Rule 130 Sec. 9.

Parol 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. However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleadings: An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement; The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto; The validity of the written agreement The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successor in inte rest after the execution of the written agreement. Meaning The parol evidence rule simply means that a written agreement cannot be attacked or modified by oral or verbal evidence. The parol or oral evidence will not be admissible. It extends as well to other extrinsic evidence. Reason for the Rule When parties have reduced their agreements into writing, it is presumed that the written instrument is the only memorial of the truth. What is nit found there is deemed abandoned. The rule insures stability and certainty in the use of written instrument? How is it distinguished from the Statute of Frauds? Problems/ Cases To invoke the exceptions, what is the procedure? Does it apply to private documents? [Inciong, Jr. v. CA] Does it apply to receipts? [Cruz v. CA] Dos it apply to subsequent agreements? [Canuto] Does it apply to third parties? Intrinsic and Extrinsic Ambiguity Intrinsic or latent is one that does not appear on the face of the instrument, b ut lies hidden on the person or subject it refers to. Extrinsic or patent one that appears on the face of the instrument. 1988, No 13 (b) [Parol evidence] State or explain briefly the Parol Evidence Rule. 1997, Question No. 15 (b) (Parol evidence rule) Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence: Parol evidence rule. 2001, Question No. 16 (a) Pedro filed a complaint against Lucio for the recovery of a sum of money based o n a promissory note executed by Lucio. In his complaint, Pedro alleged that alt hough the promissory note says that it is payable within 120 days, the truth is that the note is payable immediately after 90 days but that if Pedro is willing, he may, upon request of Lucio give the latter up to 120 days to pay the note. During the hearing, Pedro testified that the truth is that the agreement between him and Lucio is for the latter to pay immediately after ninety day fs time. Als o since the original note was with Lucio and the latter would not surrender to P edro the original note which Lucio kept in a place about one day fs trip from wher e he received the notice to produce the note and in spite of such notice, Lucio failed to do so. Pedro presented a copy of the note which was executed at the s ame time as the original and with identical contents. Over the objection of Lucio, will Pedro be allowed to testify as to the true agr eement or contents of the promissory note? Why? Sec. 10-19 Interpretation of Documents Rule 130, Sec. 26: Admissions

Sec. 26. Admission: Admission to a classmate: Simangan v. P. Admission on affidavit for another purpose Rufina Patis v. Alusitain 1996, Question No. 14(1):( Distinguish extrajudicial admission from extrajudicial confession in criminal ca ses. Sec. 27. Offer of Compromise Admissible Criminal cases [but not offer to plead guilty to lesser offense, a pl ea withdrawn, to pay medical and hospital expenses] Not admissible: civil cases quasi-offense Subject to barangay conciliation P. v. Gaudia Offer made by a relative in a criminal case 1998, Question No. 16 (1) A was accused of having raped X. Rule on the admissibility of the following pie ces of evidence: An offer of A to marry X. [P. v. Domingo, 226 SCRA 156] 1996, Question No. 15 (3): X, charged with rape, with homicide, offered P100,000.00 as amicable settlement to the family of the victim. The family refused. During the trial, the prosecu tion presented in evidence X s offer of compromise. What is the legal implication of such offer? Explain. 1989: No. 11 (1) Pedro was charged with homicide for having hacked Ramon to death. Before the ca se could be tried, the heirs of Ramon sought out Pedro and discussed with him th e possibility of settlement of the case. Pedro agreed to a settlement. When th e heirs asked how much he was willing to pay, Pedro offered P30,000 which the he irs accepted. Is the agreement to settle as well as the offer to pay P30,000 by Pedro admissible in evidence against him as an implied admission of guilt? Exp lain. 1997, Question No. 15 (e) Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence: The rule against the admission of an offer of compromise in civil cases. 1997, Question No. 14 A, while driving his car, ran over B. A visited B at the hospital and offered t o pay for his hospitalization expenses. After the filing of the criminal case a gainst A for serous physical injuries through reckless imprudence, A fs insurance carrier offered to pay for the injuries and damages suffered by B. The offer w as rejected because B considered the amount offered inadequate. Is the offer by A to pay the hospitalization expenses of B admissible in evidenc e? Is the offer by A s insurance carrier to pay for the injuries and damages of B adm issible in evidence? Sec. 28. Res Inter Alios Acta Rule The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another. Exceptions: Sec. 29 - 31 Agent Joint owner Joint debtor Partner

A person jointly inter ested with a party Conspirator Privy Points to remember: Applies only to out-of-court admissions. P. v. Vda. De Ramos [Extra-judicial conf.] Francisco v. P.- admission in another case Geraldez v. CA [omission of another] Exceptions: Implied acquiescence or silence Interlocking confessions As corroborative evidence in conspiracy 2003, Question No. 20 (b) X and Y were charged with murder. Upon application of the prosecution, Y was di scharged from the Information to be utilized as a state witness. The prosecutor presented Y as witness but forgot to state the purpose of his testimony much le ss offer it in evidence. Y testified that he and X conspired to kill the victim but it was X who actually shot the victim. The testimony of Y was the only mat erial evidence establishing the guilt of X. Y was thoroughly cross-examined by the defense counsel. After the prosecution rested its case, the defense filed a motion for demurrer to evidence based on the following grounds: Y s testimony is not admissible against X pursuant to the rule on res inter alios a cta. Rule on the motion for demurrer to evidence on the above grounds Sec. 30. Admission by conspirator: Requisites: Conspiracy is shown by independent evidence; Admission relates to the purpose or object of conspiracy; It was made during the existence of the conspiracy Notes: Requisites does not apply if admission of conspirator is made in open court [cro ss-examine] [P. v. Flores] [Pregido v. Sandiganbayan, 476 SCRA 143] Admissions made in jail after arrest generally cannot be used against a conspira tor because that is no longer during the existence of a conspiracy. 1991: Question No. 13: During custodial investigation at the Western Police District, Mario Margal was informed of his constitutional right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. He decided to waive his right to counsel and proceeded to make a statement admitting commission of a robbery. In the same statement, he i mplicated Antonio Carreon, his co-conspirator in the crime. Is (the statement) admissible against Carreon as an exception to the res inter a lios acta rule? Sec. 32. Admission by Silence An act or declaration made in the presence and within hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturall y to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for hi m to do so, may be given in evidence against him. Pp. v. Garcia Sec. 32. Confession The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against h im. Extrajudicial and judicial confession: The first is made out of court, while the other is made in open court.

