PALS Evidence

8/9/2019 PALS Evidence

1/37

EVIDENCE

Evidence

General principles

Concept of evidence

Evidence in its broadest sense, refers to “any matter of fact, the effect, tendency or design of

which is to produce in the mind a persuasive affirmative or disaffirmative of the existence of some

other matter of fact. [ Jones on Evidence, Vol. 1, 4th

ed .]

Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the

truth respecting a matter of fact. [Rule 128, Sec. 1]

Scope of the Rules on Evidence

The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as

otherwise provided by law or these rules. [Rule 128, Sec. 2]

Not applicable in administrative proceedings

It does not apply to administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings as administrative bodies are

not bound by the technical niceties of the rules obtaining in the court of law. [ El Greco Ship Maning

and Management Corporation vs Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. 177188, December 4, 2008 ]

Evidence in civil cases versus evidence in criminal cases

In civil cases, the concept of presumption of innocence does not apply and generally there is no

presumption for or against a party except in certain cases provided for by law. [Riano, supra]

In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must prove his claim by a preponderance of

evidence. [Rule 133, Sec. 1] In criminal cases, the guilt of the accused has to be proven beyond

reasonable doubt. [Rule 133, Sec. 2]

In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible

in evidence against the offeror. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or those

allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received inevidence as an implied admission of guilt. [Rule 130, Sec. 27 ]

Proof versus evidence

There is proof only because of evidence. It is merely the probative effect of evidence and is the

conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from a consideration of the evidence. [29 Am Jur 2d,

Evidence, Sec. 2]

Evidence is the "the mode and manner of proving the competent facts and circumstances on

which a party relies to establish the fact in dispute in judicial proceedings." [Bustos v. Lucero, G.R. No.

L-2068, October 20, 1948]

Factum probans versus factum probandum

FACTUM PROBANS – the probative or evidentiary fact tending to prove the fact in issue or the


2/37

FACTUM PROBANDUM- It is the material evidencing the proposition.

FACTUM PROBANDUM – the fact to be proved or proposition to be established.

Factum Probandum does not include matters of judicial notice, conclusive presumptions and

judicial admissions as these matters need not be established or proven.

Admissibility of evidence

Testimony based on the affidavits admissible:

As evidence that they were being prevented from cultivating the land, the tenants presented

affidavits but the affiants were not cross-examined. The Court held that the affidavits were admissible

because in Agrarian cases, the Rules of Court are not applicable even in suppletory character. [ Reyes

vs. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 25]

Lone testimony of the victim sufficient to convict

Reliance was made on the testimony of the victim herself which, standing alone even without

medical examination, is sufficient to convict. The absence of medical findings by a medico-legal officer

does not disprove the occurrence of rape. [People vs. Turco, 337 SCRA 714]

DNA applicable in an action for support-admissible as evidence

RTC ordered the parties to submit themselves to DNA testing. DNA Testing can now be ordered

in a proceeding for support as it is now admissible as evidence. [ Agustin vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

162571, June 15, 2005]

Requisites for admissibility of evidence

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law of these

rules. [Rule 128, Sec. 3]

Relevancy of evidence

Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or

non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in anyreasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. [Rule 128, Sec. 4]

Relevance of evidence and collateral matters

Under the Rules of Court, a collateral matter may be admitted if it tends in any reasonable

degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. [Rule 128, Sec. 4]

Heesen presented testimony regarding the general reputation of the other firearms company

using the same safety mechanism as that of the shotgun used in defense for his alleged shooting of

Lopez. The conduct of others evidences the tendency of the thing in question; and such conduct is

receivable with other evidence showing the tendency of the thing as dangerous, defective, or thereverse. [Lopez vs. Heesen, 365 P.2d 448 (1961)]

Evidence must have a relation to the fact in issue


3/37

The amount of $258.02 seized from Ball and was presented as evidence against him. The

money is not relevant to prove the robbery because it was not identified by the jewelry store as the

money coming from the store; further, there was no proof that it was taken from the jewelry store.

[State vs. Ball, 339 S.W2d 783 (1960)]

Multiple admissibility

There are times when a proffered evidence is admissible for two or more purposes. [ Riano,

supra]

Declaration of the person under consciousness of death

When the victim was asked who his assailant was, he said that it was Salafranca, he expired

after such utterance. The Court considered the utterance of Bolanon (victim)as both a dying

declaration and as part of the res gestae. [People v. Salafranca, 666 SCRA 501]

Conditional admissibility

The proponent of the evidence may ask the court that the evidence be conditionally admitted in the

meantime, subject to the condition that he is going to establish its relevancy and competency at a

later time. [Riano, supra]

Curative admissibility

The doctrine of curative admissibility allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible

evidence to answer the opposing party’s previous introduction of inadmissible evidence if it would

remove any unfair prejudice caused by the admission of the earlier inadmissible evidence. [ Adams v.

Burlington N. R.R. Co., 865 S.W.2d 748]

Direct and circumstantial evidence

Direct evidence proves a fact without the need to make an inference from another fact.

[Riano, supra]

Circumstantial evidence or indirect evidence is that evidence which indirectly proves a fact in

issue through an inference which the fact finder draws from the evidence established. [ People v.

Matito, 423 SCRA 617 ]

Positive and negative evidence

Evidence is positive when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur. Evidence is

negative when the witness states that he did not see or now the occurrence of a fact. [ Francisco,

Evidence Rules, 3rd

Ed.]

Competent and credible evidence

Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by law in a particular case. [ Francisco, supra] The

term “credibility” refers to worthiness of belief, that quality which renders a witness worthy of belief.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.]

Competence:

No person shall be compelled be a witness against himself.


4/37

The forwarder, who discovered “leaves” from a box sent to it by Marti, sent a request to the

NBI to subject the leaves to a laboratory testing which later turned out to be marijuana leaves. The

Court held that there was no violation of constitutional rights because the rights granted by the

Constitution are protection from arbitrary exercise of power by the government, and not by third

parties, in this case, the forwarder. [People vs. Marti (193 SCRA 57)]

Privacy of correspondence

An anonymous letter was filed alleging therein that Pollo was engaged in unlawful lawyering

activities. The Court held that there was no violation of petitioner's right to privacy because he did not

have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office and computer files and the copying of the

contents was done by a government agency in its capacity as employer for an alleged work-related

misconduct. [Pollo vs. David, G.R. No. 181881, 18 October 2011]

Anti-Wire Tapping Act

Listening in a phone extension not tapping

Laconico requested Gaanan to secretly listen to the telephone conversation through a

telephone extension so as to hear personally the proposed conditions for the settlement. The Court

held that an extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone, dictagraph

or the other devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered

as “tapping” the wire or cable of a telephone line. [Ganaan vs. IAC, 145 SCRA 112]

Lack of consent of the private party inadmissible

Ortanez presented three (3) cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations between hiswife and unidentified persons. The Court held that the cassette tapes are not admissible since absent

a clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same,

the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200. [ Salcedo-Ortanez vs.

Court of Appeals, 235 SCRA 111]

Burden of proof and burden of evidence

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to

establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. [Rule 131, Sec. 1]

It means that the obligation is imposed upon a party who alleges the existence if a fact or thing

necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action to establish it by proof. [Francisco, supra]

Who has the burden of proof?

The burden of proof lies with the party who asserts his/her right. In a counterclaim, the burden

of proving the existence of the claim lies with the defendant. [ Ogawa v. Menigishi, 676 SCRA 14, 21,

July 9, 2012]

Presumptions

A presumption is an inference of the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are

permitted to draw from proof of other facts. [In the Matter of the Intestate Estates of Delgado and

Rustia, 480 SCRA 334]


5/37

Conclusive presumptions

What is conclusive presumption?

Conclusive presumptions have been defined as “inferences which the law makes so

peremptory that it will not allow them to be overturned by any contrary proof however strong.”

