View
231
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
1/117
RULE 128
EVIDENCE defined-
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact.
Sources of Rules of Evidence
The 1987 onstitution of the !hilippines
"ules 1#8 and 1$$ of the "evised "ules of ourt
"esolution of the %upreme ourt dated &arch 1',
1989 approving the !roposed "ules on Evidence
submitted by the "ules of ourt "evision ommittee
on (ugust $1, 1987
"ule 11), %ection 1, *ormerly "ule +++, %ection 1 of
the "ules of ourt "ight of defendant at the trial
%ubstantive and "emedial %tatutes
/udicial decisions
T0E "2E% 3* E4+5E6E ("E %!E+*+(22
(!!2+(2E 362 +6 /5++(2 !"3EE5+6%
The means of ascertaining in a JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING the truth respecting a matter of fact!
The decision of a barrio council, respecting the
settlement of o:nership and possession of a parcel
of land, is ultra vires because a barrio councils,
:hich are not courts, have no judicial po:ers. ;
&iguel v atalino,#< %"( #$'
Therefore, said decision, if introduced as an e=hibit
is not admissible in a judicial proceeding as
evidence for ascertaining the truth respecting a
matter of fact of o:nership and possession. %upra
T"T0 +% E%T (%E"T(+6E5 65E" (6
(54E"%(" %%TE& 3* /%T+E. ;"epublic v
4alencia, 1'1 %"( '>#
EVIDENCE distinguished from:
PROOF-
"efers to the degree or ?ind of evidence :hich :ill
produce full conviction, or establish the proposition
to the satisfaction of the tribunal. !roof is the effect
or result of evidence :hile evidence is the medium
of proof.
E!I"ON#-
That ?ind of evidence :hich in a trial is presented by
:itnesses verbally. Evidence is the generic term and
testimony that of the species.
$R%U"EN-
(rgument and evidence, ta?en together, represen
the means by :hich the tribunal is sought to be
persuaded as to some fact-in-issue.
F$CU" PRO&$NDU" distinguished from
F$CU" PRO&$N!:
F$CU" PRO&$NDU" 'F()t in issue*-
The u"timate fact or the fact sought to #e
esta#"ishe$
"efers to proposition
F$CU" PRO&$N!-
+s the e%i$entiar& fact or the fact #& 'hich
the factum pro#an$um is to #e esta#"ishe$
&aterials :hich establish the proposition
+IND! $ND DE%REE! OF EVIDENCE
Dire)t E,iden)e (nd Cir)umst(nti( E,iden)e:
DIREC EVIDENCE; that :hich proves the
fact in dispute :ithout the aid of any
interference or presumption 2a?e ounty
vs. 6ellon.
CIRCU"!$NI$L EVIDENCE ; is the
proof of a fact or facts from :hich ta?en
either singly or collectively, the e=istence o
a particular fact, in dispute may be inferred
as a necessary or probable conse@uence
%tate vs. (very, 11$, &o., '7), '9', #1
%.A. 19$
!rimary Evidence and %econdary EvidenceB
PRI"$R# EVIDENCE; that :hich the la:
regards as affording the greatest certainty o
fact in @uestion. (lso referred to as the bes
evidence
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
2/117
!ECOND$R# EVIDENCE ; that :hich is
inferior to the primary evidence and is
permitted by la: only :hen the best
evidence is not available. Cno:n as the
substitutionary evidence
!ositive Evidence and 6egative EvidenceB
PO!IIVE EVIDENCE ; :hen the :itness
affirms that a fact did or did not occur.
Entitled to a greater :eight since the :itness
represents of his personal ?no:ledge the
presence or absence of a fact
NE%$IVE EVIDENCE; :hen the :itness
did not see or ?no: of the occurrence of a
fact. There is a total disclaimer of personal
?no:ledge, hence :ithout any
representation or disavo:al that the fact in
@uestion could or could not have e=isted orhappened. +t is admissible only if it tends to
contradict positive evidence of the other side
or :ould tend to e=clude the e=istence of
fact s:orn to by the other side.
orroborative Evidence and umulative EvidenceB
CORRO&OR$IVE EVIDENCE ; is
additional evidence of a different ?ind and
character tending to prove the same point
Ayne v. 6e:man, 7), 4a., 811, 817
aseB
The testimonies of the prosecution
'itnesses that the %ictims$ie$ #ecause of
sta# 'oun$s inf"icte$ #& the arme$ men
'ho entere$ their resi$ence on the night of
Decem#er () *+,- remain uncontro%erte$
... Their $eath certificates therefore are
on"& corro#orati%e of the testimonies of the
prosecution 'itnesses!!eople vs. Aatson19>)
CU"UL$IVE EVIDENCE ; evidence of
the same ?ind and to the same stale of
facts.
aseB
DThus) on the issue of the capacit& of a #o&
to 'rite a certain paper) e%i$ence of his
schoo" fe""o's as to his capacit& is
cumu"ati%e to that of his teachers an$
me$ica" men upon the same /uestion.
ardner vs. ardner, # ray &ass. '$'
Prim( F()ie E,iden)e (nd Con)usi,e E,iden)eB
PRI"$ F$CIE EVIDENCE ; is that :hich
suffices for the proof of a particular fact, unti
contradicted and overcome by othe
evidence
CONCLU!IVE EVIDENCE; is that :hich is
incontrovertible. Ahen evidence is received
:hich the la: does not allo: to be
contradicted.
asesB
D(ccordingly, a party introducing in evidence
a letter :ritten by his agent to the adverse
party, is bound by the statements contained
therein 2ilian "ealty o. v. Erdum, 1# %"( >>9 Employees
ompensation ommission !hilippine
3verseas 5rilling and 3il 5evelopmen
orporation vs. &inister of 2abor, 1'> %"(
79 %ecurities and E=change ommissionommission on Elections eromo v
3&E2E, et al., 118 %"( 1>) (grarian
ases agsican v. (, 1'1 %"( ##>
+mmigration !roceedings &oy o?e %hue v
/ohnson, #9< *ed. >#1 ourt of Ta=
(ppeals elestino o. J ompany v
ollector of +nternal "evenue, T( ase
6o. 19), 3ct. ', 19)', affirmed by the
%upreme ourt on (ug. $1, 19)>, .". 6o
2 8) !robation ourt oard o
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
5/117
Transportation !olice ommission 3il
+ndustry ommission and other similar
bodies (ldeguer v. 0os?yn, # !hil. )1'
aseBDTrial courts are enjoined to observe the
strict enforcement of the rules of evidence :hich
crystalliIed through constant use and practice
and are very useful and effective aids in the
search for truth and for the effective
administration of justice. ut in connection :ith
evidence :hich may appear to be of doubtfu
relevancy or incompetency or admissibility, it is
the safest policy to be liberal, not rejecting them
on doubtful or technical grounds, but admitting
themH=== anaria v. anaria, et. al., (. 6o
'1'#, &ay $1, 19)
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
6/117
"ule 1#8 of the "ules of ourt, evidence is
admissible :hen it is relevant to the issue
and is not e=cluded by the la: or these
rules. *or evidence to be inadmissible there
should be a la: or rule :hich forbids its
reception. +f there is no such la: or rule, the
evidence must be admitted subject only to
the evidentiary :eight that :ill be accorded
it by the courts.
&!& %ROUP/ INC ,s6 %o '%6R6 No6
1
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
7/117
$6 "uti.e $dmissi0iit of E,iden)e6
Ahen a fact is offered for one purpose, and is
admissible in so far as it satisfies all rules
applicable to it :hen offered for that purpose, its
failure to satisfy some other rule :hich :ould be
applicable to it if offered for another purpose
does not e=clude it.
&6 Condition( $dmissi0iit of E,iden)e6Ahere t:o or more evidentiary facts are so
connected under the issues that the relevancy of
one depends upon another not yet received, and
the party is unable to introduce them both at the
same moment, the offering counsel may be
re@uired by the court as a condition precedent
'1* to state the supposed connecting facts, and
'2* to promise to give the evidence later.
Effect if condition precedent is not
fulfilled&
pon motion by the opposite party, thecourt may stri?e out the evidence thus
conditionally admitted
C6 Cur(ti,e $dmissi0iit of E,iden)e6
Ahere an inadmissible fact has been offered by
one party and received :ithout objection and the
opponents after:ards, for the purpose of
negativing or e=plaining or other:ise
counteracting, offers a fact similarly
inadmissible, such fact is admissible if it serves
to remove an unfair effect upon the court :hich
might other:ise ensue from the original fact.
A6 Rues of E3)usion (nd E3)usion(r Rues
Rues of E3)usion E3)usion(r Rues
overned by the rulesof evidence
Evidence e=cluded bythe onstitution
C(se:
oentino ,s6 "endo?( '$D"6 C$!E NO6 A1A1
O)to0er 19/ 2;;* 6 6ote that "ule #',
(dministrative 3rder 6o. 1, series of 199$ only
provides for sanctions against persons violating
the rule on confidentiality of birth records, but
no:here does it state that procurement of birth
records in violation of said rule :ould render
said records inadmissible in evidence. 3n the
other hand, the "evised "ules of Evidence only
provides for the e=clusion of evidence if it is
obtained as a result of illegal searches and
seiIures. %ince both "ule #', (dministrative
3rder 6o. 1, series of 199$ and the "evised
"ules on Evidence do not provide for the
e=clusion from evidence of the birth certificates
in @uestion, said public documents are
therefore, admissible and should be properly
ta?en into consideration in the resolution of this
administrative case against the respondent.
