January
18, 1985, page 2,20 issued by the National Library, containing a short news article that
petitioner was convicted of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and was sentenced to “life
imprisonment.”
However, newspaper articles amount to “hearsay evidence, twice removed” and are therefore
not only inadmissible but without any probative value at all whether objected to or not, unless
offered for a purpose other than proving the truth of the matter asserted. In this case, the news
article is admissible only as evidence that such publication does exist with the tenor of the
news therein stated.
Section 45. Commercial Lists and the Like. Evidence of statements of matters of interest to Section 46. Learned treatises. — A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of
persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published history, law, science, or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein
compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter as stated if that if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of
compilation is published for use by person engaged in that occupation and is generally used the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling
and relied upon by them therein. as expert in the subject.
Necessity Necessity
The usual unavailability of the persons who make the final compilation on the basis it is extremely inconvenient and costly to produce qualified expert witness regarding
of personal knowledge make it tremendously inconvenient the matter subject of the publication
Trustworthiness o an ordinary witness, is perhaps the larger proportion of the topics upon
Authors of the said compilations have no motive to deceive, and they further realize which he may questioned, has not a knowledge derived from personal
that unless their lists registers, and reports are prepared with care and accuracy, their observation. He virtually reproduced the conclusions of others which he
work will have no commercial or professional value accepts on authority of the eminent names responsible for them.
Trustworthiness
Take note of the requisites for exception to the hearsay rule be applied: the writer publishes for his profession and he knows that this publications are subject
1. they are made by person engaged in that occupation to careful professional ciritiscm and is open ultimately to certain refutation if not
2. they are generally used and replied upon by them well founded
3. those lists and reports are published his reputation is based on the correctness of his data and the validity of his
conclusions
Example: history books, and published findings of scientists; almanacs; encyclopedia; tide
tables, etc.
A. Former Case
Any former judicial proceedings (not legislative or administrative proceedings) (1) Nelly Lim vs. CA, Judge Victorio of RTC of Pangasinan, and Juan Lim – 214 S
273
B. Same Parties
The rule is already satisfied if the subsequent proceedings is between persons who Facts:
represent the parties to the proceeding by privity in law, blood, or estate 10. petitioner Nelly Lim and Juan Lim were lawfully married to each other.
11. petition for annulment: the Juan Lim then filed a petition for annulment of their
C. Relates to the Same Matter marriage on the ground that his wife, the petitioner, was suffering from schizophrenia
“before, during, and after the celevration of the marriage, and until the present”
D. the Adverse party had an opportunity to cross examine 12. the expert witness: during the trial, the private respondent presented 3 witnesses, among
them was Dra. Acampado who is a Medical Specialist II and in-charge of the Female
As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or give opinions. It is
the court’s duty to draw conclusions from the evidence and form opinions upon the facts
proved. (3) Nelly Lim vs. CA, Judge Victorio of RTC of Pangasinan, and Juan Lim – 214 S
273
However, conclusions and opinions of witnesses are received in many cases, and are not
confined to expert testimony, based on the principle that either because of the special skill or
expert knowledge of the witness, or because of the nature of the subject matter under Facts:
observation, or for other reasons, the testimony will aid the court in reaching a judgment. 19. petitioner Nelly Lim and Juan Lim were lawfully married to each other.
20. petition for annulment: the Juan Lim then filed a petition for annulment of their
marriage on the ground that his wife, the petitioner, was suffering from schizophrenia
In the case at bar, the trial court arrived at its conclusions not only with the aid of the expert “before, during, and after the celevration of the marriage, and until the present”
testimony of doctors who gave their opinions as to the possible cause of the victim’s
21. the expert witness: during the trial, the private respondent presented 3 witnesses, among
laceration, but also the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses, especially the victim
herself. In other words, the trial court did not rely solely on the testimony of the expert them was Dra. Acampado who is a Medical Specialist II and in-charge of the Female
witnesses. Such expert testimony merely aided the trial court in the exercise of its Service of the National Center for Mental Health a fellow of the Philippine Psychiatrist
judgment on the facts. Hence, the fact that the experts enumerated various possible Association and a Diplomate of the Philippine Board of Psychiatrists. She was
causes of the victim’s laceration does not mean that the trial court’s inference is wrong. summoned as an expert witness. However, she also happened to be the attending
psychiatrist of the petitioner Nelly Lim.
22. Motion to quash subpoena and suspend proceedings: the counsel of the petitioner then
filed a motion to quash subpoena to be issued for Dra. Acampado so that she may not be
allowed to appear as a witness in court.
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 59
23. During the hearing for the motion: Otherwise stated, her expert opinion excluded whatever information or knowledge she had
a. Argument of the petitioner: Dra. Acampado is barred from testifying under about the petitioner which was acquired by reason of the physician-patient relationship
the rule on the confidentiality of a physician-patient relationship existing between them. As an expert witness, her testimony before the trial court cannot then
b. Argument of respondent: Dra. Acampado is appearing as an expert witness be excluded. The rule on this point is summarized as follows:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
and would not be testifying on any information acquired while attending to her
patient Nelly Lim in her professional capacity. "The predominating view, with some scant authority otherwise, is that the statutory physician-
24. Denial of the motion by the RTC Judge: the trial court judge denied the motion and patient privilege, though duly claimed, is not violated by permitting a physician to give expert
stated in his order that: “the respondent’s motion [is denied] and forthwith allowed Dr. opinion testimony in response to a strictly hypothetical question in a lawsuit involving the
Acampado to testify. However, the Court advised counsel for respondent to interpose his physical mental condition of a patient whom he has attended professionally, where his opinion
objection once it becomes apparent that the testimony sought to be elicited is covered by is based strictly upon the hypothetical facts stated, excluding and disregarding any personal
the privileged communication rule. professional knowledge he may have concerning such patient. But in order to avoid the bar of
25. Dra. Acampado then took the witness stand and it was established by the RTC and the the physician-patient privilege where it is asserted in such a case, the physician must base his
CA that Dra. Acampado was qualified by counsel for private respondent as an expert opinion solely upon the facts hypothesized in the question, excluding from consideration his
witness and was asked hypothetical questions related to her field of expertise. She neither personal knowledge of the patient acquired through the physician and patient relationship. If
revealed the illness she examined and treated the petitioner for nor disclosed the results he cannot or does not exclude from consideration his personal professional knowledge of the
of her examination and the medicines she had prescribed. patient’s condition he should not be permitted to testify as to his expert opinion."
26. The CA upheld the decision of the RTC Judge in allowing the testimony of the Dra.
Acampado when the petitioner filed before the said court a petition for certiorari and
prohibition to nullify the order denying the motion to exclude Dra. Acampado. It stated that:
a. First, the petitioner failed to establish the confidential nature of the testimony of Dra. (4) People vs. Galleno – 291 S 762
Acampado
b. Secondly, the statements that Dra. Acampado gave do not fall within the realm of
privileged communication because the information she disclosed were not obtained from Facts:
the patient while attending her in her professional capacity and neither where the (5) the accused appellant Galleno was charged with the crime of Statutory Rape of the 5 year
information necessary to enable the physicial to prescribe or give treatment of the patient old child Evelyn Obligar Garganera.
Nelly Lim. And neither does the information obtained from the physician tend to blacken (6) During the trial, several witnesses were presented:
the character of the patient or bring disgrace to her or invite reproach. a. Evelyn Obligar who testified that when Galleno, a friend of their family and
27. Hence, the present action by the petitioner Nelly Lim. neighbor, visited their house, he made her sit on his lap facing him. When she
was already sitting on his lap, he inserted his penis in his vagina.
Issue: May Dr. Acampado be a witness for the respondent Juan Lim? i. That this caused lacerations and bleeding. She needed medical
attention.
Ruling: Yes. As an expert witness. b. This is what is important: Three medical doctors who were able to examine
the victim Evelyn were also presented. They were the doctors to whom the
Our careful evaluation of the submitted pleadings leads Us to no other course of action but to parents of Evelyn brought her to treat her bleeding.
agree with the respondent Court’s observation that the petitioner failed to discharge that i. Dr. Alfonso D. Orosco, the Rural Health Physician of Maayon,
burden. Capiz stated that: Evelyn’s vaginal laceration could have been
caused by a blunt instrument inserted into the vagina, that it was
In the first place, Dr. Acampado was presented and qualified as an expert witness. As correctly possible that a human penis in full erection had been forcibly inserted
held by the Court of Appeals, she did not disclose anything obtained in the course of her into her vagina, and that a human penis in full erection is considered
examination, interview and treatment of the petitioner; moreover, the facts and conditions a blunt instrument.
alleged in the hypothetical problem did not refer to and had no bearing on whatever ii. Dr. Ma. Lourdes Lañada of the Roxas General Hospital stated
information or findings the doctor obtained while attending to the patient. There is, as well, no that: that “there was a 3 cm. lacerated wound at the left anterior one-
showing that Dr. Acampado’s answers to the questions propounded to her relating to the third of the vagina” and “the presence of about 1015 cc of blood” at
hypothetical problem were influenced by the information obtained from the petitioner. the vaginal vault. Dr. Lañada recommended that Evelyn be admitted
Issue: what is the significance of the testimonies of the three doctors? Are they
admissible? What is their evidentiary weight?
Ruling: They are admissible and sufficiently support the finding of guilt of the accused
appellant.
As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or give opinions. It is
the court’s duty to draw conclusions from the evidence and form opinions upon the facts
proved.