[Datalift Movers v. Belgravia Realty, G.R. No. 144268, August 30, 2006 ]

Instances of conclusive presumptions

The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:

(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and

deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in

any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it:

(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of commencement

of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. [Rule 131, Sec. 2]

Disputable presumptions

A presumption is disputable or rebuttable if it may be contradicted or overcome by other

evidence. [Riano, supra] (See Rule 131, Sec. 3 for enumeration)

Liberal construction of the rules of evidence

These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just,

speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. [Rule 1, Sec. 6]

Procedural rules must be liberally interpreted and applied so as not to frustrate substantial

justice. [Quiambao v. Court of Appeals, 454 SCRA 17 ]

Reason for the relaxation

To justify relaxation of the rules, a satisfactory explanation and subsequent fulfillment of the

requirements have always been required. [Barcenas v. Tomas, 454 SCRA 593]

Liberal construction on Electronic Evidence

The Rules on Electronic Evidence shall likewise be construed liberally. [Rule 2, Sec. 2, Rules on

Electronic Evidence]

Quantum of evidence (weight and sufficiency of evidence)

Proof beyond reasonable doubt

In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond

reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding

possibility of error, produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree ofproof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. [Rule 133, Sec. 2]

Burden of proof in criminal cases


6/37

In criminal cases, the burden of proof as to the guilt of the accused lies with the prosecution

because of the presumption that the accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proven. [Sec.

14(2), Art. Ill, Bill of Rights, Philippine Constitution]

Burden of proof in estafa

A conviction for estafa requires a clear showing that the offended party parted with his moneyor property upon the offender’s false pretenses, and suffered damage thereby. It is imperative,

therefore, that damage as an element of estafa under Art. 315, paragraph 2(a) be proved as

conclusively as the offense itself. [People v. Chua, G.R. No. 187052, September 13, 2012]

The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not on the accused

to prove his innocence. In this case, the prosecution failed to show that petitioners committed the

acts prohibited by Sec. 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code. [Boac v. People, G.R. No. 180597,

November 7, 2008]

Preponderance of evidence

What is preponderance of evidence?

Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole,

superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. [Habagat Grill v. DMC-Urban Property

Developer, Inc., 454 SCRA 653]

Substantial evidence

Quantum of evidence in administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings

In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established

if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. [Rule 133, Sec. 5]

In administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings like those conducted before the NLRC, the

standard of proof is substantial evidence which is understood to be more than just a scintilla or such

amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a

conclusion. [Morales v. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc., 664 SCRA 110]

Clear and convincing evidence

Evidence is clear and convincing if it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or

conviction as to allegations sought to be established. It is intermediate, being more than

preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt as in

criminal cases. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed ]

Fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence

Fraud is never presumed but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, mere

preponderance of evidence not even being adequate. Contentions must be proved by competent

evidence and reliance must be had on the strength of the party’s evidence and not upon the

weakness of the opponent’s defense. [Tankeh v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No.

171428, November 11, 2013]

Bad faith must be established by clear and convincing evidence


7/37

Bad faith has to be established by the claimant with clear and convincing evidence, and this

necessitates an examination of the evidence of all the parties. This is best passed upon after a full-

blown trial on the merits. [Belle Corporation v. De Leon- Banks, G.R. No. 174669, September 19, 2012]

Judicial Notice:

The proof of the public need for the expropriation case was an ordinance setting aside the land

for the school expansion purpose. The Court held that the judge was duty bound to take cognizance of

the Ordinance since the Charter of the City of Manila provides that judges should take judicial notice

of all ordinances passed by the municipal board of Manila. [City of Manila vs. Garcia, 19 SCRA 413]

Judicial notice on prior judgment-res judicata

A motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata that the cause of action is barred by a prior

judgment. The Court held that the lower court certainly could take judicial notice of the finality of a

judgment in a case that was previously pending and thereafter decided by it. [Baguio vs. Vda. De

Jalagat, 42 SCRA 337 ]

Courts not authorized to take judicial notice of other cases

Appellant points out that the lower court should not have dismissed his first petition for

annulment because no "parole" evidence need be taken to support it, the matters therein alleged

being parts of the records, which were well within the judicial notice and cognizance of the said court.

Court said that they are not authorized to take judicial notice, in the adjudication of cases pending

before them, of the contents of other cases. [Prieto vs. Arroyo, 14 SCRA 549]

In an action for recovery of ownership of property, the trial court took judicial notice of thetestimony of Tabuena in another case it had previously heard. The Court held that generally, a court

cannot take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even if it is the same court

which heard it, notwithstanding the fact that the parties and issues are similar. [Tabuena vs. Court of

Appeals, 196 SCRA 650]

Exception

Court of Appeals ignored the existence of the tax return extant on the record. As a general

rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of records in other cases tried or

pending in the same court, even when those cases were heard or are actually pending before thesame judge. However, an exception is when reference to such records is sufficiently made without

objection from the opposing parties. [Calamba Steel Center, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal

Revenue, G.R. No. 151857, April 28, 2005]

Foreign laws must be proved and alleged

Petitioners did not present any competent evidence relative to the law and custom of China on

marriage. Well-established in this jurisdiction is the principle that Philippine courts cannot take judicial

notice of foreign laws. They must be alleged and proved as any other fact. [Yao-Kee vs. Sy-Gonzales,

167 SCRA736]

Judicial notice on the behaviour and character of Filipina in rural areas

Taha claims that appellant always carried a knife, but it was never explained how she was

threatened with the same in such a manner that she was allegedly always cowed into giving in to his


8/37

innumerable sexual demands. SC takes judicial cognizance of the fact that in rural areas, young ladies

are strictly required to act with circumspection and prudence. Great caution is observed so that their

reputations shall remain untainted. [People vs. Godoy, 250 SCRA 676]

Issue of age subject to hearing

In this case, judicial notice of the age of the victim is improper, despite the defense counsel’sadmission. As required by Section 3 of Rule 129, as to any other matters such as age, a hearing is

required before courts can take judicial notice of such fact. [People vs. Tundag, G.R. Nos. 135695-96.

October 12, 2000]

What need not be proved

Basis:

Judicial notice is based on the maxim, “what is known need not be proved,” hence, when the

rule is invoked, the court may dispense with the presentation of evidence on judicially cognizable

facts. [ Jones, supra]

Object of judicial notice

The object of judicial notice is to save time, labor and expense in securing and introducing

evidence on matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute and are not actually bona fide

disputed, and the tenor of which can safely be assumed from the tribunal’s general knowledge or

from a slight search on its part. Judicial notice, is therefore, based upon convenience and expediency.

[Francisco, supra]

Matters of judicial notice

When mandatory?

A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and

territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the

law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political

constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial

departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical

divisions. [Rule 129, Sec. 1]

Judicial notice on judicial acts

Under Sec. 1 of Rule 129, a court shall take judicial notice, among others, of the official acts

not only of the legislative and executive departments but also of the judicial department. [Siena

Realty Corporation v. Gal-lang, 428 SCRA 422]

Judicial notice on ordinance as mandated by charter

The trial judge was duty bound to take — judicial notice of Ordinance 4566. The reason being

that the city charter of Manila requires all courts sitting therein to take judicial notice of all ordinances

passed by the municipal board of Manila. [City of Manila v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-26053, February 21,

1967 ]

Judicial notice on prior judgment

It ought to be clear even to Baguio that under the circumstances, the lower court certainly


9/37

could take judicial notice of the finality of a judgment in a case that was previously pending and

thereafter decided by it. That was all that was done by the lower court in decreeing the dismissal.

[Baguio v. Teofila L. Vda. De Jalagat, G.R. No. L-28100, November 29, 1971]

Judicial notice on the acts of the President

Brushing aside the contention, the Court held that it had no alternative but to take judicialnotice of the declaration of the President as an official act and thus, is a matter of mandatory judicial

notice under Sec. 1 of Rule 129. [Suplico v. NEDA, 558 SCRA 329]

Discretionary Judicial Notice

When judicial notice discretionary?

