Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
EVIDENCE
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
1. CONCEPT OF EVIDENCE
3. EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES VERSUS EVIDENCE IN
CRIMINAL CASES
Q: What is evidence?
A: Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the Rules
of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the
truth respecting a matter of fact. (Sec. 1, Rule 128)
Civil Cases
The party having the
burden of proof must
prove his claim by a
preponderance of
evidence
An offer of compromise
is not an admission of
any liability, and is not
admissible in evidence
against the offeror
The concept of
presumption of
innocence does not
apply
Criminal Cases
The guilt of the accused
has to be proven
beyond reasonable
doubt
An offer of compromise
by the accused may be
received in evidence as
an implied admission of
guilt
The accused enjoys the
constitutional
presumption of
innocence
A:
Proof
The effect when the
requisite quantum of
evidence of a particular
fact has been duly
admitted and given weight
The probative effect of
evidence
294
Evidence
Factum Probans
The intermediate facts
Materials which establish
the proposition
Existent
EVIDENCE
6. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
A:
Admissibility
Probative Value
Question of whether
the admitted evidence
proves an issue.
2.
c. MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY
d. CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY
e. CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY
A:
1.
2.
CURATIVE
295
3.
A:
1.
2.
3.
A:
A:
1. Whether the incompetent evidence was
seasonably objected to; and
2. Whether, regardless of the objection, the
admission of such evidence shall cause a
plain and unfair prejudice to the party
against whom it is admitted.
f. DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Does not prove the existence
of a fact in issue directly, but
merely provides for logical
inference that such fact really
exists
Each proof is given of facts and
circumstances from which the
court may infer other
connected facts which
reasonably follow, according
to the common experience of
mankind
296
1.
2.
CREDIBLE
Refers to worthiness of
belief (believability)
Note: That quality which
renders a witness worthy of
th
belief (Blacks, 5 Ed., 330)
EVIDENCE
7. BURDEN OF PROOF AND BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
Q: What is burden of proof?
A: It is the duty of a party to present evidence to
establish his claim or defense by the amount of
evidence required by law (Sec. 1, Rule 131). It is also
called onus probandi.
Q: What are the two concepts of burden of proof?
A:
1.
2.
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
Definition
It is the duty of a party to
provide evidence at any
stage of the trial until he
has established a prima
It is the duty of a party
facie case, or the like duty
to present evidence on
of the adverse party to
the facts in issue
meet and overthrow that
necessary to establish
prima facie case thus
his claim or defense by
established. In both civil
the amount of evidence
and criminal cases, the
required by law (Sec. 1,
burden of evidence lies on
Rule 131)
the party who asserts an
affirmative allegation.
(Regalado, Vol. II, p. 817,
2008 ed.)
Whether it shifts throughout the proceedings
Does not shift as it
Shifts to the other party
remains throughout the
when one party has
entire case exactly
produced sufficient
where the pleadings
evidence to be entitled to a
originally placed it
ruling in his favor
What determines it
Generally determined by
Generally determined by
the developments at the
the pleadings filed by
trial, or by the provisions of
the party; and whoever
the substantive law or
asserts the affirmative of procedural rules which may
the issue has the burden
relieve the party from
of proof
presenting evidence on the
fact alleged
Effect of a legal presumption
It does not shift the
It creates a prima facie
burden of proof.
case and thereby sustains
However, the one who
the said burden of
has the burden of proof
evidence on the point
is relieved from the time
which it covers, shifting it
Defendant
Has to prove the
affirmative allegations in
his counterclaim and his
affirmative defenses
297
298
2.
3.
4.
Q: What is presumption?
A: It is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of
law, which requires such fact to be assumed from
another fact or group of facts found or otherwise
established in the action (Blacks, 5thEd., 1067 citing
Uniform Rule 12; NJ evidence Rule 13). It is an
inference of the existence or non-existence of a fact
which courts are permitted to draw from the proof
of other facts. (In the matter of the Intestate Estates
of Delgado and Rustia, G.R. No. 175733, Jan. 27,
2006)
Note: A presumption shifts
forward with the evidence. It
against whom it is directed
forward with evidence to
presumption.
EVIDENCE
Q: Distinguish the classes of presumptions.
A:
PRESUMPTION OF FACT
(Praesumptiones
Hominis)
It is a deduction which
reason draws from the
facts proved without an
express direction from
law to that effect.
PRESUMPTION OF LAW
(Praesumptiones Juris)
It is a deduction which
the law expressly directs
to be made from
particular facts.
A:
1.
2.
Q: What are the kinds of presumptions of law?
3.
A:
1.
2.
1.
2.
Q: What are
presumptions?
the
classes
of
conclusive
A:
1.
2.
3.
299
2.
3.
4.
6.
7.
300
8.
9.
5.
the latter.
EVIDENCE
b.
c.
d.
301
a.
Presumptions of paternity:
A child born before 180 days after the
subsequent marriage is conceived during the
former marriage, provided it is born within 300
days after the termination of the former
b.
marriage.
A child born after 180 days following the
subsequent marriage is considered to have
been conceived during the subsequent
marriage, even though it be born within the
300 days after the termination of the former
marriage.
Note: There is no presumption of legitimacy or
illegitimacy when a child is born after 300 days
following dissolution of marriage or the
separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the
legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove
his allegation (Sec. 4).
no presumption
subsequent marriage
termination of
1st marriage
no presumption of
legitimacy or illigitimacy
conceived during the
subsequent marriage
conceived during the
former marriage
termination of
1st marriage
subsequent marriage
302
Second Person
Presumed To
Have Survived
older
younger
< 15
< 15
EVIDENCE
>15 and < 60
male
The male
The older
< 15 or > 60
15-60
The one
between those
ages
303
4.
5.
NEGATIVE TESTIMONY
A:
1. Where the identity of the assailant is in
question;
2. To determine the voluntariness of the
criminal act or the sanity of the accused;
3. To determine from which side the unlawful
aggression commenced, as where the
accused invoked self-defense wherein
unlawful aggression on the part of his
opponent is an essential element;
4. To determine the specific nature of the
crime committed;
5. To determine whether a shooting was
intentional or accidental, the fact that the
accused had personal motives to shoot the
victim being weighty; and
6. Where the accused contends that he acted
in defense of a stranger, since it is essential,
for such defense to prosper, that the
accused was not induced by revenge,
resentment or other evil motive. (Regalado,
Vol. II, pp. 893-894, 2008 ed.)
