Evidence Outline

EVIDENCE NOTES Dennis Aran T. Abril, BSN, RN

I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS MATTERS A. Evidence as defned by the Revised Rues !n Evidence Evid Eviden ence ce defn defned ed:: mean means s sanc sancti tion oned ed by the the Rules ules o ourt o ascertainin! in a "udicial #roceedin! the truth res#ectin! a matter o act. $Section %, Rule %&'( )eneral Rule: The rules o evidence do not a##ly in the ollo*in! case cases+ s+#r #roc ocee eedi din! n!s: s: $Sec $Secti tion on , Rule ule %, %%-- - Rules ules o ivi ivill /rocedure( $i( Election cases $ii( 0and re!istration $iii( adastral #roceedin!s $iv( $iv( Natu Naturrali1 ali1at atio ion n #roc #rocee eedi din! n!s s $v( 2nsolvency #roceedin!s E3ce#ti E3ce#tion: on: By analo! analo!y y or in a su##leto su##letory ry chara character cter *henever *henever #ractic #racticable able and convenient $Section , Rule %, %-- Rules o ivil /rocedure(

". Distin#uish Evidence $%!& P%!!$ Evidence is the medium, means, or tool by *hich a act is #roved or dis#roved4 *hile /roo is the e5ect or result o evidence, the conviction or #ersuasion o the mind resultin! rom a consideration o evidence.

C. Distin#uish 'actu& 'actu& P%!bandu& $%!& 'actu& 'actu& P%!bans Evidence si!nifes relationshi# bet*een t*o acts, namely: $a( actum #robandum, *hich is the act or #ro#osition in issue *hich evidence see6s to #rove or dis#rove $b( actum #robans, *hich is the evidentiary act tendin! to #rove the act in issue Example: 2n an action or collection o a sum o money fled by A a!ainst B, the actum #roba #robandu ndum m is the the e3is e3isten tence ce o the the debt debt *hile *hile the actum actum #roba #robans ns is the the #romissory note si!ned by B in avor o A.

D. Cassifcati!n Cassifcati!n !$ Evidence (i)

Ob(ect)Rea* D!cu&enta%y and Testi&!nia evidence Object/Real Evidence: that *hich is directly addressed to the senses o the court and consists o tan!ible thin!s e3hibited or demo emons nsttrated ted in o#en court, urt, in an ocula cularr ins#ection or at a #lace desi!nated by the court or its vie* or observation o an e3hibition, e3#eriment or demonstration Documentary Evidence: evid evide ence consis sistin! tin! o *rit *ritin in!s !s or any any material containin! letters, *ords, numbers, f!ures, symbols or other modes o *ritten e3#ressed e3#ressed o5ered as #roo o their contents Testimonial Evidence: that *hich is submitted to the court throu!h the testimony or de#osition o a *itness consistin! o the *itness7 #erce#tion o #ast events or occurrence bein! recollected by the *itness and communicated to the court4 court4 it is a reco recons nstru tructi ction on o #ast #ast events events made by a *itness throu!h oral testimo imony, de#osition or any modes o e3#ression or communication

+ii, +ii,

Reevan Ree vant* t* &ate &ate%i %ia a and and c!&c!&-et eten entt evi evide denc nce e Relevant Evidence: Evidence havin! any value in reason as tendin! to #rove #rove any matter matter #roba #robable ble in any actio action4 n4 lo!ic lo!ical al % /re#ared by: ATTY ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


relation o the evidentiary act to the act in issue Material Evidence: Evid Eviden ence ce dire direct cted ed to #rov #rove e a act act in issu issue4 e4 it is determined by *hether the act it intends to #rove is in issue or not4 as to *hether a act is in issue or not is in tur turn dete deterrmine mined d by the the subs substa tant ntiv ive e la*, la*, #leadi #leadin! n!s, s, #re8t #re8tria riall orde order, r, and and by the the admiss admission ions s made made by #arti #arties4 es4 cons conseu euent ently, ly, eviden evidence ce may be relevant but may be immaterial in a case Competent Evidence: Evidence: Evidence *hich is not e3cluded by the rules, the statute or the onstitution

+iii, +iii,

Di%e Di%ect ct and and ci% ci%cu cu&s &sta tant ntia ia evid eviden ence ce Direct Evidence: that *hich #roves the act in dis#ute *ithout the aid o any inerence or #resum#tion Circumstantial Circumstantial Evidence: indi indirrectl ectly y #rov #roves es a act act in issu issue e thr throu!h ou!h ine inerrence ence or orm othe otherr esta establ blis ishe hed d ac acts as a necessary or #robable conseuence lassifcation lassifcation o ircumstantial Evidence: $%( nteced ntecedent ent Circumst Circumstanc ances es ; ; such as moral character, habit, customs, motive, #lan, desi!n $&( Concom Concomita itant nt Circum Circumsta stanc nces es ; such as o##ortunity, incom# incom#ati atibil bility ity,, alibi, alibi, subs subseu euent ent circum circumsta stance nces, s,
+iv, +iv,

Cu&u Cu&uat ativ ive e and and c!%% c!%%!b !b!%a !%ativ tive e evid eviden ence ce Corroborative Evidence: additi addition onal al eviden evidence ce o a di5er di5erent ent 6ind 6ind and character tendin! to #rove the same #oint Cumulative Evidence: additional evidence o the same 6ind tendin! to #rove the same #oint

+v, +v,

P%i& P%i&a% a%y y and and se sec!nda !nda%y %y evi evid denc ence Primary Evidence: Evidence: that *hich the la* re!ards as a5ordin! the !reatest certainty o the act in uestion4 reerred to in the rules as the best evidence !econdary Evidence: that *hich is inerior to the #rimary evidence and #ermitted by la* only *hen the best evidence is not available4 reerred to in the rules as substitutionary evidence

+vi, +vi,

P!si P!sitiv tive e and and ne#a ne#ati tive ve evid eviden ence ce Positive Evidence: *hen *itness a=rms that a certain state o acts does e3ist or a certain event occurred "e#ative Evidence: *hen *itness states that a certain event did not occur or a certain state o acts does not e3ist

+vii +vii,,

E1-e E1 -e%t %t evid eviden enc ce

+viii, +viii, P%i&a $acie $acie evide evidence nce and and c!ncusiv c!ncusive e evidenc evidence e Prima facie Evidence: 6ind 6ind o evid eviden ence ce,, *hic *hich, h, stand tandin in! ! alon alone e unrebutted, is su=cient to su##ort a conclusion Conclusive Evidence: that class o evidence *hich the la* does not allo allo* * to be cont contra radi dict cted ed II. ADMISSI"ILITY O' EVIDENCE A. Distin#uish Ad&issibiity $%!& 2ei#ht and Su3ciency Su3ciency 2n order or evidence to serve its #ur#ose o ascertainin! the truth res#ectin! a matter o act, it has to #ass throu!h the test o admissibility and *ei!ht and su=ciency. dmissib dmissibility ility of evidence evidence reer reers s to the the uest uestion ion *heth *hether er certa certain in #ieces #ieces o evidence are are to be considered at all. Evidence may be considered considered by the court & /re#ared by: ATTY ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


relation o the evidentiary act to the act in issue Material Evidence: Evid Eviden ence ce dire direct cted ed to #rov #rove e a act act in issu issue4 e4 it is determined by *hether the act it intends to #rove is in issue or not4 as to *hether a act is in issue or not is in tur turn dete deterrmine mined d by the the subs substa tant ntiv ive e la*, la*, #leadi #leadin! n!s, s, #re8t #re8tria riall orde order, r, and and by the the admiss admission ions s made made by #arti #arties4 es4 cons conseu euent ently, ly, eviden evidence ce may be relevant but may be immaterial in a case Competent Evidence: Evidence: Evidence *hich is not e3cluded by the rules, the statute or the onstitution

+iii, +iii,

Di%e Di%ect ct and and ci% ci%cu cu&s &sta tant ntia ia evid eviden ence ce Direct Evidence: that *hich #roves the act in dis#ute *ithout the aid o any inerence or #resum#tion Circumstantial Circumstantial Evidence: indi indirrectl ectly y #rov #roves es a act act in issu issue e thr throu!h ou!h ine inerrence ence or orm othe otherr esta establ blis ishe hed d ac acts as a necessary or #robable conseuence lassifcation lassifcation o ircumstantial Evidence: $%( nteced ntecedent ent Circumst Circumstanc ances es ; ; such as moral character, habit, customs, motive, #lan, desi!n $&( Concom Concomita itant nt Circum Circumsta stanc nces es ; such as o##ortunity, incom# incom#ati atibil bility ity,, alibi, alibi, subs subseu euent ent circum circumsta stance nces, s,
+iv, +iv,

Cu&u Cu&uat ativ ive e and and c!%% c!%%!b !b!%a !%ativ tive e evid eviden ence ce Corroborative Evidence: additi addition onal al eviden evidence ce o a di5er di5erent ent 6ind 6ind and character tendin! to #rove the same #oint Cumulative Evidence: additional evidence o the same 6ind tendin! to #rove the same #oint

+v, +v,

P%i& P%i&a% a%y y and and se sec!nda !nda%y %y evi evid denc ence Primary Evidence: Evidence: that *hich the la* re!ards as a5ordin! the !reatest certainty o the act in uestion4 reerred to in the rules as the best evidence !econdary Evidence: that *hich is inerior to the #rimary evidence and #ermitted by la* only *hen the best evidence is not available4 reerred to in the rules as substitutionary evidence

+vi, +vi,

P!si P!sitiv tive e and and ne#a ne#ati tive ve evid eviden ence ce Positive Evidence: *hen *itness a=rms that a certain state o acts does e3ist or a certain event occurred "e#ative Evidence: *hen *itness states that a certain event did not occur or a certain state o acts does not e3ist

+vii +vii,,

E1-e E1 -e%t %t evid eviden enc ce

+viii, +viii, P%i&a $acie $acie evide evidence nce and and c!ncusiv c!ncusive e evidenc evidence e Prima facie Evidence: 6ind 6ind o evid eviden ence ce,, *hic *hich, h, stand tandin in! ! alon alone e unrebutted, is su=cient to su##ort a conclusion Conclusive Evidence: that class o evidence *hich the la* does not allo allo* * to be cont contra radi dict cted ed II. ADMISSI"ILITY O' EVIDENCE A. Distin#uish Ad&issibiity $%!& 2ei#ht and Su3ciency Su3ciency 2n order or evidence to serve its #ur#ose o ascertainin! the truth res#ectin! a matter o act, it has to #ass throu!h the test o admissibility and *ei!ht and su=ciency. dmissib dmissibility ility of evidence evidence reer reers s to the the uest uestion ion *heth *hether er certa certain in #ieces #ieces o evidence are are to be considered at all. Evidence may be considered considered by the court & /re#ared by: ATTY ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


i it is relevant and and com#etent. 2t is relevant *hen it has tendency tendency in reason reason to #rove #rove or dis#rove dis#rove a act in issue. 2t is com#eten com#etentt *hen it is e3clu e3cluded ded by the rules. $ei#% $ei#%tt and and su&cie su&ciency ncy of evide evidenc nce e reer eer to the the ues uesti tion on o *het *hethe herr the the admitted evidence evidence #roves or or dis#roves dis#roves an issue. 2t #ertains to its tendency tendency to convince or #ersuade.

