Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evidence
Preliminary Considerations
2.
proposition
Factum probans evidentiary fact or the fact by which
the factum probandum is to be established
azereth
page 1
3.
4.
5.
6.
substitutionary
evidence, that which is inferior to the primary
evidence and is permitted by law only when
the best evidence is not available
Positive and Negative Evidence
a.
Positive when a witness affirms that a fact
did or did not occur
determined
by
prevailing
exclusionary rules of evidence
Otherwise, waived
Conditional admissibility where the evidence at the
time it is offered appears to be immaterial or irrelevant
unless it is connected with the other facts to be
subsequently proved, such evidence may be received on
condition that the other facts will be proved thereafter,
otherwise the evidence will be stricken out
Preliminary Considerations
Evidence
Theories:
1.
American rule admission of such incompetent
evidence, without objection by the opponent
does not justify such opponent in rebutting it
by similar incompetent evidence
2.
English rule if a party has presented
inadmissible evidence. The adverse party may
resort to similar incompetent evidence
3.
Massachusetts rule adverse party may be
permitted to introduce similar incompetent
evidence in order to avoid a plain and unfair
prejudice caused by the admission of the other
partys
To determine application:
1.
WON incompetent evidence was reasonably
objected to, and
2.
WON, regardless of the objection vel non, the
admission will cause a plain and unfair
prejudice to the party against whom it is
admitted
azereth
page 2
Admissible unless:
1.
Made only for purposes of the first case
2.
Withdrawn with the permission of the
court
3.
Court deems it proper to relieve the party
Admissions in a pleading which have been withdrawn or
supersede by an amended pleading
azereth
page 3
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Admissibility of Evidence
a.
b.
Includes:
1.
Examination of the anatomy of a person or of
any substance taken therefrom
2.
Conduct
of
tests,
demonstrations,
or
experiments
3.
Examination of representative portrayals of the
object in question
Observations of the court may be amplified by
interpretations
afforded
by
testimonial
evidence,
especially be experts
Documents are considered object evidence if the purpose
is to:
1.
Prove their existence or condition or the nature
of the handwritings thereon
2.
Determine the age of the paper used or the
blemishes or alterations thereon
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Documents as evidence consists of writings or any
material containing letters, words, numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expressions offered
as proof of their contents
c.
d.
azereth
page 4
Secondary
evidence
cannot
inceptively
be
introduced as the original writing itself must be
produced in court
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
WHEN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
IS
UNAVAILABLE
When the original document has been lost or destroyed,
or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof
of its execution or existence and the cause of its
unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove
its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in
some authentic document, or by the testimony of
witnesses in the order stated.
azereth
page 5
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
azereth
page 6
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Best Evidence
2
3
4
5
azereth
page 7
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Palanca vs. Fred Wilson & Co. (87 Phil 506)
The phrase capacity of 6,000 liters used in connection
with a distilling apparatus was held to be a latent
ambiguity which had to be clarified by parol evidence to
determine whether it meant receiving, treating, or the
producing capacity of the machine
C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
1. QUALIFICATION
azereth
page 8
OF
WITNESSES
Rules on interpretation
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
2.
3.
Marital Disqualification
Rule
Partial disqualification
Complete disqualification
Requisites:
1.
Witness offered for examination is a party plaintiff,
or the assignor of said party, or a person in whose
behalf a case is prosecuted
azereth
page 9
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
when the court finds that the public interest would
suffer by the disclosure.
Marital Privilege
Marital Disqualification
Can
only
apply
if
the
marriage is existing at the
time the testimony is offered
Requisites:
1.
There is an attorney-client relation
2.
Privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential
communication between them in the course of
professional employment
3.
Client has not given his consent to the disclosure of
the communication
Requisites:
1.
Physician is authorized to practice medicine, surgery
or obstetrics
2.
Information was acquired or the advice or treatment
was given by him in his professional capacity for the
purpose of treating or curing the patient
3.
Information, advice or treatment, if revealed, would
blacken the reputation of the patient
4.
Privilege is invoked in a civil case, whether the
patient is a party thereto or not
azereth
page 10
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Requisites:
1.
It was made to the public officer in official
confidence
2.