Q: What is alibi?
2.
Q: What is motive?
A: It is the moving power which impels one to
action for a definite result (The Revised Penal Code
[Book One] by L. Reyes, p.57, 2001 ed.).
Q: When is evidence of motive relevant?
304
EVIDENCE
3.
3.
4.
305
306
EVIDENCE
corresponding license therefor. (People v.
Solayao, G.R. No. 119220, Sept. 20, 1996)
c. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
A: It is that state of the case which, after the entire
comparison and consideration of all the evidence
leaves the mind of the judge in that condition that
he cannot say that he feels an abiding conviction to
a moral certainty of the truth of the charge. (People
v. Calma, G.R. No. 127126, Sept. 17, 1998)
A: In cases filed before administrative or quasijudicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if
it is supported by substantial evidence.
b. PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
Q: What are the matters that must be taken into
consideration in determining where the
preponderance of evidence lies?
A:
1. All the facts and circumstances of the case;
2. The witnesses manner of testifying, their
intelligence, their means and opportunity of
knowing the facts to which there are
testifying;
3. The nature of the facts to which they
testify;
4. The probability or improbability of their
testimony;
5. Their interest or want of interest;
307
308
A:
DURING TRIAL
EVIDENCE
to take judicial notice of
any matter and allow
the parties to be heard
thereon (Sec. 3).
a. MANDATORY
Q: What is mandatory notice?
A: If the fact sought to be proved are:
1. Existence and territorial extent of States;
2. Political history, forms of government and
symbols of nationality;
3. Law of nations;
4. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world
and their seals;
5. Political constitution and history of the
Philippines;
6. Official acts of legislative, executive and
judicial departments of the Philippines;
7. Laws of nature;
8. Measure of time; and
9. Geographical divisions (Sec. 1).
b. DISCRETIONARY
Q: What is discretionary notice?
A: Discretionary a court may take judicial notice of
matters which are:
1. Of public knowledge;
2. Capable of unquestionable demonstration;
or
3. Ought to be known to judges because of
their judicial functions (Sec. 2).
3. JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
Q: What is judicial admission?
A: It is an admission, verbal or written, made by a
party in the course of the proceedings in the same
case, which does not require proof (Sec. 4).
Q: What are the elements of judicial admission?
A:
1. It must be made by a party to the case or
his counsel;
2. It must be made in the course of the
proceedings in the same case; and
EXTRAJUDICIAL
ADMISSIONS
Those made out of
court or in a judicial
proceeding other than
the one under
consideration
Regarded as evidence
and must be offered as
such, otherwise the
court will not consider it
in deciding the case.
Rebuttable
Not admissible if selfserving
Not subject to crossexamination
309
2.
310
EVIDENCE
law are the same as the local law (doctrine of
processual presumption) (Northwest Orient Airlines
v. CA, G.R. No. 83033, June 8, 1990; Moran, Vol. 6,
p. 34, 1980 ed.). (1997 Bar Question)
Q: What are the rules with regard to judicial notice
of ordinances?
A:
1. MTCs are required to take judicial notice of
the ordinances of the municipality or city
wherein they sit.
2. RTCs must take judicial notice only:
a. When expressly authorized to do so by
statute; or
b. In case on appeal before them and
wherein the inferior court took judicial
notice of an ordinance involved in the
same case.
3. Appellate courts may also take judicial
notice of ordinances not only because the
lower courts took judicial notice thereof but
because these are facts capable of
unquestionable demonstration. (Riano,
Evidence: A Restatement for the Bar, pp. 9091, 2009 ed.)
Q: What is the rule on judicial notice of records of
another case previously tried?
A:
GR: Courts are not authorized to take judicial
notice of the contents of the records of other
cases, even when such cases have been tried or
are pending in the same court, and
notwithstanding the fact that both cases may
have been heard or are actually pending before
the same judge. (Calamba Steel Center, Inc. v.
CIR, G.R. No. 151857, Apr. 28, 2005)
XPNS:
1. When in the absence of any objection, with
the knowledge of the opposing party, the
contents of said other cases are clearly
referred to by title and number in a pending
action and adopted or read into the record
of the latter;
2. When the original record of the other case
or any part of it is actually withdrawn from
the archives at the courts discretion upon
the request, or with the consent, of the
parties, and admitted as part of the record
of the pending case. (Jumamil v. Cafe, G.R.
No. 144570, Sept. 21, 2005)
311
A:
312
EVIDENCE
arrested yielded a negative result. Hence, he could
not have shot Carlo. Is Ron correct?
A: No. While the paraffin test was negative, such
fact alone did not ipso facto prove that Ron is
innocent. A negative paraffin result is not
conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun.
It is possible to fire a gun and yet be negative for
nitrates, as when the culprit is wearing gloves or he
washes his hands afterwards. Here, since Ron
submitted himself for paraffin testing only two days
after the shooting, it was likely he had already
washed his hands thoroughly, thus removing all
traces of nitrates therefrom (People v. Brecinio, G.R.
No. 138534, Mar. 17, 2004).
3. CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
Q: What are the categories of object evidence for
purposes of authentication?
A:
1. Unique objects those that have readily
identifiable marks (e.g. a calibre 40 gun with
serial number XXX888)
2. Objects made unique those that are
readily identifiable (e.g. a bolo knife used to
hack a victim which could be identified by a
witness in court)
3. Non-unique objects those which have no
identifying marks and cannot be marked
(e.g. footprints left at a crime scene)
4. DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE
Q: Distinguish real evidence from demonstrative
evidence.
A:
Real evidence
Tangible object that
played some actual
role in the matter that
gave rise to the
litigation
Intends to prove that
the object is used in
the underlying event
Demonstrative Evidence
Tangible evidence that
merely illustrates a matter
of importance in the
litigation
Intends to show that the
demonstrative object fairly
represents or illustrates
what it is alleged to be
illustrated
313
314
EVIDENCE
Q: Is the result of DNA testing automatically
admitted as evidence in the case in which it was
sought for?