". Ee&ents !$ Ad&issibiity !$ Evidence +4, Reevancy ; lo!ical relation o the evidentiary act to the act in issue, that is *hether the ormer tends to establish the #robability or im#robability o the latter4 it is !overned !overned by lo!ic, common sense, and human e3#erience +5, C!&-etency ; #ertains to the issue o *hether or not the evidence is e3cluded by the rules4 it is !overned by la*s or the rules C. 6inds !$ Ad&issibiity +4, Muti-e Ad&issibiity See cases o:9ni*ide o: 9ni*ide Sales vs 26eda /eo#le vs >atco +5, C!nditi!na Ad&issibiity +7, Cu%ative Ad&issibiity urative Admissibility or ?'#%tin# ? '#%tin# 're (it% 're@ 're @ a##lies only i the #arty a!ai a!ains nstt *hom *hom the the inco incom# m#et eten entt evid eviden ence ce is err erroneo oneous usly ly admi admitt tted ed ob"ected to its admission D. C!&-etency !$ Evidence Evidence is com#etent *hen it is not e3cluded by the rules, la* or the onstitution Va%i!us Va%i!us Rues !$ E1cusi!n8 +A, +A, E1 E1c cus usi!n i!na% a%y y Rue Rues s unde unde% % the the C!ns C!nsti titu tuti! ti!n n +A%t +A%tic ice e III* III* 49:; 49:; C!nstituti!n, )*+ Ri#%t a#ainst unreasonable searc%es and sei,ures )!ection -+ Pe!-e vs Ma%ti Ri!ht a!ainst unreasonable searches may be invo6ed only a!ainst the State. The #ro#er #ro#erty ty ille!ally ille!ally sei1ed sei1ed may be used in evidenc evidence e a!ainst a!ainst the o=cer res#onsible or the ille!al sei1ure. Exceptions to t%e re.uirement re.uirement of searc% (arrant: $i( /lain ie* Doctrine 0imitations: (a) Prior usti'cation for 0ntrusion 8 0ntrusion 8 such as *arrant or another ob"ect, hot #ursuit, #ursuit, search search incident incident to la*ul arrest, and some other le!itimate reason or bein! bein! #resent #resent and connect connected ed to a search search directe directed d a!ainst the accused (b) 0nadvert 0nadvertent ent Discover Discovery y of Evidence Evidence ; a##li a##lies es *hen *hen the the #oli #olice ce o=ce o=cerr is not not sear search chin in! ! or or evid eviden ence ce a!ainst the accused but inadvertently comes across the incriminatin! ob"ect Pe!-e vs Musa nce nce the valid valid #ortio #ortion n o the the sear search ch *arra *arrant nt has been been e3ec e3ecut uted ed,, the the #lai #lain n vie* vie* doct doctri rine ne cann cannot ot #rovide any basis or urther search (c) 2lle!ality must be 2mmediately A##arent to the #olic #olice e that that the items that they they observ observed ed may be evid eviden ence ce o a crim crime, e, cont contra raba band nd,, or othe other* r*is ise e sub"ect to sei1ure Pe!-e vs Musa There There must be a ne3us ne3us bet*een bet*een the item to be sei1ed and the criminal behavior o the accused Pe!-e vs Saan

Pe!-e vs "!ad! b"ect is in #lain vie* i it is #lainly e3#osed to si!ht. here the ob"ect *as inside a closed #ac6a!e, the ob"ect itsel is not in #lain vie* and thereore, cannot be sei1ed *ithout a *arrant. o*ever, i the #ac6a!e #roclaims its contents, *hether by its distinctive conf!uration, its trans#arency, or its contents are obvious to an observer, then the contents are in #lain vie*. /lain vie* includes #lain eel but the ille!ality must immediately be a##arent $ii( aiver or onsented Search ase /rinci#le: Pe!-e vs Da&as! $iii( Sto# and Fris6 or Terry Search $iv( Search 2ncident to a 0a*ul Arrest $v( Search o Govin! ehicles $vi( ustoms Search )-+ Ri#%t to privacy and inviolability of communication )!ection 1+ See cases o: =uueta vs CA 2ate%!us D%u# vs NLRC )1+ Ri#%t of person under investi#ation for an o2ense or Miranda Ri#%ts doctrine )!ec *-+ Ri!hts available: $i( Ri!ht to remain silent $ii( Ri!ht to com#etent and inde#endent counsel $iii( Ri!ht to be inormed o such ri!hts )eneral Rule: ri!hts cannot be *aived E3ce#tion: *aiver in *ritin!, si!ned by the accused, in the #resence o counsel E3ce#tion to the e3ce#tion: ri!ht to be inormed o such ri!hts cannot be *aived Pe!-e vs "a!!y Ri!ht is available only durin! custodial investi!ation RA ;>7:* Pe!-e vs de R!sa%i! /olice invitation constitutes custodial investi!ation /olice line8u# not #art o custodial investi!ation as it has not shited rom investi!atory to accusatory sta!e thus Giranda ri!hts not a##licable Pe!-e vs 0uie%&! S#ontaneous statements or those not elicited throu!h uestionin! by la* enorcement o=cers but !iven in ordinary manner are not covered by the Giranda doctrine Pe!-e vs Payn!% Ri!hts reer only to testimonial com#ulsion Pe!-e vs de 0u?&an* Pe!-e vs La&sin# Giranda doctrine do not cover #ara=n tests, #hoto!ra#hin! )3+ Ri#%t a#ainst self4incrimination )!ection *5+ Pe!-e vs Mai&it The 6ernel o the ri!ht is not a!ainst all com#ulsion but testimonial com#ulsion. 2t does not a##ly *hen the evidence sou!ht to be e3cluded is not an incriminatin! statement but an ob"ect evidence Ri#ht a#ainst se$@inc%i&inati!n d!es n!t c!ve% the

$!!in#8

$ii( $iii( $iv(

$i( substance emitted rom the body o the accused such as e3amination or !onorrhea $ BS vs Tantin#, hair sam#les $ P- vs R!nde%!, DNA sam#les $ P- vs Vae%!* P- vs Yata%, fn!er#rintin!, #hoto!ra#hin! and #ara=n testin! $ P- vs

$v(

#re!nancy test $Via!% vs Su&&e%s,

0aa%de,

 /re#ared by: ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


Ri#ht a#ainst se$@inc%i&inati!n e1tends t! the $!!in#8 $i( com#ulsion or #roduction o vs documents, #a#ers, and chattels $ Re#aa Sandi#anbayan, $ii( any attem#t to urnish a s#ecimen o the accused7s hand*ritin! in connection *ith #rosecution or alsifcation $"et%an vs Sa&s!n, Ri#ht &ay be aived by8 $i( ailure to invo6e it timely $ii( ta6in! the *itness stand and voluntary testifes in *hich case he may be cross8e3amined and as6ed incriminatin! uestions on any matter he testifed durin! direct e3amination Pe!-e vs ud#e Ays!n hile the accused may testiy on his o*n behal sub"ect to cross8 e3amination, he may, *hile testiyin!, reuse to ans*er a s#ecifc uestion the ans*er to *hich tends to incriminate him or some crime other than that or *hich he is bein! #rosecuted Huestion is deemed incriminatin! i it tends to elicit an ans*er that *ould e3#ose the #arty+*itness to #ossible criminal liability. Thus, i uestion relates to a #ast criminality or *hich a *itness can no lon!er be #rosecuted as *hen it has already #rescribed or he has already been acuitted or convicted, or *here he has been !ranted immunity, the ri!ht is not available. /! %i#ht &ay be e1e%cised8 )a+ ccused in Criminal Case ; accused may reuse to ta6e the stand alto!ether and need not *ait or an incriminatin! uestion to be as6ed4 reason: the #ur#ose or callin! him is #recisely to incriminate him )b+ Party in Civil Case or dministrative Case ; #arty may invo6e the ri!ht as soon as incriminatin! uestion *ill be as6ed E3ce#tion: ivil or administrative case #arta6es o criminal #roceedin!s, the #arty may reuse to ta6e the stand alto!ether $Pascua vs Medica "!a%d !$ E1a&ine%s* Caba vs 6a-unan, $c( $itness in any case ; ri!ht may be invo6ed *hen incriminatin! uestion is #ro#ounded +", E1cusi!na%y Rues unde% S-ecia Las )*+ nti4$iretappin# ct E3ce#tion to Anti8 ire Ta##in! 0a* 8 R.A. No.-C& $The uman Security Act( Section  ; The #rovisions o R.A. No.&II $Anti8ire Ta##in! 0a*( to the contrary not*ithstandin!, a #olice o la* enorcement o=cial and the members o his team may, u#on order o the ourt o A##eals, listen to, interce#t and record, *ith the use o any mode, orm, 6ind or ty#e o electronic or other surveillance eui#ment or interce#tin! and trac6in! devices, or *ith the use o any other suitable *ays and means or that #ur#ose, any communication, messa!e, conversation, discussion, or s#o6en or *ritten *ords bet*een members o a "udicially declared and outla*ed terrorist or!ani1ation, association or !rou# o #ersons or o any #erson char!ed *ith or sus#ected o the crime o terrorism or cons#iracy to commit terrorism. E3ce#tion: /rovided, that surveillance, interce#tion and recordin! shall not be allo*ed i the communications are bet*een: $i( la*yers and clients $ii( doctors and #atients J /re#ared by: ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


$iii( "ournalist and their sources $iv( confdential business corres#ondence )-+ Rape !%ield Rule )R 67879 n ct Providin# ssistance and Protection to Rape ictims+ )1+ !exual buse !%ield Rule )Rule on Examination of C%ild $itness+ )3+ ;a(s on !ecrecy of + nti4oyeurism ct +C, E1cusi!na%y Rues unde% the Rues !$ C!u%t )*+ + Rules on Dis.uali'cation of $itness )5+ Rules on ut%entication of Documents )6+ Res 0nter lios cta Rule

III. "EST EVIDENCE RBLE A.

State&ent !$ the Rue hen the sub"ect o inuiry is the contents o the document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the document itsel $Section C, Rule %CI, Rules o ourt( ". Sc!-e !$ the Rue A##lies to all orms o documents containin! *ritten e3#ressions, #rovided the documetn is o5ered to #rove its contents C. D!cu&ent defned ; reers to *ritin!s or any materials containin! letters, *ords, numbers, f!ures, symbols or other modes o *ritten e3#ression such as dra*in!s $Seae% vs Lucas 'i& Ltd, 9nder the best evidence rule, *hen the sub"ect o inuiry is the content o the *ritin!+document $the uestion is *hat the document says(, the ori!inal o the *ritin!+document must be #resented. hat is stated in the document cannot be #roven by #hotoco#y or oral recollection o a *itness.

