Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EVIDENCE Avena June 15, 2006 Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, tending to prove in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting to a matter of fact. The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts, and in all trials & hearings except otherwise provided by law or these rules. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by law or these rules. If your alibi has been accepted, will you still submit an evidence to that fact? Our legal system is such that we want to establish things, and for that wee use evidence. In evidence, use COMMON SENSE. Human Nature, Logic. Experience, US allows Subic Rape Trial. Senate Hearing on Garci Tapes Inquirer 12 Angry Men It starts in the jury duty. 1st degree murder charge. 12 to nothing either way. One didn't want to vote. jury 1 - just feels that he is guilty 2 - had a notebook, with facts. Circumstancial evidence. 3 - still circumstancial 4 - looking for a motive. Issue: At 10 o clock, he said he was watching a movie, and that he never saw it again. No one in the theatre could remember seeing him. similar knife - coincidence? They're not judging "guilty" on the basis of the evidence, but for personal reasons. The 2nd vote of NG was made on the basis of giving the main dissenter some moral support. They tried out the testimonies of the two witnesses. About the woman across the street, and the old man living on the same building. June 27, 2006 The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts, and in all trials and hearings except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. So does the Rules of Evidence apply on Senate Inquiries? It is a hearing in aid of legislation. No, it does not apply, because Rule 1 is only meant to apply in courts of judicial character. Generally it does not apply, unless they provide it to be suppletory in character. The rules of court is mandatory in our judicial system, not on executive and administrative bodies. Quasiadministrative bodies, quasi-judicial bodies. They are not courts of law, not included in Article VIII of the constitution. They hear cases, decide, settle controversies. The Barangay, its not a court, not judicary, it doesn't settle controversies (but issuing a decision). It merely mediates the parties into reaching a solution.
What does the barangays issue? Is it a part of our legislative system? What about the no-smoking? It is the municipal board (legislative body in the local level), provincial board, sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang pambayan, panglungsod. Are affidavits admissble proceedings? Yes in the barangay
Evidence admissible according to form: A. Object B. Documentary C. Testimonial It is not admissible evidence in courts yung affidavits, because it is a mere hearsay evidence. Lugi ka if it was not cross examined by the other party. Civil Procedure. Summary proceedings - where affidavits are allowed. Promulgated by the Supreme Court. The constitution is empowered by the constitution to make rules of procedure. Pursuant to BP 129 (judiciary reorganization act), where the Congress said that Summary procedure is allowed. Read: Summary procedure Other classifications: There is a right or obligation and there is a breach/violation thereof. It is the elements of the crime that shall constitute the fact in issue. In the subic case, the issue is: Is there or is there no rape? (question of fact) How do you define relavance. Factum proobandum - ultimate fact to be proven factum probans - is the evidence that will be presented to prove factum probandum What is the difference between evidence and proof? proof is the result of evidence
Procedure is important for order, prevents anarchy. When did we become a Free Country? During the Commonwealth. However, we were still under the Amerricans, so we weren't free We were only free in 1946 when we were free of all influences. So why are we celebrating june 12? See the Tabayoyong Incident in the News. Under the constitution's Bill of Rights -> based from the Magna Carta of 1215. These became the amendments in the US constitution. Remember in democracy, sovereignty resides in the people. Exclusionary Rules -> any violation of our laws. Rules of Court Exclusionary Rules: 1. Rule 4200, Wire Tapping Act defines Wire Tapping as a wire to be tapped. Listen in, Record, Possession
Documentary Evidence - The floorplan was a mere sketch by witness - it was showing the contents of the apartment. What is being displayed is the contents. Testimonial - of the old man, and the woman across the street. When he re-enacted the whole Demonstration, it is an object evidence. scene.
"I'm going to kill you" - the fact of dramatizing it, it becomes object. (its the nature of the sound) Pinakita sa jury yung pag-grab on the shirt --> becomes object evidence Depression on the bridge of the nose: material, or collateral? Collateral. Relevant,
What if far-sighted? Immaterial, because what is being sought to be proved is reasonable doubt? NO! Its irrelevant! Objection your honor, yit does not tend to prove or disprove the probability of the matter in issue. The backgroudn of a person - it doens't sknow whether or not he killed a person. Scientific evidence showing inclination for violence - it is a relevant evidence. It is admissible. (bakit? On the basis ba of collateral evidence?) The angle of the knife, how they would stab a taller man -> object evidence. Subic rape case: "the girl rubbing her crotch on the buttocks" -> relevant, Collateral matter?. What its trying to prove is that if she behaved hat way before the rape, then she surely must've said yes to the sex act too. It tends to a reasonable degere to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue. STRICTLY SPEAKING -> doesn't follow. Its cultural biias at work.
