LAW 126: EVIDENCE Maam Victoria Avena Grades: 50% finals 30% midterms 10% attendance 10% recit

ecit June 14 Evidence Is procedural law Used in Ct to prove your case bec you want to win B4 ppl couldnt fight for their own cases o Had no notion of how to present evidence o There was a reto sys = so lawyers came about to champion the causes of others Ct sys was installed w a procedure for handling cases o Part of procedure is evidence You can win a case wo evidence o Crim: if the accused pleads guilty o Civ: judgment on the pleadings, judgment based on default, admission of guilt (R129,s4) R128: Need E bec we have a Ct sys Not only Cts wc use E, also used in administrative cases wc dnt have Cts but tribunals o They still req E o Ex) NLRC under the Exec Dept X a Ct bec its not under the judiciary Know if its under the judiciary by looking at the statute Even if its not a Ct, ROE still applies bec of DP o DP = opp to be heard o Even if there was no DP in the consti, the principle is basic in human nature & is part of the realm of divine order so we wldnt agree to be treated than less than a human being o Basic sense of DP drives rules of law & procedure & evidence ROE: found in the ROC, RPC, CC, spcl laws, consti o Ex) A.III,s2: principle of search & seizure o A.III,s3: privacy of communication & correspondence o A.III, s12: custodial investigations o Electronic commerce act, sexual abuse law S1: evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth of a matter of fact E is the direction that will lead you to deciding a case Elements: o Means o Rules But dsnt mean just the rules, includes the consti, statute & IRRs o Judicial proceeding

o Truth o Fact Judicial proceeding: proceedings wc take place in Cts o Ex) Ct orders mediation = still a judicial proceeding bec its Ct sanctioned o Kinds of JP: R1.3 Crim case Civ case Spcl proceeding o When does a JP commence? Depends on the kind of JP Crim case: upon the filing of the info in Ct Civ case: upon the filing of the initiatory complaint Spcl proceeding: filing of the initiatory pleading Do the ROE apply to the Senate Blue ribbon Committee? NO o ROE in the ROC = the 5 elems in s1, R128 apply o If 1 of the 5 elems is missing, the ROC evidence rules dnt apply strictly may only be suppletory o Senate Blue Ribbon Com = arent JP, theyre legislative proceedings Civil service commission procedures = X JP, its administrative GSIS, SSS = administrative CTA = judicial You need evidence bec theres a case in Ct wc has issues o Issues dnt arise until theyre joined If issues arent known, you wont know if the E is relevant o S3: rule on relevance & competence Relevance: E adduced has a logical rel to the facts in issue Competence: E isnt excluded by law or rules Admissible E: (1) its relevant shld have a connection (2) its competent not excluded/prohibited Incompetent: ex) A.III, s.2,3,12 = illegally obtained evidence Only those who have personal knowledge of something can testify = competent! o If not, its hearsay Only use E to tray & ascertain Qs of fact & not Qs of law o Q of law: X need to prove since everyone is presumed to know the law Any issue of law is answerable just by looking at the book o Q of fact: need to present E to answer the Q Ex) Homicide o Wont pass a law that a policeman can decide WON to bring a person to Ct = bec if he can decide, he becomes the judge o What he decides is a Q of fact o Asks what happened? Present testimonial E = witness will testify to facts (that he was present, not blind, nearby, etc) Ex) during cross, the lawyer asks do you know the meaning of insanity? o Object bec its irrelevant bec its a Q of law WON 1 is insane or not is a Q of law bec the lawyer is trying to insert his defense during cross
Drilon1

But when the defense presents their E and shows this, it becomes a Q of fact bec youre trying to prove insanity X present E on issues of law on your case o You present the facts needed to prove your case based on substantive law wc applies only bec of the issues wc are alleged in the pleadings ex) sm1 borrowed money = this is the fact you want to prove o state the ff wc youll also prove: set forth in the pleading that A borrowed money state the amnt that payment has become due that there was a demand for payment non-payment o the other party joins issues if he denies/dsnt have info of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to its truth o X an issue if the other side admits it = X need to prove Know the issue to know wc facts to prove o X prove if its not an issue o If try to prove smthng thats not in issue = irrelevant

Civ case: refers to those elems of the COA wo wc it wld be incomplete Ex) vehicular accident: show the # of cars, # passengers, who you want to hold liable, etc o Crim case: refers to the ingredients of the offense Factum probans: EF, facts wc estabs the UF *only facts are capable of proof Ex) Homicide o Qualified by treachery: means whereby the vicitim is rendered defenseless o Victim male, aggressor female o Clubbed at the back, Treachery bec done unknowingly

June 19 S3: relevance & competence S1: has 5 elems: o Means o Rules o Judicial proceeding o Matters o Fact Relevance: definition is found in s4 o Ex) in a suit to collect on an oblig to collect a payment of money Pleadings: issues are joined & there will be issues of fact If in the complaint what was alleged & refuted was the ff: Amnt of money was given from A to B To be repaid Its due & demandable Still unpaid Prayer: pay the money, pay attys fees & expense of the litigation Interest is a matter of law & need not be alleged C dsnt state from when its asked begins to run from the time of demand (judicial demand filing of a complaint) Can ask for this as a matter of law, need not be alleged as fact since the date is alrdy part of the records & therefore Ct may deem its as JN o S1: defn of relevance are found in this sec under truth S4 it shld have such a reltn to the fact in issue E must prove the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue This is found in s1 in the truth of a matter of fact o Look at RO E to prove matters of fact

Need to break down things bec when you look at the law theyre usually conclusions of law wc is why u have to break it down to matters of fact wc are proved by E Civ case: complaint contains allegations for the COA Crim case: info wc contains allegations of the elems of the crime Want to prove this in Ct: That 1 was killed Fact wc caused his death Bec of the clubbing, he died of hemorrhage The club used That a person did it That the person attacked the other from behind resulting in wounds that caused hemorrhage Facts wc comprise treachery: (treachery is one of the UF since its an ingredient of the offense; but per se its not a matter of fact) essence is that you render a person defenseless so that he cant fight back or that you wont get caught = prove that he was rendered defenseless His back was vulnerable had no eyes = hes wo knowledge or info that will allow him to defend himself, escape or dodge him Attack was enough to attack him = clubbed How the club was used = sufficient force Now need to prove the truth of these facts thru E Proving each fact of treachery: Those are the matters of fact What s4 is saying is that a pc of E is relevant if it has such a relatn to the fact in issue to induce belief to its existence or non-existence Pc of E: Entry wound this shows that the back was the target & was successfully attacked Club is an exhibit o If this is related to the UF that itll really prove the way it was alleged, youre saying proposition 2 is proved UF to be proven: facts wc comprise the ingredients of the offense of murder Fact if death
Drilon2

o o

By saying prove youre proving the truth

Factum probandum/probanda: UF, fact sought to be estabd

EF to be

The accused killed the victim used a club killed form the back used sufficient force proven:

S4: the fact youre alleging is true o E is relevant if itll prove that the fact is true or not Factum probanda i.e. the UF to be proven in adultery *1 info for 1 act Woman Legally married Sexual intercourse o

Victim: the state & adulterer: the wife These are matters of facts wc can be proved by evidence

Classification of E Direct v circumstantial: o Inference = refers to a proposition as part of a syllogism If A is true & B is true, then C is necessarily true

Proposition 1 can be estabd bec some1 says: A & B were inside a room The room was locked While in the room, the witness heard moaning The woman gave birth 9mos ago this happened

o Recording certain things The video by itself wont do anything unless its presented in a certain way o Mode of presenting the video is thru the maid o But what she says is just an intro to the showing of the video o Granting she identified the video wc she tk Wo the maid, how can the video be direct evidence? Its not direct E bec: o The video 1st has to be identified o The figures shld be identified o Digital things cant really be trusted today An EF (that they were in the room, etc) insofar as you have to prove it, it becomes a UF An UF defense Its either part of the COA or in the sense that it indeed happened = itll depend on the context You have to look at what its direct evidence of

Circumstantial E: Theyre EF wc dont prove the fact in issue wc is adultery but together they will prove adultery

Inferences: o the 2 had sexual intercourse o there was adultery Presumption: of 2 kinds

Coming from human experience (non-legal) o Ex) Provided by law (R133) o same Ex) R133: lttr paid, address correct = presumed that the other person rcvd it Impt in proving demand In ejectment, for payment of money, etc

June21 S4,R128: collateral Matters o Prob/improb = relevant o Ds it necessarily mean its direct E? No bec its a species of circum E It can be prob/improb = what upon the records seesm to be true chances are If this is the play, you arent certain that its true

Similar to inference, but not the same Direct E: if a fact is estabd wo the need of inference Consists of EFs That wc proves a fact it directly & conclusively proves a matter of fact Pc of E that can stand alone to prove the proposition You dont need anything else Ex) cadaver of a dead person; that a person has hair or teeth Theres no need to interpret it Ex) video of the 2 having sex Video of 3 mins wc is presented in E by the prosecution o 1 theres a tape

If E dsnt directly prove a fact it cant be direct E Form of E: obj, docum, testamoial Homicide: X need to prove mens rea bec its presumed o Victim killed How: club When: day Where: back of the head o Act killed accused
Evidence for the homicide: o Video o Testimony o Autopsy: will shw the killling o Club shows how killed & weapon & fingerprints Fingerprints: identity links the accused to the weapon Shows that you held the club

Drilon3

o Death cert W that proves a collateral M isnt DE

NBI record, Chain of custody, expert, findings = all these lil factys are needed to arrive at a conclusion wc are needed to show the other elem/conlcusiunb Youre deducing: you infer from 1 deatil to another = youre gathering circum E

So its stil conditional

Multiple Pc of E offered for multiple purposes E Mode & manner of proving facts

Circxum: aim is to prove fat5ual circums 1 by 1 to arrive at A CONCLUSION o E of the factual cocirm,s that oyu need to Prove in orde to infer o E on CM = Circum E o The factual circums arent the UFs, but may be used for inferences Club accessed by the accused bec he bought it o Got the rcpt of the purchse o What kind of E is this? Is ti a CM that a club was possessed = shows opp and means Opp: had the money to buy it, near his hse, etc CM of fact being proven: bought by the accused, b4 the date of the crime, that he had possession Proving these lil details show the prob/improb Opp, means, presence, flight = circums E Ex) husband = shows opp bec he had access to the wives who were killed These things are kinda far alrdy wc is why theyre CM Object that its a CM bec he owns the club so maybe its just fromothe ruse o But you can say but it was at the scene of the crime Hardly will you find a case ca[pabel pf DE most of it is circum E/CM

Proof Result/effect of E Amnt of E that is blvd by the Ct wc it used as sufficient basis to render judgment Quantity of E Quantum of proof differs in the kinds of case: o Civ: preponderance of E - superior weight of E Where ds it lead, where ds the superior weight of E lead to o Crim: proof beyond reasonable doubt Not moral or absolute certainty only such as to convivnce a resoanble person of guilt beyod doubt thats reaosnbale o Admin: substantial E such relevant E as a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion *way to det the truth is to look at the facts *E can never be appreciated unless you use common sense Rape Case of Nicole; lawyer of the defense was trying to get the statements of the driver in the NCIS report as part of E that they were dirty dancing, rubbing her crotch area.. o Proves a fact = CM o Object bec this dsnt mean that she consented OR you can also say that it may show consent bec she was alrdy dng this o Is the inference reasonable? o If she was capable of doing this, that means she wasnt dead drunk.

Positive E You affirm a fact You posit It happened/ddnt happen Negative E U dnt know anything cumulative Sme kind of form of E for the same state fo facts Eg) testiminbye of 2 witnesses who witnessed the sme event corroborative Addtl E of a diff charc on the sme point Cond admissibility

o o

Prosecution: she was dead drunk that the accused had to carry her piggy back to the van = thus she had no consent

Def: If she was dead drunk, she couldnt do this So ds this still tend to a reasonable degree to estab the fact of rape? I heard the female passenger say Im done o X an argument to say that it dsnt follow = bec the rule says admit if its probable or improbable o If shes done with the sexual act = what ds this statement infer? That she gave her consent

At the time of presentqation, it seems irrelevant to the matter of fact your trying to prove at that point, but you ask to present it bec itll later be connected This refers to relevance Ds it also refer to competence? o Ex) A testifies she was inside a fence when the incident happened during a luicid interval = can show her competence by showing a psychiatrist later on

R129 JN is lumped together w JA o But they are diff Knw the meaning of judicial proceedings Judge is aware of his surroundings *& wants to be on top of things. Heard his neighbors fighting, so got his binoculars & video cam & wen to the window. He saw battering of the wife of the husband & he died
Drilon4

o Case comes to his sala o Can he use his peronsla knowledge ot decide the case o Has no connection to JN Why cant he use his personal knowledge when he knows the truth? o The judge shld come to the case tabularasa o You shld decide the case based on the E presented o The rule says she shldnt look at anything except the E in the case o Aim of the judicial sys is not to know the truth per se. bec we dnt know for surewe arent god Judicial sys is a man made sys Our sys gives a fair shake, all it ensures is thatbth parties have a chance You are only able to prove based on the E presented

If the judge decides based on other than this, it destroys the adversarial sys He shld limit the basis of the decisiosn to what has been admitted Change it and it destroys the whole sys

June 26 R129: JN Means you want the Ct to take something as a fact wo presenting evidence 3 reqs: State Prosecutors v Muro o Matter must be one of common & gen knowledge o Matter must be well & authoritatively settled & not doubtful or uncertain o Must be known to be w/in the limits of the J of the Ct 3 kinds of JN S3: issue may be to up by the Ct or its parties o May = must have a hearing o if its the kind of facts where the Ct may allow the parties to be heard S2: o Ex) of Pub knowledge: Fact that Marcos went in exile, bec of Ppl power = the ppl caused a change in govt US attacked Iraq X fall under s1 X political history bec has to be part of history already Maybe can fall under ofcl acts of our govt o Here the Ct may in its discretion tke JN no need for a hearing S1: law of nations & political history o Thin line btwn them S1: there are 10 listed Its a closed ended list Its MUST, have to take JN o Bec its self-evident

Mandatory JN: the Ct can consider them as estabd as fact Examples: o A) existence & territorial extent of states the Phils that is a country that is a nation state & there are 3 maj islands o B) their political history Phils was once colonized X pol histo = That football is the natl sport of argentina X include cultural history Everything abt government o C) forms of govt & symbols of nationality Symbol of nationality = flag o D) law of nations IL o E) the admiralty and maritime Cts of the world & their seals No UN, league of nations yet at this time o F) the political constitution & history of the phils Pol constitution: refers to the contents of the consti Consti: 1935, 73, 87 Malolos consti: can the Ct take JN of this? o As pol history & not constitution bec it never became effective or ratified o G) ofcl acts of legis, exec, and judicial depts of phils Ordinances: depends on the Ct MTC: reqd to take JN RTC: only if reqd by statute, or on a case on appeal to them where the inferior Ct tk judicial notice of an ordinance involved Decisions of the SC: Opinion of the dept of justice: an official act Bec hes an alter ego of the Pres Iam taking JN of a DOJ advisory = valid EO of the Pres IRR issued by the DOLE /ERB Resolution of the civil service commission Its a consti body, its an indep bdy (civil service, comelec, coa) = X judicial, exec or legis Can the Ct take mandatory notice of the issuances of these indep bdys? Why shld the ct take mandatory JN of their acts? o Bec they are still official acts! Was just an oversight in the ROC, but its These commissions are at the base of our govt so the Cts shld take JN of them House/Senate Bill #: X yet an ofcl act bec for it to become an ofcl act, it shld still go through the process of enacted in law = legislative enactment They are just proposals at this stage Memorandum of the SC abt disciplining its EEs in the judiciary: Yes! Its an ofcl act
Drilon5

Ocfl act: not jst by 1 person but by the dept itself of nature Gravity, when theres smoke theres fire That women in the provinces are more conservative than urbanized women X be taken JN of If a woman is pregnant, necessarily months b4 there was a fertilized egg Law of nature or law of science? Law of science: proven by scientific method Law of nature: natl phenomena wc dnt need proof Laws of nature embrace laws of science I) measure of time Mrng, aftrn, evening H) laws What abt measure of space? Units of time: Hours, mins, secs o Lightyrs, etc o This is analogous to conversion in the metric sys, so why cant we apply the sme rule? Conversion of metric sys: from inches to foot X be capable of unQ demonstration bec conversion is man made Evidence is needed wc will show that this is the conversion If u want the Ct to tke JN that 50 yrs means a certain length Will the judge be in grave abuse of discretion if he agrees with you? Ms. Grey: said she was 1 foot from Erap when he signed Jose Velarde no1 questioned this Dsnt need to demonstrated Measure of space wsnt included, but using common sense & logic, its included by analogy J) ought to be known to judges

o o o o Ought o

This is scientific, if youre suffering from the illness, you will exhibit those things = so can take JN of this wo a med cert that a bottle will drop to the floor That if you drink poison, youll die That if you throw acid on someone, his skin will burn I heard a dog bark in the next room, thus there must be a dog in the next room to be known to judges bec of their judicial fxn That ppl are reluctant to squeal on a person who has committed a crime May fall under s2.c

S4: defines JA Ds this conflict w R10,s8? o R10, s8 effect of amended pleadings An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be rcvd in E against the pleader & claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived Rcvd in E here means it must be given in E o Amendment is in the same case o So the admission Judicial or not its judicial If you look at s4 alone, it seems that an admission in an orig pleading that was later amended is nevertheless judicial since the admission was made in the sme proceeding, in the sme place o But rule in Civpro, R10s8: seem to have changed this

S2: Public knowledge o Giving tips under a maj commercial estab is accepted as practice o That the prices of hsehld expenses is minimal it cant be 1M Capable of unquestionable demonstration o Subj matter of this is laws of sci (wc are obviously laws of nature) Those that have been established through time Science evolves, but there are certain laws of science that we do know are capable of unquestionable demonstration Refers to the physical sciences o Means something wc you cannot dispute o X necessarily have to be open to pub knowledge o X necessarily have to be known to the judge bec of his fxn o Examples) fact of down syndrome can be taken JN

These were the 1997 rules o The amendment converts the admission into an extrajudicial admission o Thus theres a conflict w s4 & R10, s8 J. Regalados position: it wld appear that s4 now includes superseded pleadings as judicial admissions o bec s4 dsnt clarify whether the admission is in the amended or orig, so long as its in the same case, its still judicial admission so wc shld prevail? The ROE or rule in civpro o apply civpro to qualify the ROE o civpro: last amended in 1997 o ROE: last amended in 1989 o Thus, civpro governs

R30,s3 reqs of motion to postpone trial for absence of E A motion to postpone a trial on the ground of absence of evidence can be granted only upon affidavit showing the materiality or relevancy of such evidence & that due diligence has been used to procure it. But if the adverse party admits the facts to be give in E, even if he objects or reserved the right to object to their admissibility, the trial shall no be postponed (as amended by SC resolution dated july21, 1988; in re:bar matter no 803) Our Cts cannot take JN of foreign laws Vda de Perez v Toledo o Proven thru ofcl publication, duly attested & authenticated copy
Drilon6

Can the Ct take JN the a certain person is suffering from down syndrome?

