United States vs Concepcion 31 Phil 182. No. 10396. July 29, 1915

Doctrine:

Witness competency; husband and wife

Declaration made in another case

Facts:

                The defendant, Teresa Concepcion, was charged with a violation of the Opium Law. The complaint alleged that she had in her possession and under her control a quantity of opium. She was arrested, arraigned, pleaded not guilty, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of P300 and costs.

                It appears from the evidence that the house of Felix RIcablanca, husband of the defendant, was searched for opium. During the search Felix told the defendant to take from the bed a can alleged to contain opium, and throw it away. She went to the bed, found the can, and at that moment was discovered by the policeman. She denied prior knowledge of the existence of the can. This fact was supported by the declaration of her husband. The policemen, at that moment, evidently believed that the opium belonged to the husband, Felix Ricablanca, for the reason that they arrested him and took him to the pueblo, and later filed a complaint against him for a violation of the Opium Law .He was later brought to trial and was acquitted.

No complaint was presented against the present defendant until after a period of more than ten months had elapsed. The policemen who were present at the time the opium was found certainly knew no more about the facts at the time the complaint was presented against the present defendant than they did on the night when the opium was found and when they arrested her husband.

Issue:

                Whether or not the testimony of the husband is admissible against the defendant.

Ruling:

                No.

                It will be noted that said action prohibits a husband from giving testimony against his wife without her consent, except in a civil action between husband and wife, and in a criminal action when the crime was committed by one against the other. The present is not a civil action between husband and wife; neither it is a criminal action where the crime was committed by one against the other. It would seem to clear, therefore, that the testimony of the husband is not admissible if the wife objected. The testimony of the husband should not have been admitted.

There still another objection to the admissibility of the testimony of the husband. His testimony was not given in the present case. It was a copy of his declaration given in another case, in which he was the defendant and in which he was charged with the illegal possession of the opium in question. It will be remembered that at the time the opium was found in the house of the defendant, the husband of the present defendant was arrested; that later a complaint was presented against him. During the trial he testified in his own behalf. It was the testimony given in that case which was presented as proof in the present case. He was not called as a witness. His testimony is not only not admissible under the provisions above quoted of section 383, but it is not admissible under the Philippine Bill, which provides: "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf."

Ramirez vs Orientalist Co. and Fernandez 38 Phil 634. No. 11897. September 24, 1918

Doctrine: Parol evidence to show character in which party is bound.

Facts:

                The Orientalist Company is a corporation, duly organized under the laws of the Philippine Islands, was engaged in the business of maintaining and conducting a theatre in the city of Manila for the exhibition of cinematographic films.  The plaintiff J. F. Ramirez was, at the same time, a resident of the city of Paris, France, and was engaged in the business of marketing films for a manufacturer or manufacturers, there engaged in the production or distribution of cinematographic material. In this enterprise the plaintiff was represented in the city of Manila by his son, Jose Ramirez.

                The written contract which was the subject of this action contained corporate name signed at the lower right hand corner of the contract, in the manner usual with a party signing in the character of principal obligor. The name of another individual was signed somewhat below and to the left of the corporate signature, after the customary manner of those who sign in a subsidiary capacity, but no words were written to indicate clearly whether this individual signed as a principal obligor or surety.

Issue:

                Where a name is signed ambiguously, whether or not parol evidence is admissible to show the character in which the signature was affixed.

Ruling:

                Yes.

                Rule of law which declares that oral evidence is admissible to show the character in which the signature was affixed. This conclusion is perhaps supported by the language of the second paragraph of article 1281 of the Civil Code, which declares that if the words of a contract should appear contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the intention shall prevail. But the conclusion reached is deducible from the general principle that in case of ambiguity parol evidence is admissible to show the intention of the contracting parties.

                Therefore, parol evidence was admissible to show that the intention of the parties was that he should be bound as surety and not jointly with other party.

Balitaan vs Court of Appeals 115 SCRA 729. July 30, 1982

 Facts:

                Special Counsel Arcadio Aguila filed with the Municipal Court of Bauan, Batangas, an information charging respondent Rita De los Reyes of the crime of estafa.