person is considered as a suspect, ,and the rights of the accused and in custodial investigation. A. Police lineup - right to counsel attaches. B. Right against self-incrimination only applies to testimonial evidence, but not object evidence. There is a right not to be coerced, forced to testify aginst himself. Because it is a cruel and unusual torture. Article III Sec 12 -> only applies to custodial criminal invesetigations (people v. Ayson) Essence of inadmissibility - not according to classification, but you are compelled to use your brains to incriminate yourself. Re-enactment: there should be counsel because there is use of intellectual faculties. T/F: Article III Sec 12 applies only to cusodial, not prelimminary investigation. TRUE. T/F: evidence that is relevant is always admissible (F, bec. It could be incompeteent) 2. Friends a and b quarerelled nd engaged in a fistfight, as a result of which B broke his neck and died. The charge in the info was homicide. Athe the trial, prosec seeks to introduce evid that A is a champion bantamweight boxer. Admissible? 3. Is the admission of B that his care could have scratched the car of neightbor A during their conference before the barangay lupon constitute evidence and is thererfore admissible, considering that Rule 128.2 says that rules on evidence apply onlyh to courts and trials and hearings? (yes, admissible because it should be either relevant or competent, but these only applies to the rules of court) Yes, it is admissible because of an extrajudicial admission. 4. "presidential cousin" A makes admissions incriminating the president during a senate hearing, which hearing was conduced using the inquisitorial method. Admissible? Yes. There is no constitutional violation which says admissions made in such proceedings will be
July 10, 2006 In the answer, there was consideration. But during the testimony in court, there was no consideration. The court said, "An answer is a mere statment of fact which t he party filing it expects to prove, but it is not evidence". The court made an error on this one. Rule 129 Sec. 4 on Judicial admissions states that an admission does not erquire proof, thus binding against him. The rule on judicial admission is invoked against the adversary. But in this case, the disparity in admission was committed by the party and was not objected to by the plaintiff. Lapida - the best evidence rule does not apply. The real issue is "sino yung nakalibing", not "ano ba yung nasa lapida". It tries to prove something else. The factum probandum is the corpse, not the contents of the lapida. When the subject of inquiry is something other than the contents, 3 choices: 1. Object 2. Documentary 3. Testimonial. In the Airplane passenger case, probandum is the breach of contract. the factum
July 6, 2006 Homework GORDNER v. CA 8/31/84 The best evidence rule is a rule of exclusion. Then you cannot introduce testimnial, but you could introduce object evidence and original document. Original Of a Document a. The original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry. b. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical contents, ,all such copies are equally regarded as original. c. When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one beng copied from another at or near the time of the transactiion, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. The general rule is: the copies are excluded. Documents (R 130 Sec 2) 132, if public document is in question, the original remains in the government office, what you'll have is a certified true copy. Affidavit does not talk, its a document but if its not
The terms are in the contract which is in writing, so you should present the written material itself (original). Parol Evidence. Present the ticket, but does the best evidence rule apply? Can you object if the ticket presented is not the original but a photocopy? In the ticket, it becomes the subject of inquiry whether according to the terms, there was indeed a nonfulfillment or breach of those terms. Intermediate Factum Probandum - naging subjecct of inquiry yung contents that's why the BER applies. What about the boarding pass? Original or
Art. 1375. Words which may have different significations shall be understood in that which is most in keeping with the nature and object of the contract. (1286) Art. 1376. The usage or custom of the place shall be borne in mind in the interpretation of the ambiguities of a contract, and shall fill the omission of stipulations which are ordinarily established. (1287) Art. 1377. The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity. (1288) Art. 1378. When it is absolutely impossible to settle doubts by the rules established in the preceding articles, and the doubts refer to incidental circumstances of a gratuitous contract, the least transmission of rights and interests shall prevail. If the contract is onerous, the doubt shall be settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity of interests. If the doubts are cast upon the principal object of the contract in such a way that it cannot be known what may have been the intention or will of the parties, the contract shall be null and void. (1289) Art. 1379. The principles of interpretation stated in Rule 123 of the Rules of Court shall likewise be observed in the construction of contracts. (n) July 20, 2006 The particular provision or intention prevails over the general, but this is the oppostive of the primary and general acceptation of terms. This general meaning, the rationale is people usually have a meeting of the minds for the general terms. The presumption: yung naintindihan nyong dalawa. Natural Law - in laws of nature, concept of right and wrong. Two kinds of people in Sec 21: (a) whose mental condition (b) children whose mental maturity Torres v. Flores - all people are presumed to be sane, but this is reversed, ,when there is a history of mental illness,
against warrantless arrest and unreasonable search and seire applies to inhabitants of t he Philippines, wehther a ctizien or not, whethe a resident or not. No, actually mandatory nga. July 27, 2006 Difference between Privilege. Marital Disqualification or
