Sie sind auf Seite 1von 72

RULES OF EVIDENCE Based on the Book of Regalado [RULE 128] ENER!

L "ROVISIONS Se# 1$ Evidence defined$ E%&den#e is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1) Se#$ 2$ Scope$ The rules of evidence shall be the same: - in all courts and - in all trials and hearings, - E !E"T as other#ise provided by la# or these rules. ($a) Notes' E%&den#e( def&ned' Bustos v. Lucero: Evidence is the mode and manner of proving competent facts in judicial proceedings. ")oof &s the )es*lt o) effe#t of e%&den#e. - This is the result #hen the re%uisite %uantum of evidence of a particular fact has been duly admitted and given #eight. Factum Probandum - &ltimate fact or the fact sought to be established - 'efers to the proposition Factum Probans - The evidentiary fact or the fact by #hich the factum probandum is to be established. - 'efers to the materials #hich established the proposition R*les of E%&den#e as ")o#ed*)al La+ - (mendments in such rules may validly be made applicable to cases pending at the time of such change. "arties have no vested right in the rules of evidence. - )*+E,E', in criminal cases, if the amendment #ould permit the reception of a lesser %uantum of evidence to convict, retroactive application #ould be unconstitutional for being e- post facto.

Othe) La+s o%e)n&ng E%&den#e R' 'ules of evidence is governed by the 'ules of !ourt ('o!) - E,C' (pplication of other la#s Examples: - '( .$// ((nti +iretapping), - !ode of !ommerce (#eight of entries in merchant boo0s) - Electronic !ommerce (ct - 1!!, '"! - !onstitution: 2ill of 'ights - (rt 333 o 4ec $: The right of people against unreasonable searches and sei5ures o 4ec 6: The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable (E !. 2y order of court or #hen provided by la# for safety and public order) o Evidence obtained in violation of such provisions shall be 31(78344329E !--l&#a.&l&t/ of the R*les of E%&den#e' R: (pplicable *19: in judicial proceedings - E,C' 3n %uasi-judicial proceedings o The same apply by analogy, or in a suppletory character and #henever practicable and convenient.('ule 1 4ection .) o 3t shall apply also #hen the governing la# of such proceeding specifically adopts such rules o 1ote: 1*T applicable in agrarian cases Class&f&#at&on of E%&den#e !##o)d&ng to Fo)0 1$ O.1e#t 2Real3 E%&den#e' directly addressed to the senses of the court and consist of tangible things e-hibited or demonstrated in open court, in an ocular inspection, or at place designated by the court for its vie# or observation of an e-hibition, e-periment or demonstration. - This is referred to as 4a*to-t&# -)ofe)en#e5 since it proffers or presents in open court the evidentiary articles for observation or inspection 2$ Do#*0enta)/ E%&den#e' Evidence supplied by #ritten instruments or derived from conventional symbols, such as letters, by #hich ideas are represented on material substances - Rule 130 Sec 2: #ritings or any material containing letters, #ords, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of #ritten e-pression offered as proof of their contents 6$ 7est&0on&al E%&den#e: That #hich is submitted to the court through the testimony or deposition of a #itness.

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A


Othe) Class&f&#at&on of E%&den#e' 1$ Rele%ant( 8ate)&al( and Co0-etent E%&den#e - Rele%ant' evidence having any value in reason as tending to prove any matter provable in an action. o TE4T: The logical relation of the evidentiary fact to the fact in issue, #hether the former tends to establish the probability or improbability of the latter. - 8ate)&al' evidence directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of substantive la# and pleadings. o TE4T: #Cn the fact it intends to prove is an issue or not. o W/ a fact !s !n !ssue: 7etermined by substantive la#, pleadings, pre-trial order and by admissions or confessions on file. o Evidence may be relevant 2&T may be immaterial. - Co0-etent' one that is not e-cluded by the 'ules, statutes or the !onstitution. 2$ D&)e#t and C&)#*0stant&al E%&den#e - D&)e#t' that #hich proves the fact in dispute #Co the aid of any inference or presumption - C&)#*0stant&al: proof of a fact or facts from #hich, ta0en either singly or collectively, the e-istence of a particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable conse%uence. 6$ C*0*lat&%e and Co))o.o)at&%e E%&den#e - C*0*lat&%e' evidence of the same 0ind and to the same state of facts. - Co))o.o)at&%e' additional evidence of a different character to the same point. 9$ ")&0a Fa#&e and Con#l*s&%e E%&den#e - ")&0a Fa#&e' that #hich, standing alone, une-plained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed. - Con#l*s&%e' the class of evidence #hich the la# does not allo# to be contradicted. :$ ")&0a)/ and Se#onda)/ E%&den#e - ")&0a)/' that #hich the la# regards as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in %uestion. (lso 0no#n as "best ev!dence#. - Se#onda)/' that #hich is inferior to the primary evidence and is permitted by la# only #hen the best evidence is not available. (lso 0no#n as "subst!tut!onar$ ev!dence#. ;$ "os&t&%e and Negat&%e E%&den#e - "os&t&%e' #hen the #itness affirms that a fact did or did not occur.

Entitled to a greater #eight since the #itness represents of his personal 0no#ledge the presence or absence of a fact. Negat&%e E%&den#e' #hen the #itness did not see or 0no# of the occurrence of a fact. o 9esser #eight since there is a total disclaimer of personal 0no#ledge, hence #ithout any representation that the fact could or could not have e-isted or happened. o 3t is admissible only if it tends to contradict positive evidence of the other side or #ould tend to e-clude the e-istence of fact s#orn to by the other side. o

Se#$ 6$ Admissibility of evidence$ E%&den#e &s ad0&ss&.le #hen: - it is relevant to the issue (17 - is not e-cluded by the la# or these rules. (6a) Se#$ 9$ Relevancy< collateral matters$ E%&den#e 0*st ha%e s*#h a )elat&on T*: - the fact in issue as to induce belief in its e-istence or non-e-istence. E%&den#e on #ollate)al 0atte)s' - shall 1*T be allo#ed, - E !E"T #hen it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (.a) Notes' E%&den#e &s !D8ISSIBLE +hen' 2 Re=*&s&tes 2see #odal3 - +hen it is 'elevant o it must have a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief of its e-istence or non-e-istence o 7etermined by the rules of logic and human e-perience. - +hen it is !ompetent o +hen not e-cluded by the la# or by the 'o! o 7etermined by the prevailing e-clusionary rules on evidence Note' The +e&ght ho#ever of admissible evidence depends on judicial evaluation #ithin the 'ule 166 and rules of the 4!. o +hile evidence is admissible, it may be entitled to little or no #eight at all.

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A


!onversely, evidence of great #eight may also be inadmissible.

Re=*&s&tes of !d0&ss&.&l&t/ of E%&den#e !##o)d&ng to ")ofesso) >&g0o)e 1. That none but facts having rational probative value are admissible D $. That all facts having rational probative value are not forbidden by specific rules Note' )ere, Relevant Evidence means any class of evidence #hich has Erational probative valueF to establish the issue in controversy >hen &s ad0&ss&.&l&t/ dete)0&ned? @ !t the t&0e &t &s OFFERED to the #o*)t - 'eal Evidence: offered o #hen the same is presented for its vie# or evaluation o #hen the party rests his case and the real evidence consists of objects e-hibited in court - Testimonial Evidence: offered by the calling of the #itness to the stand - 7ocumentary Evidence: offered by the proponent immediately before he rests his case >hen sho*ld ad0&ss&.&l&t/ .e o.1e#ted? - (t the time evidence is offered to the court *' - (s soon thereafter as the objection to its admissibility shall have become apparent o *bjection to the %ualification of the #itness: made at the time such person is called to the stand o *bjection to the testimony: made at the time the %uestion is as0ed or after the ans#er is given #hen the objectionable features become apparent by reason of the ans#er Note: if not done #ithin such time ? right to object is deemed +(3,E7 Do#t)&nes and R*les of !d0&ss&.&l&t/ San#t&oned ./ the S*-)e0e Co*)t 1$ Cond&t&onal !d0&ss&.&l&t/ - +hen the evidence at the time it is offered appears to be immaterial or irrelevant, such evidence may be received on condition that the other facts #ill be proved thereafter - 3G not proved subse%uently: evidence given #ill be stric0en out. - 'EH&343TE: There should be no .ad fa&th on the part of the proponent. (necessary to avoid unfair surprises)

2$ 8*lt&-le !d0&ss&.&l&t/ - +hen the evidence is relevant (17 competent fo) t+o o) 0o)e -*)-oses, such evidence should be admitted for any or all the purposes for #hich it is offered - "'*,37E7 it must satisfy all the re%uirements for its admissibility. 6$ C*)at&%e !d0&ss&.&l&t/ - The right of the party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf #here the court has admitted the same 0ind of evidence adduced by the adverse party. - 6 7heo)&es of C*)at&%e !d0&ss&.&l&t/ #&ted ./ >&g0o)e o !0e)&#an )*le ? the admission of incompetent evidence #Cout objection by the opponent, does not justify rebutting it by similar incompetent evidence. o Engl&sh )*le ? if inadmissible evidence is admitted, the adverse party may resort to similar inadmissible evidence o 8assa#h*setts )*le ?similar incompetent evidence may be admitted in order to avoid a plain and unfair prejudice caused by the admission of the other partyIs evidence - >hat sho*ld .e dete)0&ned to a--l/ the #*)at&%e ad0&ss&.&l&t/ )*le? 1. #Cn the incompetent evidence #as seasonably objected to La#k of o.1e#t&on: #aiver of the right to object admissibility 2&T does 1*T deprive him to introduce similar rebutting evidence $. #Cn the admission of such evidence #ill cause a plain and unfair prejudice to the party against #hom it #as admitted +hen the admissible evidence has been improperly e-cluded, the other party should not be permitted to introduce similar evidence Stonehill, et al. v. Diokno: 7ocumentary evidence illegally obtained, is inadmissible on a timely motion or action to suppress. ((pplies to illegally obtained confessions) Collate)al 8atte)s( def&ned' 8atters other than the facts in issue and #hich are offered as a basis for inference as to the e-istence or non-e-istence of the facts in issue R' !ollateral matters are 31(78344329E or not allo#ed - E,C' #hen it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue ( 4C&)#*0stant&al E%&den#e5 or evidence of )ele%ant collateral facts3

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A


Note: +hat is prohibited ? 3''E9E,(1T collateral facts 9 8a&n D&%&s&ons of the R*les of E%&den#e' (1) (dmissibility of Evidence 'ule 16/J ($) 2urden of proof and #hat need not be proved 'ule 161 D 1$=J (6) "resentation of Evidence 'ule 16$J (.) +eight and 4ufficiency of Evidence 'ule 166J 1ote: 'ule 16. has been transposed to "art 3 as 'ule $. [RULE 12A] >B!7 NEED NO7 BE "ROVED Se# 1$ udicial notice, !hen mandatory$ ! #o*)t shall take 1*d&#&al not&#e, #ithout the introduction of evidence: - of the e-istence and territorial e-tent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, - the la# of nations, - the admiralty and maritime courts of the #orld and their seals, - the political constitution and history of the '", - the official acts of legislative, - e-ecutive and judicial departments of the '", - the la#s of nature, - the measure of time, and - the geographical divisions. (1a) Se#$ 2$ udicial notice, !hen discretionary$ ( court 8!C take 1*d&#&al not&#e of matters #hich: - are of public 0no#ledge, or - are capable to un%uestionable demonstration, or - ought to be 0no#n to judges because of their judicial functions. (1a) Se#$ 6$ udicial notice, !hen hearin" necessary$ %ur!n& t'e tr!al, the #o*)t: - on its o#n initiative, OR on re%uest of a party, may: - announce its intention to ta0e judicial notice of any matter and - allo# the parties to be heard thereon. ()*ER t'e tr!al and BE)+RE ,ud&ment OR + appeal- the -)o-e) #o*)t' - on its o#n initiative OR on re%uest of a party,

may: ta0e judicial notice of any matter and allo# the parties to be heard thereon 3G such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.

Notes' D*d&#&al Not&#e 2DN3( Def&ned' cogni5ance of certain facts #hich judges may properly ta0e and act on #ithout proof. - <1 is based on convenience and e-pediency. - <1 relieves the parties from the necessity of introducing evidence to prove the fact noticed. The fact is proven by <1. - The stipulation and admission of the parties or counsel cannot prevail over the operation of the doctrine of judicial notice, and such are all subject to the operation of the doctrine. 7+o k&nds of DN' - 8andatory - 7iscretionary Bo+ DN 8a/ .e 7aken ./ the Co*)t' 1. *n its o#n initiative or motion $. +hen it is re%uested or invited by the parties Note' 3n Either !ase, the court may allo# the parties to be heard on the matter in %uestion - 7he -*)-ose of the hea)&ng: 1*T for the presentation of evidence o but to afford the parties reasonable opportunity to present information relevant to the propriety of ta0ing such <1 or to the tenor of the matter to be noticed o (lso to notify them of the courtIs intention to ta0e <1 (no notice K improper <1) >hat stage 0a/ the #o*)t take 1*d&#&al not&#e of a fa#t? - 7uring trialJ - (fter trial and before judgmentJ - *n (ppeal Republic v. #A: <1 must be e-ercised #ith caution and every reasonable doubt on the subject must be resolved in the negative. D*d&#&al Not&#e of La+s R' courts of justice are re%uired to ta0e <1 of the la#s - E,C' 3n case of *'731(1!E4, the rule is different

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A


87Cs' 'e%uired to ta0e <1 of the ordinances of the municipality or city #herein they sit. o R7C ho#ever, they must ta0e such <1 *19: #hen: 'e%uired to do so by statute (e-. city charter)J and 3n a case on appeal before them and #herein the inferior court too0 <1 of an ordinance involved in said case. (only to determine the propriety of ta0ing <1) (ppellate courts may also ta0e <1 of municipal and city ordinances not only #here the lo#er courts too0 <1 2E! these are facts capable of un%uestionable demonstration. Gor the same reason, !ourts may ta0e judicial notice of administrative regulations o

R*le on DN of De#&s&ons of Co*)ts - (99 courts are re%uired to ta0e judicial notice of the decisions of the 4upreme !ourt - 9o#er courts are to ta0e <1 of decisions of higher courts (e-. !() BU7 NO7 of the decisions of coordinate trial courts 1*' even of a decision or the facts involved in another case tried by the same court o E,CE"7 +hen' "arties introduce the same in evidence The court as a matter of convenience, decides to do so D*d&#&al Not&#e %s$ "e)sonal Eno+ledge of a D*dge - The $ should not be confused - It is not essential that matters of JN be actually known to the judge. The judge may at his discretion, inform himself in any way which may seem best to him, and act accordingly. Fo)e&gn La+s 0a/ NO7 .e 7aken D*d&#&al Not&#e - E-istence of foreign la#s is one of G(!T and 1*T of 9(+ - 3t 8&4T 2E "'*,E7 li0e any other fact: o E,CE"7' #hen the la#s are #ithin the actual 0no#ledge of the court either because: They are generally 0no#n *' They have been actually ruled upon in other cases before it and none of the parties object Bo+ >RI77EN Fo)e&gn La+ 8a/ .e ")o%ed - 'e%uirements in 4ec $. and $L of rule 16$ must be complied #C:

o 2: an official publication o 2: a duly attested and authenticated copy thereof - (bsent the above evidence: The Do#t)&ne of ")o#ess*al ")es*0-t&on shall apply o The foreign la# is presumed to be the same as that in the '" - Note: E-ceptions to the re%uired proof in 4ec $. and $L: o Testimony of a #itness #ho #as an active member of the !alifornia 2ar and #ho is familiar #ith the la#s #ith a full %uotation of the cited la# #as accepted as s*ff&#&ent -)oof$ o (n affidavit of an &4 attorney #hich does not state the specific la# but merely contained his interpretation of the facts of the case is NO7 s*ff&#&ent -)oof$ Bo+ UN>RI77EN Fo)e&gn La+ 8a/ .e ")o%ed - 'ule 16/, 4ec .M: ( published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of such la# or a testimony of a #ritten e-pert Se#$ 9$ udicial admissions$ !n ad0&ss&on verbal or #ritten, - made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not )e=*&)e -)oof. The ad0&ss&on 0a/ .e #ont)ad&#ted ONLC ./ sho+&ng' - that it #as made through palpable mista0e or - that no such admission #as made. ($a) Notes' D*d&#&al !d0&ss&ons 8a/ .e 8ade IN' 1. The pleadings filed by the parties $. 3n the course of the trial either by verbal or #ritten manifestations or stipulations 6. 3n other stages of the judicial proceeding, as in pre-trial of the case Note' 7epositions, #ritten interrogatories, or re%uests for admission are also considered judicial admissions 7o .e #ons&de)ed a 1*d&#&al ad0&ss&on' R' 3t must be made in the 4(8E case in #hich it is offered - E,C' 3t may be made in another case or another court "'*,37E7: o 3t be proved as in the case of any other fact

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A


3G the judicial admission #as made in a judicial proceeding, it is entitled to greater #eight. o 3t is pertinent to the issue involved o There must be no objection - E,C to E,C' 1. The said admissions #ere made only for purposes of the first case as in the rule on implied admissions and their effects under 'ule $M $. The same #ere #ithdra#n #ith the permission of the court therein 6. The court deems it proper to relieve the party therefrom. D*d&#&al !d0&ss&ons %$ EFt)a1*d&#&al !d0&ss&ons' - D*d&#&al' Those so made in the pleadings filed or in the progress of a trial. - EFt)a1*d&#&al' Those made out of court, or in a judicial proceeding other than the one under consideration R*les on EFt)a1*d&#&al !d0&ss&ons' - E-trajudicial admissions or other admissions are, as a rule and #here elements of estoppel are not present, disputable. - (dmissions in a pleading #ithdra#n are considered e-trajudicial admissions ? must be proved by a formal offer in evidence of the original pleading - (dmissions in a pleading superseded by an amended pleading although filed in the same case are: o judicial admissions (1ote: 2ased on 'egalado on his interpretation of 4ec . as amended, p. N=$) o st&ll eFt)a1*d&#&al (3f based on *orres v. .(- et al. O.'. 1o. 9-6N.$/-$1, <uly 61, 1=P.) ? also <udge 2. Note' +hen the parties agree on #hat the foreign la# provides, these are admission of facts that the court may rely upon, and hence, they are in estoppel to ta0e a contrary position. R*les on Cont)ad&#t&ng D*d&#&al !d0&ss&ons R' <udicial (dmissions cannot be contradicted by the admitter #ho is the party himself - E,C' 8ay be contradicted #hen: o 4uch is made through palpable mista0e or o 1o such admission #as made or o 3n the case of a pre-trial admission in a civil case, to prevent manifest injustice (4ec N, 'ule 1P) ? 1ote: applies to

criminal cases if the pre-trial admission is reduced into #riting and signed by the accused and his counsel.

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A


[RULE 16G] RULES OF !D8ISSIBILI7C A. $% E#& 'REA() E*+DE,#E Se# 1$ $b-ect as evidence$ O.1e#ts as e%&den#e are: - those addressed to the senses of the court. >hen an object is )ele%ant to the fa#t &n &ss*e: - it may be e-hibited to, e-amined or vie#ed by the court. (1a) Notes' - +hen an object is relevant to a fact in issue, the court may ac%uire 0no#ledge thereof by actually vie#ing the object ? the object is called )eal e%&den#e - (lso 0no#n as autopt!c proference- p'$s!cal or demonstrat!ve ev!dence - 3t is the highest form of evidence - Even if other evidence have been introduced, it #ill not prevent the court from vie#ing an object to resolve the issue - (lso, the fact that an ocular inspection has been held does not preclude a party from introducing other evidence on the same issue. Re=*&)e0ents of an O#*la) Ins-e#t&on 2OI3 - (n *3 conducted by the judge #Co notice to or the presence of the parties is invalid, as an *3 is part of the trial. - +C1 an *3 is to be made lies in the discretion of the court. >hen #an a Co*)t Ref*se the Int)od*#t&on of O.1e#t 2)eal3 E%&den#e and Rel/ on 7est&0on&al E%&den#e !lone'

1. +hen the e-hibition of such object is contrary to public policy, morals or decency $. +hen to re%uire its being vie#ed in court or in an ocular inspection #ould result in delay, inconvenience, unnecessary e-pense out of proportion to the evidentiary value of such object 6. +hen such object (real) evidence #ould be confusing or misleading, as #hen the purpose is to prove the former condition of the object and there is no preliminary sho#ing that there has been no substantial change in said condition .. The testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays the object in %uestion as to render a vie# thereof unnecessary >hen 0a/ o.1e#t 2)eal3 e%&den#e +h&#h &s )e-*ls&%e o) &nde#ent st&ll .e %&e+ed ./ the #o*)t? - IF the vie# of the same is ne#essa)/ &n the &nte)est of 1*st&#e - 3n such case, the court may e-clude the public from such vie# - 1ote: The vie# may 1*T be refused 3G the indecent or immoral objects #onst&t*te the %e)/ .as&s of the #)&0&nal o) #&%&l a#t&ons (e-. case against obscene e-hibits) >hat does o.1e#t 2)eal3 e%&den#e &n#l*de? - 4uch evidence includes any article or object #hich may be 0no#n or perceived by the use of any of the senses of: hearing (auditory), touch (tactile), taste (gustatory) or smell (olfactory)and sight - 3t may include: o E-amination of the anatomy of a person or any substance ta0en therefrom o !onducting tests, demonstration or e-periments o E-amination of representative portrayals of the object in %uestion provided the same are properly authenticated (e-. maps, diagrams, s0etches, pictures, audio-visual records) - Note' 4uch real evidence may be amplified by interpretations afforded by testimonial evidence especially by e-perts (--ray interpreted by doctors) Do#*0ents a)e Cons&de)ed' - O.1e#t 2)eal3 E%&den#e IF the&) "*)-ose &s' To prove their e-istence or condition, or the nature of the hand#ritings thereon or to determine the age of the paper used, or the blemishes or alterations thereon.

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A


Othe)+&se, They are !onsidered Do#*0enta)/ E%&den#e IF the&) "*)-ose &s' to establish the contents or tenor thereof.

"h/s&#al EFa0&nat&on of a "e)son 8a/ .e Cond*#ted' - 2: the court OR under its direction - T* sho# the nature, e-tent or location of injuries, facial features, his resemblance or possibility of relationship to another, or his racial origin, his probable age, fact of pregnancy

(c) +hen the original: - consists of numerous accounts or other documents #hich cannot be e-amined in court #ithout great loss of time and - the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the #holeJ and (d) +hen the original: - is a public record - in the custody of a public officer *' is recorded in a public office. ($a)

%. D$#./E,&AR0 E*+DE,#E Se#$ 2$ Documentary evidence$ 7ocuments as evidence consist of: - #riting or - any material containing letters, #ords, numbers, figures, symbols or - other modes of #ritten e-pression offered as proof of their contents. (n) 1$ BES7 EVIDENCE RULE 2")&0a)/ E%&den#e R*le3 Se#$ 6$ $ri"inal document must be produced< e1ceptions$ >hen the s*.1e#t of &n=*&)/ &s the #ontents of a do#*0ent : - no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, E !E"T in the follo#ing cases: (a) +hen the original: - has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, - #ithout bad faith on the part of the offerorJ (b) +hen the original: - is in the custody or under the control of the party against #hom the evidence is offered, and - the latter fails to produce it after reasonable noticeJ

Se#$ 9$ $ri"inal of document$ (a) The original of the document is: - one the contents of #hich are the subject of in%uiry. (b) +hen a document: - is in t#o or more copies e-ecuted at or about the same time, #ith identical contents, all such copies are e%ually regarded as originals. (c) +hen an entry: - is repeated in the regular course of business, - one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are li0e#ise e%ually regarded as originals. (6a) Notes' Do#*0ent( def&ned' ( deed, instrument or other duly authori5ed paper by #hich something is proved, evidenced or set forth. Do#*0enta)/ E%&den#e( def&ned' That #hich is furnished by #ritten instruments, inscriptions and documents of all 0inds. Best E%&den#e R*le( def&ned' that rule #hich re%uires the highest grade of evidence obtainable to prove a disputed fact. - "urpose: To prevent fraud, perjury, and To e-clude uncertainties in the contents of a document Best E%&den#e R*le &s !--l&ed to Do#*0enta)/ E%&den#e ONLC - *perates as a rule of e-clusion

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A


R' *riginal #riting itself must be produced in court. 4econdaryCsubstitutionary evidence cannot inceptively be introduced o Effe#t' The non-production of the original document gives rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence (4ec 161) - E,C' 4econdary evidence may be produced in . 3nstances in 4ec 6 1ote: 3n case of real evidence, secondary evidence may be introduced #Co having to account for the non-production of such primary evidence Best E%&den#e R*le &s !--l&#a.le ONLC' +hen the #ontents of the do#*0ent &s the s*.1e#t of &n=*&)/$ - 3t does 1*T apply #hen the issue is only as to: o #Cn the document e-ists or #Cn it #as actually e-ecuted or o the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its e-ecution 1ote: )ere, testimonial evidence or other evidence #ill suffice. >hen a do#*0ent &s -)esented to -)o%e eF&sten#e o) #ond&t&on @ It &s offe)ed as RE!L e%&den#e( NO7 do#*0enta)/ e%&den#e - "arol evidence of the fact of e-ecution is allo#ed - )*+E,E', in criminal cases, #here the issue is not only #ith respect to the contents of the document but also as to #hether such document actually e-isted #ith the participation as imputed to the accused ? the o)&g&nal 0*st .e -)od*#ed 2eF$ in libel, the ne#spaper must be presented) o 3n this case, the presentation of the original sho*ld affe#t ONLC the +e&ght of the e%&den#e intended to establish the e-ecution of the document !ff&da%&ts and de-os&t&ons a)e not .est e%&den#e and hen#e not ad0&ss&.le( IF the aff&ants o) de-onents a)e a%a&la.le as +&tnesses - 3t is not best evidence ONLC +hen the contents of the affidavits or depositions are 1*T the issues in the case 2&T are merely used to establish the issues in controversy o (ffidavits are regulated by the hearsay evidence rule ('ule 16/ 4ec $M) to safeguard the right of cross e-amination. o 7epositions are regulated by 'ule $6 4ec . >hen 4Othe) Co-&es of a Do#*0ent5 a)e Cons&de)ed O)&g&nals 2Se# 93 - 3t includes regular entries in journals and ledgers. - ( signed carbon copy e-ecuted at the same time as the original is 0no#n as a 4d*-l&#ate o)&g&nal5 and may be introduced #Co the original R*les on Ca).on Co-&es Cons&de)ed as O)&g&nals

