Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
A. Evidence as defined by the Revised Rules on Evidence
Evidence defined: means sanctioned by the Rules
of Court of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact. (Section 1, Rule 128)
General Rule:
The rules of evidence do not apply in the following
cases/proceedings: (Section 4, Rule 1, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure)
(i)
Election cases
(ii)
Land registration
(iii)
Cadastral proceedings
(iv)
Naturalization proceedings
(v)
Insolvency proceedings
Exception: By analogy or in a suppletory character whenever practicable and
convenient (Section 4, Rule 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
B. Distinguish Evidence from Proof
Evidence is the medium, means, or tool by which a fact is proved or disproved;
while Proof is the effect or result of evidence, the conviction or persuasion of
the mind resulting from a consideration of evidence.
C. Distinguish Factum Probandum from Factum Probans
Evidence signifies relationship between two facts, namely:
(a) factum probandum, which is the fact or proposition in issue which evidence
seeks to prove or disprove
(b) factum probans, which is the evidentiary fact tending to prove the fact in
issue
Example:
In an action for collection of a sum of money filed by A against B, the factum
probandum is the existence of the debt while the factum probans is the
promissory note signed by B in favor of A.
D. Classification of Evidence
(i)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
Expert evidence
Prepared by:
ATTY. JOSEPH RANDI C TORREGOSA
Professor - College of Law, University of San Carlos - Cebu
Partner Torregosa Galeon Gravador & Tomaneng Law Offices
Former Senior Associate Angara Abello Conception Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(i)
substance emitted from the body
of the accused such as examination for gonorrhea (US vs
Tanting)
hair samples (Pp vs Rondero)
DNA samples (Pp vs Vallero, Pp vs Yatar)
fingerprinting, photographing and paraffin testing (Pp vs
Gallarde)
(v)
pregnancy test (Villaflor vs Summers)
Right against self-incrimination extends to the following:
(i)
compulsion for production of
documents,
papers,
and
chattels
(Regala
vs
Sandiganbayan)
(ii)
any attempt to furnish a specimen of the accuseds
handwriting in connection with prosecution for falsification
(Beltran vs Samson)
Right may be waived by:
(i)
failure to invoke it timely
(ii)
taking the witness stand and
voluntary testifies in which case he may be cross-examined
and asked incriminating questions on any matter he
testified during direct examination
People vs Judge Ayson
While the accused may testify on his own behalf subject to crossexamination, he may, while testifying, refuse to answer a specific
question the answer to which tends to incriminate him for some
crime other than that for which he is being prosecuted
Question is deemed incriminating if it tends to elicit an answer
that would expose the party/witness to possible criminal liability.
Thus, if question relates to a past criminality for which a witness
can no longer be prosecuted as when it has already prescribed or
he has already been acquitted or convicted, or where he has been
granted immunity, the right is not available.
How right may be exercised:
(a) Accused in Criminal Case accused may refuse to take the
stand altogether and need not wait for an incriminating question
to be asked; reason: the purpose for calling him is precisely to
incriminate him
(b) Party in Civil Case or Administrative Case party may invoke
the right as soon as incriminating question will be asked
Exception:
Civil or administrative case partakes of criminal
proceedings, the party may refuse to take the stand
altogether (Pascual vs Medical Board of Examiners,
Cabal vs Kapunan)
(c) Witness in any case right may be invoked when incriminating
question is propounded
Prepared by:
ATTY. JOSEPH RANDI C. TORREGOSA
Professor - College of Law, University of San Carlos - Cebu
Partner Torregosa Galeon Gravador & Tomaneng Law Offices
Former Senior Associate Angara Abello Concepcion Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law
writing/document (the question is what the document says), the original of the
writing/document must be presented. What is stated in the document cannot be
proven by photocopy or oral recollection of a witness.
Republic vs. Imee Marcos-Manotok, et. al., G.R. No.171701, 8 February 2012
This case involves a civil action for recovery of ill-gotten wealth against the heirs of
the late Ferdinant Marcos. To prove that the respondents had interests in various
corporations and how they used dummies in acquiring and operating the businesses,
the Republic prensented mere photocopies f documents, consisting of letters, TSN of
proceedings before the PCGG, and affidavit of witnesses. The Republic did not deny
that what should be proved are the contents of these documents themselves. It is
thus imperative to submit the originals that could prove the Republics allegations,
without which the Republic could not prove that the respondents collaborated with
former President Marcos and Imelda Marcos and partcipated in the latters alleged
accumulation of ill-gotten wealth.