Marital Disqualification 1. Of the spouses is party to the action 2. The marriage is existing at the time the testimony is offered. Marital Privilege 1. It can be claimed whether or not the spouse is party to the action 2. Can be claimed even if the marriage is dissolved. Why is there a distinction? In disqualification, the witness itself ang bawal maggsalita. If privileged, you are not disqualified as a witness, but once you start talking about someething privileged. What the reason of the Sec. 23 rule: to protect the beneficiary of this rule, the parties or the assinors are barred against talking about any matter of fact occurrin before the death, or insanity. Babao v. Perez The rule applies regardless whether the deceased died beore or aafter the suit against him is filed, provided that he is dead at the time of the testimony. Doesn't apply in the following cases: 1. When the person to testify is not party in interest 2. The testimony is offerend to prove a claim less than what is established 3. Fraudulent transaction. Rational respect to Sec. 22 Against: conjugal harmony For: the temptation to perjure is strong. So what do you mean by "affected spouse"? 1. A | x H v. W
(p. 981) Fraud is the pre-condition fo the live guy to talk. But if the fraud is on the part of the deceased, then he is allowed to talk, provided that the fraud is proven by evidence other than the testimony of this live guy himself. Authentication of documents: 1. Either you saw it being executed. 2. To have others saw it 3. Experts Sec 36: personal knowledge. you can be a witness if you perceived it, etc. Mendezona v. De Goitia The only question re: the receipt was due to certain facts that led the court to conclude that there were dividends for those years. That the court concluded that since it was not received, then such were not paid. The evidence showed that there were other share holders which testified about the share they received. It was proven too that the corporation reaped profits and declared there were dividends. The only missing link to prove is, they did not receive it. It is a 23 situation, A. Life guy suing estate of dead guy B. He's suing it for a claim 3. He wants to prove his claim by himself testifying D. he is testifying as to a matter of fact occuring before death or insanity. In this case, D is not present. In this case, there was no matter of fact (remittance of payment). There was no occurence of any fact testified. On the contrary, it was a NEGATIVE testimony. Non payment is not an occurence. Mendezona v. Ong Chua In Ong, it was a 23 situation, but he was allowed to testify to rectify the fraud of the deceased, for afterall, the fraud has been established aside from his say-so. Estate of a Person has legal personality to Sue (according to Civil Code and Jurisprudence)
Here is a case of a crime proven beyond reasonable doubt. The wife did not testify in the direct evidence for the prosecution. She only testified against her husband after he imputed on her the killing of their son as his defense. It would be an injustice to prevent her from rebutting his testimony and she might subsequently suffer a criminal prosecution, as well as a damaged reputation. By his testimony, the husband exercised the very right which he tries to deny his wife on the ground of marital relations (testifying against spouse). This should be construed as a waiver of objection against her testimony. Reasons for the prohibition: 1. The identify of interest between husband and wife 2. danger of perjury 3. To guard the security and confidences of private life even at the risk of failure of justice 4. Preserve domestic tranquility Exceptions to the prohibition 1. Where the marital relations aree so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved 2. Where identity of interests disappears DISSENT, Feria: R 123 S 26 only relates to cases in which the testimony of a spouse is offered for or against the other in a proceeding where the latter is a party. So in this case, The husband may testify against his wife since SHE IS NOT A PARTY to the case, ergo not covered by the rule. However, SHE MAY NOT testify against him, because he is a part to the case. August 3, 2006 People v. Francisco: This is not a Sec. 22 situation. But they are saying that People v. Antipolo: The dying declaration: was intended by the husband really for the benefit of the accused. So this is not a communication received in confidence. Alvarez. V. Ramirez Sec. 22 Disqualification by reason of marriage: Reasons:
US v. Antipolo Facts: TC judge refused the widow of the alleged victim of the accused to testify as to his dying declaration. This is on the ground of the fiscal's objection that she is not a competent witness acc. to the rules of civ pro. Defendant argued she's competent, and the exclusion applies to cases where the one of the spouses is a party to the proceeding and the other is called to testify. In this case, (1) the party is not the dead husband but the Republic. And that (2) because he died, she is no longer his wife and may testify. Issue: Whether or not Susana Ezpeleta is a competent witness
Confession: only declaratioon but acc. To law, its only be in writing, and signed by counsel. II. As to Substance
Even before A sued B for loan, at the time of his making singil, A is going to say, B, you have money na? B says that meron lang ako konti, down muna. Next week nalang. A classmate heard that. Later on, when A sued B, a wanted that classmate to testify. Under Sec. 26, this is admissible andn competent evidence, because therer was a witness. The act, declaration of a party may be given in evidence, ass long as its a relevant fact and against him. (so the witness may tesetify as to the admission of B). That testimony is against his interest is because there is an admission that the debt is not yett extinguished, that there is still something to pay. Imagine the subic rape case: somebody heard her say, "i think i feel tipsy already, but even if, i'll take some more. I still want some more drinks" This evidence is relevant. But is it competent? Yes, based on Sec. 26. The declaration of a party can be given in evidence because it is against her. Admissions have a value on their own. They are very strong in terms of probative importance. This is because there is no motive to say something against your interest. Its not rational. Confessions are merely a specific species of Admissions. You will not admit something adverse to your interest unless it is true. 26-33: How do you know if its judicial or extrajudicial? If its in the court records. Tape recording a conversation: admissible and relevant! Pwede palang gawin!! Wire tapping N/A here becaues it only applies where tehre is a WIRE.
