EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty.

Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017

Preliminary Matters 2-Evidence is sanctioned by the Rules.

Understanding of the subject
The Rules on Evidence are just a small part of the entire mass of the
Rules of Court. They are embodied in Rules 128-133. Just six (6) rules
with a few provisions from the Constitution and corresponding
jurisprudence.
Not all sources of information, however logical, can be considered
evidence in contemplation of law as a means of ascertaining the truth.
Not everything introduced in court are evidence. To be considered
evidence, it must be sanctioned and not specifically excluded by the
Rules.

The Rules of Court consists of various parts and classifications Examples of evidence not sanctioned by the Rules:
depending on the kind of proceedings which these procedural rules
govern. These are: (a) Hearsay evidence
a) Civil procedure
Under the Rules, hearsay evidence is excluded. It is not sanctioned
b) Criminal procedure
because of its inherent unreliability.
c) Special proceedings
d) Rules on Evidence
Example: Chismis can be a fertile source of information, but it is
e) Legal and Judicial Ethics
not sanctioned by the rules for being hearsay. Thus, chismis is
Sir: These provisions apply to all kinds of proceedings. Evidence is not considered as evidence but it may be a source of
always indispensable in court proceedings as every dispute involves information.
issues of facts, and issues of facts are resolved only by evidence. The
Rules on Evidence are very important, especially if you venture into trial (b) Coerced confession
practice. It is the bible to any right-minded litigator.
A person arrested may have voluntarily confessed to his
involvement in a crime. The confessant may have been honest
Evidence and truthful but if it violates the requirement of the Miranda
Rights, such confession although truthful may not be used as
Definition from the Rules of Court
evidence in court. This is because it is excluded and not
Section 1, Rule 128 sanctioned by the Rules.
“Evidence defined – Evidence is the means sanctioned by these rules, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.’’ A confession due to coercion does not necessarily imply
untruthfulness. It could be a reliable source of information, but in
Characteristics: the context of evidence, it cannot be used as a means of
1. It is just a means ascertaining the truth because it is specifically excluded by the
2. Sanctioned by the Rules Rules.
3. Applies only in judicial proceedings
4. Purpose is to ascertain the truth (c) Evidence obtained in violation of the Anti-Wire Tapping Act
5. Truth respecting a matter of fact
A wiretapped conversation may be a truthful information, but it
cannot be offered in evidence in court as a basis of ascertaining the
Characteristics discussed
truth because it is specifically excluded by the Rules.
1-Evidence is only a means, not an end.
(d) Sexual video in violation of the Anti-Voyeurism Act
The Rules on Evidence is only a means to ascertain the truth, and is
never an end in itself. The end is the proof, thus evidence and proof are The sex video of de Lima and Dayan may depict the reality that
different concepts. indeed de Lima did engage in sexual intercourse with Dayan.
However, in the context of evidence, this may not be used as a
Evidence v. Proof means of ascertaining the truth because this is not sanctioned
To the untrained, evidence and proof may be used interchangeably, by the rules for violating the “Anti-Voyeurism Act”.
but to a trained mind, they are two different things.
Important: Take note of the qualification that it must be sanctioned.
Evidence Proof This refers to the requirement of competency which is a requisite for
The effect or result of evidence; admissibility.
The medium, means, or tool
the conviction or persuasion of
by which a fact is proved or
the mind resulting from a
disproved
consideration of evidence.
Evidence is the cause Proof is the effect
Evidence does not necessarily
Proof presupposes evidence
result in proof

Important: Evidence becomes proof if it passes the tests of

admissibility, credibility and sufficiency. In other words, it is only when
the evidence is admissible, credible and sufficient that proof is
announced.

1|U N I V E R S I T Y OF SA N C AR LOS
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
3-The Rules on Evidence apply only to judicial proceedings.
The Rules on Evidence apply only to purely judicial proceedings or
proceedings before the courts of justice.1 They do not apply to non-
judicial proceedings or those pending before non-judicial bodies like:
a) Executive bodies
b) Legislative bodies
c) Quasi-legislative bodies
d) Quasi-judicial bodies
e) Administrative bodies
These bodies are governed by their own rules of procedure designed to
govern their own proceedings. However, their own rules may also
provide that the Rules on Evidence may be applied suppletorily, or by
analogy, whenever practicable.
Bantolino v. Coca Cola Bottlers; Hassan v. NLRC
Principle: The Rules on Evidence only apply to purely judicial
proceedings. Thus, administrative bodies like the NLRC are not bound
by the same.
Facts:
It was argued before the Supreme Court that it was an error on the
part of the Labor Arbiter to give consideration on the affidavits of
some of the complainants as basis on the findings of an E-E
relationship when said affiants were not subjected to cross-
examination.
Under the Rules, when an affidavit is presented in court as evidence,
it is required that the affiant must be presented to confirm the
affidavit and must also be subjected to cross-examination by the
adverse party. Otherwise, in absence of cross-examination, said
affidavit is only hearsay and thus, inadmissible.
Ruling:
The claim is untenable. The rule that an affidavit is hearsay and
inadmissible unless the affiant is subjected to cross-examination
applies only to judicial proceedings, and not to administrative
proceedings before administrative bodies like the NLRC. What
governs their proceedings are the rules provided by the Labor Code
and the IRR, and not the Rules of Court.
Administrative bodies like NLRC are not bound by the technical niceties
of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law. Trial-type
hearings are not even required as the rules of procedure adopted by
Labor courts expressly provide that cases may be decided based on
verified position papers with supporting documents or affidavits without
need for cross-examination.
Judicial proceedings not governed by the Rules on Evidence
Important: It is true that the Rules on Evidence apply only to judicial
proceedings, but it does not follow that all judicial proceedings are
governed by the rules of evidence.
There are judicial proceedings which are expressly excluded under the
Rules, specifically under Section 4, Rule 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
1
By purely judicial or court proceedings, we mean those bodies or courts organized under BP
129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act. Any other bodies are strictly not covered by the rules
of evidence.
2
Rule 132, Section 34. Offer of Evidence – The court shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
2|U N I V E R S I T Y OF SA N C AR LOS
General rule: The Rules on Evidence apply to judicial proceedings.
Exceptions:
1. Election cases
2. Land Registration
3. Cadastral proceedings
4. Naturalization proceedings
5. Insolvency proceedings
Exception to the exception: By analogy or in a suppletory
character, whenever practicable and convenient. (Sec 4, Rule 1, Rules
of Civil Procedure)
Sir: The five judicial proceedings mentioned above are not governed
by the Rules of Court including the Rules of Evidence by express
provision of the law.
Ong Chia v. Republic of the Phils
Principle: The rule on formal offer of evidence is not applicable in
naturalization cases, except when applied by analogy or suppletorily
whenever practicable or convenient.
Facts:
This involves a petition for naturalization. In support of the petition,
Ong Chia, a Chinese, testified and presented evidence to prove the
allegations in the petition. The public prosecutor who represented the
interest of the government manifested to the court that the state does
not intend to present controverting evidence. Thus, the trial court
granted the petition granting Ong Chia Philippine citizenship.
However, the Republic through the OSG disagreed and appealed the
case to the CA. Since the state did not present evidence during the
trial in the lower court, OSG presented for the first time some
documentary evidence to controvert the evidence of Ong Chia. On
the basis of these documents, CA reversed the decision of the RTC.
On appeal, Ong Chia argued that it is a basic and fundamental
principle in law that the court should not consider any evidence unless
it was formally offered, invoking Section 34 Rule 1322. This offer of
evidence, naturally, can only occur in trial, not on appeal because an
appeal is just a review proceeding. Evidence is offered during trial so
the adverse party could object to the admission of the evidence. To
admit the evidence now on appeal is a violation of due process.
Ruling:
Ong Chia’s contention is untenable. The rule on formal offer of
evidence applies only to judicial proceedings which are regular, not
the one subject of this case. By express provision of the Rules,
naturalization is excluded from the coverage of the Rules of Court.
Consequently, the Rules on Evidence finds no application in this case.3
3
In fact, by the very nature of naturalization proceedings which is strictly applied against the
applicant and in favour of the state, the principle of res judicata does not even apply.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
Senator Estrada v. Ombudsman
Facts:
This involves a preliminary investigation conducted by the
Ombudsman.4 Senator Jinggoy Estrada was among the high-ranking
government officials charged with plunder due to the controversy
involving the PDAF.
In the course of the preliminary investigation, the other respondents
submitted their respective counter-affidavits. Believing that the
counter-affidavits incriminated him, Senator Estrada, through a
motion, requested copies of said counter-affidavits. His motion was
however denied by the Ombudsman.
Issues:
1. Whether a respondent in a preliminary investigation, is entitled,
pursuant to due process, to be furnished with copies of the
counter-affidavits of his co-respondents.
2. Whether the incriminating allegations which may be found in the
counter-affidavits are inadmissible against Estrada for being
hearsay.5
Ruling:
1. No. Under the Rules of Procedure governing proceedings before
the Ombudsman, the only right of the respondent is to be given
a copy of the complaint or the affidavit of the complainant.
Nowhere in the rules did it say that the respondent is also
entitled to be given a copy of the counter-affidavits of his co-
respondents.
2. No. The Hearsay Evidence Rule applies only to court
proceedings. This is still a Preliminary Investigation and
whatever finding the Ombudsman may come up in its
investigation is only a temporary finding of probable cause. It is
not yet a final adjudication of the right and duties of the parties.
Thus, under the rules of procedure in the proceedings before the
Ombudsman, even hearsay evidence is admissible because the
rules of evidence do not strictly apply.6
4-Purpose of evidence is to ascertain the truth.
The end of evidence is to ascertain the truth.
So what is the truth? Truth is what we determine it to be. It lies in
the facts and in the telling of the story through presentation of
evidence and not in reality. In the context of evidence, we are only
concerned with the legal truth as distinguished from moral truth.
Two kinds of truth:
1. Legal truth – that which the evidence says it is. Truth depends on
the evidence presented by the parties which may or may not always
be in accord with reality.
4
The Ombudsman exercises the same function as the Office of the Public Prosecutor with
respect to the conduct of Preliminary Investigation (PI). The authority of the Ombudsman to
conduct PI is however limited to government officials. Thus, if it is not a government official, it
is the public prosecutor that exercises this function.
5
Jinggoy Estrada also argued that if he is not given a copy of the counter-affidavits of his co-
respondents, then any incriminating allegation which may be found therein should not be
admissible against him for being hearsay under the Hearsay Evidence Rule.
3|U N I V E R S I T Y OF SA N C AR LOS
2. Moral and actual truth – that which reality says it is. When a
statement coincides with what actually happened.
Atty: In your law practice, you will eventually deal with a client who
is morally guilty but legally innocent because of the procedural
blunders of the police. As a lawyer, your only concern is the legal
truth and your duty is to defend your client against legal guilt.
Your consolation is this, when you defend your client against legal guilt,
it is not so much about defending the guilty. It is about ensuring that the
system works. Our system adheres to the presumption of innocence and
that in every criminal prosecution, it is the burden of the state to prove
the guilt of the accused. Remember that a guilty client, a criminal, is as
entitled to legal representation as the innocent.
The bottomline is – trial is a battle of storytelling where each side gets
to tell his story and the court acts as referee. Whoever lies well wins.
Trial litigation is really for those who have the intestinal fortitude to
overcome guilt.
5-Truth respecting a matter of fact.
What evidence seeks to ascertain is truth respecting a matter of fact.
For this purpose, we need to distinguish legal and factual issues.
There are always two issues involved in a litigation:
1. Issues of facts
2. Issues of law
Important: The rules of evidence are only relevant to resolve issues
of facts, and not of law. If the case does not involve any factual issue,
then there is no occasion to speak of evidence.
Recap
In civil procedure, a civil action is initiated by filing a complaint. The
plaintiff alleges in his complaint his cause of action. Upon the filing
thereof, the court issues summons to be served on the defendant, who
upon receipt, is required to file an answer. In the answer, the defendant
could either admit the allegations or deny them.
If defendant admits the allegations, then there are no factual issues. This
dispenses with trial and evidence. Should the defendant deny the
allegations, it may be in the form of either:
1. General denial
2. Specific denial
3. Denial on the ground of insufficiency of knowledge or information
as to the truth or falsity of the allegations7
Factual Issue
There is a factual issue when the material allegations in the complaint
are denied by the defendant. In which case, the court needs to
determine who between the two parties is telling the truth by allowing
them to present their respective evidence.
6
Sir’s reservation: This is a very dangerous ruling especially if it involves a non-bailable offense.
Hearsay evidence can be used as basis for the finding of probable cause and on that basis, the
information may be filed in court and the court may issue a warrant of arrest.
7
General denial is deemed an implied admission in cases where specific denial is required, i.e. action
based on an actionable document – the denial must be specific, under oath and verified. Failing on
any of the requirements, the defendant is deemed to have admitted impliedly the genuineness and
due execution of the actionable document.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
Legal issue
There is a mere legal issue when the facts are not disputed either
because:
1. The allegations of one party is admitted by the other, or
2. The other is estopped from denying, i.e. implied admission
There being no factual issues, the parties may resort to judgment on
the pleadings or summary judgment. The court would have to render
judgment without requiring neither trial nor evidence, and resolve the
case based merely on the facts already established and by applying
the pertinent laws. Legal issues need not be proved as the court takes
judicial notice of existing laws.
Sir: Our courts take judicial notice of domestic laws except foreign
laws which should be proved as any other fact. Since our courts take
judicial notice of domestic laws, we do not need to prove them. The
courts will just apply the applicable domestic laws to the established
facts.
Important: The rule, however, is not the same in criminal cases. If
the accused during arraignment pleads guilty, the effects shall be as
follows:
General rule:
The facts alleged in the information which constitute the offense
charged are deemed admitted. There is no more factual issue
involved and therefore, the court dispenses the holding of a trial and
evidence becomes unnecessary. The Court will then render judgment.
Exception:
When the charge involves capital punishment – reclusion perpetua.
Even if the accused pleads guilty to the charge, the court is still bound
to order the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.8
Factum Probandum v. Factum Probans
Evidence signifies the relationship between two facts, namely:
(a) Factum probandum – the ultimate fact sought to be proved; the
proposition or fact in issue which evidence seeks to prove or
disprove.
(b) Factum probans – the evidentiary fact or material evidence
necessary to establish the factum probandum.
Example:
In a prosecution for rape –
The factum probandum is whether the accused committed the crime. That
is a conclusion of an ultimate fact. So the prosecution’s factum probandum
is that a crime was committed and that the accused is responsible thereof.
To prove this, the prosecution must make use of evidentiary facts or factum
probans.
The factum probans are the evidentiary facts or material evidence
surrounding the incident in question which prove the factum probandum.
The prosecution may introduce in court the following:
8
Given the gravity of the imposable penalty, the court is required to conduct an inquiry to
determine the voluntariness of the guilty plea and full comprehension of the consequences
thereof. A guilty plea to a capital offense during arraignment is a judicial admission but, by
express provision of the rules, said judicial admission is not enough to establish the guilt of the
4|U N I V E R S I T Y OF SA N C AR LOS
(1) Testimony of the victim
(2) Testimony of the medical doctor who examined the victim
(3) The torn underwear of the victim
(4) The sperm, condom, etc. left on the crime scene
These are evidentiary facts which would establish the ultimate fact that the
accused raped the victim.
Factum probandum and factum probans distinguished.
Gomez v. Gomez
Facts:
This involves an action to recover properties. The plaintiff seeks to
declare the deeds of donation null and void on the ground that the deeds
of donation were a forgery. In support of allegation of forgery, the
prosecution presented an NBI officer who claimed to be a document
expert and testified during trial that the signature of the donor,
Consuelo, as appearing in one of the deeds of donation was indeed
affixed on a blank piece of paper but the body was just inserted after
the death.
To further prove the allegation that the deeds of donations were
forgeries, the plaintiff introduced evidence that the Donor’s Tax was only
paid after the death of the donor. ‘How could Consuelo have signed the
deeds of donation when the donor’s tax was paid after her death?’
Ruling:
The Supreme Court applied the concept of factum probandum and
factum probans. It held that, as theorized by the plaintiff:
(a) The factum probandum is that the deeds of donations were
forgeries, and
(b) The factum probans was that the donor’s tax was only paid after
the donor’s death.
The factum probans which the plaintiffs introduced to establish their
factum probandum is insufficient. It does not necessarily follow that just
because the donor’s taxes were paid after the death of the donor, the
donor did not sign the deeds of donation. After all, it is not always a
requirement that the donor’s taxes be paid during the donor’s lifetime.
After considering all the evidence of the parties, it was established that
the payment of donor’s tax was made in two instances. The initial
payment was made during the lifetime of Consuelo, but full payment
was made after death.
accused. The court shall still require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and the
accused may be allowed to present his evidence.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
Admissibility of Evidence
Admissibility v. Weight and Sufficiency
Two tests
In order for evidence to serve its purpose of ascertaining the truth
respecting a matter of fact, it has to pass two tests:
1. Test of admissibility
Refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be
considered at all. Evidence may be considered by the court if it is
relevant and competent.
Elements of admissibility:
(a) Relevancy – It is relevant when it has tendency in reason to
prove or disprove a fact in issue. It is governed by logic,
common sense, and human experience.
(b) Competency – It is competent when it is not excluded by the
rules.
Important: The only objective that is achieved once evidence
passes the test of admissibility is the fact that the evidence will be
considered by the court. It forms part of the entire records and the
court is obliged consider the same. However, it does not necessarily
follow that the court is bound to give it credence.
Sir: The admissibility of your evidence is simply like the opportunity
that your evidence will be heard by the court. Admissibility is not
enough because if your evidence already passed the test of
admissibility, it still needs to pass the second test.
2. Test of weight and sufficiency
Refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves or
disproves an issue. It pertains to its tendency to convince or
persuade; its credibility and probative value.
It is not enough that the evidence is admissible, it is equally
important that it also be sufficient in order to establish the
proposition sought to be proved.
Important: The admission of the evidence does not necessarily
imply that the court will give it credence. So while admissibility is
determined by the test of competency and relevancy, credibility is
determined by the test of weight and sufficiency. ‘Is it convincing
and persuasive enough to make the court believe and give it due
credence?’
Sir: Evidence may admissible but not sufficient to persuade the
court to give it any credence, i.e. testimony of a wife. It may be
admissible as it is relevant and not excluded by the rules, but it
may have less weight and probative value as the wife may be
biased in favor of the husband.
5|U N I V E R S I T Y OF SA N C AR LOS
Requisites for admissibility
Section 3, Rule 128
“Admissibility of evidence – Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the
issue and is not excluded by the law of these Rules.”
Relevancy
Relevant Evidence
Evidence is relevant if it has any value in reason as tending to prove or
disprove any fact in issue. It must have a logical connection to the fact in
issue.
How is relevancy determined?
1. Logic
2. Common sense
3. Human experience
Important: Generally, any evidence that throws light upon an issue is
relevant. Be guided by the question: ‘Is it logical, consistent with common
sense or human experience that the evidence will prove or disprove a fact
in issue?’
Specific questions to ask:
1. Whether the evidence has a logical relevance to the fact in issue
as to establish its probability or improbability
2. Whether human experience would tell us that the evidence has a
relation to the fact in issue as to establish its probability or
improbability
3. Whether common sense would tell us that the evidence has the
tendency to establish the existence or non-existence of the fact in
issue.
Examples:
(a) In a criminal case for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide –
the prosecution presented a witness to prove that a few minutes
before the accident, the accused had a drinking spree with a friend.
Is the evidence adduced that he had a drinking spree relevant? In
accord with common sense or human experience? Does it throw
light upon the issue on whether the accused was negligent? Yes.
It is not required that it should be absolutely relevant. It is enough
that it throws probability or improbability.
(b) In a case for compulsory recognition of filiation – the woman who was
impregnated by the defendant exhibited to the court the baby who
perfectly looked like the defendant. Such evidence is relevant
considering logic, common sense and human experience.
(c) In a prosecution for murder – Victim was shot in the temple (middle
of the eyes). During trial, evidence was presented that the accused
was a champion marksman (a sharp shooter). It is relevant as it can
establish that the shot was fired by an expert and it would tend to
bolster the prosecution’s theory that the accused was responsible.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
Lopez v. Heesen
Principle: Anything that throws light upon an issue should be admitted
by the court as relevant.
Facts:
While Mr. Heesen was deer hunting, his rifle accidentally fired, hitting
Mr. Lopez. The latter contended that the cause of the sudden discharge
of the rifle was Mr. Heesen’s negligence and the defective design of the
safety mechanism as it would easily move from safety to fire position.
He thus filed a case of damages against Mr. Heesen and the storeowner
who sold the rifle to the former.
By way of defense, the storeowner presented an expert witness on gun-
making to testify on the good reputation of two manufacturers: (1)
manufacturer of the rifle, and (2) manufacturer of the safety
mechanism– that during their entire corporate existence, they never had
a complaint for accidental firing.
The admission of this evidence was objected to on the ground of
irrelevancy. It was argued that the reputation of the manufacturer of
the rifle and that of the safety device are irrelevant.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court overruled the objection and held that the reputation
of the manufacturers are relevant to the issue of whether the safety
device of the rifle involved is really defective. If they had a good
reputation, then it throws light upon the issue. Anything that throws
light upon an issue should be admitted by the court as relevant.
State of Missouri v. Arthur Bull
Principle: There is no logical connection between the fact of possession
of the dollar bills on one hand and robbery on the other. This illustrates
a case where evidence is excluded on the ground of irrelevancy.
Facts:
Arthur Bull was arrested for robbery, three weeks after the occurrence
of the crime. He was identified by the sales personnel of the jewelry
store. During his arrest a week after the robbery, the police were able
to recover from his possession some dollar bills and coins which were
used as evidence during trial. This was objected to on the ground of
irrelevancy.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court sustained the objection. It ruled that the evidence
is irrelevant to prove the issue of whether Mr. Bull committed the
robbery. It was not established that the dollar bills recovered from the
possession of Bull was the same money taken from the vault of the
jewelry store.
Mere possession of a quantity of money is in itself no indication that the
possessor was the taker of money charged as taken because in general,
all money of the same denomination are alike. There is no logical
connection between the fact of possession of the dollar bills on one hand
and robbery on the other.
9
As a general rule, an answer need not be verified, except if (1) governed by summary
procedure, or (2) when the complaint is based on an actionable document.
10
Genuineness and due execution of the actionable document is deemed admitted when: (1)
defendant categorically admits the existence thereof, or (2) denies the same, but not under oath
or not specifically, which results in implied admission of the genuineness and due execution of
the document.
6|U N I V E R S I T Y OF SA N C AR LOS
Materiality
Material Evidence
Evidence is material if it is directed to prove a fact in issue. If it is offered
to prove a fact not in issue, then it is immaterial.
As to whether a fact is in issue or not is determined by the substantive law,
pleadings, pre-trial order, and by the admissions made by parties.
Consequently, evidence may be relevant but may be immaterial in a case.
Examples:
(a) Materiality determined based on the pleadings – In an action for
collection of money based on an actionable document, defendant
failed to specifically deny the allegations under oath (verified
answer).9 The result is an implied admission by the defendant of the
genuineness and due execution of the document. Consequently,
during trial, defendant can no longer prove that the promissory note
is a forgery. 10
Any evidence presented to prove forgery may be objected to and
the court may exclude it on the ground that it is immaterial. It is
immaterial because forgery is no longer an issue to the case for
failure by the defendant to specifically deny the genuineness and
due execution thereof under oath.11
(b) Materiality determined by substantive law –
i. In a prosecution for statutory rape, the accused testified that
he indeed had sexual intercourse with a 9-year old girl, but
claimed that it was the girl who initiated it. Such a testimony
may be objected to on the ground of immateriality, since
consent in the crime of statutory rape is not an issue. Mere
sexual intercourse with someone below 12 years old is already
rape. Consent or lack thereof is immaterial.
ii. In a prosecution for violation of BP 22, the gravamen of the
offense is the mere issuance of a worthless check. Any
testimony by the accused that he merely issued the check as
an accommodation or as a security can be objected to on the
ground of immateriality.
Important: Given the distinct concepts of materiality and relevancy, it
is therefore possible that an evidence may be relevant but it may still be
excluded because it is immaterial, or the evidence may be material but
it is excluded for being irrelevant.
Relevant but immaterial
Example: Evidence of forgery – In a collection case based on an
actionable document where the defendant failed to specifically deny
under oath the genuineness and due execution of the PN, the defense
of forgery later on, while relevant since it militates against the claim of
the existence of the obligation, is already immaterial because there is
already an implied admission of the document’s genuineness and due
execution by reason of the failure to make a specific denial under oath.
11
In the same way, if the defendant in a collection case denied having obtained any loan from
the plaintiff, he cannot be allowed to introduce as evidence during trial a receipt tending to
prove that he already paid the amount he is being sued upon. The plaintiff can object to the
introduction of the receipt on the ground that the receipt tends to prove a fact not in issue.
Receipt is immaterial.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
Material but irrelevant
Example: In a prosecution for robbery, the prosecution presented
evidence that the accused is a very poor man. The evidence is material
because it is directed to prove a fact which is in issue, but it is not
relevant as there is no reasonable connection between the state of being
poor and the crime of robbery. One’s financial condition is not
determinative of one's guilt in committing the crime.
Sir: It actually depends on the court in the exercise of its sound
discretion to determine whether the evidence is relevant or not.
Important question: Given that Rule 128, Section 3 only provides for
relevancy and competency as requisites for admissibility, is it necessary
for an evidence to be material for it to be admissible? In other words, is
materiality a requisite for admissibility?
Answer: Yes. According to Herrera, relevancy may be seen as a:
(a) Restrictive concept – logical connection to the fact in issue
(b) Broader concept – probativeness and materiality
The concept of relevancy in our jurisdiction adopts the broader concept
which covers both probativeness and materiality.
(a) Probativeness – the tendency and reason to establish the
probability or improbability of a fact in issue
(b) Materiality – when evidence is directed to prove a fact in issue
Thus, materiality is subsumed in the broader concept of relevancy.
Competency
Competent Evidence
Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by the rules, law or the
Constitution.
Important: To determine competency, we ask the question, “Is there
a specific rule, constitutional provision, law which specifically prohibits
admission of certain type of evidence?’
(a) If yes – incompetent evidence.
(b) If none – competent evidence.
What governs materiality, relevancy and competence?
Materiality Relevancy Competency
Substantive law,
pleadings, pre-trial Logic, common Rules, the
order, and by the sense and human Constitution or the law
admissions made by experience (Exclusionary rules)
parties
Important: To reiterate: To be admissible, evidence must be relevant,
material and competent. While the rules provide that for purposes of
admissibility, the evidence is only required to pass the test of relevancy and
competency, it is because under our jurisdiction, a relevant evidence is
necessarily material.
7|U N I V E R S I T Y OF SA N C AR LOS
Exclusionary Rules
Exclusionary rules
There are various rules of exclusions – rules which specifically exclude
certain types of evidence. If any or all of these rules apply, the evidence
is deemed incompetent and therefore inadmissible.
Three major classifications of exclusionary rules:
1. Under the Rules of Court
2. Under the Constitution
3. Under Special Laws
Note: Sir did not discuss the exclusionary rules under the Rules of Court.
Perhaps because we would be discussing each of them in detail in the
next topics.
Exclusionary Rules under the Constitution
The exclusionary rules under the Constitution are found in:
1. Section 2 – Right against unreasonable search and seizure
2. Section 3 – Right to privacy and inviolability of communication
3. Section 12 – Miranda rights
4. Section 17 – Right against self-incrimination
Sir: All these uniformly provide that any evidence obtained in violation
of these rights is inadmissible. It is deemed incompetent even if true.
Important: These exclusionary rules are relevant only if invoked against
the State or its agents. If the violative acts are committed by private
individuals, there is no occasion to speak of any of these rights.
Consequently, any evidence obtained is admissible, without prejudice to
the liability of the private individual criminally, civilly and administratively.
Right against unreasonable searches and seizures
Section 2, Article III
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and
for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally
by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to
be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
Bill of Rights may be invoked only against state actions.
PP v. Maqueda; Waterous Drugs v. NLRC; PP v. Bongcarawan
In these cases, the Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights in general,
not only the right against unreasonable search and seizure, can only be
invoked against state.
People v. Marti
Facts:
The package of the accused was opened by the forwarding company which
yielded marijuana leaves. The owner of the forwarding company
coordinated with the NBI and a criminal case for violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act was filed against the accused. The critical issue was whether the
marijuana was admissible as evidence considering that the seizure was
made without the benefit of a judicial warrant.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
Ruling:
Yes. The obvious intent of the Bill of Rights is to protect citizens’ rights
against state actions. Thus, if the purported unreasonable search is
committed by private individuals, bill of rights may not be invoked.
Consequently, the evidence, even if seized without a warrant, is admissible.
The isolated case of Zulueta
Zulueta v. CA
Facts:
Wife went into the husband’s office and without the latter’s knowledge,
opened his cabinets, read and seized letters, photographs, diaries and
correspondence between her husband and paramour. The documents were
used as evidence in a case for legal separation and for disqualification from
practice of medicine which the wife filed against the husband. The issue is
whether the papers seized by the wife are admissible in evidence.
Ruling:
No. The documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence.
The constitutional injunction declaring the privacy of communication and
correspondence to be inviolable admits only of two exceptions – if there is
a lawful order from the court or when public safety or order requires
otherwise. Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them
in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them
for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting
marriage, does not shed his integrity or his right to privacy as an individual
and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.
Important: Do not be confused. The Zulueta ruling tells us that there
could be a violation of the constitutional right to privacy even if the act was
committed by a private citizen. This case is a deviation from the other
decided cases by the Supreme Court. This is an isolated case. The
controlling case is still People v. Marti which held that the Bill of Rights can
only be invoked against the State and never against private individuals.
Is a search warrant required in cases where the place to be
searched is a government office?
Pollo v. Carina David and CSC
Facts:
This involves an employee of the CSC, Mr. Pollo, whose duty includes
acting on complaints filed against government employees. It appears
however that he offered his services to act as counsel to respondents or
those subject of the complaints before his office. He drafted pleadings
on behalf of the respondents.
One whistle-blower reported the same to the chairman, Carina David,
who later ordered the search of the government office including the
computer which is a government property. Incriminating evidence were
recovered from the computer including the drafted pleadings. Mr. Pollo
interposed the defense that the computer was illegally searched.
12
Section 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. — An application for search
warrant shall be filed with the following:
a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.
b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial region
where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known, or
any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.
8|U N I V E R S I T Y OF SA N C AR LOS
Issue:
Whether Pollo is entitled to his right against unreasonable search and
seizure considering that the placed searched was a government office
and the computer was a government property.
Ruling:
No. It is not accurate to make a sweeping statement that a search
warrant is not required if it involves a government office. Whether a
warrant is required is to be determined on a case to case basis.
The only yardstick in determining if a person is entitled to its
constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure is the
reasonable expectation of privacy test. If under the circumstances, one
has a reasonable expectation of privacy in its premises.
Here, Pollo had no reasonable expectation of privacy and could not
therefore invoke the right against unreasonable search and seizure.
The Supreme Court took note of the following circumstance:
1. The office was shared with other co-employees.
2. Pollo failed to establish that whenever he is out of the office, he
would close or lock the office.
3. The computer had no password.
4. Prior to the search, there was already a memorandum issued
informing all employees that they had no right to expect privacy in
their respective computers.
The case of Mayor Espinosa
In this case, a search warrant was acquired to search a government
facility, the provincial jail of Leyte.
The question is, was it necessary for the government agents to apply
for a search warrant to search a government facility?
No, it was not necessary for the agents to apply for a search warrant
before searching a government facility because an application for the
same presupposes the right to privacy. There is no reasonable
expectation of privacy in a jail. It was even established during the
investigation that the jail was equipped with CCTV.
Sir: However, in this case, the jail was located in Baybay, Leyte, but the
search warrant was issued by the RTC in Samar. Is this valid?
Rule in application for search warrant
GR: Search warrant shall only be applied with the court having
jurisdiction over the place where the crime was committed.
XPN: When the applicant can offer compelling reason which must be
stated in the application, the court within the judicial district where the
crime was committed may issue the search warrant. (Rule 126, Section
2 of the Rules of Court12)
Important: When the law speaks of judicial regions, it refers to the 13
judicial regions in the Philippines. Cebu City is in the 7th Judicial Region.
In the case of Espinosa, it should have been issued in the RTC of Baybay
since it was where the crime was committed, inside the jail.
However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be made in
the court where the criminal action is pending.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017

