Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16

EXERCISES IN CLASS: Judicial notice & admissibility/relevance/competence of E A) The Court can take judicial notice: 1.

that a death certificate proves that the fact of death of the person that it certified as dead 6.

S2(c)as a judge, know leg consequence/effect of the contents of a municipal ordinance s3 3. of the contents of the bill of Senator Osmena calling for the abolition of the PCGG s3 depends (not pub knowledge) 4. that former President Marcos fled to Hawaii in 1966 political history, mandatory 5. that the Philippines has an extradition treaty with the USA mandatory, official acts 6. that a polygraph test is not conclusive s2c 7. the contents of the United Nations General Assembly declarations and resolutions law of nations 8. the massacre of some members of the royal family of Nepal political history 9. the relief of Reynaldo Berroya as intelligence chief of the PNP public knowledge 10. the Supreme Court resolution constituting the MCLE committee for the purpose of implementing Bar Matter No. 850 (on MCLE) official acts of dept, mandatory 11. that the parties in a suit for declaration for nullity were married by and before him in a civil wedding ceremony S3: debate (not jud fxn/pers knowledge) 12. of the contents of the complaint before it was amended by the plaintiff dsnt exist, must present evidence
2. B) Under S2, R129, the presiding judge may take judicial notice unilaterally without need of a hearing: 1. of the allegations in no. 1. A), 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12 2. of the fact that his neighbor owns a Doberman personal knowledge 3. of the fact that the Philippines is one of the most corrupt countries in the world debatable: Amnesty Intl said (orgns saying accdg to surveys of businessmen, expatriates, etc) current, controversial: debate in S3 4. of the records in another case in his sala involving the same parties about another lot NO 5. of the records of preliminary investigation in a criminal case pending before him


not part of jud cause executed by exec (know if theres sufficient evid to hold him for trial = on its face/prima facie, can be convicted at trial) of the deposition in perpetuam rei memoriam that preceded the filing of a civil case pending before him sep case fr pending case cause discovery proceeding thatll anticipate the next case (not part) that the 1987 Constitutional right to protection against warrantless arrest and unreasonable search and seizure applies to all inhabitants of the PI whether a citizen or not, whether a resident or not mandatory, consti & jurisprudence

C) The admissions of a person under custodial investigation may not be contradicted unless shown to have been made through palpable mistake or was never made at all. False: custodial investigation conducted by law enforcement auths (mil, PNP, NBI) = extrajud admission (S4, R129 doesnt apply) D) A party must prove allegations contained in a pleading that he later supplemented with another. False: no admission, just allege admission admitted something E) A party need only present in evidence but need not prove the truth of a judicial admission. False: matther judicially admitted = truth of the matter (need not pres and prove truth) F) A judicial admission will be admissible in evidence only if it comes from the adverse party because otherwise, it will be self-serving. self-serving: extrajud admission jud admission, no matter how self-serving, wont be self-serving cause can be cross-examined (connection w/ hearsay) - person can say anything on witness stand, no matter how favorable to himself (natlally why testify, favors u) a. T or F. Evidence that is relevant is always admissible. False, has to be competent

b. Friends A and B quarreled and engaged in a fist fight as a result of which B broke his neck and died. The charge in the info was homicide. At the trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that A is a champ bantamweight boxer. Admissible? Collateral matter bec want to prove there was a fight & boxing ensued so A boxed B & bec of the act, B broke his neck & died Prove status of A as a champion: regardless of WON champion = still liable Not licensed boxing bout canvas = leg: prior consent and took risk

relevant: act of boxing WON champion boxer = collateral boxer S4, R128: relevant collateral cause it tends to a reasonable deg to est probability Other side: champion but sick cant obj: pres evid during own turn but not ground for objection Admissibility: just relevant/competent judge agrees if relevant to reasonable deg = admitted why reasonable? Evid showing status of A being a CB reasonable basis to infer: 1 box and he can die (basis: comm. sense)

b. Whats the role of 1965? doesnt affect validity of prin, regardless of WON int valid = prin exists = receipts are relevant factum probandum = prin

receipts paid for int, therefore, there must be a prin

c. Is the admission of B that his car could have scratched the car of neighbor A during their conf before the Barangay Lupon constitute evidence and is therefore admissible, considering that Rule 128(2) says that Rules of Evidence apply only to courts and trials and hearings? doesnt say admissible where Lupon proceedings: admissible cause Lupon not bound by Rs of evid Admissible in ct cause A sued B since didnt fix it: admissible if proven relevant and competent (WON jud/extrajud) Q: is it relevant? Admitted Competent? Person can always admit stupidity

h. Relative positions of cars that collided is inconclusive as to fault. Driver A has no license. Is this significant evidentiary material? interpret prov of CC as mng: no license = presumed neg; since no license = no skills to drive i. Mr. B was a bystander at the corner hit by a bullet from the gun of your client, Mr. A, owner of the store t the same corner. Would you file a demurrer if the prosecution merely presented evidence showing that A) Mr. As gun was fired while in his possession and B) As a result, B was injured? B) this gives a causal connection demurrer facts show no offense being committed reckless imprudence resulting in phys injs

Obj based on 5th? No, self-incriminatory applies to penalties, not civ liab

A and B enough to est? pros = res ipsa loquitor: diff if some1 bumped him, thats why it blew (caso fortuito) mere fact fired = something went wrong (some deg of neg: gun wont fire of its own accord unless there was a reason) prove caso fortuito: matter of defense

d. Presidential Cousin A makes admissions incriminating the Pres during a Senate hearing, which hearing was conducted using the inquisitorial method. Admissible? Yes. Not bound by Rs of evid. Own Rs. Can say Rs of Ct suppletory, can say never mind. (potl, not jud proceeding in ct) Inquisitorial doesnt violate DP cause Senate cant convict/acquit (just investigating; gathering enough matl to give to Ombudsman, etc) = investigative, not adversarial e. Who can change evidentiary rules? SC subj to Congress admin bodies WRT admin proceedings cause ROC dont apply to them the ppl when they change the Consti

j. One nice summer afternoon, you found a teeny-weeny bit of a rubber sole floating in your familiar bottle of Coca-Cola. Would you have any case against the company? res ipsa loquitor basis: tort/QD - not there unless some elem/deg of neg k. As you gorged on your birthday cake with friends and family, your tongue unhappily felt what seemed like the pinpoint of a needle embedded in the icing. Would you like to sue? Whom? Kind of case? Cause of action? Case basis: res ipsa loquitor BER Do you think you can successfully prosecute the probate of an attested will whose existence & custody is being denied by co-heirs who, your client says, are hiding it? wld your ans be the sme if instead it was a holographic will? o Case is a spcl proceeding is for the probate of the will o Will is being probated o Probate: proving the existence & validity of the will o Authenticity genuineness Dsnt refer to due execution If its authentic, it means its yours, you made it o This q on authenticity is sep from the contents = so authenticity is diff from the contents o But in probate, the contents is the very subj of the inquiry o Youre asking for the orig bec the content is in issue here o Holographic will: made entirely by the testator alone, dated & signed by himself, w no witnesses or notary pub (done alone, in secret) Gan v Yang:

f. In the MTC, affidavits are allowed as testimonial evidence (i.e. in lieu of oral testimony in open court) but not in the RTC. Is this not violative of Rule 128(2)? No cause except as otherwise provided by the Rs (not violative = in accordance w/ Rs) g. A sued B for the principal of Bs verbal loan of P1M but his only evidence is his copy of the receipt that he had been issued for the monthly payments of B. Bs lawyer objected to these receipts when A tied to present them at trial arguing that under Article 1965 of the Civil Code stipulation as to interest is void if not in writing. (A) Rule. (B) What is the role of Article 1965, if any? a. R relevant cause payment of int shows theres a prin basis: CC

