208315285 evidence regalado book outline

8/10/2019 208315285 Evidence Regalado Book Outline

1/72

RULES OF EVIDENCE

Based on the Book of Regalado

[RULE 128]

ENER!L "ROVISIONS

Se# 1$Evidence defined$

E%&den#eis the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicialproceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)

Se#$ 2$Scope$

The rules of evidence shall be the same:- in all courts and- in all trials and hearings,- E!E"T as other#ise provided by la# or these rules. ($a)

Notes'

E%&den#e( def&ned'Bustos v. Lucero:Evidence is the mode and manner ofproving competent facts in judicial proceedings.")oof&s the )es*lt o) effe#t of e%&den#e.

- This is the result #hen the re%uisite %uantum of evidence of a

particular fact has been duly admitted and given #eight.Factum Probandum

- &ltimate fact or the fact sought to be established- 'efers to the proposition

Factum Probans

- The evidentiary fact or the fact by #hich thefactum probandumis tobe established.- 'efers to the materials #hich established the proposition

R*les of E%&den#e as ")o#ed*)al La+

- mendments in such rules may validly be made applicable to casespending at the time of such change. "arties have no vested right inthe rules of evidence.

- *+EE', in criminal cases, if the amendment #ould permit thereception of a lesser %uantum of evidence to convict, retroactiveapplication #ould be unconstitutional for being e post facto.

Othe) La+s o%e)n&ng E%&den#e

- R''ules of evidence is governed by the 'ules of !ourt ('o!)- E,C'pplication of other la#s

Examples:- ' $// (nti +iretapping),- !ode of !ommerce (#eight of entries in merchant boo0s)- Electronic !ommerce ct- !!, '"!- !onstitution: 2ill of 'ights - rt 333

o 4ec $: The right of people against unreasonable searches and

sei5ureso 4ec 6: The privacy of communication and correspondence

shall be inviolable (E!. 2y order of court or #henprovided by la# for safety and public order)

o Evidence obtained in violation of such provisions shall be

378344329E!--la.&l&t/ of the R*les of E%&den#e'

- R: pplicable *9 in judicial proceedings- E,C'3n %uasi-judicial proceedings

o The same apply by analogy, or in a suppletory character and

#henever practicable and convenient.('ule 1 4ection )o 3t shall apply also #hen the governing la# of such

proceeding specifically adopts such ruleso ote: *T applicable in agrarian cases

Class&fat&on of E%&den#e !##o)d&ng to Fo)0

1$ O.e#t Real3 E%&den#e ' directly addressed to the senses of the courtand consist of tangible things ehibited or demonstrated in open court, inan ocular inspection, or at place designated by the court for its vie# or

observation of an ehibition, eperiment or demonstration.- This is referred to as 4a*to-t -)ofe)en#e5 since it proffers or

presents in open court the evidentiary articles for observation orinspection

2$ Do#*0enta)/ E%&den#e' Evidence supplied by #ritten instruments or

derived from conventional symbols, such as letters, by #hich ideas arerepresented on material substances

- Rule 130 Sec 2: #ritings or any material containing letters, #ords,numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of #ritten epression

offered as proof of their contents6$ 7est&0on&al E%&den#e: That #hich is submitted to the court through the

testimony or deposition of a #itness.

Evidence ; This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A 1 ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


2/72

Othe) Class&fat&on of E%&den#e'

1$ Rele%ant( ate)&al( and Co0-etent E%&den#e

- Rele%ant' evidence having any value in reason as tending to prove

any matter provable in an action.o TE4T: The logical relation of the evidentiary fact to the fact

in issue, #hether the former tends to establish the probabilityor improbability of the latter.

- ate)&al' evidence directed to prove a fact in issue as determined bythe rules of substantive la# and pleadings.

o TE4T: #Cn the fact it intends to prove is an issue or not.

o W/ a fact !s !n !ssue: 7etermined by substantive la#,

pleadings, pre-trial order and by admissions or confessionson file.

o Evidence may be relevant 2&T may be immaterial.

- Co0-etent' one that is not ecluded by the 'ules, statutes or the

!onstitution.2$ D&)e#t and C&)#*0stant&al E%&den#e

- D&)e#t' that #hich proves the fact in dispute #Co the aid of anyinference or presumption- C&)#*0stant&al: proof of a fact or facts from #hich, ta0en either

singly or collectively, the eistence of a particular fact in disputemay be inferred as a necessary or probable conse%uence.

6$ C*0*lat&%e and Co))o.o)at&%e E%&den#e

- C*0*lat&%e' evidence of the same 0ind and to the same state offacts.

- Co))o.o)at&%e'additional evidence of a different character to thesame point.

9$ ")&0a Fa#&e and Con#l*s&%e E%&den#e

- ")&0a Fa#&e' that #hich, standing alone, uneplained oruncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed.- Con#l*s&%e' the class of evidence #hich the la# does not allo# to be

contradicted.:$ ")&0a)/ and Se#onda)/ E%&den#e

- ")&0a)/' that #hich the la# regards as affording the greatestcertainty of the fact in %uestion. lso 0no#n as "best ev!dence#.

- Se#onda)/' that #hich is inferior to the primary evidence and ispermitted by la# only #hen the best evidence is not available. lso0no#n as "subst!tut!onar$ ev!dence#.

;$ "os&t&%e and Negat&%e E%&den#e

- "os&t&%e' #hen the #itness affirms that a fact did or did not occur.

o Entitled to a greater #eight since the #itness represents of

his personal 0no#ledge the presence or absence of a fact.- Negat&%e E%&den#e' #hen the #itness did not see or 0no# of the

occurrence of a fact.o 9esser #eight since there is a total disclaimer of personal

0no#ledge, hence #ithout any representation that the factcould or could not have eisted or happened.

o

3t is admissible only if it tends to contradict positiveevidence of the other side or #ould tend to eclude theeistence of fact s#orn to by the other side.

Se#$ 6$Admissibility of evidence$

E%&den#e &s ad0&ss&.le#hen:- it is relevant to the issue 7- is not ecluded by the la# or these rules. (6a)

Se#$ 9$Relevancy< collateral matters$

E%&den#e 0*st ha%e s*#h a )elat&onT*:

- the fact in issue as to induce belief in its eistence or non-eistence.E%&den#e on #ollate)al 0atte)s'

- shall *T be allo#ed

,- E!E"T #hen it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the

probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (a)

Notes'

E%&den#e &s !DISSIBLE +hen' 2 Re=*&s&tes see #odal3

- +hen it is 'elevanto it must have a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief

of its eistence or non-eistenceo 7etermined by the rules of logic and human eperience.

- +hen it is !ompetent

o +hen not ecluded by the la# or by the 'o!

o 7etermined by the prevailing eclusionary rules on evidence

Note' The +e&ght ho#ever of admissible evidence depends on judicialevaluation #ithin the 'ule 166 and rules of the 4!.

o +hile evidence is admissible, it may be entitled to little or

no #eight at all.

Evidence ; This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A $ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


3/72

o !onversely, evidence of great #eight may also be

inadmissible.

Re=*&s&tes of !d0&ss&.&l&t/ of E%&den#e !##o)d&ng to ")ofesso) >&g0o)e

1. That none but facts having rational probative value are admissible D$. That all facts having rational probative value are not forbidden by

specific rulesNote'ere,Relevant Evidencemeans any class of evidence #hich hasrational probative valueF to establish the issue in controversy

>hen &s ad0&ss&.&l&t/ dete)0&ned? @ !t the t&0e &t &s OFFERED to the

#o*)t

- 'eal Evidence : offeredo #hen the same is presented for its vie# or evaluation

o #hen the party rests his case and the real evidence consists

of objects ehibited in court- Testimonial Evidence : offered by the calling of the #itness to the

stand- 7ocumentary Evidence : offered by the proponent immediately

before he rests his case

>hen sho*ld ad0&ss&.&l&t/ .e o.e#ted?

- t the time evidence is offered to the court *'- s soon thereafter as the objection to its admissibility shall have

become apparento *bjection to the %ualification of the #itness : made at the

time such person is called to the stando *bjection to the testimony: made at the time the %uestion is

as0ed or after the ans#er is given #hen the objectionablefeatures become apparent by reason of the ans#er

Note: if not done #ithin such time ? right to object is deemed +3E7

Do#t)&nes and R*les of !d0&ss&.&l&t/ San#t&oned ./ the S*-)e0e Co*)t

1$ Cond&t&onal !d0&ss&.&l&t/

- +hen the evidence at the time it is offered appears to be immaterial

or irrelevant, such evidence may be received on condition that theother facts #ill be proved thereafter

- 3G not proved subse%uently: evidence given #ill be stric0en out.- 'EH&343TE: There should be no .ad fa&th on the part of the

proponent. (necessary to avoid unfair surprises)

2$ *lt&-le !d0&ss&.&l&t/

- +hen the evidence is relevant 7 competent fo) t+o o) 0o)e

-*)-oses, such evidence should be admitted for any or all thepurposes for #hich it is offered

- "'*37E7 it must satisfy all the re%uirements for its admissibility.6$ C*)at&%e !d0&ss&.&l&t/

- The right of the party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf#here the court has admitted the same 0ind of evidence adduced bythe adverse party.

- 6 7heo)&es of C*)at&%e !d0&ss&.&l&t/ #&ted ./ >&g0o)e

o !0e)an )*le? the admission of incompetent evidence

#Cout objection by the opponent, does not justify rebutting itby similar incompetent evidence.

o Engl&sh )*le ? if inadmissible evidence is admitted, the

adverse party may resort to similar inadmissible evidenceo assa#h*setts )*le?similar incompetent evidence may be

admitted in order to avoid a plain and unfair prejudicecaused by the admission of the other partyIs evidence

- >hat sho*ld .e dete)0&ned to a--l/ the #*)at&%e ad0&ss&.&l&t/)*le?