A: No. The grant of a DNA testing application shall
not be construed as an automatic admission into
evidence of any component of the DNA evidence
that may be obtained as a result thereof (Sec. 5).
Q: If a DNA test was conducted, what are the
possible results that it may yield?
A:
1. The samples are similar, and could have
originated from the same source (Rule of
Inclusion). In such a case, the analyst
proceeds to determine the statistical
significance of the similarity.
2. The samples are different hence it must
have originated from different sources (Rule
of Exclusion). This conclusion is absolute
and requires no further analysis;
3. The test is inconclusive. This might occur
due to degradation, contamination, failure
of some aspect of protocol, or some other
reasons. Analysis might be repeated to
obtain a more conclusive result (People v.
Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656, May 9, 2002).
315
A:
1.
2.
3.
4.
A:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
316
4.
b. WHEN APPLICABLE
Q: When is this applicable?
A: The rule will come into play only when the
subject of inquiry is the contents of a document.
EVIDENCE
Q: Why is the best evidence rule often described
as a misnomer?
A: Because it merely requires the best evidence
available and, in the absence thereof, allows the
introduction of secondary evidence.
Alternative Answer:
It is a misnomer because it is applicable only to
documentary evidence and not to testimonial and
object evidence. (1994 Bar Question)
Q: At the trial of Ace for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act, the prosecution offers in
evidence a photocopy of the marked P100.00 bills
used in the buy-bust operation. Ace objects to
the introduction of the photocopy on the ground
that the best evidence rule prohibits the
introduction of secondary evidence in lieu of the
original.
1. Is the photocopy real (object) evidence or
documentary evidence?
2. Is the photocopy admissible in evidence?
A:
1.
2.
317
318
EVIDENCE
Q: What is the order of presentation of secondary
evidence?
A:
1. Copy of the original;
2. A recital of the contents of the document in
some authentic document; or
3. By the testimony of witnesses (Sec. 5, Rule
130)
Q: What is Definite Evidentiary Rule?
A: Where the law specifically provides for the class
and quantum of secondary evidence to establish
the contents of a document, or bars secondary
evidence of a lost document, such requirement is
controlling. E.g. Evidence of a lost notarial will
should consist of a testimony of at least two
credible witnesses who can clearly and distinctly
establish its contents (Sec. 6, Rule 76).
Q: How may the due execution of the document
be proved?
A:
1.
2.
3.
4.
319
2.
A:
1.
2.
320
EVIDENCE
RULE 27
The production of
document is in the nature
of a mode of discovery
and can be sought only by
proper motion in the trial
court and is permitted
only upon good cause
shown.
Contemplates a situation
wherein the document is
either assumed to be
favorable to the party in
possession thereof or that
the party seeking its
production is not
sufficiently informed of
the contents of the same.
2.
3.
321
6.
1.
2.
3.
2.
3.
A:
1.
2.
3.
322
EVIDENCE
memorandum, report, record, or data compilation
by electronic, optical or similar means, all of which
are shown by the testimony of the custodian or
other qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule
on hearsay evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 8).
Note: The presumption provided for in Section 1 of
this Rule may be overcome by evidence of the
untrustworthiness of the source of information or the
method or circumstances of the preparation,
transmission or storage thereof (Sec. 2, Rule 8).
EXTRINSIC OR
PATENT
INTERMEDIATE
Ambiguity is
apparent on the
face of the
writing and
requires that
something be
added to make
the meaning
certain
Ambiguity
consists in the
use of
equivocal
words
susceptible of
two or more
interpretation
Cannot be
cured by
evidence
aliunde
Curable by
evidence
aliunde
323
A:
1.
2.
3.
4.
324
3.
4.
EVIDENCE
5.
authentic is received
in evidence, its due
execution
and
authenticity must be
proved either:
1.
a. MEANING OF AUTHENTICATION
Q: What is authentication?
A: It is proving the due execution and genuineness
of the document.
2.
Q: What is document?
A: It is a deed, instrument or other duly authorized
paper by which something is proved, evidenced or
set forth. (Bermejo v. Barrios, G.R. No. L-23614, Feb.
27, 1970)
As to persons bound
Binds only the parties
who executed them
Evidence even against third
or
their
privies,
persons, of the fact which
insofar
as
due
gave rise to its due execution
execution and date
and to the date of the latter
of the document are
concerned
As to validity of certain transactions
Certain transactions must be
contained in a public
document; otherwise they
will not be given any validity.
325
326
EVIDENCE
a. an official publication thereof; or
b. by a copy attested by the officer having
the legal custody of the record, or by his
deputy and accompanied with a
certificate that such officer has the
custody. The certificate may be made by
a secretary of the embassy or legation,
consul general, consul, vice consul, or
consular agent or by any officer in the
foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in
which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office
(Sec. 24, Rule 132).
Q: Is a special power of attorney executed and
acknowledged before a notary public in a foreign
country authorizing a person to file a suit against
certain persons in the Philippines admissible in
evidence?
A: No, because a notary public in a foreign country
is not one of those who can issue the certificate
mentioned in Sec. 24, Rule 132 of Rules of Court.
Non-compliance with the said rule will render the
SPA inadmissible in evidence. Not being duly
established in evidence, the SPA cannot be used to
file a suit in representation of another. The failure
to have the SPA authenticated is not a mere
technicality but a question of jurisdiction. (Heirs of
Medina v. Natividad, G.R. No. 177505, Nov. 27,
2008)
Q: May a public record be removed from its office?
A:
GR: No. Any public record must not be removed
from the office in which it is kept.
.
XPN: Upon order of a court where the
inspection of the record is essential to the just
determination of a pending case (Sec. 26, Rule
132).
Q: What is the probative value of documents
consisting of entries in public records?
A: They are prima facie evidence of the facts stated
therein if entered by a public officer in the
performance of a duty. All other public documents
are evidence, even against a third person, of the
fact which gave rise to their execution and of the
date of the latter (Sec. 23, Rule 132).
