MEETING #1

August 11, 2018

1. What does pro reo mean?
The principle of in dubio pro reo means that a defendant may not be convicted by the court when
doubts about his or her guilt remain.

2. Situate 12 angry men in the PH, decide whether the ff pieces of evidence are admissible
a) That the accused grew up in the slums.
b) That the accused is Latino.
c) The quarrelsome nature of the relationship between the accused and his father. / The abuse
committed by the father.
d) The juvenile delinquency of the accused.
e) That the eyewitness lady had marks on the bridge of her nose.
○ marks on her nose bridge → she wears eyeglasses for long periods of time → she has
poor eyesight
f) The knife produced by Henry Fonda
g) The failed memory of the accused regarding the movie
h) Henry Fonda’s demonstration (of the old man’s ability to move fast) - mere speculation
i) The fact that the other 11 jurors were making Henry Fonda explain his position
j) Juror #3’s quarrel with his son
k) The police pushed the accused down the stairs - shows bias or prejudice

Examples of inadmissible evidence: illegal search and seizure, privacy of communications

3. What should be admitted as evidence? evidence of probative value, RELEVANT to the issue.
RELEVANT AND COMPETENT

4. What is so unfair about admitting irrelevant evidence?

It will not prove anything. The connection between the factum probans (evidentiary fact, slums) and
factum probandum (fact sought to be established, murder) is so tenuous.

5. What is motive?
A reason that is transformed into a desire.
Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result. Intent is the purpose to use
a particular means to effect such result. Motive is not an essential element of a crime, and, hence, need
not be proved for purposes of conviction. Where the identity of a person accused of having committed a
crime is in dispute, the motive that may have impelled its commission is very relevant. (Reyes, Book I)

6. Information or complaint, depending on what?

The penalty and place

7. Where to file a disbarment proceeding?

SC or IBP

8. Is ocular inspection allowed?

In civ pro Rule 27.

9. Who can get a person confined in the hospital for insanity?

Judge (Rule 101)

10. How are procedural rights different from substantive rights

It affects due process. Anything that degrades your humanity is substantive
IT’s substantive not because it’s written

11. Where do we get rules of evidence?

- IRR of quasi-judicial agencies (Art. XIII Sec. 5 par. 5)
- To QJAs if the law specifically provides
- Constitution
- Statutes

12. Conclusive evid should be juxtaposed against disputable not prima facie
13. Why does positive evidence have more probative value?
- The reason for this rule is that the witness who testifies to a negative may have forgotten what
actually occurred (but that doesnt mean it didnt happen), while it is impossible to remember
what never existed.
- If it really happened, then you have some memory of it
- You presume that if the witness remembers that it happened, he will not say that it did not.

MEETING #2
August 18, 2018
1. When is evidence not necessary?
a. Judicial notice
b. Judicial admission
c. Conclusive presumption
d. Res ipsa loquitur
e. Question of law
2. Question of law: give an example
- Interpretation of a law
- Whether a person qualifies for a tax exemption
3. Kinds of legislative inquiry
a. In aid of legislation
b. Oversight
4. Pleading and practice is procedural because it only governs the judiciary.
5. What was the presumption of fact in Dulin?
6. What was the presumption of fact in Catubag?

MEETING #3

1. Why is eyewitness account circumstantial?

Circumstances:
● Capacity to see
● Presence at the scene
● Capacity to view
● Ability to identify the accused

