PART ONE
I. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Rule128: General ProvisionsSection 1. Evidence defined. — Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)
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. (2a)
Bustos v. Lucero: R128, §1 provides the legal definition of evidence – Evidence is the mode and manner of proving competent facts in judicial proceedings.
Proof: result or effect of evidence.
Proof of such fact: when requisite quantum of evidence of a particular fact has been duly admitted and given weight Factum probandum: ultimate fact; fact sought to be established. Refers to the proposition
Factum probans: evidentiary fact; fact by w/c the factum probandum is to be established. Refer to the materials which establish that proposition
Law of evidence
• fundamentally a procedural law (Bustos v. Lucero)
• §5[5], Art. VIII, Consti: SC shall promulgate rules concerning pleadings, practice and procedure w/c shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade & shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights
o new rules may be validly applied to cases pending at time of such change (Aldeguer v. Hoskyn) o BUT in criminal cases, if alteration of evidence rules
would allow reception of lesser quantum of evidence than what the law required at the time the offense was committed in order to convict = retroactive application is unconstitutional for being ex post facto
primarily found in RoC (R 128-133)
special laws (Ex. RA 4200 [Anti-Wiretapping Law], Code of Commerce, CC)
Consti – see Part B.
The rules of evidence are specifically applicable ONLY in judicial proceedings.
•
Quasi-judicial proceedings: the same apply by analogy, or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient (R1 §4) EXCEPT where the governing law or that particular proceeding specifically adopts the rules of evidence in RoCClassification of evidence according to form 1) Object (real) evidence (§1, R130)
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.
• The ascertainment of the controverted fact is made through the direct use of the different senses of the presiding magistrate or his authorized delegate.
• Referred to by Wigmore as evidence by “autoptic preference,” i.e. by presenting in open court the evidentiary articles for the observation or inspection of the tribunal
2) Documentary evidence (§§2-19, R130)
Evidence supplied by written instruments or derived from conventional symbols, such as letters, by which ideas are represented on material substances.
• Specific definition found in §2, R130 3) Testimonial evidence
That which is submitted to the court through the testimony or deposition of a witness
Other classifications of evidence
1) Relevant, material, and competent evidence
a) Relevant evidence: evidence having any value in reason as tending to prove any matter provable in an action
b) Material evidence: evidence directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings
c) Competent evidence: one that is not excluded by the Rules, a statute, or the Constitution
Test of relevancy
The logical relation of the evidentiary fact to the fact in issue, i.e. whether the former tends to establish the probability or improbability of the latter
Materiality of evidence
Determined by whether the fact it intends to prove is in issue or not, w/c is in turn determined by the substantive law, the pleadings, the pre-trial order and by the admissions or confessions on file
2) Direct and circumstantial evidence
a) Direct evidence: that which proves the fact in dispute w/o the aid of any inference or presumption
b) Circumstantial evidence: the proof of (a) fact/s from which, taken either singly or collectively, the existence of the particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence 3) Cumulative and corroborative evidence
a) Cumulative evidence: evidence of the same kind and to the same state of facts
b) Corroborative evidence: additional evidence of a different character to the same point
4) Prima facie and conclusive evidence
a) Prima facie evidence: that which, standing alone, unexplained, or uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed
b) Conclusive evidence: that class of evidence which the law does not allow to be contradicted
5) Primary and secondary evidence
a) Primary evidence: that which the law regards as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question. Referred to in RoC as the best evidence b) Secondary evidence: that which is inferior to the
primary evidence and is permitted by law only when the best evidence is not available. Also called substitutionary evidence
a) Positive evidence: when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur
b) Negative evidence: when the witness states he did not see or know of the occurrence of a fact
Positive testimony is entitled to greater weight since the witness represents of his personal knowledge the presence or absence of a fact. In negative testimony, there is a total disclaimer of personal knowledge, hence without any representation or disavowal that the fact in question could or couldn’t have existed or happened. When a witness declares of his own knowledge that a fact did not take place that is actually positive testimony since it’s an affirmation of the truth of a negative fact. RIANO:
Not every circumstance which affords an inference as to the truth or falsity of a matter alleged is considered evidence.
• Not evidence if it’s excluded by the law or RoC even if it proves the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue. Definition under §1, R128 significantly considers “evidence” not as an end in itself but merely as a “means” of ascertaining the truth of a matter of fact.
Purpose of evidence
Ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact in a judicial proceeding (§1, R128)
Evidence is required because of the presumption that the court is not aware of the veracity of the facts involved in a case. It is incumbent upon the parties to prove a fact in issue through the presentation of admissible evidence.
When evidence is required; when not required
• Where no factual issue exists in a case, there is no need to present evidence because where the case presents a question of law, such is resolved by the mere application of the relevant statutes or rules of this jurisdiction to which no evidence is required.
• When the pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact, a trial need not be conducted since there is no more reason to present evidence. Case is ripe for judicial determination through a judgment on the pleadings per R34
• Evidence may be dispensed with by agreement of the parties. The parties to any action are allowed by the Rules to agree in writing upon the facts involved in the litigation and to submit the case for judgment upon the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence.
