Relevance of evidence and collateral matters Rule 128, Sec. 4 SEC. 4.Relevancy; collateral matters.

Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. RELEVANCY (None but facts having rational probative value are admissible). 1. The material presented as evidence must affect the issue or question. It must have a bearing on the outcome of the case. It requires both: a). rational or logical relevancy in that it has a connection to the issue and therefore it has a tendency to establish the fact which it is offered to prove. The evidence must therefore have probative value. b). legal relevancy in that the evidence is offered to prove a matter which has been properly put in issue as determined by the pleadings in civil cases, or as fixed by the pre-trial order, or as determined by substantive law. If so the matter has materiality. Illustration: the fact that the crime was committed at nighttime is rationally or logically relevant to a killing at 12 midnight but evidence thereon would be not be legally relevant if nighttime was not alleged in the Information. It would be immaterial. The components of relevancy are probative value and materiality. therefore

tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the facts in issue a). collateral matters (def.)-facts or matters which are not in issue, i.e. there is an absence of a direct connection between the evidence and the matter in dispute. They are not generally allowed to be proven except when relevant. b) In criminal cases, the collateral matters allowed to be proven, being relevant include: (i). Antecedent Circumstances, or those in existing even prior to the commission of the crime. They include such matters as habit, custom, bad moral character when self defense is invoked; or plan design, conspiracy, or premeditation, agreement to a price, promise or reward (ii) Concomitant circumstances or those which accompany the commission of the crime such as opportunity to do the act or incompatibility

(iii).Subsequent circumstances or those which occur after the commission of the crime, such as flight, escape, concealment, offer of compromise

c.

Multiple admissibility

Multiple Admissibility: when a material is asked by a party to be admitted as evidence, the party presenting must inform the court of the purpose which the material is intended to serve and the court then admits the material as evidence. Multiple admissibility may mean either (i) the evidence is admissible for several purposes or (ii) an evidence is not admissible for one purpose but may be admitted for a different purpose if it satisfies all the requirements of the other purpose Examples of the first concept: (a) a knife may be admitted to prove the accused was armed with a deadly weapon; to prove it was the weapon of the accused

2. Rule as to collateral matters: Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it

which cause the wounds and not some other instrument; to corroborate the statement of a witness who claims he saw the accused holding a bladed instrument. Example of the second concept: (a). the extra judicial confession of one of several accused may not be admitted to prove there was conspiracy among them or to prove the guilt of the other co-accused but it may be admitted to prove the guilt of the confessant (b) the statement of the victim may not be admitted as a dying declaration but as part of the res gestae.

2. The party presenting must have raised an objection to the improper evidence, for if he did not, then it is discretionary for the court to allow him to present curative evidence 3. The evidence sought to be countered should not refer to those which are incompetent due to an exclusionary rule Example: P vs. D for sum of money. P was allowed to introduce evidence that D did not pay his debt as shown by his refusal to pay his indebtedness to X, Y and Z. Defendant may introduce evidence that he paid his debts to A, B and C.

d.

Conditional admissibility

f.

Direct and circumstantial evidence

Conditional Admissibility: An evidence is allowed to be presented for the time being or temporarily, subject to the condition that its relevancy or connection to other facts will later be proven, or that the party later submit evidence that it meets certain requirements of the law or rules. If the conditions are not later met, the evidence will be stricken from the record. Example: 1. A Xerox copy of a document may be allowed to presented subject to the condition that the original be later presented 2. P vs. D to recover a parcel of land. P presents a document that the land belonged to X. If D objects to it as being irrelevant, P can state that he will thereafter show that X sold the land to Y who in turn sold it to Z and then to P. The Court may admit the document conditionally.

1. direct- that which proves a fact in issue or dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption. It is evidence to the precise point. Example: The eye witness account; the scar to show the wound 2. circumstantial- proof of facts or fact from which taken singly or collectively, the existence of the particular fact in issue may be inferred or presumed as a necessary or probable consequence

Important considerations on circumstantial evidence a) This applies only in criminal cases and is governed under Rule 133(4) which for purposes of supporting a finding of guilt, requires: i). that there be more than one circumstance ii).that the facts from which the inference are derived are proven iii). the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt b) Per the Supreme Court: it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. c). Guidelines in the appreciation of the probative value of

e.

Curative admissibility

Curative admissibility or fighting fire with fire or Opening the Door 1. This applies to a situation when improper evidence was allowed to be presented by one party, then the other party may be allowed to introduce or present similar improper evidence but only to cure or to counter the prejudicial effect of the opponents inadmissible evidence.

circumstantial evidence i) It should be acted upon with caution ii). All essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt iii). The facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt iv). The facts must establishes such a certainty of guilt as to convince the judgment beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is the one who committed the offense Lejano v. People Doctrine:To establish alibi, the accused must prove by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence that (a) he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. A positive declaration from a witness that he saw the accused commit the crime should not automatically cancel out the accuseds claim that he did not do it. A lying witness can make as positive an identification as a truthful witness can. The lying witness can also say as forthrightly and unequivocally, He did it! without blinking an eye. Villarama dissent: Against positive evidence, alibi becomes most unsatisfactory. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of a credible witness Competent and credible evidence COMPETENT EVIDENCE - All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific law or rule forbids. In short the evidence is not excluded by law or rules. CREDIBLE EVIDENCE: Evidence to be believed requires: A.) That it be credible in itself i.e. such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. Testimony must be natural, reasonable and probable as to make it easy to believe B). Must come from a credible source- a credible witness is one who testifies in a categorical, straightforward spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent on cross examination

g.

Positive and negative evidence

a). positive-evidence that affirms the occurrence of an event or existence of a fact, as when a witness declares that there was no fight which took place b). negative when the evidence denies the occurrence of an event or existence of a fact, as when the accused presents witnesses who testify that the accused was at their party when the crime was committed. Denials and alibi are negative evidences. *** The general rule is that positive evidence prevails over negative evidence, or that a positive assertion is given more weight over a plain denial. i. alibi

Alibi- an example of negative evidence Alibi- a common name for the defense frequently offered in criminal cases that the person accused was so far away from the scene of the crime when it was committed, that he could not have committed it. It is an evidence offered by one charged with a crime to support the statement that at the time of its commission he was at a place so remote or that the crime took place under such circumstances that he could not possibly have committed it. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses that can be resorted to by an accused. Case:

PEOPLE VS ESPINOSA

DOCTRINE: If the trial court had the opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses, absent a showing that the court was arbitrary or without basis, its conclusions must be regarded with respect and accepted as conclusive on appeal. The discrepancies in the declarations of Arnold and Ariel are not unnatural or evidence of perjury. The two brothers had different vantage points that gave each of them a separate view of the incident. It should also be considered that the victim was their father. Under this traumatizing and shocking circumstance, the two sons, who were then only sixteen and fifteen respectively, can hardly be expected to remember the grisly stabbing in perfect detail. Burden of proof and burden of evidence Rule 131, Sec. 1 SECTION 1.Burden of proof. 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. Burden of proof is also known as the ONUS PROBANDI 1. Burden of Proof or Burden of Persuasion or Risk of Non Persuasion- the duty of the party alleging the case to prove it. a). This lies with the plaintiff b). This lies too with the defendant as to his defenses and counter-claim (Dec. 9, 2005)

in order to meet and nullify, if not overthrow, that prima facie evidence. ( PP vs. Villanueva, 506 SCRA 280)

Points of distinction: a). The former never shifts but remains constant with the party while the latter shifts from one party to the other as the trial progresses b). In civil cases where it lies is determined by the pleadings while the latter is determined by the rules of logic.