1. #Cn the incompetent evidence #as seasonably objected to

La#k of o.e#t&on: #aiver of the right to object admissibility2&T does *T deprive him to introduce similar rebuttingevidence

$. #Cn the admission of such evidence #ill cause a plain andunfair prejudice to the party against #hom it #as admitted

+hen the admissible evidence has been improperlyecluded, the other party should not be permitted to

introduce similar evidence

Stonehill, et al. v. Diokno: 7ocumentary evidence illegally obtained, isinadmissible on a timely motion or action to suppress. (pplies to illegally

obtained confessions)

Collate)al atte)s( def&ned'8atters other than the facts in issue and #hichare offered as a basis for inference as to the eistence or non-eistence of the

facts in issue- R'!ollateral matters are 378344329E or not allo#ed- E,C' #hen it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the

probability or improbability of the fact in issue (4C&)#*0stant&al

E%&den#e5or evidence of )ele%ant collateral facts3



4/72

Note: +hat is prohibited ? 3''E9ET collateral facts

9 a&n D&%&s&ons of the R*les of E%&den#e' (1)dmissibility of Evidence'ule 16/J($) 2urden of proof and #hat need not be proved 'ule 161 D 1$=J

(6) "resentation of Evidence 'ule 16$J () +eight and 4ufficiency ofEvidence 'ule 166J ote: 'ule 16 has been transposed to "art 3 as 'ule $

[RULE 12A]

>!7 NEED NO7 BE "ROVED

Se# 1$udicial notice, !hen mandatory$

! #o*)t shall take *d&al note, #ithout the introduction of evidence:- of the eistence and territorial etent of states, their political

history, forms of government and symbols of nationality,- the la# of nations,- the admiralty and maritime courts of the #orld and their seals,- the political constitution and history of the '",- the official acts of legislative,- eecutive and judicial departments of the '",- the la#s of nature,- the measure of time, and- the geographical divisions. (1a)

Se#$ 2$udicial notice, !hen discretionary$

court ! take *d&al noteof matters #hich:- are of public 0no#ledge, or

- are capable to un%uestionable demonstration, or- ought to be 0no#n to judges because of their judicial functions.

(1a)

Se#$ 6$udicial notice, !hen hearin" necessary$

%ur!n& t'e tr!al, the #o*)t:- on its o#n initiative, ORon re%uest of a party,

may:- announce its intention to ta0e judicial notice of any matter and- allo# the parties to be heard thereon.

()*ER t'e tr!alandBE)+RE ,ud&mentOR+ appeal-the -)o-e) #o*)t'

- on its o#n initiative ORon re%uest of a party,

may:- ta0e judicial notice of any matter and

- allo# the parties to be heard thereon 3G such matter is decisive ofa material issue in the case.

Notes'

*d&al Note N3( Def&ned' cogni5ance of certain facts #hich judgesmay properly ta0e and act on #ithout proof.

-


5/72

o 7Cs' 'e%uired to ta0e


6/72

3G the judicial admission #as made in a judicialproceeding, it is entitled to greater #eight.

o 3t is pertinent to the issue involved

o There must be no objection

- E,C to E,C'

1. The said admissions #ere made only for purposes of the firstcase as in the rule on implied admissions and their effects under

'ule $M$. The same #ere #ithdra#n #ith the permission of the courttherein

6. The court deems it proper to relieve the party therefrom.*d&al !d0&ss&ons %$ Et)a*d&al !d0&ss&ons'

- *d&al'Those so made in the pleadings filed or in the progress of atrial.

- Et)a*d&al' Those made out of court, or in a judicial proceedingother than the one under consideration

R*les on Et)a*d&al !d0&ss&ons'

- Etrajudicial admissions or other admissions are, as a rule and #hereelements of estoppel are not present, disputable.- dmissions in a pleading #ithdra#n are considered etrajudicial

admissions ? must be proved by a formal offer in evidence of theoriginal pleading

- dmissions in a pleading superseded by an amended pleadingalthough filed in the same case are:

o judicial admissions (ote: 2ased on 'egalado on his

interpretation of 4ec as amended, p. N=$)o st&ll et)a*d&al(3f based on *orres v. (- et al. O.'.

o. 9-6N$/-$1,


7/72


8/72

- Othe)+&se, They are !onsidered Do#*0enta)/ E%&den#e IF the&)"*)-ose &s' to establish the contents or tenor thereof.

"h/sal Ea0&nat&on of a "e)son a/ .e Cond*#ted'

- 2the court ORunder its direction- T* sho# the nature, etent or location of injuries, facial features, his

resemblance or possibility of relationship to another, or his racialorigin, his probable age, fact of pregnancy

%. D$#/E&AR0 E*+DE#E

Se#$ 2$ Documentary evidence$

7ocuments as evidence consist of:

- #riting or- any material containing letters, #ords, numbers, figures, symbols or- other modes of #ritten epression

offered as proof of their contents. (n)

1$ BES7 EVIDENCE RULE ")&0a)/ E%&den#e R*le3

Se#$ 6$ $ri"inal document must be produced< e1ceptions$

>hen the s*.e#t of &n=*&)/ &s the #ontents of a do#*0ent :- no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document

itself,E!E"T in the follo#ing cases:

(a) +hen the original:

- has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,- #ithout bad faith on the part of the offerorJ

(b) +hen the original:- is in the custody or under the control of the party against #hom the

evidence is offered, and- the latter fails to produce it after reasonable noticeJ

(c) +hen the original:- consists of numerous accounts or other documents #hich cannot be

eamined in court #ithout great loss of time and- the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result

of the #holeJ and

(d) +hen the original:- is a public record

- in the custody of a public officer *' is recorded in a public office.($a)

Se#$ 9$ $ri"inal of document$

(a) The original of the document is:- one the contents of #hich are the subject of in%uiry.

(b) +hen a document:- is in t#o or more copies eecuted at or about the same time, #ith

identical contents,all such copies are e%ually regarded as originals.

(c) +hen an entry:- is repeated in the regular course of business,

- one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction,all the entries are li0e#ise e%ually regarded as originals. (6a)

Notes'

Do#*0ent( def&ned' deed, instrument or other duly authori5ed paper by

#hich something is proved, evidenced or set forth.Do#*0enta)/ E%&den#e( def&ned' That #hich is furnished by #ritten

instruments, inscriptions and documents of all 0inds.Best E%&den#e R*le( def&ned' that rule #hich re%uires the highest grade ofevidence obtainable to prove a disputed fact.

- "urpose: To prevent fraud, perjury, and To eclude uncertainties inthe contents of a document

Best E%&den#e R*le &s !--l&ed to Do#*0enta)/ E%&den#e ONL

- *perates as a rule of eclusion

Evidence ; This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A P ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


9/72

- R' *riginal #riting itself must be produced in court.4econdaryCsubstitutionary evidence cannot inceptively be introduced

o Effe#t'The non-production of the original document gives

rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence (4ec 161)- E,C'4econdary evidence may be produced in 3nstances in 4ec 6

ote: 3n case of real evidence, secondary evidence may be introduced #Cohaving to account for the non-production of such primary evidence

Best E%&den#e R*le &s !--la.le ONL' +hen the #ontents of the

do#*0ent &s the s*.e#t of &n=*&)/$

- 3t does *T apply #hen the issue is only as to:o #Cn the document eists or #Cn it #as actually eecuted or

o the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its eecution

ote: ere, testimonial evidence or other evidence #ill suffice.>hen a do#*0ent &s -)esented to -)o%e e&sten#e o) #ond&t&on @ It &s

offe)ed as RE!L e%&den#e( NO7 do#*0enta)/ e%&den#e

- "arol evidence of the fact of eecution is allo#ed- *+EE', in criminal cases, #here the issue is not only #ith

respect to the contents of the document but also as to #hether suchdocument actually eisted #ith the participation as imputed to the

accused ? the o)&g&nal 0*st .e -)od*#ed e$ in libel, thene#spaper must be presented)

o 3n this case, the presentation of the original sho*ld affe#t

ONL the +e&ght of the e%&den#e intended to establish theeecution of the document

!ff&da%&ts and de-os&t&ons a)e not .est e%&den#e and hen#e not

ad0&ss&.le( IF the aff&ants o) de-onents a)e a%a&la.le as +&tnesses

- 3t is not best evidence ONL +henthe contents of the affidavits or

depositions are *T the issues in the case 2&T are merely used toestablish the issues in controversyo ffidavits are regulated by the hearsay evidence rule ('ule

16/ 4ec $M) to safeguard the right of cross eamination.o 7epositions are regulated by 'ule $6 4ec

>hen 4Othe) Co-&es of a Do#*0ent5 a)e Cons&de)ed O)&g&nals Se# 93

- 3t includes regular entries in journals and ledgers.- signed carbon copy eecuted at the same time as the original is

0no#n as a 4d*-late o)&g&nal5and may be introduced #Co theoriginal

R*les on Ca).on Co-&es Cons&de)ed as O)&g&nals

- 7ocuments prepared in several copies through the use of carbonsheets are considered originals:

o R+%E% that the #riting of a contract upon the outside

sheet, !nclud!n& t'e s!&nature of the party sought to becharged thereby, produces a facsimile upon the sheets

beneath,suc' s!&nature be!n& t'us reproduced b$ t'e S(Estroe of t'e pen

- Even if the signature #as made through separate acts or separateoccasions, 99 the !'2* !*"3E4 are considered originals

o 3G each copy #as intended as a repository of the same legal

act of the party thereto.- BU7 &0-e)fe#t #a).on #o-&es a)e 0e)el/ se#onda)/ e%&den#e

even if the tet #as made at the same time as the signed originalo E$ incomplete signatures, something else is left to be done

in order that a document could evidence a binding obligationR*les on 7eleg)a0s and Ca.les @ >HN the d&s-at#h sent o) the d&s-at#h

)e#e&%ed &s the .est e%&den#e of the 0essage (depends on the issue)- 3G the issue is the contents of the telegrams

o as received by the addressee - original dispatch received is

the best evidenceo as sent by the sender ? the original is the message delivered

- 3G the issue is the inaccuracy of the transmissiono 2*T the sent and received dispatch are originals.