• Evidence is not required on matters of judicial notice (§1, R129) and on matters judicially admitted (§4, R129) Applicability of the rules of evidence
§4, R1 provides for the non-applicability of RoC, including necessarily the rules of evidence, to certain specified proceedings.
• Administrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of the rules obtaining in a court of law.
• CSC conducts its investigations for the purpose of ascertaining the truth without necessarily adhering to technical rules of procedure applicable in judicial proceedings.
•
Ong Chia v. Republic: The rule on formal offer of evidence is not applicable to a case involving a petition for naturalization.•
Sasan, Sr. v. NLRC: Technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases.•
Bantolino v. Coca Cola Bottlers, Inc.: The rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only.Within the field of administrative law, while strict rules of evidence are not applicable to quasi-judicial proceedings, nevertheless, in adducing evidence constitutive of substantial evidence, the basic rule that mere allegation is not evidence cannot be disregarded. (Marcelo v. Bungubung)
Application of the Rules on Electronic Evidence
The provisions of the REE apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases. (§2, R1, REE)
Scope of the rules of evidence
The rules of evidence in the RoC are guided by the principle of uniformity. As a general policy, the rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings. (§2, R128)
Evidence in civil cases v. Evidence in criminal cases
EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES
The party having the burden of proof must prove his claim by a preponderance of evidence (§1, R133)
Guilt of accused has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt (§2, R133)
Offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror (§27, R130)
An offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt, EXCEPT in criminal cases involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised Generally there is no
presumption of innocence for or against a party EXCEPT in certain cases provided for by law
The accused enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence (§14, Art. III, Constitution)
Distinction between evidence and proof
•
Evidence is the medium or means by which a fact is proved or disproved.•
Proof is not the evidence itself. It is merely the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from a consideration of the evidence. o Proof is the effect of evidence because withoutevidence there is no proof.
o Bare allegations unsubstantiated by evidence are not equivalent to proof.
Positive and negative defenses
GENERAL RULE: Positive evidence is more credible than negative evidence.
•
Reason: the witness who testifies to a negative may have forgotten what actually occurred, while it is impossible toremember what never existed. (Gomez v. Gomez-Samson)
A denial evidence is the weakest defense and can never overcome a positive testimony particularly when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness. (People v. Mendoza)
• Evidence that is negative is self-serving in nature and cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence. (People v. Larranaga)
• Denial, like alibi is an inherently weak defense vis-à-vis positive identification.
Factum probans and factum probandum
Evidence signifies a relationship between two facts, namely: a) the fact or proposition to be established (factum
probandum); and
b) the facts or material evidencing the fact or proposition to be established (factum probans).
Factum probandum : the fact to be proved; the fact which is in issue and to which the evidence is directed.
Factum probans : the probative or evidentiary fact tending to prove the fact in issue
The factum probandum in a certain case may be affected by the judicial admissions of a party.
• Ex. If the defendant in a suit based on a culpa aquiliana theory admits his negligence in his answer to the complaint, there is no more need to prove negligence. Hence, negligence ceases to be a factum probandum in the case.
If the factum probandum “signifies the fact or proposition to be established,” then matters of JN, conclusive presumptions and judicial admissions cannot qualify as parts of the factum probandum of a particular case, because such matters need not be established or proven.
In practical terms, the factum probandum in a civil case refers to the elements of a cause of action from the point of view of the plaintiff and the elements of the defense from the defendant’s standpoint.
Example: Suit for collection of a sum of money – in the absence of any admission by the defendant,
• The factum probandum of the plaintiff would be: 1) The existence of the debt of the defendant 2) The maturity of the debt
3) The demand made by the plaintiff upon the defendant to pay
4) Failure to pay despite the demand
• The factum probandum for the defendant: the fact of payment of the obligation or the prescription of the debt or the elements of any defense he may interpose Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. v. Tanjangco For a tort case under CC 2176, plaintiff has to prove: 1) Damages suffered by the plaintiff
2) The fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose act he must respond
3) The connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred.
In a criminal case, the factum probandum includes all matter that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to justify a conviction.
Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules. (3a)
Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (4a)
Requisites for admissibility of evidence (§3)
1) It must be relevant to the issue sought to be proved
•
§4: Evidence is relevant when it has “such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.”• Relevancy is determinable by the rules of logic and human experience
2) It must be competent
•
§3: Evidence is competent when it “is not excluded by the law of these rules.”• Competency is determined by the prevailing exclusionary rules of evidence
Restated by Wigmore – axioms of admissibility:
1) That none but facts having rational probative value are admissible
2) That all facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific rule forbids their admission
Note: under this concept, relevant evidence is any class of evidence which has “rational probative value” to establish the issue in controversy.
Admissibility of evidence is determined at the time it is offered to the court (§35, R132)
• Object or real evidence is offered to the court when the same is presented for its view or evaluation (ex. Ocular inspections or demos)
• Documentary evidence formally offered by the proponent immediately before he rests his case
• Testimonial evidence offered by the calling of the witness to the stand
Every objection to the admissibility of evidence shall be made at the time such evidence is offered, or as soon thereafter as the objection to its admissibility shall be considered waived.