Are they admissible against third persons? People v. Flores 1998, Question No. 19 (1)) If the accused on the witness stand repeats his earlier uncounseled extrajudicia l confession implicating his co-accused in the crime charged, is that testimony admissible in evidence against the latter? Sec. 34. Similar Acts As a rule, not evidence to prove that he did a similar thing at another time, ex cept to prove: specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, hab it, custom, usage. P. v. Santos charged of murder, affidavit-complaint against him that he kill som ebody in the same place knowledge of good place for ambush Other case: 2. People v. Dadles joint trial in kidnapping, no evidence in 2nd of force or th reats 3. People v. Nardo that witness is a habitual laiar 2002, Question No. 14 (b) D was prosecuted for homicide for allegedly beating up V to death with an iron p ipe. May d introduce evidence of specific violent acts by D? Rule 130, Sec. 36. Hearsay Rule The testimony of a witness must be confined to facts he knows from personal know ledge. Matters which he learned from third persons are inadmissible. [ According to my informant, medical certificates without the examining physician, newspaper reports ] If not objected, they become admissible, but they have no weight even if admitted..] Independently Relevant Statements Statements which are relevant independently of whether they are true or not. Th ey are presented only to prove the tenor of the statement, not the truth of the facts asserted. -libel, issue of insanity Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule 1. Dying declaration 2. Declaration against interest 3. Act or declaration aganst pedigree 4. Family reputation or tradition regardign pedigree 5. Common reputation 6. Part of res gestae 7. Entries in the course of business 8. Entries on official records 9. Commercial list and the like 10. Learned treatises 11. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding Bar Questions 1999, Question No. 17 (a) and (b) Define hearsay evidence. What are the exceptions to the hearsay rule? 1988: Question No. 17 b(2): (hearsay) State five [other] exceptions to the hearsay rule. Quesstion 2002, No. 12 Romeo is sued for damages for injuries suffered by the plaintiff in a vehicular

accident. Julieta, a witness in court, testified that Romeo told her (Julieta) that he (Romeo) heard Antonio, a witness to the accident, give an excited accoun t of the accident immediately after its occurrence. Is Julieta s testimony admiss ible against Romeo over proper and timely objection? Why? 1994, No. 7 Gerry is being tried for rape. The prosecution fs evidence sought to establish th at at about 9:00 PM of January 20, 1994, Gerry went to complainant June fs house t o invite her to watch the festivities going on at the town plaza. June accepted the invitation. Upon reaching the public market which was just a stone fs throw from June fs house, Gerry forcibly dragged June towards the banana grove behind th e market where he was able to have carnal knowledge with June for about an hour. June did not immediately go home thereafter and if was only in the early morni ng of the following day that she narrated her ordeal to her daughter Liza. Liza testified in court as to what June revealed to her. Is the testimony of Liza hearsay? Is it admissible in evidence against the objection of the defense? 1999, Question No. 17 (c) A overheard B call X a thief. In an action for defamation filed by X against B, is the testimony of A offered to prove the fact of utterance i.e., that B calle d X a thief, admissible in evidence? Explain. 1991: Question No. 16 (c) Two (2) hours after Lt. Yap of the 2nd Air Division, PAF, at the Mactan Air Base in Lapulapu City, was shot with a .45 caliber pistol, his Division Commander, B rg. Gen. A, visited him at the Cebu doctors f Hospital in Cebu City where he was i mmediately brought for treatment of the gunshot wound. Lt. Yap told A that it w as Jose Comen who shot him. Forthwith, A, who is a law graduate, took the initi ative of taking down in long hand the staement of Lt. Yap. The latter narrated the events surrounding the incident and categorically stated that it was Jose Co men who shot him. Lt. Yap signed the statement in the presence of A and the at tending nurse. Ten (10) days later, Lt. Yap died as a consequence of the gunsho t wound. An information for murder was filed against Jose Comen. At the trial, the above statement of Lt. Yap marked as Exh. X , was presented and i dentified by A who did not however testify that Lt. Yap read it, or that it was read to him before he signed it. A, nevertheless, testified that, as abovestate d, Lt. Yap told him that it was Jose Comen who shot him. The defense objected t o the testimony of A and to the admission of Exh. X on the ground that they are hearsay. The prosecution contended that both are exceptions to the hearsay rule as they are part of res gestae. If the testimony of A as to the revelation of Lt. Yap is not admissible for bein g hearsay, may it be admitted as an independently relevant statement? 2003, No. 18 (a) X was charged with robbery. On the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by th e court, X was arrested by police operatives. They seized from his person a han dgun. A charge for illegal possession of firearm was also filed against him. I n a press conference called by the police, X admitted that he had robbed the vic tim of jewelry valued at P500,000.00. The robbery and illegal possession of firearm cases were tried jointly. The pro secution presented in evidence a newspaper clipping of the report to the reporte r who was present during the press conference stating that X admitted the robber y. It likewise presented a certification of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Off ice attesting that accused had no license to carry any firearm. The certifying officer, however, was not presented as a witness. Both pieces of evidence were objected to by the defense. Is the newspaper clipping admissible in evidence against X? 2004, Question No. 6 (d):