Who has the Burden of Proof? 1. The general rule is- he who would lose the case if no evidence is presented. Hence it is the plaintiff as to his causes of action, and the defendant as to his counterclaim. 2. In criminal cases, the burden of proving guilt is always the plaintiff/prosecution. But if the accused sets up an affirmative defense, the burden is on him to prove such by clear, affirmative and strong evidence The foregoing rests on the maxim: EL INCOMBIT PROBOTION QUI DECIT NON QUI NEGAT (He who asserts, not he who denies, must prove) DAVAO LIGHT AND POWER CO., INC. VS OPENA

2. Burden of Evidence or Burden of Going Forward- The duty or logical necessity imposed upon a party, at any time during the trial, to establish a prima facie case in his favor or to overcome a prima facie case against him when the prosecution has succeeded in discharging the burden of proof by presenting evidence sufficient to convince the court of the truth of the allegations in the Information, or has established a prima facie case against the accused, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused making it incumbent upon him to adduce evidence

Doctrine: Even though no constitutional provision is violated by a statute providing that proof by the state of some material fact or facts shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt, and that then the burden is shifted to the defendant for the purpose of showing that such act or acts are innocent and are committed without unlawful intention, the burden of proof never parts, thus, the proof of the existence of the prima facie evidence is still the burden of the plaintiff. The plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendants. 8. Presumptions

The facts in issue are either (i) proved by the presentation of testimonial,

documentary or object evidence or they are (ii) presumed Presumption: An assumption or conclusion as to the existence of a fact based on another fact or group of facts which were already established. These are based on human experience or common sense, or laws of nature.

evidence , if unexplained or uncontroverted, can counter balance the presumption of innocence to warrant a conviction ( Wa-acon vs. PP)

Components of a Presumption 1. The Ultimate Fact or the Presumed Fact

Classification: Praesumption Legis: these are presumptions which the law directs to be made by the court a). Juris tantum- or prima facie, rebuttable or disputable presumption or those which may be overcome or disproved b). Juris et de Jure: conclusive or those which the law does not allow to be contradicted c). Statutory and Constitutional Praesumption Hominis ( Fact) these are presumptions which may be made as a result of the mental processes of inductive or deductive reasoning from a fact

2. The basic fact or factual basis because a presumption cannot arise or be based on another presumption. This may either be: a). A fact within Judicial Knowledge in which case the presumption becomes operative at the moment the case is filed or at any time thereafter. The basic fact need not be proven. For example: The presumption of innocence becomes operative the moment an Information is filed in Court. So also the presumption of sanity of parties and witnesses or the presumption of good moral character of every party arises whenever a case is filed in court and at the time the witness testify. b). The basic fact which must be proven.

Evidentiary Value: 1. Presumptions cannot substitute for evidence. They are to be indulged in only when there is no evidence as to the fact in issue or there is great difficulty in obtaining direct evidence of the fact in issue 2. Once there is evidence of the fact in issue, the presumption ceases 3. The role and importance of presumptions is to relieve a party of the difficulty of complying with the burden of proof. Thus there is no need to present the Bank Representative in case of Violation of B.P. 22 4. In case of Conflicting Presumptions or whenever several presumptions arise from the same set of facts, the rule is: (1) that which has the weightier reason prevails otherwise all will be considered as equal and therefore all will be disregarded and (b) Constitutional prevails over statutory presumptions. 5. When there is a presumption of law, the onus probandi (burden of proof) generally imposed upon the State, is now shifted to the party against whom the inference is made to adduce satisfactory evidence to rebut the presumption and hence, to demolish the prima facie case. Such prima facie

For example: The presumption of a child being that of the husband arises only after it is proven: that the parents were validly married and the child was born thereafter. The presumption that a public officer was regularly appointed or elected after it is first shown he was acting as a public officer. Likewise the presumption of survivorship. Note: There must be a rational connection between the Ultimate Fact and the Basic Fact

a.

Conclusive presumptions Rule 131, Sec. 2 (a) and (b) SEC. 2.Conclusive presumptions. The following are instances of conclusive presumptions: (a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing 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;

ownership of the lessor over the property. (b) 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. Conclusive: Juris et de jure or those which the law does not allow to be contradicted 2. The lessee cannot use his physical possession over the property as basis to dispossess the lessor of the latters ownership. The law seeks to protect owners of real property from being deprived of their ownership by those in actual physical possession who are their own lessees.

Conclusive Presumptions in Section 2 Estoppel in General: a principle which bars a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has been established as the truth arising from his own acts or representations. It may be: (1). Estoppel in Pais or equity (2).By deed i.e document and (3). By Record or Judgment i.e those found and established as true by a court of competent jurisdiction 1. Estoppel in Pais: The essence is intentional misrepresentation 1. Requirements: a). As to the party estopped: (i). a conduct amounting to false representation or concealment of /material facts (ii). an intention that the conduct be acted upon or that it will influence the other party and (iii) knowledge of the true facts b). As to the party claiming estoppel: (i) an absolute lack of knowledge or of the means of knowledge as to the true facts, not lack of diligence (ii) reliance in good faith upon the conduct of the other party and (iii) the action or inaction resulted to his damage or injury Example: A man who represents himself to be the true owner in a sale will not be permitted later to deny the sale after he acquire title thereto *But estoppel does not apply to the government for acts of the public officials

SEC. 4.No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after three hundred days following the dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation.

D.M. Consunji Inc. vs. Court of Appeals April 20, 2001 Kapunan, J. DOCTRINE: As a rule of evidence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is peculiar to the law of negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence. One of the theoretical based for the doctrine is its necessity, i.e., that necessary evidence is absent or not available. ESTATE OF ROGELIO G. ONG vs. DIAZ December 17, 2007 DOCTRINE: Though there exists a presumption of legitimacy of a child who is born when a couple is married, it is not conclusive and consequently may be overthrown by evidence to the contrary. o Art 255, FC (paraphrased) Children born 180 days following the celebration of a marriage, and before 300 days following its dissolution/separation of the spouses shall be presumed legitimate. Against this presumption, no evidence shall be admitted other than that of the physical impossibility of the husbands having access to his wife within the first 120 days of the 300 days preceding the birth of the child.

2. Estoppel Against a Tenant 1. The relationship is that between parties to an original contract of lease (not sublease) involving a real property . The tenant refers to the lessee. What is deemed conclusive as to the tenant is the o

Such impossibility may be caused by 1) impotence of the husband; 2) husband and wife were living separetly in such a way access was impossible; 3) serious illness by the husband;

2. The court has the power to limit the presentation of additional evidence which are but cumulative, or to prove points which a party has already well presented 10. Quantum of evidence (weight and sufficiency of evidence) A. Criminal cases: Proof of Guilt Must be Beyond Reasonable Doubt. 1. That degree of proof, which, excluding the possibility of error, produces moral certainty. If the inculpatory facts are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. B. Civil Cases: Preponderance of Evidence. This means that he weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidenced of one is superior to the other. a. Appreciation of evidence

Del Carmen Jr. v. Bacoy Doctrine: Res ipsa loquitur is "merely evidentiary, a mode of proof, or a mere procedural convenience, since it furnishes a substitute for, and relieves a plaintiff of, the burden of producing a specific proof of negligence. It "recognizes that parties may establish prima facie negligence without direct proof, thus, it allows the principle to substitute for specific proof of negligence. It permits the plaintiff to present along with proof of the accident, enough of the attending circumstances to invoke the doctrine, create an inference or presumption of negligence and thereby place on the defendant the burden of proving that there was no negligence on his part." 9. Liberal construction of the rules of evidence Policy of Liberality: In case a question arises as to whether or not a particular material should be admitted as evidence, Courts are given wide discretion what to admit and to be liberal in admitting materials offered as evidence, unless the material is clearly incompetent. The reasons are: (i) so that it may have a substantial range of facts as basis for deciding the case and (ii) in case of appeal the appellate court may have before it all the evidence to determine whether the decision appealed from is in accordance with the evidence, (iii) to minimize any adverse effect of the non-admission upon the party affected. Limitations: 1. Evidence may be excluded even if relevant if its probative value is outweighed by the risk that its admission will cause: a). undue or unfair prejudice b). confusion of the issues c). misleads the court d). undue delay or waste of time

RULES IN THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE 1. Courts shall consider and take into consideration : (a) all facts which were presented during the trial whether testimonial, object, or documentary (b) all facts which were stipulated or judicially admitted (c) those judicially noticed and (d) all facts which are presumed 2. No extraneous matters shall be considered even if the Court knows them as existing in his personal capacity 3. In determining the weight and sufficiency of a partys evidence, the court shall consider : A.) All the facts and circumstances of the case. B). The testimonial characteristics of a witness such as: i). The manner of testifying by a witness which includes his conduct and behavior on the witness stand, the emphasis, gestures, and inflection of his voice in answering questions. This is the reason why the rules require the witness to personally testify in open court. ii). The intelligence of the witness. This refers o this position to perceive by the sue of his organs of sense, his opportunity for accurate observation and faithful recollection of the facts to which he is testifying.