In case whats in Q is a holographic will, proof is possible thru E by furnishing a copy including a photostatic copy But in an attested will, needs to be the orig

In the case of ppl v Hubert Webb et al, Lolita Birrer informed the police that she witnessed her common law husband, former policeman, Gerardo Biong, clean up the scene after commission of the crime. The prosecution will also let her testify that she saw thereat a brown jacket w a tag bearing the letters HUB, to corroborate the testimony of Jessica Alfaro to the effect that accused Huber Webb had accidentally left his brown jacket at the scene of the crime. As counsel for Webb a) can you think of any possible objection to this latter testimony of Birrer? o Yes, object BER bec youre trying to present the tag of the jacket & the tag is a docum! Sustained: Is the tag a docum? Yes, the contents of such are in issue need to see that the tag really says HUB Objection: its obj E bec whats being proved is the existence of HUB on the tag on the jacket & not the contents o Bth are correct..if youre proving the existence of the jacket, then its object Ebut once youre looking at the content of the tag, on WON it says HUB, then it becomes a docum o Convert to a scenario where the tag is an obj, not a docum:

A sued Co B for damages for the cruel manner in wc he was dismissed, contrary even to Bs policies. At trial when A was abt to present Bs computer printed manual of Co policies, Bs lawyer objected on the basis of the BER. Rule o Overruled, BER applies but the orig is being presented alrdy o Bec the subj of the inquiry is what the Co polices are & the comp printed manual may be considered the orig of the manual o Youre showing what the policies are thru the manual o A is trying to show the policy that was violated o In what sense is it an orig? s4b Can the Ct take JN of the fact that when a manual is printed it is usually dne in 2 or more copies, executed at the sme time, w identical contents? Yes, 129s2a Can you waive the BER? How? o If theres no objection to it When she attempted tot take the bar exams the frustrated ex-bf of MIM filed a complaint for disciplinary sanctions against her w the SC, on the ground that she represented that she had graduated from the UP college of law when in truth & in fact she had not. To prove that her rep was true, MIM presented the certification of the dean of the up college of law. This was objected to by counsel for the complainant on the ground that the BE is her diploma from the UP college of law. Rule o Overruled, we arent talking abt the contents of docums but rather WON she graduated from UP o BER isnt being talked abt here o The cert & diploma may be E of her graduation from UP they are bth fine as Es & you dont have to weight wc is the best E o R128,s3: they are admissible bec its relevant & competent o And theres no rule that to be admissible the E shld be the best E No such rule for purposes of admissibility tho theres a rule wrt credibility

if theres blood on the tag

b) wld you object to presentation in E of a photo of the jacket & the allege tag? o Object bec the subj of inquiry is whats written on the tag & therefore, its necessary for the original to be presented o Is there any circums that the photo might be admissible? Yes, there are other 2ndary E Ex) if the orig is abroad PNB v Olila c) how abt testimony thereon? o Not allowed, it shld follow the order in 2ndary E as stated in the prov o S5: By copy, recital of its contents, & finally testimony of a witness o Youre presenting 2ndary E here & youre trying to prove that the contents so long as youve alrdy proven its existence & authenticity After being duly appraised of his constitutional rights, Mr A executed a written confession during a custodial investigation, wc Mr A authenticated & confirmed during the trial. In turn, the defense presented a surprise witness, the son of Mr A, who admitted in open Ct that actually he was the perpetrator. Knowing that this wsnt true, the prosecution objected, invoking the rule that judicial admissions cannot be contradicted. Any comment? o Not a judicial proceeding bec its a custodial investigation still its still an extrajudicial confession o But when he confirmed it during trial = its been converted to a judicial admission o Cant contradict in terms of the admitter

Class exercise on the movies Imagine the situation in the film The Accused occurring in a Phil setting: imagine that you were approached by the victim to file suit. If you do so, what case/s will/can you file? In the film Inherit the Wind o Spencer Tracy (counsel for the accused) was forced to call the spcl prosecutor to the stand (as hostile witness) when he denied the chance to present his own expert witnesses. In this situation, what was Tracy trying to show thru his line of questioning? o Do you think this line of questioning was relevant (to the defense strategy that he had to sue as last resort)? o Cld, or shld the principle of JN have come into play at anytime during the trial? If yes, why, if not, why not? In the film, Sep but Equal regarding the 50s case of Brown v Board of Education o What forms/s of evidence was/were used to show the self-degrading effect of racial discrimination/segregation? o Were these forms of E relevant? Why or why not?

Imagine the situation in the film the Verdict occurring in the Phil setting: o If youre James Mason (counsel for the archdiocese/hospital), will you object to the presentation by the nurse-witness of the photocopy (of the hospital record/patients chart showing the controversial # of hours) in her possession? If so, on what ground? If not, why not? o As counsel for the victim/plaintiff, will you argue against this objection of James Mason? If so, what your argument be? If not, why not? o If youre james mason, will you object to the testimony of the nurse (regarding how the doctor had threatened her job to coerce her into changing the figure in the hospital record/patients chart)? If so, on what ground? If not, why not? o If james mason objects to any sort & manner of testimony from the nurse-witness to the effect that she was the nurse who had accomplished the hospital record/patients chart & made the entries therein on the ground that the same is barred under the BER & the docum itself shld be presented, wld you argue against the objection? If so, what will your argument be? If not, why not? o If youre the judge, what will your ruling be on the objection in letter A above? Why? o If youre the judge, what will your ruling on the objection in letter D above? Why?

o o

PER & Interpretation of Documents 1. in his complaint, landowner X claims damages b way of toll against a Co whose trucks have been for yrs crossing his subdivision in Barrio Dito, municipality D to get to the adjacent Barrio Kabila, Municipality K. by way of defense, the Co says the complaint states no COA bec actually the rough road used by its trucks is owned by municipality D. whether the rough road is part of Xs subdivision or is owned b municipality D was stated as the 1st issue in the pre-trial order. The 2nd issue was WON X was entitled to damages &, if so, how much. If you were counsel for the Co, wld you present E to show the geographic boundaries of municipalities D & K, or just argue in the memorandum that the Ct shld take mandatory JN there of?

