Disqualification by reason of privilege communication (Physician-Patient) Question.

Xavier filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage with Ysa on the ground of psychological incapacity. Xavier sought to testify on a confidential psychiatric evaluation report on his wife. Ysa objected to Xavier's testimony on the ground that it vuolates the physician-patient orivilege. Is the objection of Ysa correct? nswer. !o. "ne of the re#uisites before a physician-patient privilege may be invo$ed is that the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authori%ed to practice medicine& surgery& or obstretics. 'ere& the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly authori%ed to practice medicine& surgery or obstretics. Xavier is simply the husband of Ysa who wishes to testify on a document e(ecuted by medical practitioners. )his does not fall within the claimed prohibition. !either can his testimony be considered a circumvention of the prohibition because his testimony cannot have the force and effect of the testimony of the physician who e(amined the patient and e(ecuted the report. *+rohn vs , & -. /01123& 4une /3& /5536

"n a flight from 7ang$o$ to .ome& onboard an ir 8rance airplane& the plaintiff ,arrascoso was forced to give up his first class seat for another passenger. pparently& ,arrascoso was made to give up his seat because a 9white man9 had a better right to the seat. :uring the trial& ,arrascoso testified that the purser of the plane had told him that he - the purser - had made an entry in his noteboo$& relating the incident& thus 98irst class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will& and that the captain refused to intervene.9 )he noteboo$ itself was not presented. )he defense moved to stri$e the testimony on the ground that the noteboo$ itself would be the best evidence. )he trial court denied the motion to stri$e. Issue; <hether the trial court erred in its decision to allow the testimony without the production of the document in #uestion. .uling;& =etitioner charges that the finding that the purser made an entry in his noteboo$s reading 98irst class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will& and that the captain refused to intervene9 is predicated upon evidence *,arrascoso's testimony6 which is incompetent. )he court disagreed& holding that the subject of in#uiry was not the entry& but the ouster incident. )estimony of the entry does not come within the proscription of the best evidence rule. >uch testimony is& therefore& admissible.

Question; :istinguish clearly but briefly between 7urden of =roof and 7urden of ?vidence. nswer; 7urden of proof is the obligation of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence re#uired by law *>ec. /& .ule /@06. 7urden of evidence is the duty of a party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow any prima facie presumption against him.

Question; <hen 4ordan loaned as sum of money to 7ryant& 4ordan typed a single copy of the promissory note& which they both signed. 4ordan made two photocopies of the promissory note& giving one copy to 7ryant and retaining the other copy. 4ordan entrusted the typewritten copy to his counsel for safe$eeping. )he document with 4ordan's counsel was destroyed when fire ravaged his law office. a. In an action to collect on the promissory note& which is deemed to be the original copy for the purpose of obtaining the 7est evidence rule? b. ,an the photocopies in the hands of the parties be considered duplicate original copies? nswer; a. )he original is the one typed and signed by both parties and which was lost when the office of 4ordan's counsel got burned. b. )he photocopies are not duplicate originals. )hey cannot be deemed as having been made at the same time with the original because they were not signed by the contracting parties.

/. )he judge in a civil case personally $nows that a certain parcel of land originally belonged to the ancestors of the defendant. )he matter is one of the issues in the case. In open court the judge issued a declaration that it is ta$ing judicial notice of such fact. ny objection to the action of the court? Answer: Yes& there is an objection. .ule /A5 >ection A provides that judicial notice may be ta$en of a fact which judges ought to $now because of their judicial functions. 'owever& mere personal $nowledge of the judge is not the judicial $nowledge of the court& and he is not authori%ed to ma$e his individual $nowledge of a fact& not generally or professionally $nown& the basis of his action * State Prosecutors vs Muro, 236 SCRA 505; Land Bank of the Phi i!!ines vs "#coco, $%& SCRA 6' 6 A. )he following transpired in a cross-e(amination; Question; (s it not, Mr) "itness, that #ou *ere once an e+! o#ee of ABC Cor!oration, And that e+! o#+ent *as unti .e/ruar# 20, 20%$, nswer; -es, Sir) Question; "h# did #ou resi1n fro+ ABC Cor!oration, ny objection? <hy? Answer; Yes& there is an objection. Questions are misleading. *.efer to .ule /@A >ection /06. @. <hat remedy do you have if before your objection& the witness of the adverse party has already spo$en? Answer; .efer to .ule /@A& >ection @5 *>tri$ing out answer6 3. In a case for illegal recruitment& the judge noticed that the prosecutor who was newly-assigned to the case could not effectively illicit from the witness the elements of illegal recruitment. )he judge too$ over the #uestioning& thus; 4udge; Mr) "itness, *hat did the accused te #ou in re ation to a !ossi/ e e+! o#+ent a/road, nswer; 2e said, ( *ou d certain # /e e+! o#ed as a driver in Sands 2ote in Las 3e1as) 4udge; 2o* +uch did he char1e #ou for a fee, nswer; P200,000, -our 2onor) 4udge; 4id #ou verif# if he is icensed to recruit, nswer; -es, -our 2onor) 5he P67A and the 46L7 issued a certification that the accused is not a icensed recruiter) 4udge; 4id #ou 1et e+! o#ed in Sands 2ote , nswer; 8o, -our 2onor) <ould you object to such line of #uestioning? <hy? *,lassmates& my answer to this #uestion is that a judge& during the course of trial& may as$ clarificatory #uestions. >hould the adverse party in the course of the trial& finds that the judge tends to be biased or partial& he may file a motion for the judge to inhibit from handling the case. 7ut never object to the #uestions of the judge. You might have other interpretationsBanswers. 6 nswer; -es, Sir) Question;

Question; <hat is estoppel in pais? nswer; )he principle of estoppel in pais applies wherein one& by his acts& representations or admissions& or by his own silence when he ought to spea$ out& intentionally or through culpable negligence& induces another to believe certain facts to e(ist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief& so that he will be prejudiced if the

former is permitted to deny the e(istence of such facts. *'anopol v. >hoemart& Inc.& -... !o. /@CCC3& "ctober 3& A00A& @50 >,. 8irematic =hils. Inc.& -... !o. /2EA2/& pril AC& A00C& ,allejo& 46.

3@5D =hil. .ealty 'oldings ,orp. v.

Q; *Farch 16 - =olicemen brought to a hospital and re#uested one of its surgeons to immediately perform surgery on him to retrieve a pac$et of /0 grams od shabu which they alleged was swallowed by . >uppose the hospital agreed to& and did perform the surgery& is the pac$age of shabu admissible as evidence? *there are also two possible answers to this #uestion6 /; !o& the pac$age of shabu e(tracted from the body of is not admissible in evidence because it was obtained through surgery which connotes forcible invasion into the body of without his consent and absent due process. )he act of the policemen and the hospital surgeon involved& violate the fundamental rights of & the suspect. A; Yes& it is admissible in evidence because the constitutional right against self-incrimination is addressed only to e(tracting admission of guilt from the lips of the suspect where otherwise no incriminating evidence e(ists. In the past& the >upreme ,ourt has already declared many invasive and involuntary procedure *such as :! testing6 as constitutionally sound * gustin vs. , & -... !o. /EA2C/& 4une /2& A0026

please consider this #uestion to replace my And and @rd #uestions which I emailed last wednesday :ifferentiate admission from confession ns; dmission G is an act of declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact. It is voluntary ac$nowledgement made by a party of the e(istence of the truth of certain facts which are inconsistent with his claim in an action ,onfession G is the declaration made by an accused ac$nowledging his guilt of the offense charged or of any offense necessarily included therein. In admission there is merely a statement of fact no directly involving an ac$nowledgment of guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the offense with which one is charged. In confession& there is an ac$nowledgement of guilt. dmission may be implied i.e. admission by silence. ,onfession cannot be implied. It should be direct and positive ac$nowledgement of guilt *>ee >ec. @@ and A@ .ule /@06 :etermine how the court will appreciate the following :! test results; a. e(clude the putative parent from paternity b. =robability of =aternity is less than 55.5H c. =robability of =aternity is 55.5H or higher nswer; >ec. 5c of F !o. 0E-AA-2->, a. ,onclusive proof of non-paternity b. corroborative evidence c. disputable presumption of paternity

Is there an automatic admission of :! evidence obtained in the testing for the same? nswerD !one. 7y the terms of sec 2 of the rules on dn evidence& the grant of the :! testing shall not be construed as an automatic admission into evidence of any of the component of the :! evidence. )hies necessarily means that the court will still have to evaluate the probative value of the proposed evidence before admission. Q: What is custo!y( hain of usto!y "ule in relation to #ec$ %& of the omprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of %''%( An! when is it necessary to establish a chain of