Public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the
communication
Others
azereth
page 11
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
3. ADMISSIONS
AND
CONFESSIONS
Confessions
Involves
an
acknowledgement of guilt or
liability
Must be express
Otherwise
would
be
self-serving
and
inadmissible
Judicial admission one made in connection with a
judicial proceeding in which it is offered
Extrajudicial admission any other admission
Declarations Against
Interest
azereth
page 12
Criminal cases involving criminal negligence or quasioffenses are allowed to be compromised, hence an offer
of settlement is not an admission of guilt
Offer to pay or the actual payment of medical bills by
reason of victims injuries not admissible to prove civil
or criminal liability
First branch of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet
Exceptions: third person is a partner, agent, or has joint
interest with the party, or is a co-conspirator or a privy
of the party
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
The evidence of the prosecution shows that the poisoned
bread was given to the children by Alfonso Valero alias Pipe,
deaf-mute brother of accused Lucila Valero, and that it was
Lucila who gave Alfonso the bread to be delivered to the
children. Lucila denies the allegation. The evidence of the
defense tends to show that the children might have eaten one
of the sliced poisoned bread used by their father in poisoning
the rats.
3/9 witnesses for the prosecution:
1.
Rodolfo Quilang testified that he saw Lucila deliver
something wrapped in a piece of paper to Alfonso and
instructed him by sign language to deliver the same to
the Velasco children. He never saw what was inside the
piece of paper. His testimony as to WON he saw the
parcel delivered to the children was a series of
contradictions. He is what the defense counsel calls and
eleventh-hour witness
2.
Federico Jaime and Ceferino Velasco did not see Lucila
deliver to Alfonso the alleged parcel, as well as the
alleged instruction. Both claimed that they learned the
information from Pipe after interviewing him by means of
sign language. Testimony of Jaime was confusing. There
is nothing in the testimony of Velasco indicating that
Alfonso pointed to Lucila as the source of the poisoned
bread.
Issue: WON the testimonies of Jaime and Velasco may be
admitted
Held: No
Ratio: The evidence is pure hearsay. It violates the principle
of res inter alios acta. Alfonso, who was the source of the
information, was never presented as a witness either for the
defense or the prosecution. Testimony of Velasco cannot be
considered as part of res gestae because when the
information was allegedly obtained by Velasco from Alfonso,
nobody was poisoned yet. With regard to the testimony of
Jaime, there is no showing that the revelation was made by
Alfonso under the influence of a startling occurrence.
The failure of the defense counsel to object to the
presentation of incompetent evidence does not give such
evidence probative value. The lack of objection may make any
incompetent evidence admissible. But admissibility of
evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence.
Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative
value
Section 29 - ADMISSION BY CO-PARTNER OR AGENT
The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party
within the scope of his authority and during the
existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in
evidence against such party after the partnership or
agency is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. The same rule applies to the act or
declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other
person jointly interested with the party.
Requisites:
1.
That the partnership, agency or joint interest is
established by evidence other than the act or
declaration
2.
That the act/declaration must have been within the
scope of the partnership, etc.
3.
Such act/declaration must have been made during
the existence of the partnership, etc.
Admissions made in connection with the winding up
still admissible
Admission by counsel admissible against client (agentprincipal)
Limitation:
1.
admission should not amount to a compromise
2.
admission should not amount to a confession
of judgment
azereth
page 13
Except:
1.
If made in the presence of the coconspirator who expressly or impliedly
(tacit admission, Rule 130.32) agreed
therein
2.
Where the facts stated in the said
admissions are confirmed in the individual
extrajudicial confessions made by the coconspirators after their apprehension
3.
as a circumstance to determine the
credibility of a witness
4.
as circumstantial evidence to show the
probability
of
the
co-conspirators
participation in the offense
Requisites:
1.
There must be a relation of privity between the
party and the declarant
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Section 33 CONFESSION
The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt
of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily
included therein, may be given in evidence against him.