However, conclusions and opinions of witnesses are received in many cases, and are not
confined to expert testimony, based on the principle that either because of the special skill or
Three things must concur in order for the opinion of the expert witness be admissible in court: Mode of Examining an Expert witness
1. Subject Matter: the subject under consideration must be one that requires that the o The expert need not have personal observation on the data on which his opinion
court has the aid of knowledge or experience of an expert which men not especially is to be based
skilled do not have, and such therefore cannot be obtained from ordinary witness; o It is possible that the expert is stated with the data hypothetically, so that the
Experts may give their opinions and inference upon questions of court may be able to reject his opinion later if he does not accept the data that
science, skill or trade, or other of the like kind, or when the subject were his basis and for the parties to be able to dispute the said data
matter of the inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely
to prove and are incapable of forming a correct judgment upon it
without assistance, order to attain knowledge of it Probative Value of the Opinion of the Expert Witness
Are not admissible when the inquiry is into a subject matter, the o Although meriting consideration, it is not conclusive, and must be weighed in
nature of which is not as to require any peculiar habits or study, in relation to other proofs presented
order to qualify a man to understand o The Court is not bound by the opinion of an expert and ordinarily not conclusive
Example: in a case for annulment under Art. 36 of the Family Code, o The probative force of the testimony of the expert does not lie in a mere statement of
the courts must consider as decisive evience the expert opinion of the his theory or opinion, but rather in the aid that he can render to the courts in
psychological and mental temperaments of the parties; in identifying showing the facts which serve as a basis for his criterion and the reasons upon which
the blood stains in the clothing of the accused, a medical expert is the logic of his conclusions is founded
necessary for such; expert testimony as to the identity of t fingerprint o Like any other testimony, in the light of the judge’s general knowledge and
is admissible because the method of identification of fingerprints is a experience on the subject of the inquiry, it will be weighed especially when there are
science requiring close study conflicting expert opinions
2. An Expert: the witness called as an expert must posses the knowledge, skill or
experience needed to inform the court in the particular case under consideration; For example, cases of forgery will not depend entirely on the expert opinion of a
Before a witness is presented as an expert can be asked to give any handwriting expert, and in fact, not indispensable
opinion on the subject matter of the inquiry, his qualification as an
expert must first be shown and he may then state the facts showing
his requisite knowledge and skill. Case 1. Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc. vs. William Lines, Inc. – 306 S 762
upon such a question, the expert may testify not only as to the facts
but also to his conclusions based on the facts because the court is Parties of this case:
without knowledge necessary to enable it to draw the conclusion for o Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works (Cebu Shipyard) is a domestic corporation
itself without aid engaged in the business of dry docking and repairing of marine vessels
not limited to classified and special profession but is admissible o William Lines, the plaintiff, is the owners of the Vessel M/V Manila City
wherever peculiar skill and judgment applied to a particular subject o The private respondent Prudential is the insurer of William Lines who is the
are required to explain the result by tracing them to their causes subrogee
there exists no test in determining such, but the court considers an
expert a person who in the opinion of the court has a special 1. William Lines contracted with Cebu Shipyard for the repairs to be done on the
acquaintance with the immediate line of inquiry; yet he need not be vessel M/V Manila City.
thoroughly acquainted with the differentia of the specific under
consideration
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 62
2. After the major repairs were done, it was then transferred from Cebu Shipyard’s testimonies. If from the facts and evidence on record, a conclusion is readily ascertainable,
grave dock to the docking quay where the remaining repair to be done was the there is no need for the judge to resort to expert opinion evidence.
replating of the top of Water Ballast No. 12. Such was done by JNB General
Services, the subcontractor of Cebu Shipyard for the said repair and cleaning. In the case under consideration, the testimonies of the fire experts were not the only
a. At such time, the crew of MV Manila employed by William Lines were available evidence on the probable cause and origin of the fire. There were witnesses who
using the accommodations in the vessel were actually on board the vessel when the fire occurred. Between the testimonies of the
3. During the cleaning of Tank Top No. 12 where there cleaners were, a fire broke out fire experts who merely based their findings and opinions on interviews and the
and ultimately causing the destruction and the sinking of the said vessel. testimonies of those present during the fire, the latter are of more probative value.
4. Hence, William Lines filed a complaint against Cebu Shipyard for complaint for Verily, the trial court and the Court of Appeals did not err in giving more weight to said
damages against CSEW, alleging that the fire which broke out in M/V Manila City testimonies.
was caused by CSEW’s negligence and lack of care.
5. During the trial of the case, Cebu Shipyard introduced expert witnesses Messrs,
David Grey and Gregory Southeard, fire experts, for the probable origin of the
fire in MV Manila City.
a. the said fire experts were one in their opinion that the fire did not
originate in the area of Tank Top No. 12 where the JNB workers were
doing hotworks but on the crew accommodation cabins on the portside
No. 2 deck.
6. The trial court rendered a decision against Cebu Shipyard and this was upheld by the
CA.
7. Hence, the present action by the petitioner arguing among all others that the lower
courts were wrong in disregarding that testimonies of the expert witness in showing
the origin of the fire and the negligence of the crew members of MV Manila City.
The said courts should have given weight to the said testimonies in its decision.
Issue: What is the significance of the expert testimonies of the fire experts?
Courts are not bound by the testimonies of expert witnesses. Although they may have
probative value, reception in evidence of expert testimonies is within the discretion of the
court. Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, provides:
SEC. 49. Opinion of expert witness.—The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess, may be received in
evidence.
The word “may” signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness as evidence is a
prerogative of the courts. It is never mandatory for judges to give substantial weight to expert
Definition:
o Character is the aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to and distinguish an 1. Accused proving his good moral character pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged
individual person; it refers to what a man is depends on the attributes he possesses
o Must be differentiated with reputation because such is the dependent on the view of
the others as to the qualities he possesses.
Reason for allowing the Rule:
o Character is what the person really is and reputation is what the person based on
o The defendant’s character showing the probability of his doing or not the act
others
charged, is essentially relevant
o Hence. The defendant may give evidence as to his good moral character to
evidence the improbability of his doing of the act charged, unless there is
SECTION 51. Character Evidence not generally admissible; exceptions —
some collateral reason for exclusion
o Affords the presumption against the commission of a crime; and
a) In Criminal Cases:
strengthens the presumption of innocence
1. the accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral
trait involved in the offense charged.
Weight:
2. Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which
o The influence of good moral character of the accused as evidence in criminal cases
is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged;
3. The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends depends upon the nature and circumstances of the crime charged and upon the
to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the probative force of the proof presented as to the circumstances of the crime charged
offense charged. and upon the probative force of the proof presented as to the guilt of the accused;
o For example, if the crime charged is one which involves cool deliberation and
b) In Civil Cases. Evidence of Good moral character of a party in a civil case is involved in the common and daily life of the accused, the same is strong; but when
admissible only when the issue of pertinent character is involved in the case. the crime is unusual that it must have been induced by motives not frequently
c) The character of Witnesses- in the case provided or in Rule 132, Section 14. operating on the accused’s mind, good character as an evidence is weak. Another
Two issues to be resolved in relation to character evidence: (W) example is that when the evidence of the crime is clear and convincing, character
evidence will not be of use
2. Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral
character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the b) In Civil Cases. Evidence of Good moral character of a party
offense charged; in a civil case is admissible only when the issue of pertinent
character is involved in the case.
o “character involved in the issue” is a technical expression, which does not mean
The Prosecution is not allowed to initially attack the character of the accused Except simply that the character may be affected by the result, but that it is of a particular
when (concurrence of both): importance in the suit itself, as the character of the plaintiff in an action for slander
or that of a woman in an action for seduction
Reason for the rule: to prevent the prejudice that may be caused by the showing of bad o example:
character 1. action for defamation: bad reputation and character of the plaintiff would entitle
the plaintiff for lesser damages
First: it is in rebuttal 2. action for breach of promise to marry or alienation of affection: the plaintiff’s
o the purpose is to refute the claim that he accused has good character and thus to dissolute character may lessen entitlement to damages
prevent the court from drawing therefrom the inference that the accused is innocent 3. prosecution for keeping a bawdy-house or gambling house- reputation of the
of the crime charged house is the actual issue
4. in a case for seduction- the reputation and character of the woman is an issue
Second: when it is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charge
o having reference and analogy to the moral trait involved in the crime charged
o for example, the defendant’s character for truth is irrelevant in a case for attempted
murder
o character of the offended party may only be proved if it tends to establish the
probability or the improbability of the offense charged
o must be related to the traits and characteristics involved in the crime
charged
Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence Note that a negative allegation does not have to be proven unless the same is an essential
Never shifts and it remains exactly shifts to one party when the other has part of the cause of action or defense.
throughout the entire case exactly where produced sufficient evidence to be entitled However, in civil cases, even if a negative allegation is an essential
the pleadings (complaint and answer) as a matter of law to a ruling in his favor part of the defense, such does not have to be proven if it is only for
placed it the purpose of denying the existence of a document which would
Civil cases – The burden is on the party Both civil and criminal cases – The burden properly be in the custody of the adverse party.
who would be defeated if no evidence were lies with the party who asserts an If the criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation or that a
given on either side. Criminal cases – The affirmative allegation. negative averment is an essential element of the crime - the
burden is always on the prosecution. prosecution has the burden of proving the charge.
The burden of proof does not shift as it The burden of evidence shifts from party to Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof, or
remains throughout the trial with the party party depending on the exigencies of the where the facts are more immediately within the knowledge of the
upon whom it is imposed. case in the course of the trial. accused, the onus probandi rests on him.
The burden of proof is generally The burden of evidence is generally
determined by the pleading filed by the determined by the developments of the
party. trial or by provisions of law. B. Burden of proof in Criminal Cases
Test for determining who has the burden of proof: The accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
1. Lies on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue Hence, the prosecution shall have the onus probandi of establishing the guilt of the
accused
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 66
4. NLRC: modified. Fredelito was declared an employee and shares in the commission and
separation pay awarded to Pedro; JJ’s and Jimenez are jointly and severally liable to pay
The Doctrine of Equipoise or Equiponderance Doctrine complainants their unpaid commissions (P84,387.05).
o Refers to the situation where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, or there
is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates (or weighs heavily). In this case ISSUE: WON NLRC correctly ruled that private respondents were not paid their commissions
the decision should be against the party with the burden of proof in full.
o Hence, where the burden of proof is with the plaintiff and the evidence does not
suggest that the scale of justivce should weigh in his favor, the court should render a RULING: YES. NLRC correctly ruled that the entire amount of commissions was not
verdict for the defendant paid.
o In a criminal case, where the evidence is evenly balanced, the Reason: evident failure of herein petitioners to present evidence that full
constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the payment thereof has been made
accused
o Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation. Since the
which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts an affirmative allegation, the plaintiff or
proof fails upon that issue (Rivera v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. complainant has to prove his affirmative allegations in the complaint and the defendant or
115625, January 23, 1998). respondent has to prove the affirmative allegations in his affirmative defenses and
o Finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of counterclaim. Considering that petitioners herein assert that the disputed commissions have
two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with then innocence been paid, they have the bounden duty to prove that fact.
of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence
does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even where the
certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction (Bernardino v. plaintiff must allege nonpayment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the
People, 2006). defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove nonpayment. The
debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been
discharged by payment. When the existence of a debt is fully established by the evidence
contained in the record, the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by payment
1. Jimenez vs. NLRC – 256 S 84 devolves upon the debtor who offers such a defense to the claim of the creditor. Where the
debtor introduces some evidence of payment, the burden of going forward with the
evidence—as distinct from the general burden of proof—shifts to the creditor, who is
FACTS: then under a duty of producing some evidence to show nonpayment.
