Jara 2012 Evid Power Notes PDF

2011-2
012
Layno, Ian
Rabajante, Diory
Morana, Hansel
Reyes, Harly
Suyat, Kat
Baraoidan, Kimberly
[JARA
POWER
NOTES ON
EVIDENCE]
This is merely a compilation of questions
asked by Dean Jara for Evidence in his
2011-2012 class. The writers guarantee
the integrity of all the questions and the
materials used in the making of this
recitation reviewer. However, there is no
guarantee that these will be the same set
of questions he will ask on the
subsequent semesters/years. Read this
together with Riano, Regalado, Moran,
Memaid, and Jara Notes.
2011-2012 [JARA POWER NOTES ON EVIDENCE]

Define a specific denial.
JARA RECITATION NOTES FOR EVIDENCE

PRELIMINARY MATTERS
What is Evidence?
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these
rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the
truth respecting a matter of fact.
Can Evidence be used to answer questions

of fact? How about questions of law?
As provided for by the definition, Evidence can
be used to answer ONLY questions of fact, and
not questions of law.
Why cannot we use Evidence to answer

disputes of law?
Under our legal system, it is conclusively
presumed that everybody knows the law.
Ignoratia legis non-excusat. All parties to the
dispute must know the law applicable in the
case. There could be o dispute between the
parties and even the court itself concerning the
truth about a matter of law.
Distinguish Questions of Fact from

Questions of Law
Question of fact (also known as a point of fact) is
a question which must be answered by
reference to facts and evidence, and inferences
arising from those facts. On the other hand, a
question of law is a question which must be
answered by applying relevant legal principles,
by an interpretation of the law.
Is the issue on jurisdiction a question of fact

or law?
It is a question of law. Jurisdiction pertains to the
power of the Courts to decide cases. It is vested
by substantive law. Any issue relating to it is a
legal question.
It refers to a denial of the material facts or facts

alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential
to his cause of action.
A defendant must specify each material

allegation of fact the truth of which he does not
admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth
the substance of the matters upon which he
relies to support his denial. Where a defendant
desires to deny only a part of an averment, he
shall specify so much of it as is true and material
and shall deny only the remainder. Where a
defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a
material averment made to the complaint, he
shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a
denial. (Sec.10, Rule 8)
Can there be a question of fact when a party

raises an affirmative defense?
NO. When a party raises an affirmative defense,
he in effect, hypothetically admits the material
allegations of his opponent in his pleadings.
In a case where a party defaults, is there still

a need to present evidence?
YES. The court should still require the nondefaulting party to present his evidence. There is
still a need to prove the allegations made in the
complaint.
In every case that requires adjudication, is

there a need to present evidence at all
times?
No. There are instances when Evidence is not

required to be presented such as the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
When does a question of fact arise?
5.
When the issues are already joined.
6.
When does that joinder happen?

Layno. Rabajante. Morana. Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan| !2

Upon the filing of an answer which contains a

specific denial as to the existence of a certain
fact.
When no factual issue exists in a case.

Where the case presents only a
question of law.
When the pleadings in a civil case do
not tender an issue of fact.
Evidence may also be dispensed with
by agreement of the parties.
Matters of judicial notice (See Rule
129).
Matters judicially admitted (See Rule
129).
Are evidentiary rules also found outside

Rules 128-133?
YES.
FALSE. Probandum may also be determined by

the pre-trial order and it may change during the
course of the trial (see Sec. 5, Rule 10).
Illustration?
Note: Example ni Jara ito. Supposing in a
complaint for sum of money, the plaintiff alleges
that the defendant is indebted to him for P10
million pesos. Upon the presentation of
evidence, the plaintiff presents to the court a
promissory note evidencing the indebtedness of
the defendant. The note however indicates that
such indebtedness amounts to P30 million
pesos. May the court admit aforementioned
evidence even if the original complaint only
alleged P10 million? YES. Under Sec. 5, Rule
10 (Amendment to conform or to authorize
presentation of evidence). You see, this is an
evidentiary rule outside Rules 128-133 (This
was a total mind-fuck. Please take note of this
example of his).
What is Factum Probandum and Factum

Probans?
Factum probandum is the ultimate fact or the
fact sought to be established. Factum Probans
pertains to the evidentiary fact or the facts by
which the Probandum is established. The former
refers to the proposition, while the latter refers to
the materials which establish that proposition.
Does probandum exist in a case where a

party defaults?
YES. Party still needs to present evidence exparte.
A prosecutor files in the court an information
for homicide. Is there probandum already?
NO. Because the accused has yet to be
arraigned. In criminal cases, the arraignment of
the accused determines whether or not there
exists a probandum.
If the accused pleads guilty to a crime, does

that negate the existence of probandum?
Not in all instances. Probandum is still
necessary when the case involves a heinous
crime.
True or False. Probandum is always

determined by the allegations in the
pleadings.
Can probandum change easily in a criminal

case?
No. probandum cannot be changed the same
way it can be changed in a criminal case. There
is a necessity to amend the pleadings according
to the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
When do we apply the Rules on Evidence?

The rules of evidence, being part of the Rules of
Court, apply only to judicial proceedings, subject
to inapplicable cases in Sec. 4, Rule 128.
Can we apply evidence in Summary

Proceedings?
Yes. Summary proceedings partake the nature
of judicial proceedings. Being the case, we can
definitely apply the Rules on Evidence in such.
Do we present Evidence in Summary

Proceedings? If so, what then is our
evidence?
YES. Evidence is still presented by virtue of the

pleadings and affidavits submitted before the
court. They partake the nature of documentary
evidence and they serve to prove an issue of
fact provided that they are admissible pursuant
to law.
How about in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings?

Yes. The same apply by analogy whenever
practicable and convenient except where the
governing law on that particular proceeding
specifically adopts the rules of evidence in the
Rules of Court.
Distinguish Proof from Evidence.

Proof is not the evidence itself. There is proof
only because of evidence. It is merely the
probative effect of evidence and is the conviction
or persuasion of the mind resulting from a
consideration of evidence. On the other hand,
Evidence is the medium by which a fact is
proved or disproved.


What are the different classifications of

evidence?
According to Form:
1.
2.
3.
Object: evidence that is directly

addressed to the senses of the court
and consists of tangible things exhibited
or demonstrated in open court, in an
ocular inspection, or in a designated
place.
Documentary: evidence supplied by
written instruments or derived from
conventional symbols, such as letters,
by which ideas are represented on
material substances.
Testimonial: submitted to the court
through the testimony or the depositon
of a witness.
What are the Axioms of Admissibility?
Axiom of Relevance: None but the facts having

a rational probative value are admissible.
Axiom of Competence: Facts having a rational
probative value are admissible unless some
specific rule prohibits their admission.
What are the different classes of

admissibility according to jurisprudence?
1.
As to ability to establish a fact in dispute:

1.
2.
Direct: proves a fact in dispute without

any aid of any inference or
presumption.
Circumstantial: proof of fact or facts
which taken singly or collectively, the
existence of a fact in dispute may be
inferred as a necessary or a probable
consequence.
2.
As to Probative Value:
1.
2.
3.
4.
3.
Prima Facie: that which standing alone

unexplained, is sufficient to establish
the proposition affirmed.
Conclusive: Evidence which is
incontrovertible.
Corroborative: additional evidence of a
different kind and character from that
already given tending to prove the same
point.
Cumulative: additional evidence of the
same kind and character proving the
same fact.
As to weight and acceptability:

1.
2.
Primary: evidence which affords the

greatest certainty of the fact in question.
Secondary: evidence which is inferior to
primary evidence.
As to Quality:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Relevant
Material
Admissible
Credible
Competent
Multiple Admissibility of Evidence

where the evidence is relevant and
competent for two or more purposes,
such evidence may be admitted for any
or all purposes which it is offered
provided it satisfies all the requirements
of law for the admissibility therefor.
Conditional Admissibility of Evidence
where evidence initially offered appears
to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is
connected with facts to be subsequently
proved, such evidence may be admitted
under the condition that the subsequent
facts shall be proven; otherwise, they
shall be stricken out from the record.
Curative Admissibility of Evidence
Where improper evidence was admitted
against the opposition of another party,
he may be allowed to contradict it with
similar improper evidence.
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVEN
What are some matters that do not require

any evidence?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Where no factual issue exists in a case.

Where the case presents only a
question of law.
When the pleadings in a civil case do
not tender an issue of fact.
When there is an agreement made by
the parties (usually done in the pretrial).
When courts have taken judicial notice
of such matters.


What do you mean by Judicial Notice?
It is the cognizance of certain facts which judges

may properly take and act upon without proof.
Why? I thought facts must be proven in
court?
Yes. That is the general rule. However, there are

some matters, on the basis of expediency and
convenience, which do not require proof. The
need for evidence is set aside by the rules.
What are matters subject of Judicial Notice?

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Existence and territorial extent of states;

Political history, forms of government,
and symbols of nationality;
Law of nations
Admiralty and maritime courts of the
world and their seals;
Political constitution and history of the
Philippines;
Official acts of the legislative, executive,
and judicial departments of the
Philippines;
Laws of nature;
Measure of time; and
Geographical divisions.
What is the doctrine of Processual

Presumption?
The foreign law, whenever applicable, should be
proved by the proponent thereof, otherwise,
such law shall be presumed to be exactly the
same as the law of the forum.
Is it not the duty of the Courts to apply the

Local Law?
It is. However, there are certain transactions and
legal acts that are bound by laws of foreign
jurisdictions. It is important that courts respect
the governing laws over such acts. However, the
existence of such laws must be proven as a
matter of fact.
How do you then prove foreign law?

As for foreign statutes and issuances, you prove
the foreign law through acquiring a copy of the
said document which is certified by the agent of
the said country through the DFA (As per Jaras
lecture, get a copy of the law abroad or in the
embassy, have it certified through a consul,
ambassador, or a foreign public official, and para
sigurado, idaan mo na din sa DFA).
The general rule is that the foreign law must still

be proven as a matter of fact. However, in the
case of PCIB vs. Escolin, the Supreme Court
1.
2.
3.
Actual knowledge by the Court;

Foreign law is generally well known;
Stipulation by the parties.
What if the foreign law is Common Law?

How do you prove such creature?
Common law (also known as case law or
precedent) is law developed by judges through
decisions of courts and similar tribunals (as
opposed to statutes adopted through the
legislative process or regulations issued by the
executive branch). You prove such by getting a
copy of the foreign courts decision and having
the same certified in the like manner as you
certify foreign statutes.
Is Judicial Notice absolute according to the

Rules?
No. There are some matters that require hearing
before courts can take judicial notice.
When does it require hearing?
1.
2.
During trial, the court, on its own

initiative, or on request of a party, may
announce its intention to take judicial
notice of any matter and allow the
parties to be heard thereon.
After the trial, and before judgment or
on appeal, the court may take judicial
notice of any matter and allow the
parties to be heard thereon if such
matter is decisive of a material issue in
the case.


Do we still need certification that the said

foreign law exists even though the existence
of such has been stipulated by both parties?
held that where the foreign law is within the

actual knowledge of the court such as when the
law is generally well known, had been ruled
upon in previous cases before it and none of the
parties claim otherwise, the court may take
judicial notice of the foreign law. In essence, the
Escolin case gives the requisites for the
exception:
What are Judicial Admissions?
It is an admission, verbal or written, made by a

party in the course of the proceedings.
Note: for an extensive discussion on
admissions, please see the memory aid.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
May a complaint contain a judicial

admission?
Yes, if there is an allegation that is contrary to

the interests of the complainant. In evidence,
such admission must be DISADVANTAGEOUS
to the one who made the complaint (Jara
statement).
Are admissions made by a counsel binding

upon his client?
Generally, Yes. Unless of course the lawyer was
patently stupid.
Note:
The function of the rule that negligence
or mistake of counsel in procedure is imputed to
and binding upon the client, as any other
procedural rule, is to serve as an instrument to
advance the ends of justice. When in the
circumstances of each case the rule desert[s] its
proper office as an aid to justice and becomes
its great hindrance and chief enemy, its rigors
must be relaxed to admit exceptions thereto and
to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.
The court has the power to except a particular
case from the operation of the rule whenever the
purposes of justice require it [Aguilar v. CA, 320
Phil. 456 (1995)].
What if because of the stupidity of the

lawyer, he made a general denial of all the
allegations?
Normally, the case would be ripe for judgment

on the merits. However, the client may still
amend his pleading as a matter of right
especially if there is no reply yet.
Yes. Party must then raise such admissions as

evidence.
What happens to the judicial admissions
contained in the pleadings which are
subsequently amended?
In appealed cases, may there be a verbal

judicial admission?
Yes. In cases for a petition for new trial.
What the doctrine of adoptive admission?
An adoptive admission is a partys reaction to a
statement or action by another person when it is
reasonable to treat the partys reaction as an
admission of something stated or implied by the
other person (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos.
146710-15). In this case, Estradas admission of
his resignation as President was based on the
diary of Angara.
Supposing evidence was presented tending

to prove a substantially different (usually
greater) claim which was not subject of a
previous admission by the adverse party
during the pre-trial, may the court admit such
evidence?
YES. Rule 10, Sec. 5.
No.
Is there a need to wait for a response?
No.
Is there a need for a judicial admission to be
prejudicial to the admitter?
No. The self-serving rule which prohibits the
admission or declaration of a witness in his favor
applies only to extra-judicial admissions.
An amended pleading supersedes the pleading

that it amends. However, admissions in
Does information contain admissions in so

far as People of the Philippines are
concerned?
Usually in cases where there is an

amendment of pleadings, a judicial
admission is transformed into an
extrajudicial admission. Will the same hold
true in the problem above?
superseded pleadings may be received in

evidence against the pleader; and claims or
defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the
amended pleading shall be deemed waived
(Sec.8, Rule 10). Such admissions, however,
are considered extra-judicial admissions. Having
been amended, the original complaint lost its
character as a judicial admission, which would
have required no proof, and became merely an
extrajudicial admission, the admissibility of
which, as evidence, required its formal offer
(Torres vs. CA, L-37420-21, July 31, 1984).
Self-serving statements, even if made in the

complaint, are admissible because the claimant
or the witness making it may be cross-examined

on such statements. However, whether it will be
credible or not, is a matter of appreciation on the
part of the court.
What was the case of Prats vs. Phoenix?

Facts: This action was instituted in the Court of
First Instance of the City of Manila by Prats &
Co., a mercantile partnership, for the purpose of
recovering from the Phoenix Insurance Co., of
Hartford, Connecticut, the sum of P117,800.60,
with interest, by reason of a loss alleged to have
been sustained by the plaintiff, on August 21,
1924, from a fire, it being alleged that said loss
was covered by policy of insurance No. 600217,
for the sum of P200,000, issued by the
defendant company to the plaintiff. For answer,
the defendant, Pheonix Insurance Co., admitted
the insurance of the policy of insurance but, by
way of special defense, alleged, among other
things, that the fire in question had been set by
the plaintiff, or with its connivance, and that the
plaintiff had submitted under oath to the
defendant a fraudulent claim of loss, in
contravention of the express terms of the policy.
The trial of the case covered a period of almost
two years, in which fifty separate sessions were
held, without counting the numeruos hearings
upon the taking of the deposition of Francisco
Prats, a partner in the plaintiff firm, whose
testimony was taken at the instance of the
defendant. Taken all together, the time thus
consumed was out of all proportion to the
difficulties of the case. An examination of the
voluminous transcript reveals at least part of the
reason for this inordinate consumption of time;
since we find that far too much of the space in
the transcript is taken up with the record of petty
skirmishes in court resulting from objections
over the admission of evidence.
attorney offering the evidence, the court may as

a rule safely accept the testimony upon the
statement of the attorney that the proof offered
will be connected later. Moreover, it must be
remembered that in the heat of the battle over
which he presides a judge of first instance may
possibly fall into error in judging of the relevancy
of proof where a fair and logical connection is in
fact shown. When such a mistake is made and
the proof is erroneously ruled out, the Supreme
Court, upon appeal, often finds itself
embarrassed and possibly unable to correct the
effects of error without returning the case for a
new trial, -- a step which this court is always
very loath to take. On the other hand, the
admission of proof in a court of first instance,
even if the question as to its form, materiality, or
relevancy is doubtful, can never result in much
harm to either litigant, because the trial judge is
supposed to know the law; and it is its duty,
upon final consideration of the case, to
distinguish the relevant and material from the
irrelevant and immaterial. If this course is
followed and the cause is prosecuted to the
Supreme Court upon appeal, this court then has
all the material before it necessary to make a
correct judgment.
In this connection it should be remembered that

many of the technical rules of evidence which
are often invoked in our courts were originally
worked out in England and the United States,
where the jury system prevails. These rules
were adopted for the purpose of keeping matter
from juries which - it was supposed - might
unduly influence them in deciding on the facts.
They have little pertinence to a system of
procedure, like ours, in which the court is judge
both of law and facts, and in which accordingly it
is necessary for the court to know what the proof
is before it rules upon the propriety of receiving
it. Apart from these considerations is the
Issue: WON the technical rules of evidence may
circumstance mentioned above that the time
be relaxed in admitting evidence.
consumed in the trial on such collateral points is
generally many times greater than would be
Held: Yes. In the course of long experience we
consumed if the questionable testimony should
have observed that justice is most effectivly and
be admitted for what it is worth. What has been
expenditiously administered in the courts where
said above finds special relevancy in this case in
trivial objections to the admission of proof are
view of the action of the trial court in refusing to
received with least favor. The practice of
consider the proof referred to in the opinion
excluding evidence on doubtful objection to its
showing that the plaintiff, while engaged in
materiality or technical objection to the form of
assembling its stock, procured maritime
the questions should be avoided. In a case of
insurance upon a fictitious importation of silk.
any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of first
We earnestly commend the maintenance of
instance, in the early stages of the development
practice in the admission of proof.
Layno. Rabajante.liberal
Morana.
Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan| !7
of the proof, to know with any certainty whether
Our examination of the case leads to the
testimony is relevant or not; and where there is
conclusion that the result reached by the trial
no indication of bad faith on the part of the
court was correct.
What happened in the case of Maceda?

Facts: This is a criminal action for slight slander
instituted in the justice of the peace court of
Pasig, Rizal, against defendants Generoso
Maceda and Corazon Maceda and which was
dismissed on the ground that the offense had
already prescribed. The offense was allegedly
committed on July 21, 1940, and the action was
filed on October 22, 1940, that is three months
and one day after the supposed commission
thereof. The private attorney for the offended
party made an admission to the effect that no
damages had been sustained by the latter.
Issue: WON the offended party may be bound

by the admission of his attorney.
Held: In the instant case, the supposed
admission is denied. Besides, no attorney can
waive his client's cause of action unless with the
consent of the client, and, in the instance case,
the admission attributed to the private
prosecuting attorney is not alleged to have been
made with the offended party's consent.
OBJECT EVIDENCE
What is Object Evidence?

Objects as evidence are those addressed to the
senses of the court.
Are there other terms for object evidence?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Real
Physical
Demonstrative
Autoptic preference.
Are there rules on exclusion for object

evidence?
Section 1 of Rule 130 provides that when an
object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be
exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.
Aside from being Relevant?

Generally, there could be no rules for the
exclusion of object evidence.
Are there exceptions?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
inconvenience, unnecessary expenses

out of proportion to the evidentiary
value of such object;
Such object evidence would be
misleading or confusing;
The testimonial or documentary
evidence already presented in curt
already portrays the object in question
as to render a view thereof
unnecessary.
Those evidence acquired through illegal
searches and seizures.
What do you call to those evidence acquired

through unlawful searches and seizures?
Derivative Evidence.
What are the categories of Object Evidence?
1.
2.
3.
Unique objects that have readily

identifiable marks.
Objects made unique objects that are
readily made identifiable.
Non-unique objects with no identifying
marks and cannot be marked.
How does the court conduct an ocular

inspection?
The court goes to the place where the object
evidence is located, whenever the said object
cannot be brought to the chambers of the court
because it is an immovable or moving such
object would cause undue inconvenience.
Is ocular inspection part of the judicial

proceedings?
Yes. It is part of the trial. Inasmuch as evidence
is thereby being received, such inspection
should be made in the presence of the parties or
at least with previous notice to them of the time
and place set for the view.
Is the judge always needed to be present in

the ocular inspection?
No. There are certain evidence-gathering
procedures that do not require the presence of
the judge such as those proceedings conducted
by commissioners.
The exhibition of such object is contrary

to public policy, morals or decency;
Observation of such evidence in an
ocular inspection would result in delays,
Can there be a practical mechanism to allow

the inspection while dispensing the need for
the presence of the judge?
I just answered your question bitch.

What is the case of US vs. Tegrado?
A colt valued at P34 was stolen from Valeriano
Blanca. It was subsequently found in the
possession of Agapito Partolan. The latter
testified that he bought the animal from Zacarias
Tegrado, the accused. The accused, however,
claimed that the colt was raised from a mare
belonging to him and then sold to Partolan.
Identification of the colt to determine if its mother
was a mare belonging to the complainant
Valeriano Blana or if its mother was a mare
belonging to the accused Zacarias Tegrado is,
therefore, the determining factor.
The colt was identified by a number of witnesses

as the property of Blanca. Other witnesses
testified to having seen the colt following a mare
belonging to the accused. Whom shall we
believe? We could, of course, rest our
conclusion on the findings of the trial court. We
could, in addition, point out grave discripancies
in the testimony of the witnesses for the
defense, which argues against its reliability. But
there was present as in interested, spectator,
another witnesses, who, without being sworn,
could tell the truth and nothing but the truth. This
was the colt. The colt was separated from the
mare of the complaining witness and turned
loose; it at once went back to this mare. The colt
was then taken to the mare of the accused; but
showed its dislike for the mare and tried to find
the mare of the complaining witness. Another
colt was placed near the mare of the
complaining witness; thereupon the mare and
that colt both resisted. This was a practical
demonstration worthy of a Solomon by which the
colt was able to testify by manifesting all the
signs of the young, whether human or not, on
finding a long lost mother.
In the case of Tegrado, why did the court

gave reference to King Solomon?
A Solomonic approach was done in the case of
Tegrado because of the way the court arrived
with a proof through the use of demonstrative
evidence, in observing the demeanor of the
horse in order to determine its true owner.
The court observed the horse and its demeanor.
What happened in the case of People vs.