azereth
page 14
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
azereth
page 15
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Draculan vs. Donato (1978)
Where, before the statement containing the extrajudicial
confession of guilt was taken, the accused was asked whether
he was familiar with the provisions of Sec 20, Art IV, 1973
Constitution and he answered in the affirmative, and the
statement which he signed states that he had been apprised
of his constitutional rights with the warning that anything he
would say might be used against him in court, such
extrajudicial confession is admissible
People vs. Tampus (1980)
Where the verbal extrajudicial confession was made
without counsel, but it was spontaneously made by the
accused immediately after the assault, the same is admissible,
not under the confession rule, but as part of the res gestae
People vs. Felipe (1981)
Where the accused was merely told of his constitutional
rights and asked if he understood what he was told, but he
was never asked whether he wanted to exercise or avail
himself of such rights, his extrajudicial confession is
inadmissible
People vs. Broqueza (1988)
Where the extrajudicial confession of the accused while
under custodial investigation was merely prefaced by the
investigator with a statement of his constitutional rights, to
which he answered that he was going to tell the truth, the
same is inadmissible as his answer does not constitute a
waiver of his right to counsel and he was not assisted by one
when he signed the confession. His short answer does not
show that he knew the legal significance of what were asked
of him
Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile (1983)
The waiver of the right to counsel during custodial
investigation must be made with the assistance of counsel
3)
3.
4.
5.
Except if:
1) Co-accused impliedly adopted said confession
by not questioning its truthfulness
2) Interlocking confessions accused persons
voluntarily
and
independently
executed
identical confessions without conclusion,
azereth
page 16
6.
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
meters away. There was no lawyer present and it was
the first time that he was called to testify regarding an
interview he conducted. This testimony was admitted
over the objection of the defense
7.
Dr. Ronald Bandonill conducted an autopsy of the
victim.
Defense presented Domantay as its lone witness. Domantay
denied the allegations against him. He denied Edwards claim.
He admitted that he passed the bamboo grove but said that
he did not know that Jennifer was following him. He admitted
hiring Mejia to get to Malasiqui to meet his brother, who did
not come. He denied confessing to SPO1 Espinoza and he
denied having a grudge against Jennifers parents because of
a boundary dispute. He admitted being interviewed by Manuel
but denied ever admitting anything to the reporter.
Domantay was convicted by the trial court
Issue: WON the extrajudicial confessions made by Domantay
to SPO1 Espinoza and Manuel are admissible
Held: No and Yes, respectively
Ratio: Art III, Sec 12 of the 1987 Constitution applies to
custodial investigation, when the investigation is no longer a
general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a
particular person as a suspect. RA 7438 extended the
constitutional guarantee to situations in which an individual
has not been formally arrested but has merely been invited
for questioning.
Requirements for admissibility of extrajudicial confessions:
1.
It must be voluntary
2.
It must be made with the assistance of a competent and
independent counsel
3.
It must be express
4.
It must be in writing
When Domantay was brought to the police station he was
already under custodial investigation and the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution apply to him. Even though he
waived the assistance of counsel, the waiver was not put into
writing nor made in the presence of counsel. Therefore the
waiver is invalid and the confession is inadmissible. The
bayonet is also inadmissible in evidence as it was a fruit of a
poisonous tree.
Domantays confession to Manuel is admissible. The Bill of
Rights does not concern itself with the relation between
private individuals. The prohibitions therein are primarily
addressed to the State and its agents.
Domantay claims that the atmosphere during the interview
was tense and intimidating. The Court does not agree. There
is no indication that the presence of the police officers exerted
any undue pressure or influence on Domantay and coerced
him into giving his confession. There is also no evidence that
Manuel was a police beat reporter and it has not been shown
that his purpose in conducting the interview was to elicit
incriminating information from Domantay.
Domantays extrajudicial confession is corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti, as required by Rule 133, Sec 3.
People vs. Mantung (1999)
Facts: Maribel Mayola and Renjie Balderas were found dead
inside the vault room of the Maywood branch of Cebuana
Lhuiller where they were employed. The jewelries kept inside
the safe were all gone and the cash drawer had been emptied
of its contents. In the counter, a holster was placed on top of
a letter addressed to Mary Ann Gordoncillo, district manager
of Cebuana Lhuiller. The letter was written by Guiamad
Mantung, the security guard assigned to the branch. Mantung
wrote in Filipino that he killed Mayola and Balderas because
they gave him pork which his Moslem religion prohibited him
from eating. He also admitted taking the cash and jewelry
inside the vault, claiming that he needed the money. He wrote
another letter addressed to his wife, which was found in the
office logbook. Mantung was later arrested in Sultan Kudarat,
Cotabato and several pieces of jewelry believed to be part of
the loot were recovered from him. After his arrest, he was
immediate brought to Paramour where he was presented to
the media at a press conference called by Mayor Joey
Marquez. When Mayor Marquez then asked him if he is the
one who killed the two employees, Mantung answered yes and
said that he killed the victims because they induced him to eat
pork. The news about Mantons admission to the killings
appeared in the Inquirer and Manila Bulletin the following day.