D. What is considered as original for purposes of best evidence rule:
(a) when the contents of which are the subject of inquiry, hence a photocopy may
be an original for purposes of the rule
(b) document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with
identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals
People vs Hon. Tan
A triplicate copy produced by the use of carbon is admissible without
accounting for the other copies
(c) when the entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied
from another at or near the time of transaction, all the entries are likewise
equally regarded as originals
E. Instances when best evidence rule does not apply and the original
writing need not be produced:
(1)
if the purpose is not to prove the contents of the writing but only to
show that the document exists, or has been executed or delivered, in such a
case, the oral testimony or other secondary evidence is enough to prove the
existence, issuance or delivery of the writing
People vs Tandoy
A photocopy of the marked peso bill is admissible since what is sought to be
proved is the existence of the marked money and not the contents thereof
Pacifico Arceo vs People
A photocopy of the check is admissible in a criminal prosecution for violation of
BP 22 because the gravamen of the offense is the act of issuance of a bum
check, thus the subejct of inquiry is the execution or the existence of the check
and not its contents
(2) if the writing or document is merely collateral or is connected in some way to
the fact in issue, otherwise known as Collateral Fact Rule
(3) if the purpose is to prove a fact that has an existence that is independent of
any writing, even though that fact has been reduced to or evidenced by a
writing,
Mayers vs US
A testimony of a witness given in a committee hearing may be proven by the
oral testimony of someone who heard it although the testimony was recorded,
thus the presentation of the transcript of the witness testimony is not
indispensable
(4) when the terms or contents of the document are not disputed
Consolidated Bank and Trust Company vs Del Monte Motorworks
When the terms/contents of a document are not disputed or are admitted by
the parties
(5) waiver
Dela Cruz vs Court of Appeals
Despite non-compliance with the requisites for introduction of secondary
Prepared by:
ATTY. JOSEPH RANDI C. TORREGOSA
Professor - College of Law, University of San Carlos - Cebu
Partner Torregosa Galeon Gravador & Tomaneng Law Offices
Former Senior Associate Angara Abello Concepcion Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law
(iv)
Where the adverse party fails to object on time, parol evidence may be admitted by
the court to vary, alter or modify the terms of a written agreement (Willex Plastic
Industries Corp. vs. Court of Appeals)
DISTINCTION BETWEEN BEST EVIDENCE RULE AND PAROL EVIDENCE RULE:
(i)
In the Best Evidence Rule, the question to be answered is - what does the
document say?; while in Parol Evidence Rule, the question is what have the
parties to the contract agreed upon?
(ii)
The Best Evidence Rule establishes a preference for the original over a
secondary evidence; while Parol Evidence Rule is not concerned with primacy of
evidence but it presupposes that the original is available, meaning the Best
Evidence Rule has to be complied with;
(iii)
The Best Evidence Rule precludes the admission of the secondary evidence if
the original document is available; while the Parol Evidence Rule precludes the
admission of evidence other than the contents of the document to prove the
terms of a written agreement;
(iv)
The Best Evidence Rule can be invoked by any litigant to an action whether or
not said litigant is a party to the document involved; while the Parol Evidence
Rule can be invoked only against a party to the written agreement and their
successors-in-interest;
(v)
The Best Evidence Rule applies to all forms of documents; while Parol Evidence
Rule applies only to written contracts and wills.
V. EXTRA-JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS, CONFESSIONS, COMPROMISES AND RES INTER
ALIOS ACTA RULE
Kinds of Admissions:
(a) Judicial Admission (Section 4, Rule 129)
(b) Extra-judicial admission (Section 26, Rule 130)
Kinds of Extra-judicial Admission:
(A) Admission by a Party(Admission Against Interest)
Statement of the Rule:
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to any relevant fact
maybe given in evidence against him ( Section 26, Rule 130)
Reason for the Rule is its inherent reliability, for no one would make an adverse
admission against himself if such is not true.
- Refers to an extra-judicial admission and the admission is against the interest
of the admitter. Thus, self-serving admission is not admissible.
- The rule on extra-judicial admission under Section 26, Rule 130 contemplates
of a situation where the declarant is not in court, but someone who had
heard/seen the admission testifies in court as to the admission made by the
declarant. In otherwords, the declarant himself is not the witness, because the
moment the declarant comes forward and testifies and reiterates in court his
extra-judicial admission, then such admission becomes a judicial admission.
Prepared by:
ATTY. JOSEPH RANDI C TORREGOSA
Professor - College of Law, University of San Carlos - Cebu
Partner Torregosa Galeon Gravador & Tomaneng Law Offices
Former Senior Associate Angara Abello Conception Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law
10
- Since the witness is not the declarant himself, the testimony of such witness,
insofar as the admission made by the declarant is concerned, is necessarilly
hearsay, considering that the witness has no personal knowledge as to the
truth or falsity of the admission and the declarant who is not in the witness
stand cannot be cross-examined by the party against whom the admission is
offered in evidence.