Distinguish clearly and briefly between: Hearsay evidence and opinion evidence. Sec. 37. Dying Declaration Requisites: Made under consciousness of impending death Refers to cause and circumstances of death Relates to facts he is competent to testify; He dies thereafter Offered in a criminal case where his death is subject of inquiry Some rules on dying declaration: No form is required. [People v. Boller] Consciousness of impending death. P. v. Gutierrez, but People v. Calago Is it conclusive? P. v. Dunig Is it admissible if favorable to accused? 1991: Question No. 15 (b) What are the requisites to admissibility of a dying declaration?

inferred

1991: Question No. 15 (a) One evening, at 9:00 o fclock, just as he reached the gate of his house in Apas, C ebu City, and as soon as he alighted from his car to open the gate, Carlos was s hot by Tito, who had been waiting behind a coconut tree nearby, with a .38 calib er revolver. Carlos was hit at the sternum of the second rib. Hearing the shot , Marilyn, Carlos wife ran out toward the gate and found Carlos lying on the grou nd, with blood splattered on his chest. With her son, Y, she brought Carlos to Cebu Doctors Hospital. In the car, although he was in a semi-consciousness state , Carlos told Marilyn that it was Tito who shot him, Carlos was brought to the e mergency room. However, two (2) hours later, he expired. Tito was then charged with murder before the RTC of Cebu. Marilyn was presented as witness for the p rosecution, but her testimony regarding the above statement of Carlos was object ed to under the hearsay rule. The court overruled the objection on the ground t hat the statement may be considered as a dying declaration. Is the ruling correct? 1991: Question No. 16 (b) Two (2) hours after Lt. Yap of the 2nd Air Division, PAF, at the Mactan Air Base in Lapulapu City, was shot with a .45 caliber pistol, his Division Commander, B rg. Gen. A, visited him at the Cebu doctors f Hospital in Cebu City where he was i mmediately brought for treatment of the gunshot wound. Lt. Yap told A that it w as Jose Comen who shot him. Forthwith, A, who is a law graduate, took the initi ative of taking down in long hand the staement of Lt. Yap. The latter narrated the events surrounding the incident and categorically stated that it was Jose Co men who shot him. Lt. Yap signed the statement in the presence of A and the at tending nurse. Ten (10) days later, Lt. Yap died as a consequence of the gunsho t wound. An information for murder was filed against Jose Comen. At the trial, the above statement of Lt. Yap marked as Exh. X , was presented and i dentified by A who did not however testify that Lt. Yap read it, or that it was read to him before he signed it. A, nevertheless, testified that, as abovestate d, Lt. Yap told him that it was Jose Comen who shot him. The defense objected t o the testimony of A and to the admission of Exh. X on the ground that they are hearsay. The prosecution contended that both are exceptions to the hearsay rule as they are part of res gestae. If the statement cannot be admitted as part of the res gestae, may it be conside red as a dying declaration? 1999, Question No. 17 (d) (dying declaration) The accused was charged with robbery and homicide. The victim suffered several stab wounds. It appears that 11 hours after the crime, while the victim was bei ng brought to the hospital in a jeep, with his brother and a policeman as compan ions, the victim was asked certain questions which he answered, pointing to the

accused as his assailant. His answers were put down in writing, but since he wa s in a critical condition, his brother and the policeman signed the statement. Is the statement admissible as a dying declaration. 1988: Question No. 17 b(1) The day before the stabbing victim died, he identified positively to the Police the person who stabbed him. When he was asked by the Police if he was going to die because of the wounds, he answered that he did not know. Is the identification by the deceased admissible as an ante-mortem statement and an exception to the hearsay rule? Explain. 1998, Question No. 18 (2) (Dying declaration) Give the requisites of dying declaration. 1996, Question No. 15 (1): At the trial for B s murder, the defense attempts to present as its witness his wi dow, X. She is to testify that just before B died, she approached his sprawled and bloodied husband and asked who stabbed him. B, conscious of his impending d eath, named Y as his assailant. The prosecution moves to stop X from testifying because her testimony (1) is hearsay, and (2) will be violative of the rule on privileged marital communication. Rule on the prosecution s motion. Explain. 1993, Question No. 20 While sleeping under a tree, Kintanar was stabbed several times by a man, sustai ning multiple stab wounds on his chest with blood spurting therefrom. Bathed in his own blood, Kintanar rushed to his house where he was met by his wife. Kint anar informed his wife that it was Gonzales who stabbed him. On the way to the hospital, Kitnanar kept on saying that it was Gonzales who stabbed him. He died while undergoing surgery at the hospital. Convicted for the killing of Kintanar, Gonzales questioned the admission in evid ence of the ante-mortem statement of Kintanar to his wife. He argued that from the abovecited facts, there is no indication that the aforesaid statement was ma de by the victim under consciousness of an impending death. Can the subject statement be considered a dying declaration? Why? 1987, No. 8: [Dying declaration] Two days before the victim of a stabbing incident died, he made a statement to t he police identifying the person who stabbed him. When asked by the police, the victim added that he did not know if the was going to survive because the many stab wounds he sustained were painful. Is the identification by the deceased of his assailant admissible in evidence as an ante-mortem statement as an exception to the hearsay rule? Sec. 38. Declaration Against Interest Requisites: Declarant is dead or unable to testify It relates to facts against his interest He knew it to be contrary to his interest He had not motive to testify What distinguishes this from admissions under Sec. 26 is that here the declarant is dead or unable to testify, and that it is against his interest (unfavorable) , not against somebody else Cases: People v. Bernal I have an affair with the wife of Bernal.[moral or penal Fuentes v. CA B told me that he killed X. B can no longer be found. [not dead, mentally incapacitated or physically incomp etent] Sec. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree Declarant is dead or unable to testify; About pedigree of another person