This intelligence must be coupled with integrity, a general reputation for truth, honesty and integrity. This is because a witness to be believed must be truthful in his narration of correct facts. iii). The means and opportunity of knowing the facts which includes his presence and observation of the facts. iv). The nature of the facts to which the witness is testifying such as: whether he did the act as a participant, whether he saw the occurrence of an accident as he was a passenger; the identity of a person who is an old acquaintance; thus as to the circumstances of the birth a person, the mother would be the best witness on this point mother. v). The absence or presence of interest or basis for bias or prejudice. vi). Personal Credibility of the witness, referring to his general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity as for example: (i) the case of an young girl who makes a complaint for rape ; as for instance the accused claiming self defense who is well built, broad shouldered a boxer and expert in martial arts claiming the victim of assault by an ordinary person viii). The probability or improbability of the testimony C). The number of witnesses. However witnesses are to been weighed not numbered because quantitative superiority does not necessarily mean legal preponderance. Thus an accused may be convicted based solely on the testimony of one witness. But where the evidence for both parties is principally testimonial where the version of each exhibit equal tendency to be true and accurate, and the witnesses have not betrayed themselves by major contradictions or other indications of falsehood, there exists every reason to measure preponderance by numerical advantage. .

Contrast this with the so called Falsus in unos, falsus in omnibus 6. The Preference of Evidence must be observed in case of conflict: A). Physical or Object evidence is evidence of the highest order and prevails over contrary testimonial evidence B). Documentary over testimonial evidence C). Positive over negative evidence. E.G. positive identification over alibi; an assertion of the occurrence of a thing over a plain denial. Denials, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are deemed negative and self-serving evidence unworthy of credence. ( Wa-acon vs. People, 510 SCRA 429) D). Direct over circumstantial E). Testimony in open court over sworn statements or affidavits F). The Admitted Facts Rule- evidence of whatever description must yield to the extent that it conflicts with admitted or clearly established facts. Thus courts give superior credit to witnesses whose testimonies on material points are in accord with facts already established ( Frondarina vs. Malazarte 510 SCRA 223) 7. Rule in criminal cases A. For conviction i). For conviction: the prosecution must adduce proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt i.e. moral certainty not absolute certainty ii). Every doubt is to be resolved in favor of the accused iii) Accusation is not synonymous with guilt

4. The Court has the power to stop the further presentation of evidence on the same point as when the additional evidence is only corroborative or the point has already been established, or when it results to unnecessary delay 5. As to the testimony of a witness: A). the court must consider everything stated by the witness during the direct, cross, re-direct and re-cross examinations B). the testimony of a witness maybe believed in part and disbelieved in other parts, depending on the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case. It is accepted as a matter of common sense that if certain parts of the testimony are true, his testimony can not be disregarded entirely.

iv) Accused need not present evidence if the evidence against him is weak because conviction must be on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence of the accused B. Affirmative Defenses be shown by clear, positive and convincing evidence C. Two Witness Rule in Treason D. If conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. The requirements under section 4 must be present i). There must be more than one circumstance ii). The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven

iii). The combination of all such circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt E. If based on Extra Judicial Confession, same must be corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti

i.

Equipoise rule

The Equipoise Rule: where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, the case will be resolved against the plaintiff, thus in criminal cases the accused must be acquitted and in civil cases, the complaint must be dismissed. CASES: CASE: SABILI v. COMELEC (April 24, 2012) DOCTRINE: When the evidence presented by the parties are in equipoise that it is impossible for the court to determine with certainty the real intent of the person whose domicile is in question, the presumption requires the Court to decide against a change of domicile and the retention of a domicile in question. Hence, the burden of proving a change of domicile lies on the person who claims a change has occurred. (*found in dissent) GERONIMO DADO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (November 18, 2002) DOCTRINE: Under equipoise rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds application if, as in the present case, the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction. Briefly stated, the needed quantum of proof to convict the accused of the crime charged is found lacking. . English Exchequer Rule A mid-1800 rule pursuant to which a trial court's

error as to the admission of evidence was presumed to have caused prejudice and therefore, almost automatically required a new trial. The Exchequer rule has long been laid to rest, for even English appellate courts now disregard an error in the admission of evidence unless in its opinion, some substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. American courts adopted this approach especially after the enactment of a 1915 federal statute which required a federal appellate court to give judgment after an examination of the entire record before the court, without regard to technical errors, defects, or exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE JR (October 6, 1995 | GR No 111206-08) DOCTRINE: Appellant cannot hope to exculpate himself simply because the trial judge violated the rule on res inter alios acta when he considered his involvement in previous shooting incidents. This stance is a specie of a mid-1800 rule known as the English Exchequer Rule pursuant to which "a trial court's error as to the admission of evidence was presumed to have caused prejudice and therefore, almost automatically required a new trial." The Exchequer rule has long been laid to rest for even English appellate courts now disregard an error in the admission of evidence "unless in its opinion, some substantial wrong or miscarriage (of justice) has been occasioned." American courts adopted this approach especially after the enactment of a 1915 federal statute which required a federal appellate court to "give judgment after an examination of the entire record before the court, without regard to technical errors, defects, or exceptions which do not affect the 160 substantial rights of the parties." We have likewise followed the harmless error rule in our jurisdiction. In dealing with evidence improperly admitted in trial, we examine its damaging quality and its impact to the substantive rights of the litigant. If the impact is slight and insignificant, we disregard the error as it will not overcome the weight of the properly admitted evidence against the prejudiced party. In the case at bar, the reference by the trial judge to reports about the troublesome character of appellant is a harmless error. The reference is not the

linchpin of the inculpatory evidence appreciated by the trial judge in convicting appellant. As aforestated, the appellant was convicted mainly because of his identification by three (3) eyewitnesses with high credibility. iii. Subject to two interpretations Proof beyond reasonable doubt is that degree of proof, which, excluding the possibility of error, produces moral certainty. If the inculpatory facts are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. b. Proof beyond reasonable doubt Proof beyond reasonable doubt is that degree of proof, which, excluding the possibility of error, produces moral certainty. Applicable in criminal cases for conviction. Rule 133, Sec. 2 SEC. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a 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. Rule 133, Sec. 3 SEC. 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. Rule 133, Sec. 4 SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Degrees of proof in criminal cases i. filing the Information Probable Cause- that required for filing of an Information in Court or for the issuance of a warrant of arrest Probable cause (def.)- is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered. Allado v. Dioko (May 5, 1994) DOCTRINE: Probable cause is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well founded, such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so. The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is it believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge. ii. CASE: PEOPLE v. GREY (July 26, 2010) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. JOSEPH "JOJO" V. GREY, FRANCIS B. GREY, and COURT OF APPEALS-CEBU CITY, EIGHTEENTH DIVISION, Respondents. DOCTRINE: What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscals report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. issuing a warrant of arrest

 What the law requires as personal determination on the part of a judge is that he should not rely solely on the report of the investigating prosecutor. o This means that the judge should consider not only the report of the investigating prosecutor but also the affidavit and the documentary evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit of the accused and his witnesses, as well as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation, if any, submitted to the court by the investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the Information. . granting bail in capital offense PEOPLE v CABRAL (February 18, 1999) Doctrine: The grant or denial of an application for bail is dependent on whether the evidence of guilt is strong which the lower court should determine in a hearing called for the purpose. Even though there I reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, if upon examination of the entire record the presumption is great that accused is guilty of a capital offense, bail should be refused. Discretion in granting or denying bail is not absolute nor beyond control. The test is not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether it shows evident guilt or a great presumption of guilt. As such, the court is ministerially bound to decide which circumstances and factors are present which would show evident guilt or presumption of guilt as defined above. PADERANGA v. COURT OF APPEALS Manuel P. Paderanga, petitioner, v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, respondents Doctrines: 1. Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearing before any court as required under the conditions specified in Rule 114. As bail is intended to obtain or secure ones provisional liberty, the same cannot be posted before custody over him has been acquired by the judicial authorities, either by his (a) lawful arrest or (b) voluntary surrender. 2. The general rule is that prior to conviction, an accused is entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right (see Const. art III, sec.13; Rule 114, Sec.4). The exception is when the accused is charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life

imprisonment and the evidence of guilt is strong. In such cases, the grant of bail becomes a matter of judicial discretion on the part of the court, and a hearing, mandatory in nature, is required precisely to ascertain whether the evidence of guilt is strong. LEVISTE V. CA DOCTRINE: The grant of bail pending appeal is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the appellate court.Further, such discretion must be exercised with grave caution and only for strong reasons. NOTE: This case discusses the discretionary nature of bail pending appeal. The evidence aspect of the case is not manifest but the standards of evidence required for bail applications should be the same as those for bail prior to conviction (i.e. when the evidence of guilt is strong in capital offenses). The difference lies in the fact that pending appeal, there already is a prima facie determination of the guilt of applicant (by the trial court). Rule 114 Sec. 5 provides in full: Sec. 5. Bail, when discretionary. Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate court. However, if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court. Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman. If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances:

CASES:

(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration; (b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without a valid justification; (c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon; (d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or (e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal. The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court after notice to the adverse party in either case. (Emphasis in the original) This Rule provides for two distinct situations if the penalty imposed is more than six years but less than 20 years: o If none of the FIVE circumstances are present, bail is a matter of discretion o If one or more of the FIVE circumstances are present, NO BAIL shall be granted In the first situation, bail is a matter of SOUND JUDICIAL DISCRETION. Hence an application for bail may be DENIED even if none of the circumstances are present. The appellate court has the power to determine the advisability of granting bail or denying it subject to the rule that bail pending appeal should be exercised with grave caution and only for strong reasons The second situation is simpler, as the existence of any of these circumstances warrants the denial or cancellation of bail as the case may be

Conviction For conviction i). For conviction: the prosecution must adduce proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt i.e. moral certainty not absolute certainty ii). Every doubt is to be resolved in favor of the accused iii) Accusation is not synonymous with guilt iv) Accused need not present evidence if the evidence against him is weak because conviction must be on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence of the accused Mercedes G. DUDUACO vs. Judge Lily Lydia A. LAQUINDANUM In administrative proceedings, complainants have the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in their complaints. Administrative proceedings against judges are by nature, highly penal in character and are to be governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases. The quantum of proof required to support the administrative charges should thus be more substantial and they must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but were motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty and corruption.On the other hand, misconduct is any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the right determination of the cause. It generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. Reyes vs Mangino (January 31, 2005) Doctrine: Inasmuch as what is imputed against the respondent Judge connotes a misconduct so grave that, if proven, it would entail dismissal from the bench, the quantum of proof required should be more than substantial. Thus, the ground for the removal of a judicial officer should be established beyond reasonable doubt. Such is the rule where the charge on which removal is sought is misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption, or incompetence. The general rules in regard to admissibility of evidence in criminal trials apply.

LOPEZ v. JUDGE FERNANDEZ (September 11, 1980) To hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position unbearable. According to Justice Malcolm in Re: Horrileno, proceedings of this character are in their nature highly penal in character and are to be governed by the rules of law applicable to criminal cases. The charges must, therefore, be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision has been subsequently adhered to in a number of cases decided by this Court. Dulay v. Lelina, Jr. (July 14, 2005) Doctrine: In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence (that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion). Judge case as well but only applied substantial evidence. SPOUSES VICENTE and GLORIA MANALO vs. HON. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, in her capacity as Undersecretary of Labor and Employment, JOSE SARMIENTO as POEA Administrator, CAREERS PLANNERS SPECIALISTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., and SPOUSES VICTOR and ELNORA FERNANDEZ (November 19, 1992) DOCTRINE: In the administrative proceedings for cancellation, revocation or suspension of Authority or License, no rule requires that testimonies of complainants be corroborated by documentary evidence, if the charge of unlawful exaction is substantially proven. All administrative determinations require only substantial proof and not clear and convincing evidence as erroneously contended by pubic respondents. Clear and convincing proof is ". . . more than mere preponderance, but not to extent of such certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases . . ." while substantial evidence ". . . consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance . . . ." Consequently, in the hierarchy of evidentiary values, We find proof beyond reasonable doubt at the highest level, followed by clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of evidence, and substantial evidence, in that order.

Spouses Vicente and Gloria Manalo vs. Roldan Confessor DOCTRINE: Public respondents may be correct in saying that where two conflicting versions are supported by substantial evidence, the administrative body may choose which to uphold and for that reason even flip-flop on its factual findings without thereby incurring grave abuse of discretion. In this case however, public respondent reversed the penalty, not on the basis that one version is more believable than the other, but that the testimonies of complainants, after describing them to be more convincing than respondents stand and which inspired belief, were not clear and convincing. Thus, to that extent, public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion correctable by certiorari. BAUTISTA vs. CA August 11, 2004 DOCTRINE: A duly notarized contract enjoys the prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. To overturn this legal presumption, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant to establish that there was forgery Rockwell Perfecto Gohu v Sps. Alberto Gohu and Adelaida Gohu October 13, 2000 Nature: Petition for review of the decision of the CA Doctrine: There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality. Bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not suffice. Bias and prejudice cannot be presumed especially if weighed against a judge's sacred obligation under his oath of office to administer justice without respect to person and do equal right to the poor and the rich.

GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION v. OLALIA (April 19, 2007) DOCTRINE: Clear and convincing evidence should be used in granting bail in extradition cases. This standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JANAIRO (July 22, 1999)

DOCTRINE: Invoking self-defense is admitting authorship of the killing. Hence, the burden of proof shifts to the accused, who must establish with clear convincing evidence all of these elements of the justifying circumstance: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense. ABARQUEZ,COVERDALE vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Every person accused has the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence stands as a fundamental principle of both constitutional and criminal law. Thus, the prosecution has the burden of proving every single fact establishing guilt. Every vestige of doubt having a rational basis must be removed. The defense of the accused, even if weak, is no reason to convict. Within this framework, the prosecution must prove its case beyond any hint of uncertainty. The defense need not even speak at all. The presumption of innocence is more than sufficient. The equipoise rule finds application if, as in this case, the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction. Briefly stated, the needed quantum of proof to convict the accused of the crime charged is found lacking. Preponderance of evidence Rule 133, Sec. 1 SECTION 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater

number. Preponderance of Evidence- that evidence which is greater or superior in weight than that of the other partys.Applicable in civil cases. d. Substantial evidence Rule 133, Sec. 5 SEC. 5. Substantial evidence. In cases tiled before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact maybe deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Substantial evidence- that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.Applicable in administrative cases. e. Clear and convincing evidence Clear and convincing evidence- that evidence that produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to allegations sought to be established Hierarchy 1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt 2. clear and convincing proof 3. preponderance of evidence 4. substantial evidence f. Circumstantial evidence Rule 133, Sec. 4 SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Circumstantial evidence is that which indirectly proves a fact in issue. The fact-finder must draw an inference from such evidence. An accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence where the circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair reasonable conclusion and pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CESAR GALVEZ People of the Philippines v. Rolando Pineda
In resolving the admissibility of out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors: (1) the witness opportunity to view the perpetrator of the crime; (2) the witness degree of attention at the time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty shown by the witness of his identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. Although showing mug shots of suspects is one of the established methods of identifying criminals, the procedure used in this case is unacceptable. The first rule in proper photographic identification procedure is that a series of photographs must be shown, and not merely that of the suspect. The second rule directs that when a witness is shown a group of pictures, their arrangement and display should in no way suggest which one of the pictures pertains to the suspect. Where a photograph has been identified as that of the guilty party, any subsequent corporeal identification of that person may be based not upon the witnesss recollection of the features of the guilty party, but upon his recollection of the photograph. Thus, although a witness who is asked to attempt a corporeal identification of a person whose photograph he previously identified may say, "Thats the man that did it," what he may actually mean is, "Thats the man whose photograph I identified." SC found that witnesses Ferrer and Ramos were not able to adequately identify Pineda. Ferrer managed to glance the mirror, Ramos likewise only glanced the side of the perpetrators face. The more important duty of the prosecution is to prove the identity of the perpetrator and not to establish the existence of the crime. For even if the commission of the crime is established, without proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of the perpetrator, the trial court cannot convict any one. 37 Ferrer and Ramos mental conception of the incident, the resulting inaccuracy in their narration, and the suggestiveness of the pictures presented to them for identification cast doubt on their testimonies that appellant is one of the perpetrators of the crime.

Abad v CA
We have consistently held that the mere presence of accused-appellant at the locus criminis cannot be solely interpreted to mean that he committed the killing. The mere presence of accused-appellant at the crime scene, without more, is inadequate to support the conclusion that, indeed, he committed the crime. Ana Paulins testimony fails to state whether the man she saw was carrying a weapon, or whether he was bloodied or not. Indeed, there is an absence of positive proof that accused-appellant assaulted the victim. in order to support a conviction, motive must be coupled with evidence from which it may be reasonably deduced that the accused-appellant was the malefactor Given the paucity of evidence in the instant case, to conclude that the killing arose from the previous altercation between accused-appellant and the victim would be more speculative than factual While his alibi is rather weak, this is no reason for us to sustain his conviction, as the burden of proof still lies with the prosecution to establish that accused-appellant killed the victim PEOPLE v. Villaflores Power of court to stop further evidence Rule 133, Sec. 6 SEC. 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised with caution. h. Evidence on motion Rule 133, Sec. 7 SEC. 7. Evidence on motion. 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. This refers to collateral issues or motions based on facts not appearing on record such as (i) proof of service by

publication (ii) relief from order of default (iii) Taking of depositions (iv) motion for new trial (v) relief from judgment (vi) issuance of writ of preliminary injunction.