MEETING #4
TRUE OR FALSE: Judicial Notice
Please HELP TAKE NOTE OF QUESTIONS
TRUE OR FALSE
1. The court may take mandatory judicial notice that a certificate of death proves the fact of death
of a person it certifies as dead (Answer: False. This is a presumption; it is not the subject of
judicial notice)
2. Can the court take mandatory JN of all ordinances?
a. No, only within territory
3. Can the court take mandatory Judicial Notice that marcos fled to Hawaii in 1986?
a. Yes, political history.
4. Can the court take mandatory Judicial Notice that the PH has an extradition treaty with US?
a. Yes, under official acts of executive
5. Can the court take mandatory Judicial Notice that polygraph test is not conclusive (lie-detection
test)?
a. Mandatory if there’s jurisprudence about it (official acts)
6. Can the court take mandatory Judicial Notice of the contents of UN declaration?
a. Yes, law of nations and jus cogens.
7. Can the court take mandatory Judicial Notice that the (hamburger) pahties in a suit for
declaration of nullity of marriage had in fact been married by and before a judge in a civil
wedding ceremony?
a. Not mandatory nor discretionary because the knowledge of the judge is not the
knowledge of the court. JN can be taken as judicial function in general of judges, but not
as exercised by the judge.
8. When a victim imbibed a certain poison in a certain amount, can it be subject to JN under 129.2,
(b)?
a. Yes, to the extent that it is a scientific finding.
9. Can the Court take judicial notice of the contents of the complaint before it was amended by the
plaintiff?
a. No, because of Rule 10, Sec. 8 that the amended pleading supersedes the former
pleading.
10. Records of preliminary investigation in a criminal case pending ______
a. Yes, part of the records of the case
11. Deposition in perpetuam rei memoriam that preceded the filing of a case pending before him?
a. If filed before the judge, then it can be JN because part of records of case.
12. That the recent issuance (EO) by President banning smoking in or near public places except the
street in the country is void?
a. Yes, the moment it was officially issued, it should be taken by the Court. Whether it’s
valid or not is something else.
13. It is valid or not?
a. No. It should be Congress because it’s substantive law that affect our right, based on
police power of State. Executive can only exercise delegated legislative powers.

MEETING #5
During pre trial, in an action for quasi-delict against the doctor and the hospital (doctrine of apparent
authority) The defendants refused to stipulate regarding the symptoms of dengue. Is there a solution?
129.3

A v B. Collection suit. B defaulted; judgment rendered in favor of A. Arose because B issued a check in
favor of A.
When A won, he then filed a BP 22 case. Can he use the decision in the civil case in the criminal case
to show that B received the notice of dishonor in the check?

A vs b collection suit
B did not file an answer
Judgment rendered in favor of A
Loan collection suit arises from fact that B issued check in favor of A
Check bounced
A won in civil case
BP 22 case filed against B
Can A use civil case decision to show that B received the notice of dishonor in the check?

ARE THE FOLLOWING OBJECT EVIDENCE?

1. Business logo registered as a trademark : DEPENDS;
a. If infringement, it is object evidence because it would be compared with logos.23
2. Morse Code: Morse Code itself is object evidence. It is a medium: sound or light.
a. If we interpret it, testimonial evidence because it would be addressed to the mind of the
Court.
3. Semaphore (naval flag communication): object evidence as demonstration
4. Voice on the radio: Object evidence because testimonial evidence comes from a witness, not
an object.

MEETING #6
PERIOD EXERCISE 1
1. Are the Pruna guidelines to determine age (reiterated in Cayabyab) rules of admissibility? NO. They
are rules on credibility.

People v. Pruna (G.R. No. 138471, 10 October 2002) :

Guidelines for the Appreciation of Age as an element of the crime or qualifying circumstance.
1. Best evidence: original or CTC of the Certificate of Live Birth
2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal
certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.
3. If lost or destroyed, testimony of the mother or a family member by AF/CON who is qualified to
testify on matters respecting pedigree under the following circumstances:
1. If alleged (testimony) to be below 3, and what is sought to be proven is that she is less
than 7
2. If alleged (testimony) to be below 7, and what is sought to be proven is that she is less
than 12
3. If alleged (testimony) to be below 12, and what is sought to be proven is less than 18
à These are the standards for the testimony to be credible; if the dum is that the victim is 7, and the
testimony is she is below 3 years old then proven na 7 years old siya.
à word “allege” is wrong because that pertains to pleadings. In this case, it’s a testimony.
à Dum sought to be proven: less than 7; Testimony: below 3 years old; then effect: that the age is less
than 7 years old would be established.
à This is because malamang, imposibleng above 7, 8, 9 kasi nga described that below 3 siya.
Magkaiba hitsura niya eh. Common sense.
4. Complainant’s testimony if expressly and clearly admitted by the accused
 5. Prosecution has the Burden Of Proof of proving age
6. The trial court should make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.
VAA: This is misleading because it uses “in the absence” so there seems to be exclusion. But this is not
best evidence rule because it merely gives “hierarchy” not as a rule of competence (exclusion), but as a
rule on credibility. These guidelines are merely preference.
- In BER, only the original can be admitted unless the exceptions apply.
- Per se, if the factum probandum is age or fact of marriage, BER does not come in.