Clippings of these reports were presented as evidence by the
prosecution during the trial.
The defense presented the lone testimony of Mantung to
substantiate his claims of innocence. He claimed that on the
azereth
page 17
1.
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Issue: WON the counter-affidavit executed by Ladiana during
the preliminary investigation is admissible although no counsel
was present when he executed it
Held: Yes
Ratio: The constitutional guarantee applies only during
custodial investigations. Custodial investigation is the
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a
person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of
freedom of action in any significant way.
The Court held that the right to counsel does not extend to
PIs. A PI is an inquiry or a proceeding to determine whether
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed, and that the respondent is
probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. A person
undergoing PI before a public prosecutor cannot be considered
as being under custodial investigation.
However, the accused possesses rights that must be
safeguarded:
1.
Right to refuse to be made witness
2.
Right not to have any prejudice whatsoever imputed to
him by such refusal
3.
Right to testify on his own behalf, subject to crossexamination by the prosecution
4.
While testifying, the right to refuse to answer a specific
question that tends to incriminate him for some crime
other than that for which he is being prosecuted
Ladianas counter-affidavit is not an extrajudicial confession, it
is only an admission. In confession, there is an
acknowledgement of guilt. In an admission, there is merely a
statement of fact not directly involving an acknowledgement
of guilt or of criminal intent to commit the offense with which
one is charged. In the counter-affidavit, Ladiana admits
shooting San Juan but denies having done it with criminal
intent since he claimed that it was done in self-defense.
There is no doubt as to the voluntariness of the counteraffidavit. The admissions of Ladiana made through his counsel
during the trial are very clear.
In general, admissions may be rebutted by confessing their
untruth or by showing that they were made by mistake.
Ladiana never offered any rationalization why he made the
admission.
4. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE
Section 34 SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE
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; but it
may be received to prove a specific intent or
knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit,
custom or usage, and the like.
azereth
page 18
5. TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE
Section 36 TESTIMONY GENERALLY CONFINED TO
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE; HEARSAY EXCLUDED
A witness can testify only to those facts which he
knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are
derived from his own perception, except as otherwise
provided in these rules.
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
2. The general character of the declarant
child;
3. Whether more than one person heard
the statement;
4. Whether
the
statement
was
spontaneous;
5. The timing of the statement and the
relationship between the declarant child
and witness;
6. Cross-examination could not show the
lack of knowledge of the declarant child;
7. The possibility of faulty recollection of
declarant child is remote; and
8. The circumstances surrounding the
statement are such that there is no reason
to
suppose
the
declarant
child
misinterpreted the involvement of the
accused.
c.The child witness shall be considered
unavailable under the following situations:
1. Is deceased, suffers from physical
infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness,
or will be exposed to severe psychological
injury; or
2. Is absent from the hearing and the
proponent of his statement has been
unable to procure his attendance by
process or other reasonable means.
d.
When the child witness is unavailable,
his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if
corroborated by other admissible evidence.
azereth
page 19
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
People vs. Sabio (1981)
It is the belief in the impending death at the time the
statement was made, and not the rapid succession of death,
that renders the dying declaration admissible.
azereth
page 20
4.
Requisites:
1.
The actor or declarant is dead and unable to testify
2.
The act or declaration is made by the person related
to the subject by birth or marriage
3.
The relationship between the declarant or the actor
and the subject is shown by evidence other than
such act or declaration
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
4.
Res Gestae
Section 42 PART OF THE RES GESTAE
Statements made by a person while a startling
occurrence 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. So also statements accompanying an equivocal
act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance, may be received as part of the res gestae
Requisites:
1.
Witness testifying thereto must be a member, by
consanguinity or affinity, of the same family as the
subject
2.
Such tradition or reputation must have existed in
that family ante litem motam
Persons statement of date of birth and age declaration
of family tradition
Common Reputation
Section 41 COMMON REPUTATION
Common
reputation
existing
previous
to
the
controversy, respecting facts of public or general
interest more than 30 years old, respecting marriage or
moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments
and inscriptions in public places may be received as
evidence of common reputation
Admissible to prove:
Marriage
Moral character
Established by:
1.