A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable to

unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.

[Rule 129, Sec. 2]

Requisites for judicial notice

Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter

must be one of common and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and

not doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the

court. The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of

notoriety. [Latip v. Chua, G.R. No. 177809, October 16, 2009]

Requisites for a judicially noticed fact

A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is either: (1)

generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or (2) capable of accurate and

ready determination by resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable.

[Expertravel and Tours, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 459 SCRA 147 ]

Judicial records of other cases not subject to judicial notice

As a rule, "courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of

other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and

notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been heard or are actually pending before thesame judge." [BPI-Savings v. Court of Tax Appeal, G.R. No. 122480, April 12, 2000 ]

Rule on the no constructive knowledge

As the common knowledge of man ranges far and wide, a wide variety of particular facts have

been judicially noticed as being matters of common knowledge. But a court cannot take judicial notice

of any fact which, in part, is dependent on the existence or non-existence of a fact of which the court

has no constructive knowledge” [Expertravel and Tours, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra]

Foreign laws must be alleged and proved: Processual presumptions

Foreign laws must be alleged and proved. In the absence of proof, the foreign law will be

presumed to be the same as the laws of the jurisdiction hearing the case under the doctrine of

processual presumption. [Northwest Orient Airlines v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 192]


10/37

Exceptions

Where the foreign law is within the actual knowledge of the court, such as when the law is

generally well-known, had been ruled upon in previous cases before it and none of the parties claim

otherwise, the court may take judicial notice of the foreign law. [PCIB v. Escolin, 56 SCRA 266]

Judicial Admissions:

Effect on amendment in case of admission in an original pleading

Calupitan later on withdrew the original pleading he filed. The Court held that where amended

pleadings have been filed, allegations in the original pleadings are held admissible, but in such case

the original pleadings can have no effect, unless formally offered in evidence. [Lucido vs. Calupitan, 27

Phil. 48]

Stipulation of facts during pre-trial is a judicial admission

CIR and Petron jointly stipulated before the CTA that Petron did not participate in the

procurement and issuance of the Tax Credit Certificates. This stipulation of fact by the CIR amounts to

an admission and, having been made by the parties in a stipulation of facts at pretrial, is treated as a

judicial admission. [CIR vs. Petron Corporation, G.R. No. 185568, 21 March 2012]

Effect of judicial admissions

An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the

same case, does not require proof. [Rule 129, Sec. 4]

Rule on admission in case of amendment of the pleading

According to petitioner, is an admission of her legitimation and is controlling in the

determination of her participation in the disputed property. The Amended Complaint takes the place

of the original, the latter is regarded as abandoned and ceases to perform any further function as a

pleading. [Torres v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-37420, July 31, 1984]

Effects of judicial admission: Exception

It is an established principle that judicial admissions cannot be contradicted by the admitter

who is the party himself and binds the person who makes the same, absent any showing that this wasmade through palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it. [Philippine Charter

Insurance Corporation v. Central Colleges of the Philippines, 666 SCRA 540 ]

Admission in the pleading submitted to the court is conclusive

The trial court may reject evidence that a party adduces to contradict a judicial admission he

made in his pleading since such admission is conclusive as to him. [Equitable Cardnetwork, Inc. v.

Capistrano, 665 SCRA 454]

How judicial admissions may be contradicted?

The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable

mistake or that no such admission was made. [Rule 129, Sec. 4]

Statements taken out of context is not a judicial admission


11/37

A party may also argue that he made “no such admission.” This argument may be invoked

when the statement of a party is taken out of context or that his statement was made not in the sense

it is made to appear by the other party. [Philippine Health-Care Providers, Inc. v. Estrada, G.R. No.

171052, January 28, 2008]

Object (real) evidence

Nature of object evidence

Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is

relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. [ Rule 130, Sec. 1]

Requisites for admissibility

1. The object must be relevant to the fact in issue;

2. The object must be authenticated before it is admitted;

3. The authentication must be made by a competent witness;

4. The object must be formally offered in evidence. [Riano, supra]

Nature of object evidence when admitted

An object evidence, when offered in accordance with the requisites for its admissibility,

becomes evidence of the highest order and speaks more eloquently than witnesses put together. The

presence of the victim’s ravished body in a deep ravine with handcuf fs on her wrist is a physical

evidence that bolsters the testimony of the witness. [People v. Larrahaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, July

21, 2005]

Demonstrative evidence

Demonstrative evidence is not the actual thing but it is referred to as “demonstrative”

because it represents or demonstrates the real thing. It is not strictly “real” evidence because it is not

the very thing involved in the case. [Riano, supra]

One who has familiarity with the scene presented may testify

Some courts insist on requiring the photographer to testify but this view has been eroded by

the tendency of modern courts to admit as a witness one who has familiarity with the sceneportrayed. [Sison v. People, 250 SCRA 58]

View of an object or scene

When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by

the court. [Rule 130, Sec. 1]

Chain of custody, in relation to Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

Chain of custody rule

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission

of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is

what the proponent claims it to be. [United States v. Howard-Arias, 679 F.2d 363, 366]


12/37

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission

of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is

what the proponent claims it to be. [Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, 30 April 2008]

It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was

picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the

exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to itwhile in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it

was delivered to the next link in the chain. [ Zafra v. People, 671 SCRA 396]

Purpose of chain of custody

It is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so

much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. [People v. Langcua,

G.R. No. 190343, February 6, 2013]

Rule on DNA Evidence (See A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC)

Meaning of DNA

DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living

organisms. Most importantly, because of polymorphisms in human genetic structure, no two

individuals have the same DNA, with the notable exception of identical twins. [ Agustin v. Court of

Appeals, 460 SCRA 315]

Rape can be proved by DNA evidence

A rape-slay case of a 9-year old girl, admitted in evidence the DNA samples of the victim whichwere found in the bloodstained garments of the accused. Vaginal swabs taken from the victim were

also admitted and were found to show the DNA profile of the accused who was subsequently

convicted. [People v. Vallejo, 382 SCRA 192]

Documentary evidence

Documents as evidence consist of writing or any material containing letters, words, numbers,

figures, symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents. [ Rule 130,

Sec. 2]

Real and Demonstrative Evidence:

The trial court gave credence to Marcelina’s testimony, ruled in her favor with Adelino guilty of

Forcible Abduction with Rape with the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and aid of armed men,

and sentenced him to death. The Court held that such testimony was not enough to convict Adelino

since the offended party's testimony must be subjected to thorough scrutiny for a determination of its

veracity beyond reasonable doubt. [People vs. Bardaje, 1999 SCRA 388 (1980)]

Photographer who took the pictures must be presented

The photographer who took the photographs presented as evidence was not present toidentify it. The Court held that the photographs are admissible as evidence because Photographs can

be identified by the photographer or by any other competent witness who can testify to its exactness

and accuracy. [Sison vs. People, 250 SCRA 58 (1995)]


13/37

Requisites for a photograph to be admissible

Trial court ruled that the photographs are inadmissible. The Court held that the photographs

are inadmissible because the map or photograph must first to be admissible, be made a part of some

qualified person's testimony. Someone must stand forth as its testimonial sponsor; in other words, it

must be verified. [ Adamczuk v. Halloway, 13 A.2d 2 (1940)]

Authentication of photographs is necessary

On appeal, Tatum questioned the film’s admission into evidence. The Court held that for a

photograph to be admissible in evidence, the authentication required by courts is that some witness

(not necessarily the photographer) be able to give some indication as to when, where, and under

what circumstances the photograph was taken, and that the photograph accurately portray the

subject or subjects illustrated. [State v. Tatum, 360 P.2d 754 (1961)]

Copus delicti in drugs cases

The corpus delicti in cases involving dangerous drugs is the presentation of the dangerous drug

itself. The chain of custody over the dangerous drugs was broken and the integrity of the evidence

submitted to the trial court was not preserved. [People vs. Climaco, G.R. No. 199403. June 13, 2012]

Rule on procedural requirements in drugs cases

Non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR relative to the

custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended persons, is not a serious flaw that can

render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation. What is essential is “the

preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be

utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. [People vs. Cardenas, G.R. No.

