Rules On Evidence - PDFCOFFEE.COM (2025)

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

RULE 128 GENERAL PROVISIONS Preliminary Considerations Sources of Rules on Evidence  Rule 128 to 133  1987 Constitution-Exclusionary Rule in the Bill of Rights  Anti-Wire Tapping Law (Republic Act 4200)  Secrecy of Bank Records (Republic Act 1405)  Rule 115 on matters which may be crossexamined if an accused testifies on his own behalf: English v. American Rule o ENGLISH RULE- more liberal rule  One can be cross-examined on matters or connected with matters in the direct examination with sufficient fullness and freedom. o AMERICAN RULE- stricter rule  One can be cross-examined ONLY on matters stated in the direct examination.  Jurisprudence Distinctions: CIVIL CASES Preponderance of evidence None Discussion: In transportation laws, the automatic presumption of negligence is in favor of the plaintiff. So, most of the time, there is no presumption in favor of the defendant. 

Not an admission of any liability

Example: A said that he will just pay his debt. The compromise here

AS TO Burden of proof Presumption in favor of defending party

Offer of compromise by the defending party

CRIMINAL CASES Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt Presumption of innocence in favor of the accused Discussion: Therefore, it is harder to prove criminal cases because of the Burden of proof and Presumption in favor of the accused. General Rule: May be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.

does not mean that A already admitted his liability. Not admissible in evidence against the offeror (Rule 130, Sec. 28)

Exceptions: those involving quasioffenses (criminal negligence) Discussion: This is because criminal negligence is not actually intended. allowed by law to be compromised (Rule130, Sec. 28)

Section 1. Evidence defined- Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1) Note: Memorize this provision. Discussion: How to construe the Rules on Evidence?  It should be liberally construed.  Strict and rigid application of the Rules must always be eschewed if it would subvert the rules’ primary objective of enhancing substantial justice Section 1 is the Legal Definition of Evidence. The following are the definition of Evidence in layman’s term (not based on our rules but based on outside sources): a. Google Definition (Is Evidence = proof?)  Proof is evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.  Google uses the term evidence to define proof.  Example: “You will be asked to give proof of your identity”  Another definition: Proof is the spoken or written evidence in a trial b. Merriam Webster  The cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact There are lots of definitions and the terms evidence and proof are usually interchanged by layman.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Section 1 is the exact definition of Evidence. However, there was a bar question once: Q: “What is the difference between evidence and proof?” Suggested Answer: Evidence is the means of proving while Proof is the effect of evidence or the establishment of a fact by evidence. In Section 1, the word proof is not present. So, usually these kinds of questions are best in essay writing, the more you know, the more you can write and the more you can say. Evidence The means (HOW?) Sanctioned by these rules Of ascertaining In a Judicial proceeding The truth respecting a matter of fact (WHAT?) Example: Scenario: We have a Criminal Case entitled People v. AAA, for Murder and WWW, for Parricide. So we have 2 accused. And the main allegation of the prosecution (written in the information) is that AAA shot VVV, the husband of WWW So what is the duty of the Prosecution? 1. To ascertain the truth (Who killed or caused the death of VVV?) 2. Respecting a matter of fact (That VVV is dead) 3. By means of or presenting evidence (How can the prosecution ascertain the truth?) Therefore, overall, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the allegation that AAA and WWW are guilty of killing VVV. Kinds of Evidence that may be presented to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact: 1. Object (Real) Evidence those addressed to the senses (sight, touch, hearing or taste) of the court Example: The dead body or just a picture of the dead body, or the gun, Discussion: Continuation of the Scenario: So what kinds of evidence that the prosecution may present or submit to the court so it can ascertain or prove that AAA and WWW killed VVV? 1. The dead body of VVV or the “corpus delicti’

because if there is no dead body, there is no killing. 2. The gun that was used to shoot VVV Is the prosecutor required to bring the dead body to the court? NO, the picture of the dead body would be sufficient. However, just because what was presented was only the picture of the dead body, it does not mean that it is not an object evidence. How about the Gun? Because the court must see that there was actually a gun used to shoot VVV? Should the gun be brought to the Court for the Court to see? YES, normally. There is a person in the form of NBI representative who is in charge of all those object evidence. Usually, those are the objects seized from the crime that are being kept by the NBI. So when there is a trial, those objects are brought to the court as object evidence. 2. Documentary 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. So what is important in documentary evidence is not the paper or object but the content or what is written in it. Example: Contract between WWW and AAA where it is indicated that WWW ordered AAA to kill VVV for a fee. Discussion: Continuation of the Scenario: So what other evidence may the prosecution present prove the allegation? The contract between WWW and AAA where it is indicated that WWW ordered AAA to kill VVV for a fee. 3. Testimonial Evidence Evidence furnished by the testimony of a person which may be Oral- such as when the witness testifies in court Written- such as a judicial affidavit which takes the place of the direct testimony of a witness. Therefore, a judicial affidavit is NOT a documentary evidence, rather, a testimonial evidence. Example: Witnesses

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Discussion: Continuation of the Scenario: What other evidence can be presented ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact? Witnesses.

Distinctions: (A) Testimonial Evidence v Object Evidence What if the witness testifies that there was no killing or that there was no gun? So there is a conflict between the testimony of the witness and the object evidence, the gun, which is presented in court? What will prevail? (Witness v. Gun) Obviously, it is the Object Evidence that will prevail. PEOPLE VS LAVAPIE GR. No. 130209 March 14, 2001 Facts: Here there was a testimony by a certain Samonte. He said that the victim was hit by the left side of the neck. However, there was an autopsy report which shows that the victim was hacked in the right side of the neck. So there is an inconsistency with the testimony and the autopsy report. Issue: Which prevails between the testimony of the witness and the autopsy report? Ruling: The report prevails because it is merely the illustration of the autopsy so it is a physical evidence. Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of the truth and it ranks higher in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. In the light of physical evidence obtaining in this case, contrary to oral assertions cannot prevail. Greater credence is given to physical evidence as evidence of the highest order because it speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses. Discussion: So in the hierarchy of evidence, it is the physical or object evidence that is highest because it is what you can see, touch, or hear rather than some testimony of a witness (B) Testimonial Evidence v, Documentary Evidence GSIS VS CA GR. No. 52080 May 28, 1993 “Testimonial evidence is easy of fabrication and there

is very little room for choice between testimonial evidence and documentary evidence. Generally, documentary evidence prevails over the testimonial evidence.” Discussion: So, earlier we looked at the contract between WWW and AAA to kill VVV. So what if there is a witness saying that there is no contract? Hence, inconsistent. Definitely, the documentary evidence in the form of a contract prevails over the testimony of the witness. (C) Affidavits v. Open-Court Testimony Discussion: However, what if there is an affidavit that contradicts the open-court testimony. What would prevail? It depends as to what kind of affidavit. PEOPLE VS BALLENO “An affidavit is not a complete reproduction of what the declarant has in mind because it is generally prepared by the administering officer and the affiant simply signs it after it has been read to him.” Discussion: So the court has no trust to affidavits. It is executed ex parte. Normally, this is prepared by the lawyer and usually the affiant will just sign. Also, in truth and in fact, affidavits are statements made by the affiant, so it is like also a testimony but it is made not in court but outside of the court. So what is more believable? According to the SC, Open Court testimony is more believable than an ex parte affidavit. But remember, that Judicial Affidavits are also ex parte but it is more legit and it is presented in court. Therefore, it is still considered as an open court testimony. FUKUZUME V. PEOPLE November 11, 2005 Facts; There was a Criminal case for estafa filed with RTC Makati where Yu as the private complainant and Fukusume as the accused. Affidavit of Yu: “Initial payment of P50 000 for some transaction was made at Intercon Hotel Makati” Testimony of Yu in Open Court: “Yu gave the P50 000 to Fukuzume’s house” (which is in Paranaque) Affidavit vs testimony as venue is concerned. Why is it important? It is because in criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. One of the elements is territorial jurisdiction so the

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

action must be filed in the court where one of the crime is committed or any of its ingredients took place.

case can still be refiled in the proper court, in this case the Paranaque court.

Issue 1: Affidavit vs Testimony (weight)

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus or “False in one thing, false in everything” (Related to testimonial evidence) It means that if the testimony of a witness on a material issue is willfully false and given with an intention to deceive, the jury may disregard all the witness’ testimony. The witness in such case is considered unworthy of belief as to all the rest of his evidence if he is shown to have testified falsely in one detail.

Ruling: With respect to the sworn statement of Yu, which was presented in evidence by the prosecution, it is clear that he gave Fukuzume the amount ofP50, 000.00 at the Intercontinental Hotel in Makati. However, we agree with Fukuzume's contention that Yu testified during his direct examination that he gave the amount ofP50, 000.00 to Fukuzume in the latter's house. Settled is the rule that whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight considering that affidavits takenex parteare inferior to testimony given in court, the former being almost invariably incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate. Therefore following the testimony, the crime was committed in Paranaque and not in Makati. Issue 2: W/N the affidavit is admissible Ruling: Apparently, this affidavit is not yet the complaint affidavit. He submitted an affidavit which is part of the records of the PI conducted by the prosecutor. The SC said, It is settled that the record of the preliminary investigation, whether conducted by a judge or a prosecutor, shall not form part of the record of the case in the RTC. InPeople vs. Crispin,this Court held that the fact that the affidavit formed part of the record of the preliminary investigation does not justify its being treated as evidence because the record of the preliminary investigation does not form part of the record of the case in the RTC. Such record must be introduced as evidence during trial, and the trial court is not compelled to take judicial notice of the same. Since neither prosecution nor defense presented in evidence Fukuzume's affidavit, the same may not be considered part of the records, much less evidence. Therefore, the affidavit must first be introduced in court before it can be admitted as evidence. Whatever records the prosecution had in PI does not automatically become part of the evidence. Discussion: So obviously, the Makati court has no jurisdiction, hence it dismissed the case but without prejudice meaning the

Discussion: Meaning even though the testimony is 90% true but the remaining 10% is patently and willfully false and it affects a material issue, the witness already becomes unworthy of belief. Hence, testimonial evidence is so easy to disbelieved if the opposing party can create a way to make the witness say something materially false. 4. Demonstrative Evidence Evidence in the form of physical objects, graphs, pictures, blow-ups of documents, models and other devices which are intended to clarify the facts for the judge, such as a sketch of how an accident occurred. By themselves, they have no probative value but used to illustrate and clarify a factual matter in issue or aid a testimony by way of certain experimentation.  



What is relevant is not the object itself but the inference that can be drawn from such evidence. Many of these are not supposed to be actual evidence, but aids to understanding and retention of presented evidence in the juror’s memories. (More of a US-type evidence.) A judge must decide if the evidence will be merely helpful or will inflame the passions of a jury in a way that will prevent them from deciding an issue impartially. Example: a judge may exclude graphic photos of a murder scene if they would be more prejudicial than helpful to the jury.

Discussion: This kind of evidence is not documentary because we are not looking in the contents of the document, rather, it is just to illustrate how the accident occurred. This is in

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

addition to the three (3) main kinds of evidence we have discussed. This can be used by the witness to further illustrate what he is testifying on. This is really not an evidence as this is merely for demonstration or illustration purposes. Classification of Evidence: 1. As to Materiality a. Material  Direct evidence  Evidence which tends to prove or disprove the fact in issue  Admissible b. Immaterial  Unrelated evidence  Evidence which does not tend to prove nor disprove the fact in issue  Not admissible Example: In a collection case. P alleged that D borrowed money from him and failed to pay. D raises the defense of payment. He presented the receipt issued by P. What is the fact in issue? W/N D fialed to pay his debt. Does the receipt disproved the fact in issue? YES. Because the receipt contains the signature of P that he received the payment of D. So this kind of evidence is Material. What if D presented his driver’s license instead? Is it material to the fact in issue? NO. It is immaterial and it cannot be admitted by the judge. There is no relation between the driver’s license and the fact in issue. 2. As to relevance a. Relevant  Direct evidence  Evidence which has a tendency in reason to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue  admissible b. Irrelevant  Unrelated evidence



Evidence which does not tend to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue Not admissible

 Discussion: 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. xxx Example of an evidence that is immaterial but is relevant:

Based on the investigation of the police, BBB shot XXX between the eyes with a rifle from a distance of 200 yards. The prosecution presented the evidence that during the last Olympics, BBB was a gold medalist in a sharp-shooting event. What is the fact in issue? W/N BBB killed XXX. What did the prosecution presented as evidence? Is it material? What does a gold medal have to do with the fact in issue? The gold medal is not material at all however, it is relevant because the prosecutor later on will show that XXX was shot between the eyes from a distance of 200 yards and only a sharp shooter can do that. So, the gold medal of BBB is relevant as it is a tendency in reason to establish a probability or improbability of fact in issue. Now what if what was presented was a gold medal in taekwondo? Would it still be relevant? Of course not because what does it have to do with the shooting incident or in establishing a probability or improbability of fact in issue. Distinctions: MATERIAL Offered to prove or disprove a specific fact in issue Direct proof of a fact Self-evident, clear Always relevant

RELEVANT Tends to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue May not directly prove a fact in issue. It may be circumstantial. May require reasoning and inference Not always material

3. As to Competence a. Competent ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Not excluded by any law or the rules on Evidence  Admissible b. Inadmissible  Excluded by any law or the rules on Evidence  Not Admissible Discussion: Section 3. Admissibility of evidence.- Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and not excluded by the Constitution, the law or these Rules. Therefore, for as long as it is not excluded or not prohibited, it is competent. 

Example: Under Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, the “Miranda Warning” which provides that when someone is arrested, he must be informed of his rights. Now what if he is now under custodial investigation and he confessed without his counsel, would his confession be admissible? No. The Constitution states that it is not allowed. Any confession made by the accused without his counsel during the custodial investigation cannot be admitted as evidence. Hence, because it is excluded by the Constitution, it is inadmissible. Why not use the word incompetent as the opposite of Competent Evidence? Legally speaking, the word incompetent refers to the inability of the witness to testify in court. Therefore, the word Competent refers to Evidence while the word Incompetent refers to witnesses Another Examples: 1. Testimony based on information and not based on personal knowledge is inadmissible, it is not competent. Because we already know that one must testify based on his personal knowledge, otherwise, it is hearsay and must be excluded, hence, inadmissible or not competent. 2. A HS graduate who presents himself as a Doctor of Medicine. In the Rules on Expert Witnesses, the witness must be expert in his field. Hence, if a HS graduate represents himself to be expert and apparently, he is not allowed to do such, his testimony is inadmissible JULY 6, 2020 We are still under Section 1 where we are trying to look at the different parts of this definition of evidence. We

started to look at the different types of evidence that are normally presented in court, now we are looking at the classification of different kinds of evidence. Now, we go to the next, the probative value of the evidence. To answer what kind of evidence is given more weight to prove the fact in issue. 4. As to Probative Value Direct Directly proves the fact in dispute without the need to make an inference from another fact Establishes the truth or falsity of an assertion directly Ex. Knife with victim's blood

Circumstantial Does not bear directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which one may infer the occurrence of a fact in dispute Relies on an inference or presumption to connect it to a conclusion of fact Ex. Fingerprint at the scene of the crime

Discussion: Example for Direct Evidence: We looked at some types of evidence last meeting like the gun and the knife. So, what other examples do we have on direct evidence? Testimonial - a witness who saw the crime took place. The witness will be placed in the witness stand and the lawyer will ask him. Lawyer: Do you know who killed the victim VVV? Witness: Yes. Lawyer: Who killed him? Witness: AAA. Lawyer: Is he here in the courtroom? Can you identify him? Can you point him? Witness: "points at AAA" Lawyer: How come you know it was AAA who killed VVV? Witness: I saw it with my own eyes, I was there when AAA killed VVV. That is normally the case where the accused is required to be there for identification purposes. So this is Direct, there is no need to infer. However when it comes to circumstantial evidence, it is not direct, so there is no one saying that he killed the victim but there is a circumstance which points the probability that he is the killer. Example for Circumstantial Evidence:

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

In the earlier example of AAA being a gold medalist for sharpshooting it does not directly prove that he is the shooter or the killer but it somehow leads to that. There is an inference that he could probably the killer since it was shot from a distance of over 400 meters. In this case the Olympic medal would become a relevant evidence, and at the same time circumstantial. According to Dean Iñigo: When there is smoke there is fire. So the circumstantial evidence is the smoke that causes the fire which is the fact in issue. That the smoke could probably have caused the fire. Another example of Dean Iñigo is if he is a drunk person, so there could be an inference that he is drunk because of his behavior. 1998 bar question. AAA was accused of raping XXX. The question was rule on the admissibility of a pair of short pants allegedly left by AAA in the scene of the crime and over the objection of AAA he was required to put on the short pants when he was there in the witness stand. What does that have to do with raping the victim? It is not direct but if it was left there in the scene of the crime and it fits the accused AAA then somehow one could infer that AAA could probably be the rapist. So this short pants which is an object evidence that is admissible as circumstantial although it is not sufficient to support a conviction. Circumstantial evidence standing alone cannot prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There must be other evidence to support it. People v. Ochate July 30, 2002 Guidelines for the appreciation of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. a) It should be acted upon with caution; b) All the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt; c) The facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt; and d) Facts must establish such a certainty of guilt of the accused to convince a judgment beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the one who committed the offense; What about flight of the accused? What if the accused escapes? Gulmatico v. People October 15, 2007

It is established in this jurisdiction that while flight indicates guilt, non-flight does not mean innocence. So there was this allegation that "I did not flee" "I am being accused and I am still here so it somehow infers that I did not commit a crime" The Supreme Court said No, much like the defense of alibi and denial, non-flight cannot prevail against a weight of positive identification of the accused. 5. As to Primacy Primary (Best) Evidence which the law regards as effecting the greatest certainty of the fact in question Original of a document Always admissible

Secondary Inferior or substitutionary; that which itself indicates the existence of a more original source of information Photocopy of a document Not always admissible

Discussion: a. PRIMARY EVIDENCE  We have primary or the best evidence. Evidence which the law regards as effecting the greatest certainty of the fact in question. And under Rule 130, the best evidence rule when it comes to documents is the original of a document. It is always admissible. [What is original of a document? We will take that up when we reach the proper provision, but that is considered as the best evidence.] b. SECONDARY EVIDENCE  Secondary evidence is inferior or substitutionary – that which itself indicates the existence of a more original source of information.  Example of Secondary Evidence: An example is a photocopy of the document. Photocopy is not the best evidence. As a general rule, it is not admissible but there are exceptions. 6. As to Existence of a Fact Positive Negative When the witness affirms When the witness states that a fact did or did not that he did not see or occur know the occurrence of a fact Exists Does not exist Discussion: Example of Positive Evidence: The evidence exists. You put a witness on the stand and then, the lawyer will ask the witness, “Did the accused AAA shoot the victim?” And the witness will say, “Yes,

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

he did. I saw it with my own eyes.” That is POSITIVE. He affirms a fact that a fact, the shooting, did occur. Q: What if he says, “No, he did not shoot BBB. I was there. He was just walking.” – Does the evidence exist? A: Yes, that is the testimony that he did not shoot. That is a positive evidence. Example of Negative Evidence: Q: “Did AAA shoot BBB?” A: “I don’t know, I did not see anything.” There’s no evidence, so it is called negative. A negative evidence may be admitted, although it doesn’t exist because it says he didn’t see anything. So, probably there was nothing to see. But when it comes to weight, even if this negative evidence is admitted, the Supreme Court always says that positive testimony prevails. Discussion in relation to Civil Procedure: Do not confuse yourselves. When we took up Civil Procedure, we have positive defense and negative defense. The defendant comes up with the defense in civil procedure. If it is a negative defense, that is a defense of specific denial, wherein the defendant will allege in his answer that “No, I do not owe P 1 million pesos. In fact, I do not know P.” If it is an affirmative defense, wherein the defendant will admit a material allegation. “Yes, I borrowed money from P.” But he will introduce a fact which will probably exculpate him. “Yes, I borrowed money from P but I already paid him.” So, these are different from positive and negative evidence. What about alibi? Alibi is somehow a negative evidence. When it is the accused who is questioned in the witness stand and he will say, “I wasn’t there in the scene of the crime. I was somewhere else.” This defense of alibi, according to the SC in many cases, it neither affirms nor negates the fact of killing or the commission of the crime. The accused, when invoking alibi, never gives a direct answer as to whether or not he committed the crime. He’s merely saying, “How can I commit the crime? I wasn’t there.” So, it is an inherently weak evidence. It can be overcome with positive identification. Negative Pregnant in Civil Procedure It is a denial which implies its affirmative opposite by seeming to deny only a qualification of the allegation, and not the allegation itself. Examples of Negative Pregnant:

1. DDD is accused of embezzling a million dollars in 2007. He denies the allegation by saying, “I did not embezzle a million dollars in 2007.” The denial is pregnant with a possibility that DDD may have embezzled a different sum of money in a different year. So, he is not exactly denying that he embezzled money. 2. In trespass to dwelling. Before entering the house of X, the accused (A) pleaded that the daughter of X aided him and that he was licensed by the daughter to enter. X replied that he did not enter by her license. So, it’s not really a denial that he entered. He is admitting but denying the qualification. Positive Testimony vs Negative Testimony 1. In Philippine jurisprudence, a positive testimony enjoys more weight than a negative testimony. A testimony that a fact exists enjoys more weight than a testimony that asserts that the same act does not exist. 2. Positive evidence is also more credible than negative evidence. The reason is that a witness who testifies to a negative may have forgotten what actually occurred, while it is impossible to remember what never existed. 3. 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. 4. When one testifies for himself and all he does is deny, that is self-serving in nature and cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence. 7. As to Supporting Evidence Cumulative Corroborative Both of them are just supportive evidence. They are not direct evidence Additional evidence of the One that is same kind and character supplementary to that as that already given and already given tending to tends to prove the same strengthen or confirm it. proposition Additional evidence of a different kind and character tending to prove the same point. Example of Cumulative Evidence: AAA, BBB and CCC witnessed an incident in Abreeza. AAA testified that he was there with BBB and CCC, and he saw DDD shoot VVV. So, that is his testimony. Cumulative may be direct. The first testimony is not cumulative. The first is the direct evidence. But, if BBB

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

will testify and he merely repeats what AAA said, that is cumulative testimony. The same type as that given earlier. What is cumulative here, is the additional evidence. Examples of Corroborative Evidence: 1. Same. The first testimony could be direct. AAA testified that DDD shot VVV. Do we have another person testify? Perhaps not. But, there is a finding from the crime lab that the gun bears the fingerprints of DDD, the accused. That is a corroborative evidence, additional evidence of a different kind and character tending to prove the same point. IF you have the fingerprints of DDD in the gun, is that direct evidence that DDD shot VVV? Perhaps not. It is circumstantial at most, but, it can corroborate the testimony of AAA, that he saw DDD shoot VVV. So it supports the testimony of AAA. 2. In civil cases of accion publiciana, or registration cases. AAA is the applicant for the plaintiff testified that he planted 100 coconut trees, 100 durian trees, 100 mango trees on the property he is claiming to be his. Aside from that he presents a tax declaration where indeed those number of trees that he mentioned are actually stated there as improvements. He presents the findings of the assessor that supports his testimony. So the tax declaration is not proof of ownership, but if you add that to an already existing testimony plus the city assessor’s findings, it will corroborate. 3. Proof of age. When it comes to criminal cases, proof of age is important especially if the accused is a minor. The best evidence is the birth certificate. But what if the birth certificate is not reliable as it is not a PSA copy, but merely a civil registry issued certificate? What can be used to corroborate this? School records or baptismal certificate. All of them tend to prove the same point, which is the date of birth of the accused. Is the corroborative evidence required? Sometimes, but not all the time. If there is already a direct evidence that really proves the fact in issue without need for any other evidence, then there is no need to supply corroborative evidence. People vs. Ayupan (Feb. 13, 2002) Testimony of a lone witness if found by the trial court to be positive, categorical and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction. This is so especially if the testimony bore the earmarks of truth and sincerity and was delivered spontaneously, naturally and in a

straight-forward manner. Comment: So it is enough, sometimes, to get a conviction if the court really believes that the testimony is really credible. So corroborative evidence is only necessary when there are reasons to suspect that the witness bent the truth or that his or her observation was inaccurate. So evidence is assessed based on quality, not quantity. You do not need a hundred witnesses. It is to be weighed not counted. Therefore, it is not uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of a lone witness. What about a testimony of a child witness? Under the Rules on Examination of a child witness, it is very clear that corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of the child. His testimony, if credible by itself SHALL be sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion, or judgment subject to the standard of proof required in criminal and non-criminal cases. 8. As to Source Intrinsic Information that is gleaned from the contents of the document Tax declaration showing the improvements on the property Discussion: This normally applicable documents.

Extrinsic (Evidence aliunde) Information that is not taken from the contents of a document but from other sources Testimony of a witness describing the improvements made on the property

is to

9. As to Witness Testimony Expert Ordinary Consists in the opinion of Consists in the testimony a witness on a matter of a witness who testifies requiring special to those facts which he knowledge, skill, knows of his personal experience, or training knowledge which are which he is shown to derived from his own possess perception Needs to be established No establishment required Discussion: What kind of witness is testifying in court? a. Expert witness  Testimony of an expert witness consists of matter requiring special knowledge, skill or training which he is shown to possess. The fact that he is an expert, his expertise needs to be established first before he will be treated as such. There is a procedure of establishing that

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

he is an expert witness. But not all witnesses have to be an expert witness.

the maker of a worthless check has knowledge of insufficiency of funds.

Examples of expert witnesses that are normally presented in court: 1. Psychiatrists in actions for declaration of nullity of a marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code, Psychological Incapacity. That expert witness is the psychologist who testifies that he or she found one of the parties psychologically incapacitated; 2. Ballistic experts who will testify about the trajectory of a bullet from what angle the victim was shot; 3. Handwriting experts who will testify that the questioned document is a forgery; 4. Surveyors when it comes to boundary disputes. Those who know how to survey properties and look at the TCTs.

2. Rebutting Evidence  Evidence given to repel, counteract or disprove facts proved by the other side. If the defendant actually presents his evidence, he is actually rebutting the evidence presented by the plaintiff.

b. Ordinary witness.  The testimony of the witness who testifies to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge which are derived from his own perception. There is no need to establish him as an expert. He does not have to be. A witness who sees the crime being committed does not have to be an expert witness he just has to relate to the court what he saw personally. That is enough. Other types of Evidence: 1. Prima Facie Evidence  Evidence that is sufficient to establish a fact and if not rebutted becomes conclusive of that fact. Examples of a Prima Facie Evidence: 1. Evidence of the plaintiff in an ex parte hearing or when the defendant was declared in default. When a defendant is declared in default he is no longer allowed to participate in the proceedings, he cannot present his evidence. So the plaintiff can present evidence ex parte. And whatever evidence presented by the plaintiff is a prima facie evidence and if it is not rebutted becomes conclusive of that fact whatever he is trying to prove. And in this case, there is no chance for the defendant if he does not file a motion of relief from order of default and etc. 2. In criminal law. In bribery cases. Acceptance of a gift is a prima facie evidence that there is bribery. 3. In BP 22 case, failure to fund a check after demand constitutes a prima facie evidence that

3. Conclusive Evidence  Evidence which is INCONTROVERTIBLE. It admits of no proof to the contrary. Example of Conclusive Evidence: Under Rule 131 Section 2, the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of commencement of relation of landlord and tenant between them. It is an incontrovertible evidence. The tenant enters into a lease contract with the owner of the property. He cannot deny later the ownership of the landlord as it is a conclusive evidence. JARCO MARKETING VS CA A child below nine (9) years is incapable of contributory negligence. In our jurisdiction, a person under nine years of age is conclusively presumed to have acted without discernment, and is, on that account, exempt from criminal liability. Judicial Proceeding Definition under Section 1 Section 1. Evidence defined- Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a JUDICIAL PROCEEDING the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1) Discussion: Applicability of the Rules of Evidence: The rules of evidence being parts of the rules of court apply only to a judicial proceeding. That is very clear under section one. You have to relate this to our civil procedure Rule 1. These rules shall not apply to Election cases, etc. and other cases not herein provided for. So, even if the rules on evidence apply only to judicial proceedings, they can be applied suppletorily. According to jurisprudence, technical rules on procedure and evidence are not strictly applied and administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in strict judicial terms. Rules of evidence in Labor cases Samar vs NLRC

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

In the case of Samar vs NLRC, the Supreme Court said that technical rules of evidence are not strictly followed in labor cases. "Not strictly followed' does not mean they are not followed. It just means not too strict. If we have a liberal construction under rule 1, section 6, MAS LIBERAL pa in labor cases. The basis for this is Article 221 of the Labor Code and section 7 of the NLRC rules of procedure. Cathay Pacific vs. NLRC Same thing was said in Cathay Pacific vs. NLRC. There was this expert witness who was not presented to identify and testify the contents of an affidavit. But this is a labor case, so the Supreme Court said, "okay lang yan". Rules of evidence in POEA proceedings Hornales vs. NLRC As in the case of Hornales vs. NLRC, the Supreme Court said that proceedings in POEA are non-litigious in nature. The technicalities of law and procedures and the rules obtaining in the courts of law shall not strictly apply thereto and a hearing officer may avail himself of all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of the case. Rules of evidence in Petition for naturalization proceedings Ong vs Republic As you can see under section 4, the rule on formal offer of evidence is not applicable in a case involving a petition for naturalization, unless applied by analogy or in a suppletory character. Rules of evidence in Administrative Law Bantolino vs Coca-cola According to the Supreme Court in the case of Bantolino vs Coca-cola, however 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. Ascertaining the truth respecting a matter of fact definition

Section 1. Evidence defined- Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ASCERTAINING in a judicial proceeding THE TRUTH RESPECTING A MATTER OF FACT (1) Dicussion: The purpose of evidence is to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact in a judicial proceeding. Truth So, what is the truth? Who knows the truth? Diba, only God knows the truth. And if it is a murder case, perhaps the accused knows the truth as to whether or not he killed the victim. So what kind of truth are we trying to get through to ascertain when we are presenting evidence? Well, the truth that is established by the evidence presented. That's it. Whether it's the real truth or not, we will have to accept that as the truth respecting a matter of fact. The fact that is in issue here. Okay, so are we going to know the real truth or the actual truth when presenting evidence? Probably not. Probably yes. But, just because we will never know the real truth behind does not mean that we will not try to present evidence to ascertain the truth. So, (truth is) the findings of the court. How the court renders judgment will depend on the evidence presented. How the court will see the truth insofar as that fact is concerned will depend on the evidence presented. Why is there a need to present evidence? Because of the presumption of the court at the beginning of the case. Faced with two opposite stories, two or more. Which one of the two does the court has to believe? How will the court know by just reading the two conflicting stories or allegations? Answer: Evidence. But it's a long process. But first, you have to determine first the admissibility of the evidence and the court will determine which evidence has more weight or has more credibility. So, in every adversarial case (except if it is land registration pero meron paring controversy) presented before the court, the court is always faced with this problem: "Which party is telling the truth?" Example: A very simple collection case of sum of money. P alleged in his complaint that D borrowed 1 million for him and did not pay his loan. Is that the truth? sabi naman ni D, I did not borrow money from P because I do not even know him. What is the truth there? So, it's hard to determine the truth by just listening or reading both sides of the story or both parties' allegation.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

It really depends on what kind of evidence each side can present. Burden of proof to both parties So, in both case there is a burden. The burden of the plaintiff to prove his allegations by means of evidence. The burden of the defendant to rebut those allegations by means of evidence. Testimonial evidence as the hardest evidence to believe Sometimes, (direct evidence, object evidence, documentary evidence in the form of a contract) it's easy for the court to believe if the evidence is really very strong. But sometimes, there's none. There is no object evidence. There is no documentary evidence. What's the only evidence presented before the court? Testimonial evidence. "Conflicting Testimonies" from the witnesses from both sides/parties. So, who will the court believe? So the job of the lawyers here is to impeach the witness. That's why there's this book that Judge Dela banda lent me before: "The art of cross-examination". When it comes to trial lawyers, one can prove how good he is if he can master the art of cross-examination because in that way one can elicit facts or statements from a witness without him even realizing that he had already said it. So, the most difficult for a judge to believe, perhaps, is testimonial evidence. Distinction: FACTUM PROBANDUM Ultimate facts Discussion: Normally, when we file an action in court or we file a complaint if it is a civil case. What do we state there? The ultimate factThe truth respecting a matter of fact.

FACTUM PROBANS Evidentiary Facts Dicussion: The plaintiff and defendant are allowed to allege factum probans – evidentiary facts.

the not the the

Discussion: You find these facts in the pleadings – the complaint and the answer. These are the ultimate facts.

Discussion: These are the evidentiary facts which are normally presented during the trial. These are no longer allegations. These are as what we’ve already discuss as:  Object evidence  Documentary evidence and  Testimonies of witnesses that are under oath.

Hypothetical

Actual

Discussion: If you remember in our ordinary civil cases or ordinary civil actions, do they have to be verified? A very ordinary complaint for sum of money? No, there is no need. Perhaps what are stated there are not really facts or are not true, they are merely hypothetically believed to be true to determine the jurisdiction of the court. But they can also be true but are believed to be hypothetical. But when it comes to the trial where evidence is presented, they have to be actual or the truth in order to establish another fact, which are what? The ultimate facts. Examples: P files an action to quiet title. P alleges in his complaint that he is the owner of the lot. So this is the ultimate fact that he has to prove in order to have is title quieted. So, he does not have to cite in his complaint the evidentiary facts such as the improvements planted and all those details how he arrived or his how grandfather arrived and bought it. So, in the course of the trial he goes into the details and offers and presents his evidentiary facts to prove the ultimate facts. When is evidence NOT required? Evidence is required to prove the facts or to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact.

So, what fact? Well, we have the "ultimate facts" or the "Factum Probandum". A fact that needs to be proved (Oxford)

A fact ordered evidence as proof another fact (Oxford)

in of

Facts alleged to show P’s cause of action or defense or D’s defense

Facts shown to prove or establish P’s cause of action or D’s defense

But there are times when evidence is not required:  Where no factual issue exists in a case – when only questions of law are present, such questions are resolved by the mere application of the relevant statutes or rules  When the pleadings do not tender an issue of fact – the case is then ripe for judicial

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez



determination through a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 34. When agreed upon by the parties – the Rules allow the parties 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. Note: A compromise agreements can be entered into at any stage of the proceedings such as from the filing of the complaint. They may enter into a compromise agreement even after judgment. But what if they agree to enter a compromise early as before pre-trial or before presentation of evidence? Is there a need to present evidence? No need. It says here they may agree in writing and they will submit the case for judgment about the facts agreed upon without the introduction of evidence.



When the courts are allowed to take judicial notice of certain matters – Sec. 1, Rule 129. Note: No need to prove When there is judicial admission – Sec. 4, Rule 129. Note: No need to prove

Sec. 1. Evidence defined – Evidence is the means, SANCTIONED BY THESE RULES, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. Discussion: Can you present any kind of evidence that you want? No because the Rules require that the evidence be competent. Competent Evidence  Sanctioned (allowed) by the Rules  Not excluded by any law or rule What are the rules or laws that exclude certain evidence?  Excluded by the Constitution o Art. III, Sec. 2,3,12,17 



Excluded by Law o RA 4200 – Anti Wiretapping Law o RA 7438 – Rights of Person Arrested; Under CI o RA 1405 – Bank Secrecy Act Excluded by the Rules of Evidence o Dead Man’s Statute

o o

Res Inter Alios Acta Marital Communications Rule

These are just examples. Evidence excluded under these are not considered competent. Examples of those that are not sanctioned by the rules:  Hearsay – Any statement made by a witness that is not of his own personal knowledge. That’s just a simple way of putting it but we will discuss it under Sec. 27 of Rule 130.  In an affidavit which is considered as testimonial evidence especially the ex-parte ones. So, the affiant here can only attest to what he knows of his own personal knowledge. Anything that he learned from another person is considered hearsay so that is not sanctioned by the Rules.  Miranda warning – Any confession that is taken from a person, in criminal cases, without the assistance of counsel that is coerced or an extrajudicial confession that is not admissible under Art. III of Sec. 2 of the Constitution 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. Sec. 2 – Principle of Uniformity General Rule: The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings Exception: Except as otherwise provided by law or these rules Examples of the Exception: 1. You are all in third year, so you already took up intellectual property and some of you were my students. We took up the Rules on Intellectual Property cases, but we have not taken the entire rule on evidence. Intellectual Property cases have their own rules on evidence. 2. There are so many special rules that are applied in the courts as well such as Drugs court, Family court and Intellectual Property Court 3. Under

129,

section

Section 24. Special Rules of Procedure. – Whenever a Regional Trial Court takes cognizance of juvenile and domestic relation cases and/or agrarian cases, the special rules of procedure applicable under present laws to such cases shall continue to be applied, unless

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

subsequently amended by law or by rules of court promulgated by the Supreme Court. 4. Examination of a child witness. In examination of child witnesses, there are different rules. Under Section 19 to 21 of A.M. NO. 004-07-SC or the Rule on examination of a child witness. (Section 20 was only emphasized) Section 20. Child witnesses may testify in narrative form where leading questions may be allowed by the court in all stages of the examination if the same will further the interest of justice. You will learn later, under the rules of evidence, leading questions are not allowed in direct testimony. But under the child witness rule, leading questions are allowed. 5. We also have the Judicial Affidavit Rule that we also took up. 6. We also took up the small claims rule under Civil Procedure. It's a really different procedure and the kind of evidence that is presented is almost 'wala'. Section 3. Admissibility of Evidence.- Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and not excluded by the Constitution, the law or these Rules. Discussion: Not all kinds of evidence is admissible. There are Two Requisites for admissibility: 1. Relevance to the issue; and 2. Competence (Not excluded by the constitution, the law or these rules) According to Dean Inigo: There are two main topics in the study of evidence: 1. Admissibility; and 2. Weight You can never reach weight if your evidence is not admitted. So, if you become lawyers, you have to make sure that whatever evidence you present in court will be admitted. Do not present inadmissible evidence.Once the evidence is admitted by the court, then the court will study the evidence and determine which evidence

presented is more credible or which one should be given more weight. Distinction: ADMISSIBILITY

WEIGHT

Deals with relevance and competence. (Two requisites)

Deals with credibility of the admitted evidence.

Governed by rule 130

Governed by rule 133

Significant stage

the

trial

Determined by the rules (Although, of course, it is the court who will admit the evidence)

Significant during judgment stage

the

Determined by the court

There is a discussion on the two axioms by Wigmore which underlie the structure on law on evidence: 1. Relevancy; and  According to Wigmore, the axiom of Relevancy: "None but facts having a rational probative value are admissible"  Probative value means that value which would probably prove that a fact is true. That there is a tendency of proving a fact in issue. Evidence that has no probative value will not be admitted because it's not relevant.  Material evidence is ALWAYS relevant. Relevant evidence is NOT ALWAYS material  Is it required that an evidence has to be material? No. It's enough that an evidence is relevant. "Tends to prove the fact in issue". It must have to directly tend to prove a fact in issue. 2. Competence  According to Wigmore, the axiom of Competence: "All facts having rational probative value are admissible, unless some specific rule forbids."  The rules of competency are found NOT ONLY in the rules of evidence (Competent evidence). Such as: o In civil procedure, specifically deposition taking, a deposition is not admissible to take the place of a testimony unless the witness is dead etc. Under Rule 23, Section 4. Deposition taking. The deposition of a witness who is not a party is not admissible for any

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

purpose but only to impeach such witness. Hence, a deposition of such party cannot be admitted in evidence, unless that witness appears in court. That particular deposition can only be used to impeach him, it will not take the place of his testimony. That is a rule on competency. Under Rule 26, an admission made by a party cannot be used in any other proceedings. Admissions by parties. There, still competence. In Crimpro, when a witness is going to be discharged under rule 117, he must give a statement about his participation in the crime. He must execute an affidavit and he must already attach whatever evidence he is going to present (by this discharged witness). If he does not do so, whatever that he will testify will not be admitted. What if the Court does not agree to discharge such a witness even if he already submitted an affidavit? That this would be testimony is already there? Can that be admitted? No.

In pre-trial of Criminal cases, admissions of any party and the accused in pre-trial are inadmissible if the pre-trial order is not signed by the accused, under Rule 118.

So, these are already rules on competency which are not found under the rules on evidence. Salcedo-Ortanez vs CA August 4, 1994. Facts: Ortanez filed before the RTC a complaint for annulment of marriage with damages against Salcedo on the grounds of lack of marriage license and/or psychological incapacity of Salcedo. Ortanez presented evidence. Among others, three cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations between Salcedo and an unidentified person. Issue: Whether or not the cassette tapes are admissible in evidence. Ruling: No. What makes the evidence not competent is R.A. 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping law. Section 4 expressly provides that any communication obtained in violation of the law shall not be admissible in evidence

So, we have a lot of rules that talks about competence of evidence. JULY 10, 2020 The last discussion last Monday was the discussion on competence. I gave examples of competent evidence or on the rules on competency in relation to Civil Procedure and in relation to Criminal Procedure. General Procedure in Court Insofar as Evidence is Concerned 1. Presentation of Evidence 2. Offer of Evidence 3. Admission of Evidence Wigmore – Two Axioms Which Structure if the Law on Evidence  

Underlie

the

Axion of RELEVANCY – none but facts having a rational probative value are admissible. Axion of COMPTENCY – All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific rule forbids.

And we looked at the two actions of Wigmore. Now we will go to the types of admissibility of evidence. Types of Admissibility of Evidence 1. Multiple Admissibility – Evidence which is plainly relevant and competent for two or more purposes Discussion: Now, if you remember our discussion in CivPro under the Omnibus Motion Rule or when the defendant files his answer, he has to raise all of the defenses available to him otherwise, if not raised in the pleadings, such defenses can no longer be raised in the later stages of the proceedings. So, it’s important to raise them in the pleading. When it comes to presentation of evidence, as you can see in this slide (General Procedure in Court Insofar as Evidence is concerned), presentation of evidence is normally done during trial and when evidence is presented, one has to state the purpose for which the evidence is presented. “This testimony of XXX is being offered for the purpose of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.”

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Normally, it is very rare that a lawyer will offer one piece of evidence for only one purpose. Examples for Multiple Admissibility: 1. A promissory note. When a promissory note is offered, who normally offers that? A Plaintiff in a collection for sum of money case. When it is presented in evidence, the offeror will say, “This promissory note is being offered for the purpose of proving the existence of the loan entered into between P and D; and it is also being offered to prove that such agreement was voluntarily entered into by the defendant. Why? Because it is notarized and it is very clear that if a document is notarized, it is stated there that the person who signed the document freely signed it without coercion.” So that promissory note is being offered for two purposes. So, it is important to state all of the purposes that one can have for that particular piece of evidence. Why? Because – what’s next? Offer of Evidence, then Admission of Evidence. Because a Judge may not accept or may not admit this evidence for purpose 1 and may only admit it for purpose 2. So, if you only have purpose 1 and you don’t have purpose 2, sorry ka nalang. Your evidence will not be admitted. So, that is Multiple Admissibility. 2. There is a civil case – accion publiciana (PPP vs DDD). The evidence offered by PPP is the tax declaration which contains information indicating the name of PPP as the declared owner of the lot, his address, the address of the property, the land area, improvements thereon and the assessed value of the property. So you know what a tax declaration contains. Here comes the lawyer of PPP saying, ”Your Honor, I formally offer this tax declaration over the particular lot which is the subject of the case and where PPP is a declared owner for the purposes of proving that: 1. PPP is the owner of the property; and 2. The value of the lot is such amount together with the existing improvements.” So, you all know that a tax declaration is not enough; is not competent to prove the ownership of a parcel of land because anybody can go to the Assessor’s Office and put a tax declaration in this person’s name. So, it is not enough to prove ownership. So, perhaps it will not be admitted as evidence to prove ownership by PPP but it may be

admitted by the court as proof that there is a building thereon, this is the assessed value of the building, whatever improvements there are, the size of the area of the lot, etc. So that is another example of Multiple Admissibility. 2005 BAR QUESTION: May a private document be offered and admitted in evidence both as documentary and as object evidence. (Just take note of this. This will be answered once we already discuss private documents) 2. Conditional Admissibility – evidence which appears to be immaterial is admitted by the court subject to the condition that its connection with another or other facts subsequently to be proved, will be established Discussion: Here, we already know what immaterial evidence is – not material. But we have here a lawyer trying to offer or trying to present this particular evidence that is immaterial. Normally, such kind of evidence which is immaterial is not admitted by the court because the other party will say, “Objection, You Honor, that evidence is not admissible because it is immaterial.” So, normally, the court must say, “Sustained.” But there are times when immaterial evidence is admitted – if it will establish a connection with another or other facts subsequently to be proved. Examples for Conditional Admissibility: 1. Acción Reivindicatoria (PPP vs. DDD) So, who owns the subject lot, the subject property? Here comes the lawyer of PPP presenting testimony or evidence that the lot originally owned by X in the year 1900. Is that material to the fact and issue? What is the fact and issue? Who is the owner, PPP or DDD? What does X have to do with it, with the lot? And, why is it being shown that X owned the lot in the year 1900, it's already 2020, and then the lawyer goes on and wants to show that 10 years later the lot was sold to Y, and 10 years the lot was sold to Z, and the lawyer of the defendant will object and say that the evidence isimmaterial. So, normally the court will say 'sustained'. But here comes the lawyer and say, 'Your Honor, may we pray that the evidence be conditionally admitted. Later we will show the connection why this evidence is important.' So, the judge will, perhaps, allow the evidence to be admitted. And so, later the lawyer of PPP is able to present a series of sales that will eventually lead to the sale to PPP. So, there was a connection between the original owner, who sold it

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

to the next, and next and next. And PPP was the last one to purchase the property. So, there was an establishment of a connection that was made later. But while the evidence is being presented it would seem that it is immaterial. 2. Criminal Case Here, we have a witness testifying that she washed the bloody clothes but she doesn't know who wore those bloody clothes. The defense counsel would say that this is inadmissible because it is immaterial of what was those bloody clothes have to do with who killed the victim. But, later on, the prosecution is able to present blood test and all those other, maybe witnesses who will identify the clothes being that of the accused. So, in that case, that is a conditional admissibility. 3. Curative Admissibility – Evidence, though otherwise improper, is admitted for the purpose of contradicting improper evidence previously introduced or presented by the other party Discussion: You know, lawyers are very good in persuading the judge to admit evidence that should not be admitted. So, if the judge admits improper evidence, and then the only way to rebut that improper evidence is to admit another improper evidence - that is what you callcurative admissibility. Example: Civil Case: Collection of Sum of Money (PPP vs. DDD) So, this is a very common civil case. When debt became due, the defendant DDD did not pay. Question: So, what was the defense of DDD? Answer: He already paid his debt. Issue: Whether or not the debt has been paid. Here comes PPP, trying to present evidence that 10 years ago that DDD borrowed money from YYY, but did not pay. 8 years ago borrowed money from XXX, but did not pay. 3 years ago DDD borrowed money from ZZZ, but did not pay. So, the lawyer of DDD tries to object, questioning the relevance of all those debts of DDD. That has nothing to do with the existing case, because the existing case is the alleged debt of DDD to PPP, and not XXX, YYY, and ZZZ. But, you know what, the court allowed that evidence to be admitted. So,parang lugi si DDD. Kasiimproper evidence, irrelevant evidence was admitted against him.

So, when it was for DDD to present evidence, during the defense presentation, he presented those three, XXX, YYY, and ZZZ, they all testified that DDD already paid his debts.Ano bang connectionnun, wala rin.But, that evidence is intended to cure, to contradict the evidence that was previously presented by PPP. So, that is curative admissibility.

Section 4. Relevancy of collateral matters. -Evidence must have such a relation to the fact inissue as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence.Evidence on collateral matters shall notbe allowed, except when it tends in any reasonabledegree to establish the probability or improbabilityof the fact in issue. Discussion: How do we know if the evidence relevant to the fact in issue. Do we have guidelines to follow, on relevancy? Actually, none. One must use his or her own common sense. So, it is very easy, when it comes to relevancy because one only has to use common sense. There are no rules to follow with respect to relevancy. Collateral Matters Matters that are not relevant. Something that is maybe, somehow, connected in a very minor way. General Rule: So, as a rule, under Section 4, evidenceon collateral matters shall notbe allowed. Exception: When it tends in any reasonabledegree to establish the probability or improbabilityof the fact in issue. Bar Question: DDD is indebted to a bank,when theobligation falls due, he fails to pay, and the bank sues forcollection. As part of the evidence of the bank, theaccountant of DDD is placed on the stand, and in the courseof his examination, he is asked if she, in turn, is also indebtedto the bank. DDD said, “Why are you asking the accountant if she is indebted to the bank. It is DDD who is indebted to the bank, not the accountant.” According to the lawyer of DDD, who objects, he says that this matter (the evidence), the question as to whether or not the accountant is indebted to the bank is impertinent and it is improper to let him testify against himself.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

So, it is not relevant - the accountant's indebtedness. Question:If you were the Judge, how would you rule on theobjections? Suggested Answer: The objection of DDD that the question is impertinent or irrelevant should be sustained. The issue in the case is the indebtedness of the defendant to the bank and not the indebtedness of the accountant. So, if one presents evidence to prove MATTERS OTHER THAN THE FACT IN ISSUE, then technically, the evidence will NOT be allowed because matters other than the fact in issue are COLLATERAL MATTERS, and evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed. Classification of Collateral Matters 1. Prospectant or Antecedent Collateral Matters- are those matters which preceded the fact in issue but pointing forward to it. Examples: 1. Criminal Case (PPP vs AAA, accused) Crime:Estafa by means of deceit, fraud, or false pretenses Question: What is the defense of AAA? Answer: The defense of denial that he employed fraud, or deciet on the victim. So, this is not Estafa. Normally,when there is no fraud or deceit, it becomes a civil case. So, the witness of AAA, the accused, BBB will testify (his testimony is being offered), that as a young boy, you were honest in your dealings with other people. This was in the 1930's, 1960's and 1970's. So, that witness is being presented to prove that by nature your moral character is such that you are an honest person. So, collateral matters: it will not direct whether or not he committed estafa withdeceit, fraud, or false pretenses, is a collateral matter that precedes the issue. So, it happened when he was a young boy, what was his moral character when he was younger. 2. Olympic Sharpshooter Now, let's go back to that favorite example of Dean Iñigo, the Olympic Sharpshooter. The victim was killed, shot between the eyes at a distance of 200 meters. So, this is a collateral matter, and the gold matter that he earned in the Olympics for being a

sharpshooter, happened before the killing of the victim. So, it was a prospectant or antecedent collateral matter -preceded the fact in issue but pointing forward to it. 2. Concomitant-Collateral Matters accompanying the issue or the fact.

those

Examples: 1. Criminal Case (People vs. WWW and PPP) So, WWW, a married woman is accused of adultery. How is adultery committed? By a married woman -having sexual intercourse with a man who is not her husband. How would you prove thatwhen no one has actually seen WWW, and PPP (the paramour)? So, here comes the husband, the complainant, he presents in evidence BBB (room boy of the hotel), who testifies that he is assigned to this particular floor of the hotel to clean all the rooms on that particular floor and he was on duty, on January 08, 2019, from 1:00 to 9:00 PM. At 2:00 PM he saw WWW checked in to the room, and then he points to WWW in the witness stand. Is this relevant? NO! It does not have something to do with the act between the wife and the paramour. So, he points WWW in the witness stand, and then later he says that at 3:00 PM, PPP arrives and checked in to the same room and he points to PPP in the witness stand and then they both checked out at 8:00pm - they stayed in the room for 5 hours. So,that was histestimony - collateral, it tends to, but it does not directly prove the fact in issue. So, this isConcomitant-Collateral Matters, those accompanying the issue or the fact. BBB testified on events that took place at the time the adultery allegedly committed.To prove that during those hours there in the hotel there was an opportunity to have sexual intercourse. A man and a woman, in a room, staying for 5 hours, what else will they do? So, that is concomitant-collateral matters. 2. Accion Publiciana (PPP vs. DDD) On his complaint, PPP alleged that he and DDD are brothers, and the lot was possessed by the latter. The lot belongs to their father. When their father died, PPP wanted DDD to vacate the lot so that they can partition the property properly. But DDD refused to deliver and vacate the lot. So, that was the complaint of PPP.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Now, DDD on his answer, alleged that the lot was donated to him by the father as a Christmas in December of 2005. Issue: Whether or not, there was a donation. Whether or not the lot was donated by the father to DDD. Of course, the direct proof of that is the Deed of Donation. On the other hand, PPP must prove that there was no donation. So, how can he prove that there was no donation? So, he presents WWW, the caregiver of SSS (the father), who testified that on October 2005, DDD and SSS had a heated argument. After the said fight, DDD and SSS were no longer in speaking terms. Question: So, why was this caregiver presented? Answer: Under Concomitant-Collateral Matters, it is a collateral matter. Whether or not the father and son were not in speaking terms has nothing to do, or is not related to the donation but it would tend to prove that indeed the father did not donate the property to DDD because they were not in speaking terms. This is only a probability, tend to only. It is not proof; it is not direct proof. People vs. Yatar G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004 Requisites to determine whether there is sufficient circumstantial evidence: 1. There is more than one circumstance; 2. Facts on which the inferences are derived are proven; and 3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Comment: It’s not really related to our topic right now. It has to do with the weight of the circumstantial evidence. 3. Retrospect/Subsequant – those matters which succeeding the fact in issue, but pointing backward to it. Example: VVV, the victim, was killed inside his room. Nobody saw what happened. But AAA’s fingerprints were taken from a table inside VVV’s room after the murder took place. What is the conclusion? AAA was in the room when VVV was killed. This is not proof that AAA killed VVV, but mere proof that he was in the room where VVV was killed.