Re-ubic vs. I&ee Ma%c!s@Man!t!* et. a.* 0.R. N!.4;4;4* : 'eb%ua%y 545 This case involves a civil action or recovery o ill8!otten *ealth a!ainst the heirs o the late Ferdinant Garcos. To #rove that the res#ondents had interests in various cor#orations and ho* they used dummies in acuirin! and o#eratin! the businesses, the Re#ublic #rensented mere #hotoco#ies  documents, consistin! o letters, TSN o #roceedin!s beore the /)), and a=davit o *itnesses. The Re#ublic did not deny that *hat should be #roved are the contents o these documents themselves. 2t is thus im#erative to submit the ori!inals that could #rove the Re#ublic7s alle!ations, *ithout *hich the Re#ublic could not #rove that the res#ondents collaborated *ith ormer /resident Garcos and 2melda Garcos and #artci#ated in the latter7s alle!ed accumulation o ill8!otten *ealth. D. 2hat is c!nside%ed as !%i#ina $!% -u%-!ses !$ best evidence %ue8 $a( *hen the contents o *hich are the sub"ect o inuiry, hence a #hotoco#y may be an ori!inal or #ur#oses o the rule $b( document is in t*o or more co#ies e3ecuted at or about the same time *ith identical contents, all such co#ies are eually re!arded as ori!inals Pe!-e vs /!n. Tan A tri#licate co#y #roduced by the use o carbon is admissible *ithout accountin! or the other co#ies $c( *hen the entry is re#eated in the re!ular course o business, one bein! co#ied rom another at or near the time o transaction, all the entries are li6e*ise eually re!arded as ori!inals

K /re#ared by: ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


E. Instances hen best evidence %ue d!es n!t a--y and the !%i#ina %itin# need n!t be -%!duced8 (1) if t%e purpose is not to prove t%e contents of t%e (ritin# but only to s%o( t%at t%e document exists9 or %as been executed or delivered9 in suc% a case9 t%e oral testimony or ot%er secondary evidence is enou#% to prove t%e existence9 issuance or delivery of t%e (ritin# Pe!-e vs Tand!y A #hotoco#y o the mar6ed #eso bill is admissible since *hat is sou!ht to be #roved is the e3istence o the mar6ed money and not the contents thereo Pacifc! A%ce! vs Pe!-e A #hotoco#y o the chec6 is admissible in a criminal #rosecution or violation o B/ && because the !ravamen o the o5ense is the act o issuance o a bum chec6, thus the sube"ct o inuiry is the e3ecution or the e3istence o the chec6 and not its contents )-+ if t%e (ritin# or document is merely collateral or is connected in some (ay to t%e fact in issue9 ot%er(ise =no(n as @Collateral Aact RuleB )1+ if t%e purpose is to prove a fact t%at %as an existence t%at is independent of any (ritin#9 even t%ou#% t%at fact %as been reduced to or evidenced by a (ritin#9 Maye%s vs BS A testimony o a *itness !iven in a committee hearin! may be #roven by the oral testimony o someone *ho heard it althou!h the testimony *as recorded, thus the #resentation o the transcri#t o the *itness7 testimony is not indis#ensable )3+ (%en t%e terms or contents of t%e document are not disputed C!ns!idated "an and T%ust C!&-any vs De M!nte M!t!%!%s hen the terms+contents o a document are not dis#uted or are admitted by the #arties )7+ (aiver Dea C%u? vs C!u%t !$ A--eas Des#ite non8com#liance *ith the reuisites or introduction o secondary evidence, a secondary evidence, i not ob"ected to, becomes admissible and is as credible as the ori!inal )>+ if t%e subject of in.uiry is not t%e contents of t%e document9 but anot%er matter independent from t%e contents of t%e document Atien?a vs. "!a%d !$ Medicine and Si!s!n* 0.R. N!.4;;>;* 9 'eb%ua%y 544 The sub"ect o inuiry in this case is *hether res#ondent doctors are liable or !ross ne!li!ence in removin! the ri!ht unctionin! 6idney o Editha instead o the let non8unctionin! 6idney, not the #ro#er anatomical locations o Editha7s 6idneys. Thus, it is not necessary to #resent the ori!inals o the L8Ray Reuest Form. Besides, the act sou!ht to be established by the admission o these e3hibits $38ray reuest orms( that her ?6idneys *ree both in their #ro#er anatomical locations at the time o the o#eration, need not be #roved as it is covered by mandatory "udicial notice. Te#i&enta Che&ica vs. Ma%y Anne Oc!* 0.R. N!.4;F7G9* 5; 'eb%ua%y 547 The sub"ect o inuiry is not the #ayroll sheet o Te!eminta rather, the thrust o this case is the abundance o evidence #resent to #rove the alle!ation that co abandoned her "ob by bein! on A0. onseuently, an em#loyer cannot be le!ally stum#ed by a #ayroll sheet, but must be able to submit testimonial and other #ieces o documentary evidence li6e leave orms, o=ce memos, *arnin! letters and notices, to be able to #rove that the em#loyee abandoned her *or6. '. E1ce-ti!ns t! "est Evidence Rue8 )*+ ori#inal is lost9 destroyed9 or cannot be produced (it%out bad fait% on t%e part of t%e o2eror De Ve%a vs. A:;* 47 uy 544 hen there are more than one $%( ori!inal co#y e3ists, it must a##ear  /re#ared by: ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


that all o them have been lost, destroyed or cannot be #roduced in court beore secondary evidence can be !iven o any one. A #hotoco#y may not be used *ithout accountin! or the other ori!inals. )-+ ori#inal is in possession of adverse party Edsa /!te vs. "' C!%-!%ati!n The notice to the adverse #arty may be in the orm o $a( a motion or the #rduction o the ori!inal $Rule &(4 or $b( made in o#en court in the #resence o the adverse #arty74 or $c( via sub#oena duces tecum, #rovided the adverse #arty is !iven su=cient time to #roduce the ori!inal. )1+ ori#inal is a public record in t%e custody of a public o&cer or recorded in a public o&ce (%ic% may be evidenced by a certi'ed true copy t%ereof )3+ ori#inal consists of numerous accounts or voluminous documents C!&-ania Ma%iti&a vs. Aied '%ee 2!%e%s The voluminous records must be made available+accessible to the adverse #arty so that the correctness o the summary o the voluminous records may be tested on cross8e3amination. 9nder the ore!oin! e3ce#tions, *here the ori!inal *ritin! is not available or one reason or another,the ne3t best evidence to #rove its contents *ill be the ollo*in! secondary evidence in this order: $%( co#y o the *ritin! $&( another document recitin! its contents $C( testimony o a *itness *ho has read or 6no*s about it

IV. PAROL EVIDENCE RBLE State&ent !$ the Rue hen the terms o an a!reement have been reduced to *ritin!, it is considered as containin! all the terms a!reed u#on and there can be, bet*een the #arties and their successors in interests, no evidence o such terms other than the contents o the *ritten a!reement. +Secti!n 9* Rue 47, Pu%-!se !$ the %ue8 to !ive certainty to *ritten a!reement, #reserve its reliability and #rotect its sanctity. This #roceeds rom the #remise that s#o6en *ords are admittedly unrelaible !iven the railty o human memory, unli6e *ritten contract *hich s#ea6s o uniorm lan!ua!e. The term ?#arol@ means somethin! ?oral@, but or #ur#oses o the rule, it means e3traneous evidence or evidence aliunde, either oral or *ritten, *hich is outside o the *ritten contract bet*een the #arties. /arol evidence rule becomes o#eative *hen the issues in the liti!ation are the terms o the *ritten a!reement. /arol evidence rule #resu##oses the e3istence o a *ritten a!reement *hich is sou!ht to be modifed, altered or varied by e3traneous evidence, that is, evidence other than the *ritten a!reement itsel. The introduction o evidence *hich tends to vary the terms o the *ritten a!reement is barred, because *hatever is not ound in the *ritten a!reement is considered *aived and abandoned.$ Yu Te vs. 0!n?aes(

INSTANCES 2/ERE PAROL EVIDENCE RBLE DOES NOT APPLY : )*+ (%en t%e document in dispute is not a contract9 li=e a mere receipt9 since t%e rule presupposes a (ritten a#reement ) Cruz vs. Court of Appeals + )-+ (%en at least one of t%e parties to t%e case is not a party to t%e (ritten a#reement9 since t%e rule applies only to suits bet(een parties to t%e (ritten contract and t%eir successors4in4interest ) Lechugas vs. Court of Appeals + This is #remised on the basic rule that only #arties are bound by the terms o a contract. o*ever, *hile #arol evidence rule has no a##lication to a stran!er to a contract, a #erson *ho claims to be the benefciary o an alle!ed sti#ulation pour autrui may be considered a #arty to the contract and thereore he is #recluded rom introducin! oral evidence to vary the terms o a *ritten contract. Goreover, ' /re#ared by: ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


to #reclude the a##lication o the #arol evidence rule, it must be sho*n that ?at least one o the #arties to the suit is not #arty or #rivy o a #arty to the *ritten instrument in uestion and does not base a claim on the instrument or assert a ri!ht ori!inatin! in the instrument or the relation established thereby. A benefciary o a sti#ulation #our autrui obviously bases his claim on the contract. e thereore cannot claim to be a stran!er to the contract and resist the a##lication o the #arol evidence rule$Heirs of Mario Pacres vs. Heirs of Cecilia Ygona, G.R. No.1!1", # Ma$ %&1& ( )1+ (%en t%e prior or contemporaneous a#reement is independent from or not inconsistent (it% t%e terms of a (ritten a#reement ) Ro'les vs. Lizarraga Her(anos + )3+ (%ere any of t%e exception to t%e parol evidence rule applies9 in (%ic% case a party may present parol evidence to modify9 explain or add to t%e terms of t%e (ritten a#reement9 if %e puts in issue in %is pleadin#s t%e follo(in#: $i( an intrinsic ambi!uity, mista6e or im#erection in the *ritten a!reement $Paanca vs. 2is!n H C!.* (4 $ii( the ailure o the *ritten a!reement to e3#ress the true intent and a!reement o the #arties.$ En%i
DISTINCTION "ET2EEN "EST EVIDENCE RBLE AND PAROL EVIDENCE RBLE8 $i( 2n the Best Evidence Rule, the uestion to be ans*ered is 8 *hat does the document sayM4 *hile in /arol Evidence Rule, the uestion is ; *hat have the #arties to the contract a!reed u#onM $ii( The Best Evidence Rule establishes a #reerence or the ori!inal over a secondary evidence4 *hile /arol Evidence Rule is not concerned *ith #rimacy o evidence but it #resu##oses that the ori!inal is available, meanin! the Best Evidence Rule has to be com#lied *ith4 $iii( The Best Evidence Rule #recludes the admission o the secondary evidence i the ori!inal document is available4 *hile the /arol Evidence Rule #recludes the admission o evidence other than the contents o the document to #rove the terms o a *ritten a!reement4 $iv( The Best Evidence Rule can be invo6ed by any liti!ant to an action *hether or not said liti!ant is a #arty to the document involved4 *hile the /arol Evidence Rule can be invo6ed only a!ainst a #arty to the *ritten a!reement and their successors8in8interest4 $v( The Best Evidence Rule a##lies to all orms o documents4 *hile /arol Evidence Rule a##lies only to *ritten contracts and *ills. V. EJTRA@BDICIAL ADMISSIONS* CON'ESSIONS* COMPROMISES AND RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RBLE 6inds !$ Ad&issi!ns8 /re#ared by: ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


$a( udicial Admission $Section , Rule %&-( $b( E3tra8"udicial admission $Section &K, Rule %CI(

6inds !$ E1t%a@(udicia Ad&issi!n : +A, Ad&issi!n by a Pa%ty+Ad&issi!n A#ainst Inte%est, !tatement of t%e Rule: The act, declaration or omission o a #arty as to any relevant act maybe !iven in evidence a!ainst him $ Section &K, Rule %CI( Reason for t%e Rule is its inherent reliability, or no one *ould ma6e an adverse admission a!ainst himsel i such is not true. 8 Reers to an e3tra8"udicial admission and the admission is a!ainst the interest o the admitter. Thus, sel8servin! admission is not admissible. 8 The rule on e3tra8"udicial admission under Section &K, Rule %CI contem#lates o a situation *here the declarant is not in court, but someone *ho had heard+seen the admission testifes in court as to the admission made by the declarant. 2n other*ords, the declarant himsel is not the *itness, because the moment the declarant comes or*ard and testifes and reiterates in court his e3tra8"udicial admission, then such admission becomes a "udicial admission. 8 Since the *itness is not the declarant himsel, the testimony o such *itness, insoar as the admission made by the declarant is concerned, is necessarilly hearsay, considerin! that the *itness has no #ersonal 6no*led!e as to the truth or alsity o the admission and the declarant *ho is not in the *itness stand cannot be cross8e3amined by the #arty a!ainst *hom the admission is o5ered in evidence. 8 But *hile an e3tra8"udicial admission is necessarilly hearsay, under Section &K, Rule %CI, the same is admissible a!ainst the declarant. The reason *hy an admission 8 even i hearsay8 is admissible is that, the declarant is not e3#ected to cross8e3amine himsel. 2n other*ords, i *hat ma6es an e3tra8"udicial admission hearsay is the absence o o##urtunity o the #arty a!ainst *hom the admission is o5ered to cross8e3amine the #erson *ho made the e3tra8"udicial admission, then obviously such reason does not e3ist in case o an e3tra8 "udicial admission since the #erson *ho made the adamission is the same #erson a!ainst *hom the admission is o5ered in evidence.$Estrada vs. Desierto( 8 hile the e3tra8"udicial admission under Section &K, Rule %CI is not amon! those e3ce#tions to the hearsay rule enumerated under Sections C to  o Rule %CI, the Su#reme ourt cate!orically ruled in Estrada vs. Desierto that admission under Section &K, Rule %CI is an e3ce#tion to the hearsay evidence rule. 8 hile admission under Section &K, Rule %CI and Declaration A!ainst 2nterest under Section C', Rule %CI are both e3ce#tions to hearsay evidence rule, they are distinct rom each other.

