evidence pre mid

8/16/2019 Evidence Pre Mid

1/47

+L EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE PRE-MIDTERM 2014 - 2015

IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE SUBJECT:

Understanding of the subject: Evidence is only a little segment of the entire range of the rules of court.

Class!"a#$% % #&' R(l's $) C$(*#:

Civil proceedings

Criminal proceedings

Special proceedings Evidence

EVIDENCE: R(l's 12 -1,, $%l

Very important, especially if you venture into trial practice (ible to any right!minded litigator " la#yer #ho ma$es a

living in court% Evidence is #hat matters in court

DEFINITION

SEC.1 RULE 12 " Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truthrespecting a matter a fact.

5 IMPORTANT POINTS:

1. I# s $%l #&' MEANS I# s %$# #&' '%/. A *$"'/(*al #$$l '/( #$ as"'*#a% #*(#&

&istinguish evidence and proof ! 'aymen same thing! ut for (us%, do not e)uate one #ith the other.! *hile evidence is a means, a tool, a medium+ P*$$) " refers to persuasion that is formed in the

mind of the judge resulting in the consideration of evidence. *hile evidence is the cause, proof is

the eect. *hile -roof presupposes evidence, Evidence doesnt necessarily result in proof. /t

depends on the $ind of evidence presented, #hether admissible or su0cient enough.

2. I# s a 'a%s SANCTIONED B3 THE RULES

1ot all sources of information can be considered evidence. 1ot all sources of information is a means to

ascertain truth. /f that source of information is not sanctioned by the rules or e2cluded by the rules, it cannot be used as a

means of ascertaining truth *hile $ss can be a fertile source of information in sho#bi3 and politics, someho# this could be reliable

since there are chismis #hich can be truer than the truth U4 since it is not sanctioned by the rules, then it

"a%%$# be considered as evidence.! 5ossip is e2cluded because it is &'a*sa and under the rules of evidence, hearsay evidence is

e2cluded. /t is not sanctioned because of its inherent unreliability. U4 it does not mean that it is

in reality unreliable because there is really truth in saying that 6#hen there is smo$e, there is

7re8. 4hat is a fact of life but not so in contemplation of evidence. C$'*"'/ "$%)'ss$% *hen someone confesses due to coercion, it does not e2clude truthfulness. 4he

confession could be truthful, only that it #as obtained by coercion! 1ot all confessions are untruthful or truthful.! /t could be a reliable source of information but in the conte2t of evidence, it "a%%$# be used as

means of ascertaining truth because it is speci7cally e2cluded by the rules.! 4hats #hy there are rules for e2tra!judicial admission, a re)uirement for admissibility. *ithout

complying #ith the re)uirement, the confession, no matter ho# truthful it can be, cannot be

considered evidence Evidence obtained in $la#$% $) #&' a%#-6*' #a% a"#

! 9r. 5ocuan discussed a crime #ith his partner in crime. /t could be a truthful conversation

bet#een t#o criminals. ut #hen the conversation #as #iretapped, any #iretapped conversation

oered in evidence in court "a%%$# be a basis of ascertaining truth because it is speci7cally

e2cluded by the rules.


2/47

+L EVIDENCE

,. R(l's $) '/'%"' 7 '8*'ss *$s$% $) #&' *(l' al $%l #$ JUDICIAL PROCEEDIN9S

;udicial -roceedings -roceedings before our courts

-roceedings before 'egislative, e2ecutive, administrative, )uasi!legislative, )uasi!judicial bodies "

generally not governed by the rules of evidence C, SSS, &?>?, ule Sec B%


3/47

+L EVIDENCE

4. P(*$s' $) '/'%"' s #$ as"'*#a% #&' TRUTH

T*(#& &as 2 &as's


4/47

+L EVIDENCE

So #hen is there factual issues= 4here is a factual issue #hen the allegation of one is denied by the other. ?gain #e are

taught in civil procedure that the plainti in his complaint alleges his cause of action. 4he causes of action #ill have to be

laid out in the complaint. Upon the 7ling of the complaint, the court #ill issue summons to be served on the defendant, and

upon receipt, the defendant is re)uired to 7le an ans#er. /n the ans#er, the defendant could either admit the allegations or

deny them. &enial may be speci7c denial or denial in the sense that the defendant has no su0cient $no#ledge to form a

belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations. /f the defendant admits the allegations in the complaint, then there are no

factual issues. 4his dispenses #ith trial. 4his dispenses #ith evidence.

4here are also instances #hen under the rules #here the defendant is precluded from denying some allegations in the

complaint for failing to deny in compliance #ith the rules and /m referring to a case based on an actionable document.

*hen the complaint is based on an actionable document and you #ant to deny it, it must be under oath. /@*, he must not

only deny the genuineness and due e2ecution of the document, but he must do so under oath. /n #hich case, the ans#er

must be veri7ed. *hat is the eect if the ans#er is not veri7ed= /f the ans#er is not veri7ed, even if defendant denies the

allegations, even if the defendant alleges that the actionable document is a forgery (that is a speci7c denial%. 4hat speci7c

denial is not enough. Under the rules, it must be under oath. 4he eect of such failure to deny under oath is that the

defendant is deemed to have admitted /9-'/E&' the genuineness and due e2ecution of the promissory note. ?nd therefore,

during trial, the defendant, even if he speci7cally denies, he is precluded from proving that the actionable document is a

forgery. 4his is an instance #here the defendant, by estoppel, is precluded from denying the allegations of the plainti. So in

either of this case, there is deemed to be no factual issues. *hat remains to be done is to resolve the case based on the fact

already established by applying the pertinent la#s.

*hen #e tal$ about factual issues, facts tal$ about t#o $inds of evidence, #e have factum probandum and factum probans.

Factum Probandum

Factum probandum is simply de7ned as the proposition sought to be proved. /t is the fact in issue. *hether or not

the defendant is guilty. Dor e2ample, in a prosecution for rape 7led against 9r. Erojo, the factum probandum there is

#hether or not 9r. Erojo committed the crime.

Factum Probans

Factum Probans simply refer to the material evidence used to establish the factum probandum. So #e have the

proposition! referring to the factum probandum, #e have factum probans! referring to the material evidence

necessary to establish the proposition sought to be proved.

4he distinction bet#een factum probandum and factum probans #as illustrated in the case of 9$'; s. 9$';

1

. 4his is an action to recover properties #here the plainti see$s to declare the deeds of donation null and void on

the ground that the deeds of donation #ere a forgery, it #as claimed that the signature of the donor as appearing in

the t#o deeds of donation #ere a02ed on a blan$ piece of paper but the bodies of the deed #ere intercalated after

death of the donor. /n support of allegation of forgery, the prosecution presented an 1/ o0cer #ho claimed to be a

document e2pert #ho testi7ed during trial that the signature of the donor, Consuelo, as appearing in one of these

deeds of donation #as indeed a02ed on a blan$ piece of paper but the body #as just intercalated after the death.

Durthermore, the plainti theori3ed that the fact that the donors ta2 #as paid after the death of Consuelo proves

that the donation #as indeed a forgery. So it #as claimed by the plainti that ho# could Consuelo have signed the

deeds of donation #hen the donors ta2 #as paid after the death. So #hen the donors ta2 #as paid after the death,

she could not have signed the deed of donation. 4hat #as the theory of the plainti. 4he Supreme Court applied the

concept of factum probandum and factum probans. 4he Supreme Court said: the factum probandum in this case as

theori3ed by the plainti is that the deeds of donations #ere forgeries. ?nd the factum probans as proposed by the

plaintiif #as that the donors ta2 #as paid after the death. . 1o. IFJB, Debruary F, KKL

B


5/47

+L EVIDENCE

A. R'l'a%# Ma#'*al a%/ C$'#'%#

a. Ma#'*al#

*hen is evidence material= /f it is directed to prove a fact in issue. /f it is oered to prove a fact not in

issue, then it is not material. So how do you determine that the fact for which the evidence is oered is

material or not? 4his is governed by the rule of pleadings and substantive la#s.

ased on the pleadings. Dor e2ample, in an action for collection of money based on an actionable

document, #hen there is failure to deny the genuineness and due e2ecution, the result there is there is an

implied admission on the part of the defendant. *hat is the eect of this implied admission= &uring the

trial, he can no longer prove that the promissory note is a forgery. ?ny evidence presented to prove forgery

may be objected to and the court may e2clude it on the ground that it is immaterial. /t is immaterial

because forgery is no longer an issue to the case for failure to deny by the defendant the genuineness and

due e2ecution under oath.

? situation #here materiality is determined by substantive la# is for prosecution for statutory rape for

e2ample. &uring the trial 9r. Erojo testi7ed that it is true that he had se2ual intercourse #ith a nine!year

old girl (op! op: @% but he claims that it #as the nine year old girl #ho initiated it. ?nd to refuse an

oer is an insultM /n fact, the girl even enjoyed it. 4he testimony of 9r. Erojo to this eect #hich tends to

prove that the girl consented to the se2ual intercourse may be objected to on the ground of materiality. /n

a prosecution for statutory rape, consent is not an issue. 9ere se2ual intercourse #ith a girl belo# years

old is already rape. ?bsence of consent is not an issue.

Similarly, in a prosecution for violation of - , the gravamen of the oense is the mere issuance of an

unfunded chec$. &uring the trial, the accused testi7ed that he merely issued the chec$ as an

accommodation, as a guarantee. /t #as not supposed to be deposited. 4his is a common defense in -

cases. ut the Supreme Court repeatedly held that liability for - is incurred by the fact of issuing an

unfunded chec$ regardless of the purpose for #hich it #as issued. 4he purpose for #hich the chec$ is

issued is not an issue in a prosecution for - . ?nd therefore any evidence tending to prove the purpose

for #hich the chec$ is issued may be objected to on the ground that it is immaterial.