- But while an extra-judicial admission is necessarilly hearsay, under Section
26, Rule 130, the same is admissible against the declarant. The reason why an
admission - even if hearsay- is admissible is that, the declarant is not expected
to cross-examine himself. In otherwords, if what makes an extra-judicial
admission hearsay is the absence of oppurtunity of the party against whom the
admission is offered to cross-examine the person who made the extra-judicial
admission, then obviously such reason does not exist in case of an extrajudicial admission since the person who made the adamission is the same
person against whom the admission is offered in evidence.(Estrada vs.
Desierto)
- While the extra-judicial admission under Section 26, Rule 130 is not among
those exceptions to the hearsay rule enumerated under Sections 37 to 47 of
Rule 130, the Supreme Court categorically ruled in Estrada vs. Desierto that
admission under Section 26, Rule 130 is an exception to the hearsay evidence
rule.
- While admission under Section 26, Rule 130 and Declaration Against Interest
under Section 38, Rule 130 are both exceptions to hearsay evidence rule, they
are distinct from each other.
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ADMISSION UNDER SECTION 26
AND DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST UNDER SECTION 38
(i) the admission under Section 26 is admissible against the declarant only;
while declaration against interest under Section 38 is admissible not only
against the admmitter but also against third party;
(ii) in admission under Section 26, the declarant need not be dead or unable to
testify; while in declaration against interest under Section 38 applies only if
the declarant is dead or unable to testify;
(iii)an admission under Section 38 may be made at any time even during the
trial; while declaration against interest is made before the controversy
arises.
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN EXTRA-JUDICIAL ADMISSION UNDER SECTION
26
AND JUDICIAL ADMISSION UNDER SECTION 4, RULE 29
(i) A judicial admission is made in the course of a judicial proceeding in the
same case; while an extra-judicial admission is made out of court or in a
judicial proceeding involving a different case other than the case where the
admission is introduced in evidence;
(ii) A judicial admission is binding and conclusive upon the admitter; while an
extra-judicial admission maybe contradicted by the admitter;
(iii)A judicial admission requires no proof and need not be formally offered;
while an extra-judicial admission requires proof and needs to be formally
offered in evidence.
(B) Res Inter Alios Acta
Two Branches of Res Inter Alios Acta:
(a) Admission by third party (Res Inter Alios Acta Rule of the First Branch)
Statement of the rule: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act, declaration or omission of another. (Section 28, Rule 130)
Reason behind the rule: since the third party-declarant cannot be crossPrepared by:
ATTY. JOSEPH RANDI C. TORREGOSA
Professor - College of Law, University of San Carlos - Cebu
Partner Torregosa Galeon Gravador & Tomaneng Law Offices
Former Senior Associate Angara Abello Concepcion Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law
11
12
Reason for the exception since the successor merely steps into
the shoes of the predecessor, they are deemed by law as
possessing the same interest and similarly circumstanced with
respect to the property acquired by the former from the latter,
such that the previous admission made by the predecessor while
still holding title to the property is binding and admissible against
the predecessor who is presently holding the title, because such
admission cannot be deemed as an admission by a third party
proscribed under the res inter alios acta rule.
Requisites for the exception to apply:
(a) there must be an act, declaration or omission made by a
predecessor-in-interest;
(b) the act, declaration or omission relates to the property and
made while the predecessor (declarant) was still holding title
to the property;
Thus, if the act, declaration, or omission was made before the
predecessor (declarant) became the owner of the property
(City of Manila vs. Del Rosario) or after the predecessor
had parted with the ownership of the property to his
successor-in-interest (City of Manila vs. Del Rosario;
Gevero vs. IAC), then such act, declaration or omission is not
admissible against the successor.
(c) the title to the property is now being transferred to and
presently held by the successor-in-interest.
(b) Similar Acts or Previous Conduct Rule (Res Inter Alios Acta Rule of
the Second Branch)
Statement of the rule - Evidence that one did or did not do
a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did
not do the same or similar thing at another time.(Section 34, Rule
130)
Reason for the rule: Evidence of similar act s or occurences
compels the defendant to meet allegations that are not mentioned in the
complaint, confuses him in his defense, raises a variety of relevant
issues, and diverts the attention of the court from the issues
immediately before it. Hence, the evidentiary rule guards against
practical inconvenience of trying collateral issues and protracting the
trial and prevent surprise or other mischief prejudicial to litigants. (Cruz
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.126713, 27 July 1998).
