EVIDENCE CASE MATRIX (1ST BATCH) | 2019-2020 | EH 403 DIGESTS
ATIENZA V. BOARD OF MEDICINE
DR. DELA LLANA V. REBECCA
BIONG
STATE OF MISSOURI V. WILLIAM
ARTHUR BULL
LOPEZ V. HEESEN
PEOPLE V. MARTI
WATEROUS DRUG CORP. V. NLRC
PEOPLE V. ERIC GUILLERMO
VILLAFLOR V. SUMMERS
PASCUAL V. MEDICAL BOARD OF
EXAMINERS
Instead of taking out defective kidney, took out the healthy one
Evidence, although mere photocopies, could still be admitted because the Rules of Evidence do not apply to administrative bodies
Whiplash injury
1. In civil actions, the proponent must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence in order to recover thereon.
2. Evidence which has not been admitted cannot be validly considered by the courts in arriving at their judgments. (medical cert)
3. Evidence, whether oral or documentary, is hearsay if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness but
on the knowledge of another person who is not on the
witness stand (did not present the doctor).
To be admissible as evidence, it must be relevant. To be relevant, it must have some kind of relationship to the “fact in issue” (what
you are trying to prove). The fact of having money, being poor and having accessories like the ones used in the robbery is not relevant,
unless they are suggested to be the very same items in the robbery.
Case started when appellant Jesse Lopez (LOPEZ) filed a suit against appellee Robert Heesen (HEESEN), alleging that Heesen
assaulted and shot Lopez with a shotgun thereby inflicting dangerous and painful injuries in the total sum of $80,000.
Admissibility of Opinion Evidence depends on the facts of the case at hand, There is no clear cut basis that expert opinions adduced
as evidence in ultimate issues of facts can outright determine the outcome of the case
Opinion evidence was admitted on the basis that it aided the jury to understand the problem and led them to the truth on the ultimate
facts.
Box to be sent to Switzerland found to contain marijuana
In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked.
Evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible in itself such as the
common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.
WATEROUS Control Clerk Eugenio Valdez informed Co that he noticed an irregularity involving Catolico and Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.
Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by private
individuals.
Employee CHOP-CHOPS abusive employer
The accused contends that any evidence gathered from him during the custodial investigation, including his confession, is
inadmissible due to the fact that he was not properly informed of his rights. He was only made to read said rights in the wall of the
precinct.
The contention has merit. However, there are other instances, aside from the custodial investigation, that accused had voluntarily
admitted the crime, namely:
1) First, he admitted the crime to Campos, whose testimony was not countered by the defense.
2) Second, he admitted the crime to members of the media on two separate occasions.
3) Third, he voluntarily confessed before the police could enter the scene and before any questions were posed to him.
Emeteria Villaflor and her paramour, Florentino Souingco, are charged with the crime of adultery
On trial, the court ordered Emeteria Villaflor to submit her body to the examination of one or two competent doctors to determine if
she was pregnant or not.
NO, the privilege only applies to testimonial compulsion, not to a physical examination.
Petitioner Arsenio Pascual, Jr., filed with the CFI of Manila an action for prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction against the
Board of Medical Examiners alleging that at the initial hearing of an administrative case for alleged immorality, he, who was the
respondent in such malpractice case, would be made a witness.
respondent in an administrative case may not be compelled to take the witness stand without his consent if such case, while
administrative in character, possesses a criminal or penal aspect
Page 1 of 5
EVIDENCE CASE MATRIX (1ST BATCH) | 2019-2020 | EH 403 DIGESTS
CABAL V. KAPUNAN
BELTRAN V. SAMSON
US V. TAN TENG
PEOPLE V. SALANGUIT
PEOPLE V. DAMASO
PADILLA V. CA
PEOPLE V. AMMINUDIN
PEOPLE V. QUEBRAL
Col. Jose C. Maristela of the Philippine Army filed with the Secretary of Nation Defense a letter-complaint charging petitioner Manuel
Cabal, then Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, with "graft, corrupt practices, unexplained wealth, conduct
unbecoming of an officer and gentleman dictatorial tendencies, giving false statements of his assets and liabilities in 1958 and other
equally reprehensible acts".