A: )t is a metho! of authenticating evi!ence$ )t requires that the a!mission of an e*hibit be prece!e! by evi!ence sufficient to support a fin!ing that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be$ )t woul! inclu!e testimony about every lin+ in the chain, from the moment the item was pic+e! up to the time it is offere! into evi!ence, in such a way that every person who touche! the e*hibit woul! !escribe how an! from whom it was receive!, where it was an! what happene! to it while in the witness- possession, the con!ition in which it was receive! an! the con!ition in which it was !elivere! to the ne*t lin+ in the chain$ .hese witnesses woul! then !escribe the precautions ta+en to ensure that there ha! been no change in the con!ition of the item an! no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same$ )t is necessary when the ob/ect evi!ence is non-unique as it is not rea!ily i!entifiable, was not ma!e i!entifiable or cannot be ma!e i!entifiable, e$g$ !rops of bloo! or oil, !rugs in pow!er form, fiber, grains of san! an! similar ob/ects$ Q; <hat is the 9e#uipoise rule9? -ive an e(ample of its application. !>; <hen the scale shall stand upon an e#uipoise and there is nothing in the evidence which shall incline it to one side or the other& the court will find for the defendant. Inder said principle& the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the wea$ness of defendant's claim.?ven if the evidence of the plaintiff may be stronger than than that of the defendant&there is no preponderance of evidence on his side if such evidence is insufficient in itself to establish his cause of action.*>apuan&et al. Js. , & "ct./5&/55A& A/3 >cra C0/& C02-C0E6

:istinguish ?(che#uer rule from 'armless error rule. ?nglish ?(che#uer rule- it provides that a trial court's error as to the admission of evidence was presumed to have caused prejudiced and therefore& almost automatically re#uired new trial. 'armless ?rror .ule- )he appellate court will disregard an error in the admission of evidence unless in its opinion& some substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has been occassioned.

<hat is the reason for the =arole evidence rule? ns; )he reason for the rule is that when the parties have reduced their agreement to writing& it is presumed that they have made the writing the only repository and memorial of truth& and whatever is not found i the writing must be understood to have been waived and abandoned e(cept in cases when the law specifically mentions. >ample #uestion; '?' offered his services to ' ' company as its general manager and e(amining engineer at a fi(ed price per month and necessary e(penses& including proper #uarters& food& travelling e(penses etc. )he offer was accepted without condition by ' ' company. In an action by '?' for wages and necessary e(penses& may ' ' company show that the contract created was thus conditional and that the payment of salary and e(penses depended upon the successful operation of '?' as such employee. ns- !". ' ' company is liable for the for the amt. of wages and necessary e(penses. ?vidence which tend to vary the terms of the written contract is inadmissible. A. <hat is the reason for the rule that proper foundation should first be laid before a witness can be impeached by evidence of inconsistent statement? ns- )he rule proceeds from a sense of justice to the witnessD for as the direct tendency of evidence is to impeach its veracity& common justice re#uires that by first calling hisattention to the subject he should have an opportunity to recollect the fact& and if necessary to correct the statemnt already given& as well as& by a ree(amination& to e(plain the nature& circumstances& meaning and design of what he is proved elsewher to have said.

:ifferentiate admission from confession ns; dmission G is an act of declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact. It is voluntary ac$nowledgement made by a party of the e(istence of the truth of certain facts which are inconsistent with his claim in an action ,onfession G is the declaration made by an accused ac$nowledging his guilt of the offense charged or of any offense necessarily included therein. In admission there is merely a statement of fact no directly involving an ac$nowledgment of guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the offense with which one is charged. In confession& there is an ac$nowledgement of guilt. dmission may be implied i.e. admission by silence. ,onfession cannot be implied. It should be direct and positive ac$nowledgement of guilt *>ee >ec. @@ and A@ .ule /@06 #uestion who is a child witness? /;

answer; /6 below /1 A6 over /1 but is found by the court as unable to fully ta$e care of himself or protect himself from abuse neglect cruelty e(ploitation or discrimation because of a physical or mental disability or conditionin child abuse cases. #uestion when is compromise not allowed? answer; in cases involving /6 civil A6 validity @6 any 36 26 E6 C6 habeas corpus and election cases F .,' / Q; :ifferentiate an e(tra-judicial confession given before the custodial investigation stage from that which was given during custodial investigation. status a ground jurisdiction future of marriage for future of or legal legal a separation separation sport courts legitime person A;

of

; )he rights guaranteed a person under the ,onstitution * rt III >ec. /A6 are not available when he is not under custodial investigation. )hus& a statement or confession voluntarily given by an employee during an administrative investigation is admissible although without a prior information of said rights and without the assistance of counsel. *=eople v. yson6 <hen under custodial investigation however& a person shall have the constitutional right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person under custodial investigation has not been informed of any of the mentioned rights& any confession or declaration given by him during said investigation shall be inadmissible. *=eople v. 4imene%6 F .,' 1 Q; ; /. A. @. 3. Is the rule that the court shall not consider any evidence not formally offered absolute? !o. )here are e(ceptions *=eople v. !apat-a6; Inder the .ule on >ummary =rocedure& where no full blown trial is held in the interest of speedy administration of justiceD In summary judgments under .ule @2 where the judge bases his decisions on the pleadings& depositions& admissions& affidavits and documents filed with the courtD :ocuments whose contents are ta$en judicial notice of by the courtD :ocuments whose contents are judicially admittedD

2.

"bject evidence which could not be formally offered because they have disappeared or have become lost after they have been mar$ed& identified and testified on and described in the record and became the subject of cross-e(amination of the witnesses who testified on them during the trial& e(. marijuana involved in a prohibited drugs prosecution.

Farch / Q; <hat is the :",).I!? "8 ,"=K?)?!?>> in connection with :YI!- :?,K . )I"!? ; a dying declaration to be admissible must be complete in itself. )o be complete in itself does not mean that the declarant must recite everything that constituted the res gestae of the subject of his statement& 7I) that his statement of any given fact should be a full e(pression of all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning in respect of such. Farch 1. Q; ccused was convicted of a violation of the :angerous :rugs ct. 'e appealed to the >upreme ,ourt& contending that the trial court erred& in violation of the 7est ?vidence .ule& in admitting a (ero( copy of the bill allegedly used as buy-bust money. Is the (ero( copy of the mar$ed bill is admissible in evidence? ; )he 7est ?vidence .ule applies only when the contents of the document are the subject of in#uiry. <here the issue is only; as to whether or not such document was actually e(pected& or e(ists& or in the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its e(ecution& the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. >ince the photocopy of the mar$ed money was presented by the prosecution solely for the purpose of establishing its e(istence and not its contents& other substitutionary evidence& li$e a (ero( copy& is therefore admissible without accounting for the original.

Q; <hat is the :",).I!? "8 ,"=K?)?!?>> in connection with :YI!- :?,K . )I"!? ; a dying declaration to be admissible must be complete in itself. )o be complete in itself does not mean that the declarant must recite everything that constituted the res gestae of the subject of his statement& 7I) that his statement of any given fact should be a full e(pression of all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning in respect of such.

0A" 1 & /Fay the .ules of ?vidence be waived?

23#. )here are rules of evidence established merely for the protection of the parties. ccording to the well-established doctrine& the parties may waive such rules during the trial of a case. )hey can also ma$e the waiver in a contract. 8or instance& a contract of insurance re#uiring the testimony of eyewitnesses as the only evidence admissible concerning the death of the insured person& is valid. ,ontract waiving the privilege against the disclosure of confidential communications made by a patient to a physician is also valid. 'owever& if the rule of evidence waived by the parties has been established by law on grounds of public policy& the waiver is void. ccordingly& the waiver of the privilege against the disclosure of state secrets is void. AFay object *real6 evidence be disallowed on the ground that its production would cause inconvenience?

23#. It rests in the discretion of the court to deny applications for the production of real evidence in cases where the order will cause great inconvenience& or where& for other reasons& it is unjust. It may happen that it is impracticable to bring an animal into the room where the court is sitting& and in such cases the e(amination need not necessarily be had in the courtroom& so long as it is under the direction of the court and in the presence of the parties. >imilar holdings may be found with reference to articles of great weight& such as large steel bars. 0A" 1 4 /Fay an accused be compelled by the court to produce documents or chattels which might incriminate him?