7. R'l'a%"

*hen is evidence considered relevant= &o not confuse relevancy #ith materiality. >elevant evidence is

that evidence #hich has a tendency in reason to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue.

5enerally, any evidence that thro#s light upon an issue is relevant. /ts logical relationship to the fact in

issue.


6/47

+L EVIDENCE

suddenly #ent o, hitting 9r. 'ope3. So 'ope3 theori3ed that it #as because of the negligence of 9r.


7/47

+L EVIDENCE

@n the other hand, in the prosecution for robbery for e2ample. Evidence is presented that the accused is a

very poor man. 4he prosecution tries to prove that the accused is a very poor man to prove that he

committed the robbery. 4his piece of evidence is material because #hether or not the accused is guilty of

the crime of robbery! this is an issue. ?nd so the state of being poor, if this is introduced in evidence to

prove the fact the accused is guilty of robbery is material because it is directed to prove a fact #hich is in

issue. ut the )uestion is: is it relevant= &oes it have the reasonable connection as to establish the

probability or improbability of the fact in issue= &oes the state of being poor, in logic, common sense, andhuman e2perience prove or disprove that he is guilty of robbery= 4o me, / #ould say that it is not relevant

for lac$ of logical connection. @nes 7nancial condition could not be a reasonable factor in ones guilt of the

crime of robbery.

So an evidence may be material but objectionable because irrelevant or relevant but objectionable

because immaterial. /@*, for an evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant, material and the third one

no# is competent.

". C$'#'%"'

Unli$e relevancy and materiality, competency is governed by the >ules, the Constitution or the la#. 4he

test of determining #hether the evidence is competent is #hether or not it is e2cluded by the >ules, the

Constitution or any la#. /f it is e2cluded, then it is incompetent. /f it is not e2cluded, then it is competent

evidence. ?s simple as that.

B. P$s#' a%/ N'a#'

4here is positive evidence #hen a #itness asserts that a particular act #as committed or a particular

event too$ place. 4here is negative evidence #hen a #itness asserts that a particular act #as not

committed or a particular event did not ta$e place.

?ll things being e)ual, positive evidence has more probative value than negative evidence. ? classic

e2ample of negative evidence is alibi or denial. *hen the defense interposed is that at the time and date

of the alleged crime, / #as KKK $m a#ay from the crime scene. 4he crime #as committed in Cebu but on

that day, / #as in ;olo. ?nd Science #ould tell us that / cannot be in dierent places at the same time. @r

denial: / did not o#e plainti anything.

?s bet#een these t#o types of evidence, positive is more li$ely to be believed. 4hats #hy husbands

should not e2pect to be believed by their #ives because #hen push comes to shove, they #ill al#ays 7nd

succor under the defense of denial #hich is inherently #ea$M ?s bet#een the chismis and denial, chismis ismore believableM

1o#, what is the legal justication why positive is preferred over negative? ?ccording to the SC, #hen the

#itness testi7es to a negative! that a certain act #as not committed or someone did not commit the act or

a certain event did not ta$e place! that #itness may only have forgotten #hat actually transpired. So its

possible that that act #as actually performed, but simply that the #itness may have forgotten. ut it is

impossible for a #itness to forget something that never transpired. So that #hen a #itness says that

something too$ place, chances are, that #itness is telling the truth. ecause it is more di0cult to ma$e up

details of the event. /t is convenient for a #itness to say that 6/ did not do it8 but di0cult to invent details

of the incident. *hen a #itness testi7es to a positive, he is li$ely to be believed by the court. ut not all

the time because there might be an alibi #hich is really solid. ut all this being e)ual, positive evidence

prevails. 4hats #hy if you read criminal cases, you #ould often encounter 7ndings of the court #hich

#ould say to the eect that the denial or the alibi of the accused could not prevail over the positive

identi7cation of the #itness, especially if the #itness is not sho#n to have ill motive to testify against the

accused. 4his is an oft! repeated ruling of the court. 4his speci7es the importance of the positive evidenceover negative evidence.

C. D*'"# a%/ C*"(s#a%#al

a. D*'"#

&irect evidence is that #hich directly proves a fact in issue #ithout need for reference from other facts. ?

classic e2ample of a direct evidence is the testimony of an eye#itness. /f the eye#itness testi7es that he

sa# the accused doing this or doing that. 1o need of inference from other facts. /t establishes that the

accused did this and did that.

L


8/47

+L EVIDENCE

7. C*"(s#a%#al

@n the other hand, circumstantial evidence is evidence that proves a fact in an indirect #ay because it

needs inference from other facts. /@*, circumstantial evidence presupposes the e2istence of established

facts. 4here are A types of circumstantial evidence:

>1? A%#'"'/'%#

Dor e2ample, motive and character. So if 9r. Erojo is prosecuted for rape, evidence that in the

past he has been convicted of acts of lasciviousness, child abuse, or that he #as a perennial

se2ual oender is circumstantial evidence that probably he is guilty of the present rape. 4o

establish the connection, you must 7rst establish that he #as previously convicted of these

other oenses! to establish pattern, habit, behavior.

9otive! if it #as established that the accused, prior to the $illing had a very violent

confrontation #ith the victim. Drom this fact, an inference can be dra#n that probably, the

accused could be guilty.

>2? C$%#'$*a%'$(s

4ypical e2ample: opportunity and incompatibility. @pportunity: *hen immediately after the

$illing, a #itness sa# 9r. Erojo running from the crime scene. 4he #itness did not see him stabor strangulate the victim, he #as seen at the crime scene immediately after the $illing. 4he

opportunity for him to possibly commit the crime is a circumstantial evidence contemporaneous

to the $illing! not directly because no one sa# him perform the act but the opportunity could be

a circumstantial evidence that he may have probably committed the crime.

/ncompatibility, on the other hand, is the opposite. /f 9r. Erojo is prosecuted for rape, and he

can present to the court that since birth, he has been suering from impotency, that it is

impossible for him to get an erection, that could be a contemporaneous circumstantial evidence

rendering it impossible for him to commit the crime of rape.

>,? S(7s'@('%#

4ypical e2ample is Oight and oer of marriage. 4a$e note, oer of marriage is a circumstantial

evidence because no man in his right mind #ould ma$e an oer of marriage if he did not really

have se2ual intercourse #ith the victim.

@r #hen a condom is left at the crime scene. @r maybe the sperm of 9r. Erojo is found inside

the vagina of the victim. 4hats subse)uent circumstance. ou have to prove that the sperm

found in the vagina of the victim is that of 9r. Erojos. @r that the e2tra small condom found in

the crime scene 7ts 9r. Erojos penis. 4hats circumstantial. /f it is proven that his is too small

for the e2tra small condom that is circumstantial evidence that he is not the one responsible.

4a$e note that for evidence to be relevant, it need not be direct evidence. Circumstantial

evidence is as relevant as a direct evidence.

D. O7'"# D$"('%#a* a%/ T's#$%al

a. O7'"#

@bject evidence is any evidence addressed to the senses of the court. /t may be e2hibited or it may be

demonstrated before the court. So #hen you 7led a case for damages due to physical injuries and you

#ant the court to see for herselfQhimself the e2tent of the injury suered by the plainti, the e2tent of the

injury suered by the plainti, then you can present your client to the court so that the court can vie# the

injury.

@r just li$e the e2ample earlier, if in a prosecution for rape, one of the evidence left at the crime scene is

the e2tra small condom, and you have to prove to the court that your client could not have raped the

victim, you can have a demonstration before the court. So #hen the condom does not 7t, the court must

ac)uitM

J


9/47

+L EVIDENCE

7. D$"('%#a*

&ocumentary evidence refers to any material containing letters, 7gures, #ords, numbers, symbols or other

modes of e2pression oered as proof of its contents. 4a$e note that by de7nition, disabuse your mind from

thin$ing that documentary evidence refers only to paper! based #riting. ?ny material! it could be stone,

Ooor, #all, metal or even the human body could be documentary evidence. So long as it contains letters,

7gures, #ords, symbols or other modes of #ritten e2pression and oered as proof of its contents! that isdocumentary evidence.

So if the issue involved in the case is identity and the identity is proved by the name tattooed on the part

of the human body. Dor e2ample 9r. Erojo #as accused of rape, but the only evidence that the private

complainant could remember is the complete name spelled all over the penis of 9r. Erojo! 4ristan >omyr

Erojo, #ith love! if it is oered to prove that the penis of the rapist contains this #riting, it is documentary.

ecause it is not the $ind of material on #here the #riting is found. /t is the purpose for #hich the evidence

is oered.

". T's#$%al

4estimonial evidence refers to reconstruction of past events by a #itness made through oral testimony or

through depositions. So a #itness recalls a past evidence that he claims he had #itnessed and

communicate this to the court.

E. C$**$7$*a#' a%/ C((la#'

! /t is not uncommon that you may have or or more pieces of evidence available. 4hese evidence could be of the

same nature but #hich #ould tend to prove the same point or of a dierent nature tending to prove the same point.! Either cumulative or corroborative "this presupposes another evidence because cumulative or corroborative

evidence is just an additional evidence. /t is an addition to other evidence already oered.! /f it is of the same nature as of that evidence already oered but tending to prove the same point, it is cumulative+

if of dierent nature but tend to prove the same pointRcorroborative. E2ample #e have the case of murderR

. 4here are I eye#itnesses #ho sa# the $illing: you have already presented oneRthe nd, Ard or Ith

eye#itnesses are just cumulative. 1o# if the evidence is cumulativeRit adds nothing to your

evidence because it is just the same. So long as your 7rst #itness is credible, you dont need to

present the other four. ecause the testimony of the other four #ill add nothing to the testimony

of the 7rst. ecause they are of the same nature.

