Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
I. Definition
a. Evidence
Sec 1. Evidence defined . Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a
judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)
b. Res inter alios acta
(1) Res inter alios acta alteri nocere debt means that ―things done to strangers ought not to injure
those who are not parties to them‖ (Black‘s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.). It has two branches, namely:
(a) The rule that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by the father of the an act,
declaration, or omission of another (sec. 28, Rule 130); and
(b) The rule that evidence of previous conduct or similar acts at one time is not admissible
to prove that one did or did not do the same act at another time (sec. 34, Rule 132).
The res inter alios acta rule provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another. (Rule 130, Sec. 25). Consequently, an extrajudicial
confession is binding only up’on the confessant and is not admissible against his co-accused. The
reason for the rule is that, on a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s own acts
are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet,
it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound
by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of
strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him. (People v.
Raquel, 333 Phil. 72; People v. Guittap, et al., G.R. No. 144621, May 9, 2003).
Principle of Res Inter Alios Acta Alteri Noceree Non Debet: Things done between strangers ought
not to injure those who are not parties to it.
- 1st Part: Sec 28, rule 130
- 2nd Part: Sec 34, rule 130
c. Res gestae
(1)Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior
or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as
part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue,
and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae (Sec. 42).
(2) Res gestae is from the Latin meaning ―things done‖ and includes the circumstances, facts and
declarations incidental to the main fact or transaction, necessary to illustrate its character, and
also includes acts, words and declarations which are so closely connected therewith as to
constitute a part of the transaction. As applied to a crime, res gestae means the complete criminal
transaction from its beginning or starting point in the act of the accused until the end is reached.
II. Distinguished
a. Distinguish presumption of death from presumption of survivorship
b. Distinguish burden of proof from burden of evidence
(1) Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by
law (Sec. 1, Rule 131).
Burden of proof Burden of evidence
Denotes the duty of establishing the truth of a Means the necessity of going forward with
given proposition or issue by such quantum the evidence to meet the prima facie case
of evidence as the law demands in the case created against him..
in which the issue arises, whether civil or
criminal.
It remains with the party alleging facts and It shifts from side to side as the trial of the
never shifts to the other party. He who case progresses and evidence is introduced
alleges the affirmative of the issue has the
burden of proof, and the same never parts.
Parole Evidence Rule – When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and
their successors-in-interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written
agreement. (Sec. 9).
Best Evidence Rule Parol Evidence Rule
The issue is contents of a writing. There is no issue as to contents of a writing.
Secondary evidence is offered to prove the The purpose for the offer of parol evidence is
contents of a writing, which is not allowed to change, vary, modify, qualify, or contradict
unless the case falls under any of the the terms of a complete written agreement,
exceptions. which is not allowed unless the case falls
under any of the exceptions.
Establishes preference for the original Not concerned with the primacy of evidence
document over a secondary evidence but presupposes that the original is available.
thereof.
Precludes the admission of secondary Precludes the admission of other evidence to
evidence if the original document is available. prove the terms of a document other than the
contents of the document itself.
Can be invoked by any litigant to an action Can be invoked only be the parties to the
whether or not said litigant is a party to the document and their successors in interest.
document involved.
Applies to all forms of writing. Applies to written agreements (contracts) and
wills.
(1) In Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Lagman, the Court set down the requirements
before a party may present secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original document
whenever the original copy has been lost: Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary
evidence to prove the contents of the original, the offeror must prove the following: (1) the
existence or due execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason
for its non-production in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which
the unavailability of the original can be attributed. The correct order of proof is as follows:
existence, execution, loss, and contents. In the instant case, the CA correctly ruled that the above
requisites are present. Both the CA and the RTC gave credence to the testimony of Peregrino that
the original Contract in the possession of Monark has been lost and that diligent efforts were
exerted to find the same but to no avail. Such testimony has remained uncontroverted. As has
been repeatedly held by this Court, "findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses
are matters best left to the trial court. Hence, the Court will respect the evaluation of the trial court
on the credibility of Peregrino. MCMP, to note, contends that the Contract presented by Monark is
not the contract that they entered into. Yet, it has failed to present a copy of the Contract even
despite the request of the trial court for it to produce its copy of the Contract. Normal business
practice dictates that MCMP should have asked for and retained a copy of their agreement.
(MCMP Construction Corp. v. Monark Equipment Corp., GR No. 201001, 11/10/2014).
III. Rule____ Sec. 32 provides the rule on Admission by Silence against one who is silent
when he ought to speak if there was a chance to deny . would this rule applicable to an
accused when he refuses to plead during arraignment. Explain
IV. What is Exclusionary rule? Give examples
V. Duterte’s client filed an action against the former. Would the privilege communication rule
apply against atty duterte? Suppot your answer
3. No the admission by silence is not applicable to person who fails/refuses to plead during
arraignment. Rule 116 of Rules of Court states “When the accused refuses to plead or makes a
conditional plea, a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him”.
4. Exclusionary Rule
Exclusionary rule makes evidence illegally obtained as inadmissible in evidence, hence, not
competent.
Interlocking confession
When an accused made extrajudicial confession
Interlocking confessions -- Where several extra-judicial confession had been made by several
persons charged with an offense and there could have been no collusion with reference to said
several confessions, the facts that the statements therein are in all material respects identical, is
confirmatory of the confession of the co-defendant, and is admissible against his other co-
defendants (People vs. Badilla, 48 Phil. 718);
Yes, I will allow the testimonies of the wife for not being violative to the marital privilege
communication rule.