Provincial Fiscal of Pampan"a v. Reyes: in case of libel IF the &ss*e &s:- *n the contents of the articles sent by the accused for publication

o The manuscript is the best evidence

- *n #hat #as actually publishedo copy of the ne#spaper is the best evidence

2$ SECOND!R EVIDENCE

Se#$ :$ 2hen ori"inal document is unavailable$

+hen the original document:

- has been lost or destroyed, or- cannot be produced in court,

the offe)o), upon proof of:- its eecution or eistence and- the cause of its unavailability #ithout bad faith on his part,

0a/ -)o%e &ts #ontents:

- by a copy, or

Evidence ; This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A = ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


10/72

- by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or- by the testimony of #itnesses in the order stated. (a)

Notes'

3st E1ception to the %est Evidence Rule: W'en t'e or!&!nal !s lost or

destro$ed

>hat *st .e ")o%ed ./ Sat&sfa#to)/ E%&den#e &n O)de) fo) Se#onda)/

E%&den#e a/ .e !d0&ss&.le'

1. D*e ee#*t&on of the o)&g&nal 'proved through the testimony of either:a. The personCs #ho eecuted it

b. The person before #hom its eecution #as ac0no#ledged orc. ny person #ho #as present and sa# it eecuted and delivered or

#ho thereafter sa# it and recogni5ed the signatures, ord. *ne to #hom the parties previously confessed its eecution

2$ Loss( dest)*#t&on o) *na%a&la.&l&t/ of all s*#h o)&g&nals

- The cause must *T be due to the offerorIs bad faith- Loss o) Dest)*#t&on 0a/ .e ")o%ed B'

o ny person #ho 0ne# of such fact

o nyone #ho, in the judgment of the court had made a

sufficient eamination in the places #here the document or

papers of similar character are usually 0ept by the person in#hose custody the document #as and had been unable to

find ito nyone #ho has made any other investigation #hich is

sufficient to satisfy the court that the document is indeedlost.

- 7uplicates must be accounted for: *nly #hen 99 cannot bepresented can it be considered unavailableClostCdestroyed

6$ Reasona.le d&l&gen#e and good fa&th &n the sea)#h fo) o) atte0-t to

-)od*#e the o)&g&nal

P% v. $lila: +hen the original is *&T437E the jurisdiction of the court(e. broad), secondary evidence is 78344329E

>hat Const&t*tes Se#onda)/ E%&den#e? (ote: pplies to 2*T 1st and2nd Eceptions to the "rimary Evidence 'ule)

1. copy of said document$. recital or its contents in an authentic document or6. The recollection of #itnesses

R' vailment of such secondary evidence US7 .e &n the afo)esa&do)de)E,C' Def&n&te E%&dent&a)/ R*le +hen the la# specifically provides for theclass and %uantum of secondary evidence to establish the contents of a

document or bars secondary evidence s*#h )e=*&)e0ent &s #ont)oll&ng

- Eample. 9ost holographic #ill must be proved only by a copy, lostnotarial #ill may be proved by the testimony of credible #itnesses

Contents of a Do#*0ent 0a/ .e ")o%en B'

1. ny person #ho read it$. ny person #ho heard it read 0no#ing or it being proved from other

sources that the document so read #as the one in %uestion6. ny person #ho #as present #hen the contents of the document #ere

tal0ed over bet#een the parties thereto to such an etent as to give himreasonably full information as to its contents

. ny person to #hom the parties to the instrument have confessed orstated the contents thereof.

Se#$ ;$ 2hen ori"inal document is in adverse party4s custody or control$

IF the do#*0ent is in the #*stod/ o) *nde) the #ont)ol of ad%e)se -a)t/:- he must have reasonable notice to produce it.

3G afte)such notice 7 afte)satisfactory proof of its eistence, he fails toproduce the document:

- secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. (La)

Notes'

5nd E1ception to the %est Evidence Rule: +r!&!nal !s !n t'e custod$ or under

t'e control of t'e adverse part$ 4'o fa!ls to produce !t

Fa#ts >hh *st .e Sho+n ./ the "a)t/ Offe)&ng Se#onda)/ E%&den#e

1. The adverse partyIs custody or control of the original documentJ

o o need to prove actual possession. 3t is enough to sho# the

circumstances that #ould indicate his possession.$. That reasonable notice #as given to the adverse party #ho has the

custody or control of the documentJ6. 4atisfactory proof of the documentIs eistenceJ. Gailure or refusal by the adverse party to produce it in court.

Re=*&)e0ent of 4Note5 De0and&ng the O)&g&nal Do#*0ent'

Evidence ; This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A 1/ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


11/72

- o particular form of notice is re%uired, as long as it fairly apprisesthe other party as to #hat papers are desired. Even an oral demand in

court #ill suffice.- *+EE', notice must be given to the adverse party or his

attorney even if the document is in the actual possession of a 6 rdparty- otice is done by: 8otion or 4ubpoena duces tecum

Note &s NO7 Re=*&)ed'

- +hen the receipt of the original document is ac0no#ledged on a

carbon copy. (The duplicate itself is an original copy and the onlyissue is the receipt of the original)

- +hen the nature of the action is in itself a notice, as #hen it is for therecovery or annulment of documents #rongfully obtained or#ithheld by the other party

See Notes on Se#t&on 8 as &t )elates to Se#t&on ;

Effe#t of US7IFIED Ref*sal of the !d%e)se "a)t/ to the ")od*#e the

Do#*0ent- 7oes *T give rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence or

create an unfavorable inference against him- 3T only authori5es the introduction of secondary evidence

R*les on ")od*#t&on of Do#*0ents'Rule 367 v. Rule 58

R*le 16G R*le 2J

"roduction is procured by mere noticeto the adverse party

"roduction is in the nature of amode of discovery

'e%uirements of notice must befulfilled as a condition precedent forthe subse%uent presentation ofsecondary evidence

!an be sought only by propermotion and only upon good cause

"resupposes that the evidence to beproduced is intended as evidence

!ontemplates a situation #hereinthe document is either assumed to

be favorable to the party inpossession thereof or that the partysee0ing its production is notsufficiently informed of thecontents of the same

6rd E1ception to the %est Evidence Rule: W'en t'e or!&!nal cons!sts ofnumerous accounts or ot'er documents 4'!c' cannot be exam!ned !n court

4/out &reat loss of t!me

Re=*&s&tes fo) the 6)dE#e-t&on to !--l/'

1. The voluminous character of the records must be established and$. 4uch records must be made accessible to the adverse party so that

their correctness may be tested on cross eamination

Instan#es >hen the O)&g&nal *st S7ILL .e ")od*#ed

1. +hen the detailed contents of the records of accounts are challengedfor being hearsay or

$. 3ssues are raised as to the authenticity or correctness of the detailedentries

Note'ere, a summary of the voluminous records can be considered assecondary evidence

Se#$ J$Evidence admissible !hen ori"inal document is apublic record$

+hen the original of document:- is in the custody of public officer or- is recorded in a public office,

its contents may be proved:- by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.

($a)

Notes'

9th E1ception to the %est Evidence Rule: W'en t'e or!&!nal !s a publ!c

record !n t'e custod$ of a publ!c off!cer or !s recorded !n a publ!c off!ce

S*#h Do#*0ent 0a/ .e E%&den#ed B'

- n official publication or

- copy attested by the officer having legal custody and- 3n the case of an authori5ed public record, by a copy thereof attested

by its legal 0eeper

Se#$ 8$Party !ho calls for document not bound to offer it$

party #ho calls for the production of a document and inspects the same

- is not obliged to offer it as evidence. (Ma)



12/72

Note'

+hen the document is produced, it must fulfill the re%uisites of admissibility

to be admitted. The party demanding it is also *T obliged to offer it.

6$ "!ROL EVIDENCE RULE

Se#$ A$ E%&den#e of +)&tten ag)ee0ents$

>hen thete)0s of an ag)ee0ent ha%e .een )ed*#ed to +)&t&ng:- it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and- there can be, bet#een the parties and their successors in interest, no

evidence of such terms other than the contents of the #ritten

agreement.*+EE', a -a)t/ 0a/ -)esent e%&den#e to:

- modify, eplain or add to the terms of #ritten agreement- 3G he puts in issue in his pleading:

(a)n intrinsic ambiguity, mista0e or imperfection in the #ritten agreementJ

(b)The failure of the #ritten agreement to epress the true intent andagreement of the parties theretoJ

(c)The validity of the #ritten agreementJ or(d)The eistence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors ininterest GTE' the eecution of the #ritten agreement.

The term Kag)ee0entK includes #ills. (Na)

Notes'

"a)ol E%&den#e( def&ned' ny evidence al!unde(oral or #ritten), #hich isintended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement

in a document

Bas&s and Effe#t of the "a)ol E%&den#e R*le

- Bas&s' +hen the parties have reduced their agreement into #riting,all their previous and contemporaneous agreements on the matter aremerged therein.

- Effe#t'ence, a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is notadmissible to vary contradict or defeat the operation of a validinstrument.

>hen Can "a)ol E%&den#e of a Collate)al !g)ee0ent C!3 Bet+een the

Sa0e "a)t&es on the Sa0e o) Related S*.e#t atte) St&ll .e !d0&ss&.le

Not+&thstand&ng the E&sten#e of a >)&tten !g)ee0ent?

1. +hen the ! is not inconsistent #ith the terms of the #ritten contract$. +hen the ! has not been integrated in and is independent of the

#ritten contract as #here it is suppletory to the original contract6. +hen the ! is subse%uent to or novatory of the #ritten contract

. +hen the ! constitutes a condition precedent #hich determines#hether the #ritten contract may become operative or effective.

o o. does not apply to a condition subse%uent not stated in

the agreementNO7E' 3n order to apply the above eceptions, evidence thereon may be

allo#ed "ROVIDED the/ ha%e .een -*t &n &ss*e (as part of Sec. 5- ar. d)

"a)ol E%&den#e R*le !lso does NO7 !""L 0a/ not .e &n%oked

aga&nst the othe)3'

- +hen at least 1 party to the suit is not a party or privy to the #ritteninstrument in %uestion and does not base a claim or assert a right

originating in the instrument.- stranger may introduce etrinsic evidence against the #ritten

agreement-

"a)ol E%&den#e &s !d0&ss&.le "ROVIDED Se#t&on A "a)ag)a-hs ! to D

a)e -*t &n &ss*e

- R' 4uch facts must be put in issue by the pleadings- E,CE"7ION' "arol Evidence may still be admitted even if the

re%uired matters are not put in issue by the pleadings:o 3f such facts are invo0ed in his ans#er (since it also puts it in

issue3

Evidence ; This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A 1$ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


13/72

o +hen parol evidence is *T *2


14/72

6rd E1ception to the Parol Evidence Rule: *'e val!d!t$ of t'e 4r!ttena&reement

In the &n=*&)/ &nto the Val&d&t/ &f the !g)ee0ent( "a)ol E%&den#e 0a/ .e

!d0&tted to Sho+'

- The true consideration of the contract or the #ant or illegality thereof- The 3ncapacity of the parties- +Cn the contract is fictitious or absolutely simulated

- +Cn there #as fraud in inducement

9th E1ception to the Parol Evidence Rule: *'e ex!stence of ot'er termsa&reed to b$ t'e part!es or t'e!r successors !n !nterest ()*ER t'e execut!on

of t'e 4r!tten a&reement

ote: mendment in 4ection =

9$ IN7ER"RE7!7ION OF DOCUEN7S

Se#$ 1G$+nterpretation of a !ritin" accordin" to its le"al meanin"$

The lang*ageof a +)&t&ng &s to .e &nte)-)eted'

- according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its eecution,- &9E44 the parties intended other#ise. (P)

Se#$ 11$+nstrument construed so as to "ive effect to all provisions$

3n the construction of an instrument, +he)e the)e a)e se%e)al -)o%&s&ons o)-a)t*la)s:

- such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as #ill give effect toall. (=)

Se#$ 12$ +nterpretation accordin" to intention< "eneral and particular

provisions$

3n the construction of an instrument:- the &ntent&on of the -a)t&es &s to .e -*)s*ed&tness( def&ned'The legal fitness or ability of a #itnessto be heard on the trial of a case.

R*le on Co0-eten#/ of >&tness

- R' person #ho ta0es the #itness stand is presumed to possess

the %ualification of a #itness (Presumption of #ompetency)- E,C' ")&0a Fa#&e ")es*0-t&on of In#o0-eten#/ +hen'

o The person has been recently found to be of unsound mind

by a court of competent jurisdiction oro *ne is an inmate of an asylum for the insane

Note' The burden is upon the party objecting to the competency of a #itnessto establish the grounds of incompetency.

>hen a)e the *al&fat&ons and D&s=*al&fat&ons of >&tnesses

Dete)0&ned?

- t the time the #itnesses are produced for eamination in court(called to the stand) *'

- t the time of the ta0ing of their depositions.Note'3f they are children of tender years ? the time of the occurrence to betestified to should also ta0en into account

Note' ccording to hen a >&tness &s NO7 D&s=*al&f&ed f)o0 Be&ng a >&tness'

- Inte)est of a >&tness &n the S*.e#t atte) of the !#t&on o) &tsO*t#o0e

o R' 7oes *T dis%ualify a #itness from testifying. 3t

affects only his credibility but *T his competencyo E,C' e #ill be dis%ualified under those covered by the

rule on surviving parties, also 0no#n as the 4Dead anStat*te5or the 4S*)%&%o)sh&- D&s=*al&fat&on R*le5 (4ec$6)

- ! CoMdefendant Be&ng De#la)ed &n Defa*lt

o R' defendant is *T dis%ualified from testifying for his

non-defaulting co-defendant although he has an interest inthe case

o Rat&o' e may still testify because he is not considered as

ta0ing part in trial as understood in the rule on default.

- ! >&tness Be&ng Con%ted of a C)&0e

o R' person convicted is *T dis%ualified from being a

#itness (it only affects his credibility) 2&T:

Evidence ; This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A 1L ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


16/72

e must ans#er to the fact of a previous finalconviction (sec 6(L), 'ule 16$) or

4uch fact may be sho#n by his eamination or therecord of the judgment (sec 11)

o E,C' +hen other#ise provided by la# (e. Those guilty of

perjury, falsification or false testimony are dis%ualified frombeing #itnesses to a #ill)

- ! La+/e) Be&ng a >&tness fo) h&s O+n Cl&ent

o R' 3n such instance, the la#yer must leave the trial of the

case to other counsel

o E,C. +hen it concerns merely formal matters

>hen O.e#t&on to a >&tness .e ade'

- R' *bjection to the %ualification of the #itness must be madebefore he has given any testimony

- E,C' 3G the incompetency appears during the trial, the objectionmust be made as soon as it becomes apparent.

Note' 3f not made #Cin the said time: right to object is deemed +3E7

2 &nds of In#o0-eten#/ to 7est&f/

1. !.sol*te'Gorbidden to testify in any mattero 2y reason of mental incapacity or immaturity (sec $1)

o 2y reason of marriage (sec $$)

$. Relat&%e'Gorbidden only on certain matters

o 2y reason of death or insanity of adverse party (7ead 8anIs

4tatute) sec $6

o 2y reason of "rivileged !ommunication (4ec $)

Se#$ 21$Dis;ualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity$

The ff -e)sons #annot .e +&tnesses:

(a) Those +hose 0ental #ond&t&on:- at the t!me of t'e!r product!on for exam!nat!on,- is such that they are incapable of intelligently ma0ing 0no#n their

perception to othersJ

(b) Ch&ld)en +hose 0ental 0at*)&t/ &s s*#h as to )ende) the0 &n#a-a.le :- of perceiving the facts respecting #hich they are eamined and- of relating them truthfully. (1=a)

Notes'

Unso*nd &nd( def&ned' That #hich affects the competency of the #itness#hich includes any mental aberration, #hether organic or functional, or

induced by drugs or hypnosis.

R*les on the *al&fat&on of So*ndness of &nd

- R'&nsoundness of mind does not per se render a #itness

incompetent, one may be medically insane but in la# capable ofgiving competent testimony.

Note's long as the #itness can convey ideas by #ords or signs and givesufficiently intelligent ans#ers to %uestions propounded, she is competent asa #itness EE if one is feeble-minded, a mental retardate, or isschi5ophrenic.

>hen Sho*ld a >&tness .e of So*nd &nd?

- *9 at the time of their production for eamination- 8ental unsoundness of the #itness at the time the fact to be testified

occurred ? ffects *9 his credibility.

>hen a)e DeafM0*tes Co0-etent >&tnesses?

- +hen they: (1) !an understand and appreciate the sanctity of anoathJ ($) !an comprehend facts they are going to testify to andJ (6)!an communicate their ideas through a %ualified interpreter.

")es*0-t&on of So*ndness of &nd

- R' Every person is presumed to be of sound mind and the person

challenging such has the burden of proving other#ise- E,C' ")&0a Fa#&e ")es*0-t&on of In#o0-eten#/ +hen'

o The person has been recently found to be of unsound mind

by a court of competent jurisdiction

o *ne is an inmate of an asylum for the insane

In the Case of a Ch&ld >&tness( the Co*)t &n Dete)0&n&ng h&s

Co0-eten#/ *st Cons&de) h&s Ca-a#&t/'

- t the time the fact to be testified to occurred, such that he couldreceive correct impressions thereofJ

- To comprehend the obligation of an oathJ and- To relate those facts truthfully at the time he is offered as a #itness.

en#e( the court should ta0e into account his capacity for observation,recollectionand communication.

Evidence ; This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A 1M ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


17/72

>hen &s a Ch&ld Cons&de)ed a Co0-etent >&tness

- R' child is competent if he can perceive and ma0e 0no#n his

perception- E,C' 3G the childIs testimony is punctured #C serious

inconsistencies as to lead one to believe that the child #as coached.!n Intell&gent Bo/ &s Undo*.tedl/ the Best O.se)%e)

- child is little influenced by the suggestions of others and describesobjects and occurrence as he has really seen them

- !hildren of sound mind are li0ely to be more observant of incidents#hich ta0e place #ithin their vie# than older people.