Gutierrez?
At around 4:45 p.m. on September 12, 2002, the
police station of Ramos, Tarlac acting on a tip
regarding a shabu transaction (drug-pushing)
taking place somewhere in Purok Jasmin,
Poblacion Norte, dispatched a three-man team
composed of PO3 Romeo Credo, P/Insp.
Napoleon Dumlao, and SPO1 Restituto
Fernandez to the place mentioned. Arriving at
the target area, the three noticed Fernando and
one Dennis Cortez under a santol tree handing
plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance to certain individuals. At the sight of
the police officers, Fernando and the others
scampered in different directions. After a brief
chase, however, one of the three police
operatives caught up with and apprehended
Fernando, then carrying a bag.
Without a trace of equivocation, the RTC and

later the CA held that the prosecution had
discharged the burden of proving all the
elements of the crime charged. Since Fernando
was caught carrying the incriminating bag after
the police had been tipped off of drug pushing in
the target area, any suggestion that he was not
in actual possession or control of the prohibited
drug hidden in the area would be puny. Thus,
ownership of the bag is truly inconsequential.
We emphasize at this juncture that in no
instance did Fernando intimate to the trial court
that there were lapses in the safekeeping of the
seized items that affected their integrity and
evidentiary value. He, thus, veritably admits that
the crystalline substance in the sachets found in
his bag was the same substance sent for
laboratory examination and there positively
determined to be shabu and eventually
presented in evidence in court as part of the
corpus delicti. In other words, Fernando, before
the RTC and the CA, opted not to make an issue
of whether the chain of custody of the drugs
subject of this case has been broken. This
disposition on the part of Fernando is deducible
from the August 18, 2005 Order of the trial court,
pertinently saying, [The] Acting Provincial
Prosecutor x x x and Atty. Emmanuel Abellera,
counsel de officio of the accused manifested
that the chain of custody of the searched illegal
drug or shabu is admitted.
What was the object evidence in Tegrado?
As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain

of custody rule requires that the presentation of
the seized prohibited drugs as an exhibit be

preceded by evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. This would ideally
cover the testimony about every link in the
chain, from seizure of the prohibited drug up to
the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way
that everyone who touched the exhibit would
describe how and from whom it was received, to
include, as much as possible, a description of
the condition in which it was delivered to the
next link in the chain.
precursors and essential chemicals, as

well as instruments/paraphernalia and/
or laboratory equipment, the same shall
be submitted to the PDEA Forensic
Laboratory for a qualitative and
quantitative examination.
3. A certification of the forensic laboratory
examination results, which shall be
done under oath by the forensic
laboratory examiner, shall be issued
within 24 hours after the receipt of the
subject item/s: Provided, that when the
volume of the dangerous drugs, plant
What was the object evidence in the case of
sources of dangerous drugs, and
Gutierrez?
controlled precursors and essential
chemicals does not allow the
The seized drugs.
completion of testing within the time
frame, a partial laboratory examination
What is the Doctrine of the Chain of
report shall be provisionally issued
Custody?
stating therein the quantities of
dangerous drugs still to be examined by
Chain of Custody means the duly recorded
the forensic laboratory: Provided,
authorized movements and custody of seized
however, that a final certification shall
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of
be issued on the completed forensic
dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of
laboratory examination on the same
each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation
within the next 24 hours;
to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
4. After the filing of the criminal case, the
safekeeping to presentation in court for
Court shall, within 72 hours, conduct an
destruction. Such record of movements and
ocular inspection of the confiscated,
custody of seized item shall include the identity
seized and/or surrendered dangerous
and signature of the person who held temporary
drugs, plant sources of dangerous
custody of the seized item, the date and time
drugs, and controlled precursors and
when such transfer of custody were made in the
essential chemicals, including the
course of safekeeping and used in court as
instruments/ paraphernalia and/or
evidence, and the final disposition (Section 1,
laboratory equipment, and through the
DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002).
PDEA shall within 24 hours thereafter
proceed with the destruction or burning
How is the process conducted?
of the same, in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom
Under Sec. 21 of the Comprehensive
such items were confiscated and/or
Dangerous Drugs Acts of 2002:
seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the
1. The apprehending team having initial
media and the DOJ, civil society groups
custody and control of the drugs shall,
and any elected public official. The
immediately after seizure and
Board shall draw up the guidelines on
confiscation, physically inventory and
the manner of proper disposition and
photograph the same in the presence of
destruction of such item/s which shall
the accused or the person/s from whom
be borne by the offender: Provided, that
such items were confiscated and/or
those item/s of unlawful commerce, as
seized, or his/her representative or
determined by the Board, shall be
counsel, a representative from the
donated, used or recycled for legitimate
media and the DOJ, and any elected
purposes: Provided further, that a
public official who shall be required to
representative sample, duly weighed
sign the copies of the inventory and be
and recorded is retained;
given a copy thereof;
5. The Board shall then issue a sworn
2. Within 24 hours upon confiscation/
certification as to the fact of destruction
seizure of dangerous drugs, plant
or burning of the subject item/s which,
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
together with the representative sample/
6.
7.
s in the custody of the PDEA, shall be

submitted to the court having
jurisdiction over the case. In all
instances, the representative sample/s
shall be kept to a minimum quantity as
determined by the Board; and
The alleged offender or his/her
representative or counsel shall be
allowed to personally observe all of the
above proceedings and his/her
presence shall not constitute an
admission of guilt. In case the said
offender or accused refuses or fails to
appoint a representative after due
notice in writing to the accused or his/
her counsel within 71 hours before the
actual burning or destruction or the
evidence in question, the SOJ shall
appoint a member of the PAO to
represent the former;
After the promulgation and judgment in
the criminal case wherein the
representative sample/s was presented
as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor
shall inform the Board of the final
termination of the case and, in turn,
shall request the court for leave to turn
over the said representative sample/s to
the PDEA for proper disposition and
destruction within 24 hours from receipt
of the same.
Is it necessary that the whole amount of

drugs must be presented in evidence?
No. Only a sample amount as determined by the
DDB may be presented to the court.
How do you then prove the existence of such
amount?
Through an initial certification and a subsequent
ocular inspection done by the court hearing the
case.
Is that not substitution?
Are pictures in drug cases sufficient?
No, because the narcotic substance is the very

corpus delicti of the crime.
Is failure to comply strictly with the mandate
of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (pertaining to the
custody and disposition of confiscated,
seized, and surrendered dangerous drugs,
etc.) fatal to the prosecution?
No. Non-compliance by the apprehending/buybust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as
there is justifiable ground, and as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the
confiscated/seized items are properly preserved
by the apprehending officer/team. Its noncompliance will not render an accuseds arrest
illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is
the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items, as the
same would be utilized in the determination of
the guilt or innocence of the accused. Crucial in
proving the chain of custody is the marking of
the seized driugs or other related items
immediately after thet are seized from the
accused. Marking after seizure is the starting
point in the custodial link, thus, it is vital that the
seized contraband are immediately marked
because succeeding handlers of the specimens
will use the markings as reference. The marking
of the evidence serves to separate the marked
evidence from the corpus of all other similar or
related evidence from the time they are seized
from the accused until they are disposed of at
the end of criminal proceedings, obviating
switching, planting, or contamination of
evidence (People of the Philippines v. Allen
Udtojan Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227).
Is the class card an object evidence?

It depends. If we pertain solely to the paper
itself, the class card itself without having to look
into the contents of the same, it can be said that
the class cards partake the nature of object
evidence. On the other hand, if there is a need
to view the contents written on the class cards,
they partake the nature of documentary
evidence.
No. Since a sample was taken from the very

objects that were seized by the authorities
themselves. Besides, to require the presentation
of all the amount/volume of evidence before the
court would only cause great inconvenience.
You do not want to destroy Judge Wagans
Supposing there was an action for damages
mood by wasting her time looking at the stacks
arising from a quasi-delict on account of a
of marijuana and accounting for their volume.
In the complaint, the
Layno. Rabajante.vehicular
Morana. accident.
Reyes. Suyat.
Baraoidan| !11
Judge Wagan can be very angry. And you would
plaintiff alleged that he figured in the
not like it when shes angry.
collision and in the process, his arm got
amputated. Can the plaintiff bring to the

court the amputated arm?
Nope. for the following reasons (According to

Moranas recollection of Jaras explanation):
1.
2.
Kadiri. It is offensive to the senses and

thus, will violate the norms of decency
in court proceedings.
Madaya. Can you imagine if you are the
judge and while you are writing your
decision, the amputated arm is right
before your eyes? It will be prejudicial to
the defendant in that case.
Is it not the right of the plaintiff to choose the

type of object evidence he may desire for as
long as it is relevant?
Yes. That is the GENERAL RULE. However, it

must still be subject to the common norms of
public policy, decency and morality.
What is your legal basis?

Jara: court decisions have established certain
grounds to refuse to admit such evidence. (He
did not cite any case. Up to you to look for
them).
Let us take for example a special proceeding.

A person wants to change the sex indicate in
the entry in his birth certificate from male to
female. Mali daw ang nalagay. Dapat daw
babae siya. Can the plaintiff undress before
the court?
No. Again, it will offend the norms of decency. It

would be better if were done in closed
chambers.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
What is Documentary Evidence?

Documentary Evidence consists of writings or
any material containing letters, words, numbers,
figure, symbols or other modes of written
expressions offered as proof of their contents.
For what purpose do we offer documentary

evidence?
In order to prove the contents of the writing.
What is the Best Evidence Rule?
The term best has nothing to do with the
degree of its probative value in relation to other
types of evidentiary rules. It is not intended to
mean the most superior evidence. More
accurately, it is the original document rule or
the primary evidence rule. This rule applies to
documentary evidence only, or a document
presented as proof of its contents. It does not
apply where there is no bona fide dispute on the
contents of documents and no useful purpose
would be served by its production. Simply
stated, when the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document
itself.
Is the Rule Absolute?

No. The Best Evidence Rule admits several
exceptions:
When the original has been LOST or

DESTROYED, or cannot be
PRODUCED in court, without bad faith
on the part of the offeror.
Demonstrative evidence is not the actual thing
2. When the original is in the CUSTODY or
but it is referred to as demonstrative because it
under the CONTROL of the party
represents or demonstrates the real thing. It is
against whom the evidence is offered,
not strictly real evidence because it is not the
and the latter fails to produce it after
very thing involved in the case. A map, a
reasonable notice.
diagram, a photograph and a model, fall under
3. W h e n t h e o r i g i n a l c o n s i s t s o f
this category.
NUMEROUS ACCOUNTS or other
The admissibility of this type of evidence largely
documents which cannot be examined
depends on laying the proper foundation for the
in court without great loss of time and
evidence. The rule boils down to one basic
the fact sought to be established from
question: Does the evidence sufficiently and
them is only the general result of the
Layno. Rabajante. Morana.
accurately represent the object it seeks to
whole.
demonstrate or represent? If it does, the
evidence would be admissible
What is Demonstrative Evidence? How does
one test its admissibility?
1.

4.
When the original is a PUBLIC

RECORD in the custody of a public
officer or is recorded in a public office.
Why is there such a rule?

1.
2.
To prevent fraud;
To exclude uncertainties in the contents
of a document
So if I present a photocopy of a certain

document, is it automatically excluded
because of the Best evidence Rule?
NO. If the presentation of the photocopied

document is only for the purpose of proving the
existence, execution, or the delivery of the said
photocopied document without any reference as
to its terms, such evidence may still be
admissible.
Under the best evidence rule, the original

document must be produced whenever its
contents are the subject of inquiry. A photocopy,
being mere secondary evidence, is not
admissible unless it is shown that the original is
unavailable. Before a party is allowed to adduce
secondary evidence to prove the contents of the
original, the offeror must prove the following:
1.
2.
3.
The existence or due execution of the

original;
The loss and destruction of the original
or the reason for its non-production in
court; and
On the part of the offeror, the absence
of bad faith to which the unavailability of
the original can be attributed.
The correct order of proof is as follows:

existence, execution, loss, and contents
Does the Best Evidence Rule apply
absolutely in all cases a document is
presented as an evidence in court?
NO. With respect to documentary evidence, the

best evidence rule applies only when the
contents of such document is the subject of
inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether
such a document was actually executed, or
exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or
surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule
does not apply and testimonial evidence is
admissible
No. It has to undergo the process of

authentication, except if the document is a public
document.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
What is the Parol Evidence Rule?

GENERAL RULE: When the terms of an
agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed
upon and there can be, between the parties and
successors in interest, no evidence of such
terms other the contents of the written
agreement.
EXCEPTION: a party may present evidence to

modify, explain or add to the terms of the written
agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The failure of the written agreement to

express the true intent of the parties
thereto;
The intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
imperfection in the written agreement;
The validity of the written agreement;
The existence of other terms agreed to
by the parties or their successors in
interest after the execution of the written
agreement.
The term agreement includes wills.

What is Parol Evidence?
Parol evidence is any evidence aliunde, whether
oral or written, which is intended or tends to vary
or contradict a complete and enforceable
agreement embodied in a document.
Why is there such a rule?
When an agreement has been reduced into

writing, they are presumed to have intended the
writing as the ONLY EVIDENCE of their
agreement, and, therefore, they are supposed to
have embodied all the terms of such agreement.
Consequently, all prior or contemporaneous
collateral stipulations which the parties might
have had and which do not appear in writing, are
have been waived or abandoned
Layno. Rabajante.presumed
Morana. to
Reyes.
Suyat. Baraoidan| !13
by them, and therefore, not provable.
OK. I present the original of a document. Is it
automatically admitted?
How do you determine whether or not the

subject of an oral agreement is separate and
distinct from the subject of the writing?
What kind
of
document
s does the
rule
apply?
STEPS:
1.
Determine first what is the whole

subject intended by the parties to be
covered by such writing. This question
may be determined from the contract
itself, in light of the subject-matter with
which it deals and of the circumstances
attending its execution.
Ascertain the subject of the oral
agreement offered to be proved. To this
effect, the parol evidence may be
admitted provisionally.
A comparison should be made between
the writing and the oral negotiation and
from that comparison it may be seen
whether or not the subject of the writing
is separate and distinct from that of the
oral negotiation.
If the subject of the oral negotiation is
not so closely connected with the
subject of the writing as to form part and
parcel of it, then parol evidence is
admissible.
2.
3.
4.
Distinguish Parol Evidence rule from the

Best Evidence Rule.
Parol Evidence
Rule
Presupposes
that the original
Availability d o c u m e n t i s
of the
available in
Original
court.
Document
What the
rule
prohibits
Best Evidence
Rule
Contemplates the
situation wherein
the original writing
is not available
and/or there is a
dispute as to
whether said
writing is the
original.
Only when the

controversy is
between the
parties to the
w r i t t e n
agreement, their
privies, or any
party directly
affected thereby.
Can be invoked
by any party to an
action regardless
of whether or not
such party has
participated in the
writing involved.
If the last paragraph in Section 9 of Rule 130

was not included, would parol evidence rule
still be applicable?
Yes. The Civil Code is pretty clear on this one:

Art. 789. When there is an imperfect description,
or when no person or property exactly answers
the description, mistakes and omissions must be
corrected, if the error appears from the context
of the will or from extrinsic evidence, excluding
the oral declarations of the testator as to his
intention; and when an uncertainty arises upon
the face of the will, as to the application of any of
its provisions, the testator's intention is to be
ascertained from the words of the will, taking
into consideration the circumstances under
which it was made, excluding such oral
declarations.
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF

DOCUMENTS
Let us discuss the process of authenticating

a document. What is a public document?
What is a private document?
Public Documents are:
The written official acts, or records of

the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals,
Prohibits the P r o h i b i t s t h e
and public officers, whether of the
varying of terms i n t r o d u c t i o n o f
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
o f a w r i t t e n substitutionary
2.
Documents acknowledged before a
agreement.
evidence in lieu of
notary public except last wills and
the original
testaments; and
d o c u m e n t
3. Public records, kept in the Philippines,
regardless of
or private
required by!14
law to
whetherLayno.
or not Rabajante.
it
Morana.
Reyes.documents
Suyat. Baraoidan|
varies
the
be entered therein.
contents of the
original.
Who may
invoke?
Applies only to A p p l i e s t o a l l
d o c u m e n t s kinds of writings.
which
are
contractual in
nature, including
wills.
1.
All other documents are private.
Is a notarized will a public document?

NO. Last wills and testament must undergo an
authentication process even if they are
notarized. The substantive rule in the Civil Code
provides that: No will shall pass either real or
personal estate unless it is proved and allowed
in the probate court.
Therefore, is Sec. 19, Rule 132 applicable to

wills?
Hindi phowZ. Jejeje.
Distinguish a notarized deed of sale from a
notarized will.
A notarized deed of sale is a public document
and needs no authentication. A notarized will, by
express provision of the Civil Code and the
Rules of Court, needs to undergo authentication.
Even if such is notarized, it cannot be
considered a public document.
Why is there a need to authenticate a

notarized will?
Public policy requires it. Courts must at all times
give respect to testamentary intent. In order to
prevent fraud, authentication of wills is
mandatory.
NO. The following are private writings which

may be admitted in evidence without previous
proof of its authenticity and due execution:
1. When the genuineness and due
execution of the document is admitted
by the adverse party;
2. When such genuineness and due
execution are immaterial to the issue;
3. When the document is an ANCIENT
DOCUMENT.
4. Rule on Actionable Documents when
the adverse party fails to specifically
deny under oath the genuineness and
due execution of the actionable
document and to set forth what he
claims to be the facts, the same shall be
deemed admitted (Rule 8,Sec.8).
5. Request for Admission if the party
fails to specifically deny the matters on
which the admission is requested within
the period given, the genuineness and
due execution shall be deemed
admitted (Rule 26).
6. Pre-Trial the parties can enter
stipulations and admit the genuineness
and due execution.
What are ancient documents? What is the

rule with respect to such?
Requirements for Ancient Document Rule:
How may the genuineness of a notarized

deed be assailed?
It may be assailed by discrediting the
genuineness of the signature, or the
handwriting, or the identity of the public officer
who prepared the same (not sure. But sounds
right).
How do you prove a private document?

The due execution and authenticity of a private
document must be proved either by:
1.
2.
Anyone who saw the document

executed or written;
Evidence of the genuineness of the
signature or handwriting of the maker.
It is therefore NOT NECESSARY that the

witness be an eyewitness
1.
2.
3.
The private document is more than 30

years old;
It is produced from custody in which it
would naturally be found if genuine;
It is unblemished by any alterations or
circumstances of suspicions.
It is important to note, however, that the ancient

document rule applies only when there are no
available witnesses to testify as to the
authenticity of the document.
A documentary evidence in an unofficial

language was presented to the court. How
can a proponent convince the court that the
translation is credible?
Documents written in an unofficial language

shall not be admitted as evidence, unless
accompanied with a translation into English or
Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings,
parties or their attorneys are directed to have
such translation prepared before trial.
Must all private documents undergo the

process of authentication?
To convince the court, present the evidence, get

a translation, have a translator take the witness
stand as an expert witness, qualify the witness,

make him testify and read the whole thing, then
let him translate the language.
How do you impeach judicial records?

1.
2.
3.
By evidence of want of jurisdiction of

the court or judicial officer;
Collusion between the parties;
Extrinsic fraud on the part of the party
offering the record, in respect of the
proceedings.
What happened in the case of US vs.

Gregorio?
In the suit instituted for the payment of a certain
sum of money, judgment was rendered wherein
the debtor was sentenced to pay to the plaintiff
P275.92, with interest thereon, and the costs.
For the execution of the said judgment, two rural
properties belonging to the debtor were
attached. Bernardo Gregorio requested the
deputy sheriff to exclude the said realty from the
attachment, alleging that he was the owner of
the land situated in Tambogon, one of the
properties levied upon for the reason that he had
acquired it by purchase from the judgment
debtor, Balistoy, in 1905, prior to the filing of the
complaint. In order that the claim of intervention
presented to the sheriff might prosper, Bernardo
Gregorio attached thereto the document Exhibit
D, at the end of which and among other
particulars appears the memorandum dated in
Libog as of February 22, 1905, and signed by
Eustaquio Balistoy, Lorenzo Gregorio, and Cirilo
Valla, and in which Balistoy states that he
bought the land referred to in the said document
from Luis Balistoy and sold it to Bernardo
Gregorio for P300, wherefore he signed as such
vendor. A complaint was filed in each of the two
aforesaid causes in the Court of First Instance of
Albay, charging each of the defendants with the
crime of the falsification of a private document.
Issue: WON Balistoy, with intent to injure his

creditor, Pedro Salazar, and for the purpose of
avoiding the attachment and sale of one of the
properties did execute or write the said
memorandum whereby, on February 25, 1905,
he made or simulated a conveyance of one of
the attached properties in favor of the said
Bernardo Gregorio, according to the aforesaid
copy, when in fact the said memorandum was
written in April, 1908.
In criminal proceedings for the falsification of a

document, it is indispensable that the judges
and courts have before them the document
alleged to have been simulated, counterfeited,
or falsified, in order that they may find, pursuant
to the evidence produced in the cause, whether
or not the crime of falsification was committed,
and also, at the same time, to enable them to
determine the degree of each defendant's
liability in the falsification under prosecution.
Through the lack of the original document
containing the memorandum alleged to be false,
it is improper to hold, with only a copy of the said
original in view, that the crime prosecuted was
committed; and although, judging from the
testimony of the witnesses who were examined
in the two consolidated causes, there is reason
to entertain much doubt as to the defendants'
innocence, yet, withal, this case does not furnish
decisive and conclusive proof of their respective
guilt as co-principals of the crime charged.
Defendants in a criminal cause are always
presumed to be innocent until their guilt be fully
proven, and, in case of reasonable doubt and
when their guilt is not satisfactorily shown, they
are entitled to a judgment of acquittal.