7ocuments prepared in several copies through the use of carbon sheets are considered originals: o /R+01%E% that the #riting of a contract upon the outside sheet, !nclud!n& t'e s!&nature of the party sought to be charged thereby, produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath, suc' s!&nature be!n& t'us reproduced b$ t'e S(2E stro3e of t'e pen - Even if the signature #as made through separate acts or separate occasions, (99 the !('2*1 !*"3E4 are considered originals o 3G each copy #as intended as a repository of the same legal act of the party thereto. - BU7 &0-e)fe#t #a).on #o-&es a)e 0e)el/ se#onda)/ e%&den#e even if the te-t #as made at the same time as the signed original o EF$ incomplete signatures, something else is left to be done in order that a document could evidence a binding obligation R*les on 7eleg)a0s and Ca.les @ >HN the d&s-at#h sent o) the d&s-at#h )e#e&%ed &s the .est e%&den#e of the 0essage (depends on the issue) - 3G the issue is the contents of the telegrams o as received by the addressee - original dispatch received is the best evidence o as sent by the sender ? the original is the message delivered - 3G the issue is the inaccuracy of the transmission o 2*T) the sent and received dispatch are originals. Provincial Fiscal of Pampan"a v. Reyes: in case of libel IF the &ss*e &s: - *n the contents of the articles sent by the accused for publication o The manuscript is the best evidence - *n #hat #as actually published o ( copy of the ne#spaper is the best evidence 2$ SECOND!RC EVIDENCE Se#$ :$ 2hen ori"inal document is unavailable$ +hen the original document: - has been lost or destroyed, or - cannot be produced in court, the offe)o), upon proof of: - its e-ecution or e-istence and - the cause of its unavailability #ithout bad faith on his part, 0a/ -)o%e &ts #ontents: - by a copy, or

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A



by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of #itnesses in the order stated. (.a)

3st E1ception to the %est Evidence Rule: W'en t'e or!&!nal !s lost or destro$ed >hat 8*st .e ")o%ed ./ Sat&sfa#to)/ E%&den#e &n O)de) fo) Se#onda)/ E%&den#e 8a/ .e !d0&ss&.le' 1. D*e eFe#*t&on of the o)&g&nal ' proved through the testimony of either: a. The personCs #ho e-ecuted it b. The person before #hom its e-ecution #as ac0no#ledged or c. (ny person #ho #as present and sa# it e-ecuted and delivered or #ho thereafter sa# it and recogni5ed the signatures, or d. *ne to #hom the parties previously confessed its e-ecution 2$ Loss( dest)*#t&on o) *na%a&la.&l&t/ of all s*#h o)&g&nals - The cause must 1*T be due to the offerorIs bad faith - Loss o) Dest)*#t&on 0a/ .e ")o%ed BC' o (ny person #ho 0ne# of such fact o (nyone #ho, in the judgment of the court had made a sufficient e-amination in the places #here the document or papers of similar character are usually 0ept by the person in #hose custody the document #as and had been unable to find it o (nyone #ho has made any other investigation #hich is sufficient to satisfy the court that the document is indeed lost. - 7uplicates must be accounted for: *nly #hen (99 cannot be presented can it be considered unavailableClostCdestroyed 6$ Reasona.le d&l&gen#e and good fa&th &n the sea)#h fo) o) atte0-t to -)od*#e the o)&g&nal P,% v. $lila: +hen the original is *&T437E the jurisdiction of the court (e-. (broad), secondary evidence is (78344329E >hat Const&t*tes Se#onda)/ E%&den#e? (,ote: (pplies to 2*T) 1st and 2nd E-ceptions to the "rimary Evidence 'ule) 1. ( copy of said document $. ( recital or its contents in an authentic document or 6. The recollection of #itnesses

R' (vailment of such secondary evidence 8US7 .e &n the afo)esa&d o)de) E,C' Def&n&te E%&dent&a)/ R*le +hen the la# specifically provides for the class and %uantum of secondary evidence to establish the contents of a document or bars secondary evidence s*#h )e=*&)e0ent &s #ont)oll&ng - E-ample. 9ost holographic #ill must be proved only by a copy, lost notarial #ill may be proved by the testimony of credible #itnesses Contents of a Do#*0ent 0a/ .e ")o%en BC' 1. (ny person #ho read it $. (ny person #ho heard it read 0no#ing or it being proved from other sources that the document so read #as the one in %uestion 6. (ny person #ho #as present #hen the contents of the document #ere tal0ed over bet#een the parties thereto to such an e-tent as to give him reasonably full information as to its contents .. (ny person to #hom the parties to the instrument have confessed or stated the contents thereof. Se#$ ;$ 2hen ori"inal document is in adverse party4s custody or control $ IF the do#*0ent is in the #*stod/ o) *nde) the #ont)ol of ad%e)se -a)t/ : - he must have reasonable notice to produce it. 3G afte) such notice (17 afte) satisfactory proof of its e-istence, he fails to produce the document: - secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. (La) Notes' 5nd E1ception to the %est Evidence Rule: +r!&!nal !s !n t'e custod$ or under t'e control of t'e adverse part$ 4'o fa!ls to produce !t Fa#ts >h&#h 8*st .e Sho+n ./ the "a)t/ Offe)&ng Se#onda)/ E%&den#e 1. The adverse partyIs custody or control of the original documentJ o 1o need to prove actual possession. 3t is enough to sho# the circumstances that #ould indicate his possession. $. That reasonable notice #as given to the adverse party #ho has the custody or control of the documentJ 6. 4atisfactory proof of the documentIs e-istenceJ .. Gailure or refusal by the adverse party to produce it in court. Re=*&)e0ent of 4Not&#e5 De0and&ng the O)&g&nal Do#*0ent'

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

1/ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

1o particular form of notice is re%uired, as long as it fairly apprises the other party as to #hat papers are desired. Even an oral demand in court #ill suffice. - )*+E,E', notice must be given to the adverse party or his attorney even if the document is in the actual possession of a 6rd party - 1otice is done by: 8otion or 4ubpoena duces tecum Not&#e &s NO7 Re=*&)ed' - +hen the receipt of the original document is ac0no#ledged on a carbon copy. (The duplicate itself is an original copy and the only issue is the receipt of the original) - +hen the nature of the action is in itself a notice, as #hen it is for the recovery or annulment of documents #rongfully obtained or #ithheld by the other party ISee Notes on Se#t&on 8 as &t )elates to Se#t&on ; Effe#t of DUS7IFIED Ref*sal of the !d%e)se "a)t/ to the ")od*#e the Do#*0ent - 7oes 1*T give rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence or create an unfavorable inference against him - 3T only authori5es the introduction of secondary evidence R*les on ")od*#t&on of Do#*0ents' Rule 367 v. Rule 58 R*le 16G R*le 2J "roduction is procured by mere notice "roduction is in the nature of a to the adverse party mode of discovery 'e%uirements of notice must be !an be sought only by proper fulfilled as a condition precedent for motion and only upon good cause the subse%uent presentation of secondary evidence "resupposes that the evidence to be !ontemplates a situation #herein produced is intended as evidence the document is either assumed to be favorable to the party in possession thereof or that the party see0ing its production is not sufficiently informed of the contents of the same

6rd E1ception to the %est Evidence Rule: W'en t'e or!&!nal cons!sts of numerous accounts or ot'er documents 4'!c' cannot be exam!ned !n court 4/out &reat loss of t!me Re=*&s&tes fo) the 6)d EF#e-t&on to !--l/' 1. The voluminous character of the records must be established and $. 4uch records must be made accessible to the adverse party so that their correctness may be tested on cross e-amination Instan#es >hen the O)&g&nal 8*st S7ILL .e ")od*#ed 1. +hen the detailed contents of the records of accounts are challenged for being hearsay or $. 3ssues are raised as to the authenticity or correctness of the detailed entries Note' )ere, a summary of the voluminous records can be considered as secondary evidence Se#$ J$ Evidence admissible !hen ori"inal document is a public record$ +hen the original of document: - is in the custody of public officer or - is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved: - by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. ($a) Notes' 9th E1ception to the %est Evidence Rule: W'en t'e or!&!nal !s a publ!c record !n t'e custod$ of a publ!c off!cer or !s recorded !n a publ!c off!ce S*#h Do#*0ent 0a/ .e E%&den#ed BC' - (n official publication or - ( copy attested by the officer having legal custody and - 3n the case of an authori5ed public record, by a copy thereof attested by its legal 0eeper Se#$ 8$ Party !ho calls for document not bound to offer it$ ( party #ho calls for the production of a document and inspects the same - is not obliged to offer it as evidence. (Ma)

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

11 ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

Note' +hen the document is produced, it must fulfill the re%uisites of admissibility to be admitted. The party demanding it is also 1*T obliged to offer it.

"a)ol E%&den#e( def&ned' (ny evidence al!unde (oral or #ritten), #hich is intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement in a document Bas&s and Effe#t of the "a)ol E%&den#e R*le - Bas&s' +hen the parties have reduced their agreement into #riting, all their previous and contemporaneous agreements on the matter are merged therein. - Effe#t' )ence, a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is not admissible to vary contradict or defeat the operation of a valid instrument. >hen Can "a)ol E%&den#e of a Collate)al !g)ee0ent 2C!3 Bet+een the Sa0e "a)t&es on the Sa0e o) Related S*.1e#t 8atte) St&ll .e !d0&ss&.le Not+&thstand&ng the EF&sten#e of a >)&tten !g)ee0ent? 1. +hen the !( is not inconsistent #ith the terms of the #ritten contract $. +hen the !( has not been integrated in and is independent of the #ritten contract as #here it is suppletory to the original contract 6. +hen the !( is subse%uent to or novatory of the #ritten contract .. +hen the !( constitutes a condition precedent #hich determines #hether the #ritten contract may become operative or effective. o 1o. . does not apply to a condition subse%uent not stated in the agreement NO7E' 3n order to apply the above e-ceptions, evidence thereon may be allo#ed "ROVIDED the/ ha%e .een -*t &n &ss*e (as part of Sec. 5- /ar. d) "a)ol E%&den#e R*le !lso does NO7 !""LC 20a/ not .e &n%oked aga&nst the othe)3' - +hen at least 1 party to the suit is not a party or privy to the #ritten instrument in %uestion and does not base a claim or assert a right originating in the instrument. - ( stranger may introduce e-trinsic evidence against the #ritten agreement "a)ol E%&den#e &s !d0&ss&.le "ROVIDED Se#t&on A "a)ag)a-hs ! to D a)e -*t &n &ss*e R' 4uch facts must be put in issue by the pleadings - E,CE"7ION' "arol Evidence may still be admitted even if the re%uired matters are not put in issue by the pleadings: o 3f such facts are invo0ed in his ans#er (since it also puts it in issue3

6$ "!ROL EVIDENCE RULE Se#$ A$ E%&den#e of +)&tten ag)ee0ents$ >hen the te)0s of an ag)ee0ent ha%e .een )ed*#ed to +)&t&ng: - it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and - there can be, bet#een the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the #ritten agreement. )*+E,E', a -a)t/ 0a/ -)esent e%&den#e to: - modify, e-plain or add to the terms of #ritten agreement - 3G he puts in issue in his pleading: (a)(n intrinsic ambiguity, mista0e or imperfection in the #ritten agreementJ (b)The failure of the #ritten agreement to e-press the true intent and agreement of the parties theretoJ (c)The validity of the #ritten agreementJ or (d)The e-istence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest (GTE' the e-ecution of the #ritten agreement. The term Kag)ee0entK includes #ills. (Na) Notes'

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

1$ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

+hen parol evidence is 1*T *2<E!TE7 to (#aiver of right to object inadmissibility)

Re=*&s&tes fo) the !d0&ss&.&l&t/ of "a)ol E%&den#e 1. There is a valid contract $. The terms of the agreement #ere reduced into #riting 6. The controversy must be bet#een the parties of the agreement of their successors in interest (parties to the agreement must be the parties to the suit) .. There is a dispute as to the terms of the agreement R*le on EF-)ess 7)*sts Con#e)n&ng an I00o%a.le o) !n/ Inte)est 7he)e&n - !annot be proved by parol evidence - 'elief: 'eformation of contracts

+hen the #riting on its face appears to be clear and unambiguous but there are collateral matters or circumstances #hich ma0e the meaning uncertain - +hen a #riting admits of $ or more constructions - EF$ 43 give my estate to my cousin <immy 3barraF (3 have $ cousins #ith that same name) 2$ 4"atent o) EFt)&ns&# !0.&g*&t/5 @ NO7 #onte0-lated( Cannot .e C*)ed ./ "a)ol E%&den#e - That #hich is apparent on the face of the #riting and re%uires something to be added in order to ascertain the meaning. E-. E3 give my estate to my first cousinF 6$ 4Inte)0ed&ate !0.&g*&t/5 @ 8a/ also .e C*)ed ./ "a)ol E%&den#e "ROVIDED &t &s also -*t &n &ss*e - 2ecause of the #ords of the #riting, though seemingly clear and #ith a settled meaning, is actually e%uivocal and admits $ interpretations Note' Galse description shall not vitiate a document 3G the subject is sufficiently identified. Note' +hen the terms of the agreement are clear ? the courts have no right to interpret it 48&stake5 0eans 48&stake of Fa#t5 - 4uch mista0e may be a mutual mista0e bet#een the parties *' - +here an innocent party #as imposed upon by unfair dealing of the other. - 4uch mista0e should be alleged and proved by clear and convincing evidence 4I0-e)fe#t&on5 In#l*des' - (n inaccurate statement in the agreement or - 3ncompleteness in the #riting or - "resence or inconsistent provisions therein Note' Art. 36:6 ,##' +hen one party #as mista0en and the other party 0ne# that the instrument did not state the real agreement and concealed such fact ? the &nst)*0ent 0a/ .e )efo)0ed$ 5nd E1ception to the Parol Evidence Rule: )a!lure of t'e 4r!tten a&reement to express t'e true !ntent and a&reement of t'e part!es "*)-ose' to enable to court to ascertain the true intention of the parties or the true nature of the transaction

Parol Evidence Rule v. %est Evidence Rule' "a)ol E%&den#e R*le Best E%&den#e R*le "resupposes that the original !ontemplates a situation #here the document is available in court original #riting is not available andHo) there is a dispute as to #Cn the said #riting is the original "rohibits the varying of the terms of "rohibits the introduction of the #ritten agreement secondary evidence regardless of #Cn it varies the contents of the original (pplies *19: to documents #hich (pplies to all 0inds of #ritings are contractual in nature or E#ritten agreement (E !. 3t applies to #ills) !an be invo0ed *19: #hen there is !an be invo0ed by (1: party a controversy bet. the parties to the regardless of #Cn such party has #ritten agreement and their privies participated in the #riting involved. or any party directly affected thereby 3st E1ception to the Parol Evidence Rule: (n !ntr!ns!c amb!&u!t$- m!sta3e or !mperfect!on !n t'e 4r!tten a&reement 6Sec 5 /ar (7 !0.&g*&t&es &n the >)&tten !g)ee0ent o) >&ll 1$ 4Latent o) Int)&ns&# !0.&g*&t/5 @ Conte0-lated &n Se# A @ C*)a.le ./ "a)ol E%&den#e

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

16 ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

6rd E1ception to the Parol Evidence Rule: *'e val!d!t$ of t'e 4r!tten a&reement In the &n=*&)/ &nto the Val&d&t/ &f the !g)ee0ent( "a)ol E%&den#e 0a/ .e !d0&tted to Sho+' - The true consideration of the contract or the #ant or illegality thereof - The 3ncapacity of the parties - +Cn the contract is fictitious or absolutely simulated - +Cn there #as fraud in inducement 9th E1ception to the Parol Evidence Rule: *'e ex!stence of ot'er terms a&reed to b$ t'e part!es or t'e!r successors !n !nterest ()*ER t'e execut!on of t'e 4r!tten a&reement 1ote: (mendment in 4ection =

Se#$ 16$ +nterpretation accordin" to circumstances$ Gor the proper construction of an instrument: - the circumstances under #hich it #as made, - including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be sho#n, so that the judge may be placed in the position of those #hose language he is to interpret. (11) Se#$ 19$ Peculiar si"nification of terms$ The terms of a #riting: - are -)es*0ed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation, but evidence is admissible to sho# that they have: - a local, technical, or other#ise peculiar signification, and - #ere so used and understood in the particular instance, in #hich case the agreement must be construed accordingly. (1$) Se#$ 1:$ 2ritten !ords control printed$ +hen an instrument consists partly of #ritten #ords and partly of a printed form, !ND the t#o are inconsistent: - the fo)0e) #ont)ols the latter. (16) Se#$ 1;$ E1perts and interpreters to be used in e1plainin" certain !ritin"s$ +hen: - the characters in #hich an instrument is #ritten are difficult to be deciphered, or - the language is not understood by the court, the e%&den#e' - *G persons s0illed in deciphering the characters, or #ho understand the language - &s ad0&ss&.le to de#la)e the #ha)a#te)s o) the 0ean&ng of the lang*age$ (1.) Se#$ 1J$ $f &!o constructions, !hich preferred$ +hen the terms of an agreement have been &ntended &n a d&ffe)ent sense by the different parties to it:

9$ IN7ER"RE7!7ION OF DOCU8EN7S Se#$ 1G$ +nterpretation of a !ritin" accordin" to its le"al meanin"$ The lang*age of a +)&t&ng &s to .e &nte)-)eted' - according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its e-ecution, - &19E44 the parties intended other#ise. (P) Se#$ 11$ +nstrument construed so as to "ive effect to all provisions $ 3n the construction of an instrument, +he)e the)e a)e se%e)al -)o%&s&ons o) -a)t&#*la)s: - such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as #ill give effect to all. (=) Se#$ 12$ +nterpretation accordin" to intention < "eneral and particular provisions$ 3n the construction of an instrument: - the &ntent&on of the -a)t&es &s to .e -*)s*ed< and #hen a general and a particular provision are inconsistent, - the latter is paramount to the former. - 4o a -a)t&#*la) &ntent +&ll #ont)ol a general one that is inconsistent #ith it. (1/)

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

1. ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

that sense &s to -)e%a&l against either party in #hich he supposed the other understood it, and #hen different constructions of a provision are other#ise e%ually proper: - that is to be ta0en #hich is the 0ost fa%o)a.le to the -a)t/ &n +hose fa%o) the -)o%&s&on +as 0ade$ (1L) Se#$ 18$ #onstruction in favor of natural ri"ht$ +hen an instrument is e%ually susceptible of t#o interpretations: - one in favor of natural right (17 the other against it, - the fo)0e) &s to .e ado-ted. (1M) Se#$ 1A$ +nterpretation accordin" to usa"e$ (n instrument may be construed a##o)d&ng to *sage, in order to determine its true character. (1N) #. &ES&+/$,+A( E*+DE,#E 1$ LU!LIFIC!7ION OF >I7NESSES Se#$ 2G$ 2itnesses< their ;ualifications$ E !E"T as provided in the ne-t succeeding section: - all persons #ho can perceive, and - perceiving, can ma0e 0no#n their perception to others, 0a/ .e +&tnesses. - 'eligious or political belief, - interest in the outcome of the case, or - conviction of a crime &19E44 other#ise provided by la#, shall not .e a g)o*nd fo) d&s=*al&f&#at&on$ (1Pa) Notes' >&tness( def&ned: 'eference to a person #ho testifies in a case or gives evidence before a judicial tribunal Co0-eten#e of a >&tness( def&ned' The legal fitness or ability of a #itness to be heard on the trial of a case.

R*le on Co0-eten#/ of >&tness R' ( person #ho ta0es the #itness stand is presumed to possess the %ualification of a #itness (Presumption of #ompetency) - E,C' ")&0a Fa#&e ")es*0-t&on of In#o0-eten#/ +hen' o The person has been recently found to be of unsound mind by a court of competent jurisdiction or o *ne is an inmate of an asylum for the insane Note' The burden is upon the party objecting to the competency of a #itness to establish the grounds of incompetency. >hen a)e the L*al&f&#at&ons and D&s=*al&f&#at&ons of >&tnesses Dete)0&ned? - (t the time the #itnesses are produced for e-amination in court (called to the stand) *' - (t the time of the ta0ing of their depositions. Note' 3f they are children of tender years ? the time of the occurrence to be testified to should also ta0en into account Note' (ccording to <udge 2 (different vie# from other authors) ? :ou must consider the %ualifications of the #itness 2*T) at the time of the occurrence to be testified to and at the time the #itness is offered to determine hisCher competency. Instan#es >hen a >&tness &s NO7 D&s=*al&f&ed f)o0 Be&ng a >&tness' - Inte)est of a >&tness &n the S*.1e#t 8atte) of the !#t&on o) &ts O*t#o0e o R' 7oes 1*T dis%ualify a #itness from testifying. 3t affects only his credibility but 1*T his competency o E,C' )e #ill be dis%ualified under those covered by the rule on surviving parties, also 0no#n as the 4Dead 8an Stat*te5 or the 4S*)%&%o)sh&- D&s=*al&f&#at&on R*le5 (4ec $6) - ! CoMdefendant Be&ng De#la)ed &n Defa*lt o R' ( defendant is 1*T dis%ualified from testifying for his non-defaulting co-defendant although he has an interest in the case o Rat&o' )e may still testify because he is not considered as ta0ing part in trial as understood in the rule on default. - ! >&tness Be&ng Con%&#ted of a C)&0e o R' ( person convicted is 1*T dis%ualified from being a #itness (it only affects his credibility) 2&T:

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

1L ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

)e must ans#er to the fact of a previous final conviction (sec 6(L), 'ule 16$) or 4uch fact may be sho#n by his e-amination or the record of the judgment (sec 11) o E,C' +hen other#ise provided by la# (e-. Those guilty of perjury, falsification or false testimony are dis%ualified from being #itnesses to a #ill) ! La+/e) Be&ng a >&tness fo) h&s O+n Cl&ent o R' 3n such instance, the la#yer must leave the trial of the case to other counsel o E,C. +hen it concerns merely formal matters

Notes' Unso*nd 8&nd( def&ned' That #hich affects the competency of the #itness #hich includes any mental aberration, #hether organic or functional, or induced by drugs or hypnosis. R*les on the L*al&f&#at&on of So*ndness of 8&nd R' &nsoundness of mind does not per se render a #itness incompetent, one may be medically insane but in la# capable of giving competent testimony. Note' (s long as the #itness can convey ideas by #ords or signs and give sufficiently intelligent ans#ers to %uestions propounded, she is competent as a #itness E,E1 if one is feeble-minded, a mental retardate, or is schi5ophrenic. >hen Sho*ld a >&tness .e of So*nd 8&nd? - *19: at the time of their production for e-amination - 8ental unsoundness of the #itness at the time the fact to be testified occurred ? (ffects *19: his credibility. >hen a)e DeafM0*tes Co0-etent >&tnesses? - +hen they: (1) !an understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oathJ ($) !an comprehend facts they are going to testify to andJ (6) !an communicate their ideas through a %ualified interpreter. ")es*0-t&on of So*ndness of 8&nd R' Every person is presumed to be of sound mind and the person challenging such has the burden of proving other#ise - E,C' ")&0a Fa#&e ")es*0-t&on of In#o0-eten#/ +hen' o The person has been recently found to be of unsound mind by a court of competent jurisdiction o *ne is an inmate of an asylum for the insane In the Case of a Ch&ld >&tness( the Co*)t &n Dete)0&n&ng h&s Co0-eten#/ 8*st Cons&de) h&s Ca-a#&t/' - (t the time the fact to be testified to occurred, such that he could receive correct impressions thereofJ - To comprehend the obligation of an oathJ and - To relate those facts truthfully at the time he is offered as a #itness. Ben#e( the court should ta0e into account his capacity for observation, recollection and communication.

>hen O.1e#t&on to a >&tness .e 8ade' R' *bjection to the %ualification of the #itness must be made before he has given any testimony - E,C' 3G the incompetency appears during the trial, the objection must be made as soon as it becomes apparent. Note' 3f not made #Cin the said time: right to object is deemed +(3,E7 2 E&nds of In#o0-eten#/ to 7est&f/ 1. !.sol*te' Gorbidden to testify in any matter o 2y reason of mental incapacity or immaturity (sec $1) o 2y reason of marriage (sec $$) $. Relat&%e' Gorbidden only on certain matters o 2y reason of death or insanity of adverse party (7ead 8anIs 4tatute) sec $6 o 2y reason of "rivileged !ommunication (4ec $.) Se#$ 21$ Dis;ualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity $ The ff -e)sons #annot .e +&tnesses: (a) Those +hose 0ental #ond&t&on: - at the t!me of t'e!r product!on for exam!nat!on, - is such that they are incapable of intelligently ma0ing 0no#n their perception to othersJ (b) Ch&ld)en +hose 0ental 0at*)&t/ &s s*#h as to )ende) the0 &n#a-a.le : - of perceiving the facts respecting #hich they are e-amined and - of relating them truthfully. (1=a)

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

1M ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

>hen &s a Ch&ld Cons&de)ed a Co0-etent >&tness R' ( child is competent if he can perceive and ma0e 0no#n his perception - E,C' 3G the childIs testimony is punctured #C serious inconsistencies as to lead one to believe that the child #as coached. !n Intell&gent Bo/ &s Undo*.tedl/ the Best - ( child is little influenced by the suggestions of others and describes objects and occurrence as he has really seen them - !hildren of sound mind are li0ely to be more observant of incidents #hich ta0e place #ithin their vie# than older people. Ch&ld >&tness O)d&na)/ >&tness *nly the judge is allo#ed to as0 *pposing counsels are allo#ed to %uestions to the child during as0 preliminary e-amination 9eading %uestions are allo#ed They are generally not allo#ed Testimony in a narrative from is 3t is 1*T allo#ed allo#ed The child #itness is assisted by a (n ordinary #itness is not assisted facilitator Se#$ 22$ Dis;ualification by reason of marria"e$ %ur!n& t'e!r marr!a&e, ne&the) the h*s.and no) the +&fe 0a/ test&f/ fo) o) aga&nst the othe)' - #ithout the consent of the affected spouse, E !E"T: - in a civil case by one against the other, or - in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latterQs direct descendants or ascendants. ($/a) Notes' R*le on 8a)&tal D&s=*al&f&#at&on 2S-o*sal I00*n&t/3' R' 7uring the marriage, neither the husband nor the #ife may testify for or against the other #Co the consent of the affected spouse E,CE"7IONS' 'ule on 7is%ualification does 1*T (pply +hen: 1. +hen the testimony #as made outside the marriage $. 3n a civil case by one spouse against another 6. 3n a criminal case for a crime committed by one spouse against the other or the latterIs direct descendants or ascendants

Reason' The crime may be considered as having been committed against the spouse and hence, the conjugal harmony sought to be protected no longer e-ists) o 9imited only to direct ascendants and descendants R spouse .. People v. #asta<eda: ( complaint filed by a #ife against her husband for falsification of her signature in a deed of sale involving their conjugal property. L. $rdonio v. Da;ui"an: +hen the marital relations are so strained, there is no more consideration for applying the said rule. To apply the e-ception there must be an offense that directly attac0s, or directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal relations. M. +hen there is imputation of a crime by one spouse against the other Note' 4Direct Ascendants and Descendants= K "arents and !hildren *19: o Nat*)e of ")oh&.&t&on: (bsolute dis%ualification or prohibition against the spouseIs testifying to any fact affecting the other spouse ho#ever the fact may have ac%uired Re=*&s&tes &n O)de) fo) 8a)&tal D&s=*al&f&#at&on R*le to !--l/' 1. The marriage is valid and e-isting at the time of the offer of testimonyJ and $. The other spouse is a party to the action. >ho 0a/ O.1e#t' *nly the other spouse #ho is a party to the case. - Note' *bjections to the competency of the #itness-spouse may also be #aived. (E-. Testimony against a spouse is a #aiver of a testimony in rebuttal) Rat&onale Fo) Ba%&ng S*#h R*le - !onsidering the identity of interest bet#een the spouses, there is conse%uent danger of committing perjury - (lso, the rule is in order to guard marital confidence and to prevent domestic disunion 7h&s sho*ld NO7 .e #onf*sed +H 48a)&tal ")&%&lege5 2see se# 29 notes3 Se#$ 26$ Dis;ualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party $ "arties or assignor of parties to a case, *' persons in #hose behalf a case is prosecuted:

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

1N ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

against an e-ecutor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or - against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of: - such deceased person or against - such person of unsound mind, #annot test&f/ as to an/ 0atte) of fa#t OCCURRIN ' - before the death of such deceased person or - before such person became of unsound mind. ($/a) Notes' S*)%&%o)sh&- D&s=*al&f&#at&on R*le o) Dead 8an Stat*te - !onstitutes only a -a)t&al d&s=*al&f&#at&on' ( #itness is not completely dis%ualified 2&T is only prohibited from testifying in certain matters specified - D&s=*al&f&#at&on ONLC a--l&es to' ( civil case or special proceeding over the estate of a deceased or insane person - In#o0-eten#/ to 7est&f/ !--l&es' #Cn the deceased died before or after the commencement of the action against him prov!ded he is dead at the time of the testimony

The dis%ualification does 1*T apply: o #hen the counterclaim has been interposed by the defendant as the plaintiff #ould thereby be testifying in his defense o #hen the deceased contracted #ith the plaintiff through an agent and said agent is alive and can testify, but the testimony of the plaintiff should be limited to acts performed by the agent. !ss&gno)( def&ned' (ssignor of a cause of action #hich has arisen, and not the assignor of a right assigned before any cause of action has arisen 3nterest in the outcome of the suit, per se, does not dis%ualify a #itness from testifying

Re;uirement ,o. 5: *'e case !s a&a!nst t'e executor or adm!n!strator or ot'er representat!ve of a person deceased or of unsound m!nd8 3t is necessary that the said defendant is being sued and defends in such representative capacity and not in his individual capacity Even if the property has been judicially adjudicated to the heirs, they are still protected under the rule The protection #ould e-tend to the heirs of the deceased and the guardians of persons of unsound mind

Re=*&)e0ents fo) the Dead 8an Stat*te to !--l/' 1. The #itness offered for e-amination is a party plaintiff, or the assignor of said party, or a person in #hose behalf a case is prosecutedJ $. The case is against the e-ecutor or administrator or other representative of a person deceased or of unsound mindJ 6. The case is upon a claim or demand against the estate of such person #ho is deceased or of unsound mind .. The testimony to be given is on matter of fact occurring before the death, of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. Re;uirement ,o. 3: *'e 4!tness offered for exam!nat!on !s a part$ pla!nt!ffor t'e ass!&nor of sa!d part$- or a person !n 4'ose be'alf a case !s prosecuted 4uch plaintiff must be the real party in interest and not a mere nominal party.