Patent or latent ambiguity? Patent: on its face ambiguous If patent, Ct will leave you were you are wont allow you to explain, modify = this is PER Latent: intrinsic ambiguity If not clear, but theres E wc shows that its ambiguous = its latent Youll never know that its intrinsic, unless some1 proves such Ex) dollars, etc Its only intrinsic that you can introduce E Will: if a prov is patently ambigious this part will be distributed intestate Called exception bec youll be allowed to show E other than the written agreement Amng the 4 exceptions, there are those wc arent real exceptions bec not really changing, adding or explaining S9c: youre showing its not valid o PER isnt really applicable bec youre proving its validity S9d: no PER bec youre not proving the written agreement, but a totally diff agreement! PER dsnt apply to just any docum it applies to an AGREEMENT (when there are parties!) Exception is a will, wc is unilateral but theres a beneficiary so its included

3. A brought an accion publiciana against a group of farmers (grp) alleging that the latter has unlawfully occupied & started planting on As land. in their ans, grp invoked lack of COA as a defense, alleging that A isnt the owner of the land involved. to support this, the grp presented the vendor of A, who testified that indeed what she sold to A was a parcel of land located south of the land described in As complaint. As repeated objections to the vendors testi - based on the PER were all overruled. Comment? PER dsnt apply bec wasnt a party to the agreement Change it so PER will apply: o Buyer suing vendor bec what was sold was a machine wc was defective warranty wasnt complied w o Complaint says purchased machine X threshing 100 cavans of palay o Def says thats not what we agreed Hes raising an issue wc is an exception to the PER Wc wont allow him to produce PE aside from the actionable docum attached to the complaint Ex) of PE he cld present: His testimony s9c & s9d o PE can be oral, documentary (ex. rider), object (ex. pic) any matl containing writings

1st: E shld be presented bec it was the fact in issue o Geographic boundaries may change by political acts 2 : Ct cant take JN bec dsnt fall under any sections its a Q of law, not of fact o Bec questioning the change in boundaries = wc is done by congress

2. in his will, D bequeathed a P1M legacy to George, my fave bro-in-law during the probate proceedings, it turned out that anthr bro-in-law was named Justin George. When counsel for Justin George sought to present E that it was Justin George, & not George, who was Ds favorite, counsel for George objected, saying: a) PE is inadmissible b) besides, the relation btwn D & justin George must 1st be shown. Rule. A) NO, PER is admissible itll apply in terms of the exception bec of intrinsic ambiguity


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

* 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

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 E aliunde need not be in writing o

*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 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? o 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

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) o 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 o 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 o 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)

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

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!)

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

Testimonial evidence (note: DMS is deadmans statute ang bilis ng class so hard to type everything k? if you dont understand anything jst txt me) 1. In the judicial settlement of the estate of deceased D, one of the claimants, D, was sole proprietor of funeral parlor FP. During the trial, F was presented by counsel CF as follows: CF: We are respectfully offering the testimony of F to prove that hes the sole proprietor of funeral parlor FP, that it was FP which had rendered services for one week for the wake of D as well as for the burial procession for D thereafter, and that the said services, in the total amount of P50,000.00, have remained unpaid to the present time. Judge: Any objections Atty. CD (counsel for D)? CD: Yes, your Honor. We object to the portion of Fs testimony whereby he seeks to prove that his funeral parlor rendered services for the wake and burial procession of D, that the amount thereof is P50,000, and that it has remained unpaid to the present time, because he is disqualified under the Deadmans Statute and therefore his testimony is inadmissible. CF: But your Honor, the Deadmans Statute applies only as to facts which occurred before death. Here, the funeral services were naturally rendered after he died, your Honor. CD: Well, your Honor, with more reason then should said rule should apply, because if the deceased can no longer defend himself as to facts which occurred when he was alive, a fortiorari he cannot defend himself as to facts which occurred when he was already dead. Besides, the Deadmans Statute applies for as long the defendant is already dead at the time the plaintiff testifies, whether the suit was commenced before or after he died. Rule. Is the deadmans statute relevant? NO, its inapplicable o Bec the fact that the heirs might be liable WRT the prop of the deceased is incidental Its a party testifying as to facts occurring after the death!

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. Ergo, can you invoke the PER even if its not the original? YES Statement is wrong!

It only prohibits testi on facts wc have occurred b4 the death of the person whereas here, what the party is testifying to is for the funeral expenses wc occurred after death But what abt the rationale? o Even if he cant testify bec hes dead, his rights wont be prejudiced but his prop is transferred to his heirs who will pay? What abt that? Reason for DMS: it has no relevance bec the dead dude cant testify anyway on facts wc occurred after he died! Fact that the heirs might be liab bec of the prop of the deceased dsnt matter bec the suit isnt really against the estate, bec its not the estate that contracted w the parlor = its really against the heirs! Its they who contracted w the funeral parlor Babao v Perez dsnt apply Tonyboy Ramos is a billionaire accused of stealing a multi-million Juan Luna from the National Museum. In the defense, Ramos lawyer will present evidence that will picture to the court the immensity of the properties, deposits, and cash on hand comprising the wealth of Ramos. As city prosecutor, would you have any ground for objection? Irrelevant! Thomas Crown Affair To prove alibi by showing that he was in Lake Tahoe, Nevada at the time of the alleged murder of the Vizcondes in Paranaque, Hubert Webb volunteered to present photos showing him in ski gear sliding in the snow. a. Is there any ground for you to object? No ground for objection Relevant & competent Not self-serving? No bec its gng to be presented in Ct w him as a witness & is subj to cross-ex o Also 3 reqs: out of Ct, ante litem motam, favorable to him If really true that he was in Lake Tahoe, he cldnt have anticipated to have taken photos bec he was planning a rape & use this as an alibi o Not like Green Card Depardieu pretended to be married to Andie McDowellfaking thru photos that Granting the photos arent fake, its admissible b. If you Hubert also presented photocopies of his passport, pages of which show his departure from and arrival in the Philippines on such dates as would support his alibi, is there any ground for you to object?

who has personally known As family for a long time) took judicial notice of the fact that D was inflicted with Down Syndrome (i.e. was a mongoloid), and convicted A for rape. Any comment on any evidentiary rule/s? Judge can have taken JN of the fact of down syndrome o Dsnt it fall under s2? Discretionary? NO o A) Not pub knowledge o B) Incapable of unquestionable demonstration Admissible under this Ppl v Dumanon: if from the phys features, that its clear that the person is suffering from dwn syndrome, Ct can take JN Its a medical fact = clear o C) known to the judge bec of their judicial fxns In the case of People v. H for the negligent shooting death of S (the son of accused H and W), the prosecution presented W as first witness to testify against H. admissible? Admissible R130, s22 (spousal disqualification) its an exception under this rule In the case of People v. H for the negligent shooting death of S (the son of accused H and W), H testified in his own favor and pointed to his wife W as the perpetrator. a. The prosecutor did not anticipate that this was Hs defense, so he was not able to imagine objecting (much less bringing W to court). The prosecutor now wants to present W on rebuttal, to testify that it was really H, not her, who negligently caused the death of her son. i. May h now validly object to Ws testimony Cant object bec of Ppl v Francisco Cant object bec has the right to rebut bec she was pointed to ii. Granted H objects, may W validly argue against Hs objection on the ground that the exception in R130 S22 applies in her favor and not H?





Exception in spousal disqualification applies bec it was a crime against a descendant o So she can talk about him b. Granting W happens to be in the courtroom, may she validly object (through the prosecutor or otherwise)?

