Sie sind auf Seite 1von 65

LAW 126: EVIDENCE Maam Victoria Avena Grades: 50% finals 30% midterms 10% attendance 10% recit

ecit June 14 Evidence Is procedural law Used in Ct to prove your case bec you want to win B4 ppl couldnt fight for their own cases o Had no notion of how to present evidence o There was a reto sys = so lawyers came about to champion the causes of others Ct sys was installed w a procedure for handling cases o Part of procedure is evidence You can win a case wo evidence o Crim: if the accused pleads guilty o Civ: judgment on the pleadings, judgment based on default, admission of guilt (R129,s4) R128: Need E bec we have a Ct sys Not only Cts wc use E, also used in administrative cases wc dnt have Cts but tribunals o They still req E o Ex) NLRC under the Exec Dept X a Ct bec its not under the judiciary Know if its under the judiciary by looking at the statute Even if its not a Ct, ROE still applies bec of DP o DP = opp to be heard o Even if there was no DP in the consti, the principle is basic in human nature & is part of the realm of divine order so we wldnt agree to be treated than less than a human being o Basic sense of DP drives rules of law & procedure & evidence ROE: found in the ROC, RPC, CC, spcl laws, consti o Ex) A.III,s2: principle of search & seizure o A.III,s3: privacy of communication & correspondence o A.III, s12: custodial investigations o Electronic commerce act, sexual abuse law S1: evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth of a matter of fact E is the direction that will lead you to deciding a case Elements: o Means o Rules But dsnt mean just the rules, includes the consti, statute & IRRs o Judicial proceeding

o Truth o Fact Judicial proceeding: proceedings wc take place in Cts o Ex) Ct orders mediation = still a judicial proceeding bec its Ct sanctioned o Kinds of JP: R1.3 Crim case Civ case Spcl proceeding o When does a JP commence? Depends on the kind of JP Crim case: upon the filing of the info in Ct Civ case: upon the filing of the initiatory complaint Spcl proceeding: filing of the initiatory pleading Do the ROE apply to the Senate Blue ribbon Committee? NO o ROE in the ROC = the 5 elems in s1, R128 apply o If 1 of the 5 elems is missing, the ROC evidence rules dnt apply strictly may only be suppletory o Senate Blue Ribbon Com = arent JP, theyre legislative proceedings Civil service commission procedures = X JP, its administrative GSIS, SSS = administrative CTA = judicial You need evidence bec theres a case in Ct wc has issues o Issues dnt arise until theyre joined If issues arent known, you wont know if the E is relevant o S3: rule on relevance & competence Relevance: E adduced has a logical rel to the facts in issue Competence: E isnt excluded by law or rules Admissible E: (1) its relevant shld have a connection (2) its competent not excluded/prohibited Incompetent: ex) A.III, s.2,3,12 = illegally obtained evidence Only those who have personal knowledge of something can testify = competent! o If not, its hearsay Only use E to tray & ascertain Qs of fact & not Qs of law o Q of law: X need to prove since everyone is presumed to know the law Any issue of law is answerable just by looking at the book o Q of fact: need to present E to answer the Q Ex) Homicide o Wont pass a law that a policeman can decide WON to bring a person to Ct = bec if he can decide, he becomes the judge o What he decides is a Q of fact o Asks what happened? Present testimonial E = witness will testify to facts (that he was present, not blind, nearby, etc) Ex) during cross, the lawyer asks do you know the meaning of insanity? o Object bec its irrelevant bec its a Q of law WON 1 is insane or not is a Q of law bec the lawyer is trying to insert his defense during cross

But when the defense presents their E and shows this, it becomes a Q of fact bec youre trying to prove insanity X present E on issues of law on your case o You present the facts needed to prove your case based on substantive law wc applies only bec of the issues wc are alleged in the pleadings ex) sm1 borrowed money = this is the fact you want to prove o state the ff wc youll also prove: set forth in the pleading that A borrowed money state the amnt that payment has become due that there was a demand for payment non-payment o the other party joins issues if he denies/dsnt have info of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to its truth o X an issue if the other side admits it = X need to prove Know the issue to know wc facts to prove o X prove if its not an issue o If try to prove smthng thats not in issue = irrelevant

Civ case: refers to those elems of the COA wo wc it wld be incomplete Ex) vehicular accident: show the # of cars, # passengers, who you want to hold liable, etc o Crim case: refers to the ingredients of the offense Factum probans: EF, facts wc estabs the UF *only facts are capable of proof Ex) Homicide o Qualified by treachery: means whereby the vicitim is rendered defenseless o Victim male, aggressor female o Clubbed at the back, Treachery bec done unknowingly

June 19 S3: relevance & competence S1: has 5 elems: o Means o Rules o Judicial proceeding o Matters o Fact Relevance: definition is found in s4 o Ex) in a suit to collect on an oblig to collect a payment of money Pleadings: issues are joined & there will be issues of fact If in the complaint what was alleged & refuted was the ff: Amnt of money was given from A to B To be repaid Its due & demandable Still unpaid Prayer: pay the money, pay attys fees & expense of the litigation Interest is a matter of law & need not be alleged C dsnt state from when its asked begins to run from the time of demand (judicial demand filing of a complaint) Can ask for this as a matter of law, need not be alleged as fact since the date is alrdy part of the records & therefore Ct may deem its as JN o S1: defn of relevance are found in this sec under truth S4 it shld have such a reltn to the fact in issue E must prove the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue This is found in s1 in the truth of a matter of fact o Look at RO E to prove matters of fact

Need to break down things bec when you look at the law theyre usually conclusions of law wc is why u have to break it down to matters of fact wc are proved by E Civ case: complaint contains allegations for the COA Crim case: info wc contains allegations of the elems of the crime Want to prove this in Ct: That 1 was killed Fact wc caused his death Bec of the clubbing, he died of hemorrhage The club used That a person did it That the person attacked the other from behind resulting in wounds that caused hemorrhage Facts wc comprise treachery: (treachery is one of the UF since its an ingredient of the offense; but per se its not a matter of fact) essence is that you render a person defenseless so that he cant fight back or that you wont get caught = prove that he was rendered defenseless His back was vulnerable had no eyes = hes wo knowledge or info that will allow him to defend himself, escape or dodge him Attack was enough to attack him = clubbed How the club was used = sufficient force Now need to prove the truth of these facts thru E Proving each fact of treachery: Those are the matters of fact What s4 is saying is that a pc of E is relevant if it has such a relatn to the fact in issue to induce belief to its existence or non-existence Pc of E: Entry wound this shows that the back was the target & was successfully attacked Club is an exhibit o If this is related to the UF that itll really prove the way it was alleged, youre saying proposition 2 is proved UF to be proven: facts wc comprise the ingredients of the offense of murder Fact if death

o o

By saying prove youre proving the truth

Factum probandum/probanda: UF, fact sought to be estabd

EF to be

The accused killed the victim used a club killed form the back used sufficient force proven:

S4: the fact youre alleging is true o E is relevant if itll prove that the fact is true or not Factum probanda i.e. the UF to be proven in adultery *1 info for 1 act Woman Legally married Sexual intercourse o

Victim: the state & adulterer: the wife These are matters of facts wc can be proved by evidence

Classification of E Direct v circumstantial: o Inference = refers to a proposition as part of a syllogism If A is true & B is true, then C is necessarily true

Proposition 1 can be estabd bec some1 says: A & B were inside a room The room was locked While in the room, the witness heard moaning The woman gave birth 9mos ago this happened

o Recording certain things The video by itself wont do anything unless its presented in a certain way o Mode of presenting the video is thru the maid o But what she says is just an intro to the showing of the video o Granting she identified the video wc she tk Wo the maid, how can the video be direct evidence? Its not direct E bec: o The video 1st has to be identified o The figures shld be identified o Digital things cant really be trusted today An EF (that they were in the room, etc) insofar as you have to prove it, it becomes a UF An UF defense Its either part of the COA or in the sense that it indeed happened = itll depend on the context You have to look at what its direct evidence of

Circumstantial E: Theyre EF wc dont prove the fact in issue wc is adultery but together they will prove adultery

Inferences: o the 2 had sexual intercourse o there was adultery Presumption: of 2 kinds

Coming from human experience (non-legal) o Ex) Provided by law (R133) o same Ex) R133: lttr paid, address correct = presumed that the other person rcvd it Impt in proving demand In ejectment, for payment of money, etc

June21 S4,R128: collateral Matters o Prob/improb = relevant o Ds it necessarily mean its direct E? No bec its a species of circum E It can be prob/improb = what upon the records seesm to be true chances are If this is the play, you arent certain that its true

Similar to inference, but not the same Direct E: if a fact is estabd wo the need of inference Consists of EFs That wc proves a fact it directly & conclusively proves a matter of fact Pc of E that can stand alone to prove the proposition You dont need anything else Ex) cadaver of a dead person; that a person has hair or teeth Theres no need to interpret it Ex) video of the 2 having sex Video of 3 mins wc is presented in E by the prosecution o 1 theres a tape

If E dsnt directly prove a fact it cant be direct E Form of E: obj, docum, testamoial Homicide: X need to prove mens rea bec its presumed o Victim killed How: club When: day Where: back of the head o Act killed accused
Evidence for the homicide: o Video o Testimony o Autopsy: will shw the killling o Club shows how killed & weapon & fingerprints Fingerprints: identity links the accused to the weapon Shows that you held the club


o Death cert W that proves a collateral M isnt DE

NBI record, Chain of custody, expert, findings = all these lil factys are needed to arrive at a conclusion wc are needed to show the other elem/conlcusiunb Youre deducing: you infer from 1 deatil to another = youre gathering circum E

So its stil conditional

Multiple Pc of E offered for multiple purposes E Mode & manner of proving facts

Circxum: aim is to prove fat5ual circums 1 by 1 to arrive at A CONCLUSION o E of the factual cocirm,s that oyu need to Prove in orde to infer o E on CM = Circum E o The factual circums arent the UFs, but may be used for inferences Club accessed by the accused bec he bought it o Got the rcpt of the purchse o What kind of E is this? Is ti a CM that a club was possessed = shows opp and means Opp: had the money to buy it, near his hse, etc CM of fact being proven: bought by the accused, b4 the date of the crime, that he had possession Proving these lil details show the prob/improb Opp, means, presence, flight = circums E Ex) husband = shows opp bec he had access to the wives who were killed These things are kinda far alrdy wc is why theyre CM Object that its a CM bec he owns the club so maybe its just fromothe ruse o But you can say but it was at the scene of the crime Hardly will you find a case ca[pabel pf DE most of it is circum E/CM

Proof Result/effect of E Amnt of E that is blvd by the Ct wc it used as sufficient basis to render judgment Quantity of E Quantum of proof differs in the kinds of case: o Civ: preponderance of E - superior weight of E Where ds it lead, where ds the superior weight of E lead to o Crim: proof beyond reasonable doubt Not moral or absolute certainty only such as to convivnce a resoanble person of guilt beyod doubt thats reaosnbale o Admin: substantial E such relevant E as a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion *way to det the truth is to look at the facts *E can never be appreciated unless you use common sense Rape Case of Nicole; lawyer of the defense was trying to get the statements of the driver in the NCIS report as part of E that they were dirty dancing, rubbing her crotch area.. o Proves a fact = CM o Object bec this dsnt mean that she consented OR you can also say that it may show consent bec she was alrdy dng this o Is the inference reasonable? o If she was capable of doing this, that means she wasnt dead drunk.

Positive E You affirm a fact You posit It happened/ddnt happen Negative E U dnt know anything cumulative Sme kind of form of E for the same state fo facts Eg) testiminbye of 2 witnesses who witnessed the sme event corroborative Addtl E of a diff charc on the sme point Cond admissibility

o o

Prosecution: she was dead drunk that the accused had to carry her piggy back to the van = thus she had no consent

Def: If she was dead drunk, she couldnt do this So ds this still tend to a reasonable degree to estab the fact of rape? I heard the female passenger say Im done o X an argument to say that it dsnt follow = bec the rule says admit if its probable or improbable o If shes done with the sexual act = what ds this statement infer? That she gave her consent

At the time of presentqation, it seems irrelevant to the matter of fact your trying to prove at that point, but you ask to present it bec itll later be connected This refers to relevance Ds it also refer to competence? o Ex) A testifies she was inside a fence when the incident happened during a luicid interval = can show her competence by showing a psychiatrist later on

R129 JN is lumped together w JA o But they are diff Knw the meaning of judicial proceedings Judge is aware of his surroundings *& wants to be on top of things. Heard his neighbors fighting, so got his binoculars & video cam & wen to the window. He saw battering of the wife of the husband & he died

o Case comes to his sala o Can he use his peronsla knowledge ot decide the case o Has no connection to JN Why cant he use his personal knowledge when he knows the truth? o The judge shld come to the case tabularasa o You shld decide the case based on the E presented o The rule says she shldnt look at anything except the E in the case o Aim of the judicial sys is not to know the truth per se. bec we dnt know for surewe arent god Judicial sys is a man made sys Our sys gives a fair shake, all it ensures is thatbth parties have a chance You are only able to prove based on the E presented

If the judge decides based on other than this, it destroys the adversarial sys He shld limit the basis of the decisiosn to what has been admitted Change it and it destroys the whole sys

June 26 R129: JN Means you want the Ct to take something as a fact wo presenting evidence 3 reqs: State Prosecutors v Muro o Matter must be one of common & gen knowledge o Matter must be well & authoritatively settled & not doubtful or uncertain o Must be known to be w/in the limits of the J of the Ct 3 kinds of JN S3: issue may be to up by the Ct or its parties o May = must have a hearing o if its the kind of facts where the Ct may allow the parties to be heard S2: o Ex) of Pub knowledge: Fact that Marcos went in exile, bec of Ppl power = the ppl caused a change in govt US attacked Iraq X fall under s1 X political history bec has to be part of history already Maybe can fall under ofcl acts of our govt o Here the Ct may in its discretion tke JN no need for a hearing S1: law of nations & political history o Thin line btwn them S1: there are 10 listed Its a closed ended list Its MUST, have to take JN o Bec its self-evident

Mandatory JN: the Ct can consider them as estabd as fact Examples: o A) existence & territorial extent of states the Phils that is a country that is a nation state & there are 3 maj islands o B) their political history Phils was once colonized X pol histo = That football is the natl sport of argentina X include cultural history Everything abt government o C) forms of govt & symbols of nationality Symbol of nationality = flag o D) law of nations IL o E) the admiralty and maritime Cts of the world & their seals No UN, league of nations yet at this time o F) the political constitution & history of the phils Pol constitution: refers to the contents of the consti Consti: 1935, 73, 87 Malolos consti: can the Ct take JN of this? o As pol history & not constitution bec it never became effective or ratified o G) ofcl acts of legis, exec, and judicial depts of phils Ordinances: depends on the Ct MTC: reqd to take JN RTC: only if reqd by statute, or on a case on appeal to them where the inferior Ct tk judicial notice of an ordinance involved Decisions of the SC: Opinion of the dept of justice: an official act Bec hes an alter ego of the Pres Iam taking JN of a DOJ advisory = valid EO of the Pres IRR issued by the DOLE /ERB Resolution of the civil service commission Its a consti body, its an indep bdy (civil service, comelec, coa) = X judicial, exec or legis Can the Ct take mandatory notice of the issuances of these indep bdys? Why shld the ct take mandatory JN of their acts? o Bec they are still official acts! Was just an oversight in the ROC, but its These commissions are at the base of our govt so the Cts shld take JN of them House/Senate Bill #: X yet an ofcl act bec for it to become an ofcl act, it shld still go through the process of enacted in law = legislative enactment They are just proposals at this stage Memorandum of the SC abt disciplining its EEs in the judiciary: Yes! Its an ofcl act

Ocfl act: not jst by 1 person but by the dept itself of nature Gravity, when theres smoke theres fire That women in the provinces are more conservative than urbanized women X be taken JN of If a woman is pregnant, necessarily months b4 there was a fertilized egg Law of nature or law of science? Law of science: proven by scientific method Law of nature: natl phenomena wc dnt need proof Laws of nature embrace laws of science I) measure of time Mrng, aftrn, evening H) laws What abt measure of space? Units of time: Hours, mins, secs o Lightyrs, etc o This is analogous to conversion in the metric sys, so why cant we apply the sme rule? Conversion of metric sys: from inches to foot X be capable of unQ demonstration bec conversion is man made Evidence is needed wc will show that this is the conversion If u want the Ct to tke JN that 50 yrs means a certain length Will the judge be in grave abuse of discretion if he agrees with you? Ms. Grey: said she was 1 foot from Erap when he signed Jose Velarde no1 questioned this Dsnt need to demonstrated Measure of space wsnt included, but using common sense & logic, its included by analogy J) ought to be known to judges

o o o o Ought o

This is scientific, if youre suffering from the illness, you will exhibit those things = so can take JN of this wo a med cert that a bottle will drop to the floor That if you drink poison, youll die That if you throw acid on someone, his skin will burn I heard a dog bark in the next room, thus there must be a dog in the next room to be known to judges bec of their judicial fxn That ppl are reluctant to squeal on a person who has committed a crime May fall under s2.c

S4: defines JA Ds this conflict w R10,s8? o R10, s8 effect of amended pleadings An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be rcvd in E against the pleader & claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived Rcvd in E here means it must be given in E o Amendment is in the same case o So the admission Judicial or not its judicial If you look at s4 alone, it seems that an admission in an orig pleading that was later amended is nevertheless judicial since the admission was made in the sme proceeding, in the sme place o But rule in Civpro, R10s8: seem to have changed this

S2: Public knowledge o Giving tips under a maj commercial estab is accepted as practice o That the prices of hsehld expenses is minimal it cant be 1M Capable of unquestionable demonstration o Subj matter of this is laws of sci (wc are obviously laws of nature) Those that have been established through time Science evolves, but there are certain laws of science that we do know are capable of unquestionable demonstration Refers to the physical sciences o Means something wc you cannot dispute o X necessarily have to be open to pub knowledge o X necessarily have to be known to the judge bec of his fxn o Examples) fact of down syndrome can be taken JN

These were the 1997 rules o The amendment converts the admission into an extrajudicial admission o Thus theres a conflict w s4 & R10, s8 J. Regalados position: it wld appear that s4 now includes superseded pleadings as judicial admissions o bec s4 dsnt clarify whether the admission is in the amended or orig, so long as its in the same case, its still judicial admission so wc shld prevail? The ROE or rule in civpro o apply civpro to qualify the ROE o civpro: last amended in 1997 o ROE: last amended in 1989 o Thus, civpro governs

R30,s3 reqs of motion to postpone trial for absence of E A motion to postpone a trial on the ground of absence of evidence can be granted only upon affidavit showing the materiality or relevancy of such evidence & that due diligence has been used to procure it. But if the adverse party admits the facts to be give in E, even if he objects or reserved the right to object to their admissibility, the trial shall no be postponed (as amended by SC resolution dated july21, 1988; in re:bar matter no 803) Our Cts cannot take JN of foreign laws Vda de Perez v Toledo o Proven thru ofcl publication, duly attested & authenticated copy

Can the Ct take JN the a certain person is suffering from down syndrome?

Proven thru judicial admission Absent either - Processual presumption:

1. jud cant be contradicted except if 2. extrajud statute doesnt exist til law effective cant take jud notice til effective R of civpro: PNB v. CA docus attached to complaint considered a part and may be considered evid although not introduced Failure to deny genuineness tantamount to jud admission - Federico v. CA Plea of guiltys a jud confession of guilt - P v. Lagarto Pleads guilty of cap offense, manda for ct to require pros to prove guilt Jud notice of Filipinas inbred modesty and anitpathy in airing publicly things w/c affect her honor - P v. Alfeche (pub knowledge) Jud fxn strictly jud Comm jud exp rapists arent deterred fr committing their act in the presence of ppl P v. Villanueva Cts not authorized to take jud notice of contents of recs of other cases - Gener v. De Leon Jud notice of natl reluctance to get involved in crim case - P v. Mario Rural areas: wom by custom act w/ prudence - P v. Cepeda Ordinary household items like appliances = value: matter of pub knowledge/capable of unquestionable demo - P v. Martinez Giving tips, esp in 1st-rate hotels, accepted prac PAL v. CA Current prac among maj estabs to accept payment by credit card in lieu of cash Mandarin Villa v. CA Cellphones hard to prove (millions of ppl) July 3 Whats the Best Evid R? S3 P to a suit wants to prove date of death of father doesnt have copy of death cert cause its not in the NSO and if hes to get a certified true copy, must go to Maguindanao, where the sits tense o wants to prove by taking a photo of a tombstone (lapida) relevant to prove date of death? Competent? Bring it to ct or photograph enough? Date of death impt cause ins policy issued died before issuance: no proceeds o After: child can be beneficiary Testi of child when died? How will u prove it? Testi? Lapida? Photo of lapida? diff kinds of evid admissible? o Its it competent?

Our Cts can tke JN: Of the pernicious practice of contracts of adhesion entrapping innocent buyers thru default clauses Bealty Exchange Venture Corp v Senderio That govt dsnt transact business on sun P

Of the natl reticence of ppl from getting involved in a crim case P v Torres That amng poor couples w big families copulation dsnt seem to be a prob despite the presence of ppl arnd them P v Ignacio Statute dsnt exist until it becomes effective accdg to law Cts arent auth to take JN in the adjudication of cases pending b4 them of the contents of the records of other cases Docums attached to the complaint are considered part there of and are considered as E tho the werent introduced as such SC takes JN of the fact that Filipinas inbred modesty & antipathy in airing publicly things wc affect her honor. Indeed there are many victims of rape who wld rather keep themselves forever than make pub a painful & humiliating secret (PPL v Alfeche: pub knowledge) Has judicial cognizance of the fact that in rural areas women by custom act w circumspection & prudence and that threat caution is observed so that their reputation remains untainted (Ppl v Cepeda) Giving of tips, esp in 1st rate hotel is an accepted practice of wc the Ct can take JN (Pal v CA)

(barbs) R129, S4: defines jud admissions on its face, contradicts/conflicts - admission in orig pleading later amended nevertheless jud cause even if amended, admission was made in proceedings in same case R on civpro seems to render it as changed cause it converts it into an extrajud admission Whats the prevailing R? Orig amended = superseded Amended Admission in orig already changed = jud admission cause of S4 Conflict = R of evid v. R of civpro (orig abandoned in civpro) R of civpro prevail: enter again or erased as qualifying S4 cause 97 and evid 89 Supersede = extrajud, not jud (ct cant take notice of it) Cts cant take JN of foreign laws (Vda de Prerez v. Toleto) - not proven: processual presumption foreign laws deemed to be same as Phils Cts can take jud notice: 1. of the pernicious prac of contracts of adhesion entrapping inn Bs thru default clauses (Realty Exchange Venture Corp v. Senderio) 2. govt doesnt transact bus on Sun (P v. Agguendo) 3. of the natl reticence of ppl fr getting involved in a crim case P v. Torres 4. that among poor couples w/ big fams, copulation doesnt seem to be a prob despite the presence of ppl around them P v. Ignacio jud admission made by p in proceedings in same case; doesnt require proof 2 kinds:

Evid cant be not admitted just cause its capable of fabrication obj to ppls testi Can date be proven by lapida/photo? Lapida = relevant obj evid? S2. Offered as proof of their contents what lk at lapidas whats written there (the date) Obj/docu evid? Wife slaps h w/ pesos obj cause prove condi and existence, not content of money Condi relevant to show its torn cause of the slap Act did slapping thru bills Fact torn impt cause the bills were used to slap the husb rly hard (why torn) Check torn signify no longer issued in the proper way (no longer nego ins) Issued properly- no alterations If u want to prove contents of lapida, its not obj evid but treated as docu cause its the contents that issued = any matl Elec Rs end of the course Moving images, streaming audio docus?

per se 2 doesnt mean anything

Elems of defn:

Any form can be heavy/thinshow what contains = docu o must be WRITTEN contents of screen written even if typed? Pic w/ Photoshop written? Obj, not written cause Whats written language? Typing = writing: basis R on writing interpreted histlally and comm. sensically when defn written, no comp yet Writing = act of person: modern help person create writing (brains commanding hand to write) Painting an image? Depends on purpose for w/c presented - how do u know a birds meant to be a bird and not something else? House created thru lines how know if obj/docu evid? o Ex. drew house to represent a house = real obj: illustration of an existing obj When logos inscribed on a med ex. pc of paper/t-shirt/folder o say automatically thats a docu? Ex. t-shirt has purpose: to show at the scene of the crime, there was a shirt that bears a logo of SMBobj/docu evid? Obj cause t-shirts not offered to prove content of logo, but that there was a logo Prove logo to show it means something = docu: written expression contained in a certain matl offered to prove the truth of its contents (truth what its sayings SMB founded in, etc.) Chars symbols only of images house created not to depict as faithful reprodn but as a symbol o = docu Face (Mona Lisa) pic of reality, not as a symbol o = obj Docu not reprodn but contains symbols (regardless of lang) o Ex. words, numerals, letters o 2 = 1 + 1 ex. 2 oranges

July 5 What is the date of death of the father o What youre interested to know here isnt the content of the docum but rather the date wc can be proven by other E, the lapida is jst 1 of them o You arent treating the content of the lapida as whats needed o If its not the docum, then a photograph is enough o Only thing youre interested in is the date of death of the dad Can use testimony of the kids, doctors, nurse, photograph of the lapida If its a docum, BER applies Example where the lapida is a docum such that BER applies o If youre suing the person who made the lapida bec of a mistake he made on the lapida o Dad diedSrbut the lapida say Jr who is still alive There was a mistake on the lapida, so theres a breach in contract S3 & 4 are related o When you want to show the contents of something, you need to produce the original Someone rode the victory liner bus from baguio to qc & was given a tckt, passenger got the insurance policy & kept the rcpt o Rcpt for the insurance policy, the passenger gives to their relative; tckt you keep o Accident happens bus caught fire o Relative wants to prove that the insured person was inside the bus when it happened so that he can claim the proceeds o So want to prove that he was a passenger & was issued a tckt o Prob is the tckt is w the passenger wc burned o Ds BER apply? NO You arent trying to prove the contents of docum, youre trying to prove his presence on the bus Subj of the inquiry is WON he was a passenger tckt will just show that he was a passenger o Convert it to where the contents of the tckt will be in issue: If theres a waiver that he cant collect on the insurance policy if theres an accident on the tckt Bec inquiry will be WON there was a waiver in the tckt S3 talks abt the docum o S4 clarifies this by speaking of the original Ex) publication of libel o There are many copies of the newspaper o Ds BER apply? Yes, bec youre still requiring the orig o And the cpy of the newspaper must be produced wc is an original alrdy o BER applies bec need to look at the contents of the docum o But its complied w alrdy, bec the orig is being shown alrdy Ex) telegram sent wc is libelous o Frm A telegram went to B talking abt X

Then B to C, then C to D X presents D as a witness D I was subpoena regarding a telegram I rcvd Wheres the telegram? Objection present the orig! If D presented the telegram from A to B = hes not competent to do this, wc is why hes presenting the telegram from C to D Judge shld overrule bec its the orig docum wc was rcvd by D Bec the inquiry is on the content of the telegram rcvd wc is what D is showing alrdy = its the orig alrdy o Ds BER apply? Yes, since its the content of the telegram that is in issue, need to present the orig wc is the telegram Passenger boarded an airplane, he was issued a tckt, tckt is w him, plane encountered a terrorist attack o Relatives want to recover o So they go to the airline & ask for a copy of a passenger manifest this isnt issued until the plane has landed (bec its confidential) But can be issued bec it crashed alrdy o Aside from the passenger manifest, want other proofs, bec the other party is contesting the passenger manifest since it only shows the name & dsnt prove that its really the person Passenger may have bought a tckt but was a no-show o So to be clear, the relative wants to testify that he brought him to the airport or a survivor says he sat beside me o Passenger manifest is being presented to prove that the relative really boarded the plane - Objection, BER? o Issue is WON the passenger was on the plane o Overruled it dsnt apply Bec the fact to be estab is WON the relative boarded the airplane The subj of inquiry isnt the contents of the passenger manifest per se o Passenger manifest is just 1 of many Es its not the real prob (the real prob is WON he was in the plane that crashed) o o

o 10: threw a rock at a teacher o 15: stole a car o Mugging o Knife fight Experience of the juror o Take note: when the judge takes JN of a thing, he acts as a lay man o S1: mandatory, as a judge o S2: basis of the charge is him acting as a person, human being Certain things appeal to the feelings of the jurors Ex) personal experience of the juror w his son wc gave him a bias As a judge here in the Phils, can you take JN of this? Fact of not wearing glasses old lady eyewitness o Argument on WON it needs to be proved:

Can tke JN, no need to prove that shes not wearing glasses when she sleeps

Apply R129, s2a: its public knowledge that ppl dnt wear glasses when they sleep Cant take JN, need to prove that shes not wearing glasses Not of pub knowledge: o Human practice varies from person to person o Ppl fall asleep w their glasses on o She was trying to sleep RULE: can take JN Admissibility: WON the woman saw the accused stab the victim PRO:

Relevancy: Admissible as collateral matters R128,s4 bec it tends to estab to any reasonable degree the fact in issue Bec if you try to estab that this person wsnt wearing her glasses at the time she supposedly saw the accused stab his victim, it puts into Q if she in fact saw clearly that accused stabbed the victim & whether shes capable of correctly identifying the identity of the accused at the time of the incident Main fact in issue: WON the accused stabbed the victim o Collateral I: WON the woman saw accused stab the victim identity of the accused o E for this is testimonial E that the woman saw the accused stabbed the victim o So her wearing the glasses is a CM Competence: its not excluded by ROC or law as testimonial E o Not hearsay bec it was she who saw the act

July 12 12 Angry Men 2motions, the 1 in the middle of the triangle must see only what has been presented as evidence Jury: lay men o Chosen at random o When they decide, shld be based on their own knowledge Presume what has been presented in evidence in the phils If the other party objects, whats your ruling Graded on: (exercise) Admissibility/competence of the Evidence: The nose ridge mark

Juvenile delinquency of the accused in the past as a teenager bec brought up in the slums; boy was battered as a child o Battered as a child = this is motive Sch record/behavior

CON: not admissible


It irrelevant bec it may not necessarily be eye glasses that she wears, it could have been sun glasses RULE: PRO, its admissible Accused looked like a latino o JN:

BER dsnt apply bec the issue is the existence of a docum & not its contents Ct admitted the PE presented by the Jap Co to prove the existence of a deed of sale executed by Hernaez Ruling of the Ct: when its not the contents of a docum (a writing, matl containing a writing) that is the subj of inquiry, BER dsnt apply Subj of inquiry was the existence of a deed of sale was claiming that he ddnt sell his props o But they did execute a sale Contents of the deed of sale werent in inquiry so BER dsnt apply Ct didnt consider it as the contents as in issue but the existence of the deed of sale If the Q is WON there was a sale, arent you asking abt the contents of the deed of sale? o Seems like you should o Bec how wld you know if there was a sale if you dont examine if there was a sig or not wc is part of the contents If someone is claiming there was a deed of sale, isnt he in effect talking abt the contents bec hes telling you who the subjs are, what the subj of the sale was, etc? Was saying it was a forgery, was being forced by the Jap to sell he claimed the deed of sale was fake bec he ddnt sign Why ds/dsnt BER apply? Ruling of the Ct is correct but 2 misleading sentences in the case o Proofs of the execution arent dependent on the existence/nonexistence of the docum If its non-existent then why need proof for execution?!?! To prove the existence of a docum, you have to prove its due execution J. Tuason shldve said: proofs of the execution arent dependent on the existence/non-existence of the ORIG of the docum Bec even if the orig no longer exists, bec destroyed/lost, you can still prove its execution thru 2ndary E Bec when talking abt execution, you arent talking abt the contents w/in the meaning of the BER Cant talk abt execution if it really didnt exist Youre talking abt execution so that 2ndary E may be applied When want to prove execution, youre talking abt the contents (vendor, vendee, when it tk place, etc) but if youre proving the contents wrt to the terms of the agreement, but to its execution, then BER dsnt apply Be that as it may the Ct below was wrong in holding that PE of the execution was barred, the Ct confused/confounded the execution & contents of the documwc in this case arent in dispute its the contents wc cant be proved by 2ndary E when the inst itself is accessible.due execution must be shown (underlined) is wrong bec whats in dispute that there was no sale All theyre claiming is that they ddnt sign

Take JN, R129, s2b: capable of unquestionable demonstration Bec by looking at him, one can see that he has latino features Cant take JN

Determination of latino features is relative to a persons individual judgment RULE: Can take JN Admissibility: fact in issue -

Its admissible

Admissible as CM bec it has a tendency to estab a probability, that the accused, who looks like a latino might have killed the victim This predisposition to commit crime, may be shown from studies

inadmissible bec its not relevant fact in issue is WON the accused killed the victim fact of his race, has no logical relationship to the fact in issue it dsnt estab the probability or improbability of the accused killing the victim o Competence: not excluded by law or rules RULE: inadmissible for being irrelevant Knife in his pocket, introduced by henry fonda o If it were a pc of E in the phils, can it be introduced in E to make a pt? is it relevant? The demonstration of henry fonda old man walking o What kind of evidence is this? o Obj E bec addressed thru the senses of the Ct o Admissible E? Memory of juror/judge o Sm1 examining 1 of the jurors asking abt the movie o Do you decide on things based on your own personal memory? Logic in demo o Was the story created by henry fonda logical? o Yes, therefore its relevant why? Whats his basis for dng that? o Can he do that? If youre a judge can you re-create?

July 26 (exercise on the movies) July 31 Hernaez v McGrath Do you agree w the ruling of the Ct?

Ct said the argument was wrong bec he was confusing execution w content

Air France v Carrascoso BER dsnt apply bec subj if inquiry wasnt the contents of the notebook, but the subj of inquiry was WON the ousting of Mr Carrascoso actually happened Witness said he left his seat bec the space was confining o This is when he saw the purser Who said I noted the incident in my notebook, shld him the note, etc This entire testimony of this incident w the purser was told to prove that the ousting happened? This is why its relevant? NO o the contents of the ntbk is relevant to prove the ouster? o The ntbk became relevant bec the entry said a 1st class passenger was forced to transfer to 2nd class wo this, it wld be irrelevant When the victim was telling his story, he include this anecdote, why is this relevant? That the purser talked to him, etc o Its relevant bec it tends to prove his was wrongfully o Purser whos the EE wont say anything detrimental to his boss unless its true So when the entry was made, it really records the ouster Its the entry wc makes the purser say so impt & relevant o So if the other party objects, if trying to prove E of the ouster thru the ntbk, you shld present the ntbk/the entry! Carrascoso said: o I went to the purser. He was in full possession of his capacity, was in full possession of his senses Thus, hes not disqualified from being a witness *S20: you can perceive only thru 5 senses (hear, see, taste, feel, smell) Any person who can perceive, senses arent disabled can relate it to the Ct correctly competent o The purser talked to me. Competent o The purser said ______. If testifying that the person talked can be = competent But if presented to offer the truth of what the purser said = hearsay o The purser showed his note, saying he alrdy noted the incident in the ntbk & translated it. Translated: competent he heard it Content of the note subj to BER? Therefore, the note is the crux of the testimony! He wldnt have relayed this story if not for this note Can he talk abt the contents of the note? Air frances argument: when you begin quoting the contents, dont relay the story but show the note itself SC: said the testimony was only abt the ouster, the issue wsnt the contents of the ntbks per se, but the ouster

COA of Carrascoso: tort for damages (not just for breach of contract but also bec there was BF) o His story abt the purser is merely factum probans Pt of Carrascosos testimony: Whether its really in the ntbk or not, fact that the purser said it to Carrascoso its alrdy against the airline o The ntbk wld only corroborate this fact

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE S9:a written agreement is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon & there can be no evidence of the terms agreed upon other than the written agreement itself o GR: Disallows E other than the written agreement o Exception: if the ff are put in issue in the pleadings Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, imperfection of written agreement Failure to express true intent & agreement of the parties Validity of the written agreement Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties after execution of the written agreement o Isnt this the same as the BER?

No, bec PER prohibits the varying of the terms of the agreement w the use of E outside the written agreement

While BER prohibits the introduction of 2ndary E the prove the contents of the written agreement wc isnt available PER BER The orig writing isnt available &/or theres a dispute as to whether said writing is the orig Prohibits the varying of the terms of a Prohibits the intro of susbtitutionary E written agreement in lieu of the orig docum, regardless of WON it varies the contents of the orig Applies only to docums wc are Applies to all kinds of writings contractual in nature Exception: wills Invoked only when the controversy is Invoked by any party to an axn btwn the parties to the written regardless of WON such party has agreement, their privies or any party participated in the writing involved directly affected thereby Eg. A cestui que trust Ds PER even if the orig available? YES Parol evidence: o E aliunde o Any form, kind pc of evidence outside the written agreement Ex) agreement btwn A & B w 5 terms, A wants to enforce, B wants to resist so he presents a photo showing other terms, saying this was what was agreed upon allowed? o If the docum was raised in the pleadings as not expressing the true intent/agreement, then he can present the photo = PER dsnt apply Bec if he said the docum dsnt present the true intent, he has the right to present E as to what the true agreement is


Do you need to present the orig agreement to object to the photograph? Then A objects bec BER! applies? YES!!! What B is saying is that the docum attached isnt the real agreement, our real agreement is the contents of this photo so at this juncture isnt the contents of the photo subj of the inquiry, such that the orig shld be presented? Thus BER applies Bec alrdy contemplating exactly what are the terms so need the orig


Contra pro ferentem (A1379 CC) [against what you profer] o The interpretation that is contrary to what you offer o This refers to s17, R130 o di ka pwede manggulang Can you waive the PER? Yes o When counsel fails to object to the E

INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS (S10-19) This whole thing refers to DOCUMENTS but s14 & s17 refers to agreements o Maam says this is a lapse, it shld be inst just like the other provs S10: it must appear in the inst itself that the parties intended otherwise o Ex) marriages can be perfmd in places other than domicle, thus interpretations on alimony, donation propter nuptias interpretations on such will be detd by where the marriage was celebrated S11: construction of several provs to give effect to all bec parties wldnt have included a prov wc wld nullify it o Law interprets the inst as intended by the parties as fully operational S12: intention of parties prevail & gen intention is subordinate to specific intention o Particular intent controls only if inconsistent as much as possible, reconcile

*exception in s9 can only be put up if its put in issue in the pleadings - if the exception applies, then PER dsnt apply! Exercise: 1. In their (written) deed of sale, vendor A & vendee B agreed that theyll split 50-50 the commission due the broker-agent of A. on the same occasion, in a (written) side agreement, A & B also agreed to split 50-50 a 200k finders fee for their mutual frnd C. Whn B reneged, refusing to pay any share on the finders fee, A brought suit in the MTC, attaching a cpy of the executed side agreement as Annex A of his complaint A) B wants to use the PER in his ans as part of his defense theory. Is that possible. How? * This is what B is saying kuno: You cant invoke the side agreement bec its outside of our true agreement the contract Yes, its possiblePER applies but its not effective *agreement reduced into writing: contract

S13: circums in wc it was made so judge may be put in the position of the one who hes to interpret S14: presumption that terms are used in primary & gen acceptance o But E allowed o Terms of the agreement are presumed to be used in their primary & general acceptation S15: written prevail over the printed o Printed form usually comes 1st & writing comes after o o It shows the more recent intention Fact that its printed, premeditated na therefore the written words wld show the later/prevailing intention Ex) insurance policy rider = written Parties add their own stips If theres a conflict btwn the printed part & the rider rider prevails

* 2nd agreement: side agreement Same parties Side agreement falls under S9d that the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties after execution of the written agreement Defense: Side agreement isnt actionable, citing PER, bec its outside of the contract o But if you argue this way, its bali wala bec when A replies, he can say that this side agreement is under s9d its an exception, so what PER are you talking abt?! Can PER apply to only 1 party, such that theres no agreement? Yes, in case of a will (for other agreements, need to have at least 2 parties) **Terms in an agreement DONT INCLUDE THE SIGNATURE (Hernaez v McGrath) refers to BER

S16: experts may testify/affirm/posit/declare in Ct the meaning of the lang/characs o Ct dsnt understand it o Ex) if the inst is in a diff language a will in Bisaya *Ds PER apply to wills, it does Will a codicil be prevented admissibility by the PER? NO, bec its an addtn to a will codicil: it adds to/supplements & can even change a will

*simple example: A buys land from B. contract signed the contract. B complained that in the deed said lot Y but A delivered lot X

nature of a codicil: its anthr will/is a will = shld be probated

Axn for specific performance so long as contract is perfected, can demand specific perf (A13___,CC) Possible defense of A: that what was agreed upon was lot X & attach the contract to the ans (becomes an actionable docum) Issues in the case: o What was agreed upon? o What was delivered?

If theres a wrong, damages.

B is the o o o

1st witness bec hes a party to the contract & signed it! Q: describe the land/wheres the land located? counsel for A objects OVERRULED! Bec no statement yet that something was written so what PER are you talking abt!? Unless theres a written thing, PER/BER dsnt apply! o Q: when did you enter into this contract of sale/for how much? Objection! PER! Overruled! Bec no statement yet that something was written This isnt realistic bec in the pre-trial, they wldve admitted that there was a written agreement o B wldnt have denied the contracts authenticity (bec if he did, hed be liable for perjury since he signed & notarized) o Thus, if not denied, then the agreement is considered admitted Thus, realistically, the agreement wldve been admitted alrdy o SO Objection your honor! Inadmissible PER! Only thing that may be admitted wrt the terms of the agreement, is the written agreement itself. Wont let him testify bec his testimony is EXACTLY PAROL E (its E aliunde) o What if its a photo! OBJECT! SUSTAINED! Dsnt matter if what youre talking abt Law dsnt like it, bec judge wont know if it varies or not so no other testimony, no other docum, no other E bec its not the written agreement ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS NOT ALLOWED OBJECT TO ANY OTHER EVIDENCE!! o S9 1st part: is the GR wc bars any other E except the written agreement itself o S9 2nd part: exceptions

A presents himself & testifies on the side agreement shdl be talk abt the deed of sale? NO, bec if he ds, he shld automatically has to rely on the exception Hed in effect be saying the deed of sale was the true agreement So just identifies the side agreement Once A testifies on the side agreement, B can object on PER saying theres a deed of sale wc is the earlier & only agreement wc shld be the one considered Bec in pre-trial, the deed wldve been admitted alrdy B presents himself & testifies the deed of sale

*back to maams example: Realistically why wld B not want to pay? Maybe the side contract was rescinded (can be done verbally) Can say there was a deed of sale, a side agreement & rescission = this is the ans of B o If so, will he have to object to As testimony on the side agreement based on PER no, B wldnt object, bec while A admits of the side agreement, B is claiming its been rescinded (so no room for the PER)

Maams point: The distinction btwn status of PER as E as a procedural matter & as a defense o Defense is a strategy while E is what you use to prove your strategy o So is PER really a matter of E only or can be used as a defense? o Wrt GR its a matter of E: Its when you invoked the rule to prevent E from being presented

youre preventing E from coming in (objection! PER! So shut up!)

E aliunde need not be in writing o

Change, theres a side agreement aside from the contract A may invoke any of the exceptions as a defense there are other terms indep from the contract wc changes the agreement (s9d) o Ex) there was suspensive cond wc hasnt been fulfilled, therefore no oblig to split the amnt yet Situation where you can invoke the GR as a defense o Suppress the side agreement by using the GR o GR says that no other agreement can be presented except for the written agreement itself Side agreement is barred by the contract itself the real agreement is the deed of sale Therefore, you can intro any form of E other than whats in the written docum/contract A suing B on the basis of the side agreement, B is saying in his ans PER bec of Deed of sale (invokes the GR)

an evidentiary rule bec allows you to object to any form of E of the other party from being presented its an exclusionary rule Wrt the exceptions its more of a defense/strategy Bec to use them, youd have to put it in issue Tactically procedure wc will be the foundation of your introducing other E

B) B failed to notarize his ans. A now argues that the pre-trail that B has in effect waived the PER bec B admits the authenticity & due execution of the side agreement. Comment PER has nothing to do w the authenticity & due execution of the side agreement

Bec PER refers to the exclusion of E aliunde whereas authenticity & due execution pertain to the genuineness of the docum Even if he admits the authenticity & due execution of the docum, can still invoke the PER

C) Does A have any addtl counter-agreement re Bs invocation of the PER? A can invoke the exceptions

D) Is the side agreement of any use to the finder, who is short of 100k? Not of any use to the finder, bec not party to the agreement hence, cant invoke the PER o Cant invoke PER bec im not a party to it (Lechugas v CA) o As a matter of procedure this is correct

But finder still has a COA bec theres a stip pour autrui & the vesting of the benefit is explicitly & clea 2. In p.693 Regalado says 1 of the diffs btwn PER & the BER is that the PER presupposes that the orig docum is available in Ct therefore, invoking that rule, B can demand the production of the orig in Ct & absolutely object to application of the BER. Comment.

Part3: admissions & confessions These 3 show the forms of E Theres a diff btwn exclusionary & privilege (theyre similar, but theres a thin line differentiating them) Part4: Part5: knowledge Part6: opinion & character of E When say testimonial theres a witness = E comes from the mouth of the witness o Therefore always verbal & not written? Tries to show what the witness said Interest of the parties & Ct is what the witness said & not what was written o Eg. Testi of Carasscoso was impt (Air France) GR: s20 any1 can testify so long as they can perceive & can make their perceptions known to others o So long as: Person Can perceive thru his senses Make known his perception to others Political, interest in the outcome of the case = not grounds for disqualifications! o Exception: s23 dead mans statute/survivorship disqualification Conviction for a crime: not disqualified unless the law so states o Ex) person convicted of perjury, false testimony & falsification of docums o They cant testify regarding the will in the probate of a will Disqualification: s21: o Mental condition at the time of production for examination, renders them incapable of intelligently make known their perception to others

Ergo, can you invoke the PER even if its not the original? YES Statement is wrong! PER can be invoked even if theres no orig available in Ct so long as BER is complied w & 2ndary E is allowed Pretend theres no orig & somebody is testifying on the terms of the agreement can you object at this pt? not yet, youd have to 1 st invoke the written agreement itself So long as 2ndary E has alrdy been presented showing the agreement itself, then the moment theres PE abt the terms other than that presented object! PER Bec you can present the agreement thru 2ndayr E o A copy, recital of its contents, testimony PER: whether varying or not the written agreement BAWAL (whether testi, docum or obj) only thing you can present is the written agreement itself

BPI v Fidelity & Surety Co

Invokes the exception s9a o Mistake in the agreement 3 reqs for mistake: o Shld be a mistake of fact o Must be shown by clear & convincing E o Mistake shld be common to bth of the parties

Lechugas v CA As btwn parties to a written agreement, PE cant be rcvd to contradict or vary its terms. Strangers to a contract are not bound by it & the rule excluding extrinsic E in the construction of writings is inapplicable in such cases; & its relaxed where either 1 of the parties btwn whom the Q arises is a stranger to the written agreement & dstn claim under or thru 1 whos aprty to it in such case, the rule is binding upon neither PER applies only btwn parties to the written agreement cant apply to persons not a party to the agreement So long as non-party to the contract/written agreement, involved in the case, PER dsnt apply TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE Part1: refers to the qualification of witnesses Part2: refers to testimonial privilege o

at the time of production = at the time they have to testify/time theyre examined by the Ct/when making a deposition Even if b4 this the witness is ok Even if they were insane at the time of the incident, so long as lucid at the time they testify = not disqualified o But obviously, there wld be issues as to his credibility, etc

Ex) if took a drug b4 testifying or if drunk or crazy Ex) inmate in a mental place, had a lucid interval, saw a stabbing & then reported it to his doctor lawyer found out & got him as a witness can he testify? No, even if in a lucid interval, since hes an inmate in a mental hospital, theres a presumption that hes insane so cant testify atty will have the burden of proving his in a lucid interval If not an inmate, presumption is that hes of sound mind Children whose mental maturity renders them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting wc theyre examined & relating them truthfully Shld be of mental maturity at:

the time he perceived it &

at the time of presentation/needs to testify in Ct refers to 2 points in time examination of a child witnesses: more liberal atty will have the right to ask leading Qs there are safeguards

Danger of punishing 1 Sps thru the hostile testimony of the other Testi is prohibited bec of the hostility Danger of perjury bec hate him too much Rule is here, bec ppl can tell lies out of love or hate

Whats the diff btwn the disqualification btwn s21 A & B/why the diff? o Bec of the tender yrs of the child o B refers to a child of TENDER YEARS It alrdy defines the nature of the witness o While A just refers to a person, other than lttr B & is presumed capable competent Ex) mongoliod: dsnt fall under lttr B, o Whether their competent depends on the degree on their disease o If want them to be disqualified will have to prove them 1st

S22 & s23 & s24 S24: privilege communication is characterized by an elem of confidentiality o Elem of confidentiality is the most impt thing here S22 & s23: bth have an elem of confidentiality but its still diff from s24 S22: refers more to relationship o Whether its confidential or not o Diff btwn S24a & s22: S22: disqualification by reason of S24: disqualification by reason of marriage marital privilege Absolute prohibition Only speaks of communications rcvd in confidence presupposes, 1 of the parties is the Sps no such req M is existing can be during or after the M o Is the Sps is a co-def, will s22 apply? S22 says for or against this is why the rule says 1 shld be a party to a casebut here, party nga but co-def lang so ds s22 still applies? Even tho not 1 against the other, but are actually parties on the same side? Ppl v Francisco: wife cldnt be summoned as a hostile witness bec wld be testifying against even tho on the same side Rationale for s22: Ppl v Francisco Identity of interests of the Sps Its in their interest to protect the other Sps Identity of Self-interest Its presumed na magkakampi kayo Bec the natl tendency of ppl is to testify in your favor, to such an extent that you protect them too much, even if you tell a lie alrdy Perjury Tendency to protect the other, to the pt of lying Danger of perjury bec love the other too much Harmony Sps will end up fighting

Aug7 Whats the reason for disqualification in s24(a): the H or the W, during or after the marriage, cant be examined wo the consent of the other as to any communication rcvd in confidence by 1 from the other during the marriage except in a civ case by 1 against the other, or in a crim case for a crime committed by 1 against the other or the latters direct descendants or ascendants o Law refers to the communication rcvd FROM 1 TO THE OTHER o Communication need not be abt the H & W it can be abt anything, so long as FROM 1 TO the OTHER Its a secret o Ex) A&B (parents) w their son went to the doctor he had an embarrassing disease. B(husband) died. Son(C) married D. D filed suit for annulment bec she ddnt know abt the disease

wife wanted to say that when they got married, the H ddnt tell her he had the disease (wc the son now had) She even wants to call her mother in law to show the BF of the son in not telling her abt his cond

Can she call the mom to testify? Yes, the doctor was the 1 who gave the communication thus she can testify on it The communication wsnt rcvd from 1 to the other, therefore the mother in law can testify Communication is NOT privileged since the communication wsnt rcvd from the wife from the husband, but communication came from the doctor o Essence of the rule: even if M is terminated, long after its over, the pt is a secret is a secret o The confidence btwn H&W is so impt to the law, to preserve the harmony (Ppl v Carlos) US v Antipolo o Accused: Antipolo o Witness: wife of the victim Wanted to testify, prosecutor objected said it was privileged communication rcvd But the motive was shut up! Bec we Antipolo to hang Bec testimony of the wife was in favor of Antipolo She was gng to say Antipolo wasnt guilty bec the victim fell Its still privileged after death o But in US v Antipolo: 2 reasons why theres no violation of the law Intent of the H wasnt to make it secret not a communication rcvd in confidence Do you agree? What did he really say? YES! Since the testimony was intended to exculpate the accused, it was meant to be communicated to the authorities

What if the termination of M wasnt due to death, but due to some other reason? Does this matter? o No, the rule dsnt distinguish wrt the cause of the termination of the M Regardless of the cause, the privilege still applies o But in US v Antipolo: the SC said that the rule is intended to cover cases in wc the M has been dissolved otherwise than by death of 1 of the Sps (eg annulment) If cause of termination is other than death privilege applies! Cant testify *Maam dsnt think this observation was wise But more unfair bec the dead can no longer speak for itself Why ds the rule want H&W to keep secrets sacred even after death? o To test the wisdom of the law imagine the opposite o Thus, if all our secrets can be told, then wed be afraid to communicate = nagasawa ka pa o What kind of an atmosphere wld u be creating in the family?! Youll be suspicious of each other, etc bec you cant share things since secrets can be told Ex) no dying declaration, H dead, matter is really privileged, wife is suppose to testify objection! Bec its privileged o If the wife isnt a party, just a witness & the H isnt a party = who objected? A party ds he have the right to object? NO! Under the law, only the Sps can object o So in US v Antipolo the judge shldve overruled since the H wasnt a party? In all sits in s24(a) where M has been terminated, how can the Sps object if he/shes not a party to the case? Seems like waiver can occur in 2 ways: (waiver of the privilege) o If the Sps testifies & the other Sps fails to object o If the Sps cross-examines the other Sps

Means: Can testify if M ended due to death

Privilege can be invoked by anybody o Dsnt have to be Sps himself or his lawyer bec the rule dsnt o Rule only says consent shld be taken from him So it seems like its only him who can object But this wld be ridiculous bec the other Sps cld be dead or not party to the case o Rational/spirit of the rule is still there privilege is still there Regardless of the cause of the termination of M, privilege still applies Exceptions to s24(a) &s22: o Case against the Sps, direct descendant/ascendants: Regardless of degree (degree removed from the source) so long as direct back to s22 & s24 S22: testimony can be abt anything o Pt is youre still married Shld be valid, if not, privilege dsnt apply o Even if M is bigamous? NO S24: refers to confidential communication S23: Parties or assignor of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor 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, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. Ex) 1 sps committed falsification of docums against the other Sps privilege applies? NO (Ppl v Castaneda) Deadmans statute: applies to o Parties/assignor of parties to a case o Person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted/representatives of the decased Rule protects a party bec hes dead & cant defend himself But what if the claim is true?! Law is intended to achieve justice, in favor of the dead guy, what abt if the claim is true? What abt the other person? o Whats the soln? scrap the statute? Solutions: o If testi E, easy to make up a story wc the dead person cant deny But if talking abt hard E object & docum E difficult for this to be controverted o Can present witnesses Bec whats prohibited is the party whos involved, bec hes got a high interest there, but if theres anthr witness have him testify What abt assignors? o Included bec their the ones who transferred the rights/interest o Assignor comes into the picture bec he assigned his interest in a case


1) P evidence in chief (wants to prove the elems of his COA) o Witness1,2,3 2) Def evidence in chief o Witness 1,2,3 3) Rebuttal: P rebuts the E of def 4) Sur-rebuttal: def rebuts the E of P In all the sits where theres a witness the procedure is: o 1) Direct Examination Witness of P: 1st talks to his laywers Qs (whoever hes kakampi w) He testifies on the elems of the COA 2) Cross-Examination: atty of the def Qs him 3) Re-direct Examination 4) Re-cross Examination

o o o

Ex) dad had a son who was hit by a car son has a COA against the person who hit him can he assign this interest in this case to his dad while case is pending can be assigned (Del Castillo v ___)

The assignee isnt barred, but its the assignor (son) is barred Persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted o agent prosecutes from the principal o Principal is precluded from testifying o What if the 1 who sued is the descendent or non compos mentis ds the rule still apply? When the heirs filed a counterclaim Claim shld be an original claim against the estate of the deceased or person of unsound mind Goni v CA: if its a counterclaim, its not barred o Rule was also waived bec they cross-examined o Suit brought when Villanueva was alrdy dead o Dsnt matter when the suit is brought, so long as later the person is alrdy dead, rule will apply o Limit of the power of the agent to testify: Agent permitted to testify as to matters wc the deceased person transacted w him, during his lifetime if the agent testifies regarding circums (hes competent) Qualification: The inequality or injustice sought to be avoided by s24 dsnt exist in the CAB since Goni cld & ddnt negate the bidning effect of the contract to sell If Goni had testified against the def, it will be barred also Goni is merely an agent so the real party is Villanueva! So why wld he be barred? Whether he affirmed or negated the contract of a promise to sell is immatl

The rule has generally been given a liberal construction to promote justice & its held that it was never intended to serve as a shield for fraud

Fraud committed: Carr had Atty Moore make the deed of sale appear that there was no encumbrance on the prop (but it was still subj to the right of repurchase from the previous owner) E aliunde: alrdy presented several witnesses who testified on the acts of Carr & Ct tk JN that Ong Chua cldnt speak or write and deed was written in English wc Ong Chua ddnt understand (had to rely on Moores statements/explanations) o E aliunde: E diff from the facts covered by the dead mans statute If you have such E, the statute no longer applies

Babao v Perez Fraud: in violation of the verbal agreement, Perez sold the prop Since the successors are parties to the case, then the dead mans statute applies Even if its the heirs are now being sued & no longer the estate, theyre covered by the prohib bec they will be benefitted Dsnt matter when suit was brought = pt is at the time testi is given, hes alrdy dead Lichauco v Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co Deadmans statute dsnt apply to EEs & Pres of the corp bec not successors, parties to the case Thus, they can testify The corporation itself is the 1 that is disqualified *ex) of when theyll be disqualified since the corporation can only act through its officers o Civpro: affidavits are allowed can a corp reduce its statement per se? how can a corp itself, not its offcrs, attest to something? If the corp acts thru the resolution of its BOD = this is a corp act Ex) if the corp issues a resolution w a statement of facts = may be submitted in Ct May be cross-examined by mems of the board Bec corp decisions are made by the maj of the BOD Physician-patient If doctor is engaged by the patient, still applies? Yes In extremis: in grave danger/in danger of dying *in articulo mortis: at the pt of death Atty-client privilege What if the lawyer serves pro-bono, still applies? Yes What if the lawyer was advising a client abt the crime? No o Basis: Ppl v Sandiganbayan (1997) Date is impt bec of Regala v Sandiganbayan (1996) Regala v Sandiganbayan: o If the privilege covers identity, then how do you reconcile this w Ppl v Sandiganbayan?

