0% found this document useful (0 votes)
111 views76 pagesCLJ 5 Part 2
Uploaded by
Joseph AdoboCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
111 views76 pagesCLJ 5 Part 2
Uploaded by
Joseph AdoboCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 76
Declaration Against Interest and Admission
Distinguished—
A declaration against interest
secondary evidence, whereas an admission is considered
as. pti i . A declaration against interest
must have been made ante litem motam (before litigation
commenced); and admission can be made anytime.
The declaration against interest must have been
made against the propriety or pecuniary interest of the
parties, while an admission need not be, although, of
course, it will greatly enhance its probative weight if it
be so made.
A declaration against interest must have been
made oy a person who is either deceased or unable
to testify, whereas an admission is made by the party
piel and is a primary evidence and competent
though he be present in court and ready to testify.
Self-Serving Declaration Defined
_ He sel serviny declaration is one which has been
Tie ‘by the pany to favor his interest.
Gulf & Pacifie Co ay evidence (Lichauco v. Atlantic
eft Co, B4 Phi It does not include his
-witne: court (National Development
Workmen's Compensation Gonteesisn ioe
ire ,
are: (1) eo ofact or declaration about pedigree
ligree most eatt iS dead or unable to testify; (2) the
relative of the persay ea! (8) the declarant must bea
declaration met ReneS’ Pedigree is in issue; (4) the
onsen nade before the controversy arose)
an such r%
September 34. 1a00 (Mendoza v. CA,
The requis)
qegarding Peder cnay Teputation or tradition
Spect to the pedi swe) that there is contraversy ifl
interest is considered as |
a
(2) that the reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the
rson concerned existed, previous to the controversy;
and (3) that the witness oe to the reputation or
tradition regarding the pedigree of the person must be a
member of the family of said person. (People v. Alegado,
201 SCRA 37)
The requisites of common reputation are: (1) the
common reputation of facts of public or general interest
is more than 30 years old or ancient; @) the common
reputation came from persons who are in position to
know such matters; and (3) the common reputation
must be previous to the controversy. (Yu, Rules and
Principles of Evidence [2014], p. 309)
“Res gestae” is from the Latin meaning “things
done.” Res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts,
and declarations that grow out of the main fact and
serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous
and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude
the idea of deliberation and fabrication. (People of the
Philippines v. Sonny Gatarin y Caballero and Eduardo
‘Quisayas, G-R. No, 198022, April 7, 2014; see also
People v. Quisayas, 721 SCRA 16) Part of the res gestae
means part of the principal act. It may either be a
spontaneous exclamation or a verbal act.
The requisites of i gence pre.) That the
principal act, the res gestae, be a s' :
(2) The statements were made before the declarant
had the time to contrive or devise a falscheod; and 3)
‘That the statements must concern the occurrence in
question and its immediate attending circumstances.
715; sce also Zarate v.
(Peopte v. Mansueto, 336 SCRA Ee GRA
RTC, Br. 43, Gingoog City, Misamis Orient
510 [2009))
(1) That the
Requisites for admission in evidence of enna
the course of business: (1) The person who 73! ii
is dead, outside the countyges net ane
(3) The person who
sition to kmow the facts
postities were made in 8
Made the entry was in &
Stated in the entries; (4) T! fessional capacity or in the performance of a duty,
end (5) The entries were made in the ordinary or regular
course of business or duty. (Jose, Jr. v. Michaelmar
Phils., Ine., 606 SCRA 116)
Requisites for the admission of entries in official
records: (1) The entries were made by a public officer
or a private pereonin the performance of a duty; (2
e performance of the duty is especially enjoined by
law; (3) The public officer or the private person had
sufficient knowledge of the facts stated by him, which
must have been acquired by him personally or through
official information. (Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc.,
606 SCRA 444)
_, NOTES - Entries in the police blotter are not
evidence of the truth of what is stated therein but
merely of the fact that such entries were made. (People
we Teles ma, 250 SCRA 166) For the entries to be prima
tae oa a oe care pecan the entrant must
ition to know the facts ther ‘See Securit
Bank é Trust Co,, v. Gan, 493 SCRA 235)’ "
‘The requisites of “commercial lists and the like" are:
(1) statements of matters of interest to persons engaged
ii RM occupation; (2) the statements are eee
(3) the ramiater, Periodicals or published compilations;
Fin ncn for use of the compilation by person
fReseeA In that occupation; (4) generally relied upon
evidence, an (9) Proper verification by authenticating
are olicig amples of “commercial lists and the like
Published fangeainollicially published law reports,
el eprhas ag tte qutaions 40
i Ss, lic
Procamations, addresses and’ ats of cate and
news ;
Tee a with matters in relevant connection with
Dae 1
p-323) "Rules and Principles of Evidence [2014)
As an except
aus “eption to the he
notice thay fe imissible: “1, if heron aces Kai
his profession on sfc! te treatise is recognized in
HM, leaden ane ain the eet
= i + or 2. if a witness expert
in the subject testifies that the writer of the treatise is
recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the
subject.” (Bernardo, Evidence Annotated [2003], 96)
‘One reason for the admissibility of this exception
to the hearsay rule is that writers of learned treatises
have no view to litigation and they are not for a fee as
expert witnesses. (Yu, Rules and Principles of Evidence
[2014], p. 324, citing Wigmore on Evidence, p. 6)
‘Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding.
Requisites: “(1) The testimony was rendered in a former
case, (2) There must be an identity of parties, (3) There
must be an identity of subject matter, (4) The adverse
party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness,
and (5) The witness is dead, out of the Philippines, or
unable to testify in the subsequent trial.’
Double Hearsay (or “Totem Pole Hearsay”)
‘The testimony of a person with respect to what
was told him by one who dias not an eyewitness to the
crime but who obtained knowledge thereof only from
the alleged victim constitutes “double hearsay.” (Peop!
v, Manhuyod, Jr., 290 SCRA 257)
The Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statements
i ere the statements or
Under this doctrine, where 1 Stier on the
c
writings attributed to a person whi
Witness stared are being offered not to prove. the truth
Statements were actually made ot those WHEnES TS
execute mice is not covered by the Dearsay
evidence’ rule, evidence eae who testifies cna of
competent because he heard or saw. hae = ered (rom
the document, as these are matters of fac wily t prove
his own perception and the purpose ff Sr ‘nereof
either that the statement was made or
(People us, Cusi, 14 SCRA 944). When the testimony is intended to establish onk
the tenor of the statement, not the truth of the facts
therein asst , it is not hearsay. Consequently, the
hearsay rule does not apply to independently relevant
statements, or those statements which are relevant
independently of whether they are true or not.