Compelling reason
People v. Chiu
Supreme Court considered as a compelling reason to invoke the
exception is the possible leakage of information. The applicant has the
burden to establish that the subject of the search warrant is a
personality which exercises some influence over the same community.
Pilipinas Shell, Petron v. Romarz International, 2015
Facts:
This is a criminal case for counterfeiting. Pilipinas Shell and Petron Corp.
applied for a search warrant to search the premises of Romarz
International based on the report that it has been engaged in
counterfeiting LPG.
2. No. The rule in criminal cases that venue is jurisdictional is
applicable only in a criminal action. An application for a search
warrant is not a criminal action but a criminal process inherent in
all courts.
Judicial warrant
General rule: Any search or seizure without judicial warrant is illegal. Any
evidence obtained in violation of this rule is inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceedings.
Sir: Judicial warrant is indispensable for any intrusion into the privacy of an
individual.
Exceptions:

The NBI applied for search warrant in Naga City, Bicol but the crime was 1. Plain view doctrine
allegedly committed in Iriga City. The search yielded positive and thus 2. Waiver or consented search
the respondent was criminally charged. 3. Search incident to a lawful arrest
4. Stop and frisk or terry search
The respondent filed a motion to quash the search warrant on the 5. Checkpoints
ground that there was no probable cause, among others. 6. Customs search
7. Emergency or exigent circumstances
However, later, a new counsel for respondent filed an Appearance with
Motion for Reconsideration. It was only in said motion where respondent 1- Plain view doctrine
raised for the first time the issue of the impropriety of filing the
application for search warrant at the RTC-Naga City when the alleged A police officer when he has the right to be in the place where he is,
crime was committed in a place within the territorial jurisdiction of RTC- may validly search and seize items which are in plain view and where
Iriga City. its incriminating nature is immediately apparent.

Petitioner opposed the motion arguing that it was already too late to
raise the issue as this would be in violation of the Omnibus Motion Rule.
Respondent countered that in criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional and
a search warrant improperly issued amounts to lack of jurisdiction which
is among the exceptions to the Omnibus Motion Rule.
Issues:
1. Whether respondent is precluded from raising the ground of
improper application of search warrant under the Omnibus Motion
Rule.
2. Whether it improper application of a search warrant amounts to
lack of jurisdiction, which falls among the exceptions to the
Omnibus Motion Rule.
Ruling:
1. Yes. The Supreme Court sustained the argument of respondent
stating that it is mandatory that it can only be applied and issued
by a court in the place where the crime was committed. The only
exception is if there exists a compelling reason. No compelling
reason was stated in the application.
However, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the search
warrant and implementation as it was established that when
respondent filed the Motion to Quash, the only ground invoked was
lack or absence of probable cause. It did not include the argument
that the warrant was applied and issued by a wrong court.
Applying therefore the Omnibus Motion Rule13, a ground not
included in the motion is deemed waived.
Reason: Practical consideration such as when the police is staring
directly at the instruments of a crime, it would be pointless to first
obtain a search warrant.
Requisites:
(a) Prior valid justification for intrusion – the presence of the
police officer in the place must be legitimate, i.e. valid warrant, hot
pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, and some other legitimate
reason for being present and connected to a search directed
against the accused.
People v. Salanguit
Facts:
The police, armed with search warrant, went to the house of the
accused to seize undetermined quantity of shabu and other drug
paraphernalia.
In the course of the search, they recovered shabu and drug
paraphernalia. In addition, they conducted further search which
led to the discovery of dried marijuana leaves wrapped with
newspaper, which is not included in the list of items to be seized
in the search warrant.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that when the purpose of the search
warrant is accomplished, any further searches cannot be
justified under plain view doctrine.

13
Rule 15, Section 8. Omnibus motion. — Subject to the provisions of section 1 of Rule 9, a
motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then
available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived.

9|U N I V E R S I T Y OF SA N C AR LOS
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
The discovery of dried marijuana leaves cannot be considered
valid under the plain view doctrine because the police has no
prior and valid justification for the intrusion. It can validly be
presumed that the shabu was first discovered because the police
has knowledge of the location being the applicant of the warrant.
People v. Musa
Once the valid portion of the search warrant has been executed,
the plain view doctrine cannot provide any basis for further search.
(b) Inadvertent discovery of evidence – the incriminating object
must not be purposely and specifically sought for by the seizing
officer, but merely inadvertently discovered.
People v. Musa
Facts:
This case involves a buy-bust operation for illegal drugs outside
the house of the suspect. When the police handed marked
money to the suspect, the latter went inside his house to get the
drugs. Upon exchange, the members of the team swooped down
and arrested the accused.
Problem is, when they body searched the accused, no marked
money was found. Upon inquiry, the accused said he left the
money inside the house, and so the police proceeded inside.
Unable to fine the money, one of the officers went to the kitchen
where he found a plastic bag hanging which contained drugs.
Challenged, the state justified under the plain view rule.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the discovery was not justified
under the plain view doctrine because the same was not
inadvertent. The police were purposely looking for an
incriminating object. Thus, inadmissible.
(c) The incriminating nature of the evidence must be
immediately apparent to the seizing officer.
People v. Musa
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the discovery and
seizure of the illegal drugs cannot be justified under the plain
view, not just because it was advertently discovered but also
because its incriminating nature was not immediately apparent
to the police officers. This can be drawn from the fact that when
police saw the plastic bag, he even had to ask the accused as to
its contents, demonstrating therefore that the illegality of
contents were not apparent.
People v. Bollado
Object is in plain view if it is plainly exposed to sight. Where the
object was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain
view and therefore, cannot be seized without a warrant. However,
if the package proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive
configuration, its transparency, or its contents are obvious to an
observer, then the contents are in plain view.
People v. Salanguit
The container must clearly betray its contents, whether by its
distinctive configuration, its transparency, or otherwise its contents
are obvious to an observer.
10 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
GR: When the object is contained in a container, the search cannot
be valid under plain view doctrine.
XPNs: When the container betrays its contents because of:
1. Transparency
2. Distinctive configuration (i.e. armalite in a sack),
2-Consented search
This is premised on the principle waiver. The right to object to the
introduction of evidence obtained in violation of the right may be
waived. Thus, if one consents to the search and seizure without a
warrant, it would be a valid warrantless search and seizure.
The consent to a warrantless search must be voluntary – specific and
intelligently given.
Requisites:
The waiver is to be strictly construed against the state. So if the arrest
was premised on the alleged consent, the prosecution must be able to
prove that:
1. The right exists
2. The person had knowledge of the existence of such right
3. Said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right
Important: Mere passive refusal to object should not be interpreted
as a waiver or consent. It is an oft-repeated ruling of the SC that mere
passive consent is more consistent with one’s respect for authority and
should not be taken to mean that the person involved willingly and
intelligently waives the right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Waiver is a personal right
The right to object to the introduction of evidence obtained in violation
of the right against search and seizure is personal to the person whose
right has been violated. Being so, the right to waive is also personal to
the same person. It cannot be invoked by another.
People v. Damaso
The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures,
being personal, cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose
rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or
her behalf.
3-Search incident to a lawful arrest.
This happens when a person is validly arrested and as an incident to
said valid arrest, a search may be effected. The arrest must precede the
search.
Important: This presupposes that a person was lawfully arrested
because it is effected (a) pursuant to a validly issued warrant, or (b) the
arrest is made under a valid warrantless arrest.
The purpose of the search is to:
1. Find out if the person arrested has in his possession some deadly
weapon which he may use against the officer, or
2. Prevent the person arrested from destroying any evidence
pertaining to the commission of the crime.
The search extends to the immediate surroundings
The search is not only limited to the body of the person arrested but
extends to include the immediate surroundings under the control of
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
the person arrested. The obvious purpose is to prevent the suspect
from possibly using a deadly weapon in assaulting the police officer
effecting the arrest.
Important: The Rules only warrant search of the immediate
surroundings, and not of the individuals in the same area. These
individuals have their individual rights to privacy and are not under the
control of the person arrested, having independent minds of their own.
(This may come out in the exam)14
Instances of valid warrantless arrest
Section 5, Rule 113
1. In flagrante delicto arrest
2. Hot pursuit arrest
3. Arrest of a fugitive
A. In flagrante delicto
When in the presence of the arresting officer, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense.
Requisites:
1. The person to be arrested must execute an over act
indicating that he has just committed, or is actually
committing or is attempting to commit a crime, and
2. Personal knowledge of the police office – such overt act is
done in the presence of within the view of the arresting
officer.
Important: This is not only limited to crimes being witnessed
using the sense of sight. The person effecting the arrest may have
seen, heard, smelled, felt, or tasted the commission of the
offense.
Overt acts
Outward manifestations or acts made by the accused that would
raise reasonable suspicion on the part of the police officer that he
has committed, is committing or about to commit a crime.
People v. Claudio
Facts:
This case involves a policeman who boarded a bus. In front of the
police officer, was a woman carrying a buri bag, who suspiciously
put the bag at the back where the policeman was sitting. The
policeman started to feel sick and nervous so he inserted his
finger to the bag and said he smelled marijuana.
Ruling:
The crime is deemed to be committed in the presence or within
the view of the arresting officer and therefore falls within the
concept of in flagrante arrest.
People v. Aminnudin
Facts:
The police, two days before the date of the arrest already received
confidential reports that the accused would be arriving in the port
14
Imagine if you are hearing mass in a church, kneeling and praying long and hard, when the
guy beside you was arrested in flagrante for he was bringing .45 calibre with its handle
protruding. The police believing that you are the companion of that fellow arrested, you get
arrested. Everyone gets arrested. All in the immediate surrounding gets arrested. That is the
11 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
of Iloilo City, on board M/V Wilcon, transporting drugs. The
information of the police included the identity suspect, the vessel,
and the time of the arrival.
Acting on the confidential report, the police positioned themselves
waiting for the vessel to arrive. True enough, when the
confidential informant identified Aminuddin, the police
apprehended him and effected a warrantless arrest and as an
incident thereto, a search was effected on his body and his bag
which yielded dried marijuana.
Issue: Whether the search and seizure were legal.
Ruling:
No. Evidence cannot be admitted and should never have been
considered for the simple fact that the marijuana was seized illegally.
It is the fruit of a poisonous tree.
The search was not an incident to a lawful arrest because there was
no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did not come under
any of the exceptions provided for under the law.
For in flagrante arrest to apply, it is necessary that the person
arrested should be performing an overt act indicative of a crime,
and the officer effecting the arrest must have personal knowledge
of the same.
Here, the arrest did not fall under in flagrante delicto because the
accused was not committing a crime when arrested, nor was it
shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. He
was merely walking in a gangplank with no outward indication calling
for his arrest. The police had no personal knowledge on the contents
of the bag for all purposes
Moreover, there was there no such urgency to dispense with
obtaining a warrant. They had at least two days. The suspect’s
name was known, the vehicle was identified, the date of its arrival
was certain. They could have persuaded a judge that there was
probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet no effort
was made to comply with the law.
People v. Mengote
Facts:
The police received an anonymous caller reporting that three
persons acted suspiciously along a certain alley. Responding to
the call, the police dispatched some of its officers to the place.
When the police arrived, they saw Mengote who was looking from
side-to-side and holding his abdomen.
The police, suspecting that the person is engaged in a criminal
enterprise, swooped and arrested the accused and conducted a
search incident to the arrest and found unlicensed firearms. The
police tried to justify the arrest under in flagrante arrest, and the
search under search incidental to a lawful arrest.
Ruling:
There was nothing to support the arresting officers' suspicion
other than Mengote's darting eyes and his hand on his abdomen.
By no stretch of the imagination could it have been inferred from
danger that this principle will create. For example, in a restaurant or in a party, everyone may
be arrested for being in the immediate surroundings. Very dangerous proposition. There is no
actual Supreme Court decided based on this. What we have is only the rule that it extends to
immediate premises.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
these acts that an offense had just been committed, or was
actually being committed, or was attempted to be committed in
their presence.” In short, no overt acts indicative of commission
of a crime. Hence in flagrante delicto cannot apply.
People v. Sy Chua
Facts:
Police received an information from a confidential informant that
Chua will deliver drugs to a hotel in Baguio City. Police waited for
Chua outside the hotel and when he alighted from his car carrying
Zest-o juice bags, he was arrested and searched. He was found
to have possessed illegal firearms and the box was full of illegal
drugs.
He was prosecuted and convicted and on appeal, he challenged
the validity of the arrest and search and challenged the admission
of the things seized. The prosecution tried to justify the arrest
under the in flagrante delicto doctrine.
B. Hot pursuit
Ruling:
In in flagrante arrests, the following requisites must concur:
(a) The person must execute an overt act indicating that he
has just committed, is actually committing or is attempting
to commit a crime, and
(b) Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view
of the arresting officer
Here, there were no overt acts on the part of Chua indicative of a
crime calling for his arrest. He was merely alighting from his car
carrying juice bags. The evidence seized are thus inadmissible.
Very important: The requirement of personal knowledge
applies only in situations where the arrest precedes the search (in
flagrante arrest resulting in incidental search). But if search
precedes the arrest, personal knowledge is not required. Probable
cause, will suffice which may consist merely of a reliable tip
information.
(a) Arrest precedes the search – personal knowledge
(b) Search precedes the arrest – probable cause only
People v. Zenaida Quebral
Facts:
A day before the arrest, the police received confidential
information that two men and a woman were to make a drug deal
somewhere, but at no specific time.
This led to a surveillance the following day where a jeepney with
the identified plate number was followed to a nearby gasoline
station. A Tamaraw FX arrived, where a man alighted and
approached the woman from the jeepney. In the course of their
conversation, the woman handed a white envelope to the man. It
was at this precise moment that the police swooped down and
seized the envelope and opened it which yielded illegal drugs.
Arrest then ensued.
Accused questioned the legality of the search, invoking the
doctrine laid down in Aminnudin.
12 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
Ruling:
The reliance in the case of Aminnudin is misplaced. In said case,
the arrest took place before the search. However, here, the
reverse happened. The search took place before the arrest.
To effect a warrantless search, personal knowledge is not
required. Probable cause is sufficient. Here, the probable cause is
the confidential report received from the informant corroborated
with what the police witnessed before when the transaction took
place. Hence there was reasonable belief that crime was being
committed, enough to effect a warrantless search.
Important: This is not a situation of a search incident to a lawful
arrest. This is a search preceding an arrest. For purposes of
arrest, tipped information is not enough but for purposes of
search, the same is enough, provided it coincides with the actual
condition in the field as witnessed by the arresting officer.
When an offense has just been committed and the arresting officer
has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts
or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.
Requisites:
1. An offense has just been committed (immediacy), and
2. The person making the arrest has personal knowledge of the
facts indicating that the person to be arrested committed it.
Important: This should not be confused with in flagrante arrest.
Hot pursuit arrest also requires personal knowledge, but this
personal knowledge is different from the personal knowledge
required under in flagrante. It does not require the arresting
officers to personally witness the commission of the offense.
(a) In flagrante – personal knowledge refers to the commission
of the crime; in the presence and within the view of the
police officer
(b) Hot pursuit – personal knowledge refers to the facts and
circumstances indicating that the crime may have been
committed and the person to be arrested has committed
the same.
FIRST REQUISITE: IMMEDIACY
The arrest should be immediately effected. The requirement of
immediacy must be that time between commission and arrest,
and not from knowledge of the commission of the crime.
How to determine immediacy?
There is no hard and fast rule, what is required is unbroken chain
of events from commission to arrest – meaning, there must be no
appreciable interval of time. It’s a case to case basis. We only
have jurisprudence to guide us how immediate is immediate.
No fixed formula but only circumstances guided by the
requirement of unbroken chain of events. That’s the determining
factor there.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
Not immediate, thus not under hot pursuit
People v. Manolo 19 hours from commission
People v. Del Rosario 1 day from commission
People v. Olivares 2 days from commission
People v. Ronda 3 days from commission
People v. Lolito Go 6 days from commission
People v. Lolito Go
The Supreme Court held that there was no valid hot pursuit failing
to qualify on the requirement of immediacy. The arrest took place
only six days after the crime was committed. In addition, the
police officer has no personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
indicating that the offense has just been committed because their
knowledge were only based on the statements of the witnesses.
Cases falling under hot pursuit
Less than an hour from
People v. Padilla
the hit and run incident
People v. Gerente 3 hours from the killing
People v. Abriol Few minutes from the killing
People v. Abriol
Facts:
A policeman who had a vulcanizing shop heard a gunfire. He
proceeded to the area and saw people scampering and a motor
vehicle speeding away. He chased down the vehicle but lost sight
of it when it turned left in an alley. So he radioed other traffic
police and just when he lost sight of the vehicle, other police
officers saw the same, as described by the policeman. The chase
continued and arrest took place.
Defense argued that the policeman who first noticed the vehicle
lost sight of the vehicle when it turned left, thus no longer under
hot pursuit.
Ruling:
The court upheld the arrest under hot pursuit. SC said there was
an unbroken chain of events because just when the chasing
policeman lost track of the vehicle, the other policeman who
received the radio call incidentally saw the speeding vehicle
described by the calling officer.
SECOND REQUISITE: PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
The SC equated this requirement with probable cause – ‘the
arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it.’
Abelita III v. Doria
A team was dispatched to the crime scene as soon as the police
received a phone call about a shooting incident. They saw the
victim wounded and the witnesses said that they knew the
shooter and that he just left the scene of the crime. Police tracked
down the accused. He initially agreed to come to the police
headquarters but tried to escape while en route. Petitioner’s act
of trying to get away, coupled with the incident report which they
investigated, is enough to raise a reasonable suspicion on the part
of the police to the existence of probable cause.
13 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
People v. Gerente
Facts:
The police station received a report about a mauling incident. The
officers went to the crime scene to investigate, where they saw
the dead body of the victim and the murder weapon.
A witness told them that the accused was the one who killed the
victim, so they proceeded to the house of the accused and
arrested him. The arrest took place three hours after the murder.
Ruling:
While it is true that the arrest cannot be justified under in
flagrante because the crime was not committed in the presence
or within the view of the police officers, however, the latter has
personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances indicating that
a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested
has committed it.
The personal knowledge came in the form of the actual
investigation where the body of the victim and the murder
weapon was found and the report of the eyewitness.
Consequently, the arrest was justified under hot pursuit.
People v. Padilla
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of hot pursuit because the
police officer has the personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances indicating that the offense has just been
committed and the person to be arrested committed it due to the
dangling plate number and dented railings of the car.
C. Arrest of an escapee or fugitive from justice
When the person to be arrested is:
1. A prisoner who has escaped a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or
2. Has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another.
4-Stop and Frisk or ‘Terry Search’
The Terry doctrine is of two parts: The stop and the frisk. This is
allowed if the officer has a reasonable belief based on a genuine reason
and in the light of the officer’s experience and the surrounding
circumstances, that a crime has either taken place or is about to take
place and the person to be stopped is armed and dangerous.
1. Valid stop – requires that he has a reasonable and articulable
belief that criminal activity has happened or is about to happen.
2. Frisk – must be done because of a reasonable belief that the
person stopped is in possession of a weapon that will pose a
danger to the officer and others. It must be a mere pat down
outside the person’s outer garment.
Under this rule, the officer is entitled to protect himself and others in
the same area and for this principle to apply, in the course of
investigation, he must:
1. Identify himself as a policeman, and
2. Ask reasonable inquiry.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
Important: This contemplates of a situation where a search is
effected without a warrant. As distinguished from search incident to a
lawful arrest:
Terry search Search incident to a lawful arrest
Search is effected first. Arrest is effected first.
Limited only to the
Extensive search
outer clothing
Probable cause
What is only required in the Stop and Frisk Rule which justifies a
warrantless search is probable cause, to be determined by the police
officer in the light of his experience as a law enforcement agent.
TN: Genuine reason in accordance with his experience and the
surrounding conditions to warrant the belief that the person to be held
has weapons or contraband concealed.
Terry v. Ohio
Facts:
Two men repeatedly walked past a store window and returned to a
spot where they apparently conferred with a third man. This aroused
the suspicion of a police officer. To the experienced officer, the
behaviour of the men indicated that they were sizing up the store for
an armed robbery. When the police officer approached the men, he
spun them around and frisked them and concealed weapons were
discovered.
Ruling:
A police officer may, in appropriate circumstances, and in an
appropriate manner, approach a person for the purpose of
investigating possible criminal behaviour, even though there is no
probable cause to make an arrest.
When a police officer is able to observe an unusual conduct and basing
on his experience, he has reason to believe that a crime has either
taken place or is about to take place, he has the right to protect himself
and others within the area, and for this purpose, he is allowed to
carefully conduct a limited search on the outer clothing of the suspect
in search for dangerous weapons that the suspect might use against
the police officer. Provided that the police officer must:
1. Identify himself, and
2. Conduct preliminary inquiry
Posadas v. Court of Appeals
Facts:
Some police operatives were conducting surveillance in a certain area
reportedly frequented by criminals when they saw Posadas, walking,
carrying a buri bag and acting suspiciously. They approached the
suspect and identified themselves as the police, but the latter tried to
flee. The police officers gave a chase and then searched the buri bag
where some unlicensed firearms were found. Posadas was arrested
and the firearms seized.
Issue: Whether the warrantless arrest and search were valid.
Ruling:
Yes. Search and seizure can properly effected without necessarily being
preceded by an arrest, under the ‘stop and frisk’ exception.
14 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
When Posadas acted suspiciously and attempted to fee with the buri
bag, there was probable cause that he was concealing something
illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to
inspect the same. It is too much to require the officers to search the
bag only after a search warrant is obtained for the purpose. Such an
exercise may prove to be useless, futile and much too later.
Manalili v. Court of Appeals
The police officers, while conducting a surveillance in the area in
Marikina near a cemetery, saw the accused walking wobbly and with
reddish eyes (characteristics of persons high in drugs).
Acting on this unusual conduct, the police approached him and
searched him which yielded contrabands. The warrantless search was
sustained by the court under the Stop and Frisk doctrine.
Very important: Terry Search strictly should only be on the outer
clothing of the suspect, however, in both Posadas and Manalili,
extensive search was conducted, but the Supreme Court upheld the
validity of the same under the Terry Search Doctrine. It thus appears
that jurisprudence has extended the coverage of Terry search to cover
even extensive search.
Dissecting the Quebral and Posadas case
In these two cases, the search preceded the arrest, and required only
probable cause.
In the Zenaida Quebral case, extensive search was conducted, without
any mention of Terry search. It only held that since search preceded
the arrest, which was the reverse of the Aminnudin case, personal
knowledge is not required, and mere probable cause would suffice.
In Posadas, however, the Supreme Court used the Terry Search
doctrine to justify the search, although it overlooked the fact that stop
and frisk, by definition should only be limited to search on the outer
clothing.
The safest approach is to attack the problem under both principles for
there is no inconsistency. Both require probable cause and contemplate
of a situation where search is effected before the arrest. This is
especially true in light of the Posadas ruling where the Terry Search
doctrine has been expanded to cover even extensive search.
5-Checkpoints
Galmonte v. Del Villa
Searches conducted in check points are valid as long as they are
warranted by the exigencies of public peace and order and are
conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists. For as long as the
vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body
search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search,
said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individual’s
right against unreasonable search.
Sir: The police officer cannot compel the driver of a car to step down
or lower the window because checkpoint is limited only to visual
search, except when there is already probable cause. In which case,
extensive search of the vehicle is allowed.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
People v. Vinecario
Facts:
Pursuant to the Comelec resolution imposing gun ban, the Davao police
conducted check point at a highway. A motorcycle with three men on
board sped past them. One of the police blew his whistle and ordered
them to return to the checkpoint.
When asked why they sped past the checkpoint, one of them said he
was a member of the army, but failed to produce any ID. All three were
acting suspiciously and a military backpack was noticed which slung
over of the men’s shoulders. The three took turns at passing the bag
to each other.
Suspecting that it contained a bomb, one of the officers opened the
bag, which yielded marijuana. Arrest then ensued.
Ruling:
The arrest, search and seizure were valid. Although the general rule is
that motorists and their vehicles passing through checkpoints may only
be subjected to a routine inspection, vehicles may be extensively
searched when there is probable cause to believe that the motorist is
a law offender or the contents of the vehicle are or have been
instruments of some offense.
In light then of the suspects speeding away after noticing the
checkpoint and even after having been flagged down by police officers,
their suspicious and nervous gestures when interrogated on the
contents of the backpack which they passed to one another, and the
representation by one of them that he was a member of the Philippine
Army, apparently in an attempt to dissuade the policemen from
proceeding with their inspection – there existed probable cause to
justify a reasonable belief on the part of the law enforcers that they
were offenders of the law or that the contents of the backpack were
instruments of some offense.15
Right to Privacy of Communication
Section 3, Article III
“The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable
except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise as prescribed by law. Any evidence obtained in violation
of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.”
Waterous Drug Corp v. NLRC
Facts:
A pharmacist was terminated after she was found to be receiving
kickbacks from a supplier. One of the evidences presented against her
were checks placed inside an envelope delivered by the supplier to her,
but was seen by another employee.
According to the employee, the envelope was already opened when he
took possession. This check was used as evidence and as basis for the
termination. The pharmacist claimed violation of her constitutional right
to privacy of communication and against unreasonable searches and
seizures. The issue was whether the evidence was admissible.
15
Atty. Torregosa has a personal reservation on the practice of police officers in requiring
motorists to show driver's license and registration papers without traffic violation. The
checkpoint should not be used as fishing expedition. It should be limited to visual search. It is
extensive search already when you are asked to produce something. What makes it more
anomalous is that the police officers only flag down motorcycles and jeepneys.
15 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
Ruling:
Yes, the constitutional protection on privacy of communication and against
unreasonable searches and seizures refers to the immunity of one’s person
from interference by government and cannot be extended to acts
committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged
unlawful intrusion by the government.
Zulueta v. CA
Supra.
Miranda Rights or Miranda Warnings
Section 12, Article III
“Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
the right to:
(a) Be informed of his right to remain silent
(b) Have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
be provided with one.
(c) Be informed of the above rights”
Important: Traditionally, the Miranda Rights or Miranda Warnings are
available only during custodial investigation.16 But as jurisprudence
evolved, the concept of custodial investigation has been expanded
making it applicable to circumstances other than this strictly police
interrogation environment.
When available?
1. Custodial investigation
The stage where the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry
into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect
taken into custody by the police who carry out a process of
interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements. It
covers any question initiated by law enforcers after a person has been
taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in
any significant way.
Sir: A typical custodial investigation process starts with the arrest
where the suspect is placed under custody or otherwise deprived
of his freedom of action in a significant way. It is in this precise
moment that the arresting officer is required by law to inform the
suspect of his rights. So the arrest sets in motion the persons’
entitlement to Miranda rights.
RA 7438
The concept of custodial investigation has been broadened by RA
7438 to include the practice of issuing an 'invitation' to a person
who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected
to have committed.
People v. Del Rosario
Facts;
This involves a case of robbery with homicide where one of the
witnesses has identified the accused, Mr. Del Rosario, as the driver
of the getaway motorcycle. He was then invited to the office of the
16
The traditional concept of custodial investigation refers to questioning initiated by law
enforcement agents or the police after the suspect is placed under custody or otherwise deprived
of his freedom of action in a significant way. Thus the typical custodial investigation refers to
the person being arrested, placed under the custody, and be interrogated.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017

