You are on page 1of 45

1 4th Sunday Mash-Ups

1. Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy

2. The strict rule regarding payment of docket fees in Manchester Development vs. CA has been modified
and relaxed. Thus—

1. When the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee,
the court may allow payment of the same within a reasonable time, BUT not beyond the
applicable prescriptive period.
2. A party may now be allowed to make an initial payment of the docket fees corresponding to
the ESTIMATED amount of the claim, subject to adjustment to what later may be proved
(Regalado, 66)

3. Where there is only one delict or one wrong (act?), there is but a single cause of action regardless of the
number of rights violated belonging to one person. Nevertheless, If only one injury resulted from several
wrongful acts, only one cause of action arises. The singleness of a cause of action lies in the singleness of
the delict or wrong violating the rights of one person.

4. Note consequence of failing to serve the written interrogatories under Rule 25: PARTY NOT SERVED MAY
NOT BE COMPELLED BY THE ADVERSE PARTY TO GIVE TESTIMONY IN OPEN COURT or TO GIVE A
DEPOSITION PENDING APPEAL (unless if allowed for cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice)

5. Implication of the latter rule (and of Rule 132, Section 10e), adverse parties may be called by a party to
the witness stand— BUT as a requirement, they must be served with written interrogatories under Rule
25!

6. If a party REFUSES TO ANSWER A WRITTEN INTERROGATORY under Rule 25, the party serving the
interrogatory may apply with the proper court of the place where the deposition is taken for an ORDER
TO COMPEL the adverse party to answer. And if such party still refuses, he may be held IN CONTEMPT of
that court (voir: Rule 29!)

7. Note: as a GENERAL RULE, under Rule 25, an implied admission of the questions propounded is NOT
among the consequences  exception: Rule 29, Section 3a!

8. (RULE 26) Effect of FAILURE to file and serve REQUEST FOR ADMISSION of material and relevant facts in
issue which are or ought to be within the personal knowledge of the adverse party, the party in failure
shall NOT BE PERMIITED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON SUCH FACTS

EXPROPRIATION

9. proper only when the owner refuses to sell or, if the latter agrees, agreement as to the price cannot be
reached.
2 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
10. Expropriation proceedings have two stages. The first phase ends with an ORDER OF DISMISSAL, or a
determination that the property is to be acquired for a public purpose. The second phase consists of the
DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION. Both orders, being final, are appealable

11. Once the first order becomes final and no appeal thereto is taken, the authority to expropriate and its
public use can no longer be questioned. Thus, it has become final, and the petitioner’s right to
expropriate the property for a public use is no longer subject to review

12. Congress may enact a law to expropriate property BUT IT CANNOT LIMIT JUST COMPENSATION. The
determination of just compensation is a JUDICIAL FUNCTION and Congress may not supplant or prevent
the exercise of judicial discretion to determine just compensation. Under Sec. 5, Rule 67 of the Rules of
Court, the ascertainment of just compensation requires the evaluation of 3 commissioners.

13. RA 8974 applies in instances when the national government expropriates property for national
government infrastructure projects. Thus, if expropriation is engaged by the national government for
purposes other that national infrastructure projects, the assessed value standard and the deposit mode
prescribed in Rule 67 continues to apply.

14. How may the owner appeal from an Order of Expropriation? It may be appealed by the defendant by
RECORD ON APPEAL. This is an instance when multiple appeals are allowed because they have separate
and/or several judgments on different issues e.g. issue on the right to expropriate or issue of just
compensation

15. An appeal does not delay the right of the plaintiff to enter upon the property of the defendant and
appropriate the same for public use

16. judgment denying the right of expropriation is not res judicata on the issue of damages arising from
such illegal expropriation (must still be proved!)

17. General Rule: value of just compensation shall be determined as of the date of the taking of the
property or the filing of the complaint, WHICHEVER CAME FIRST

Exceptions—
1. Grave injustice to the property owner
2. Taking was not made under color of legal authority (indicated by neglect to notify the owners, or by
entry without intention of expropriation)
3. Taking was not initially for purposes of expropriation (indicated by a great length of time between
taking and filing)
4. Owners will be given undue increment advantages because of the expropriation (“owners of the
land have no right to recover damages for this unearned increment resulting from the construction
of the public improvement for which the land was taken. To permit them to do so would be to allow
them to recover more than the value of the land at the time when it was taken, which is the true
measure of the damages, or just compensation”)

18. APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS in expropriation proceedings is indispensable. In such cases, trial


with the aid of commissioners is a substantial right that may not be done away with capriciously or for
no reason at all
3 4th Sunday Mash-Ups

FORECLOSURE

19. MOTION FOR THE SALE OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY (upon the expiration of 90-120 days) is NON-
LITIGABLE and may be made EX PARTE

20. After the foreclosure sale has been effected, the mortgagee should file a MOTION FOR THE
CONFIRMATION of the sale which requires NOTICE AND HEARING.

21. Title vests in the purchaser upon a valid confirmation of the sale and retroacts to the date of sale.

22. In judicial foreclosure, where the MORTGAGEE is a BANK, the NON-JURIDICAL debtor-mortgagor has a
right of redemption of 1 year from registration of the deed. HOWEVER, the purchaser has a write to
obtain a writ of possession , upon finality of the order confirming sale (!)

(motion for the writ must be with notice and hearing)

23. Sec. 47 of the General Banking Act provides that in case of extrajudicial foreclosure, JURIDICAL persons
shall have the right to redeem the property until, but not after, the registration of the certificate of
foreclosure sale which in no case shall be more than 3 months after foreclosure, whichever is earlier.

24. A mortgagee may bring a PERSONAL ACTION FOR THE AMOUNT due, INSTEAD OF A FORECLOSURE SUIT,
in which case, he will be deemed to have waived his right to proceed against the property in a
foreclosure proceeding.

EVIDENCE

25. Rules of Evidence as defined by the Rules of Court do not apply in non-judicial proceedings, only in
judicial proceedings

26. In certain non-judicial proceedings, ROC rules on evidence are not available even in a suppletory manner
(as with agrarian courts)

27. BUT it is likewise NOT applicable to the following proceedings, though judicial:

1. Cadastral and land registration


2. Election cases
3. Naturalization
4. Insolvency

28. (per proceedings in administrative and quasi-judicial agencies) final rule to apply would be their own
internal rules; and if their own rules are silent on a particular matter, you apply the Rules on Evidence as
defined by the ROC in a suppletory character.
4 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
29. Rules of Evidence under the ROC do not find application because the internal rules of procedure of that
particular body or agency (e.g. DARAB) provides that it has its own rules of procedure, which do not
apply even in suppletory character, the ROC

30. Evidence is adduced to prove an issue of fact. We do not present evidence to prove an issue of law,
because legal questions are matters which the court can take judicial notice of

31. Evidence is RELEVANT if it has a tendency in reason to prove the probability or improbability of a fact in
issue. The test therefore is, whether there is a logical relation between the evidence and the fact sought
to be proved.

32. RELEVANT evidence is not only direct evidence (evidence that directly proves the fact in issue without
any aid of presumption) but may be circumstantial (evidence on a collateral matter, which when taken
collectively, an inference can be made on the probability or improbability of a fact in issue), if it tends to
prove in a certain degree the probability or improbability of the fact in issue

33. For purposes of admissibility, what is required is RELEVANCY and COMPETENCY

34. RELEVANCY is different from MATERIALITY, because the latter means it is directed to prove a fact in
issue. MATERIALITY is dependent on the pleadings and substantive law, unlike relevancy which is
dependent on common sense, logic and human experience. To determine whether the evidence is
material, we only consult the pleadings and the substantive law applicable in the given case

35. Examples on MATERIALITY:

1. plaintiff alleges that the defendant owes him money in the amount of 1 million evidenced by a
promissory note. The defendant alleges in his answer that he does not owe the plaintiff a thing. So
he denies that he is indebted to the plaintiff (sic). In his presentation of evidence, the defendant
tries to introduce the receipt evidencing that he already paid the obligation. The receipt is
immaterial because there is no issue of payment (sic) in fact he denied the promissory note, he
denied having executed the promissory note because he denied having any transaction at all with
the plaintiff. But during the trial, he tried to prove that he already paid the obligation which is
inconsistent with his admission in the pleadings. That receipt which would tend to establish the fact
of payment is immaterial because payment is not an issue in the case

2. in a case for collection of sum of money, where the complaint is based on a promissory note, an
actionable document, and under the Rules, the defendant should deny under oath the genuineness
and authenticity of the document, which is the basis of the complaint, otherwise, it is deemed
impliedly admitted. If the defendant fails to deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of
the actionable document (sic) the defendant during trial cannot anymore introduce evidence that
the promissory note is a forgery, because it is immaterial, because forgery is not the issue in the
case, because the defendant failed to deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the
actionable document, thus it is already established.

36. MATERIALITY is just a component of RELEVANCY. Relevancy has two components. One is materiality –
meaning the evidence should be directed to prove a fact in issue (as discerned from the pleadings and
pertinent laws), and second it must have probative value, meaning it has a tendency in reason to
establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue. In short, RELEVANT EVIDENCE is one when it
is directed to prove a fact in issue, and it must have tendency in reason to establish the probability or
5 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
improbability of a fact in issue, or it must have a logical connection to the fact in issue. That consists of
relevancy. If the evidence is immaterial, although relevant (i.e. of probative value), you can still object
to that evidence on the ground that it is irrelevant because it is immaterial. It is subsumed in the
context of relevancy.

37. Torregosa caveat: “Just a component of relevancy, that is the TREND now although this goes against the
very provision our own rules of court, our rules on evidence, because our rules of evidence expressly
provide only for relevancy and competency and relevancy there as defined refers only to probativeness
it does not refer to materiality.”

38. Therefore, Materiality hinges on whether the evidence is directed to a FACT IN ISSUE or not

39. As to which evidence may be subject to the objection of being immaterial, reference may be had to the
Pre-Trial Order, which defines the facts in issue

40. purpose why the defendant is required to either admit or deny the allegations in the complaint. Those
admitted are deemed established, those denied either specifically or for lack of sufficient information,
are now the issues in the case.

41. MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY is a legal concept which denotes a situation where the evidence is admissible
for more than one purpose. The evidence is admissible for two or more purposes, the proponent of the
evidence must specify the specific purpose for which the evidence is adduced, otherwise the evidence
cannot be admitted (after specification, evidence can only be admitted for that purpose alone)

42. MULTIPE ADMISSIBILITY examples:

1. This is illustrated in the case of People vs. Yatco and (sic). People vs. Yatco involves a case wherein
one of the two accused executed an extrajudicial confession incriminating himself and his co-
accused. The issue of whether the confession is admissible, the SC said that pursuant to the
principle of multiple admissibility, the confession of the accused is not admissible against the other
accused because of the rule on res inter alios acta rule, meaning the act of one party shall not
prejudice the rights or interests of another party. So, the confession made is not admissible insofar
as the other accused is concerned, but it is admissible insofar as the confidant himself is concerned.
That’s multiple admissibility – it may be admissible for one purpose, but inadmissible for another
purpose.

2. other case contemplates a situation where the evidence presented by one party, the testimony of
the (sic) his testimony was presented to prove that the (sic) was committed, because there was an
issue there of liquidated damages. The allegation that the contractor incurred in delay in the (sic) so
liquidated damages were asked. During the proceeding, the evidence was presented to prove that
the (sic) was committed. That was the very purpose to which that evidence was presented. But the
other party taking advantage of the evidence also invoked that same evidence to prove that there
was delay (sic). The SC said you cannot do that because the testimony was presented and offered to
prove the fact of completion; it was never offered to prove the fact of delay.

43. CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY. You should be able to make the connection, otherwise the evidence will
be stricken off the records.

44. CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY. Requisites:


6 4th Sunday Mash-Ups

1. Adverse party offering the improper evidence must have objected to the earlier improper
evidence
2. Purpose of the present offer must be to rebut or controvert the earlier improper evidence

45. (per DISCRETIONARY judicial notice – capable of unquestionable demonstration, public knowledge,
ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions)

If any of the matters involved belong to these three, the Court in its discretion may take judicial notice.
If the matter to be taken judicial notice of belongs to Section 1, there is no need for a hearing because it
is mandatory. If the matter is discretionary, then the court should conduct a HEARING. The PURPOSE of
the hearing is not for the presentation of evidence (precisely why judicial notice is taken so that
presentation of evidence will no longer be necessary), but rather to 1. present information as to the
propriety of taking judicial notice and/or 2. to prove the tenor of the matter to be noticed. Take note,
the purpose is either to present information as to whether it is proper to take judicial notice of such
matter, or to present information to prove the tenor of the matter to be noticed

46. If the ADMISSION is made in the other case, and used in another case, that admission made in the first
case is only considered as EXTRAJUDICIAL admission insofar as the second case is concerned. Being an
EJ admission, it may be considered only in the second case as evidence if it is FORMALLY OFFERED as
evidence.

47. the primary distinction between Judicial and Extra-Judicial admissions is that, in the former, it does not
need to be formally offered as evidence while the latter needs to be formally offered to be considered.
Second distinction, while the former is binding and conclusive upon the admitter, in the latter, it is not
so, so that the admitter may present evidence to contradict or controvert the Extra-Judicial admission

48. Judicial admissions refer only to those admissions, whether verbal or written, made by a party, when we
say party, we refer to the party-in-interest or his counsel. Testimony of a (sic) witness. While admissible
against the party presenting him as a witness, it is not binding upon the proponent or the witness.
Meaning, the testimony of a witness, if it happens to be adverse to your interest, it is admissible against
you. But it does not deprive you of your right to controvert the admission by declaring the witness as a
hostile witness. You have no control over your witness

If he testifies adverse to your interest, under the Rules, you are allowed to ask the court to declare the
witness as your hostile witness, and if he is declared as such, you are allowed to discredit the testimony
of such witness

49. Judicial admissions may be made in pre-trial conferences where stipulations of facts are made, or during
open-court manifestations, or in pleadings of the parties filed by the court, or through depositions (sic)
and requests for admissions. These are the various ways where judicial admissions can be made.

50. Torregosa disagrees with Riano on the latter’s statement that a deposition is a judicial admission – since
a deposition still has to be formally offered in evidence (Rule 23, Section 4), unlike a judicial admission

51. Under Rule 26, requests for admission is a judicial admission, but it is considered only as judicial
admission insofar as the particular case where the request was made is concerned. That admission
under Rule 26 cannot be used as a judicial admission with respect to another (sic). It can only be used in
the same case where the admission or request for admission was made. You cannot use it even as an
7 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
Extra-Judicial admission, because the prohibition is explicit. So that, if you want to make use of it in
another case, you need to formally offer it in evidence.

52. In the case of Elijah, the court did not allow the plaintiff to claim higher recovery as based on
testimonies given during the trial, on the ground that the admissions in his complaint/pleading already
bound him to the amount claimed. This ruling contradicts the rule on liberal allowance for amendments
under Rule 10, Section 5. (Torregosa suggests utilizing which one is more favorable)

53. Exceptions therefore to the binding effect of admissions include—

a. Admission was made through palpable mistake


b. No such admission was made
c. Rule 10, Section 5
d. Atillo/Lhuiller case (admissions taken out of context)
e. Gardner case (where an admission made in open court was favored over a contradictory
admission in the pleadings, due to the open-court admission being one that is a declaration
against interest)

54. not accurate to say that presumption establishes a fact without the introduction of evidence because
presumption presupposes evidence, not to prove the fact in issue, but to prove the fact upon which the
presumption is based

55. Since presumption should be based on an established fact, presumption cannot arise from another
presumption. Hence, presumption of the legitimacy of the child cannot be made on the presumption of
marriage because the latter is only another presumption

56. Example of a conclusive presumption: One of the arguments raised by the present occupant was that
the lessor has no cause of action to eject it from the premises because it is not the owner of the
property leased. But in the meantime the lessee recognizes the lease agreement between it and the
sub-lessor. The SC said that it cannot defeat the rights of ownership (sic) because it acknowledges the
existence of the lease contract. Being a lessee, he cannot be allowed to question the better right of
possession of a sub-lessor

57. Estoppel In Pais

58. Take note that the presumption of thievery arises only when you can establish first that the item was
stolen. Without the fact of illegal taking being established first, there can be no presumption that the
possessor is a thief. Who may determine illegal taking? It is determined by the court, so that if you are
flagged down, the procedure there is to tell the owner to go to court and file for an action of replevin,
and in that action, he proves that he is the owner and the property was taken away from him. Then the
burden shifts to the possessor to prove that he came to the possession of the property in good faith, for
value and in accordance with law. The presumption of ownership arising from the fact of possession may
be rebutted only by evidence of illegal taking (only after which the presumption of theft will set in)

59. Being the possessor of the vehicle, she is presumed to be the owner and should be respected in her
possession. It is only upon COURT DECLARATION that the property is stolen shall the presumption of
ownership be overcome

60. Presumption of thievery does not only apply to the presumption that he is the thief, but extends to the
presumption that he is the doer of the entire act. In a case where the victim of the robbery was killed on
8 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
occasion of the robbery, the victim died and his or her personal items were stolen. The personal effects
of the victim was found in the possession of the accused. A case for robbery with homicide was filed
against the accused. If the accused cannot offer satisfactory explanation as to how he came into the
possession of the stolen items, that does not only give rise to the presumption that he is the thief but
that he is the doer of the act, and in this case, that he killed the victim.

61. Presumption that evidence willfully suppressed is adverse. EXEMPTIONS –

a. When the suppression is due to the exercise of a right (as when medical records are
withheld under doctor-patient confidentiality)

b. When evidence suppressed is equally available to the other party(so that the other party
could have simply presented it in court)

c. When the evidence suppressed is merely corroborative or cumulative

62. Advance note: AFFIDAVITS are essentially hearsay evidence. Hence the need to present the affiants in
court for cross-examination

63. ALIBI is a type of Contemporaneous Circumstantial Evidence

64. Another conclusive evidence is a negative result in a DNA paternity test (conclusive as to non-paternity)

65. Courts are more inclined to give more probative weight to positive evidence than negative evidence
(hence why alibi and denial are the weakest of defenses)

66. CORROBORATIVE evidence vs. CUMULATIVE evidence

67. Evidence to serve its purpose of as a means of ascertaining the truth, it must pass through
ADMISSIBILITY and WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY.

68. Advance note: OFFER of evidence has to come with a statement of the specific PURPOSE for which the
evidence is offered (and henceforth the evidence can be admitted only for that purpose)

69. (per COMPETENCE of evidence) Exclusionary rules under the Constitution:

a. On search and seizure


b. Violation of privacy of communication
c. Constitutional rights during custodial investigation
d. Right against self-incrimination

70. Exceptions to the requirement of a judicial warrant for search and seizure:

1. Search incident to a lawful arrest


2. Search of moving vehicle
3. Search in plain view
4. Custom search
9 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
5. Waiver on the part of person searched
6. Stop and frisk
7. Urgency
8. Airport security check

71. In most cases if not all what results here is an arrest without warrant resulting to a search without
warrant.

72. Hot Pursuit Arrest also requires personal knowledge but the personal knowledge is not on the
commission of the offense but personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed the crime (key: OVERT ACT)

73. in warrantless SEARCH it is not required that the arresting officer has personal knowledge of the
commission of the crime what is required is PROBABLE CAUSE, reasonable suspicion that the person to
be searched may have committed the offense or in possession of some contraband or illegal
merchandise (as in Stop and Frisk, or Search of a Moving Vehicle)

74. PROBABLE CAUSE, facts and circumstance sufficient to engender a well-founded belief (that a crime has
been committed and the person to be searched has committed it; or that a person has in him effects in
violation of existing laws)

75. In SEARCH, tipped information may constitute probable cause for warrantless searches (as opposed to
warrantless arrest which requires personal knowledge) especially if the description given by the
informant is confirmed by the arresting officer the moment they spotted the person identified in the
information.

Hence, tipped info/PROBABLE CAUSE keying a valid warrantless search could even be a catalyst for a
warrantless arrest, in certain instances when the latter is allowed when preceded by a lawful search (see
case of Quebral, and distinguish from Aminnudin)

76. Thus, “if the search precedes the arrest what is only required is probable cause. And for this purpose a
tip information from a reliable source like that of a police informant, if confirmed by the arresting
officer, is sufficient to constitute and justified warrantless search” - Laguio

77. With tipped info as a probable cause, though, the fact that there is no sufficient time to obtain a warrant
may be one of the main reasons for allowing the same

78. Above rules on search preceding the arrest are JURISPRUDENTIAL. Seek recent rulings on the matter!

79. The accused can altogether REFUSE TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND in –

a. Criminal cases
b. Administrative proceedings that are PENAL in nature

80. It’s different there when a DEFENDANT is called to the witness stand in a CIVIL CASE. Because in a civil
case, basically the purpose there is not to establish criminal liability. Civil liability, which is not covered
by right against self incrimination. Therefore, defendant MAY BE COMPELLED TO TAKE THE WITNESS
STAND, as also implied in Rule 25.
10 4th Sunday Mash-Ups

HOWEVER, in CIVIL cases, the person there or the defendant may invoke the right against self
incrimination and refuse to answer any incriminating question when that specific incriminating question
is asked.

81. However, as to mere WITNESSES, they may NOT refuse to take the witness stand. BUT still, they can
invoke the right against self-incrimination WHEN an incriminatory question is asked them (similar to
defendants in a civil case)

82. The right to object to the admissibility of evidence belongs to the party WHOSE RIGHT IS VIOLATED. So it
can be admissible for purposes or in any proceeding if it is presented not against the person whose right
has been violated. If it is presented against any other person, it is admissible

i. So that if you sue the police officer for violating your right, search and seizure, there is abuse
in the execution of the search warrant, excessive force. Under your criminal law, that
constitutes a criminal offense. Employing unnecessary force in the implementation of search
warrant. The person aggrieved may file a criminal case against the police officer. The
prosecution now may present in evidence the seized items as evidence in the criminal
prosecution against the police. That is admissible.

83. Per the Anti-Wiretapping Act, telephone extension lines are not covered. Also, the recording is still
inadmissible even when the party recording without permission is one of the parties to the
conversation.

84. The Anti-Wiretapping Act does not apply to recordings of conversations which are NOT PRIVATE (i.e.
those exchanges in the presence of non-party 3rd persons)

85. Voir: Human Security Act (exempted wiretappings)

86. HSA does not apply to (and the exclusionary rule still stands in):

1. Lawyers and their clients


2. Physician and patients
3. Journalists and sources
4. Confidential business correspondence

87. Exclusionary rule under RA 8505, Act providing assistance and protection to rape victims. The so-called
Rape Shield Rule. In any criminal prosecution for rape. Any evidence which tends to prove the past
sexual conduct of the victim or any opinion thereof or her sexual reputation is not admissible, except
when the court sees it as relevant and material
11 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
88. Exclusionary rule under RA 9262, VAWC law. Sexual Abuse Shield Rule. In any prosecution involving
CHILD ABUSE. Evidence which would tend to prove that the accused engaged in other sexual behavior or
evidence that would tend to prove the victim's sexual predisposition, except evidence of specific sexual
conduct of the victim to prove that the person other than the accused is the source of the semen, injury
or other physical evidence.

89. (per the requirement of appending documentary stamps to taxable documents presented in evidence)
So that for practical document if you are the proponent of a taxable document and you failed to comply
with the doc stamp requirement, and it is objected to, you can always comply later. So in the end it will
not help you, so maybe just to rattle off your opponent, you can try that.