Re;uirement ,o. 6: *'e case !s upon a cla!m or demand a&a!nst t'e estate of suc' person 4'o !s deceased or of unsound m!nd The rule does not apply #here it is the administrator #ho brings an action to recover property allegedly belonging to the estate or the action is by the heirs of a deceased #ho represented the latter This is restricted to debts or demands enforceable by personal actions upon #hich money judgments can be rendered. (n action for damages for breach of agreement to devise property for services rendered is a claim against an estate

Re;uirement ,o. 9: *'e test!mon$ to be &!ven !s on matter of fact occurr!n& before t'e deat'- of suc' deceased person or before suc' person became of unsound m!nd.

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

1P ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

1egative testimony (testimony that a fact did not occur during the lifetime of the deceased) is 1*T covered by the prohibition ? as such fact e-ists even after the decedentIs demise

7he R*le Does NO7 !--l/' 1. 9and registration cases instituted by the decedentIs representatives (since the oppositors are considered defendants and may therefore testify against the petitioner) $. 3t does not apply in cadastral cases ? since there is no plaintiff or defendant 6. +hen the testimony is offered to prove a claim less than #hat is established under a #ritten document or is intended to prove a fraudulent transaction against the deceased o "rovided such fraud is first established by evidence al!unde o To apply the rule, the testimony must be against the estate .. +hen the dis%ualification is #aived - #hen the defendant: o does not timely object to the admission of such evidence or o testifies on the prohibited matters or cross e-amines thereon o or offers evidence to rebut such prohibited testimony Reason fo) the R*le' 1. To prevent perjury $. To protect the estate from fictitious claims 6. To give the parties an e%ual opportunity to present evidence

be e-amined as to: - any communication made by the client to him, or his advice - given thereon in the course of, or #ith a vie# to, professional employment, 1*' can an atto)ne/Ns se#)eta)/( stenog)a-he)( o) #le)k be e-amined: - #ithout the consent of the client (17 his employer, - concerning any fact the 0no#ledge of #hich has been ac%uired in such capacityJ (c) ( -e)son a*tho)&Oed to -)a#t&#e 0ed&#&ne( s*)ge)/ o) o.stet)&#s cannot in a civil case: - #ithout the consent of the patient, be e-amined as to: - any advice or treatment given by him or any information - #hich he may have ac%uired in attending such patient in a professional capacity #hich information: - #as necessary to enable him to act in such capacity, and - #hich #ould blac0en the reputation of the patientJ d) ( 0&n&ste) o) -)&est cannot: - #ithout the consent of the person ma0ing the confession, be e-amined as to: - any confession made to or any advice - given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to #hich the minister or priest belongsJ (e) ( -*.l&# off&#e) cannot be e-amined: - dur!n& '!s term of off!ce +R after4ards, - as to communications made to him in official confidence, - #hen the court finds that the public interest #ould suffer by the disclosure. ($1a) Notes' Bas&s of the ")&%&lege' The confidential nature of the communication >ho 8a/ O.1e#t Unde) the D&s=*al&f&#at&on R*les ? *19: by the persons protected thereunder (upon #hom the testimony is directed). They may also #aive the right to object. [8!RI7!L "RIVILE E]

Se#$ 29$ Dis;ualification by reason of privile"ed communication$ The ff$ -e)sons #annot test&f/ as to 0atte)s lea)ned &n #onf&den#e &n the ff$ #ases: (a) The h*s.and o) the +&fe, dur!n& or after t'e marr!a&e: - cannot be e-amined #Cout the consent of the other - as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage E !E"T: - in a #&%&l #ase by one against the other, or - in a #)&0&nal #ase for a crime committed by one against the other or the latterQs direct descendants or ascendantsJ (b) (n atto)ne/ cannot: - #ithout the consent of his client,

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

1= ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

Re=*&s&tes fo) the D&s=*al&f&#at&on B/ Reason of 8a)&tal ")&%&lege to !--l/' 1. There is a valid marital relationJ $. The privilege is invo0ed #ith respect to a confidential communication bet#een the spouses during said marriageJ 6. The spouse against #hom such evidence is being offered has not given his or her consent to such testimony. Instan#es >hen the ")&%&lege Cannot Be Cla&0ed' 1. +ith respect to communications made prior to the marriage of the spouses $. +ith respect to communication not intended to be 0ept in confidence (e-. dying declaration of a husband to his #ife as to #ho #as his assailant since it is intended to be reported) 6. +hen the information is overheard by a third party #hether he ac%uired the information legally or not. (( 6 rd person is not covered by the prohibition) o Provided: There must be no collusion bet#een the 6 rd person and one of the spouses. .. 3n a conspiracy bet#een spouses to commit a crime - since it is not the intention of the la# to protect the commission of a crime. L. +hen the spouses are living separately and there is an active hostility. 2ut if there is a chance to reconcile, then this privilege #ill apply. M. +hen #aived Note' (ny information received during the marriage is presumed to be confidential D&s=*al&f&#at&on B/ Reason of D&s=*al&f&#at&on B/ Reason of 8a))&age 2Se# 223 8a)&tal ")&%&lege 2Se# 29a3 !an be invo0ed *19: if one of the !an be claimed #Cn the other spouse spouses is a party to the action is a party to the action (pplies *19: if the marriage is !an be claimed even after the e-isting at the time the testimony is marriage is dissolved offered !onstitutes a vital prohibition for or (pplies *19: to confidential against the spouse of the #itness communication bet#een spouses *bjection #ould be raised on the The objection of privilege is raised ground of marriage. Even if the #hen confidential marital testimony is for or against the other communication is in%uired into. spouse.

Note' +aiving 4ec $$ does not prevent the spouse from invo0ing sec $. and vice versa. 4o even if the information is not confidential, the spouse may still invo0e sec $$ #hich is an absolute dis%ualification. [!77ORNECMCLIEN7 "RIVILE E] Re=*&s&tes fo) the D&s=*al&f&#at&on Based on !tto)ne/MCl&ent 2!MC3 ")&%&lege to !--l/ 1. There is an attorney and client relationJ $. The privilege is invo0ed #ith respect to a confidential communication bet#een them in the course of professional employmentJ 6. The client has not given his consent to the attorneyIs testimony. Note' 3G the attyIs secretary or cler0 is sought to be established ? then 2*T) the consent of the atty and the client is re%uired. Note' The client o#ns the privilege and therefore he alone can invo0e it. "rohibition is also applicable even to a counsel de of!c!o. Bas&s' public policy Conf&dent&al Co00*n&#at&on' The attorney must have been consulted in his professional capacity E,E1 if no fee has been paid. - 3t includes preliminary communications made for the purpose of creating the (-! relationship. 2B*t if it is not for the purpose of creating the (-! relationship ? it #ill not be protected even if the client subse%uently hires the same attorney) - 3ncludes verbal statements as #ell as documents or papers entrusted to the attorney Instan#es +hen the !MC ")&%&lege Does NO7 !--l/' 1. 3ntended to be made publicJ $. 3ntended to be communicated to othersJ 6. 3ntended for an unla#ful purposeJ .. 'eceived from third person not acting in behalf or as agent of the clientJ L. 8ade in the presence of third parties #ho are strangers to the attorney-client relationship. 7he -e)&od to .e #ons&de)ed &s' - the date #hen the privileged communication #as made by the client to the attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the past or #ith respect to a crime intended to be committed in the future BU7 Co00*n&#at&on Rega)d&ng' - ( crime already committed - &s -)&%&leged #o00*n&#at&on

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

$/ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

!ontemplated criminal acts or in aid or furtherance thereof - &s not #o%e)ed$

7he !MC ")&%&lege Does NO7 !tta#h' - +hen the attorney is a conspirator - +hen all the attorney has to do is to either affirm or deny the secret revealed by the client to the court - +hen the information is voluntarily given after the attorney has refused to accept employment. ["BCSICI!NM"!7IEN7 "RIVILE E] "*)-ose' 3t is intended to facilitate confidential disclosure by a patient to a physician of all facts and symptoms #Co apprehension to the end that the physician may form a correct opinion and may safely treat his patient. Re=*&s&tes fo) the D&s=*al&f&#at&on Based on "h/s&#&anM"at&ent 2"M"3 ")&%&lege to !--l/ 1. The physician is authori5ed to practice medicine, surgery, or obstetricsJ $. The information #as ac%uired or the advice or treatment #as given by him in his professional capacity for the purpose of treating and curing the patientJ 6. The information, advice or treatment, if revealed, #ould blac0en the reputation of the patientJ .. The privilege is invo0ed in a civil case, #hether patient is a party or not. Note' 3t is not necessary that the "-" relationship #as created through the voluntary act of the patient. 7eath of the patient does not e-tinguish the relation. Note' The privilege e-tends to all forms of communications as #ell as to the professional observations and e-aminations of the patient 7he "M" ")&%&lege Does NO7 !tta#h' 1. The communication #as not given in confidenceJ $. The communication is irrelevant to the professional employmentJ 6. The communication #as made for an unla#ful purpose, as #hen it is intended for the commission or concealment of a crimeJ .. The information #as intended to be made publicJ L. There #as a #aiver of the privilege either by provisions of contract or la#.

M. &nder 'ule $P of the 'ules of !ourt, o The results of the physical and mental e-amination of a person, #hen ordered by the court, are intended to be made public, hence not privileged. o (lso, result of autopsies or post mortem e-aminations are generally intended to be divulged in court. 7he ")&%&lege 8a/ !lso .e >a&%ed' - EF. Section 9 of said Rule 5>: if the party e-amined o.ta&ns a )e-o)t on said e-amination or takes the de-os&t&on of the eFa0&ne)( he thereby #aives any privilege regarding any other e-amination of said physical or mental condition conducted or to be conducted on him by any other physician. - EF$ +aiver of the privilege by contract may be found in stipulations in life insurance policies. [8INIS7ERH"RIES7M"ENI7EN7 "RIVILE E] Re=*&s&tes fo) the D&s=*al&f&#at&on Based on 8&n&ste)H")&estM"en&tent ")&%&lege to !--l/ 1. That the same #ere made pursuant to a religious duty enjoined in the course of discipline of the sect or denomination to #hich they belongJ and $. They must be confidential and penitential in character. - EF' under seal of the confessional Note' 3t is the person ma0ing the confession #ho can invo0e the privilege. ["RIVILE ED CO88UNIC!7ION 7O "UBLIC OFFICERS] Re=*&s&tes fo) the D&s=*al&f&#at&on Based on ")&%&leged Co00*n&#at&on to "*.l&# Off&#e)s to !--l/ 1. That it #as made to the public officer in official confidenceJ $. That public interest #ould suffer by the disclosure of such communication, as in the case of 4tate secrets. Note: +hen no public interest #ill be prejudiced - this rule #ill 1*T apply. [O7BER INS7!NCES OF "RIVILE E]

R( 93 as amended b$ R( 1:;;, the publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any ne#spaper, maga5ine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any ne#s report or

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

$1 ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

information appearing in said publication unless the court or a )ouse or committee of !ongress finds that such revelation is demanded by the 4ecurity of the 4tate.

(rt. 233 of t'e Labor .ode - (ll information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communications and shall not be used as evidence in the 19'!, and conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court regarding any matter ta0en up at the conciliation proceedings conducted by them. ,oters cannot be compelled to reveal their ballots Trade 4ecrets #ill be covered by this privilege 3nformerIs "rivilege' "rosecutor is not to be compelled to dispose the identity of the informer unless the informer is already 0no#n to the accused and #hen the identity of the informer is vital. Those covered in the 4ecrecy of 2an0 7eposits 9a# E* .M.: E-ecutive "rivilege 3ncome Ta- returns (nti-Oraft !ases

indispensable in prosecuting a crime against the descendant or by one parent against the other ((rt. $1L). - 2oth parental and filial privileges are granted to any person Reason fo) the R*le' The reason for the rule is to preserve Efamily cohesionF Note' The privilege may no# be invo0ed in both civil and criminal cases. 6$ !D8ISSIONS !ND CONFESSIONS Se#$ 2;$ Admission of a party$ The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. ($$) Notes' !d0&ss&on( def&ned' (ny statement of fact made by a party against his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for #hich he contends or is inconsistent #ith the facts alleged by him.

(n admission is a statement of fact #hich does not involve an ac0no#ledgement of guilt or liability 3t may be e-press or tacit 8ay be made by third persons

3t involves an ac0no#ledgment of guilt or liability

2$ 7ES7I8ONI!L "RIVILE E Se#$ 2:$ Parental and filial privile"e$ 1o person may be compelled to test&f/ aga&nst h&s' - parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. ($/a) Notes' - 3t is not a rule of dis%ualification but #as a privilege 1*T to testify - hence it #as referred to as 4f&l&al -)&%&lege - )o#ever, under the Gamily !ode, the descendant may be compelled to testify against his parents and grandparents, if such testimony is

8ust be e-press !an be made only by the party himself and in some instances, is admissible against his co-accused EF-)ess !d0&ss&ons( def&ned' are those made in definite, certain and une%uivocal language. I0-l&ed !d0&ss&ons( def&ned' are those #hich may be inferred from the acts, declarations or omission of a party. Therefore, an admission may be implied from conduct, statement of silence of a party. Re=*&s&tes fo) !d0&ss&ons to .e !d0&ss&.le 1. They must involve matters of fact and not of la#J $. They must be categorical and definiteJ 6. They must be 0no#ingly and voluntarily madeJ .. They must be adverse to the admitterIs interests, other#ise it #ould be self-serving and inadmissible. Othe) Fo)0s of !d0&ss&ons'

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

$$ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

,erbal or #ritten, e-press or tacit, judicial or e-trajudicial <udicial: *ne made in connection #C a judicial proceedings (conclusive ? does not re%uire proof) - E-trajudicial: (ny other admissions (4ec $M to 6$) ('ebuttable ? re%uires proof) EF$ Testimony of the accused in a parricide case to the effect that he #as married to the victim is an admission against his penal interest and #ill sustain his conviction even in the absence of independent evidence to prove such marriage !d0&ss&on (n admission need not be against oneIs proprietary or pecuniary interest, 8ade by the party himself, and is a primary evidence and competent though he be present in court and ready to testify (dmission can be made any time De#la)at&on !ga&nst Inte)est The declaration against interest must have been made against the proprietary or pecuniary interest of the parties 8ust have been made by a person #ho is either deceased or unable to testify The declaration against interest must have been made ante l!tem motam (prior to the controversy)

Glight from justice is an admission by conduct and circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt (ttempts to suppress evidence (e-. 7estruction of evidence) The act of repairing facilities after an injury has been sustained therein ? is 1*T an implied admission of negligence by conduct (3t is merely a measure of e-treme caution)

Se#$ 2J$ $ffer of compromise not admissible$ In #&%&l #ases, an offer of compromise: - is not an admission of any liability, and - is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. In #)&0&nal #ases: E !E"T: - those involving %uasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or - those allo#ed by la# to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused: - may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. ( plea of guilty later #ithdra#n *' an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense: - is not ad0&ss&.le &n e%&den#e (O(314T the accused #ho made the plea or offer. (n offe) to -a/ *' the -a/0ent of medical, hospital or other e-penses o##as&oned ./ an injury: - is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. ($.a) Notes' Co0-)o0&se, def&ned' (n agreement made bet#een t#o or more parties as a settlement of the matters in dispute. C&%&l Cases R' (n offer of compromise is not a tacit admission of liability and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. 3t cannot be proved over the objection of the offeror. E,C' &nless the offer is not only to C)&0&nal Cases R' (n offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. E,C' (1)Those involving %uasi-

SelfMSe)%&ng 7est&0on/( def&ned' *ne #hich has been made e-tra-judicially by the party to favor his interests. 3t is not admissible in evidence. - 3t does not include his testimony as a #itness in court - 1o application to a judicial declaration - +hen the statement #as not made in anticipation of a future litigation ? 3t cannot be considered self-serving Self se)%&ng de#la)at&ons 0ade ./ a -a)t/ a)e ad0&ss&.le &n h&s o+n .ehalf &n the ff' 1. +hen they form part of res &estae, including spontaneous statements and verbal actsJ $. +hen they are in the form of complaint and e-clamations of pain and sufferingJ 6. +hen they are part of a confession offered by the prosecution .. +hen the credibility of a party has been assailed on the ground that his testimony is a recent fabrication (Testimonial 'ehabilitation) L. +hen they are offered by the opponent M. +hen they are offered #ithout objection, the evidence cannot after#ard be objected to as incompetent. !d0&ss&on ./ Cond*#t

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

$6 ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

Ebuy peaceF but amounts to an admission of liability (compromise directed only to the amount to be paid). Rat&o &n C&%&l Cases' 3t is the policy of the la# to favor the settlement of disputes, to foster compromises and to promote peace.

offenses (criminal negligence) or ($)those allo#ed by la# to be compromised 3n criminal cases ho#ever, the accused may be permitted to prove that such offer #as not made under consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid criminal action.


by an act, declaration, or omission of another, E !E"T as hereinafter provided. ($La)

Instan#es +hen Offe) of Co0-)o0&se &s !d0&ss&.le - In #ases of %&olat&on of the &nte)nal )e%en*e la+s o 4ince the la# provides that the payment of any 3' ta- may be compromised, and all criminal violations may li0e#ise be compromised E ! those already filed and those involving fraud. - In )a-e #ases o R' 3n effect it may be compromised by actual marriage o E,C' (n offer to compromise for monetary consideration is an implied admission. o People v. *alde?: (n offer of marriage during the investigation is an admission of guilt ood Sa0a)&tan R*le' (n offer to pay or the actual payment of the medical, hospital or other e-penses by reason of the victimIs injuries is not admissible to prove civil or criminal liability.

")&n#&-le of Res Inte) !l&os !#ta !lte)& No#e)ee Non' Things done bet#een strangers ought not to injure those #ho are not parties to it. - 1st "art: 4ec $P, rule 16/ - $nd "art: 4ec 6., rule 16/ - E,C' to the 'ule: +hen the 6rd person is a o 4ec $=: ( partner, agent, joint o#ner, joint debtor, or has a joint interest #ith the party o 4ec 6/: ( co-conspirator o 4ec 61: ( privy of the party Bas&s of the R' ( party is not bound by any agreement to #hich he has no 0no#ledge and to #hich he has not given his consent. )is rights cannot be prejudiced by the declaration, act or omission of another E ! by virtue of a particular relation bet#een them. Bas&s of the E,C' ( third party may be so united in interest #ith the partyopponent that the other personIs admissions may be receivable against the party himself. The term EprivyF is the orthodo- catch#ord for the relation.

No Co0-)o0&se &s Val&d U-on the Follo+&ng Cases' 1. !ivil status of persons $. ,alidity of marriage or legal separation 6. (ny ground for legal separation .. Guture support L. <urisdiction of courts M. Guture legitime N. )abeas !orpus and Election !ases. Se#$ 28$ Admission by third party$ The )&ghts of a -a)t/ #annot .e -)e1*d&#ed'

Se#$ 2A$ Admission by co@partner or a"ent$ The a#t o) de#la)at&on of a partner or a&ent of t'e part$: - #ithin the scope of his authority and - during the e-istence of the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such party (GTE': - the partnership or agency is sho#n by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule applies:

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

$. ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


to the act or declaration of a joint o#ner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested #ith the party. ($Ma)

Notes' !--l&#at&on of the Re=*&)e0ent that the Cons-&)a#/ 0*st ")el&0&na)&l/ .e ")o%ed ./ E%&den#e othe) than the Cons-&)ato)Ps !d0&ss&on - (pplies *19: to e-trajudicial acts or statements - 1*T to judicial admission as to a testimony given on the #itness stand at the trial #here the party adversely effected has the opportunity to cross e-amine the declarant !n !d0&ss&on ./ a Cons-&)ato) &s !d0&ss&.le !ga&nst h&s CoM #ons-&)ato) - 4uch conspiracy is sho#n by evidence aliunde o !onspiracy must be established by prima facie proof in the judgment of the courtJ - The admission #as made during the e-istence of the conspiracy o (fter the termination of a conspiracy, the statements of one conspirator may not be accepted as evidence against any of the other conspiratorsJ - The admission related to the conspiracy itself o 4hould relate to the common object. EF&sten#e of the Cons-&)a#/ 8a/ .e Infe))ed' - Grom the acts of the accused - Grom the confessions of the accused - *r by prima facie proof thereof Note' 3f there is no independent evidence of the conspiracy ? the e-trajudicial confession !(11*T be used against his co-accused ( res !nter al!os rule applies to both E < and < admissions) - )ere, there is no need to produce direct evidence - independent circumstantial evidence #ill suffice. L*ant*0 of E%&den#e to ")o%e Cons-&)a#/' !lear and convincing evidence R*les on EFt)a1*d&#&al !d0&ss&ons 8ade ./ a Cons-&)ato) !F7ER the #ons-&)a#/ had te)0&nated and BEFORE the t)&al R' 1*T admissible - E,C' (dmissible against the co-conspirator IF: 1. 8ade in the presence of the co-conspirator #ho e-pressly or impliedly agreed therein ? as there is tacit admission under 4ec 6$

Re=*&s&tes fo) 7h&s EF#e-t&on 7o !--l/' 1. That the partnership, agency, or joint interest is established by evidence other than the act or declaration o "artnership relation must be sho#nJ $. The act or declaration is #ithin the scope of the partnership, agency or joint interest o +ith regard to a non-partnership affair: The fact that each partner has individually made a substantially similar admission does not render the aggregate admission competent against the firm. 6. 4uch act or declaration must have been made during the e-istence of the partnership, agency or joint interest. o 4tatements made after the partnership has been dissolved do not fall #ithin the e-ception o 2&T if they are made in connection #ith the #inding up of the partnership ? such admission is 4T399 admissible. R*le on !d0&ss&on 8ade B/ Co*nsel R' They are (78344329E against the client as the counsel acts in representation and as an agent of the client - E,C' 3t must not amount to a compromise or confession of judgment (2ecause in compromise, the rule re%uires the consent of the client) Do&nt def&ned' 3t does not refer to mere community of interest but should be understood according to its meaning !n sol!dum and not mancomunada. Se#$ 6G$ Admission by conspirator$ The act or declaration of a conspirator: - relating to the conspiracy and - during its e-istence, may be given in evidence: - against the co-conspirator - (GTE' the conspiracy is sho#n by evidence other than such act of declaration. ($N)

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

$L ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

$. +here the facts stated in said admission are confirmed in the individual e-trajudicial confessions made by the co-conspirators after their apprehension (&nte)lo#k&ng #onfess&ons3 6. (s a circumstance to determine the credibility of a #itness .. (s circumstantial evidence to sho# the probability of the coconspiratorIs participation in the offense. In o)de) that the E,MD state0ents of a #oMa##*sed 0a/ .e taken &nto #ons&de)at&on &n 1*dg&ng the test&0on/ of a +&tness it is necessary that: 1. The statements are made by several accused, $. The same are in all material respects identical, and 6. There could have been no collusion among said co-accused in ma0ing such statements. Se#$ 61$ Admission by privies$ +here one derives title to property from another: - the act, declaration, or omission of the latter, #hile holding the title, - in relation to the property, is evidence against the former. ($P) Notes' ")&%&t/( def&ned' mutual succession of relationship to the same rights of property. ")&%&es( def&ned' those #ho have mutual or successive relationship to the same right of property or subject matter 7o .e !d0&ss&.le( 7he Follo+&ng Re=*&s&tes 8*st Con#*)' 1. There must be a relation of privity bet#een the party and the declarantJ $. The admission #as made by the declarant, as predecessor in interest, #hile holding the title to the propertyJ 6. The admission is in relation to said property. 7he -)&%&t/ &n estate 0a/ a)&se : by succession, by acts mort!s causa or by acts !nter v!vos. Se#$ 62$ Admission by silence$ (n act or declaration: - made in the presence and #ithin the hearing or observation of a party #ho does or says nothing

#hen the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and #hen proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him. ($6a) Notes' 7o .e !d0&ss&.le the FF Re=*&s&tes 8*st Con#*)' 1. )e must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other personJ $. )e must have had the opportunity to deny it 6. )e must have understood the statementJ .. )e must have an interest to object, such that he #ould naturally have done so, as if the statement #as not trueJ L. The facts are #ithin his 0no#ledgeJ M. The fact admitted or the inference to be dra#n from his silence is material to the issue. 7he )*le on ad0&ss&on ./ s&len#e a--l&es' - +here a person #as surprised in the act or - Even if he is already in the custody of the police. - (pplies to both civil and criminal cases R*les on Vol*nta)/ "a)t&#&-at&on &n a Reena#t0ent of the C)&0e Cond*#ted ./ the "ol&#e R' 3t is considered a ta#&t ad0&ss&on of #o0-l&#&t/$ - Note' To be given any evidentiary #eight, the validity and efficacy of the confession must first be sho#n. Note' 3mplication of guilt is not derived from mere silence but from the ac%uiescence in participating in the reenactment !--l&#at&on of 7he R*le' - DOES NO7 !--l/ IF: the statements adverse to the party #ere made in the course of an official investigation, as #here: o he #as pointed out in a custodial investigation and #as neither as0ed to reply nor comment on such imputations or o #hen the party had a justifiable reason to remain silent, as #hen he #as acting on advice of counsel - It 8a/ !--l/' To adverse statements in #riting 3G the party #as carrying on a mutual correspondence #ith the declarant.