1. Private respondents Pedro and Fredelito Juanatas, father and son, filed a claim for unpaid
wages/commissions, separation pay and damages against petitioners JJ’s Trucking and/or Although private respondents admit receipt of partial payment, petitioners still have to present
Dr. Jimenez. proof of full payment. Where the defendant sued for a debt admits that the debt was originally
Alleged that they were hired by Jimenez as driver/mechanic and helper, respectively, owed, and pleads payment in whole or in part, it is incumbent upon him to prove such
in JJ’s Trucking, where they were assigned to a 10-wheeler truck to haul Coca-cola payment. That a plaintiff admits that some payments have been made does not change the
soft drinks and paid on commission basis, initially at 17% later increased to 20%. burden of proof. The defendant still has the burden of establishing payments beyond
That they received only partial commission (P84k) from JJ’s total gross income of those admitted by plaintiff.
almost P1M for 2 years. Consequently, there was unpaid balance of P106,211.86
2. Jimenez and JJ’s contend: In this case, petitioners failed to present evidence to prove payment.
that Fredelito was not an employee of the firm but was merely a helper of his father;
that all commissions were duly paid;
that the truck driven by Pedro was sold to a third person, therefore, they were not
illegally dismissed. 2. Mallari vs. CA – 265 S 456
3. Labor Arbiter: ordered JJ’s and Jimenez to pay jointly and severally Pedro Juanatas a
separation pay. Complaint of Fredelito was dimissed for lack of merit. Facts:
Hence, the present action by the appellant arguing, among all others, that even
assuming that the handgun and ammunition had in fact been found in his possession, the
prosecution failed to prove that he had no license therefor and absent this essential
element of the crime of illegal possession of firearms, it was manifest error for the Court
of Appeals to uphold his conviction. In other words, the prosecution failed to discharge
its burden of proving that he did not have the requisite license for the firearm and
ammunition found in his possession.
On the other hand, it is the position of the SOLGEN that as the firearm involved is a
homemade gun or "paltik" and is illegal per se. It could not have been the subject of license.
This, according to the Solicitor General, dispenses with the necessity of proving that petitioner
had no license to possess the firearm. Hence, it does not even attempt to show evidence on
record of petitioner's nonpossession of a license or permit for there really is no such evidence.
Issue: Who has the burden of proving that the appellant has no license?
In criminal prosecutions, the prosecution has the burden of proving all of the elements, even if
they are in the negative.
In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution has the burden of proving the
elements thereof, viz:
(a) the existence of the subject firearm and
(b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the
corresponding license or permit to possess the same.
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
o the ROC sufficiently protects the lessor from being questioned by the lessee, (a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
regarding his title or better right of possession as lessor because having admitted
the existence of lessor and lessee relationship, the lessee is barred from assailing it is presumed that a person in innocent of a crime or wrong
the lessor’s title of better right of possession it is applicable in criminal and civil cases
o for as long as the lessor-lessee relationship exists, the lessee cannot by any however, there is no constitutional objection to the passage of a law providing that the
proof, however strong, overturn the conclusive presumption that the lessor presumption of innocence may be overcome by a contrary presumption founded upon
has valid title or better right of possession human conduct
o it also applies even thought the lessor had no title at the time the relation
of the lessor and lessee was created
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
o why? Because the relationship between them is not dependent on the
ownership of the lessor but on the agreement between them
example: publication of defamatory matter was done with malice presumably
Example:
1. in an action for ejectment, the plaintiff is presumed to be the owner of the property (c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;
or that he at least, has the right to the possession, and he cannot be compelled, and
need not present evidence showing his ownership hence, where an accused inflicts injuries upon a person other than the one whom he
a. the tenant then cannot deny the title of his landlord at the time of the intended to injure, he is liable for the act and all its natural consequences
commencement of the relation
2. in an action brought by the Catholic Church against the priest who was out in (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
possession to administer the property, the latter is estopped from alleging ownership
at the time he took possession either to himself or in a third person
example, a person will not sell his land for 1/7 th of its value, and less thatn ½ of its
annual revenue unless the sale is intended to be made merely as a security
failure to produce books and records in his possession gives rise to the presumption
that they would be adverse if produced
failure of the prosecution to present evidence to refute testimony of appellant and his
witness, despite being able to do so because it had at its disposal the power to
compel production of adverse evidence necessarily constitutes an argument against
said prosecution
party’s fraud in preparation and presentation of his case, his fabrication and
suppression of evidence
production of fabricated documents
not applicable when: (People vs Naranja)
a. the evidence is at the disposal of both parties
b. the suppression is not willful
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 70
c. it is merely corroborative or cumulative it is to be presumed that the articles, goods, or chattels found in the store
d. suppression is an exercise of privilege of a corporation is owned by the corporation, not of any members thereof
e. failure to present witness listed in the information does not give rise to continued occupation and use of public land by a municipality gives
such presumption presumption that such is owned through a government grant in its favor
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
money, or the delivery of anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing
accordingly;
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or
wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things
elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
which a person possess, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the
court and passed upon by it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 71
raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators addressee as soon as it could have been transmitted to him in the ordinary
and passed upon by them; course of business
Provided that:
Where nothing appears in the record as to whether or not the accused was a. It is addressed properly
granted a preliminary investigation, it is presumed that the procedure b. It is mailed
prescribed by law had been observed
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the
(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular; absentee still lives, he is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of
succession.
Settlements of accounts are presumed to be correct
It is the duty of the contracting parties to learn and know the contents of The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till
the contract before signing and delivering it after an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an
absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the
estate among the heirs:
(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
(1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the 3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is
solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been deemed to have survived;
conceived during such marriage, even though it be born within the
three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage. 4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the
male is deemed to have survived, if the sex be the same, the older;
(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy . — There is no presumption of
succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of legitimacy of a child born after three hundred days following the dissolution of the marriage or
one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall the separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child
be considered to have died at the same time. (5a) must prove his allegation. (6)
a) Art. 1387 of the Civil Code: All contracts by virtue of which the debto alienates
property by gratuitous title are presumed to have been entered into in fraud of
creditors, when the donor did not reserve sufficient property to pay all debts
contracted before the donation.”
a. Also when there is alienation of property by onerous title made by a debtor
against whom some judgment has been rendered in any instance or some
writ of attachment has been issued . from the tenor of law, the decision or
arrangement need not refer to the property alienated and need not have
been obtained by the party seeking rescission
b) A judgment or final order against a person, redender by a tribunal of a foreign
country with jurisdiction to render said judgment is presumptive evidence of a right
as between parties and their successors-in-interest
a. Unless it be shown that: (a) there is want of jurisdiction; (b) want of notice
to the other party; (c) collusion; (d) fraud; (e) clear mistake of law or fact
c) Common carriers are presumed to be negligent and at fault when there is injury or
damage to passengers or goods
d) It is presumed that when a driver is in violation of a law, he is negligent
e) Res ipsa loquitur:
a. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of
someone’s negligence
b. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the
defendant or defendants
c. The possibility f contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff
responsible is eliminated
Ruling: Yes.
we find petitioner vicariously liable for the negligent act of Capt. Jusep. Under Article
2180 of the Civil Code an employer may be held solidarily liable for the negligent act of
his employee. Thus
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed in Article 2176 is demandable not only for ones own acts
or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
xxxxxxxxx
9. People vs. Simbulan – 214 S 537 – ARANETA “x x x, in the course of their testimonies, the Court was intently observing the
prosecution witnesses, particularly Sgt. Directo and Lt. Sindac, and the Court was
Abstract: a buy bust operation was done and the accused Simbulan and Suguui were impressed by their candidness and straightforward manner of testifying, which in the
eventually convicted by the courts for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. They were found mind of the Court indicated that they had testified truthfully. As a matter of fact, Lt.
guilty heavily based on the testimonies of the officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. Sindac, who is only 27 years (old) had impressed the Court that he is a professional
The accused questioned the credibility of the said officers, but the SC held the presumption of whose only concern is to do his job and to do it well. x x x.”11
regularity in the performance of their duties because of the absence of proof of evidence to the
contrary or having done so by improper motives.
hence, the present action of accused appellants, questioning mainly the credibility of the said
1. The Buy- Bust Operation: officers in giving their testimonies.
a. a male informant came to the office NARCOM and relayed to Lt. Reuben (di na na-specify sa case kung ano yung mga questions talag sabi lang, credibility of the
Sindac the information that NENE (Irene Simbulan) and ELVIE (Elvira witnesses, which is exactly why, natalo ang mga accused)
Sugui), herein accused, were engaged in the selling of shabu at
Masangkay St., Makati, Metro Manila. Issue: Was the lower court correct in giving more credence and weight to the testimony of the
b. Finding this information to be viable (to use his own word), Lt. Sindac officers?
submitted to Lt. Col. Raval of the NARCOM a preoperation report. Lt.
Col. Raval approved the said preoperation report and directed Lt. Sindac Ruling: Yes.
to constitute a team and conduct a buybust operation.
c. Upon reaching the house of NENE the informant knocked on the door and The narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses are worthy of credit. They are
when NENE opened the door and came out, he introduced Sgt. Directo as police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner,
a person wanting to buy shabu. there being no evidence to the contrary,and more so since there is nothing in the record
which would indicate that they were actuated by improper motives.
In the case at bar, we find nothing which would warrant deviation from the general rule.
ISSUE/S: WON accused-appellant, Mateo Baludda took part in the alleged sale or transport of
the subject marijuana.
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 82
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 83
Section 2: The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, including the questions propounded to
RULE 132 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE a witness and his answers thereto, the statements made by the judge or any of the parties,
counsel, or witnesses with reference to the case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand or
A. EXAMINITION OF WITNESSES stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable by the court.
I. Examination to be done in open court A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official stenographer, stenotypist, or
recorder and certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie correct statement of such
SECTION 1. The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in proceedings.
open court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or
question calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally.
RULE 132 SECTION 3 – RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS
GR: examination of witness should be done in open court (IN RELATION TO THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-
Excpt: testimonies, which need not be made in open court INCRIMINATION)
a) Under the Rules of Summary Procedure, the affidavits of the parties shall
constitute the direct testimonies of the witnesses Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. — A witness must answer questions,
b) Depositions need not be taken in open court and may be taken before a although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him. However, it is the right of a
notary public or before any person authorized to administer oaths witness:
When is it in open court? (1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or
The act done publicly in the presence of the judge and the other officers of insulting demeanor;
the court, as opposed to “in chambers”
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
Reason for the rule:
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;
To enable to the court to judge the credibility of the witness by the
witness’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, and their appearance
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless
otherwise provided by law; or
Must be made under oath or affirmation
Oath Affirmation
(6) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it to be the very
Any form o attestation by which a person Solemn and formal declaration or assertion fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a witness
signifies that he is bound in conscience to that the witness will tell the truth must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense.
perform an act faithfully and truthfully; substituting oath
outward pledge made in other rights:
Why? a) any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right
To affect the conscience and if he willfully falsifies the truth, he may be punished for to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
perjury counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of a
He will be barred if he refuses to take oath or affirmation counsel, he must be provided with one. There rights cannot be waived except in
writing and in the presence of a counsel.
General Rule: must be made orally b) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this shall be inadmissible in
EXCPT: evidence against him
witness in incapacitated to speak c) No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
question calls for a different mode of answer d) in all criminal proceedings, the defendant is entitled to be exempt from being a
witness against himself
Facts:
1. People vs. Salveron – 228 S 92
5. Appellant Malimit was charged with the special complex crime of robbery with
Facts: homicide of the victim Malaki.
