PEDIGREE

Gravador v. Mamigo
Dispute Age of petitioner. He was the principal of a school and was advised that he
was to be separated from work for being 65 years old on the basis of his pre-war
records stating he was born 1897.
Evidence He claims he was born 1901. Presented the declaration of the his
brother, contained in a verified pleading in a cadastral case way back in 1924, to the
effect that the petitioner was then 23 years old.
Ruling Admissible. A statement made ante litem motam by a deceased relative is
at once a declaration regarding pedigree within the intendment and meaning of
section 33 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
Tison v. CA
Dispute - Action for reconveyance of title of land and apartment. The dispute is
between Corazon (niece of decedent) and Respondent.
Owned by decedent >> surviving spouse assigned RESPONDENT as successor >>
spouse died >>> CORAZON now claims she can inherit by right of representation
Declaration - Corazons testimony that Teodora (declarant) categorically declared
that she was her niece.
Ruling Admissible even if their pedigree wasnt proven by evidence other than
the testimony. GR: when a claimant seeks recovery against a common relative, the
relationship of the common relative to the declarant cannot be proved by the
declaration alone. E: when recovery is sought against the declarant or his estate. In
this case, Corazon seeks to recover from the estate of the declarant herself, thus
further evidence aside from decedent Teodoras 1946 declaration is no longer
necessary.
FAMILY TRADITION
Ferrer v. de Ynchausti
Dispute Filiation of Rosa (mom of petitioners). Petitioners claim that she was a
legitimate child and was omitted from will of grandma Isabel.
Evidence - Day-book of Ramon Jr. (supposed husband of Rosa). This stated that
mom was not born within lifetime of Ramon V.
Joaquin also stated that he was assure by Ramon Jr that Rosa was not his sister, but
that she was only a protegee and that her true name was Rosa Matilde Robles, and
Ramon Jr showed him the birth cert which he took from the church.
- Since Ramon Jr is dead, Joaquins testimony referring to the former is admissible,
since they are members of the same family.

Defense Petitioners state that daybook should be inadmissible since it has not
been proven that the entries in it were made at the same time that those events
occurred
Ruling Admissible. The law does not require that the entries be made at the same
time as the occurrence of the events.
People v. Alegado
Dispute Alegado raped a girl twice. The prosecution sought to prove that the girl
was under 12 years old.
Evidence presented the testimony of the girls grandfather (the girls mother had
told him the girls birthdate) and putting the girl herself on the stand to testify re:
her birthdate.
Defense hearsay so they are inadmissible. Grandpas testimony not based on
personal knowledge.
Ruling Both admissible under exception of family tradition. A witness may
establish the pedigree of his or her own family member. Further, a person may
testify as to his own birthdate, though he had no personal knowledge thereof and
only learned it from his parents and family.
Rationale for exception- admitted on the principle that they are natural expressions
of persons who must know the truth
COMMON REPUTATION
Manila v. Del Rosario
Dispute - The City wants to recover two Tondo lots from Jacinto, who claims his
brother Lorenzo bought one of the lots from a third person, and later transferred
title to him. The City tried to prove that it had generally been considered the owner
of the land in question.
Evidence - City introduced a witness (Villegas) who testified that the land had once
been part of the entirely City-owned Gran Divisoria.
Ruling Inadmissible. Witness had only learned such fact from the oldest residents
of that part of the City.
Only universal reputation is sufficient to establish common reputation under the
law. The Court held that the witness testimony was mere hearsay, insufficient to
establish common reputation.

RES GESTAE

People v. Lungayan
Act Mom got raped. When victim got home, her daughter asked her what had
happened. Mom said she would tell her the following morning instead.
Evidence The above revelation to her daughter
RTC part of res gestae
Ruling Inadmissible because of the lack of involuntariness on the part the victims
testimony. The Court held that the victim had enough time to make a decision on the
nature of her story; she took a walk and did not immediately go home after the rape.
People v. Latayada
Crime carnapping with homicide. Elgin stabbed Pedro.
Evidence As soon as he got stabbed, he randomly entered house of Vicenta and
asked for help. before he died, he talked to his wife and told her what had happened.
The police took this as an antemortem statement to which he affixed his thumbprint
on.
Ruling Admissible as both res gestae and dying declaration. They had been made
immediately after a startling occurrence and had complied with the following
requirements:
. 1) The statements were spontaneous
. 2) They were immediately made before, during and after the startling
occurrence
. 3) They related the circumstances thereof

DBP Pool v. Radio Mindanao Network

Act RNM sought to recover insurance policy from petitioner. Company refused,
stating that the fire was caused by an excepted circumstance, maintaining that the
evidence showed that the fire was caused by members of the CPP-NPA. (mutiny riot
were excepted)
Evidence - testimonies of its witnesses, police officers, who were not present when
the fire occurred and whose testimonies were limited to the fact that an
investigation was conducted and in the course of the investigation they were
informed by bystanders heavily armed men perpetrated the fire and shouted
Mabuhay ang NPA! afterwards.
Ruling Inadmissible. Although the statements could have been made during a
startling occurrence, they were not spontaneous. It cannot be said however, that
these utterances were made spontaneously by the bystanders and before they had
the time to contrive or devise a falsehood. Note that the statements are however

admissible not as to the veracity thereof but to the fact that they had been thus
uttered.

ENTRIES IN COURSE OF BUSINESS

Canque v. CA
Dispute Canque did not want to pay Socor Construction for its services of road
construction because they failed to show the delivery receipts and acceptance by the
government.
Evidence - Socor presented its books of account, and its bookkeeper.
Defense - The entries in Socors Book of Collectible Accounts cannot take the place of
the delivery receipts and that such entries are mere hearsay and, thus, inadmissible.
RTC evidence sufficient so sided with Socor
SC Inadmissible for not complying with 1st and 3rd requisites. First, bookkeeper
was not dead or unable to testify and was actually presented in trial. Second, the
bookkeeper admitted to not having personal knowledge of the entries. She said she
made the entries based on the bills given to her by the project engineer, but she has
no knowledge of the truth or falsity of the facts stated in the bills
-HOWEVER, Socor still wins based on all the other pieces of evidence it presented.
Sadagnot v. Reiner Pacific
Dispute - Petitioner was repatriated for insubordination. He filed a case for illegal
dismissal.
Evidence - CA used the logbook of the ship as evidence of his misconduct and basis
of the ruling that the dismissal was for a valid cause (serious misconduct or wilful
disobedience)
Defense - logbook should not be given credence considering that there is a joint
statement by his crewmates attesting to the fact that there were 12 deck crew on
deck at the time who would be able to handle the hatch stripping if they were
ordered to do so. (he had the position of 3rd officer so it wasnt his duty to strip
hatch)
SC Admissible. The ships logbook is the official record of a ships voyage which its
captain is obligated by law to keep. It is where the captain records the decisions he
had adopted, a summary of the performance of the vessel and other daily events.
The entries made in the ships logbook by a person performing a duty required by
law are prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the logbook.
ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
US v. Que Ping