2. Therefore it can be said that BER absolutely had no role in Cayabyab? BER would only have a
role, even if initially there was not, if the bans is a document. Because then, the contents are in
issue pertaining to age.
What are the documents that could have been used to prove age?
- Birth Certificate
- School records - secondary
- Baptismal certificate - secondary
- Voter’s ID, government-issued IDs - seconday

3. The SC said in Cayabyab: “Without a doubt, a certificate of live birth is a public record in the custody
of the local civil registrar who is a public officer. Clearly, therefore, the presentation of the photocopy of
the birth certificate of Alpha Jane is admissible as secondary evidence to prove its contents.” Comment.
(In other words, is the fact that the original of a birth certificate a public record recorded in a public
office basis for admission of the photocopy of secondary evidence.) It should have been the certified
true copy of the document, not merely photocopy.
- Certified true copy – with stamp mark of the officer and the signature of the officer with
custody.

4. Considering that the P6.5 billion worth of shabu shipment, declared as kitchenware, illegally entered
the country through the Manila International Container Port in Tondo in May, 2017, as subsequently
discovered in a warehouse, is there a basis for finding of probable cause against the Customs
Commissioner for violations of R.A. No. 9165 and the Tariff and Customs Code, as well as substantial
evidence for purposes of administrative liability?
- E.O. No. 226 – Command Responsibility covering all government offices;
o That there is presumption of knowledge on the part of the government officer of the events
or irregularities or criminal offenses:
a. When the irregularities or illegal acts are widespread within his area of jurisdiction;
b. When the irregularities or illegal acts have been repeatedly or regularly committed within his
area of responsibility; or
c. When members of his immediate staff or office personnel are involved.
- Then following this doctrine, the commissioner can be liable since there is a presumption
that he has knowledge under letter (c); however, the staff who was involved should have
belonged immediately to his office – with very near relation.

THE VERDICT EXERCISE 1

1. Could the counsel for the defense, Atty. Cancannon, have invoked BER in the above scenario? YES.
Because the subject of inquiry in this case was the content of the document, which is the admission
form.
- Signature is content of a document;
2. Is there any way by which the plaintiff can be able to present the contents of the photocopy of the
admission sheet in evidence in light of the defense’s objection on the ground of BER? Illustrate. Invoke
an exception under Rule 130; (a) – destroyed because tampered yung original.

So, then, prove the following:

1. Proof of existence or execution
2. Cause of unavailability-- Tamper - TAMPERING
3. THEN: Present:
1. Copy
2. Recital of contents in authentic document
3. testimony

MEETING #7
Is there a conflict between PER and Civ law

MEETING #11

A and B are in a relationship. A told B a secret about his family. They are engaged. Then they got
married. And in a lawsuit involving a relative of A (who became the husband), the wife B is being
examined. It’s not a suit between husband and wife but it involves the family of the husband. Should an
objection be filed/sustained

A and B are on a trip. They are discussing family matters ie w/n to rehabilitate their son, a drug addict.
They are being driven by their family driver who is almost part of the family. When a case is filed
involving the son who caused injury to someone, the lawyer of the plaintiff wanted the driver to testify
about the condition of the son and the intended rehabilitation. Can there be an objection?

There was a car being driven by a UP student. There was an oncoming vehicle that was wayward in its
path. It turns out that the driver was drunk af. A collision occured. There was no witness. It was a bridge
in the early morning. The drunk driver died. The UP student survived and sued the estate of the
deceased. When UP student was about to testify, the lawyer of the estate objected on the ground of
.23. Comment.