• Objections to object or real evidence must be made either at the time it is presented in an ocular inspection or demonstration or when it is formally offered.
• Objections to documentary evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered.
• In the case of testimonial evidence, objection to the qualifications of the witness should be made at the time he is called to the stand
o If the witness is otherwise qualified, the objection should be raised when the objectionable question is asked or after the answer is given if the objectionable features became apparent by reason of such answer.
Doctrines or rules of admissibility sanctioned by SC
Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with the other facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence may be received on condition that the other facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise the evidence already given will be stricken out.
o This doctrine was applied by SC in a criminal case and in a civil case subject to the qualification that there should be no bad faith on the part of the proponent. – Such a qualification appears necessary to avoid unfair surprises to the other party.
• Multiple admissibility
Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any or all the purposes for which it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for its admissibility therefor.
RIANO:
Ex. Depending upon the circumstances, the declaration of a dying person may be admissible for several purposes:
o Dying declaration (§37, R130) o Part of the res gestae (§42, R130) o Declaration against interest (§38, R130)
Ex. The statement by a bus driver immediately after the collision that he dozed off while driving may be admissible as:
o An admission under §26, R130; or o As part of the res gestae per §42, R130
• 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 adduced by the adverse party
What should determine the application of the rule of curative admissibility are:
1) Whether the incompetent evidence was seasonably objected to, and
2) Whether, regardless of the objections vel non, the admission of such evidence will cause a plain and unfair prejudice to the party against whom it was admitted.
o
Lack of objection to incompetent evidence constitutes waiver by the party against whom it is introduced but does not deprive the opposing party of his right to object to similar rebutting evidence. However, this technical rule should be relaxed if one party would suffer a plain and unfair prejudice.RIANO:
It is submitted that in our jurisdiction, the principle of curative admissibility should not be made to apply where the evidence was admitted without objection because the failure to object constitutes a waiver of the inadmissibility of the evidence. In our jurisdiction, inadmissible evidence not objected to becomes admissible.
Stonehill v. Diokno: Documentary evidence, illegally obtained, is inadmissible on a timely motion or action to suppress.
• Same rule now also applies to illegally obtained confessions.
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.
Not all collateral matters are prohibited by the Rules.
• Where the collateral matters are relevant to the fact in issue because “they tend in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue,” evidence of such collateral matters is admissible.
•
What the Rules prohibit is evidence of irrelevant collateral facts.Circumstantial evidence
•
Evidence of collateral facts or circumstances from which an inference may be drawn as to the probability or improbability of the facts in dispute• Circumstantial evidence is legal evidence and, if sufficient, can sustain a judgment.
• Evidence of relevant collateral facts
Admissibility is an affair of logic and law, as admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance and competence. On the other hand, the weight to be given to such evidence, once admitted, depends on judicial evaluation w/in the guidelines provided in R133 and the decisional rules of the SC.
While evidence may be admissible, it may be entitled to little or no weight at all. Conversely, evidence which may have evidentiary weight may be inadmissible because a special rule forbids its reception.
NOTE: Special rules of evidence regarding electronic documents have been introduced by the Electronic Commerce Act (RA 8792)
RIANO:
Liberal construction of the rules of evidence
• §6, R1
• Procedural rules must be liberally interpreted and applied so as not to frustrate substantial justice. (Quiambao v. CA) However, to justify relaxation of the rules, a satisfactory explanation and a subsequent fulfillment of the requirements have always been required. (Barcenas v. Tomas)
No vested right in the rules of evidence
Reason: the rules of evidence are subject to change by the SC pursuant to its powers to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure (§5[5], Art. VIII, Constitution)
The change in the rules of evidence is, however, subject to the constitutional limitation on the enactment of ex post facto laws (§22, Art. III, Constitution)
B. Rules of Exclusion
1. Secs. 2 & 3, Art. III, Consti
§2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
§3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety and order require otherwise as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
NOTE: right against self-incrimination can’t be invoked in situations covered by immunity statutes (ex. RA 1379 grants immunity to witnesses in proceedings for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property; PD 749 grants immunity in bribery and graft cases)
2. Sec. 12, Art. III, Consti
§12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.
3. Sec. 17, Art. III, Consti
§17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
4. Sec. 201, Tax Reform Act of 1997
§201. Effect of Failure to Stamp Taxable Document. - An instrument, document or paper which is required by law to be stamped and which has been signed, issued, accepted or transferred without being duly stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any court until the requisite stamp or stamps are affixed thereto and cancelled.
5. RA 4200, Anti-Wiretapping Law
AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE TAPPING AND OTHER RELATED VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described:
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person: Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.
Section 2. Any person who willfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding section or who violates the provisions of the following section or of any order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months or more than six years and with the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if the offender be a public official at the time of the commission of the offense, and, if the offender is an alien he shall be subject to deportation proceedings.
