Bar 2004 Q: Distinguish: competency of the witness and credibility of the witness A: Competency of a witness has reference to the basic qualifications of a witness as his capacity to perceive and his capacity to communicate his perception to others. It also includes the absence of any of the disqualifications imposed upon a witness. Credibility of the witness refers to the believability of the witness and has nothing to do with the law or the rules. It refers to the weight and the trustworthiness or reliability of the testimony. In deciding the competence of a witness, the court will not inquire into the trustworthiness of the witness. Accordingly, a prevaricating witness of one who has given contradicting testimony is still a competent witness. Bar 1994 Q: Al was accused of raping ourdes. !nly ourdes testified on how the crime was perpetrated. !n the other hand, the defense presented Al"s wife, son and daughter to testify that Al was with them when the alleged crime too# place. $he prosecution interposed a timely ob%ection to the testimonies on the ground of obvious bias due to the close relationship of the witnesses with the accused. If you were the %udge, how would you rule on the ob%ection& A: I would overrule the ob%ection, interest in the outcome of a case which also includes close relationship is not a ground to disqualify a witness 'sec. () *+,(- Bar 1994 Q: ouis is being charged with frustrated murder of *oy. $he prosecutions lone witness, .ariter, testified to having seen ouise prepare the poison which she later surreptitiously poured into *oy"s wine glass, ouise sought the disqualification of .ariter as witness on account of her previous conviction of per%ury. *ule on ouise"s contention. A: $he contention of ouise has no legal basis. /asic is the rule that previous conviction is not a ground for disqualification of a witness, unless otherwise provided by law. .ariter"s conviction is not sufficient to have her disqualified to testify. 0er situation is not one of the e1ceptions provided for by law. Competency of a Child Witness Q: .ay a person over +2 years old be sometimes considered as a child& A: sometimes, he may. In child abuse cases, a child includes one over +2 years but is found by the court as unable to fully ta#e care of himself or protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, e1ploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition '*ule on 31amination of a Child 4itness-. Bar 2005 Q: 4hen may the trial court order that the testimony of a child be ta#en by live5lin# television& A: $he court may order that the testimony of the child be ta#en by live5lin# tv if there is a li#elihood that the child would suffer trauma from testifying the presence of the accused, his counsel or the prosecutor as the case may be. $he trauma must be of a #ind which would impair the completeness or truthfulness of the testimony of the child '31amination of a child witness-. Survivorship Disqualification Rule of the Dead Mans Statute 0ypo: .r. D approaches .r. C one rainy 6unday morning to borrow one hundred thousand pesos to be paid e1actly a year after. 4ithout hesitation, c gives d the amount requested. C does not require d to e1ecute a promissory note. $hey had been very good friends for as long as they can remember. 7ears ago, when .r. C"s small business was on the verge of ban#ruptcy it was the generosity of the then wealthy .r. D that bailed him out. 31actly a day before the agreed date for payment, .r. D dies without paying the debt. 4hat does .r. C do& 4ell he does what every creditor would do under the circumstances. 0e goes to the e1ecutor of what remains of the estate of .r. D, and tells him of the debt of .r. D. he says: 8$oday is supposed to be the due date of his debt. I cannot demand payment from him because his dead. 7ou are the e1ecutor and alive. 4hat is the effect of the death of .r. D& .r. C is rendered incompetent to testify as to the transaction he has with D. he is incompetent because of the possibility that his claim is fraudulent. If C were to be heard there would be a high ris# of paying a fraudulent or a fictitious claim. It is C who has the motive to lie. 0e is the survivor. D cannot lie. 0e is dead. 0e did not survive9 he cannot answer bac#, nor disprove the claim of C. $o level the playing field between the luc#y survivor and the poor deceased our remedial law ancestors devised a rule that would seal the lips of the survivor by declaring him incompetent to testify on the transaction between him and the deceased the rule is definitely one that does not protect the survivor even at the ris# of not paying a %ust and valid claim because it is the survivor who has the stronger reason to file a false claim. $he rule is for the protection of the guy who died. 0ence the name, dead man"s statute. $he