190342. March 21, 2012]

Meaning of documentary evidence

Documentary evidence is evidence supplied by written instruments, or derived from

conventional symbols, such as letters, by which ideas are represented on material substances;

documents produced for the inspection of the court or judge. [Francisco, supra]

Requisites for admissibility

To be admissible, documentary evidence, like any other evidence, must be relevant andcompetent. It is also subject to general exclusionary rules such as the rule on hearsay, best evidence

rule, and parol evidence rule. [Riano, supra]

Best Evidence Rule:

Contents must be the subject of the inquiry

Purser was able to note in his notebook the incident that happened during the flight. The

Court held that the subject of inquiry is not the entry, but the ouster incident. Testimony on the entry

does not come within the proscription of the best evidence rule. Such testimony is admissible as part

of the res gestae for they grow "out of the nervous excitement and mental and physical condition ofthe declarant". [ Air France vs. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155 (1966)]

Best evidence rule applicable only if the subject of inquiry is the content of the document


14/37

On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court made an error in judgment based on the

fact that a certain Mr. Rogers was called to the stand to testify as to the testimonies made by Lamarre

and that it is sufficient that the transcript of stenographic notes be presented based on the best

evidence rule. The Court held that the best evidence rule does not apply because the rule is limited to

cases where the contents of a writing are to be proved and in this case there was no attempt to prove

the contents of the transcript but the issue was whether Lamarre made such statements and not what

is contained in the transcript. [Meyers v. United States, 171 F.2d 800 (1948)]

Carbon original of a documents are duplicate original

When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing paper so that the

writing of a contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature of the party to be charged

thereby, produces facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being thus reproduced by the

same stroke of the pen which made the surface or exposed impression, all of the sheets so written on

are regarded as duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in evidence as such without

accounting for the nonproduction of the others. [People vs. Tan, 105 Phil. 1242 (1959)]

Best evidence rule applicable in case of infringement of copyright

The best evidence rule applied in copyright infringement case, where plaintiff possessed no

originals of any work he contended was copied, accordingly before subsequent reconstructions were

admissible plaintiff had to establish that the originals were lost or destroyed through no fault of his

own. Thus, copyrighted drawings offered as evidence are considered as documentary evidence and

when subject of inquiry is the content of the creation the original must be presented. [ Seiler v. Lucas

Film, Ltd., 797 F.2d 1504 (1986)]

Best evidence rule not applicable if the issue is the existence of the document

The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the documents are the subject of

inquiry. Since in this case the prosecution presented the marked money solely for the purpose of

establishing its existence and not its contents presented the marked money, other substitutionary

evidence like a Xerox copy is admissible without the need of accounting for the original. [People vs.

Tandoy, 192 SCRA 98 (1990)]

Best evidence rule in falsification of public documents

In criminal cases where the document is used as evidence to prove the guilt of the accused,

the best evidence applies. In the absence of the original document, it is improper to conclude, withonly a copy of the said original in view, that there has been a falsification of a document which was

neither found nor exhibited, because, in such a case, even the existence of such original document

may be doubted. [U.S. vs. Gregorio, 17 Phil. 522 (1910)]

Exception to the best evidence rule –when the original is with the adverse party

Only a photocopy of the Employee Clearance was presented in evidence. The Court held that

the photocopy is admissible as evidence since an exception to the best evidence rule is when the

document sought to be presented is in the possession of the person against whom it is to be offered

and such party fails to present it even after reasonable notice. [Pacasum vs. People, G.R. No. 180314,

April 16, 2009]

In libel cases the article must be presented

The general rules regarding the admissibility of evidence are applicable to cases of libel or


15/37


16/37

Facsimile are not original electronic document

The Court held that the print-out and/or photocopies of facsimile transmissions are not

electronic evidence. Thus, it is consequential that the same may not be considered as the functional

equivalent of their original as decreed in the law. [MCC Industrial Sales Corporation vs. Ssangyong

Corporation, G.R. No. 170633. October 17, 2007 ]

Secondary Evidence:

Original of the document mist be presented

Considering that the annotation of the disputed Deed of Sale in a tax declaration is not

sufficient proof of the transfer of property and inasmuch as the subject of inquiry is the Deed of Sale,

it was incumbent on the petitioners to adduce in evidence the original. In the absence of the said

document, the exhortations of petitioners regarding the existence of said deed of sale must fail.

[Ebreo v. Ebreo, 483 SCRA 583]

Parol evidence

Exceptions

True agreement not express

Ramos set up as affirmative defense that the contract does not express the true agreement of

the parties because certain important conditions agreed upon were not included therein by the

counsel who prepared the contract. The Court held that the parole evidence is admissible when there

is allegation that the agreement does not express the intent of the parties. [Enriquez vs. Ramos, 6SCRA 219]

Subsequent agreement after the original agreement

Canuto claimed that two days before the expiration of the original redemption period, she

asked Mariano for an extension of time for the repurchase of the land and Mariano agreed. The Court

held that the rule forbidding the admission of parol or extrinsic evidence to alter, vary, or contradict a

written instrument does not apply so as to prohibit the establishment by parole of an agreement

between the parties to a writing, entered into subsequent to the time when the written instrument

was executed. [Canuto vs. Mariano, 37 Phil 840]

Parol evidence admissible

While parole evidence is admissible in a variety of ways to explain the meaning of written

contracts, it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous

conditions which are not mentioned at all in the writing, unless there has been fraud or mistake. In

the case at bar, it is sought to show that the sugar was to be obtained exclusively from the crop raised

by the defendant; however, there is no clause in the written contract which even remotely suggests

such a condition. [Yu Yek vs. Gonzales, 29 Phil 384]

Occurrence of an event may be proved by parol evidence

The second paragraph contained in the letter is a condition precedent, which states: “This

matter has been the subject of agreement between your husband and this office.” When the

operation of the contract is made to depend upon the occurrence of an event, which, for that reason


17/37

is a condition precedent, such may be established by parole evidence. [ Land Settlement vs. Garcia

Plantation, 7 SCRA 750]

When can an agreement be modified, altered, etc?

Serrano introduced parole evidence to prove that he was merely acting as an agent without

any consideration. The Court held that Serrano can introduce such parole evidence because the caseat bar is not one where the evidence offered varies, alters, modifies, or contradicts the terms of

indorsement admittedly existing. [Maulini vs. Serrano, 28 Phil 640]

Extrinsic agreement of the parties an exception to parol evidence rule

The verbal assurance given by Seeto is a collateral agreement, separate and distinct from the

indorsement, by virtue of which PNB was induced to cash the check, and therefore, admissible as an

exception to the parol evidence rule. An extrinsic agreement between indorser and indorsee which

cannot be embodies in the instrument without impairing its credit is provable by parol. [PNB vs. Seeto,

91 Phil 756]

Statement presented not intended to change the agreement, parol evidence will not apply

The act or statement of Woodhouse was not sought to be introduced to change or alter the

terms of the agreement, but to prove how he induced the Halili to enter into it — to prove the

representations or inducements, or fraud, with which or by which he secured the other party's

consent thereto. These are expressly excluded from the parol evidence rule. [Woodhouse vs. Halili, 93

Phil 526]

Prior or contemporaneous agreement an exception to parol evidence rule

The only proof of the payment was Robles' testimony regarding it. The Court held that The rule

against the admission of parole evidence does not extend so far as to preclude the admission of

extrinsic evidence to show prior or contemporaneous collateral parole agreements between the

parties, but such evidence may be received, regardless of whether or not the written agreement

contains any reference to such collateral agreement, and whether the action is at law or in equity.