Does it prove that he is the killer? No. But, there is a possibility that he is the killer because if no other fingerprints were found or there are other collateral matters presented that would indicate or prove the link between his fingerprints and the killing, then perhaps that would be sufficient to convict him. But the fingerprints taken from the room are those that succeed the fact in issue, but pointing backwards or what happened before that. What are those where the accused is inferred to be the guilty party due to the circumstantial evidence? Examples: 1. Footprints that were found at the scene of the crime. The footprints happen to match the tracks left behind by the shoes of the accused. 2. The accused is found to have found in his possession stolen property in the crime of robbery. The stolen property is in the house of the accused and was found after the robbery took place. So it points back to the crime. Distinctions between the two requisites of admissibility Competent Rule 128, Sec. 3 Not excluded by the Constitution, the law and the rules Determined by Constitution, the and the rules

the law,

1 2

Relevant Rule 128, Sec. 4 Tends to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue Determined by logic or common sense

CASES UNDER RULE 128 Tortona vs. Gregorio G.R. No. 202612 Jan. 17, 2018 Facts: The sister Rufina and Rafaela co-owned two properties together with their brother and sisters. They are substituted by their heirs in this case. The heirs of Rufina filed their complaint against the heirs of Rafaela for recovery of property with damages for the alleged sale of the properties. It came to their

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

knowledge that the properties of Rufina were sold to Rafaela in 1974. They discovered this when they inquired with the ROD. Their OCT was cancelled and a TCT was executed in favor of Rafaela. The proof of sale was the DOAS, which was allegedly executed between Rufina and Rafaela which was notarized by Atty. Espiritu. The heirs of Rufina allege that the deed was void since: 1. Rufina was illiterate. 2. She only affixes her thumbmarks in documents 3. Whenever she affixes her thumbmarks, she is always assisted by at least one of her children Hence, the thumbmarks in the DOAS are fake. During trial, they presented ‘standard documents’ which bore the authentic thumbmark of Rufina and that at least one of them assisted her in executing documents. The Heirs of Rufina also presented an NBI Fingerprint examiner who conducted and examined the fingerprints to determine the genuineness of the two thumbmarks. In his findings, it revealed that the thumbmarks of Rufina are not identical with the standard thumbmarks. The thumbmark in the DOS was a ‘whorl’. While the authentic thumbmarks of Rufina from the standard documents were a ‘loop’.

the report of the NBI examiner to be credible which positively showed that the thumbmarks in the DOAS was not Rufina’s. However, when it came to the CA, the CA reversed and set aside the ruling of the RTC. It found that the deed itself was notarized and hence, it has in its favor the presumption of regularity. It ruled that the heirs of Rufina failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the thumbmarks found in the deed were forged. Issue: Whether or not the DOAS is void. Ruling: Yes. The court ruled in favor of the heirs of Rufina. Notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity. However, such presumption is disputable and it can be refuted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. In this case, the DOAS benefits from the presumption of regularity. The burden of proof is the party assailing the execution. Hence, it is incumbent upon the heirs to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was forgery. The best evidence of a forged signature is the instrument itself reflecting the forged signature. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature. Without the original document containing the alleged forged signature, one cannot make a definite comparison which would establish forgery. In this case, there were two documents presented by the heirs of Rufina—standard documents with the authentic thumbmark and the DOAS with the forged thumbmark.

However, on the second report, the examiner observed that the thumbmarks on the standard document appear to be “faint, blurred and lacking the necessary ridge characteristics to warrant positive identification”.

Issue: Whether the presumption of regularity in favor of the document was refuted by clear and convincing evidence.

But when the hearing was conducted, he clarified that even though it does not warrant positive identification, all the thumbmarks from the standard documents are the same.

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

On the other hand, the heirs of Rafaela presented Atty. Espiritu as their witness.

What is the matter of fact being ascertained to in this case? It is the genuineness of the thumbmark in the DOAS.

RTC ruled that the DOAS was a forgery. They found

Ruling: Yes.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Clear and convincing evidence and in the hierarchy of evidentiary value, it is second after proof beyond reasonable doubt and it is before preponderance of evidence. [1] Proof beyond reasonable doubt; [2] Clear and convincing evidence; [3] Preponderance of evidence; [4] Substantial evidence; [5] Probable cause; [6] Reasonable suspicion; [7] Scintilla of evidence; and [8] No evidence. In this case, the heirs of Rufina successfully discharged the burden. They presented an expert witness, and they contrasted Rufina's apparent thumbmarks on the DOAS with specimen thumbmarks on authentic documents. They demonstrated disparities that lead to no other conclusion than that the thumbmarks on the contentious Deed of Absolute Sale are forged. On the other hand, the heirs of Rafaela only depended on a disputable presumption and the selfserving testimony of the notary public whose credibility was also questioned in this case. They claimed in a straightforward manner that Rufina never dealt with properties without the assistance of any of their children. To attest this, they presented documents bearing the thumbmarks of their mother. The heirs of Rafaela’s cause may have been supported by the general presumption that notarized documents were duly executed. However, this presumption must crumble in light of the significantly more compelling evidence by the heirs of Rufina. As against with the heirs of Rufina, all the heirs of Rafaela presented was the testimony of Atty. Espiritu whose own acts were clouded with suspicion. Issue: Whether the testimonial evidence of Atty. Espiritu prevails the object evidence? It was stated that the comparison of the two thumbmarks are object evidence since it appeals to our senses, i.e. eyes. Hence, it can be compared by the naked eye. Ruling: No. The presumption of regularity in the execution of notarial documents cannot apply in this case despite the testimony of Atty. Espiritu, the notary public who notarized the DOAS whose credibility was

in itself doubtful since he previously notarized a simulated document. Hence, his credibility was questionable. Lastly, no amount of testimonial evidence could ever alter or detract from the cold physical fact that the questioned thumbmarks are not identical with the standard thumbmarks. Testimonial evidence cannot prevail over physical facts. Comment: We have an illustration of the different types of evidence that are normally presented in court. Here, the object evidence was in the form of thumbmarks. So, they compared the thumbmarks. So, it is object evidence and at the same time demonstrative evidence. We also have the testimonial evidence of the lawyer. So, between the two, which carries more weight? In this case, there are other collateral matters with respect to the lawyer. Here, the lawyer was proven to be doubtful so he is not credible. So, when you talk about testimonial evidence, how you impeach a testimony, you show evidence that his previous acts were not in accordance with law. This case is more of a civil case between siblings. But there are a lot of illustrations on how evidence was presented. Philippine Span vs Pelayo Facts: Pelayo was a clerk accountant in the Davao Branch of Philippine Span. Philippine Span uncovered anomalies and because of which they took an investigation where a representative from the Cebu branch went to Davao City. Pelayo was investigated. However, the investigation in Davao was not finished hence, Pelayo was called to go to Cebu City. During the investigation in Cebu City, Pelayo alleged that she was harassed and coerced to admit to the commission of the crime, hence she walked out. Consequently, Pelayo filed a case for constructive dismissal against Philippine Span. LA: ruled in favor of Pelayo NLRC: reversed LA’s decision. CA: revered NLRC’s decision Contentions: Pelayo: she contended that she was harassed and coerced which resulted to her being stressed, having

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

nervous breakdowns and being admitted to the hospital. Philippine Span: Pelayo was merely asked to shed light on the alleged anomalies because she was the one who prepared the vouchers involved in the anomalies. ISSUE: W/N Pelayo’s testimony can be admitted as an evidence RULING: NO. Section 1, Rule 128 of the Rules on Evidence defines Evidence as the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the truth respecting a matter of fact.

CA: Affirmed RTC’s decision Moner’s Contention: The arresting officers failed to comply with the statutorily mandated procedure for the handling and custody of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from him. The physical inventory was not conducted at the place where the seizure was made; The seized item was not photographed at the place of seizure; and

Comment: It was already discussed that the Rules on Evidence are not strictly applied in labor cases.

There was no physical inventory and photograph of the seized item in the presence of the accused, or his representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

This case was about constructive dismissal which means that Pelayo was forced to resign on her own since she was given a hard time while she was working in the company.

ISSUE: W/N noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 (Chain Custody Rule) will render the illegal drugs seized or confiscated in a buybust operation inadmissible as evidence.

The SC is saying that if you want to prove something in a body like in the LA in this case, you don’t have to strictly follow the Rules on Evidence when it comes to relevance, materiality and etc. But it does not mean that you don’t need evidence to prove.

RULING: NO

(I already included Ma’am’s comment in the ruling)

In this case, Pelayo was not able to prove that she was coerced to admit to the commission of the crime. It should be noted that even outside judicial proceedings, proof is still required. Hence, this is a matter of quantum of evidence in quasi-judicial proceedings . PEOPLE VS TENG MONER GR. No. 202206 March 5, 2018 FACTS: Moner was charged for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. In order to establish his guilt, the prosecution were able to present three police officers who are present at the time of his arrest. RTC: the prosecution’s evidence was appreciated to have established the facts of the preparation, coordination in the buy-bust operation and the arrest of Moner.

Section 1, Rule 128 of the Rules on Evidence defines Evidence as the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the truth respecting a matter of fact. Section 2 of the same rule provides that 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. The power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts is a traditional power of the Court. This includes the power to promulgate the rules on evidence. However, Section 21 of RA 9165 was passed by the legislative department and it IRR were promulgated by PDEA, in consultation with the DOJ and other agencies under and within the executive department. The chain of custody rule is a matter of evidence and a rule of procedure because it provides or regulated the steps by which one who commits a crime is to be punished. These matters being well within the powers of courts

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

to appreciate and rule upon. It is therefore the Court who has the last say regarding the appreciation of evidence When the courts find appropriate, substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved may warrant the conviction of the accused. Comments: Even if those seized items are seized in violation of the Chain of custody rule as long as it is admissible under the Rules on Evidence, the Court will admit. Otherwise, it will not be admitted. In admitting evidence in court, during a judicial proceeding, it is not the chain of custody rule that will be applied but the rule on admissibility of evidence under the rules promulgated by the Court. People vs O’Cochlain FACTS: Eanna O’Cochlain was found guilty of violating Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as “The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.” Upon appeal, he contended that the arresting officer did not have personal knowledge of the crime and was not there while he was allegedly caught in possession of the marijuana. Second, the validity of the search and seizure, as well as the chain of custody of the evidence was not properly met. He maintains that there was no probable cause for the warrantless search. Lastly, he claims that he waited for a long time for the witnesses to arrive; thus, affecting the integrity and evidentiary value of the subject illegal drug. The prosecution on the other hand, presented a summary of the series of events in the chain of custody. ISSUE: Whether or not the seized items can be admissible as evidence. RULING: The Court here said that it can be admissible as evidence because although the search was deliberately done, not to find weapons or bombs. It was deliberately done to discover illegal drugs. Here, Eanna O’Cochlain consented to the search. Therefore, since the constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right, Eanna O’Cochlain waived it; therefore, the evidence does not fall part of the principle of fruit of the poisonous tree but it is considered as admissible

evidence. Comments: It is admissible because it is not? It is not considered as fruit of the poisonous tree. What are the two requisites of admissibility? The requisites for admissibility is that: 1. The evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue; and 2. It is not excluded by law and these Rules In this case, it is not excluded by law because the accused consented to the search without the warrant. So, he waived his right to that protection of the constitution. So, you compare this case to the previous case. The previous case there was an alleged violation of the chain of custody rule, which is a rule promulgated by entities outside the Supreme Court. So, when is evidence admissible? If it is relevant to the issue and not excluded by the law or these Rules. So when you talk about a rule, you’re only talking about these Rules – The Rules on Evidence. It will tell you when evidence is in competent. But in this case of O’Cochlain, the issue here is whether or not this evidence that was seized from him – there was no violation of the Chain of Custody Rule but with the seizure of evidence – was it in violation of the constitutional provision against unreasonable searches and seizures. Actually there is an amendment under Section 3, “x x x admissible when it is not excluded by the Constitution, the law or these Rules. Now, was there a violation of the Constitution? Yes. But there is an exception – when the person being searched consents to the search. So, there is no violation of the Constitution; therefore, the evidence is admissible because it is competent and definitely, it is relevant. People vs. Olarte FACTS: In this case, Olarte, a.k.a “Boy Solo” was separately charged for the crime of Illegal Possession of a hand grenade and the Illegal Possession of an unlicensed pistol which was a replica. According to the prosecution’s witnesses, namely PO2 Intud and PO2 Monilar, Olarte was arrested for having been caught in the act of pulling out a firearm in his attempt to commit robbery. Thereafter, he was searched and a .25 caliber which was a mere replica and an M61 hand grenade were recovered in his possession. This

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

hand grenade was subsequently marked as RMI2. Thereafter it was discovered that Olarte has no license to possess such firearm. So, the confiscated firearms were then turned over to the PNP – Explosive Ordinance Disposal Team. Now, the prosecution’s witness evidence during trial, the prosecution’s witnesses presented the grenade. However, it was not marked with the intials “RMI2”. Such was supported with documentary evidence which would attest that the grenade presented as evidence and the one that was recovered from Olarte is one and the same. However, Olarte’s defense was denial and he alleged that he was framed up. Olarte was subsequently for Illegal Possession of the hand grenade but acquitted for the Illegal Possession of an unlicensed pistol. Olarte contends that the hand grenade was inadmissible because the one presented in court – the mark “RMI2” was not found, affecting the identity of the grenade. However, the prosecution’s witness testimony averred that the absence of such marking does not affect the evidentiary value since there were documentary evidence to support such. ISSUE: Whether or not the hand grenade was admissible. RULING: YES So, the Court laid down the two classification of object evidence which we have already discussed – the actual and demonstrative evidence. Also, for purposes of discussion to distinguish the admissibility of evidence, the actual evidence was subdivided into three (3) categories: 1. The unique objects – is readily identifiable marks; 2. Objects made unique – those which are made readily identifiable; 3. Non-unique object – those with no identifiable marks Here, for the purpose of identifying the mode of authentication or for determining its admissibility, the first two categories only needs the testimony of a witness with knowledge that the evidence is what the proponent claims. Compared to the non-unique objects, which follows the Chain of Custody Rule. In the case at bar, the object evidence was the hand grenade which was an object made unique for the marking “RMI2”. So here, the witness of the prosecution need only identify the hand grenade based on their personal knowledge that it was the

same hand grenade recovered from Olarte. Here, the Supreme Court relied on the testimony of the prosecution’s witness attesting to the identity of the grenade to be the very same explosive that was confiscated from Olarte. Further, Olarte never presented rebuttal or an evidence to rebut the prosecution’s witnesses’ credibility with reasonable doubt. Thus, here, the prosecution’s witnesses have sufficiently laid down the testimonial foundations supporting the existence of such confiscated hand grenade. Thus, the hand grenade here is admissible as evidence. Comments: So, take note of this case. This is a new case and that was penned by Justice Gesmundo. The discussion that was presented regarding the [the table from the presentation]. The discussion in the table from the presentation was taken by Justice Gesmundo from the bar lectures of the author Riano. So, actual or object evidence is divided into three (3): the unique, the made unique and the non-unique and the mode of authentication is also discussed there. So, please take note of that. If you have time, please read People vs. Olarte because of the principles and doctrines discussed here by Justice Gesmudo. RAZON VS TAGITIS GR. No. 182498 December 3, 2009 Facts: Tagitis (a consultant) together with his colleague Kunnong arrived in Julo, Sulo. Tagitis asked Kunnong to buy him a boat ticket for his return trip the following day to Zamboanga. When Kunnong returned from this errand, Tagitis was no longer around. Kunnong reported the disappearance of Tagitis to the Julo Police Station. The wife of Tagitis filed for a petition for a writ of amparo against General Razon. The CA confirmed that this was a case of enforced disappearance. General Razon contended that the presented by Mrs.Tagitis is inadmissible.

evidence

Issue: Whether the evidence presented by Mrs. Tagitis is admissible as evidence. Ruling: Yes. The requisites for admissibility of evidence are: (1) relevance and (2) competence. It must be noted that this case pertains to a writ of amparo and enforced disappearance case. What is

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

sought to be established here is that (1) there is disappearance and (2) a government agent is involved. Enforced disappearance cases present unique evidentiary difficulties. Among which are: (1) Deliberate concealment of perpetrators (being government agents, they are working under clandestine operations) (2) Usually no witnesses (due to fear) (3) Deliberate concealment of pertinent evidence (4) Element of denial (the state could just deny) It is fair and proper that the usual appreciation of the rules may not be applied in this case due to the unique character of enforced disappearance cases. We must reduce our rules to the most basic test of reason which is (1) that the evidence must be relevant to the issue and (2) it must be consistent with all other pieces of evidence. Even a hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum test. Applied to the case at bar, there was no direct evidence on how the victim disappeared and that a government agent is involved with the disappearance. However, there were two other sources of evidence: (1) Colonel Kasim who allegedly called Mrs.Tagitis that “your husband is in good hands” but he denied this later on. As such it cannot be used as evidence. (2) The Kasim Evidence. Colonel Kasim told the wife that her husband was being abducted as he was subject to a custodial investigation. He was allegedly "parang liason ng J.I." and such statement was not denied by Colonel Kasim. This was allegedly coming from an informant, but the letter was later on destroyed by Colonel Kasim. As such it becomes a hearsay evidence. However, this was admitted by the court following the most basic test of reason. Comments: This was an En Banc decision, penned by Justice Brion. Discussion: Hearsay evidence is definitely not competent but in this case the court ruled that we must reduce our rules to the most basic test of reason. The court ruled that “We note in this regard that the use of flexibility in the consideration of evidence is not at all novel in the Philippine legal system. In child abuse cases, Section 28 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness is expressly recognized as an exception to the hearsay rule.” Our courts are not only courts of law but are also courts of equity.

DE JESUS VS SANCHEZ-MALIT GR. No. 6470 July 8, 2014 Facts: This is an administrative case involving a disbarment complaint filed by De Jesus against Atty. SanchezMalit. During the case, De Jesus filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Submission of Additional Evidence which contained copies of document notarized by Atty. Sachez-Malit. This was opposed by Atty. SanchezMalit contending that it was in violation of Section 4 Rule 6 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial practice. Issue: Whether the additional evidence submitted were inadmissible? Ruling: No. Section 3, Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that “evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules.” The 2004 Rules on Notarial Law contain no provision declaring the inadmissibility of documents obtained in violation thereof. Thus, the IBP correctly considered in evidence the other notarized documents submitted by complainant as additional evidence. Comments: If not excluded by these rules then the evidence is admissible. LORENZO SHIPPING LINES VS NPC GR. No. 181683 October 7, 2015 Facts: Lorenzo Shipping is the owner and operator of the commercial vessel MV Lorcon Luzon.National Power Corporation is the owner of Power Barge 104, "a nonpropelled power plant barge." Power Barge 104 was berthed and stationed at the Makar Wharf in General Santos City when the MV Lorcon Luzon "hit and rammed Power Barge 104. The Court of Appeals ordered Lorenzo Shipping to pay NPC the amount of P876,286.00 as actual damages and issued the Amended Decision, noting that the amount of actual damages was not proven by NPC, so in lieu thereof, P300,000.00 as temperate damages were awarded to them. Particularly the "Total Incidental Cost for Drydock and Repair," which was National Power Corporation's Exhibit "F" before the Regional Trial Court, Lorenzo Shipping underscored that when the Regional Trial

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Court ruled on National Power Corporation's Formal Offer of Evidence, it denied the admission of Exhibit "F" for not having been identified nor authenticated. It emphasized that no witness came forward to attest to its authenticity and due execution, let alone allowed himself or herself to be cross-examined on these points. Issue: Whether the "Total Incidental Cost for Drydock and Repair," which was NPC’s Exhibit “F” and its submarkings should be admitted as evidence Ruling: No. Section 3.Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the Constitution, the law or these rules. It is of no consequence that the substance or contents of Exhibit "F" are such that they specify an amount. It is of no consequence that it is purportedly of such evidentiary weight that it could establish National Power Corporation's claims. Admissibility of evidence and weight accorded to evidence are two distinct affairs. Rule 128, Section 3 of the Revised Rules on Evidence governs admissibility and provides that "evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules." When evidence has "such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence," it is said to be relevant. When evidence is not excluded by law or by the Rules, it is said to be competent. The weight accorded to evidence is properly considered only after evidence has been admitted. It is improper to even speak of evidentiary weight when the piece of evidence in question has not even been admitted. Exhibit "F" was ruled to have been inadmissible for failing to comply with the rules stipulated under the Revised Rules on Evidence thus, it failed the standard of competency. Consistent with this, reliance on National Power Corporation's Exhibit "F" and its contents, so as to establish the extent of National Power Corporation's pecuniary loss, is misplaced. Not having been admitted, Exhibit "F" does not form part of the body of evidence worthy of judicial consideration.

Comments: The weight of evidence is irrelevant, if the evidence is not admitted. In this case the evidence was incompetent and hence it was inadmissible. JULY 13, 2020 CONTINUATION OF CASES UNDER RULE 128 TAN V. HOSANA [ G.R. No. 190846, February 03, 2016] FACTS: Jose and Milagros Hosana bought a house during their marriage.Milagros subsequently sold the said house to Tomas Tan, Jr.Jose then filed a complaint for Annulment of Sale, Cancellation of Title, and Reconveyance as he claimed that the house which formed part of their conjugal property was sold without his consent and knowledge. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Jose and nullified the sale of the subject property to Tomas. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s ruling that the Deed of Sale and Special Power of Attorney were void. Jose and Milagros were then ordered to reimburse 200,000 to Tomas. Tomas then contended that the actual purchase price was 700,000 and that the Deed of sale which stated the price of 200,000 should not be admitted as evidence as it was declared null and void. ISSUE WON a void document is admissible as evidence? RULING: YES! While the terms and provisions of a void contract cannot be enforced since it is deemed inexistent, it does not preclude the admissibility of the contract as evidence to prove matters that occurred in the course of executing the contract. Pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 128, Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by (the Constitution), the law or the rules. There is no provision in the Rules of Evidence which excludes the admissibility of a void document. In this case, the deed of sale may be used as a means to ascertain the truthfulness of the consideration stated and its actual payment. The purpose of introducing the deed of sale as evidence is not to enforce the terms written in the

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

contract. Thus, a void document is admissible as evidence because the purpose of introducing it as evidence is to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact, not to enforce the terms of the document itself. Voluntary Case TABUADA vs. TABUADA [G.R. No. 196510, September 12, 2018] FACTS: Sofia filed for the Declaration of Nullity of Mortgage and Damages and in here, they were questioning the relationship of Sofia to the deceased title holder who is Loreta So, in order to prove that she is the daughter-in-law of Loeta, Sofia presented the following. First, Transfer Certificate of Title registered in Loreta's name. Second, Sofia's testimony that she is the daughter-inlaw of Loreta and that they were residing in that property where their family home was located. Third, A death certificate which is not authenticated and also not a National Statistics Office copy. When this reached the Court of Appeals, The CA ruled that the legal relationship of Sofia and Loreta was not proven. Mainly because that certificate was not an authenticated copy and there were discrepancies in the name of Loreta in the death certificate and the title. ISSUE: WON Sofia was relationship with Loreta?

able

establish

her

There was on record herein Sofia Tabuada's unchallenged declaration of her being the daughter-inlaw of the registered titleholder. Also on record was the petitioners' being in the actual possession of Lot No. 4272-B-2, which they had been using as the site for their family residence. Such established circumstances indicated that the deceased Loreta Yulo Tabuada and titleholder Loreta H. Tabuada could only be one and the same person. Moreover, even the Spouses Certeza were aware that respondents Eleanor Tabuada and Tabuco were the relatives of Sofia Tabuada; and that the respective families of Eleanor Tabuada, Tabuco and Sofia Tabuada actually resided on the same lot. Verily, the facts and circumstances sufficiently and competently affirmed the legal relationship between Sofia Tabuada and the late titleholder Loreta H. Tabuada. Comments: Maam: What is the evidence that was alleged to be not admissible? Student: Death Certificate M: Why? S: Because it was not an authenticated copy and not an NSO copy. M. So that has something to do with competence or relevance? S: Competence. M: Was it admitted? S: Yes. M: This case was penned by Justice Bersamin. In the beginning of the case, he said that competent proof of a legal relationship is not limited to documentary evidence. Focus on that, what was presented?

RULING: YES.

S: TCT, Death Certificate.

Under the Rules of Court, evidence – as the means of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact – may be object, documentary, and testimonial. It is required that evidence, to be admissible, must be relevant and competent.

M: Those are documentary evidence. But according to justice Bersamin object and testimonial evidence maybe admitted for the same purpose. Maybe this is related to section 1 where we talked about the different types of evidence. What they were trying to prove here is the relationship. What was the evidence that was not competent here? The documentary evidence because it was not authenticated. There was a difference in the name.

The rule requires the consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the cases, regardless of whether they are object, documentary, or testimonial The mere discrepancy did not necessarily belie or disprove the legal relationship between Sofia Tabuada and the late Loreta Tabuada.

So what was the evidence presented to prove the relationship that took the place of the documentary evidence?

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

S: Sofia's declaration that she was the daughter-in-law and the fact that she was in the actual possession of the land and also the same place where the family home was located. M: In other words, if evidence is not competent, it will not be admitted. In this case the documentary evidence. But there are other pieces of evidence that can actually be appreciated by the court in order to prove whatever fact they wanted to establish. In this case it is the testimonial evidence that was presented and it was enough. This case should fall under section 1. PEOPLE v. ANGELES [ G.R. No. 237355, November 21, 2018] FACTS: This case stems from the conviction of Angel Angeles for illegally selling and using dangerous drugs. A buy bust operation was executed to apprehend Angeles, or Alias Panget as it was confirmed that he was engaged in selling illegal drugs in Caloocan City. With Engracia acting as buyer, Angeles handed over to him 2 plastic sachets, containing a substance believed to be shabu.

buy-bust operation and during the conducting of inventory. Here, the Court noted that the prosecution offered no explanation as to the absence of these witnesses. In drug cases, it must be established that earnest efforts were employed to comply with what Section 21 requires, or that there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so. The court said because of the blatant disregard of the procedure under the law, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti or the body of the crime, which is the dangerous drug itself, had been compromised. With respect to the charge for using illegal drugs, the Court here applied Section 3 of Rule 128 which provides that evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. The Court here said that Section 21 of RA 9165 is a statutory exclusionary rule of evidence. As such, it follows that the results of the drug test cannot be used against the Angeles for it is considered, under the law, as "fruit of the poisonous tree." Briefly, it means that the original illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained.

After the arrest, Angeles, the buy-bust money and the subject evidence were turned over to the office of the Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Group. At said office, an inventory of the confiscated items was conducted and photographs of Angeles and the subject evidence were likewise taken.

As applied in this case, since the apprehension of Angeles by the police officers was illegal for noncompliance with the procedure under the law, the drug test conducted on him was also illegal for it is an indirect result of his arrest. In other words, if Angeles was not arrested in the first place, he would not have been subjected to a drug test.

Angeles was then brought for drug test and laboratory examination, which yielded positive results for the presence of shabu.

Therefore, both the confiscated drug itself and the drug results cannot be used against Angeles for being inadmissible since it is deemed excluded by law.

The Regional Trial Court convicted Angeles for selling and using dangerous drugs. What is important here is that the trial court noted that nothing in the records indicates that the procedure for the conduct of the required physical inventory, outlined in Section 21, RA 9165, was complied with.

Comments: If you notice, this the 3rd case we have discussed in relation to Section 21 of R.A. 9165 or the chain of custody rule. Also, in relation to the Bill of Rights (Sec. 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution).

ISSUE: WON the evidence obtained is admissible. RULING:In drug cases, the procedure to be followed is outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165. In this case, the following irregularities were committed: (1) The inventory was conducted in the police station, instead at the place of the arrest.

Here, the SC said that the evidence is not admissible. In the other 2 cases, the SC said that the evidence is admissible despite the fact that it did not comply with Section 21 and its promulgating rules. This is a 2 nd Division case, penned by Justice Caguioa. For this particular issue on chain of custody rule, there’s too many cases. It’s difficult to memorize the facts of the case.

(2) The 3 required witnesses were not present in the ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

What is that particular thing that happened and why was the evidence admitted? In the other case, why was the evidence not admitted? There’s so many different specific facts. So, you just have to read as many cases as you can. We will go back to the chain of custody rule at the end of the course. At this point, do not worry. I will not ask this in the 1st exam regarding the chain of custody rule vis-à-vis admissibility of the evidence. Just know that there are conflicting decisions on this particular topic. Voluntary Case MANCOL, JR., vs. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES [G.R. No. 204289, November 22, 2017] FACTS: This is a 2017 case. The facts are not discussed because the facts are more on the admissibility of parol evidence, as an exception to the general rule. Here, the parole evidence was admissible but there was an issue regarding the admissibility of evidence. ISSUE: If an evidence is admissible, does that mean it has weight? RULING: Admissibility of evidence should not be confounded with its probative value. ADMISSIBILIT Y OF EVIDENCE Depends on its relevance and competence

WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE Pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade

The admissibility of a particular item of evidence has to do with whether it meets various tests by which its reliability is to be determined, so as to be considered with other evidence admitted in the case in arriving at a decision as to the truth. The weight of evidence is not determined mathematically by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact, but depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief on the part of the judge trying the case. ADMISSIBILITY Refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all.

PROBATIVE VALUE Refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue.

A particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation

within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence. Comments: It’s very clear that admissibility and weight are 2 different aspects but are kind of related. One, the court cannot determine the weight of evidence if it is not admitted. So, evidence has to be admitted first and we have the rules on admissibility that we will look at under Rule 130. If that evidence passes the test of admissibility, that’s the only time the Court can consider whether or not such evidence has probative value. Just because your evidence was admitted, don’t start celebrating, if you’re the lawyer. The Court still has to consider whether or not those evidence admitted will actually prove one’s cause of action or defense, if it’s civil case. If it’s a criminal case, if it will prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt or if there is doubt so as to acquit the accused. HERRERA v. ALBA [G.R. NO. 148220 : June 15, 2005] FACTS: Alba is minor, represented by his mother, who filed a case for compulsory recognition, support, and damages against Herrera, the alleged father. Alba filed a motion to direct DNA testing. To support the motion, Alba presented the testimony of an expert witness and that witness asserted the accuracy of DNA testing in establishing paternity. Herrera opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not gained acceptability. Restrictive Tests for DNA Tests Admissibility (Frye-Schwartz: American Jurisprudence) Note that this is not necessarily binding, but the SC made mention of this test. Admissibility of specific test results in a particular case hinges on the laboratory’s compliance with appropriate standards and controls, and the availability of their testing data and results. If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if: 1. The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; 2. The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and 3. The witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

witnesses even saw Villasan shoot the driver. ISSUE: Whether or not the DNA paternity test is admissible. Ruling: YES. It is admissible because it is relevant. There was a motion filed by Alba for the taking of the DNA Paternity Testing. The Supreme Court applied Section 3 and 4 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court. As previously discussed, under Section 3, for evidence to be admissible, it has to be relevant to the fact and issue. Under Section 4, the evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce the belief of its existence and non existence. As to the collateral matters, as a general rule, it is not allowed, but, it allows exceptions if it tends, at any reasonable degree, to establish the probability and improbability of the fact on issue. In this case, the Supreme Court said that Section 3 and 4 of Rule 128 do not pose any legal obstacle on the admissibility of the DNA analysis as evidence. Here, the two restrictions mentioned earlier go into the probative weight of the DNA paternity test, and not on the admissibility. In order for the court to grant or deny the motion, they are only concerned with the admissibility and not as to the probative weight. Hence, the motion is granted. Comments: What does a DNA test prove? The DNA test would prove the paternity of the child. If it has been proven that he is the father, then he would be liable for support and damages. NOTE: The DNA test has a 99.99% accuracy rate. What is the most relevant test to prove paternity? It is a DNA test because of the accuracy rate. If the DNA comes out at a 99.9 value, then it is already indicative of the paternity. Then the relationship the father and the son can be established. This is not merely a collateral evidence. It is relevant to prove paternity. But, to disprove paternity is a different story. Here, the action was to prove the paternity of the person. PEOPLE VS. VILLASAN FACTS: This involves Villasan who was convicted with the crime of murder. He, allegedly shot the driver of the jeepney three times, which cause the driver’s death. During the trial, the prosecutor (Republic) presented four witnesses who have positively, clearly and categorically testified against Villasan. One of the

On the other hand, Villasan presented two witnesses. The more important witness we have to discuss is Senior Police Investigator Salinas who testified that he conducted a paraffin test which showed that Villasan tested negative on the presence of nitrates which is one of the substances found in gunpowder. Thus, based on the result of the test, you cannot say that Villasan shot the driver of the jeep. According to Villasan, because of the result, his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. ISSUE: Whether or not the result of the paraffin test is enough to overturn the conviction of Villasan. RULING: No. First, we have to determine the relevance of the evidence to the case. Under Section 4 of Rule 129, to be relevant it must induce the belief of the existence or non-existence of the fact in issue. Meaning, this piece of evidence should show whether or not it was Villasan who shot the driver. During his testimony, SPIns. Salinas said that the paraffin test is not conclusive proof that one has not fired a gun. The Supreme Cout stated its ruling in People vs. Teehankee, Jr. that according to scientific experts, parragin test has proved to be EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE IN USE. It cannot be established from this test alone that the source of the nitrates was the discharge of the firearm. Between the witnesses of the prosecution and Villasan, the prosecution’s witnesses induces belief in the existence or non-existence of the crime. Therefore, it was given full weight and probative value. Comments: When it comes to relevance, there is no specifc rules to follow whether or not the evidence is relevant or not. Remember that when it comes to relevance, it is based on logic or reason. So what else can we use to determine relevance? Jurisprudence. Since time immemorial, ever since the gun was invented, there was this paraffin test. In this case, the test came out negative. According to this case, scientific experts concur that it is extremely unreliable in use. All it can establish is the presence or absence of nitrates in the hands. It does not tend to prove the fact in issue – whether it was the accused who shot the victim. The only thing it will show is the existence of nitrates or nitrates. If the positive paraffin test is not really relevant, what more if it is negative.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Could it be a collateral matter? Perhaps, but there is also a requirement that it must tend in any reasonable degree to establish the probability and improbability of the fact in issue. In some cases, it is admitted, in some, not.

If you remember the definition of evidence under Rule 128, Section 1, it is the means sanctioned by these rules of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.

This is our basis for the test of relevance – jurisprudence. If there is no jurisprudence on the matter, then there is no choice but to use common sense or logic.

How do you prove something? You need evidence. But there are things which need not be proved.

GUMABON v. PNB FACTS: Anamarie Gumabon had 8 savings accounts and 2 foreign exchange certificates of deposit with PNB. Later on, PNB sent letters to Gumabon to inform her that it refused to honor the obligation with tits forex deposit. So, Gumabon filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money against PNB. According to PNB, Gumabon is no longer entitled to receive the $10,000 under Forex#1 because she preterminated her accont and used this to purchase foreign demand draft payable to her mother, Anarose Gumabon. As evidence, they produced a facsimile copy of Anarose’s copy of the Statement of Account to show that there was a fund transfer involving the contested amount, ISSUE: Whether or not the Statement of Account of Anarose is admissible. RULING: NO. It is not admissible. It fails to qualify as relevant evidence. Evidence to be admissible must be: 1. Relevant 2. Competent Relevant – has a relation in the fact in issue as to induce belief of its existence or non-existence. The statement of account does not show which amounts came from the funds of FXctz-1. Fact in issue was the payment of the 10,000 and the evidence presented is this statement of account showing a fund transfer. Court ruled that this was not relevant and thus, inadmissible. Comments: Sometimes, you just have to use your common sense. If it’s not related, then it’s not admissible.

RULE 129 WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

What are they? 1. Judicial notice – matter already within the realm of judicial knowledge. (Rule 129) 2. Judicial admissions – facts already admitted by the parties in the case. The defendant or plaintiff. Not the witness. (Rule 129) 3. Presumptions – facts presumed by law. (Rule 131) JUDICIAL NOTICE  Cognizance which the courts may take without proof of facts which they are bound or supposed to know by virtue of their office. Function: Displaces evidence. If a court takes judicial notice of a fact then there is no need to prove that fact. Basis: For purposes of convenience and expediency. Latin maxims that manifest the doctrine of judicial notice: 1. Manifesta Non Indigent Provatione – What is known need not be proved. 2. Lex non requiret verificare Quod Apparet Curiae – the law does not require to be verified that which is apparent to the court 3. Quod Constant clare non debet verificare – what is clearly apparent need not be proved. 4. Quod constat Curiae Offere testion non indigent – that which appears to the court does not need the aid of a witness. Material Requisites of Judicial Knowledge 1. The matter must be one of common and general knowledge 2. It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain 3. It must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court. Common knowledge, meaning 1. Commonly known in the community as to make it unprofitable to require proof 2. Certainly known as to make it indisputable among reasonable men. Care or caution must be taken that: 1. The notoriety exists (famous and well known)

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

2. Every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative Types of judicial notice: 1. Mandatory 2. Discretionary 3. When hearing necessary 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 politicalconstitutionand history of the Philippines, official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of theNational Government of thePhilippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. Matter requiring mandatory judicial notice: 1. Existence and territorial extent of states, political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality 2. Law of nations 3. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals 4. Political constitution and history of RP 5. Official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the national government of the Philippines 6. Laws of nature 7. Measure of time 8. Georgraphical divisions

4. Form of government – Parliamentary dependency under a constitutional monarchy 5. Symbol of nationality – the flag of Japan Question: This is a State and you have the enumeration of what the state should take judicial notice of. Is this mandatory? Not answered. Mandatory Judicial Notice Examples: 

Events of Contemporary History  WWI and WWII  June 2016 – Brexit Vote  Nov. 8, 2016 – U.S Presidential Elections where Donald Trump was elected  June 30, 2019 – Trump steps into North Korea to greet Kim Jong Un  June 30, 2020 – Launching of the Space-X’s Falcon 9  COVID-19 Pandemic

Events of Philippine History  Japanese Occupation  EDSA Revolution  Impeachment of President Erap  July 10, 2020 – Rejection by Congress of ABS-CBN Franchise Renewal Application Judicial Knowledge vs. Mandatory Judicial Notice



When the court takes Judicial Notice under Sec. 1, Rule 129 – Mandatory Judicial Notice – does it mean that the Court or the Judge has judicial knowledge of that fact or that matter?

Mandatory judicial notice as to states: Examples: 1. Existence – that France is a country 2. Territorial extent – that Russia, the largest country in the world is situated in both Europe and Asia 3. Political history – that vietnam was occupied by the French 4. Form of government – that North Korea is a communist state 5. Symbol of nationality – the flag of Japan

Judicial Knowledge  It is the personal knowledge of a judge. It is something that the judge knows personally.

Another example: 1. Existence – Republic of Anguilla 2. Territorial extent – Anguilla is situated in the Carribean 3. Political history – Anguilla was first colonized by English settlers beginning 1650

So judicial knowledge is the personal knowledge of the judge. There’s a vast difference between “What one knows” and “What one should know”.

Does he have to have judicial knowledge in order to take judicial notice? In the example that we gave earlier, the Republic of Anguilla, do we know about that country? No. Do the judges know about that country? Perhaps not. But should the court take judicial notice of those facts?

So Judicial Notice is what one should know. A matter may be within judicial notice, but not within judicial knowledge.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

On the other hand, vice versa, a matter may be within judicial knowledge but not within judicial notice.

(2) Judicial knowledge but covered by judicial notice Example: PP. vs DD

JUDICIAL NOTICE those under Sec. 1 Rule 129 what one should know

JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE personal knowledge of a judge what one knows

We have here a civil case. So, there is this Presidential Decree that is so obscure that nobody knows about this law. This is a Presidential Decree by then President Marcos, which you all know, is a law.

Example: PP vs AA

Marcos’ Presidential Decrees have force and effect of laws, and the decision in this particular case of PP vs DD actually has to rely on this particular Presidential Decree that is so obscure. It’s insignificant and the judge or even the researcher doesn’t know anything about it.

This criminal case of murder was filed before the RTC and was raffled to branch 99 of the RTC presided over by Judge WW.

So, the judge has no judicial knowledge of that particular law applicable to that case. But he should take judicial notice because it is a law.

Now AA, the accused, he raised the defense that when he committed the crime, he was only 16 years old.

If the lawyer knows about this law, then he must bring it up and tell the judge he should take judicial notice of that law even if it is not within his judicial knowledge.

We all know that under our criminal laws when one is a minor and he commits a crime then this is a mitigating circumstance. Sometime even exempting.

There are cases on that later. Let’s go to some more aspects of judicial notice.

Examples: (1) There is judicial knowledge, but it is not covered by judicial notice.

So, this is a matter of defense and AA if he wants to avail of the mitigating circumstance of minority, he has to prove his age. The age of each and every person in this planet is not covered by judicial notice. But what if this judge personally knows AA. Actually, that’s not allowed but this is just an example here. And the Judge is actually present during the baptism of AA, he attends the birthday parties of AA. So, he knows exactly how old AA is. So that is an example of judicial knowledge but not covered by the realm of mandatory judicial notice.

LAWS OF NATURE EXAMPLES PP vs MENESES G.R No. 111742. March 26, 1998 It was established that the crime took place in the wee hours of the morning, before the crack of dawn, at around three o’clock. The court can take judicial notice of the laws of nature. Meaning the court can take judicial notice that when the crime was committed it was still dark because 3 am in this country is always dark. It may not be the case in other countries, but it is here.

So, a judge cannot use his own personal knowledge and displays evidence and not require presentation of evidence in his court regarding the age of AA just because he knows already that AA was only 16 years old when he committed the crime.

So, the court may take judicial notice that the parties no longer had to prove that it was dark when the crime was committed because it was already established that it was committed at 3 am.

When it is only within judicial knowledge and it is not covered by judicial notice, the court must still require the party to present evidence to ascertain the truth respecting the matter of fact.

Gabriel vs CA G.R. NO. 128474 | October 6, 2004

In the example, what is that fact? His age. Now let’s go to an example of:

Here we have a Barangay Captain Gonzales, he was testifying in court and he was talking about an accident. Gonzales declared that he was on the shoulder of the

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

road, beside the truck, when the first collision took place. From his vantage point, his view was obstructed by the truck. He claimed to have first heard the collision. He immediately took five big steps onto the highway, and then saw the Beetle and the jeepney colliding. In short, the sound of the collision took place before the actual collision itself. If true, this would rate as one of the greatest scientific revelations of all time. But since courts are obliged to take judicial notice of the laws of nature, this Court prefers to side with prudence. So according to the court, how can he hear it first and then see it 5 steps later. According to the laws of nature, this cannot happen. The Supreme court is taking judicial notice that it is impossible for this to happen. HUMAN NATURE EXAMPLE People vs Pacabes G.R. No. L-55417 | June 24, 1985 The failure of a witness to report at once to the police authorities the crime they had witnessed should not be taken against them. it is not uncommon for a witness to a crime to show some reluctance about getting involved in a criminal case. The natural reticence of most people to get involved in a criminal case is of judicial notice. It is human nature. The court takes judicial notice that that people normally don’t want to be part of a criminal cases or report whatever it is because it might put themselves at risk. The natural reticence of most people to get involved in a criminal case is of judicial notice. GEOGRAPHICAL DIVISIONS Judicial Notice on Navigable Rivers. BANATAO vs DABBAY G.R. No. 12264 | September 23, 1918 The court took judicial notice of the fact that the Cagayan River is a navigable stream. The presumption of general knowledge weakens as we pass to smaller and less known streams. Discussion: So, in your Property class, what is navigable, in fact, is navigable in law. Court may take judicial notice of geographical divisions.

The presumption of general knowledge weakens as we pass to smaller and less known streams. The Cagayan river is a popular river. But what about a stream there behind Buhangin? There are streams there but I don’t think the court will take judicial notice of that. Again, under Section 1 the courts must take judicial notice. The courts have no choice, but there are requisites that have to be complied with and care and caution must be taken before the courts take judicial notice. SECTION 2. Judicial Notice, When Discretionary. — A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. Discussion: This is discretionary. Now when you talk about Section 2 this is broader because this is already outside the enumeration under Section 1. But when it’s outside Section 1, it is no longer mandatory. The court now has the discretion whether or not to take judicial notice especially those matters which ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions and those that are public knowledge. Not included in sec 1 but of public knowledge, the courts may. So it’s up to the court whether or not to take judicial notice. Example: Vergara vs People January 23, 2002 Vergara was convicted by RTC for robbery The RTC found that the place where the crime was committed is less than an hour’s drive by car and that Vergara has a car. SC: the RTC correctly took judicial notice of the fact because the court already knew that the place where crime was committed was only less than an hour’s drive by car and the fact that Vergara has a car, judicial notice could be taken of the travel time (from one place to another) by car because it is capable of unquestionable demonstration. This is already of public knowledge especially to commuters. Discretionary Judicial

Judicial knowledge

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Notice Cognizance which the courts may take No need to present evidence

Personal knowledge of a judge Evidence has to be presented to prove a particular fact

SECTION 3. Judicial Notice, When Hearing Necessary. — During the pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter. Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, may take judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. Discussion: Sometimes, the court can take judicial notice but there must be a hearing. When is a hearing necessary? This is the provision. Note: Sec 3 does not mean that the parties still have to present evidence. If they do, there is no more judicial notice. Under section 3, there is still judicial notice it’s just that there is a hearing. As to Stage of the proceeding What happens

Paragraph 1 During pre-trial and trial

Paragraph 2 Before judgment or on appeal

The court SHALL motu proprio or upon motion hear the parties

Subject of the hearing

The propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter Xxx

The court MAY motu proprio or upon motion take judicial notice of any matter The propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter If such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case

When the court shall hear the parties thereon Sequence of events

Example

Hearing – court will take judicial notice if proper

The court takes judicial notice – hearing if matter is decisive.

During pre-trial, who is supposed to appear? Parties and the lawyers. What is normally done? Possibility of amicable settlement, admissions, evidence, witnesses, documents to be presented. What is there are a lot of matters there that the court may take judicial notice of? Let’s say 5 matters, and yung 1 and 2, under section 1. The court must take judicial notice. Kailangan ba ng hearing yan? We’ll see. Matters 3,4,5 under section 2, the court MAY take judicial notice. So for these 5 matters the court can say: Okay, I’ll take judicial notice of matters 1 and 2 because that is mandatory. What about matters 3,4,5? I may take judicial notice but let me refer to you parties, should I or not? Even during pre-trial, the court can hear the parties as to whether judicial notice should be taken of matters 3,4 and 5. If the parties say yes, then, okay. So look at the sequence of events. Hearing 1 st, before the courts take judicial notice. If the parties say, wag na, prove it in court. During trial So evidence is being presented and then the party will say “your honor do we have to prove this, this is under sec 2,you can take judicial notice of this” and the court says “okay let’s ask the parties if we should take judicial notice of this” So there’s a hearing. Hearing is not formal – you can have a hearing within a trial. Here, it is more on the propriety – the parties are not being asked to present evidence during a hearing. Paragraph 2: Before judgment or on appeal When a case is submitted for decision, naoffer na lahat ng evidence. So here, it was not offered in evidence but the court can take judicial notice of this. Does it require a hearing? It depends if the matter is decisive of a material issue in the case, then motu proprio or upon motion, the court can conduct a hearing

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

to determine whether or not it is proper to take judicial notice of a matter not presented in evidence. For this, nauna yung taking of judicial notice – kasi on appeal and then there is this matter that was perhaps taken by the court.

Ruling: YES. Proclamation No. 423, being an act of the executive department, courts should take judicial notice of such, even without it being introduced as evidence, pursuant to Rule 129, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.

So hearing is only necessary when it is decisive of a material issue in the case. Pero kung itong matter na ito ay wala lang, the court just took judicial notice but it will not help it render the decision, there’s no need of a hearing.

Comment: What is required? Give them the name of the law. No need to go to court and present evidence of the law. Just state it Proclamation 423 says – blah blah, that is enough.

Just remember: in sec 3, no presentation of evidence.

Suplico vs NEDA

Par 1: The court will just hear the parties to determine the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter.

Annulment of the ZTE NBN project. Philippine Gov’t did not continue with this project due to constraints.

Par 2: There’s already presentation of evidence but there’s a matter the court wants to or has taken judicial notice of, if it’s decisive of a material issue in the case, the court can hear the parties. The hearing is not a formal thing – it means opportunity to be heard.

Issue: Whether or not the court should take judicial notice of the act of President Arroyo in discontinuing the project?

CASES UNDER RULE 129 (SECTIONS 1,2 AND 3) RP vs Southside Facts: July 12, 1957: PD 423 issued by Pres. Carlos P. Garcia establishing a military reservation known as Fort William McKinley later renamed Fort Andres Bonifacio Military Reservation (FBMR). The property held inalienable. TCT 15084 was issued on October 30, 1991 on the basis of a notarized Deed of Sale purportedly executed on the same date by then Director Abelardo G. Palad, Jr. of the Lands Management Bureau (LMB) in favor of Southside Homeowners Association, Inc. (SHAI). Republic : Alleged, among others, that the property in question is inalienable, being part of a military reservation established under Proclamation No. 423. That fraud attended SHAI’s procurement of TCT No. 15084. Hence, the Sale is null and void. Homeowners: Denied the material allegations and countered that the impugned title and the Deed of Sale are valid documents and, that the Republic has to prove that the subject property inalienable. Issue: Can the courts take judicial notice of Proclamation no. 423 without it being introduced?