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

$M ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

)o#ever, if there #as no mutual correspondence, the rule is rela-ed since such prompt response can generally not be e-pected if the party still has to resort to a #ritten reply. Bas&s of R*le' 3t is basic instinct or a natural reaction to resist or deny a false statement o Do#t)&ne of !do-t&%e !d0&ss&on' ( partyIs reaction to a statement or action by another person #hen it is reasonable to treat the partyIs reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person. Instan#es >he)e 7he)e &s NO I0-l&ed !d0&ss&on 1. (llegations of unli%uidated damages $. (llegations #hich are not material to the cause of action 6. !onclusions of factCla# .. (llegations of usury other than in a complaint L. 3f defendant has not filed his ans#er and is declared in default. Se#$ 66$ #onfession$ The declaration of an accused ac0no#ledging his guilt: - of the offense charged, or - of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him. ($=a) Notes' Confess&on( Def&ned' ( categorical ac0no#ledgement of guilt made by an accused in a criminal case, #Co any e-culpatory statement or e-planation. - 3G the accused admits the act 2&T alleges a justification ? it is 0e)el/ an ad0&ss&on - Confess&on of D*dg0ent &n C&%&l Cases K (dmission of 9iability Fo)0s of Confess&on' - *ral and under oath - 3n #riting (need not be under oath) Note' 4ec 66 refers to E -< !onfessions 7/-es of Confess&ons 1. D*d&#&al Confess&on' *ne made before a court in #hich the case is pending and in the course of legal proceedings therein

2y itself, can sustain conviction, even for a capital offense 2ut for !apital *ffenses: there must be evidence presented other than the plea of guilty, also proof that such plea #as made voluntarily and #C full comprehension $. EFt)a1*d&#&al 2E,MD3 Confess&on' *ne made in any other place or occasion o R' !annot sustain a conviction o E,C: &nless corroborated by evidence of the corpus del!ct! o o Re=*&)e0ents fo) the !d0&ss&.&l&t/ of E,MD Confess&ons 1. The confession must involve an e-press and categorical ac0no#ledgment of guiltJ $. The facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offenseJ 6. The confession must have been given voluntarilyJ .. the confession must have been intelligently made, the accused reali5ing the importance or legal significance of this actJ L. There must have been no violation of 4ection 1$, (rt. 333 of the 1=PN !onstitution. ('ights in custodial investigation) R*le on ")es*0-t&on of Vol*nta)&ness' !onfessions are presumed to be voluntary and the onus is on the defense to prove that it #as involuntary (obtained by violence, intimidation, threat or promise of re#ard or leniency) C&)#*0stan#es Beld to .e +ndicia of Vol*nta)&ness of a Confess&on' - The confession contains details #hich the police could not have supplied or invented. - The confession contains details #hich could have been 0no#n only to the accused - The confession contains statements #hich are e-culpatory in nature - The confession contains corrections made by the accused in his hand#riting or #ith his initials and #hich corrected facts are best 0no#n to the accused. - The accused is sufficiently educated and a#are of the conse%uences of his act. - 3t #as made in the presence of impartial #itnesses #ith the accused acting normally on that occasion - There is lac0 of motive on the part of the investigators to e-tract a confession, #ith improbabilities and inconsistencies in the attempt of the accused to repudiate his confession. - The accused %uestioned the voluntariness of the confession only for the first time at the trial of the case. (Estoppel)

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

$N ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

The contents of the confession #ere affirmed by the accused in his voluntary participation in the reenactment of the crime, as sho#n by his silent ac%uiescence thereto. The facts contained in the confession #ere confirmed by other subse%uent facts (fter his confession, the accused #as subjected to physical e-amination and there #ere no signs of maltreatment or the accused never complained, but not #here he failed to complain to the judge on a reasonable apprehension of further maltreatment as he #as still in the custody of his torturers

Huestioning initiated by a la# officer after a person has been ta0en into custody or deprived of freedom - "resent #here the investigation ceases to be a general in%uiry and begins to focus on a particular suspect ta0en into custody and as0ed %uestions that lead into eliciting incriminating statements - 3ncludes EinvitationsF to an investigation Note' There is 1* presumption of regularity in !3s R&ghts of a "e)son *nde) In%est&gat&on 1. 'ight to be informed of ones right to remain silent, to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his o#n choice and the charges against him $. 'ight to be provided #ith counsel if accused cannot afford one - 1ote: +aiver of 1 D $ must be made: 3n #riting (17 in the presence of counsel 6. 'ight not to be treated #ith torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or other means #hich vitiate free #ill .. 'ight not to be placed under secret detention or under a solitary, incommunicado form of detention NO7E' !onfession obtained in violation of these rights is 31(78344329E ((rt 6 4ection 1$, 1=PN !onstitution) Instan#es of V&t&ated Confess&on @ Rende)s E,MDC IN!D8ISSIBLE - (ny form of coercion, #hether physical, emotional, or mental - ( promise of immunity or leniency 3G given by the offended party or by the fiscal (person in a position to give such) vitiates a confession, BU7 IF g&%en ./: o ( person #hom the accused could not have reasonably e-pected to be able to comply #ith such promise (not a prosecuting officer) or could not bind the offended party 3T is (7834429E Note' IF the a##*sed %ol*nta)&l/ 0ade a se#ond #onfess&on afte) he had .een 0alt)eated - $nd confession is (7834429E ? /rov!ded it is proven that he #as already relieved by the fear caused by the previous maltreatment Note' D*dg0ent .ased solel/ on a %&t&ated #onfess&on &s NULL and VOID - (ccused may be released on a #rit of 'abeas corpus !d0&ss&.&l&t/ of E,MD Confess&ons

!.andoned R*l&ng' 3nvoluntary confessions are admissible if it contains the truth (Prior to Stonehil v. Diokno) C*))ent R*l&ng' In%ol*nta)/ Confess&ons a)e IN!D8ISSIBLE( Rat&o' 1. They are unreliable $. *n grounds of humanitarian considerations, or 6. *n legal considerations of their being violative of oneIs constitutional right against self incrimination E,MD #onfess&on o.ta&ned -)&o) to the 1AJ6 Const&' 3t is admissible even if the confessant #as not informed of his right to silence and to counsel and even if made #hile under arrest ( )at&o' consti mandate should be given a prospective effect) R*les on E,MD Confess&on and the Const&t*t&on - Ve).al E,MDC 8ade >&tho*t Co*nsel o IF made spontaneously after the assault ? ad0&ss&.le as -a)t of res "estae 1*T under the confession rule o ")o%&ded' 3t #as not made under custodial investigation - IF the a##*sed +as &nfo)0ed of h&s #onst& )&ghts and +as asked &f he *nde)stood &t BU7 +as not asked &f he +anted to eFe)#&se &t o 31(78344329E - E,MDC *nde) C*stod&al In%est&gat&on o 3f made #Co counsel ? 3nadmissible o 3f prefaced by the investigator #C a statement of his consti rights to #hich he ans#ered that he #as going to tell the truth ? Not a +a&%e) of h&s #onst& )&ght to #o*nsel o 3G accused is illiterate ? investigation officer must ma0e sure that his rights #ere fully e-plained to him C*stod&al In%est&gat&on 2CI3( def&ned'

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

$P ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

Ent&)e #onfess&on sho*ld .e ad0&tted &n e%&den#e ? 2&T the court may in appreciating the same reject portions #hich are incredible - Confess&ons a)e ad0&ss&.le 1*T *19: to the offense charged 2&T also to an/ offense ne#essa)&l/ &n#l*ded the)e&n - Illegal #onfess&ons are inadmissible against the admitter but are ad0&ss&.le aga&nst the -e)son +ho o.ta&ned s*#h #onfess&on (violator of consti rights) - E,MDC &s B&nd&ng ONLC U-on BI8SELF and 1*T (dmissible (gainst his !o-(ccused, E,C' 1. 3f the latter impliedly ac%uiesced in or adopted said confession by not %uestioning its truthfulness $. 3f the accused persons voluntarily and independently e-ecuted identical confessions #Co collusion (interloc0ing confessions) #hich confessions are corroborated by other evidence and #Co contradiction by the co-accused #ho #as presentJ 6. +here the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after being apprised of such confessionJ .. 3f they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime #hich #as confessed by one of the accused and said confession is used only as a corroborating evidenceJ L. +here the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to sho# the probability of participation by the co-conspiratorJ M. +here the confessant testified for his co-defendantJ or N. +here the co-conspiratorIs e-tra judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence of record. Note' Fo) D*d&#&al Confess&ons' 3t is binding to 2*T) the confessant and the other party F)*&t of the "o&sono*s 7)ee Do#t)&ne' - Evidence obtained in violation of the right of a person against unreasonable searches and sei5ures are inadmissible - 3t refers to an ob-ect 1*T testimonial evidence - 3t does not refer to testimony or confessions obtained illegally.

Se#$ 69$ Similar acts as evidence$ Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one t&0e - is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at anothe) t&0eJ 2&T it may be received to prove: - a specific intent or 0no#ledgeJ identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the li0e. (.Pa) Notes' ")&n#&-le of Res Inte) !l&os !#ta' Things done bet#een strangers ought not to injure those #ho are not parties to it. - 1st "a)t' 4ec $P, rule 16/J 2nd "a)t' 4ec 6., rule 16/ Note' 4ec 6. applies to both civil and criminal cases and is strictly enforced in all cases #here it is applicable R' 1st 4entence of !odal E,C' +here the evidence or similar acts may prove: 1. ( specific intent or 0no#ledgeJ $. 3dentityJ 6. ( plan, system or schemeJ .. ( specific habitJ or L. Established customs, usages and the li0e
Bas&s: Evidence must be confined to the point in issue in the case on trial. Evidence of collateral offenses must not be received as substantive evidence of the offense on trial. "*)-ose' To compel the defendant to meet charges of #hich the indictment gives him no information, confuses him in his defense, raises a variety of issues, and thus diverts the attention of the court from the charge immediately before it.

E1amples of the E1ceptions: - Evidence of another crime is admissible in a prosecution for robbery: o +hen it has the tendency to identify the accused or sho# his presence at the scene of the crime o 1*T #here the evidence is to prove a commission of another crime #holly independent of that #hich is on trial. - "revious acts of negligence, is admissible to sho# 0no#ledge or intent.


Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

$= ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

Se#$ 6:$ .naccepted offer$ (n offer in #riting: - to pay a particular sum of money or - to deliver a #ritten instrument or specific personal property &s( 3G rejected #ithout valid cause, e=*&%alent to: - the actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or property. (.=a) Notes' - This section complements the rule on tender of payment ( (rt. 129<..7 by providing that said offer of payment must be made in #riting. - 4uch tender must, ho#ever, be follo#ed by consignation of the amount in court in order to produce the effects of valid payment. :$ 7ES7I8ONI!L ENO>LED E Se#$ 6;$ &estimony "enerally confined to personal kno!led"e < hearsay e1cluded$ ( #itness can testify *19: to those facts: - #hich he 0no#s of his personal 0no#ledgeJ that is, - #hich are derived from his o#n perception, E !E"T as other#ise provided in these rules. (6/a) Notes' Bea)sa/ R*le 2BR3( def&ned' (ny evidence, #hether oral or documentary is hearsay of its probative value is not based on the personal 0no#ledge of the #itness but on the 0no#ledge of some other person not on the #itness stand. (In#l*d&ng' all assertions not subjected to cross-e-amination) R' )earsay evidence is e-cluded or 31(78344329E as evidence - Rat&o' 3t is e-cluded because the party against #hom it is presented is deprived of his right to cross-e-amine the persons to #hom the statements or #ritings are attributed. - Note' 3f one has personal 0no#ledge ? it is not hearsay anymore Inad0&ss&.&l&t/ of hea)sa/ e%&den#e 8!C .e >!IVED' 2y not objecting to such evidence. (Rat&o' since the right to cross-e-amine may also be #aived) 'epeated failure to cross-e-amine is an 38"93E7 #aiver Val*e of Bea)sa/ E%&den#e

)earsay Evidence alone is insufficient to establish a fact 3G not objected to ? it may be considered and given the importance it deserves li0e any other evidence (2anl!l!c v. .alaunan, $//N) BO>EVER( it has also been held that even if it may be admissible, #hether objected to or not, has NO -) %al*e, and as opposed to direct primary evidence, the latter al#ays prevails. (/eople v. W!ll!ans, $//1) EF$ Ne+s-a-e) Cl&--&ngs are hearsay and have no evidentiary #eight &19E44 substantiated by person #C personal 0no#ledge of the facts E,CE"7IONS to the BR' They are hearsay 2&T are admissible ")el&0&na)/ Notes on the EF#e-t&ons to the BR' 11 EF#e-t&ons to the BR @ Se#t&ons 6J to 9J 2DDECCL!RE F73 1. Dying 7eclaration $. Declaration (gainst 3nterest 6. Entries 3n The *rdinary !ourse of 2usiness .. Common 'eputation L. Commercial 9ists M. Learned Treatises N. !ct *r 7eclaration (gainst "edigree =. Res >estae =. Entries 3n *fficial 'ecords 1/. Family 'eputation *r Tradition (gainst "edigree 11. 7estimony *r 7eposition (t ( Gormer "roceeding (sec .N) Note' 4ec .N logically is not an e-ception. 3t merely re%uires for its admissibility that the party had cross-e-amined or had the opportunity to do so. Othe) EF#e-t&ons to the BR 1. 4pecial E-ception to the )' in child abuse cases: )earsay testimony of a child describing any act or attempted act of se-ual abuse may be admitted in any criminal proceeding. (4ec $P of the 'ule on E-amination of a !hild +itness, (.8. 1o. //-.-/N-4!) o 4&2<E!T to certain prere%uisites and the right to cross e-amine of the adverse party o (dmissibility shall be determined by the court in light of specified subjectiveCobjective considerations to determine the reliability of the child $. 'ule P of the 'ules on Electronic Evidence: 2usiness records as an e-ception to the )'

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

6/ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

6. 4tatements or #ritings offered not to prove the truth of the facts stated but only to prove that those statements #ere actually made or those #ritings #ere e-ecuted 'See doctrine of independently relevant statements) Do#t)&ne of Inde-endentl/ Rele%ant State0ents' 3ndependent of #hether the facts stated are true or not, they are relevant since they are the facts in issue or are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue. - The only %uestion to be ans#ered: +C1 the statements #ere made - )ence, ( #itness may testify to the statements made by a person if the fact that such statements #ere made #ould indicate the latterIs mental state or physical condition 2 Classes of Inde-endentl/ Rele%ant State0ents' 1. Those statements #hich are the very fact in issueJ $. Those statements #hich are circumstantial evidence of the fact in issue. 3t includes the follo#ing: a. 4tatements of a person sho#ing his state of mind that is, his mental condition, 0no#ledge, belief, intention, ill-#ill, and other emotionsJ b. 4tatements of a person #hich sho#s his physical condition as illness and the li0eJ c. 4tatements of a person from #hich an inference may be made as to the state of mind of another, that is, 0no#ledge, belief, motive, goodCbad faith of the latterJ d. 4tatements #hich may identify the date, place, person in %uestionJ e. 4tatements sho#ing the lac0 of credibility of a #itness. Rat&o fo) the EF#e-t&ons to the BR' - 1ecessity for such evidence and - *n the assumption that in the ordinary course of events, they are trust#orthy (Ne#ess&t/ (17 7)*st+o)th&ness)

;$ E,CE"7IONS 7O 7BE BE!RS!C RULE E,CE"7ION NO$ 1' DCIN Se#$ 6J$ Dyin" declaration$ The de#la)at&on of a dying person, 0ade *nde) the #ons#&o*sness of an &0-end&ng death: - may be received in any case #herein his death is the subject of in%uiry, - as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. (61a) Notes' D/&ng De#la)at&on 2DD3( def&ned' 4tatements made by a person after the mortal #ound has been inflicted under the belief that the death is certain, stating the fact concerning the cause of and the circumstances surrounding the attac0. - (lso 0no#n as 4!nte 8o)te0 State0ents5 or 4State0ent &n !)t&#*lo 8o)t&s5 Re=*&s&tes fo) DDs to .e !d0&ss&.le 1. That the death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of such factJ $. That the declaration refers to the cause and the surrounding circumstances of such death 6. That the declaration refers to the facts #hich the victim is competent to testify toJ .. That the declaration is offered in a case #herein the declarantIs death is subject of the in%uiry (the victim necessarily must have died)J L. That the statement must be complete in itself. Reason fo) &ts ad0&ss&on 1. 1ecessity ? because the declarantIs death renders impossible his ta0ing the #itness stand $. Trust#orthiness ? at the point of death, every motive for falsehood is silenced. The mind is induced by the most po#erful consideration to spea0 the truth. DECL!R!7ION

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

61 ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

Cons&de)at&ons fo) the Dete)0&nat&on of >hethe) State0ents >e)e 8ade &n Cons#&o*sness of an I00&nent o) I0-end&ng Death' 1. The #ords or statements of the declarant on the same occasion $. )is conduct at the time the declaration #as made 6. 4erious nature of his #ounds as #ould necessarily engender a belief on his part that he #ould not survive. Inte)%en&ng 7&0e F)o0 the De#la)at&on to the !#t*al Death' !n I00ate)&al Fa#to) &n Dete)0&n&ng &ts !d0&ss&.&l&t/ - 3mmaterial as long as the declaration #as made under the consciousness of impending death - This is a %uestion of fact for the courts to determine - 1o retroaction must be made by the declarant - 3f the gravity of the #ounds did not diminish ? 77 is still admissible even if the decedent died days after the declaration - 3nterval of Time is taken &nto a##o*nt ONLC +hen the de#la)at&on &s a0.&g*o*s L*est&on' Do /o* th&nk /o* +&ll d&e?< IF the !ns+e) &s - E3 #ill not die if treatedF - admissible as part of res &estae or 77 - E3 cannot ascertainF ? admissible as part of res gestae or 77 - E3 donIt 0no#F ? 1*T admissible - E3t all dependsF R condition improved ? 77s thereafter are 1*T admissible Note' DDs 0a/ .e )ega)ded as -a)t of res "estae as they #ere made soon after a startling occurrence #Co any opportunity for fabrication or concoction - 3f the declarant doesnIt die ? it is part of res &esta DD on#e -)o%ed and ad0&tted ? &ts #)ed&.&l&t/ and +e&ght shall .e dete)0&ned l&ke an/ othe) test&0on&al e%&den#e - !ircumstances such as surprise, rapidity and confusion should be ta0en into consideration in giving #eigh to the testimony of the declarant #hen identifying his assailants - It 0a/ .e &0-*gned' in the same manner as the testimony of any other #itness on the stand People v. /allare: 77 has to be admitted #ith utmost care and should be considered in light of all the facts because the source, accuracy and completeness of the declarantIs 0no#ledge as to the facts asserted could not be tested by cross-e-amination .S v. Antipoli: 77 is an e-ception to the 8arital "rivilege 'ule since it is 1*T meant to be confidential communication bet#een spouses.

DDs a)e !d0&ss&.le' DDs NO7 ad0&ss&.le' *nly insofar as the 77 refers to facts 4tatements referring to the regarding the cause and surrounding antecedents of the fatal encounter circumstances of the declarantIs death (+C1 they are in favor of or *pinions, impressions and against the accused) conclusions of the declarant Note' 77s are admissible in A,0 case for as along as the re%uisites are met. *ld rule that it only applies to certain criminal cases is no# abandoned. Note' 77s favorable to the accused are admissible Fo)0s of DDs - 8ay be oral or #ritten or - 8ade by signs #hich could be interpreted and testified to by a #itness Note' - If O)al - 3t may be testified to #Co the need of repeating the e-act #ords as long as he can give the substance thereof - If *ns&gned +)&tten DD ? 3t may used as a memorandum by the #itness #ho too0 it do#n E,CE"7ION NO$ 2' DECL!R!7ION ! !INS7 IN7ERES7 Se#$ 68$ Declaration a"ainst interest$ The declaration made: - ./ a person deceased *' unable to testify, - aga&nst the interest of the declarant, 3G the fact asserted in the declaration #as at t'e t!me !t 4as made: - so far contrary to declarantQs o#n interest, - that a reasonable man in his position #ould not have made the declaration &19E44 he believed it to be true, 0a/ .e )e#e&%ed &n e%&den#e aga&nst' - himself or - his successors in interest and - against third persons. (6$a) Notes' De#la)at&on !ga&nst Inte)est M D!I

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

6$ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

DECL!R!7IONS !ga&nst Inte)est 8ade by a person #ho is neither a party nor in privity #ith a party to the suite. 4econdary Evidence E-ception to the )earsay 'ule (dmissible *19: #hen the declarant is &1available as a #itness 8ust be made ante l!tem motam (before the controversy) 8ay be admitted against himselfCsuccessor in interest and against 6rd parties

!D8ISSIONS !ga&nst Inte)est 8ade by a party to a litigation or by one in privity #ith or identified in legal interest #ith such party "rimary Evidence !overed by the )earsay 'ule (dmissible #Cn the declarant is available as a #itness 8ay be made at any time beforeCduring the trial &sed *19: against the party admitting.

Self Se)%&ng De#la)at&on( def&ned' 4tatements favorable to or intended to advance the interests of the delcarant - 3t is inadmissible as being hearsay if the delcarant is unavailable as a #itness - *pposite of 7(3 E,CE"7ION NO$ 6' !C7 OR DECL!R!7ION !BOU7 "EDI REE Sec. 6B. Act or declaration about pedi"ree. The act or declaration: - of a person deceased *' unable to testify, - &n )es-e#t to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage, may be received in evidence #here: - it occurred before the controversy, (17 - the relationship bet#een the t#o persons is sho#n by evidence other than such act or declaration. The #ord K-ed&g)eeK includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates #hen and the places #here these fast occurred, and the names of the relatives. 3t embraces also facts of family history intimately connected #ith pedigree. (66a) Notes' Re=*&s&tes &n O)de) that "ed&g)ee 8a/ .e ")o%ed ./ !#ts o) De#la)at&ons of Relat&%es 1. The actor or declarant is dead or unable to testify $. The act or declaration is made by a person related to the subject by birth or marriage 6. The relationship bet#een the declarant or the actor and the subject is sho#n by evidence other than such act or declaration .. The act or declaration #as made ante l!tem motam or prior to the controversy "ed&g)ee 8a/ .e Esta.l&shed o) ")o%ed B/' 1. The act or declaration of a relative (sec 6=) $. The reputation or tradition e-isting in his family (sec ./) 6. Entries in Gamily 2ibles (sec ./) .. +ith respect to marriage, by common reputation in the community (4ec .1)

Re=*&s&tes &n O)de) fo) a State0ent to .e !d0&ss&.le as a D!I 1. That the declarant is dead and unable to testifyJ $. That it relates to facts against the interest of the declarantJ 6. That at the time he made the said declaration the declarant #as a#are that the same #as contrary to his aforesaid interestJ and .. That the declarant had no motive to falsify and he believed such to be true. Reasons fo) s*#h !d0&ss&on 1. 1ecessity ? such declarations are the only mode of proof available $. Trust#orthiness ? persons do not ma0e statements that are disadvantageous to themselves #ithout substantial reason to believe that the statements are true. 4elf-interest induces men to be cautious in saying anything against themselves. Inte)est #o%e)ed' 1. "roprietary interest $. "enal interest o ( justifiable theory because one #ho is criminally liable is also civilly liable. o People v. &oledo and Aol"ado: ( declaration admitting that he #as the one #ho 0illed the victim, made by a delcarant #ho died shortly thereafter, is admissible #here another person #as subse%uently charged as the 0iller of the same victim 6. "ecuniary interest Note' 3t is essential that at the time of the statement, the declarantIs interest affected is actualCrealCapparent not merely contingentCfutureCconditional

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

66 ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

Note' 7he )elat&onsh&- 0*st -)el&0&na)&l/ .e -)o%ed ./ d&)e#t o) #&)#*0stant&al e%&den#e$ - 1o specific degree of relationship is re%uired - 2&T the #eight to #hich such act or declaration is entitled may be affected by the degree of relationship Note' 'eputation bet#een the declarant and the person subject of in%uiry must be legitimate unless the issue is the legitimacy itself. E,CE"7ION NO$ 9' F!8ILC RE"U7!7ION OR 7R!DI7ION RE !RDIN "EDI REE Se#$ 9G$ Family reputation or tradition re"ardin" pedi"ree$ The reputation or tradition: - e-isting in a family previous to the controversy, - in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in evidence: - 3G the #itness testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family boo0s or charts, engravings on rings, family portraits and the li0e: - may be received as evidence of pedigree. (6.a) Notes' Re=*&s&tes >H Res-e#t to Re-*tat&on o) 7)ad&t&on Unde) Se# 9G 1. The #itness testifying thereto must be a member, by consanguinity or affinity, of the same family as the subjectJ and $. 4uch reputation or tradition must have e-isted in that family ante l!tem motam Note' ( statement as to oneIs date of birth and age as learned from parents or relatives is an ante l!tem motam declaration of family tradition - 4uch statement prevails over a mere opinion of a trial judge - 2&T cannot prevail over a secondary statement of the father

Se#t&on 6A (ct or declaration against pedigree +itness need not be a member of the family Testimony is about #hat declarant, #ho is dead or unable to testify, said concerning the pedigree of the declarantIs family 'elation bet the declarant and the person subject of in%uiry must be established by independent evidence

Se#t&on 9G Gamily reputation or tradition regarding pedigree +itness is a member of the family Testimony is about family reputation or tradition covering matters of pedigree. The #itness himself is the one to #hom the fact relates. 1o need to establish relationship by independent evidence.