                The information reads as follows:

That in, about and during the period comprised between April 27, 1982 to June, 1972, inclusive, in the Municipality of Bauan, Batangas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, being then an employee of one Luz E. Balitaan, owner of a baby dresses mending shop in Barrio Aplaya of the said municipality and having collected and received from Uniware, Inc., a business establishment in Makati, Rizal, to which finished baby dresses are turned over after they have been mended and made, the sum of P127.58 in payment of work done on baby dresses by said Luz E. Balitaan, and under the express obligation on the part of the accused to immediately account for and deliver the said amount of P127.58 to said Luz E. Balitaan, with unfaithfulness and grave abuse of confidence and in spite of repeated demands made to the said accused to turn over the said amount of P127.58, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert the sum of P127.58 to her (accused) own use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said Luz E. Balitaan in the aforementioned amount of P127.58.

Contrary to law.

At the initial hearing on September 18, 1973, complaining witness Luz E. Balitaan, herein petitioner, was called as the prosecution's first witness. She testified that she was the proprietress of a baby dress mending shop, that her business was engaged in the sewing of baby dresses with the accused, Rita de los Reyes, herein respondent, as the one in charge of the management of her business, including the procurement of unsewed baby dresses from, and the delivery of finished dresses to Unaware, Inc.

At this juncture, counsel for the accused Rita de los Reyes objected to the testimony of complaining witness, Luz E. Balitaan and presented two motions.

Issue:

                Whether or not there is variance between the allegation in the information for estafa and the proof established by the petitioner’s testimony.

Ruling:

                No.

                It is fundamental that every element of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the complaint or information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be stated must be determined by reference to the definitions and the essentials of the specific crimes.

Thus, in the case at bar, inasmuch as the crime of estafa through misappropriation or with grave abuse of confidence is charged, the information must contain these elements: (a) that personal property is received in trust, on commission, for administration or under any other circumstance involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though the obligation is guaranteed by a bond; (b) that there is conversion or diversion of such property by the person who has so received it; (c) that such conversion, diversion or denial is to the injury of another and (d) that there be demand for the return of the property.

The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.

However, it is often difficult to say what is a matter of evidence, as distinguished from facts necessary to be stated in order to render the information sufficiently certain to identify the offense. As a general rule, matters of evidence, as distinguished from facts essential to the description of the offense, need not be averred. Moreover, reasonable certainty in the statement of the crime suffices. All that is required is that the charge be set forth with such particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact offense which the accused is alleged to have committed and will enable him intelligently to prepare his defense, and if found guilty to plead her conviction, in a subsequent prosecution for the same offense.

Applying these principles, The Court ruled that the existence of the three checks need not be alleged in the Information. This is an evidentiary matter which is not required to be alleged therein. Further, that these checks, as testified by petitioner amounted to P1,632.97 did not vary the allegation in the Information that respondent Rita de los Reyes misappropriated the amount of P127.58. Proof of the checks and their total amount was material evidence of the fact that respondent misappropriated the amount of P127.58 which was but a part of the total sum of the checks.

Inasmuch as the Information herein sufficiently charges the crime of estafa under paragraph 1(b) of Article 315, Revised Penal Code, We shall now determine whether the testimonies of complaining witness prove the same or tend to prove instead estafa under paragraph 2(a) of the same article.

It is true that estafa under paragraph 1(b) is essentially a different offense from estafa under paragraph 2(a) of the same article because the elements of these two offenses are not the same. In estafa under paragraph 1(b), which is committed with grave abuse of confidence, it must be shown that the offender received money or other personalty in trust or on commission or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same but misappropriated it to the prejudice of another. It is also necessary that previous demand be made on the offender. To sustain a conviction for estafa under paragraph 2(a), on the other hand, deceit or false representation to defraud and the damage caused thereby must be proved. And no demand is necessary.

This does not mean, however, that presentation of proof of deceit in a prosecution for estafa under paragraph 1(b) is not allowed. Abuse of confidence and deceit may co-exist. Even if deceit may be present, the abuse of confidence win characterize the estafa as the deceit will be merely incidental or as the Supreme Court of Spain held, is absorbed by abuse of confidence.

It has also been held that as long as there is a relation of trust and confidence between the complainant and the accused and even though such relationship has been induced by the accused thru false representations and pretense and which is continued by active deceit without truthfully disclosing the facts to the complainant, the estafa committed is by abuse of confidence although deceit co-exists in its commission.