rule will not apply where the plaintiff is the e1ecutor or administrator as representative of the deceased or if the plaintiff is the person of unsound mind. 6o if the e1ecutor of the estate of .r. C sues .r. D to collect an unpaid debt incurred in favor of C by D before the death of C, D although a survivor, is not precluded from testifying as to the transaction he previously had with C because the case is not upon a claim against the estate of C but a claim by his estate against D. Bar 200 Q: .a1imo filed an action against :edro, the administrator of the estate of the deceased ;uan, for the recovery of a car which is part of the latter"s estate. During the trial, .a1imo presented witness .ariano who testified that he was present when .a1imo and ;uan agreed that the latter would pay a rental of :()))) for the use of .a1imo"s car for one month after which ;uan should immediately return the car to .a1imo. :edro ob%ected to the admission of .ariano"s testimony. If you were the %udge, would you sustain :edro"s ob%ection& 4hy& A: $he ob%ection of :edro should not be sustained. $he testimony is admissible because the witness is not qualified to testify. $hose disqualified under the dead man"s statute or the survivorship disqualification rule are parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. $he witness is not one of those enumerated under the rule 'sec(, * +,)-. Bar 200! True or False Q: $he surviving parties rule bars .aria from testifying for the claimant as to what the deceased ;ose ad said to her, in a claim filed by :edro against the estate of ;ose. A: <A63 $he rule bars only a party plaintiff, or his assignor or a person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. .aria is merely a witness and is not one of those enumerated as barred from testifying. arital !is"uali#ication $ule =!$3>>>> 5$he marital disqualification rule under sec. (( of *ule +,) forbids the husband or the wife to testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse e1cept in those cases authori?ed by the rule. $he prohibition e1tends not only to a testimony adverse to the spouse but also to a testimony in favor of the spouse. It also e1tends to both criminal and civil cases because the rule does not distinguish. 5In order that the husband or wife may claim the privilege, it is essential that they be validly married. If they are not, there is no privilege. *ule does not cover illicit cohabitation. 56ec (( r +,) requires not only a valid marriage but the e1istence of that valid marriage at the moment the witness5 spouse gives the testimony. 5 the rule applies whether the witness5 spouse is a party to the case or not but the other spouse must be a party. $hat the other spouse must be a party is evident from the phrase 8@neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other... *efer more to pp(AA5(AB '*iano- E%ceptions to arital !is"uali#ication $ule Bar 2000 Q: Cida and *omeo are legally married. *omeo is charged in court with the crime of serious physical in%uries committed against 6elmo, son of Cida, step son of *omeo. Cida witnessed the infliction of the in%uries on 6elmo by *omeo. $he public prosecutor called Cida to the witness stand and offered her testimony as eyewitness. Counsel for *omeo ob%ected on the ground of the marital disqualification rule under the rules of court. 'a-Is the ob%ection valid& 'b- 4ill your answer be the same if Cida"s testimony is offered in a civil case for recovery of personal property filed by 6elmo against *omeo& A: 'a- $he obe%ection is not valid. 4hile the rule provides that neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, the prohibition is merely the general rule. 6aid rule is sub%ect to certain e1ceptions, one of which is in a criminal case committed by one against the direct descendant of the other. *omeo is accused of committing a crime against 6elmo, the son of Cida and the latter"s direct descendant. 'b- $he answer will not be the same. $he rule in a criminal case is not the same as that in a civil case. In a civil case, for the marital disqualification rule not to apply, the case must be by one spouse against the other. In the case under consideration, the case is by the son of one spouse against the other spouse. *omeo may thus, invo#e the marital disqualification rule against Cida"s proposed testimony. Testimon& '& the Estran(ed )pouse Bar 200" Q: eticia was estranged from her husband :aul for more than a year due to his suspicion that she was having an affair with .anuel, their neighbor. 6he was temporarily living with her sister in :asig City. <or un#nown reasons, the house of eticiaDs sister was burned, #illing the latter. eticia survived. 6he saw her husband in the vicinity during the incident. ater, he was charged with arson in an Information filed with the *egional $rial Court, :asig City. During the trial, the prosecutor called eticia to the witness stand and offered her testimony to prove that her husband committed arson. Can eticia testify over the ob%ection of her husband on the ground of martial privilege& A: eticia cannot testify. 6ec(( of *+,) bars her testimony without the consent of the husband during the marriage. $he separation of the spouses has not operated to terminate their marriage. :ls consider this> eticia may testify over the ob%ection of her husband. 4here the marital and domestic relations between her and the accused husband have become so strained that there is no more harmony, peace or tranquility to be preserved, there is no longer any reason to apply the .arital Disqualification rule. Bar 200# Q: E7F, an alien, was criminally charged of promoting and facilitating child prostitution and other se1ual abuses under *A BA+). $he principal witness against him was his <ilipina wife, A/C. 3arlier, she has complained that E7F"s hotel was being used as a center for se1 tourism and child traffic#ing. $he defense counsel for E7F ob%ected to the testimony of A/C at the trial of the child prostitution case and the introduction of the affidavits she e1ecuted against her husband as a violation of espousal confidentiality and marital privilege rule. It turned out that D3G, the minor daughter of A/C by her first husband who was a <ilipino was molested by E7F earlier. $his, A/C had filed for legal separation from E7F since last year. .ay the court admit the testimony and affidavits of the wife, A/, against her husband E7F, in the criminal case involving child prostitution& *: If the testimony and affidavit of the wife are evidence of the case against her husband for child prostitution involving her daughter, the evidences are admissible. $he marital privileged communication rule under sec (H rule +,) as well as the marital disqualification rule under sec (( of rule +,) do not apply to and cannot be involved in a criminal case committed by a spouse against the direct descendants of the other. A crime committed by the husband against the daughter of his wife is considered a crime committed against the wife and directly attac#s or vitally impairs the marital relations. Bar 1995 Q: Allan and =arita were married on Aug + +I2I, after ( months, =arita told Allan in confidence that the +) year old i?a whom she claimed to be her niece was actually her daughter by a certain married man In +II(, =arita obtained a %udicial decree of nullity of her marriage with Allan on the latter"s psychological incapacity to fulfill his marital obligations. 4hen the decree became final, i?a assisted by narita, filed +) cases of rape against Allan committed in +II+. During the trial, =arita was called to the witness stand to testify as a witness against Allan who ob%ected thereto on the found of marital disqualification. +. As a public prosecutor, how would you meet the ob%ection& (. 6uppose =arita"s testimony was offered while the decision nullifying her marriage to Allan was pending appeal, would your answer be different& ,. 6uppose =arita died during the pendency of the appeal, and soon ager, the legal wife of basilio sued for legal separation on se1ual infidelity in view of /asilio"s love affair with =arita. At the trial Allan was called by /asilio"s wife to testify that narita confided to him during their marriage that li?a was her love child by basilio. As counsel for /asilio, can you validly ob%ect to the presentation of Allan as witness for the plaintiff& 31plain. A: +. I would as# the court to overrule the ob%ection. Jnder the marital disqualification rule, the ob%ection to the testimony of one spouse against the other may be invo#ed only during the marriage. At the time the testimony of =arita was offered, the marriage was already dissolved, besides, the crime was committed against a direct descendant of =arita. (. $he answer would not be different and the court may li#ewise be as#ed to overrule the ob%ection. $he marital disqualification rule may not be invo#ed in a criminal case for a crime committed against the direct descendant of the other spouse. 0ere, li?a is the daughter of =arita. ,. 6uggested answer: I could validly ob%ect to the presentation of Allan as a witness on the ground that the communication of =arita was a privileged communication which could be invo#ed during or after the marriage. .oreover, the testimony of Allan would be hearsay. 4riters comment: it is submitted that the testimony could not be validly ob%ected upon by /asilio"s counsel on the basis of the marital priv comm.. rule. /asilio does not own the privilege. $he prerogative to ob%ect to a confidential communication between spouses is vested upon the spouses themselves, particularly the communicating spouse, not a third person. $his is clear from the provision cannot be examined without the consent of the other the proper ob%ection should be on hearsay grounds not on privileged communication. Bar $$% +: C is the child of the spouses 0 and 4. 0 sued his wife for %udicial declaration of nullity of marriage under Art. ,A of the <C. In the trial, the ff. testified over the ob%ection of 4: C, 0, and D, a doctor of medicine who used to treat 4. rule on 4"s ob%ection which are the ff: a. 0 cannot testify against her because of the rule on marital privilege A: $he ob%ection should be overruled. $he rule invo#ed by 4, the rule o marital privilege does not apply to a civil case by one against the other. $he suit between the spouses is a civil case against the other. *ttorne&,Client -rivile(e Bar 200% Q: A tugboat owned by 6peedy :ort 6ervice, Inc. '6:6- san# in .anila /ay while helping tow another vessel, drowning five 'K- of the crew in the resulting shipwrec#. At the maritime board inquiry, the four 'H- survivors testified. 6:6 engaged Atty. 3ly to defend it against potential claims and to sue the company owning the other vessel for damages to the tug. 3ly obtained signed statements from the survivors. 0e also interviewed other persons, in some instance ma#ing memoranda. $he heirs of the five 'K- victims filed an action for damages against 6:6. :laintiffsD counsel sent written interrogatories to 3ly, as#ing whether statements of witnesses were obtained9 if written, copies were to be furnished9 if oral, the e1act provisions were to be set forth in detail. 3ly refused to comply, arguing that the documents and information as#ed are privileged communication. Is the contention tenable& 31plain. A: $he contention is not tenable. $he documents and information sought to be disclosed are not privileged. $hey are evidentiary matters which will eventually be disclosed during the trial. 4hat is privileged under sec. (Hb of * +,) is 'a- the communication made by the client to the attorney, or 'b- the advice given by the attorney, in the course of, or with the view to professional employment. $he information sought is neither a communication by the client to the attorney nor is it an advice by the attorney to his client. -h&sician, -atient -rivile(e Bar $$% +: C is the child of the spouses 0 and 4. 0 sued his wife for %udicial declaration of nullity of marriage under Art. ,A of the <C. In the trial, the following testified over the ob%ection of 4: C 0 and D, a doctor of medicine who used to treat 4. *ule on 4"s ob%ection which are the ff: 'C.+.-. D cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of privileged communication. 'c.(- C cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of parental privilege A+: D cannot testify over the ob%ection of 4 where the sub%ect of the testimony is the advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired in attending to 4 in his professional capacity. A(. 4 cannot invo#e the privilege which belongs to the child. C may testify if he want to although he may not be compelled to do so. -riest.inister, -enitent -rivile(e /0TE1 $he privilege e1tends not only to a confession made by the penitent but also to any advice given by the minister or priest. $he confession and the advice must have been made or given pursuant to the course of discipline of the denomination or sect to which the minister or priest belongs. $hus, the minister or priest must be duly ordained or consecrated by his sect. =ot every communication made to a minister or priest is privileged. $he communication must be made pursuant to confession of sins. As clearly provided in the rule. $he advice given as a result of the confession, must be made in the ministers processional character or in his spiritual capacity. Accordingly, where the penitent discussed business arrangements with the priest, the privilege does not apply. -rivile(ed Communication under the rules on electronic evidence :riv. Comm apply even to electronic evidence. Jnder sec. , rule , of the rules on e5evid, the confidential character of a privileged communication is not lost solely on the ground that it is in the form of an e5 document. 0ther -rivile(ed Communication not #ound in the $ules o# Court ,editors may not be allowed to disclose the source of published news 5voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted 5trade secrets 5info. contained in ta1 census returns9 and ban# deposits 5under Art. (,, abor Code information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as confidential. A.A, institutions covered by the law and its officers and employees who communicate suspicious transactions to A.C are barred from disclosure the fact of such report to other persons. E%amination o# 2itnesses E%amination o# 2itness and $ecord -roceedin(s Bar $!