Held: In the charge filed in this cause against the

vendor and the vendee of the land in question, it
is stated that these parties, the defendants,

simulated the said memorandum of sale or
conveyance of the land with the intent to injure
the creditor, Pedro Salazar; but as the original
document, setting forth the said memorandum,
was not presented, but merely a copy thereof,
and furthermore, as it could not be ascertained
who had the original of the document containing
the memorandum in question, nor the exact date
w h e n th e l a tte r w a s w r i tte n ; th e s a i d
memorandum, presumed to be simulated and
false, was not literally compared by the sheriff
who testified that he had seen its original for but
a few moments, nor by any officer authorized by
law to certify to documents and proceedings
such as are recorded in notarial instruments, nor
even by two witnesses who might afterwards
have been able to testify before the court that
the copy exhibited was in exact agreement with
its original; therefore, on account of these
deficiencies, doubt arises as to whether the
original of the document, Exhibit D, really
existed at all, and whether the memorandum at
the foot of the said exhibit is an exact copy of
that alleged to have been written at the end of
the said original document.
What happened in Government vs. Martinez?

In the cadastral proceedings instituted in the
Court of Land Registration for the settlement of
titles to lands in the municipality of Iloilo,

Province of Iloilo, Dolores and Carmen Martinez
appeared claiming to be the owners of lots Nos.
873 and 450. They alleged that they were in
possession thereof for about twenty-five years,
having acquired them by donation from Maria
Sarlabus, and that their predecessors in interest
had possession of the same for at least three
years prior to said donation.
executed by the Martinez sisters in favor of

Antonio Domenech, but of the recital appearing
in the books of said registry with respect to the
urban property, consisting of those two lots.
On the otherhand, Julio Salvador, through his

attorney, entered his appearance and claimed
title to said lots, alleging that he was in actual
possession thereof, and that his predecessors in
interest had been in possession before him for
at least fourteen years. To support their claim,
they presented before the court the testimony of
two witnesses and a certified copy issued by the
acting registrar of deeds of Iloilo dated May 13,
1914.
In the case at bar, Julio Salvador, had not first

complied with the provisions of section 321 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court
ruled that the best obtainable evidence should
be adduced to prove every disputed fact, and a
failure to produce it, but an attempt instead to
sustain the issue by inferior evidence, will
authorize the inference that the party does not
furnish the best evidence because it would tend
to defeat, instead of sustaining, the issue of his
part. In requiring the production of the best
evidence applicable to each particular fact, it is
meant that no evidence shall be received which
is merely substitutionary in its nature, so long as
the original evidence can be had.
The CFI of Iloilo ruled in favor of Julio Salvador

on the ground that, in the opinion of the court, it
was proved that the Martinez sisters had sold
said land to one named Domenech and that the
latter, in return, sold it to Julio Salvador, who
could, therefore, be considered owner of the
disputed lots.
Undoubtedly the best evidence of the contents

of a written instrument consists in the actual
production of the instrument itself, and the
general rule is that secondary evidence of its
contents cannot be admitted until the
nonproduction of the original has been
satisfactory accounted for.
Dolores and Carmen Martinez excepted to said

judgment and filed a bill of exceptions after their
motion for new trial had been overruled, and
they had excepted to the order overruling said
motion.
Issue: WON the trial court erred in admitting the

copy of the record of a supposed document of
sale presented by Julio Salvador, in support of
his claim of title without the disappearance or
loss of the original document having been
previously proved.
Held: Yes. Section 299 of the Code of Civil

Procedure provides: "The written acts of record
of the acts of the sovereign authority, of official
bodies and tribunals and of public officers,
legislative, judicial, and executive of the
Philippine Islands, or of the United States, or of
any States of the United States or of a foreign
country, and public records kept in the Philippine
Islands of private writings are public writings. A
copy of a public writing, duly certified to be a
true copy thereof, is admissible evidence in like
cases and in like effect as the original writing."
Secondary evidence of the contents of writings if

admitted on the theory that the original cannot
be produced by the party by whom the evidence
is offered, within a reasonable time by the
exercise of reasonable diligence. And ordinarily
secondary evidence is not admissible until the
nonproduction of the primary evidence has been
sufficiently accounted for.
The contents of a lost instrument cannot be

proved unless it appears that reasonable search
has been made in the place where the paper
was last know to have been, and if not found
there, that inquiry has been made of the person
last known to have had its custody.
In accordance with the rule set forth in the next

preceding paragraph parol evidence of the
contents of a will is inadmissible, unless it is first
shown that diligent and unavailing search has
been made for the original, by or at the request
of the party interested, and in the place where it
is most likely to be found. . . . But to justify
admission of secondary evidence of a deed, it is
not necessary to prove its loss beyond all
mistake. A reasonable probability of
Layno. Rabajante.possibility
Morana.ofReyes.
The certified copy issued by the acting registrar
its loss is sufficient; and this may be shown by a
of deeds of Iloilo, Exhibit 2, is not a true copy of
bona fide and diligent search, fruitless made for
the document of sale which is said to have been
it in places where it is likely to be found.
As the failure of the oppositor Salvador to

present the original document in question was
not accounted for; as it is not proper to suppose
that the original could not have been presented
within a reasonable time if he had exercised due
diligence for he or his counsel had the means,
opportunity and time to find the original if it really
existed; as no proof was adduced that said
document had been lost, or destroyed, or that
proper search therefor was made in the general
files of notarial documents in the City of Manila,
or that an attempt was made to secure a copy
thereof if it existed in said files; as the notary,
Gregorio Yulo, a person well known in Iloilo, was
not asked directly and clearly as to the
whereabouts of said document or some
particular or data it in order to obtain from him
some conclusive and categorical answer; as
said notary has not been presented at the trial to
be examined on these points; and, lastly, as it
was not shown that the party interested in the
presentation of said document who is Julio
Salvador, had made a diligent and proper, but
fruitless, search for said document in any place
where it could probably be found therefore
the secondary evidence presented by the
oppositor, consisting of the testimony of the
witnesses, Saez and Madrenas, and the certified
copy issued by the registrar of deeds of Iloilo,
Exhibit 2, is of no value for the purpose intended
and such evidence was improperly considered
by the court in reaching the conclusion that said
Julio Salvador was the owner of the lots in
question.
Philippines. The two corporations conducted

business through telephone calls and facsimile
or telecopy transmissions. Ssangyong would
send the pro forma invoices containing the
details of the steel product order to MCC; if the
latter conforms thereto, its representative affixes
his signature on the faxed copy and sends it
back to Ssangyong, again by fax.
Due to the failure of MCC to put up a Letter of

Credit, Ssangyong sued MCC in the RTC. After
Ssangyong rested its case, defendants filed a
demurrer to evidence, alleging that Ssangyong
failed to present the original copies of the pro
forma invoices on which the civil action was
based. In an Order dated April 24, 2003, the
court denied the demurrer, ruling that the
documentary evidence presented had already
been admitted in the December 16, 2002 Order
and their admissibility finds support in RA 8792,
otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce
Act of 2000. Considering that both testimonial
and documentary evidence tended to
substantiate the material allegations in the
complaint, Ssangyong's evidence sufficed for
purposes of a prima facie case. RTC ruled in
favor of Ssangyong, so did the CA.
Issue: WON the printout and/or photocopies of

facsimile transmissions are electronic evidence
and admissible as such.
Held: Although the parties did not raise the

question whether the original facsimile
transmissions are "electronic data messages" or
"electronic documents" within the context of the
The judgment appealed from is therefore
Electronic Commerce Act (the petitioner merely
reversed and the claims of Julio Salvador is
assails as inadmissible evidence the
denied; and we declare that the two lots Nos.
photocopies of the said facsimile transmissions),
873 and 450 should be adjudicated to the
we deem it appropriate to determine first
appellants Carmen and Dolores Martinez and be
whether the said fax transmissions are indeed
registered in their name. No special
within the coverage of RA 8792 before ruling on
pronouncement is made as to costs. So ordered.
whether the photocopies thereof are covered by
the law.
RA 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic
Commerce Act of 2000, considers an electronic
data message or an electronic document as the
What happened in the case of MCC vs.
functional equivalent of a written document for
Ssangyong?
evidentiary purposes. The Rules on Electronic
Evidence regards an electronic document as
Facts: Petitioner MCC Industrial Sales (MCC), a
admissible in evidence if it complies with the
domestic corporation with office at Binondo,
rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of
Manila, is engaged in the business of importing
Court and related laws and is authenticated in
and wholesaling stainless steel products. One of
the manner prescribed by the said Rules. An
its suppliers is the Ssangyong Corporation
is also the equivalent of an
Layno. Rabajante.electronic
Morana.document
Reyes. Suyat.
Baraoidan| !18
(Ssangyong), an international trading company
original document under the Best Evidence
with head office in Seoul, South Korea and
Rule, if it is a printout or output readable by sight
r e g i o n a l h e a d q u a r t e r s i n M a k a t i C i t y,
or other means, shown to reflect the data
accurately. Thus, to be admissible in evidence

as an electronic data message or to be
considered as the functional equivalent of an
original document under the Best Evidence
Rule, the writing must foremost be an "electronic
data message" or an "electronic document."
According to the deliberations in Congress,

when Congress formulated the term "electronic
data message," it intended the same meaning
as the term "electronic record" in the Canada
law. This construction of the term "electronic
data message," which excludes telexes or faxes,
except computer-generated faxes, is in harmony
with the Electronic Commerce Law's focus on
"paperless" communications and the "functional
equivalent approach" that it espouses. In fact,
the deliberations of the legislature are replete
with discussions on paperless and digital
transactions. Facsimile transmissions are not, in
this sense, "paperless," but verily are paperbased.
facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile

transmission cannot be considered as electronic
evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an
original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not
admissible as electronic evidence.
Since a facsimile transmission is not an

"electronic data message" or an "electronic
document," and cannot be considered as
electronic evidence by the Court, with greater
reason is a photocopy of such a fax
transmission not electronic evidence.
Ang vs. CA?
Facts: Rustan Ang and private respondent Irish

Sagud were sweethearts on an on-and-off
basis towards the end of 2004. When Irish
learned afterwards that Rustan had taken a livein partner (now his wife), whom he had gotten
pregnant, Irish broke up with him. Before Rustan
got married, however, he got in touch with Irish
and tried to convince her to elope with him,
A c c o r d i n g l y, i n a n o r d i n a r y f a c s i m i l e
saying that he did not love the woman he was
transmission, there exists an original paperabout to marry. Irish rejected the proposal and
based information or data that is scanned, sent
told Rustan to take on his responsibility to the
through a phone line, and reprinted at the
other woman and their child. One day, Irish
receiving end. Be it noted that in enacting the
received through multimedia message service a
Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, Congress
picture of a naked woman with spread legs with
intended virtual or paperless writings to be the
her face superimposed on the figure. The
functional equivalent and to have the same legal
message allegedly came from Rustans number.
function as paper-based documents. Further, in
After she got the obscene picture, Irish got other
a virtual or paperless environment, technically,
text messages from Rustan. He boasted that it
there is no original copy to speak of, as all direct
would be easy for him to create similarly
printouts of the virtual reality are the same, in all
scandalous pictures of her. And he threatened
respects, and are considered as originals.
to spread the picture he sent through the
Ineluctably, the law's definition of "electronic
internet. Subsequently, a criminal complaint for
data message," which, as aforesaid, is
violation against women through harassment
interchangeable with "electronic document,"
was filed against Rustan. During trial, Rustan
could not have included facsimile transmissions,
claimed that Irish merely sought his help to
which have an original paper-based copy as
identify a prankster who was sending her
sent and a paper-based facsimile copy as
malicious text messages. Rustan got the
received. These two copies are distinct from
senders number and, pretending to be Irish,
each other and have different legal effects.
contacted the person. Rustan claims that he got
While Congress anticipated future developments
back obscene messages from the prankster,
in communications and computer technology
which he forwarded to Irish from his
when it drafted the law, it excluded the early
cellphone. This explained, he said, why the
forms of technology, like telegraph, telex and
obscene messages appeared to have originated
telecopy (except computer-generated faxes,
from his cellphone number. After trial, the RTC
which is a newer development as compared with
gave more credence to Irishs testimony. The
the ordinary fax machine to fax machine
lower court found Irishs testimony completely
transmission), when it defined the term
credible, given in an honest and spontaneous
"electronic data message."
manner, and hence convicted Rustan of the
crime of violence against women through
We, therefore, conclude that the terms
Upon appeal, CA affirmed the RTC
Layno. Rabajante.harassment.
Morana. Reyes.
"electronic data message" and "electronic
decision. Rustan interposed, among others, that
document," as defined under the Electronic
the obscene picture should be inadmissible as
Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a
evidence since such picture sent to Irish through
a text message constitutes an electronic

document and thus should be authenticated
under the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
Issue: WON the RTC properly admitted in

evidence the obscene picture presented in
the case.
Held: Yes. The Court noted that the objection of

Rustan as to the admissibility of the obscene
picture as evidence was already too late since
he should have objected to the admission of the
picture on such ground at the time it was offered
in evidence. He should be deemed to have
already waived such ground for objection.
Besides, the Rules on Electronic Evidence do
not apply to the present criminal action. It was
held that it applies only to civil actions, quasijudicial proceedings, and administrative
proceedings. Accordingly, the Court affirmed
RTCs admission in evidence of the subject
obscene picture.
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
Note: Codal provisions lang ang labanan dito.

Please read the rules.
When is electronic evidence regarded as
being the equivalent of an original document
under the Best Evidence Rule?
An electronic document shall be regarded as the

equivalent of an original document under the
Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output
readable by sight or other means, shown to
reflect the data accurately.
May a print-out or photocopy or both of

facsimile transmissions be considered as
electronic evidence and admissible as the
term is defined under the E-Commerce Act
and its implementing rules?
There is no question that when Congress

formulated the term electronic data message, it
intended the same meaning as the term
electronic record in the Canada law. This
construction of the term electronic data
message, which excludes telexes or faxes,
except computer generated faxes, is in harmony
with the Electronic Commerce Laws focus on
paperless communications and the functional
equivalent approach that it espouses. In fact,
the deliberations of the Legislature are replete
with discussions on paperless and digital
transactions.
Since a facsimile transmission is not an

electronic data message or an electronic
document, and cannot be considered as
electronic evidence by the Court, with greater
reason is a photocopy of such a fax
transmission not considered electronic evidence
(MCC Industrial Sales, Corp. v. Ssangyong
Corp., G.R. No. 170633).
How does one treat text messages as

evidence?
Text messages have been classified as
ephemeral electronic communication under
Sec. 1 (k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence, and shall be proven by the testimony
of a person who was a party to the same or has
personal knowledge thereof. Ephemeral
electronic communication refers to telephone
conversations, text messages and other
electronic forms of communication the evidence
of which is not recorded or retained (VidallonMagtolis v. Salud., A.M. No. CA-05-20-P).
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
QUALIFICATIONS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS

OF WITNESSES
What are the necessary qualifications in

order for one to be a witness?
NO. The definitions under the E-Commerce Act,

its IRR and the Rules on Electronic Evidence, at
All persons who can perceive, and perceiving,
first glance, convey the impression that facsimile
can make known their perception to others, may
transmissions are electronic data messages or
be witnesses.
electronic documents because they are sent by
electronic means. When the Senate voted to
Are there any disqualifications?
adopt the term electronic data message, it was
consonant with the explanation of Senator
Disqualifications of a witness:
Miriam Defensor-Santiago that it would not apply
to telexes or faxes, except computer generated
1. Disqualification by reason of mental
faxes, unlike the UN model law on electronic
incapacity or immaturity;
commerce.
2. Disqualification by reason of marriage;
3. Dead Mans statute;
4. Privileged communications;

5.
6.
7.
Parental and filial privileges;

Art. 821 of the New Civil Code
disqualifies those who have been
convicted of falsification of a document,
perjury or false testimony from being
witnesses to a will.
Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of
Court requires that the accused sought
to be discharged to be state witness
has not at any time been convicted of
any offense involving moral turpitude.
The same requirement is provided for a
state witness under R.A. 6981 or
Witness Protection, Security and
Benefit Act.

Disqualification Disqualification
by Reason of by Reason of
Marriage
Privileged
Communication
b e t w e e n
spouses
Period for A p p l i e s o n l y A p p l i e s e v e n
Prohibition d u r i n g t h e i r a f t e r
the
marriage
marriage
Scope of A
n
y
Prohibition communication
received by one
from the other
Are deaf-mutes disqualified to testify as

witnesses?
NO. deaf-mutes are not necessarily incompetent
as witnesses. They are competent where they:
(a) can understand and appreciate the sanctity
of an oath; (b) can comprehend the facts they
are going to testify to; and (c) can communicate
their ideas through a qualified interpreter
(People v. Tuangco, 345 SCRA 429)
Distinguish competency of a witness and

credibility of a witness.
Competency of a
witness
Credibility of a witness
Has reference to the

qualifications of a
witness as his capacity
to perceive and his
capacity to communicate
his perception to others.
It also includes the
absence of any
disqualifications imposed
upon a witness.
Refers
to
the
believability of the
witness and has nothing
to do with the law or the
rules. it refers to the
weight and the
trustworthiness or
reliability of the
testimony.
When do you determine the qualifications of

a witness?
Exception
1.
2.
As
to
communication
received in
confidence by
one from the
other during their
marriage
Unless there is consent by

the other spouse; or
Except in a civil case by
one against the other, or in
a criminal case fro a crime
committed by one against
the other or the latters
direct descendants or
ascendants.
Can you compel an adverse party to be your

witness?
Yes, in civil cases. Such party is then treated as
a hostile witness. However, there must be
compliance with the requirements of Rule 25
and Rule 26 of the Rules of Court (SHOTGUN
QUESTION).
RULE ON THE EXAMINATION OF A CHILD

WITNESS
When is the rule on examination of child

witnesses applicable?
Examination of child witnesses who are victims,
accused, and witnesses to crime. It shall apply
in all criminal proceedings and non-criminal
proceedings involving child witnesses
The qualifications and disqualifications of a

witnesses are determined as of the time said
witnesses are produced for examination in court
How shall the rule be construed?
or at the taking of their depositions. With respect
to children of tender years, their competence at
Liberally, to uphold the best interests of the
the time of the occurrence to be testified should
child, and to promote maximum accommodation
also be taken into account, especially if such
of child witnesses, without prejudice to the rights
event took place long before their production as
of the accused.
witnesses.
Who may be considered a child witness?
Distinguish spousal immunity from marital
privilege.
Any person who, at the time of giving testimony,

is below the age of 18 years. In child abuse
cases, a child includes one over 18 years but is
found by the court as unable to fully take care of
himself or protect himself from abuse, neglect,
cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of
a physical or mental disability or condition.
(c) The guardian ad litem shall be notified of all

proceedings but shall not participate in the trial.
However, he may file motions pursuant to
sections 9, 10, 25, 26, 27 and 31(c). If the
guardian ad litem is a lawyer, he may object
during trial that questions asked of the child are
not appropriate to his developmental level.
Who is a guardian ad litem?
(d) The guardian ad litem may communicate

concerns regarding the child to the court through
an officer of the court designated for that
purpose.
A person appointed by the court where the case

is pending for a child who is a victim of, accused
of, or a witness to a crime to protect the best
interests of the said child.
What are the powers and functions of the

Guardian Ad Litem?
Section 5. Guardian ad litem.
(a) The court may appoint a guardian ad litem
for a child who is a victim of, accused of, or a
witness to a crime to promote the best interests
of the child. In making the appointment, the
court shall consider the background of the
guardian ad litem and his familiarity with the
judicial process, social service programs, and
child development, giving preference to the
parents of the child, if qualified. The guardian ad
litem may be a member of the Philippine Bar. A
person who is a witness in any proceeding
involving the child cannot be appointed as a
guardian ad litem.
(e) The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any

proceeding concerning any information,
statement, or opinion received from the child in
the course of serving as a guardian ad litem,
unless the court finds it necessary to promote
the best interests of the child.
(f) The guardian ad litem shall be presumed to

have acted in good faith in compliance with his
duties described in sub-section (b).
What are the best interests of the child?

The totality of the circumstances and conditions
as are most congenial to the survival, protection,
and feelings of security of the child and most
encouraging to his physical, psychological, and
emotional development. It also means the least
detrimental available alternative for safeguarding
the growth and development of the child.
(b) The guardian ad litem: (1) Shall attend all

What is the rule with regard to the
interviews, depositions, hearings, and trial
qualification of the child as a witness?
proceedings in which a child participates; (2)
Shall make recommendations to the court
Every child is presumed qualified to be a
concerning the welfare of the child; (3) Shall
witness. However, the court shall conduct a
have access to all reports, evaluations, and
competency examination of a child, motu proprio
records necessary to effectively advocate for the
or on motion of a party, when it finds that
child, except privileged communications; (4)
substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of
Shall marshal and coordinate the delivery of
the child to perceive, remember, communicate,
resources and special services to the child; (5)
distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate
Shall explain, in language understandable to the
the duty to tell the truth in court.
child, all legal proceedings, including police
investigations, in which the child is involved; (6)
Who must prove the need for competency
Shall assist the child and his family in coping
examinations?
with the emotional effects of crime and
subsequent criminal or non-criminal proceedings
A party seeking a competency examination must
in which the child is involved; (7) May remain
present proof of necessity of competency
with the child while the child waits to testify; (8)
examination. The age of the child by itself is not
May interview witnesses; and (9) May request
a sufficient basis for a competency examination.
additional examinations by medical or mental
Moreover, to rebut the presumption of
health professionals if there is a compelling
enjoyed by a child, the burden of
Layno. Rabajante.competence
Morana. Reyes.
need therefor.
proof lies on the party challenging his
competence.
Is the competency examination a final

determination as to the competence of the
child?
Who is a support person?
No. The court has the duty of continuously

assessing the competence of the child
throughout his testimony.
When may the court appoint an interpreter

for the child?
Section 9. Interpreter for child.
(a) When a child does not understand the
English or Filipino language or is unable to
communicate in said languages due to his
developmental level, fear, shyness, disability, or
other similar reason, an interpreter whom the
child can understand and who understands the
child may be appointed by the court, motu
proprio or upon motion, to interpret for the child.
(b) If a witness or member of the family of the

child is the only person who can serve as an
interpreter for the child, he shall not be
disqualified and may serve as the interpreter of
the child. The interpreter, however, who is also a
witness, shall testify ahead of the child
(c) An interpreter shall take an oath or

affirmation to make a true and accurate
interpretation.
When may the court appoint a facilitator to
ask questions to the child?
Section 10. Facilitator to pose questions to child.