Proven thru judicial admission Absent either - Processual presumption:

2 kinds: 1. jud cant be contradicted except if 2. extrajud statute doesnt exist til law effective cant take jud notice til effective R of civpro: PNB v. CA docus attached to complaint considered a part and may be considered evid although not introduced Failure to deny genuineness tantamount to jud admission - Federico v. CA Plea of guiltys a jud confession of guilt - P v. Lagarto Pleads guilty of cap offense, manda for ct to require pros to prove guilt Jud notice of Filipinas inbred modesty and anitpathy in airing publicly things w/c affect her honor - P v. Alfeche (pub knowledge) Jud fxn strictly jud Comm jud exp rapists arent deterred fr committing their act in the presence of ppl P v. Villanueva Cts not authorized to take jud notice of contents of recs of other cases - Gener v. De Leon Jud notice of natl reluctance to get involved in crim case - P v. Mario Rural areas: wom by custom act w/ prudence - P v. Cepeda Ordinary household items like appliances = value: matter of pub knowledge/capable of unquestionable demo - P v. Martinez Giving tips, esp in 1st-rate hotels, accepted prac PAL v. CA Current prac among maj estabs to accept payment by credit card in lieu of cash Mandarin Villa v. CA Cellphones hard to prove (millions of ppl) July 3 Whats the Best Evid R? S3 P to a suit wants to prove date of death of father doesnt have copy of death cert cause its not in the NSO and if hes to get a certified true copy, must go to Maguindanao, where the sits tense o wants to prove by taking a photo of a tombstone (lapida) relevant to prove date of death? Competent? Bring it to ct or photograph enough? Date of death impt cause ins policy issued died before issuance: no proceeds o After: child can be beneficiary Testi of child when died? How will u prove it? Testi? Lapida? Photo of lapida? diff kinds of evid admissible? o Its relevant..is it competent?
Drilon7

Our Cts can tke JN: Of the pernicious practice of contracts of adhesion entrapping innocent buyers thru default clauses Bealty Exchange Venture Corp v Senderio That govt dsnt transact business on sun P

Of the natl reticence of ppl from getting involved in a crim case P v Torres That amng poor couples w big families copulation dsnt seem to be a prob despite the presence of ppl arnd them P v Ignacio Statute dsnt exist until it becomes effective accdg to law Cts arent auth to take JN in the adjudication of cases pending b4 them of the contents of the records of other cases Docums attached to the complaint are considered part there of and are considered as E tho the werent introduced as such SC takes JN of the fact that Filipinas inbred modesty & antipathy in airing publicly things wc affect her honor. Indeed there are many victims of rape who wld rather keep themselves forever than make pub a painful & humiliating secret (PPL v Alfeche: pub knowledge) Has judicial cognizance of the fact that in rural areas women by custom act w circumspection & prudence and that threat caution is observed so that their reputation remains untainted (Ppl v Cepeda) Giving of tips, esp in 1st rate hotel is an accepted practice of wc the Ct can take JN (Pal v CA)

(barbs) R129, S4: defines jud admissions on its face, contradicts/conflicts - admission in orig pleading later amended nevertheless jud cause even if amended, admission was made in proceedings in same case R on civpro seems to render it as changed cause it converts it into an extrajud admission Whats the prevailing R? Orig amended = superseded Amended Admission in orig already changed = jud admission cause of S4 Conflict = R of evid v. R of civpro (orig abandoned in civpro) R of civpro prevail: enter again or erased as qualifying S4 cause 97 and evid 89 Supersede = extrajud, not jud (ct cant take notice of it) Cts cant take JN of foreign laws (Vda de Prerez v. Toleto) - not proven: processual presumption foreign laws deemed to be same as Phils Cts can take jud notice: 1. of the pernicious prac of contracts of adhesion entrapping inn Bs thru default clauses (Realty Exchange Venture Corp v. Senderio) 2. govt doesnt transact bus on Sun (P v. Agguendo) 3. of the natl reticence of ppl fr getting involved in a crim case P v. Torres 4. that among poor couples w/ big fams, copulation doesnt seem to be a prob despite the presence of ppl around them P v. Ignacio jud admission made by p in proceedings in same case; doesnt require proof

Evid cant be not admitted just cause its capable of fabrication obj to ppls testi Can date be proven by lapida/photo? Lapida = relevant obj evid? S2. Offered as proof of their contents what lk at lapidas whats written there (the date) Obj/docu evid? Wife slaps h w/ pesos obj cause prove condi and existence, not content of money Condi relevant to show its torn cause of the slap Act did slapping thru bills Fact torn impt cause the bills were used to slap the husb rly hard (why torn) Check torn signify no longer issued in the proper way (no longer nego ins) Issued properly- no alterations If u want to prove contents of lapida, its not obj evid but treated as docu cause its the contents that issued = any matl Elec Rs end of the course Moving images, streaming audio docus?

per se 2 doesnt mean anything

Exercise: A) The Court can take judicial notice: 1. that a death certificate proves that the fact of death of the person that it certified as dead

2.

S2(c)as a judge, know leg consequence/effect

Elems of defn:

Any form can be heavy/thinshow what contains = docu o must be WRITTEN contents of screen written even if typed? Pic w/ Photoshop written? Obj, not written cause Whats written language? Typing = writing: basis R on writing interpreted histlally and comm. sensically when defn written, no comp yet Writing = act of person: modern help person create writing (brains commanding hand to write) Painting an image? Depends on purpose for w/c presented - how do u know a birds meant to be a bird and not something else? House created thru lines how know if obj/docu evid? o Ex. drew house to represent a house = real obj: illustration of an existing obj When logos inscribed on a med ex. pc of paper/t-shirt/folder o say automatically thats a docu? Ex. t-shirt has purpose: to show at the scene of the crime, there was a shirt that bears a logo of SMBobj/docu evid? Obj cause t-shirts not offered to prove content of logo, but that there was a logo Prove logo to show it means something = docu: written expression contained in a certain matl offered to prove the truth of its contents (truth what its sayings SMB founded in, etc.) Chars symbols only of images house created not to depict as faithful reprodn but as a symbol o = docu Face (Mona Lisa) pic of reality, not as a symbol o = obj Docu not reprodn but contains symbols (regardless of lang) o Ex. words, numerals, letters o 2 = 1 + 1 ex. 2 oranges

of the contents of a municipal ordinance s3 3. of the contents of the bill of Senator Osmena calling for the abolition of the PCGG s3 depends (not pub knowledge) 4. that former President Marcos fled to Hawaii in 1966 political history, mandatory 5. that the Philippines has an extradition treaty with the USA mandatory, official acts 6. that a polygraph test is not conclusive s2c 7. the contents of the United Nations General Assembly declarations and resolutions law of nations 8. the massacre of some members of the royal family of Nepal political history 9. the relief of Reynaldo Berroya as intelligence chief of the PNP public knowledge 10. the Supreme Court resolution constituting the MCLE committee for the purpose of implementing Bar Matter No. 850 (on MCLE) official acts of dept, mandatory 11. that the parties in a suit for declaration for nullity were married by and before him in a civil wedding ceremony S3: debate (not jud fxn/pers knowledge) 12. of the contents of the complaint before it was amended by the plaintiff dsnt exist, must present evidence B) Under S2, R129, the presiding judge may take judicial notice unilaterally without need of a hearing: 1. of the allegations in no. 1. A), 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12 2. of the fact that his neighbor owns a Doberman personal knowledge 3. of the fact that the Philippines is one of the most corrupt countries in the world debatable: Amnesty Intl said (orgns saying accdg to surveys of businessmen, expatriates, etc) current, controversial: debate in S3 4. of the records in another case in his sala involving the same parties about another lot NO 5. of the records of preliminary investigation in a criminal case pending before him
Drilon8

6.

7.

not part of jud cause executed by exec (know if theres sufficient evid to hold him for trial = on its face/prima facie, can be convicted at trial) of the deposition in perpetuam rei memoriam that preceded the filing of a civil case pending before him sep case fr pending case cause discovery proceeding thatll anticipate the next case (not part) that the 1987 Constitutional right to protection against warrantless arrest and unreasonable search and seizure applies to all inhabitants of the PI whether a citizen or not, whether a resident or not mandatory, consti & jurisprudence

relevant: act of boxing WON champion boxer = collateral boxer S4, R128: relevant collateral cause it tends to a reasonable deg to est probability Other side: champion but sick cant obj: pres evid during own turn but not ground for objection Admissibility: just relevant/competent

C) The admissions of a person under custodial investigation may not be contradicted unless shown to have been made through palpable mistake or was never made at all.

False: custodial investigation conducted by law enforcement auths (mil, PNP, NBI) = extrajud admission (S4, R129 doesnt apply)

D) A party must prove allegations contained in a pleading that he later supplemented with another.

why reasonable? Evid showing status of A being a CB reasonable basis to infer: 1 box and he can die (basis: comm. sense) c. Is the admission of B that his car could have scratched the car of neighbor A during their conf before the Barangay Lupon constitute evidence and is therefore admissible, considering that Rule 128(2) says that Rules of Evidence apply only to courts and trials and hearings? doesnt say admissible where Lupon proceedings: admissible cause Lupon not bound by Rs of evid Admissible in ct cause A sued B since didnt fix it: admissible if proven relevant and competent (WON jud/extrajud) Q: is it relevant? Admitted Competent? Person can always admit stupidity Obj based on 5th? No, self-incriminatory applies to penalties, not civ liab d. Presidential Cousin A makes admissions incriminating the Pres during a Senate hearing, which hearing was conducted using the inquisitorial method. Admissible? Yes. Not bound by Rs of evid. Own Rs. Can say Rs of Ct suppletory, can say never mind. (potl, not jud proceeding in ct) Inquisitorial doesnt violate DP cause Senate cant convict/acquit (just investigating; gathering enough matl to give to Ombudsman, etc) = investigative, not adversarial e. Who can change evidentiary rules? SC subj to Congress admin bodies WRT admin proceedings cause ROC dont apply to them the ppl when they change the Consti f. In the MTC, affidavits are allowed as testimonial evidence (i.e. in lieu of oral testimony in open court) but not in the RTC. Is this not violative of Rule 128(2)? No cause except as otherwise provided by the Rs (not violative = in accordance w/ Rs) g. A sued B for the principal of Bs verbal loan of P1M but his only evidence is his copy of the receipt that he had been issued for the monthly payments of B. Bs lawyer objected to these receipts when A tied to present them at trial arguing that under Article 1965 of the Civil Code stipulation as to interest is void if not in writing. (A) Rule. (B) What is the role of Article 1965, if any? a. R relevant cause payment of int shows theres a prin basis: CC b. Whats the role of 1965? doesnt affect validity of prin, regardless of WON int valid = prin exists = receipts are relevant factum probandum = prin

judge agrees if relevant to reasonable deg = admitted

False: no admission, just allege admission admitted something

E) A party need only present in evidence but need not prove the truth of a judicial admission.

False: matther judicially admitted = truth of the matter (need not pres and prove truth)

F) A judicial admission will be admissible in evidence only if it comes from the adverse party because otherwise, it will be self-serving. self-serving: extrajud admission jud admission, no matter how self-serving, wont be self-serving cause can be cross-examined (connection w/ hearsay) - person can say anything on witness stand, no matter how favorable to himself (natlally why testify, favors u) Exercise # 1

a.

T or F. Evidence that is relevant is always admissible. False, has to be competent b. Friends A and B quarreled and engaged in a fist fight as a result of which B broke his neck and died. The charge in the info was homicide. At the trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that A is a champ bantamweight boxer. Admissible? Collateral matter bec want to prove there was a fight & boxing ensued so A boxed B & bec of the act, B broke his neck & died Prove status of A as a champion: regardless of WON champion = still liable Not licensed boxing bout canvas = leg: prior consent and took risk

receipts paid for int, therefore, there must be a prin

Drilon9

h. Relative positions of cars that collided is inconclusive as to fault. Driver A has no license. Is this significant evidentiary material? interpret prov of CC as mng: no license = presumed neg; since no license = no skills to drive i. Mr. B was a bystander at the corner hit by a bullet from the gun of your client, Mr. A, owner of the store t the same corner. Would you file a demurrer if the prosecution merely presented evidence showing that A) Mr. As gun was fired while in his possession and B) As a result, B was injured? B) this gives a causal connection demurrer facts show no offense being committed reckless imprudence resulting in phys injs

o o o

Relative wants to prove that the insured person was inside the bus when it happened so that he can claim the proceeds So want to prove that he was a passenger & was issued a tckt Prob is the tckt is w the passenger wc burned Ds BER apply? NO You arent trying to prove the contents of docum, youre trying to prove his presence on the bus

A and B enough to est? pros = res ipsa loquitor: diff if some1 bumped him, thats why it blew (caso fortuito) mere fact fired = something went wrong (some deg of neg: gun wont fire of its own accord unless there was a reason) prove caso fortuito: matter of defense j. One nice summer afternoon, you found a teeny-weeny bit of a rubber sole floating in your familiar bottle of Coca-Cola. Would you have any case against the company? res ipsa loquitor basis: tort/QD - not there unless some elem/deg of neg k. As you gorged on your birthday cake with friends and family, your tongue unhappily felt what seemed like the pinpoint of a needle embedded in the icing. Would you like to sue? Whom? Kind of case? Cause of action? Case basis: res ipsa loquitor
July 5 What is the date of death of the father o What youre interested to know here isnt the content of the docum but rather the date wc can be proven by other E, the lapida is jst 1 of them o You arent treating the content of the lapida as whats needed o If its not the docum, then a photograph is enough o Only thing youre interested in is the date of death of the dad Can use testimony of the kids, doctors, nurse, photograph of the lapida If its a docum, BER applies Example where the lapida is a docum such that BER applies o If youre suing the person who made the lapida bec of a mistake he made on the lapida o Dad diedSrbut the lapida say Jr who is still alive There was a mistake on the lapida, so theres a breach in contract S3 & 4 are related o When you want to show the contents of something, you need to produce the original Someone rode the victory liner bus from baguio to qc & was given a tckt, passenger got the insurance policy & kept the rcpt o Rcpt for the insurance policy, the passenger gives to their relative; tckt you keep o Accident happens bus caught fire