% Q: After the accused himself had testified in his defense in a murder case, the trial %udge over the ob%ection of the fiscal, allowed the defense counsel to file and merely submit the affidavits of the other witnesses of the accused in lieu of their direct testimony but sub%ect still to cross e1amination by the prosecution. $he fiscal thus filed with the 6C a petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify the order of the trial court %udge allowing such a procedure. 6hould said petition be granted& A: $he petition should be granted. $he provisions of the *ules of Court require that the e1amination of the witnesses shall be done in open court and their answers be given orally, not in writing unless the e1ceptions mentioned therein apply to with the witness is incapacitated to spea#, or the question calls for a different mode of answer. =one of the e1ceptions apply to the case under consideration. $he court therefore, acted in e1cess of %urisdiction amounting to lac# of %urisdiction when it allowed the presentation of the affidavits without an oral e1amination of the witness. $i(hts and 0'li(ations o# a 2itness Bar 200& Q: Jnder *epublic Act =o. 2,K,, one may be charged with and found guilty of qualified rape if he #new on or before the commission of the crime that he is afflicted with 0uman Immuno5Deficiency Cirus '0IC-LAcquired Immune Deficiency 6yndrome 'AID6- or any other se1ually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim. Jnder 6ection +B'a- of *epublic Act =o. 2K)H the court may compel the accused to submit himself to a blood test where blood samples would be e1tracted from his veins to determine whether he has 0IC. a- Are the rights of the accused to be presumed innocent of the crime charged, to privacy, and against self5incrimination violated by such compulsory testing& 31plain. A: $he rights of the accused are not violated by such testing"s. $his is a settled rule. $here is no testimonial compulsion involved by e1tracting blood from the accused for testing purposes. $here is hence, no violation of the right to privacy and the right to be presumed innocent. Bar 200# Q. At the scene of a heinous crime, police recovered a man"s shorts with blood stains and strands of hair. 6hortly afterwards, a warrant was issued and police arrested the suspect. AA during his detention, a medical tech e1tracted blood sample from his finger and cut a strand from his hair, despite AA"s ob%ections During AA"s trial for rape and murder, the prosecution sought to introduce D=A evidence against AA, based on forensic matching of the materials found at the crime scene and AA"s hair and blood samples, AA"s counsel ob%ected, claiming that D=A evidence is inadmissible because the materials ta#en from AA were in violation of his constitutional right against self5incrimination as well as his right of privacy and personal integrity. 6hould the D=A evidence be admitted or not& A: $he D=A evidence should be admitted. $he right against self5incrimination applies only to testimonial evidence. 31tracting blood samples and cutting strands of hair do not involve testimonial compulsion but purely mechanical acts which neither requires discretion or reasoning. Bar $$% Q: A was accused of having raped E. rule on admissibility of the ff. pcs. !f evidence: - A pair of short pants allegedly left by A at the crime which the court, over the ob%ection of A, required him to put on and when he did, it fit him well. A: $he pair of short pants may be considered as circumstantial evidence when ta#en with other circumstances. =o valid ob%ection may be interposed over the order of the court to put on the pair of pants. $he right against self5incrimination does not apply to a physical and mechanical act. It applies only to testimonial compulsion which is not the case under the facts. =!$3: if the witness is the accused, he may totally refuse to ta#e the stand. A mere witness cannot altogether refuse to ta#e the stand. /efore he refuses to answer, he must wait for the incriminating question. 3eadin( "uestions Q: $he case is a collection case. $he defendant contends that the debt has been paid. 0e calls a witness to testify to the fact of payment. 5while the plaintiff and the defendant were engaged in a conversation on the date and time you mentioned, did you see the defendant deliver K)# to the plaintiff& 0ere, the question of ob%ectionable on the ground that it is leading. 0ere the e1aminer obviously wants the witness to directly testify that money was delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff in his presence. $he question could have been properly framed in this manner: what have you observed if any, while the plaintiff and the defendant were engaged in a conversation Q. $he fact situation is a robbery case. $he accused claims innocence and that a couple of hours after the alleged robbery, he is arrested by the police while in the par# with his children. $he defense counsel calls the accused to the stand. 