DISTINCTIONS "ET2EEN ADMISSION BNDER SECTION 5G AND DECLARATION A0AINST INTEREST BNDER SECTION 7: $i( the admission under Section &K is admissible a!ainst the declarant only4 *hile declaration a!ainst interest under Section C' is admissible not only a!ainst the admmitter but also a!ainst third #arty4 $ii( in admission under Section &K, the declarant need not be dead or unable to testiy4 *hile in declaration a!ainst interest under Section C' a##lies only i the declarant is dead or unable to testiy4 $iii(an admission under Section C' may be made at any time even durin! the trial4 *hile declaration a!ainst interest is made beore the controversy arises. DISTINCTIONS "ET2EEN EJTRA@BDICIAL ADMISSION BNDER SECTION 5G %I /re#ared by: ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


AND BDICIAL ADMISSION BNDER SECTION >* RBLE 59 $i( A "udicial admission is made in the course o a "udicial #roceedin! in the same case4 *hile an e3tra8"udicial admission is made out o court or in a "udicial #roceedin! involvin! a di5erent case other than the case *here the admission is introduced in evidence4 $ii( A "udicial admission is bindin! and conclusive u#on the admitter4 *hile an e3tra8"udicial admission maybe contradicted by the admitter4 $iii(A "udicial admission reuires no #roo and need not be ormally o5ered4 *hile an e3tra8"udicial admission reuires #roo and needs to be ormally o5ered in evidence. +", Res Inte% Ai!s Acta T! "%anches !$ Res Inte% Ai!s Acta8 -a A/(ission '$ thir/ part$ ) Res 0nter Alios Acta Rule of the irst 2ranch + !tatement of t%e rule: The ri!hts o a #arty cannot be #re"udiced by an act, declaration or omission o another. $Section &', Rule %CI( Reason be%ind t%e rule: since the third #arty8declarant cannot be cross8 e3amined by the #arty a!ainst *hom the act, declaration or omission is o5ered, due #rocess demands that the latter shall not be #re"udiced by the act, declaration or omission o the ormer. 8 The ?res inter alios acta rule @ #resu##oses an e3tra8"udicial admission, because the declarant is not the one testiyin! in court, and thereore he cannot be cross8e3amined by the #arty a!ainst *hom the declaration is o5ered in evidence. 2t contem#lates o a situation *here another #erson $*itness( testifes in court as to the act, declaration or omission made by a #arty outside o court. The *itness is a #erson *ho claims to have heard or 6no*n o the e3tra8"udicial admission made by a #arty $declarant(. 2 the declarant himsel ta6es the *itness stand and reiterates in court his e3tra8"udicial admission that he made outside o court, his other*ise e3tra8"udicial admission becomes a "udicial admission and, as such, it is admissible a!ainst another #arty. The reason is obvious ; that other #arty a!ainst *hom the admission is o5ered in evidence has the o##urtunity to cross8e3amine the declarant and, thereore, due #rocess is com#lied *ith.

EJCEPTIONS TO RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RBLE O' T/E 'IRST "RANC/ : +i, Ad&issi!n by c!@-a%tne%)a#ent)(!int@!ne%)(!int@debt!% $Sec &-, Rule %CI( Reason for t%e exception ; since #artners, co8o*ners and co8 debtors *ith res#ect to each other or a!ent in relation to his #rinci#al, #ossess identity o interest and are similarly circumstanced, they are deemed by la* as one and the same #arty, such that the admission made a #artner, "oint8o*ner, "oint8 debtor or a!ent is bindin! and admissible a!ainst the other #artners, "oint8o*ners, "oint8debtors or #rinci#al, because such admission cannot be deemed as an admission made by a ?third@ #arty $under Section &', Rule %CI( but an admission made by the #arty himsel, *hich is admissible under Section &K, Rule %CI. Re

$a( there must be an act or declaration made by a co8cons#irator4 $b( the act or declaration must relate to the cons#iracy and durin! the e3istence o the cons#iracy. Thus, the e3tra8"udicial admission made by a cons#irator ater the crime *as consummated is not admissible a!ainst the other co8cons#irators, #recisely because such admission *as not made durin! the e3istence o cons#iracy $ Pe!-e vs. Kuidat!* 59; SCRA 4(4 and $c( there must be an inde#endent evidence o the cons#iracy other than the act or declaration made by the conessin! cons#irator $ People vs. Guittap, G.R. No.1!!*%1, " Ma$ %&&34 People vs. Michael 2o5ingo, G.R. No.1+#3*, 1& August %&11(. +iii, Ad&issi!n by P%ivies $Section C%, Rule %CI( Reason for t%e exception ; since the successor merely ste#s into the shoes o the #redecessor, they are deemed by la* as #ossessin! the same interest and similarly circumstanced *ith res#ect to the #ro#erty acuired by the ormer rom the latter, such that the #revious admission made by the #redecessor *hile still holdin! title to the #ro#erty is bindin! and admissible a!ainst the #redecessor *ho is #resently holdin! the title, because such admission cannot be deemed as an admission by a third #arty #roscribed under the ?res inter alios acta rule@. Re
-' i(ilar Acts or Previous Con/uct Rule -Res 0nter Alios Acta Rule of the econ/ 2ranch !tatement of t%e rule 8 Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thin! at one time is not admissible to #rove that he did or did not do the same or similar thin! at another time.$ Secti!n 7>* Rue 47( Reason for t%e rule: Evidence o similar act s or occurences com#els the deendant to meet alle!ations that are not mentioned in the com#laint, conuses him in his deense, raises a variety o relevant issues, and diverts the attention o the court rom the issues immediately beore it. ence, the evidentiary rule !uards a!ainst #ractical inconvenience o tryin! collateral issues and #rotractin! the trial and #revent sur#rise or other mischie #re"udicial to liti!ants. $ C%u? vs. C!u%t !$ A--eas* 0.R. N!.45G;47* 5; uy 499: (. hile evidence o similar acts or #revious conduct is inadmissible to #rove that the #erson did or did not do the same or similar conduct at another time, it is, ho*ever, admissible to #rove: $i( s#ecifc intent4 $ii( 6no*led!e4 $iii( identity4 $iv( #lan4 $v( system4 $vi( scheme4 %& /re#ared by: ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


$vii( $viii(

habit4 custom4 (ix) usa!e4 and the li6e $ Secti!n 7>* Rue 47 (

O''ER O' COMPROMISE +Secti!n 5;* Rue 47, A. In Civi Cases ; o5er o com#romise is not an admission o liability and is not admissible a!ainst the o5eror. Reason for t%e rule: 2n civil cases, the #olicy is to encoura!e com#romise. B. In C%i&ina Cases ; an o5er o com#romise by the accused may be received in evidence as an im#lied admission o !uilt. E1ce-ti!ns8 $i( in uasi8o5enses+criminal ne!li!ence cases $ii( cases allo*ed by la* to be com#romised, such as in cases involvin! criminal #rosecution or violation o the Nstional 2nternal Revenue ode, *here com#romise is allo*ed under Section &I thereo. $iii( A #lea o !uilty later *ithdra*n or an unacce#ted o5er o a #lea o !uilty to a lesser o5ense4 $iv( 9nder the ?)ood Samarita Rule@, that is, an o5er to #ay or the #ayment o medical, hos#ital or other e3#enses occassioned by an in"ury is not admissible in evidence as #roo o civil or criminal liability or the in"ury. OT/ER 'ORMS O' O''ER O' COMPROMISE8 $i( /lea or or!iveness made by the accused, or by a member o his amily or a third #arty *ith the im#lied acuiscience or ratifcation o the accused $ P- vs. De 0u?&an(4 $ii( 5er o marria!e made by the accused. But i the o5er o marria!e *as made by a third #arty $Guslim 2mam( *ithout the involvement o the accused, such o5er is not admissible as im#lied admission o !uilt$ Pe!-e vs. Danny 0!d!y (4 $iii(5er o #ayment o money or anythin! o value, other than or medical or hos#ital e3#enses occassioned by in"ury4 $iv(5er o restitution.

VI. /EARSAY EVIDENCE RBLE eneral Rule: A *itness can testiy only to those acts *hich he 6no*s o his #ersonal 6no*led!e, that is, *hich are derived rom his o*n #erce#tion $Section CK, Rule %CI(

Reasons *hy hearsay evidence is inadmissible +Est%ada vs Desie%t!,8 %( 0ac6 o cross8e3amination, since the *itness is not the declarant and the declarant is not in court &( Absence o demeanor evidence, since the declarant is not the one testiyin! in court C( Absence o an oath, since the declarant is not the one testiyin! in court $Section %, Rule %C&( The determination o *hether an evidence is hearsay or not de#ends on the #ur#ose or *hich the evidence is o5ered: a( earsay rule a##lies i evidence is or the #ur#ose o #rovin! the truth o the assertion+declaration+statement or other*ise o5ered or hearsay #ur#oses4 b( 2 the evidence is o5ered or non8hearsay #ur#oses, re!ardless o the truth or alsity o the assertion+declaration+statement, it is not hearsay and thereore admissible An evidence is deemed to be o5ered or non8hearsay #ur#oses i it is o5ered to #rove that a statement+assertion+declaration *as made and such statement+assertion+declaration is relevant to the case, re!ardless o its truth or alsity. Geanin! to say, such statement+assertion+declaration is 2NDE/ENDENT0> RE0EANT T TE ASE. An assertion+declaration+statement is inde#endently relevant to the case, re!ardless %C /re#ared by: ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


o its truth or alsity, *hen: a( Such assertion+declaration+statement is the very act in issue in the case, e.!. #rosecutions or the crimes o libel, oral deamation, threats4 or b( Such assertion+declaration+statement is a circumstantial evidence o a act in issue, such as: a. The mental state, emotions, 6no*led!e, belie, intention, ill8*ill, bias o teh declarant4 b. /hysical condition, such as illness o the declarant4 c. The mental condition+state o mind o the listener4 d. Statement sho*in! credibility o a *itness, e.!. #rior inconsistent staement4 e. Statement *hich may establish+identiy the date, #lace, and #erson in uestion ross8e3amination is necessary to determine the ualities o a *itness by testin! his: a( eracity ; sincerity or *illin!enss to tell the truth, that is, *hether the *itness had any reason to lie4 b( om#etency ; ability to tell the truth, *hich de#ends on three $C( actors: i. observation 8 the ability to #erceive the event $#erce#tion( 8 the uestion here is ?did the *itness #erceive *hat he describes, and did he #erceive accuratelyM@ ii. memory 8 the ability to retain *hat is #erceived 8 the uestion here is ?has the *itness retained an accurate im#ression o his #erce#tionM@ iii. transmission 8 the ability to transmit his recollection o the event $narration( 8 the uestion here is ?does his lan!ua!e convey that im#ression accuratelyM@ ence, in order to encoura!e the *itness to do his best *ith res#ect to each o these actors, and to e3#ose inaccuracies *hich may enter in, the *itness shall ideally be reuired to testiy: a( under oath4 b( in the #ersonal #resence o the trier o act $demeanor evidence(4 and c( under cross8e3amination. The rule a!ainst the hearsay is desi!ned to insure com#liance *ith these ideal condtions and *hen one o them is absent, the hearsay ob"ection becomes #ertinent. The rule a!ainst hearsay evidence is to #reserve the ri!ht o the #arties to cross8 e3amine the ori!inal #ersons *ho have 6no*led!e o the transaction or event.