Subj of the inquiry is WON he was a passenger tckt will just show that he was a passenger o Convert it to where the contents of the tckt will be in issue: If theres a waiver that he cant collect on the insurance policy if theres an accident on the tckt Bec inquiry will be WON there was a waiver in the tckt S3 talks abt the docum o S4 clarifies this by speaking of the original Ex) publication of libel o There are many copies of the newspaper o Ds BER apply? Yes, bec youre still requiring the orig o And the cpy of the newspaper must be produced wc is an original alrdy o BER applies bec need to look at the contents of the docum o But its complied w alrdy, bec the orig is being shown alrdy Ex) telegram sent wc is libelous o Frm A telegram went to B talking abt X o Then B to C, then C to D o X presents D as a witness D I was subpoena regarding a telegram I rcvd Wheres the telegram? Objection present the orig! If D presented the telegram from A to B = hes not competent to do this, wc is why hes presenting the telegram from C to D Judge shld overrule bec its the orig docum wc was rcvd by D Bec the inquiry is on the content of the telegram rcvd wc is what D is showing alrdy = its the orig alrdy o Ds BER apply? Yes, since its the content of the telegram that is in issue, need to present the orig wc is the telegram Passenger boarded an airplane, he was issued a tckt, tckt is w him, plane encountered a terrorist attack o Relatives want to recover o So they go to the airline & ask for a copy of a passenger manifest this isnt issued until the plane has landed (bec its confidential) But can be issued bec it crashed alrdy o Aside from the passenger manifest, want other proofs, bec the other party is contesting the passenger manifest since it only shows the name & dsnt prove that its really the person Passenger may have bought a tckt but was a no-show o So to be clear, the relative wants to testify that he brought him to the airport or a survivor says he sat beside me o Passenger manifest is being presented to prove that the relative really boarded the plane - Objection, BER? o Issue is WON the passenger was on the plane o Overruled it dsnt apply
Drilon10

Bec the fact to be estab is WON the relative boarded the airplane The subj of inquiry isnt the contents of the passenger manifest per se Passenger manifest is just 1 of many Es its not the real prob (the real prob is WON he was in the plane that crashed)

Ex) if the orig is abroad PNB v Olila c) how abt testimony thereon? o Not allowed, it shld follow the order in 2ndary E as stated in the prov o S5: By copy, recital of its contents, & finally testimony of a witness o Youre presenting 2ndary E here & youre trying to prove that the contents so long as youve alrdy proven its existence & authenticity
After being duly appraised of his constitutional rights, Mr A executed a written confession during a custodial investigation, wc Mr A authenticated & confirmed during the trial. In turn, the defense presented a surprise witness, the son of Mr A, who admitted in open Ct that actually he was the perpetrator. Knowing that this wsnt true, the prosecution objected, invoking the rule that judicial admissions cannot be contradicted. Any comment? o Not a judicial proceeding bec its a custodial investigation still its still an extrajudicial confession o But when he confirmed it during trial = its been converted to a judicial admission o Cant contradict in terms of the admitter A sued Co B for damages for the cruel manner in wc he was dismissed, contrary even to Bs policies. At trial when A was abt to present Bs computer printed manual of Co policies, Bs lawyer objected on the basis of the BER. Rule o Overruled, BER applies but the orig is being presented alrdy

Exercise: Do you think you can successfully prosecute the probate of an attested will whose existence & custody is being denied by co-heirs who, your client says, are hiding it? wld your ans be the sme if instead it was a holographic will? o Case is a spcl proceeding is for the probate of the will o Will is being probated o Probate: proving the existence & validity of the will o Authenticity genuineness Dsnt refer to due execution If its authentic, it means its yours, you made it o This q on authenticity is sep from the contents = so authenticity is diff from the contents o But in probate, the contents is the very subj of the inquiry o Youre asking for the orig bec the content is in issue here o Holographic will: made entirely by the testator alone, dated & signed by himself, w no witnesses or notary pub (done alone, in secret) Gan v Yang: In case whats in Q is a holographic will, proof is possible thru E by furnishing a copy including a photostatic copy But in an attested will, needs to be the orig

o
o o o

Int the case of ppl v Hubert Webb et al, Lolita Birrer informed the police that she witnessed her common law husband, former policeman, Gerardo Biong, clean up the scene after commission of the crime. The prosecution will also let her testify that she saw thereat a brown jacket w a tag bearing the letters HUB, to corroborate the testimony of Jessica Alfaro to the effect that accused Huber Webb had accidentally left his brown jacket at the scene of the crime. As counsel for Webb a) can you think of any possible objection to this latter testimony of Birrer? o Yes, object BER bec youre trying to present the tag of the jacket & the tag is a docum! Sustained: Is the tag a docum? Yes, the contents of such are in issue need to see that the tag really says HUB Objection: its obj E bec whats being proved is the existence of HUB on the tag on the jacket & not the contents Bth are correct..if youre proving the existence of the jacket, then its object Ebut once youre looking at the content of the tag, on WON it says HUB, then it becomes a docum Convert to a scenario where the tag is an obj, not a docum: Of theres blood on the tag you object to presentation in E of a photo of the jacket & the allege tag? Object bec the subj of inquiry is whats written on the tag & therefore, its necessary for the original to be presented Is there any circums that the photo might be admissible? Yes, there are other 2ndary E

Bec the subj of the inquiry is what the Co polices are & the comp printed manual may be considered the orig of the manual Youre showing what the policies are thru the manual A is trying to show the policy that was violated In what sense is it an orig? s4b

Can the Ct take JN of the fact that when a manual is printed it is usually dne in 2 or more copies, executed at the sme time, w identical contents? Yes, 129s2a Can you waive the BER? How? o If theres no objection to it When she attempted tot take the bar exams the frustrated ex-bf of MIM filed a complaint for disciplinary sanctions against her w the SC, on the ground that she represented that she had graduated from the UP college of law when in truth & in fact she had not. To prove that her rep was true, MIM presented the certification of the dean of the up college of law. This was objected to by counsel for the complainant on the ground that the BE is her diploma from the UP college of law. Rule o Overruled, we arent talking abt the contents of docums but rather WON she graduated from UP o BER isnt being talked abt here o The cert & diploma may be E of her graduation from UP they are bth fine as Es & you dont have to weight wc is the best E o R128,s3: they are admissible bec its relevant & competent o And theres no rule that to be admissible the E shld be the best E No such rule for purposes of admissibility tho theres a rule wrt credibility
Drilon11

o b) wld o o

July 12 12 Angry Men 2motions, the 1 in the middle of the triangle must see only what has been presented as evidence Jury: lay men o Chosen at random o When they decide, shld be based on their own knowledge Presume what has been presented in evidence in the phils If the other party objects, whats your ruling Graded on: (exercise) Admissibility/competence of the Evidence: The nose ridge mark

Juvenile delinquency of the accused in the past as a teenager bec brought up in the slums; boy was battered as a child o Battered as a child = this is motive Sch record/behavior o 10: threw a rock at a teacher o 15: stole a car o Mugging o Knife fight Experience of the juror o Take note: when the judge takes JN of a thing, he acts as a lay man o S1: mandatory, as a judge o S2: basis of the charge is him acting as a person, human being Certain things appeal to the feelings of the jurors Ex) personal experience of the juror w his son wc gave him a bias As a judge here in the Phils, can you take JN of this? Fact of not wearing glasses old lady eyewitness o Argument on WON it needs to be proved:

accused stab his victim, it puts into Q if she in fact saw clearly that accused stabbed the victim & whether shes capable of correctly identifying the identity of the accused at the time of the incident Main fact in issue: WON the accused stabbed the victim o Collateral I: WON the woman saw accused stab the victim identity of the accused o E for this is testimonial E that the woman saw the accused stabbed the victim o So her wearing the glasses is a CM Competence: its not excluded by ROC or law as testimonial E o Not hearsay bec it was she who saw the act

CON: not admissible It irrelevant bec it may not necessarily be eye glasses that she wears, it could have been sun glasses RULE: PRO, its admissible Accused looked like a latino o JN:

Take JN, R129, s2b: capable of unquestionable demonstration Bec by looking at him, one can see that he has latino features Cant take JN

Determination of latino features is relative to a persons individual judgment RULE: Can take JN Admissibility: fact in issue -

Its admissible

Can tke JN, no need to prove that shes not wearing glasses when she sleeps

Apply R129, s2a: its public knowledge that ppl dnt wear glasses when they sleep Cant take JN, need to prove that shes not wearing glasses Not of pub knowledge: o Human practice varies from person to person o Ppl fall asleep w their glasses on o She was trying to sleep RULE: can take JN Admissibility: WON the woman saw the accused stab the victim PRO:

Admissible as CM bec it has a tendency to estab a probability, that the accused, who looks like a latino might have killed the victim This predisposition to commit crime, may be shown from studies

Relevancy: Admissible as collateral matters R128,s4 bec it tends to estab to any reasonable degree the fact in issue Bec if you try to estab that this person wsnt wearing her glasses at the time she supposedly saw the

inadmissible bec its not relevant fact in issue is WON the accused killed the victim fact of his race, has no logical relationship to the fact in issue it dsnt estab the probability or improbability of the accused killing the victim o Competence: not excluded by law or rules RULE: inadmissible for being irrelevant Knife in his pocket, introduced by henry fonda o If it were a pc of E in the phils, can it be introduced in E to make a pt? is it relevant? The demonstration of henry fonda old man walking o What kind of evidence is this?
Drilon12

o Obj E bec addressed thru the senses of the Ct o Admissible E? Memory of juror/judge o Sm1 examining 1 of the jurors asking abt the movie o Do you decide on things based on your own personal memory? Logic in demo o Was the story created by henry fonda logical? o Yes, therefore its relevant why? Whats his basis for dng that? o Can he do that? If youre a judge can you re-create?

July 31 Hernaez v McGrath Do you agree w the ruling of the Ct? BER dsnt apply bec the issue is the existence of a docum & not its contents Ct admitted the PE presented by the Jap Co to prove the existence of a deed of sale executed by Hernaez Ruling of the Ct: when its not the contents of a docum (a writing, matl containing a writing) that is the subj of inquiry, BER dsnt apply

July 26 Exercise Imagine the situation in the film The Accused occurring in a Phil setting: imagine that you were approached by the victim to file suit. If you do so, what case/s will/can you file? In the film Inherit the Wind o Spencer Tracy (counsel for the accused) was forced to call the spcl prosecutor to the stand (as hostile witness) when he denied the chance to present his own expert witnesses. In this situation, what was Tracy trying to show thru his line of questioning? o Do you think this line of questioning was relevant (to the defense strategy that he had to sue as last resort)? o Cld, or shld the principle of JN have come into play at anytime during the trial? If yes, why, if not, why not?

Subj of inquiry was the existence of a deed of sale was claiming that he ddnt sell his props o But they did execute a sale Contents of the deed of sale werent in inquiry so BER dsnt apply Ct didnt consider it as the contents as in issue but the existence of the deed of sale If the Q is WON there was a sale, arent you asking abt the contents of the deed of sale? o Seems like you should o Bec how wld you know if there was a sale if you dont examine if there was a sig or not wc is part of the contents If someone is claiming there was a deed of sale, isnt he in effect talking abt the contents bec hes telling you who the subjs are, what the subj of the sale was, etc? Was saying it was a forgery, was being forced by the Jap to sell he claimed the deed of sale was fake bec he ddnt sign Why ds/dsnt BER apply? Ruling of the Ct is correct but 2 misleading sentences in the case o Proofs of the execution arent dependent on the existence/nonexistence of the docum If its non-existent then why need proof for execution?!?! To prove the existence of a docum, you have to prove its due execution J. Tuason shldve said: proofs of the execution arent dependent on the existence/non-existence of the ORIG of the docum Bec even if the orig no longer exists, bec destroyed/lost, you can still prove its execution thru 2ndary E Bec when talking abt execution, you arent talking abt the contents w/in the meaning of the BER Cant talk abt execution if it really didnt exist Youre talking abt execution so that 2ndary E may be applied When want to prove execution, youre talking abt the contents (vendor, vendee, when it tk place, etc) but if youre proving the contents wrt to the terms of the agreement, but to its execution, then BER dsnt apply Be that as it may the Ct below was wrong in holding that PE of the execution was barred, the Ct confused/confounded the execution & contents of the documwc in this case arent in dispute its the
Drilon13

In the film, Sep but Equal regarding the 50s case of Brown v Board of Education o What forms/s of evidence was/were used to show the self-degrading effect of racial discrimination/segregation? o Were these forms of E relevant? Why or why not? Imagine the situation in the film the Verdict occurring in the Phil setting: o If youre James Mason (counsel for the archdiocese/hospital), will you object to the presentation by the nurse-witness of the photocopy (of the hospital record/patients chart showing the controversial # of hours) in her possession? If so, on what ground? If not, why not? o As counsel for the victim/plaintiff, will you argue against this objection of James Mason? If so, what your argument be? If not, why not? o If youre james mason, will you object to the testimony of the nurse (regarding how the doctor had threatened her job to coerce her into changing the figure in the hospital record/patients chart)? If so, on what ground? If not, why not? o If james mason objects to any sort & manner of testimony from the nurse-witness to the effect that she was the nurse who had accomplished the hospital record/patients chart & made the entries therein on the ground that the same is barred under the BER & the docum itself shld be presented, wld you argue against the objection? If so, what will your argument be? If not, why not? o If youre the judge, what will your ruling be on the objection in letter A above? Why? o If youre the judge, what will your ruling on the objection in letter D above? Why?

contents wc cant be proved by 2ndary E when the inst itself is accessible.due execution must be shown (underlined) is wrong bec whats in dispute that there was no sale All theyre claiming is that they ddnt sign Ct said the argument was wrong bec he was confusing execution w content

Air frances argument: when you begin quoting the contents, dont relay the story but show the note itself SC: said the testimony was only abt the ouster, the issue wsnt the contents of the ntbks per se, but the ouster COA of Carrascoso: tort for damages (not just for breach of contract but also bec there was BF) o His story abt the purser is merely factum probans Pt of Carrascosos testimony: Whether its really in the ntbk or not, fact that the purser said it to Carrascoso its alrdy against the airline o The ntbk wld only corroborate this fact

Air France v Carrascoso BER dsnt apply bec subj if inquiry wasnt the contents of the notebook, but the subj of inquiry was WON the ousting of Mr Carrascoso actually happened Witness said he left his seat bec the space was confining o This is when he saw the purser Who said I noted the incident in my notebook, shld him the note, etc o This entire testimony of this incident w the purser was told to prove that the ousting happened? This is why its relevant? NO o the contents of the ntbk is relevant to prove the ouster? o The ntbk became relevant bec the entry said a 1st class passenger was forced to transfer to 2nd class wo this, it wld be irrelevant When the victim was telling his story, he include this anecdote, why is this relevant? That the purser talked to him, etc o Its relevant bec it tends to prove his was wrongfully o Purser whos the EE wont say anything detrimental to his boss unless its true So when the entry was made, it really records the ouster Its the entry wc makes the purser say so impt & relevant So if the other party objects, if trying to prove E of the ouster thru the ntbk, you shld present the ntbk/the entry! Carrascoso said: o I went to the purser. He was in full possession of his capacity, was in full possession of his senses Thus, hes not disqualified from being a witness *S20: you can perceive only thru 5 senses (hear, see, taste, feel, smell) Any person who can perceive, senses arent disabled can relate it to the Ct correctly competent o The purser talked to me. Competent o The purser said ______. If testifying that the person talked can be = competent But if presented to offer the truth of what the purser said = hearsay o The purser showed his note, saying he alrdy noted the incident in the ntbk & translated it. Translated: competent he heard it Content of the note subj to BER? Therefore, the note is the crux of the testimony! He wldnt have relayed this story if not for this note Can he talk abt the contents of the note?

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE S9:a written agreement is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon & there can be no evidence of the terms agreed upon other than the written agreement itself o GR: Disallows E other than the written agreement o Exception: if the ff are put in issue in the pleadings Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, imperfection of written agreement Failure to express true intent & agreement of the parties Validity of the written agreement Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties after execution of the written agreement o Isnt this the same as the BER?

No, bec PER prohibits the varying of the terms of the agreement w the use of E outside the written agreement

While BER prohibits the introduction of 2ndary E the prove the contents of the written agreement wc isnt available PER BER The orig writing isnt available &/or theres a dispute as to whether said writing is the orig Prohibits the varying of the terms of a Prohibits the intro of susbtitutionary E written agreement in lieu of the orig docum, regardless of WON it varies the contents of the orig Applies only to docums wc are Applies to all kinds of writings contractual in nature Exception: wills Invoked only when the controversy is Invoked by any party to an axn btwn the parties to the written regardless of WON such party has agreement, their privies or any party participated in the writing involved directly affected thereby Eg. A cestui que trust Ds PER even if the orig available? YES Parol evidence: o E aliunde o Any form, kind pc of evidence outside the written agreement Ex) agreement btwn A & B w 5 terms, A wants to enforce, B wants to resist so he presents a photo showing other terms, saying this was what was agreed upon allowed?
Drilon14

o
o

If the docum was raised in the pleadings as not expressing the true intent/agreement, then he can present the photo = PER dsnt apply Bec if he said the docum dsnt present the true intent, he has the right to present E as to what the true agreement is Do you need to present the orig agreement to object to the photograph? Then A objects bec BER! applies? YES!!! What B is saying is that the docum attached isnt the real agreement, our real agreement is the contents of this photo so at this juncture isnt the contents of the photo subj of the inquiry, such that the orig shld be presented? Thus BER applies Bec alrdy contemplating exactly what are the terms so need the orig

codicil: it adds to/supplements & can even change a will nature of a codicil: its anthr will/is a will = shld be probated

INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS (S10-19) This whole thing refers to DOCUMENTS but s14 & s17 refers to agreements o Maam says this is a lapse, it shld be inst just like the other provs S10: it must appear in the inst itself that the parties intended otherwise o Ex) marriages can be perfmd in places other than domicle, thus interpretations on alimony, donation propter nuptias interpretations on such will be detd by where the marriage was celebrated S11: construction of several provs to give effect to all bec parties wldnt have included a prov wc wld nullify it o Law interprets the inst as intended by the parties as fully operational S12: intention of parties prevail & gen intention is subordinate to specific intention o Particular intent controls only if inconsistent as much as possible, reconcile

Exercise: 1. in his complaint, landowner X claims damages b way of toll against a Co whose trucks have been for yrs crossing his subdivision in Barrio Dito, municipality D to get to the adjacent Barrio Kabila, Municipality K. by way of defense, the Co says the complaint states no COA bec actually the rough road used by its trucks is owned by municipality D. whether the rough road is part of Xs subdivision or is owned b municipality D was stated as the 1st issue in the pre-trial order. The 2nd issue was WON X was entitled to damages &, if so, how much. If you were counsel for the Co, wld you present E to show the geographic boundaries of municipalities D & K, or just argue in the memorandum that the Ct shld take mandatory JN there of?

