Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

DOCTRINE

CASE
Ong chia vs republic
Zulueta vs ca

People vs yatar

Tating vs Marcella

in naturalization cases, rules of evid do not directly apply


The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in
ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity.
Pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be used as long as it was relevant and reliable. Under Philippine law, evidence is
relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Applying the above test to the case at bar, the
DNA evidence obtained through PCR testing and utilizing STR analysis, and which was appreciated by the court a quo is relevant and reliable since it
is reasonably based on scientifically valid principles of human genetics and molecular biology.

Since Daniela is no longer available to take the witness stand as she is already dead, the RTC and the CA should not have given
probative value on Daniela's sworn statement for purposes of proving that the contract of sale between her and petitioner was simulated
and that, as a consequence, a trust relationship was created between them. Considering that the Court finds the subject contract of sale
between petitioner and Daniela to be valid and not fictitious or simulated, there is no more necessity to discuss the issue as to whether
or not a trust relationship was created between them.
Hence, such circumstances are qualified as both a dying declaration and a part of res gestae for having borne the requisites of the both principles.
Such circumstances are qualified as both a dying declaration and a part of res gestae, the Court has recognized that the statement of the victim an hour before his death
and right after the incident bore all the earmarks either of a dying declaration or part of the res gestae.
Generally, dying declaration is inadmissible as evidence being hearsay, however, it may be admitted when the following requisites concur:
(a) that the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarants death;
(b) that at the time the declaration is made, the declarant is under a consciousness of an impending death;
(c) that the declarant is competent as a witness; and
(d) that the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a victim.
All the requisites were met. Bolanon communicated his statements, identifying Salafranca as the person who had stabbed him; that at the time of his declaration, he was
conscious of his impending death. Bolanon died in the emergency room a few minutes after admission, which occurred under three hours after the incident.
Furthermore, a declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and is admissible in evidence when the following requisites concur:
(a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
(b) the statements are made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and
(c) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
The requisites for admissibility as part of the res gestae concur herein. That when he gave the identity of the assailant, Bolanon was referring to a startling
occurrence, and had no time to contrive his identification. His utterance was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to such startling occurrence. The statement was
relevant because it identified Salafranca as the perpetrator.

People vs salafranca

Hence, such circumstances are qualified as both a dying declaration and a part of res gestae for having borne the requisites of the both principles.
Such circumstances are qualified as both a dying declaration and a part of res gestae, the Court has recognized that the statement of the victim an hour before his death
and right after the incident bore all the earmarks either of a dying declaration or part of the res gestae.
Generally, dying declaration is inadmissible as evidence being hearsay, however, it may be admitted when the following requisites concur:
(a) that the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarants death;
(b) that at the time the declaration is made, the declarant is under a consciousness of an impending death;
(c) that the declarant is competent as a witness; and
(d) that the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a victim.
All the requisites were met. Bolanon communicated his statements, identifying Salafranca as the person who had stabbed him; that at the time of his declaration, he was
conscious of his impending death. Bolanon died in the emergency room a few minutes after admission, which occurred under three hours after the incident.
Furthermore, a declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and is admissible in evidence when the following requisites concur:
(a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
(b) the statements are made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and
(c) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
The requisites for admissibility as part of the res gestae concur herein. That when he gave the identity of the assailant, Bolanon was referring to a startling
occurrence, and had no time to contrive his identification. His utterance was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to such startling occurrence. The statement was
relevant because it identified Salafranca as the perpetrator.
Hence, such circumstances are qualified as both a dying declaration and a part of res gestae for having borne the requisites of the both principles.
Such circumstances are qualified as both a dying declaration and a part of res gestae, the Court has recognized that the statement of the victim an hour before his death
and right after the incident bore all the earmarks either of a dying declaration or part of the res gestae.

Scc chemicals corp vs CA


LBP vs banal

Well-settled is the rule that courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when said
cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge. They may only do so "in the absence of objection"
and "with the knowledge of the opposing party," which are not obtaining here.

