Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The
res
gestae
rule
embraces
(a)
spontaneous exclamations and (b) verbal acts.
The trial court admitted Panimdim's statement
as a spontaneous statement made after the
commission of a felony.
A declaration made by a person immediately
after being wounded, pointing out or naming his
assailant, may be considered as part of the res
gestae and is admissible in evidence. A
statement was given sometime after the stabbing
while the declarant was undergoing treatment at
a medical clinic, where he had no time to
concoct a falsehood or to fabricate a malicious
charge against the accused and no motive has
been shown as to why he would frame-up the
accused would render the statement admissible
as a part of the res gestae
said
additional
amounts.
Consequently,
Philamgen filed a collection suit, but only as
against Capital Assurance. The City Court of
Manila and the Court of First Instance of Manila
ruled in favor of Philamgen. Capital Assurance
appealed from said decisions. Capital Assurance
argued that Philamgen failed to prove the
existence of the additional accounts incurred by
the Galang spouses. On the other hand,
Philamgen argued that it was able to establish
the same by virtue of the testimony of its
Accounts Control Office Chief, Narciso Bacani,
who testified on a statement of account which
showed the spouses indebtedness.
OFFICIAL RECORDS
Rule 130, Section 44
There
are
three
requisites
for
admissibility under Sec.35, Rule 130:
1) that the entry was made by a public
officer, or by another person specially
enjoined by law to do;
2) that it was made by the public officer in
the performance of his duties, or by such
other person in the performance of a
duty specially enjoined by law; and
3) that the public officer or other person
had sufficient knowledge of the facts by
him stated, which must have been
acquired by him personally or through
official information.
PEOPLE
v. LEONES
September 30, 1982
117
SCRA
by
382
DELA CRUZ
vs. SISON G.R. No. 163770
February 17, 2005
COMMERCIAL LISTS
Rule 130, Section 45
Section 45. Commercial lists and the like.
Evidence of statements of matters of interest to
persons engaged in an occupation contained in
a list, register, periodical, or other published
compilat ion is admissible as tending to prove
the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that
compilation is published for use by persons
engaged in that occupation and is generally
used and relied upon by them therein. (39)
STATE
OF NEW JERSEY
LUNGSFORD 400 A.2d 843
v. LAWRENCE
The
State
established
that
after
reasonable inquiry the owner of the allegedly
stolen car, James Wilton, could not be located
for trial. The report and supplement contained
the information that Wilton allegedly gave to the
police immediately after he realized his car was
stolen. This was the only evidence in the case
establishing that Wilton's car had been stolen.
This hearsay of Wilton was inadmissible under
the business records exception. While police
records may qualify as business records for
certain purposes and in certain respects, they
are nevertheless not vehicles by which
substantive evidential status may be conferred
upon the o therwise hearsay declarations of a
victim of or witness to a crime, accident or other
occurrence. If the declarant is not available to
testify and if the statement is not admissible
under some other exception to the hearsay rule,
such as excited utterance or dying declaration,
then admissibility cannot be predicated
exclusively upon the circumstance that the
statement was made to a police officer who
paraphrased its content in his report.
10
11
12
OPINION RULE
Rule 130, Section 48-50
Section 48. General rule. The opinion of
witness is not admissible, except as indicated in
13
By : Dizon, May
*
Facts: The deceased, Benito Perez, Policarpio
Guevarra, and Felipe Bautista, were arrested in
their respective houses by the defendants
Valentin Trono, subinspector of the municipal
police of the town of Hagonoy, accompanied by
Jose and Agustin who were municipal policemen
and Maximo Angeles. The deceased and his
companions were suspected of the theft of a
revolver belonging to Maximo Angeles. The three
were taken to a place called Sapang-Angelo and
there were beaten and illtreated. They were then
brought to the municipal building of the town
where Benito Perez who has suffered much of
the beatings were complaining of severe pain
and was not able to properly walk. Nothing was
adduced from the investigation of the theft, the
three were subsequently released from custody.
Benito Perez died the next morning. An
investigation ensued and the defense contends
that the death of Benito Perez was not due to the
wounds inflicted during the beatings, but to a
serious illness, from which the deceased had
been suffering for a long time, basing such
allegation on the certificate and testimony of the
physician, Don Andres Icasiano. The trial court
convicted the accused of murder. The defendants
appealed the decisions, relying on the testimony
of the expert witness.
45 O.G. 5536
14
A polygraph is an electromechanical
instrument that simultaneously measure and
records certain physiological changes in the
body and are believed to be involuntary caused
by an examinees conscious attempt to deceive
15
erred
in
16
17
18
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE:
19
adverse party.
20
LEADING QUESTIONS:
21
CROSS-EXAMINATION
EMILIO DE LA PAZ JR. v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT G.R. No. 71537
September 17, 1987
FULGADO
22
v. COURT
OF APPEALS
181
23
24
IMPEACHMENT BY BIAS
25
Following
Mrs.
Martin's
testimony,
appellant sought to introduce testimony of Mrs.
Harvey which would have shown that Mrs.