Related by birth or marriage Declaration made prior to controversy Pedigree relationship, family tree or history, birth marriage, death Sec. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree Requisites: Must pertain to reputation or tradition regarding pedigree existing in the famil y of the person whose pedigree is in question The reputation or tradition was formed before the controversy The witness testifying is a member of the family Distinctions Act/Declaration about Pedigree /39 Family reputation or Tradition /40 The declarant is dead or unable 1. Need not be deed to testify The declarant must be related by birth or marriage to the person whose pedigree is in question 2. Declarant must be a member of the family Sec. 41. Common reputation Reputation refers to matters of: Public or general interest more than 30 years old Marriage Moral character 2000, Question No. 12 (Pedigree) Linda and spouses Arnulfo and Regina Ceres were co-owners of a parcel of land. Linda died intestate and without any issue. Ten (10) persons headed by Jocelyn, claiming to be collateral relatives of the deceased Linda, filed an action for partition with the Regional Trial Court praying for the segregation of Linda s sha re, submitting in support of their petition the baptismal certificates of seven of the petitioners, a family bible belonging to Linda in which the names of the petitioners have been entered, a photocopy of the birth certificate of Jocelyn, and a certification of the local civil registrar that its office had been comple tely razed by fire. The spouses Ceres refused to partition on the following gro unds: the baptismal certificates of the parish priest are evidence only of the adminis tration of the sacrament of baptism and they do not prove filiation of the alleg ed collateral relatives of the deceased; (2) entry in the family bible is hearsa y; and (3) the certification of the registrar on non-availability of the record s of birth does not prove filiation. As counsel for Jocelyn and her co-petition ers, argue against the objections of the spouses Ceres so as to convince the cou rt to allow the partition. Discuss each of the three (3) arguments briefly but completely. Sec. 42. Part of res gestae SPONTANEOUS EXCLAMATIONSPrincipal fact or res gestae is a startling occurrence Statement is made immediately before, during or immediately after the occurrence Made before he had time to contrive a falsehood Refers to the occurrence in question Statement Accompanying an Equivocal Act Principal fact is an equivocal act The act must be material to the issue Statement must accompany the equivocal act It must give the act a legal significance CasesThe spontaneous exclamation may be made by the victim or the accused The time of the occurrence of the act and the statement must be close Palmones 0 mnts., Taneo 4hrs. No requirement that declarant dies or that he is unable to testify

1992: No. 2 [dying declaration and res gestae] Alejo was stabbed in the abdomen. He immediately called for help and a policema n promptly approached him. He told the policeman that he felt he would die from the serious wound inflicted on him by Danilo who has a grudge against him. He was brought to a hospital for treatment where, on the same day, he was shot and killed by someone whose identity could not be established by an eye-witness. E ventually, Danilo was charged in court for the death of Alejo. The prosecution has to build its case on circumstantial evidence. At the ensuing trial, the pol iceman was presented to testify on the declaration made to him by Alejo. The de fense objected. Meeting the objection, the prosecution argued for the admissibi lity of the evidence as a dying declaration or as part of the res gestae, either of which, when deemed competent evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule, w ould demonstrably be relevant to the fact in issue, the guilt of Danilo for the death of Alejo. The defense countered by arguing that no facts relating to the stabbing can be relevant to the shooting. Is the contention of the prosecution with respect to relevancy and competency of evidence correct? Discuss fully. 1991: Question No. 16 (a) [res gestae] Two (2) hours after Lt. Yap of the 2nd Air Division, PAF, at the Mactan Air Base in Lapulapu City, was shot with a .45 caliber pistol, his Division Commander, B rg. Gen. A, visited him at the Cebu doctors f Hospital in Cebu City where he was i mmediately brought for treatment of the gunshot wound. Lt. Yap told A that it w as Jose Comen who shot him. Forthwith, A, who is a law graduate, took the initi ative of taking down in long hand the staement of Lt. Yap. The latter narrated the events surrounding the incident and categorically stated that it was Jose Co men who shot him. Lt. Yap signed the statement in the presence of A and the at tending nurse. Ten (10) days later, Lt. Yap died as a consequence of the gunsho t wound. An information for murder was filed against Jose Comen. At the trial, the above statement of Lt. Yap marked as Exh. X , was presented and i dentified by A who did not however testify that Lt. Yap read it, or that it was read to him before he signed it. A, nevertheless, testified that, as abovestate d, Lt. Yap told him that it was Jose Comen who shot him. The defense objected t o the testimony of A and to the admission of Exh. X on the ground that they are hearsay. The prosecution contended that both are exceptions to the hearsay rule as they are part of res gestae. Is the prosecution correct? 1988, Question No. 17 (a) [Res gestae] When Tomas was stabbed on the chest curing a street brawl, he instinctively shou ted for help. Emil who was nearby heard the shout and rushed to Tomas side who w hen asked by Emil what happened, stated that Kulas stabbed him. Tomas died on account of the stab wound. Could Emil s testimony be received to identify Kulas? Explain. Bar 2005, No. 16[ Res Gestae] Dencio barged into the house of Marcela, tied her to a chair and robbed her of a ssorted pieces of jewelry and money. Dencio then brought Candida, Marcela s maid, t o a bedroom where he raped her. Marcela could hear Candida crying and pleading: Hu wag! Maawa ka sa akin! After raping Candida, Dencio fled from the house with the l oot. Candida then untied Marcela and rushed to the police station about a kilomet er away and told Police Officer Roberto Maawa that Dencio had barged into the ho use of Marcela, tied the latter to a chair and robbed her of her jewelry and mon ey. Candida also related to the police officer that despite her pleas, Dencio had raped her. The policeman noticed that Candida was hysterical and on the verge of collapse. Dencio was charged with robbery with rape. During the trial, Candida ca n no longer be located. If the prosecution presents Police Officer Roberto Maawa to testify on what Cand ida had told him, would such testimony of the policeman be hearsay? Explain.