! Corroborative on the other hand is #hen the additional evidence of dierent $ind or nature from the 7rst evidence. 4his #ill serve to strengthen or bolster the evidence already presented because this is of dierent $ind but, proves

the same point. E2ample: case of rapeR

. ou only have complainant to testify that she #as raped li$e a beast. ?nd the testimony of the

doctor #ho testi7ed that based on the e2aminationRthe sperm found in the vagina of the victim

belongs to the suspect. 4a$e note: the 7rst evidence presented #as the testimony of the #itness,

it is testimonial. ut the ne2t additional #itness, consisting of the 7ndings of the doctor, is

scienti7c evidence (object%+ dierent nature but @4< of them tending to prove the same pointR

the suspect raped the claimant. /f you are to dispense presentation of additional evidenceR

dispensing of a cumulative evidence is acceptable but never corroborative evidence because

corroborative evidence strengthens the evidence already presented.

F. A/ss7l# a%/ C$'#'%"

*hen does evidence serve a purpose of ascertaining the truth respecting a matter of fact= /t is a meansRho# does it servethe purpose= Evidence #ill serve the purpose of ascertaining truth respecting issues of fact #hen it passes through the test

of admissibility and the test of credibility. 4a$e note: it is not enough that the evidence is admissible. Dar more important "

your evidence must be credible.


10/47

+L EVIDENCE

e2cludedRthe court is not even supposed to evaluate it. *hen it passes the test of admissibility, the court is no#, under the

rules, duty bound to consider but the court is not duty bound to give it credence because the court, under the test of

credibility, has the authority to either disregard itQdisbelieve itQignore it because if the court 7nds that the evidence is not

credible at all. So #hile the admissibility is determined by the test of competency and relevancy+ #eight and su0ciency,

#hich is the province of credibility, refers to the evidence tendency to establish to persuade and convince the court. @nce

the evidence is already admitted, the ne2t test there isR#hether or not these evidence already admitted is persuasive+ does

it convince the court. /s it convincing to ma$e the court believe and give it due credence=

! /llustration: #hen a boyfriend is allo#ed to visit his girlfriend (girlfriends house%.


11/47

+L EVIDENCE

the parties can testify or introduce evidence on trial that actually their agreement #asRthe defendant

#ould pay the obligation in one year, it cannot be done. ?ny evidence that tends to

varyQchangeQsupersede the terms of the #ritten agreement is inadmissible under the best evidence rule. /f

the deed says that it is a deed of absolute sale, evidence that tended to prove that the agreements

bet#een the parties #as only a real estate mortgage is not allo#ed because in eect it #ould vary the

terms of deed of sale.

R's I%#'* Al$s A"#a R(l'R#hich says a right of a party may not be prejudiced by the act or omission of

another. So #hen a suspect #as convicted for the crime of rape based on his e2trajudicial confession

admitting that he raped the victim but another person also too$ turns, such confession is not admissible

against the latter. 4he e2trajudicial confession by the suspect!declarant may be admissible against the

declarant but not against the other suspect+ the declaration of the former cannot be admitted to prejudice

the latter.

4he R(l' $% A(#&'%#"a#$%R#hen your evidence consists of a private #riting (a letter ac$no#ledging

paternity of a child%, for purposes of admissibility, the proponent must establish the genuineness and due

e2ecution of the private document (letter%. 4his process is called ?uthentication+ you have to authenticate

the private document. ou cannot just present the document to the court #ithout compliance of the

re)uirement of authentication. ou have to establish the genuineness and due e2ecution of the private

document. *ithout the authentication, the evidence may be objected to and e2cluded by the court on the

ground that it is not duly authenticated.

O%$% E/'%"' R(l'Ran opinion of a #itness as a general rule is not admissible. So if one testi7es

that in my opinion 9r. is a rapist because he loo$s li$e one, it is not admissible. 4he reason for the rule is

that cases must be decided by facts not opinions.

C&a*a"#'* E/'%"'Revidence that one did or did not do an act at one time is not admissible to prove

that the person did or did not do a similar act at another time. So if your boyfriend #as proven to be loyal

to you in the past, it does not mean that he is loyal to you today and tomorro#. /f you caught your

boyfriend in intimate poses #ith another, your boyfriend cannot invo$e that!! don’t believe on that chismis

have proven my loyalty to you for the last few years. Character evidence !! that one did or did not do an

act at one time is not evidence that heQshe did not do the same act at another time.

ECLUSIONAR3 RULES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION >UNDER THE BILLS OF RI9HTSARTICLE III?:

. >ight ?gainst Searches ?nd Sei3ures (sec. % ?nd >ight 4o -rivacy ?nd /nviolability of Correspondence (sec. A%+

. Custodial >ights during custodial investigation(sec. %+ andA. >ights ?gainst Self!/ncrimination (sec. L%

RI9HT A9AINST SEARCHES AND SEIURES

9R: ?ny search and sei3ure #ithout judicial #arrant is illegal.! ?ny evidence obtained in violation of this rule is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceedings.

ECEPTIONS:

1. SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAFUL ARREST-resupposes a situation #here a person is la#fully arrested. 4he arrest must precede the search. 4he arrest

may be by virtue of a valid #arrant or a valid #arrantless arrest. 4he operative fact is that the arrest must be

valid for the incidental search to also be valid.

I%s#a%"'s 6&'*' 6a**a%#l'ss a**'s# a 7' al/ >s'". 5 R(l' 11,?:1. I%a*a%#' D'l"#$ A**'s#! 4he arresting o0cer must have the personal $no#ledge that the person arrested has just

committed or is committing the crime or is about to commit a crimeRin either

circumstance, the arresting o0ce must establish having personal $no#ledge of the

overt acts indicative of 6just committed or is committing or about to commit a crime8.

4he operative fact is personal $no#ledge of overt acts indicative of a commission of a

crime, other#ise, the arrest cannot be justi7ed. So obviously therefore, #hen a person is

arrested on the basis of a tipped informationRsomeone called the police see$ing the

assistance that the person here is concealing a #eapon and on the basis of the tipped


12/47

+L EVIDENCE

information, the police barged into the area and arrested the person, that cannot be

considered as inOagrante because the police or the arresting o0cer has no personal

$no#ledge that the crime has just been committed or is just being committed or is just

about to be committed. 4ipped informationRnot enough.2. H$# P(*s(#

! 4he police or the arresting o0cer must have personal $no#ledge not of the commission

of the crime but must have personal $no#ledge of the facts and circumstances indicating

that the person to be arrested has committed the crime. ? tipped information %#a%/'

#ith some other elements could be su0cient for purposes of hot pursuit unli$e

inOagrante.,. A**'s# $) a% 's"a''


13/47

+L EVIDENCE

Same principle+ too$ its cue from -osadas. -olice o0cers conducted surveillance

in the area in 9ari$ina near a cemetery. *hen they sa# the suspect #al$ing

#obbly and #ith reddish eyes (characteristics of persons high in drugs!!

reasonable basis%.

4he salient distinction bet#een stop!and "fris$ and /n search incident to la#ful arrest is that /n search incident to

la#ful arrest the arrest precedes the search #hile in stop!and "fris$ its the other #ay around.

41: the rules of e2clusion (search and sei3ure, privacy, incriminating, custodialTthese% are limitations against the

po#er of the state and therefor these can only be invo$ed against state or states action. Can only be invo$ed #hen

the person responsible for the violation of these rights (search and sei3ure, privacy, incriminating, custodialT% are

agents of the government particularly, those on the la# enforcement.

41: search and sei3ure, right to privacy, custodial investigation and right against self!incrimination are relevant only

if invo$ed against the government. /f the acts or omissions constitutive of violation of any of the said rights are

being perpetrated by a private individual, there is no occasion to spea$ of any of these rights. ?nd therefore the

rule that any evidence obtained in violation of any of these rights are inadmissible for being fruits of a poisonous

tree 7nds no application. 4he evidence is admissible if the violation is being committed by a private citi3en not the

state or its agents but the person responsible may be liable criminally, civilly or administratively. ut in so far as

admissibility of evidence, it is admissible because these e2clusionary rules apply only to the situation #here the

violation is being committed by the state or its agents. 4his is the consistent ruling of SC in cases of P . Ma*#

(the ground brea$ing case on the matter%, P . Ma@('/a a#'*$(s /*(s "as' P . B$%"a*a6a%.Consistently SC said the bills of rights apply onlyQmay be invo$ed only against the state.

&ont be disturbed by the case of (l('#aRinvolves a marital dispute #hich lead to the #ife barging into the o0ce

of the husband and bro$eQforced open the dra#erQcabinet #here she found some incriminating evidence against her

husbands in7delity. *hen the admissibility of the evidence #as put in issue, the SC despite the rulings laid do#n in

the previous cases to the eect that the bill of rights apply onlyQmay be invo$ed only against the state, in this case

ruled that the evidence is not admissible because the evidence #ere obtained in violation of husbands right to

privacy!!inviolability of correspondence consist of love letters. 4he court ruled that there is a violation of the said

constitutional right even if the act #as committed by a private citi3en. 4he SC decided ulueta unmindful of the

rulings in 9arti and other related cases. 4he prevailing doctrine is that of 9arti and other related cases.