Disqualification: ...in a criminal case for a crime committed by one againnst the other, or the latter's ascendants or descendants.
10
Yatco The one who objected was the alwyer of Panganiban, not Consunji. Consunji was the one who executed the extrajudicial confession. What is it about hearsay that is connected with this case? The prosecution was trying to present evidence that will be against both Consunji and Panganiban. This is because the confession relates to conspiracy Why did the judge think of conspiracy? Why did conspiracy enter the picture? Because there was only the confession by Consunji as evidence, they want to use it too against Panganiban. SO they have to prove conspiracy so it will be admissible against Panganiban. Alteration of facts: What if MM was talking about VG talking aboutg BP and GMA. MM is saying that he heard VG say that, but he's not saying that he knows BP actually did that. Rhudz: As agaainst BP and GMA, its hearsay. BUt if against VG, then its not hearsay. The personal knowledge of MMM covers the personal knoweldge of hearing VG say something about BP & GMA. SEATWORK: 1. Capt. Mendoza (chief sec officer) of former COMELEC comissioner Garci during the 2004 preelection period, teestified today before the senate regarding VG at the time he MM was acting as such SCO as folllowsduring a drinking spree in the resthoues of gov. Villafuerte in Camarines at which VG and COMELECT officials for the area were present, he heard VG say in substance "Aprub na yung budget na P300 M na binigay ni bong pineda para siguraduin ang panalo ni GMA", and saw VG and the other officials, happy an dlaughing, taost to what he just said.
11
The confession to Zarate, when he watned to become statewitness, is admissible because Zarate was not police, but a prosecutor. Its no longer a custodial investigation. The prosecutor is not a law enforcer. People v. Domantay Sec. 12 does not apply because the confession was made to the Private persons (in this case, news reporters) Valero was anoumalous, there was once sentence which does not belong -> beautiful case on hearsay. *Res inter alios acta Ladiana - the SC said that the counter-affidavit submitted by the accused during the Prelimnary Invesetigation (not custodial ivesti), shall be admissible against thea ccused. He admitted to firing the fatal shots. But after arraignment, there are different rights that will attach, those for trial. The prosecutior is not police, but a lawyer whose duty is to be in the middle, not to pin you down, but to seek objectively if there is enough evidence to bring you to court. Note: Those who will testify as to eprsonal knowledge, must be also be presented in court for cross exam. Exercise 2. Before this senate session, michaelangerlo Zzuce had likewise testified before the sentate to he effect that among other things, he haad distributed envelopes of money to an dcoordinated with local COMELECT officials in northern Mindanao such as Lanao del norte to ensrue the victory of Pres. GMA in the elections Assume that Zuce hereafter haas gone abroad adnd disapperared.
Police testimonies, under 1987 Consti. They are admissible because the policement thmselves testified, and are therefore are subject to cross exam. Peopkle v. Molas This is really wrong, because its 1993, and should have complied with the bill of rights, and RA 7438, which specifies that confessions from now own: 1. Written 2. Counsel 3. Waived, 4. Signed Thumbmarks are not readily accepta August 29, 2006 Aballe v. People * very important as to the spontaneity of the execution of the extrajudicial confession, prior pa to custodial innvestigation.