Proceedings for forfeiture of property are deemed criminal or penal; exemption of defendants in criminal cases from the obligation to
be witness against themselves are applicable thereto.
Beltran, as a defendant for the crime of Falsification, refused to write a sample of his handwriting as ordered by the respondent Judge.
The order was given upon petition of said fiscal for the purpose of comparing the petitioner's handwriting and determining whether or
not it is he who wrote certain documents supposed to be falsified
TN: At this time, there was still no information filed, this is still on the preliminary investigation stage with the fiscal
There is the well-established doctrine that the constitutional inhibition against self-incrimination is
directed not merely to giving of oral testimony, but embraces as well the furnishing of evidence by other means than by word of mouth,
the divulging, in short, of any fact which the accused has a right to hold secret.
rape; gonorrhoea, chinamen
The prohibition that a person shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself, is simply a prohibition against legal process to
extract from the defendant's own lips, against his will, an admission of his guilt.
Sr. Insp. Aguilar applied for a warrant in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 90,
Dasmariñias, Cavite, to search the residence of accused-appellant Robert Salanguit y Ko on Binhagan St., Novaliches, Quezon City.
He presented as his witness SPO1 Edmund Badua, who testified that as a
poseur-buyer, he was able to purchase 2.12 grams of shabu from accused-appellant. The sale took place in accused-appellant's room,
and Badua saw that the shabu was taken by accused-appellant from a cabinet inside his room. The application was granted, and a
search warrant was later issued by Presiding Judge Español.
The witness only testified about the presence of shabu, but the judge included drug paraphernalia as items to be seized in the search
warrant.
Shabu part – valid; drug paraphernalia part - invalid
Because the location of the shabu was indicated in the warrant and thus known to the police operatives, it is reasonable to assume
that the police found the packets of the shabu first. Once the valid portion of the search warrant has been executed, the "plain view
doctrine" can no longer provide any basis for admitting the other items subsequently found.
Basilio Damaso, was originally charged in an information filed before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City with violation of
Presidential Decree No. 1866 in furtherance of, or incident to, or in
connection with the crime of subversion, together with 6 other persons
evidence is inadmissible
The lack of objection may make any incompetent evidence admissible. But admissibility of evidence
should not be equated with weight of evidence. Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative value.
Bantay bayan
Evidence acquired through a valid warrantless arrest is admissible in court.
In Flagrante Delicto Arrest
Hot Pursuit
Plain view doctrine
Marijuana, boat, invalid arrest, invalid search, evidence inadmissible
Envelope w shabu
Ship is different from a Jeep
Page 2 of 5
EVIDENCE CASE MATRIX (1ST BATCH) | 2019-2020 | EH 403 DIGESTS
ROSETE V. LIM
PEOPLE V. BOKINGCO
JAIME DELA CRUZ V. PEOPLE
DE CASTRO V. PEOPLE
HOMAR V. PEOPLE
PDIC V. CASIMIRO
• With a ship, there is a definite arrival time and place, you need a warrant.
• With a jeep, even with a specific plate number, you don’t need a warrant, there is no definite place, time or persons. Also, easier to
escape.
Was actually a search preceeding arrest
Juliano Lim and Lilia Lim filed a Complaint for Annulment, Specific Performance with Damages against AFP-RSBS (AFP Retirement
and Separation Benefits System), Espreme Realty, Alfredo Rosete, Maj. Oscar Mapalo, Chito Rosete, BPI and Register of Deeds of
Mindoro Occidental. It asked, among other things, that the Deed of Sale executed by AFP-RSBS over certain parcels of land in favor
of Espreme Realty be annulled.