E,CE"7ION NO$ :' CO88ON RE"U7!7ION Se#$ 91$ #ommon reputation$ !ommon reputation: - e-isting previous to the controversy, - respecting facts of public or general interest more than 6/ years old, or - respecting marriage or moral character, may be given in evidence. 8onuments and inscriptions in public places: - may be received as evidence of common reputation. (6L) Notes' Co00on Re-*tat&on( def&ned' The definite opinion of the community in #hich the fact to be proved is 0no#n or e-ists. 3t means the general or substantially undivided reputation, as distinguished from a partial or %ualified one, although it need not be unanimous. Co00on Re-*tat&on 8a/ .e Esta.l&shed' 1. 2y testimonial evidence of competent #itness $. 2y monuments and inscriptions in public places 6. 2y documents containing statement of reputation

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

6. ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

Co00on Re-*tat&on o) ene)al Re-*tat&on &s !d0&ss&.le to ")o%e 1. Gacts of public interest more than 6/ years old $. Gacts of general interest more that 6/ years old 6. 8arriage .. 8oral !haracter Note' !ommon reputation must have e-isted ante l!tem motam "*.l&# Inte)est K Those of 1ational 3nterest ene)al Inte)est K Those affecting inhabitants of a particular region or community Cha)a#te) Q 3nherent %ualities of a person Re-*tat&on K *pinion of him by others (4hould be e-isting in his place of residence, but may also e-ist in a place #here he is 0no#n best) Note' )ere, character is permitted to be established by his common reputation
E%&den#e of Negat&%e ood Re-*te' +here the foundation proof sho#s that the #itness #as in such position that he #ould have heard reports derogatory to oneIs character, the reputation testimony may be predicated on the absence of reports of bad reputation or on the fact that the #itness heard nothing against the person.

Re=*&s&tes fo) Res Cestae No 1' Spontaneous Statements 1. The principal act, the res &estae, be a startling occurrenceJ $. The statements #ere made before the delcarant had the opportunity to contrive 6. The statements must refer to the occurrence in %uestion and its attending circumstances .. The statement must be spontaneous. The res &estae is the startling occurrence 4tatements may be made prior, during or immediately after the startling occurrence.

Re=*&s&tes fo) Res Cestae No 2' *erbal Acts 1. The res &estae or principal act or to be characteri5ed must be e%uivocalJ $. 4uch act must be material to the issue 6. The statements must accompany the e%uivocal act. .. The statements give a legal significance to the e%uivocal act

The res &estae is the e%uivocal act. ,erbal act must be contemporaneous #ith or accompany the e%uivocal act.

E,CE"7ION NO$ ;' RES Se#$ 92$ Part of res "estae$


4tatements made by a person: - #hile a startling occurrence is ta0ing place *' immediately prior *' subse%uent thereto - #ith respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res &estae. 4o, also, statements accompanying an e%uivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, - may be received as part of the res &estae. (6Ma) Notes' Res Cestae +h&#h 0eans 4th&ngs done5( 7C"ES' 1. S-ontaneo*s state0ents' 4tatements in connection #ith a startling occurrence relating to that fact and in effect forming part thereof $. Ve).al !#ts' 4tatements accompanying an e%uivocal act, on the theory that they are the verbal parts of the act to be e-plained.

Re=*&s&tes fo) !d0&ss&.&l&t/ of Res estae( 7he state0ent 0*st' 1. 2e 4pontaneous $. 8ade #hile a startling occurrence is ta0ing place or immediately prior or subse%uent 6. 'elates to the circumstances of the startling occurrence. .. 8ust be involuntary and simultaneously #rung from the #itness by the impact of the occurrence Reasons fo) !d0&ss&on' 1. 1ecessity ? natural and spontaneous utterances are more convincing than the testimony of a person on the stand. $. Trust#orthiness ? the statement is made indistinctively. The facts spea0ing thru the party and not the party spea0ing thru the facts. Res Cestae &n #onne#t&on +&th a ho0&#&dal a#t 8ay be made by the 0iller himself after or during the 0illing *' that of a 6rd person. 8ay precede or be made after the homicidal attac0 #as committed. <ustification in the spontaneity of the statement. D/&ng De#la)at&ons !an be made only by the victim. 8ade only after the homicidal attac0 has been committed. Trust#orthiness based upon in its being given in a#areness of impending death.

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

6L ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

Note' 3f both elements for res &estae and dying declarations are present ? they may be admitted as both. >hen 8*st the State0ent o) !#t .e 8ade' R' +hile the declarant #as under the immediate influence of the startling occurrence. )ence, done immediately prior, during or subse%uent to the events. E,C' - If the de#la)ant +as *n#ons#&o*s ? statements regarding the event #ill still be admissible - If the de#la)ant d&d not ha%e the o--o)t*n&t/ to #on#o#t o) #ont)&%e a sto)/ ? it is still admissible even if statement #as made after hours State0ents o) O*t#)&es as "a)t of Res estae a)e !d0&ss&.le' - To establish the identity of the assailant - To prove the complicity of another person in the crime - To establish an admission of liability on the part of the accused E,CE"7ION NO$ J' EN7RIES IN 7BE COURSE OF BUSINESS Se#$ 96$ Entries in the course of business$ Entries made: - at, or near the time of transactions to #hich they refer, - by a person deceased, *' unable to testify, #ho #as in a position to 0no# the facts therein stated, may be received as pr!ma fac!e evidence, IF s*#h -e)son 0ade the ent)&es' - in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty (17 - in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. (6Na) Notes' Sho- Book R*le Re=*&s&tes 1. The person #ho made the entry must be dead or unable to testify. $. The entries #ere made at or near the time of the transaction to #hich they referJ 6. The entrant #as in a position to 0no# the facts stated in the entriesJ .. The entries #ere made in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty #hether legal, contractual, moral or religiousJ and L. The entries #ere made in the ordinary or regular course of business or dutyJ

R*les fo) !d0&ss&.&l&t/ of B*s&ness Ent)&es - 3f the Entrant is (vailable as a +itness ? the entries #ill be 31(78344329E as an e-ception to the hearsay rule. o They may be used as a memo to refresh his memory #hile testifying in the transaction - There is no necessity to bring into court all the cler0s or employees #ho individually made the entries - 3t is sufficient that the person #ho supervises the #or0 of the employees testify: o That the account #as prepared under his supervision o That the entries #ere entered in the ordinary course of business - There is no precise moment re%uired #hen the entries should be made ? it is sufficient if it is made #Cin a reasonable time #hile the memory of the facts is unimpaired - ") Val*e' "rima Gacie of the facts stated therein E,CE"7ION NO$ 8' EN7RIES IN OFFICI!L RECORDS Se#$ 99$ Entries in official records$ Entries in official records 0ade &n the -e)fo)0an#e of h&s d*t/' - by a public officer of the '" or - by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by la#, are pr!ma fac!e evidence of the facts therein stated. (6P) Notes' Re=*&s&tes fo) !d0&ss&.&l&t/ of Off&#&al Re#o)ds 1. The entries #as made by a public officer in the performance of his duty or by a person specially enjoined by the la# to do soJ $. The entrant had personal 0no#ledge of the facts stated by him or such facts #ere ac%uired by him from reports made by persons under a legal duty to submit the same 6. 4uch entries #ere duly entered in a regular manner in the official records Reasons fo) !d0&ss&on 1. 1ecessity ? practical impossibility of re%uiring the officialIs attendance as a #itness to testify to the innumerable transactions occurring in the course of his duty.

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

6M ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

$. Trust#orthiness ? there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. EFa0-les of Off&#&al Re#o)ds' - ( register, a cash boo0, or an official return or certificate, - motor vehicle accident report (if made in the performance of the officerIs duties, at about the time of the accident, based on information given as personal 0no#ledge) - 4heriffIs return (statement in the performance of a duty especially enjoined by la#) ? no need for the sheriff to testify Ent)&es &n the Co*)se of B*s&ness 2se# 963 Entries are made by a person #ho is dead or unable to testify 1eeds authentication 2est evidence rule applies Entries are made pursuant to a duty, either legal, contractual, moral or religious Ent)&es &n Off&#&al Re#o)ds 2Se# 993 1o such re%uirement 1o need E-ception to the best evidence rule The entrant is a public officer, or if a private individual, must have acted pursuant to a legal duty

E,CE"7ION NO$ A' CO88ERCI!L LIS7S Se#$ 9:$#ommercial lists and the like$ Evidence of statements of matters of interest to -e)sons: - engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated IF that #o0-&lat&on: - is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation (17 - is generally used and relied upon by them therein. (6=) Notes' Re=*&s&tes fo) !d0&ss&.&l&t/ 1. 4tatements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupationJ $. The statements must be contained in a list, register, periodical or other published compilationJ 6. The compilation #as published for use by persons engaged in that occupationJ and .. 3s generally relied upon by them. Reasons fo) !d0&ss&on' 1. 1ecessity ? because of the unusual accessibility of the persons responsible for the compilation of matters contained in a list, register, periodical or other published compilation and tremendous inconvenience it #ould cause to the court if it #ould issue summons to these numerous individuals. $. Trust#orthiness ? they have no motive to deceive and they further reali5e that unless the list, register, periodical or other published compilation are prepared #ith care and accuracy, their #or0 #ill have no commercial and probative value. EF$ 8ortality tables, annuity tables

Note' The entrant must have been competent #ith respect to the facts stated in his entries. - Entries made by a priest in the register of the facts of baptism are 1*T admissible to prove the date of birth or its relation to persons o ( priest is not competent to testify to the truth of these facts. - 2&T church registries are (78344329E as evidence of the facts #ith respect to marriage solemni5ed by the priest (2&T needs to be authenticated) - 3f the certificate is transmitted to a public officer ? it is admissible #Co a need for prior authentication. Ent)&es &n Off&#&al Re#o)ds 8a/ .e ")o%ed : 4ee 4ec $. and $L 'ule 16$ ") Val*e' (lso prima facie of the facts stated therein

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

6N ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

E,CE"7ION NO$ 1G' LE!RNED 7RE!7ISES Se#$ 9;$ (earned treatises$ ( published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, la#, science, or art: - is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein 3G: - the court ta0es judicial notice *' - a #itness e-pert in the subject testifies, that the #riter of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recogni5ed in his profession or calling as e-pert in the subject. (./a) Notes' Re=*&s&tes fo) !d0&ss&.&l&t/ 1. That the court ta0es judicial notice thereofJ or $. The same are testified by a #itness e-pert on the subject Reasons fo) ad0&ss&on 1. 1ecessity ? even if such person is legally procurable, the e-pense is fre%uently disproportionate. $. Trust#orthiness ? learned #riters have no motive to misrepresent. )e is a#are that his #or0 #ill be carefully scrutini5ed by the learned members of his profession and that he may be subject to criticisms and ultimately rejected as an authority of the subject matter if his conclusions are found to be invalid. E,CE"7ION NO$ 11' 7ES7I8ONC OR DE"OSI7ION !7 ! FOR8ER "ROCEEDIN Se#$ 9J$ &estimony or deposition at a former proceedin"$ The testimony or deposition of a #itness 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 (O(314T: - the adverse party #ho had the opportunity to cross-e-amine him. (.1a) Notes' Re=*&s&tes fo) !d0&ss&.&l&t/ 1. The #itness is dead or unable to testify $. )is testimony or deposition #as given in a former case or proceedings, judicial or administrative bet#een the same parties or those representing the same interests 6. The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case although on different causes of action .. The issue testified to by the #itness in the former trial is the same issue involved in the present case L. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross e-amine the #itness in the former case. Ina.&l&t/ to 7est&f/' 3nability proceeding from a grave cause, almost amounting to death (e-. 9osing oneIs po#er of speech) - 4ubse%uent failure or refusal to appear at the second trial, or hostility since testifying at the first trial does 1*T amount to such inability !#t&ons 0a/ .e Essent&all/ D&ffe)ent' Testimony given in a civil case is admissible in a subse%uent criminal case "'*,37E7 the above re%uisites are met. R*le on !d0&ss&.&l&t/ of Prior ud"ment 2Not test&0on/3 - ( judgment in a criminal proceeding cannot be read in evidence in a civil action against a person not a party thereto to establish any fact therein

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

6P ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

The mater is res !nter al!os and cannot invo0ed as res ,ud!cata 3t may only be admitted in a civil case by #ay of inducement or to sho# a collateral fact relevant to the issue in the civil action 3t may not be admitted to prove the plaintiffIs action or the defendantIs defense ? it is not binding upon the parties in the civil action Rat&o' "arties are not the same and different rules of evidence are applicable to each

J$ O"INION RULE Se#$ 98$Ceneral rule$ The opinion of #itness is not admissible E !E"T as indicated in the follo#ing sections. (.$) Notes'

BO>EVER( &n /iranda v. /alate' <udgment of conviction in the absence of collusion bet#een the accused and the offended party is binding and conclusive to a person subs!d!ar!l$ liable #C regard to his liability and to the amount thereof.

O-&n&on( def&ned' (n inference or conclusion dra#n from facts observed. R' 4ec .P: +itnesses must give the facts and not their inference, conclusions, or opinions. *pinions are 31(78344329E - E,CE"7IONS' *pinion of the +itness is (dmissible (4ec .= DL/) 1. *n a matter re%uiring 4"E!3(9 0no#ledge, s0ill, e-perience or training #hich he is sho#n to possess, that is #hen he is an e-pert (Sec :5)J $. 'egarding the identity or the hand#riting of a person, #hen he has 0no#ledge of the person or hand#riting, #hether he is an ordinary or e-pert #itness (4ec L/ a D b) 6. *n the mental sanity of a person, if the #itness is sufficiently ac%uainted #ith the former or if the latter is an e-pert #itness ( Sec 90c) .. *n the emotion, behavior, condition, or appearance of a person #hich he has observedJ and (Sec 90d) L. *n ordinary matters 0no#n to all men of common perception, such as the value of ordinary household articles (>al!an v. State (ssurance .o.- Ltd.7 Reason fo) the R*le' 3t is for the court to form an opinion concerning the facts in proof of #hich evidence is offered. +itnesses must testify to facts #Cin their 0no#ledge and not their opinions.

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

6= ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

Se#$ 9A$ $pinion of e1pert !itness$ The opinion of a #itness: - on a matter re%uiring special 0no#ledge, s0ill, e-perience or training #hich he sho#n to posses, may be received in evidence. (.6a) Notes' EF-e)t >&tness( def&ned' *ne #ho belongs to the profession or calling to #hich the subject matter of the in%uiry relates to and #ho possesses special 0no#ledge on %uestions on #hich he proposes to e-press an opinion. &est: +hether the opinion called for #ill aid the fact finder in resolving an issue Deg)ee of Sk&ll o) Eno+ledge Re=*&)ed of an EF-e)t >&tness - There is no definite standard of determining the degree of s0ill or 0no#ledge that a #itness must possess in order to testify as an e-pert. - It &s s*ff&#&ent that the follo+&ng fa#to)s a)e -)esent' 1. Training and education $. "articular, first hand familiarity #ith the facts of the case 6. "resentation of authorities or standards upon #hich his opinion is based. Re=*&s&tes fo) !d0&ss&.&l&t/ of EF-e)t E%&den#e M onl/ &f' 1. The matter to be testified to is one that re%uires e-pertise, and $. The #itness had been %ualified as an e-pert Val*e of an EF-e)t >&tness' 3t is 1*T conclusive 2&T purely advisory. The courts are not bound by the e-pertIs findings. R*les on EF-e)t 7est&0on/ - !ourts must consider all the circumstances of the case (e-pertIs %ualifications, e-perience and degree of learning, the basic and logic of his conclusions and other evidence on record) - The value of e-pert testimony depends largely on the e-tent of the e-perience or studies of such e-pert. Note' (n e-pert #itness may base his opinion either on the first-hand 0no#ledge of the facts or on the basis of hypothetical %uestions #here the

facts are presented to him and on the assumption that they are true, formulates his opinion on the hypothesis. ") Val*e of EF-e)t E%&den#e - 2D, the courts are bound by the testimony of an e1pert: 7E"E174 on the nature of the in%uiry. o *19: #hen the subject of in%uiry is of such a technical nature that a layman can possibly have no 0no#ledge thereof that courts must depend and rely upon e-perts. - !onflicting e-pert evidence have neutrali5ing effect on contradictory conclusions. They generate doubt. - ( non-e-pert private individual, may e-amine certain contested documents, it is not necessarily null and void if there are facts #Cin his 0no#ledge #hich may help the court in the determination of the issue. R*les on Band+)&t&ng EF-e)t E%&den#e - ,alue of such e-pert evidence depends upon the assistance that he affords in pointing out distinguishing mar0s, characteristics, dissimilarities as regards spontaneity, rhythm, pressure of a pen, loops, stro0es, and discrepancies bet#een genuine and false specimens - EF-e)t e%&den#e on hand+)&t&ng &s at .est +eak and *nsat&sfa#to)/ . 3t is very unreliable. 3t is not conclusive. 3t has less #eight than direct and credible testimonies of #itnesses as to matters #Cin their personal observation. - 3t is not necessarily binding especially #hen the e-pert #as not presented as a #itness to give the adverse party an opportunity to cross-e-amine. - +hen the in%uiry merely involves a comparison of e-isting signatures, an opinion of an e-pert is not necessary. - Othe) fa#to)s that sho*ld .e #ons&de)ed' The position of the #riter, the condition of the surface in #hich the paper is placed, his state of mind, feelings and nerves, 0ind of pen and paper. - 3t is common 0no#ledge that the #riting of a person changes as time elapses. 3t changes as one advances in age. - Grom the in0 alone, it is impossible to determine the in0 #ritingIs age. On "a)aff&n 7ests fo) F&)ea)0 Use - "a)aff&n 7ests a)e NO7 #on#l*s&%e as to the -)esen#e of g*n-o+de) since other compounds #ith nitrates can give the same reaction. 3t is unreliable since the only thing it can definitely establish is the presence or absence of nitrates 2&T not if its source is a firearm - Tobacco, cosmetics, fertili5ers, fire#or0s can give a positive result as #ell.

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

./ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

3t also doesnPt def&n&tel/ esta.l&sh the d&stan#e +he)e the g*n +as f&)ed. 2lac0ening and burning around the #ound better establishes the short distance of the gunshot. R*les on "ate)n&t/ 7est&ng - 2lood tests on filiation of a child, competently conducted by %ualified persons are ad0&ss&.le on the nonM-ate)n&t/ of a -e)son - 3t is ho#ever, &n#on#l*s&%e to aff&)0 -ate)n&t/ but can only sho# a possibility of such fact absent any other evidence. On DN! 7est&ng - DN! e%&den#e .ased on genet&# #ode &s ad0&ss&.le to -)o%e -ate)n&t/ since e-cept for identical t#ins, each personIs 71( is distinct and uni%ue - 3n assessing the probative value of 71( evidence, it is necessary to consider ho# the samples #ere collected, handled, the possibility of contamination and #Cn the standards of procedure #ere follo#ed - *btaining 71( does not %&olate the )&ght aga&nst selfM &n#)&0&nat&on. - The probative value or #eight of 71( analysis is subject to the re%uisites of evaluation o Less than AA$AR' !orroborative Evidence o AA$AR o) h&ghe)' 'ebuttable "resumption On E%&den#e O.ta&ned B/ So*nd Re#o)d&ng - Tape 'ecording is admissible prov!ded the ff re%uisites are first established: 1. 'ecording device #as capable of ta0ing testimony $. The operator of the device #as competent 6. 1o changes, additions or deletions have been made .. The testimony #as elicited and voluntarily made #Co any 0ind of inducement L. The establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recoding M. The identity of the spea0ers N. The manner of the preservation of the recording - ( #itnessesI declaration that the sound recording represents a true portrayal of the voices satisfies the re%uirements of authentication.

Se#$ :G$ $pinion of ordinary !itnesses$ *pinion of a #itness for #hich proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding: (a) The identity of a person about #hom he has ade%uate 0no#ledgeJ (b) ( hand#riting #ith #hich he has sufficient familiarityJ and (c) The mental sanity of a person #ith #hom he is sufficiently ac%uainted. The #itness 0a/ also test&f/: - on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person. (..a) Notes' O)d&na)/ O-&n&on E%&den#e( def&ned' That #hich is given by a #itness #ho is of ordinary capacity and #ho has by opportunity ac%uired a particular 0no#ledge #hich is outside the limits of common observation and #hich may be of value in elucidating a matter under consideration. Sho)thand Rende)&ng of Fa#ts' 3nstantaneous conclusions of the mind. The #itness may testify as to the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person 8$ CB!R!C7ER EVIDENCE Se#$ :1$ #haracter evidence not "enerally admissible< e1ceptions' 2a3 In C)&0&nal Cases' (1)The accused may prove his good moral character #hich is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. ($)&19E44 in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character #hich is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

.1 ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

(6)The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved 3G it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. 2.3 In C&%&l Cases' Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible *19: +hen -e)t&nent to the &ss*e of character involved in the case. 2#3 In the #ase -)o%&ded fo) &n R*le 162( Se#t&on 19( 29;a( 9Ja3 Notes' Cha)a#te)( def&ned' The aggregate of the moral %ualities #hich belong to and distinguish an individual person. R*les on the !d0&ss&.&l&t/ of Cha)a#te) E%&den#e' R' !haracter evidence is 1*T admissible in evidence Rat&o' The evidence of a personIs character does not prove that such person acted in conformity #ith such character or trait in a particular occasion. +n #riminal #ases R' The prosecution may not prove the 2(7 8oral !haracter (8!) of the accused #hich is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. - E,CE"7ION' o The prosecution may prove 2(7 8! at the rebuttal stage - 3G the accused, in his defense attempts to prove his O**7 8!. o O**7 or 2(7 8! of the offended party may al#ays be proved if such evidence tends to establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged. - E,C to the E,C' o "roof of the bad character of the victim is not admissible: 3n a murder case: 3f the crime #as committed through treachery and evident premeditation 3n a rape case: 3f through violence and intimidation o 3n prosecution for rape, evidence of complainantIs past se-ual conduct, opinion thereof or of hisCher reputation shall not be admitted unless, and only to the e-tent that the court finds that such evidence is material and relevant to the case. ('( PL/L)

Note' +n criminal cases R' The prosecution cannot initially attac0 the character of the accused - E,C' *19: if the accused opens that issue by introducing evidence of his good 8! #hen he ma0es his defense. Rat&o' To avoid unfair prejudice to the accused #ho may be convicted because of such character +n #ivil #ases R' 8! of either party can 1*T be proved - E,C' &nless it is pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case Note' )ere, the issue involved must be character. ( EF$ !ivil actions for damages arising from the offenses of libel slander or seduction) +n %$&A #riminal and #ivil #ases - 2(7 8! of a !itness may al#ays be proved by either party but 1*T evidence of his character, &19E44 it has been impeached. R*les +&th Res-e#t to the Nat*)e o) S*.stan#e of the Cha)a#te) E%&den#e 2CE3 "e)son Refe))ed 7o Nat*)e o) S*.stan#e of the CE +C 'espect to the Accused: !E Emust be pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense chargedF EF$ 3n a prosecution for estafa, perjury or false testimony #here in the personIs moral trait is involved 3t is sufficient that !E Emay establish in any +C 'espect to the $ffended reasonable degree the probability of the Person offense chargedF EF$ 3n a case of rape, the victimIs chastity may be %uestioned. !E must Erefer to his general reputation for +C 'espect to 2itnesses truth, honesty or integrityF affecting his credibility

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

.$ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

[RULE 161] BURDEN OF "ROOF !ND "RESU8"7IONS Se# 1$ %urden of proof. B*)den of -)oof 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 re%uired by la#. (1a, $a) BURDEN OF "ROOF B*)den of ")oof o) Eonus probandi=, def&ned' *bligation imposed upon a party #ho alleges the e-istence of facts necessary for the prosecution of his action or defense to establish the same by the re%uisite %uantum of evidence. ")oof( def&ned' The establishment of a re%uisite degree of belief in the mind of the trier of fact as to the fact in issue. L*ant*0 of E%&den#e Re=*&)ed' #ivil #ases "reponderance of Evidence #har"es of /isconduct !lear and !onvincing Evidence A"ainst ud"es SGor 'emoval: "roof 2eyond 'easonable 7oubt Administrative, Fuasi@ 4ubstantial Evidence: 4uch relevant evidence as a udicial and A"rarian reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to #ases support a conclusion

#rimina l #ases

7o S*sta&n Con%&#t&on "roof beyond reasonable doubt

")el&0&na)/ In%est&gat&on Evidence as to Eengender a #ell-founded beliefF as to the fact of the commission of the crime and the respondentIs probable guilt

Iss*an#e of >a))ant of !))est "robable !ause: 'easonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offense .

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

.6 ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

B&e)a)#h/ of E%&den#e 1. "roof beyond reasonable doubt $. !lear and convincing evidence 6. "reponderance of evidence .. 4ubstantial evidence 2 Se-a)ate B*)dens &n B*)den of ")oof 1. 2urden of Ooing Gor#ard: 2urden of "roducing evidence $. 2urden of "ersuasion: The burden of persuading the trier of fact that the burdened party is entitled to prevail. U-on >ho0 BURDEN OF "ROOF Rests' #ivil #ases #riminal #ases *n the party #ho #ould be defeated if no The burden of proof is evidence #ere given on either side. al#ays #ith the prosecution.
/la!nt!ff )as the burden of proof to sho# the truth of his allegations if the defendant raises a negative defense. (#C respect to his complaint) )as the burden of proof if he raises an affirmative defense on the complaint of the plaintiff. (#C respect to his counterclaim) #C respect to his cross claim Note' 3t is re%uired that courts determine first if the evidence of the prosecution has at least sho#n a pr!ma fac!e case before considering the evidence of the defense. S3f established ? then the burden is shifted upon the accused to prove other#ise

B*)den of ")oof 7oes not shift and remains throughout the entire case e-actly #here the original pleadings placed it.
Oenerally determined by the pleadings filed by the party.