12
incapacitated at the time it was executed. C opposed and presented 3 letters received by T from his business friends prior to his death. Is this admissible? Yes, on the ground of IRS. This shows the BELIEF of other people as to the state of mind in T. There is a presumption that T was sane & capacitated at the time he received the letters. This evidence tends to point out his state of mind and health at the time he received the letters prior to his death. There is a presumption that he is sane prior to death, and that he must be sane way before he died, including the time he made the will. 2. A was arrested while driving a car on the charges of carnapping. It is A's defense that the car was lent to him by B, who in turn said that the car was given to him by B's father. Is this evidence admissible? YES, on the ground of IRS. A's testimony shows that he was innocent of the unlawful intent to gain in carnapping. An inference may be made as to the state of mind of A, showing good faith in driving the car. The truth of whether or not B really owns the car is irrelevant, because it is A's good faith in driving the car that should be taken into consideration. This is an exception to the hearsay rule. Example (from the reviewer): 1. A was with B when C handed money to B saying "o, thisis for january's rent of land". In B's ejectment suit vs. C, B will prove that C is a tenant so he will have A testify that C handed the money to B. A will also relate what C said. Intermediate factum probandum that C is a tenant. Testimony of A that C handed money to B, and A will quote what C Said. Testimony of A that C handed the money to B is admissible as ordinary testimony. However, tetstimony of A regarding what C said was Hearsay, as A is not testifying as to sometthing within his personal knowledge -> he does not know if its true that the money was indeed forJanuary's rent. Although it is hearsay, it falls under the exception of RES GESTAE, as the acts of handing money is an
B. Granting the above objections is are valid, is there any solution for you as presecution? For purpose of the hearsay rule, the declarant is the person who made the extrajudicial statement, the persno who has the knowledge of the testimony. 1. Use sec. 30, admission by conspirator. 2. You cannot ask a senator to come forward and testify, or else it will be on the ground of hearsay. 2. 15 yr old C witnessed his drunken father F batter h8is 10 year old sisterr S to death, and related it to his mother M. When C was about to testify in the RA instigated by F, F's laywyer invoked parental privilege under R 130.25 Rule.
13
It is an admission, given that he's dead, its a declaration against interest. No difference between the mother and nurse. Class, when you are proving the truth of a statement, when it is subject to hearsay objections, precisely beacuse it subjects the tenor. If its not an admission if its purely hearsaay. To say its admission takes it out of the hearsay and makes it admissible. IRS Slander SOM Applicable dito yun gnot proving the truth of the statement. E. A photograph of LM with C and W at the beach. In solinap, it was rendered inadmissible that it was irrelevant. But if it will show an open and continuous possessiono, then it becomes admissible. F. C's birth certificate showing LM's name in the entry pertaining to the father and signed by W but not signed by LM. Not admissible, the father should be the one to sign. Without the consent of the father. FC: 172, 275. 3. To counter C's claim, the legitimate heirs of LM will present Y who: A. Will testify that actually, she knows that the real father of C is X because she wass their long-time neighbor in Leyte. This does not fall under common reputation, because its not about marriage but paternity. The persons who know of birth: mother, doctors, assisted. The neighbor lacks personal knowledge of the birth. Assert dapat that he waas present during birth. What about cousins? B. Will testify that before he died, X even told us to look for C whom he had not seen ever since W ran
Yes, if it is relevant, because there was already previous court judgment. D. Tabloiod and magazine reprots No, because of hearsay. 2. 40 year old C had brought an action before Lord M's death to prove that she is one of the latter's illegitimate children. State if the following evidences that C will present will be admissible: A. Her motherr's W's testimony that right at his bedside, before he died in the hospital, he had whispered to her: Forgive me, for all these years. Please tell the court I now acknowelge that C is also my CHild. People v. Bernal. There is an admission against interest, being against moral interest. So here, that's the point. LM made the addmission against interest. If he admits having an illegitimate child, it is against his moral interest. B. The above statement of LM in writing signed by LM. Admissible. Declaration against interst. C. The above statement of LM in writing but not signed. Inadmissible, for lack of signature and testimony identifying. D. The testimony of the nurse that she overheard the above statement of LM;
14