Q: Lino was charged with illegal possession of
firearm. During trial, the prosecution presented in
evidence a certification of the PNP Firearms and
Explosives Office attesting that the accused had no
327
328
EVIDENCE
4.
capacity to
communicate his
perception to others.
(Riano, 2009, p.250)
Credibility of a Witness
Refers to the believability
of the witness and has
nothing to do with the law
or the rules. (Ibid).
329
A:
1.
2.
Mental Immaturity
The incompetence of
the witness must occur
at the time the witness
perceives the event
including his
incapability to relate his
perceptions truthfully.
(Ibid.)
330
b. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF
MARRIAGE/SPOUSAL IMMUNITY
Q: What is purpose of this disqualification?
A: The rule forbidding one spouse to testify for or
against the other is based on principles which are
deemed important to preserve the marriage
relation as one of full confidence and affection, and
that this is regarded as more important to the
public welfare than that the exigencies of the
lawsuits should authorize domestic peace to be
disregarded for the sake of ferreting out facts
within the knowledge of strangers.
Q: What are the requisites in order for the spousal
immunity to apply?
A:
1.
2.
3.
4.
EVIDENCE
preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be
disturbed (Alvarez vs Ramirez, October 14, 2005)
Disqualification By
Reason Of Marital
Privilege (Sec. 24)
Can be claimed
whether or not the
other spouse is a party
to the action
Can be claimed even
after the marriage is
dissolved
Applies only to
confidential
communications
between the spouses
The married person is
on the stand but the
objection of privilege is
raised when
confidential marital
communication is
inquired into
1.
2.
3.
4.
331
8.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
332
Marital Disqualification
Rule
Only a partial
disqualification as the
witness is not completely
disqualified but is only
prohibited from testifying
on the matters therein
specified
EVIDENCE
the disqualification under Sec. 24 remains even after
the various relationships therein have ceased to exist.
A:
1.
2.
3.
A:
1.
2.
3.
Attorney-client relation;
The privilege is invoked with respect to a
confidential communication between
them in the course of professional
employment; and
The client has not given his consent to the
attorneys testimony; or if the attorneys
secretary, stenographer or clerk is sought
to be examined, that both the client and
the attorney have not given their consent.
(Regalado, Vol. II, p. 749, 2008 ed.)
A:
from
A:
Disqualification by reason
of marriage
Can be invoked only if one
of the spouses is a party to
the action
Applies only if the marriage
is existing at the time the
testimony is offered
Constitutes a total
prohibition against the
spouse of the witness
Marital privilege
Can be claimed whether or
not the spouse is a party to
the action
Can be claimed even after
the marriage has been
dissolved
Applies only to confidential
communications between
the spouses
333
3.
4.
5.
334
EVIDENCE
Q: Aimee sought to offer as evidence the
testimony of Dr. Naval to prove that Bob is not the
illegitimate son of Yuring as the latter was sterile.
Bob objected to the admissibility of the said
testimony arguing that the same is covered by the
physician-patient privilege because the testimony
would blacken the reputation of Yuring. It was
alleged that Yuring became sterile because he
contracted gonorrhea. Aimee argues that Yuring is
long dead and, as such, the privilege may not be
invoked.
1. Is the testimony of Dr. Naval covered by
the physician-patient privilege?
2. Does the fact that Yuring is long dead bar
the application of the physician-patient
privilege?
A:
1.
1.
2.
335
336
EVIDENCE
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
5.
Transactional Immunity
Grants immunity to the
witness from
prosecution for an
offense to which his
compelled testimony
relates
337
Ordinary Witness
May be compelled to
testify by subpoena,
having only the right
to refuse to answer a
particular
incriminating question
at the time it is put to
him.
338
EVIDENCE
the Program if the following circumstances are
present:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A:
2.
3.
339
4.
2.
3.
A:
GR: The English rule is observed in our
jurisdiction.
XPN: The American rule is observed with
respect to cross-examination of an accused or a
hostile witness.
340
EVIDENCE
(5) RECALLING THE WITNESS
Q: What is the rule on recalling of a witness?
A:
GR: A witness cannot be recalled without leave
of court as the recalling of a witness is a matter
of judicial discretion. (Sec. 9, Rule 132)
XPN:
1. The examination has not been concluded;
2. If the recall of the witness was expressly
reserved by a party with the approval of
the court. In these two cases the recall of
a witness is a matter of right. (Regalado,
Vol. II, p. 848, 2008 ed.)
Note: Something more than the bare assertion of the
need to propound additional questions is essential
before the court's discretion may rightfully be
exercised to grant or deny recall. There must be a
satisfactory showing of some concrete, substantial
ground for the recall.
BY EVIDENCE THAT
HIS
GENERAL
REPUTATION FOR
TRUTH, HONESTY,
OR INTEGRITY OF
THE WITNESS IS
BAD
Since the weight of
the witness
testimony depends
on his credibility, he
may be impeached
by impairing his
credibility by
showing his not
pleasing reputation
but only as regards
his reputation for
truth, honesty or
integrity
BY PRIOR
INCONSISTEN
T
STATEMENTS
LAYING THE
PREDICATE"
Refer to
statements,
oral or
documentary,
made by the
witness
sought to be
impeached on
occasions
other than
the trial in
which he is
testifying
341
A:
A:
1.
By
showing
improbability
or
unreasonableness of testimony;
By showing bias, prejudice, and hostility;
By prior inconsistent acts or conduct;
By
showing
social
connections,
occupation and manner of living; or
By showing interest. (Francisco, pp. 480481, 1992 ed.)
A:
1.
2.
3.
342
Refers only to
impeachment of a
witness through
prior inconsistent
statements
EVIDENCE
f. EVIDENCE OF THE GOOD CHARACTER OF A
WITNESS
Q: Is evidence of good character of a witness
admissible?
A:
2.
GR: No.
XPN: When such
impeached. (Sec. 14)
character
has
been
3.