In this case, the case is civil, it being a suit for annulment, specific performance with damages. The fact that there are two criminal
cases pending which are allegedly based on the same set of facts as that of the civil case will not give them the right to refuse to take
the witness stand and to give their depositions as they are not facing criminal charges in the civil case.
There is no question that Bokingco attacked and killed Pasion. Bokingco made two (2) separate and dissimilar admissions: first, in
his extrajudicial confession taken during the preliminary investigation where he admitted that he and Col planned the killing of Pasion;
and second, when he testified in open court that he was only provoked in hitting Pasion back when the latter hit him in the head.
On the basis of his extrajudicial confession, Bokingco was charged for murder qualified by evident premeditation and treachery.
“Killing the owner of a pawnshop and apartments.”
Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-accused, and is
considered as hearsay against them.
An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a conspirator.
Did not prove conspiracy
Entrapment at Jollibee Gorordo.
You can’t subject me to drug test for being arrested due to just any crime/charge (extortion).
If the accused fails to raise irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment, he is deemed to have waived
his right to question the validity of his arrest curing whatever defect may have attended his arrest.
• However, a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal
warrantless arrest.
• Drug testing cannot be condoned on all arrested persons regardless of the crime or
offense for which the arrest is being made.
Matuguina and Cornejo left their savings account passbooks with the accused within the space of a week
The accused in the case before us may not be said to be under custodial investigation. She was not even being investigated by any
police or law enforcement officer. She was under administrative investigation by her superiors in a private firm and in purely voluntary
manner. She was not restrained of her freedom in any manner. She was free to stay or go.
Jaywalking
The prosecution has the burden to prove the legality of the warrantless arrest from which the corpus delicti of the crime - shabu- was
obtained. For, without a valid warrantless arrest, the alleged confiscation of the shabu resulting from a warrantless search on the
petitioner’s body is surely a violation of his constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure.
It is well-settled that a waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the
inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.
It averred that after the BSP Monetary Board ordered BDBI's closure, PDIC started to perform its functions as statutory receiver
Advance Warning by BSP employee;
OMB should not have dismissed case for lack of probable cause on the ground of hearsay evidence
Hearsay Evidence Doctrine: Probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for
crediting the hearsay.
Page 3 of 5
EVIDENCE CASE MATRIX (1ST BATCH) | 2019-2020 | EH 403 DIGESTS
PEOPLE V. ADRIAN GUTING
PEOPLE V. LAUGA
PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK V.
SENATE IMPEACHMENT COURT
GAANAN V. IAC
SALCEDO-ORTAÑEZ V. COURT OF
APPEALS
RAMIREZ V. CA
PEOPLE VS. NAVARRO
PEOPLE VS. YATCO
PEOPLE V. ANDAN
Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in a preliminary investigation because such investigation is merely
preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties.
Son stabbed his father
Accused-appellant was not under custodial investigation when he admitted, without assistance of counsel. His verbal confession was
spontaneous and voluntarily given and was not elicited through questioning by the police authorities
Confession corroborated by circumstantial evidence
Father raped his daughter;
We, therefore, find the extrajudicial confession of appellant, which was taken without a counsel, inadmissible in evidence. (Bantay
Bayan)
A written waiver is needed in order to access foreign currency bank accounts (Foreign Currency Deposit Act)
Use of an extension phone is not considered as wiretapping
Complainant Atty. Pintor and his client Manuel Montebon were discussing the terms for the withdrawal of the complaint for direct
assault which they filed with the Fiscal against Leonardo Laconico.
Gaanan overheard Pintor give numerous demands for money, public apologies and secrecy.
Private respondent Rafael Ortanez filed with the Quezon City RTC a complaint for annulment of marriage with damage against
petitioner Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez, on grounds of lack of marriage license and/or psychological incapacity of the petitioner.
Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the
subject tapes is mandatory.
(3) cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations between petitioner and unidentified persons.