Aug 14

P707 Regalado: testimony on the present possession by the witness of a written inst signed by the deceased is also not covered by the prohib, as such fact exists after the decedents demise acceptable?!? o Ex) case involving a contract of sale, party suing the heirs to recover a parcel of land bec bought it from the deceased dad purchase happened while dad was alive but wasnt delivered to him o Party suing (vendee) has the deed of sale o Can the vendee verify the sig of the deceased? o Contract is a reduction in writing of the agreement of the parties all terms in the contract are all acts of the parties o Youre talking abt acts wc was done prior to his death!! Thus, it shld be prohibited o Sentence is misleading bec it forgets reference to who is testifying If person testifying & imputes an act to the decedent, is a party to it = prohibited Anyone else but the party himself can testify

Ong Chua v Carr

Where theres fraud that occurred, proven by E aliunde = dead mans statute dsnt apply

Whats the conflict btwn Ppl v Sandiganbayan & Regala?

Ppl v Sandiganbayan: attys wld be testimony wsnt covered by the privilege bec: o Purpose wsnt lawful To be privileged communication shld be for a lawful purpose/in furtherance of a lawful end o It relates to a crime intended to be committed These 2 conds are sep from each other, the privilege will not cover: o 1st: Consultation/seeking counsel regarding future offenses Privilege wsnt envisioned to protect clients who intend to commit a crime Dsnt involve just written or verbal communications = includes ANYTHING! Even including actions Communications: means written, verbal, actions Thus, the time of reckoning is the time of consultation whether the act was done alrdy or not o 2nd: When the lawyer is no longer a 3rd party of the act being testified upon, but is now a PART of the act itself Lawyer himself is a co-conspirator = hes no longer a lawyer but a criminal! Applied for a free patent over pub land got the title But objection of perjury he misrepresented in his application o But misused his power to influence the Dir of Lands to issue the free patent

1st case: administrative proceeding by Dir of Lands to cancel the CTC 2nd case: crim case for perjury o Dismissed bec of prescription hindi sumampa sa Ct (ddnt reach Ct!) o Dismissed during prelim investigation 3rd case: graft case filed o Claimed it shld be dismissed bec the docums attached for dismissal of this charge were the same as those in the perjury charge o If previous case was dismissed can no longer be prosecuted? No, only if the dismissal is on the merits o Falsified a docum: made it seem like there was an arraignment when there was only an investigation only motion by the prosecution to dismiss the case (when this happens wo consent of the accused, immediately theres double jeopardy) o attached the docum of arraignment to their MFR to the resolution of the Tanodbayan o Sansaet was the lawyer who filed the MFR & the results of the arraignment were attached to it o Later showed that there was no arraignment & the judge even certified that there was no such arraignment *arraignment: when you plead guilty or not guilty

Republic filed a motion to discharge Sansaet as a state witness Sansaet even wrote an affidavit Paredes made him do it o Reqs for state witness: (s17,R119) His testi is absolutely necessary Can be corroborated in its matl aspects Theres no other direct E available to the prosecution He must not appear to be the most guilty Has not been at any time been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude o Ombudsman denied this, bec the testi falls under the atty-client privilege SC: ddnt agree o Said that since the acts of Atty Sansaet, as co-conspirator of the crime & bec the nature of his testi is abt a crime intended to be committed, he can testify Communications NOT covered by the privilege: (atty can be examined) o Future, unlawful plan of the client: (WON it happens in the future or not) Consulting w you abt something wc hasnt been done yet Can be examined in Ct bec as a lawyer you shldnt condone, you may listen, but not condone At a certain pt, its the lawyers oblig to divulge attempt at a conspiracy wc is not only lawful to divulge, but wc the atty under certain circums may be bound to disclose at once in the interest of justice o Lawyer is part of the conspiracy Everything that pertains to the conspiracy b4, during, & after At this pt, no longer acting as a lawyer alrdy a criminal In what sense did the Ct see Sansaet as a conspirator? o Bec unlikely that no words passed btwn them o And he attached the falsified docums to the motions & filed them in Ct

Regala v Sandiganbayan

Civil Case 33 filed by PCGG against Eduardo Cojuangco & ACCRA law firm Civil case for recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth Defs got ill-gotten wealth thru the coco-levy funds used to buy corporations, used to set-up 6 oil milling companies (wc set-up 14 holding Cos) Since coco-levy funds are exacted frm farmers, theyre public (bec its a trust fund for farmers; its not private funds) ACCRA claimed they were only Nominee-stockholders (you admit that youre just a front/agent) PCGG filed a 3rd amended complaint excluding Raul Roco who was supposedly willing to testify on the name of his principal/s ACCRA filed a comment and/or opposition, as well as a counter-motion: requesting to be excluded from the case just like Roco Roco was supposedly excluded bec complied w certain conds o But he didnt comply w such

Honrado: clerk of Ct who helped falsify the docums Case filed against Sansaet, Honrado & Paredes

The 3 docums he submitted ddnt comply w the PCGG conds but he was excluded anyway ACCRA was invoking the atty-client privilege o If they divulged the name of their clients, theyd be violating the privilege Whats the relationship btwn E & procedure here? o ACCRA was invoking provs on E when they werent yet on trial and the privilege dsnt not apply unless youre being examined o R130,s24d: an atty CANNOT BE EXAMINED Here, the ACCRA lawyers & the SC agreed w them when they invoked the privilege for the purpose of excluding them as defendants In relation to Ppl v Sandiganbayan: o Lawyers here cld be considered co-conspirators to the crime They planned organization & acquisition of the business associations o Executed deeds of assignment in blank & shares of stock *theres no escaping the fact that it was an elicit enterprise Therefore, the privilege wldnt apply

Maam: so why dd s24e come into the pic? Its just a motion for production of E Maam: when a pub ofcr is conducting inquiry, he asks for info from a lot of ppl = this is info rcvd by him, this isnt privileged Ct: no prejudice bec while the info contained in such papers/records are confidential, they dnt pose danger or peril to our eco o Maam: Theres a diff btwn confidential & privilege If its confidential for 1 grp but can be seen by anthr grp, then its not privileged Ct: it shld be disclosed bec it wld be beneficial not only to the bank but to its depositors & creditors o Bec it wld disclose whether there was partially by the mems of the MB o Pub interest will be served, bec then youll see if the CB really closed it unjustly Whats the connection of s130,s24e to discovery (R27)? o 24e: seeks to protect certain ofcl matters Wants to prevent the examination of a pub ofcr o Certain info thru docums, tapes, etc are being sought to be retrieved from the possession of a pub ofcl is this equivalent to being examined wc is why theyre invoking s24e?

Barton v Leyte Asphalt


When the communication comes into possession of a 3 longer applies And it dsnt matter how they acquired possession

party, the privilege no

If its compelled, anybdy in the proceedings can look at it (lawyers, judge, reports, etc) = once things are produced in Ct, its alrdy pub Even if it was discovery, the philosophy of s24e is still there its as if youre examining him alrdy bec it becomes pub Maybe R27,s1 (wc says privilege), refers to s130,s24 but nothing so far to tell us that it ds

Aug21 Banco Filipino Bank was saying the docums were irrelevant bec the inquiry had no relevance bec there was no hearing prior to closure o Were trying to prove 4 things that the CB did wrong they were unfair: no supporting examinors report reports were fabricated Ct: No the docums were still matl & relevant o Theyre relevant bec wo the reports they cant prove & prepare their comments & objections properly o When the mems of the board discuss, its official Invoked R130,s24e was this relevant to the case? o Raised this as to the deliberations & tapes o No pub ofcr was being brought as witness to the facts in issue to the case but rather minutes, transcripts, docums, tapes, etc = all this arent testimony of a pub ofcr What s24e speaks of is communication, ds this mean verbal communication only? o Sec24e was irrelevant bec no1 was sitting down o The order was for the production of the docums, tapes, etc = this is a mode of discovery (R27) o Ct: when what is in Q is production of docums & things, interpretation of the rule must be liberal the rule referring to docums & things

R130,s24c: physician-patient privilege Any person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, wo the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any info wc he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity, wc info was necessary to enable him to act in capacity, & wc wld blacken the reputation of the patient There are many other fields cldve limited itself to medicine Doctor: has a govt license to practice in a certain territory Person who conducts autopsy still a doctor cases where a doctors testimony may be relevant: o Rape cases o Serious physical injuries (victim in The Verdict) Why not applicable to crim cases? o Apply the rationale in lawyer-client privilege by analogy o The higher pub interest shld prevail over private (the blacken of the reputation of the patient) o But in crim cases, if what the doctor knows is in relation to a commission of a crime, pub interest prevails So subordinate of the doctor cld be examined? (secretary, janitor, assistants, etc) o The omission isnt bec they ddnt want to extend the privilege, but rather, peculiar to the prof of a doctor, he ddnt have assistants b4

Maam: The privilege shld extend to his assistants (just like lawyers) since he now have assistants (unlike b4 when it was the doctor alone)

S24d: a minister or priest cannot, wo the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional charac in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to wc the minister or priest belongs Unless penitent gives his consent No qualification as to civ or crim case (only as to the doctor) Rule developed in favor of religion so that ppl can confide their sins Bec if they cld be examined, then no1 wld want to confess anymore Imam isnt a priest When you apply the ROE, dnt take for granted the ppl or the institutions to wc it applies ADMISSIONS

These sections (s26-33) refer to extra-J statements only o Stated in Lichauco v Atlantic Gulf Any statement of fact made by party wc is detrimental to his own interest Ds an admission have to be contrary to an earlier statement? NO o Bf says stop lying! Inamin mo na eh! o If Cecille, said b4 that she dated some1 (2timed) = an admission o This is contrary to her moral interest bec you have an interest in maintaining a moral faade A statement made wc is contrary to the person making the admission Self-serving declaration: o Made out of Ct

S26: The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in E against him May be in writing or done verbally What in s26 shows us that its extra-J? may be given in E o If it was judicial admission, this phrase wldnt be here anymore Is an admission always AGAINST the admitter? Never in favor of the admitter? o Yes, as opposed to a self-serving declaration wc isnt admissible Self-serving: person can always fabricate Basis of the rule: no person will say/declare things against himself or his interest, unless its true o Thus, the moment some1 hears it, they can testify against you in Ct = he gives E against you o This is why its of great veracity, wc is why its admissible Admission: means literally AGAINST YOU

o Diaries o o o

Speaking of facts in Ct, in your favor = bec theres an opp to cross-examine Everything you say can be tested Whereas an extraJ admission theres no cross-examination Theres no way to test it If the declarant is not the one sitting in Ct, who will be the one examined? The 1 offering the declaration in E The one who heard the declaration Ex) W was tlkn abt what he heard frm D (hes gng to tlk abt what B said to him) = hes quoting what anthr person said & he also talks abt a docum D said he was a tenant Lttr wc says that hes a tenant wc he sent to W Both of these are extraJ statements & the declarant is D not W W is just the witness in CT Hes jst the instrument thru wc the statements are being introduced in Ct What W is talkn abt is the declaration of D(anthr person), not his own declaration W can only be examined as to how he gt the statements, but cant be examined as to the content of the statements (verbal & in the lttr) Whether the declaration is true or false is out of the hands of eveyrbdy W dsnt know if its true Only D is the 1 who knows if its true or not Ex) change the sit to something favorable D: I dnt owe anything, in fact, it is he who owes me Bec its in favor of the declarant This wld be inadmissible if the case is 1 where D is the def or accused Declarant is out of Ct, its the witness wc is in Ct of Anne Frank: admissible? Abt her being victimized by the Natzis during the entire time Diaries are being offered by the father of Anne Frank NO, bec Anne cant be cross-examined abt the truth in the diaries

Self-serving declaration: (means literally IN YOUR FAVOR) o Out of Ct statement, verbal or written, made in your favor o Difficult to admit in Ct bec easy to fabricate o Its of no use to the Ct thus inadmissible o Rule in pt, however, isnt the rule in admissions The real RATIONALE for its inadmissibility is the rule on HEARSAY (s34) o But a person testifying in Ct can say something in favor of his interest

Lichauco v Atlantic Gulf Statements in a docum wc illustrated all the debts wc had to be paid out of the conjugal assets the list dsnt show the debt being claimed by Atlantic Gulf o On the face of Exhibit 1: no debt owed to AG&P o And this cldnt bec falsified, bec under the law then, when gng thru divorce, need to submit an inventory of the assets & liabilities of the conjugal partnership The declaration came from an omission o Its a declaration bec the omission wsnt inadverted Exhibit 1 omits to state that he owes the Co money = this is the declaration o He made the inventory b4 he was sued by the Co he did it bec of the divorce case o in effect the statement is I dont owe the Co anything

is this statement an admission or self-serving declaration?

Its an admission - its against his interest wc is pecuniary (bakit siya malulugi pag di niya isama?) *if he included it, he & the wife wldve had to pay for it

But by not including it, he wld be liable for the debt on his own = from this pt of view its an admission bec its against himself BUT! if the debt was stated in Exhibit 1, it wldve been in favor of the Co is this a self-serving declaration? o Remember, Fitzsimmons was a former Pres of the Co o No, bec the interest of the Pres & the Co arent the sme o Change it to a Board Resolution: wc says lets collect the debt of Fitzsimmons Its being presented in E now It makes it self-serving? Seems like it, bec out of Ct & made in your favor BUT if made ante lite motam = not self-serving! Declaration out of Ct, but favorable to you, may be admissible if it was not ante lite motam (not used w the intention to use it in Ct; w a grain truth; made b4 litigation; not done w the view to sue/litigation) was bona fide o Can believe its true the true test in reference to the reliability of the declaration is not whether it was made ante litem motam, as in the case w reference to some classes of hearsay E, whether the declaration was utter under circums justifying the conclusion that there was no probable motive to falsify Dec out of ct and favorable to u admissible and not self-serving if: o not ante litem mota done w/ a view to having it used for lit o Declared bona fide, w/o ulterior motive/purpose o Preconceived: suspect

Even if its favorable to them, he can be crossexamined so admissible! A declaration can always be in your favor but its admissibility depends on whether it was made in or out of CT o OUT: inadmissibile o IN: admissible bec if in Ct theres a chance for cross-examination


v Reyes This is b4 the 1987 consti 1 of the accused turned state witness Gatchalian & Austria: prosecution alleged that they executed extraJ confessions o Not gng to touch on the extraJ confession here bec b4 the 1987 consti Reyes: 1 of the accused, but discharged as state witness o Testified that: after the shooting, he ran into the filed & saw the other accused & heard 2 of the other accused say sure the MP he had shot will die

Ct: those statements were extraJ admissions (out of Ct statement that is contrary to your interest) o They were made out of Ct o Werent favorable to the accused *in extraJ admissions: declarant can never be cross-examined bec it was made out of Ct Ppl v Aling Prelim investigation (is a proceeding) B4 the judge: was still an extraJ statement When swore b4 clerk of Ct: converted into a judicial statement Criteria for extraJ A: Out of Ct Against your interest Declarant must be a party to the case (DBP v Radio Mindanao) DBP v Radio Mindanao E: lttr of Magilang saying he was a mem of NPA who was resp for the fire o Contains a declaration o Declaration is in favor of DBP Documentary E DBP is the def wants to present the letter of Magilang wc says im 1 of the attackers & im NPA Ct: Not admissible bec he wsnt a party to the case o NPA wsnt being sued here Discussion of maam: o Lets say its was an admission of some1 from RMN if that were the nature of this docum this wld be admissible in E, bec the declarant is saying something against the interest of RMN Wld be considered an extraJ statement

Aug23 Heirs of Pedro Clemena y Zurbano v Heirs of Irene Bien Tlks abt judicial admission o Of the predecessor (Pedro Clemena) of the heirs: in his ans said that the land was his o Heirs were claiming that they never had possession of the prop

2nd admission: referred to Gregorio Clemenas testi (referring to damages incurred from the appellees occupation) self-serving declaration o Ruling gives us a nuance thats not in Lichauco Nuance: o Bien: ddnt even contest the truth Was contesting it as self-serving Bec it was favorable to the Clemenas o Ct: no, it wsnt a self-serving declaration A self-serving declaration refers to acts or declarations of a party made in his own interest OUT of COURT Whereas here, Gregorio was testifying as a witness in Ct = ergo, his statements were judicial

o o o

If statement of some1 else, not RMN, wc is favorable to DBP declarant is not in Ct is this admissible? No Itll be admissible, even tho theres no chance for cross-ex When 1 is trying to smuggle in E thats not subj to cross-ex, its objectionable bec its in the nature of hearsay Ergo, so if its NOT an admission, its HEARSAY

S28: Admission by a 3rd party Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet o Rights of a party cant be prejudiced by the act, declaration or omission of another Mentioned in Ppl v Valero How do we understand the GR? o Any opinion/statements are inadmissible? In what sense is s28 saying that an out of Ct statement is inadmissible against a person, other than in the hearsay sense? Ex) X, out of Ct, says DBP shld pay bec ____ & he puts this statement in writing o This shld be inadmissible against DBP if RMN gets his hands on him or the docum bec of hearsay o But s28 says that apart from its being hearsay, it must be referring to something else Hearsay is an encompassing rule refers to all statements o S28 refers to something else!! S26 defines an admission admissible against a person o S28 follows, wc means that what you said against you said is admissible against yourself (s26), BUT those who dont admit are not affected by your admission S28 means: the rights of a party shall not be prejudiced by the admission of anthr if some1 admits, it only binds the person admitting, not other ppl Admission is diff from confession: o Admission: statement of fact/s wc dsnt involve the acknowledgment of guilt/liab o Confession: theres an acknowledgment of guilt/liab Refers to criminal/legal liab There is an admission in a confession Ex) if a jeepney driver runs over a boy & the boy diesdriver gets out & says ay! Patawad po! Patawad po! o Admission or confession? Admission o The patawad meant that he did something wrong you were admitting the facts surrounding the sit that he was driving the jeep, wc ran over the kid Ex) 3 guys commit a robbery & in the process they taped up the homeowner who died o 1 guy says I placed the tape on the vicitim admission Confession if everything ws explained to him & he understands the criminal implications of his acts o This admission cant prejudice the other 2 why? Bec 1 has a right to be silent

B4 you even prosecute a person, who will you know if hes guilty/how will anyone know your guilty? Thru E & in the absence of E, youre presumed innocent every1 is presumed innocent, until proven guilty ADMISSION OF ANY1 IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY AGAINST HIM o Why shld you extend this to others?! Theres no reason to do this! BUT! there are exceptions! o Refer to sits where others made the admission but their admissions bind you Isnt this unfair? No, they have some logic o These are: S29, 30, 31

S29: admission by co-partner or agent

1st exception to s28 Word omission in s28 dsnt appear here o Bec if it was, can become vague (same as w s30) o It only appears in s31: admission by privies What predecessors ddnt do is binding on you = this is the rationale in including the word omission in s31 GR: admission of some1 else shldnt be taken against you But s29 is an exception: admission of anthr can be taken against you fair?

S30: admission by conspirator Act of 1 is the act of all = crim law theory, dsnt apply to E

Ex) lookout, 3rd person passing by where the crime is being committed who asked him what hes dng, & the lookout says hes acting as a lookout for X In order to be fair, there must be E aliunde establishing the conspiracy o Otherwise, it wld be unfair Ex) hold-upers, abt to executed the crime got into a cab & the taxi driver overheard them planning abt how to split the proceeds after getting the ransom o This was while the conspiracy was in effect o Driver becomes a witness & says what he heard o Statements of conspirators are against their interest, they ddnt realize that the driver will be a witness, so they were tlking abt the conspiracy in their own secret way, at the time they were discussing, they were saying things that ddnt look like they were against them But in the sense of being used against them, its against their interest An admission, is not always clearly something that looks lika an admission It may refer to statements that lead you to something thats against your interest, even if your not aware that its against your interest Its a statement & also an act

US v BAY When got caught raping, when asked what he was dng, he ddnt say anything & just left Bay ddnt protest when he was being charged w rape o But theres no rule saying that says he shld protest

Human experience: if you were being charged w something, you wld protest if it were not true An innocent person will always protest if being charged w something not true There was an omission here o But in s32, the word omission isnt there but it shld be Good example of an omission as an admission o

Some axns may be vague, they may seem to rely an import of whats not what it really is Wo sound, you cant interpret accurately Since hes deaf mute, he also cant rely what he knows

Aug 28 (make-up class) EXCEPTIONS to s28: clear Ppl v Valero Impt Ruling of the Ct is divided into 3 parts: o Why the contents of the testimonies arent reliable o Leg implication o Other E apart from prosecution E Focused on 3 witnesses

2nd ruling: RES INTER ALIOS ACTA (s28) o Rights of a party cant be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of anthr o The seeming admission of Pipe wld prejudice the Sis o So we need to understand if there was an admission here Ct ddnt discuss it was an admission Ct ddnt even explain RIAA o There are 2 parts to Pipes statement: The Sis gave him the bread He gave the bread to the kids o If you take the 1st statement wo the 2nd statement, is it incriminatory? No, per se theres nothing wrong w it

1st witness: Quilang o Supposedly saw Pipe give the bread o Not reliable If Quilang is erased, wala ng eyewitness So in order to pin down the Sis as the person responsible, needed the 2 other witnesses to say that Pipe communicated to them o 1) Inconsistencies o 2) made the affidavit appear that it was dne the day after the crime, but actually was made 3 yrs after the crime o 3) he was an 11th hr witness Jaime & Velasco 2gether: o Sign lang of Pipe to them wsnt credible o 1st ruling: Therefore, its HEARSAY o Supposedly Pipe communicated that: The Sis gave the bread to Pipe Pipe gave the bread to the kids *these are what Jaime & Velasco were trying to tell the Ct Pipe wasnt in Ct & he was the declarant No1 actually perceived these 2 things wc were the only E wc cld link the Sis (Lucila Valero) 2nd witness: Jaime o That Pipe made an extraJ revelation spontaneously while still under the influence of the occurrence 3rd witness: Velasco (the dad) o That Pipe supposedly told him that the source of the bread was the Sis o Ct: this isnt part of res gestae Bec when this was supposedly said, nobdy was poisoned yet 3rd ruling: If Pipe had been presented as a witness, this wldve shown his incompetency o Experts found him to be incapable of perceiving events bec he can only see, he cant hear

It only becomes incriminatory if you consider it as part of the overall circums & if you imagine a conspiracy btwn the Sis & Bro Its the 2nd statement wc is an admission Youre admitting that if you ddnt give it to the kids, they wldnt have died If the 2nd statement was the only statement made by Pipe, is it an admission? He said this after the kids had died alrdy = crime alrdy committed If an inj alrdy happened & then he made this statement = is this an admission? YES Its an admission bec its obviously against his interest! Immediately a suspect! So how ds RIAA come in? even if he included the Sis?

The 1st statement isnt an admission = its against the Sis! It puts the blame on her The admission was only that he gave the bread If you imagine that there was a conspiracy Prosecution was trying to show that bec of the argument (btwn the Sis & mom of the kids), she gave the bread to Pipe to give to the kids = this is conspiracy! This is the context w/in wc RIAA was being talked abt if theres NO ADMISSION, RIAA DSNT APPLY if no admission, RIAA is irrelevant even if theres an admission = it cant be admitted against any1 else unless its an exception

Ct: and even granting, Pipe admitted that he gave the bread wc was from the Sis, she cant be prejudiced by this wo 1st estab conspiracy by E aliunde


In this case, there cant be an admission if the person isnt a party to the case and here, Pipe wasnt a party, he was a dropped Maam: RIAA is misplaced in this decision Ct seemed to be stretching it too mch Pipe is out of Ct, he said Sis gave the bread & he gave it to the kids o Witnesses in Ct talking abt what Pipe said = are they offering the statement to prove the truth of the statement? i.e. that he indeed gave the bread o They were trying to prove the truth! Ex) of a fact you want to prove in Ct = that A stabbed B & B died o C was on the balcony w the doors open & he saw A stab B o C is gng to Ct & give statements in Ct to show what happened: I was in the balcony I saw A & B & that he saw A stab B o I was in the balcony = hes saying this to prove this statement? Yes, hes saying this so that the Ct will blve him o I saw A stabbed B = is he talking & demonstrating to the Ct to prove the truth of what hes saying? Yes If Pipe sits in Ct & says his Sis gave the bread to him & that he gave it to the kids = hes trying to prove the truth of what hes saying o BUT! hes not in Ct o Wc is why Jaime & Velasco were testifying that he said these things to her = to show the guilt of Valero (Sis) o Since Pipe is not in Ct, the 2 witnesses were talking abt things wc they have no personal knowledge of They ddnt see the Sis give the bread to Pipe nor see Pipe give the bread to the kids Every statement in Ct, in order to be relevant, is suppose to prove the truth of its contents, otherwise, it wont be relevant o Youll know its relevant bec its gng to prove the proposition o But the person whos suppose to prove the proposition shld be the person who perceived it = s36 (rule on HE) Facts perceived will be admissible & competent only if theyre relevant

CONFESSIONS: s33 If a statement is out of Ct, it may be testified to anyway by a witness in Ct who heard the person say it, IF its an admission? witness in Ct wsnt talking abt things w/in his personal knowledge, but was talking abt what the accused told or confessed to them! Aballe v Ppl Aballe was coming out of a bthrm & it was spontaneous bec when he saw the Sgt he immediately admitted that he killed the girl o He was also wearing a blood stained tshirt: admissible Ct: bec of the doctrine of plain view There was an affidavit but this was disregarded bec it was made wo counsel o This extraJ confession wsnt admissible o In line w A3, s12 1987 Consti: rights of a person under custodial investigation

Kitchen knife: inadmissible o Bec it was recovered after he was captured o Fruit of the poisonous tree: since it was an effect a consequence of an illegal investigation, its inadmissible Spontaneous statement of Aballe: to a policeman o Did Aballe state or reproduce or affirm these statements in Ct? NO o But the SC convicted him on the basis of these statements, so howd they know abt it when he ddnt affirm this in Ct? o E abt this statement was presented thru the testimony of Sgt Marante Sgt ddnt tell the Ct what he saw, he tld the Ct what Aballe tld him/what he heard o Heard that Aballe said that he stabbed Jennie 32x when she woke up & she was alone at home o Sgt ddnt have knowledge abt this he was testifying on facts wc he dsnt have personal knowledge of What gives him the right to do this? s33,R130 o Any person otherwise competent as a witness, who heard the confession, is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard & understood all of it o An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, but in such case must begiven in its substance o Statements made out of Ct wc acknowledges guilt = confession Judicial or extraJ Verbal or written o Is Aballes statement a confession or an admission? A confession! But in a confession, theres also an admission of a statement of fact Admission: something against the interest of the declarant A confession is smthn against his interest but has an acknowledgement of guilt Thus, confessions are automatically admissions under s26 But if w guilt, its a confession o Sgt was trying to prove the truth of these statements o Witness when he testifies, ds so on 2 levels: How he came to know Not hearsay Contents of what he knows As to the truth of these statements its hearsay! If the contents are against the interest of the declarant, can be stated by some1 else in Ct o Testi of Sgt is admissible bec what Aballe said is against his interest! Therefore, any1 who heard it can testify on it in Ct When there is a statement that is an admission or confession, thru anthr person, its immediately admissible under s26 o But since its anthr witness, other than the declarant, its hearsay (if the person saying it is trying to prove the truth)- HOWEVER When a statement is in the nature of an admission, under s26, its always admissible as an admission o So what if its hearsay, its still an admission

Ex) Ppl v X for libel


Prosecution is gng to prosecute X o 1st witness: ofcmate/Mr Reyes testifying that some1(X) told him that G had an STD Talks abt how he gt to know this Has personal knowledge, competent, not hearsay And that what he knew The name of G What G has How G got it Can some1 object on the testi of Mr Reyes? I: whats in issue is whether X said the statement & not the truth of that statement What Mr Reye is testifying is the fact that X stated G had an STD E is relevant if itll prove the truth of the issue o This issue in libel is whether you made the defamatory statement, WON the statement is true o Independently Relevant Statement: (IRS)

o o

Confession was also made prior to arraignment Prelim-investigation: the accused has alrdy arraignment yet




But A3,s12 dsnt apply bec the investigation is no longer dne by the police its dne by the prosecutor who is a lawyer o Whereas in a custodial investigation: policemen arnt lawyers wc are why the safeguards are stricter Maqueda: there was a warrant of arrest & accused was detained o During detention, case filed, b4 arraignment, he executed a confession o All the rights in the consti must be complied w o Even if Ct alrdy had custody over his person, A3, s12 still applies, bec the Sinumpaang Salaysay was given to the police/law enforcement o 2 statements given: 1 given to the police No lawyer present A3, s12: is precisely to protect the indiv frm the govt Evn if hes alrdy under J of the Ct bec his rights dnt cease applies whenever theres an investigation by the law enforcement authorities o But once arraignment takes place, s12 A3 ceases & A3, s17 takes over (your rights as an accused changes alrdy) 1 given to the priv party

Statement relevant indep of its truth or falsity Its indep of whether the facts stated are true or not, theyre relevant since theyre the facts in issue or are circumstantial E of the facts in issue

What Mr Reyes is talking abt is gng to be relevant, indep of whether its true or not it refers to the contents of his 2nd statement o Whats in issue isnt the truth of what was tld to him o But that it was told to him

Ppl v Molas Statement of Molas, taken down, but was done wo counsel Ct ruled it was admissible despite non-compliance w the 1987 consti & RA7438 o Decision was in 1993 Even disregarding the extraJ statement, theres enuf E to convict him Domantay, Mantung & Ladiana cases: What they have in common? There were confessions here & were admissible o Bec they were extraJ confessions made to persons not part of the custodial investigation

Consti reqs dnt apply to 3rd persons, not part of the custodial investigation A3, s12: dsnt apply to relations btwn priv indivs o It only applies against the govt Domantay: it was made to a radio-reporter Mantung: it was made to the Mayor

Pg 724 in relation to s32: o There were 4 examples given where in s32, admission by silence supposedly applies o Ex #2: once a person is alrdy in the custody of the police, A3,s12 applies (you have the right remain silent)! So there cant be admission by silence = Ppl v Alegre o Ex #3: reenactment of the crime, wo counsel is this admissible per se? Ppl v Tia Fong: its admissible Ppl v Inadmissible bec reenactment is equivalent to a confession (its express/clear) All rights pertaining to custodial investigation in A3, s12 apply Pg 730: #11 verbal extraJ confession is made wo counsel is admissible not as a confession but as part of res gestae (Ppl v Tampus) o Superseded! Even if part of res gestae (wc is an exception to the rule only), consti still prevails! A3, s12 applies Pg 733: o Ppl v Orenciada & Ppl v Molleda: superseded! A3,s12 applies!