The Opinion Rule
General Rule
‘The opinion of a witness is not admissible, except
(Rule 130, Sec. 51):
(1) Opinion of Expert Witness
The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring
special knowledge, skill, experience, training oF
education, which he or she is shown to possess, may be
received in evidence. (Rule 130, Sec. 52)
ary Witnesses
The opinion of a witness, for which proper basis
proj
i ‘See
pre ae be received in evidence regarding (
(@) The identity of a person abo
yu she
fg {Gentle of a person about whom he or
fb) A handwriting with which he or she has sufficient
familiarity; and
(c) The mental sanity of ’
she is sufficiently ae with whom he oF
Th
fe witness may also testify on his or het
emotion, behavior, is
i re ms
Appearance of a person. (Ibid.)
N =
(ees Expert evidence is admissible only if
testified to is one that require’
expertise: :
trerperi, wa,(2) The witness has been qualified 33
SXbert to elicit his opinion coe Pe ask
Recessarily bound Pe ywot Courts, however, are not
itt Rona. te Boot
v. Florendo, 68 Phil. 619)
Before one ma’ llowed to testi
witness, his qualifications mu: established by
the party presenting him; ie., he must be shown to
possess the special skill or knowledge relevant to the
Euestion to which he is to express an opinion. (People v.
Fundano, 291 SCRA 356)
Expert opinions are not ordin: nchusive in
the sense that they must be accepted as true on the
subject of their testimony, but are gene
as purely advisory in character. (Punzalan v. Comelec,
289 SCRA 702)
Character Evidence
Character. Evidence Not Generally Admissible;
Exceptions
Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of
character is not admissible for the purpose of proving
action in conformity therewith on & particular occasion,
except (Rule 130, Sec. 54);
(a) In Criminal Cases:
offended party may be
1) The character of the offe
a proved ait tends to establish in any reasonable
proved it, probability or improbability of the
offense charged.
or her good
2) The accused may prove his
(2) ne al character, pertinent to the ioral al trait
mora ed in the offense charged. | Howie
the prosecution ‘ove
moral character unie:
(b) In Civil Cases: ale
ter o!
Evidence of the moral eee ie
in a civil case is admisst! ¥ ;
to the issue ‘of character involved in. the case.
() In Criminal and Civil Cases: # (£42 vao
ye Areas aq 0} perio ie
Ayrpear Sayrusis Jowuoy ayy,
ay Avs afdood yey Ul 9q 0} pasoddns sy oy 1eyM st
Uoreyndor pure ‘st weur e yey S] TOPEIEYD :ALON :
(‘PIq]) yonpuos 8,uosied yey
Jo sooue}sut oytsads jo 9peul aq osTe Aeul Jooid “asuajap
40 wireyD ‘as.reyo e jo JUSULsTS [BHUSsse Ue st UOsIad B Jo
#2j9eTeYO JO y1eI} B IO AdJOVreYyo YOIyM ut saseo ul
Feym ATaIOUI 19338] 24} pue
(pray)
mee puoo JO Sd9UE1SUT oytoads jUeAGTaI OFUT aTqemoTye st
mbur ‘uoTyeururexa-sso19 UG ‘uOTUIdO UF Jo ULIOJ 2y}
Ur uous} Aq Jo uoryeyndar 0} se uoumnsay Aq epeur
2q Avut yoord ‘aqqissturpe st uosiad ¥ Jo 1919ereYp Jo Jen
Bio doje Ieyo JO sduapras YoIyM Ul SasBo [Te UT
‘poyovedunt
—teaq Tayoureyo WoOns [UN s[qIssTupe jou st
sou JO Joyoeleyo poos oy} JO soueprAg
-_ -
19
yownop oj0Yd ¥ ‘uoHDUNSeT
ayy st haunor ayy ‘Spoom URTW “a
wOPTasse SuTNJoL-JJ9s B SAVIOII uonduinsadd y,,
MOI FO9S --
souyne ue st spear Jooid jo uaping
au Arres 0} pasoddns st oym ‘oynoasoid at,
yooig tpop --
«yqnop sun e
aonposUl St Op o} axeY nod [[e ‘IaAMBT BSUTJap B SY
‘jooid Jo usping ay} }08 9A,NOA ‘1OyNOasoid wv sy,
SNOIdWNsadd ONY
JDNAGIA’ JO NIGUN ‘IOONd JO NaGUNG
———
A J3¥dpy5 ct has the burden of provin,
alleges & fac
a, ( He who alleetria. v. CA, 302 SCRA 315; People
it. (Lweuri
Tumayok, 139 SCRA 1)
Burden of Proof Defined
Burden of proof (also called “Burden of Persuasion®
or ‘Onus Probandi’) is the duty of a party to present
ehidenee on the facts in issue necessary to establish
his or her elaim or defense by the amount of evidence
required by law. Burden of proof never shifts, (Rule 131,
Sec. 1; see also Penalber v. Ramos, 577 SCRA 509)
In'civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party
who would be defeated if no evidence where given on
either side; ases, the burden of proot
re ution. Thus, in civil cases, the
always on the prosecution.
fen off enerally on the plaintiff, with respect:
to his complaint; on the defendant with respect to his |
counterclaim; and i
m_the cross-claimant, with res}
laim.
NOTES. - It is not for the accused to bear the
burden of proving his innocence, The burden of proof
rests upon the prosecution and unless the State succeeds:
in proving his guilt, the presumption of innocence in |
accused applies. (Vide: Peaple v. Baclayor, |
favor of
231 SCRA 578; Peuple v, Esieban, 218 SCRA 534)
Burden of Evidence Defined
Burden of evidenc: “
Evidenti : ¢ (also called as “Onus
ena ae is the burden of going forward with the
ae of Evidenceis the duty of a party to present
to establish a pee ce etablish or rebut a fact in issue
Shift fore ena Jacie case. Burden of evidence may’
Party to the other in the course of th®
roceedings, di 1
Bee Raia 2ePending on the exigencies of the case
purden of Proofand Burden ofEvidence Distinguished
Burden of proof never shifts and it remains with
the party upon whom it is imposed; while burden of
Evidence shifts from party to party, depending upon the
Gxigencies af the case in the course of the trial. (See
Bautista v. Sarmiento, 138 SCRA 587)
NOTE: Under Sec. 11 (e}, Rule 119 of the Rules.
of Court, when the accused admits the act or omission.
charged in the comy aint or information but inter peer
cMawfal defense, the order of triel may be ed.
‘The burden of evidence is then shifted to the accused
fo prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is
entitled to an extenuating circumstance.
trial is based on the theory
the accused admits the
justification is now
CRA 643)
The ae eee
that by pleading self-defense, c
fine and therefore, the burden of jt
on him. (See People v. Gutierrez, 302 S
Presumption
Presumption is “a rule of lawstating that Tose
‘a basic fact exists, another fact also OS errs
Legal Terminology [2007], PP- 120-121) a racine,
as to the existence of a tact not - Yohich ie known,
from its usual connection with another WT to wi
or a conjecture based on, past exper
couiae human affairs ord as al i
uary 30, 1993) o Univern
GR Ne, 82248, Je pangko serial ng PEE
SCRA 458 [2016])
A presumption,
i stand in
if uncontradicted, Mn (Tison
ing oF
Hew of evidence anid supPOF & finding oF
U. (CA, 276 SCRA 5! any juris
sae unption
Two classes of presumny tion: (0) Foe Sos or
or presumption of law; and 2)
Presumption of fact.