People vs kulais

court can tke judicial notice of the decision rendered by another court

Laureano vs ca

As substantially discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the Philippine Courts do not take judicial notice of the laws of Singapore. The
defendant that claims the applicability of the Singapore Laws to this case has the burden of proof. The defendant has failed to do so.
Therefore, the Philippine law should be applied. (Processual Presumption)

Maquiling vs comelec

courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws by mere publication

People vs baharan
Republic vs SB
people vs mallilin

people vs pagaduan

salas vs matusalem

people vs posing

people vs ganing

Citibank vs teodoro

Loon vs power master

Dimaguila vs monteiro

Ortanez vs ca

lapu lapu foundation vs ca

leoveras vs valdez

heirs of sabanpan vs comorposa

statements made by a conspirator against a co-conspirator are admissible only when made during the existence of the conspiracy.
sequestartion order not valid
Presumption of Regularity is merely just that a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by the
evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth. Suffice it to say that this presumption cannot preponderate over the presumption of
innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In sustaining the appellants conviction, the CA relied on the evidentiary presumption that official duties have been regularly performed.
This presumption, it must be emphasized, is not conclusive.It cannot, by itself, overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.
Any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable. In the present case, the failure of
the apprehending team to comply with paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and with the chain of custody requirement of
this Act effectively negates this presumption.

illegitimate filiation may be established in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children. The filiation of legitimate
children is established by any of the following: (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or (2) An
admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. In the
absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by: (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a
legitimate child; or (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. An illegitimate child is now also allowed to
establish his claimed filiation by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws, like his baptismal certificate, a
judicial admission, a family Bible in which his name has been entered, common reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by
silence, the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
less than strict compliance with the procedural aspect of the chain of custody rule does not necessarily render the seized drug items
inadmissible.
the failure of the police officers to make a physical inventory and to photograph the sachets of shabu, as well as to mark the sachets at
the place of arrest, do not render the seized drugs inadmissible in evidence or automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody of
the said drugs. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original sales invoices, the offeror must prove the
following: (1) the existence or due execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its nonproduction
in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed. The
correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents.

Labor cases; strict adherence to the technical rules of procedure is not required; when liberality allowed. In labor cases, strict adherence to the technical
rules of procedure is not required. Time and again, the Court has allowed evidence to be submitted for the first time on appeal with the NLRC in the
interest of substantial justice. Thus, it has consistently supported the rule that labor officials should use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in
each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, in the interest of due process. However, this liberal policy
should still be subject to rules of reason and fairplay. The liberality of procedural rules is qualified by two requirements: (1) a party should adequately
explain any delay in the submission of evidence; and (2) a party should sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be proven. The reason for these
requirements is that the liberal application of the rules before quasi-judicial agencies cannot be used to perpetuate injustice and hamper the just
resolution of the case. Neither is the rule on liberal construction a license to disregard the rules of procedure. In the present case, the Court held that
the respondents failed to adequately explain their delay in the submission of evidence and prove the allegations sought to be proven

Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides that through estoppel, an admission is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and
cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. The respondent spouses had clearly relied on the petitioners
admission and so amended their original complaint for partition to one for recovery of possession of a portion of the subject property.
Thus, the petitioners are now estopped from denying or attempting to prove that there was no partition of the property
Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the
subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200.
When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is to be 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. Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not admissible to vary, contradict or defeat the
operation of a valid contract. While parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of written contracts, it cannot serve the purpose
of incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in writing, unless there has been
fraud or mistake.

The petitioner does not dispute the due execution and the authenticity of these documents, particularly the Agreement. However, he
claims that since the Agreement does not reflect the true intention of the parties, the Affidavit was subsequently executed in order to
reflect the parties true intention. In the present petition, however, the petitioner made a damaging admission that the Benigna Deeds
Fabricated, thereby completely bolstering the respondents cause of action for reconveyance of the disputed property on the ground of
fraudulent registration of title. Since the Affidavit merely reflects what is embodied in the Benigna Deed, the petitioners admission,
coupled with the respondents denial of his purported signature in the Affidavit, placed in serious doubt the reliability of this document,
supposedly the bedrock of the petitioners defense.
The facsimile referred to is not the same as that which is alluded to in Garvida. The one mentioned here refers to a facsimile signature,
which is defined as a signature produced by mechanical means but recognized as valid in banking, financial, and business transactions.
If the Certification were a sham as petitioner claims, then the regional director would not have used it as reference in his Order.

xxx A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It is, at best, an exact copy preserving all the marks of an original. Without the
original, there is no way of determining on its face whether the facsimile pleading is genuine and authentic and was originally signed by
the party and his counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham pleading.xxx
torres vs pagcor