Ladiana & Maqueda: Ladiana: o Ruling wsnt exactly the sme, but said that A3, s12 dsnt apply when theres alrdy a prelim-investigation

Sec25: PARENTAL & FILIAL PRIVILEGE S25: no person may be compelled to testify against his parents, direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants.

Only applies to a custodial investigation: arrested, detained by the police but not yet arraigned

Qualified by A215 FC: descendant may be compelled to testify against his parents & grandparents, if such testi is indispensable in prosecuting a crime against the descendant or by 1 parent against the other

Ds parent include grandparents? Since r130,s23 also refers to them? If testi is indispensable in the commission of a crime against a descendant or 1 parent against the other may be compelled to testify o So parent includes grandparents & other ascendants? YES Theres no sense to distinguish The rationale is to consider the crimes of importance so that the testi may be compelled Ex) annulment suit filed by wife against the husband, on the ground that the H ddnt disclose to her that he had an incurable disease wc he discovered when he went to the doctor w his parents o She wanted the mother in law to testify Spousal privilege dsnt apply since it wsnt 1 sps wsnt testifying against the other sps o S25 applies! Mother in law can invoke this & say you cant compel me to testify bec hes my son o Ds A215 FC apply? Granting a crime is involved? Ex) murder of the child by the H, & the W wants the grandfather to testify o Ds A215 apply? It refers to a crime against a descendant o Yes, father in law can testify o Whos sought to testify against the father? Grandfather He can invoke s25, but under A215 he can be compelled to testify o o

o o

This talks abt 1 person only & acts of this person alone so how ds it become RIAA? In what sense is it RIAA? It prevents 1 frm being punished for acts done/not dne in the past Rule disallows you to be affected/bound by your axns in the past

In 12 Angry Men was there s34 there? o Yes, when 1 person was claiming that he had a juvenile record (threw a rock at teacher, stole a car, mugging, knife fighting & fights w the dad)

Was arguing that if he did it in the past, he did it today! Or tends to persuade that he mustve dne it

Sec27: OFFER OF COMPROMISE NOT ADMISSIBLE Civ case: offer of compromise = X an admission of any liab & not admissible in E Crim case: offer of compromise is an implied admission of guilt o Except: those involving quasi-offenses & those allowed by law to be compromised Crim case allowed to be compromised by law: o Tax violations, rape Whats the purpose for allowing the offer to pay medical, hospital & other expenses for an inj? o Humanitarian acts shld be encouraged Sec34: SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE E that 1 did or ddnt do a certain thing at 1 time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at anthr time; but it may be rcvd to prove a spcfc intent or knowledge; identity, plan, sys, scheme, habit, custom or usage & the like o IKIPSSCHUL Ex) serial killers o Usually leave E of their brilliance o Patter of hacking the victims neck o Common: identity

Act that you did in the past, that shld prejudice you now = this is RIAA If it shows a tendency, isnt it relevant? Nicole Smith case: o RIAA when portrayed Nicole as a loose woman Defense objected to this! o Was RIAA relevant? Was it a valid objection? o NO, RIAA is irrelevant to Nicole bec they were trying to prove the habit of being loose this is admissible to show only that at the present time, she was also loose (that time) = this dsnt mean that she also gave consent This dsnt help the prosecution! So its not relevant What differentiates habit from scheme, custom, usage o Habit is something dne automatically, unconsciously, etc Ex) to prove habit o Accused used alibi, said that he usually almost, always attends mass & gt a Rabi to testify the same thing So that at the time of the crime, he cldnt have dne it bec it was his habit to go to mass every Sat US SC: not habit o Neg in parking of the car wc slid dwn the road bec ddnt pull the handbrake - & were trying to prove that accused had a habit of being negligent/that he ddnt pull the handbrake Accepted by the Ct What makes you think theres a probability bec theres a pattern? o If theres a logic link btwn your past acts & the present = logical to admit

Sec35: UNACCEPTED OFFER Counterpart of A1256 CC on tender of payment If youre unable to deliver even after tender, but you want to be rid of clouds of doubt/interest, you can bring an axn for tender of payment Bank of Commerce v Perla & Carlo Manalo No perfected contract of sale o Sps were trying to say there was & were trying to show an agreement thru letters o But there was no agreement btwn them, wrt the payment of the manner of payment of balance

1st part of RIAA: is the GR o Anti-damay rule o What you admit is yours & yours alone (s28) 2nd part of RIAA:

But Sps were saying that they did agree to it, bec it was understood that the manner is the sme as what the bank did w others buyers Ct: usage & custom wsnt proven in E here o

Aug 30 Self-serving declarations: Ante litem motam: b4 the subj matter of the litigation arose

Inadvertently he sees something/inadvertently it was in his plain view And what he sees is a contraband If not contraband, its not plain view Shld be very clear that its contraband Its difficult to apply these 3 criteria to plain smell

3 criteria: (wc makes a statement self-serving) o Out of Ct o In your favor o Not ante litem motam To be admissible (not self-serving): it MUST BE ANTE LITEM MOTAM o There was no motive in making a statement favorable to yourself o the risk of motive is not there

Exceptions to the HER:

There are 11 exceptions (s37-s47) But s47 isnt strictly speaking an exception to the HER o 1) Bec the person can be cross-examined Bec in depositions, theyre part of the judicial process & theres cross-ex o 2) Bec strictly speaking its not out of Ct

HEARSAY (s36) Person cant testify, unless what hes gng to talk abt are things wc he acquired thru his 5 senses o If ddnt acquire the knowledge from your senses = youre incompetent, not qualified Subj on hearsay touches not only in testimony o But also touches on matters in docums So why is it under testi E, if it applies to docums?!? You acquired knowledge thru your perception & you want to testify o Ex) of ea sense to acquire knowledge Sight: you see A grab the bag of B & run away These things that you saw wont be hearsay Sight & hearing: saw A grab the bag & heard A say that dont move or ill kill you! Sight, hearing, touch: you saw, heard & A also bumped into you & you saw him bump you Doctrine of plain view: o Law enforcement cant confiscate contraband elems in plain view theres no search o Q: what abt plain smell? Ex) Weed What if you compel a suspect to open his bag bec you have probable cause, bec in plain smell is this admissible?

Depositions are done during judicial proceedings In what sense are they exceptions? o Bec even if not of the witnesses knowledge, its admissible bec: 1) Of necessity 2) Trustworthy & reliability o These statements & exceptions ARE hearsay, but theyre exceptions

*Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statements: IRS: pertains to many other things Ex) libel o Dont be misled that libel is the only instance that statements are admissible bec theyre IRS

Example) o J saw: the man, bag, victim (L), snatching Heard: wag kang gagalaw o sasaksakin kita o J told B o B is on the witness stand bec J isnt in the country Completely hearsay o 3 malefactors: G was the 1 who threatened w a knife who approached L There was a look-out Accomplice: jst watchning & hell come into the pic if some1 intervenes J heard the statement but he ddnt see who was talking He says: I heard G say this but the truth is he ddnt see But anthr witness, the waiter (W), was the 1 who told J that Y said the statement J on the witness stand: Says I heard this Not hearsay bec he perceived it thru his senses Says I heard Y say this Hearsay bec it was W who told him that Y was the 1 who said it G on the witness stand: his testi is being offered for the purpose of establishing the conspiracy Crime was robbery:

Maam: No plain smell doctrine yet Theres probable cause, and the search came after the smell

But the doctrine of plain view is still more cogent than plain smell o Bec plain smell is NOT YET CONCLUSIVE Ex) US developed something that looks & smell like cigs but arent cigs 3 criteria for the doctrine of plain view: The law enforcement had a right to be there No search being conducted yet No breaking into anything unlawfully yet


There was violence or intimidation against a person

There was taking (unlawfulness = presumed bec you tk it) Intent to gain Proving the facts above will estab the elem of robbery Prove factual details to estab the crime If this is what youre doing youre in effect proving the truth of these facts If you want to say that G approached the victim L, brought out a knife & poked her w him = youre saying this bec you want to prove that theyre true And youre basis for this is bec you saw it If you say that Y said the statement This is inadmissible for being incompetent for being hearsay (incompetent: incapable, unable, wo capacity) If you ddnt see some1 say something, you have no right to say something you ddnt perceive bec thats hearsay & other side can object

Voluntary act of relinquishment And were trying to prove this by showing the SOM of Erap and conceded the crisis was of ever-worsening condi Issue was WON Erap resigned Intent to resign: was based on 23 facutal details o In the Angara Diary: Based on the Ct on factual details w/c showed intent to resign o

Jan 20 1:20 PM:"Ed, seryoso na ito. Kumalas na si Angelo (Reyes) Shows he was beligered & knew the crisis was worsening Proposal to have a snap election Shows his panic bec of the 1st statement (pt of no return) That he wldnt participate in the election

All the exceptions are hearsay but bec of public policy theyre allowed Theyre admissible: o Bec even tho hearsay, theyre exceptions to the rule o Bec not hearsay, but are IRS Statements are relevant indep of the truthfulness of the statement It is a statement that is relevant wc is indep of the truth of the statement Theyre relevant to something thats in issue in the case, even if youre not proving the truth The criterion is not ascertainability but the aim what youre trying to prove is that it was made/executed If the issue is other than the truth, its admissible

Erap: Arroyos in an acting cap cause of Constil prov = vacant not cause of resignation but cause of temp disability (leave)quo warranto o Q: WON Eraps still Pres If so, crim cases would be beyond J of cts = immunity If proven, quo warranto case succeed = GMA booted out any time Erap says already able Diary had entries that recounted what happened in detail, even quoted o Published in PDI o On the basis of that diary, itd appear Erap and later on, Angara and the others, committed and said certain things Ct: If state of mind showed that he knew what condi he was in, by reason of such, he had intent to resign, then all those statements and acts that he did will be relevant, WON theyre true cause the Is state of mind All the statements/acts wld be admissible WON it was true theyre still relevant Theyre relevant bec of the issue of resignation a part of wc is intent to resign o AFP Chief of Staff w/drew support = army men would no longer defend him o Panfilo Lacson did the same = w/drew support of entire PNP Very real in Eraps mind but WON its true Angelo Reyes made kalas, relevant cause of I of resignation = intent to resign Is not truth of statement o Other statement: Angara told Pimentel to tell Erap to take a dignified exit (i.e. resignation); Erap was listening & ddnt disagree; Pimentel repeated the urgency of making a graceful exit, Erap ddnt disagree but just said he cldnt leave the country & even said I just need 5 days He ddnt disagree so it shows he was considering these options He wasnt thinking anymore abt remaining as Presbut rather, making a dignified exit & jst needed 5 dys o Sen Pimentel said urgency of making graceful exit = no objection but said hed never leave the country o Erap: Angelo guaranteed Id have 5days to a wk in the palace

Examples of IRS: 1. Libel o Bec youre proving that the statements were made, whether its true or not 2. Shows state of mind = SOM (mental cond, knowledge or belief, intention, ill will or other emotion) o When SOM is in issue, anything the declarant says is gng to be offered WON it was true, but is offered to show his SOM at that time Bec exactly what was in issue is the SOM of the person o PROVIDED, the SOM is relevant to the issue o Ex) Extrada v Desierto (good example) Estrada v Desierto Were trying to prove the state of mind of Erap WON he had intent to resign coupled w voluntary acts of relinquishment o This wld show that the Arroyo admin was legal o 2 criteria: Intent to resign

Intent to resign was slowly bldg in his mind (esp when he said he needed 5days) Not thinking anymore of staying as Pres but merely of having a dignified exit in 5days Erap said: Ed magkroon tayo ng peaceful & orderly transfer of power & Angara agreed Why was this included to show Eraps SOM? Angara was the Exec Sec = Press A/alter ego was the agent of Erap R130, s29: agent/partner/joint debtor Conds: 5 days, safety, open the envelope Resignation wsnt disputed Why shld this be talked abt if he wsnt resigning?! Diba? Erap: if the envelope is open, ill leave by Mon This was alrdy express transition pd of 5days safety of Erap and his fam

That there was an Angara Diary And that these were its contents Leg basis for admissibility of the Angara Diary (wc came frm the Inquirer): o What it contains are the ffing Lack of objection = waiver: leg basisno opposition w/o that: contents of newspaper inadmissible cause hearsay ex. article written by rpter (what comes out in newspaper)Lack of objection = waiver Otherwise, the contents of the newspaper wld be inadmissible & wld constitute hearsay Newspaper article is diff from a report: Article: its abt a report Report: this is edited Newspaper article may be presented in Ct in 2 ways: Judge takes JN; or o JN of the fact that the newspaper exists & has the articles (R129,s2a) o But Ct cant take JN of the truth of the contents of the articles = bec its hearsay Witness presents it in Ct * Thus, it becomes part of the records of the case A newspaper article is hearsay bec the Ct cant cross-ex the reporter who wrote the article Unless the reporter is sitting dwn & talking abt his article itll be hearsay

o o

ag to open 2nd envelope resignation wasnt disputed nothing abt WON he was staying = understood Rxn of Erap: If envelopes opened, hell leave by Mon o Gave his own deadline

Erap: and Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na, masyado nang masakit. Pagod na ako sa red tape, bureaucracy, intriga. Higrade evidence that he had resigned ayoko na are words of resignation o + As of the govt = acts binding on Erap o Terms of nego put down in writing o Deal proposed: respective ps for and in behalf of their prins Transition occur and take place At w/c time Pres Estrada will turn over presidency to GMA Admin matters Express o Terms of negotiation btwn Angara & Al All of them are agents of the govt so their acts are binding on Erap These were put down in writing & a deal was proposed o Accdg to Angara, they drafted an agreement, pending resignation, was signed by their signed alrdy ut 1 deletion was requested once deleted, they faxed it. but too late, bec b4 faxed, news came that CJ Davide was gng to swear in Arroyo at noon So its express as well So this transition pd shows clearly the intent to resign Even before able to, news came CJ Davide was gonna give the oath to GMA at noon of that day, Jan 20 Pt is: they signed it Nothing more express that resignation than transition pd Diary was reproduced in a newspaper o Ct ddnt have to rely on a witness to o Ct jst tk JN of the contents of the newspaper

1st level: The article is hearsay unless the reporter who wrote it, is testifying about it himself

2nd level: double hearsay (twice removed from the source) o youre quoting the reporter who is quoting someone else o Bec the reporter isnt in the Ctrm o And even if hes in the Ctrm, if he testifies, hes just talking abt the facts wc he got from some1 else And that source is NOT in Ct Ex) reporter: how many Abu sayyaf in basilan? Commander tells him 52 So he says since Wed there are 52 rebels in basilan This is alrdy once removed from the source when its read from the newspaper If on top of that, the newspaper is being presented in Ct w the report & the reporter isnt there = so twice removed alrdy

3. Shows his physical condition (ex. illness) o Ex) nanghihina ako the person who heard this testifies abt this in Ct Why are you offering this in E? o Is there a case where phys cond is relevant wo looking at the truth of it?

o o

No case yet where the issue of phys cond is not the truth Nicole Smith case: Prosecution was trying to say she was dead drunk

Prosecution presents some1 who overheard her say something that shows shes not drunk (Can I do kaya the exam tom? I know the ffing items) Is this IRS? Witness talking at an out of Ct declaration by the accused admissible or hearsay? Admissible, bec shows phys cond at that time Its relevant bec that was exactly the issue in the case whether she was dead drunk (defense: she wasnt drunk) Doesnt matter WON she rly has an exam or that it contains those things

o o

When the Ct ruled that a witness talking abt conspirators & therefore inadmissible statements, shld nevertheless be held to be saying admissible things on the basis to estab the tenor its only for the purpose of establishing the tenor (jst to show that he said it) not to estab the truth Witnesses are presented to estab elems of the COA or defenses so that whatever he says is relevant tot eh issues int eh case If what he says has nothing to do w the issues, then it shld be objected to on the basis of its being irrelevant If trying to prove tenor it shld fall under: Libel, SOM, phys cond Other than this, theres not pt to proving tenor

Cornejo v Sandiganbayan: Ct introduced anthr nuance, aside from tenor

4. Impeaching a witness regarding prior inconsistent statements (R132: mode of impeaching) o Witness is gonna repeat conflicting statements of another person truth of statements is immatl = just trying to prove they conflict o Proving they conflicts matl to the case cause it impeaches the witness o Attack the credibility cause witness previously testified o Not IRS Bec it attacks the witness & not the issue in the case IRS relevant cause attacks an I in the case Here: not relevant to any I per se on the case but merely attacks a witness o Tries to attack the credibility bec this witness has testified The blind leading the blind: probs w Cornejo & Cusi case (wc cited the Cornejo case) Ppl v Cusi: testi of Sgt Bano regarding the confession of Puesca wc revealed the names of the others o Testi was only trying to show that Puesca told him his acts (he made admissions & confessions) o And in that he mentioned names, who were supposedly his coconspirators Ct: admissibile bec jst shows that Puesca said the names of the guys & not whether they were true If the purpose of the policeman was to testify, wld it have been relevant if the testi regarding the conspiracy wsnt for the truth? No But Ct said that what Sgt Bano was merely dng was to show why the police force later on investigated the persons mentioned o But was it an issue that they were investigated Maam: Ct was misled! What is the pt of a testimony if its irrelevant? o If no objection, its fineadmissible But there was an objection here wc is why the Ct ruled this way

Atty said: That they were only presenting the E as part of her testimony o And the Ct accepted this! o Maam: ok lang sana if they stuck to this, but they contradicted themselves in the end by looking at the truth of the situation But in the end, it was later ruled that they were admitting the docums to prove its truth! When the offense here charged is alleged to be perpetratrateda fact duly certified by Exibit B & confirmed by the witness In the end, the Ct relied on Exhibit B to prove that he had no auth o Ehdapat part of testimony lang If this is the purpose, its not really hearsay, then per se its not really proving the truth but is an indep pc of E, bec it was merely being referred to as part of the story Then maybemaybe it can be admitted as being part of the testimony o Air France v Carrascoso Or rely on the docum itself? But this is hearsay but maybe its admissible under 1 of the exceptions to the hearsay rule

Maybe in entries in ofcl records Ct cldve just relied on the law rather than on the Exhibit B

Alvarez v Ramirez Sec. 22 Disqualification by reason of marriage: Reasons:

s22 does not apply. You can talk, basis: o 1. Magkagalit na naman kayo, sinusunog ka na o 2. Estranged na sila Ct said for Sec. 22 not to APPLY: o 1. Disharmony -> due to the act of arson it diretly affects the conjugal harmony of the marriage This falls into the exception in Sec. 22. They just disposed of the case that there was disharmony kaagad. They should have specifically laid down the law first.

2. "estranged" -> irrelevant!

because during the marriage or afterwards. o o

Disqualification: o a criminal case for a crime committed by one againnst the other, or the latter's ascendants or descendants. Ct said: there was no more harmony to protect o No more identity of interests o Bec were alrdy separated de fact for 6mos Wld the Ct have known all these facts, if Esperanza had not testified? NO o If she didnt testify, then they wldnt have anything to hold the husband liable When do you say that a fact cldve been proven alrdy? o If no E, theres no way to prove Maam: Ct was trying to modify s22 o Added: when theres disharmony alrdy Prob w this: it can be as vague & clear as you want Here in the case, its clear that there was no intention to get back together But what abt other cases wc arnt as clear cut as this? therell be a prob o In laying dwn a law, you shldnt limit yourself to clear cut cases it shld span for centuries Possible/good interpretation (for Maam): o Exceptions to s22: (Sps can testify when) Civ case: by 1 against the other Crim cases: for a crime committed by 1 against the other or against the latters direct ascendants or descendants o Here, it just happened that the complaining witness was the Sis, but Esperanza cldve filed the case bec it was a crime committed against heror she cldve filed jointly w her Sis If we look at it this way, it falls w/in the exceptions in s22 Ppl v Francisco was cited: (Maam: this is akward) o Ct held that the testi shld be allowed bec the accused gave rise for the testi to be admitted o Ct failed to recog that in Francisco, the wife wsnt originally a party to the case & it was only when the husband imputed the crime to the wife that the prosecution had to produce her for rebuttal Wife wsnt in a position to cross-ex him = this is the basis for the husband o Ct equated the facts in Francisco & the facts here, even if they werent analogous Only reason wife was allowed to testify was bec it was the H who gave rise to the necessity for the wife to testify No such necessity here

Failure o

Ct here: wife had to be given the chance to testify bec of the act of the H of pouring the gasoline = this is the rationale of the Ct This is such a layman/generic type of approach It was approaching it from a moral pt of view Theres no analogy btwn this case & Francisco Legally speaking, whats wrong w citing Francisco? By saying that the H gave rise to the necessity of the wife testifying, its tantamount to saying hes guilty of the crime alrdy Every1 is presumed innocent until the end of the case/until the conviction to object: Shldve been raised at the time its being presented or immediately after

Nuances to failure to object: The failure to object has diff effects: o Ppl v Yatco: he failed to object, so the TC cant supply it for him failed to obj on that ground, why ru raising it?

= hes waived it Ppl v Valero: if the statement is incompetent for being hearsay, its alright bec theres no probative value anyway Objections must be made at o the time arisen or o immediately after ex. Witness answered rt away

Sept 4 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE s37: is there reason for this rule? Limited only to those cases involing murder, homicide & parricide? No, its admissibile so longe as it refers to facts regarding the cause & surrounding circms of the declarants death Rationale for the rule: o Necessity o Trustworthiness or reliable Theres no other E, so its probably credible

Bec H ddnt say anything against the wife And the wife was the 1st witness for the prosecution & defense hasnt presented anything yet so the H cldnt have dne anythgin wc gives rise to the necessity for the wife to rebut/contradict anything

Olden times: There is a general tendency to tell the truth men who are abt to die, wld usually like to relieve themselves of all those heavy burdens o But now, bec of modernization we sort of doubt this bec there may be a tendency to lie Cause of death & surrounding circums: o Ex) A talks abt the fact that hes being chased & stabbed by C & died in Bs arms Ex) rumble: brad A says he thinks hes abt to die, brad A tells brad B dude, I know who killed brad C, it was our opponent X o Not admissible bec the rule refers only to the declarant who is about to die o He shld be speaking of his own death, not abt some1 elses in order for it to be a dying declaration What if the person dsnt die, is it a dying declaration? NO

o o

Bec the rule reqs that the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarants death is the subj of the inquiry What if you thought you were going to die so said something, but accidentally you dont die the rationale is still there! Hes under consciousness that hes gng to die = so it shld still be admissible If the declarant did not die, then the rationale of necessity is no longer there, bec he can testify himself! Why is it that just bec hes alive he has to come to Ct?

This affidavit was impt bec Toledo was being charged w the death of Morales The querida of Morales, Villanueva, was the 1 who got Toledo involved o She said Toledo was present & participated during the fight That if it wasnt for Toledo, Morales wldve died = that Toledo delivered the fatal blow to Morales o She was interested in exculpating her lover Morales Defense: that Toledo met Holgado, went to anthr place & treated the wounds 1st & then went to the municipal bldg There was a part in the affidavit: where Holgado said that no1 else was present during the duel & that he met Toledo who accompanied him to the hse of Manlisic o The affidavit was executed b4 the municipal pres (authorized to administer oaths) Molas & Molo & Toledo: were these statements hearsay statements? Yes they are hearsay, but they fall under the exceptions o Molas: what was the hearsay statement there? Bec the declarant was Abelardo, but the person on the witness stand was the father Abelardo wsnt the 1 who was testifying & cld be cross-examined The witness ddnt see what happened, ddnt how committed the crime But bec of the statement of Abelardo it was a dying declaration so admissible o Molo: declarant was the dad but the 1 testifying is the son son dsnt have personal knowledge of what hes talking abt? Testimony of his personal knowledge: He had personal knowledge of what his father looked like, the wounds, etc But he had no personal knowledge of what his father was telling him but the Ct will allow him to quote the dad even if its hearsay

Sure, he has personal knowledgebut more importantly if hes in Ct you can cross-examine him (bec hes saying something against some1) to make sure if hes telling the truth

Automatically, the 1 in Ct is not the dead person its the person who heard him/the declarant or saw the statement What if the person is in a coma? o As long as at the time he said it, he thought he will die, bec its the consciousness of impending death that makes it trustworthy? o What if shes been comatose for 20yrs? Brain dead. o Yes, the rationale will apply the point is, you shld argue on the basis of the reason for the rule How wld you know that hes under consciousness of impending death? o Look under the circums wherein he made the statement o Circums shld show that the person mustve known he was dying o Ppl v Molo: He ddnt say anything that im abt to die so why did the Ct say that there was a dying declaration? Bec of the seriousness of his wounds, Gapisa mustve realized the seriousness of his cond There were hacked wounds & there were several wounds = 8! And bec of the location of the wounds (his throat was slit) So its the nature of the wounds will tell you how much blood wouldve come out, its not only bec of the type of wounds & the number So the Ct inferred in that sit that he probably knew that he was abt to die It was clearly a dying declaration in trying to understand the nature of the dying declaration they declarant need not declare it as such o impending death & the consciousness of the declarant shld be taken together

Isnt the dying the declaration of the dad IRS? Is it admissible on the ground that its IRS? Not admissible, bec the issue is not whether the declaration was made per se

There o o

Ppl v Molas victims: sis, mom & abelardo (bro)

abelardo made the dying declaration to his dad he identified the accused

Ppl v Toledo Holgado: after the fight btwn him & Morales, went to the municipal bldg & made an affidavit that only the 2 of them were fighting o He later died

But rather, the testi is being offered to prove that Molo was the 1 who killed the dad = being offered to prove the truth! were 2 ppl accused: Holgado & Toledo But the one who confessed was Holgado he confessed that he was the 1 who killed Morales He made that declaration to record their duel he wanted to make sure that there was some E of their agrarian dispute & to record their duel But he was talking abt Morales death & not his death So its more of a statement against his interest Statement is it a statement against the decalarants interest? If declarant is a party = admission o Rationale of admission: whether youre alive or dead, the pt is if youre a party, any1 can

sit dwn & say what you said bec can be cross-examined & you have the chance to rebut what he said If not a party, but still against his interest = declaration against interest Holgado is a party right? But he died, dsnt this give him motive? Bec he knows that hes gng to die So whatever he said wont affect him or his interest But! theres an interest involved = Toledos interest! To be exculpated In this manner, then cld be admitted as a declaration against interest Bec Holgado who made the declaration was alrdy dead & was against his penal interest (bec if say that just the 2 of them were present, then obviously, he killed Morales) Cldnt have been an accident, bec Holgado said that it was a duel wc negatives accident Was it a perfect declaration against interest in this case? Yes Hes not a party to the case theres a statement against the declarants interest so why is his statement being used? Bec it favors anthr party So it dsnt have to be in favor of the declarant So long as against its interest of the declarant, then a party can use it if its in favor of him If the statement is against the interest of a party to the case, not against the declarants interest, but is relevant to the issue but anthr party wants to use it in his favor to the case Inadmissible bec its hearsay! Bec the declarant isnt in Ct, you cant cross-examine him Child talking abt what he saw his dad in the kitchen w his arm dangling bec of the hacked wounds 2 levels when he talks on the stand: What he knows (X hearsay) What his father told him (Xhearsay) Are the statements of the dad NOT IRS? Not IRS bec its not being stated to prove that the statement was made The statements were being stated to PROVE THE TRUTH! Therefore theyre not IRS Ando, Molo boloed me

it was made or not The Out of Ct statement is relevant WON it was true 1.that the statement was made (tenor) Ex) in libel Relevant to show defamation, regardless of whether its true or not 2.want to show that it was made bec it shows your belief/belief of the listener Cornejo v Sandiganbayan o The statement whether the agent made or not & not if its true

relevant bec of its truth!! (relevant to the issues) The statement is made/being presented in Ct bec you want to prove the truth

