Evidence [Regalado Book, Beda MemAid]-Atty. Leynes (Patina, Erica)

8/20/2019 Evidence [Regalado Book, Beda MemAid]-Atty. Leynes (Patina, Erica)

1/72


2/72


3/72


4/72


5/72


6/72

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda– not plagiarized you fuckers!] 6 | P a t i ñ o , E r i c a

Judicial Admissions v. Extrajudicial Admissions:

- Judicial: Those so made in the pleadings filed or in the progress of atrial.

- Extrajudicial: Those made out of court, or in a judicial proceeding

other than the one under consideration

Rules on Extrajudicial Admissions:

- Extrajudicial admissions or other admissions are, as a rule and whereelements of estoppel are not present, disputable.

- Admissions in a pleading withdrawn are considered extrajudicialadmissions – must be proved by a formal offer in evidence of theoriginal pleading

- Admissions in a pleading superseded by an amended pleadingalthough filed in the same case are:

o

judicial admissions (Note: Based on Regalado on hisinterpretation of Sec 4 as amended, p. 792)

o still extrajudicial (If based on Torres v. CA, et al. G.R. No. L-37420-21, July 31, 1984) – also Judge B.

Note: When the parties agree on what the foreign law provides, these are

admission of facts that the court may rely upon, and hence, they are inestoppel to take a contrary position.

Rules on Contradicting Judicial Admissions- GR: Judicial Admissions cannot be contradicted by the admitter

who is the party himself

- EXC: May be contradicted when:

o Such is made through palpable mistake or o No such admission was made or o In the case of a pre-trial admission in a civil case, to prevent

manifest injustice (Sec 7, Rule 18) – Note: applies tocriminal cases if the pre-trial admission is reduced into

writing and signed by the accused and his counsel.


7/72


8/72


9/72


10/72


11/72


12/72


13/72


14/72


15/72


16/72


17/72


18/72


19/72


20/72


21/72


22/72


23/72


24/72


25/72


26/72


27/72


28/72


29/72


30/72


31/72


32/72


33/72


34/72


35/72


36/72


37/72

- Subsequent failure or refusal to appear at the second trial, or hostilitysince testifying at the first trial does NOT amount to such inability


38/72


EXCEPTION NO. 11: TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER

PROCEEDING

Sec. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding .

The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify:

- given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative,- involving the same parties and subject matter,

may be given in evidence AGAINST:- the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him.

(41a)

Notes:

Requisites for Admissibility1. The witness is dead or unable to testify

2. His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceedings, judicial or administrative between the same parties or

those representing the same interests3. The former case involved the same subject as that in the present casealthough on different causes of action

4. The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the sameissue involved in the present case

5. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross examine the witness inthe former case.

Inability to Testify: Inability proceeding from a grave cause, almost

amounting to death (ex. Losing one’s power of speech)

since testifying at the first trial does NOT amount to such inability

Actions may be Essentially Different: Testimony given in a civil case is

admissible in a subsequent criminal case PROVIDED the above requisitesare met.

Rule on Admissibility of Prior Judgment (Not testimony)

- A judgment in a criminal proceeding cannot be read in evidence in a

civil action against a person not a party thereto to establish any facttherein

- The mater is res inter alios and cannot invoked as res judicata

- It may only be admitted in a civil case by way of inducement or toshow a collateral fact relevant to the issue in the civil action

-

It may not be admitted to prove the plaintiff’s action or thedefendant’s defense – it is not binding upon the parties in the civil

action - Ratio: Parties are not the same and different rules of evidence are

applicable to each

HOWEVER, in Miranda v. Malate: Judgment of conviction in the absence

of collusion between the accused and the offended party is binding andconclusive to a person subsidiarily liable w/ regard to his liability and to the

amount thereof.


39/72


40/72


41/72

o Proof of the bad character of the victim is not admissible:

In a murder case: If the crime was committed through


42/72


treachery and evident premeditation In a rape case: If through violence and intimidation

o In prosecution for rape, evidence of complainant’s past sexualconduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be

admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds thatsuch evidence is material and relevant to the case. (RA 8505)

Note: In criminal cases- GR: The prosecution cannot initially attack the character of the accused- EXC: ONLY if the accused opens that issue by introducing evidence of

his good MC when he makes his defense.Ratio: To avoid unfair prejudice to the accused who may be convicted

because of such character

In Civil Cases - GR: MC of either party can NOT be proved

- EXC: Unless it is pertinent to the issue of character involved in thecase

Note: Here, the issue involved must be character. (Ex. Civil actions for

damages arising from the offenses of libel slander or seduction)

In BOTH Criminal and Civil Cases

- BAD MC of a witness may always be proved by either party but

NOT evidence of his character, UNLESS it has been impeached.

Rules with Respect to the Nature or Substance of the Character

Evidence (CE)

Person Referred To Nature or Substance of the CE

W/ Respect to the Accused : CE “must be pertinent to the moral traitinvolved in the offense charged”

Ex. In a prosecution for estafa, perjury or false testimony where in the person’s moral trait is involved

W/ Respect to the Offended

Person

It is sufficient that CE “may establish in anyreasonable degree the probability of the

offense charged”

Ex. In a case of rape, the victim’s chastity may be questioned.

W/ Respect to Witnesses CE must “refer to his general reputation fortruth, honesty or integrity” affecting his

credibility


43/72


44/72


45/72


46/72


47/72


48/72


49/72

- in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at thesame time. (5a)


50/72


Presumption is the same as the rule in Art 43 of the CC

Par (KK) Par (JJ)

The parties are NOT required to perish ina calamity

It is Required that the deathsoccurred during a calamity

It only applies to questions of

successional rights

It applies to cases not involving

successional rights

Provides a presumption of simultaneity in

the deaths of the persons called to succeed

each other

Provides for presumptions of

survivorship

Sec. 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy.

There is NO presumption of legitimacy of a child:- born after 300 days following the dissolution of the marriage or the

separation of the spouses.

Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove hisallegation. (6)

Notes:- An exact copy of Art 261 of the CC

-

Applies when the dissolution of the marriage is by reason of causes otherthan the death of the husband.

- Separation may be: legal separation or a separation de facto


51/72


52/72


53/72


54/72


55/72


56/72


57/72


58/72


59/72


60/72


61/72


62/72


63/72


64/72


65/72


66/72


67/72


68/72


69/72


70/72

1. That amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind mightaccept as adequate to justify a conclusion or

2. Evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent man in theconduct of their affiants

In Civil Cases: The proponent must establish the case by preponderance of


71/72


In Civil Cases: The proponent must establish the case by preponderance ofevidence

-

If there is an equiponderance of evidence (same weight) – the courtwill find for the defendant – same rule will apply in criminal cases –

if there is an equiponderance , the prosecution will lose

Sec. 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence.

The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular

point when:

-

the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to thesame point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally

persuasive.- But this power should be exercised with caution. (6)

Note: The court has the power to stop the introduction of testimony which

will merely be cumulative

Sec. 7. Evidence on motion.

When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record:

- the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties,

- BUT the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly

on oral testimony or depositions. (7)

Note: If the affidavits contradict each other on matters of fact – the court can

have no basis to make its findings of fact and the prudent course is to subjectthe affiants to cross-examination


72/72


Documents

Evidence [Regalado Book, Beda MemAid]-Atty. Leynes (Patina, Erica)