Moreover, a facsimile transmission is not considered as an electronic evidence under the Electronic Commerce Act. In MCC Industrial
Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation, We determined the question of whether the original facsimile transmissions are "electronic
data messages" or "electronic documents" within the context of the Electronic Commerce Act.
We, therefore, conclude that the terms "electronic data message" and "electronic document," as defined under the Electronic Commerce
Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic evidence.
It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence.

ang vs republic

XXXXXX

marcos vs heirs of andres navarro

The specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses excludes the operation of causes of disability other than those mentioned in the
Rules. The Rules should not be interpreted to include an exception not embodied therein

people vs golimlim

alvarez vs ramirez

It is now universally accepted that intellectual weakness, no matter what form it assumes, is not a valid objection to the competency of a
witness so long as the latter can still give a fairly intelligent and reasonable narrative of the matter testified to.
Yes, Esperanza may testify over the objection of her husband. The disqualification of a witness by reason of marriage under Sec. 22,
Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court has its exceptions as where the marital relations are so strained that there is no more harmony
to be preserved. The acts of the petitioner stamp out all major aspects of marital life. On the other hand, the State has an interest in
punishing the guilty and exonerating the innocent, and must have the right to offer the testimony of Esperanza over the objection of her
husband.

people vs castaneda

When an offense directly attacks, or directly and vitally impairs the Conjugal Relation, it comes within the exception to the statute that
one shall not be a witness against the other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime committed by one against the other. With more
reason must the exception apply to the instant case where the victim of the crime and the person who stands to be directly prejudiced by
the falsification is not a third person but the wife herself. Taken collectively, the actuations of the witness-wife underscore the fact that the
martial and domestic relations between her and the accused-husband have become so strained that there is no more harmony to be
preserved said nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed.

razon vs ca

The case was filed by the administrator of the estate of the late Juan Chuidian to recover shares of stock in E. Razon, Inc. allegedly
owned by the late Juan T. Chuidian. It is clear, therefore, that the testimony of the petitioner is not within the prohibition of the dead man
statute. The case was not filed against the administrator of the estate, nor was it filed upon claims against the estate. Furthermore, the
records show that the private respondent never objected to the testimony of the petitioner as regards the true nature of his transaction
with the late elder Chuidian.

sunga-chan vs chua

But before this rule can be successfully invoked to bar the introduction of testimonial evidence, it is necessary that: 1. The witness is a
party or assignor of a party to case or persons in whose behalf a case in prosecuted; 2. The action is against an executor or
administrator or other representative of a deceased person or a person of unsound mind; 3. The subject-matter of the action is a claim
or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against person of unsound mind; 4. His testimony refers to any matter of fact
of which occurred before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind." Two reasons forestall
the application of the "Dead Man's Statute" to this case. First, petitioners filed a compulsory counterclaim against respondents in their
answer before the trial court, and with the filing of their counterclaim, petitioners themselves effectively removed this case from the ambit
of the "Dead Man's Statute". Second, the testimony of Josephine is not covered by the "Dead Man's Statute" for the simple reason that
she is not "a party or assignor of a party to a case or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted."

bordalba vs ca

The dead mans statute does not operate to close the mouth of a witness as to any matter of fact coming to his knowledge in any other
way than through personal dealings with the deceased person, or communication made by the deceased to the witness.

chan vs chan

To allow, however, the disclosure during discovery procedure of the hospital recordsthe results of tests that the physician ordered, the
diagnosis of the patients illness, and the advice or treatment he gave himwould be to allow access to evidence that is inadmissible
without the patients consent. Physician memorializes all these information in the patients records. Disclosing them would be the
equivalent of compelling the physician to testify on privileged matters he gained while dealing with the patient, without the latters prior
consent.

lacurom vs jacoba

The marital privilege rule, being a rule of evidence,may be waived by failure of the claimant to objecttimely to its presentation or by any
conduct thatmay be construed as implied consent

samala vs valencia

a lawyer may not undertake to discharge conflicting duties any more than he may represent antagonistic interests. This stern rule is
founded on the principles of public policy and good taste, which springs from the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and
confidence. Lawyers should not only keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also avoid the appearance of treachery and doubledealing. Only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice.