56. )he privilege against self-incrimination e(tends to inculpatory documents. )herefore& the accused cannot be re#uired to produce a document in his possession for use as evidence against him. It is a violation of his constitutional privilege to call upon him to produce a letter or other document in his possession which forms a lin$ in the chain of incriminating circumstances. )his rule applies to agents to whose possession the accused has entrusted the incriminating papers. >o& a lawyer who has received the defendantLs papers from him after his retainer as defense attorney cannot be called upon to produce them in court under a subpoena duces tecum. AFay evidence inadmissible according to the laws in force at the time the cause of action accrued be admitted at the time of the trial of the case if under the laws then in force& the same is already made admissible? <hy? 23#. )here is no vested right of property in rules of evidence. 'ence& any evidence inadmissible according to the laws in force at the time the action accrued& but admissible according to the laws in force at the time of the trial& is receivable. )hus& at the trial of the case after the ,ode of ,ivil =rocedure too$ effect& parol evidence of the contents of a document was admitted after preliminary proof of e(ecution and destruction has been made& although the cause of action accrued when rticle /AA/ of the ,ivil ,ode was still in force& under which parol evidence could not be given to prove the contents of a destroyed instrument. )he reason is that the rules of evidence are merely methods for ascertaining facts. It must be supposed that change of law merely ma$es it more li$ely that the fact will be truly ascertained& either by admitting evidence whose former suppression& or by suppressing evidence whose former admission& helped to conceal the truth. In either case no fact has been ta$en away from the partyD it is merely that good evidence has been given the one& or bad evidence been ta$en from the other.

Questions

on

=arol

?vidence

*Farch

/&

A0/36

Q ; =aulo was hired by Kana oil ,o. as a -en. Fanager for its oil e(ploration venture in =alawan& the employment contract e(pressly provided that =aulo to receive a salary of =hp/0&000 a month plus representation and traveling e(penses of =hp2&000 a month. Kana oil co. failed to pay and so =aulo filed an action for specific performance of the employment contract. t the trial& Kana attempted to prove& by "ral )estimony that the payment of salary to =aulo was subject to the condition that Kana oil co. e(ploration in =alawan was already successful. Is such "ral )estimony admissible? >uggested content Question nswer; !o& under the parole evidence rule& no evidence of the terms of a writing is admissible other than the contents of the written agreement. >uch cannot be modified& altered or e(plained by e(trinsic or parol evidence li$e oral testimony. for Farch 1& A0/3

Q; Fi$e is a member of a religious group called 4ehova's witnesses and an active member of $bayan =artylist. 'e was previously convicted of falsification of document. Fi$e is one of the 2 witnesses to the <ill of :on 4uan. Is Fi$e #ualified to testify as witness in the probate of the will of :on 4uan? >uggested nswer; !o. lthough >ec. A0& .ule /@0 provides that the 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 dis#ualification. rt. 1A/ of the ,ivil ,ode provides that those who have been convicted of falsification of a document& perjury or false testimony are dis#ualified from being a witnesses to a will& as a conse#uence& these person may not testify as witnesses in a probate of a <ill where the subject of testimony is the very fact of e(ecution of the <ill in their presence.

march / tandoy was arrested in a buy bust operation. the mar$ed money used in the operation was photocopied and was presented to the trial court as evidence to establish the e(istence of mar$ed money. tandoy argued that the photocopy of mar$ed money should be e(cluded under the best evidnece rule. is the contention correct? ans. no. tandoy erroneously thin$s that said mar$ed money is an ordinary document falling under >ec. A& .ule /@0 of the .evised .ules of ,ourt which e(cludes the introduction of secondary evidence e(cept in the five *26 instances mentioned therein. the best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the document are the subject of in#uiry. <here the issue is only as to whether or not such document was actually e(ecuted& or e(ists& or in the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its e(ecution& the best evidence rule does not apply.* people vs tandoy gr 102026 march 1 a published treatise was presented in court as evidence. to prove the truth of the matter stated therein& an e(pert witness was presented to testify on the validity of the published treatise. will the evidence be considered admissible? ans. no. published treatise is admissible if the court ta$es judicial notice or a witness e(pert in the subject testitifies that the writer of the statement in the treatise is recogni%ed as e(pert in the subject. *e(cerpts - sec 3E rule /@06 in the given case& the witness was presented to testify on the validity of the treatise and not as to the e(pertise of the writer. dmissible evidence Question; tty. K offered in the criminal case his affidavit respecting what he witnessed during the incident. X's lawyer wanted to cross e(amine objected on the ground of lawyer-client privilege. .ule on the objection. tty. K who& however&

nswer; )he objection should be overruled. Kawyer-client privilege is not involved here. )he subject on which the counsel would be e(amined has been made public in the affidavit he offered and thus& no longer privileged& aside from the fact that it is in respect of what the counsel witnessed during the incident and not to the communication made by the client to him or the advice he gave thereon in his professional capacity.

march /& A0/3 Question; )he trial court convicted the accused 7 for Furder relying on the circumstances namely; a. he was seen fleeing from the crimeD b. that he allegedly surrendered a hand gunD c. that the slug ta$en from the head of the victim was fired from the gun surrenderedD d. that the victim made a dying declaration identifying him and e. that the paraffin tests show that he was positive for gun powder. Is the conviction of 7 proper? nswer; !o. 8or circumstantial evidence to suffice& there must be more than one circumstance. )he facts from which the inferences derived are proven. )hey were not all proven. )he combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. >o the second and the third re#uirements were not complied with. *== vs. dor& 3@A >,. 6 Farch 1& A0/3 #uestion; <hat is evidence on motion? answer; <hen a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties& but the court may direct that the matters be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions *>ection C6

Q; <hen was stabbed on his stomach during a street brawl& he shouted for help. 7& who was nearby& heard the shout M immediately ran towards 7& stated that , stabbed him. If should die on account of the stab wound& upon what rule or rules of evidence could 's testimony be received? ?(plain. who& upon in#uiry by

; )he testimony could either be admitted as a dying declaration or as a part of the res gestae. ssuming that was under the consciousness of an impending death when he stated that , stabbed him& the declaration may be admitted as a dying declaration pursuant to >ec @C& .ule /@0. If the statement was made without such consciousness& it could be admissible as part of the res gestae under sec. 3A of the same .ule& since the same was made immediately after a startling event& i.e. the stabbing.

Fay an adverse witness be impeached by his bad character? ans. !o. 'ow to impeach; /. by contradictory evidence A. by evidence that his general reputation for truth& honesty or integrity is bad @. by evidence that he made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony bad character is not synonimous to reputation character is personal attribution to a person while reputation is what the public perceive to a person

0arc &, %'&7 Question /. 7ong was accused of raping :esiree on !ovember /A& A0/@ at around /0;00 oLcloc$ in the evening in the latterLs apartment unit. "nly :esiree testified on how the crime was perpetrated. )he defense presented 7ongLs business partner in his restaurant business& his friend who used to perform in a comedy bar and his boyfriend. )hey all testify that he was with them during the alleged date when the crime was committed. )he prosecution objected to the testimonies of the witnesses of the defense on the ground that there was an obvious bias due to the witnessesL close relationship with the accused.

If you were the judge& will the fact that the version of the defense was corroborated by @ witnesses suffice the ac#uittal of the accused? ?(plain. #uggeste! answer: !o. )he corroboration of the version of the defense by @ witnesses is not sufficient for ac#uittal. libi is one of the wea$est defenses due to its being capable of easy fabrication. It cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as perpetrator of the crime. 8or an alibi to prevail& the defense must establish by positive identification& clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the same scene of the crime at the time of its commission and not merely that the accused is somewhere else. A. >upposing under the same facts& 7ong offered :esiree to marry him so that the latter will not pursue the rape case& what would be the effect of the said offer to the latter? #uggeste! answer: 7ongLs offer to marry :esiree is an implied admission of guilt because rape cases are not allowed to be compromised *>ec AC& .ule /@06 @. Inder the same facts& during the trial& the court re#uired 7ong to put the short pants which was found in :esireeLs apartment unit when the !7I investigated the crime scene and which was presented by the prosecution as one of its evidence. )he defenseLs counsel objected to the same but still 7ong put on the short pants and it fitted him well. .ule on the admissibility of this piece of evidence. >uggested answer; )he pair of short pants& which fitted the accused well is circumstantial evidence of his guilt& although standing alone it cannot be the basis of conviction. )he accused cannot object to the court re#uiring him to put the short pants on. It is not part of his right against self-incrimination because it is a mere physical act. Farch /& A0/3 Question; Fay a document be withdrawn or e(cluded before formal offer can be made?If yes& when is it allowed? Answer; Yes& the document may be withdrawn or e(cluded. )his is not prohibited since the document has not been formally offered yet. )he withdrawal is allowed whenever the proponent finds no more use for the document. lso when the document has been lost or destroyed without bad faith on the part of the proponent& the subse#uent withdrawal may be allowed. )he proponent of the withdrawal can as$ the court before the presentation of the evidence. Farch 1& A0/3 Question; <hen can a witness who has made inconsistent statements with his present testimony be impeached? A..ule /@A& . Answer; .ule /@A& >ection /@ - 7efore a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony& the statements must be related to him& with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present& and he must be as$ed whether he made such statements& and if so& allowed to e(plain them. If the statements be in writing& they must be shown to the witness before any #uestion is put to him concerning them.