Thus, the questioned testimony eliciting the fact that accused respondent falsely represented to the complainant-petitioner that the amount of P127.58 out of the total of P1,632.97 belonged to Cesar Dalangin may not be said to be at variance with the allegations of the Information. The presence of deceit would not change the whole theory of the prosecution that estafa with abuse of confidence was committed. Besides, in estafa by means of deceit, it is essential that the false statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces the complainant to part with the thing. The municipal court properly denied, therefore, the motion to strike out the testimonies anent use of false representations.

National Power Corporation vs Codilla, Jr. 520 SCRA 412. April 3, 2007

Facts:

                M/V Dibena Win, a vessel of foreign registry owned and operated by private respondent Bangpai Shipping, Co., allegedly bumped and damage petitioners Power Barge 209 which was then moored at the Cebu International Port. Petitioner filed before the RTC a complaint for damages against private respondent Bangpai thereafter, petitioner amended the complaint impleading Wallem Shipping Inc as additional defendant.

                Petitioner after adducing evidence during the trial of the case, filed a formal offer of evidence consisting of Xerox and photocopies of the documents it offered (Exhibits A to V together with the sub-marked portions). Private respondents filed their respective objections and motion to strike out.

                The plaintiff attempted to justify the admission of the photocopies by contending that the photocopies offered are equivalent to the original of the document on the basis of the Electronic Evidence.

                Public respondent judge issued the assailed order denying the admission and excluding from the records petitioners Exhibits.

                Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, the appellate Court issued decision dismissing the petition.

Issue:

                Whether or not the photocopies offered by petitioner are admissible as evidence for being equivalent to the original of the document on the basis of Electronic Evidence.

Ruling:

                No.

                Section 1 of Rule of the Rules on Electronic Evidence provides:

An Electronic document refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other models of written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any printout, readable by sight or other means which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. For the purpose of these Rules, the term electronic document may be used interchangeably with electronic data message.

The rules use the word information to define an electronic document received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. This would suggest that an electronic document is relevant only in terms of the information contained therein, similar to any other document which is presented in evidence as proof of its contents. However, what differentiates an electronic document from a paper-based document is the manner by which the information is processed; clearly, the information contained in an electronic document is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically.

Having thus declared that the offered photocopies are not tantamount to electronic documents, it is consequential that the same may not be considered as the functional equivalent of their original as decreed in the law.

The trial court was correct in rejecting there photocopies as they violate the best evidence rule and are therefore of no probative value being incompetent pieces of evidence.

When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. The offeror of secondary evidence is burdened to prove the predicates thereof: (a) the loss or destruction of the original without bad faith on the part of the proponent/offeror which can be shown by circumstantial evidence of routine practices of destruction of documents; (b) the proponent must prove by a fair preponderance of evidence as to raise a reasonable inference of the loss or destruction of the original copy; and (c) it must be shown that a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful search has been made for the document in the proper place or places. However, in the case at bar, though petitioner insisted in offering the photocopies as documentary evidence, it failed to establish that such offer was made in accordance with the exceptions as enumerated under the above quoted rule. Accordingly, we find no error in the Order of the court a quo denying admissibility of the photocopies offered by petitioner as documentary evidence.

Parañaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. vs Court of Appeals 268 SCRA 727. February 26, 1997

Facts:

                Defendant Catalina Santos is the owner of 8 parcels of land located in Parañaque. Frederick Chua leased the property of defendant and assigned all rights and interest and participation in the leased property to Lee Ching Bing by deed of assignment. Lee Ching Bing also assigned all his rights and interest in the leased property to Parañaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. All of these contracts/deeds were registered.

Paragraph 9 of the assigned leased (sic) contract provides among others that:

9. That in case the properties subject of the lease agreement are sold or encumbered, Lessors shall impose as a condition that the buyer or mortgagee thereof shall recognize and be bound by all the terms and conditions of this lease agreement and shall respect this Contract of Lease as if they are the LESSORS thereof and in case of sale, LESSEE shall have the first option or priority to buy the properties subject of the lease;

                Defendant Santos sold the eight parcels of land subject of the lease to Defendant David Raymundo, for a consideration of P5Million, in contravention of the contract of lease, for the first option or priority to buy was not offered by defendant Santos to the plaintiff. Santos, realizing the error, she had it reconveyed to her for the same consideration of P5Million and subsequently the property was offered for sale to plaintiff for the sum of P15Million, however the period of 10 days to make good of the offer expired. Another deed of sale was executed by Santos in favor of Raymundo for consideration of P9Million. Hence, the petitioner filed a complaint before the RTC.

                RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of a valid cause of action. It ratiocinated that Santos complied with the lease agreement by offering the properties for sale to the plaintiff and there was a definite refusal on the part of the plaintiff to accept the offer.

                CA affirmed in toto the ruling of RTC.

Issue:

                Whether or not there is valid cause of action.

Ruling:

                Yes.

The principal legal question, as stated earlier, is whether the complaint filed by herein petitioner in the lower court states a valid cause of action. Since such question assumes the facts alleged in the complaint as true, it follows that the determination thereof is one of law, and not of facts. There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts.

A cause of action exists if the following elements are present: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right, and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.

A careful examination of the complaint reveals that it sufficiently alleges an actionable contractual breach on the part of private respondents. Under paragraph 9 of the contract of lease between respondent Santos and petitioner, the latter was granted the first option or priority to purchase the leased properties in case Santos decided to sell. If Santos never decided to sell at all, there can never be a breach, much less an enforcement of such right. But on September 21, 1988, Santos sold said properties to Respondent Raymundo without first offering these to petitioner. Santos indeed realized her error, since she repurchased the properties after petitioner complained. Thereafter, she offered to sell the properties to petitioner for P15 million, which petitioner, however, rejected because of the ridiculous price. But Santos again appeared to have violated the same provision of the lease contract when she finally resold the properties to respondent Raymundo for only P9 million without first offering them to petitioner at such price. Whether there was actual breach which entitled petitioner to damages and/or other just or equitable relief, is a question which can better be resolved after trial on the merits where each party can present evidence to prove their respective allegations and defenses.

The decision of the RTC and CA are reversed and set aside. The case is remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.

Salita vs Magtolis 233 SCRA 100. June 13, 1994

Facts:

                Erwin Espinosa and Joselita Salita were married. A year later, their union turned sour and they separated in fact. Subsequently, Erwin sued for annulment on the ground that Joselita was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of their marriage although the same became manifest only thereafter. Dissatisfied with the allegation in the petition, Joselita moved for a bill of particulars which the trial court granted. Subsequently, in his bill of particulars, Edwin specified that at the time of their marriage, Joselita was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of their marriage in that she was unable to understand and accept the demands made by his profession – that of a newly qualified Doctor of Medicine – upon petitioner’s time and efforts so that she frequently complained of his lack of attention to her even to her mother, whose intervention caused petitioner to lose his job.

                Still Joselita was not contented with the Bill of Particulars. She argued that the assertion in the bill of particulars is a statement of legal conclusion made by petitioner’s counsel and not an averment of ultimate facts as required by the Rules of Court.

                The trial court issued an order upholding its sufficiency and directing Joselita to file her responsive pleading.

                The petition for certiorari was denied due course by the Court of Appeals.

                Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner insist that the allegations in the Bill of Particulars constitute a legal conclusion, not an averment of facts, and fails to point out the specific essential marital obligations she allegedly was not able to perform, and thus render it insufficient if not irrelevant to her husband’s cause of action. She rationalizes that her insistence on the specification of her particular conduct or behavior with the corresponding circumstances of time, place and person does not call for information on evidentiary matters because without these details she cannot adequately and intelligently prepare her answer to the petition.

Issue:

                Whether or not the allegations in the petition for annulment of marriage and the subsequent bill of particulars filed in amplification of the petition is sufficient.

Ruling:

                Yes.

                Private respondent has already alleged that “petitioner was unable to understand and accept the demands made by his profession x x x upon his time and efforts x x x x” Certainly, she can respond to this. To demand for more details would indeed be asking for information on evidentiary facts – facts necessary to prove essential or ultimate facts. For sure, the additional facts called for petitioner regarding her particular acts or omissions would be evidentiary, and to obtain evidentiary matters is not the function of a motion for bill of particulars.