Object! Violates BER o Bec its the contents of the passport wc are in Q o So need to present the orig passport in Ct


Exceptions: only if the orig is destroyed, lost, unavailable, etc

In the prosecution of accused A, for the rape of his daughter D, there were only 2 witnesses the latter and As sister S, both of whom testified on facts showing carnal knowledge. Having sat at the trial, the judge (a neighbor of A

No, W cant object since the case is against the H & not against her Therefore, shes not a party so she cant object under s22, R130 Under s22, the other sps cant testify for or against the other sps who is a party & here, the H was testifying abt the W who is not a party so she cant object but can rebut o Ppl v Francisco doctrine (can rebut)



P and D entered into a written contract, whereby P repaired the house of D. after the construction, D died. P sued W, the wife of D, as administratrix of Ds estate. During the trial, P wanted to testify regarding the P50,000.00 unpaid balance of D on the contract as well as regarding the additional price of P50,000.00 that D had agreed to pay for additional work. Does W have any ground/s to object to Ps testimony? W may object on the ground of the deadmans statute (DMS) o Its a claim against the estate & is regarding an agreement entered into/a fact occurring b4 the death of D o And the 1 testifying is a party himself P v the estate Also the PER there was an agreement, it was in writing o So P cant be allowed to testify re: the addtl payment, unless its in the written contract A, B and C contributed money to a business venture as partners, with agreement to share in profits as follows: A and B = each; C = . When the business had to stop because C became insane, A and B brought suit to partition the fruits of their partnership. A wanted to testify that the sharing agreed upon was 1/3 each. While honest B, wanted to testify as to the truth. Any objection as to either testimony? No objections S23 dsnt apply bec its not an axn against the insane person but an axn for partition against a partnership Partnership has a diff personality, sep & diff from the partners Not a suit against the insane or estate of the insane If the guardian of C had joined A and B in bringing suit, would your answer be the same?

was he, not O, who was redeeming it, such that the title was eventually issued in his name. Upon discovery of the fraud, A and B sued the heirs of C, who, in the meantime, had died. Any objections to the testimony of A and B? No, objections Ds DMS apply considering its the heirs of the heirs being sued? o It applies bec a suit against the heirs are representatives of the deceased Goni v CA Bec if it involves the heirs & it involves the prop of the deceased wc passes to the heirs its as if its a suit against the estate suit v. decedent if involves same propdefenses of estate same as theirs Falls also under the exceptions: o DMS dsnt apply bec of Ong Chua v Carr & Babao v Perez There was fraud involved If fraud occurred & is proven by E aliunde, DMS dsnt apply


Yes, same ans When the testi is favorable to the estate, its not gng to be barred Tongco v Vianzon & Icard v Marasigan Nuance to Q1 cause As gonna vary the agreement whereas B will just tell the truth = testi favorable to estate = not barred Corp. C sued the administrator of As estate for the balance of As subscriptions to C. C stockholders D and E will testify thereon. Any objection? No objection bec Lichauco says the corp has a sep personality from its ofcrs


11. B borrowed P 0.5M from his best friend A. when A was about to go abroad as a OFW, B hurriedly sent an IOU to As residence, which IOU was received by As wife. A thereafter learned abroad that B had died of a heart attack. A thus advised his wife to request payment from Bs heirs as representatives of Bs estate. The heirs did not pay because they were not sure of the truthfulness As claim. Thus, As wife filed suit for the settlement of Bs estate, believing upon her lawyers advise, in the admissibility of Bs IOU because she can identify the same. The lawyer based his advise upon the doctrine to the effect that testimony on the present possession by the witness of a written document signed by the deceased is also not covered by the prohibition (for Martin, op. cit., p. 164), as such fact exists even after the decedents demise citing Regalado, Evidence, 2004 ed., p. 707. Any comment? This part in Regalado is misleading Some1 else shld identify the sig of the deceased & shldnt be identified by the assignor or parties to a case Is this quoted portion right or wrong? Its wrong bec the terms of the agreement are acts dne by the parties & the deceased o And therefore, theyre acts occurring prior to the death of the deceased therefore shld be prohibited bec of the DMS BUT its not an absolute statement: o So long as the witness is not a party = its allowed Any1 can identify the inst, including the sig of the decedent DMS dsnt apply o If its the wife whos a party = not allowed Martin is correct = wife can Involved: act done by decedent when alivefact occurring before death

10. A B and C are the heirs of O, who owns 4 parcels of land. In the extra-judicial partition, C misrepresented to A and B that O was no longer the owner of 1 parcel and that O was not able to redeem it from the mortgagee-bank. Hence, A, B and C divided only 3 parcels. It turned out that O had actually given C money with which to redeem the mortgaged parcel but that C had falsified the papers to make it appear that it

12. A, B and C were all stockholders of Corporation Y, with C receiving dividends in behalf of A and B (as the latters common attorney-in-fact) and regularly remitting the same to them. Unfortunately, for a period of 5 years prior to and until his death, C stopped remitting to A and B. A and B thus filed their claims as creditors during t he settlement of Cs estate. a. During the trial, A and B tried to present D, another stockholder, to testify as to the dividends that Corporation Y declared for the 5 yr period before Cs death, and the fact that C received from Corporation Y the dividends due A and B for this period. Any objection? Same situation as Mendezona v Vda de Gotia Its relevant & competent No objection, DMS dsnt apply b. Thereafter, A and B were about to testify to Cs failure to remit dividends, but counsel for C objected, invoking the Survivorship Disqualification Rule. Rule on the objection.

2) privilege cant be invoked bec (s122, s123, s124..a-e are all rules on privilege communications & disqualification of witnesses) its premature it invoke it o S122, 123, & 124 are rules invoked when one is ALRDY BEING EXAMINED


Its not an excuse not to sit down (like EO 464)

May the same rule be invoked as basis for objection against examination of the lawyers on anything related to the above narrated facts?

No, rule cant be invoked bec the lawyers are conspirators to an illegal conspiracy c. If your answer in No. 2 is in the affirmative, who may invoke the rule?

Negative testi (that a fact ddnt occur during the lifetime of the deceased) isnt covered by the DMS

13. Attorneys A, B, C, D and E were engaged by Mr. X to organize and incorporate layers of corporations, in each of which all of them would sign up as incorporators as nominees of Mr. X. For all the stockholdings that would respectively be n their names, they would execute blank deeds of assignment in favor of Mr. X. By these arrangements and the fact that the moneys that ended up being used for the subscriptions to these layers of corporations were derived from levies collected from coconut farmers by presidential decree during martial law, all 5 lawyers in effect facilitated the illegal funneling of government funds into private hands. In the civil action for recovery of ill-gotten wealth that the government filed against Mr. X, the government likewise impleaded Attorneys A, B, C, D and E for their above-mentioned roles. These lawyers planned not to divulge at all and at any cost the identity of Mr. X on the basis of R130 S24(a). a. May R130 S24(b) be invoked as basis for the lawyers not taking the witness stand? Its a ground not to take the witness stand? If invoke Regala v Sandiganbayan, theres 1 fact there thats not in this sit o Regala only used 1 think to link it to atty-client privilege: only reason they lawyers were dragged into the case were to squeal on their clients Wrong! Bec the lawyers were parties to the case & a conspiracy was alleged they were dragged to they themselves will pay the govt Theyre personally liable, so how can they say only dragged in to squeal? This assumption (in Regala) isnt in this example no perfect analogy 1) Privilege cant be invoked bec the lawyers were co-conspirators