90. Examples of exclusionary rules under the Rules of Court:

1. Best evidence rule. Evidence offered in violation of the best evidence rule, inadmissible.
2. Parol Evidence Rule. Document offered in violation of the parol evidence rule,
inadmissible.
3. Rule on Authentication. Document not duly otinticated, inadmissible!
4. Hearsay Evidence Rule. Evidence which is hearsay, inadmissible.
5. Offer of compromises in civil cases. Inadmissible
6. The rule on Res Inter Alias Acta Rule. The act of one cannot prejudice another.
Inadmissible.
7. The rule on disqualification of witnesses
8. (others)

91. What is personally known to the judge does not necessarily constitute judicial notice. Matters which the
courts are enjoined to take judicial notice do not necessarily mean matters personally known to the
courts

92. During the hearing concerning JUDICIAL NOTICE, what is presented is not evidence, but INFORMATION –
therefore, the rules on evidence do not apply! (authentication, Parol Evidence Rule, Best Evidence,
Hearsay Rule, finds no application!)

93. For JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

1. it should be made by a party


2. It should be made in the proceedings of the same case where the admission is made.

94. If the admission is made in the course of proceeding but in another case, that is not a judicial admission,
only extra judicial admission. So if that admission was made in branch 1, if you use that admission in the
case pending in branch 2, that admission is extrajudicial. A judicial admission is an admission made in
branch 2 and used in the case of branch 2, that very same case where the admission is made
12 4th Sunday Mash-Ups

95. Admission of COUNSEL is admission of the client because the lawyer is the agent of client. Exception
there is when the admission prejudices the right of the client

96. Admission by a WITNESS is also a JUDICIAL ADMISSION, which may be admitted and taken against the
party.

The rule is the party calling the witness cannot impeach his own witness. What does that mean? You
cannot contradict your own witness. Because in calling him you vouch the integrity and honesty of this
witness. When you present your witness you are in effect telling the court that your honor whatever this
witness will tell you is true, because he is like me, an honest person.

EXCEPT when such witness is declared as a hostile witness and is subsequently impeached

97. Exceptions to the rule that Judicial Admissions need not be proven by evidence

a. Depositions
b. Accused pleads guilty to a capital offense
c. Judicial admissions in pleadings superseded through AMENDMENT, which become EXTRA-
JUDICIAL admissions, hence now needing evidence

98. Presumption does not take the place of evidence; it only affects the burden of proof. They still have to
prove the basic facts

99. Note: Existence of Landlord-Tenant relationship, where the tenant cannot allege better ownership right
than the landlord

100. On the presumption of death, presumption applies only when there is no preponderance of
evidence that the person has died

101. In presumptions for succession purposes, in case of mutual successors who died in a calamity,
when there is no proof as to who died first, simultaneous death will be presumed, and there shall be
NO SUCCESSION

102. REAL OBJECT EVIDENCE is that kind of object evidence which refers to the very thing which is
subject of the case

103. DEMONSTRATIVE OBJECT EVIDENCE, a representation of or a substitution for the real thing (e.g.
photograph of the murder weapon)

104. Before a REAL OBJECT EVIDENCE can be admitted, it has to be—

a. Relevant to the fact in issue


b. Competent  which requires AUTHENTICATION
c. Identified or authenticated by competent individuals
d. Formally offered
13 4th Sunday Mash-Ups

105. For purposes of real object evidence that process of AUTHENTICATION simply refers to the
process of establishing in court that the thing being offered in evidence is really the thing the proponent
needs it to be

106. 3 categories of REAL object evidence:

i. Unique
ii. Non-unique made unique by identifiable marks
iii. Non-unique that CANNOT be made unique

107. Note: object and documentary evidence need to be “sponsored” by a witness, i.e. they have to
be duly authenticated

108. The witness COMPETENT for purposes of authentication is that witness with PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE that the object is the very same object recovered from the crime scene and that it’s the
very same object presented in court

109. If that object evidence falls under the first category (UNIQUE), objects which has readily
distinguishable identifiable mark, like a serial number, that witness needs only to point out to the court
that he is very certain that this object being offered to the court is the very thing or object that they
recovered from the crime scene because of the presence of the readily identifiable mark, in this case the
serial number

110. If the object falls under the second category (NON-UNIQUE BUT MADE UNIQUE) your witness
must be able to testify convincing, satisfactorily the court that it is very certain that the object being
offered by the court is the very same object recovered from the crime scene because while the object is
not unique, he – the WITNESS HIMSELF (due, again, to the requirement of personal knowledge)– made
it unique by placing readily identifiable marks

111. With the objects that fall under the 3rd category (NON-UNIQUE CANNOT BE MADE UNIQUE), has
to comply with the CHAIN OF CUSTODY PRINCIPLE, the recorded and authorized movements of evidence
from the time it was recovered to the time it is being handled, safe-keep up to the time it is being
offered in evidence as evidence in court

112. On the Chain of Custody Principle, ideal and it is advisable that ALL the LINKS of the persons who
took possession and custody of the evidence should testify. Should testify on the manner on how they
received the evidence, from whom they received the evidence, how they handled the evidence while in
their possession and what steps they took in order to preserve the integrity of the evidence to prevent
alteration, tampering, substitution, or even contamination. And also, they should be able to testify how
they transmitted the evidence to another custodian. The purpose of the testimony of these links is to
establish to the satisfaction of the court that all throughout the process, the INTEGRITY of the evidence
is preserved

113. Presentation of the ALL the links in the chain, however, is NOT absolute

114. NOTE: Article 29 of Republic Act 9165, The Dangerous Drugs Act. In the inventory and
photographing of the seized articles, the following must be present –
14 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
1. The accused or person from whom the drugs were taken, or his representative, or
his counsel
2. A representative from the media
3. A representative from the Department of Justice
4. ANY ELECTED PUBLIC official

(presence of ALL is MANDATORY; they are also required to sign the inventory and be given
copies of the same)

115. HOWEVER, failure to comply with Article 29 of RA 9165, will NOT result to the seized items being
inadmissible. In other words, defendant cannot file a Motion to Quash the Warrant OR a Motion to
Suppress the evidence obtained thereby. Failure to comply with the rule has nothing to do with
admissibility.

It will result, however, to an ACQUITTAL due to a failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt the corpus
delicti of the crime. The matter of non-compliance therefore pertains only to the WEIGHT and
SUFFICIENCY of the evidence. Case will still have to proceed to trial

116. Hence, cannot raise anymore non-compliance with Section 21 in your objection to the formal
offer of the seized illegal drugs because in your opposition to the formal offer your only ground for
opposition there should be a ground relating to admissibility. But as I said, failure to comply with Section
21 has nothing to with admissibility. So, in short, when there is non-compliance with Section 21, you
cannot raise that ground when you object to the formal offer of the seized illegal drugs. So the remedy
there is to go to trial, a full blown trial because that will only result in the sufficiency of evidence

117. DEMONSTRATIVE object evidence (DOE) also requires AUTHENTICATION

118. Common forms of DOE are classified into—

a. Photos, maps, models


b. Video recordings, tape recordings
c. Scientific evidence or experimentations

119. Authentication of DOE evidence, in case of photos, video or tape recordings, may be made by –

i. Persons who made the recording


ii. Persons who can testify as to the accuracy of the objects or scenes being
depicted in the recording (Tatum, Sison cases)

120. Audio, video or photographic electronic evidence need also to be authenticated under the Rules
of Electronic Evidence. The procedures in authentication are EXACTLY THE SAME as in the procedure
that we just discussed in relation to a photograph.

121. SC said categorically that as of now the polygraph or lie detector test has not yet attained
acceptance in the scientific community. So as it is now, LIE DETECTOR TEST is NOT admissible in
evidence; because according to the SC is has NOT yet been established that the lie detector or the
polygraph test is a reliable means of ascertaining truth and deception.

122. Result to PARAFFIN TEST is admissible but what is the probative value of the result of the
paraffin test? The SC said the probative value of the result of the paraffin test is only corroborative in
15 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
nature meaning it needs other evidence to corroborate. In other words it is not sufficient, standing
alone, to support the finding of fact.

So that if there is a witness who can testify that he saw the accused firing the gun and you have that
positive result of the paraffin test, I think that would be enough for conviction because the testimony of
the witness is corroborated by the result of the paraffin test

123. Note: Tijam and People vs. Vallejo cases, per development of the DNA test as admissible
evidence

124. DNA test may be availed by anyone (police officers or otherwise), at any time BEFORE a case is
filed in court

125. When a case has already been filed, DNA test can only be availed of through court order, after
notice and hearing, by only the following—

a. Court motu proprio


b. Any party with an interest in the subject matter under litigation

The order for the conduct of a DNA test is immediately executory and unappealable.

Only remedy: Rule 65! But taking of the latter will not stay the execution of the order, unless a TRO or a
WPI is obtained

126. When there is conviction, and the judgment is already final and EXECUTORY – but NOT
EXECUTED (i.e. sentence has not yet been FULLY served!) – there may still be a Post-Conviction DNA
test.

Can be availed of only by –

1. The accused
2. The prosecution

127. Post-Conviction DNA test is for purposes of obtaining a possible acquittal (or granting the
accused the opportunity)

128. When there is ACQUITTAL, no DNA test can anymore be allowed (violation of the right against
double jeopardy)

129. Now, under the rules on DNA evidence, courts are enjoined to ensure that the DNA biological
samples or the entirety of the DNA profiles shall be preserved.

130. BUT mere FAILURE of the state to preserve biological samples of the DNA profiles DOES NOT
automatically result in the acquittal of the accused.

Acquittal may result only if there is bad faith on the part of the government or the part of the
prosecution of the police

(NOTE: this ruling is based largely on FOREIGN jurisprudence)


16 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
131. 2 important rules that apply to DOCUMENTARY evidence:

1. Best Evidence Rule


2. Parol Evidence Rule

132. BEST EVIDENCE RULE applies only when the document is being offered or the writing is being
OFFERED AS PROOF OF ITS CONTENTS. If the purpose is other than to prove its contents, that may be
called a document but it is not a documentary evidence for purposes of the best evidence rule.

Otherwise, it may be considered as OBJECT evidence.

133. An ORIGINAL DOCUMENT is one where the contents of which are the subject of inquiry

It does not make reference at all or qualification as to whether that writing is the first document ever
produced. So in other words the document or writing could be the second/third or tenth reproduction
of the first writing. It can be considered original. Even if it be a photocopy of the first copy. So a
photocopy therefore can be an original document for purposes of the best evidence rule, so long as the
purpose of reproducing the photocopy is to prove the contents of that photocopy.

So if there is one first copy and subsequent photocopies, the tenth photocopy is altered/falsified, and
the rest as is. And in prosecution for falsification, the falsified document there is the tenth copy. The
tenth photocopy. Because the 9 were not falsified, much less the first copy. So what is being falsified
there is the tenth photocopy. Question: What is the original there? It is the one being falsified. Because
the contents of that document are the very issue in the case. How else do you prove falsification if you
do not present the very document subject of the falsification? Of course you also need to present the
first copy to prove that there is really falsification. So in that regard there might be two original there.

134. “Any mode of written expression” includes DRAWINGS. So that is covered. So long as the
operative fact there is that it must be subject of inquiry.

135. Best Evidence Rule does not apply:

a. If the purpose of presenting a writing in evidence is not to prove its contents but to prove its
existence, its issuance, its execution, its delivery.  COLLATERAL FACT RULE

(photocopies of marked money; violation of BP 22, where testimonial evidence was


accepted)

b. When the writing is only COLLATERAL to a fact in issue in the case. And this fact in issue in
the case has an existence independent from a writing, although that fact in issue may have
been evidenced by the writing. The fact in issue sought to be proved is not the writing itself

(Air France vs. Carrascoso – entries in a notebook used as evidence to prove the fact of
physical altercation, as recorded therein. Meyers vs. US – fact of false testimony in a hearing
being allowed to be proven via testimonial evidence, transcripts not being required
anymore. Another is in cases where the fact of a person’s going to a certain place is in issue;
may be proven by mere testimonies)
17 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
 Would appear that this exception applies in those cases where the fact in issue had
existed prior to the writing, or when it doesn’t involve any right created by the writing in
question

c. parties did not dispute the wordings and the terms and conditions of the document or
writing.

(Solid Bank vs. Del Monte – when instead of disputing the wordings and the terms of the
document, adverse party argues that the same has been issued without consideration)

d. if there is waiver on part of adverse party. Failure to object upon the formal offer of the
evidence

e. when the original is no longer available (under certain allowable instances)

136. The BEST EVIDENCE RULE has nothing to do with probative value. It refers only to admissibility.
Take note that when the secondary evidence, best evidence rule only, some of this a rule of preference.
Meaning, if the original is available, you cannot present secondary. That’s the rule of preference

137. Per the allowance of secondary evidence, “cannot be produced in court” includes instances
where for practical, moral and public policy concerns, the original cannot be physically presented in
court (tattoo on a human body; writings on concrete – testimonial evidence or photographs may be
allowed)

138. Proof of loss of the original document has to be proof of loss of ALL the original copies.
Therefore, in order to prove the fact of loss, you must be able to prove how many originals. If there are
5 originals, you must be able to account for the 5 originals. IN other words, you must be able to prove
that the 5 originals were lost.

139. Allowed secondary evidence should be in the order given. Hence, So you need to establish that
there is photocopy. Although if there is no photocopy, you have to establish that there is no available
photocopy or copy., before you can present a recital of the original found in some authentic record. If
this not available, you have to prove its non-availability before you can present oral testimony of a
witness. Because the law, or the rule is specific that it should be in that order.

140. 3 ways of giving notice to adverse party (re: unjustified refusal re: documents in adverse party’s
possession) –

1. Rule 27, Production or Inspection of Documents or Things


2. Oral motion in open court
3. Subpoena Duces Tecum

141. Rules of electronic evidence apply to civil action, proceedings before quasi-judicial
administrative bodies and criminal actions.
18 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
142. The same requisites of RELEVANCY, COMPETENCY and OFFER are present in the admissibility of
Electronic Documents

143. The moment one, some or all the entries in a document or writing is or not processed
electronically, that entire writing ceases to be electronic document.

144. Document is NOT ELECTRONIC when it is established that the signatures appearing in these
documents were MANUALLY made

145. For purposes of the Best Evidence Rule, original of an electronic document. – An electronic
document shall be regarded as the EQUIVALENT OF AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT under the Best Evidence
Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately.

146. a diskette may also be presented in court as an electronic evidence (former practice before the
present liberal definition of an electronic document)

147. possible original documents now include—

i. diskettes
ii. documents displayed on the computer monitor
iii. print-outs!

148. Under the electronic evidence rule now, copies or counterparts are regarded as equivalent to
the original. In other words, if the document is electronic, there is practically no secondary evidence
there; ALL are regarded as originals

(hence even copies of an e-mail “sent to many” at about the same time will be regarded as ORIGINALS)

149. may also be regarded as equivalent of the original when the document is a counter-part, take
note, a counter-part produced by the same impression as the original. Or when it is produced by the
same makers or by mechanical or electronic re-recording or by chemical reproduction or by ANY OTHER
EQUIVALENT TECHNIQUES that reproduces the original accurately (e.g. USBs, saving in CDs and DVD-Rs)

150. Our own definition of ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT excludes documents generated from facsimile
transmissions (e.g. fax, telex, telecopy), hence the same may be excluded under the Best Evidence Rule.
They (facsimiles) are considered as paper-based documents and therefore for purposes of the best
evidence rule, you apply the rule on paper-based documents. And the only original there being the copy
in the possession of the sender, the one printed locally is not admissible. – Ssangyong

151. Despite Ssangyong, Torregosa is of the opinion that photocopies are admissible as electronic
evidence, falling under those reproduced “by ANY OTHER EQUIVALENT TECHNIQUES that reproduces
the original accurately.” Moreover, the case in Ssangyong treats only of facsimile transmissions

152. DVDs, any individual copy, are deemed as originals, the vital requisite being that they should be
accurate reproduction of the original

153. Most difficult part of having electronic evidence admitted is AUTHENTICATION. In labor cases,
for example, when an employment is terminated via e-mail, though they may be deemed competent for
being original, still many had not been recognized for failure to authenticate
19 4th Sunday Mash-Ups

154. In the PAROL EVIDENCE RULE, the issue must refer to the terms.

155. The Best Evidence Rule answers the question “What does the document say? Or what does the
document contain?” Parol Evidence Rule answers the question “What have the parties agreed upon?”

156. The purpose of the Parol Evidence Rule is to give certainty and reliability to written agreements,
according thereby higher prioritization for written agreements over oral ones

157. what is prohibited from being introduced or from being admitted is BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN
so long as these extraneous evidence being oral or written tends to add, modify, or contradict, or vary
the terms of the written agreement

158. Parol Evidence Rule is NOT APPLICABLE (in addition to that provided for in Rule 130, Section 9) –

a. When there is no written contract to speak of

(Cruz vs. CA – evidence rule does not apply because the receipt is NOT a contract. A receipt
simply contains a mere statement of fact that money was received by someone on a
particular date at this amount. Evidence contradicting the supposed contract was therefore
allowed)

b. at least one of the parties in the case is NOT A PARTY to and DOES NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM
under the written agreement

(the case of Lechugas, where the defendant is allowed to contradict the deed of sale
presented by the complainant as proof of the latter’s superior right over the former, since
defendant was not privy to said deed)

c. when what is sought to be established by the extraneous evidence is the existence of a prior
or contemporaneous agreement which is INDEPENDENT from the written agreement. This
refers to prior or contemporaneous agreement which does not contradict, vary or is not
inconsistent with the terms of a written agreement (cannot do so actually, since it is in the
first place INDEPENDENT from the written agreement)  COLLATERAL AGREEMENT RULE

(Robles vs. Lizarraga Cruz – a party’s presentation of oral evidence as to an agreement


concerning payment for improvements cannot be said to vary the agreement, subject of the
present action, pertaining to the land on which the said improvements are planted/built)

159. the 4 exceptions under Rule 130, Section 9 should be raised as an issue IN THE PLEADINGS.
20 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
160. However, the same grounds/exceptions would be irrelevant when used to prove the existence
of oral contracts in violation of the Statute of Frauds under Article 1403 of the NCC.

161. While parol evidence rule under the rules of court covers both oral and written agreement so
long as they tend to amend, modify, or vary the terms of a written contract, the parol evidence which is
prohibited under the Statute of Frauds refers to an oral testimony (such that when the extrinsic
evidence presented in issues under the SoF is written, in proof of the agreement, they may be admitted)

162. Distinction between RoC Parol Evidence Rule and the Statue of Frauds is that the former
prohibits only the introduction of extraneous evidence that will vary the terms of a written contract; the
latter, meanwhile, prohibits (when it applies) the introduction of parol evidence which prove the very
existence of the contract

Essentially, the RoC Parol Evidence Rule PRESUPPOSES the existence of a WRITTEN contract, while the
Statute of Frauds DEMANDS that it be written

163. Capacity to perceive, a requisite for witnesses

164. MENTAL INCAPACITY and MENTAL IMMATUIRTY as a disqualification pertain only to the time
the witness is called to testify. Even if insane or immature during the occurrence of the event, may still
testify in court so long as already sane or mature by then.

However, insanity or immaturity during the occurrence of the event will lead to the testimony being of
NO PROBATIVE VALUE.

165. Disqualification by reason of marriage (Marital Disqualification Rule) only applies when the
spouse affected (the one who is a party to the case) does not consent

166. if none of the spouses is a party to the case, then the Marital Disqualification Rule does not
apply

167. Marital Disqualification Rule does not apply when marital relations are already strained (despite
the subsistence of the marriage). Purpose of the rule has ceased to exist (per Alvarez vs. Martinez)

168. Essentially, DEAD MAN’S STATUTE/SURVIVORSHIP DISQUALIFICATION RULE says that when the
other party dies, his lips are sealed. Since his lips are sealed, might as well seal the lips of the surviving
party because the law recognizes that since the other party is already dead and dead man tells no tale,
there is likelihood that the surviving party may take advantage of the death of the other party and
therefore falsify himself to his advantage and to the disadvantage of the deceased. To prevent that
likelihood of perjury, the surviving party is prohibited or disqualified from testifying.

169. For the Survivorship Disqualification Rule to apply, the following requisites must concur –

a. It applies only in a CIVIL or SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

b. applies only if the action, the civil case or the special proceeding, involves a claim upon the
estate of a deceased person or a person of unsound mind. (voir: Guerero vs. St. Claire
Realty)
21 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
c. It applies only when the parties named as defendants in the civil case or special proceeding
are sued in their capacity as administrator, executor or representative of a deceased or the
representative of a person of unsound mind

(Goñi vs. CA- one may be considered as a “REPRESENTATIVE” if he is placed in a litigation, if


he is so placed in a litigation that if he is so placed in a litigation that requires him to defend
that which he has obtained from the deceased or requires him to establish a right which the
deceased might have been interested to establish if he were alive – as in the case of heirs)

d. Applies only when it is the estate that is DEFENDING, i.e., when it is the estate that initiates
the action, SDR/DMS does NOT apply (corollary to the rule that there must be a claim
against the estate)

(Tongco vs Vianzon - the wife is not covered by the Dead Man’s Statute because the action
does not involve a claim against the estate of the deceased; rather the action is initiated by
the estate itself, so the administrator against the wife. This illustrates a situation where the
estate is the one initiating the action, the estate being the claimant, not the defending
party)

e. The disqualified under the Dead Man’s Statute is the (a) plaintiff, (b) assignor of plaintiff or
(c) the person in whose behalf the action is prosecuted. Ordinary witnesses, not having the
personality of any of the latter, are not disqualified

(Lichauco vs. Atlantic Gulf – To prove the existence of that obligation that the deceased
owed in favor of the corporation, the CORPORATION presented its’ officers, an officer or
accountant. Dead man’s statute does not apply here because the witnesses sought to be
disqualified are neither plaintiffs, nor assignors-of-the-plaintiff nor persons in whose behalf
the action is prosecuted because the plaintiff in this case was the corporation and it is basic
in Corporation Law that the corporation has its personality distinct and separate from its
officers, stockholders or employees. Its finance officers, the officers who were sought to be
disqualified are not covered by the disqualification)

f. Fact testified to must have been a positive fact, something that occurred.

(Mendezona vs. Viuda de Goitia – hence when the testimony pertains to non-compliance
with an obligation, which is a non-occurrence, SDR/DMS does not apply)

170. SDR/DMS does not apply when the contract was entered into during the lifetime of the
deceased by a REPRESENTATIVE/AGENT, and the suit post-death has been brought against the same
agent as administrator or executor

(Goñi vs. CA – Goni the Agent was still alive during the trial. Since Goni is still alive and kicking, and the
one who has personal knowledge of the transaction, Goni is very able to protect the interest of Praxedes
Villanueva because Goni was the one who signed the contract and familiar or has personal knowledge of
the execution of the surrounding circumstances of the contract. The evil sought to be avoided by the
rule, meaning the possibility of inequality can be avoided.)
22 4th Sunday Mash-Ups

171. Marital Disqualification Rule (MDR), disqualification is attached to the fact of marriage; Marital
Privilege Communication (MPR), attached to the nature of the communication, not to the fact of
marriage

172. In MDR, it does not matter whether that information was obtained by the witness spouse
before or during the marriage (but the disqualification only subsists while there is still marriage). In
disqualification by reason of MPC between spouses, it is material and necessary that the information
must be received by the witness spouse during the existence of the marriage (but the disqualification
survives the marriage)

173. NOTE: instances where the spouse may still be disqualified under the MDR, when disqualified
under the MPC

(e.g. information received BEFORE the marriage, NOT disqualified under the MPC; but when made to
testify on the same DURING the marriage, disqualified under the MDR)

174. Both MDR and MPC disqualifies the subject spouse from presenting testimonial, object and
documentary evidence

175. Both MDR and MPC will not apply when the spouse to whom the privilege belongs CONSENTS to
the giving of evidence

176. The privilege in MPC pertains to the COMMUNICATING spouse (CS), the spouse who gave the
information

177. When the communicating spouse has DIED or becomes INSANE, who may invoke MPC in his
behalf (given that MPC survives the death of either spouse)? Herrera opines that it may be invoked by
the executor, administrator, or representative, or the guardian or representative

If CS is NOT dead, but the information is sought from the recipient in a case, and the CS is NOT a PARTY
to the case (which would have made the rule n/a had it been MDR), MPC may be invoked by the Court
itself, or the spouse-recipient (provided CS is still alive and has not waived the privilege)

BUT when the CS is ALIVE, AND a party to the case, the right to invoke MPC is exclusively his

(Riano differs and provides that only the CS may invoke it. BUT Torregosa concurs with Herrera)

178. Privilege in Lawyer-Client Privileged Communication (LCPC) belongs only to the client, so that
when the latter choose to waive it, the lawyer cannot object

179. LCPC does not apply to FUTURE crimes  reckoning point is the time when the communication
is made (not when the lawyer is called to testify)

180. LCPC cannot be invoked –

a. Against a person not a client of the lawyer (US vs. Nicart) -???
23 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
b. purported privilege communication was communicated or uttered by the lawyer in
the presence of several persons and therefore the communication was not meant to
be confidential (US vs. Nicart)

c. when a privileged communication from a client to a lawyer falls into the hands of a
third party, whether legally or illegally, that supposed confidential information loses
its confidential character, hence 3rd person cannot be prevented from disclosing the
info(Barton vs. Leyte Asphalt)

 same rule with MPC

 ruling in Barton applies to letter recovered by the police in a search (People vs.
Carlos)

181. The DOCTRINE OF JOINT DEFENSE RULE or COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE. Under this doctrine,
if information is or confidential information are relayed by one accused to the lawyer of the other co-
accused in the course of an activity geared towards promoting their common defense, whatever
communication is relayed by one client to the lawyer of the other accused is covered by the privileged
communication rule. In other words it cannot be disclosed without the consent of the client who is the
source of their privileged communication because for the obvious reason is since their purpose is to
promote their common defense they have one and the same interest – US vs. Mark Partlin

182. Evaluation of DNA testing results: DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity
shall be conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99.9%,
the results of the DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of the
Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity.

183. Privileged Communication Between Physician and Patient (Doctor-Patient Confidentiality) can
only be invoked in CIVIL cases

184. Doctor-Patient Confidentiality can only be invoked with advice or info given or received by the
doctor in his “professional capacity,” i.e. advice rendered in giving PREVENTIVE or CURATIVE
TREATMENT

Hence, autopsy report is NOT covered. Neither preventive nor curative treatment

185. DPC pertains only to those info which would tend to “blacken the reputation” of the patient

186. DPC does not cover nurses

187. What if the doctor turns out to be fake, or without a valid license? What is important there is
that when the communication was relayed or the communication was transmitted from the
communicating party to the other, the communicating party must have in his mind honest belief that
the other is such as what he claims to be. The purpose of the rule is to protect the holder of the
privilege, the patient or the client who made the communication. Also applies to Lawyer-Client Privilege!
24 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
188. DPC cannot be claimed against persons who are not part of the doctor-patient relationship (e.g.
husband of the patient; related to the ruling in Barton, on where the supposed confidential information
falls in the hands of a 3rd person)

189. What is prohibited under DPC is the disclosure of the SPECIFIC TENOR of the information or
advice given or received.

The disclosure of the information as to the mere FACT THAT AN EXAMINATION WAS CONDUCTED is NOT
COVERED. In other words if the physician who conducted the curative or preventive treatment of a
patient is called to testify and merely asked to confirm or deny whether he conducted the treatment on
the patient. The physician cannot be prevented even on the objection of the patient to disclose the fact
that he did in fact conduct the examination. But as to the findings that he made, as to the specific
information and facts relative to the treatment that he administered, the physician cannot disclose
without the consent of the patient.

190. NOTE: Rule 28 as an exception to DPC

191. Under the Priest-Penitent Confidentiality, priest cannot refuse to disclose privileged
communication received from a penitent if to do so would promote to perpetrate commission of crimes.
Same rule in case the priest becomes a party in or conspirator to the crime (would also apply to lawyers,
per future crimes, since it would also result to a promotion and perpetration of the same)

192. Privilege pertaining to confidential information received by an officer during his term of office is
left to the determination of the courts, which will determine whether disclosure would be prejudicial to
the interest of the public. It is not for the officer to refuse to reveal the information; discretion lies with
the courts

193. Parental-Filial Privilege under Rule 130, Section 25

vs.

Filial Privilege under Article 215 of the Family Code (limited only to criminal cases, can be invoked only
by the descendant, and with an exemption for certain criminal cases)

 Question on whether one has amended the other. Torregosa thinks not

194. It may happen that while it may not be covered by 215 of the FC, chances are, it’s covered under
Section 25 Rule 130 of the Rules of Court

195. Newsman’s Privilege: this privilege says that reporter, publisher, or columnist, cannot be
compelled to disclose the source of their report. They cannot be compelled to disclose the source. But
they may be held civilly or criminally liable. If their report or publication is libelous, while they may not
be forced to disclose the source of their report, they can always be prosecuted for libel, either civilly or
criminally.

196. Admission contemplated under section 26 of Rule 130 is an EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION. You
have to distinguish this from JUDICIAL ADMISSION under section 4 of rule 129
25 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
197. EXTRAJUDICIAL admissions :

a. Made outside of court


b. Made inside of court but in a SEPARATE case or in SUPERSEDED pleadings

198. The admission contemplated under section 26 is an EXTRAJUDICIAL admission which is against
the interest of the declarant. Otherwise, it will be self-serving and not deemed an extrajudicial
admission

199. BUT Section 26, though one against the interest of the declarant, must be distinguished from
the Declaration Against Interest under Section 38, wherein the declaration may be admitted not just
against the declarant but ALSO AGAINST 3RD PERSONS, and wherein the declarant must already be dead
or unable to testify

Under Section 26, it is only admissible against the party-declarant, and the declarant need not be dead
or unable to testify.

Section 38 is an exception to the rule on hearsay and the rule res inter alios acta

However, Section 26 is also an exception to the rule on Hearsay!

200. EXTRAJUDICIAL admissions under Section 26 are essentially hearsay. The party-declarant himself
does not make the admission in open court –otherwise it becomes a JUDICIAL admission!— but rather a
witness who heard or received the admission from the declarant is presented.

Despite being hearsay, Extra-Judicial Admissions are ADMISSIBLE against the party-declarant. Section 26
EXPRESSLY ALLOWS the same! (ratiocination in Estrada vs. Desierto – party-declarant cannot be
expected to cross-examine himself)

But again, EJ-As are not admissible against 3rd parties, UNLESS falls under Section 38 (dead or unable)

201. Remedy against EJ-As: party-declarant may present controverting evidence, for EJ-As are NOT
CONCLUSIVE, may be controverted (hence the requirement of a formal offer, for the other party to
controvert it when able and desirous)

202. Raison for the non-admissibility as an admission of guilt of an offer of compromise in CIVIL
cases: to encourage settlement

203. Offer of compromise in CRIMINAL cases is admissible against the offeror as an implied admission
of guilt, EXCEPT –

a. In criminal negligence or cases of reckless imprudence


b. Good Samaritan Rule
c. When the law expressly allows compromise (tax cases)

204. An IMPLIED ADMISSION OF GUILT includes

a. plea of forgiveness by the accused or others in behalf of and with the


acquiescence/authority of the accused – People vs. de Guzman
26 4th Sunday Mash-Ups

b. offer of marriage by the accused himself or by others with the acquiescence/authority of the
accused

c. offer or payment of money by the accused of by others with the acquiescence/authority of


the accused (note People vs. Gudoy)

d. return of a thing stolen

205. JUDICIAL admissions are admissible even against 3rd persons. Therefore, for the Res Inter Alios
Acta principle to apply, an admission must not be made in court. Otherwise, it becomes a JUDICIAL
admission, nullifying RIAA.

Raison why JUDICIAL admissions are allowed against 3rd persons: such 3rd persons can cross-
examine the judicial admitter if they want to (the admitter being subject to the court’s
jurisdiction already)

206. Admissions by a conspirator, to be admissible against 3rd parties (i.e. the other conspirators),
must have been made during the existence of the conspiracy. A conspiracy exists until the commission
of the crime. Hence, AFTER the commission of the crime, there is NO more conspiracy. As a result, Extra-
Judicial Admissions/confessions made after the commission of the offense cannot be admitted against
the other conspirators

207. ADMISSION BY SILENCE must involve a statement against the interest of the person deemed to
have made the admission (failing to respond or denounce that which one would ordinarily respond to or
denounce)

208. In Admission by Silence, party against whom the admission was attributed must have had the
OPPORTUNITY TO DENY OR DISOWN the statement or imputation

209. In Admission by Silence, silence must NOT be in the EXERCISE OF A RIGHT (as the right to remain
silent)

210. Related to Admission by Silence is the PRINCIPLE OF ADOPTIVE ADMISSION. Although still
merely jurisprudential (Estrada vs. Desierto), it provides for a more expansive coverage than Admission
by Silence. Under it, one may be held to have admitted not just by negative acts (silence) but also by
positive acts (actions indicating ratification or conformity)

211. 2nd form of Res Inter Alios Acta: Evidence of Prior Conduct

212. EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CONDUCT is INADMISSIBLE if used AS A DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THE PRESENT
CHARGE. Direct evidence, meaning evidence that directly establishes a fact in issue without need of
inference from other facts. That is prohibited.

213. But EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CONDUCT is NOT PROHIBITED if it is offered AS CIRCUMSTANTIAL


EVIDENCE (intent, motive, knowledge, identity, etc.) OF A FACT IN ISSUE. So as a circumstantial evidence
it is allowed.
27 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
(People vs. Pineda – while it may be true that evidence of prior or other conduct may not be
admissible as a form of Res Inter Alios Acta, the law or rule does not prohibit the admission of
this kind of evidence if offered to prove as circumstantial evidence of knowledge or negligence
in this case. So the circumstantial evidence there was the fact that IN OTHER TRANSACTIONS
THE SAME ACCUSED SOLD THE SAME POISONOUS SUBSTANCE. The SC said there that there can
be no other stronger evidence of NEGLIGENCE or even INTENT than the evidence of FREQUENCY
OF THE ACT on the part of the accused.)

214. HEARSAY evidence could be ORAL or WRITTEN

215. Raisons why Hearsay evidence is not admitted

a. LACK OF CROSS EXAMINATION, of the person competent to testify on the truth of


the facts alleged
b. Rules require that what a witness should testify to are only those of which he has
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

216. However, vital to the admissibility of a testimony is the PURPOSE for which it is offered.

If the purpose is proving the truth of the statement, witness must have PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
of the same. Otherwise, his testimony is Hearsay.

If the purpose is to prove some other facts, other than the truth of the statement offered, the
rule on hearsay does NOT apply. It may then be said that the testimony is for a “NON-HEARSAY
PURPOSE.” Need not have personal knowledge of the truth of the statement

217. When is there an offer of a testimony for NON-HEARSAY PURPOSE?

a. INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS –


The existence or occurrence of the statement testified to itself is the very fact in
issue (e.g. Libel cases)

b. Statement is a circumstantial evidence of a fact in issue –

i. When the mental condition of the declarant is at issue

ii. mental condition of a person who heard the declaration made by the out-
of-court declarant is at issue (as to explain the action or reaction of the
hearer, e.g. in self-defense cases)

iii. statement is offered to impeach the credibility of a witness, as prior


inconsistent statements

 these statements are not “exceptions” to the rule on hearsay, for they are not hearsay
at all, being offered for non-hearsay purposes

218. Dying Declaration as exception to the rule on Hearsay. When the decedent made the statement
when he was already entertaining the possibility of recovery, exception does not apply
28 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
219. Dying Declaration cannot only be used to establish guilt or the fact of death, it can also be used
to establish INNOCENCE

220. Dying Declaration is offered in a case where the SUBJECT OF INQUIRY IS THE DEATH OF THE
DECLARANT (murder, homicide, insurance cases where cause of death is vital)

(so will not apply in cases like filiation, as when the decedent-declarant makes a confession as to
the true paternity of a child)

221. Declarant at the time the declaration was made must be a COMPETENT witness had he survived
to tell his story. His competency should be judged as with any other ordinary witness.