While evidence of similar acts or previous conduct is inadmissible to
prove that the person did or did not do the same or similar conduct at
another time, it is, however, admissible to prove:
(i)
specific intent;
(ii)
knowledge;
(iii)
identity;
(iv)
plan;
(v)
system;
(vi)
scheme;
(vii) habit;
(viii) custom;
(ix) usage; and the like (Section 34, Rule 130)
OFFER OF COMPROMISE (Section 27, Rule 130)
A. In Civil Cases offer of compromise is not an admission of liability and is not
admissible against the offeror.
Reason for the rule: In civil cases, the policy is to encourage compromise.
B. In Criminal Cases an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in
Prepared by:
ATTY. JOSEPH RANDI C. TORREGOSA
Professor - College of Law, University of San Carlos - Cebu
Partner Torregosa Galeon Gravador & Tomaneng Law Offices
Former Senior Associate Angara Abello Concepcion Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law
13
14
b.
c.
d.
e.
15
entertained by the declarant. It is the belief in impending death and not the
rapid succession of death in point of fact that renders the dying declaration
admissible. The test is whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of
survival and looked at death as certainly impending. But take note of the
ratification doctrine, which states that a statement made under
circumstances which would not render it admissible as a dying declaration
becomes admissible as such if approved or repeated by the declarant after
he had abandoned all hope of recovery. In Pp vs Babiera (52 Phil 97),
although the statement in itself is inadmissible as an ante mortem
declaration, in as much as there is nothing to show that at the time he
made it, Severino Haro knew or firmly believed that he was at the point of
death, nevertheless, after having ratified its contents a week later when he
was near death as a result of his wounds, said declaration is admissible as a
part of that which he made ante mortem.
3) The declarant is competent as a witness.
Where the declarant would not have been a competent witness had he
surived, the proferred declarations will not be admissible. Accordingly,
declaration made by a child too young to be a competent witness or by an
insane incapable of understanding his own statements are not admissible.
However, the presumption is that, delcarant would have been competent.
(Geraldo and Ariate vs People, G.R. No. 173608, 20 November
2008)
4) The declaration must be offered in any case where the declarants death is
the subject of inquiry (Geraldo and Ariate vs People. G.R. No. 173608,
20 November 2008).
Note: The ruling in People vs Cerilla, where the Supreme Court held that the
declaration must be offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder or
parricide in which the declarant is a victim, is of doubtful accuracy because
Section 37, Rule 130 expressly provides that dying declaration may be
received in any case where the declarants death is the subject of inquiry as
evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
Doctrine of Completeness in relation to dying declaration
(Pp vs De Joya, G.R. No. 75028, 8 November 1991)
- Under this doctrine, a dying declaration must be complete in itself. To be
complete, it does not mean that the declarant must recite everything; it is
enough that it be a full expression of all that the declarant intended to say as
conveying his meaning in respect of such fact.
- Reason for the rule: since the declarant was prevented by death or other
circumstance from saying all that he wished to say, what he did say might have
qualified by the statements which he was prevented from making. That
incomplete declaration is not therefore entitled to the presumption of
truthfulness which constitutes the basis upon which dying declarations are
received.
B) DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (Section 38, Rule 130)
Basis/Reasons for exception:
a) Trustworthiness no person would make a statement adverse to himself
unless it is true
b) Necessity the declarant is already dead or unable to testify; allowing it
prevents a failure of justice
Requisites:
1) The declarant is deceased or unable to testify because he is mentally
incapacitated or physically incompetent.
But mere absence of the declarant is not enough. The proponent must
serious effort to produce the declarant (Fuentes vs CA)
2) At the time the declaration was made, it was against the interest of the
declarant (Parel vs Prudencio)
C) ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE (Section 39, Rule 130)
Prepared by:
ATTY. JOSEPH RANDI C TORREGOSA
Professor - College of Law, University of San Carlos - Cebu
Partner Torregosa Galeon Gravador & Tomaneng Law Offices
Former Senior Associate Angara Abello Conception Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law
16
17
Requisites:
(People vs. Alegrado)
(i) there must be a controversy in respect to pedigree of any of family
members;
(ii) there must be a reputation or a tradition regarding the pedigree of such
family member which existed prior to the controversy;
(iii)the witness testifying as such reputation or tradition must be a member of
the same family as the person whose pedigree is in question.