1st: E shld be presented bec it was the fact in issue o Geographic boundaries may change by political acts 2nd: Ct cant take JN bec dsnt fall under any sections its a Q of law, not of fact o Bec questioning the change in boundaries = wc is done by congress

S13: circums in wc it was made so judge may be put in the position of the one who hes to interpret S14: presumption that terms are used in primary & gen acceptance o But E allowed o Terms of the agreement are presumed to be used in their primary & general acceptation S15: written prevail over the printed o Printed form usually comes 1st & writing comes after o o

2. in his will, D bequeathed a P1M legacy to George, my fave bro-in-law during the probate proceedings, it turned out that anthr bro-in-law was named Justin George. When counsel for Justin George sought to present E that it was Justin George, & not George, who was Ds favorite, counsel for George objected, saying: a) PE is inadmissible b) besides, the relation btwn D & justin George must 1st be shown. Rule.

It shows the more recent intention Fact that its printed, premeditated na therefore the written words wld show the later/prevailing intention Ex) insurance policy rider = written Parties add their own stips If theres a conflict btwn the printed part & the rider rider prevails

S16: experts may testify/affirm/posit/declare in Ct the meaning of the lang/characs o Ct dsnt understand it o Ex) if the inst is in a diff language a will in Bisaya *Ds PER apply to wills, it does Will a codicil be prevented admissibility by the PER? NO, bec its an addtn to a will

A) NO, PER is admissible itll apply in terms of the exception bec of intrinsic ambiguity o Patent or latent ambiguity? Patent: on its face ambiguous If patent, Ct will leave you were you are wont allow you to explain, modify = this is PER Latent: intrinsic ambiguity If not clear, but theres E wc shows that its ambiguous = its latent Youll never know that its intrinsic, unless some1 proves such Ex) dollars, etc Its only intrinsic that you can introduce E o Will: if a prov is patently ambigious this part will be distributed intestate o Called exception bec youll be allowed to show E other than the written agreement Amng the 4 exceptions, there are those wc arent real exceptions bec not really changing, adding or explaining S9c: youre showing its not valid o PER isnt really applicable bec youre proving its validity
Drilon15

S9d: no PER bec youre not proving the written agreement, but a totally diff agreement! PER dsnt apply to just any docum it applies to an AGREEMENT (when there are parties!) Exception is a will, wc is unilateral but theres a beneficiary so its included

* This is what B is saying kuno: You cant invoke the side agreement bec its outside of our true agreement the contract Yes, its possiblePER applies but its not effective *agreement reduced into writing: contract

3. A brought an accion publiciana against a group of farmers (grp) alleging that the latter has unlawfully occupied & started planting on As land. in their ans, grp invoked lack of COA as a defense, alleging that A isnt the owner of the land involved. to support this, the grp presented the vendor of A, who testified that indeed what she sold to A was a parcel of land located south of the land described in As complaint. As repeated objections to the vendors testi - based on the PER were all overruled. Comment? PER dsnt apply bec wasnt a party to the agreement Change it so PER will apply: o Buyer suing vendor bec what was sold was a machine wc was defective warranty wasnt complied w o Complaint says purchased machine X threshing 100 cavans of palay o Def says thats not what we agreed Hes raising an issue wc is an exception to the PER Wc wont allow him to produce PE aside from the actionable docum attached to the complaint Ex) of PE he cld present: His testimony s9c & s9d o PE can be oral, documentary (ex. rider), object (ex. pic) any matl containing writings Aug2

* 2nd agreement: side agreement Same parties Side agreement falls under S9d that the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties after execution of the written agreement Defense: Side agreement isnt actionable, citing PER, bec its outside of the contract o But if you argue this way, its bali wala bec when A replies, he can say that this side agreement is under s9d its an exception, so what PER are you talking abt?! Can PER apply to only 1 party, such that theres no agreement? Yes, in case of a will (for other agreements, need to have at least 2 parties) **Terms in an agreement DONT INCLUDE THE SIGNATURE (Hernaez v McGrath) refers to BER

*simple example: A buys land from B. contract signed the contract. B complained that in the deed said lot Y but A delivered lot X

Axn for specific performance so long as contract is perfected, can demand specific perf (A13___,CC) Possible defense of A: that what was agreed upon was lot X & attach the contract to the ans (becomes an actionable docum) Issues in the case: o What was agreed upon? o What was delivered? o If theres a wrong, damages. B is the o o o 1st witness bec hes a party to the contract & signed it! Q: describe the land/wheres the land located? counsel for A objects OVERRULED! Bec no statement yet that something was written so what PER are you talking abt!? Unless theres a written thing, PER/BER dsnt apply! o Q: when did you enter into this contract of sale/for how much? Objection! PER! Overruled! Bec no statement yet that something was written This isnt realistic bec in the pre-trial, they wldve admitted that there was a written agreement o B wldnt have denied the contracts authenticity (bec if he did, hed be liable for perjury since he signed & notarized) o Thus, if not denied, then the agreement is considered admitted Thus, realistically, the agreement wldve been admitted alrdy o SO Objection your honor! Inadmissible PER! Only thing that may be admitted wrt the terms of the agreement, is the written agreement itself. Wont let him testify bec his testimony is EXACTLY PAROL E (its E aliunde) What if its a photo! OBJECT! SUSTAINED!
Drilon16

Contra pro ferentem (A1379 CC) [against what you profer] o The interpretation that is contrary to what you offer o This refers to s17, R130 o di ka pwede manggulang Can you waive the PER? Yes o When counsel fails to object to the E

*exception in s9 can only be put up if its put in issue in the pleadings - if the exception applies, then PER dsnt apply! Exercise: 1. In their (written) deed of sale, vendor A & vendee B agreed that theyll split 50-50 the commission due the broker-agent of A. on the same occasion, in a (written) side agreement, A & B also agreed to split 50-50 a 200k finders fee for their mutual frnd C. Whn B reneged, refusing to pay any share on the finders fee, A brought suit in the MTC, attaching a cpy of the executed side agreement as Annex A of his complaint A) B wants to use the PER in his ans as part of his defense theory. Is that possible. How?

Dsnt matter if what youre talking abt Law dsnt like it, bec judge wont know if it varies or not so no other testimony, no other docum, no other E bec its not the written agreement ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS NOT ALLOWED OBJECT TO ANY OTHER EVIDENCE!! o S9 1st part: is the GR wc bars any other E except the written agreement itself o S9 2nd part: exceptions

o o

So is PER really a matter of E only or can be used as a defense? Wrt GR its a matter of E: Its when you invoked the rule to prevent E from being presented

youre preventing E from coming in (objection! PER! So shut up!)

E aliunde need not be in writing

Change, theres a side agreement aside from the contract A may invoke any of the exceptions as a defense there are other terms indep from the contract wc changes the agreement (s9d) o Ex) there was suspensive cond wc hasnt been fulfilled, therefore no oblig to split the amnt yet Situation where you can invoke the GR as a defense o Suppress the side agreement by using the GR o GR says that no other agreement can be presented except for the written agreement itself Side agreement is barred by the contract itself the real agreement is the deed of sale Therefore, you can intro any form of E other than whats in the written docum/contract A suing B on the basis of the side agreement, B is saying in his ans PER bec of Deed of sale (invokes the GR) o A presents himself & testifies on the side agreement shdl be talk abt the deed of sale? NO, bec if he ds, he shld automatically has to rely on the exception Hed in effect be saying the deed of sale was the true agreement So just identifies the side agreement o Once A testifies on the side agreement, B can object on PER saying theres a deed of sale wc is the earlier & only agreement wc shld be the one considered Bec in pre-trial, the deed wldve been admitted alrdy o B presents himself & testifies the deed of sale *back to maams example:

an evidentiary rule bec allows you to object to any form of E of the other party from being presented its an exclusionary rule Wrt the exceptions its more of a defense/strategy Bec to use them, youd have to put it in issue Tactically procedure wc will be the foundation of your introducing other E

B) B failed to notarize his ans. A now argues that the pre-trail that B has in effect waived the PER bec B admits the authenticity & due execution of the side agreement. Comment PER has nothing to do w the authenticity & due execution of the side agreement

Bec PER refers to the exclusion of E aliunde whereas authenticity & due execution pertain to the genuineness of the docum Even if he admits the authenticity & due execution of the docum, can still invoke the PER

C) Does A have any addtl counter-agreement re Bs invocation of the PER? A can invoke the exceptions D) Is the side agreement of any use to the finder, who is short of 100k? Not of any use to the finder, bec not party to the agreement hence, cant invoke the PER o Cant invoke PER bec im not a party to it (Lechugas v CA) o As a matter of procedure this is correct

But finder still has a COA bec theres a stip pour autrui & the vesting of the benefit is explicitly & clea 2. In p.693 Regalado says 1 of the diffs btwn PER & the BER is that the PER presupposes that the orig docum is available in Ct therefore, invoking that rule, B can demand the production of the orig in Ct & absolutely object to application of the BER. Comment.

Realistically why wld B not want to pay? Maybe the side contract was rescinded (can be done verbally) Can say there was a deed of sale, a side agreement & rescission = this is the ans of B o If so, will he have to object to As testimony on the side agreement based on PER no, B wldnt object, bec while A admits of the side agreement, B is claiming its been rescinded (so no room for the PER)

Ergo, can you invoke the PER even if its not the original? YES Statement is wrong! PER can be invoked even if theres no orig available in Ct so long as BER is complied w & 2ndary E is allowed Pretend theres no orig & somebody is testifying on the terms of the agreement can you object at this pt? not yet, youd have to 1 st invoke the written agreement itself So long as 2ndary E has alrdy been presented showing the agreement itself, then the moment theres PE abt the terms other than that presented object! PER Bec you can present the agreement thru 2ndayr E o A copy, recital of its contents, testimony
Drilon17

Maams point: The distinction btwn status of PER as E as a procedural matter & as a defense o Defense is a strategy while E is what you use to prove your strategy

PER: whether varying or not the written agreement BAWAL (whether testi, docum or obj) only thing you can present is the written agreement itself

BPI v Fidelity & Surety Co

o They cant testify regarding the will in the probate of a will Disqualification: s21: o Mental condition at the time of production for examination, renders them incapable of intelligently make known their perception to others

Invokes the exception s9a o Mistake in the agreement 3 reqs for mistake: o Shld be a mistake of fact o Must be shown by clear & convincing E o Mistake shld be common to bth of the parties

Lechugas v CA As btwn parties to a written agreement, PE cant be rcvd to contradict or vary its terms. Strangers to a contract are not bound by it & the rule excluding extrinsic E in the construction of writings is inapplicable in such cases; & its relaxed where either 1 of the parties btwn whom the Q arises is a stranger to the written agreement & dstn claim under or thru 1 whos aprty to it in such case, the rule is binding upon neither PER applies only btwn parties to the written agreement cant apply to persons not a party to the agreement So long as non-party to the contract/written agreement, involved in the case, PER dsnt apply TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE Part1: refers to the qualification of witnesses Part2: refers to testimonial privilege Part3: admissions & confessions These 3 show the forms of E Theres a diff btwn exclusionary & privilege (theyre similar, but theres a thin line differentiating them) Part4: Part5: knowledge Part6: opinion & character of E When say testimonial theres a witness = E comes from the mouth of the witness o Therefore always verbal & not written? Tries to show what the witness said Interest of the parties & Ct is what the witness said & not what was written o Eg. Testi of Carasscoso was impt (Air France) GR: s20 any1 can testify so long as they can perceive & can make their perceptions known to others o So long as: Person Can perceive thru his senses Make known his perception to others Political, interest in the outcome of the case = not grounds for disqualifications! o Exception: s23 dead mans statute/survivorship disqualification Conviction for a crime: not disqualified unless the law so states o Ex) person convicted of perjury, false testimony & falsification of docums o

at the time of production = at the time they have to testify/time theyre examined by the Ct/when making a deposition Even if b4 this the witness is ok Even if they were insane at the time of the incident, so long as lucid at the time they testify = not disqualified o But obviously, there wld be issues as to his credibility, etc

Ex) if took a drug b4 testifying or if drunk or crazy Ex) inmate in a mental place, had a lucid interval, saw a stabbing & then reported it to his doctor lawyer found out & got him as a witness can he testify? No, even if in a lucid interval, since hes an inmate in a mental hospital, theres a presumption that hes insane so cant testify atty will have the burden of proving his in a lucid interval If not an inmate, presumption is that hes of sound mind Children whose mental maturity renders them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting wc theyre examined & relating them truthfully Shld be of mental maturity at: the time he perceived it &

at the time of presentation/needs to testify in Ct refers to 2 points in time examination of a child witnesses: more liberal atty will have the right to ask leading Qs there are safeguards

Whats the diff btwn the disqualification btwn s21 A & B/why the diff? o Bec of the tender yrs of the child o B refers to a child of TENDER YEARS It alrdy defines the nature of the witness o While A just refers to a person, other than lttr B & is presumed capable competent Ex) mongoliod: dsnt fall under lttr B, o Whether their competent depends on the degree on their disease o If want them to be disqualified will have to prove them 1st

S22 & s23 & s24 S24: privilege communication is characterized by an elem of confidentiality o Elem of confidentiality is the most impt thing here S22 & s23: bth have an elem of confidentiality but its still diff from s24 S22: refers more to relationship o Whether its confidential or not o Diff btwn S24a & s22: S22: disqualification by reason of S24: disqualification by reason of
Drilon18

marriage Absolute prohibition presupposes, 1 of the parties is the Sps M is existing o

marital privilege Only speaks of communications rcvd in confidence no such req can be during or after the M

Is the Sps is a co-def, will s22 apply? S22 says for or against this is why the rule says 1 shld be a party to a casebut here, party nga but co-def lang so ds s22 still applies? Even tho not 1 against the other, but are actually parties on the same side? Ppl v Francisco: wife cldnt be summoned as a hostile witness bec wld be testifying against even tho on the same side Rationale for s22: Ppl v Francisco Identity of interests of the Sps Its in their interest to protect the other Sps Identity of Self-interest Its presumed na magkakampi kayo Bec the natl tendency of ppl is to testify in your favor, to such an extent that you protect them too much, even if you tell a lie alrdy Perjury Tendency to protect the other, to the pt of lying Danger of perjury bec love the other too much Harmony Sps will end up fighting Danger of punishing 1 Sps thru the hostile testimony of the other Testi is prohibited bec of the hostility Danger of perjury bec hate him too much Rule is here, bec ppl can tell lies out of love or hate

Aug7 Whats the reason for disqualification in s24(a): the H or the W, during or after the marriage, cant be examined wo the consent of the other as to any communication rcvd in confidence by 1 from the other during the marriage except in a civ case by 1 against the other, or in a crim case for a crime committed by 1 against the other or the latters direct descendants or ascendants o Law refers to the communication rcvd FROM 1 TO THE OTHER o Communication need not be abt the H & W it can be abt anything, so long as FROM 1 TO the OTHER Its a secret o Ex) A&B (parents) w their son went to the doctor he had an embarrassing disease. B(husband) died. Son(C) married D. D filed suit for annulment bec she ddnt know abt the disease

