FINALS Evidence Case Doctrines Arroyo

EVIDENCE Case Doctrines_Arroyo
CASE
People vs. Yip Wai Ming (MR)
FACTS
Yip was charged and convicted in the lower court for
the murder of his fianc Lam. The prosecution and
court based its entire case on circumstancial evidence
as there was no eye witness or any direct evidence.
Lower court: Before getting married, Lam secured
insurance on her life, naming Yip as beneficiary, which
according to the court furnished motive for the
premeditated killing. When they came to Manila, they
checked in at a hotel and scheduled for a Manila tour
the day after. The next day however they were picked
up but Lam didnt join them due to sickness. When Yip
got back to the hotel room, he discovered Lam dead.
Based on the testimony of the occupant of the
adjacent hotel room and the estimation of Officer
Yanquiling of time of death based on the rigor mortis
of Lams body, LC pinned the death on Yip.
ISSUE-HELD
WON Yip committed the
crime based on the
evidence--NO
RATIO
The insurance story was not establishedtheres
absolutely no proof that it was ever issued. This
destroys the motive argument. The medico-legal officer
could not testify as to the actual time of death. And the
testimonies of the occupant of the adjacent room and
the investigating officer are incredible for being
contradictory on material points and being without
basis, respectively. So time of death argument is also
destroyed. Yip was also arrested without warrant and
he was tortured into confessing the crime, violative of
sec. 12, Art. III of the Bill of Rights. The same acrticle
says that any confession or admission made in
violation of this and art. 17 are inadmissible against
him.
People vs. Maqueda (NO)
William Barker was slain inside his house in Tuba,

Benguet while his wife was badly battered with lead
pipes due to a robbery. Two household helpers of the
victims identified Salvamante (a former houseboy of
the victims) and Maqueda as the robbers. Mike
Tabayan and his friend also saw the two accused a
kilometer away from the house of the victims that
same morning. Maqueda was then arrested in
Guinyangan, Quezon. He was taken to Calauag,
Quezon where he signed a Sinumpaang Salaysay
wherein he narrated his participation in the crime.
According to SPO3 Molleno, he informed Maqueda of
his constitutional rights before he signed such
document. Afterwards he was brought to the Benguet
Provincial Jail. While he was under detention, Maqueda
filed a Motion to Grant Bail. He stated therein that "he
is willing and volunteering to be a State witness in the
above entitled case, it appearing that he is the least
guilty among the accused in this case."
Whether or Not the trial

court was correct in
holding that the
Sinumpaan Salaysay is
admissible as evidence. NO
(1) The Sinumpaang Salaysay is inadmissible because

it was in clear violation of the constitutional rights of
the accused. First, he was not informed of his right to
remain silent and his right to counsel. Second, he
cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.
At the time of the confession, the accused was already
facing charges in court. He no longer had the right to
remain silent and to counsel but he had the right to
refuse to be a witness and not to have any prejudice
whatsoever result to him by such refusal. And yet,
despite his knowing fully well that a case had already
been filed in court, he still confessed when he did not
have to do so.
(2) As to the admissions made by Maqueda to
Prosecutor Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa, the trial
court admitted their testimony thereon only to prove
the tenor of their conversation but not to prove the
truth of the admission because such testimony was
objected to as hearsay. Maqueda voluntarily and freely
made them to Prosecutor Zarate not in the course of
an investigation, but in connection with Maqueda's plea
to be utilized as a state witness; and as to the other
admission(Salvosa), it was given to a private person
therefore admissible. The term admission is usually
applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the
accused which do not directly
involve an acknowledgment of his guilt or of the
criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is
charged. A confession is an acknowledgment in
express terms, by a party in a criminal case, of his
guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a
statement by the accused, direct or implied, of facts
pertinent
to the issue and tending, in connection with proof of
other facts, to prove his guilt.

Parker vs. Randolph (KL)
US v. Pineda (HQ)
People vs. Irang (APG)
The 3 respondents (Pickens, Randolph, and Hamilton)

were held guilty of murder committed during the
commission of a robbery in Tennessee involving a
gambling card game involving Douglas and Robert
Wood. Douglas was killed by Robert Wood over
Douglas act of cheating on him in the card game.
Hamilton was one of the employees of Joe Wood,
brother of Robert, and Hamilton got Randolph and
Pickens to help them with the robbery. When the 3
defendants were captured, each confessed to his
involvement in the crime. Several police officers
testified to the defendants confessions at the murder
trial. Since none of the defendants took the stand at
the joint trial, Tennessee trial court instructed the jury
that each confession could only be used against the
defendant who gave it and could not be considered as
evidence of a codefendants guilt. The jury convicted
all 3 defendants.
W/N the Bruton case

applies to interlocking
statements/confessions.
NO.
In Bruton v. United States
(1968), this Court reversed
the armed postal robbery
conviction of a defendant
(Bruton) who had been
implicated in the crime by
his codefendant's
extrajudicial confession
(Evans). Because Evans
had not taken the stand at
the joint trial, and thus
could not be crossexamined, the Court held
that admission of the
codefendant's confession
had deprived the
defendant of his rights
under the Confrontation
Clause of the Sixth
Amendment.
Pineda is a pharmacist and owner of a drug store.
W/N the testimonies of
Santos presented to the said drug store a copy of a
these 2 chemists should be
prescription for his sick horses. Believing he purchased admitted? YES. (Note that
potassium chlorate, Santos gave the doses to his sick Pineda incorrectly relied
horses, which died shortly afterwards. On analysis, the upon the res inter alios
chemists found that the packages contained not
acta rule)
potassium chlorate but barium chlorate (poison). The 2
chemists went back to the drug store and bought
potassium chlorate, which were also found to be
barium chlorate.
The SC reversed CAs decision and held that Bruton

was inapplicable in this case. It stated that the
confrontation clause (constitutional right of accused to
confront witnesses against him) is not violated when
the codefendants confessions interlock. In this case,
even if the defendant was allowed to cross-examine
and impeach the statements of his codefendants, such
was immaterial since the defendant has already
admitted committing the crime in his own confession.
In sum, the constitutional right of cross-examination
has far less practical value to a defendant who has
confessed to the crime than to one who has
consistently maintained his innocence. (Note: Pickens
is acquitted since his Miranda rights were violated
while Hamilton and Randolph are convicted since the
Bruton ruling does not protect them)
The general rule is that evidence of other offenses

committed by the defendant is inadmissible. However,
such evidence may be admitted where its purpose is to
ascertain the knowledge and intent of the defendant to
fix his negligence.
SC held that the testimonies were admissible as their

purpose is to ascertain defendant's knowledge and
intent, and to fix his negligence. If the defendant has
on more than one occasion performed similar acts,
accident in good faith is possibly excluded, negligence
is intensified, and fraudulent intent may even be
established. If the questions relate to the tendency of
certain testimony to throw light upon a particular fact,
or to explain the conduct of a particular person, such
will not be interfered with by the higher court, save for
certain instances.
Benjamin Irang was charged with complex crime of
WON the evidence of
While evidence of another crime is, as a rule, not
robbery with homicide based on the testimonies of
another crime is admissible admissible in a prosecution for robbery, it is admissible
Maximiniana and Juana dela Cruz. He was the same
- YES
when it is otherwise relevant, as where it tends to
man arrested at midnight on November 9, 1935, in the
identify defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery
barrio of Tampac which is five or seven kilometers
charged, or tends to show his presence at the scene or
from Maturanoc to which he was taken and brought to
in the vicinity of the crime at the time charged, or
the house of the deceased. Irang made an affidavit
when it is evidence of a circumstance connected with
under oath admitting to the commission of the crime.
the crime

People v. Soliman (AJG)
People v. Babiera (JT)
US v. Mercado (AD)
Balaktaw and Basa were sleeping when Palin held the WON character of the
While good or bad character may be availed of as an
shoulders of Basa, while Soliman stabbed him. Basa
deceased may be proved in aid to determine the probability or improbability of the
died after. During the proceedings,the defense was
this case - NO
commission of an offense, such is not necessary in the
trying to prove that the deceased had a violent,
crime of murder through TREACHERY or EVIDENT
quarrelsome, or provocative character (to bolster their
PREMEDITATION (remember that the character of the
self defense theory). The Trial Court did not allow the
wounds show that the deceased was killed in a lying
defense to prove these.
position). The proof of such character may only be
allowed in homicide cases to show that it has produced
a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the mind of
the accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt
defensive action was necessary.
Pursuant to a bona fide sale of land, Basilio leased a
W/N the quarrelsome
the accused failed to prove that Severino's
land he bought from Justo to Severino, the deceased. character of Severino
quarrelsome nature was a general reputation, and not
Justo and Clemente, vendors to Basilio, filed a case for should be allowed as a
an isolated or specific act. While it is true that, to
unlawful detainer and recovery of possession against
defense -- NO
support a defense of self-defense, the accused may
Severino, but to no avail. They then threatened to use
prove that the deceased was of a quarrelsome,
violent means to get the lands back. One day, a cow of
provoking, irascible disposition, such proof must be of
Justo and Clemente were grazing the land of Severino,
his general reputation in the community, and NOT of
so Severino told Clemente to control his cow. That
specific or isolated acts. But Clemente failed to prove
night, while walking in the dark, Clemente suddenly
this. Thus, having failed to prove any provocation on
assaulted Severino with a bolo on his back, resulting in
the part of the deceased Severino, Clemente was
injuries which eventually led to his death. During the
convicted as principal to murder, and Justo and
attack, Justo and Clemente were holding Severino
Dominga were convicted as accomplices to homicide
down. As a defense, the defense contended that
Severino had a quarrelsome character and it was he
that provoked the attack.
Attorney for the prosecutor, asked the defense
If the witness, who
Generally, a witness cannot be impeached by the party
witness, Santiago Mercado, the following question:
committed the alleged
against whom he has been called, except by showing:
"How many times have you been convicted of assault assault, indeed assaulted
1. that he has made contradictory statements; or
upon other persons?"
other persons and had
2. by showing that his general reputation for truth,
been prosecuted therefor, honesty, or integrity is bad.
To this question, the defendant Tomas Mercado
may that fact be
The question to which the defendant objected neither
objected on the ground that the question was
considered by the court in attempted to show that the witness had made
impertinent
weighing the proof and in
contradictory statements nor that his general
testing the credibility of
reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity was bad
Prosecution explained the purpose of his question by
the witness?
saying: "I wish to demonstrate that he has a
But even if you cannot impeach a witness except by
pugnacious disposition. I have had occasion to defend
those 2 reasons, you CAN however, show by an
him in various causes for assault."
examination of a witness that he has been convicted of
a HIGH CRIME (Sec. 342, Act No. 190).
Here though, the other offense to which the question
related was not a high crime.

People v. Umbana (KL)
This is an automatic review of Gaudencios conviction

for 3 counts of rape. He was sentenced to the death
penalty. Gaudencio for 3 consecutive days raped his
daughter Cheril, then 20 years old. She was raped on
1am and under the threat of death from his father
(using a knife). Gaudencio main defenses were alibi
and denial. He claimed to be somewhere else during
the alleged crime and that the character of Cheril led
to the false charges against him. He alleges that they
were always arguing and she clearly did not like him.
Also, the alleged crime was only influenced by his
spiteful wife against him.
People v. Brioso (RC)
Brioso and friend shot the victim in his home. Cecilia,

the neice and neighbor of the victim saw the
respondents as they snuck into the house.
People v. Cusi (KF)
W/N Cheril's character

should refute her
testimony. NO. Cheril was
credible and the showing of
Cherils bad behavior does
not affect her credibility as
a witness. The death
penalty was reduced to
reclusion perpetua since
the prosecution failed to
state the aggrevating
circumstance (use of
deadly weapon) in the
information.
WON Cecilia's testimony on
the respondents identities
was admissible? YES
Even the testimony adduced by the defense portraying

Cheril as a disrespectful and wayward child does not
detract from her credibility as a witness narrating her
ordeal in the hands of her father. Moral character is
immaterial in the prosecution and conviction of persons
accused of rape, as even prostitutes can be the victims
of rape. Moreover, we recognize that a rape victims
testimony against her father is entitled to great weight,
since reverence and respect for elders is deeply
ingrained in Filipino children and is recognized by law.
The house of Bernal was only six meters away and the
night was brightly lit and she knew the two accused
for a long time and could easily identify them. Even
Juan Brioso specifically said that he knew of no reason
why she should testify against him. Hence, her
statement that she came to court only to tell the truth
should be believed. The witness also stated that she
was hard of hearing and could not understand some of
the questions; thus, the alleged inconsistencies in her
testimony do not detract from the "positive and
straightforward". And of course, the judge was able to
observe her, and the finding of lower court judges as
to the demeanor of witnesses should be respected.
Private respondents were charged with robbery in
WON the statement of
the purpose of the prosecuting officer is nothing more
band with homicide, for which they pleaded not guilty. Bano is considered hearsay than to establish the fact that Puesca had mentioned to
During the trial, Sgt. Bano, while testifying about the
evidence. HELD: NOT
Sgt. Bano the names of those who conspired with him
EJ confession made to him by Puesca, said that
hearsay if the purpose is
to commit the offense charged, without claiming that
Puesca, aside from admitting his participation,
merely to establish the fact Puesca's statement or the answer to be given by Sgt.
revealed that other persons conspired with him,
that the statement was
Bano would be competent and admissible evidence to
mentioning the name of everyone. Counsel (of 3
made.
show that the persons so named REALLY conspired
accused) objected on the ground of hearsay.
with Puesca. We believe that the question propounded
to the witness was proper and the latter should have
been allowed to answer it in full, with the
understanding, however, that his answer shall not to
be taken as competent evidence to show that the
persons named REALLY AND ACTUALLY conspired with
Puesca and later took part in the commission of the
offense.