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE
(Section 39)
and FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION REGARDING PEDIGREE (Section
40)
In Section 39, the declarant is dead or unable to testify, and the witness, who
may be a family member or not, testifies as to the act or declaration made by
the declarant about the pedigree of a family member; while Section 40, does
not involve a deceased declarant or a declarant who is unable to testify, but a
witness, who must be a family member, testifying as to the family reputation or
tradition regarding the pedigree of another family member.
E. COMMON REPUTATION (Section 41, Rule 130)
Covers two (2) subjects:
(i)
matters of public or general interest more than thirty (30) years
old; and
(ii)
marriage or moral character.
Unlike pedigree (Sections 39 and 40), general reputation of marriage or
non-marriage may proceed from persons who are not members of the
family, in view of the public interest that is taken in the questions
involving marital relations (In Re: Mallari).
IN RE: Atty. Florencio Mallari
The Filipino citizenship of a lawyer (Atty. Florencio Mallari), whose license
was revoked upon finding that he is not a Filipino as his parents were
allegedly both chinese nationals, was established by the witnesses who
belonged to the same community all of whom testified that Ana, the
mother of Esteban (Florencios father) was unmarried and a Tagalog
and, therefore, a Filipino.
F. RES GESTAE (Section 42, Rule 130)
Reason for the Exception: its trustworthiness, given the absence of the
oppurtunity to concoct/fabricate since the statement was made spontaneously.
Two (2) Forms of Res Gestae:
(i) Spontaneous statement
Statement of the rule Statements made by a person
while a startling occurence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be
given in evidence as part of the res gestae. X x x(Section 42, first
part, Rule 130)
It refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the
participants, the victim or spectator to a crime immediately before,
during and after the commission of the crime, when the circumstances
are such that the statements were made as spontaneous reaction or
utterance inspired by excitement of the occassion and there was no
oppurtunity for the declarant to deliberate and fabricate a false
statement(People vs. Esoy, G.R. No.185894, 7 April 2010)
The spontaneous statement was made during the startling occurence, or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto. If the statement was not
spontaneous, it is not admissible as res gestae(Talidano vs. Falcon
Prepared by:
ATTY. JOSEPH RANDI C TORREGOSA
Professor - College of Law, University of San Carlos - Cebu
Partner Torregosa Galeon Gravador & Tomaneng Law Offices
Former Senior Associate Angara Abello Conception Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law
18
19
of business.
(ii) the entries were made at or near the time of the transaction to which they
refer;
(ii) the entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
(iii) the entries were made in his professional capacity or in a performance of a
duty;
(iv) the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
Failure to prove the existence of all the foregoing evidence renders the
evidence inadmissible under hearsay evidence rule (Patula vs. People, G.R.
No.164457, 11 April 2012)
H. ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
Statement of the rule:
Entries in official records made in the
performance of his dutyby a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in
the performance of a duty especially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence
of the facts therein stated(Section 44, Rule 130)
Reason for the Exception: its trusworthiness, based on the presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duty
Requisites:
(i) the entry was made by a public officer, or by a person
especially enjoined by law to do so;
Examples of persons enjoined by law to make report:
(a) persons authorized by law to solemnized marriage, because they are
required by law to submit copies of marriage contract to the Local
Civil Registrar of the place where the marriage was
solemnized(Family Code);
(b) Ship Captains, because they are required by law to keep a logbook
where to record all incidents occurring on board the vessel and all
decisions that he adopted (Article 612, Code of Commerce)
(ii) the entry must be made by a public officer in the performance of his duties,
or by such other person in the performance of a duty especially enjoined by
law; and
(iii)that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts
therein stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or through
official information, i.e., it must come from one under a legal duty to submit
the same.
Barcelon Roxas Securities, Inc. vs. BIR
To prove service of the required Notice of Assessment, BIR presented a BIR
Record Book, containing lists of taxpayers names, nature and amount of tax,
the registry number and date of mailing of the Notice of Assessment, as
testified to by the records custodian. It was ruled that the BIR Record Book is
not admissible as entries in official records because:
(a) the entries made were not based on the personal knowledge of the records
custodian; and
(b) the records custodian did not attest to the fact that she acquired the reports
from persons under a legal duty to submit the same.
