Notes

Alvarez vs Ramirez MARITAL PRIVILEGE RULE

Section 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
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.
1
~but~

when an offense directly attacks, or directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, it comes within the
exception to the statute that one shall not be a witness against the other except in a criminal prosecution for
a crime committee (by) one against the other.
Sunga Chan vs Chua Dead Man's Statute
Section 23, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court that provides:
Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. – Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or
persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representative
of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of
2 such deceased person, or against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact
occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.

The "Dead Man's Statute" provides that if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by
death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to the undue advantage of
giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction.
Chan vs Chan Modes of Discovery
Section 36, Rule 132, states that objections to evidence must be made after the offer of such evidence for
admission in court. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of
the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court. In any case, the grounds for the objections must
3
be specified.

Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides: Motion for production or inspection; order.—
Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the court in which an action is pending may (a)
 order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the
moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or
tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the
action and which are in his possession, custody or control; or (b) order any party to permit entry upon
designated land or other property in his possession or control for the purpose of inspecting, measuring,
surveying, or photographing the property or any designated relevant object or operation thereon. The order
shall specify the time, place and manner of making the inspection and taking copies and photographs, and
may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just.
Tamargo vs Awingan Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet.

provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.
Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible against his or
her co-accused and is considered as hearsay against them.
4
~except~

Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court:

Admission by conspirator. The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its
existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence
other than such act or declaration.
People vs Rarugal Dying declaration
Rule 130, Section 37 of the Rules of Court provides: 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
5
inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.

People vs Estibal Res Gestae testimony (Sec 42) vs. Hearsay Rule (Sec 30)

Section 36 of Rule 130 as follows: states that a witness can testify only to those facts that she knows of her
6 personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from her own perception, except as otherwise provided in the
Rules of Court.
~BUT~
Section 42 of Rule 130:
There are then three essential requisites to admit evidence as part of the res gestae, namely: (1) that the
principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant
had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and (3) that the statements must concern the occurrence in
question and its immediate attending circumstances.

By res gestae, exclamations and statements made by either the participants, victims, or spectators to a
crime, immediately before, during or immediately after the commission of the crime, when the
circumstances are such that the statements constitute nothing but spontaneous reaction or utterance
inspired by the excitement of the occasion there being no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to
fabricate a false statement become admissible in evidence against the otherwise hearsay rule of
inadmissibility.

Res gestae speaks of a quick continuum of related happenings, starting with the occurrence of a startling
event which triggered it and including any spontaneous declaration made by a witness, participant or
spectator relative to the said occurrence.

In People v. Jorolan,37 the Court emphasized that there must be no intervening circumstances between the
res gestae occurrence and the time the statement was made as could have afforded the declarant an
opportunity for deliberation or reflection; in other words, the statement was unreflected and instinctive.

By way of illustration, in People v. Villarama,41 the 4-year-old rape victim did not testify, but the accused, an
uncle of the victim, was convicted on the basis of what the child told her mother.

~BUT~

This Court has a situation where the incriminatory statements allegedly made by AAA were conveyed to the
trial court not by AAA herself but by PO3 Cobardo, BSF Estudillo and BSF Perlas. In particular, PO3 Cobardo
made a summation of what she claims was AAA’s narration of her ordeal, along with her own observations
of her demeanor during the investigation. But unless the prosecution succeeded in invoking res gestae, their
testimonies must be dismissed as hearsay, since AAA’s statements were not subjected to cross-examination
consistent with the constitutional right of the accused-appellant to confront the evidence against him.
 When inculpatory facts are susceptible of two or more interpretations, one of which is consistent with the
innocence of the accused, the evidence does not fulfill or hurdle the test of moral certainty required for
conviction.
Dela Cruz vs Garcia Private handwritten instrument in autobiography as evidence

Under Article 278 of the New Civil Code, voluntary recognition by a parent shall be made in the record of
7
birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing. To be effective, the claim of
filiation must be made by the putative father himself and the writing must be the writing of the putative
father.
Metropolitan Bank vs Probable Cause, Prima facie evidence
Tobias
In this regard, we stress that a preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining the existence of
probable cause is not part of a trial. At a preliminary investigation, the investigating prosecutor or the
Secretary of Justice only determines whether the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense
charged. Probable cause refers to facts and circumstances that engender a well-founded belief that a crime
has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. There is no definitive standard by
which probable cause is determined except to consider the attendant conditions; the existence of probable
8
cause depends upon the finding of the public prosecutor conducting the examination, who is called upon not
to disregard the facts presented, and to ensure that his finding should not run counter to the clear dictates
of reason.