almonte vs vasquez

Where the claim of confidentiality does not rest on the need to protect military, diplomatic or other national security secrets but on a
general public interest in the confidentiality of his conversations, courts have declined to find in the Constitution an absolute privilege of
the President against a subpoena considered essential to the enforcement of criminal laws.

constantino vs heirs of pedro constantino

By the term privies is meant those between whom an action is deemed binding although they are not literally parties to the said action.
-------- Thus, any condition attached to the property or any agreement precipitating the execution of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement
with Waiver which was binding upon Maria Laquindanum is applicable to respondents who merely succeeded Maria.

people vs gandia

A witness can only testify on facts which are based on his personal knowledge or perception. The offer of compromise allegedly made by
the appellants parents to Amalia may have been the subject of testimony of Amalia. However, following the principle of res inter alios
acta alteri nocere non debet, the actions of his parents cannot prejudice the appellant, since he was not a party to the said conversation,
nor was it shown that he was privy to the offer of compromise made by them to the mother of the victim.

doldol vs people

Such partial restitution of the petitioners of the cash shortage is an implied admission of misappropriation of the missing funds. Said
payment is of no moment and could not have legally brought acquittal for the appellant. On the contrary, as guided by Section 27, Rule
130 of the Rules on Evidence, We hold that said payment, particularly when taken in conjunction with appellants commitment to
gradually pay the remainder of the missing funds, is a clear offer of compromise which must be treated as an implied admission of
appellants guilt that he embezzled or converted the missing funds to his personal use.

ladiana vs people

Evidently, a person undergoing preliminary investigation before the public prosecutor cannot be considered as being under custodial
investigation. There is no question that even in the absence of counsel, the admissions made by petitioner in his Counter-Affidavit are
not violative of his constitutional rights. It is clear from the undisputed facts that it was not exacted by the police while he was under
custody or interrogation

people vs ulit

Although the appellant was not assisted by counsel at the time he gave his statement to the barangay chairman and when he signed the
same, it is still admissible in evidence against him because he was not under arrest nor under custodial investigation when he gave his
statement. The exclusionary rule is premised on the presumption that the defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs
through menacing police interrogation procedures where the potentiality for compulsion, physical and psychological, is forcefully
apparent.

people vs sayaboc

Jurisprudence provides that extrajudicial confessions are presumed to be voluntary. The condition for this presumption, however, is that
the prosecution is able to show that the constitutional requirements safeguarding an accuseds rights during custodial investigation have
been strictly complied with, especially when the extrajudicial confession has been denounced. The rationale for this requirement is to
allay any fear that the person being investigated would succumb to coercion while in the unfamiliar or intimidating environment that is
inherent in custodial investigations. Therefore, even if the confession may appear to have been given voluntarily since the confessant did
not file charges against his alleged intimidators for maltreatment, the failure to properly inform a suspect of his rights during a custodial
investigation renders the confession valueless and inadmissible.

tanenggee vs people

confession and admission is pesumed voluntarily until the contrary is proved and the confessant bears the burden of proving the contrary

people vs santos

We consider that the trial court did not commit reversible error in admitting the Guerrero affidavit for the limited purpose for proving
knowledge or plan or scheme, and more specifically, that appellant knew that the particular corner of two (2) particular streets in Manila
was a good place to ambush a vehicle and its passengers.

people vs nardo

Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did nor did not do the same or a similar
thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or
usage, and the like. While lying may constitute a habit, we believe that the falsehoods committed by Lorielyn, assuming them for the
moment to be true, are petty and inconsequential. They are not as serious as charging one's own father of the sordid crime of rape, with
all of its serious repercussions.

rp vs heirs of alejaga

patula vs people

The doctrine of independently relevant statements is an exception to hearsay rule. It refers to the fact that such statements were made
is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial. The hearsay rule does not apply: hence, the statements are admissible as
evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in
issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. The witness who testifies thereto is competent because he heard
the same, as this is a matter of fact derived from his own perception, and the purpose is to prove either that the statement was made or
the tenor thereof
Witness-lady-auditor witness bereft of personal knowledge of the disputed fact cannot be calledupon for that purpose because her
testimony derives its value not from the credit accorded to her as a witness presently testifying but from the veracity andcompetency of
the extrajudicial source of her information.