People vs. San Gabriel
A stabbing incident occurred and an eyewitness reported to the police station
where the police on duty recorded the incident in the police blotter (advance
information sheet). The accused argued that he should be acquitted, since he
is not the one named in the police blotter but another person. It was ruled that
the police blotter is not admissible as entries in official business, considering
that:
(a) the police officer who recorded the incident in the police blotter had no
personal knowledge of the facts therein stated; and
(b) the facts stated in the police blotter were not obtained by the police officer
through official information, since the eyewitness who reported the incident is
Prepared by:
ATTY. JOSEPH RANDI C TORREGOSA
Professor - College of Law, University of San Carlos - Cebu
Partner Torregosa Galeon Gravador & Tomaneng Law Offices
Former Senior Associate Angara Abello Conception Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law
20
21
22
(c)
Prepared by:
ATTY. JOSEPH RANDI C. TORREGOSA
Professor - College of Law, University of San Carlos - Cebu
Partner Torregosa Galeon Gravador & Tomaneng Law Offices
Former Senior Associate Angara Abello Concepcion Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law
23
QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS:
(i)
can perceive (observation acquired from personal knowledge)
(ii)
and in perceiving, he can make known his perception to others (memory and
communication)
(iii)
he must take an oath or affirmation
(iv)
must not possess any of the disqualifications imposed by law or the rules.
The following are NOT grounds for disqualification of a witness:
(a)
religious belief;
(b)
political affiliation;
(c)
interest in the outcome of the case;
(d)
conviction of a crime, except:
(i) a person convicted of the crimes of falsification, perjury or false testimony
is disqualified from being a witness in a Will. Thus, he is disqualified from
testifying in a probate proceedings;
(ii) a person convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude is disqualified
from being a state witness. Thus, he cannot testify as a state witness in a
criminal case filed against him and his other co-accused.
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS:
(A) Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or insanity(Section 21,
Rule 130)
A person incapable of making known his perception to others is disqualified as
a witness, provided the incapacity or insanity must exist at the time of his
production for examination.
Incapacity/insanity at the time of observation of the event that the witness is
asked to testify does not disqualify the witness from testifying so long as he is
competent at the time of his production as a witness, but it affects his
credibility.
(B) Disqualification by reason of immaturity(Section 21, Rule 130)
Refers to children whose mental maturity is such as to render them:
(i) incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined; and
(ii) of relating them truthfully.
But under the Rules on the Examination of a Child Witness (A.M. No.00-07SC), every child is presumed competent. Thus, the party who alleges the
contrary must prove that the child witness is disqualified by reason of his
mental immaturity.
(C) Disqualification by reason of marriage, otherwise known as marital
disqualification rule or spousal immunity (Section 22, Rule 130)
Purposes of the rule:
(a) preserve marital relations and promote domestic peace;
(b) prevent perjury.
Requisites:
(i) must be legally married;
Alvarez vs. Ramirez
Even if the spouses are still legally married but their relationship is
already strained, the marital disqualification rule or spousal immunity
does not apply, and therefore, the wife may testify against his husband.
The reason for this rule is that, when the spouses are already
estranged, there is no more domestic peace to preserve.
(ii) the witness-spouse could either be a party to the case or not, but the other
spouse must
be a party;
(iii)the testimony may be for or against the party-spouse; and
Prepared by:
ATTY. JOSEPH RANDI C TORREGOSA
Professor - College of Law, University of San Carlos - Cebu
Partner Torregosa Galeon Gravador & Tomaneng Law Offices
Former Senior Associate Angara Abello Conception Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law
24
(iv)the testimony is offered during the marriage, not before and not after its
dissolution.
Applies to any case/action/proceedings and covers testimonial, object or
documentary evidence. Thus, either spouse may not be compelled to produce
documents or object evidence may be incriminate the other.
The marital disqualification rule or spousal immunity ceases upon dissolution
of the marriage either by death or other grounds.
Exceptions to Marital Disqualification Rule or Spousal Immunity:
(i) in a civil case by one spouses against the other; and
(ii) in a criminal case involving a crime committed by one spouse against the
witness-spouse,
or against the direct descendants or ascendants of the witnessspouse.
(D) Disqualification by Reason of Death or Insanity, otherwise known as
the Dead Man Statute or Survivorship Disqualification Rule (Section
23, Rule 130)
Purpose of the rule:
(i) to avoid perjury, since the other party is already dead, the temptation on
the party of the surviving party to resort to falsehood is high;
(ii) to level playing field, as the dead party is no longer around to tell his own
tale and refute that of the surviving party.
Requisites:
(i) the defendant in the case is the executor, administrator or a representative
of the deceased or person of unsound mind;
Guererro vs. St. Claire Realty, et al.
The Dead Man Statute does not apply and, therefore, a witness may
testify on a fact which took place prior to the death of the deceased,
considering that the defendants in the case were sued in their personal
and individual capacity as buyers of the lot in question, and not as
representatives of the deceased from whom they purchased the subject
lot.
(ii) the suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against the estate of the deceased
person or of unsound mind.
