Evidence
Preliminary Considerations
Rule 128 – General Provisions
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
Section 2 - SCOPE
The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules.
• Evidence - mode and manner of proving competent facts in judicial proceedings
• Proof - result or effect of evidence
» When the requisite quantum of evidence of a particular fact has been duly admitted and given weight
• Factum probandum – ultimate fact or fact sought to be established
» proposition
• Factum probans – evidentiary fact or the fact by which the factum probandum is to be established
» Materials which establishes the proposition • Law on evidence – procedural law
» Shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights (Sec 5 (5), Art VIII, Consti)
» New rules may be held applicable to cases pending at the time of the change in rules as parties have no vested right in the rules of evidence
▪ Except in criminal cases when the new rule would permit reception of lesser quantum of evidence to convict -> unconstitutional, ex post facto
» Principally found in ROC
▪ Special laws: RA 4200, Code of Commerce Art 448, Civil Code, RPC Art 217
» Bill of Rights Sec 2 and 3
▪ See notes under Sec 33, Rule 130
▪ Right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked in situations covered by immunity statutes
• RA 1379 – immunity to witnesses in proceedings for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property
• PD 749 – immunity in bribery and graft cases
» Specifically applicable only in judicial proceedings ▪ Quasi-judicial: suppletory character whenever
practicable and convenient, except when the governing law specifically adopts ROC
• Classification of evidence based on ROC:
1. Object – that which 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 at a place designated by the court for its view or observation of an exhibition, experiment or demonstration
▪ Autoptic proference – presenting in open court the evidentiary articles for the observation or inspection of the tribunal
2. Documentary evidence – 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 deposition of a witness
• Other classifications
1. Relevant, Material, and Competent Evidence a. Relevant – evidence having any value in
reason as tending to prove any matter provable in an action
• Test of relevancy – logical relation of the evidentiary fact to the fact in issue, whether it tends to prove the probability or improbability of the fact in issue b. Material – evidence directed to prove a fact in
issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings
• Materiality of evidence is determined by WON the fact it tends to prove is in issue c. Competent – one that is not excluded by the
Rules, law or Consti
2. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
a. Direct – that which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption
b. Circumstantial – proof of the fact or facts from which, taken either singly or collectively, the existence of a particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence
3. Cumulative and Corroborative Evidence
a. Cumulative – evidence of the same kind and to the same state of facts
b. Corroborative – additional evidence of a different character to the same point
4. Prima facie and Conclusive Evidence
a. Prima facie – that which, standing alone, unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed
b. Conclusive – that class of evidence which the law does not allow to be contradicted
5. Primary and Secondary Evidence
a. Primary – or best evidence, that which the law regards as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question
b. Secondary evidence – substitutionary evidence, that which is inferior to the primary evidence and is permitted by law only when the best evidence is not available
6. Positive and Negative Evidence
a. Positive – when a witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur
• Entitled to greater weight since witness represents of his personal knowledge b. Negative – witness states that he did not see
or know of the occurrence of a fact
• Total disclaimer of personal knowledge
Section 3 – ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules
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 of the facts in issue
• Two requisites for admissibility:
1. Relevance – determinable by rules of logic and human experience
▪ None but facts having rational probative value are admissible (Wigmore)
2. Competence – determined by prevailing exclusionary rules of evidence
▪ All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific rule forbids their admission
» Therefore, admissibility is an affair of logic and law • Admissibility – determined at the time it is offered to the
court
» Object evidence – offered when presented for the court’s view or evaluation
» Testimonial – offered by the calling of the witness to the stand
» Documentary – formally offered by the proponent immediately before he rests his case
• Objection to the admissibility – made at the time such evidence is offered or as soon as the objection to the admissibility shall have become apparent
» Otherwise, waived
• Conditional admissibility – where the evidence at the time it is offered appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with the other facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence may be received on condition that the other facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise the evidence will be stricken out
» Qualification: no bad faith on the part of the proponent
Evidence
▪ Necessary to avoid unfair surprises to the other party
• Multiple admissibility – where evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any and all the purposes for which it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for its admissibility
• Curative admissibility – treats upon the right of a party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted the same kind of evidence of the adverse party
» Theories:
1. American rule – admission of such incompetent evidence, without objection by the opponent does not justify such opponent in rebutting it by similar incompetent evidence
2. English rule – if a party has presented inadmissible evidence. The adverse party may resort to similar incompetent evidence
3. Massachusetts rule – adverse party may be permitted to introduce similar incompetent evidence in order to avoid a plain and unfair prejudice caused by the admission of the other party’s
» To determine application:
1. WON incompetent evidence was reasonably objected to, and
2. WON, regardless of the objection vel non, the admission will cause a plain and unfair prejudice to the party against whom it is admitted
▪ Conversely, where admissible evidence has been improperly excluded, the other party should not be permitted to introduce similar evidence (Martin)
• Former rule: illegally obtained evidence still admissible unless specifically forbidden
» Abandoned in Stonehill vs. Diokno -> documentary evidence, illegally obtained, is inadmissible on a timely motion or action to suppress
• Collateral matters – matters other than the facts in issue and which are offered as a basis for inference as to the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue
» Irrelevant collateral matters inadmissible
» Circumstantial evidence – evidence of relevant collateral facts
• Weight to evidence, once admitted, depends on judicial evaluation (Rule 133 and jurisprudence)
Evidence
What Need Not Be Proved
Rule 129 – What Need Not Be Proved
Section 1 – JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN MANDATORY A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.
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.
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.
• Judicial notice – cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them
» Based on considerations of expediency and convenience
» May be taken by court on its own motion or when it is requested by either parties
▪ Court will allow the parties to be heard on the matter in question
» Must be exercised with caution and every reasonable doubt on the subject must be resolved in the negative
• Courts are required to take judicial notice of laws » Different with ordinances:
▪ MTC – required to take judicial notice of ordinances of the municipality or city wherein they sit
▪ RTC – must take judicial notice only: 1. When required to do so by statute 2. In a case of appeal before them wherein
the inferior court took judicial notice of an ordinance involved in said case
» Or when capable of unquestionable demonstration (also applies with administrative regulations)
• Courts are required to take judicial notice of the decisions of appellate courts but not of the decisions of coordinate courts
» Not even the decision or the facts involved in another case tried by the same court itself
▪ Unless the parties introduce the same in evidence or doing so is convenient
• Foreign laws – question of fact
» May not be taken judicial notice and have to be proved
▪ Except: said laws are within the actual knowledge of the court
» To prove written foreign law: follow requirements in Sec 24-25, Rule 132
» May be subject of judicial admission
» Processual presumption - no proof nor admission, foreign law presumed to be the same as that in the Philippines
» To prove unwritten foreign law – Sec 46, Rule 130
Section 4 – JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
• Judicial admissions may be made in 1. Pleadings filed by the parties
2. The course of the trial, either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations
3. Other stages of the judicial proceeding • Must be made in the same case in which it is offered
» If made in another case or in another court – must be proved as in any other fact, but entitled greater weight
▪ Admissible unless:
1. Made only for purposes of the first case 2. Withdrawn with the permission of the
court
3. Court deems it proper to relieve the party • Admissions in a pleading which have been withdrawn or
supersede by an amended pleading » Considered as extrajudicial admissions
» However, the rule seems now to include superseded pleadings as judicial admissions
Lim vs. Jabalde (1989)
Facts subject of a stipulation or agreement entered into by the parties at the pre-trial of a case constitute judicial admission by them which, under this section, do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake.
PCIB vs. Escolin (1974)
When the parties in a case agree on what the foreign law provides, these are admissions of fact which the other parties and the court are made to rely and act upon; hence they are in estoppel to subsequently take a contrary position
Evidence
Admissibility of Evidence
Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE SECTION 1 - OBJECT AS EVIDENCE
Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.
• Where object is relevant to a fact in issue, court may acquire knowledge by:
1. Actually viewing the object – becomes object evidence
2. Receiving testimonial evidence thereon
• The fact that an ocular inspection has been held does not preclude a party from introducing other evidence on the same issue
» Ocular inspection – lies within the discretion of the court
▪ Invalid if conducted by a judge without notice or presence of the parties
• Court may refuse introduction of object evidence and rely on testimonial evidence alone if:
1. Exhibition of such object is contrary to public policy, morals or decency
▪ But if view is necessary in the interest of justice, may still be exhibited but the court may exclude the public from such view ▪ Viewing may not be refused if the indecent or
immoral object constitute the very basis for the criminal or civil action
2. To require its being viewed in court or in an ocular inspection would result in delays, inconvenience, and expenses out of proportion to the evidentiary value of such object
3. Such object evidence would be confusing or misleading
4. Testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays the object in question as to render a view unnecessary
• Object evidence – includes any article or object which may be known or perceived by the use of any of the senses – sight (visual), hearing (auditory), touch (tactile), taste (gustatory), or smell (olfactory)
» Includes:
1. Examination of the anatomy of a person or of any substance taken therefrom
2. Conduct of tests, demonstrations, or experiments
3. Examination of representative portrayals of the object in question
• Observations of the court may be amplified by interpretations afforded by testimonial evidence, especially be experts
• Documents are considered object evidence if the purpose is to:
1. Prove their existence or condition or the nature of the handwritings thereon
2. Determine the age of the paper used or the blemishes or alterations thereon
» Otherwise, considered documentary evidence
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2 – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Documents as evidence consists of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents
1. BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Section 3 – ORIGINAL DOCUMENT MUST BE PRODUCED; EXCEPTIONS
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
a. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
b. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
c. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
d. When the original is public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office Section 4 – ORIGINAL OF DOCUMENT
a. The original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.
b. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals.
c. When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals.