&o not mista$e the fact that #hile the bill of rights may be invo$ed only against the state, you might #onder if due

process, #hich is one of those rights in the bill of rights may be invo$ed against private citi3ens. ?nd / am

particularly referring to situations involving labor proceedings, for e2ample, dismissal cases. Dor dismissal to be

valid, just causeQauthori3ed cause and due process must be complied #ithRmay be invo$ed by a private citi3enagainst the private employer. 4o reconcileRthere are t#o $inds of due process no#:

the constitutional due process (under the bill of rights%+ and

the statutory due process (under the labor code%.

So the due process that the employee may invo$e against the employer (private citi3en% is not the due

process under the bill of rights but the due process under the labor code.

,. A%$#&'* '8"'#$% #$ #&' *'@(*''%# $) a (/"al 6a**a%# s CONSENTED SEARCH

/t is premised on the principle of #aiver. Everyone has the right to object to search and sei3ure #ithout a

#arrant. *e have the right to refuse search and sei3ure #ithout the judicial #arrant but this right is #aivable. /f

one consents to the search and sei3ure #ithout #arrant and that #ould then be a valid #arrantless search and

sei3ure. 4he #aiver is to be strictly construed against the state. So if the arrest #as premised on the alleged

consent the prosecution must be able to prove that the person #ho supposedly #aives his right must be a#are

that that right actually e2ists+ and that there must be clear evidence of the intention to #aive the right. 9erepassive refusal to object should not be interpreted as a #aiver or consent. 4he SC is consistent in ruling that

mere passive consent is more consistent #ith ones respect for authorityRshould not be ta$en to mean that the

person involved #illingly and intelligently #aives the right against unreasonable search and sei3ure.

4he right against search and sei3ure is personal to the individual and so, a #aiver is also personal+ ones right

cannot be #aived by another.

A


14/47

+L EVIDENCE

? case #here the police o0cers raided the place of the suspect, allegedly, they the o0cers #ere allo#ed entry

by the house help. 4he state invo$ed consent. SC said no #ay, consent is personalQ #aiver must be personal to

the person.

4. N'8# '8"'#$% PLAIN VIE >$s# a7(s'/ '8"'#$%?? police o0cer #hen he has the right to be in the place #here he is, may validly search and sei3e items #hich

are in plain vie# and its incriminating nature is immediately apparent to the arrestingQsei3ing o0cers. *hen

someone is carrying a gun and the gun is seen by the o0cer in plain sight, he can be arrested on the basis of

plain vie#!! he is deemed to be committing a crime in the presence of the arresting o0cer!! can be sei3ed

either under search incident to la#ful arrest or plain vie#. ?rrest /n Oagrante delicto is basically justi7ed under

plain vie#.

R'@(s#'s )$* la% '6 #$ al:

. 4here must be prior justi7cation for the intrusion. 4he presence of the police o0cer in the place must be valid+ he must have the right to be in the

place #here he is other#ise, plain vie# does not apply. /nstances #here there is valid prior justi7cation:

• by virtue of a valid search #arrant+

• in the conduct of hot pursuit+ and

•

legallyQvalidly in the place. @perative factRso long as the presence of the o0cer in the place is valid, plain vie# applies.

. 4he incriminating object must not be purposely sought for by the sei3ing o0cer. 4he discovery of the incriminating object must be inadvertentRthe police o0cer must not be

loo$ing for it but just the same, by stro$e of chance, discovered an incriminating object. So if the

police is purposely loo$ing for the incriminating object, even if the presence of the o0cer in the

place is valid (there is prior justi7cation%, it cannot be justi7ed under plain vie#. 4he incriminating

object found is inadmissible as evidence.A. 4he incriminating nature of the evidence must be immediately apparent to the sei3ing o0cer.

/f the incriminating object is concealed inside a container+ the o0cers still have to loo$ inside to

discover it, it is not immediately apparent. ut even if the incriminating object is inside a container but the container proclaims its contentsR

either because the container is transparent or the physical con7guration of the content betrays

the nature of the object (the form of the 7rearm placed inside a sac$ can be conformed into% or is

apparent.

*hat about smell!!= 9aybe...

ECLUSIONAR3 RULE:

ARRANTLESS ARREST

I. IN FLA9RANTE DELICTO

R'@(s#'s

1. OVERT ACT: on part of Suspect indicating that the crime has just been committed, is being committed or is about to becommitted.

NB: 4he rule re)uires @VE>4 ?C4S indicative of a crime. @ther#ise /n Dlagrante #ill not be justi7ed.

A%(/% Cas':

→ /n this case, the police, t#o days before the date of the arrest already received con7dential reports that the accused#ould be arriving in the port of /loilo City on board an identi7ed vessel 9QV *ilcon, transporting drugs. 4heinformation of the police included the identity suspect, the vessel, and the time of the arrival. ?cting on thecon7dential report, the police positioned themselves #aiting for the vessel to arrive. 4rue enough, #hen thecon7dential informant identi7ed ?mminuddin, the police apprehended him and eected a #arrantless arrest and asan incident thereto, a search #as eected on his body and his bag #hich yielded dried marijuana.


15/47

+L EVIDENCE

→ 4he state the thru Solicitor 5eneral tried to justify the validity of the search under the S'a*"& I%"/'%#al #$ aLa6)(l A**'s#. 4he arrest #as also legal because it #as done in I% a*a%#' /'l"#$.

→ 4he Supreme Court in this case pointed out the re)uirements for this to apply and that there should be overt actsbeing performed by suspect before in an inOagrante case. SC said there #as nothing illegal for ?minudin indescending from the vessel and disembar$ing from the boat. 4he -olice had no personal $no#ledge on the contentsof the bag. So for all purposes, ?mminudin is just as innocent as the other passengers. 1o @vert ?cts hence arrestcannot be justi7ed in /n Oagrante.

• >ADDGN? 4he present case presented no such urgency. Drom the conOicting declarations of the -C #itnesses, it is clearthat they had at least t#o days #ithin #hich they could have obtained a #arrant to arrest and search ?minnudin #ho#as coming to /loilo on the 9QV *ilcon P. ights #as ignored altogether because the -C lieutenant #ho #as the head of the arresting team, had determined onhis o#n authority that a search #arrant #as not necessary. /n the case at bar, the accused!appellant #as not, at themoment of his arrest, committing a crime nor #as it sho#n that he #as about to do so or that he had just done so. *hathe #as doing #as descending the gangplan$ of the 9QV *ilcon P and there #as no out#ard indication that called for hisarrest. 4o all appearances, he #as li$e any of the other passengers innocently disembar$ing from the vessel. /t #as only#hen the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject toapprehension. /t #as the furtive 7nger that triggered his arrest. 4he /denti7cation by the informer #as the probablecause as determined by the o0cers (and not a judge% that authori3ed them to pounce upon ?minnudin and immediatelyarrest him.

P'$l' . M'%$#'. → 4he police received an anonymous caller reporting to the police that three persons acted suspiciously along the

alley. >esponding to the call, the police dispatched some of its o0cers to the place. *hen the police #ent to that

place, they sa# 9engote #ho #as loo$ing from side!to!side and holding his abdomen. 4he police, suspecting that

the person is engaged in a criminal enterprise, s#ooped and arrested the accused and conducted a search incident

to the arrest and found unlicensed 7rearms.


16/47

+L EVIDENCE

NB: the re)uirement of -ersonal Nno#ledge applies only in a situation #here arrest comes ED@>E the search. (/n Dlagranteresulting to incidental search% Situation is D/>S4, ?>>ES4+ 4CC< 7rst then *?>>?14'ESS ?>>ES4, rule is dierent. 1o -ersonal Nno#ledge needed but->@?'E C?USE #hich #arrants a #arrantless search then the arrest is eected under /n Dlagrante. @N=

'%a/a ('7*al

→ ? day before the arrest, the police received con7dential information that t#o men and a #oman #ere to ma$e a

drug deal some#here but there #as no speci7c time. 4he follo#ing day, the police started their operations L:BI am

and #aited until B:KK in the afternoon #hen the jeepney #as spotted #ith the identi7ed plate number. 4hey

follo#ed it until it stopped near the vicinity of a gasoline station. ? tamara# D arrived and someone alighted,

approached the #oman and in the course of their conversation, the #oman handed to the passenger of 4oyota

4amara# a #hite envelope. /t #as at this precise moment that the police s#ooped do#n and sei3ed the envelope

and opened it #hich yielded illegal drugs and then arrest ensued.

→ obbery #ith obin -adilla, arrest #as eected less than an hour from the hit and run incident, SC said there #asimmediacy+ unbro$en chain of events+ and no appreciable interval of time from hit and run to arrest.

PP 9'*'%#'

→ A hours from $illing, still hot pursuit.PP s A$%

→


17/47

+L EVIDENCE

PP Na;a*'%$ >/s#(*7% "as'?

→ B days (or BK==% from commission of crime of


18/47

+L EVIDENCE

IV. EMER9ENC3 OR EI9ENT CIRCUMSTANCES

NB: 1o opportunity to apply for a #arrant

PP D'*a"a

→ Coup de tat during the transitional government of Cory. ?t the height of coup de tat, military received con7dential

information that a certain building in manila #as used by rebels as their communication place. Surveillance #asconducted, they #ere 7red upon by F men. I days after, they returned to the place and barged in and found several7rearms, e2plosives, ammunitions, and even found accused &egracia inside. SC said, #arrantless arrest may be justi7ed under emergency and e2igent situations. Since this happened during such circumstances #hen at theheight of coup de tat, manila #as in a state of chaos and disorder. @bviously, courts #ere closed at that time.

V. EVIDENCE IN PLAIN VIE

NB: -ractical considerations such that #hen the police are staring directly at the instruments of a crime, it #ould bepointless to obtain a search #arrant.

, R'@(s#'s

% P*$* a%/ Val/ (s#!"a#$% )$* I%#*(s$%: Sei3ing o0cer must have the right to be in the position to have the

vie# of the incriminating object. @0cers presence must be legitimate.

PP s Sala%#

→ -olice #ith search #arrant #ent to house of accused to sei3e undetermined )uantity of shabu and paraphernalia.ut in the course of search, they sei3ed shabu, paraphernalia, and dried marijuana leaves (though not mentioned in#arrant, it #as still sei3ed%. *hen prosecuted for possession of 9; leaves, accused )uestioned the legality of thesei3ure and admissibility of such as evidence because there #as no search #arrant. SC said, sei3ure of 9; 'eaves#as illegal and cannot be justi7ed under -lain Vie# &octrine. 4he police o0cer #ent to search and sei3e for shabuas speci7cally described in the #arrant. Under the circumstances, it is safe to assume that the police #ere able tosei3e the shabu ahead of the dried 9; leaves. /t #as the purpose of the search. 4he police must have $no#n #hereto 7nd the shabu. /n this case, though it #asnt clearly established as to #hich item #as discovered 7rst, but SCmade a reasonable presumption that shabu #as 7rst sei3ed or discovered. asing on this reasonable presumption,SC said #hen the police already sei3ed the shabu, they no longer had a valid justi7cation for a subse)uent searchfor 9; leaves. @nce the purpose of search #arrant is accomplished, any further searches cannot be justi7ed underplain vie# doctrine. >eason is that after the accomplishment of the purpose, any subse)uent search ceases to be

#ith prior valid justi7cation.

2? Ds"$'* (s# 7' %a/'*#'%#: not purposely sought for by police

PP s M(sa

→ uy!bust operation by police outside house of accused. *hen the police handed mar$ed money, suspect #entinside to get the drugs. Upon e2change, members of the team s#ooped do#n and arrested him. -roblem is #henthey body!searched the accused, no mar$ed money #as found. Upon in)uiry, the accused said he left the moneyinside the house so they proceeded inside the house. Unable to 7nd the money, one #ent to the $itchen #here henoticed a plastic bag hanging in a corner #hich contained drugs, hence, they #ere sei3ed. /t #as challenged. State justi7ed it under plain vie#. SC said, the police #as speci7cally loo$ing for an incriminating object. 1ot underevidence in plain vie#

A% Ill'al# $) $7'"# (s# 7' '/a#'l aa*'%#: its incriminating nature is apparent or immediately

e2posed to the eye of the observer.

PP M(sa

→ SC said, discovery, sei3ure of illegal drugs cannot be in plain vie# not just because it #as advertently discoveredbut also because its incriminating nature #as not immediately apparentQobserved by police. 4his can be dra#n fromthe fact that #hen police sa# the plastic bag, he even had to as$ the accused as to its content, demonstratingtherefore that the illegality of contents #ere not apparent.

ANOTHER ECLUSIONAR3 RULE:

J


19/47

+L EVIDENCE

RI9HT TO PRIVAC3

;ust read ;(l('#a case.

ANOTHER ECLUSIONAR3 RULE:

ARTICLE 12 MIRANDA ARNIN9S

efore the 9iranda #arnings came out, the usual situation in la# enforcement is that the suspect is placed at a verydisadvantaged position during custodial investigation. ight to competent and independent counsel. >ight to remain silentA. >ight to be informed of these t#o rights

HEN AVAILABLE=

. C(s#$/al I%'s#a#$%: (C/% the typical scenario #hich #as the original purpose. 4his refers to in)uiry initiated

by la# enforcement after the person is ta$en into custody or deprived of his freedom of action in any signi7cant#ay. 4his is the stage #here the investigation is no longer characteri3ed as a general e2ploratory in)uiry butfocuses on a speci7c suspect after person is ta$en into custody. @perative fact: ta$en into custody+ deprived of freedom either arrested or voluntary. Second, there must be police interrogation.

>? LBAJ ?ct de7nes rights of a person under C/. 1o# covers the action of the police in inviting persons suspected forcommission of a crime for )uestioning. 9ere invitation doesnt really constitute ta$ing into custody or depriving of freedom but under the la#, the act of %#% amounts to C/. ?ny confession made or obtained during police invitation#ithout 9iranda rights being aorded to him is not admissible.

PP /'l R$sa*$

→ >obbery resulting to death of the victim. @ne accused #as the driver of the get!a#ay tricycle and the other accused#as a loo$ out. *hen the #itness reported the incident to the police, the plate number #as $no#n so the police gotthe name of o#ner of tricycle then they loo$ed into the o#ner of the tricycle. Upon invitation, the o#ner mentionedthe name of the suspect #ho #as later on invited and during the conference at barangay captain, he made

incriminating admissions. 4he admissions #ere later on challenged. 4he government argued that the admissionsmade during the invitation #ere admissible because #hen the confessions #ere made, the accused #as not placedunder custodial investigation. SC said: custodial investigation is not limited to a situation #here a suspect is ta$eninto custody or other#ise deprived of freedom of action in any signi7cant #ay. /t covers the practice of the police insho#ing invitation to suspects. 4his case, SC said since the confessions #ere made #ithout counsel, inadmissible.

. E8#*a(/"al a/ss$%s a/' #$ a @('s#$%% (/': *hen the accused is ta$en into custody and #asbrought to a judge #ho interrogated him and in response to the )uestions of the judge, the accused made an e2tra judicial admission admitting involvement in the crime, any admission made by the suspect #ithout being aordedhis 9iranda rights are inadmissible.

4a$e note, this is not your typical custodial interrogation because the interrogation #as not initiated by the police rather bythe judge. SC said this is covered by the 9iranda #arnings.

PP s Bal$l$

→ 4his involves the rape and slay of a P year old #ho #as as$ed to borro# rice from a neighbour but never came bac$.?fter the search, the accused came to the father and told the latter he found the dead body of a girl at the#aterfalls so they #ent and found the dead body of the child. 4he incident #as reported to the barangay captain.&uring the #a$e, the captain attended and so did the accused. ?dmire his gutsM &uring the #a$e, somebodybrought the blac$ rope #hich #as found at the crime scene so the Captain as$ed the people as to #ho o#ned theblac$ rope. 9aybe out of over!intelligence or sheer stupidity, accused aloloy volunteered and said that the rope#as his. 4his arose suspicion so the captain as$ed aloloy to have a conversation and during such, aloloy bro$edo#n and confessed as to committing the crime. Captain turn him over to the police. aloloy #as prosecuted and

P


20/47

+L EVIDENCE

one of the #itnesses #as th Captain. *hen aloloy #as as$ed during the trial, aloloy also confessed. ights.

A. P*'l%a* I%'s#a#$%: /nstance #here it is not your typical C/ because here, this is before the public prosecutorso0ce.

PP s B$%$ a%/ C$l:

→ rutal murder of E> #ho o#ned an apartment #here the accused #ere the #or$ers. *hen the t#o accused #erearrested, during the -reliminary /nvestigation before the -ublic -rosecutor, the accused ong$i$o made an E2tra! ;udicial ?dmission admitting ho# they planned and e2ecuted the $illing. ?dmissibility of ?dmission #as )uestioned.State argued that it #as not covered by 9iranda #arning because it #as not under C/. SC overruled the argument of the state. 4here are certain pre!trial stages critical to the trial process #here a suspect is subjected to a similarintimidating and relentless process no dierent from police interrogation. 4he purpose of the 9iranda #arning is toavoid a situation #here a person is forced into ma$ing incriminating statements because of an inherent intimidatingatmosphere attendant to a police custodial investigation. 4his intimidating, relentless, and coercive environment issimilarly obtaining in a -/ proceeding #here prosecutors relentlessly pursue persons #ho may be responsible for the

crime. So there is the same evil sought to be avoided there is therefore no reason #hy 9iranda #arningQrightsshould not be made applicable to -/.

HEN NOT AVAILABLE=

. S$%#a%'$(s s#a#''%#s given by accused not elicited by police )uestioning, rather given in an ordinarymanner. 4he purpose of the 9iranda *arning is to prohibit testimonial compulsion U4 it does not prohibit thesuspect from being honest. 4his applies even if the suspect is ta$en into police custody, still not covered by 9iranda*arning.

Pa7l#$ A%/a%:

→ >ape and slay of P year old high school student. Evidence #as gathered. -olice identi7ed the accused and arrestedhim. Search for the accused #as spearheaded by the mayor of the to#n. So #hen the mayor came to the station,the accused #anted to have a conference #ith the mayor #here he bro$e do#n and admitted to the crime. Uponreaching SC, accused )uestioned the admission made #ith the 9ayor because there #as no counsel. ut the SC

said not all confessions are covered by the 9iranda *arnings. 9iranda #arning does not prohibit spontaneousstatements so long as he #as not )uestioned by the police. /n this case, the admission #as not made in response toeither the police or the mayors )uestioning.


21/47

+L EVIDENCE

introduced and admission #as objected to saying that #hen these items #ere recovered, he #as not assisted by acounsel. SC said, 9iranda #arning operate only to include the statement made by the accused 1@4 the #allet, i.d.,$eys because these are object evidence.