343
A:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
344
CONFESSION
A statement of fact which
involves an
acknowledgment of guilt
or liability
Can be made only by the
party himself and, in
some instances, are
admissible against his coaccused
Always express
ADMISSIONS
Need not be made
against the proprietary
or pecuniary interest
of the party
Made by a party
himself, and is a
primary evidence and
competent though he
be present in court and
ready to testify
It is an exception to the
hearsay rule. (Riano,
Evidence: A Restatement for
the Bar, p. 116, 2009 ed.)
It is NOT an exception
to the hearsay rule.
(Ibid.)
EVIDENCE
him for information in regard to an uncertain or
disputed matter. But such a reference does not
make a person referred to an agent for the purpose
of making general admissions. The declarations are
not evidence, unless strictly within the subject
matter relation to which reference is made.
When the reference was not made to any particular
person but in general, the rule above-stated is not
applicable.
d. ADMISSION BY A CO-PARTNER OR AGENT
Q: What are the requisites of an admission by a copartner or agent?
A:
f. ADMISSION BY PRIVIES
1.
2.
3.
3.
A:
GR: No, because such are made when the
partnership ceased to exist.
g. ADMISSION BY SILENCE
Q: When is there an admission by silence?
A:
A:
1.
1.
5.
6.
2.
3.
2.
3.
4.
345
2.
5.
346
EVIDENCE
res inter alios acta provides that the rights of a
party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration,
or omission of another. Consequently, an
extrajudicial confession is binding only on the
confessant, is not admissible against his or her coaccused and is considered as hearsay against them.
An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an
admission made by a conspirator under Sec. 30,
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. This rule prescribes
that the act or declaration of the conspirator
relating to the conspiracy and during its existence
may be given in evidence against co-conspirators
provided that the conspiracy is shown by
independent evidence aside from the extrajudicial
confession.
Considering the paucity and inadmissibility of the
evidence presented against the Antiporda, it would
be unfair to hold them for trial (Tamargo v.
Awingan, G.R. No. 177727, Jan. 19, 2010).
Q: What is
confessions?
the
doctrine
of
interlocking
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Scheme;
Habit;
Custom;
Usage; and
The like (Sec. 34, Rule 130)
6. HEARSAY RULE
a. MEANING OF HEARSAY
Q: Define hearsay evidence.
A: Any evidence, whether oral or documentary, and
its probative value is not based on personal
knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of
some other person not on the witness stand. It also
includes all assertions where, though derived from
personal knowledge, the adverse party is not given
an opportunity to cross-examine. (1999 Bar
Question)
Q: What are the elements of hearsay evidence?
A:
1.
2.
2.
347
OPINION EVIDENCE
Expert evidence based on
the personal knowledge,
skill, experience or training
of the person testifying and
evidence of an ordinary
witness on limited matters
2.
3.
348
EVIDENCE
b.
c.
d.
e.
condition,
knowledge,
belief,
intention, ill-will and other emotions;
Statements of a person which show
his physical condition, as illness and
the like;
Statements of a person from which
an inference may be made as to the
state of mind of another, i.e., the
knowledge, belief, motive, good or
bad faith, etc. of the latter;
Statements which may identify the
date, place and person in question;
and
Statements showing the lack of
credibility of a witness.
Dying declaration;
Declaration against interest;
Act or declaration about pedigree;
Family reputation or tradition regarding
pedigree;
5. Common reputation;
6. Part of the res gestae;
7. Entries in the course of business;
8. Entries in official records;
9. Commercial lists and the like;
10. Learned treaties;
11. Testimony or deposition at a former trial.
5.
3.
4.
6.
A:
1. The declaration is one made by a dying person;
2. The declaration was made by said dying person
under a consciousness of his impending death;
3. The declaration refers to the cause and
circumstances surrounding the death of the
declarant and not of anyone else;
4. The declaration is offered in a case wherein
the declarants death is the subject of the
inquiry; and
5.
ADMISSION AGAINST
INTEREST
Made by a party to a
litigation or by one in
privity with or identified
in legal interest with
such party.
349
Admissible whether or
not the declarant is
available as a witness.
A: It includes:
1. Relationship;
2. Family genealogy;
3. Birth;
4. Marriage;
5. Death;
6. Dates when and the place where these
facts occurred;
7. Names of the relatives; and
8. Facts of family history intimately
connected with pedigree. (Sec. 39, Rule
130)
(4) FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION
REGARDING PEDIGREE (SEC. 40)
Q: What are the requisites for the admissibility of
family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree?
A:
1.
2.
3.
350
SECTION 40
Family reputation or
tradition
regarding
pedigree
Witness is a member of
the family
EVIDENCE
2.
4.
Q: What can
reputation?
be
established
by
common
A:
1.
2.
3.
4.
3.
351
iii.
A:
iv.
RES GESTAE
It is the event itself
which speaks
DYING DECLARATION
A sense of impending
death takes the place of
an oath and the law
regards the declarant as
testifying
2.
Requisites:
There must be a startling occurrence;
The statement must relate to the
circumstances of the startling
occurrence;
iii.
The statement must be spontaneous.
i.
ii.
352
3.
4.
EVIDENCE
5.
3.
4.
A:
1.
2.
3.
A:
1.
No such requirement
A: It may be a:
1. Register;
2. Cash book; or
3. An official return or certificate (Regalado,
Vol. II, p. 793, 2008 ed.)
ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL
RECORD
The entrant, if a private
individual, must have
acted pursuant to a
specific legal duty
specially enjoined by law.
2.
3.
4.
353
Historical works;
Scientific treatises; or
Law (Francisco, pp. 340-341, 1992 ed.)
2.
3.
4.
354
EVIDENCE
c.
d.
A:
GR: Character evidence is not admissible in
evidence.
XPN:
1. Criminal cases:
a. The accused may prove his good
moral character which is pertinent to
the moral trait involved in the
offense charged;
b. The prosecution may not prove the
bad moral character of the accused
which is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged,
unless in rebuttal when the latter
opens the issue by introducing
evidence of his good moral
character; or
c. As to the offended party, his good or
bad moral character may be proved
as long as it tends to establish in any
reasonable degree the probability or
improbability of the offense charged.