EJCEPTIONS TO /EARSAY: A, DYIN0 DECLARATION $Section C', Rule %CI( Reasons for admissibility $P- vs Ce%ia* 0.R. N!. 4;;4>;* 5: N!ve&be% 5;(: a) necessity ; the declarant7s death renders it im#ossible his ta6in! the *itness stand and it oten ha##ens that there is no other eually satisactory #roo o the crime. Allo*in! admission o a dyin! declaration, thereore, #revents a ailure o "ustice. b) trust*orthiness ; no #erson a*are o his im#endin! death *ould ma6e a careless and alse accusation. /oint o death is so solemn and a*ul eual to an oath. Re

-+ t t%e time t%e declaration (as made9 t%e declarant must be under t%e consciousness of an impendin# deat% The rule is that, a f3ed belie in inevitable and imminent death must be entertained by the declarant. 2t is the belie in im#endin! death and not the ra#id succession o death in #oint o act that renders the dyin! declaration admissible. The test is *hether the declarant has abandoned all ho#es o survival and loo6ed at death as certainly im#endin!. But ta6e note o the ratifcation doctrine, *hich states that ?a statement made under circumstances *hich *ould not render it admissible as a dyin! declaration becomes admissible as such i a##roved or re#eated by the declarant ater he had abandoned all ho#e o recovery.@ 2n P- vs "abie%a +F5 Phi 9;, , althou!h the statement in itsel is inadmissible as an ante mortem declaration, in as much as there is nothin! to sho* that at the time he made it, Severino aro 6ne* or frmly believed that he *as at the #oint o death, nevertheless, ater havin! ratifed its contents a *ee6 later *hen he *as near death as a result o his *ounds, said declaration is admissible as a #art o that *hich he made ante mortem. 1+ T%e declarant is competent as a (itness here the declarant *ould not have been a com#etent *itness had he surived, the #roerred declarations *ill not be admissible. Accordin!ly, declaration made by a child too youn! to be a com#etent *itness or by an insane inca#able o understandin! his o*n statements are not admissible. o*ever, the #resum#tion is that, delcarant *ould have been com#etent. $0e%ad! and A%iate vs Pe!-e* 0.R. N!. 4;7G:* 5 N!ve&be% 5:( 3+ T%e declaration must be o2ered in any case (%ere t%e declarantFs deat% is t%e subject of in.uiry $0e%ad! and A%iate vs Pe!-e. 0.R. N!. 4;7G:* 5 N!ve&be% 5:,. Note: The rulin! in /eo#le vs erilla, *here the Su#reme ourt held that the declaration must be o5ered in a criminal case or homicide, murder or #arricide in *hich the declarant is a victim, is o doubtul accuracy because Section C, Rule %CI e3#ressly #rovides that dyin! declaration may be received in any case *here the declarant7s death is the sub"ect o inuiry as evidence o the cause and surroundin! circumstances o such death.

D!ct%ine !$ C!&-eteness in %eati!n t! dyin# deca%ati!n $P- vs De !ya* 0.R. N!. ;F5:* : N!ve&be% 4994 ( 8 9nder this doctrine, a dyin! declaration must be com#lete in itsel. To be com#lete, it does not mean that the declarant must recite everythin!4 it is enou!h that it be a ull e3#ression o all that the declarant intended to say as conveyin! his meanin! in res#ect o such act. 8 Reason for t%e rule: since the declarant *as #revented by death or other circumstance rom sayin! all that he *ished to say, *hat he did say mi!ht have ualifed by the statements *hich he *as #revented rom ma6in!. That incom#lete declaration is not thereore entitled to the #resum#tion o truthulness *hich constitutes the basis u#on *hich dyin! declarations are received. ", DECLARATION A0AINST INTEREST $Section C', Rule %CI(

Reasons for exception: a( Trust*orthiness+reliability b( Necessity

Pedi#%ee reers to relationshi#, amily !enealo!oy, birth, marria!e, death the date *hen and #lace *here these acts occured and names o relatives Re
D, 'AMILY REPBTATION OR TRADITION RE0ARDIN0 PEDI0REE $Section I, Rule %CI( Reasons for t%e Exception: $i( trust*orthiness+realibity 8 since #edi!ree involves matters 6no*n by amily members *ho are in the best #osition to 6no* the acts4 they are e3#ression o #ersons *ho must 6no* the truth. $ii( necessity 8 it is the best evidence that the nature o the case admits and to #revent miscarria!e o "ustice.

T! +5, -a%ts: $ is!n vs. C!u%t !$ A--eas( $i( testimony o a amily member4 and $ii( ?amily #ossessions@. Re

members4 $ii( there must be a re#utation or a tradition re!ardin! the #edi!ree o such amily member *hich e3isted #rior to the controversy4 $iii(the *itness testiyin! as such re#utation or tradition must be a member o the same amily as the #erson *hose #edi!ree is in uestion.

DISTINCTIONS "ET2EEN ACT OR DECLARATION A"OBT PEDI0REE +Secti!n 79, and 'AMILY REPBTATION OR TRADITION RE0ARDIN0 PEDI0REE $Section I( 2n Section C-, the declarant is dead or unable to testiy, and the *itness, *ho may be a amily member or not, testifes as to the act or declaration made by the declarant about the #edi!ree o a amily member4 *hile Section I, does not involve a deceased declarant or a declarant *ho is unable to testiy, but a *itness, *ho must be a amily member, testiyin! as to the amily re#utation or tradition re!ardin! the #edi!ree o another amily member. E. COMMON REPBTATION $Section %, Rule %CI( overs t! +5, sub(ects8 )i+ matters of public or #eneral interest more t%an t%irty )18+ years old and )ii+ marria#e or moral c%aracter 9nli6e #edi!ree $Sections C- and I(, !eneral re#utation o marria!e or non8marria!e may #roceed rom #ersons *ho are not members o the amily, in vie* o the #ublic interest that is ta6en in the uestions involvin! marital relations $ In Re8 Maa%i(. IN RE8 Atty. '!%enci! Maa%i The Fili#ino citi1enshi# o a la*yer $Atty. Florencio Gallari(, *hose license *as revo6ed u#on fndin! that he is not a Fili#ino as his #arents *ere alle!edly both chinese nationals, *as established by the *itnesses *ho belon!ed to the same community all o *hom testifed that Ana, the mother o Esteban $Florencio7s ather( *as un&a%%ied and a Ta#a!# and, thereore, a 'ii-in!. '. RES 0ESTAE $Section &, Rule %CI( Reason for t%e Exception: its trust*orthiness, !iven the absence o the o##urtunity to concoct+abricate since the statement *as made s#ontaneously. T! +5, '!%&s !$ Res 0estae : +i, S-!ntane!us state&ent !tatement of t%e rule 8 Statements made by a #erson *hile a startlin! occurence is ta6in! #lace or immediately #rior or subseuent thereto *ith res#ect to the circumstances thereo, may be !iven in evidence as #art o the res #estae. L 3 3$Secti!n >5* f%st -a%t* Rue 47( 2t reers to those e3clamations and statements made by either the #artici#ants, the victim or s#ectator to a crime immediately beore, durin! and ater the commission o the crime, *hen the circumstances are such that the statements *ere made as s#ontaneous reaction or utterance ins#ired by e3citement o the occassion and there *as no o##urtunity or the declarant to deliberate and abricate a alse statement$People vs. 8so$, G.R. No.1+#+"!,  April %&1& ( The s#ontaneous statement *as made durin! the startlin! occurence, or immediately #rior or subseuent thereto. 2 the statement *as not s#ontaneous, it is not admissible as res !estae$ Taidan! vs. 'ac!n Ma%iti&e H Aied Se%vices( The test is the absence o the o##urtunity to concoct or abricate. D"P P!! vs. Radi! Mindana! Net!% This involves an insurance claim a!ainst an insurance com#any, *ho invo6ed as a deense the ?e3ce#ted ris6 clause@ o the #olicy, contendin! that the fre *as caused by rebellion *hich is an ?e3ce#ted ris6@. 2t *as % /re#ared by: ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


held that the testimonies o the investi!ators that the fre *as caused by //8N/A rebels based on testimonies o some by8standers are not admissible as #art o res !estae, in vie* o the stron! #ossibility that the intervie* *as not made s#ontaneously and beore the by8standers had the time to contrive or in
+ii, Ve%ba Acts !tatement of t%e rule  Statements accom#anyin! an euivocal act material to the issue, and !ivin! it a le!al si!nifcance, may be received as #art o the res #estae. $Secti!n >5* sec!nd -a%t* Rue 47 ( 0. ENTRIES IN T/E COBRSE O' "BSINESS !tatement of t%e rule: Entries made at, or near the time o the transactions to *hich they reer, by a #erson deceased, or unable to testiy, *ho *as in the #osition to 6no* the acts therein stated, maybe received as #rima acie evidence, i such #erson made the entries in his #roessional ca#acity or in the #erormance o duty and in the ordinary or re!ular course o business or duty +Secti!n >7* Rue 47 (. Reasons for t%e Exception: $i( trust*orthiness 8 as the entries *ere made in the ordinary course o business, then they are #resumed to be accurate. $ii( Necessity 8 as the entries *ere made in the ordinary course o business by #erson in his #roessional ca#acity or in the #erormance o duty, such entries are deemed by la* as the best evidence available and since the entrant is dead or unable to testiy, allo*in! the admission o such entries as evidence #revents a ailure o "ustice. Re
Failure to #rove the e3istence o all the ore!oin! evidence renders the evidence inadmissible under hearsay evidence rule +Patula vs. People, G.R. %' /re#ared by: ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


No.1*!!#, 11 April %&1%,

/. ENTRIES IN O''ICIAL RECORDS !tatement of t%e rule 9 Entries in o=cial records made in the #erormance o his dutyby a #ublic o=cer o the /hili##ines, or by a #erson in the #erormance o a duty es#ecially en"oined by la*, are #rima acie evidence o the acts therein stated +Secti!n >>* Rue 47, Reason for t%e Exception: its trus*orthiness, based on the #resum#tion o re!ularity in the #erormance o o=cial duty Re75* 4 'eb%ua%y 545. The #olice re#ort is not admissible under entries in o=cial records, as the on8 s#ot investi!ator does not a##ear to have su=cient #ersonal 6no*led!e o the acts stated in the re#ort. I. COMMERCIAL LISTS AND T/E LI6E !tatement of t%e rule: Evidence o statements o matters o interest to #ersons en!a!ed in an occu#ation contained in a list, re!ister, #eriodical, or other #ublished com#ilation is admissible as tendin! to#rove the truth o any relevant matter so stated i that com#ilation is #ublished or use by #ersons en!a!ed in that occu#ation and is !enerally used and relied u#on by them therein$ Secti!n >F* Rue 47 ( %/re#ared by: ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


Reason for t%e Exception: its trust*orthiness, it bein! !enerally used and relied u#on by #ersons en!a!ed in an occu#ation.