Section 3. Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the two preceding sections in cases involving the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code, and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage and other offenses against national security: Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition, such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be, have actually been or are being committed; (2) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any of such crimes; and (3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
The order granted or issued shall specify: (1) the identity of the person or persons whose communications, conversations, discussions, or spoken words are to be overheard, intercepted, or recorded and, in the case of telegraphic or telephonic communications, the telegraph line or the telephone number involved and its location; (2) the identity of the peace officer authorized to overhear, intercept, or record the communications, conversations, discussions, or spoken words; (3) the offense or offenses committed or sought to be prevented; and (4) the period of the authorization. The authorization shall be effective for the period specified in the order which shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the date of issuance of the order, unless extended or renewed by the court upon being satisfied that such extension or renewal is in the public interest.
All recordings made under court authorization shall, within forty-eight hours after the expiration of the period fixed in the order, be deposited with the court in a sealed envelope or sealed package, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the peace officer granted such authority stating the number of recordings made, the dates and times covered by each recording, the number of tapes, discs, or records included in the deposit, and certifying that no duplicates or copies of the whole or any part thereof have been made, or if made, that all such duplicates or copies are included in the envelope or package deposited with the court. The envelope or package so deposited shall not be opened, or the recordings replayed, or used in evidence, or their contents revealed, except upon order of the court, which shall not be granted except upon motion, with due notice and opportunity to be heard to the person or persons whose conversation or communications have been recorded.
The court referred to in this section shall be understood to mean the Court of First Instance within whose territorial jurisdiction the acts for which authority is applied for are to be executed.
Section 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
Section 5. All laws inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or accordingly amended.
Section 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
RA 4200 prohibits the admission in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation of any communication or spoken word or any information procured by wiretapping and related means specified in said law EXCEPT in the cases therein specially permitted.
RIANO: §4, RA 4200
The provisions of §1, RA 4200 does not consider it unlawful to record open and public communications. What the law protects are private conversations and communications. It’s considered unlawful to a) secretly overhear, b) intercept, or c) record private communication or spoken word when doing so is w/o the authority of all the parties to such private
communication. If only one party authorizes the recording and the other does not, there is a violation of the law.
6. RA 1405, Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits
AN ACT PROHIBITING DISCLOSURE OF OR INQUIRY INTO, DEPOSITS WITH ANY BANKING INSTITUTION AND PROVIDING PENALTY THEREFOR.
Section 1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government to give encouragement to the people to deposit their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding so that the same may be properly utilized by banks in authorized loans to assist in the economic development of the country.
Section 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.
Section 3. It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of a banking institution to disclose to any person other than those mentioned in Section two hereof any information concerning said deposits.
Section 4. All Acts or parts of Acts, Special Charters, Executive Orders, Rules and Regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed.
Section 5. Any violation of this law will subject offender upon conviction, to an imprisonment of not more than five years or a fine of not more than twenty thousand pesos or both, in the discretion of the court.
Section 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. 7. Sec. 55, RA 8791: General Banking Act of 2000 Section 55. Prohibited Transactions.
55.1. No director, officer, employee, or agent of any bank shall
-(a) Make false entries in any bank report or statement or participate in any fraudulent transaction, thereby affecting the financial interest of, or causing damage to, the bank or any person;
(b) Without order of a court of competent jurisdiction, disclose to any unauthorized person any information relative to the funds or properties in the custody of the bank belonging to private individuals, corporations, or any other entity: Provided, That with respect to bank deposits, the provisions of existing laws shall prevail; (c) Accept gifts, fees, or commissions or any other form of
remuneration in connection with the approval of a loan or other credit accommodation from said bank;
(d) Overvalue or aid in overvaluing any security for the purpose of influencing in any way the actions of the bank or any bank; or
(e) Outsource inherent banking functions. 55.2. No borrower of a bank shall
-(a) Fraudulently overvalue property offered as security for a loan or other credit accommodation from the bank; (b) Furnish false or make misrepresentation or suppression
of material facts for the purpose of obtaining, renewing, or increasing a loan or other credit accommodation or extending the period thereof;
(c) Attempt to defraud the said bank in the event of a court action to recover a loan or other credit accommodation; or
(d) Offer any director, officer, employee or agent of a bank any gift, fee, commission, or any other form of compensation in order to influence such persons into approving a loan or other credit accommodation application.
55.3 No examiner, officer or employee of the Bangko Sentral or of any department, bureau, office, branch or agency of the Government that is assigned to supervise, examine, assist or render technical assistance to any bank shall commit any of the acts enumerated in this Section or aid in the commission of the same. (87-Aa)
The making of false reports or misrepresentation or suppression of material facts by personnel of the Bangko Sental ng Pilipinas shall be subject to the administrative and criminal sanctions provided under the New Central Bank Act. 55.4. Consistent with the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, otherwise known as the Banks Secrecy Law, no bank shall employ casual or non regular personnel or too lengthy probationary personnel in the conduct of its business involving bank deposits.