It would seem that the decalration was 2x removed from the declarant. So it was held, hindi pwede yun. Yung magsusumbong sa korte ay the one whom the story was told to. People v. MaraMara. Thje mag-amas attended the dance. They were attacked by a group. The father ied, ,ahtt child survived, and he lived to tell the tale: F "ang sumaksak sa akin anak ay si X". The child testified in the court, admissible. ONce removed. It was a decalration by a person who knows that he is about to die. You are under the consciousness of an impending death for it declared admissible. At the ponit of impending death, there is no motive to lie. Its basis in human history. Pag malapit ka nang mamatay, nagsasabi ka na ng totoo. It will be trustworthy, credible and reliable. Truth sits on the lips of a dying man. Situation: if nabuhay: if nabuhay, bring him to court, pwede namang i-cross examine! The declarant need not die, but his declaration cannot be admitted. In order to be admitted as an exception to the hearsay, he must be dead! In any case, if its not addmisible, i t may be admitted as part of the res gestae. What about adopted consanguinity?) children? (affiinity or
In the Jalosjos case, the defense was trying to prove age, the child wa no longerr below 12. So it would be outside of statutory rape. Sec. 40: Gravador, hearsay because he had nopersonal kjnowledge by birth, but because of his family, family reputatioon and tradition. Situation: Lolo wrote card to apo, admissible to prove
15
Res Gestae - the statement must be made at the time of the startling occurrence - or immediately after the startling occurence Factors to determine whether he is dying: 1. Words or statements 2. Conduct of the declarant 3. Serious nature of the wound. Doctor's testimony: not so much weight, because as long as the man believes that he's already dying. But more so if the doctor says that he's dying People v. Reyes 2 principles mentioned: 1. Res Gestae This is wrong, because the fact that they were coconspirators of the occurrence, and they plannned it, pano sila nagulat. They mentioned the statements immediately after the occurrence " The statements must be made by the person startled by the events. People v. Tampus The two prisoners who killed and confessed immediately after the killing was held part of the res gestae. When the encountered the first policeman, they said, "ser, surrender na kami, gumaganti lang". It should not have been held as res gestae. You say things dahil nagulat kayo, that's res gestae. Nagulat ka lumalabas sa bibig. The question now in Tampus is, where they surprised that there was a guard....when they're in prison? Of course not! This should have been held admissible under Admissions and Confession, as long as its not undeer custodial investigation. (Aballe Doctrine) People v. Bernal, Fuentes, Bautista. People v. Bautista
16
prove that alano was dead, would it be admissible? Alano's relationship is established because it was not denied by any other act not contained in the letter. Point: IN mendoza,, the relationship that was sought to be shown was the relationship between the declaration and the putative parent. Hipolito and Brigida was talking about hte relationship with the putative father. In jison, the relationoship that waas being talked abot by the letters was not thier relationship with the father Francisco, but the relationship of Monina and Francisco. If fernando lopez kunwari is dead, and lin his letter he said that francisco is the father of monina, then it becomes admissible. Unless he is talking about the relationship of monina. Are S,T,U,V, are they admissible under 130.40. Its not admissible because If we look at the letters under SEc 40 --B. LMs legitimte heirs will also present a mdwife fr LEYTE who will testify that: a> she had atended to the birh of the child ' C. Rape victim a will testify in ppl v. B that accused is the paternal 1/2bro 2prove aggravating circumstance of rel. Defense objects on ground that it shld b birth cert of a and b 2 show same dad that shld b presented. Ryt aftr assailants left 3 maids told employr abt experiens. Prosec wants ER 2 testify 2 corrobor8 maids' testimony. Taxi drivr D was robbd n stabbd by X a drug pushr. D identified X in d hospitl. Wen wife W discovred 2 yrs aftr faild honeymoon dat soldier husband H seemd incapabl of consuum8nmarriage. Consultd lawyer-advise undr FC 45 dat marriage cn b annulld if H condition continues n incurabl.
17
The shhipping agencies have a publication of the ships, schedules, tonnage of the ships. Sec. 46 Two experts: 1. The expert on the subject who will testify 2. taht the writer of the statement in the treatise is reecognized as an expert. All the exceptions on the hearsay rule are HEARSAY, but ADMISSIBLE. Medical journals, statements there regarding anesthesiology, surgery. Although the person testifying What if the expert who wrote it is sitting down as witness, is what he say admissible? If she is giving out an opinion, she can fall under Sec. 49 under Expert witness. Either she has perrsonal knowledge, or an expert givinng her opinion. Ex: Mopther lily publishes a magagzine, where she lists down her thoughts, In Re Mallari: The court took judicial notice. The neighbors testified that they knew of the birth by common reputation. The court declared that the testimony is admissible. Because they did not witness the birth, they had no perrsonal knowledge, their testimony is allowed even if it was hearsay, it was allowed on the basis of the common rep. Its admissible if the elements of being undisputed, etc. Was established thereon. Tis is basi that the court can take judicial notice, that common reputation can be attested to by an individual. But it was not strictly accurate since. Actally, this is a case of common reputation on the marriage, as to its existence or rather the nonexistence of the marriage. Estrada v. Noble Doctrine: Ballantyne Scale of Schedules. Dr. B did not testify, but it was admitted on the ground that the Court took judicial notice of it.