People v. Gaddi (CG)
Guzman saw Gaddi and Esguerra drinking in Dec 1981.

The following day, Gaddi told Guzman that he killed
Esguerra. Guzman thereafter went to the police and
reported what Gaddi told him. Gaddi was arrested the
same day, admitted to the police what he did, and
even led the policemen and residents to where the
body was. Clothes of Gaddi were also recovered from
the pit where the body of the victim was, which was
identified by Guzman as the clothes that Gaddi was
wearing when he saw them drinking. Gaddi, on the
other hand, pointed the crime to Guzman. He also
interposed an alibi. However, he was still adjudged by
the RTC as guilty beyond reasonable doubt to the
crime of murder.
The issue is WON the RTC

erred in giving weight and
credence to the testimony
of Ernesto Guzman and in
totally disregarding the
evidence adduced by the
defense. - NO
Leake v. Hagert (RL)
Allen Leake filed a complaint against Charlotte Hagert

for her alleged negligence and carelessness in driving
her automobile into the rear of the plow being towed
by a tractor causing injuries to Leake and damages to
his plow and tractor. Hagert claimed that it was Leake
s negligence in the maintenance and operation of his
tractor that was the proximate cause for not having
proper lights, reflectors or other warnings. Edward
Gross, investigator, testified and submitted notes
which included the statement of Allen Leakes son,
who told him that the lens in the small light had been
missing from its frame for some time prior to the
accident. Leake sought to have Edward Gross
testimony and notes in relation to his sons testimony
excluded.
W/N Edward Gross'

testimony and field notes
should be excluded-EXCLUDED
US v. Zenni (QN)
The facts of this case are rather easy. During a lawful Whether or not the
search of an alleged illegal sports betting place, the
hearsay evidence rule
phone kept ringing because of bettors calling in their
applies to these calls.
bets. The government intends to enter these calls into
evidence to prove that those bettors believed such
place to be a betting place. Defense objected based on
hearsay.
The SC affirmed the decision of the lower court with

several modifications. They said that although only
circumstantial evidence was presented, the prosecution
sufficiently satisfies the quantum of proof necessary to
uphold a judgment of conviction. The evidence shows
that: (1) The victim was last seen with Gaddi; (2)
Gaddi admitted to Guzman; (3) He also admitted to
the policemen; (4) He was able to lead the residents
and the policemen to the location of the body of the
victim; and (5) His clothes were recovered where the
victim was buried. The acceptance of Guzmans
testimony regarding Gaddis confession was not a
violation to the hearsay rule since those facts were
known to him or were derived from his own perception.
He was testifying to the fact that the appellant told him
that he stabbed Esguerra and not to the truth of the
appellant's statement.
1) The hearsay rule prohibits use of a person's
assertion, as equivalent to testimony of the fact
asserted, unless the assertor is brought to testify in
court on the stand, where he may be probed and
cross-examined as to the grounds of his assertion and
his qualifications to make it. Because Leakes son was
not presented to validate the same, the statement of
the son cannot be used as evidence. However, the
inadmissibility of such evidence does not make it a
prejudicial error of the trial court that would warrant a
MNT. Other witnesses testified as to the condition of
the taillights of the tractor.
2) As regards the field notes, their admission into
evidence does not constitute prejudicial error where
Leake cross-examined concerning the details contained
in the field notes and introduced on his behalf other
evidence supporting the hearsay evidence and the selfserving declarations set forth in the field notes. The
court also held that the TC instruction on circumstantial
evidence was NOT erroneous just because all of the
facts were testified to by both parties who were
present and who were eyewitnesses to the accident.
The jury had the right to consider the direct evidence
as well as the circumstantial evidence to determine if
the light complied with the requirements of the
statutes. The denial of the MNT was sustained.
NO. Hearsay in the Federal Rules of Evidence only refer
to statements which are assertions. The calls made by
the bettors are not assertions or statements which can
come into the coverage of the hearsay evidence rule.
They are not hearsay.

Estrada v. Desierto (CP)
People v. Laquinon (RR)
People v. Sabio (RS)
People v. Salison (DU)
People v. Ador (HV)
Facts are discussion of the case. This is MR. (Discussed Whether the Angara Diary
in issue-held and ratio)
is inadmissible for being
violative of the following
rules on evidence:
hearsay, best evidence,
authentication, admissions
and res inter alios acta;
Whether reliance on
newspaper accounts is
violative of the hearsay
rule.
Laquinon was charged with the crime of murder for
WON Remonde's statement
killing Remonde. Barrio captain found Remonde lying
is admissible in evidence on the sand and asked the latter his name and the
YES, not as an antename of his assailant. Laquinon was so named.
mortem statement but as
Laquinon contesting the admissibility of Remondes
part of the res gestae
ante-mortem statement.
The Court ruled that:

1)
The Angara diary is not an out of court
statement. The Angara Diary is part of the pleadings
in the cases at bar.
2)
The ban on hearsay evidence does not cover
independently relevant statements.
3)
The Angara Diary contains statements of the
petitioner which reflect his state of mind and are
circumstantial evidence of his intent to resign. It also
contains statements of Secretary Angara from which
we can reasonably deduce petitioners intent to resign.
While the SC agreed that such would not qualify as an
ante-mortem declaration since it failed to show that
the accused believed himself to be at the point of
death when every hope of recovery is extinct, it may
be admitted as part of the res gestae since it was
made immediately after the incident and the deceased
had no sufficient time to concoct a charge against the
accused.
Catalino was discovered with a wound on the forehead. WN the antemortem
The admission of dying declarations has always been
When the police asked him who hacked and robbed
declaration was admissible strictly limited to criminal prosecutions for homicide or
him, he answered that Sabio was the culprit.
YES, but only to establish murder [not robbery] as evidence of the cause and
Patrolman Fuentes asked him questions, which,
the crime of homicide, not surrounding circumstances of death. That death did not
together with the answers, were written on a page
robbery.
ensue till three days after the declaration was made
taken from a calendar hanging about in the house. It
will not alter its probative force since it is not
was thumbmarked by Catalino and witnessed by
indispensable that a declarant expires immediately
Fuentes and another policeman. The trial court found
thereafter. It is the belief in impending death and not
Sabio guilty of robbery with homicide.
the rapid succession of death, in point of fact, that
renders the dying declaration admissible
Victim here was beaten up to death. But before dying W/N the declaration of the The signed declaration is a dying declaration made by
he went to he house of the Purok leader to execute a
Victim is admissible? YES it the victim. He knew that he was dying when he made
signed declaration that Salison et lal beaten him up.
was a dying declaration
that statement because he felt terrible pain on his
He conferred to the purok leader that he was dying
head. Also, while such statement was given, as in the
because he felt terrible pain on his head.
nature of things they are generally in oral form, they
are not thereby rendered inadmissible as they may
even be communicated by means of signs. If the
declarations have thereafter been reduced to writing
and signed by the declarant, the writing is generally
held to be the best evidence, and it must be
produced.
On March 10, 1997 a shooting incident happended in
WN there was an
The only direct evidence introduced by the prosecution
Pacol, Naga City. The Adors were charged of murder
admissible dying
is the testimony of Mercy Beria, that she heard
aggravated by evident premeditation, nighttime,
declaration of the victim
Rodolfo Ompong Chavez say tinambangan kami na
treachery and aid of armed men in shooting Abe Cuya. Abe - NO.
Ador (We were ambushed by the Adors). Sad to say,
The Adors and Cuyas have a long standing grudge.
no specific name was ever mentioned by the witness.
The prosecution presented 16 witnesses against the
Neither was she able to tell how many (persons)
Diosdado Sr., Diosdado Jr., Diosdado III, Godofredo,
Adors were involved. This testimony if it will be given
Rosalino and Allan all surnamed Adors. The said Adors
credence may inculpate any person with the family
are all positive before a paraffin test conducted the
name Ador as assailant. The prosecution therefore was
following morning. The trial court acquitted all others
not able to establish with moral certainty as to who of
except Godofredo and Diosdado III.
the Adors were perpetrators of the offense."

People v. Majuri (VG)
People v. Toledo (MB)
Fuentes v. CA (JM)
Heirs of Franco v. CA (KB)
Gravador v. Mamigo (IE)
Parricide case. Nori was stabbed was killed by her own

husband. He said that he was an escapee from prison
and he to his fathers house and saw Nori who ran
away from him. He chased Nori with a bolo and
stabbed her in different parts of her body. 2 policemen
in their affidavit affirmed that Airol admitted to
Sergeant Macrohon in their presence.The accused then
was placed on the witness stand and he admitted to
the crime. He also identified his signature in his
confession which was sworn to before the clerk of
court.
Holgado and Morales engaged in a bolo duel. Morales
was killed almost instantly. Holgado made a sworn
statement in which he declared that when he and
Morales fought there was nobody present. Toledo, a
worker of Holgado, was charged with the homicide of
Morales and was convicted.
Fuentes stabbed Malaspina with a hunting knife at a
benefit dance. Fuentes' cousin Zoilo allegedly made a
confession to their uncle that he was the one who
killed Malaspina. The unlce reported to the police and
the police told him to ask Zoilo to surrender. Zoiolo
fled. Fuentes wants the confession of his cousin Zoilo
to be admitted as evidence.
WON he was guilty of

killing his wife YES.
The accused said that that he was married to the

deceased was an admission against his penal interest.
(Will become parricide instead of murder) Also,
accused understood fully the nature and effect of his
lea of guilty. The arraignment was postponed 3 times
in order to enable his counsel to confer with him and
explain to him the consequences of his plea of guilty.
W/N Holgado's declaration

against his interest may be
admitted to acquit Toledo
--- YES
Declarations of third parties made contrary to their

own pecuniary/proprietary, or penal interest (as in this
case) are admissible as exceptions to the hearsay
evidence rule.
W/N Zoilo's confession is

admissible.--NO
Quintin died intestate. His brother Miguel became the

administrator of his estate and such was opposed on
the ground of his conflicting interests rendering him
incapable of a true and faithful account of the estate.
Intestate court granted motion to remove him as
administrator wherein Miguel filed an MR alleging for
the first time that one-half of the subject property was
transferred to him by virtue of a document entitled
"General Power of Administration" and executed by
Quintin in 1967. Miguel also used this document to
cancel the OCT in Quintins name and caused a TCT to
be issued on his name covering half of the subject
property. Heirs of Quintin now files a complaint
seeking the cancellation of TCT No. T-20203 in the
name of Miguel, who had died in the meantime.
Pedro Gravador, principal of Sta. Catalina Elem. School
was advised to retire because according to his pre-war
records he was already 66 years old. Petitioner wrote
the Dir. Of Public Schools protesting his forced
retirement on the ground that the date of his birth is
not Nov. 26,1897 but Dec. 11,1901. He filed a suit for
quo warranto, mandamus and damages which the trial
court decided in his favor and concluded that he was
born on Dec,1901. Defendants appealed the decision
of the lower court.
Issue now is whether or

not Miguel has an interest
over one-half of the
property --- NO
3 requisites for admissibility of declaration against

interest--1) the declarant must not be able to testify 2)
the declaration must concern a fact cognizable by the
declrant 3)circumstances must render it improbable
that a motive to falsify existed. there is no showing
that Zoilo is dead, mentally incpacitated or physically
incompetent. His mere absence from the jurisdiction
does not make him ipso facto unavailable under this
rule.
Court held that Miguels claim of ownership to half of
the subject property is belied by his statement in the
Verified Petition for issuance of letters administration.
While he explicitly declared that the subject property
belonged to Quintin, at the same time he was
remarkably silent about his claim that he acquired onehalf thereof during the lifetime of Quintin. Thus, the
statement and the accompanying silence may be
appreciated in more than one context. It is a
declaration against interest and a judicial admission
combined.
W/N the post-war records

and not the pre-war
records should be used to
show the date of birth of
the petitioner.
Thus, the statement and the accompanying silence

may be appreciated in more than one context. It is a
declaration against interest and a judicial admission
combined.