Sec. 43. Entries in the course of Business Requisites: The person who made the entry is dead, abroad or unable to testify He made the entry in the regular course of business At or near the time of the transaction Heirs of Conti entries in the baptismal records to prove filiation Sec. 44. Entries in Official Records Requisites: Entry was made by a public officer or eprson especially enjoined by law It was made in the performance of a duty No requirement of death or unable to testify. Examples/Cases: P. v. Bandang Chemistry Report without forensic chemist Santiago v. CA MARINA Certification that vessel is sea worthy Lao v. Standard Police Blotter CSC v. Cayobit CSC Master List of eligibles Sec. 45. -47 Sec. 45. Commercial lists and the like Sec. 46. Learned Treatises Sec. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding Requisites: Former proceedings may be judicial or admin It was between the same parties It relates to the same subject matter or issues There was opportunity to cross-examine Witness is dead or unable to testify in subsequent trial Cases P. v. Ortiz Decision in a former case? Cariaga v. CA- Affidavit in a labor case (Cross-examine) [deceased or out of the Philippines] Samalio v. CA, 454 SCRA 653, March 3, 2005 Convicted of robbery in Sandiganbayan, charged administratively before BID Sec. 48. Opinion rule Generally, the opinion of a witness is not admissible. Exceptions: Expert opinion- on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,experience or tra ining. [on science, art or trade] Ordinary witness - on : Expert Evidence The testimony of one possessing in regard to a particular subject or department of human activity, knowledge not usually acquired by other persons. Expert Opinion Drug cases Forensic chemist Mental condition psychiatrist Handwriting Cause of death Unwritten law of a foreign country? Ordinary witness: Identity of a person Handwriting Mental sanity Impression on appearance, behavior, condition or emotion Can cause of death be proved without expert testimony? P. v. Baybayon

1994, Question No. 19: At Nolan s trial for possession and use of the prohibited drug known as shabu, his g irlfriend, Kim testified that on a particular day, she would see Nolan very prim and proper, alert and sharp, but that three days after, he would appear haggard , tired and overly nervous at the slightest sound he would hear. Nolan objects to the admissibility of Kim s testimony on the ground that Kim merely stated her o pinion without having been first qualified as expert witness. Should you, as judge, exclude the testimony of Kim? Bar 2005, No. 16; [Opinion Rule] Dencio barged into the house of Marcela, tied her to a chair and robbed her of a ssorted pieces of jewelry and money. Dencio then brought Candida, Marcela s maid, t o a bedroom where he raped her. Marcela could hear Candida crying and pleading: Hu wag! Maawa ka sa akin! After raping Candida, Dencio fled from the house with the lo ot. Candida then untied Marcela and rushed to the police station about a kilomete r away and told Police Officer Roberto Maawa that Dencio had barged into the hou se of Marcela, tied the latter to a chair and robbed her of her jewelry and mone y. Candida also related to the police officer that despite her pleas, Dencio had raped her. The policeman noticed that Candida was hysterical and on the verge of collapse. Dencio was charged with robbery with rape. During the trial, Candida can no longer be located. If the police officer will testify that he noticed Candida to be hysterical and on the verge of collapse, would such testimony be considered as opinion, hence, inadmissible? Explain. 2004, Question No. 6 (d): Distinguish clearly and briefly between: Hearsay evidence and opinion evidence. Sec. 51. Character Evidence Summary: Good character of accused yes Bad character of accused yes, on rebuttal Of offended party if it is relevant Criminal -if it tends to establish probability or improbability Civil when issue of character is pertinent Rape character of victim to prove consent Homicide proof that victim was theft and drug addict? What about in administrative cases? Civil Service v. Belagan, 440 SCRA 578 Offended part was charged 22 times of offenses like defamation, threats, physica l injuries, malicious mischief, unjust vexation. Complaint is for sexual advance s. Held: Applies to civil and criminal cases. it does not tend to establish the probability or improbability of the offense ch arged. No bearing on her chastity. 2002, Question No. 14 (a) D was prosecuted for homicide for allegedly beating up V to death with an iron p ipe. May the prosecution introduce evidence that V had a good reputation for peaceful ness and non-violence? Why? Rule 131. Sec. 1. Burden of Proof The duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to estab lish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. Test: Who is the party who will be defeated if no evidence is presented by both sides? Who alleges the affirmative of an issue?

Burden of Evidence The burden of going forward with the evidence which rests on the party at any pa rticular time during the trial to create a prima facie case in his favor or to o verthrow one when created against him. Burden of proof v. Burden of Evidence Burden of proof always lies with the same side (the party who must establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required), but the burden of evidenc e shifts from one party to the other. Self-defense, payment 2004, Question No. 6 (a): Distinguish clearly and briefly between: Burden of proof and burden of evidence. Sec. 2. Conclusive Presumptions Cannot be rebutted: Estoppel in pais where a party by his act, declaration or omission led another t o believe a particular thing to be true and act upon such belief [Ibaan v. CA, S heriff s Certificate of Sale, Agency representation Presumption in favor of landlord the tenant is not permitted to deny the title o f his landlord [lessee] Sec. 3. Disputable Presumptions That evidence willfully suppressed is adverse if produced: At the disposal only of the suppressing party; [complainant, blotter] but bank d ocuments Metropolitan Bank] Suppression is willful [not unavailable] Not merely corroborative or cumulative Suppression not in the exercise of privilege 1994, Question No. 20: (Suppression of evidence) On the basis of the testimonies of NARCOM agents, James and Tony, who spearheade d the buy-bust operation by posing as buyers after a tip from a civilian informer, Steve, Bob was convicted of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. On appeal, B ob claims that he is entitled to an acquittal as the prosecution willfully suppr essed evidence in not presenting the informer, Steve, in court. Decide Bob s contention. Possession of Stolen Goods Crime of theft or robbery has been committed It was committed recently The stolen property was found in possession of defendants The defendant is unable to explain his possession satisfactorily Cases: People v. Gonzales Robbery with homicide wearing stolen items Roque v. People, 444 SCRA 61, N. 2004 Accused, a teller, was in possession of withdrawal slip which he gave to treasur er. Amount was withdrawn Presumption of Death For remarriage: 2 years extraordinary 4 years ordinary For succession: 4 years extraordinary b.10 years ordinary, except if over 75 which is 5 years Other purposes: 4 years - ordinary 7 years - extraordinary Suppose a person is kidnapped and he does not return after 4 years with the kidn