Assuming the objections can be made, it may only be invoked by the client or the lawyer of the atty on the ground that the clients consent hasnt been obtained o So you need to estab the premise: If clients consent not procured the witness cant be examined *If being called to the witness stand, you cant refuse to answer or youll be held in contempt (unless youre invoking R132, s___) o Witness cant objectthe lawyer will have to do this diff if litigating on ur own behalf (party and sitting down)litigating pro sen o cant obj if witness, on the ground the clients consent hasnt been obtained not just client who can obj, but lawyer can rainy dawn, Mr. C, a garbage collector, was sideswiped by Mr. D who was high on drugs, resulting in Mr. C being dragged by Ds car from Quezon City to Manila. A suit for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was filed against Mr. D, together with a claim for damages. However, before the garbage truck driver (Mr. Cs 3rd witness) could testify, Mr. D himself died from drug overdose. At the next hearing, counsel for Mr. D objects to any and all portions of the testimony of this driver relating to alleged reckless acts of Mr. D, on the ground that it will violate the Deadmans Statute. Rule. DMS dsnt apply bec: o Its a crim case so its not a claim against the estate What abt the civ axn being impliedly instituted? S23 strictly applies only to a civ claim & if it happens to be impliedly instituted w a crim case, dnst matter bec the crim aspect erases it But no case wc decided this yet still debatable o The witness whos gng to testify isnt a party

14. One

15. Perhaps due to his abuse of drugs, the extreme mood and behavior swings of Mr. I between monologue and catatonia one day seemed to have become irreversible and permanent. He was thus committed to the basement of the St. Lukes Hospital for treatment. He fortunately, he had a lucid interval, and was

able to execute an attested will wherein he devised the other half of his estate to his only child. But, unfortunately, too, he died shortly thereafter. In the probate of his will, his brothers and sisters contest the will, saying that he should be presumed insane because in fact he was confined in the hospital at the time he executed the will, citing Torres v. Lopez. Rule. This is the rule if youre confined, youre presumed insane o if theres a judicial guardian appointed, youre presumed insane but only for purposes of probate (Torres v Lopez) But if you arent, then the CC applies = every1 is presumed to be sane If insane, cant litigate unless some1s litigating for u

a. When the judge granted the motion, Hs lawyer immediately procured the results of the medical examination to study whether it justifies annulment or not. Thereafter, W remembered and told her lawyer that in fact, sometime long before they got married, H had said that he hoped that his war injury would not affect his ability to procreate. Ws lawyer, dutifully subpoenaed the military medical record of H. Hs lawyer naturally opposed on the basis of the same evidentiary provision. Rule. Same rule applies since its still a discovery proceeding And under the rule on discovery(R28) previous medical records or papers Rule wld be a waiver of the privilege re: the results of previous, present or future examinations if you have yourself examined by your own doctor or if you get a copy o Anyway, you alrdy know your condso dont get a copy

16. A and B sold a parcel of land to C, but due to some conditions they did not place in the deed of sale the right of A to repurchase the same after the lapse of a year. Through some maneuvering, wily C thereafter immediately registered the sale and transferred the land in his name. after a year, a discovered the fraud, but C died before A could sue. A presented B to testify about the pacto de retro feature of the sale. However, when A himself was about to testify already, the lawyer of Cs heirs objected, citing the Survivorship Disqualification Rule. Decide. Ong Chua v Carr case ds it absolutely apply here? On all fours? B is able to testify bec hes not a party, its A who sued o By his testi, the fraud was alrdy estabd So A can now testify since the fraud was alrdy proven by E aliunde Law wont invoke s23 to shield fraud

19. 15-year old C witnessed his drunken father F batter his 10 year old sister S to death and related it to his mother M. When C was about to testify in the RA7659 criminal case instigated by M against F, Fs lawyer invoked parental privilege under R130 S25. Rule. C is the 1 gng to testify Is F correct? NO, bec its not a disqualification under s25 its only a privilege C is not being compelledtheres no subpoena, hes voluntarily testifying a. How abt if M testifies? C rpted it to her immediately after C saw it = exception of hearsay under doctrine of res gestae (startling occurrence) o Not objectionable as hearsay: abt rpt of the daughter Irrelevant, depending on what she testifies to Marital privilege rule s24a dsnt apply bec theres no communication from the W to the H Possible objection is R130, s22: spousal disqualification o But this dsnt apply for a crime committed by 1 sps against the other or against direct descendants/ascendants o The exception squarely applies o So M can testify bec S is her child/descendants b. If the crime was attempted parricide against C himself? Same as 19.a. c. If the crime of attempted parricide against S was witnessed by both C and M, and C reported it, but M refuses to testify during the trial, can M be compelled? S25 applies so M cant be compelled to testify o Exception: A215 CC is irrelevant bec it only applies to the descendants who are testifying Under s22: M can be compelled to testify o Bec of the exception: its a crime against the child o Maam agrees with this

17. A, B, C and D were big-time business partners. Sadly, managing partner B was driven to insanity and suicide by the losses that hit them during the currency crises. A, C and D could not carry on either, and the business folded. Later on, all three of them sued Mr. X, the administrator of B for accounting and partition of profits, alleging that they never really received their correct shares. Mr. X objected to their testimonies, citing the Deadmans Statute. Rule. Non-payment is a negative fact They were saying that their shares were not paid So Mendezona v Vda de Goitia

18. When wife W discovered 2 years after their failed honeymoon that her soldierhusband, H, seemed incapable of consummating their marriage, she consulted a lawyer-friend, who advised her that under A45FC their marriage can be annulled if Hs condition continues and appears to be incurable When Hs conditions continued after several more months, W filed a suit for annulment. Before pre-trial, Ws devoted lawyer moved for the physical examination of H under R28S1 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Hs equally dedicated lawyer vigorously opposed invoking R130 S24 Rules of Court. If you were the judge, how would you rule? Rule against the contention that R130,s24c applies bec the proceeding here is a discovery procedure & s24c only applies during trial/when on examination This refers to an examination of a physician

d. In 2.c. above, if the crime was reported by a neighbor, can C be compelled? Under this S25, child cant testify against the dad A215 dsnt apply bec the crime wsnt against a descendant or 1 parent against the other = it was a crime against the sibling

o o o is her o o

20. After purchasing his car from Toyota Motors Co. (TMC) through TMC sales rep A, B complained to A that when the car had a tire blow out, it was luckily parked in his garage. A told B TMC would replace all the tires, adding that in fact, TMC has also been negotiating for replacement and indemnification with its tire supplier. When TMC replaced only 1 burst tire instead of all 4, B went to court At the trial, B is about to testify that A said that TMC said TMC would replace not just one but all of the tires. TMC objects on the ground of res inter alios acta. Rule. S29 applies re: admission by agent 3 criteria applies: o w/in scope of auth o during existence of agency o E of the agency is shown by E aliunde So assuming, E aliunde estab the agency has alrdy been presented, then s29 applies Ds the declaration really pertain to the agency? Yes, bec it was A who sold the tire to B & it was A who rcvd the complaint It was dne w/in the scope of the agency o Bec A wldnt have given the warranty as to hidden defects if he cldnt assume such under the agency

bec W was exonerating herself of the crime did she completely exculpate herself? No! bec she said in accordance w THEIR plan if she completely exculpated herself theres no confession & RIAA is completely irrelevant & whats left is a testi against the accused only admission admissible against a co-conspirator? If the conspiracy is estabd by E aliunde other than the declaration of W during or relating to the conspiracy The moment E aliunde is presented, then its admissible