People vs. Alegado (MR)
Tison v. CA (NO)
Ferrer v. Ynchausti (HQ)
Prosecution presented pedigree (through grandfather's Was it sufficiently proven

testimony) to establish the victim's age in a crime of
that the victim was below
rape
12 years of age?
Declarations in regard to pedigree, although hearsay,

are admitted on the principle that they are natural
expressions of persons who must know the truth.
Pedigree testimony is admitted because it is the best
that the nature of the case admits and because greater
evil might arise from the rejection of such proof than
from its admission.
In the present case, sec. 39 Rule 130 is applicable. It
requires 3 requisites for its admissibility(1)
that
there is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any
of the members of a family; (2)
that the
reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person
concerned existed previous to the controversy; and (3)
that the witness testifying to the reputation or tradition
regarding the pedigree of the person must be a
member of the family of said person.
Whether or not petitioners The primary proof to is the testimony of Corazon to the
Teodora died and left a parcel of land and an
were able to prove their
effect that Teodora sometime in 1946, categorically
apartment. Her husband adjudicates the said land to
filiation, having presented declared that the former is Teodoras niece, as an
him and consequently sold it to Domingo. The
several documents and the exception to the hearsay rule, provided that: (1) that
nephews and nieces, seek to inherit by right of
testimony of
the declarant is dead or unable to testify; (2) that the
representation, the property disputed. Petitioners
Corazon as evidence. YES. declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is
presented several documents and the testimony of
subject to inquiry; (3) that such relationship be shown
Corazon to
by evidence other than the declaration;; and (4) that
prove their filiation with Teodora as their aunt (Their
the declaration be made ante litem moam, that is, not
dads brother).
only before the commencement of the suit involving
the subject matter of the declaration, but before any
controversy has arisen thereon.
Plaintiffs file a complaint praying for a declaration that W/N the testimony of
In view of the fact that Ramon Jr, is now dead, the
Rosa (their mother) was a legitimate daughter of
Joaquin and the entry in
testimony of Joaquin referring to the said deceased is
deceased Isabel with her first husband; hence, Rosa is Ramon Jr.s diary were
admissible, for they are members of the same family.
entitled to share in the inheritance, in the same
admissible? YES
proportion as the other four children. Plaintiffs sought
On the diary of Ramon, evidence may be given upon
to establish that Rosa had been treated as Isabels
trial of monuments and inscriptions in public places as
daughter through 1.) Isabels remarks that the father
evidence of common reputation; and entries in family
of Rosa is Ramon Sr.; 2.) Joaquins dedication (in a
Bibles or other family books or charts; engravings on
picture) To my dear and unforgettable sister Rosa
rings, family portraits and the like, as evidence of
and 3.) College records of Rosa.
pedigree. Notably, the law does not require that the
entries in the said booklet be made at the same time
Defendants, on the other hand, presented 1.) an entry
as the occurrence of those events; hence, the written
in the notebook of Ramon Jr. which showed the true
memorandum in the same is not subject to the defect
name of Rosa Matilde was Rosa Matilde ROBLES, born
attributed to it.
of unknown parents. 2.) Joaquin's testimony that 1
day he was assured by his half brother Ramon Jr. that
Requisites for admissibility of acts/declarations about
Rosa was not his sister but a mere protge; that
pedigree, family reputation or tradition:
Ramon Jr. showed Joaquin showed the certificate of
1. the declarant is dead or unable to testify
baptism which Ramon Jr. took from the church. 3.)
2. the declarant be related to the person whose
Other pieces of evidence which strengthen the claim
pedigree is subject to inquiry
that Rosa was not really a legitimate daughter of
3. such relationship is shown by evidence other than
Isabel.
the declaration
4. the declaration be made ante litem motam (before
controversy or suit arose)

City of Manila vs. Del Rosario
(APG)
This is an action to recover the possession of the two

WON the testimony of Juan
lots describe in the complaint, located in Calles Clavel Villegas constitute common
and Barcelona, district of Tondo, at present occupied
reputation - NO
by Del Rosario. City of Manila presented Juan Villegas
3rd witness, he testified that the land in question was
formerly included in the Gran Divisoria, and that all the
land included in it belonged to the city. His testimony
is at variance with that of Reyes. Villegas testimony
was merely hearsay. It consisted of what he had
learned from some of the oldest residents in that
section of the city.
People v. Lungayan (AJG)
This is the rape of a widow case (yung walang panty

na sumama sa Barangay Captain Ceferino). At 10pm,
Ceferino invited Agripina to observe people violating
the liquor ban. Thereafter, Ceferino threatened to kill
Agripina
if she resisted. The "rape" was consummated. After 2
hours, Agripina went home. When asked what
happened by her daughter, she told her that Ceferino
abused her, and for the details, she told her daughter
that she would tell her the next day.
People v. Putian (JT)
Accused Guirmo stabbed Panimdim at a dance hall.

W/N the dying declaration
Yap, mister patrolman, happened to pass by so
was admissible--no
arrested Guirmo, who he suspected was the suspect in
killing Panimdim. In the hospital, and after the
incident, Panimdim made a dying declaration, with Yap
taking it down. Basically in that declaration, Panimdim
imputed the crime to someone named Guirmo. Since
Guirmo Putian was the only Guirmo in the community,
Yap had him arrested. Guirmo was convicted of
murder by treachery by the CFI. Note that after
Panimdim made such declaration, he flexed his
muscles and said he need not go to the hospital
because his wound was small
WON the statement of

Agripina to her daughter
constitutes part of the res
gestae - NO
His testimony was introduced by the City of Manila

apparently for the purpose of proving that the city was
generally considered the owner of the land, drawing
from this fact the presumption of actual ownership
under paragraph 11, section 334, of the Code of Civil
Procedure. It does not constitute the "common
reputation" referred to in the section mentioned.
"Common reputation" is equivalent to universal
reputation. The testimony of this witness is not
sufficient to establish the presumption referred to. It
does not constitute the "common reputation" referred
to in the section mentioned. "Common reputation" is
equivalent to universal reputation. The testimony of
this witness is not sufficient to establish the
presumption referred to.
It is important that her statement must not only be (1)
spontaneous, but also (2) made at a time when there
was no opportunity for her to concoct or develop her
own story. In this case, the statement of Agripina to
her daughter cannot be considered part of the res
gestae because according to the observations of the
court, she did not immedately go home after the
encounter. She took a walk. She spent sometime
thinking of what to do. Her clothes were muddy, had
some bruises. She had enough time to make a decision
on what will be the nature of her story.
The Supreme Court said that the dying declaration
made by Guirmo is not admissible, because at the time
of making it, Guirmo was not under consciousness of
an impending death. However, if such declaration was
made at the time of, or immediately after, the
commission of the crime, or at a time when the
exciting influence of the startling occurrence still
continued in the declarant's mind, it is admissible as a
part of the res gestae.

People v. Tolentino (AD)
Adelaida Lingad left her niece, AND her three (3)

children, all minors, at home to attend the wake of her
uncle in a house 200 meters away from her place. The
children were the only ones left at home. At around
1am or 2am the 3 accused entered the house of
Adelaida Lingad and demanded to know from the
children where their mother hid her money. After
Tolentino took the P4,000 he stabbed Grace Paule and
the three other children. Adelaida immediately rushed
to her house. Upon reaching GERALDINE, who was
lying at the porch, she asked her the identities of the
person responsible for stabbing them with the latter
answering "Bong-Bong" and also mentioning the
names of Boy and Matawaran. Defendants argue that
the statement of Geraldine, naming her assailant soon
after she was stabbed is inadmissible as part of res
gestae.
Palmer v. Hofman (KL)
The respondent and his spouse were injured at a
railroad crossing, the spouse died due to the injury.
The jury deliberated whether the train failed to blow a
whistle, ring a bell or have a light burning in the front
of a train. The petitioner attempted to admit
statements from the train engineer made in an
interview two days after the accident. The engineer
died before the trial. The petitioner attempted to admit
the engineers statements as a business record,
arguing that they were made in the course of a routine
accident report. The trial court did not allow the
statements to be admitted and found the petitioner
liable.
Philam Life v. Capital Insurance Case about insurance brokers. Philam wanted to
(RC)
collect unremitted premium collections collected by
these brokers. Now, the problem was that the witness,
Bacani, the accounts manager was the one who
testified to the accounting. His job was to compute the
account based on reports from other departments. He
had no actual knowledge of the transactions that were
contained in those reports.
10
The SC held that trial court had correctly applied the

principle of res gestae, namely:
1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling
occurrence;
2) that the statements were made before the declarant
had time to contrive or devise; and
3) that the statements made must concern the
occurrence in question
and its immediately attending circumstances
W/N the engineer's

statements should be
admitted. NO.
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial courts decision

to not admit the engineers statements. The SC
reasoned that the statements were not in a record
inherent for a railroad company. The SC was concerned
that the legislature had no intention to make the
business record exception so broad in scope that any
business could abuse the rule by declaring that
preparation for litigation was a routine practice of the
business. Business records admissible under the
hearsay exception rules do not include accident reports
prepared for litigation even if the reports are prepared
in a routine, systematic process
WON RTC erred in

accepting Bacani's
testimony? YES
It is worthless as evidence and the statement of

account to which he testified is likewise bereft of
probative value. The entries in question being so far
removed from the exception to the hearsay rule,
cannot and should not substitute for a witnesss
personal knowledge of the transaction sough to be
established.
DISSENT: It is hard to see how the statement of
account should be less trustworthy when the person
who prepared it is available and did precisely testify on
it. As for his knowledge of the facts stated in the
entries, practical necessity makes it sufficient that he
received the information in the regular course of
business, when the person giving such information
gave it in compliance with duty.

Caltex v. Africa (KF)
A fire broke out at the Caltex service station. It started

while gasoline was being hosed from a tank into the
underground storage. The fire spread to and burned
several neighboring houses owned by SPS AFRICA.
SPS AFRICA sued CALTEX (owner) & BOQUIREN
(agent of Caltex in charge of operation). During the
course of the trial, the reports on the fire prepared by
(1) the Manila Police and (2) Fire Departments, by a
certain (3) Captain Tinio of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines AND (4) Captain Leoncio Mariano of the
Manila Police Department were presented in evidence.
The foregoing reports were ruled out as "double
hearsay" by the CA and hence inadmissible.
Irene, a salesgirl in the store owned by appellant's
parents, accused appellant of having allegedly raped
her one afternoon after he and his sister had forced
her to take three tablets which rendered her semiconscious. Charged with rape in the CFI, appellant
interposed the defense of denial and alibi. Medical
examination conducted on Irene about two or three
hours after the alleged rape disclosed healing
lacerations of the hymen, absence of sperm cells and
unclotted blood at the vaginal cavity. On the other
hand, complainant testified that on the date of the
alleged rape she was having her menstrual period. The
trial court convicted the appellant of rape. Hence, the
present appeal.
WON the reports on the fire

are admissible in evidence?
For Reports 1,2,3 NO and
For Report 4YES.
Report 1 2 3: The reports of the police and fire

departments do NOT constitute an exception to the
hearsay rule. For, the facts stated therein were not
acquired by the reporting officers through official
information, not having been given by the informants
pursuant to any duty to do so. Report 4, having been
submitted by a police officer in the performance of his
duties on the basis of his own personal observation of
the facts reported, may properly be considered as an
exception to the hearsay rule.
WON the trial court erred

in finding Jessie guilty of
the crime charged since
the evidence presented
against him did not prove
his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. YES
Manalo v. Robles Trans (RL)
Hernandez was convicted of reckless imprudence

resulting to homicide. During the proceedings, a
sheriff's return was admitted as evidence even tough
they were not given the chance to cross-examine the
Sheriff.
WON the Sheriff's Return

may be admitted in this
case - YES
People v. Cabuang (QN)
Cabuang and Matabang were charged with robbery

Whether or not the police
with rape and homicide. They put in issue the entry
blotter should prevail.
into the police blotter which said that the assailants
were still unidentified even if, at the time that such
entry was made, the police already had the witness in
custody. It is the same witness who made the positive
identification of Cabuang and Matabang in open court.
The SC held that the moral certainty or degree of

proof, which produces conviction in our unprejudiced
mind, has not been established by the prosecution and
the constitutional mandate that the accused is
presumed innocent must prevail. Among the reasons,
the one relevant to evidence are the clinical records,
which show that lacerations were not fresh. Meaning,
it had been inflicted days before the alleged rape
incident. It was held that the written entries in the
clinical case records are prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated, the said entries having been made
in official records by a public officer of the Philippines
in the performance of his duty especially enjoined by
law. In the case at bar, the physician was not
presented as a witness anymore to clear any doubts
there may have been on the records, thus the court
took it to mean that the accused could not have
committed it at the time it was alleged to have been
committed.
The sheriff who made the return need not testify in
court as to the facts stated in his entry. The sheriff's
making the return need not testify in court as to the
facts stated in his entry. A sheriff's return is an official
statement made by a public official and is prima facie
evidence of the facts stated therein. He need not
testify as to the facts stated therein. The law reposes a
particular confidence in public officers that it presumes
they will discharge their several trust with accuracy
and fidelity; and therefore, whatever acts they do in
discharge of their public duty may be given in evidence
and shall be taken of their public duty may be given in
evidence and shall be taken to be true under such a
degree of caution as the nature and circumstances of
each a case may appear to require.
NO. The police blotter, while an official record, is
merely a prima facie evidence of the facts stated
therein. It may be incomplete. In the face of direct
testimony in open court, the testimony must prevail
because it is more complete and accurate. Conviction
affirmed.
People v. Leones (CG)
11