barangay captain for questioning. In the process, he made some
extrajudicial confessions.
Ruling:
The accused was deprived of his rights during custodial
investigation. From the time he was "invited" for questioning at the
house of the barangay captain, he was already under effective
custodial investigation, but he was not apprised nor made aware
thereof by the investigating officers.
The police already knew the name of the tricycle driver and the
latter was already a suspect in the robbing and senseless slaying
of the victim. Since the prosecution failed to establish that accused
had waived his right to remain silent, his verbal admissions on his
participation in the crime even before his actual arrest were
inadmissible against him, as the same transgressed the safeguards
provided by law and the Bill of Rights.
The judge’s claim that no complaint has yet been filed and that neither
was he conducting a preliminary investigation deserves scant
consideration. The fact remains that at that time, the accused was
already under the custody of the police authorities, who had already
taken the statement of the witnesses who were then before Judge
Dicon for the administration of their oaths on their statements.
3. Preliminary investigation
People v. Bongkiko
Facts: This involves a brutal murder of an employer. The two
accused were arrested, and during the preliminary investigation
before the public prosecutor, the accused Bongkiko made an
extrajudicial admission detailing how they planned and executed
the killing. Admissibility of the admission was questioned. State
argued that the same was not covered by Miranda warning because
it was not under the custodial investigation.

Important: Police invitation constitutes custodial investigation, Ruling: There are certain pre-trial stages critical to the trial process
however, police line-up is not part of custodial investigation as it where a suspect is subjected to a similar intimidating and relentless
has not shifted from investigatory to accusatory stage. Thus, process no different from police interrogation.
Miranda rights are not applicable.
The purpose of the Miranda warning is to avoid a situation where
2. Extrajudicial admissions made to a questioning judge a person is forced into making incriminating statements because of
inherent intimidating atmosphere attendant to a police custodial
When the accused is taken into custody and was brought to judge
investigation. This intimidating, relentless, and coercive
who interrogated him. If in response to question of the judge, the
environment is similarly obtaining in a preliminary investigation
accused made an extra judicial admission admitting involvement in
proceeding where prosecutors relentlessly pursue persons who
the crime, any admission made by the suspect without being
may be responsible for the crime.17
afforded his Miranda rights is inadmissible.
When not available?
Atty: This is not your typical custodial interrogation because the
interrogation was not initiated by the police but by a judge. SC said
1. Spontaneous statements
this is covered by the Miranda warnings.
Statements given by accused not elicited by police questioning but
People v. Baloloy rather given in an ordinary manner. The purpose of the Miranda
Warning is to prohibit testimonial compulsion but it does not
Facts:
prohibit the suspect from being honest.
The dead body of an 11-year-old girl was found at a waterfalls. The
one who caused its discovery was accused himself, who claimed that
Important: This applies even if the suspect is taken into police
he had caught sight of it while he was catching frogs in a nearby
custody, provided the statement was not elicited by police
creek. However, during the wake, the ownership over a black rope
questioning.
found in the crime scene was inquired into, where the accused
admitted to own the same.
Sir: Before, the rule was simple. Even if the statement is gospel
truth, if it is made without the assistance of counsel, it is
Because of this, suspicion that he was the one responsible for the
inadmissible, even if voluntarily made. However, this was already
crime prevailed. In the process, he made some extrajudicial
abandoned, in light of the ruling in People v. Andan.
confessions to the barangay captain.

People v. Pablito Andan

Later, he was arrested and brought to the MTC where the judge made
some inquiry. In the process, the accused made some incriminating
confessions.
Ruling:
The accused’s constitutional rights during custodial investigation were
violated by the judge when the latter propounded to him incriminating
questions without informing him of his constitutional rights. It is
settled that at the moment the accused voluntarily surrenders to, or
is arrested by, the police officers, the custodial investigation is deemed
to have started. So, he could not then be asked about his complicity
in the offense without the assistance of counsel.
Facts:
This involves the rape and slay of a 19 year old student. When the
suspect was arrested and while detained in the police precinct, the
mayor paid him a visit. The suspect requested to confer with the
mayor, where he broke down and confessed.
The issue was whether the confession made spontaneously by the
suspect is admissible in light of the fact that it was made without the
assistance of counsel.

17
The suspect is alone, sometimes deprived of sleep, deprived of food, water. Imagine the
pressure put upon the suspect within that environment. That’s why the Miranda rights guaranty
that the suspect be assisted by counsel at least to level the playing field.

16 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
Ruling:
Yes, the confession is admissible. Spontaneous statements are not
covered by Miranda rights, even when the same are uttered after
being taken ito police custody, so long as it was not elicited by police
questionings.
Important: The admissibility of the statement in the case of Andan
was ruled upon and was centered not on the character of the
person to whom the confession was made but on the fact it was
spontaneously given. If spontaneous and not elicited through
police questioning, it is admissible, without regard to the person to
whom the confession is made, whether a police officer or not.
People v. Baloloy
It has been held that the constitutional provision on custodial
investigation does not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited
through questioning by the authorities but given in an ordinary
manner whereby the suspect orally admits having committed the
crime. The rights under Section 12 of the Constitution are guaranteed
to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state as would lead
the accused to admit something false, not to prevent him from freely
and voluntarily telling the truth.
In the instant case, after he admitted ownership of the black rope and
was asked by barangay captain to tell her everything, the accused
voluntarily narrated that he raped the girl and thereafter threw her
body into the ravine. This narration was a spontaneous answer, freely
and voluntarily given in an ordinary manner.
2. Admission made to a private citizen
People v. Guillermo
Facts:
This involves a murder of an employer by his employee. While he
was detained, he was interviewed by Gus Abelgas and Karen Davila
where he was remorseless and even took pride in admitting that
he killed his abusive employer.
The issue was whether the admission made by the accused before
TV reporters was admissible when it was made when he was in
detention and without the assistance of a counsel.
Ruling:
Yes, the confession was admissible. Miranda rights do not apply to
situations where confession is made to a private citizen – not to a
police nor to a law enforcement agent.18
3. Object evidence
Miranda Warnings apply only to testimonial evidence and does not
extend to cover object evidence.
People v. Paynor
This involves a rape and slay of a minor where the police, upon
arriving at the crime scene, found that the hand of the victim was
tightly gripping some hair strands. When the suspect was arrested,
18
Who are police or law enforcement agents for purposes of Miranda Warnings?
1. Typical agents of the State – police, NBI, even if off duty
2. Barangay tanods and chairman (People v. Malngan)
17 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
he was compelled to produce samples of his hair for purposes of
comparison.
The introduction of the hair strands recovered from the suspect
was objected to when offered as evidence. The defense argued
that it was taken from him without the assistance of his counsel
and when he was under custody.
Ruling: Miranda rights covers situations where the suspect is made
to make statements against himself and does not cover objet
evidence.
People v. Baylon
This involves the killing of an elementary teacher witnessed by a
pupil. When the pupil was interviewed, he described the assailant
as wearing maong pants, white tee, green hanky wrapped on his
neck, and a hat on his head. Acting on the description, the police
traced and arrested the accused.
Upon his arrest, the police forcibly stripped him of his clothing and
these were introduced during trial to corroborate the statement of
the witness. Admission of such was challenged under Miranda
Rights violation since when these were stripped from him, not
assisted by counsel. The Supreme Court said that Miranda Warning
covers only testimonial compulsion, not object evidence.
People v. Malimit
A case of robbery with homicide. Accused was arrested and
interrogated by the police. He led the police to the place where he
hid the items taken from the victim. The victim’s wallet was found
along with other items. These were introduced as evidence,
however admission was objected to, saying that when these items
were recovered, the accused was not assisted by counsel.
The Supreme Court held that the Miranda warnings operate only
to include the statements made by the accused and not object
evidence like the wallet, ID, keys, etc.
Important: The objects recovered are admissible for not being
covered by the Miranda rights, but the suspect’s statement telling
the police where the objects are inadmissible since it is protected
by the same right. Without Malimit leading them to the place, the
police would not have discovered or recovered these items.
Sir: It should have been inadmissible under the fruit of the
poisonous tree doctrine. The discovery of the object was made
possible because of the uncounseled confession. But you know this
is the kind of Supreme Court we have. That makes it interesting.
Q. What happens when the suspect under police custody
confesses to a crime to someone who, unknown to him, is a law
enforcement agent?
This practice is common in the US though the employment of a snitch.
Many got convicted because of testimonies of snitch. Is this allowed in
this jurisdiction?
3. A member of the Bantay Bayan – composed of private citizens who group themselves for the
purpose of ensuring peace in the community. These groups are accredited by the LGU
concerned but are merely civilians and volunteers (People v. Lao Ga)
4. NBI officers
Note: Security guard is not a law enforcer (PP v. Bongcarawan)
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
This cannot be valid because:
(1) This would encourage the police to resort to deceit and fraud, and
(2) The duty to inform the arrested person of his Miranda rights is
imposed upon the law enforcement agents. It would be ridiculous
to allow the police officers to instead employ fraud and deception
to make the accused confess to the commission of a crime. He is
supposed to be punished for not doing his job.
Waiver of the Miranda Rights
GR: The Miranda rights cannot be waived.
XPN: Waiver in writing, signed by the accused and in the presence of
counsel.
XPN to XPN: Right to be informed of such rights cannot be waived even if
with counsel.
Important: The Constitution requires that the waiver be in writing, with
the assistance of counsel, and signed by the suspect. If he confesses in
the course of investigation and that confession is not reduced into
writing, it cannot be admissible.
However, this rule does not apply in case of spontaneous statements.
The spontaneous statement need not be in writing. This is an admission
against interest. The one who heard may testify.
It is not the suspect who takes the stand and affirms the statement, it
is the person who heard the spontaneous statement. That person will
be testifying on hearsay matter as his only personal knowledge is as to
the fact that the spontaneous statement was made, but he has no
personal knowledge as to the truth of the confession. That will be an
admissible hearsay.19
Hearsay Rule
Section 36, Rule 130
“Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded –
A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge, that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as
otherwise provided in these rules.”
Question: If one testifies about something which his friend told him, that
is hearsay. But what if he testifies of a fact which he personally heard? Is
that still hearsay, considering that the same was derived from his own
senses, his own perception?
ANS: You have to distinguish between legal hearsay and non-hearsay.
A. If the purpose of the testimony is to prove that the statement was
indeed made – non-hearsay and thus admissible.
B. If the purpose of the testimony is to prove the truthfulness of the
statement – legal hearsay and thus inadmissible.
Important: The said testimony must be formally offered and the purpose
of the offer must be specified. Purpose of the offer is critical. That is why
lawyers try to smuggle testimony like this in the hope that the other
19
The basis for the rule on hearsay is its inherent unreliability. The one who takes the stand is
not the one who is the source of the statement and he cannot be examined as to the truthfulness
and veracity of the admission because the one who made the admission is not in court.
Inherent unreliability is not admissible but insofar as admission against interest, it is reliable
because it is an admission against the interest of the declarant. Thus, the only admissible
extrajudicial confession is an admission against the interest of the declarant, not a self-serving
18 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
party fails to object. However, if the other party is smart enough to
object timely, they will just say that ‘it is just non-hearsay your honor,
to prove that there is such conversation.’ This is otherwise called
independently relevant statement.
Independently relevant statement
The making of the statement is the one relevant regardless of the truth
or falsity of the statement.
Example: In a proceeding for a probate of a will, the proponent, will
have to prove that at the time the will was executed, the testator was
of sound and disposing mind. The oppositor, on the other hand, will
assail the probate of the will and will have to prove that at the time the
testator executed the will, he was not of sound mind.
During the trial, a witness is presented testifying that on a certain date,
he had a conversation with the testator and that during this
conversation, the testator proudly told him that he is a descendant of
Hitler.
That statement supposedly made by the testator is independently
relevant of the truth of the statement of whether he is descendant of
Hitler because this will establish the mental state of the testator. It is
relevant, in so far as the issue of the testator’s state of mind, regardless
of the truth of the statement.
The testimony is non-hearsay and therefore admissible.
Extra-judicial confession, how introduced in court
The prosecutor calls the police who conducted the interrogation (or the
lawyer who assisted the accused) and he will identify the extrajudicial
confession. He will identify the signature, confirm and affirm before the
court that it was taken and compliant with the Miranda Warnings. This
will be admissible in court as an extrajudicial confession.
Sir: It is not the accused who will take the stand and confirm the
extrajudicial confession, otherwise, it will already be a judicial admission.
Right against Self-Incrimination
Section 17, Article III
“No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
Important: The kernel of the right against self-incrimination is the
prohibition against testimonial compulsion. It does not apply when the
evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but an
object evidence.
The right applies only to testimonial compulsion, and not to
object evidence and mechanical acts.
US v. Ong Siu Hong
This involves an accused who, while under police detention, was forced
to discharge morphine from his mouth. The admission of the morphine
was objected to on the ground of violation of the right against self-
incrimination contending that he was made to produce evidence against
himself.
admission. The law presumes that when someone makes a statement against his interest, that
statement is true , even if the declarant is not the one affirming it, but a third party who merely
heard.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
The Supreme Court made a definitive ruling that this is not covered
under the right against self-incrimination. It is just a mechanical act –
an object evidence, not testimonial evidence. It was in this case that the
court held that the kernel of the privilege refers only to testimonial
compulsion. The same ruling was applied in the case of US v. Tan Teng
and Villaflor v. Summers.
US v. Tanteng
This involves a prosecution for rape or acts of lasciviousness where the
victim, as a result of the molestations, was shown to be suffering from
gonorrhoea. In order to affirm that the accused was the one responsible
for the sexual offense, he was forced to submit himself to a medical
examination. There were substances discharged from his body which
were subjected to a medical examination which yielded a positive result
that the accused was suffering from gonorrhoea.
This was objected to on the ground of violation of the right against self-
incrimination but this argument was overruled by the Supreme Court
holding that the kernel of the privilege applies only to testimonial
compulsion, not purely mechanical acts and object evidence.
Villaflor v. Summers
A woman charged with adultery was compelled to submit herself to a
pregnancy test. Admissible.
People v. Vallejo
A prosecution for rape involving a young girl. During the examination,
some semen were found inside the vagina of the victim. The accused
was compelled to produce DNA samples. Admissible.
People v. Gallarde
A person was arrested for committing a crime and during the arrest, he
was photographed. Additionally, fingerprinting and paraffin testing was
conducted. These are all physical examinations involving parts of the
body and are thus not covered by the right against self-incrimination.
People v. Modejo
The accused was charged for the killing of a young girl. When the dead
body of the victim was found, it was established that her right hand or
palm was tightly gripping hair stands. When the accused was arrested,
he was compelled to produce hair samples. Admissible.
Production of handwriting is not purely a mechanical act.
Beltran v. Samson
In a falsification case, the accused was compelled to produce a sample
of his handwriting for purposes of comparing the same with the
document allegedly falsified by the accused. The court ruled that
compelling a person to produce his own handwriting is not a purely
mechanical act and thus covered by the privilege of the right against
self- incrimination.
The production of a sample of one’s handwriting requires the
intervention of man’s mental faculty. So it is not mechanical. Also, the
reason why non-testimonial compulsion is allowed is because in these
situations, the compulsion is not made to unearth undisclosed facts but
merely to demonstrate physical attributes which are easily determinable
by simple observation.
19 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
In other words, if the object evidence or the purely mechanical act is
already available, but what is done is merely to demonstrate some
physical attributes determinable by simple observation, the right against
self- incrimination does not apply. However, when the accused is made
to produce something which is not yet in existence, that is in effect is
forcing him to produce evidence which may be used against him. This
is exactly what happens if a person charged with falsification is forced
to produce his handwriting for purposes of comparison.
The right equally applies to documents, records, even chattels
not yet in existence but accused is forced to produce them.
Regala v. Sandiganbayan
The court made a definitive ruling that the right against self-
incrimination equally applies to documents, records and even chattels –
objects. However, these refer to objects which are not yet in existence
but the accused is forced to produce them. That would be covered by
the right against self- incrimination, but not when you are stripped of
your clothing, subjected to measurement of body parts, etc. because
these are only determination of certain physical attributes which are not
covered under the right.
The right applies if the mechanical act is unrelated to the
principal cause of arrest.
People v. Jaime de la Cruz, 2014
Facts:
The accused is a policeman who was arrested for alleged extortion.
When he got arrested, he was brought to the police precinct where he
was forced to produce urine sample for drug testing. When subjected to
confirmatory test, it yielded the result of the presence of shabu.
Consequently, he was charged, prosecuted and convicted of illegal
possession of drugs under Sec. 15, Art2 of RA 9165. The case went to
the Supreme Court and one of the critical issues raised is the
admissibility of the urine sample.
Ruling:
While it is true that in so many cases, non-testimonial compulsion was
allowed and the evidence obtained thereby are admitted without
violation of the right against self- incrimination, however, these pieces
of evidence were related to the principal cause of the arrest.
In this case, a drug test is in no way relevant to the principal cause of
the arrest which was extortion. Consequently, the urine sample is
inadmissible as evidence.
Important: Not all mechanical acts can be dismissed as not covered
by the right against self- incrimination. If the evidence obtained by non-
testimonial compulsion has nothing to do at all with the principal reason
for the arrest, the principle does not apply and therefore, even if the
evidence is purely mechanical, it still violates the right against self-
incrimination. There should be a nexus between the reason of the arrest
and the obtention of the non-testimonial evidence.
Summary of rules:
General rule: The right against self-incrimination applies only to testimonial
compulsion, and not to object evidence or mechanical acts.
Exceptions:
1. When the object evidence is not yet in existence and the accused is
forced to produce them.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
2. When it is not a purely mechanical act.
3. When the purely mechanical act is not at all related to the principal
cause of the arrest.
Right against self-incrimination may be waived by:
1. Failure to invoke it timely
2. Taking the witness stand and voluntary testifying. In which case, he
may be cross-examined and asked incriminating questions on any
matter he testified during direct examination.
Important: However, it does not necessarily follow that when the
accused takes the stand, he is altogether stripped of his right against
self-incrimination. He is only deemed to have waived the right insofar
as that crime he is presently charged with and prosecuted for. Such that
if he is asked for some other crime he is not presently prosecuted for,
he can always invoke the right.
When is a question deemed incriminating?
Not all questions which require adverse answers are incriminating. It is
incriminating when it elicits answers which will expose the witness to a
possible criminal liability.
Important: The right against self-incrimination may be invoked during
a criminal, civil or administrative proceeding. But for a question to be
incriminating, it is one which would expose the witness to criminal
liability only. If the answer would expose to some civil or administrative
liability, the question is not incriminating.
However, even if it relates to criminal liability but the witness cannot
anymore be prosecuted either because the crime has already prescribed or
he has already served his sentence, the same is not considered
incriminating.
People v. Ayson
While the accused may testify on his own behalf subject to cross-
examination, he may, while testifying, refuse to answer a specific
question the answer to which tends to incriminate him for some crime
other than that for which he is being prosecuted.
Question is deemed incriminating if it tends to elicit an answer that
would expose the party/witness to possible criminal liability. Thus, if
question relates to a past criminality for which a witness can no longer
be prosecuted as when it has already prescribed or he has already been
acquitted or convicted, or where he has been granted immunity, the
right is not available.
When may the right against self-incrimination be invoked?
Generally, it may be invoked in criminal, civil and administrative
proceedings, so long as the proceeding is initiated by the government. If
initiated by a private individual, the same will not apply (People v. Marti).
However, the proper time to invoke differs depending on (1) the nature of
the proceeding, and (2) the person invoking it.
1. Accused in a criminal case
The accused may refuse to take the witness stand altogether and
need not wait for an incrimination question to be asked.
Reason: The purpose for calling him to the stand is precisely to
incriminate him.
20 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
In fact, he may altogether refuse to comply with a subpoena. He
does not run the risk of being held in contempt for disobeying a
subpoena.
2. Party in civil case or administrative case
GR: An ordinary witness has no right to disobey a subpoena and
has no right to refuse to take the witness stand. He can only
invoke the right against self-incrimination as soon as incriminating
questions are asked.
XPN: When the administrative or the civil proceeding is penal in
nature or partakes of the nature of a criminal proceeding – the
party may refuse to take the stand altogether.
Cabal v. Kapunan
Facts:
This involves an administrative complaint against a member of
the military. He was accused of graft and corruption, unexplained
wealth and gross misconduct before the Office of the Secretary
of National Defence. So this is an administrative proceeding.
During the hearing, the complainant moved that their first witness
be the respondent himself. Of course, the respondent objected
invoking the right against self-incrimination. He was overruled
because he was only subjected to an administrative proceedings
and in administrative proceeding, the respondent has no right to
refuse to take the stand but only to refuse to answer if an
incriminating question is asked.
Ruling:
The court sustained the respondent, holding that while as a
general rule, the respondent in an administrative proceeding may
not refuse altogether to take the witness stand, but as an
exception – he may do so when the administrative proceeding is
penal in nature.
In this case, while it is an administrative proceeding, it is criminal
in nature in the sense that if he be found guilty, he stands the risk
of his property being forfeited and be dismissed from service.
Thus, he may not be forced to take the witness stand like an
accused in a criminal case.
Pascual v. Board of Examiners
This involves a doctor charged for malpractice. During the hearing
before the Board, the complainant manifested that the first
witness is the respondent himself. He objected, invoking the right
against self-incrimination.
The Supreme Court ruled that while the proceeding is
administrative in character, it however partakes of the nature of
a criminal proceeding because should the respondent be found
administratively liable, he stands the risk of his license being
revoked, and the right to practice one’s profession is a property
right. Thus, he may not be compelled to take the witness and can
invoke his right against self- incrimination right away.
Rosete v. Lim
Facts:
This involves a civil case – annulment of documents and recovery
of property. Parallel to the civil case, there were also criminal
complaints for estafa and violation of BP 22 filed by the plaintiff
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017

against the defendant arising from the same transactions subject People v. Montejo
matter of the civil case.
Viatory right applies only to civil cases and not to criminal cases
because of the constitutional right of the accused to have a
In relation to the civil case, the plaintiff manifested their intention
compulsory process to secure the attendance of his witnesses and
to serve notice to take the deposition of the defendant, but the
production of evidence.
latter objected on the ground that the taking of the deposition
would compel him to provide evidence against himself and the
Important: ‘Ordinary witness’ includes the private complainant
evidence would be used by the plaintiff against them in the
in a criminal case because he is only considered as a witness.
related criminal cases.

This time around, the SC ruled that in civil or administrative Exclusionary Rules under Special Laws
proceedings, the defendant may not refuse to take the stand
Exclusionary rules under Special laws:
altogether. The general rule is, the right against self-incrimination
1. RA 4000 – Anti-Wiretapping Act
may only be invoked the moment specific incriminating questions
2. RA 9995 – Anti-Voyeurism Act
are asked. However, if the civil or administrative proceeding is
3. RA 8505 Rape Shield Rule
penal in nature, the rule applicable is the same in a criminal case.
4. RA 7160 Child Sexual Abuse Shield Rule
5. Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits
Ruling:
6. Documentary Stamp Tax Law
Unfortunately, in this case, the Supreme Court held that the civil
proceeding involved is not in any way penal in nature. Thus, the
defendant may not refuse altogether to take the deposition RA 4200 Anti-Wiretapping Act
taking. So they were compelled to comply with the subpoena
Section 1, RA 4200
without prejudice to invoking their right against self-incrimination
“It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the
as soon as specific incriminating questions are asked.
parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire
or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly
Important: The Supreme Court here did not classify the civil
overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by
action as penal in nature, but if you look at the complexities of
using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or
the case, this involves an issue of ownership since the plaintiff
dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise
here sought to recover the ownership of the property subject of
described.
the documents to be nullified.
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the
This involves property rights. In other words, should the
act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly
defendant lose in the case, he would be divested of his property.
possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such
How is this any different from Cabal or Pascual?
record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured
All these involve property rights and yet the Supreme Court
either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner
categorized the civil action in Rosette v. Lim differently.
prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other person or
persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in
That is the question now, when is the proceeding penal in nature?
writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial,
Supreme Court should revisit this ruling. Because if a proceeding
to any other person.
is characterized as penal simply because there are certain
penalties attached to it when the respondent is found guilty, then
Provided, that the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence
I do not know of any civil or administrative proceeding where
in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in
there is no penalty imposed on the respondent who is found
Section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.”
guilty.

To be consistent with Pascual and Cabal, Rosette v. Lim should
not be treated differently. The only justification why the SC
classified Pascual & Capunan as penal in nature is because of the
imposable penalty involved. This is no different in the Lim case.
As it stands now, there is no clear-cut guideline on how to
determine when a proceeding is penal in nature or not.
Modes of committing wiretapping; extension telephone not
covered
Gaanan v. Court of Appeals
The law refers to a ‘tap’ of a wire or cable or the use of ‘device or
arrangement’ for the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or
recording communication. There must either be:

3. Witness in any proceeding 1. Physical interruption through a wiretap, or

GR: An ordinary witness may not refuse a subpoena and may only
invoke the right against self-incrimination when the specific
incriminating question is asked in the witness stand.
XPN: Viatory right of a witness – the right to refuse to testify when
the witness resides 100kms from the court.
XPN to XPN: Criminal case.
2. Deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to
overhear, intercept, or record spoken words.
The secretly overhearing of the conversation using a telephone
extension line does not fall in the first mode because there is no tapping
as a telephone extension is part of the telephone mechanism and it is
there for a legitimate purpose.

21 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
It also does not fall under the second mode. Applying ejusdem generis,
a telephone extension line is not of same category as dictaphone,
dictagraph, or other devices enumerated in the Act.
Even a party to the conversation may be held liable.
Ramirez v. Court of Appeals
Facts:
A party to a private conversation recorded the same without the consent
of the other party. When a complaint for violation of the Anti-
Wiretapping Act was filed against her, she argued that she cannot be
held liable because she was a party to the communication, claiming that
what the law contemplates is a situation where a third party, not a party
to the conversation overhears, intercepts or secretly records a private
conversation.
Issue: Whether or not a party to a private conversation may be held
liable under the Anti-Wiretapping Act.
Ruling:
Yes. The law makes it illegal for any person – it makes no distinction as
to whether the person sought to be penalized is a party or not to the
private conversation. The law’s intent to penalize all persons
unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of the
qualifier “any”.
Important: The law only covers private communication or spoken word
not just any communication. So, if the communication is not private,
secret recording thereof will not amount a violation of this law.
When conversation is deemed private.
Felipe Navarro v. CA
This involves a heated altercation at a police station between a police
officer and a reporter resulting in the death of the latter. The incident
was secretly recorded by another reporter, which tape recording was
presented as evidence against the police officer during trial. The police
officer objected, on the ground that the same was recorded without his
knowledge and consent in violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Act.
The Supreme Court held that the recording was not covered by the
provisions of the Anti- Wiretapping Act because it was not a private
conversation as the altercation took place at a public place, in a police
station, in the presence of other people.
Gaanan v. Court of Appeals
The Supreme Court here, although not the issue raised in the case,
made a discussion about the nature of a private communication as
distinguished from a conversation which is not private. It held that the
conversation between Atty. Pintor and Atty. Lacunico is private since the
words uttered were between a person and another person as
distinguished from words uttered between a speaker and the public. If
Atty. Pintor only knew that someone else was listening to the
conversation, he would not have proceeded with the call.
Sir: Taking cue from this discussion, it may be safe to say that a
conversation is private when it is not intended to be heard by someone
who is not supposed to be part of the conversation. The number of
parties to the conversation may not be relevant. The conversation may
20
Sir’s reservation: This makes this law crazy. The State is allowed to legalize wiretapping but
the person subject of the surveillance must be notified of any activities being done by the State
in that premises. It is just telling the subject to be careful, for they are under surveillance. In
22 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
be private if the words are spoken for the purpose of the consumption
of those who are present. If intended to be heard by anyone
indiscriminately, then it is not private.
Exclusionary Evidentiary clause under RA 4200
Section 4, RA 4200
“Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents,
substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof,
or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person
in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible
in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative
hearing or investigation.”
Important: However, while it is not admissible against the person
whose right was violated, it is admissible for purposes of prosecuting
the violator of the Act. (Ramirez v. Garcia)
RA 9732 ‘Human Security Act’ – Exception
Important: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti- Wiretapping
Act, a private conversation or any form of communication may be
intercepted or recorded under the parameters set out pursuant to the
provisions of the Human Security Act.
Section 7, RA 9372
“Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wire
Tapping Law) a police or law enforcement official, upon a written order
of the Court of Appeals, conduct surveillance using any surveillance
equipment to tap, intercept or record any conversation of whatever form
between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist
organization, association, or group of persons or of any person charged
with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism.
Provided, That surveillance, interception and recording of
communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients,
journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondence
shall not be authorized.”
Terrorism defined
The act by a person which creates a state of widespread panic or
extraordinary fear among the populace in order to compel or coerce the
government into giving in to unlawful demands.
Important: While wire-tapping is allowed, the law expressly requires
that the person subject of the legalized wire-tapping should be informed
of the same. He shall likewise be informed upon termination thereof.
The framers of this law were trying to balance authority and liberty.20
Limitations:
1. The order may only be issued by a division of the Court of Appeals
2. Effective for 30 days and extendible for another 30 days
Exceptions:
By express provision of the law, there are certain communications which
cannot be intercepted even by authority of the appropriate division of
the Court of Appeals.
fact, the State is also required to notify the subject of the surveillance upon its termination. I
don’t know how this law can be effective in a real time situation.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017

1. Lawyers and their clients Evidentiary clause in the Anti-Wire Tapping Act (AWTA) and
2. Doctors and their patients Human Security Act Compared
3. Journalists and their sources
4. Business correspondence Wire-Tapping Act Human Security Act
Evidence obtained in violation of
What happens if the lawyer and the client are members of a the Act is inadmissible against the Evidence obtained in violation
terrorist organization or charged with or suspected of party whose communication was of the Act is inadmissible
terrorism? illegally intercepted but admissible against any party regardless
against the party responsible for of whether he be the victim
ANS: The law does not make any qualification. The law considers it an
the illegal interception for purposes or offender.
exception any communication between the lawyer and the client with
of prosecution under AWTA.
no qualification.
Ramirez v. Court of Appeals
Sir: However, this should not be the case. If the lawyer and the client
are now conspiring to commit terrorism, it can hardly be justified as The word communicate comes from the Latin word communicare,
information obtained in the course of professional employment. It meaning “to share or to impart”. These definitions are broad enough to
should be qualified in that respect. But if the conversation between them include verbal or non-verbal, written or expressive communications of
involved a communication where the lawyer represented the client, said meanings or thoughts.
communication enjoys the protection of the privilege, and therefore
consistent with the exception. However that there is no jurisprudence Considering the broad meaning of ‘communication’, does the
to back this up. Anti-Wiretapping law then cover even video recording?

Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA No, for two reasons:

Facts:
Rafael Ortanez filed with the Quezon City RTC a complaint for annulment
of marriage with damages against petitioner Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez,
on grounds of lack of marriage license and/or psychological incapacity.
Among the exhibits offered by Rafael were three (3) cassette tapes of
alleged telephone conversations between Teresita and unidentified
persons.
1. Taking the entire provisions of RA 422 together, the purpose of the
law is only to cover oral or audio because of the devices specified
as modes of commission are devices designed to record audio.
Even the title of the law itself “Wiretapping” could not relate to
video.
2. When RA 4200 came into being, there was no video recording yet at
that time. Thus, it could not have ben contemplated by the framers.

These tape recordings were made and obtained when Rafael allowed
his friends from the military to wiretap his home telephone. The issue
raised before the SC is whether the recordings of the telephone
conversations are admissible in evidence.
Rulings:
The recordings are inadmissible. Absent a clear showing that both
parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the
same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under RA
4200.
Exclusionary evidentiary clause under Human Security Act
RA 9995 Anti-Voyeurism Act of 2009
Prohibited acts
1. Taking a photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons
performing sexual act or any similar activity capturing an image of
the private area of a person without the consent of the person
concerned and under such circumstance where there is a
reasonable expectation of privacy.
Important: Not necessarily sexual intercourse, but sexual act.
Sexual Act has not been defined, the law leaves it to the court.

Section 15, RA 9372 Specific list of private parts

“Evidentiary Value of Deposited Materials. – Any listened to, intercepted,
and recorded communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or
spoken or written words, or any part or parts thereof, or any information
or fact contained therein, including their existence, content, substance,
purport, effect, or meaning, which have been secured in violation of the
pertinent provisions of this Act, shall absolutely not be admissible and
usable as evidence against anybody in any judicial, quasi-judicial,
legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or
hearing.”
Important: By the phraseology alone, it is clear that intention of the
framers of the law is to provide an absolute rule of exclusion. Whether
the evidence obtained in violation of the provision is offered against the
party whose right has been violated or a party who violated the law, the
evidence is inadmissible because of the employment of the word
“absolute” and the specific reference to “anybody”. These terms are not
present in Anti-Wire Tapping Act.
The law expressly enumerates the private area. The private parts
are specific. If not in the list, the same is not covered:
1. Naked genitals
2. Undergarment-clad genitals (ex. Picture or video of a woman
in her underwear)
3. Pubic area
4. Buttocks
5. Female breasts
Qualifying circumstances
1. Without consent
2. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Important: Consent and reasonable expectation of privacy need
not concur. While the law is worded as “and”, the practical
application is this: If one consents to the taking, then the second
is understood. But if there is no express consent, then you may go

23 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
to the second because it’s easier to judge or determine whether
there is reasonable expectation of privacy or not.
TN: Thus, if you take a photo or video of a person naked in the
middle of the plaza, the same is not violative of this law because
that person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. In other
words, in the absence of reasonable expectation of privacy, there
can be no violation.21
2. Selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or
exhibiting the photo or video coverage.
Important: Even if the person concerned consented to the taking
of the photo or video, a violation of this Act may still be committed
if the offender reproduces the image or sells, peddles or publishes,
because these are separate punishable acts. Consent to the taking
is not consent to the reproduction, copying, selling, distribution or
publication.22
Exclusionary Evidentiary clause under RA 9995
Section 7, RA 9995
“Any record, photo or video, or copy thereof, obtained or secured by
any person in violation of the preceding sections shall not be admissible
in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative
hearing or investigation.”
GR: Evidence obtained in violation of this Act is inadmissible.
XPN: Peace officer authorized by a written order of the court to use the
record or any copy as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial
of the crime of photo or video voyeurism.
Evidence obtained in violation of this act may be offered in
evidence against the violator, subject to these conditions:
1. The applicant or proponent must obtain a prior court order.
2. When the court is convinced that said evidence is:
(a) Necessary for the prosecution and conviction of the violator
of the law, or
(b) Necessary to prevent further violation of the law
Important: If the purpose is to prosecute, the application can be done
in the very case where the violator is being prosecuted. But if the
purpose is to prevent violation, it’s an independent action.
RA 8505 Rape Shield Rule
RA 8505 ‘Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act’.
The exclusionary evidentiary clause is called ‘Rape Shield Rule’.
Section 6, RA 8505
“Rape shield – In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant’s past
sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his or her reputation shall not be
admitted, unless and only to the extent that the court finds that such
evidence is material and relevant to the case.”
21
The same can be said when one joins a beauty pageant, or wears a bikini in a beach. In these
two instances, one could hardly invoke privacy.
22
This is one of the considerations why the video of Sen. De Lima and Dayan, despite pressures
from some sectors, was not allowed to be exhibited during the House Investigation. If no
24 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
GR: In a prosecution for rape, evidence of the victim’s other sexual
conduct or opinion of the victim’s sexual conduct or reputation is
inadmissible in evidence.
XPN: As to the extent that the court finds that the evidence is relevant
and material. 23
Example: Mr. Cabatana is charged with rape, he cannot introduce
evidence that the woman is one of loose moral because that is an
evidence of the woman’s sexual reputation that is expressly disallowed.
Child Sexual Abuse Shield Rule
RA 7610 ‘Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act.’
The exclusionary evidentiary clause is known as the ‘Sexual Abuse Shield
Rule’.
Important: Applies only to criminal, and not civil prosecution for child
sexual abuse.
Section 30, RA 7610
(a) “Inadmissible evidence. — The following evidence is not admissible
in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse:
(1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in
other sexual behavior; and
(2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the
alleged victim.
(b) Exception. — Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by
the alleged victim to prove that a person other than the accused was
the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be
admissible.”
Example: Mr. Cabatana’s defense is that he’s not the one who abused the
child but Mr. Belarmino, and the semen found is that of the latter. Mr.
Cabatana can introduce evidence offered to prove that the child is engaged
in a sexual behavior with Mr. Belarmino.
Important: So if the purpose of the evidence is to prove that the
accused is not the one responsible for the alleged sexual abuse,
evidence of the complainant’s or the victim’s sexual conduct or specific
instances of sexual conduct is admissible.
Laws on Secrecy of Bank Deposits
Section 2, RA 1405 ‘Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act’
“All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the
Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the
Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby
considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be
examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official,
bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in
cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of
bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money
deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.”
consent was given to the exhibition/publication, it’s obviously a violation and the proponent,
Sec. Aguirre could face criminal prosecution.
23
Sir: To me, this provision serves only a decorative purpose since this has no practical effect.
This is superfluous because even without this provision, any evidence which is irrelevant and
immaterial is really inadmissible.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017

RA 1405 is a law of general application times and when arrested, escaped from custody. When the court ruled
Declares all bank deposits, whether domestic or foreign, as confidential. in favor of the Filipino, the accused could no longer be found. However,
Disclosure or inquiry into said bank deposits is prohibited, subject to the he had foreign currency deposits with China Bank, and the family of the
following exceptions: victim sought to garnish said deposits to satisfy the award of damages.