1. Raul Salveron was shot to death inside a bus by a passenger who escaped and has 6. During trial, it was established by the accounts of the two witnesses Batin the home
not been arrested to date. A few weeks later, Jesus Dalida waskilled in his house cook of Malaki and by Rondon, a neighbor that:
under mysterious circumstances that have yet to be unraveled. Mauricio Dumangas a. One night of April 1999, when Malaki was attending to his store, Batid
was luckier: he too was attacked with apparent intent to kill but survived to accuse proceeded to the said store to ask if he was to prepare supper. Much to his
his attackers. surprise, he saw the appellant Malimit coming out of the store with a bolo,
2. The killing was imputed to the herein appellant, Henry Salveron, the son of the late
while his boss was bathing in his own blood on the floor.
Raul Salveron, in an information for murder filed against him and Federico Sadava.1
This is the case now before the Court. b. Rondon, who was outside and barely five (5) meters away from the store,
3. During the trial, the prosecution presented as a witness: also saw appellant Jose Malimit rushing out through the front door of
a. Captain Nicanorito Gomez, station commander of the Integrated National Malaki's store with a bloodstained bolo. Rondon clearly recognized
Police branch at Balasan, testified that after conducting an investigation of Malimit
the killing, he and his men went out to look for Salveron and Sadava and 7. Decision of the trial court: the trial court convicted Malimit with the special
were informed that they had gone to Camansi, Anilao, Iloilo, about 100 complex crime of robbery with homicide and was sentenced with the penalty of
kilometers away. The team proceeded to this place and there found the
two, who willingly went with them to the PC headquarters at Camp reclusion perpetua.
Delgado, Iloilo city.4 There, the suspects were subjected to a paraffin 8. Hence the present action by the appellant Malimit. Among all others to support his
test by Zenaida Sinfuego, a forensic chemist, who said she found them prayer for acquittal, he argues that the admission as evidence of the victim’s wallet
both positive for gunpowder residue. with its contents, and a bunch of keys violates his right against self- incrimination.
4. The defense pleaded alibi. According to Salveron his uncle Romeo Salveron fetched
him on March 21, 1986, so he could work at his farm in the town of Anilao as the
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 85
Issue: May the appellant invoke the right against self-incrimination to the admission of object RULE 132 SECTION 4 – ORDER IN THE EXAMINATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL
evidence? WITNESS
Ruling: No.
Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness. — The order in
which the individual witness may be examined is as follows;
The right against selfincrimination guaranteed under our fundamental law finds no application
in this case. It is simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the [accused]'s own (a) Direct examination by the proponent;
lips, against his will, admission of his guilt. It does not apply to the instant case where the (b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but an object evidence. (c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
Wigmore, discussing the question now before us in his treatise on evidence, thus, said: (d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent.
If, in other words (the rule) created inviolability not only for his [physical
(by the proponent) on behalf of the opponent to support the latter's
control of his] own vocal utterances, but also for his physical control in tand; it should cover all the facts which the party expects to elicit from
whatever form exercise, then, it would be possible for a guilty person to shut direct
direct the witness
examination
examination
himself up in his house, with all the tools and indicia of his crime, and defy
the authority of the law to employ in evidence anything that might be obtained (by the opponent) to weaken or discredit the testimony given on the
by forcibly overthrowing his possession and compelling the surrender of the direct examination; purpose is to bring the truth of the facts testified in
cross
cross
evidential articles — a clear reduction ad absurdum. In other words, it is not examination the first stage
examination
merely compulsion that is the kernel of the privilege, . . . but testimonial
compulsion
(by the proponent) to rebut the cross examination
re-direct
re-direct
Furthermore, the Miranda Rights will also not apply as to the admissibility of evidence as examination
examination
violations of Miranda rights will only have the effect of making the extrajudicial confession or
admissions during custodial investigation inadmissible. (by the opponent) to refute the matters disclosed in the direct
re-cross
re-cross examination
examination
examination
Hence, in the present case, even if indeed he was not informed of his rights, these
constitutional shortcuts do not affect the admissibility of Malaki's wallet, identification card,
residence certificate and keys for the purpose of establishing other facts relevant to the crime.
Thus, the wallet is admissible to establish the fact that it was the very wallet taken from Kinds of Examinations of Witnesses:
Malaki on the night of the robbery. The identification card, residence certificate and keys a. Direct Examination
found inside the wallet, on the other hand, are admissible to prove that the wallet really b. Cross Examination
belongs to Malaki. c. Re-direct examination
d. Re-cross examination
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that these pieces of evidence are inadmissible, the same Section 5. Direct examination. — Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of
will not detract from appellant's culpability considering the existence of other evidence and a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue.
circumstances establishing appellant's identity and guilt as perpetrator of the crime charged.
First. Direct Examination
Definition
This is the examination-in-chief of a witness by a party presenting hiom on the
facts relevant to the issue
Procedure for obtaining information from one’s own witness in an orderly
fashion
It is the information that the counsel wants the court to hear
This is also in accordance with Section 14 (2) of Art. III of the Constitution
which provides that the accused shall enjoy the right to meet the witnesses face to Fourth: Re-Cross Examination
face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of the witness and the
production of evidence ion his behalf
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 87
Section 8. Re-cross-examination. — Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the The case was reset on various dates but Mr. Kaplin failed to appear because he had left
adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination, for abroad.
and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. 5. the employee’s association filed a motion praying among all other that the testimony of
Mr. Joseph Kaplin be stricken from the records
Definition: 6. the CIR judge then dismissed the petition of the bus company and ordered the
This is the examination conducted upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination reinstatement of the driver Jacob to service.
The adverse party may question the witness on matters stated in his re-direct
examination and also on such matters as may be allowed by the court in its Hence, the present action by the herein petitioner arguing that The respondent court erred in
discretion dismissing the petition of the herein petitioner, after ordering the testimony of Joseph Kaplin
to be stricken off the record, notwithstanding the fact that the service records of Maximo
Scope: Jacob, upon the basis of which his dismissal could be justified were admitted by it.
Proper exclude
(1) matter which was opened upo on direct (1) matters which were not aopend up or Issue: Was the CIR correct in ordering that the testimony of Mr. Kaplin be stricken off record
examination brought out, on redirect examination because he was not cross examined?
(2) or as to a new mater which was (2) matters already fully covered, or
brought out on re-direct examination discussed at length on cross Ruling: Yes.
(3) or which is designed to test the examination
credibility of the witness or testimony (3) matters with respect to which the (1) “The right of a party to confront and crossexamine opposing witnesses in a judicial
elicited on re-direct examination wintess was examined on direct litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative
examination tribunals with quasi judicial powers, is fundamental right which is part of due process.”
(4) or as to which there was an (2) In the present case, Petitioner presented only one witness, Joseph Kaplin, to prove its
opportunity to cross examine him, case against driver Jacob. The witness failed however to appear at the scheduled hearings
where there is no claim of oversight, for his cross examination for the simple reason that he left for abroad. Having been
and there is no reason stated why the deprived, without fault on its part, of its right to crossexamine Kaplin, respondent
matter was not inquired into during association was entitled to have the direct testimony of the witness stricken off the record.
the cross examination proper (3) Why this rule? “Oral testimony may be taken into account only when it is complete,
B. that is, if the witness has been wholly crossexamined by the adverse party or the right to
crossexamine is lost wholly or in part thru the fault of such adverse party. But when
cross examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to
the party offering the witness, the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered
1. Bachrach Motors Co. Inc. vs. CIR – 86 S 27 incompetent.
Facts: Would not the documents presented which were admitted be enough?
1. In 1958, Bachrach Motor operated under the name Rural Motors.
In that year the Rural Transit Employees Association went on strike and the dispute Ruling: no.
between the management and the union reached the Court of Industrial Relations for
compulsory arbitration. The opposing party was still entitled to crossexamine the witness on the matters written on
2. While this labor dispute was pending with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) Exhibits “1” to “8F” especially if they adversely affected the substantial rights of the party
Bachrach filed a “Petition for Authority to discharge driver Maximo Jacob from the against whom they were being presented, namely, driver Maximo Jacob. When Atty. Santiago
service”, dated July 24, 1961. The reasons given for the petition were alleged violations admitted that the signature appearing in Exhibits “1” to “8 F” was that of witness Kaplin, the
of the Motor Vehicle Law by Maximo Jacob resulting in damage to property and injuries counsel of petitioner then, Atty. Joven Erurile, should have inquired if the party was admitting
to third parties. likewise the veracity of the contents of the documents; not having done so, petitioner must
3. The petition of Bachrach was heard on January 23, 1963, during which petitioner now suffer the consequences.
presented its one and only witness, Mr. Joseph Kaplin, general manager of Rural Transit,
and various documents marked as Exhibits “l” to “8F” inclusive. Mr. Kaplin testified on Inasmuch as the testimony of Joseph Kaplin is stricken off the record and the contents of
the contents of the said exhibits. Exhibits “1” to “8F” are hearsay, and there is no other evidence which substantiates the
4. After Mr. Kaplin concluded his direct testimony, with agreement of the parties, the charges against Maximo Jacob, the dismissal of the company’s petition to discharge Jacob
hearing was scheduled for another date for purposes of crossexamination of the witness. from its service is in order.
Hence, the present action arguing that the lower court erred in giving credence to the
testimony of complainant jocelyn ‘joy’ cadeliña considering that it is contrary to common
human knowledge and experience and this is highly improbable.
The issue of whether or not there was rape in this case was resolved through the SC’s
method of revisiting the direct and the cross examination of the complainant when she
was put into the witness stand. The SC deemed such as necessary because the credibility of
the complainant was being questioned.
Ruling: there was no rape. The accused not only was able to show their relationship and
consent to the sexual intercourse, but that the complainant witness herself, by her
testimonies during the cross examination, established such.
(1) we find enough evidence of the intimate relationship between the complainant and the
accused. On crossexamination, she admitted that the accused used to sleep in the unit of
the house which she rented from his mother.
(2) And, as further testified to by her on crossexamination, she declared that the accused
usually came to her rented unit every weekend since June 1991 and slept there despite
the fact that the house of his mother is only nearby.
(3) Also, her conduct during and after coitus unmistakably discloses absence of even token
resistance and betrays her consent to the sexual congress.
(4) In one salient portion of the crossexamination, we find her totally submissive in the face
of the assault against her most prized possession and unusually observant of the
preparatory acts of the accused and his eventual physiological and emotional
transformation in fulfilled libido.
Section 10. Leading and misleading questions. — A question which suggests to the witness When should it be raised?
the answer which the examining party desires is a leading question. It is not allowed, except: The question must be raised during the trial and the objection must be made
immediately after each suggestive question; failure to do such prevents the court
(a) On cross examination; from taking note the said issue
“Q Do you know the purpose of Carlos Gregorio in coming to your house? “Q And you?
“A Yes, sir. “A I was present.
Q: ‘ You are referring to the house of Carlos Gregorio? ‘Q “Q To kill Simeon Paez?
“A Yes, sir. “A Yes, sir.”