[Robles vs. Lizarraga, 50 Phil 387 ]

Basis of parol evidence

The parole evidence rule is predicated on the existence of a document embodying the terms ofan agreement. A receipt is not such a document as it merely attests to the receipt of money and it is

not and could have not been intended by the parties to be the sole memorial of their agreement.

[Cruz vs. CA, 192 SCRA 209]

If a party to the action is not a party to the written agreement, parol evidence cannot be invoked

The parole evidence rule does not apply, and may not properly be invoked by either party to

the litigation against the other, where at least one of the parties to the suit is not party or a privy of a

party to the written instrument in question and does not base a claim on the instrument or assert a

right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby. [Lechugas vs. CA, 143 SCRA

335] For the parole evidence rule to apply, a written contract need not be in any particular form, or be

signed by both parties. What is required is that the agreement be in writing since written evidence is

so much more certain and accurate than that which rests in fleeting memory only. [Inchiong vs. CA,

257 SCRA 578]


18/37

Original agreement does not include subsequent agreement

Although parole evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a contract, it cannot serve

the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not

mentioned at all in the writing unless there has been fraud or mistake. [Ortanez vs. CA, 266 SCRA 561]

Terms of the agreement conclusive upon the parties

Under the Rule on parole evidence, the terms of a contract are rendered conclusive upon the

parties and evidence aliunde is not admissible to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable

agreement embodied in a document. We have carefully examined the Suretyship Agreement signed

by Yujuico and found no ambiguity therein. [Rosario Textile Mills vs. Home Bankers, G.R. No. 137232,

June 29, 2005]

True intention of the parties in case of sale

Even if the document appears to be a sale, parol evidence may be resorted to if the same does not

express the true intent of the parties. The true understanding in this case is that the portion of the

property will not be disposed of. [Madrigal vs. CA, G.R. No. 142944, April 15, 2005]

Ancient Document Rule

Requisites

The ancient document rule applies to the two Spanish documents and should thus be admitted

without the need for evidence on its authenticity and execution. They meet the 3 requisites of the

ancient document rule, namely: (1) be at least thirty (30) years old (2) found in the proper custody

and is unblemished by alterations and is otherwise free from suspicion and (3) that it is produced froma custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine. [ Heirs of Lacsa vs. Court of Appeals, 197

SCRA 234 (1991)]

Requisites must be present

Exhibit 4 was presented into the Court claiming to be an ancient document. However, it had a

missing page which allegedly contained the signature of the vendor of the lot in question.. Without

that signature, the document is incomplete. Verily, an incomplete document is akin to, if not worse

than, a document with altered contents. [Bartolome vs. IAC, 183 SCRA 102 (1990)]

Attestation required in document from abroad

Respondent Rances failed to submit any attestation issued by the proper Dubai official having

legal custody of the original of the decision of the Dubai Court that the copy presented by said

respondent is a faithful copy of the original decision, which attestation must furthermore be

authenticated by a Philippine Consular Officer having jurisdiction in Dubai. The transmittal letter,

signed by Mohd Bin Saleh, Honorary Consul for Philippines' does not comply with the requirements of

either the attestation under Section 26 nor the authentication envisaged by Section 25. [Pacific Asia

Overseas Shipping Corp. vs. NLRC, 161 SCRA 122 (1988)]

Requirements in case of documents in an unofficial language

The trial court erred in admitting that affidavit over the objection of appellant's counsel

because section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that documents written in an unofficial

language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English,


19/37

Spanish or the national language. [People vs. Monleon, 74 SCRA 263 (1976)]

While Rule 132, Sec. 33 renders documents unaccompanied by the official translation as

inadmissible, in the interest of justice, the prohibition should not apply in this case since Salison failed

to object to the document’s admissibility. [Salison vs. People, 253 SCRA 758 (1966)]

Alteration in the document must be proved

The Order disallowing the printing of the material encoded in the diskettes is void. There was

neither testimonial evidence nor any physical evidence on the diskettes that might indicate they had

actually been tampered or their contents altered in order to secure the conviction of the accused. The

mere fact that the diskettes had been in the possession of the prosecution does not necessarily imply

that it had tampered with the evidence to suit its prosecutorial objectives. [People vs. Burgos, 200

SCRA 67 (1991)]

Print out of the document must be signed

The Court held that the printouts must be signed in order to be admissible. Because they are

not signed, they are not properly authenticated and are thus of no probative value. [IBM Phils., Inc. vs.

NLRC, 305 SCRA 592 (1999)]

Due execution and authenticity of a private document must be proved

The document is typewritten in English and over the similarly typewritten words "APOLONIO

BUNIAG" is a thumbprint. The Court held that it is a private writing whose due execution and

authenticity must be proved before it can be received in evidence. The due execution and authenticity

of the deed of sale, not having been satisfactorily proven, such private document should be excluded.

[Bunag vs. Court of Appeals, 158 SCRA 299 (1988)]

Authentication and proof of documents (See Rule 132)

The Philippine Supreme Court has defined a document as a “deed, instrument or other duly

authorized paper by which something is proved, evidenced or set forth” [Bermejo v. Barrios, 31 SCRA

764]

When the document is not being offered as authentic as implied from Sec. 20, Rule 132 of the

Rules of Court, which requires authentication only when the document is offered as ‘authentic.’

[Patula v. People, 669 SCRA 135]

Testimonial evidence

Qualifications of a witness

All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known perception to others, may

be witnesses. [Rule 130, Sec. 20]

Competency versus credibility of a witness

Competency pertains to the legal fitness or ability of a witness to be heard on a trial of a cause.[Francisco supra] Credibility of a witness refers to the believability of a witness and has nothing to do

with the law or the rules. It refers to the weight and trustworthiness or reliability of the testimony.

[Riano, supra]


20/37

Disqualifications of witnesses

By reason of mental capacity or immaturity

The victim’s feeble-mindedness was an undisputed fact. However, there is no showing that she

could not convey her ideas by words or signs. It appears in the records that Clara gave sufficiently

intelligent answers to the questions propounded by the court and the counsels. The court is satisfiedthat the complainant can perceive and transmit in her own way her own perceptions to others.

[People vs. De Jesus, 129 SCRA 4]

Quality of perceptions of the witness necessary

The acceptance of a witness depends on the quality of his perceptions and the manner he can

make them known to the court. The testimony of Soria was positive, clear, plain, coherent and

credible despite her slurred speech and the use of leading questions. [People vs. Solomon, 229 SCRA

402]

Child witness is competent

Paul, a five-year-old boy, testified that Rolando boxed his wife then burned her. The testimony

of Paul shows that he is of above average intelligence, that he is capable of giving responsive answers,

of recalling events, and of relating his recollections. For a child witness to be competent, it must be

shown that he has the capacity of (1) observation, (2) of recollection, and (3) of communication.