Harvey was a long -time acquaintance of Mrs.
Martin, and that while Mrs. Harvey was on duty
as a nurse in a Buffalo hospital, she
encountered Mrs. Martin, who was there for
treatment of a broken leg. Mrs. Harvey would
have testified that during this encounter Mrs.
Martin accused appellant of fathering her child
and refusing to support it and that Mrs . Martin
26
27
2. No. The
declaration, without
to the witness while
First Instance is no
credibility.
mere presentation of a
the same having been read
he testified in the Court of
ground for impeaching his
28
29
30
31
A. Practically.
Q. And you were convicted were you not?
Q. (By Mr. Leach). Go on and answer me?
You were convicted in your trial before
Judge Gorter and Judge
Stanton, were you not?
In answer to the last question the witness
replied that he had been so convicted.
32
Issue:
Whether
the
defendant
Oswalts
whereabouts a month before the commission of
the crime is irrelevant and collateral matter, and
is thus inadmissible to impeach Ardiss
testimony. YES
Ruling:The detectives impeaching testimony is
inadmissible. While relevant and probative
evidence of preparations by an accused for the
commission of a crime is admissible, the state's
argument requires us to speculate that the
defendant could not readily commute between
Portland and Seattle, and that his presence in
Seattle and acquisition of adhesive tape, upon
an isolated occasion a month before the offense
in question, constituted significant evidence of
planning and preparation for the offense in
question, the particular mechanics of which are
unrevealed by the record. This we decline to do.
process,
such
as
the
enhanced
when
there
are
gaps
in
his
recall
which
may
preclude
effective
cross--
33
34
RECALLING WITNESS ES
PEOPLE vs. MATEO DEL CASTILLO G.R. No.
L--16941 October 29, 1968
Facts: ( the hukbalahap
ransom)
kidnapped
and
object
of
their
criminal
design,
family
would
not
meet
with
any
35
of
appellant's
suggestion
and
Yumul
of
Lopez,
of
Wee
King
of
With
that
knowledge,
nevertheless,
reversible
effort. The
only
purpose
of the
petitioner
appears,
however,
had
that
already
the
counsel
extensively
of
cross
36
witness
to
prove
that
there
was
of
sugar
are
confused.
The
words
registration
of
his
trademark
37
EXCLUSION OF WITNESSES
PEOPLE v. SANDAL 54 PHIL 883 Sep. 5, 1930
38
Facts:
Bishop
was
convicted
of
sale
and
39
AUTHENTICATION
DOCUMENTS
AND
PROOF
OF
40
41
Issue: Whether or not the thumb-marked, nonnotarized and non-witnessed deed of sale of a
parcel of unregistered land can be excluded as
evidence?
Rules 5-6, 9
42
who
saw
the
writing
This
is
an
action
for
recovery
of
43
PACIFIC
ASIA
OVERSEAS
SHIPPING
CORPORATION VS NLRC 161 SCRA 122
(1988)
Facts: Private respondent Teodoro Rances was
engaged by petitioner PASCOR as radio operator
of a vessel belonging to Pascors foreign
principal, the Gulf-East Hip Management
Limited. Rances failed to get along with his coworkers and was being transferred from one
workplace to the next. The foreign principal
terminated the services of private respondent.
Petitioner filed a complaint against the private
respondent for acts unbecoming a marine officer
and for character assassination with the POEA.
Private respondent denied the charges and in
the complaint demanded an amount which a
court in Dubai had awarded in his favor against
petitioners foreign principal.
44
Ruling:
No.
Foreign
laws
do
not
prove
45
46
Whether
Lazaro
should
only
be
47
VICTOR
V.
REYES,
petitioners,
vs.
48
49
armed
with
knives,
stoned
the
store
and
Melencio
Talisic,
to
help
Lolito.
Melencio.
After
being
stabbed,
While
he
was
doing
this,
his
co
scene.
Melencio's
wife
(Rosalia),
eye
WHEREFORE,
the
petition
is
DISMISSED and the decision of the NLRC,
dated April 15, 1994, is hereby AFFIRMED.
PEOPLE
v. CARINO
September 26, 1988
G.R.
No.
73876
with
the
crime
of
Robbery
ISSUE:
with
50
HELD:No. It is the contention of accused-appellant Cario that conspiracy has not been
established in the case at bar. Appellant made
reference to the failure of the trial court to
consider the sworn statements of Jenny Arceo,
Ricardo Sibay and victim Melencio Talisic which
contradicted the finding of conspiracy. We find
such argument meritless. A perusal of the entire
records of the case shows that the defense did
not formally offer in evidence such sworn
statements and evidence not formally offered
cannot be cons idered by the court. The trial
court only considered what was formally offered
to it. From the testimonies of the prosecution's
witnesses, the trial court established that the
three accused acted in concert and with a
common design and purpose as shown by their
simultaneous arrival at the scene of the crime,
INTERPACIFIC TRANSIT
NO. 86062, June 06, 1990
VS. AVILES
G.R.
51
52
53
54
NO.
105813,
55
56