US v Zenni: the guy who believed his frnds statement that it was his frnds dad owned the car so he borrowed it o Hes oferring the statement of the frnd, WON it was true, but that he blvd the statement = shows that theres no crim intent o It was relevant whether it was true or not, but rather that he blvd him US v Norwood: party himself blved the statement

3.Belief of the declarant

Molo: o o

Wright v Doe: the lttrs writers blved that the person they were writing to was sane origin o Businessmen who wrote letters to the deceased (were proposing business deals) o English rule: not admissible Wright v Doe, said that this wsnt admissible but FRE overturned them & said it was admissible Talking abt the Federal ROC reversing Wright v Doe o The writers are presumed sane & being sane, its presumed that they wldnt write to 1 who isnt sane

The witness was quoting this for the purpose of proving the truth of who killed his father = that Molo indeed hacked the dad

NOT IRS bec the witness is testifying on what the dad told him & offering such testi to prove the truth (of the out of Ct declaration) IRS as opposed to a dying declaration: in Molo, Molas & Toledo: IRS Dying Declaration A statement is relevant not bec its true, but rather that A statement that is

4.SOM of the declarant himself (refers to your own intent thru many acts) Ct may infer this, no need to state it Ex) Estrada v Desierto o They were IRS bec they were relevant to det if he resigned (intent to resign & acts of voluntary relinquishing) o This was what was deduced from his statements o Whats impt is when he was saying these things, he was intending to resign o Therefore, the truth of the out of Ct statements in Angaras Diary is irrelevant = pt is, the declarations of Estrada showed

his SOM DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST Ppl v Bernal There was a statement out of Ct by Openda wc was against his interest

Florentino (dad) wsnt in Ct wrote the affidavit It was his son, Danilo who as in Ct Out of Ct declaration but shld be admitted bec its against the interest of the declarant he wldnt have said it if it wsnt true The out of Ct declarant is Florentino, so why shld it be against the interest Danilo? o Its something against the interest of Florentino, but it was taken against the Danilo! = so its no longer a declaration against his interest o If some1 made a statement, b4 he died why shld this bind him? Sec 38 dsnt apply! But rather s28! Its RIAA What abt the exception in s38? o The binding force of this prov can only be based on privity! Bec of civil law principles o successors in interest It only refers to prop or things wc can be transferred to others So its only proprietary so the only causa linked in law is privity (civil law) So whatever his predecessor said (Florentino) will be binding to Danilo (his successor) o Hes talking abt his relation to the title or in his interest in the prop What the Ct missed is that s31 applied here!! S38 can only apply w the use of s38

It was against his interest bec he told Enriquez that he was having an affair w the wife of the accused (wc is against his penal interest bec he was committing a crime! Adultery!) Need to know if its against your interest or not, bec if not then its all negative Opendas statement was being used by 1 against anthr His statement shows that by reason thereof, the accused may have had motive to commit the crime o How? In what sense ds it shows motive? o Bec Bernals wife was having an affair w Openda (the declarant), wc shows a circumstantial pc of E i.e. motive to kill These circums border on natl/human experiences i.e. common sense Since motive is relevant to the case, then it is a declaration against interest, its admissible even if its hearsay o Hearsay bec the 1 testifying in Ct is not the 1 who made the statement & the declarant cant be cross-examined Theyre trying to prove that the accused committed the crime, so trying to show circumstantial E that he committed the crime, so present the person who heard to testify on what the declarant said wc wld prove motive on the part of the accused wc is in issue Theyre trying to show circumstantial E to show motive of the accused how? Thru a certain story wc dsnt know personally o What Sol is saying has no personal knowledge of the truth of WON there was really an affair, bec he was only told by Openda o Hes only telling what he heard from Openda, but Openda isnt a party (bec not a party) o But its admissible bec what Openda said something wc was against himself unless it was true o So Sol is being allowed to reproduce what Openda said to prove the truth o And if its true that there was an affair, then youre able to show that there may be a motive It was being presented bec it was true! So its hearsay o Its not IRS tho It was said by somebody against his interest so its probably true Nevermind if the other party can contest it or not, whether the declarant out of Ct can retract it = dsnt matter bec the Ct will blve it bec its against your interst

Sept6 Phil Press v CA Party = admission If not a party = declaration against interest But be careful of RIAA: bec if its an admission, it has no connection to hearsay So was there an admission here? Or was it against Marcos per se Mendoza v CA S39 applies The witness was the declaration 3 witnesses presented wrt s39 o But only 2 of the witnesses were squarely under s39 o Isaacs testi: wrt the lola & whos dead Talking abt the pedigree of Teopista Who declared the pedigree of Teopista to Issac> o Hipolito (dad of Issaac) who is the bro of Casimiro Hipolito: is talking abt Casimorio & Teopista o Is saying that its true that Teopista is the daughter of Casimiro o That his dad Hipoloto said to Isaac that Teopista was his niece But there was 1 more thing needed for the testi to be admissible o The rel btwn Hipolito & Teopista shld be proven by E aside from the act or declaration = E aliunde showing the rel btwn the 2 o The testi is impt bec its talking abt pedigree, other than the rel btwn H &T Decease is talking abt pedigree and pedigree is not only abt rel o Pedigree: rel, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, date & when these facts occurred & also embraces facts of family history

Parel v Prudencio Affidavit wc contained a declaration against the interst of the Parels Ct ddnt blve that the real motive was to avoid paying taxes, what it blvd was the literal import to the effect that it was the resp who owns it Its a declaration against the interest of the Parels o Bec they were claiming that they owned the prop o But theyre predecessor categorically declared that they ddnt own the prop = so this binds the Parels Its against their proprietary interest bec were claiming it was theirs

Genealogy: refers to history Dsnt include date of baptism Jison Its only competent merely to prove the sacrament of baptism on the date specified o Gravador ws abt a govt ofcl who ddnt want to retire but was being compelled to retire Ct had 2 consider to diff E = pre & post war Things abt pedigree that H told I: He was testi abt the date of when T was born & talked abt the names of his bro C, place where T & C Here, hes not the witness There are 3 ppl involved: o

Marriage: in-laws Bilas: sibling 1 (married to H) & sibling 2 (married to W0 = H & the W of the siblings are related If talking abt a Sps in relation to the sibling = in-law If talking abt a Sps in relation to the Sps of anthr sibling = bilas Are you still related to the bilas by affinity? No This Q is abt collaterals (nephews, nieces, uncles, bilas = bec it looks far alrdy) But insofar as inlaws are concerned = its clear that its part of pedigree

Person talking abt H talking abt his rel to T 2 parts in s39: Fam trad or reputation relating to pedigree E that can be shown that can be proof of pedigree o So artifacts in your home: fam bibles, books, heirlooms, portraits, fam charts = allowed to be used to prove pedigree o Bec theyre old & reliable Gravador S39 or s40? There are only 2 bros 1 older so shown to prove that ofcl cldnt be older bec his bro was older than him Youre only looking at 2 ppl Gravador & his bro How ds s39 come into play? o How was the declarant? The bro (Romulo, now deceased) He stated that Pedro was his bro & that when he was 23 yrs old (wc was on a date wc was on a pleading used in a land case) Since its a statement relating to age, its pedigree E = and falls under s39 even if only 2 ppl are involved o 2 ppl involved: R is talking abt the age of P (whos dead alrdy you can cross-ex him bec hes dead alrdy!) So under pedigree E its hearsay, but admissible o Its hearsay! Hes talking abt the pedigree of the person related to him o Romulo is talking abt the pedigree of some related to him who is dead o Allowed so long as their rel is shown by E aliunde Here hes the witness Reqs of s39: Ante litem motem: prior ot the controversy E aliunde of the rel aside from the act or declaration S39 Can be btwn 2 or 3 persons, so long as the rel is proved by E aliunde Birth or marriage: o Birth: related to a person by blooed

Jison v CA Good case coz talks abt several pcs of E, distinguishes btwn them & their admissibility Talks abt a prominent person in the province whose relatives were very kind to Monina In the end, she was recogd Class of E relied on to show the filiation: o Under A172 in rel to A175 FC: (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by: (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. (265a, 266a, 267a)

On what legal basis: used testimonial E & notes and lttrs of Francisco relatives o Continous possession or open possession of the status of a legit or illegit child


Sept11 DYING DECLARATION Ppl v Bautista 2 dying declarations

Consent is vitiated under A1356 of the CC o Fraud, violence, intimidation, undue influence, mistake o Inadequacy of price can fall under fraud Locsin tried to show vitiation of consent thru many ways: o Fear bec of martial law He was arrested He was detained Padlocked PFP Instructions not to be critical JN can be taken of the fact that Martial Law was something not actually free He only sold bec he was scared Gen Menzi, close assistant/confidant of Marcos: he wnt to Locsin, purporting to tell him what Marcos wants 2 things told to Locsin wc made him feel like he had no choice: o That Marcos cant be denied o That he had no choice to sell It was the Locsins (Sr & Jr) on the stand o Bec Menzi, Baizas & De Vega were alrdy dead Locsin Sr was testifying on the the fact that Menzi was representing Marcos who wanted to buy PFP o Locsin Sr saying Menzi said saying Marcos said o This looks like hearsay o Locsin heard what Menzi said, if were saying that what Locsin was saying was what Menzi said for the purpose of tenor = its irrelevant o So what was Locsin trying to prove when he said all of these things? Was he proving the truth that Menzi said, Marcos said? Prayer is to annul the contract consent vitiated by fear, intimidation, etc o The existence of fear is a direct issue in the case

Gagaza had 2 extraj statements: o In a police blotter o In a sworn statement And Gagazas 2 extraj statements were in conflict o Blotter: that while he was accompanying Cipriano to the hospital, the victim said that Feriamil killed him o Affidavit: Bautista Ct: cant use the statement in the blotter bec Gagaza wsnt brot to the witness stand to testify on the dying declaration Ruled on the blotter but not in the affidavit o Ct held that police blotters are only prima facie E of the facts stated therein o Prima facie: at 1st glance on its face (you have a conclusion) its rebuttable Used in E Used for the filing of an info in Ct Maam: what the Ct said abt blotters dsnt mean anything What did the Ct really want to say? The statement of the victim as to who killed him, if its gng thru the mouth of Gagaza, wld ordinarily be hearsay o If he was on the stand, Gagaza wldve said Cipriano said Feriamil killed him wc wldve been a dying declaration While it was hearsay, it wldve been admitted o BUT he ddnt go to Ct! so its not an exception to the hearsay rule This case tells us that w a dying declaration, it shld only be once removed to fall under the exception o But here, it wsnt just once removed, but twice! Once removed: Gagaza the twice removed: police blotter And only the police blotter was presented in Ct Ct cldnt admit the police blotter unless its admitted (due execution, authenticity; or if taken JN; or if some1 identifies it) Who identified the police blotter? The desk Sgt who wrote it down What made it additionally competent, but bec on ht eblotter itself appeared the sig fGagaza Ruling of a Ct: A police blotter of a dying declaration, but a dying declaration is admissible as an exception to hearsay tho its hearsay, but if its twice removed then its not admissible as an exception to hearsay

Possible scenarios in the case: 1) it cld be IRS 2) it cld be an admission o Trying to prove the truth under admissions 3) RIAA o Trying to prove the truth under admissions o A) Agency: Mz is the agent of Mar, so whatever he said during the agency, will bind Mar o B) Conspiracy 1st scenario: Locsin was trying to prove all of thse things that happened, thru Menzi, to prove: o What Locsin was trying to prove wsnt the truth that what Menzi was telling him that Marcos cant be denied, but the fact that what Menzi said scared him & compelled him to sell o So regardless of WON Marcos said these things, it was a belief of a listener = so his consent was indeed vitiated o So whether what Menzi said what Marcos said was true or not, the effect of what Menzi said was fear and since fear is an issue in the case its relevant

DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST Phil Free Press Ds the twice removed rule apply to declaration against interest? From the rule in s38, can double hearsay be allowed? o No, the context of the rule itself tells us that that it can only be once removed Axn for annulment of the sale of PFP on the ground of vitiation of consent & gross inadequacy of the price

Indep of the truth or not, its relevant! So its IRS = belief of the listener So its not hearsay

Hearsay still if this wsnt IRS, wld it be hearsay? o If the purpose of L is to present what Menzi said to prove the truth the Marcos said this as the truth = its hearsay! o If what Mz did was his opinion, & he wsnt quoting Mar and L was saying that this is what Mz said = is this hearsay? Yes Jst look at L & Mz (dnt lk at Mar 1 ) Whether the opinion of Mz is true or not, that Mar really wants it, the pt is Mz thinks so & Mz said it to L - & L is the 1 in Ct, is L trying to prove the truth of what Mz said? Yes, to show fear o Therefore, fear was being estabd in 2 ways: Thru what Mz said to him And the effect of what Mz said to him, WON true o In so far as what L was trying to prove what Mz said was true this is single hearsay But what L was saying in Ct wasnt jst what just Mz said he was saying what Mz said wc Mar sd = this is double hearsay o If what L was trying to prove was the truth

S29: agency Mar cld be bound by what Mz said bec he was acting for Mar/ws the agent o It was during & was abt the agency If you present E aliunde, then there may be agency talaga! o Like payment of the 1M Youre trying to prove the truth under admissions

3rd scenario: (B) In any crim scheme, theres a big fish & small fish Mz & Mar cldve been in conspiracy to buy the Co *wla lang discussion: If Mar isnt here & Mz bought the prop thru intimidation o So suit is against Mz, so suing Mzs heirs So will the statements of L be admissible in E in this scenario? No! DMS! So get some1 else to testify! *Misleading statements of the Ct:

2nd scenario: from the pt of view of admissions When Mz is talking like this (dnt lk at Mar), is he mouthing an admission? Mz sd: sm1 wants to buy ur prop; he wnts to buy it at this price only; etc o = you have no choice! The 1 asking cant be denied! What is maam driving at? When Mz is saying these things, what is he doing? o Hes committing a crime! Grave coercion! Mz cld be making bola But what Mz is dng is coercing L to sell o Therefore, is acts were an ADMISSION!!!! Bec it was against his penal interest bec he was committing a crime! He admitted here bec he spoke! Fact that Mz did this & L heard it its an admission against Mzs interest So its admissible against Mz o So frm this pt of view, is it hearsay? NO, its admissible against Mz, its not hearsay o Mz can be brought to Ct based on grave coercion alone, w or wo Mar *under the pt of admissions: the respondent was Liwayway, but it was bec alleged that Liwayway was a dummy corp of Marcos so piercing the corp veil (wc is why was can call such statements, admissions) 3rd scenario: (A) Is it admissible against Mar? bec the axn is to annul the sale So can we link Mz to Mar?

SC approved what the appellant Ct said: it ws under the above enumerated circums that the late Mzit must be noted hwoever that the testimoinies of the L Sr & Jr on the implied threat is hearsay as Mz has alrdy passed away & can no longer defend himself (same as De Vera, Baizas) o Is this an accurate statement? No o SC is talking in a certain manner & is premised on the rule on hearsay o NO! its not accurate bec thats not what the hearsay rule states o Cant tlk abt what the declarant said bec the out of Ct declarant cant be cross-examined = this is hearsay Its the declarant whos subj to cross = wc is why its hearsay bec cnt be subj to cross o Its hearsay NOT bec Mz cant defend himself, its hearsay bec Mz CANT BE CROSS-EXAMINED!!! o Case isnt abt whether its fair abt Mz o The prob abt hearsay is abt the parties!! o Liwaway is the 1 who cant cross-ex what Mz said = this is whats hearsay Jurisprudence instructs that E of statements madetesti is hearsay if offered against a party who has no opp to cross-ex the witness o Its not cross-ex the witness!! Hes in Ct! o Its hearsay if theres no opp to cross-ex the DECLARANT!! o 2nd sentence: hearsay E is excluded precisely bec the party against whom its presented is denied the opp to cross-ex the person who made the statements

This statement is true! Exactly what hearsay is

Can the act of Mz bind Mar? NO o Gr: the rights of a party cant be prejudiced by an act or declaration of a 3rd person = RIAA But, if theres a link btwn them (Mz & Mar) then Mar can be held liable!

we arnt unmindful of the exception to the hearsay rule, s38however, in assessing the probative value of Gen. Menzis supposed declaration against interest, i.e., that he was acting for the late President Marcos when he purportedly coerced Mr. Locsin, Sr. to sell the Free Press property, we are loathed to give it the evidentiary weight petitioner endeavors to impress upon us. For, the Locsins can hardly be considered as disinterested witnesses. They are likely to gain the most from the annulment of the subject contracts.

o o

is it a declration against interest? Yes, at the time he said it, it was against his interest When presented, the declarant is alrdy dead or unavailable = you have to prove all these circums

o o


And these circums are present Is it an argument that you cant apply this rule bec the person presenting it isnt a disinterested witness? No If not disqualified to testi, its not necessarily admissible Disqualification is 1 step ahead of admissibility Whereas admission is when you talk, dsnt mean that its admissible immediately = it may be inadmissible in the sense that the Ct wont even consider in making its decision Ct ws saying that it wsnt against Mzs interest bec in his brain, he was obeying a superior order If we follow this rule then s38 might be completely erased

the testi of his witnesses, the Locsins, arent hearsay bec had personal knowledge they heard what Mz was saying so were just trying to show that Mz did say these things (paraphrased pt is, they were talking abt tenor) o If trying to show tenor for purposes of libel, then admissible bec of IRS, not hearsay o But if trying to prove the truth of what Mz & on top of that link Mar, tenor here was completely out of the pic o Insofar as gng to say, I heard Mz say this to prove just that you heard what Mz said - & the fact that you heard is relevant (ex. libel) it may be admissible But here! Arent proving tenor. Was trying to prove the truth!!

Werent admissible under s39 bec the rel btwn the subj & declarant wstn shown by E aliunde If it ws, then the testi wldve been acceptable under s39 Participation abt the baptismal cert & birth cert o Not admissible per se, if the alleged father did not intervene in the birth certificate, e.g., supplying the information himself, the inscription of his name by the mother or doctor or registrar is null and void; the mere certificate by the registrar without the signature of the father is not proof of voluntary acknowledgment on the latters part. o bt the Ct still admitted them bec showed that the dad spent for the education,e tc Are the lttrs admissible under s40? o Bec the lttrs dnt fall under the enumeration in s40 they dnt fall under and the like thru ejusdem generis o They dnt fall under the nature of family possessions o They arent of this nature bec werent passed from 1 gen to anthr wc is why theyre accepted as part of the tradition/history of the fam Affidavit of Monina o Ct: Absurd for some1 to ask her to sign if she really wsnt a daughter o Bec she was asking for money at that time o

Solinap v Locsin Jr

So everything that the Locsins said abt Mz is hearsay! = everything they were saying were abt Mz & Mar

Theres no half & half as the Ct stated

(in rel to the quoted portion above on tenor) we disagree, even if pet succeeds in presenting his E, 1 hlf purporting to quote a live witness & the other half purporting to quote anthr whose dead, then what hes quoting on the one whos dead is hearsay o Wrong! Go back to the 1st quote of Maam The all to familiar rule is that a W can only testify on facts of his own personal knowledge. No quibiling that pet cant testify on what Mar said to Mz precisely bec none of the Ws heard what Mar said to Mz o This is accurate o Ct was saying, is L what youre saying is hearsay

birth certificate offers only prima facie evidence of filiation and may be refuted by contrary evidence. o Its evidentiary worth cannot be sustained where there exists strong, complete and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity. Here, there were many badges of suspicions here o It was a 1958 form done in 1957 And the 1958 form cldnt have been used then bec it ddnt exist yet o It wsnt bound in the volume o No details as to the dad or mom wc are facts wc dnt show that it was supplied by some1 w knowledge of the dads particulars

COMMON REPUTATION S41: Common reputation extisting previous to the controversy, respecting facts of pub or gen interest more than 30 yrs old, or respecting marriage or moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments & incripstions in public places may be rcved as evidence of common reputation. Why ds the 30 yr req dsnt apply to marriage? o Unlike that of matters of pedigree, gen reputation of marriage may proceed from persons who arent mems of the fam, the reason for the distinction is the pub interest that is taken in the Q of the existence of marital relations (In re Mallare)

* A statement is gng to be hearsay, if wht youre trying to do is to prove the truth of such bec the truth is relevant to the case. If the aim isnt to prove the truth then its not hearsay! PEDIGREE Jison v CA The lttrs of the relatives werent admissible bec there was no showing that the declarants were dead or unable to testify

In Re Mallare Illegitimacy of Mallares dad can be confirmed by the testimonies of the townsppl it was the illegitimacy of mallare that was confirmed by the testi of the townsppl bec of the fact that everyone knew that his mother, a Filipina was

never married to his father, a Chinese. If they were married, Mallare would have to have followed his fathers nationality, making him ineligible to be a member of the Bar So if his dad was Fil, so was he The declarations of the townsppl were based on reputation in the community regarding her race/ancestry wc is admissible & must have factual basis

RES GESTAE S42: Statements made by a person, while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto wrt the circums thereof, maybe given in E as part of res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act matl to the issue, & giving it a leg significance, may be rcvd as part of res gestae. The rule dsnt refer to statements alone, but to acts as well 1st part: statements during, before or after 2nd part: verbal acts o Denotes that such statements are explanatory o Ds it refer to the statement or the act? It refers to statements & acts Ex) something other than a statement thats admissible under res gestae

evidence for that, or that you do but that is a different matter, on top of the evidence, you prove common reputation, it is part of collateral matters, it is part of circumstantial evidence. Common reputation tends to prove the truth. Evidence of the common reputation of a place as a drug den, reputation tends to prove the truth. o US v Chua Chiok: common reputation of the place as being a drug den not the truth but only such as to tend to prove the truth its circumstantial/collateral E The Rules of Evidence go by human experience. So far, human experience involves morality. We should not see it as in a vacuum. Rules of evidence goes by the morality of human characters, thats why there is evidence as to morality. The rules on evidence does not operate in a vacuum. Ex) Reputation of Erap as a womanizer, When a person, place or thing has a common reputation and you are able to show the truth as to the reputation, the reputation tends to prove the truth. If you say that what seems to be doesnt really show the truth, then it would have to apply to all not only as to moral character. But maam says, common reputation is all about what others see. The logic of common reputation is as to what others perceive as the truth. People wont be thinking that, talking that, unless there is a grain of truth. There is a logical relation btwn reputation & the truth! Rules of evidence does not require a 100% guarantee that an evidence admitted is true. Whether it is credible or not is another matter. What is the matter here is admissibility. Whether the court believes it or not is a different point. If there is a logical connection, it can be admissibility. What is admissible, in the case of a monument. The monument itself or the talk about the monument? BOTH Can use the common reputation of a haunted house as evidence for showing that there is no gross inadequacy of the selling price. Digoy: There are always things as myths and urban legends. o If theres really good evidence about the reputation, its admissible. Whether you can prove it or not is what will remain in question. In re Mallare: common reputation of marriage has many effects. o In the CAB, it is citizenship but it is based on marriage. o Other effects of marriage that may be covered by this rule Obligations of the parents (e.g. support of the child bec there was a fixed marriage) Crimes (e.g. adultery, bigamy) Succession Age? Can be used for age of the children as legitimate child. That means the child was born after the marriage and not before. Ownership of property cannot be ruled as conjugal or absolute community if there areis no marriage Common reputation of marriage can lead to different effects/ it radiates to its effects

September 13, 2007 6 meetings left until October 5. o 2 more movies. And more exercises.


She knows exam is on the 15th She gave the option that we can have the exercises between October 5-15

S41: COMMON REPUTATION Multiple hearsay

Can common reputation apply to a place? o Yes. US v. Choa Chiok cited in Regalado. o Nobody in his right mind can put up a monument unless there is a significance. o Bantayog ng mga bayani, is there any significance in that? Shows the truth that the names inscribed there are heroes and martyrs? What does the monument show when it is a bantayog ng mga bayani and that there are names inscribed there? Digoy: I think it is evidence of their common reputation and how they are heroes, and perhaps honorable persons.

Maam: Isnt that irrelevant if it just shows the common reputation? Digoy: But this common reputation will reflect the truth we are speaking of.

The real factum probandum is the truth to which the common reputation leades. What youre proving is not directly the fact but you dont have the



Borromeo: referes to the 2nd part of the rule, but quoted Am Jurisprudence re: the 1st part

Aballe and Tampus cases Aballe: is it a case of res gestae? He waived his constitutional rights. It is an admission o Principle here is custodial investigation.

Tampus: it is admissible as an extrajudicial confession? o If this was done in regime of 87 consti or RA 7438, is this a correct analysis? No, there has to be a counsel and the waiver must be in writing. o Res gestae? No, there was no startling occurrence, it was a planned, premeditated act. (maam agrees w/ this) o Their statements are admissible under the Aballe doctrine, but not under res gestae Connection of Aballe & Tampus is S12, A3 of the consti wrt custodial investigations o Doctrine: the consti guarantees in s12 DNT apply if theres no investigation Aballe and tampus is x custodial investigation if not a suspect, no matter where the place is. The moment you are a suspect you are in custodial investigation. o But in these cases, inunahan ang police. They already told the police o The minute the suspects made their extra-judicial confession, not covered by S12. Voluntary confession to a civilian is admissible. In these cases they already told the police before they were suspected of doing illegal acts, not covered by S12.

While in a preliminary investigation, youre free (wc is why s12 dsnt apply) Ppl v Faco: o Tricycle driver accused of raping bakery employee o Brought back to Capiz, arrested, only wanted to talk to Jenie Hervias (his frnd who was actually a policeman) o The suspects friend who is a policeman was the only person who the suspected person wanted to talk to and when found confessed everything to the police friend. SC said confession is admissible bec the confession was made to the policeman in his capacity as the suspects friend and therefore did not need the protection of S12(Ppl v. Faco). o Essence of the 1st part of Res gestae is that there was a person who was startled. o Its admissible bec it is not the person talking but it is the act talking through the person. = this is the essence of res gestae (1st part)

People v. Reyes Res Gestae? The murder may have an effect but it did not have the effect of being a startling occurrence.

What was startling about it is when they were anxious/apprehensive of whether the person was really dead or not. Maam: there is a paucity of evidence in Reyes that shows what was startling. Does being excited about it mean it is a startling occurrence? o It may constitute a part of it. If it falls under 2 rubrics (res gestae & admissions), why not. For traditionalists, easy for them to say that the statement is hearsay. If they analyze it correctly it is not necessary to place it under hearsay or res gestae bec it is an admission o Digoy: The Court said it was admissible as an admission and res gestae. But res gestae is hearsay. How do we reconcile that? o The court does not understand the difference between admission and hearsay. We were the only ones who made the distinctions. The court just looks to justify even when there is no need for res gestae. o If we analyze this correctly, you dont need hearsay/res gestae bec it was really an admission

If you were brought to a police precinct, placed in a room, directed the light and the police just stared at you menacingly and drummed his fingers. Guarantee in the constitution applies to investigation and not interrogation. As long as you are already a suspect in the eyes of the police, and bec of the menacing acts, and the suspect broke down bec of that act, that is already custodial investigation bec the suspect was not informed of his rights. Many American cases showing that this is still

Tampus, there is a waiver bec it not yet under the 87 consti, if under 87 consti, it cannot be considered a waiver (bec need an atty for there to be a waiver). Does that mean that it is already inadmissible? o Yes, admissible bec it was not made under custodial investigation (Aballe). S12 does not apply if it is an Aballe or Tampus situation. Maam: if the person voluntarily related that he has committed a crime they dont need S12 bec they voluntarily said it even before someone accused them of anything and therefore, there is no need for protection. o Reason for S12, when you are under custodial investigation, you are not free, it is different when the person is under police custody, a person is given all those rights. Bec under police custody, every move that the suspect makes is recorded in the polices mind and may be used against the suspect.

Ppl v. Tulagan

No startling occurrence, so no res gestae

Air France Court: Oral evidence cannot overrule written evidence. o Maam: theres no such doctrine as that!!! o Doctrine that shldve been applied: Parol Evidence Rule should apply.