8. Secs. 16 & 18, PD 946
Section 16. Rules of Procedure. The Courts of Agrarian Relation shall adopt uniform rules of procedure on matters not provided for in this Decree in order to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding filed before them. The rules of Court shall not be applicable to agrarian cases, even in a suppletory character. It is the spirit and intention of this Decree that the Courts of Agrarian Relations shall utilize and employ every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case, without regard to technicalities of law and procedure. To this end, each Court of Agrarian Relations shall have the authority to adopt any appropriate measure or procedure in any situation or matter not provided for or covered by this Decree and in the uniform rules of procedure of the Courts of Agrarian Relations. All such special measures or procedures, and the situations to which they are applied shall be reported to the Supreme Court by the individual Judges through the Executive Judge who shall furnish copies of such reports to all the other Judges.
Where there is doubt in the application of uniform rules or in the construction and interpretation of this Decree or of any contract between the parties, the doubt shall be resolved in favor of the tenant-farmers, agricultural lessees, settlers, owner-cultivators, amortizing owner-cultivators, the Samahang Nayon, compact farms, farmers' cooperatives and other registered farmers' associations or organizations. In criminal and expropriation cases the Rules of Court shall apply.
In the hearing, investigation and determination of any question or controversy, affidavits and counter-affidavits may be allowed and are admissible in evidence.
Direct testimonies of witnesses shall be in narrative form subject to cross examination.
In cases where the tenurial status of a person is in issue, the Court of Agrarian Relations shall not issue an order restraining the actual tiller from cultivating the land, or impounding the harvest without providing him with at least fifty percent of the net harvest.
Should the impounding of the harvest be at the instance of the landholder, he shall file a cash bond to be fixed by the Court, to answer for such damages as may be suffered by the tiller who is found to be a lawful tenant. In case of the malicious denial of the tenancy relationship by the landholder, he shall be subject to the payment of exemplary damages equivalent to at least the value of the harvest impounded.
Where a party is a tenant-farmer, agricultural lessee or tiller, settler, or amortizing owner-cultivator, he shall be entitled to the rights of a pauper and/or indigent litigant and the privileges of an indigent litigant under Republic Act numbered sixty hundred and thirty-five without further proof thereof. He shall continue to enjoy such status as pauper and/or indigent litigant in the appellate courts and until the case is finally disposed of.
An agricultural tiller, tenant or lessee who has been allowed to litigate as a pauper and/or indigent litigant shall be entitled to the issuance of a duly certified copy of the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing, which shall be given to him free of charge. Any undue delay in the transcription of the stenographic notes or in the issuance of a duly certified copy of said transcript in favor of said party and any charging of fees against him in connection therewith shall be dealt with administratively.
Section 18. Appeals. An appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals by giving an oral or written notice of appeal with the trial court within the period of fifteen (15) days from notice of order or decision. A copy of the written notice of appeal shall be served within the same period upon the adverse party. In case the notice of appeal is orally made, the clerk of court shall reduce the same to writing, which shall be signed by the appellant and a copy thereof served within the same period by the clerk of court to the adverse party.
In case a motion for reconsideration is filed within that period of fifteen (15) days, the notice of appeal shall be filed within ten (10) days from notice of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. Only one motion for reconsideration shall be allowed a party.
The Court of Appeals shall affirm the decision or order or the portions thereof appealed from if the findings of fact in the said decision or order are supported by substantial evidence as basis thereof, and the conclusions stated therein are not clearly against the law and jurisprudence. The Court of Appeals shall not be precluded from taking into consideration any issue, question or incident, even if not raised, if resolution thereof is necessary for a complete and just disposition of the case.
The Court of Agrarian Relations shall forward to the Court of Appeals the complete records of the case within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a notice of appeal, if no motions for reconsideration are filed. In the event that motions for reconsideration are filed, the records shall be forwarded to the appellate court within a like period from receipt by the party concerned of denial of the last motion for reconsideration.
Appeal shall not stay the decision or order except where the ejectment of a tenant-farmer, agricultural lessee or tiller, settler, or amortizing owner-cultivator is directed.
Upon receipt of the records of the case from the Court of Agrarian Relations, the Court of Appeals may, if it deems necessary, require the parties to file simultaneous memoranda within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from notice; the appellate court shall decide the case within thirty (30) days from receipt of said records or memoranda.
No motion for rehearing or reconsideration shall be allowed in the Court of Appeals.
All cases of the Courts of Agrarian Relations now pending before the Court of Appeals shall remain in the Division to which they have been assigned, and shall be within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of this Decree: Provided, however, That if the decision or order be an affirmance in toto of the dispositive conclusion of the judgment appealed from, then the Court of Appeals may, instead of rendering an extended opinion, indicate clearly the trial court's findings of fact and pronouncements of law which have been adopted as basis for the affirmance.
Upon the effectivity of this Decree, the Court of Appeals shall designate at least two (2) of its Divisions to which all appealed agrarian cases shall be assigned, and these cases shall have priority over other cases.
The decisions or orders of the Court of Appeals may be appealed to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari only on questions of law, within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from receipt by the appellant of a copy of the decision or order.