22 is applicable only when one spouse is a witness w/n the other spouse is a party. FALSE.
.22 is applicable only when one spouse is a witness w/n the witness is a party. FALSE.
.22 is not applicable where the witness spouse is testifying for or against the other spouse who
is not a party. TRUE.
The exception re criminal cases in icao .22 (??) will apply only when one spouse is the witness
and the other spouse is either the accused or a complainant because there is a civil aspect
People v x, victim V, the wife of V will testify no civil case instituted for people v x, will .22 apply?
Is wife of V barred. Avena: There is nothing in .22 that allows it. It seems that where there is no
civil aspect, the person is not a party because it’s People v X

REVIEW CLASS
Q: The SC ruled in the Estrada case that the argument overlooks the doctrine of adoptive
admission.
Applicable to the issue W/n the angara diary is non binding in the sense that the entries were
not executed by petitioner Erap

Was the SC’s understanding of adoptive admission applicable to the issue WON the Angara
diary was non-binding in the sense that the entries were not executed by Erap
Q. Why is there no omission in 29 and 30?
Q: Erap said, the use of Angara Diaries violates RIAA. The SC adopted a latin phrase, dum fervet
opus, what does that mean?

Q. Did the Supreme Court adopt the doctrine of wright v doe in Estrada v Desierto?
AQ
C. Statements of a person from which an inference may be made as to the state of mind of
another, that is, the knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the latter;

Q. Give me an example where physical condition was in issue

b. Statements of a person which show his physical condition, as illness and the like
Q: IS THIS A STATE OF MIND? AGREE BA RAW KAYO SA LETTER B

“Production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial courts discretion, whenever in the
case in hand the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no
other useful purpose will be served by requiring production.”

Q: DO WE NEED WIGMORE AS AUTHORITY AS LEGAL BASIS OF THIS DOCTRINE?!?!

A. No, we have doctirne of waiver
“In several Canadian provinces, the principle of unavailability has been abandoned, for certain
documents in which ordinarily no real dispute arised. This measure is a sensible and
progressive one and deserves universal adoption (post, sec. 1233). Its essential feature is that a
copy may be used unconditionally, if the opponent has been given an opportunity to inspect it.”