The ticket is a contract, therefore, E aliunde cant be introduced to vary the terms of the K Oral E isnt admissible to modigy the written K

But the Ct ddnt say thisseems this was what they were referring to tho

Flight pursers notation in the notebook is part of res gestae due to the excitement of the situation. o The commotion was a starling occurrence bec it dsnt happen everyday

In any case, the memorandum is NOT an indep documentary E it cant corroborate the testi of the witness who referred to it precisely bec the same witness was the 1 who prepared the docum Its not E per se bec only used to refersh ones memory


The court tried to understand this situation in the light of Rule 132 S10, R132 S10 (now s16: on memorandum) was mentioned bec of the testimony of Crispina can be admitted as part of res gestae. o Ct: no, bec not a party. Only a witness to the transaxn o As a witness to the transaction, Crispina can use her notes (not absolute deed of sale, but equitable mortgage; disbursements for payment of interest, atorneys fees and other obligations) to refresh her memory as regards the proceedings. Parties: Emmanuel and Alma and Rallos Crispina is the daughter of Rallos Crispina said that she was taking down notes during the meeting. The notes were about the computation for the payment of interests, bec if it was a sale, there would have been no interest. And other obligations. These would lead to the conclusion is not a sale. Why did the ct cite res gestae? Was there a startling occurrence? o No startling occurrence, neither were ther equivocal acts = there was NO RES GESTAE here o Ct cited US jurisprudence Maam: The American jurisprudence refers only to rules re: interpretation of contracts & not res gestae Ct: in any case, it can be admissible as memorandum under S10. R132 S16: 2 parts of the rule.

Crispinas notes cannot even fall under the 2nd part of s16 o Shes not a party o And shes not authorized by the parties who did not even know what she was doing. S16 refers to a witness, not a party. o It refers to a witness who witnessed a fact & at the time she witnessed it, she recorded it It (Crispinas testimony) should not have been admitted as evidence because it violates S16 (witness witnessed a fact and at the time she witnessed it, she wrote down something). Crispina was only a witness and thats why the court referred to R132S10/S16 The real reason as to why the notations should have not been admissible is a principle that runs counter to Air France which is the Parol Evidence Rule. o Parol evidence rule not mentioned, but if you look at the courts wording, this was its problem/this whas what was worrying them o The parties met, negotiated, transacted and signed. Now, they want to vary the contents? Parol evidence rule will be the problem there. The court characterized the notations of Crispina (made out of Ct) as inadmissible bec they were self-serving declarations. o Should not have been self-serving bec there was no admission. o Notation should have been hearsay if not part of her testimony or under Rule 132 o The truth is that the notations were hearsay if they were not reproduced in her testimony. They were not against her interest because she was not a party to the case and transaction. The estate is not a party.

Did the US jurisprudence cite verbal acts? NO

1st part: refers to witness. PRESENT MEMORY REVIVED/ REVIVAL OF PRESENT MEMORY The witness can remember but can not remember everything and needs the memorandum to refresh the memorandum and there are certain reqts Written by the witness under her direction when the occurrence is still fresh her mind. Here, the memorandum is merely an aid. 2nd part: REVIVAL OF PAST RECOLLECTION/ PAST MEMORY RECOLLECTION The witness does not recall but the memorandum helps the witness recall

S43: ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS Wallem v NLRC Refers to a situation where they were not admissible. o Bec they ddnt give a copy of the logbook What made the document admissible in the other case bec they submitted a copy of the logbook. o In the CAB, there was only a collation of the entries supposedly from the logbook. To be admissible, the logbook should have been presented.

Ex) There was a a car accident and the mother filed a deposition perpetuam in re memoriam where she wrote down the taxis car plate. After a few years, she might not remember what the plate number is but she can refer to the document bec of the Revival of Past Recollection

For entries in the course of business should it be single or multiple hearsay? Multiple hearsay! basis? o All the rule says is that you must be competent (s43who was in a position to know the facts = this refers to competence) o Competence is a different issue from single or multiple hearsay

E.g. books of account where date, amount, nature, qty, person who entered the expense was indicated Entry was made by the person who made the made the purchase. Can the supervisor/foreman identify the entry? Who is supposed to know the facts made therein? Person who made the entry Does the person supposed to know the facts made therein mean personal knowledge? The purchaser knows that there was a purchase because she disburses the money to the messenger who buys the items and the purchaser inspects it upon delivery by the messenger and enters it into the books. The purchaser answers to the foreman who answers to the supervisor who answers to the manager who answers to the boss. Does not follow that the entrant was the one who testifies. Does not matter if the one in court is so many times removed from the entrant. Because the rationale is that this concept was conceived during the railroad boom in the US. Example of entries in the course of business: entries made by company comptroller on the company books; Who should be the witness in court in case comptroller dies? Can it be the foreman, the supervisor, office manager, etc.? The one in court is the manager. Admissible? Yes. Entrant was in a position to know the facts. Manager can testify so long as: Entry was made in the reg course of business Person who made the entry is dead or unable ot testify Is in a position to know the facts stated therein As long as it was made in the ordinary course of business there is no reason for the court todoubt that the entry was made w malice, fabrication, etc

Analysis: Content and how the propornent is presenting the report Under the BER what is objectionable is not the truthfulness of the contents, but if u are presenting the contents, apply BER, even if the contents of the original is hearsay Hearsay if the one testifying is the one who made the entry in the logbook. All of these are hearsay but they are admissible because of the exceptions. The ultimate factum probandum was illegal dismissal on appeal. o Wallem wanted to show that the dismissal was legal by showing past infractions. 2nd was sought to be proven through docu evidence i.e. contents of the logbook court, kind of implied the application of the Best Evidence Rule The 3rd incident was what the captain really witnessed But to justify dismissal, they refer to the 2 nd, to which they presented the logbook as evidence. Will other pieces of evidence be admissible? o Yes, bec it is nt the contents of the logbook that is in question. The logbook is a private docu, under 130.43 reqt that the hearsay testimony of the witness be admitted as long as entrant is competent. o Presented by the defense o If by the prosecution, how do you apply 130.43. Granting that you gave evidence preliminarily that the witness is dead or unable to testify but the other party suspects and the other party wants to prove that the entrant is alive and able to testify. How will the defendant object bec the witness is alive and well? Use Modes of Discovery ultimate factum probandum was leg dismissal on appeal = seaman won

o o

Can be multiple as long as the entrant is competent, the entrant must know. It does not matter if the one appearing in court is multiple removed, as long as the declarant is competent (Canque v. CA). Exception to the hearsay rule that allows multiple hearsay? o Family reputation, tradition. But the person testifying should be competent Dying declaration declarant should have been competent.

*barbs notes: Pet Wallem: prove dismissal leg o Prove by showing past beh o Showing 3rd infractions already what made camels back snapped o Past infractions o 1st proven in a manner we dont know how

o o o

o o o

Sept 20 MANALO Also falls under entries in official records WALLEM The ct referred to the fact that it was a collation of the facts in the logbook. If the original of the logbk itself was presented, there would be no objection If the master testified as to the content of the logbook, objections? o NO, the ground is best evidence rule. No logbook, no copy, collation only

2nd thru docu evid contents of logbk refers to the 1 that happened in Japan trying to prove ultimate factum probandum to show incident happened Ct referred slidingly, implied the non-appli of the BER Other forms of evid presented aside fr the logbk or the only thing? 3rd instance was what Capt witnesses 2 confronted the apprentice cadet to justify dismissal, referred to the 2nd incident

to prove the 2nd, was there any other pc of evid? Just the logbk BUT if there was some other pc of evid apart fr the logbk, would it be admissible? Ulti factum probandum = illeg dismissal o 3rd: what Capt saw = Singh was the 1 who provoked them cause ordered Macatuno to throw oil overboard = go to prison in Japan o 2 Fils wanted to correct that esp as the 1 who ordered thems an apprentice

recorded in logbk = wanted to prove as an intermediate factum probandum other pc of evid apart fr the logbk = admissible or ground to obj logbk alone presented? Other pcs of evid apply; BER dont apply if logbks not the only pc of evid cause contents of the logbk arent in I Immediate factum probandum = illeg dismissal Not contents of logbk per se thats in Q o Under .43, reqd that hearsay evid of witness on the stand only if able to prove that the entrant whos competents dead/unable to appear = matter of defensedont want to prove applicable (defense of ship) Granting .43s in favor of the proponent (P), not matter of defense, want to prove part of COA thru hearsay testi admissible under .43 = burden on proof on u to show witness is the 1 talking and not the entrant cause unable to testify o Have to prove that ur entrants dead/unable to testify so hearsay evid o Granting ure able to show evid to show it preliminarily but other p suspects it isnt true, other p will wanna block evid under .43 on the gorund that the entrants rly in the Phils and able to testify except dont wanna let out cause so nervous, when cross, tell everything and change o Other p wants to prove entrant here and alive to stop hearsay testi = how do that? o D wants to block: how get info so when it comes to Ct (trial), obj on the ground that its not admissible under .43 cause entrants alive? o Diff bet .43 and .44dont need to show dead/unable to testify o Crucial proponent of hearsay evid prove these 2 reqts or not admissible under .43 o To obj, prove the contrary o Free, as a matter of compulsion: modes of discovery (R25), written interrogatory, deposition, request for admission o Subpoena device to allow u to enforce modes of discovery Ex re Wallem o Canque: Since factum probandum refers to a fact and not the contents of the bk of collectible accts, other evid will be admissible and not run afoul of BER cause I in inquirys something other than contents only of bk of collectible accts What was trying to be proved? WON there was deliv Intermediate factum probandums provable by other than the bk of collectible accts If I was what bk of collectible accts contents = BER Factum probandum beyond that = doesnt apply o Part in Canque: Ct characterizes docu (part of Adays testi) If invoked under S16, R132 = as a memorandum to refresh the memory of the witness Other p: should be admissible in evid Conc: how abt doctrine of multiple admissibility? o Wasnt ct not analyzing to the effect that its the nature that changed, not the purpose = pt untenable Beyond that: p was referring to R132, S16

o o

Ground for admissibility, that it can be used as a memorandum to refresh memory? NO Memorandum = not independent docu evid Its part of the testi If testis inadmissible If part of testi, therefore, in effect, is it testi thatll prove the truth of the entries? Aday: testifying abt contents cause entries there not part of her pers knowledge know data cause engr told her = that fact doesnt mean its true, just that he told her (inadmissible and incredible = hearsay: no value) dont rly know, just told


In people v. bautista, the police blotter was admitted. The person on the witness stand was not the declarant but is an exception from hearsay but his superior. The captain testified as to the contents entered into the police blotter from his underling (haha cant find the right word) o Are the requisities of R130S44 present? Entry was made by a police officer Made due to his duty as a polic officer Applying Caltex, not admissible, person who provided the info was not under the duty to do so Applying Salmon, not applicable, the police officer has no personal knowledge Applyng 130.44, admissible? Yes, but not bec the officer had personal knowledge. The reason that its admissible only is that because the rule gave it a prima facie admissibility. Admissible bec the declarant was competent, he saw who killed him, valid dying declaration Maam: this case is a dying declaration in a police record If there were badges of suspicion that will show that the entries are false and that there is showing that the declarant was not competent, admissible? No, because prima facie only

*barbs notes:

Compare: Wallem & Pp v. Bautista, what was the entry? o In a pub docu = talking abt o Docu involved = hearsay but admissible: pol blotter w/c contained the dying dec of the guy who died pting to o In the blotter = pub docu but hearsay cause the 1 on the stand wasnt a declarant the 1 on the stand is the superior (Capt) of the entrant (Sgt) entrant in the blotter relied on the dec of some1 else declarant = guy who died

o o

pol blotters hearsay cause the person in the witness stand isnt the declarant but nevertheless admissible in evid cause E are reqs of .44 in Bautista? Yes cause: Person who made entry was a pol ofcer In perf of his duty as pol ofcer Applying Caltex, not admissible Applying Salmon, .44s not complete w/o Caltex and Salmon, Dexter .43: entrant must be the declarant, competent, knows the facts o not exactly the R in .44 Salmon: Muni pres didnt have pers knowledge of harvest got data fr farmers; given by other sources presum: other sources went abt their bus regularly (R131) Hearsay: 1) muni pres writing on form data he got fr other sources = no pers knowledge; 2) gave copy to DA Dir Is entry = double hearsay (2ce removed fr the source)

LAO & CANQUE Entries are admissible?

What 130.44 does is to put into practice the verity, considering that the public officials have no motive to fabricate, but more motive to be accurate (Herce), there would be no harm in believing the actions of the officials. This rationale is pegged on 130.44. In S44, the entrant (the one who made the entry) is a public officer.

Presented not by Dir of DA = 3rd lev of hearsay yet admissible o Entrants: 2 entrants involved R in .33 re the entrant being the declarant whos competent cause in a pos to know, doesnt apply literally to .44 o Salmon: Any entrant whos competent (knows of own pers knowledge)? NO Reason: no choice 0 in course of perf of duties, pub ofcers need to make entires = reality, how it is o ROC carve a R of convenience/necessity o Do it in perf of duty = cause pub ofcers, even if at any lev of making the entry, didnt know = multi Bautista (defn of entrant) o 1 on the stand isnt the Capt = Ied a cert: attested the 1 who made the entry was rly the Sgt to whom the dying guy made the story (cert) based on the blotter blotters admissible cause of .44? no o done by a pub ofcer o in perf of his duty Dir of DA made entry = no pers knowledge Muni pres made entry = no pers knowledge .44, lks like its admissible o is it cause entrant/Sgt had pers knowledge? No - performing a duty enjoined by law R gives it prima facie wt = Rs make u believe in the truth: exp, comm. sense tells u believable but only prima facie o If badges of suspicion: based on declarant who wasnt competent, still admissible? Yes but no probative value

CANQUE In Canque, the entrant is not a public officer. This case is a little unique bec the situation of 130.43 is the entrant is not important. In Canque, Aday was the witness. Aday in the context of 130.43, shes the entrant. So, its not a 130.43 situation? o No, bec she was not dead or unable to testify. The situation is the entrant is the one in the witness stand, but not the declarant. In 130.44, the entrant is competent to make the entry. o The situation contemplated is that there is an entrant who was competent to make the entry but the entrant is not in court, thats why its hearsay. o There is a witness but that witness is not the entrant. 130.43, the entrant was dead or unable to testify which applies to the entrant and not the declarant. The entrant is the declarant. In 130.44, Canque is not a 130.43 situation, but is it a hearsay situation? o Yes, she did not have personal knowledge, it is a 130.36 situation. Canque: the witness was the entrant. o If it was a 130.43 situation, the entrant should not be the witness and that the entrant is the declarant. Can also be said that since the factum probandum was beyond the book of collectible accounts, other evidence may be presented because the issue was not what the book of collectible accounts contain The ct characterizes the book of collectible accounts o If it is invoked as a memo to refresh memory of witness, can be admissible?

Doctrine of Multiple Admissibility it is not the nature of the evidence that was changed but the purpose. Ct said if used to refresh the memory, it was not an independent documentary evidence, it will only form part of the testimony and its admissibility will depend on the admissibility of the testimony. The testimony would as to the entries in the book of collectible accounts bec she had no personal knowledge. Someone just told her the contents Inadmissible and incredible

LAO Lao, is it a 130.44 situation? o No, bec the declarant is not the entrant Entrant: Bernas Declarant: Villarmosa and Baclaron In this case, entrant is not the declarant

Rule 130.44: The context is that there is a public officer who gets to know info through the course of the performance of his duties. o But it is hearsay bec the witness in court is not the entrant, not the public officer who made the entries, but sum1 else. It is hearsay but it is admissible Can we say therefore that technically if we really follow 130.44, the blotter in Lao is really admisiible? o Inadmissible under 130.44. you can have faith and belief that the entry was fair and accurate bec it was made by a public official. If you look at 130.44 alone, the blotter is inadmissible o But you have to look at Caltex There was 1 public doc (MVAR) that was supposed to be prima facie was overturned. Bec the accident report was done 3 days after, and that the MVAR did not form part of the records.

SALMON, DEXTER The municipal president got the info from the farmers and did not have personal knowledge. Data was given by other sources. o Presumption that these other sources went about it as their business. (R131) Apply Caltex to this case, will the certificate be admissible or not? o The info was from the farmers who does not have the duty to provide the info to the public officer Under 130.44, which is replicated in 132.23, weight of evidence is only prima facie and may be overturned.

1st level of hearsay: municipal president, 2nd lvl: Dept of Agriculture, 3rd level: Director of Agriculture R130.44, there is no choice. Public officers have to make entries in the performance of their duties. The rules of ct just carved out a rule of convenience for public officers

*barbs notes: Lao: MVAR overturned cuase badges of suspicion Case where dying declarant made a dec who his killer is but not true cause didnt know who killer is can happen o If Bautista like that, still say entry in off rec admissible in evid? NO Only prima facie = can be overturned Reason in Bautista, admissible cuase dying dec was competent and dying dec was proper Rly abt to die Under consciousness And saw 1sthand who killed him o Transformed into an entry in an off rec = also admissible Dying dec embodied in a pub rec = cert of superior (2 Es) Rs re: admissibility can be broken down into many areas o Contents - hearsay o Form o Manner in w/c presented CALTEX Reqts for admissibility in the case. Official information: if that info was provided by a source whose duty was to provide the data to the public officer. The entry consists of data that either that the public official got from his own knowledge or from official info Maam: I will not have a prob with this case if it were not so sweeping o Ppl v. Sylvester: Eyewitness did not do anything about an arson he saw, is he liable? No criminal liability, either as principal, accessory, or accomplice Civil liability, none o When investigators investigate, interview, there is no duty for the citizens, you just want to help due to civic duty, etc. o Absent a law that will require you to report, you dont have to report o For Caltex to say that entries in public records will be admissible either because it was due to public knowledge or in an official manner would be dangerous. If you apply that, it will make Salmon, inadmissible.

HERCE The Ordinary Decree Book was believed more by the court than other evidences. Presumption of ordinary performance of duty. Applies. If there is no other evidence to overturn it, it will prevail The single entry in the Odinary Decree Book prevailed over the other evidences presented by Herce. Maybe bec of the dubiousness of the evidences presented by Herce. Prescription never runs against the state o Sense of official duty gives you incentive to be accurate o Penalty, publicity, performance of duty *barbs notes:

Herce: a certain docus admissible in evid and made a p win o entry in the Ordin Decree Bk = bk was alive and certain pg showing entry that a dec was given over a certain parcel of land o prevailed over regn in favor of Herce cause entry in off rec not able to overthrow prima facie wt of dec? NO even if merely prima facie, but if have nothing to overthrow it, it holds o Basis for applying for regn: Guy had title who gave it to son and I bought it fr him Ct: Wrong cause better title (1 entry) Just cause pub docu, prevailed over all others Swayed Ct: dubiousness of evid presented by Herce o Title of the lot was changed o Under another name o Rel of judgment: was there any previous proceeding? Orig proceeding: simply shows 2 parcels of land werent covered Filed axn to reopen dec = Muni of Cabuyao: solely based on the entry

Prior to that, Herce was able to secure title in his name on the basis of possession Ct: Even granting all of thats true, wont avail cause already title on the part of the muni Prescription never runs v. the state Case impt cause gives 4 reqts and rationale Sense of off duty encouragement/incentive to be accurate Penalty for breach Publicity

FERNANDEZ v. CA 4 instances o Picure of the alleged father in the baptism o Picture of alleged father with child in Violetas bedroom o Birth certificate o Baptismal certificate Whats wrong with the birth cert? o Theres a legal prescription under A280CC, prohibition of placing the name of the father in the birth certificate unless he files it himself or authorizes it.

adm by parent of filiation in a pub docu/priv handwritten docu signed by the parent = authenticated open and continuous possession of the status of a legi/illegit child My Cousin Vinny: part of evid presented = testi of Fr Fernandez: o Asked: Do u recall whether on that occasion when u called for the father and the mother of the child that both were pres? o JEN Why should these 2 ppl force themselves on a person who continuously denies hes the father? o Maybe its true but they dont have enough evid

Baptismal Certificates (Macandang v CA) public documents o Not good law anymore, baptismal certificates are not part of public documents anymore When asked for Fr. Fernandezs answer to the question When you called for the father and mother should be objected to because they were asking for his opinion.

Sept 25 Manalo: Sheriffs return Is it multiple or single? Who can present the sheriffs return? o Any party in the case who has a use for such E o Ex) P in this case, to prove that there was no property to satisfy the execution Sheriff ds many things o Who is interested in executing? The P who is demanding

*barbs notes: Solinap: also photographs (beside coffin) Here: beside baby during baptism 4 instances p was saying would prove paternity: o pic w/ father during baptism o house o baptismal cert o birth cert Wrong w/ birth cert: leg proscription = very crucial Prohi in CC: A280 prohibits naming of father if its not the father who filed/made/authorized it = good law up to now o No proof father participated/authorized putting of name there, wont be evid of paternity o Same w/ baptismal cert o Mentioned Macandang (Macadandang): inaccurate Pub certs are pub recs Regalado correct R: baptismal certs arent pub docus ever since sepn of Xch and state = Rep WRT the photos: true that they, by themselves wont prove anything; in terms of admissibility, can be made admissible if pres them under A172 in reln to 175, FC o 4 bases to est rec of birth

If the sheriff isnt able to execute, then you can resort to other means: (ex. examine the judgment debtor) o But youd 1st have to prove that no props were executed thereon How can you present the sheriffs return in E? o Plantiff, clerk, JN, can be presented by anybody o But here, they jst presented it in E bec they wanted to make it part of the pleadings o Its part of the proceedings, so Ct clve taken JN If anyone else presents the returns in Ct, is it hearsay? o Yes, bec such person has no personal knowledge o Single, double, multiple hearsay = depends on how many times its removed from the source Sheriff in trying to undersand if there are props or not to satisfy the judgment, wld have to det such from other sources o Ex) whether theres money in the bank wc he can garnish He wld have to ask an ofcr of the bank and such ofcr wld have the duty to inform o If the sheriff finds out & puts this down in his return is this personal knowledge? NO, its hearsay already Thus, s44 is multiple hearsay

Entries in the course of business *s43: multiple hearsay o Business transaxns now are very complicated = esp w comps o So long as done in the course of business, its admissible, even though it hearsay = bec its goes through so many things o Ex) meralco bill: by the time it gets to you, it went thru some many other ppl alrdy

Ex) bank statement: when it issues you an account, when the printed copy is given to you (w the dates of ea transaxn), the entries were taken from the database wc has been duplicated from 1 from anthr, thus its multiple hearsay Its transferred from 1 record to anthr = and all of them are gng to be hearsay And person who testifies in Ct, may not be the teller/etc who actually had personal knowledge

o o

clerk #1 dies, so it transfers to anthr clerk/person = several degrees alrdy so pub records are handled by 1 to anthr to anthr

Locsin Doctrine: if theres a discrepancy btwn the cert of live birth duly recorded int eh Local Civil Registry, a copy of wc is transmitted to the Civil Registry General (central ofc in Mla) pursuant to the Civil Registry Law, is prima facie E of the facts therein stated. However, if there are matl discrepancies btwn them, the 1 entered in the Civil Registry General prevails Registrar (person), register (bk), registry (ofc) Esp in this case bec there were several badges of suspicion: (in the record in the Local Civil Registry) o Used a 1958 form, when it was suppose to hve been written in 1957 o Merely pasted & now sewn into the book o Carbon cpy & typewritten when the others were origs & handwritten Rule in interpretation of docums: written over printed *degrees of hearsay: S37: dying declaration = single Ppl v Bautista S38: declaration against interest = single S39: act or declaration abt pedigree = single Gravador v Domingo; Medoza v CA S40: family tradition = multiple Bec passed from 1 mouth to the other S41: common reputation = multiple S42: res gestae = multiple Ultra; 911 S43: entries in the course of business = multiple S44: entries in ofcl records = multiple S45: commercial lists = multiple S46: published treatise = multiple S47: testi or deposition = half-hearsay (bec there was an opp to examine, but the declarant is still unable to testify); wc is why its still included here Person who shld present it: r132, s24 the custodian = clerk of Ct bec its a pub docum Clerk in case #1, who is testifying in case #2 = saying this is what the person stated multiple o bec a Ct has many branches & ea branch has a branch clerk of Cts (who has an assistant called a in charge), & they clve died alrdy o so in handling the o clerk of Ct #1 knows the stenographer who recorded it = 1 degree o stenographer gives its to the cleark of Ct #1 = 2 degrees

S45: COMMERCIAL LISTS & THE LIKE Ex) stock market stuff: used by ppl who invest & brokers Ex) schedules of shifts, particulars for voyage = used by person engaged in the shipping industry Admissible bec it has a degree of trustworthiness bec of necessity & reliability S46: LEARNED TREATISES Ex) expert in the field of medicine: he makes a paper on heart disease Multiple hearsay If Vinny testified in Ct abt what his gf was saying abt the car in the pic = admissible? o No, inadmissible o Hearsay: bec Vinny isnt an expert & hes testifying on what an expert said In s46 there shld be 2 experts? o 2 experts but only 1 witness o Expert 1 = is the witness o Expert 2 = is the writer who isnt in Ct This is why its hearsay Burden of the witness: o Hes an expert on the subj o He testifies that the writer is recgod as an expert If Vinny was an expert in cars, then admissible alrdy? o Still not under s46 bec it wsnt published The docum shld be: o Written AND o Published Means: professionally published as a writer In Vinny: gf testified verbally only o Marissa Tomei: her expert opinion was based on experience Family of mechanics & she grew up working there frm childhood she was alrdy hands-on Bth the hearsay rule & opinion rule are in s46? YES o An expert can testify on anything, not jst facts, but also on his opinions Pathologist in case of Dindin Palma: o What she stated was a matter of fact o What wld be an opinion? If she states a time of death

Bec wldnt know this for sure, its just an estimate Ex of an expert based on experience: o A chef: those who dont undergo formal schooling Expert: spcl knowledge, skill, experience, training o Training: no need to have to degree o If youre an expert in a particular field, youre an expert!

Only s46 reqs that the subj be limited to history, law, sci or art

Its a diff category

S47: TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER PROCEEDING From a civil, crim, spcl proceeding & admin proceedings Sx) Caltex v Sulpico Lines o Board of marine inquiry did an investigation, questioned witnesses, etc Re: liab of the capt & crew Admin case o Now a civil/crim case (judicial now) is filed can the testi/deposition of a witness in the admin case be presented here? Inadmissible bec the subj matter is diff The issue in the admin case is the liab of the capt & crew Issue in the judicial case is the liab of the insurance Co So subj matter = COA? o If COA in 1st case had nothing to do w damages,the other party wldve been cross-examining on a diff topic/direction Wont have an opp to cross-examine anymore

Maam: subj = construe it as COA bec this is what will det the issues & will det wc is the E necessary Is it admissible as E of a collateral matter? o What if theres a certain issue in the admin case in respect of wc is somehow connected/invovled in the present case/judicial proceeding? The COAs are diff but theres relevance & theres value in it Maam: itll look relevant & might look relevant to a certain degree, but NOT FULLY And in this case, then there may be some inaccuracy So if the other party raises that he ddnt have the opp to cross-ex on that particular pt, then it wont be allowed o Rem: findings of facts of TC are binding on appellate Cts; findings of admin bodies are also suppose to be binding on the judiciary But in what sense is it binding?

