MIDTERM NOTES

Transcript of Lecture of Atty. Torregosa

b.

OBJECT EVIDENCE
1. General Classes of Evidence
a. Object
b. Documentary
c. Testimonial
2. Definition of Object Evidence
a. Object evidence refers to evidence addressed directly to
the senses of the court for exhibition or for examination.
1. Exhibition or examination of an object evidence is not
only limited to in-court exhibition or examination, as in
the case of an ocular inspection.
3. Three Classifications of Object Evidence
a. Object or Real
b. Demonstrative
c. Scientific
4. Object or Real Evidence
a. Definition
Object or Real Evidence refers to the thing which is the
very subject of the case or the very object which is
introduced to prove an issue in a case. In a murder
case, the murder weapon is the real evidence, or in a
physical injury case, the injury itself is the real
evidence.
b. Requisites of Admissibility
1. The evidence must be relevant;
2. The evidence must be authenticated;
3. The authentication must be made by a competent
witness;
4. The object must be formally offered in evidence.
c. Authentication of real/object evidence concerns itself with
the question whether the thing or the object presented in
evidence is the very same thing subject of controversy.
Witness must testify convincingly to the court that he had
personal knowledge of the fact that the object presented
before the court is the very same object involved in the
controversy.
5. Three Types of Real Evidence in Relation to Authentication
Process
a. Real object is identifiable by distinguishing characteristics
(e.g. serial number of a gun).
b. Real object is not identifiable by distinguishing
characteristics but susceptible of being identifiable
(inscription made on a butcher knife).
c. Real object is not identifiable by distinguishing
characteristics nor is it susceptible of being identified (e.g.
shabu, drops of blood).
1. Way to authenticate witness must testify as to proper
steps taken to preserve the integrity of evidence in
order to prevent contamination or substitution. This is
called as the chain of custody procedure.
6. Demonstrative Evidence
a. Definition
Demonstrative Evidence is not the very thing involved
in the litigation but it refers to an object which purports
to represent the real thing involved in the controversy
(e.g. photographs, maps, motion picture or video).
b. Authentication of demonstrative evidence concerns itself
with the question whether the demonstrative evidence
accurately represents the thing, person, or event it purports
to depict.
c. Authenticating witness must convince the court that the
person, thing or event depicted in the photograph is the
very same person, thing, or event involved in the
controversy on the basis of his familiarity with the person
thing or event in the photograph.
1. It is not necessary that the photographer is the one
who should authenticate the photograph presented as
demonstrative evidence. The Rules allow some other
witness to authenticate such photograph provided
such witness is familiar with the person, thing, or event
which the photograph purports to depict (State vs.
Tatum; People vs. Quizon).
7. Scientific Evidence
a. Definition
Scientific Evidence refers to results of scientific
studies conducted by persons who are experts in that

c.

particular field (e.g. fingerprinting, handwriting

examination, DNA testing, ballistics examination).
For purposes of admissibility, it also requires testimony of
witness, but unlike real/object evidence or demonstrative
evidence, the testimony must be given by a witness who
has the expertise on that particular study or field involved in
the test. Moreover, he must also convince the court of the
reliability of the results of his test by showing facts that he
followed the right procedure necessary to come up the
correct results of the test.
Scientific Evidence as a Result of a Lie Detector Test
1. One of the cases assigned results of lie detector
tests as a form of scientific evidence have not
achieved that acceptance as an accurate or reliable
piece of evidence. It is not conclusive evidence.

RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE

1. Definitions
DNA Evidence refers to the totality of the DNA profiles,
results, and other genetic information directly generated
from DNA testing on biological samples.
Biological samples are the organic materials originating
from the body of a person, and can even be found in
inanimate objects, that are susceptible of DNA testing.
2. Instances when DNA testing may be resorted to:
a. Before commencement of an action.
1. May be done without leave of court
2. By any person, including law enforcement agencies
b. During the pendency of the action.
1. May be done motu propio by the court; or
2. By any party who has legal interest in the subject
matter of the case.
An order must be issued by the court after due notice
and hearing, and provided the following requisites are
present:
i.
There is a biological sample
ii. The biological sample:
a. has not been used previously in any DNA
testing; or
b. was used previously but results need
confirmation;
iii. Scientifically valid technique was used;
iv. DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce
new evidence relevant to the case;
v. Existence of other factors, if any, that may affect
the accuracy of the DNA test.
An order allowing DNA testing is not appealable.
The remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the ROC. In order to stay the order of the court under
this petition, a TRO or injunction must be secured.
c. Post-conviction DNA testing
1. Who can file:
i.
The prosecutor; or
ii. The person convicted by final judgment
The Court may not motu propio order the conduct of
post-conviction DNA testing. No need of prior court
order.
2. The prosecutor or person convicted by final judgment
may avail of post-conviction DNA testing provided that:
i.
A biological sample exists;
ii. Sample is relevant to the case; and
iii. Result will probably reverse or modify the
judgment of conviction.
3. This is only resorted to only when the decision of the
court has become final but before the sentence has
been fully served.
4. This does not apply where the decision is acquittal. If
the prosecution will resort to this, this is tantamount to
double jeopardy.
5. In post-conviction DNA testing, the sentence has not
yet been fully served. The reason for this is that, under
Section 6 in relation to Section 10 of the Rule, when
the post-conviction testing is favorable to the accused,
he (the accused) may file a petition for habeas corpus.
In other words, the court must release the accused
from detention if no other evidence will controvert the
results of the post-conviction DNA testing.
3. Guidelines on the Results of DNA Testing
a. Result is Non-Paternity CONCLUSIVE. Evidence to rebut
the result is not allowed.

b.

Result is POSITIVE it depends:

1. 99.9% or above probability of paternity disputable
presumption of paternity. Sufficient to support a
conclusion unless rebutted by contrary evidence.
2. Less than 99.9% probability of paternity
corroborative evidence only. Other evidence must be
adduced in order to support conclusion.

iii.

likely to be in possession of the original (Villarey

vs. Ferrer).
The original is consists of numerous accounts or
documents and could not be produced in court without
loss of time and what is only needed is the general
result of the whole;

BEST EVIDENCE RULE

1. Applicability
a. The Best Evidence Rule is applicable only to Documentary
Evidence.
b. Definition of Best Evidence Rule:
Best Evidence Rule means that where the subject
matter of inquiry is the terms or contents of a
document, the original document should be presented
to prove such fact and secondary evidence may only
be admitted if the grounds allowing such kind of
evidence are proven by affirmative evidence.
c. Definition of Documentary Evidence:
Documentary Evidence refers to evidence consisting
of writings or any material containing letters, words,
numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written
expression presented as proof of their contents.
2. Requisites for Best Evidence Rule to apply:
a. The subject matter involves a document.
b. The subject of inquiry is the contents of such document.
3. Original Document for purposes of Best Evidence Rule refers
to:
a. The document, the contents of which are the subject matter
of inquiry;
b. The document in two or more copies executed at or about
the same time with identical contents;
c. The document, the entries of which are repeated in the
regular course of business at or about the same time of
transaction.
4. Exceptions to the Best Evidence Rule (when secondary
evidence is allowed):
a. When the purpose is not to prove the contents of the
document:
i.
Purpose is to prove external facts execution,
existence or condition of the document (People vs.
Tandoy);
ii. Purpose is to prove an independent fact (Meyers
case).
iii. The document is only a collateral fact or remotely
connected with the issue in the case (Air France vs.
Carrascoso).
b.

In all these three instances, testimony of a witness is

sufficient. No need to present any document.