People v. Gabriel (CP)
De la Cruz v. Sison (RR)
State v. Lungsford (RS)
San Gabriel was charged with murder for stabbing

Tonog to death. The defenses of San Gabriel included
the challenge to the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses and the admissibility of the Advance
Information Sheet. San Gabriel's name was not
mentioned at all in the Advance Information Sheet
(and only mentioned the name of Ramon Doe).
For the Advance Information Sheet to be admissible, to

be admissible in evidence three (3) requisites must
concur: (a) The entry was made by a police officer or
by another person specially enjoined by law to do so;
(b) It was made by the public officer in the
performance of his duties or by such other person in
the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law;
and, (c) The public officer or other person had
sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which
must have been acquired by him personally or through
official information.
Epifania brought a suit against spouses Sison on
WON Court of Appeals
Court ruled in favor of the spouses Sison, applying the
account of the latters alleged employment of fraud
erred in sustaining the
rule that documents acknowledged before notaries
and trickery that led to the execution of a deed of sale presumption of due
public are public documents which are admissible in
covering a rice land in Pangasinan. The spouses denied execution of the
evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to
this and presented a number of government-issued
questioned deed of sale -- their authenticity and due execution. The burden of
documents.
NO, the principle applies in proof to overcome the presumption of due execution of
this case.
a notarial document lies on the one contesting the
same. Furthermore, the series of official acts and
processes leading to the transfer of the tax declaration
in the name of Eduardo lend credence to the due
execution of the questioned deed of sale.
Lungsford was charged with receiving a motor vehicle W/N Lungsford is guilty To satisfy the threshold, the judge must be convinced
known to have been stolen and belonging to Wilton. A NO. Conviction reversed.
that the compilation is published for use by persons
factory-trace was made in order to determine the
engaged in that occupation and is generally considered
succession of ownership. The State had to rely on the
useful and reliable. If these conditions are met,
NATB factory-trace information to establish that the
statements from the compilation are admissible to
car in Lungsfords possession when he was arrested
prove the truth of the relevant matter stated. Rationale
was the car reported stolen by Wilton. But, the record
for the rule: the use of such materials is NECESSARY
contains no information about the probable reliability
because it is too difficutl to call to the witness stand
of the NATB.
those who have participated in their preparation or
compilation. The TRUSTWORTHINESS requirement is
satisfied by the requirement that a finding be made by
the judge that the material is regularly published for
use by persons in a given occupation who rely on it.
There is no motive to falsify; on the contrary, there is
every reason to be accurate and precise since the
success of a business depends on accuracy and
reliability. Here, the information before the trial court
concerning the modus operandin of the NATB was
inadequate to permit admissibility under the rule.
12
Whether the Advance

Information Sheet should
be gven credit.

PNOC Shipping v. CA (DU)
A ship owned by PNOC collided with respondent's ship.

PNOC was found liable for the accident by the Board of
Marine Inquiry. During the trial for recovery of
damages, Respondent presented price quotations from
suppliers, in letter form, of supplies to build a new
boat to replace respondent's ship that sunk. This
amount would be claimed as damages by respondent.
Issue: W/n the quotations

should be admitted.
NO! they are mearly
leatters, and are
considered to be hearsay
evidence, not commercial
list.
They are mere letters from the respondents suppliers

to the respondent. They are not commercial lists (an
exception to the Hearsay evidence rule), since they
were not published in any list, register, periodical or
other compilation on the relevant subject matter.
Neither are these quotations "market reports or
quotations" within the purview of "commercial lists" as
these are not "standard handbooks or periodicals,
containing data of everyday professional need and
relied upon in the work of the
occupation.
evidence, whether objected to or not, has no probative
value (in contrast to admissibility) unless the
proponent can show that the evidence falls within the
exceptions to the hearsay evidence Rule.
Requisites/elements
of a commercial list:
1) it is a statement of matters of
interest to persons engaged in an occupation;
2) such statement is contained in a
list, register, periodical or other published compilation;
3) said compilation is published for
the use of persons engaged in that occupation; and
13

Tan v. CA (HV)
Petitioners filed a case in CFI Manila through their

Mother, C. Daldo. Their mother filed an affidavit in CFI
Manila stating that Respondent is not the father of the
Petitioners but by some other person whose name she
cannot divulge. She also prayed that the case be
dismissed on the ground of amicable settlement. The
CFI Manila granted her prayer and dismissed the case
without prejudice. One year and eight months after,
the Petitioners now through their grandparent, S.
Daldo, filed the same case before the Juvenile and
Domestic Court. Judge Enriquez of the later court ruled
the case to be dismissed. Petitioners moved for
reconsideration and there Judge Lopez granted the
decision of acknowledgement and support. Respondent
appealed to CA. CA reversed the said decision.
Petitioner applying as pauper litigants appealed to SC
on certiorari which the SC affirmed the decision of CA.
Whether or not the

testimony of the petitioner
s witnesses in the former
case is admissible NO
they can still testify but
opted not to.
Whether or not the

said Petitioners should be
acknowledged as
illegitimate children and be
granted support even
though their Mother, C.
Daldo, filed in CFI Manila
an affidavit telling the
court that Respondent is
not the father but some
other person whose name
she cannot divulged. --NO the affidavit itself
submitted by C. Daldo in
the CFI Manila bound the
truth. THIS AFFIDAVIT
DOWNGRADED THE
VALIDITY OF THE
PETITIONERS
WITNESSES. Res judicata
also applies since the case
was dismissed in CFI
Manila with prejudice.
The affidavit of C. Daldo admitting that Respondent is

NOT the father of Petitioners downgraded the
testimonies of witnesses for the Petitioners. The
Petitioners failed to prove with clear and convincing
evidence that the Respondent is their father. The
testimonies of the witnesses in the first trial are
inadmissible in the subsequent trial because they do
not squarely fall under Section 41 Rule 130. The prior
witnesses are not dead, out of the Philippines or unable
to testify. The Petitioners simply failed to avail the
remedies available to compel the attendance of their
witnesses. Regarding the argument that the
Respondent bought the Petitioners Witnesses, the SC
ruled that there is nothing extant in the records of the
case that point that the Respondent is responsible for
the non-appearance of the witnesses.
Ohio v. Roberts (VG)
Roberts was charged with forgery and possession of

stolen credit cards belonging to Isaacs and his wife. At
the preliminary hearing, Roberts counsel called as a
witness the Isaacs' daughter, who testified that she
had permitted Roberts to use her apartment for
several days while she was away. She refused to admit
that she had given Roberts checks and the credit cards
without informing him that she did not have
permission to use them. At the subsequent criminal
trial, Roberts testified that the daughter had given him
her parents' checkbook and credit cards with the
understanding that he could use them. When the
daughter failed to appear at the trial despite the
State's having issued five separate subpoenas to her
at her parents' residence, the State offered in rebuttal
the transcript of her preliminary hearing testimony.
Dilag & Co. purchased an International truck model
1938. During the Japanese occupation, the truck
was stolen while it was parked in Laguna.
W/N the testimony of Anita

Isaac during the
preliminary hearing is
admissible in the trial,
wherein she not able to
appear as a witness? YES.
When a hearsay declarant is not present for crossexamination at trial, it must be shown that he or she is
unavailable. Prosecution showed that they tried to
locate Anita in good faith. Even then, the statement is
admissible only if it bears adequate "indicia of
reliability." Anitas testimony was shown to be reliable
from the start. Still, her testimony need not be shown
an indicia of reliability given the fact that she was
essentially crossed examined at the preliminary
hearing which was required in order that such
statement be admissible at the trial.
W/N Jose Aguilar of the

Bureau of Public Works
was qualified as an
expert witness to prove
the alleged tampering of
the motor number --- YES.
Generally speaking, any person who by study or

experience has acquired particular knowledge or
experience may be allowed to give in evidence
his opinion upon matters of technical knowledge
and skill relating to such business or employment.
Dilag v. Merced (MB)
14

US v. Trono (JM)
People v. Adoviso (KB)
Perez and his two buddies Guevarra and Bautista were

arrested by Trono, Jose and Agustin. Perez and the
two others were suspected of theft of a revolver
belonging to one Maximo Angeles. Trono, Jose and
Agustin brought Perez to a place called Sapang-Angelo
where they beat him brutally. Bautista and Guevarra
testified that they heard Perez being hit by a gun and
that he begged for mercy from Maximo. Perez was so
beaten up that he couldnt walk on his own and
needed assistance. He complained of sharp pains in his
abdomen. He eventually died because of his injuries.
The defense argues that Perez did not die because of
the injuries but because of cirrhosis brought about by
his drinking habit. This argument was based on the
report made by the physician Andres Icasiano.
Emeterio and Rufino died. Elmer identified Adoviso as
one of the unmasked men. The defense offered in
evidence the testimony of Ernesto A. Lucena,
Polygraph Examiner II of the NBI in Manila, who
conducted a polygraph test on Adoviso. The polygraph
results to Adoviso as not lying in his alibi (appellant
[Adoviso]s polygrams revealed that there were no
specific reactions indicative of deception to pertinent
questions relevant to the investigation of the
crimes.).
15
W/N the testimony of the

physician should be
disregarded--YeS
Expert testimony no doubt constitutes evidence worthy

of meriting consideration, although not exclusive, on
questions of a professional character. The courts of
justice, however, are not bound to submit their
findings necessarily to such testimony; they are free to
weight them, and they can give or refuse to give them
any value as proof, or they can even counterbalance
such evidence with the other elements of conviction
which may have been adduced during the trial. The
Court said that there was sufficient proof to show that
the seriousness of the wounds sustained by Perez was
the cause of death.
W/N the polygraph test

was admissible --- NO
A polygraph is an electromechanical instrument that

simultaneously measures and records certain
physiological changes in the human body that are
believed to be involuntarily caused by an examinees
conscious attempt to deceive the questioner. The
theory behind a polygraph or lie detector test is that a
person who lies deliberately will have a rising blood
pressure and a subconscious block in breathing, which
will be recorded on the graph.However, American
courts almost uniformly reject the results of polygraph
tests when offered in evidence for the purpose of
establishing the guilt or innocence of one accused of a
crime, whether the accused or the prosecution seeks
its introduction, for the reason that polygraph has not
as yet attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and
accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception. The
rule is no different in this jurisdiction.

State v. Garver (IE)
US v. Stifel (MR)
Daubert v. Merrel Dow (NO)
Robert Garver appealed from a conviction of firstW/N the witnesses are

degree murder. The indictment charged Garver and 2 competent
others (Andrus and Marshall) with shooting Ancell
Abbott. The appellant claims that the lower court erred
in refusing to give instruction on the presumption of
continuing insanity. The presumption states that when
permanent, chronic, or continuous insanity is once
proved to have existed at some time prior to the
alleged crime, it will be presumed to have continued,
and to have existed at the time of the alleged crime,
unless the contrary is proved. Garver also questioned
the evidentiary rulings of the lower court with regard
to the testimonies of the witnesses.
The court held that since Circuit Court for Multnomah

County found the defendant not guilty of a crime on
the ground of insanity, an adjudication of legal
insanity, the defendant was entitled to the benefit of
the presumption arising from the Circuit Court's
judgment as well as that arising from the commitment.
The court also held that the lower court did not err in
sustaining the objection to the question put to the
witness Marshall since the latter, an accomplice of the
defendant, was not shown to be his "intimate
acquaintance", and hence was not competent to give
an opinion as to his "mental sanity, therefore no error
was committed in sustaining the objection to the
question. As to the striking from the record the
testimony of Rena Garver (sis in-law) and Gertrude
Mitchelle (mother), the court held that the lower court
acted within its discretion to determine whether Rena
had that degree of intimacy with the defendant, which
would make her a competent witness upon the
question of his sanity and that the probable error as to
Mitchelles testimony was cured when later she was
permitted to give her opinion that he was insane.
Finally, for the error in refusing to give the instruction
on the presumption of continuing insanity, the
judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for
further proceedings in conformity to this opinion.
Stifel is accused of murdering Ronec by bomb.
WON neutron activation
Whether a witness is shown to be qualified or not as an
Prosecution presented expert as testimony, who used analyis evidence is
expert is a preliminary question to be determined in
a process known as neutron activation analysis to
admissible - YES
the first place by the court; and the rule is, that if the
determine the components of the bomb and compare
court admits the testimony, then it is for the jury to
them with components found in P&G where the
decide whether any, and if any what, weight is to be
accused work. This provided evidence that the accused
given to the testimony, Reports and articles are
had access to the materials to make a bomb. Defense
present to the effect that the process has gained
contends that this test is too new and has not gained
general acceptance. But even if a showing of general
general acceptance in the field in which it belongs
acceptance had not been established here, neither
newness nor lack of absolute certainty in a test suffices
to render it inadmissible in court. Every useful new
development must have its first day in court.
The petitioners were two minor children and their
Whether or not the general Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence specifically
parents. Both of the children were born with birth
acceptance is the proper
applies to expert testimony. Nothing in the text of this
defects. They sued Merrell Dow alleging that their
standard for expert
Rule establishes "general acceptance" as an absolute
defects were caused by their mothers' use of
testimony. No.
prerequisite to admissibility. Nor does respondent
Bendectin during pregnancy. Respondent moved for
present any clear indication that Rule 702 or the Rules
summary judgment on the ground that petitioners
as a whole were intended to incorporate a "general
were unable to produce any admissible evidence that
acceptance" standard. The drafting history makes no
Bendectin causes birth defects in humans. The
mention of Frye, and a rigid "general acceptance"
petitioners opposed the motion with testimony from
requirement would be at odds with the "liberal thrust"
eight qualified experts, all of whom possessed
of the Federal Rules and their "general approach of
impressive credentials. The District Court and US CA
relaxing the traditional barriers to `opinion'
ruled in favor of Merrell by applying the general
testimony."
acceptance test.
16