Farch / Question; 'ow can a photograph be admissible in evidence? nswer; photograph& when presented in evidence& must be identified by the photographer as to its production and testified as to the circumstances under which they were produced. )he value of this $ind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the original and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime. )he photographer& however& is not the only witness who can identify the pictures he has ta$en. )he correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie& either by the testimony of the person who made it or by other competent witness& after which the court can admit it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy. =hotographs& therefore& can be identified by the photographer or by any other competent witness who can testify to its e(actness and accuracy. *>ison vs =eople& -. !o. /01A10-1@6 Farch 1 Question; )ristan was the houseboy of the 7arredo family& who was accused of statutory rape of Jeronica 7arredo *@yrs. old6. :uring trial the personal appearance of Jeronica was offered evidence of her ages that she was below /A yrs. old of age& the second element of statutory rape. Fay the appearance be admitted as object evidence to prove age? nswer; Yes. person's appearance& whether relevant& is admissible as object evidence& the same being addressed to the senses of court. person's appearance as evidence of age is usually regarded as relevant. ,orporal appearances are appro(imately the inde( of the age of their bearer& particularly for the wor$ed e(tremes of old age and youth. )he outward physical appearance of an alleged minor may be considered in judging his age. )here can be no #uestion& therefore as to the admissibility of a person's appearance in determining his or her age. 'owever& the appearance of the victims cannot be accorded much weight.

was accused of having raped X. .ule on the admissibility of the following pieces of evidence; /6 an offer of at the crime which the court& over the objection of &re#uired him to put on& and when he did& it fit him well. A5#W3":

to marry XD and A6 a pair of short pants allegedly left by

/. 's offer to marry X is admissible in evidence as an Implied admission of guilt because rape cases are not allowed to be compromised. *>ec. AC& .ule /@06 A. )he pair of short pants& which fit the accused well& is circumstantial evidence of his guilt&although standing alone it cannot be the basis of conviction. )he accused cannot object to the court re#uiring him to put the short pants on. It is not part of his right against self-incrimination because it is a mere physical act.

F .,' /& A0/3 )"=I,>; 4udicial !otice& 'earsay& ?(tra-4udicial ,onfession& .ule on ?lectronic ?vidence 8 ,)>; X is a jeepney driver& Y is the passenger. Y has a habit of carrying with him a hidden camera. Y paid fare =1.00. X denies and avers that Y has the burden of proof that he in fact paid by showing a receipt. t the heat of the conversation X inflicted less serious physical injuries to Y. Y went to the police station to report the incident. :uring preliminary investigation& in the counter-affidavit& X admitted that he punched Y by reason of sudden burst of anger. )hen X was charged before the .),. QI?>)I"!>; Q/. QA. Q@. Q3. wire Is a judicial notice an offset to the burden of proof of showing the receipt. If the police will testify& will his testimony be considered hearsay. Is the admission by X in his counter-affidavit inadmissible by reason that the same is e(trajudicial confession without assistance of counsel. If the video recording& being an electronic evidence will be presented as evidence in a criminal case& will it be admissible? <ill the recording be in violation of nti)apping law notwithstanding that the incident happened in a public place where only A persons are present?

!><?.>; /. Yes. 7asis. 4udicial notice is based on the ma(im& Nwhat is $nown need not be proved&O hence& when the rule is invo$ed& the court may dispense with the presentation of evidence on judicially cogni%able facts * )hayer& =reliminary )reatise on ?vidence& p. ACC cited in 4ones& )he Kaw on ?vidence in ,ivil ,ases& Jolume I& @rd ?d.6P=age C5 of ?vidence of .iano A005 edition. A. !o. ?ntries in official records. @. !o. =reliminary investigation is not the same with custodial investigation wherein the e(clusionary rule applies. It is well-settled that the foregoing legal formalities re#uired by the fundamental law of the land apply only to e(tra-judicial confessions or admissions obtained during custodial investigations. Indeed& the rights enumerated in the constitutional provision 9e(ist only in custodial interrogations& or in-custody interrogation of accused persons.9 ,ustodial interrogation is the #uestioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been ta$en into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. preliminary investigation is an in#uiry or a proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed& and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. * Kadiana vs. =eople -... !o. /33A5@& :ecember 3& A00A 6. 3. !o. .ules on electronic evidence do not apply in criminal cases. >ec.A of )he .ules on ?lectronic ?vidence. .ustan ng vs. ,ourt of ppeals& -... !o. /1A1@2& pril A0& A0/0. !o violation of .. . 3A00. <hat the law prohibits is the recording in a private place. F .,' 1& A0/3 )opics; 7est ?vidence .uleD ?(ception to 'earsay-?ntries in the ,ourse of 7usiness 8 ,)>; In a collection suit& X a lending company presented in evidence photocopies of >tatement of ccount& and =romissory !ote& appearing on the face of the documents N,?.)I8I?: ).I? ,"=YO stamped by the ccounting "fficer having direct and personal $nowledge of the entries made by the 7oo$$eeper. "n the date of hearing& the witness presented by =etitioner is the ,redit and ,ollection Fanager who testified with respect to the entries in the >tatement of ccount made by the 7oo$$eeper. )he judge denied the claim of plaintiff on the ground that the pieces of evidence presented were only photocopies and the stamp has no bearing. QI?>)I"! Q /; Is the judge correct? nd if so& who are the persons who can certify for the purpose that the photocopy may be presented in court as evidence. !><?.; ,ompetent officer of the court or a notary public. QI?>)I"! Q A; Is the testimony of ,redit and ,ollection Fanager an e(ception to hearsay? !><?.; !o. >ec. 3@& .ule /@0 of the .ules of ,ourt ?ntries in the course of business. P ?ntries made at& or near the time of the transactions to which they refer& by a person deceased& or unable to testify& who was in a position to $now the facts therein stated& may be received as prima facie evidence& if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. )he provision does not apply to this case because it does not involve entries made in the course of business. ,redit and ,ollection Fanager testified on a statement of account he $new nothing about. 'e had no personal $nowledge of the facts on which the accounts were based. 'e thus $new nothing of the truth or falsity of the facts stated in the >tatement of ccount.

/ Farch A001 Question Question; <hen may a motion to stri$e be availed of? >uggested answer; /. A. @. 3. 2. when when when when when the answer is prematureD the answer of the witness is irrelevant& incompetent or otherwise improperD the answer is not responsiveD the witness becomes unavailable for cross-e(amination through no fault of the cross-e(amining partyD or the testimony was allowed conditionally and the condition for its admissibility was not fulfilled.

1 Farch A0/3

Question N O filed an action against N7O& the administrator of the estate of the deceased N,O& for the recovery of a car which is part of the latterLs estate. :uring the trial& N O presented witness N:O who testified that he was present when N O and N7O agreed that the latter would pay a rental of =A0&000.00 for the use of N OLs car for one month after which N,O should immediately return the car to N O. N7O objected to the admission of N:OLs testimony. If you were the judge& would you sustain N7OLs objection? <hy? >uggested answer; )he objection of N7O should not be sustained. )he testimony is admissible because the witness is not dis#ualified to testify. )hose dis#ualified under the dead manLs statute or the survivorship dis#ualification rule are the parties or assignors of parties to a case& or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. )he witness is not one of those enumerated under the rule. * #ection %8, "ule &8'6.

Farch /. .ule /@A >ec A3. =roof of official record Question. Is a >pecial =ower of ttorney e(ecuted and ac$nowledge before a notary public in a foreign country authori%ing a person to file a suit against certain persons in the =hilippines admissible in evidence? nswer. !o& because a notary public in a foreign country is not one of those who can issue the certificate mentioned in >ec A3 .ule /@A of .o,. !on-compliance with the said rule will render the >= inadmissible inevidence. !ot being duly established in evidence& the >= cannot be used to file a suit in representation of another. )he failure to have the >= authenticated is not a mere technicality but a #uestion of jurisdiction. *'eirs of Fedina vs !atividad& -. /CC202& !ov AC& A0016 -----------------Farch /. Question. .ule <hat is /@A the probative >ec value A@. of =ublic documents consisting :ocuments of entries in as public 1 ?vidence records?

nswer. )hey are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein if entered by a public officer in the performance of a duty. ll other public documents are evidence& even against a third person& of the fact which gave rise to their e(ecution and of the date date of the latter. A. :is#ualification by reason of privilege communication *=hysician-=atient6

Question. Xavier filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage with Ysa on the ground of psychological incapacity. Xavier sought to testify on a confidential psychiatric evaluation report on his wife. Ysa objected to Xavier's testimony on the ground that it vuolates the physician-patient orivilege. Is the objection of Ysa correct? nswer. !o. "ne of the re#uisites before a physician-patient privilege may be invo$ed is that the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authori%ed to practice medicine& surgery& or obstretics. 'ere& the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly authori%ed to practice medicine& surgery or obstretics. Xavier is simply the husband of Ysa who wishes to testify on a document e(ecuted by medical practitioners. )his does not fall within the claimed prohibition. !either can his testimony be considered a circumvention of the prohibition because his testimony cannot have the force and effect of the testimony of the physician who e(amined the patient and e(ecuted the report. *+rohn vs , & -. /01123& 4une /3& /5536