In cases before the then Court of Agrarian Relations, the RoC were not applicable even in a suppletory character, except in criminal and expropriation cases (§16, PD 946)
•
NOTE: such procedure has been SUPERSEDED by provisions of RA 6657C. Cases
KNAPP V . STATE , 79 NE 1076 (1907)
ISSUE/HELD/RATIO: W/N evidence relevant of a particular item if it tends to support whether proof of that evidence would assist to resolve the central issue of a case – YES. Evidence of the old man’s death was relevant.
While it is laid down in the books that there must be an open and visible connection between the fact under inquiry and the evidence by which it is sought to be established, yet the connection thus required is in the logical processes only, for to require an actual connection between the two facts would be to exclude all presumptive evidence… Within settled rules, the competency of testimony depends largely upon its tendency to persuade the judgment… As said in 1 Wharton,
Evidence… § 20: "Relevancy is that which conduces to the proof of a pertinent hypothesis." In Stevenson v. Stewart (1849)… it was said: "The competency of a collateral fact to be used as the basis of legitimate argument, is not to be determined by the conclusiveness of the inferences it may afford in reference to the litigated fact. It is enough if these may tend, in a slight degree, to elucidate the inquiry, or to assist, though remotely, to a determination probably founded in truth."…
STATE V . BALL , 339 SW 2 D 783 (1960)
•
Wigmore: The mere possession of a quantity of money is in itself no indication that the possessor was the taker of money charged as taken, because in general all money of the same denomination and material is alike, and the hypothesis that the money found is the same as the money taken is too forced and extraordinary to be receivable.•
In the absence of proof or of a fair inference from the record that the money in Ball's possession at the time of his arrest came from or had some connection with the robbery and in the absence of a plain showing of his impecuniousness before the robbery and his sudden affluence (State v. Garrett), the evidence was not in fact relevant and in the circumstances was obviously prejudicial for if it did not tend to prove the offense for which the appellant was on trial the jury may have inferred that he was guilty of another robbery.MAMBA V . GARCIA , 359 SCRA 426 (2001)
The Investigating Judge's reliance on the tape-recorded conversation between Bulatao and the two police officers is erroneous. The recording of private conversations without the consent of the parties contravenes the provisions of RA 4200 …and renders the same inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding. The law covers even those recorded by persons privy to the private communications, as in this case. Thus, the contents of the tape recorder cannot be relied upon to determine the culpability of respondent judge.
MARQUEZ V . DESIERTO , 359 SCRA 772 (2001)
ISSUE/HELD/RATIO: W/N petitioner may be cited for indirect contempt for her failure to produce the documents requested by the Ombudsman - And whether the order of the Ombudsman to have an in camera inspection of the questioned account is allowed as an exception to the law on secrecy of bank deposits (RA 1405)
An examination of the secrecy of bank deposits law (RA 1405) would reveal the following exceptions:
1. Where the depositor consents in writing; 2. Impeachment case;
3. By court order in bribery or dereliction of duty cases against public officials;
4. Deposit is subject of litigation;
5. Sec. 8, RA 3019, in cases of unexplained wealth as held in the case of PNB vs. Gancayco
The order of the Ombudsman to produce for in camera inspection the subject accounts with the Union Bank of the Philippines, Julia Vargas Branch, is based on a pending investigation at the Office of the Ombudsman against Amado Lagdameo, et. al. for violation of R. A. No. 3019, Sec. 3 (e) and (g) relative to the Joint Venture Agreement between the Public Estates Authority and AMARI.
We rule that before an in camera inspection may be allowed , there must be a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction. Further, the account must be clearly identified, the inspection limited to the subject matter of the pending case before the court of competent jurisdiction. The bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present during the inspection, and such inspection may cover only the account identified in the pending case.
Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals:
Section 2 of the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits , as amended, declares bank deposits to be “absolutely confidential” except:
(1) In an examination made in the course of a special or general examination of a bank that is specifically authorized by the Monetary Board after being satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that a bank fraud or serious irregularity has been or is being committed and that it is necessary to look into the deposit to establish such fraud or irregularity,
(2) In an examination made by an independent auditor hired by the bank to conduct its regular audit provided that the examination is for audit purposes only and the results thereof shall be for the exclusive use of the bank, (3) Upon written permission of the depositor,
(4) In cases of impeachment,
(5) Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or
(6) In cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation
In the case at bar, there is yet no pending litigation before any court of competent authority. What is existing is an investigation by the office of the Ombudsman. In short, what the Office of the Ombudsman would wish to do is to fish for additional evidence to formally charge Amado Lagdameo, et. al., with the Sandiganbayan. Clearly, there was no pending case in court which would warrant the opening of the bank account for inspection.
Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. The Civil Code provides that "[e]very person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons" and punishes as actionable torts several acts for meddling and prying into the privacy of another. It also holds a public officer or employee or any private individual liable for damages for any violation of the rights and liberties of another person, and recognizes the privacy of letters and other private communications. The RPC makes a crime of the violation of secrets by an officer, the revelation of trade and industrial secrets, and trespass to dwelling. Invasion of privacy is an offense in special laws like the Anti-Wiretapping Law, the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act, and the Intellectual Property Code.
EJERCITO V . SANDIGANBAYAN , 509 SCRA 190 (2006) The accused claimed that information about his bank accounts i.e. trust funds, was obtained in violation of the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law (RA 1405) and moved to have them be excluded as evidence. HELD: RA 1405 nowhere provides that an unlawful examination of bank accounts shall render the evidence there from inadmissible in evidence. If Congress has both established a right and provided exclusive remedies for its violation, the court would encroaching upon the prerogatives of congress if it authorizes a remedy not provided for by statute. Absent a specific reference to an
exclusionary rule, it is not appropriate for the courts to read such a provision into the act.
Plunder being thus analogous to bribery, the exception to RA 1405, otherwise known as the Bank Secrecy Law, applicable in cases of bribery must also apply to cases of plunder. The “fruit of the poisonous tree” principle, which states that once the primary source (the “tree”) is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the “fruit”) derived from it is also inadmissible, does not apply in cases of unlawful examination of bank accounts. RA 1405 does not provide for the application of this rule. At all events, the Ombudsman is not barred from requiring the production of documents based solely on information obtained by it from sources independent of its previous inquiry.
ISSUE/HELD/RATIO: W/N the Trust Account No. 858 and Savings Account No. 0116-17345-9 are excepted from the protection of R.A. 1405 – NO. Plunder is excepted from the protection of RA 1405 otherwise known as The Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law
RA 1405 is broad enough to cover Trust Account No. 858. However, the protection afforded by the law is not absolute. There being recognized exceptions thereto, as above-quoted Section 2 provides. In the present case, two exceptions apply, to wit: (1) the examination of bank accounts is upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, and (2) the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.
xxx
Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Magsino: “Section 2 of [RA 1405] allows the disclosure of bank deposits in cases where the money deposited is the subject matter of the litigation. Inasmuch as Civil Case No. 26899 is aimed at recovering the amount converted by the Javiers for their own benefit, necessarily, an inquiry into the whereabouts of the illegally acquired amount extends to whatever is concealed by being held or recorded in the name of persons other than the one responsible for the illegal acquisition”
In light then of the Court’s pronouncement in Union Bank, the subject matter of the litigation cannot be limited to bank accounts under the name of President Estrada alone, but must include those accounts to which the money purportedly acquired illegally or a portion thereof was alleged to have been transferred. Trust Account No. 858 and Savings Account No. 0116-17345-9 in the name of Ejercito fall under this description and must thus be part of the subject matter of the litigation.
Hence, these accounts are no longer protected by the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law, there being two exceptions to the said law applicable in this case, namely: (1) the examination of bank accounts is upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, and (2) the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. Exception (1) applies since the plunder case pending against former President Estrada is analogous to bribery or dereliction of duty, while exception (2) applies because the money deposited in Ejercito’s bank accounts is said to form part of the subject matter of the same plunder case.
ISSUE/HELD/RATIO: W/N the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine or the exclusionary rule, which states that once the
primary source (the “tree”) is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the “fruit”) derived from it is also inadmissible, applicable in cases of unlawful examination of bank accounts – NO. The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine or the exclusionary rule is inapplicable in cases of unlawful examination of bank accounts.
Ejercito’s attempt to make the exclusionary rule applicable to the instant case fails. R.A. 1405, it bears noting, nowhere provides that an unlawful examination of bank accounts shall render the evidence obtained therefrom inadmissible in evidence. Section 5 of R.A. 1405 only states that “[a]ny violation of this law will subject the offender upon conviction, to an imprisonment of not more than five years or a fine of not more than twenty thousand pesos or both, in the discretion of the court.”
Even assuming arguendo, however, that the exclusionary rule applies in principle to cases involving R.A. 1405, the Court finds no reason to apply the same in this particular case. The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine presupposes a violation of law. If there was no violation of R.A. 1405 in the instant case, then there would be no “poisonous tree” to begin with, and, thus, no reason to apply the doctrine.
Hence, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” principle, which states that once the primary source (the “tree”) is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the “fruit”) derived from it is also inadmissible, does not apply in this case. In the first place, R.A. 1405 does not provide for the application of this rule. Moreover, there is no basis for applying the same in this case since the primary source for the detailed information regarding Joseph Victor G. Ejercito’s bank accounts – the investigation previously conducted by the Ombudsman – was lawful.
II. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED A. Judicial notice (§§1-3, R129)
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. (1a)
Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. (1a) Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon. After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. (n)
Judicial notice
The cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them
JN is based on considerations of expediency and convenience. It displaces evidence since, being equivalent to proof, it fulfills the object which the evidence is intended to achieve and, therefore, makes such evidence unnecessary. (Alzua vs. Johnson)
JN of a fact may be taken by a court a) on its own motion, or
b) when it is requested or invited by the parties or either of them to do so.
In either case, the court may allow the parties to be heard on the matter in question. It has been held, however, that the power to take JN must be exercised with caution and every reasonable doubt on the subject must be resolved in the negative.
Rule regarding judicial notice of ordinances
• Municipal courts required to take JN of ordinances of the municipality or city wherein they sit
•
RTCs must take such JN onlya) when required to do so by statute; and
b) in a case on appeal before them and wherein the inferior court took JN of an ordinance involved in said case
• Appellate courts may also take JN of municipal or city ordinances not only where the lower courts took JN thereof but because these are facts capable of unquestionable demonstration.
For the same reason, courts may take JN of administrative regulations.
Courts are required to take JN of the decisions of the appellate courts but not of the decisions of coordinate trial courts, nor even of a decision or the facts involved in another case tried by the same court itself, unless the parties introduce the same in evidence or where the court, as a matter of convenience, may decide to do so.
JN court required to take ≠ personal knowledge of judge
• A fact may be of JN and not be of the judge’s personal knowledge, and vice versa, as this rule refers to facts which “ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.”
Question as to what are the laws of a foreign state is one of fact, not of law.
• Foreign laws may not be taken JN of and have to be proved like any other fact
o
Exception: where said laws are within the actual knowledge of the court such as when they are well and generally known or they have been actually ruled upon in other cases before it and none of the parties claim otherwise.• To prove a foreign written law, the requirements of §§24 & 25, R132 must be complied with (by an official publication or by a duly attested and authenticated copy thereof)
SC noted that while certain exceptions to the requirements in §§24 & 25, R132 for proof of foreign law have been recognized, the evidence presented for that purpose in this case is unacceptable.
Instant case – petitioner submitted affidavit of NY attorney which doesn’t even state the specific NY law on the issue of damages involved, but merely contained the affiant’s interpretation and opinion of the facts of the case vis-à-vis the alleged law and jurisprudence therein. Further, said affidavit was taken ex parte abroad and the affiant never testified in court.
• Provisions of foreign law may also be the subject of judicial admission under §4, R129.
• To prove an unwritten foreign law, the provisions of §46, R130 supply the evidential sources or remedies.
•
GENERAL RULE: Absent any of the foregoing evidence or admission, the foreign law is presumed to be the same as that in the Philippines – doctrine of processual presumptionRIANO:
JN is based on the maxim, “what is known need not be proved,” hence, when the rule is invoked, the court may dispense with the presentation of evidence on judicially cognizable facts.
Function of JN
To abbreviate litigation by the admission of matters that need no evidence because JN is a substitute for formal proof of a matter by evidence
When JN is mandatory
A matter of JN may either be mandatory or discretionary. When the matter is subject to a mandatory JN, no motion or hearing is necessary for the court to take JN of a fact because this is a matter which a court ought to take JN of.
Matters subject to mandatory JN
1.
The existence and territorial extent of states2.
The political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality of states3.
The law of nations4.
The admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals5.
The political constitution and history of the Philippines6.
The official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines7.
The laws of nature8.
The measure of time9.
The geographical divisions. When JN is discretionaryThe principles of discretionary JN will apply where the ff. requisites are met:
1. The matter must be one of common knowledge
2. The matter must be settled beyond reasonable doubt (if there is any uncertainty about the matter, then evidence must be adduced)
3. The knowledge must exist within the jurisdiction of the court
Cases BPI
FAMILY SAVINGS BANK , INC . V . CA , CTA (2000)
As a rule, "courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been heard or are actually pending before the same judge." Be that as it may, Section 2, Rule 129 provides that courts may take judicial notice of matters ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.
MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST V . GUERRERO (2003) There can be no summary judgment where questions of fact are in issue or where material allegations of the pleadings are in dispute. The resolution of whether a foreign law allows only the recovery of actual damages is a question of fact as far as the trial court is concerned since foreign laws do not prove themselves in our courts. Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proven. Certainly, the conflicting allegations as to whether NY law or Philippine law applies to Guerrero’s claims present a clear dispute on material allegations which can be resolved only by a trial on the merits.
Under §24 of R 132, the record of public documents of a sovereign authority or tribunal may be proved by (1) an official publication thereof or (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody thereof . Such official publication or copy must be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that the attesting officer has the legal custody thereof. The certificate may be issued by any of the authorized Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. The attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be, and must be under the official seal of the attesting officer.
• CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS (Asiavest Limited v. CA)
Although it is desirable that foreign law be proved in accordance with the above rule, however, the Supreme Court held in the case of Willamette Iron and Steel Works v. Muzzal, that Section 41, Rule 123 (Section 25, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court) does not exclude the presentation of other competent evidence to prove the existence of a foreign law. In that case, the Supreme Court considered the testimony under oath of an attorney-at-law of San Francisco, California, who quoted verbatim a section of California Civil Code and who stated that the same was in force at the time the obligations were contracted, as sufficient evidence to establish the existence of said law. Accordingly, in line with this view, the Supreme Court in the Collector of Internal Revenue v. Fisher et al., upheld the Tax Court in considering the pertinent law of California as proved by the respondents witness. In that case, the counsel for respondent testified that as an active member of the California Bar since 1951, he is familiar with the revenue and taxation laws of the State of California. When asked by the lower court to state the pertinent California law as regards exemption of intangible personal properties, the witness cited Article 4, Sec. 13851 (a) & (b) of the California Internal and Revenue Code as published in Derrings California Code, a publication of Bancroft-Whitney Co., Inc. And as part of his testimony, a full