B*)den of E%&den#e 4hifts from party to party depending upon the e-igencies of the case in the course of the trial
Oenerally determined by the developments of the trial, or by the provisions of substantive la# or procedural rules #hich may relieve the party from presenting evidence on the facts alleged. (e-. "resumptions, judicial notice)

%efendan t .ross .la!mant

")&n#&-le of Negat&%e !%e)0ents 2N!3 R' 1(s need not be proved (#hether in civil or criminal action) - E,C' 3t has to be proved #hen such negative allegations are: o The essential parts of the cause of action (civil case) or o The essential ingredients of the offense of the defense (criminal case). *nly needs to establish a pr!ma fac!e case from the best evidence obtainable EFa0-le' 3n breach of contract, non-performance must be proven. 3n illegal possession of firearms, the lac0 of license must be proved. - E,C to the E,C' 3n civil cases, even if the 1( is an essential part of the cause of action or defense, it does not need to be proved: o 3G it is only for the purpose of denying the e-istence of a document #hich should properly be in the custody of the adverse party.
Note' 3t is not incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce positive evidence to support a 1( the truth of #hich is indicated by established circumstances and #hich if untrue could readily be disproved by documents or other evidence #Cin the 0no#ledge or control of the accused. +hen the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof or #hen the facts are more immediately #Cin the 0no#ledge of the accused ? the onus rests on the accused.

B*)den of E%&den#e( def&ned' The logical necessity on a party during a particular time of the trial to create a pr!ma fac!e case in its favor or to destroy that created against him by presenting evidence. In BO7B civil and criminal cases' 7he BURDEN OF EVIDENCE l&es +H the -a)t/ +ho asse)ts an aff&)0at&%e allegat&on$ #ivil #ases #riminal #ases Plaintiff 8ust prove the Prosecutio 8ust prove the its affirmative n affirmative allegations in the allegations in his indictments (elements of the complaint crime and the attending circumstances) Defendant 3n his counterclaim Defense (s to the justifying, and in his e-empting, mitigating, and affirmative defenses absolutory circumstances

>B!7 NEED NO7 BE "ROVED 7he Follo+&ng Fa#ts Need Not .e ")o%ed' 1. Gacts #hich are presumed ('ule 161) $. Gacts #hich are of judicial notice ('ule 1$=) 6. Gacts #hich are judicially admitted ('ule 1$=)

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

.. ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

"RESU8"7IONS ")es*0-t&on( def&ned' (n inference as to the e-istence or non-e-istence of a fact #hich courts are permitted to dra# from the proof of other facts. Note' ( presumption shifts the burden of going for#ard #ith the evidence. 3t imposes on the party against #hom it is directed the burden of going for#ard #ith evidence to meet or rebut the presumption.
")es*0-t&ons The proponent still has to introduce evidence of the basis of the presumption (evidence of the e-istence and none-istence of the facts from #hich the court can dra# the inference of the fact in issue D*d&#&al !d0&ss&on and D*d&#&al Not&#e The proponent does not have to introduce any evidence

intentionally and deliberately led another: o to believe a particular thing true, and o 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 the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant bet#een them. (6a) Notes' Classes of Con#l*s&%e ")es*0-t&ons 1. ES7O""EL IN "!IS (Rule 131- Sec. 26a7) ? The fact #hich the party in estoppel has represented to be true is conclusively presumed as against him to be true Re=*&s&tes as to the "a)t/ Esto--ed Re=*&s&tes as to the "a)t/ Cla&0&ng Esto--el a. !onduct amounting to false a. 9ac0 of 0no#ledge of truth as to the representation or concealment facts in %uestion b. 3ntent or at least e-pectation that the b. 'eliance in good faith upon the conduct shall be acted upon conduct or statements of the party to c. Tno#ledge, actual or constructive of be stopped the real facts c. (ction or inaction based thereon to his detriment or prejudice. Note' Estoppel is effective only as bet#een the parties thereto or their successors in interest $. ES7O""EL BC DEED (Rule 131- Sec. 2 6b7 ) ? The o#nership of the landlord at the start of the tenancy relation is conclusively presumed as against the tenant. Note' 3f the title asserted is one that is alleged to have been ac%uired subse%uent to the commencement of that relation, the presumption #ill not apply Se#$ 6$ Disputable presumptions$ The ff presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: (a) That a person is innocent of crime or #rongJ

Class&f&#at&ons of ")es*0-t&ons ")es*0-t&ons of La+ (praesumpt!ones ,ur!s) Def&n&t&on' ( deduction #hich the la# e-pressly directs to be made from particular facts. ( certain inference must be made #henever the facts appear #hich furnish the basis of the inference 'educed to fi-ed rules and form part of the system of jurisprudence

")es*0-t&ons of Fa#t (praesumpt!ones 'om!n!s) Def&n&t&on' ( deduction #hich reason dra#s from facts proved #ithout an e-press direction from the la# to that effect 7iscretion is vested in the tribunal as to dra#ing the inference. 7erived #holly and directly from the circumstances of the particular case by means of the common e-perience of man0ind

")es*0-t&ons of La+ Can Be' a. Con#l*s&%e o) !.sol*te (,ur!s et de ,ure) - ( presumption of la# that is not permitted to be overcome by any proof to the contrary b. D&s-*ta.le( Re.*tta.le o) ")&0a Fa#&e (,ur!s tantum) - is that #hich the la# permits to be overcome or contradicted by proofs to the contraryJ other#ise the same remains satisfactory. Se#$ 2$ #onclusive presumptions$ The ff are instances of conclusive presumptions: (a)+henever a party has by his o#n declaration, act, or omission:

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

.L ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

")es*0-t&on of Inno#en#e 2!3 (pplies to both civil and criminal cases The legislature may provide for prima facie evidence of guilt: - /rov!ded: There be a rational connection bet#een the facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed. This presumption accompanies the accused throughout the trial do#n to the moment of conviction. This presumption disappears after conviction and the appellate court then #ill presume the accused guilty. (n accused is not called upon to offer evidence on his behalf for his freedom is forfeited only if the re%uisite %uantum of proof necessary for conviction be in e-istence. Bas&s' founded on the principles of justice and is intended not to protect the guilty but to prevent the conviction of an innocent person. (b) That an unla#ful act #as done #ith an unla#ful intentJ (c) That a person intends the ordinary conse%uences of his voluntary actJ (d) That a person ta0es ordinary care of his concernsJ ")es*0-t&on 7hat a "e)son 7akes O)d&na)/ Ca)e of h&s Con#e)ns 2D3 (ll men are presumed to be sane and normal and subject to be moved by substantially the same motives. +hen of age and sane, they must ta0e care of themselves. !ourts operate not because one person has been defeated or overcome by another but because he has been defeated or overcome illegally. There must be a violation of la#, the commission of #hat the la# 0no#n as an actionable #rong before the courts is authori5ed to lay hold of the situation and remedy it. (e) That evidence #illfully suppressed #ould be adverse if producedJ ")es*0-t&on of S*--)ess&on of E%&den#e 2E3

Rat&o' The natural conclusion is that the proof if produced, instead of rebutting #ould support the inference against him and the court is justified in acting upon that conclusion Re=*&s&tes fo) ")es*0-t&on 2e3 to !--l/' 1. That the evidence is material $. That the party had the opportunity to produce the same 6. That the said evidence is available only to said party >hen ")es*0-t&on 2e3 >&ll Not !--l/' 1. +hen the evidence in %uestion is e%ually available to both parties $. +hen the evidence is merely corroborative or merely cumulative, or is unnecessary 6. +hen the suppression of evidence is not #illful .. +hen the suppression is an e-ercise of privilege (f) That money paid by one to another #as due to the latterJ (g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latterJ (h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paidJ (i) That prior rents or installments had been paid #hen a receipt for the later one is producedJ (j) That a person found in possession of a thing ta0en in the doing of a recent #rongful act is the ta0er and the doer of the #hole act: - other#ise, that things #hich a person possess, or e-ercises acts of o#nership over, are o#ned by himJ ")es*0-t&on f)o0 "ossess&on of Stolen oods 2D3

This is not in conflict #ith the presumption of innocence. (t the start of the criminal case, the court #ill apply the presumption of innocence. 2ut once the prosecution is able to prove that a certain object has been unla#fully ta0en, that there is a crime of theft committed and that the prosecution has also proven that the accused is in possession of this object unla#fully ta0en, then the presumption of innocence disappears. The ne# presumption of guilt ta0es place.

Fa#ts to Be ")o%ed B/ the ")ose#*t&on fo) ")es*0-t&on 2D3 to !--l/' 1. The crime #as actually committed $. The crime #as committed recently

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

.M ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

6. The stolen property #as found in possession of the accused and .. The accused is unable to satisfactorily e-plain his possession there 7o Con#l*s&%el/ ")o%e "ossess&on( It &s Ne#essa)/ 7hat' 1. The possession must be une-plained by any innocent origin $. The possession must be fairly recent and 6. The possession must be e-clusive Note' !onvictions in these cases are not sustained upon a presumpt!on of la4 .*t )est +holl/ *-on an inference of fact as to the guilt of the accused. (0) That a person in possession of an order on himself for: - the payment of the money, or - the delivery of anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing accordinglyJ (l) That a person acting in a public office #as regularly appointed or elected to itJ ")es*0-t&on that a "e)son &n a "*.l&# off&#e +as Reg*la)l/ !--o&nted o) Ele#ted to &t' 2L3 Rat&o' 3t #ould cause great inconvenience if in the first instance strict proof #ere re%uired of appointment or election to office in all cases #here it might be collaterally in issue. B*)den of ")oof' 3s on the adverse party to sho# that he #as not appointed or designated. (m) That official duty has been regularly performedJ ")es*0-t&on that an Off&#&al D*t/ has .een Reg*la)l/ "e)fo)0ed 283

This presumption of authority is not confined to official appointees. 3t has been e-tended to persons #ho have been appointed pursuant to a local or special statute to act in %uasi-public or %uasi-official capacities and to professional men li0e surgeons and la#yers. +mn!a praesumuntur r!te et solemn!ter esse acta donec probetur !n contrar!um ? all things are presumed to have been done regularly and #ith due formality until the contrary is proved. +hile ordinarily, irregularity #ill not be presumed, an adverse assumption may arise #hen the official act in %uestion appears to be irregular upon its face. (n) That a court, or judge acting as such, #hether in the "hilippines or else#here, #as acting in the la#ful e-ercise of jurisdictionJ ")es*0-t&on of Reg*la)&t/ of D*d&#&al ")o#eed&ngs 2N3 The court rendering the judgment is presumed to have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties and to have rendered a judgment valid in every respect. - Jurisdiction is presumed in all cases, be it superior or inferior court. - However, jurisdiction may not be presumed when the record itself shows that jurisdiction has not been acquired or there was something on the record showing the absence of jurisdiction. (o)That all the matters #ithin an issue raised in a case: - #ere laid before the court and passed upon by itJ and in li0e manner that all matters #ithin an issue raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration: - #ere laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by themJ (p)That private transactions have been fair and regularJ

Rat&o' 1. Innocence and not the wrongdoing is to be presumed 2. An official oath will not be violated 3. A republican form of government cannot survive unless a limit is placed upon controversies and certain trust and confidence reposed in each government, department, or agent at least to the extent of such presumption. Note' This presumption applies to both civil and criminal cases

")es*0-t&on that ")&%ate 7)ansa#t&ons ha%e Been done Fa&)l/ and Reg*la) 2"3 (n individual intends to do right rather than #rong and intends to do only #hat he has the right to do.

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

.N ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

3n the absence of proof to the contrary, there is a presumption that all men act fairly honestly, and in good faith. (%)That the ordinary course of business has been follo#edJ Those #ho #ere engaged in a given trade or business are presumed to be ac%uainted #ith the general customs and usages of the occupation and #ith such other facts as are necessarily incident to the proper conduct of the business. (r)That there #as a sufficient consideration for a contractJ (s)That a negotiable instrument #as given or indorsed for a sufficient considerationJ (t)That an endorsement of a negotiable instrument #as made: - before the instrument #as overdue and - at the place #here the instrument is datedJ (u)That a #riting is truly datedJ (v)That a letter duly directed and mailed #as received in the regular course of the mailJ ")es*0-t&on &n "a)ag)a-h 2V3 Fo) the ")es*0-t&on &n "a) 2V3 to !)&se( It 8*st Be ")o%ed' - That the letter #as properly addressed #ith postage pre-paid and that it #as actually mailed - 3G the said letter #as not returned to the sender: 3t is presumed that it #as received by the addressee Se)%&#e of "lead&ngs B/ 8a&l 2Se# 1G( R*le 163 - 4ervice is complete upon the e-piration of 1/ days after mailing &19E44 the court other#ise provides - 3f by registered mail: The service is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee (3f he fails to claim his mail from the post #Cin L days from date of 1st notice ? service is complete from the e-piration of such time) (#)That after an absence of N years, it being un0no#n #hether or not the absentee still lives: - he is #ons&de)ed dead for all purposes, - E !E"T for those of succession. The absentee shall not .e #ons&de)ed dead fo) the -*)-ose of o-en&ng h&s s*##ess&on: - till after an absence of 1/ years. 3G he disappeared afte) the age of J: /ea)s: - an absence of L years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened. 7he follo+&ng shall .e #ons&de)ed dead fo) all -*)-oses including the division of the estate among the heirs: (1) ( person on board - a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or - an aircraft #hich is missing, #ho has not been heard of for . years since the loss of the vessel or aircraftJ ($) ( member of the armed forces #ho: - has ta0en part in armed hostilities, and - has been missing for . yearsJ (6) ( person #ho: - has been in danger of death under other circumstances and - #hose e-istence has not been 0no#n for . yearsJ (.) 3f a married person has been absent for . consecutive years, the s-o*se -)esent 0a/:

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

.P ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

contract a subse%uent marriage 3G he or she has #ell-founded belief that the absent spouse is already death. In #ase of d&sa--ea)an#e( +he)e the)e &s a dange) of death under the circumstances hereinabove provided: - an absence of only $ years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a subse%uent marriage. )o#ever, &n an/ #ase( before marrying again, the spouse present must: - institute a summary proceedings as provided in the )am!l$ .ode and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, - +&tho*t -)e1*d&#e to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. O)d&na)/ B*t Cont&n*ed !.sen#e: (Girst $ subpars) The absentee is presumed to have died at the end of the said period L*al&f&ed !.sen#e' (3n danger of death under the 6 instances contemplated) The absentee is presumed to have died at the time he #as e-posed to such danger or peril, at the start of the period. Note' 7istinction is important for successional rights (-) That ac%uiescence resulted from a belief that the thing ac%uiesced in #as conformable to the la# or factJ (y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature habits of lifeJ (5)That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartneshipJ (aa) That a man and #oman deporting themselves as husband and #ife have entered into a la#ful contract of marriageJ (bb) That property ac%uired by a man and a #oman: - #ho are capacitated to marry each other and - #ho live e-clusively #ith each other as husband and #ife #Cout the benefit of marriage *' under void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts, #or0 or industry. (cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a #oman: - #ho are not capacitated to marry each other and

#ho have ac%uire properly through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry, such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit a)e e=*al.

(dd) That 3G the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage: - #ithin 6// days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary: (1) ( child born 2EG*'E 1P/ days after the solemni5ation of the subse%uent marriage: - is considered to have been conceived d*)&ng the fo)0e) 0a))&age( - "'*,37E7 it be born #ithin the 6// days after the termination of the former marriage. ($) ( child born (GTE' 1P/ days follo#ing the celebration of the subse%uent marriage: - is considered to have been conceived d*)&ng s*#h 0a))&age( - even though it be born #ithin the 6// days after the termination of the former marriage. (ee) That a thing once proved to e-ist continues as long as is usual #ith things of the natureJ (ff) That the la# has been obeyedJ (gg) That a printed or published boo0, purporting to be printed or published by public authority, #as so printed or publishedJ (hh) That a printed or published boo0, purporting to contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country #here the boo0 is published, contains correct reports of such casesJ (ii) That a trustee or other person #hose duty it #as to convey real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

.= ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

#hen such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his successor in interestJ

in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at the same time. (La)

"resumption is the same as the rule in (rt .6 of the !!

"a) 2EE3 "a) 2DD3 The parties are 1*T re%uired to perish in 3t is 'e%uired that the deaths a calamity occurred during a calamity 3t only applies to %uestions of 3t applies to cases not involving successional rights successional rights "rovides a presumption of simultaneity in "rovides for presumptions of the deaths of the persons called to succeed survivorship each other Se#$ 9$ ,o presumption of le"itimacy or ille"itimacy$

(jj) That E !E"T for purposes of succession, #hen: - t#o persons perish in the same calamity, such as #rec0, battle, or conflagration, and - it is not sho#n #ho died first, and - there are no particular circumstances from #hich it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the se-es, (ccording to the follo#ing rules: 1. 3f both #ere under the age of 1L years: o the older is deemed to have survivedJ $. 3f both #ere above the age of M/: o the younger is deemed to have survivedJ 6. 3f one is under 1L and the other above M/: o the former is deemed to have survivedJ .. 3f both be over 1L and under M/, and the se- be different: o the male is deemed to have survived, o if the se- be the same, the olderJ L. 3f one be under 1L or over M/, and the other bet#een those ages: o the latter is deemed to have survived. In O)de) fo) ")es*0-t&on 2DD3 to !--l/( It &s Ne#essa)/ 7hat' 1. The deaths occurred in a calamity and $. There are no particular circumstances from #hich it can be inferred that one died ahead of the other (00) That 3G there is a doubt, as bet#een t#o or more persons #ho are called to succeed each other, as to #hich of them died first: - #hoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the sameJ

There is 1* presumption of legitimacy of a child: - born after 6// days follo#ing the dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the spouses. >hoe%e) alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child 0*st -)o%e his allegation. (M) Notes' - (n e-act copy of (rt $M1 of the !! - (pplies #hen the dissolution of the marriage is by reason of causes other than the death of the husband. - 4eparation may be: legal separation or a separation de facto

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

L/ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

[RULE 162] "RESEN7!7ION OF EVIDENCE !$ E,!8IN!7ION OF >I7NESSES Se# 1$ E1amination to be done in open court$ The e-amination of #itnesses presented in a trial or hearing: - shall be done in open court, and - under oath or affirmation. &19E44: - the #itness is incapacitated to spea0, or - the %uestions calls for a different mode of ans#er, the ans#ers of the #itness shall be given orally. (1a) Se#$2$ Proceedin"s to be recorded$ The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, INC: - the %uestions propounded to a #itness and his ans#ers thereto, - the statements made by the judge or any of the parties, counsel, or #itnesses #ith reference to the case, shall be recorded: - by means of shorthand or stenotype or - by other means of recording found suitable by the court. ( transcript of the record of the proceedings: - made by the official stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and - certified as correct by him shall be deemed pr!ma fac!e a correct statement of such proceedings. ($a)

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

L1 ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

Notes' R*les Fo) !d0&ss&.&l&t/ R' The testimony of the #itness must be given in open - E,C' 4uch re%uirement may be supplanted o 3n civil cases, by depositions pursuant to and under the limitations of 'ules $6 and $. o 3n criminal cases, by depositions or conditional e-aminations, pursuant to 4ec 1$ to 1L 'ule 11= and 'ule 1$6, or by the records of the preliminary investigation Bo+ O)al E%&den#e &s &%en R' 3t is usually given orally in open court. Therefore, generally, the testimonies of #itnesses cannot be presented in affidavits. - E,C: Testimonies of #itnesses may be given in affidavits is under the 'ules of 4ummary "rocedure (2" 1$=) "*)-ose' to enable the court to judge the credibility of the #itness by the #itnessI manner of testifying, their intelligence, and appearance. R' Testimony of #itnesses shall be given under oath or affirmation. - 7+o fold o.1e#t &n )e=*&)&ng a +&tness to .e s+o)n' 1. 2y affecting the conscience of the #itness to compel him to spea0 the truthJ $. 3f he #illfully falsifies that truth, that he may be punished by perjury. - 7he )&ght to ha%e the +&tness s+o)n 0a/ .e +a&%ed o 3f a party fails to object to the ta0ing of the testimony of a #itness #ithout the administration of an oath, he #ill be deemed to have #aived his objection. Bo+ 7est&0on/ of the >&tness Sho*ld .e El&#&ted - 2y %uestion of counsel - The court may also propound %uestions either on the direct or crosse-amination of the #itness or suggest %uestions to counsel. Note' The testimony of a #itness cannot be considered self-serving if he is subjected to cross-e-amination. L*est&ons -)o-o*nded to a +&tness 0*st'

1. $. 6. .. L. M. N. P. =. 1/. 11. 1$.

1ot be indefinite or uncertainJ 2e relevantJ 1ot be argumentativeJ 1ot for conclusion of la#J 1ot call for opinion or hearsay evidenceJ 1ot call for illegal ans#erJ 1ot call for self-incriminating testimonyJ 1ot be leadingJ 1ot be misleadingJ 1ot to tend reputation of #itnessJ 1ot to be repetitionsJ 1ot call for a narration.

Se#$ 6$ Ri"hts and obli"ations of a !itness$ ( #itness 8&4T ans#er %uestions: - although his ans#er may tend to establish a claim against him. )o#ever, &t &s the )&ght of a +&tness' (1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting %uestions, and from harsh or insulting demeanorJ ($) 1ot to be detained longer than the interests of justice re%uireJ (6) 1ot to be e-amined E !E"T *19: as to matters pertinent to the issueJ (.) 1ot to give an ans#er #hich #ill tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense &19E44 other#ise provided by la#J or (L) 1ot to give an ans#er #hich #ill tend to degrade his reputation - &19E44 it to be the very fact at issue or to a fact from #hich the fact in issue #ould be presumed. 2ut a #itness must ans#er to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense. (6a, 1=a) Notes' R' ( #itness cannot refuse to ans#er %uestions material to the in%uiry even if it may tend to establish a claim against him E,C' )e may validly refuse to ans#er: 1. Unde) the )&ght aga&nst selfM&n#)&0&nat&on (3f it #ill subject him to punishment for an offense) - (vailable in civil, criminal and administrative cases

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

L$ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

8ay be #ith reference to the offense involved in the same case #here he is charged or in another case - 3t may be #aived ho#ever in &00*n&t/ stat*tes #herein the #itness is granted immunity from criminal prosecution for offenses admitted in his testimony $. Unde) the )&ght aga&nst selfMdeg)adat&on (3f it #ill have a direct tendency to degrade his character) &19E44: - 4uch %uestion is directed to the very fact at issue or to a fact from #hich the fact at issue #ould be presumed or - 3t refers to his previous final conviction for an offense Note' 'ight should be seasonable invo0ed and may be #aived.

R&ght of SelfMIn#)&0&nat&on D&st&ng*&shed

!##*sed !annot be compelled to testify or produce evidence even by subpoena or other process or order of the court. )e cannot be re%uired either for the prosecution, for co-accused or even for himself. O)d&na)/ >&tness 8ay be compelled to testify by subpoena having only the right to refuse to ans#er a particular incriminating %uestion at the time it is put to him.

Class&f&#at&on of I00*n&t/ Stat*tes 1. Use I00*n&t/ @ *nly prohibits the use of #itnessI compelled testimony and its fruits in any manner in connection #ith the criminal prosecution of the #itness. 3t does not render a #itness immune from prosecution. $. 7)ansa#t&onal I00*n&t/ @ grants immunity to the #itness from prosecution for an offense to #hich his compelled testimony relates. S#o-e of the )&ght aga&nst selfM&n#)&0&nat&on 1. 1o person should be compelled to be a #itness against himselfJ $. The rule may be invo0ed in any court or proceedingsJ 6. The rule covers only testimonial compulsion and production by him of incriminating documents and articles. ( Fo)#ed Reena#t0ent comes #ithin the ban since prohibition against testimonial compulsion e-tends to those communicative in nature) Note' 'ight against self-incrimination is granted only in favor of individuals. >hen &s an a#t test&0on&al' 3f it e-plicitly or implicitly relate a factual assertion or discloses information. Rat&onale aga&nst test&0on&al #o0-*ls&on' The court may not e-tract from the defendantIs o#n lips and against his #ill an admission of his guilt. L&0&tat&on &f a +&tness &s a -a)t/ &n a #&%&l a#t&on' 2efore the plaintiff can compel the defendant to be a #itness, the plaintiff must first prove that he has submitted #ritten interrogatories of the defendant.

Se#$ 9$ $rder in the e1amination of an individual !itness$ The order in #hich the individual #itness may be e-amined is as follo#sJ (a) 7irect e-amination by the proponentJ (b) !ross-e-amination by the opponentJ (c) 'e-direct e-amination by the proponentJ (d) 'e-cross-e-amination by the opponent. (.) Se#$ :$ Direct e1amination$ D&)e#t eFa0&nat&on is the e-amination-in-chief of a #itness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. (La) Se#$ ;$ #ross@e1aminationG its purpose and e1tent$ &"*1 the term!nat!on of t'e d!rect exam!nat!on the +&tness 0a/ .e #)ossM eFa0&ned 2: the adverse party - as to many matters stated in the direct e-amination, or connected there#ith, - #ith sufficient fullness and freedom o to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and o to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (Pa) Notes'

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

L6 ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

"*)-oses of C)oss EFa0&nat&on 1. To discredit the #itness $. To discredit the testimony of the #itness 6. To clarify certain matters .. To elicit admissions from #itnesses S#o-e and L&0&ts of C)oss EFa0&nat&on - !0e)&#an R*le' 'estricts cross-e-amination to facts #hich are connected #ith the matters that have been stated in the direct e-amination of the #itness - Engl&sh R*le' ( #itness may be cross-e-amined, not only upon matters testified to by him on his direct e-amination, 2&T (94* on all matters relevant to the issue >hat R*le Do +e Follo+? M BO7B R' +e follo# the Engl&sh R*le ? )o#ever, it does not mean that the party is ma0ing the #itness his o#n, as stated in 4ec L - E,C' +e follo# the !0e)&#an R*le (may only be cross-e-amined on matters covered by direct e-amination )#hen: o The #itness is an un!illin" or hostile !itness as so declared by the court *' is an adverse party o The #itness is an accused #ho testifies as a #itness in his o#n behalf Bost&le >&tness( def&ned' *ne declared so by the court upon ade%uate sho#ing of his ? adverse !nterest- un,ust!f!ed reluctance to test!f$ or '!s 'av!n& m!sled t'e part$ !nto call!n& to t'e stand. 8&slead&ng Fa#ts (Huestions #hich assumes facts not on record), IF asked: - *n cross-e-amination: *bjectionable for being misleading - *n direct-e-amination: *bjectionable for lac0 of basis Do#t)&ne of In#o0-lete 7est&0on/' +hen cross-e-amination cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party #ho offered the #itness, the incomplete testimony is rendered incompetent R' 4uch testimony should be stric0en from the record. - E,C' )o#ever, in criminal cases #hen the prosecution #itness #as e-tensively cross-e-amined on the material points (essential elements of the crime) and thereafter failed to appear and cannot be

produced despite a #arrant for his arrest ? stri0ing out is not #arranted (Pp v. Corospe, 3B>9) >hen d&)e#tMeFa0&nat&on 0a/ .e st)&#ken o*t fo) la#k of #)ossM eFa0&nat&on' %epends on 4'o !s at fault: - IF &t &s on the -a)t/ -)esent&ng the +&tness ? it may be e-punged - IF &t &s on the ad%e)se -a)t/: There can be no forfeiture of direct testimony.