The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death, may be
received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and
surrounding circumstances of such death (Sec. 37).
Dying declarations are the statements made by a person after the mortal wounds have been
inflicted, under the belief that death is certain, stating the facts concerning the cause of, and the
circumstances surrounding the homicide
As a judge, dying declaration is not confidential information or communication between the
spouses. People vs martinez et al
The purpose is to prove such statement was made, but not whether the such statement was true.
Since it is relevant, it may be admissible
An admission in a pleading cannot be controverted by the party making such admission because
the admission is conclusive as to him. All proofs submitted by him contrary thereto or inconsistent
therewith should be ignored whether an objection is interposed by a party or not (Republic vs.
Sarabia, GR 157847, Aug. 25, 2005). Said admission is a judicial admission, having been made
by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, and does not require proof. A party
who desires to contradict his own judicial admission may do so only by either of two ways: (a) by
showing that the admission was made through palpable mistake; or (b) that no such admission
was made (Sec. 4, Rule 129).
Admission during pre-trial – there is contradiction….. palpable mistake or will result to injustice in
civil casess
7. As a rule, the extrajudicial confession of an accused is binding only upon himself and is not
admissible against his co-accused. What would be the effect if accused persons execute
“interlocking confession”? Discuss briefly
8. I is said that “truth sits on the lips of a dying man.” X was able to whisper to his wife the name of
person who shot him and the reason for such attack. Seconds later, X died. In court, the
testimony of his wife was objected as being violative of the marital privilege rule. If you are the
judge, will you allow the testimony of the X’s wife? Explain.
9.
a. is hearsay evidence admissible if not objected to? Explain you answer
In People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 547, it was said that hearsay evidence whether objected to or
not cannot be given in evidence. There is no probative value.
Failure of counsel to object to the presentation of incompetent evidence like hearsay evidence
that violates the rule of res inter alios acta or his failure to move to strike out evidence does not
give probative value. The lack of objection may make any incompetent evidence admissible. But
admission of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence.
When testimony is presented to establish not the truth but the tenor of the statement or the fact
that such statement was made, it is not hearsay. In Abella v. People, 187 SCRA 196, it has been
held that an oral admission by the accused of authorship of a crime is admissible in evidence
against him.
Rules:
a) a person who heard it can testify as to the substance of what he heard;
b) an oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, it can be given in substance;
c) it is not hearsay;
d) the person has no personal knowledge of what was revealed to him, but it is not hearsay;
e) the evidence is known as an independently relevant statement. It is not even an
exception to the hearsay rule. (People v. Pule, 206 SCRA 353 [19921).
They may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no
such admission was made. (Sec. 3).
(1) An admission, verbal or written, made by party in the course of the proceedings ion the same
case does not require proof. It maybe made:
(a) In the pleadings filed by the parties;
(b) In the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or
(c) In other stages of judicial proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the case.
When made in the same case in which it is offered, ―no evidence is needed to prove the same
and it cannot be contradicted unless it is shown to have been made through palpable mistake or
when no such admission was made.‖ The admission becomes conclusive on him, and all proof
submitted contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether an objection is
interposed by the adverse party or not (Republic v. Estate of Hans Menzi [2012]).
2) The admission having been made in a stipulation of facts at pre-trial by the parties, it must be
treated as a judicial admission. Under Section 24, Rule 129, a judicial admission requires no
proof. The admission may be contradicted only b y a showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or that no such admission was made. The Supreme Court cannot lightly set aside a
judicial admission especially when the opposing party relied upon the same and accordingly
dispensed with further proof of the fact already admitted. An admission made by a party in the
course of the proceedings does not require proof (Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils.), Inc. v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue [2010]).
(3) A judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it, he cannot thereafter take a position
contradictory to, or inconsistent with his pleadings. Acts or facts admitted do not require proof and
cannot be contradicted unless it is shown that the admission was made through palpable mistake
or that no such admission was made (Cahilig v. Hon. Terencio [2010]).
(4) The extrajudicial confession or admission of one accused is admissible only against said
accused, but is inadmissible against the other accused. But if the declarant or admitter repeats in
court his extrajudicial admission, during the trial and the other accused is accorded the
opportunity to cross-examine the admitter, the admission is admissible against both accused
because then it is transposed into a judicial admission (Enriquez v. Sandiganbayan [2012]).
(5) Judicial admissions are cannot be contradicted by the admitter who is the party and binds the
person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was maden thru palpable mistake
or that no such admission was made, no amount of realization can offset it (Sps. Manzanilla v.
Waterfields Industries Corporation [2014]).
(6) Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the admissions. Pre-trial
admission in civil cases is one the instances of judicial admissions explicitly provided for under
Section 7, Rule 18, which mandates that the contents of the pre-trial order shall control the
subsequent course of the action, thereby, defining and limiting the issues to be tried. Under
Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, a judicial admission requires no proof (Eastern
Shipping Lines, Inc. v, BPI/MS Insurance Corporation [2015]).
The counsel shall make as part of the record the following excluded evidence and attached in the
record as tender of excluded of evidence.
Adverse party – may make manifestation in the memorandum of appeal that the excluded
evidence is substantial and material to the case.