F .,' 0/; Q&$ P"69:30: >uppose an action involving a document written in the <ara-waray dialect was filed in the .egional )rial ,ourt of Kaoag& Ilocos !orte. <hen the proponent of the #uestioned document offered it in evidence accompanied with translation Ilocano dialect& the adverse party objected to its admission on the ground that the said document is not accompanied with the authori%ed translation. )he proponent countered that under the ,onstitution& the regional languages serve as au(iliary official languages in the region where the court holds its sessions. .?>"KJ?. A5#W3": )he objection of the adverse party is impressed with merit. )he regional languages serve only as official au(iliary media of instruction in the region concerned& and do not serve the purpose of official communication& in which 8ilipino and ?nglish are the only the means of official communication Q%$ What is the effect of failure to ob/ect( )he evidence becomes admissible in evidence& but its probative value remains unaffected. 8or e(ample& hearsay evidence remains incompetent evidence notwithstanding its admission. In other words& failure to object to the admission of incompetent evidence does not amount to a waiver of its legal effect or its probative value. 7ut the failure to object does not grant the court authority to deny admission to incompetent or irrelevant evidence. F .,' 1; Q&$ What is the reason of requiring that evi!ence must be formally offere! otherwise the court will not consi!er any evi!ence not formally offere!( /. )he re#uirement is designed to inform the court of what the party ma$ing the offer intends to prove& and for the court to rule intelligently on the objection& if any& of the adverse party Q%$ What is the reason for the requirement of specific statement of the purpose( A. >uch re#uirement is intended to enable the court to determine whether the evidence is admissible to establish the fact which the offering party proposes to prove. ?vidence may be admissible for one specific purpose& but may not be for anotherD or it may be admissible against one of joint defendants but not against the other. It is not the duty of the court to loo$ beyond the purpose for which the evidence is offered. )hus& if the evidence is admissible for several purposes& all of them should be specified& otherwise& the court has the authority to disregard the others which are not so specified.

Q8$ As a rule, the court must allow intro!uction of ob/ects as evi!ence$ 9ut this option of the court accepts certain e*ceptions$ When may the court !eny the intro!uction of ob/ects as evi!ence( A8: /. <hen the e(hibition of such object is contrary public policy& morals or decencyD A. <hen to re#uire its being viewed in court or in an ocular inspection would result in undue delays& inconvenience& will cause e(penses which are out of proportion to the evidentiary value of such objectD @. <hen such object would bring about confusion& or misleading perception& as when the purpose is to prove the former condition of the object& but there is no preliminary showing that there has been no substantial change in said condition. 3. <hen the testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays the object in #uestion so as to render viewing it unnecessary.

Q7$ 0ay !ocuments qualify as ob/ect evi!ence( 3. Yes& when the purpose is to prove its e(istence or condition& to determine the age of the paper use& the nature of the handwritings thereon& the blemishes or alterations& thereon. 7ut if the purpose is to prove its contents or tenor they shall be considered as documentary evidence& not object evidence. Q;Is there any difference between admissibility and credibility?*march/6 ; Yes. dmissibility of evidence is determined by the concurrence of the two re#uisites of relevancy and competencyDcredibility is a matter for the court to appreciate. Q; and 7 are married.7 was suspecting that her husband was $eeping a mistress&so she raided his office and obtained documents to show that he has a mistress? re the documents admissible in evidence? <hy or why not?*march 16 ;!o. ?vidence obtained by a wife in violation of the privacy of communication and correspondence is inadmissible against the husband even in a case filed against him. *Rulueta vs , gr no./0C@1@6

0arch & Question: Answer: S S :ifferentiate a :ead FanLs >tatute from a Farital :is#ualification .ule. Dea! 0an-s #tatute

"nly a partial dis#ualification as the witness is not completely dis#ualified but is only prohibited from testifying on the matters therein specified. pplies only to a civil case or special proceeding over the estate of a deceased or insane person.

0arital Disqualification "ule S It is a complete and absolute dis#ualification

S pplies to a civil or criminal case& subject only to two e(ceptions; /6 e(cept in a civil case by one against the otherD or A6 in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latterLs direct descendants or ascendants. 0arch 4 Question: What is a #elf serving Declaration(

Answer: .efers to one which has been made e(tra-judicially by the party to favor his interest. It is not admissible in evidence because they are inherently untrustworthy and would open the door to fraud and fabrication of testimony.

Farch /& A0/3 Question le(& an alien& was criminally charged of promoting and facilitating child prostitution and other se(ual abuses under . CE/0. )he principal witness against him was 8ilipina wife& Kyla. ?arlier she had complained that le('s 'otel was being used as a center for se( tourism and child traffic$ing. )he defense council for le( objected to the testimony of Kyla& at the trial of the child violation of espousal confidentiality and marital privilege rule. It turned out that :ivine& the minor daughter of Kyla& by her first husband who was a 8ilipino was molested by le( earlier. )hus Kyla had filed for legal separation from le( since last year. Fay the court admit the testimony and affidavits of the wife& Kyla against her husband& le( in the criminal case involving child prostitution? ?(plain. nswer

Yes. )he court may admit the testimony and affidavits of the wife against her husband in the criminal case where it involves child prostitution of the wife's daughter. It is not covered by the marital privilege rule. one e(ception thereof is where the crime is committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants *sec.AA& rule /@06. crime by the husband against the daughter is a crime against the wife and directly attac$s of vitally impairs the conjugal relation. *ordono v. da#uigan EA scra AC0 T/5C2U6 Farch 1& A0/3 Question s counsel of an accused charged with homicide& you are convinced that he can be utili%ed as a state witness. <hat procedure will you ta$e? nswer s counsel of an accused charged with homicide& the procedure that can be followed for the accused to be utili%ed as a state witness is to as$ the prosecutor to recommend that the accused be made as state witness. It is the prosecutor who must recommend and move for the acceptance of the accused as a state witness. Question <hen may the trial court order that the testimony of a child be ta$en by live lin$ television? ?(plain. nswer )he testimony of a child may be ta$en by live lin$ television if there is a substantial li$elihood that the child would suffer trauma from testifying in the presence of the accused& the counsel& or the prosecutor as the case may be. )he trauma must of a $ind which would impair the completeness or truthfulness of the testimony of the child. *sec.A2& rule on e(amination of a child witness6

/. 8or march / #uestion; * admissibility B best evidence6 t the trial of for violation of dangerous drugs acts& the prosecution offers in evidence a photocopy of a mar$ed =/00 bill used in the 9 buy-bust9 operation. objects in the introduction of the photocopy on the ground that the best evidence rule prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence. Is the photocopy admissible in evidence?

nswer; yes. the photocopy is admissible because the best evidence rule does not apply to object or real evidence A. 8or march 1;* confession6 if the accused on a witness stant repeats his earlier uncounseled e(trajudicial confession implicating his co- accused in the crime charged& is the testimony admissible against the latter? nswer; yes the accused can testify by repeating the e(trajudicial confession because he can be subject to cross e(amination.

Farch /& A0/3; )?>)IF"!I K ?JI:?!,? *mental incapacity6 8acts; Jhong was charged with the crime of rape of :eniece& who is a mental retardate. Jhong allegedly raped :eniece while pointing a $nife at her. Jhong denied asserting that :eniece' mind is not normal& she having mentioned many names of men who had se(ual intercourse with her. Question; Is :eniece dis#ualified as a witness for being a mental retardate? nswer; !o. mental retardate or a feeble minded person is not per se dis#ualification from being a witness. 'er mental condition& not being a vitiation of her credibility. It is now universally accepted that intellectual wea$ness& no matter what form it assumes& is not a valid ibjection to the competency of the witness& so long as the latter can still give a fairly intelligent and reasonable narrative of the matter testified to. If her testimony is coherent& the same is admissible in court. *= vs. -olimlim6 .. /@0 >. A/ Farch 1& A0/3; <eight and sufficiency of evidence Question; Fay an accused be convicted beyond resonable doubt when in fact the evidence offered is only circumstantial evidence? nswer; Yes. ,ircumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if; a.6 )here is more than / circumstanceD b.6 )he facts from which the inferences are derived are provenD c.6 )he combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. *.. /@@ >.36