Socorro D. Ramirez in the RTC of Quezon City alleging that the private respondent, Ester S. Garcia, in a confrontation in the latter's
office, allegedly vexed, insulted and humiliated her in a "hostile and furious mood" and in a manner offensive to petitioner's dignity
and personality," contrary to morals,
good customs and public policy.
Party to a conversation is not excluded from coverage.
The Anti-Wire Tapping Act (AWTA) makes illegal the unauthorized tape recording of private conversations or communications taken
either by the parties themselves or by third persons.
They went to the police station to report this. The policemen on duty, including Navarro, were drinking and asked the three to join
them. Jalbuena declined and went to the desk officer (Sgt. Añonuevo); in the meantime, the manager and guard would arrive.
• After the two arrived, they talked with Navarro. Enraged, Navarro threatened Jalbuena with a gun
because he made Liquin his enemy. Lingan then intervened and said he was there to mediate, to no
avail. Navarro then told the desk officer to record Lingan and Jalbuena’s behaviour. This angered Lingan, who proposed they have a
fist fight.
Yes. Such voice recording is admissible in view of RA 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Law. The law prohibits intercepting, recording, or
overhearing private communications. Since the exchange is not private, the recording is not prohibited.
Juan Consunji, Alfonso Panginiban and another whose identity is unknown were charged with conspiracy for the murder of Jose Ramos
Section 14, Rule 123, Rules of Court is specific as to the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions of an accused.
A confession is a declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging the truth of his guilt as to the offense charged, may be given in
evidence against him. Under the rule of multiple admissibility of evidence, even if Consunji’s confession may not be competent as
against his co-accused, being hearsay, or to prove conspiracy between them without the conspiracy being established by other
evidence, the
confession of Consunji was admissible as evidence of the declarant’s own guilt.
Pablito Andan, the accused in this case was charged with rape with homicide for the death of Marianne Guevarra, a nursing student
Page 4 of 5
EVIDENCE CASE MATRIX (1ST BATCH) | 2019-2020 | EH 403 DIGESTS
PEOPLE V. ABRIOL
PEOPLE V. MUSA
US V. ONG SIU HONG
Andan himself confessed to private individuals, to the mayor and to various members of the media that he raped and killed Guevarra.
Miranda Rights only apply to State sponsored individuals
At around 11:50 P.M., June 5, 1993, Romeo Sta. Cruz, Jr., a radio news reporter then aboard his jeep, had just reached the ABS-CBN
compound in P. del Rosario Street, Cebu City, when he heard a couple of gunshots
Hot pursuit
(1) He is ignorant about such ballistics instruments such as the micrometer, goniometer, and pressure barrel.35 (2) He is not
conversant with "the required references concerning ballistics," particularly books on the subject by foreign authorities.36 (3) He could
not "scientifically determine the caliber of a bullet.
Question of WON witness is an expert depends on the discretion of the trial court
P/Inspector Caser qualifies as a ballistics expert. He is a licensed criminologist, trained at the Ballistics Command and Laboratory
Center in Fort Bonifacio, in the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, and in the National Bureau of Investigation. He had previously
testified as an expert witness in at least 27 murder and homicide cases all over the country.
Mark money was not with Musa so police officers went to his house where they found a plastic bag of marijuana
Namely, this is the right of search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest, which authorizes the
arresting officer to make a search upon the person lawfully arrested. Hence, in a buy bust operation conducted to entrap a drug
pusher, the law enforcement agents may seize the marked money immediately found on the person immediately after the arrest
without the necessity of a warrant. This may also extend beyond the person to include the premises or surroundings in his immediate
control, as well as those in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in said position to have that view.
In the present case, the plastic bag cannot be considered as admissible since it does not fall under the plain view doctrine due to the
circumstances. It was found in the corner of the
kitchen, and the officers had to ask Musa about its contents
Forced to discharge morphine
The main purpose of Sec. 17, Article III is to prohibit testimonial compulsion by oral
examination in order to extort unwilling confessions from prisoners implicating them in the commission of a crime.
Page 5 of 5