T/F: opinions of a witness are inadmissible, bec theyre not based on perceptions rcvd thru the senses. F o Bec there may be opinions wc are admissible wc are based on a witness impressions (last par, s50) o And impressions are opinions Ex) opinion based on impressions o Mae saw person A walking & at the same time swaying as if hes drunk o Maes opinion E is: A looked drunk the time he saw him Differentiate fact from opinion: o Mae example was an inference o Was the fact that A was drunk, really a fact when Mae testifies to it? No, its an opinionbec Mae inferred it from what she saw A persons inference isnt a fact its a conclusion based on factual circums that a person perceived Ex) breath smells like alcohol, eyes are red, sways while walking Ex) opinion that a person was angry o Is this an opinion? You can really say that a person is angry as a fact? o Yes, bec you based it on physical manifestations i.e. hes frowning, raised voice, eyes are like slits, chest is heaving/hyperventilating EBCA: all of this, we perceived, but it dsnt follow that what you conclude is a fact Opinions are conclusions & inferences based on facts BUT they arent facts

2 kinds of opinions: S49: by experts o wc hes shown to possess Process is called what? Qualifying the Witness Method of showing to the Ct the spcl knowledge, skill, training, experience of the expert Show to the Ct that he possess any of the 4 This was shown in Vinny Marissa Tomei was qualified (when other counsel questioned her) o Can testify on anything justified on the basis of the 4 qualifications o Science identifying handwriting: graphology o Sci identifying fingerprints: Dactlysocopy S50: ordinary witness o for wc proper basis is given Adequate knowledge, sufficient familiarity, sufficiently acquainted You have to convince the Ct b4 you can even testify If theres no proper basis = OBJECT!! If not, waived o Can only give his opinion on 7 matters: Identity of a person Shld have adequate knowledge Opinion shld be on the PERSON

If youre saying its binding in terms of liab - unfair bec in admin cases, substantial E only; but in judicial proceedings, the req of the law is diff

OPINION RULE Gr: s49: the opinion of a witness isnt admissible; except as indicated in the ff sections o Whats wrong w the opinion of a person? o Bec their perceptions wc cld be based on biases, etc o Ex) opinion of a witness is that a person is guilty But this opinion isnt based on personal knowledge o The opinion isnt verifiable o Can you cross a person re: an opinion? No, bec its impossible to cross a person on their opinion wc is based on their personal knowledge o When you cross-ex a person, on the basis of wc you can measure it; an opinion has no basis, its completely arbitrary It looks like hearsay, but its an opinion


Ex) Fernandez v CA: priest re identity of the alleged dad Handwriting Sufficient familiarity Can be identified thru opinion (but in r132, s22: there are other ways of identifying this) Ex) secretary of a doctor o Give basis on whether the person can say WON its a persons handwriting o Bec dealt w the person or other reasons Mental sanity Sufficiently acquainted Indicia wrt mental sanity w wc you can give an opinion on mental santiy: o Talking to self o Ppl v Dumanog: judge ddnt have anyone testify bec from physical appearance, cld tell she had down syndrome Ct tk JN of its own opinion Medical or lay ppl EBCA

Perjury, Estafa, theft, robbery, false testimony, libel, slander, bribery, forgery, plunder (worst case of theft), use of alias, graft & corruption Usual moral traits involved: honesty, integrity, indignation & perversity Honesty is a moral trait in certain offenses S51A: if accused tries to show hes honest in any of the these cases o Itll be admitted o It shld be relevant Contrary to attack the accused, even if relevant, except in rebuttal o Reason: bec if the prosecution is allowed to estabd the bad moral charac of the accused, this may influence their decision May convict based on the bad moral character rather than bec of guilt on the offense charged Judges might not know if hes truly bad or not, but theyll get an inkling of = it may influence their decision Prejudice may take place

o o

This found its way in our ROE bec it came from abroad (US got it from Europe) our rules inherited something wc refers to this phenomenon Bec in Am & Europe there was a tendency to be prejudiced (US: prejudice in favor of whites, outstanding feature is antiblack, but actually its anti-everyone other than white) Bec of the tendency to become prejudiced, esp bec of the jury sys (wc makes prejudice possible), had to put such a rule into the law Jury sys: sys is peer review in such a sys, once the jury lays down their verdict, theres no more appeal Appeal in their jurisdiction means new trial (bec of jury trial, mistake, etc) Their sys arose from their history & in their history, peers judge you You choose a grp of peers to judge you, then youre allowed to appeal = its as if you made a compromise, so thereas no point in choosing your peers o Wc is why youre not allowed to appeal

S51: CHARACTER EVIDENCE Theres a rule bec we shld limit it or else its subj to abuse Admissible = but its regulated There are rules in crim, civil case, wrt witnesses & the offended party Ex) of a sit, where if you dont regulate charac E, itll be unfair o Rape case, viticm is a prostitute if we allow the moral charac of the woman perceived to be loose, etc o This may lead to an acquittal Ex) show previous convictions of the accused as a rapist admissible? o S28: RIAA S51A (a): crim cases accused Borje v Sandigandbayan: o Theres a moral trait invovled in the crime of falsification: honesty o The awards, etc have nothing to do w the moral trait involved in the crime of falsification Presented scholarships, exemplary record, commendation But it dsnt follow from this that hes not dishonest o Falsification invokes integrity has to do w WON youre honest And if you falsify something, then it has nothing to do w the performance, awards of Borje wc has nothing to do w honesty & integrity It shows that you havent been charged w nothing & shows your performance (completion, delivery of work) but this has nothing to do w WON youre morally honest Bec possible that youve never been convicted or charged, but dnst mean youre honest Other examples where theres a moral trait involved in a crime:

Judge isnt allowed to judge the facts, is there only to advice the jury on the law etc (hes like a referee); everything else done by the jury Jury may be so influenced to the point of prejudice o Wc is why they have a ROE wherein 1 can prevent the presentation of E wc is too shocking, too prejudicial o Bec attys usually use such E to influence the jury Its not the concept of appeal in our jurisdiction S51A(c): offended party himself is the target of charac E good or bad in either sit, itll affect

Ex) rape: if the victims chasity is questioned this, may affect the probability or improbability of the offense charged = WRONG

BEC anything abt chasity in a rape case is irrelevant!! Bec it dsnt follow that if 1 enjoys sex/past beh of being promiscuous, dsnt mean that on 1 particualr sit you say yes What if the adverse party says theres a pattern/sys? o Is E on chastity admissible then? o If theres a string of incidents provable in Ct to show that 1 is promiscuous, thats her lifestyle, she enjoys it, & such E is admitted = ds this have any connection to the charge of rape? NO, bec it dsnt induce belief Dsnt follow it dsnt tend to show So its irrelevant o But what if the argument isnt abt relevance, but rather RIAA trying to prove a pattern/sys? The E really shows that there is a pattern of promiscuity is this admissible alrdy jst bec you estabd it? Will the fact that theres a pattern, tend to show the existence or non-existence of rape? NO to all these questions = yes, theres a pattern but its still irrelevant It my be admissible under RIAA as an exception to it, but its still irrelevant so not admissible Ex) homicide: tendency of the offended party to be violent o The probability or improbability of the offense charge Accused was trying to say that he knew the reputation of a man wc was violent so the defense of the accused is violence alrdy (inunahan niya) thinking it was self-defense o This was considered admissible Ex) corruption: fact of being a priest is being proved to persuade the Ct that he ddnt commit the crime o Charge is that he was trying to influence a pub ofcl to lower the taxes on the property not devoted to religious purposes o So trying to prove since childhoon, sacristan alrdy always goes to retreats, mass = is now a priest o Under the rule, its seems its admissible Bec it kinda shows good moral charac is the opposite of corruption But at the same time, can think that religiosity has nothing to do w the moral trait in corruption Ex) reckless imprudence resulting in homicide o Heirs of victim files against the driver o Atty of driver tries to show the suicidal tendency of the victim (has to try to kill himself) o This isnt moral character its psychological Ex) good moral charac: barrio lass o Has a tendency to prove the probability of the offense charge - rape o Bec conservative Filipinas dnt engage/consent to loose sex o Ct takes JN several times that in the provinces, the Filipina is usually conservative, reserved, etc o

S51B: Ex) revocation of a donation

If the donor proves ingratitude of the donee But is this moral charac? Ex) case of parents where they revoked the hse & lot to the kid They revoked NOT bec of bad moral charac but bec of ingratitude The kids ddnt show what is due to the parents Ingratitude = lack of love, respect Ex) a couple in love, may break-up bec no longer love each other bec its not watered everyday o So it dsnt necessarily mean there was bad moral charac involved Ex) slander: some1 is charged w slander & complainant is asking for damages o Def is a reporter in a tabloid = article was on its face defamatory o Is this an issue of charac? If so, how will this play out? o Is there an issue of charac in this case? Wont damages automatically be awarded the moment you show publication of an article wc is on its face defamatory? o Truth is part of the defense = the other part is lack of malice Exception w pub ofcls bec you have a right to report on their acts o If truth is a defense, then the accused has the right to present E on the charac of the complainant so that you can prove that there was no malice, but just printed/wrote about it bec its true Ex) axn for QD: person bumped anthr person walking o Issue of charac that hes a reckless driver, many traffic tickets = hes negligent o Is negligent part of moral charac? NO, if youre negligent it dsnt follow that youre immoral jst says you dont take ordinary care Moral charac: has to do w your soul o W the notion of good & bad o Its something innate o Not taught, not commen sense, it inheres in every human being (every1 has a concept of right or wrong, not matter how young) = wc is why theres an emotion called guilt o Anything not having to do w good or bad has nothing to do w moral charac Ex) axn for leg separation o Ground: sexual infidelity ds this have to do w moral charac? In the Phils, seems its related w moral charac Infidelity = means unfaithful!! So theres a duty on your part to be faithful so its related to moral charac If theres no duty to be faithful then it has nothing to do w moral charac o Sexual perversion: force your Sps to do things wc were abnormal (maam:but what was abnormal b4 is normal now mwahahahahaha!) Ds this have anything to do w moral charac? No, dsnt seem to have anything to do w moral charac unlike infidelity Perversion is a ground for leg sep (dng irregular acts not conducive to the marriage) but it dsnt really have anything to do w moral charac o o o

It seems to have something to do w religiosity = if look at it from the religious pt of view, its immoral But bec of the modern world, you need to analyze in terms of this Ex) A26: invasion of 1s privacy in their homes = peeping tom o Case for damages o Present E that this person is perverted likes looking at magazines, porn, etc = ds this have something to do w moral charac? Nope

A2185: anthr presumption of law o Where a driver has no license = so presumed negligent bec at the time violating a traffic regulation S2188: if some1 sold a motorcycle to you, bec there was a defect a tire blow out damages caused o Theres a presumption of neg bec damages were caused by explosion Are not based on facts


S1: Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present E on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim of defenes by the amnt of E reqd by law Diff from burden of E Civil cases: BP is on the P o You sued = your burden o If not able to discharge such burden, case will be dismissed o Ex) sm1 occupied your condo unit you can use reasonable self-help to get rid of that person (allowed by law) But if this dsnt work youll have to seek the help of the judicial sys o if you invoke the J of the Cts/judicial sys, then you have to discharge the burden BE: during trial, parties will present diff E, so itll go back & forth o Ex) if offended party proves the burden of E, then accused proves alibi, then prosecution has the BE to overturn the alibi = if not, accused is ac quitted o Shifts depending on who has the weight in terms of the proceedings

Sept 27 Presumption: inference of an existence or non-existence of a fact wc Cts are permitted to draw from the proof of other facts Inference: a conclusion based on facts o Wo the facts, cant make a conclusion o Factual basis shld be there, otherwise the inference will be mere conjecture/supposition 2 kinds of presumptions: o Presumptions of law: praesumptiones juris 2 types: Conclusive: juris et de jure Disputable: juris tantum o Nevermind prima facie bec its just 1 level Means on its face o Presumptions of fact: praesumptiones hominis Stages of a crim case: o B4 WOA issued: need probable cause o For filing a case in Ct: Prima facie E o To convict: proof beyond reasonable doubt Diff of presumptions of law or fact: o Presumption of law: presumption provided by law (gen law, spcl law, consti, ROC) ex) crimpro: rights of an accused

are very broad & all encompassing if a sit falls under that, then its a presumption of law (even if it seems to be based on human experience) if it dsnt fall under that then its a presumption of fact *s3ee: that a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual w the things of that nature o Cant this fall under presumption of fact o theres a thin line it wld have to refer to estabd happenstance o bec its alrdy part of modern life o if at a particular pt in time, a thing hasnt been proven to exist = presumption of fact, not law ex) glasses b4 ddnt exist, today they do are presumptions from jurisprudence presumptions of law? If the Ct dsnt rely on any other principle/prov of law is a presumption of law its the judge making an inference, hes not relying on something that legislature has provided ex) couple went to a resto & ate their meal gave a credit card, resto ddnt want to accept o Ct: said that the resto was liable by putting a sign that they wld accept credit cards o Ct presumed they were neg/liable = what Ct was speaking of was estoppel! S2a Presumption of fact: Ct has discretion as to drawing an inference

Ex) circumstantial E of guilt = alibi o Youre inferring the impossibility of a person being in a certain plac bec some1 proved that at that time hes in anthr o And if the distance is so large, then youre inferring that its impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime Ex) Ppl v Molo: Ct presumed that bec it ws a full moon & well lit, then the wife cld see the face of the assailant o Inference of fact = that wife mustve seen

o o

Whats the basis? Bec witnesses said there was enuf light coming from the moon, etc Its a fact wc you inferred from anthr fact

Ex) Ppl v Molas: wounds of a person o Judge presumed that the victim was under the consciousness of impending death o Dsnt follow that if youre bleeding profusely youre under consciousness of death o But based on the # of wounds, etc = judge presumed this Presumptions of fact are inferred frm other facts The fact from wc the inference will follow shld be really sure, can be justified Its not in the law bec comes from common experience of humans Refer to everyday = details of life Theyre logical Ex) room w 2 ppl in it, gunshot heard o Some1 came out, some1 outside the hse saw that person come out & the 1 who left is dead & the 1 who left was carrying a gun & the victim died of a gunshot wound o What can you infer? That the 1 who left killed the other But can it be suicide? Yes Its so down to earth that it cant be generalized Rem that habits of life changes w eras o Thus, presumptions of fact may later become presumptions of law o Ex) b4 Napoleon wld put his hand behind his back when posing but 2day, when a guy poses they their hands in their pockets (no pockets b4) Regalado quoting Blackstone who was talking in his milieu: presumptions of law are reduced to fixed rules & form part of the sys of jurisprudence o If defined presumptions of law as defined by Blackstone, then all decisions will be presumptions of law! o In common law J, judges invent = they create law as they decide o States in US have their own Cts (some decided by jury, some by judges) If its the judge: he creates man made law They make laws as they go along The judge analyzes & comes to a conclusion, but sometimes, youll see that hes not referring to any statute but is referring to precedent Bec there are many areas where there are no statutes (ex. in family relations) If jury: its created bec its recorded but theres no explanation Restatements: those are just compilations Theyre just models wc can be enacted into law Real law for them is the US code Unlike in civil law sys: theres a civil code o But in our milieu presumptions of law refer to those written in the law

In our J: theres a decision wc explains the facts & explains the law *presumptions form so much a part of our lives, but we jst dont know it *presumptions are very impt o Bec if all else fails or if its difficult to gather evidence = you can rely on these presumptions o Only 3 sits when dnt need E: admissions, JN, res ipsa loquitor If these 3 sits arent present, you can rely on presumptions

S2: CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS Based on Estoppel in Pais (act) o *others: estoppel in record (judgment); estoppel by deed (docum) Deed: means contract Judgment: judgment of a Ct There are only 2 conclusive presumptions S2a: good rule? Yes o Ex) contracted w some1 but there was a misrepresentation At that time, you blvd & ddnt know it was a misrepresentation Wo the law, then he can get away from the misrepresentation he made/did o Wo the law, wil you allow a person to change his act, declaration or omission? NO, bec its unfair o Rule is based on basic fairness o Estoppel: is a doctrine that evolved Is stare decisis the same as res judicata? No Is stare decisis the same as estoppel? No So whats the value of stare decisis? o Its persuasive to the Ct to judge in a similar manner o So that theres stability, basis to predict o Its a guide S2b: landlord-tenant relationship o Ex) Complaint for ejectment unlawful detainer Complainant says: lease is over but youre still there so get out Defense: hello? Im the ownerddnt you know youre just an heir & b4 your dad sold it to me Can the atty say motion to strike out!?!

Is this how it works?

S3: DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS Negre v Kabahug: said it was maritime alrdyeven if it was on a voyage, just tied to the wharf, its maritime alrdy o In relation to s3(w1) Count the 4 yrs from the date the vessel or aircraft was missing Not from the date the person went missing o S3(w2): includes volunteers, journalists, etc = so long as you participated or took part in the war Bec its for the purpose of presuming the person dead only Bec theyre all in the middle of the chaos/gulo o S3(w3): 4 yrs is counted frm the last known in existence

Ex) mountain climber: and no1 has heard of him for 4 yrs Bec understood that after a certain pd of time, you wont survive in the mountain Dsnt apply to tropical jungles (bec theres food, etc) Other circums: there shld be danger of death o S3(w4): shld be belief of death not desire S3(jj): refers to 2 persons only o *But if more than 2, maybe you can apply it successively

hindi ko akalain eh not an excuse o Under the normal course of things, if thats what you did, then youre liable

S3(e): wrt a litigation scenario Useful in litigation

1st characterization of presumptions: good faith Seems the intendment of the law is that in absence of proof, then theres GF There are reasons for this in the ordinary course of life, its more reasonable to presume these things, than unreasonable S3(a): person presumed innoncent of crime or wrong So if theres anyone imputing, he has the burden of proof If presumed innocent, then why put him in jail b4 proven guilty? o Probable cause pa lng, theres alrdy a WOA, so alrdy put in jail if he has no money, no lawyer, can be stuck in jail o No conviction after trial, but alrdy served time in jail, but acquitted but he served time alrdy o For bailable crimes: only reason youre not free, is bec you dont have money for bail so youre stuck in jail, yet youre presumed innoncent = how do you reconcile this? Recognizance: only if the crime is small not available to everyone Why shld you even spend 1 day in jail, if youre presumed innoncent? o So youre not really presumed innoncent bec youre alrdy put in jail! Reconciliation: you arent really innoncent anymore, bec theres alrdy probable cause o Theres enough evidence & thus, society alrdy has a right to incarcerate you o Then after trail, if theres enuf E, w more reason to be put in jail o But presumed innoncent in the sense that you can appeal, file for bail, etc o So basicallyyoure not that innoncent Other provs: D, L, M, N, P, Q, R, S, T, X, AA, FF, II, S3(U): shows common sense Bec it presumes sanity So in the absence of any motive, youre presumed to be sane More abt regularity, sanity, not GF S3(x): theres specific law or fact invovled S3(c): that a person intends the ordinary consequences of hs voluntary act You know what youre doing The normal effect of youre act mustve been known to you Refers more to the civil situation (s3b refers Whats the consequence of this presumption? o Its a rule of presumed liability

How do you show that the other party was suppressing something how do you show suppression in the 1st place? o Discovery procedures o From an examination of the facts Ex) Air France: Co cldve easily produced the purser to dispute the E of Carrascoso, but they ddnt = so common sense, that probably suppressing it When suppress E, then its reasonable to assume that itll be unfavorable to you o Bec the normal & usual instinct is survival & self-preservation Exceptions: self-imolation o General tendency of mankind is self-preservation *Human nature is the basis of most presumptions But if you have a right to be q uiet: cant use this presumption against you theres no waiver Reqs: o E is material o Party had an opp to produce the same o E is available to 1 party

2nd characterization: Regularity Ppl who have no motive, who are dng things ordinarly bec its their duty then they have no motive, its regular In presumptions, its not just no motive but its prima facie accurate Ex) entry in official records o Shows us that theres good reason to believe it o Unless you wanna impute it youll have to present evidence Bec presumption is in favor of the pub ofcr

Ppl v Dela Cruz o Priest in a hse & left the hse, except that the jeep of the cop was there, barring his way o So priest when to the cop & asked him to move so he cld leave o Cop was in a bad mood & shot the priest neighbor saw o Neighbor said the cop shot the priest o Investigating team arrived: entered into the police report (res gestae) admissible, convicted Provs wc spell regularity:

S3(K, L)

S3(k): usually pertains to an inst o NI: boe/check bec the PEE/C of the check, wont usually part w it/surrendered it unless hes been paid, bec its his E of being paid or not *presumption that ppl are sane: this is a very crucial presumption

Intl Sch case: for IS to say this ___, wld be adding insult to injury

What was insulting was that: IS was saying that the local hires shld prove theyre dng as much & as good as the foreigners Local hires have the burden of proof Ct: the presumption is that youre dng the same wrk, if youre putting the burden of proof on them, then youre alrdy discriminating them & adding insult to inj! Bec IS was saying they shld have the burden of proving discrimination = so adding insult to inj

Human nature/Common sense: S3(F, G, I, K) Bec wldnt have dne these things if there was no reason for such Borje v Sandiganbayan: Ct: For an inference to arise, the fact from wc it is based must be proven to be present/there Regalado: an inference cant arise if the fact from wc its based s not estabd from the record o This is the basis of the Ct in saying that the presumption of: if a person is in possession of a thing taken in the dng of a recent wrongful act is the taker & the doer of the whole act dsnt apply Was the Ct correct? o No, rationale of the Ct is wrong/misleading o Ct sd, for an inference to arise, the fact on wc its based shld be estabd Ct said the fact frm wc the presumption shld result hasnt been estabd, what is the fact not proved? Possession That there wasa recent wrongful act And during that wrongful act, something was taken This dsnt apply bec nothing was taken!!! Ct was applying the rationale in the wrong way, bec while the doctrine is correct, yet here, he was applying the rationale to the falsification He was saying that there was no falsification in the 1st place = but thats not the fact that shldve been proved Ws there a recent wrongful act? Yes but was there a taking? No Presumption shows that theres a crime DURING WC theres a taking Ex of a recent wrongful act: Cant be robbery bec the crime itself here is the taking itself Ex) rape case: accused after the rape, tk the clothes of the victim Ex) All the presumption wants is that youre in possession of the thing Bec the logic is, why is it w you if you werent invovled in the crime There was falsciation, but there was not taking Thus, the rationale of the Ct was wrong The wrong presumption ws being applied to the facts and the presumption had not application at all in this case

Capili Clear that its res ipsa loquitor Reqs: o Accident was of such charac as to warrant an ineference that it wldnt have happened except for the defs neg there shld be facts from wc you can make the inference what were the facts frm wc you can infer that the tort happened? o The tree was dead/rotten Wldnt have fallen if this wasnt so o Loacated in such a way that if it fell, it cld fall on a child o Accident must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality w/in the exclusive mgmnt or control of the person charged w the neg complained of Exclusive control Ex) doctrine of attractive nuisance (pools) o Accident not due to any voluntary axn or contribution on the part of the person injured Its not the proximate cause There shld be no contributory neg It shld be exclusively the fault of the other person Addtl proof isnt necessary bec the facts speaks for themselves Oct 2 Payment of money Ex) 1 person handed money to anthr & said oh! Bayad para sa jan o We interpreted this as part of res gestae as a statement wc will explain an equivocal act related to the issue It may be admissible but not necessarily true May be admissible but not necessarily credible o Is there any presumption wc will add to clarify this? o S3(f) money paid by 1 to anthr is due Is there any presumption that an amnt shall cover interest w the principal? o CC A1176: this is a rule & not a presumption The rcpt of the principal by the C, wo reservation wrt the interest, shall give rise to the presumption that sd interest has been paid. Basis of this is A1253 CC: if a debt produces interest, then payment of the principal isnt deemed paid until interests are paid Payment for interest shld be expressly stipd in writing so verbal agreement on interest isnt allowed o There is a presumption wc is based on this rule = s3(i) What is the rule when damages are to be paid in a K to pay money? o Under law on damages o If no stip = damages wrt the oblig to payment will be the interest stipd on the damages granted will be considered interest if theres no interest at all the theres leg interest is there any rule on res judicata in R131?

o o

o o o

S3(o): that all matters w/in an issue raised in a case were laid b4 the Ct and passed upon by it; and in like manner that all matters w/in an issue raised a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid b4 the arbitrators & passed upon by them o This is part of res judicata wc part? A, b, or c? A) in rem axns B) in personam axns In other cases, C) o It refers to ltr B Is there anything in the rules on presumptions wc can be used in reformation of a K, wc can characterize a K as an equitable M rather than a pacto de retro sale? o Pacto de retro: title has passed & you can redeem o Equitable mortgage: until you foreclose, title dsnt transfer o Can you use s3(f) dat money paid was due to the latter? o In the CC, there are many indicia of an equitable M o Ex) gross inadequacy of price, possession retained by the vendor, portion of the money is retained (if the vendor sells prop & money is paid by the vendee all of it shld be given to the vendor; but in EM part of the amnt is retained by the vendee bec its considered interest bec its a loan w EM) Can 1 of the parties invoke the presumption in s3(f)? who will invoke it? the vendee or the vendor/creditor? The vendor/creditor bec he wants to prove that its a purchase price bec he wants to show that it was sold & wsnt a loan? Its the def who wants to prove the presumption is applicable? Vendor: usually really the mortgagor, in return for a loan Vendee: the one who gives the loan So the vendee isnt really the vendee but the creditor who lent the money Def wants to prove its really a sale, not a loan Thus, can you use the presumption for the def? to show that it was a sale & not a loan? Vendee will invoke this look, the money I gave is presumed to be payment bec of the presumption & not a loan Ex) B sold to A; A paid to B B is saying its not a sale, but a mortgage; A what you gave me wsnt payment but a loan B: mortgagor/debtor A: mortgagee/creditor And theres a rcpt that money changed hands from 1 to anthr Rcpt will say payment bec this is what they want to appear But P who wants a reformation of the K no, the rcpt is wrong is there any place for the presumption? We have a presumption that money paid by 1 to anthr is presumed to be due to the latter

Here, money changed hands from A to B B is saying its a loan, A dsnt have title bec he has to foreclose 1st b4 he gets title So A/def is saying no its a purchase price, I have title, B can only redeem its a sale w a right to repurchase Can A use the presumption then?

No, bec in using the presumption hes alrdy stating that theres alrdy payment

o o

The characterization that the money changed hands is alrdy the lis mota here The moment theres money given as payment then the presumption arises that the payment was due Unless you estab that theres payment, only then ds the presumption arises And in this example, the issue is precisely was there payment? = wc is why the presumption dsnt apply o In the presumption, the fact is that money was alrdy paid The presumption applies only when money is alrdy deemed paid It rests on the estabd fact that there was payment of money, not just an exchange of hands If judge cites US cases, whether Centennial digests or US SC reports or state reports in an order or resolution is this enough? o Do the parties need to present E that theres such a report that exists? o If its from a published book wc purports to be a report of cases, its presumed that such is a correct statement of the case s3(hh) o What abt JN? It can be taken JN of under s2, R129 o Wc is a btr basis? JN rather thant he presumption o What if theres a Q by the other side, wrt accuracy & not existence? Then you can use the presumption in s3(hh) if it came from a published book In terms of accuracy, you can rely on this presumption o So is it necessary that its foreign? No, can include the phils Is there a presumption re official publications of foreign countries? o S3(gg): ds this include foreign ofcl publications? o Bec the presumption jst states that its published by pub auth o Is there any other basis under the ROE?

R132, s19 - Pub docums are: the written ofcl acts, or records of the ofcl acts of the sovereign auth, ofcl bodies & tribunals, & pub ofcrs whether of the Phils or of a foreign country Bec pub docums include pub foreign docums

Ex) A 45 yr old dad (F) & his 14 yr old daughter (D) died in a plane crash together o GF(lolo) claims hes entitled to the billions of F to the exclusion of the husband of D o GF claims: D can be presumed to have died 1st o S3(jj) is irrelevant this dsnt apply bec it dsnt apply for purposes of succession

And whats in Q is here is whether the GF can succeed F, bec S died 1st But is this a Q of succession or survivorship?

There are also presumptions in the FC where theres only 1 marriage

Ex) GF as to GD/F (dad) is 55, D (daughter) is 30 & GD (granddaughter) is 12 o D has a husband (H) o D & GD died in a plane crash o So GF & H is fighting over the millions of D o If D was alive, GF wld cancel out bec parent dsnt concur w the child But a sps concurs w a child o If D is dead & GD is alive what happens? GD has wealth of her own frm ninong/ninang GD will cancel out GF/the parent of D; but will concur w the H/her dad o S3(jj) isnt relevant It is an issue of survivorship, but since succession is the ultimate factum probandum, then (jj) cant apply o Thus, s3(kk) is the 1 wc applies Whoever alleges the death of 1 shld prove it S3(jj) is abt survivorship S3(kk) is abt simultaneity Is there anything in r131 wc relates to r13 re: service of pleadings? o Service: personal, by registered mail, or ordinary mail

FC provs presumption of law bec its stated in the law (statute, consti, rules, etc) o Kids born 180 b4 marriage are presumed legit in FC If H b4 the M knew abt the pregnancy He recogd the child passively or expressly He consented to put his name on the birth cert *conclusive presumption o Other presumption: of illegitimacy (A166 FC knw this prov) Legitimacy of a child cant be impugned except on the ff grounds: If physically impossibility of the H having access of to the W w/in the 1st 120 dys of the 300 dys immediately preceeding the birth of the child o Why? Bec the pd of conception shld be taken into accnt o Pd of conception: 300 dys (10mos)is the gestation pf of the mom o 120 dys (4mos): pd wc can be reasonably thought of that the couple had sex So this is the 4mos out of the 10mos 9 mos for pregnancy So 4 mos out of 9 why 4? The min # of mos for a child to live is 6mos o In case it tk 10mos for the child to be born pasok pa din! Bec the baby wld be 6mos old when its delivered o So be careful o Are these conclusive presumptions? No, there can be E to the contrary They only tell you when E is admissible to impugn legitimacy back to s3(dd): refers to 2 marraiges S3(dd): M1 -------- M2 ------------ 180 dys ------------ 300 dys ----------A B C May 30 june 30 A255 CC A166 FC 180 dys ------------------------------------------ 300 dys 180 dys ---------- june 30

Presumption in r13, s10 is: mail is rcvd = If ordinary mail, w/in 10 dys after mailed

If registered mail, w/in 5 dys from rcpt of 1st notice from the postmaster *If not rcvd, its deemed counted from the notice that is actually rcvd Stated in Barramenda v Castillo Presumption wc applies is s3(v): a ltr duly directed & mail was rcvd in the reg course of the mail Can 1really rely on this for purposes of pleadings?