Ch&ld >&tness O)d&na)/ >&tness

*nly the judge is allo#ed to as0%uestions to the child during

preliminary eamination

*pposing counsels are allo#ed toas0

9eading %uestions are allo#ed They are generally not allo#ed

Testimony in a narrative from isallo#ed

3t is *T allo#ed

The child #itness is assisted by afacilitator

n ordinary #itness is not assisted

Se#$ 22$ Dis;ualification by reason of marria"e$

%ur!n& t'e!r marr!a&e, ne&the) the h*s.and no) the +&fe 0a/ test&f/ fo) o)aga&nst the othe)'

- #ithout the consent of the affected spouse,E!E"T:

- in a civil case by one against the other, or- in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or

the latterQs direct descendants or ascendants. ($/a)Notes'

R*le on a)&tal D&s=*al&fat&on S-o*sal I00*n&t/3'

- R' 7uring the marriage, neither the husband nor the #ife maytestify for or against the other #Co the consent of the affected spouse

E,CE"7IONS''ule on 7is%ualification does *T pply +hen:1. +hen the testimony #as made outside the marriage$. 3n a civil case by one spouse against another6. 3n a criminal case for a crime committed by one spouse against the

other or the latterIs direct descendants or ascendants

o Reason' The crime may be considered as having been

committed against the spouse and hence, the conjugalharmony sought to be protected no longer eists)

o 9imited only to direct ascendants and descendants R spouse

. People v. #asta


18/72

- against an eecutor or administrator or other representative of adeceased person, or

- against a person of unsound mind,upon a claim or demand against the estate of:

- such deceased person or against- such person of unsound mind,

#annot test&f/ as to an/ 0atte) of fa#t OCCURRIN'

- before the death of such deceased person or

- before such person became of unsound mind. ($/a)

Notes'

S*)%&%o)sh&- D&s=*al&fat&on R*le o) Dead an Stat*te

- !onstitutes only a -a)t&al d&s=*al&fat&on' #itness is notcompletely dis%ualified 2&T is only prohibited from testifying incertain matters specified

- D&s=*al&fat&on ONL a--l&es to' civil case or specialproceeding over the estate of a deceased or insane person

- In#o0-eten#/ to 7est&f/ !--l&es' #Cn the deceased died before or

after the commencement of the action against him prov!ded he isdead at the time of the testimony

Re=*&)e0ents fo) the Dead an Stat*te to !--l/'

1. The #itness offered for eamination is a party plaintiff, or the

assignor of said party, or a person in #hose behalf a case isprosecutedJ

$. The case is against the eecutor or administrator or otherrepresentative of a person deceased or of unsound mindJ

6. The case is upon a claim or demand against the estate of such person#ho is deceased or of unsound mind

. The testimony to be given is on matter of fact occurring before thedeath, of such deceased person or before such person became of

unsound mind.

Re;uirement o. 3: *'e 4!tness offered for exam!nat!on !s a part$ pla!nt!ff-or t'e ass!&nor of sa!d part$- or a person !n 4'ose be'alf a case !s

prosecuted

- 4uch plaintiff must be the real party in interest and not a mere

nominal party.

- The dis%ualification does *T apply:o #hen the counterclaim has been interposed by the defendant

as the plaintiff #ould thereby be testifying in his defenseo #hen the deceased contracted #ith the plaintiff through an

agent and said agent is alive and can testify, but thetestimony of the plaintiff should be limited to acts performed

by the agent.- !ss&gno)( def&ned' ssignor of a cause of action #hich has arisen,

and not the assignor of a right assigned before any cause of actionhas arisen

- 3nterest in the outcome of the suit, per se, does not dis%ualify a#itness from testifying

Re;uirement o. 5: *'e case !s a&a!nst t'e executor or adm!n!strator orot'er representat!ve of a person deceased or of unsound m!nd8

- 3t is necessary that the said defendant is being sued and defends insuch representative capacity and not in his individual capacity

- Even if the property has been judicially adjudicated to the heirs, theyare still protected under the rule

- The protection #ould etend to the heirs of the deceased and theguardians of persons of unsound mind

Re;uirement o. 6: *'e case !s upon a cla!m or demand a&a!nst t'e estateof suc' person 4'o !s deceased or of unsound m!nd

- The rule does not apply #here it is the administrator #ho brings anaction to recover property allegedly belonging to the estate or theaction is by the heirs of a deceased #ho represented the latter

- This is restricted to debts or demands enforceable by personal actionsupon #hich money judgments can be rendered.

- n action for damages for breach of agreement to devise property forservices rendered is a claim against an estate

Re;uirement o. 9: *'e test!mon$ to be &!ven !s on matter of fact occurr!n&before t'e deat'- of suc' deceased person or before suc' person became ofunsound m!nd.

Evidence ; This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A 1P ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


19/72

- egative testimony (testimony that a fact did not occur during thelifetime of the deceased) is *T covered by the prohibition ? as such

fact eists even after the decedentIs demise

7he R*le Does NO7 !--l/'

1. 9and registration cases instituted by the decedentIs representatives(since the oppositors are considered defendants and may thereforetestify against the petitioner)

$. 3t does not apply in cadastral cases ? since there is no plaintiff ordefendant

6. +hen the testimony is offered to prove a claim less than #hat isestablished under a #ritten document or is intended to prove afraudulent transaction against the deceased

o "rovided such fraud is first established by evidence al!undeo To apply the rule, the testimony must be against the estate

. +hen the dis%ualification is #aived - #hen the defendant:o does not timely object to the admission of such evidence oro testifies on the prohibited matters or cross eamines thereono or offers evidence to rebut such prohibited testimony

Reason fo) the R*le'

1. To prevent perjury$. To protect the estate from fictitious claims6. To give the parties an e%ual opportunity to present evidence

Se#$ 29$Dis;ualification by reason of privile"ed communication$

The ff$-e)sons #annot test&f/ as to 0atte)s lea)ned &n #onf&den#e &n theff$ #ases:

(a) Theh*s.and o) the +&fe, dur!n& or after t'e marr!a&e:

- cannot be eamined #Cout the consent of the other- as to any communication received in confidence by one from the

other during the marriageE!E"T:

- in a #&%&l #aseby one against the other, or- in a #)&0&nal #asefor a crime committed by one against the other or

the latterQs direct descendants or ascendantsJ

(b) natto)ne/ cannot:

- #ithout the consent of his client,

be eamined as to:- any communication made by the client to him, or his advice

- given thereon in the course of, or #ith a vie# to, professionalemployment,

*' can an atto)ne/s se#)eta)/( stenog)a-he)( o) #le)kbe eamined:- #ithout the consent of the client 7 his employer,- concerning any fact the 0no#ledge of #hich has been ac%uired in

such capacityJ

(c) -e)son a*tho)&ed to -)a#te 0ed&ne( s*)ge)/ o) o.stet)s

cannot in a civil case:- #ithout the consent of the patient,

be eamined as to:- any advice or treatment given by him or any information- #hich he may have ac%uired in attending such patient in a

professional capacity#hich information:

- #as necessary to enable him to act in such capacity, and- #hich #ould blac0en the reputation of the patientJ

d) 0&n&ste) o) -)&estcannot:- #ithout the consent of the person ma0ing the confession,

be eamined as to:- any confession made to or any advice- given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline

enjoined by the church to #hich the minister or priest belongsJ

(e) -*.l offe)cannot be eamined:

- dur!n& '!s term of off!ce +R after4ards ,- as to communications made to him in official confidence,

- #hen the court finds that the public interest #ould suffer by thedisclosure. ($1a)

Notes'

Bas&s of the ")&%&lege' The confidential nature of the communication>ho a/ O.e#t Unde) the D&s=*al&fat&on R*les ? *9 by the

persons protected thereunder (upon #hom the testimony is directed). Theymay also #aive the right to object.

[!RI7!L "RIVILEE]

Evidence ; This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A 1= ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


20/72

Re=*&s&tes fo) the D&s=*al&fat&on B/ Reason of a)&tal ")&%&lege to

!--l/'

1. There is a valid marital relationJ$. The privilege is invo0ed #ith respect to a confidential

communication bet#een the spouses during said marriageJ6. The spouse against #hom such evidence is being offered has not

given his or her consent to such testimony.

Instan#es >hen the ")&%&lege Cannot Be Cla&0ed'1. +ith respect to communications made prior to the marriage of the

spouses$. +ith respect to communication not intended to be 0ept in confidence

(e. dying declaration of a husband to his #ife as to #ho #as hisassailant since it is intended to be reported)

6. +hen the information is overheard by a third party #hether heac%uired the information legally or not. ( 6 rdperson is not covered

by the prohibition)o Provided:There must be no collusion bet#een the 6 rdperson

and one of the spouses.

. 3n a conspiracy bet#een spouses to commit a crime - since it is notthe intention of the la# to protect the commission of a crime.

L. +hen the spouses are living separately and there is an active

hostility. 2ut if there is a chance to reconcile, then this privilege #illapply.

M. +hen #aived

Note'ny information received during the marriage ispresumedto beconfidential

D&s=*al&fat&on B/ Reason of

a))&age Se# 223

D&s=*al&fat&on B/ Reason of

a)&tal ")&%&lege Se# 29a3

!an be invo0ed *9 if one of thespouses is a party to the action

!an be claimed #Cn the other spouseis a party to the action

pplies *9 if the marriage iseisting at the time the testimony isoffered

!an be claimed even after themarriage is dissolved

!onstitutes a vital prohibition for oragainst the spouse of the #itness

pplies *9 to confidentialcommunication bet#een spouses

*bjection #ould be raised on theground of marriage. Even if thetestimony is for or against the otherspouse.

The objection of privilege is raised#hen confidential maritalcommunication is in%uired into.

Note'+aiving 4ec $$ does not prevent the spouse from invo0ing sec $ and

vice versa. 4o even if the information is not confidential, the spouse may stillinvo0e sec $$ #hich is an absolute dis%ualification.