• Document – deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by which something is proved, evidenced, or set forth
• Best Evidence Rule – rule of exclusion
» Secondary evidence cannot inceptively be introduced as the original writing itself must be produced in court
» Non-production of the original document, unless justified under Sec 3, gives rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence
» Applies only when the content of such document is the subject of inquiry
» In criminal cases where the issue is not only with respect to the contents of the document but also as to whether such document actually existed with the participation therein as imputed to the accused, the original itself must be presented.
▪ Libel published in a newspaper: copy of said newspaper
▪ Falsification of a document: original of the document
» Does not apply if transactions have been recorded in writing but the contents of such writing are not the subject of inquiry
▪ Affidavits and depositions – strictly speaking, BER does not apply, but will not be admitted if affiants or deponents are available as witnesses
Mahilum vs. CA (1966)
A signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document executed at the same time as the originals is known as a duplicate original and may be introduced in evidence without accounting for the non-production of the original.
People vs. Tan (105 Phil 1242)
With respect to documents prepared in several copies through the use of carbon sheets, SC has held that each carbon copy is considered an original provided that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature of the party sought to be charged thereby, produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being thus reproduced by the same stroke of the pen which made the surface or exposed impression
• However, even if said signature on each copy was written through separate acts, all of carbon copies are regarded as originals if each copy was intended as a repository of the same legal act of the party thereto
• Imperfect carbon copies – merely secondary evidence • Telegrams and cables – depends on the issue to be
proved
» Original dispatch – issue is the contents of the telegram as received by the addressee
» Message delivered for transition – issue as to the telegram sent by the sender
Evidence
» Both – issue is the inaccuracy of the transmission
Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga vs. Reyes (55 Phil 905)
On the issue as to the contents of the articles sent by the accused for publication, the manuscript was the best evidence; but on the issue as to what was actually published, a copy of the newspaper publication was the best evidence.
2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE
Section 5 – WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS UNAVAILABLE
When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
• Requisites: proof by satisfactory evidence of 1. Due execution of the original
▪ Proved through the testimony of either: a. Person/s who executed it;
b. Person before whom its execution was acknowledged; or
c. Any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered or who thereafter saw it and recognized the signatures, or one to whom the parties thereto had previously confessed the execution thereof
2. Loss, destruction or unavailability of all such originals, not due to bad faith
▪ Intentional destruction of the originals by a party who, however, had acted in good faith does not preclude his introduction of secondary evidence of the contents thereof
▪ May be proved by any person who: a. Knew of fact of loss or destruction b. Had made a sufficient examination of the
places where the document or papers of similar character are usually kept by the person in whose custody the document was and has been unable to find it c. Has made any other investigation which is
sufficient to satisfy the court that the document is indeed lost
3. Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search or attempt to produce the original
» All duplicates or counterparts must be accounted for before using copies thereof
De Vera vs. Aguilar (1993)
Since all the duplicates or multiplicates are parts of the writing to be proved, no excuse for non-production of the document can be regarded as established until it appears that all of its parts are unavailable
PNB vs. Olila (98 Phil 1002)
When the original is outside the jurisdiction of the court, as when it is in a foreign country, secondary evidence is admissible
• Secondary evidence may consist of: 1. Copy of said document
2. Recital of its contents in an authentic document 3. Recollection of witnesses
» In this particular order
▪ Except when specifically required by law
• E.g. lost notarial will – testimony of at least 2 credible witnesses
• Reconstitution – governed by Act 3110 + jurisprudence
Section 6 – WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS IN ADVERSE PARTY’S CUSTODY OR CONTROL
If the document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss
Section 8 – PARTY WHO CALLS FOR DOCUMENT NOT BOUND TO OFFER IT
A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence
Evidence
• No particular form of notice is required
» As long as it fairly appraises the other party as to what papers are desired
• Even oral demand in court is allowed » Made on a reasonable time
• Notice must be given to the adverse party or his counsel even if papers is in the hands of a third person
Phil. Ready-Mix Concrete Co. vs. Villacorta, et al (98 Phil 993)
Where receipt of the original of a letter is acknowledged on a carbon copy thereof, there is no need for a notice to the other party to produce the original of the letter
•
Remember: the duplicate copy, if complete is itself an original copy» Only issue: receipt of the original
• Justified refusal of the adverse party to produce the document ≠ presumption of suppression of evidence » Only authorizes the introduction of secondary
evidence
• Where such document is produced ≠ admissibility
»
Requisites for admissibility must be present• Production of evidence under Rule 130 ≠ Production of evidence under Rule 27
Warner, Barnes & Co., Ltd. vs. Buenaflor (36 OG 3290)
Where the nature of the action is in itself a notice, as where it is for the recovery or annulment of documents wrongfully obtained or withheld by the other party, no notice to produce said documents is required
• Third exception to BER – justified not only by the fact that the records are voluminous but also because the fatum probandum is just the general result of the whole » For exception to apply
1. The voluminous character of the records must be established
2. Such records must be made available to the adverse party so that their correctness may be tested on cross-examination
» Originals have to be produced if:
▪
Detailed contents of the records are challenged for being hearsay1▪ Issues are raised as to the authenticity or correctness of the detailed entries
Section 7 – EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS A PUBLIC RECORD
When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof
•
Complements the 4th exception to BER» See Rule 132 Sections 24 and 27
3. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Section 9 – EVIDENCE OF WRITTEN AGREEMENTS 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 their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
a. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
b. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto; c. The validity of the written agreement; or
d. 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.