Ruling: Yes. The court considered the act of cancellation by the President of the ZTE NBN project during the meeting with the Chinese President as an official act of the executive department, the court must take judicial notice of such official act without need of evidence. JULY 17, 2020 G HOLDINGS vs NAMAWU GR No. 160236 October 6, 2016 3rd Division FACTS: MMC contended that the RTC of Kabankalan must recognize the decision of the RTC ordering the extrajudicial foreclosure in favor of GHI. ISSUE: WON Rule 129, Section 1 is applicable to decisions of the RTC. YES, but by way of exception. RULING: Examples of Judicial acts or Official acts of Judicial department pursuant to Section 1 of Rules 129: 1. Rules of Court; 2. Supreme Court issuances, 3. Cases decided by the Supreme Court. Can the Court take Judicial notice of the decisions of lower courts (Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Regional Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court)? As a general rule, no because courts are bound to take judicial notice only of their own records. 2 Situations - Two different cases between the same

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

parties before the RTC of Davao City: 1. The two cases are tried in two different branches;

3. Other proceedings have a close connection with the matter in controversy in the pending case

The RTC cannot take judicial notice because courts are bound to take judicial notice only of their own records.

Atty. Suarez: What about the parties? Does it have to be the same parties or can it be other parties? Reporter: It must be the same parties.

2. The two different cases are tried in the same branch.

Atty. Suarez: So, the general rule is Section 1 of Rules 129 only applies to Supreme Court decisions or jurisprudence. What about other acts of the judiciary – meaning other courts aside from the Supreme Court? Reporter: As a general rule, Section 1 of Rule 129 is not applicable to them.

The RTC cannot take judicial notice because courts are bound to take judicial notice only of their own records regardless if it is tried by the same judge. EXCEPTION: 1. Absence of objection; 2. The parties gave consent; 3. Other proceedings have a close connection with the matter in controversy in the pending case, the RTC can take judicial notice of other cases in the same branch or in a different branch. In the case at bar, the two decisions have a close connection with the instance dispute. Atty. Suarez: What are the two decisions here in this case? What court rendered the decision? Reporter: The RTC rendered the first decision of the extrajudicial foreclosure in favor of GHI; in the second decision, it is still the RTC which issued the levy of properties of MMC wherein that property was already foreclosed in favor of GHI. Atty. Suarez: What is the conclusion here? Reporter: The conclusion is that the two decisions have a close connection to the instance dispute. Thus, the Court reiterated that: "courts have also taken judicial notice of previous cases to determine whether or not the case pending is a moot one or whether or not a previous ruling is applicable to the case under consideration." While it may be true that section 1 of Rule 129 pertains to Supreme Court decisions, as an exception, lower courts may take judicial notice of other lower courts if the 3 exceptions are present. As a general rule, only the Supreme Court decisions can be taken judicial notice of but as an exception, the lower courts may take judicial notice of decisions or records of other lower courts provided, the 3 exceptions are present: 1. Absence of objection; 2. The parties gave consent;

Atty. Suarez: What are the exceptions? EXCEPTION: 1. Absence of objection; 2. The parties gave consent; 3. Other proceedings have a close connection with the matter in controversy in the pending case BE San Diego vs CA GR No. 159230 October 23, 2010 3rd Division FACTS: In this case, BE San Diego filed a complaint for recovery of possession against Matias for illegally occupying property for over a year without its authority or its consent. Matias argued that she is a local occupant on the basis of a written permit issued by the local government. She also argued that there is discrepancy in the location and BE San Diego’s TCT is referring to another property. In this case, Matias argued that her property is located in Barrio Catmon while the property of BE San Diego is located Tinajeros. In this case, the RTC ruled that San Diego sufficiently proved its right to recover because it found no issue as to the identity of the property and it took judicial notice of the fact that Barrio Catmon was previously part of Barrio Tinajeros. The RTC is saying that there is no discrepancy in the location because we are just talking of one and the same property. The CA disagreed and said that the discrepancy in the location is significant and that the RTC should have hired an expert witness. ISSUE: WON the RTC can take judicial notice of the fact that Barrio Catmon was previously part of Barrio Tinajeros. YES.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

RULING: The Court mentioned Rule 1 of Section 129. SECTION 1. Judicial Notice, When Mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of history, forms of xxx xxx the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a) In this case, the Court is saying that the court should take judicial notice as to geographical divisions As you can remember, the RTc declared that there is no issue as to the identity of the property because it took judicial notice of the fact that Barrio Catmon was previously part of Barrio Tinajeros. The Supreme Court ruled here that the RTC has authority to declare such because this is a matter subject of mandatory judicial notice. Again, Section 1 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court includes geographical divisions among matters that the court should take judicial notice of. In this case, given that Barrio Tinajeros is adjacent to Barrio Catmon, the Court found that indeed the two Barrios previously formed one geographical unit. NEW SUN VALLEY vs SANGGUINIAN GR No. 156686 July 27, 2011 1st Division FACTS: Sanggunian issued a resolution directing New Sun Valley Association to open two streets which they blocked. NSV opposed. NSV filed a complaint with the RTC but this was dismissed. NSV appealed arguing that the barangay cannot validly open private roads without a city ordinance. Barangay attached to their brief a certification saying that the roads were owned by Paranaque as evidenced by the TCT. Hence, they may open the roads without a city ordinance. NSV’s appeal was denied. The CA agreed that the roads were owned by Paranaque. NSV is contending that the TCTs were never submitted to the RTC and the Barangay merely attached a certification as annexes to their brief which was not offered in evidence. Hence, since there is no proof that the roads are not private property, there is a need for a city ordinance. As mentioned, NSV stated that the opening of the roads will expose them to criminal and lawless elements. Now, NSV is asking the court to take judicial knowledge that kidnapping and robbery are becoming daily activities.

ISSUE #1: WON it was proper to rule that the roads were not private, hence the barangay may direct the opening of the roads. YES. RULING #1: NSV is the one asking for injunctive relief. The burden of proof was on them. They were the one questioning the ownership of the barangay but it did not produce evidence to support its act of ownership. In failing to do so, it is not entitled to relief. ISSUE #2: WON the Court must take judicial knowledge that criminal activities such as robbery and kidnapping are becoming daily fares in the Philippines to support the relief claimed by NSV. NO. RULING #2: The Court cited Rule 129, Section 1 which provides which matters constitute judicial notice. As you can see, the activities claimed by NSV are not found in the list and do not support its claim for injunctive relief. Thus, NSV failed to establish any right entitled to the protection of the law. Comments: So, obviously, criminal activities in a certain portion of the country – the courts really cannot take judicial notice of those things especially since they are not included in the list of mandatory judicial notice. What about discretionary? Well, for discretionary judicial notice, we have to take into account that the matter must be well-know, must have notoriety, and it is within the jurisdiction of the court, the limits of the jurisdiction of the court. So, definitely, these incidents are not something that the courts should take judicial notice of or may take judicial notice of – even though granting arguendo that the judge was fully aware of those facts. Because judicial knowledge is different from judicial notice. REGULUS vs DELA CRUZ GR No. 198172 January 25, 2016 2nd Division FACTS: Regulus Development Inc. filed an ejectment case against Dela Cruz before the MTC of Pasay City. The court ruled in favor of Regulus. A writ of execution was issued by the RTC to levy the real property. Delaw Cruz argued that the issuance of the writ of execution was improper since the RTC has no jurisdiction to issue the writ of execution. The Supreme Court here ruled that the levy was made pursuant to the RTC orders issued in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction. Thus, it was proper. Also, the Supreme Court here took judicial notice that the

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

validity of the RTc order had already been upheld in the separate petition filed by Dela Cruz. ISSUE: Can the courts take judicial notice of the Supreme Court decision upholding the validity of the RTC orders? YES, pursuant to Rule 129, Section 1. RULING: Under Rule 129, Section 1: SECTION 1.Judicial Notice, When Mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the xxx xxx official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of theNational Government of thePhilippines xxx xxx In this case, the Supreme Court took judicial notice of its decision in the separate petition filed by Dela Cruz on the validity of the RTC orders – which, this is an official act of the judicial department of the Philippines. Thus, the court can take judicial notice thereof. Comments: So this is under Section 1 of Rule 129 – express. Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court or another court taking judicial notice of a Supreme Court decision. So we have absolutely no problem with that. Republic of the Philippines, University of the Philippines vs. SegundaRosario G.R. No. 186635 January 27, 2016 Facts: Segunda Rosario filed aPetition for the Reconstitution of title over a land in UP Diliman Campus as evidenced by TCT NO. 269615. Segunda, among others, presented: 1. Owner’s duplicate copy of title 2. Certificationfrom the register of deeds that the original copy was burned 3. Tax bill receipt 4. Alleged that she was in possession of the land by virtue of hercaretaker On the other hand, Republic & U.P. alleged that theland is already covered by another titles (RT58201 & RT-107350) in the name of U.P.

Issue:Whether or not the decision of the rtc and ca was proper despite being contrary to decisions of the supreme court on the indefeasibility of the titles of up. Held: No The RTCand the Court of Appealsshould have taken judicial notice of the various jurisprudence upholding UP's indefeasible titleover its landholdings. The Court then enumerated various cases: 1. Section 22 of Republic Act No. 9500 - the law that awarded the lang to UP; 2. Tiburcio, et al. vs PHHC, et al.; 3. Galvez vs.Tuason; 4. PHHC vs.Mencias; 5. Varsity Hills Inc. vs Mariano; 6. Heirs ofPaelvs. CA CitingTiburcio, et al. v. PHHC, et al.,Galvez v. Tuason, People's Homesite & Housing Corporation (PHHC) v. Mencias,andVarsity Hills, Inc. v. Mariano,the Court emphasized inHeirs of Pael v. CAthat the titles of UP over its landholdings have become incontrovertible so that courts are precluded from looking anew into their validity “Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Courtmandates that a court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Philippines.Thus, as both Congress and this Court have repeatedly and consistently validated and recognized UP's indefeasible title over its landholdings, the RTC and the Court of Appeals clearly erred when it faulted the Republic and UP for presenting certified true copies of its titles signed by its records custodian instead of either the duplicate originals or the certified true copies issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City. Indeed, the RTC and the CA should have taken judicial notice of UP's title over its landholdings, without the need of any other evidence.”

Republic presented: 1. Public officersfrom various government agencies (i,e. LTO), as witnesses 2. Records custodianwhichtestified that the presented tct’s were overlapping

Comment: So, here we have both judicial acts, in a form of jurisprudence - confirming the title of UP over those properties, and we have the laws. We have lots of laws enacted by Congress granting UP title to these certain properties within the UP campus. This is the property owned by UP, its patrimonial property not a property of public dominion.

RTC and CA granted the Petition for Reconstitution of Title in favor of Segunda.

So, we already know that in one case that we discuss in Property. Definitely, this falls under Section 1 (Rule 129).

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Regarding the weight of evidence, despite the pieces of evidence presented on the part of Segunda, but if the courts are required to take judicial notice, then it is implied here that more weight is to be given to those matters which fall under Section 1, Mandatory Judicial Notice. Ready Form, Incorporated vs. Atty.CastillonJr. A.C. No. 11774, March 21, 2018

of Ready Form.What was submitted in support of the Petition for Blacklisting was READY FORM’s Audited Financial Statements which were acquired from the SEC, which are available to the public. Issue: Whether or not the Court should takeJudicial NoticethatAudited Financial Statementssubmitted by corporationsaremade available to the public by the SEC? Held: Yes.

Facts: Ready Form, Incorporated wasone of the companies who participated in a public bidding conducted by the National Printing Office. Atty. CASTILLON, on the other hand, was the Counsel of Eastland Printink Corporation, the company who filed a Petition for Blacklisting with the National Printing Office (NPO)against READYFORM. Atty. Castillon alleged that Ready Form falsified their financial documents, and that they under-declare their net sales to evade payment of their taxes. Suspending and blacklisting Ready Form for a period of 5 years. Note: For one to participate in said public bidding, the NPO Bids and Awards Committee required all bidders to resubmit their eligibility documents which include the bidder’s pastIncome Tax Returns and Financial Documents. National Printing Office NPO, after reviewing all the submissions that were made to it, issued a resolutionSUSPENDING and BLACKLISTING READY FORM for a period of 5 years, and thatREADY FORM committed misrepresentation andmisdeclarationwhen it submitted false Income Tax Returns and financial statements. Also,READY FORM intentionally reported reduced amounts of its Net Sales for 2 years in a row solely to evade payment of correct taxes due to government. Ready Form This prompted Ready Form to file an Administrative Complaint against Atty. CASTILLON before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). They Alleged that Atty. CASTILLON unlawfully used READY FORM’s ITRs, which are confidential data, in filing the Petition for Blacklisting which allegedly violates the Rules of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Liabilty. Atty. Castillon Denied that he acquired, much less attached, anITR

“TheCourt takes judicialnoticeof the fact thatAuditedFinancialStatementssubmitted by corporations, as required by Section 141 of the Corporation Code,are made available to the public by the SEC.”Hence, the Court fails to see how Atty. Castillon violated any law when he attached a copy of Ready Form’s audited financial statements in the Petition for Blacklisting he filed with the NPO. (not mentioned in the case) Rule 129.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 the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. Applying this Rule to the present case, since the SEC falls under the Executive Department, its act of making available the said Audited Financial Statement to the public, the courts should take judicial notice of such. Comment: Another act of the Executive Department which the courts should take judicial notice thereof. It’s of really common knowledge, that one can go to the SEC and get records of a corporation, the general information sheet, the by-laws, the articles of incorporating, and etc. which are in the custody of SEC. Lagmanvs. Pimentel EN BANC G.R.No. 235935. February 6, 2018 Tijam, j. Facts: President Duterte in a letter asked both the Senate and the House of Representative to further, extend the proclamation of martial law and

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in entire Mindanao for 1 year, January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018. The Senate and House of Representatives, in a joint session, granted the request of President Duterte. (Resolution of Both Houses No.4).Lagman et. al., assailed the constitutionality of the extension. Pimentel et. al., through Office of the Solicitor General argue that failure of Lagman et. al., to submit the written Joint Resolution is fatal to their petition since it is indispensable to the court’s exercise of its review power.

And this is a very controversial case. So, the notoriety required is present.

Lagman et. al. argued that such failure is not fatal. The failure is justified by the non-availability of the Resolution at the time the petition was filed. In any case, the Rules on Evidence allow the Court to take judicial notice of the Resolution as an official act of the legislative.

Yu Han Yat subdivided the subject property into 60 lots under Subdivision Plan Psd-13-018013, duly approved by the Bureau of Lands

Issue: Whetheror not the failure to attach the joint resolution is fatal to the petitions filed byLagmanet.al. Held: No. Citing Section 1, Rule 129 of the rules of court, which provides among others that acourt can take judicial notice of the official acts of the legislative department without the introduction of evidence. Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts, that judges may properly take and act on without proof because these facts are already known to them. It is the duty of the court to assume something as mattersof factwithout the need of further evidentiary support. In this case, Resolution ofBoth HousesNo. 4 isanofficial actofCongress, which is part of the legislative department,thus, thisCourtcan take judicialnoticethereof. The CourtalsonotesthatPimentel et. al.annexedacopy of the Resolution totheirConsolidatedComment.Hence, there isnoreasontoconsiderLagman et., al.'s failure tosubmitacertifiedcopyoftheResolution as a fataldefectthat forecloses this Court's review of the petitions. Comment: So, we all know that under the legislative acts we have the laws but included, also, in the acts which the court should take judicial notice of are Resolutions especially those which are of common knowledge, like this Joint Resolution by both houses.

Bernas vs. Estate of Felipe Yu Han Yat G.R. No. 195908, August 15,2018 Facts:The present case involves a parcel of land known as Lot 824-A-4 (subject property,which is part of Lot 824 of the Piedad Estate containing an area of 147,072 square meters registered in the name of Felipe Yu Han Yat (Yu Han Yat).

To finance his plan of developing the subject property, Yu Han Yat applied for loans with several banks using some6of the Yu Han Yat TCTs as security. However, when the mortgage instrumentswere presented for registration, the Register of Deeds of Quezon City refused to record the same on the ground that the Yu Han Yat TCTs overlapped with the boundaries covered by another title claimed by Bernas and Mejia. On the other hand, Bernas and Mejia claimed ownership over the subject property. They contended that the TCT of Yu Han Hat, which is based onPsd2498 was invalid due to it being a spurious subdivision planbecause it represents to cover a parcel of land located in Barrio Bayanbayanan, Marikina, whereas the actual location of Lot 824 Piedad Estate was in Caloocan City and Quezon City. The RTC ruled in favor of Berna. However, upon appeal, the CA took judicial notice ofCommonwealth Act No. 502 and ruled that the property is located inBarrio Bayanbayanan, Marikina. However, it must be noted that at the time of the survey, which was conducted on June 11-13, 1927, the property was still under the Province of Rizal and that Quezon City was only created pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 502, and approved on October 12, 1939. However, the subsequent subdivision of Lot 824 would reveal that the property is located at Quezon City. Bernas asserts that the above ruling of the CA was not supported by evidence on record and was bereft of factual basis nor based on established facts. Issue: Whether or not it was proper for the CA to take judicial notice of Commonwealth Act No. 502, which establishes Quezon City. Held: Yes.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

The Court, however, agrees with the resolution of the CA. The CA was justified in taking judicial notice when Quezon City was established. Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court states: 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 the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. The CA correctly held that the Quezon City was established only in 1939, upon the enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 502, the city's charter. Hence, when the survey for Psd-2498 was conducted in 1927, Quezon City did not as yet exist. Further, the property in question has always been referred to as part of the Piedad Estate. In turn, Commonwealth Act No. 502 defined the boundaries of Quezon City as follows: SECTION 3.Boundaries. — The boundaries and limits of the territory of said city are established and prescribed as follows:Beginning at a point marked "1" which is identical to Boundary Monument No. 1 of Piedad Estate; to point "2", which is Boundary Monument No. 2 of Piedad Estate. Further, inPorciuncula v. Adamos,the Court notably observed that the Piedad Estate is "located in barrio Bayanbayanan, Caloocan, Rizal (now Diliman, Quezon City)." Therefore, in this case, it was proper for the CA to take judicial notice of Commonwealth Act 502, being an official act of the legislative department. The Court so holds that Yu Han Yat title and Bernas title cover the same property. Comment: So, Commonwealth Act is still a law enacted long-long ago, CA 141 which applies up to now under Land Registration Law. So, yes, the Courts must take judicial notice of this Commonwealth Act. Medialdea vs Legal Education Board GR. NO. 230642 | SEPT 10, 2019 Facts: These consolidated petitions seek to declareunconstitutional theRepublic Act 7662 or the Legal Education Reform Act of 1993, which created theLegal Education Board (LEB).On the same

principal grounds, these petitions also particularly seek to declareunconstitutionaltheLEB issuancesestablishing and implementing the nationwide law school aptitude test known as thePhilippine Law School Admission Test (PhilSAT). Medialdea et. al. alleged that the LEB(under the Executive Department)andits issuancesare unconstitutional as itencroaches on the powers of the Supreme Courtto regulate and supervise the legal profession pursuant to Section 5, paragraph 5, Article VIII of the Constitution. They also argue thatPhilSATviolates the academic freedom of law schoolsand theright to education. Issue: Can the Court take judicial notice of thememorandum orders, memorandum circulars and resolutions issued by the LEB? Held: Yes RULES OF COURT, RULE 129, 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 the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions." A review of the issuances of the LEB (i.e., memorandum orders, memorandum circulars and resolutions),of which this Court can take judicial notice,and in which there are no factual questions, reveals that the LEB has gone beyond its powers of reasonable supervision and regulation of the law schools. The Supreme Court declared the following powers of the LEB as unconstitutional together with its issuances:  to establish a law practice internship  to adopt a mandatory continuing legal education.  to provide mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers.  to exclude, restrict and qualify admissions to law schools in violation of institutional academic freedom on who to admit  to dictate the qualifications and classification of faculty members, deans, and deans of graduate schools of law in violation of institutional academic freedom on who may

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez



teach. to dictate the policies on the establishment of legal apprenticeship and legal internship programs in violation of institutional academic freedom on what to teach.

Through this decision, theLegal Education Boardas an institutionwill continue to existbut its regulatory powers have been severely constricted by the Court’s sweeping and a strong endorsement of academic freedom. The Court partially nullifies LEB MO No. 7-2016 insofar as it absolutely prescribes the passing of thePhilSATand the taking thereof within two years as a prerequisite for admission to any law school which runs counter to institutional academic freedom. However,there is no reason to strike down thePhilSATin its entirety. Comment: Just because a court takes judicial notice of the matter, in this case, those issuances by the LEB, which is an office under the executive department, does not mean that there are all matters that the court take judicial notice of. It is already enough for a party to win a case because it was shown here that the issuances of the LEB, there are some that were unconstitutional. This is a very important issue for us because we are a Law school and especially for us teachers, because the requirement of having a master’s degree to be able to teach in a Law school was considered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Hence, there is no more requirement now for teachers in the Law school to have a masteral degree. Poe vs. COMELEC En Banc Facts: This case originated from the case before the COMELEC where the COMELEC had a finding that Grace Poe-Llamanzares is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines. As a result of such finding, her certificate of candidacy for presidency was thereby cancelled. With that case before the COMELEC, here are the established facts: 1. Grace Poe-Llamanzares was a foundling which is a new-born child, abandoned by her parents who are unknown. From that, we can deduce that Grace’s biological parents’ idenitities are therefore unknown including their citizenship at the time of her birth. 2. It was also established that Grace was found in an old abadnoned church in Iloilo on Sept. 3, 1968.

On this issue on her national citizenship before the Supreme Court, the main issue to be resolved was whether or not Grace was born to Filipino parents and the resolution of which would resolve whether or not Grace is a natural born Filipino. Before the SC, here are the pieces of evidence adduced by the Solicitor General: 1. Official census statistics from 1965-1975 2. The office which issued census statistics was the Philippine Statistics Office Grace submitted on her part: 1. Official statistics in Iloilo province from 19601970. 2. The issuing office was also PSO Now, take note, the Philippine Statistics Office is an attached agency of NEDA and is under the executive government of the Philippines. We can deduce that the official statistics issued by the PSA are official acts of the executive department of the Philippines. Did the SC take judicial notice of the said statistics issued by the PSA? No. Rule 129, Sec. 1 provides that a court shall take judicial notice without the introduction of evidence of the official acts of the executive department. In a case, Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, the SC defined judicial notice as the “cognizance of certain facts that judges may properly take and act on without proof”. In other words, it is the assumption of the courts of a fact without need of further traditional evidentiary support. If a court takes judicial notice of a fact, then, with respect to such fact, a party is already deemed not required to submit proof regarding such fact. In this case, the SC did not take judicial notice of the official census statistics of the PSA, an executive department, an attached agency of the executive department. The SC cited Herrera vs. COMELEC and Bagabuyo vs. COMELEC. In the case of Bagabuyo, the court had a different ruling with respect to the Consensus of Cagayan De Oro City. This was issued by the PSA. Therein, the court said that Bagabuyo, unfortunately, did not provide the information about the actual population of Cagayan De Oro City. We can deduce from that

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

statement that Bagabuyo did not provide evience with respect to the actual population of Cagayan De Oro City. However, the SC said that “we take judicial notice of the 2007 national statistics of the PSA”. In Herrera vs. COMELEC, a case decided by the SC En Banc, one of the parties submitted the 1995 Census of the population of the province of Guimaras. This official act of the NSO was not taken judicial notice of by the SC. We can conclude that despite the seemingly sweeping statement under Rule 129, Sec. 1 that the court shall take judicial notice without the introduction of evidence of the official acts of the executive department, settled jurisprudence is replete with cases, decided by no less than the SC itself, where some official acts of the executive, such as official documents of the PSA, are not taken judicial notice of by the SC. Therefore, not all official acts of the executive are subject to mandatory judicial notice. Where an official act is not taken judicial notice of by the court, the party who wishes to establish the facts contained therein must plead and prove the same. Issue: Were the subject PSA documents adduced in the case pieces of evidence of a collateral matter? Do those PSA documents prove the actual fact of this case or a collateral matter?

In 1960, the percentage of female Filipinos in Iloilo is 99.68%. The percentage of male Filipinos of child producing ages in the same province in the 60’s is 99.58%. In 1970, almost the same statistics were garnered the statistical probability of over 99% with respect to the number of Filipinos of child producing ages with respect to the total population. Collateral means indirect and not bearing immediately upon an issue. The fact in issue is whether or not Grace Poe Llamanzares was born to Filipino Parents? Did those pieces of evidence categorically declare and prove that Grace was born to Filipino parents? No because those facts only proved that more than 99% of children born in the PH are born to Filipino parents and that more than 99% of the children born in Iloilo are born to Filipino parents and that more than 99% of Filipino females or males of child producing ages in the Iloilo were Filipino. All of the foregoing matters proven documents are merely collateral. documents are pieces of evidence matters and did not prove that Grace Filipino parents.

by the PSA Hence, the on collateral was born to

The subject evidence were pieces of evidence for a collateral matter.

Issue: were the documents relevant and admissible because under Rule 128 Sec. 4, as a general rule, evidence on collateral matters are not admissible and shall not be allowed.

What were contained in the documents? i.e. The official census statistics of the PH from 1960s showing the number of Filipinos born in the PH with respect to the total number of aliens born in the PH.

However, the rules provide for an exception when such evidence on collateral matters tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

The census statistics show that the statistical probability that a child is born to Filipino parents in that period of time is 99.83%.

Therefore, do these evidence on collateral matters pass the test of relevancy in order for them to be admissible by the court?

In a more particular setting, those census provided that the person which are Filipinos with respect to the total province of Iloilo was 99.62%.

The court said yes. They were relevant and therefore, admissible.

The total number of Filipinos born in Iloilo in 1970 was 99.55%. The OSG and Grace adduced into evidence the figures for the child producing ages between the ages 15-39 in the province of Iloilo.

Direct evidence directly proves the fact in dispute without the need to make an inference from another fact. Based on your evidence, one can categorically say that the direct evidence proves the existence or nonexistence of a fact. Collateral matters – does not bear directly on the fact in dispute but bears on circumstances from which one

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

may infer the occurrence of a fact in dispute. With the use of evidence on collateral matters, although such do not directly prove the evidence in issue, the court may use logic or inference from such reference to deduce the statistical probability of the fact in issue. In this case, although the PSA statistics were not direct evidence, they only show the probability of the fact in issue—that Grace was born to Filipino parents —such evidence taken with other circumstantial evidence such as: (1) Grace’ Filipino features, (2) short stature, (3) her flat nasal bridge, (4) her straight black hair and almond shape eyes, all foregoing evidence would indicate more than ample probability, if not, statistical certainty that Grace’s parents are indeed Filipinos. The court said that to assume otherwise is to accept the absurd, if not, the virtually impossible as the norm. Comment: So in Iloilo, 99% pala were born Filipinos born at the time of the birth of Grace Poe. That’s what persuaded the SC to declare that she was born from Filipino Parents. Collateral matters but very relevant by using logic and inference. The other issue on judicial notice, apparently, when it comes to issuances of the PSA, we have 3 En banc cases, wherein the SC did not unanimously agree that these documents should be taken judicial notice of. Siguro, especially, PSA issuances yung mga birth certificate – definitely not. But in this case, we are talking about the census reports. So, just take note of these declarations of the SC in this case of Poe vs. COMELEC. Question. Student: About Rule 129, if ever the question is presented during exam (re: when judicial notice is mandatory), can we cite Rule 129 in relation to the case of Poe vs COMELEC? Maam: It depends if the situation is in all force with the [facts of the] case of Poe vs COMELEC, then the ruling in that case … I read that case and there was really no declaration there that the court did not take judicial notice. It’s just that the court made the parties present the evidence – the census reports. Because if the courts take judicial notice, then there’s no need to present the evidence. But this is supposed to be mandatory – acts of the executive; but, this just goes to show that courts sometimes do not take judicial notice of mandatory matters. Or perhaps, this is not a mandatory matter. There are always exceptions. But these are all en banc cases; so, it’s

really all up to you if you want to cite the case of Poe vs COMELEC, you can cite it under section 1: “Courts must take judicial notice BUT in the case of Poe vs COMELEC, the Court did not take judicial notice of the PSA documents.” Atienza vs Board Of Medicine Facts: Now we will hear another matter wherein the courts are mandatory to take judicial notice – that is the laws of nature. So we have here the spouses Sioson, Romeo and Editha. Due to her lumbar pains, Editha Sioson went to Rizal Medical Center for check up on February 1995. She underwent several tests in order to determine what was her real sickness. So, tests revealed that her left kidney is non-functioning and non-visualizing. Hence, she underwent surgery. However, after the surgery, it was the right kidney that was taken. It was the functional kidney that was taken away from her body. Romeo Sioson filed a complaint against Dr. Atienza, et. al., the alleged participants in the operation, for gross negligence and/or incompetence before the Board of Medicine for the removal of Editha’s fully functional right kidney, instead of the left. So, Editha filed a formal offer of documentary evidence. It consisted of certified photocopies of x-ray request forms, where interpretation of the ultrasound results were written. The purpose of which is to prove that her kidneys were both in their proper anatomical locations at the time she was operated. Atienza et. al. here filed their comments and objections and alleged that those are inadmissible, those are not properly identified and authenticated, those are intended to establish matters which are hearsay, and those are incompetent to prove the purpose for which they are offered. Basically, what they were saying was that the fact sought to be established by the admission that Editha’s kidney were both in their proper anatomical locations at the time of her operations need to be proved first. Issue: Whether or not courts may take judicial notice of the fact Editha’s kidneys at the time of her operation were both in their proper anatomical locations. Ruling: Yes. “Unquestionably, the rules on evidence are merely the means for ascertaining the truth respecting a matter of fact. They likewise provide for some facts which are established and need not be proved, such

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

as those covered by judicial notice, both mandatory and discretionary.” Here it was cited that Rule 129, Section 1 – “the laws of nature.” Here, the Court said that mandatory judicial notice on laws of nature involving physical sciences, specifically biology, include the structural make-up and composition of living things such as human beings. In this case, the court may take judicial notice that Editha’s kidneys before, and at the time of her operation, as with most human beings, were in their proper anatomical locations.

People vs. Casido Facts: Here we have Casido and Alcorin who were convicted for the crime of murder. So, eventually they appealed to the Supreme Court and while the appeal was pending they also filed an application for conditional pardon with the Presidential Commission for the grant of release and pardon. Normally, what occurs here is when an application for pardon is being processed in the Commission, they form an agreement with the lawyers of the applicants to file a Motion to Withdraw their appeal because pardons can only be granted when there is a final conviction. Here, eventually, President Ramos signed the pardon application of Casido and Alcorin and they were eventually released from detention. However, it was found out that their lawyers failed to file their Motion to Withdraw their appeal. They immediately filed an Urgent Motion to Withdraw the appeal. The Supreme Court here in a July 1996 Resolution denied this Urgent Motion to Withdraw because it was void, it was issued during the pendency of an appeal. So, they ordered Casido and Alcorin to be immediately arrested. After the issuance of this resolution, they received a letter from the National Amnesty Commission saying that the application of Casido and Alcorin for Amnesty were granted. What happened here was Casido and Alcorin, during the pendency of their appeal filed both applications for Pardon and Amnesty. Issue: Whether or not the court should take judicial notice of the amnesty granted in favor of Casido and Alcorin. Ruling: The Supreme Court here said that yes. A pardon, the Supreme Court held, was a private act of

the President, so the courts cannot take judicial notice of it. Whereas, amnesty is a public act, which, in fact, is done with the concurrence of Congress. Therefore, the Court should take judicial notice of this pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 129. Comment: When it comes to the acts of the executive, there are two (2) acts which the President has the power to do: Pardon and Amnesty. When it comes to judicial notice, the courts can take judicial notice of acts of amnesty granted by President because this is a public act. But, a private act, such as pardon is not included in the realm of mandatory judicial notice according to jurisprudence. So, when it comes to the acts of the executive, courts are only mandated to take judicial notice of public acts. SALUDO VS AMERICAN EXPRESS GR. No. 159507 April 19, 2006 FACTS: Here, we have Congressman Saludo. He is a Congressman of Southern Leyte and he also owns a house in Makati City. In this case, he filed a complaint for damages against AMEX before the RTC of Maasin, Southern Leyte. AMEX is a credit corporation with offices in Makati City. The basis of the filing of the complaint for damages, as alleged by Congressman Saludo, is that the credit cards that were issued by AMEX were wrongfully dishonored because of the unilateral cancellation of the credit cards by AMEX. So, here, AMEX sought for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that none on the parties are resident of Southern Leyte. They claimed that the certificate of community tax presented by Saludo when he executed his complaint verification and certificate of non-forum shopping were issued in Pasay, prepared in Pasay and signed in Pasay by a lawyer in Pasay. So, the allegation here of AMEX is that the venue is improperly laid. Congressman Saludo, in response to the allegations of AMEX, said that “your allegations refuting my residence are all baseless because I am a Congressman of Southern Leyte. Because I am an elected Congressman, I posses all the qualifications required by the Constitution, which includes me being a resident of my legislative district, Southern Leyte.” Now, Congressman Saludo urges the Regional Trial Court to take judicial notice of this particular fact. ISSUE: whether or not the election of Saludo as a Congressman in the community where the trial court sits can be taken judicial notice of by the trial court. RULING: The Court ruled yes.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Under Section 2 of Rule 129, courts are allowed to take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, capable of unquestionable demonstration, and those ought to be known by judges because of their judicial function. In this case, the court laid down the concept of “facts of common knowledge.” These are facts that are so commonly known in the community as to make it unprofitable to require proof and so certainly known as to make it indisputable among reasonable men. The Court here even explained that while facts of common knowledge may be known all over the country, it is sufficient that it is known in the community where the court sits. In this case, at the time of the filing of the complaint, Saludo was an elected Congressman and the trial court can take judicial notice of that fact because it is a fact of common knowledge in the community where it sits, in Southern Leyte. The next issue here is whether the residence of Saludo, in connection to his election as Congress in the community where the trial court sits, can be taken judicial notice of by the trial court. The court said yes. Because, the fact that Saludo was an elected Congressman means that he possess the required the Constitutional qualification to be elected as Congressman, which includes residence in his legislative district. The Court even said that this is a matter of law and the courts should know the laws that are enforced in the Philippines including the Consitution. One of the requirements to be elected Congressman is residence in the legislative district of said Congressman. The Court here even explained that the fact that he’s community tax certificate was issued in Pasay City holds no water because, assuming arguendo that he is also a resident of Pasay does not prohibit him from being a resident in Southern Leyte. One of the requirements to be elected as Congressman in the Constitution is residence in the legislative district of said Congressman. The court here even explained that the fact that his community tax certificate was issued in Pasay City is immaterial. Assuming arguendo that he is also a resident of Pasay, does not prohibit him from also being a resident of Southern Leyte because a person can have multiple residences but only one domicile. In summary, first the fact of election is a matter of common knowledge and his residence as a requirement for his election is a fact which is ought to be known by the court as a requirement in the Constitution.

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY VS ATIENZA GR. No. 156052 February 13, 2008 Facts: The City of Manila enacted City Ordinance A which reclassified certain portions of the Manila area including the Pandacan Terminal. These Pandacan Terminals are the oil depot of several companies. The reclassification also reclassified the Pandacan Area form an industrial area to a commercial area with this the oil companies are not allowed to operate. The companies wanted to annul the city ordinance, but the Supreme Court directed the enforcement of the city ordinance. This was decided on March 7, 2007. During the pendency of the case, the city council of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8119, also known as the Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance of 2006 or City Ordinance B which regulated the use of high rise housing purposes and limited the complementary trade services and business activities of the Manila. Now the oil companies wanted to annul the city ordinance B and question the 2007 decision stating that this affects their business property rights. The March 7, 2007 decision did not take into consideration the passage of city ordinance B for the simple reason that the court was never informed of said ordinance. Issue: Whether the enactment of city ordinance B authorized to operate as judicial notice to the court? Ruling: No. While courts are required to take judicial notice of the laws enacted by Congress, the rule with respect to local ordinances is different. Ordinance is not included in the enumeration in Rue 129 Section 1 of the Rules of Court. Although, Section 50 of RA 40974provides that: SEC. 50 Judicial notice of ordinances. - All courts sitting in the city shall take judicial notice of the ordinances passed by the [Sangguniang Panglungsod]. Even where there is a statute that requires a court to take judicial notice of municipal ordinances, a court is not required to take judicial notice of ordinances that are not before it and to which it does not have access. The party asking the court to take judicial notice is obligated to supply the court with the full text of the rules the party desires it to have notice of. 75Counsel should take the initiative in requesting that a trial court take judicial notice of an ordinance even where a

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

statute requires courts to take judicial notice of local ordinances. The intent of a statute requiring a court to take judicial notice of a local ordinance is to remove any discretion a court might have in determining whether or not to take notice of an ordinance. Such a statute does not direct the court to act on its own in obtaining evidence for the record and a party must make the ordinance available to the court for it to take notice/ The court is therefore correct in not taking judicial notice. Comment: Ordinances are discretionary upon the court and not mandatory. PEOPLE VS CABIGUEZ GR. No. 185708 September 29, 2010 Facts: AAA was a mother of three, who owned a sari-sari store. Cabigquez and Grodiano were AAA’s neighbors. One night, Cabigquez and Grodiano went to AAA’s sari-sari store, raped her there, and stole items therein. Cabigquez and Grodiano were accused of the following crimes: A) Robbery of goods worth P 7,000 from the sari-sari store of AAA, plus P 3,000 cash, totaling P 10,000; B) Rape of AAA. They were convicted of both crimes. Cabigquez and Grodiano now assail the judgment, particularly on the issue of the valuation of the goods stolen. They were required to pay P10,000. Both claim that there is no basis to claim the value of the goods stolen, thus the award for the amount of P7,000 for the stolen goods was wrongfully awarded. Issue: Whether there was proper basis for the valuation of the goods stolen, for which Cabigquez and Grondiano must pay? Ruling: Yes. In People v. Martinez,[47] this Court ruled that the trial court has the power to take judicial notice of the value of stolen goods because these are matters of public knowledge or capable of unquestionable demonstration. Judicial cognizance, which is based on considerations of expediency and convenience, displace evidence

since, being equivalent to proof, it fulfills the object which the evidence is intended to achieve. Surely, matters like the value of the appliances, canned goods are undeniably within public knowledge and easily capable of unquestionable demonstration. Here, what is involved are common goods for everyday use and ordinary stocks found in small sarisari stores like private complainant's store, i.e., milk, soap, coffee, sugar, liquor and cigarettes. The RTC was thus correct in granting the reasonable amount of P10,000.00 as computed by the private complainant representing the value of stolen merchandise from her store. Comment: It really depends on the court. We have other cases where the court did not take judicial notice of the value of the grocery items, jewelry items etc. But in this case, it was a sari-sari store. You know very well that sari-sari stores do not have receipts, no inventory. So maybe she just tried to see the loss from the goods which were left, so it was quite easy to estimate. The court in its discretion took judicial notice. METRO BANK VS MIRANDA GR. No. 187917 January 19, 2011 Facts: Spouses Miranda obtained a loan from Metrobank and executed a real estate mortgage as a security thereof. Spouses defaulted in paying the loan. Metrobank then caused an extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale of the mortgaged property. Spouses Miranda sought for the nullification of the foreclosure proceeding alleging among others that the foreclosure and sale was null and void for lack of publication. The RTC annulled the foreclosure. It reviewed the records of the foreclosure proceedings and found no proof of publication of the sheriff’s notice of sale; there was no affidavit of publication attached to the records. Hence, it invalidated the auction sale and the entire foreclosure proceedings. Metrobank questions the authority of the RTC and the CA to take cognizance of the records of the foreclosure proceedings as basis for annulling the auction sale. As required by Section 3 of Rule 129: 1. It did not give its consent to the RTC’s examination of the records of the foreclosure.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

2. The court did not even set a hearing for the purpose of declaring its intention to take judicial notice of the records of the foreclosure proceedings. Thus, rationalizing that the RTC exceeded its authority in taking cognizance of the records of the extrajudicial proceedings. Issue: Whether the RTC has the authority to take judicial notice of the records of the foreclosure proceedings? Ruling: Yes. As a rule, courts do not take judicial notice of the evidence presented in other proceedings, even if these have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge. This rule, however, is not absolute. In some instances, courts have also taken judicial notice of proceedings in other cases that are closely connected to the matter in controversy. These cases may be so closely interwoven, or so clearly interdependent, as to invoke a rule of judicial notice. 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. The RTC, therefore, acted well within its authority in taking judicial notice of the records of the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings even if Metrobank did not give its consent to the trail court’s examination of such records. Comment: When it comes to mandatory judicial notice, we only have the Supreme Court decisions. The decisions of other courts in other proceedings are discretionary. It really depends on the court. This was just an auction sale conducted because of the foreclosure proceedings. There is really nothing wrong. The court takes judicial notice of the records. MAGDALO PARA SA PAGBABAGO VS COMELEC GR. No. 190793 June 19, 2012 Facts: MAGDALO filed its Petition for Registration with the COMELEC, seeking its registration and/or accreditation as a regional political party based in the

National Capital Region (NCR) for participation in the 10 May 2010 National and Local Elections. COMELEC issued its Resolution denying the Petition for Registration filed by MAGDALO where it held that Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago should be refused registration in accordance with Art. IX-C, Section 2(5) of the Constitution. It is common knowledge that the partys organizer and Chairman, Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV, and some members participated in the take-over of the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Ayala Center, Makati City on July 27, 2003, wherein several innocent civilian personnel were held hostage. This and the fact that they were in full battle gear at the time of the mutiny clearly show their purpose in employing violence and using unlawful means to achieve their goals in the process defying the laws of organized societies. MAGDALO filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was elevated to the COMELEC En Banc for resolution. COMELEC En Banc denied the Reconsideration filed by MAGDALO.

Motion

for

Issue: Can the COMELEC take judicial notice of the events of the Oakwood Mutiny, as well as Trillanes’ participation therein? Ruling: Yes. Under the Rules of Court (Rule 129, Sec. 2) A court may, in its discretion, take judicial notice of matters that are of: 1. public knowledge, or 2. are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or 3. ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions In Saludo v. American Express: The concept of "facts of common knowledge" in the context of judicial notice has been explained as those facts that are "so commonly known in the community as to make it unprofitable to require proof, and so certainly known x x x as to make it indisputable among reasonable men." First, the Court, has, in a string of cases, already taken judicial notice of the factual circumstances surrounding the Oakwood standoff.  Pimentel v. Romulo, 466 Phil. 482 (2004);  Navales v. Abaya, 484 Phil. 367 (2004)  Gonzales v. Abaya, 530 Phil. 189 (2006). Second, that the Oakwood incident was widely known

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

and extensively covered by the media made it a proper subject of judicial notice.

lone assailant. Oandasan on the other hand is still insisting on the reversal of his conviction..

However, Subsequent to such denial of the petition, the participants of the Oakwood incident were granted amnesty by Former Pres. Aquino III.

ISSUE WON admissible?

Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned, because the courts take no notice thereof; while Amnesty by Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress, is a public act of which the courts should take judicial notice. This is under Sec. 1 – “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 the seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the National Government of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. In the same manner that the Supreme Court takes cognizance of the facts surrounding the Oakwood Incident, it shall also take judicial notice of such grant of amnesty. Comment: Take note about the difference between pardon and amnesty. JULY 20, 2020 PEOPLE V. OANDASAN JR, [ G.R. No. 194605, June 14, 2016] FACTS: Three informations were filed against the accused, two of which were for murder involving the fatal shooting of Edgardo Tamanu and Danilo Montegrico, and the third was for frustrated homicide involving the near-fatal shooting of Mario Paleg. Here the CA appreciated the attendance of treachery but only in the fatal shooting of Montegrico. Although there were no witnesses that positively identified Oandasan as the person who also shot Tamanu and Paleg. The record contains sufficient Circumstantial evidence to establish that the accused was also criminally responsible for the fatal shooting of Tamanu and Paleg. Here the CA declared the accused as the

the

circumstantial

evidence

RULING: YES! Section 3 provides for the admissibility of evidence. One is relevance and the other One is competence. Here, the court ruled that the circumstantial evidence available is competent enough to convict Oandasan. The court here discussed that for circumstantial evidence to suffice to convict an accused the following requisites must concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, these requisites for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction are present. First, the witnesses unanimously said that they saw appellant coming from the back of a dump truck and shoot Montegrico pointblank. Second, appellant fired his gun several times. Third, immediately after the shooting incident, three victims were found lying on the ground and rushed to the hospital. Fourth, the Certificates of Death of Montegrico and Tamanu and the Medical Certificate of Paleg revealed that they all sustained gun shot wounds. Thus, it can be said with certitude that appellant was the lone assailant. The foregoing circumstances are proven facts, and the Court finds no reason to discredit the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses. Well-entrenched is the rule that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is accorded great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, inasmuch as the court a quo was in a position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. The Court does not find any arbitrariness or error on the part of the RTC as would warrant a deviation from this rule. CONDON VS. COMELEC [G.R. No. 198742, August 10, 2012] FACTS: This is an election case. Teodora SobejanaCondon she is a natural born Filipino but by reason of her marriage to an Australian citizen, she became a naturalized Australian citizen.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

dated May 3, 1917 are the original and real titles. She is contending that her Australian citizenship is already renounced in accordance with an Australian citizenship act of 1948. She argues that such act is entitled to judicial notice hence there is no need for her to comply with RA 9225. ISSUE: WON the Australian citizenship of 1948 is entitled to mandatory judicial notice? RULING: NO! Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proven. It is just like any other fact which must be alleged and proven. In the absence of proof, the courts will apply the Philippine Law under the doctrine of processual presumption. When we refer to law of nations under section 1 of Rule 129. We are referring to internationally accepted principles and not specific or particular laws of foreign jurisdiction. Discussion: Law of nations under mandatory judicial notice only applies to generally accepted principles in international law. Like the UNCLOS. CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. HI-GRADE FEEDS CORPORATION [ G.R. No. 160684, September 02, 2015] FACTS: This involves a dispute over the Maysilo Estate. The Maysilo Estate stretches over three cities and is covered by five Original Certificate of Titles (OCT). One of the OCTs is OCT no. 994. CLT and Hi-grade are claiming lot no. 26. CLT’s title is derived from OCT 994, dated April 19, 1917. On the other hand, Higrade’s title is derived from OCT 994, dated May 3, 1917.

According to CLT, it was wrong for the Court of Appeal to take judicial notice of the senate report. ISSUE: WON it was proper for the court of appeals to take judicial notice of the senate report. RULING: YES! It was proper. Section 1, Rule 129 provides that judicial notice is mandatory for the official acts of the legislative departments of the Philippines. Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that judges may properly take and act on without proof because these facts are already known to them; It is the duty of the court to assume something as a matter of fact without need of further evidentiary support. The senate report is an official act of the legislative department. Thus, it is within the ambit of Section 1, Rule 129 wherein judicial notice is mandatory. Comments: Senate Report is included in the mandatory judicial notice. I just want to make this clear, when we talk about judicial notice we are not saying that the court should like "swallow" whatever information. The senate report must be submitted, but it doesn't have to go to the rigorous process of presentation of evidence. It is enough to submit, no need to present it as evidence. DEGAYO VS MAGBANUA- DINGLASAN [ G.R. No. 173148, April 06, 2015] FACTS: The case involves a property dispute, which gave rise to two civil cases of ownership and damages over a parcel of land located on the northeastern bank of Jalaud River.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in Favor of CLT because Hi-grade’s title contained patent defects and infirmities. When the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), Hi-Grade filed a Motion to Admit and Take Judicial Notice of the Senate Report. Which the CA granted and eventually ruled in favor of Hi-Grade.

The first case was filed by Magbanua-Dinglasan, it is a complaint or ownership and damages against the tenants of Degayo with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, branch 27 which was docketed Civil Case no. 16047. Degayo thought to intervene in the case but her motion was denied. However, Degayo was still able to participate as a witness in the proceedings of the case.

The Senate Report submitted by Hi-grade stated that titles derived from OCT 994 dated April 19, 1917 are null and void, while those derived from OCT 994

The second case was filed by Degayo against Magbanua-Dinglasan for declaration of ownership with damages, also with the RTC of Iloilo, Branch 22,

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

docketed as Civil Case no. 18328. This was the result of her motion beyong denied in the first case. In the first case, the court rendered a decision in favor of Magbanua-Dinglasan. The tenants of Degayo promptly filed an appeal but it was dismissed and the decision became final and executory. In the second case, the court found in favor of Degayo. Magbanua-Dinglasan filed an appeal with the CA. The CA granted the appeal and reversed the decision in Civil Case no. 18328.

FACTS:  Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc. (ESPI) is a local manning agency. Emirates Trading Agency LLC (ETAL) is among ESPI's foreign principals. Apines boarded ETAL's ship, M/V Bandar TBN Trans Gulf, for an eight-month engagement as bosun. 

While on board the ship, Apines met an accident which was left untreated. He was denied medical attention by the captain of the ship.When the ship docked in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, Apines sought medical attention. He was advised by 2 doctors to have an MRI done on his left knee. However, he was still given a fit to work certification without ever seeing the MRI results. Despite having been given a knee brace and some medications, Apines could not work due to the severe pain. Hence, he requested for immediate repatriation due to medical concerns.



After arriving in the PH, Apines promptly went to ESPI office but was denied any form of assistance. ESPI said that they are not liable to Apines due to the ff. reasons: (1.) Both doctors gave him a fit to work order; (2.) Apines was the one who requested for the immediate repatriation; (3.) There was no record that he met an accident while onboard ETAL's ship.



Apines paid for the MRI and the recommended surgery on his knee. After his surgery, Apines filed this Complaint for total and permanent disability benefits, reimbursement of medical, hospital and transportation expenses and damages.



ESPI contends that should not be paid disability benefits because he failed to comply with the company’s policy regarding the 72hour reportorial requirement.

The CA noted that the previous RTC Branch decision in Civil Case No. 16047 is conclusive to the title of the thing, being an aspect of the rule on conclusiveness of judgment. ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in taking judicial notice of the RTC decision in Civil Case No. 16047, which was not even presented during the hearing of the present case. RULING: YES! Generally, courts are not authorized to "take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when said cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge. " While the principle invoked is considered to be the general rule, this rule is not absolute. There are exceptions to this rule. In the case of Tiburcio v PHHC, this Court, citing Justice Moran, stated: "In some instance, courts have taken judicial notice of proceedings in other causes, because of their close connection with the matter in the controversy. “ Comment: As a general rule, courts are not allowed to take judicial notice of cases outside of a particular case pending before it, even if it involves the same parties. But there are exceptions provided by jurisprudence. This is one of the exceptions. Same parties, same court, RTC-RTC, it was the Court of Appeals that took judicial notice of the decision in another case. Take note that the CA cannot take judicial notice if it’s not given a copy of the decision. The CA cannot just believe allegations that there is a previous decision. It just doesn’t have to go through the entire process of presentation of evidence. ELMER A. APINES vs. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC G.R. No. 202114, November 09, 2016 REYES, J.

ISSUE: W/N the Supreme Court can take Judicial Notice of this Case? [YES] Oblesvirtuallawlibrary HELD: In this case, ESPI contends that Apines should not be eligible for disability benefits because he failed to to comply with the 72-hour reportorial requirement. IN THE CASE: Apines’ Medial Meniscus Tear was left undiagnosed and untreated for almost five months

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

from the time he had sustained an accidental injury. It took another five months from his repatriation before he underwent arthroscopic meniscectomy. Apines cannot be faulted for the delay. The Court takes judicial notice of the long queues in governmental hospitals.The Court also finds it logical that without any financial assistance for medical expenses lent by ESPI, it took Apines sometime to save up for what the surgical procedure required. Rule 129 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. This case falls under the public knowledge category as it is known to the majority of the Filipino people that there are, indeed, long ques in public or government hospitals. Hence, the Supreme Court has the discretion to take judicial notice of this fact or not. In this case they chose to take judicial notice of the said fact. Comments: The fact that there is a long queue in most hospitals in the Philippines is something that is of public knowledge. So, the court may, in its discretion, take judicial notice of that fact. And that’s what the SC did in this case regarding his failure to report within the period provided. FASAP v. PAL Based on PPT. FACTS: This involves the retrenchment and demotion of the Cabin Crew Personnel of PAL.  PAL was under financial distress.  July 22, 2008: the Supreme Court Third Division found PAL guilty of UNLAWFUL RENTRENCHMENT.  PAL failed to establish its severe financial losses because of its non-presentation of audited financial statements. Judicial notice should have been taken on the financial losses incurred by PAL.  PAL’s serious financial losses had been duly established when FASAP expressly recognized grave financial situation before the labor tribunal.  1997 Asian Financial Crisis  It was already around the news that PAL was undergoing corporate rehabilitation and was under financial losses.  Several Court decisions were previously rendered

recognizing PAL’s financial troubles. ISSUE: WON the Supreme Court should have taken judicial notice of the financial losses of pal? YES. RULING: Section 2, Rule 129.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. This principle is based on convenience and expediency in securing and introducing evidence on matters that are not ordinarily capable of dispute and are not bona fide disputed. “In determining the validity of a retrenchment, judicial notice may be taken of the financial losses incurred by an employer undergoing corporate rehabilitation. In such a case the presentation of audited financial statements may not be necessary to establish that the employer is suffering from severe financial losses.” IN THIS CASE There are decisions already rendered which CONSISTENTLY recognized PAL’s financial troubles while undergoing rehabilitation and suspension of payments. Hence, the Special Third Division should not have regarded the fiancial losses as an issue that still required determination. It should have just simply taken judicial notice of the serious financial losses being suffered by PAL. Comments: Take note that even if this is under discretionary judicial notice, the SC said that the court should have taken judicial notice of the financial losses of PAL because it really is of common knowledge. Precisely, for reasons of expediency and convenience. There are actually some matters that the court may take judicial notice, without any documents to be presented whatsoever. In this case, the court did not require the presentation of the financial statements of PAL, indicating the losses. But the Court merely took judicial notice of the fact that PAL was undergoing rehabilitation proceedings. Therefore, it only follows that it was experiencing financial lossess. You have to be able to distinguish between judicial notice that requires a kind of document to be submitted to the Court, like the Senate resolution. That’s not of common knowledge but it is mandatory, under Section 1. So, just show a copy that resolution.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

But when it comes to the measure of time, laws of nature, obviously there is nothing to present. The court can just take judicial notice. SY v. DE VERA G.R. No. 239088, April 03, 2019 SECOND DIVISION FACTS: John Sy borrowed ₱3,720,000.00 from De Vera-Navarro, secured by a Real Estate Mortgage Contract (Mortgage Contract) over the parcel of land and the four-storey building situated at Rizal Street, Barangay Zone IV, Zamboanga City. John Sy then alleged that immediately after the execution of the Mortgage Contract, De Vera-Navarro asked him to execute an undated Deed of Absolute Sale with a stated consideration in the amount of ₱5,000,000.00, supposedly for the purpose of providing additional security for the loan. Later, John was informed by BHTLI that the ownership of the subject property had been transferred to De Vera-Navarro. Later, a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed by De Vera-Navarro in favor of BHTLI. Sps. Sy (Sy) filed a case against Ma. Lourdes De Vera-Navarro (De Vera) and Benjaemy Ho Tan Landholdings, Inc. (BHTL) before the RTC for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale, Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Titles, Recovery of Ownership, and Damages. RTC declared the purported Deed of Absolute Sale between John and De Vera-Navarro an equitable mortgage and thus null and void. ISSUE: Whether or not Court should take judicial notice of the value of establishments around the place where the property is located (for the purpose of determining whether equitable mortgage exists) RULING: Yes. Rules of Court, Rule 129, Section 2: “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.” The Court has previously held that trial courts can take judicial notice of the general increase in rentals of real estate especially of the business establishments.

IN THIS CASE: The Regional Trial Court was correct when it took judicial notice of the public knowledge that similar establishments located at the commercial center of Zamboanga City have a value of around ₱20,000,000.00 and compare it with the 5,000,000 purchase price supposedly agreed upon by parties. Comparing the two prices, the Court held that it is apparent that the ₱5,000,000.00 purchase price supposedly agreed upon by the parties is grossly inadequate. Judicial Notice Not Allowed ESPAÑOL VS. FORMOSA Facts: Sharcons Builders bought from Morales a parcel of land. The land was covered by a TCT in the name of Morales. By virtue of the sale Morales’ TCT was cancelled and a new one wasissued in the name of Sharcons. However, when Sharcons took possession of the land, they were prevented by the caretakers of the said land claiming that such was owned by Sps. Mapua. So, Sharcons filed a complaint for quieting of title with the RTC presided by Judge Espanol against Mapua, Morales and Register of Deeds. Sps. Mapua alleged in their answer that the documents relied upon by Sharcons are spurious and falsified. In the course of the proceedings, Judge Español, issued an Order stating that Sps. See, who are officers of Sharcons, and its counsel, Atty. Formoso, have used a spurious certificate of title and tax declaration when Sharcons filed with the RTC its complaint for quieting of title. In issuing such order, Judge Espanol in determining the merits of Sharcons' complaint for quieting of title, took judicial notice of and used as basis, the Decision in a Civil Case for cancellation of title and damages filed with another RTC Branch presided by then Judge Tagle which decision declared Sharcons' TCT and other supporting documents falsified and that ATTY. FORMOSO AND SPS. LEE are responsible therefor. On appeal, The Court of Appeals ruled that Judge Español was not correct in taking cognizance of the Decision rendered by then Judge Tagle since it was not offered in evidence in the Civil Case for quieting of title. Issue: Whether or not it was proper for Judge Español to take judicial notice of the Decision in the civil case assigned to another RTC branch. Ruling: NO. Citing Section 1 Rule 129 of the Revised

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Rules of Court on when judicial notice mandatory.The Supreme Court here also cited the case of Gener v. De Leon, where the Supreme Court held that courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of records of other cases even when such cases have been tried or pending in the same court.

Church.

In Conclusion, While courts can take judicial notice of those enumerated under Section 1 Rule 129 of the rules of Court without presentation of evidence, Courts however, cannot take judicial notice of decisions or contents of records of other cases tried or pending in the same court or in another court when such decisions or records were not introduced or presented as evidence. Therefore, it was improper for Judge Español to take judicial notice of the decision rendered in another court when such decision was not presented as evidence in the case filed for quieting of title. Atty. Suarez’ Comments: This is the general rule, the courts are not allowed to take judicial notice of other cases – whether pending in the same court, especially cases tried or pending or decided by another court.

Issue: Whether or not the Court may take judicial notice of the practice of payment of goodwill money in the Baclaran area.

The question is, can the court use the decision of another court in rendering a decision? Of course, the decision just has to be presented in evidence. So this is the general rule, however, there are also exceptions.

Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material requisites:

This judicial notice was bolstered by the Joint Sworn Declaration of the stallholders at Roferxane Bldg. that they all had paid goodwill money to Rosalie prior to occupying the stalls thereat.

Ruling: NO. SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. – A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. In the case of State Prosecutors v. Muro, the power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative.

(1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and

LATIP VS. CHUA Facts: Rosalie Chua owned a commercial building located at Redemptorist Road, Barangay Baclaran, Parañaque City. Chua offered to lease two cubicles of the said building to the spouses Latip. Spouses Latip accepted said offer and paid Chua ₱2,570,000 as payment for the lease rights. However, on the point-of-view of Chua, said ₱2,570,000 pertains only to payment of goodwill money. When Chua asked for the payment of the rent, spouses Latip refused which led her to file for an unlawful detainer case against the latter. Subsequently, Rosalie attached an annex to her petition for review before the CA, containing a joint declaration under oath by other stallholders in Roferxane Bldg. that they had paid goodwill money to Rosalie as their lessor. Court of Appeals- reinstated the decision of the MeTC. The CA took judicial notice of the common practice of payment of goodwill money in the area of Baclaran, especially around the Redemptorist

(3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court. The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety. Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters which are "commonly" known. Things of "common knowledge," of which courts take judicial notice, may be matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters which are generally accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready and unquestioned demonstration. In this case it is apparent that the matter which the CA took judicial notice of does not meet the requisite of notoriety.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

First, only the CA took judicial notice of this supposed practice to pay goodwill money to the lessor in the Baclaran area. Neither the MeTC nor the RTC, with the former even ruling in favor of Rosalie, found that the practice was of "common knowledge" or notoriously known. Second, the requisite of notoriety is belied by the necessity of attaching documentary evidence, i.e., the Joint Affidavit of the stallholders, to Rosalie’s appeal before the CA. In short, the alleged practice still had to be proven by Rosalie; contravening the title itself of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court – What need not be proved. Apparently, only that particular division of the CA had knowledge of the practice to pay goodwill money in the Baclaran area. As was held in State Prosecutors, justices and judges alike ought to be reminded that the power to take judicial notice must be exercised with caution and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be ample reason for the claim of judicial notice to be promptly resolved in the negative. COMMENTS: Goodwill money paid to lessors are not something of public knowledge. Perhaps it is done there but it is not really known outside. So the court should not take judicial notice of those matters. DE CASTRO VS. LIBERTY Facts: De Castro filed an illegal dismissal case against Liberty, his employer. While it was pending in the Supreme Court, Liberty filed a motion to suspend proceeding saying that it filed a petition for Corporate Rehabilitation and a stay order was issued wherein all claims against him will be stayed. On the basis of that, he filed a motion to suspend the proceedings. This motion was denied for being premature. From the denial of the said motion, Liberty did not provide the Supreme Court with updates on their petition for corporate rehabilitation. In fact, their memorandum did not even mention the said proceedings. Eventually, the Supreme Court issued a decision against Liberty. Liberty filed its Motion for Reconsideration, which raise the argument that the case should be suspended due to the fact that it was undergoing corporate rehabilitation. Issue: Whether or not the court should take judicial notice of the corporate rehabilitation proceeding. Ruling: NO.

No, the corporate rehabilitation proceedings are not among those included in Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court. As held by the Supreme Court, "the Court does not take judicial notice of proceedings in the various courts of justice in the Philippines." In resolving controversies, the Supreme Court is not bound to consider the pendency of other proceedings if the same has not been brought to their attention. In this case, Liberty failed to provide the Supreme Court with updates on the corporate rehabilitation proceedings and did not even mention it in their memorandum. Hence, the Supreme Court is not bound to take judicial notice of the same. COMMENTS: In this case the corporate rehabilitation proceeding was conducted by the RTC. So how can the Supreme Court take judicial notice of the proceeding in the RTC. It is not a matter of public knowledge, so the court does not take judicial notice of proceedings of other courts, especially lower courts. SILK AIR v. CIR FACTS: Silk foreign corporation organized under the laws of Singapore with a Philippine representative office in Cebu City. Silkair filed with the BIR an administrative claim for the refund. Since the BIR took no action, Silkair filed a petition for review before CTA. CTA ruled that it was not entitled to the excise tax exemption for failure to present proof that it was authorized to operate in the Philippines due to the non-admission of some of its exhibits, which were merely photocopies. Silkair’s Contention: CTA should take judicial notice of its Securities and Exchange Registration since it was already offered and admitted in similar cases which were pending before that CTA Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s Contention: Silkair failed to offer the original copies or certified true copies SEC REGISTRATION and Operating Permit issued by Civil Aeronautics Board. Thus it amounts to FAILURE TO PROVE ITS AUTHORITY TO OPERATE IN THE PHILIPPINES ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT SHOULD TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF SILKAIR’S SEC REGISTRATION AND OPERATING PERMIT? – NO HELD: “A court is not compelled to take judicial notice of

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

pieces of evidence offered and admitted in a previous case unless the same are properly offered or have accordingly complied with the requirements on the rules of evidence.”

RTC: Asian Terminals is Negligent ordered to pay damages.

In this case, Silkair failed to formally offer the original copies of their Operating Permit during the trial. It also failed to produce the original copy of its SEC Registration for purposes of comparison with the photocopy that was originally presented.

Asian Terminals contention: Amount of damages must not be more than 5,000 pursuant to its Management Contract for cargo handling services with the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA). The CA SHOULD HAVE TAKEN JUDICIAL NOTICE of the said contract since it is an official act of the executive department subject to judicial recognizance.

Silkair’s SEC Registration and Operating Permits from the CAB are documents which are NOT of public knowledge, capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to the judges because of their judicial functions. Moreover, these documents are not among the matters which the law mandatorily requires the Court to take judicial notice of, without any introduction of evidence. COMMENTS: What Silk Air isasking the court to do is not to take judicial notice of the SEC Registration. But the fact that the SEC registration was already filed in the Court of Appeals in another case – same parties, same court. But the Supreme Court said no. If you want that the court to appreciate in evidence your SEC registration, then present it again in that particular case. It does not matter if you have presented it in a previous case.

ASIAN TERMINALS v. MALAYAN INSURANCE, GR No. 171406, 2011-04-04 Facts: In November 20, 1996, MALAYAN INSURANCE, CO., INC filed a complaint for damages against ASIAN TERMINALS, among others. The complaint alleges that Malayan Insurance insured a shipment of soda ash plant shipped by Shandong Weifang (CEO) on board the vessel MV "Jinlian I" from China to Manila. When the Shipment arrived in Manila, the stevedores unloads the shipments from the ship. The stevedores of Asian Terminals unloaded the bag and the brought them to their storage area. After all the bags were unloaded, a total of 2881 bags were in bad condition. Because of this Malayan Insurance, as insurer, paid the value of the lost cargos to the consignee which leads to the filing of damages against Asian Terminals.

CA: Affirmed RTC’s Decision

Issue: Whether the Court can take judicial notice of the management contract between Asian Terminals and the PPA in determining Asian Terminal’s liability. Ruling: No. Court cited section 1 and 2 of Rule 129. The Management Contract entered into by Asian Terminals and the PPA is clearly not among the matters which the courts can take judicial notice of. It cannot be considered an official act of the executive department. The PPA, which was created by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 857, as amended, is a government-owned and controlled corporation in charge of administering the ports in the country. Obviously, the PPA was only performing a proprietary function when it entered into a Management Contract with Asian Terminals. As such, judicial notice cannot be applied. Also, discretionary judicial notice cannot be applied in this case because these does not belong to Public knowledge and others that are covered under Section 2 of Rule 129. Comments: So, this is similar to amnesty and pardon when you talk about acts of the executive department. So the PPA is under the Department of Transportation, so it is a body under the executive department. But a contract entered into by the PPA is a private act, not a public act. It’s a contract with another party-in this case the Arastre operator: Asian Terminals. So this is not something that the courts should or may take judicial notice of. SPS. CHIONGKE v. SPS. CHIONGKE GR. 185518, Apr. 17, 2013 Facts: FELIX CHIONGKE fault the Court of Appeals for citing and giving credence to the testimony of Tan Po Chu, who was presented as a witness in another case

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

which is a case for specific performance filed also by felix. Here, the Court of appeals quoted at length the testimony of Tan Po Chu and cited as a basis the testimony of Tan Po Chu from civil case number Q9522865 Felix Chiongke claimed that the Court of Appeals erroneously considered the testimony of Tan Po Chu in civil case number Q-9522865, citing the general rule that the courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases. Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals is authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases.

The Court of Appeals rightly points out in its Resolution Felix and his wife Rosita, never objected to the introduction of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes containing the testimony of Tan Po Chu, which were records of Civil Case No. Q95-22865. As shown by the records and as Spouses Chingkoe admitted in their Reply, the testimony was already introduced on appeal before the Regional Trial Court. In fact, it was the spouses Chingkoe themselves who specifically cited Civil Case No. Q-95-22865, referring to it both by name and number, purportedly to bolster the claim that they were constrained to sue, in order to compel delivery of the title. Hence, The Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in taking judicial notice of the records of Civil Case No. Q-95-22865

Ruling: Yes, as an exception to the general rule. General Rule: "courts are not authorized to take judicial notice, in the adjudication of cases pending before them, of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been heard or are actually pending before the same judge." Tabuena v. Court of Appeals, the Court, citing U.S. v. Claveria, which We quote: . . . (I)n the absence of objection, and as a matter of convenience to all parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending before it, when, with the knowledge of the opposing party, reference is made to it for that purpose, by name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated; or when the original record of the former case or any part of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by the court's direction, at the request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pending. In this case: It is clear, though, that this exception is only applicable when: 1.) In the absence of objection, with the knowledge of the opposing party; or 2.) ‘At the request or with the consent of the parties’, the case is clearly referred to; or 3.) ‘The original or part of the records of the case are actually withdrawn from the archives’ and ‘admitted as part of the record of the case then pending’.

Comments: So this is an exception to the rule, when the parties consent. In this case, the adverse party did not object to the presentation of the stenographic notes of another case. Hence, the court could take judicial notice since there was no objection. JUAN vs. JUAN GR 221732, Aug. 23, 2017 Facts: There are two parties who are claiming the rights to lavandera Ko 1.) Roberto who has a Certificate of Copyright issued in 1997. 2.) Another is fernando who has a registered trademark issued in 2001. So, a case was filed before the RTC to determine who has the right to use the “Lavandera Ko”. The RTC ruled that based on an article in himig.coin.ph, “Lavandera Ko” is a musical composition which is owned by Santiago Suarez in 1942. So the RTC ruled that this mark is actually owned by Santiago Suarez. Fernando Faulted the RTC. He said that the RTC erred in relying on the article for the information because no one was presented to verify it. Issue: Was it proper for the RTC to take judicial notice of the internet article? Ruling: No.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

JUDICIAL NOTICE the cognizance of certain facts that judges may properly take and act on without proof because these facts are already known to them. Articles appearing in websites, not a matter of judicial notice. Thus, there must be further verification or authentication. REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL NOTICE 1. The matter must be one of common and general knowledge 2. It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain 3. It must be known within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court. In relation to the second requisite, when can we say that a fact cannot be a subject to a reasonable dispute: (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable. IN THIS CASE: The second requisite was not met. It is not well and authoritatively settled and is doubtful and uncertain. Because some articles on the internet are: Ø easily edited and Ø their sources are unverifiable. Thus, sole reliance on those articles is greatly discouraged. Thus, it was not proper for the RTC to take judicial notice of the internet article. Comments: Yes, so nowadays, we have a lot of information in the internet that a lot of people rely on. According to Court in this case, and incidentally this case was taken up by us in IP in relation to trademarks and copyrights, the issue as to whether or not a particular composer owns the copyright of a particular song, the Court cannot take judicial notice of such fact if the information is taken purely from the internet. If it is google or what not, those sites which are not dependable at the moment, then not reliable. Maybe ,if it is taken from a book or the list from intellectual property

office of all copyright holders whatever, so it could have been reliable. As late as 2017, the Courts would still the one to take judicial notice of information. Government vs Munoz Facts: The Government of Hongkong special administrative region submitted an extradition request to the Republic of the Philippines. It wanted to extradite one Antonio Munoz to be tried in Hongkong for two crimes: 1. Conspiracy to defraud; and 2. Accepting an advantage as an agent. In an earlier case, the Court ruled that Munoz could only be expedited to and tried by Hong Kong for the first crime of Conspiracy to defraud but not for accepting an advantage as an agent. In arguing that Munoz should also be tried for Conspiracy to defraud but not for accepting an advantage as an agent, the Government of Hong Kong cited the ruling supposedly handed down by the Court of Final Ruling of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in a case. Issue: Whether the Court can take judicial notice of a foreign judgment. Ruling: No. To take judicial notice of such ruling would be to contravene our own rules on evidence under which foreign judgments or laws are not considered matters of a public or notorious nature that prove themselves. Therefore, foreign judgments or laws have to be alleged and competently proved like any other disputed fact. In the case of Naveras vs Naveras, as a rule, no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country. So, the foreign judgment must be proved as facts under our rules on evidence. As a reminder, the court also ruled that the power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by the courts of the Philippines with caution and every reasonable doubt should be resolved in the negative. Conclusion: The courts cannot take judicial notice of a foreign judgment and laws and that they have to be duly alleged and competently proved like any other

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

disputed fact. Comments: It is shown that the courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws, only the generally accepted principles of international law under law of nations. Now we are looking at a case where the Supreme Court said that the Courts should not take judicial notice of foreign judgments. Now we are going to learn how to prove foreign laws and judgments when we reach rule 132. Definitely, our Courts can apply foreign laws in rendering decisions especially if the foreign law is the applicable law. Remember, the law of the place of destination will govern when there is an issue as to the lost, destruction or deterioration of goods. So what if the destination is a foreign country? Then that country’s law shall govern and there is a need to properly plead and prove their law as fact. The courts cannot take judicial notice of Foreign Law, only the general accepted principles of International Law under Law of Nations. Now, we are looking at a case where the Supreme Court said that the courts should not take Judicial Notice of Foreign Judgments. We are going to learn how to prove Foreign Laws and judgment when we reach Rule 132. Definitely our court can apply Foreign Laws in rendering a decision specially if the foreign law is the applicable law. Remember, Article 1753 of the New Civil Code which says that “the law of the place of destination will govern” when there is an issue as to the lost, destruction or deterioration of goods – The law of the place of destination. Transportation Law example: Article 1753. The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their loss, destruction or deterioration. Q: What if the destination is the Foreign Country? A: Then the foreign country’s law is applicable. Q: When can it be applied by the court? A: If it is properly pleaded and proven. We will take that up Later. JUDICIAL NOTICE NOT ALLOWED Republic vs Sandiganbayan and Africa et al.

G.R. No. 152375; December 16, 2011 EN BANC: BRION, J. FACTS: This involves two (2) cases: Civil Case No. 009 and Civil Case No.0130. In Civil Case No. 0009, the Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint against Africa et al for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages before the Sandiganbayan. This case has resulted to numerous incidental cases and among them was Civil Case No. 0130. In Civil Case No. 0130, Africa filed a case before the Sandiganbayan against the Republic of the Philippines to nullify the PCGG’s order. In the proceeding in this case, the testimony of Mr. Maurice Bane was taken by way of deposition upon oral examination. This deposition was later coined as the “Bane Deposition”. Subsequently, the Sandiganbayan ordered the consolidation of Civil Case No. 0130 and Civil Case No. 009 with Civil Case No. 009 as the main case and Civil Case No. 0130 as an incidental case. In the consolidated case, the Bane Deposition was not presented as evidence and as a result the Republic of the Philippines filed a request for Judicial Notice in the main case (Civil Case No. 009) of the Bane Deposition from the incidental case (Civil Case No. 0130). However, the Sandiganbayan refused. ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan should take judicial notice in the main case (Civil Case No. 009) of the Bane Deposition that was presented in the incidental case (Civil Case No. 0130) HELD: NO. It was proper for the Sandiganbayan to refuse to take the judicial notice of the Bane Deposition in the main case that was presented in the incidental case. The issue raised by the Republic does not involve the applicability of the mandatory or the discretionary taking of judicial notice rather the Republic follows the concept that the court should take judicial notice of whatever evidence offered in any of the incidental case as evidence in the main case. The Republic insists that the supposed relationship of the main case and incidental case warrants the taking of judicial notice. Furthermore the court laid down a general rule and exceptions in judicial notice and in this case the court held that the general rule applies here: "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

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

notwithstanding that both cases may have been tried or are actually pending before the same judge.” Moreover, it was proper for the Sandiganbayan to refuse to take judicial notice of the Bane Deposition because as held “the Supreme Court would be espousing judicial confusion by indiscriminately allowing the admission of evidence in one case, which was presumably found competent and relevant in another case, simply based on the supposed lineage of the cases”. Therefore, we go back to the general principle that it is the duty of the parties to properly present before the court the evidence it relies upon. Comments: If you were listening, you will know that these cases actually were spawned from a main case. These cases are actually just one case. Still, the Supreme Court said that the Sandiganbayan, even though the cases are there within the Sandiganbayan - perhaps different editions, but the court here applied the general rule in not taking judicial notice of any records, proceedings in another case. STATE PROSECUTORS vs. MURO (judicial Notice not allowed) Sept. 19, 1994 Comments: That is another instance where the Supreme Court said that Judicial knowledge is not Judicial notice. Even if the Judge knows about it, it does not mean that he must take judicial notice because there are requisites in taking judicial notice and this is only under Section 2. No longer reported:  SILKAIR VS CIR – (discussed under Section 2)  METROBANK VS. SPS. MIRANDA – (discussed under Section 2) REPUBLIC vs. SCIENCE PARK GR 237714 | Nov. 12, 2018 2nd Div: PERLAS-BERNABE Facts: Science Park filed with the MCTC an application for original registration of a parcel of land. Science Park presented a Certified Photocopy of a DENR Order stating that the land is alienable and disposable. The DENR Official Records officer was not presented to identify the said Certified Copy. Still the MCTC took judicial notice its authenticity on the basis of the records of a previous Land Registration case filed by Science Park involving a different parcel of land.

The Republic, through the SOLGEN, opposed stating that MCTC should not have taken judicial notice of the record of other cases. Issue: Whether or not it was proper to take judicial notice of the DENR order? Ruling: Yes, it was proper. General 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 tried or are actually pending before the same judge.” Exception: In the absence of objectionand as a matter of convenience to all parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of the case filed in its archives as read into therecords of a case pending before it, when with the knowledge of theopposing party, reference is made to it, by name and number or in someother manner by which it is sufficiently designated. In this case, the exception is applicable. The handling Government Prosecutordid not object to the dispensation of the testimony of the DENR legal custodian, in view of the similar stipulation between him and the same counsel of Science Park in the previous land registration case. Comments: GR: No judicial notice even if the proceedings sought to be taken judicial notice of like in this case is before the same court. Except if no objection. Remember the one that opposed was the Solicitor General on appeal but the prosecutor during the trial, did not object to the presentation of such matter. So this falls under the exception. SUMMARY OF SECTIONS 1, 2 AND 3 OF RULE 129 Kookooritchkin vs SolGen August 27, 1948 Facts: Kookoorichkin field a petition for naturalization. During the trial, it was established that: 1. He was born on Nov 4, 1897 in ST. Petersburg Russia 2. He grew up as a citizen of the Imperial Russian Government under the Czars 3. In 1915 he volunteered for the imperial Russian Army

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

4. When the revolution broke out in Russia in 1917, he joined the white Russian army and fought against the Bolsheviks until 1922 when the white rusiian army was overwhelmed by the Bolsheviks 5. As he refused to join the Bolshevik regime, he fled by sea from Vladivstock to Shanghai 6. Later he found his way to Manila, arriving as a member of a group of white Russians udner Admirl Stark in Mar 1923. 7. He went to Iriga, Camarines Sur where he established his permanent residence since May 1925 8. He is married to a Filipino, concepcion Segovia with whome he has one son. 9. Although a Russian by birth he is not a citizen of the soviet Russia 10. He disclaims allegiance to the Communist Government of Russia. ISSUE: Is he stateless? RULING: YES Kookooritchkin's testimony, besides being uncontradicted, is supported by the well-known fact that the ruthlessness of modern dictatorship has scattered throughout the world a large number of stateless refugees or displaced persons, without country and without flag. The tyrannical intolerance of said dictatorships toward all opposition induced them to resort to beastly oppression, concentration camps and blood purges, and it is only natural that the not-so-fortunate ones who were able to escape to foreign countries should feel the loss of all bonds of attachment to the hells which were formerly their fatherland's.

Russia are not citizens of the Soviet Russia. Official Acts of the legislature within the realm of Judicial Notice: Examples (Mandatory) 1. Laws [RA’s, BP’s, PD’s, CA’s, etc] 2. Congressional debates; acts which led to passage of laws – even the senate resolutions Foreign laws – courts must NOT take judicial notice 1. Courts must not take judicial notice 2. The foreign law must be properly pleaded and proven Llorente vs SB Jan 19, 2000 Facts: Mayor llorente wwas charged before the SB. According to him, under RA 7975, municipal mayros are not included on the list sicne they receive a salary lower than grade 27 – as a municipal mayor, he is not uner SB’s jurisdiction. Issue: Did SB have jurisdiction? Ruling: YES SB has jurisdiction over violations of RA 3019 committed by municipal mayors. Sec 444 (d) of LGC provides that the municipal mayor shall receive a minimum monthly compensation corresponding to SG 27. It is the grade that determines the salary not the other way around. To determine whether an official is within SB’s jurisdiction, reference should be made to RA 6758 and the index of occupational services position titles and salary grades.

Kookooritchkin belongs to that group of stateless refugees.

An official’s grade is not a matter of proof but a matter of law which the courts may take judicial notice.

Knowing, as all cultured persons all over the world ought to know, the history, nature and character of the Soviet dictatorship, presently the greatest menace to humanity and civilization, it would be technically fastidious to require further evidence of petitioner's claim that he is stateless than his testimony that he owes no allegiance to the Russian Communist Government and, is because he has been at war with it, he fled from Russia to permanently reside in the Philippines.

Judicial notice of ordinances 1. MTC is required to take judicial notice of ordinances of the municipality or city where it is situated. 2. RTC is required to take judicial notice: a. Of ordinances only when required to do so by the statute such as the charter of a city b. When acting as an appellate court where the inferior court took judicial notice of an ordinance involved in the said case i. So if a non-smoking case was appealed to the RTC, the RTC

Thus, the court took judicial notice of the fact that he is stateless as it is common knowledge that the old Russia ceased to exist and that the citizens of Old

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

can take judicial notice of that non-smoking ordinance When an ordinance is already capable of unquestionable demonstration.

Official acts of the executive within the Realm of Judicial notice 1. Grant of amnesty 2. Executive orders 3. Presidential decrees – when they take authority from the legislative power directly granted to the executive or by the Constitution or made pursuant to the valid legislative delegation granted to the president, have the full force and effect of law. Examples: 1. EO 292 – Family Code (Aquino) 2. PD 1529 – Land Registration Act (Marcos) 3. Proc 423 – Establishing a Military Reservation known as Fort Mckinley (Garcia) JULY 24, 2020 SOME OF THE CASES UNDER RULE 129 SINGSON vs SINGSON (Judicial Notice Not Allowed) Reporter: Hence, courts cannot take judicial notice involving psychological incapacity. Atty. Suarez: Well, obviously, no? Otherwise, there will be no need for a psychiatrist who will testify and prove the psychological incapacity of any of the parties. LANDBANK vs WYCOCO [volunteer case] (JNNA) Atty. Suarez: Are you saying that this can fall under Section 3? Reporter: Yes, the Supreme Court here said that the trial court should have given the parties the opportunity to be heard whether or not it should take judicial notice of the prevailing market value of the land. Atty. Suarez: Yes. So, if the parties agree then why not? There is no problem with that when it comes to market value of the land but the court did not ask the parties. What year is this case? Reporter: 2004 REPUBLIC vs TUNDAG FACTS: Tundag was accused of rape of his minor child. The court imposed the penalty for qualified rape, as the victim was a minor and the child of the accused.

During the trial, the age of the child was proven by the following through the following: Q: When were you born? A: I do not know. Q: You do not know your birthday? A: My mama did not tell me exactly when I asked her. COURT: Proceed. FISCAL PEREZ: For our failure to secure the Birth Certificate Your Honor, may we just request for judicial notice that the victim here is below 18 years old. ATTY. SURALTA: Admitted. … ISSUE: Was it proper for the court to take judicial notice of the age of the victim? RULING: NO. Numerous jurisprudence provides that the prosecution has the burden of proof to show the age of the victim, before the minority of the victim may be appreciated. It was wrong for the court to merely take judicial notice of the victim. The case of People vs Pruna outlines the process by which the age of the victim may be proven: In order to remove any confusion that may be engendered by the foregoing cases, we hereby set the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance. 1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. 2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age. 3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim’s mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances: a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old;

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old; c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old. 4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim’s mother or relatives concerning the victim’s age, the complainant’s testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. 5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him. Atty. Suarez: What is the date of your case? Reporter: It is in 2000 but there is a part of this case where it gives the updated Rule on Judicial Notice in Age. Atty. Suarez: Yes. Actually, this issue is also brought up under Section 4, Judicial Admission. So, we will see. Even if the victim admits her age in court, that is still not acceptable. What more judicial notice by the court. TUYO vs TUYO [volunteer case] (R129, S1) Comments: Yes. Even though the English translation is already there, there is a proper way of proving the laws of Japan. If the court did not require the proper proving to be made then that is tantamount to taking judicial notice of the Japanese Law, the English version only. That is not the way to prove it. We will see under Rule 132, how foreign laws are proven. Atty. Suraez: What is the date of your case? Reporter: July 1, 2019. BERSAMIN V. PEOPLE G.R. No. 239957 18Feb 2019 2nd Division:Perlas-Bernabe FACTS:  SPO1 Sanoy and SPO1 Nidoy of the Pasig Police Station conducted a buy-bust operation in which they were able to arrest Bersamin. They were also able recovered drugs, two firearms and ammunitions from him.  Two criminal cases werefiled against him: 1) Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drug and 2) Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. For the drug case, Bersamin



was acquitted because the prosecution nailed to prove the existence of a valid buy-bust operation. However for the illegal possession of firearms, both the RTC and CA found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Bersamin’s Contention: His arrest stemmed from the buy-bust operation where the illegal drugs and the subject firearms and ammunition were allegedly recovered from him. Thus his acquittal in the drug cases should necessarily result in his acquittal in this case as well. Prosecution’s Contention: Bersamin's acquittal in the drugs charges is immaterial to this case, the ground for his acquittal was due to the procedural flaw in the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs.

ISSUE: Whether or not the court should take judicial notice of Trinidad’s acquittal ruling in the drug case?YES HELD:“As a general rule, courts do not take judicial notice of the evidence presented in other proceedings, even if these have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge. There are exceptions to this rule.““In some instances, courts have also taken judicial notice of proceedings in other cases that are closely connected to the matter in controversy. These cases "may be so closely interwoven, or so clearly interdependent, as to invoke a rule of judicial notice. ”The drugs cases and this case are so interwoven and interdependent of each other since both the drugs, as well as the subject firearms and ammunition, were illegally seized in a singular instance, which is during the buy-bust operation. The unreasonableness of search and seizure in the drug case was mainly based on the testimonies of SPO1Sanoy’s and SPO1 Nidoy. These testimonies which were found by the court to be highly doubtful and incredible were also reiterated and mirrored in this case. Thus, the subject firearms and ammunition are also inadmissible in evidence for being recovered from the same unreasonable search and seizure as in the drugs cases. Comments: Yes, so remember the general rule is that courts cannot take judicial notice of decisions, proceedings, records in another case even though it involves the same parties, even though it is in the same court. But in this case, the Supreme Court said if the issued are so interwoven that it would be impractical not to take judicial notice, it would be like having to go through a whole procedure of presentation of evidence which is not easy and not simple. So, there are definitely exceptions

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

to the rule that only Supreme Court decision should be taken judicial notice of. People vs. Taño GR No. 133872. May 5, 2000 FACTS: “Maria Clara Doctrine” first appeared in jurisprudence in 1960 in the case of People vs. Taño wherein it was held that “it is a well-known fact that women, especially Filipinos, would not admit that they have been abused, unless that abuse had actually happened. This is due to their natural instinct to protect their honor.” In the 2000 case of People vs. Taño, the Supreme Court relied, among others, on the Woman’s Honor Doctrine: “the court takes judicial notice of the Filipina’s inbred modesty and shyness and her antipathy in publicly airing acts which blemish her honor and virtue.” Hence, no woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and submit herself to public humiliation and scrutiny via an open trial, if her sordid tale was not true and her sole motivation was not to have the culprit punished. Absent any credible imputation of ill motive on the part of the private complainant to falsely accuse the appellant of a heinous crime, her candid and consistent testimony should be given full faith and credit. It is a basic rule, founded on reason and experience, that when a victim testifies that she has been raped, she effectively says all that is necessary that rape was indeed committed.”

unnecessary notions because an accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. Take Note: People vs. Amarela was decided by the Supreme Court Third Division. Only the Supreme Court En Banc has the power to abandon timehonored doctrines. Hence, the Maria Clara Doctrine Stands. Comments: So, this is just a law of the case wherein the SC can rule differently from the previous rulings. But it doesn’t mean that there is an abandonment of a doctrine that has already been establish. Perhaps, the situation on that case would show that woman (I do not really know the facts of the Amarela case), I do not want to disagree or agree. But the Maria Clara Doctrine has not been abandoned so the courts may, perhaps, take judicial notice still because that ruling by division is not yet a doctrine. Mcauliffe Intermediate School PTO vs. de Blasio 364 F Supp 3d 253. March 4, 2019 FACTS: A case was filed against the Mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio and the New York City Department of Education Chancellor, Richard Carranza before the United States District Court of New York. A motion for judicial notice was sought of the statements which were “tweeted” by the Mayor on Twitter in his official account.

ISSUE: Whether the ruling in People vs. Amarela (2018) abandoned the Doctrine

ISSUE: Can the court take judicial notice of the Mayor’s statements posted on twitter?

RULING: No.

RULING: Yes.

The woman’s honor doctrine in People vs. Taño was decided in 1960. While the factual setting back then would have been appropriate to say it is natural for women to be reluctant in disclosing sexual assault; today, we simply cannot be stuck to the Maria Clara stereotype of a demure and reserved Filipino Woman. We should stay away from such mindset and accept the realities of a woman’s dynamic role in society today; she who has over the years transformed into a strong and confidently intelligent and beautiful person, willing to fight for her rights.

Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201 (b) provides:

In this way, we can evaluate the testimony of the complainant of rape without “gender bias or cultural misconception”. It is important to weed these

In comparison to the ruling in Juan vs Juan, (G.R. No. 221732, August 23, 2017): A court may take judicial notice of a fact not subject to

Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts (b) Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

a reasonable dispute: generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable. In this case, the statements were made: Under the Mayor’s verified account Under his name There is a blue badge next to his name which signifies that his account has undergone a verification process. Thus, the court held that that the statements can be accurately and readily determined from a source whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned. Comment: So, this is a US case. We will see if our Supreme Court will follow the ruling of the US Appellate Court. Pilipinas Shell vs. Commissioner of Customs GR No. 195876. December 5, 2016 (R129, S3) Comment: Yes, a mere memorandum is not a public knowledge. It is not notorious; the notoriety does not exist. Discussion: Let me continue with the lecture that I was giving, the summary of provisions that we took up, so far. So, the last meeting we just finished discussing or summarizing Section 1 of Rule 129, and we were looking at the official acts of the legislature and what the courts MUST take judicial notice of and what the courts SHOULD NOT take judicial notice of. Let us continue with that summary. Let us go the acts of the executive. So, just a review; public acts of the executive issuances of the grant of amnesty, issuances of executive orders, and presidential decrees - which are actually under the category of laws, when they take authority from the legislative power directly granted to the executive by the Constitution. Official Acts of the Executive Within the Realm of Judicial Notice: 1. Grant of Amnesty; 2. Executive Orders; 3. Presidential Decrees Examples: 1. EO 292 - Family Code of the Philippines [Aquino] 2. PD 1529 - Land Registration Act [Marcos]

3. Proclamation 423 - Establishing a Military Reservation known as for McKinley (now Fort Bonifacio) [Garcia] These are all acts of the executive, their official acts within the realm of judicial notice. So, let us differentiate Pardon from Amnesty: Pardon v. Amnesty; Distinctions: Pardon Amnesty Private act Public act Courts are not required Courts are mandated to to take judicial notice take judicial notice Needs to be pleaded and Not needed to be pleaded proven and proven As already discussed in the cases, not all exercises of the executive power can be subject to mandatory judicial notice, only governmental functions. Proprietary functions? No, not subject to mandatory judicial notice. But if it is public knowledge and it has this aspect of notoriety, perhaps the court may take judicial notice (under Section 2 of Rule 129). Let us go to the acts of the judiciary. Official Acts of the Judiciary Within the Realm of Judicial Notice: 1. Jurisprudence - Supreme Court Decisions 2. Lawyers duly admitted as members of the Philippine Bar - there is a list there on the SC website. That is enough to put your roll number, no need to prove that one is a lawyer. We also talked about cases another case pending before another court, can judges take judicial notice? We already discussed that. From the slides: No. A court may take judicial notice of the records and of the facts which such record establishes, but it cannot take judicial notice of the records of other caseseven if such cases are pending in the same court before the same judge.A court is supposed to take judicial notice only of the records before it in a case it is trying. When it arrives at a decision, it does not have to cite what happened in other cases. General Rule: Supreme Court Decisions are given mandatory judicial notice, BUT Decisions of other courts are not. Exception: Permissible judicial notice of record of the case of the lower court. When in the knowledge of andABSENT OF OBJECTIONfrom the parties,

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

reference is made to it for that purpose and admitted as part of the record of the case then pending, it can be taken judicial notice. RP vs. CA and Gacot, Aug. 18, 1997 [PARAS]  In its OWN court - A judge shall take judicial notice of: o Its own records in the SAME CASE o FACTS established in prior proceedings in the SAME CASE o The authenticity of its own records of another case between the SAME PARTIES o The files of related cases in the SAME COURT o The record of another case between different parties 

In ANOTHER court - A judge shall take judicial notice of: o The record, pleading or judgment of a case between the SAME PARTIES o The court personnel

People v. Hernandez, Jul 30, 1996 In OTHER CASES, in OTHER COURTS - A judge may take judicial notice of the records: 1. When, in theabsence of any objectionor with the consent of the parties, the recording of a previous case is admitted as part of the records of the case then pending 2. When theother proceedings have a close connection with the matter in controversy in the pending case,intertwined issues, and facts. So, let us just summarized Section 2 of Rule 129. Types of Judicial Notice - Discretionary [Section 2] Courts MAY take judicial notice of matters which: (not cumulative but alternative) 1. Are ofpublic knowledge; or 2. Arecapable to unquestionable demonstration;or 3. Ought to be knownto judges because of their judicial functions Here, a little summary of what the courts MAY take judicial notice of: 1. People vs. Estomaco [April 22, 1996, En Banc] – the court may take judicial notice that several regional or local dialects are spoken in various parts of the country.

2. Southeastern College vs .CA [July 10, 1998, 3 rd Division] – the court may take judicial notice that typhoons are common occurrences in the Philippines 3. Estrada vs. Desierto [Apr 3, 2001, En Banc] – the court may take judicial notice that Erap resigned from office 4. People vs. Penaflorida [Sep 2, 1999, 1st Division] – the court may take judicial notice of the actuality that witnesses in this country are usually reluctant or unwilling to be involved in criminal investigations. 5. People vs. Espinosa [Mar 28, 1995, 3rd Division – the court may take judicial notice of the records of a case pending before it. This is an exception. There is a qualification here. 6. People vs. Kulais [Jul 16, 1998, 1 st Division] – courts should not take judicial notice of evidence presented in other proceedings, even if these have been tried or pending in the same court of and are actually pending before the same judge 7. People vs. Martinez [Jun 19, 1997, 2 nd Division] – courts may take judicial notice of the value of stolen property 8. Francisco vs. People [Jul 12, 2004, 2 nd Division] – courts cannot take judicial notice of the value of stolen property 9. Salamera vs. SB [Feb 17, 1999, 1st Division] – a court cannot take judicial notice of a disputed fact 10. Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu proprio, or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter. Before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, motu proprio, or upon motion, may take judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. (n) Judicial Notice, When Hearing Necessary  How: Motu proprio, or upon motion  When:  During the pre-trial and the trial – the court shall hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter.  Before judgement or on appeal, the property court:  May take judicial notice of any matter, and  shall hear the parties thereon

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case Discussion: Sec. 3 has two parts—during pretrial and trial and then before judgement or on appeal. Do not forget that when the court is about to render judgement, there is already a presentation of evidence and it has been completed. The evidence has been offered and admitted. So what does the court take judicial notice of under Paragraph 2? Something that was not presented evidence. How can the court do this? Motu proprio or upon motion by any party. i.e. Your honor there is this piece of evidence that is not presented. If such matters are decisive of a material issue of the case, then the court can set a hearing. But, if it is not decisive, the court can take judicial notice thereof because it says here ‘MAY’. It is really up to the court. This is discretionary upon the court whether or not to take judicial notice. What about in paragraph 1, does this only apply to section 2—discretionary notice? Perhaps it can also apply to Section 1 which is Mandatory when we are talking about something that is an ordinance or a matter or an act of the judicial department, rules and regulations promulgated by the court. Comment: I think that is something that the court should take judicial notice of because it is the Supreme Court itself that promulgates. What if it is a rule promulgated by the Court of Appeals IRCA? (Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals) Maybe the court can set a hearing and ask the party if we shall take judicial notice or if it is proper to take judicial notice thereof. That perhaps can also be the subject of a hearing. This is under paragraph 1—during pre-trial and trial. Remember, when there is a hearing, the only thing that is discussed is the propriety of taking judicial notice. This means the court just wants the parties to give there take on it whether it should be or should not be taken judicial notice. There is no presentation of evidence regarding the matter that the court wants to take judicial notice of or the party, upon motion, wants the court to take judicial notice of.