Q: IS IT THE FACT OF INSPECTION THAT RENDERS BER Moot and academic

~~~~~~eXerCizeSS~~~~~
1. At the trial of People v. X, a newspaper columnist, for an allegedly libelous news feature,
X’s counsel objected to the testimony of the witness, an avid newspaper fan-reader. Mr.
R, who was about to detail the contents of said feature. Rule.
A: BER. Newspaper itself must be presented. (Pampanga vs Reyes)

2. In his attested will, widower X bequeathed the family vacation resort to child A, the family
home and 5 of his bank accounts to child B, and all his shares of stock to Child C. When
children A and B turned out to be ingrates even he was still alive, X declared the 2
disinherited via codicil
In the probate proceedings after the death of X, children A and B expect to present and
offer his will in evidence, and child C likewise with respect to the codicil. What
argument/s and counter-arguments can the parties’ respective counsels anticipate in
favor/against their client/s?

A: Object because will was changed. Original will is irrelevant.

When C presents the codicil, counsel for A and B should object using the Parol Evidence
Rule. The rebuttal will be rebutted by C by saying that 130.9(d) applies.

1. Former 1st lady Imelda Marcos sued X, alleging that X falsely stated in print that
Ferdinand Marcos robbed, pillaged and plundered the national coffers and that
she is entitled to damages due to humiliation, anxiety, wounded feelings,
sleepless nights and besmirched reputation suffered by reason of this false
statement. X moved for dismissal on the ground of failure to state a cause of
action based at the very least on Republic v. SB GR 152154 (where SC ruled that
the Marcos pillaged the national coffers by at least $386M as of the filing of said
forfeiture suit). Rule.

A: JN. Failure to state a cause of action different from lack of cause of action??
Imelda stated a cause of action, pero she lacks it?? Failure = pleadings do not
state a cause of action, there is no right to relief
It did. The complaint stated a cause of action. But the fact that the pleadings state
a cause of action does not mean that the party has a cause of action. W/N a party
has a cause of action is the proper subject of a judicial proceeding.

Judicial notice of judicial decisions.

Right
Obligation to respect right
Violation

Ano yung issue huhu may cause of action daw ba si imelda

HUMAN RELATIONS TORT under Art. 33: In cases of defamation, fraud, and
physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from
the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence.
 ^^^^^^^

4. C prepared a special power of attorney authorizing Atty. L to offer and sell 10 parcels
of formerly public land now titled in his name located in CamSur, for a 15% commission
on the selling price of each. L successfully sold all, except that one vendee, X,
discovered based on a tip, that the title of the land sold to him was based on a falsified
public land subdivision plan. Thus X sued for rescission of sale and damages both C
and L, considering X though that L was a lawyer.

Another vendee, Y, discovered that there is a pending special proceeding by the

Director of Lands for cancellation of the title covering the land sold by the government
to C which was the land sold by C to him, Y; so Y sued C, also for rescission and
damages.

a) In X v. C & L, Atty. L moved to dismiss, alleging that the only reason he was
impleaded was so that he will “whistle-blow” on c, which he cannot do under the law.
Rule..
: what’s he is saying is atty-client privilege. It’s DQ of testimony and not dismissal
of action.
Attorney-client privilege is not a ground for dismissal. The rule of
confidentiality under the lawyer-client relationship is not a cause to
exclude a party . It is merely a ground for disqualification of a witn

Answers:
1. 24b inapplicable. Rule for disqualification of a witness is not a ground
for dismissal.
2. Atty. L is not acting as an attorney but only as agent to sell lands.

3. Sued in his capacity as conspirator; not because he will whistle-blow

4. Even granting that the privilege applies, it is a lawyer’s duty to report

illegal acts.

b) assume that L’s motion is denied. Now, L is about to testify to show absence of
malice or negligence, that actually there was a non-warranty clause that should have
been in the SPA (but turned out not to be there) which states that he, atty. L does not
warrant anything regarding the title of the lands to be sold. X objects. Rule.

A: For attorney-client privilege to attach, there advice must be rendered with a view t
professional employment
A: Remember the case of Lechugas v. CA

c) In Director v Lands v C, when the Director of Lands was already testifying to the
effect that the date of C’s sales patent ante-dated the government proclamation that re-
classified and declared the land to be alienable, C was present in court but did not do
anything. In Y v C, Y will now testify regarding this behavior of C in the case of the