Dispute Que Ping convicted for homcicide. He filed for bail. CFI ordered the
sureties to produce the body of Que Ping before it. Instead of producing Que Ping,
however, the sureties claimed that they had been relieved of their obligation to
produce the convicted because he had passed away. Sureties tried to prove his
death.
Evidence to prove his death, they presented the ff. documents: 1) certificate by the
municipal secretary of San Pablo, Laguna that attested to the fact that under the
Registry of Births, Marriages, and Deaths of that municipality, a person named Que
Ping died of gastritis
2) A certificate of death given by the president of the municipal board of health of
San Pablo, Laguna that also certified the death of a person named Que Ping due to
gastritis
SC Inadmissible. although such documents were in the nature of public
documents and thus enjoyed the presumption of regularity as regards their
execution, they did not constitute conclusive evidence of the facts purported therein
(mere prima facie evidence)
- the documents presented not sufficient. For the first one, the clerk testified that he
did not see the corpse of Que Ping. Second, the sanitary inspector who made the
death certificate testified to the same thing. Last, the porter of the cemetery wherein
Que Ping was allegedly buried testified that no funeral took place on the day that the
burial of the decased was supposed to have taken place
People v. San Gabriel
Dispute San Gabriel accused of murder with conspiracy with Ramon Doe
Evidence - Advance Information Sheet prepared by the police only named "Ramon
Doe" as the suspect. (Si Ramon ang nasa blotter).
SC Inadmissible so San Gabriel guilty as well. Entries in official records not
conclusive - entries in official records such as a police blotter are merely prima facie
evidence of facts herein stated. This cannot defeat positive identification by
witnesses. The entry in a police blotter is not necessarily entitled to full credit
because it can be incomplete and innacurate.
- Evidence inadmissible because of failure to meet the first and third requisite:
the public officer had no sufficient personal knowledge of the stabbing. Any info was
obtained through the witnesses which therefore could not be categorized as official
information because the witness was not legally obliged to give such statements.
Escobar v. Luna
Dispute conflict over land that was registered under names of spouses Escobar.
Luna presented evidence stating that he had been in actual possession, and that the
titles were fraudulently put in the names of Escobar.

Evidence 1) certification of Atty. Cainza-Valenton, Acting Register of Deeds

showing how Escobars made it appear that the OCT did not appear in the records. (+
other documents seen in digest ratio)
SC Admissible. Lunas evidence are competent evidence, having been issued by
government offices, certified to by authorized personnel who were clothed with
authority and duty to issue such certifications.
- The Register of Deeds of the Province of Batangas is the repository of all
records regarding OCTs issued in that province, and the certification is
therefore competent and admissible evidence to prove that the titles of the
Escobars derived from it are from a fictitious source.
COMMERCIAL LISTS
PNOC v. CA
Dispute collision between 2 ships. Petitioner was found to be at fault, so private
respondent sued.
Evidence to prove actual damages, Respondent presented documentary evidence
consisting of quotations of the ship and its cargo, with Del Rosario as witness.
SC Inadmissible and did not fall under hearsay exception. Price quotations are
ordinary private writings which under the ROC should have been offered along with
the testimony of the authors thereof. Del Rosario, witness of private respondents,
could not have testified on the veracity of the contents because he wasnt the one
who issued the quotations.
o - CA erred when it assumed that these were under the exception of
commercial lists. They are mere price quotations personally requested by Del
Rosario, who requested them from dealers of equipment. They are simply
letters answering Del Rosarios queries.
o They arent published in any list, register, periodical or other compilation.
Nor are they market reports or quotations within the purview of
commercial lists as these are not standard handbooks or periodicals,
containing data of everyday professional need and relied upon in the work of
the occupation.
o Even if admissible, they do not have probative weight. They were letters so
the author should testify as to its contents.
- Conclusion >>> Nominal damages instead since there was damage for sure.
LEARNED TREATISES
Estrada v. Noble
Dispute conflict over land.
Evidence use of Ballantine scale to fix the redemption price

Ruling Admissible. Learned treatise and has been used by the courts in numerous
occasions.
PRIOR TESTIMONY
Manliclic (bus driver and owners) v. Cunanan (jeep driver and passengers)
Dispute bus and jeepney collision. Respondents filed both a crim and civil case for
damages against petitioners.
Evidence transcripts and stenographic notes of witness testimonies in crim case
presented in the civil case by respondents because these witnesses could not testify
anymore. (instead, they presented testimonies stating that such witnesses were not
able to testify)
- crim case eventually dismissed
Ruling Inadmissible but accepted cos no objection. Did not comply with 5 reqs for
prior testimony to be admissible. Petitioner PRBLI, not being a party in Criminal
Case No. 684-M-89, had no opportunity to cross-examine the three witnesses in said
case. The criminal case was filed exclusively against petitioner Manliclic, petitioner
PRBLIs employee. The cases dealing with the subsidiary liability of employers
uniformly declare that, strictly speaking, they are not parties to the criminal cases
instituted against their employees.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
Dispute Evidence - the testimony of Maurice Bane (in the form of a deposition), former
director and treasurer-in-trust of ETPI, was sought to be admitted under Sec 1, Rule
24 of the old RoC.
SC- inadmissible. Requisite that Bane unable to testify not shown. You cant assume
that the fact that his deposition was accepted in the incident case that he is also
unable to testify in the main case.
- requisite of prior cross-examination also not met. Petitioners failed to show that
parties to the first case were identical to this one.
- there was no waiver to cross-examine
OPINION RULE
People v. Duranan
Dispute Rape case of a 25 year old retard.

Evidence mothers testimony that daughter was mentally retarded (still thought
like a child)
Defense - an essential element for the prosecution of rape of a mental retardate is a
psychiatric evaluation of the complainants mental age to determine if her mental
age is under 12
Sc Admissible. Mother was a valid ordinary witness. The mother of an offended
party in a case of rape, though not a psychiatrist, if she knows the physical and
mental condition of the party, how she was born, what she is suffering from, and
what her attainments are, is competent to testify on the matter.
Ilao-Quianay v. Mapile
Dispute conflict over land owned by Ilao. During judicial settlement of estate, heirs
found an annotation stating it was sold to Ibarra. Petitioner heirs say it was forged
while Respondent says it was genuine. Case for quieting of title filed.
Evidence Both presented handwriting experts. Both had different conclusions.
o Lower Court - conflicting testimonies of the handwriting experts presented
by both parties left it no choice but to favor the notarized deed of sale and to
rule that the same is genuine.
SC Inadmissible. Experts are presented to enlighten not confuse the courts
and for this reason, We do not fault the lower court for disregarding, in its
exasperation, their testimony on record, no doubt, relying on the leeway extended
to all courts that they "are not bound to submit their findings necessarily to such
testimony; they are FREE to weigh them and they can give or REFUSE to give them
any value as proof..."
o - The opinion of an expert should be considered by the court in view of all
the facts and circumstances of the case. The problem of the evaluation of
expert testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling
thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of that discretion.

People v. Umanito
Dispute Rape case. Umanito found guilty and sentenced. Issue here is WoN DNA
testing should be used given that the victim bore a child.
SC They should submit to DNA testing. DNA print/identification technology is now
recognized as a uniquely effective means to link a suspect to a crime, or to absolve
one erroneously accused, where biological evidence is available.

CHARACTER EVIDENCE
People v. Babiera
Dispute conflict over land supposedly owned by Babieras. They sold it to Copreras
and did not exercise right to repurchase. Copreras then leased it to Haro. Haro killed
by 3 respondents.
Defense They killed him in self-defense.
SC Murder. The defense attempted to prove that Haro was of a quarrelsome
disposition, provoking, and fond of starting quarrels in Oton, but the trial judge
would not permit it. While it is true that when the defense of the accused is that he
acted in self-defense, he may prove the deceased to have been of a quarrelsome,
provoking and irascible disposition, the proof must be of his general reputation in
the community and not of isolated and specific acts.
But even if it had been proved by competent evidence that the deceased was of such
a disposition, nevertheless, it would not have been sufficient to overthrow the
conclusive proof that it was the said accused who treacherously attacked the
deceased.
People v. Soliman
Dispute Accused stabbed Basa multiple times.
Evidence accused testified as to the violent nature of victim. He got punched when
he tried to borrow his pushcart. He was also beat up by an iron pipe.
SC Irrelevant. While good or bad moral character may be availed of as an aid to
determine the probability of improbability of the commission of an offense, such is not
necessary in a crime of murder where the killing is committed through treachery or
premeditation. The proof of such character may only be allowed in homicide cases to
show that it has produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the mind of the
accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessary. Such
was not in the case at hand.

People v. Cheng
Dispute Patrolmen killed Egyptian dudes
Evidence witness Ilocsos testimony
SC Admissible. Mere imputation of immorality not enough to discredit witness.
CSC v. Belagan
Dispute sexual harassment against superintendent
Evidence victim gave testimony
Defense she was arrested and convicted for a bunch of crimes

SC - ADMISSIBLE