63
A Nl es a fact has the burden of provin
e ee alleges a fact 502 SCRA 315; People
‘Homes,
Lumayok, 139 SCRA 1)
Burden of Proof Defined
Burden of proof (alsocalled “Burden of Persuasion”
or “Onus Probandi’) is the duty of a party to present
ot dence on the facts in issue necessary to establish
fic or her claim or defense by the amount of evidence
Tequired by law. Burden of proof never shifts. (Rule 131)
Sen, 1; see also Penalber v. Ramos, 577 SCRA 509)
>) Incivil cases, the burden of proof is on. the party”
who would be defeated if no evidence where given om
either side; in erimi es, the burden of proof
on rosecution. Thus, in civil cases, the
ien.of proofis generally 0} Jaintiff, with respect
to his complaint; on the defendant, with respect to his
counterclaim; and of the cross-claimant, with respect
fo his cross-claim.
NOTES. = It is not for the accused to bear the
burden of proving his innocence. The burden of proof |
pa fee rtoe cuton and unless the State succeeds
Perron eee eames of fnnecente in
© 8. (Vide: People v. Baclayo™,
231 SCRA 578: People's, Esichan, 218 SCRA 534)
Burden of Evidence Defined
Burden of evic
Evidentiae) is the (ence, (also called “onus
Enagntiae?) is the burden of going forward Sith oe
Burde:
evidence si e duty ofa |
: x ; party to presen!
10 establith w prima fac ese OF Tebut a fact in iss
- Burden of evidence ma}
Proceedings, depending on genet itt the co f
(See Rule 131, Sec. ye on the exigencies of the cast 4
62
a
purden of Proofand Burden ofEvidence Distinguished
Burden of proof never shifts and it remains with
the party upon whom it is imposed; while burden of
evidence shifts from party to party, depending upon the
cvigencies of the case in the course of the trial, (See
Gautista v. Sarmiento, 138 SCRA 587)
NOTE: Under Sec. 11 {¢), Rule 119. of the Rules
of Court, when the accused admits the act or omission
charged in the complaint or information but interposes
criawful defense, the order of trial may be molhed:
Sue burden of evidence is then shifted to the accused
teprove by clear and convineing evidence that he is
entitled to an extenuating circumstance. -
‘The reverse order of trial is based on the theory
that by pleading self-defense, the accused admits the
killing and, therefore, the burden of justification 1s now
on him. (See People v. Gutierrez, 302 SCRA 643)
Presumption
Presumption is *a rule of law stating that because
a basic fact exists, nother ea ee
eal Terminology [2007], BP- 5
Legal Terminology [2007]: PP. actually known, arisiNg
£8 fo the exist Connection with another which [5 oor
or a conjecture based on past experieney Te, Tris
course human affairs © y fake. (Mar versity
GR No, 2348, January 30, 1992: 866 85 ons 7
of Mindanao, Inc. v, Bangko Sentral 8g PENS
SCRA 458 [2016])
___A presumption,
liew of evidence and support
v. CA, 276 SCRA 582)
i dicted, may stand in
if uncontradeeaeciaion. Tison
jon: (1) Presumption juris
‘two classes of presumption: ( or
or ifcnnae jaw; and (2) Presum pe
Presumption of fact.
g
es
a
- a Presumption in law is an j
existence of a fact not actually kmecretc®
ifs usual connection with another won
fact.” Bees of me is “a deductio:
mi fact i
draws fom faets proved without an exp
di
h is the
mn. which
ressed di;
Two Basic Types of Legal Presumptions
The two basic type:
Cees s of legal pres
Banat: Presumptions; and 2)
tions |
isp
Conclusive presumptions
Conclusive ic
et de jure’) is Car eam tion (or “Presumption
Counter ee gene Which cannot be rebutted By
The _followi i
presumption’ eae’, 3 eeen ances of conch
arty has, by his
S, or her 0
act, or omission, intentionally @
aberately led
ing true. erage athe to believe a part
she i
ae cannot, in an
landlord ahgimitted to deny the title of Big
he relati
’ (@lso knoyct landlord and tenant between
Disputable as “Estoppel Against Tenant)
Presumption,
a ;
Pres piputable
Suffices Gach Juris iq (also a
til Obj ye ich
Bia evident MESEd, cote Syeeumption wig
eople u. De Gi or oye Cone
eS ‘zman, 229 SI
The following presumptions (Rule 131, Sec.
satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be conteadtsted
enti oe cone by other aes ied
(a) That @ person is innocent of crime or wrong;
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an ne
intent;
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences
0 Pils yoleniee a Soin
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his or her
concerns;
{e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be
adverse if produced;
() That money paid by one to another was duc to the
latter;
(e) That ¢ thing delivered by one to another belonged
to the latter;
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has
been paid; a
i) That prior rents or installments had been
8 ieee receipt for the later ones 18 produced;
|) That « person found in possession ofa thing taken
wv in the Soing of “ secant wre ac are ile
\d the doer of the w 7 se
things “which a person possessed, a nen
acts of ownership over, are ownt ve sate =
k) That a person in possession. & :
(kd That 2 Pereovelf for the payment of the RON:
or the delivery of anything oy ie
delivered the thing accorsiOBy ag
0 Ts rome dane
{m)That official duty has been FeBNT ther in
(n) That a court, oF, jude ace wae acting
the Philippines fi urisdiction;
lawful exercise ssue raise on
thin an ed UI
‘That all the matters WoO Court and Passes SP
case were laid Be it; and in like manner that all matters within, an
eas raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration
were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon
by them;
(p) That private transactions have been fair and
regular;
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been
followed;
(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a
contract;
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or
indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
(t) That an indorsement of negotiable instrument
was made before the instrument was overdue and
at the place where the instrument is dated;
{u) That a writing is truly dated:
(v) That aletter duly directed and mailed was received
in the regular course of the mail;
(w)That after an absence of seven years, it being
unknown whether or not the absentee still lives,
he or she is considered dead for all purposes,
execpt for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the
Gpspose of opening his or her succession until after an
zc of ten . If he or she disappeared after the
#2 of seventy ve years, an absence of five years shall
Pade tent in order thet his or her succession may be
The following shall be consi
i vi .be considered dead for all
Faigeses including the division of the estate among the
(1) A person on bo: .
voyage, or an wine pan easel lost during a sef
has pet ich is missing, wh?
Joss of the ea of fer four ‘years since
QA
) Pin ihe armed forces who has takel
for four years; tes, and has been missing
3) A person who has been ind; of
(9) Ar circumstances ann eres eee
not been known for four years; and
(4) Ifa married person has been absent for four
consecutive Years, the spouse present may
contract a subsequent marriage if he or s
‘pallounded bellet hab tia ebgencae tree at
already dead. In case of disappearance, where
there is a danger of death, 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 summary procee
‘as provided in the Family Code and in
rules for declaration of presumptive death of
the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of
reappearance of the absent spouse.