The communication wsnt rcvd from 1 to the other, therefore the mother in law can testify Communication is NOT privileged since the communication wsnt rcvd from the wife from the husband, but communication came from the doctor o Essence of the rule: even if M is terminated, long after its over, the pt is a secret is a secret o The confidence btwn H&W is so impt to the law, to preserve the harmony (Ppl v Carlos) US v Antipolo o Accused: Antipolo o Witness: wife of the victim Wanted to testify, prosecutor objected said it was privileged communication rcvd But the motive was shut up! Bec we Antipolo to hang Bec testimony of the wife was in favor of Antipolo She was gng to say Antipolo wasnt guilty bec the victim fell Its still privileged after death o But in US v Antipolo: 2 reasons why theres no violation of the law Intent of the H wasnt to make it secret not a communication rcvd in confidence Do you agree? What did he really say? YES! Since the testimony was intended to exculpate the accused, it was meant to be communicated to the authorities What if the termination of M wasnt due to death, but due to some other reason? Does this matter? o No, the rule dsnt distinguish wrt the cause of the termination of the M Regardless of the cause, the privilege still applies o But in US v Antipolo: the SC said that the rule is intended to cover cases in wc the M has been dissolved otherwise than by death of 1 of the Sps (eg annulment) If cause of termination is other than death privilege applies! Cant testify *Maam dsnt think this observation was wise But more unfair bec the dead can no longer speak for itself Why ds the rule want H&W to keep secrets sacred even after death? o To test the wisdom of the law imagine the opposite o Thus, if all our secrets can be told, then wed be afraid to communicate = nagasawa ka pa o What kind of an atmosphere wld u be creating in the family?! Youll be suspicious of each other, etc bec you cant share things since secrets can be told Ex) no dying declaration, H dead, matter is really privileged, wife is suppose to testify objection! Bec its privileged o If the wife isnt a party, just a witness & the H isnt a party = who objected? A party ds he have the right to object? NO! Under the law, only the Sps can object
Drilon19

Means: Can testify if M ended due to death

wife wanted to say that when they got married, the H ddnt tell her he had the disease (wc the son now had) She even wants to call her mother in law to show the BF of the son in not telling her abt his cond Can she call the mom to testify? Yes, the doctor was the 1 who gave the communication thus she can testify on it

So in US v Antipolo the judge shldve overruled since the H wasnt a party? In all sits in s24(a) where M has been terminated, how can the Sps object if he/shes not a party to the case? Seems like waiver can occur in 2 ways: (waiver of the privilege) o If the Sps testifies & the other Sps fails to object o If the Sps cross-examines the other Sps o

*trial:

1) P evidence in chief (wants to prove the elems of his COA) o Witness1,2,3 2) Def evidence in chief o Witness 1,2,3 3) Rebuttal: P rebuts the E of def 4) Sur-rebuttal: def rebuts the E of P In all the sits where theres a witness the procedure is: o 1) Direct Examination Witness of P: 1st talks to his laywers Qs (whoever hes kakampi w) He testifies on the elems of the COA 2) Cross-Examination: atty of the def Qs him 3) Re-direct Examination 4) Re-cross Examination

Parties/assignor of parties to a case Person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted/representatives of the decased Rule protects a party bec hes dead & cant defend himself But what if the claim is true?! Law is intended to achieve justice, in favor of the dead guy, what abt if the claim is true? What abt the other person? o Whats the soln? scrap the statute? Solutions: o If testi E, easy to make up a story wc the dead person cant deny But if talking abt hard E object & docum E difficult for this to be controverted o Can present witnesses Bec whats prohibited is the party whos involved, bec hes got a high interest there, but if theres anthr witness have him testify What abt assignors? o Included bec their the ones who transferred the rights/interest o Assignor comes into the picture bec he assigned his interest in a case o

o o o

Privilege can be invoked by anybody o Dsnt have to be Sps himself or his lawyer bec the rule dsnt o Rule only says consent shld be taken from him So it seems like its only him who can object But this wld be ridiculous bec the other Sps cld be dead or not party to the case o Rational/spirit of the rule is still there privilege is still there Regardless of the cause of the termination of M, privilege still applies Exceptions to s24(a) &s22: o Case against the Sps, direct descendant/ascendants: Regardless of degree (degree removed from the source) so long as direct back to s22 & s24 S22: testimony can be abt anything o Pt is youre still married Shld be valid, if not, privilege dsnt apply o Even if M is bigamous? NO S24: refers to confidential communication S23: Parties or assignor of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. Ex) 1 sps committed falsification of docums against the other Sps privilege applies? NO (Ppl v Castaneda) Deadmans statute: applies to

Ex) dad had a son who was hit by a car son has a COA against the person who hit him can he assign this interest in this case to his dad while case is pending can be assigned (Del Castillo v ___) The assignee isnt barred, but its the assignor (son) is barred Persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted o agent prosecutes from the principal o Principal is precluded from testifying o What if the 1 who sued is the descendent or non compos mentis ds the rule still apply? When the heirs filed a counterclaim Claim shld be an original claim against the estate of the deceased or person of unsound mind Goni v CA: if its a counterclaim, its not barred o Rule was also waived bec they cross-examined o Suit brought when Villanueva was alrdy dead o Dsnt matter when the suit is brought, so long as later the person is alrdy dead, rule will apply o Limit of the power of the agent to testify: Agent permitted to testify as to matters wc the deceased person transacted w him, during his lifetime if the agent testifies regarding circums (hes competent)

Qualification: The inequality or injustice sought to be avoided by s24 dsnt exist in the CAB since Goni cld & ddnt negate the bidning effect of the contract to sell If Goni had testified against the def, it will be barred also Goni is merely an agent so the real party is Villanueva! So why wld he be barred?
Drilon20

 Aug 14

Whether he affirmed or negated the contract of a promise to sell is immatl

P707 Regalado: testimony on the present possession by the witness of a written inst signed by the deceased is also not covered by the prohib, as such fact exists after the decedents demise acceptable?!? o Ex) case involving a contract of sale, party suing the heirs to recover a parcel of land bec bought it from the deceased dad purchase happened while dad was alive but wasnt delivered to him o Party suing (vendee) has the deed of sale o Can the vendee verify the sig of the deceased? o Contract is a reduction in writing of the agreement of the parties all terms in the contract are all acts of the parties o Youre talking abt acts wc was done prior to his death!! Thus, it shld be prohibited o Sentence is misleading bec it forgets reference to who is testifying If person testifying & imputes an act to the decedent, is a party to it = prohibited Anyone else but the party himself can testify

*ex) of when theyll be disqualified since the corporation can only act through its officers o Civpro: affidavits are allowed can a corp reduce its statement per se? how can a corp itself, not its offcrs, attest to something? If the corp acts thru the resolution of its BOD = this is a corp act Ex) if the corp issues a resolution w a statement of facts = may be submitted in Ct May be cross-examined by mems of the board Bec corp decisions are made by the maj of the BOD

Physician-patient If doctor is engaged by the patient, still applies? Yes In extremis: in grave danger/in danger of dying *in articulo mortis: at the pt of death Atty-client privilege What if the lawyer serves pro-bono, still applies? Yes What if the lawyer was advising a client abt the crime? No o Basis: Ppl v Sandiganbayan (1997) Date is impt bec of Regala v Sandiganbayan (1996) Regala v Sandiganbayan: o If the privilege covers identity, then how do you reconcile this w Ppl v Sandiganbayan? Whats the conflict btwn Ppl v Sandiganbayan & Regala? Ppl v Sandiganbayan: attys wld be testimony wsnt covered by the privilege bec: o Purpose wsnt lawful To be privileged communication shld be for a lawful purpose/in furtherance of a lawful end o It relates to a crime intended to be committed These 2 conds are sep from each other, the privilege will not cover: o 1st: Consultation/seeking counsel regarding future offenses Privilege wsnt envisioned to protect clients who intend to commit a crime Dsnt involve just written or verbal communications = includes ANYTHING! Even including actions Communications: means written, verbal, actions Thus, the time of reckoning is the time of consultation whether the act was done alrdy or not o 2nd: When the lawyer is no longer a 3rd party of the act being testified upon, but is now a PART of the act itself Lawyer himself is a co-conspirator = hes no longer a lawyer but a criminal! Applied for a free patent over pub land got the title But objection of perjury he misrepresented in his application o But misused his power to influence the Dir of Lands to issue the free patent

Ong Chua v Carr

Where theres fraud that occurred, proven by E aliunde = dead mans statute dsnt apply o The rule has generally been given a liberal construction to promote justice & its held that it was never intended to serve as a shield for fraud Fraud committed: Carr had Atty Moore make the deed of sale appear that there was no encumbrance on the prop (but it was still subj to the right of repurchase from the previous owner) E aliunde: alrdy presented several witnesses who testified on the acts of Carr & Ct tk JN that Ong Chua cldnt speak or write and deed was written in English wc Ong Chua ddnt understand (had to rely on Moores statements/explanations) o E aliunde: E diff from the facts covered by the dead mans statute If you have such E, the statute no longer applies

Babao v Perez Fraud: in violation of the verbal agreement, Perez sold the prop Since the successors are parties to the case, then the dead mans statute applies Even if its the heirs are now being sued & no longer the estate, theyre covered by the prohib bec they will be benefitted Dsnt matter when suit was brought = pt is at the time testi is given, hes alrdy dead Lichauco v Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co Deadmans statute dsnt apply to EEs & Pres of the corp bec not successors, parties to the case Thus, they can testify The corporation itself is the 1 that is disqualified

1st case: administrative proceeding by Dir of Lands to cancel the CTC

Drilon21

2nd case: crim case for perjury o Dismissed bec of prescription hindi sumampa sa Ct (ddnt reach Ct!) o Dismissed during prelim investigation 3rd case: graft case filed o Claimed it shld be dismissed bec the docums attached for dismissal of this charge were the same as those in the perjury charge o If previous case was dismissed can no longer be prosecuted? No, only if the dismissal is on the merits o Falsified a docum: made it seem like there was an arraignment when there was only an investigation only motion by the prosecution to dismiss the case (when this happens wo consent of the accused, immediately theres double jeopardy) o attached the docum of arraignment to their MFR to the resolution of the Tanodbayan o Sansaet was the lawyer who filed the MFR & the results of the arraignment were attached to it o Later showed that there was no arraignment & the judge even certified that there was no such arraignment *arraignment: when you plead guilty or not guilty

Everything that pertains to the conspiracy b4, during, & after At this pt, no longer acting as a lawyer alrdy a criminal In what sense did the Ct see Sansaet as a conspirator? o Bec unlikely that no words passed btwn them o And he attached the falsified docums to the motions & filed them in Ct

Regala v Sandiganbayan

Civil Case 33 filed by PCGG against Eduardo Cojuangco & ACCRA law firm Civil case for recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth Defs got ill-gotten wealth thru the coco-levy funds used to buy corporations, used to set-up 6 oil milling companies (wc set-up 14 holding Cos) Since coco-levy funds are exacted frm farmers, theyre public (bec its a trust fund for farmers; its not private funds) ACCRA claimed they were only Nominee-stockholders (you admit that youre just a front/agent) PCGG filed a 3rd amended complaint excluding Raul Roco who was supposedly willing to testify on the name of his principal/s ACCRA filed a comment and/or opposition, as well as a counter-motion: requesting to be excluded from the case just like Roco Roco was supposedly excluded bec complied w certain conds o But he didnt comply w such o The 3 docums he submitted ddnt comply w the PCGG conds but he was excluded anyway ACCRA was invoking the atty-client privilege o If they divulged the name of their clients, theyd be violating the privilege Whats the relationship btwn E & procedure here? o ACCRA was invoking provs on E when they werent yet on trial and the privilege dsnt not apply unless youre being examined o R130,s24d: an atty CANNOT BE EXAMINED Here, the ACCRA lawyers & the SC agreed w them when they invoked the privilege for the purpose of excluding them as defendants In relation to Ppl v Sandiganbayan: o Lawyers here cld be considered co-conspirators to the crime They planned organization & acquisition of the business associations Executed deeds of assignment in blank & shares of stock *theres no escaping the fact that it was an elicit enterprise Therefore, the privilege wldnt apply

Honrado: clerk of Ct who helped falsify the docums Case filed against Sansaet, Honrado & Paredes Republic filed a motion to discharge Sansaet as a state witness Sansaet even wrote an affidavit Paredes made him do it o Reqs for state witness: (s17,R119) His testi is absolutely necessary Can be corroborated in its matl aspects Theres no other direct E available to the prosecution He must not appear to be the most guilty Has not been at any time been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude o Ombudsman denied this, bec the testi falls under the atty-client privilege SC: ddnt agree o Said that since the acts of Atty Sansaet, as co-conspirator of the crime & bec the nature of his testi is abt a crime intended to be committed, he can testify Communications NOT covered by the privilege: (atty can be examined) o Future, unlawful plan of the client: (WON it happens in the future or not) Consulting w you abt something wc hasnt been done yet Can be examined in Ct bec as a lawyer you shldnt condone, you may listen, but not condone At a certain pt, its the lawyers oblig to divulge attempt at a conspiracy wc is not only lawful to divulge, but wc the atty under certain circums may be bound to disclose at once in the interest of justice o Lawyer is part of the conspiracy

Barton v Leyte Asphalt

When the communication comes into possession of a 3rd party, the privilege no longer applies And it dsnt matter how they acquired possession

Aug21 Banco Filipino

Drilon22

Bank was saying the docums were irrelevant bec the inquiry had no relevance bec there was no hearing prior to closure o Were trying to prove 4 things that the CB did wrong they were unfair: no supporting examinors report reports were fabricated Ct: No the docums were still matl & relevant o Theyre relevant bec wo the reports they cant prove & prepare their comments & objections properly o When the mems of the board discuss, its official Invoked R130,s24e was this relevant to the case? o Raised this as to the deliberations & tapes o No pub ofcr was being brought as witness to the facts in issue to the case but rather minutes, transcripts, docums, tapes, etc = all this arent testimony of a pub ofcr What s24e speaks of is communication, ds this mean verbal communication only? o Sec24e was irrelevant bec no1 was sitting down o The order was for the production of the docums, tapes, etc = this is a mode of discovery (R27) o Ct: when what is in Q is production of docums & things, interpretation of the rule must be liberal the rule referring to docums & things o Maam: so why dd s24e come into the pic? Its just a motion for production of E Maam: when a pub ofcr is conducting inquiry, he asks for info from a lot of ppl = this is info rcvd by him, this isnt privileged Ct: no prejudice bec while the info contained in such papers/records are confidential, they dnt pose danger or peril to our eco Maam: Theres a diff btwn confidential & privilege If its confidential for 1 grp but can be seen by anthr grp, then its not privileged Ct: it shld be disclosed bec it wld be beneficial not only to the bank but to its depositors & creditors o Bec it wld disclose whether there was partially by the mems of the MB o Pub interest will be served, bec then youll see if the CB really closed it unjustly Whats the connection of s130,s24e to discovery (R27)? o 24e: seeks to protect certain ofcl matters Wants to prevent the examination of a pub ofcr o Certain info thru docums, tapes, etc are being sought to be retrieved from the possession of a pub ofcl is this equivalent to being examined wc is why theyre invoking s24e?

R130,s24c: physician-patient privilege Any person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, wo the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any info wc he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity, wc info was necessary to enable him to act in capacity, & wc wld blacken the reputation of the patient There are many other fields cldve limited itself to medicine Doctor: has a govt license to practice in a certain territory Person who conducts autopsy still a doctor cases where a doctors testimony may be relevant: o Rape cases o Serious physical injuries (victim in The Verdict) Why not applicable to crim cases? o Apply the rationale in lawyer-client privilege by analogy o The higher pub interest shld prevail over private (the blacken of the reputation of the patient) o But in crim cases, if what the doctor knows is in relation to a commission of a crime, pub interest prevails So subordinate of the doctor cld be examined? (secretary, janitor, assistants, etc) o The omission isnt bec they ddnt want to extend the privilege, but rather, peculiar to the prof of a doctor, he ddnt have assistants b4 o Maam: The privilege shld extend to his assistants (just like lawyers) since he now have assistants (unlike b4 when it was the doctor alone)

S24d: a minister or priest cannot, wo the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional charac in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to wc the minister or priest belongs Unless penitent gives his consent No qualification as to civ or crim case (only as to the doctor) Rule developed in favor of religion so that ppl can confide their sins Bec if they cld be examined, then no1 wld want to confess anymore Imam isnt a priest When you apply the ROE, dnt take for granted the ppl or the institutions to wc it applies ADMISSIONS

These sections (s26-33) refer to extra-J statements only o Stated in Lichauco v Atlantic Gulf Any statement of fact made by party wc is detrimental to his own interest Ds an admission have to be contrary to an earlier statement? NO o Bf says stop lying! Inamin mo na eh! o If Cecille, said b4 that she dated some1 (2timed) = an admission o This is contrary to her moral interest bec you have an interest in maintaining a moral faade A statement made wc is contrary to the person making the admission Self-serving declaration: o Made out of Ct
Drilon23

If its compelled, anybdy in the proceedings can look at it (lawyers, judge, reports, etc) = once things are produced in Ct, its alrdy pub Even if it was discovery, the philosophy of s24e is still there its as if youre examining him alrdy bec it becomes pub Maybe R27,s1 (wc says privilege), refers to s130,s24 but nothing so far to tell us that it ds

S26: The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in E against him May be in writing or done verbally What in s26 shows us that its extra-J? may be given in E o If it was judicial admission, this phrase wldnt be here anymore Is an admission always AGAINST the admitter? Never in favor of the admitter? o Yes, as opposed to a self-serving declaration wc isnt admissible Self-serving: person can always fabricate Basis of the rule: no person will say/declare things against himself or his interest, unless its true o Thus, the moment some1 hears it, they can testify against you in Ct = he gives E against you o This is why its of great veracity, wc is why its admissible Admission: means literally AGAINST YOU

o Diaries o o o

D: I dnt owe anything, in fact, it is he who owes me Bec its in favor of the declarant This wld be inadmissible if the case is 1 where D is the def or accused Declarant is out of Ct, its the witness wc is in Ct of Anne Frank: admissible? Abt her being victimized by the Natzis during the entire time Diaries are being offered by the father of Anne Frank NO, bec Anne cant be cross-examined abt the truth in the diaries

Self-serving declaration: (means literally IN YOUR FAVOR) o Out of Ct statement, verbal or written, made in your favor o Difficult to admit in Ct bec easy to fabricate o Its of no use to the Ct thus inadmissible o Rule in pt, however, isnt the rule in admissions The real RATIONALE for its inadmissibility is the rule on HEARSAY (s34) o But a person testifying in Ct can say something in favor of his interest Speaking of facts in Ct, in your favor = bec theres an opp to cross-examine Everything you say can be tested Whereas an extraJ admission theres no cross-examination Theres no way to test it o If the declarant is not the one sitting in Ct, who will be the one examined? The 1 offering the declaration in E The one who heard the declaration o Ex) W was tlkn abt what he heard frm D (hes gng to tlk abt what B said to him) = hes quoting what anthr person said & he also talks abt a docum D said he was a tenant Lttr wc says that hes a tenant wc he sent to W Both of these are extraJ statements & the declarant is D not W W is just the witness in CT Hes jst the instrument thru wc the statements are being introduced in Ct What W is talkn abt is the declaration of D(anthr person), not his own declaration W can only be examined as to how he gt the statements, but cant be examined as to the content of the statements (verbal & in the lttr) Whether the declaration is true or false is out of the hands of eveyrbdy W dsnt know if its true Only D is the 1 who knows if its true or not o Ex) change the sit to something favorable

Lichauco v Atlantic Gulf Statements in a docum wc illustrated all the debts wc had to be paid out of the conjugal assets the list dsnt show the debt being claimed by Atlantic Gulf o On the face of Exhibit 1: no debt owed to AG&P o And this cldnt be falsified, bec under the law then, when gng thru divorce, need to submit an inventory of the assets & liabilities of the conjugal partnership The declaration came from an omission o Its a declaration bec the omission wsnt inadverted Exhibit 1 omits to state that he owes the Co money = this is the declaration o He made the inventory b4 he was sued by the Co he did it bec of the divorce case o in effect the statement is I dont owe the Co anything is this statement an admission or self-serving declaration?