Re
PNOC Shi--in# and T%ans-!%t vs. C!u%t !$ A--eas This arose rom a collision bet*een t*o $&( vessels resultin! in the dama!e and sin6in! o one o the collidin! vessels. The o*ner o the sin6in! vessel sued or dama!es, re#resentin! the ?re#lacement value@ o the boat and its eui#ment. To #rove the ?re#lacement value@, the #lainti5 #resented its !eneral mana!er to testiy on some ?#rice uotations@ #rovided by various su##liers. 2t *as held that the ?#rice uotations@ are not admissible as commercial lists, because they *ere issued #ersonally to the #lainti5 *ho reuested or them rom dealers o similar eui#ment. These are not #ublished in any lists, re!ister, #eriodical or other com#ilation on the relevant sub"ect matter. Goreover, they are not ?standard handboo6s or #eriodicals, containin! date o everyday #roessional need and relied u#on in the *or6 o the occu#ation@. They are merely letters res#ondin! to the ueries o #lainti57s mana!er. . LEARNED TREATIES !tatement of t%e rule: a #ublished treatise, #eriodical or #am#hlet on a sub"ect o history, la*, science or art is admissible as tendin! to #rove the truth o the matter stated therein.$ Secti!n >G* Rue 47 ( Reason for t%e Exception: trust*orthiness, it bein! based on the *or6s o e3#erts. /ublished treatise, #eriodicals or #am#hlets on the sub"ect o history, la*, science or art are admissible i: $i( the court ta6es "udicial notice o them4 or $ii( a *itness e3#ert on the sub"ect testifes that the *riter o the statement in the treatise, #eriodical or #am#hlet is reco!ni1ed in his #roession or callin! as e3#ert in the sub"ect.

6. TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A 'ORMER PROCEEDIN0 !tatement of t%e rule ; the testimony or de#osition o a *itness deceased or unable to testiy, !iven in a ormer case or #roceedin!s, "udicial or administrative, involvin! the same #arties and sub"ect matter, maybe !iven in evidence a!ainst the adverse #arty *ho had the o##ortunity to cross8e3amine him.$Secti!n >;* Rue 47 ( Reasons for t%e Exception8 $i( Necessity ; since the *itness+de#onent is already dead and unable to testiy, allo*in! its admission as evidence #revents a ailure o "ustice. $ii( Trust*orthiness ; since the adverse #arty had the o##ortunity to cross8 e3amine the *itness+de#onent. Re

)ii+ %is testimony or deposition (as #iven in a former case or proceedin#9 judicial or administrative9 bet(een t%e same parties or t%ose representin# t%e same interests Manicic vs. Caaunan The TSNs o the testimonies o the *itnesses in the criminal case $*ho are no* unavailable to testiy in the civil case( are not admissible , considerin! that the em#loyer *as not a #arty to the criminal case and had no o##ortunity to cross8e3amine these *itnesses. )iii+ t%e former case involved t%e same subject matter as t%at in t%e present case9 alt%ou#% on a di2erent cause of action )iv+ t%e former case involved t%e same issue involved in t%e present case )v+ t%e adverse party %ad t%e opportunity to cross4examine t%e (itness/deponent

L. ADMISSION A0AINST INTEREST !tatement of t%e rule ; An act, declaration or omission o a #arty as to any relevant act may be !iven in evidence a!ainst him.$ Secti!n 5G* Rue 47 ( Reasons for t%e Exception: $i( trust*orthiness ; no #erson *ould ma6e a statement adverse to himsel unless he believes it to be true. $ii( the reuirement o cross8e3amination does not a##ly, since the declarant is not e3#ected to cross8e3amine himsel. hile not one o those enumerated under the Rules o ourt as e3ce#tions to hearsay evidence rule, admission a!ainst interest under Section &K, Rule %CI *as declared by the Su#reme ourt as an e3ce#tion to hearsay in the case o Est%ada vs. Desie%t!.

M. /EARSAY EJCEPTION IN C/ILD A"BSE CASE $Sec &', Rules in the E3amination o hild itness( !tatement of t%e rule 8 A statement made by a child *itness describin! any act or attem#ted act o child abuse, not other*ise admissible under the hearsay rule, maybe admitted in evidence in any criminal or non8criminal #roceedin!, sub"ect to the ollo*in! rules: $a( beore such hearsay statement maybe admitted, its #ro#onent shall ma6e 6no*n to the adverse #arty the intention to o5er such statement and its #articulars to #rovide him a air o##ortunity to ob"ect. $b( i the child is available, the court shall, u#on motion o the adverse #arty, reuire the child to be #resent at the #resentation o the hearsay evidence+statement or cross8e3amination. $c( i the child is unavailable, the act o such circumstance must be #roved by the #ro#onent. But his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only i corroborated by other admissible evidence. The chid itness sha be c!nside%ed unavaiabe unde% the $!!in# situati!ns8 $i( is deceased, su5ers rom #hysical infrmity, lac6 o memory, mental illness, or *ill be e3#osed to severe #sycholo!ical in"ury4 or $ii( is absent rom the hearin! and the #ro#onent o his statement has been unable to #rocure his attendance by #rocess or other reasonable means.

'act!%s t! c!nside% in %uin# !n the ad&issibiity !$ such hea%say state&ent8 $a( *hether there is a motive to lie4 $b( the !eneral character o the declarant child4 $c( *hether more than one $%( #erson heard the statement4 $d( *hether the statement *as s#ontaneous4 $e( the timin! o the statement and the relationshi# bet*een the declarant child and the *itness4 $( cross8e3amination could not sho* the lac6 o 6no*led!e o the declarant child4 &% /re#ared by: ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


$!( the #ossibility o aulty recollection o the declarant child is remote4 and $h( the circumstances surroundin! the statement are such that there is no reason to su##ose the declarant child misre#resented the involvement o the accused.

N. IN PROCEEDIN0S INVOLVIN0 2RIT O' AMPARO 0en. Avein! Ra?!n* et a. vs. Ma%y ean Ta#itis* et a. )iven the uniue evidentiary di=culties #resented by ?enorced disa##earances cases@, the air and #ro#er rule is to consider any evidence other*ise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible i it is consistent *ith the admissible evidence adduced. 2n other *ords, *e reduced our rules to the most basic test o reason8 i.e., to the relevance o the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency *ith all other #ieces o evidence adduced. Thus* even hea%say evidence can be ad&itted i$ it satisfes this basic &ini&u& test. Accordin!ly, the Su#reme ourt held it duly established that ol. Oasim inormed the res#ondent and her riends, based !n the in$!%&ants ette%, that Ta!itis, re#utedly a liason or the 2 and *ho had been under surveillance since anuary &II, *as in ?!ood hands@ and under custodial investi!ation or com#licity *ith the 2 ater he *as seen tal6in! to one mar /ati6 and a certain ?Santos@ o Bulacan,a ?Bali682slam@ char!ed *ith terrorism. This des#ite the act that the ?inormant7s letter@ *as alle!edly already destroyed and the #robative value thereo *as not based on the #ersonal 6no*led!e o the *itnesses but on the 6no*led!e o some other #erson not on the *itness stand $the inormant(. VII. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE Testi&!nia evidence ; consists o a *itness7 #erce#tion o #ast events as recollected and communicated by him orally or in such other orms o communication. 2t is a re8construction o #ast events made by a *itness. eneral rule: the testimony o a *itness must be !iven orally $ Secti!n 4* Rue 475(. Exceptions:$Secti!n 4* Rue 475( $i( *hen *itness is inca#acitated to s#ea64 $ii( *hen uestions call or a di5erent mode o ans*er4 $iii( *here the rules allo* testimony to be !iven in a=davit orm $such as in cases !overned by the Rules on Summary /rocedure(

KBALI'ICATIONS O' A 2ITNESS: $i( can #erceive $observation acuired rom #ersonal 6no*led!e( $ii( and in #erceivin!, he can ma6e 6no*n his #erce#tion to others $memory and communication( $iii( he must ta6e an oath or a=rmation $iv( must not #ossess any o the disualifcations im#osed by la* or the rules. The ollo*in! are NOT #%!unds $!% dis
DISKBALI'ICATIONS O' A 2ITNESS8 +A, Dis

2nca#acity+insanity at the time o observation o the event that the *itness is as6ed to testiy does not disualiy the *itness rom testiyin! so lon! as he is com#etent at the time o his #roduction as a *itness, but it a5ects his credibility.

+", Dis
+C, Dis
Re
E1ce-ti!ns t! Ma%ita Dis

0ue%e%%! vs. St. Cai%e Reaty* et a. The Dead Gan Statute does not a##ly and, thereore, a *itness may testiy on a act *hich too6 #lace #rior to the death o the deceased, considerin! that the deendants in the case *ere sued in their #ersonal and individual ca#acity as buyers o the lot in uestion, and not as re#resentatives o the deceased rom *hom they #urchased the sub"ect lot. )ii+ t%e suit is upon a claim by t%e plainti2 a#ainst t%e estate of t%e deceased person or of unsound mind onversely, i the estate o the deceased #erson or the #erson o unsound mind is the claimant or counter8claimant, the rule does not a##ly. T!n#c! vs. Vian?!n Dead Gan Statute or Survivorshi# Disualifcation Rule does not a##ly, since the #lainti5 or claimant is the estate o the deceased husband as re#resented by the e3ecutor and the case or recovery o #ro#erty is fled a!ainst the *ido*. Ra?!n vs. IAC Dead Gan Statute or Survivorshi# Disualifcation Rule does not a##ly, since the #lainti5 or claimant in the case is the estate o the deceased #erson and the case is fled a!ainst the deendant to recover the shares o stoc6s belon!in! to the deceased no* bein! re#resented by his estate. 0!ni vs. C!u%t !$ A--eas Dead Gan Statute or Survivorshi# Disualifcation Rule does not a##ly, because the *itness testifed to substantiate the counterclaim o the estate o the deceased a!ainst the #lainti5 in the case. Thus, insoar as the counterclaim is concerned, the estate o the deceased #erson is deemed to be the claimant, althou!h it is the deendin! #arty insoar as the com#laint o the #lainti5 is concerned. )iii+ t%e (itness is t%e plainti2 or t%e assi#nor of t%at party4plainti29 or a person in (%ose be%alf t%e case is prosecuted 0f t%e (itness is somebody else9 t%e rule does not apply 0ue%%e%! vs. Saint Cai%e Reaty Dead Gan Statute or Survivorshi# Disualifcation rule does not a##ly, since the *itness is an ordinary *itness, not the #lainti5 nor the assi!nor o the #lainti5 nor the #erson in *hose behal the case is #rosecuted. Lichauc! vs. Atantic 0u$ Dead Gan Statute or Survivorshi# Disualifcation Rule does not a##ly, since the #lainti5 is a or#oration and the *itness, althou!h o=cer o the or#oration, is not the #lainti5 itsel. Othe% i&-!%tant -%inci-es %eative t! Dead Man Statute !% Su%viv!%shi- Dis