Conversely, if the estate of the deceased person or the person of
unsound mind is the claimant or counter-claimant, the rule does not
apply.
Tongco vs. Vianzon
Dead Man Statute or Survivorship Disqualification Rule does not apply,
since the plaintiff or claimant
is the estate of the deceased husband
as represented by the executor and the case for recovery of property is
filed against the widow.
Razon vs. IAC
Dead Man Statute or Survivorship Disqualification Rule does not apply,
since the plaintiff or claimant in the case is the estate of the deceased
person and the case is filed against the defendant to recover the shares
of stocks belonging to the deceased now being represented by his
estate.
Goni vs. Court of Appeals
Dead Man Statute or Survivorship Disqualification Rule does not apply,
because the witness testified to substantiate the counterclaim of the
estate of the deceased against the plaintiff in the case. Thus, insofar
as the counterclaim is concerned, the estate of the deceased person is
deemed to be the claimant, although it is the defending party insofar
as the complaint of the plaintiff is concerned.
(iii) the witness is the plaintiff or the assignor of that party-plaintiff, or a
Prepared by:
ATTY. JOSEPH RANDI C. TORREGOSA
Professor - College of Law, University of San Carlos - Cebu
Partner Torregosa Galeon Gravador & Tomaneng Law Offices
Former Senior Associate Angara Abello Concepcion Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law
25
26
marriage.
(c) the communication was made confidentially.
Pp vs. Carlos
The letter of the wife addressed to the husband which was seized by
the police was held to be admissible in evidence, because a
confidential information which fell to the hands of a stranger, whether
legally or illegally, ceases to be confidential.
Exceptions to the Marital Privilege Communication Rule:
(i)
civil case by one against the other;
(ii)
criminal case committed by one against the
other or the latters direct ascendants/descendants.
(B) Attorney-Client Privilege Communication Rule
Requisites:
(a) there must be a communication made by client to the attorney or
an advice given by the attorney to a client;
(b) the communication or advice must have been given in confidence.
Barton vs. Leyte Asphalt & Mineral Oil
a letter of a client sent to his lawyer which eventually found its
way to the hands of the adverse party was held to be admissible
in evidence, because a confidential information which fell to the
hands of a stranger, whether legally or illegally, ceases to be
confidential.
(c) The communication or advice must have been given
either in the course of professional employment or with a view of
professional employment respecting past acts or crimes.
Pp vs. Sandiganbayan
the testimony of the lawyer pertaining to the information relayed
to him by his client about the details of an on-going crime was
held to be not covered by the attorney-client privilege
communication rule, as this rule applies only to information
respecting past acts or crimes, not present or future crimes.
Important Principles relative to Lawyer-Client Privilege
Communication Rule:
(i) identity of a client is not privilege, except if disclosure of identity
would implicate the client to the very activity for which the lawyer is
engaged by the client (Regala vs. Sandiganbayan).
(ii) the privilege is waived by failure to seasonably object or by crossexamining the witness precisely on the matter otherwise covered by
the confidentiality rule (Orient Insurance vs. Revilla).
(C) Physician-Patient Privilege Communication Rule
Requisites:
(i) the person against whom the privilege is claimed is a person
authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics.
Krohn vs. Court of Appeals
the husband was not disqualified from testifying on the
psychiatric evaluation report prepared by his wifes physician
who examined her, because the husband is not a person
authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics.
(ii) the information which cannot be disclosed refers to:
(a) any advice given to patient;
(b) any treatment given to patient; or
(c) any information acquired in attending to the patient,
provided the advice, treatment or information was made or acquired
in a professional capacity and necessary to enable him to act in such
capacity.
Professional capacity means that the physician, surgeon or
obstetrician attends to the patient for either curative or
Prepared by:
ATTY. JOSEPH RANDI C. TORREGOSA
Professor - College of Law, University of San Carlos - Cebu
Partner Torregosa Galeon Gravador & Tomaneng Law Offices
Former Senior Associate Angara Abello Concepcion Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law
27
28
29
30
Exception:
As long as the evidence has been properly identified by testimony duly recorded and
incorporated in the records of the case, the evidence may still be considered by the
court even if not formally offered (Pp vs. Libnao).
Reasons why the purpose must be specified:
(i) To enable the adverse party to make intelligent objection to the formal
offer;
(ii) To enable the court to rule properly on the objection, since an evidence
maybe admissible for one purpose but inadmissible for another purpose under
the
principle of multiple
admissibility ( Uniwide Sales vs. TitanIkeda).