1 US vs. Razon (37 Phil 856)
De Guzman vs. Calma (100 Phil 1008)
Parol evidence is based upon the consideration that when the parties have reduced their agreement on a particular matter into writing, all their previous and contemporaneous agreements on the matter are merged therein
Evidence
• Parol evidence – evidence aliunde (oral or written) » Intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete
and enforceable agreement embodied in a document
•
As long as they have been put into issue , parol evidence did not bar evidence of a collateral agreement in instances where:» Collateral agreement is not inconsistent with the terms of the contract
» Collateral agreement has not been integrated in and is independent of the written contract (suppletory to the original document)
» Collateral agreement is subsequent to the written contract
» Collateral agreement constitutes a condition precedent which determines whether the written contract may become effective
▪ Does not apply to a condition subsequent not stated in the agreement
• Parol evidence does not apply where at least one party to the suit is not a party or privy of a party to the written agreement in question
Parol Evidence Best Evidence
Presupposes that the original document is available in court
Situation wherein the original writing is not available and/or there is a dispute as to whether said writing is original
Prohibits the varying of the
terms of a written agreement Prohibits the introduction of substitutionary evidence in lieu of the original document Applies only documents that
are contractual in nature Applies to all kinds of writings Can be invoked only when
the controversy is between the parties to the written agreement, their privies or any party directly affected thereby (cestui que trust)
Can be invoked by any party to the action
• To be admissible, mistake or imperfection of the document or its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties, or the validity of the document must be put in issue by the pleadings
» Plaintiff failed to allege in his complaint – cannot introduce parol evidence
▪
But if defendant invoked such fact in his answer, parol evidence may be introduced2 » However, even if not raised on the pleadings butparol evidence is not objected to, objection deemed waived
»
Mistake or imperfection must be proved by clear and convincing evidence3•
Mistake – refers to mistake of fact which is mutual to the parties4» Or where the innocent party was imposed upon by unfair dealing of the other
CC Art. 1363
When one party was mistaken and the other knew or believed that the instrument did not state their real agreement, but concealed that fact from the former, the instrument may be reformed.
• Failure to express true intent
»
Purpose: enable the court to ascertain the true intent of the parties5 or the true nature of their agreement2 PNR vs. CFI of Albay (1978)
3 Tolentino vs. Gonzales Sy Chiam (50 Phil 558) 4 BPI vs. Fidelity & Surety Co. (51 Phil 57) 5 Tolentino vs. Gonzales Sy Chiam (50 Phil 558)
• Latent ambiguity – when the writing on its face appears clear and unambiguous but there are collateral matters or circumstances which make the meaning uncertain
»
Or where the writing admits of two constructions both of which are in harmony with the language used6Evidence
Palanca vs. Fred Wilson & Co. (87 Phil 506)
The phrase “capacity of 6,000 liters” used in connection with a distilling apparatus was held to be a latent ambiguity which had to be clarified by parol evidence to determine whether it meant receiving, treating, or the producing capacity of the machine
• Patent ambiguity – extrinsic; such ambiguity which is apparent on the face of the writing itself and requires something to be added in order to ascertain the meaning of the words used
» Parol evidence is not admissible
▪ Court would not be construing a contract, but creating a contract for the parties
•
Intermediate ambiguity – the words of the writing, though seemingly clear and with a settled meaning, is actually equivocal and admits of two interpretations7 » Example: “dollars” – may refer to currency of US orHK or Australia
“Ton” – can be long ton, short ton, displacement ton, freight ton or timber ton
» Parol evidence is admissible to clarify the ambiguity • Remember: falsa demonstration non nocet cum de
corpore constat
» False description does not vitiate a document if the subject is sufficiently identified
• No express trust concerning an immovable or any interest therein may be proved by parol evidence
Section 10 - INTERPRETATION OF A WRITING ACCORDING TO ITS LEGAL MEANING
The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution, unless the parties intended otherwise. Section 11 - INSTRUMENT CONSTRUED SO AS TO GIVE EFFECT TO ALL PROVISIONS
In the construction of an instrument, where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all. Section 12 - INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO INTENTION; GENERAL AND PARTICULAR PROVISIONS In the construction of an instrument, the intention of the parties is to be pursued; and when a general and a particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. Section 13 - INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO CIRCUMSTANCES
For the proper construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of those whose language he is to interpret. Section 14 - PECULIAR SIGNIFICATION OF TERMS The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation, but evidence is admissible to show that they have a local, technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used and understood in the particular instance, in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly.
Section 15 - WRITTEN WORDS CONTROL PRINTED When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form, and the two are inconsistent, the former controls the latter.
Section 16 - EXPERTS AND INTERPRETERS TO BE USED IN EXPLAINING CERTAIN WRITINGS
When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not understood by the court, the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who understand the language, is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language.
7 Referred to in American jurisprudence
Section 17 - OF TWO CONSTRUCTIONS, WHICH PREFERRED
When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it, that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it, and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made. Section 18 - CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF NATURAL RIGHT
When an instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to be adopted.
Section 19 - INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO USAGE An instrument may be construed according to usage, in order to determine its true character.
• Rules on interpretation
» For contracts: CC Articles 1370 to 1379 » For wills: CC Articles 788 to 794
C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE 1. QUALIFICATIONOF WITNESSES
Section 20 - WITNESSES; THEIR QUALIFICATIONS Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known perception to others, may be witnesses. Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification.
Section 21 - DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MENTAL INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY
The following persons cannot be witnesses:
a. Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others;
b. Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully.
• Qualifications/disqualifications of witnesses - determined as of the time the witnesses are produced for examination in court or at the taking of their depositions » Children of tender years – take into account their
competence at the time of the occurrence to be testified
• Interest in the subject matter – does not disqualify » Affects only his credibility, not his competency » Except: Dead Man’s Statute
• Defendant declared in default – not disqualified from testifying fro his non-defaulting co-defendant
• Conviction of a crime – not ground for disqualification » But must answer to the fact of a previous final
conviction as it may affect credibility
» Except: conviction of falsification of a document, perjury or false testimony – disqualified from being witnesses to a will, therefore cannot testify on probate
• “Unsound mind” – any mental aberration whether organic or functional or induced by drugs or hypnosis » At the time of the testimony
» If at the time of the fact to be testifies – affects only his credibility
People vs. De Jesus (1984)
As long as the witness can convey ideas by words or signs and give sufficiently intelligent answers to questions propounded, she is a competent witness even if she is feeble-minded
• Or a mental retardate, or is a schizophrenic • Requirements for deaf-mutes:
1. Can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath
Evidence
2. Can comprehend facts they are going to testify to 3. Can communicate their ideas through a qualified
interpreter
• Considerations for a child witness:
1. Capacity at the time the fact to be testified occurred such that he could receive correct impressions thereof
2. Capacity to comprehend the obligation of an oath 3. Capacity to relate those facts truly at the time he is
offered a witness
Section 22 – DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MARRIAGE
During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants and ascendants
• Called rule on marital disqualification or spousal immunity
• Requisites:
1. Marriage is valid and existing as of the time of the offer of testimony
2. The other spouse is a party to the action
• May be waived as in the case of other witnesses generally
Lezama vs. Rodriguez (1968)
Where the wife is a co-defendant in a suit charging her and her husband with collusive fraud, she cannot be called as an adverse party witness under (Sec 10, Rule 132) as this will violate the marital disqualification rule.
Section 23 – DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF DEATH OR INSANITY OF ADVERSE PARTY
Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or a person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind
• Dead man statute
Dead Man Statute Marital Disqualification Rule
Partial disqualification
• Disqualified only to testify as matter of facts occurring before the death of deceased person or before deceased person became of unsound mind
Complete disqualification
Applies only to civil case or special proceeding over the estate of deceased / insane person
Applies to civil or criminal case
• Requisites:
1. Witness offered for examination is a party plaintiff, or the assignor of said party, or a person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted
▪ Plaintiff must be the real party in interest ▪ Not applicable to mere witnesses
▪ Assignor – one who transferred his interests in a case
• Assignee – not disqualified
▪ Does not apply where a counterclaim has been interposed by the defendant as the plaintiff would thereby be testifying in his defense ▪ Also if deceased contracted through an agent 2. Case is against the executor or administrator or
representative of the deceased or insane person
▪ Necessary that defendant is being sued in his representative capacity and not in individual capacity
▪ If property involved has already been adjudicated to the heirs, still protected – considered as representatives of the deceased ▪ Applies whether the deceased died before or
after the suit was filed as long as he was dead at the time the testimony is to be presented 3. Case is upon a claim or demand against the estate
of such deceased / insane person
▪ Does not apply where it is the administrator who brought the action to recover property for the estate
4. Testimony to be given is on a matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind ▪ Negative testimony – testimony that the fact
did not occur during the lifetime of the deceased – not covered
▪ Testimony of the present possession by the witness of a written instrument signed by the deceased is also not covered
• Ma’am: misleading because the document contains acts of the deceased before he died
• Does not apply to land registration cases or cadastral cases
• Purpose: discourage perjury and protect the estate from fictitious claim
• Prohibition does not apply despite meeting all requirements if:
1. Testimony is offered to prove a claim less than what is established under a written document
2. Testimony is intended to prove a fraudulent transaction of the deceased, provided such fraud is first established by evidence aliunde
• Disqualification waived:
1. Defendant does not timely object to the admission of such evidence
2. Defendant testifies on the prohibited matters 3. Defendant cross-examines thereon
Section 24 – DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
a. The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage, except in a civil case by one against the other or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants;
b. An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to professional employment, nor can the attorney’s secretary, stenographer or clerk be examined without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity;
c. A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the patient;
d. A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs;
e. A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to any communications made to him in official confidence,
Evidence
when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
• Objections can only be made by the persons protected and may be waived by the same persons expressly or impliedly
Marital Privilege
• Requisites for marital privilege:
1. There was a valid marital relations
2. Privilege was invoked with respect to a confidential communication between the spouses during the said marriage
3. Spouse against whom the testimony is given did not give his/her consent
• Privilege cannot be claimed to confidential matters given before the marriage
• Privilege cannot be invoked if the communication was not intended to be confidential
• If third person heard the communication, such person is not covered by the prohibition
» But if person is the agent of one spouse, covered by the prohibition
Marital Privilege Marital Disqualification
Can be claimed WON the spouse is a party to the action
Can be invoked only if the spouse is a party to the action
Can be claimed even after the marriage has been dissolved
Can only apply if the marriage is existing at the time the testimony is offered Applies only to confidential
communications between the spouses
Constitutes a total prohibition against any testimony for or against the spouse of the witness
Attorney – Client Privilege
• Requisites:
1. There is an attorney-client relation
2. Privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential communication between them in the course of professional employment
3. Client has not given his consent to the disclosure of the communication
• Attorney must have been consulted in his professional capacity even if pro bono
• Preliminary communications made for the purpose of creating attorney-client relationship are within the privilege
• Communications include verbal statements, papers, document or even actions
• Does not apply to communication: 1. Intended to be made public
2. Intended to be communicated to others 3. Intended for an unlawful purpose
4. Received from third persons not acting as agent of the client
5. Made in the presence of third persons who are strangers to the attorney-client relationship
• Period to be considered is that date when the communication was made
» In determining whether past or future crime » Communication having to do with a future crime is
not covered by the privilege
• If attorney is a co-conspirator to the crime, privilege not applicable
Physician – Patient Privilege
• Requisites:
1. Physician is authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics
2. Information was acquired or the advice or treatment was given by him in his professional capacity for the purpose of treating or curing the patient
3. Information, advice or treatment, if revealed, would blacken the reputation of the patient
4. Privilege is invoked in a civil case, whether the patient is a party thereto or not
• Not necessary that the relationship was created by the voluntary act of the patient – may have been acquired by another
» E.g. patient in extremis
• Privilege extends to all forms of communication, advice or treatment
Evidence
» Includes information acquired by the physician through his observations and examinations of the patient
• Does not apply where:
1. Communication not given in confidence
2. Communication is irrelevant to the professional employment
3. Communication was made for an unlawful purpose 4. Information was intended to be made public 5. There was a waiver of the privilege either by
provisions of contract or law
Rule 28 PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS
Section 4 – WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE
By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so ordered or by taking the deposition of the examiner, the party examined waives any privilege he may have in that action or any other involving the same controversy, regarding the testimony of every other person who has examined or may thereafter examine him in respect of the same mental or physical examination
Minister/Priest – Penitent Privilege
• Requires that communication was made pursuant to a religious duty enjoined in the course of discipline of the sect or denomination
• Must be confidential in character
» E.g. under the seal of the confessional
Privileged Communications as to Public Officials
• Requisites:
1. It was made to the public officer in official confidence
2. Public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the communication
Others
• RA 53, as amended by RA 1477
» Publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation – cannot be compelled to revel the source of any news report which was related to him in confidence
» Unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State
• Article 233 of Labor Code
» All information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communications and shall not be used as evidence in the NLRC, and the conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding the matter taken up at the conciliation proceedings conducted by them
• Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (RA 9285)
» Sec 9 (a) – Information obtained through mediation shall be privileged and confidential
2. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
Section 25 - PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE
No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants.
• Disqualification by reason of relationship
• Filial privilege - not correctly a rule of disqualification, as the descendant was not incompetent to testify against his ascendants, but was actually a privilege not to testify
Art. 215, FC
No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his parents and grandparents, except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by one parent against the other.
• Both parental and filial privileges are granted to any person
» Can be invoked in any case against any of his parents, direct descendants, children or direct ascendants
Evidence
3. ADMISSIONSAND CONFESSIONS
Section 26 - ADMISSION OF A PARTY
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.
• Admission – any statement of fact made by a party against his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by him
Admissions Confessions
Statement of fact which does not involve an acknowledgement of guilt or liability Involves an acknowledgement of guilt or liability
May be express or tacit Must be express May be made by third
persons and, in certain cases, are admissible against a party
Can be made only by the party himself and, in certain cases, are admissible against his co-accused
• To be admissible, an admission must: 1. Involve matters of fact, not of law 2. Be categorical and definite 3. Be knowingly and voluntarily made 4. Be adverse to the admitter’s interest
▪ Otherwise would be self-serving and inadmissible
• Judicial admission – one made in connection with a judicial proceeding in which it is offered
• Extrajudicial admission – any other admission
People vs. Aling (1980)
Facts: Norija Mohamad was stabbed in the chest and diaphragm and she died two days later in the hospital. Girlie Aling and Norija’s daughter Daria brought Norija to the hospital. They learned from the police that Norija was stabbed by her husband Airol Aling. Aling was investigated by the police and he declared in Chavacano dialect that he killed his wife because he was informed in prison by his relatives that his wife was fooling around with other men. Aling was charged with parricide and during arraignment, he pleaded guilty although he had no lawyer. A counsel de oficio was appointed for him. When he was again arraigned, he pleaded guilty with the assistance of counsel. Aling was placed on the witness stand and examined by his counsel and after being informed that the penalty for parricide is death or life imprisonment, Aling still admitted killing his wife.
Issue: WON the marriage of Aling and Norija was proven Held: Yes
Ratio: The testimony of Aling that he was married to Norija is an admission against his penal interest. It was a confirmation of the maxim simper praesumitur matrimonio and the presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves to be husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.
Admissions Declarations Against
Interest
Need not be made against the proprietary or pecuniary interest of the parties But if so made, it will greatly enhance its probative weight
Must have been made against the proprietary or pecuniary interest of the parties
Made by the party himself, and, is a primary evidence and competent though he be present in court and ready to testify
Must have been made by the person who is either deceased or unable to testify
Can be made anytime Made ante litem motam • Self-serving declaration – one which has been made
extrajudicially by a party to favor his interests » Not admissible in evidence
» Does not include his testimony as a witness in court » Cannot be considered self-serving if it was not made
in anticipation of a future litigation
People vs. Bocasas (1985)
Flight from justice is an admission by conduct and circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt
• The act of repairing a machine, bridge or other facility after an injury has been sustained therein is not an implied admission of negligence by conduct
» Merely a measure of extreme caution
Section 27 - OFFER OF COMPROMISE NOT ADMISSIBLE In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromised by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer.
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
• Offer of compromise (civil case) – not a tacit admission of liability and cannot be proved over the objection of the offeror
• Offer of compromise (criminal case) – implied admission of guilt
» But accused is permitted to prove that offer was not made under consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid risks of criminal action against him
• Offer of compromise (violation of internal revenue law) – not admissible in evidence
People vs. Amiscua (1971)
In a rape case, an offer to compromise for a monetary consideration, and not to marry the victim, is an implied admission of guilt
People vs. Manzano (1982)
In a rape case, the attempt of the parents of the accused to settle the case with the complainant was considered an implied admission of guilt.
People vs. Valdez (1987)
An offer of marriage by the accused during the investigation of the rape case is also an admission of guilt • Criminal cases involving criminal negligence or
quasi-offenses are allowed to be compromised, hence an offer of settlement is not an admission of guilt
• Offer to pay or the actual payment of medical bills by reason of victim’s injuries – not admissible to prove civil or criminal liability
Section 28 - ADMISSION BY THIRD PARTY
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.
• First branch of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet • Exceptions: third person is a partner, agent, or has joint
interest with the party, or is a co-conspirator or a privy of the party
People vs. Valero (1982)
Facts: Michael and Annabel, children of Ceferino Velasco, died of poisoning after eating bread containing endrin, a commercial insecticide. Their sister Imelda would have also died if not for the timely medical assistance given to her. At about the same time, 3 puppies of Velasco under the balcony where the children ate the bread also died of poisoning. Earlier that morning, Velasco was seen throwing poisoned rats in the river near his house.
Evidence
The evidence of the prosecution shows that the poisoned bread was given to the children by Alfonso Valero alias Pipe, deaf-mute brother of accused Lucila Valero, and that it was Lucila who gave Alfonso the bread to be delivered to the children. Lucila denies the allegation. The evidence of the defense tends to show that the children might have eaten one of the sliced poisoned bread used by their father in poisoning the rats.
3/9 witnesses for the prosecution:
1. Rodolfo Quilang – testified that he saw Lucila deliver something wrapped in a piece of paper to Alfonso and instructed him by sign language to deliver the same to the Velasco children. He never saw what was inside the piece of paper. His testimony as to WON he saw the parcel delivered to the children was a series of contradictions. He is what the defense counsel calls and “eleventh-hour witness
2. Federico Jaime and Ceferino Velasco – did not see Lucila deliver to Alfonso the alleged parcel, as well as the alleged instruction. Both claimed that they learned the information from Pipe after interviewing him by means of sign language. Testimony of Jaime was confusing. There is nothing in the testimony of Velasco indicating that Alfonso pointed to Lucila as the source of the poisoned bread.
Issue: WON the testimonies of Jaime and Velasco may be admitted
Held: No
Ratio: The evidence is pure hearsay. It violates the principle of res inter alios acta. Alfonso, who was the source of the information, was never presented as a witness either for the defense or the prosecution. Testimony of Velasco cannot be considered as part of res gestae because when the information was allegedly obtained by Velasco from Alfonso, nobody was poisoned yet. With regard to the testimony of Jaime, there is no showing that the revelation was made by Alfonso under the influence of a startling occurrence.
The failure of the defense counsel to object to the presentation of incompetent evidence does not give such evidence probative value. The lack of objection may make any incompetent evidence admissible. But admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence. Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative value
Section 29 - ADMISSION BY CO-PARTNER OR AGENT The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party.
• Requisites:
1. That the partnership, agency or joint interest is established by evidence other than the act or declaration
2. That the act/declaration must have been within the scope of the partnership, etc.
3. Such act/declaration must have been made during the existence of the partnership, etc.
• Admissions made in connection with the winding up – still admissible
• Admission by counsel – admissible against client (agent-principal)
» Limitation:
1. admission should not amount to a compromise 2. admission should not amount to a confession
of judgment
Jaucian vs. Querol
The phrase joint debtor does not refer to a mere community of interest but should be understood according to its meaning in the common law system from which the provision was taken, that is, in solidum, and not mancomunada
•
1st exception to Section 28• Word omission in Section 28 doesn't appear here
» Because if it was, can become vague (same as with Section 30)
» It only appears in Section 31: admission by privies What predecessors didn't do is binding on you
= this is the rationale in including the word omission in Section 31
• GR: admission of some1 else shouldn't be taken against you
• But Section 29 is an exception: admission of another can be taken against you – fair?
Section 30 - ADMISSION BY CONSPIRATOR
The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.
People vs. Serrano
This rule applies only to extrajudicial acts or statements and not to testimony given on the witness stand at the trial where the party adversely affected thereby has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
An admission by a conspirator is admissible against his co-conspirator if:
1. Such conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde 2. Admission was made during the existence of the
conspiracy
3. Admission relates to the conspiracy itself
These are not required in admissions during the trial as the co-accused can examine the declarant.
• Judicial admissions - admissions after the conspiracy has ended
• Existence of conspiracy may be inferred from 1. Acts of the accused
2. Confessions of the accused 3. By prima facie proof thereof
People vs. Alegre (1976)
Where there is no independent evidence of the alleged conspiracy, the extrajudicial confession of an accused cannot be used against his co-accused as the res inter alios rule applies to both extrajudicial confessions and admissions • Extrajudicial admission made by a conspirator after the
conspiracy has ended and even before trial – not admissible against co-conspirator
» Except:
1. If made in the presence of the co-conspirator who expressly or impliedly (tacit admission, Rule 130.32) agreed therein
2. Where the facts stated in the said admissions are confirmed in the individual extrajudicial confessions made by the co-conspirators after their apprehension 3. as a circumstance to determine the
credibility of a witness
4. as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the co-conspirator’s participation in the offense
People vs. Ola (1987)
In order that the extrajudicial statements of a co-accused may be taken into consideration in judging the testimony of a witness, it is necessary that the statements are made by several accused, the same are in all material respects identical, and there could have been no collusion among said co-accused in making such statements.
Section 31 - ADMISSION BY PRIVIES
Where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former.
• Requisites:
1. There must be a relation of privity between the party and the declarant