                Ultimate facts have been defined as those facts which the expected evidence will support. As stated by private respondent, the term does not refer to the details of probative matter or particular evidence by which these material elements are to be established. It refers to the facts which the evidence on the trial will prove, and not the evidence which will be required to prove the existence of those facts.

                There being no reversible error, the instant petition is denied and the question resolution of Court of Appeals is affirmed.

EVIDENCE

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Article III

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

                (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

                (2) No torture, force, violence. Threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

                (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

                (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

                (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Article VIII

Section 5. (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleadings, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

Section 14. No court shall render a decision without stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

                No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefore.

Sources of the Rules on Evidence

1.        1987 Philippine Constitution

2.        Rules 128-134 of the Rules of Court

3.        Resolution of the Supreme Court

4.        Judicial Affidavit Rule

5.        Child Witness examination Rule

6.        DNA Evidence Rule

7.        Rule 115 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure

8.        RA 4200: Anti-Wire Tapping Act

9.        RA 9372: Human Securities Act

10.     Substantive and remedial statute

11.     Judicial Decisions

RULE 128. GENERAL PROVISIONS

R128.1. Evidence defined. – Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.

-          Means in ascertaining the truth in judicial proceedings.

-          Sanctioned or allowed by the Rules of Court.

-          Purpose is to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact in a judicial proceeding.

Evidence

-          It is the mode and manner of proving competent facts In judicial proceedings (Bustos vs Lucero, 81 Phil 640).

-          It is the medium of proof.

Proof

-          It is the result or effect of evidence.

-          It is merely the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from a consideration of the evidence.

Factum probandum

-          It is the fact or proposition to be established.

Factum probans

-          It is the facts or material evidencing the fact or proposition to be established.

Nature of the Rules on Evidence

                It is procedural, waivable in character, and can be subject to the stipulation of the parties provided it is not contrary to law, morals, and public policy.

When evidence is not required

a.        The case presents a question of law;

b.        The pleadings (civil case) do not tender an issue of fact;

c.        By agreement of the parties;

d.        Matters of judicial notice and on matters judicially admitted

e.        The law or rule presumes the truth of a fact.

Evidence in Civil cases vs Criminal cases

	Civil Case	Criminal Case
Burden of Proof	Claim by a preponderance of evidence.	The guilt of the accused has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Offer of Compromise	It is not an admission of any liability and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.	An offer by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. XPN: Those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromise.
Presumption of Innocence	The concept does not apply and generally there is no presumption for or against a party. XPN: in certain cases provided by law.	The accused enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence.

R128.2.      Scope. The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules.

-          Principle of uniformity.

-          It applies only to judicial proceedings.

	Scope	Applicability
Rules of Evidence	The same in all courts and in all trials and hearings XPN: as otherwise provided by law or these rules
DNA Evidence Rule	a.        All criminal actions; b.        Civil actions; c.        Special Proceedings.
Child Witness Examination Rule	All criminal and non-criminal proceedings involving child witness.	Examination of child witness who are victims of crime, accused of a crime, and witness to a crime.
Electronic Evidence Rule	a.        All civil actions and proceedings; b.        Quasi-judicial and administrative cases
Judicial Affidavit Rule	a.        MTCs XPN: small claims b.        RTC and SDC c.        SB, CTA, CA, SAC d.        Investigating officers and bodies authorized by the SC to receive evidence (IBP) e.        Special courts and quasi-judicial bodies	Criminal Actions: 1.        Where the maximum of imposable penalty does not exceed six years; 2.        Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or 3.        With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.

R128.3. Admissibility of Evidence. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by law or these rules.

Requisites for the admissibility of Evidence

1.        It must be relevant to the issue sought to be proved; and

2.        It must be competent or not otherwise excluded by law of these rules.

Requisites of admissibility of evidence in the entries of official records

1.        The entry was made by a public offices or by another person specifically enjoined by law to do so;

2.        It was made by the public officer in the performance of his or her duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and

3.        The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts stated by him or her, which must have been acquired by him or her personally or through official information.

Kinds of Admissibility

a.        Conditional Admissibility

Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be immaterial or irrelevant, unless it is connected with the other facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence may be received on condition that the other facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise the evidence already given will be stricken out.

b.        Multiple Admissibility

Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any or all purposes for which it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for its admissibility therefore.

c.        Curative Admissibility

It treats upon the right of a party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by the adverse party.