Testimonial evidence of competent witness
2.
Monuments and inscription in public places
3.
Documents
containing
statements
of
reputation
Reputation opinion of him by others
Character inherent qualities of a person
azereth
page 21
Dying Declaration
Statement
may
precede,
accompany, or be made after
the
homicidal
act
was
committed
Trustworthiness
is
based
upon its being given under
the awareness of impending
death
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
2.
Requisites:
1.
The person who made the entry must be dead or
unable to testify
2.
The entries were made at or near the time of the
transaction to which they refer
3.
The entrant was in a position to know the facts
stated in the entries
4.
The entries were made in his professional capacity
or in the performance of a duty, whether legal,
contractual, moral or religious
5.
The entries were made in the ordinary or regular
course of business or duty
Commercial Lists
Rule 132, Section 16 WHEN WITNESS MAY REFER
TO MEMORANDUM
A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory
respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded
by himself or under his direction at the time when
the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at
any other time when the fact was fresh in his
memory and he knew that the same was correctly
written or recorded; but in such case the writing or
record must be produced and may be inspected by
the adverse party, who may, if he chooses, crossexamine the witness upon it and may read it in
evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such
a writing or record, though he retain no
recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to
swear that the writing or record correctly stated
the transaction when made; but such evidence
must be received with caution.
Yek Tong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Inc. vs.
Gutierrez, et al (CA, 59 OG 8122)
In the presentation and admission as evidence of entries
made in the regular course of business, there is no overriding
necessity to bring into court all the clerks or employees who
individually made the entries in a long account. It is sufficient
that the person who supervises the work of the clerks or other
employees making the entries testify that the account was
prepared under his supervision and that the entries were
regularly entered in the ordinary course of business
Learned Treatises
Section 46 - LEARNED TREATISES
A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a
subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible as
tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if
the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in
the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in
the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his
profession or calling as expert in the subject.
Requisites:
1.
The court takes judicial notice thereof
2.
The same is testified to by a witness expert in the
subject
CA took judicial notice of the Ballantyne Scale of Values8
Legal treatises also included
azereth
page 22
Requisites:
Estrada vs. Noble (CA, 49 OG 139)
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
1.
2.
5.
Factors:
1.
Training and education
2.
Particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts
of the case
3.
7. OPINION RULE
Section 48 - GENERAL RULE
The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as
indicated in the following sections.
Section 49 - OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS
The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he shown
to posses, may be received in evidence.
azereth
page 23
14
15
16
17
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Generates doubt
Paras vs. Narciso (35 Phil 244); Dolar vs. Diansin (55 Phil 479)
Raymundo vs. Legaspi (47 OG 807), cited in NARIC vs. First
National Security & Assurance Co., Inc. (CA, 64 OG 10607)
19
azereth
page 24
20
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
c.
Criminal cases
Civil cases
azereth
page 25
Criminal cases
Burden of Proof
Burden of Evidence
azereth
page 26
Presumptions of Fact
Praesumptiones juris
Praesumptiones hominis
Discretion is vested in
tribunal as to drawing
inference
the
the
Types:
1.
Conclusive (juris et de
jure)
2.
Disputable
(juris
tantum or prima facie)
1) Conclusive Presumptions
Section 2 CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
The following instances are conclusive presumptions:
a.
Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act,
or omission, intentionally and deliberately led
another to believe a particular thing true, and to
act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation
arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be
permitted to falsify it;
b.
The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his
landlord at the time of the commencement of the
relation of landlord and tenant between them.
2) Disputable Presumptions
Section 3 DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION
The
following
presumptions
are
satisfactory
if
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome
by other evidence:
a.
That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
b.
That an unlawful act was done with unlawful
intent;
c.
That a person intends the ordinary consequences
of his voluntary act;
d.
That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
r.
s.
t.
u.
v.
w.
azereth
page 27
x.
y.
z.
aa.
bb.
cc.
dd.
ee.
ff.
gg.
hh.
ii.
jj.
kk.
Par (a)
azereth
page 28
Par (dd) taken from Art 259 of the Civil Code, in line
with Art 168 of the Family Code
Par (jj) requisites:
1.
Deaths occurred in a calamity
2.
There are no particular circumstances from which it
can be inferred that one died ahead of the other
azereth
page 29
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
Presentation of Evidence
b.
