CASE MENTIONED DURING CLASS DISCUSSION

(after Midterms)
Rule 130, Section 37
People v. Laquinon 135 SCRA 91 (1985)
People v. Sabio 02 SCRA 218 (1981)
People vs Agripa?
People vs De Joya ?
Rule 130, Section 39
People v. Alegado 201 SCRA 37 (1991)
Rule 130, Section 40
Ferrer v. de Ynchausti 38 Phil. 905 (1918)
Rule 130, Section 42
People v. Putian 74 SCRA 133 (1976)
People v. Peralta 237 SCRA?
Ducepec v. 39Phil?
Rule 130, Section 46
Yao KEe vs Gonzales?
Rule 130, Section 47
Tan v. CA 20 SCRA 54 (1967)
People vs Liwanag?
Portus v. Nober?
RULE 131
IFC v. Tobias 78 SCRA 28 (1977)
People v. Verzola 80 SCRA 600 (1977)
People v. Pajenado 31 SCRA 812 (1970)
Pascual v. Angeles 4 Phil. 604 (1905)
People v. Tolentino 145 SCRA?
Molina v. CA?
People v. Padiernos 69 SCRA 484 (1976)
People v. Pablo?
Cross-Examination
Dela Paz v. IAC 154 SCRA 65 (1987)
Fulgado v. CA 182 SCRA 81 (1982)
Rivera vs CA?
Impeachment By Prior Inconsistent Statement
Villalon v. IAC 144 SCRA 443 (1986)
People v. Resabal 50 Phil. 780 (1927)
Authentication and Proof of Documents
Bunag v. CA 158 SCRA 299 (1988)
Chua vs CA?
Heirs of Lacsa v. CA 197 SCRA 234 (1991)
Bartolome v. IAC 183 SCRA 102 (1990)
Vega vs Lopez?
Pacific Asia Overseas v. NLRC 161 SCRA 122 (1988)
NOTE: Those which have "?" I am not sure if that is the correct case title, I might have misheard it :
(
Good Luck satin sa finals and God Bless

NOTES LAST MEETING:

RULE 132
SEC.24
> Pacific Asia v. NLRC
- POEA is without jurisdiction to execute a foreign judgment, RTC is the proper forum.
Q: X wanted to execute here in Phil a judgment for money claim amounting to 100,000php decided by
a foreign court. Which has jurisdiction, RTC? or MTC?
A: RTC. The action to be filed is for the execution of judgment which is incapable of pecuniary
interest. The amount of 100,000php shall not be the basis of jurisdiction, since such is not the issue
anymore, it has been decided already (res judicata).
> Mijares v. raada
- an action for the execution of foreign judgment
- SC held that the filing fee shall not be based on the $10M award. Hence, the ordinary filing fee for a
claim incapable of pecuniary interest shall be the amount for filing.
Q: How to prove a foreign judgment?
A: 1. Ask a certified true copy. 2. Verify it with the embassy or consul general of the Phil in such
foreign country.
> Zalamea v. CA
- case of breach of contract filed by Zalamea. Issue: the US Aeronautics Code allowing over-booking.
Zalamea's wife and children were bumped off because of overbooking, when prior to their flight and
upon booking, the airline had confirmed their seat.
- Held: the airline failed to prove the law. Also, the application of lex loci contractus: it was sold here in
the Phil ergo Phil law shall apply.
- Q: How to prove a foreign law? Sec.24
- A: 1. Official publication of the code. 2. Attestation by the custodian. 3. Certification issued by the
consul/embassy of Phil in that country.
> Wild Valley Shipping v. CA
- Pilotage law of Venezuela was presented. Issue: Applicability of Venezuela law. The Chief Pilot of
Venezuela testified. The said law was published in the Official Gazette of Venezuela but only a
photocopy was presented.
- Held: Regardless of the testimony & photocopy, said law was still not properly proven in court.
- Moreover, foreign law was never alleged. It must be alleged and proved.
> Garcia v. Recio
- in proving a foreign decree of divorce.
- How? J. Panganiban: 1. Presenting the judgment/decree (either official record o authenticated copy)
2. Present the law governing such divorce.
- In this case, although the judgment/law were not proven hence must be inadmissible, it became
admissible due to failure of Garcia to object.