[People vs. Mendoza, 254 SCRA 18]

Mental retardation does not affect credibility

The straightforward narration of the victim of what transpired and the categoricalidentification of appellant as the malefactor, sealed the case for the prosecution. Mental retardation

per se does not affect credibility. [People vs. Macapagal, July 14, 2005]

By reason of marriage

Criminal case by descendants against the ascendants

When an offense directly attacks or directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, it comes

within the exception to the statute that one shall not be a witness against the other except in a

criminal prosecution for a crime committed (by) one against the other. Using the criterion, it can beconcluded that in the law of evidence the rape perpetrated by the father against his daughter is a

crime committed by him against his wife (the victim's mother). [Ordono vs. Saquigan, 62 SCRA 270]

Civil case by one against the other

It must be noted that had the sale of the said house and lot, and the signing of the wife's name

by her husband in the deed of sale, been made with the consent of the wife, no crime could have

been charged against said husband. Clearly, therefore, it is the husband's breach of his wife's

confidence which gave rise to the offense charged. When a spouse commits an offense against the

other spouse which vitally and directly impairs the conjugal relation, the two are no longer covered by

the Marital Disqualification Rule. [People vs. Castaneda, 88 SCRA 562]

Case by the husband against the wife

By his testimony imputing the commission of the crime against his wife, the husband is


21/37

considered to have waived all his objections to the testimony of his wife. It is to be expected that after

giving such a testimony, it is but normal for his wife to rebut the allegation. [ People vs. Francisco, 78

Phil. 694]

Basis of the disqualification

The basis for the disqualification is the relationship of the spouses and not their pecuniaryinterest. In the cases wherein a spouse is allowed to be examined by the adverse party as a hostile

witness when the spouses are parties to the action, the interests of the spouses are separate. The

spouse offered as a witness is merely a nominal party and is allowed to do so only as a concession

from t the marital disqualification rule for the sake of discovery. [Lezama vs. Rodriguez, 23 SCRA 1166]

By reason of death or insanity of adverse party

Dead Man’s Statute

No claim or demand is being made against the estate of Manuel Guerrero. The Dead Man’s

Statute only applies in cases e there is a claim or demand against the estate of the deceased or against

the person of an unsound mind. [Guerrero vs. St. Claire Realty, 124 SCRA 553]

Examination of the administratix waiver of the prohibition

There was a waiver of the prohibition when the counsel for the administratix extensively cross-

examined the witness on the matters subject of the prohibition. [ Abraham vs. Recto-Kasten, 4 SCRA

298]

Cross examination of the representative constitute waiver

A waiver occurs when plaintiff's deposition is taken by the representative of the estate or

when counsel for the representative cross-examined the plaintiff as to matters occurring during

deceased's lifetime. [Goni vs. Court of Appeals, 144 SCRA 222]

Persons disqualified under the Dead Man’s Statute

The Dead Man’s Statute disqualifies only parties or assignors of parties; officers and/or

stockholders of a corporation, therefore, are not disqualified from testifying for or against the

corporation which is a party to an action upon a claim or demand against the estate of a deceased

person, as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such person. [Lichauco vs. Atlantic Gulf,84 Phil. 330]

Instances when the prohibition does not apply

The statute does NOT apply when the actions were not brought "against" the estate or not

brought upon claims "against" the estate. In this case, the action is one by the administratrix to

enforce demand "BY" the estate. Hence, the statute is inapplicable and the widow can testify. [Tongco

vs. Vianzon, 50 Phil. 698]

The dead man's statute is applied to cases filed AGAINST the administrator for claims AGAINSTthe estate of the deceased. In this case, it the administrator who filed the case for delivery of the

stocks and it was not a claim against the estate so the dead man's statute does not apply. [ Razon vs.

IAC, 207 SCRA]


22/37

d) By reason of privileged communications

Marital Disqualification:

Where a privileged communication from one spouse to another comes into the hands of a

third party, whether legally or not, without collusion and voluntary disclosure on the part of either of

the spouses, the privilege is thereby extinguished and the communication, if otherwise competent,becomes admissible. [People vs. Carlos 47 Phil. 626 (1925)]

Attorney-Client Privilege:

It will be noted that the evidence in question concerned the dealings of the plaintiff's attorney

with a third person. A communication made by a client to his attorney for the express purpose of its

being communicated to a third person is essentially inconsistent with the confidential relation. Such

communication is between the third person and the client, the attorney being merely an agent. [Uy

Chico vs. Union Life, 29 Phil. 163 (1915)]

Where the government’s lawyers have no case against an attorney’s client unless, by revealing

the client’s name, the said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of test imony

necessary to convict an individual of a crime, the client’s name is privileged. [ Regala vs.

Sandiganbatan, 262 SCRA 124 (1996)]

Coverage of the privilege

The privilege which protects communications between attorney and client does not extend to

a copy of a letter written by the client to his attorney which comes to the hands of the adverse party.

Where the authenticity of such documents is admitted, the court will take no notice of the manner in

which it was obtained. [Barton vs. Leyte Asphalt & Mineral Oil Co., 46 Phil. 938 (1924)]

Contract with regards to fees of the counsel not privileged

Contracts between attorneys and clients are inherently personal and private matters, but they

are a constant subject of litigation, and contracts relating to fees are essentially not of a privileged

nature. In other words, the terms of employment between attorney and client are not of a privileged

nature. [Orient Insurance vs. Revilla, 54 Phil. 919 (1930)]

When the privilege will start?

The period to be considered is the date when the privileged communication was made by the

client to the attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the past or with respect to a crime

intended to be committed in the future. in other words, If the client seeks his lawyer ’s advice with

respect to a crime that the former has theretofore committed, he is given the protection of a virtual

confessional seal which the attorney-client privilege declares cannot be broken by the attorney

without the client’s consent. [People vs. Sandiganbayan, 275 SCRA 505 (1997)]

Instances not covered by the privilege

The protective cloak of this privilege does not extend to information which an attorney secures

from a witness while acting for his client in anticipation of litigation. However, there is no necessity or justification, to secure written statements, private memoranda, and personal recollections prepared

or formed by an adverse party's counsel in the course of his legal duties. [Hickman vs. Taylor, 329

SCRA 495 (1947)]


23/37

Response to the questionnaire covered

The communications by Upjohn's employees to counsel are covered by the attorney-client

privilege insofar as the responses to the questionnaires and any notes reflecting responses to

interview questions are concerned. The communications concerned matters within the scope of the

employees' corporate duties, and the employees themselves were sufficiently aware that they were

being questioned in order that the corporation could obtain legal advice. [ Upjohn Co. vs. U.S., 449 U.S.383 (1981)]

Receipts issued by the counsel to the client not privilege

The receipt of fees from a client is not usually within the privilege because the payment of a

fee is not normally a matter of confidence or a communication. The ministerial or clerical services of

an attorney in transferring funds to or from a client is not a matter of confidence that is protected by

the privilege. [In re Grand Jury Investigation, 732 F.2d 447 (1983)]

Statement in confidence covered

McPartlin was entitled to the protection of the attorney-client privilege, because his

statements were made in confidence to an attorney for a co-defendant for a common purpose related

to both defenses. [U.S. Vs. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir. 1979)]

Communication made to stranger not privilege

The court held that a communication divulged to "strangers" or outsiders can scarcely be

considered a confidential communication between attorney and client. [U.S. Vs. Gordon-Nikkar, 518

F.2d 972 (5th Cir. 1975)]

The fact that a defense investigator on respondent’s behalf elicited statements of third parties

does not convert them into respondent’s personal communications. Also, the work-product privilege

may be waived when the defense presents its investigator as a witness thus opening the investigator,

along with the product of his work, to cross-examination. [U.S. Vs. Nobles, 422 U.S. (1975)]

Physician-Patient Privilege

Requisites

In order that the disqualification by reason of physician-patient privilege be successfullyclaimed, the following requisites should concur: (1) the privilege is claimed in a civil case; (2) the

person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or

obstetrics; (3) such person acquired the information while he was attending to the patient in his

professional capacity; (4) the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; (5) the

information was confidential and if disclosed, would blacken the reputation of the patient. [ Lim vs.

Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 273 (1992)]

Testimony of the patient’s husband not covered

Where the person against whom the privilege is claimed is the patient’s husband who testifies

on a document executed by medical practitioners, his testimony does not have the force and effect ofthe testimony of the physician who examined the patient and executed the report. Plainly, this does

not fall within the prohibition. [Krohn vs. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 146 (1994)]

State Secrets


24/37

When the ground for asserting the privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a

criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, unsupported by a claim of the

need to protect military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets, it cannot prevail against a

demonstrated, specific need for the documents/recordings needed and over the fundamental

demands of due process of law in the administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of

the privilege must yield to the demonstrated need for evidence in a pending criminal trial. [U.S. vs.Nixon 418 U.S. 683 (1974)]

Purpose of the prohibition

The privilege under Section 21, Rule 130 is intended not for the protection of public officers

but for the protection of public interest. Where there is no public interest that would be prejudiced,

this rule will not be applicable. The rule that a public officer cannot be examined as to

communications made to him in official confidence does not apply when there is nothing to show that

the public interest would suffer by the disclosure question. [Banco Filipino vs. Monetary Board, 142

SCRA 523 (1986)]

Rule on Presumptive Presidential Communications Privilege

There is a Recognized Presumptive Presidential Communications Privilege - it was the

President herself, through Executive Secretary Ermita, who invoked executive privilege on a specific

matter involving an executive agreement between the Philippines and China, which was the subject of

the three. [Neri vs. Senate Committee, G.R. No. 180643, September 4, 2008]

Examination of a witness

Death of the witness not a ground to exclude the testimony

The mere fact that the witness died after giving his direct testimony is no ground in itself for

excluding his testimony from the record so long as the adverse party was afforded an adequate

opportunity for cross- examination but through fault of his own failed to cross-examine the witness.

The right to cross-examine Loreto was waived by Petitioners through their repeated absence and

motions to postpone the cross- examination. [Dela Paz vs. IAC, 154 SCRA 65 (1987)]

Nature of the right to cross-examine

Supreme Court held that although the right to cross-examine is a vital part of due process, the

right is a personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to arenunciation of the right of cross-examination. The principle requiring a testing of testimonial

statements by cross-examination has always been understood as requiring, not necessarily an actual

cross-examination, but merely an opportunity to exercise the right to cross-examine if desired.

[Fulgado vs. CA, 182 SCRA 81 (1982)]

Purpose of cross-examination

The CFI disallowed the cross- examination of a witness presented by Capitol since he was the

witness of Capitol. The Supreme Court held that the adverse party may cross-examine a witness for

the purpose among others, of eliciting all important facts bearing upon the issue. From this provision

it may clearly be inferred that a party may cross- examine a witness on matters not embraced in hisdirect examination. But this does not mean that a party by doing so is making the witness his own.

[Capital Subdivision vs. Negros Occidental, 4672 (1956)]

Continuing objections


25/37

Marshall did not waive his continuing objection to testimony within the scope of the district

court's ruling of admissibility by cross- examining Ms. Stanlin with regard to some of the documents

she relied upon in testifying as a fact that the records showed that three lawn mowers were missing,

or by introducing these documents in connection with this cross- examination- in order to show how

unreliable was her estimate that any lawn mowers at all were missing from the store. [U.S. vs.

Marshall, 762 F.2d 419 (5th Cir. 1985)]

Recall of the witness with leave

Section 14, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that the court may grant or

withhold leave to recall a witness, in its discretion, as the interests of justice may require; and We

believe that it was the better part of discretion and caution on the part of the trial court to have

denied as it did, the request of the defense to recall Ceribo. The record is loaded with circumstances

tending to show insidious attempts, too obvious to be overlooked, to tamper with the witnesses for

the prosecution.

Under the circumstances, to allow such a procedure would only encourage the perversion of

truth and make a mockery of court proceedings. [People vs. Del Castillo, 25 SCRA]

Instances of where recall of the witness may be denied

Once a witness has been subjected to extensive cross-examination, the motion to recall him as

rebuttal witness may be denied. [Victorias Milling Co., Inc. vs. Ong Su, 79 SCRA 207 (1977)]

Recall of the witness cannot be based on whimsical grounds

The Supreme Court held that it was improper for the trial court to grant the motion to recallwitness because the discretion to recall a witness may not be exercised on whimsical grounds, but

must come out of a clear showing that particularly identified material points were not covered in the

cross-examination, or that particularly described vital documents were not presented to the witness

whose recall is prayed for, or that the cross- examination was conducted in so inept a manner as to

result in a virtual absence thereof. Here, the counsel averred that some questions had not been asked

but did not even specify what they were. [People vs. Rivera, 200 SCRA 786 (1991)]

Leading Questions:

The alternative form of question (‘State whether or not you said that you refused,’ ‘Did you ordid you not refuse?’) is free from this defect of form, because both affirmative and negative answers

are presented for the witness' choice. Nevertheless, such a question may become leading, in so far as

it rehearses lengthy details which the witness might not otherwise have mentioned, and thus supplies

him with full suggestions which he incorporates without any effort by the simple answer, ‘I did,’ or ‘I

did not.’ Accordingly, the sound view is that such a question may or may not be improper, according to

the amount of palpably suggestive detail which it embodies. [State vs. Scott, 149 P2d 152 (1944)]

Admissions and Confessions

The testimony and the public document are declarations adverse to the interest of the

Costelos which is admissible in evidence. The previous recognition by a party in physical possession ofthe property in dispute of the ownership in another constitutes a declaration against the interest of

the former and ay be received in evidence not only against such party who made the declaration or

his successors in interest but also against 3rd persons. [Viacrusis vs. Court of Appeals, 44 SCRA

176(1972)]


26/37

Admission of the president of the company binding on the company

The admissions of the president of a company are binding on the company under the rule that

admissions of liability by a party may be given against it. [Keller & Co. vs. COB, 141 SCRA 86 (1986)]

Nature of admission by silence

The rule allowing silence of a person to be taken as an implied admission of the truth of the

statements uttered in his presence is applicable in criminal cases. [People vs. Paragsa, 84 SCRA 105

(1978)]

Silence of the accused when not required to respond is not confession/admission

The silence of an accused (or in this case, the three appellants) under custody, or his failure to

deny statements by another implicating him in a crime, especially when such accused is neither asked

to comment or reply to such implications or accusations, cannot be considered as a tacit confession of

his participation in the commission of the crime. [People vs. Alegre, 94 SCRA 109 (1979)]

Comment to the jury by a prosecutor in a state criminal trial upon a defendant's failure to

testify as to the matters which he can reasonably be expected to deny or explain because of facts

within his knowledge or by the court that the defendant's silence under those circumstances

evidences guilt violates the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Federal

Constitution. [Griffin vs. California, 380 U.S. 853 (1965)]

Res Inter Alios Acta

The rights of an accused cannot be prejudiced by the extra-judicial declarations of anotherperson. [People vs. Raquel, 265 SCRA 248 (1996)]

Extra-judicial declaration of an accused against his co-accused hearsay

As a general rule, the extrajudicial declaration of an accused, although deliberately made, is

not admissible and does not have probative value against his co- accused. It is merely hearsay

evidence as far as the other accused are concerned. [People vs. Alegre, 94 Phil. 109 (1979)]

Exceptions to the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule

Statements made by an employee against his employer are admissible against the latter, where

the statements while in employ and where they concerned a matter within the scope of his

employment. [Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Center, 588 F.2d 626 (8th Cir. 198)]

Co-conspirator's Statements

In the absence of any other evidence to prove the existence of an alleged conspiracy, extra-

judicial statements and admissions of an individual cannot be taken as evidence against an alleged co-

conspirator. An extrajudicial statement made by a co-accused is, by itself, insufficient to convict an

accused of a crime charged because said statement is inadmissible since they were made not during

the existence of the conspiracy but after the said conspiracy had already ceased and when the co-accused was already in the custody of the police. [People vs. Cabrera, 57 SCRA 715 (1974)]

Statements of co-conspirator when admissible: requisites


27/37

The rule regarding statements made by a co-conspirator refers to statements made by one conspirator

during the pendency of the unlawful enterprises and in furtherance of its object and not to a

confession made long after the conspiracy had been brought to an end. Under the rule on multiple

admissibility of evidence, the confession of a co-accused may be inadmissible against his co-accused

for being hearsay but may nevertheless be admissible against the declarant’s own guilt. [People vs.