When the purpose is to prove the contents of the

writing yet secondary evidence is allowed because:
i.
The original is lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in
court, without bad faith on the offeror;
Secondary evidence will only be allowed after the
offeror accounts for the original (De Vera vs. Aguilar).
In other words:
1. The offeror must prove due execution of the
original;
2. The offeror must prove the prior existence of the
original;
3. The offeror must show cause as to the loss of the
original;
4. The offeror must show that the loss was not due
to his bad faith.
Presentation of secondary evidence must be in the
following order:
1. Copy of the original;
2. Recital of the contents of the original in an
authenticated document;
3. Testimony of witnesses.
ii. The original is in the custody or control of the adverse
party and such party fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;
1. It is not necessary that the adverse party admits
that he is in possession of the original or actually
possesses the original. It is enough that he is

For this to apply, the following requirements must be

complied:
1. Proponent must be able to prove the voluminous
character of the document;
2. Offeror must provide the adverse party access to
the voluminous records (Compaa Maritima
case).
iv. The original is a public document in the custody of a
public officer.
1. The offeror must simply secure a certified copy of
the original from the public officer having custody
of the original.
5. Objections to admissibility of an evidence may be waived
through failure of the party concerned to object within
reasonable time after due notice.
6. Timely Objection:
a. Of a documentary evidence for violation of the Best
Evidence Rule at the time the document is formally
offered in evidence. Formal offer of documentary evidence
is done after presentation of all the witnesses.
b. Otherwise, objection will be premature and will give the
adverse party an opportunity to cure the defect.
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
1. Importance of Effectivity Dates
a. August 1, 2001 to October 13, 2002 the Rules covered
only civil actions or proceedings and quasi-judicial or
administrative proceedings
b. October 14, 2002 to present the Rules now includes in its
coverage criminal actions.
2. Definition
a. Electronic Document refers to information or
representation of information, data, figures, symbols or
other modes of written expression, which establishes a right
or extinguishes an obligation, or by which a fact is proved
or affirmed, and is transmitted, received, recorded,
retrieved, stored or processed electronically.
b. Original Electronic Document refers to the 1) printout or
output readable by sight or other means which shows the
data accurately and 2) the data shown on the computer
screen is also an original electronic document because it is
an output readable by sight or other means which shows
the data accurately.
3. Photocopies of originals of electronic documents:
1. Executed at or about the same time containing similar
contents;
2. Produced by the same matrix;
3. Produced by mechanical or electronic re-recording;
4. Produced by chemical reproduction
shall be considered as equivalent to originals.
4. However photocopies of originals of electronic documents
containing manually inscribed signatures are stripped of
their electronic character and are not anymore considered as
electronic documents (NAPOCOR vs. Codilla).
5. Manner of Authentication
a. Through digital signature;
b. Through appropriate security procedures authorized by the
Supreme Court;
c. Through other evidence showing the integrity and reliability
of the document.
1. Testimony of witness/es who had personal knowledge
as to the preparation, transmission and receipt of the
document and who can attest to the integrity and
reliability of such document may be allowed (one of the
cases assigned).
2. Person who prepared, retrieved, and who had
personal knowledge of the document must testify as to
the integrity and reliability of such document.
Otherwise, the document will not be admitted in
evidence (Aznar vs. Citibank).
6. Remedy if the Original or those regarded as Equivalent to
Original are Lost, Destroyed, or cannot be Produced

a.

b.

The Rules on Electronic Evidence do not expressly provide

for the presentation of secondary evidence if the original or
those equivalent to originals are lost, destroyed, or cannot
be produced.
However, Section 3 of Rule I of the same Rules proved for
the suppletory application of the Rules of Court. Thus, in
such a case, the provisions of the ROC regarding
admissibility of evidence should be applied.

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

1. Definition
Parol Evidence Rule means that where the terms of an
agreement are reduced into writing, such writing is
presumed to contain all the terms and conditions of the
agreement and no evidence may be admitted that may
alter, modify, or vary the terms of such agreement other
than the contents of the written agreement itself.
2. Difference between Best Evidence Rule and Parol Evidence
Rule
Best Evidence
Refers to all kinds of
written documents,
with or without an
agreement
What is proved are
the contents of the
writing
Can be invoked by
anyone

Parol Evidence
Refers only to written
agreements; does not involve a
written document containing mere
statements of fact (Luz vs. CA,
e.g. receipts)
What is proved are contents of
the written agreement does not
reflect true intention of the parties
Can only be invoked by the
parties to the agreement
(Lichugas case cannot be
invoked when one of the parties
to the controversy is not a party to
the agreement)