Distinctions – Judicial Notice When Hearing Necessary PAR. 1 During pre-trial and trial

AS TO Stage of the Proceeding

The court SHALL motu proprio or upon motion hear the parties

What happens

xxx

When the court shall hear the parties thereon

The propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter Hearing → The court will take judicial notice if proper

Subject of the hearing Sequence Events

PAR. 3 Before Judgement or on appeal The court MAY motu proprio or upon motion take judicial notice of any matter If such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case The propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter The court takes judicial notice → hearing if the matter is decisive

Trial vs. Hearing TRIAL HEARING Involves the presentation Parties are gien the of evidence opportunity to be heard Involves a specifically No particular procedure is designed procedure followed Discussion: If you remember the distinctions between a trial and a hearing: [1] Trial – involves the presentation of evidence [2] Hearing – the parties are given the opportunity to be heard. So a trial involves a specifically designed procedure which we took up in Civil Procedure—including the presentation of evidence which we will continue discussion on. But, for hearing of a matter, there’s really no set of procedure. The court can just ask the counsel of each party or the judge can ask questions to the party directly; the lawyer can answer directly. So it’s just an opportunity to be heard. What is required under Sec. 3? It is merely a hearing, not a trial.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, oral or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in fact, made. (2a) If ever there is a bar question under Rule 129, this is the favorite source of the examiners—Judicial admissions. What is a judicial admission? An admission:  oral or written  made by the party [not a witness]  in the course of the proceedings [not outside]  in the same case If you notice, there are amendments. The amendments are merely formal amendments of the rule because there is no change in the idea. The body that amended these rules merely improved on the wording of Sec. 4. Old Provision: Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. (2a) It used to be “oral” and now it’s “verbal”. That part was just reworded. So there is not much difference. Admission  “oral or written, made by the party”  A judicial admission is made by a witness but by a party. “in the course of the proceedings in the same case”  It is within the proceedings, not outside, after, or before. It is in the same case—not in another case. Take note of this definition of a judicial admission. “does not require proof” General Rule: A judicial admission does not require proof. Hence, it cannot be contradicted by the party who made it. Can it be contradicted by the opposing party? Yes. But not the party who made it. “The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in fact, made”

Exceptions: A judicial admission may be contradicted only by the party who made it by showing that it was made through:  palpable mistake—he mistakenly made the admission; or  that the imputed admission was not, in fact, made. Those are the two exceptions. Characteristics of a Judicial Admission 1. Oral or Written 2. It is made by the party in the course of the proceedings which may be in any of the following: a. Pleadings, such as complaint or answer b. Motions c. Modes of Discovery with request for admission d. Stipulation of Facts e. Statements made in the course of the trial 3. Made in the same case and not in any other case What are the legal effects when admission is made?  It does not require proof  it cannot be contradicted by the party who made it, except when he can show that: o the admission was made through palpable mistake o the imputed admissions was not, in fact, made CASES UNDER SECTION 4 OF RULE 129 REPUBLIC VS SARABIA Comment: This is under the general rule that an admission cannot be controverted by the party who made it. In this case, it was definitely the party Sarabia who made the admission and the answer in the pre-trial brief. When you become lawyers, be careful. Do not just admit and admit. Although it was not expressly stated, but the fact that it was stated there that “we admit the allegations in paragraphs 1-6”. That means a lot. It’s already a judicial admission. Binarao v. Plus Builders, Inc. GR No. 154430; 16 June 2006 Second Division: Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. Facts: In a civil action for collection of sum of money, the plaintiff (Plus Builders, Inc.) alleged in its Complaint that the defendants (Spouses Binarao)

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

have an unpaid debt to the former. In their Answer, the defendants did not specifically deny such allegation. Issue: What is the effect of a defendant’s failure to specifically deny, in his answer, a material allegation in the complaint? Ruling: The material allegation not specifically denied in the answer is deemed admitted. There is, in effect, a judicial admission of such material allegation. Rule 8, Section 10 of the Rules provides that a defendant must specify, in his answer, each material allegation of fact stated in the complaint, the truth of which he does not admit. Otherwise, Rule 8, Section 11 says that such material allegations not specifically denied shall be deemed admitted. Such admission, having been made by the defendant in the course of judicial proceedings, is a judicial admission. In the case at bar, the Spouses Binarao failed to specifically deny in their answer Plus Builders’ allegation that the former still have an unpaid debt to the latter. Hence, there is a judicial admission of the fact that the Spouses Binarao still have an unpaid debt to Plus Builders Comment: That is why evidence is taken after Criminal Procedure and Civil Procedure because we already know that admissions need not be expressly made. Here, we have an instance when there was no specific denial and you know specifically deny by saying ‘No, I did not owe him this much.’ This is failure to specifically deny and thus, an admission. It’s all of the material allegations not specifically denied are deemed admitted. That is also a judicial admission because it was made in the answer. St. Mary’s Farm vs Prima Real Property FACTS: St. Mary’s Farm here passed and approved a board resolution authorizing Agana to cede to T.S. Cruz Subdivision a part of its registered land which is situated in Las Pinas City. After the consummation of the transaction, Agana did not return the borrowed title and allegedly forged a board resolution authorizing him to sell the remaining part of that Las Pinas property. Subsequently, the property was sold to Prima Real Property. Upon such knowledge, St. Mary’s Property filed a complaint for the annulment of sale. It was filed against Agana and Prima Real Properties. Agana for his part, in his Answer, said he had the authority to sell the subject property. However, during trial, Agana

made a retraction in his comment in the petition filed with the Supreme Court. He admitted that he acted solely and without proper authority of the corporation. He stated that he wishes to end once and for all the rift that had occurred in the corporation and he was willing to return the money paid by Prima Real Properties so that ownership of the property can be returned to St. Mary Inc. ISSUE: Whether or not Agana’s belated retraction may be given merit by the SupremeCourt. RULING: The Supreme Court held here that no. It cannot give weight to the magnanimous gesture of Agana. It is noteworthy here that is it raised for the first time in the Supreme Court and it was only after 8 years from the inception of the case. In all pleadings that Agana filed before the court, he was steadfast in his position that he had the authority to sell the subject property. Now, applying Rule 129 in the case at bar, Section 4 provides that the admission may only be contradicted by showing that first it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made or if we were to use the amendment, the imputed admission was not in fact made. So, otherwise stated, acts and facts admitted in the course of the proceeding do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless it was shown that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. So, in the case at bar, the general rule that judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it, applies. It is noteworthy here that none of the exceptions were present in the case. Therefore, Agana cannot thereafter take a position contradictory to or inconsistent with his pleadings. So, the retraction was only an afterthought on the part of Agana with the intention to end the rift in the corporation. Therefore, the retraction that Agana made during trial cannot be given merit by the Court. Comment: Yes. So, this is, again, under the general rule. People vs. Abello FACTS: Here, we have Abello who was accused of one count of rape under Article 266-A of the RPC and two counts of sexual abuse under R.A. 7610. The victim here is a 21-year-old “AAA”, who contracted polio when she was 7 years old. Now, during trial, AAA testified the details of the rape and the sexual abuse she suffered in Abello’s hand and that she was able to recognize and identify Abello as the

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

perpetrator of the crimes. Now, the relevant fact of this case if the admission made by Abello during trial that he is married to AAA’s mother and as such, he is the stepfather of AAA. ISSUE: Whether or not Abello’s admission falls under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court or specifically, judicial admissions which does not require proof. RULING: The Supreme Court held here that no. Although, in Section 4 of Rules 129 of the Rules of Court, it provides that judicial admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof. However, in this case, Abello’s admission does not fall under such provision as the Supreme Court held that the marriage contract still remains the best evidence to prove the fact of marriage. Here, the Supreme Court applied a stricter requirement as relationship as an aggravating circumstance, increases the imposable penalty and hence, must be proven by competent evidence. Therefore, since Abello’s admission still needs to be proven by the marriage contract as the best evidence to prove the fact of marriage. It does not fall under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court. Comments: We are now seeing cases where the Supreme Court does not accept a judicial admission. Why? Because of the constitutional provision, the presumption of evidence plus the fact that everything must be construed in favor of the accused. So, when it is unfavorable to the accused – like in this case where he made an admission, the Supreme Court said to just prove it. Its so easy to prove, just show the marriage contract. We will see other cases later where the Supreme Court will reject an admission made especially in criminal cases. People vs Villanueva FACTS: In this case, three (3) informations for the crime of rape were filed against Villanueva. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated that Villanueva is the father of “AAA”. It was likewise agreed that “AAA” was below 12 years of age when the rape incidents happened. Eventually, both the trial and appellate court found him guilty. Villanueva now argues that he should only be held liable for simple rape and not qualified rape because the minority of the victim was not duly establish. The appellate court, however, recalled that

during pre-trial, the minority of the victim and her relationship with Villanueva had already been stipulated upon. Hence, the said elements have been sufficiently alleged in the Informations and proven during trial. ISSUE: Whether or not the admissions made in the pre-trial agreement can be considered by the courts in deciding the case. RULING: The Supreme Court held that no. The admissions during pre-trial were not admissible as it violates Section 2 of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court which explicitly provides that: “All agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and his counsel, otherwise they cannot be used against the accused.” In this case, records would show that the Pre-Trial Order was not signed by both Villanueva and his counsel. Therefore, the admissions made in the pretrial agreement cannot be used against Villanueva and cannot be used in deciding the case. Del Rosario vs Gerry Roxas FACTS: In this case, Spouses Del Rosario came to be the owner of the subject property which was a land. It was being occupied by the Foundation. Spouses Del Rosario filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the foundation. The foundation, on the other hand, admitted that they took possession and occupancy of the said land. However, they were saying that it was lawful because it was by virtue of a Memorandum of Agreement that they had with the City of Roxas. The MOA was for a contract of lease and their lease has not expired yet. So, it must be noted again that what was filed here by Spouses Del Rosario was a complaint for unlawful detainer. They alleged in their complaint that sometime in 1991, without their consent and authority, the foundation took full control and possession of the subject property and that they have allowed the foundation to make use of such land without any contractual or legal basis. So, now, the Municipal Trial Court dismissed the complaint for unlawful detainer filed by Sps. Del Rosario saying that they failed to state a cause of action. They further ruled that there was indeed a contract of lease and that the true owner was the City of Roxas. This ruling was both affirmed by the RTC and the CA.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

The issue arose here because Sps. Del Rosario was saying that the MTC was incorrect in dismissing their complain because the court just limited itself in interpreting a single phrase or allegation in their complaint in determining if there was a case for unlawful detainer. The relevant allegations here by Sps. Del Rosario in their complaint was that it was without their consent and authority; that there was no contractual or legal basis. A quick review on our property law, in unlawful detainer, possession was originally lawful but became unlawful versus forcible entry where possession is illegal from the very beginning. So, the MTC, here, ruled there was no case for no case for unlawful detainer because based on the allegation made by Sps. Del Rosario the possession was illegal. ISSUE: Whether or not the allegations in Sps. Del Rosario’s complaint constitutes judicial admission. RULING: The Court said here that yes citing Section 4 of Rule 129. It further said that judicial admissions are one so made in pleadings filed or in the progress of a trial as to dispense with the introduction of evidence otherwise necessary to dispense with some rules of practice necessary to be observed and complied with. Furthermore, they said that facts alleged in the complaint are deemed admissions of the plaintiff and binding upon him and that allegations, statements, or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader. So, in this case, Sps. Del Rosario judicially admitted that the foundation took full control and possession fo the subject property without their consent and authority and that it was without any contractual or legal basis. So, the proper remedy here would have been to file a forcible entry case. The MTC was correct in dismissing the unlawful detainer case for failing to state a sufficient cause of action. Comment: The admissions made here by the parties was that there was no lawful possession from the very beginning. Hence, it is not an unlawful detainer case. It should be forcible entry. Vidar vs People FACTS: In this case, a criminal charge for robbery with homicide was filed against Vidar, Butalon and Marbella for brutally murdering Sgt. Dioneda and for taking valuables from his house located in Sorsogon

City. So, Vidar et.al. here pleaded not guilty and strongly denied the accusations alleging that the possible motive behind the charge against them is that they were known members of the New People’s Army. The RTC rejected their defense and found all of them guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide. Vidar et.al appealed to the Court of Appeals and said that it was erroneous for the RTC to not find that the robbery with homicide were committed in furtherance of rebellion since the witnesses of both parties already admitted that Sgt. Dioneda was killed by reason of his being a member of the Philippine Army and in the performance of his duty. Vidar et.al. here were members of the NPA of which they were still members of even up to the time of their arrest. So, basically, here, they were saying that they committed the crime in furtherance of rebellion obviously just to escape or to mitigate criminal liability. ISSUE: Whether or not the admissions made by the accused is conclusively binding on them. RULING: The Supreme Court held here that yes citing Section 4 of Rule 129. The Court here held that a judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it and he cannot thereafter take a position contradictory to or inconsistent with his pleadings. So as discussed earlier, the only way to contradict such judicial admission by the party who made it is to show that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. However, in this case, those two situations were not present. What happened here was that in their pleadings, Vidar et.al. were steadfast in their position that the crimes committed were in furtherance of rebellion just to escape criminal liability for the charge that was pressed against them. So, according to the Supreme Court, this was already tantamount to judicial admission that they indeed committed the crime. Comment: Yes. So this is not an example of a palpable mistake that was made. But it was really an admission that they were members of the NPA. LANDOIL VS AL RABIAH GR. No. 174720 September 7, 2011 Facts: Construction Consortium Incorporation (CCI) entered into a sub-contract agreement, where Landoil is also a party thereto, with Al Rabiah for electrical work of a certain oil company.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Landoil sent a letter to Rabiah, confirming that it owe Rabiah certain sum of money. Landoil inform Rabiah that the project owner had already terminated its contract and agreed to pay Rabiah 12% per year on the unpaid bills of the completed work. Landoil fails to pay Rabiah. Rabiah referred its dispute to Commercial Court of Kuwait for Arbitration. The Arbitrator ruled in favor of Rabiah. Xxx Land Oil Resources Company (Construction Construction Incorporation) is liable to Al Rabiah Lightning Company xxx

Foreign Judgment filed with the RTC • Admits that it is the party referred to in the foreign arbitral award. 6. Sub-contract agreement Based on these documents, Landoil judicially admits its liability with Al Rabiah. Under the doctrine of estoppels, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereof. HEIRS OF FERRAREN VS CA GR. No. 159328 October 5, 2011

Rabiah filed an action with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, for enforcement of foreign judgment plus damages against CCI and Landoil. Answer: Landoil admits:  The existence of the sub-contract agreement but claimed to have no knowledge as to its genuineness and due execution.  It was not a party to the proceedings before the foreign arbitrator. The dispositive portion of the foreign arbitral award only indicates one defendant liable to Rabiah, Land Oil Resources Company (Construction Consortium Incorporation).

Facts: In 1960: The father of Celia Tadier (Celia) sold a 1200 square meter lot to the Spouses Feraren on pacto de retro with a period of 10 years to repurchase the same.

Issue: Whether or not landoil is liable to Rabiah?

In 1999: Celia filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court, complaint for unlawful detainer against the Heirs of Feraren.

Ruling: Yes. Sec. 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. Documents considered: 1. Letter • Owing Rabiah certain some of money 2. Answer to the complaint: • The arbitral award directs the Landoil to pay 3. Appeal Brief: • Acknowledged being the defendant against whom the arbitral award was being enforced 4. Answer with counterclaim • Admits its knowledge and participation in the sub-contract agreement, but interpose special affirmative defense 5. Memorandum of Authorities on the Invalidity and Unenforceability of the

In 1970: Celia repurchased the said lot. However it was leased on a month-to-month basis to the Spouses Feraren who constructed a residential house on the said lot. After the death of the Spouses, the heirs asked Celia that they be allowed to lease the property until June 1997 and volunteered to vacate after.

In the answer of the heirs of Feraren, they alleged that a 128-square meter portion of the lot claimed by Celia is their property; even before the said pacto de retro sale made between their parents and Celia’s father, they were already in possession by virtue of a contract of lease executed in their favor in 1949 which they built their residential house. In the Position Paper on appeal of the heirs of Feraren state that the house presently standing on the subject lot is different from the house built on the same in 1949. That the house built on 1949 when their parents were lessees was demolished to give way to the construction of the present house in the 1960s when the lot was owned by their parents by virtue of the pacto de retro sale. Issue: Whether or not the answer made by the Heirs of Feraren constituted as a judicial admission under Rule 129 Section 4. Ruling:

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

In any case, the Court finds no error in the ruling of the Court of Appeals that heirs of Feraren’s statement in their Answer, “that their parents built the subject residential house as lessees under the authority given to them by Celia’s father in their contract of lease executed in 1949”, is a judicial admission. Under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, heirs of Feraren’s may not contradict this judicial admission unless they are able to show that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

membership and ECI credit card;

In the instant case, the heirs of Feraren’s subsequent claim in their Position Paper that their house was built during the time that their parents were the owners of the disputed lot is a direct contradiction of their judicial admission in their Answer. However, heirs of Feraren’s failed to prove that such admission was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Hence, they may not contradict the same.

RTC: Having failed to deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of ECI's actionable documents that were attached to the complaint, Mrs. Capistrano impliedly admitted the genuineness and due execution of those documents.;

Thus, it appears from all indications that heirs' claims and allegations in their Position Paper contradicting their admission in their Answer are mere afterthought subsequent to realizing that they could not recover the full value of the house based on their acknowledgment that the same was erected at the time that their parents were lessees of the disputed parcel of land. Comment: This is under the general rule. The admission was made in the answer. They could no longer contradict that. EQUITABLE CARDNETWORK VS CAPISTRANO GR. No. 180157 February 8, 2012 Facts: Equitable Cardnetwork, Inc. (ECI): Alleged that Josefa B. Capistrano applied for membership at the Manila Yacht Club (MYC) under the ECI's widow-membership program. Alleged that Mrs. Capistrano authorized her daughter, Valentina C. Redulla , to claim from ECI her credit card and ATM application form. Stated that Mrs. Capistrano was unable to settle her bill, ECI demanded for payment but she refused to pay. Filed on a collection suit against her before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. Josefa B. Capistrano: In her Answer stated she never applied for MYC

Mrs. Redulla was not her daughter; and She never authorized her or anyone to claim a credit card for her. During trial, Equitable presented all the documents attached also in its complaint. Josefa presented evidence that her signatures on the subject documents were forged.

Mrs. Capistrano could no longer raise the defense of forgery since this had been cut-off by her failure to make a specific denial CA: Reversed RTC’s decision Although Mrs. Capistrano's answer was somewhat infirm, still she raised the issue of the genuineness and due execution of ECI's documents during trial by presenting evidence that she never signed any of them.; ECI did not object on time to Mrs. Capistrano's evidence that her signatures on the subject documents were forged, such omission cured her defective denial of their genuineness and due execution. Mrs. Capistrano sufficiently proved by evidence that her signatures had been forged. Issue: Is the CA correct? Ruling: The CA was quite incorrect. Rule 129, Section 4: 1997 Rules - 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 swas made. (2a) Am 19-08-15-SC - Judicial admissions. – An

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

admission, oral 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 the imputed admission was not, in fact, made. It is true that issues not raised by the pleadings may be tried with the implied consent of the parties as when one of them fails to object to the evidence adduced by the other concerning such unimpleaded issues. The Court of Appeals fails to reckon with the rule that a party's admissions in the course of the proceedings, like “an admission in the answer of the genuineness and true execution of the plaintiff's actionable documents, can only be contradicted by showing that defendant made such admission through palpable mistake”. Here, Mrs. Capistrano never claimed palpable mistake in the answer she filed. The Court ruled inElayda v. Court of Appeals,a trial court may reject evidence that a party adduces to contradict a judicial admission he made in his pleading since such admission is conclusive as to him. It does not matter that the other party failed to object to the contradictory evidence so adduced. Comment: According to the SC, the party who presents evidence to contradict his admission may not be allowed to do so even if the other party does not object. Unless the two requisites are present: made through palpable mistakes or that no such admission was made. PCIC VS CENTRAL COLLEGES GR. No. 180631-33 February 22, 2012 Facts: On May 16, 2000, Central Colleges of the Philippines(CCP),an educational institution, contracted the services of Dynamic Planners and Construction Corporation (DPCC) to be its general contractor for the construction of its five (5)-storey school building at No. 39 Aurora Boulevard, Quezon City, with a total contract price of ₱248,000,000.00. As embodied in a Contract Agreement,3the construction of the entire building would be done in two phases with each phase valued at ₱124,000,000.00. To guarantee the fulfillment of the obligation, DPCC posted three (3) bonds, all issued by the Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation(PCIC), namely: (1) Surety Bond No. PCIC-45542 - ₱7,031,460.74 (2) Performance Bond No. PCIC-45541 ₱6,199,999.99

(3) Performance Bond No. PCIC-46172 - ₱692,890.74 The Phase 1 of the project was completed without issue. The Phase 2 of the project, however, encountered numerous delays. In a letter dated October 29, 2003 addressed to DPCC and PCIC, CCP informed them of the breach in the contract and its plan to claim on the construction bonds. On November 6, 2003, CCP notified DPCC and PCIC that only 51% of the project was completed, which was way behind the construction schedule, prompting it to declare the occurrence of default against DPCC. It formally requested PCIC to remit the proceeds of the bonds. On August 20, 2004, PCIC denied CCP’s claims against the three bonds. CCP filed a complaint with request for arbitration before the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) against DPCC and PCIC. CIAC ruled in favor of CCP. All parties appealed to the CA and the CA ruled in favor of CCP. It did not give weight to PCIC’s defense that Bond No. 46172 was already released because the said issue was never raised before the CIAC and was raised for the first time on appeal PCIC argues that the CA erred in sustaining the award of ₱692,890.74 representing Performance Bond PCIC-46172 because the obligation guaranteed by said performance bond was already completed, therefore, no liability should attach against the said bond. Issue: Whether PCIC is liable to CCP under Performance Bond No. PCIC-46172? Ruling: Yes. The issue on Performance Bond PCIC- 46172 was extensively discussed during the arbitral tribunal’s hearing of February 21, 2005. Testimony of Crispino P. Reyes, CCP’s President: 1) “We’re interested in 45542 and we’re interested in 45541. What we’re no longer interested in, we have to be candid to this Honorable Tribunal, we are no longer interested, [we] no longer want to collect on Performance Bond 46172.” 2) “Then therefore the liability on 46172 should be released. They are only covered by the pleadings especially the Complaint.” It is clear from the testimony of Crispino P. Reyes,

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

CCP’s President, that the school no longer wants to collect on Performance Bond PCIC 46172 (with a value of ₱692,890.74). This statement before the arbitral tribunal is a judicial admission effectively settling the issue with respect to PCIC 46172. Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides: Sec. 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. A party may make judicial admissions in (a) the pleadings; (b) during the trial, either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages of the judicial proceeding. 38It is an established principle that judicial admissions cannot be contradicted by the admitter who is the party himself39and binds the person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it.40

Despite the Stipulation to the contrary, the CTA Second Division found Petron to have participated in the fraudulent issuance and transfer of the TCCs. Aggrieved, Petron appealed the Decision to the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA En Banc). However, the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA En Banc) found that Petron had no participation in or knowledge of the fraudulent issuance and transfer of the subject TCCs. In fact, the parties made a joint stipulation on this matter before the CTA Second Division. Issue: Whether the Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues of the CIR and Petron before the CTA Second Division issued during the pretrial is a judicial admission?

Since CCP, through its President, judicially admitted that it is no longer interested in pursuing PCIC-46172, the scope of its claim will just be confined to Surety Bond No. PCIC-45542 and Performance Bond No. PCIC-45541.

Ruling: Yes. 1997 Rules of Court, Rule 129. What Need be Proven: Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, oral or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in fact, made.

COMMISIONER VS PETRON GR. No. 185568 March 21, 2012

This stipulation of fact by the CIR before the CTA Second Division amounts to an admission.

Facts: Petron Corporation (Petron) filed a petition before the Court of Tax Appeals Second Division (CTA Second Division) contesting the alleged deficiency excise taxes assessed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) against Petron for the taxable years 1995 to 1998.

Having been made by the parties in a stipulation of facts at pretrial, it is treated as a judicial admission.

The alleged deficiency excise taxes were based on the ground that the Tax Credit Certificates (TCCs) utilized by Petron in its payment of excise taxes have been cancelled for having been fraudulently issued and transferred. During the pretrial before the CTA Second Division, both the CIR and Petron issued a Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues which included the following stipulation: “13. That Petron did not participate in the procurement and issuance of the TCCs, which TCCs were transferred to Petron and later utilized by Petron in payment of its excise taxes.”

Under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, a judicial admission requires no proof. The Court cannot lightly set it aside, especially when the opposing party relies upon it and accordingly dispenses with further proof of the fact already admitted. The exception provided in Rule 129, Section 4 is that an admission may be contradicted only by a showing that it was made through a palpable mistake, or that no such admission was made. In this case, however, exception to the rule does not exist. Petron had the right to rely on the joint stipulation that absolved it from any participation in the alleged fraud related to the issuance and procurement of the

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

subject TCCs. The joint stipulation made by the parties consequently made the opportunity of the CIR to present evidence on this matter unnecessary. Thus, the CIR cannot now be allowed to change its stand and renege on that admission. Comment: There was a joint admission (oral admission) and under the general rule. STEELCASE VS DESIGN INTERNATIONAL GR. No. 171995 April 18, 2012 Facts: Petitioner Steelcase, Inc.(Steelcase)is a foreign corporation existing under the laws of Michigan, United States of America(U.S.A.), and engaged in the manufacture of office furniture with dealers worldwide. Respondent Design International Selections, Inc.(DISI)is a corporation existing under Philippine Laws and engaged in the furniture business, including the distribution of furniture. Sometime in 1986 or 1987, Steelcase and DISI orally entered into a dealership agreement whereby Steelcase granted DISI the right to market, sell, distribute, install, and service its products to end-user customers within the Philippines. The business relationship continued smoothly until it was terminated sometime in January 1999 after the agreement was breached with neither party admitting any fault. In January 1999, the agreement was terminated because it was breached. Steelcase filed a complaint for sum of money against DISI. DISI filed its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims alleging, among others, that Steelcase does not have the capacity to sue since it is a foreign corporation doing business in Philippines without the required license to do so. Steelcase argues that DISI was estopped from challenging its capacity to sue in the Philippines since it voluntarily entered into a dealership agreement with Steelcase despite the fact that Steelcase allegedly does not have the license to do business in the Philippines and such fact was already established and admitted by DISI in the case at bar. Issue: Whether or not the admission by DISI that it entered

into a dealership agreement with Steelcase resulted in the applicability of estoppel against DISI? Ruling: Yes. DISI is already estopped from challenging Steelcase’s capacity to sue in the Philippines. Rule 129, Section 4 of the Rules on Evidence provides that a written admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof. In the case of Rimbunan Hijau Group of Companies v. Oriental Wood Processing Corporation, the Supreme Court held that unequivocal admission of the transaction which gave rise to the complaint establishes the applicability of estoppel against it. Further, in the case of Elayda v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that an admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive as to him. In the case at bar, DISI entered into a dealership agreement with Steelcase and profited from it for 12 years from 1987 until 1999. It admits that it complied with its obligations under the dealership agreement by exerting more effort and making substantial investments in the promotion of Steelcase products. Entering into a dealership agreement with Steelcase charged DISI with the knowledge that Steelcase was not licensed to engage in business activities in the Philippines. Therefore, by acknowledging the corporate entity of Steelcase and entering into a dealership agreement with it and even benefiting from it, DISI is estopped from questioning Steelcase’s existence and capacity to sue. Comment: When you become lawyers be very careful in making allegations about entering into agreements because these are considered judicial admissions. JULY 27, 2020 BANK OF COMMERCE V. HEIRS OF DELA CRUZ [ G.R. NO. 211519, AUGUST 14, 2017] FACTS: In 1970 Rodolfo Dela Cruz maintained a bank account with Panasia, under the name of his business Mamertha Merchandising.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

In 1988 Dela Cruz discovered that Panasia allowed his son Allan to withdraw money from his account without his consent and authority. Upon the discovery he immediately sent a letter to the bank instructing them to not allow his son to make any withdrawal without his authority. Despite the letter sent by Dela Cruz, Panasia still allowed Allan to withdraw money from his account. The unauthorized withdrawals amounted to 56 million Pesos, this pressed Dela Cruz to file an complaint for recovery of sum of money. July 2000 a Purchase and Sale Agreement was entered between Panasia and Bank of Commerce, where the latter acquired Panasia’s assets and liabilities on certain bank deposits. Bank of Commerce then demanded Dela Cruz for the payment of the 27-million-peso loan that he acquired from Panasia. ISSUE WON the taking of the judicial notice of the merger by the regional trial court was proper? RULING: NO! Sections 2 of Rule 129, Judicial notice, when discretionary. A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. Citing the case of State Prosecutors vs Muro The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative. Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court. The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety.. In this case, the merger of Bank of Commerce and

Panasia was not of common knowledge. It was overly presumptuous for the Regional Trial Court to thereby assume the merger because of the element of notoriety as basis for taking judicial notice of the merger was loudly lacking. There are several specific facts whose existence must be shown before the merger of two or more corporations can be declared as established fact. Among such facts are:   



The articles of the surviving corporation; Approval plan of the merger; Submission of the approved articles of merger executed by both corporations to the Securities and Exchange Commssion [SEC]; and The certificate issued by the SEC on the approval of the merger.

Therefore, having specifically denied the allegation of Dela Cruz of the merger, the Regional Trial Court had no factual and legal bases to take constructive notice of any of the foregoing circumstances. It should have required proof of the acquisition of the liability of Panasia on the part of Bank of Commerce. ENRILE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN [G.R. NO. 213847, JULY 12, 2016] FACTS: Enrile here was charged with plunder on the basis of his reported involvement in the PDAF controversy. Thereafter, a warrant of arrest was issued. However, within the same day he voluntarily surrendered and was confined at the PNP general hospital. Enrile then applied for bail and said that the granting of his bail was a matter of right because of the presence of mitigating circumstances that because of his age and that he voluntarily surrendered. Enrile here was claiming that even though plunder is punished by reclusion perpetua, but because of the presence of the mitigating circumstances it will be lessened and now therefore his bail will become a matter of right. However, the Sandiganbayan here did not agree with Enrile and said that the presence of the mitigating circumstances are not taken into consideration for the purpose of bail. It is only appreciated in the imposition of the proper penalty after the trial. Thus, the Sandiganbayan denied Enrile's motion for bail.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

An important fact in this case is the testimony of Dr. Gonzales. He testified that Enrile was suffering from a lot of medical conditions. It states that Enrile's state of health is fragile and this fact is important because this is the basis of the supreme court in ruling on whether or not his bail should be granted.

FACTS: In this case spouses Niamatali who were then residing in the USA made known to Saldana their intention to acquire real properties in Manila. Saldana then informed them that there is a parcel of land located in Las Piñas which would be sold in public auction.

ISSUE: WON the court should take judicial notice of Enrile's fragile state of health in granting bail?

Thereafter, spouses Niamatali asked Saldana to participate in the auction in their behalf. The spouses here remitted 3 million pesos to Saldana's bank account for the purchase of the Las Piñas property.

RULING: YES! The court here took judicial notice of Enrile's health citing the universal declaration of human rights. The circumstance here was the fragile state of health coupled with his advanced age. The court here said that the circumstances decisive of the issue of bail is existent either admitted by the prosecution or is properly subject of judicial notice. Now, the court also held here that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying Enrile's motion for bail saying that it disregarded the clear showing of fragile health and advanced age of Enrile. In taking judicial notice of his health it seems like section 2 of rule 129 here was applied. In the dissenting of opinion of Justice Leonen, he said that nowhere in the rules of procedure do we allow the grant of bail based on judicial notice of a doctor's certification. In doing so, we effectly suspend our rules on evidence by doing away with cross examination and authentication of Dr. Gonzales' finding. Justice Leonen cited section 2 of Rule 129 on what are the matters that the court can take judicial notice of in its discretion. He then said that Enrile's medical ailment are not matters that are of public knowledge, capable of unquestionable demonstration and that his illness is not a matter of general notoriety. It is important to take note of how the ruled in this case because this is an en banc case and this is how the court ruled with regard to judicial notice. Comment: I agree with the majority that it is possible to take judicial notice of the fact that Enrile is over 90 years old and that anybody who is over 90 years old must be suffering from some kind of ailment. GONZALES-SALDANA V. SPOUSES NIAMATALI [ G.R. NO. 226587, NOVEMBER 21, 2018]

However the auction sale of the Las Piñas property did not push through because of a third party claim. So, upon the return of spouses Niamatali to the Philippines, they informed Saldana that they are no longer interested in acquiring the Las Piñas property and asked for the return of the 3 million to which Saldana agreed. Despite several demands from Niamatali, Saldana failed to return the P3,000,000.00. Thus, on March 6, 2006, Niamatali filed a case for collection of sum of money, moral damages and attorney's fees against Saldana The CA here held that spouses Niamatali need not prove the fact that they sent money to Saldana because the latter's admission that the amount of P3,000,000.00 was transmitted to her, having been made in her Answer, could be treated as a judicial admission. ISSUE: WON the statements in Saldana's answer constitutes judicial admission? RULING: YES! A judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, which dispenses with the need for proof with respect to the matter or fact admitted. It may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.. A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge [the] fact as judicial admissions are a waiver of proof; production of evidence is dispensed with. A judicial admission also removes an admitted fact from the field of controversy. Consequently, an admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and is cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and is conclusive as to such party, and all proofs to the

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

contrary or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether objection is interposed by the party or not. The allegations, statements or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a position contrary to or inconsistent with what was pleaded.

dated 30 May 1997.

The SC here found that Saldana admitted the fact that she received the money from spouses Niamatali. She failed to prove that the admission was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Her arguments, therefore, are mere desperate attempts to escape liability.

During trial, Tranquilino never present any evidence controverting Lupa Realty's allegations that he had sold the property to his brother Nonito (1992 DAS), who, in turn, transferred the property to Moriel, and the latter eventually transferred the same to Lupa Realty.

Comment: Senate Report is included in the mandatory judicial notice. I just want to make this clear, when we talk about judicial notice we are not saying that the court should like "swallow" whatever information.

SC Decision: There was forgery. The DAS in favor of Lupa realty was void as well as the TCT.

The senate report must be submitted, but it doesn't have to go to the rigorous process of presentation of evidence. It is enough to submit, no need to present it as evidence. AGBAYANI VS LUPA REALTY [ G.R. NO. 201193, JUNE 10, 2019]

According to Lupa Realty, it acquired the subject property not from Tranquilino but from Moriel by way of a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale, dated 29 October 1997.

The invalidity of Lupa Realty's TCT does not necessarily render invalid its right of ownership over the subject land if the sales preceding the sale to it by Moriel are valid. If the 1992 DAS between Tranquilino and Nonito is valid, then Nonito could have validly sold the subject land to Moriel and Moriel could have thereafter validly sold it to Lupa Realty.

FACTS: Tranquilino Agbayani owned a parcel of land.

ISSUE: WON the admission of the counsel qualifies as a judicial admission.

However, he was informed the same was registered under the name of Lupa Realty.

RULING: YES!

Upon verifying with the Registry of Deeds it was discovered that the subject property was already registered in the name of Lupa Realty under TCT pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by Tranquilino on 29 October 1997 in favor of Lupa Realty. Tranquilino denied such sale claiming that his signature was forged. He is contending that he was in America during the purported date of sale. Now, a complaint was filed by Tranquilino seeking to nullify the allege deed of absolute sale in favor of Lupa realty and the corresponding TCT. In its Answer, Lupa Realty countered that contrary to the allegation of Tranquilino that he never sold the subject property, he sold the same to his brother, Nonito Agbayani (Nonito), as shown by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale executed on 21 January 1992 (1992 DAS). In turn, Nonito sold the subject property to Moriel Urdas (Moriel) in a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale,

Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court: SEC. 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. The admission by Nonito's counsel during the pre-trial proceedings before the RTC that there was no sale between Tranquilino and Nonito qualifies as a judicial admission because the statement is: a deliberate, clear, Unequivocal statement of a party's attorney during judicial proceedings in open court about a concrete or essential fact within that party's peculiar knowledge. There was no palpable mistake on the part of Nonito's counsel in making the admission because in the offer of Nonito's testimony, he stated that "the land was the property in suit was never sold to him [Nonito] by his brother Tranquilino Agbayani.“ The

admission

Nonito

himself,

cross-

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

examination by Tranquilino's counsel, that Tranquilino was in the United States at the time of the purported transaction supports the statement of the counsel of Nonito that there was no sale between Tranquilino and Nonito. Since there is judicial admission that there was no sale of the subject land between Tranquilino and Nonito, which was affirmed during oral testimony by Nonito himself, then there is no question that the 1992 DAS is void. Comment: During pre-trial in civil procedure, the counsels are the ones who do the talking. Everything is recorded by the stenographer. So, any admission made by the counsel of the party is an admission made by the party himself, especially if the admission is found in the stenographic notes and the party who made the admission does not question the inclusion of such admission in the stenographic notes and the pre-trial order. Here, there was definitely an admission.

HEIRS OF MONTEVILLA VS VALLENA G.R. NO. 234419, DECEMBER 5, 2019 FIRST DIVISION; REYES FACTS: Spouses Valena asked for permission to use the Spouses Montevilla’s property and the same was granted. However, when the Vallenas violated the conditions of their agreement, the Montevillas filed an unlawful detainer case against them. As their defense, the Vallenas asserted that Victor, Jorge Montevilla’s father, already sold the subject lot to their Leo Vallena’s father, Jose through a private document. However, they were not able to present the said document as it was already burned or misplaced. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Vallenas by holding that the Montevillas were not able to prove their prior possession over the lot. ISSUE: Whether or not the prior possession of the Montevillas needs to be proven. RULING: No. When the Valenas raised the fact that Victor sold the lot to Jose in their pleadings, they already made an admission that Victor used to be the owner of the lot. Thus, prior possession of the Montevillas no longer need to proved since Victor needed to exhibit acts of ownership, such as prior possession, in order to sell the lot. This possession was transferred to Jorge

Montevilla and the other heirs of Victor upon his death. Comment: This is also under the general rule (under judicial admission). Digest: Canama, P.L. Team Image v. Solar Team GR No. 191652; 13 Sept. 2017 Third Division; Leonen, J. Facts: Solar, owner of television shows, entered a marketing contract with Team Image, where the latter would act as the marketing agent of the former for the sale of advertisement spots. Solar filed a complaint for accounting and damages against Team Image for alleged breach of their marketing contract. The parties entered into a compromise agreement, where they agreed on payment terms and division of receivables from VTV corporation, which had purchase advertisement spots from Team Image as marketing agent of Solar. They also agreed that any excess would be determined after an accounting and auditing on the receivables was done by SGV, and the excess would be for the account of Team Image. Team Image filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution of the judgment upon compromise, alleging that Solar breached its compromise agreement by misrepresenting amounts thereon. They claim that in a complaint for sum of money filed by Solar against VTV it admitted that it already collected in excess of the amount stipulated in the compromise agreement and said amounts must therefore be paid or returned to Team Image. Issue: whether or not the alleged admission in the pleadings in the complaint for sum of money filed by Solar against VTV can be used against Solar in the motion for the issuance of a writ of execution of the judgment upon compromise Held: No. The alleged admission was made outside of the case. It was made in another civil case. Under the rules on judicial admission, the admission must have been made in the same case and not outside of the proceedings. In this case, what was made was an extrajudicial admission, and not a judicial admission. Discussion: What was made was an extrajudicial admission made outside the case, which was the first complaint. That’s something we have to remember – that judicial admission is made in the same proceeding.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Juan vs Montiero G.R. No. 201011; January 27, 2014 Third Division: Mendoza,J.

Considering that an admission does not require proof, the admission of the Dimaguila would actually be sufficient to prove the partition.

Facts: A parcel of land was owned by brothers Pedro and Vitaliano, the heirs of Pedro sold their land to Montiero. Vitaliano is survived by Dimaguila.

Comments: Here, they were to invoke the exception but it did not work.

On July 5, 1993, Montiero filed a complaint for partition over a parcel of land. In Dimaguila’s Answer they contended that, the land had long been partitioned to the Southern-half and Northern half portion which were adjudicated to Pedro and Vitaliano, respectively. The proceeding was suspended. And upon resumption of the proceeding on January 2, 2001, Montiero amended their complaint, that they wanted to recover possession of the southern half of the land, adoptiong Dimaguila’s admission in his answer. On Dimaguila’s Answer to Amended Complaint, they admitted that there is already partition and was divided equally. They denied the admission that it was divided into the southern and northern half. Further contending that their former counsel made a palpable mistake in the original answer as follows; 1. Counsel rushed to file the answer and 2. It was filed without giving a copy to Dimaguila. Issue: WON the reasons given are considered palpable mistake? NO. Ruling: It is a purely self-serving claim unsupported by any iota of evidence. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof. The Court notes that this position was adopted by Dimaguila only almost eight (8) years after their original answer was filed. In their original answer to the complaint for partition, their claim that there was already a partition into northern-half and southern-half portions, was the very essence of their defense. It was precisely this admission which moved the Montiero to amend their complaint. Dimaguila cannot now insist that the very foundation of their original defense was a palpable mistake. Dimaguila are now estopped from denying or attempting to prove that there was no partition of the property.

REPUBLIC VS. QUA (R129,S4)  No digest submitted Comments: Does this mean that an admission made in another proceeding cannot be presented in evidence? No. It can still be presented as evidence as long as it can be proven. Just get the documents from the other court. That is why admissions made in another case are given greater weight because they are documented. They are part of the records of a case. A simple way is to get the certified true copies of these records and present these as evidence in the case. The court cannot just take judicial admission of this because it is extrajudicial, outside the case. MALAYAN INSURANCE VS. PHILIPPINE FIRST INSURANCE Facts: Wyeth entered into a contract of carriage with Reputable for the delivery of its goods. Pursuant to such contract, Reputable insured Wyeth’s goods with Malayan. Aside from Malayan Insurance, Wyeth also has its own policy with Philippines First. During the life of these policies, the truck carrying Wyeth’s goods was hijacked. Philippine Insurance paid Wyeth as indemnity and sued Reputable and Malayan for reimbursement. In its complaint, Philippines First stated that Reputable is engaged in the business of a common carrier. However, the lower court ruled that Reputable is a private carrier and thus, it is bound by its contract of carriage with Wyeth, making it liable for the loss of the goods. Malayan is now asserting that since Philippines First judicially admitted in its complaint that Reputable is a common carrier, Reputable should not be held liable pursuant to Article 1745(6) of the Civil Code. Issue: Whether or not the allegation of Philippines First in its complaint constitutes judicial admission as to the nature of Reputable’s business – NO. Ruling: “Judicial admissions, such as matters alleged in the pleadings, do not require proof and need not be offered to be considered by the court. The rule on judicial admission, however, also states that such allegation, statement, or admission is conclusive as

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

against the pleader.” In this case, the pleader or the plaintiff who admitted that Reputable is a common carrier was Philippines First. Considering that the nature of Reputable's business is precisely in question, it is worthy to note that Philippines First is not a party to the contract between Wyeth and Reputable. Thus, Philippines First is not in any position to admit or pronounce that Reputable is a common carrier. Moreover, the alleged judicial admission of Philippines First was actually disputed by Reputable when it stated in its answer that it is actually a private carrier. Therefore, the judicial admission by Philippines First cannot be used against Reputable and only amounts to a mere allegation, “which must be proved for it to be given any weight or value. Comment: Judicial admission is only conclusive against the pleader. Meaning it is against one’s interest not against another person’s or entity’s interest. So only Reputable can say that it is a common carrier not some other entity. So in this case, by alleging that Reputable is a common carrier is a mere allegation not an admission. Because an admission is something about your self not someone else or something else. If it is Reputable who made the admission, then yes, it is a judicial admission, if it is made in the subject case. Lago, Sr. v. Spouses Maxell GR 212135; 14 January 2019 1st Division FACTS:  Lago, Sr. and Spouses Maxell executed a Memorandum of Agreement.  Under the MOA, Spouses Maxell agreed to up the 3,840 sq. m. parcel of marshy land owned by Lago, Sr. and after the development of the land, Lago, Sr. would transfer the property to Spouses Maxell.  After the land was filled, Lago, Sr. refused to transfer the property to the Spouses Maxell so the Spouses Maxell filed an action for specific performance to compel Lago, Sr. to transfer the property in their name  In his Answer with Counterclaim, Lago, Sr. argued that the MOA is void as it failed to reflect the true agreement which was that Lago, Sr. would reimburse P1,000 for every 1square meter of land the Spouses Maxell developed.  Lago, Sr. stated in his Answer the Spouses Maxell developed 1,00 sq.m or P1,000,000.00  The Court of Appeals ordered Alfredo to



reimburse the Spouses Maxell P1,000,000.00. Lago, Sr. then argued that the Spouses Maxell were only entitled to P572,770.00 which is what they were able to establish based on the receipts they submitted. The Court of Appeals held that Alfredo admitted in his answer that the spouses spent P1,000,000.00 for developing the property.

ISSUE: Whether Alfredo judicially admitted the amount to be reimbursed to the Spouses Maxell in his Answer. YES RULING:  The Court ruled that “judicial admissions are verbal or writtenadmissionmade by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case and does not require proof. “  “Judicial Admission may be made by a party in (a) the pleadings, (b) during the trial, either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations, or (c) in other stages of the judicial proceeding.“  “The admitter, who is the party himself, cannot contradict his ownjudicialadmissions; he binds himself absent any showing that it was made thru palpable mistake, and no amount of rationalization can offset it.” 

In the case at bar, Lago, Sr. specifically stated in his Answer, “WHEREFORE, premises considered, answering defendant respectfully prays to the Honorable Court to render judgment as follows:[B]y reducing the area covered by the Memorandum of Agreement to only one thousand square meters which is the only area to which plaintiffs are entitled by virtue of their true agreement and which is the equivalent area for P1,000,000.00 at P1,000.00 per square meter.”



The Court ruled that “these statements made by Alfredo in his Answer are judicial admissions of his receipt of the amount of P1,000,000.00 from the Spouses Maxell.”

CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE CASES UNDER CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE People of the Philippines v. Cipriano Cardenas GR No. 190342; 21 March 2012

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Second Division: Sereno, J. Facts: In a buy-bust operation conducted on January 6, 2003, Cipriano Cardenas was arrested for the selling of the prohibited drug known as Shabu, and was thereafter convicted. On his appeal to the Supreme Court, Cardenas contended that the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation did not follow the required procedure for the handling of seized drugs in buy-bust operations as stated in Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 (which took efffect on November 27, 2002). Specifically, the arresting officers merely marked the evidence confiscated from Cardenas, and immediately brought the same, along with the accused, to their office. According to Cardenas, this noncompliance should result in his acquittal. Issue (1): Does noncompliance with the Chain of Custody Rule (relative to the inventory and photographing requirements) render the seized items from a buy-bust operation inadmissible? Ruling: (1): NO. There is no provision or statement in RA 9165 or in any rule that provides for the inadmissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to noncompliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 or its IRR. If there is non-compliance with said section, the issue is not of admissibility, but of weight, to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case. What is essential is “the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items,” as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Issue (2): Having established that the issue in this case is of weight, were the police officers who arrested Cardenas able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs? Ruling (2): YES. In this case, the Court gave credence to the testimonies of the arresting officers involved in the buy-bust operation. As to the integrity of the evidence, the police officers’ testimonies were able to prove, to the satisfaction of the Court, that such officers had custody of the drugs seized: A. from the moment the accused was arrested; B. during the time he was transported to the CIDG office in Camp Crame; and C. up to the time the drugs were submitted to the crime laboratory for examination. The said police officers identified the

seized drugs with certainty when these were presented in court, and there were no conflicting testimonies. As for the evidentiary weight, the same was not affected by the noncompliance by the police officers because the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case. Comment: If you look at the dates of the laws… if the buy bust operation happened before January 23, 2002 then RA 9165 is not applicable. I don’t know about the previous dangerous drugs law if there is chain of custody rule. So, let us assume that if there’s none, then from January 23, 2002 up to July 15, 2014, all buy bust operations that happened during that time then RA 9165 applies. DANGEROUS DRUGS LAW TIMELINE Old Dangerous RA 9165 RA 9165 as Drugs law Applies amended by applies. 10640 Applies Before january January 23, July 15, 2014 23,2002 2002 up to onwards before July 15, 2014 N/A Enumerates 4 Enumerates People required only 3 People to be present. are required to be present. EFFECT: The less people required, the less favorable to the accused. The more people required, the better for the accused. Therefore, amendment is NOT given retroactive effect since it is less favorable to the accused. Take note: There are differences and you have to know what law to apply. In this case, what was applied is section 21(a) of the IRR. There are also difference between IRR and the Law which will be discussed by the reporters later. Saraum vs People G.R. No. 205472 January 25, 2016 THIRD DIVISION : PERALTA, J. FACTS: Amado I. Saraum was charged with violation of Sec. 12 (Possession of Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) of RA 9165. On August 17, 2006, after the buy bust team

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

recovered from Saraum’s possession the drug paraphernalia. The confiscating officer initially marked the confiscated items at the scene and placed the final markings of the paraphernalia recovered from Saraum at the police station. After which the case was filed, the confiscated items were turned over to the property custodian of the Office of City Prosecutor. It is noteworthy that during the trial, the prosecution did not to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the drug paraphernalia. Subsequently, RTC and CA convicted Saraum of the crime charged. On appeal to the SC, the counsel for Saraum claimed that the arrest was illegal and the seized drug paraphernalia used as evidence was inadmissible due to the police officers' non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. ISSUE: Are the seized drug paraphernalia inadmissible as evidence due to the police officers’ failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 HELD: NO. The SC laid down the rule in ascertaining the identity of the illegal drug paraphernalia presented in court as the ones actually seized from the accused, it must show that: the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 has been complied with or falls within the saving clause provided in Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165; and there was an unbroken link (not perfect link) in the chain of custody with respect to the confiscated items. The SC applied Section 21(a) of the IRR in ruling regarding the non-compliance of the Chain of Custody Rule. It held that although Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph them, non-compliance therewith is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground and the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items was preserved. In this case, there was no showing that there exist a "justifiable ground" in not complying with the physical inventory and taking a photograph of the drug paraphernalia confiscated and/or seized. However, here it was said that such omission shall not render Saraum's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him as inadmissible in evidence because Saraum failed to specifically challenge the custody and safekeeping of the drug paraphernalia before the trial court. Next, In Mallillin v. People the court held that while the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is almost always impossible

to obtain an unbroken chain. Thus, failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with Section 21 (1) of RA 9165, is not of admissibility, but of weight evidentiary merit or probative value - to be given the evidence. In this case, the prosecution was able to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug paraphernalia had not been compromised as it established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized items. Applying the rules provided in this case, it can be said there is substantial compliance by the police as to the required procedure on the custody and control of the confiscated items. Comment: If you are familiar with Section 21- The Chain of Custody Rule, the first thing that the apprehending team has to do is to cease whatever items are found in the person who is the subject of the buy-bust. Q: What are these? A: Drugs, controlled precursors, essential chemicals, instruments, paraphernalia, and laboratory equipment. That is what the law says, “What are the items that are supposed to be seized?” We are also aware that in buy-bust operations, we have what we call “marked money”- also included in the items to be seized. According to this Chain of Custody Rule, Once the apprehending team has the custody and control of the ceased items, immediately after seizure and confiscation, the apprehending team has to conduct a physical inventory of the items ceased. That has to be done immediately and it has to be in the presence of those people we mentioned earlier. Q: Where should the physical inventory and photographing take place? A: It should be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served. But in case of warrantless seizures, it must be done at the nearest police station or the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer or team. The law does not require that the inventory and the photographing of the seized items be done exactly where the seizure takes place. That is not required. It can be done at the nearest police station. First, bring the arrested individuals and seized items at the nearest police station or the nearest of office – PEDEA office, as the case may be.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Q: Is it really a strict rule that the appending office have to follow to the letter? A: According to the Supreme Court, it is impossible to break the chain of custody. Q: Why is it called the chain of custody rule? A: According to Sec. 1 (b) of the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation 1: “Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Meaning, it has to be the same particular item that was seized and confiscated that will be presented before the court during the trial. The Chain of Custody has to be shown to the court. In the 2 cases, admissibility is not an issue if there is no substantial compliance with the Chain in Custody Rules. It was emphasized in the 2 cases that it is the weight of the evidence or seized items. We already saw 2 cases where the court said that NO, despite failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the first requirement of inventory and photographing, that will not make the seized items inadmissible. In the first 2 cases, what was the law that was applied? RA 9165; it was in 2006 and the other one is sometime before the amendment. The court applied the IRR which is more specific than the law itself. PEOPLE vs TRIPOLI G.R. No. 207001 June 7, 2017 TIJAM,J.: FACTS: Tripoli and Impas were charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The prosecution established that a buy bust operation was conducted at the Queensland Motel with PO2 Arriola and an informant as the poseur-buyers. Thereafter, the accused were arrested by SPO 1 Del Socorro and P02 Olmedo. The relevant facts in this case as regards the handling of the seized items are; 1. The two plastic packets were turned over to P03 Mendaros, who marked both with the initials RT/Rl-BB-1 and RT/RI-BB-2

2. Thereafter, P02 Salazar then delivered the laboratory request and the two packets ofshabu to the crime laboratory which was received by P03 Rias. 3. Thereafter, P/Inspector Patriana conducted a laboratory examination and issued a Chemistry Report stating that the two plastic packets marked RT/Rl-BB-1 and RT/Rl-BB-2 contained a total weight of 5.64 grams of white crystalline substance which tested positive for shabu. Contention: Tripoli argued that thecorpus delicti and the chain of custody was not duly established for the police officers’ failure to photograph the items in the presence of the accused and other personalities as specified by Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 ISSUE: Whether or not the police officers’ failure to photograph the items in the presence of the accused and other personalities as specified by Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 rendered the seized items inadmissible. RULING: NO. The Supreme Court held here that the chain of custody requirement ensures the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items such that doubts as to the identity of the evidence are eliminated. Moreover, the items seized "To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence." As the dangerous drug itself constitutes the verycorpus delictiof both offenses, its identity and integrity must definitely be shown to have been preserved. The Supreme Court also reiterated its ruling in the case of People vs Del Monte that the noncompliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not of admissibility but of weight evidentiary merit or probative value to be given to the evidence. In this case, the failure of to the police officers to mark the evidence at the crime scene, lack of inventory and photographs does not, by itself, void the arrest of the accused-appellants or impair the integrity of the chain of custody.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Consequently, although the police officers did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of the IRR implementing RA 9165, the noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from the accused, because the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case. PEOPLE vs. CALVELO G.R No. 223526 DEC. 6, 2017 (COCR) Facts: After a successful buy-bust operation held on November 26, 2005, Ariel Calvelo was charged with the violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The Regional Trial Court found Calvelo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge. The Court of Appeals denied Calvelo’s appeal, ruling that the chain of custody over the seized drugs was maintained by the apprehending officers. Calvelo alleged that the police officers failed to strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, making the seized drugs inadmissible in evidence. Issue (1): Whether or not there was an unbroken chain in the custody of the seized drugs. Ruling (1): YES To establish an unbroken chain of custody, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug, from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court. Following Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, the following are the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: 1. the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; 2. the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; 3. the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and 4. the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. In this case, the prosecution was able to convincingly establish an unbroken chain in the custody of the seized drugs in compliance with Sec. 21, Art. II, R.A.

No. 9165 and its IRR; hence, the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs had not been compromised. Issue (2): Whether or not failure to strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 renders the seized drugs inadmissible. Ruling (2): NO. Citing the case of People v. Del Monte, the Supreme Court held that whenever there is noncompliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the issue is of weight to be given the evidence, not of its admissibility. Following Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, an evidence only becomes inadmissible when there is a law or rule which forbids its reception. Thus, given that there is no provision in RA 9165 or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the seized drugs due to noncompliance, the seized drugs do not become inadmissible when there is failure to comply with the mentioned section. Comment: Okay so this is again under RA 9165 IRR (referring to the case above) The SC emphasized here that the link should not be broken. Why? Because of the allegations of these subjects of buy bust operations that the drugs were planted on them. So the congress came out with this chain of custody rule to ensure that the seized items are not planted or introduced in the middle of the proceedings. This is for the protection of the accused, to ensure evidence against him is not fabricated. But despite this rule, this SC is saying, as long as it can be shown by the prosecution that the link was not broken, the seized items will be given weight. As to admissibility, that’s kind of automatic. Seized items may be admitted or are admissible in evidence. People vs Teng Moner Facts: Teng Moner was convicted for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Prosecution presented three (3) witnesses: 1. PO2 Joachim Panopio; 2. PO3 Junnifer Tuldanes; 3. PO# Edwin Lirio

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Prosecution’s evidence tends to establish the facts of the preparation, coordination, and buy-bust operation, arrest of Moner, and taking into custody of the dangerous drugs. Alleged serious lapses in the procedure committed by the apprehending officers: 1. The physical inventory was not conducted at the place where the seizure was made; 2. The seized item was not photographed at the place of seizure; 3. There was no physical inventory and photograph of the seized item in the presence of the accused, or his representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION WAS ABLE TO PROVE AN UNBROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY Ruling: YES “To ensure that the drug specimen presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same material seized from him or that, at the very least, a dangerous drug was actually taken from his possession, we have adopted the chain of custody rule. The Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) has expressly defined chain of custody involving dangerous drugs and other substances int eh following terms in Section 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002:” b. “Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such records of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition”. Sec 21, RA 9165 SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instrument/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of

dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Sec 21 (a) of IRR of RA 9165 SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instrument/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: (a) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. “We have consistently ruled that noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 will not necessarily render the illegal drugs seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

inadmissible. Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required if there is a clear showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs have been preserved, i.e., the illegal drugs being offered in court as evidence is, without a specter of doubt, the very same item recovered in the buy-bust operation. Issue #2: If the evidence of illegal drugs was not handled precisely in the manner prescribed by the chain of custody rule, would it not affect the admissibility of the evidence?

Question: is that required by the law or IRR? Answer: NO. Basis: Sec 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:

Ruling #2: NO Sec 21 (a) of the IRR of RA 9165 SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instrument/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: (a) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. Comment: Going back to the allegations: 1st allegation: The physical inventory was not conducted at the place where the seizure was made;

Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at 1. the place where the search warrant is served; or 2. at the nearest police station or 3. at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures Question: Where should the inventory taking be made? Answer: Reiteration of the previous basis: Sec 21 of the IRR The physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at 1. the place where the search warrant is served; or 2. at the nearest police station or 3. at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, Whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures Question: is physical inventory required? Answer: Yes. Basis is Sec 21, subparagraph 1 of the IRR Ma’am: so the 1st allegation is wrong because it doesn’t have to be where the seizure was made. 2nd allegation: The seized item was not photographed at the place of seizure; Question: how will you answer that? Answer: it is the same with the inventory taking. Ma’am: so the Physical inventory and photographing should take place: 1. at the same time 2. at the same place

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Immediately after seizure and confiscation at 1. the place where the search warrant is served; or 2. at the nearest police station or 3. at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable 3rd allegation: There was no physical inventory and photograph of the seized item in the presence of the accused, or his representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Question: is that required? Answer: yes, under Sec 21 of RA 9165 and the IRR Ma’am: so the lawyer of the accused here is citing what law? Answer: RA 9165 as amended. RA 9165 in the presence of 1. the accused or 2. the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or 3. his/her representative or counsel, 4. a representative from the media and 5. the Department of Justice (DOJ), and 6. any elected public official

RA 9165 as amended in the presence of 1. the accused or 2. his/her representative or counsel, 3. representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media

Ma’am: the lawyer of Teng Moner here is citing the amendment. But what is the applicable law? When did the buy bust take place? 2005 When did the amendment come about? 2014

So 1st and 2nd allegations are wrong because they are nto required, the 3rd one is also wrong because it is not the applicable law. Q: what did the court say about the apprehending officers? A: the apprehending officers admitted of the lapses in the conduct of the seizure and they were able to offer a justifiable ground so the SC held that – Q: what is the basis for the justifiable ground? A: the apprehending officers explained that the lapse were because the buy bust team decided that they could not linger at the crime scene as it would expose them to security risk as it was outside their area of responsibility. Q; is there any provision there that would tell us that justifiable grounds are allowed? A: Sec 21, RA 9165 “non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items” Q: is that found in the law? A: no, only the IRR So in the past three cases, the SC applied the IRR and not the law. This is because of this clause. JULY 31, 2020 CASE UNDER RULE 129 SYCAM vs JORGE (volunteer case) Comment: This is an example of the No. 2 exception – when the imputed admission was not in fact made. Here, the Supreme Court said it can be applicable if it was made out of context. CASES UNDER CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE

So in other words, the SC will NOT apply a law not yet in existence when the buy bust operation took place. The allegation here is citing the mended law.

PEOPLE vs ANGELES Comment: I have a few points regarding this.

If you look at 9165 – (refer to table below) So you have to determine what the proper law is. So in the ruling of the SC, it cited the applicable law.

First point is– Did the Court say anything about the admissibility of the evidence in this case? Of the seized items?

You should know which law they are violating.

Reporter: None.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Atty. Suarez: So, in other words, what the Supreme Court emphasized on with respect to the lapses committed by the apprehending officers is the issue on the weight of such evidence. But there was no mention that the evidence (the seized items) are not admissible.

the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

So, under this case, we still stick to our premise that non-compliance with the Chain of Custody rule will not render the seized items inadmissible. Because there is nothing in Section 21 of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules plus the amendment under RA 10640 that says that such seized items will be inadmissible.

SSO Suguitan cannot be considered as the “apprehending officer” who must follow the chain of custody rule as he is not a police officer.

So, in this case, the accused was acquitted because of failure to comply with the Chain of Custody rule. What is the date of the decision here? Reporter: November 21, 2018. Atty. Suarez: Take note of that date. I will show you later why that is significant. Take note that in the case of People vs Angeles, he was acquitted. Let’s look at what happened in O’Cochlain. Reporter: Take note that this case is not a buy-bust operation case unlike from the previous cases. People vs. O’ Cochlain G.R. No. 229071 │ December 10, 2018 Third Division: Peralta Facts: Eanna O’Cochlain was found in possession of marijuana at the Laoag International Airport by Security Screening Officer (SSO) Suguitan. After being arrested, he was taken to the nearby PNP Office. While waiting for the barangay officials, the confiscated sticks of dried marijuana leaves were placed on the investigation table were everyone could look but not touch. O’Cochlain’s Contention: That the sticks of marijuana were not marked immediately and were just laid bare on the table. Issue: Whether or not there is substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule Ruling: YES. Section 21(a) of IRR of RA 9165 provides: -xxxProvided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures ; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as

Assuming that the sticks of marijuana were not marked immediately, such fact does not automatically result to an acquittal. As long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drug were not compromised, non-compliance with the chain of custody rule may be excused. The situation in airports call for a different application of the chain of custody rule. In this instance, the persons required by law to witness the procedure are unavailable at the moment of arrest. Unlike in a buy-bust operation were everything is preplanned and already coordinated to ensure the procedure is followed, arrests and seizures in airports are almost always spontaneous and unanticipated. The prosecution was able to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the marijuana sticks were properly preserved. Comment: So, the first point here is that with Chain of Custody Rule is not only applicable to buy-bust operations but in every instance where drugs or whatever illegal items are seized from a person, and in this case, in the airport personnel or security accidentally found drugs, marijuana on the person of this O' Cochlain. Question: What are the differences between a buy-bust operation and an airport security incident? Answer: A buy-bust operation, the apprehending officers come prepared; they have their marked money. Because there was this allegation of O' Cochlain that the two sticks of Marijuana were tempered by the people there while waiting for the barangay officials, the officials to arrive. But the difference is, how can one expect that an airport security personnel to tamper with whatever is laid down there. The reason why the sticks of marijuana were left there for everyone to see is that they were waiting for the proper apprehending officials. The proper apprehending official who has the obligation to follow the Chain of Custody Rule not the airport officer who is only tasked to check the passengers.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

So, here according to the Supreme Court, even though the marijuana sticks were exposed and 'could' have been tampered, it is still not violative, or even if it is violative of the Chain of Custody Rule it does not mean that the seized items would be inadmissible. We are still the same page when it comes to the admissibility of these items.



People vs. Fatallo G.R. No. 218805 │ November 07, 2018 Second Division: Caguioa



Comment: So, in the case of Fatallo there was a gap in the Chain, hence the Supreme Court acquitted Fatallo. And take note the date of the case is November 07, 2018.



DISCUSSION UNDER CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE People vs. Lim G.R. No. 231989 │ September 04, 2018 En Banc:Peralta Facts: During a buy-bust operation in the house of Romy Lim:  PO1 Orellan conducted a body search.  Inside Lim's pocket were the buy-bust money and a transparent rectangular plastic box which contained a plastic sachet of a white substance.

RA 9165, Sec. 21 [June 7, 2002] The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, xxx, so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: 1. The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation: a) Physically inventory and photograph the same; b) In the presence of: i. The accused, his representative or counsel, ii. A representative from the DOJ, and iii. Any elected public official. a. They shall all be required to sign the copies of the



 

PO1 Orellan took into custody the P500 bill, the plastic box with the plastic sachet of a white substance, and a disposable lighter. Now, the thing is that even though the Chain of Custody Rule requires physical inventory what is normally done is marking. PO1 Carin turned over to him the plastic sachet that she bought from Lim. While in the house, PO1 Orellan marked the two plastic sachets. Despite exerting efforts to secure the attendance of the representative from the media andbarangayofficials, nobody arrived to witness the inventorytaking. Perhaps, the marking is the same as the inventory taking. The buy-bust team brought Lim to the PDEA Regional Office with PO1 Orellan in possession of the seized items. Upon arrival, they "booked" Lim and prepared the letters requesting for the laboratory examination on the drug evidence and for the drug test on Lim. PO1 Orellan made the Inventory Receipt of the confiscated items. It was not signed by Lim. Also, there was no signature of: o an elected public official; and o the representatives of the DOJ; and o the media as witnesses

IRR of RA 9165, Section 21 The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation: 1. Physically inventory and photograph the same; 2. In the presence of: a. The accused, his representative or counsel, b. A representative from the DOJ, and c. Any elected public official. 3. They shall all be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted: 1. At the place where the search warrant is served; or 2. Whichever is practicable, in

RA 10640 [July 15, 2014] The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, xxx shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation: 1. conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same 2. in the presence of: a. the accused, or his/her representative or counsel; b. an elected public official; and c. a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 3. They shall all be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

inventory and be given a copy thereof.

case of warrantless seizures: a. At the nearest police station; or b. At the nearest office of the apprehending officer/ team. Provided, further, that noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

Comment: Now, let us look at the applicable laws. This is a 2018 case, but the buy-bust took place in 2010. So, if you look at the laws, we have RA 9165 effective 2002 and this amendment was effective in 2014. So, we already know that this is the applicable law. But we have here the IRR. So, both law (RA 9165 and IRR) requires the presence; the inventory should be in the presence of 4 individuals. And they shall all be required to sign the copies of the inventory, all of them. Now, we already know from the facts that the inventory `was done in the presence only of the accused with no other people and there was no signature on the inventory receipt. (refers to the table) it says here if there is a search warrant; if it is conducted pursuant to a search warrant, then at the place where the search warrant is served. In the case of People vs. Lim there was no search warrant, there was a buy-bust where the PDEA went to his house posing as buyers. It was a buy-bust in his house, so this is what applies (refers to the table), in case of warrantless seizure at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer but it is not prohibited to conduct the inventory where the seizure took place because it already complies with the immediately after the seizure. Question: So, why is this brought about? Answer: In the case of People vs. Lim, the Supreme Court actually mentioned or cited the debates in the Senate and actually quoted Senator Grace Poe and Senate President Sotto, wherein there were discussing the difficulty of the apprehending officers to comply with the Chain of Custody Rule. That happened after this

Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted: 1. at the place where the search warrant is served; or 2. whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: a. at the nearest police station; or b. at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

Now, if you look at this portion (refers to a part of the table) this is not contained in RA 9165, Section 21, this is the saving clause, that was added to enable the apprehending officers to, somehow, substantially comply with the requirement of the Chain of Custody Rule because it's so difficult to actually all these people present at that particular time. So, under 9165 there is no requirement of location, where should the inventory be conducted. It just says immediately after the seizure and confiscation but here (refers to the table), but this one was added by the Dangerous Drugs Board that promulgated the IRR. So, this (refers to the table) added by the Dangerous Drugs Board and during the debates for this amendment the Congress incorporated this saving clause to make it easier for the apprehending officers to comply with the requirement of physical inventory of the seized items. Non-compliance with those requirements under justifiable grounds – the above requirements – as long as the integrity of the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly presented by the apprehending officer shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items. This has been discussed many times with the cases. So this is also placed here to assist the apprehending officers in complying or in actually presenting such seized items in evidence. This entire clause was incorporated into the amendment.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Because of the difficulty of finding all of these people to be present during every physical inventory of seized items, Congress decided to reduce the number of people required to be present. Instead of a representative from the media and a representative for the DOJ, only a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the Media. So either or —dalawa. It is no longer 4 people required. It is now 3 people. Why is this case of People vs. Lim very significant? It is because of this Circular that was issued by the Office of the Court Administrator.

by all Judges and Clerks of Court in the Dangerous Drugs Court. Atty. Suarez copied that portion of the case. What should be done by the apprehending officers as discussed by Justice Peralta? x x x 1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR. xxxx It says here that “In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21”. This refers to the affidavit complaint that initiates a drug case. It should specifically stated there that there was compliance. 2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/ confiscated items. xxxx This is based on the “saving clause” that was introduced in the IRR and incorporated in the amendment by RA 10640. xxx 3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of probable cause. So, there is another PI here.

If you look at this portion, it says here that: While the above-quoted provision has been the rule, it appears that it has not been practiced in most cases elevated before Us. Thus, in order to weed out early on from the courts' already congested docket any orchestrated or poorly built up drug-related cases, the following should henceforth be enforced as a mandatory policy: xxxx

4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion to either  refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or  dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court.

Whatever Justice Peralta discussed in People vs. Lim should be taken into account according to this Circular

Rule 112 Sec. 5 is the judicial declaration of probable cause.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

In other words, the Supreme Court does not want these cases to reach them. If there is no compliance with the chain of custody rule, dismiss—if indeed, it reaches the court without compliance. This is the instruction of the SC to all judges: “Don’t let these cases reach us. We’re sick and tired of the same old story.” What must be specifically stated in the affidavit complaint? If the presence of the three witnesses, other than the accused cannot be had, then: It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as: (1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. These are specific reasons already given by the SC to the apprehending officers. If you don’t have the signatures, you can state one of these and lulusot yung kaso. The judge will not dismiss if you have any of these as your reasons. What happened after? After this case and the OCA came out with this OCA Circular on Oct. 1, 2018, a month after the decision in People vs. Lim which was decided on Sept. 4, 2018.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

There was a motion filed in the Supreme Court which resulted in this next OCA saying that there is a resolution dated Nov. 13, 2018, providing, among others, further clarification on the application and interpretation of the mandatory policy that shall govern the practice in maintaining the chain of custody. It was stated there that “please take notice that the Court En Banc issued a Resolution dated Nov. 13, 2018. I told you, you have to remember the dates of the two cases. The O’Cochlain case came out Nov. 7. It came out before this Resolution. The Lim Case came out after the Resolution. It says here “the court notes the letter dated Oct. 17, 2018 of the PDEA, but denies the request for a detailed and more precise guidelines of the ruling in People vs. Romy Lim. So, the PDEA wanted a more precise guideline. The mandatory policy laid down in Lim should not be given retroactive effect. The portion of Lim clearly indicates a prospective application of such policy. Precisely, the SC applied RA 9165 and it’s IRR—not the amended law because there is no retroactive effect. The pertinent portion in Lim states: “to conclude, judicial notice is taken of the fact that arrests and seizures related to illegal drugs are typically made without a warrant.” This is another instance where Judicial Notice is taken. This is discretionary judicial notice. This particular OCA ends by saying: “we are not going to specify whatever you see in the case of People vs. Lim, follow that procedure.” I already showed you the specifics earlier. That is the case of People vs. Lim.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Q: in a buy bust operation, what shall the PDEA take charge and have custody of? A: PDEA shall take custody of the confiscated, seized or surrendered items, specifically:  Dangerous drugs  Plant sourced of dangerous drugs  Controlled precursors  Essential chemicals  Instruments or paraphernalia  Laboratory equipment Comment: The marked money shall also be included in the seizure. MANNER OF PROPER DISPOSITION OF THE SEIZED ITEMS 1. Physical inventory and photographing of seized items Who conducts? The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the seized items Comment: in the case of O’cochlain, the security officers in the airport are not the apprehending team that is defined under RA 9165. When conducted? Immediately after seizure and confiscation

SUMMARY OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE DISCUSSION CHAIN OF CUSTODY The duly recorded authorized movements and custody of:  seized drugs; or  controlled chemicals; or  plant sources of dangerous drugs; or  laboratory equipment of each stage from the time of seizure or confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movement and custody of seized item shall include:  The identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item.  The date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and  The final disposition (Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation no. 1, Series of 2002, implementing RA 9165)

How conducted?  In the presence of: 1. the accused or the person from whon such items were confiscated or seized, or his or her representative or counsel and 2. an elected public official and 3. a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media  they shall be  required to sign the copies of the inventory and  be given a copy thereof Where conducted? The physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted:  at the place where the search warrant is served; or  whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures:  at the nearest police station. Or  at the nearest office of the spprehending office or team Noncompliance of justifiable grounds:

these

requirements

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

under

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

 

as long as the INTEGRITY and the EVIDENTIARY VALUE of the seized items are PROPERLY PRESERVED by the apprehending officer/team shall NOT RENDER void and invalid such seizure and custody over said items. 2. Qualitative and Quantitative Examination

What is conducted Qualitatibe and quantitative examination When conducted Within 24 hours upon confiscation or seizure Where conducted PDEA Forensic Laboratory 3. Certification of the Forensic Laboratory Examination Results Who issues The forensic laboratory examiner When issued Immediately upon the receipt of the subject items Partial laboratory examination report It shall be provisionally issued:  When the volume of the seized items does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame  Stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory Final certification Shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification Comment: if you have containers of drugs seized, it is impossible to issue a full certification right away. 4. Procedure after filing of the criminal case Ocular Inspection  the seized items are being brought to the court. It is not about going out to examine the buy bust area.  It is the public prosecutor who presents in court.

Destruction or burning of seized items When conducted Within 24 hours from ocular inspection Who conducts PDEA In the presence of: 1. The accused, or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, 2. A representative from the media 3. A representative from the DOJ 4. Civil society groups, and 5. Any elected public official Comment: take note that this portion is not amended by RA 10640 because the buy bust operation is planned. These people may be ordered by subpoena. Q: who shall draw up the guidelines on the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such item/s? A: the Dangerous drugs board Q: who shall bear the expenses of disposition and destruction of such item/s? A: the offender or accused Q: what shall be done by item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the Board? A: they shall be donated, used or recycled for legitimate purposes, provided that a representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is retained 5. Issuance of a Sworn Certification Who shall issue The board What it shall state The fact of destruction or burning of the subject item/s What shall be submitted to the court having jurisdiction over the case:  The sworn certification  The representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA

When Conducted Within 72 hours from filing Who conducts? The court

Note In all instances, the representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum quantity as determined by the Board

What shall be inspected The confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered items

Comment: this destruction happens only when they happen to raid warehouses of shabu or marijuana.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

6. Rights of the alleged offender Rights of the alleged offender 1. The alleged offender or hisher representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the above proceedings and 2. His or her presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt. Q: what if the offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due notice in writing to him or his counsel within 72 hours before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question? A: the secretary of justice shall appoint a member of the public attorney’s office to represent the offende Q: after the promulgation and judgment in the criminal case, wat happens to the representative samples that were presented in evidence in court? A; they shall be disposed and destroyed Procedure The trial prosecutor shall:  Inform the Board of the final termination of the case, and  Request the court for leave to turn over the said representative samples to the PDEA for proper disposition and destruction within 24 hours from receipt of the same RULE 130 RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY In the beginning of our course, when we started talking about evidence, we looked at the different kinds of evidence. We already know that when it comes to hierarchy, importance, what carries the most weight – it is object evidence. A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE Section 1. Object as evidence. – Object as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. Section 1 outline of evidence. evidence reports.

talks about object as evidence. So this is the the very very short rule/provision on object Now, there are other topics related to object that we will be discussing after the case

Torralba vs People of the Philippines

radio program. In 1994, he was charged with Libel for calling the Hontanosas traitors during his broadcast. The prosecution presented three (3) tape recordings of Torralba’s radio broadcast and Lim and Atty. Hontanosas as witnesses. Lim admitted that he did not know how to use a tape recorder and merely asked his daughter to record Torralba’s radio program. Lim stated that he was near the radio whenever the recording took place. Torralba, however, objected to the admission of the said tape recordings for lack of proper authentication by the person who actually made the recordings. In the case of the subject tape recordings, Lim admitted that they were recorded by his daughter. The trial court, here, eventually admitted the three tape recordings into evidence. ISSUE: whether or not it was proper for the trial court to admit said tape recordings. RULING: No. The Supreme Court stated that a sufficient foundation for the admission of the recordings is needed. As a rule, before a tape recording is admissible in evidence and given probative value – here we have the following requisites that must first be established. One of which is the establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording. In this case, there was no proper foundation for the admissibility of the the tape recording. Here, Lim admitted that he did not know how to use a tape recorder and only instructed his daughter to record the radio broadcast. So, the daughter who was the one who recorded it should have been presented by the prosecution in order to lay the proper foundation for the admission of the purported tape recording for said date. Without the requisite authentication, there was no basis for the trial court to admit the tape recording in evidence Comment: Yes. So, we know that when evidence is relevant, it is admissible. But, when it comes to certain objects like a tape recording, one must authenticate it first before it can be admitted as evidence. Here, the Supreme Court gave the requisites for admission of tape recording in evidence. It says here: (1) A showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony; (2) A showing that the operator of the device was competent; (3) Establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording;

FACTS: Here, we have Torralba who was a host of a ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

(4) A showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made; (5) A showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording; (6) Identification of the speakers; and (7) A showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement. We don’t have a set of requisites for all kinds of object evidence. That is why you have to read the cases. How do you authenticate a recording? If you don’t authenticate that, it will not be admitted even though it is object evidence – even though it can be seen, heard, touched, felt, smelt. Authentication is important for admissibility. This is now the procedure of admitting Valeroso vs. People of the Philippines FACTS: Valeroso had a warrant of arrest for kidnapping with ransom. When the police served the warrant, his room was ransacked and they found a firearm and ammunition located the inside his locked cabinet. In this case, there was no search warrant involved. ISSUE: whether or not the firearm and ammunition or the objects discovered by the police can be used as evidence against Valeroso. RULING: No. Such objects cannot be used as evidence against Valeroso. The Supreme Court held that although there is an exception for the warrantless search as an incident to lawful arrest, the purpose of which is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed weapon and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach. The exception, therefore, should not be strained beyond what is needed to serve its purpose. In this case, search was made in the locked cabinet which cannot be said to have been within Valeroso’s immediate control. Thus, the search exceeded the bounds of what may be considered as an incident to a lawful arrest. Moreover, the Supreme Court also held here that although the police officers had a justification for the intrusion in the course of which, they came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating Valeroso; however, in this case, such objects such as the ammunitions was not accidentally discovered by the police. The search, here was illegal as it was a violation against Valeroso’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Likewise, the evidence obtained is inadmissible as evidence against

him. Without the illegally seized firearm, Valeroso’s conviction for the illegal possession of firearms cannot stand. Comment: There is an issue in this case as well; does the firearm have to be, as object evidence, presented in court? Is it really required for the firearm to be presented in court, in order to convict the accused? Or is it enough to just identify it by photograph, but its not formally offered in evidence? The Supreme Court said that the existence of an unlicensed firearm may be established by testimony, even without its presentation at trial. So, what the Supreme Court is saying here is that there may be object evidence, but for some reason, it cannot be presented in court because it was lost or it could not be found then testimonial evidence can take the place of the object evidence if the person has personal knowledge of that particular evidence; and that person, the witness, describes it to be the actual firearm used in the crime. In other words, sometimes if one cannot present the object evidence which has a highest ranking when it comes to hierarchy of evidence, one can still resort to testimony; as long as it is not hearsay and as long as the witness has personal knowledge of that particular object evidence that cannot be presented in court. Cariño vs People of the Philippines FACTS: Cariño and Andes, his source, were found guilty of illegal possession of prohibited drugs. They questioned their conviction on the ground that the seized drugs were inadmissible for failure to establish the chain of custody. The Solicitor General, on the other hand, argues that their defense is self-serving and it must be dismissed in light of the presumption of regularity in the apprehension of the officers. The issue here is whether or not the identity of the seized drugs were established, in view of the alleged failure to comply with the chain of custody rule. The Supreme Court held that no. The Court explained that in illegal possession of prohibited drugs, the dangerous drugs is the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. The Court explained that the fact of possession must be coupled with the fact that the same substance offered in court as exhibit must be established to make a finding of guilt. The Court stressed that the chain of custody ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence, the drugs, are removed. The Court explained that while a perfect chain is not always the

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

100

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

standard because it is always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable if the item of real evidence is not readily identifiable such as in illegal possession of drugs case. The Court cited another case wherein it said that the white substance purported to be shabu could be starch flour or sugar. Hence, the requirement of an unbroken chain of custody. Also, this is the requirement because the evidence is susceptible to alteration. It can easily be changed because it is not readily identifiable. In this case, there were lapses in the chain of custody and because of this, the Court said that they were unable to establish the identity of the dangerous drugs. With regard to the contention of presumption of regularity, that would only apply if there is no record of irregularity. Comment: Now, before this, we were talking about the chain of custody rule. We were able to conclude that even though the chain of custody is broken, the evidence is still admissible. Even if the evidence is admissible, the accused can still be acquitted even if the evidence is admitted -the seized items. The seized items comprise the corpus delicti, the object of the crime. According to the Supreme Court in this case, even though the seized items are admissible, they still have to be authenticated in order to be credible. What should be done, according to the Supreme Court as a method of authenticating evidence, it is the requirement that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it be – the white substance that was seized from the accused during the buy bust is exactly the same white substance that is being presented before the court. Remember, this is non-fungible when it comes to evidence. So, we need all the testimonies of the different people who handled that white substance – from the beginning, the person who actually did the physical inventory, did the photographing, who brought to the forensics or the examiner should be called to testify in court. It’s not enough to present the certification. The examiner who did the examination should be the one to testify in court and identify that particular white substance that the examiner claims is shabu. Even the PDEA person who is in custody of the representative samples should be able to show that the representative sample that he is holding on came from the whole batch of shabu that was seized or confiscated. This method of authenticating is also very important in evidence. So, we already looked at admissibility and now, we are in court. Who are these people who are supposed to

identify that particular object. So even if object evidence carries a lot of weight, before it can carry the weight, it has to be properly identified and authenticated. And under the chain of custody rule, there is a procedure – all of these people have to testify in court. The method of authentication is a case-to-case basis and we have to know. PEOPLE VS UMANITO GR. NO. 172607 APRIL 16, 2009 Facts: A rape case was filed against Umanito. The RTC found him guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt. Umanito appealed the said decision. In the alleged rape incident, this incident resulted in the pregnancy of AAA and birth of BBB. He contended that he courted AAA but they were not sweethearts and he did not engage in sexual relations with AAA. The SC remanded the case for DNA testing and the results show that Umanito is the biological father of BBB. Issue: Whether the DNA results constitutes as object evidence? Ruling: Yes. With the advance in genetics and the availability of new technology, it can now be determined with reasonable certainty whether appellant is the father of AAA's child. If he is not, his acquittal may be ordained. We have pronounced that if it can be conclusively determined that the accused did not sire the alleged victim's child, this may cast the shadow of reasonable doubt and allow his acquittal on this basis. If he is found not to be the father, the finding will at least weigh heavily in the ultimate decision in this case. Comment: Note: In People vs Kamad, the SC just outlined the links that should be established: 1. Seizure and marking if practicable of the illegal drugs by the apprehending officer. 2. Turnover of the illegal drugs seized from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. 3. Turnover of the illegal drugs from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. 4. Turnover of the illegal drugs from the forensic chemist to the court. PEOPLE VS OLARTE GR. No. 233209 March 11, 2019 Facts: Olarte was charged for illegal or unauthorized possession of a hand grenade.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

101

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

During the trial period, the hall of justice burned down including all records pertaining to the original information and arraignment of Olarte as well as some of the evidence presented by the prosecution. Olarte was re-arraigned and the prosecution undertook the retaking of testimonies and the refiling of judicial affidavits already executed by some of its witnesses, as part of the efforts to reconstitute the lost records. In the course of reconstituting the records, the prosecution moved for the amendment of the Infom1ation in Criminal Case No. 2014-830 (illegal possession of hand grenade) seeking to change the reflected fuse assembly marking from "M204X2" to "M204A2. The Regional Trial Court found Olarte guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Olarte appealed stating that the corpus delicti is doubtful because, when the subject hand grenade was presented in court, the marking "RMI2" was not found on it and the fuse assembly marking stated in the original information did not match the grenade's serial number. Issue: Whether or not the grenade is admissible as evidence? Ruling: Classification of object evidence - Actual, physical or “autoptic” evidence – those which have a direct relation or part in the fact or incident sought to be proven and those brought to the court for personal examination by the presiding magistrate. Demonstrative evidence – those which represent the actual or physical object (or event in the case of pictures or videos) being offered to support or draw in inference or to aid in comprehending verbal testimony. 3 classification of actual evidence:   

Unique Objects – those that have readily identifiable marks Objects made Unique – those that are made readily identifiable Non-Unique objects – those with no identifying marks

In this regard, the Court emphasizes that if the proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to change, that foundation need

only consist of testimony by a witness with knowledge that the evidence is what the proponent claims; otherwise, the chain of custody rule has to be resorted to and complied with by the proponent to satisfy the evidentiary requirement of relevancy. And at all times, the source of amorphous as well as firmly structured objects being offered as evidence must be tethered to and supported by a testimony. Here, the determination whether a proper foundation has been laid for the introduction of an exhibit into evidence rests within the discretion of the trial court; and a higher court reviews a lower court's authentication ruling in a deferential manner, testing only for mistake of law or a clear abuse of discretion. In the case at hand, the chain of custody rule does not apply to an undetonated grenade (an object made unique), for it is not amorphous and its form is relatively resistant to change. A witness of the prosecution need only identify the hand grenade, a structured object, based on personal knowledge that the same contraband or article is what it purports to be-that it came from the person of accused-appellant. As to the absence of the marking "RMI2" which was placed by PO2 Intud on the grenade marked as Exhibit "B-1," the same does not affect the evidentiary value of said object evidence. Said marking was placed by PO2 Intud on the grenade before it was turned over to the PNP[-] EOD for examination, as shown by the Acknowledgement Receipt dated 23 July 2014 prepared by SPO2 Radaza and duly received by SPO2 Tingson. However, after the examination conducted by the PNP[-]EOD where it was determined that the grenade had "Safety Pull Ring, Safety Pin, Safety Lever intact and containing COMP B (Co[m]position B) as Explosive Filler," the masking tape containing the marking "RMI2" was apparently removed and/or "overlapped" with another masking tape. As such, the Certification dated 28 July 2014 issued by SPO2 Tingson of the EOD Team no longer reflected the "RMI2" marking on the grenade. In any event, what is crucial is the testimony of SPO2 Tingson that the grenade marked as Exhibit "B-1" is the same grenade turned over to him by SPO2 Radaza. Comment: Is it really required that the actual corpus delicti be presented in court? In this case it was the actual corpus delicti that was presented but with a different marking.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

102

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

But what if it is just a sample? Is it still considered object evidence? Note: What is the importance of object evidence? According to Dean Inigo: Object evidence is addressed to the senses of the court. But the court is not a person but a body. It could only sense the evidence through the judge which is a person. During trial, the best evidence is the corpus delicti. In drugs cases, the seized drugs. In murder cases, the dead body. But the dead body is not needed to be brought to court. We have photographs. The photographs take the place of the corpus delicti. The purpose of the object evidence is to prove the existence or the condition or the situation of the thing or object. So, if we have a photograph of a dead body, that is to prove that the person is dead. So sometimes it is not practicable to present the object in court. But if it is possible that it is the best evidence that the court can appreciate or admit. So how does one present object evidence to the court? It may be exhibited or examined by the court. The sense used in appreciating object evidence is the sense of sight. Show the court the evidence. According to Dean Inigo, if a picture is worth a thousand words, then definitely the scene itself must be worth millions. Sometimes people are more impressed with what they see rather than what they only hear. What does the court hear? The testimony of the witness. But it is so hard to imagine what the witness is taking about if one does not really see the object. If you cannot present the actual object, then bring a replica. Sometimes it is possible to bring a replica but not when it is a drugs case. Not when you talk about possession or sale of shabu. You cannot show a sample. You can show a representative sample taken from the batch that was seized. According to Justice Moran there are 3 types of object or real evidence: (In People vs Olarte that was 3 types of actual evidence) 1. That which consists in the exhibition or production of the object inside or outside the courtroom. There are things which can be brought inside the courtroom like a gun, a knife, even the representative samples of the shabu, the drug paraphernalia. Those can be brought inside the courtroom for the court to

exhibit during the ocular inspection. They are tangible items. They are movable from place to place. And once they are brought before the court and the courts does an ocular inspection of these objects, they already would be part of the records and then the next step is for the party presenting the evidence to offer at the end of the trial. It is sufficient to bring the object to the court once for exhibition. But there are other kinds of object evidence which could not be brought to the courtroom. What if it is a truck? You cannot bring a truck to the court room. So the judge and the stenographer would go outside and look at the truck. Take note, under number 1 it must be brought to the court whether outside or inside. If it is inside, then it is production and exhibition. If it is outside, then it is exhibition outside the courtroom. 2. That which consists in the inspection of the object outside the courtroom. 3. That which consists in the making of an experiment. AUGUST 3, 2020 In the chain of custody rule, there is a portion where there is this ocular inspection. So, when the drugs are small like one little packet of shabu, then that can be brought inside the courtroom so the court can view the shabu in its entirety. Justice Moran - Three Types of Object or Real Evidence 1. That which consists in the exhibition or production of the object inside or outside the courtroom. (Discussed last meeting) 2. That which consists in the inspection of the object outside the courtroom. 3. That which consists in the making of an experiment. DISCUSSION: On No. 1: If you remember, the court has to make an ocular inspection before the bulk of the evidence like the drugs is disposed of. So, if we have a whole container of drugs, that can be brought outside the hall of justice and the judge can go outside and look at the whole container of shabu this is under number 1. On No. 2: Under the first instance, the evidence is produced by the proponent and this is inspected by the court inside or outside the courtroom, this usually applies to movable properties that can be brought inside or outside the courtroom. But if what is proposed to be introduced as object evidence is an immovable property like a parcel of land,

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

103

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

a building, a vessel, or an aircraft then the judge and the rest of the court personnel including the stenographer, interpreter, the lawyers, and parties if they want to go along will go out of the courtroom and go to where the object evidence is situated and take a view of the object.

owner of the accessory and the fruits.

According to our legal luminaries, this particular way of appreciating or viewing the evidence has to be scheduled. It cannot be a spur of the moment decision by the judge.

What the judge did was go to the farm where the horses were situated and to make the parties bring both their horses and the pony. The owners were asked to hold their respective horses a few meters from each other and the judge ordered the pony to be placed in the middle and released. So the pony's natural reaction was to go to its mother. It was determined from there who really owns the pony.

Example: A judge is driving and he attended a wedding somewhere near that place where that particular parcel of land that they were supposed to view is situated. The judge then said "since we're already here might as well take a look". Then he decided the case based on his appreciation of the evidence. In such case, the Supreme Court said that it is wrong because the viewing should be scheduled, and there are other people who should accompany the judge. This taking a view portion is also part of the trial.

Example 3: If you remember it is similar to the story of King Solomon where there were two mothers claiming to be the mother of a baby. So King Solomon suggested that the baby be divided so each can have a part of the baby. The mother who said okay let the baby be divided is obviously not the mother. The one who said “no, just give the baby to the other” is the mother. From that experiment it solved who was the mother of the baby. A lot of things can be solved by making experiments.

This is also normally done in collision cases, and transportation cases. On No. 3: Third, that which consists in the making of an experiment. Example 1: There were some clothes that were stolen from a clothes line. DDD here was seen carrying a pile of newly washed clothes so he was charged with theft of said clothes. In his defense, he said that the clothes he was carrying was his and that he did not steal them. The issue here is whether or not the clothes belong to DDD or whether or not he stole the clothes. So, the judge made an experiment and ordered the lawyer to bring the subject clothes to court and DDD was ordered to wear the clothes. It turned out that the clothes were too large for him. So, by making such experiment, looking at such evidence and trying it on. The judge was able to appreciate the evidence and was able to render a decision based on it. This kind of evidence is also called demonstrative evidence. Example 2: There is this case where P and D both owned a horse. Both horses gave birth but one of the ponies died. Both P and D are claiming that the surviving pony belongs to them. We know under our property, the laws of accession, the owner of the principal is the

According to Dean Iñigo: The object evidence rule is not confined to the sense of sight but may also be addressed to other senses like the smell, touch, and hearing. Example: An example of hearing is in an action for infringement of copyright. We have P vs D. P alleged that when D composed his song, D copied the melody of P's composition. Now D claims that the composition is his original composition. So, the parties presented notes of the musical composition before the judge, but the judge does not know how to read the notes. So, what the judge did was he asked P and D to play their piece. From there he could somehow sense if there are similarities. We all know that when it comes to admissibility, we have two main requisites. We have (1) relevance and (2) competence. When it comes to presentation of evidence in court, it is not enough to have those 2 requisites and nothing else. When presenting evidence, such evidence must be properly identified. Meaning it must be shown that the object offered is the thing in dispute. Recall the case of Olarte, it was a hand grenade and was marked as such, then the markings were changed.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

104

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Was it the same thing in dispute? Was it the grenade that was used? Most of the time, it is important to have the thing itself. So the identification process is necessary to show by independent evidence that the object offered is the thing in dispute. Example: Criminal Case - People vs DDD. A knife was used in the killing of V the victim. Evidence showed that after the killing while DDD was holding the same, a policeman arrived and got the knife. So, the knife should be offered as evidence. But before the knife can be offered as evidence, even though it is relevant and competent, it must be identified first. There must be a showing that this particular knife is the very same knife that DDD used to kill the victim. How is this done? The policeman who took the knife from DDD must be placed in the witness stand, he must identify the knife, and he must describe to the court the circumstances in which he took the knife from DDD and what he did after he took the knife and where he placed the knife. He must prove before the court that it is the same knife and not just a knife that he bought in the hardware. Once the knife is identified as the very same thing that was used to kill the victim, then it has already passed that stage. It is already admissible. Next topic: Another Classification of Object Evidence: 1. Demonstrative or Illustrative - That evidence which is imparted to the senses of the court with the aid of testimony. 2. Real or Object - That imparted directly to the senses of the court without intervention of testimony. Object Actual Tangible objects that play an actual role in the matter that gave rise to the case Evidence in itself Has connection to the case Integral to the fact in issue

Demonstrative 1 Illustrative 2 Intangible evidence that merely illustrates the matter of importance of a particular thing in litigation 3 An aid in the giving of testimony 4 No connection to the case 5 Not integral to the fact in issue

Has probative value Has some historical connection to the transaction giving rise to the case The gun used to kill the victim

6 Has no probative value 7 Serves as a visual aid for the court to comprehend the verbal testimony of a witness or other evidence 8 Same model of the gun used to kill the victim

Scenario: Let's go to a scenario in court an example of an illustrative or demonstrative evidence. Let's say the gun used in killing the victim has not been recovered. Perhaps the accused threw it and is now in the bottom of the ocean so, it can no longer be recovered. But the police saw the gun, but no matter what they did, they cannot find the gun. So, the witness is asked by the prosecution. Prosecution: What was the accused carrying? Witness: A gun Prosecution: Describe the gun and showed samples of the gun to the witness. Does it look like this? Witness: Points to gun B* These samples have no historical connection to the case, but serve as a visual aid to help the judge and the parties arrive at the picture of the crime. This type of object evidence is illustrative. It helps the court in visualizing how the original weapon look like. It has no connection to the case. When the real object evidence is formally offered in court there is no need to offer illustrative evidence. If the gun that was used to kill the victim is offered, there is no need for illustrative evidence. Now if you can remember the 2019 case of People vs. Olarte. There was a discussion there giving us two kinds of object evidence. We have here another way of presenting. Classification of Object Evidence [People v. Olarte] Actual, Physical or Demonstrative Autoptic Has a direct relation or 1 Represents the actual part in the fact or or physical object (or incident sought to be event in the case of proven pictures or videos) Brought to the court for 2 Offered to support or personal examination draw an inference or to by the presiding aid in comprehending magistrate the verbal testimony of a witness Actual Evidence Sub-Categories

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

105

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

[Riano, W.B., EVIDENCE (The Bar Lecture Series), citing 29A Am. Jur., 945-947] 1. Unique objects – those that have readily identifiable marks 2. Non-unique objects – those with no identifying marks, cannot be distinguished and are not readily identifiable:  Such as narcotic substances, industrial chemicals, and body fluids 

They present an inherent problem of fungibility or substitutability and contamination which adversely affects their relevance or probative value.

3. Objects made unique – those that are made readily identifiable; formerly non-unique objects. DISCUSSION: We have the 3 kinds of actual evidence, as discussed by Justice Caguioa in the case of People v. Olarte. Unique and Non-Unique – Distinctions: Unique Objects Already exhibit identifiable visual or physical peculiarities, such as:  A particular paint job or  An accidental scratch, dent, cut, chip, disfigurement or stain (when there is a collision); or Have a readily distinguishable mark; such as unit-specific serial number in case of an industrially manufactured item (e.g. cellphone, computer, car)

Non-Unique Objects Cannot be distinguished and are not readily identifiable, such as:  Narcotic substances (e.g. packet of shabu),  Industrial chemicals (e.g. gasoline), and  Body fluids (e.g. blood, saliva) They present an inherent problem of fungibility or substitutability and contamination which adversely affects their relevance or probative value

DISCUSSION: Unique objects are so easy to present in evidence because they can be easily identified, cannot be replaced, and not replaceable. But these non-unique objects can be replaced easily, when someone is not looking, or contaminated, or substituted. Q: What should be done? A: Non-unique objects should be made unique. That is where the objects made unique come in. According to the Supreme Court, during the initial stage of evidence

gathering, the only readily available types of actual evidence reasonably obtainable by law enforcers are unique objects and non-unique objects. So, non-unique objects have to be made unique by law enforcers upon retrieval or confiscation in order for these articles to be authenticated by a sponsoring witness so that trial and reviewing courts can determine their relevance or probative value. Q: How do you make a non-unique object a unique object? A: Put a tag. Mark the evidence. That’s why in our chain of custody rule, it’s so important to make a physical inventory and the photographing of that particular item that was seized is non-unique, like a packet of shabu. If it is photographed, then the size, shape, size of the crystals, can already be determined by looking at the photograph. But that is not enough. The marking, labelling – to make the objects unique. But these are not really unique, just made unique. Take note of that discussion in the case of People vs. Olarte. Q: What is the weight of object evidence? A: According to Justice Moran, it is the best and highest proof. Object evidence leaves you impressed, as in a movie. When one asks somebody to describe what he watched, it is still different if one saw the movie personally. It’s better to watch the movie than hear somebody talk about it. No matter how good a narration of the story is by someone who saw it, the listener will not appreciate it as much as when he saw the movie himself. That is why we need demonstrative or illustrative evidence. Because it’s so hard to describe a gun. “It’s black. It has a long nose. It has a trigger.” It is hard for a witness to do that. But if you have a sample of the gun, the judge can view it, then it is easier for the judge to imagine how the real gun looks like. Another thing that makes object evidence superior or more credible than the testimony of a witness is this lecture by the Supreme Court justice, when he compared object evidence with oral testimony: Animated witnesses may forget or may exaggerate or understate what they know, saw or heard or what they did. They may be biased and depart from the truth or state half-truths to mislead the court in order to favor one party and prejudice another. Not so with silent witnesses such as surrounding circumstances and facts found on the paper or object itself. Such mute witnesses play no favorites. If correctly understood and interpreted, they show and reveal the whole truth, in all its nakedness, hiding

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

106

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

nothing, forgetting nothing and without prejudice or mental reservation. If one relies on witnesses, there is a possibility that the witness would forget, exaggerate, etc. So, unreliable daw ang witnesses as evidence. That’s why object evidence carries the greatest weight. However, there are times when a judge may disallow the object as evidence because of certain constraints or limitations. Jurisprudence: Requisites for Introduction of Object Evidence 1. It must be relevant to the fact in issue; 2. It must be competent; 3. It must be authenticated; 4. It must be identified by a witness based on personal knowledge; 5. It must not be privileged. DISCUSSION: We already have the first 2 requisites for admissibility. Object evidence is not just brought to the court and the judge will just look at it. That’s not the procedure. The procedure is that it has to be identified, authenticated by somebody who has personal knowledge about such object. Personal knowledge of the crime, of the issue. So, hearsay object evidence is one that is described by somebody who does not have personal knowledge. Definitely, if there’s no one there to identify or authenticate the object evidence, it will not be admitted. Or even if there was someone to identify/authenticate, but that witness has no personal knowledge, it will not be admitted. It must not be privileged, which we will take up when we reach the succeeding provisions. Authentication The process of proving the genuineness of an object. Purposes: 1. To prevent the introduction of an object different from the one sought to be offered. 2. To ensure that there has been no significant changes in the original condition of the object being introduced. How to Authenticate an Object as Evidence 1. Prove its identity of the object DISCUSSION: This is done by the testimony of a witness, who will identify such object and describe how such object was used to commit the crime.

SCENARIO – CHAIN OF CUSTODY: The apprehending officer who placed the markings there on the shabu must identify his marking, handwriting, and signature. It is a very long process. That is why we took up Rule 129, Sec. 2 – what need not be presented in evidence. Because it is difficult to present even one single piece of evidence. So, the objects have to be made unique in the case of confiscated or seized drugs. 2. Prove its integrity DISCUSSION: In the case of seized drugs, the officer has to sit in the witness stand and describe how the drugs were seized, then the physical inventory, photographing, bringing to the forensic, etc. All those have to be described. It is enough to put it in the affidavit-complaint. Each and every piece of evidence has to be proved that it has integrity – it is the same evidence that was seized from the accused. In our cases, we also look at how photographs are authenticated, how tape recordings are authenticated. There are different ways – it is not one procedure for all kinds of object evidence. When Object Evidence shall be excluded 1. When it is irrelevant to the fact in issue 2. When it is indecent or improper, unless the case necessitates the for ascertaining the truth 3. When it is repulsive, unless necessary for the administration of justice. DISCUSSION: Example of indecent – in a rape case, the offended party does not have to show the bloody underwear, or pictures of her being raped by the rapist, or video. But if that is the only way for the court to ascertain the truth that she was indeed raped, then the court will instruct everyone to leave the court room. Only those involved in the case may watch. Example: The victim, when she was questioned in the witness stand, said that the rapist had a birth mark near his penis. To verify whether or not indeed he is the rapist, perhaps the court, normally it should not be done, may order the accused in order to see if the witness is telling the truth. Example of repulsive – The corpus delicti, the dead body, is not normally brought to the court. The pictures of the dead body, if it’s not really required for the administration of justice, is not also brought to the court. Death certificate is enough to prove the existence of a dead body. Presentation of Object Evidence

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

107

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

GENERAL RULE: Actual object evidence must be presented in court. EXCEPTION: Presentation of object/documentary evidence may be dispensed with in the following instances: 1. Exhibition is contrary to the public morals or decency. 2. Viewed or ocular inspection thereof would result in delays, inconvenience, or unnecessary expenses not in proportion the evidentiary value of such object. Example: ocular inspections in remote areas, where they would have to walk. 3. Such object evidence would be confusing or misleading as when the purpose is to prove the former condition of the object and there is no preliminary showing that there has been no substantial change in the said condition; which is applicable to ocular inspections.

4. Any material containing: a. Letters b. Words c. Sounds d. Numbers e. Figures f. Symbols or g. Their equivalent 5. Other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents. Discussion: Recordings and photographs are already included in documentary evidence. Before, it used to be only writings. Photographs include pictures, drawings, or images, x-ray films, motion pictures and videos. For the amendments, we still have to wait for the Supreme Court decisions on this. We don’t have any jurisprudence yet. So, we have to rely on the existing jurisprudence that does not have the amendments yet. CASES UNDER SECTION 2, RULE 130

4. The testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays the object in question as to render the view thereof unnecessary. 5. Where the existence of the object is not the very fact in issue but is merely a collateral fact or is merely used as a reference. 6. In crimes, the gist of which is the illegal possession of the article, when the article is common or familiar such that it can be readily identified by sight. Example: iPhone 6 B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SECTION 2.Documentary Evidence. — Documents as evidence consist of writings,recordings,photographsor any material containing letters,words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols,or their equivalent, or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents. Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos.(2a) What Documents as Evidence Consist of: 1. Writings 2. Recordings 3. Photographs or

PLDT v. TIAMSON Facts: PLDT dismissed its employee Tiamson for allegedly effecting illegal overseas calls. Tiamson filed an illegal dismissal case before the Labor Arbiter. PLDT presented as evidence the sworn statements of two other employees implicating Tiamson and the print-out of the CAMA tape recording. The print-out although computer-generated was not authenticated by the proper officer of the company and the name of Tiamson and the other annotations in the said printout are handwritten and unsigned. Issue: Whether of not the documents are admissible. Ruling: NO. The Court cited the case of Asuncion vs NLRC where it basically ruled that handwritten listing and unsigned computer printouts which are unauthenticated are unreliable and should be rejected as evidence without any rational probative value even in administrative proceedings. The Court also cited the case of Uichico vs NLRC and IBM Philippines vs NLRC where the Court ruled that although the the rules of procedure in administrative actions are liberally applied, the evidence presented before it must at least have a degree of admissibility for it to be given some probative value and that there must be some proof of authenticity or reliability as a condition for the admission of documents. In this case, absent any such proof of authenticity, the

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

108

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

printout of the CAMA tape should be considered inadmissible, hence, without any probative weight. Comments: This is a 2005 case and here the Supreme Court said that computer print outs are not admissible in evidence. But, we will see when we go to the electronic evidence rule if this ruling is still applicable. ERASUSTA vs. CA Facts: A parcel of land was subdivided. Lots A and C was sold to Lucena de los Reyes. The corresponding Deed of Sale did not include technical description of such lots. However, there were houses built thereon with addresses 925 Maria Luisa st. on Lot A and 933 Maria Luisa st. on Lot C. Later on, Lot C was sold to Fortunato Amorin. Later on, a representative from Pacific Banking Corporation (Bank) went to the Amorins' house at 933 Maria Luisa St., informing them that their property had been mortgaged to and foreclosed by the Bank (In the foreclosure the bank was the highest bidder and a TCT was issued to it). As it turns out, De Los Reyes was deceived by a certain Benjamin Valenzuela in transferring the titles of certain properties including Lot A to her three (3) children. Valenzuela fraudulently transferred the rights over the lots to his name and was issued a TCT. Valenzuela mortgaged the aforesaid real estates to the Bank. Let’s just note here thatValenzuela was convicted of estafa thru falsification of public documents. Apparently, the lot sold to Amorin was Lot A. This led Amorin to file a case against de los Reyes. De los Reyes prayed to the court that the technical description of the lots be changed so it would conform to the subdivision plan and that the TCT issued to the bank be cancelled. The Court of Appeals ruled here that the Bank is an innocent purchaser for value entitled to the protection of the law because the said property was a registered one. Issue: Whether or not a certificate of title is a conclusive evidence of ownership of a piece of land. Held: No. Settled is the rule that a certificate is not conclusive evidence of title; registration does not vest title, it is merely evidence of such title over a particular property. Certificates of title merely confirm or record title already existing and vested. They cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can they be used as a shield for the commission of fraud, nor to permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others. The Torrens system has never been recognized as a

mode of acquiring ownership. While it is true that every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and that a forged or fraudulent document may become the root of a valid title, this doctrine serves to emphasize that a person who deals with registered property in good faith will acquire good title, even from a from a forger, and be absolutely protected by a Torrens title. The Bank, being in the business of extending loans secured by real estate mortgage, is familiar with rules on land registration. As such, it was expected to exercise more care and prudence than private individuals in their dealing with registered lands. In this case, there are matters of record that should have put the Bank upon inquiry and investigation as to the possible defects of the title of Valenzuela. For merely relying on the certificates of title and for its failure to ascertain the status of the mortgaged properties as is the standard procedure in its operations, the Bank acted in bad faith. Comments: The Supreme Court emphasized here that a Torrens Title even though registered in the name of a person is not conclusive evidence of his ownership. But the Supreme Court did not say what really is conclusive proof.

CAREER VS. GODINEZ FACTS Godinez filed a labor case for collection disability benefits, sickness allowance, medical expenses, among others, against Career Ship management (“Career”). For their defense, Career presented an unsigned Medical Report wherein Godinez admitted that he underwent psychiatric evaluation when he was younger, an unsigned Medical Progress Report which stated that he was already cured from his illness, and a Certificate of Fitness for Work signed by Godinez and signed by the company doctor, Dr. Salvador, as a witness. ISSUE Whether or not the documents presented by Career have probative value as evidence. RULING No..For the Medical Report and Medical Progress Report, both were unsigned and thus offer no probative value. The court held that such unauthenticated documents were merely self-serving on the part of Career and could not be considered as

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

109

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

competent evidence, citing Asuncion vs NLRC.

EVIDENCE? - YES

As for the Certificate of Fitness for Work, the same was signed by Godinez who is not a physician and therefore has no qualifications to certify his own fitness for work. The fact that the doctor signed as a witness cannot be considered as a substitute to validate the said certificate, but instead shows Dr. Salvador’s incompetence and unethical practice, considering that she refused to sign the Medical Progress Report she issued but somehow found it proper to sign as a witness on Godinez’s alleged declaration of his own fitness.

HELD: “A facsimile signature, which is defined as a signature produced by mechanical means, is recognized as valid in banking, financial, and business transactions.”