>ecall the case of P'$l' J(/' As$%. / have to discuss this #ith the topic in custodial investigation although this case

is appropriate for right against self! incrimination. ut since #e are tal$ing about custodial investigation, / feel / shoulddiscuss a little about the case. 4his involves a -?' employee #ho #as charged #ith estafa and involving -?' #hen he

misappropriated proceeds of the -?' tic$et. -arallel to the criminal case, he #as subjected to administrative investigation

initiated by the management. &uring the administrative investigation, the respondent there, the accused in the criminal

case, allegedly made some incriminating confession or admission. 4he Supreme Court there had the occasion to lay do#n

the distinction as to #hen the rights against custodial investigation may be invo$ed in relation to the issue as to #hen the

right against self!incrimination may be invo$ed. /n this case, the ;udge in the criminal case e2cluded the confessions made

during the course of the administrative investigation. /n justifying the e2clusion, the trial court cited Sec. K of ?rticle B of

the PLA Constitution. Under the PLA Constitution, the right against self! incrimination #hich is no# in Sec. L, ?rticle A (of

the PJL Constitution% is lumped together #ith rights in custodial investigation #hich is no# in Sec. , ?rticle A of the

present Constitution. 1o# this section #hich lumped together the rights in custodial investigation and the right against self!

incrimination #as used to justify the e2clusion. 4he Supreme Court crac$ed a #hip against the trial judge for obviously

misunderstanding the principle. 4he SC made an academic discussion to delineate bet#een the custodial investigation rights

and right against self!incrimination. 4hese t#o rights are distinct. 4hey should not be lumped together. 4he rights available

during custodial investigation, or the so! called 9iranda rights, is available only during custodial investigation. ?nd custodialinvestigation refers to the stage before the 7ling of a case either before the court or the @0ce of the -ublic -rosecutor for

purposes of preliminary investigation. *hen the case already transcends beyond the period starting from preliminary

investigation to trial, the right available is no longer the rights in custodial investigation but the right against self!

incrimination. /n this case, the SC delineated the particular stages in criminal or legal process #here these rights can be

invo$ed.

/ am pointing this ruling in ?yson to the eect that the custodial investigation #hich according to the SC can only be invo$ed

before 7ling of the case #ith the public prosecutor for purposes of preliminary investigation or 7ling #ith the court, 4


22/47

+L EVIDENCE

#ere substances discharged from his body #hich #ere subjected to a medical e2amination #hich yielded a positive result

that the accused #as suering from gonorrhoea. 4his #as objected to on the ground of violation of the right against self!

incrimination but this argument #as overruled by the Supreme Court holding that the $ernel of the privilege applies only to

testimonial compulsion. 1ot purely mechanical, not covering object evidence.

4he same principle #as upheld in Vlla$* S('*s #hen a #oman charged #ith adultery #as compelled to submit

herself to pregnancy test. 4he objection to the admission of the evidence #as grounded on the right against self!

incrimination but the SC overruled. Same principle #as applied there.

So also #ith the case of P'$l' Vall'$, a prosecution for rape involving a young girl. &uring the e2amination, some

semen #ere found inside the vagina of the victim. So the accused #as compelled to produce &1? samples. 4his #as

objected to on the ground that the right against self! incrimination #as violated but overruled based on the same principle.

/n the case of P'$l' 9alla*/'. ? person arrested for committing a crime and during the arrest, he #as photographed.

4he photograph #as presented as evidence but #as objected to for violation of the right against self! incrimination.

@bjection overruled based on the same principle.

/n the case of P'$l' M$/'$. 4he accused #as charged for the $illing of the young girl. *hen the dead body of the

victim #as found, it #as established that her right hand or palm #as tightly gripping hair strands. So #hen the accused #as

arrested, he #as compelled to produce hair samples. 4he introduction of the evidence #as objected to under right against

self! incrimination. 4he objection #as overruled on the same principle, the right does not cover mechanical acts or object

evidence.

, in the case of B'l#*a% s. Sas$%, the SC said the accused #as compelled to produce a sample of his

hand#riting for purposes of comparing #ith the document allegedly falsi7ed by the accused. SC ruled that compelling a

person to produce his o#n hand#riting is not a purely mechanical act. 4herefore covered by the privilege of the right against

self! incrimination. 4


23/47

+L EVIDENCE

When may right against self- incrimination be invoked

5enerally it may be invo$ed in criminal, civil and administrative proceedings. ut the proper time to invo$e diers depending

on the nature of the case and depending on the person invo$ing it.

CRIMINAL CASE

4he party invo$ing is the accused himself. 4he right may be invo$ed right a#ay. 4he moment he is called to ta$e the #itness

stand. 4he accused need not #ait for the speci7c incriminating )uestion to be as$ed. 4he obvious reason there is because in

the criminal case, the only reason #hy the State #ill call the accused to the #itness stand is to incriminate him.


24/47

+L EVIDENCE

civil or administrative proceeding, the defendant may not refuse to ta$e the stand altogether. 4he general rule is that they

may only invo$e the right against self! incrimination #hen the speci7c incriminating )uestion is as$ed. ut if the civil or

administrative proceeding is penal in nature, the rule applicable is the same in a criminal case. 4his is the innovation

introduced in >osete v 'im. Used to be, before this case, this rule applies only to administrative. Silent as to civil.

osete v 'im, the SC said, this is a civil proceeding but it is not penal in nature. ?nd so, the

defendant may not refuse altogether to ta$e the deposition ta$ing. So they #ere compelled to comply #ith the subpoena

#ithout prejudice in invo$ing their right against self! incrimination #hen there are speci7c incriminating )uestion.

Sir: / have a problem in this ruling because this civil case, if the defendant lost in the case, they stand to lose their property.

So / could not understand #hy the SC said its not penal in nature #hen in Cabal and -ascual, the danger of losing oneWs

license #hich is a property right ma$es the case tainted #ith the character of a criminal or penal proceeding. ut in this

case, the relief prayed for by the plainti is the annulment of certain documents of sale. >ecovery of o#nershipM So

obviously if the defendant lost in the case, they #ould be divested of their property. So, / dont $no# no# ho# to determine

that the proceeding! civil or administrative! is deemed to be penal in nature. *hen do you say its penal= ecause in Cabal

and -ascual, its because of the imposable penalty. ?nd also, / 7nd it so hard to thin$ of an administrative case #hen there is

no penalty. /f termination of employment, obviously its penal. ut if its just suspension, not so penal= ?ny#ay, / go bac$

again to the basic reality of practice that its al#ays a case to case basis. 'ets #ait for another case for the SC to decide.

4he )uestions today may be the ans#ers of tomorro#.

SPECIAL LAS

'ets go to E2clusionary >ules under Special 'a#s. 4his is the third classi7cation of the >ules of E2clusion. 4here are some

legislative acts that have evidentiary impact insofar as competency of evidence is concerned.

A. RA 4200 >A%# *'#a% A"#?

S'"#$% 1. /t shall be unla#ful for any person, not being authori3ed by all the parties to any private communication

or spo$en #ord, to tap any #ire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,

intercept, or record such communication or spo$en #ord by using a device commonly $no#n as a dictaphone or

dictagraph or dictaphone or #al$ie!tal$ie or tape recorder, or ho#ever other#ise described:/t shall also be unla#ful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penali3ed in the ne2t preceding

sentence, to $no#ingly possess any tape record, #ire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies

thereof, of any communication or spo$en #ord secured either before or after the eective date of this ?ct in the

manner prohibited by this la#+ or to replay the same for any other person or persons+ or to communicate the

contents thereof, either verbally or in #riting, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, #hether complete or partial, to

any other person: Provided, 4hat the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal

investigation or trial of oenses mentioned in section A hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.

S'"#$% 4. ?ny communication or spo$en #ord, or the e2istence, contents, substance, purport, eect, or meaning

of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation

of the preceding sections of this ?ct shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, )uasi!judicial, legislative or

administrative hearing or investigation.

4his ma$es unla#ful for any person #ho #ithout the consent of the parties to any private communication or spo$en#ord by tapping #ire or cable or by using devices commonly $no#n as &ictaphone, dictagraph, #al$ie tal$ie, or

tape recorder! ho#ever described. 4hats ?nti *iretapping.

/n the case of 9aa%a% C$(*# $) A'als, the SC #as burdened #ith the duty to interpret the provisions of the

?nti! *iretapping ?ct insofar as to the issue of #hat $ind of devices or arrangements contemplated by la# as to

ma$e the oender liable. 4he speci7c device involved in this case is a telephone e2tension #ire. 4his is a Cebu

setting. *e have this Cebu la#yer, ?tty. 4ito -intor #hose client #as a teacher in &on osco 4echnological School

#ho 7led a criminal case #ith the @0ce of -rovincial -rosecutor against a la#yer for direct assault. &uring the

pendency of the case #ith the public prosecutor, the parties #ere trying to negotiate for a possible settlement. @ne

B


25/47

+L EVIDENCE

day, ?tty. -intor and his client (a certain 9ontebon% agreed on some proposals that they #ant conveyed on the

accused. So ?tty. -intor called up ?tty. 'acunico, the respondent there, and made some proposals for settlement. /n

the course of the telephone negotiation, ?tty. 'acunico called another la#yer, ?tty. 5aanan, and as$ed him to come

into his house and get involved in the negotiation. So in the process, #hen ?tty. -intor called ?tty. 'acunico to

further discuss the terms of the settlement, ?tty. 5aanan listened to the negotiation using the e2tension line. 4he

parties supposedly agreed for the delivery of the money because ?tty. -intor proposed #hile ?tty. 'acunico

accepted to give -JKKK as the compromise amount. Un$no#n to ?tty. -intor, ?tty. 'acunico and ?tty. 5aanandecided to entrap ?tty. -intor and so they brought the matter to the police authorities, and so they set up an

entrapment operation. So ?tty. 'acunico insisted that it should be ?tty. -intor #ho #ill receive the -JKKK and true

enough, they met in a restaurant, and #hen ?tty. -intor received the -JKKK, he #as arrested by the police. Upon

the arrest of ?tty. -intor, the complainant ?tty. 'acunico 7led a case for bribery against ?tty. -intor. amire3, during her meeting #ith a friend

(used to be a friend, ironically shes a friend%, she claimed that she #as being maltreated, humiliated, and

embarrassed by a certain 5arcia. She felt aggrieved that she 7led a case against 5arcia for humiliating her in her

o0ce. /n support of her complaint for damages, she produced a transcript of the conversation bet#een 5arcia and

>amire3 and these transcripts #ere lifted from the tape recording made by >amire3 in the course of the incident. @n

the basis of this disclosure and admission, >amire3 ended up being sued for violation of the ?nti! *iretapping ?ct

for recording the conversation #ithout the consent of the other party. amire3 #as covered even if she #as a party to the private communication, secretly recorded.