5 4hat where you doing in the par#& I was ta#ing a stroll with my two adolescent children, 5 4hile you were in the par# with your children, the police officers arrived to arrest you, is that true. $he question is leading. It suggests the ne1t event which the witness should testify to. $he atty. Could convert the question into a non5leading one by ta#ing the suggestive element our of the question. $hus What happened if any, while you and your children were at the park? 0pinion Evidence 0pen o# an 0rdinar& 2itness4 2hen *dmissi'le /ar ())K Q: Dencio barged into the house of .arcela, tied her to a chair and robbed her of assorted pieces of %ewelry and money. Dencio then brought Candida, .arcela"s maid, to a bedroom where he raped her. .arcella could hear Candida crying and pleading.M0uwag> .Aawa #a sa a#in> After raping Candida, Dencio fled from the house with the loot. Candida then untied .arcela and rushed to the police station about a #ilometer away and told :olice !fficer *oberto .aawa that Dencio had barged into the house of .arcela, tied the latter to a chair and robbed her of her %ewelry and money. Candida also related to the police officer that despite her pleas, Dencio had raped her. $he policeman noticed that Candida was hysterical and on the verge of collapse. Dencio was charged with robbery with rape. During the trial, Candida can no longer be located. b- If the police officer will testify that he noticed Candida to be hysterical and on the verge of collapse, would such testimony be considered as opinion, hence, inadmissible& 31plain. A: $he testimony would be admissible even if it would be an opinion. $he opinion of an ordinary witness is admissible when such testimony refers to his impressions of the emotion, behavior condition or appearance of person. 55555555155555555o555555555555555o55555555551 C0A:$3* C 5E*$)*6 EVI!E/CE +7 4hat is the hearsay rule& In relation to the hearsay rule, what do the following rules of evidence have in common& +. $he rule on statements that are part of the res gestae9 (. $he rule on dying declarations9 ,. $he rule on admissions against interest. A: +. 6ec. ,A *.+,) (. $hey are e1ceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. $hey are in other words, admissible hearsay Bar 200# Q: Distinguish hearsay evidence and opinion evidence A. 0earsay evidence is one that is not based on one"s personal perception but based on the #nowledge of others to prove the truth of the matter asserted in an out5of5court declaration 'sec,A*+,)- An opinion evidence is based n the personal #nowledge or personal conclusions of the witness based on his s#ill, training or e1perience 'sec. HI * +,)- Independentl& $elevant )tatements Bar 200' Q: $he prosecution presented in evidence a newspaper clipping of the report to the reporter who was present during the presscon stating that E admitted the robbery. Is the newspaper clipping admissible against E& A: $he newspaper clipping is admissible as non5hearsay if offered for the purpose of showing that the statement of E was made to a reporter regardless of the truth or falsity of the statement. $he admissibility depends now on whether the fact that the statement was made is relevant to the case. It is relevant, it is admissible as an independent relevant statement. It would be hearsay if offered to prove the truth that 1 was the robber. =ote: $he statement of E to a reporter may be admitted as an admission under sec (A. of *+,). $his answer should also be considered by the e1aminer because it has a clear legal basis. Bar $$ Q: 4hat are the requisites to the admissibility of a dying declaration& 6ee sec ,B of *ule +,) Q: !ne evening at I:)) %ust as he reached the gate of his house in Apas, Cebu city, and as soon as he alighted from his car to open the gate, Carlos was shot by tito, who had been waiting behind a coconut tree nearby, with a .,2 caliber revolver, Carlos was hit at the sternum of the second rib. 0earing the shot, .arilyn, Carlos9 wife ran out toward the gate and found Carlos lying on the ground, with blood splattered on his chest. 4ith her son 7, she brought Carlos to the Cebu Doctors 0ospital. In the car, although he was in a semi)conscious state, Carlos told .arilyn that it was $ito who shot him. Carlos was brought to the 3*. 0owever, two hours later, he e1pired. $ito was then charged with murder before the *$C of Cebu. .arilyn was presented as witness for the prosecution by her testimony regarding the above statement of Carlos was ob%ected to under the hearsay rule. $he court overruled the ob%ection on the ground that the statement may be considered as a dying declaration. Is the ruling correct& A: $he ruling is correct. 