3. Written Agreement
a. What is only required is that the agreement is reduced
into writing. It does not require that the agreement must
be embodied in a public instrument or document (Inciong
case promissory note is private document. Will parol
evidence rule apply or not? Court Yes).
b. Application of Parol Evidence Rule presupposes that there
may be application of Best Evidence Rule. (e.g. deed of
sale. Contents of deed of sale best evidence. But if one
party says that lot 1 is the subject of sale not lot 2 but in the
deed it is clear that lot2 is the subject of sale parol
evidence).
4. Collateral Fact Rule vs. Collateral Agreement Rule (Robles
case)
a. Collateral Fact Rule where what are testified are matters
that are remotely connected to the matter which is the
subject of inquiry, or matters surrounding the preparation of
the document and does not involve an inquiry on the
contents of the writing, the Best Evidence Rule does not
apply.
b. Collateral Agreement Rule when a separate and distinct
agreement is executed by the parties which does not alter,
modify, or vary the terms and conditions of the written
agreement previously executed, then such collateral
agreement is an exception to the Parol Evidence Rule
(Robles case Hacienda Nahalinan; compensation for
improvements).
5. Exceptions
a. A party may present evidence to modify, alter, or vary the
terms of the written agreement provided he presents as
issue in his pleading the:
1. Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the
written agreement;
2. Failure of the written agreement to express the true
intention of the parties;
3. Validity of the written agreement;
4. Existence of other terms agreed by the parties after
the execution of the written agreement.
5. Subjection to a condition precedent (Land Settlement
Development Corp. vs. Garcia; extension for payment
of purchase price subject to condition of substantial
down payment through proceeds of the harvest);

6.

Existence of a collateral agreement.

The above exceptions must be stated categorically

and with particularity in the appropriate pleading.

6. Intrinsic Ambiguity vs. Extrinsic Ambiguity (assigned case

distilling apparatus; whether the 6000 volume refers to milling or
production capacity)
a. Intrinsic Ambiguity refers to an ambiguity not
ascertainable on the face of the instrument but needs other
extraneous evidence to determine the intent of the parties.
This is an exception to the Parol Evidence Rule.
b. Extrinsic Ambiguity refers to an ambiguity apparent on
the face of the document. In this case, Parol Evidence Rule
applies.
7. Validity of the Agreement
a. The application of the Parol Evidence Rule presupposes
that the agreement reduced into writing is a valid a
agreement or contract.
b. If the validity of the contract is held in issue, then the Parol
Evidence Rule will not apply (Maolini vs. Serran
promissory note of broker had no consideration).
8. Existence of Terms agreed by the Parties after the
Execution of the Agreement (Mariano vs. Canuto owner
given extension to one year redemption period)
a. Parol Evidence Rule prohibits the introduction of
extraneous evidence of to prove prior or contemporaneous
agreements. It does not cover subsequent agreements.
9. Parol Evidence Rule is waivable, provided timely objection is
made.
a. Timely Objection:
1. Best Evidence formal offer of evidence
2. Parol Evidence the moment extraneous evidence is
sought to be admitted.
10. Parol Evidence Rule under these Rules vs. Parol
Evidence Rule under Civil Law
Parol Evidence in Civil Code
Parol Evidence under the
Civil Code refers to a
situation where a contract is
required to be in writing in
order to be enforceable
under the Statute of Frauds
but such fact is proved by
oral evidence or by the
testimony of a witness.
However, this cannot be
done because in order to be
enforceable
under
the
Statute of Frauds, such
contract must be proved
though a written instrument.
Refers to oral evidence only
Introduced to prove the
existence of the contract

Parol Evidence Uner the

Rules
Parol
Evidence
Rule
means that where the
terms of an agreement are
reduced into writing, such
writing is presumed to
contain all the terms and
conditions
of
the
agreement
and
no
evidence may be admitted
that may alter, modify, or
vary the terms of such
agreement other than the
contents of the written
agreement itself.
Refers
to
extraneous
evidence, whether oral or
documentary
Introduced to vary the
terms of the contract