$6 $dmissi0iit of ee.hone Con,ers(tions6
nless other:ise objectionable, a telephone
conversation bet:een a :itness and anothe
person is admissible in any case in :hich a face
to face conversation bet:een a :itness and
another person :ould be admissible in
evidence, provided that the identity of the person
:ith :hom the :itness :as spea?ing is
satisfactorily established, but not other:ise.
Proof of Identit > through :itnessG recognitionof the voice of the person :ith :hom he :as
spea?ing, ho:ever, it may be established by
means other than the recognition of the voice.
&6 $dmissi0iit of r(dio 0ro(d)(st6
Evidence of a message or a speech by means
of radio broadcast is admissible as evidence
:hen the identity of the spea?er is established
by the follo:ingB
y the testimony of a :itness :ho sa: himbroadcast his message or speech
y the :itness recognition of the voice of the
spea?er
C6 $dmissi0iit of =iret(..ing (nd t(.e
re)ordings6
"ecording of conversations, statement
confessions, speech, and the sounds of various
?inds, are admissible in evidence, subject ocourse, to the general rules relating to hearsay
best evidence, relevancy, privilege and the li?e
and subject to the proper authentication by
foundation testimony.
16 The :iretapping and other related violations
of the privacy of communications are
prohibited and penaliIed by "epublic (c
6o. '#
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
8/117
REPU&LIC $C 2;;/ $NI-
5IRE$PPIN% $C
$6 UNL$5FUL $C!
16 !e)tion 1/ .(r 16
+t shall be unla:ful for any person, not
being authoriIed by all the parties to any
private communication or spo?en :ord,
to tap any :ire or cable, or by usingany other device or arrangement,
to secretly overhear, intercept, or
record such communication or
spo?en :ord by using a device
commonly ?no:n as a dictaphone
or dictagraph or dictaphone or
:al?ie-tal?ie or tape recorder, or
ho:ever other:ise described
26 !e)tion 1/ .(r 26
+t shall also be unla:ful for anyperson, be he a participant or not in
the act or acts penaliIed in the ne=tpreceding sentence,
to ?no:ingly possess any tape
record, :ire record, disc record, or
any other such record, or copies
thereof, of any communication or
spo?en :ord secured either before
or after the effective date of this (ct
in the manner prohibited by this la:
or
to replay the same for any other
person or persons or tocommunicate the contents thereof,
either verbally or in :riting, or to
furnish transcriptions thereof,
:hether complete or partial, to any
other person
!rovided, That the use of such
record or any copies thereof as
evidence in any civil, criminal
investigation or trial of offenses
mentioned in section $ hereof, shall
not be covered by this prohibition.
76 !e)tion 26
(ny person :ho :ilfully or
?no:ingly does or :ho shall aid,
permit, or cause to be done any of
the acts declared to be unla:ful in
the preceding section or :ho
violates the provisions of the
follo:ing section or of any order
issued thereunder, or aids, permits
or causes such violation.
&6 EBE"PED $C!
16 !e)tion 7/ .(r 16 (ny peace officer
:ho is authoriIed by a :ritten orde
of the ourt, to e=ecute any of the
acts declared to be unla:ful in
cases involvingB crimes of treason,
espionage,
provo?ing :ar and disloyalty in
case of :ar,
piracy,
mutiny in the high seas,
rebellion,
conspiracy and proposal to
commit rebellion,
inciting to rebellion,
sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition,
inciting to sedition,
?idnapping as defined by the
"evised !enal ode,
and violations o
ommon:ealth (ct 6o. >1>
punishing espionage and othe
offenses against nationa
security
Reuirements:
That such :ritten order shal
only be issued or granted upon
:ritten application and the
e=amination under oath o
affirmation of the applicant and
the :itnesses he may produce
and a sho:ingB
1. That there are reasonable
grounds to believe that any o
the crimes enumerated
hereinabove has beencommitted or is being committed
or is about to be committed
Pro%i$e$) ho'e%er, That in
cases involving the offenses o
rebellion, conspiracy and
proposal to commit rebellion
inciting to rebellion, sedition
conspiracy to commit sedition
and inciting to sedition, such
authority shall be granted only
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
9/117
upon prior proof that a rebellion
or acts of sedition, as the case
may be, have actually been or
are being committed
#. That there are reasonable
grounds to believe that evidence
:ill be obtained essential to the
conviction of any person for, or
to the solution of, or to theprevention of, any of such
crimes and
$. That there are no other
means readily available for
obtaining such evidence.
26 !ur,ei(n)e of !us.e)ts (nd
Inter)e.tion (nd Re)ording of
Communi)(tions
12ection 3) Repu#"ic Act No +435)6uman securit& Act7
The provisions of "epublic (ct 6o.
'#
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
10/117
$. "ight of a person under investigation for an
offense %ec. 1#
'. "ight against self-incrimination %ec. 17
C(se:
$m0re ,s6 Peo.e %6R6 No6 191A72
$ugust 1A/ 2;12*6%ection #, (rticle +++ of the
onstitution mandates that a search and
seiIure must be carried out through or onthe strength of a judicial :arrant predicated
upon the e=istence of probable cause,
absent :hich such search and seiIure
becomes LunreasonableL :ithin the meaning
of said constitutional provision. Evidence
obtained and confiscated on the occasion of
such an unreasonable search and seiIure is
tainted and should be e=cluded for being the
proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. +n the
language of the fundamental la:, it shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in
any proceeding.
This e=clusionary rule is not, ho:ever, an
absolute and rigid proscription. 3ne of the
recogniIed e=ception established by
jurisprudence is search incident to a la:ful
arrest. +n this e=ception, the la: re@uires
that a la:ful arrest must precede the search
of a person and his belongings. (s a rule, an
arrest is considered legitimate if effected
:ith a valid :arrant of arrest.
E6 $dmissi0iit of Ee)troni) Do)uments6
(n electronic document is admissible in
evidence ifB
1. +t complies :ith the "ules onadmissibility prescribed by the "ulesand related la:s and
#. +t is authenticated in the manner by the"ules on Electronic Evidence
F6 !)ientifi) Dete)tion De,i)es6
1. 2ie detector#. %peed detection and recording devices$. hemical tests for drun?enness'. Truth serums and hypnosis). lood grouping tests
RULE 128/ !e)tion 6Relevanc$+ Collateral
maters.
16 Ree,(n) of E,iden)e
a. Evidence is relevant :hen it relatesdirectly to a fact in issue or to a fact
:hich, by the process of logic, aninference may be made as to thee=istence or non-e=istence of a fact inissue.
b. Evidentiary facts are relevant :herethere is such rational and logicaconnection bet:een them and thematter in issue that proof of the formerlogically tends to ma?e the latter moreprobable or improbable, that is, :herethe facts offered in evidence have alegitimate tendency to establish the truthconcerning a controversial issue.
C(se:
4errer( ,s6 $0( %6R6 No6 1822; une
1A/ 2;;A*6Evidence is admissible :hen it is
relevant to the fact in issue and is no
other:ise e=cluded by statute or the "ules
of ourt. Evidence is relevant :hen it has
such a relation to the fact in issue as toinduce belief in its e=istence or non
e=istence. %ection '9 of "ule 1$
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
11/117
76 Ree,(n) does not gener( de.end u.onits sour)e6
Ahether evidence offered is relevant does not,as a general rule, depend upon its source.6either does relevancy depend upon theimportance or :eight of the evidence, :eightbeing a matter for the court.
6 Logi)( ree,(n) distinguished form eg(ree,(n)
Logi)( ree,(n) Leg( Ree,(n)
&eans that evidencemust be absolutelyessential to the fact inissue.
"e@uires a higherstandard of evidentiaryforce and includeslogical relevancy.
The main condition ofadmissibility
(ll rules e=cludingevidence :hich islogically relevant aree=ceptions to the
general rule.The attribute of allthose logically relevantmatters :hich are notdeclared inadmissibleby one or more of thee=cluding rules.
C(se:
Peo.e ,s6 #(t(r %6R6 No6 1A;22 "( 19/
2;;*6 enerally, courts should only
consider and rely upon duly established
evidence and never on mere conjectures orsuppositions. The legal relevancy of
evidence denotes Lsomething more than a
minimum of probative value,L suggesting
that such evidentiary relevance must contain
a Lplus value.L This may be necessary to
preclude the trial court from being satisfied
by matters of slight value, capable of being
e=aggerated by prejudice and hasty
conclusions. Evidence :ithout Lplus valueL
may be logically relevant but not legally
sufficient to convict. +t is incumbent upon the
trial court to balance the probative value ofsuch evidence against the li?ely harm that
:ould result from its admission.
A6 Issue defined6
+t is the point or points in @uestion, at theconclusion of the pleadings :hich one sideaffirms, and the other denies. +ssues arise uponthe pleading :here a fact or conclusion of la: ismaintained by one party, and is controverted bythe other.
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
12/117
:ith :hich the fact as stated accords :ith thegeneral e=perience of man?ind.
RULE 128/ !e)6 76%dmissibilit$ of evidence.
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
13/117
the defendant in his home at thetime the murder :as committed.
(s :ill be observed, both 1 and # aree@ually admissible. ut it is li?ely that thecourt :ould give greater :eight to thetestimony of a disinterested physician thanof a mother, :ho might be e=pected tocommit perjury in an effort to save her son.
C(se:
$tien?( ,s6 &OD ' %6R6 No6 1@@;@Fe0ru(r 9/ 2;11. (dmissibility of evidencerefers to the @uestion :hether or not thecircumstance or evidence is to beconsidered at all. 3n the other hand, theprobative value of evidence refers to the@uestion of :hether or not it proves anissue.