Thus, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Godinez and in fact reprimanded Career for submitting dubious pieces of documentary evidence, which the Court viewed as a ploy to take advantage of Godinez’s lack of legal understanding. Comments: The cases we are discussing now are just examples of documentary evidence that are submitted in court. Like in the previous case, regarding the torrens title, this is always used as evidence to prove ownership. Whether or not it is conclusive, as long as it is identified, it may be presented in court. We are still in the rules of admissibility. Are these torrens title admissible? Yes, but they have to be identified by the officers who have custody over these titles. In this case, the titles are in the custody of the Registry of Deeds. What about these medical certificates and etc. that the doctors sign? The doctor should identify these certificates. Whether these certificates will be given weight is up to the courts. PEOPLE VS. MATEO FACTS:  A case of syndicated estafa was filed against MMG’s sole general partner Mateo and its other 5 limited partners for soliciting investments against Hermina et. al. .  Mateo however contends that he did not personally, physically, and actually participated in the commission of the crime.  He also denied the authenticity his signatures that appear in the Memorandum of Agreement which was entered into by Herminia et. al and facilitated by Geraldine (MMG’s head of the Business Center), the Secretary’s Certificate, and Signature Card which was submitted to Allied Bank. These signatures are merely facsimile signatures. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THESE DOCUMENTS THAT CONTAINS FACSIMILE SIGNATURES CAN BE CONSIDERED A VALID DOCUMENTARY

The MOA was notarized, it was only on appeal when Mateo questioned its validity. Mateo’s facsimile signature together with his partners’ facsimile and stamped signatures, which appeared on the Secretary’s Certificate and Signature Card, were used in opening a bank account in the name of MMG. Allied Bank used and recognized these facsimile and stamped signatures in transacting with Mateo and his partners without any complaints from them. Thus, he cannot deny the binding effect of the subject signatures. Comments: So earlier, a computer printout cannot be admitted in evidence. But in this case, People v. Mateo, a 2017 case, are facsimile signatures in a document which the Supreme Court said are recognized as valid in banking, financial and business transactions. SISON vs. PEOPLE Facts: The case happened during the aftermath of the 1986 EDSA Revolution. President Cory Aquino was being openly challenged in rallies, demonstrations and other public fora by "Marcos loyalists". On July 27, 1986, during a rally by these Marcos loyalists, it resulted in the murder of Stephen Salcedo, a known "Coryista”. The beating of Salcedo was witnessed by bystanders and several press people. The press took pictures and a video of the event which became frontpage news the following day, capturing national and international attention. Several information were filed in court against several persons identified as Marcos loyalists charging them with the murder of Salcedo. The prosecution presented twelve witnesses, including two eyewitnesses and in support of their testimonies, the prosecution likewise presented documentary evidence consisting of newspaper accounts of the incident and various photographs taken during the incident. It should be noted here that some of the accused used or adopted the photographs as part of their defense. When the prosecution used the photographs to crossexamine all the accused who took the witness stand, no objection was made by counsel for any of the accused, not until Atty. Lazaro appeared at the third hearing and interposed a continuing objection to their admissibility. The objection of Atty. Lazaro to the

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

110

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

admissibility of the photographs is anchored on the fact that the person who took the same was not presented to identify them. Issue: Whether or not the photographs are admissible as evidence despite the lack of proper identification by the person or persons who took the same. Held: Yes. The rule in our jurisdiction is that when photographs is presented in evidence, it must be identified by the photographer as to its production and testified as to the circumstances under which they were produced. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the original, and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime. The correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who made it or by other competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy. Therefore, photographs can be identified by:  the photographer or  by any other competent witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy. In this case, the use of these photographs by some of the accused to show their alleged non-participation in the crime is an admission of the exactness and accuracy thereof. The photographs are faithful representations of the mauling incident was affirmed when some of the accused gave reasons for their presence thereat. Comments: The SC said that the correctness of the photographs as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie by either: 1. The testimony of the person who made it; or 2. By other competent witnesses who can testify to its exactness or accuracy.

admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following case: (a) When the original is 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, or the original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures; (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. (e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue DISCUSSION: As you can see this is an amended title. This used to be the “Best evidence Rule”. Here, we have some amendments made to the rule. Let’s go to this question first: Q: Why is “the best evidence rule” described as a misnomer?

1. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE

A: because it has often been understood and given a meaning that it does not deserve.  Despite the word “best” the rule does not proclaim itself as the highest and most reliable evidence in the hierarchy of evidence.  The term “best” has nothing to do with the degree of its probative value in relation to other types of evidentiary rules.  It is not intended to mean the “most superior” evidence.  More accurately, it is the “original document” rule or the “primary evidence” rule.  That is why the Supreme Court recently changed it. It is no longer the “Best evidence Rule” but now the “original document rule”. So that is the provision.

Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions- When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no evidence is

Q: What does this rule tell us? A: No evidence is admissible other than the original document itself. When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a writing, record, photograph or other record.

So it is not required that it is the photographer be the one to identify the photographs. TAN VS HOSANA (SEC. 2 R130)

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

111

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Q: What is documentary evidence? Refer to Rule 130, section 2.

Q: So what was the “best evidence rule” before? A: It merely says that if you want to present a document to prove the contents thereof you have to submit the original. The original is the “best evidence”. Hence, the name. However, the SC said that doesn’t mean that the original of a document is the ‘best ever evidence’. It doesn’t mean that it is superior to all other kinds of evidence, hence the misnomer. Since the amendment is new, our cases refer to the “best evidence rule”. So when you recite your cases, you still mention “best evidence rule” since that is what the cases talk about. However, always remember that it has already been amended to its proper term. BEST EVIDENCE RULE So, this is the best evidence rule, if you want to present a document, to prove its contents, you have to present the original-the original of the document. There are 5 exceptions (amendments underlined)

under

section

(a) When the original is 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, or the original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures; (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. (e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT EXCLUSION

RULE

This rule is also known as the “Rule of exclusion”. Meaning only the original is admissible. It only applies to DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence consist of writings, recordings, photographs or any material containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols or their equivalent, or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents. Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored images, xray films, motion pictures or videos. (2a) It operates as a rule of exclusion because in order to prove the contents of the document, one must produce the ORIGINAL. Any other evidence is NOT allowed. The contents of the document must be relevant to the fact in issue for the ODR to apply. CASES UNDER ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE: Consolidated v. Del Monte Motor G.R. 143338 July 29, 2005 (ODR) Comment: Normally when one files a complaint and attaches document especially actionable documents like a promissory note to prove one’s cause of action, one does not attach the original, but one only attaches the photocopy. If the defendant in his answer, does not deny the genuineness and due execution of the actionable document which is a promissory note, what is the effect? It is deemed admitted. The genuineness and due execution. So, that is already a judicial admission. Hence, is there need to produce the original document or the original promissory note? According to the Supreme Court? No more because there is already a judicial admission. There is no need to present evidence anymore. What was also mentioned there is that if the original document is in the hands or in the custody of the adverse party, then that is one of the exceptions where a photocopy will be presented. People vs Cayabyab G.R No. 167147; Aug. 3, 2005 (ODR) People vs Dimaano G.R No. 168168; Sept. 14, 2005 Facts: Edgardo Dimaano was charged with 2 counts of rape

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

112

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

and one count of attempted rape by his daughter, Maricar. He was subsequently found guilty. The penalty for rape when attended with the special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship was death. In order to prove Maricar’s minority and her relationship with Edgardo, the following were presented: 1. a photocopy of the birth certificate; and 2. a photocopy of a marital certificate. Issue: Is the photocopy of the birth certificate and marital certificate admissible as evidence to prove Maricar’s age and her relationship with Edgardo? Ruling: Yes.

question and the return slip. Arceo, Jr. was found guilty and convicted. Arceo, Jr. questions the conviction arguing that the presentation of the check in evidence is a condition sine qua non for conviction under BP 22 and since there was failure on the part of the prosecution to present the dishonored check during trial, he should not have been convicted.  As basis for his argument, Arceo, Jr cites Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court: When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document,writing, recording, photograph or other record, no evidenceisadmissible other than the original document itself xxx  

ISSUE: Whether applicable. NO

the

Best

Evidence

Rule

RULING: RULE 130, Section 3 provides that 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: (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. In this case, the marriage and birth certificates are public records in the custody of the local civil registrar who is a public officer. In addition, the court held that production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial court's discretion: 1. when the opponent does not dispute the contents of the document and 2. no other useful purpose will be served by requiring its production. In this case, the contents of the birth and marriage certificate, when offered as evidence to prove relationship and minority were not disputed. Thus, presentation of their photocopies is admissible as secondary evidence to prove their contents.



The Court ruled that “The rule applies only where the content of the document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is the execution or existence of the document or the circumstances surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.”  In the case at bar, a conviction for violation of BP 22 rests on the the act of drawing and issuing a worthless check and not what is written on the check. “Hence, the subject of the inquiry is the fact of issuance or execution of the check, not its content.” Comment: Here it is the fact of issuing a worthless check that is the gravamen of the offense of violation of BP 22 hence that can be proven by testimonial evidence no need to present original check. There is only one check and so one must really hold on to it with one’s dear life otherwise there’s nothing left. But I’ve handled a lot of BP 22 cases and I always present the original check and I keep it with me and just bring it to court if it has to be examined or viewed by the court. Llemos vs Llemos G.R No. 150162; Jan. 26, 2007

Arceo vs People G.R No. 14264; July 17, 2006 FACTS:  Cenizal filed a case for violation of BP 22 or “Bouncing Checks Law” against Pacifico Arceo, Jr. However, Cenizal lost the check in

Facts: All the parties involved in this case is the grandchildren and compulsory heirs of the late Saturnina Salvatin who died on March 12, 1938. Saturnina owns a parcel of land which is the subject property in this case. Felipe LLemos, father of Felisa, is one of the four (4) children of Saturnina Salvatin.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

113

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

The other three (3) are Adriano, Santiago, and Domingo, all deceased. Jovita, et. al. is the other grandchildren of Saturnina, born from the other children of Saturnina. Jovita, et. al. discovered that the subject parcel if land was already in the name of the heirs of Felipe LLemos. Felisa, et. al. then alleged that the late Saturnina Salvatin conveyed the said parcel of land to their father, Felipe, by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale executed on November 05, 1964. Thus, said property is their inheritance from their father. Jovita et. al. then sought to nullify such land title and filed an action for the Declaration of Nullity of the Transfer Certificate Title registered in the name of Felipe Llemos, alleging that Saturnina died on March 12, 1938 and the Deed of Absolute Sale was purportedly executed on November 05, 1964. Hence, said Deed is null and void since there can be no meeting of minds between a dead and a living. They presented, as evidence, the Certificate of Death of Saturnina to prove the latter’s date of death. Regional Trial Court: Ruled in favor of Felisa et. al., ruling that the Certificate of Death is private document and must be authenticated to be admitted as evidence and Jovita, et. al. failed to notarize or otherwise authenticate the same. Hence, for failing to do so the facts stated in the Certificate of Death are hearsay. Court of Appeals: Reversed the decision of the RTC. Issue: Whether or not the Certificate of Death is admissible as evidence. Held: NO! The Certificate of Death is inadmissible. The Supreme Court cited Section 3, Rule 130 of the 1997 Rules of Courts, which states that under Section 3, Rule 130, Rules of Court, the original document must be produced and no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases: “x x x x • When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; • 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; • 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 When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.”

In this case, none of the exceptions are attendant in the present case. • The Register of Dead is in the custody of St. John Metropolitan Cathedral but Jovita et. al failed to show that it presented the Certificate of Death because the Register of Dead cannot be produced in court; • There is no showing that the Register of Dead consists of numerous documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from it is only the general result of the whole; and • That the Certificate of Death is not a public record in the custody if a public officer in a public place. • the Certificate of Death is a private document and not a public document (pursuant to promulgation of General Orders No. 6813 and the passage of Act No. 190 Hence, Jovita et. al. heavily relied on the Certificate of Death attesting that "Saturnina Salvatin died on March 12, 1938, however, failed to establish its authenticity and due execution of such. Comment: But now, birth certificates marriage certificates and death certificates are issued by our government offices -the civil registrar or the psa.But the term there is so funny noh- the register of dead there's a book of dead people. Chuagaw vs Chua (ODR) Comment: it is emphasized in this case that the best evidence rule is only applicable if the subject of the inquiry or the contents of the document -as to its existence there is no need for the original -the best evidence rule does not apply. Edsa Shangrila vs BF Corporation (ODR) Comment: This particular exception is related to section 6 so what are the requisites for the application of the exception. AUGUST 7, 2020 So, I believe that we already started our reports for the Best Evidence Rule or the Original Document Rule last meeting. I failed to realize that the cases are not only for Section 3 but Section 4. So, I decided to just lecture on the remaining provisions of the ODR and then we will go to the reports. Original Document Rule

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

114

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

  

Also known as the Rule of Exclusion Applies only to documentary evidence The Original Document Rule (ODR) operates as a rule of exclusion because in order to prove the contents of a document, one must produce the ORIGINAL. Any other evidence is not allowed. The contents of the document must be relevant to the fact in issue for the ODR to apply.

PPP’s lawyer asked his client (PPP), “Do you know DDD?” PPP said “Yes, I entered in to a contract of sale with him.” “Was the agreement in writing?” “Yes.” “Would you tell the court the terms and conditions agreed upon in the deed of sale? Can you testify to that?” The lawyer of DDD raised the objection that it violates the Original Document Rule. And the Judge said “Sustained.” When the Judge says “Sustained.”, that means the objection is correct, the objection is sustained.

Discussion: We were still talking about the Original Document Rule and this was the last topic that we discussed. So, it is also known as the Rule of Exclusion hence, only the original of the document is allowed to prove the contents of the document.

So, that is how you object when the party who wants to prove the contents of a document does not present the original but tries to prove it through testimonial evidence.

Principle  When one tries to prove the terms and conditions of a contract, the original contract itself must be produced.  Oral testimony, even if the contents are memorized verbatim, is objectionable.  A photocopy is not allowed  Even a true copy is generally not allowed  What should be presented in court should be the ORIGINAL document itself.

Principle  When what is being sought to be established is the execution, it is not covered by the Original Document Rule.  The ODR cannot be invoked when the evidence sought to be introduced concerns some external facts about the documents, such as its existence or delivery, without reference to its contents.



Discussion: When one tries to prove the terms and conditions of a contract, the original contract itself must be produced. So, oral testimony, even if the contents are memorized verbatim by the person testifying – this is objectionable. Meaning, the adverse party can raise an objection citing the Best Evidence Rule. So, a photocopy is not allowed. Even a certified true copy is not allowed because it is still a photocopy, it is just certified. So, what should be presented should be the original document. Illustration  PPP v. DDD – Civil case for Damages based in breach of contract  There were stipulations in the contract which DDD violated.  PPP’s lawyer: “Do you know DDD?”  PPP: “Yes, DDD and I entered into a contract of sale.”  PPP’s Lawyer: “Was the agreement in writing?”  PPP: “Yes.”  PPP’s Lawyer: “Would you tell the court the terms and conditions agreed upon in the deed of sale?”  DDD’s Lawyer: “Objection. It violates the Original Document Rule.”  Judge: “Sustained.” Discussion: Here, we have a civil case for damages based on breach of contract and there were stipulations in the contract which DDD violated. So, during the trial,

Next principle:

Discussion: When what is being sought to be established is the execution, it is not covered by the ODR. So, it cannot be invoked when the evidence sought to be introduced concerns some external facts about the documents, such as its existence or delivery, without reference to its contents. Illustration 1  PPP’s Lawyer: “Do you know DDD?”  PPP: “Yes, DDD and I entered into a contract of sale last year.”  PPP’s Lawyer: “Do you have a copy of the contract?”  PPP: “Yes.”  PPP’s Lawyer: “Could you show it to the court?”  DDD’s Lawyer: “Objection. It violates the Original Document Rule.”  Judge: “Overruled!” The objection is improper because what is being sought to be proved is not the contents of the contract but its existence or execution. Discussion: When the judge says “overruled”, that means the objection is wrong. Your objection is overruled. It is improper because what is being sought to be proved is not the contents of contract but its existence or execution. Illustration 2

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

115

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

      



People v. DDD – Criminal Case for Bigamy Witness on the stand – XXX Prosecution: “XXX, do you know DDD?” XXX: “Yes.” Prosecution: “Why do you know DDD?” XXX: “I attended his wedding ceremony on June 8, 2018.” [the date of the 2nd marriage] Defense: “Objection, your Honor. The best evidence to prove the second marriage is the marriage contract, we are objecting to the testimony of XXX.” Judge: “Overruled!”

The invocation here of the ODR is improper because XXX was presented not to prove the contents of the marriage contract but to testify that the marriage ceremony did take place. Discussion: The judge said “overruled” meaning the objection is wrong because the invocation of the Original Document Rule is improper as XXX was presented not to prove the contents of the marriage contract but to testify that it took place. Next Principle: Principle The contents of the document must be relevant to the fact in issue for the ODR to apply. Illustration  People v. DDD – Criminal Case for murder  Victim – VVV  Witness – XXX  Issue: W/N DDD killed VVV  Prosecution: “Where were you on the night of June 8, 2018?”  XXX: “On June 8, 2018, I was on my way to deliver a letter to the house of GGG.”  Prosecution: “What happened while you were walking to the house of GGG?”  XXX: “I saw DDD stab VVV to death.”  Prosecution: “What is the content of the letter you were delivering to GGG?”  Defense: “Objection! The best evidence would be the letter itself.”  Judge: “Overruled! Wrong ground!” The letter is not relevant to the issue; it might have been a mere invitation to a party. It does not violate the ODR

– it is objectionable but the ground should be “the letter is not relevant to the issue.” But what was raised was the Best Evidence Rule. So, it is wrong. It might have been a mere invitation to a party. It does not violate the Original Document Rule because it is not relevant. EXCEPTIONS Let’s go to the exceptions – when can secondary evidence be offered. Meaning, when is a photocopy allowed. 1st Exception [a] When the original has been: 1. Lost, or 2. Destroyed, or 3. Cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror Discussion: So when you say “lost”, you know the definition of lost under the Civil Code. “Destroyed” – this applies to tangible objects. The document. The original document is destroyed. The original cannot be found because it is lost. Or the catch-all here: “Cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror.” So, it is unavailable. So, some authors are saying there are two kinds of unavailability: Two Kinds of Unavailability 1. Physical Unavailability – the original consists of an inscription on immovable objects or monuments and even gravestones. Discussion: You cannot physically bring that to the court, you cannot bring the gravestone. The writing is there on the gravestone. The writing is on a building. A building that is of strong materials. So, it cannot be brought to court – physical unavailability. 2. Legal Unavailability – the document is beyond the territorial or coercive jurisdiction of the court. Discussion: It is far away. It is in another country. So, if such document is unavailable then a photocopy or secondary evidence may be presented. CASE: ONG CHING PO vs CA [Dec. 20, 1994]

Discussion: The judge said “overruled.” Is this objectionable? Yes. “What is the contents of the letter?” ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

116

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

According to the Supreme Court in this case, secondary evidence is admissible when the original documents were actually lost or destroyed. But prior to the introduction of such secondary evidence, the proponent must establish the former existence of the document. Therefore, before one can introduce secondary evidence like a photocopy, the proponent must establish the former existence of the original. Procedure: The correct order of proof is as follows: 1. Existence 2. Execution 3. Loss 4. Contents Discussion: Prove the existence of the document, prove its execution, prove its loss and the contents may be proven through secondary evidence. But according to the Supreme Court, this order may be changed, if necessary, in the discretion of the court. Ong Ching Po vs CA GR 113472-73; December 20, 1994 1st Division: Quiason, J The Court of Appeals did not give any credence to Exhibit "B" [Deed of Sale in favor of Ong Ching Po] and its translation, Exhibit "C", because these documents had not been properly authenticated. Under Section 4, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court: "Secondary Evidence when Original is lost or destroyed. When the original writing has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, upon proof of its execution and lost or destruction, or unavailability, its contents may be proved by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the recollection of the witnesses." Secondary evidence is admissible when the original documents were actually lost or destroyed. But prior to the introduction of such secondary evidence, the proponent must establish the former existence of the document. The correct order of proof is as follows: existence; execution; loss; contents. This order may be changed if necessary in the discretion of the court (De Vera v. Aguilar,218 SCRA 602 [1993]). Ong Ching Po failed to adduce evidence as to the genuineness and due execution of the deed of sale,

"Exhibit "B". 2nd Exception [b] When the original: 1. 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, or 2. Cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures Discussion: So that No. 2 exception is an amendment. It is an amendment so we don’t have cases on that exception. Requisites for the Production of Secondary Evidence under Rule 130, Sec. 3[b]: i. The original is proven to exist ii. The document is under the custody or control of the adverse party iii. The proponent of secondary evidence has given the adverse party reasonable notice to produce the original document; and iv. The adverse party failed to produce the original document despite reasonable notice. Discussion: For No. 2, that is very simple – cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures. Meaning, cannot be obtained by means of a subpoena duces tecum. Why? Because it is situated more than 100 kilometers away, if it is a civil case. Things like that. Or, if you remember the rule on Subpoena, then you can related it to this. 3rd Exception [b] When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents: 1. Which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, or 2. The fact sought to be established from them is only the general results of the whole Discussion: [b] When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents: (1) Which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time. Like a whole filing cabinet of documents. Or (2) The fact sought to be established from them is only the general results of the whole. We only want to bottom line, the net profit or the net loss. That’s all you need. Why look at the specific documents? So, we have an example here given by Dean Iñigo. EXAMPLE: We have an owner or a mall, a supermarket like NCCC. How can he prove his gross sales in one year? So, we have the receipts, the

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

117

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

invoices. So, under the Original Document Rule, there receipts and invoices should be shown or presented in court. But it would be too tedious and impractical t bring each and every receipt. I think each booklet has 100 leaves. So, if you have 100 booklets, times 100 leaves of 100,000 receipts. If the court has to examine it or the adverse party’s lawyer has to examine it, it would cause great loss of time. So, is there a way of proving the gross sales other than bring all the invoices to court? Yes, according to Dean. The court allows the presentation of income tax returns, financial statements, or balance sheets. So, instead of the original receipts, replacements like those can be presented. CASE: COMPAÑA MARITIMA vs ALLIED FREE WORKERS UNION (1977) Here we have Compañia Maritima, which is a shipping company, and Allied Free Workers Union which entered into a written contract where the Union agreed to perform arrastre work for the vessels of Compañia Maritima. Later, this union, AFWU, wanted Compañia Maritima to recognize it as the exclusive bargaining unit of the company. This is related to your Labor Relations. But Compañia Maritima ignored the union. So, the union file a petition for certification election. Now, despite this case Compañia Maritima sent notice to AFWU for termination of their contract (the arrastre contract) and entered into a contract with another stevedoring association. So, according to Compañia Maritima, the termination of the contract of AFWU was due to company losses. It suffered financial losses because of the inefficient services of AFWU. So, to ascertain the annual losses, Compañia Maritima hired auditors. And what was presented in court was just the Auditor’s report. The sales invoices of Compañia Maritima and other documents were not presented, only the auditor’s report. So, is this allowed? Does this fall under the 3 rd exception? The issue is whether or not the submission as evidence of the records of alleged losses of Compañia Maritima is excused because of the rule exempting voluminous records from being produced in court. The Supreme Court said no. Rule 130, Section 3(c) cannot be applied because the voluminous character of the records, on which the accountants' reports were based, was not duly established.

The Supreme Court is saying here, if you want to present something else, a Summary, you have to prove first that the records are voluminous. COMPAÑA MARITIMA vs ALLIED FREE WORKERS UNION GR L-28999; May 24, 1977 2nd Division; Aquino, J The company argues that the accountants' reports are admissible in evidence because of the rule that "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 oth the general result of the whole", the original writings need not be produced (Sec. 2[e], Rule 130, Rules of Court). That rule cannot be applied in this case because the voluminous character of the records, on which the accountants' reports were based, was not duly established (U. S. vs. Razon and Tayag, 37 Phil. 856, 861; 29 Am Jur 2nd 529). It is also a requisite for the application of the rule that the records and accounts should be made accessible to the adverse party so that the company, of the summary may be tested on cross-examination (29 Am Jur 2nd 517-8; 32A C.J.S. 111). What applies to this case is the general rule "that an audit made by, or the testimony of, a private auditor, is inadmissible in evidence as proof of the original records, books of accounts, reports or the like" (Anno 52 ALR 1266). That general rule cannot be relaxed in this case because the company failed to make a preliminary showing as to the difficulty or impossibility attending the production of the records in court and their examination and analysis as evidence by the court (29 Am Jur 2nd 529). Taxpayers Claims – CTA Circular 1-95 [Atlas vs CIR June 8, 2007] 1. The party who desires to introduce as evidence such voluminous documents must, after motion and approval by the Court, present: a. A Summary containing, among others, a chronological listing of the numbers, dates and amounts covered by the invoices or receipts and the amount/s of tax paid; and b. a Certification of an independent Certified Public Accountant attesting to

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

118

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

the correctness of the contents of the summary after making an examination, evaluation and audit of the voluminous receipts and invoices. The name of the accountant or partner of the firm in charge must be stated in the motion so that he/she can be commissioned by the Court to conduct the audit and, thereafter, testify in Court relative to such summary and certification pursuant to Rule 32 of the Rules of Court. But in relation to that Atlas vs. CIR case the Court of Tax Appeals came up with a Circular, the rule on - if the party desire to introduce evidence such as voluminous documents, this is the procedure, a summary containing a chronological list of the numbers, dates, and amounts covered by the invoice receipt, etc. must be submitted. You don't have to show the invoice sens the receipt but a list, and a certification of an independent CPA attesting to the correctness of the contents. 4th exception: [c] When the original: 1. is a public record in the custody of a public officer, or 2. is recorded in a public office. Example: Birth Certificate, Marriage Certificate, etc. We don't have any more what duly recorded the Register of Dead, that is a thing of the past where the register of the dead people that were being controlled by priests, but now that is the Local Civil Register. 5th exception: [d] When the original is not closely related to a controlling issue. We have some instances that are not found in the exception, not found in Section 3. They are decision where the Supreme Court gave another exception and another exception, but you will see them from the cases. SECTION 4.Original of Document. — (a)An "original" of a document is the document itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An "original" of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an "original." (b)A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or

electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original. (c)A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.(4a) Discussion: Section 4 tells us what is an Original of a document. This is a radical change from the old Section 4. The old rule will be the basis of the cases, so the reporters if you are reporting under Section 4 just cite the particular rule, you don't have to cite the entire Section 4, there are three (3) kinds of original but now this is different, let us go to the new provision [a] Original The "Original" of a Document  The document itself; or  Any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. Discussion: Letter (a) talks about the Original. What is the original of a document? The document itself or any counterpart of the document intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing. So, you need to look for the intention now. This is so different from the previous rule, and it says, 'any counterpart'. Now, what is a counterpart? We do not know yet because we don't have jurisprudence on the matter yet.Wala namang IRR ang Rules. So, let us just take note that these are the two (2) kinds of an original document,counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An "Original" of a Photograph  The negative or any print therefrom.  Any printout of other output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately [if the data is stored in a computer or similar device] Discussion: And since the photograph was added, under Section 3, then what is an original of a photograph?The negative or any print therefrom - when you print from that negative, that is original, doesn't matter if you had 500 printouts from that negative, that's an original.Any printout of other output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately [if the data is stored in a computer or similar device]. So, if you take a picture with your cellphone, and you print it out, that printout is an original. [B] Duplicate

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

119

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Question: What is a duplicate? Answer: A "Duplicate":  By the same impression as the original, or  From the same matrix, or  By means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or  By mechanical or electronic re-recording, or  By chemical reproduction' or  By other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original. So, all of these, under letter (a) is admissible under the original document rule. This will not violate the Original Document Rule. Duplicate - it is a counterpart. What are these (enumerated above), what exactly are these? We must wait for jurisprudence to explain. This is not an exclusive list. That is a duplicate. [C] Admissibility of a Duplicate And letter (c) talks about the admissibility of a Duplicate General Rule -a duplicate is admissible to thesame extentas an original Comment: So, in other words it's not only the original that can be presented in court to prove the contents of a document. The proponent can actually present a duplicate and the other party cannot object. Exception -Unless:  A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or  In the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. Comment: So, those are the two (2) exceptions to the rule that a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as that of the original. As to the old rules, we still have to know what they are. 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 hisor herpart, may prove its contents by a copy, or by recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (5a) Discussion: Copy (ex. photocopy),by recital of its contents in some authentic document (meaning,

copy verbatim the contents and put in your pleading), or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. Question: So, what is Secondary evidence? Answer: Secondary Evidence: Proof of the contents of a document other than the original. Question: What are the requisites? Answer: Requisites for the Presentation of Secondary Evidence When the Original has been Lost, Destroyed or cannot be Produced in Court: 1. The original of the document EXISTED and has been duly EXECUTED 2. The original is unavailable WITHOUT BAD FAITH on the part of the offeror 3. If there are several originals, all must be accounted for [Jurisprudence] One cannot produce secondary evidence if there is another original, so if there are 500 originals, one cannot produce a photocopy or secondary evidence. Unless all those originals are accounted for. Types of Secondary Evidence Which May Prove the Contents of a Document 1. A COPY of the original such as a photocopy, or 2. A RECITAL of its contents in another authentic document, or 3. The TESTIMONY of witnesses Citibank v. Teodoro [Sept. 23, 2003] Before a party is allowed to adducesecondary evidence to prove the contents of the original sales invoices, the offeror must prove the following: (a) the existence or due execution of the original; (b) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its nonproduction in court; (c) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed; and (d) when more than one copy of the document exists, must prove that all the originals have been lost or destroyed. The correct order of proof is as follows:  existence,  execution,  loss, and  contents. 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, heor shemust have reasonable

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

120

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, heor shefails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. (6a) Discussion: Section 6 is related to Section 3 (b). What are the requisites? Please refer above enumeration (Requisites for the Presentation of Secondary Evidence When the Original has been Lost, Destroyed or Cannot be Produced in Court). Question: How does one make the adverse party bring the document to court? Answer: By subpoena duces tecum. Illustration: Trial Date 1 Counsel for PPP:"Mr. DDD, I am requesting you to produce in court on the next trial date, the original of XXX document. Failure on your part to produce the original will entitle me to produce secondary evidence." Trial Date 2 Counsel for PPP:"Mr. DDD, did you bring the original XXX document? DDD:"No, I did not." Counsel for PPP:"Your honor, may I present a photocopy of XXX document?" Counsel for DDD:"Objection your Honor, Violation of the Original Document Rule?" Judge:"Overruled!" Rule 130, Sec. 6 Comment: Objection is wrong. We have the exceptions under Rule 130, Section 6. The adverse party, Mr. DDD, was given reasonable notice to produce the original in court but he failed to do so. Hence, the proponent can now produce or present secondary evidence to prove the contents of the document. SECTION 7.Summaries. — When the contents of documents, records, photographs, or numerous accounts are voluminous and cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the fact sought to be established is only the general result of the whole, the contents of such evidence may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation. The originals shall be available for examination or copying, or both, by the adverse party at a reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in court.(n) Section 7 is entirely new and titled Summaries.

Answer: It is related to Section 3(c). Question: So, what kind of secondary evidence is allowed? Answer: Section 7 is already telling us, what kind. The contents of such evidence may be presented in the form of a: 1. charts - to prove the contents of the receipts, 2. summary, or 3. Calculation. Question: So, what do we want to prove here? Answer: The contents of the receipts. So, if you want to prove the contents of the receipts bring the receipts to court but since the receipts are so voluminous there is no need to bring the receipts before the court, you don't need to bring the photocopy of the receipts - you bring the chart, the summary, calculations. So, you have to know, what the partner provision is. Question: What about the originals? Answer: As to the Originals: 1. they shall be available for examination or copying, or both by the adverse party at a reasonable time and place. Comment: So, it is the adverse party that will go to the voluminous records. No need to bring that to the court. 2. The court may order that they be produced in court. Comment: The court has the prerogative to order that. Sec. 8. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. When the original document is in the custody of 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. Section 8 is partnered with Sec. 3(d). 4th Exception to ODR – Situation: The original of document is: Ø In the custody of public officer or Ø Recorded in a public office Secondary Evidence Allowed to Prove its Contents A certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof If the original is in the custody of a public officer or recorded in the public office, the secondary evidence that is allowed to prove its contents is a certified copy

Question: But what is Section 7? ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

121

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

issued by that particular public officer in custody of the original.

“Offer” is different from “presentation”. During trial, that is presentation of evidence. We’re talking about documentary evidence here.

If you want the certified copy of your birth certificate, you go to the PSA. That’s the office that is authorized. Whoever has the copy of the original, we don’t know. We just know that it is the PSA which issues the certified copy of your birth certificate.

You know that for testimonial evidence, it is already offered—‘your honor, the testimony of witness X is being offered to prove this etcetera’. So na offer na ang testimonial.

Sec. 9. 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.

But when it comes to documentary evidence, that is only presented in court during trial. It is offered after resting, when the plaintiff will say ‘the plaintiff rests’, the court will order the plaintiff to offer the evidence.

A party is not obliged to offer a document as evidence even if: Ø He calls for the production of a document, and Ø He inspects the document

Before, there used to be a ‘written offer’. But, you already took up the amended rules in Civil Procedure. The offer is now oral. That is offer.

Hence, even if he calls for the production of a document and he inspects the documents, he is not obliged to offer it in evidence.

Even if he asks the court to issue a subpoena to bring the document to court, and he inspects the document, he is not obliged to offer it after he rests. That is not needed. If it will not help him, he does not have to offer such evidence.

This is the summary of our original document rules: Circumstances Exceptions to ODR Rule 130, Sec. 3[a] The original: 1. Is lost, or 2. Is destroyed, or 3. Cannot be produced in court

Requisites for Presentation of Secondary Evidence Rule 130, Sec. 5 1. The original of the document EXISTED and has been duly EXECUTED 2. The original is unavailable WITHOUT BAD FAITH on the part of the offeror 3. If there are several originals, all must be accounted for

Secondary Evidence to Prove the Contents of a Document Rule 130, Sec. 5 1. A COPY of the original such as a photocopy, or 2. A RECITAL of its contents in another authentic document, or 3. The TESTIMONY of witnesses

Rule 130, Sec. 3[b] The original: 1. Is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, or 2. Cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or procedure

Rule 130, Sec. 6 1. There must be PROOF that the original exists 2. The adverse party must have been given REASONABLE NOTICE to produce the original 3. The adverse party FAILS to produce the original document

Rule 130, Sec. 5 1. A COPY of the original such as a photocopy, or 2. A RECITAL of its contents in another authentic document, or 3. The TESTIMONY of witnesses

Rule 130, Sec. 3[c] The original consists of numerous accounts or other document

Rule 130, Sec. 3[c] 1. The documents cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and 2. the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole

Rule 130, Sec. 7 1. A chart 2. A summary, or 3. A calculation

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

122

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Rule 130, Sec. 3[d] The original is a public record

Rule 130, Sec. 3[d] 1. It is in the custody of a public officer, 2. It is recorded in a public office

Rule 130, Sec. 8 Certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof

So we have here a, b, c, and d. We don’t have “e” yet because it is new.

never returned the money from her deposit and money placement account.

Take note of the partnered provisions: 1. 3(a) is related to Sec. 5. The secondary evidence allowed to prove the contents of the document is still Sec. 5, Rule 130. 2. 3(b) is related to Sec. 6, but the secondary evidence is under Sec. 5, Rule 130. 3. 3(c), the secondary evidence to prove the contents is under Sec. 7, the new provision on summaries. 4. 3(d) is there.

Citibank countered that before the compensation, they sent a letter to Sabeniano for the compensation (6 years before filing the case).

That is the summary or the framework of the original document rule. If you have that in your head, you’re not going to go wrong if you are faced with a situation involving what the contents of a document. But, remember, Rule 130 Sec. 4 that talks about original is a radical provision. You have to be able to notice the changes as we listen to our reports. So this is the discussion until Sec. 9. Volunteer Case under Sec. 1, Rule 130 People of the State of California vs. Simpson This is a popular case, although it is a 1995 case. This is the criminal case, because they reserved the right to file a civil action—the victims. This case falls under the third classification by Justice Moran—since there are three, only exhibition and experimentation were discussed in the case. Comment: This is a very popular case which ruined the career of the prosecutor Marsha Clark. She was one of the prosecutors. But he is now in jail, he was arrested for stealing something. Citibank vs Sabeniano G.R. No. 156132; October 12, 2006 FIRST DIVISION: CHICO-NAZARIO,J. Facts: Sabeniano has various deposit accounts from Citibank and money market placements from FNCB Finance (an affiliate of Citibank). Sabeniano obtained various loan obligations from Citibank, due to nonpayment, Citibank compensated the obligation to the deposit and money market placement account. However, Sabeniano filed a case for sum of money and accounting against Citibank stating that Citibank

To prove Sabeniano’s loan obligation, Citibank presented photocopies and microfilm copies of the Promissory Notes, Manager’s Check and Letters from Sabeniano. CA: Citibank failed to establish competent evidence of the loan obligation, thus the set-off was not proper. Issue: WON the best evidence rule applies? NO. Ruling: The best evidence rule applies only when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document. Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible (5 Moran, op. cit., pp. 76-66; 4 Martin, op. cit., p. 78). Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need for accounting for the original. The terms or contents of these documents were never the point of contention in this case. Sabeniano – merely stated that the Promissory notes never existed. She denied the receipt of the proceed of the Managers Check. Thus, Sabeniano questioned the documents as to their existence or execution, or when the former is admitted, as to the purpose for which the documents were executed, matters which are, undoubtedly, external to the documents, and which had nothing to do with the contents thereof. Thus the best evidence rule does not apply. Alternatively, even if it is granted that the best evidence rule should apply, it should be borne in mind that the rule admits of the following exceptions under Rule 130, Section 5. The execution or existence of the original copies of the documents was established through the testimonies of witnesses.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

123

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

The original documents in this case, such as the MCs and letters, were destroyed and, thus, unavailable for presentation before the RTC only on 7 October 1987, when a fire broke out on the 7 thfloor of the office building of Citibank. There is no showing that the fire was intentionally set. The photocopies or microfilm copies of the Promissory Notes, Managers Checkss, and letters were sufficient as secondary evidence to establish the existence of Sabeniano's loans, as an exception to the best evidence rule. Comment: That falls under the exception—Sec. 3(a) Atlas vs. CIR G.R. Nos. 141104 & 148763 June 8, 2007 CHICO-NAZARIO, J. Facts: Atlas Corporation filed with the BIR its VAT Return for the first quarter of 1992. It also filed with the BIR the corresponding application for the refund/credit of its input VAT on its purchases of capital goods and on its zero-rated sales. The CIR opposed the application stating, among others that, Atlas failed to submit sufficient evidence (vat invoices/receipts) which would substantiate its application for refund/credit. It only presented a certification of an independent CPA attesting to the correctness of the contents of the SUMMARY of suppliers' invoices or receipts which were examined, evaluated and audited by said CPA. Issue: Whether or not Atlas Corporation has sufficiently presented evidence that would substantiate its claim. Ruling: NO CTA Circular No. 1-95 in relation to Section 3(c), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that If a party wants to present voluminous documents/accounts the following requirements must be presented or complied with: 1. There must be a motion and approval by the Court; 2. Summary of such documents/accounts; 3. Certification of an independent CPA attesting to the correctness of the contents of the summary 4. Pre-marking and submission to court of the documents/accounts subject of the summary. In the case at bar, while it is true that Atlas Corporation was able to present a certification of the independent CPA attesting to the correctness of the

contents of the summary of suppliers' invoices or receipts, it failed to pre-marked the sales receipts and invoices and submit the same to the court. Comment: But these are only for Tax cases and not supermarket cases. Q: Does it include supermarket cases? How to get their net loss? Is it a CTA issuance right? A; Yes. Alfaro vs Court of Appeals FACTS: The documentary evidence involved in this case is a deed of sale. Now, have here the declaration of nullity of the deed of sale by Spouses Olegario and Bagano against Spouses Alfaro. These Spouses Olegario and Bagano previously executed a real estate mortgages in favor of Spouses Alfaro. When they later settled their obligation, they asked Spouses Alfaro to return or to cancel the real estate mortgage but the Spouses Alfaro refused to do so. So, they checked on through the Registry of Deeds and found out that the title was transferred to Spouses Olegario and Bagano. They contended that their signature in the deed of sale was forged. On their defense, Spouses Alfaro said that there was no forgery and there was indeed a contract of sale. Now, spouses Bagano and Olegario, in this case, presented the hand writing expert Romeo Varona and here, he examined Exhibit B which is the certified true copy of the original deed of absolute sale presented to and kept as part of the records of the Registry of Deeds and also examined the documents given or provided by the Spouses Bagano, in this case wherein the specimen of their signature is also indicated in there and concluded that the questioned signatures appeared on Exhibit B were indeed forged. On their part, Spouses Alfaro manifested their intention to have Varona examined another set of documents: the real estate mortgages, acknowledgement receipts and community tax certificates. This is on the one incident of crossexamination. They asked the handwriting expert, here, to evaluate the signatures in these documents and that the signatures in this documents were signed by the same person – they were not forged and their signatures were indeed of Spouses Olegario and Bagano. In another instance of cross-examination, Verano in this case was asked to examine another deed of

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

124

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

absolute sale which is marked as Exhibit 13. This is a copy of the original deed of sale retained by Spouses Alfaro. Varona, in this cross-examination, said that the signature in the Exhibit 13 is the same signature he examined earlier. The issue in this case is on the inconsistent findings of Varona to the two copies of deed of sale. The first is on Exhibit B – it is spurious because the questioned signature thereon was forged and on the other hand, Exhibit 13 which is, according to Varona, not forged.

Because if you print out the first copy and you signed that document and you photocopy that, photocopy talaga ang labas niyan. But if you photocopy the print out, and you signed the photocopy – hindi na yan photocopy, that is now an original. All of those documents – Exhibit B and Exhibit 13, they are all considered originals. Therefore, no violation of the original document rule or the best evidence rule was committed when these documents were presented in court. Manila Mining vs Miguel Tan

ISSUE: what is the effect of the inconsistent findings on the copies of the original deed of sale. RULING: The Supreme Court held here that the deed of sale was genuine and duly executed. Exhibit B and 13 are copies of the two originals of one and of the same deed. Conclusion with respect to the exhibit should be common and the presumption of validity of the deed of absolute sale, in this case, was upheld because it was notarized. Comment: Okay, so what is the provision being applied here in the case? Rule 130, Section 4(b). What are considered originals? Rule 130 Section 4 Original Document. – (a) The original of the 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. Normally, how many copies do we produce when we go for notarization? Not just one, maybe five or six or seven. They are all considered originals, under the old Section 4(b). The thing is what will make such documents original is the signature. Each document, each copy must have an original signature and the signature must not be – what we do now is we print out one copy and we photocopy the rest. So, before signing, the first document that was printed must be photocopied first.

FACTS: Manila Mining Corporation (MMC), here, ordered and received various electrical materials from Miguel Tan, the owner of Manila Mandarin Marketing (MMM). MMC made partial payments but despite repeated demands, failed to give the remaining balance. Hence, Tan filed a collection suit against MMC in the Manila Regional Trial Court. During trial, Tan presented three (3) customer’s acknowledgment receipts bearing the notation “corresponding original of the invoices”. However, Manila Mining assails the probative value of the documentary evidence presented during trial. It raised the contention that the unauthenticated photocopies of invoices and purchase orders did not satisfy the best evidence rule, which requires the production of the original writing in court. ISSUE: Whether or not the presentation of mere copies a violation of the best evidence rule. RULING: The Supreme Court held that no. There was no violation of the best evidence rule because in this case, the Supreme Court explained that in order to raise that contention or to anchor your objection on that rule – it only applies when the contents of the writing are directly in issue. In this case, the only objection of MMC is that Tan only presented photocopies. It did not deny the contents of the invoices and the purchase orders. Its lone contention was that Tan did not submit the original copies to facilitate payment. So, the Supreme Court said that photocopies of the documents were admissible in evidence to prove the contract of sale between the parties because MMC did not deny the contents. What was its lone contention was that Tan presented photocopies and we can that if this case was decided this time, it would not have reached the Supreme Court because the rule specifically said that any counterpart intended to have the same by the executing or issuing it.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

125

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Comment: So, if you remember what the previous discussion was, what need not be proven/what need not be proved – judicial admissions. There was an allegation regarding the receipts. Was it denied in this case? No. So, if there is no denial, what is the effect? There is a deemed admission of what was being alleged – the contents of those receipts. We already know that if we do not specifically deny – these are receipts so they can be considered actionable documents or even if they are not considered actionable documents, the adverse party does not deny, then all of the allegations are deemed admitted. So, the contents of the receipt, not being denied are already admitted, does that have to be proven? No need. Theres no need to prove those things anymore. A photocopy of those receipts were presented in court for the record, what was the objection? That it violates the best evidence rule. The best evidence does not apply if there is no issue as to the contents of the documents sought to be presented. There is no more issue because whatever the contents of the receipts were already deemed admitted. There is no point in objecting based on the best evidence rule. People vs Padilla FACTS: In this case, Armando Padilla was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of the crime of qualified rape. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Now, under the statute then enforced at the time of the commission of the crime here, one of the qualifying circumstances was when the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent. So, here, the prosecution alleged in the information as to the qualifying circumstance of minority that the victim AAA is 11 years of age at the time she was raped by the Padilla. In support of this allegation, the prosecution adduced the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses. The prosecution also relied upon the absence of denial by the accused Padilla as to the age of AAA. Now, on appeal, the Supreme Court in its issue on the sufficiency of the prosecutions evidence to prove the victims age, the prosecution said that with respect to the victim’s minority the rule is that there must have to be independent evidence proving the age of the victim apart from the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused.

The Supreme Court said here that the following would suffice as independent competent evidence of the victim’s age: (a) The original or duly certified Birth Certificate; (b) Baptismal Certificate; or (c) School Records In the instant case, aside from the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses coupled with the absence of denial from the accused, no independent substantial evidence was presented to prove the age of AAA. Hence, Padilla should have not been convicted of qualified rape, but only by simple rape. ISSUE: is was the best evidence rule actually applied by the Supreme Court in this case. RULING: The Supreme Court said no. According to lawshelf.com, the best evidence rule only applies when the party offering evidence seeks to prove the contents of a writing. It does not apply when a party is simply trying to prove an independent event, or fact that could be embodied in a writing. In the case at bar, since the prosecution sought to prove an independent fact – that is the rape victim’s age at the time of the commission of the offense by testimonial evidence, although it could be established through documentary evidence, the prosecution did not offer any document as evidence of such fact as to subject the contents of a document to inquiry; hence, the best evidence rule does not apply. Comment: Why was this case placed here? Because the Supreme Court said that the best evidence to prove the minority of the victim are the birth certificate, school record, etc. The best evidence. That is why this phrase, “the best evidence rule” was changed. It is now the original document rule. Because the term best evidence is also used for other purposes. Like in this case, there was nothing about the contents of the documents being presented by the prosecution but the Supreme Court said that the best evidence for proving the age is this. Hence, this particular case should not be under the best evidence rule but where should it be situated? What is the topic of this case? This case should be situated under the topic on weight – the provisions of the rules on evidence on weight because here the court weighed in the context of rape cases, the court here weighed the evidentiary weight of the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

126

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Anyway, that is why I think this case is really out of place just because it is stated there the best evidence is this. It does not fall anymore under the original document rule but somewhere else, maybe under weight.

REMEDIO VS PEOPLE GR. No. 184874 October 9, 2009

3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim’s mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances:

Facts: Robert Remiendo was convicted with two (2) counts of Statutory Rape. On two different occasions, in or about the month of March and May 1997 Robert Remiendo had carnal knowledge with [AAA]. The affidavit-complaint and testimony during trial of BBB, mother of AAA, stated that that AAA was born on February 21, 1986. At the time of the commission of the crime, AAA was below 12 years of age. Certified True Copy of Certificate of Live Birth of AAA was offered by the prosecution during its formal offer of exhibits. The defense presented the entry of AAA’s date of birth appearing in her school record which was February 21, 1983. RTC and CA found Robert Remiendo guilty for two (2) counts of Statutory Rape.

a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old; c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.

Remiendo questions his conviction for statutory rape alleging that there was absence of competent proof that AAA was below 12 years old at the time of the alleged commission of the crimes. He further argued that, on the basis of the testimonies of the defense witnesses and the Elementary School Permanent Record, AAA was more than 12 years old in March and May 1997.

5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.

Issue: Whether or not the certified true copy of certificate of live birth CAN BE considered as a competent proof that aaa was below 12 years of age at the time of the Commission of the crime to properly convict REMIENDO with statutory rape. Ruling: Yes. As regards the appreciation of the age of a rape victim, the Court, in People v. Pruna, laid down the following guidelines: 1.The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. 2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.

6. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim. RULE 130 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

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

127

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. In this case, the prosecution offered in evidence a certified true copy of AAA’s Certificate of Live Birth as part of the testimonies of AAA and her mother that AAA was born on February 21, 1986. A certificate of live birth is a public document that consists of entries (regarding the facts of birth) in public records (Civil Registry) made in the performance of a duty by a public officer (Civil Registrar). As such, it is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth of a child, and it does not need authentication. It can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, it is significant to note that both AAA and BBB testified that AAA was born on February 21, 1986 and this fact was neither denied nor objected to by the defense. Therefore, the certified true copy of AAA’s Certificate of Live Birth presented sufficiently established the age of AAA which was below 12 years old at the time of the alleged commission of the crimes. BPI vs.SMP, INC. G.R. No. 175466; 23, December 2009 Third Division: Nachura FACTS: Bank of the Philippine Islands is the successor-in-interest of Far East Bank, the original party in this case. Clothespak Manufacturing Philippines ordered 4000 bags of sacks of GPS Polystyrene products from SMP. Inc. Later it was delivered and as payment Clothespak issued postdated checks in favor of SMP. However, when the checks were deposited, they were dishonored. In the meantime, Far East Bank and Trust Company filed a case against Clothespak for a recovery of sum of money with prayer for issuance of preliminary attachment and the attachment was granted. Hence, real and personal properties of Clothespak were levied and attached. Thereafter, SMP, Inc. filed a Third Party Claim, claiming ownership of the 4,000 bags of General

Purpose (GPS) polystyrene products taken at Clothespak factory. SMP anchors its claim of ownership over the goods by virtue of the Provisional Receipt No. 4476 issued by their Sales Executive to Clothespak with the words, "Materials belong to SMP Inc. until your checks clear." Far East Bank Contentions: Assails the admissibility of the receipt for it is a mere triplicate copy; the original and duplicate copies were not presented in court, in violation of the Best Evidence Rule. Neither was there secondary evidence presented to conform to the rule. ISSUE: Whether or not the Provisional Receipt No. 4476 was in contravention of the best evidence rule. RULING: NO Sec. 4.Original of document. — (a) The original of the 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. The best evidence rule is the rule which requires the highest grade of evidence obtainable to prove a disputed fact. Although there are certain recognized exceptions when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself. In this case, the receipt presented by SMP falls under the 2nd category. It is deemed as an original, considering that the triplicate copy of the provisional receipt was executed at the same time as the other copies of the same receipt involving the same transaction. Comment: So even in our new amended rules, a duplicate is produced as the same with the original. If you have triplicate or quadruplicate receipts with carbon paper, you write once, and the handwriting is reflected on the four copies then all of those are considered as originals under the Old Rules. Under the Amended Rules it is a duplicate. But even though it is a duplicate, it is still admissible as an original. Even though we have different wordings, the duplicate or triplicate is still admissible as an original.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

128

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

AUGUST 10, 2020 Jose v. CA [ G.R. Nos. 118441-42, January 18, 2000] FACTS: Bus 203, driven by Armando Jose, collided with a red Ford Escort driven by John Macarubo on MacArthur Highway, in Marulas, Valenzuela, Metro Manila. Rommel Abraham, represented by his father, Felixberto, instituted Civil Case for damages against MCL (bus company) and Armando Jose (driver). Abraham made a testimony stating that the collision took place because Bus 203 invaded their lane ISSUE: WON the photographs presented disputes the testimony of Abraham? RULING: YES! The trial court was justified in relying on the photographs rather than on Rommel Abraham’s testimony which was obviously biased and unsupported by any other evidence. Physical evidence is a mute but an eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. In criminal cases such as murder or rape where the accused stands to lose his liberty if found guilty, the Court has, in many occasions, relied principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining the truth. In People v. Vasquez, where the physical evidence on record ran counter to the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the Court ruled that the physical evidence should prevail. In this case, the positions of the two vehicles, as shown in the photographs taken by MCL line inspector Jesus Custodio disputes Abraham’s selfserving testimony that the two vehicles collided because Bus 203 invaded the lane of the Ford Escort and clearly shows that the case is exactly the opposite of what he claimed happened. Contrary to Abraham's testimony, the photographs show quite clearly that Bus 203 was in its proper lane and that it was the Ford Escort which usurped a portion of the opposite lane. Therefore, the photographs (physical evidence) presented was given credence by the Court over the testimony of Abraham.