BONDS (HQ) [not included in
recit]
Hartlaub was murdered in his van in a bank parking

lot. After shooting him, the perpetrators threw
Hartlaubs body out of the van and drove away. Police
later found the van abandoned, with the murder
weapon stashed between the seats and a significant
amount of blood splattered both on the gun and the
vans upholstery. Serological analysis subsequently
revealed that the blood belonged both to Hartlaub and
another person (most likely his killer). Upon analysis
by the FBI laboratory, Bonds DNA profile was shown
to match the bloodstains found in the van. Basically,
the defendants argued that the FBI's procedures for
making statistical probability estimates are not
generally accepted by population geneticists. Hence,
such DNA evidence should not be admitted.
W/N the expert testimony

concerning DNA evidence
obtained from the blood
sample of Bonds is
admissible? YES
State vs. Scott (APG)
Scott was convicted with the crime of rape. The

following questions were asked: Q. I will ask you
whether or not he said why he had done what he did?
A. He said that why he done that was because he
thought that was the only way of getting me; that he
loved me and he wanted to marry me and that he
thought that was the only way to get me. He said he
thought If I were to go in and touch you then you
would marry me, he said, I thought I wouldn't have
no one as old as me.
Q. I will ask you whether or not he said on the same
occasion, he said anything relative to his being the
first to touch you?
A. Yes.
Q. I will ask you whether or not he ever asked you to
get examined by a doctor?
A.
Yes, he did. I mean yes, I mentioned wanting
to get examined by a doctor.
WON these are leading

question? -NO
Becker v. Eisentodt (AJG)
This is the rhinoplasty case, wherein a caustic acid was

applied to the face of Arlene Becker by Eisenstodt. In
the proceedings for damages, Arlene's attorney called
Eisenstodt to the stand as their own witness.
Eisenstodt told the court that he applied a soothing
solution (10% cocaine), not a caustic acid. Now, the
defense is arguing that the Beckers are bound by the
testimony of Eisenstodt because they made him their
own witness.
WON the Beckers are

bound by the testimony of
Eisenstodt by making him
their own witness - NO
17
Held that the general acceptance test (scientific

principle or discovery must be sufficiently established
to have gained general acceptance in the particular
field in which it belongs) is not the only test for
admissibility of scientific knowledge
Expert testimony is admissible if the scientific or
specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact and if
the witness is qualified as an expert.
Other factors to consider:
1. W/N a theory or technique can be (and has been)
tested [TESTING OF THEORY OR TECHNIQUE]
2. W/N the theory or technique has been subjected to
peer review and publication [PEER REVIEW]
3. The known or potential rate of error in using a
particular scientific technique and the existence and
maintenance of standards controlling the techniques
operation [RATE OF ERROR]
4. W/N the theory or technique has been generally
accepted in the particular scientific field [GENERAL
ACCEPTANCE]
They are alternative forms of questions. In order to
elicit the facts, a trial lawyer may find it necessary to
direct the attention of a witness to the specific matter
concerning which his testimony is desired, and, if the
question does not suggest the answer, it is not leading.
Even though the question may call for a yes or a no
answer, it is not leading for that reason, unless it is so
worded that, by permitting the witness to answer yes
or no, he would be testifying in the language of the
interrogator rather than in his own. The alternative
form of question (State whether or not you said that
you refused, Did you or did you not refuse?) is free
from this defect of form, because both affirmative and
negative answers are presented for the witness' choice.
evertheless, such a question may become leading, in
so far as it rehearses lengthy details which the witness
might not otherwise have mentioned, and thus supplies
him with full suggestions which he incorporates without
any effort by the simple answer, I did, or I did not.
Accordingly, the sound view is that such a question
may or may not be improper, according to the amount
of palpably suggestive detail which it embodies.
A party is not obliged to receive as unimpeached truth
everything which a witness called by him may swear
to. If his witness has been false or mistaken in his
testimony, he may prove the truth by others. In short,
a party may impeach his own witness.

Dela Paz v. IAC (JT)
Basically, there is a lot in Rizal which Loreto said was

hers, pursuant to a partition submitted by the heirs of
Ponciano. But the heirs, Petitioners herein, deny her
claim because the lot was not part of the probate
proceedings. During trial, the Petitioners counsel was
cross-examining Loreto, but it was not finished. But
unfortunately the cross-examination was postponed
due to the absence of Petitioners and their counsel.
Then it was postponed again. And again. Then Loreto
died. Petitioners now filed a motion to strike off her
testimony from the record.
Fulgado v. CA (AD)
Fulgado, an old man filed a case against respondents.

Respondents failed to appear on time at the pre-trial
and were declared in default. Fulgado was allowed to
present evidence and the case was decided in his
favor. However, on appeal in the CA, respondents
were found to have been deprived of their day in
court. So CA ordered that the case be remanded with
right to cross-examine the witnesses presented by
Fulgado.However, due to postponements and leave of
the presiding judge at the trial court where the case
was supposed to be remanded, the hearing was
moved. In the meantime Fulgado died. His other
witness presented at the first trial also moved to the
US. At the trial of 1976, respondents moved to strike
out the testimonies of Fulgado and Jose for alleged
deprivation of their right to cross-examine them.
Capital Subd. v. Negros

Occidental (KL)
Capitol Subdivision is claiming ownership of a land,

where the provincial hospital of Occidental Negros is
located, claiming that they acquired the land from
Carlos Benares. The Province claims that they acquired
the land through Jose Benares and they have already
settled the issue through a previous civil case,
however, the records were destroyed by WWII. Given
the prior settled case, the Province claims that Capitol
is not an innocent buyer. The CFI ruled in favor of the
petitioner.
18
Can Loreto's testimony be

stricken off--NO.
W/N the lower court

ERRED in disallowing the
cross-examination of the
witness of Capitol. YES.
Case remanded.
The mere fact that the witness died after giving his
direct testimony is no ground in itself for excluding his
testimony from the record so long as the adverse party
was afforded an adequate opportunity for crossexamination but through fault of his own failed to
cross-examine the witness. The right to cross-examine
Loreto was waived by Petitioners through their
repeated absence and motions to postpone the crossexamination. Through their own fault, they lost their
right to cross-examine Loreto. Where a party has had
the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed
to avail himself of it for reasons attributable to himself
alone, he necessarily forfeits the right to crossexamine and the testimony given on direct
examination of the witness will be received or allowed
to remain in the record. Her testimony stands.
The appeal to the SC now focuses on the propriety of
the exclusion of the testimonies of deceased Fulgado
and his witness, Jose Fulgado, which resulted in the
dismissal of the case. SC held that although the right
to cross-examine is a vital part of due process, the
right is a personal one which may be waived expressly
or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of
the right of cross-examination. Where a party has had
the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed
to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to
cross-examine and the testimony given on direct
examination of the witness will be received or allowed
to remain in the record. The principle requiring a
testing of testimonial statements by cross-examination
has always been understood as requiring, not
necessarily an actual cross-examination, but merely an
opportunity to exercise the right to cross-examine if
desired.
The SC remanded the case back for further trial. The
CFI incorrectly disallowed the Provinces presentation
of secondary evidence to prove their defenses. More
important to our class, the CFI disallowed the crossexamination of a witness presented by Capitol since he
was the witness of Capitol. The SC held that the
adverse party may cross-examine a witness for the
purpose among others, of eliciting all important facts
bearing upon the issue. From this provision it may
clearly be inferred that a party may cross- examine a
witness on matters not embraced in his direct
examination. But this does not mean that a party by
doing so is making the witness his own.

US v. Marshall (RC)
US v. Abel (KF)
Marshall was accused of stealing 2 lawn mowers. The

fact that the lawn mowers were missing was
established by testimony of an investigator Stanlin.
She got the number by guessing/interpreting the very
messy documents of the store (looking at receipt rolls
with only figures and the like). She wasn't employed
there or anything... investigator lang.
Marshall did not waive his continuing objection to

testimony within the scope of the district court's ruling
of admissibility by cross- examining Ms. Stanlin with
regard to some of the documents she relied upon in
testifying as a fact that the records showed that three
lawn mowers were missing, or by introducing these
documents in connection with this cross- examinationin order to show how unreliable was her estimate that
any lawn mowers at all were missing from the store.
Abel and two others were arrested for bank robbery.
Whether the admission of The membership of Mills in the prison gang was
One of his alleged cohorts, Ehle, pled guilty and
evidence tending to show
sufficiently probative of Mills possible bias towards
promised to testify against Abel in return for a light
bias on the part of a
Abel to warrant its admission. Even though the rules
sentence. At trial, Abel produced a witness, Mills, who witness is inadmissible if it do not expressly refer to the admissibility of extrinsic
testified that Ehle had told him that he was going to
also tends to show that the evidence to show bias, this evidence is otherwise
falsely accuse and frame Abel. The trial court allowed defendant (Abel) was lying. covered by 402s allowance of relevant evidence.
the prosecution to put Ehle back on the stand to testify - NO! It is admissible.
Proof of bias is relevant, and thus admissible. The
that Mills, Ehle and Abel were all part of the secret
District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
prison gang Aryan Brotherhood, one of whose tenets
Ehle's full description of the prison gang and its tenets,
was to lie for each other. CA reversed, holding that the
since the type of organization in which a witness and a
testimony unduly prejudiced Abel because mere
party share membership may be relevant to show bias.
membership in an illegal organization does not have
The attributes of the prison gang bore directly not only
any probative value with regard to veracity.
on the fact of bias but also on the source and strength
of Mills' bias. The tenets of this group showed that Mills
had a powerful motive to slant his testimony towards
Abel, or even commit perjury outright. It was not error
under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) to crossexamine Mills about the prison gang to show, in
addition to Mills' bias, his membership in the gang's
past conduct bearing on his veracity. It is true that,
because of the gang's tenets described, the testimony
might also have impeached Mills' veracity directly. But
there is no rule of evidence that provides that
testimony admissible for one purpose(to prove bias)
and inadmissible for another purpose(to impeach
witness veracity) is thereby rendered inadmissible.
19
WON Stanlin's testimony is

admissible? NO. THERE
WAS A CONTINUING
OBJECTION ON THE PART
OF THE DEFENSE
COUNSEL.

US v. Harvey (CG)
In April 1975, Marine Midland Bank was robbed by a

man dressed as a woman. Mrs. Strickland, a teller,
described the robber in full detail but was not able to
make a positive identification. The sole identification
witness was Mrs. Martin, who testified that while
passing by on a bus, she observed a man identified as
Harvey walk down the steps of the Salvation Army and
touch one of the two doors of the Main-High branch of
the said bank. Mrs. Martin first learned of the robbery
of the on the news the same evening as that of
robbery. Appellant sought to introduce testimony of
Mrs. Harvey, which would have shown that Mrs.
Harvey was a long-time acquaintance of Mrs. Martin.
Mrs. Harvey would have testified that during this
encounter Mrs. Martin accused appellant of fathering
her child and refusing to support it and that Mrs.
Martin further explained that when her husband
learned of this he beat her and broke her leg,
necessitating the hospital treatment. However, the
Trial Court refused to proffer this testimony, and
instead, convicted the appellant with bank robbery and
bank larceny.
Villalon v. IAC (RL)
There were two proceedings in this case: the

WON the TC correctly
disbarment proceedings against Villalon, and a case to disallowed the testimonies
annul the deed of absolute sale, also against Villalon.
- NO
Petitioners introduced in evidence the testimonies of
Neval, Ebuiza and Justina from the disbarment case to
impeach their testimonies to the Civil Case. TC,
through an order of strike, disallowed those
testimonies because it would violate the principle that
proceedings against attorneys will remain confidential.
20
The issue is WON the Trial

Court committed reversible
error in excluding evidence
proffered by the defendant
as to possible bias on the
part of the governments
chief identification witness
YES.
The law of evidence has long recognized that a crossexaminer is not required to "take the answer" of a
witness concerning possible bias, but may proffer
extrinsic evidence, including the testimony of other
witnesses, to prove the facts showing a bias in favor of
or against a party. Because the testimony of Mrs.
Harvey would have impeached Mrs. Martin's credibility
by bringing before the jury prior inconsistent
statements as well as demonstrate a possible bias on
Mrs. Martin's part, Rule 613(b), in effect at the time of
trial, required that a proper foundation be laid by
appellant's counsel. And this Court rules that it has
been sufficiently established by the defense counsel.
Although the scope of a defendant's right to introduce
evidence of bias is not limitless, and may be restricted
as the trial court in its sound discretion deems proper,
it is rarely proper to cut off completely a probative
inquiry that bears on a feasible defense. Since Mrs.
Martin was the sole identification witness at the trial,
we cannot say that her testimony was not critical to
the government's case against appellant. With identity
as a principal issue in the trial, appellant was denied an
important opportunity to raise a reasonable doubt
about his participation in the bank robbery by
undermining the credibility of Mrs. Martin. Although
Federal Rule of Evidence 403 vests trial courts with
discretion to exclude evidence if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice,
confusion, or delay, the trial court apparently did not
exclude Mrs. Harvey's testimony on the basis of this
consideration. There is no indication in the record that
Mrs. Harvey's testimony posed a realistic possibility of
confusion or prejudice, or would have caused a
significant delay in the proceedings.
The TC deprived the petitioners their right to impeach
the credibility of the respondents' witnesses through
the Order of Strike. The broader interests of justice
would require that petitioners be given sufficient
latitude to present and prove their impeaching
evidence for judicial appreciation.

People v. Resabal (QN)
Alejo Resabal was accused and convicted of murdering Whether or not Orit is a
Primo Ordiz in the deceaseds own home in the
credible witness.
morning of April 25, 1926. On appeal, the defense
alleges that one of the witnesses, Glicerio Orit, made
inconsistent statements before the justice of the peace
(during preliminary investigation) and the CFI (during
trial) and must thus be ignored for not being a credible
witness.
US v. Webster (CP)
Webster was of aiding and abetting robbery of a

federally insured bank and receiving stolen bank
funds, and he appealed.
Impeachment by prior
inconsistent statement.
Mosley v. Commonwealth (RR)
Geraldine was employed as a babysitter. The alleged

rape took place while she was on the job. Mosley, the
defendant, presented the expert testimony of a
psychologist attesting to Geraldine's mental
disturbances. Lower court, however, refused to permit
the jury to consider this for the purpose of impeaching
Geraldine's testimony.
WON the expert testimony

of Dr. Gay should be
admitted to impeach
Geraldine's testimony YES, it was relevant and
competent and should
have been received.
21
YES. This apparent contradiction is not sufficient to

discredit his testimony for the simple reason that this
witness was not given ample opportunity, by a reading
to him of his declarations before the court of the
justice of the peace, to explain the discrepancies noted
by counsel for the accused. The mere presentation of
Exhibit 1, without said declaration having been read to
the witness while he testified in the Court of First
Instance, is no ground for impeaching his testimony.
Such inconsistent statement must first be read to the
witness before he is confronted with the inconsistency.
Conviction was affirmed, but since there were not
enough votes for the death penalty, the punishment
was reduced to cadena perpetua.
The Court held that: (1) impeachment by prior
inconsistent statement may not be permitted where it
is employed as a mere subterfuge to get before the
jury evidence not otherwise admissible, and (2) where
prosecutor, before she called witness to the stand,
asked judge to allow her to examine him outside
presence of jury, because she didn't know what he
would say, but defense counsel objected and voir dire
was not held, it could not be said that prosecutor was
engaged in a subterfuge to get inadmissible evidence
before jury by calling witness and then using his outof-court statements, which would otherwise have been
inadmissible hearsay, to impeach him, since prosecutor
would not have offered to voir dire witness, as voir dire
would have provided a foundation for defense counsel
to object to admission of witness' prior inconsistent
statements.
The proffered testimony of Doctor Gay was relevant
and competent and should have been received, not in
extenuation of rape, but for its bearing upon the
question of the weight to be accorded Geraldine's
testimony. For this reason the court should admonish
the jury that the expert testimony should be
considered by it only for the purpose of affecting the
credibility of this witness, if it does so. Generally a
witness may be impeached only as specified in our
Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the modern trend is
to permit the jury to consider expert testimony in the
field of mental disorders and relax the rule in sex
offense cases. It is always open to a defendant to
challenge the credibility of the witnesses offered by the
prosecution who testify against him. It is always open
to a defendant to challenge the credibility of the
witnesses offered by the prosecution who testify
against him.

Coles v. Harsh (RS)
Coles and Harsch, as well as their wives, were part of

the same social group. Harsch had a propensity for
engaging Coles' wife in "wrestling matches."
Eventually, Coles' wife left him and filed for divorce,
then married Harsch. Coles sued Harsch, alleging that
Harsch had maliciously shown "improper affection" to
Coles' wife, resulting in her becoming alienated and
leaving him. At trial, Harsch called a guy named
Thompson as a witness. Thompson testified that
Harsch wrestled with a lot of people's wives and it was
totally harmless. Later, Coles testified that Thompson
once told him that Harsch's behaviour was disgraceful.
Harsch objected on the ground that the testimony was
hearsay. Coles argued that the testimony was meant
to impeach Harsch's credibility as a witness, and not to
prove the truth of the matter asserted. Harsch argued
that Coles never asked THomspn about the incident
while cross-examining him, and, thus, it was improper
for introdeuce Coles' testimony to impeach Thompson.
Trial judge admitted the testimony. TC ruled for Coles.
Harsch appealed.
US v. Medical Therapy Services Prosecution presented its witness and asked about her
(DU)
prior conviction. Defense later cross examined the
witness and asked more about the prior conviction,
and then asked her about the fact that she, the
witness, a previous employee, stole from the
defendant. She denied this. Later prosecution asked
the court to adduced character evidence to bolster
witness's credibility. Defense objected by saying that
prosecution can only do so if the witness's credibility
was impeach, in this case the defense did not impeach
the credibility of the witness, in fact it was the
prosecution who impeached the credibility of the
witness when they presented her prio conviction.
(1) W/N a proper

foundation was laid for
Coles' impeachment of the
defense witness,
Thompson. - NO. (2) W/N
Coles could introduce an
impeaching question on a
collateral matter, or
additional evidence of
collateral matters. - NO.
Oregon SC reversed.
(1) The Oregon SC looked to Oregon State rules of

evidence and found that in order to introduce a prior
statement impeaching a witness, you must ask the
witness about the alleged prior statement during crossexamination, and give them the opportunity to explain
the prior statement. (2) Coles inquired as to what his
former wife had told Harsch about their intention to
return to Oregon. Coles said that said was question
was to be sued as an impeaching questions. SC said
that the plaintiff sought this information merely for the
purpose of catching the defendant in an untruth, the
objection should have been sustained.
W/n character evidence

may be presented to
bolster the credibility of
the witness. Yes her
character was impeached.
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not

admissible until such character has been impeached. In
this case the defense impeached the character of the
witness when they asked questioning about her prior
convictions, which were predicated on activities
characterized as fraudulent and also by alleging that
she had embezzled money and stolen patients. There
are many forms of bias, one form is "(e)vidence of
corrupt conduct on the part of a witness should be
regarded as an attack on his truthfulness warranting
supportive evidence . . . ." in such case, as in this
case, rehabilitating evidence should be allowed in the
judge's discretion if
he finds the witness' denial of the allegations of corrupt
conduct has not erased the jury's doubts
Newton v. State (VG)
WON it is proper to crossexamine a witness as to

whether he had not given
the same testimony during
previous trials at which he
was convicted No
If the purpose of the examiner was to impeach the

credibility of the witness by showing that he had been
convicted of crime, he should have asked him that
question directly, or, if he had intended to show that
he had in some other case sworn to statements
contrary to his testimony in the instant case, he could
have been asked whether he had made such conflicting
statements.
Doctrine: In impeachment of
witness by showing previous conviction of crime,
counsel should ask witness the question directly, and
not by indirect question, as to whether he had not
given same testimony during previous trial at which he
had been convicted.
Gillespie and Dickey had audited the books of the

Union Finance Company (owned Newton). They
attested that the company is solvent making liable for
fraud. Newton was jointly indicted with Dickey and
Gillespie but was tried separately. Newton called
Dickey as a defense witness. The State crossexamined Dickey as to whether he had not given the
same testimony at his own trial and at Gillespies trial.
When Dickey responded affirmatively, the State said,
And you were convicted, were you not? The State
further asked Dickey whether he was convicted in his
trial in the same court as Newtons trial was being
held.
22

State v. Oswalt (MB)
State v. Peoples (JM)
Peoples v. Del Castillo (KB)
VIctorias Milling v. Ong Su (IE)
Oswalt was charged with robbery and burglary due to

an incident in Seattle. To impeach Oswalt's witness,
prosecution introduced the testimony of a police
detective who stated that he saw and talked to Oswalt
in Seattle about one month prior to the burglary. He
also testified that Oswalt told him that he had been in
Seattle for a couple of days.
Elmer Leroy Peoples was convicted for armed robbery
and conspiracy to commit armed robbery of the
Borden Chemical Plant. Along with Bruce Miller and
Robert Peele, Peoples allegedly stold $90,000 worth of
silver from the Plant. Miller was arrested for a different
case of robbery. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he
agreed to testify on matters regarding the robbery of
the Borden Chemical Plant (see the digest for the
matters he divulged). Detective Sessoms conducted
hypnosis on Miller to seek additional recall of matters
which Miller cannot recall in an ordinary state. During
hypnosis, Miller related facts which were consistent
with his previous testimonies and testified that he did
not believe he was hypnotized by Sessoms.
Elvira Tanada de Principe was kidnapped by a band of
Hukbalahaps and was released upon payment of a
ransom of P50,000. 33 people were charged with
Kidnapping for ransom but only the accused Estrada
appealed. Case of the Prosecution was established by
the testimonies of 12 people and one of those
witnesses was tried to be recalled by the defense in
order that he could explain why he allegedly had
testified falsely against accused Estrada when he
testified for the prosecution in this case, but the court
below did not allow the defense to put back the
witness. Appellant charges that the trial court had
abused its discretion when it denied the defense the
right to call back witness Ceribo who, it is claimed, was
then ready to retract his previous testimony for the
prosecution, and then testify for the defense.
Victorias Milling Company filed a petition for
cancellation of the certificate of registration issued by
the Philippines Patent Office. It alleged that their
trademark Victoria and the trademark of Ong Su
Valentine is similar and could cause confusion to its
consumers. The Director of Patent denied their petition
since the literal designation are different and the
diamond shape did not acquire any secondary meaning
and that the trademark of Ong Su was registered
earlier.
23
W/N the police detectives A witness cannot be impeached upon matters collateral
testimony is admissible. --- to the principal issues being tried. For purposes of
NO.
impeaching this witness, whether Oswalt was in Seattle
on a given occasion one month prior to July 14th, was
irrelevant and collateral.
W/N hypnotically refreshed Given the problems inherent in the hypnotic process,
memory is admissible. NO such as the enhanced suggestibility of the subject, his
tendency to confabulate when there are gaps in his
recollection, his increased confidence in the
truthfulness and accuracy of his post-hypnotic recall
which may preclude effective cross-examination, and
the inability of either experts or the subject to
distinguish between memory and confabulation,
hypnotically refreshed testimony is simply too
unreliable to be used as evidence in a judicial setting.
The scientific community has not recognized hypnosis
as a generally reliable method of enhancing a witness's
recollection to the extent that it should be used in
judicial proceedings.
W/n the court erred in
Section 14, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly
disallowing the recall of the provides that the court may grant or withhold leave to
witniss --- NO
recall a witness, in its discretion, as the interests of
justice may require; and We believe that it was the
better part of discretion and caution on the part of the
trial court to have denied as it did, the request of the
defense to recall Ceribo. The record is loaded with
circumstances tending to show insidious attempts, too
obvious to be overlooked, to tamper with the witnesses
for the prosecution. Under the circumstances, to allow
such a procedure would only encourage the perversion
of truth and make a mockery of court proceedings.
W/N the court erred in

preventing the testimonies
of respondent Ong Su and
witness Ernesto Duran as
rebuttal witnesses for
petitioner.
Both are answered in the negative because the court

affirmed the decision of the Director of Patent that
there were no similarities as regards the 2 trademarks
and as to the recalling of the witness, once a witness
has been subjected to extensive cross-examination,
the motion to recall him as rebuttal witness may be
denied.

People v. Rivera (MR)
Accused was charged with arson. Prosecution witness

Lee was subject to direct, cross, redirect and recross
examination. But before prosecution could rest its
case, defense counsel withdrew and was replaced with
a new one. The new counsel motioned for recall of
witness Lee on the grounds that former counsel had
failed to ask some questions and for the interests of
justice. Lee could not be brought in court again
because his new address was not known. Defense
moved to strike out his testimony, which was granted
People v. Sandal (NO)
Defendants were convicted for the murder of Eleno

Lamorena. Inambar, witnessed the scene wherein
while Eleno was conversing with Sandal, Pampang
suddenly struck the deceased with a hammer from the
back. It appears that the said incident occurred due to
a complaint filed against them by Permites and Eleno
as its principal witness for injuries sustained inflicted
to Permites carabao(not JT, he is an inch smaller).
Defendant wanted to present a witness but it was
rejected by the CFI.
State v. Bishop (HQ)
The trial court convicted Bishop of sale and possession

of dangerous drugs. When the case was called for trial,
defense counsel requested that ALL witnesses be
excluded. The prosecutor stated that most of his
witnesses were police officers, and the trial court
denied the motion for exclusion.
Bunag v. CA (APG)
This case involves an alleged Deed of Sale executed

Apolinio Buang (father of petitioner) and Bruno
Bautista. The core of the controversy in this case is a
thumb-marked, non-notarized and non-witnessed
deed of sale of a parcel of unregistered land, which on
its face cannot but cause a prudent man to doubt its
due execution and authenticity. TC rendered a decision
in favor of Francisco while CA reversed and set aside
TCs decision
24
WON the lower court was

correct in granting the
motion to recall the
witness - NO
SC said this was improper because the discretion to

recall a witness may not be exercised on whimsical
grounds, but must come out of a clear showing that
particularly identified material points were not covered
in the cross-examination, or that particularly described
vital documents were not presented to the witness
whose recall is prayed for, or that the crossexamination was conducted in so inept a manner as to
result in a virtual absence thereof. Here, the counsel
averred that some questions had not been asked but
did not even specify what they were. Also, the witness
had been subjected already to direct, cross, redirect,
and recros, Obviously, the former counsel was satisfied
that the witness was completely examined
Whether or not the court
The court excluded him because he had been present
erred in excluding the
during thehearing notwithstanding the court's order
witness. No.
that all witnesses leave the courtroom. Under such
circumstances it lies within the court's discretion to
admit or reject the testimony of the witness. And
although we are of opinion that the court below should
have admitted the testimony of this witness, especially
when he stated that he did not hear what the other
witnesses testified, yet there is nothing to show that
this error has affected the appellants' defense. There is
nothing to show what this witness would have testified
if admitted, and so it cannot be held that his failure to
testify has materially affected the appellants' defense
W/N the trial court was
The Court found that the trial court abused its
correct in refusing the
discretion because it gave inadequate grounds to
exclusion of the witnesses? explain its refusal to exclude the witnesses. The trial
NO
court wanted the police officers who would be
(Hence, the witnesses
witnesses to be able to view the trial as an educational
should be excluded)
experience and see the fruits of their labor, but these
reasons were not relevant to determination of whether
Bishop was guilty of the crime which he was charged.
The Court concluded that, because most of the States
witnesses testified to the same events and
occurrences, prejudices to Bishop could be presumed.
WON the deed of

SC held that the Deed of Sale was NOT duly executed
sale was duly executed and and authenticated. Deed of sale was not acknowledged
authenticated NO!!
before a notary public and neither are there any
signatures in the blank spaces for the signatures of
attesting witnesses. The document is typewritten in
English and over the similarly typewritten words
"APOLONIO BUNIAG" is a thumbprint. Thus, it is a
private writing whose due execution and authenticity
must be proved before it can be received in evidence.
The due execution and authenticity of the deed of sale,
not having been satisfactorily proven, such private
document should be excluded. (check out the
circumstances which led the court to decide against the
authenticity of the deed)

Heirs Lacsa v. CA (AJG)
Heirs of Lacsa filed two Civil Cases against the

respondent Songcos claiming that the 1) the Songcos
occupied the fishpond through stealth, intimidation
and 2) They forged and simulated two spanish titled
documents and managed to transfer the title to their
name.
Bartolome v. IAC (JT)
So theres this lot in Laoag. It was owned by Epitacio

Batara pursuant to a tax declaration. Epitacio
entrusted the lot to his cousin Doroteo, who had a son
named Bernabe, who married Ursula (Bernabe and
Ursula are the private respondents here). Private
respondents claimed said land during a cadastral
proceedin, but Resurreccion and the other heirs of
Epitacio Batara (herein petitioners) opposed. Years
passed and nothing happened in the case. In 1969,
Ursula revived the cadastral proceeding, claiming that
said lot was sold to her by Maria Gonzales, Epitacios
wife. Ursula presented a deed of sale (Exhibit 4) to
prove her claim. She claims that it must be considered
an ancient document and admitted as proof of the
sale.
PAOSC v. NLRC (AD)
Rances was employed by Pascor but he was dismissed

eventually for misbehavior. Rances however alleges
that he was able to obtain a favorable judgment in a
Dubai court awarding him US$1,500. So he filed a
complaint in the POEA to enforce the alleged decision
of the Dubai court.
25
W/N ancient document rule

applies to the two spanish
documents and should thus
be admitted without the
need for evidence on its
authenticity and execution
- YES
W/N Exhibit 4 is
admissible--NO!!!
the ancient document rule applies to the two

documents. They meet the 3 requisites of the ancient
document rule, namely: (1) be at least thirty (30)
years old (2) found in the proper custody and is
unblemished by alterations and is otherwise free from
suspicion and (3) that it is produced from a custody in
which it would naturally be found if genuine.
Rulez of Court provides: "No other evidence of its
execution and authenticity need be given where a
private writing is(1) more than thirty years old (think
Vince or Jag), (2) produced from a custody in which it
would naturally be found if genuine, and (3)
unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of
suspicion."
The first 2 reqs were met by Exhibit 4. But it had a
missing page which allegedly contained the signature
of the vendor of the lot in question. It therefore
contains vital proof of the voluntary transmission of
rights over the subject of the sale. Without that
signature, the document is incomplete. Verily, an
incomplete document is akin to, if not worse than, a
document with altered contents.
However, the SC said that POEA has no jurisdiction to
decide on the case and the Dubai decision was not
properly proved before the POEA. The Dubai decision
purports to be the written act or record of an act of an
official body or tribunal of a foreign country, and
therefore a public writing under Section 20 (a) of Rule
132 of the Revised Rules of Court. Sections 25 and 26
of Rules 132 prescribe the manner of proving a public
of official record of a foreign country. In the instant
case, respondent Rances failed to submit any
attestation issued by the proper Dubai official having
legal custody of the original of the decision of the
Dubai Court that the copy presented by said
respondent is a faithful copy of the original decision,
which attestation must furthermore be authenticated
by a Philippine Consular Officer having jurisdiction in
Dubai. The transmittal letter, signed by Mohd Bin
Saleh, Honorary Consul for Philippines' does not
comply with the requirements of either the attestation
under Section 26 nor the authentication envisaged by
Section 25

Zalamea v. CA (KL)
People v. Monleon (RC)
Salison v. People (KF)
Spouses Zalamea and their daughter, Lian, purchased

3 airline tickets from the Manila agent of respondent
TransWorld Airlines, Inc. (TWA) for a flight from New
York to Los Angeles. The tickets of the spouses were
purchased at a discount of 75% while their daughter
was a full fare ticket. They were put on the wait-list
because the plane was already full due to overbooking.
The full priced ticket of Lian, the daughter, was given
priority and this was given to Mr. Zalamea in order for
him to be able to fly 1st. Mrs. Zalamea and Lian were
forced to buy tickets from AA since TWA couldnt even
accommodate them to their succeeding flight to LA.
The petitioners are claiming for reimbursement and
damages. The RTC ruled in the favor of the Zalameas.
The CA modified this by removing moral damages
since TWA did not act in bad faith based on common
and accepted US practice.
Cosme was drunk on tuba. He tried to punish his son
for not feeding the carabao. His wife intervened. He
choked her and punched her. She died the next day.
He confessed. Was found guilty. On appeal, he raised
testimonial discrepancies...
W/N the overbooking was

improper, thus, TWA
should be liable for moral
damages. YES.
The SC ruled that this was not proved properly since

foreign laws must be alleged and proved. TWA also
relied solely on the statement of Ms. Lather, a
customer service agent, that US laws allow
overbooking. TWA clearly acted in bad faith violating
the contract of carriage, thus, was held liable for moral
and exemplary damages. They were also ordered to
reimburse the 2 AA tickets purchased by Mrs. Zalamea
and Lian.
WON he was guilty? YES

EVEN THOUGH THE
CONFESSION WAS
INADMISSIBLE AND SOME
TESTIMONY DIDN'T QUITE
LINE UP, THE CORPUS
DELICTI WAS PROVEN BY
OTHER EVIDENCE. STILL
GUILTY!
The trial court erred in admitting that affidavit over the

objection of appellant's counsel because section 34,
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that documents
written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted
as evidence, unless accompanied with a translation
into English, Spanish or the national language. "To
avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their
attorneys are directed to have such translation
prepared before trial" (Sec. 34). [now Sec.33,
Rule132]
While Rule 132, Sec. 33 renders documents
unaccompanied by the official translation as
inadmissible, in the interest of justice, the prohibition
should not apply in this case since Salison failed to
object to the documents admissibility. Also, all of the
concerned parties, including the court and its officers,
were familiar with Cebuano and thus Salison was not
prejudiced by the lack of translation.
Avola saw Salison bring Valmoria to a mango tree,

Is the declaration
near a neighbor's house. Salison suddenly boxed
admissible? YES
Valmoria in the abdomen, and the three other accused
(Andiente, Dignaran, Fediles) appeared and joined the
fight. Valmoria was hit by pieces of wood wielded by
Salison et. al. at the back of his nape and rear part of
his head. He ran to his home followed by Salison et. al.
When they left, his parents went with Valmoria to the
house of the purok leader, Alcoseba, where he made a
statement about the assault. Valmoria died three days
letter. The RTC used the dying declaration which was
written by Alcoseba in Cebuano to convict Salison et.
al. Salison argues that the dying declaration is
inadmissible because it was in Cebuano and was not
accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino.
26

People v. Lazaro (CG)
People v Burgos (RL)
IBM Phils v. NLRC (QN)
Two informations were filed against Lazaro for the fatal

shooting of Ronquillo in 1991. One was for homicide
and the other, for illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition under Section 1 of P.D. 1866. Said section
imposed death penalty where the use of an unlicensed
firearm results in homicide or murder. Separate trials
were held. In the illegal possession case, the subject
firearm and six empty shells recovered from accusedappellant was submitted in evidence as well as the
certification issued by the Chief of the Firearms and
Explosives Office (FEO), the official repository of all
records regarding firearms in the Philippines. It stated
that appellant is not a licensed or registered firearm
holder of any kind or caliber. However, the official who
issued the certificate did not testify. The certificate
was admitted, over the objection of the defense, on
the ground that the same is an official record. No
eyewitness was presented to prove the killing with the
use of unlicensed firearm. Lazaro was convicted of
both crimes. The homicide case is pending with the
CA, while the illegal possession case was appealed to
the SC.
It has been held that the testimony of the

Commanding Officer of the PNP-FEO who issued a
certification that Lazaro is not a licensed holder or
possessor of a firearm is not necessary as the
certificate issued by him is competent and admissible
evidence to prove the second element of possession of
illegal possession. Moreover, entries in official records
as PNP-FEO, Camp Crame is an exception to the rule
on hearsay evidence by virtue of Rule 132, Sec 28. He
further contended that assuming that he is guilty, he
should only be convicted of simple illegal possession as
the qualifying circumstance of homicide was not
established. Meanwhile Republic Act No. 8294 took
effect on July 6, 1997. It amended P.D. No. 1866,
reduced the penalties for simple and aggravated forms
of illegal possession and considered the use of an
unlicensed firearm simply as an aggravating
circumstance in murder or homicide. The amendments
introduced by RA 8294 to PD 1866 will be applied to
the accused, as the same is favorable to him. Thus, RA
8294 will spare Lazaro from separate conviction for the
crime of illegal possession of firearm. He was thus
acquitted of the said crime (illegal possession), to note
that it was to be considered as an aggravating
circumstance in his homicide case.
Petitioner assails the Order of Judge Burgos granting
WON the judge erred in
(1) The Order granting bail while the prosecution was
bail to 5 out of 9 of the accused in a case for violation issuing the order; WON the still presenting evidence is premature. It in effect
of RA 1700 while the former was still presenting
judged erred in disallowing deprived the prosecutions right to present evidence
evidence against the application for bail. Petitioner
the printing of the material relating the application of bail. The prosecution must
argues that such Order was issued prematurely.
encoded in the diskette-be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable
Petitioner also assails the Judges oral order
YES to both.
time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce
disallowing the printing of the material encoded in
before the court should resolve the motion for bail. (2)
certain diskettes seized from the respondents by virtue
The Order disallowing the printing of the material
of a search warrant.
encoded in the diskettes is void. Judge Burgos issued
the same on the ground that since it was in the hands
of the prosecution, they could have manipulated the
same. There was neither testimonial evidence nor any
physical evidence on the diskettes that might indicate
they had actually been tampered or their contents
altered in order to secure the conviction of the
accused. The mere fact that the diskettes had been in
the possession of the prosecution does not necessarily
imply that it had tampered with the evidence to suit its
prosecutorial objectives. The presumption that official
duty has been regularly performed prevails, in the
absence of any evidence to the contrary.
Angel D. Israel was an employee of IBM Philippines
Whether or not the
NO. SC affirmed the NLRC. It held that the printouts
who was terminated on the ground of habitual
unsigned computer
must be signed in order to be admissible. Because they
absenteeism and tardiness. IBM presented computer
printouts are sufficient
are not signed, they are not properly authenticated
printouts of alleged emails between the management
proof.
and are thus of no probative value. The provision for
and Israel wherein he was allegedly informed of the
flexibility in administrative procedure "does not go so
charges against him. The LA ruled in favor of IBM.
far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence
NLRC ruled in favor of Israel, saying that the printouts
having rational probative value."
are insufficient proof.
27
WON the certification

issued by the FEO is
admissible for being
hearsay YES.