96 .es of $dmissi0iit
$6 "uti.e $dmissi0iit of E,iden)e6
Ahen a fact is offered for one purpose, and is
admissible in so far as it satisfies all rules
applicable to it :hen offered for that purpose, its
failure to satisfy some other rule :hich :ould be
applicable to it if offered for another purposedoes not e=clude it.
&6 Condition( $dmissi0iit of E,iden)e6
Ahere t:o or more evidentiary facts are so
connected under the issues that the relevancy of
one depends upon another not yet received, and
the party is unable to introduce them both at the
same moment, the offering counsel may be
re@uired by the court as a condition precedent
'1* to state the supposed connecting facts, and
'2* to promise to give the evidence later.
Effect if condition precedent is not
fulfilled&
pon motion by the opposite
party, the court may stri?e out
the evidence thus conditionally
admitted
C6 Cur(ti,e $dmissi0iit of E,iden)e6
Ahere an inadmissible fact has been offered by
one party and received :ithout objection and the
opponents after:ards, for the purpose o
negativing or e=plaining or other:ise
counteracting, offers a fact similarly
inadmissible, such fact is admissible if it serves
to remove an unfair effect upon the court :hich
might other:ise ensue from the original fact.
1;6 Rues of E3)usion (nd E3)usion(r Rues
Rues of E3)usion E3)usion(r Rues
overned by the rulesof evidence
Evidence e=cluded bythe onstitution
C(se:
oentino ,s6 "endo?( '$D"6 C$!E NO
A1A1 O)to0er 19/ 2;;* 6 6ote that "ule #'
(dministrative 3rder 6o. 1, series of 199$
only provides for sanctions against persons
violating the rule on confidentiality of birth
records, but no:here does it state tha
procurement of birth records in violation o
said rule :ould render said records
inadmissible in evidence. 3n the other hand
the "evised "ules of Evidence only provides
for the e=clusion of evidence if it is obtained
as a result of i llegal searches and
seiIures.%ince both "ule #', (dministrative
3rder 6o. 1, series of 199$ and the "evised
"ules on Evidence do not provide for thee=clusion from evidence of the birth
certificates in @uestion, said public
documents are, therefore, admissible and
should be properly ta?en into consideration
in the resolution of this administrative case
against the respondent.
%6 $dmissi0iit of ee.hone Con,ers(tions6
nless other:ise objectionable, a telephone
conversation bet:een a :itness and anothe
person is admissible in any case in :hich a face
to face conversation bet:een a :itness and
another person :ould be admissible in
evidence, provided that the identity of the person
:ith :hom the :itness :as spea?ing is
satisfactorily established, but not other:ise.
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
14/117
Proof of Identit > through :itnessG
recognition of the voice of the
person :ith :hom he :as spea?ing,
ho:ever, it may be established by
means other than the recognition of
the voice.
46 $dmissi0iit of r(dio 0ro(d)(st6
Evidence of a message or a speech by means
of radio broadcast is admissible as evidence
:hen the identity of the spea?er is established
by the follo:ingB
y the testimony of a :itness
:ho sa: him broadcast his
message or speech
y the :itness recognition of the
voice of the spea?er
I6 $dmissi0iit of =iret(..ing (nd t(.e
re)ordings6
"ecording of conversations, statement,
confessions, speech, and the sounds of various
?inds, are admissible in evidence, subject of
course, to the general rules relating to hearsay,
best evidence, relevancy, privilege and the li?e,
and subject to the proper authentication by
foundation testimony.
76 The :iretapping and other related violations
of the privacy of communications areprohibited and penaliIed by "epublic (ct
6o. '#
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
15/117
inciting to sedition,
?idnapping as defined by the
"evised !enal ode,
and violations of
ommon:ealth (ct 6o. >1>,
punishing espionage and other
offenses against national
security
Reuirements:
That such :ritten order shall
only be issued or granted upon
:ritten application and the
e=amination under oath or
affirmation of the applicant and
the :itnesses he may produce
and a sho:ingB
1. That there are reasonable
grounds to believe that any of
the crimes enumerated
hereinabove has been
committed or is being committed
or is about to be committedB
Pro%i$e$) ho'e%er, That in
cases involving the offenses of
rebellion, conspiracy and
proposal to commit rebellion,
inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition,
and inciting to sedition, such
authority shall be granted only
upon prior proof that a rebellionor acts of sedition, as the case
may be, have actually been or
are being committed
#. That there are reasonable
grounds to believe that evidence
:ill be obtained essential to the
conviction of any person for, or
to the solution of, or to the
prevention of, any of such
crimes and
$. That there are no other
means readily available for
obtaining such evidence.
6 !ur,ei(n)e of !us.e)ts (nd
Inter)e.tion (nd Re)ording of
Communi)(tions
12ection 3) Repu#"ic Act No +435)
6uman securit& Act7
The provisions of "epublic (ct 6o
'#
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
16/117
enumerated in %ection 1 of ".(. 6o. '#. "ight to privacy and inviolability of
communication %ec. $
7. "ight of a person under
investigation for an offense %ec.
1#
8. "ight against self-incrimination
%ec. 17
C(se:
$m0re ,s6 Peo.e %6R6 No6 191A72
$ugust 1A/ 2;12*6%ection #, (rticle +++ of the
onstitution mandates that a search and
seiIure must be carried out through or on
the strength of a judicial :arrant predicated
upon the e=istence of probable cause,absent :hich such search and seiIure
becomes LunreasonableL :ithin the meaning
of said constitutional provision. Evidence
obtained and confiscated on the occasion of
such an unreasonable search and seiIure is
tainted and should be e=cluded for being the
proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. +n the
language of the fundamental la:, it shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in
any proceeding.
This e=clusionary rule is not, ho:ever, an
absolute and rigid proscription. 3ne of the
recogniIed e=ception established by
jurisprudence is search incident to a la:fu
arrest. +n this e=ception, the la: re@uires
that a la:ful arrest must precede the search
of a person and his belongings. (s a rule, an
arrest is considered legitimate if effected:ith a valid :arrant of arrest.
+6 $dmissi0iit of Ee)troni) Do)uments6
(n electronic document is admissible in
evidence ifB
$. +t complies :ith the "ules onadmissibility prescribed by the "ulesand related la:s and
'. +t is authenticated in the manner by the"ules on Electronic Evidence
L6 !)ientifi) Dete)tion De,i)es6>. 2ie detector7. %peed detection and recording devices8. hemical tests for drun?enness9. Truth serums and hypnosis1
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
17/117
e=istence. %ection '9 of "ule 1$
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
18/117
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
19/117
to the issue and is not e=cluded by the la: or these
rules. *or evidence to be inadmissible there should
be a la: or rule :hich forbids its reception. +f there is
no such la: or rule, the evidence must be admitted
subject only to the evidentiary :eight that :ill be
accorded it by the courts.
There is no provision or statement in said la: or in
any rule that :ill bring about the non-admissibility ofthe confiscated andKor seiIed drugs due to non-
compliance :ith %ection #1 of "epublic (ct 6o.
91>). The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance
:ith said section, is not of admissibility, but of :eight
M evidentiary merit or probative value M to be given
the evidence. The :eight to be given by the courts
on said evidence depends on the circumstances
obtaining in each case.
%6R6 No6 1
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
20/117
the e=istence of such account, its nature and the
amount ?ept in it. +t constitutes an attempt by the
prosecution at an impermissible in@uiry into a ban?
deposit account the privacy and confidentiality of
:hich is protected by la:. 3n this score alone, the
objection posed by respondent in her motion to
suppress should have indeed put an end to the
controversy at the very first instance it :as raised
before the trial court. +n sum, the ourt holds that thetestimony of &arasigan on the particulars of
respondentGs supposed ban? account :ith %ecurity
an? and the documentary evidence represented by
the chec?s adduced in support thereof, are not only
incompetent for being e=cluded by operation of ".(.
6o. 1'
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
21/117
F$C!:
"espondent (tty. 6orberto &. &endoIa :as
administratively charged :ith rossly +mmoral
onduct and ross &isconduct. omplainants
alleged that respondent, a former &unicipal Trial
ourt /udge, abandoned his legal :ife, *elicitas 4.
4alderia in favor of his paramour, &arilyn
dela*uente, :ho is, in turn, married to one "amon. &arcos. 3n the other hand, respondent averred
that complainants illegally procured copies of the
birth certificates of his alleged daughters &ara
Chrisnaharminadela*uente &endoIa and
&yrraChrisna6orminadela*uente &endoIa, in
violation of "ule #', (dministrative 3rder 6o. 1,
series of 199$, thus, such documents are
inadmissible in evidence.
I!!UEB
Ahether or not birth certificates are inadmissible in
evidence for having been obtained in violation of
"ule #', (dministrative 3rder 6o. 1, series of 199$
:hich provides for strict confidentiality of a personGs
birth record.
4ELD:
No6%ection $, "ule 1#8 of the "evised "ules on
Evidence provides that Levidence is admissible
:hen it is relevant to the issue and is not e=cluded
by the la: or these rules.L There could be no disputethat the subject birth certificates are relevant to the
issue. The only @uestion, therefore, is :hether the
la: or the rules provide for the inadmissibility of said
birth certificates allegedly for having been obtained
in violation of "ule #', (dministrative 3rder 6o. 1,
series of 199$.
6ote that "ule #', (dministrative 3rder 6o. 1, series
of 199$ only provides for sanctions against persons
violating the rule on confidentiality of birth records,
but no:here does it state that procurement of birth
records in violation of said rule :ould render said
records inadmissible in evidence. 3n the other hand,
the "evised "ules of Evidence only provides for the
e=clusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of
illegal searches and seiIures. +t should be
emphasiIed ho:ever, that said rule against
unreasonable searches and seiIures is meant only
to protect a person from interference by the
government or the state.
onse@uently, in this case :here complainants, as
private individuals, obtained the subject birth records
as evidence against respondent, the protection
against unreasonable searches and seiIures does
not apply.
