MID-TERM EXAMINATION IN EVIDENCE

I. Definition
a. Evidence
Sec 1. Evidence defined . Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a
judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)
b. Res inter alios acta
(1) Res inter alios acta alteri nocere debt means that ―things done to strangers ought not to injure
those who are not parties to them‖ (Black‘s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.). It has two branches, namely:
(a) The rule that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by the father of the an act,
declaration, or omission of another (sec. 28, Rule 130); and
(b) The rule that evidence of previous conduct or similar acts at one time is not admissible
to prove that one did or did not do the same act at another time (sec. 34, Rule 132).

The res inter alios acta rule provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another. (Rule 130, Sec. 25). Consequently, an extrajudicial
confession is binding only up’on the confessant and is not admissible against his co-accused. The
reason for the rule is that, on a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s own acts
are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet,
it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound
by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of
strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him. (People v.
Raquel, 333 Phil. 72; People v. Guittap, et al., G.R. No. 144621, May 9, 2003).

Note: If there is no independent evidence of the conspiracy – the extrajudicial confession

CANNOT be used against his co-accused (res inter alios rule applies to both EXJ and J
admissions)

Principle of Res Inter Alios Acta Alteri Noceree Non Debet: Things done between strangers ought
not to injure those who are not parties to it.
- 1st Part: Sec 28, rule 130
- 2nd Part: Sec 34, rule 130
c. Res gestae
(1)Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior
or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as
part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue,
and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae (Sec. 42).
(2) Res gestae is from the Latin meaning ―things done‖ and includes the circumstances, facts and
declarations incidental to the main fact or transaction, necessary to illustrate its character, and
also includes acts, words and declarations which are so closely connected therewith as to
constitute a part of the transaction. As applied to a crime, res gestae means the complete criminal
transaction from its beginning or starting point in the act of the accused until the end is reached.

II. Distinguished
a. Distinguish presumption of death from presumption of survivorship
b. Distinguish burden of proof from burden of evidence
(1) Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by
law (Sec. 1, Rule 131).
Burden of proof Burden of evidence
Denotes the duty of establishing the truth of a Means the necessity of going forward with
given proposition or issue by such quantum the evidence to meet the prima facie case
of evidence as the law demands in the case created against him..
in which the issue arises, whether civil or
criminal.
It remains with the party alleging facts and It shifts from side to side as the trial of the
never shifts to the other party. He who case progresses and evidence is introduced
alleges the affirmative of the issue has the
burden of proof, and the same never parts.

c. Best evidence rule vs Parole evidence rule

Best evidence rule – When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall
be admissible other than the original document itself. (Sec. 3).

Parole Evidence Rule – When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and
their successors-in-interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written
agreement. (Sec. 9).
Best Evidence Rule
The issue is contents of a writing.
Secondary evidence is offered to prove the
contents of a writing, which is not allowed
unless the case falls under any of the
exceptions.
Establishes preference for the original
document over a secondary evidence
thereof.
Precludes the admission of secondary
evidence if the original document is available.
Can be invoked by any litigant to an action
whether or not said litigant is a party to the
document involved.
Applies to all forms of writing.
Parol Evidence Rule
There is no issue as to contents of a writing.
The purpose for the offer of parol evidence is
to change, vary, modify, qualify, or contradict
the terms of a complete written agreement,
which is not allowed unless the case falls
under any of the exceptions.
Not concerned with the primacy of evidence
but presupposes that the original is available.
Precludes the admission of other evidence to
prove the terms of a document other than the
contents of the document itself.
Can be invoked only be the parties to the
document and their successors in interest.
Applies to written agreements (contracts) and
wills.

(1) In Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Lagman, the Court set down the requirements
before a party may present secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original document
whenever the original copy has been lost: Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary
evidence to prove the contents of the original, the offeror must prove the following: (1) the
existence or due execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason
for its non-production in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which
the unavailability of the original can be attributed. The correct order of proof is as follows:
existence, execution, loss, and contents. In the instant case, the CA correctly ruled that the above
requisites are present. Both the CA and the RTC gave credence to the testimony of Peregrino that
the original Contract in the possession of Monark has been lost and that diligent efforts were
exerted to find the same but to no avail. Such testimony has remained uncontroverted. As has
been repeatedly held by this Court, "findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses
are matters best left to the trial court. Hence, the Court will respect the evaluation of the trial court
on the credibility of Peregrino. MCMP, to note, contends that the Contract presented by Monark is
not the contract that they entered into. Yet, it has failed to present a copy of the Contract even
despite the request of the trial court for it to produce its copy of the Contract. Normal business
practice dictates that MCMP should have asked for and retained a copy of their agreement.
(MCMP Construction Corp. v. Monark Equipment Corp., GR No. 201001, 11/10/2014).

d. Marital disqualification rule vs. marital privilege communication rule

.Disqualification by reason of marriage. — During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife
may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil
case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the
other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. (20a)

Q: What is the purpose of this rule?