0arch &, %'&7 0ultiple A!missibility Question: Fay evidence be admissible for more than one purpose? Answer: Yes& where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes& such evidence may be admitted for any or all of the purposes it is offered provided it satisfies all the re#uirements for admissibility. on!itional A!missibility Question: 7ubba filed and action for recovery of ownership of a parcel of land against )iger. )he complaint alleged that 7ubba is the owner of the property. :uring trial& 7ubba testified and adduced evidence that sometime in /555& the property subject of the action was bought by .ory from a certain rnold. )iger objected on the ground that the evidence is irrelevant to support the claim of ownership by 7ubba. Fay 7ubba as$ the court to conditionally allow the testimony? Answer: Yes& <here the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with the other facts to be subse#uently proved& such evidence may be received on the condition that the other facts will be proved thereafter; otherwise& the evidence given will be stric$en out. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0arch 4, %'&7 0eaning of 6riginal Question: <hen 4ordan loaned as sum of money to 7ryant& 4ordan typed a single copy of the promissory note& which they both signed. 4ordan made two photocopies of the promissory note& giving one copy to 7ryant and retaining the other copy. 4ordan entrusted the typewritten copy to his counsel for safe$eeping. )he document with 4ordan's counsel was destroyed when fire ravaged his law office.

a. In an action to collect on the promissory note& which is deemed to be the original copy for the purpose of obtaining the 7est evidence rule? b. ,an the photocopies in the hands of the parties be considered duplicate original copies? Answer: a. )he original is the one typed and signed by both parties and which was lost when the office of 4ordan's counsel got burned. b. )he photocopies are not duplicate originals. )hey cannot be deemed as having been made at the same time with the original because they were not signed by the contracting parties

/6 A!mission by silence. *Farch /& A0/36 Question;If & 7& ,& :& and ?& were the accused of robbery and they were put in jail. )hey were confronted by the private complainant. =rivate complainant pointed them as the accused and & 7& and , admitted their guilt reasoning poverty& : and ? $ept silent. Is this and admission? <hat type? <hy? re there e(ceptions when silence is not considered as an admission? ,ite e(amples. nswer; )hat is an admission by silence. 7ecause they could have reacted. >ilence means consent. ?(ceptions to admissions by silence& if you are supposed to react and you did not react& your silence is admissible against you. If you are under advisement by your counsel or if you invo$e your right to remain silent. If your answer would be self-incriminatory. A6 #ection 7$ 6r!er in the e*amination of an in!ivi!ual witness (0A" 1 4, %'&7) Question: What happens now to the testimony of the witness whose cross-e*amination was not un!erta+en for one reason or the other, shoul! it be !elete! from the recor! or remain( nswer; It all depends upon the reason for the failure to cross-e(amine. If after the direct e(amination& the defense counsel said your honor I have another hearing in another court& so i would not underta$e my cross-e(amination. I move for continuance. 7y ne(t wee$ i will underta$e my cross-e(amination. It was granted. 8 !ays after the witness !ie!. >o what was ta$en under the stenographic notes was only the direct e(amination without re-cross. 'ere comes now the defense counsel& Your honor i move that the direct testimony be stric$en from the record for failure or without giving the chance to cross-e(amine. )he court should deny it. It should remain in the records because the motion for continuance was on the part of the defendant. If it was due to the plaintiff's counsel& then the e(amination may be stric$en off the record. ?(ample; after the direct e(amination& the defense's counsel undertoo$ to cross-e(amine. If the continuance was moved by the plaintiff's counsel.

/6

dmission by silence. *Farch /& A0/36

Question;If & 7& ,& :& and ?& were the accused of robbery and they were put in jail. )hey were confronted by the private complainant. =rivate complainant pointed them as the accused and & 7& and , admitted their guilt reasoning poverty& : and ? $ept silent. Is this and admission? <hat type? <hy? re there e(ceptions when silence is not considered as an admission? ,ite e(amples. nswer; )hat is an admission by silence. 7ecause they could have reacted. >ilence means consent. ?(ceptions to admissions by silence& if you are supposed to react and you did not react& your silence is admissible against you. If you are under advisement by your counsel or if you invo$e your right to remain silent. If your answer would be self-incriminatory. A6 >ection 3. "rder in the e(amination of an individual witness *F .,' 1& A0/36 Question; <hat happens now to the testimony of the witness whose cross-e(amination was not underta$en for one reason or the other& should it be deleted from the record or remain? nswer; It all depends upon the reason for the failure to cross-e(amine. If after the direct e(amination& the defense counsel said your honor I have another hearing in another court& so i would not underta$e my cross-e(amination. I move for continuance. 7y ne(t wee$ i will underta$e my cross-e(amination. It was granted. @ days after the witness died. >o what was ta$en under the stenographic notes was only the direct e(amination without re-cross. 'ere comes now the defense counsel& Your honor i move that the direct testimony be stric$en from the record for failure or without giving the chance to cross-e(amine. )he court should deny it. It should remain in the records because the motion for continuance was on the part of the defendant. If it was due to the plaintiff's counsel& then the e(amination may be stric$en off the record. ?(ample; after the direct e(amination& the defense's counsel undertoo$ to cross-e(amine. If the continuance was moved by the plaintiff's counsel. >'"Y , K Y ! ---In wewillsurviveremAVyahoogroups.com& WjayneXfreesiaV...Y wrote; 'i classmates& since we only have A meetings left for remA *mar/M16 may i suggest that our ne(t posting of #uestions will cover A meetings na for the said dates. )his is to $eep ourselves more prepared for the recit and will as well save our time from browsing our mails. *Kets better prepare to finish evid on time6 In posting your #uestion& please write the topic and indicate the date for which it is intended& and lastly& your name so we may as well chec$ those who didnt still post their #uestions. ?(ample; /. ,haracter ?vidence *march /&A0/36 *>tate your #uestion and suggested answer6 A. )estimonial +nowledge *march 1& A0/36 *>ame6 4anette =romise "ftana XXXXXXXXXXXXX((( lso& in ma$ing #uestions& please be reminded that problem-type is preferred $c yun ang sinabi ni sir& hindi yung obvious na ang sagot. Kastly& since we dont have a meeting on febAA& we will still comply with our deadline *wednesday 8eb /5& as per our agreement& but since we will have to prepare A #uestions& we may e(tend it until friday febA/. I hope everything is clear. nyone is welcome to interpose objection anytime soon. 7ut if you object& please lay down your further suggestionBs so we may have options to ta$e. )han$ you& we will indeed survive remA. ,ongratulations to us& graduatesZ 'ahaha. *>ana6

Q; <hat is the :",).I!? "8 ,"=K?)?!?>> in connection with :YI!- :?,K . )I"!?

; a dying declaration to be admissible must be complete in itself. )o be complete in itself does not mean that the declarant must recite everything that constituted the res gestae of the subject of his statement& 7I) that his statement of any given fact should be a full e(pression of all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning in respect of such

Q; <hen is the proper time in order to deem a witness to be dis#ualified to testify on a certain proceeding? in case dis#ualified are there any remedies? ; :etermined at the time said witness is produce for e(amination in court or at the ta$ing of their depositions. .emedies; a6 by rehabilitation of the dis#ualified witness by rebutting the evidence presented to impeach the said witness. b6 or through an e(pert testimony in case of a minor or incapacitated provided the testimony of the later is important for the determination of the said case.

<hat is 9)he 7erry .ule9? 7efore a new trial may be granted on the ground of a newly discovered evidence& the following must be shown; /. )hat the evidence was discovered after trial A. >uch evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the e(ercise of reasonable diligence @. It is material and not merely corroborative& cumulative or impeaching 3. )he evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted.

<hat is the doctrine of interloc$ing confession? Illustrate if E are accused and 3 of them e(ecuted an affidavit detailing how the crime was committed and pointing to the other two& that e(trajudicial con fession is admissible as against the other two who did not confess& pursuanttl the doctrine.

7 and ,& husband and wife. 7 filed for declaration of nullity of marriage under testified.

rticle @E of the 8amily ,ode against ,. In the trial& :& the doctor who used to treat ,

Kawyer of , objected against : citing the doctrine of privileged communication. Is the objection tenable? ?(plain. !><?.; : is dis#ualified to testify against , as to any advise or treatment given by him or any information which he may have ac#uired in his professional capacity. *>ec. A3 *c6& .ule /@06

Question; Fay a document be withdrawn or e(cluded before formal offer can be made?If yes& when is it allowed? nswer; Yes& the document may be withdrawn or e(cluded. )his is not prohibited since the document has not been formally offered yet. )he withdrawal is allowed whenever the proponent finds no more use for the document. lso when the document has been lost or destroyed without bad faith on the part of the proponent& the subse#uent withdrawal may be allowed. )he proponent of the withdrawal can as$ the court before the presentation of the evidence. Farch 1& A0/3 Question; <hen can a witness who has made inconsistent statements with his present testimony be impeached? A..ule /@A& . nswer; .ule /@A& >ection /@ - 7efore a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony& the statements must be related to him& with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present& and he must be as$ed whether he made such statements& and if so& allowed to e(plain them. If the statements be in writing& they must be shown to the witness before any #uestion is put to him concerning them.