[!77ORNEMCLIEN7 "RIVILEE]

Re=*&s&tes fo) the D&s=*al&fat&on Based on !tto)ne/MCl&ent !MC3

")&%&lege to !--l/1. There is an attorney and client relationJ$. The privilege is invo0ed #ith respect to a confidential

communication bet#een them in the course of professionalemploymentJ

6. The client has not given his consent to the attorneyIs testimony.Note' 3G the attyIs secretary or cler0 is sought to be established ? then2*T the consent of the atty and the client is re%uired.

Note'The client o#ns the privilege and therefore he alone can invo0e it."rohibition is also applicable even to a counsel de of!c!o.

Bas&s'public policyConf&dent&al Co00*nat&on' The attorney must have been consulted inhis professional capacity EE if no fee has been paid.

- 3t includes preliminary communications made for the purpose ofcreating the -! relationship.B*t if it is not for the purpose ofcreating the -! relationship ? it #ill not be protected even if theclient subse%uently hires the same attorney)

- 3ncludes verbal statements as #ell as documents or papers entrustedto the attorney

Instan#es +hen the !MC ")&%&lege Does NO7 !--l/'

1. 3ntended to be made publicJ

$. 3ntended to be communicated to othersJ6. 3ntended for an unla#ful purposeJ

. 'eceived from third person not acting in behalf or as agent of theclientJ

L. 8ade in the presence of third parties #ho are strangers to theattorney-client relationship.

7he -e)&od to .e #ons&de)ed &s'

- the date #hen the privileged communication #as made by the clientto the attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the past or#ith respect to a crime intended to be committed in the future

BU7 Co00*nat&on Rega)d&ng'

- crime already committed - &s -)&%&leged #o00*nat&on

Evidence ; This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A $/ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


21/72

- !ontemplated criminal acts or in aid or furtherance thereof - &s not#o%e)ed$

7he !MC ")&%&lege Does NO7 !tta#h'

- +hen the attorney is a conspirator- +hen all the attorney has to do is to either affirm or deny the secret

revealed by the client to the court- +hen the information is voluntarily given after the attorney has

refused to accept employment.

["SICI!NM"!7IEN7 "RIVILEE]

"*)-ose' 3t is intended to facilitate confidential disclosure by a patient to aphysician of all facts and symptoms #Co apprehension to the end that thephysician may form a correct opinion and may safely treat his patient.

Re=*&s&tes fo) the D&s=*al&fat&on Based on "h/s&anM"at&ent "M"3

")&%&lege to !--l/

1. The physician is authori5ed to practice medicine, surgery, or

obstetricsJ$. The information #as ac%uired or the advice or treatment #as given

by him in his professional capacity for the purpose of treating andcuring the patientJ

6. The information, advice or treatment, if revealed, #ould blac0en thereputation of the patientJ

. The privilege is invo0ed in a civil case, #hether patient is a party or

not.Note'3t is not necessary that the "-" relationship #as created through the

voluntary act of the patient. 7eath of the patient does not etinguish therelation.

Note'The privilege etends to all forms of communications as #ell as to the

professional observations and eaminations of the patient

7he "M" ")&%&lege Does NO7 !tta#h'

1. The communication #as not given in confidenceJ$. The communication is irrelevant to the professional employmentJ6. The communication #as made for an unla#ful purpose, as #hen it is

intended for the commission or concealment of a crimeJ. The information #as intended to be made publicJL. There #as a #aiver of the privilege either by provisions of contract

or la#.

M. &nder 'ule $P of the 'ules of !ourt,o The results of the physical and mental eamination of a

person, #hen ordered by the court, are intended to be madepublic, hence not privileged.

o lso, result of autopsies or post mortem eaminations are

generally intended to be divulged in court.

7he ")&%&lege a/ !lso .e >a&%ed'

- E.Section 9 of said Rule 5>:if the party eamined o.ta&ns a)e-o)ton said eamination or takes the de-os&t&on of theea0&ne)(he thereby #aives any privilege regarding any othereamination of said physical or mental condition conducted or to beconducted on him by any other physician.

- E$+aiver of the privilege by contract may be found in stipulationsin life insurance policies.

[INIS7ERH"RIES7M"ENI7EN7 "RIVILEE]

Re=*&s&tes fo) the D&s=*al&fat&on Based on &n&ste)H")&estM"en&tent

")&%&lege to !--l/1. That the same #ere made pursuant to a religious duty enjoined in the

course of discipline of the sect or denomination to #hich theybelongJ and

$. They must be confidential and penitential in character.- E'under seal of the confessional

Note'3t is the person ma0ing the confession #ho can invo0e the privilege.

["RIVILEED COUNIC!7ION 7O "UBLIC OFFICERS]

Re=*&s&tes fo) the D&s=*al&fat&on Based on ")&%&leged Co00*nat&on

to "*.l Offe)s to !--l/1. That it #as made to the public officer in official confidenceJ$. That public interest #ould suffer by the disclosure of such

communication, as in the case of 4tate secrets.Note: +hen no public interest #ill be prejudiced - this rule #ill *T apply.

[O7ER INS7!NCES OF "RIVILEE]

R( 93 as amended b$ R( 1;;, the publisher, editor or duly accredited

reporter of any ne#spaper, maga5ine or periodical of general circulationcannot be compelled to reveal the source of any ne#s report or

Evidence ; This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A $1 ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


22/72

information appearing in said publication unless the court or a ouse orcommittee of !ongress finds that such revelation is demanded by the

4ecurity of the 4tate.

(rt. 233 of t'e Labor ode- ll information and statements made at

conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communications

and shall not be used as evidence in the 9'!, and conciliators andsimilar officials shall not testify in any court regarding any matter ta0en

up at the conciliation proceedings conducted by them.

oters cannot be compelled to reveal their ballots

Trade 4ecrets #ill be covered by this privilege

3nformerIs "rivilege'"rosecutor is not to be compelled to dispose the

identity of the informer unless the informer is already 0no#n to theaccused and #hen the identity of the informer is vital.

Those covered in the 4ecrecy of 2an0 7eposits 9a#

E* M: Eecutive "rivilege

3ncome Ta returns

nti-Oraft !ases

2$ 7ES7IONI!L "RIVILEE

Se#$ 2:$ Parental and filial privile"e$

o person may be compelled to test&f/ aga&nst h&s'

- parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants.($/a)

Notes'

- 3t is not a rule of dis%ualification but #as a privilege *T to testify- hence it #as referred to as 4f&l&al -)&%&lege

- o#ever, under the Gamily !ode, the descendant may be compelled

to testify against his parents and grandparents, if such testimony is

indispensable in prosecuting a crime against the descendant or byone parent against the other (rt. $1L).

- 2oth parental and filial privileges are granted to any personReason fo) the R*le' The reason for the rule is to preserve family

cohesionFNote' The privilege may no# be invo0ed in both civil and criminal cases.

6$ !DISSIONS !ND CONFESSIONS

Se#$ 2;$ Admission of a party$

The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be givenin evidence against him. ($$)

Notes'

!d0&ss&on( def&ned' ny statement of fact made by a party against hisinterest or unfavorable to the conclusion for #hich he contends or isinconsistent #ith the facts alleged by him.

!d0&ss&on Confess&onn admission is a statement of fact#hich does not involve an

ac0no#ledgement of guilt or liability

3t involves an ac0no#ledgment ofguilt or liability

3t may be epress or tacit 8ust be epress

8ay be made by third persons !an be made only by the partyhimself and in some instances, is

admissible against his co-accused

E-)ess !d0&ss&ons( def&ned' are those made in definite, certain andune%uivocal language.I0-l&ed !d0&ss&ons( def&ned' are those #hich may be inferred from theacts, declarations or omission of a party. Therefore, an admission may beimplied from conduct, statement of silence of a party.

Re=*&s&tes fo) !d0&ss&ons to .e !d0&ss&.le

1. They must involve matters of fact and not of la#J$. They must be categorical and definiteJ

6. They must be 0no#ingly and voluntarily madeJ. They must be adverse to the admitterIs interests, other#ise it #ould

be self-serving and inadmissible.Othe) Fo)0s of !d0&ss&ons'

Evidence ; This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A $$ ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


23/72

- erbal or #ritten, epress or tacit, judicial or etrajudicial-


24/72

buy peaceF but amounts to anadmission of liability (compromise

directed only to the amount to bepaid).

offenses (criminal negligence) or($)those allo#ed by la# to be

compromised

Rat&o &n C&%&l Cases' 3t is the policyof the la# to favor the settlement of

disputes, to foster compromises andto promote peace.

3n criminal cases ho#ever, theaccused may be permitted to prove

that such offer #as not made underconsciousness of guilt but merely to

avoid criminal action.

Instan#es +hen Offe) of Co0-)o0&se &s !d0&ss&.le

- In #ases of %&olat&on of the &nte)nal )e%en*e la+s

o 4ince the la# provides that the payment of any 3' ta may

be compromised, and all criminal violations may li0e#ise be

compromised E! those already filed and those involvingfraud.

- In )a-e #ases

o R'3n effect it may be compromised by actual marriage

o E,C'n offer to compromise for monetary consideration is

an implied admission.o People v. *alde?: n offer of marriage during the

investigation is an admission of guilt

ood Sa0a)&tan R*le' n offer to pay or the actual payment of the

medical, hospital or other epenses by reason of the victimIs injuries is notadmissible to prove civil or criminal liability.

No Co0-)o0&se &s Val&d U-on the Follo+&ng Cases'

1. !ivil status of persons$. alidity of marriage or legal separation

6. ny ground for legal separation. Guture supportL.