4hile declaration of Carlos is hearsay evidence, the declaration is admissible as a dying declaration and hence, admissible as an e1ception. $he declaration of Carlos contains all the elements of a during declaration 'should enumerate the elements-. Bar $%& Q: <allen by a bullet upon being fired at, 6antos before e1piring told *omero, a passerby who came to his rescue, I was shot by ablo, our neighbor .ay *omero"s testimony o what was told him by 6antos be offered and admitted in evidence in the separate civil action for damages brought by the heirs against :ablo Cru?& Discuss A: $he statement is admissible. A dying declaration, as in the facts in the case at bar, may be offered in a civil case provided that the cause and circumstances of the death of the declarant are the sub%ects of inquiry. $es 8estae )pontaneous )tatement Bar 200& Q: Dencio barged into the house of .arcela, tied her to a chair and robbed her of assorted pieces of %ewelry and money. Dencio then brought Candida, .arcela"s maid, to a bedroom where he raped her. .arcela could hear Candida crying and pleading: 80uwag> .aawa #a sa a#in>M After raping Candida, Dencio fled from the house with the loot. Candida then untied .arcela and rushed to the police station about a #ilometer away and told :olice !fficer *oberto .aawa that Dencio had barged into the house of .arcela, tied the latter to a chair and robbed her of her %ewelry and money. Candida also related to the police officer that despite her pleas, Dencio had raped her. $he policeman noticed that Candida was hysterical and on the verge of collapse. Dencio was charged with robbery with rape. During the trial, Candida can no longer be located. a- If the prosecution presents :olice !fficer *oberto .aawa to testify on what Candida had told him, would such testimony of the policeman be hearsay& 31plain. A: $he testimony would be hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the statement of Candida, but an admissible hearsay as an e1ception to the hearsay rile. Jnder the rules of court, statements made by a person while a startling occurrence are ta#ing place or immediately proper or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, maybe given in evidence as part of the res gestae. $he statements made by Candida to the police officer falls within the res gestae rule. If the statement of Candida is offered merely to prove the tenor of the statement, i.e. what Candida told the police officer without regard to whether the statement is true or not, it may be considered as an independently relevant statement and this not hearsay. 55o!oN Chapter VI Burden o# -roo#9 +uantum o# Evidence and -resumptions Bar 200# +: !ist: /urden of proof and burden of evidence A: /urden of proof is the obligation 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. /urden of evidence is the duty of a party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow any prima facie presumption against him. Bar $$& Q: 31plain the equipoise doctrine in the law of evidence and cite its constitutional basis. A: $he equipoise doctrine is based on the principle that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. $he doctrine refers to a situation where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates. In this case the decision should be against the party with the burden of proof. 0ence, where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff and the evidence does not suggest that the scale of %ustice should weigh in his favor the court should render a verdict for the defendant. )u'stantial Evidence Bar 200' +: Dist preponderance of evidence from substantial evidence A: $he term 8preponderance of evidenceM applies to civil cases. It means the greater or superior weight of evidence. It is the evidence that is more convincing and more credible than the one offered by the adverse party. It means that the evidence as a whole adduced by one side is superior to that of the other. !ubstantial "vidence applies to cases filed before administrative or quasi5%udicial bodies and which requires that in order to establish a fact, the evidence should constitute that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 55o!!N Chapter VII 0##er o# Evidence and Trial 0':ections 2hen Formal 0##er o# Evidence is /ot $e"uired * formal offer of evidence is not required in certain cases: +. In a summary proceeding because it is a proceeding where there is no full blown trial (. Documents %udicially admitter or ta#en %udicial notice of ,. Documents, affidavits and depositions used in rendering a summary %udgment9 H. Documents or affidavits used in deciding quasi5%udicial or admin. Cases K. ost ob%ects previously mar#ed, identified, described in the record and testified to by witnesses who had been sub%ects of cross5 e1amination in respect to said ob%ects Bar 200' Q: E and 7 were charged for murder. Jpon application of the prosecution, 7 was discharged from the information to be utili?ed as a state witness. $he prosecutor presented 7 as witness but forgot to state the purpose oof his testimony much less offer it in evidence. 