' and < are legally married. ' is charged in court with the crime of serious physical injuries committed against & son of <& a step-son of '. < witnessed the infliction of the injuries on by '. )he public prosecutor called < to the witness stand and offered her testimony as eyewitness. ,ounsel for ' objected on the ground of marital dis#ualification rule under the .ules of ,ourt. Is the objection valid? nswer; )he objection is not valid. <hile the rule provides that neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse& the prohibition is merely a general rule. >aid rule is subject to certain e(ceptions& one of which is in a criminal case by one against the other. ' is committing a crime against & the son of < and the latterLs direct descendant *>ec. AA& .ule /@06.

Q; *Farch /6 - was charged with murder for fatally stabbing 7. >hortly before he e(pired& 7 was able to send a te(t message to his wife reading 9nasa$sa$ a$o. di na me ma$ahinga. si ang may gawa nito.9 Is the te(t message admissible as a dying declaration? *there are two possible answers to this #uestion6 /; Yes& the te(t message is admissible as a dying declaration since the same came from the victim who 9shortly9 e(pired and it in respect of the cause and circumstance of his death. )he decisive factor that the message was made and sent under consciousness of an impending death& is evidently attendant from the victim's statement; 9di na me ma$ahinga9 and the fact that he died shortly after he sent the te(t message. 'owever& cellphone messages are regarded as electronic evidence& and in a recent case * ng vs. , & -... !o. /1A1@2& pril A0& A0/06& it was held that the .ules on ?lectronic ?vidence applies only to civil actions& #uasi-judicial proceedings and administrative proceedings& not to criminal actions. A; !o& the te(t message is not admissible as a dying declaration since it lac$s indication that the victim was under consciousness of an impending death. )he statement 9di na me ma$ahinga9 is still e#uivocal in the te(t message sent that does not imply consciousness of forth-coming death. Q; *Farch 16 - =olicemen brought to a hospital and re#uested one of its surgeons to immediately perform surgery on him to retrieve a pac$et of /0 grams od shabu which they alleged was swallowed by . >uppose the hospital agreed to& and did perform the surgery& is the pac$age of shabu admissible as evidence? *there are also two possible answers to this #uestion6 /; !o& the pac$age of shabu e(tracted from the body of is not admissible in evidence because it was obtained through surgery which connotes forcible invasion into the body of without his consent and absent due process. )he act of the policemen and the hospital surgeon involved& violate the fundamental rights of & the suspect. A; Yes& it is admissible in evidence because the constitutional right against self-incrimination is addressed only to e(tracting admission of guilt from the lips of the suspect where otherwise no incriminating evidence e(ists. In the past& the >upreme ,ourt has already declared many invasive and involuntary procedure *such as :! testing6 as constitutionally sound * gustin vs. , & -... !o. /EA2C/& 4une /2& A0026

F .,' / *F?!) K .?) .: )? > Is mental retardate dis#ualified to testify?

<I)!?>>6

mental retardate or a feebleminded person is not& per se& dis#ualified from being a witness& her mental condition not being a vitiation of her credibility. It is now universally accepted that intellectual wea$ness& no matter what form it assumes& is not a valid objection to the competency of a witness so long as the latter can still give a fairly intelligent and reasonable narrative of the matter testified to. In the present case& no cogent reason can be appreciated to warrant a departure from the findings of the trial court with respect to the assessment of ?velyn[s testimony. It is settled that se(ual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate constitutes statutory rape which does not re#uire proof that the accused used force or intimidation in having carnal $nowledge of the victim for conviction. )he fact of ?velyn[s mental retardation was not& however& alleged in the Information and& therefore& cannot be the basis for conviction. >uch notwithstanding& that force and intimidation attended the commission of the crime& the mode of commission alleged in the Information& was ade#uately proven. It bears stating herein that the mental faculties of a retardate being different from those of a normal person& the degree of force needed to overwhelm him or her is less. 'ence& a #uantum of force which may not suffice when the victim is a normal person may be more than enough when employed against an imbecile. =?"=K? "8 )'? ='IKI==I!?> v. > KJ :". -"KIFKIF 3AC >,. /2 F .,' 1 *FI!". > <I)!?>>6 Inder the ,hild <itness .ule& what are the testimonial aids that can be used to help the child in giving testimony? >ection /E )he court shall permit the child to use dolls& anatomically-correct dolls& puppets& drawings& manne#uins or any other appropriate demonstrative device to assist him in his testimony.

QUESTION: Is there a Judicial Admission if after admission was made in the pleading, you amended it and removed the admission? ANSWER: It now becomes an Extrajudicial admission- it needs to be offered in evidence. Basis: Ching vs. CA 331 SCRA--- "Admission admitted which is superseded are extrajudicial admissions." Q: Mr. A's 3 grandchildren namely Anna, Alexa, & Ania were raised, fed, and schooled by him and his wife B during the lifetime of Mr. A. When A died, estate proceedings commenced. Anna, the eldest of the grandchildren, asked for allowance and support for the 3 of them from the estate of Mr. A while it is under settlement. Rule on the matter. A: Under Rule 83 sec. 3., only the widow, minor, or incapacitated children of the deceased, during the settlement proceedings be allowed to receive allowance under the direction of the court. In the case of Estate of hilario ruiz vs. CA, the High Court ruled that grandchildren are grandchildren are not entitled to provisional support from the funds of the decedents estate. The law clearly limits the allowance to widow and children and does not extend it to the deceaseds grandchildren, regardless of their minority or incapacity Determine how the court will appreciate the following DNA test results: a. exclude the putative parent from paternity b. Probability of Paternity is less than 99.9% c. Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher Answer: Sec. 9c of AM No. 06-22-5-SC a. Conclusive proof of non-paternity b. corroborative evidence c. disputable presumption of paternity Question: An American citizen residing in California died in California, his will was probated in the county state of San Diego. That will has been allowed in the U.S. Should that will be also allowed in the Philippines? A: No. Q: What should anyone interested in the allowance of the will in the Philippines do because the deceased had property in the Philippines? A: It should be re-probated here and the venue is in the proper court of any province where the decedent had property. Q: A: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. What A: 1. 2. 3. What are you supposed to establish or prove in the re-probate of a will? 1. The due execution of the will in accordance with the foreign law; That the testator had his domicile in the foreign country and not in the Philippines; That the will has been admitted to probate in such country; The fat that the foreign tribunal is a probate court; That the laws of a foreign country on procedure and allowance of wills. The fact of death (jurisdictional fact) of the testator in a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. are the requirements for an Affidavit of Self Adjudication? There is a will No debts; Only one heir.

Can the courts take judicial notice of facts found in the internet? (e.g., information found on government websites, or other websites) Answer: Sa totoo lang di ko talaga alam ang sagot sa tanong na 'to. Napansin ko naman kay Atty. Brondial kapag sobrang hirap talaga ng tanong siya na lang ang sumasagot e. Pero kung sakaling pilitin niya tayong sumagot eto ang nakita kong possible answers pero puro american jurisprudence ang citations niya: J11 JUDICIAL NOTICE INTERNET J11:1 In general

Use of evidence obtained from the internet can arise for differing reasons. a. Requesting a court to take judicial notice of facts contained in an opposing partys website for purposes of establishing factual admissions of fact. [seeAmpex Corp. v. Cargle (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1573-1574, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 863] b. Requesting a court to take judicial notice of facts and propositions that are of such common knowledge that they cannot reasonably be subject to dispute. [Evidence Code 452(g)(g); Truong v. Nugyen (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 865, 882, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 675] The contents of a business posting its Securities & Exchange Commission filings for use in a defamation suit can be the subject of judicial notice. [Ampex Corp. v. Cargle (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1573, 1574, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 863] Judicial notice that a server [e.g. Yahoo] offers a financial message board for publically traded companies, contents of messages posted on a message board, may be properly judicially noticed. [Ampex Corp. v. Cargle, supra] Public records may be properly judicially noticed. [U.S. ex rel Dingle v. BioPort Corp. (W.D. Mich. 2003) 270 F.Supp.2d 968, 972] J11:2 Legal basis for requesting judicial notice Facts and propositions that are of such common knowledge that they cannot be reasonably the subject of dispute can be judicially noticed. [Evidence Code 452(g)(h); Truong v. Nugyen (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 865, 882, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 675 (industry report pertaining to jet skis, magazine article, both not judicially noticed.)] Public records and government documents may be judicially noticed as not being subject to reasonable doubt. [U.S. ex rel Dingle v. BioPort Corp . (W.D. Mich. 2003) 270 F.Supp.2d 968, 672] Question: Apart from the case for reconveyance of title to it appear that they sold action on the ground that Answer: Yes, questions of collation should be resolved in the estate proceedings, not in a separate civil case.

the settlement of her parents' estate, Betty filed an action against her sister, Sigma, for a piece of land. Betty claimed that Sigma forged the signatures of their late parents to make the land to her when they did not, thus prejudicing Bettys legitime. Sigma moved to dismiss the the dispute should be resolved in the estate proceedings. Is Sigma correct?