Xxx
“Q When you arrived at the house of Carlos Gregorio, who were with you? Issue: were the question of the prosecutor leading to the effect that the credibility of the
“A Carlos Gregorio, sir. testimony of the principal witness be questioned?
“Q Who were the persons, if any, that you have seen at the house of Carlos Gregorio? Ruling: Yes.
“A Eufemio Caparaz and Diamsay, sir. Xxx
Ratio: We are constrained to agree that the testimony of Laureano on the supposed conspiracy
“Q Now, when you arrived in that house, what happened? was elicited by means of leading questions, the probative value of which, according to
“A We talked regarding the landholding, sir. accepted legal authorities, is thus diminished or lessened.
“Q You said, ‘we’, to whom are you referring? “The probative value of a witness’ testimony is very much lessened where it is obtained by
“A Eufemio Caparaz, sir. leading questions which are so put that the witness merely assents to or dissents from a
statement or assertion of an examining consul put with such vocal inflection as to be a
“Q What did you talk about that landholding? question.”
“A Regarding the landholding which he said would be given to me. He said there is already
one.
“Q And what did you answer when this was said to you by Eufemio Caparaz?
“A I said, ‘if there is, I give thanks’, but he said that the land he was giving me had some
trouble.
but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, RULE 132 SECTION 12—PARTY MAY NOT IMPEACH HIS OWN WITNESS
(4) 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. Section 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. — Except with respect to witnesses
referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party producing a witness is not
allowed to impeach his credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon
Contradictory Evidence (see laying the predicate) adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having misled
the party into calling him to the witness stand.
How is this done?
Usually, fairness demands that the matter subject of the impeachment be brought The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party, may be
during the cross examination of the witness by allowing the witness to admit or deny impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse
a matter sued as the basis of impeachment party, except by evidence of his bad character. He may also be impeached and cross-examined
by the adverse party, but such cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his
And this declaration made by the witness is the basis of the introduction of the
examination-in-chief.
contradictory evidence
May also be used to contradict the conclusions of the expert witness by calling
another witness
Who may impeach a witness?
Note that this must be differentiated with the rule related to the accused introducing
evidence of his good character and the prohibition on the part of the accused to give
evidence of bad character unless as rebuttal by the prosecution
Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. — A witness may be allowed to
Except: in relation to his prior conviction of an offense through cross examination
refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or under his
and or by presenting the record of his prior conviction
direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time
when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew that the same was correctly written or
recorded; but in such case the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the
adverse party, who may, if he chooses, cross examine the witness upon it, and may read it in
evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such writing or record, 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.
RULE 132 SECTION 15. EXCLUSION AND SEPARATION OF WITNESS
Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. — On any trial or hearing, the 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. The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and
to be prevented from conversing with one another until all shall have been examined.
(a) The written official acts, or 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;
(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to the
entered therein.
1. Winnie C. Lucente and Alicia G. Domingo charged Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. with
gross misconduct, deceit, malpractice and crimes involving moral turpitude for falsification of In this connection, we have consistently held that notarization is not an empty, meaningless,
public documents. routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are
2. Complainants alleged that respondent is the son of the late Atty. Cleto Evangelista, who qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily
during his lifetime notarized the ff: requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon
the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general.
a) a Deed of Quitclaim executed by some people surnamed Tan in favour of two Yareds,
involving a Lot in Salvacion, Ormoc City; and
b) a Deed of Absolute Sale involving the same parties It must be underscored that the notarization by a notary public converts a private
document into a public document making that document admissible in evidence without
3. On January 30, 1990, respondent Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. issued certified true copies further proof of the authenticity thereof. For this reason, notaries public must observe
of the said instruments. with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
- On the basis of the certified true copies of the subject deeds, the Register of
Deeds of Ormoc City issued on February 2, 1990 TCT No. 23889 in favor of
Asuncion T. Yared. 4. Yturralde vs. Azurin – 28 S 407
4. it appears that the respondent of the administrative case Atty. Cleto Evangelista, Jr. issued
the certified certified true copes of the subject deeds which became the basus of the FACTS:
Registration. However, he was not the lawyer ho notarized the said deeds, and it was rather, 1. This involves a suit to annul a deed of donation inter vivos, covering 10 parcels of land in
the father who did the same. Antique, executed by Carmen Yturralde (plaintiff Cipriano Yturralde’s sister), in favor of
defendant Consuelo Azurin, which deed plaintiff himself (a minister of Phil. Independent
Church), signed as a witness and which his nephew Apolonio also signed as witness at
plaintiffs instance.
ISSUE/S: WON respondent Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. is guilty of gross misconduct, 2. Plaintiff’s claim is that the execution thereof is tainted with fraudulent
deceit, malpractice and crimes involving moral turpitude for falsification of public documents. misrepresentation – that the document is merely one for the administration of properties,
HELD: Yes. not a donation.
3. Lower Court: dismissed the complaint; declared that the deed of donation is legal and
RATIO: Records disclose that Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. admitted having certified true valid; declared Consuelo Azurin as the owner of the donated 10 parcels of land.
copies of the Deed of Quitclaim executed on May 7, 1977 and the Deed of Absolute Sale
ISSUE: WON the print-out and/or photocopies of facsimile transmissions are electronic
Read: MC Industrial Corp v Ssangyong GR 170633, October 17, 2007 evidence and admissible as such.
Facsimile are not considered as part of the Electronic Evidence as they are paper- based. RULING: NO. The terms "electronic data message" and "electronic document," as defined
under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission.
FACTS: Facsimile transmissions are not "paperless," but verily are paper-based.
1. Petitioner MCC is engaged in the business of importing and wholesaling stainless
steel products. One of its suppliers is the Ssangyong Corporation (Ssangyong), an Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic evidence. It is not
international trading company with head office in Seoul, South Korea and regional the functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible
headquarters in Makati City. as electronic evidence.
However, since these documents are mere photocopies, they are simply secondary evidence,
admissible only upon compliance with Rule 130, Section 5. Given these norms, we find that
respondent failed to prove the existence of the original fax transmissions, and likewise did not
sufficiently prove the loss or destruction of the originals. Thus, cannot be admitted in evidence
and accorded probative weight.
The Court faulted the administrative body that created the IRR for the Electronic Commerce
Act for including therein “electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex
or telecopy," although the same was intentionally omitted during the drafting of the Electronic
Commerce Act.
3. by evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker HELD: YES. The two (2) letters are admissible as evidence considering that the genuineness
here, the witness testifies or shows evidence that the signature of handwriting of the handwriting of the private respondent was done through the other mode of
of the maker is genuine authentication--- comparing the handwriting of the maker to other writing already admitted as
evidence, and in this case, the Conditiona Deed of Assignment.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT PRIVATE DOCUMENTS MUST RATIO: Sec. 21. Private writing, its execution and authenticity, how proved. — Before any
BE PROVEN TO BE AUTHENTIC: private writing may be received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved
either:
1. When the document is an ancient one within Rule 132 Section 21
a) By anyone who saw the writing executed;
. . . Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, In the instant case, there is no competent and sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to
made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine support a verdict of guilt against petitioners. As pointed out by petitioners, all documentary
by the party against whom the evidence is offered or proved to be genuine to evidence submitted by the private complainant were uncertified photocopies of certain
the satisfaction of the judge. documents, the signatures on which were either unidentified or unauthenticated.
We have made such comparison and find that the signature of Encarnacion G. Villanueva on Section 20, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that “before any private
the Conditional Assignment (which is not disputed) is similar to the signatures affixed to the document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must
two letters sent to the petitioner. be proved either:
There is no doubt that the agreement and the two letters were signed by private (a) by anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
respondent Encarnacion G. Villanueva. Consequently, their authenticity and execution (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
having been established, we hold that the letters were admissible as evidence of the
private respondent. Being private instruments, their due and valid execution and their genuineness and authenticity
must first be established, either by the testimony of any one who saw the writing executed or
by evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker hereof.
Question: Was the Court the one who “proved” the authenticity of the documents by In the present case, A painstaking perusal of the testimony of the prosecution’s sole
comparing it on its own? Yes. it seems so. Is that allowed? Yes. witness reveals, however, that the due execution and authenticity of these documents were
never proved. In fact, the prosecution took no effort to prove the due execution and
authenticity of these documents during the presentation of their sole witness. Absent such
proof, these documents are incompetent as evidence. It is elementary that this Court cannot
2. Ong vs. People – 342 S 372 rightly appreciate firsthand the genuineness of an unverified and unidentified document; much
less, accord it evidentiary value.
(photocopies of the approved sale, receipt and invoices-- the prosecution made no effort
to prove authenticity)
1. Zeny Alfonso purchased a paper bagmaking machine for P362,000.00 from the
Solid Cement Corporation. When she went to the corporation’s Antipolo plant,
however, no machine could be given to her, it appearing that the machine sold had
been earlier mortgaged to a creditor, who, unfortunately, refused to release the
mortgage. Hence, Alofonso filed a criminal complaint for estafa against herein
petitioner.
2. After pretrial, the prosecution presented as its sole witness complainant Zeny
Alfonso. The prosecution then formally offered its documentary evidence and rested
its case.
a. the documentary evidence presented were mere photocopies of the
approval of the sale, of the receipt, and other documents.
3. The petitioners filed a motion of demurrer to evidence stressing that all the
documents were uncertified photocopies bearing unidentified or unauthenticated
signatures are inadmissible in evidence.
4. The MeTC then denied the demurrer to evidence and ruled that there is a prima facie
case against the petitioner.
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 106
RULE 132 SECTION 21— ANCIENT PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. — Where a
private document is more than thirty years old, is produced from the custody in which it
would naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or
circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity need be given.
REQUISITES:
1. it is more than 30 years old;
2. it is found and produced in the proper custody as its nature requires (e.g., deed of
sale with the vendee);
3. it is unblemished by any alterations or by any circumstance of suspicion (What is
considered as a blemish? Hahaha idk)
Effect:
Genuineness and due execution need not be proven as required in Section 20.
Although authentication is not necessary, identification through a witness is still
necessary
FACTS: RATIO: Under Sec. 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, the handwriting of a
1. The petitioner was the incumbent municipal mayor of Lianga, Surigao del Sur. person may be proved by any witness who "has seen writing purporting to be his upon which
2. On 16 March 1980, the petitioner appointed Fernando Y. Layno, his legitimate son, the witness acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of
meat inspector in the office of the municipal treasurer of Lianga. He signed the such person." Otherwise stated, any witness any be called who has, by sufficient means,
appointment document — Civil Service Form No. 35 — twice, first as the acquired knowledge of the general character of the handwriting of the party whose signature is
appointing authority and second, as the personnel officer, certifying" (t)hat all the in question.
required supporting papers pursuant to MC 5, s. 1974, as amended. have been
complied with, reviewed and found to be in order." Prosecution witness Amando R. Pandi, Jr. was competent to testify on the signature of
3. Among the supporting papers required for the appointment is the Certification Petitioner on the Certification, because in the course of his employment as municipal
signed by the petitioner, reading as follows: secretary and designated personnel officer in the municipal government of Lianga.
Surigao del Sur, he had seen records under his charge bearing the long and short
"In connection with the appointment of MR. FERNANDO Y. LAYNO, signatures of the petitioner, and, as such, he had acquired knowledge of the general
Lianga, Surigao del Sur, in the Office of Municipal Treasurer, Lianga, character of the handwriting of the petitioner.
Surigao del Sur at the rate of FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
THIRTY TWO PESOS ONLY per annum (P4,632.00), effective March 16, Moreover, the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that the signature on the certification in question is
1980. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT: the signature of the petitioner was not only based on the testimony of Amando R. Pandi, Jr.
Section 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence further provides that" (e)vidence
"1. He is not related to me to (sic) any person exercising immediate respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the
supervision over him within the third degree of either consanguinity or court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is
affinity. offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge." Pursuant thereto, the
4. On 28 September 1988, petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan with the Sandiganbayan compared the signature on the certification with the signatures of the
crime of falsification of public document defined in Article 171, paragraph 4 of the petitioner on documents filed with the court, and which were proved to be genuine. Thus,
Revised Penal Code. the Sandiganbayan held:
5. He was then found guilty o fthe crime of falsification of public document. "The record of this case contains documents bearing signatures of the accused which have
been proved to be genuine or treated by him to be so. We refer, among many others, to two
full signatures undisputably affixed by the accused on the appointment paper, Exhibit A, on
The Escritura complied with all the requisites laid down in the above provision.
FACTS: It was more than 51 years old when it was presented in court;
1. Private respondents sued petitioners for recovery of possession and ownership of a parcel it was produced by the proper custodians thereof who were the heirs of the person
of land located in Albay. who would validly keep it;
2. Spouses Agaton Boragay and Manuela Bobiles originally owned the subject land. They and there is no question it was unblemished by any suspicious alteration or erasure.
had only one child named Gregoria Boragay. It was therefore unnecessary to prove its execution and authenticity as evidence of the transfer
3. When the spouses died, the property passed on to Gregoria who stayed on the land of the disputed property to Leon Cabida, the petitioners’ predecessor-ininterest.
together with her husband Alejandro Alcera and their 3 children. When their children got
married, they left the property and lived with their respective husbands. Nevertheless, the said document, although authentic, may not be held to defeat the rights
4. 1974 – Venancio Bonto and Felicidad Boragay constructed a shanty on the subject land of the private respondent whose title had been registered and is binding to the whole
5. 1977 – Bonifacio Bobiles and Rosalina Base also built their house on the said lot world.
a. Same year, the OCT was cancelled and TCT in the name of private BUT, even so, that document cannot prevail against the transfer certificate of title in the name
respondents was issued. (Private respondents are the grandchildren of sps of the private respondents, who remain and are recognized as the registered owners of the
Boragay and Bobiles) disputed land. That title is good as against the whole world.
6. 1981 – 2 more houses were erected on the land by Buenaventura Jacob, Ledita Burce,
Edilberto Bonto and Elena Borebor (petitioners in this case)
7. 1984 – Trinidad Alcera Cruz demanded verbally that the petitioners vacate the premises 3. Security Bank and Trust Co. vs. Triumph Lumber and Construction Corp. –
but the latter refused. 301 S 537 (supra)
8. Hence, the filing of the complaint.
9. Petitioners claimed that in 1933, the spouses Boragay and Bobiles sold the subject lot to 5. The respondent TRIUMPH LUMBER filed an action against the petitioner Bank so
Leon Cabida in an Escritura de Venta Con Pacto de Retro (Deed of Sale with Right to reimburse it the value of the alleged forged checks drawn against Triumph’s account
Repurchase). In 1948 – Cabida sold the land to Emilio Bonto, husband of Rosario Burce. in the petitioner Bank.
In 1956, Emilio Bonto executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Ricardo Burce and
a. During the trial, it was established that the 3 checks which were drawn
Consolacion Burce Elaco covering 595 sqm of the said lot. Emilio Bonto retained the 199
sqm. In1980, Consolacion Burce Elaco, with the conformity of the heirs of her brother against the account of the accused were all forged per findings of the PC
Ricardo, verbally ceded to her niece Ledita Burce Jacob the 595 sqm portion of the Crime Laboratories. That the signatures of its authorized signatories were
subject property (confirmed and ratified by Consolacion in a document executed in 1985) all forged.
a. They also averred that they had been in actual and physical possession of the b. However, the 3 original checks alleged to be forged were not submitted in
property under claim of ownership for more than 51 years. Taxes on the court. instead, mere photocopies of the checks were presented as evidence.
property had been paid since 1948 by their predecessors-in-interest. It was only 6. Decision of the trial court: the trial court found no preponderance of evidence to
in 1976 that the private respondents came to know the subject lot.
support the complaint of the petitioner. It ruled that the private respondent failed to
10. Trial Court: dismissed the complaint. Ownership of the land - petitioners
11. Court of Appeals: reversed. Ownership of the land – private respondents as they were the show that the signatures on the subject checks were forged. It did not even present in
registered owners of the land/ this is binding to the wholw world. court the originals of the checks. Neither did it bother to explain its failure to do so.
a. THE CA further held that the Escritura de Venta, which was the basis of the Thus, it could be presumed that the original checks were wilfully suppressed and
petitioners’ claim cannot be given any weight because the same was not would be adverse to private respondents case if produced.
authenticated during the trial.
Example: Baptismal certificate is proof of the administration of the sacrament and the date;
but not the details or statement as to the kinsfolk of the person baptized Ratio:
B. Documents consisting of entries in public records 1. It is a settled rule that documents acknowledged before notaries public are public
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated documents which are admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof
as to their authenticity and due execution.
C. All other public documents 2. As a public document, the Deed of Assignment Biondo executed in favor of Eden
of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter not only enjoys a presumption of regularity but is also considered prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated.
3. A party assailing the authenticity and due execution of a notarized document is,
1. Realubit v Jaso 658 S 146 consequently, required to present evidence that is clear, convincing and more than
merely preponderant.
Facts: Hence, in view of the Spouses Realubit’s failure to discharge this onus, we find that both
1. Petitioner Realubit entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with a French national the RTC and the CA correctly upheld the authenticity and validity of said Deed of
named Biondo for the operation of an ice manufacturing business with Realubit as Assignment upon the combined strength of the abovediscussed disputable presumptions
industrial partner and Biondo as capitalist partner and the testimonies of Jaso and of the Notary Public.
2. However, in consideration for a certain amount, Biondo then executed a Deed of
Assignment transferring all his rights to herein respondents Jaso. This Deed of Furthermore, the forgery assertion is not supported. Forgery is never presumed and must
Assignment was notarized and acknoweledged before the notary public Rolando likewise be proved by clear and convincing evidence by the party alleging the same.23
Diaz. Aside from not being borne out by a comparison of Biondo’s signatures on the Joint
Venture Agreement24 and the Deed of Assignment,25 said forgery is, moreover
Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or
paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance,
official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may
the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any,
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)
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 1. that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which may be.
the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. 2. That the original is with the custody of the public official;
3. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any,
or
Although there is no need to authenticate public documents, there is still a necessity, a. if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.
under this Section to show that indeed, a record of the official acts of official bodies,
tribunals, or public officers exists. And this is done through:
a. An official publication thereof
b. By a copy of the document attested by the officer having legal custody of
the record or by the attestation of his deputy; or if the record is not in the
Philippines, the attestation 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 Philippines stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
office
Section 26. Irremovability of public record. — Any public record, an official copy of Section 27. Public record of a private document. — An authorized public record of a
which is admissible in evidence, must not be removed from the office in which it is kept, private document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the
except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.
determination of a pending case. (27a)
A public record of a private document may be proved by any of the following, as attested
by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has
This is the reason why an attestation is always necessary because of the general rule custody:
that the original copy may not be removed from the office in which it is kept, except
upon the order of a court where the inspection is necessary to the just determination (1) by the original record; or
of a pending case (2) by a copy thereof,
Section 28. Proof of lack of record. — A written statement signed by an officer having Section 29. How judicial record impeached. — Any judicial record may be impeached by
the custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search no record or evidence of: (a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, (b) collusion between
entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a the parties, or (c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.
certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office
contain no such record or entry. Impeaching Judicial Records through Proof of Extrinsic Matters
there can be no question as to the right of any person adversely affected by a
judgment, to maintain an action to enjoin its enforcement, and to have it declared a
When the issue involved is on the absence of an official record, the proving lack of such nullity, on the ground of fraud and collusion practiced in the very matter of
record may be done through: obtaining the judgment, when such fraud is extrinsic or collateral to the matters
involved in the issues raised at the trial which resulted to the judgment
A written statement signed by the officer having custody of an official record or
by his deputy. It must contain the following:
Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. — Every instrument duly acknowledged or Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. — The party producing a document
proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution, in
proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of a part material to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He may show
the instrument or document involved. that the alteration was made by another, without his concurrence, or was made with the
consent of the parties affected by it, or was otherwise properly or innocent made, or that
It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein and a conclusive the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. If he fails to do
presumption of its existence and execution that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence.
RULE 132 SECTION 34 – OFFER OF EVIDENCE On the last hearing day allotted for each party, he is required to make his
formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his last witness and the
opposing party is required to immediately interpose his objection thereto.
Section 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no evidence which has Thereafter the judge shall make the ruling on the offer of evidence in open
not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be court. However, the judge has the discretion to allow the offer of evidence in
specified. (35) writing in conformity with Section 35, Rule 132.
Note that the party may opt not to offer the evidence presented in court
General Rule: Evidence must be offered and the court shall consider no evidence, which formally if he considers the same to not advance the cause of the party.
has not been formally offered.
Effect: that evidence may not be ascribed any evidentiary value because such Question: may the other party then use the said evidence as his own although said
may only be done after ruling the admissibility party was not the proponent?
4. Vda. de Onate vs. CA – 250 S 283- SALTERAS The evidence in question refers to Exhibits “F,” receipt for P2,250.00 dated January 20, 1976;
“F1,” receipt for P750.00 dated February 23, 1976; “F2,” receipt for P1,000 dated March 20,
1976; and “F3,” receipt for another P1,000.00 dated July 29, 1976, all showing the varying
amounts paid by Leonor Taguba to Elvira Mato Vda. de Oñate. These exhibits were marked
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 119
at the pretrial for the purpose of identifying them. In fact, the payment of P5,000.00 was 3. We are of the view, therefore, that having been admitted in evidence, with the
admitted by herein petitioners in the same pretrial. On March 5, 1984, Eulalia Marcita adverse party failing to timely object thereto, these documents are deemed sufficient
Taguba identified the said exhibits in her testimony which was duly recorded. proof of the facts contained therein.