%ince both "ule #', (dministrative 3rder 6o. 1
series of 199$ and the "evised "ules on Evidence
do not provide for the e=clusion from evidence of thebirth certificates in @uestion, said public documents
are, therefore, admissible and should be properly
ta?en into consideration in the resolution of this
administrative case against respondent.
%6R6 No6 191A72 $ugust 1A/ 2;12"$R%$RI$ $"&RE # C$#UNI/vs. PEOPLE OF4E P4ILIPPINE!
The e"clusionar$ rule is not! ho#ever! an
absolute and riid proscription. 1ne of the
reconi4ed e"ception established b$
urisprudence is search incident to a la#ful
arrest.
F$C!:
(mbre :as charged :ith the crime of violation of
%ection 1), (rticle ++ of "epublic (ct 1RA7 6o. 91>)
*rom the testimonies of prosecution :itnesses, i
appeared that on (pril #) for failure o
the prosecution to prove :ith particularity the drugparaphernalia found in her possession.
I!!UE:
Ahether the :arrantless arrest of (mbre and the
search of her person :as valid and :hether the
items seiIed are admissible in evidence.
4ELD:
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
22/117
#es6 %ection #, (rticle +++ of the onstitution
mandates that a search and seiIure must be carried
out through or on the strength of a judicial :arrant
predicated upon the e=istence of probable cause,
absent :hich such search and seiIure becomes
LunreasonableL :ithin the meaning of said
constitutional provision. Evidence obtained and
confiscated on the occasion of such an
unreasonable search and seiIure is tainted andshould be e=cluded for being the proverbial fruit of a
poisonous tree. +n the language of the fundamental
la:, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any
purpose in any proceeding.
This e=clusionary rule is not, ho:ever, an absolute
and rigid proscription. 3ne of the recogniIed
e=ception established by jurisprudence is search
incident to a la:ful arrest. +n this e=ception, the la:
re@uires that a la:ful arrest must precede the search
of a person and his belongings. (s a rule, an arrest
is considered legitimate if effected :ith a valid:arrant of arrest.
+n this case, there is no gainsaying that (mbre :as
caught by the police officers in the act of using
shabu and, thus, can be la:fully arrested :ithout a
:arrant. 0is conviction stands.
%6R6 No6 1822; une 1A/ 2;;A
RO!ENDO 4ERRER$vs. RO!ENDO $L&$
Evidence is admissible #hen it is relevant to thefact in issue and is not other#ise e"cluded b$
statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is
relevant #hen it has such a relation to the fact in
issue as to induce belief in its e"istence or non-
e"istence.
F$C!:
Thirteen-year-old "osendo (lba represented by his
mother (rmi (lba, filed before the trial court a
petition for compulsory recognition, support and
damages against petitioner. !etitioner 0errera
denied that he is the biological father of respondent
and denied physical contact :ith respondentGs
mother."espondent filed a motion to direct the
ta?ing of 56( paternity testing to abbreviate the
proceedings.!etitioner opposed 56( paternity
testing and contended that it has not gained
acceptability and further argued that 56( paternity
testing violates his right against self-incrimination.
The trial court granted respondentGs motion to
conduct 56( paternity testing on petitioner.
!etitioner filed before the appellate court a petition
for certiorari under "ule >) asserting that the tria
court acted Lin e=cess of, or :ithout jurisdiction
andKor :ith grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lac? or e=cess of jurisdiction, in issuing the order o
56( testing, ho:ever, the petition :as denied.
I!!UE:
Ahether or not a 56( test is a valid probative tool to
determine filiation and as such be admissible in
evidence in a paternity suit.
4ELD:
#es. Evidence is admissible :hen it is relevant to
the fact in issue and is not other:ise e=cluded by
statute or the "ules of ourt. Evidence is relevan
:hen it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to
induce belief in its e=istence or non-e=istence
%ection '9 of "ule 1$
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
23/117
of modern science and technology, such evidence
should be considered subject to the limits
established by the la:, rules, and jurisprudence.
%6R6 No6 1A;22 "( 19/ 2;;
PEOPLE OF 4E P4ILIPPINE!/ ,s6 OEL #$$R
(i(s +$5I
The leal relevanc$ of evidence denotes
5somethin more than a minimum of probativevalue!5 suestin that such evidentiar$
relevance must contain a 5plus value.5 This ma$
be necessar$ to preclude the trial court from
bein satisfied b$ matters of sliht value!
capable of bein e"aerated b$ preudice and
hast$ conclusions. Evidence #ithout 5plus
value5 ma$ be loicall$ relevant but not leall$
sufficient to convict.
F$C!:
/oel atar :as convicted by the trial court :ith rape:ith homicide defined and penaliIed under (rticle
#>>-( of the "evised !enal ode, as amended by
".(. 8$)$, other:ise ?no:n as the (nti-"ape 2a: of
1997, and :as accordingly, sentenced to Death.
!ursuant to (rticle '7 of the revised !enal ode, an
automatic revie: :as made, the appellant alleging
that the trial court gravely erred in giving :eight to
the evidence presented by the prosecution
not:ithstanding their doubtfulness and thereby he
should be ac@uitted from the crime charged due to
reasonable doubt.
I!!UE:
Ahether or not the trial court committed reversibleerror in convicting the accused of the crime chargedon the basis of circumstantial evidence.
4ELD:
No6 ircumstantial evidence, to be sufficient to:arrant a conviction, must form an unbro?en chain
:hich leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that
the accused, to the e=clusion of others, is the
perpetrator of the crime. To determine :hether there
is sufficient circumstantial evidence, three re@uisites
must concurB 1 there is more than one
circumstance # facts on :hich the inferences are
derived are proven and $ the combination of all
the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
enerally, courts should only consider and rely upon
duly established evidence and never on mere
conjectures or suppositions. The legal relevancy o
evidence denotes Lsomething more than a minimum
of probative value,L suggesting that such evidentiary
relevance must contain a Lplus value.L This may be
necessary to preclude the trial court from being
satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being
e=aggerated by prejudice and hasty conclusionsEvidence :ithout Lplus valueL may be logically
relevant but not legally sufficient to convict. +t is
incumbent upon the trial court to balance the
probative value of such evidence against the li?ely
harm that :ould result from its admission.
The judgment in a criminal case can be upheld only
:hen there is relevant evidence from :hich the cour
can properly find or infer that the accused is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. !roof beyond reasonable
doubt re@uires moral certainty of guilt in order to
sustain a conviction. &oral certainty is that degree ofcertainty that convinces and directs the
understanding and satisfies the reason and
judgment of those :ho are bound to ac
conscientiously upon it. +t is certainty beyond
reasonable doubt. This re@uires that the
circumstances, ta?en together, should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency leading, on the
:hole, to a satisfactory conclusion that the accused
and no one else, committed the offense charged. +n
vie: of the totality of evidence appreciated thus far
:e rule that the present case passes the test o
moral certainty.
0o:ever, as a matter of procedure, and for the
purpose of meeting the re@uirement of proof beyond
reasonable doubt, motive is essential for conviction
:hen there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit
Thus, appellantGs motive to se=ually assault and ?il
the victim :as evident in the instant case. +t is a rule
in criminal la: that motive, being a state of mind, is
established by the testimony of :itnesses on the
acts or statements of the accused before o
immediately after the commission of the offense
deeds or :ords that may e=press it or from :hich his
motive or reason for committing it may be inferred
(ccordingly, the ourt is convinced that the
appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
special comple= crime of rape :ith homicide
(ppellant se=ually assaulted Cathylynba, and by
reason or on the occasion thereof, in order to
conceal his lustful deed, permanently sealed the
victimGs lips by stabbing her repeatedly, thereby
causing her untimely demise.
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
24/117
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
25/117
rather than a judicial matter and therefore courts
follo: the determination of the e=ecutive department
of the forum
d. +n conformity to the la: of nations all courts in a
government, :here that government has recogniIed
the e=istence of a foreign nation, but not in the
absence of such recognition :ill ta?e cogniIance of
the flag and great seal of that nation or provinces
e. *oreign la: must be proved as facts, those
rules :hich by common consent of man?ind have
been ac@uiesced in as las stand upon an entirely
different footing
Note9+t is :ell settled that foreign la:s do not prove
themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not
authoriIed to ta?e judicial notice of them. 2i?e any
other fact, they must be alleged and proved.
f. 6o proof need be given of the seals of foreign
maritime and admiralty courts. y common consentand general usage, the seal of a court of admiralty
has been considered as sufficiently authenticating its
records
g.