It is allowed to answer the inadmissible evidence.

Requisites:

a.        Whether the competent evidence was seasonably objected to;

b.        Whether, regardless of the objection, the admission of such evidence will cause a plain and unfair prejudice to the party against whom it was admitted.

When to determine the admissibility of evidence

a.        At the time it is offered to the court (R132.35).

b.        When it is presented in court for its viewing or evaluation (Object Evidence).

c.        At the time the witness is called on the witness stand (testimonial evidence).

d.        When it is formally offered and before resting the case (documentary evidence).

Admissibility of Evidence	Probative weight of evidence
It refers to the question of whether or not the circumstance/evidence is to be considered at all.	It refers to the question of whether or not it proves an issue.

Admissibility of Evidence	Credibility of Evidence
It refers to the duty of the court to allow the evidence.	It refers to the worthiness of belief of the evidence.

Newly Discovered Evidence

a.        It is discovered after trial;

b.        It could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence;

c.        It is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and

d.        If such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted.

Aspects of Newly discovered evidence

a.        Temporal

When was the evidence discovered?

b.        Predictive

When should or could it have been discovered?

Discovery

-          The act, process, or an instance of gaining knowledge of or ascertaining the existence of something previously unknown or unrecognized.

Instances of valid search warrant

1.        If the person searched gives his consent to the search.

2.        If the purpose of the search is the enforcement of customs and tariff laws.

3.        Search and seizure of vessels and aircraft.

4.        In case of insurgency and exigency of the moment.

5.        When the search involves cases of inspection of building or other premises for enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations.

6.        Prohibited articles within the plain view/ open to eye and hand of the law enforcement officer who comes upon them inadvertently.

7.        When the search is effected on the basis of probable cause such as stop and search without warrant at checkpoints.

Requisites for the admissibility of illegal drugs

1.        The accused is in possession of the object identified as prohibited or regulated drug;

2.        That such possession is not authorized by law; and

3.        That the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

Chain of custody

It is essential in establishing the link between the article confiscated from the accused to the evidence that is ultimately presented to the court for its appreciation.

R128.4. Relevancy; collateral matters. Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

RULE 129. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

Judicial Notice

-          It means no more than the court will bring to its aid and consider without proof of the facts, its knowledge of those matters of public concern which are known by all well-informed persons.

Purpose of Judicial Notice

1.        Taking place of proof in connection with the issue in the case; and

2.        It will abbreviate the proceedings.

Requisites of Judicial notice

1.        That it must be a matter of general or common knowledge;

2.        That it must be well and authoritatively settled, and doubtful and uncertain;

3.        That it must be known to be within the limits of jurisdiction of the court.

Principle on which Judicial Notice is based.

a.        Convenience

Considering that parties will be relieved of its duty to present proof on facts which is already judicially known to the judge; and

b.        Expediency

Considering that trial will be more speedy and expeditious since facts already known to the judge requires no more presentation of proof.

R129.1. Judicial notice, when mandatory.

                A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.

When is Judicial notice mandatory

1.        The existence of territorial extent of states;

2.        Their political history;

3.        Forms of government and symbols of nationality;

4.        The law of nations;

5.        The admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;

6.        The political constitution and history of the Philippines;

7.        The official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines;

8.        The laws of nature;

9.        The measure of time;

10.     The geographical divisions.

Other matters when judicial notice is mandatory

1.        Amendment to the Rules of Court

2.        Decision of the Supreme Court

3.        Official acts or declaration of the President

4.        Banking practices

5.        Financial status of the government

6.        Powers of the President

7.        Court of records

R129.2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.

When is judicial notice discretionary.

1.        Those matters which are of public knowledge; or

2.        Matters which are capable to unquestionable demonstration; or

3.        Matters which are ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.

Doctrine of presumed-identity approach/Processual Presumption

                When a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours.

Requirements to take judicial notice of foreign laws

1.        The issue involved is one of fact and not of law; and

2.        The foreign law must be proved like any other fact.

XPN:

1.        When the court has actual knowledge of foreign laws;

2.        When the court has already ruled upon in a case involving the said foreign law.

R129.3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon.