Its an admission - its against his interest wc is pecuniary (bakit siya malulugi pag di niya isama?) *if he included it, he & the wife wldve had to pay for it

But by not including it, he wld be liable for the debt on his own = from this pt of view its an admission bec its against himself BUT! if the debt was stated in Exhibit 1, it wldve been in favor of the Co is this a self-serving declaration? o Remember, Fitzsimmons was a former Pres of the Co o No, bec the interest of the Pres & the Co arent the sme o Change it to a Board Resolution: wc says lets collect the debt of Fitzsimmons Its being presented in E now It makes it self-serving? Seems like it, bec out of Ct & made in your favor BUT if made ante lite motam = not self-serving! Declaration out of Ct, but favorable to you, may be admissible if it was not ante lite motam (not used w the intention to use it in Ct; w a grain truth; made b4 litigation; not done w the view to sue/litigation) was bona fide o Can believe its true the true test in reference to the reliability of the declaration is not whether it was made ante litem motam, as in the case w reference to some classes of hearsay E, whether the declaration was utter under circums justifying the conclusion that there was no probable motive to falsify Dec out of ct and favorable to u admissible and not
Drilon24

self-serving if: o Not ante litem mota not done w/ a view to having it used for lit o Declared bona fide, w/o ulterior motive/purpose o Preconceived: suspect

*in extraJ admissions: declarant can never be cross-examined bec it was made out of Ct Ppl v Aling Prelim investigation (is a proceeding) B4 the judge: was still an extraJ statement When swore b4 clerk of Ct: converted into a judicial statement Criteria for extraJ A: Out of Ct Against your interest Declarant must be a party to the case (DBP v Radio Mindanao) DBP v Radio Mindanao E: lttr of Magilang saying he was a mem of NPA who was resp for the fire o Contains a declaration o Declaration is in favor of DBP Documentary E DBP is the def wants to present the letter of Magilang wc says im 1 of the attackers & im NPA Ct: Not admissible bec he wsnt a party to the case o NPA wsnt being sued here Discussion of maam: o Lets say its was an admission of some1 from RMN if that were the nature of this docum this wld be admissible in E, bec the declarant is saying something against the interest of RMN Wld be considered an extraJ statement o If statement of some1 else, not RMN, wc is favorable to DBP declarant is not in Ct is this admissible? No o Itll be admissible, even tho theres no chance for cross-ex o When 1 is trying to smuggle in E thats not subj to cross-ex, its objectionable bec its in the nature of hearsay o Ergo, so if its NOT an admission, its HEARSAY S28: Admission by a 3rd party Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet o Rights of a party cant be prejudiced by the act, declaration or omission of another Mentioned in Ppl v Valero How do we understand the GR? o Any opinion/statements are inadmissible? In what sense is s28 saying that an out of Ct statement is inadmissible against a person, other than in the hearsay sense? Ex) X, out of Ct, says DBP shld pay bec ____ & he puts this statement in writing o This shld be inadmissible against DBP if RMN gets his hands on him or the docum bec of hearsay o But s28 says that apart from its being hearsay, it must be referring to something else Hearsay is an encompassing rule refers to all statements
Drilon25

Aug23 Heirs of Pedro Clemena y Zurbano v Heirs of Irene Bien Tlks abt judicial admission o Of the predecessor (Pedro Clemena) of the heirs: in his ans said that the land was his o Heirs were claiming that they never had possession of the prop

2nd admission: referred to Gregorio Clemenas testi (referring to damages incurred from the appellees occupation) self-serving declaration o Ruling gives us a nuance thats not in Lichauco Nuance: o Bien: ddnt even contest the truth Was contesting it as self-serving Bec it was favorable to the Clemenas o Ct: no, it wsnt a self-serving declaration A self-serving declaration refers to acts or declarations of a party made in his own interest OUT of COURT Whereas here, Gregorio was testifying as a witness in Ct = ergo, his statements were judicial Even if its favorable to them, he can be crossexamined so admissible! A declaration can always be in your favor but its admissibility depends on whether it was made in or out of CT o OUT: inadmissibile o IN: admissible bec if in Ct theres a chance for cross-examination v Reyes This is b4 the 1987 consti 1 of the accused turned state witness Gatchalian & Austria: prosecution alleged that they executed extraJ confessions o Not gng to touch on the extraJ confession here bec b4 the 1987 consti Reyes: 1 of the accused, but discharged as state witness o Testified that: after the shooting, he ran into the field & saw the other accused & heard 2 of the other accused say sure the MP he had shot will die Ct: those statements were extraJ admissions (out of Ct statement that is contrary to your interest) o They were made out of Ct o Werent favorable to the accused

Ppl

o S28 refers to something else!! S26 defines an admission admissible against a person o S28 follows, wc means that what you said against you said is admissible against yourself (s26), BUT those who dont admit are not affected by your admission S28 means: the rights of a party shall not be prejudiced by the admission of anthr if some1 admits, it only binds the person admitting, not other ppl Admission is diff from confession: o Admission: statement of fact/s wc dsnt involve the acknowledgment of guilt/liab o Confession: theres an acknowledgment of guilt/liab Refers to criminal/legal liab There is an admission in a confession Ex) if a jeepney driver runs over a boy & the boy diesdriver gets out & says ay! Patawad po! Patawad po! o Admission or confession? Admission o The patawad meant that he did something wrong you were admitting the facts surrounding the sit that he was driving the jeep, wc ran over the kid Ex) 3 guys commit a robbery & in the process they taped up the homeowner who died o 1 guy says I placed the tape on the vicitim admission Confession if everything ws explained to him & he understands the criminal implications of his acts o This admission cant prejudice the other 2 why? Bec 1 has a right to be silent B4 you even prosecute a person, who will you know if hes guilty/how will anyone know your guilty? Thru E & in the absence of E, youre presumed innocent every1 is presumed innocent, until proven guilty ADMISSION OF ANY1 IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY AGAINST HIM o Why shld you extend this to others?! Theres no reason to do this! BUT! there are exceptions! o Refer to sits where others made the admission but their admissions bind you Isnt this unfair? No, they have some logic o These are: S29, 30, 31

Ex) lookout, 3rd person passing by where the crime is being committed who asked him what hes dng, & the lookout says hes acting as a lookout for X In order to be fair, there must be E aliunde establishing the conspiracy o Otherwise, it wld be unfair Ex) hold-upers, abt to execute the crime got into a cab & the taxi driver overheard them planning abt how to split the proceeds after getting the ransom o This was while the conspiracy was in effect o Driver becomes a witness & says what he heard o Statements of conspirators are against their interest, they ddnt realize that the driver will be a witness, so they were tlking abt the conspiracy in their own secret way, at the time they were discussing, they were saying things that ddnt look like they were against them But in the sense of being used against them, its against their interest An admission, is not always clearly something that looks lika an admission It may refer to statements that lead you to something thats against your interest, even if your not aware that its against your interest Its a statement & also an act

US v BAY When got caught raping, when asked what he was dng, he ddnt say anything & just left Bay ddnt protest when he was being charged w rape o But theres no rule saying that says he shld protest o Human experience: if you were being charged w something, you wld protest if it were not true An innocent person will always protest if being charged w something not true There was an omission here o But in s32, the word omission isnt there but it shld be Good example of an omission as an admission Aug 28 (make-up class) EXCEPTIONS to s28: clear Ppl v Valero Impt Ruling of the Ct is divided into 3 parts: o Why the contents of the testimonies arent reliable o Leg implication o Other E apart from prosecution E Focused on 3 witnesses

S29: admission by co-partner or agent

1st exception to s28 Word omission in s28 dsnt appear here o Bec if it was, can become vague (same as w s30) o It only appears in s31: admission by privies What predecessors ddnt do is binding on you = this is the rationale in including the word omission in s31 GR: admission of some1 else shldnt be taken against you But s29 is an exception: admission of anthr can be taken against you fair?

1st witness: Quilang o Supposedly saw Pipe give the bread o Not reliable If Quilang is erased, wala ng eyewitness

S30: admission by conspirator Act of 1 is the act of all = crim law theory, dsnt apply to E
Drilon26

So in order to pin down the Sis as the person responsible, needed the 2 other witnesses to say that Pipe communicated to them o 1) Inconsistencies o 2) made the affidavit appear that it was dne the day after the crime, but actually was made 3 yrs after the crime o 3) he was an 11th hr witness Jaime & Velasco 2gether: o Sign lang of Pipe to them wsnt credible o 1st ruling: Therefore, its HEARSAY o Supposedly Pipe communicated that: The Sis gave the bread to Pipe Pipe gave the bread to the kids *these are what Jaime & Velasco were trying to tell the Ct Pipe wasnt in Ct & he was the declarant No1 actually perceived these 2 things wc were the only E wc cld link the Sis (Lucila Valero) 2nd witness: Jaime o That Pipe made an extraJ revelation spontaneously while still under the influence of the occurrence 3 witness: Velasco (the dad) o That Pipe supposedly told him that the source of the bread was the Sis o Ct: this isnt part of res gestae Bec when this was supposedly said, nobdy was poisoned yet
rd

Youre admitting that if you ddnt give it to the kids, they wldnt have died

If the 2nd statement was the only statement made by Pipe, is it an admission? He said this after the kids had died alrdy = crime alrdy committed If an inj alrdy happened & then he made this statement = is this an admission? YES Its an admission bec its obviously against his interest! Immediately a suspect! So how ds RIAA come in? even if he included the Sis?

The 1st statement isnt an admission = its against the Sis! It puts the blame on her The admission was only that he gave the bread If you imagine that there was a conspiracy Prosecution was trying to show that bec of the argument (btwn the Sis & mom of the kids), she gave the bread to Pipe to give to the kids = this is conspiracy! This is the context w/in wc RIAA was being talked abt if theres NO ADMISSION, RIAA DSNT APPLY if no admission, RIAA is irrelevant even if theres an admission = it cant be admitted against any1 else unless its an exception

3 ruling: If Pipe had been presented as a witness, this wldve shown his incompetency o Experts found him to be incapable of perceiving events bec he can only see, he cant hear Some axns may be vague, they may seem to rely an import of whats not what it really is Wo sound, you cant interpret accurately o Since hes deaf mute, he also cant rely what he knows
rd

2nd ruling: RES INTER ALIOS ACTA (s28) o Rights of a party cant be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of anthr o The seeming admission of Pipe wld prejudice the Sis o So we need to understand if there was an admission here Ct ddnt discuss it was an admission Ct ddnt even explain RIAA o There are 2 parts to Pipes statement: The Sis gave him the bread He gave the bread to the kids o If you take the 1st statement wo the 2nd statement, is it incriminatory? No, per se theres nothing wrong w it

It only becomes incriminatory if you consider it as part of the overall circums & if you imagine a conspiracy btwn the Sis & Bro Its the 2nd statement wc is an admission

Ct: and even granting, Pipe admitted that he gave the bread wc was from the Sis, she cant be prejudiced by this wo 1st estab conspiracy by E aliunde In this case, there cant be an admission if the person isnt a party to the case and here, Pipe wasnt a party, he was a dropped Maam: RIAA is misplaced in this decision Ct seemed to be stretching it too mch Pipe is out of Ct, he said Sis gave the bread & he gave it to the kids o Witnesses in Ct talking abt what Pipe said = are they offering the statement to prove the truth of the statement? i.e. that he indeed gave the bread o They were trying to prove the truth! Ex) of a fact you want to prove in Ct = that A stabbed B & B died o C was on the balcony w the doors open & he saw A stab B o C is gng to Ct & give statements in Ct to show what happened: I was in the balcony I saw A & B & that he saw A stab B o I was in the balcony = hes saying this to prove this statement? Yes, hes saying this so that the Ct will blve him o I saw A stabbed B = is he talking & demonstrating to the Ct to prove the truth of what hes saying? Yes If Pipe sits in Ct & says his Sis gave the bread to him & that he gave it to the kids = hes trying to prove the truth of what hes saying o BUT! hes not in Ct

Drilon27

Wc is why Jaime & Velasco were testifying that he said these things to her = to show the guilt of Valero (Sis) o Since Pipe is not in Ct, the 2 witnesses were talking abt things wc they have no personal knowledge of They ddnt see the Sis give the bread to Pipe nor see Pipe give the bread to the kids Every statement in Ct, in order to be relevant, is suppose to prove the truth of its contents, otherwise, it wont be relevant o Youll know its relevant bec its gng to prove the proposition o But the person whos suppose to prove the proposition shld be the person who perceived it = s36 (rule on HE) Facts perceived will be admissible & competent only if theyre relevant

CONFESSIONS: s33 If a statement is out of Ct, it may be testified to anyway by a witness in Ct who heard the person say it, IF its an admission? witness in Ct wsnt talking abt things w/in his personal knowledge, but was talking abt what the accused told or confessed to them! Aballe v Ppl Aballe was coming out of a bthrm & it was spontaneous bec when he saw the Sgt he immediately admitted that he killed the girl o He was also wearing a blood stained tshirt: admissible Ct: bec of the doctrine of plain view There was an affidavit but this was disregarded bec it was made wo counsel o This extraJ confession wsnt admissible o In line w A3, s12 1987 Consti: rights of a person under custodial investigation Kitchen knife: inadmissible o Bec it was recovered after he was captured o Fruit of the poisonous tree: since it was an effect a consequence of an illegal investigation, its inadmissible Spontaneous statement of Aballe: to a policeman o Did Aballe state or reproduce or affirm these statements in Ct? NO o But the SC convicted him on the basis of these statements, so howd they know abt it when he ddnt affirm this in Ct? o E abt this statement was presented thru the testimony of Sgt Marante Sgt ddnt tell the Ct what he saw, he tld the Ct what Aballe tld him/what he heard o Heard that Aballe said that he stabbed Jennie 32x when she woke up & she was alone at home o Sgt ddnt have knowledge abt this he was testifying on facts wc he dsnt have personal knowledge of What gives him the right to do this? s33,R130 o Any person otherwise competent as a witness, who heard the confession, is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard & understood all of it o An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, but in such case must begiven in its substance o Statements made out of Ct wc acknowledges guilt = confession

Judicial or extraJ Verbal or written o Is Aballes statement a confession or an admission? A confession! But in a confession, theres also an admission of a statement of fact Admission: something against the interest of the declarant A confession is smthn against his interest but has an acknowledgement of guilt Thus, confessions are automatically admissions under s26 But if w guilt, its a confession o Sgt was trying to prove the truth of these statements o Witness when he testifies, ds so on 2 levels: How he came to know Not hearsay Contents of what he knows As to the truth of these statements its hearsay! If the contents are against the interest of the declarant, can be stated by some1 else in Ct o Testi of Sgt is admissible bec what Aballe said is against his interest! Therefore, any1 who heard it can testify on it in Ct When there is a statement that is an admission or confession, thru anthr person, its immediately admissible under s26 o But since its anthr witness, other than the declarant, its hearsay (if the person saying it is trying to prove the truth)- HOWEVER When a statement is in the nature of an admission, under s26, its always admissible as an admission o So what if its hearsay, its still an admission