Dsnt r13 req proof of service? And proof of service of registred mail is an affidavit & registry rcpt & registry return card

Thus, s3(v) CANT be used for service of pleadings Presumptions dnt seem to apply to service of pleadings bec the reqs of R13 Probably that the law has been followed or that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns o So who has the onus probandi (burden of proof) in service of pleadings? On the person who sent it Presumption of legitimacy in A259 CC wc is a presumption for paternity was reproduced in the FC (A186) o *dnt take the presumptions in R131 alone take it together w the FC & CC bec it wont be complete if you dont o S3(dd): this presumption has to do w 2 marriages

A is considered born during the 1st marriage why?

If born may 30 (go backwads), the conception wld have to have been conceived 6mos back = wc is obviously during the 1st marriage

If born june 30, 9mos/norma conception it wld still born at the 1st marriage B & C is considered born during the 2nd marriage

If born after 180 dys, its obviously from the 2nd marriage Rem A12 CC bec need to reconcile this o A12: custom must be proved as a fact o Can the Ct take JN of custom as part of pub knowledge? Or will it clash w A12 CC o Custom vary from 1 place to anthr

R132: Presentation of Evidence A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES (s1-18) S1: must be in open Ct & under oath or affirmation W is incapacitated: o Not only in terms of speaking, bec he may be reqd to demonstrate Diff mode of answer: o Demonstration o W asked to pt to who did the crime S2: if answer is written it must be recorded even if not given verbally How? Atty can state that be it stated on record that the W is writing his answer & is writing o Counsel can manifest & other counsel can object if the manifestation is wrong Judge can make it of record

Shorthand: may be a study but it varies per person (its by the sounds of the word that the symbols are made) & how ds the stenographer know the meaning? Thru contenxt Ex) I feel the pain Feel embodied in a stroke, either acdg to the meaning fill or feel Ones is the same as once So it depends on how the stenographer understands it There are just strokes taught to them & they write accdg to what they understood So if the stenographer is dead & you ddnt ask for a transcript, then you wont understand it anymore & no1 will be able to understand it Youll have to take the testi agn

Stenotyping: machine wc also uses symbols o But its typed not written o Refers to several words w 1 symbol only or 1 word = 1 symbol Shorthand: refers to a process of writing in symbols known to the person whos writing o Its a study/course wc ppl have to undergo training for Any other mode of recording: like what? o If Ct consents that it be recorded by tape recorders or video recording o Photographs: ex) W pointing to the accsued thru a photo o Tape recorder: Ct wnt recog this as official Coz they only consider the transcript as official So if want the tape recorder to be official, youll have to move to have it considered official If not, the stenographer will just claim its used as a guide Ct usually wont have the parties to have their own recordings Bec the effect of a transcript, certified by the stenographer, is deemed prima facie a correct statement by him It has prima facie probabtive value Its binding to its extent upon the Ct Wc is btr? Stenotyping or shorthand? o Stenotyping bec it uses uniform symbols whereas in shorthand the stenographer who wrote it is the only 1 who understands it so no1 can understand it until he transcribes it

S3: refers to rights & obligs of a witness 5 rights listed Examination is diff from giving an answer o Not to be examined: W cant be asked at all o Not to give an answer: may be asked, but W has a right not to answer S3(4) refers to the right against self-incrimination o unless the law otherwise provides refers to immunity statutes o Ex) cases of bribery & graft or in cases forefeiture of unlawfully acquired prop o Are we saying the law negates ones right to self-incrimination? o Theres a leg prov that will exempt him/will protect him from incrimination o W will be allowed to be examined & it wont incriminate him bec the law will exempt him from crim prosecution o Ex) when theres an agreement for compromise PCGG is allowed to enter into stips w witnesses Tax laws S3(5) refers to the right against self-degradation o Exceptions: must be to the very fact in issue/the lis mota o Ex) if the W (married woman) is being asked abt his affair w anthr man if such matter isnt relevant to the issue in the case or is merely cumulative or corroborative or is a collateral fact, circumstantial, not the very lis mota o BUT he must answer to a previous final conviction why? Is this absolute & automatic? NO, dnt take it absolutely Only ans to a previous final conviction if itll reflect on the charac of the W wc is relevant on to the case Not objectionable on RIAA Related more to charac E S3(1): meaning of improper Leading or misleading questions S4: order in the examination of witnesses Stages of examination in the whole case:

o Evidence in chief o Defense or defendant evidence o Rebuttal o Sur Rebuttal Refers to stages of examination of witness, not to whole trial *procedure: Plaintiff E-in-chief W1 (dir exam [examination in chief], cross ex, re-direct ex, re-cross) W2 W3 *this same procedure applies to the defendant


Youre inserting the things wc the proponent missed out during the direct examination If the atty forgot to ask certain things, the proponent might want to smuggle in/fill the void thru re-direct

If the other party isnt aware of this (asleep!), its easy no objections! Otherwise, its objectionable bec only allowed in the discretion of the Ct bec its properly part of direct examination If the other party objects, ask the Ct to allow it & justify it o Ex) if its a new devt (ddnt touch on it bec its a new matter)

Proponent: may refer to the P or def depending on the stage of the trial o Its the party presenting/calling the witness

S5: Direct Examination Examination in chief of a witness on facts relevant to the issue S6: Cross-examination or connected therewith o Ex) case for collection

(1st W of the P) Agent testifies that he delivered the money to the def = this is the examination in chief Who, when, whyetc Examination-in-chief = he told his story Defense wants to estab that its not a loan but a donation Can you cross the agent on the topic of donation? Yes, this refers to to elicit all impt facts bearing upon the issue

S8: Re-cross Can also ask Q on matters not in re-direct examination discretion of the Ct o Whats the diff of this w re-direct? Can you also justify here? Yes Its limited to matters on re-direct o Cant raise matters raised in the direct examination o Bec this shldve been raised during cross But if missed out on something, may try to smuggle it in o If other side objects, justify so Ct will allow it Justify: for the sake of justice/avoid a miscarriage of justice Bec the Purpose/extent of re-cross is still the same of cross: to arrive at the truth S9: recalling a witness The Ct can object/may choose not to allow it why? Presumed that s4 has been finished/terminated o Everything to be asked has been asked! A witness testi starts w exam-in-chief/direct & the other party may want to cross o Is cross compulsory? No, opponent can waive (such as if everything that was said was irrelevant & of no value) o If no cross, obviously, no re-direct o Cross, re-direct, re-cross ISNT COMPULSORY o When the entire s4 is finished = then the witness is done, can recall him Cant recall the witness, bec therell be no end to the presentation of the witness o Unless you have impt reasons for such S10: Leading & Misleading Questions

Issue is raised in the pleadings & in the pre-trial order If there are diff lawyers & the clients have diff defenses, can 1 atty ask abt something in relation to the defnse of anthr client w its own laywer o Insofar as itll attack the credibility, etc possible? YES o Coz the rule says W sufficient fullness & freedom to test his accuracy, truthfulness So Cross-ex can touch on ANYTHING bec its so broad

S7: Re-direct Youre explaining, rehabilitating the testi of the witness o You want the W to supplement his answers on direct & rehabilitate his testi incase the Ct misinterpreted him o To shed light & explain prior inconsistencies Ds the rule mean hes limited only to the cross? o No, bec of the 2nd/last par = questions not dealt w in cross-ex may be allowed in the discretion of the Ct If not on matters not dealt w in the cross-ex what will youre Qs in re-direct be abt? o Youre no longer rehabilitating here, youre actually inserting smthn else what is this?

Leading Qs: refers to the examiner who is the proponent o Equivalent of coaching bec the proponent gives a hint/leads the W by making his Qs pregnant contains the ans or a hint of the ans Misleading Qs: refers to the opponent

S11: impeachment of an adverse partys witness W may be impeached by the opponent Impeach: impeaching the credibility of the W

o To impeach a W, means you impeach the credibility of the W Impeach thru: o Contradictory evidence o That his rep for truth, honesty or integrity is bad Show some1 who knows that he has a common reputation wc is bad o Prior inconsistent statements o NOT by E of particular wrongful acts Can impeach the witness of the other party o Ex) youre the proponent, you call the witness of the other party/adverse party in cross the atty of the W will be the 1 who will cross him

S12: cant impeach your own witness Why? Bec youre presenting him to the Ct to estab your case o If youre impeaching him then youre saying disregard what he said so youre basically wasting the time of the Ct You present a W & the presumption is that theyll testify in your favor Hostile/adverse W: o Declared by the Ct o Reqs: Has an adverse interest Unjustified reluctance to testify Misled the party into calling him to the witness stand o Adverse party who he misled: refers to the opponent How? By making such party blve hell testify on a fact wc will be favorable to him, but instead he ds the opposite Turns out that hes really an adversarial witness hes not favoring the case of the proponent (classic case of betrayal) Proponent never thot that what the W wld betray him Elem of ____ is very impt Can be impeached as if he was called by the other party, except as to his bad moral charac o In direct exam W may be impeached in all respects as if he wa called by the other party What can you do to impeach him? o Contradictory E o Prior inconsistent statements o Reputation for truth, honesty & integrity is bad *in other words, youre allowed to do cross-examination on him (s6) all impt facts bearing relevance to the issue as if he were in cross Theres an exception wrt an adverse/hostile W: o Cant be impeached by E of his bad charac This isnt the same as bad reputation for truth, honesty & integrity If we consider THI as part of what is good Bad charac = this is broader Then THI is merely part of bad charac Ds this mean that its an adverse W whose infront of you, ds this mean that you cant impeach wrt THI whether its thru reputation or particular wrongful acts bec itll go to charac?

Ordinary W: you can destroy his reputation But if adverse party: not allowed to destroy his reputation why? o Bec of prejudice o A party is a party hes not just a W hes a party to the case Emanates from the sense of the jury sys o Thus, if you destroy his charac, then the jury may be so prejudiced against the charac of the party they may decided not bec of the merits of the case but bec of the bias/charac of the party May be impeached & cross-ex by the adverse party but the cross-ex is limited to the subj matter of the examination-in-chief = why? o The 1 who called the party is the opponent, in cross the lawyer of the W is gng to cross-examine him so why the limitation? o Bec being an adverse party, his testi is unfavortable to the proponent & may be favorable to the opponent o If not limited on cross-ex, in effect, theyre alrdy presenting examination in chief o When you call him, technically its exam in chief but since adverse party youre allowed to impeach so youre actually dng cross o So when his atty Qs him hes actually dng re-direct Thus, needs to be limited to cross if not, hes dng direct again Do it during your turn, but not at this stage

S13: impeaching a W thru prior inconsistent statements This entire procedure is called LAYING THE PREDICATE o Is this the same as qualifying the W? no, bec in qualifying the W youre showing that the W is qualified to testify o But they both refer to setting a foundation o You have to lay the foundation S14: E of good charac of the W

Was referred to in R130, s51(c) charac E

S15: exclusion & separation of W Anthr rule wc has to do w the jury sys o Bec in this sys, the jury is sequestered sep from the pub in gen o This happens in cases of great importance/case of great import o But rare bec its very expensive bec theyre placed in a hotel w free food, lodging, allowance everyday

This is why in the US, they have their trials continuously Here, rule dsnt have as much impact bec we dnt sequester W Even if the Ct excludes the W, it dsnt really matter much bec later they can confer w each other

S16: memorandum Discussed in Borromeo v CA


Properly, it cldve been a basis bt the Ct ws saying that if ever itll be considered as part of the testi, its only circumstantial E o

May be 2 things: o Part of 1s testimony; or o be indep documentary E 1st sit: W has a recollection = revival of present memory o Presenting it as part of your testi o It rises or falls w your testi o Bec you rem it, just need it to refresh 2nd sit: W has no recollection = revival of past recollection o Theres absolutely no recollection of the contents o All the W remembers is that he wrote it o The testi is limited to that he wrote it but cant testify as to its contents bec dsnt rem at all o The contents dnt depend on your testi itll rise or fall by itself

Record of written ofcl acts or records of the ofcl acts of the sovereign auth, ofcl bodies & tribunals, & pub ofcrs whether of the Phils or of a foreign country Pub docum: defnd in s19 Written ofcl acts or records of the ofcl acts of the sovereign auth, ofcl bodies & tribunals, & pub ofcrs whether of the Phils or of a foreign country Docums acknowledged b4 a notary pub (except last wills & testaments) Pub records in the phils of priv docums wc are reqd by the law to be entered therein

S20 proof of a priv docum S21 E of authenticity of a priv docum not necessary; ancient docum rule S22: proof of genuineness of handwriting There are 3 bases of proof: o Actually saw o Seen actual writings o Comparison of 1 writing w anthr writing Compared w writings or treated as genuine by the party against whom its offered Compared w writings proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge (proved genuine accdg to the Ct) S23: pub docums as E Related to s44, r130 Date: refers to the date of the execution S24: proof of ofcl records

S17: part of transaxn, writing or record given in E, the remainder is admissible You can inquire as to its contents & any other part of the whole transaxn & have it presented in E Its part of presentation of E Then & there you can demand bec its a right Ex) if in cross you can demand all parts of the transaxn to be presented in Ct bec you want to examine such (so can ask for its presentation) S18: Esp if authenticity is part of the issue The moment the other party shows anthr docum you immediately can approach the W & inspect such No sidebar here (approaching the bench) in the phils, bec no jury B. AUTHENTICATION & PROOF OF DOCUMENTS S19 & s20 Authentication: fact of attesting to the truth, due execution & genuineness of a docum Do all docums req authentication & proof? o Construe it in relation w s20 o No, s20 states that some priv docums need only be identified as that wc it claimed to be If being offered as authentic 2 reqs: proved by o 1 who saw the docum executed or written o E of the genuineness of the sig or handwriting of the mkr If not being offered as authentic o It need only be identified as what it is claimed to be Needs to be authenticated: o All priv docums offered as authentic Thus, all pub docums dnt need to be authenticated? Yes Offcl record v pub docum: o Offcl record: defnd in s24

Refers to written ofcl acts & records of ofcl acts (s19a) Do the offices always have a seal? o Any pub ofcr in foreign service has a seal? NO o authenticated by the seal of his office

S25: what attestation of copy must state S26: irremovability of pub record Oct 4 For the doctrine that you do not need to authenticate notarial documents, see Sy Chua v. CA, GR No. 88383, Feb. 19, 1992

S26 irremovability S27: pub rec of a priv docu R132, s28: proof of lack of record o What is the certificate referred to? Certificate that the officer has custody R132, s29 o How many grounds? 3 want of jurisdiction, collusion and fraud Laying the predicate (discussed in the Hashim case) o What do you understand by laying the predicate?

3 ways of impeaching an ordinary witness contradictory evidence, prior inconsistent statements, general reputation that his honesty, integrity and truthfulness is bad exception: prior wrongful acts exception to the exception: witness must admit to a previous final conviction of a wrongful act o Impeaching unwilling, hostile witness, or adverse party Bad moral character o A clarification of the rule thats not in the rule, but yet is very important. o Impeaching means attacking the credibility of a witness, period. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case. o At what stage are you in the trial when the adverse party presents contradictory evidence? Through your own witnesses at the stage next to the stage you are contesting. o In cross examination, counsel may lead the witness. Ex. Is it not true that you were in Kidapawan at the time the crime was committed? o Rebuttal and sur-rebuttal can be waived. o equipoise o Can general reputation also be attacked by cross-examination? No, it can be done also at the stage next to the stage that you are contesting. o Content and manner of reputation (R130, s41) Ex. Witness can be presented to show that, for example, in their town, accused A has this and that reputation. o The rule does not speak of relevance, but it is actually relevant. o You are not proving the merits of your case. o Are alternative defenses available in criminal cases? No. Ex. Its either I was there or I was somewhere else. If it can be proven that I was there, then I was there. o Capili v. Cardana res ipsa loquitur o Give a situation where you are only impeaching a witness and not proving the merits of your case. Ysmael v. Hashim o Does the case have a connection with the merits of the case or does it involve purely impeaching? o The court gave the ruling in just a few sentences, but it was a very important rule. What is that ruling? o What Gorayeb wanted the court to admit were the testimonies of 3 witnesses Naguib, A. Hashim and Hemady given in a previous case, in order to impeach their present testimony on the ground that they were conflicting. o Gorayeb is saying that the plaintiffs and her husband were relatives, and were now conspiring against her together with the defendants. Why did Gorayeb suspect this? o

1st COA: direct loan secured by a chattel mortgage (Naguib owes Ysmael) Naguib readily admitted the indebtedness. Why should the defendant do this? Does this not make it suspicious? This led Gorayeb to suspect that defendants and plaintiffs were in cahoots to deprive her of her alimony The admission will mean that all creditors will be paid off and there is a chance that nothing will be left to Gorayeb. o Court: This is not admissible because you did not lay the predicate. In what sense did the court say that Gorayeb did not lay the predicate in order for these 3 testimonies to be admissible? She did not give them an opportunity to explain their prior inconsistent statements. The previous inconsistent statements must be related together with the circumstances of that time, place and persons, and the witness must be given the opportunity to explain the statements. You have to relate that because you are laying the basis / the foundation for proving the prior inconsistencies. If everything was admitted, you dont have to identify. laying the predicate is giving the other party a chance. o When do you lay the predicate? During the cross-examination. So that you can introduce the PIS during the next stage when it is your turn to present evidence, just like contradictory evidence. o Gorayeb failed to lay the predicate. The adverse party should have objected at the time that the transcript was presented. o Court: If it was introduced as admissions of the party, then predicate need not be laid. The one sitting down is a witness and a party. If the witness was saying something contradictory to the testimony and someone overheard it, can you present contradictory evidence without laying the predicate? When you present evidence contradictory to the one made before by the witness, does it mean you are impeaching him? If you are to introduce the contradictory evidence to bolster your evidence, do you have to lay the predicate? No. If the evidence in effect impeaches the witness, do you have to lay the predicate? o Rule in this case is that o Admission is a technical term. The ct was referring to R130S26. If the testimony was introduced as admissions under R130S26, they would have been admitted as declarations against interest and laying the predicated is not needed anymore.

o If party, it would have been admitted as declarations against interest admissible under R130S26 and therefore there is no need to lay the predicate. o The declaration against the interest of a witness to come in despite the hearsay rule is that the witness is dead or unable to testify. If it is a party, you can introduce the testimony whether dead or alive. o This rule is an extension of admissions. How do you know when it is preliminary or x? When you are developing you case. Even if at the end of the case but referring to the beginning of the story, still preliminary. If there is basis for one leading to another, it is not leading. If it is done gradually, logically, it is not leading. (Bit x bit) That leading questions are answerable by yes or no. Inaccurate. Not all leading questions are answerable by yes or no. Misleading assumes as true, or contrary to. o X allowed in x-exam and direct exam FIGUEARAS v. SERRANO o Conclusion of the court in this case is what S16 is all about. o Are you convinced by the conclusion of the court? Why? Yes. The doctor who made the entries did not testify. The first 2 exhibits, the persons who made the entries did not testify. They are hearsay. PEOPLE v. ODENCIO o Imagine that the policeman did not testify but the doc is presented and offered. What will happen? It wouldnt be admissible. There would have to be the testimony of the policeman in order to be included under dying declaration bec the policeman is the one who was conferred to by the dying man. o If admitted in the pre-trial, the objection would have been deemed waived, there was no signature. o If there was no memo, would it be admissible as dying declaration? Yes. Why is there a need to characterize the doc as memorandum? The testimony would have been admissible as dying declaration, but the docu was not signed, therefore, it should have been admitted as part of the testimony as memorandum. HEIRS OF LACSA v. CA o Extrajudicial partition was in Pampango. o Who presented the deed of absolute sale in court? Jesus Cruz o R130.21 was not followed since it was not a public officer who identified the documents. But the 3 requistes are there, so followed pa rin. More than 30 yrs Produced from the custody of the registry of deeds. [Technically speaking was not complied with. Should have been the custodian who presented that it was a certified true copy] It was a certified true copy. Who provided the certification? Jesus Cruz. o Very dangerous accdg to maam. But she thinks that there are other considerations since the other partys

evidence are oral and the other partys are written and therefore will believe the written evidence even if there is error in the presentation. If you are presenting the old certified true copy, the one who is going to attest to the document is the present legal custodian of the documents. Would only be proper for presentation if there was a certification by the legal custodian. o The deed of sale was a notarial document, a pub doc falling under S19B. and S30 would apply. o Can prove the document 2 ways. As notarial document under S30 or subpoena the custodian under S27. Ancient document rule should properly be applied only to private documents. S19c considers a deed of sale to be a private document to be filed with the register of deeds since it is required to be notarized, then it is a notarial document. It has duel character. PAREL v. PRUDENCIO o All is says is that all must be offered in evidence. o SPA identified during the trial was not considered by the court bec there was no formal offer of evidence. o Gives a nice example of burden of evidence. Burden of evidence shifts the burden of proof doesnt Judicial notice in this case the amt of rent even if the trial court didnt consider. IN RE DELGADO o Court relied on the presumption that man and woman living together are presumed to be husband and wife. Gotten from the ff facts Lived as husband and wife for 15 years accdg to family, relatives and neighbors POV of neighbors common reputation POV of family tradition o Newspaper clipping hearsay BAUTISTA v. SARMIENTO o Crim case w pilosopo argument the accused is saying that the case should now be dismissed since the weight of evidence established at that pt is prima facie found in the order of the court denying the demurrer Misleading bec prima facie use was that at this point of time the burden of evidence shifts to you but not as to the weight of the evidence. If the defense presents evidence to match the evidence matching the prosecution, the accused should be acquitted. Dsnt even have to overcome, matching is enough. ABARQUEZ o Gives a detailed description of the equipoise rule. o Equally possible interpretation of the same facts, same view so that there is equipoise, acquit the accused. RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

An electronic docu Rule 2h o Representation of info, date, figures, words, symbols/other means of written expression, produced, stored, sent, transmitted, rcved, etc electronically, optically/by similar Not pics emailed: orig readably by sight/other means Corresponds to defn of docu in ROC written, not painted/anything else S2: copies as equiv of origs: 2/more copies w/ identical contents/counterpart produced by the same impression/matrix/elec rerecording/chem. prodn, etc. How produced: although by way of copies = orig R3S1: writing, recording, docum/memo o should be expanded to include electronic evidence s2: Electronic evidence is admissibleprovided complies w: o the Rules of court and other laws; and

Authenticated in the manner provided under the rules on electronic evidence

Privileged communication R3S3: not lost solely on the basis that its elec E o Solely is the most impt word in this rule o Eg. If the client of a lawyer sends an e-mail to through a bulletin board, is the privileged character lost? Yes. o Can still be privileged even if electronic, can only lose privilege through other factors/other circums Barton v Leyet Asphalt Best Evidence Rule Rule 4 o Orig of an Electronic doc R4S1 o Equivalent of the original under the Best Evidence Rule if it comes under R4S1 Elec docum is the functional equivalent of an orig docum under BER under the ROC, if the elec docums a printout/output readable by sight o Ex) screen of cellphone that contains a txt msg Elec docu cause generated, stored and retrieved electronically Becomes orig of docu under BER and output readable by sight o S2 wc refers to copies as equivalents of originals expands the defn of electronic docu Although by way of copies, original na rin yn Screen of cellphone, electronic doc Becomes orig of an electronic docu under best evidence rule bec it is an output readable by sight. Pictures not included KEYWORD: Written expression o Defns of sigs and how verify and authenticated disputable presumes WRT thereto (lk at 5 and 6 and 7: evidentiary wt just so have idea of it) o Pay attention to R8 on business records as exception o S1: inapplicability of hearsay R o Business records/rpts of transaxns made at/near the time the transaxn occurred

In such manner: electronically Memoranda refers to what business? Include illegit businesses and nonprofit businesses? o R2, S1 defines business records: refers to businesses WON for profit/legit/illegit o Includes businesses, assoc, prof, occu, calling and institutions o Anything can be illegal ex. bus recs of jueteng activities R8S1 Memoranda refers to what business? Would it include illegal businesses? Non-profit businesses? o Rule 2 S 1b, even if business records of jueteng activities as long as coming under R2S1b o Presumption overcome Rule 9 refers to method of proof of electronic documents o Affidavit of a person w direct knowledge/who has personal knowledge of the facts Based on authentic records Qualification of affiant must be shown & affidavit shld show competence o Presentation of the affidavit: the affiant must identify the affidavit in court subject to xexam its identified in Ct butdnt have to tell the whole story itself just identify & subj to cross o The affidavit relates to an electronic document. Doesnt say that the affidavit itself is an electronic document. Rule 10 exam of witness o There is an electronic testimony (R10S1), so long as the Ct prescribes terms & conds

There shld be a record/transcript (R10S2) Ct records will include the electronic testimony, the electronic recording, stenographic notes, certified as correct If a witness is 1/2way arnd the world, he can testify thru streaing audio & video = broadband SC hsnt come up w w specific detailed rules on how to implement this but theoretically this rule alrdy allows it Will testimony by e-mail be allowed? Elec doum: admissible as a method of proof: affidavit by email

Businesses: everything rcvable, stored, produced, generated thru elec means, optical/otherwise o In external device and sent to the Ct provided affidavit accompanying/explaining admissibility and wght = allowed, as long as WRT certain elec docus, there must be an elec sigw/c could be a digital sig o Sys still has to be refined by the Ct cause has to issue rules o Hasnt been put in place in Phils not even Verizon has capability yet

R2S1j - Electronic signature includes sound, for the purpose of showing that the person w whom the difital sigs associated logicall really authenticated, signed/approved the docum o Asymmetric security sys o Pub/priv at time formulated = uso Rt now: used = digital pair has to do w/ the purpose to create and verify the authenticity Created thru the priv key and verified thru the pub key Cos who give services for a fee o Another sys = included Ephemeral Electronic Communication (EEC) R2S1k o Dont refer to elec docums o Electronic documents included ephemeral electronic communication?

o o o o Ganaan wiretapping:

Person having pers knowledge Any other competent witness Ex. tel convo participant, some1 who overheard, operator v. IAC: PABX operator and other person eavesdrops = not as long as doesnt rec = admissible (uses the ear)

Who administers? Service provider

Nuez v. Cruz-Apao extorsion committed by a female Txt msgs admitted in Ct came fr her cellphone Prove came fr cellphone but fr her? Prove she sent it any presum applicable? RULES ON EXAMINATION OF CHILD WITNESS Can you now ask hearsay questions from a child? o Yes, there should be a motion to allow examinations that may have questions that involve hearsay Admitted in evid regardless of hearsay char provided theres a motion for the ct to allow exam of child wholly/partially thru Qs thatll require introdn of hearsay testi o Leading questions? Yes. (r132 allows it even wo this) Child abuse shield rule parang res inter alios rin o Inadmissible bec it may create undue prejudice against the child (RIAA) o Past sexual acts o Predispositon, orientation or attitudes Not allowed bec may prejudice the child Rule invented many things to protect the child from being terrorized Aids: o ct ordering change in the arrangement in the ctrm, [protects right of the accused to confront accuser]; ] 1-war mirror/close-circuit TC Right to conform accusers = constitutional right o facilitator can be present; o child can have security blanket; o support group; o separate waiting room; impt innovation of the law: when the child can be investigated by a certain grp of ppl wc will be part of his testimony

there are eec that may be electronic documents but not all. Include phone convos, txt msgs, chatrm sessions and streaming audio, video, evid of w/c isnt recorded/retained Depends some that may be elec docus Not streaming audio and video Key figure for elec docus = in written form: fxnal equiv if printout/output readable by sight Part in writing could be considered otherwise not o Ephemeral fleeting, evanescent Ex) radio communications, citizens band o Includes radio communications, phone conversations, txt msgs, chatroom sessions & streaming audio/video, evidence of wc isnt recorded/retained o If not in writing, not electronic documents. o Defn says they usually are not recorded but they can be o Photocopy of the cellphones screen: txt msg is ephemenral Xerox = optical: by using light o Recorded electronically: depends if not written, it depends Ex. record directly thru comp digital file = rec of elec commn Can only be applied to civil, quasi-judicial and admin cases. In crim cases, they are inadmissible. Prosecution has to use traditional means R11S2: The eec can be proven by any of 3 persons: any party to the communication; person having any knowledge thereof; any other competent witnesses. o R4, S2 re: copies as equivs of origs: cmg fr the same matrix produced by the same impression/same matrix/electronically/mechanically rerecorded/chemically reproduced o Still elec docu o Funny thought optical and similar means? o Even though old photocopy = same elec docu o Mimeograph machine mechanical: elec docu = be careful o Know intendment of the law o Ephemeral elec commn can be proven by any of 3 persons: o P to the commn

In-depth interview done by child psychologist, social worker (specifically designated), cannot be by the counsel (lawyer may be intimidating) o Such persons are carefully chosen in order to facilitate the interview w the child & not intimidate such Can interview the child in the manner they want o Happens even before child goes into ct and is admissible in evidence. o What is the protection of the other party? Hes not present, but he can have a copy of the written transcript or recording and opportunity to view So that he can pinpoint any practices violative of DP Can estimate WON Qs were valid Interconnect REE very carefully so not misled