General Classification of Matters Subject of Notice A. Adjudicative Matters- those facts related to the case under consideration and which may affect the outcome thereof. Eg. In a case where the accused set up denial and alibi being then in Manila, court may take judicial notice that normal travel time by bus from Manila to Baguio City is between 6 to 7 hours B. Legislative Matters- those facts which relate either to: (i) the existence of a law or legal principle (ii) the reason, purpose or philosophy behind the law or of a legal principle as formulated by the legislature or the court (iii) the law or principle itself. Eg. The need to protect Filipino OFWs as a primary reason behind the Migrant Workers Act or the increase in the incidence of drug related crimes as reason for the increase in the penalty for violation of the drug law

Judicial notice and judicial admissions 1. What need not be proved Principles: A. Each Party Must Prove His Own Allegation. Likewise, the court limits itself to only such evidence as were properly presented and admitted during the trial and does not consider matters or facts outside the court. B. A Party Can Not Prove What He Did Not Allege (Non Alegata Non Proba). A party however is not authorized to introduce evidence on matters which he never alleged.. C. But a party may be relieved from presenting evidence on certain matters, such as on the following: 1. Matters or facts subject of judicial notice 2. Matters or facts subject of judicial admission 3. Matters or facts which are legally presumed 4. Matters or facts stipulated upon 5. Matters or facts which are exclusively within the knowledge of the opposing party 6. Matters or facts which are irrelevant .

Limitations. The taking of judicial notice may be abused and might unfairly favor a party who is unable to prove a material point. Conversely the non-taking notice of a fact might unduly burden a party where proof is not readily available or impossible to obtain and proof thereof is unnecessary, but still the court refuses to take notice of the fact. A. As to what may be taken notice of: the matter must be one covered by section 1 or is authorized under Section 2 of Rule 129. B. As to the procedure: there must be a prior hearing pursuant to Section 3.

7. Matters or facts in the nature of negative allegations subject to certain exceptions

a. 2. Matters of judicial notice CONCEPT: Refers to the act of the court in taking cognizance of matters as true or as existing without need of the introduction of evidence, or the authority of the court to accept certain matters as facts even if no evidence of their existence has been presented. The action is often expressed thus The court takes judicial notice of Purpose: To save time, labor and expenses. It is based on expediency and convenience.

Mandatory Rule 129, Sec. 1

SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative,

executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. If a fact falls under any of the matters enumerated, then the court may not compel a party to present evidence thereon and necessarily, it may not decide against the party for the latters failure to present evidence on the matter. The enumeration is exclusive. I. As to Foreign States: their existence and territorial extent; forms of government (monarchial, presidential, parliamentary, royalty), symbols of nationality ( flag, national costume, anthem). A. Limitation: However the recognition of a foreign state or government is subject to the decision of the political leadership

2. The law of gravity, mathematical equations, weights and measurements

VI. Measures of Time: into seconds, minutes, days, weeks months and years

VII. Geographical Division of the World such as the number and location of the continents, and the major oceans, the division into hemispheres; longitudes and latitudes

b.

II. The Law of Nations: the body of principles, usages, customs and unwritten precepts observed by, and which governs, the relations between and among states. A. Example: (i). The Principle of Equality of States (ii) Sovereign Immunity of visiting Heads of States and the protocol observed for said visiting dignitary such as the 21 gun salute (iii) The Diplomatic Immunity of foreign diplomatic representatives (iv) recognition of piracy as a crime against humanity III. The Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction of the World and their Seals

Discretionary Rule 129, Sec. 2 SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.

This section authorizes a court to take judicial notice of certain matters in its discretion. The matters fall into three groups: 1. Those which are of public knowledge 2. Those which are capable of unquestionable demonstration and 3. Matters ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. I First Group: Matters of Public Knowledge. A. These are matters the truth or existence of which are accepted by the public without qualification, condition or contention. B. Requirements:

IV. The Philippine as a state A. Its constitution and political history: the political set up of the government B. The official acts of the legislature, executive and judicial departments

1. Notoriety of the Facts in that the facts are well and publicly known. The existence should not be known only to a certain portion of the community 2. The matter must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain

V. The Laws of Nature Examples: 1. laws relating to science which are so well known such as that the DNA of each person being distinct, or blood groupings as proof of filiation; or of finger prints and dententures being distinct and dissimilar from one person to another. the court

3. The matter must be within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of Examples:The existence and location of hospitals, public buildings, plazas and markets, schools and universities, main thoroughfares, parks, rivers and lakes

A. As To Foreign Laws. II. Second Group: Matters Capable of Unquestionable Demonstration A. These are matters which, even if not notorious, can be immediately shown to exist or be true so as to justify dispensing with actual proof. Examples: That poison kills or results to serious injury Vehicles running at top speed do not immediately stop even when the brakes are applied and will leave skid marks on the road 1. As a general rule, Philippine Courts cannot take judicial notice of the existence and provisions/contents of a foreign law, which matters must be alleged and proven as a fact. If the existence and provisions/contents were not properly pleaded and proven, the Principle of Processual Presumption applies i.e. the foreign law will be presumed to be the same as Philippine Laws and it will be Philippine Laws which will be applied to the case.

2. Exceptions or when Court may take judicial notice of a foreign law a. When there is no controversy among the parties as to the existence and provision of the foreign law b. When the foreign law has been previously ruled upon the court as to have acquired actual knowledge of it. For example: Knowledge of the Texan law on succession based on the Christiansen cases; notice of the existence of the Nevada Divorce Law c. The foreign law has been previously applied in the Philippines e.g. the Spanish Codigo Penal d. The foreign law is the source of the Philippine Law e.g. the California Law on Insurance, the Spanish Civil Code e. When the foreign law is a treaty in which the Philippines is a signatory it being part of the Public International Law

III. Third Group: Matters Ought To Be Known to Judges because of their Judicial Functions A. These are matters which pertain to the office of the Judge or known to them based on their experience as judges Examples: 1. The behavior of people to being witnesses such as their reluctance to be involved in cases thus requiring the issuance of subpoenae to them; the varied reaction of people to similar events 2. Procedures in the reduction of bail bonds

V. Principles Involved A. The matter need not be personally known to the judge in order to be taken judicial notice of, as in fact the judge maybe personally ignorant thereof B. Personal knowledge by the Judge of a fact is not necessarily knowledge by the Court as to be the basis of a judicial notice C. As to whether a party can introduce contrary proof: (1). If the matter is one subject of mandatory judicial notice, contrary proof is not allowed (2). If the matter is one which the court is allowed to take notice in its discretion, the prohibition applies to civil cases only, but in criminal cases, the accused may still introduce contrary proof as part of his right to defend himself

B. Domestic Laws, Administrative Rules and Regulations 1. As to laws, rules and regulations of national applications, their passage and effectivity and provisions are governmental matters which must be noticed mandatorily 2. As to laws of local application: a. For lower Courts: they may take notice of ordinances, resolutions and executive or administrative orders enforced within the town nor city where they sit b. For the RTCs: they may do so only when a case has been appealed to them and the lower court has taken notice thereof c. For appellate courts: on appeal and all those enforced within any town or city in the Philippines

VI. Judicial Notice of Certain Specific Matters

C. Decisions of Courts 1. Decisions of appellate courts must be taken notice of mandatorily by trial courts 2. As to the records of cases pending or decided by other courts: these may not be taken judicial notice of 3. As to Records of Other Cases Pending Before the Same Court a) As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of records of other cases tried or pending in the same court, even when these cases were heard or actually pending before the same judge. b). However, this rule admits of exceptions, (i). as when reference to such records is sufficiently made without objection from the opposing parties Reference is by name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated or (ii) when the original record of the former case or any part of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by the courts direction, at the request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as part of the records of the case then pending (Calamba Steel Center Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. April 28, 2005) D. Commercial Usages and Practices: those pertaining to business, occupation or profession. Notice may be taken only of those which are well known and established. Examples: 1. The closure of banks on Saturdays and Sundays and of the banking hours being until 3:00 P.M. 2. That no official receipts are issued by sidewalk or market vendors

4. Rituals digging and cleansing of bones of buried loved ones among certain tribes and other tribal practices, must be proved as a fact 5. What about the natural shyness of the Filipina woman? F. As to religious matters: Courts may take notice of the general tenets or beliefs of a particular group including their organizational structures, but not as to specific practices, tenets and dogmas. Examples: 1.Thus notice maybe taken of the belief Catholics consider Jesus as God, whereas the INC do not but as a man, and the Muslims regard Him merely as a prophet lesser in stature to Mohammed 2. That the Pope is the titular head of the Catholic Church while the Dalai Llama is head of the Tibetan Monks; Mecca is the Holiest City of the Muslims; the Muslim belief in Ramadan; the belief in reincarnation among the Hindus and Buddhists while the Christians believe in resurrection after death; whereas Christians believe in heaven the Buddhist have their Nirvana. Notice is proper of the Christian Bible and the Muslim Koran as their respective Holy Books. Rule 129, Sec. 3 SEC. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon. After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a party, 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. When and How Notice is taken. A. By the Trial Court : either Motu Proprio or upon motion by a party .Generally this is during the trial or presentation of evidence, but it may be made thereafter but before judgment and only upon a matter which is decisive of the issue. B. By the appellate court: before Judgment

E. Customs, Habits and Practices of People: Notice may be taken only of those which are generally known and established and uniformly acted upon. Particular customs, and those peculiar only to certain people must be established as a fact. Examples: 1. Variations in handwriting 2. The instinct of self preservation 3. Sleeping habits of people in the barrios

Need for Hearing A. If motuproprio, the Court must announce its intention and give the parties the opportunity to give their view on whether or not the matter is a proper subject of judicial notice.