apper pointing their guns at him, is there a presumption that he is dead? If ye s, is there a presumption also that the kidnappers were the ones who killed him? Can they be convicted of kidnapping with Murder? People v. Roluna Presumption of marriage arising from cohabitation Questions: Based on such presumption, if unrebutted, is it sufficient to convict one of hom icide? [P. v. Edualino] Can that presumption be used to establish legitimacy? [implied in De la Puerta v . CA] Reason for rule: Continuing existence of a thing: Cases: Imperial Victory v. NLRC File a claim abroad for death of his son- No evidence that it was terminated or dismissed. Who has burden of proof? Teves v. Sandiganbayan, 447 SCRA 309 mayor operating a cockpit in 1992. Evidence showed he applied for permit in 1983 and renewed it 1989. Rule 132. Sec.19. Authentication and Proof Classes of Documents: Public Written official acts or records of official bodies and public officers [Ors, bl otter, permits, cedula, SSS ID Notarized documents, except last wills and testaments [deed of sale, affidavits] Public records of private documents required by law to be entered therein [ Private: All others [promissory note, unnotarized deed, checks, baptismal certi ficate, DTR of Ateneo employees] Private documents require authentication to be admissible. Meaning prove that it is not fake or spurious. Sec. 20. Authentication of private document By anyone who saw the document executed or written By evidence of genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker Who normally testifies? The person who executed it The person who was present and saw it executed, or who after its executions saw it and recognized the signatures Sec. 21. Exceptions: Authentication not necessary Ancient Document It is more than 30 years old Produced from a cusotdy in which it may be naturally found if genuine Unblemished by any alteration or suspicion of alterations. Examples/Cases: Heirs of Lacsa v. CA- 1924 Deeds written in Spanish but the first pages had no s ignature of the parties. Bartolome v. IAC Deed of Sale in Ilocano, but the 4th page supposed to contain t he signature is missing. [incomplete] Cleopas v. St. Peter Memorial Deed was in the sutody of the purchaser, not in Bu reau of Lands folder. [enough that person is connected with the document] 1990: No. 16 [ancient document] In the trial of a case on July 5, 1990, plaintiff offered in evidence a receipt dated July 7, 1959 issued by defendant company which found in a cabinet for rec eipts of payment. It is without any blemish or alterations. As no witness test ified on the execution and authenticity of the document, defendant moved for the exclusion of this receipt notwithstanding that it is a private writing. Should the said motion be granted? Explain your answer.

Sec. 22. How to prove genuineness By any witness who has seen the person write; By any witness who is familiar with the handwriting of such person; By making a comparison with a genuine handwriting of such person; [Expert evidence] Rule 132. Sec. 1. Examination to be done in open court, under oath What if witness forgot to take oath? P. v. Bisda. Sec. 2. Proceedings to be recorded Sec. 3. Sec. 4. Sec. 5. Sec. 6. -effect Rights and obligations of a witness Order of examination Direct-examination Cross-examination of death [P. v. Narca] if accused sought deferment What happened on July 12,

2002, No. 13 (b): (Direct-examination) Is this question on direct examination objectionable: 1999? Why?

1987, No. 7 [Cross-examination] In a criminal case, the prosecution presented a witness. Midway towards the cro ss-examination by the defense counsel, the defense moved for continuance upon th e ground that it was essential that some inquiry be made by the defense from out side sources before the cross-examiner could intelligently continue on the remai ning factual matters in the direct testimony. The motion was granted and the tr ial was reset to another date. But the witness died so that he could not be pre sented for the continuation of the cross-examination. The defense moved to stri ke the entire testimony of the deceased witness upon the ground that otherwise t he accused would be denied the full enjoyment of his rights to confrontation and cross-examination. If you were the fiscal, what arguments will you offer to oppose the motion? If you were the judge, how would you rule on the motion? Sec. 7. Re-direct examination Scope: only to explain or supplement his answers given during the cross. Discretion: questions on matters not dealt during cross Sec. 8. Re-cross-examination Scope: only on matters stated in his re-direct Discretion: other matters 1997, Question No. 13 (a): Aside from asking a witness to explain and supplement his answer in the cross-ex amination, can the proponent ask in re-direct examination questions on matters n ot dealt with during cross-examination? 1997, Question No. 13 (b): Aside from asking the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination, ca n the opponent in his re-cross examination ask questions on matters not dealt wi th during re-direct? Sec. 9. Recall of witness Recall can only be done with leave of court. It is discretionary. 1997, Question No. 13 (3): (Recall of witness) After plaintiff has formally submitted his evidence, he realized that he had for gotten to present what he considered an important evidence. Can he recall a wit ness?

Sec. 10. Leading questions: when allowed On cross-examination On preliminary matters When there is difficulty of getting direct and intelligent answers from the witn ess Unwilling or hostile witness An adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or priva te corporation. Leading v. Misleading Question Leading question is one which suggests to the witness the answer which the exami ner desires; but a misleading question is one that assumes as true a fact not ye t testified to by the witness or contrary to what he has previously stated. Sec. 11. Impeachment of adverse party s witness By contradictory evidence General reputation for truth, honesty or integrity is bad -----But not evidence of particular wrongful acts, except if he has been convict ed of them Prior inconsistent statements CSC v. Belagan, 440 SCRA 578 Facts: Woman filed a complaint for sexual advances against a DECS official (199 4). She testified on the incident. Questions: Can evidence of her character be admitted? Can evidence of 22 cases filed against her from 1985 to 1986 be admitted? Assuming that they are near the incident, would they be admissible? Evidence of p articular acts No conviction . [presumption of innocence, unproven] Sec. 12. Impeaching One s Own Witness General Rule: A party is not allowed to impeach his own witness, except: Witness is hostile or unwilling Witness is adverse party Sec. 13. Impeaching by inconsistent statement Statement must be related/shown to him, with the circumstances of time and place Must be asked whether he made such statements Must be allowed to explain them. 1996, Question No. 14 (2): In the examination of witnesses, what is meant by laying the predicate? Sec. 14. Character Evidence of Witness Good character one cannot prove good character of his witness, unless the advers e party has proved his bad character. Bad character One can prove the bad character of adverse witness, but not his ow n witness even if the latter turns hostile. Sec. 15. Exclusion and separation Exclusion to prevent his from listening to the testimony. Separation to prevent them from talking with each other. Sec. 16. Use of Memorandum General Rule: A witness is not allowed to read notes while testifying. Exceptions: Present recollection revived He is allowed to refresh his memory by anything reco rded by himself or another under his direction at the time or immediately after the incident [evidence is testimony] Past recollection recorded - he is allowed to testify from a writing or record although he does not remember the particular facts, if he is able to say that th e writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made[evidence is recor