+E, Dis* Rue 47, Purpose/s of t%e rule: $i( to encoura!e ull disclosure o inormation necessary or e5ective #erormance o duties+obli!ations4 $ii( to #reserve and #rotect confdential inormation. 0ene%a P%inci-es C!&&!n T! A 6inds !$ P%ivie#e C!&&unicati!ns8 )0+ $%o may assert/invo=e t%e privile#eG $i( Bein! #ersonal in nature, this can only be claimed by the ?holder@ o the #rivile!e, that is, the #erson *hose interest or relationshi# is sou!ht to be #rotected $$i.e. communicatin! s#ouse, client, #atient, #enitent(4 $ii( 2n case the ?holder@ is absent *hen the testimony is sou!ht, the court or other #arty may assert althou!h the #rivile!e is #ersonal4 $iii( the #ersons to *hom the #rivile!e communication *as transmitted $the reci#ient s#ouse, la*yer, #hysician, #riest(, #rovided the ?holder@ is alive and has not *aived the #rivile!e. )00+ T%e privile#e communication rule survives t%e deat% of t%e @%olderB )000+ T%e privile#e communication rule cannot be invo=ed to perpetrate crime or injustice

P%ivie#ed C!&&unicati!n8 +A, Ma%ita P%ivie#e C!&&unicati!n Re
+", Att!%ney@Cient P%ivie#e C!&&unicati!n Rue Re

*ould im#licate the client to the very activity or *hich the la*yer is en!a!ed by the client $ Re#aa vs. Sandi#anbayan (. $ii( the #rivile!e is *aived by ailure to seasonably ob"ect or by cross8 e3aminin! the *itness #recisely on the matter other*ise covered by the confdentiality rule $ O%ient Insu%ance vs. Revia (.

+C, Physician@Patient P%ivie#e C!&&unicati!n Rue Re

%is sect

+E, P%ivie#e C!&&unicati!n Rue by Reas!n !$ Pubic O3ce Re
VIII. OPINION RBLE enerally , o#inion o a *itness is not admissible $ ection !+, Rule 13& (. Reason 8 cases should be decided based on acts. Exceptions to t%e #eneral rule: +i, E1-e%t !-ini!n 8 the o#inion o a *itness on a matter reuirin! s#ecial 6no*led!e, s6ill, e3#erience or trainin! *hich he is sho*n to #ossess maybe received in evidence $ ection !", Rule 13& (4 +ii, O-ini!n !$ !%dina%y itness8 $a( the o#inion o a *itness or *hich #ro#er basis is !iven may be received in evidence re!ardin! ; $%( the identity o a #erson about *hom he has adeuate 6no*led!e4 $&( a hand*ritin! *ith *hich he has su=cient amiliarity4 and $C( the mental sanity o a #erson *ith *hom he is su=ciently acuainted. $b( the *itness may also testiy on his im#ressions o the emotion, behavior, condition or a##earance o a #erson.

IJ. C/ARACTER EVIDENCE8 enerally , evidence o a #erson7s character is not admissible +ection #1, Rule 13&,. Reason @ cases should be decided based on the acts or omissions com#lained o, and not on the character or #ersonalities o the #arties involved. Exceptions to t%e #eneral rule: +a, In C%i&ina Cases8 $%( The accused may #rove his !ood moral character *hich is #ertinent to the moral trait involved in the o5ense char!ed4 $&( 9nless in rebuttal, the #rosecution may not #rove his bad moral character *hich is #ertinent to the moral trait involved in the o5ense char!ed4 $C( The !ood or bad moral character o the o5ended #arty may be #roved i it tends to establish in any reasonable de!ree the #robability o the o5ense char!ed. orrelate this *ith the ? Rape hiel/ Rule @ under R.A. No.'JIJ other*ise & /re#ared by: ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


6no*n as ?Ra#e ictim Assistance and /rotection Act o %--'@, *hich #rovides that ?2n #rosecution or ra#e, evidence o com#lainant7s #ast se3ual conduct, o#inion thereo or o his+her re#utation shall not be admitted unless, and only to the e3tent that the court fnds that such evidence is material and relevant to the case@ +b, In Civi Cases8 Evidence o the moral character o #arty in a civil case is admissible only *hen #ertinent to the issue o character involved in the case. +c, Evidence !$ #!!d cha%acte% !$ a itness8 Evidence o the !ood character o a *itness is not admissible until such character has been im#eached $ ection 1!, Rule 13% (. Reason ; the !ood character o a *itness is #resumed.

J. PRESENTATION O' EVIDENCE8 +A, O%de% in the e1a&inati!n !$ an individua itness $ection !, Rule 13%(: $i( direct e3amination by the #ro#onent4 $ii( cross8e3amination by the o##onent4 $iii( Re8direct e3amination by the #ro#onent4 $iv( Re8cross e3amination by the #ro#onent. +", Recain# a itness ; ater the e3amination o a *itness by both sides has been concluded, the *itness cannot be recalled *ithout leave o court. The court *ill !rant or *ithhold leave as the interest o "ustice may reuire $ ection ", Rule 13%(. +C, Ob(ecti!nabe

+', A -a%ty &ay n!t i&-each his !n itness +Secti!n 45* Rue 475,. Reason: by callin! the *itness to the stand, the #ro#onent vouches to the credibility and honesty o his *itness. Exceptions: $ection 1%, Rule 13% ( $i( i the *itness is hostile or un*illin!4 or $ii( i the *itness is the adverse #arty or the o=cer, director, mana!in! a!ent o a c or#oration or #artnershi# or association *hich is an adverse #arty. JI. O''ER AND O"ECTION The court shall consider no evidence *hich has not been ormally o5ered. The #ur#ose or *hich the evidence is o5ered must be s#ecifed $ Secti!n 5>* Rue 475(. 2 the #ur#ose is not s#ecifed, the evidence must be e3cluded $ Bniide Saes vs. Titan@Ieda(. Exception: As lon! as the evidence has been #ro#erly identifed by testimony duly recorded and incor#orated in the records o the case, the evidence may still be considered by the court even i not ormally o5ered +P- vs. Libna!,. Reasons (%y t%e purpose must be speci'ed: $i( To enable the adverse #arty to ma6e intelli!ent ob"ection to the ormal o5er4 $ii( To enable the court to rule #ro#erly on the ob"ection, since an evidence maybe admissible or one #ur#ose but inadmissible or another #ur#ose under the #rinci#le o multi#le admissibility $ Bniide Saes vs. Titan@ Ieda(.

Ti&e t! &ae a $!%&a !e% !$ evidence $Secti!n 7F* Rue 475 ( ; the time to ma6e a ormal o5er de#ends on the 6ind o evidence bein! ormally o5ered: )*+ 0f evidence consists of oral testimony of (itnesses H t%e o2er must be made at t%e time t%e (itness is called to testify Huery: hat is the e5ect i the *itness *as allo*ed to testiy *ithout the #ro#onent ma6in! a ormal o5er o the #ro#osed testimony but the adverse #arty did not also ob"ect thereto beore the *itness *as able to testiy and com#lete his testimonyM Ans*er: The testimony is admissible as the adverse #arty *as deemed to have *aived his ri!ht to the ob"ection. Concepcion Catuira vs. CA Facts: atuira *as char!ed *ith t*o $&( counts o Estafa or issuin! bouncin! chec6s. Durin! the trial, the #rosecution #resented the #rivate com#lainant *ho com#leted her testimony *ithout a ormal o5er havin! been made. As soon as the #rosecution rested its case, the accused fled a Demurrer to Evidence on the !round that the testimony o the *itness is inadmissible in evidence or lac6 o ormal o5er. Rulin!: $i( The reason or reuirin! that evidence be ormally o5ered is to enable the court to rule intelli!ently on the ob"ection to the uestions as6ed. $ii( As a !eneral rule, the #ro#onent must sho* its relevancy, materiality and com#etency. here the #ro#onent o5ers evidence deemed by counsel o the adverse #arty to be inadmissible or any reason, the latter may ob"ect to its admission. But this is a mere #rivile!e *hich can be *aived. Necessarily, the ob"ection must be made at the earliest o##ortunity, lest silence *here there is o##ortunity to s#ea6 may o#erate as a *aiver o the ob"ection. $iii( hile it is true that the #rosecution ailed to o5er the uestioned testimony *hen #rivate com#lainant *as called to the *itness stand, the accused *aived this #rocedural error by ailin! to ob"ect at the a##ro#riate time, i.e., *hen the !round or ob"ection became reasonably maniest the moment *ith *itness *as called to testiy *ithout any #rior o5er havin! been made by the #ro#onent. &/re#ared by: ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


)-+ Object/documentary evidence H t%e formal o2er must be made after t%e presentation of a partyFs testimonial evidence or (itnesses Such o5er must be done orally, unless allo*ed by the court to be made in *ritin!.

Ti&e t! &ae !b(ecti!n $Secti!n 7G* Rue 475( ; 2t de#ends on the 6ind o evidence bein! ob"ected to: )*+ 0f oral testimony: $i( ob"ection to evidence o5ered orally must be made immediately ater the o5er is made $ Catui%a vs. CA( $ii(ob"ection to uestion #ro#ounded in the course o the oral e3amination o a *itness shall be made as soon as the !rounds thereore shall become reasonably maniest. )-+ 0f object/documentary evidence: $i( ob"ection to ob"ect+documentary evidence o5ered orally shall be made immediately ater the o5er is made4 $ii( ob"ection to ob"ect+documentary evidence o5ered in *ritin! shall be made three $C( days ater notice o the o5er, unless a di5erent #eriod is allo*ed by the court. Huery:

hat is the e5ect i an inadmissible ob"ect+documentary evidence *as ob"ected to at the time it *as introduced, identifed and mar6ed as e3hibit but not ob"ected to *hen ormally o5eredM An*er: The evidence other*ise inadmissible must be admitted+considered $ Inte%-acifc T%ansit* Inc. vs. Avies (. Reason: b"ection to ob"ect+documentary evidence must be made at the time it is ormally o5ered, not earlier. b"ection #rior to ormal o5er is #re8mature. The identifcation o the ob"ect+documentary evidence beore it is mar6ed as an e3hibit does not constitute ormal o5er. b"ection to the identifcation and mar6in! is not euivalent to ob"ection to the ob"ect+documentary evidence *hen it is ormally o5ered. hat really matters is the ob"ection made at the time it is ormally o5ered as an evidence. Huery: hat is the e5ect i an inadmissible ob"ect+documentary evidence *as not ob"ected to durin! its introduction, identifcation and mar6in! but *as ob"ected to durin! the ormal o5erM Does the ailure to ob"ect durin! the introduction, identifcation and mar6in! constitute a *aiver o the #rivile!e to ob"ect resultin! in the evidence other*ise inadmissible becomin! admissible. Ans*er: The ob"ect+documentary evidence must be e3cluded $Macasi%ay vs. Pe!-e !$ the Phii--ines (. Reason: Since ob"ection to ob"ect+documentary evidence must be made only ater the o5er is made and not at any other time, no *aiver o the #rivile!e to ob"ect shall ta6e #lace by the ailure to ob"ect *hen the ob"ect+documentary evidence *as mar6ed, identifed and introduced durin! the trial, obviously because it *as not the #ro#er time to ma6e ob"ection. Huery: hat must an adverse #arty do *hen it becomes reasonably a##arent in the course o the e3amination o a *itness that the uestions bein! #ro#ounded are o the same class as those to *hich ob"ection has been made, *hether sustained or overruled by the courtM Ans*er: 2t shall not be necessary to re#eat the ob"ection, but it is su=cient to record a continuin! ob"ection to such class o uestions $Secti!n 7;* Rue 475( Huery: hen must the court ma6e a rulin! on the ob"ectionM Ans*er: 2t must be !iven immediately ater the ob"ection is raised, unless the court desires to ta6e reasonable time to inorm itsel on the uestion #resented$ Secti!n 7:* Rue 475(