XPN to the XPN:
i. In rebuttal, proof of the bad
character of the victim is not
admissible if the crime was
committed through treachery and
premeditation; and
ii. In rape cases, the evidence of
complainants
past
sexual
conduct, or reputation or opinion
thereof shall not be admitted
unless and only to the extent that
the court finds that such evidence
is material and relevant to the
case (Rape shield, Sec. 6, R.A.
8505).
2.
2.
3.
355
ORDINARY WITNESS
Opposing counsels are
allowed to ask questions
during preliminary
examination
Testimony in a narrative
form is not allowed
Leading questions are
generally not allowed
An ordinary witness is not
assisted by a support
person
Q: Who is a facilitator?
A: He is a person appointed by the court to pose
questions to a child. [Sec. 4(c)] The facilitator may
be a child psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker,
guidance counselor, teacher, religious leader,
parent or relative.
Q: Who is a support person?
A: He is a person chosen by the child to accompany
him to testify at or attend a judicial proceeding or
deposition to provide emotional support for him.
[Sec. 4(f)]
Q: What is an in-depth investigative interview or
disclosure interview?
A: It is an inquiry or proceeding conducted by duly
trained members of a multidisciplinary team or
representatives of law enforcement or child
protective services for the purpose of determining
whether child abuse has been committed. [Sec. 4(i)]
Q: When may the court appoint a guardian ad
litem for a child?
A: The court may appoint a guardian ad litem for a
child who is a victim of, accused of, or a witness to a
crime to promote the best interests of the child. In
making the appointment, the court shall consider
the background of the guardian ad litem and his
familiarity with the judicial process, social service
programs, and child development, giving
preference to the parents of the child, if qualified
[Sec. 5(a)].
Q: What determines the best interests of the
child?
356
conduct
the
competency
EVIDENCE
Q: What are the appropriate questions to be asked
to the child during competency examination?
A: The questions to be asked are:
1. Appropriate
to
the
age
and
developmental level of the child;
2. Not related to the issues at trial; and
3. Shall focus on the ability of the child to
remember, communicate, distinguish
between truth and falsehood, and
appreciate the duty to testify truthfully.
[Sec. 6(e)]
Q: What is meant by developmental level?
A: It refers to the specific growth phase in which
most individuals are expected to behave and
function in relation to the advancement of their
physical, socio-emotional, cognitive, and moral
abilities. [Sec. 4(h)]
Q: What is the duty of the court regarding the
competency of the child?
A: It has the duty of continuously assessing the
competence of the child throughout his testimony.
[Sec. 6(f)]
Q: In case of a child witness, what should the court
consider in determining his competency?
A: The court must consider his capacity:
1. At the time the fact to be testified to
occurred such that he could receive
correct impressions thereof;
2. To comprehend the obligation of an oath;
and
3. To relate those facts truly at the time he
is offered as a witness. The court should
take into account his capacity for
observation,
recollection
and
communication. (Regalado, Vol. II, pp.
739-740, 2008 ed.)
d. EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS
Q: Does the testimony of child witness need
corroboration?
A: Corroboration shall not be required of a
testimony of a child. His testimony, if credible by
itself, shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact,
conclusion, or judgment subject to the standard of
proof required in criminal and non-criminal cases
(Sec. 22).
Note: The straightforward testimony of a child witness
can be given full weight and credit. When a child says
that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is
357
a.
358
b.
2.
EVIDENCE
h. SEXUAL ABUSE SHIELD RULE
Q: What is sexual abuse shield rule?
A:
GR: It states that the following evidence is not
admissible in any criminal proceeding involving
alleged child sexual abuse:
1. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged
victim engaged in other sexual behavior;
and
2. Evidence offered to prove the sexual
predisposition of the alleged victim [Sec.
30(a)].
d.
Confidentiality of records
e.
GR: The records may be released only to
the ff:
a. Members of the court staff for
administrative use;
b. The prosecuting attorney;
c. Defense counsel;
d. The guardian ad litem;
e. Agents
of
investigating
law
enforcement agencies; and
f. Other persons as determined by the
court
XPN: Upon written request and order of
the court [Sec. 31(a)].
2.
f.
g.
3.
4.
359
6.
7.
360
EVIDENCE
4.
5.
6.
A:
1. OFFER OF EVIDENCE
Q: What are the rationales in stating the purpose
for which the evidence is being offered?
A:
1. For the court to determine whether that
piece of evidence should be admitted or
not;
2. Evidence submitted for one purpose may
not be considered for any other purpose;
and
3. For the adverse party to interpose the
proper objection.
Q: Noelle filed a complaint for recovery of
possession and damages against Kristina. In the
course of the trial, Noelle marked his evidence but
his counsel failed to file a formal offer of evidence.
Kristina then presented in evidence tax
declarations in the name of his father to establish
that his father is a co-owner of the property. The
court ruled in favor of Kristina, saying that Noelle
failed to prove sole ownership of the property in
the face of Kristinas evidence. Was the court
correct? Explain briefly.
A: Yes. The court shall consider no evidence which
has not been formally offered. The trial court
rendered judgment considering only the evidence
offered by Kristina. The offer is necessary because it
is the duty of the judge to rest his findings of fact
and his judgment only and strictly upon the
evidence offered by the parties at the trial (People
v. Pecardal, G.R. No. 71381, Nov. 24, 1986). (2007
Bar Question)
Q: What are the stages in the presentation of
documentary evidence?
Documentary and
Object Evidence
Must be made after the
presentation of partys
testimonial evidence,
and before resting his
case.
The evidence is only
offered once, after all
the testimonial evidence
and prior to the resting
of the case for a party.
361
2.
3.
4.
5.
362
Alternative Answers:
1. Specific objections e.g. parole evidence
and best evidence rule
General objections e.g. continuing
objections (Sec. 37).
2. a. objection to a question propounded in
the course of the oral examination of the
witness; and
b. objection to an offer of evidence in
writing. (1997 Bar Question)
4. REPETITION OF AN OBJECTION
Q: What is the rule on continuing objections?
A:
GR: When it becomes reasonably apparent in
the course of the examination that the
questions asked are of the same class as those
to which objection has been made (whether
sustained or overruled), it shall not be necessary
to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for
the adverse party to record his continuing
objection to such class of questions (Sec. 37).