Ex) Ppl v X for libel Prosecution is gng to prosecute X o 1st witness: ofcmate/Mr Reyes testifying that some1(X) told him that G had an STD Talks abt how he gt to know this Has personal knowledge, competent, not hearsay And that what he knew The name of G What G has How G got it

Can some1 object on the testi of Mr Reyes? I: whats in issue is whether X said the statement & not the truth of that statement What Mr Reye is testifying is the fact that X stated G had an STD E is relevant if itll prove the truth of the issue o This issue in libel is whether you made the defamatory statement, WON the statement is true o Independently Relevant Statement: (IRS)

Statement relevant indep of its truth or falsity Its indep of whether the facts stated are true or not, theyre relevant since theyre the facts in issue or are circumstantial E of the facts in issue
Drilon28

What Mr Reyes is talking abt is gng to be relevant, indep of whether its true or not it refers to the contents of his 2nd statement o Whats in issue isnt the truth of what was tld to him o But that it was told to him

But once arraignment takes place, s12 A3 ceases & A3, s17 takes over (your rights as an accused changes alrdy) 1 given to the priv party

Ppl v Molas Statement of Molas, taken down, but was done wo counsel Ct ruled it was admissible despite non-compliance w the 1987 consti & RA7438 o Decision was in 1993 Even disregarding the extraJ statement, theres enuf E to convict him Domantay, Mantung & Ladiana cases: What they have in common? There were confessions here & were admissible o Bec they were extraJ confessions made to persons not part of the custodial investigation

Consti reqs dnt apply to 3rd persons, not part of the custodial investigation A3, s12: dsnt apply to relations btwn priv indivs o It only applies against the govt Domantay: it was made to a radio-reporter Mantung: it was made to the Mayor

Ladiana & Maqueda: Ladiana: o Ruling wsnt exactly the sme, but said that A3, s12 dsnt apply when theres alrdy a prelim-investigation Only applies to a custodial investigation: arrested, detained by the police but not yet arraigned Confession was also made prior to arraignment Prelim-investigation: the accused has alrdy been charged, no arraignment yet

Pg 724 in relation to s32: o There were 4 examples given where in s32, admission by silence supposedly applies o Ex #2: once a person is alrdy in the custody of the police, A3,s12 applies (you have the right remain silent)! So there cant be admission by silence = Ppl v Alegre o Ex #3: reenactment of the crime, wo counsel is this admissible per se? Ppl v Tia Fong: its admissible Ppl v Inadmissible bec reenactment is equivalent to a confession (its express/clear) All rights pertaining to custodial investigation in A3, s12 apply Pg 730: #11 verbal extraJ confession is made wo counsel is admissible not as a confession but as part of res gestae (Ppl v Tampus) o Superseded! Even if part of res gestae (wc is an exception to the rule only), consti still prevails! A3, s12 applies Pg 733: o Ppl v Orenciada & Ppl v Molleda: superseded! A3,s12 applies!

Sec25: PARENTAL & FILIAL PRIVILEGE S25: no person may be compelled to testify against his parents, direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants.

o o

But A3,s12 dsnt apply bec the investigation is no longer dne by the police its dne by the prosecutor who is a lawyer o Whereas in a custodial investigation: policemen arnt lawyers wc are why the safeguards are stricter Maqueda: there was a warrant of arrest & accused was detained o During detention, case filed, b4 arraignment, he executed a confession o All the rights in the consti must be complied w o Even if Ct alrdy had custody over his person, A3, s12 still applies, bec the Sinumpaang Salaysay was given to the police/law enforcement o 2 statements given: 1 given to the police No lawyer present A3, s12: is precisely to protect the indiv frm the govt

Evn if hes alrdy under J of the Ct bec his rights dnt cease applies whenever theres an investigation by the law enforcement authorities

Qualified by A215 FC: descendant may be compelled to testify against his parents & grandparents, if such testi is indispensable in prosecuting a crime against the descendant or by 1 parent against the other o Ds parent include grandparents? Since r130,s23 also refers to them? o If testi is indispensable in the commission of a crime against a descendant or 1 parent against the other may be compelled to testify o So parent includes grandparents & other ascendants? YES Theres no sense to distinguish The rationale is to consider the crimes of importance so that the testi may be compelled Ex) annulment suit filed by wife against the husband, on the ground that the H ddnt disclose to her that he had an incurable disease wc he discovered when he went to the doctor w his parents o She wanted the mother in law to testify Spousal privilege dsnt apply since it wsnt 1 sps wsnt testifying against the other sps o S25 applies! Mother in law can invoke this & say you cant compel me to testify bec hes my son o Ds A215 FC apply? Granting a crime is involved? Ex) murder of the child by the H, & the W wants the grandfather to testify o Ds A215 apply? It refers to a crime against a descendant
Drilon29

o o

Yes, father in law can testify Whos sought to testify against the father? Grandfather He can invoke s25, but under A215 he can be compelled to testify

Sec27: OFFER OF COMPROMISE NOT ADMISSIBLE Civ case: offer of compromise = X an admission of any liab & not admissible in E Crim case: offer of compromise is an implied admission of guilt o Except: those involving quasi-offenses & those allowed by law to be compromised Crim case allowed to be compromised by law: o Tax violations, rape Whats the purpose for allowing the offer to pay medical, hospital & other expenses for an inj? o Humanitarian acts shld be encouraged Sec34: SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE E that 1 did or ddnt do a certain thing at 1 time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at anthr time; but it may be rcvd to prove a spcfc intent or knowledge; identity, plan, sys, scheme, habit, custom or usage & the like o IKIPSSCHUL Ex) serial killers o Usually leave E of their brilliance o Patter of hacking the victims neck o Common: identity

NO, RIAA is irrelevant to Nicole bec they were trying to prove the habit of being loose this is admissible to show only that at the present time, she was also loose (that time) = this dsnt mean that she also gave consent This dsnt help the prosecution! So its not relevant What differentiates habit from scheme, custom, usage o Habit is something dne automatically, unconsciously, etc Ex) to prove habit o Accused used alibi, said that he usually almost, always attends mass & gt a Rabi to testify the same thing So that at the time of the crime, he cldnt have dne it bec it was his habit to go to mass every Sat US SC: not habit o Neg in parking of the car wc slid dwn the road bec ddnt pull the handbrake - & were trying to prove that accused had a habit of being negligent/that he ddnt pull the handbrake Accepted by the Ct What makes you think theres a probability bec theres a pattern? o If theres a logic link btwn your past acts & the present = logical to admit

Sec35: UNACCEPTED OFFER Counterpart of A1256 CC on tender of payment If youre unable to deliver even after tender, but you want to be rid of clouds of doubt/interest, you can bring an axn for tender of payment Bank of Commerce v Perla & Carlo Manalo No perfected contract of sale o Sps were trying to say there was & were trying to show an agreement thru letters o But there was no agreement btwn them, wrt the payment of the manner of payment of balance o But Sps were saying that they did agree to it, bec it was understood that the manner is the sme as what the bank did w others buyers Ct: usage & custom wsnt proven in E here Exercises: (note: DMS is deadmans statute ang bilis ng class so hard to type everything k? if you dont understand anything jst txt me) 1. In the judicial settlement of the estate of deceased D, one of the claimants, D, was sole proprietor of funeral parlor FP. During the trial, F was presented by counsel CF as follows: CF: We are respectfully offering the testimony of F to prove that hes the sole proprietor of funeral parlor FP, that it was FP which had rendered services for one week for the wake of D as well as for the burial procession for D thereafter, and that the said services, in the total amount of P50,000.00, have remained unpaid to the present time. Judge: Any objections Atty. CD (counsel for D)? CD: Yes, your Honor. We object to the portion of Fs testimony whereby he seeks to prove that his funeral parlor rendered services for the wake and burial procession of
Drilon30

1st part of RIAA: is the GR o Anti-damay rule o What you admit is yours & yours alone (s28) 2nd part of RIAA: o This talks abt 1 person only & acts of this person alone so how ds it become RIAA? o In what sense is it RIAA? o It prevents 1 frm being punished for acts done/not dne in the past o Rule disallows you to be affected/bound by your axns in the past In 12 Angry Men was there s34 there? o Yes, when 1 person was claiming that he had a juvenile record (threw a rock at teacher, stole a car, mugging, knife fighting & fights w the dad)

Was arguing that if he did it in the past, he did it today! Or tends to persuade that he mustve dne it

Act that you did in the past, that shld prejudice you now = this is RIAA If it shows a tendency, isnt it relevant? Nicole Smith case: o RIAA when portrayed Nicole as a loose woman Defense objected to this! o Was RIAA relevant? Was it a valid objection?

D, that the amount thereof is P50,000, and that it has remained unpaid to the present time, because he is disqualified under the Deadmans Statute and therefore his testimony is inadmissible. CF: But your Honor, the Deadmans Statute applies only as to facts which occurred before death. Here, the funeral services were naturally rendered after he died, your Honor. CD: Well, your Honor, with more reason then should said rule should apply, because if the deceased can no longer defend himself as to facts which occurred when he was alive, a fortiorari he cannot defend himself as to facts which occurred when he was already dead. Besides, the Deadmans Statute applies for as long the defendant is already dead at the time the plaintiff testifies, whether the suit was commenced before or after he died. Rule.

If really true that he was in Lake Tahoe, he cldnt have anticipated to have taken photos bec he was planning a rape & use this as an alibi Granting the photos arent fake, its admissible b. If you Hubert also presented photocopies of his passport, pages of which show his departure from and arrival in the Philippines on such dates as would support his alibi, is there any ground for you to object?

Object! Violates BER o Bec its the contents of the passport wc are in Q o So need to present the orig passport in Ct Exceptions: only if the orig is destroyed, lost, etc In the prosecution of accused A, for the rape of his daughter D, there were only 2 witnesses the latter and As sister S, both of whom testified on facts showing carnal knowledge. Having sat at the trial, the judge (a neighbor of A who has personally known As family for a long time) took judicial notice of the fact that D was inflicted with Down Syndrome (i.e. was a mongoloid), and convicted A for rape. Any comment on any evidentiary rule/s? Judge can have taken JN of the fact of down syndrome o Dsnt it fall under s2? Discretionary? NO o A) Not pub knowledge o B) Incapable of unquestionable demonstration Admissible under this Ppl v Dumanon: if from the phys features, that its clear that the person is suffering from dwn syndrome, Ct can take JN o C) known to the judge bec of their judicial fxns In the case of People v. H for the negligent shooting death of S (the son of accused H and W), the prosecution presented W as first witness to testify against H. admissible? Admissible R130, s22 (spousal disqualification) its an exception under this rule In the case of People v. H for the negligent shooting death of S (the son of accused H and W), H testified in his own favor and pointed to his wife W as the perpetrator. a. The prosecutor did not anticipate that this was Hs defense, so he was not able to imagine objecting (much less bringing W to court). The prosecutor now wants to present W on rebuttal, to testify that it was really H, not her, who negligently caused the death of her son. i. May h now validly object to Ws testimony Cant object bec of Ppl v Francisco Cant object bec has the right to rebut bec she was pointed to ii. Granted H objects, may W validly argue against Hs objection on the ground that the exception in R130 S22 applies in her favor and not H?

4.

2.

Is the deadmans statute relevant? NO, its inapplicable Its a party testifying as to facts occurring after the death! It only prohibits testi on facts wc have occurred b4 the death of the person whereas here, what the party is testifying to is for the funeral expenses wc occurred after death But what abt the rationale? o Even if he cant testify bec hes dead, his rights wont be prejudiced but his prop is transferred to his heirs who will pay? What abt that? Reason for DMS: it has no relevance bec the dead dude cant testify anyway on facts wc occurred after he died! Fact that the heirs might be liab bec of the prop of the deceased dsnt matter bec the suit isnt really against the estate, but is really against the heirs! Its they who contracted w the funeral parlor Babao v Perez dsnt apply Tonyboy Ramos is a billionaire accused of stealing a multi-million Juan Luna from the National Museum. In the defense, Ramos lawyer will present evidence that will picture to the court the immensity of the properties, deposits, and cash on hand comprising the wealth of Ramos. As city prosecutor, would you have any ground for objection? Irrelevant! Thomas Crown Affair To prove alibi by showing that he was in Lake Tahoe, Nevada at the time of the alleged murder of the Vizcondes in Paranaque, Hubert Webb volunteered to present photos showing him in ski gear sliding in the snow. a. Is there any ground for you to object? No ground for objection Relevant & competent Not self-serving? No bec its gng to be presented in Ct w him as a witness & is subj to cross-ex o Also 3 reqs: out of Ct, not ante litem motam, favorable to him

5.

6.

3.

Exception in spousal disqualification applies bec it was a crime against a descendant

Drilon31

b.

Granting W happens to be in the courtroom, may she validly object (through the prosecutor or otherwise)?

No, W cant object since the case is against the H & not against her Therefore, shes not a party so she cant object under s22, R130 Under s22, the other sps cant testify for or against the other sps who is a party & here, the H was testifying abt the W who is not a party so she cant object but can rebut P and D entered into a written contract, whereby P repaired the house of D. after the construction, D died. P sued W, the wife of D, as administratrix of Ds estate. During the trial, P wanted to testify regarding the P50,000.00 unpaid balance of D on the contract as well as regarding the additional price of P50,000.00 that D had agreed to pay for additional work. Does W have any ground/s to object to Ps testimony? W may object on the ground of the deadmans statute (DMS) o Its a claim against the estate & is regarding an agreement entered into/a fact occurring b4 the death of D o And the 1 testifying is a party himself P v the estate Also the PER there was an agreement, it was in writing o So P cant be allowed to testify re: the addtl payment, unless its in the written contract A, B and C contributed money to a business venture as partners, with agreement to share in profits as follows: A and B = each; C = . When the business had to stop because C became insane, A and B brought suit to partition the fruits of their partnership. A wanted to testify that the sharing agreed upon was 1/3 each. While honest B, wanted to testify as to the truth. Any objection as to either testimony? No objections S23 dsnt apply bec its not an axn against the insane person but an axn for partition against a partnership Partnership has a diff personality, sep & diff from the partners Not a suit against the insane or estate of the insane If the guardian of C had joined A and B in bringing suit, would your answer be the same? Yes, same ans When the testi is favorable to the estate, its not gng to be barred Tongco v Vianzon & Ecard v Marasigan Corp. C sued the administrator of As estate for the balance of As subscriptions to C. C stockholders D and E will testify thereon. Any objection? No objection bec Lichauco says the corp has a sep personality form its ofcrs

7.

parcel and that O was not able to redeem it from the mortgagee-bank. Hence, A, B and C divided only 3 parcels. It turned out that O had actually given C money with which to redeem the mortgaged parcel but that C had falsified the papers to make it appear that it was he, not O, who was redeeming it, such that the title was eventually issued in his name. Upon discovery of the fraud, A and B sued the heirs of C, who, in the meantime, had died. Any objections to the testimony of A and B? No, objections Ds DMS apply considering its the heirs of the heirs being sued? o It applies bec a suit against the heirs are representatives of the deceased Goni v CA Bec if it involves the heirs & it involves the prop of the deceased wc passes to the heirs its as if its a suit against the estate Falls also under the exceptions: o DMS dsnt apply bec of Ong Chua v Carr & Babao v Perez There was fraud involved

If fraud occurred & is proven by E aliunde, DMS dsnt apply

8.

11. B borrowed P 0.5M from his best friend A. when A was about to go abroad as a OFW, B hurriedly sent an IOU to As residence, which IOU was received by As wife. A thereafter learned abroad that B had died of a heart attack. A thus advised his wife to request payment from Bs heirs as representatives of Bs estate. The heirs did not pay because they were not sure of the truthfulness As claim. Thus, As wife filed suit for the settlement of Bs estate, believing upon her lawyers advise, in the admissibility of Bs IOU because she can identify the same. The lawyer based his advise upon the doctrine to the effect that testimony on the present possession by the witness of a written document signed by the deceased is also not covered by the prohibition (for Martin, op. cit., p. 164), as such fact exists even after the decedents demise citing Regalado, Evidence, 2004 ed., p. 707. Any comment? This part in Regalado is misleading Some1 else shld identify the sig of the deceased & shldnt be identified by the assignor or parties to a case Is this quoted portion right or wrong? Its wrong bec the terms of the agreement are acts dne by the parties & the deceased o And therefore, theyre acts occurring prior to the death of the deceased therefore shld be prohibited bec of the DMS BUT its not an absolute statement: o So long as the witness is not a party = its allowed Any1 can identify the inst, including the sig of the decedent DMS dsnt apply o If its the wife whos a party = not allowed

9.