The presumption that whoever possesses or uses a spurious document is its forger applies only in the
absence of a satisfactory explanation. Accordingly, we cannot hold that the Secretary of Justice erred in
dismissing the information in the face of the controverting explanation by Tobias showing how he came to
possess the spurious document.
 Sevilla vs Proof of lack of record (official documents)

Semper praesumitur pro

Cardenas
Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court:

matrimonioAlways
presume marriage.
a written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official
record or by his deputy that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in
9
the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the
records of his office contain no such record or entry.

This jurisprudential attitude towards marriage is based on the prima facie presumption that a man and a
woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.
Disputable Presumptions.
matrimonioAlways
presume marriage.
praesumitur pro

Alavado vs
Section 5 of Rule 31 provides:
11 City of
The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by
Semper

Tacloban
other evidence: (bb) That a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into
a lawful contract of marriage.
People vs De Guzman How witness may be impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements

Section 13, Rule 132:

Before 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 asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed
to explain them. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is
10 put to him concerning them.

Hence, no impeaching evidence having been properly brought before it for its consideration during trial, the
lower court was perfectly justified in disregarding the supposed inconsistent statements of complainant in
her complaint and her testimony during the preliminary investigation. Her testimony at the trial, therefore,
stands unassailed and entitled to full credit, together with the corroboration afforded thereto by the
testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses, in stark contrast to the effete and puerile defense offered by
appellant.
Material dates. Time to file Motion for Review
13 RCBC vs Buenaventura
Section 2, Rule 45: 15 days
 Disputable Presumption. Birth of Child
Section 2 (dd)(2), Rule 131.

Born after 180 but within 300 days following subsequent marriage is said to belong to former marriage.

This presumption is actually quasi-conclusive and may be rebutted or refuted by only one evidence — the
14 Macadangdang vs CA
physical impossibility of access between husband and wife within the first 120 days of the 300 which
preceded the birth of the child. This physical impossibility of access may be caused by any of these:

1. Impotence of the husband;

2. Living separately in such a way that access was impossible and
3. Serious illness of the husband.
Exception on Bar against Leading Questions
People vs Dela Cruz Section 10 (c) Rule 132:
15
People vs Perez
allowed to extract answers from ignorant, child of tender years, feeble minded, deaf mute.
Objection against admission of evidence

Now then, it has been repeatedly laid down as a rule of evidence that a protest or objection against the
admission of any evidence must be made at the proper time, and that if not so made it will be understood to
have been waived. The proper time to make a protest or objection is when, from the question addressed to
16 Abrenica vs Gondo
the witness, or from the answer thereto, or from the presentation of the proof, the inadmissiblity of the
evidence is, or may be, inferred.

A motion to strike out parol or documentary evidence from the record is useless and ineffective if made
without timely protest, objection, or opposition on the part of the party against whom it was presented.
Admission of private document into evidence
Section 20, Rule 132
Malayan vs Philippine
18 Before a private document is admitted in evidence, it must be authenticated either by the person who executed
Nails
it, the person before whom its execution was acknowledged, any person who was present and saw it executed,
or who after its execution, saw it and recognized the signatures, or the person to whom the parties to the
instruments had previously confessed execution thereof.
 Irremovability of Public Record
Section 26, Rule 132

Ilaw vs Director of Any public record, an official copy of which is admissible in evidence, must not be removed from the office in
19
Labor Relations which it is kept, except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just
determination of a pending case.

In these case, the documents were forwarded to another office. Bad move.
Tender of excluded evidence
Section 40, Rule 132 provides:
20 Yu vs CA
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.
Reasonable time will prove the wisdom or folly of the deregulation program for which Congress and
21 Garcia vs Corona
not the Court is accountable.

[Republic Act No. 10667]

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY PROHIBITING ANTI-COMPETITIVE AGREEMENTS, ABUSE OF DOMINANT
POSITION AND ANTI-COMPETITIVE MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS, ESTABLISHING THE PHILIPPINE COMPETITION COMMISSION AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR

SECTION 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the “Philippine Competition Act”.

Sec. 14. Anti-Competitive Agreements. –

(1) Restricting competition as to price, or components thereof, or other terms of trade;

SEC. 15. Abuse of Dominant Position. – It shall be prohibited for one or more entities to abuse their dominant position by engaging in conduct that
would substantially prevent, restrict or lessen competition:

Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted as a prohibition on having a dominant position in a relevant market or on acquiring,
maintaining and increasing market share through legitimate means that do not substantially prevent, restrict or lessen competition: