Clarence Tiu - Evidence Notes

(1)

RULES OF

EVIDENCE

 

C

OMPREHENSIVE

N

OTES

THISISBASICALLYAN OUTLINEANDREVIEWEROF DEAN RIANO’SLEGENDARYBOOKONTHERULESOF EVIDENCE, 80% OFTHECONTENTISSOURCEDFROMIT. HOWEVER, I INTEGRATEDTHEDOCTRINES FROMCASESASSIGNEDINOUREVIDENCECLASSUNDER CHAIRMAN VILLAREAL, ASWELLASSEVERAL CONCEPTSWETOOKUP; ANDADDEDTHE RULESONTHE MODESOF DISCOVERYANDSEVERALSPECIAL

RULESOFEVIDENCE. REFERENCESWEREALSOMADEFROMTHEBOOKOF PROFESSOR BAUTISTA. PSALMS 61: 2

“FROMTHEENDSOFTHEEARTHWILL I CRYUNTOTHEE, WHENMYHEARTIS OVERWHELMED: LEADME TOTHEROCKTHATISHIGHERTHAN I.”

ROMANS 8:28

“ANDWEKNOWTHATINALLTHINGS, GODWORKSFORTHEGOODOFTHOSEWHOLOVEHIM, WHO HAVEBEENCALLEDACCORDINGTOHISPURPOSE”

FORTHEGREATERGLORYOF GOD ✝ CLARENCE TIU ATENEO LAW 3B BATCH 2017

(2)

RULE 128: GENERAL PROVISIONS OF EVIDENCE

5

NATUREAND DEFINITIONOF EVIDENCE 5

PRINCIPLESONTHE APPLICABILITYAND APPLICATIONOFTHE RULESOF EVIDENCE 6 ADMISSIBILITYAND WEIGHT; PROBATIVE VALUEOF EVIDENCE 7

RELEVANCYAND COMPETENCEOF EVIDENCE 10

MISCELLANEOUS RULESON ADMISSIBILITY (COMPETENCE) OF EVIDENCE 12

RULE 129: WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

13

JUDICIAL NOTICE 13

MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 13

DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE 14

JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS 17

RULE 130(A): RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT EVIDENCE

22

KINDSOF EVIDENCE 22

NATUREAND DEFINITIONOF OBJECT EVIDENCE 23

ADMISSIBILITYOF OBJECT EVIDENCE 24

RULE 130(B): RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

29

NATUREAND DEFINITIONOF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 29

ADMISSIBILITYOF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 30

BEST EVIDENCE RULE 30

SECONDARY EVIDENCE 35

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE 35

INTERPRETATIONOF DOCUMENTS 40

RULE 130(C): RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

43

NATUREAND DEFINITIONOF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE 43

ADMISSIBILITYOF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE; COMPETENCEOF WITNESSES 43

CREDIBILITYOF WITNESSES 44

DISQUALIFICATIONSOF WITNESSES 45

DISQUALIFICATIONBY REASONOF MENTAL INCAPACITY 46 DISQUALIFICATIONBY REASONOF IMMATURITY 46 SURVIVORSHIP DISQUALIFICATION RULE (DEAD MAN’S STATUTE) 48 MARTIAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE (SPOUSAL IMMUNITY) 50

MARITAL PRIVILEGE 53

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE 54

PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE 58

PRIEST/MINISTER-PENITENT PRIVILEGE 59

PUBLIC OFFICERS PRIVILEGE 60

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 60

CONFIDENTIALITYOF CRIMINALAND LAW ENFORCEMENT MATTERS 62

LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE 62

JUDICIAL PRIVILEGE 62

RIGHTAGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION 62

PARENTALAND FILIAL PRIVILEGE 63

EDITORIAL (JOURNALIST) PRIVILEGE 63

CONFIDENTIALITYOF LABOR CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS 64

SECRECYOFTHE BALLOT 64

CONFIDENTIALITYOF TRADEAND INDUSTRIAL SECRETS 64

SECRECYOF BANK DEPOSITS 64

CONFIDENTIALITYOF WITNESS PROTECTION PROCEEDINGS 66 CONFIDENTIALITYOFREPORTSOFSUSPICIOUSTRANSACTIONTOTHE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL 66

ADMISSIONSANDTHE RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE 67

ADMISSIONS (EXTRA-JUDICIAL) 67

CONFESSIONS 68

ADMISSIONBY SILENCE 70

OFFEROF COMPROMISE 71

WITHDRAWALOF GUILTY PLEA 71

OFFERTO PAYFOR EXPENSES 71

RESINTERALIOSACTA RULEIN GENERAL 72

RESINTERALIOSACTA RULE BRANCH 1: ACTS, DECLARATIONS, OR OMISSIONSOF ANOTHER 72 RESINTERALIOSACTA RULE BRANCH 2: EVIDENCEOF SIMILAR CONDUCT 74

UNACCEPTED OFFER 75

HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE 75

EXCEPTIONSTOTHE HEARSAY RULE 80

(3)

PARTSOF RES GESTAE 83

DECLARATIONSAGAINST INTEREST 86

ACTOR DECLARATIONABOUT PEDIGREE 87

FAMILY REPUTATIONOR TRADITION REGARDING PEDIGREE 88

COMMON REPUTATION 88

ENTRIESINTHE COURSEOF BUSINESS 88

ENTRIESIN OFFICIAL RECORDS 89

COMMERCIAL LISTSANDTHE LIKE 89

LEARNED TREATISES 89

TESTIMONYOR DEPOSITIONINA FORMER PROCEEDING 90

INTHE CASEOF CHILD WITNESSES 90

OPINION RULE 91

CHARACTER EVIDENCE 93

RULE 131: BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS

98

BURDENOF PROOF 98

BURDENOF EVIDENCE; EQUIPOISE RULE 101

PRESUMPTIONSIN GENERAL 103

CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS 104

DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS 106

RULE 132(A): EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

119

EXAMINATIONOF WITNESSES PRESENTEDIN TRIALOR HEARING 119 PROCEEDINGSOFA TRIALOR HEARINGSHOULDBE RECORDED 120

RIGHTSAND OBLIGATIONSOFA WITNESS 120

KINDSOF EXAMINATIONS 121

RECALLINGA WITNESS 123

LEADINGAND MISLEADING QUESTIONS 123

IMPEACHMENTOFA WITNESS 124

ADMISSIBILITYOF EVIDENCEOF GOOD CHARACTEROFA WITNESS 128

EXCLUSIONAND SEPARATIONOF WITNESSES 129

WHENTHE WITNESSMAY REFERTOA MEMORANDUM 129 WHEN PARTOF TRANSACTION, WRITINGOR RECORD GIVENIN EVIDENCE 130 RIGHTOF INSPECTIONOF WRITING SHOWNTO WITNESS 130 PRINCIPLESAND RULESON CREDIBILITYOF WITNESSES 130

RULE 132 (B): AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS

135

NATUREAND IMPORTANCEOF AUTHENTICATION 135

AUTHENTICATIONOF OBJECT EVIDENCE 135

AUTHENTICATIONOF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 137

KINDSOF DOCUMENTS; PRESENTING PUBLIC DOCUMENTS 137

PROOFOF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS 138

AUTHENTICATIONOF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS 142

AUTHENTICATIONOF HANDWRITINGSAND SIGNATURES 144

EXPLAINING ALTERATIONSINA DOCUMENT 145

PROOFOF DOCUMENTSIN UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE 145

IMPEACHMENTOF JUDICIAL RECORDS 145

RULE 132(C): OFFER AND OBJECTION

147

OFFEROF EVIDENCE 147

OBJECTIONS 149

STRIKING OUTAN ANSWEROR TESTIMONY 151

RULINGONTHE OBJECTION 152

TENDEROF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE; OFFEROF PROOF 153

RULE 133: WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

156

BURDENOF PROOFANDTHE QUANTUMOF EVIDENCEIN GENERAL 156 QUANTUMOF EVIDENCEIN CIVIL CASES; PREPONDERANCEOF EVIDENCE 156 QUANTUMOF EVIDENCEIN CRIMINAL CASES; PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT 157 QUANTUMOF EVIDENCEIN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES; SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 160

CLEARAND CONVINCING EVIDENCE 161

POWEROFTHE COURTTO STOP INTRODUCTIONOF FURTHER EVIDENCE 163

EVIDENCEON MOTION 163

OVERVIEW OF THE MODES OF DISCOVERY

164 RULE 23: DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION

165

OVERVIEWOF DEPOSITIONS 165

(4)

SCOPEOF EXAMINATION 166

EXAMINATIONAND CROSS-EXAMINATION 166

USEOF DEPOSITIONS 166

EFFECTOF SUBSTITUTIONOF PARTIES 167

OBJECTIONSTO ADMISSIBILITY 168

EFFECTOF TAKINGAND USING DEPOSITIONS 168

REBUTTING DEPOSITION 168

PERSONSBEFOREWHOM DEPOSITIONSMAYBETAKEN 168

COMMISSIONOR LETTERS ROGATORY 169

ORAL DEPOSITIONS 170

DEPOSITIONUPON ORAL EXAMINATION; NOTICEAND PLACE 170

OBJECTIONSTOTHE DEPOSITION 170

DUTYOFTHE OFFICERTAKINGTHE ORAL DEPOSITION 171 FAILUREOF PARTY GIVING NOTICETO ATTENDANDTO SERVE SUBPOENA 173

DEPOSITIONUPON WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES 173

WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES 173

EFFECTOF ERRORSAND IRREGULARITIESIN DEPOSITIONS 174

RULE 24: DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION OR PENDING APPEAL

176

DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION 176

VERIFIED PETITIONFOR DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION 176

CONTENTSOFTHE PETITION 176

NOTICEAND SERVICE; ORDEROFTHE COURT 176

DEPOSITIONS PENDING APPEAL 177

RULE 134: PERPETUATION OF TESTIMONY

178 RULE 25: INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES

179

SERVICEOF WRITTEN INTERROGATORIESTO PARTIES 179 RESPONSEBYTHE RECIPIENTOFTHE WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES: ANSWEROR OBJECT 180

NUMBEROF INTERROGATORIES 180

SCOPEAND USEOF INTERROGATORIES 180

EFFECTOF FAILURETO SERVE WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES 180

RULE 26: ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY

182

REQUESTFOR ADMISSION 182

EFFECTOF FAILURETO FILEA REQUESTFOR ADMISSION 182 RESPONSEOFTHE PARTYAGAINSTWHOMTHE REQUESTIS DIRECTED; FAILURETO ANSWER 183

WITHDRAWAL 184

RULE 27: PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS

185

MOTIONFORPRODUCTIONORINSPECTION 185

RULE 28: PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS

187

WHEN EXAMINATIONMAYBEORDERED 187

REPORTOF FINDINGS; WAIVEROF PRIVILEGE 187

RULE 29: REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH THE MODES OF DISCOVERY

189

REFUSALTO ANSWER 189

CONTEMPTOF COURT 189

OTHER CONSEQUENCES 189

EXPENSESON REFUSALTO ADMIT 190

FAILUREOF PARTYTO ATTENDOR SERVE ANSWERS 190 EXPENSESAGAINSTTHE REPUBLICOFTHE PHILIPPINES 190 SUMMARYOFTHE SANCTIONS/REMEDIESAGAINSTTHEPERSONREFUSINGTOCOMPLYWITHTHE MODEOF DISCOVERY 191

DISCOVERY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

193 SPECIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

194

CONSTITUTIONAL RULES RELATEDTO ADMISSIBILITYOF EVIDENCE 194 RULESON ADMISSIBILITYOF EVIDENCEUNDERTHE WIRE-TAPPING LAWAND HUMAN SECURITY ACT 194

RULESON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE 198

RULEON DNA EVIDENCE 205

RULESON PROOFOF PATERNAL FILIATION 210

RULEON CHAINOF CUSTODYIN DRUG CASES 210 RULEON EXAMINATIONOFA CHILD WITNESS 214

(5)

RULE 128: GENERAL PROVISIONS OF EVIDENCE

N

ATUREAND

D

EFINITIONOF

E

VIDENCE

Section 1. Evidence defined. — Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)

N

ATUREOF

E

VIDENCE

‣ Evidence, in its broadest sense, refers to “any matter of fact, the effect, tendency or design of which is to produce in the mind a persuasive affirmative or disaffirmative of the existence of some other matter of fact”. This definition should be given a more restrictive meaning because not every fact that could have a relation to the issue of the case could be adduced in court. “The practical limitations which attend the organization and proper functioning of judicial tribunals render this impossible if there is to be any reasonable and just end to litigation”.

‣ A more restrictive definition which bears a close affinity to the definition provided for in Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, states: “Judicial evidence is the means, sanctioned by law, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the truth respecting a question of fact

‣ The very tenor of the definition in Sec. 1, Rule 128 clearly indicates that not every fact having a conceivable connection to the issue of a case or that which provides a reasonable inference as to the truth or falsity of a matter alleged, is considered evidence. To be considered evidence, the same must be “sanctioned” or allowed by the Rules of Court.

‣ It is not evidence if it is excluded by law or by the Rules even if it proves the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue.

‣ Thus, a hearsay evidence, a coerced extrajudicial confession of the accused, and an evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights, even if ultimately shown to correspond to the truth, do not fall within the definition of Sec. 1 of Rule 128.

‣ The definition, provided for under Sec. 1 of Rule 128, significantly considers “evidence” not as an end in itself but merely as a “means” of ascertaining the truth of a matter of fact. Equally significant is the observation that “evidence” as defined in the Rules of Court is a means of ascertaining the truth not in all types of proceedings, but specifically, in a “judicial proceeding.”

P

URPOSEOF

E

VIDENCE

‣ The purpose of evidence under the Rules of Court is to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact in a judicial proceeding Litigations cannot be properly resolved by suppositions, or even presumptions, with no basis in evidence. The truth must have to be determined by the rules for admissibility and proof.

‣ Evidence is required because of the presumption that the court is not aware of the veracity of the facts involved in a case. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the parties to prove a fact in issue through the presentation of admissible evidence

‣ The rules of evidence are merely the means for ascertaining the truth respecting a matter of fact. While the purpose of evidence is to know the truth, the truth referred to in the definition is not necessarily the actual truth but one aptly referred to as the judicial or legal truth.

‣ The limitations of human judicial systems cannot always guarantee knowledge of the actual or real truth. Actual truth may not always be achieved in judicial proceedings because the findings of the court would depend on the evidence presented before it based on the accepted rules for admissibility.

‣ Also, under Sec. 34 of Rule 132, courts, as a rule, are not even authorized to consider evidence which has not been formally offered. Thus, a supposed evidence that would undoubtedly show the innocence of the accused will not be considered in the decision of the court if not formally offered in evidence. If it is evidence to the contrary that has been formally offered, it is the latter which the court is bound to consider or appreciate.

W

HEN

E

VIDENCEIS

R

EQUIREDOR

N

OT

R

EQUIRED

‣ Evidence is the means of proving a fact. As the definition says, it is offered in court to ascertain the truth “respecting a matter of fact.” Implied from the definition of “evidence” in Sec. 1 of Rule 128 is the need for the introduction of evidence when the court has to resolve a question of fact.

‣ Where no factual issue exists in a case, there is no need to present evidence because where the case presents a question of law, such question is resolved by the mere application of the relevant statutes or rules of this jurisdiction to which no evidence is required. In the Philippine judicial system, there is a mandatory judicial notice of the official acts of the legislature (Sec. 1, Rule 129, Rules of Court) and these acts cover statutes.

(6)

‣ When the pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact, a trial need not be conducted since there is no more reason to present evidence. The case is then ripe for judicial determination through a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of Court.

‣ Presentation of evidence may likewise be dispensed with by agreement of the parties. The parties to any action are allowed by the Rules to agree in writing upon the facts involved in the litigation and to submit the case for judgment upon the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence (Sec. 6, Rule 30, Rules of Court).

‣ Evidence is not also required on matters of judicial notice (Sec. 1, Rule 129, Rules of Court) and on matters judicially admitted (Sec. 4, Rule 129, Rules of Court).

‣ Example: “If P claims to have been injured by the negligence of D who denies having been negligent, the negligence of D and the causal connection between such negligence, and the injuries of P taken as a whole, constitute the factum probandum of the suit. The evidence offered by P, whether it be object, documentary or testimonial, constitute the materials to prove the liability of D. The totality of the evidence to prove the liability refers to the factum probans.”

‣ In practical terms, the factum probandum in a civil case refers to the elements of a cause of action from the point of view of the plaintiff and the elements of the defense from the standpoint of the defendant.

P

A

DMINISTRATIVE

P

ROCEEDINGS

‣ The general rule is that administrative agencies are not bound by the technical rules of evidence.

‣ It can accept documents which cannot be admitted in a judicial proceeding where the Rules of Court are strictly observed. It can choose to give weight or disregard such evidence, depending on its trustworthiness

(7)

‣ It has also been ruled that a reliance on the technical rules of evidence in labor cases is misplaced. Hence, the application of the concept of judicial admissions in such cases would be to exact compliance with technicalities of law that is contrary to the demands of substantial justice

‣ The rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before administrative bodies such as the Board of Medicine

‣ The Civil Service Commission, for example, conducts its investigations for the purpose of ascertaining the truth without necessarily adhering to technical rules of procedure applicable in judicial proceedings

‣ The Rules on Electronic Evidence, however, apply to administrative cases.

‣ The application of the rules on evidence in the Rules of Court contrasts with the application of the Rules on Electronic Evidence.

‣ While the definition of “evidence” under the Rules of Court makes reference only to judicial proceedings, the provisions of the Rules on Electronic Evidence apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases, but not to criminal actions.

L

IBERAL

C

ONSTRUCTIONOFTHE

R

ULES

‣ Like all other provisions under the Rules of Court, the rules on evidence must be liberally construed (Sec. 6, Rule 1, Rules of Court).

‣ Rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate rather than frustrate the attainment of justice. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed if it would subvert their primary objective of enhancing substantial justice.

‣ Procedural rules must be liberally interpreted and applied so as not to frustrate substantial justice. However, to justify relaxation of the rules, a satisfactory explanation and subsequent fulfillment of the requirements have always been required.

‣ The Rules on Electronic Evidence shall likewise be construed liberally

N

E

VIDENCE

Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules. (3a)

A

DMISSIBILITYOF

E

VIDENCE

‣

RULE: F

OREVIDENCETOBEADMISSIBLE

,

THEFOLLOWINGELEMENTSMUSTBEPRESENT

:

(8)

‣ This means that the evidence has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.

2. T

HEEVIDENCEISNOT EXCLUDED BYTHERULES

(

COMPETENT

)

‣ These two elements correspond to Wigmore’s two axioms of admissibility, namely: (a) That none but facts having rational probative value are admissible (relevance); and (b) That all facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific rule forbids them (competence)

‣ The formula for admissibility is a simple one. To be admissible, the evidence must be both relevant and competent. ‣ Examples:

1. Evidence is relevant but incompetent

‣ In a prosecution for homicide, the witness swears that the accused killed the victim because his ever truthful boyhood friend told him so. The testimony, although relevant, is not admissible because the witness was not testifying based on his personal knowledge of the event. The testimony is hearsay and this type of evidence is, as a rule, excluded by the rules (Sec. 36, Rule 130, Rules of Court)

‣ In a prosecution for homicide, the wife of the accused testified that the husband admitted to her in confidence that it was he who killed their neighbor. If the testimony is offered as evidence against the husband and is objected to by the latter, the testimonial evidence will be inadmissible by virtue of a particular provision of the Rules of Court which excludes it as a specie of evidence notwithstanding its obvious relevance to the issue of guilt (Sec. 24[a], Rule 130, Rules of Court)

‣ Upon a timely objection, oral evidence will be excluded to prove a contract of a sale of a parcel of land which does not conform to the statute of frauds (Art. 1403[2], Civil Code of the Philippines). Even if the evidence is relevant to the issue of existence or non-existence of the contract, it is inadmissible because it is excluded by law, hence, incompetent.

‣ Documents obtained in violation of constitutional guarantees although containing relevant matters are inadmissible because they are illegally obtained as when evidence is illegally seized

2. Evidence is irrelevant

‣ In a civil case for collection of a sum of money, the testimony of an eyewitness to the transaction between the creditor and the debtor is competent evidence because the witness would be testifying on the basis of his personal knowledge.

‣ However, if the subject of the testimony includes the alleged frequent bouts of dizziness of the debtor, that portion of the testimony is made inadmissible by the fact that the matters testified to are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a debt exists. In this case, the testimony becomes irrelevant.

3. Evidence is irrelevant and incompetent

‣ A defense witness testifies having actually seen the alleged victim fire a gun at the accused without the latter’s provocation. The testimony of the eyewitness is competent and the matters testified to are relevant to the plea of self-defense. The testimony is thus, admissible. It is not only relevant but competent as well.

W

EIGHT

/P

ROBATIVE

V

ALUEOF

E

VIDENCE

; C

REDIBILITYOF

E

VIDENCE

‣ While admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or not the evidence is to be considered at all. On the other hand, the probative value of the evidence refers to the question of whether or not it proves an issue ‣ Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation

within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence

‣ Admissibility is one thing, weight is another. To admit evidence and not to believe it are not incompatible with each other

‣ The admissibility of evidence should not be equated with the weight of the evidence. The admissibility of the evidence depends on its relevance and competence while the weight of evidence pertains to its tendency to convince and persuade.

‣ A particular item of evidence may be admissible but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation with the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence

‣ Jurisprudence has laid down some basic rules on credibility such as for evidence to be worthy of credit, it must not only proceed from a credible source but must, in addition, be credible in itself. The evidence must be natural, reasonable and probable as to make it easy to believe. No better test has yet been found to determine the value of the testimony of a witness than its conformity to the knowledge and common experience of mankind (Serra v. Mumar)

‣ Whatever is repugnant to the standards of human knowledge, observation and experience becomes incredible and must lie outside judicial cognisance (People v. De Guzman)

M

ULTIPLE

A

DMISSIBILITY

1. W

HENEVIDENCEISADMISSIBLEFORTWOORMOREPURPOSES

.

(9)

‣ Thus, depending upon the circumstances, the declaration of a dying person may be admissible for several purposes. It may be offered as a dying declaration (Sec. 37, Rule 130, part of the res gestae (Sec. 42, Rule 130), or declaration against interest (Sec. 38, Rule 130).

‣ The statement by a bus driver immediately after the collision that he dozed off in the wheel while driving may be admissible as an admission under Sec. 26 of Rule 130 or as part of the res gestae pursuant to Sec. 42 of Rule 130

‣ The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified because such evidence may be admissible for several purposes under the doctrine of multiple admissibility, or may be admissible for one purpose but not for another. Otherwise, the adverse party cannot interpose the proper objection

‣ Such as, if testimony is offered to prove that the project was completed pursuant to the contract, it cannot be offered to prove that the project was delayed.

‣ A private document may be offered and admitted in evidence both as documentary and object evidence depending on the purpose for which the document is offered.

‣ If offered to prove its existence, condition or for any purpose other than the contents of a document, the same is considered as an object evidence. When the private document is offered as proof of its contents, the same is considered as a documentary evidence

2. W

HEN

E

VIDENCEISADMISSIBLEAGAINSTONEPARTYBUTNOTAGAINSTANOTHER

.

‣ An extrajudicial statement of a robbery suspect is not admissible against his co-accused under the res inter alios acta rule but may be admissible against the declarant himself as an admission pursuant to Sec. 26 of Rule 130.

C

ONDITIONAL

A

DMISSIBILITY

‣ It happens frequently enough that the relevance of a piece of evidence is not apparent at the time it is offered, but the relevance of which will readily be seen when connected to other pieces of evidence not yet offered.

‣ The proponent of the evidence may ask the court that the evidence be conditionally admitted in the meantime, subject to the condition that he is going to establish its relevancy and competency at a later time.

‣ If the connection is not shown as promised, the court may, upon motion of the adverse party, strike out from the record the evidence that was previously conditionally admitted.

‣ Example:

‣ For instance, Mr. P files an action for recovery of ownership of a parcel of land against Mr. D. The complaint alleges that Mr. P is the owner of the property. During the trial, Mr. P testifies and adduces evidence that sometime in 1995, the property subject of the action was bought by Mr. O from a certain Mr. M. The defendant, Mr. D, objects on the ground that the evidence is irrelevant to support the claim of ownership of Mr. P.

‣ The problem presented in such a situation is whether or not to interrupt the examination of the witness to first present the connecting evidence or to admit the testimony conditionally, subject to presentation of the said connecting evidence later in the trial. Mr. P may ask the court to conditionally allow the testimony with the undertaking to show later that he bought the property from Mr. O who, in turn, bought it from Mr. M.

C

URATIVE

A

DMISSIBILITY

‣ The doctrine of curative admissibility allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to answer the opposing party’s previous introduction of inadmissible evidence if it would remove any unfair prejudice caused by the admission of the earlier inadmissible evidence

‣ Thus, a party who first introduces either irrelevant or incompetent evidence into the trial cannot complain of the subsequent admission of similar evidence from the adverse party relating to the same subject matter

‣ Conversely, the doctrine should not be invoked where evidence was properly admitted. ‣ Example:

‣ In an action for damages arising from a car accident, the plaintiff, despite objection by the defendant, introduced evidence to show that on several occasions the defendant in the past had injured pedestrians because of his negligence. The evidence was offered to prove the defendant’s propensity for negligence. Of course, under the rules, this kind of evidence is inadmissible because evidence that a person did a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did the same or a similar thing at another time (Sec. 34, Rule 130).

‣ If we were to follow the concept of curative admissibility, the court may be asked to give the defendant the chance to contradict or explain his alleged past acts and to show evidence of his past acts of diligence to counteract the prejudice which the improperly admitted evidence may have caused.

‣ Also, if hearsay evidence prejudicial to the defendant is erroneously admitted despite objection, under the principle of curative admissibility, the court should allow hearsay evidence favorable to the same defendant.

‣ Does the concept of curative admissibility refer to a situation where incompetent evidence was erroneously received by the court despite absence of objection from the other party?

(10)

‣ RIANO: It is submitted that in our jurisdiction, the principle of curative admissibility should not be made to apply where the evidence was admitted without objection because the failure to object constitutes a waiver of the inadmissibility of the evidence. In our jurisdiction, inadmissible evidence not objected to becomes admissible. For instance, where a party failed to object to hearsay evidence, then the same becomes admissible.

‣ An objection to an otherwise inadmissible evidence is not merely suggested but required by the Rules of Court. The tenor of the rule is clear: Objections to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made and objections to questions propounded in the course of the oral examination of the witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become apparent (Sec. 36, Rule 132, Rules of Court).

‣ It is likewise submitted that it is only where the objection was incorrectly overruled that the court should allow the other party to introduce evidence to contradict the evidence improperly admitted in order to cure the prejudice caused to the other party against whom the offered evidence was erroneously admitted. Common reason suggests that where there is a waiver, there is no defect to cure

‣ While a trial court generally has discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence, it is opined that a trial court should be without discretion to apply the doctrine of curative admissibility if it appears that the party seeking to invoke it intentionally or negligently failed to object to the inadmissible evidence in order to gain admission later of his inadmissible evidence. If no limitations are placed on the doctrine of curative admissibility, the doctrine will predictably be open to abuse and will encourage the counsel not to object to inadmissible evidence to “open the door” for him to introduce inadmissible evidence. The more logical rule should be one which will not allow a party to be heard through the offering of inadmissible evidence if he declines or fails to timely object to the other party’s inadmissible evidence.

‣ One American case puts it: “A breach of the rules of evidence by one party does not suspend those rules with respect to the other party

R

ELEVANCYAND

C

OMPETENCEOF

E

VIDENCE

Section 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. (4a)

R

ELEVANT

E

VIDENCE

‣

RULE: E

VIDENCETOBERELEVANTMUSTHAVESUCHARELATIONTOTHEFACTINISSUEASTOINDUCEBELIEFINITS EXISTENCEORNON

-

EXISTENCE

.

‣ The concept of relevance is clearly one of logic.

‣ It deals with the rational relationship between the evidence and the fact to be proved.

‣ In other words, the evidence adduced should be directed to the matters in dispute and any evidence which has neither direct nor indirect relationship to such matters must be set aside as irrelevant.

‣ It is the relation to the fact in issue which makes evidence either relevant or irrelevant. If the evidence induces belief as to the existence or non-existence of the fact in issue, the evidence is relevant. If it does not induce such belief, it is irrelevant.

‣ Although competency of the evidence is a necessary component of admissible evidence, the question that most often arises in court is the relevance of the evidence. When an advocate offers a piece of evidence for the court’s consideration, he offers the evidence to prove a fact. This fact may either be the immediate fact in issue or the ultimate fact in issue.

‣ Because of the definition of relevant evidence under Sec. 4 of Rule 128, it is obvious that relevance is a matter of relationship between the evidence and the fact in issue. The determination of relevance is, thus, a matter of inference and not of law. The test, is therefore, one of logic, common sense, and experience.

‣ The existence of the relationship between the fact in issue and the offered evidence is one that is perceived only by the mind without reference to a statute or rule. It is, therefore, a matter of reasoning. It is a matter of reasoning because relevance is a matter of logic. The matter of relevance is one that is addressed to the discretion of the court

‣ There is no precise and universal test of relevancy provided by law. However, the determination of whether particular evidence is relevant rests largely at the discretion of the court, which must be exercised according to the teachings of logic and everyday experience

‣ Example:

‣ Case of a standard car accident. Counsel for the plaintiff presents the testimony of another car driver to testify to the following: that the defendant was driving at a speed of one hundred twenty (120) kilometers per hour in a

(11)

sixty (60)-kilometer limit zone at the time plaintiff was side- swiped and injured by the defendant. The witness claims he knows whereof he speaks because he saw everything that transpired. Whether or not such testimony meets the test of relevance will depend upon what counsel wants to prove by the testimony. Initially, of course, counsel would want to prove that, at the time of the accident, the defendant was driving way beyond the speed limit. This is the immediate fact sought to be established. Since there is a traceable connection between the substance of the testimony and the fact to be proved, the testimony is relevant. On the other hand, if the testimony is offered to prove that the defendant is a thief, the testimony has no logical connection at all to the fact sought to be proved. Certainly, there is no connection between driving at a very fast pace and the defendant’s being a thief. The testimony is hence, irrelevant.

‣ Relevance further requires that the immediate fact proved must have a connection to the ultimate issue. In the car accident case just illustrated, assume that counsel has established through the witness that the defendant was driving way beyond the speed limit at the time of the accident. Establishing such a fact is not however, sufficient. This fact must be shown to be related to the ultimate issue in the case. Now, the usual ultimate issue in every automobile accident case is whether or not the damage caused to the plaintiff arose out of the defendant’s negligent operation of his car. The question that should necessarily be asked is: Is the immediate fact proved, i.e., defendant’s driving beyond the speed limit, related to the issue of negligence? If it is, then the fact proved is relevant evidence. If it is not related to the issue of negligence, it is irrelevant.

C

OLLATERAL

E

VIDENCE

‣

RULE: E

VIDENCEONACOLLATERALMATTERIS

NOT

ALLOWED

‣ A matter is collateral when it is on a “parallel or diverging line,” merely “additional” or “auxiliary” ‣ This term connotes an absence of a direct connection between the evidence and the matter in dispute. ‣ Example of Collateral Matters

‣ For instance, the motive of a person and, in some instances, his reputation are matters that may be considered collateral to the subject of a controversy. A very strong motive to kill the victim does not ipso facto make motive relevant to the issue of guilt or innocence because the person with absolutely no motive to kill could be the culprit.

‣ Evidence of the bad reputation of the accused for being troublesome and aggressive does not make the evidence admissible to prove his guilt. After all, the culprit could have been the person with the most endearing reputation.

‣ It is not allowed because it does not have direct relevance to the issue of the case.

‣

EXCEPT: A

COLLATERALMATTERMAYBEADMITTEDIFITTENDSINANYREASONABLEDEGREETOESTABLISHTHE PROBABILITYORIMPROBABILITYOFTHEFACTINISSUE

‣ In other words, while the collateral evidence may not bear directly on the issue, it will be admitted if it has the tendency to induce belief as to the probability or improbability of the issues of the case as when it would have the effect of corroborating or supplementing facts previously established by direct evidence.

‣ Example:

‣ Although evidence of character is generally inadmissible (Sec. 51, Rule 130), the accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged (Sec. 51[a][l], Rule 130).

‣ Evidence of the good character of a witness is admissible if his character has been previously impeached (Sec. 14, Rule 132).

C

OMPETENT

E

VIDENCE

‣ Competent evidence is one that is not excluded by law or rules in a particular case

‣ If the the test of relevance is logic and common sense, the test of competence is the law or rules.

‣ If the law or a particular rule excludes the evidence, it is incompetent. Competence is primarily, therefore, a matter of law or rule.

‣ The question as to competence is: Is the evidence allowed by the law or rules? If it is allowed, the evidence is competent. If it is not allowed, it is incompetent.

‣ Competence, in relation to evidence in general, refers to the eligibility of an evidence to be received as such. ‣ However, when applied to a witness, the term competent refers to the qualifications of the witness.

‣ In other words, competence refers to his eligibility to take the stand and testify. It is in this context that the term is normally associated with. Thus, a trial objection employing the ground incompetent is usually used in relation to the ineligibility of a witness to testify because of the presence of a disability that renders him unfit to sit on the stand.

(12)

‣ BUT, note that if evidence offered is objectionable on the ground that it is incompetent, an objection that it is incompetent is not an accepted form of objection because it is a general objection. The objection should specify the ground for its incompetence such as leading, hearsay or parol.

‣ Although evidence is incompetent if excluded by law or the rules, evidence is not objected to on the ground that it is incompetent. It is so general a term and cannot be appreciated in court.

‣ Courts neither need nor appreciate generalities. General objections are viewed with disfavor because specific objections are required by Sec. 36, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Thus, for purposes of trial objections, evidence is never incompetent. It is people who are.

‣ It is sloppy usage to object to a testimony or document as incompetent. Such term more appropriately describes a witness who, under evidentiary rules, does not possess the qualifications of a witness or suffers from a

disqualification to be one.

M

ISCELLANEOUS

R

ULESON

A

DMISSIBILITY

(C

OMPETENCE

)

OF

E

VIDENCE

‣ These rules pertain to “competence” (one of the elements of admissibility) really as they talk about laws excluding it as evidence. I put it in a separate chapter (latter parts) because they are long. I placed the headings here for emphasis and correlation. Rule on Competence for specific kinds of evidence will also be discussed later.

R

ULESON

E

LECTRONIC

E

VIDENCE

‣ See Chapter on “Special Rules of Evidence” for more comprehensive stuff and the full text of the Rules ‣ Electronic evidence is competent evidence and is admissible if it complies with the rules on admissibility

prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws, and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence (Sec. 2, Rule 3, Rules on Electronic Evidence).

C

ONSTITUTIONALISSUESINCONNECTIONWITHARRESTS

,

SEARCHESANDSEIZURESAND

R

IGHTAGAINST

S

ELF

-I

NCRIMINATION

‣ See Chapter on “Special Rules of Evidence” for more comprehensive stuff and the full text of the law

A

NTI

-W

IRETAPPING

L

AWINRELATIONTOTHE

H

UMAN

S

ECURITY

A

CTOF

2007

(13)

RULE 129: WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

J

UDICIAL

N

OTICE

W

4. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals; 5. Political constitution and history of the Philippines;

6. Official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines; 7. Laws of nature;

8. Measure of time; and 9. Geographical divisions.

‣ Examples of Matters of Mandatory Judicial Notice

‣ Amendment to the Rules of Court (Siena Realty Corporation v. Gallang

‣ Decisions the Supreme Court (Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Heirs of Sero)

‣ Declaration of the President of the Philippines that she informed China’s President that the Philippine Government had decided not to continue with the ZTE-National Broadband Network (Suplico v. NEDA)

(14)

H

OW

M

ANDATORY

J

UDICIAL

N

OTICEIS

T

AKEN

‣

RULE: W

HENTHEMATTERISSUBJECTTOAMANDATORYJUDICIALNOTICE

, NO

MOTIONORHEARINGISNECESSARY FORTHECOURTTOTAKEJUDICIALNOTICEOFAFACT

‣ This is because this is a matter which a court ought to take judicial notice of.

D

ISCRETIONARY

J

UDICIAL

N

OTICE

Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. (1a)

Section 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 the 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. (n)

M

ATTERSOF

D

ISCRETIONARY

J

UDICIAL

N

OTICE

‣

RULE: A

COURTMAYTAKEJUDICIALNOTICEOFMATTERSWHICHAREOFPUBLICKNOWLEDGE

,

ORARECAPABLETO UNQUESTIONABLEDEMONSTRATION

,

OROUGHTTOBEKNOWNTOJUDGESBECAUSEOFTHEIRJUDICIALFUNCTIONS

1. P

UBLICKNOWLEDGE

‣ These are matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters which are generally accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready and

unquestioned demonstration.

‣ Thus, facts which are universally known, and which may be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications, are judicially noticed, provided, they are of such universal notoriety and so generally understood that they may be regarded as forming part of the common knowledge of every person.

‣ As the common knowledge of man ranges far and wide, a wide variety of particular facts have been judicially noticed as being matters of common knowledge.

‣ But a court cannot take judicial notice of any fact which, in part, is dependent on the existence or non-existence of a fact of which the court has no constructive knowledge

‣ The concept of “facts of common knowledge” in the context of judicial notice has been explained as those facts that are “so commonly known in the community as to make it unprofitable to require proof, and so certainly known to as to make it indisputable among reasonable men.”

‣ Moreover, though usually facts of ‘common knowledge’ will be generally known throughout the country, it is sufficient as a basis for judicial notice that they be known in the local community where the trial court sits.

2. C

APABLETOUNQUESTIONABLEDEMONSTRATION

‣ If there is any uncertainty about the matter, then evidence must be adduced

3. O

UGHTTOBEKNOWNTOJUDGESBECAUSEOFTHEIRJUDICIALFUNCTIONS

‣ Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, as the basis of his action

‣ Judicial notice is not limited by the actual knowledge of the individual judge or court. A judge must take judicial notice of a fact if it is one which is the proper subject of judicial cognizance even if it is not within his personal knowledge. Consequently, a judge may not take judicial notice of a fact which he personally knows if it is not part of the evidence or not a fact generally known within its territorial jurisdiction

‣ The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety.

‣ In other words, the principles of discretionary judicial notice will apply where the following requisites are met: 1. The matter must be one of common knowledge;

2. The matter must be settled beyond reasonable doubt (if there is any uncertainty about the matter, then evidence must be adduced); and

(15)

3. The knowledge must exist within the jurisdiction of the court

‣ Discretionary Judicial Notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the court.

‣ The power to take judicial notice must be exercised with caution, and care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists.

‣ Any reasonable doubt on the matter sought to be judicially noticed must be resolved against the taking of judicial notice

H

OW

D

ISCRETIONARY

J

UDICIAL

N

OTICEIS

T

AKEN

‣

‣ Court may take judicial notice of “matters decisive of a material issue in the case” ‣ Hearing required

‣ The hearing is only for the purpose of determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a certain matter and not for the purpose of proving the issues in the case.

‣ Note that judicial notice is taken either by the court’s own initiative or upon request of a party. In reality, parties must be pro-active in asserting matters to be taken as judicial notice, the trial court rarely, on its own initiative, does this.

E

XAMPLESOF

M

ATTERSOF

D

ISCRETIONARY

J

UDICIAL

N

OTICE

1. Court’s own acts and records in the same case (Republic v. Court of Appeals)

‣ Such as facts which are ascertainable from the record of court proceedings, as when court notices were received by a party

‣ BUT, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been heard or are actually pending before the same judge (Tabuena v. Court of Appeals)

‣ EXCEPT:

1. When in the absence of any objection, and with the knowledge of the opposing party, the contents of said other case are clearly referred to by title and number in a pending action and adopted or read into the record of the latter; or

2. When the original record of the other case or any part of it is actually withdrawn from the archives at the court’s discretion upon the request, or with the consent, of the parties, and admitted as part of the record of the pending case

2. Certain Practices of Banks and Other Financial Institutions

‣ The Court has taken judicial notice of the practices of banks and other financial institutions. Precisely, it has noted that it is their uniform practice, before approving a loan, to investigate, examine and assess would-be borrowers’ credit standing or real estate offered as security for the loan applied for (Solidbank Corporation v. Mindanao Ferroalloy Corporation

3. Financial Condition of the Government

‣ Judicial notice could be taken of the fact that the government is and has for many years been financially strapped, to the point that even the most essential services have suffered serious curtailment (La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association v. Ramos)

4. Local Ordinances

‣ *I put this under Discretionary because it’s not expressly listed down under Mandatory (may it be considered as a legislative act?)

‣ Municipal trial courts should take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the municipality in which they sit (U.S. v. Blanco)

‣ The Regional Trial Courts should also take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the municipalities within their jurisdiction but only when so required by law. For example, the charter of the City of Manila requires all courts sitting therein to take judicial notice of all ordinances passed by the city council (City of Manila u. Garcia). ‣ The RTC must take judicial notice also of municipal ordinances in cases on appeal to it from the inferior court in

(16)

‣ The Court of Appeals may take judicial notice of municipal ordinances because nothing in the Rules prohibits it from taking cognizance of an ordinance which is capable of unquestionable demonstration (Gallego v. People)

5. Others matters the court can take judicial notice

a. General increase in rentals of real estate especially of business establishments (Catungal v. Hao) but not the reasonable amount of rent

b. In this age of modern technology, the courts may take judicial notice that business transactions may be made by individuals through teleconferencing by means such as: (1) video conferencing; (2) computer conferencing and (3) audio-conferencing. But, athough judicial notice may be taken of teleconferencing as a means of making business transactions, there is no judicial notice that one was conducted in a particular case (Expertravel and Tours, Inc. v. Court of Appeals)

c. It can be judicially noticed that the scene of the rape is not always nor necessarily isolated or secluded, for lust is no respecter of time or place. (People v. Tundag)

d. The Court has likewise taken judicial notice of the Filipina’s inbred modesty and shyness, and her antipathy in publicly airing acts which blemish her honor and virtue (People v. Tundag)

e. The trial court properly took judicial notice that Talamban, Cebu City is an urban area. (Chiongbian-Oliva v. Republic)

f. It is of judicial notice that the judiciary is beset with the gargantuan task in unclogging dockets, not to mention the shortage of judges occupying positions in far-flung areas. (Government Service Insurance System v. Vallar) g. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that testimonies during trial are much more exact and elaborate than those

stated in sworn statements, usually being incomplete and inaccurate for a variety of reasons, at times because of partial and innocent suggestions or for want of specific inquiries (Estioca v. People).

h. It is of judicial notice that sworn statements are almost always incomplete, often inaccurate and generally inferior to the testimony of witness in open court (People v. Sorila)

i. The Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of scientific findings that drug abuse can damage the mental faculties of the user — it is beyond question, therefore, that any employee under the influence of drugs cannot possibly continue doing his duties without posing a serious threat to the lives and property of his co-workers and even his employer (Bughaw, Jr. v. Treasure Island Industrial Corporation)

j. It is a matter of judicial knowledge that persons have killed or committed serious offenses for no reason at all (People v. Zeta)

k. A court may take judicial notice of a matter within the locality where the court sits. Thus, it was held that the lower court cannot be faulted for taking judicial notice that petitioner Saludo was the congressman or representative of the lone district of Southern Leyte at the time of the filing of his complaint and admitted as a fact by the court a quo. In this connection, it consequently held that, as such, petitioner Saludo’s residence in Southern Leyte, the district he was then representing, could be taken judicial notice of.