&atters relating toB
1. 2egislative5epartment
ourts are bound tota?e judicial notice, asa matter of la:, ofdates :hen ongressbegins and closes itssession, the number,function, privileges ofits members
#. E=ecutive5epartment
ourts judiciallyrecogniIe all publicmatters :hich :illaffect the governmentof the country. 3n thisprinciple, theaccession and death of
the sovereign andprincipal officers of thestate are recogniIed
$. /udiciary5epartment
The %upreme ourthas ta?en judicialnotice of its record in aprevious case inconnection :ith the
conduct of the litigantor :itness in a similarmatter.
eneral "uleB ourtsare not authoriIed tota?e judicial ?no:ledgeof contents of the othercases, in theadjudication of casespending before them,even though the trial
judge in fact ?no:s orremember the contentsthereof
i. ourts judicially recogniIe all public matters:hich :ill affect the government of thecountry. 3n this principle, the accession anddeath of the sovereign and principal officersof the state are recogniIed
j. /udicial 6otice is ta?en of the familiar and
un@uestionable la:s of nature and of thee=istence of fact :hich happened accordingto the course of nature
?. ourts :ill judicially notice the thingsbelonging to the almanac. alendar of theperiods :ithin the calendar.
l. /udicial 6otice is ta?en of the fact that the!hilippines is divided into provincesmunicipalities, cities, and cities is dividedinto lots, bloc?s, streets
67RIS8R7DENCE
/udicial notice may be ta?en of petitionerOs oathta?ing as evidenced by a certification from the"ecords 3fficer of the office of the !rovinciaovernor. The oath ta?ing parta?es of an officiaact, :hile the certification is an official act of anofficial of the E=ecutive 5epartment of thegovernment. 2opeI v. %andiganbayan, " 6o1
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
26/117
- /udicial ?no:ledge of facts is measured bygeneral ?no:ledge of the same fact. ( fact isgenerally ?no:n :hen its e=istence or operation
:hen it is accepted by public :ithout@ualification or contention.
The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the:isdom and discretion of the courts. The po:erto ta?e judicial notice is to be e=ercised by
courts :ith caution care must be ta?en that there@uisite notoriety e=ists and every reasonabledoubt on the subject should be promptlyresolved in the negative. enerally spea?ing,matters of judicial notice have three materialre@uisitesB 1 the matter must be one ofcommon and general ?no:ledge # it must be
:ell and authoritatively settled and not doubtfulor uncertain and $ it must be ?no:n to be
:ithin the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.The principal guide in determining :hat factsmay be assumed to be judicially ?no:n is that ofnotoriety. 0ence, it can be said that judicialnotice is limited to facts evidenced by public
records and facts of general notoriety. 2atip vs.hua
Things of Lcommon ?no:ledge,L of :hich courts ta?ejudicial notice, may be matters coming to the?no:ledge of men generally in the course of theordinary e=periences of life, or they may be matters
:hich are generally accepted by man?ind as trueand are capable of ready and un@uestioneddemonstration. Thus, facts :hich are universally?no:n, and :hich may be found in encyclopedias,dictionaries or other publications, are judiciallynoticed, provided they are of such universal notoriety
and so generally understood that they may beregarded as forming part of the common ?no:ledgeof every person. 2atip vs. hua, " 63. 1778 UDICI$L NOICE/ 54EN
4E$RIN% NECE!!$R#
5uring the trial, the court on its o:n
initiative, or on re@uest of a party, mayannounce its intention to ta?e judicial notice
of any matter and allo: the parties to be
heard thereon.
(fter the trial, and before judgment or on
appeal, the proper court, or its o:n initiative
or on the re@uest of a party, may ta?e
judicial notice of any matter and allo: the
parties to be heard thereon if such matter is
decisive of a material issue or in the case.
PURPO!E OF 4E$RIN%
To afford the parties reasonable
opportunity to present information
relevant to the propriety of ta?ing such
judicial notice or to the tenor of the
matter to be noticed.
I"E 54EN UDICI$L NOICE "$#
&E $+EN:
5uring trial
(fter trial and before judgment
3n appeal
+n all instances, the court may act on its
o:n initiative or on re@uest of a party.
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
27/117
UDICI$L NOICE $+EN DURIN%
RI$L DI!IN%UI!4ED FRO" 4$
$+EN $FER &U &EFORE
UD%"EN OR ON $PPE$L
5"+6 T"+(2 ; any matter
(*TE" T"+(2 T E*3"E
/5&E6T 3" 36 (!!E(2 ; (ny
matter if such decisive of a material
issue in the case.
DEER"IN$ION OF F$C!
!U&EC OF UDICI$L NOICE >
The court may refer to appropriate and
reliable sources of information. Ahere
judicial notice must be ta?en of a fact,
the court is re@uired to pursue in@uiries
sufficient to ma?e that ?no:ledge real
as far as possible.
!ECION ; (n admission, verbal or :ritten, made
by or a party in the course of the proceedings in the
same case, does not re@uire proof of the admission
may be contradicted only by sho:ing that it :as
made through palpable mista?e or that no such
admission :as made.
UDICI$L $ND EBR$ UDICI$L
$D"I!!ION! DEFINED6
/5++(2 ; is one made in the
pleadings filed or in the progress of a
trial. +t is conclusive upon the party
ma?ing them.
EPT"( /5++(2 (5&+%%+36 ; one
made out of court. (s a rule, isdisputable e=cept on estoppel.
FOR" OF UDICI$L $D"I!!ION >
/5++(2 (5&+%%+36% &( EB
1. 3ral as a verbal :aiver of proo
made in open court
#. ( :ithdra:al of a contention
$. ( disclosure made before a court
'. (dmission made by a :itness in the
course of testimony or deposition
). +n :riting as in pleadings
>. ill of particulars
7. %tipulation of facts
8. "e@uest for admission
9. /udicial admission contained in an
affidavit used in a case.
CONCLU!IVENE!! OF UDICI$L$D"I!!ION
annot be contradicted unless
previously sho:n to have been made
through a palpable mista?e or that no
such admission :as made.
$D"I!!ION IN PLE$DIN%! >
&ay be made by an e=press
ac?no:ledgement of some fact or facts
set forth in the pleading of the opposite
party.
y failure to deny or other:ise
controvert the truth of such fact or facts.
NO $D"I!!ION $RI!E! 54ENDEFEND$N I! $DUD%ED IN
DEF$UL6
%uch failure to ans:er does not amoun
to an admission of the facts alleged in
the complaint.
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
28/117
&ILL OF P$RICUL$R! >
Aritten statements in nature of bill of
particulars, purporting to be signed by a
partyGs attorney, and :hich the opposing
party claims :as delivered to his
counsel as a bill of particular :as been
held admissible.
VERIFIED $ND UNVERIFIED
PLE$DIN%! >
4erification is considered essential to
the admission of statements in a
pleading against the pleader. +f a party
does not verify, authoriIe or adopt a
pleading, allegations thereof are not
admissible against him.
$D"I!!ION! $ORNE# >
(dmissions by counsel made in the trial
of a cause may be conclusive on the
party unless :ithdra:n or set aside by
the court for good cause sho:n as
mista?e or lac? of authority.
$D"I!!ION! IN 5I4DR$5N/
!UPER!EDED OR $"ENDED
PLE$DIN%
The pleading :hich has been :ithdra:n
or stric?en out or superseded by
amendment, still remain as statements
seriously made and are admissible in
evidence, on behalf of the opposite
party as admissions by the pleader,
:here he is a party to the subse@uent
litigation, :here the statements are
material and relevant to the issues in
connection :ith :hich they are sought
to be introduced, and :here, in case of
a pleading :ithdra:n by leave of court
no order is made relieving the pleader
from the admissions made and the
probative force of such statements has
even been given a prima facie value.
$D"I!!ION! IN !IPUL$ION OF
F$C! >
%tipulations of facts in a case are
agreements or admissions regarding
certain facts included in the litigation
and are conclusive bet:een the parties
(cts or facts admitted do not re@uire
proof and cannot be contradicted
unless it be sho:n that the admission
:as made through a palpable mista?e
for parties are not allo:ed to gain saytheir o:n acts or deny rights :hich they
have previously recogniIed. ( party
may not :ithdra: from an agreement o
facts :ithout the consent of the othe
party or :ithout leave of court on
justifiable reasons.
&INDIN% EFFEC OF !IPUL$ION
OF F$C! >
( concession or stipulation as to a fac
made for the purpose of trial has the
force and effect of an established fac
binding on the party ma?ing the same
as :ell as on the court, unless the cour
in its reasonable discretion allo:s the
concession to be later :ithdra:n
e=plained, or modified if it appears to
have been made by improvidence o
mista?e.
$FFID$VI!/ DEPO!IION! $ND
E!I"ON# >
( judicial admission in an affidavit used
in the case is admissible against the
party ma?ing or adopting the affidavit
and it may also be admitted in another
action to :hich he is a party.
%tatements made in a deposition
relevant to the issues, may be admitted
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
29/117
against the deponent as admissions
against the interest in the same or
another action to :hich he is a party,
even though he is present in court and
able to testify, or has testified
The testimony given by or for a party at
the trial of a case may be used against
him as an admission in the same, or ona subse@uent trial, or even in another
action, provided such testimony is
material and relevant.
PROOF OF $D"I!!ION IN
PLE$DIN%/ $FFID$VI OR
DEPO!IION >
Ahere a pleading, affidavit or
depositionis offered in evidence, thestatements relied on as admissions and
the @ualifying statements must be
construed together. The party offering
:ritten admissions is not stopped to
disprove them.
CO"PRO"I!E $%REE"EN -
( judicial admission in a compromise
agreement submitted to the court cannotbe contradicted unless previously sho:n
to have been made through palpable
mista?e.
!IPUL$ION OF F$C! IN
CRI"IN$L C$!E! >
+t is not proper to consider a case
closed, or to render judgment therein, by
virtue of an agreement entered intobet:een the fiscal and counsel for the
accused :ith reference to facts some of
:hich are favorable to the defense, and
others related to the prosecution,
:ithout any evidence being adduced or
testimony ta?en from the :itnesses
mentioned in the agreement such
practice is not authoriIed and defeats
the purposes of the criminal la:.
UDICI$L $D"I!!ION OF $ F$C
DI!IN%UI!4ED FRO" $N
$D"I!!ION 4$ $ CER$IN
5INE!!/ IF C$LLED/ 5OULD !O
E!IF#6
+n the first case, there is a judicia
admission of the facts, and they canno
be contradicted. +n the second case, i
:ill only have the same effect as if the
:itness had testified to the facts. %uch
testimony of the party is free to
contradict.