- (Escolin: but prior to admission, it must first be proven which is lacking here. "He who asserts in the
affirmative has the burden of proving.")
SEC.25.
Q: what attestation of copy must state?
A: 1. That copy is correct copy of original or specific part thereof; 2. Seal of the attesting officer/court.
SEC. 26.
Q: exception to irremovability of public record?
A: upon order of the court, where inspection is essential to just determination of case.
SEC. 27.
- "Authorized public record of private document"
- ?Elombaring v. Elombaring? 12 Phil 384 which admits the public record of a private doc ratified by
the judge (jurat).
SEC. 28.
- eg. In proving that there was no "legal" adoption in case where the legitimacy of the adopted child is
questioned. ergo proof of lack of record is admissible to prove that such adopted is not legitimate.
SEC. 29.
Q: How to impeach judicial record?
A: 1. Lack of jurisdiction; 2. Collusion; 3. Fraud
SEC. 30
- notarial docs may be admitted even w/o proving; prima facie evidence of execution. "Prima facie"
--ergo, disputable. not conclusive.
> Chua case (Chua v. CA? basta may Chua sa parties)
- case of loan, comprehensive surety agreement, promissory note, etc. and all these docs were
notarized.
- Authentication (Sec. 22-24): ONLY private docs require proof and authenticity before it can be
admitted.
- Public record may be presented even w/o proof.
SEC. 31.
- Gen. Rule: altered docs are NOT admissible. UNLESS explained in accordance with the provisions
of Sec. 31.
SEC. 32
- In PRIVATE docs, it doesn't matter whether it is with or w/o seal.
SEC. 33
- must be in ENGLISH.
- Escolin: "Filipino" is not Tagalog. Constitution mandates the Senate to decide what should be the our
national language or Filipino Language, but up to now it is still a matter of debate.
> PP v. Monleon
- affidavit of Monleon was in Cebuano language without translation. HELD: inadmissible.
OFFER & OBJECTION
SEC. 34
- must be formally offered, otherwise, inadmissible.
- State the purpose of offer. Eg. "To prove that ...."
SEC. 35
Q: when to make offer?
A: - If TESTIMONIAL evidence -- at the time the witness is testifying.
- If DOCUMENTARY / OBJECT evidence -- after presentation of testimonial evidence.
Q: how offer is done? -orally, unless court allowed to be in writing.
Escolin: during the old times, all offer whether testimonial, documentary or object, is done "after"
presentation of evidence.
SEC. 36.
Q: when to object?
A: if evid is offered orally, object immediately after offer is made. "As soon as the grounds therefor
shall become reasonably apparent."
If evid is offered thru writing, 3 days after notice of offer. EXPN: when court allowed different period.
*grounds for objection must be specified.
SEC. 37
- Instead of objecting in every question in the course of examination, just put on record your
"continuing objection" to such class of questions.
SEC. 38.
- the judge must rule on the objection IMMEDIATELY AFTER the objection was made.
- EXPN: when court desires to take reasonable time to inform itself of the questions. PROVIDED, all
ruling must be given during the trial.
- Reason of sustaining / overruling is not necessary. EXPN: in cases of 2 or more grounds, grounds
for sustaining or objecting on or some of them shall be given.
Escolin: Remember, as counsel, that objecting by reason of "res inter alios acta" is not applicable to
witnesses on witness stand, there will be a cross examination. Also, that rule is applicable only to
"extrajudicial testimony/ evidence."
SEC. 40 (in connection with 38)
- when your "documentary/object" evidence is excluded by the court, have it tendered by attaching or
making it part of the record.
- When "testimonial" evid is excluded, have it tendered by stating for the record the name and other
personal circumstances of the witness, and the substance of proposed testimony. ---PURPOSE: for
appeal: beneficial when you would like to appeal.
SEC. 39.
- in case nakasagot na ung witness bago mo pa maobject, and objection is sustained, have that
answer be stricken off from the record.
- Upon proper motion, court may order striking off of incompetent, irrelevant, or improper answers.
Cases:
> PP v. Franco
- extrajudicial confession objected BUT such was not "offered" in the first place.
- Result: Franco was acquitted since the evid was not admitted due to lack of offer.