7 testified that he and E conspired to #ill the victim but it was E who actially shot the victim. $he testimony of J was the only material evidence establishing the guilt of E. 0 was thorognly cross5e1amined by the defense counsel, after the prosecution rested its case, the defense filed a motion for demurrer to ecidence based on the following grounds: a. $he testimony of 7 should be e1cluded because its purpose was not initially stated and it was not formally offered in evidence as required by s. ,H r +,( off evidence *ule on the motion of the demurrer. A: $he demurrer to evidence should be denied. 4hile under the *ules of Court, the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered this is true only when the failure to offer evidence has been ob%ected to. $he failure to ob%ect to the omission of the prosecutor and the cross5e1amination of the witness by the adverse party, ta#en together, constitute a waiver of the defect. 5o; an 0##er o# Evidence is ade Bar $%' Atty. <elipe .alang was the counsel for the plaintiff in an action to collect the alleged purchase price of a tractor. <or his principal defense, the defendant alleged that the true transaction between the parties was only a lease of the tractor, not a sale thereof, and therefore the defendant, being a mere lessee, was not liable for the alleged purchase price In the course of the trial, lawyer was as#ed his witnesses to identify certain documents which he mar#ed as: 31hibit A, the delivery receipt signed by the defendant ac#nowledging delivery of the tractor,@..:ls refer to pHA+ 'toooooooooooo long- Did Atty. .alang commit any error in the manner by which he made an offer of the documentary evidence made by the plaintiff& *easons A: Atty. .alang committed errors in the manner by which he offered is documentary evidence Jnder the rules, when a party ma#es a formal offer of his evidence, he must state the nature or substance of the evidence, and the specific purpose for which the evidence is offered. Atty. .alang failed to do all these. Bar $$! Q: 4hat are the two #inds of ob%ections& 31plain each briefly. Give an e1ample of each A: <ormal and substantive !b%ections A formal ob%ection is one directed against the alleged defect in the formulation of the question. 31amples of defectively formulated questions: ambiguous question9 leading and misleading questions9 repetitious questions9 multiply questions9 argumentative questions A substantive ob%ection are ob%ections made and directed against the very nature of the evidence, i.e., it is in admissible either because it is irrelevant or incompetent or both. 31amples: parol9 not the best evidence9 hearsay privileged communication not authenticated9 opinion9 res inter alios acta Bar 200# Q: in a complaint for a sum of money filed before the .. *$C, plaintiff did not mention or even %ust hint at any demand for payment made on defendant before commencing suit. During the trial, plaintiff dully offered 31h. A in evidence for the stated purpose of proving the ma#ing of e1tra%udicial demand on defendant to pay :K))# the sub%ect of the suit. 3Eh A was a letter of demand for defendant to pay said sum of money within +) days from receipt, addressed to and served on defendant some ( months before suit was begun. 4ithout ob%ection from defendant, the court admitted e1h A in evidence. A: $he admission of the evidence was correct. $here was no ob%ection when 31h 6 was offered in evidence. It could have been ob%ected to on the ground that is not related to an issue raised in the pleadings. 0owever, it is a basic rule that inadmissibility of evidence may be waived. Tender i# E%cluded Evidence <0##er o# -roo#= Bar $$ +: Dist. <ormal offer of evidence from offer of proof A: <ormal offer of evidence refers either to the offer of the testimony of a witness prior to the latter"s testimony, or to the offer of the documentary and ob%ect evidence after a party has presented his testimonial evidence !ffer of proof, is the process by which a proponent of e1cluded evidence tenders the same. If what has been e1cluded is testimonial evidence, the tender is made by stating for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the proposed witness and the substance of his proposed testimony. If the evidence e1cluded is documentary or of things, the offer of proof is made by having the same attached to or made a part of the record.
G.R. No. 201302 Hygienic Packaging Corporation, Petitioner Nutri-Asia, Inc., Doing Business Under The Name and Style of Ufc Philippines (FORMERLY NUTRI-ASIA, INC.), Respondent Decision Leonen, J.