A: It is based on the society’s intent to preserve the marriage relations and promote
domestic peace. It is intended to discourage the commission of perjury.
Q: What is the scope of the rule?
A: The rule forbids each spouse to testify for or against the other without the consent of
the affected spouse except in cases authorized by the rule. The prohibition extends not
only to a testimony adverse to the spouse but also in favor. It also extends both criminal
and civil cases because the rule does not distinguish.
Q: What are the Exceptions to the Marital disqualification rule?
A: 1. in a civil case by one against the other, or
2. in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's
direct descendants or ascendants
Q: What is the landmark decision under Ordoño v. Daquigan (62 SCRA 270)?
A: The court allowed the wife to testify against her husband who was accused of raping
her daughter. Accordingly, “The better rule is that, when an offense directly attacks or
directly and vitally impairs the conjugal relations, it comes within the exception to the
statute. The rule that the injury must
amount to physical wrong upon the person is too narrow.”

e. Leading question vs misleading question

1) A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a
leading question. It is not allowed, except:
(a) On cross examination;
(b) On Preliminary matters;
 (c) When there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is
ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a
public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.
(f) In all stages of examination of a child if the same will further the interests of justice
(Sec. 20, AM 004-07-SC).
(2) A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness,
or contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is not allowed (Sec. 10). The adverse party
should object thereto or ask the court to expunge the answer from the records, if he has already
given his answer.

III. Rule____ Sec. 32 provides the rule on Admission by Silence against one who is silent
when he ought to speak if there was a chance to deny . would this rule applicable to an
accused when he refuses to plead during arraignment. Explain
IV. What is Exclusionary rule? Give examples
V. Duterte’s client filed an action against the former. Would the privilege communication rule
apply against atty duterte? Suppot your answer

3. No the admission by silence is not applicable to person who fails/refuses to plead during
arraignment. Rule 116 of Rules of Court states “When the accused refuses to plead or makes a
conditional plea, a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him”.
4. Exclusionary Rule

Exclusionary rule makes evidence illegally obtained as inadmissible in evidence, hence, not
competent.

Interlocking confession
When an accused made extrajudicial confession
Interlocking confessions -- Where several extra-judicial confession had been made by several
persons charged with an offense and there could have been no collusion with reference to said
several confessions, the facts that the statements therein are in all material respects identical, is
confirmatory of the confession of the co-defendant, and is admissible against his other co-
defendants (People vs. Badilla, 48 Phil. 718);

Yes, I will allow the testimonies of the wife for not being violative to the marital privilege
communication rule.
The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death, may be
received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and
surrounding circumstances of such death (Sec. 37).

Dying declarations are the statements made by a person after the mortal wounds have been
inflicted, under the belief that death is certain, stating the facts concerning the cause of, and the
circumstances surrounding the homicide
As a judge, dying declaration is not confidential information or communication between the
spouses. People vs martinez et al

No, hearsay evidence does not have probavative value

Doctrine independent relevant statement

Independently relevant evidence (Estrada vs. Desierto, 356 SCRA 108);

Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statements: Independent of whether the facts stated are true
or not, they are relevant since they are the facts in issue or are circumstantial evidence of the
facts in issue.
- The only question to be answered: W/N the statements were made
- Hence, A witness may testify to the statements made by a person if the fact that such
statements were made would indicate the latter’s mental state or physical condition

The purpose is to prove such statement was made, but not whether the such statement was true.
Since it is relevant, it may be admissible
An admission in a pleading cannot be controverted by the party making such admission because
the admission is conclusive as to him. All proofs submitted by him contrary thereto or inconsistent
therewith should be ignored whether an objection is interposed by a party or not (Republic vs.
Sarabia, GR 157847, Aug. 25, 2005). Said admission is a judicial admission, having been made
by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, and does not require proof. A party
who desires to contradict his own judicial admission may do so only by either of two ways: (a) by
showing that the admission was made through palpable mistake; or (b) that no such admission
was made (Sec. 4, Rule 129).

Admission during pre-trial – there is contradiction….. palpable mistake or will result to injustice in
civil casess

7. As a rule, the extrajudicial confession of an accused is binding only upon himself and is not
admissible against his co-accused. What would be the effect if accused persons execute
“interlocking confession”? Discuss briefly
8. I is said that “truth sits on the lips of a dying man.” X was able to whisper to his wife the name of
person who shot him and the reason for such attack. Seconds later, X died. In court, the
testimony of his wife was objected as being violative of the marital privilege rule. If you are the
judge, will you allow the testimony of the X’s wife? Explain.
9.
a. is hearsay evidence admissible if not objected to? Explain you answer

In People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 547, it was said that hearsay evidence whether objected to or
not cannot be given in evidence. There is no probative value.
Failure of counsel to object to the presentation of incompetent evidence like hearsay evidence
that violates the rule of res inter alios acta or his failure to move to strike out evidence does not
give probative value. The lack of objection may make any incompetent evidence admissible. But
admission of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence.
When testimony is presented to establish not the truth but the tenor of the statement or the fact
that such statement was made, it is not hearsay. In Abella v. People, 187 SCRA 196, it has been
held that an oral admission by the accused of authorship of a crime is admissible in evidence
against him.
Rules:
a) a person who heard it can testify as to the substance of what he heard;
b) an oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, it can be given in substance;
c) it is not hearsay;
d) the person has no personal knowledge of what was revealed to him, but it is not hearsay;
e) the evidence is known as an independently relevant statement. It is not even an
exception to the hearsay rule. (People v. Pule, 206 SCRA 353 [19921).

b. what is the doctrine of independently relevant statements?