Yatco, 97 Phil. 941 (1955)]

The admissibility of a confession by one accused against the other in the same case, must

relate to statements made by one conspirator during the pendency of the unlawful enterprise (or

during its existence) and in furtherance of its objects, and not to a confession made, as in this case,

long after the conspiracy had been brought to an end. [People vs. Chaw Yaw Shun, 23 SCRA 127

(1968)]

Declaration of a co-conspirator applicable only in extra judicial acts or declaration

The rule that "The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its

existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by

evidence other than such act or declaration," applies only to extra-judicial acts or declaration, but not

to testimony given on the stand at the trial, where the defendant has the opportunity to cross-

examine the declarant. [People vs. Serrano, 105 Phil. 531 (1959)]

Duty of the court

The testimony of a witness must be considered and calibrated in its entirety and not by

truncated portions thereof or isolated passages therein. It is perfectly reasonable to believe the

testimony of a witness with respect to some facts and disbelieve it with respect to other facts, as

there is hardly a witness who can perfectly remember the details of a crime. [ People vs. Bulan, G.R.

No. 143404, 8 June 2005]

Admission By Privies

Coverage of privies

The word “privies does not only denote testate or intestate succession but also succession by

virtue of acts inter vivos, as by assignment, subrogation or purchase and in fact any act whereby the

successor is substituted in the place of the predecessor in interest. The purchaser at an execution sale

is a privy of the execution debtor. [ Alpuerto vs. Pastor, 38 Phil. 785 (1918)]

Prior declaration not covered;

The act of a predecessor to a land is not binding on the successor if the acts/declarations made

by the predecessor acknowledging ownership or offering to purchase the property from a third party

were made before the predecessor held title to the land. [City of Manila vs. Del Rosario, 5 Phil. 227

(1905)]

Confessions:

Inadmissible admission during custodial investigation

Admissions obtained during custodial interrogations without the benefit of counsel although

later reduced to writing and signed in the presence of counsel are flawed under the Constitution and

as such cannot be admitted in Court. Here, it is evident that Compil was immediately subjected to an

interrogation upon his arrest in the house of Rey Lopez in Tayabas. [ People vs. Compil, 244 SCRA 135


28/37

(1995)]

The right under the Constitution is applicable to all persons

The fact that all accused are foreign nationals does not preclude application of the

“exclusionary rule” because the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and

extend to all persons, both aliens and citizens. The accused cannot be made to affix their signatureson evidence without complying with the Bill of Rights. By affixing their signatures on the evidence, the

accused are in effect made to tacitly admit the crime charged for, in this case, mere possession of

prohibited drugs is a crime. These signatures amount to uncounseled extra-judicial confession

prohibited by the Bill of Rights and therefore inadmissible as evidence. [People vs. Wong Chuen Ming,

256 SCRA 182 (1996)]

Silence of the accused during custodial investigation may not be taken against him

While an accused is in custody, his silence may not be taken in evidence against him as he has

a right to remain silent^ his silence when in custody may not be used as evidence against him,

otherwise, his right of silence would be illusory. [People vs. Alegre, 94 SCRA 109 (1979)]

Confession in violation of the right of the accused is inadmissible

Any confession, including a re-enactment without admonition of the right to silence and to

counsel, and without counsel chosen by the accused is inadmissible in evidence. [People vs. Yip Wai

Ming, 264 SCRA 224 (1996)]

Confession vs. admission

In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt. On the other hand, the term admission isusually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do not directly involve an

acknowledgment of his guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the offense charged. The rights of an

accused are not confined to the period prior to the filing of an information but are available at that

stage when a person is under investigation for the commission of an offense. These rights are

available to a person at any time before arraignment whenever he is investigated for the commission

of an offense. [People vs. Maqueda, 242 SCRA 565 (1995)]

The Confrontation Clause does not bar admission into evidence of every relevant extrajudicial

statement by a nontestifying declarant simply because it in some way incriminates the defendant. And

an instruction directing the jury to consider a codefendant's extrajudicial statement only against itssource is generally sufficient to avoid offending the implicated defendant's confrontation right. The

court may admit into evidence interlocking confessions of co-defenants/accused even without giving

the accused an opportunity to cross-examine his co-defendant. The rule however is different when a

co-defendant does not confess. In such cases, the co-defendant must be given an opportunity to

cross- examine the confessant if and when such person takes the witness stand. [ Parker vs. Randolph,

442 U.S. 62 (1979)]

Similar Acts as Evidence

Admissible if the purpose is to establish knowledge and intent

The Supreme Court held that the testimonies of the two chemists were admissible as their

purpose is to ascertain defendant's knowledge and intent, and to fix his negligence. The general rule is

that evidence of other offenses committed by the defendant is inadmissible. However, such evidence

may be admitted where its purpose is to ascertain the knowledge and intent of the defendant to fix


29/37

his negligence. [U.S. vs. Pineda, 37 Phil. 457 (1918)]

Evidence of another crime for Identification and presence of the perpetrator admissible

While evidence of another crime is, as a rule, not admissible in a prosecution for robbery, it is

admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as where it tends to identify defendant as the perpetrator of

the robbery charged, or tends to show his presence at the scene or in the vicinity of the crime at thetime charged, or when it is evidence of a circumstance connected with the crime. [People vs. Irang, 64

Phil. 285 (1937)]

Character as evidence

Purpose

While good or bad character may be availed of as an aid to determine the probability or

improbability of the commission of an offense, such is not necessary in the crime of murder through

TREACHERY or EVIDENT PREMEDITATION (remember that the character of the wounds show that the

deceased was killed in a lying position). The proof of such character may only be allowed in homicide

cases to show that it has produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused

and a justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessary. [ People vs. Soliman, 53 O.G.

8083 (1957)]

General reputation

The accused failed to prove that Severino's quarrelsome nature was a general reputation, and

not an isolated or specific act. While it is true that, to support a defense of self-defense, the accused

may prove that the deceased was of a quarrelsome, provoking, irascible disposition, such proof must

be of his general reputation in the community, and NOT of specific or isolated acts. [People vs.Babiera, 52 Phil. 97 (1928)]

Impeachment of witness

Generally, a witness cannot be impeached by the party against whom he has been called,

except by showing: 1. that he has made contradictory statements; or 2. by showing that his general

reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad. The question to which the defendant objected

neither attempted to show that the witness had made contradictory statements nor that his general

reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity was bad. [U.S. Vs. Mercado, 26 Phil. 127 (1913)]

Disrespectful behavior does not affect credibility of a child

Even the testimony adduced by the defense portraying Cheril as a disrespectful and wayward

child does not detract from her credibility as a witness narrating her ordeal in the hands of her father.

Moral character is immaterial in the prosecution and conviction of persons accused of rape, as even

prostitutes can be the victims of rape. [People vs. Umbana, 402 SCRA 415]

6.5.6. Hearsay Rule

Testimonial knowledge:

The purpose of the prosecuting officer is nothing more than to establish the fact that Puesca

had mentioned to Sgt. Bano the names of those who conspired with him to commit the offense

charged. The Supreme Court believe that the question propounded to the witness was proper and the

latter should have been allowed to answer it in full, with the understanding, however, that his answer

shall not to be taken as competent evidence to show that the persons named REALLY AND ACTUALLY


30/37

conspired with Puesca and later took part in the commission of the offense. [ People vs. Cusi, 14 SCRA

944 (1965)]

Confession of the accused to another person admissible

The statement of Guzman relating that the accused had told him that he had killed the

deceased is not hearsay. The witness Guzman related the accused’s confession for the purpose ofestablishing the fact that such a statement was made, thus excluding the same from the coverage of

the hearsay rule. [People vs. Gaddi, 170 SCRA 649 (1989)]

The field notes of investigator Gross consisted