d] 1996, Question No. 14 (3): X states on direct examination that he once knew the facts being asked but he ca nnot recall them now. When handed a written record of the facts he testifies th at the facts are correctly stated, but that he has never seen the writing before ? Sec. 17. Part of Transaction, writing Only part of a writing or record is offered the other party may inquire into the other parts A detached act, declaration, writing or record is offered any other part may be given in evidence Rule 132. Sec. 23. Public Documents as Evidence Kinds: Entries in public records made in the performance of duty prima facie evidence o f facts therein stated Other public documents only evidence of: 1. Fact which gave rise to their execution and 2. Date of execution Angeles v. Angeles, 469 SCRA 363 To prove that she is a legitimate daughter, she presented her birth certificate not signed by parents, but only attending physician. Held: Only fact of birth, since it is a public record of a private document. Sec. 24/25. Proof of Official Record Official records are: official acts or records of: Sovereign authority Official bodies and tribunals Public officers How proven: Official publication Copy [photo/xerox] but requires- Attestation which must contain: If in the Philippines: By officer having legal custody of record or deputy Stating that it is a correct copy of the original Under his official seal If from foreign country: In addition to attestation, thee must be CERTIFICATION: By secretary of embassy, consul general, consul, vice consul or consular agent/a ny officer stationed in the foreign country that the attesting officer has custod y Cases: Wildvalley Venezuela law Assistant Harbor Master with photocopies Matugas naturalized in USA, Deputy clerk . The Phil consul certified that was t he Clerk of Court Manufacturers v. Guerrero affidavit of a New York attorney + copies of decisions =NY law/jurisprudence Sec. 26. Irremovability of public record Sec. 27. Public record of private document Sec. 28. Proof of lack of record Sec. 29. How judicial record impeached Sec. 30. Proof of notarial documents Certificate of acknowledgment serves as authentication Tigno v. Sps. Aquino, 444 SCRA 61(2004) What is the effect of notarization? What is the effect when the notary public who notarized is not authorized by law

? What is the effect if the Deed of sale is subscribed by way of jurat, not acknow ledgment? Sec. 31. Alteration in document Sec. 32. Seal Sec. 33. Document in Unofficial Language

must be accompanied by translation

2003, No. 18 (b) (public record) X was charged with robbery. On the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by th e court, X was arrested by police operatives. They seized from his person a han dgun. A charge for illegal possession of firearm was also filed against him. I n a press conference called by the police, X admitted that he had robbed the vic tim of jewelry valued at P500,000.00. The robbery and illegal possession of firearm cases were tried jointly. The pro secution presented in evidence a newspaper clipping of the report to the reporte r who was present during the press conference stating that X admitted the robber y. It likewise presented a certification of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office attesting that accused had no license to carry any firearm. The certifying offi cer, however, was not presented as a witness. Both pieces of evidence were obje cted to by the defense. Is the certification of the PNP Firearm and Explosive Office without the certify ing officer testifying on it admissible in evidence against X? Rule 132. Sec. 34. Offer and Objection Principle: Only evidence offered and admitted shall be considered Except: Judicial notice Judicial admissions Cases: May evidence marked but not offered be considered? Tabuena v. CA May evidence be presented on appeal? P. v. Gallardo May an annex to pleading not offered be considered? Ong v. CA May evidence offered and admitted but later lost be considered? Bingcoy v. CA Sec. 35. When to make offer? Oral testimony at the time witness is called to testify P. v. Yap Documentary and object after presentation of a party s testimonial evidence 1993, Question No. 3: During the pre-trial of a civil case, the parties marked their respective docume ntary evidence. Among the documents marked by the plaintiff was the deed of Abs olute Sale of the property in litigation (marked as Exh. C ). In the course of the trial on the merits, Exh. C was identified by the plaintiff, who was cross-examined thereon by the defendant s counsel; furthermore, the conten ts of Exh. C were read into the records by the plaintiff. However, Exh. C was not among those formally offered in evidence by the plaintiff. 1996, Question No. 15 (2) : X sued Y, a shipping company, based on a contract of carriage contained in a bil l of lading. The bill of lading, an actionable document, was pleaded and attach ed to the complaint. Y, without alleging anything else, merely assailed the val idity of the agreement in the bill of lading for being contrary to public policy . After presenting evidence, X did not formally offer for admission the bill of lading. The court ruled for X. On motion for reconsideration, Y alleged that x failed to prove his action as the bill of lading was not formally offered. Decide. Bar Question 1997, No. 12 A trial court cannot take into consideration a case an evidence that has not bee