1. Written consent of depositor Ruling:

2. In cases of impeachment The garnishment is valid. The foreigner should not be protected by the
3. When the deposit is subject of litigation same laws he himself disobeyed. To rule otherwise would result in an
4. Upon a court order in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty injustice and would negate Article 10 of the NCC which provides that "in
5. Upon authority by the Monetary Board in cases of unexplained case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed
wealth that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.”

Section 8, RA 6426 ‘Foreign Currency Deposit Act’ Sir: Here, the Supreme Court took out the case from the coverage of
“All foreign currency deposits are hereby declared as and considered of an the law by resorting to statutory construction. It went beyond the literal
absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of language of the provision which provides for absolute confidentiality
the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, with only one exception.
inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office
whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether However, it revisited the history and the reason behind the enactment
public or private. of the law. According to the court, the law was enacted when the
economy was not good and it was to encourage foreign investments.
Provided, however, that said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt Since the accused was not really an investor but a mere transient guest,
from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, his deposit is hardly helpful to the economy. But the real reason is really
legislative body, government agency or any administrative body to give justice to the Filipina.
whatsoever.”
Documentary Stamp Tax Laws
RA 6426 is a law of special application
Declares foreign currency deposits as absolutely confidential, subject to National Internal Revenue Code
only one exception: The NIRC declares certain documents to be taxable, and unless the
1. Written consent of depositor Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) is paid, the document is inadmissible in
evidence. (Section 201, NIRC)
Difference between RA 1405 and RA 6426:
Section 201, NIRC
RA 1405 RA 6426 “Effect of Failure to Stamp Taxable Document. - An instrument, document
Law of general application Law of special application or paper which is required by law to be stamped and which has been
Applies to all kinds of bank Apply only to foreign currency signed, issued, accepted or transferred without being duly stamped, shall
deposits, whether domestic or deposits not be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof or any record of transfer
foreign of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any court until the requisite
5 exceptions Only 1 exception stamp or stamps are affixed thereto and cancelled.”

PSB v. Senate of the Republic acting as Impeachment Court Taxable documents

There are certain documents which are required to be compliant with the
This concerns the impeachment trial of then CJ Corona, who was DST law before they can be admitted as evidence in court. These are so
accused of maintaining various bank deposits not included in his SALN. called taxable documents. There are so many in the list but the documents
The Senate Impeachment Court issued a subpoena to PSB commanding you will normally encounter in your practice are:
it to disclose some foreign currency deposits allegedly owned by CJ
Corona. PSB scrambled to get a TRO from the Supreme Court. 1. Originally issued certificate of stocks
The Supreme Court issued the TRO upholding the secrecy and absolute 2. Insurance policies
confidentiality of the foreign currency deposits under RA 8426. The only 3. Lease contracts
exception, written consent of the depositor, is not obtaining in this case. 4. Deeds of conveyance of real property
5. Special powers of attorney
Sir: The protection accorded to a foreign currency deposit is two-fold:
(1) Confidentiality, and (2) Immunity from garnishment, attachment and Gabucan case
other court processes. If a taxable document is offered in evidence, and the proponent fails to
show that the DST is paid, the court should order the compliance of the
Important: While it is true that under RA 6426, foreign currency requirement. The court may not exclude the document right away. It is
deposits are absolutely confidential absent the written consent of the only when the proponent fails to comply with the order can the evidence
depositor, the Supreme Court in the case of Salvacion v. Central Bank be now excluded. . It is the failure to comply with the order that entails
made a jurisprudential exception – public policy. the harsher consequences.

Salvacion v. Central Bank Sir: In one case, the Supreme Court reprimanded trial court for
Facts: disapproving a will on the ground that the acknowledgment portion of
A minor Filipina was a victim of a heinous crime committed by a the notarial will did not comply with DST law. Instead of disapproving
foreigner who violated the law with impunity. He raped the minor 10 the will, it should have allowed the proponent to comply with the law. It

25 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017

is only when, despite given the opportunity to comply, the proponent 7. The official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of
remains bull-headed, that the petition may be dismissed or adverse the Philippines
sanctions may be imposed. 8. The laws of nature
9. The measure of time, and
Important: The inadmissible character of the taxable document is 10. The geographical divisions.
coterminous with its being non-compliant with the DST law. In other
words, the moment it complies with DST, it becomes admissible. TN: The list is exclusive.

When Evidence May Be Dispensed With
Evidence is necessary if there are issues of facts
For the purpose of evidence is to ascertain the truth with respect to a
matter of fact. There are instances however where evidence may be
dispensed with but a fact is nonetheless established.
Important: The burden lies with the court to take judicial notice. If it
is confronted with a factual issue that is proper for judicial notice, the
court will have to resort to any possible source of information. Not
evidence but information. Research material, literature on the subject,
etc. That is how the court discharges the burden of applying the judicial
notice rule.

GR: If you want to establish a fact in issue, present evidence during Law of nations is not the same with foreign law
trial. Laws of nations refer to international law, or the laws that govern the
relations of states and international entities. Do not confuse this with
XPNs: Facts deemed established as true even without need of evidence: foreign laws as foreign law is not necessarily an international law.
1. When the fact is that which the court takes judicial notice
Under our jurisdiction, our courts do not take judicial notice over foreign
2. When the fact is judicially admitted by a party
laws. Foreign laws need to be proved as a fact.
3. When the fact is presumed by law
The anatomical location of kidneys is a law of nature.
Judicial Notice
Atienza v. Board of Medicine
Judicial notice
Judicial notice as an evidentiary rule is premised on the fact that there Facts:
are matters which are known or ought to be known by judges by reason This involved an action for damages filed by a patient and her husband
of their judicial functions, even if in actuality, the judge may be after a major surgery gone awry. The patient was supposed to undergo
completely ignorant. a surgical operation of her non-functional kidney but for one reason or
another, it was the right functioning kidney which was removed. The
Important: However, these maters should only be known by the surgeon was sued for malpractice, medical negligence.
judges in relation to their judicial functions. Such that, if matters relate
personally, or are known by judges based on their personal experiences, To support the claim of negligence, the plaintiff presented photocopies
not necessarily related to judicial functions, then these matters do not of certain documents consisting of request for x-ray which contains the
come under the purview of judicial notice.24 marginal notes or interpretation of the radiologist. This was offered in
evidence. The problem there was that only photocopies were offered.
Two kinds of judicial notice Photocopies were objected to by the respondent under the best
evidence rule.
1. Mandatory judicial notice – matters which the courts are required
mandatorily to take judicial notice Ruling:
2. Discretionary judicial notice – matters which the courts may take The best evidence rule does not apply. The purpose of offering the
judicial notice according to its discretion. document as evidence is to establish the exact anatomical location of
the kidneys before and during the surgery. The photocopies or even the
Mandatory Judicial Notice original of these documents are not even necessary to prove that fact
because the anatomical location of the kidneys is a matter that the court
Rule 129, Section 1. should take mandatory judicial notice.
“Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice,
without the introduction of evidence, of: Laws of nature, science, biology, the composition of a living organism
including the human body, the court is supposed to know them. Under
1. The existence and territorial extent of states the laws of nature, kidneys are always found in the place where they
2. Their political history are supposed to be – the right in the right and the left in the left.
3. Forms of government and symbols of nationality
4. The law of nations
5. The admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals
6. The political constitution and history of the Philippines

24
Example: Mr. Cabatana is married to Ms. Mole and 2 years thereafter, Ms. Mole filed an action
in court for legal separation on the ground that Mr. Cabatana is a monstrous homosexual. The
case is filed and pending before Judge Belarmino.
After the trial, Ms. Mole failed to prove that Mr. Cabatana is really a homosexual. Unfortunately
for Mr. Cabatana, Judge Belarmino happens to be a homosexual himself. In fact, they belong to
the same flock – Association of Closet Gays in the Philippines.
Judge Belarmino may have personal knowledge of Mr. Cabatana’s homosexuality, but Judge
Belarmino’s personal knowledge of Mr. Cabatana’s homosexuality cannot be used as basis for
his decision in granting the petition for legal separation on the ground of homosexuality. Judge
Belarmino’s knowledge of Mr. Cabatana’s sexual orientation relates to his personal knowledge –
not a matter that is known or ought to be known by him by reason of his being a judge.