Likewise, extant from the records is the witness’ explanation of the contents of each of the Question: So nothing will stop the court from using or appreciating the evidence different with
said exhibits. Also telling is petitioner’s counsel vigorous crossexamination of the said witness the purpose stated during the formal offer of evidence? Kasi dito, during the time they were
who testified on the exhibits in question. offered in evidence, the purpose was to prove only the existence of the marriage kasi yung
issue nila before is psychological incapacity. Then naiba yung theory/ cause of action
Herein subject exhibits were also incorporated and made part of the records of this case. altogether. So pwede?
Further, the petitioner cannot argue or even compel the judge to take judicial notice of
the same, since the said documents are not among the matters which the law mandatorily
requires to be taken judicial notice of; neither can we consider it of public knowledge, or
capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their
judicial functions.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)
Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is
entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
SECTION 1 – PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, HOW DETERMINED reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error,
produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases, the which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
party having burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In
determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues
involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the
witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of Cases:
knowing the facts to which there are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they
testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of 1. DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance Companies vs Radio Mindanao Network GR
interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear 147039, Jan 27, 2006
upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the 2. Encinas v National Book Store GR 162704, November 19, 2004
preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. (1a) 3. People vs Villarico GR 158362, April 4, 2011
4. People vs. Mejia – 55 S 453
5. People vs. Matrimonio – 215 S 613
6. People vs. Gondora – 265 S 408
7. People vs. Cabiles – 248 S 207
8. People vs. Lorenzo – 240 S 624
9. People vs. Rigodon – 238 S 27
10. Tin vs. People – 362 S 594
Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. — An Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is
extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for sufficient for conviction if:
conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3)
(a) There is more than one circumstances;
(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. (5)
Cases:
Section 35. When to make offer. — As regards the testimony of a witness, the An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of
offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify. unless a different period is allowed by the court.
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified.
testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be
done in writing.
How are Objections Done
When is evidence to be offered? A. While specifying the grounds for the objections, the objection must be made
B. (temporal element)
It depends on the type of document to be offered.
A. if Offer of evidence is made orally— objection must be made immediately
A. If testimonial evidence right after the offer is made
Must be made at the time the witness is called to testify B. for a question propounded during the examination of a witness—must be
made as soon as the grounds therefore shall become reasonable apparent
Why? To allow and enable to court or know whether or not the same is
C. if offer of evidence is made in writing—within three days from notice unless
indispensable or relevant to the case
a different period is allowed by the court
B. If documentary or object evidence
They are to be offered after the presentation of a part’s testimonial
What does it mean that the grounds to the objection be specific?
evidence. The offer is made orally unless allowed by the court to be in
Objector cannot just simply manifest that he is interposing an objection, he has to
writing.
precisely state the exclusionary rule that would justify his opposition to the proffered
evidence.
By reason of this clarification as to when evidence is formally offered in evidence, the
presentation of evidence for marking and identification during the course of the trial is not the
When should the objection be done?
offer contemplated in the Rules.
Objection to evidence before it is presented or before the purpose is given is
Hence, failure to object to evidence during the time of marking and identification
premature
does not constitute a waiver of the right to object. Such is not the proper time.
Premature if made during the preparatory stages of identification and marking
Objections must be made after they had been offered and the offer of such evidence
shall be made after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence. It must be made at the proper time as specified by the rule, otherwise, there is
deemed a waiver of the objection and could no longer raise such issue later on.
Mere fact that the evidence has already been marked as an exhibit does not mean
that it has thereby already been offered as part of the evidence of the party Why? It enables the adverse party to meet the objection to his evidence, as well as
grants the trial court the opportunity to pass upon the and rule on the objection.
o To raise it only for the first time during the appeal without allowing
the lower court to rule on the matter is contrary to basic fairness and
procedural orderliness.
If the counsel was not afforded the time to express his objections to a question
propounded to a witness, the counsel may move to strike out the answer (see
Section 39)
But a ruling must always be made and that the same be made during the trial.
Why? So that the party against whom it is made be given the opportunity to meet
the situation presented by the ruling
it shall be an error for the court to reserve (“the objection will be taken into
consideration”, without ruling as to whether or not it is sustained or not) its
decision upon an objection to evidence until after the trial is closed.
Section 39. Striking out answer. — Should a witness answer the question before the
adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, and such
objection is found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order the
answer given to be stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are
incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper. (n)
First, to allow the court to know the nature of the testimony or the documentary evidence and
convince the trial court judge to permit the evidence or testimony
Second, even if he is not convinced to reverse his earlier ruling, the tender is made to create
and preserve the record for appeal.
How?
A. attach it and make it part of the record; identify, read, state the contents of the
documents; and
B. state the purpose for which the object or document sought to be attached is
offered and to as that it be marked for identification and have it attached on the
record
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases, the party having
burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining
where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the
court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of
testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which
there are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or
improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their
personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court
may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily
with the greater number.
Issue: Was the petitioner able to sufficiently prove that the burning was caused by one of the It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is
excepted risks, specifically, the burning was caused by the CPP-NPA? offered in opposition thereto.
Ruling: No. Respondent as plaintiff was able to overcome the burden of proof and prove by preponderant
evidence that it has a superior right and title to the subject property. In contrast, petitioners as
Not only are the evidence submitted by the petitioner inadmissible as evidence, assuming defendants seem to rely only on the alleged weakness of respondent’s evidence, without
arguendo that they are indeed admissible, they were insufficient to prove the fact that the 20 asserting any proof other than her reconstituted title to the subject property.
armed men who burned the station were indeed members of the CPP-NPA.
From the evidence, respondent derived its title from the title of its vendor, the Heirs of Simeon
The admissibility of evidence should not be equated with its weight and sufficiency. Evangelista, via a deed of sale. The Heirs obtained their title from their predecessorininterest
Admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight of Simeon Evangelista. Prior to the transfer of the title to respondent, the Heirs had sold the
evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and subject property to the Paculdo spouses in whose names another title was issued. All these
persuade. transactions involving the property are welldocumented.30 From the time respondent obtained
the property, it protected its interest therein by fencing off the property and designating
Even assuming that the declaration of the alleged 20 armed men as heard by the bystanders security guards around its perimeter.31 Respondent also exercised its obligation as owner by
may be admitted as evidence, it does not follow that such declarations are sufficient proof. paying real property taxes on the property it had acquired, evidenced by tax declarations
These declarations should be calibrated visàvis the other evidence on record. And the trial issued in its name by the Quezon City Assessor’s Office.32
court aptly noted that there is a need for additional convincing proof to establish that the cause
of the fire was the intentional burning of the radio facilities by the rebels or an act of In contrast, petitioner Encinas asserts her right to the subject property via a reconstituted title,
insurrection, rebellion or usurped power. Evidence that persons who burned the radio facilities also presented in evidence. However, other than the allegation in her Answer to respondent’s
shouted “Mabuhay ang NPA” does not furnish logical conclusion that they are member of the Complaint (for quieting of title) that she is the owner in fee simple of the subject property,
NPA or that their act was an act of rebellion or insurrection. Additional convincing proof need petitioner Encinas failed to disclose before any of the judicial levels how she was able to
be submitted. acquire title to the property.
Defendants failed to discharge their responsibility to present adequate proof that the loss Case 3. People vs Villarico GR 158362, April 4, 2011
was due to a risk excluded.
Further, when supported by substantial evidence, findings of fact of the trial court as affirmed
by the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties, which this Court will not review unless (1) the Several accused were charged with the crime of murder of Haide through
there are exceptional circumstances. There are no exceptional circumstances in this case that shooting him treacherously. The RTC convicted them of homicide and the CA
would have impelled the Court to depart from the factual findings of both the trial court and convicted them of murder. Both courts gave full credence to the positive
the CA. identification of the several accused as perpetrators of the crime.
(2) Among the contentions of the accused in the present cases is that the
Prosecution witnesses did not actually see who had shot Haide; hence, their
Case 2. Encinas v National Book Store GR 162704, November 19, 2004 identification as the malefactors was not positively and credibly made.
The collective recollections of both Remedios and Francisco about seeing the four accused That the appellant Mejia did not participate in the shooting of the victim de la Cruz does not
standing near the door to the kitchen immediately before and after the shooting of Haide inside make him any less a conspirator, because it has been proved that he acted in concert with his
the kitchen were categorical enough, and warranted no other logical inference than that the coaccused. He posted himself at a vantage point, as did his coaccused, as they prepared and
four accused were the persons who had just shot Haide. waited for the moment to strike; he fired at Pito just before Capili shot de la Cruz; and he fled
tog ether with his coaccused from the scene of the crime immediately upon its commission.
Salvacion is credible. The probative value of Salvacion’s testimony is not diminished by her a. In a letter she wrote to Fiscal Jumino, one Aurora Jose who had allegedly
failure to report the incident to the authorities that tragic evening. What she did after the introduced Dr. Santiago to Maria Tin and who was present when the
killing of her mother was an act of selfpreservation. transaction took place, corroborated Dr. Santiago’s testimony;
b. The signature of appellant [petitioner] appears on the document16
Considering her relationship with the victim she would be more interested in acknowledging receipt of the pieces of jewelry;
securing the conviction of the guilty, and that would deter her from implicating c. Receipts evidencing payments made by Dr. Santiago and which appeared
persons other than the culprits, otherwise, the latter would go free. to be signed by the petitioner were not denied by the latter;
d. Petitioner did not deny that she sent a note (Exh. “M2”) to Dr. Santiago
Accusedappellants’ defense of alibi is not worthy of belief. We have repeatedly ruled that alibi reminding her to update her payments, or else she would auction the
is a weak defense as it is easy to concoct and fabricate. It becomes weaker in the face of the pieces of jewelry.
positive identification of an accused by an eyewitness with no improper motive to falsely
testify. Issue: was the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable
doubt?
Case 9. People vs. Rigodon – 238 S 27 (1) A careful review of the records, however, reveals that, first, it was erroneous for the
Court of Appeals to consider in evidence the letter which a certain Aurora Jose sent
to Fiscal Jumino. Aurora Jose was never presented to testify on the veracity of said
letter, much less its contents. A private certification is hearsay where the person who
Case 10. Tin vs. People – 362 S 594 issued the same was never presented as a witness.