Question: At Joaquin's trial for possession and use of dangerous drug (shabu); his girlfriend Chichay testified that on a particular day, he would see Joaquin being very prim and proper, alert and sharp, but few days later, Joaquin would appear stressed, tired, haggard and overly nervous at the slightest sound he would hear. Joaquin's lawyer objected to the admissibility of Chichay's testimony on the ground that Chichay merely stated her opinion without having been first qualified as an expert witness. If you were the judge, rule on the objection. Answer: The testimony should not be excluded. Chichay, though not an expert witness, nay testify on her impressions of the emotion, behavior, appearance and condition of a person under Rule 130 Sec. 50 last paragraph of the Rules on Evidence. Show message history Authenticity and due execution of a private document is proved by, inter alia, evidence of genuineness of the handwriting of the maker Q: How is handwriting proved? A: 1.Witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument (Sec 20a) 2.Witness familiar with such handwriting (Sec 22) and who can give his opinion thereon, such opinion being exception to opinion rule (Rule 130, Sec 50b) 3.Comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and admitted genuine specimens thereof (Sec 22) 4.Expert evidence (Rule 130 Sec 49) Riza sued Darius for injuries that she suffered when Darius' bicycle collided with hers. The issue is whether Darius was riding his bicycle on the correct side of the roadway. Riza wants to introduce a photograph that shows that Bruce was riding his bicycle on the wrong side of the road. Bruce objects to the introduction of the photograph. Is the photograph admissible or not? Answer: Admissible if there is testimony offered showing the photograph to be an accurate representation of the scene of the accident. If a proper foundation is laid, the photograph is admissible into evidence. This requires that there be someone who can testify that the photograph is a true and accurate representation of the accident scene. Since anyone who was present at scene when the photograph was taken can testify to the accuracy of the photograph, the photographer does not have to be present.

What

is

the

remedy

when

the

documents

or

things

offered

by

the

proponent

were

excluded

by

the

court?

Answer: Tender of excluded evidence . If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. 1. what is evidence on motion? A: When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matters be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. 2. what is included when you say one is incompetent? A: Incompetent includes: those suffering from the penalty of civil interdiction; hospitalized lepers; prodigals; deaf and dumb; those of unsound mind although they have lucid intervals; persons not of unsound mind but by reason of age, disease, weak mind, and other similar causes, cannot, without outside aid, take care of themselves or manage their property.

What

is

the

remedy

when

the

documents

or

things

offered

by

the

proponent

were

excluded

by

the

court?

Answer: Tender of excluded evidence . If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may

have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. A: When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matters be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. 2. what is included when you say one is incompetent? A: Incompetent includes: those suffering from the penalty of civil interdiction; hospitalized lepers; prodigals; deaf and dumb; those of unsound mind although they have lucid intervals; persons not of unsound mind but by reason of age, disease, weak mind, and other similar causes, cannot, without outside aid, take care of themselves or manage their property. Reyes/Habeas Corpus Q: Distinguish Preliminary Citation from Peremptory Writ. A: Where the person is detained under governmental authority petition for the writ, the court may issue a citation to the cause why the Writ of Habeas Corpus should not issue. This is issued when the cause of the detention appears to be patently Yick Hon vs. Insular Collector of Customs, 41 Phil 548)

and the illegality of his detention is not patent from the government officer having the person in his custody to show known as a Preliminary Citation. Peremptory Writ however is illegal and the non-compliance wherewith is punishable. (Lee

A used as an evidence in a land dispute case a certified true copy of real property assessment issued by a city treasurer. is the document admissible? ans. no.

sec 7 rule 130 provides that when original document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. city assessor is the proper custodian of assessment and not the city treasurer. Preliminary Injunction Can a suit for injunction be aptly filed with the Supreme Court to stop the President from entering into a peace Agreement with the National Democratic Front? answer: No, a suit for injunction cannot aptly be filed in this case as this is a political question.

Sent from my iPhone Authenticity and due execution of a private document is proved by, inter alia, evidence of genuineness of the handwriting of the maker Q: How is handwriting proved? A: Witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument (Sec 20a) Witness familiar with such handwriting (Sec 22) and who can give his opinion thereon, such opinion being exception to opinion rule (Rule 130, Sec 50b) Comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and admitted genuine specimens thereof (Sec 22) Expert evidence (Rule 130 Sec 49) > Disqualification by reason of privilege communication (Physician-Patient) Question. Xavier filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage with Ysa on the ground of psychological incapacity. Xavier sought to testify on a confidential psychiatric evaluation report on his wife. Ysa objected to Xavier's testimony on the ground that it vuolates the physician-patient orivilege. Is the objection of Ysa correct? Answer. No. One of the requisites before a physician-patient privilege may be invoked is that the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery, or obstretics. Here, the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly QUESTION: Is there a Judicial Admission if after admission was made in the pleading, you amended it and removed the admission? ANSWER: It now becomes an Extrajudicial admission- it needs to be offered in evidence. Basis: Ching vs. CA 331 SCRA--- "Admission admitted which is superseded are extrajudicial admissions."authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstretics. Xavier is simply the husband of Ysa who wishes to testify on a document executed by medical practitioners. This does not fall within the claimed prohibition. Neither can his testimony be considered a circumvention of the prohibition because his testimony cannot have the force and effect of the testimony of the physician who examined the patient and executed the report. (Krohn vs CA, GR 108854, June 14, 1994) Q- Adolf is a member of Religious group, and likewise an active member of one partylist, He was previously convicted of Falsification of Document, Adolf is one of the 5 witnesses to the Will of George, Is Adolf qualified to testify as witness in the probate of the will of George? A- No. Although Sec.20, Rule 130 provides that religious or political belief interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification. Art. 821 of the Civil Code provides that those who have been convicted of falsification of a document, Perjury or False Testimony are disqualified from being witnesses to a will, as a consequence, these persons may not testify as witnesses in the probate of a Will where the subject of testimony is the very fact of execution of the Will in their presence. A used as an evidence in a land dispute case a certified true copy of real property assessment issued by a city treasurer. is the document admissible? ans. no.

sec 7 rule 130 provides that when original document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. city assessor is the proper custodian of assessment and not the city treasurer. 1. Doctrine of Processual Presumption Question:

What is the Doctrine of Processual Presumption? Answer: Foreign law is the same as the law of the forum. It arises if the foreign law, though properly applicable is either not alleged or if alleged is not duly proved before a competent court. Absent any of the evidence or admission, the foreign law is presumed to be the same at that in the Philippines. (In Re Testate Estate of Suntay, 50 O.G. 5321, Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Fisher, et. al., G.R. No. L-11622, January 28, 1961) 2. Dying Declaration Question: Allan Revilla was killed by Jinggoy Enrile in his house at Makati. Before Allan Revilla died, he was able to write the name Jinggoy Enrile in the wall using his blood. Thereafter, the policemen came to the scene of the crime. Will that writing on the wall be admissible as evidence in court on the part of the prosecution? Answer: It may be admissible in court but will not be given credit/weight unless it is clearly identified (for example, that the writing on the wall really came from the blood of the victim, that it is the victims own handwriting, the authenticity of the photograph on the scene of the crime, etc.). Note: There is no jurisprudence on the said question, this was just asked by one of my classmates in our Evidence Class. Bahala na kayo magdagdag ng answer.

Q: IS SPOUSAL IMMUNITY OR MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MARRIAGE APPLICABLE TO ESTRANGED SPOUSES? A: NO. SEC.22 OF RULE 130 DO NOT APPLY WHERE THE MARITAL AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS ARE SO STRAINED THAT THERE IS NO MORE HARMONY TO BE PRESERVED NOR PEACE AND TRANQUILITY WHICH MAY BE DISTURBED. Question Are modes of discovery specifically proceedings? Answer: No. Section 2, Rule 72 of ROC provides that: "In the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary civil actions shall be, as as practicable applicable in special proceedings". There is no provision to the contrary that would preclude the application of the modes of discovery specifically interrogatories to parties under Rule 25 of the Rules, to probate proceedings. Q: Within what time can claims against the estate be filed? Can claims arising after the death of the decedent be presented? A1: Within the time fixed in the notice which shall not be more than 12 months or less than 6 months after the date of the first publication. Otherwise, they are barred forever. Exception: Belated Claims or claims not filed within the original period fixed by the court. A2: Gen Rule: No it cannot be presented. Exceptions: 1) Funeral Expenses 2) Expenses of the last sickness of the decedent. What is the Doctrine of Self-serving? It prohibits the admission of declaration of a witness in his favor. interrogatories to parties apply only to ordinary civil actions and not special

It applies only to extrajudicial admission and not those made in open court. The admission made in open court is admissible because the witness maybe cross examined on the matter. It is however up to the court to appreciate the same.