Se#$ J$ Re@direct e1aminationG its purpose and e1tent$ ()*ER t'e cross?exam!nat!on of t'e 4!tness 'as been concluded- he 0a/ .e )eMeFa0&ned 2: the party calling him: - to e-plain or supplement his ans#ers given during the crosse-amination. On )eMd&)e#tMeFa0&nat&on: - %uestions on matters 1*T dealt #ith during the cross-e-amination, - 0a/ .e allo+ed by the court in its discretion. (1$) ")&n#&-al O.1e#t' To prevent injustice to the #itness and the party #ho has called him by affording an opportunity to the #itness: - To e-plainCamplifyCreaffirm the testimony #hich he has given on !ross-E - To e-plain any apparent contradiction or inconsistency in his statements Se#$ 8$ Re@cross@e1amination$ &"*1 t'e conclus!on of t'e re?d!rect exam!nat!on, the ad%e)se -a)t/ 0a/: - re-cross-e-amine the #itness o on matters stated in his re-direct e-amination, and also

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

L. ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

on such other matters as may be allo#ed by the court in its discretion. (16)

- contrary to that #hich he has previously stated. It &s not allo+ed. (La, Ma, and Pa) Lead&ng L*est&on( def&ned' *ne #hich suggests to the #itness the ans#er desired. R' 3t is not allo#ed - Rat&o' 3t causes the #itness to testify in accordance #ith the suggestion rather than a genuine recollection of events E,C' 9eading Huestions are (llo#ed: 1. *n cross-e-amination $. *n preliminary matters 6. 7ifficulty in getting direct and intelligible ans#ers .. &n#illing or hostile #itness L. (dverse party or an officer, director or a corporation or partnership #hich is an adverse party Note' )or os. 3 and :: There is no need of a preliminary sho#ing of hostility before leading %uestions can be as0ed Lead&ng =*est&ons ha%e .een allo+ed ./ the SC +hen the +&tness &s: immature, aged and infirm, in bad physical condition, uneducated, ignorant unaccustomed to court proceedings, feeble-minded, confused, has slo# comprehension, deaf and dumb, unable to spea0 or understand English. (People v. Dela #ru?, 5775) Note' ( %uestion that merely suggests a subject #Co suggesting an ans#er or a specific thing is 1*T a leading %uestion 8&slead&ng L*est&on( def&ned' *ne #hich assumes facts not in evidence or #Co sufficient basis or #hich assumes testimony or proof #hich has not been given. ? 3t has little probative value R' 3t is 1*T allo#ed as #ell - E,CE"7IONS' 1. +hen #aivedJ $. +hen as0ing %uestions to an e-pert #itness Se#$ 11$ +mpeachment of adverse party4s !itness$ ( #itness may be impeached: - by the party against #hom he #as called, - by contradictory evidence, - by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or

"*)-ose' To overcome the other partyIs attempt to rehabilitate a #itness or to rebut damaging evidence brought out on !ross-E It &s NO7 a 8atte) of R&ght on ReMC)ossME fo) Co*nsel to 7o*#h on 8atte)s NO7 B)o*ght on ReMD&)e#tME - 'e-!ross-E is limited to ne# matters brought out on the 'e-7irect-E and such matters as may be allo#ed by the court Se#$ A$ Recallin" !itness$ (GTE' t'e exam!nat!on of a 4!tness b$ bot' s!des 'as been concluded : - the #itness cannot be recalled #Cout leave of the court. The court #ill grant or #ithhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of justice may re%uire. (1.) R' (fter the e-amination of a #itness by both sides has been concluded, the #itness, !(11*T be recalled >HO lea%e of #o*)t E,C' +hen a recall of the #itness has been eF-)essl/ )ese)%ed ? recall is a 0atte) of )&ght

Se#$ 1G$ (eadin" and misleadin" ;uestions$ ( %uestion: - #hich s*ggests to the +&tness the ans+e) #hich the e-amining party desires &s a lead&ng =*est&on$ 3t is not allo#ed, E !E"T: (a) *n cross e-aminationJ (b) *n preliminary mattersJ (c) +hen there is a difficulty in getting direct and intelligible ans#ers from a #itness #ho is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-muteJ (d) *f an un#illing or hostile #itnessJ or (e) *f a #itness #ho is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association #hich is an adverse party. ! 0&slead&ng =*est&on is one +h&#h ass*0es as t)*e a fa#t: - not yet testified to by the #itness, or

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

LL ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent #ith his present, testimony, 2&T 1*T: - by evidence of particular #rongful acts, E !E"T that it may be sho#n: - by the e-amination of the #itness, or the record of the judgment, - that he has been convicted of an offense. (1L) Notes' R' *ne #ho voluntarily offers a #itnessI testimony is bound by such ( !.e. cannot impeach or contradict), E,CE"7IONS' 1. 3n case of a hostile #itness or an un#illing #itness $. +here the #itness is an adverse party or the representative of a juridical person #hich is the adverse party or 6. +hen the #itness re%uired is 1*T voluntarily offered but is re%uired by la# to be presented (e-. 4ubscribing #itness to the #ill) ! "a)t/ Can I0-ea#h a >&tness of the !d%e)se "a)t/ BC' 1. !ontradictory evidence from testimony in same case $. Evidence of prior inconsistent statement 6. Evidence of bad character and .. Evidence of bias, interest, prejudice or incompetence L. Evidence of mental, sensory derangement or defect M. Evidence of conviction of an offense #hich affects credibility of #itness. 6/eople v. >!vera 3:5 S.R( 9;3 620017 Othe) 8odes of I0-ea#h&ng !s&de F)o0 Se# 11 1. 2y involving him during !ross-E in contradiction $. 2y sho#ing the impossibility or improbability of his testimony 6. 2y proving action or conduct of the #itness inconsistent #ith his testimony .. 2y sho#ing bias, interest or hostile feeling against the adverse party Note' 3mpeachment is 9383TE7 to bad reputation for lac0 of veracity and 1*T for lac0 of morals Reha.&l&tat&on of >&tnesses: (n impeached #itness may be allo#ed on redirect to attempt to rehabilitate (to restore the #itnessI credibility) by the party #ho called the #itness to the stand Note' (n impeached #itness does not stric0en his testimony Se#$ 12$ Party may not impeach his o!n !itness$

E !E"T #ith respect to #itnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of 4ection 1/: - the party producing a #itness is 1*T allo#ed to impeach his credibility. ( #itness may be #ons&de)ed as *n+&ll&ng o) host&le onl/ &f so declared by the court &"*1 ade%uate sho#ing of: - his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or - his having misled the party into calling him to the #itness stand. The un#illing or hostile #itness so declared *' the #itness #ho is an adverse party, may be impeached: - 2: the part$ present!n& '!m in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, - E !E"T by evidence of his bad character. )e may (94* be impeached and cross-e-amined: - 2: t'e adverse part$, - but such cross-e-amination must *19: .e on the s*.1e#t 0atte) of h&s eFa0&nat&onM&nM#h&ef. (Ma, Na) Notes' ! "a)t/ Can I0-ea#h B&s O+n >&tness ONLC B/' 1. Evidence contradictory to his testimony or $. Evidence of prior inconsistent statements Note' 3n !ase of Aostile 2itnesses, Adverse 2itnesses or +nvoluntary !itnesses ? They may be impeached other than by U1 D U$ Se#$ 16$ Ao! !itness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements $ 2EG*'E a #itness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent #ith his present testimony: - the statements must be related to him, #ith the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and - he must be as0ed #hether he made such statements, and IF so, allo#ed to e-plain them. 3f the statements be in #riting : - they must be sho#n to the #itness 2EG*'E any %uestion is put to him concerning them. (1M) Notes' Cont)ad&#to)/ E%&den#e' 'efers to other testimony of the same #itness, or other evidence presented by him in the same case

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

LM ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

")&o) In#ons&stent State0ent' 'efers to statements oral or documentary, made by the #itness sought to be impeached on occasions other than trial in #hich he is testifying. I0-ea#h&ng *nde) &s done ./ 4la/&ng the -)ed&#ate5' 1. 2y confronting him #ith such statements, #ith the circumstances under #hich they #ere made $. 2y as0ing him #hether he made such statements and 6. 2y giving him as chance to e-plain the inconsistency Note' &nless the #itness is given the opportunity to e-plain the discrepancies, the &0-ea#h0ent &s &n#o0-lete - )*+E,E', such defect is deemed +(3,E7 if no objection on that ground is raised #hen the document involved is offered for admission

Evidence of the good character of a #itness is not ad0&ss&.le &1T39 such character has been impeached. (1N) Se#$ 1:$ E1clusion and separation of !itnesses$ *n any trial or hearing, the 1*dge 0a/: - e-clude from the court any #itness not at the time under e-amination, so that he may not hear the testimony of other #itnesses. The judge may also: - cause #itnesses to be 0ept separate and to be prevented from conversing #ith one another - until all shall have been e-amined. (1P) Notes' !--l&#at&on of the "o+e) of EF#l*s&on' (pplies only to the #itnesses and not to the parties to a civil action.

La/&ng the ")ed&#ate 'efers only to impeachment of a #itness through "34

La/&ng the Fo*ndat&on o) Bases 'efers to a situation #here evidence #hich is incompetent #ill be introduced in evidence because it fails under the e-ceptions to the rule on e-clusion

I0-ea#h&ng 4./ la/&ng the -)ed&#ate5 8a/ .e D&s-ensed >&th In #ase of ")&o) In#ons&stent State0ents 2"IS3 - (s to the testimony of the Adverse Party: 3f the "34 appears in a disposition of the adverse party and not a mere #itness (the deposition may be used by any party for any purpose) - +hen the previous statements of a #itness are offered as evidence of an admission, and not merely to impeach him - +hen such "34 is admissible as independent evidence (2eda, p6/P) Rat&o fo) La/&ng the ")ed&#ate 1. To avoid unfair surprise to the adversary $. To save time (an admission #ill ma0e e-trinsic proof unnecessary) 6. To give the #itness a chance to e-plain Se#$ 19$ Evidence of "ood character of !itness$

"o+e) Does NO7 !--l/' - 7o "a)t&es' They have a right to be present at the trial either by themselves or their attorneys, as #ell as reasonable notice of the time fi-ed thereof. "arties !(11*T be divested by an e-clusion order. - 7o an !##*sed &n a C)&0&nal Case' )e has the right to be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings. If the >&tness V&olates the O)de) of EF#l*s&on' !ourt may: - 2ar him from testifying - Oive little #eight to his testimony aside from his liability for contempt Note' 3t is #ithin the po#er of the judge to refuse to order the e-clusion of the principal #itness during the hearing of a criminal case Se#$ 1;$ 2hen !itness may refer to memorandum$ ( #itness may be allo#ed to refresh his memory respecting a fact: - by anything #ritten or recorded by himself or under his direction at t'e t!me: - #hen the fact occurred, or - immediately thereafter, or

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

LN ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

at any other time #hen the fact #as fresh in his memory and 0ne# that the same #as correctly #ritten or recordedJ but in such case: - the #riting or record must be produced and may be inspected BC the ad%e)se -a)t/, +ho 0a/( 3G he chooses: o cross e-amine the #itness upon it, and may read it in evidence. 4o, also, a +&tness 0a/ test&f/ f)o0 s*#h +)&t&ng o) )e#o)d( though he retain no recollection of the particular facts: - 3G he is able to s#ear that the #riting or record correctly stated the transaction #hen madeJ - but such evidence must be received #ith caution. (1/a) Notes' !--l&#at&on of the !)t&#le @ *19: #hen it is sho#n beforehand that there is a need to refresh the memory of the #itness. Re%&%al of ")esent 8e0o)/
/resent Recollect!on Rev!ved 21st Senten#e3

0no#s that the memorandum is correctly #ritten by him or under his direction: 1o need to s#ear

correctly states the transaction

Val*e of the 8e0o)and*0' It &s S7ILL test&0on&al &n #ha)a#te) - The memorandum used to refresh the memory of the #itness does not constitute evidence, and may not be admitted as such - The memorandum is 1*T admissible as corroborative evidence since a #itness cannot be corroborated by any #ritten statement prepared #holly by him Note' The memorandum 1EE7 1*T be the original #riting. ( copy #ill suffice.

Re%&%al of "ast Re#olle#t&on

/ast Recollect!on Recorded 22nd Senten#e3

Se#$ 1J$ 2hen part of transaction, !ritin" or record "iven in evidence, the remainder, the remainder admissible$ +hen part of an act, declaration, conversation, #riting or record is: - given in evidence by one party, - the #hole of the same subject may be in%uired into by the other, and #hen a detached act, declaration, conversation, #riting or record is given in evidence: - any other act, declaration, conversation, #riting or record necessary to its understanding - may also be given in evidence. (11a) Se#$ 18$ Ri"ht to respect !ritin" sho!n to !itness$ +henever a #riting is sho#n to a #itness, it may be inspected by the adverse party. (=a) B$ !U7BEN7IC!7ION !ND "ROOF OF DOCU8EN7S Se#$ 1A$ #lasses of Documents$

(pplies if the #itness remembers the (pplies #here the #itness does not facts regarding his entries recall the facts involved Re=*&s&tes' Re=*&s&tes' 1. 8emorandum has been #ritten by 1. +itness retains no recollection him or under his directionJ and of the particular facts $. +ritten by him: $. 2ut he his able to s#ear that o +hen the fact occurred or the record or #riting correctly stated the transaction #hen immediately thereafterJ or made o (t any other time #hen the fact #as fresh in his memory and he 0ne# that the same #as correctly recorded Entitled to greater #eight Entitled to lesser #eight Evidence is the testimony Evidence is the #riting or record (the memorandum) 'ule of evidence affected is 'ule of evidence affected is the best competency of #itness, e-amination evidence rule of #itness (laying the predicate) The #itness simply testifies that he +itness must s#ear that the #riting

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

LP ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

Gor the purpose of their presentation evidence, documents are either public or private. "*.l&# do#*0ents are: (a) The #ritten official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, #hether of the '", or of a foreign countryJ (b) 7ocuments ac0no#ledge before a notary public: - E !E"T last #ills and testamentsJ and (c) "ublic records, 0ept in the '", of private documents re%uired by la# to be entered therein. (ll other #ritings are -)&%ate. ($/a) Notes' !*thent&#at&on( def&ned' The process of proving the due e-ecution and genuineness of the document Do#*0ent( def&ned' ( deed, instrument or other duly authori5ed paper by #hich something is proved, evidenced or set forth. Classes of Do#*0ents - "*.l&# Do#*0ents' ( document ac0no#ledged before persons authori5ed to administer oaths. "+ff!c!al %ocuments# o ( document to be public must be an official #ritten act of a public officer o ( foreign decision purporting to be the #ritten record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country is a public #riting. - ")&%ate Do#*0ents' 3ncludes commercial documents Ao!ever, -)&%ate do#*0ents )e=*&)ed ./ la+ to .e ente)ed &n -*.l&# )e#o)ds 0a/ .e #ons&de)ed 4-*.l&# do#*0ents5 - Note: 3f a private #riting itself is inserted officially into a public record, its record, its recordation or its incorporation into the public record becomes a public document 2&T that does 1*T ma0e the private #riting itself a public document so as to ma0e it admissible #Co authentication.

For the purpose of their presentation in evidence: "UBLIC DOCU8EN7S "RIV!7E DOCU8EN7S (s to R' (dmissible in evidence 1*T 4elf (uthenticating. 3t (ut'ent!c!t$ #Co further proof of its must be proved relative to genuineness and due its due e-ecution and e-ecution genuineness, before it may E,C' +here a special rule be received in evidence of la# re%uires proof thereof despite its being a document ac0no#ledged (e-. "robate of notarial #ills) (s to Evidence even against 6rd 2inds only the parties #ho /ersons persons, of the fact #hich e-ecuted it or their privies, Bound gave rise to its due e-ecution insofar as due e-ecution and and to the date of the latter date of the document concerned Note' !ertain transactions must be in a public documentJ other#ise they #ill not be given any validity. Re=*&s&tes fo) the !d0&ss&.&l&t/ of a Co-/ of a Fo)e&gn Off&#&al Do#*0ent' 1. 3t must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by his deputy and $. 3t must be accompanied by a certificate of the "hilippine diplomatic and consular representative to the foreign country certifying that such attesting officer has the custody of the document, 'atio of U$: 1ot a mere technicality but is intended to justify the giving of full faith and credit to the genuineness of a document in a foreign country. Se#$ 2G$ Proof of private document$ 2EG*'E any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, &ts d*e eFe#*t&on and a*thent&#&t/ 0*st .e -)o%ed e&the)' (a) 2y anyone #ho sa# the document e-ecuted or #rittenJ or (b) 2y evidence of the genuineness of the signature or hand#riting of the ma0er. (ny other private document: - need only be identified as that #hich it is claimed to be. ($1a)

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

L= ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

Se#$ 21$ 2hen evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary $ +here a private document: 1. is more than 6/ years old, $. is produced from the custody in #hich it #ould naturally be found if genuine, and 6. is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity need be given. ($$a) Se#$ 22$ Ao! "enuineness of hand!ritin" proved$ The hand#riting of a person may be proved: - by any #itness #ho believes it to be the hand#riting of such person because: o he has seen the person #rite, *' o has seen #riting purporting to be his upon #hich the #itness has acted or been charged, (17 o has thus ac%uired 0no#ledge of the hand#riting of such person. Evidence respecting the hand#riting may also be given by a comparison, made: - by the #itness or the court, - #ith #ritings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against #hom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. ($6a) Se# 2G( 21( 22' 'ules on (uthentication of "rivate 7ocuments Do#t)&ne of Self !*thent&#at&on: +here the facts in the #riting could only have been 0no#n to the #riter Do#t)&ne of !*thent&#at&on of the !d%e)se "a)t/: +here the reply of the adverse party refers to and affirms the transmittal to him and his receipt of the letter in %uestion, a copy of #hich the proponent is offering in evidence. !*thent&#at&on of a Do#*0ent &s NO7 Re=*&)ed >hen' 1. The #riting is an Ancient Document (4ec $1) $. +hen the #riting is a public document on record (4ec 1=) 6. +hen it is a notarial document, ac0no#ledged, proved and certified in accordance #ith 4ec 6/

.. +hen the authenticity and due e-ecution of the document has been e-pressly and impliedly admitted by failure to deny the same under oath (e-. (ctionable documents) (dd!t!onal >round !n Beda Rev!e4er: L. +hen such genuineness and due e-ecution are immaterial to the issue !*thent&#&t/ and ")o%ed ./' Evidence of the genuineness of the D*e EFe#*t&on of a hand#riting of the ma0er ")&%ate Do#*0ent ")o%ed ./' 1.Testimony of the purported #riter $.( #itness #ho actually sa# the person #riting the Band+)&t&ng instrument (4ec $/a) 6.( #itness familiar #ith such hand#riting (4ec $$) and #ho can give his opinion thereon, such opinion being an e-ception to the opinion rule ..( comparison by the court of the %uestioned hand#riting and admitted genuine specimens thereof (4ec $$) L.E-pert Evidence (4ec .=) Note' 4ec $$ merely enumerated the methods of proving hand#riting but it does not give preference or priority to a particular method Band+)&t&ng EF-e)ts @ NO7 8andato)/< >e&ght of EF-e)t 7est&0on/' 3t depends upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing mar0s, characteristics, discrepancies in and bet#een genuine and false specimen of #ritings #hich #ould ordinarily escape notice or detection by an untrained observer !n#&ent Do#*0ents - 6 'e%uirements (4ee codal 4ec $1) - (n ancient document is said to be in the proper custody if it is in the place in #hich and under the care of the person #ith #hom it #ould naturally be. - Rat&o' The fact of its coming from the natural and proper place tends to remove presumptions of fraud and strengthen the belief of its genuineness - B/ 0e)el/ -)od*#&ng the do#*0ent' it establishes prima facie its o#n authenticity. The burden then shifts to the adverse party to prove other#ise.

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

M/ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

Se#$ 26$ Public documents as evidence$ 7ocuments consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer: - are pr!ma fac!e evidence of the facts therein stated. (ll other public documents are evidence: - even against a third person, - of the fact #hich gave rise to their e-ecution and of the date of the latter. ($.a) Notes' "ublic documents are admissible #Co further proof of their due e-ecution and genuineness Rat&o' - Ne#ess&t/' practical impossibility of re%uiring the officialIs attendance as a #itness to testify to the innumerable transactions occurring in the course of his duty - 7)*st+o)th&ness' There is a presumption of regularity, legality and accuracy Se#$ 29$ Proof of official record$ The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of 4ection 1=, #hen admissible for any purpose, 0a/ .e e%&den#ed' - by an official publication thereof or - by a copy attested by the off!cer 'av!n& t'e le&al custod$ of t'e record- or b$ '!s deput$, and a##o0-an&ed, 3G the record is not 0ept in the '", +&th: - a certificate that such officer has the custody. 3G the office in #hich the record is 0ept is in foreign country: - the #e)t&f&#ate 0a/ .e 0ade %0 a secretar$ of t'e embass$ or le&at!on- consul &eneral- consul- v!ce consul- or consular a&ent or b$ an$ off!cer !n t'e fore!&n serv!ce of t'e R/ stationed in the foreign country in #hich the record is 0ept, and - authenticated by the seal of his office. ($La) >hethe) the Re#o)d &f Do0est&# o) Fo)e&gn @ It 0a/ .e E%&den#ed B/' 1. (n official publication $. ( copy thereof duly attested by the proper officers

Note' (bsent the attestation of the proper officer, a mere copy of the foreign document is not admissible as evidence to prove the foreign la#. Se#$ 2:$ 2hat attestation of copy must state$ +henever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestat&on 0*st state, in substance: - that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation: - must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, 3G there be any, or - 3G he be the cler0 of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court. ($Ma) Se#$ 2;$ +rremovability of public record$ (ny public record, an official copy of #hich is admissible in evidence: - must not be removed from the office in #hich it is 0ept, - E,CE"7 upon order of a court #here the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case. ($Na) I))e0o%a.&l&t/ of "*.l&# Re#o)d R' ( public record cannot be removed from the office #hich it is 0ept - E,C' 3t may be removed by order of the court 2&T *19: #hen essential to the just determination of a pending case (e-. subpoena duces tecum) Note' The rule ho#ever, refers only to a public record, an official copy of #hich could be made available to the interested party and is admissible in evidence. Rat&o' 1. To enable others to use the recordJ $. To prevent the serious ris0 of lossJ 6. To prevent its e-posure to #ear and tear Se#$ 2J$ Public record of a private document$ (n authori5ed public record of a private document may be proved: - by the original record, or - by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, #ith an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. ($Pa)

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

M1 ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

Note: 3f a private #riting itself is inserted officially into a public record, its record, its recordation or its incorporation into the public record becomes a public document 2&T that does 1*T ma0e the private #riting itself a public document so as to ma0e it admissible #Co authentication. Se#$ 28$ Proof of lack of record$ ( #ritten statement: - signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy - that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to e-ist in the records of his office, - accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. ($=)

Nota)&al Do#*0ent( def&ned' *ne #hich is duly ac0no#ledged before a notary public. (3t is a public document) - The notary must be duly authori5ed and must have notari5ed said document in accordance #ith the 1otarial 9a#. ") Val*e of a Nota)&al Do#*0ent' 3t is evidence of the facts e-pressed therein >hen a Ce)t&f&ed 7)*e Co-/ &s ")esented It Sho*ld Co0-l/ >&th the FF to .e !d0&ss&.le' 1. The provisions that should appear in the certification or attestation of the said copy (4ec $. D $L) $. 3t must have the documentary stamp affi-ed unless specifically e-empted as in the case of baptismal or birth certificate. Note' 3t is presumed that the re%uisite stamps have been affi-ed to the original copy of a document #here only the carbon copies thereof are available Note' +hen a special po#er of attorney is e-ecuted and ac0no#ledged before a notary public or other competent officer in a foreign country, it cannot be admitted in evidence in '" courts unless it is certified as such in accordance #ith 4ec $.. "*.l&# Inst)*0ents do NO7 Ba%e Un&fo)0 ") Val*e - The la# does not specifically provide that the contents of public instruments #Co distinction are e%ually evidence against 6 rd parties - The probative value of public instruments depends on the 0ind of document that is presented in evidence. R*les on Ba-t&s0al Ce)t&f&#ates 2BC3 - 3ssued by priests durin" the 4panish regime: !onsidered -*.l&# do#*0ents - 3ssued after the 4panish regime: !onsidered -)&%ate do#*0ents and cannot even be considered as prima facie evidence of the fact that gave rise to its e-ecution (it is considered hearsay unless the priest #ho performed the baptismal rites are produced) Note' - 2!s are not sufficient proof of paternity or recognition of a child . 3t is only proof of the baptism administered but not the veracity of the statements in the certificate concerning the relationship of the person bapti5ed. 2OLD RULE3

Se#$ 2A$ Ao! -udicial record impeached$ (ny judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: (a) #ant of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, (b) collusion bet#een the parties, or (c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. (6/a) Se#$ 6G$ Proof of notarial documents$ Every instrument: - duly ac0no#ledged or proved and - certified as provided by la#, may be presented in evidence: - #ithout further proof, - the certificate of ac0no#ledgment being pr!ma fac!e evidence of the e-ecution of the instrument or document involved. (61a) Notes'

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

M$ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

NO>( (rt 1N$ of the Gamily !ode provides: EGiliation of legitimate children is established by the record of birth in the civil registryF

To avoid interruption of proceedings: - parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. (6.a) Note' &nder the 1=PN !onstitution: EThe official languages are Gilipino and, until other#ise provided by la#, English, #ith the regional languages as au-iliary official languages in the regionF

Note' 2!s may be used to determine the minority of the victim in statutory rape Note' 7eath !ertificates is not proof of the cause of death ? its probative value being confined only to the fact of death - 4tatements therein regarding the duration of illness and the cause of death are mere hearsay. - )o#ever, it is admissible to prove residence of decedent at the time of death. Se#$ 61$ Alteration in document, ho! to e1plain$ The party producing a document as genuine: - #hich has been altered and - appears to have been altered after its e-ecution, - in a part material to the %uestion in dispute, must account for the alteration. )e may sho# that the alteration: - #as made by another, #ithout his concurrence, or - #as made #ith the consent of the parties affected by it, or - #as other#ise properly or innocently made, or - that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. 3f he fails to do that: - the document shall 1*T be admissible in evidence. (6$a) Se#$ 62$ Seal$ There shall be no difference bet#een sealed and unsealed private documents: - insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. (66a) Se#$ 66$ Documentary evidence in an unofficial lan"ua"e$ 7ocuments #ritten in an unofficial language: - shall not be admitted as evidence, - &19E44 accompanied #ith a translation into English or Gilipino.