- "Identification" of evid differs from "formal offer" of evid.
> Tabuena v. CA
- exhibits were only marked for identification, but was not offered, hence inadmissible.
> Interpacific v. Aviles ----->(Escolin: "READ THIS!")
- estafa case against Aviles.
- photocopies of airway bill was presented, and counsel asked for its 'conditional admissibility' subject
to presentation of the originals in due time, hence it was "marked".
- Originals were never presented. But "no objection" was made.
- Issue: W/n the photocopies are admissible
- Held: since there was no objection, it was admitted as evidence.
- Defendant's rebuttal: 'i made an objection.'
- SC explained: objection was made only upon identification (when marked as exhibits) ergo objection
that time is premature. Objection must be done when it was formally offered--that is, when the
adverse party has rested it case, which defendant failed to do so.
> PP v. Marcos
- Oral offer.
- No offer was made at the time the witness testified, BUT offer was made after. -VALID.
- Appellant did not object during testimony, ergo he is estopped to object on the offer made only after
presentation of evid. (Gen. Rule is Sec. 35)
> PP v. Java
- Robbery with homicide
- No formal offer (evid is flawed), and no objection (deemed admitted)
> Catuira v. CA (Escolin: flawed, but rulings in Java case and Catuira case will be mended or
corrected in PP v. Yap)
- two counts of estafa
- No objection but no offer.
> PP v Yap
- guilty of viol. of Dangerous drug act.
- No offer was made.
- Differences between (a) presentation & introduction, and (b) offer -->presentation consists of putting
in; while offer is a statement made by counsel as to what is expected to be proven by such evidence.
- HELD: (New rule on offer of testimonial evidence) when it comes to testimonial evidence, the
'presentation' and 'offer' of evidence is now ONE and the SAME. ergo, non-objection upon offer shall
be deemed as waiver, and evidence shall be admitted.
Cases where there was no offer but deemed admitted:
(a) Phil. Banking v. CA; and (b) Phil Am Gen v. Sweetlines, Inc.
> Phil. Banking v. CA
- Issue: W/n cause of action is untenable because deed of exchange was not formally offered.
- Held: no, it is tenable, since the very ground of the cause of action is that "deed of exchange" --it is
an actionable document attached in the complaint itself. Thus shall be admitted even without
presentation nor formal offer.
- No error.
> Phil Am Gen v. Sweetlines, Inc.
- Bill of lading is the cause of action
- It was presented by the very insurance company ergo the same is deemed admitted since it is the
very cause of action to claim against the shipping company.
RULE 133 WEIGHT & SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
> Sec. 1. Preponderance of evid
- Civil case --preponderance of evidence
- WITNESSES' Manner of testifying, Intelligence, means and opportunity of knowing the facts,
interest, personal credibility. [M-I-MO-I-P]
> Sec. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Crim case --proof beyong reasonable doubt
- Only requirement: Moral certainty -- that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
> Sec. 3. Extrajudicial confession
- must be corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
> Sec. 4. Circumstantial Evidence
- weight & theory: such indications w/c are separately of little importance may by their combination,
cumulative account produce conviction or being beyond reasonable doubt.
- Unbroken chain.
Discussion:
- Positive evid > negative evid
- Equiponderant evidence = acquittal
- Lone witness- if credible, then his testimony is admissible
- Lack of corroboration affects credibility NOT sufficiency
- Documentary evidence > oral testimony. EXPN: when oral testimony is so convincing as to become
indisputable.
- Declaration under oath > certificate
- Sufficiency of evidence not applicable in criminal case
- Crim case: burden of proof lies on the prosecution (basis: presumption of innocence)
> SEC. 5. Substantial evidence
- in administrative cases
> SEC. 6. Power of court to stop further evidence
- when already so full, when cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive.
- must be exercised with caution
> SEC. 7. Evidence on motion
- evidence may be done by motion, but court may direct hearing of such.
- No need formal offer
> weight of findings of facts in CA
- CA will sustain the findings of the RTC since it is in better position to observe the demeanor of
witnesses, etc.
*Electronic Evidence - just study this
- key, electronic signature, how to prove it
- Vis-a-vis E-commerce law (fax is not admissible)