B. If on motion of a party, the opposing party must likewise be given the opportunity to comment thereon. PEOPLE vs ALIDO DOCTRINE: We take judicial notice of the fact that in the month of May and June, the days are long and the sun sets after 6:00 in the afternoon, for which reason even though it was actually 6:00 in the afternoon, when the assault was made, both Demetrio Hervas and his mother could easily see and recognize the assailants of the deceased because it was not yet dark. PEOPLE vs AYONAYON (March 30, 1962) Doctrine: The defenses of alibis appeared as of very little weight or value, especially in view of the fact that the witnesses for the prosecution clearly identified the accused, such identification being positive and immediate. (Judicial notice is relevant on the discussion of the appreciation, by the Court, of the facts and the testimonies of the witnesses who identified the accused. See the underlined last parts of the Held & Ratio section.) While it was already dark,the Court checked the time when the sun set on August 5, 1959 and they were informed that the sun set on that date at about 6:38 in the evening, which shows that at 6:00 o'clock, the surrounding of the house where the victims were shot, were not yet dark. The use of a kerosene lamp inside a house does not mean that outside the house, where the assailants were seen, was also dark. The inside of a house is necessarily darker than the outside; so the use of a kerosene lamp while the inmates are taking supper, does not mean that persons outside cannot be identified from within the house. Capital is made of the fact that the witness GenovevaLazo said that during the day there were stars. She did not say that during the daytime there were stars; she must have meant that during the time when the assault was made there were stars in the sky at night. Beside we take judicial notice of the fact that while it is true that the month of August is characterized by showers or rains, they generally are passing showers and rains, after which the atmosphere becomes clear. PEOPLE vs MADERA Doctrine: The courts may take judicial notice of the laws of nature, in this case, the time when the moon rises or sets on a particular day. PEOPLE vs SISON (27 October 1983)

DOCTRINE: This Court sitting in Metro Manila, can take judicial notice of the geography of said metropolis, and the approximate distance from Galas to EspaaRotonda, from EspaaRotonda to Balintawak, and from Balintawak to Novaliches, the passenger routes to said place, the nature of traffic along said routes, the heavy population in Metropolitan Manila, and the habits of the residents therein REPUBLIC vs CA CFI took judicial notice of practice in post offices that a registered letter when posted is immediately stamped with the date of its receipt, indicating therein the number of the registry, both on the covering envelope itself and on the receipt delivered to the person who delivered the letter to the office.

Undoubtedly, the post office practice of which the Court of First Instance took judicial notice is not covered by any of the specific instances cited above. Neither can it be classified under "matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions ... . " For a matter to be taken judicial notice of by the courts of law, it must be a subject of common and general knowledge. In other words, Judicial notice of facts is measured by general knowledge of the same facts. A fact is said to be generally recognized or known when its existence or operation is accepted by the public without qualification or contention. The test is whether the 'act involved is so notoriously known as to make it proper to assume its existence without proof. The fact that a belief is not universal, however, is not controlling for it is very seldom that any belief is accepted by everyone. It is enough that the matters are familiarly known to the majority of mankind or those persons f with the particular matter in question (20 Am Jur 49-50; Martin, Rules of Court 37, Second Edition). Furthermore, a matter may be personally known to the judge and yet tot be a matter of judicial knowledge and vice versa, a matter may not be actually known to an individual judge, and nevertheless be a proper subject of judicial cognizance. The post office practice herein involved is not tested by the aforestated considerations, a proper matter of judicial notice. Moreover, the certification issued by the very postmaster of the post office where the letter containing the questioned motion for extension of time was posted, is a very clear manifestation that the said post office practice is not of unquestionable demonstration. Indeed, the doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by the courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubts upon the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative (31 CJS 522; Martin, Rules of Court 38, Second Edition).

Latip v. Chua State Prosecutors v. Muro is instructive: a. The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative. Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court. The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety. To say that a court will take judicial notice of a fact is merely another way of saying that the usual form of evidence will be dispensed with if knowledge of the fact can be otherwise acquired. This is because the court assumes that the matter is so notorious that it will not be disputed. But judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis of his action. Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters which are "commonly" known. Things of "common knowledge," of which courts take judicial notice, may be matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters which are generally accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready and unquestioned demonstration. Thus, facts which are universally known, and which may be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications, are judicially noticed, provided they are of such universal notoriety and so generally understood that they may be regarded as forming part of the common knowledge of every person.

In this case, the requisite of notoriety is belied by the necessity of attaching documentary evidence, i.e., the Joint Affidavit of the stallholders, to Rosalies appeal before the CA. In short, the alleged practice still had to be proven by Rosalie; contravening the title itself of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court What need not be proved.

b.

SONGCO vs NLRC (March 23, 1990) DOCTRINE: We take judicial notice of the fact that some salesmen do not receive any basic salary but depend on commissions and allowances or commissions alone, are part of petitioners' wage or salary. We take judicial notice of the fact that some salesman do not received any basic salary but depend on commissions and allowances or commissions alone, although an employer-employee relationship exists. MANDARIN VILLA, INC. vsCA (June 20, 1996) Doctrine: A case where the Court took judicial notice of the current practice among major establishments to accept payment by means of credit cards in lieu of cards, following Sec. 2 of Rule 129. PEOPLE vs BESMONTE In the instant cases, both rapes complained of were committed in the middle of the night. It is of judicial notice that it is at this time when children are in deep slumber and could not be easily awakened. OLIZON vs CA We take judicial notice of the fact that newspaper publications have more farreaching effects than posting on bulletin boards in public places. There is a greater probability that an announcement or notice published in a newspaper of general circulation, which is distributed nationwide, shall have a readership of more people than that posted in a public bulletin board, no matter how strategic its location may be, which caters only to a limited few. Hence, the publication of the notice of sale in the newspaper of general circulation alone is more than sufficient compliance with the notice-posting requirement of the law. By such publication, a reasonably wide publicity had been effected such

c.

d.

that those interested might attend the public sale, and the purpose of the law had been thereby subserved. STATE PROSECUTORS vs MURO

In the cases of People vs. Tipay and People vs. Bali-balita, the Court pronounced that the presentation of the certificate of birth is not at all times necessary to prove minority and the minority of a victim of tender age who may be below the age of ten is quite manifest and the court can take judicial notice thereof. PEOPLE vs DUMANON The appealed decision likewise bears the trial courts personal impression that ANACURITA appears to be mongoloid (physically) and mentally deficient who has difficulty in understanding the questions. We often call a person who is suffering from mongolism as a mongoloid. Mongolism is a condition characterized by a small, anteroposteriorly flattened skull, short, flat-bridged nose, epicanthus, short-phalanges, and widened space between the first and second digits of hands and feet, with moderate to severe mental retardation and associated with a chromosomal abnormality.[21] It is known as mongolism because its physiognomic features are suggestive of those normally exhibited by the Mongolian race.[22] It is also known as Downs Syndrome.[23] Hence, the courts can take judicial notice of the appearance and features of those suffering from mongolism and based thereon, conclude that a victim, like ANACURITA, is a mongoloid. ALABANG DEVT CORP vs VALENZUELA the Court cannot just let go unmentioned its observation that the lots 8involved in this reconstitution case are part of the survey plan (Plan II-4373) allegedly covering also Lots 1 and 3 which are involved in the Bernal case. This remarkable coincidence warrants a reproduction here of the Court's findings as to the non-veracity and falsity of the survey plan II-4374 submitted in support of reconstitution in the Bernal case. The court then continues to point out that the land involved in that case is the exact same land. The evidence presented, the subdivision plans were the same, and the respondents As the Court accepted and approved in the Bernal case the above final report on the relocation-verification survey of the regional officer of the Bureau of Lands and admitted it as evidence of the falsity of the survey plan in question, there is no reason for this Court not to use it likewise as basis for reaching. The conclusion that Lots 2 and 4 supposedly covered by the same Survey Plan II4374 are purely imaginary and "do not actually exist on the ground." We can take judicial notice of innumerable litigations and controversies that have been spawned by the reckless and hasty grant of such reconstitution of alleged lost or destroyed titles as well as of the numerous purchasers who have been victimized only to find that the 'lands' purchased by them were covered by forged or fake titles or their areas simply 'expanded' through 'table surveys' with the cooperation of unscrupulous officials." BECMEN SERVICE EXPORTER vs SPS CUARESMA