C$ OFFER !ND OBDEC7ION Se#$ 69$ $ffer of evidence$ The court shall consider 1* evidence #hich has not been formally offered. The purpose for #hich the evidence is offered: - must be specified. (6L) Notes' R: The court shall consider no evidence #hich has not been formally offered. The purpose for #hich the evidence is offered must be specified. E,C' 3f there #as repeated reference thereto in the course of the trial by adverse partyIs counsel and of the court, indicating that the documents #ere part of the prosecutionIs evidence. - 7+o )e=*&s&tes 0*st #on#*)' (Pp v. ,apta7 1. The document must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded. $. The document must have been incorporated to the records of the case.

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

M6 ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

EF$ "resented and mar0ed in the pre-trial and testified as to the details and contents and #as cross e-amined. "*)-ose >h/ Offe) 8*st .e S-e#&f&ed' To determine #hether that piece of evidence should be admitted or not because such evidence may be admissible for several purposes under the doctrine of multiple admissibility. Co* Follo+ >hat &s Stated &n the Offe)' 3t must be rejected if it is inadmissible for the purpose stated even if it is admissible for another purpose. Se#$ 6:$ 2hen to make offer$ (s regards the testimony of a #itness, the offer must be made: - at the time the #itness is called to testify. 7ocumentary and object evidence shall be offered: - (GTE' the presentation of a partyQs testimonial evidence. - 4uch offe) shall .e done o)all/ &19E44 allo#ed by the court to be done in #riting. (n)

.. Fo)0al Offe): (fter the termination of the testimonial evidence, the proponent #ill then ma0e a formal offer and state the purpose for #hich the document is presented. L. 3f the evidence is e-cluded, an offe) of -)oof M. O.1e#t&ons' 3t is onl/ +hen the -)o-onent )ests h&s #ase and fo)0all/ offe)s the e%&den#e that an o.1e#t&on 0a/ .e 0ade . *bjection prior thereto is premature Ident&f&#at&on and !*thent&#at&on &s Not needed &n -)&%ate do#*0ents' 3f there is a stipulation on its due e-ecution and genuineness. !*thent&#at&on &s Not needed &n -*.l&# do#*0ents 8a)k&ng and &dent&f/&ng of e%&den#e as an eFh&.&t does NO7 0ean that &t has .een offe)ed as -a)t of e%&den#e$ - Evidence identified and mar0ed as e-hibits may be #ithdra#n before the formal offer thereof or may not at all be offered as evidence. - 3f they are not formally offered in evidence ? such cannot be considered as evidence nor can they be given any evidentiary value. Note' The 4! has admitted evidence to prove mitigating circumstance even if they are not presented or offered in evidence considering the gravity of the offense and the interest of justice.

>hen to 8ake an Offe)' 7epends on its form: 7est&0on&alHO)al E%&den#e Do#*0enta)/ and O.1e#t E%&den#e (t the time the #itness is called to (fter the party has presented his testify testimonial evidence, before he rests *ral Evidence is (l#ays *ffered $-: *ffered only once 1. 2efore the #itness testified $. Every time a %uestion is as0ed of him (implied offer) ")o#ed*)e Befo)e Do#*0enta)/ and O.1e#t E%&den#e Can .e Cons&de)ed ./ the Co*)t 1. 8a)k&ng' To facilitate their identification. 8ay be made during pretrial or trial. $. Ident&f&#at&on' "roof that the document being presented is the same one referred to by the #itness in his testimony 6. !*thent&#at&on' "roof of a documentIs due e-ecution and genuineness.

Se#$ 6;$ $b-ection$ *bjection to evidence offered orally must be made: - immediately after the offer is made. *bjection to a %uestion propounded in the course of the oral e-amination of a #itness shall be made: - as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent. (n offer of evidence in #riting shall be objected to: - #ithin 6 days (GTE' notice of the - &19E44 a different period is allo#ed by the court. 3n any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (6Ma) Notes' Class&f&#at&ons of O.1e#t&ons'

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

M. ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


ene)al O.1e#t&on ? 3t does not go beyond declaring the evidence as immaterial, incompetent, irrelevant or inadmissible. 3t does not specify the grounds for objection. E%roadside $b-ection= $. S-e#&f&# O.1e#t&on @ 3t states #hy or ho# the evidence is irrelevant or incompetent. Re=*&)e0ents to EF#l*de Inad0&ss&.le E%&den#e' 1. *ne has to object to the evidence $. The objection must be timely made and 6. The grounds for the objection must be specified (specific objections) Effe#t of ene)al O.1e#t&on' - Gailure to specify the grounds is a #aiver of objection - 2&T #hen evidence is e-cluded upon a mere general objection, the ruling #ill be upheld 3G any ground in fact e-isted for the e-clusion. >hen to 0ake O.1e#t&on' 23f not made #Cin such time K #aived) Offe) 7&0e to O.1e#t *ffered orally 8ade immediately after the offer is made Huestion propounded in the course 8ade as soon as the grounds thereof shall of the oral e-amination of a #itness become reasonably apparent *ffer of evidence in #riting +Cin 6 days after notice of the offer unless a different period is allo#ed by the court. Note' the formal offer of evidence at the time the #itness is called to testify is necessary to enable the court to intelligently rule on any objection. - "roponent must: 4ho# its evidence, materiality and competence - (dverse party must: "romptly raise any objection thereto Note' ( document admitted not as an independent evidence but merely as part of the testimony of a #itness does 1*T constitute proof of the facts related therein. Se#$ 6J$2hen repetition of ob-ection unnecessary$ +hen it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the e-amination of a #itness: - that the %uestion being propounded are of the same class as those to #hich objection has been made, - #hether such objection #as sustained or overruled, &t shall NO7 .e ne#essa)/ to )e-eat the o.1e#t&on: - it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to such class of %uestions. (6Na)

Note' )ere, the party may just enter a general and continuing objection to the same class of evidence and the ruling of the court shall be applicable to all such evidence of the same class. - The court may also motu propr!o treat the objection as a continuing one, Se#$ 68$Rulin"$ The )*l&ng of the #o*)t 0*st .e g&%en: - immediately (GTE' the objection is made, - &19E44 the court desires to ta0e a reasonable time to inform itself on the %uestion presentedJ but the ruling shall (9+(:4 be made: - during the trial and - at such time as #ill give the party against #hom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling. The )eason fo) s*sta&n&ng o) o%e))*l&ng an o.1e#t&on need not .e stated. - Bo+e%e)( 3G the objection is based on t#o or more grounds: o a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. (6Pa) Note' The court should only consider evidence for the purpose for #hich it #as offered. >hen Sho*ld the R*l&ng Be 8ade? R' "arties #ho object is entitled to a ruling at the time the objection is made - 3f no ruling is made, it #ould prejudice the rights of the client since there #ould be no #ay of 0no#ing if one #ould be compelled to meet any evidence. - 7he atto)ne/ 0*st &nfo)0 the #o*)t of the la#k of )*l&ng ? 3G 1*T: o g): The case cannot be reopened on such ground. The right to object is deemed #aived and cannot be raised on appeal o eF#: +hen there is a serious prejudice on substantial rights ? the appellate court may consider it a reversible error. E,C' &nless the parties present a %uestion to #hich the court desired to inform itself before ma0ing its ruling. - Be)e( it is proper for the court to ta0e reasonable t!me to study the %uestions Se#$ 6A$Strikin" out ans!er$

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

ML ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

4hould a #itness ans#er the %uestion: - 2EG*'E the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, and - such objection is found to be meritorious, the #o*)t shall: - sustain the objection and - order the ans#er given to be stric0en off the record. *n proper motion, the #o*)t 0a/ also' - order the stri0ing out of ans#ers #hich are incompetent, irrelevant, or other#ise improper. (n) 8ode of EF#l*d&ng Inad0&ss&.le E%&den#e 1. *bjection #hen the evidence is offered $. 8otion to stri0e out or E-punge ? proper in the follo#ing cases: a. +hen the #itness ans#ers prematurely before there is reasonable opportunity for the party to object (4ec 6=) b. &nresponsive ans#ers c. (ns#ers that are incompetent, irrelevant, or improper (4ec 6=) Note' There must be an objection before motion to stri0e. d. &ncompleted testimonies #here there #as no opportunity for the party to cross-e-amine e. !onditionally admitted evidence not later substantiated. Se#$ 9G$&ender of e1cluded evidence$ 3G documents or things offered in evidence are e-cluded by the court: - t'e offeror 0a/ ha%e the sa0e atta#hed to or made part of the record. 3G the evidence e-cluded is oral, t'e offeror 0a/ state fo) the )e#o)d: o the name and other personal circumstances of the #itness and o the substance of the proposed testimony. (n) Rat&onale of the Re=*&)e0ent of !tta#h&ng E%&den#e : 4o that in case of appeal, the appellate court may be able to e-amine the same and determined the propriety of their rejection - 4ince 7ocuments forming no part of proofs before the appellate court cannot be considered in disposing of the case, other#ise that #ould infringe upon the constitutional right of the adverse party to due process.

E))oneo*s !d0&ss&on o) Re1e#t&on of E%&den#e R' 1e# Trial is #arranted - E,C' 1ot a ground for ne# trial or reversal: o 3G there are other independent evidence to sustain the decision or o 3G in correcting it, #ould not have changed the decision Note' 3G the court discovered such error BE)+RE ,ud&ment 'ad become f!nal or BE)+RE an appeal 'ad been perfected ? &t 0a/ )eo-en the #ase "ol&#/ of 4"o) lo L*e "*edo Vale)5 M The practice of e-cluding evidence on doubtful objections should be avoided. - 3t is impossible for the judge of first instance to 0no#n #ith certainty #hether testimony is relevant or not and #hen there is no indication of bad faith on the attorney offering such evidence ? the court as a rule may safely accept the testimony upon the statement that the proof offered #ill be connected later. - Oreater reason to adhere to such policy in criminal cases #hen it can lead to the erroneous ac%uittal of the accused #hich the "eople can no longer appeal. 7he )*l&ng of the #o*)t on -)o#ed*)al =*est&ons and on ad0&ss&.&l&t/ of e%&den#e d*)&ng the #o*)se of the t)&al &s &nte)lo#*to)/$ - They may not be the subject of a separate appeal - They are to be assigned as errors and revie#ed in the appeal ta0en from the trial court on the merits of the case. [RULE 166] >EI B7 !ND SUFFICIENCC OF EVIDENCE Se# 1$Preponderance of evidence, ho! determined$ In #&%&l #ases, the party having burden of proof: - must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. 3n determining #here the preponderance or superior #eight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the #o*)t 0a/ #ons&de): - all the facts and circumstances of the case, - the #itnessesQ manner of testifying, - their intelligence, - their means and opportunity of 0no#ing the facts to #hich there are testifying, - the nature of the facts to #hich they testify,

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

MM ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or #ant of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider: - the number of #itnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily #ith the greater number. (1a) Se#$ 2$Proof beyond reasonable doubt$ In a #)&0&nal #ase( the accused: - is entitled to an ac%uittal, - &19E44 his guilt is sho#n beyond reasonable doubt. "roof beyond reasonable doubt: - does not mean such a degree of proof as, e-cluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainly. 8oral certainly ONLC &s )e=*&)ed, *' that degree of proof #hich produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. ($a) Notes' Re=*&)e0ents fo) E%&den#e to Be >o)th/ of C)ed&t - 8ust not only proceed from a credible source but must, in addition, be credible in itself ? 3t must be natural, reasonable and probable as to ma0e it easy to believe. - 3t should be in accord #ith the common 0no#ledge and e-perience of man0ind R' Gindings of the judge #ho tried the case and heard the #itnesses are not to be disturbed on appeal E,C' 3t may be disturbed for good cause: if there are substantial facts and circumstances #hich have been overloo0ed and #hich, if properly considered, might effect the result of the case ISSUE' C)ed&.&l&t/ of the >&tness - Def&ned' The #itnessesI is meant his integrity, disposition and intention to tell the truth in the testimony he has given R' The findings of the T! #ill not be disturbed on appeal since it is in a better position to decide the %uestion, having heard and observed the demeanor of each #itness - Gor the same reason, the matter of assigning values to declarations at the #itness stand is best and competently performed by the T! E,CE"7IONS'

1. 3t may be disturbed if the T! has plainly overloo0ed certain facts of substance and value #hich, if properly considered, might effect the result of the case $. (lso, #hen the identification of the accused or credibility of #itness and one judge heard the testimony of the prosecution #itness 2&T different judge penned the decision ? O' rule does not apply Co0-eten#/ of a +&tness does not 0ean that the +&tness &s #)ed&.le o) +&ll .e .el&e%ed ./ the #o*)t$ - Gacial e-pressions are not necessarily indicative of oneIs feelings. The T! should not ho#ever discredit a #itness by the supposed e-pression of lac0 of sincerity in his face, the judge should put that fact on the record and allo# the #itness to e-plain - 7emeanor, emphasis gestures, inflection of the voice aids the proper evaluation of credibility - The fact that a person has reached the Et#ilight of his lifeF (advance age) is not al#ays a guaranty that he #ould tell the truth - The facts adduced in a record of a preliminary investigation are evidence *19: for the purpose of testing the credibility of the #itness ISSUE' N*0.e) of >&tness R' The number of #itness should not in and by itself determine he #eight of evidence - E,C' 3n case of conflicting testimonies of #itness ? such factor may be given certain #eight Note' The failure of a party to present merely corroborative or cumulative evidence does not give rise to any adverse or unfavorable presumption 2 Confl&#t&ng 7est&0on&es of 1 >&tness 2 >&tnesses +H Confl&#t&ng 7est&0on&es The court shall adopt the testimony #hich he believes to be true

The court can accept either statement as proof 1ote: 3f the #itness gives a false testimony he impeaches his o#n testimony and the court should e-clude it from all consideration Note: The most subtle and prolific of all fallacies of testimony arises out of Eunconscious partisanship= (e-. "assengers and driver in an accident)

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

MN ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

B&as( def&ned' That #hich motivates the disposition to see and report matters as they are #ished for rather than as they are - 3t is present #hen a #itnessesI relation to the cause or to the parties is such that he has an incentive to e-aggerate or give false color to his statements or to suppress or pervert the truth, or to state #hat is false. - B&as &s NO7 a fa#to)' +hen the #itnesses on both sides are e%ually interested or biased, especially if there is no numerical preponderance on either side. - The testimony of an interested #itness is not necessarily biased, incredible or self-serving 7est&0on&es &n C)&0&nal Cases - Testimony of a co-conspirator or an accomplice is admissible ? since it comes from a polluted source, it must be scrutini5ed #ith caution - The testimony of a 431O9E #itness may be sufficient to produce conviction 3G: o 3t appears to be trust#orthy and reliable, clear and convincing o 1*T if there is une-plained contradictions on an important detail - Testimony of the offended party is not essential to convict an accused if there are already other evidence to prove such guilt - The fact that the prosecution #Co e-planation failed to call several #itnesses mentioned in the information ? gives rise to the presumption that their testimonies #ould not be favorable to the prosecutionIs cause. - 7elays of a #itness in revealing #hat he 0no#s about a crime does not render his testimony false since there is al#ays the inherent fear or reprisal in criminal cases. 4uch delay if satisfactorily e-plained does not undermine her credibility - The refusal of a person to submit to investigation to e-plain the innocent role he professes is inconsistent #ith the normal reaction of an innocent man. R' The mere relationship of the #itness to the victim does not impair his positive and clear testimony nor render the same less #orthy of creditJ E,C' +hen there is a sho#ing of improper motive - &sing as #itnesses persons #ho #ere accomplices #Co including them in the information ? does not render the testimony inadmissible - The identity of the offender li0e the crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt

R*les on Cons-&)a#/ - !onspiracy need not be established by direct evidence - 3t may be proved by: ( number of indicative acts, conditions and circumstances - 3t may be proved by circumstantial evidence but it must be proved #ith as much certainty as the crime itself. - 3t may be deduced from the mode and manner in #hich the offense #as committed R*le on L*al&f/&ng o) !gg)a%at&ng E%&den#e' - 3t must be proved in an evident and incontestable manner. - 3t must be proved as conclusively as the acts constituting the offense. R*le on ")o%&ng SelfMdefense - The one claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his o#n defense and not on the #ea0ness of the prosecution - 4elf-defense must be proved by Eclear and convincingF evidence R*le on !l&.& - (libi is one of the #ea0est defense since it is easily susceptible of concoction ? hence must be vie#ed #C suspicion - 3t may be considered *19:: by 4-os&t&%e( #lea) and sat&sfa#to)/ e%&den#e5 - The accused must not only prove his alibi but also that it #as physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime - 4uch defense becomes #ea0er #hen not corroborated - 4till, the prosecution still has the onus proband! in establishing the guilt of the accused and the #ea0ness of the defense does not relieve it from such responsibility - 7efense of alibi must be predicated on substantial and reliable evidence sufficient and reliable to engender reasonable doubt Note' +hen the accused #ithdra#s his appeal after reali5ing the futility of his defense and the other escapes from confinement ? said acts are unmista0able signs of guilt. - Glight of the accused is evidence of guiltJ ho#ever, non-flight is not indicative of innocence. R*les on In#ons&stent o) Cont)ad&#to)/ test&0on/ - 3f they refer to mere insignificant details ? they do not materially impair the credibility of #itness o 3t does not affect the material points. o They indicate veracity rather than prevarication and only tend to bolster the probative value of such testimony

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

MP ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

4Fals*s &n Uno( Fals*s &n O0n&.*s5' +hen testimony is believed in part and disbelieved in part depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities of the case - 7eals only #ith the #eight of evidence and is not a positive rule of la#. 3t is not an absolute one nor mandatory and binding upon the court #hich may accept or reject the #itnessesI testimony - 7oes 1*T (pply: o +hen the challenged testimony is sufficiently corroborated on many grounds o +hen such mista0es do not arise from an apparent desire to pervert the truth but from innocent lapses and the desire of the #itness to e-culpate himself although not completely R*les on Co))o.o)at&%e 7est&0on&es - 1on-production of a corroborative #itness #Co any e-planation ? #ea0ens the testimony of the #itness to be corroborated - !orroboration is 1*T re%uired in the crime of rape (E !. #hen the point at issue is #hether the act #as committed #C or #Co the use of force or threat ? such testimony should be scrutini5ed #ith the greatest caution) Note' The testimony of persons accidentally present at the time of the e-ecution of the #ill is not #eighty as that of the subscribing #itness !ff&)0at&%e 7est&0on/ %$ Negat&%e 7est&0on/ - (ffirmative testimony has greater #eight than negative testimony - 1egative testimony cannot prevail over positive statements - 3n #eighing contradictory declarations ? greater #eight is given to positive testimony Note' +itnesses admittedly present #hile a fact is ta0ing place may not coincide in describing all the details of the occurrence. 3t doesnIt necessarily imply falsehood. Effe#t of Falsehood - +hen a party resorts to falsehood to advance his suit ? it is presumed that he 0no#s perfectly #ell that his cause is groundless - Galsehood, fraud, fabrication or suppression of evidence are receivable as indications of his consciousness that his cause is #ea0 or unfounded R*les on !ff&da%&ts

7he/ a)e s*.o)d&nated &n &0-o)tan#e to o-en #o*)t de#la)at&ons (4ince they are oftentimes e-ecuted #hen the affiant is at a high pitch of e-citement and #hen his mental state is not as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident #hen it transpired) - 7he/ a)e not #o0-lete )e-)od*#t&ons of +hat the de#la)ant has &n 0&nd (since the are generally prepared by the administering officer) - E- parte affidavits are generally incomplete, hence discrepancies bet#een the statements of the affiant and that made on the #itness stand do not necessarily discredit him - 3t is an affidavit is only pr!ma fac!e evidence of #ea0 probative force - +hen the affidavit is inconsistent #ith the testimony ? the latter is invariably believed. - *missions and misunderstandings by the #riter are not infre%uent. Note' These rules do not apply #hen the omission in the affidavit refers to a very important detail NonM"a/0ent of 7aFes' 3ndicative of the fact that the claimant does not believe himself to be the o#ner of the property. Cont&n*o*s "a/0ent: Oreat #eight in favor of o#nership 7aF de#la)at&ons' 1*T conclusive evidence of o#nership 2&T if accompanied by open, adverse and continued possession in the concept of an o#ner ? they constitute evidence of great #eight On the 8ot&%e of the !##*sed &n a C)&0&nal Case R' 8otive is immaterial and since it is not an element of a crime ? it need not be proved - 8ere proof of motive, no matter ho# string, cannot sustain a conviction if there is no other evidence establishing the guilt of the accused E,C' Evidence of motive is relevant or essential in the ff instances: 1. +hen the identity of the assailant is in %uestion $. To determine the voluntariness of the criminal act or the sanity of the accused 6. To determine from #hich side the unla#ful aggression commenced, as #here the accused invo0ed self-defense #herein unla#ful aggression on the part of his opponent is an essential element .. To determine the specific nature of the crime committed (e-. +hen murder is during a rebellion) L. To determine #hether a shooting #as intentional or accidental

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

M= ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

M. +hen the accused contends that he acted in defense of a stranger since he must not have been motivated by revenge N. +hen the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive and there is a doubt #hether a crime has been committed or #hether the accused has committed it. P. +hen it is an element of the offense (e-. To sho# malice in libel) R*le on Ident&f&#at&on of S*s-e#ts' 7he 47otal&t/ of C&)#*0stan#es5 7est - 4uch test utili5es the follo#ing factors 1. The #itnessI opportunity to vie# the criminal at the time of the crime $. The #itnessI degree of attention at that time 6. The accuracy of any prior description given by the #itness .. The level of certainty demonstrated by the #itness at the identification L. The length of time bet#een the crime and the identification and M. The suggestiveness of the identification procedure 12 Dange) S&gnals 7hat the Ident&f&#at&on 8a/ .e E))oneo*s 1. The #itness originally stated that he could not identify anyone $. The #itness 0ne# the accused before the crime but made no accusation against him #hen %uestioned by the police 6. ( serious discrepancy e-ists bet#een the #itnessI original description and his actual description of the accused .. 2efore identifying the accused at the trial, the #itness erroneously identified some other person L. *ther #itnesses of the crime fail to identify the accused M. 2efore trial, the #itness sees the accused but fails to identity him N. 2efore the commission of the crime, the #itness had limited opportunity to see the accused P. The #itness and the person identified are of different racial groups =. 7uring his original observation of the offender, the #itness #as una#are that a crime #as involved 1/. ( considerable time elapsed bet#een the #itnessI vie# and his identification of the accused 11. 4everal persons committed the crime 1$. The #itness failed to ma0e a positive trial identification Res +psa (o;uitor 24the th&ng s-eaks fo) &tself53 - 'ule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury ta0en #ith the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or ma0e out a plaintiffIs prima facie case

The rule is ho#ever, considered as merely evidentiary or in the nature of a procedural rule ? the application does 1*T dispense #ith the re%uisite of proof of negligence.

Se#$ 6$E1tra-udicial confession, not sufficient "round for conviction$ (n e-trajudicial confession made by an accused: - shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, - &19E44 corroborated by evidence of corpus del!ct!. (6) Co)-*s Del&#t&( def&ned' (ctual commission of someone of the particular crime charged. - 9iterally means EThe body or the substance of the crimeF - 3t is the actual commission by someone of the particular crimes charged. Ele0ents' 1. The e-istence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge and $. The e-istence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result (someone criminally responsible) Note' The identity of the accuse is 1*T a necessary element Bo+ ")o%ed?' +hen the evidence on record sho#s that the crime prosecute had been committed Co)-*s Del&#t& &n 7BEF7 1. That the property #as lost by the o#ner and $. That it #as lost by a felonious ta0ing 1ote: The fact of the crime of theft may be established even #Co recovery of the thing stolen Co)-*s Del&#t& &n ILLE !L "OSSESSION OF ! FIRE!R8 1. The e-istence of the firearm $. That it has been actually held #ith animus possidendi by the accused #Co the corresponding license. Co)-*s Del&#t& &n 8URDER - The fact of death - 1ote: 3f there is doubt as to the identity of the cadaver ? there is no corpus delicti Re=*&)e0ent of Inde-endent E%&den#e of the Co)-*s Del&#t&

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

N/ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

8ere E -< confession uncorroborated by independent proof of corpus delicti is 1*T sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction The evidence may be circumstantial, but just the same, there must be some evidence substantiating the confession !orpus 7elicti is 1*T synonymous #ith the #hole charge so as to re%uire that all the elements of the crime be established 2)ence for a comple- crime of robbery #ith murder ? corpus delicti of only murder #ill still be admissible although there is no independent evidence of robbery)

Se#$ :$Substantial evidence$ 3n cases f&led .efo)e ad0&n&st)at&%e o) =*as&M1*d&#&al .od&es, a fact may be deemed established 3G: - it is supported by s*.stant&al e%&den#e, or - that amount of relevant evidence #hich a reasonable mind might accept as ade%uate to justify a conclusion. (n) Note' 4ubstantial Evidence does not necessarily mean preponderant proof as re%uired in ordinary civil cases, but: 1. That amount of relevant evidence #hich a reasonable mind might accept as ade%uate to justify a conclusion or $. Evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent man in the conduct of their affiants In C&%&l Cases' The proponent must establish the case by preponderance of evidence - 3f there is an e%uiponderance of evidence (same #eight) ? the court #ill find for the defendant ? same rule #ill apply in criminal cases ? if there is an e%uiponderance , the prosecution #ill lose Se#$ ;$Po!er of the court to stop further evidence$ The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular point #hen: - the evidence upon it is already so full that more #itnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably e-pected to be additionally persuasive. - 2ut this po#er should be e-ercised #ith caution. (M) Note' The court has the po#er to stop the introduction of testimony #hich #ill merely be cumulative Se#$ J$Evidence on motion$ >hen a 0ot&on &s .ased on fa#ts not a--ea)&ng of )e#o)d' - the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, - 2&T the court may direct that the matter be heard #holly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. (N)

Se#$ 9$#ircumstantial evidence, !hen sufficient$ !ircumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a)There is more than one circumstanceJ (b)The facts from #hich the inferences are derived are provenJ and (c)The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (L) Notes' In O)de) to Con%&#t on the St)ength of C&)#*0stant&al E%&den#e 2CE3 !lone' - 3t is incumbent on the prosecution to present such !E #hich #ill and must necessarily lead to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. R: !E is sufficient even for a capital offense E,C' +hen the la# specified the species and %uantum of evidence (e-. Treason) >hen CE does NO7 s*ff&#e to s*sta&n #on%&#t&on' - Galsification - 2igamy, adultery, parricide (evidence of 1st marriage is necessary), - libel through #ritten publications Note' 1ot only prior and coetaneous actuations of the accused in relation to the crime but also his acts or conduct after thereto can be considered as !E of Ouilt Note' 8otive becomes important #hen the evidence of the crime is purely circumstantial

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

N1 ; " a t i B o , E r i c a

Note' 3f the affidavits contradict each other on matters of fact ? the court can have no basis to ma0e its findings of fact and the prudent course is to subject the affiants to cross-e-amination

Evidence ; <udge 2onifacio ; 62 $//=-$/1/ >This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A

N$ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a