Constitution( Right not ,io(ted 0 ins.e)tion os)ene of )rime, provided that the same is :ithconsent of and accompanied by counsel for theaccused, it further appearing that no evidence :asta?en during the inspection.
Inform(tion o0t(ined on ( ,ie= is inde.endente,iden)e to be ta?en into consideration by the curtin determining the issues in the case.
Order dening or gr(nting ,ie= not re,ie=(0e:hen it appears that the condition of the premises oproperty has changed since the time of occurrencein issue and before the demand for a vie:, or thatthe facts involved are such that they can beaccurately described to the court by oral testimonyor by the use of maps or diagrams :ith propee=planations, or vie: :ould be unreasonablee=pensive or cause unreasonable delay, or serve no
useful purpose, unless here appears a clear abuseof discretion.
DOCU"EN$R# EVIDENCE
Section 2 Documentar$ evidence
DOCU"EN ; any substance having any mattee=pressed or described upon it by mar?s capable ofbeing read. +f it is produced :ithout regard to themessage :hich it contains, it is treated as reaevidence.
DOCU"EN$R# EVIDENCE- evidence supplied by:ritten instruments, or derived from the conventionasymbols, such as letters, by :hich ideas arerepresented on material substances documentsdocuments produced for the inspection of the couror judge.$D"I!!I&ILI# OF DOCUE"N$R# EVIDENCEsubject to the same basic rules on relevancymateriality, e=clusionary rules and court discretionas determined by the issues in the particular case+dentity and authenticity of the document must be
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
30/117
reasonably established as a pre-re@uisite to itsadmission.
I"POR$N RULE! ON DOCU"EN$R#EVIDENCE-
1. est Evidence "ule#. "ule on %econdary Evidence$. !arol Evidence "ule'. "ule on (uthentication and !roof of
5ocuments). +nadmissibility of :ritten document in an
unofficial language unless translated inEnglish and *ilipino
16 &est E,iden)e Rue
&E! EVIDENCE or PRI"$R# EVIDENCE-
particular means of proof :hich is indicated by the
nature of the fact under investigation as the most
natural and satisfactory that affords the greatest
certainty of the fact in @uestion and on its face
indicates that no better evidence remains behind.
&E! EVIDENCE RULE - is that rule :hich re@uires
the highest grade of evidence obtainable to
prove a disputed fact.
Pur.ose of the rue reuiring the .rodu)tion ofthe 0est e,iden)e:prevention of fraud, because ifthe best evidence is not presented then thepresumption of suppression of evidence :ill bepresent.&est e,iden)e rue (..ies on =henthe .ur.ose of the .roof is to est(0ish the terms
of =riting/therefore 63T applicable to e=ternal orcollateral facts about the document such as itse=istence, e=ecution or delivery.
Peo.e ,6 (ndo'199;*The est Evidence "ule applies only :hen thecontents of the document are the subject of in@uiry.+t does not apply :hen the issue is only as to
:hether or not such document :as actuallye=ecuted or in the circumstances relevant to itse=ecution. (n objection by the party against :homsecondary evidence is sought to be introduced is
essential to bring the best evidence rule intoapplication. Ahere secondary evidence has beenadmitted, the rule of evidence might have beensuccessfully invo?ed if proper and timely objectionhad been ta?en
54$ CON!IUE! 4E ORI%IN$L:
a The original of the document is one thecontents of :hich are the subject of in@uiry
b Ahen a document is in t:o or morecopies e=ecuted at or about the same time,
:ith identical contents, all such copies aree@ually regarded as originals and
c Ahen an entry is repeated in the regularcourse of business, one being copied fromanother at or near the time of thetransaction, all the entries are li?e:isee@ually regarded as originals.
6oteBQ 3riginal may depend on the substantivela: applicableQ 3riginal may depend on the act of thepartiesQ:here there may be duplicate originaleither is an original ad may be used :ithouaccounting for anotherQAhenever a document is e=ecuted in
several parts, each part is a primary evidenceQ Ahenever a document is e=ecuted incounterpart, each part e=ecuted by one omore of the parties only, each counterpart is
primary evidence as against the parties :hoe=ecuted it
Peo.e ,s !to6 om(s178 !CR$ 2;To be ta?en intoconsideration by the curt in determining the issues inthe case.
Order dening or gr(nting ,ie= not
re,ie=(0e >Ahen it appears that the condition of
the premises or property has changed since the time
of occurrence in issue and before the demand for a
vie:, or that the facts involved are such that they
can be accurately described to the court by oral
testimony, or by the use of maps or diagrams :ith
proper e=planations, or vie: :ould be unreasonable
e=pensive or cause unreasonable delay, or serve no
useful purpose, unless here appears a clear abuse
of discretion.
DOCU"EN$R# EVIDENCE
Section 2 Documentar$ evidence
DOCU"EN ; any substance having anymatter e=pressed or described upon it by mar?scapable ofbeing read. +f it is produced :ithout regard to themessage :hich it contains, it is treated as realevidence.
DOCU"EN$R# EVIDENCE- evidencesupplied by :ritten instruments, or derived from theconventional symbols, such as letters, by :hich
ideas are represented on material substancesdocuments documents produced for the inspectionof the court or judge.
$D"I!!I&ILI# OF DOCUE"N$R#EVIDENCE- subject to the same basic rules onrelevancy, materiality, e=clusionary rules and courdiscretion as determined by the issues in theparticular case. +dentity and authenticity of thedocument must be reasonably established as a pre-re@uisite to its admission.
I"POR$N RULE! ON DOCU"EN$R#EVIDENCE-
1. est Evidence "ule#. "ule on %econdary Evidence$. !arol Evidence "ule'. "ule on (uthentication and !roof o
5ocuments). +nadmissibility of :ritten document in an
unofficial language unless translated inEnglish and *ilipino
26 &est E,iden)e Rue
&E! EVIDENCE or PRI"$R# EVIDENCE
particular means of proof :hich is indicated by the
nature of the fact under investigation as the most
natural and satisfactory that affords the greates
certainty of the fact in @uestion and on its face
indicates that no better evidence remains behind.
&E! EVIDENCE RULE - is that rule :hich
re@uires the h ighest g rade o f evidence
obtainable to prove a disputed fact.
Pur.ose of the rue reuiring the .rodu)tionof the 0est e,iden)e:prevention of fraud, becauseif the best evidence is not presented then thepresumption of suppression of evidence :ill bepresent.
&est e,iden)e rue (..ies on =henthe .ur.ose of the .roof is to est(0ish the terms
of =riting/therefore 63T applicable to e=ternal ocollateral facts about the document such as itse=istence, e=ecution or delivery.
Peo.e ,6 (ndo'199;*The est Evidence "ule applies only :hen thecontents of the document are the subject of in@uiry+t does not apply :hen the issue is only as to
:hether or not such document :as actuallye=ecuted or in the circumstances relevant to itse=ecution. (n objection by the party against :homsecondary evidence is sought to be introduced is
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
42/117
essential to bring the best evidence rule intoapplication. Ahere secondary evidence has beenadmitted, the rule of evidence might have beensuccessfully invo?ed if proper and timely objectionhad been ta?en
54$ CON!IUE! 4E ORI%IN$L:
a The original of the document is one the
contents of :hich are the subject of in@uiry
b Ahen a document is in t:o or morecopies e=ecuted at or about the same time,
:ith identical contents, all such copies aree@ually regarded as originals and
c Ahen an entry is repeated in the regularcourse of business, one being copied fromanother at or near the time of thetransaction, all the entries are li?e:isee@ually regarded as originals.
6oteB Q 3riginal may depend on the substantivela: applicableQ 3riginal may depend on the act of thepartiesQ:here there may be duplicate original,either is an original ad may be used :ithoutaccounting for anotherQAhenever a document is e=ecuted in
several parts, each part is primary evidenceQ Ahenever a document is e=ecuted incounterpart, each part e=ecuted by one ormore of the parties only, each counterpart isprimary evidence as against the parties :hoe=ecuted it
Peo.e ,s!to6 om(s178 !CR$ 2;+n criminal cases, :here the issue is not only :ithrespect to the contents of the document but also asto :hether such document actually e=isted, theoriginal itself must be presented.
U! ,s %regorio1@ Phi A22
*or only only presenting the Pero= copy of thefalsified documents, prosecution failed to prove thecorpus delicti of the crime charged. +n the absenceof the original document, it +s improper to conclude
:ith only copy of the said original in vie:, that therehas been a falsification of the document :hich :asneither found nor e=hibited, because in such a caseeven the e=istence ofsuch document may bedoubted.
6on-.rodu)tion of the origin( do)umenunless justified in %ection $, gives rise to thepresumption of suppression of evidence.
$mended Do)uments- :here a duplicateor copy is amended or altered by the party oparties, it becomes the original.
Do)ument e3e)uted in t=o or moreidenti)( )ontentseach one of the parts is primary
evidence and the other need not be proved.
"e)h(ni)( re.rodu)ed )o.ies:h arbon copy- admissible as duplicate
original :hen e=ecuted at the same timeor about the same time. +mperfeccarbon copies, although made at thesame time as the original but if there issomething else to be done for it to bebinding or there is incomplete signatureitGs not the best evidence.
i "eproduction from the same matri= i.emimeograph, hectograph- admissible as
duplicate original :hen produced fromthe same matri= as original
j lueprints and vellum tracings- havebeen held to be originals rather thancopies
? Telegraph and cable messages-if the issue is the contents of the
telegram
as received by the addressee- then
the original dispatch is the copy othe message sent to the addressee
as sent by the sender- the original is
the message delivered
if the issue is the inaccuracy otransmission,
both telegrams as sent and received
are originalsl 2etter press copies- merely secondary
evidence as its prone to impropereproduction and are not producedsimultaneously as the original
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
43/117
m Thermofa=- merely secondary evidenceas it lac?s satisfactory reproduction assome portions are not clearly printed
n !hotographs and Pero=-merelysecondary evidence since they arereproduced at a latter time but ifauthenticated photostatic copy ofincome ta= returns, public and businessrecords are allo:ed as evidence
Peo.e ,s"(ngu(0n(n
A2 O%
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
44/117
petition for certification election. 5espite thecertification case, & sent notice to the nion fortermination of their contract and entered into a ne:contract :ith another stevedoring association.
& assailed that the termination of the contract :asdue to nion :or?erGs inefficiency and that theompany suffered financial losses due to suchservice. To ascertain its annual losses, &Gsmanager hired auditors. & relied only upon suchauditorsG report and presented in court only asummary of damages. The sales invoices :ere notproduced.
+ssueB A36 the non-submission as evidence of therecords of the alleged losses of the ompany ise=cused because of the rule e=empting voluminousrecords from being produced in court.
"ulingB The best evidence of the ompanyGs losses:ould have been the sales invoices instead of the&anagerG oral testimony. The rule that :hen theoriginal consists of numerous accounts or other
documents :hich cannot be e=amined in court:ithout great loss of time and the fact sought to beestablished in only the general result of the :hole,the original :ritings need not be produce, (663TE (!!2+E5 because the voluminous character fthe records :as 63T 52 E%T(2+%0E5. +t isalso a re@uisite for the application of the rule that therecords of accounts should be made accessible tothe adverse party so that the correctness of thesummary may be tested on cross-e=amination.
5hen (n entr is re.e(ted in the regu(r )ourseof 0usiness, one being copied from another at or
near the time of the transaction, all the entries areregarded as originals. *or as long as they are made
:ithin reasonable time, it is sufficient. ( much longerbut reasonable delay and :hen entries appear tohave been made :hile the memory as to thetransaction as clear or the source of such ?no:ledge
:as unimpaired, still ma?es it admissible.
0o:ever, a boo? of account containing only a singleentry or charge of money lent, :hich sho: no mutualrecourse of dealing bet:een the parties, is notadmissible.
26 !ECOND$R# EVIDENCE
%ET+36 ), "2E 1$8
- +f oral testimony or parol evidence ispresented on facts or circumstances
:hich do not refer to the terms ocontents of a :riting, the prohibitionin the parol evidence rule does notapply. Ta"osig %s ?$a De nie#a) (42CRA (35
Reason for the Ru"e
- The purpose of the rule is givestability to :ritten agreements andto remove the temptation andpossibility of perjury, :hich :ould beafforded if parol evidence :ere
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
49/117
admissible. Castro %s CA GR L@4(,*4) Januar& 5,) *+>+
Paro" e%i$ence ru"e $istinguishe$ from #este%i$ence ru"e
Paro" e%i$ence ru"e not app"ica#"e tostrangers to the instrument
- The parol evidence rule does notapply, and may not properly beinvo?ed by either party to the
litigation against the other, :here atleast one of the parties to the suit isnot a party or a privy of a party tothe :ritten instrument in @uestionand does not base a claim on theinstrument or assert a rightoriginating in the instrument or therelation established thereby.Lechugas %s CA) *(4 2CRA 44-
Paro" e%i$ence not a$missi#"e to %a"i$ate a%oi$ contract
- Ahere an instrument is on its faceillegal or void, because it sho:s aviolation of some statutory provision,or omits something :hich the la:ma?es essential to its validity, or forany reason, parol evidence cannotbe admitted to contradict to sho: aviolation of the statute, to supply theomission, or other:ise to ma?eeffectual that :hich the la: declaresshall be of no effect, unless it can besho:n that the provision :hichrenders the instrument void :as
inserted by mista?e.
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
50/117
Test of the $ifference #et'een "atent an$patent am#iguities
- ( good test of the differencebet:een the t:o forms ofambiguities is to put the instrumentinto the hands of an ordinarilyintelligent educated person. +f onperusal he sees no ambiguity, but
there is nevertheless an uncertaintyfrom merely reading the instrument,it is patent.
Latent or intrinsic am#iguit& $efine$
- (n uncertainty :hich does notappear on the face of theinstrument, but :hich is sho:n toe=ist for the first time by the matteroutside the :riting ; may bee=plained or clarified by parolevidence
Bin$s of "atent am#iguities
a. :here the description of thedevises or the property devisedis clear upon the face of the :ill,but it turns out that there is morethan one estate or person to
:hich the description appliesb. :here the devisee or property
devised is imperfectly or, insome respects, erroneouslydescribed, so as to leave it
doubtful :hat person or propertyis meant
Etrinsic or patent am#iguit& not austification for reforming the 'riting
- The contest and every legitimaterule of e=position may be listed andused in obedience to the ma=im utres magis%a"eat /uam pereat Thatthe thing may rather have effectthan be destroyed but paroltestimony or e=traneous proof of
any ?ind, is deemed to beinadmissible
- The rule e=pressly mentions intrinsicor latent ambiguity and not e=trinsicor patent ambiguity as one of thee=ceptions to the parol evidencerule.
- "eason for the ruleB if the languagebe too doubtful for any settledconstruction, by the admission ofparol evidence, you create and donot merely construe the contractyou attempt to do that for the party
:hich he has not chosen to do fohimself.
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
51/117
parties applies only in cases ofmista?e of fact and not :here aparty has contracted under amista?e of la:.
b. &ista?e must be mutual ; Theparties must sho: that there
:as a valid contract bet:eenthem, :hich contract is notcorrectly set forth in the :ritingto be reformed.
c. &ista?e should be alleged andproved ; the e=istence ofmista?e must be alleged in thepleadings and the allegationsmust be sustained by proof
Imperfection in the 'ritten agreement
- !arol evidence is admissible :herethere is imperfection of the :riting
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
52/117
- "easonB parties cannot be presumed tohave intended the :ritten instrument tocover all their possible subse@uentagreements :hich for that reason may beconsidered as separate transactions.
RECENL# DECIDED C$!E!
4eirs of Poi)ronioUret(/ !r6 ,s6 4eirs ofLi0er(toUret(
%6R6 No6 1
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
53/117
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
54/117
Issue:Ahether or not the unilateral 5eed of %aleshould be the basis to determine the trueconsideration.
4ed:
+n any event, the finding that the trueconsideration :as only !##7,'>< and not!1,)$1,)>' is supported by the evidence on record.
0ere, the %andiganbayan found that the unilateral5eed of %ale :as the official document used by thebuyer (*!-"%% and seller !laIa in the registrationof the sale as :ell as in the payment of theregistration fee, transfer ta=, capital gains ta=, anddocumentary stamp ta= necessary to effecttransfer. This finding :as not disputed by thepetitioner.
(t most, petitioner relied on the testimony of!laIa, :hich referred to a consideration of!1,1$7,$' disbursed according to the %tatusTransaction "eport signed by petitioner.
6either did the seller or the buyer disputethe validity of the unilateral 5eed of (bsolute %ale.The subse@uent bilateral 5eed of (bsolute %ale didnot repeal or modify the earlier sale either. (s thedeed :as a valid agreement of conveyance,not:ithstanding that only the seller signed the
deed, the%andiganbayan did not err :hen it usedthe unilateral 5eed of %ale as basis to determine thetrue consideration.
"ODE!O LEOVER$!vs6 C$!I"ERO V$LDE
%6R6 No6 19, (lejandraOsheirs sold their predecessorOs one-half 1K# shareroughly e@uivalent to 1' s@uare meters to therespondent, as evidenced by a 5eed of (bsolute%ale. (lso on /une 1', 19>9, /osefa sold her o:none-half 1K# share 1su#ect propert&7to therespondent and the petitioner, as evidenced byanother 5eed of (bsolute %ale.
ears later, the respondent filed a complainagainst the petitioner, see?ing the reconveyance ofthe 1,
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
55/117
+n the present petition, ho:ever, the
petitioner made a damaging admission that
the &enign( Deedis fabricated, thereby completely
bolstering the respondentOs cause of action for
reconveyance of the disputed property on the
ground of fraudulent registration of title. %ince the
(ffidavit merely reflects :hat is embodied in the
enigna 5eed, the petitionerOs admission, coupled
:ith the respondentOs denial of his purportedsignature in the (ffidavit, placed in serious doubt the
reliability of this document, supposedly the bedroc?
of the petitionerOs defense.
INERPRE$ION OF DOCU"EN!
Inter.ret(tion of Contr()ts under the CIVILCODE:
%rticle (3= Civil Code- If the terms of a contractare c"ear an$ "ea%e no $ou#t upon the intention ofthe contracting parties) the "itera" meaning of its
stipu"ations sha"" contro"
If the 'or$s appear to #e contrar& to the e%i$entintention of the parties) the "atter sha"" pre%ai" o%erthe former
- +t is an elementary rule of contract that thela:s in force at the time the contract :asmade must govern its interpretation.
- &atters bearing upon the e=ecution,interpretation, and validity of a contract aredetermined by the la: of the place :herethe contract is made.
- The terms of the contract :hereunambiguous are conclusive, in theabsence of averment and proof of mista?e,the @uestion being not :hat the intentione=isted in the minds of the parties but :hatintention is e=pressed by the languageused.