HOWEVER Confession, as part of admission, s26 applies o So the person testifying shld be a party!!! Ppl v Valero & DBP Pool v Radio Mindanao o So even granting W said these statements to the police, is it an admission or confession? Lets say what W said to the police was not exculpatory, but shes not impleaded as an accused is it a confession? Is it admissible? o Its not a confession here if you consider confession under admission (s26), technically its not bec not a party (but admitted something against his interest) o But pt is he admitted something o Is it admissible? It depends on whether its presented thru herself or by the police If police testifies: hes telling the Ct she said = hearsay Esp since its not a confession or admission bec shes not a party = cant be admitted under s28 RIAA If she testifies: can be presented as testi against the other accused Maqueda: ct characterized motion to grant bail as judicial but wrong = extrajud o Not discharged o If discharged = technically not confession, just testi v. other accused o Not accepted = still a party If W is a party & its not exculpatory completely confession or admission? whats the effect? o Its an extraJ confession under s26 bec shes a party o Is it admissible against the alleged co-conspirator C? Yes, so long as the 3 criteria of s30 is complied w If the 3 criteria arent there RIAA applies = against you only W! walang damay Contents of conf refer to details during conspiracy and relating to it Beware of ruling: since done after crime/conspiracy = not confession o Not confession as document per se but Q: contents o *misleading: that inadmissible if the conspiracy is over bec by its nature, the confession will be after the conspiracy

21. Husband H and Wife W went in their van to a carnival together with their friend C, then eventually separated in their own games. After a while, C went back to the van and was shocked to find W beside the van bloodied and holding a knife, which C promptly took form W when the latter collapsed on his shoulder. H was inside the van, dead. At the police station, little did C know that W had confessed that he (C) had killed H in accordance with their (C and Ws) previous plan (because H was a wife beater) even as W has tried to prevent him (C) from going through with it. At the trial of People v. C, is Ws confession admissible? the Q is not the confession per se but the contents o if confession per se the Q is just did it comply w the consti o but if talking abt the contents this refers to something else it refers to what happened during the time the alleged conspiracy occurred youd be talking abt details abt the alleged conspiracy rulings wc say that confessions on conspiracy are inadmissible if the conspiracy is alrdy over Maam: this is stupid, not realistic the confession talks abt things during the conspiracy & things relating to the conspiracy Demi: was saying the frnd was the 1 who stabbed H accdg to their agreement Frnd: that when she arrived, Demi had killed H 1) not a confession

22. When they were already alone, after office hours, A discovered inside Bs office drawer the wad of money that he had been missing earlier. Then and there, A confronted and accused B of being the thief who stole the money. B remained silent. a. In People v. B, A will testify to the above effect. Admissible?

Admissible under s32 admission by silence Was it impossible for him to do so? Was it such to naturally call for him to comment if untrue? Yes b. B will testify in his defense that there was no admission because he was not I the office at the time of the alleged confrontation. Admissible?

o o

Yes, its admissible Bec it shows it wsnt possible for him to do so bec he wsnt there c. Before trial, A discovered that his friend C, an officemate, had overheard the confrontation. So, A requested C to testify at the trial instead because he (A) will be abroad during the hearings. Will Cs testimony be admissible?

At the time H was talking, he was no longer part of the partnership The value of Hs statement is only insofar as H knows something bec of the fact & bec of the files he saw in the past (H knew smthng from personal knowledge wc he shared w the wife at this time, he was no longer a partner) Therefore, RIAA dsnt apply! He wsnt saying anything to bind the partnership He was just squealing the partnership RIAA dsnt apply either bec there was NO admission

Not hearsay? No, bec he will testify that he ddnt hear anything frm B Hes not gng to testify what A or B said anything to him C personally perceived accusation and absolute silence = impliedly admitting it d. It happens that C will also be abroad during the hearings, but C does not want to renege on his commitment to A. So Cs lawyer serves notice that As deposition will be taken instead. Any objections?

24. After bringing Mrs. W home, the driver paged Mr. H as follows: Sir, nahatid ko na po si Maam sa bahay sa Antipolo. Nandito na po ako sa Ortigas, ka-dedeliver lang ng mga gamit sa pinsan ninyo. Susunduin ko pa po ba kayo? Kung wala po kayong sagot, uuwi na ako. The pager recorded the message as having been received at 10:30pm. a. Mrs. W was found dead in the Antipolo home the next morning. If the medico-legal officer declares the time of death as 3:00am, would the record of the pager message be admissible in favor of the driver? Admissible in favor of the driver whys it in favor of the driver? o Bec the page said he went home at 1030 & the crime was committed at 3am = alibi Isnt this self-serving? Yes o Considering that if the driver wanted to kill the wife, it cld be not ante litem motam he cldve gone home & gone back o 3 criteria: (self-serving declaration) Out of ct statement In favor of the declarant Made in anticipation of a litigation = its not ante litem motam o Theres a nuance w the 3rd ante litem motam It can be fabricated So burden on proof is on the person trying to prove its present or not depending on your stance If E shows its not ante litem motam = self-serving Show that it was pre-meditated If E shows its ante litem motam = not self-serving b. If the time of death is placed between 9:00 to 10:00 pm., would the pager message be admissible against the driver?

No objections bec in the deposition, they wld have an opp for cross-ex Is a deposition testimony? Yes, except that its preserved thru oral or written examination bec youre in a place far away & you cant go to Ct physically Were speaking of deposition under R23

23. After successfully venturing on his own, husband H left his business partnership with A and B. H then married wife W, a former client of the partnership. Before H and W legally separated, H admitted to W that the partnership still owes P 50,000.00 to her (W) because of a re-computation. In W v. A and B partnership, W will testify regarding Hs statement. Admissible? If H ddnt consent, objectionable under R130, s24a bec communication rcvd by 1 from the other in confidence during the marriage o And the exception is in a civ case by 1 against the other & here W is suing the partnership & not H Falls under s24a bec it was during the marriage since legal sep dsnt dissolve the marriage (their only permitted not to cohabit) S24a dsnt apply anymore if theres a judicial declaration that the marriage is null & void *wala lang Qs & discussions on this situation: *theres no admission here bec the partnership is has a sep personality from you and in an admission shld be directly against you *granting the statement of W of what H said is admissible, is it admissible to prove the truth that the partnership owes 50k or only to prove the tenor of the statement/that H said so? o If only to prove the tenor whats the point of proving this?