25/72

- to the act or declaration of a joint o#ner, joint debtor, or other personjointly interested #ith the party. ($Ma)

Notes'

Re=*&s&tes fo) 7h&s E#e-t&on 7o !--l/'

1. That the partnership, agency, or joint interest is established byevidence other than the act or declaration

o "artnership relation must be sho#nJ$. The act or declaration is #ithin the scope of the partnership, agency

or joint interesto +ith regard to a non-partnership affair: The fact that each

partner has individually made a substantially similaradmission does not render the aggregate admissioncompetent against the firm.

6. 4uch act or declaration must have been made during the eistence ofthe partnership, agency or joint interest.

o 4tatements made after the partnership has been dissolved do

not fall #ithin the eceptiono 2&T if they are made in connection #ith the #inding up of

the partnership ? such admission is 4T399 admissible.

R*le on !d0&ss&on ade B/ Co*nsel

- R' They are 78344329E against the client as the counsel acts inrepresentation and as an agent of the client

- E,C'3t must not amount to a compromise or confession ofjudgment (2ecause in compromise, the rule re%uires the consent ofthe client)

o&nt De.to)( def&ned' 3t does not refer to mere community of interest butshould be understood according to its meaning !n sol!dum and notmancomunada.Se#$ 6G$ Admission by conspirator$

The act or declaration of a conspirator:- relating to the conspiracy and- during its eistence,

may be given in evidence:- against the co-conspirator- GTE' the conspiracy is sho#n by evidence other than such act of

declaration. ($N)

Notes'

!--lat&on of the Re=*&)e0ent that the Cons-&)a#/ 0*st ")el&0&na)&l/

.e ")o%ed ./ E%&den#e othe) than the Cons-&)ato)Ps !d0&ss&on

- pplies *9 to etrajudicial acts or statements- *T to judicial admission as to a testimony given on the #itness

stand at the trial #here the party adversely effected has the

opportunity to cross eamine the declarant

!n !d0&ss&on ./ a Cons-&)ato) &s !d0&ss&.le !ga&nst h&s CoM

#ons-&)ato)

- 4uch conspiracy is sho#n by evidence aliundeo !onspiracy must be established by prima facie proof in the

judgment of the courtJ- The admission #as made during the eistence of the conspiracy

o fter the termination of a conspiracy, the statements of one

conspirator may not be accepted as evidence against any of

the other conspiratorsJ

- The admission related to the conspiracy itselfo 4hould relate to the common object.

E&sten#e of the Cons-&)a#/ a/ .e Infe))ed'

- Grom the acts of the accused- Grom the confessions of the accused- *r by prima facie proof thereof

Note' 3f there is no independent evidence of the conspiracy ? theetrajudicial confession !*T be used against his co-accused (res !nteral!osrule applies to both E< and < admissions)

- ere, there is no need to produce direct evidence - independent

circumstantial evidence #ill suffice.*ant*0 of E%&den#e to ")o%e Cons-&)a#/' !lear and convincingevidenceR*les on Et)a*d&al !d0&ss&ons ade ./ a Cons-&)ato) !F7ER the

#ons-&)a#/ had te)0&nated and BEFORE the t)&al

- R'*T admissible- E,C'dmissible against the co-conspirator IF:1. 8ade in the presence of the co-conspirator #ho epressly or

impliedly agreed therein ? as there is tacit admission under 4ec 6$

Evidence ; This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A $L ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


26/72

$. +here the facts stated in said admission are confirmed in theindividual etrajudicial confessions made by the co-conspirators

after their apprehension (&nte)lo#k&ng #onfess&ons36. s a circumstance to determine the credibility of a #itness

. s circumstantial evidence to sho# the probability of the co-conspiratorIs participation in the offense.

In o)de) that the E,M state0ents of a #oMa##*sed 0a/ .e taken &nto

#ons&de)at&on &n *dg&ng the test&0on/ of a +&tnessit is necessary that:1. The statements are made by several accused,$. The same are in all material respects identical, and6. There could have been no collusion among said co-accused in

ma0ing such statements.

Se#$ 61$Admission by privies$

+here one derives title to property from another:- the act, declaration, or omission of the latter, #hile holding the title,- in relation to the property,

is evidence against the former. ($P)

Notes'

")&%&t/( def&ned' mutual succession of relationship to the same rights ofproperty.")&%&es( def&ned' those #ho have mutual or successive relationship to thesame right of property or subject matter

7o .e !d0&ss&.le( 7he Follo+&ng Re=*&s&tes *st Con#*)'

1. There must be a relation of privity bet#een the party and thedeclarantJ

$. The admission #as made by the declarant, as predecessor in interest,#hile holding the title to the propertyJ

6. The admission is in relation to said property.

7he -)&%&t/ &n estate 0a/ a)&se: by succession, by acts mort!s causaor byacts !nter v!vos.Se#$ 62$ Admission by silence$

n act or declaration:- made in the presence and #ithin the hearing or observation of a party

#ho does or says nothing

- #hen the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action orcomment if not true, and

#hen proper and possible for him to do so,may be given in evidence against him. ($6a)

Notes'

7o .e !d0&ss&.le the FF Re=*&s&tes *st Con#*)'

1. e must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the otherpersonJ

$. e must have had the opportunity to deny it6. e must have understood the statementJ. e must have an interest to object, such that he #ould naturally have

done so, as if the statement #as not trueJL. The facts are #ithin his 0no#ledgeJM. The fact admitted or the inference to be dra#n from his silence is

material to the issue.

7he )*le on ad0&ss&on ./ s&len#e a--l&es'

- +here a person #as surprised in the act or- Even if he is already in the custody of the police.- pplies to both civil and criminal cases

R*les on Vol*nta)/ "a)t&-at&on &n a Reena#t0ent of the C)&0e

Cond*#ted ./ the "ole

- R'3t is considered a ta#&t ad0&ss&on of #o0-l&t/$

- Note' To be given any evidentiary #eight, the validity and efficacyof the confession must first be sho#n.

Note'3mplication of guilt is not derived from mere silence but from theac%uiescence in participating in the reenactment

!--lat&on of 7he R*le'

- DOES NO7 !--l/ IF: the statements adverse to the party #eremade in the course of an official investigation, as #here:

o he #as pointed out in a custodial investigation and #as

neither as0ed to reply nor comment on such imputations oro #hen the party had a justifiable reason to remain silent, as

#hen he #as acting on advice of counsel- It a/ !--l/'To adverse statements in #riting 3G the party #as

carrying on a mutual correspondence #ith the declarant.

Evidence ; This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A $M ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


27/72

o o#ever, if there #as no mutual correspondence, the rule is

relaed since such prompt response can generally not beepected if the party still has to resort to a #ritten reply.

Bas&s of R*le' 3t is basic instinct or a natural reaction to resist or deny a falsestatement

Do#t)&ne of !do-t&%e !d0&ss&on' partyIs reaction to a statement or actionby another person #hen it is reasonable to treat the partyIs reaction as an

admission of something stated or implied by the other person.

Instan#es >he)e 7he)e &s NO I0-l&ed !d0&ss&on

1. llegations of unli%uidated damages$. llegations #hich are not material to the cause of action6. !onclusions of factCla#. llegations of usury other than in a complaintL. 3f defendant has not filed his ans#er and is declared in default.

Se#$ 66$ #onfession$

The declaration of an accused ac0no#ledging his guilt:- of the offense charged, or

- of any offense necessarily included therein,may be given in evidence against him. ($=a)

Notes'

Confess&on( Def&ned' categorical ac0no#ledgement of guilt made by an

accused in a criminal case, #Co any eculpatory statement or eplanation.- 3G the accused admits the act 2&T alleges a justification ? it is

0e)el/ an ad0&ss&on- Confess&on of *dg0ent &n C&%&l CasesK dmission of 9iability

Fo)0s of Confess&on'

- *ral and under oath- 3n #riting (need not be under oath)

Note'4ec 66 refers to E-< !onfessions7/-es of Confess&ons

1. *d&al Confess&on' *ne made before a court in #hich the case ispending and in the course of legal proceedings therein

o 2y itself, can sustain conviction, even for a capital offense

o 2ut for !apital *ffenses: there must be evidence presented

other than the plea of guilty, also proof that such plea #asmade voluntarily and #C full comprehension

$. Et)a*d&al E,M3 Confess&on' *ne made in any other place oroccasion

o R'!annot sustain a conviction

o E,C: &nless corroborated by evidence of the corpus del!ct!

Re=*&)e0ents fo) the !d0&ss&.&l&t/ of E,M Confess&ons

1. The confession must involve an epress and categoricalac0no#ledgment of guiltJ

$. The facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offenseJ6. The confession must have been given voluntarilyJ

. the confession must have been intelligently made, the accusedreali5ing the importance or legal significance of this actJ

L. There must have been no violation of 4ection 1$, rt. 333 of the 1=PN!onstitution. ('ights in custodial investigation)

R*le on ")es*0-t&on of Vol*nta)&ness'!onfessions are presumed to bevoluntary and the onusis on the defense to prove that it #as involuntary(obtained by violence, intimidation, threat or promise of re#ard or leniency)

C&)#*0stan#es eld to .e+ndiciaof Vol*nta)&ness of a Confess&on'

- The confession contains details #hich the police could not havesupplied or invented.

- The confession contains details #hich could have been 0no#n onlyto the accused

- The confession contains statements #hich are eculpatory in nature- The confession contains corrections made by the accused in his

hand#riting or #ith his initials and #hich corrected facts are best0no#n to the accused.

- The accused is sufficiently educated and a#are of the conse%uencesof his act.

- 3t #as made in the presence of impartial #itnesses #ith the accusedacting normally on that occasion

- There is lac0 of motive on the part of the investigators to etract aconfession, #ith improbabilities and inconsistencies in the attempt ofthe accused to repudiate his confession.