26 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
Distinguish Atienza from Beong.
Dra. Dela Llano v. Rebekah Beong
Facts:
This involves a vehicular accident involving a doctor whose vehicle was
hit behind by another vehicle and as a result of which, the doctor
claimed that she suffered an injury known in science as ‘whiplash injury’.
This is an injury that one suffers when his vehicle is hit from behind. (So
the moral lesson there is “don’t ever get hit from behind”)
Dra. Llano sued the owner of the truck that bumped her car for
damages. She herself testified on the medical report prepared by
another expert doctor.
Ruling:
Dra. Llano was offered to testify as an ordinary witness, so she could
not testify on the findings found in the medical report because she was
not the one who prepared the same. In short, the court said Dra. Llana
failed to establish the connection between the injury and the incident.
It was urged that the court should take judicial notice of the fact that
whiplash injury is caused by vehicular accidents. However, the Supreme
Court said that courts are no experts in medicine. Hence, it cannot take
judicial notice of the fact that whiplash injuries are caused by vehicular
accidents.
Discretionary Judicial Notice
Rule 129, Section 2.
Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take judicial notice of
matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable
demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial
functions.
Matters which the court may or may not take Judicial Notice:
1. Matters which are of public knowledge
2. Matters which are capable of unquestionable demonstration; and
3. Matters which ought to be known to judges by reason of their
judicial functions
Matters capable of unquestionable demonstration
Value of common goods
People v. Cabiguez
Facts:
This involves prosecution for robbery and rape. The accused robbed and
raped the owner of a sari-sari store. Other than the criminal liability,
the court also adjudged him civilly liable for the value of the items
illegally taken.
On appeal, aside from questioning his criminal liability, the accused also
questioned the award of P10,000 representing the value of the items
subject of the robbery. The items consisted of soap, canned goods,
sugar, coffee, milk and cigarettes—common items that can be found in
a sari-sari store.
The accused argued that it as error for the trial court to award P10,000
pesos because the private complainant failed to prove the actual value
of the items taken.
27 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
Ruling:
SC sustained the findings of the trial court, saying that the value of the
common goods which can be ordinarily found in the sari-sari store may
be taken judicial notice by the court for being matters of public
knowledge and matters capable of unquestionable demonstration. The
common goods have commonly known prices; common knowledge.
New Sunvalley Homeowners v. Sun Valley Barangay Council
Facts:
There is a subdivision, New Sunvalley, in Paranaque City. The
Sangguniang Barangay passed a Resolution opening a portion of the
subdivision for traffic or access to motorists. This legislative measure
was meant to solve the traffic problem in the area.
The homeowners objected to the resolution on the ground that the
opening of that portion would endanger the security and safety of the
homeowners living in the subdivision.
In order to convince the Court to rule in their favor, the homeowners
argued that the court can take judicial notice of the fact that criminal
activities, like robbery and kidnapping, are becoming daily staple in
Philippine society.
Ruling:
The SC admonished the Homeowners. That is absurd. The court does
not take judicial notice of criminal activities.
Culture and human behavior
The court, by jurisprudence, takes judicial notice of:
1. Culture existing in the community
2. Human behavior and ordinary human experience
Examples:
1. Culture existing in the community
In rape cases, the SC would not fail to include in the decision that
no woman, specially a provincial lass, would come forward to
complain of rape and subject herself to the wagging tongue of the
public if her story is not true.
2. Human behavior and ordinary human experience
The court takes judicial notice of the common and natural
reluctance of witnesses of violent crimes to come forward because
of the fear of getting involved or fear of reprisal.
This is especially true if it involves violent crimes. Witnesses would
come forward, years, months, after the incident. The defense
would normally assail the credibility of the witness claiming that if
he really witnessed the incident, he should’ve reported immediately
to the police and executed an affidavit. But the Supreme Court
takes judicial notice of this kind of human behavior.
Matters ought to be known by reason of their judicial functions
An evidence or document which forms part of the record of the same
case. It may be argued that the court, by reason of its judicial function,
ought to be aware of the contents of the records of the case pending
before it.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
Important: The court may not take judicial notice of records of another
case, even if that another case is filed in the same court and heard by
the same judge.25
How to reconcile with rule on offer of evidence
The problem however is, this may collide with the basic principle in the
rules that the court is not supposed to consider evidence unless it is
formally offered.
Rule 132, Section 34.
“Offer of evidence — The court shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered
must be specified.”
Sir: Under this provision, mere physical attachment of a record or
document to a case is not sufficient for the court to take into
consideration the document for the purpose of appreciating evidence
and resolving the issues of the case.
Conflicting cases on the matter
Natividad Candido v.CA
Facts:
This involves a piece of land owned by Candido but tenanted by the
defendant—tenancy relationship exists. Alleging that the defendant
terminated the tenancy relationship and at the same time failed to pay
the rentals in terms of numbers of sacks of palay, the plaintiff-owner
filed a case on court to collect the unpaid rentals.
In support of the plaintiff’s complaint, she attached therewith an
affidavit which contains the allegation of the exact arrangement as to
the rentals. However, said affidavit was not formally offered during the
trial, and for which reason the court dismissed the case, on the ground
that the plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove the value or
the amount of the agreed rental, and hence, failure to prove cause of
action.
The plaintiff however asks the court to take judicial notice of her affidavit
because while it was not formally offered, the same was actually
attached to the complaint and thus forms part of the records of the case.
Ruling:
The court refused to take judicial notice of the affidavit, even if the same
was physically attached to the records. The Supreme Court said that it
is clear under the rules that the court shall not consider evidence not
formally offered. So for failure to formally offer the affidavit which
specified the amount of the monthly rental, the SC affirmed the dismissal
of the complaint.
Here, it was clear that the physical submission of the affidavit and the
fact that it forms part of the record of the case is not enough for the
court to consider it as evidence.
25
In the prosecution for BP 22 and Estafa, oftentimes these cases go along as they arose from
the same issuance of a bounced check. The separate trials for these cases move forward
separately. Since these crimes arose from the same incident, normally, the evidence of the first
case is the same evidence in the second case.
Supposedly, the BP 22 case went ahead than the Estafa; witnesses testified and other evidences
were offered. The records in the BP 22 case may not be taken as judicial notice by the court
28 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
BPI v. Court of Appeals
Facts:
This involves a claim for refund filed by BPI Savings Bank against the
BIR. It appears that for taxable year 1989, BPI over withheld its income
covered with taxes. In taxation, the taxpayer, who made overpayment
of tax, could either ask for a tax refund or claim it as tax credit in the
succeeding taxable year.
Initially, BPI chose to claim it as a tax credit to be applied to its liability
in the succeeding year 1990. However, it turns out that in 1990, BPI
incurred a net loss, so there was no tax to speak of. Thus, BPI demanded
for a tax refund but BIR refused to act. BPI was compelled to go to the
CTA where the trial was held.
BPI presented evidence that it did not credit the refundable amount to
taxable year 1990 because it incurred net loss. CTA made a definitive
finding that BPI incurred a net loss in 1990 and therefore, could not
have claimed tax credit because it did not have liability in 1990.
BIR appealed to the SC, claiming that BPI failed to prove that it did not
credit the claimed refundable amount to its 1990 tax liability.
Issue: Whether BPI is entitled to refund.
Ruling:
Yes. BPI presented enough evidence—presented as witness the officers
and employees of the bank who testified that for 1990 a net loss was
incurred and the overpaid amount in 1989 was not credited to the 1990
taxable year.
The SC also took note of the decision of the CTA where the CTA made
the definitive factual finding that in 1990, BPI incurred a net loss.
BIR urged the court not to take judicial notice of the CTA decision as the
same was not formally offered, in violation of Rule 132. However, the
Supreme Court disagreed by holding that there are matters that are
ought to be known by judges by reason of their judicial functions—one
of these is the records of the same case.
Since the copy of the CTA decision was attached to the petition for
review filed by the BPI with the SC, the same forms part of the records
of the case. The court can take judicial notice of the records of the same
case even if not formally offered.
Sir: This is now a grey area in law. The jurisprudence contradicts each
other and creates anomalous situations.
How to reconcile
Sir: In practice, though not supported by the rules:
When strictly applied
The requirement that evidence must be formally offered is more applied
and strictly demanded if the evidence is necessary to prove a party’s
cause of action or defense, that is, if the evidence is necessary to prove
issues raised in the main case.
handling the Estafa case because the records are different even if arising from the same series
of transactions.
However, the records of the same case may be taken judicial notice. All records pertaining to
the Estafa case may be taken judicial notice of by the court that hears the Estafa case.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
When relaxed
But if the evidence, which forms part of the case, is used for certain
incidence other than the merits of the case, the rule on judicial notice
may be liberally applied and therefore, the court may take judicial notice
even if the evidence was not formally offered.
Important: So distinguish whether the evidence is in relation to the
main case or only incidental thereto.
Example: Case for collection of money. Upon the filling of the complaint,
the court issues summons which is subsequently served on the
defendant. Under the ROC, upon service of summons, the defendant is
required to file his answer and failure to do so within the 15-day period
entitles the plaintiff to move to declare the defendant in default.
How to prove that the summons was in fact issued by the court? The
summon itself. How to prove that the summons has been served upon
the defendant? The sheriff’s return; sheriff will make a report which will
become part of the record of the case.
If 15 days have lapsed without the defendant filing an answer, a motion
to declare defendant in default may be filed by the plaintiff – this is an
incidence to the main case. Thus, even if the plaintiff-complainant does
not formally offer in evidence the copy of the summons and the sheriff’s
return/report or the entire records showing that no answer was filled—
the court may rule or declare the defendant in default because the court
may take judicial notice of the records of the case.
Sir: In the exam, just choose the rule which will work in your favor.
Clarifications from the class:
1. Can discretionary judicial notices be considered mandatory judicial
notices by the mere fact that they have already been cited, used,
and decided upon by the Supreme Court? Can they now be
considered as judicial acts? (e.g. the discretionary judicial notice
on shy women from the province frequently used by SC)
ANS: If it is the trial court taking judicial notice of the decision of
the Supreme Court, this falls under mandatory judicial notice being
an official act of the judiciary
However, if the court takes judicial notice of the culture of women
in barangays, that they are shy that it is impossible for them to
fabricate rape charges unless they were true – we are not now
referring to official acts, rather, we are referring to the existing
culture in the community. It is therefore discretionary.
Important: The lower courts are not taking judicial notice of the
discretionary judicial notices (e.g. culture) taken by the higher
courts. Rather, it is a mandatory judicial notice of official acts by
the courts through their decisions.
2. What is the rule on the judicial notice regarding RTC and CA?
ANS: The Rule on Judicial notice of courts are co-terminus with
their territorial jurisdiction. The laws or ordinances existing in that
26
However, it does not mean that the admission will not bind the party calling him a witness at
all. It still binds the party, but not conclusively. Note that under Rule 130, Section 12, a party
cannot impeach his own witness. To discredit a damaging statement, the remedy is to ask the
court to declare the witness as hostile.
27
A deposition taking is not conducted by the judge and is conducted outside the courtroom but
deemed part of the court proceedings. The deposition taking partakes of the nature of a court
29 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
territory or municipality must be taken judicial notice by the
respective courts. CA is national in scope.
TN: Check the case of City of Manila v. Garcia regarding the judicial
notice rule of RTCs.
Judicial Admission
Section 4, Rule 129
“Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by the
party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require
proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was
made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.”
Sir: This is another instance where a fact is deemed established without
need for introduction of evidence. Logically, formal offer of evidence is
also dispensed with.
Elements:
1. May be either verbal or written
2. Made by a party to the case
3. Made in the proceedings of the same case
‘Party’ includes the lawyer
A lawyer is considered the agent or the extension of the party. Hence,
any act or admission of the counsel is deemed to be the act or admission
of the client. In fact, the negligence or fault of the lawyer is also deemed
negligence or fault of the client, except if the negligence is so gross that
it results in the denial of the client’s due process.
Admission of a witness not a judicial admission
The admission by a witness during trial cannot be considered a judicial
admission which shall conclusively bind the party calling him as witness,
as the Rule is explicit that a judicial admission can only be made by a
party. 26
Admission must be made in the proceedings of the same case
Generally and essentially, judicial admission is that made in the course
of the court proceeding. Normally, it is done inside the court.
Exception:
When the admission is made in the course of a deposition taking.27
Deposition proceeding is deemed part of the court proceeding even if
not done inside the courtroom nor conducted by a judge. Any
admissions therein are thus judicial admissions.
Judicial Admissions, How made
1. Admissions in the pleadings filed in court.
Any allegations made in the pleading filed by the party’s lawyer are
deemed judicial admissions and are binding and conclusive upon
the party.
2. Any oral manifestations made by the lawyer in the course
of a court proceeding.
proceeding—there is a presiding officer called as the deposition officer; the witness is called the
deponent; and the lawyers of both parties participate. The deponent is directed into direct
examination and will also be subjected to a cross-examination by the adverse party. What makes
it a judicial admission is the fact that a deposition taking is part of that same case. So, any
admission made by a party deponent in that case is deemed judicial admission.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
Manifestations by the lawyer in the course of court proceedings are
deemed judicial admissions and are binding upon the client.
Counsel is an extension of the personality of the party.
Exception:
Stipulations made by the lawyer during pre-trial proceedings in a
criminal case. This is not admissible against the accused unless
signed by him.
3. Any admissions made by a party in the course of the
proceeding.
4. Admissions made in the course of a deposition proceeding
Deposition proceeding is deemed part of the court proceeding even
if not done inside the courtroom nor conducted by a judge. Any
admissions therein are thus judicial admissions.
5. Admission made in the answer filed in reply to a request
for Judicial Admission
Any answer filed or made by the other party to such request is
deemed a judicial admission in so far as that case is concerned.
Effects of a Judicial Admission
1. Evidence is dispensed with but a fact is nonetheless
established.
Thus, when the plaintiff says that the defendant owes him 1M, and
the defendant admits, there is no need for presentation of evidence
to prove the existence the 1M obligation. The fact of debt is
deemed established without need for evidence.
GR: Formal offer of evidence is not required.
XPNs:
a) In case of deposition
Under Rule 23, Sections 6 and 8, in case the party who
resorts to deposition taking decides to make use of the same
because he believes that it is favorable to him,28 it is
specifically required that the records of the deposition taking
be formally offered as evidence before it can be considered
by the court. The purpose is to allow the parties to make
objections to the evidence presented during the deposition
taking.
b) When accused pleads guilty to a capital offense.
Given the gravity of the imposable penalty, the court is
required to conduct an inquiry to determine the
voluntariness of the guilty plea and full comprehension of
the consequences thereof, to avoid the adverse effects of an
improvident plea.
A guilty plea to a capital offense during arraignment is a
judicial admission but, by express provision of the rules, said
judicial admission is not enough to establish the guilt of the
accused.
28
After the deposition taking, the deposition officer is required to submit the records of the
deposition taking, which must then be sealed. Take note that a party who resorts the deposition
taking is not compelled by law to offer the records thereof as his evidence. However, in case he
decides to make use of it because he believes it is favorable to him, the rules require that the
30 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
The court shall still require the prosecution to prove the guilt
of the accused and the accused may be allowed to present
his evidence.
2. The judicial admission is binding and conclusive upon the
admitter, and cannot thus be controverted.
Whatever evidence that a party may submit contrary to or
inconsistent with the judicial admission, should not be considered
by the court. That is consistent with the conclusive nature of a
judicial admission insofar as the admitter is concerned.
Santos v. Lumbao
This involves two parcels of land owned by its previous owner, who
sold her shares in the property at the time when the property was
still at the state of co-ownership. Allegedly, she sold her share to
the buyers but despite the sale, the buyers were not able to cause
the transfer of the title in their names because the co-owners have
yet to partition the property.
Thus, the buyers were not able to secure title on their names until
the seller died. When the buyer demanded for the partition from
the heirs of the seller, the latter now claim that the seller did not
sell the property to the buyers. The buyers were compelled to file
an action to compel the heirs to deliver the title for purposes of
protecting their interests.
One of the pieces of evidence presented by the plaintiffs was the
deed of sale, purportedly executed by the prior owner-seller in
favor of the plaintiffs. It appears that in these documents, some
two of the heirs even signed as witness.
Upon receipt of summons, the defendants including the two heirs-
witnesses filed their answer, the latter admitting that they signed
as witnesses. However, during trial, they denied having signed as
witnesses in the deed of sale, and now challenging the genuineness
and due execution of the deed of sale, claiming forgery.
Issue: Whether the admission made by the defendants in their
answer is binding upon them.
Ruling:
The SC, applying the principle of judicial admission, said that
defendants cannot anymore controvert their admissions because
they are binding and conclusive upon them.
Sps. Binarao v. Plus Builders Inc.
Facts:
This involves an action filed by the developer to compel the
subdivision buyer to pay the balance of the purchase price.
Plus Builders Inc. is engaged in realty business, developing some
subdivision projects. One of the customers were Sps. Binarao who
bought a unit in installment. For falling to pay the purchase price
in full, the developer was constrained to file a case against the
spouses to claim the unpaid balance of the purchase price.
party should move for the opening and make a formal offer of the records of the deposition
taking.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
In their answer, the spouses admitted that they already paid the
partial but they still have a remaining balance. In other words, in
their answer, they admitted the existence of the unpaid balance.
However, during trial, the spouses now claim that they have no
more pending obligation or liability to the plaintiff as they have fully
paid the same.
Ruling:
The SC said that they have already made a judicial admission when
they admitted in their answer the existence of the unpaid balance.
Under the rules of judicial admission, they cannot now be heard to
say otherwise because the admission is binding and conclusive
upon them.
Duty of the court to disregard contradictory evidence
What is the duty of the court when evidence is presented contrary to an
earlier admission, without the adverse party objecting?
ANS: As a general rule, objections to admission of evidence are not self-
executing provisions. They need to be invoked by the proper party at a
proper time. Objection to admission of evidence is thus waivable and
would then have the effect of admitting a supposedly inadmissible
evidence.
However, this rule does not apply in the case of judicial admission.
Whatever evidence that a party may submit contrary to or in consistent
with the judicial admission, even if objected to or not by the adverse
party, should not be considered by the court. That is consistent with the
conclusive nature of a judicial admission insofar as the admitter is
concerned. In other words, the law imposes upon the court the duty to
disregard such contrary evidence. This was the ruling in the case of
Elayda v. Court of Appeals.
Elayda v. Court of Appeals
Facts:
This involves a petition for collection of sums of money. In her
complaint, plaintiff Elayda alleges that the defendants owed her 90,000,
who despite demand, failed to pay.
During trial, while admitting that they were indeed indebted, defendants
however introduced evidence that they already paid. Such payment
were in fact more than the alleged obligation sued upon by Elayda.
Upon realizing this defect, Elayda belatedly presented a document which
was a statement of her accountant that, contrary to the allegations in
her complaint, the total debt was supposedly 186,000, instead of
P90,000.
Issue: Whether the evidence belatedly presented by Elayda to prove the
total obligation may be admitted.
Ruling:
No. Elayda already made a judicial admission in her complaint that the
debt was only P90,000. Any evidence that the admitter may submit to
the court, contrary to or inconsistent with the judicial admission should
29
Rule 10, Section 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence – When
issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties,
they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment
of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise
these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but
failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues.
31 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
not be considered by the court even if such evidence is objected to or
not by the adverse party.
Important: The problem with this doctrine, however, is that it does not
take into consideration the rule on amendment to conform to evidence
under Rule 10, Section 5.29 This rule somehow contradicts the supposed
conclusive nature of a judicial admission.
The conflict between the rule on Judicial Admission and
Amendment to Conform to Evidence
Under the rule on judicial admission, the pleadings prevail over
evidence. Whatever is alleged in the pleading is considered judicial
admission and no evidence is allowed to controvert it. So admission or
allegation takes precedence over evidence.
However, under the rule on amendment to conform to evidence, it says
that when issues not raised in the pleadings are tried by the parties, the
court shall allow the amendment of the complaint to conform to the
evidence presented. If no objection is raised, the court shall allow an
amendment. If there is an objection raised by adverse party, court may
still allow an amendment provided it is established that the other party
would not be prejudiced and the substantial interest of justice would be
served thereby.
To emphasize policy favouring amendment, the rule even says that
failure to amend does not affect the trial of the issue based on the
evidence presented. For all intents and purposes, amendment is deemed
made.
Rule 10 therefore promotes the policy that evidence should prevail over
mere allegations in the pleadings because it allows presentation of
evidence even if these will prove something not otherwise alleged in the
pleading.
Hence, under the Elaida ruling, it is the allegation that prevails over the
evidence. But under Rule 10 sec 5, it is the evidence which prevails over
the allegation. So had the Elaida case been decided under Rule 10 Sec
5, Elaida would have been allowed to collect 186,000.
Case applying the rule on amendment to conform to evidence
Azolla Farms v. CA
Azolla Farms embarked on certain project. In need for case, it obtained
a loan from a bank, through its President. When the loan was approved,
the bank did not release the entire proceeds of the loan at once, but
released the same on installment basis.
It came to the attention of the bank that the president diverted the
proceeds of the loan for purposes other than the project for which the
loan was applied. Thus, the bank refused to release the remaining
proceeds of the loan, resulting in the eventual failure of the project.
A complaint was then filed by Azolla Farms and the President against
the bank. In the complaint, they admitted that the loan transactions and
other collateral agreements that they entered into were all legal. Their
only complaint was the malicious refusal by the bank to release the
remaining proceeds of the loan.
If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the
pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the
presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved
thereby. The court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
However, during trial, one of the witnesses of the bank testified and
disclosed some facts establishing that the transactions were somehow
invalid. Taking cue from the disclosures made by the witness, Azolla
Farms and the President tried to amend their complaint to now include
an allegation that the transaction was invalid and prayed that it be
declared null and void.
Ruling:
Supreme Court sustained Azolla farms applying the rule on amendment
to conform to evidence under Rule 10, Section 5.
Sir: If this case was decided in light of the judicial admission rule, the
decision would have been different because the admission made by the
plaintiffs in the complaint that the transaction was valid should have
been binding and conclusive upon the plaintiffs. They should not be
allowed to turn around and claim that the transaction is invalid.
Hence, we have the Elaida doctrine on one hand and the Azolla Farms
on the other. Contradictory procedural policies. For purposes of the
exam, choose the doctrine which will work on your favor.
When judicial admission may be controverted
GR: A judicial admission is binding and conclusive upon the admitter,
and may thus not be controverted.
XPNs:
1. Judicial admission was made through palpable mistake
2. That no such admission was made
Judicial admission made through palpable mistake
Take note that the mistake must be ‘palpable.’
In relation to the rule on amendment to conform to evidence, sir said:
Perhaps, if a party can establish that the admission was made through
palpable mistake, then maybe amendment can be allowed in light of
Rule 10, Sec. 5. Because the condition for allowing is that, even if the
other party objects to the amendment to conform to evidence, the court
should still allow if amending it would afford the parties to litigate the
merits of their verbal claims and it would subserve the interest of justice.
Amendment is liberally encouraged by the rules, as opposed to the rule
on judicial admission where effectively, amendment is absolutely
foreclosed.
That no such admission was made
The phrase, ‘no such admission was made’ may include a scenario where
an admission was in fact made but the admission was taken out of
context.
Atillo v. Lhuiller
Principle: An admission was in fact made but was taken out of context,
it was made to appear to mean something different from what the
admission actually meant.
Facts:
Atillo is the majority stockholder and President of Amancor, Inc. To
finance its business, Amancor through Atillo, obtained a corporate loan
from Metrobank. As security thereof, Atillo mortgaged his own property.
In pursuit of the business, Atillo entered into several contracts with Mr.
Lhuiller. The first contract involves the acquisition of shares of stocks
32 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
where Mr. Lhuillier purchased shares of stocks from Amancor thereby
making him Lhuiller a stockholder of the corporation.
The second transaction was for Mr. Lhuiller to infuse fresh capital to the
corporation. It was agreed that Atillo can dispose of his mortgaged
property with Metrobank, but Atillo would assume the obligation of
Amancor which it owed to the bank. In turn, Amancor would pay Atillo
the amount he advanced in satisfaction of the loan. This was done so
the property would be free from lien or encumbrance.
It turns out however that Atillo has a pending obligation to Amancor,
and so the amount he paid in satisfaction of the loan with the bank was
set off against his personal obligation to Amancor.
However, the obligation of Atillo to the Amancor is smaller than the
amount he paid to the bank. So Atillo now has a pending collectible
against Amancor. Atillo now then is the creditor of Amancor.
When Amancor failed to pay its obligation to Atillo, the latter filed a
collection case against Amancor, and included Mr. Lhuiller, praying that
Mr. Lhuiller be held solidarily liable with Amancor.
In support of his theory that Lhuiller undertook to personally pay the
obligation of Amancor, Atillo made reference to the admission made by
Lhuiller in his Answer, particularly par. 3.11 where Lhuiller essentially
alleged that “in all the subject dealings, it was a personal transaction
between Atillo and Lhuiller, without the participation of Amancor.”
In other words, Atillo claims that Mr. Lhuillier admitted in his Answer
that he entered into transactions in his personal capacity and he should
therefore be personally liable to Atillo.
Issue: Whether the judicial admission made by Mr. Lhuiller is binding
and conclusive upon him, making him solidarily liable with Amancor.
Ruling:
No. It is true that such an admission was made in the Answer, however,
the same should be understood in relation to other paragraphs. A
perusal of the entire body of the answer would show that the admission
on personal liability by Mr. Lhuiller refers only to the first transaction
involving the purchase of sales of stocks.
Insofar as the second transaction is concerned regarding the assumption
by Atillo of the liability of Amancor with Metrobank, the same was
specifically denied by Lhuiller in his answer, stating that he has nothing
to do with the same as it was a corporate obligation of Amancor.
Here, the Supreme Court said that the alleged admission made by Mr.
Lhuiller was taken out of context by Atillo, because while there was such
an admission, the same refers to another transaction and not the one
sued upon.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017

Judicial v. Extrajudicial Admissions Presumptions

Presumption, defined
Judicial admission Extrajudicial admission It is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires
such fact to be assumed from another fact or group of facts found or
otherwise established in the action.
Section 4, Rule 129 Section 26, Rule 13030
Presumptions are inferences drawn from established facts.

1. May take the form of an Important: The rule on presumption does not completely dispense
Always made in the course of admission made outside of with the requirement of evidence, unlike judicial notice and judicial
the court proceedings and must the court proceedings, or admission. Here, evidence is only dispensed with in relation to the fact
be in the same case. 2. If made in the course of the presumed in law, but evidence is required to prove the fact from which
court proceedings, but in said presumption is based.
another case
TN: The fact from which the presumption proceeds must be duly
established by evidence. You cannot invoke a presumption on the basis
Generally dispenses with the of another presumption.
requirement of formal offer Requires presentation and
subject only to two exceptions formal offer, otherwise it may Angeles v. Malaya
(deposition and plea of guilty to not be admitted by the court Facts:
a capital offense) This is a dispute over a sizeable estate left by the deceased between the
wife and the only legitimate daughter. The daughter asked the court
that she be appointed as the administrator of the estate of her deceased
Conclusive, and cannot be Always disputable and thus father. This was protested by the wife.
controverted as a general rule can be controverted
The daughter, in claiming that she was a legitimate child, relied on the
presumption that a child born during the existence of a valid marriage
Answer to a Request for Admission under Section 3, Rule 12631 is presumed to be legitimate. And taking cue from this presumption of
law, she did not deem it necessary to prove that she is legitimate.
GR: When an admission is made in the course of a proceedings of a case
in court, it is considered extrajudicial if offered in a different case, which However, she failed to prove the fact of marriage between her mother
needs formal offer. and the deceased. She only relied on the fact that her mother and the
deceased during their lifetime were cohabiting and holding themselves
XPN: An admission pursuant to a Request for Admission. to the public as husband and wife, as there is also that presumption in
law that a man and a woman who hold themselves out as husband and
An admission made pursuant a Request for Admission is considered a wife, are legally married.
judicial admission in the case concerned. However, by express provision
of the law, the same can only be used for purposes of the case and Ruling:
cannot be offered as evidence for another case even as an extrajudicial It is not enough to invoke the presumption of legitimacy. Such
admission. presumption can only arise if the fact of marriage is duly established
which unfortunately was not complied with here. Presumption must
Important: Admission made pursuant to a request for admission under proceed from established facts and not on the basis of another
Section 3, Rule 26 is only admissible for purposes of the same case presumption.
where the request for admission is made. It is not admissible for any
other purpose or for any other proceeding. In other words, this is the
Two kinds of presumptions
only kind of judicial admission which cannot be made as an extrajudicial
admission in relation to another case. Two kinds of presumptions in law:

How to determine whether an admission made in the course of 1. Conclusive presumptions – presumptions which cannot be
a court proceeding is judicial or extrajudicial controverted by contrary evidence. This is based on public policy,
to encourage fair dealings and good faith in human relations.
ANS: Depends on which case the admission is offered. It is considered:

(a) Judicial admission – if offered in the very same case where the 2. Disputable presumptions – presumptions which are enough to
judicial admission is made. support a finding of fact unless overcome by a contrary evidence.