CI /re#ared by: ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


Huery: Gay the court sus#end the rulin! by sim#ly statin! that the ?ob"ection is noted@ or that the ob"ection ?*ill be considered *hen the court resolves the case on the merits@M Ans*er: No, the reservation or holdin! in abeyance o a rulin! on an ob"ection is disadvanta!eous and #re"udicial to the #arty inter#osin! the ob"ection. ithout the defnite rulin!, the #arty ob"ectin! *ould be let in the dar6 as to *hat #ro#er course o action to ta6e under the circumstances. Huery: hat is the remedy o the #ro#onent i his #ro#osed evidence is e3cluded by the courtM Ans*er: The #ro#onent may resort to ? Tende% !$ E1cuded Evidence@ other*ise 6no*n as ? Oe% !$ P%!!$ @ $Secti!n >* Rue 475( in the ollo*in! manner: $i( i the e3cluded evidence is ob"ect+documentary ; by attachin! it to ma6in! it #art o the records o the case4 $ii( i the e3cluded evidence is testimonial ; by statin! or the record the name and other #ersonal circumstances o the *itness and the substance o the #ro#osed testimony. JII. ABT/ENTICATION AND PROO' O' DOCBMENTS : For #ur#oses o their #resentation in evidence, documents are either #ublic or #rivate. The ollo*in! are Pubic D!cu&ents: $Secti!n 49* Rue 475 ( $i( *ritten o=cial acts or records o o=cial acts o soverei!n authorities, o=cial bodies+tribunals and #ublic o=cers o the /hili##ines or orei!n country4 $ii( documents ac6no*led!ed beore a notary #ublic, e3ce#t *ills and testament4 $iii( #ublic records o #rivate documents 6e#t in the /hili##ines. A P%ivate D!cu&ent is one not allin! under any o the ore!oin! enumerations o #ublic documents. Huery: Ans*er:

hat is the #robative value o #ublic documents as evidenceM $i( documents consistin! o entries in #ublic records made in the #erormance o a duty by a #ublic o=cer are #rima acie evidence o the acts stated therein4 $ii( all other #ublic documents are evidence, even a!ainst a third #erson, o the act *hich !ave rise to their e3ecution and o the date o the latter.

Huery: o* may a #ublic document be #roved in courtM Ans*er: 2t de#ends on the 6ind o #ublic document sou!ht to be #roved ; -a 0f it consists of :ritten o;cial acts or recor/s of o;cial acts, it (a$ 'e prove/9 $a( by its o=cial #ublication, *hether the #ublic document is 6e#t in the /hili##ines or abroad4 or $b( i it is 6e#t in the /hili##ines, by its certifed true co#y, duly attested by the le!al custodian thereo4 or $c( i it is 6e#t outside o the /hili##ines, by its certifed true co#y duly attested by the le!al custodian and must be accom#anied by a certifcation issued by the /hili##ine onsular =cer stationed in the country *here the document is 6e#t that the custodian is le!ally authori1ed and is in custody thereo. C% /re#ared by: ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


Huery: hat must an attestation o a co#y o a #ublic document state+containM Ans*er: The attestation must state in substance that the co#y is a correct co#y o the ori!inal $ Secti!n 5F* Rue 475 ( Huery: state+containM

hat must a consular certifcation

Ans*er: 2t must state that the o=cer *ho attested a certifed true co#y o a #ublic document is an authori1ed le!al custodian and that he has the le!al custody o the ori!inal #ublic document. Huery: hat 6ind o #ublic document, 6e#t outside o the /hili##ines, needs to be accom#anied *ith a consular certifcation i sou!ht to be #roved by its certifed true co#y duly attested by its le!al custodianM Ans*er: By e3#ress #rovision o Section &, Rule %C&, only those #ublic documents consistin! o *ritten o=cial acts or records o o=cial acts o soverei!n authority+o=cial bodies+#ublic o=cers as mentioned in Section %-$a( o Rule %C& need to be accom#anied *ith consular certifcation that the o=cer *ho attested the certifed true co#y thereo is authori1ed le!al custodian and that he has the le!al custody o the ori!inal document $ Heirs of Arcilla vs.
-' 0f it consists of /ocu(ent ac5no:le/ge/ 'efore a notar$ pu'lic, it may be #resented in evidence *ithout urther #roo, considerin! that the certifcate o ac6no*led!ement is #rima acie evidence o its due e3ecution +ection 3&, Rule 13%,. -c 0f it consists of pu'lic recor/s, 5ept in the Philippines, of so(e private /ocu(ents, it (a$ 'e prove/ : $a( by the ori!inal record4 or $b( by a co#y thereo attested by the le!al custodian o the record, *ith an a##ro#riate certifcate that such o=cer has the custody$ ection %, Rule 13% (. Huery: o* may a #rivate document be #rovedM Ans*er: 2t de#ends on the #ur#ose o the o5er: -a if the private /ocu(ent is o=ere/ to 'e authentic, its /ue e>ecution an/ authenticit$ (ust 'e prove/ either : $%( by anyone *ho sa* the document e3ecuted or *ritten4 or $&( by evidence o the !enuineness o the si!nature or hand*ritin! o the ma6er $ ection %%, Rule 13% (, to *it: $a( by any *itness *ho believes it to be the hand*ritin! o such #erson because he has seen the #erson *rite4 $b( by any *itness *ho has seen *ritin!s #ur#ortin! to be those o such #erson u#on *hich the *itness has acted or been char!ed, and has thus acuired 6no*led!e o the hand*ritin! o such #erson4 $c( by com#arison, made by the court or a *itness, *ith: $i( *ritin!s admitted or treated as !enuine by the #arty a!ainst *hom the evidence is o5ered4 or $ii( *ritin!s #roved to be !enuine to the satisaction o the "ud!e. C& /re#ared by: ATTY. OSEP/ RAN DI C. TORRE0OSA Professor 8 olle!e o 0a*, 9niversity o San arlos 8 ebu


Instances he%e -%ivate d!cu&ent &ay be %eceived in evidence ith!ut authenticati!n8 $i( 2n case o an ancient document, that is, a #rivate document more than thirty $CI( years old, #roduced rom a custody in *hich it *ould naturally be ound i !enuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances o sus#icion $ection %1, Rule 13% (4 $ii( *here the #rivate document is not o5ered as an authentic document, in *hich case it only needs to be identifed as that *hich it is claimed to be $ ection %&, Rule 13%(. Huery: Ans*er:

hat is the rule i a document o5ered in evidence is *ritten in an uno=cial lan!ua!e $neither in En!lish nor in Fili#ino(M The document is inadmissible in evidence, unless accom#anied by a translation into Fili#ino or En!lish $ ection 33, Rule 13% (.

JIII. 2EI0/T AND SB''ICIENCY O' EVIDENCE /ie%a%chy !$ Evidence8 $%( #roo beyond reasonable doubt ; a##lied in criminal cases $&( #re#onderance o evidence ; a##lied in civil cases $C( substantial evidence ; a##lied in administrative cases and in #roceedin!s involvin! rit o Am#aro$ ection 1, A(paro Rule ( Huery: Ans*er:

hat is the evidentiary *ei!ht o an e3tra8"udicial conessionM 2t is not su=cient to convict the accused, unless corroborated by evidence o corpus delicti $Secti!n 7* Rue 477( Huery: hat needs to be corroborated by corpus delicti9 the e3tra8"udicial conession itsel or the testimony o the #erson *ho heard the e3tra8"udicial conessionM Ans*er: hat must be corroborated is the e3tra"udicial conession and not the testimony o the #erson to *hom the conession *as made, and the corroborative evidence reuired is not the testimony o another #erson *ho also heard the conession but the evidence o corpus delicti $People vs. Lorenzo (.

Ans*er:

Huery: Ans*er:

Huery: 2s it reuired that all elements o the crime char!ed must be established by inde#endent evidence a#art rom the e3tra"udicial conessionM Section C, Rule %CC o the Rules o ourt does not mean that every element o the crime char!ed must be clearly established by inde#endent evidence a#art rom the conession. 2t means merely that there should be some evidence tendin! to sho* the commission o the crime a#art rom the conession. ther*ise, the utility o the conession as a s#ecies o #roo *ould vanish i it *ere necessary, in addition to the conession, to adduce other evidence su=cient o "ustiy a conviction inde#endently o such conession. 2n other *ords, the other evidence need not , inde#endently o the conession, establish the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt $ People vs. Lorenzo (.

2s circumstantial evidence su=cient or convictionM >es, circumstantial evidence is su=cient or conviction i the ollo*in! reuisites are #resent: $i( there must be more than one circumstance4 $ii( the acts rom *hich the inerences are derived are #roven4

and $iii(the combination o all circumstances is such as to #roduce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

PRINCIPLES RELEVANT IN DETERMININ0 2EI0/T AND SB''ICIENCY O' EVIDENCE8 +i, E

doubt on *hich side the evidence #re#onderates, the #arty havin! the burden o #roo loses. ence, i the incul#atory acts and circumstances are ca#able o t*o $&( or more e3#lanations, one o *hich is consistent *ith innocence and the other consistent *ith !uilt, the ormer should #revail, or then the evidence does not su=ce to #roduce a conviction $ A'ar?uez vs. People(. +ii, Act!%s Rue 8 *here the testimonies o *itnesses on one and the same actual issue are inconsistent *ith each other, the testimony o the *itness *hose action is more connected to the #oint at issue should be !iven more credence. Thus, as bet*een the car#enter and the tenant, the latter should be !iven more credence, bein! more closely connected to the #oint at issue, that is, *hether the im#rovements are ound on the liti!ated lot. For *hile a car#enter *ould not concern himsel *ith the title o the #ro#erty, a lessee *ould normally loo6 into the title o the #ro#erty leased, includin! its #recise location and boundaries $ Heirs of @icente Re$es vs. Court of Appeals(.

JIV. ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE RBLE +A, A--icabe t!8 $a( civil actions+#roceedin!s $b( uasi8"udicial and administrative cases $c( criminal actions $Amendment too6 e5ect on ctober %, &II&( +", Defniti!n !$ Te%&s8 $a( Electronic data messa#e ; reers to inormation !enerated, sent, received #r stored by electronic, o#tical or similar means. $b( Electronic document 8 reers to inormation or re#resentation o inormation, data, f!ures, symbols or other modes o *ritten e3#ression ,described or ho*ever re#resented, by *hich a ri!ht is established or an obli!ation e3tin!uished, or by *hich a act may be #roved and a=rmed, *hich is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, #rocessed, retrieved or #roduced electronically. 2t includes di!itally si!ned documents or any #rint8out or out#ut, readable by si!ht or other means, *hich accurately re

Evidence Outline

Recommend Documents