September 19, 1994

DOCTRINE: The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis of his action. Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters which are "commonly" known. People v. Tipay However, in a similar and recent case (People vs. Javier, G.R. No. 12696, July 26, 1999), this court pronounced: [I]t is significant to note that the prosecution failed to present the birth certificate of the complainant. Although the victim's age was not contested by the defense, proof of age of the victim is particularly necessary in this case considering that the victim's age which was then 16 years old is just two years less than the majority age of 18. In this age of modernism, there is hardly any difference between a 16-year old girl and an 18-year old one insofar as physical features and attributes are concerned. A physically developed 16-year old lass may be mistaken for an 18-year old young woman, in the same manner that a frail and young looking 18-year old lady may pass as a 16-year old minor. Thus, it is in this context that independent proof of the actual age of a rape victim becomes vital and essential so as to remove an iota of doubt that the victim is indeed under 18 years of age as to fall under the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Republic Act No. 7659. PEOPLE vs MARCELO (November 20, 2001) DOCTRINE: Court did not take judicial notice of the victims age to charge the accused for qualified rape (below 7 years of age). Defense did not admit her age nor request a hearing on the point of her age. The testimony of the mother on age was not sufficient proof. Failure of the prosecution to present birth certificate without credible explanation leads to doubt. PEOPLE vs PADILLA (March 30, 2001) DOCTRINE: If the victim was only ten years old when she was raped, the court may take judicial notice of the victim's age and independent proof of minority may not be necessary.

JAO vs CA DOCTRINE: Courts, it was stated, should apply the results of science when competently obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said result was to deny progress. Blood test case PIGAO vs RABANILLO (EVIDENCE STUFF) Petitioners insist such prohibition: To support their claim, they request this Court to take judicial notice of the fact that the pro-forma conditional contracts-to- sell between PHHC and applicants for the purchase of its lots contained a condition stating that "the applicant agree(d) not to sell, assign, encumber, mortgage, lease, sublet or in any other manner affect his right under this contract, at any time, in any manner whatsoever, in whole or in part, without first obtaining the written consent of the Corporation." Although they admitted that they failed to present during the trial the conditional contract to sell between Eusebio and PHHC, they claimed that they did not have a copy thereof. In fact, what they submitted to this Court was a copy of a conditional contract to sell between a certain Armando Bernabe and the PHHC Respondent objects to admission of evidence because it was not presented during trial or on appeal. SC agrees. This document is not among matters the law mandatorily requires Court to take judicial notice of. Neither can Court consider it of public knowledge nor capable of unquestionable demonstration nor ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions Matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits of jurisdiction of the court. The power of taking judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution. Care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative. It should have been presented during trial and formally offered as evidence. A document, or any article for that matter, is not evidence when it is simply marked for identification; it must be formally offered, and the opposing counsel given an opportunity to object to it or cross-examine the witness called upon to prove or identify it. A formal offer is necessary since judges are required to base their findings of fact and judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. To allow a party to attach any document to his pleading and then expect the court to consider it as evidence may draw unwarranted consequences. The opposing party will be deprived of

his chance to examine the document and object to its admissibility. The appellate court will have difficulty reviewing documents not previously scrutinized by the court below. The pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of Court on the inclusion on appeal of documentary evidence or exhibits in the records cannot be stretched as to include such pleadings or documents not offered at the hearing of the case. a. Besides, this document does not even pertain to the lot and parties involved here. Accordingly, it is neither relevant nor material evidence. But even assuming that it were, then it would substantially affect the outcome of the case so respondent should have been given the chance to scrutinize the document and object to it during the trial of the case.

SOLIDBANK CORP vs MINDANAO FERROALLOY CORP While a court is not mandated to take judicial notice of this practice under Section 1 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, it nevertheless may do so under Section 2 of the same Rule. The latter Rule provides that a court, in its discretion, may take judicial notice of "matters which are of public knowledge, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions." Thus, the Court has taken judicial notice of the practices of banks and other financial institutions. Precisely, it has noted that it is their uniform practice, before approving a loan, to investigate, examine and assess would-be borrowers credit standing or real estate offered as security for the loan applied for. Judicial admissions Rule 129, Sec. 4 SEC. 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

CONCEPT- The act or declaration of a party in voluntary acknowledging or accepting the truth or existence of a certain fact. The admission maybe Judicial or Extra Judicial and in either case, they may be oral or written. A. Judicial- those made in the course of the proceedings of the case in which they are to be used as evidence. This is governed by section 4. B. Extra-Judicial- those made elsewhere but not in the course of the

proceedings where they are to be used as evidence.

court even in the absence of an objection by the adverse party. B. Upon the opposite party: He need not introduce any evidence on the matter which was admitted.

To be considered a judicial admission under Sec 4 Rule 129, the following requisites must be met: 1. the same must be made by a party to the case. Admissions of a non-party do not fall within Sec 4. 2. the admission, to be judicial, must be made in the course of the proceedings in the same case. An admission made in one proceeding will not be deemed a judicial admission in the other case. *no particular form for admission is required.

II. Sources of Judicial Admissions: A. Voluntary Admissions 1. Admissions contained in the allegations in the pleadings a. In a civil case: The plaintiff is bound by the statement of causes of actions in his Complaint including the number, nature and circumstances thereof, as well as the statement of facts in support thereof. The defendant is bound by the facts alleged in the Complaint which he expressly admits in his Answer; by his own statement of facts; by the nature, number and circumstances of the defenses contained in his Answer. They are similar bound by the allegations of facts in their Reply, Comment or Rejoinder to each others pleadings.

A party may make judicial admissions in pleadings, during trial by verbal or written manifestations or stipulation and in other stages of the judicial proceeding.

a.

Effect of judicial admissions

I. Effect of Judicial Admissions: (a) judicial admissions do not require proof (b) they cannot be contradicted because they are conclusive upon the party making it. Except: (1) upon showing that the admission was made through palpable mistake. (2) when it is shown that no such admission was made.

b. As to amended pleadings: one view holds that the original pleadings ceased to be part of the records and cease to be judicial admissions. If at all they may constitute extra-judicial admissions which will have to be formally offered in evidence. Another view, as that of Justice F. Regallado says amended pleadings are still covered by section 4. c. In a criminal case, the narration of facts in the body of the Information are deemed admissions by the Prosecution

2. Admissions and Stipulations made during the Preliminary Conference and/or Pre-Trial which are reduced into writing and signed by the party and his counsel. But in criminal cases, there can be no stipulation as to circumstances which qualifies a crime or increase the penalty to death. Example: In criminal cases of theft or robbery there can be stipulation as to the ownership or possessor of the property, the value thereof; the arrest or surrender of the accused; identity of

A. Upon the party making the admission: The party making the admission is bound by it. The admission is conclusive as to him. He will not be permitted to introduce evidence which will vary, contradict or deny the fact he has admitted. All such evidence to the contrary are to be disregarded by the

the accused

3. Admissions and stipulations made during the course of the trial itself, which need not be reduced in writing

4. Compromise agreements, which thus can be the basis of a judgment which is immediately executory.

prosecution for rape the counsel for the accused filed a manifestation stating that the accused is remorseful and was intoxicated when he raped his foster daughter and he will present evidence of intoxication, plea of guilt and lack of intent. Are these conclusive upon the accused? HELD: No. The authority of an attorney to bind his client as to any admissibility of fact is limited to matters of judicial procedure but not to admissions which operate as a waiver, surrender or destruction of the clients cause.

b. 5. Admissions by way of responses or answers to requests for admissions or interrogatories pursuant to Rule 26 (Modes of Discovery)

How judicial admissions may be contradicted

GR: Judicial admissions cant be contradicted Exceptions: (1) show that the judicial admission was made through palpable mistake - not just any mistake but a palpable one (2) show that no such admission was made - it may be that there was really no admission made or that the words of the other party purportedly making the admission was shown to be just taken out of context