n formally offered. When are the following pieces of evidence formally offered? Testimonial evidence Documentary evidence Object evidence 2003, Question No. 20 (a) X and Y were charged with murder. Upon application of the prosecution, Y was di scharged from the Information to be utilized as a state witness. The prosecutor presented Y as witness but forgot to state the purpose of his testimony much le ss offer it in evidence. Y testified that he and X conspired to kill the victim but it was X who actually shot the victim. The testimony of Y was the only mat erial evidence establishing the guilt of X. Y was thoroughly cross-examined by the defense counsel. After the prosecution rested its case, the defense filed a motion for demurrer to evidence based on the following grounds: The testimony of Y should be excluded because its purpose was not initially stat ed and it was not formally offered in evidence as required by Sec. 34, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. Rule on the motion for demurrer to evidence on the above ground. 2004, Question No. 1 (a) : In a complaint for a sum of money filed before the MM Regional Trial Court, plai ntiff did not mention or even just hint at any demand for payment made on defend ant before commencing suit. During the trial, plaintiff duly offered exhibit A in evidence for the stated purpose of proving the making of extrajudicial demand o n defendant to pay P5000,000, the subject of the suit. Exh. A was a letter of demand for defendant to pay said sum of money within 10 day s from receipt, addressed to and served on defendant some two months before suit was begun. Without objection from defendant, the court admitted Exh. A in eviden ce. Was the court s admission of Exh. A in evidence erroneous or not? Reason.

Sec. 36. Objection, when to make To oral offer immediately after offer To written offer within 3 days, unless To question in oral examination as soon as the ground becomes apparent Others PointsIf an answer is given before one could raise an objection? Effect of failure to object? Hearsay evidence In admissible confession Objects seized w/o warrant 1997, Question No. 11 What are the two kinds of objection? Explain each briefly. Give an example of each. Sec. 37. Repetition of objection Sec. 38. Ruling The court need not state its reason, except when objection is ba sed on two grounds. What is the effect? Sec. 39. Striking out answer Yu v. CA, 476 SCRA 443, Nov. 29, 2005 Plaintiff applied for subpoena duces tecum to obtain an insurance policy to prov e the infidelity of her husband. It was opposed and the judge declared it inadm issible. Held: Premature. Error is correctible by certiorari Sec. 40. Tender of Excluded Evidence Remedy if the judge sustains objection, remedy is:

If documentary have it attached to record If oral state for the record name and personal circumstances and substance of pr oposed testimony. [FORMAL OFFER OF PROOF] Yu Case Since subpoena was denied and the evidence declared inadmissible, may plaintiff make a formal offer of proof? Held: No. For this rule to apply, the evidence must first be identified/present ed and formally offered 1996, Question No. 15 (4) Aside from the testimonies of three witnesses positively identifying accused X a s having stabbed to death Y, the prosecution seeks to present another witness, A , which it believes as material and competent to prove its case. X s counsel obje ct to A s proposed testimony as being irrelevant. The court sustained the objecti on. If you were the prosecutor, what course of action would you pursue to the end th at the proposed testimony of A would form part of the record for purposes of rev iew/. Explain. 1991: Question No. 17 Distinguish formal offer of evidence from formal offer of proof. Rule 134. Perpetuation of Testimony Ayala Land v. Tagle, 466 SCRA 571 Is an unsigned deposition admissible in evidence? Yes. It is a mere defect of form. The requirement that it has to be examined an d signed by deponent is only intended to ensure its accuracy. It will affect th e weight, not admissibility. Electronic Evidence: Vidallon-Magtulis v. ___ 469 SCRA 439 Are text messages admissible? Yes. Under Sec. 1 (k), Rule 2, they are considered EPHEMERAL ELECTRONIC COMMUNIC ATION . They include telephone conversations, text messages and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained. How p roved? By a party or a person who has personal knowledge thereof. Rule 133. Weight and Sufficiency Sec. 1. Preponderance of Evidence- superior weight of evidence. Applies in civil cases. Hierarchy of Evidence Proof beyond reasonable doubt Clear and convincing evidence Preponderance of evidence Substantial evidence ERB v. CA Sec. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt What it is not : Absolute certainty What it is: Moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction i n an unprejudiced mind. Used in criminal cases Terms: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus false in one, false in all [P. v. Ducay] Equipoise rule: When the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses.

Self-serving evidence evidence made by a party out of court at one time. It is co nsidered hearsay. [not if repeated in court] Negative testimony when the witness states that he did not see or know the occur rence of a fact. [ I made no other will after this. Revilla v. CA English Exchequer Rule- Where a court, in convicting an accused, improperly admi tted certain evidence, the accused should be given a new trial. [ Harmless error r ule Pp. v. Teehankee: troublesome character of accused] Other PointsValue of the following: Alibi the weakest defense. As agaisnt positive identification, it is without val ue because it is easy to fabricate. Retraction viewed with disfavor because they are easy to secure from ignorant wi tnesses. 1998, Question No. 14 (3)- Facing a charge of Murder, x filed a petition for bail. The petition was oppose d by the prosecution but after hearing, the court granted bail to X. On the fir st scheduled hearing on the merits, the prosecution manifested that it was not a dducing additional evidence and that it was resting its case. X filed a demurer to evidence without leave of court but it was denied by the court. Without further proceeding and on the sole basis of the evidence of the prosecut ion, can the court legally convict X for Murder? 1998, Question No. 19 (2) What is the probative value of a witness Affidavit of Recantation?

1995, Question No. 1 (1): (Equipoise rule) Explain the equipoise doctrine in the law on evidence and cite its constitutiona l and procedural basis. Sec. 3. Extrajudicial confession To result to conviction, it must be supported by corpus delicti, or evidence ind ependent of the confession. Corpus delicti body or substance of the crime the fact that a crime has actually be en committed [the visible effect of a crime] 2 elementsDoes this apply to a judicial confession? P. v. Barlis Robbery with homicide Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence Requisites for conviction: There is more than one circumstance; The facts from which the inference are proven; The combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond r easonable doubt. Sec. 5. Substantial Evidence That amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequat e to justify a conclusion. Applicable Administrative or quasi-judicial bodies. Disbarment of lawyer? Discipline of judges? Labor cases Agrarian cases 2003, No. 17 (preponderance of evidence) Distinguish preponderance of evidence from substantial evidence. Sec. 6 and 7 Sec. 6. Power of court to stop further evidence Sec. 7. Evidence on motion