People v Carino (CP)
The accused were convicted of robbery with homicide.

They appealed the decision the failure of the trial court
to consider the sworn statements of Jenny ARCEO <3
teehee, Ricardo Sibay and victim Melencio Talisic
which contradicted the finding of conspiracy.
Interpacific Transit v. Aviles

(RR)
Rufo and Josephine Aviles, alleged to be sub-agents of

ITI, collected and received money from various clients
of ITI. However, the same was not remitted to the
latter. The two won in the criminal case filed against
them for the reason that the certified copies of the
airway bills were inadmissible in evidence. Now, this
case is only dealing with their civil liability. During the
identification and marking of ITIs evidence against
them, comprised of photocopies of the airway bills, the
same was objected to by the respondents. However,
when these were formally offered into evidence, no
objection was made.
Delos Reyes v. IAC (RS)
Petitioner obtained a loan from a bank, secured by her

land. The land was sold in an extrajudicial foreclosure
for petitioners failure to pay the debt. The respondent
spouses filed a case against petitioner asking her to
vacate her property. Meanwhile, petitioner, in a letter,
tendered the redemption price with the provincial
sheriff, who, likewise in a letter, refused such tender
for being insufficient.
28
Whether the sworn

A perusal of the entire records of the case shows that
statements should be
the defense did not formally offer in evidence such
admitted. NO. Conviction is sworn statements and evidence not formally offered
affirmed.
cannot be considered by the court. The trial court only
considered what was formally offered to it. From the
testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses, the trial
court established that the three accused acted in
concert and with a common design and purpose as
shown by their simultaneous arrival at the scene of the
crime, mutually helping one another in the killing of
Lolito Talisic and in the stabbing of Melencio Talisic and
in the robbing of the store and by their simultaneous
flight from the scene of the crime.
WON the inadmissible
Objection to documentary evidence must be made at
photocopied airway bills
the time it is formally offered as an exhibit and not
should be admitted
before. Distinction must be made between (a) the
because of the absence of identification of documentary evidence, and (b) the
objection on the part of the formal offer of evidence as an exhibit. The mere fact
defense when the same
that a particular document is Identified and marked as
were formally offered in
an exhibit does not mean it will be or has been offered
evidence YES
as part of the evidence of the party. The party may
decide to formally offer it if it believes this will advance
its cause, and then again it may decide not to do so at
all. In the latter event, the trial court is, under Rule
132, Section 35, not authorized to consider it.
Objection to the Identification and marking of the
document is not equivalent to objection to the
document when it is formally offered in evidence. It is
universally accepted that when secondary or
incompetent evidence is presented and accepted
without any objection on the part of the other party,
the latter is bound thereby and the court is obliged to
grant it the probatory value it deserves.
W/N Delos Reyes letter
The spouses claims that the letters cannot be used
tendering the redemption
because they were never formally offered. The SC,
price to the sheriff and the however, found that the letters were formally
latter's reply thereto may
submitted during the hearing of the petitioner's motion
be taken into account in
to dismiss on May 9,1978.
determining the timeliness
of the redemption. YES.
Delos Reyes allowed to
redeem her property.

People v Yatco (DU)
PHILAM Gen v. Sweet Lines

(VG)
Catuira v CA (MB)
A murder case was filed against accused. Prosecutor

wanted to present the confession of one of the
accused. Defense objected saying that it is hearsay,
especially as to the other accused. TC excluded the
confession not on the ground of hearsay, but of Rule
123, Sec 12 (Now R130 S30) prior proof of
conspiracy before confession of co-accused can be
taken against an accused.
W/N TC GADALEJ when it

excluded the confession.
YES
Court excluded, motu proprio, the confession by citing

a different ground than that raised by the defense. It
cannot do so. By doing what he did, the Court
overlooked that the right to object is a mere privilege
which the parties may waive; and if the ground for
objection is known and not reasonably made, the
objection is deemed waived and the Court has no
power, on its own motion, to disregard the
evidence. Also the court said that he even excluded the
evidence prematurely as, it is still possible that the
prosecution present additional evidence in the future
which would make the evidence admissible. The
guideline SC said in this case is that in case of doubt,
admit the evidence rather than exclude.
The vessel SS "VISHVA YASH" took on board at Baton WON prescription may be
The Court ruled that prescription as an affirmative
Rouge, LA, two (2) consignments of cargoes for
upheld without the
defense was seasonably raised by SLI in its answer,
shipment to Manila and later for transhipment to
production of the Bill of
except that the bills of lading embodying the same
Davao City. Upon arrival, it was discovered that there Lading? YES
were not formally offered in evidence. They
were deficiencies in the shipment. As this was insured
(Philamgen) failed to controvert the existence of the
with PHILAMGEN, this case was a recovery of damages
bills of lading and, hence they impliedly admitted the
against Sweetlines Inc. and the other co-defendants.
same when they merely assailed the validity of subject
The Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The CA
stipulations. Petitioners' failure to specifically deny the
reversed. It appears that Sweetlines Inc. has made a
existence, much less the genuineness and due
timely opposition based on prescription. The petitioner
execution, of the instruments in question amounts to
in that regard made contrary statements to the time
an admission. Judicial admissions, verbal or written,
period but failed to make allegations regarding the
made by the parties in the pleadings or in the course of
failure of the defendant to produce the Bill of Lading,
the trial or other proceedings in the same case are
which is an evidence of prescription.
conclusive, no evidence being required to prove the
same, and cannot be contradicted unless shown to
have been made hrough palpable mistake or that no
such admission was made.
2 informations for estafa were filed against Catuira.
Is the testimony of a
While it is true that the prosecution failed to offer the
Catuira contends that private complainant Ocampos
witness inadmissible in
questioned testimony when Ocampo was called to the
testimony was inadmissible in evidence since it was
evidence if not formally
witness stand, Catuira waived this procedural error by
not properly introduced when she was called to testify offered at the time the
failing to object at the appropriate time, i.e., when the
as mandated in Sec. 35, Rule 132.
witness is called to testify? ground for objection became reasonably apparent the
--- NO
moment Ocampo was called to testify without any prior
offer having been made by the proponent.
Even assuming that Catuira's objection was timely, the
testimony of complaining witness is relevant and
material in the criminal prosecution for estafa. Hence,
there is no reason for the testimony to be expunged
from the record.
29

Vda. de Onate v. CA (JM)
Salas v. SMMC (IE)
Phil Trust v. CA (KB)
Leonor Taguba bought a parcel of land from Elvira Vda

De Onato for a consideration of 5,000 payable in 4
installments. Leonor was able to pay and had receipts
to show for it (presented as exhibits in court). The
agreement was not put into writing. Leonor died the
same year she was able to make full payment of the
price. The heirs of Leonor demanded that Elvira
execute a public document of sale in favor of them.
She denied. Hence an action for specific performance
was instituted. Elvira says that the transaction was a
mortgage and not a sale. TC ruled in favor of Leonors
heirs. On appeal, Elvira assailed that the TC erred in
taking cognizance of the exhibits (the receipts) when
they were only marked but not formally offered.
Salas was appointed by Domingo, owner of SMMC, as
estate manager to redevelop SMMC and restructure its
finances in exchange of SMMCs capital stock of 30%.
BOD of SMMC was dissatisfied by his performance and
terminated the management contract. Salas filed a
case for specific performance and damages, alleging
that he was able to surpassed the 350,000 target
profit as shown by the corporations financial
statements. TC rendered a decision in his favor while
CA found that the lower court erred in admitting the
evidence since it was not properly authenticated thus
considered hearsay.
Plaintiff discovered that his properties were transferred
in the names of the Respondents. Plaintiff charges the
bank Phil Trust for conspiracy with the persons who
caused his properties to be transferred. Phil Trust in
his defense stated that in the Answer to
Interrogatories that it followed the standard operating
procedures in accepting the property as security. Since
said Answer to Interrogatories is a notarized
document, Philtrust claims that it is a public document
which is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its
contents.
30
W/N the court erred in

taking cognizance of
evidence that was marked
but not formally offered-NO
The SC said that it relaxed the rule and allowed

evidence not formally offered to be admitted and
considered by the trial court provided the following
requirements are present, viz.: first, the same must
have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded
and, second, the same must have been incorporated in
the records of the case. In the case at bar, these
requisites have been satisfied.
W/N there was proper

authentication of financial
statement
SC agreed with the CA stating that since these were

only copies and not certified true copies, these are
considered as private documents and in order to be
admissible in court, authentication must be made.
W/n a notarized document

being a public document is
conclusive as to the
truthfulness of its contents
--- NO
Court held that the notarized Answer to Interrogatories

in the case at bar is proof that Philtrust had been
served with Written Interrogatories, and of the date of
the latter (e.g., the notarized Answer to Interrogatories
is proof that the same was executed on October 12,
1992, the date stated thereon), but is not prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated. Official duties are
disputably presumed to have been regularly
performed. As regards affidavits, including Answers to
Interrogatories which are required to be sworn to by
the person making them, the only portion thereof
executed by the person authorized to take oaths is the
jurat. The presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed therefore applies only to the latter
portion, wherein the notary public merely attests that
the affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before him
or her, on the date mentioned thereon.

FINALS Evidence Case Doctrines Arroyo

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

FINALS Evidence Case Doctrines Arroyo

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

EVIDENCE Case Doctrines_Arroyo

People vs. Maqueda (NO)

William Barker was slain inside his house in Tuba,

Whether or Not the trial

(1) The Sinumpaang Salaysay is inadmissible because

EVIDENCE Case Doctrines_Arroyo

People vs. Irang (APG)

The 3 respondents (Pickens, Randolph, and Hamilton)

W/N the Bruton case

The SC reversed CAs decision and held that Bruton

The general rule is that evidence of other offenses

SC held that the testimonies were admissible as their

EVIDENCE Case Doctrines_Arroyo

People v. Babiera (JT)

EVIDENCE Case Doctrines_Arroyo

This is an automatic review of Gaudencios conviction

People v. Brioso (RC)

Brioso and friend shot the victim in his home. Cecilia,

People v. Cusi (KF)

W/N Cheril's character

Even the testimony adduced by the defense portraying

EVIDENCE Case Doctrines_Arroyo

Guzman saw Gaddi and Esguerra drinking in Dec 1981.

The issue is WON the RTC

Leake v. Hagert (RL)

Allen Leake filed a complaint against Charlotte Hagert

W/N Edward Gross'

The SC affirmed the decision of the lower court with

EVIDENCE Case Doctrines_Arroyo

People v. Laquinon (RR)

People v. Sabio (RS)

People v. Salison (DU)

People v. Ador (HV)

The Court ruled that:

EVIDENCE Case Doctrines_Arroyo

People v. Toledo (MB)

Heirs of Franco v. CA (KB)

Gravador v. Mamigo (IE)

Parricide case. Nori was stabbed was killed by her own

WON he was guilty of

The accused said that that he was married to the

W/N Holgado's declaration

Declarations of third parties made contrary to their

W/N Zoilo's confession is

Quintin died intestate. His brother Miguel became the

Issue now is whether or

3 requisites for admissibility of declaration against

W/N the post-war records

Thus, the statement and the accompanying silence

EVIDENCE Case Doctrines_Arroyo

Ferrer v. Ynchausti (HQ)

Prosecution presented pedigree (through grandfather's Was it sufficiently proven

Declarations in regard to pedigree, although hearsay,

EVIDENCE Case Doctrines_Arroyo

This is an action to recover the possession of the two

People v. Lungayan (AJG)

This is the rape of a widow case (yung walang panty

People v. Putian (JT)

Accused Guirmo stabbed Panimdim at a dance hall.

WON the statement of

His testimony was introduced by the City of Manila

EVIDENCE Case Doctrines_Arroyo

Adelaida Lingad left her niece, AND her three (3)

The SC held that trial court had correctly applied the