Director of Lands. Any valid objection that C can interpose?

JUDICIAL
Incompetent? Irrelevant?
NOtes: parang pinapalabas ni Y na admission by silence
A: Demeanor cannot be used (what case is this? :( )

THis is EJA kasi diba JA has to be in the same proceeding -- this is a different
proceeding

This is not admission by silence. Requisites not present.

-wala yung “when proper and possible for him to do so”

d) Y also sues L for disbarment. Y will now present in evidence the transcript of the
testimony of the Director of Lands referred to in the foregoing paragraph. Any valid
objection that L can interpose?
A. Irrelevant -- the testimony was about C, not L -- how is the testimony related to L
as a lawyer, acting as C’s agent?
B. Also hearsay because Director of Lands will not be available for cross-examine?
*not sure to though
Notes: assume na we do not know the evid rules do not apply to disbarment
proceedings. Granting na pwede, ______.
Notes: no admission
C. Also, RIAA - this is C’s a
 PRE-MIDTERM EXERCISE
PART THREE

1. Businessman Mr. X was carrying on an extra-marital affair with Mrs. A. One day,
when his best friend BF called for help due to an emergency, X was forced to beg off,
had no choice but to tell BF everything, including the fact that at that very moment he
and A were having breakfast in an Ilocos Norte beach resort, and asked BF not to tell
anyone, of course specially not his (X's) wife. A month later, X's business associate BA
was charged with the murder of another associate. BA, who was disgruntled with X due
to a multi-million deal gone sour, testified that X is the mastermind, describing how,
during breakfast one day in BA's house, X gave the orders for the murder, as well as the
money for the gunman.

The defense called BF to the stand, and is now offering his testimony, which will be
about the phone call. Any objection/s?

Final answer according to ma’am: There’s no objection, it is not hearsay. :( >Admission

Hindi b a hearsay?
Not hearsay kasi there’s an ouch - against his interest? Can be penal, financial, moral
ouch
Its really not relevant?

2. A and his brother B executed a contract whereby A would send dollars every month
to B, and B would use a proportion of what is sent to support the research studies of
their other brother X. When, at one point, B refused to increase the allowance of X, the
latter sued B. In X v. B, X's testimony will be offered to prove how much his allowance
should be. Any objection/s (To X talking about the amount given to him)?

Final answer: BER : what’s in issue is the contents of the docu

A: NOT PAROL : The rule is not applicable where the controversy is between
one of the parties to the document and third persons.

3. State whether true or false:

(a) Art. III, sec. 12 applies to an investigation by a government agency (e.g., PMA) → FALSE,
only applies to custodial investigation by law enforcement officers

(b) parrafin test w/o counsel is valid & not violative of the right to counsel or the right against
self-incrimination → TRUE, because object evidence ito. Inclusion of body in evidence not
testimonial compulsion? PEOPLE V. CANCERANRight against self incrimination only
applies to testimonies

(c) ultra-violet ray exam is not custodial investigation so no right to counsel → TRUE PEOPLE
v. FLORES
(d) right to counsel is not available for participation in the re-enactment of a crime → FALSE.
Reenactment isagainst right against self-incrimination. You are producing the evidence to link
yourself to the crime.
TRUE ppl vs olvis
← no because you are asked to perform acts that will incriminate you.
Ma’am: there is a case that says you dont need counsel

(e) Art. III, sec. 12 applies when suspect is made to sign receipt for property seized during
arrest → TRUE, because signature is a deliberate, intelligent act?wong chuen ming

(f) Art. III, sec. 12 applies only to custodial, not preliminary, investigation → TRUE

(g) The taking of DNA samples from the body of the person invoking it does not violate the
right against self-incrimination. → TRUE, because not testimonial compulsion

(h) a person asked to join a line-up in the police station has the right to counsel → FALSE, no
custodial investigation yet

4. F was badly mauled by his son-in-law S during a family debate. May F compel the
wife, his daughter D, to testify in P v S for serious physical injuries?
A:
May compel kasi crim case against ascendant .22 - excception under .22

5. The city prosecutor filed a criminal case for libel against Spouses W & H, the
officemates of X, on the basis of Y's affidavit to the effect that W & H had circulated in
their office an anonymous poison letter – on office stationery – containing defamatory
stories about X, as well as the affidavit of X regarding damages.
(a) City prosecutor will present the wife as the first witness (adverse witness) to testify
to the fact that she (wife) is the one in charge of office stationery . Will defense counsel
have any valid ground to object?
