Jara Power Notes

2011-2012

Layno, Ian

Rabajante, Diory

Morana, Hansel

Reyes, Harly

Suyat, Kat

Baraoidan, Kimberly

[JARA POWER

NOTES ON

EVIDENCE]

This is merely a compilation of questions asked

by Dean Jara for Evidence in his 2011-2012

class. The writers guarantee the integrity of all

the questions and the materials used in the

making of this recitation reviewer. However,

there is no guarantee that these will be the

same set of questions he will ask on the

subsequent

semesters/years.

Read

this

together with Riano, Regalado, Moran,

Memaid, and Jara Notes.

Layno. Rabajante. Morana. Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan|

2

PRELIMINARY MATTERS What is Evidence?

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

Can Evidence be used to answer questions of fact? How about questions of law?

As provided for by the definition, Evidence can be used to answer ONLY questions of fact, and not questions of law.

Why cannot we use Evidence to answer disputes of law?

Under our legal system, it is conclusively presumed that everybody knows the law.

Ignoratia legis non-excusat. All parties to the

dispute must know the law applicable in the case. There could be o dispute between the parties and even the court itself concerning the truth about a matter of law.

Distinguish Questions of Fact from Questions of Law

Question of fact (also known as a point of fact) is a question which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence, and inferences arising from those facts. On the other hand, a question of law is a question which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles, by an interpretation of the law.

Is the issue on jurisdiction a question of fact or law?

It is a question of law. Jurisdiction pertains to the power of the Courts to decide cases. It is vested by substantive law. Any issue relating to it is a legal question.

When does a question of fact arise? When the issues are already joined. When does that joinder happen?

Upon the filing of an answer which contains a specific denial as to the existence of a certain fact.

Define a specific denial.

It refers to a denial of the material facts or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential to his cause of action.

A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder. Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made to the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial. (Sec.10, Rule 8)

Can there be a question of fact when a party raises an affirmative defense?

NO. When a party raises an affirmative defense, he in effect, hypothetically admits the material allegations of his opponent in his pleadings. In a case where a party defaults, is there still a need to present evidence?

YES. The court should still require the non-defaulting party to present his evidence. There is still a need to prove the allegations made in the complaint.

In every case that requires adjudication, is there a need to present evidence at all times?

No. There are instances when Evidence is not required to be presented such as the following:

1. When no factual issue exists in a case. 2. Where the case presents only a

question of law.

3. When the pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact.

4. Evidence may also be dispensed with by agreement of the parties.

5. Matters of judicial notice (See Rule 129).

6. Matters judicially admitted (See Rule 129).

Layno. Rabajante. Morana. Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan|

3

Rules 128-133? YES.

Illustration?

Note: Example ni Jara ito. Supposing in a complaint for sum of money, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant is indebted to him for P10 million pesos. Upon the presentation of evidence, the plaintiff presents to the court a promissory note evidencing the indebtedness of the defendant. The note however indicates that such indebtedness amounts to P30 million pesos. May the court admit aforementioned evidence even if the original complaint only alleged P10 million? YES. Under Sec. 5, Rule 10 (Amendment to conform or to authorize

presentation of evidence). You see, this is an

evidentiary rule outside Rules 128-133 (This was a total mind-fuck. Please take note of this example of his).

What is Factum Probandum and Factum Probans?

Factum probandum is the ultimate fact or the

fact sought to be established. Factum Probans

pertains to the evidentiary fact or the facts by which the Probandum is established. The former refers to the proposition, while the latter refers to the materials which establish that proposition. Does probandum exist in a case where a party defaults?

YES. Party still needs to present evidence ex-parte.

A prosecutor files in the court an information for homicide. Is there probandum already? NO. Because the accused has yet to be arraigned. In criminal cases, the arraignment of the accused determines whether or not there exists a probandum.

If the accused pleads guilty to a crime, does that negate the existence of probandum? Not in all instances. Probandum is still necessary when the case involves a heinous crime.

True or False. Probandum is always determined by the allegations in the pleadings.

FALSE. Probandum may also be determined by the pre-trial order and it may change during the course of the trial (see Sec. 5, Rule 10).

Can probandum change easily in a criminal case?

No. probandum cannot be changed the same way it can be changed in a criminal case. There is a necessity to amend the pleadings according to the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

When do we apply the Rules on Evidence? The rules of evidence, being part of the Rules of Court, apply only to judicial proceedings, subject to inapplicable cases in Sec. 4, Rule 128. Can we apply evidence in Summary Proceedings?

Yes. Summary proceedings partake the nature of judicial proceedings. Being the case, we can definitely apply the Rules on Evidence in such. Do we present Evidence in Summary Proceedings? If so, what then is our evidence?

YES. Evidence is still presented by virtue of the pleadings and affidavits submitted before the court. They partake the nature of documentary evidence and they serve to prove an issue of fact provided that they are admissible pursuant to law.

How about in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings? Yes. The same apply by analogy whenever practicable and convenient except where the governing law on that particular proceeding specifically adopts the rules of evidence in the Rules of Court.

Distinguish Proof from Evidence.

Proof is not the evidence itself. There is proof only because of evidence. It is merely the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from a consideration of evidence. On the other hand,

Layno. Rabajante. Morana. Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan|

4

proved or disproved.

What are the different classifications of evidence?

According to Form:

1. Object: evidence that is directly addressed to the senses of the court and consists of tangible things exhibited or demonstrated in open court, in an ocular inspection, or in a designated place.

2. Documentary: evidence supplied by written instruments or derived from conventional symbols, such as letters, by which ideas are represented on material substances.

3. Testimonial: submitted to the court through the testimony or the depositon of a witness.

As to ability to establish a fact in dispute:

1. Direct: proves a fact in dispute without any aid of any inference or presumption. 2. Circumstantial: proof of fact or facts which taken singly or collectively, the existence of a fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or a probable consequence.

As to Probative Value:

1. Prima Facie: that which standing alone unexplained, is sufficient to establish the proposition affirmed.

2. Conclusive: Evidence which is incontrovertible.

3. Corroborative: additional evidence of a different kind and character from that already given tending to prove the same point.

4. Cumulative: additional evidence of the same kind and character proving the same fact.

As to weight and acceptability:

1. Primary: evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the fact in question. 2. Secondary: evidence which is inferior to

primary evidence. As to Quality: 1. Relevant 2. Material 3. Admissible 4. Credible 5. Competent

What are the Axioms of Admissibility?

Axiom of Relevance: None but the facts having a rational probative value are admissible.

Axiom of Competence: Facts having a rational probative value are admissible unless some specific rule prohibits their admission.

What are the different classes of admissibility according to jurisprudence?

1. Multiple Admissibility of Evidence – where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes, such evidence may be admitted for any or all purposes which it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for the admissibility therefor. 2. Conditional Admissibility of Evidence –

where evidence initially offered appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence may be admitted under the condition that the subsequent facts shall be proven; otherwise, they shall be stricken out from the record. 3. Curative Admissibility of Evidence –

Where improper evidence was admitted against the opposition of another party, he may be allowed to contradict it with similar improper evidence.

WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVEN

What are some matters that do not require any evidence?

1. Where no factual issue exists in a case. 2. Where the case presents only a

question of law.

3. When the pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact.

4. When there is an agreement made by the parties (usually done in the pre-trial). 5. When courts have taken judicial notice

Layno. Rabajante. Morana. Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan|

5

It is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act upon without proof. Why? I thought facts must be proven in court?

Yes. That is the general rule. However, there are some matters, on the basis of expediency and convenience, which do not require proof. The need for evidence is set aside by the rules. What are matters subject of Judicial Notice?

1. Existence and territorial extent of states; 2. Political history, forms of government,

and symbols of nationality; 3. Law of nations

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.

What is the doctrine of Processual Presumption?

The foreign law, whenever applicable, should be proved by the proponent thereof, otherwise, such law shall be presumed to be exactly the same as the law of the forum.

Is it not the duty of the Courts to apply the Local Law?

It is. However, there are certain transactions and legal acts that are bound by laws of foreign jurisdictions. It is important that courts respect the governing laws over such acts. However, the existence of such laws must be proven as a matter of fact.

How do you then prove foreign law?

As for foreign statutes and issuances, you prove the foreign law through acquiring a copy of the said document which is certified by the agent of the said country through the DFA (As per Jara‘s lecture, get a copy of the law abroad or in the embassy, have it certified through a consul,

ambassador, or a foreign public official, and para sigurado, idaan mo na din sa DFA).

Do we still need certification that the said foreign law exists even though the existence of such has been stipulated by both parties? The general rule is that the foreign law must still be proven as a matter of fact. However, in the case of PCIB vs. Escolin, the Supreme Court held that 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. In essence, the

Escolin case gives the requisites for the

exception:

1. Actual knowledge by the Court; 2. Foreign law is generally well known; 3. Stipulation by the parties.

What if the foreign law is Common Law? How do you prove such creature?

Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals (as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch). You prove such by getting a copy of the foreign court‘s decision and having the same certified in the like manner as you certify foreign statutes.

Is Judicial Notice absolute according to the Rules?

No. There are some matters that require hearing before courts can take judicial notice.

When does it require hearing?

1. During 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.

2. After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the court 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.

Layno. Rabajante. Morana. Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan|

6

It is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings.

Note: for an extensive discussion on admissions, please see the memory aid.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

May a complaint contain a judicial admission?

Yes, if there is an allegation that is contrary to the interests of the complainant. In evidence, such admission must be DISADVANTAGEOUS to the one who made the complaint (Jara statement).

Are admissions made by a counsel binding upon his client?

Generally, Yes. Unless of course the lawyer was patently stupid.

Note: The function of the rule that negligence or mistake of counsel in procedure is imputed to and binding upon the client, as any other procedural rule, is to serve as an instrument to advance the ends of justice. When in the circumstances of each case the rule desert[s] its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, its rigors must be relaxed to admit exceptions thereto and to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.

The court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule whenever the purposes of justice require it [Aguilar v. CA, 320 Phil. 456 (1995)].

What if because of the stupidity of the lawyer, he made a general denial of all the allegations?

Normally, the case would be ripe for judgment on the merits. However, the client may still amend his pleading as a matter of right especially if there is no reply yet.

Usually in cases where there is an amendment of pleadings, a judicial admission is transformed into an extrajudicial admission. Will the same hold true in the problem above?

Yes. Party must then raise such admissions as evidence.

What happens to the judicial admissions contained in the pleadings which are subsequently amended?

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 (Sec.8, Rule 10). Such admissions, however, are considered extra-judicial admissions. Having been amended, the original complaint lost its character as a judicial admission, which would have required no proof, and became merely an extrajudicial admission, the admissibility of which, as evidence, required its formal offer (Torres vs. CA, L-37420-21, July 31, 1984). In appealed cases, may there be a verbal judicial admission?

Yes. In cases for a petition for new trial. What the doctrine of adoptive admission? An adoptive admission is a party‗s reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the party‗s reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15). In this case, Estrada‗s admission of his resignation as President was based on the diary of Angara.

Supposing evidence was presented tending to prove a substantially different (usually greater) claim which was not subject of a previous admission by the adverse party during the pre-trial, may the court admit such evidence?

Layno. Rabajante. Morana. Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan|

7

far as People of the Philippines are concerned?

No.

Is there a need to wait for a response? No.

Is there a need for a judicial admission to be prejudicial to the admitter?

No. The self-serving rule which prohibits the admission or declaration of a witness in his favor applies only to extra-judicial admissions.

Self-serving statements, even if made in the complaint, are admissible because the claimant or the witness making it may be cross-examined on such statements. However, whether it will be credible or not, is a matter of appreciation on the part of the court.

What was the case of Prats vs. Phoenix? Facts: This action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila by Prats & Co., a mercantile partnership, for the purpose of recovering from the Phoenix Insurance Co., of Hartford, Connecticut, the sum of P117,800.60, with interest, by reason of a loss alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, on August 21, 1924, from a fire, it being alleged that said loss was covered by policy of insurance No. 600217, for the sum of P200,000, issued by the defendant company to the plaintiff. For answer, the defendant, Pheonix Insurance Co., admitted the insurance of the policy of insurance but, by way of special defense, alleged, among other things, that the fire in question had been set by the plaintiff, or with its connivance, and that the plaintiff had submitted under oath to the defendant a fraudulent claim of loss, in contravention of the express terms of the policy. The trial of the case covered a period of almost two years, in which fifty separate sessions were held, without counting the numeruos hearings upon the taking of the deposition of Francisco Prats, a partner in the plaintiff firm, whose testimony was taken at the instance of the defendant. Taken all together, the time thus consumed was out of all proportion to the difficulties of the case. An examination of the voluminous transcript reveals at least part of the reason for this inordinate consumption of time;

since we find that far too much of the space in the transcript is taken up with the record of petty skirmishes in court resulting from objections over the admission of evidence.

Issue: WON the technical rules of evidence may be relaxed in admitting evidence.

Held: Yes. In the course of long experience we have observed that justice is most effectivly and expenditiously administered in the courts where trivial objections to the admission of proof are received with least favor. The practice of excluding evidence on doubtful objection to its materiality or technical objection to the form of the questions should be avoided. In a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of first instance, in the early stages of the development of the proof, to know with any certainty whether testimony is relevant or not; and where there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the attorney offering the evidence, the court may as a rule safely accept the testimony upon the statement of the attorney that the proof offered will be connected later. Moreover, it must be remembered that in the heat of the battle over which he presides a judge of first instance may possibly fall into error in judging of the relevancy of proof where a fair and logical connection is in fact shown. When such a mistake is made and the proof is erroneously ruled out, the Supreme Court, upon appeal, often finds itself embarrassed and possibly unable to correct the effects of error without returning the case for a new trial, -- a step which this court is always very loath to take. On the other hand, the admission of proof in a court of first instance, even if the question as to its form, materiality, or relevancy is doubtful, can never result in much harm to either litigant, because the trial judge is supposed to know the law; and it is its duty, upon final consideration of the case, to distinguish the relevant and material from the irrelevant and immaterial. If this course is followed and the cause is prosecuted to the Supreme Court upon appeal, this court then has all the material before it necessary to make a correct judgment.

In this connection it should be remembered that many of the technical rules of evidence which are often invoked in our courts were originally worked out in England and the United States, where the jury system prevails. These rules were adopted for the purpose of keeping matter from juries which - it was supposed - might

Layno. Rabajante. Morana. Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan|

8

They have little pertinence to a system of procedure, like ours, in which the court is judge both of law and facts, and in which accordingly it is necessary for the court to know what the proof is before it rules upon the propriety of receiving it. Apart from these considerations is the circumstance mentioned above that the time consumed in the trial on such collateral points is generally many times greater than would be consumed if the questionable testimony should be admitted for what it is worth. What has been said above finds special relevancy in this case in view of the action of the trial court in refusing to consider the proof referred to in the opinion showing that the plaintiff, while engaged in assembling its stock, procured maritime insurance upon a fictitious importation of silk. We earnestly commend the maintenance of liberal practice in the admission of proof.

Our examination of the case leads to the conclusion that the result reached by the trial court was correct.

What happened in the case of Maceda? Facts: This is a criminal action for slight slander instituted in the justice of the peace court of Pasig, Rizal, against defendants Generoso Maceda and Corazon Maceda and which was dismissed on the ground that the offense had already prescribed. The offense was allegedly committed on July 21, 1940, and the action was filed on October 22, 1940, that is three months and one day after the supposed commission thereof. The private attorney for the offended party made an admission to the effect that no damages had been sustained by the latter. Issue: WON the offended party may be bound by the admission of his attorney.

Held: In the instant case, the supposed admission is denied. Besides, no attorney can waive his client's cause of action unless with the consent of the client, and, in the instance case, the admission attributed to the private prosecuting attorney is not alleged to have been made with the offended party's consent.

OBJECT EVIDENCE What is Object Evidence?

Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court.

Are there other terms for object evidence? 1. Real

2. Physical 3. Demonstrative 4. Autoptic preference.

Are there rules on exclusion for object evidence?

Section 1 of Rule 130 provides that when an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. Aside from being Relevant?

Generally, there could be no rules for the exclusion of object evidence.

Are there exceptions?

1. The exhibition of such object is contrary to public policy, morals or decency; 2. Observation of such evidence in an

ocular inspection would result in delays, inconvenience, unnecessary expenses out of proportion to the evidentiary value of such object;

3. Such object evidence would be misleading or confusing;

4. The testimonial or documentary evidence already presented in curt already portrays the object in question as to render a view thereof unnecessary.

5. Those evidence acquired through illegal searches and seizures.

What do you call to those evidence acquired through unlawful searches and seizures? Derivative Evidence.

What are the categories of Object Evidence? 1. Unique – objects that have readily

identifiable marks.

2. Objects made unique – objects that are readily made identifiable.

3. Non-unique – objects with no identifying marks and cannot be marked.

Layno. Rabajante. Morana. Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan|

9

inspection?

The court goes to the place where the object evidence is located, whenever the said object cannot be brought to the chambers of the court because it is an immovable or moving such object would cause undue inconvenience. Is ocular inspection part of the judicial proceedings?

Yes. It is part of the trial. Inasmuch as evidence is thereby being received, such inspection should be made in the presence of the parties or at least with previous notice to them of the time and place set for the view.

Is the judge always needed to be present in the ocular inspection?

No. There are certain evidence-gathering procedures that do not require the presence of the judge such as those proceedings conducted by commissioners.

Can there be a practical mechanism to allow the inspection while dispensing the need for the presence of the judge?

I just answered your question bitch. What is the case of US vs. Tegrado?

A colt valued at P34 was stolen from Valeriano Blanca. It was subsequently found in the possession of Agapito Partolan. The latter testified that he bought the animal from Zacarias Tegrado, the accused. The accused, however, claimed that the colt was raised from a mare belonging to him and then sold to Partolan. Identification of the colt to determine if its mother was a mare belonging to the complainant Valeriano Blana or if its mother was a mare belonging to the accused Zacarias Tegrado is, therefore, the determining factor.

The colt was identified by a number of witnesses as the property of Blanca. Other witnesses testified to having seen the colt following a mare belonging to the accused. Whom shall we believe? We could, of course, rest our conclusion on the findings of the trial court. We could, in addition, point out grave discripancies in the testimony of the witnesses for the defense, which argues against its reliability. But

there was present as in interested, spectator, another witnesses, who, without being sworn, could tell the truth and nothing but the truth. This was the colt. The colt was separated from the mare of the complaining witness and turned loose; it at once went back to this mare. The colt was then taken to the mare of the accused; but showed its dislike for the mare and tried to find the mare of the complaining witness. Another colt was placed near the mare of the complaining witness; thereupon the mare and that colt both resisted. This was a practical demonstration worthy of a Solomon by which the colt was able to testify by manifesting all the signs of the young, whether human or not, on finding a long lost mother.

In the case of Tegrado, why did the court gave reference to King Solomon?

A Solomonic approach was done in the case of Tegrado because of the way the court arrived with a proof – through the use of demonstrative evidence, in observing the demeanor of the horse in order to determine its true owner. What was the object evidence in Tegrado? The court observed the horse and its demeanor. What happened in the case of People vs. Gutierrez?

At around 4:45 p.m. on September 12, 2002, the police station of Ramos, Tarlac acting on a tip regarding a shabu transaction (drug-pushing) taking place somewhere in Purok Jasmin, Poblacion Norte, dispatched a three-man team composed of PO3 Romeo Credo, P/Insp. Napoleon Dumlao, and SPO1 Restituto Fernandez to the place mentioned. Arriving at the target area, the three noticed Fernando and one Dennis Cortez under a santol tree handing plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance to certain individuals. At the sight of the police officers, Fernando and the others scampered in different directions. After a brief chase, however, one of the three police operatives caught up with and apprehended Fernando, then carrying a bag.

Without a trace of equivocation, the RTC and later the CA held that the prosecution had discharged the burden of proving all the elements of the crime charged. Since Fernando was caught carrying the incriminating bag after

Layno. Rabajante. Morana. Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan|

10

the target area, any suggestion that he was not in actual possession or control of the prohibited drug hidden in the area would be puny. Thus, ownership of the bag is truly inconsequential.

We emphasize at this juncture that in no instance did Fernando intimate to the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of the seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. He, thus, veritably admits that the crystalline substance in the sachets found in his bag was the same substance sent for laboratory examination and there positively determined to be shabu and eventually presented in evidence in court as part of the corpus delicti. In other words, Fernando, before the RTC and the CA, opted not to make an issue of whether the chain of custody of the drugs subject of this case has been broken. This disposition on the part of Fernando is deducible from the August 18, 2005 Order of the trial court, pertinently saying, ―[The] Acting Provincial Prosecutor x x x and Atty. Emmanuel Abellera, counsel de officio of the accused manifested that the chain of custody of the searched illegal drug or shabu is admitted.‖

As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the presentation of the seized prohibited drugs as an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This would ideally cover the testimony about every link in the chain, from seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, to include, as much as possible, a description of the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.

What was the object evidence in the case of Gutierrez?

The seized drugs.

What is the Doctrine of the Chain of Custody?

Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation

to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as evidence, and the final disposition (Section 1, DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002).

How is the process conducted?

Under Sec. 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Acts of 2002:

1. The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

2. Within 24 hours upon

confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential

chemicals, as well as

instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination.

3. A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within 24 hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, that when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, that a final certification shall be issued on the

Layno. Rabajante. Morana. Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan|

11

examination on the same within the next 24 hours;

4. After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within 72 hours, conduct an ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including the instruments/ paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and through the PDEA shall within 24 hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or burning of the same, in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public official. The Board shall draw up the guidelines on the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such item/s which shall be borne by the offender: Provided, that those item/s of unlawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be donated, used or recycled for legitimate purposes: Provided further, that a representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is retained;

5. The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the subject item/s which, together with the representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to the court having jurisdiction over the case. In all instances, the representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum quantity as determined by the Board; and

6. The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the above proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel within 71 hours before the actual burning or destruction or the evidence in question, the SOJ shall appoint a member of the PAO to represent the former;

7. After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal case wherein the representative sample/s was presented as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the Board of the final termination of the case and, in turn, shall request the court for leave to turn over the said representative sample/s to the PDEA for proper disposition and destruction within 24 hours from receipt of the same.

Is it necessary that the whole amount of drugs must be presented in evidence? No. Only a sample amount as determined by the DDB may be presented to the court.

How do you then prove the existence of such amount?

Through an initial certification and a subsequent ocular inspection done by the court hearing the case.

Is that not substitution?

No. Since a sample was taken from the very objects that were seized by the authorities themselves. Besides, to require the presentation of all the amount/volume of evidence before the court would only cause great inconvenience. You do not want to destroy Judge Wagan‘s mood by wasting her time looking at the stacks of marijuana and accounting for their volume. Judge Wagan can be very angry. And you would not like it when she‘s angry.

Are pictures in drug cases sufficient?

No, because the narcotic substance is the very corpus delicti of the crime.

Is failure to comply strictly with the mandate of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (pertaining to the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and surrendered dangerous drugs, etc.) fatal to the prosecution?

No. Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will not render an accused‘s arrest

Layno. Rabajante. Morana. Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan|

12

inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized driugs or other related items immediately after thet are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus, it is vital that the seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, ―planting,‖ or contamination of evidence (People of the Philippines v. Allen Udtojan Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227).

Is the class card an object evidence?

It depends. If we pertain solely to the paper itself, the class card itself without having to look into the contents of the same, it can be said that the class cards partake the nature of object evidence. On the other hand, if there is a need to view the contents written on the class cards, they partake the nature of documentary evidence.

Supposing there was an action for damages arising from a quasi-delict on account of a vehicular accident. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he figured in the collision and in the process, his arm got amputated. Can the plaintiff bring to the court the amputated arm?

Nope. for the following reasons (According to Morana‘s recollection of Jara‘s explanation):

1. Kadiri. It is offensive to the senses and thus, will violate the norms of decency in court proceedings.

2. Madaya. Can you imagine if you are the judge and while you are writing your decision, the amputated arm is right before your eyes? It will be prejudicial to the defendant in that case.

Is it not the right of the plaintiff to choose the type of object evidence he may desire for as long as it is relevant?

Yes. That is the GENERAL RULE. However, it must still be subject to the common norms of public policy, decency and morality.

What is your legal basis?

Jara: court decisions have established certain grounds to refuse to admit such evidence. (He did not cite any case. Up to you to look for them).

Let us take for example a special proceeding. A person wants to change the sex indicate in the entry in his birth certificate from male to female. Mali daw ang nalagay. Dapat daw babae siya. Can the plaintiff undress before the court?

No. Again, it will offend the norms of decency. It would be better if were done in closed chambers.

What is Demonstrative Evidence? How does one test its admissibility?

Demonstrative evidence is not the actual thing but it is referred to as ―demonstrative‖ because it represents or demonstrates the real thing. It is not strictly ―real‖ evidence because it is not the very thing involved in the case. A map, a diagram, a photograph and a model, fall under this category.

The admissibility of this type of evidence largely depends on laying the proper foundation for the evidence. The rule boils down to one basic question: Does the evidence sufficiently and accurately represent the object it seeks to demonstrate or represent? If it does, the evidence would be admissible

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEST EVIDENCE RULE What is Documentary Evidence?

Documentary Evidence consists of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figure, symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents.

Layno. Rabajante. Morana. Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan|

13

evidence?

In order to prove the contents of the writing. What is the Best Evidence Rule?

The term ―best has nothing to do with the degree of its probative value in relation to other types of evidentiary rules. It is not intended to mean the ―most superior evidence. More accurately, it is the ―original document rule‖ or the ―primary evidence rule. This rule applies to documentary evidence only, or a document presented as proof of its contents. It does not apply where there is no bona fide dispute on the contents of documents and no useful purpose would be served by its production. Simply stated, when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself.

Is the Rule Absolute?

No. The Best Evidence Rule admits several exceptions:

1. When the original has been LOST or DESTROYED, or cannot be PRODUCED in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. When the original is a PUBLIC RECORD in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. Why is there such a rule?

1. To prevent fraud;

2. To exclude uncertainties in the contents of a document

So if I present a photocopy of a certain document, is it automatically excluded because of the Best evidence Rule?

NO. If the presentation of the photocopied document is only for the purpose of proving the existence, execution, or the delivery of the said photocopied document without any reference as to its terms, such evidence may still be admissible.

Under the best evidence rule, the original document must be produced whenever its contents are the subject of inquiry. A photocopy, being mere secondary evidence, is not admissible unless it is shown that the original is unavailable. Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original, the offeror must prove the following:

1. The existence or due execution of the original;

2. The loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its non-production in court; and

3. On the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed.

The correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents

Does the “Best Evidence Rule” apply absolutely in all cases a document is presented as an evidence in court?

NO. With respect to documentary evidence, the best evidence rule applies only when the contents of such document is the subject of inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether such a document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible

OK. I present the original of a document. Is it automatically admitted?

No. It has to undergo the process of authentication, except if the document is a public document.

Layno. Rabajante. Morana. Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan|

14

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

What is the Parol Evidence Rule?

GENERAL RULE: When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other the contents of the written agreement.

EXCEPTION: a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:

1. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent of the parties thereto;

2. The intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement; 3. The validity of the written agreement; 4. The existence of other terms agreed to

by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.

The term ―agreement‖ includes wills. What is Parol Evidence?

Parol evidence is any evidence aliunde, whether oral or written, which is intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a document.

Why is there such a rule?

When an agreement has been reduced into writing, they are presumed to have intended the writing as the ONLY EVIDENCE of their agreement, and, therefore, they are supposed to have embodied all the terms of such agreement. Consequently, all prior or contemporaneous collateral stipulations which the parties might have had and which do not appear in writing, are presumed to have been waived or abandoned by them, and therefore, not provable.

How do you determine whether or not the subject of an oral agreement is separate and distinct from the subject of the writing? STEPS:

1. Determine first what is the whole subject intended by the parties to be covered by such writing. This question may be determined from the contract itself, in light of the subject-matter with which it deals and of the circumstances attending its execution.

2. Ascertain the subject of the oral agreement offered to be proved. To this effect, the parol evidence may be admitted provisionally.

3. A comparison should be made between the writing and the oral negotiation and from that comparison it may be seen whether or not the subject of the writing is separate and distinct from that of the oral negotiation.

4. If the subject of the oral negotiation is not so closely connected with the subject of the writing as to form part and parcel of it, then parol evidence is admissible.

Distinguish Parol Evidence rule from the Best Evidence Rule.

Parol Evidence Rule Best Evidence Rule Availability of the Original Document Presupposes that the original document is available in court. Contemplates the situation wherein the original writing is not available and/or there is a dispute as to whether said writing is the original. What the rule prohibits Prohibits the varying of terms of a written agreement. Prohibits the introduction of substitutionary evidence in lieu of the original document regardless of whether or not it varies the contents of the original. What kind of documents does the rule apply? Applies only to documents which are contractual in nature, including wills.

Applies to all kinds of writings.

Layno. Rabajante. Morana. Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan|

15

invoke?

Only when the controversy is between the parties to the written agreement, their privies, or any party directly affected thereby. Can be invoked by any party to an action regardless of whether or not such party has participated in the writing involved.

If the last paragraph in Section 9 of Rule 130 was not included, would parol evidence rule still be applicable?

Yes. The Civil Code is pretty clear on this one: Art. 789. When there is an imperfect description, or when no person or property exactly answers the description, mistakes and omissions must be corrected, if the error appears from the context of the will or from extrinsic evidence, excluding the oral declarations of the testator as to his intention; and when an uncertainty arises upon the face of the will, as to the application of any of its provisions, the testator's intention is to be ascertained from the words of the will, taking into consideration the circumstances under which it was made, excluding such oral declarations.

AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS

Let us discuss the process of authenticating a document. What is a public document? What is a private document?

Public Documents are:

1. The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; 2. Documents acknowledged before a

notary public except last wills and testaments; and

3. Public records, kept in the Philippines, or private documents required by law to be entered therein.

All other documents are private.

Is a notarized will a public document?

NO. Last wills and testament must undergo an authentication process even if they are

notarized. The substantive rule in the Civil Code provides that: ―No will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the probate court.‖

Therefore, is Sec. 19, Rule 132 applicable to wills?

Hindi phowZ. Jejeje.

Distinguish a notarized deed of sale from a notarized will.

A notarized deed of sale is a public document and needs no authentication. A notarized will, by express provision of the Civil Code and the Rules of Court, needs to undergo authentication. Even if such is notarized, it cannot be considered a public document.

Why is there a need to authenticate a notarized will?

Public policy requires it. Courts must at all times give respect to testamentary intent. In order to prevent fraud, authentication of wills is mandatory.

How may the genuineness of a notarized deed be assailed?

It may be assailed by discrediting the genuineness of the signature, or the handwriting, or the identity of the public officer who prepared the same (not sure. But sounds right).

How do you prove a private document? The due execution and authenticity of a private document must be proved either by:

1. Anyone who saw the document executed or written;

2. Evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. It is therefore NOT NECESSARY that the witness be an eyewitness

Must all private documents undergo the process of authentication?

NO. The following are private writings which may be admitted in evidence without previous proof of its authenticity and due execution:

Layno. Rabajante. Morana. Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan|

16

execution of the document is admitted by the adverse party;

2. When such genuineness and due execution are immaterial to the issue; 3. When the document is an ANCIENT

DOCUMENT.

4. Rule on Actionable Documents – when the adverse party fails to specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the actionable document and to set forth what he claims to be the facts, the same shall be deemed admitted (Rule 8,Sec.8). 5. Request for Admission – if the party fails

to specifically deny the matters on which the admission is requested within the period given, the genuineness and due execution shall be deemed admitted (Rule 26).

6. Pre-Trial – the parties can enter stipulations and admit the genuineness and due execution.

What are ancient documents? What is the rule with respect to such?

Requirements for Ancient Document Rule: 1. The private document is more than 30

years old;

2. It is produced from custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine; 3. It is unblemished by any alterations or

circumstances of suspicions.

It is important to note, however, that the ancient document rule applies only when there are no available witnesses to testify as to the authenticity of the document.

A documentary evidence in an unofficial language was presented to the court. How can a proponent convince the court that the translation is credible?

Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial.

To convince the court, present the evidence, get a translation, have a translator take the witness stand as an expert witness, qualify the witness,

make him testify and read the whole thing, then let him translate the language.

How do you impeach judicial records? 1. By evidence of want of jurisdiction of the

court or judicial officer;

2. Collusion between the parties;

3. Extrinsic fraud on the part of the party offering the record, in respect of the proceedings.

What happened in the case of US vs. Gregorio?

In the suit instituted for the payment of a certain sum of money, judgment was rendered wherein the debtor was sentenced to pay to the plaintiff P275.92, with interest thereon, and the costs. For the execution of the said judgment, two rural properties belonging to the debtor were attached. Bernardo Gregorio requested the deputy sheriff to exclude the said realty from the attachment, alleging that he was the owner of the land situated in Tambogon, one of the properties levied upon for the reason that he had acquired it by purchase from the judgment debtor, Balistoy, in 1905, prior to the filing of the complaint. In order that the claim of intervention presented to the sheriff might prosper, Bernardo Gregorio attached thereto the document Exhibit D, at the end of which and among other particulars appears the memorandum dated in Libog as of February 22, 1905, and signed by Eustaquio Balistoy, Lorenzo Gregorio, and Cirilo Valla, and in which Balistoy states that he bought the land referred to in the said document from Luis Balistoy and sold it to Bernardo Gregorio for P300, wherefore he signed as such vendor. A complaint was filed in each of the two aforesaid causes in the Court of First Instance of Albay, charging each of the defendants with the crime of the falsification of a private document. Issue: WON Balistoy, with intent to injure his creditor, Pedro Salazar, and for the purpose of avoiding the attachment and sale of one of the properties did execute or write the said memorandum whereby, on February 25, 1905, he made or simulated a conveyance of one of the attached properties in favor of the said Bernardo Gregorio, according to the aforesaid copy, when in fact the said memorandum was written in April, 1908.

Layno. Rabajante. Morana. Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan|

17

vendor and the vendee of the land in question, it is stated that these parties, the defendants, simulated the said memorandum of sale or conveyance of the land with the intent to injure the creditor, Pedro Salazar; but as the original document, setting forth the said memorandum, was not presented, but merely a copy thereof, and furthermore, as it could not be ascertained who had the original of the document containing the memorandum in question, nor the exact date when the latter was written; the said memorandum, presumed to be simulated and false, was not literally compared by the sheriff who testified that he had seen its original for but a few moments, nor by any officer authorized by law to certify to documents and proceedings such as are recorded in notarial instruments, nor even by two witnesses who might afterwards have been able to testify before the court that the copy exhibited was in exact agreement with its original; therefore, on account of these deficiencies, doubt arises as to whether the original of the document, Exhibit D, really existed at all, and whether the memorandum at the foot of the said exhibit is an exact copy of that alleged to have been written at the end of the said original document.

In criminal proceedings for the falsification of a document, it is indispensable that the judges and courts have before them the document alleged to have been simulated, counterfeited, or falsified, in order that they may find, pursuant to the evidence produced in the cause, whether or not the crime of falsification was committed, and also, at the same time, to enable them to determine the degree of each defendant's liability in the falsification under prosecution. Through the lack of the original document containing the memorandum alleged to be false, it is improper to hold, with only a copy of the said original in view, that the crime prosecuted was committed; and although, judging from the testimony of the witnesses who were examined in the two consolidated causes, there is reason to entertain much doubt as to the defendants' innocence, yet, withal, this case does not furnish decisive and conclusive proof of their respective guilt as co-principals of the crime charged. Defendants in a criminal cause are always presumed to be innocent until their guilt be fully proven, and, in case of reasonable doubt and when their guilt is not satisfactorily shown, they are entitled to a judgment of acquittal.

What happened in Government vs. Martinez? In the cadastral proceedings instituted in the Court of Land Registration for the settlement of titles to lands in the municipality of Iloilo, Province of Iloilo, Dolores and Carmen Martinez appeared claiming to be the owners of lots Nos. 873 and 450. They alleged that they were in possession thereof for about twenty-five years, having acquired them by donation from Maria Sarlabus, and that their predecessors in interest had possession of the same for at least three years prior to said donation.

On the otherhand, Julio Salvador, through his attorney, entered his appearance and claimed title to said lots, alleging that he was in actual possession thereof, and that his predecessors in interest had been in possession before him for at least fourteen years. To support their claim, they presented before the court the testimony of two witnesses and a certified copy issued by the acting registrar of deeds of Iloilo dated May 13, 1914.

The CFI of Iloilo ruled in favor of Julio Salvador on the ground that, in the opinion of the court, it was proved that the Martinez sisters had sold said land to one named Domenech and that the latter, in return, sold it to Julio Salvador, who could, therefore, be considered owner of the disputed lots.

Dolores and Carmen Martinez excepted to said judgment and filed a bill of exceptions after their motion for new trial had been overruled, and they had excepted to the order overruling said motion.

Issue: WON the trial court erred in admitting the copy of the record of a supposed document of sale presented by Julio Salvador, in support of his claim of title without the disappearance or loss of the original document having been previously proved.

Held: Yes. Section 299 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: "The written acts of record of the acts of the sovereign authority, of official bodies and tribunals and of public officers, legislative, judicial, and executive of the Philippine Islands, or of the United States, or of any States of the United States or of a foreign country, and public records kept in the Philippine Islands of private writings are public writings. A copy of a public writing, duly certified to be a

Layno. Rabajante. Morana. Reyes. Suyat. Baraoidan|

18

cases and in like effect as the original writing." The certified copy issued by the acting registrar of deeds of Iloilo, Exhibit 2, is not a true copy of the document of sale which is said to have been executed by the Martinez sisters in favor of Antonio Domenech, but of the recital appearing in the books of said registry with respect to the urban property, consisting of those two lots. In the case at bar, Julio Salvador, had not first complied with the provisions of section 321 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court ruled that the best obtainable evidence should be adduced to prove every disputed fact, and a failure to produce it, but an attempt instead to sustain the issue by inferior evidence, will authorize the inference that the party does not furnish the best evidence because it would tend to defeat, instead of sustaining, the issue of his part. In requiring the production of the best evidence applicable to each particular fact, it is meant that no evidence shall be received which is merely substitutionary in its nature, so long as the original evidence can be had.

Undoubtedly the best evidence of the contents of a written instrument consists in the actual production of the instrument itself, and the general rule is that secondary evidence of its contents cannot be admitted until the nonproduction of the original has been satisfactory accounted for.

Secondary evidence of the contents of writings if admitted on the theory that the original cannot be produced by the party by whom the evidence is offered, within a reasonable time by the exercise of reasonable diligence. And ordinarily secondary evidence is not admissible until the nonproduction of the primary evidence has been sufficiently accounted for.

The contents of a lost instrument cannot be proved unless it appears that reasonable search has been made in the place where the paper was last know to have been, and if not found there, that inquiry has been made of the person last known to have had its custody.

In accordance with the rule set forth in the next preceding paragraph parol evidence of the contents of a will is inadmissible, unless it is first shown that diligent and unavailing search has been made for the original, by or at the request

of the party interested, and in the place where it is most likely to be found. . . . But to justify admission of secondary evidence of a deed, it is not necessary to prove its loss beyond all possibility of mistake. A reasonable probability of its loss is sufficient; and this may be shown by a bona fide and diligent search, fruitless made for it in places where it is likely to be found.

As the failure of the oppositor Salvador to present the original document in question was not accounted for; as it is not proper to suppose that the original could not have been presented within a reasonable time if he had exercised due diligence for he or his counsel had the means, opportunity and time to find the original if it really existed; as no proof was adduced that said document had been lost, or destroyed, or that proper search therefor was made in the general files of notarial documents in the City of Manila, or that an attempt was made to secure a copy thereof if it existed in said files; as the notary, Gregorio Yulo, a person well known in Iloilo, was not asked directly and clearly as to the whereabouts of said document or some particular or data it in order to obtain from him some conclusive and categorical answer; as said notary has not been presented at the trial to be examined on these points; and, lastly, as it was not shown that the party interested in the presentation of said document who is Julio Salvador, had made a diligent and proper, but fruitless, search for said document in any place where it could probably be found — therefore the secondary evidence presented by the oppositor, consisting of the testimony of the witnesses, Saez and Madrenas, and the certified copy issued by the registrar of deeds of Iloilo, Exhibit 2, is of no value for the purpose intended and such evidence was improperly considered by the court in reaching the conclusion that said Julio Salvador was the owner of the lots in question.

The judgment appealed from is therefore reversed and the claims of Julio Salvador is denied; and we declare that the two lots Nos. 873 and 450 should be adjudicated to the appellants Carmen and Dolores Martinez and be registered in their name. No special pronouncement is made as to costs. So ordered.