B. Involuntary Admissions: those where it is the law which declares that a party is deemed to have admitted a fact. 1. Section 8 of Rule 8 directs that (a) failure to specifically under oath an actionable document is an admission of its genuiness and due execution (b) failure to deny the material averments of the Complaint is an admission of the truth thereof

Effect of a Withdrawn Plea of Guilt: A plea of guilty is an admission of the factual allegations of the Information but not conclusions of law. The former plea is not an admission because the accused has the right to change his plea of guilty to not guilty III. By Whom Made: A. By the parties themselves B. By the counsel under the principle of agency: exceptions: In civil cases (i) when the admission amounts to a surrender, waiver, or destruction of the clients cause (ii) if the compromise is for an amount less than that demanded by the client (iii) those which are due to the gross and inexcusable ignorance or negligence of counsel In criminal cases: Example: PP. vs. Hermones (March 6, 2002). FACTS: In a

*But note that despite the presence of a judicial admission in a pleading, the court is still given leeway to consider other evidence because said admission may not necessarily prevail over documentary evidence. Or even object evidence. Saguid v. Security Finance (December 9, 2005) Doctrine: The rule that an admission cannot be contradicted unless it can be shown that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made will not apply under the circumstances obtaining in this case. It does not follow that the admission of the signatures carries with it the admission of the contents of the documents especially when the person who affixed his signatures thereon questions its execution and the veracity of the details embodied therein. It is clear that what petitioner Rolando Saguid admitted was only his

signatures in the aforementioned documents and not the contents thereof. In petitioners Answer, Rolando Saguid admitted signing the promissory note in preparation for an application for loan upon the request of Sonny Quijano Petitioners could have been bound by the terms and conditions of the promissory note and chattel mortgage if petitioner Rolando Saguid admitted not only his signatures but also as to what are contained therein. This is not to be in the case. To overcome the presumption of consideration, the alleged lack of consideration must be shown by preponderance of evidence. The Court was convinced that petitioners allegation of absence of consideration has been substantiated and the presumption of consideration disproved and overcome Simon v. Canlas Petitioner, during pre-trial, admitted the existence, due execution, authenticity and validity of the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage during the Pre-Trial Conference on June 7, 1995, absence of consideration is no longer an issue This Court has held that the admission of the genuineness and due execution of a document simply means that the party whose signature it bears admits that he voluntarily signed the document or it was signed by another for him and with his authority; that at the time it was signed it was in words and figures exactly as set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it; that the document was delivered; and that any formalities required by law, such as a seal, an acknowledgment, or revenue stamp, which it lacks, are waived by him. However, it does not preclude a party from arguing against it by evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise, payment, statute of limitations, estoppel and want of consideration Alfelor v. Halasan Doctrine: A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge that fact as judicial admissions are a waiver of proof; production of evidence is dispensed with. A judicial admission also removes an admitted fact from the field of controversy. Consequently, an admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive as to such party, and all proofs to the contrary or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether objection is interposed by the party or not. The allegations, statements or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a position contrary of or inconsistent

with what was pleaded. ATCI Overseas Corp. v. Echin (October 11, 2010) Doctrine:In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. The foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be properly pleaded and proved as the judge or labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to know only domestic or forum law. The Philippines does not take judicial notice of foreign laws, hence, they must not only be alleged; they must be proven. To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Garcia v. Recio In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26[25] of the Family Code allows the former to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. The nullity of Redericks marriage with Editha as shown by the divorce decree issued was valid and recognized in the Philippines since the respondent is a naturalized Australian. However, there is absolutely no evidence that proves respondents legal capacity to marry petitioner though the former presented a divorce decree . Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient. The said decree, being a foreign document was inadmissible to court as evidence primarily because it was not authenticated by the consul/ embassy of the country where it will be used. Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, a writing or document may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by either: 1) an official publication or 2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be:

a) b)

accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and authenticated by the seal of his office.

Under the New Civil Code however, there may be he instance when Philippine nationals who have lost their citizenship may obtain divorce since Phil Law (Art. 15) no longer governs them.

Pleading and Providing Foreign Law and Divorce Judgments by Jorge R. Coquia (October 2, 2001) (Note: I was asked to digest this annotation but the article is already a summary of a the different topics, discussions and jurisprudence on foreign law and divorce judgments as treated in our jurisdiction. Ive made bullet points on the different headings. My suggestion is that we all read the article and not rely on this bullet list of ideas/points.) Philippine nationals abroad obtain divorce judgements as against their spouses. There are some problems that arise from this fact when it comes to Philippine citizens. What is the proper procedure in proving the existence of a divorce decree and the law of those foreign countries? The existence of a law on divorce has to be properly pleaded and proved as Philippine courts do not have judicial notice of foreign law. Philippine Jurisprudence on Validity of Divorce Obtained by Philippine Nationals Abroad At the time when divorce was valid: Divorces obtained abroad (but not their domicile yet) is not valid in the Philippines because of the issue of lack of jurisdiction. But, the SC has not overlooked provisions of the CC namely, Articles 15 and 17. Ratio of rule above is: Litigants by mutual agreement cannot compel the courts to approve of their actions or relations to be affected by foreign decrees in a manner which the Phil. Government deems contrary to public order and good morals. Transfer of citizenship did not alter the rule above. SC ruled that it was not citizenship but legal residence that conferred jurisdiction. Policy of law is to prevent divorce rather than encourage it. Plaintiffs domicile, in granting divorce, must not be on other grounds not provided for in Philippine Divorce Law since it will be contrary to law or the fundamental policy of the state. This was embodied in the New Civil Code which eliminated altogether divorce.

Partial Divorce under the Family Code Van Dorn and Llorente cases reiterated rule that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their national law. But foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and they must be alleged and proved. Those who claim the applicability of a certain law has the burden of proof.

Partial Recognition of Divorce The second paragraph of Article 26 somehow allows for partial divorce. When foreigners divorce their Filipino spouses and the divorce is valid under the national law of the alien, the Filipino spouse is allowed to remarry. Will not apply when it was the Filipino spouse who secures the divorce.

Van Dorn v Romillo Case (Please refer to the article itself for the summary/digest. Decided before the effectivity of the Family Code. Divorce from US national was recognized. Alice Reyes Filipino 1 st married in HongKong to a US National. Divorced in the US. Reyes remarried to Van Dorn. Someone filed a case that was regarding conjugal property of Reyes (Van Dorn) and 1st husband. SC said she was released. Divorce from US national OK.) Pleading and Proving a Foreign Law or Foreign Judgment We have NO JUDICIAL NOTICE of foreign laws. Must be proved as facts. Burden of proof is on the one who alleges such fact. Judge cannot base decision on his own knowledge and information. Rule was subsequently relaxed in Delgado v Republic when it allowed judicial notice of a foreign law which the court is evidently familiar.

Proof of Foreign Law 1. Present official publication of the law; or 2. Present a copy of the law attested by the officer having legal custody of the record, or by his deputy. If not kept in the Philippines, it must be accompanied by a certificate that such officer has custody. As for other documents related executed abroad, they must be duly authenticated by the Phil consul attaching his or her consular seal. This is a MANDATORY REQUIREMENT.

Depositions of non-residents: Sec 11, Rule 23. (The annotation then moves to short discussions of reiterations in jurisprudence of above rules.)

Burden of Proof in the Existence of Foreign Law or Judgement Reiteration of the ruling of the Philippine Supreme Court since 1910 that the law of a foreign country is one fact subject to proof like any other factual issue. Relaxation of the ruling was in Delgado v Republic and Pardo v Republic (already stated above) in exceptional circumstance where our courts are familiar with foreign laws such as the Spanish Civil Code and allied legislation, common law doctrines and rules from which many of our law are derived. Exemption to the general rule? PCIB v Escolin (1974) the said laws are within ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of the Court. Miciano v Brimo case discussed (The one about Turkish law and partition of estate. Turkish laws were not proved.)

Suggested Procedure for Courts on Proof of Foreign Law Courts have been urged to take into account the following factors in deciding whether to apply domestic law or decide the case against the party who has the burden of proving the contents of the foreign law: 1. Degree of public interest involved in the dispute; 2. Accessibility of foreign law materials to the parties; 3. Possibility that plaintiff is merely forum shopping and 4. Similarities between the forum law and foreign law on the issue in point. (A Recurrent Problem in transactional Litigation: The Effect of Failure to Invoke or Prove the Applicable Foreign Law: 59 Cornell L. Rev. 1 (1973) cited in Coquia and Pangalangan, op.cit, p.121) -JP