- The accused %uestioned the voluntariness of the confession only for

the first time at the trial of the case. (Estoppel)

Evidence ; This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A $N ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


28/72

- The contents of the confession #ere affirmed by the accused in hisvoluntary participation in the reenactment of the crime, as sho#n by

his silent ac%uiescence thereto.- The facts contained in the confession #ere confirmed by other

subse%uent facts- fter his confession, the accused #as subjected to physical

eamination and there #ere no signs of maltreatment or the accusednever complained, but not #here he failed to complain to the judge

on a reasonable apprehension of further maltreatment as he #as stillin the custody of his torturers

!.andoned R*l&ng' 3nvoluntary confessions are admissible if it contains thetruth (Prior to Stonehil v. Diokno)

C*))ent R*l&ng' In%ol*nta)/ Confess&ons a)e IN!DISSIBLE( Rat&o'

1. They are unreliable$. *n grounds of humanitarian considerations, or6. *n legal considerations of their being violative of oneIs

constitutional right against self incrimination

E,M #onfess&on o.ta&ned -)&o) to the 1AJ6 Const&'3t is admissible even ifthe confessant #as not informed of his right to silence and to counsel andeven if made #hile under arrest ()at&o' consti mandate should be given a

prospective effect)

R*les on E,M Confess&on and the Const&t*t&on

- Ve).al E,MC ade >&tho*t Co*nsel

o IF made spontaneously after the assault ? ad0&ss&.le as

-a)t of res "estae*T under the confession rule

o ")o%&ded'3t #as not made under custodial investigation

- IF the a##*sed +as &nfo)0ed of h&s #onst& )&ghts and +as asked &f

he *nde)stood &t BU7 +as not asked &f he +anted to ee)#&se &to 378344329E

- E,MC *nde) C*stod&al In%est&gat&on

o 3f made #Co counsel ? 3nadmissible

o 3f prefaced by the investigator #C a statement of his consti

rights to #hich he ans#ered that he #as going to tell the

truth ? Not a +a&%e) of h&s #onst& )&ght to #o*nselo 3G accused is illiterate ? investigation officer must ma0e sure

that his rights #ere fully eplained to him

C*stod&al In%est&gat&on CI3( def&ned'

- Huestioning initiated by a la# officer after a person has been ta0eninto custody or deprived of freedom

- "resent #here the investigation ceases to be a general in%uiry andbegins to focus on a particular suspect ta0en into custody and as0ed

%uestions that lead into eliciting incriminating statements- 3ncludes invitationsF to an investigation

Note'There is * presumption of regularity in !3s

R&ghts of a "e)son *nde) In%est&gat&on1. 'ight to be informed of ones right to remain silent, to have

competent and independent counsel preferably of his o#n choiceand the charges against him

$. 'ight to be provided #ith counsel if accused cannot afford one- ote: +aiver of 1 D $ must be made: 3n #riting 7 in the

presence of counsel6. 'ight not to be treated #ith torture, force, violence, threat,

intimidation or other means #hich vitiate free #ill. 'ight not to be placed under secret detention or under a solitary,

incommunicado form of detention

NO7E'!onfession obtained in violation of these rights is 378344329E(rt 6 4ection 1$, 1=PN !onstitution)

Instan#es of V&t&ated Confess&on @ Rende)s E,MC IN!DISSIBLE

- ny form of coercion, #hether physical, emotional, or mental- promise of immunity or leniency 3G given by the offended party

or by the fiscal (person in a position to give such) vitiates a

confession, BU7 IF g&%en ./:o person #hom the accused could not have reasonably

epected to be able to comply #ith such promise (not aprosecuting officer) or could not bind the offended party -

3T is 7834429E

Note'IF the a##*sed %ol*nta)&l/ 0ade a se#ond #onfess&on afte) he had.een 0alt)eated

- $ndconfession is 7834429E ? rov!ded it is proven that he #asalready relieved by the fear caused by the previous maltreatment

Note' *dg0ent .ased solel/ on a %&t&ated #onfess&on &s NULL and VOID

- ccused may be released on a #rit of 'abeas corpus

!d0&ss&.&l&t/ of E,M Confess&ons

Evidence ; This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A $P ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


29/72

- Ent&)e #onfess&on sho*ld .e ad0&tted &n e%&den#e? 2&T the courtmay in appreciating the same reject portions #hich are incredible

- Confess&ons a)e ad0&ss&.le *T *9 to the offense charged2&T also to an/ offense ne#essa)&l/ &n#l*ded the)e&n

- Illegal #onfess&ons are inadmissible against the admitter but aread0&ss&.le aga&nst the -e)son +ho o.ta&ned s*#h #onfess&on

(violator of consti rights)- E,MC &s B&nd&ng ONL U-on ISELF and *T dmissible

gainst his !o-ccused, E,C'1. 3f the latter impliedly ac%uiesced in or adopted said confession by

not %uestioning its truthfulness$. 3f the accused persons voluntarily and independently eecuted

identical confessions #Co collusion (interloc0ing confessions) #hichconfessions are corroborated by other evidence and #Co contradiction

by the co-accused #ho #as presentJ6. +here the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after

being apprised of such confessionJ. 3f they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime #hich #as

confessed by one of the accused and said confession is used only as a

corroborating evidenceJL. +here the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to sho# the

probability of participation by the co-conspiratorJM. +here the confessant testified for his co-defendantJ orN. +here the co-conspiratorIs etra judicial confession is corroborated

by other evidence of record.Note' Fo) *d&al Confess&ons' 3t is binding to 2*T the confessant and

the other party

F)*&t of the "o&sono*s 7)ee Do#t)&ne'

- Evidence obtained in violation of the right of a person against

unreasonable searches and sei5ures are inadmissible- 3t refers to an ob-ect*T testimonial evidence- 3t does not refer to testimony or confessions obtained illegally.

9$ "REVIOUS CONDUC7 !S EVIDENCE

Se#$ 69$Similar acts as evidence$

Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one t&0e

- is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same orsimilar thing at anothe) t&0eJ

2&T it may be received to prove:- a specific intent or 0no#ledgeJ identity, plan, system, scheme, habit,

custom or usage, and the li0e. (Pa)

Notes'

")&n#&-le of Res Inte) !l&os !#ta' Things done bet#een strangers ought notto injure those #ho are not parties to it.

- 1st"a)t'4ec $P, rule 16/J 2nd"a)t'4ec 6, rule 16/Note' 4ec 6 applies to both civil and criminal cases and is strictly enforcedin all cases #here it is applicable

R' 1st4entence of !odal

E,C' +here the evidence or similar acts may prove:1. specific intent or 0no#ledgeJ$. 3dentityJ6. plan, system or schemeJ. specific habitJ orL. Established customs, usages and the li0e

Bas&s: Evidence must be confined to the point in issue in the case on trial.

Evidence of collateral offenses must not be received as substantive evidence ofthe offense on trial.

"*)-ose'To compel the defendant to meet charges of #hich the indictment

gives him no information, confuses him in his defense, raises a variety of issues,and thus diverts the attention of the court from the charge immediately before it.

E1amples of the E1ceptions:

- Evidence of another crime is admissible in a prosecution for robbery:o +hen it has the tendency to identify the accused or sho# his

presence at the scene of the crime

o *T #here the evidence is to prove a commission of

another crime #holly independent of that #hich is on trial.

- "revious acts of negligence, is admissible to sho# 0no#ledge orintent.

Evidence ; This revie#er is lifted from the boo0 of regalado and 2eda? not plagiari5ed you fuc0ers@A $= ; " a t i B o , E r i c a


30/72


31/72


32/72

Cons&de)at&ons fo) the Dete)0&nat&on of >hethe) State0ents >e)e

ade &n Cons#&o*sness of an I00&nent o) I0-end&ng Death'

1. The #ords or statements of the declarant on the same occasion$. is conduct at the time the declaration #as made

6. 4erious nature of his #ounds as #ould necessarily engender a beliefon his part that he #ould not survive.

Inte)%en&ng 7&0e F)o0 the De#la)at&on to the !#t*al Death' !n

I00ate)&al Fa#to) &n Dete)0&n&ng &ts !d0&ss&.&l&t/- 3mmaterial as long as the declaration #as made under the

consciousness of impending death- This is a %uestion of fact for the courts to determine- o retroaction must be made by the declarant- 3f the gravity of the #ounds did not diminish ? 77 is still admissible

even if the decedent died days after the declaration- 3nterval of Time is taken &nto a##o*nt ONL +hen the

de#la)at&on &s a0.&g*o*s

-*est&on' Do /o* th&nk /o* +&ll d&e?< IF the !ns+e) &s

- 3 #ill not die if treatedF - admissible as part of res &estaeor 77- 3 cannot ascertainF ? admissible as part of res gestae or 77- 3 donIt 0no#F ? *T admissible- 3t all dependsF R condition improved ? 77s thereafter are *T

admissibleNote' DDs 0a/ .e )ega)ded as -a)t of res "estaeas they #ere made soonafter a startling occurrence #Co any opportunity for fabrication or concoction

- 3f the declarant doesnIt die ? it is part of res &esta

DD on#e -)o%ed and ad0&tted ? &ts #)ed&.&l&t/ and +e&ght shall .edete)0&ned l&ke an/ othe) test&0on&al e%&den#e

- !ircumstances such as surprise, rapidity and confusion should beta0en into consideration in giving #eigh to the testimony of the

declarant #hen identifying his assailants- It 0a/ .e &0-*gned' in the same manner as the testimony of any

other #itness on the stand

People v. /allare:77 has to be admitted #ith utmost care and should beconsidered in light of

208315285 evidence regalado book outline

Documents