(b) Extrajudicial admission – if offered in relation to another case, and

not in the very case where the admission is made.

30
Section 26. Admission of a party. – The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant 31
“Effect of admission.— Any admission made by a party pursuant to such request is for the
fact may be given in evidence against him. purpose of the pending action only and shall not constitute an admission by him for any other
purpose nor may the same be used against him in any other proceeding.”

33 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
Conclusive presumptions
Rule 131, Section 2
“Conclusive presumptions. — The following are instances of conclusive
presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission,
intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe a particular
thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation
arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to
falsify it.
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the
time of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant
between them.”
1. Estoppel by deed
Example:
The city government serves a notice of tax assessment to Mr. X,
believing that he is the owner of a certain piece of land, but he
refused to pay claiming that he is not the owner thereof. 10 years
later, the government expropriated the property. The property is
now so valuable that the just compensation amounts to millions.
Mr. X cannot now claim just compensation by saying that he is the
owner of the property, as he is now estopped.
2. Estoppel by a tenant
Example: A tenant who contracts a lease agreement with the
landlord is deemed to recognize the title or better right of
possession of the landlord over the property leased.
The tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord at the time of the
commencement of the lease relationship. Thus, the tenant cannot
refuse to pay the rentals on the ground that the landlord is not the
owner or has no right to collect the same.
Datalift Movers v. Belgravia Realty
Facts:
Phil National Railways (PNR) entered into a lease contract with
Sampaguita. Sampaguita, instead of using the leased property,
subleased it to its sister company, Belgravia. The latter in turn
subleased the premises to Datalift Movers.
The contract continued for several years, until such time that
Belgravia and Datalift had disagreement as to the amount of
rentals. Datalift refused to pay rentals which prompted Belgravia
to file an ejectment suit against the Datalift.
Datalift argued however that Belgravia has no cause of action or
legal personality being neither the owner nor the lessee of the
property of PNR.
Ruling:
Datalift after having entered into a sublease agreement with
Belgravia, cannot be permitted to deny the better right of
possession of the lessor Belgravia, as this is conclusively presumed
by law.
34 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
Ermitano v. Paglas
Facts:
A contract of lease was executed between the landlord and the
tenant. During the existence of the lease, the landlord obtained a
loan from a third party creditor and mortgaged the leased property
as guaranty.
The landlord failed to pay the loan and subsequently, the property
was foreclosed in favor of the creditor, who in turn sold the same
to the tenant. The tenant now became the new owner of the
property.
The original owner filed a suit against the creditor alleging that the
property was illegally foreclosed. In the meantime, the original
owner is still demanding payment of rentals from the tenant.
The defense interposed by the tenant in refusing to pay the rental
was that, after the commencement of the lease, the title of the
lessor was conveyed to a third party and that third party in turn
sold it to him (tenant). Thus, being the new owner, he cannot be
compelled to pay.
The original owner however, argued that the tenant is estopped
from denying his (original owner) title.
Ruling:
The rule that the tenant is estopped from denying the title of the
landlord is applicable only insofar as the title of the landlord at the
time of the commencement of the relationship. But where such title
was conveyed after the commencement of the lease contract to
another, the rule does not apply and hence the tenant can now
deny the title of the landlord.
Q. In an instance where a third party comes forward and claims
to be the owner of the leased property, what is the legal remedy
of the tenant?
ANS: To protect the interest of the tenant, the ideal remedy as
sanctioned by the Rules is to file an interpleader case so that the two
conflicting claims can be litigated in court, and the tenant protected.
However, an interpleader suit is only proper where the title over the
property was claimed even before the commencement of the lease, as
when the tenant himself is not sure as to who between the landlord and
third party claimant is the owner of the property leased.
But in the realm of conclusive presumption against the tenant, the
tenant is not supposed to file an interpleader case and refuse payment.
Insofar as the tenant is concerned, he is bound by the lease contract.
This is a protection afforded to the right of the landlord.
This is a situation where two conflicting principles are in play.
Q. Does conclusive presumption arise from the mere fact of
contract of lease without need of showing proof of ownership?
ANS: Yes. The presumption operates by simply entering into contract of
lease because it carries with it the recognition that the lessee is dealing
with somebody who has a title, if not a better right of possession, of the
property.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
Disputable presumptions
Rule 131, Section 3.
Disputable presumptions – The following presumptions are satisfactory
if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other
evidence xxx
Please read the provision yourself because the list is too long. Only those
disputable presumptions discussed by sir will be included here, which
according to him, are the more common and interesting.
1. Things happen in accordance with the ordinary course of
things or ordinary habits of life.
He who alleges abnormality has the burden of proof to establish
the same.
Atienza v. Board of Medicine
On top of the ruling of the court that there is no need to prove the
anatomical positions of kidneys, applying the principle of judicial
notice, it also held that there is no need to prove the anatomical
positions of said kidneys because of the presumption in law that
things happen in accordance with the ordinary course of nature
and ordinary habits of life. It is normal that the left kidney is located
in the left, and the right kidney to the right.
2. Evidence willfully suppressed will be adverse if presented.
For the presumption to apply, the suppression must be wilful and
deliberately done with malicious intent and the non-presentation of
evidence was not explained properly that an adverse inference may
be drawn against you.
Requisites:
1. The evidence is willfully suppressed.
If the evidence is intentionally omitted or not presented
without justification.
Important: If the non–presentation is properly explained, as
when it is done in the exercise of a lawful right, there can be
no willful suppression. (See Blue Cross v. Olivares)
2. The evidence is not available to the other party.
If the evidence not presented is equally available to the other
party, there can be no willful suppression, because if the other
party believes that the evidence is adverse to the party who
refused to present the same, then he can present it himself.
Blue Cross Health v. Olivares
Facts:
An insurance contract exists between the insurer and patient. The
patient was hospitalized and incurred expenses. Subsequently, the
patient filed a claim with the insurer for the insurance proceeds but
the latter refused to pay because allegedly, the reason for the
hospitalization was a pre-existing illness, an excepted peril.
In support of the claim of the insurer, it would have wanted to
present the medical records of the patient that would show that
the ailment was a pre–existing one. But upon the direct and
express instruction of the patient, the doctor however refused to
make the medical record available to the insurer.
35 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
During the trial, the insurer invoked this presumption arguing that
had the medical records been made available, it would have shown
that the illness for which the client was hospitalized is a pre-existing
disease, and thus an excepted peril.
Ruling:
SC disagreed with the insurer. For the disputable presumption to
apply, the non-presentation of the evidence must be willful. Here,
the willful character is negated by the fact that the non-
presentation was pursuant to the patient’s exercise of a right –
privileged communication between a patient and the physician. No
inference can thus be drawn from the non-disclosure of the medical
records.
People v. Padiernos
Facts:
This involves the killing by the wife of her husband, who was an
abusive policeman. During the course of the investigation, it was
established that the police obtained an affidavit of a particular
witness who witnessed the killing. During trial, the prosecution did
not present said affidavit and neither was the witness presented.
The accused argued that the willful suppression of the affidavit or
the non-presentation of the witness raises the disputable
presumption that the witness is adverse to the prosecution.
Ruling:
The SC disagreed with the wife, holding that the presumption
applies only if the evidence allegedly suppressed is not equally
available at the disposal of the other party. In this case, the
affidavit is a public document which can be availed of by anyone.
The accused could have asked a subpoena to have the affidavit
presented in court.
Important: If the evidence not presented is only corroborative or
cumulative (meaning not that important), there can be no
presumption of suppression because it is the choice of the party
which evidence to present. In other words, for the presumption to
apply, the evidence suppressed should be a vital evidence.
Sir: I always invoke this in cases of underpayment in labor cases.
The best evidence of the underpayment is the payslip. If the
employee cannot explain the presentment of the pay slip, you
capitalize on that.
3. A person caught in possession of a thing taken in the doing
of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the
whole act.
Example: If it’s robbery with homicide, the possessor will be
assumed to have done the robbery and the killing.
People v. Acejo
This involves a case of robbery with murder. Subsequently, some
items belonging to the victim were found to be in the possession
of the accused. The court convicted the accused based on this
presumption because the accused was not able to explain how he
came to the possession of the stolen items.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
People v. Newman
A taxi driver was robbed and subsequently, his personal effects
were recovered from the accused including the driver’s license
which he superimposed by his photograph. SC convicted the
accused not just for robbery but also for murder because he failed
to explain how he possessed the items.
TN: This presumption contradicts another presumption – the
presumption of ownership.
4. The person in possession of a property in the concept of an
owner is presumed to be the owner and may not be
required to prove his title.
In relation to the previous presumption, which now prevails? The
presumption that the possessor is the thief, or the presumption
that the possessor is the owner?
The case of Edu v. Gomez is instructive.
Edu v. Gomez
Facts:
Edu, a buyer of a second hand vehicle, was flagged down by the
police. The vehicle was seized from her on the ground that it was
a hot car, stolen from a military officer. The buyer, possessor of
the allegedly stolen vehicle, went to court and filed an action for
replevin (recovery of personal property).
Issue: Whether it was proper for the police to seize the vehicle
from Edu.
Ruling:
No. A person in possession of a thing in the concept of an owner
is presumed to be the owner and she cannot be compelled to prove
her title. It is incumbent upon the other party to prove otherwise
and go to court. In the meantime, that person who possesses the
thing should not be disturbed in her possession. She is not even
required to go to court to apply for replevin as the presumption is
in her favor.
Sir: In light of this decision, when someone buys a property from
someone else, even if it is a product of a crime, he should be
respected of his possession. He is protected by the court. When
you buy something from a merchant store32, you are presumed to
be the owner. Thus, I have a reservation in the practice of the
police of apprehending a driver who drives an alleged carnapped
automobile without court order. The present possessor should
always be protected.
5. Every person is presumed to take care of his ordinary
concerns.
Example: When a person signs a document but denies it in court
by saying he did not know the contents thereof. This is a common
practice. You have an answer for that and that is this presumption.
32
There are rules in the civil code that protect the rights of innocent buyers. Like if you buy
something in a merchant store. Even if the property is proven to be stolen, if you bought it from
a merchant store, your right is protected. The true owner cannot recover the property. The
remedy of the true owner is to go after the person who is responsible for the illegal taking.
Otherwise, if buyers from merchant stores are not protected, this would be disastrous to
36 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
Jesusa Reyes v. BPI
Facts:
Reyes is an existing depositor of a bank. Enticed by the
advertisement given by the bank of giving incentives to new
opened accounts, Jesusa Reyes with her daughter went to the bank
to open a new ATM account.
In the bank, she said that she was willing to open an account with
an initial deposit of P200,000. Reyes claims that she had with her
P100,000 cash and intended to withdraw another P100,000 from
her existing account.
It turned out a few days after that Reyes realized that the amount
reflected in her new account is only P100,000. She argued that it
should be P200,000.
The Bank claims, however, that Reyes first intended to withdraw
P200,000 from her old account as evidenced by a withdrawal slip
signed by Reyes showing P200,000. But her account was
insufficient thus, she only withdrew 100,000, which amount she
transferred to her new account. The Bank alleges that there was
no actual cash involved in the transaction.
Issue: Did she deposit P200,000 or P100,000?
Ruling:
SC said she only deposited P100,000. SC said that when Reyes
signed the withdrawal slip, it was impossible for her not to notice
the figure of P200,000 as she signed it beside the figure. From this
premise, if it were the intention of Reyes to only withdraw
P100,000 from her existing account because she claimed that she
had with her at the time, the other P100,000 in cash, then why is
it that she did not call the attention of the teller that P200,000 was
not the amount she intended to withdraw?
But Reyes’ only excuse was that she signed it without bothering to
scrutinize the document.
The court applied the presumption that everyone is presumed to
take care of her ordinary concerns. A person who transacts with a
bank is expected to scrutinize every detail on the document that
she is signing.
It was impossible for her not to notice the P200,000, and if she
indeed noticed the P200,000, the fact that she did not complain
reasonably establishes that the intention of Reyes was really to
withdraw P200,000. It just so happened that the existing account
could not accommodate the P200,000 amount reflected in the
withdrawal slip. Thus, her failure to complain despite presumed
knowledge that she knew the P200,000 figure on the withdrawal
slip was taken against her.
commerce. No one would be comfortable to buy and enter into commercial transactions if buyers
are not protected.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017
Three presumptions involving death
1. Presumption of death
There are instances where the fact of death may not be sufficiently
proved by evidence, but for some purposes, it is necessary to
establish said fact.
The ideal scenario is to present the dead body. However, there are
situations where it cannot be found. It will be difficult to establish
the fact of death without the body. It is precisely because of this
difficulty that the law presumes fact of death under certain
conditions. This presumption arises from the mere absence of the
person and the uncertainty that the absentee is still alive.33
Rule 131, Section 3 (w)
“That after an absence of 7 years, it being unknown whether or
not the absentee still lives, he is considered dead for all purposes,
except for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of
opening his succession till after an absence of 10 years. If he
disappeared after the age of 75 years, an absence of 5 years shall
be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including
the division of the estate among the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an
aircraft which is missing, who has not been heard of for four
years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft.
(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed
hostilities, and has been missing for four years.
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other
circumstances and whose existence has not been known for
four years.
(4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive
years, the spouse present may contract a subsequent
marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent
spouse is already death. In case of disappearance, where
there is a danger of death the circumstances hereinabove
provided, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for
the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage.
However, in any case, before marrying again, the spouse
present must institute a summary proceedings as provided
in the Family Code and in the rules for declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the
effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.
Summary of rules:
For purposes other than succession and remarriage
GR: Absence of 7 years – under ordinary circumstances
XPNs: Absence of 4 years – under extraordinary circumstances:
1. On board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or a missing
aircraft
33
Rights could be prejudiced without proof that someone who disappeared is already dead.
Everything will be in suspended animation. The heirs will be waiting. Without the presumption
of death, without the body of the decedent, one will be prejudiced waiting until kingdom come.
37 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS
2. Member of the armed forced who took part in armed
hostilities
3. In danger of death under other circumstances
For purposes of remarriage
GR: Absence of 4 years – under ordinary circumstances
XPN: Absence of 2 years – where there is danger of death
For purposes of opening the absentee’s succession
GR: Absence of 10 years
XPN: Absence of 5 years – if disappeared after the age of 75
Important: Presumption of death only applies in the absence of
preponderance of evidence of the fact of death. Otherwise, if the
circumstances are such that it can be reasonably established that
the missing person is actually dead, then you don’t wait for the
period prescribed by law to presume that the missing person is
dead. Preponderance of evidence can be established even in the
absence of the body of the person missing.
Eastern Shipping Lines v. Lucero
Principle: Preponderance of evidence negates the presumption of
death.
Facts:
Mr. Lucero was the captain of the vessel which capsized. However,
minutes before the vessel disappeared and lost contact with the
employer, Capt. Lucero was able to send radio messages describing
their conditions (waves, winds, etc.). So the vessel capsized and all
the crew including Capt. Lucero perished with it.
After the incident, the wife of Capt. Lucero came forward and
demanded for payment of Mr. Lucero’s salary. She claimed that the
law requires 4 years before her husband can be presumed dead.
Thus, before the expiration of the 4-year period, her husband is
“still alive” and therefore, he should continue to receive his salary
and that being the wife, she should be allowed to claim.
Ruling:
SC disagreed with the wife. The presumption of death applies only
in the absence of preponderance of evidence that would establish
the fact of death.
Under the circumstances, there was enough preponderance of
evidence to establish that indeed Capt. Lucero died when the vessel
capsized. Thus, there was no need to wait for 4 years before death
can be established.
Given the preponderance of evidence available, Lucero was
deemed proven to be dead at the time the vessel went missing.
Victoria Shipping v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission
Facts:
The crew was in deep slumber but was awaken by fire of unknown
origin that engulfed the vessel. The crew instinctively jumped off
the vessel and since then, was never found again.
You cannot open succession, cannot claim the estate that one is supposed to inherit. It is
because of these that the law makes it prudent to provide for some presumptions of death.
EVIDENCE l Pre-Midterm l Atty. Joseph Randi Torregosa l For the exclusive use of EH 404 AY 2016-2017

The father of a seaman, who was the son’s only surviving heir, filed
his application for the death benefits of his son. However, the
employer refused to release the benefits explaining that the law
requires 4 years before the missing crew can be presumed dead.
So the father was advised to wait for 4 years before he could claim
the death benefits of his son.
Ruling:
SC ruled otherwise. There is enough preponderance of evidence
that the missing crew died when they jumped off the vessel in the
occasion of the fire. Therefore, it dispenses with the requirement
of presumption of death which requires four years to lapse.
2. Presumption of survivorship
There are instances where it is necessary to determine who
between two people died first. “Survivorship” there is a misnomer
because no one actually survives. Both actually died, only that, one
died first and the other died later. And under the law, the one who
died later is deemed to have ‘survived’.
If two people perish in the same calamity, and there are no
circumstances from which it can be inferred as to who died first,
survivorship can be determined on the basis of probability arising
from strength and age.
Otherwise, if the wife dies ahead, the wife’s mother cannot claim
the benefits.
To determine who died first between the two, apply the rule on
presumption of survivorship. If the wife was 19 years old, and the
husband was 70 years old at that time, the wife is deemed to have
survived (under the fifth rule). Consequently, the proceeds shall go
to the wife’s mother.
3. Presumption of simultaneity of death
Rule 131, Section 3 (kk)
“That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are
called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first,
whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the
same; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have
died at the same time.”
Important: This is the rule to apply in cases involving succession.
This is obvious from the wording of the law itself, ‘two or more
persons who are called to succeed each other’.
If they are considered to have died at the same time, there is thus
no transmission of rights between them.

Rule 131, Section 3 (jj)

“That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish
in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and
it is not shown who died first, and there are no particular
circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is
determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and
the age of the sexes, according to the following rules:

1. If both were under the age of 15 – the older is deemed to

have survived.
2. If both were above the age 60 – the younger is deemed to
have survived.
3. If one is under 15 and the other above 60 – the former is
deemed to have survived.
4. If both be over 15 and under 60:
(a) If the sex be different – the male is deemed to have
survived.
(b) If the sex be the same – the older is deemed to have
survived.
5. If one be under 15 or over 60, and the other between those
ages – the latter is deemed to have survived.

Important: The rule on survivorship applies to all cases other than

succession. Thus, if the issue is about succession, do not apply this.
The applicable rule is the presumption of simultaneity of death.

Q: In what instances can the presumption of survivorship apply?

ANS: Issues other than succession, i.e. contract of insurance.

The husband procured an insurance policy worth P10M, with her

wife as the beneficiary. Both boarded a plane, which exploded mid-
air, and everybody died. The question now is whether the husband
predeceased the wife, hence entitling the wife’s mother, as her only
surviving heir, to claim the benefits.

38 | U N I V E R S I T Y OF SAN C AR LOS