E

XAMPLESOF

M

ATTERS

NOT

OF

J

UDICIAL

N

OTICE 1. Foreign Laws

‣ These must be alleged and proved. In the absence of proof, the foreign law will be presumed to be the same as the laws of the jurisdiction hearing the case under the doctrine of processual presumption

‣ EXCEPTIONS:

a. The foreign law is well-known and had been ruled upon in previous cases

‣ Where the foreign law is within the actual knowledge of the court, such as when the law is generally well-known, had been ruled upon in previous cases before it and none of the parties claim otherwise, the court may take judicial notice of the foreign law (PCIB v. Escolin)

b. The foreign law is in a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet and the writer is an expert

‣ Where the foreign law is part of a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet and the writer is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject, the court, it is submitted, may take judicial notice of the treatise containing the foreign law (Sec. 46, Rule 130)

2. Proprietary acts of government-owned and controlled corporations

‣ A management contract entered into by a government- owned and controlled corporation like that involving the Philippine Ports Authority is not among the matters which the courts can take judicial notice of.

‣ It cannot be considered an official act of the executive department because it was entered into while performing a proprietary function

3. Post-Office Practices

‣ That a registered letter when posted is immediately stamped with the date of its receipt, indicating therein the number of the registry, both on the covering envelope itself and on the receipt delivered to the person who delivered the letter to the office is not a proper subject of judicial notice. (Republic v. Court of Appeals)

(17)

‣ A court cannot take judicial notice of an administrative regulation or of a statute that is not yet effective. The reason is simple. A law which is still inexistent cannot be of common knowledge capable of ready and unquestionable demonstration (State Prosecutors v. Muro)

5. Minority

‣ It must be emphasized that the circumstances of minority and relationship mentioned in of the Revised Penal Code are special qualifying circumstances which must be alleged in the information and duly proven by the prosecution. The trial court erred when it took judicial notice of private complainant’s age to be fourteen. It should have required competent evidence, such as her birth certificate, as proof of the victim’s actual age at the time of the offense (People v. Metin)

6. Other matters the court cannot take judicial notice of

a. The court cannot be expected to take judicial notice of the new address of a lawyer who has moved, or ascertain, on its own whether or not the counsel of record has been changed and who the new counsel could possibly be or where he probably (Karen and Khristy Fishing Industry v. Court of Appeals)

b. Notwithstanding a person’s standing in the business community, the court cannot take judicial notice of said person’s home address or office after his departure from the government as a cabinet member (Garrucho v. Court of Appeals)

J

UDICIAL

A

DMISSIONS *This is a very important rule

Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by the 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 or that no such admission was made. (2a)

RULE 10: Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

SECTION 8. Effect of amended pleadings. - An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader; and claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived. (n)

RULE 8: Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings

SECTION 8. How to contest such documents. - When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused. (8a)

SECTION 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted. - Material averment in the complaint, other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. Allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest are deemed admitted if not denied under oath. (1a, R9)

Article 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.

RULE 118: Pre-Trial

Section 2. Pre-trial agreement. — All agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused. The agreements covering the matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be approved by the court. (sec. 4, cir. 38-98)

RULE 26 Admission by Adverse Party

SECTION 1. Request for admission. - At any time after issues have been joined, a party may file and serve upon any other party a written request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of any material and

(18)

relevant document described in and exhibited with the request or of the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request. Copies of the documents shall be delivered with the request unless copies have already been furnished. (1a)

SECTION 2. Implied admission. - Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless, within a period designated in the request, which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after service thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow on motion, the party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying

specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.

Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to the court by the party requested within the period for and prior to the filing of his sworn statement as contemplated in the preceding paragraph and his compliance therewith shall be deferred until such objections are resolved, which resolution shall be made as early as practicable. (2a)

SECTION 3. Effect of admission. - Any admission made by a party pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the pending action only and shall not constitute an admission by him for any other purpose nor may the same be used against him in any other proceeding. (3)

N

ATUREOF

J

UDICIAL

A

DMISSIONS

‣ An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.

E

LEMENTSOF

J

UDICIAL

A

DMISSIONS

1. T

HESAMEMUSTBEMADEBYAPARTYTOTHECASE

‣ It must be made by a party to the case, such as the accused

‣ Admissions of a non-party do not fall within the definition of Sec. 4 of Rule 129.

2. T

HEADMISSION

,

TOBEJUDICIAL

,

MUSTBEMADEINTHECOURSEOFTHEPROCEEDINGSINTHESAMECASE

‣ Thus, an admission made in another judicial proceeding will not be deemed a judicial admission in another case where the admission was not made.

‣ Instead, it will be considered an extrajudicial admission for purposes of the other proceeding where such admission is offered.

‣ Admissions are “in the course of the proceedings” if they are made either in the: 1. Pleadings

‣ Admissions made in the pleadings of a party are deemed judicial admissions. ‣ The admission includes those made in a complaint, motion, answer

‣ BUT, an admission made in a document drafted for purposes of filing a pleading but never filed, is not a judicial admission. If signed by the party, it is deemed an extrajudicial admission. If signed by the attorney, it is not even an admission by the party. The authority of the attorney to make statements for the client extends only to statements made in open court or in pleadings filed with the court (Jackson v. Schine Lexington Corp)

‣ What about admissions in amended pleadings?

‣ When a pleading is amended, the amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends and the admissions in the superseded pleading may be received in evidence against the pleader (See. 8, Rule 10)

‣ It has been held that the admissions in a superseded pleading are to be considered as extrajudicial admissions which must be proven.

‣ Pleadings that have been amended disappear from the record, lose their status as pleadings, and cease to be judicial admissions, and to be utilized as extrajudicial admissions, they must, in order to have such effect, be formally offered in evidence

‣ What about admissions in dismissed pleadings?

‣ Admissions made in pleadings that have been dismissed are merely extrajudicial admissions ‣ Is a Motion to Dismiss a Judicial Admission of the Allegations of the Complaint?