%rticle (3=(! Civil Code @ In or$er to u$ge theintention of the contracting parties) theircontemporaneous an$ su#se/uent acts sha"" #e
principa""& consi$ere$
- The contemporaneous and subse@uent actsthat may serve as indicia of the intention ofthe parties are those in :hich both of themparticipate.
%rt. (3=2! Civil Code- 6o'e%er genera" the termsof a contract ma& #e) the& sha"" not #e un$erstoo$ tocomprehen$ things that are $istinct an$ cases thatare $ifferent from those upon 'hich the partiesinten$e$ to agree
- Ahere a specific provision in a contract isfollo:ed by a general provision covering thesame subject matter, the former :ill be heldto prevail over the latter :hen the t:ocannot stand together.
- Ahere both the general and speciaprovisions may be given reasonable effectboth are to be retained.
%rt. (3=3! Civil Code@ If some stipu"ation of an&contract shou"$ a$mit of se%era" meanings) it sha"#e un$erstoo$ as #earing that import 'hich is mosta$e/uate to ren$er it effectua"
- Ahen an agreement is susceptible oseveral meanings one of :hich :ould ma?eit effectual, it should be given suchinterpretation. The terms of a contract musif possible be construed to mean somethingrather than nothing.
%rt. (3=)! Civil Code- The %arious stipu"ations of acontract sha"" #e interprete$ together) attri#uting tothe $ou#tfu" ones that sense 'hich ma& resu"t froma"" of them ta0en oint"&
%rt. (3=*! Civil Code -
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
56/117
"east transmission of rights an$ interests sha""pre%ai" If the contract is onerous) the $ou#t sha"" #esett"e$ in fa%or of the greatest reciprocit& ofinterests
If the $ou#ts are cast upon the principa" o#ect of thecontract in such a 'a& that it cannot #e 0no'n 'hatma& ha%e #een the intention or 'i"" of the parties)the contract sha"" #e nu"" an$ %oi$
- Thus if the ontract is gratuitous suchinterpretation should be made :hich :ouldresult in the least transmission of rights andinterest.
- +f the doubt refers to the principal object ofthe contract in @uestion and such cannot beresolved not:ithstanding the application ofsaid rule, the contract shall be null and void.
%rt. (3=! Civil Code- The princip"es ofinterpretation state$ in Ru"e *54 of the Ru"es ofCourt sha"" "i0e'ise #e o#ser%e$ in the construction
of contracts
INERPRE$ION OF DOCU"EN! UNDER 4EREVI!ED RULE! OF COUR
!e)tion 1;: Interpretation of a #ritin accordinto its lealmeaning ; The language of a :riting isto be interpreted according to the legal meaning itbears in the place of its e=ecution, unless theparties intended other:ise.
REUI2ITE29
1. The court must give to the legal :ords orphrases the meaning they bear in the place
:here the :riting :as e=ecuted#. That such meaning shall be disregarded if
the contract sho:s that the parties haveintended to give such :ords or phrases ameaning different from that they have at theplace of the e=ecution of the :riting.
!e)tion 11B Instruments construed so as to iveeffect to all provisions; +n the construction of aninstrument :here there are several provisions orparticulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be
adopted as :ill give effect to all.
a. 36%T"T+36 (% ( A032E- ( contractmust be construed as a :hole, and theintention of the parties is to be collectedfrom the entire instrument and not fromdetached portions, it being necessary toconsider all of its parts in order to determinethe meaning of any particular part as :ell asof the :hole.
- (n agreement should be interpreted as a:hole and the meaning gathered from theentire conte=t, and not form the particula
:ords, phrases, or clauses.
b. +6TE"!"ET(T+36 3* %E4E"(2+6%T"&E6T% A0+0 ("E !("T 3*36E T"(6%(T+36- Ahere severainstruments are made as part of one
transaction, they :ill be read together, andeach :ill be construed :ith reference to theother.
!e)tion 12: Interpretation accordin to intention+eneral and particular provisions - +n theconstruction of an instrument, the intention of theparties is to be pursued and :hen a general and aparticular provision are inconsistent, the latter isparamount to the former. %o a particular intent :ilcontrol a general one that is inconsistent :ith it.
a. +6TE6T+36 3* T0E !("T+E% ; The cour
must ascertain the intention of the partiesonly :hen the terms of the contract are noclear and leave doubt upon the intention othe contracting parties, other:ise, the literameaning of its stipulation shall control.
!e)tion 17: Interpretation accordin tocircumstances; for the proper construction of aninstrument, the circumstances under :hich it :asmade, including the situation of the subject thereoand of the parties to it, may be sho:n, so that the
judge may be places in the position of those :hoselanguage he is to interpret.
a. 36%T"T+36 3* +6%T"&E6T(3"5+6 T3 %""365+6+"%T(6E% ; the surroundingcircumstances at the time it :as madeshould be considered for the purpose oascertaining its meaning, but not for thepurpose a ne: distinct underta?ing.
b. !"E2+&+6(" ("EE&E6T% (656E3T+(T+36% ; +n the interpretation of a
:riting :hich is intended to state the entireagreement, preliminary negotiationsbet:een the parties may, ho:ever, be
considered in order to determine theimeaning and intention, but not to vary ocontradict the plain terms of the instrument.
!e)tion 1: 8eculiar sinification of terms - Theterms of a :riting are presumed to have been usedin their primary and general acceptation, buevidence is admissible to sho: that they have local
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
57/117
technical, or other:ise peculiar signification, and:ere so used and understood in the particularinstance, in :hich case the agreement must beconstrued accordingly.
a. &E(6+6 3* A3"5%B 3"5+6("%E6%E - in construing a :ritten contract the
:ords employed :ill be given their ordinaryand popularly accepted meaning, in the
absence of anything to sho: that they :ereused in a different sense.b. TE06+(2 A3"5% 36%T"E5 ;
Ahere technical :ords are employed byparties :ho are obviously unfamiliar :iththeir meaning, they may be construed insuch manner as to effectuate the trueintention of the parties.
c. +5+3&(T+ %(E !"E4(+2% 34E"2+TE"(2 T"(6%2(T+36 ; ( translationmade in accordance :ith the idiomaticusage of the language from :hich it is made
:ill prevail over a literal translation :hich,:hile :ord for :ord correct, is not idiomatic.
!e)tion 1A::ritten #ords control printed@ Ahenan instrument consists partly of :ritten :ords andpartly of printed forms, and the t:o are inconsistent,the former controls the latter.
a. +636%+%TE6 ETAEE6 A"+TTE6(65 !"+6TE5 !"34+%+36% ; :here apart of a contract is :ritten and part isprinted, and the :ritten and printed parts areapparently inconsistent or there isreasonable doubt as to the sense andmeaning of the :hole, the :ords in :riting
:ill control.b. 5+%"E!(6 ETAEE6 A3"5% (65
*+"E% ; +n case of an inconsistencybet:een :ords and figures in a contract the
:ords govern.
!e)tion 1
8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)
58/117
(mbassadors of foreign countries by virtue
of treaty obligations
!resident of the !hilippines or other country
C(se: Peo.e Vs6 De esus
The fact that complainant displayed difficulty
in comprehending the @uestions propounded on her
is undisputed. 0o:ever there is no sho:ing that shecould not convey her ideas y :ords or signs. +t
appears in the records that complainant gave
sufficiently intelligent ans:ers to the @uestions
propounded by the court and the counsels. The trial
court is satisfied that the complainants can perceive
and transmit in her o:n :ay her o:n perceptions to
others. %he is therefore found to be a competent
:itness.
Testimonial 5uty of itiIens to support the
administration of justice by attending its courts and
giving his testimony :henever he is properlysummoned.
!rocess to enforce duty the performance of the
citiIenGs testimonial duty can only be invo?ed by the
%tate after ade@uate notice is given.
Aitness a person :ho testifies in a case or gives
evidence before a judicial tribunal.
a person called to be present at some
transaction soa s to be able to attest to its having
ta?en place.
+nterested persons as :itnesses :hile rightfully
subjected to careful scrutiny, should not be rejected
on the ground of bias alone.
if testimony is reasonable and consistent ad is not
contradicted by evidence from any reliable source,
there is no reason, as a general rule, for not
accepting it.
C(se: U! ,s6 "(nte 2@ Phi 17
The testimony s interested :itnesses should
be subjected to careful scrutiny but they should not
be rejected on the ground of bias alone.
aseB !eople vs. 6atividad ( )< 3 )8#'
%uch testimony must be judged on their o:n
merits. +f they are clear ad convinving and are not
destroyed by other evidence of record, they may be
believed. (nd the testimony of these :itnesses fulfil
the re@uirement.
(ttorney as :itness counsel should not testify as a
:itness unless it is necessary and that they should
:ithdra: from the active management of the case.
e=cept :hen it is essential to the ends o
justice
/udge as :itness judicial conduct should not besubject to cross-e=amination or comment, the
peculiar duties of the judge in administering oaths to
the :itnesses in case the court has no cler?, and in
deciding upon their competency, :ith his po:er to
commit for contempt :hen his testimony concerns
merely formal or preliminary matters about :hich
there is no dispute, as :here he testifies in a perjury
prosecution that the defendant gave testimony
before him in another proceeding in another court.
!ersons convicted of crime as :itness persons ho
have been convicted of perjury are not e=cluded la:
since perjury is a crime involving mora
turpitude, the convict :henever mad a co-accused in
any criminal case, cannot be discharged to become
a :itness for the government in that case, because
under the "3, the court may direct the discharge
of one of the several co-accusers for that purpose
:hen, in its judgement, such accused has ot at any
time been convicted of any offense involving mora
turpitude.
!resumption of competency of :itness means legafitness or ability of a :itness to be heard on the tria
of a cas
Recommended