Admissible bec it proves that he hadnt gone home & he was at the scene of the crime Clearly admissible bec its in the nature of an admission out of Ct statement o And its against his interest

25. After farmer A was killed in the mountains, rebel B, leading C, D, E and 20 other armed men, visited the small police station in the poblacion bordering the mountains and delivered a written manifesto to the 2 policemen on duty which stated that their rebel group killed farmer A because the latter was a traitor. a. In People v. B, C, D and E, would the statement of B be admissible? Against whom? *B,C,D,E were the 1s who wrote the manifesto = happened after the attack

Ds s30, exception, applies? NO o Bec the conspiracy hstn been proven by E aliunde o Its a statement that dsnt relate to anything during the conspiracy but is a statement made AFTER the conspiracy Bec said their rebel grp KILLED farmer A It wsnt on facts during the conspiracy but was just stating a fact after the conspiracy doesnt state how killed, who were involved Whereas in the Demi Moore example: she was relaying facts that happened during the conspiracy that they went to the carnival, went back to the van, stabbed Hetc o So s30 is irrelevant!! Would your answer be different if (this refers to consti provs so use those to apply & ans) i. B, C, D and E had verbally delivered the message to the policemen? Doesnt matter ii. B verbally made the statement while drinking on invitation of police? B wrote down the statement while drinking invitation of police? 1. After a line-up at the police station? 2. After police caught up with him after hot pursuit? 3. Immediately after surrendering to his cousin? To police?


mailbox and its sexist or racist remarks or jokes about the bosses ruining you r social or pro life, or both. For that matter, the cracker does not even have to break in. All he needs is a wiretap on the circuit to catch mail as it travels from the ISP to you. The Newsweek art concludes, if youre bothered by that thought that a comp somewhere is sifting through your messages to your wife in search of lascivious phrasing, well, get used to it. Fortunately, you do not have to. LANAXS is an IS that can save you. The Email Co. (EMC) says that with LANAXS, your mail sits at the ISP for only a few minutes a day, keeping it safe from those who are not supposed to see it. EMC can go even further, and offer Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) for those with stringent security requirements. SSL encrypts (scrambles) the message as it leaves the server, then unscrambles it when it gets to the recipient. This way, you can be sure that your correspondence remains confidential. For details, you may e-mail or call 631-2909. 2. In the probate of the will of T, heirs A and B are contesting the wills validity on the ground that t was no longer of sound mind at the time of its execution, while C was saying the opposite. To prove his point, C will present in evidence three letters written to and received by T by three of his businessmen-friends about a business proposition just before his death. Would these letters be admissible? Inadmissible (old rule in England) o Wright v Doe overruled by the Federal Rules of Evidence Bec the letters dnt pt to the state of mind of T It wasnt even T who wrote it but his businessmen-frnds & its irrelevant bec it dsnt even show SOM What theyre contesting is the soundness of mind when the will was made The letters ddnt mention at what particular time these exchanges were mde o Lets assume he rcvd it b4 he made his will (& right after his will, he died) Even if the letters were made b4 the will, whats being contested is his SOM when he made the will Ppl are presumed sane Dnt tlk abt lucid intervals unless theres a contention abt insanity In the absence of E to the contrary, theres a continuity of the presumption of sanity Overturned in AM Jurisprudence o Admissible (new rule) o Bec will show SOM at the time the propositions were made to T o These businessmen wrote you letters & they wldnt be writing to some1 if they knew him to be insane = Evid that tends to show that T was sane o Its admissible bec the businessmen who are presumed to be sane, wldnt have written to show the letters bec they thought he was sane o SOM of the party View E in light of human experience & logic o Not natural at the time rcvd the lttrs he was sane & then right b4 the will, insane Presumed sane while writing will

Doesnt matter iii.

*Sen Ermita: on Eo 464 = not under exec privilege its not under letter E but under anthr statute HER & its exceptions 1. * E-mail can be used as evidence against sender (12.28.98, Philippine Daily Inquirer) One of the strongest weapons against Bill Gates in the United States governments anti-trust case against Microsoft Corp was his e-mail messages against quashing Netscape which the US DOJ managed to get a hold of. The November 23 issue of Newsweek explained that e-mails stored on a mail server at an internet service provider (ISP) can be subpoenaed, forcing the ISP to relinquish potentially damaging correspondence. America Online (AOL), for instance, processes 37 million e-mail messages a day for its members, keeps them on their servers for 25 to 30 days, then destroys them. However, before they are destroyed, law enforcement officers with a search warrant can view selected members mailboxes for illegal content. While you might be a law-abiding citizen who has nothing to fear from the authorities, you e-mail still leaves you open to potentially damaging situations. A disgruntled or corrupt system administrator at your ISP can sell your mail to a competitor. A hotshot cracker can break into an ISP system and expose your

3. One night, Mr. A was arrested by police inside a car that he was driving. Mr. A wants to prove in the carnappjng case against him that he did not know that it had been stolen, testifying that when his friend Mr. B. lent it to him, Mr. B said (Mr Bs) father had just given it to him. Would his testimony be admissible? US v Norwood 1986 (US case) He was only testifying that he drove the car, but not to the truthfulness that the car was lent to him by his father What hes testifying to is what B told but not as to the truthfulness of the content Therefore, its not hearsay! Its an independently relevant statement Its relevant to the fact that he ddnt steal the car but that he borrowed it from B In what sense is it relevant to an issue in the carnapping case? o To the issue of criminal intent Bec his defense is that he had no intent to steal, his possession was in GF SOM of the party himself US v Zeny: o Police surveyed a hse bec suspected it to be a gambling place o They wld make phone calls & the 1 answering wld place bets o The police made 20 or more calls o Always the ans is what horse hes betting on, etc o This was used as E to show the nature of the place not based on facts directly but how ppl were dealing the place wc tends to show what it seemed to be = it was based on the SOM of the ppl running it belief is part of SOM Show nature of place not by showing facts directly but state of mind of ppl running it = beliefs part of state of mind (rubric) Belief is of 2 kinds: o Concerns the person himself In Estrada v Desierto: The SOM pertained to the declarant, Erap the 1 involved in the case as a party US v. Norwood: p himself P who believed in statement (WON statement true) o Concerns others/3rd parties (Wright v Doe)

5.a) Accused long-time suitor A was charged in court for the rape of Victim V. During the trial, A began sending flowers to V, then chocolates, then love notes professing his long-time arduous affection for V. As lawyer for V, would you advise that V testify in court about Bs overtures presenting the love notes as well? The testi of V re: the overtures wld be relevant to the issue of rape It has nothing to do w s27? (offer of compromise) o Rule: crim case an offer of compromise may be rcvd in E as an implied admission of guilt And an effect of marriage in rape is that it extinguishes the rape Marriage in rape cases: extinguishes the crim liab in rape o Ppl v Amiscua: but offer of marriage is an implied admission of guilt Dsnt apply here, no compromise yet Bec there was no offer of marriage yet! There were only overtures Courting IS NOT an offer of marriage

b) When A could no longer help it, he told his cousin C to plead that V marry him. C obliged. As lawyer for V, would you advise that V testify about the actions of the cousin C? Is it relevant? Yes o Bec it was an offer of marriage And an offer of marriage is an implied admission of guilt Why shld it bind A? it was C who said it? o Theres a RIAA consideration: We have to estab whether C was an agent of A V shld testify & itll be admissible against the accused, if the rel of agency is estab btwn A & C by E aliunde other than the act/declaration o It shld be: in rel to the agency was during the existence of the agency if authorized But need to prove the existence 1st thru E aliunde If no E aliunde of the fact of agency, then it wld be hearsay or RIAA