A: hearsay? Nasa court na ba sila? Bakit object na?
Ano yung evidence na iaadmit lol
Iprepresent nya yung accused?? Yup pero adverse daw to W??? Lizama vs Rodriguez
Right against self-incrimination
Rodriguez -- Doesn’t matter if the spouse testifying is a co-accused.

(b) The prosecution will then present Y to testify to the defamatory contents of the
letter and the fact that he recognized that it was office stationery because officemate W
actually showed it to him.

i. Will defense counsel have any valid ground to object?

A: BER. US v. Gregorio (cited in commentarues), US v Borja → involving falsification cases?
Also falsification?
Valeroso case - flipflopping case (illegal possession of firearms)

ii.Granting there is, is there a way by which Y's testimony may be admitted?
A: secondary evid cannot substitute because crim case (libel)
.26?
6. S knows that his father F had agreed to allow his uncle U to use their RV abroad in
exchange for U's allowing him (S) to use one of U's condos in Katipunan, Q.C. When S
learned that the one-bedroom unit was occupied, he sued the occupant O for unlawful
detainer. In his answer, O alleged that it is the studio that F and U had agreed to make
available to X. When S was about to testify, O's counsel invoked the parol evidence rule,
arguing that S cannot vary F and U's written agreement (copy of which O obtained from
the building super by deposition). Rule.
A: third party testifying? PER doesnt apply?
PER is applicable to benefciacires of stipulations pour atrui
Heirs of Pachres v Heirs of Yguina ano daw stipulation

7. In its collection suit against cardholder X, credit card company CCC presented in
evidence through a company executive the photocopy of the sales invoices that were
submitted to it by the stores from which X had made his purchases. May X's counsel
validly object?
A: BER CITIBANK V. TEODORO Sept 23, 2003, 2ndary evidence is not blenk blenk blenk

8. S mauled his wife W. May the State compel S' father F to testify for the prosecution
(vs. his son) in P v S, the criminal case for physical injuries?
A: No. 130.25 Parental privilege
Why not 215 FC? Because that applies to descendants!!! No descendant shall be
compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his parents and grandparents, except when such
testimony is indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by one parent against the other

Art. 215. No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his
parents and grandparents, except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime
against the descendant or by one parent against the other. (315a)

9. True or False:
(a) In a criminal case for falsification, secondary evidence cannot substitute for the original. →
TRUE
(b) In a criminal case for illegal possession of firearm, secondary evidence cannot substitute
for the original. → FALSE (Valeroso vs People)
(c) In a criminal case for rape with the qualifying circumstance of use of a deadly
weapon in its commission, secondary evidence cannot substitute for the deadly
weapon. -> FALSE, BER applies only to docs.

Notes: need not to produce weapons; no rule requiring the production of the object
evidence itself. (ESPINOSA case)
Ppl vs santos October 17, 2010

10. After bringing Mrs. W home, the driver texted Mr. H as follows: “Sir, nahatid ko na
po si Ma’am sa bahay sa Antipolo. Susunduin ko pa po ba kayo? Kung wala po kayong
sagot, uuwi na ako.” The husband’s cellular phone registered this text message as
having been sent by the driver at 10:30 pm.
Notes: implication is that the driver is the accused
(a) Mrs. W was found dead in the Antipolo home the next morning. If the medico-legal
officer declares the time of death as 3:00 am, would the record of the time the text
message was sent be admissible in favor of the driver?
A: Yes, based on 128.4 as the evidence tends to establish the probability that the driver
was not around to kill the wife? Ergo, the collateral matter of physical impossibility is
relevant to the dum that he is innocent? ahbsolutelly!

Subquestion #1: is it hearsayif the driver is the one presented to authenticate?

Answer: NOT HEARSAY bec you can cross examine him (can ask him if he really
sent the message and the contents thereof)

Subquestion #2 is it hearsayif the GFis the one presented?

Answer: yes because no personal knowledge.

[NOTES Ante litem motam means spoken before a lawsuit is brought. It may refer to a
prior motive to distort the truth before the lawsuit was filed. -Ma;am: not self serving if
ante litem motam]
The texts in this case is documentary evidence

(b) If the time of death is placed at between 9:00 and 10:30 pm, would the time the text
message was sent be admissible against the driver?
A: YES. .26 - presence at the scene. Penal interest

11. 50 members of a federation respectively representing various associations with

memberships in the hundreds gathered at a conference and inked a convention, one
copy of which was signed for all 50 member-signatories and the remaining 49 copies of