(a) The court may, motu proprio or upon motion,
appoint a facilitator if it determines that the child
is unable to understand or respond to questions
asked. The facilitator may be a child
psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker,
guidance counselor, teacher, religious leader,
parent, or relative.
Person chosen by the child to accompany him to

testify at or attend a judicial proceeding or
disposition to provide emotional support for him.
What are the rules relevant to support
persons?
Section 11. Support persons.
(a) A child testifying at a judicial proceeding or
making a deposition shall have the right to be
accompanied by one or two persons of his own
choosing to provide him emotional support. (1)
Both support persons shall remain within the
view of the child during his testimony. (2) One of
the support persons may accompany the child to
the witness stand, provided the support person
does not completely obscure the child from the
view of the opposing party, judge, or hearing
officer. (3) The court may allow the support
person to hold the hand of the child or take other
appropriate steps to provide emotional support
to the child in the course of the proceedings. (4)
The court shall instruct the support persons not
to prompt, sway, or influence the child during his
testimony.
(b) If the support person chosen by the child is

also a witness, the court may disapprove the
choice if it is sufficiently established that the
attendance of the support person during the
testimony of the child would pose a substantial
risk of influencing or affecting the content of the
testimony of the child.
May the courtroom environment be adjusted

to make the child more comfortable?
Yes. Section 13 says: To create a more

comfortable environment for the child, the court
may, in its discretion, direct and supervise the
location, movement and deportment of all
persons in the courtroom including the parties,
(b) If the court appoints a facilitator, the
their counsel, child, witnesses, support persons,
respective counsels for the parties shall pose
guardian ad litem, facilitator, and court
questions to the child only through the facilitator.
personnel. The child may be allowed to testify
The questions shall either be in the words used
from a place other than the witness chair. The
by counsel or, if the child is not likely to
witness chair or other place from which the child
understand the same, in words that are
testifies may be turned to facilitate his testimony
comprehensible to the child and which convey
but the opposing party and his counsel must
the meaning intended by counsel.
have a frontal or profile view of the child during
the testimony of the child. The witness chair or
(c) The facilitator shall take an oath or
place from which the child testifies may
Layno. Rabajante.other
Morana.
affirmation to pose questions to the child
also be rearranged to allow the child to see the
according to the meaning intended by counsel.
opposing party and his counsel, if he chooses to
look at them, without turning his body or leaving
the witness stand. The judge need not wear his

judicial robe. Nothing in this section or any other
provision of law, except official incour
identification provisions, shall be construed to
require a child to look at the accused.
Accommodations for the child under this section
need not be supported by a finding of trauma to
the child.
May the child use testimonial aids during

his / her testimony?
Yes. The court shall permit a child to use dolls,
anatomically-correct dolls, puppets, drawings,
mannequins, or any other appropriate
demonstrative device to assist him in his
testimony.
May the child be allowed to have an

emotional security item?
Yes. While testifying, a child shall be allowed to
have an item of his own choosing such as a
blanket, toy, or doll.
Does the examination of the child need to

follow strictly the usual procedure for
examination of witnesses?
No. Some exceptions are:

1.
2.
3.
The court may allow leading questions

in all stages of examination of a child if
it will further the interests of justice
The court may allow the child witness to
testify in a narrative form
Objections must be couched in a
manner so as not to mislead, confuse,
frighten, or intimidate the child.
Does the child witness testimony need to be

corroborated?
No. His / her testimony, if credible by itself, shall
be sufficient.
On what grounds may the court exclude the
public during the examination of a child
witness?
Does the child need to testify inside the

courtroom?
No. The prosecutor, counsel or the guardian ad

litem may apply for an order that the testimony
of the child be taken in a room outside the
courtroom and be televised to the courtroom by
live-link television. Also, the judge may question
the child in chambers, or in some comfortable
place other than the courtroom, in the presence
of the support person, guardian ad litem,
prosecutor, and counsel for the parties. The
questions of the judge shall not be related to the
issues at trial but to the feelings of the child
about testifying in the courtroom.
What are the grounds to allow testimony by

live-link television?
If there is a substantial likelihood that the child
would suffer trauma from testifying in the
presence of the accused, his counsel or the
prosecutor as the case may be.
What other similar measures may the court
take aside from live-link television?
The prosecutor or the guardian ad litem may

apply for an order that the chair of the child or
that a screen or other device be placed in the
courtroom in such a manner that the child
cannot see the accused while testifying. If the
court grants an application to shield the child
from the accused while testifying in the
courtroom, the courtroom shall be arranged to
enable the accused to view the child.
May the testimony of the child be given

through videotaped deposition?
Yes. If the court finds that the child will not be
able to testify in open court at trial, it shall issue
an order that the deposition of the child be taken
and preserved by videotape.
Does the hearsay rule apply to childrens

testimony?
Not strictly, in child abuse cases. A statement
made by a child describing any act or attempted
act of child abuse, not otherwise admissible
under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in
evidence in any criminal or non-criminal
proceeding subject to certain rules found in
Section 28 (a).
Such an order may be made to protect the right

to privacy of the child or if the court determines
on the record that requiring the child to testify in
open court would cause psychological harm to
him, hinder the ascertainment of truth, or result
in his inability to effectively communicate due to
May the court admit videotape and audiotape
embarrassment, fear, or timidity.
interviews as evidence?
Yes, under certain conditions imposed under

Section 29.
What is the Sexual Abuse Shield Rule?

Section 30. Sexual abuse shield rule. (a) Inadmissible evidence. - The following
evidence is not admissible in any criminal
proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse:
(1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged
victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and (2)
E v i d e n c e o ff e r e d t o p r o v e t h e s e x u a l
predisposition of the alleged victim.
(b) Exception. - Evidence of specific instances of

sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove
that a person other than the accused was the
source of semen, injury, or other physical
evidence shall be admissible. A party intending
to offer such evidence must: (1) File a written
motion at least fifteen (15) days before trial,
specifically describing the evidence and stating
the purpose for which it is offered, unless the
court, for good cause, requires a different time
for filing or permits filing during trial; and (2)
Serve the motion on all parties and the guardian
ad litem at least three (3) days before the
hearing of the motion.
Before admitting such evidence, the court must

conduct a hearing in chambers and afford the
child, his guardian ad litem, the parties, and their
counsel a right to attend and be heard. The
motion and the record of the hearing must be
sealed and remain under seal and protected by
a protective order set forth in section 31(b). The
child shall not be required to testify at the
hearing in chambers except with his consent.
How is the privacy of the child protected?
How are the ordinary rules of Court applied?

Suppletorily.
When do you challenge the qualification of
the witness?
Before he is made to testify on the matters
which he/she was presented. Failure to
challenge will uphold the qualification of the
witness. Kaya nga daw PRELIMINARY
EXAMINATION ang tawag sabi ni Jara.
Distinguish the manner of taking the

testimony of a child witness from that of an
ordinary witness.
Child Witness
Ordinary Witness
Only the judge is

allowed to ask
questions to a child
witness during
p r e l i m i n a r y
examination.
Opposing counsels
are allowed to ask
questions during
p r e l i m i n a r y
examination.
Leading questions are Leading questions are

allowed.
generally not allowed.
Te s t i m o n y i n a Te s t i m o n y i n a
n a r r a t i v e f o r m i s narrative form is not
allowed.
allowed.
The child witness is An ordinary witness is
a s s i s t e d b y a not assisted by a
facilitator.
facilitator.
What is the Dead Mans Statute?

Any records regarding the child shall be
confidential and kept under seal. Except upon
Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or
written request and order of the court, the record
persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted,
may only be released to certain persons under
against an executor or administrator or other
Section 31(a). Moreover, any videotape or
representative of a deceased person, or against
audiotape of a child that is part of the court
a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or
record shall be under a protective order as
demand against the estate of such deceased
provided by Section 31(b). The court may issue
person or against such person of unsound mind,
additional protection orders to protect the childs
cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring
privacy. Whoever publishes or causes to be
before the death of such deceased person or
published the identifying information of the child
before such person became of unsound mind.
or the immediate family of the child shall be
(NOTE: CODAL. VERBATIM. REQUIRED.)
liable to the contempt power of the court. Any
videotape or audiotape of a child made part of
What are the elements of the Dead Mans
the court record shall be destroyed after 5 years
Statute?
from the date of entry of judgment.
1.
2.
3.
4.
The defendant in the case is the

executor or administrator or a
representative of the deceased or the
person of unsound mind;
The suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff
against the estate of said deceased
person or person of unsound mind;
The witness is the plaintiff, or an
assignor of that party, or a person in
whose behalf the case is prosecuted;
The subject of the testimony is as to
any matter of fact occurring before the
death of such person or before such
person became of unsound mind.
A creditor filed a case against the debtor. In

case the creditor dies and the debtor is alive
and of sound mind, does the rule apply?
No. The first element of the Dead Mans Statute

is absent in this case. The person who must
have been disabled or who must have died in
this case is the defendant. The defendant must
be the one therefore being defended in this
case.
Under what instances does the rule not

apply?
With respect to the FIRST ELEMENT:
1.
2.
Witnesses who are neither parties the

case, their assignors, nor persons in
whose behalf the case is prosecuted;
A counterclaim has been interposed by
the defendant as the plaintiff would
thereby be testifying in his defense.
With respect to the SECOND ELEMENT:

1.
Defendant who is sued in his individual,

rather in a representative capacity.
With respect to the THIRD ELEMENT:

1.
An administrator who brings an action in

behalf of the estate;
The action is brought by the heirs of a
deceased plaintiff who were substituted
for the latter.
1.
2.
Negative testimony, that is testimony

that a fact did not occurring during the
lifetime of the deceased;
Testimony on the present possession by
the witness of a written instrument
signed by the deceased.
To whom does the rule apply?

To a witness of the plaintiff who attempts to
testify on matters of fact occurring before the
death of such deceased person or before such
person became of unsound mind.
What happened in the case of Icard v.

Masigan?
Facts: For services rendered in connection with
the development and location of certain mining
claims, Joseph K. Icard filed a claim of P2,000
against the estate of his deceased father
George M. Icard. The claim having been allowed
by the commissioner on claims, the
administrator appealed to the Court of First
Instance, where it was likewise allowed.
DOCTRINE: the Dead Mans Statute is designed

to close the lips of the party plaintiff when death
has closed the lips of the party defendant, in
order to remove from the surviving party the
temptation to falsehood and the possibility of
fictitious claims against the deceased. Where,
as in the instant case, the purpose of the oral
testimony is to prove a lesser claim than what
might be warranted by clear written evidence, to
avoid prejudice to the estate of the deceased,
the law has certainly no reason for its
application.
What is the latin maxim in that case?

Ratione cessante, cessat ipsa lex.
Ong Chua vs. Carr?
Facts: Henry Teck and his wife, Magdalena Lim

sold a property to the plaintiff, Ong Chua. Chua
2.
executed a public document granting to the
spouses the right to for the sum of P6, 500
within four years from the date of purchase.
Later, Edward Carr went to the office of a
With respect to the FOURTH ELEMENT:
sought the!2advice
6
Layno. Rabajante.practicing
Morana.lawyer,
Reyes.Moore
Suyat.and
Baraoidan|
and assistance of the latter in regard to
purchasing coconut lands. Moore then called
Carr's attention to the lots above-mentioned and
told him that he could buy the lots for P20, 000,
the amount which Chua paid for them to Teck
and Lim. Moore informed Carr that Teck and his
wife had the right to repurchase the property in
question from Chua and that such rights would
expire in June, 1927.
Both Chua and Carr requested Moore to draw

the deed of sale of the property from Chua to
Carr. Before the drafting of the deed, Chua
stated to Moore that he consented to sell the
properties to Carr on the condition that the sale
should be subject to the rights of Teck and Lim
to have the property reconveyed to them and
that said rights were to be respected by the
vendee. According to Moore's own testimony,
Carr was fully aware of those rights even before
the execution of the deed, December 14, 1925,
and that he consented to embody stipulations to
the effect in said deed.
Moore told Carr that the deed of sale could be

made in such a form that Carr's title to the
property purchased would appear to be absolute
but that Carr was to bear in mind that the rights
of Teck and Lim still existed and that the deed
and other documents must be left in his,
Moore's, possession until the expiration of the
term for the right of repurchase and that, if the
deed were made in that form, the loan of P6,500
(Carrs deficiency in the purchase price) could
be obtained. The deed of sale was prepared
without including therein the condition that sale
was subject to Teck's and Lim's rights to
repurchase. The deed was signed by Chua and
duly acknowledged before Moore as notary
public.
Issue: WON the court erred in permitting the

p l a i n t i f f , C h u a , t o t e s t i f y, o v e r t h e
defendant's objections, to fact occurring
prior to the death of the defendant Carr
Held: The rules bar parties to an action or

proceeding against an executor or administrator
or other representative of a deceased person
upon a claim or demand against the estate of
such deceased person from testifying as to any
matter of fact occurring before the death of such
deceased person. But it has generally been
given a liberal construction to promote justice,
and it is held that it never was intended to serve
as a shield for fraud. As stated in Jones on
Evidence: The evidence of an adverse party is
absolutely excluded by an independent,
affirmative enactment making him incompetent
as to transactions or communications with a
deceased or incompetent person. These
statutes, however, do not render the adverse
party incompetent to testify to fraudulent
transactions of the deceased, as the statutes are
not designed to shield wrongdoers but the courts
compel the adverse party to clearly establish the
alleged fraudulent acts before admitting such
testimony. In this case, a number of credible
witnesses testified to facts which conclusively
showed that Carr's conduct was tainted with
fraud. The plaintiff did not take the witness stand
until after the existence of fraud on the part of
Carr and been established beyond a doubt and
not by a mere preponderance of evidence. In
these circumstances, we cannot hold that the
trial court erred in not excluding the plaintiff's
testimony.
Carr paid only P13, 500 in cash and promised,

Important matters to discuss in the case:
in writing, to pay to the vendor the balance of the
purchase price. In July, 1926, Teck offered to
1. Nature of the dispute
repurchase the property in question from Chua
2. Whether or not the case fell under the
who thereupon demanded of Carr the
parol evidence rule.
reconveyance of the property to the spouses,
3. The reasons why there was a need to
but Carr refused to do so, claiming that he had
reform
an absolute title to said property, and Chua then
4. Would it have been different if fraud was
learned, for the first time, that the deed in
proven preliminarily?
question contained no reference to the rights of
Teck and Lim to repurchase the property. On
What is Filial Privilege?
July 23, 1926, this action was brought with the
plaintiff demanding that the deed in question be
No person may be compelled to testify against
reformed in accordance therewith. Subsequent
his parents, other direct ascendants, children, or
to the filling of the answer, Carr died, and the
other direct descendants.
administrator of his estate was substituted as
defendant. Upon such facts the court below
relation to the Family Code?
Layno. Rabajante.InMorana.
ordered the reformation of the deed in
accordance with the plaintiff's demand. Hence,
Under the Family Code, the descendant may be
this appeal.
compelled to testify against his parents and
grandparents, if such testimony is indispensable

in prosecuting a crime against the descendant or
by one parent against another.
Does this rule apply to both civil and criminal

cases?
No. only in civil cases. See modifications made
under the family code.
Can modes of discovery be instead used if
not allowed to testify?
No. Not even depositions may be used as the
same constitutes testimonial evidence.
If the plaintiff makes use of the same
depositions as evidence, may it be admitted
in court?
According to Hans Morana, no. Because the

same was made in violation of the rules.
What are privileged communications found
under the Rules of Court?
Sec. 24 deals with types of disqualifications by
reason of privileged communication, to wit:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Communication between husband and

wife;
Communication between attorney and
client;
Communications between physician
and patient;
Communications between a priest and
a penitent;
Public officers and public interest.
Is the enumeration exclusive?

NO. there are other privileged matters not
mentioned under Sec. 130 such as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
What is the common element among such

privileged communications?
The core element in the said enumeration is the

confidence reposed by the person giving such
information to another who receives the same.
In marital privilege, what is the standard in

determining whether the utterance was given
in confidence?
The expression any communication means

confidential communications during marital
relationship. The essence of the privilege is to
protect confidences only. And this must be true,
because there can be no reason arising out from
public policy, or otherwise, requiring that every
word spoken between the husband and wife
shall be privileged, irrespective of the presence
in which spoken or the subject or occasion
thereof. The spirit of the rule is that the privilege
shall be construed to embrace only the
knowledge which the husband or wife obtains
from the other, which, but for the marriage
relation and the confidence growing out of it,
would not have been communicated, or which is
of such nature or character as that, to repeat the
same, would tend to unduly embarrass, or
disturb the parties in their marital relations.
What if the same communication was

overheard by a third person?
If a confidential communication made by one
spouse to the other is overheard by a third
person, the communication does not cease to be
confidential between the spouses, and neither of
them can testify without the consent of the other.
But the legal prohibition to testify is directed to
the spouses only, and accordingly, the third
person overhearing cannot be prevented from
testifying. For the same reason, where a
privileged communication from one spouse to
another comes into the hands of a third party,
the latter may testify. But if the third party comes
into possession of the communication by
collusion and voluntary disclosure on the part of
either of the spouses, he thereby becomes an
agent of such spouse and cannot testify without
the consent of the latter.
Editors may not be compelled to

disclose the source of published news;
Voters may not be compelled to
disclose for whom they voted;
Trade secrets;
Information contained in tax census
returns;
Bank deposits;
What is the reason for the privilege?
Statements made in labor conciliation
proceedings;
Society has a deeply-rooted interest in the
Communications of suspicious
of peace of families and in the
Layno. Rabajante.preservation
Morana. Reyes.
transactions to AMLC under the AMLA.
maintenance of the sacred institution of
marriage, and its strongest safeguard is to
preserve with zealous care any violations of
those hollowed confidences inherent in, and

inseparable from the marital status.
Can privileged communication be used to

quash a subpoena?
No. Sec. 4 of Rule 21 provides for exclusive
grounds to quash a subpoena:
Quashing a Subpoena Duces Tecum:
1.
2.
3.
The subpoena is unreasonable and

oppressive;
The relevancy of the books, documents,
or things does not appear;
If the person in whose behalf the
subpoena is issued fails to advance the
reasonable cost of the production
thereof.
Quashing a Subpoena ad Testificandum:
1.
2.
Witness is not bound thereby;

Witness fees and kilometrage allowed
by these rules were not tendered when
the subpoena was served.
Furthermore, the marital disqualification rule

does not provide for an absolute disqualification.
The witness may still be summoned by the court
but he is may be prohibited only to testify on
matters that are covered by the marital privilege
rule.
For whose benefit is the attorney client

privilege?
It is a prohibition made against a counsel for the
benefit of his lawyer.
What happened in the case of Regala vs.
Sandiganbayan?
PCGG want to build up their case against
Eduardo Coujuanco for the anomalies in the
COCO LEVY FUNDS. PCGG wants petitioners
divulge that Cojuangco indeed was a client of
their firm, as well as other information regarding
Cojuangco.
is that a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and

refuse to divulge the name or identity of his
client.
1) the court has a right to know that the client

whose privileged information is sought to be
protected is flesh and blood.
2) the privilege begins to exist only after the

attorney-client relationship has been
established. The attorney-client privilege does
not attach until there is a client.
3) the privilege generally pertains to the subject

matter of the relationship.
Finally, due process considerations require that
the opposing party should, as a general rule,
know his adversary. A party suing or sued is
entitled to know who his opponent is. He cannot
be obliged to grope in the dark against unknown
forces.
Except:
1) Client identity is privileged where a strong
probability exists that revealing the clients name
would implicate that client in the very activity for
which he sought the lawyers advice.
2) Where disclosure would open the client to

civil liability, his identity is privileged.
3) Where the governments lawyers have no
case against an attorneys client unless, by
revealing the clients name, the said name would
furnish the only link that would form the chain of
testimony necessary to convict an individual of a
crime, the clients name is privileged.
That client identity is privileged in those
instances where a strong probability exists that
the disclosure of the client's identity would
implicate the client in the very criminal activity
for which the lawyers legal advice was obtained.
The case was decided by a divided Supreme

Court and therefore could not be considered
a doctrinal pronouncement. What do you
think was the big problem?
The main contention of the dissenters was that

the rule on attorney-client privilege cannot be
used to hide a crime and the anomalies
involving the coco-levy funds involved a crime.
Held: NO.
point was resolved by the majority
Layno. Rabajante.However,
Morana.the
Reyes.
in this light: the client was still in the process of
As a matter of public policy, a clients identity
discussing business matters with the law firm.
should not be shrouded in mystery. The general
No crime has yet to be committed since the
Issue: Can the PCGG compel petitioners to
divulge its clients name?
same was in an indeterminate stage. Unless it

becomes clear that the matters confided upon
the lawyers of the client constitute a crime,
ACCRA had no obligation to divulge information
regarding the same.
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
What is a self-serving statement?

It refers to one which has been made extrajudicially by the party to favor his interest.
What is a disserving statement?
A disserving statement or an admission is any
extra-judicial statement or conduct (act or
omission) by a party that is inconsistent with the
position the party presently takes.
Declaration that I am a tenant of this

house. Is that an admission?
It depends. See 2004 Jara Notes for a clearer
discussion.
What are the requisites for an admission to
be admissible?
1.
2.
3.
4.
It must involve matters of fact and not of

law;
Be categorical and definite;
Be knowingly and voluntarily made;
Be adverse to the admitters interest;
otherwise it would be self-serving and
inadmissible.
WARNING: make sure na kumpleto lahat ng

elements niyo kapag nagbigay kayo ng
example. SHOTGUN QUESTION ETO.
What happened in the case of Estrada vs.

Desierto?
Doctrine: The Angara diary is admissible in
evidence. It partakes the nature of an adoptive
admission. An adoptive admission is a partys
reaction to a statement or action by another
person when it is reasonable to treat the partys
reaction as an admission of something stated or
implied by the other person.
What happened in People vs. Holgado?

Facts: Sisenando Holgado and Filomeno
Morales had disputes about the occupation of
certain land situated in the municipality of
Pinamalayan, Province of Mindoro. On the
morning of June 15, 1927, the two men
happened to meet. The argument was renewed,
and they agreed to fight. They did engage in a
bolo duel with a fatal result for Filomeno
Morales, who was killed almost instantly.
Sisenando Holgado was also seriously wounded
but was able to proceed to a neighboring house.
From there Sisenando Holgado was taken to the
municipal building where he made a sworn
statement before the municipal president, in
which he declared that only he and Filomeno
Morales fought. About one month later,
Sisenando Holgado died from the wounds
received in the fight.
The disputable point is whether the accused

Eugenio Toledo intervened in the quarrel and
dealt a mortal blow to Filomeno Morales. For the
prosecution, there was presented the witness
Man cannot make evidence for himself. The
Justina Villanueva, the querida of Filomeno
reason for the rule is that what a man says
Morales, who testified to the presence and
against his own interest may be safely believed;
participation of Eugenio Toledo. Her testimony
but it is not safe to credit him where he is
was partially corroborated by that of the witness
advocating his interest.
Justina Llave. On the other hand, the theory for
the defense was that Toledo was in another
If a statement favorable to the interests of
place when the fight between Morales and
the witness is uttered in court, is it still selfHolgado occurred and that his only participation
serving?
was on meeting Holgado, who was his landlord
or master, in helping him to a nearby house. To
Not anymore. Self-serving statements are
this effect is the testimony of the accused and of
allowed to be made in court. Malamang
Conrado Holgado, the son of Sisenando
kelangan mo ipaglaban yung kaso mo.
Holgado. The defense also relied upon the
affidavit of Sisenando Holgado, Exhibit 1, which
identified by the municipal president of
Layno. Rabajante.was
Morana.
Give an example of a self-serving statement
Pinamalayan.
Why is an admission admissible while a selfserving statement not admissible?
Issue: WON the declaration of a third person

against his own penal interest is covered by the
exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Held: Yes. In the case of Pace vs. State ([1911],

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 135
Southwestern, 379), the appellant offered to
prove in the trial court by the witness Byron Kyle
that on Saturday morning following the killing of
the deceased on the previous Sunday he had a
conversation with Dick Cain, one of the parties
to the homicide, in which Dick Cain admitted the
he killed the deceased. The court ruled:
. . . Wherever the state seeks to fasten

criminality upon the party on trial, the accused
had a right to meet and rebut any testimony
which may be offered against him in any
legitimate way. If Cain had been upon trial, his
confession to the witness Kyle would have been
admissible beyond any shadow of doubt, and
would have been upon trial, his confession to
the witness Kyle would have been admissible
beyond any shadow of doubt, and would have
been strong evidence to go before the jury. The
estate would have been seeking to introduce
this and with great earnestness, and correctly
so. If appellant could prove that another party or
others committed the homicide, it might prove
his innocence, and would be strong evidence to
go before the jury in his favor. Any legitimate fact
or circumstance which would meet or tend to
meet the state's case and break the force of
criminative facts introduced against the accused
is always admissible. Appellant's contention was
that he did not kill the deceased, but that Cain
did. The state's theory was the appellant shot
the deceased, and Cain did not shoot him.
Under the rules of evidence this testimony was
clearly inadmissible.
We would like finally to turn attention to what

was said by the editor of L. R. A. in his note in
volume 37 hereinbefore referred to, viz:
the best evidence. But they are not rendered

inadmissible by the mere fact that the declarant
is unavailable, - something else is necessary.
One fact which will satisfy this necessity is that
the declaration is or was against the declarant's
interest, and this is because no sane person will
be presumed to tell a falsehood to his own
detriment.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Again, if, seems indisputable, the desire to close

the door to falsehood which cannot be detected
dictates the exclusion of such testimony, the
question as to the effect to be given to such a
confession is solely one of weight and credibility.
...
Any man outside of a court and unhampered by
the pressure of technical procedure, unreasoned
rules of evidence, and cumulative authority,
would say that if a man deliberately
acknowledged himself to be the perpetrator of a
crime and exonerated the person charged with
the crime, and there was other evidence
indicative of the truthfulness of the statement,
the accused man should not be permitted to go
to prison or to the electric chair to expiate a
crime he never committed. Shall Judges trained
and experienced in the law display less
discerning common sense that the layman and
allow precedent to overcome truth?
Adoptive admission vs. Admission by

Silence
Adoptive Admission
Admission by
Silence
A partys reaction to a
statement or action by
another person when
it is reasonable to
treat the partys
reaction as an
admission
of
something stated or
implied by the other
person
An act or declaration
made in the presence
and within the hearing
or observation of a
party who does or
says nothing when
the act or declaration
is such as naturally to
call for action or
comment if not true,
and when proper and
possible for him to do
so.
The purpose of all evidence is to get at the truth.

The reason for the hearsay rule is that the
extrajudicial and unsworn statement of another
is not the best method of serving this purpose. In
other words, the great possibility of the
fabrication of falsehoods, and the inability to
prove their untruth, requires that the doors be
closed to such evidence. So long therefore as a
What is the principle of Res Inter Alios Acta?
declarant is available as a witness, his
extrajudicial statement should not be heard.
!31 the
Layno. Rabajante.The
Morana.
Reyes.
Baraoidan|
res inter
aliosSuyat.
acta rule
ordains that
Where, however, the declarant is dead or has
rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
disappeared, his previous statements, out of
declaration, or omission of another. An
court, if not inadmissible on other grounds, are
extrajudicial confession is binding onlyupon the
confessant and is not admissible against his coaccused. the reason for the rule is that, on a
principle of good faith and mutual convenience,
a mans own acts are binding upon himself, and
are evidence against him. So are his conduct
and declarations. Yet it would not be rightly
inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a
man should be bound by the acts of mere
unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not
to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither
ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence
against him (People v. Raquel, G.R. No.
119005).
What are the two branches of the Res Inter

Alios Acta Rule?
1.
2.
The rule that the rights of a party cannot

be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another;
The rule that evidence of previous
conduct or similar acts at one time is
not admissible to prove that one did or
did not do the same act at another time.
What are the exceptions to the rule?
1.
2.
3.
Admission by a co-partner or agent;

Admission by a co-conspirator;
Admission by privies.
If a person takes the witness stand and

makes an admission prejudicial to a third
person, is the rule on res inter alios acta
still applicable?
NO. Statements made in open court by a

witness implicating a person aside from his own
judicial admissions, are admissible as
declarations from one who has personal
knowledge of the facts testified thereto.
Who is a state witness?

He is one of two or more persons jointly charged
with the commission of a crime but who is
discharged with his consent as such accused so
that he may be a witness for the State
What are the requisites for one to be a state

witness?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
the offense committed, except the

testimony of the said accused;
The testimony of said accused can be
substantially corroborated in its material
points;
Said accused does not appear to be the
most guilty; and
Said accused has not at any time been
convicted of any offense involving moral
turpitude.
Should a motion be filed?

Yes. A motion must be filed by the prosecution
before it rests its case.
Does it have to be heard ex-parte?
NO. before resolving such motion to discharge
the accused to be a state-witness, the court
shall require the prosecution to present evidence
and the sworn statement of the proposed state
witness at a hearing of the motion to discharge.
As prosecutor, how do you plan to convince

the court to allow the accused to testify?
You convince the court by complying with all the
requisites mandated by the law for one to
become state witness. More importantly, you
have to prove that the accused applying to
become a state-witness must not be the most
guilty of the crime charged.
What assurance can you give the proposed

state-witness in case he testifies?
If the court denies the motion for discharge of
the accused as state witness, his sworn
statement shall be inadmissible as evidence.
Discuss the procedure for one to become a

witness for purposes of RA 6981.
MEMAID WORK LANG ITO.
What is the assurance that the accused will
testify for the state?
Any witness admitted into the program of the

Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act
There is absolute necessity for the
cannot refuse to testify or give evidence or
testimony of the accused whose
produce books, documents, records or writings
discharge is requested;
the prosecution of the offense or
Layno. Rabajante.necessary
Morana. for
Reyes.
There is no other direct evidence
offenses for which he has been admitted into the
available for the proper prosecution of
Program on the ground of the constitutional right
against self-incrimination but he shall enjoy
immunity from criminal prosecution and cannot

be subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for any
transaction, matter or thing concerning his
compelled testimony or books, documents,
records and writings produced (Sec. 14, R.A.
6981).
Who may be admitted to the Witness

Protection, Security and Benefit Program?
Any person who has witnessed or has
knowledge or information on the commission of
a crime and has testified or is testifying or about
to testify before any judicial or quasi-judicial
body, or before any investigating authority may
be admitted provided that:
1.
2.
3.
4.
the offense in which his testimony will

be used is a grave felony as defined
under the Revised Penal Code, or its
equivalent under special laws;
his testimony can be substantially
corroborated in its material points;
he or any member of his family within
the second civil degree of consanguinity
or affinity is subjected to threats to life
or bodily injury or there is a likelihood
that he will be killed, forced, intimidated,
harassed or corrupted to prevent him
from testifying, or to testify falsely, or
evasively, because or on account of his
testimony; and
he is not a law enforcement officer,
even if he would be testifying against
the other law enforcement officers. In
such a case, only the immediate
members of his family may avail
themselves of the protection provided
for under the Act (Sec. 3, R.A. 6981).
If the person does not comply with the

conditions, may the sworn statement be
used against him? (Sworn statement of a
person who refuses to testify thereon)
proper court, his immunity shall be removed and

he shall be subject to contempt or criminal
prosecution. Moreover, the enjoyment of all
rights and benefits under R.A. 6981 shall be
deemed terminated. The witness may, however,
purge himself of the contumacious acts by
testifying at any appropriate stage of the
proceedings (Sec. 13, R.A. 6981).
If in a criminal case the accused pleads

guilty, can he be convicted of the crime
charged?
YES. No need to present evidence on the part of

the prosecution.
How may an accused change his plea?
At any time before the judgment of conviction
becomes final, the court may permit an
improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn and
be substituted by a plea of not guilty.
Can the prosecutor make use of the

withdrawn plea as an evidence against him?
No. 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.
Is the same applicable in a civil case? If so,

how can you do it?
Yes. Such can be done by amending a partys
pleadings. Upon admissions made in an answer
he can amend the admissions in the answer
into a specific denial.
RULE NO DNA EVIDENCE
What is DNA?
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the chain of
molecules found in every nucleated cell of the
body (Sec. 3, Rule on DNA Evidence). It is the
fundamental building block of a persons entire
genetic make-up, which is found in all human
cells and is the same in every cell of the same
person (People v. Umanito, G.R. No. 172607,
Oct. 26, 2007).
Yes, if he fails or refuses to testify or to continue

to testify without just cause when lawfully
obliged to do so, he shall be prosecuted for
contempt. If he testifies falsely or evasively, he
shall be liable to prosecution for perjury. If a
State witness fails or refuses to testify, or
testifies falsely or evasively, or violates any
What is DNA evidence?
condition accompanying such immunity without
just cause, as determined in a hearing by the
It constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles,

results and other genetic information directly
generated from DNA testing of biological
samples (Sec. 3).
What is DNA testing?

It means verified and credible scientific methods
which include the extraction of DNA from
biological samples, the generation of DNA
profiles and the comparison of the information
obtained from the DNA testing of biological
samples for the purpose of determining, with
reasonable certainty, whether or not the DNA
obtained from two or more distinct biological
samples originates from the same person (direct
identification) or if the biological samples
originate from related persons (Kinship
Analysis).
May DNA testing be conducted absent a prior

court order?
Yes. The Rules on DNA Evidence does not
preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior
court order, at the behest of any party, including
law enforcement agencies, before a suit or
proceeding is commenced (Sec. 4).
What are the requisites for the issuance of a

DNA testing order?
In pending actions, the appropriate court may, at
any time issue a DNA testing order either motu
proprio or upon application of any person who
has a legal interest in the matter in litigation after
due hearing and notice to the parties and upon
showing of the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Is the order granting the DNA testing

appealable?
No. An order granting the DNA testing shall be

immediately executory and shall not be
appealable. Any petition for certiorari initiated
therefrom shall not, in any way, stay the
implementation thereof, unless a higher court
issues an injunctive order (Sec. 5).
During Alexis trial for rape with murder, the

prosecution sought to introduce DNA
evidence against him, based on forensic
laboratory matching of the materials found at
the crime scene and Alexis hair and blood
samples. Alexis counsel objected, claiming
that DNA evidence is inadmissible because
the materials taken from Alexis were in
violation of his constitutional right against
self-incrimination as well as his right of
privacy and personal integrity. Should the
DNA evidence be admitted or not? Reason.
The DNA evidence should be admitted. It is not

in violation of the constitutional right against selfincrimination or his right of privacy and personal
integrity. The right against self-incrimination is
applicable only to testimonial evidence.
Extracting a blood sample and cutting a strand
from the hair of the accused are purely
mechanical acts that do not involve his
discretion nor require his intelligence.
Is the result of DNA testing automatically

admitted as evidence in the case in which it
was sought for?
No. The grant of a DNA testing application shall

not be construed as an automatic admission into
evidence of any component of the DNA
evidence that may be obtained as a result
thereof (Sec. 5).
A biological sample exists that is

relevant to the case;
The biological sample:
was not previously subjected to the type
of DNA testing now requested; or
If a DNA test was conducted, what are the
was previously subjected to DNA
possible results that it may yield?
testing, but the results may require
confirmation for good reasons;
1. The samples are similar, and could
The DNA testing uses a scientifically
have originated from the same source
valid technique;
(Rule of Inclusion). In such a case, the
The DNA testing has the scientific
analyst proceeds to determine the
potential to produce new information
statistical significance of the similarity.
that is relevant to the proper resolution
2. The samples are different hence it must
of the case; and
have originated from different sources
The existence of other factors, if any,
(Rule of Exclusion). This conclusion is
which the court may consider as
absolute and requires no further
potentially affecting the accuracy or
analysis;
integrity of the DNA testing (Sec. 4).
3. The test is inconclusive. This might
occur due to degradation,

contamination, failure of some aspect of
protocol, or some other reasons.
Analysis might be repeated to obtain a
more conclusive result (People v.
Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656, May 9, 2002).
2.
What should the courts consider in

evaluating DNA testing results?
1.
2.
3.
The evaluation of the weight of

matching DNA evidence or the
relevance of mismatching DNA
evidence;
The results of the DNA testing in the
light of the totality of the other evidence
presented in the case; and
DNA results that exclude the putative
parent from paternity shall be
conclusive proof of non-paternity (Sec.
9)
To whom is post-conviction DNA testing

available?
Post-conviction DNA testing may be available,
without need of prior court order, to the
prosecution or any person convicted by final and
executory judgment.
3.
4.
What are the things to be considered in

assessing the probative value of DNA
evidence?
3.
Existing biological sample;

Such sample is relevant to the case;
and
The testing would probably result in the
reversal or modification of the judgment
of conviction (Sec. 6).
What is the remedy of the convict if the postconviction DNA testing result is favorable to
him?
1.
2.
3.
4.
What are the requisites for the applicability

of the Post-conviction DNA testing?
1.
2.
they were handled, and the possibility of

contamination of the samples;
The DNA testing methodology, including
the procedure followed in analyzing the
samples, the advantages and
disadvantages of the procedure, and
compliance with the scientifically valid
standards in conducting the tests;
The forensic DNA laboratory, including
accreditation by any reputable
standards-setting institution and the
qualification of the analyst who
conducted the tests. If the laboratory is
not accredited, the relevant experience
of the laboratory in forensic casework
and credibility shall be properly
established; and
The reliability of the testing result (Sec.
7).
5.
6.
How the samples are collected;

How they were handled;
The possibility of the contamination of
the samples;
The procedure followed in analyzing the
samples;
Whether the proper standards and
procedures were followed in conducting
the tests; and
The qualification of the analyst who
conducted the tests. (Ibid.)
What are the things to be considered in

evaluating whether or not the DNA testing
methodology is reliable?
The falsifiability of the principles or

methods used, that is, whether the
theory or technique can be and has
The convict or the prosecution may file a petition
been tested;
for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin.
2. the subjection to peer review and
In case the court, after due hearing, finds the
publication of the principles or methods;
petition to be meritorious, it shall reverse or
3. T h e g e n e r a l a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e
modify the judgment of conviction and order the
principles or methods by the relevant
release of the convict, unless continued
scientific community;
detention is justified for a lawful cause.
4. The existence and maintenance of
standards and controls to ensure the
What should the courts consider in
correctness of data generated;
determining the probative value of DNA
5. The existence of an appropriate
evidence?
reference population database; and
6. The general degree of confidence
1. The chain of custody, including how the
attributed to mathematical calculations
biological samples were collected, how
used in comparing DNA profiles and the
significance and limitation of statistical
1.

calculations used in comparing DNA
profiles.
What Kind of Evidence is DNA Evidence?

It can be object, documentary, or testimonial,
depending on what you present in court. It is not
exclusively classifiable.
In post-conviction DNA testing, what does

conviction mean?
Conviction means a person has been convicted
by final judgment. Even if he is already
sentenced by final judgment, he may still avail of
such remedy.
Does the rule on post-conviction DNA testing

violate the rule on immutability of judgment?
No. Once post-conviction testing turns out to be
favorable to the accused, it has the same effect
as annulling the courts judgment.
If that is the case, then why is the remedy a

petition for Habeas Corpus? Why not an
action for annulment of judgment under Rule
47?
An action for habeas corpus has the same effect

as that of an action for annulment of judgment.
The difference is that according to Jara, Rule 47
is only available to civil cases. Habeas Corpus
may be availed of in criminal cases.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE
What is Sec. 36?

A witness can testify only to those facts which he
knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which
are derived from his own perception, except as
otherwise provided in these rules.
Can a documentary evidence be hearsay?

YES. The one who knows the contents of the
document must testify in court and must have
personal knowledge of the facts stated therein.
When a document is presented in court, there is

a presumption that someone has prepared the
said document. In order to properly submit the
same, the person who prepared it or who had a
part in the execution of the said document must
testify as to the contents of the same. If it the
said document was merely presented to the
court without giving the adverse party any
opportunity to cross examine the person who
prepared or who was part of the preparation of
the said document, then the same document
constitutes hearsay evidence.
Is hearsay evidence relevant? Why should

we exclude such relevant evidence?
Hearsay evidence is relevant because it may
have a reasonable tendency to prove the facts in
issue. However, it is not competent; it is
expressly excluded by the Rules. The reason for
its exclusion is the absence of the opportunity to
cross-examine the witness testifying before the
court. The veracity of the facts cannot be tested.
Opportunity to cross-examine
What are the two aspects of hearsay

evidence?
Are there any exceptions to the hearsay

rule?
1.
2.
3.
4.
11. testimony or deposition at a former

proceeding
12. Sec. 28 of the Rules on Examination of
a Child Witness
13. Rule 8 of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence
1.
2.
Testimonial evidence that was not

derived from personal knowledge;
Testimony of a witness that may be
derived from personal knowledge but
did not give the adverse party an
opportunity to cross-examine the
witness.
dying declaration
declaration against interest
act or declaration about pedigree
family reputation or tradition regarding
Can you not cross-examine the witness who
pedigree
offered the hearsay evidence?
5. common reputation
6. res gestae
YES. OPINION (HPM): In fact, you can ask
7. entries in the ordinary course of
anything during cross examination (generally,
business
follow the ENGLISH RULE), therefore, there
Layno. Rabajante.weMorana.
8. entries in official records
is nothing wrong if you cross-examine the
9. commercial lists
witness. You can cross-examine him on how he
10. learned treatises
acquired the hearsay knowledge, or those
independently relevant statements. See also the

purposes of cross-examination, and it does not
only include testing the truthfulness of the
statement but also to discredit the witness.
Hence, even if the testimony is hearsay, you can
attack the credibility of the witness during crossexamination. However, it is submitted that once
you cross-examine a witness who testified on
hearsay, the adverse party is deemed to have
waived his right to object on its admissibility. The
objection must be raised during the direct exam,
hence, if the counsel was able to object, then
there is no necessity for him to cross-examine.
OPINION (IPL): You could cross-examine the

witness who offered the hearsay testimony.
WHAT YOU CANNOT CROSS-EXAMINE IS
THE PERSON WHO MADE THE OUT-OFCOURT STATEMENT. That is the problem the
hearsay rule wants to address.
It is because of the above reason that if the

affiants of affidavits do not take the witness
stand to affirm their averments in their affidavits,
such affidavits must be excluded from the
judicial proceeding, being inadmissible hearsay.
Supposing it is the other way around? If it is

the witness who testifies according to his
own personal knowledge? Is it possible that
it can be hearsay? (Jara 2004 Notes)
Yes. There is still hearsay evidence if the

witness testifies according to his own personal
knowledge, BUT his testimony was not
subjected to cross-examination.
NOTE: If failure of the witness to return to court

is due to the act of the adverse party, then such
testimony does not become hearsay.
What is the Rule on Independently Relevant

Statements? Is it hearsay?
What are the different classifications of

Independently Relevant Statements?
1.
2.
Those statements which are the very

facts in issue; and
Those statements which are
circumstantial evidence of the facts in
issue.
Does the hearsay rule apply to summary

procedure? Is there an opportunity to crossexamine in summary procedure?
YES. Although in both civil and criminal cases

the direct testimonies of the witnesses shall be
contained in their affidavits, the accused in
criminal cases covered by Summary Procedure
has the right to cross-examine the witnesses.
However, no such right is available to the parties
in civil cases. But see Sec. 20 of the Rule on
Summary Procedure (which is applicable to both
civil and criminal) such that, hearsay statement
shall subject witness to disciplinary proceedings
and expunge the statements off the record.
People vs. Cloud

At around 11:00 oclock in the morning on
August 2, 1988 while a certain Mrs. Josephine
Aguilar was at the emergency room of St. Lukes
Hospital, Quezon City to have some stitches
removed from her daughters head her attention
was called by a limpid boy being carried by a
man followed by an old woman who was
shouting hysterically. The boy is John Albert
Cloud. She noticed that the face of the boy was
swollen and bruised and his body covered with
dry blood. A nurse commented that the little boy
not more than three years old must have
been hit by a truck (tsn, J. Aguilar, June 21,
1993, pp. 7-10, 14-15, 33).
But the words of the old woman the lola - of

the little boy, showed the cause of the injury to
The doctrine provides that a witness ma testify
be otherwise for she was repeatedly saying in a
to the statements made by a person if, for
potpourri of cries and tears: Pinatay siya nf
instance, the fact that such statements were
sariling ama! The old woman told the people
made by the latter would indicate the latters
inside the Emergency Room that the boys
mental state or physical condition. Such
father Robert Cloud wouldnt allow John
statements are relevant since the statements
Albert to come with her and when the boy
made are the very facts in issue or
started to cry and wouldnt stop crying his father
circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue.
began to beat the boy hard, tied his hands, and
It is not hearsay evidence. It may have certain
tusok, tusok in his body. The father
Layno. Rabajante.made
Morana.
characteristics of hearsay, but its application is
continued beating the boy even when
not hearsay. It is DIRECT EVIDENCE.
excrements were already coming out from the
boys anus (tsn. J Aguilar, June 21, 1993, pp.