XPNs:
1. Where the question has not been
answered, it is necessary to repeat the
objection when the evidence is again
offered or the question is again asked;
2. Incompetency is shown later;
3. Where objection refers to preliminary
question, objection must be repeated
when the same question is again asked
during the introduction of actual
evidence;
4. Objection to evidence was sustained but
reoffered at a later stage of the trial;
5. Evidence is admitted on condition that its
competency or relevance be shown by
further evidence and the condition is not
fulfilled,
the
objection
formerly
interposed must be repeated or a motion
to strike out the evidence must be made;
and
6. Where the court reserves the ruling on
objection, the objecting party must
request a ruling or repeat the objection.
EVIDENCE
5. RULING
Q: When should the court make its ruling on the
objection?
A: It must be given immediately after the objection
is made, unless the court desires to take a
reasonable time to inform itself on the question
presented; but the ruling shall always be made
during the trial and at such time as will give the
party against whom it is made an opportunity to
meet the situation presented by the ruling (Sec. 38).
6. STRIKING OUT OF AN ANSWER
Q: What are the modes of excluding inadmissible
evidence?
A:
1.
2.
2.
363
OFFER OF EVIDENCE
Only resorted to if
admission is refused by
the court for purposes
of
review on appeal
Refers
to
testimonial,
documentary or object
evidence that are presented
or offered in court by a
party so that the court can
consider his evidence when
it comes to the preparation
of the decision
2.
3.
2.
3.
364
ENGLISH EXCHEQUER
RULE
It provides that a trial
court's error as to the
admission of evidence
was presumed to have
caused prejudice and
therefore, almost
automatically required
new trial.
EVIDENCE
privacy. Section 4, Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure,
thus provides:
SECTION 4. Quashing a subpoena. The court may
quash a subpoena duces tecum upon motion promptly
made and, in any event, at or before the time specified
therein if it is unreasonable and oppressive, or the
relevancy of the books, documents or things does not
appear, or if the person in whose behalf the subpoena
is issued fails to advance the reasonable cost of the
production thereof.
Taking in mind the ultimate purpose of respondent
childrens action, obviously, they would want Tiu to testify
or admit that she is the mother of Lees other children,
including petitioner Emma Lee. Keh had died and so could
not give testimony that Lees other children were not
hers. The respondent children have, therefore, a
legitimate reason for seeking Tius testimony and,
normally, the RTC cannot deprive them of their right to
compel the attendance of such a material witness.
SECTION 25. Parental and filial privilege.- No person
may be compelled to testify against his parents, other
direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants.
The above is an adaptation from a similar provision in
Article 315 of the Civil Code that applies only in criminal
cases. But those who revised the Rules of Civil Procedure
chose to extend the prohibition to all kinds of actions,
whether civil, criminal, or administrative, filed against
parents and other direct ascendants or descendants. But
here Tiu, who invokes the filial privilege, claims that she is
the stepmother of petitioner Emma Lee. The privilege
cannot apply to them because the rule applies only to
"direct" ascendants and descendants, a family tie
connected by a common ancestry. A stepdaughter has no
common ancestry by her stepmother. Article 965 thus
provides:
Art. 965. The direct line is either descending or
ascending. The former unites the head of the family
with those who descend from him. The latter binds a
person with those from whom he descends.
Consequently, Tiu can be compelled to testify against
petitioner Emma Lee.
LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. CNP
INDUSTRIES INC. G.R. No. 160972, March 9, 2010
(CORONA, J.)
Respondent CNP Industries, Inc. is the subcontractor of
petitioner Leighton Contractors Philippines, Inc. in a
construction project. The subcontract was based on a
Fixed Lump Sum of P44,223,909. However, due to some
revisions made by CNP in its designs, it incurred an
additional amount of P13,442,882 which was not renegotiated with Leighton. CNP now claims for the
payment of the additional expenses, contending that it
was not part of the sub-contract price. Leighton however
refused the same, reiterating that the sub-contract is for a
fixed lump sum price. The Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission (CIAC) ruled in favor of CNP. This
decision was affirmed by the CA. Hence this petition.
ISSUE: Is Leighton liable to pay the additional cost based
on the parol evidence presented by CNP? (NO)
HELD:
The parol evidence rule, embodied in Section 9, Rule 130
of the Rules of Court holds that when the terms of an
agreement have been reduced into writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and
there can be, between the parties and their successors in
interest, no evidence of such terms other than the
contents of the written agreement. It, however, admits of
exceptions such as when the parties subsequently modify
the terms of their original agreement Nevertheless,
respondent contends that when Bennett signed the
August 12, 1997 progress report, petitioner approved the
additional cost estimates, in effect modifying the original
agreement in the subcontract. Respondent therefore
claims an exception to the parole evidence rule. In
contracts for a stipulated price like fixed lump-sum
contracts, the recovery of additional costs is governed by
Article 1724 of the Civil Code. Settled is the rule that a
claim for the cost of additional work arising from changes
in the scope of work can only be allowed upon the:
(1) Written authority from the developer or project
owner ordering or allowing the written changes in work
and
(2) Written agreement of parties with regard to the
increase in price or cost due to the change in work or
design modification.
Furthermore, compliance with the two requisites of
Article 1724, a specific provision governing additional
works, is a condition precedent for the recovery. The
absence of one or the other condition bars the recovery of
additional costs. Neither the authority for the changes
made nor the additional price to be paid therefor may be
proved by any other evidence.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS) v. RODOLFO
ZALDARRIAGA G.R. No. 175349, June 22, 2010 (PERALTA,
J.)
Respondent Rodolfo Zaldarriaga was the Municipal
Treasurer of the Municipality of Lemery, Iloilo. Upon audit
of Zaldarriagas cash and accounts, it was discovered that
he had a deficiency which he failed to restitute despite
notice. Instead, Zaldarriaga sent letters to State Auditor
Garachico requesting for a bill of particulars on his alleged
accountability. The COA, however, failed to clarify the
basis of the shortage and filed a complaint against him.