State of mind referred to the SOM of the witness/3rd parties wrt to the party Ppl he deals w

No agency Declarant here is A (he was the source;wntd to get married) o Is his statement against himself? Yes So its an admission o Except, he ddnt say it directly, he said it thru C o So if V talks in Ct, its inadmissible if no agency rel

4. For publishing that the house of C was well-known in the community as a drug den, publisher A and columnist B were sued for libel by C. To prove the truth of the published statements as part of their defense, A and B will have the Barangay Captain testify that indeed, since 5 years ago the house of C has been well-known in the community as a drug den. Admissible? Exception to the hearsay rule (common reputation)

1st objection is its IRRELEVANT If this dsnt wrk go to hearsay

2nd objection: hearsay Bec what V is testifying on is a fact wc she heard from C wc A said to C Double hearsay! Technically speaking, an admission looks like hearsay o Except if its an admission, all talk of hearsay vanishes/is irrelevant bec its an admission

The statement of C is hearsay but nevermind, bec its an admission of A to C Except C isnt on the witness stand If the statement of C is gng to be taken against A, the admission of A became real & began to exist only when he said it to C o whatever C says is gonna bind A if hes an agent o And if V testifies that C said this, then RIAA comes in o And if theres no RIAA, bec theres an agency relobject becomes of hearsay When an admission is erased/begins to be irrelevant, hearsay comes in Will the rules under s29 apply? o Seems not o It seems that the gen principles of agency that will apply o Bec under s29 its the admission of the agent that will bind the P while, here its the admission of the P to the agent Therefore, its double hearsay kng may agency o Bec of s29, RIAA cant be used as an objection Bec in this case, it was an admission of the P to the agent o rationale demanding evid aliunde to prove agency o so itll be fair: why bind u? o here: not the rationale in s29 but the existence of the agency if not authorized = whats the nature of the statement? No binding effect = no leg effect established: not rly agent

o o o o o

Why cant non-flight be used as E to show youre innocent? Its irrelevant It dsnt tend to show innocence theres no logical connection The fact that you didnt flee, has no connection w your innocence Bec chances are that its possible that you ddnt flee but youre guilty Not natural by human experience & logic that youll flee

7. DM emerged from her family trailer in bloodied clothes, collapsing in the arms of their family friend F. DM told F that she had just stabbed her husband, wife-beater H, in self-defense. At the police station, that was exactly the story told by F to the police. DM, however, was recounting another story, after she was read her constitutional rights, she told police that H got so jealous when he saw her and F alone inside the van such that H took out the kitchen knife and tried to stab F, who, however, was able to parry the same, grab it from H, and eventually H when the latter continued to struggle against him. The police typed this statement of DM, and DM signed it under oath. Would this statement of DM be admissible against F? (Diff from the Demi Moore example) Theres no admission o Only look at exculpatory aspects if theres an admission, bec itll water down the admission Therefore the written statement is inadmissible per se, bec its hearsay Its purely a statement of DM against F o Shes just ratting on F & its inadmissible bec is hearsay o Unless DM herself appears in Ct (single hearsay) Bautista: double hearsay DM appears in ct = converts affidavit into jud statement but still no admission Statement per se not saying shell appear in ct = hearsay

Still persuade judge agency but not in sense of privity in s29

6. Learning that Vs lawyer will present H, the helper who saw W drag V into As car the night of the rape, A made sure H got a job as OFW in H thru his (As) brother B (owner of a recruitment agency). In the event you learn of this, would you, as Vs lawyer, present evidence of this fact? Act of A in getting H a job is an admission o Making sure H got job thru bros implied admission of guilt (act of getting rid of witness = eloignment) o Its E on collateral matters Its an admission that the witness, witnessed the event This is circumstantial E of guilt = its an implied admission of guilt Eloinment act of getting rid of a witness

8. A invited B to a drinking spree with C, during which A made a secret phone call to E, mentioning the name of B, after which phone call A left. Later. E and D arrived and kidnapped B. In People v. A, D and E for kidnapping (as B was never found), C is about to testify that at one time, B had confided to him that he (B) was carrying on an affair with that wife of A. The defense objects on the ground of irrelevance and hearsay. Rule. Bernal case Admissible bec its a declaration against interest

9. While dancing at a party, A suddenly stabbed Fuentes v CA (same facts) 10. In the tug of war between H and W for their child Cs custody, H calls C to the stand to confirm that W is a casino fixture. Any objection? Any difference if the suit is for legal separation? If the marriage of H and W had already been annulled at the time of testifying? Falls under filial privilege = cant compel What abt if its leg sep? o Think of s25 & A215 FC

If the accused flees after the commission of the crime, even b4 charges are filed is this relevant to the case? o Yes, its relevant o Its circum E of flight wc is also an implied admission of guilt o Flight can be admitted in E that possibly/tends to show youre guilty o Its not natl that youll flee if youre not guilty How abt non-flight? Relevant or admission? o The guilty flees, while the innocent stay

A215 dsnt contemplate civ cases only applies in crim cases E in a crime that is committed against the descendatnt No crime committed against the child Therefore A215 is irrelevant Ds it matter that its been annulled? No Pt is their still your parents = filiation still Annulment only has something to do w s22 That theres no marriage anymore

11. In a drinking spree, A boasted to friends C, D and E that he is a con expert, giving many examples of his escapades. Then, the spree turned into a brawl. At the trial of C v. D for physical injuries, C will present A as witness. To attack As credibility, D will testify regarding As con escapades. Any objection? Is impeaching part of IRS? No Con expert/scam expert Its admissible bec it will tend to impeach the credibility of hearsay But not IRS bec credibility isnt an issue in the case

a witness so not

12. After the Kalentong Bridge gave way, it was repaired under the supervision of Engr. A. At the tort suit trial of B v. the City of Mandaluyong, B will present Engr. A to testify to the cracks and other indicia of the bad state of the bridge prior to the accident. Any objection? No objection bec here whats sought to be found is WON the city was negligent What wld be inadmissible/unfair? o (regalado): unfair if what you present is E as to repairs done but admissible as to defects b4 Reapairs to the bridge is admissible bec o s27: rationale, its proper for the city to repair the bridge if it was in a state of disrepair & shldnt be admitted as an admission bec itll discourage repair

13. While being investigated by the Prosecutor for rape, accused A accepted the amorous intimations of B such that they eventually got married. Is As acceptance of Bs offer admissible as evidence of guilt? bec it was B, the victim, who offered to marry A who is the suspect no implied admission bec it wsnt the accused who offered marriage eventually extinguished it, but the Q contemplates that the E is presented b4 the marriage