12-13, 22).
The male companion of the boy said to the old

woman: Hoy, tigil ka na! Wag kang maingay.
And told the people at E.R.: Sira and ulo ng
matanda, eh! (tsn, J Aguilar, July 12, 1993, pp.
8-9). But the old woman wouldnt stop and
continued to say: Putang-ina ang ama niya . . .
Hayop siya!
When the doctor pronounced the boy dead the

old woman knelt before him and cried like (Ix)ion
(tsn, J. Aguilar, June 21, 1993, p. 10). His
baptismal certificate says that John Albert was
born on October 2, 1987 to Janet Villagracia and
John Robert Cloud (Exh. 3).
The ear-piercing would probably have ended

there but for the fact that Mrs. Aguilars
conscience was bothered by what she saw and
heard as narrated above and decided to do
something about it.
She approached Atty.
Remedios Balbin, Chairman in Quezon City of a
civil liberties organization. Atty. Balbin, after a
few weeks of research found out that Robert
Cloud and family left his house at No. 69 San
Isidro Street, barangay Sto. Nio, Quezon City[;]
the boys body was brought to Rey Funeral
Homes[;] Dr. E. Cacas certified that the cause of
death of John Albert Cloud is broncho
pneumonia with heart complications (exh. D-48)
[;] and that the autopsy on the cadaver was
waived by Natividad Calpito Cloud who claimed
to be the boys mother per her Affidavit dated
August 3, 1988 (Exh. D-47).
Atty Balbin
thereafter contacted the NBI and requested for
the exhumation of the boys cadaver.
Issue: WON the statements of Josephine Aguilar

are admissible as evidence.
statements of Alconyes which she recounted in

court.
Her account of said statements of
Alconyes are admissible under the doctrine of
Aindependently relevant statements, with
respect to the tenor and not the truth thereof,
since independent of the truth or falsity of the
same they are relevant to the issue on the cause
of the death of the victim.
Who was the Ponente?

Justice Regalado
The decision made use of independently
relevant statements. How?
The witness in this case testified as to the fact
that a certain old lady was screaming invectives
against a person who allegedly killed his son.
Does that mean that the prosecution can

convict a person of a serious crime using
only circumstantial evidence?
YES, provided that:

1.
2.
3.
there is more than one circumstance;

the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and
the combination of all the circumstances
is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
What do you mean by the term ante litem

motam?
In cases applicable, the statement must be prior
to the controversy, but according to CJ Moran, it
means that it must not only be prior to the suit
but prior to any controversy even if a suit has not
yet been instituted.
Held: Yes. The trial court was of the opinion that

what Ms. Aguilar heard or saw does not merely
constitute an independently relevant statement
What is the concept of a dying declaration?
which it considered as an exception to the
hearsay rule, only as to the tenor rather than the
The declaration of a dying person, made under
intrinsic truth or falsity of its contents.[18] We
the consciousness of an impending death, may
will clarify this. Insofar as the statements of
be received in any case wherein his death is the
Rufina Alconyes are concerned, they are
subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and
admissible as part of the res gestae they having
surrounding circumstances of such death.
been caused by and did result from the startling,
if not gruesome, occurrence that she witnessed;
Can we apply this to a criminal case? How
and these were shortly thereafter uttered by her
about a civil case (HOW)?
with spontaneity, without prior opportunity to
contrive the same. The report made thereof by
Commonly applicable to criminal cases since the
Josephine Aguilar is not hearsay since she was
subject of the statement is the death of the
actually there and personally heard the
declarant. However, it is applicable to civil cases
when the subject matter of the cases involves

the death of the declarant, or that the death is a
vital issue in the civil case.
As long as the relevance is clear, a dying

declaration may now be introduced in a criminal
or a civil action and the relevance is satisfied
when the subject of the inquiry is the death of
the declarant himself.
Must a dying declaration be in writing?

NO. The Revised Rules on Evidence do not
require that a dying declaration must be made in
writing to be admissible. Indeed, to impose such
a requirement would be to exclude many
statements from a victim in extremis for want of
paper and pen at the critical moment (People v.
Viovicente, G.R. No. 118707).
5.
How do you prove to the court that the

statements were made under the
consciousness of an impending death?
A declaration will be deemed as having been

made under the consciousness of imminent
death, in consideration of:
3.
Necessity and trustworthiness.

What is the legal maxim that is usually
quoted?
Truth sits on the lips of the dying man.
What if the defense presents evidence that
the declarant during his lifetime is a
congenital liar? Is that a good strategy on
the part of the defense?
NO. That is not a good defense. It will not even
have any effect at all. The rule on dying
declarations does not require that the declarant
be one of proven honesty. For as long as the
essential elements of a dying declaration is
present, the same may be admitted in evidence.
Essential Elements/Requisites of a dying

declaration?
Requisites:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The words or statements of the

declarant on the same occasion;
His conduct at the time the declaration
is made;
The serious nature of his wounds as
would necessarily engender a belief on
his part that he would not survive
therefrom.
Can a dying declaration be used if the crime

charged is Rape with Homicide?
Only as to the death, i.e., the facts surrounding
the death, but not the facts surrounding the
rape.
Jara: if the declarant says that he/she was

raped, and subsequently dies, that cannot be
considered a dying declaration.
What if the victim does not die?
Always remember DEATH IS AN ESSENTIAL
ELEMENT. Why? If the declarant is alive, he can
testify in court personally. It will not be
considered as a dying declaration, but
nevertheless, it may be admissible as part of a
res gestae
What if victim dies only after three (3)

months?
As long as he believed that he is going to die.

That death is imminent and the
declarant is conscious of that fact;
What is s declaration against interest?
That the declaration refers to the cause
and the surrounding circumstances of
The declaration made by a person deceased, or
such death;
unable to testify, against the interest of the
That the declaration relates to the facts
declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration
which the victim is competent to testify
was at the time it was made so far contrary to
to;
declarants own interest, that a reasonable man
That the declaration is offered in a case
his position would not have made the
Layno. Rabajante.in Morana.
wherein the declarants death is subject
declaration unless he believed it to be true.
of the inquiry (the victim necessarily
must have died);
Requisites?
1.
2.
Why is it exempted?
6.
That the statement is complete in itself

(People v. De Joya, G.R. No. 75028,
November 8, 1991); and
The declarant should have died.
1.
2.
3.
4.
That the declarant is dead or unable to

testify;
That it relates to a fact against the
interests of the declarant;
That at the time he made said
declaration the declarant was aware
that it was contrary to his aforesaid
interest; and
That the declarant had no motive to
falsify and he believed such declaration
to be true.
Distinction of declaration against interest vs.

admission?
Admissions against interest are those made by a
party to a litigation or by one in privity with or
identified in legal interest with such party, and
are admissible whether or not the declarant is
available as a witness. Declarations against
interest are those made by a person who is
neither a part nor in privity with a party to the
suit, are secondary evidence, but constitute an
exception to the hearsay rule, and are
admissible only when the declarant is
unavailable as a witness.
Give an example of a declaration against

interest.
Make sure to give an example both for a criminal
case and a civil case, and remember na dapat
kumpleto lahat ng elements.
What are the evidenciary Rules on Pedigree?

SEC. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree.
The act or declaration of a person deceased, or
unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of
another person related to him by birth or
marriage, may be received in evidence where it
occurred before the controversy, and the
relationship between the two persons is shown
by evidence other than such act or declaration.
The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family
genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates
when and the places where these facts
occurred, and the names of the relatives. It
embraces also facts of family history intimately
connected with pedigree.
witness testifying thereon be also a member of

the family, either by consanguinity or affinity.
Entries in family bibles or other family books or
charts, engraving on rings, family portraits and
the like, may be received as evidence of
pedigree.
Distinctions between Sec. 39 and Sec. 40.

Sec. 39
Sec. 40
Act or declaration Family reputation or

about pedigree.
tradition regarding
pedigree.
Declarant is deceased D e c l a r a n t i s t h e
or unable to testify.
witness himself.
Witness need not be Witness is a member
a m e m b e r o f t h e of the family.
family.
Relation of the
declarant and the
person subject of the
inquiry must be
established by
independent evidence
The witness is himself

the one to whom the
fact relates, it is not
necessary for him to
establish
by
independent evidence
his relationship to the
family.
Give an example.
Just give an example regarding your family, para
mas medaling idefend. He grills a lot of students
in examples.
When were you born? Is that hearsay? So if

it is hearsay, when you state that in court, the
court will not believe you?
the fact that you know your date of birth does

not come from your own personal knowledge
because at the time you were born you were
completely ignorant or innocent. In fact, your
information of your birth is derived from another
source. Nevertheless, the information regarding
your birth is admissible for the convenience of
everybody. It is a matter of necessity.
SEC. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding

pedigree. The reputation or tradition existing
in a family previous to the controversy, in
The birth certificate is also hearsay evidence,
respect to the pedigree of any one of its
but because it is a public document. Documents
members, may be received in evidence if the
consisting of entries in public records made in

the performance of a duty by a public officer are
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
All other public documents are evidence, even
against a third person, of the fact which gave
rise to their execution and of the date of the
latter.
Necessity and Trustworthiness
What is the rule on Res Gestae?

Statements made by a person while a startling
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior
or subsequent thereto with respect to the
circumstances thereof, may be given in
evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also,
statements accompanying an equivocal act
material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance, may be received as part of the res
gestae.
Why are they hearsay?

Because the one testifying in court is not the one
who made the declaration.
Why do we admit them?
Necessity and Trustworthiness. There are other
declarations which are admitted as original
evidence, being distinguished from hearsay by
their connection with the principal fact under
investigation. The affairs of men consist of a
complication of circumstances so intimately
inter-woven as to be hardly separable from each
other.
They are trustworthy because the statements

are made instinctively, while the declarants
mental power for deliberation in concocting
matters are controlled and stilled by the
shocking influence of a startling occurrence, so
that all his utterances at the time are the reflex
product of immediate sensual impressions,
unaided by retrospective mental action.
N e c e s s i t y, b e c a u s e s u c h n a t u r a l a n d
spontaneous utterances are more convincing
than the testimony of the same person on the
stand.
Spontaneous
Statements
The res gestae is the The res gestae is

equivocal act.
the
startling
occurrence.
Statements may be
m a d e p r i o r, o r
immediately after the
startling occurrence.
What are Spontaneous statements?

Statements made by a person while a startling
occurrence is taking place, or immediately prior
or subsequent thereto, with respect to the
circumstances thereof.
What is the concept of a startling

occurrence?
As it is essential that the statements be natural
and spontaneous, unreflected and instinctive, it
is also essential that they should have been
caused by something startling enough to
produce nervous excitement, and to keept the
will dormant so far as any deliberation in
concocting matters for speech or selecting
words is concerned.
Example?
A murder, a suicide, a railroad accident and the
like.
What if the statements were made for some
period after the startling occurrence took
place?
Experience shows that a startling occurrence

may extend its exciting influence over a
subsequent period of time which may be long or
short according to the relative gravity or
seriousness of the startling occurrence. If the
statements were made while the nervous
excitement was still working on the declarants
mind, they are admissible; otherwise, they are
not.
!41 of
does Reyes.
one determine
the spontaneity
Layno. Rabajante.How
Morana.
Suyat. Baraoidan|
Different classifications of Res Gestae

Declarations
Verbal Acts
Verbal act must be

contemporaneous with
or must accompany the
equivocal act.
Basis for admitting such evidence
the occurrence?

1.
2.
3.
4.
Lapse of time between the act and the

declaration relating to it;
Whether there was an opportunity for
fabrication or a likelihood of it;
The mental and physical condition of
the declarant and the character of the
occurrence;
The nature and form of the declaration.
What are verbal acts?

Statements accompanying an equivocal act
material to the issue and giving it a legal
significance. Statements accompanying and
explaining that act made by or to the person
doing it may be proved if they are becessary to
understand it.
What are the requisites for verbal acts to be

admissible?
1.
2.
3.
4.
There must be an equivocal act;

The equivocal act must be material to
the issue;
The statement in question muset be
necessary to understand the equivocal
act; and
The statement must accompany the
equivocal act.
What is an equivocal act?

JARA: it is an act that is capable of different
interpretations. In other words, pwedeng lagyan
ng kulay yung mga ginawa mo. Pwedeng may
ibang kahulugan. You thought that because
sobrang bait ni boylaloo/girlaloo sa iyo eh kayo
na (ano yun caritas?)
It is only when the thing done is equivocal that it

is competent to prove the declarations
accompanying it as falling within the cases of
res gestae. What a person says that is
explanatory of an equivocal or ambiguous act
which he is then doing, or situation which he is
then occupying as that of a person in
possession of property may be proved as re s
gestae.
What are entries in Official Record?

Entries made in official records made in the
performance of his duty by a public officer of the
Philippines, or by a person in the performance of
a duty specially enjoyed by law.
YES, but they are considered as an exception.

Why is a birth certificate trustworthy?
Nobodys interested with the birth of a person.
Jara: You might just be another bitch in this
world. Furthermore, the law makes it clear that
they are prima facie evidence of the facts stated
therein.
If a mother contradicts the date alleged in the

birth certificate, what should be given
greater probative weight?
Birth certificate. See Sec. 23, Rule 132.

When are business records excepted from
the rule of hearsay evidence under the rules
on Electronic Evidence?
The hearsay rule is inapplicable if the following

requisites are present:
1. A memorandum, report, record or data
compilation of acts, events, conditions,
opinions, or diagnoses,
2. Made by electronic, optical, or other
similar means,
3. At or near the time of or from
transmission or supply of information,
4. By a person with knowledge thereof,
5. And kept in the regular course or
conduct of a business activity,
6. And such was the regular practice to
make such memorandum or report,
7. All of which are shown by the testimony
of the custodian or other qualified
witness (Sec. 1, Rule 8, REE).
OPINION AND CHARACTER EVIDENCE
What is the Opinion Rule?

As a rule, the opinion of a witness is
inadmissible because when a witness testifies, a
witness does so with respect to facts personally
observed by him and it is for the court to draw
conclusions from the facts testified to.
Are there any exceptions?
The opinion of a witness regarding a

matter requiring special knowledge,
skill, experience or training which he is
shown to possess, may be received in
evidence.
Are the items recorded in the birth certificate
considered hearsay?
1.

2.
The opinion of a witness for which

proper basis is given, may be received
in evidence regarding:
a. The identity of a person about
whom he has adequate
knowledge;
b. A handwriting with which he has
sufficient familiarity;
c. The mental sanity of a person
with whom he is sufficiently
acquainted;
d. Impressions of the emotion,
b e h a v i o r, c o n d i t i o n o r
appearance of a person.
What are the requisites for an Expert Opinion

to be admissible?
1.
2.
That the fact to be proved is one

requiring expert;
That the witness is really an expert.
What are the Daubert and Frye standards?

Frye Standard
Frye involved the admissibility of opinion
evidence based upon the use of an early version
of the Polygraph. The D.C. Circuit Court held
that scientific evidence was admissible if it was
based on a scientific technique generally
accepted as reliable in the scientific community.
Thus, Expert Testimony was admitted based on
the expert's credentials, experience, skill, and
reputation. The theory was that deficiencies or
flaws in the expert's conclusions would be
exposed through cross-examination. This
decision became known as the Frye test or the
general-acceptance test. By the 1990s, the Frye
test had become the majority view in federal and
state courts for the admissibility of new or
unusual scientific evidence, even in view of
Federal Rule of Evidence 702, passed in 1975,
which some courts believed to provide a more
flexible test for admissibility of opinion testimony
by expert witnesses.
Daubert - Kumho Standard:
or to determine a fact in issue, a witness

qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education, may testify
thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if
(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts
or data, (2) the testimony is the product of
reliable principles and methods, and (3) the
witness has applied the principles and methods
reliably to the facts of the case."
In Daubert, the Court stated that evidence based
on innovative or unusual scientific knowledge
may be admitted only after it has been
established that the evidence is reliable and
scientifically valid. The Court also imposed a
gatekeeping function on trial judges by charging
them with preventing "junk science" from
entering the courtroom as evidence. To that end,
Daubert outlined four considerations: testing,
peer review, error rates, and acceptability in the
relevant scientific community. These four tests
for reliability are known as the Daubert factors or
the Daubert test.
In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly

broadened that test and the trial court's
gatekeeping role to include expert testimony
based on technical and other specialized
knowledge. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael,
526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed. 2d 238
(U.S. Mar 23, 1999) (NO. 97-1709). In Kumho,
the Court held that the gatekeeping obligation
imposed upon trial judges by Daubert applies to
scientific testimony as well as to expert opinion
testimony. In order to meet its gatekeeping
obligation, a trial court may use the criteria
identified in Daubert only when they can be
applied to determine the reliability of either the
underlying scientific technique or the expert's
conclusions. But inasmuch as the Daubert
gatekeeping function is meant to be a flexible
one, it must necessarily be tied to the particular
facts of a case. Thus, the factors identified in
Daubert do not constitute an exhaustive
checklist or a definitive litmus test.
Are the said standards important in our

jurisdiction?
We do not apply these standards in this

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
jurisdiction. In the US, these standards are used
the U.S. Supreme Court changed the standard
with regard to the admissibility of scientific
for admissibility of expert testimony. Under
evidence. See Rule on DNA Evidence, which
Daubert, a trial judge has a duty to scrutinize
uses the standards to determine the probative
evidence more rigorously to determine whether
value of DNA evidence and not to its
it meets the requirements of Federal Rule of
because in our jurisdiction
Layno. Rabajante.admissibility,
Morana. Reyes.
Evidence 702. This rule states, "If scientific,
admissibility is determined by the axioms of
technical, or other specialized knowledge will
admissibility. See also the case of Rosendo C.
assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence
Herrrera v. CA
How do you qualify an expert witness?

In Presenting an Expert Witness:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Introduce and qualify the witness;

Let him give his factual testimony, if he
has knowledge of the facts;
Begin the hypothetical question by
asking him to assume certain facts as
true;
Conclude the question, by, first asking
the expert if he has an opinion on a
certain point assuming that these facts
are true and secondly, asking him, after
he has answered affirmatively, to give
his opinion on the point;
After he has stated his opinion, ask him
to give his reasons.
What is the rule on Character Evidence?

SEC. 51. Character evidence not generally
admissible; exceptions:
(a) In Criminal Cases:
(1) The accused may prove his good moral
character which is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged.
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not

prove his bad moral character which 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 to
establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense
charged.
including those relating to care and skill and

their opposites.
In a case for Estafa, is the character of the

accused relevant?
See Sec. 51(a). The good character of an
accused is admissible in evidence to show the
improbability of his doing the act charged. The
principle upon which good character maybe
proved is, that it affords presumption against the
commission of a crime.
Why dont we just follow the axiom of

relevancy? Why do we exclude character?
The evidence of a persons character does not
prove that such person acted in conformity with
such character or trait in a particular occasion.
Even if it is merely circumstantial, cant we

not admit it based on the two axioms?
OPINION: The Rule provides for the instances
where character evidence may be presented. So
think. When are you going to admit character
evidence?
What moral trait is involved in swindling?

Honesty.
Why is the accused allowed to prove his
character right away while the prosecution
cannot avail of the same privilege?
On the part of the prosecution, the purpose is to

prevent a pronouncement of guilt not because
there exist sufficient evidence of his guilt, but
because he is a bad man.
(b) In Civil Cases:

Evidence of the moral character of a party in a
civil case is admissible only when pertinent to
the issue of character involved in the case.
(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section
14.
What is Character in the first place?
The reason for the rule is that evidence of bad

character may create an unfair prejudice against
the accused who may be convicted not because
he is guilty of the crime charged, but because of
his being a crooked man.
How is character evidence offered? In other
words, what are the evidences that may be
used in order to prove the character of a
person?
The best rule founded on sound logic and wise

Character means the peculiar qualities
experience is that the character of a person may
impressed by nature or by habit on a person
proved by:
Layno. Rabajante.beMorana.
which distinguishes him from others; these
constitute his real character. In other words, it
1. Evidence of reputation;
means the aggregate of a persons traits,

2.
3.
By witnesses who know him personally;

and
In some instances by evidence of
particular acts of said person from
which his character may be inferred.
Distinguish Burden of Proof from Burden of

Evidence.
Burden of Proof
Burden of Evidence
It is the duty of a party to

present evidence on the
facts in issue necessary
to establish his claim or
defense by the amount
of evidence required by
law (Sec. 1, Rule 131)
It is the duty of a party to

provide evidence at any
stage of the trial until he
has established a prima
facie case, or the like
duty of the adverse party
to meet and overthrow
that prima facie case
thus established. In both
civil and criminal cases,
the burden of evidence
lies on the party who
asserts an affirmative
allegation.
Does not shift as it

remains throughout the
entire case exactly
where the pleadings
originally placed it
Shifts to the other party

when one party has
produced sufficient
evidence to be entitled
to a ruling in his favor
Generally determined by
the pleadings filed by
the party; and whoever
asserts the affirmative of
the issue has the burden
of proof
Generally determined by
the developments at the
trial, or by the provisions
of the substantive law or
procedural rules which
may relieve the party
from presenting
evidence on the fact
alleged
It does not shift the

burden of proof.
However, the one who
has the burden of proof
is relieved from the time
being, from introducing
evidence in support of
his averment because
the presumption stands
in the place of evidence.
It creates a prima facie

case and thereby
sustains the said burden
of evidence on the point
which it covers, shifting
it to the other party. It
relieves those favored
thereby of the burden of
proving the fact
presumed.
Can we use testimonial evidence?

YES.
Should the witness belong to the same
community as the accused?
YES. As Justice Berry said: As it is the fact of
disposition which is important and material,
there can be no reason why this fact may not be
proved by any witness who knows what it is.
There is certainly no reason why general repute
is any better or more satisfactory evidence of
disposition than the testimony of one who knows
that the disposition is from his personal
observation.
If a person is presented to prove the
common reputation, is he not offering a
conclusion?
No. It is merely the opinion of the community.
Can the accused offer witness to prove that
he has not defaulted in his previous
transactions, and thereby prove that he did
not commit estafa?
No. He cannot prove particular instances. What

he must prove is his reputation as perceived by
the community.
BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS
Burden of Proof; Definition?

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
establish his claim or defense by the amount of
evidence required by law.
What are the two concepts of burden of

proof?
1.
2.
Who has the burden of proof? With respect

to the defendant, is it possible that he has
the burden of proof?
General Rule: In civil cases, the plaintiff has the

burden of proof; and in criminal cases, it is the
prosecution because innocence is presumed.

Burden of going forward Partys

obligation of producing evidence.
Burden of persuasion The burden of
persuading the trier of fact that the
burdened party is entitled to prevail.
Exception: In civil cases, burden of proof is on

the defendant if he raises affirmative defenses.
Why do we distinguish between negative and
affirmative defenses in a civil case? Can we
apply the same distinctions in a criminal
case?
Because if the defendant raises affirmative

defenses, he has the burden of proof. In criminal
cases, there is no need to distinguish since the
accused is always presumed innocent.
Reverse order of trial is possible in both civil

and criminal cases. How can the reverse
order of trial take place if we do not allow the
court to inquire as to the defenses of the
accuseds offer of a not guilty plea?
If the accused raises justifying or exempting

circumstances, the burden of evidence is
shifted, and he must prove the existence of
these circumstances.
In civil cases, reverse trial is allowed when the

party raises an affirmative defense.
Reverse order of trial in civil cases can the
defendant stipulate in the pre-trial to change
the order of trial even if he raises mere
negative defenses in his pleading?
Generally no. However, see Sec. 5, Rule 30

w h e r e i n t h e c o u r t m a y, f o r s p e c i a l
circumstances, allow modifications in the order
of trial.
Can the same principle be applied in a

criminal case?
NO. because such would violate his right to be
informed of the nature of the offense charged
against him which is contained in the
information.
What happened in Barlin vs. Ramirez?
The plaintiff brought this action against

defendant, alleging in his amended complaint
that the Roman Catholic Church was the owner
of the church bldg, the convent, cemetery, the
books, money, and other property belonging
thereto, and asking that it be restored to the
possession thereof and that the defendant
render an account of the property which he had
received and which was retained by him, and for
other relief.
Issue: WON defendant has the right over the

properties mentioned.
Held: None. As to the defendant, Ramirez, it
appears that he took possession of the property
as the servant or agent of the plaintiff. The only
right which he had to the possession at the time
he took it, was the right which was given to him
by the plaintiff, and he took possession under
the agreement to return that possession
whenever it should be demanded of him. Under
such circumstances he will not be allowed, when
the return of such possession is demanded by
him the plaintiff, to say that the plaintiff is not the
owner of the property and is not entitled to have
it delivered back to him. The principle of law that
a tenant can not deny his landlords title, which
is found in section 333, paragraph 2, of the
Code of Civil Procedure, and also in the Spanish
law, is applicable to a case of this kind. An
answer of the defendant, Ramirez, in which he
alleged that he himself was the owner of the
property at the time he received it from the
plaintiff, or in which he alleged that the pueblo
was the owner of the property at that time, would
constitute no defense. There is no claim made
by him that since the delivery of the possession
of the property to him by the plaintiff he has
acquired the title thereto by other means, nor
does he is own behalf make any claim whatever
either to the property or to the possession
thereof.
The defendant, Ramirez, having been appointed

by the plaintiff parish priest, took possession of
the church on 7/5/01. He administered if as such
under the orders of his superiors until 11/14/02.
His successor having been then appointed, the

Important matters to discuss in the case:
latter made a demand on this defendant for the
delivery to him of the church, convent, and
1. Why did the Court choose the estoppel
cemetery, and the sacred ornaments, books,
by deed presumption?
jewels, money, and other prop. of the church.
2. Why not estoppel in pais?
The defendant, by a written document of that
3. Was there a tenant-landlord relationship
date, refused to make such delivery, stating that
in this case?
"the town of Lagonoy, in conjunction w/ the
parish priest of thereof, has seen fit to sever
What happened in Vales vs. Villa?
connection w/ the Pope at Rome and his
representatives in these Islands, and to join the
This is an action to set aside certain
Layno. Rabajante.Facts:
Morana.
Filipino Church, the head of w/c is at Manila.
transfers of real estate from the plaintiff to one of
the defendants and to require that defendant to
recover by good and sufficient conveyance the
title to such properties; to refund to the plaintiff a

certain sum paid by plaintiff for the recovery of
certain other real estate; and for an accounting
by the defendants of the rents, issues and profits
of certain real estate during a certain period; and
for P25,000 damages.
The action has been erroneously described in

appellant's brief as one to annul a series of real
estate transactions on the ground of duress.
More correctly this is an action to compel the
defendants to account unto the plaintiff for the
proceeds of a series of frauds practiced upon
said plaintiff.
Issue: WON there is existence of fraud.

Held: It is well recognized however, that a mere
failure to live up to a contract is not fraudulent or
deceitful. The furthest the authorities have gone
along this line, and not all have gone that far, is
to declare that if, at the time a contract is made,
one of the parties has present in his mind the
purpose and intent to break it, after getting all he
can out of the other party, and that purpose and
intent enter into a the contract as the main
element or consideration thereof on his part,
there is fraud and deceit, the authorities holding
that the state of mind of the party is a fact
entering into the consideration of the contract
without which it would not have been made; and
that, by virtue of that state of mind, the other
party was deprived of property. That fact
however must be alleged and proved and relied
upon before it can be utilized by the person
asserting its existence. It was not alleged or
proved in this case and plaintiff does not rely
upon it in his brief in this court. His consent was
not obtained by deceit in any of the transactions.
There did not exist in any one of the transactions
complained of a condition where "by words and
insidious machinations on the part of one of the
contracting parties the other is (was) induced to
execute a contract which, without them, he
would not have made."
evidence, the plaintiff has already recovered

those properties, having purchased them from
the defendants on April l4, 1913, for P6,800.
Before this action was begun, therefore, plaintiff
had obtained the very thing which he had been
seeking to recover all through thus dealings with
defendants and to obtain which he claims he
had suffered so much. Having secured before
this action was begun precisely what defendants
had promised him and the very thing he sought,
there remains nothing further to be said or done
in that connection. Certainly the repurchase of
the properties which he so much desired was
not procured by fraud or deceit; and it was a
complete termination of the relations existing
between the parties arising out of the properties
which he claimed were sold with a right to
repurchase. After having obtained the very thing
he desired and having done so in a manner
which he deemed best and most suitable under
the circumstances, did he not thereby terminate
all relations between himself and defendants
with respect to, or growing out of those
properties, and can he nor repudiate not only the
transaction by which he recovered them but also
every other transaction which he claims related
thereto? It is incomprehensible, from a legal
point of view, that plaintiff, having been deprived
of property by fraud and deceit, may recover that
property through a voluntary agreement
between him and those who deceived and
defrauded him, and then repudiate not only the
transaction in which he was defrauded of that
property but also the very transaction by which
he recovered it.
Dealing with the case from the standpoint of

intimidation, it should be noted of March 22,
1909, was obtained in that form by force or
thereat. The validity of that conveyance is
admitted; as is also the fact that the verbal
agreement to reconvey was omitted from the
conveyance knowingly. The claim is simply that
there was a verbal agreement to reconvey on
the repayment of the consideration named in the
instrument and that defendants made use of the
Reduced to the lowest terms this action
fact that the agreement was verbal and,
constitutes an attempt on the part of the plaintiff
therefore, difficult to prove, as clever by which
to extricate himself from a series of foolish
they forced him to convey to them additional
transactions, if we may accept his allegations
properties before they would comply with the
respecting them. As we have said, the sales
verbal agreement. According to plaintiff's
were all made by the plaintiff with full knowledge
contention, then, each one of the conveyances
of the facts and there appears nothing in the
between him and defendants subsequent to the
record which warrants a rescission of them from
original conveyance was an extortion, using that
the standpoint of fraud. The ultimate purpose of
in its popular and not in its legal sense, the
Layno. Rabajante.word
Morana.
the action is the recovery of the properties
defendants, in order to intimidate him and
described in the deed of March 22, 1909,
thereby obtain the conveyance, threatening him
remaining unsold. But, as appears from the
with a refusal to comply with the verbal
agreement to reconvey and the consequent loss

of his properties. At each conveyance the
defendants agreed, always verbally, as a
consideration therefor, to reconvey to him the
properties remaining, but each time refused to
do so and proceeded, after each such
conveyance, to a fresh extortion. It is contended
that plaintiff, by not incorporating the verbal
agreement to reconvey in the instrument itself,
placed himself in a disadvantageous position;
and that he executed and delivered the
subsequent conveyances for the purpose of
extricating himself from the unfortunate situation
so produced. The ultimate extortion, the
payment of P6,800 to recover the remaining
properties, was the last penalty which he paid
for his mistake in not incorporating the verbal
agreement in the conveyance itself.
indeed, all they have in the world; but not for that
alone can the law intervene and restore. There
must be, in addition, a violation of law, the
commission of what the law knows as an
actionable wrong, before the courts are
authorized to lay hold of the situation and
remedy it.
Furthermore, even if an actionable wrong be

committed in such manner as to authorize the
courts to intervene, the person injured may
renounce his right to take the matter to the
courts and may compromise with the wrongdoer. Or, having been placed in a very
disadvantageous position by the wrong
committed against him, he may be offered by his
adversary one or more avenues of escape. He
may be required to lose more property to his
enemy or go to the courts for redress. In such
case the payment of an additional sum as a
means of escape is not necessarily a payment
voidable for duress. The act was preceeded by
an exercise of judgment. This much was plain to
him: he had either to let the matter stand as it
was with the loss already sustained, or go to the
courts to be relieved. His judgment, operating
upon this condition, told him to pay the
additional sum rather than to suffer the
inconvenience and expense of an action in
court. A payment made under such conditions is
not voidable. It is the voluntary act of a sane and
mature man performed upon reflection. Not only
this; it is a compromise of the original wrong and
a ratification of the relation which the wrongful
act was intended to establish between the
parties.
All men are presumed to be sane and normal

and subject to be moved by substantially the
same motives. When of age and sane, they
must take care of themselves. In their relation
with others in the business of life, wits, sense,
intelligence, training, ability and judgment meet
and clash and contest, sometimes with gain and
advantage to all, sometimes to a few only, with
loss and injury to others. In these contests men
must depend upon themselves upon their
own abilities, talents, training, sense, acument,
judgment. The fact that one may be worsted by
another, of itself, furnishes no cause of
complaint. One man cannot complain because
another is more able, or better trained, or has
better sense of judgment than he has; and when
the two meet on a fair field the inferior cannot
murmur if the battle goes against him. The law
furnishes no protection to the inferior simply
The same may be said with greater force of a
because he is inferior, any more than it protects
case where a person's own voluntary act,
the strong because he is strong. The law
uninfluenced by another, has put him in a
furnishes protection to both alike to one or
disadvantageous position a position which
more or less than to the other. It makes no
another may unjustly make use of to his injury.
distinction between the wise and the foolish, the
The failure to reduce a contract to writing, or to
great and the small, the strong and the weak.
have witnesses present when a verbal
The foolish may lose all they have to the wise;
agreement is made, or to record an instrument,
but that does not mean that the law will give it
or to exclude from the operation of its terms
back to them again. Courts cannot follow one
things verbally agreed to be excluded, etc., may
every step of his life and extricate him from bad
place a person in a disadvantageous position
bargains, protect him from unwise investments,
with respect to another; and the demand that he
relieve him from one-sided contracts, or annul
pay to secure his extrication is not illegal, and a
the effects of foolish acts. Courts cannot
payment made pursuant to such demand is not
constitute themselves guardians of persons who
necessarily voidable. He pays for his lack of
are not legally incompetent. Courts operate not
foresight. While the demand may be
because one person has been defeated or
reprehensible morally, it is not illegal' and of
overcome by another, but because he has been
is not ground for relief.
Layno. Rabajante.itself
Morana.
defeated or overcome illegally. Men may do
foolish things, make ridiculous contracts, use
There must, then, be a distinction to be made
miserable judgment, and lose money by them
between a case where a person gives his
consent reluctantly and even against his good

sense and judgment, and where he, in reality,
gives no consent at all, as where he executes a
contract or performs an act against his will under
a pressure which he cannot resist. It is clear that
one acts as voluntarily and independently in the
eye of the law when he acts reluctantly and with
hesitation as when he acts spontaneously and
joyously. Legally speaking he acts as voluntarily
and freely when he acts wholly against his better
sense and judgment as when he acts in
conformity with them. Between the two acts
there is no difference in law. But when his
sense, judgment, and his will rebel and he
refuses absolutely to act as requested, but is
nevertheless overcome by force or intimidation
to such an extent that he becomes a mere
automation and acts mechanically only, a new
element enters, namely, a disappearance of the
personality of the actor. He ceases to exist as an
independent entity with faculties and judgment,
and in his place is substituted another the
one exercising the force or making use of
intimidation. While his hand signs, the will which
moves it is another's. While a contract is made,
it has, in reality and in law, only one party to it;
and, there being only one party, the one using
the force or the intimidation, it is unenforceable
for lack of a second party.
From these considerations it is clear that every

case of alleged intimidation must be examined
to determine within which class it falls. If it is
within the first class it is not duress in law, if it
falls in the second, it is.
Taking the case as a whole, we are therefore of

the opinion that there was no intimidation and
that, if there was, the plaintiff has placed himself
in a position where he was not entitled to urge it
as a defense.
What are the conclusive presumptions under

the Rules of Court?
1.
2.
Whenever a party has, by his own

declaration, act, or omission,
intentionally and deliberately led
another to believe a particular thing is
true, and to act upon such belief, he
cannot, in any litigation arising out of
such declaration, act or omission, be
permitted to falsify it.
The tenant is not permitted to deny the
title of his landlord at the time of the
commencement of the relation of
landlord and tenant between them.
Is the enumeration of conclusive

presumptions exclusive?
No. There are many conclusive presumptions
found in substantive and other procedural laws.
For example, ignorance of the law excuses no
one from compliance therewith. Another is the
conclusive presumeption of non-filiation in DNA
cases.
Review Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy. What were

the conclusive presumptions applied in the
case?
Estoppel in pais after heavily participating in the

case knowing that that the court had no
jurisdiction to try the same.


But into whichever class it falls the party coerced

may, as we have seen, waive his right to annul
the contract and to recover damages. He may
do this expressly or impliedly. He may expressly
accept the agreement as it stands, or in a
modified from, and live up to it as thus accepted.
Or, he may compromise by paying something to
be relieved from its effects or to have its terms
changed. Or, he may accept benefits under the
contract. In any one of which cases, and there
are others not now necessary to mention, he
renounces and wai ves his defense of
intimidation and thereby eliminates that element
as one having any influence on the case
thereafter.
NOTE: You must discuss what disputable

presumptions were used in the case.
Give example of estoppel in pais.
Note: give an example aside from Tijam
Is there a conclusive presumption under civil

procedure?
Yes. Under the Sec. 48 and 49 of Rule 39 (Res
Judicata)
If a judgment is not yet executory/final, can
there be a presumption of regularity?
YES there is a disputable presumption of
correctness of judgment.
How can this be rebutted?
Upon appeal, ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.

PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
US vs. Baluyot
At the general election which was held on June
6, 1916, Conrado Lerma was elected governor
of the Province of Bataan. One of his
competitors upon this occasion was the
accused, Jose I. Baluyot, who came out third in
the race. As a result of this contest a feeling of
personal rancor was developed in the mind of
Baluyot against his successful competitor, and
during the two years which followed the accused
became fully imbued with the idea that Governor
Lerma was persecuting him. Because of this,
Baluyot killed Gov. Lerma.
During the trial of the case, it appears that after

the witnesses had been examined in court for
the prosecution, they were turned over to the
attorney for the accused and were by him fully
cross-examined. Later, when the giving of
testimony for the prosecution had been
concluded, the defense proceeded to introduce
sundry witnesses who were examined in due
course. After four had thus testified, and
immediately before the accused was placed
upon the stand in his own behalf, his attorney
made the request that the declarations or
statements made by the witnesses during the
preliminary inquiry conducted by the fiscal
preparatory to the prosecution of the case
should be produced. The attorney for the
prosecution objected on the ground that one
party cannot be compelled to produced evidence
in favor of the other.
We know of no rule of practice which sustains

the contention of the appellant. The statements
in question were not the sworn declarations of
witnesses taken in conformity with the
requirements of section 13 of General Orders,
No 58, and which are commonly attached to the
"expediente" transmitted by the committing
magistrate to the Court of First Instance. In the
case at bar the preliminary examination before
the committing magistrate was waived by the
accused, and the declarations of the witnesses
for the prosecution were therefore not taken
before the magistrate. The declarations referred
to were, on the contrary, taken in an
investigation conducted by the fiscal under the
authority of section 1687 of the Administrative
Code. This section authorizes the fiscal, if he
deems it wise, to conduct an investigation into
the matter of any crime or misdemeanor for the
purpose of instituting or carrying on a criminal
prosecution. It is expressly declared that this
section shall not be construed to authorize a
provincial fiscal to act as a justice of the peace
in any preliminary investigation. The proceeding
here contemplated is of an administrative
character, and the information thereby acquired
is intended for the use of the fiscal in the
conduct of the prosecution. Such declarations
therefore pertain to the official file in the office of
the public prosecutor and are not subject to
production at the mere request of the attorney
for the accused where no ground therefor had
been laid Qrb4Fxm.
In order that we may not be misunderstood, as

well as for the purpose of clarifying the practice
in such matters, a few words may here by
properly said in respect to the proper mode of
proceeding in a case where a party wishes to
Issue: WON the prosecution may be compelled
get before the court contradictory statements
to produce such declarations and statements
made by a witness who is testifying for the
made by the witnesses in a preliminary inquiry
adversary party. For instance, if the attorney for
made by the fiscal.
the accused had information that a certain
witness, say Pedro Gonzales, had made and
Held: No. They were not original or independent
signed a sworn statement before the fiscal
evidence of such a character as to give the
materially different from that given in his
accused an unqualified right to compel their
testimony before the court, it was incumbent
production, and no proper basis was laid in the
upon the attorney when cross-examining said
cross-examination of the witnesses who had
witness to direct his attention to the discrepancy
made those statements to justify their production
and to ask him if he did not make such and such
with a view to the impeachment of the
statement before the fiscal or if he did not there
declarants. The request was of course based
make a statement different from that delivered in
upon the supposition or expectation that if the
court. If the witness admits the making of such
statements of the witnesses before the fiscal
statement, the accused has the
Layno. Rabajante.contradictory
Morana. Reyes.
were produced, they might be found to contain
benefit of the admission, while the witness has
something different from what was contained in
the opportunity to explain the discrepancy, if he
their testimony given in court.
can. On the other hand, if the witness denies
making any such contradictory statement, the

accused has the right to prove that the witness
did make such statement; and if the fiscal should
refuse upon due notice to produce the
document, secondary evidence of the contents
thereof would be admissible. This process of
cross-examining a witness upon the point of
prior contradictory statements is called in the
practice of the American courts "laying a
predicate" for the introduction of contradictory
statements. It is almost universally accepted that
unless a ground is thus laid upon crossexamination, evidence of contradictory
statements are not admissible to impeach a
witness; though undoubtedly the matter is to a
large extent in the discretion of the court.
We wish to add that in a case of this kind, if the

accused had, by affidavit or otherwise, made it
appear to the satisfaction of the court that the
witnesses named had made statements in their
declarations before the fiscal materially at
variance with their statements in court and that
the production of said declarations was
necessary or even desirable, in the interests of
justice, the court would have had ample power
to order their production. No such showing, or
intimation, was made in this case; and the
attorney who made the motion was merely
angling at random to discover something that
might prove to be favorable to his client. To put a
court in error for refusing to entertain such a
motion would encourage frivolous delays and
tend to embarrass the speedy and proper
administration of justice.
Under the existing rules, can the accused

compel the production of the said evidence
to be used in his favor?
(Pwede: Right under the Constitution - Right of

Compulsory process); See Rule 112, Sec. 7(b)
How can an accused seek the production of
evidence in court?
tangible things not otherwise privileged, which

constitute or contain evidence material to any
matter involved in the case and which are in the
possession or under the control of the
prosecution, police, or other law investigating
agencies.
How do you lay the predicate?