2.
May provide that affidavits and counteraffidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral
testimony
Testimony of witness should be elicited by questions of
counsel
azereth
page 30
Also, issue was raised during crossexamination, hence she did not
waive the right
Unless otherwise provided by law refers to
immunity statutes wherein the witness is
granted immunity from criminal prosecution
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
examination, may be allowed by the court in its
discretion.
Section 8 - RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION
Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the
adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on
matters stated in his re-direct examination, and also on
such other matters as may be allowed by the court in
its discretion.
cross
examination shall only be on the subject of his
examination-in-chief
azereth
page 31
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
A witness may be impeached by the party against
whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by
evidence that his general reputation for truth, honestly,
or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at
other times statements inconsistent with his present,
testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful
acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of
the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has
been convicted of an offense.
2.
azereth
page 32
Impeachment
is
incomplete
if
witness is not given the chance to
explain the discrepancy
3.
4.
WHEN
WITNESS
MAY
REFER
TO
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory
respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by
himself or under his direction at the time when the fact
occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other
time when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew
that the same was correctly written or recorded; but in
such case the writing or record must be produced and
may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he
chooses, cross examine the witness upon it, and may
read it in evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from
such writing or record, though he retain no recollection
of the particular facts, if he is able to swear that the
writing or record correctly stated the transaction when
made; but such evidence must be received with caution.
American jurisprudence:
azereth
page 33
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
Private documents
documents
commercial
and
private
Rules of authenticity
In addition, American jurisprudence also gives:
azereth
page 34
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
Rule 39 Sec 1
222
azereth
page 35
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
Macadangdang vs. CA (1980)
A baptismal certificate is proof only of the baptism
administered by the priest who baptized the child but not
the veracity of the declarations and statements in the
certificates concerning the relationship of the person
baptized
Death certificate
Also in People vs. Jalosjos (2001) and People vs. Fruna (2002)
azereth
page 36
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
Section 36 OBJECTION
Objection to evidence offered orally must be made
immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the
oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as
the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to
within three (3) days after notice of the offer unless a
different period is allowed by the court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be
specified.
Section 37 - WHEN REPETITION OF OBJECTION
UNNECESSARY
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of
the examination of a witness that the question being
propounded are of the same class as those to which
objection has been made, whether such objection was
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.
Section 38 RULING
The ruling of the court 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.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection
need not be stated. However, if the objection is based
on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the
objection on one or some of them must specify the
ground or grounds relied upon.
Prats & Co. vs. Phoenix Insurance Co. (52 Phil 807)
In a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of
first instance, in the early stages of the development of the
proof, to know with any certainty whether testimony is
relevant or not; and where there is no indication of bad faith
on the part of the attorney offering the evidence, the court
may, as a rule, safely accept the testimony upon the
statement of the attorney that the proof offered will be
connected later
azereth
page 37
24
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
The court itself may motu proprio treat the objection as
a continuing one
28
azereth
page 38
Index
Evidence
Weight
and
Evidence
Sufficiency
of
azereth
page 39
Index
Evidence
People vs. Rivera (CA, 58 OG 68)
By credibility of a witness is meant his integrity,
disposition and intention to tell the truth in the testimony he
has given as distinguished from the credibility of his testimony
Arroyo vs. El Beaterio del Santissimo Rosario de Molo
(1968)
To hold that a particular person is competent to testify
upon a given matter does not mean that his testimony
thereon must be believed by the court or must be deemed by
it to be of sufficient probative value to establish the point
which it was intended to prove. Competency of a witness is
one thing, and it is another to be credible witness. Courts
allow a person to testify as a witness upon a given matter
because he is competent but may thereafter decide whether
to believe or not to believe his testimony
azereth
page 40
Or intense grief
Relationship of witness to the victim does not impair
his clear and positive testimony nor give it lesser credit
Index
Evidence
Factors:
1.
Witness opportunity to view the criminal at the
time of the crime
2.
Witness degree of attention at the time
3.
Accuracy of any prior description given by the
witness
4.
Level of certainty demonstrated by the witness
at the identification
5.
Length of time between the crime and the
identification
6.
Suggestiveness of the identification procedure
azereth
page 41
Index
Evidence
Reputation
or
cohabitation
merely
corroborative
azereth
page 42