10. A B and C are the heirs of O, who owns 4 parcels of land. In the extra-judicial partition, C misrepresented to A and B that O was no longer the owner of 1

Drilon32

12. A, B and C were all stockholders of Corporation Y, with C receiving dividends in behalf of A and B (as the latters common attorney-in-fact) and regularly remitting the same to them. Unfortunately, for a period of 5 years prior to and until his death, C stopped remitting to A and B. A and B thus filed their claims as creditors during t he settlement of Cs estate. a. During the trial, A and B tried to present D, another stockholder, to testify as to the dividends that Corporation Y declared for the 5 yr period before Cs death, and the fact that C received from Corporation Y the dividends due A and B for this period. Any objection? Same situation as Mendezona v Vda de Gotia Its relevant & competent No objection, DMS dsnt apply b. Thereafter, A and B were about to testify to Cs failure to remit dividends, but counsel for C objected, invoking the Survivorship Disqualification Rule. Rule on the objection.

b.

May the same rule be invoked as basis for objection against examination of the lawyers on anything related to the above narrated facts?

No, rule cant be invoked bec the lawyers are conspirators to an illegal conspiracy c. If your answer in No. 2 is in the affirmative, who may invoke the rule?

Negative testi (that a fact ddnt occur during the lifetime of the deceased) isnt covered by the DMS

Assuming the objections can be made, it may only be invoked by the client or the lawyer of the atty on the ground that the clients consent hasnt been obtained o So you need to estab the premise: If clients consent not procured the witness cant be examined *If being called to the witness stand, you cant refuse to answer or youll be held in contempt (unless youre invoking R132, s___) o Witness cant objectthe lawyer will have to do this *But if youre a party, litigating for yourself you can object bec youre your own counsel rainy dawn, Mr. C, a garbage collector, was sideswiped by Mr. D who was high on drugs, resulting in Mr. C being dragged by Ds car from Quezon City to Manila. A suit for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was filed against Mr. D, together with a claim for damages. However, before the garbage truck driver (Mr. Cs 3rd witness) could testify, Mr. D himself died from drug overdose. At the next hearing, counsel for Mr. D objects to any and all portions of the testimony of this driver relating to alleged reckless acts of Mr. D, on the ground that it will violate the Deadmans Statute. Rule. DMS dsnt apply bec: o Its a crim case so its not a claim against the estate What abt the civ axn being impliedly instituted? S23 strictly applies only to a civ claim & if it happens to be impliedly instituted w a crim case, dnst matter bec the crim aspect erases it But no case wc decided this yet still debatable o The witness whos gng to testify isnt a party

13. Attorneys A, B, C, D and E were engaged by Mr. X to organize and incorporate layers of corporations, in each of which all of them would sign up as incorporators as nominees of Mr. X. For all the stockholdings that would respectively be n their names, they would execute blank deeds of assignment in favor of Mr. X. By these arrangements and the fact that the moneys that ended up being used for the subscriptions to these layers of corporations were derived from levies collected from coconut farmers by presidential decree during martial law, all 5 lawyers in effect facilitated the illegal funneling of government funds into private hands. In the civil action for recovery of ill-gotten wealth that the government filed against Mr. X, the government likewise impleaded Attorneys A, B, C, D and E for their above-mentioned roles. These lawyers planned not to divulge at all and at any cost the identity of Mr. X on the basis of R130 S24(a). a. May R130 S24(b) be invoked as basis for the lawyers not taking the witness stand? Its a ground not to take the witness stand? If invoke Regala v Sandiganbayan, theres 1 fact there thats not in this sit o Regala only used 1 think to link it to atty-client privilege: only reason they lawyers were dragged into the case were to squeal on their clients Wrong! Bec the lawyers were parties to the case & a conspiracy was alleged they were dragged to they themselves will pay the govt This assumption isnt in this example no perfect analogy 1) Privilege cant be invoked bec the lawyers were co-conspirators 2) privilege cant be invoked bec (s22, s23, s24..a-e are all rules on privilege communications) its premature it invoke it o S22, 23, & 24 are rules invoked when one is ALRDY BEING EXAMINED Its not an excuse not to sit down

14. One

15. Perhaps due to his abuse of drugs, the extreme mood and behavior swings of Mr. I between monologue and catatonia one day seemed to have become irreversible and permanent. He was thus committed to the basement of the St. Lukes Hospital for treatment. He fortunately, he had a lucid interval, and was able to execute an attested will wherein he devised the other half of his estate to his only child. But, unfortunately, too, he died shortly thereafter. In the probate of his will, his brothers and sisters contest the will, saying that he should be presumed insane because in fact he was confined in the hospital at the time he executed the will, citing Torres v. Lopez. Rule. This is the rule if youre confined, youre presumed insane o if theres a judicial guardian appointed, youre presumed insane but only for purposes of probate
Drilon33

But if you arent, then the CC applies = every1 is presumed to be sane

Anyway, you alrdy know your condso dont get a copy

16. A and B sold a parcel of land to C, but due to some conditions they did not place in the deed of sale the right of A to repurchase the same after the lapse of a year. Through some maneuvering, wily C thereafter immediately registered the sale and transferred the land in his name. after a year, a discovered the fraud, but C died before A could sue. A presented B to testify about the pacto de retro feature of the sale. However, when A himself was about to testify already, the lawyer of Cs heirs objected, citing the Survivorship Disqualification Rule. Decide. Ong Chua v Carr case ds it absolutely apply here? On all fours? B is able to testify bec hes not a party, its A who sued o By his testi, the fraud was alrdy estabd So A can now testify since the fraud was alrdy proven by E aliunde

19. 15-year old C witnessed his drunken father F batter his 10 year old sister S to death and related it to his mother M. When C was about to testify in the RA7659 criminal case instigated by M against F, Fs lawyer invoked parental privilege under R130 S25. Rule. C is the 1 gng to testify Is F correct? NO, bec its not a disqualification under s25 its only a privilege C is not being compelledtheres no subpoena, hes voluntarily testifying a. How abt if M testifies? Irrelevant, depending on what she testifies to Marital privilege rule s24a dsnt apply bec theres no communication from the W to the H Possible objection is R130, s22: spousal disqualification o But this dsnt apply for a crime committed by 1 sps against the other or against direct descendants/ascendants o The exception squarely applies o So M can testify bec S is her child/descendants b. If the crime was attempted parricide against C himself? Same as 19.a. c. If the crime of attempted parricide against S was witnessed by both C and M, and C reported it, but M refuses to testify during the trial, can M be compelled? S25 applies so M cant be compelled to testify o Exception: A215 CC is irrelevant bec it only applies to the descendants who are testifying Under s22: M can be compelled to testify o Bec of the exception: its a crime against the child o Maam agrees with this d. In 2.c. above, if the crime was reported by a neighbor, can C be compelled?

17. A, B, C and D were big-time business partners. Sadly, managing partner B was driven to insanity and suicide by the losses that hit them during the currency crises. A, C and D could not carry on either, and the business folded. Later on, all three of them sued Mr. X, the administrator of B for accounting and partition of profits, alleging that they never really received their correct shares. Mr. X objected to their testimonies, citing the Deadmans Statute. Rule. Non-payment is a negative fact They were saying that their shares were not paid So Mendezona v Vda de Goitia

18. When wife W discovered 2 years after their failed honeymoon that her soldierhusband, H, seemed incapable of consummating their marriage, she consulted a lawyer-friend, who advised her that under A45FC their marriage can be annulled if Hs condition continues and appears to be incurable When Hs conditions continued after several more months, W filed a suit for annulment. Before pre-trial, Ws devoted lawyer moved for the physical examination of H under R28S1 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Hs equally dedicated lawyer vigorously opposed invoking R130 S24 Rules of Court. If you were the judge, how would you rule? Rule against the contention that R130,s24c applies bec the proceeding here is a discovery procedure & s24c only applies during trial/when on examination This refers to an examination of a physician a. When the judge granted the motion, Hs lawyer immediately procured the results of the medical examination to study whether it justifies annulment or not. Thereafter, W remembered and told her lawyer that in fact, sometime long before they got married, H had said that he hoped that his war injury would not affect his ability to procreate. Ws lawyer, dutifully subpoenaed the military medical record of H. Hs lawyer naturally opposed on the basis of the same evidentiary provision. Rule. Same rule applies since its still a discovery proceeding And under the rule on discovery(R28) previous medical records or papers may Rule wld be a waiver of the privilege re: the results of previous, present or future examinations

Under this S25, child cant testify against the dad A215 dsnt apply bec the crime wsnt against a descendant or 1 parent against the other = it was a crime against the sibling

20. After purchasing his car from Toyota Motors Co. (TMC) through TMC sales rep A, B complained to A that when the car had a tire blow out, it was luckily parked in his garage. A told B TMC would replace all the tires, adding that in fact, TMC has also been negotiating for replacement and indemnification with its tire supplier. When TMC replaced only 1 burst tire instead of all 4, B went to court At the trial, B is about to testify that A said that TMC said TMC would replace not just one but all of the tires. TMC objects on the ground of res inter alios acta. Rule. S29 applies re: admission by agent 3 criteria applies: o w/in scope of auth
Drilon34

o during existence of agency o E of the agency is shown by E aliunde So assuming, E aliunde estab the agency has alrdy been presented, then s29 applies Ds the declaration really pertain to the agency? Yes, bec it was A who sold the tire to B & it was A who rcvd the complaint It was dne w/in the scope of the agency o Bec A wldnt have given the warranty as to hidden defects if he cldnt assume such under the agency

o o o

Its not a confession here if you consider confession under admission (s26), technically its not bec not a party But pt is he admitted something Is it admissible? It depends on whether its presented thru herself or by the police If police testifies: hes telling the Ct she said = hearsay Esp since its not a confession or admission bec shes not a party = cant be admitted under s28 RIAA

21. Husband H and Wife W went in their van to a carnival together with their friend C, then eventually separated in their own games. After a while, C went back to the van and was shocked to find W beside the van bloodied and holding a knife, which C promptly took form W when the latter collapsed on his shoulder. H was inside the van, dead. At the police station, little did C know that W had confessed that he (C) had killed H in accordance with their (C and Ws) previous plan (because H was a wife beater) even as W has tried to prevent him (C) from going through with it. At the trial of People v. C, is Ws confession admissible? the Q is not the confession per se but the contents o if confession per se the Q is just did it comply w the consti o but if talking abt the contents this refers to something else it refers to what happened during the time the alleged conspiracy occurred youd be talking abt details abt the alleged conspiracy rulings wc say that confessions on conspiracy are inadmissible if the conspiracy is alrdy over Maam: this is stupid, not realistic the confession talks abt things during the conspiracy & things relating to the conspiracy Demi: was saying the frnd was the 1 who stabbed H accdg to their agreement Frnd: that when she arrived, Demi had killed H 1) not a confession o bec W was exonerating herself of the crime o did she completely exculpate herself? No! bec she said in accordance w THEIR plan o if she completely exculpated herself theres no confession & RIAA is completely irrelevant & whats left is a testi against the accused only is her admission admissible against a co-conspirator? o If the conspiracy is estabd by E aliunde other than the declaration of W during or relating to the conspiracy o The moment E aliunde is presented, then its admissible HOWEVER Confession, as part of admission, s26 applies o So the person testifying shld be a party!!! o

If she testifies: can be presented as testi against the other accused If W is a party & its not exculpatory completely confession or admission? whats the effect? o Its an extraJ confession under s26 bec shes a party o Is it admissible against the alleged co-conspirator C? Yes, so long as the 3 criteria of s30 is complied w If the 3 criteria arent there RIAA applies = against you only W! walang damay

*misleading: that inadmissible if the conspiracy is over - bec by its nature, the confession will be after the conspiracy 22. When they were already alone, after office hours, A discovered inside Bs office drawer the wad of money that he had been missing earlier. Then and there, A confronted and accused B of being the thief who stole the money. B remained silent. a. In People v. B, A will testify to the above effect. Admissible? Admissible under s32 admission by silence Was it impossible for him to do so? Was it such to naturally call for him to comment if untrue? Yes B will testify in his defense that there was no admission because he was not I the office at the time of the alleged confrontation. Admissible? Yes, its admissible Bec it shows it wsnt possible for him to do so bec he wsnt there Before trial, A discovered that his friend C, an officemate, had overheard the confrontation. So, A requested C to testify at the trial instead because he (A) will be abroad during the hearings. Will Cs testimony be admissible? Not hearsay? No, bec he will testify that he ddnt hear anything frm B Hes not gng to testify what A or B said anything to him It happens that C will also be abroad during the hearings, but C does not want to renege on his commitment to A. So Cs lawyer serves notice that As deposition will be taken instead. Any objections? No objections bec in the deposition, they wld have an opp for cross-ex Is a deposition testimony? Yes, except that its preserved thru oral or written examination bec youre in a place far away & you cant go to Ct physically Were speaking of deposition under R23
Drilon35

b.

c.

d.

Ppl v Valero & DBP Pool v Radio Mindanao So even granting W said these statements to the police, is it an admission or confession?

Lets say what W said to the police was not exculpatory, but shes not impleaded as an accused is it a confession? Is it admissible?

23. After successfully venturing on his own, husband H left his business partnership with A and B. H then married wife W, a former client of the partnership. Before H and W legally separated, H admitted to W that the partnership still owes P 50,000.00 to her (W) because of a re-computation. In W v. A and B partnership, W will testify regarding Hs statement. Admissible? If H ddnt consent, objectionable under R130, s24a bec communication rcvd by 1 from the other in confidence during the marriage o And the exception is in a civ case by 1 against the other & here W is suing the partnership & not H Falls under s24a bec it was during the marriage since legal sep dsnt dissolve the marriage (their only permitted not to cohabit) S24a dsnt apply anymore if theres a judicial declaration that the marriage is null & void

Theres a nuance w the 3rd ante litem motam It can be fabricated So burden on proof is on the person trying to prove its present or not depending on your stance If E shows its ante litem motam = self-serving Show that it was pre-meditated If E shows its NOT ante litem motam = not self-serving If the time of death is placed between 9:00 to 10:00 pm., would the pager message be admissible against the driver?

b.

Admissible bec it proves that he hadnt gone home & he was at the scene of the crime Clearly admissible bec its in the nature of an admission out of Ct statement o And its against his interest

*wala lang Qs & discussions on this situation: *theres no admission here bec the partnership is has a sep personality from you and in an admission shld be directly against you *granting the statement of W of what H said is admissible, is it admissible to prove the truth that the partnership owes 50k or only to prove the tenor of the statement/that H said so? o If only to prove the tenor whats the point of proving this? o At the time H was talking, he was no longer part of the partnership o The value of Hs statement is only insofar as H knows something bec of the fact & bec of the files he saw in the past (H knew smthng from personal knowledge wc he shared w the wife at this time, he was no longer a partner) Therefore, RIAA dsnt apply! He wsnt saying anything to bind the partnership He was just squealing the partnership RIAA dsnt apply either bec there was NO admission 24. After bringing Mrs. W home, the driver paged Mr. H as follows: Sir, nahatid ko na po si Maam sa bahay sa Antipolo. Nandito na po ako sa Ortigas, ka-dedeliver lang ng mga gamit sa pinsan ninyo. Susunduin ko pa po ba kayo? Kung wala po kayong sagot, uuwi na ako. The pager recorded the message as having been received at 10:30pm. a. Mrs. W was found dead in the Antipolo home the next morning. If the medico-legal officer declares the time of death as 3:00am, would the record of the pager message be admissible in favor of the driver? Admissible in favor of the driver whys it in favor of the driver? o Bec the page said he went home at 1030 & the crime was committed at 3am = alibi Isnt this self-serving? Yes o Considering that if the driver wanted to kill the wife, it cld be ante litem motam he cld come home o 3 criteria: Out of ct statement In favor of the declarant Made in anticipation of a litigation = its ante litem motam

25. After farmer A was killed in the mountains, rebel B, leading C, D, E and 20 other armed men, visited the small police station in the poblacion bordering the mountains and delivered a written manifesto to the 2 policemen on duty which stated that their rebel group killed farmer A because the latter was a traitor. a. In People v. B, C, D and E, would the statement of B be admissible? Against whom? *B,C,D,E were the 1s who wrote the manifesto = happened after the attack Ds s30, exception, applies? NO o Bec the conspiracy hstn been proven by E aliunde o Its a statement that dsnt relate to anything during the conspiracy but is a statement made AFTER the conspiracy

Bec said their rebel grp KILLED farmer A It wsnt on facts during the conspiracy but was just stating a fact after the conspiracy

Whereas in the Demi Moore example: she was relaying facts that happened during the conspiracy that they went to the carnival, went back to the van, stabbed Hetc So s30 is irrelevant!!

b.

Would your answer be different if (this refers to consti provs so use those to apply & ans) i. B, C, D and E had verbally delivered the message to the policemen? ii. B verbally made the statement while drinking on invitation of police? iii. B wrote down the statement while drinking invitation of police? 1. After a line-up at the police station? 2. After police caught up with him after hot pursuit? 3. Immediately after surrendering to his cousin? To police?

Drilon36

*Sen Ermita: on Eo 464 = not under exec privilege its not under letter E but under anthr statute

Drilon37