EVIDENCE

Course Outline
Brondial and San Pedro Syllabus Combined

A. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION
1. Definition/Meaning and Scope

1. Ong Cha vs. Republic, 328 SCRA

 The rule on formal offer of evidence is not applicable to a case involving a petition for naturalization
unless applied by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.

2. Kinds and Classification of E.

3. Axioms of Admissibility (Sec. 1-4, Rule 128)

1. Reyes v. Court of Appeals

2. People v. Turco

a. RELEVANCE – facts having probative value; a matter of logic and common sense

 Sections 3 & 4, Rule 128

 Bautista v. Aperece
 State v. Ball

b. COMPETENCY – that all facts having probative value are admissible unless prohibited by law; a
matter of law or rules (Is it allowed by law or rules?); as to the witness, it refers to the qualifications
or his eligibility to take a stand and testify.
Thus, in trial objections, it tis not correct to say that an evidence is incompetent because such is a
general objection. The objection should specify the grounds for its incompetence such as leading,
hearsay or parol. It is never the evidence (testimony or document) that is incompetent but the
people or the witness.

 Section 3, Rule 128.

 Exclusionary Rules Under the 1987 Constitution, e.g.,
a. Sections 2 and 3, Art. III
i. Documents obtained in violation of constitutional guarantees, although containing
relevant matters, are inadmissible because they are illegally obtained, as when: (1) evidence
is illegally seized, or when (2) an extrajudicial confession made during custodial investigation
when made in violation of Miranda’s rights, i.e. (a) he was not informed of his right to
counsel, (b) right to remain silent, (3) and other applicable rights).
b. Section 12, Art. III
c. Section 17, Art. III

 Statutory Rules of Exclusion, e.g.,

a. Section 201, Tax Reform Act of 1997
b. R.A. 1405, Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits
c. R.A. 4200, otherwise known as the Wiretapping Act
i. Ganaan v. IAC 145 SCRA 112 (1986)
ii. Salcedo—Ortañez v. CA 235 SCRA 111 (1994)
iii. Ramirez v. CA 248 SCRA 590 (1995)
 c. AUTHENTICITY
d. OFFER

4. Kinds of admissibility

Admissibility – refers to the question of whether or not the evidence is to be considered at all; depends on its relevance
and competence
Probative Value – whether or not the evidence proves an issue; pertains to its tendency to convince and persuade

 Tating vs. Marcella, 519 SCRA: “A particular item of evidence may be admissible but its evidentiary weight
depends on judicial evaluation with the guidelines provided by the rules on evidence”

a. Conditional Admissibility - the proponent of the evidence may ask the court that the evidence be
conditionally admitted subject to the condition that its relevancy and competency will be
established at a later time; happens when a piece of evidence is NOT apparent at the time it is
offered but will be relevant when connected to other pieces of evidence not yet offered.

b. Multiple Admissibility – when evidence is admissible for two or more purposes (i.e. declaration of a
dying person as part of res gestae or as declaration against interest)

 People vs. Salafranca, 666 SCRA: (Illustrates Principle of Multiple Admissibility) The utterance of the victim
(as to who stabbed him) an hour before his death and right after the hacking incident bore all the earmarks
of a dying declaration or part of the res gestae, either of which was an exception to the hearsay rule.

c. Curative Admissibility – the doctrine allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to
answer the opposing party’s previous inadmissible evidence.

Cases:

1. Ong Cha vs. Republic, 328 SCRA

 (When Rules on Evidence NOT Applicable) The rule on formal offer of evidence is not applicable to a
case involving a petition for naturalization unless applied by analogy or in a suppletory character and
whenever practicable and convenient.
1. Zulueta vs. CA, 253 SCRA
2. People vs. Yatar, 428 SCRA
3. Tating vs. Marcella, 519 SCRA
 (Admissibility vs Probative Value) A particular item of evidence may be admissible but its evidentiary
weight depends on judicial evaluation with the guidelines provided by the rules on evidence.
4. People vs. Salafranca, 666 SCRA
 (Illustrates Principle of Multiple Admissibility) The utterance of the victim (as to who stabbed him) an
hour before his death and right after the hacking incident bore all the earmarks of a dying declaration or
part of the res gestae, either of which was an exception to the hearsay rule.
5. SCC Chemicals Corp. vs. CA, 353 SCRA

B. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

 Rule 129, Secs. 1—4; Rule 10, Sec. 8

 1. Judicial Notice
a. Mandatory and discretionary
b. When to take judicial notice

a. City of Manila v. Garcia 19 SCRA 413 (1967)

b. Baguio vs. Vda. de Jalagat 42 SCRA 337 (1971)
c. Prieto v. Arroyo 14 SCRA 549 (1965)
d. Yao—Kee v. Sy—Gonzales 167 SCRA 736 (1988)
e. Tabuena v. CA 196 SCRA 650 (1991)
f. People v. Godoy 250 SCRA 676 (1995)
g. BPI—Savings v. CTA 330 SCRA 507 (2000)
h.
2. Judicial Admissions
a. When is there judicial admissions

a. Lucido v. Calupitan 27 Phil. 48 (1914)

b. Torres v. CA 131 SCRA 24 (1984)

Cases:

1. LBP vs. Banal, 434 SCRA

2. People vs. Kulais, 292 SCRA
3. Laureano vs. CA, 324 SCRA
4. Maquiling vs. COMELEC, 700 SCRA
5. People vs. Baharan, 639 SCRA
6. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 662 SCRA
7. Ligtas vs. People, 767 SCRA I

C. RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
1. Object/Real Evidence

Cases:

1. People vs. Mallilin, 553 SCRA

2. People vs. Pagaduan, 627 SCRA
3. Salas vs. Matusalem, 705 SCRA
4. People vs. Eric Rosauro, Feb 18, 2015
5. People vs. Calantiao, June 18, 2014
6. People vs. Constantino, 719 SCRA
7. People vs. Mercury de la Cruz, 802 SCRA, Sept 7, 2016

2. Documentary Evidence

i. Sps. Silos vs. PNB, July 2,2014

a. The Best Evidence Rule

Cases:
 1. MCMP Const. Corp. vs. Monark, Nov 10, 2014
2. Loon vs. Power Master, Inc., 712 SCRA
3. Dimaguila vs. Monteiro, 714 SCRA
4. Republic vs. Mupas, 769 SCRA 384

b. Parol Evidence

Cases:

1. Ortanez vs. CA, 266 SCRAA

2. Lapu-lapu Foundation vs. CA. 421 SCRA
3. Leoveras vs. Valdez, 652 SCRA
4. Paras vs. Kimwa Const. & Dev. Corp., 755 SCRA
5. PNB vs. Pasimio, 769 SCRA 70

c. Electronic Evidence
-A.M. 01-7-01-SC, Rules on Electronic Evidence
-R.A. 8792, E-Commerce Law

Cases:

1. Heirs of Sabanpan vs. Comorposa, 408 SCRA

2. Torres vs. PAGCOR, 661 SCRA
3. Ang vs. Republic, 618 SCRA
4. People vs. Enojas
5. Syhunliong vs. Rivera, June 4, 2014
6. Bartolome vs. Maranan, 740 SCRA 491
7. BBB vs. AAA, 750 SCRA 188
8. Astorga & Repol Law Offices vs. Villanueva, 751 SCRA 410

3. Testimonial Evidence
a. Qualifications: “one who can perceive and perceiving can make known his perception”
i. Ability to observe/ perceive
ii. Ability to recall / remember
iii. Ability to relate / communicate

b. disqualifications

Cases: Marcos vs. Heirs of Andres Navarro, 700 SCRA

i. mental incapacity
Case: People vs. Golimlim, 427 SCRA

ii. marital disqualification

Cases:
1. Alvarez vs. Ramirez, 473 SCRA
2. People vs. Castaneda, 88 SCRA
iii. death or insanity (dead man’s statute)

Cases:

1. Razon vs. CA, 207 SCRA

2. Sunga- Chan vs. Chua, 363 SCRA
3. Bordalba vs. CA, 374 SCRA

iv. privilege communication

Cases:

1. Chan vs. Chan , 702 SCRA

2. Lacurom, vs. Jacoba, 484 SCRA
3. Samala vs. Valencia, 512 SCRA
4. Almonte vs. Vasquez, 244 SCRA