When the Office of the Provincial Treasurer conducted its
own investigation as to the shortage, it was found out that
there really is no shortage. The COA then conducted a
second audit and concluded that there is no shortage.
Zaldarriage then moved for the dismissal of the complaint
against him, however, the Office of the Ombudsman
rendered a decision dismissing him from service. Said
decision was reversed on appeal, hence, the present case.
HELD: Basic is the rule that, in administrative cases, the
quantum of evidence necessary to find an individual
administratively liable is substantial evidence. Section 5,
Rule 133 of the Rules of Court is explicit, to wit:
Sec. 5. Substantial evidence. In cases filed before
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be
deemed established if it is supported by substantial
evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion.
365
366
EVIDENCE
documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court.
However, in People v. Napat-a, citing People v. Mate, we
relaxed the foregoing rule and allowed evidence not
formally offered to be admitted and considered by the
trial court provided the following requirements are
present, viz: first, the same must have been duly identified
by testimony duly recorded and, second, the same must
have been incorporated in the records of the case.With
regard to a document entitled Motion for the Issuance of
Transfer Certificate of Title filed by Valencia in the same
trial court that led to the issuance of his Title, the records
would show that it is the same document that the heirs
witness Fruto Rosario identified in his testimony and
marked as Exhibit I. That only the heirs were able to
formally offer the said motion as Exhibit I most certainly
does not mean that it can only be considered by the
courts for the evidentiary purpose. It is well within the
discretion of the courts to determine whether an exhibit
indeed serves the probative purpose for which it is
offered. It is likewise worth emphasizing that under the
Revised Rules on Evidence, an admission, verbal or
written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings
in the same case, does not require proof such admission
may be contradicted only by showing that it is made
through palpable mistake or that no such admission was
made.
SILKAIR (SINGAPORE) PTE., LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE G.R. No. 184398, February 25, 2010
(LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.)
Silkair Singapore Pte., Ltd. (corporation) applied for a
refund of excise taxes erroneously paid by it on its
purchase of aviation jet fuel from Petron. Since no action
was taken by the CIR, the corporation filed a petition for
review before the CTA which held that its purchase is
exempt from excise tax. The CTA, however, held that the
corporation is not entitled to a refund for the
corporations failure to present proof that it was
authorized to do business in the Philippines due to the
non-admission of some of its exhibits for being mere
photocopies of original documents.
ISSUE: Was Silkair able to prove its authority to do
business in the Philippines? (No)
HELD:Petitioners assertion that the CTA may take judicial
notice of its SEC Registration, previously offered and
admitted in evidence in similar cases before the CTA, is
untenable. Evidence already presented and admitted by
the court in a previous case cannot be adopted in a
separate case pending before the same court without the
same being offered and identified anew. A court is not
compelled to take judicial notice of pieces of evidence
offered and admitted in a previous case unless the same
are properly offered or have accordingly complied with
the requirements on the rules of evidence. It is an
elementary rule in law that documents shall not be
admissible in evidence unless and until the original copies
itself are offered or presented for verification in cases
where mere copies are offered, save for the exceptions
provided for by law. Silkair thus cannot hide behind the
veil of judicial notice so as to evade its responsibility of
properly complying with the rules of evidence. For its
failure to compare the subject documents with its
originals, the same may not be admitted. Evidently, said
367
368
EVIDENCE
the parties was to establish that easement of right of way
for the benefit of the interior lots.
ISSUE:Can parole evidence be admitted in an action for
extinguishment of easement of right of way?
HELD:The parole evidence rule, said the Victoria,
precluded the parties from introducing testimony that
tended to alter or modify what the parties had agreed on
above. But the exclusionary provision of the parole
evidence rule admits of exceptions. Section 9, Rule 130 of
the Revised Rules on Evidence states:
Sec. 9. Evidence of written agreements. - When the
terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing,
it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon
and there can be, between the parties and their
successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other
than the contents of the written agreement. However,
a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add
to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in
issue in his pleading:
(a)
An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection
in the written agreement;
(b)
The failure of the written agreement to
express the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto;
(c)
The validity of the written agreement; or
(d)
The existence of other terms agreed to by the
parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement.
The term agreement includes wills. Here, the Tans had
put in issue the true intent and agreement of the parties
to the partition when they alleged that the easement was
actually for both Victoria and Eduardo Cenizas benefit.
Consequently, with the above averment, the Tans were
entitled to introduce evidence to establish the true intent
and agreement of the parties although this may depart
from what the partition agreement literally provided. At
any rate, as the CA said, the Victoria did not object at the
hearing to admission of Eduardo Cenizas testimony even
when this seemed at variance, as far as they were
concerned, with the partition agreement among the heirs.
Consequently, the Victoria may also be deemed to have
waived their right to now question such testimony on
appeal. The point is that, obviously, in establishing the
new easement of right of way, the heirs intended to
abandon the old one. And, with the ownership of the
property now consolidated in a common owner, namely,
the Tans, then the easement of right of way may be said
to have been extinguished by operation of law.
ANTONIO LEJANO v. PEOPE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No.
176389, 14 December 2010 (Abad, J.)
Alfaro was the NBIs star witness, their badge of excellent
investigative work. After claiming that they had solved the
crime of the decade, the NBI people had a stake in making
her sound credible, and obviously, they gave her all the
preparations she needed for the job of becoming a fairly
good substitute witness. She was their darling of an
asset. And this is not pure speculation. As pointed out
above, Sacaguing of the NBI, a lawyer and a ranking
official confirmed this to be a cold fact. Why the trial court
and Court of Appeals failed to see this is mystifying.
as
369
370
EVIDENCE
But if that were the case, how could she testify based on
personal knowledge of what went on in the house? Alfaro
had to change that frame of mind to one of boldness and
reckless curiosity. So that is what she next claimed. She
went back into the house to watch as Webb raped
Carmela on the floor of the masters bedroom. He had
apparently stabbed to death Carmelas mom and her
young sister whose bloodied bodies were sprawled on the
bed. Now, Alfaro testified that she got scared (another
shift to fear) for she hurriedly got out of the house after
Webb supposedly gave her a meaningful look.
371