The hearsay rule states that a witness may not testify as to what he merely learned from others
either because he was told, or he read or heard the same. This is derived from Section 36, Rule
130, Revised Rules of Court, which requires that a witness can testify only to those facts that he
knows of or comes from his personal knowledge, that is, that are derived from his perception.
Hearsay testimony may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned. ( Fullero v.
People, 533 SCRA 97 [20071).
The law, however, provides for specific exceptions to the hearsay rule. One is the doctrine of
independently relevant statements, where only the fact that such statements were made is
relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial. The hearsay rule does not apply; hence, the
statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not
secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially
relevant as to the existence of such a fact. (People v. Lobrigas, 394 SCRA 170 [2002]). The
witness who testifies thereto is competent because he heard the same, as this is a matter of fact
derived from his own perception, and the purpose is to prove either that the statement was made
or the tenor thereof. (People v. Cusi, Jr., 14 SCRA 944 [1965]; Cornejo, Sr. v. SB, 152 SCRA 559
[1987]; People v. Malibircin, G.R. No. 178301, April 24, 2009).
Q — Is there any distinction between an independently relevant statement and a hearsay
statement? Explain.
ANS: Yes. Independently relevant statements should be distinguished from hearsay statements.
Where the out of court statements are introduced in evidence for the purpose of establishing the
truth therein stated, they are hearsay. They should also be distinguished from statements as an
exception to the hearsay rule. The eleven exceptions under the rule are hearsay but is
nonetheless admissible for reasons above-stated. They are classified as legal hearsay. When the
out of court statement is introduced in evidence not for the purpose of establishing the truth of the
statement but only the fact of its utterance of such fact is relevant to the issue, then it is
admissible in evidence. Such out of court statement is classified as non-hearsay. It is admissible
as independently relevant evidence.
10. as a rule, ad admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. Claudia Buenavista made an admission in
her pleadings.
a. when may the court allow her to contradict her admission?
b. would your answer be the same if it was a pre-trial admission? Explain

They may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no
such admission was made. (Sec. 3).

(1) An admission, verbal or written, made by party in the course of the proceedings ion the same
case does not require proof. It maybe made:
(a) In the pleadings filed by the parties;
(b) In the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or
(c) In other stages of judicial proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the case.
When made in the same case in which it is offered, ―no evidence is needed to prove the same
and it cannot be contradicted unless it is shown to have been made through palpable mistake or
when no such admission was made.‖ The admission becomes conclusive on him, and all proof
submitted contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether an objection is
interposed by the adverse party or not (Republic v. Estate of Hans Menzi [2012]).

2) The admission having been made in a stipulation of facts at pre-trial by the parties, it must be
treated as a judicial admission. Under Section 24, Rule 129, a judicial admission requires no
proof. The admission may be contradicted only b y a showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or that no such admission was made. The Supreme Court cannot lightly set aside a
judicial admission especially when the opposing party relied upon the same and accordingly
dispensed with further proof of the fact already admitted. An admission made by a party in the
course of the proceedings does not require proof (Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils.), Inc. v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue [2010]).
(3) A judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it, he cannot thereafter take a position
contradictory to, or inconsistent with his pleadings. Acts or facts admitted do not require proof and
cannot be contradicted unless it is shown that the admission was made through palpable mistake
or that no such admission was made (Cahilig v. Hon. Terencio [2010]).
(4) The extrajudicial confession or admission of one accused is admissible only against said
accused, but is inadmissible against the other accused. But if the declarant or admitter repeats in
court his extrajudicial admission, during the trial and the other accused is accorded the
opportunity to cross-examine the admitter, the admission is admissible against both accused
because then it is transposed into a judicial admission (Enriquez v. Sandiganbayan [2012]).

(5) Judicial admissions are cannot be contradicted by the admitter who is the party and binds the
person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was maden thru palpable mistake
or that no such admission was made, no amount of realization can offset it (Sps. Manzanilla v.
Waterfields Industries Corporation [2014]).
(6) Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the admissions. Pre-trial
admission in civil cases is one the instances of judicial admissions explicitly provided for under
Section 7, Rule 18, which mandates that the contents of the pre-trial order shall control the
subsequent course of the action, thereby, defining and limiting the issues to be tried. Under
Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, a judicial admission requires no proof (Eastern
Shipping Lines, Inc. v, BPI/MS Insurance Corporation [2015]).

The counsel shall make as part of the record the following excluded evidence and attached in the
record as tender of excluded of evidence.

Adverse party – may make manifestation in the memorandum of appeal that the excluded
evidence is substantial and material to the case.