?nother interesting issue involving the ?nti! *iretapping ?ct is #hen is a conversation deemed private. 4his eludes

de7nitive ruling of the Court. *e only have collateral discussion on the matter. 1ot really head on as to #hat

constitutes private communication. *E have cases to guide us.

/n P'$l' Naa**$, this involves the story of t#o radio reporters #ho follo#ing the report that a certain

entertainment bar #ould oer a striptease sho#, nude dancers, #ent to that bar and #hen they #ent inside,

drin$ing beer, a scantily clad dancer appeared on stage and began to perform a striptease act. /t #as at this

I


26/47

+L EVIDENCE

juncture that one of the reporters, getting e2cited, too$ out his camera and started ta$ing pictures of the se2y

dancer. *hen he #as noticed by the Ooor manager and the security guard, the Ooor manager #anted to $no# #hy

he #as ta$ing pictures of the girl dancing on the stage. ut the reporter, #ith some air of arrogance, told the

manager that he should leave him alone because its his job to ta$e pictures. 4his resulted in a heated altercation

and #hen the reporter #ho too$ those pictures noticed that the security guard attempted to pull out his gun, he

hurriedly left the bar and his t#o companions follo#ed suit. 4hey proceeded to a nearby police station to report the

incident and have it recorded in the police blotter. ut a fe# minutes after, the Ooor manager and the securityguard follo#ed them there at the police station. ?nd #hen the Ooor manager and the policeman #ho #as there at

that time tal$ed about I minutes, the policeman, -olice o0cer 1avarro, turned hostile against the reporters. ?nd

so a heated altercation ensued bet#een 1avarro and the reporter #ho too$ those pictures. ut in the process, the

other reporter intervened, trying to pacify 1avarro and his companion. Unfortunately for the other reporter, 1avarro

no# turned his venom against him. So 1avarro and the second reporter engaged in a very heated altercation that

resulted in 1avarro stri$ing the other reporter #ith a gun and 7st blo#. 4he other reporter fell to the ground.

Eventually he died in the hospital because of the incident. Un$no#n to 1avarro, the other reporter #ho too$ the

picture secretly recorded the confrontation bet#een 1avarro and the other companion, the deceased. So during the

trial, one of the pieces of evidence presented against 1avarro #as the tape recorded conversation. 4his #as

objected to by 1avarro on the ground that it #as obtained #ithout his $no#ledge and consent in violation of the

?nti! *iretapping ?ct.


27/47

+L EVIDENCE

been secured in violation of the pertinent provisions of this Act# shall absolutel" not be admissible and usable as

evidence against an"bod" in an" udicial# &uasi-udicial# legislative# or administrative investigation# in&uir"#

proceeding# or hearing.

ECEPTION TO ANTI-IRE TAPPIN9 ACT: HUMAN SECURIT3 ACT

la# allo#s legali3ed #ire tapping but subject to strict limitations

STRICT LIMITATIONS: I% "$%%'"#$% #$ #'**$*s $* "$%s*a" #$ "$# #'**$*s

Conversations bet#een judicially declared outla#ed terrorist organi3ation, associations or groups of

persons or any person charged #ith or suspected of crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit oneT'**$*s " *hen someone commits any of the acts mentioned. 9utiny, piracy, $idnapping,

serious illegal detention, murder, crime involving destruction and by committing any of these

crimes, the suspect or suspects created a state of #idespread panic or e2traordinary fear among

the populace in order to compel or coerce the government in giving in to unla#ful demands

4his can only be allo#ed upon application by authori3ed la# enforcement agencies and upon order issued

by the appropriate authori3ed division of the C?

-eriod is limited to that speci7ed in the order #hich is not more than ,0 /as, *'%'6a7l' 6#& a %$%-'8#'%/7l' '*$/ $) ,0 /as

!urious provision of this act : *hile #ire!tapping, surveillance and interception of communications as

contemplated under the act is allo#ed, the la#s e2pressly re)uire that the person subject of the legali3ed

#ire!tapping surveillance should be informed of the activities being done in the vicinity. 4he la# also

re)uires that upon termination of the legali3ed surveillance, he should also be informed about it. 4he framers of this la# #ere trying to balance authority and liberty (allo#ed to conduct

surveillance but notify the person subject to it%

y e2press provision of the la#, there are certain communications that CANNOT BE INTERCEPTED ''% 7

a(#&$*# $) #&' a*$*a#' /s$% $) #&' CA

. 'a#yers and their clients. &octors and their patientsA. ;ournalists and their sources

B. usiness correspondence

"Reservations of !IR" #he purpose is the condentiality of the correspondence between these parties$ but your legal

ethics and even the rules of evidence will tell us that there is a limitation to privileged communication rule.

%ot all communications between these individuals are privileged or condential. &nly legitimate communication are

protected by the privileged communication rule. 'hen the lawyer and his client conspire to commit a crime$ cannot be

protected under the privileged communication rule.

(y e)pressly e)cluding$ what could prevent lawyers*terrorists from conspiring terrorism with their clients? +aybe

the framers believed that lawyers are not capable of being terrorists.

COMPARE #&' '/'%#a* "la(s' % #&' ANTI-IRE TAPPIN9 ACT >ATA? a%/ #&a# $) #&' HUMAN SECURIT3 ACT

Under 6*'-#a%, any evidence obtained in violation of the provisions of the anti!#ire tapping act is

inadmissible in evidence. @bviously inadmissible if it is adduced against the person #hose communication #as

intercepted, overheard or recorded in violation of the ?*4?o SITUATION: /f the person is discussing a crime #ith another. 4his #as secretly intercepted and overheard

in violation of ?*4?, the person #hose communication or conversation #as recorded, if prosecuted for the

crime #hich relates to the conversation being recorded, that recorded conversation may not be used

against him. ut the la# itself re)uires, that the evidence obtained may be used against the persons

responsible for the illegal #ire!tapping for purposes of prosecution under the ?*4?. ?ny person #ho

secretly recorded a private conversation #ithout the consent of the parties may be prosecuted under the

L


28/47

+L EVIDENCE

provisions of the ?*4? and in order to support the charge, the evidence, the illegally recorded

conversation may be used against him, the responsible partyo I%a/ss7l' aa%s# #&' a*# 6&$s' "$(%"a#$% 6as ll'all %#'*"'#'/ BUT a/ss7l'

aa%s# #&' a*# *'s$%s7l' )$* #&' ll'al %#'*"'#$%.

H(a% s'"(*#: 4he language there is so categorical that it says Ka% '*s$%8. &oes not ma$e any )uali7cation

insofar as the violator of the la# or the victim because the evidence #ill be used against the victim or it could be

used against the violator. *hether used against the person #hose right #as violated or it #as used against the

violator, the rules say it is %a/ss7l'. 9aybe the intention of the framers there is to ma$e it inadmissible

against a% party regardless of #hether he is the victim or he is the oender.

*ire!tapping act obviously refers to s$'% 6$*/s s$ a(/$ $*al. -recisely the devises enumerated there refer to

devices that could intercept, record oral communication. Video is not contemplated there.

R'as$%: at the time this la# #as crafted, video #as still in the realm of impossibility.

R'"'%# la6: ANTI-PHOTO OR VIDEO VO3EURISM ACT >A%#-P''% T$ La6?

/nspired by &r.


29/47

+L EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTAR3 STAMP TA >DST?

?nother rule of e2clusion provided for under the rules of the /nternal >evenue Code (most hated and despised la#%. 4he la#

declares certain documents to be ta2able documents.

S'"#$% 201: 4hese documents are INADMISSIBLE in evidence U1'ESS the DST s a/

HAT ARE THESE COMMONL3 NON DOCUMENTS=

@riginally issued certi7cate of stoc$s

/nsurance policies 'ease contracts

&eeds of conveyance of real property Special po#ers of attorney

/nadmissible unless &S4 is a02ed to the document, duly signed and ta2 paid

Cas' $) 9ABUCAN: SC said, the inadmissible character of the ta2able document, #hich is not compliant #ith the &S4 la#,

is "$#'*%$(s #ith its being non!compliant #ith the &S4 la#. /@*, the moment it complies #ith the &S4, it becomes

admissible.

4he court should allo# the proponent of a ta2able document the opportunity to comply.

/n one case, SC rebued 4rial court for disapproving a #ill on the ground that the ac$no#ledgment portion of the notarial #ill

did not comply #ith &S4 la#. SC said, the trial court instead of disapproving the #ill, should have allo#ed the proponent to

comply #ith the la#. ?nd maybe #hen despite given the opportunity to comply, the proponent remains bullheaded, that the

petition may be dismissed or adverse sanctions may be imposed.

4he #orst scenario if you failed to comply #ith the &S4 la# is that your evidence #hich is considered as ta2able document

may not be admitted by the court but the court #ill allo# you to comply. /t is the failure to comply #ith the order that entails

the harsher conse)uences. /n reality, not so many judges and la#yers ta$e serious consideration of this la#.