By calling the attention of the witness to the
former contradicting statement. If the statement
be in writing they must be shown to the witness
before any question is put to him.
What if the witness states that he does not

remember? Or what if he denies making the
said statements?
Offer the said evidence as an extrajudicial

admission (Regalado, citing Juan Ysmael & Co
vs. Hashim, 50 Phil 132).
What is a leading question?

A leading question is one that is framed in such
a way that the question indicates to the witness
the answer desired by the party asking the
question. It is a question which suggests to the
witness the answer which the examining party
desires.
What is a misleading question?

A misleading question is one which assumes as
true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
contrary to that which he has previously stated.
Why is a leading question is disallowed in

direct? Why is it allowed in cross?
Leading questions are disallowed in direct
examination because the Rules need to avoid
coaching the witness.
Rule 116, Sec. 10: Upon motion of the accused

showing good cause and with notice to the
In cross, the witness is expected to be hostile to
parties, the court, in order to prevent surprise,
the cross-examiner. OPINION: Again, remember
suppression, or alteration, may order the
the purpose of cross, hence, the cross-examiner
prosecution to produce and permit the
is allowed to lead the witness or to suggest to
inspection and copying or photographing of any
the latter the answer the former desires in order
written statement given by the complainant and
to test whether the witness is consistent with his
other witnesses in any investigation of the
statement. However, the direct examiner, not
offense conducted by the prosecution or other
adverse to the witness, must refrain from
Layno. Rabajante.being
Morana.
investigating officers, as well as any designated
leading his witness. The direct examiner must
documents, documents, papers, books,
show that the witness knows what he is saying
accounts, letters, photographs, objects, or
not as suggested by the direct examiner.
Example of leading question (Trial Court setting)
2.
The Scope of Cross-examination?

English Rule: where a witness is called to testify
to a particular fact, he becomes a witness for all
purposes and may be fully cross-examined upon
all matters material to the issue, the examination
not being confined to the matters inquired about
in the direct examination.
American Rule: restricts cross-examination to

facts and circumstances which are connected
with the matters that have been stated in the
direct examination of the witness.
What rule do we follow here?

It depends on the witness and the nature of the
case being heard. If the witness is an accused in
the criminal case, he/she may only be cross
examined on matters discussed in the direct
examination.
Can an accused who testifies on his on

behalf, be examined using strictly the
American Rule?
YES, otherwise his right against selfincrimination may be violated.

If the opponent decides not to conduct a
cross-examination on the witness, will that
be prejudicial to the clients cause? Can a
cross-examination cause prejudice to a
client?
Are we to assume every time that a

memorandum is available for reference?
Opinion: No. The same must be presented in
court.
The memorandum from which the witness may
be permitted to refresh his memory need NOT
be an original writing. It is sufficient if it is shown
that the witness knows the copy to be a true
one, and his memory refreshed thereby enables
him to testify from his own recollection of the
facts, independent of his confidence in the
accuracy of the copy.
The BOSTON LEGAL Rule: Kapag walang naestablish sa direct, do not cross examine. Baka
kapag nagcross-examination ka e madale ka at
maestablish ang claim ng kalaban mo.
OFFER OF EVIDENCE
1.
2.
3.
What is the Rule on Revival of past

recollection/present memory?
1.
How do you offer an evidence?
examine the witness upon it, and may

read it in evidence.
A witness may testify from such a
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.
The court shall consider no evidence

which has not been formally offered.
The purpose for which the evidence is
offered must be specified.
As regards the testimony of a witness,
the offer must be made at the time the
witness is called to testify.
Documentary and object evidence shall
be offered after the presentation of a
partys testimonial evidence. Such offer
shall be done orally unless allowed by
the court to be done in writing.
A witness may be allowed to refresh his

memory respecting a fact, by anything
Procedural steps?
written or recorded by himself or under
his direction at the time when the fact
For testimonial evidence, just follow the codal
occurred, or immediately thereafter, or
procedure.
at any other time when the fact was
fresh in his memory and he knew that
For documentary or object evidence:
the same was correctly written or
recorded; but in such case the writing
1. Call upon the witness;
the writing or record must be produced
2. Qualify the witness;
and may be inspected by the adverse
3. Ask the witness preliminary questions;
party who may, if he chooses, cross-

4.
5.
6.
Present evidence to witness and ask

him to authenticate/identify the
evidence if necessary;
Mark the evidence as an exhibit.
After all the witnesses have testified,
offer the exhibits in court, identifying
each of them, and stating their purpose.
Challenging the qualification of a witness?

Through voi dire examination.
Should you allow the witness to testify first
before you disqualify him?
No there are instances where a witness before
he can be allowed to testify, may be disallowed
to testify.
Absolute disqualifications?
Those witnesses not identified in the pre-trial
brief. Are they disqualified?
Generally, YES.
If the witness is excluded prior to testifying,

what is the remedy?
The Court may be liberal. Kausapin mo lang

daw sabi ni Jara (in reference to Phoenix vs.
Pratts).
If the witness is allowed to testify, questions

will be asked. In the course of propounding
questions, there are certain objectionable
questions. How do you classify objections?
(General/Specific). Distinguish.
General Objection It does not go beyond

declaring the evidence as immaterial,
incompetent, irrelevant or inadmissible. In other
words, it does not specify the grounds for
objection. (Also known as a Broadside
Objection)
Specific Objection It states why or how the

evidence is irrelevant or incompetent. E.g.
Objection to the question for being leading.
i.e., it is inadmissible either because it is

irrelevant or incompetent or both. e.g. parol,
hearsay evidence
What if there is a failure to object, can the

court prohibit the witness from answering
the question?
Yes. If it involves an infringement of the right of

the witness.
Abrenica vs. Gonda
These proceedings were brought by the plaintiff
to compel the defendant to return to him the two
parcels of land described in the complaint which
he alleges were sold by him under right of
repurchase to the defendant on February 21,
1916, for the sum of P75 and for the period of
seven years. The plaintiff alleged that the
defendant refused to deliver said property to him
when, upon the expiration of the period
mentioned, he endeavored to redeem the same
and tendered payment to the defendant of the
sum aforesaid.
During the trial, the plaintiff, having been placed

on the stand as a witness by his on attorney,
testified at length and answered all the
questions asked him with respect to the said
contract, the details of the same, the persons
who witnessed it, the place where it was made,
and various other circumstances connected with
its execution. These questions and answers
cover six pages of the record, and yet the
defendants' counsel raised no objection to the
examination, aside from challenging one of the
questions as leading and another of them as
irrelevant. It seems that only when the
examination was terminated did counsel for
defendants move to strike out all of the
testimony given and statements made by
plaintiff in regard to the contract, on the ground
that the period for the fulfillment of the contract
exceeded one year and that it could not be
proven except by means of a written instrument.
Issue: WON the statements may be stricken out
despite not being objected to during the
examination of the witness.
Held: No. Now then, it has been repeatedly laid

down as a rule of evidence that a protest or
Formal Objection is one directed against the
objection against the admission of any evidence
alleged defect in the formulation of the question.
must be made at the proper time, and that if not
E.g. ambiguous question
made it will be understood to have been
Layno. Rabajante.soMorana.
waived. The proper time to make a protest or
Substantive Objection objections made and
objection is when, from the question addressed
directed against the very nature of the evidence,
to the witness, or from the answer thereto, or
from the presentation of the proof, the

inadmissiblity of the evidence is, or may be,
inferred.
A motion to strike out parol or documentary

evidence from the record is useless and
ineffective if made without timely protest,
objection, or opposition on the part of the party
against whom it was presented.
Objection to the introduction of evidence should

be made before the question is answered. When
no such objection is made, a motion to strike out
the answer ordinarily comes too late. (De Dios
Chua Soco vs. Veloso, 2 Phil. Rep., 658).
The fact that the defendants' counsel asked

various cross-questions, both of the plaintiff and
of the other witness, in connection with the
answers given by them in their direct
examination, with respect to particulars
concerning the contract, implies a waiver on his
part to have the evidence stricken out.
It is true that, before cross-examining the plaintiff

and one of the witnesses, this same counsel
requested the permission of the court, and
stipulated that his clients' rights should not be
prejudiced by the answers to those witnesses in
view of the motion presented to strike out their
testimony; buy this stipulation of the defendants'
counsel has no value or importance whatever,
because, if the answers of those witnesses were
stricken out, the cross-examination could have
no object whatsoever, and if the questions were
put to the witnesses and answered by them,
they could only be taken into account by
connecting them with the answers given by
those witnesses on direct examination
It appears from the record in this matter that on

the 29th of August, 1900, during the progress of
a trial then being held before the Court of First
Instance at Bacolor, in the Province of
Pampanga, the court had occasion to caution
Angel Alberto, a witness in the case, not to look
at the attorney for the defendant but to fix his
attention on the judge who was at the time
examining him. It seems that the witness did not
give heed to this warning, and the judge
thereupon arose from his seat and approaching
the witness, seized him by the shoulders, and
using the expression, "Lingon ang
mucha" ("Look at me"), either shook him, as
insisted by the attorney for the defendant, or
only turned him about, as claimed by the judge
and others. Whether the witness was shaken or
only turned about, at all events "seizing him,"
brought the defendant's attorney to his feet,
who, protesting against the action of the judge
as coercive of the witness, demanded that a
record be made of the occurrence and that the
further hearing of the case be postponed. Two
days afterward the clerk entered in his record as
recital of the incident substantially as above, and
also a statement that on other and prior
occasions the attorney, Marcelino Aguas, had
been wanting in respect to the court by making
use of "improper phrases," and by interrupting
opposing counsel in their examination of
witnesses. The court on this record adjudged the
attorney to be in contempt of court and
suspended him from the practice of his
profession for a period of twenty days.
Issue: WON the counsel may be cited in

contempt of court.
Held: No. In our opinion the action of the judge

As no timely objection or protest was made to
in seizing the witness, Alberto Angel, by the
the admission of the testimony of the plaintiff
shoulder and turning him about was
with respect to the contract; and as the motion to
unwarranted and an interference with that
strike out said evidence came to late; and,
freedom from unlawful personal violence to
furthermore, as the defendants themselves, by
which every witness is entitled while giving
the cross-questions put by their counsel for the
testimony in a court of justice. Against such
witnesses in respect to said contract, tacitly
conduct the appellant had the right to protest
waived their right to have it stricken out, that
and to demand were respectfully made and with
evidence, therefore, cannot be considered either
due regard for the dignity of the court. The only
inadmissible or illegal, and court, far from having
question, therefore in this case is, Was the
erred in taking it into consideration and basing
appellant respectful and regardful of the court's
his judgment thereon, notwithstanding the fact
dignity in presenting his objection and asking
that it was ordered to be stricken out during the
that it be recorded in the proceedings? The
trial, merely corrected the error he committed in
witnesses say and the judge finds that "his
ordering it to be so stricken out and complied
was menacing" (bastante amenazadora)
Layno. Rabajante.attitude
Morana.
with the rules of procedure hereinbefore cited.
in the moment of making his protest, but beyond
that there is nothing in the record which even
In Re Aguas?
tends to show that he was disrespectful to the
court or unmindful of its dignity. In our opinion

both testimony and finding state a mere
conclusion which, in the absence of the facts
from which it was deduced, is wholly valueless
to support a judgment of contempt. The
statement that the attorney's attitude was
"menacing" tended no more to competently
establish the alleged offense of contempt than if
the witnesses had testified and the court had
found that his conduct was "contemptuous or
lacking in respect." The specific act from which it
was inferred that his attitude was menacing
should have been testified to by the witnesses
and found by the court, and failing that, the
record does not show concrete facts sufficient to
justify the conclusion that he was disrespectful
to the court or offensive to its dignity.
US vs. Baluyot?
At the general election which was held on June
6, 1916, Conrado Lerma was elected governor
of the Province of Bataan. One of his
competitors upon this occasion was the
accused, Jose I. Baluyot, who came out third in
the race. As a result of this contest a feeling of
personal rancor was developed in the mind of
Baluyot against his successful competitor, and
during the two years which followed the accused
became fully imbued with the idea that Governor
Lerma was persecuting him. Because of this,
Baluyot killed Gov. Lerma.
During the trial of the case, it appears that after

the witnesses had been examined in court for
the prosecution, they were turned over to the
attorney for the accused and were by him fully
cross-examined. Later, when the giving of
testimony for the prosecution had been
concluded, the defense proceeded to introduce
sundry witnesses who were examined in due
course. After four had thus testified, and
immediately before the accused was placed
upon the stand in his own behalf, his attorney
made the request that the declarations or
statements made by the witnesses during the
preliminary inquiry conducted by the fiscal
preparatory to the prosecution of the case
should be produced. The attorney for the
prosecution objected on the ground that one
party cannot be compelled to produced evidence
in favor of the other.
made by the witnesses in a preliminary inquiry

made by the fiscal.
Held: No. They were not original or independent

evidence of such a character as to give the
accused an unqualified right to compel their
production, and no proper basis was laid in the
cross-examination of the witnesses who had
made those statements to justify their production
with a view to the impeachment of the
declarants. The request was of course based
upon the supposition or expectation that if the
statements of the witnesses before the fiscal
were produced, they might be found to contain
something different from what was contained in
their testimony given in court.
We know of no rule of practice which sustains

the contention of the appellant. The statements
in question were not the sworn declarations of
witnesses taken in conformity with the
requirements of section 13 of General Orders,
No 58, and which are commonly attached to the
"expediente" transmitted by the committing
magistrate to the Court of First Instance. In the
case at bar the preliminary examination before
the committing magistrate was waived by the
accused, and the declarations of the witnesses
for the prosecution were therefore not taken
before the magistrate. The declarations referred
to were, on the contrary, taken in an
investigation conducted by the fiscal under the
authority of section 1687 of the Administrative
Code. This section authorizes the fiscal, if he
deems it wise, to conduct an investigation into
the matter of any crime or misdemeanor for the
purpose of instituting or carrying on a criminal
prosecution. It is expressly declared that this
section shall not be construed to authorize a
provincial fiscal to act as a justice of the peace
in any preliminary investigation. The proceeding
here contemplated is of an administrative
character, and the information thereby acquired
is intended for the use of the fiscal in the
conduct of the prosecution. Such declarations
therefore pertain to the official file in the office of
the public prosecutor and are not subject to
production at the mere request of the attorney
for the accused where no ground therefor had
been laid Qrb4Fxm.
In order that we may not be misunderstood, as

well as for the purpose of clarifying the practice
in such matters, a few words may here by
said in respect to the proper mode of
Layno. Rabajante.properly
Morana.
Issue: WON the prosecution may be compelled
proceeding in a case where a party wishes to
to produce such declarations and statements
get before the court contradictory statements
made by a witness who is testifying for the
adversary party. For instance, if the attorney for

the accused had information that a certain
witness, say Pedro Gonzales, had made and
signed a sworn statement before the fiscal
materially different from that given in his
testimony before the court, it was incumbent
upon the attorney when cross-examining said
witness to direct his attention to the discrepancy
and to ask him if he did not make such and such
statement before the fiscal or if he did not there
make a statement different from that delivered in
court. If the witness admits the making of such
contradictory statement, the accused has the
benefit of the admission, while the witness has
the opportunity to explain the discrepancy, if he
can. On the other hand, if the witness denies
making any such contradictory statement, the
accused has the right to prove that the witness
did make such statement; and if the fiscal should
refuse upon due notice to produce the
document, secondary evidence of the contents
thereof would be admissible. This process of
cross-examining a witness upon the point of
prior contradictory statements is called in the
practice of the American courts "laying a
predicate" for the introduction of contradictory
statements. It is almost universally accepted that
unless a ground is thus laid upon crossexamination, evidence of contradictory
statements are not admissible to impeach a
witness; though undoubtedly the matter is to a
large extent in the discretion of the court.
We wish to add that in a case of this kind, if the

accused had, by affidavit or otherwise, made it
appear to the satisfaction of the court that the
witnesses named had made statements in their
declarations before the fiscal materially at
variance with their statements in court and that
the production of said declarations was
necessary or even desirable, in the interests of
justice, the court would have had ample power
to order their production. No such showing, or
intimation, was made in this case; and the
attorney who made the motion was merely
angling at random to discover something that
might prove to be favorable to his client. To put a
court in error for refusing to entertain such a
motion would encourage frivolous delays and
tend to embarrass the speedy and proper
administration of justice.
Discrepancies and/or inconsistencies between a

witness affidavit and testimony in open court do
See Illustration made by Riano on page 325.

In case of dying declarations, can you
impeach the declaration of a deceased?
You can now use the adverse character of the
deceased declarant in impeaching the said
testimony.
Is the impeachment limited on the person on

the stand?
No.
Rule on Evidence on Motions
When a motion is based on facts not appearing
of record, the court may hear the matter on
affidavits or depositions presented by the
respective parties, but the court may direct that
the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral
testimony or depositions.


What is the effect when there are

inconsistencies between a witness affidavit
and his testimony in open court?
not impair credibility as affidavits are taken ex

parte and are open incomplete or inaccurate for
lack or absence of searching inquiries by the
investigating officer. The general rule that
contradictions and discrepancies between the
testimony of a witness and his statements in an
affidavit do not necessarily discredit him is not
without exception, as when the omission in the
affidavit refers to a very important detail of the
incident that one relating to the incident as an
eyewitness would not be expected to fail to
mention, or when the narration in the sworn
statement substantially contradicts the testimony
in court (Edwin Tabao v. People, G.R. No.
187246).
Impeachment of a witness via contradictory
evidence. How is this done?
Is there a need to present evidence when one

files a motion? How?
Yes. Attach the evidence on the motions.
Is there a motion that requires a full blown

hearing and presentation of evidence?
BAIL (Evidence of Guilt is strong quantum of
proof)
How about in a civil case?
In cases of injunction
QUANTUM OF PROOF
Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
It does not mean such degree of proof as,

excluding possibility of error, produces absolute
certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
Clear and Convincing

That degree of proof which will produce in the
mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or
conviction as to the allegations sought to be
established.
Is there a definition given in the Rules?

No. such quantum of proof is defined by
jurisprudence.
Quasi Judicial bodies are given authority to

make rules of procedure right? Are they
allowed to make rules as to the quantum of
evidence that may be used in their
proceedings?
No. Quantum of proof is always determined by
the Courts. Sec. 5 Art.VIII of the Constitution is
controlling.
Are there Court cases that only require
substantial evidence?
Yes. AMPARO. HABEAS DATA. KALIKASAN.

(Jara: do not make the mistake in stating that
substantial evidence is only available in
administrative and quasi-judicial cases.
When do we use this?

In extradition proceedings and other cases as
may be defined by jurisprudence.
Preponderance of Evidence?
That which is of greater weight or more
convincing than that which is offered in
opposition to it.
Substantial evidence
That amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion.
You always expect the mind of the judge to

be reasonable right?
Yes. Presumption of regularity of official
functions.
What is the concept of Demeanor Evidence?
Whenever a witness testifies in court, the judge
may be allowed to determine his credibility by
observing his demeanor while he is testifying in
court.
What is the importance of demeanor

evidence as far as the appellate court is
concerned?
NONE. Appellate courts are not in a position to

observe the demeanor of a witness.
Nevertheless, it does not preclude them from
entertaining questions of fact (opinion lang po).

Jara 2012 Evid Power Notes PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Jara 2012 Evid Power Notes PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2011-2

2011-2012 [JARA POWER NOTES ON EVIDENCE]

JARA RECITATION NOTES FOR EVIDENCE

Can Evidence be used to answer questions

Why cannot we use Evidence to answer

Distinguish Questions of Fact from

Is the issue on jurisdiction a question of fact

It refers to a denial of the material facts or facts

A defendant must specify each material

Can there be a question of fact when a party

In a case where a party defaults, is there still

In every case that requires adjudication, is

No. There are instances when Evidence is not

When does a question of fact arise?

When the issues are already joined.

When does that joinder happen?

Upon the filing of an answer which contains a

When no factual issue exists in a case.

Are evidentiary rules also found outside

2011-2012 [JARA POWER NOTES ON EVIDENCE]

FALSE. Probandum may also be determined by

What is Factum Probandum and Factum

Does probandum exist in a case where a

If the accused pleads guilty to a crime, does

True or False. Probandum is always

Can probandum change easily in a criminal

When do we apply the Rules on Evidence?

Can we apply evidence in Summary

Do we present Evidence in Summary

YES. Evidence is still presented by virtue of the

How about in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings?

Distinguish Proof from Evidence.

What are the different classifications of

2011-2012 [JARA POWER NOTES ON EVIDENCE]

Object: evidence that is directly

What are the Axioms of Admissibility?

Axiom of Relevance: None but the facts having

What are the different classes of

As to ability to establish a fact in dispute:

Direct: proves a fact in dispute without

Prima Facie: that which standing alone

As to weight and acceptability:

Primary: evidence which affords the

Multiple Admissibility of Evidence

What are some matters that do not require

Where no factual issue exists in a case.

It is the cognizance of certain facts which judges

2011-2012 [JARA POWER NOTES ON EVIDENCE]

Yes. That is the general rule. However, there are

What are matters subject of Judicial Notice?

Existence and territorial extent of states;

What is the doctrine of Processual

Is it not the duty of the Courts to apply the

How do you then prove foreign law?

The general rule is that the foreign law must still

Actual knowledge by the Court;

What if the foreign law is Common Law?

Is Judicial Notice absolute according to the

During trial, the court, on its own

Do we still need certification that the said

held that where the foreign law is within the

What are Judicial Admissions?