(thus, when the declarant was insane or a child of tender years at the time of his dying
declaration, his statement cannot be admitted)

(also, when the decedent merely relayed information he received from another about the cause
of his (impending) death, DD does not apply  he would have still been incompetent had he
survived, because his testimony is likewise hearsay!)

222. Where the declarant made a dying declaration, conscious of an impending death. Days after he
CHANGED HIS MIND. He NOW ENTERTAINS THE POSSIBILITY OF RECOVERY but he was wrong, because
he really died. Dying Declaration still applies

223. NOTE: raison for Dying Declaration Rule, NECESSITY (someone must take the place of the
declarant to prevent injustice)

224. In DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE, the requirement of independent evidence (i.e., one other
than the declaration) as to the relationship between the declarant and the claimant/person whose
pedigree is in question applies only when the declarant is NOT the person from whom the claimant
claims or against whom the action is filed

In other words, there is a need to present the aforesaid independent evidence ONLY when ALL the
following (separate persons) are involved –

a. Claimant/person whose pedigree is in question


b. Declarant (dead or unable to testify)
c. Person from whom a claim is made

THEREFORE, when a claim is made AGAINST THE DECLARANT HIMSELF, NO MORE NEED for such
INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE!
(Torregosa — absurd to require other evidence when the declarant himself, the very person against
whom the action is asserted already made a declaration of pedigree)

225. Under Rule 130, Section 40 (Family Tradition), there is NO out-of-court declarant, and the
witness is neither dead nor unable to testify

226. LETTERS are not included in Family Tradition

227. Under Section 42, Rule 130 (Part of Res Gestae), the person who made the spontaneous
statement is NOT in the witness stand. Someone else who heard him make the same is
29 4th Sunday Mash-Ups

228. Vital element for Part of Res Gestae : IMMEDIACY –i.e. there must be no opportunity to
fabricate

229. The spontaneous statement in Part of Res Gestae must refer to the circumstances surrounding
the startling occurrence

230. THE Res Gestae is the

a. Startling occurrence, or
b. Equivocal act

The PART of Res Gestae is the

a. Statement made during the startling occurrence


b. Statement accompanying the equivocal act

231. Under Rule 130, Section 43 (Entries in the Course of Business), the one who made the entry
must have PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the ENTRIES, but he must be either DEAD or UNABLE TO TESTIFY

(someone else is testifying as to the fact of his making the entry in his professional duty and in the
regular course)

232. Under Sec. 44, Entries in Official Records, the entrant must EITHER have PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE of the facts stated in the entry OR have learned the facts stated in the entry THROUGH
OFFICIAL INFORMATION. He need not be dead or unable to testify

“OFFICIAL INFORMATION means source of the information has the DUTY to make that report

NOT falling under “official information” would be those obtained from ordinary citizens concerning the
commission of crime. NOBODY IS ENJOINED by law to REPORT A CRIME. Hence, police blotters
consisting of citizen reportage do not fall under the exception in Section 44, UNLESS the officers
themselves have personal knowledge of the crime.

233. BOTH Entries in Official Records (Section 44) and Entries in the Course of Business (Section 43),
when all the requisites are present, constitute PRIMA FACIE evidence

234. To qualify under the hearsay-exemption Commercial Lists (Section 45), the element of
“generally used and relied upon” should be established, the commercial list should attain the status of a
manual, a STANDARD MANUAL FOR THOSE ENGAGE IN A PARTICULAR OCCUPATION

Merely private letters are not covered

235. For Learned Treatises (Section 46), there must be compliance with the TWO EXPERT WITNESSES
RULE, which requires that an expert witness testify that the author of the statement as found in the
published treaty, periodical or pamphlet is a recognize expert in that particular subject

236. For Testimonies or Depositions at a Former Proceeding (or the mere transcripts thereof) to be
admissible in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties and the same subject matter, the
witness giving such testimony must be DEAD or UNABLE TO TESTIFY
30 4th Sunday Mash-Ups

The adverse party against whom the testimony is to be offered must have had the OPPORTUNITY to
cross-examine the dead or absent witness

(Manliclic vs. Canlaunan – EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPLY, because in the subsequent case the
EMPLOYER was already impleaded and the employer was not a party to the earlier case. The employer
not being a party to the previous case is DEPRIVED OF HIS OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE
UNAVAILABLE WITNESSES.)

237. Under Testimonies or Deposition at a Former Proceeding, TO PROVE that the witness
theretofore is UNABLE TO TESTIFY, mere hostility is not enough. The proponent SHOULD HAVE AVAILED
OF COURT PROCESSES for the attendance of these witnesses. The proponent could have availed of a
SUBPOENA. The proponent must be able to prove that ALL EFFORTS must have been exerted to produce
the witnesses in that subsequent proceedings, it is only when all efforts failed and the witnesses cannot
be produced will the exception be validly invoked

238. When the evidence is Hearsay, but is an EXCEPTION to the rule on Hearsay, it has the SAME
PROBATIVE VALUE as any other evidence NOT hearsay

On the other hand, when the evidence is Hearsay and NOT an exception to the rule on Hearsay,
BUT there is a FAILURE TO OBJECT to its admission by the adverse party, the said hearsay
evidence, though admitted, has ZERO PROBATIVE VALUE when finally considered by the court.
Will do no harm to adverse party, en fait

239. Expertise, for purposes of Expert Opinion, is solely for the court to determine. Their findings are
NEVER binding on the court

240. Issue of whether a handwriting is genuine or not can be testified on by an ordinary witness

241. As a GENERAL rule, the opinion of ordinary witnesses are not admissible, only in certain select
exemptions

242. Torregosa: MORE CASES that the SC gave more weight to testimonies of witnesses than that of
the expert

243. 2 purposes of CROSS-examination: DESTRUCTIVE and CONSTRUCTIVE

244. During cross-examination, the examining lawyer is given wide latitude in the type of questions
he may ask. HE can ask the witness a question to illicit any or all important information or facts bearing
upon that issue.

245. 2 options when there is a need to re-construct or re-establish the testimony of a witness, after
the examination of the latter has been concluded on both sides: RECALL the witness (Rule 132, Section
9) or PRESENT ANOTHER witness

246. To prove that a witness is HOSTILE, lawyer may propound to the witness questions evincing the
3 grounds for declaring such witness as hostile
31 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
247. When a witness has been declared as hostile, the lawyer who presented him can now

a. Ask him LEADING questions


b. Impeach his credibility or testimony

248. “Leading questions” are those which leave no room for the witness to answer other than by a
mere YES or a NO (there being in the question the answer already)

249. When IMPEACHING A WITNESS BY INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS made in the past: Take note
that the rule explicitly requires that the witness must be given the OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE
INCONSISTENCY. So it is not enough to point out the inconsistent statements. The most important part
is the witness be given the opportunity to explain

Only when the witness fails to offer satisfactory explanation that the witness is effectively impeached. It
is not by just pointing out the existence of the 2 contradictory statements

250. When a witness however DENIES having made the prior inconsistent statement, lawyer has NO
CHOICE but to abandon impeaching the witness via the said inconsistent statement. He may move on to
present CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE (as a testimony on the matter by another witness)

251. CHARACTER EVIDENCE as to a PARTY, when it is pertinent to the moral trait central to the
offense charged (defense of truth in libel), may be proved by:

a. EVIDENCE OF A SPECIFIC PAST CONDUCT


b. Opinions of witnesses (Section 50, Rule 130)
c. Evidence of general reputation (Section 41, Rule 130)

HOWEVER, if the character evidence is being introduced as mere CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence of


a fact in issue (not the very trait involved in the offense charged), as the violent proclivities of
the offended party when there is a question of self-defence, there cannot be admitted any
evidence of a specific past conduct  Only by GENERAL REPUTATION
 Raisons:
i. To avoid unfair surprise
ii. To prevent undue prejudice
iii. To prevent undue delay
iv. Avoid confusion of issues

252. Character evidence for purposes of IMPEACHING a WITNESS, may be proved ONLY by EVIDENCE
OF GENERAL REPUTATION, except

a. Admission of the witness


b. Copy of a final judgment showing past conviction of the witness for a crime

Character evidence for impeaching a witness pertains only HONESTY, INTEGRITY, and TRUTH

Evidence of specific past conduct cannot impeach


32 4th Sunday Mash-Ups

253. Does General Reputation of moral character or marriage have to exist for more than 30 years?
Literal reading of Section 41 yields a negative answer. Torregosa, however, is of the opinion that both
should also be existent for more than 30 years (purpose is to prove that such a reputation is indeed
general or “common”)

254. There are OTHER COMMON MODES IMPEACHING the credibility of the other party’s witness (in
addition to that provided in Section 11, Rule 132). NUMBER 4 by evidence that the witness is biased or
the witness has an ill will to falsely testify or that the witness has interest in the outcome of the case to
have prompted him to falsely testify

However, bias, interest in the outcome or ill-will is not grounds for disqualification of the witness. They
may still be allowed to testify. Their testimonies, though, may not be given full faith and credence.

255. You can also impeach the credibility of the adverse party’s witness by showing the
IMPROBABILITY of the witness version of the incident (5th ground!)

256. Another method of impeaching the witness of the other party by showing some CONDUCT on
the part of a witness which is NOT CONSISTENT with his testimony (6th ground for impeachment!)

Example is a witness testifying that he is the owner of a particular property, yet evidence is
produced revealing that he hasn’t paid any taxes therefore, has not introduced improvements,
or has not exercised any act of ownership at all.

257. Torregosa: The number 1 rule in cross examination, do not ask questions the answer of which
you do not know

258. Tender of Excluded Evidence is an absolute right. However, in practice, according to Torregosa,
courts usually refuse the Tender when made during CROSS-EXAMINATION, on the theory that an
opposing counsel cannot possibly know what the testimony of the adverse party’s witness is going to be.
Torregosa disputes this pointing to the fact that a cross-examination can be had for two purposes,
destructive or constructive. In the latter, one need only remind himself of the above “number 1 rule” in
cross-examination

259. As a rule, court cannot consider evidence unless it is formally offered

260. An offer is essential due to the principle of Multiple Admissibility of Evidence

261. Certain exceptional instances when an evidence is STILL CONSIDERED DESPITE A LACK OF
FORMAL OFFER –

a. When the evidence has been identified by the witness in the course of the trial
b. If the evidence already forms part of the records of the case (depositions taken in a former
proceeding involving the same parties and the same subject matter?)

262. Only the ultimate facts should be made known in the offer

263. Failure to object to a lack of formal offer constitutes WAIVER


33 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
264. However, an objection to a lack of formal offer is without practical effect in reality, since upon
objection, the court usually allows an offer to be made

265. IDENTIFICATION of the document or object evidence IN THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL, MARKING it
in evidence, do NOT constitute offer.

Therefore, formal offer should properly be done AFTER the presentation of the testimonial
evidence

266. Documentary or object evidence may be offered orally or in writing. TESTIMONIAL evidence,
however, have to be offered ORALLY.

267. The AUTHENTICATION/identification of documentary and object evidence— which is of course


ESSENTIAL for their admission— will happen during the presentation of the testimony of a witness.
Hence when making the formal offer of the latter’s testimony, the fact that authentication or
identification will happen during the course of the testimony should be stated!

BUT the documentary or object evidence themselves will still have to be formally offered! (after
the presentation of the testimonial evidence. )

268. Some lawyers during the testimony of the witness, in the course of identification of a document
when only a photocopy is presented, they object of the ground of best evidence rule. This is a WRONG
PRACTICE because objection to best evidence rule can be raised only when that document is formally
offered

269. Lawyer who had the documents or objects authenticated and identified in the course of the
testimony has the DISCRETION whether or not to later on formally offer the same (so objection in the
course of identification is indeed improper!)

270. PUBLIC Documents need not be authenticated, but PROOF thereof, as with any other document,
is required

271. PRIVATE documents have to be authenticated, but ONLY when they are offered as authentic

(Hence when a document is presented to prove that it is a forgery, it needs no authentication)

272. PROOF of documents (PUBLIC documents) vs. AUTHENTICATION of documents (PRIVATE


documents)

273. How to authenticate a PRIVATE document

274. Per Ancient Document Rule, determination of whether a document is more than 30 years old
should be judged on the basis of the circumstances of each case. So there is no fixed rule for
determining the actual age of a particular document. But it has to be determined on the basis of the
circumstances (no problem when it is dated)
34 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
275. Do not equate attestation with certification, these are two different requirements. Attestation is
to be issued by a CUSTODIAN, while certification is to be issued by the CONSULAR OFFICER of the
Philippines stationed in the place where the document is kept.

276. To what type of documents executed abroad should the requirement of CERTIFICATION by a
consular officer apply?

The case of Heirs of Arcilla vs. Teodoro, interpreting the ROC strictly (Section 24 of Rule 132),
makes a pronouncement that it only applies to those documents consisting of written official
acts or records of official acts of the sovereign authority bodies or tribunals or officer, whether
Philippines or abroad.

However, the subsequent case of Heirs of Medina vs. Natividad makes a turnabout: such
requirement of certification applies to ALL documents.

Both cases are decided in division. BUT Torregosa is of the opinion that Arcilla is more in accord
with the provisions of the law.

277. Requiring the authentication of a duly NOTARIZED document is a surplusage. Duly notarized
documents are public documents; hence they no longer need authentication.

For proof, they just have to be presented and IDENTIFIED (not authenticated) by a witness.
Witness need not be the one who was present during the execution of the document, for that would be
authentication already. Anyone who came into possession of that document at any time will suffice

278. The genuineness of NOTARIZED documents is merely prima facie, however. May be rebutted

279. Recall: Documents and objects presented in evidence have to be SPONSORED by a WITNESS
(either through authentication or proof)

280. PROBABLE CAUSE peculiar only to criminal cases

281. There is no such thing as a presumption of innocence in CIVIL cases

282. Equipoise Rule (relate to burden of proof in criminal cases) (see People vs. Abarquez)

283. Torregosa on Actor’s Rule: “You are familiar with the rule in Basketball, where there are three
referees, in case of conflicting calls, the REFEREE NEAREST TO THE POINT OF IMPACT, SHOULD PREVAIL.
This is essentially the same principle espoused under the actors rule”

Applying the actors rule, the SC said that as between the carpenter and the tenant, it is the tenant
who is closer to the point of issue. The issue there WON the property contains some
improvements. SC said there, that as between the carpenter and tenant, the tenant is more
likely concerned with the title of the land that he is renting. If you are the tenant you should be
concerned and you should be aware of the property that you are renting and occupying,
35 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
including ownership and location of the property, rather than the carpenter. – Heirs of Vicente
Reyes vs. CA

284. Alibi is not necessarily a weak defence all the time (say, distance absolutely discounting
proximity at the time of the crime). But if all else being equal, POSITIVE EVIDENCE PREVAILS OVER
NEGATIVE. So if somebody accuses one of doing something and the accused simply denies it, positive
accusation is more credible than the denial

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

285. Retroactive application allowed in Criminal Procedure so long as it is favourable to the accused

286. There may be a motion to conduct a (preliminary) RE-INVESTIGATION. If denied, Motion for
Reconsideration. If still denied, 65, baby!

287. The endorsement by the heads of the NBI, PNP, PAOCTF, REACTTF (under the search warrant
exception), may be delegated by them to their assistant heads

288. In applications for search warrant, certificate of non-forum shopping is NOT required (the same
only applies to “initiatory pleadings,” not to “applications”)

289. Application for search warrant should be in writing and under oath

290. The true TEST OF SUFFICIENCY OF A DEPOSITION OR AFFIDAVIT to warrant issuance of a search
warrant is whether it has been drawn in a manner that PERJURY could be charged thereon and the
affiant may be held liable for damage caused

291. The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and to attach them to the record

292. Mere allegation by the applicant as to the non-existence of a license is not sufficient to establish
probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. A certification to that effect from the Department
of Health must be obtained

293. A search warrant cannot be invalidated IN TOTO when some parts of the same are not bolstered
by the existence of probable cause. Others so supported remain valid. A search warrant is SEVERABLE

294. Nowhere in Section 4, Rule 126 or any other provision of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure is it required that the search warrant must name the person who occupies the described
premises. A descriptio personae sufficient for the identification of the person to be searched is valid
(“John Doe”)

295. long standing rule is that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with
the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from
other places in the community
36 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
296. in the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premises to be searched with
sufficient particularity, it has been held that the executing officer’s prior knowledge as to the place
intended in the warrant is relevant

297. A sketch that accompanies a search warrant will not cure the inadequacy of the description
contained in the latter (People vs. Estrada, 1998). What is material in determining the validity of a
search is the place stated in the warrant itself, not what the applicants had in their thoughts

298. Rule is that a description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant
can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other
places in the community (voir case involving the one and only Calle de Hernan Cortes en Cebu)

299. Failure to name or the insertion of an incorrect name of the occupant of the place to be
searched is NOT a fatal defect. Since in this case the warrant was issued not for the search OF THE
PERSONS owning the premises but only a search OF THE PREMISES occupied by them, the search could
not be declared unlawful because of the inconsistencies in stating their names.

300. The use of generic term or a general description is acceptable only when a more specific
description of the things is unavailable. The use of terms like “multiple sets of books of accounts
ledgers... journals, cash register books... provisional & official receipts... stock cards ... sales records...”
are unacceptable.

301. The search warrant must express only a conclusion of FACT, not of law, by which the officer
may be guided in making his search

302. In seizing the said items then, the police officers were exercising their own discretion and
determining for themselves which items in appellant’s residence they believed were “proceeds of the
crime” or “means of committing the offense.” This is absolutely impermissible. The constitutional
requirement that the articles to be seized be particularly described in the warrant is to limit the things to
be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant – to leave the officers of
law with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize. A search warrant is not a sweeping
authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and
all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime

303. “One search warrant, one offense.” Otherwise, will qualify as a general or scatter-shot warrant
prohibited by the Constitution

304. It is NOT scatter-shot when the items seized result in MULTIPLE COUNTS of violations of the
same offense. “Counts” should not be confused with the number of offenses charged

305. SPECIFIC OFFENSE must be charged and not violations of codes. A legal heresy, of the highest
order, to convict anybody of a "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal
Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code," — as alleged in the aforementioned applications — without
reference to any determinate provision of said laws or codes

306. Search warrants must pertain only to PERSONAL PROPERTY (note: movable is still movable even
if attached to immovable, when the person so attaching is not the owner)

307. That fact that the warrant is issued in connection with a violation of only ONE LAW does NOT
mean that it CANNOT be a general warrant. One must still allege the section violated, otherwise it
37 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
becomes a general warrant. So if you just say that the search warrant is for violation of a law, then that
is a general warrant if there are SEVERAL SECTIONS THAT MAY BE VIOLATED. You must point out the
section which was allegedly violated.

308. Marijuana is regulated, shabu is also prohibited. But both of them belong to one family –
dangerous drugs. So they are the same. The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law that deals
specifically with dangerous drugs which are subsumed into "prohibited" and "regulated" drugs and
defines and penalizes categories of offenses which are closely related or which belong to the same class
of species. Accordingly, one (1) search warrant may thus be validly issued for the said violations of the
Dangerous Drugs Act

309. The Bill of Rights does not make it an imperative necessity that depositions be attached to the
records of an application for a search warrant. Hence, said omission is not necessarily fatal, for as long
as there is evidence ON THE RECORD showing what testimony was presented. It is presumed that a
judicial function has been regularly performed, absent a showing to the contrary. A magistrate’s
determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid great deference by a
reviewing court, as long as there was substantial basis for that determination.

310. Since the clerk of court could not produce the sworn statements showing that the judge
examined them in the form of searching questions and answers, the search warrant is tainted with
illegality by the failure of the Judge to conform with the essential requisites of taking the depositions in
writing and attaching them to the record

311. Per the “No Knock” Entry rule in the implementation of the search warrant, police must have a
reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances,
would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for
example, allowing the destruction of evidence.

312. What constitutes “breaking” includes the lifting of a latch, turning a door knob, unlocking a
chain or hasp, removing a prop to or pushing open a closed door of entrance to the house, even a closed
screen door.

313. Only in the absence of the lawful occupant or a member of his family will the 2 witnesses be
allowed as a substitute in the witnessing of the search conducted. When they are present, they should
personally and actually witness the conduct of the search

314. No search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of at
least one competent witness, resident of the neighborhood

315. A warrant only has a lifetime of 10 days, but it can only be served ONCE during that period.
However, it could be served at any time within the said period, and if its object or purpose cannot be
accomplished in one day, the same may be continued under the same warrant the following day,
provided it is still within the ten day period

316. Approval by the court which issued the search warrant is necessary for the retention of the
property seized by the police officers; and only then will their custody be considered custody of the
court. Absent such approval, the police officers have no authority to retain possession of the marijuana
and more so, to deliver the property to another agency, like the NBI.
38 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
317. A search warrant cannot be resorted to as a means to settle a dispute over ownership or as a
means of recovering property. A search warrant is neither a criminal nor civil action – it is SPECIAL
CRIMINAL PROCESS. A proper suit would be replevin

318. In instances where other articles cannot be seized under the warrant because the latter of
course pertains only to one single offense, such other articles may still be seized if their discovery
equates to a crime being committed in the presence of the peace officers (say, as unlicensed firearms
proving the commission of illegal possession), where the officers may then arrest the possessor as under
an arrest in flagrante delicto, whereupon the items may then be seized as under a search made
incidental to a lawful arrest

319. In a Terry Search – reasonable belief based on a genuine reason, NOT probable cause

320. Customs search does not extend to dwelling houses

321. Consented search cannot be presumed; there is no presumption as to a waiver of fundamental


rights

322. If an arrest without warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made, generally nothing that
happened or is discovered afterwards can make it lawful. The fruit of a poisoned tree is necessarily also
tainted

323. The question of whether there was abuse in the enforcement of the challenged search warrants
is not within the scope of a Motion to Quash, which is limited to the validity of the ISSUANCE of the
warrant. The manner of serving the warrant and of effecting the search are not an issue to be resolved
in a motion to quash the search warrant. The remedy is a Motion to Suppress Evidence

324. A quashal of a warrant is NOT res judicata on the case which would have been filed out of the
evidences obtained

325. In illegal ARREST, all defects surrounding the arrest should be raised before the arraignment,
otherwise the defects are deemed cured because there was a waiver

326. But in illegal SEARCH, such rule does not apply. You may raise such issue even AFTER
arraignment. The waiver only applies on the illegality of arrest, and does not extend to searches

HOWEVER, if the accused fails to object to the admissibility of the evidence at the time it is
PRESENTED in trial, there is now a WAIVER

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

327. Special Proceedings are actions IN REM


39 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
328. Special Proceedings are likewise not adversarial, initiated by a petition rather than a complaint,
and not based on a cause of action (except Habeas Corpus

329. Unlike the Motion to Intervene in ordinary civil cases –which should be made before rendition
of the judgment – a motion for Reopening by Intervention in Summary Settlement may be made even
AFTER judgment but before its finality or appeal

330. Probate of a will is IMPRESCRIPTIBLE

331. In the settlement of the estate of a deceased person, Statute of Non-Claims supersedes the
Statute of Limitations insofar as the debts of deceased persons are concerned because if a creditor fails
to file his claim within the time fixed by the court in the notice, then the claim is barred forever.
However, both statute of non-claims and statute of limitations must concur in order for a creditor to
collect.

332. A money claim is only an incidental matter in the main action for the settlement of the
decedent's estate; more so if the claim is contingent since the claimant cannot even institute a separate
action for a mere contingent claim. Hence, Alan’s contingent money claim, not being an initiatory
pleading, does not require a certification against non-forum shopping

333. The Writ of Habeas Corpus is regarded as “palladium of liberty”, a prerogative writ which does
not issue as a matter of right but in the sound discretion of the court or judge

334. In habeas corpus cases, the judgment in favor of the applicant cannot contain a provision for
damages

335. In cases of Habeas Data, a general denial by the respondent is not allowed

MISC notes for 8-5-12

- VOIR: actions that SURVIVE the death of a party

- Requires CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidence :

i. Overcoming disputable presumptions


ii. Assailing the presumptive validity of a notarized document
iii. Proving consent to warrantless search

- Requires SUBSTANTIAL evidence:

i. Writ of Amparo cases


ii. Writ of Habeas Data
iii. Cases before administrative and quasi-judicial bodies

Criminal Procedure notes, 3.12.12 –


40 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
*when an arrest is incipiently illegal, EVERYTHING that follows, including the seizure of whatever evidence found
thereby, is likewise ILLEGAL

*The absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the Information or otherwise render
the same defective and neither does it affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case or constitute a ground
for quashing the information

*per Preliminary Investigation, the remedy from an order of dismissal by the Ombudsman is with the SC via Rule
65… order of dismissal by the Secretary of Justice, with the CA, via Rule 65.

*per P.I., where the SoJ exercises his review powers only after the case is filed in court, the court should defer
and suspend its proceedings in the meantime (Ledesma vs. CA, 1997)…BUT it doesn’t mean that the court will be
bound by the SoJ’s decision; it still has the ultimate say whether to allow the motion to dismiss or not, having
already acquired jurisdiction

*Motion for Reconsideration is allowed per resolutions by both the public prosecutor and the SoJ

*subject to the 4 conditions, appeal may be made from the SoJ to the Office of the President… from the
President, to the CA via Rule 43… from the CA, to the SC, via Rule 45

 a mittimus is a process issued by the court after conviction to carry out the final judgment, such as
commanding a prison warden to hold the accused in accordance with the terms of the judgment

 Section 1 of Rule 39 does not prescribe that a copy of the motion for the execution of a final and
executory judgment be served on the defeated party. It is ministerial. (“execution shall issue as a matter
of right, on motion”)

 NOT CORRECT: “The Rules of Court is absolutely not applicable in land registration cases”

 In case of a claim for non-payment of debt, the party making the negative assertion has the burden of
proof

 The court, in instances covered by the Rules on Summary Proceedings, can dismiss a case motu proprio
when the action is instituted without complying with the requirement of baranggay conciliation.

(may be dismissed by the court in its own initiative “… in any of the grounds specified under Section 1 of
Rule 16,” one of which is the failure to comply with conditions precedent)

 [!] If a person is convicted and then subsequently imprisoned, but afterwards obtains a post-conviction
DNA test which yields a result negating his participation in the crime (or which otherwise would absolve
him of liability), the proper legal remedy would be to petition for a Writ of HABEAS CORPUS

The detention had by then become illegal

 The 3-day notice rule for motions is NOT absolute. By way of exception, it is allowed so long as the
adverse party is given an opportunity to be heard and to object to the motion

 [!] The court’s Order denying a Motion to Withdraw the information – such motion stemming from the
Secretary of Justice’s decision to dismiss the information after an appeal is made to him from the
prosecutor’s resolution – is a FINAL ORDER, and hence the proper remedy is an APPEAL
41 4th Sunday Mash-Ups

 The liability of the surety in the attachment counter-bound begins upon DEMAND made on the surety,
NOTICE and SUMMARY HEARING on the same action

 [!] Compliance with the requirement of baranggay referral is not transmitted to the heirs. Thus, even
after a party has already complied with the requirement, but then he subsequently dies, his heirs still
need to file another case with the baranggay

(otherwise, the same would constitute a failure to comply with a condition precedent)

 The rule on privileged communication is applicable in electronic evidence

 The power to dismiss the appeal is discretionary on the appellate court

 According to Torregosa, Rules of Electronic Evidence apply to civil actions, proceedings before quasi-
judicial administrative bodies and CRIMINAL actions

[Tan’s suggested answer regarding this is questionable]

 Amicable settlement entered into before the baranggay CANNOT be enforced by motion before the
court

 The opinion of the court delivered in a former appeal constitutes a “law of the case”

 The following is NOT consistent with the Principle of “Law of the Case” –

That it is an established rule that once an issue has been resolved by the court with finality it can no
longer be re-litigated in a subsequent case though it involves different causes of action

 Foreclosure of mortgage with damages is an action that survives

 The Resolution of the Ombudsman of a Preliminary Investigation is remediable by a petition for


certiorari before the Supreme Court  as with other decisions by the Ombudsman in criminal
proceedings

 Does the mere filing of an unfounded civil action by the plaintiff against the defendant entitle him to a
counter-claim for damages? Tan says NO, because the filing of an unfounded civil action is not among
the grounds for moral damages under the law
 ??? Are moral damages the only basis of a counterclaim??!

 [!] When a case is dismissed for violation of the right to speedy trial, the only remedy left would be an
APPEAL AS TO THE CIVIL LIABILITY.

Ordinary appeal of the whole case cannot be permitted, for it would constitute double jeopardy

 [!] When a person is convicted of slight physical injuries, a motion for reconsideration in NOT allowed.
The proceedings are governed by the Rules of Summary Proceedings because the penalty for the crime
does not exceed 6 months! And since the proceedings are summary, a Motion for Reconsideration of a
final judgment is PROHIBITED
42 4th Sunday Mash-Ups

 An action for land registration cannot be the subject of a notice of Lis Pendens

 The following is SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE with the rules regarding Certification Against Forum
Shopping—

a) That he has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issue in any court or
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and to the best of his knowledge no such other action or claim is
pending therein;
b) That if there is such other pending action or claim, a statement of the present status thereof

Moreover, non-compliance with the said rules is NOT jurisdictional

 A person who has a claim against a deceased cannot file with the probate court a motion for leave of
court to intervene in order to protect his claim – the same should have been filed in the estate
proceedings as a contingent claim

 [!] A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss which must be filed before the court which renders the
judgment. It is no longer within the power of the Court of Appeals to rule on the same.

Thus, it is error for the CA to set aside a judgment appealed to it by granting the appellant’s demurrer to
evidence (which was earlier denied by the lower court, and is one of the errors assigned to the latter)

 “auter action pendant” is Litis Pendentia

 Doctrine of Coordinate Jurisdiction means the power of two different courts to take cognizance of the
same case

 The remedy in case an order is handed out for the Confiscation of Bail is a motion for reconsideration or
reinstatement of the bail. In case of denial, 65!

 [!] In case of a JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT by the MTC, the remedy is RULE 65 before the RTC! An ordinary
appeal is not an adequate and speedy remedy in cases of judgments by default

Moreover, filing an appeal by notice of appeal would be futile, since the appellate court would really
have nothing to review, since the judgment had been by default, based solely on the plaintiff’s evidence

 The order of the court for the inclusion of a property in the estate, in settlement proceedings, is a FINAL
order. Therefore, the proper remedy is an appeal by Record on Appeal within 30 days

 The Statute of Non-Claims is set after the letters testamentary are granted by the probate court , the
period to be counted from the publication of the notice

 After a case is dismissed for failure to comply with the rule on baranggay conciliation, it can only be
revived by the filing of another action, AFTER compliance with such condition precedent

 The Principle of Interlocking Confession


43 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
If the persons accused voluntarily and independently executed identical confessions without
collusion, which confessions are corroborated by other evidence and without contradiction by
the co-accused who was present, such confessions are admissible in evidence

 An action for the Partition of Real Property is an action that survives

 A general prayer of “other reliefs just and equitable” can be granted on the basis of EQUITY, subject to
the court’s jurisdiction

 [!] An action for the revival of judgment is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence properly
cognizable by the RTC

However, the same could also be filed with the court which rendered the judgment (say, the MTC)

 [!] An action for the revival of judgment – no matter that the action which spawned the judgment was a
real action – is a personal action. As a result, it should be filed only with the court of the place where the
plaintiff or the defendant resides (at plaintiff’s option).

(But what if the court chosen is no longer the court which rendered the judgment??! Doesn’t it negate
the venue provided for in the Rules?)

 A final judgment of the MTC on a LAND REGISTRATION case is appealable to the Court of Appeals

 An action for a sum of money WITH an application for a Writ for Attachment is an action QUASI IN REM.

So long as an action is coupled with an application for attachment, it is an action Quasi in Rem

 [!] If the Answer to a complaint based on a Contract of Mortgage is UNVERIFIED, then it poses NO triable
issue. The proper remedy of the plaintiff therefore is a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

The action being based on an actionable document – the Contract of Mortgage – the Answer should
have been UNDER OATH/VERIFIED. The Answer in this case being unverified, it is deemed to have
admitted the allegations in the complaint. Hence, no triable issue.

 Upon the finding of a LACK of probable cause (after a motion for a JUDICIAL determination thereof has
been granted), the only remedy left is to APPEAL THE CIVIL LIABILITY

 Both actions being based on the same contract of lease, filing an ejectment case with the MTC and a
case for the recovery of a sum of money with the RTC is susceptible to a Motion to Dismiss on the
ground of LITIS PENDENTIA

(not forum-shopping, the same not being a ground under Rule 16…?)

 In an action for partition, the RTC or the MTC has jurisdiction, depending on the assessed value of the
real property, or the value of the personal properties involved in the action

 In a case for collection of sum of money against a corporation, when personal or substituted service
against the officers of the corporation is not possible, the legal recourse would be to AMEND the
complaint and apply for a writ of ATTACHMENT and serve summons by PUBLICATION
44 4th Sunday Mash-Ups

 The Doctrine of Confluent Jurisdiction means the power of different courts to take cognizance of the
same case at the same time

 Under the Rules on SMALL CLAIMS, the court may motu proprio dismiss the case upon any of the
grounds under Rule 16, one of which, again, is the failure to comply with conditions precedent (as
baranggay conciliations)

 The Best Evidence Rule is not applicable in labor cases because “technical rules on evidence are not
binding in labor cases”

 Dismissal of a case based on lack of legal capacity to sue is WITHOUT prejudice

 Writ of Continuing Mandamus is one available in an environmental case, to remain effective until
judgment is fully satisfied

 [!] When a complaint, out of which a Writ of Attachment was issued, is AMENDED, the Writ of
Attachment shall be LIFTED. The original pleading will be deemed superseded by the (new) amended
complaint

 [guidepost alert] When the facts state that the plaintiff “served a written request for admission” upon
the defendant, and then provide that the defendant “failed to answer,” it implies that there is a failure
to answer the written request, NOT the complaint. Recall that a written request for admission can only
be served “after issues have been joined,” i.e. after the defendant has answered.

Therefore, the proper remedy under the problem – defendant failing to answer the written request –
would be a Motion for Summary Judgment (which may be made by plaintiff after defendant’s answer),
NOT a motion to declare defendant in default

 The prohibition of petitions for certiorari in summary proceedings is absolute, because it is a prohibited
pleading

 In actions IN PERSONAM, when the defendant is a CORPORATION, the mere fact that the officers of the
latter cannot be served either through personal or substituted service of summons is NOT an excuse for
a constructive service by publication. Any motion to that effect will have to be denied: action is in
personam, service is by personal service

 [!] Even the mere order denying a motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of a motion to
dismiss has to STATE the FACTS and the LAW on which it is based

 Denial of a petition for relief from judgment is remediable by certiorari before the next higher court

ESSAY

- Denial via “lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief…” has to be made in GOOD FAITH
45 4th Sunday Mash-Ups
- Annotation of a Notice of Lis Pendens is not necessary to protect the rights of an heir in the settlement of
the estate of the deceased. He may just file a claim

- In summary proceedings, a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order is NOT prohibited. What
are prohibited are only those MRs pertaining to FINAL orders

- In case there is variance between the crime charged and the crime ultimately proved, “choose” the
judgment most favorable to the accused (crime proven included in the crime charged, or crime charged
included in the crime proven)

- A court cannot just deny a Motion for Reconsideration of a judgment without conducting a HEARING
thereon. MRs of judgments are litigated motions, and hence should be heard first by the court

- Courts cannot allow constructive service of summons upon a corporation in actions in personam, even on
the ground that the whereabouts of the officers is unknown or cannot be ascertained despite diligent
efforts. Service still has to be personal.

(But upon fucking whom? Only resort left, probably, is to attach any of the corporation’s properties and
convert the action to quasi in rem, enabling thereby service by publication)

You might also like