Admissibility of Evidence

1. Reyes v. CA

This is a case wherein affidavits were presented in an agrarian case but the affiants were not brought to court. The evidence in this case was ruled as admissible. Since substantial evidence shall suffice in agrarian cases.

2. People v Turco Admissibility of medical certificate in a rape case. Although the medical officer who prepared it was not presented in this case, the said certificate is still admissible. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and it is not excluded by the law or these rules. (Rule 128.3)

Relevance
1. Bautista v Aparece A public document instituted before a guerilla officer is relevant thus admissible. The mere fact that the public document was executed before a guerilla officer does not make the same irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent to the main issue raised in the pleadings.

2. Lopez v Heesen The expert testimony is admissible in this case being relevant to the case. The allegations on the ultimate facts in issue involve whether the Higgins Model 51 rifle was in dangerous and defective condition due to its negligent manufacture, in that the safety mechanism moved readily from safe to fire position. This is an issue, the proper understanding of which, requires knowledge or experience and cannot be determined independently merely from deductions made and inferences drawn on the basis of ordinary knowledge.

3. State v Ball

Unexplained flight and resisting arrest every thirty days after the supposed commission of the crime is relevant circumstance. The remoteness of the flight goes to the weight of the e vidence rather than to its admissibility.

STATUTORY RULES OF EXCLUSION ANTI WIRE TAPPING ACT 1. Ganaan v IAC An extension telephone is not among the prohibited device in Sec. 1 of the AWTA. There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap or deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear, intercept or record spoken words.

2. Salcedo-Ortanez v CA Absent any clear showing that both parties consented to the recording, the inadmissibility of the tapes is mandatory under R.A. No 4200

3. Ramirez v CA RA No 4200 applies to recordings by one of the parties to the conversation. Sec. 1 of the Act clearly and unequivoclally makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder. The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or different from those involved in the private communication.

4. Mamba v Garcia For administrative proceedings, substantial evidence will suffice, while in criminal proceedings, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required.

5. Marquez v Desierto An in camera inspection may be allowed, there must be a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction. Furhter, the account must be

clearly identified, the inspection limited to the subject matter of the pending case before the court of competent jurisdiction. The bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be presented during the inspection and such inspection may cover only the account identified in the pending case.

In the case at bar, there is yet no pending litigation before any court of competent authority. What is existing is an investigation by the office of the Ombudsman. In short, what the office of the Ombudsman would wish to do is to fish for additional evidence to formally charge Amado Lagdameo et. Al with the Sandiganbayan. Clearly, there was no pending case in court which would warrant the opening of the bank account for inspection.

6. Ejercito v Sandiganbyan The protection afforded by the Bank Secrecy Law is, however, not absolute, there being recognized exceptions thereto, as above quoted Sec. 2 provides. In the present case, two exceptions apply: (1) the examination of bank accounts is upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, and (2) the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. Petitioner contends that since plunder is neither bribery nor dereliction, his accounts are not excepted from the protection of RA No. 1405. PNB v Gancayo holds otherwise: Cases of unexplained wealth are similar to cases of bribery or dereliction and no reason is seen why these two class of cases cannot be excepted from the rule making bank deposits confidential. The policy as to one cannot, be different from the policy as to the other. This policy expresses the notion that a public office is a public trust and any person who enters upon its discharge does so with the full knowledge that his life, so far as relevant to his duty, is open to public scrutiny.

7. People v Yatar DNA Evidence collected from a crime scene can link a suspect to a crime or eliminate one from suspicion from the same principle as