18
General rule: cahracter evidence is not admissible In rape: the moral character is irrelevant. The charge must first involve a moral trait. We mustfirst understand what moral means: does it mean good or bad? Truth, Honesty and Integrity - to be proven by Moral Character. In what sense is that not related to rape: The question here is: did the rape occur or not. Its not about Truth, Honesty or Integrity. Our system of law is not that wee can halo halo our values. THe moment we do, we'll be violating due process. Example where moral character is relevant: Perjury. The accused can show his good moral character in his defense. That's not incompetent...is it admissible? Yes, this is what the rule said. This is admissible because: it will show the pobability or improbability of the offense charge. It is relevant: tends to show the existence or non-existence of the fact in issue. In other words, if you were the accused, what wil you present? If honesty: 1. Medal or citation given by the Mayor for your honesty 2. Testimonies of friends 3. It was the experience of their peoeple that jurists were so susceptibe to prejudice and bias because of human elements, and if these evidences are allwoed, the person shall be convicted because of character, not on the merits. Its not in every instance that the moral character shall be in issue. Libel slander, obvious. You are impeaching his credibility, if you impeach his moral character.
19
7. Did you shoot the deceased on purpose? Leading but still accepted because its on cross exam, it accepted. But if direct, di pwede. Because you are giving him the opportunity to say "not on purpose". 8. Leading. It should be "how did the accused look like when you saw him?" 9. Leading. What did you do after the accident, ,if any -> non leading. 10. Leading sooobra. Wounds na accident pa 11. Leading daw, because its saying that there wass something about the texture of the floor. If the entering of the hall has not been established, it is leading. But if the establishment of the entering is already done, still leading because 12. Coffee: leading. 13. This is not an alllowed question, because a leading question is not allowed on re-direct exam. but allowed in re-cross. Very leading because (i didnt[' catch it) 14. If there is prior data, leading, but if no prior data, not leading. Proper questions: Wherewere you on this date. What happened taht day? 15. Leading. Rephrase: Will you still be able to recognize that eprson if you saw him? If yes, point him out. 16. Very leading, prerequisite for EJECTMENT cases. September 19, 2006 Situation: where the judge says bad words off the record, and he goes on the sanctimoniously blah blah... What's yhour recourse? Section 2 of rule 132, the entiree proceedings in a trial or hearing, including..., the statemnets made by the judge or any of the parties... (but what if off the record na nga?) I want it
20
If Y is careless, and he's not able to present evidence to show that he doesn't really understand English, then the signature on the document stands, and the presumption that he understood it is conclusive. Estoppel: You signed, i relied on your signature, then now you're going to renege on your signature. Is this correct? No, because there is no deliberate intention to deceive another. It is not conclusive that he really understood, but its based on the signature. This is a disputable presumption. If you admitted before a notary, that's already a conclusive presumption. 2. X was sketching the courtroom scenario while W was on the direct exam by his defense counsel, Atty. D in P v. W. WHen Prosecutor P saw the sketch later on, he saw that it depicted Atty. D handing W a small piece of paper. It turns out that X was able to record, without realizing it, what P haad all along suspected when he P discovered, on teh floor, after the hearing a piece of paper containing a name --in Atty. D's andwriting-which name W had then testified to -- i.e., that Atty. D had surreptitiously coached W (by secretly slipping him the piece of paper) when W's memory was already failing. P then moved that the testimony of W at the hearing stricken off the record for being false and sham, and to present X and his sketch in evidence in support of his motion. If you were Atty. D, would you object to the evidence? IF so, why? If no, why not? Suggested Answer: There are two types of evidence here: 1. Sketch 2. Tetstimony to the effect that he saw Atty. D
21
Canque This is entry in the ordinary course of business. It wasn't considered competent because admitted by the person who wrote the entry had no personal knowledge ofthe facts. The Rules require that the person who made the entries was in the position to know the facts therein stated. In this situation, ,the foreman had knowledge, but he was not presented. personal
Lagnas Equipoise doctrine - if the inclpatory facts and circumsntaces are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocnece of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and will result in the acquittal for failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Migrant Workers: 1. Regular 2. Irregular Families without distinction, even gays if the goal of the convention is the protect. Not supposed to inquire weehther or not they are legally married, or homosexual unions. Notice that independent of this, the basic protection provided (554). The practice of he employee's pasports. employers keeping their
Art 39 grants them their right of liberty of movement. SituationL Pinay getting pregnant in malaysia gets deported to the Phils. How are they priotected? They have contracts signed that if they get pregnant, they lose their jobs. And the visa says that if they don't have jobs, they get deported. You can invoke Human rights, under customary Itn'l Law, or by Treaty. Scenariio,the signatories are those who are sending the migrant workers, not the countries wherer they are employed. SolutionL bilateral state to state treaties.
document
acknowledging
Manalo Is it hearsay? Yes, if the sheriff didn't show up top be cross examined, its hearsay. But since its an official entry in the records, then pwede na! Then it may be judicial notice if its already admitted in evidence before.