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the
os thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law
or fact; a a
‘That things have happened according to the
“ ordinary Helge ‘of nature and ordinary nature
habits of life; ‘
(2) That persons acting as copartners have entere
into a contract of copartneship; oe
(aa) That a man and woman deporting thems
as husband and wife have entered into
contract of marriage; bay
(bb) That property acquired by aman andaner
who are capacitated to manny 860. ot ond and
live exclusively with each other as Ruste,
wife, without the benefit of inertia ‘their joint
void’ marriage, has been obtains
efforts, work er suai iene
(cc) That in cases of eohabitas
oma Wino are not capaci wperly through
other and who have acquired Fr Chey, property
their actual joint conte tions their
er industry, such com
67
em a
ome ee ee corresponding shares, including joint deposits of
money and evidences of credit, are equal;
(dq) That if the marriage is terminated and the
mother contracted another marriage within three
hundred days after such termination of the former
marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence
‘of proof to the contrary;
(1)A child born before one hundred eighty
(180) days after the solemnization of the
subsequent marriage is considered to have
been conceived during such marriage, even
though it be born within three hundred
days ‘after the termination of the former
marriage; and
(2)A child born after one hundred eighty
(180) days following the celebration of the
subsequent marriage is considered to have
been conceived during such marriage, even
though it be bern within the three hundred
days ‘after the termination of the former
marriage;
(ce) That a thing once proved to exist continues as
ong as is usual with things of that nature:
(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting
to be printed or published ji ity
was s0 printed or published; PUbHE authority
That except for purposes of succession, whet
wreck, bation. @ the same calamity, such
shown who died fret om agration, and it is not
ied first, and there @re no particular
i
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 fifteen years,
the older is deemed to have survived;
2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger
is deemed to have survived;
3. If one is under fifteen and the other above
sixty, the former is deemed to have survived;
4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and
the sex be different, the male is deemed to
have survived; if the sex be the same, the
older; and :
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, anc
the other between those ages, the latter is
deemed to have survived.
(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or
more persons who are called to sueceed each
other, as to which of them died te = oe
alleges the death of one prior to the other, $i
prove the same; in the absence of proof, they
be considered to have died at the same time,
No Presumption of Legitimacy oF Illegitimacy
‘ orillegitimacy
Thereisnopresumptionoflegitimacy’ Leer
of a child born alter three hundred days following Pe
f separation 0!
dissolution of the marriage oF the ssPU ii citimacy
Spouses, Whoever alleges the leg! |. (Rule
ob such ‘child must prove his or her allegation
131, Sec. 4)
the
4 can contest
NOTES: Only the husbant mngdang v.
legitimacy Gea child barn to his wife. (Macada
CA, 100 SCRA 73) evidence
ees
In order that the, presumMplOn 0 duced to
willfully suppressed would be adverse Pic‘ material
apply, it is necessary (1) That the ie
[SS ee ee iyugan v. Dizon, 79 Phil. 80); (2) That the party had
Geen rtunity to produce the same (People v. Sala
60 Phil. 266}; (3) That said evidence is available only to
said party (People us. Tulale, 97 Phil. 953); and (4) That
the suppression of evidence is willful.
‘The presumption does not apply if the evidence
in question is equally available to both parties (Staples-
Howe Printing Co. v. Manila Building & Loan Association,
46 Phil. 417}, or the evidence is merely corroborative
(Modesto v. Leyna, 6 Phil. 186), or merely cumulative
[People v. Velayo, 96 Phil. 973), or is unnecessary
(Nicolas v. Nicolas, 53 Phil. 265}.
Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings
In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise
provided for by the law or these Rules, a presumption
imposes on the party against whom it is directed the
burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet
the presumption. (Rule 131, Sec. 5)
_ {presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption
that is founded upon weightier considerations of policy
shall apply. If consideration of policy are of equal weight,
neither presumption applies. (Ibid.)
Presumption Against an Accused in Criminal Cases
Ifa presumed fact that establishes guilt, is a7
element of the offense charged, or negates'a defens¢,
the existence of the basic fact must be proved beyor
The icnable doubt and the presumed fact follows from
Ee asic fact beyond reasonable doubt. (Rule 131, Sec
Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur
feintke ee aor a Latin phrase which literall¥
the transaction speaks for itself.”
70
Requisites for doctrine of res ipsa loquiturto apply:
(1) the accident was a kind ‘whieh does ot ordincel
tecur unless someone is negligent; and (2) that the
instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was.
under the exclusive control of the person charged with
negligence. (See Cebu Shipyard and ng. Works, Ine. v
William Lines, Inc., 306 SCRA 762)
Doctrine of Stale Demands (Or Doctrine of Laches)
‘The doctrine of stale demands (or doctrine of
laches) refers to failure or neglect for an unreasonable
and unexplained length of time to do that which by
exercising due diligence, could or should have been done
earlier, thus giving rise to a presumption that the party
entitled to assert it either has abandoned or
‘assert it. (Espana, Sr. v. CA, 268 SCRA 511) mw er
ba
——
eZ
yooqqny uyor —
JOU SAeY om Udy
usa mf mo puadsns 0} pur ‘souepraa Juatoyns
oy ae YOM IOy Jey} AAoTjaq 0} SI Anp imo,
soayoluDyy p4yUoD snqounuy
snqong aq ‘auysnsny ‘1g --
«9pis 19Y30 94} reap,
Sdspj ayy ‘soueydojsuy --
8S 0] aaey y0q
yeym pieay oaey nos [HUN apop jou pnoys no4,
JONAGIAa JO NOILWINASAUd
IA J84dDy5 enessesancl other kinds of evidence
Mocumentary or object evidence) in court, there
|] acta daa a Sr courtroom’ Fa
| Sfevidence) to observe. Evidence should be properly
/ nted so that the court will consider the same in
Meolving the issues and deciding the case.
| Sloppy or inept handling/presentation of
| evidence can have catastrophic effect—either placing
| ent behind bars or springing the guilty from
prison.
The study of the law on evidence, as clearly
i pointed out by an authority on Evidence, involves
| two main problems, namely: “(1) determining whether
|
|
|
Inpresenting wit
given_pit fidence is admissible; and (2) the”
jon of that evidence so that the
court will consider it in resolving the issues and
deciding the case. Although evidence may, by itself,
be admissible, the court may not admit or consider
it in the resolution of the case unless the evidence
was roperty presented” (Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo,
“Evi isic Principles and Selected Problems”,
UST Law Review, January-December 2004)
Examination to be Done in Open Court
The examination of witnesses presented in &
trial or hearing shall be done in open court, and
. Unless the witness is incapacitat
to speak, or the guestion calls for a different mode of
| ; swers of the wi "
ne ‘of the witness shall be given orally:
NOTES — The witness’ examination, should bs
: vand-answ Ifthe witne!
testifies in narrative form, the party :
n, the adverse deprive
eee ‘pportunity to object to the questions. However
| etion 19'of the Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness, the 5
in anartative fore, MAY allow a child witness to test
14
An oath is “a declaration of the truth of
statement.” While, affirmation is “a person’s indicati Cr
that one affirms the truth of one’s statement.” (Gifts,
Dictionary of Legal Terms [Fifth Edition 2016], pp. 18 &
392)
In its traditional and strict sense, an oath is an
invocation of God, as distinguished from an affirmation,
Which lacks religious content. (See Clapp, Random
House Webster's Pocket Legal Dictionary ‘Edition
2007], p- 181)
‘The Judicial Affidavit Rule
It should be stressed, however, that with the
adoption and promulgation of the Judicial Affidavit Rule
(AM, No. 12:8-8-SC)— effect_on
1.2013—the use o
in place of the direct
required,
The Rule was adopt
vted in order to reduce the time
needed for completing the testimonies of se
iti \d to speed up
cases under litigation an a ee mee
adjudication of cases, amon
d
evidence before: -eipal Trial
(0) The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Muicibad Tie
Courts in Cities, the Municip’ Yr ie shari’
Munici;
Circuit Ct small claims
Courts; Appeals
= of Tax
(3) The Sandiganbayan, the ‘Shari'a te
the Court of Appeals, and the
Courts;
3 (4) The investigating officers and bodies authorized
‘the Supreme Court to receive evidence, includi
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); and
{5)The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose
mules of procedure are subject to disapproval of
the Supreme Court, insofar as their existing rules
Gf procedure contravene the provisions of this
Rule, (By virtue of the Supreme Court's authori
under Section 5 (5), Article Vill, of the 198
Constitution to disapprove rules of procedure of
special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.) (Sec. 1
{a}, Judicial affidavit Rule)
Application of the Rule to Criminal Actions—
‘The Rule ap)
im)
lies to all criminal actions: (1) Where
the un ofthe imposable penalty does not exceed
‘Six years; ere the accused agrees to the use <
Judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved:
or (3) With re: civil aspect of the actions,
e
whatever the penalties i ie
Ree an ies involved are. (Sec. 9 (al, Judicial
76
Specimen Judicial Affidavit
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
National Capital Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
--versus-- Criminal Case No. 001234
JUAN BALASBAS,
‘Accused.
x
ICLAL OF
I, ALEXANDER TORRES, 57 fm old, Filipino,
married, with residential address at No. 57 G: in,
Quezon City, and presently the vice president of F=
Campania, Inc., after having been duly sworn to
accordance with law do hereby depose and say:
Preliminary Statement
i Navidad
The terrogating me is Atty. Felot
With office address at Nev 37 Banawi St, Bi aiipeaies
Manila, ‘The interrogation was held at
‘Ondo, Manila on Jenuary 15, 2013. 5
ious thal
dia ¢,f answered his questions fully. sonsciows bility
{2589 under cath and that I may face ¢
‘°Y false testimony and perjury:
W
=
sarees CANT aAnN ESB RAY Questions and Answers
Ql: Do you know Mrs. Anita Torres, the private
complainant in this case?
Al: Yes, sir. She is my wife.
92: On January 15, 2011, at around 6 in the morning,
do you recall where were you?
A2: Yes, sir. 1 and my wife, together with our driver,
were along the port area in Manila on our way to XXY
Hospital for our medical check-up.
Q3: On such date and time, what incident, if any,
happened?
AS: While we were along the said area, a while Toyota
Corola Sedan type with plate number ABC 123 suddenly
swerved in front of our vehicle.
Q4; What happened next, if any?
AS: Our driver told my wife that the motor vehicle which
suddenly swerved in front of us looks the same with
gur ear in make, color and plate number, which vehicle
Ralcatien parzeseion lot, Insurance Company for
Sa of our insurance claims and which EFG
to eeace did not pay despite our several demands and
follow-ups.
Q5: What happened next, if any.
AS: Land my wit if
AS Vand my wife agreed to verify the papers of our caf
Q6: When 4
your car? 4 Set home, did you verify the papers of
A: Yes, sir,
78
Q7: What was the result of your verification, if any?
AT: We were able to confirm that the motor vehicle that
swerved in front of us was our car which EFG Insurance
tock possession of for evaluation of our insurance
claims.
8: After that incident of January 15, 2011, what
happened next, if any? :
AS: On January 30, 2011, at around 8 in the morning,
one of our drivers chanced upon our car parked along
the same port area in Manila.
Q9: What happened next, if any?
i Office
A9: On February 5, 2011, my wife filed before the
of the City Prosecutor of Manila an anal hs
for Estafa and Camano ee the offici
Insurance, and several unknown others.
QI6: After that, what happened next, if any?
1d my wife
410: On March 5, 2011, ora month after, Eafe Tl ity
Went to a police precinct in Manila and ave it
% i al
a copy of ‘fe's affidavit-complaint, We , 123
registered 1d ‘the Police Blotter under Entry Nes:
and 456.
11: 1 am showing to you this decumee
Marked as Exnibie say" kindy look at os: "123 and
elated to the Police Blotter under
'56 that you mentioned earlier! ‘
ALL: That is the same Police, Blotter 4m
123 and 456 that | mentioned €#!
state re above the
212: In this document, there 18 4 SHES gyn. “Aly do
ume Anita Torres, previously me
low ignature
whose sign eae
Al2: Yes, sir, that of my wile An
er Entry Nos-
3
Sess CANAAN FES RaARY Q13: How do you know?
AIS: Aside from being familiar with her signature, she
signed it in my presence.
Q14: In this document, there is also a signature above
the name Alexander Torres, previously marked as Exh,
“A-2," do you know whose signature is this?
Al4: Yes, sir, that is my sigrature.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set m:
hhand this day of December, 2013 at Quezon City”,
(Sgd.) ALEXANDER TORRES
Affant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
Prsy,of December, 2019 by Alexander Torres (with
Fhlipping Passport Ney 2 12345678 issued on
is valid un
has satisfactorily proven to me his identity hey he 18
his identity, that he is
the same person who signed before ime the i
‘athe © 1 foregoing
Judi idavit, and acknowie, sed that its execution
is his free and voluntary act and deed.
(Sed) ATTY. PROSPERO ANYO
(Notary Public)
Dee No,
No,
Book No, ———*
Series of 3013, —*
80
Attestation
nat I, ATTY, FELIX NAVIDAD, of legal age,
arried Filipino, and with office address at No. 8
Banawi ‘st., Brey. Tatalon, Manila, hereby attest under
cath, to w
ersonally conducted the interrogation of
Reader ‘Torres of No. 57 Gagalangn, Quezon City,
‘a witness in Criminal Case No. 001234 of the Re
‘Trial Court, Branch, pokes City; I fait us ay
recorded the questions I asked Mr. Torres a
corresponding answers he gave me; and oe aie
‘ny other person then present coached Mr. Torre:
regarding his answers.
ESS WHEREOF, | have hereunto set my
hand Poe day of December, 2013 at ‘Quezon City:
(Sgd.) ATTY. FELDX NAVIDAD
this
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me te
day of December, 2013 by Atty. Navidad, with IM
No. 01234567, who has satisfactonly PION Ty iened
‘identity, that he is the same person’ oe acknow
before me the foregoing Attestation,
that he executed the same.
(Sed) ATTY PROT
61
Z
SSS Ae eae
= Proceedings To Be Recorded.
The enti sri
including the questions propounded to a witness and
his or her answers thereto, and the statements made
by the judge or any of the parties, counsel, or witnesseq
with reference to the case, shall be recorde
c) ‘or by othi in: re
itabl rt. (Rule 132, Seo, 2)
A transcript of the record of the proceedings made
by the official stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and
certified as correct by him dr her shalll be deemed prima
facie a correct statement of such proceedings. (Ib(d.)
The Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
Ttis the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
(OM. No. 004-07-SC) taat generally governs the
tion of child witnesses whe victims of cri
af iinesses to crime. (Sec. 1 o!
the Rule) The Rule applies in all criminal proceedings
ae oe Proceedings involving child witnesses.
complete evidence, minimize trauma
to children, encourage children.
d to testify in legal
Proceedings, and facilitate the th?
(eco ore Rule} ascertainment of tru
The Rule shall be liberally construed hold
the best interests of ‘i aed ee
without prejudice to
the accused. (Sec. 3 of the
The i haa
5 compel
Of recolestio(®) CAPSCity of observations et ape
(See People v, igen iG Capacity of communication:
254 SCRA 18; People v. Galos:
6: a hn
2 SCRA 381) ‘The determingney Of whether a child
82
n sufficient intelligence is addressed.
‘3 ent of the trial court. (People v Nang nt
16)
Rights and Obligations of A Witness
A witness must answer questions, although his
or her answer may tend to establish aclaim against him
or her.
However, it is the right of a witness: (See Rule
132, Sec. 3):
‘otected from irrelevant, improper, or
iW Te eee and from harsh or insulting
demeanor;
(2) Net to be detained longer than the interests of
justice require;
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters
pertinent to the issue; sugesaes
(4) Not to give an answer which will ten
fe on here penalty for an offense unless
otherwise provided by law; of
(5) Not to give an answer which wil tendo Oe ae
his or her reputation, unless it be to the xen 2
at issue or to a fact from which the Seer
would be presumed. But a witness must Stet
to the fact of his or her previous
for an offense.
Witness:
Order in the Examination of an Individual
Sec, 4) in which the
The order (See Rule 132, B65. 2. follows:
individual witness may be 3
(a) Direct examination by the ae
(b) Cross-examination by the eee
(6) Re-direct examination By te PT
{@) Re-cross-examination by the P J
Direct Examination
Direst examination is the examination: In-chiet of
fitness by the presenting him or her on the
facts ek to feaats (Rule 132, Sec. 5)
NOTE. - Direct examination (also known
as ‘examination-in-chie®™ of a witness is the first
interrogation of a witness on the merits by the party
in whose behalf aAneIN eee Law rea
Its purpose is to build up the case-theory of the party
in whose behalf he takes’ the witness stand. (Pamaran,
Trial Practice in Philippine Courts [Sixth Edition], p. 604)
Cross-Examination; Its Purpose and Extent.
_Upon the termination of
the witness may be cross-exemi
oa Ferny niatter, with sufficient fullness ant
lom to test his or her acc Iness
seas uracy and truthful
nd frec interest or bias, or the reverse, and ta
elt all im s besring upon the issue. (Rule
NOTES ~ The office of cross-examination is to
test the truth of statements of a witness made on direct
Sanaaaton: (Pamaran, Trial Practice in Philippine
ale, Edition], p. 630). “Cross-examination
Witnesses aceatded as the means by which adverse
itis uruala Usetedited, ard itis for that purpose that
Ean eed by'the Bar,” (Wellman, Phe Art of
‘mination [Fourth Edition}, p. 205)
It should be noted that the right to cross-examine
et ay be _ wait
103} om sc ipliedt
People -v. Dominguez, 856 SCRA
the direct examination,
ined by the adverse par
examination: Thee Ules garding the scope of cross-
English Rule ti
ase the ea,
cross-examined ona} aes the witness may bé
84
Sspects of the case evel!
ifnot covered in his direct. Under the American Rule, a
ices may be cross-examined only on matters covered
is direct examination. In our jurisdiction, we follow
in his direct exam
lowever, it should be noted that i
tna eT ly ee (]) Cross
examination of a witness who has been called as an
adverse-party witness by the other side or who has
been declared as a hostile or um witness upon the
initiative of the other side; and (2) Cross-examination
of the accused in a criminal case. (Rule 115 [Rights of
Accused], Sec. 1 [d], Rules on Criminal oe
A judge may examine or cross-examine a witness.
‘He may : mo cial See questions to test the
Gredibinty ‘of the witness and to extract the truth.
(Ronulo v. People of the Philippines, GR. No. 182438,
suly 2, 2014)
Re-Direct Examination; Its Purpose and Extent
After the cross-examination of the witness bes
been concluded, he or she may be re-ex
Patty calling him or her x suppl hs
ni ie
the court be ie aisesenens (Rule 132, See: 7
3 jnation is
The proper function of redirect examine ony
‘e explain, rebut, or avold. the eect of the (shiney
clicited on'cross-examination, and tO! hil ine Courts
tiwitness, (Pamaran, Trial Practice it
\Sisth Edition), p. 651)
Re-Cross Examination
the aqlPon the conclusion of the redlest yriness 3
atedverse party may re-cros sone
“atters stated in his or her re-direct or
aS AA SaaS r_ matters be allowed by
sourtinits discretion, (Rule 132, See. 8)
Recalling Witness
i itness by both sid.
has been concluded, the not_be Ne
ts
After the examination of a witness by both sides
without leave (meaning: approval/permission} of the
court, The court will grant or withhold leave in its
discretion, as the interests of justice may require. (See
Rule 132, Sec. 9)
Leading Question Defined
Leading question is a question which suggests
to the witness the answer which the examining party
desires, (See Rule 132, Sec. 10). It is not allowed, except:
(a) On cross examinatio:
(b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is a difficulty in getting direct and
intelligible answers from a witness who is
ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble
mind, or a deaf-mute
(4) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer,
director, or aneeng agent of a public or private
corporation or of a partnership or association
which is an adverse party.
NOTE: On Crose-
are allowed. Leading
enable the cross-
the point. For the
‘examination, leading questions
questions are allowed in order to
examiner to ask questions directly to
ne TOSS: examiner to ask open questions
2} cross-examination in effective,
ees ©xposing his client to unnecessary risk:
f eto, irial Technique and the Practice of Law
1989], p. 96)
during cross. mae {ully cognizant that leading questions
86
its very
nature, leading questions are tive, (See
People v. Operanio, 306 ah
SCRA 564 [2003]
Misleading Question Defined
A misleading question is one whi
true a fact not yet testified to by the witness,
fai which he or she ted. (Rule 132,
Sec. 10) Itis not allowed.