BAN SECREC3 DEPOSIT

IN OUR JURISDICTION 2 STATUTES 9OVERNIN9 CONFIDENTIALIT3 OF BAN DEPOSITS:

1. RA 1405 " la# of general application in a sense that it declares all ban$ deposits regardless of #hether it is

domestic or foreign as con7dential. Con7dential in a sense that its disclosure or in)uiry into it is prohibited subject

to certain e2ceptions.o ECEPTIONS:

Consent of depositor /mpeachment

*hen deposit subject of litigation Court order in cases of briberyQdereliction of duty

?uthority by the 9onetary oard in cases of Une2plained #ealth

2. RA 42 " special la# #hich declares foreign currency deposit as a7s$l(#'l "$%!/'%#al. o @nly ONE ECEPTION: #ritten consent of depositor

CORONA CASE: /mpeachment trial of then C; Corona. Senate /mpeachment Court issued subpoena to -S

commanding it to disclose some foreign currency deposits allegedly o#ned by C; Corona. -S scrambled to get the

4>@ from the SC. SC issued the 4>@ upholding the secrecy, the absolute con7dentiality of the foreign currency

deposits. SC said, under the la#, there is only one e2ception #hich is not obtaining in this case.

5@@& /SSUE in the recently held hearing in the Senate Committee presided by No$o -imentel in relation to the senate

in)uiry into the allegation of corruption of the V-. *hen the V- #as reported to amass substantial properties including a vast

P


30/47

+L EVIDENCE

trac$ of land in atangas. 4he V- through his la#yers, the property, the o#nership of #hich #as imputed to him #as actually

o#ned by a certain 4ony 4iu. Dollo#ing this information, Senate summoned 4iu.

• Senator 4rillanes as$ed 4ony 4iu about the details of the ban$ account in a local ban$, #here massive

#ithdra#als #ere made around the time that the Senate /n)uiry #as initiated.

• Upon advise of counsel, 4iu invo$ed the an$ Secrecy ?ct and refused to ans#er the )uestion of Senator

4rillanes. 4rillanes shut his mouth up believing that 4iu #as indeed entitled to invo$e that an$ Secrecy ?ct.• ut one of the sta of -imentel came for#ard and informed the members of the committee that 4iu cannot

invo$e the ban$ secrecy act. 4he prohibition to disclose details of the ban$ deposit is imposed only on ban$

o0cers and employees but not on the depositor himself. So it #as claimed that he #as not the party to invo$e

an$ Secrecy &eposit.

• ?lthough 4iu #as proven to be bullheaded, he really did not ans#er the )uestion but the committee tried to get

around the provision invo$ed by 4iu.

5@@& YUES4/@1: *hether the depositor can invo$e the secrecy of ban$ deposit in an investigation proceeding. ecause

Section A or B of that la# imposes the obligation not to impose on the ban$ employees or ban$ o0cers. 4he ban$ depositor

is not prevented from disclosing under this provision.

?lthough setting that aside, there is another ground that any person can invo$e in order to prevent testifying or

to avoid ma$ing disclosure of the ban$ deposit #hich is the * aa%s# s'l)-%"*%a#$%

RAPE SHIELD RULE

-rovided for under >? JIKI assistance and protection for rape victims

Evidentiary clause called RAPE SHIELD RULE. Under this rule, in a prosecution for rape, evidence of the victims

other se2ual conduct or opinion of the victims se2ual conduct or the victims reputation is %a/ss7l' in

evidence.o ECEPT as to the e2tent that the court 7nds that the evidence is >E'EV?14 ?1& 9?4E>/?'

S,- #o me$ this provision serves only a decorative purpose since this has no practical eect. #his is superuous because

even without this provision$ any evidence which is irrelevant and immaterial is really %/0+SS(12. t is !onsuelo de bobo

to the rape victim.

SEUAL ABUSE SHIELD RULE

?pplies only to CRIMINAL (not civil%, prosecution for alleged child se2ual abuse. Under this rule, the follo#ing evidences are

considered INADMISSIBLE:

. Evidence oered to prove that the victim engaged in other se2ual behaviour. Evidence oered to prove the Victims se2ual predisposition

ECEPTION: evidence of a speci7c se2ual instance insofar as the victim is concerned, may be admissible in evidence if

oered to prove that a person other than the accused is responsible or o#ner of the semen, responsible for the injury, or

other physical evidence. So if the purpose of the evidence is to prove that the accused is not the one responsible for the

alleged se2ual abuse, evidence of the complainants or the victims se2ual conduct or speci7c instances of se2ual conduct is

admissible

JUDICIAL NOTICE


31/47

+L EVIDENCE

. ? fact is ta$en JUDICIAL NOTICE. ? fact is JUDICIAL ADMITTED by a partyA. ? fact is PRESUMED B3 LA

JUDICIAL NOTICE:

4here are matters #hich the court should $no# or ought to $no# by reason of their judicial functions. 9atters that come #ith

the territory by virtue of the function of the court, these are matters that are ought to be $no#n by the court or judge even if

in actuality, the judge may be completely ignorant.

2 FORMS OR MATTERS #&a# a 7' '% (/"al %$#"':

1. MANDATOR3 MATTERS Several items there, if the fact falls under this enumeration, the Court has no choice but to ta$e judicial

notice even #ithout hearing

10 MATTERS:

i. E2istence of states and the e2tent of their territoriesii. -olitical history and constitution of states and Symbols of nationalityiii. ?dmiralty and maritime courts of the #orld and their o0cial seals

iv. 'a# of nationsv. -olitical constitution and history of the -hilippines

vi. @0cial acts of the 'egislative, E2ecutive, and ;udicial &epartments of the -hilippinesvii. 'a# of natureviii. 9easure of timei2. 5eographical division

4he burden lies #ith the court to ta$e judicial notice esearch

material, literature on the subject. ;udge #ill have to do his home#or$ and ma$e research. 4hat is ho# the

court discharges the burden of applying the judicial notice rule

ATIENA VS. BOARD OF MEDICINE: SC e2actly applied judicial notice there. 4his involved an action for damages 7led by apatient and her husband after a major surgery gone a#ry. 4he patient #as supposed to undergo a surgical operation of her

non!functional $idney but for one reason or another, it #as the right functioning $idney #hich #as removed. 4he surgeon

#as sued for malpractice, medical negligence. 4o support the claim of negligence, the plainti presented photocopies of

certain documents consisting of re)uest for 2!ray #hich contains the marginal notes or interpretation of the radiologist. 4his

#as oered in evidence. 4he problem there #as that only photocopies #ere oered. -hotocopies #ere objected to by the

respondent under the best evidence rule.

SC: @verruled the objection ruling that best evidence rule does not apply. 4he purpose of oering the document as evidence

is to establish the e2act anatomical location of the $idneys before and during the surgery. 4he photocopies or even the

original of these documents are not even necessary to prove that fact because the anatomical location of the $idneys is a

matter that the court should ta$e judicial notice. 'a#s of nature, science, biology, the composition of a living organism

including the human body, the court is supposed to $no# #here to 7nd them. 1o need for evidence, the $idney is supposed

to be there.

• 9ore recent case: DR. DILLANA VS. REBECCA BION9: 4his involves a vehicular accident involving a doctor #hose

vehicle #as hit behind by another vehicle and as a result of #hich, the doctor claimed that she suered a #hiplash

injury. 4his is an injury that one suers #hen she is hit from behind. So the moral lesson there is 6dont ever get hit from

behind8.

• Case of &r. 'elia de 'lano v. >ebecca iongRo SC admitted its being non!e2pert in the 7eld of medicine. 4he justices refuse to ta$e judicial notice that

#hiplash injuries are caused by vehicular accidents. &r. 'lana failed to present the e2pert #itness #ho prepared

the medical report instead, too$ matters in her o#n hands and testi7ed but SC said while 0r. 1lana himself

A


32/47

+L EVIDENCE

maybe a surgeon and an e)pert but she was not presented as an e)pert but an ordinary witness3being an

ordinary witness she is not competent to dwell on the e)pert medical report prepared by another surgeon.

2. DISCRETIONAR3 MATTERS

o 4hree matters that the court may or may not ta$e ;udicial 1otice: 9atters #hich are of public $no#ledge+

9atters #hich are capable of un)uestionable demonstration+ and 9atters #hich ought to be $no#n to judges by reason of their judicial function.

o *hat are e2ample of these matters that the court may on its discretion ta$e judicial notice!

P . Ca7@(';!! 4his involves prosecution for robbery and rape.

• 4he accused robbed and raped the o#ner of the sari!sari store. ecords of the caseRof the same case. ;urisprudence has it that the court may not ta$e judicial notice

of another case, even if that other case is 7led in the same court and being heard by the same judge.

1ot all of the court records may be ta$en judicial notice of, only the records of the same case. So

#hatever judicial notice ta$en by the court on a particular record should be in so far as that particular

case is concerned. /f the court ta$es judicial notice and on the basis of that judicial notice ma$es a

7nding of factRthat 7nding of fact must only pertain to that case #here that record is part of, not the

records in another case.

• &ierentiated against >ule A, section ABR!#$. %&. &er of evidence.3 #he court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally oered. #he purpose for which the evidence is oered must be specied.

o 4o reconcile+ cases:

Na#/a/ Ca%//$ .CARthis involves a piece of land #hich #as o#nedby Candido but tenanted by the defendantRtenancy relationship e2ists.

?lleging that the defendant terminated the tenancy relationship and at the

same time failed to pay the rentals in terms of numbers of sac$s of palay,

the plainti!o#ner 7led a case on court to collect the unpaid rentals. Upon

order of the court

evidence pre mid

Documents