Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Object as evidence
People v Tacipit. In reviewing the evidence of this case, this Court was guided by the three(3) settled principles in reviewing rape cases, namely, (1) an
accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) in view
of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with
extreme caution; (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of
the evidence for the defense.
Villaflor v Summers. An ocular inspection of the body of the accused is permissible, but torture force must be avoided. The purpose of the provision is
merely to prohibit compulsory testimonial self-incrimination. The right cannot be invoked in order to exclude object evidence.
People v Jara. Circumstantial evidence, as a basis for conviction of crime, should be acted on and weighed with great caution, particularly where the
crime is heinous and the penalty is death, as in the instant cases. In determining the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to support a conviction, each
case is to be determined on its own peculiar circumstances and all of the facts and circumstances are to be considered together as a whole, and, when so
considered, may be sufficient to support a conviction, although one or more of the facts taken separately would not be sufficient for this purpose. No
general rule has been formulated as to the quantity of circumstantial evidence which wig suffice for any case, but that matters not. For all that is required
is that the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with
every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.
People v Ruiz. Plea of self defense is unavailing in the light of the evidence presented. | Slug was found to have been fired from the unlicensed gun of
Ruiz | Paraffin tests showed no nitrates on the hands of the deceased. | Paraffin tests indicated that the gun was fired at close range and with deliberate
aim and with complete freedom since the shot was to the head and not to the body. | Taken together with the inconsistencies of the testimony of the
accused, the court finds that the prosecution satisfactorily proved guilt of the accused.
9
Evidence Finals reviewer
Dean M.V.F. Leonen
1 Semester A.Y. 2011-2012
st
Demonstrative Evidence
People v Amestuzo. Demonstrative evidence is that which stands for the real thing, such as a map, diagram or photograph. This case is unclear as to
what constitutes demonstrative evidence. Visiting the handicrafts factory where Bagas worked where he was identified by Ampatin may be treated as a
view.
People v Berame. The demonstrative evidence in this case were: (1) Testimony from one Carmencita Trinidad who, coming from the church, heard the
shots after which she saw two persons running away from the house of the deceased, one of whom was slightly taller than she [verified when it was
shown that Doming's height as compared to hers was precisely that]; (2) At about the same time, a certain Jorge Durano, whose house was located at the
back of the hospital near the seashore and cemetery of Danao City, testified that he saw a person walking fast going towards a barrio in the north near
the swampy area, his attention being called to such individual wearing rubber shoes [a rubber shoe left in a swampy area by someone leaving in a hurry
the scene of the crime was recovered and just the right size and did fit appellant's right foot]
People v Bulawin. Of course, alibi is known to be the weakest of all defenses. It is easy to concoct, difficult to disprove. 18 Nonetheless, where the
evidence for the prosecution is weak and betrays lack of concreteness on the question of whether or not defendant is the author of the crime charged,
alibi as a defense assumes importance. Not very long ago, this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, in People vs. Fraga, L-12005, August 31,
1960, pointed out that "[t]he rule that alibi must be satisfactorily proven was never intended to change the burden of proof in criminal cases; otherwise,
we will see the absurdity of an accused being put in a more difficult position here the prosecution's evidence is vague and weak than where it is strong."
People v Delmendo. Natural reaction of (n) is to reveal it to authorities at earnest opportunity. Silence casts doubt on subsequent identification.
http://www.abanet.org/lpm/lpt/articles/tch06061.shtml
http://www.seanet.com/~rod/digiphot.html
http://chnm.gmu.edu/aq/photos/texts/60clj406.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/bulletins/dna_4_2001/welcome.html
D. Documentary Evidence
In general -- R130, Sec. 2. Documentary evidence Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents.
Best Evidence Rule
In general, best evidence
R130,Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible
other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroy or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined by the court without great loss of time and the
act sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
Citibank, N.A. v. Sabeniano. In general, the best evidence rule requires that the highest available degree of proof must be produced. Accordingly, for
documentary evidence, the contents of a document are best proven by the production of the document itself, to the exclusion of any secondary or
substitutionary evidence. The best evidence rule applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is only as
to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does
not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. SC did not violate the best evidence rule when it considered and weighed as evidence the
photocopies and microfilm copies of the PNs, MCs, and letters submitted by the petitioners to establish the existence of Sabenianos loans. The terms or
contents of these documents were never the point of contention in the Petition at bar. Sabeniano questioned the documents as to their existence or
execution, or when the former is admitted, as to the purpose for which the documents were executed, matters which are, undoubtedly, external to the
documents, and which had nothing to do with the contents thereof. || The photocopy of the Declaration of Pledge submitted by Citibank before the RTC
was undated. Sabeniano denied that it was her signature on the Declaration of Pledge. Sabeniano was able to secure a copy of the Declaration of Pledge,
certified by an officer of Citibank-Geneva, which bore the date 24 September 1979. Sabeniano, however, presented her passport and plane tickets to
prove that she was out of the country on the said date and could not have signed the pledge. She claimed that the signature was a forgery. When a
document is assailed on the basis of forgery, the best evidence rule applies. As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive
and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. The best evidence of a forged signature in an instrument is the
instrument itself reflecting the alleged forged signature. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged
signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized upon to have been forged. Citibank failed to comply with
the production of the original Declaration of Pledge.
NPC v Godilla. The record shows that the plaintiff has been given every opportunity to present the originals of the Xerox or photocopies of the
documents it offered. It never produced the originals. The plaintiff attempted to justify the admission of the photocopies by contending that "the
photocopies offered are equivalent to the original of the document" on the basis of the Electronic But, the Xerox copies do not constitute the electronic
10
Evidence Finals reviewer
Dean M.V.F. Leonen
1 Semester A.Y. 2011-2012
st
Secondary Evidence
R130, Sec. 5. When original document is unavailable When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a
recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated
11
Evidence Finals reviewer
Dean M.V.F. Leonen
1 Semester A.Y. 2011-2012
st
E. Testimonial Evidence
Qualification and Competency
R130, Sec. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
known their perception to others, may be witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for
disqualification.
Icutanim v Hernandez and Vinson.
Carandag v Cabatuando. The law itself provides that a party or any other person interested in the outcome of a case may testify (Section 18, Rule 130,
Rules of Court). The testimony of an interested witness, this Court has said, should not be rejected on the ground of bias alone, and must be judged on its
own merits, and if such testimony is clear and convincing and not destroyed by other evidence on record, it may be believed. Neither can said testimony
be said to be self-serving. This Court has said that self-serving evidence is an evidence made by a party out of court at one time; it does not include a
party's testimony as a witness in court.
Addenbrook v People.
Disqualifications
Mental incapacity and immaturity
R130, Sec. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity The following persons cannot be witnesses:
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known
their perception to others;
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating
them truthfully.
Rule on Examination of Child Witness.
Sec. 1. Applicability of the Rule.- Unless otherwise provided, this Rule shall govern the examination of child witnesses who are victims of crime,
accused of a crime, and witnesses to crime. It shall apply in all criminal proceedings and non-criminal proceedings involving child witnesses.
Sec. 2. Objectives.- The objectives of this Rule are to create and maintain an environment that will allow children to give reliable and complete
evidence, minimize trauma to children, encourage children to testify in legal proceedings, and facilitate the ascertainment of truth.
Sec. 3. Construction of the Rule - This Rule shall be liberally construed to uphold the best interests of the child and to promote maximum
accommodation of child witnesses without prejudice to the constitutional rights of the accused.
Sec. 4. Definitions.
(a) A child witness is any person who at the time of giving testimony is below the age of eighteen (18) years. In child abuse cases, a child
includes one over eighteen (18) years but is found by the court as unable to fully take care of himself or protect himself from abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.
(b) Child abuse means physical, psychological or sexual abuse and criminal neglect as defined in Republic Act No. 7610 and other related
laws.
(c) Facilitator means a person appointed by the court to pose questions to a child.
(d) Record regarding a child or record means any photograph, videotape, audiotape, film, handwriting, typewriting, printing, electronic
recording, computer data or printout, or other memorialization, including any court document, pleading, or any copy or reproduction of
any of the foregoing, that contains the name, description, address, school or any other personal identifying information about a child or
his family and that is produced or maintained by a public agency, private agency or individual.
(e) A guardian ad litem is a person appointed by the court where the case is pending for a child who is a victim of, accused of, or a witness
to a crime to protect the best interests of the said child.
14
Evidence Finals reviewer
Dean M.V.F. Leonen
1 Semester A.Y. 2011-2012
st
Relative Incompetencies
Privilege Communications
R130, Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in
the following cases:
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined, without the consent of the other as to any communication received
in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latters direct descendants or ascendants;
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or his advice given
thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an attorneys secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined,
without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity;
(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery, or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to an
advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity, which
information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the patient;
(d) A minister or priest, cannot, without 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 character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs;
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to communications made to him in official confidence, when the
court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
U.S. v Antipolo. The use of the word "afterwards" in the phrase "during the marriage or afterwards" was intended to cover cases in which a
marriage has been dissolved otherwise than by death of one of the spouses as, for instance, by decree of annulment or divorce. || The
declarations of a deceased person while in anticipation of certain impending death, concerning the circumstances leading up to the death, are
admissible in a prosecution of the person charged with killing the declarant. Such dying declarations are admissible in favor of the defendant as well
as against him. (It has been expressly held in several jurisdictions in the United States that the widow of the deceased may testify regarding his
dying declarations.
Krohn v. CA. Requisites in order that the privilege may be successfully invoked: (a) the privilege is claimed in a civil case; (b) the person against
whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics; (c) such person acquired the information while he
was attending to the patient in his professional capacity; (d) the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and, (e) the
information was confidential and, if disclosed, would blacken the reputation (formerly character) of the patient. || In the instant case, the person
against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics. He is simply the patient's husband who
wishes to testify on a document executed by medical practitioners. Plainly and clearly, this does not fall within the claimed prohibition.
Regala v Sandiganbayan. The general rule that a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client is
qualified by some important exceptions when disclosure of the clients name would (1) implicate that client in the very activity for which he
sought the lawyer's advice, or (2) open the client to civil liability, or (3) furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to
convict an individual of a crime. [The case at bar falls under exceptions (1) and (3)]
People v Sandiganbayan.
Lim v CA. Since the object of the privilege is to protect the patient, it may be waived if no timely objection is made to the physician's testimony. In
order that the privilege may be successfully claimed, the following requisites must concur: (1) the privilege is claimed in a civil case; (2) the person
against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics; (3) such person acquired the information
21
Evidence Finals reviewer
Dean M.V.F. Leonen
1 Semester A.Y. 2011-2012
st
Testimonial Privilege
R130, Sec. 25. Parental and filial privilege No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendatsm children or other
direct descendants.
Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. Things done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to them
Admission by others
R130, Sec. 28. Admission by third party The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another, except as
hereinafter provided.
Admission by privies
R130, Sec. 31. Admisssion by privies Where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding
the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former.
Alpuerto v Perez. The word "privies," as used in article 1225 of the Civil Code, denotes not only the idea of succession in right of heirship or
testamentary legacy, but also succession by virtue of acts inter vivos, as by assignment, subrogation, or purchase in fact any act whereby the
successor is substituted in the place of the predecessor in interest. The purchaser at an execution sale is, therefore, a privy of the execution debtor.
Under the interpretation thus placed upon the meaning of the term "privies", it is clear that Jose Perez Pastor, the purchaser at the public sale under
an execution directed against Juan Llenos, must be considered a privy or successor in interest of the execution debtor. He is therefore undoubtedly
bound by the instrument which conveyed the property to Eladio Alpuerto
City of Manila v del Rosario. Where one derives title to real estate from another, the declaration act, or omission of the latter to the property is
evidence against the former only when made while the latter holds the title. A possessory information recorded in the property register is prima
facie evidence of the fact that the person who instituted the proceedings holds the property as owner; and the presumption, under article 448 of the
Civil Code, is that his title is good unless the contrary is shown.
Exceptions
Malig v Sandiganbayan. While it may be that pursuant to Section 48, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court "evidence that one did or omitted to do a
certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or omitted to do the same or similar thing at another time," the same Rule also
provides that "it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage and the like."
Emiliana Gerona's credible testimony regarding the amounts petitioners received from the Matictic project sufficiently establishes petitioners
"intent" and/or "habit" of demanding and receiving money from the contractor-complainant, such that the latter, in exasperation, felt that enough
was enough, to the prejudice of his future contracts.
Testimonial knowledge
R130, Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of
his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.
People v Gaddi. Appellants claim that Ernesto Guzman's testimony on Gaddi's confession of the crime to him cannot be given credence for being
hearsay is unavailing. A confession constitutes evidence of high order since it is supported by the strong presumption that no person of normal
mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and his conscience Proof that a person confessed to the
24
Evidence Finals reviewer
Dean M.V.F. Leonen
1 Semester A.Y. 2011-2012
st
Opinion Rule
R130, Sec. 48. General Rule The opinion of a witness is not admissible, except as indicated in the following sections.
R130, Sec. 49. Opinion of Expert Witness The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he
is shown to possess, may be received in evidence.
R130, Sec. 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding
(a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge
(b) a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
28
Evidence Finals reviewer
Dean M.V.F. Leonen
1 Semester A.Y. 2011-2012
st
G. Presentation of Evidence