which were stampmarked “duplicate original.” If one of the latter is presented in
evidence, may the best evidence rule be successfully invoked as basis for objection as
to admissibility?
A: No. 130.4(b) ? pv tan? Duplicate orig is same as orig
Is executing = signing? Yes.
Subquestion: Is the stampmarking = signing? A: Yes.

Q: what does “executed at or about the same time” mean?

Ma’am: a signature can be a thumbmark

12.When relations soured between them, A emailed a defamatory demand letter to B,

which emailed letter was posted by GF, A's girlfriend, in her Facebook wall, such that all
her Facebook friends saw its contents in the pages of their Facebook. When and if B
introduces one such Facebook page in court in B v. GF, would that page be primary or
secondary evidence?

=
Police conducted shabu buy bust in sala; seated in sofa
were A, B, C, and D; there was shabu on table which D
was selling to undercover agents; when arrested, A
uttered in order to resist arrest:
“Hindi naman ako may ari ng bahay eh, si B ang alam
kong may ari”
Warrant of arrest not served, no juris
Warrant only served against B, C, D.
Prosec present PO1 to testify on A’s declaration under .38;
when A was resisting arrest, he stated belief regarding
who owns house in order to prove that in not denying
existence of shabu on table, that was an ouch.
The prosec is trying to use the statement of A (as said by
PO1) to prosecute B, C, and D.

Answer: The rule says he would not have made ithe

declaration if he believed it to be true.
Q. Is Atty Baizas’ statement that Marcos is offering to buy Philippine Free Press admissible against anyone?
A. Yes, exception to RIAA under 130.29

Q. De Vega’s declaration that marcos is going to buy the name and assets of PFP?
Q. Mensi’s declaration that Marcos cannot be denied
Q. Menzi’s delivery of 1M check as downpayment with respect to deeds of sale being negotiated with Locsin Sr. which the
latter accepted.
Q. Menzi’s execution of deeds of sale and payment of balance.

Identify if hearsay:
Testimonies of Locsins regarding closure of PFP
● Arrest of Sr. -Not hearsay
● Threat of execution against Sr. and his fam - not hearsay
● Gag order against Sr. regarding criticism - not hearsay
● Provisional release with gag order - not hearsay
● Continuing fear of reprisal until EDSA -not hearsay
● Testimony of Sr. regarding Menzi, Baizas and De Vega’s declaration - not hearsay
● COMMENT: It is hearsay because Menzi is dead and “no longer in a position to defend himself.”

Comment on the Supreme Court’s ruling that “Menzi’s

declaration against interest is inadmissible because
Locsin is not a “disinterested witness””

A: Interest in the outcome of a case shall not be a ground

for disqualification of witness (130.20)

Comment: Even if petitioner succeeds in halving its

testimonial evidence, one-half purporting to quote the
words of a live witness and the other half purporting to
quote what the live witness heard from one already dead,
the other pertaining to the dead shall nevertheless remain
hearsay in character.

NOV. 10
1. The TORs of Monina - competent or not? Not
competent because it was not Francisco who put the
details. Hearsay.
a. SC: TORs “can be admissible as part of Monina’s
testimony” Comment. But they were being offered
for the truth so they cannot be under NON-
HEARSAY: PART OF NARRATION. In IRS noon
HEARSAY cannot be at the same time NON-
HEARSAY: Part of Narration.
2. Letters MOnina identified in court:
a. S, T, U, V - SC: even HS, because they do not fall
under .39 (not dead etc), yet, they can be admitted
“as part of Monina’s testimony”. COMMENT. Non
hearsay, offered for truth. Not part of narration.
3. 130.41 regarding reputation of marriage includes non-
marriage. T or F?
TRUE. THIS IS IN RE MALLARE. Just the other side of the
coin. Sam
4. State if 130.41hat there is a professor named
a. Ambion
b. Espiritu
A: Yes, monuments and inscriptions in public places
under 41
5. In Tecson, a comelec official of 10 years will testify that
according to sabi-sabi Lorenzo Pou is a resident of San
Fabian is admissible. T or F? (note sure) False because
cannot be of facts of general interest because 30 years old
dapat yung knowledge.
Nov. 14
XERCISES:
1. There is a baptismal cert dated 2013, regarding the
baptism of a Davaoeno 30 years ago. Will this prove
reputation re maternal filiation?
a. Ans: Filiation of a perosn not a public figure is not
2. Will a newspaper article in the 1950s re: comfort women
be admissible under .41?
- General or public interest more than 30 years old
- MULTIPLE; at least double
- FINAL Answer: hearsay (writer cannot be cross-
examined)

Witness (1) --> newspaper (2) --> editor(3) -> writer with
personal knowledge -> Possibly informants/interviewees

3. State wthere T or F
- A witness cannot testify to the reputation that his
neighbors are married if the witness is not a member of
the family of the neighbors no matter how remotely and
not 30 years old. False