fingerprints are used. Incidents involving sexual assault would leave biological evidence such as hair, skin tissue, semen, blood or saliva which can be left on the victims body or at the crime scene. Hair and fiber from clothing, carpets, bedding or furniture could also be transferred to the victims body during the assault. Forensic DNA evidence is helpful in proving that there was physical contact between and assailant and its victim. If properly collected from the victim, crime scene or assailant, DNA can be compared with known samples to place the suspect at the scene of the crime. 8. People v Bardaje This case also constitutes an exception to the general belief that a young girl would not expose herself to the ordeal of public trial if she were not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit who had ravished and shamed her placed behind bars. As we view it, MARCELINA was confronted with a paradoxical situation as a daughter of relative tender age who could not shamefacedly admit to her parents that she had eloped and voluntarily submitted to sexual intercourse, since the elopement must have met with righteous indignation on the part of her parents. As a result, MARCELINA was faced with no other choice but to charge Adelino with rape or incur the ire of her parents and social disrepute from a small community. In respect of the alleged confession of Adelino, suffice it to re-state that an extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. Corpus delicti is proved when the evidence on record shows that the crime prosecuted had been committed. That proof has not been met in the case at bar, the evidence establishing more of an elopement rather than kidnapping or illegal detention or forcible abduction, and much less rape.

WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED JUDICIAL NOTICE

1. City of Manila v Garcia The trial judge was correct in finding that it was necessary to expand the school grounds (the lot affected was occupied by squatterscomplainant) when it took judicial notice of Ordinance 4566 which recites that an amount of 100K had been set aside for the construction of an additional building in an elementary school.

2. Baguio v Vda. De Jalagat The trial court may take judicial notice of the finality of judgment in a case that was previously pending and thereafter decided by it. Courts could take judicial notice of previous cases to determine whether or not the case pending is moot or one whether or not the previous ruling is applicable in the case after consideration

3. Prieto v Arroyo As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice, in the adjudication of cases pending before them, of the contents or other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been tried or actually pending before the same judge. Exemption is when in the absence of objection or with the knowledge of the opposing party. 4. Yao Kee v Sy-Gonzales Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws or customs. They must be alleged and proved as a fact. If not alleged and proven as a fact, the doctrine of processual presumption shall apply. (Or an assumption that the foreign law is the same with domestic law. )

5. Tabuena v CA The trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the contents of records of other cases in the adjudication of the cases pending before them, or (apply the exemption in Prieto), since in this case. It was clear that such judicial notice was without the knowledge of the opposing party.

6. People v Godoy Judicial notice in rape cases The SC took judicial notice of the fact that in rural areas, young ladies are strictly required to act with circumspection and prudence. Great reputation is observed so that their reputation will remain untainted.

7. BPI Savings v CTA

Sec. 2 Rule 129 provides that courts may take judicial notice of matters ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. In this case, the Court notes that a copy of the Decision in the CTA was attached to the Petition for Review filed before this Court.

8. Manufacturers Hanover Trust v Guerrero Foreign laws are NOT a matter of judicial notice. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proven. Certainly, the conflicting allegations as to whether New York or Philippine law applies to Guerreros claim present a clear dispute in material allegations which can be resolved only by trial on the merits. Under Sec. 24 of Rue 132, the record of public documents of a sovereign authority or tribunal may be proved by (1) an official publication thereof or (2) a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of thereof. Such official publication or copy must be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that the attesting officer has the legal custody thereof. The certificate may be issued by any of the authorized Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. The attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or specific part thereof, as the case may be and must be under the official seal of the attesting officer.

9. People v Rullepa Judical notice can be applied sometimes in rape cases. However this was NOT APPLIED in this case. The mothers testimony which stated that the child was only 3 when the crime occurred cannot suffice in the absence of certificate of live birth. (If below 7, it will be considered statutory rape which is more grave) Whether the victim was below 7 years old, however, is another matter. Here reasonable doubt exists. A mature three and a half year old can easily be mistaken for an underdeveloped 7 year old. The appearance of the victim, as object evidence, cannot be accorded much weight and following Pruna, the testimony of the mother is, by itself insufficient.

10.Landbank v Banal Well settled is the rule that courts are nit authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when said cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the

same judge. They may only do so in the absence of objection and with the knowledge of the opposing party which are not obtaining here. 11. Pigao v Rabanillo We agree with respondent. We cannot take cognizance of this document the conditional contract to sell between Bernabe and the PHHC alleged to be pro-forma contract used by PHHC with its applicants which petitioners are presenting for the first time. This document is not among the matters the law mandatorily requires us to take judicial notice of. Neither can we consider it of public knowledge nor capable of unquestionable demonstration nor ought to be known to the judge because of their judicial functions. We have held that: Matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; (3) it must be known to be within the limits of jurisdiction of the court. The power of taking judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution. Care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative. Consequently, for this document to be properly considered by us, it should have been presented during trial and formally offered as evidence. Otherwise, we would be denying due process of law to respondent.

JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
1. Lucido v Calupitan The original answer to the complaint which stated that the transaction was one of sale with right of repurchase was deemed as an admission of the party and was treated as a statement of real issue. Pleadings superseded or amended disappear from the record as judicial admissions. However, any statement contained therein may be considered as an extrajudicial admission, and as such, in order that the court may take it into consideration, it should be offered formally in evidence. 2. Torres v Court of Appeals

Having been amended, the original complaint lost its character as a judicial admission, which would have required no proof, and became merely and extrajudicial admission of which as evidence, required its formal offer.

3. Atillo v CA Judicial admissions can be contradicted if it is taken out of context. As provided in Sec. 4 of Rule 129, the general rule is that judicial admission is conclusive upon a party making it and does not require proof admits of two exception: (1) when it is shown that the admission was made through a palpable mistake, and (2) when it is shown that no such admission was in fact made. The latter exception allows one to contradict an admission by denying that he made such admission. For instance, if a party invokes an admission by an adverse party, but cites the admission out of context then the one making the admission may show that he made no such admission, or that his admission was taken out of context. 4. Republic v Sandiganbayan The Government forfeited the Swiss funds of the Marcoses, when it considered its answer as judicial admissions. Marcoses made judicial admissions of their ownership of the subject Swiss bank deposits. In their answer, the General/Supplemental Agreement, Mrs. Marcos manifestation and Constancia dated May 5, 1999, and the undertaking dated Feb. 10, 1999. We take note of the fact that the Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan were unanimous in holding that respondent had made judicial admissions of their ownership of the Swiss funds. In their answer, aside from admitting the existence of the Swiss funds, respondent also likewise admitted ownership thereof. 5. People v Lacson The respondents contention that his admission made in his pleading and during the hearing on the CA cannot be used in the present case as they were made in the course of a different proceeding does not hold water. It should be borne in mind that the proceedings before the Court was by way of an appeal under Rule 45 of the ROC as amended, from the proceedings from the CA; as such, the present recourse is but a mere continuation of the proceeding in the appellate court. This is not a new trial, but a review of proceedings which commenced from the trial court, which later passed through the CA. The respondents is bound by the judicial admissions he made in the CA, and such

admission so hold him in the proceedings before this court. As categorically stated in Havecker v Clark Equipment Company: Judicial Admissions in issues of fact, including those made by counsel on behalf of a client during a trial are binding for the purpose of the case including appeal 6. Herrera-Felix v CA The admission made in a motion are judicial admissions which are binding on the party who made them. Such party is precluded from denying the same unless there is proof of palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. By filing the said motion, through counsel, the petitioner thereby submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the trial court. 7. Heirs of Pedro Clemena v Heirs of Irene Bien Petitioners contention that the land was never in their possession should be dismissed outright for two reasons: First, petitioners predecessor Pedro Clemena y Zurbano alleged in his answer that the land declared was In his exclusive possession. That statement, in so far as it confirmed the allegation in the complaint that petitioners predecessor had retained possession of the land in question took on the character of judicial admission contemplated in Sec. 4, Rule 129 of the ROC: An admission, verbal or written made by a party in the course of proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. A judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it. He cannot thereafter contradict it. The exception is found only in those rare instances when the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion and because of strong reasons to support its stand, may relieve a party from the consequences of his admission. 8. Luciano Tan v Rodil Enterprises The petitioners judicial admission in open court, as found by the MeTC and affirmed by the CA finds particular significance when viewed together with his Motion to allow defendant to Deposit Rentals,

wherein petitioner stated that the rentals due on the premises in question form September 1997 upto the present amounted to P467,500 as of the date of filing the motion. Petitioner cannot now be allowed to reject the same. An admission made in the pleading cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive as to him, and that all proofs submitted by him contrary thereto or inconsistent wherewith should be ignored whether objection is interposed by a party or not. A judicial admission is an admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, for purposes of the truth of some alleged fact, which said party cannot thereafter disprove.