Impeachment of Adverse Party's Witness
witness may be impeached by the party against
io hh Sy Sy ons
by evidence that his or hes pene reputation for truth,
onesty, or integrity is bad, e that |
BeStty Sule a orien times statements inconsistent
with his or her present testimony, but not by evident
of particular wrongful acts, except ier ye
shown by the examination of the witness, OF Fess
the judgment, that he or she has been col vieted
Offense, (Rule 132, Sec. 11) ee,
Adverse witnessis.a witness called by 9° vbere
With the opposing party. Except in eriminal °% i,
is no rule prohibiting a party litigant Boe of Labor,
adversary as a witness. (Gonzales U-
Phil. 395)
} yess of the
testim™? impeach is “to queso the ents tat the
imony of the witness by means OST
itness ie unworthy of belief.” (Gifis, Dictional
rms [Fifth Edition 2016], p- 268) ee ie
i i i 5: (1 tion
a, We f aching a witness: ae
SVidence; (2) by evidence that witness BETS ‘pueden
op truth, honesty, or integrity 18 4) by
i Prior inconsistent statements: particularly when
he witness" conviction of 2 crime, Pet oeas of 208 Tine
ame. is punishable by 9 pe™! at de, regardless
the tu
Deno one involves moral
87
Sess. Cea T Sear
gs |
1
also on such other matters as may be allowed by the
‘court in its discretion, (Rule 132, Sec. 8)
Recalling Witness
ination of a wi by both side
has been concluded, the wi cannot be 1
i ing:_approval isSion]
court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its
discretion, as the interests of justice may require. (See
Rule 132, Sec. 9)
Leading Question Defined
Leading question is a question which suggests
to the witness the answer which the examining party
desires. (See Rule 132, Sec. 10). It is not allowed, except:
{@) On cross examination;
{b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is a difficulty in getting direct and
intelligible answers from a ‘witness who if
ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble
mind, or a deaf-mute;
(4) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(¢) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officers
ovation managing agent of a public or private
of
corporation or of a partnership or association
which is an adverse party,
NOTE: On
are allowed Ion ques: examination, leading questions
inj lestic ta
enable the cites ing duestions are allowed in order
the point For the oeeet to ask questions directly
ss-examiner to ask open question’
its very nature, leading questions are suggest
is vey Operanio, 406 SCRA S64 (200g}
Misleading Question Defined
‘A misleading question is one which assumes as
true a fact not vet testified to by the witness,
jothat which he or she has previous! stated Rue
Sec. 10) It is not allowed,
Impeachment of Adverse Party’s Witness
‘Awitness may be impeached by the party a
whom he or she was called, by Sect at ey ee
by evidence that his or her general reputation for truth,
honesty, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he oF
she has made at other times statements inconsiile
with his or her present testimony, but not by evens
of particular wrongful, ti Fo ee may be
shown by the examination 8
the judgment, that he or she has been convicted of an.
offense. (Rule 132, See. 11) eae
Adverse witness is awitness called sen
with the opposing party. Er ret Sete
is no rule prohibiting a P: ae oe
Adversary as a witness. (Gonzales 0. Sec of 18
Phil, 325) ar
To impeach is “to question the & aba the
testimony of the witness by Meane Oly ary of Legal
Witness is unworthy of belief” (Gifs:
Terms [Fifth Edition 2016], p- 268)
ide, W973 ofimpeaching. witner {eral
fildence; (2) by evidence that wits
as honesty, oF oes
ior inconsistent statements
the witness" conviction of a crimes Pe reas. Of 008 fete
e is punishable by a penalty 1, "regardless
er the same involves moral SUFPS
Penalty,
Sess CAN ea N rs e aA Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime—
For the purpose of impeaching a witness, evidence
that he or she has been convicted by final judgment of a
crime shall be admitted if (a) the crime was punishable
by a penalty in excess of one year; or (b) the crime
involved moral turpitude, regardless of the penalty,
(Rule 132, Sec. 12)
However, evidence of a conviction is not admissible
if the conviction has been the subject of an amnesty or
annulment of the conviction. (Ibid.)
Party May not Impeach His or Her Own Witness
Except with respect to witnesses referred to in
paragraph (d) and (e) of Section 10 of Rule 132, the
patty presenting the witness is not allowed to impeach
is or her credibility. (See Rule 132, Sec. 13)
_ bwitness may be considered as unwilling or hostile
only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing
of his or her adverse interest, unjustified reluctance t0
testify, or his or her having misled the party into calling
or her to the witness stand, (Ibid.)
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or
the witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached
by the party Presenting him or her in all respects as if
he or she had been called by the adverse party, except
by evidence of his or her bad character, He or che may
Iso be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse
Party, but such cross-examination must only be on the
Subject matter of his or her examination-in-chief. (Ibid)
How Witness Impeach i istent
Statements P°2ched by Evidence of Inconsiste
Before a witness can be impeached by evidence
{hat he or she-has made at other times statements
at_ot
with his or her present testimony, the
|
de su statements Tel |
Ifthe stat Be i
thetmn to the witness before any question is puree Ree
shper concerning them. (Rule 132, Sec. 14)
A woiness is impeatee ae pa esas
nt by “laying predicate,” is (1
earonting him’ with such. statements: ae
circumstances under which they were made, (2) by
asking him whether he made such statements, and {:
by giving him a chance to explain the inconsistency.
Unless the witness is given the opportunity to explain
the discrepancies, the impeachment is incomplete. (U.S.
v, Baluyot, 40 Phil. 385)
NOTES - It is only when noreasonable explanation
is given. by a witness in reconciling his, confietg
declarations that he shall be deemed impeached. (People
», De Guzman, 288 SCRA 436)
“[[}t is not necessary, in laying the foundations 2
Rive the exact language of the alleged OENCE Rules of
Substance is sufficient.” tenia fon 1994], P. 488,
Court in the Philippines [Second Edition 19° Fi oning
citing 6 Jones on Buidence, 2d ed.) “The WON the
that ‘Sometime after the other trial 11 1S Tors “iace
last term of the court, down here cee :
somewhere, where you live, did you RAYE 4.0% yon
With Mr, Flinn about this matter, and 4°! cen up
Mr, Flinn, Mr, Trapp or someon testify, ‘but that if
ere me Up st would,
your aid Sn 2 ue here an tel the, tah tation
in Bod White’s favour?" sufficiently layS 2°, the time;
for it sufficiently advises the witnes® #5 0° jroposed
Place, “person, and subject matter ¢ of the PP that
contradiction, as required by
MsPeet.” (Ibid) establishing
one refers to
Laying the foundation. re fm or testim
the relevancy and validity of the R'E dence!” (Brom
ittomey wishes to have Put 0}
jal Terminology [2007], P- 1
69
SSeS 4 CAN TILA trae ary Exclusion and Separation of Witnesses
The court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall
order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear
the testimony of other witnesses. This rule does not
authorize exclusion of (a) a party who is a natural person.