22
The document is not being offered as authentic, that he is not the author of the document. "offered as authorship. authentic" means establishment of
B. It is now Y's turn to present evidence. As first witness, Y wants to testify to the fact that it was not he who had forged X's signature. X objects on the ground of immateriality. Rule. It is immaterial, cause whether he did or did not do the forgery, he did not deny that he cauesd someone else to do it. The evidence is relevant. But its immaterial. C. If the poison letter was not signed but its circulation was accompanied by rumors that it came from X, and X alleges that in fact Y is responsible for everything (X is waiting for the results of the NBI test on fingerprinting) but Y alleges that X is really the author, will your answer in letter A change? No need to authenticate. The document is not signed, so why is X presenting it? The ultimate fact is that he wants to show 1. The contents are poisonous, and 2. When it was circulated, it waas accompanied by rumors, and 3. The person who circulated is Y. Because the docu didn't show who the authored it, the factum probans is simply to show that there is a poisoned letter that existed. What you're proving now is the existence and the contents, but not the authorship!
[It it still not being presented as an authentic document, and the answer will not change. This is because X is denying the authorship, that he's saying that it is not what it purports to be.] -> baka wrong answer 3. All private documents must be authenticated before they are presented in evidence, otehrwise they stand the risk of being objected to by adverse counsel.
23
alteration in documents? Practical effect: of value to you if only if you object, and if you shut your moth the moment they forget. 13. Could Paul Newwman have utilized this Rule 132.31 as ground for objecting to the altered medical sheet presented by counsel for the Archdiocese. Canot object, because the document does not appear to have been altered on its face. 14. If in a probate proceeding, what is sought to be proved is a will in the Cebuano language, would you any ground of objection? Sec. 33, it must be accompanied by a translation! 15. Is there anything in R 132 that you can use for purposes of proving illegal possession of firearm: Proof of lack of record under sec. 28 16. When is authentication of a private document not needed? 1. Not offered as authentic (20) 2. Ancient document 3. Authenticity is admitted, not denied 4. 17. Apart from R 132.20 and 22 are tehre any other means for purposes of autehntication? (in reegalado) Doctrine of self-authentication - when in facts in writing could only have been written by the writer.
Ssec. 23 See: Sec 44 (R 130) First part of SEc. 23 -> applies to BOTH a & c of R. 132.19. Acknowledgement Jurat - subscribed and sworn to before me on this date If it is private, you authenticate, if public, you don't. Deed of sale: Fact of execution, and the date of the sale.
24
Impeachment of a judicial proceeding. ANY JUDICIAL RECORD may be impeached. The TSN is a judicial record. Kaya siningit yugn 29, may prima facie presumption! Its not an ephemeral electronic communication. 2. IN the Subic Rape Case, Asst Prosecutor Valdez told media that she and private prosecutor Att. Ursua were taken aback because the lead prosecutor Emily Fe Delos Santos suddenly shifted strategy by not preesenting rebuttal evidence. Granting that Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales allwos Atty. Ursua to temporarily control proceedings at this point, is the remedy of "tender of excluded evidence" available to her. Sec.40 wuold only apply if the evidence was first offered formally. In this case, it does not apply because In order for sec. 40 to apply, if nagkaroon ng rebuttal evidence. But in this case, the prosecution has alrady rested its case! So wala na. Tender of excluded evidence: 1. Offer, describing the contents of the testimony etc. 2. ALlowed or denial 3. If denied, then move to attach. 3. In X v. Y, X's counsel C began presenting W, a volunteer witness, but was surprised when he realized that W was not exactly testifying favorably for X. Hence C moved to strike out the unfavorable remarks off W. Rule. No, C annot strike out W's testimony. First, it is onlythe adverse party who can mainly voice over objection. Secondly, on the 2nd par of Sec. 39, Grounds: move to declare W as a hostile witness (sec. 12). If this is granted, C may then be allowed to Strike it out on the ground that it is improper. W mislead C to believe him as a cooperating witness --> improper
25
"business activity" refers to an activity that has regularity. We are to look at the term in a broader sense. 10. Does REE amend 132 It does. It creates a new exception to the hearsay rule. Look again at the business exception rule. Look also at the manner of presentment of evidence. Rule 132 is definitely affected. REE rules 9 and 10. Mr. Macapagal recited Rule 10... Electronic testimony will not stand alone unless TSN back it up. The SC has not yet promulgated rules on the application of the REE yet. 11. Does the REE amend the Wiretapping Law? Ma'am says there's something in Rule 11 that might make us uncomfortable. Look at Sec. 1 of the rule. It talks about getting the consent to record. THere's NOTHING that says that the wire-tapping law is abrogated. Repeals are strictly construed. It must be express. Last Questions: If you happen to record ephemeral evidence, the recording may or may not be electronic. Agree? Txt messages that are photocopied to preserve it, are these digital or electronic? Can you manipulate the messages that you received?