                After trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on request, of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.

When hearing is necessary in case of taking of judicial notice.

1.        During trial

2.        After trial but before judgment or on appeal

R129.4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake of that no such admission was made.

Requisites for a valid judicial admission

1.        Definite

2.        Certain

3.        Unequivocal

Judicial Admission vs Judicial Confession

Judicial Admission	Judicial Confession
It is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case.	It is an acknowledgement of one’s guilt in the same case.
It does not result in liability.	It connotes admission of one’s liability.
It may be express or implied.	It is always express
It is more of a broader scope which includes judicial confession.	It is only limited to the confession of a person.
It may be made by any party.	It can only be made by the accused in criminal proceedings.

Judicial Admission vs Extra-judicial Admission

Judicial Admission	Extra-judicial Admission
It is an admission made in the same case.	It is an admission in another case or out of court admission.
It need not be proven by the party being conclusive on the part of the admitter, unless it was made through palpable mistake or when there is no admission made.	It needs to be alleged and proved like any other fact.

Instances were judicial admissions can be made

1.        In the pleadings;

2.        During pre-trial conference;

3.        In motions filed before the court;

4.        By the witness on the witness stand;

5.        In answer to written request for admission;

6.        In the answer in the written interrogatories;

7.        In open court during trial;

8.        On testimonies, deposition and affidavits;

9.        Agreement of facts by the parties.

Hypothetical Admission Rule (R16)

-          When a motion to dismiss is filed, material allegations of the complaint are deemed hypothetically admitted.

-          It extends not only from the relevant and material facts well pleaded in the complaint, but also to inferences that may be fairly deduced from them.

RULE 130. RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY

Kinds of Evidence

a.        Object or Real Evidence

It is directly addressed to the senses of the court and consists of tangible things exhibited, viewed, or demonstrated in open court.

b.        Documentary Evidence

It consists of writing or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents.

c.        Testimonial Evidence

It is oral evidence given by the witness on the witness stand or in any proceeding.

d.        Direct Evidence

It is the kind of evidence if believed proves the fact in issue.

e.        Circumstantial Evidence

It proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference.

f.         Demonstrative Evidence

It demonstrates the real thing.

g.        Corroborative Evidence

It merely supplements evidence which has already been given tending to strengthen the same.

h.        Cumulative Evidence

It is of the same kind and character tending to prove the same proposition.

i.         Positive Evidence (Testimony)

The witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur

j.         Negative Evidence

It is a testimony that a certain fact did not exist.

k.        Prima Facie Evidence

It is sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted.

l.         Conclusive Evidence

It establishes the fact.

m.      Substantial Evidence

It is the level of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

The quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in proceedings before administrative and quasi-judicial agencies.

n.        Preponderance of Evidence

It means probability of the truth.

It is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side.

o.        Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

It is the required quantum of evidence in order to convict an accused.

p.        Clear and Convincing Evidence

It establishes in minds of a trier of facts a firm belief on the existence of the fact in issue.

q.        Competent Evidence

It is not otherwise excluded by law or by the rules.

r.         Incompetent Evidence

It is excluded by law or by the rules.

s.        Relevant Evidence

It has a relation to the fact in issue.

t.         Material Evidence

It is directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules on substantive law and pleadings.

u.        Rebuttal Evidence

It is any component evidence to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove adversary’s proof.

v.        Sur-Rebuttal Evidence

Evidence in reply to or to rebut new matter introduced in rebuttal.

w.      Primary Evidence

It assures the greatest certainty of fact sought to be proved, and which does not in itself, indicate the existence of other and better proof.

x.        Secondary Evidence

It is any evidence other than the document itself.

y.        Evidence in Chief

It is the primary and main evidence presented by the parties to prove their cause or defense.

z.        Newly discovered Evidence

It is the one that could not, by the exercise of due diligence, have been discovered before the trial in the court below.

A.       OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

R130.1. Object as evidence. Object as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.

B.       DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

R130.2. Documentary evidence. Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents.

1.        Best Evidence Rule

R130.3. Original Document must be produced; exceptions. When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:

(a)     When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;

(b)     When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;

(c)      When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and

(d)     When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.