{b) a duly designated representative of a juridical entigy
which is cE PeESE, to the case, (c) a person whose presence
is essential to the presentation of the pa cause, or
(d) a person authorized by a statute to be present. (Rule
132, Sec. 15)
The court may also cause witnesses to be kept
Separate and to be prevented from conversing with one
another, directly or through intermediaries, until all
shall have been examined. (Ibid.)
When Witness may Refer to Memorandum
-witn ay_be allowed to refr i
specting a fz an) wri
when the fac rred, or immediately ther
ime when the fact was fresh in his or her
memory and he or she knew that the same was correctly
written or recorded; but in such case, the writing oF
tecord must be produced and may be inspected by
the adverse party, who may, if he or she chooses,
Gross examine the witness upon it, and may read it
ess may also testify from such a writin
etains no recollection ©
she is able tu swear that
the particular facts, if he or
the writing or record correctly stated the transaction
when made; but such evid : ‘
caution. (Rule 132, Sec. io Must be received with
Rules on the Use of Memorandum —
The first sentence (ins va
own as the rule on “Revival
of Fretent Memory" or “Present Recollece ore Reed |
the facts regarding
is entitled to ater weight. The
Second sentence (known ar weig)
Recollection? oe (puown As the rule on “Revival of Past
“Past Recollection Recorded"), on the
and, applies where the witness d
other Ig involved, and is entitled to lesser weight foe
do, Remedial Law Compendium Volume ‘ip
Rith Revised Edition}, p. 701)
Under the first sentence, the memorandum used
torefresh the memory of the witness is not evidence and
nay not be admitted as such for the simple reason that
the witness has just the same to testify on the basis of
refreshed memory. Stated otherwise, the oral test
of the witness (not the memorandum) is the evidence,
Under the second sentence, the oral testimony of
the witness is not the evidence but the memorandum
used.
NOTE: The memorandum which can be used to
aid memory may be any kind of note, paper, affidavit or
document. It may even be a book entry.
When Part of Transaction, Writing or Record given in
Evidence, the Remainder Admissible
This is known as the “Completeness Rule” (or the
“Open the Door Rule”).
i ation,
When part of an act, declaration, convers
writing or record is given in evidence by ome party,
a ‘whole of the same subject may be im
y the other, and when a detached act, ion
Conversation, writing or record is given in evden y
other act, declaration, conversation, Wri "
Recessary to its understanding may also be even
evidence. (Rule 132, Sec. 17)
Right to Inspect Writing shown to Witness saad.
witness,
be ineWhenever a writing is shown 19 Tap, Seo. 18)
* inspected by the adverse -
g
i SS CANaAn re RaArRY— Authentication and Proof of Documents
Classes of Documents
For the purpose of their presentation in
evidence, documents are either public or private
(Rule 132, Sec. 19).
Public Documents
Public documents are: (a) The written official acts,
or records of the sovereign authority, official bodies and
tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines,
or of a foreign country; (b) Documents acknowledged
before a notary public except last wills and testaments;
s that are considered public documer
Wer treaties a: mnventions which are in for
ject Philippines he cor of source; and
(d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private
documents required by law to be entered therein. (Rule
132, Sec, 19)
NOTES - Public documents generally include
Notarial documents and are admissible in evidence
without the necessity of preliminary proof as to its
authenticity and due execution (Antillon v. Barcelon, 37
Phil. 148).
‘There are two classes of publi ments,
namely, those issued by competent public officials by
feason of their office, and those executed by private
individuals which are authenticated by notaries public:
y ne aie pega ere [First Edition 008 ey
Is int fate Estate jc %
ver Sune late of Pareja v. Pareja, 95 PI
Pleadings filed with’ the court are public
documents. (Bermejo v. Barrios, 31 SCRA 764) >
Private Documents
All other writings are private (Rule 132, Sec. 19)
Proof of Private Documents
zm Before any private document offered as authentic
igreceived in evidence, its due execution and
igmgt be proved by any of the following mega auc
(a) By, anyone who saw the document executed or
written: or
evidence of the genuineness of the si
De andeiGhg Orie aed ea
(c) By other evidence showing its due execution and
aiithenticity, (Rule 132, Sec; 20)
Any other private document need be
identified as that which it is claimed to be, (Ibid) (Note:
An unverified and unidentified private document cannot
be accorded probative value. [Dutch Boy Phils., Inc. ¥.
Seniel, 576 SCRA 231 [2009})
NOTES - To authenticate a private document
means to prove its genuineness and due execution,
(People v. Guanson, 372 SCRA 222)
In establishing the execution of a documel
same may be established: (1) by the person or pers
Who executed it; (2) by the person before whom Ae
execution was acknowledged; (3) by any person mo 600
present and saw it executed and delivered sera
its execution saw it and recognized re cae
() by a person to whom the parties to a ev,
Previously conferred the execution the
CA, 73 SCRA 146) a
wuineness
“A party who does not deny the Sea nok
a proferred een may not obj eH na a sence.”
Piepetly identified before it was FECES TE “Aor 15,
(Estrada v, Desierto, G.R. Nas. 146
)
x
001 '
“Every piece of evidence, 7
fauires certain processes
germssibility and admission: | i
Exhibit A, B, ete: for
hibit 1, 4, 3 ets: for the defendant) tag) yamust
Pre-trial or during its presentation 88 1 claimed toe.
THe be identified as the object eviden°S "oral evident
his requires a testimonial sponsor:
Ses Aes soe _—————E ee
. confiscation.
resented through the testimony of a witness. Under the
Tog0 Rules of Evidence, oral evidence must be formally
offered at the time the witness is called to testify... 3
Documentary evidence is (a) marked; (b) identified as the
document which it is claimed to be (as when the witness
asserts that the document presented to him is the same
contract which he claims was executed between the
two parties), (c) authenticated, if a private document,
proving its due execution and genuineness; and (f
formally offered after all the proponent’s witnesses have
testified.” (Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo, “Evidence: Basic
Principles and Selected Problems”, UST Law Review,
January-December 2004)
Modes of authentication: (1) Testimony; and (2)
Chain of custody.
*Chain of custody” means the duly recorded
suthorized movement and custody of seized drugs
or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/
to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
(People v. Cervantes, 381 SCRA 762) The failure of the
Prosecution to establish the chain of custody is fatal
to its cause. (People v. Partoza, 587 SCRA 809) It must
be established with unwavering exactitude that the
dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against
the accused is the same as that seized from him.
{Catuiran v. People, 587 SCRA 567)
i rior to
This is in accordance with
si RA. No. 9165, as amendee
-A. No. See People of the
ines v. Ely Policar yi i