(2) Second, the signature appearing in the receipt, Exhibit “A”, apparently differs from
Facts: the specimen signatures provided by petitioner Maria Tin in open court. But it has
(1) the petitioner Tin was charged with the crime of Estafa for allegedly defrauding Dr. striking and obvious similarities to Mia Chan’s specimen signatures. The differences
Santiago who entrusted the several pieces of jewelry as collateral for the loan, under and similarities are so obvious to the eye. They could not be casually disregarded.
the express obligation of returning the said pieces of jewelry upon demand for Expert handwriting analysis is probably useful here, but it is not indispensable.
redemption. (3) Third, petitioner did not deny that she received payments and made demands for
(2) During the trial, private complainant Dr. Francisca Santiago testified that on payment from private complainant. They do not show, however, that she was the
February 8, 1980, she and Aurora Jose went to Mady’s Pawnshop owned by one who extended the loan and accepted the jewelries. Note that even Mia Chan
petitioner to pawn some pieces of jewelry. A list of the jewelries was typewritten by received certain payments from Dr. Santiago, as shown by Exhibits “8”, “8A”, “10”
a helper of the petitioner. This list was signed by petitioner as evidence of her and “10A.” A certain “Viring” also received payment from Dr. Santiago.24 These
receipt of the said jewelries. Dr. Santiago also averred that from 1980 to 1982, she instances only prove that a person who received payments from another is not
made payments of various amounts totaling P95,600.00. She said that the loan was necessarily the person who extended the loan.
under a “white paper” system where there is no maturity/expiration date and where (4) Fourth, Exhibit “M2”25 which the Court of Appeals considered proof that petitioner
the jewelry can be redeemed anytime provided the interests were paid. was in possession of the jewelry, deserves serious scrutiny. Said exhibit was not
that when she returned to the pawnshop to redeem the jewelries, Dra. properly identified or introduced as evidence at the trial. It was marked as an exhibit
Francisco was informed by the petitioner that they were already sold. upon mere manifestation of counsel.26 It was not touched upon during the testimony
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is (a) There is more than one circumstances;
sufficient for conviction if:
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(a) There is more than one circumstances;
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and beyond reasonable doubt.
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction the above circumstance shall constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair
beyond reasonable doubt. and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused and to the exclusion of all other,
as the author of the crime.
What is Direct Evidence? The totality of the circumstances must exclude each and every hypothesis consistent
Evidence that proves a fact without a need to make an inference form another fact with innocence. Hence if the totality of the circumstances eliminates beyond
Examples: reasonable doubt the possibility of innocence, the conviction is proper.
a. Testimony of the witness claiming that he personally saw the accused
when the latter drew his pistol and fired his pistol on the victim It is not a weaker defense, vis-à-vis direct evidence. As to probative value, the Court
b. The witness testifying that he saw the accused set the nipa hut on fire in a considered circumstantial evidence of a nature identical to direct evidence because
case for arson no greater degree of certainty is required when evidence is circumstantial as it is
c. Deed of sale as evidence of the sale direct. In both types of evidence, what is required is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
What is Circumstantial Evidence It ought to be noted that our rules “make no distinction between direct evidence of a
Which indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact finder fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be
draws form the evidence established inferred. No greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is
Fact is established by making an inference from a previously established fact circumstantial than when it is direct, for in either case, the trier of fact must be
Uses fact from which an assumption is drawn convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.”
That which relates to a series of facts other that the fact in use, which has been found
by reason of common experience, to be so associated with the facts in issue that, When the circumstances obtaining in a case are capable of two inference, one of
relative to the cause and effect, leads to a satisfactory conclusion which is consistent with the presumption of innocence whole the other may be
Is that indicia that are separately of little importance may, by their concordant compatible with the finding of guilt, the court must acquit the accused because the
combination and cumulative effect, satisfy the legal requirements on the guilt of an evidence is not sufficient to fulfill the test of moral certainty and, therefore, is
accused insufficient to support a judgment of conviction
When no witnesses can testify directly to the fact to be proved, it is arrived
Examples:
a. Fingerprints of the accused in the scene of the crime
b. Possession of the stolen property or weapon used
c. Opportunity Guidelines:
d. Motive (1) it should be acted upon with caution
(2) all the essential fact must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt
Conviction through circumstantial Evidence (3) the facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt
Even in the absence of direct evidence, conviction can be had if the established (4) the facts must establish such a certainty of guilt
circumstances constitute an unbroken chain, consistent with each other and the
hypothesis that the accused is guilty, to the exclusion of all other hypothesis that he
is not.
o It is essential since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases, Cases:
result in setting felons free and denying proper protection to the
6. People v Anticamara GR 178771, June 8, 2011
community
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 141
7. People vs. Salvame – 270 S 766 (2) Malaki sustained multiple stab wounds and he died of “cardiac arrest, secondary to
8. People vs. Malimit – 264 S 167 (supra) severe external hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds”;
(3) witness Elmer Ladica saw the appellant on August 6, 1991, accompanied by some
Facts: policemen, retrieve Malaki’s wallet underneath a stone at the seashore in Barangay
Hingatungan;
(1) Malimit was charged with the crime of robbery with homicide of Malaki, a store (4) appellant himself admitted in his testimony that on August 6, 1991, he accompanied
owner. several policemen to the seashore where he hid Malaki’s wallet; and
(2) During the trial of the case, the prosecution presented as evidence the following: (5) appellant’s flight and his subsequent disappearance from Hingatungan immediately
Rondon, a farmer who arrived at the store of Malaki to buy some chemical after the incident.
for his farm. In his testimony, he stated that he saw the accused appellant
rushing out of the door of the store of the victim while holding a bolo with
blood.
Batin, the houseboy of Malaki, who testified that when he went to ask 9. People vs. Ramos – 240 S 191
Malaki to the store to ask him what he wanted for dinner, he saw Malaki
on the floor drenched in his own blood, and saw the accused appellant also
coming out of the store with a bolo Facts:
Both witnesses positively identified the accused appellant. (1) appellants ANGEL FERNANDEZ, MARCO FERNANDEZ, RODOLFO
The wallet, keys and IDs of the victim Malaki retrieved from the accused TULAGAN, together with one ALEX RAMOS were charged with the crime of
appellant which were allegedly taken by him ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.
(3) The accused appellant was convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide based (2) There was no eyewitness to the crime.
on the abovementioned evidence submitted. (3) The evidence for the prosecution was given by Patrolmen DANTE ASEGURADO
Note that the conviction was based on the several circumstantial evidence and GEMINIANO BAGSIK, DR. LEON RONDILLA, JR., and PEDRO who
presented by the prosecution responded to the call and report of a robbery-slaying incidence in the residence of
Aida Sison and her housemaid, Avelina Hernandez. They were already lifeless when
hence, the present action by the accused appellant, among all others, that the evidence they arrived at their home. However, they were also able to apprehend the suspects
presented by the prosecution were insufficient. as they were still in the premises of the residence of Aida. Crawling and/or hiding,
trying to flee. The said officers also was able to confiscate knives and blades from
Issue: Was the trial court correct in convicting the appellant despite the absence of direct the herein accused all covered in blood. The jewelries and money were also
evidence, and sustaining such decision based on circumstantial evidence? retrieved from them.
(4) The RTC rendered a decision convicting all the herein accused.
Ruling: Yes. there can be a verdict if conviction based on circumstantial evidence when the (5) The CA upheld such decision.
circumstances proved form an unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion
pinpointing the accused, to the exclusion of all the others, as perpetrator of the crime. Hence, the present action by the appellants arguing that the prosecution was not able to prove
beyond reasonable doubt their guilt there being no direct evidence.
Essential requisites for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to convict: Issue: Was the prosecution able to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt using all of the
circumstantial evidence they have presented?
(a) there is more than one circumstance;
(b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and Ruling: Yes.
(c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence is either direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is that evidence which proves a
fact in issue directly without any reasoning or inferences being drawn on the part of the
in the present case, there were at least five (5) circumstances constituting an unbroken factfinder. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue.
chain of events which by their “concordant combination and cumulative effect,” satisfy The factfinder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence.
the requirements for the conviction of the appellant. These are:
Under our Rules of Court, conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sufficient if: (a)
(1) appellant was seen by Rondon and Batin, whose credibilities were untarnished, there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
holding a bolo in his right hand and rushing out of Malaki’s store seconds prior to proven; (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
their discovery of the crime; reasonable doubt.
Why the relaxation in administrative proceedings (not bound by the strict rules of
The timely apprehension of appellants Marco and Angel inside the compound, Angel’s evidence and procedure)?
possession of the dagger stained with blood at the time of his arrest, Rodolfo’s act of
concealing himself from the arresting officers and his foiled attempt to leave the locality the To free the administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so that the
following day, are clear indicia of said appellants’ guilt. mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent in judicial
proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order
But this assurance of desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not
go so far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence have rational probative
force. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial
10. People vs. Adofina – 239 S 67 evidence
Facts:
(1) The present action is a petition for certiorari by the National Labor Union for an
action before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) which denied its motion for
new trial. The CIR previously rendered a decision ruling that Ang Tibay is not guilty
of ULP on the ground of discriminately dismissing the union members. The Union
avers that:
That the employer Toribio Teodoro was guilty of unfair labor practice for
discriminating against the National Labor Union, Inc., and unjustly
favoring the National Workers' Brotherhood.
That it wishes to introduce newly discovered evidence regarding the
falsity of the defense of Ang Tibay that there was indeed lack of supply of
leather to justify the discharge of the 89 union member employees
(the case focused on the issue of the motion of new trial. But for purposes of our discussion,
here is the issue, regarding the ruling of the CIR in finding that Ang Tibay is not guilty of
ULP)
Ruling: Yes. The Union was not able to adduce substantial evidence to prove the guilt of
Ang Tibay for ULP.
The CIR is a quasi-judicial body and what the quantum of evidence required as basis for
its decision is substantial evidence only.
The Court of Industrial Relations is a special court whose functions are specifically stated in
the law of its creation. It is more an administrative board than a part of the integrated judicial
system of the nation. It is not intended to be a mere receptive organ of the Government. Unlike
a court of justice which is essentially passive, acting only when its jurisdiction is invoked and
deciding only cases that are presented to it by the parties litigant, the function of the Court of
Industrial Relations, as will appear from perusal of its organic law, is more active, affirmative
and dynamic. It not only exercises judicial or quasijudicial functions in the determination of
disputes between employers and employees but its functions are far more comprehensive and
extensive. It has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and
settle any question, matter controversy or dispute arising between, and/or affecting, employers
and employees or laborers, and landlords and tenants or f armlaborers, and regulate the
relations between them.
There must be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be
"substantial." "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
And in the present case: In the light of the foregoing fundamental principles, it is sufficient to
observe here that, except as to the alleged agreement between the Ang Tibay and the National
Workers' Brotherhood (appendix A), the record is barren and does not satisfy the thirst for a
factual ,basis upon which to predicate, in a rational way, a conclusion of law.
Power of the Court to Stop Further Evidence this provision has reference to facts put in issue in a motion, but not to facts alleged
since, as a general rule, there is no logical requirements as to the number and kind of in the pleadings.
witnesses to prove a material fact, the parties are free to call as many witnesses as
they may deem convenient to their own interests
it is however, well settled that the court may limit the number of witnesses upon Facts alleged in a motion may be proved by affidavits or depositions, but the court in
the main or collateral issue, but its discretion must be exercised with caution its discretion, may order that oral testimony be presented before itself or before a
considering the nature of the case, the character of the witnesses, and the state of the Commissioner appointed in accordance with the ROC.
proof
it should be applied whenever the evidence is already full that more witnesses to
the same point could not be reasonable expected to be more and additionally
persuasive.