Time to make a formal offer of evidence (Section 35, Rule 132) the time to
make a formal offer depends on the kind of evidence being formally offered:
(1) If evidence consists of oral testimony of witnesses the offer must be made at
the time the witness is called to testify.
Query:
What is the effect if the witness was allowed to testify
without the proponent making a formal offer of the proposed
testimony but the adverse party did not also object thereto
before the witness was able to testify and complete his
testimony?
Answer:
The testimony is admissible as the adverse party was deemed to
have waived his right to the objection.
Concepcion Catuira vs. CA
Facts: Catuira was charged with two (2) counts of Estafa for issuing
bouncing checks. During the trial, the prosecution presented the
private complainant who completed her testimony without a formal
offer having been made. As soon as the prosecution rested its case, the
accused filed a Demurrer to Evidence on the ground that the testimony
of the witness is inadmissible in evidence for lack of formal offer.
Ruling:
(i) The reason for requiring that evidence be formally offered is to
enable the court to
rule intelligently on the objection to the questions
asked.
(ii) As a general rule, the proponent must show its relevancy,
materiality and competency. Where the proponent offers evidence
deemed by counsel of the adverse party to be inadmissible for any
reason, the latter may object to its admission. But this is a mere
privilege which can be waived. Necessarily, the objection must be
made at the earliest opportunity, lest silence where there is opportunity
to speak may operate as a waiver of the objection.
(iii) While it is true that the prosecution failed to offer the
questioned testimony when private complainant was called to the
witness stand, the accused waived this procedural error by failing to
object at the appropriate time, i.e., when the ground for objection
became reasonably manifest the moment with witness was called to
testify without any prior offer having been made by the proponent.
(2) Object/documentary evidence the formal offer must be made after the
presentation of a partys testimonial evidence or witnesses.
Such offer must be done orally, unless allowed by the court to be made in
writing.
Time to make objection (Section 36, Rule 132) It depends on the kind of
evidence being objected to:
(1) If oral testimony:
(i) objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the
offer is made (Catuira vs. CA)
Prepared by:
ATTY. JOSEPH RANDI C. TORREGOSA
Professor - College of Law, University of San Carlos - Cebu
Partner Torregosa Galeon Gravador & Tomaneng Law Offices
Former Senior Associate Angara Abello Concepcion Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law
31
32
circumstances.
Query:
What is the remedy of the proponent if his proposed
evidence is excluded by the court?
Answer:
The proponent may resort to Tender of Excluded
Evidence otherwise known as Offer of Proof (Section 40, Rule
132) in the following manner:
(i)
if
the
excluded
evidence
is
object/documentary
by
attaching it to making it part of
the records of the case;
(ii) if the
excluded evidence is testimonial
by stating for the record the
name
and
other
personal
circumstances of the witness
and the substance of the
proposed testimony.
XII. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS:
For purposes of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or
private.
The following are Public Documents: (Section 19, Rule 132)
(i) written official acts or records of official acts of sovereign authorities,
official bodies/tribunals and public officers of the Philippines or foreign
country;
(ii) documents acknowledged before a notary public, except wills and
testament;
(iii) public records of private documents kept in the Philippines.
A Private Document is one not falling under any of the foregoing enumerations of
public documents.
Query:
Answer:
33
Answer:
The
attestation
must
state in substance that the copy is a correct copy of
the original (Section 25, Rule 132)
Query:
state/contain?
34
Answer:
Query:
Answer:
Query:
Is it required that all elements of the crime charged must
be established by independent evidence apart from the extrajudicial
confession?
Section 3, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court does not mean that every
element of the crime charged must be clearly established by
independent evidence apart from the confession. It means merely that
there should be some evidence tending to show the commission of the
crime apart from the confession.
Otherwise, the utility of the
confession as a species of proof would vanish if it were necessary, in
addition to the confession, to adduce other evidence sufficient o justify
a conviction independently of such confession. In other words, the
other evidence need not , independently of the confession, establish
the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. Lorenzo).
Is circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction?
Yes, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the following
requisites are present:
(i) there must be more than one circumstance;
(ii) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
and
(iii)the combination of all circumstances is such as
to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Prepared by:
ATTY. JOSEPH RANDI C. TORREGOSA
Professor - College of Law, University of San Carlos - Cebu
Partner Torregosa Galeon Gravador & Tomaneng Law Offices
Former Senior Associate Angara Abello Concepcion Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law
35
36
Prepared by:
ATTY. JOSEPH RANDI C. TORREGOSA
Professor - College of Law, University of San Carlos - Cebu
Partner Torregosa Galeon Gravador & Tomaneng Law Offices
Former Senior Associate Angara Abello Concepcion Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law
37