Comment: Under this case, the SC considered the photographs as real or object evidence but we all know under the amendment, photographs are now considered as documentary evidence under Sec 2 of Rule 130. Voluntary Case Calde v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 93980, June 27, 1994] FACTS: This involves a probate of a last will and a codicil of Calibia Bulanglang. Calde here was named executor in the will and filed for the probate of the will. However, the relatives of Bulanglang opposed this. Two of the witnesses gave a testimony that they used only one ballpen (black) in signing the will and the codicil. However, the Court of Appeals noticed that there were discrepancies in the color of the ink of the ballpen used by witnesses when they affixed their respective signatures. The Court of Appeals then formed a conclusion that the documents were not signed by them in their presence but on different occasions since if they used the same ballpen they could not have produced a different color from blue to black and from black to blue. The Court of Appeals disallowed the will saying that if they used the same ballpen, then their signatures would have been in only one color ISSUE: WON the Court of Appeals ruled based only on pure speculation?? RULING: NO! A tribunal may properly acquire knowledge for making its decisions thru real evidence or autoptic proference. Autoptic proference is the tribunal’s self-perception, or autopsy, of the thing itself. In the case at bar, the autoptic proference contradicts the testimonial evidence produced by the witnesses. In this case, the will and its codicil, upon inspection show in black and blue that more than one pen was used by the signatories.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

129

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

In this case, it was not erroneous nor baseless for the Court of Appeals to rule that the will and codicil were not subscribed to in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code. Thus, the court did not rule based only on pure speculation but based on autoptic proference. Comment: Autoptic proference is another term for real or object evidence but it is more of the perception of the court. In this case, even though we are looking at the document, the last will and testament. But it is not the contents of the document that was made an issue but the colors of pens used. So this is considered Object evidence and not Documentary evidence. Silk Air v. CIR [ G.R. No. 184398, February 25, 2010] FACTS: Silk Air filed with the BIR an administrative claim for the refund of P 3, 983, 590.49 in excise taxes. To be entitled to the refund, Silk Air had to present proof that it was authorized to operate in the Philippines. The Court of Tax Appeals ruled that Silk Air was not entitled to the excise tax exemption, for failure to present proof of its authority to operate. The proofs submitted by Silk Air of their authority to operate, including its SEC registration and its operating permits, were mere photocopies, resulting in its nonadmission by the Court of Tax Appeals. ISSUE: WON failure to present the original copies of the documents violates the Best Evidence Rule

Nissan v. United Philippine Scout [ G.R. No. 179470, April 20, 2010] FACTS: United Philippine Scout entered into a contract for security services with Nissan North Edsa. Where it posted security guards within Nissan's compound. In 1996, Nissan informed United that their services are being terminated. So this prompted United to demand payment, because of Nissan's act of terminating without prior written notice as stipulated under paragraph 17 of their service contract. Nissan did not comply with United's demand and instead it contended that United violated the terms of their contract and this allowed Nissan to terminate United's services without prior notice. As a result of Nissan's failure to comply with United's demand, United filed a case for sum of money with damages and now Nissan maintains that in order to solve this case, the best evidence rule must be applied and that United should present the service contract as evidence.. ISSUE: WON the best evidence rule applies? RULING: NO! The best evidence rule does not apply because the contents of the service contract is not the issue in this case. The rule only applies when the contents of a document are the subject of the inquiry as expressly provided under Section 3 of Rule 130.

RULING: YES! The Supreme Court cited Rule 130, Section 3, which requires that “when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself.” This provision is referred to as the Best Evidence Rule.

In this case, neither Nissan nor United disputes the contents of the service contract, thus the best evidence rule finds no application in this case.

Pursuant to the mentioned provision, the elementary rule is that, when mere photocopies of documents are offered, such documents shall not be admissible in evidence, unless the original copies itself are offered or presented for verification.

FACTS: Espejo is the original owner of 2 parcels of agricultural land. One is located in Lantap and the other in Murong. These lands were mortgaged by Espejo and it was foreclosed and subsequently sold to the bank.

In the case at bar, the non-admission by the Court of Tax Appeals of Silk Air’s SEC registration and operating permits was proper, given that what they submitted were mere photocopies and they never presented the original copies of the documents for comparison and verification.

The bank, now being the owners of the said land executed a deed of sale in favor Espejo and in effect Espejo bought back one of the lands and it also executed a deed of voluntary land transfer (VLT) pursuant to RA 6657 in favor of Marquez.

Marquez v. Espejo [ G.R. No. 168387, August 25, 2010]

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

130

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

This is where the issue arose, as what was expressed in the deed of sale with Espejo is TCT 96 which refers to the Murong property. However, what the bank alleged is what it really intended to sell back to Espejo was the Lantap property because the Murong property is the property which Marquez is entitled to under RA 6657. So, Espejo filed a complaint before the Regional Agrarian Reform adjudicator praying for the cancellation of the VLT in favor of Marquez saying that they are now the owners of the Murong property by virtue of the deed of sale executed by the bank. Marquez on the other hand, insisted that what was transferred to them was the Murong property which was the property they were occupying that despite the discrepancies in their VLT what the parties really intended to transfer to Marquez was the Murong property. The Court of Appeals here ruled in favor of Espejo saying that the title numbers indicated in their respective deed of conveyance should control, allegedly using the best evidence rule. The CA here held that the deed of sale is the best evidence as to its content. That the Deed of Sale expresses TCT 96, and that is what Espejo repurchased from the bank that the ambiguity in Marquez' VLT were mere typographical errors. ISSUE: WON the best evidence rule is applicable in this case? RULING: NO! It cited Section 3 of Rule 130 which provides for the best evidence rule that the rule only applies when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document. The SC here said, that the CA erred in the application of the best evidence rule because there is no dispute regarding the content of the documents in this case. In this case, it was admitted by the parties that what was really expressed in Espejo's deed of Sale was TCT 96, and in Marquez' VLT is TCT 36. The court here said that the real issue to resolve the dispute is the true intention of the parties and not the contents of the said conveyance. Hence, the best evidence rule is not applicable.

Comment: Simply stated, when there is no dispute as to the contents of a document the best evidence rule will not apply.

RP v. Imee Marcos-Manotoc No digest and ppt uploaded. FACTS: PCGG, on behalf of the Republic, filed a complaint against the Marcoses before the Sandiganbayan for recovery of ill-gotten wealth. The RP formally offered its evidence: 1. Photocopy of the TSN of the proceeding before the PCGG; 2. Photocopies of affidavits; 3. Photocopy of a letter. These documents were opposed by the Marcoses, contending that the documents violated the best evidence rule as these were mere photocopies not authenticated and there was no explanation provided for its failure to present the original. The Sandiganbayan ruled in favor of the Marcoses and explained that the evidence submitted as to the affidavits were considered as mere hearsays. RP argued that the documents fall under the exception – that the original is a public record in custody of the public officer or is recorded in a public office since these documents were collected by the PCGG. ISSUE: WON the photocopies submitted by the RP fall under the exceptions under Sec. 3, Rule 130 – NO. RULING: First, the RP does not deny that what should be proved are the contents of the documents themselves. It is imperative, therefore, to submit the original documents that could prove the allegations. The SC cited Sec. 3, which provides that original documents must be submitted to prove the allegations and it also provides for the exceptions. Sec. 5 was also cited, as to when secondary evidence may be admissible – when the original is lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court. The SC also cited Sec. 7, as to what must be complied with before public documents can be admissible when originals were not submitted.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

131

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

The rule is, that if the writings have subscribing witnesses to them, they must be proved by those witnesses. RP contended that it presented the record officer as a witness. However, the SC ruled that this record officer could only testify as to how they acquired the documents, but not as to the contents. RP did not even attempt to provide a plausible reason why the originals were not presented, or any compelling ground why the court should admit these documents as secondary evidence absent the testimony of the witnesses who had executed them. As to the copy of the TSN of the proceedings before the PCGG, while it may be considered as a public document since it was taken in the course of the PCGG’s exercise of its mandate, it was not attested to by the legal custodian to be a correct copy of the original. It was not even signed by the stenographer who supposedly took down the proceedings. While affidavits may be considered as public documents if they are acknowledged before a notary public unless the affiant is placed on the witness stand. Comment: When you talk about public documents, they are admissible under Section 3 – if the public record is in the custody of a public officer or it is kept in a public office. However, when it comes to the presentation of these public documents, they have to be certified by the person in custody of such public records or documents.

Ancieto Bangis vs Heirs of Adolfo G.R 190875, June 13, 2012 Based on PPT. FACTS: The Spouses Adolfo are the original registered owners of a parcel of land. However, in 1975, Serafin Adolfo mortgaged the said land to Ancieto Bangis who immediately took possession of the land. When the Spouses died, the heirs of Adolfo executed a deed of extrajudicial partition, and one of the properties involved was the subject land. In 1998, the heirs expressed their intention to redeem the property from Bangis, however the latter refused because the transaction was a sale and showed the heirs a photocopy of the deed of sale. Bangis contended that the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding their testimonial evidence and documentary evidence particularly, the photocopy of the Absolute Deed of Sale which purportedly established the sale in his favor. ISSUE: Whether or not the BEST EVIDENCE RULE is applicable – YES. RULING: SEC. 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: (1) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;

We’re going to learn later the different kinds of document – public documents, private documents. Before a photocopy of a public document can be admitted, there are a lot of other steps to be taken.

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

In this case, if the requirements under the Rules were complied with, perhaps such documents would have been admitted. Unfortunately, it is not enough to say that “this is a public document.”

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

Q: Where is the original of a public document? A: It is with the office that has custody. If it is a notarized document, the original is with the notary public that notarized the document or with the court, where the lawyer submits the document. If the notarized document offered in evidence is a mere photocopy, it still has to be identified by the one who has custody of the document.

(4) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. SEC. 5. When original document is unavailable. When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

132

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

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 content in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. The subject of inquiry is the very contents of the said document, only its photocopy was presented at the trial without providing sufficient justification for the production of secondary evidence, in violation of the best evidence rule. The bare testimony of one of the Heirs of Bangis, Rodolfo Bangis, that the subject document was only handed to him by his father, Aniceto, with the information that the original thereof "could not be found" was insufficient to justify its admissibility. Moreover, the identification made by Notary Public Atty. Valentin Murillo that he notarized such document cannot be given credence as his conclusion was not verified against his own notarial records. Besides, the Heirs of Bangis could have secured a certified copy of the deed of sale from the Assessor's Office that purportedly had its custody in compliance with Section 7, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. In sum, the Heirs of Bangis failed to establish the existence and due execution of the subject deed on which their claim of ownership was founded. Consequently, the RTC and CA were correct in affording no probative value to the said document. Comment: This is an extra-judicial settlement of estate, with absolute deed of sale. It’s supposed to be a notarized document. Aside from the explanation given, the SC also added that since a notarized document is considered as a public document, it is not enough for it to be identified by the lawyer who notarized it. The lawyer must also prove that it is part of his own notarial records. So, he has to take out his notarial records and show the court that this is one of the documents that I notarized. That is why it is very important to learn Rule 129 – when evidence is not required. Because once evidence is required to be presented, you have to go through the eye of a needle. People v. Lupac No digest and PPT uploaded. FACTS: AAA, the daughter of BBB was raped by her uncle Lupac. They filed a case for statutory rape with the RTC of Antipolo.

The RTC, in convicting Lupac of statutory rape, concluded that although the qualifying circumstance of relationship had not been proven, AAA’s testimony showing that her age of only 10 years at the time of rape suffices to prove her age as an essential element of statutory rape. The CA affirmed the conviction, but modified it by holding that Tupac was only guilty of simple rape. It noted that the prosecution was not able to establish the victim’s minority because of the failure to submit AAA’s birth certificate. ISSUE: Was the best evidence rule, in relation to the Pruna guidelines, complied with – NO. RULING: Although the information alleged that AAA had been only 10 years of age at the time of the commission of the rape, the State did not reliably establish such age of the victim in accordance with the guidelines for competently proving such age laid down by the Court in People v. Pruna: PRUNA GUIDELINES In order to remove any confusion that may be engendered by the foregoing cases, we hereby set the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance. 1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. 2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age. 3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim’s mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old;

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

133

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old; c.

If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.

4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim’s mother or relatives concerning the victim’s age, the complainant’s testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. 5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him. 6. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim With the minority under 12 years of AAA being an element in statutory rape, the proof of such minority age should conform to the Pruna guidelines in order that such essential element would be established beyond reasonable doubt. That was not done because the evidence adduced by the Prosecution did not satisfy Pruna guidelines 4 and 5. In this case, since there was no submission of the birth certificate of AAA to prove her age, Tupac was only held liable of simple rape. Comment: What is very misleading in the Pruna guidelines is that “1. best evidence to prove the age”. Does this pertain to the best evidence rule in this particular Pruna case? No. Because the best evidence rule applies to the contents of the documents. Here the “best evidence to prove the age”, so if the victim is at the witness stand and says she is 10 years old, there is no document that they are trying to prove, she is just trying to prove her age. So the Supreme Court said the best evidence to prove the age of the victim is to present a birth certificate. That is why the “best evidence rule” is a misnomer, because this phrase is used for other purposes like this one in the Pruna guideliness. So, the best evidence rule is only applicable if the proponent is trying to prove the contents of the document. By changing the name from the “best

evidence rule” to “the original document rule”, there will be no more confusion because he Supreme Court has the right to say that the best evidence to prove this crime is this evidence or that evidence. It is not always the original of the document. Heirs of Prodon v. Heirs of Alvarez G.R. No. 170604 September 2, 2013 Facts: A complaint for quieting of title was filed against Margarita Prodon The Heirs of Alvarez contended that their parents Maximo Alvarez and Valentina Clave were the registered owners of the land. Prodon claimed that Maximo Alvarez executed on September 9, 1975 a deed of sale with right to repurchase. The heirs of Alvarez then claimed that the deed of sale with right to repurchase covering the property did not exist. The custodian of the records of the property attested that the copy of the deed of sale with right to repurchase could not be found in the files of the Register of Deeds of Manila. The Regional Trial Court concluded that the original copy of the Deed of Sale had been lost and ruled in favor of Prodon and admitted secondary evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed the Regional Trial Court’s decision and ruled that a party may only introduce secondary evidence after it can first satisfactorily explain the loss of the best or primary evidence. That the order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents. Issue: Whether or not the best evidence rule will apply? NO Ruling: Best evidence rule is not applicable in this case The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a writing are in issue. When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts, such as the existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without reference to its terms, the Best Evidence Rule cannot be invoked. In such a case, secondary evidence may be admitted even

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

134

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

without accounting for the original. This case involves an action for quieting of title, in such an action, the competent court is tasked to determine their respective rights. In this case, the Best Evidence Rule was not applicable because the terms of the deed of sale with right to repurchase were not the issue.

Also, the issue in this case involves the finding of solidary liability of the Bognot siblings, which would require reference to the promissory note. Since RRI Lending was not able to produce the original of the promissory note, “the photocopy of the promissory note cannot be admitted as evidence” and the conclusion is that the liability of the Bognot siblings is only joint. Republic vs. Gimenez

Thus, the presentation of evidence other than the original document would be enough even without first proving the loss or unavailability of the original of the deed.

People vs. Abella Comments: So, if the best evidence rule is not applicable, then secondary evidence may be presented without going through the requisites previously presented, in this case, the law. There is no need to prove the laws of the original if the best evidence rule is not applicable. Skunac Corporation vs. Sylianteng Bognot vs. RRI Lending Facts: In 1996, the Bognot siblings obtained a loan from RRI Lending. Said loan was evidenced by a promissory note. In 2007, RRI Lending filed a complaint for sum of money against the Bognot siblings on the ground that the loan became due and that it remained unpaid. Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals ruled that the Bognot siblings are solidarily liable for the payment of the loan. Its ruling was based on the promissory note dated June 30, 1997, which included the phrase “I/WE, jointly and severally, promise to pay.” However, RRI Lending merely presented a photocopy of this promissory note. Issue: Whether or not the photocopy of the promissory note submitted by RRI Lending falls under the exceptions under Section 3, Rule 130 – NO. Ruling: “Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself except in the instances mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court.” In the case at bar, RRI Lending had custody of the original of the promissory note. However, as admitted by RRI Lending, it could not present the original because it was in the possession of their cashier who was stranded in Bicol.

FACTS: Abella was charged with Illegal Recruitment. One of the evidence presented was the written agreement between Abella and Miguel, one of the complainants. The agreement contained the terms of employment of Abella abroad. But what was presented was the photocopy of the document. Abella claims it violates the best evidence rule, as the contents of the agreement are disputed. ISSUE: Is the non-presentation of the document fatal to the prosecution’s cause?

original

RULING: NO. It is true that the photocopy is inadmissible since it goes against the Best Evidence Rule. This is because the evidence is documentary evidence, and therefore the original must be presented. The only time when a duplicate would be admissible is when there is sufficient justification for the non-presentation of the original. In this case, there was no adequate explanation why the original was not presented. However, the written agreement was not the sole evidence presented against Abella. There were also testimonial evidence from Miguel and other victims. During the trial Miguel and others testified as to how they were recruited by Abella. This constituted testimonial evidence, which was sufficient to warrant conviction. The written agreement was, at best, corroborative of their testimony. Its absence would not affect their testimonies. Comments: Is the photocopy of the document admissible? No, because in this case the original handwritten document must be submitted and there was no justification why the photocopy was submitted. There was no proof it was lost, destroyed, unavailable or in the hands of the adverse party. It was definitely

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

135

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

not a public record in the hands of a public officer kept in a public office. But, it does not mean that the evidence is not admissible, the proponent will lose the case if there is existence of other evidence that are admissible. In this case, that is what happened that is why in this case, hence it was not important to present the photocopy of that written agreement. Gumabon vs. PNB GR 202514 July 25, 2016 Facts: Anna maintained 8 account with PNB. She decided to consolidate the accounts and withdraw P2,727,235.85. When she went to PNB she was informed that she could not withdraw since here records were missing. Eventually she was able to withdraw the amounting by sending a demand letter to PNB. PNB confirmed the withdrawal and that the remaining balance of her savings account was P250,741.82. Later on, PNB sent a latter to Anna to inform her that the PNB would withhold the release of the balance since she already withdrew and/or debited the sums against her deposit. Anna filed a complaint with RTC. PNB contended that their investigation showed that Anna Marie withdrew a total of ₱251,246.8116 from two of the eight savings accounts and she used this amount to purchase manager’s check. The PNB offered photocopies of the PNB’s miscellaneous ticket and the manager’s check as evidence to prove the withdrawals. Issue: Whether or not admissible as evidence

the

photocopies

are

Held: No. One of the grounds under the Rules of Court that determines the competence of evidence is the best evidence rule. Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that the original copy of the document must be presented whenever the content of the document is under inquiry. However, there are instances when the Court may allow the presentation of secondary evidence in the absence of the original document. Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court enumerates these exceptions: a) when the original has been lost, or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; b) when the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;

c) when the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and d) when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. The PNB cannot simply substitute the mere photocopies of the subject documents for the original copies without showing the court that any of the exceptions under Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court applies. The PNB’s failure to give a justifiable reason for the absence of the original documents and to maintain a record of Anna Marie’s transactions only shows the PNB’s dismal failure to fulfill its fiduciary duty to Anna Marie. Comment: So very simple, the application of the general rule. You’re supposed to have the original copies, cause this is a manager’s check. So since they were not able to produce the original, Supreme Court said, they cannot produce or offer photocopies thereof. Capital v. Traveler GR 200065; 24 Sep 2014 Second Division: Mendoza, J. Facts: Capital and Traveler entered into an agreement whereby Traveler would import the shoes and sandals made by Capital. When Traveler defaulted in the payment of his obligations to Capital, Capital filed a complaint for collection of sum of money and damages against Traveler before the RTC. During the trial, CAPITAL, through its witness, identified several sales invoices and order slips it issued as evidence of its transactions with TRAVELER. Traveler objected to the identification saying that the documents were photocopied. CAPITAL here basically argued that the documents are admissible in evidence because it was duly established during the trial that the said documents were duplicate originals, and not mere photocopies, considering that they were prepared at the same time as the originals. On the other hand, TRAVELER counters that CAPITAL’s claim that the photocopied documents were duplicate originals was without any supportive evidence. ISSUE: Whether or not the photocopy of sales

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

136

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

invoices and order slips admissible in evidence. RULING: YES. The Court ruled that the invoices and order slips were duplicate originals citing Section 4(b), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which provides that: Sec. 4 . Original of document. xxxx (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. And in the case of People vs. Tan the Court said that When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing paper so that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature of the party to be charged thereby, produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being thus reproduced by the same stroke of pen which made the surface or exposed impression, all of the sheets so written on are regarded as duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in evidence as such without accounting for the non-production of the others. A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge [the] fact as judicial admissions are a waiver of proof; production of evidence is dispensed with. A judicial admission also removes an admitted fact from the field of controversy. Consequently, an admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and is conclusive as to such party, and all proofs to the contrary or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether objection is interposed by the party or not. The allegations, statements or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a position contrary to or inconsistent with what was pleaded. In this case, the Court found that CAPITAL’s principal witness, was able to satisfactorily explain that the Exhibits were duplicate originals of invoices and order slips, and not mere photocopies. As explained, CAPITAL usually prepare two (2) copies of invoices for a particular transaction at the same time, giving one copy to a client and retaining the other copy. Traveler’s contention that the documents are photocopies is not correct because as found by the Court here based on the records of the RTC, the duplicate originals were produced in court and compared with their photocopies during the hearing

before the trial court and that after the comparison, the photocopies were the ones retained in the records. The subject invoices were duplicate originals having been prepared at the same time as the originals therefore, admissible in evidence.

Comment: Yes, but you know that this provision was already amended. What we also know that duplicates are considered or admitted as originals, all those invoices and receipts that are ready made and then you see the handwriting is not the original handwriting but are caused by carbon paper (blue in color normally) that is considered a DUPLICATE. You know how a photocopy looks like. But we have “colored” photocopies now, the important thing is to prove that what is being presented is NOT a photocopy but a DUPLICATE original. Sps. Tapayan v. Martinez GR 207786 FACTS: Spouses Tapayan and Martinez executed a Deed of Undertaking in favor of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). One of the stipulations provide that the Spouses Tapayan shall execute a second mortgage over their house and lot in Ozamiz. When the DBP Loan fell due, it was not paid, causing Martinez to file a case for Specific Performance against the Spouses invoking the stipulation in the Deed of Undertaking. A plain copy of the Deed was offered as evidence to prove its contents. The Spouses alleged that the Deed is a falsity and that their signatures were forged. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) noted that the Deed of Undertaking was acknowledged before a Notary Public and reasoned that it enjoyed the presumption of regularity. When the case reached the Supreme Court the Spouses asserted that in admitting the plain copy of the Deed, the RTC and the CA committed a violation of the Best Evidence Rule under Rule 130, Section 3. However, according to the Supreme Court they failed to timely raise their objection. As such, they already waived their opportunity to object. ISSUE: When should the Best Evidence Rule be invoked? It must be made after the evidence is presented. RULING: Under Section 3 of Rule 130, when the

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

137

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

subject of inquiry is the contents of the document, the original document should be produced. However, to set this rule in motion, a proper and timely objection is necessary. The Supreme Court cited Lorenzana vs. Lelina wherein the Court said, objection to evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered. In case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being offered. It is only at this time, and not at any other, that objection to the documentary evidence may be made. And when a party failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time they were offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived. In this case, the Spouses failed to object the admission of the plain copy of the Deed of Undertaking when it was formally offered in evidence before the RTC. Thus, they are deemed to have waived their chance to raise their objections. Comment: Q:What is the best evidence rule? A: You must present the original. For documentary evidence, objection must be raised at the time it was presented (not offered) in evidence. When the evidence is presented, the objection must be made RIGHT AWAY! And that the objection must be CORRECT! If you want to invoke the best evidence rule, invoke it when the evidence is PRESENTED. Not upon reaching the Supreme Court because the judge has the prerogative to admit a photocopy because nobody objected. So if a party fails to object the presentation of a photocopy in violation of the best evidence rule, then that constitutes a WAIVER of his right to object. Using that particular ground. Granting Arguendo that there was an objection made but it was the wrong ground, one cannot raise the best evidence rule on appeal anymore. NO MORE. Q: When should the objection be made? A: THE MOMENT THE EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED. It can only be made right after the evidence is presented. Otherwise, there is already a waiver. Goopio vs. Magalang A.C No. 10055 July 31, 2018 FACTS: Goopio alleged that sometime in 2005, in relation to her need to resolve property concerns with

respect to 12 parcels of land located in Negros Occidental, she engaged the services of Atty. Maglalang to represent her either through a court action or through extra-judicial means. Having been employed in Switzerland at the time, she allegedly likewise executed a General Power of Attorney on June 18, 2006 in favor of Atty. Maglalang, authorizing him to settle the controversy covering the properties with the developer, including the filing of a petition for rescission of contract with damages. Goopio further alleged that Atty. Maglalang supposedly informed her that the petition for rescission was filed and pending with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City. Goopio also claimed that she subsequently discovered that no such petition was filed nor was one pending before the RTC or any tribunal. Atty. Maglalang specifically denied Goopio's claims stating that there’s no attorney-client relationship! I met her in 2007. Not 2005! In order to prove this, Goopio presented photocopies of the General Power of Attorney before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to prove the attorney-client relationship between the two. ISSUE: Whether or not the presentation of the photocopies of the General Power of Attorney and the receipt documents are in violation of Best Evidence Rule under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court? YES RULING: Yes! In a disbarment case where: 1.) The entire body of proof consists mainly of the documentary evidence; and 2.) The Content of which will prove either the falsity or veracity of the charge for disbarment, The documents themselves, as submitted into evidence, must comply with the Best Evidence Rule. Since Goopio failed to prove that the present case falls within any of the exceptions under Rule 130, sections 3 that dispense with the requirement of presentation of an original of the documentary evidence being presented, the general rule should apply.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

138

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Hence, her failure to present the original, as she merely presented the photocopies, violates the “Best evidence rule”. CONTENTION ON THE RELAXATION OF THE RULE: No such legal license was intended either by the Rules on Evidence or the rules of procedure applicable to a disbarment case. No such effect, therefore, may be read into the factual circumstances of the present complaint. Such non-compliance (of the best evidence rule) cannot be perfunctorily excused or retrospectively cured through a fault or failure of the contending party to the complaint.

Villas vs. C.F Sharp Crew Management GR 221548 October 3, 2018 Facts Sharp is the employer of Villas and his employment is covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement. Villas met an accident on board which he after filed a claim for disability benefits. The court only awarded him $60,000 based from Section 32 of the 2010 POEA SEC.However, Villas contended that he is entitled to $250,000 based from their Collective Bargaining Agreement.

and after satisfactory proof of the existence of the document, the party in custody fails to produce it, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of a loss. Here, there was nothing that would show that Sharp was required to produce the CBA. Hence, the Court ruled that Villas is only entitled to disability benefits under Section 32 of the 2010 POEA SEC. Young Builders vs. Benson GR 198998 June 19, 2019 FACTS: YBC filed a complaint for collection of sum of money against Benson Industries, Inc. Benson denied liability, claiming that YBC failed to finish the construction of Benson’s building. YBC’s own witness Yu in his testimony admitted that the building was not completed. YBC presented a Certification (Mary Certification) allegedly issued by Benson’s President, Mary Dacay, affirming YBC's successful completion of the subject building. MARY CERTIFICATION is a mere photocopy. ISSUE: Whether or not the best evidence rule was violated? YES RULING: Yes, YBC violated the Best Evidence Rule. The Court cited section 3 of Rule 130 – “When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself,” except those in the following cases mentioned under Sec 3.

Issue Whether the agreement(CBA) is admissible? NO

In this case, YBC did not invoke any of the exceptions to the Best Evidence Rule to justify the admission of a secondary evidence in lieu of the original Mary Certification.

Ruling

Thus, the Mary Certification should be excluded.

Villas failed to present the original and authenticated copy of the CBA. Section 3(b), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except 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. Section 6, Rule 130 also provides that after notice

Comment: That is again the application of the general rule. If you want to present secondary evidence, prove that the situation falls under any of those exceptions Montevilla vs Vallena Facts: Through a series of transactions, Jose Vallena obtained the land of Montevilla. Vallena Also sought permission to use a vacant land also owned by montevilla. But Vallena constructed a bulding in the subject lot.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

139

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

This prompted Montevilla to construct an ejectment case against Vallena. Vallena contended that he bought the lot from Montevilla. As evidence, he presented photocopies of deed of sale and acknowledgment receipt as they claimed that the original document was burned or misplaced. Issue: are the photocopies admissible? Ruling: NO. Rule 130, 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. Here, spouses Vallena presented photocopies of the alleged deed of sale and alleged acknowledgment receipts. They claim that the original copies were misplaced, missing, lost, or burned, but they were unable to state with certainty the circumstances surrounding its disappearance. Importantly, they failed to prove that the original documents existed in the first place. Without the original documents, spouses Vallena failed to prove that Jose bought the contested lot partly from Victor and partly from Roman. Even if the court accepts the photocopies as evidence, they are not sufficient evidence of a contract of sale for lack of one of the elements certainty of object under Article 1318 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines. Comment: In other words, loss of the original falls under the 1 st exception, when secondary evidence is allowed. But one must prove that the original was lost. So to present secondary evidence, one must produce evidence – so there is a procedure to be taken before one can actually present secondary evidence. – in case of loss, proof of loss is important.

provided by the claimant on a quieting of title case. It held that the undated handwritten receipt of initial downpayment was evidence of the partial payment of the purchase price which perfected the oral sale of the land, taking it out of the statute of frauds. Rogelio, the possessor of the land disputed. Maghinang presented a photocopy and did not justify why the original cannot be presented. Issue: does the photocopy of an undated unwritten receipt fall under the second exception where original need not be presented? Ruling: NO The best evidence rule requires that the highest available degree of proof must be produced. For documentary evidence, the contents of a document are best proved by the production of the document itself to the exclusion of secondary or substitutionary evidence, pursuant to Rule 130, Section 3. A secondary evidence is admissible only upon compliance with Rule 130, Section 5, which states that: when the original 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. Accordingly, the offeror of the secondary evidence is burdened to satisfactorily prove the predicates thereof, namely: (1) the execution or existence of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or its non-production in court; and (3) the unavailability of the original is not due to bad faith on the part of the proponent/offeror Proof of the due execution of the document and its subsequent loss would constitute the basis for the introduction of secondary evidence. Here, there was failure to prove the due execution of the originals as well as its subsequent loss.

Voluntary Case: Dantis vs Maghinang Jr. Facts: The decision of the CA was beign assailed before the SC where it reversed the finding of the RTC regarding the appreciation of evidence.

A nexus of logically related circumstance rendered the evidence highly suspect. Also, the testimony was riddled with improbabilities and contradictions which tend to erode his credibility and raise doubt on the veracity of his evidence

The CA gave probative value on the documents

Lorenzana vs Lelina

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

140

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Facts: Ambrosia Lelina (Ambrosia) executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over one-half (1/2) of an undivided parcel of land in favor of her son, Rodolfo

It is only at this time, and not at any other, that objection to the documentary evidence may be made.

Immediately after the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale, Rodolfo took possession of the property and rented it to 3 tenants.

And when a party failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time they were offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived.

After 21 years, Rodolfo and the tenants were informed that the property they occupied was owned by Anita Lorenzana.

This is true even if by its nature the evidence is inadmissible and would have surely been rejected if it had been challenged at the proper time.

Rodolfo filed a complaint for quieting of title and cancellation of documents.

Moreover, grounds for objection must be specified in any case.

To prove his ownership, Rodolfo presented a photocopy of the Deed of Absolute Sale.

Grounds for objections not raised at the proper time shall be considered waived, even if the evidence was objected to on some other ground.

Lorenzana argued that the photocopy should not have been admitted in evidence to prove Lorenzo’s ownership over the property.

In this case,

Issue: Should the photocopy not have been admitted?

The objection to the Deed of Absolute Sale was belatedly raised. Respondent submitted his Formal Offer of Evidence on February 12, 2003 which included the Deed of Absolute Sale as Exhibit A.

Ruling: NO The best evidence rule requires that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself except in the instances mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. As such, mere photocopies of documents are inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule. Nevertheless, evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment. Courts are not precluded to accept in evidence a mere photocopy of a document when no objection was raised when it was formally offered. In order to exclude evidence, the objection to admissibility of evidence must be made at the proper time, and the grounds specified. Objection to evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered. In case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being offered.

While petitioner filed a Comment and Objection54 on February 21, 2003, she only objected to the Deed of Absolute Sale for being self-serving. In the Order dated February 27, 2003, the RTC admitted the Deed of Absolute Sale, rejecting the objection of petitioner. Having failed to object on the ground of inadmissibility under the best evidence rule, petitioner is now deemed to have waived her objection on this ground and cannot raise it for the first time on appeal. Comment: So when you become lawyers, you have to think fast on your feet. When evidence is presented, and you want to object, make sure you give the right objection. Otherwise, wrong ground. So the correct ground can no longer be raised even though it was correct. That is already a waiver of one’s right. AUGUST 14, 2020 COUNTRY BANKERS vs LAGMAN Comment: As you can see, under our Rule 130, Section 5, where secondary evidence is allowed in case of loss, it is not included in the rules that all the originals have to be accounted for. But jurisprudence tell us that that should

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

141

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

be the case when there are several duplicate originals. When there are several duplicate originals, all of them should be accounted for. So, in this case, there were 4 originals and the proponent who wanted to present the photocopy was supposed to be in possession of the 4 th copy but he could not explain why that particular copy was missing. Maybe for the other copies, it could fall under the second requisite wherein the original is in the possession of the adverse party. That particular exception has its own requisites. But in this case, Lagman did not prove or did not show that such requisites were not present. People v. Tandoy FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 80505 :December 4, 1990 CRUZ,J. Facts: Mario Tandoy was charged with selling of marijuana. During the proceedings, a Xerox copy of the marked money was admitted into evidence by the RTC. Tandoy’s contention: That the best evidence rule applies on the marked money and he questions the admissibility of the Xerox copy of such marked money. Issue: Whether or not the best evidence rule applies to marked money Ruling: NO. The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the document are subject of inquiry. The best evidence rule does not apply when the execution or the circumstances relevant to its execution or existence is the only issue. Testimonial evidence can be used in this instance. In this case, since the marked money was used only to prove its existence, substitutionary evidence, like a Xerox copy is admissible. Comment: So, when it comes to marked money in buy-bust operations, the marked money is not documentary Evidence. It is Object or Real Evidence. So, a photograph of the marked money is sufficient to prove the existence of the marked money. It is admissible, right? But we already know that a photograph under the amendment is considered an original document. But what if the marked money is photocopied? That is also admissible in evidence. Because what is being

proven here is only the existence of the marked money and not the contents of the money itself, the bill. Lee Seiler v. Lucasfilm 808 F.2d 1316: August 26, 1986 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Facts: Seiler alleged that George Lucas, who is the creator and publisher of the movie The Empire Strikes Back, committed copyright infringement. According to Seiler, he created and published, in 1976 and 1977, science fiction creatures called Garthian Striders. He alleged that the Imperial Walkers, which appeared in Lucas’ movie, infringed his copyright over the striders. During the hearing, Seiler was not able to produce the original copies of his drawings, nor any documentary evidence to prove that his striders existed before the showing of The Empire Strikes Back in the year 1980. He claimed that his original artworks were destroyed due to a flood in 1979. With this, the district judge, applying the best evidence rule, found that Seiler had lost the originals in bad faith, and denied admissibility of any secondary evidence. Seiler countered that the best evidence rule does not apply to his drawings, since it is an artwork, not “writings, recordings or photographs.” He also claimed that the best evidence rule only applies to words or numbers. Issue: Whether or not the best evidence rule is applicable to drawings Ruling: YES It was ruled that Seiler’s drawings are covered by the best evidence rule. Under Article 1001(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, “a writing consists of words, numbers, or their equivalent set down in any form.” Although Seiler’s drawings do not consist of words or numbers, they are considered to be covered by the phrase “or their equivalent.” The Court, in this case, explained the rationale behind the expansion of the coverage of the best evidence rule to other forms. Traditionally, the rule was essentially only related to writings. However, since present day techniques have expanded methods of storing data, the considerations underlying the rule dictate its expansion to computers, photographic systems, and other modern developments. Seiler claimed that the rule embraces only words or numbers. However, this submission was not

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

142

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

accepted by the Court. The Court ruled that just as a contract objectively manifests the subjective intent of the lawmakers, Seiler’s drawings are objective manifestations of the creative minds, which is protected by copyright laws. Seiler’s argument would restrict the definition of writings provided in Article 1001 to words or numbers, ignoring the phrase “or their equivalent.” Significance to our discussion: The 2019 Rules on Evidence (as amended) also provides that “writings, recordings, photographs...or their equivalent” are considered as documentary evidence. The case of Seiler is illustrative of how the phrase “or their equivalent” may be interpreted, in case there is a dispute as to its implication, in the future. Comment: So, that’s very enlightening to know that the term “Best Evidence Rule” was taken from the United States, whether from jurisprudence or their laws. But they hardly have any laws because they are a common law country. But despite the fact that the Best Evidence Rule was taken from a US Article (Section 1001), the Supreme Court in promulgating the 2000 Rules on Evidence under Best Evidence Rule did not include “or their equivalent”. So, it was only now under the 2019 amendment that the Supreme Court actually included the phrase “or their equivalent.” SPOUSES BASA vs VDA. DE SENLY LOY Comment: You’re saying that the originals they submitted after they presented their evidence – the original was not the same as the photocopy. So, it was not proven that these indeed were the originals. So, I think that is a peculiar circumstance – the fact that the alleged originals are not the same as the photocopy submitted in evidence. During the presentation of evidence or even in the marking of evidence, there is always this step wherein the originals are presented or shown to the court and the adverse party. And the proponent will ask the adverse party to confirm that the photocopy is a faithful reproduction of the original. It is not required that the originals be attached. One can attach a photocopy as long as the original is shown or exhibited to the court or the adverse party. I think the problem here was that the alleged original was not the same as the photocopy that was initially

attached to the records. Plus, what was an alleged original was not also an original- it was a photocopy. But I don’t see anything wrong with submitting the original if it was found later and initially the document presented was a mere photocopy but the original was found and there is no bad faith on the part of the offeror. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. It just so happened that in this case, they were not the same. CITIBANK VS TEODORO GR NO. 150905, September 23, 2003 THIRD DIVISION: Panganiban FACTS Teodoro availed of the credit card services of Citibank. He incurred an unpaid obligation of around Php 198,000,00.00 but Citibank was only able to prove around Php 24,000.00 of the same through photocopies of the sales invoices. The trial court ruled in favor of Citibank but this was reversed by the Court of Appeals, citing Rule 130, Sections 3 and 5. ISSUE: Whether or not the photocopies of the sales invoices are competent proof of Teodoro’s obligation to Citibank. RULING: No,before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original sales invoices, theofferor must prove the following: (1) the existence or due execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its nonproduction in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed. The correct order of proof is as follows:existence, execution, loss, and contents. In this case, the sales invoices / receipts were produced in triplicates, with one going to Teodoro, one to the merchant, and one to Citibank. Even though Citibank alleged that it lost its original copies of the sales invoices, it failed to show why it was not able to produce the said invoices from Teodoro and the merchant, which are also considered originals of the same. The argument of Citibank that it already requested duplicates of the originals from Equitable Credit Card

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

143

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Network is also unavailing considering that they failed to follow up on the same. Hence, the absence of bad faith or showing of diligence was not satisfied. Comment: For those who have credit cards you know that there are two kinds of signed copies: 1. one is in triplicate - signed once and even if the 2nd and 3rd copy do not reflect the pen that was used to sign to the 1st one. We know that, under the rules, these are also considered duplicate originals. The 1st copy goes to the merchant; 2nd copy goes to the bank; and the 3rd one goes to the cardholder -these are all considered originals. In this case CitiBank, as the bank, supposed to receive a duplicate original. 2. Thermal paper - wherein the machine cuffs up 3 copies and the cardholder will sign each and every copy. Those, also, are considered originals. In both cases, the bank must have a copy of the original or the duplicate original. In this case, Citibank merely offered photocopies without explaining what happened to the originals that were supposed to be in their possession. Hence, the photocopies are not admissible as a violation of the Best Evidence Rule. JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. DESIERTO, ET AL. G.R. Nos. 146710-15 and G.R. No. 146738: 3 Apr 2001 EN BANC: PUNO,J. Facts: President Estrada was constrained to leave Malacañang, Vice-President Arroyo took her oath as the next President. Estrada contends that he is merely a president on leave. Part of the evidence considered by the Supreme Court in declaring that President Estrada has in fact resigned were newspaper accounts of the diary of then Executive Secretary Edgardo Angara. The Angara Diary narrates what transpired before President Estrada left Malacañang. It shows the state of mind of Estrada and reflects his intent to resign. Now in this Motion for Reconsideration, Estrada points out that the admission into evidence of mere newspaper accounts of the Angara diary violated the Best Evidence Rule as the original itself was not presented. The newspaper reproduction is not the best evidence of the Angara diary. It is secondary evidence, of dubious authenticity. Issue: Whether or not the Court violated the best evidence rule when it admitted as evidence the newspaper accounts of the diary.

Held: No. While it is true that the Court relied not upon the original but only copy of theAngara Diaryas published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, in doing sohowever, the Court did not violate the best evidence rule. In saying so, the Court cited Wigmore in his book on evidence which states that: Production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial courts discretion, whenever in the case in handthe opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the documentand no other useful purpose will be served by requiring production. xxx In several Canadian provinces, the principle of unavailability has been abandoned, for certain documents in which ordinarily no real dispute arised. This measure is a sensible and progressive one and deserves universal adoption (post, sec. 1233). Its essential feature is that acopy may be used unconditionally,if the opponent has been given an opportunity to inspect it. The Court also cited Francisco’s opinion is of the same tenor, viz: "Generally speaking, an objection by the party against whom secondary evidence is sought to be introduced is essential to bring the best evidence rule into application; and frequently, where secondary evidence has been admitted, the rule of exclusion might have successfully been invoked if proper and timely objection has been taken. xxx "Secondary evidence of the content of the writing will be received in evidence if no objection is made to its reception." In this case, Estrada had an opportunity to objectto the admissibility of theAngara Diarywhen he filed his Memorandum dated February 20, 2001, Reply Memorandum dated February 22, 2001, Supplemental Memorandum dated February 23, 2001, and Second Supplemental memorandum dated February 24, 2001. Estrada “had been given an opportunity to inspect” theAngara Diarybut he did not object to its admissibility. The Court said that it is already too late to raise his objections in an Omnibus Motion, after theAngara Diaryhas been used as evidence and a decision rendered partly on the basis thereof. Comment: So, this Best Evidence Rule which is now the Original Document Rule is waivable if the adverse party does not object based on that ground then the court shall admit such evidence even if it's a photocopy. That's

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

144

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

what happened in this case, by not objecting using, the Best Evidence Rule as a ground, one does not dispute the contents of the document. One is admitting that the contents of the document are printed. In this case, even though it as only a photocopy. that is why any objection should be made right after the presentation of such evidence. Once the evidence is admitted by the court there is no point of objecting anymore since it has already been admitted. Evidence admitted can no longer be unadmitted based on the Best Evidence Rule. Lee v. People GR No. 159288; October 19, 2004 Second Division: Callejo, Sr., J. The Case: This is a criminal case for estafa against Johnson Lee. Facts: A contract of sale was entered into between NMI and VMCI, where the former sold to the latter plastic materials. As a result of said contract, Seller NMI issued to VMCI Charge Invoices as evidence of VMCI’s receipt of the subject goods. VMCI, on the other hand, issued BPI Checks covering the total amount of 1.5million Pesos in favor of NMI. It was alleged that Johnson Lee received, in behalf of NMI, received the Checks and collected the amount covered by said Checks from the draweebank BPI. After the alleged collection by Lee, the originals of the Checks were turned over by the drawee-bank to VMCI. Later on, during the trial of the criminal case for estafa against Lee, the prosecution adduced the following pieces of evidence: 1. The photocopies of the Charge Invoices and Checks; 2. The testimony of one Merlita Bayaban, Manager for Corporate affairs of VMCI, to the effect that – a. All of VMCI’s records, including the original Checks and Charge Invoices were destroyed in a flash flood; and b. Such loss or destruction was to known to all employees of VMCI; 3. Johnson Lee’s counter-affidavit containing an admission of his receipt of the amount covered by the Checks. Issue: Are the pieces of secondary evidence presented – i.e., the photocopies of the Charge Invoices and Checks – admissible in evidence?

Ruling: YES. Prior to the admission of the secondary evidence offered, the offeror is burdened to prove the following: 1. The due execution or existence of the original document; and 2. The predicates to the admission of the secondary evidence offered. As for the predicates to the admission of the secondary evidence offered, the Court expounded on the matter, specifically where the exception under Rule 130, Section 3(a) is applicable or when the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror: “The offeror of secondary evidence is burdened to prove the predicates thereof: (a) the loss or destruction of the original without bad faith on the part of the proponent/offeror which can be shown by circumstantial evidence of routine practices of destruction of documents; (b) the proponent must prove by a fair preponderance of evidence as to raise a reasonable inference of the loss or destruction of the original copy; and (c) it must be shown that a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful search has been made for the document in the proper place or places. It has been held that where the missing document is the foundation of the action, more strictness in proof is required than where the document is only collaterally involved.” In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to prove, by preponderance of evidence, the due execution or existence of the original Checks and Charge Invoices. The Court held that: “Contrary to Lee’s claim, the prosecution adduced preponderant evidence to prove the existence, the due execution and the authenticity of the said checks and charge invoices consisting of the admission of no less than Lee himself in his counter-affidavit. Lee admitted therein that he received the total amount of P1,500,150.00 from VMCI in full payment of the delivery and sale of the empty bags by NMI to VMCI and that the said amount was in the custody of the said corporation.” The prosecution was also able to prove, by preponderance of evidence, the predicates to the admission of the photocopies of the Checks and Charge Invoices. The Court held that:

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

145

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

“The records show that, in obedience to the subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum issued by the trial court directing the VMCI to produce the originals of the checks and the charge invoices, Bayaban, the Manager for Corporate Affairs of VMCI, testified that all its records, including the charge invoices and checks, were destroyed seven years ago in a flash flood which occurred on November 28, 1995, and that such loss/destruction was known to all the employees of VMCI, including herself.” Therefore, the photocopies of the Checks and Charge Invoices are admissible in evidence. Comment: That is very enlightening because the quantum of proof in criminal is proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt but that is only with respect to guilt but if you want to prove the requisites it is only required to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the exceptions in Section 3, Rule 130 is/are present. One this that we have always to remember is that when the exception is being applied or being invoked it is not enough to look at the rules. Jurisprudence gives us expounds on the rules, that is why we have to apply cases to the rules in order to have a better, clearer picture. Here it was illustrated how the checks were lost, it was very specific, and by a preponderance of evidence, perhaps they had witnesses to prove that indeed there was a flash flood. The other predicate where Mr. Lee, himself, admitted that he received the checks, hence that already showed the existence of the checks. It is nice to know how it is done, how the process was applied by the party, and the lawyer who was tasked to prove why secondary evidence should be allowed. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs JOSE LUBIS MASONGSONG and JUANITO LUBIS MASONGSONG G.R. NO. 162846 : September 22, 2005 SECOND DIVISION : CALLEJO, SR., J. FACTS: For the purpose of dividing the inherited lot, Jose Lubis Masongsong and his brother, Juanito Lubis Masongsong, filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of Decree No. 639024 purportedly issued in favor of Serapio Lubis (predecessor) on June 21, 1937 in LRC Cadastral Record No. 1296, and issue a new decree in favor of the them. Having failed to present Decree No. 639024 before the court, they asserted that despite earnest efforts, such decree could no longer be located, and is as such presumed to have been lost or destroyed during World War II. Instead, they presented the following documents:  Certification dated July 13, 2000 issued by the LRA stating that Decree No. 639024 issued on June 21, 1937 covering Lot No.



 



8500 of the Cadastral Survey of Lipa and Mataasnakahoy, Batangas under Cad. Case No. 24, LRC Cadastral Record No. 1296 is not among its salvaged records. technical description of the property duly certified and found correct by the Regional Technical Director of the Bureau of Lands on August 13, 1998; tax declarations covering the property in the name of Serapio Lubis, from 1968 to 1994; Certification from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Region IV, that per its records, Lot No. 8500 located in Barangay Calingatan, Mataasnakahoy, Batangas, is not covered by any kind of public land application or patent; Certification by the Register of Deeds of Batangas stating that there was no existing or salvaged record of the certificate of title covering Lot No. 8500 of the Lipa City Cadastre covered by Decree No. 639024, Cad. Case No. 24, LRC Cad. Record No. 1296 in the name of Serapio Lubis; Certified true copy of page 88, Cadastral Decree Book, Cadastral Decree Section, LRC, showing that Decree No. 639024 covering Lot No. 8500 based on the decision, Cadastral Case No. 79-1 was issued on June 21, 1937. Certification from the LRA dated May 29, 1998, stating that after due verification of the record book of cadastral lots in its custody, it was found that Decree No. 639024 was issued on June 21, 1937 covering Lot No. 8500 of the Cadastral Survey of Lipa and Mataasnakahoy, Batangas, based on a decision in Cad. Case No. 24, LRC Cad. Record No. 1296;

The trial court granted the petition. However, the Office of the Solicitor General opposed the same alleging that the brothers failed to adduce in evidence a copy of the decree (Decree No. 639204) purportedly issued in the name of Serapio Lubis, or at least a certified copy of the decision of the court granting the decree (decision of the court in Cadastral Case No. 24, LRC Cad. Record No. 1296) or in the absence thereof, any credible explanation why they failed to present such decision. However, the Court of Apples ruled in favor of the brothers. ISSUE: Whether or not the evidences presented particularly the Certifications by the different government agencies can be used to prove that Decree No. 639024, which was presumably lost or destroyed, was issued in favor of Serapio Lubis

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

146

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

HELD: NO. As a general rule, the ordinary document must be presented when the subject of the inquiry is its content. However Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides for the exception and provides for the requisites and the secondary evidence that may be presented in such circumstances such as when the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror. Furthermore, Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states that: '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. In the case at bar, the brothers presented preponderant evidence to prove the existence of Decree No. 639024. In order to prove the contents of the decree, the court held that the brothers were burdened to present in evidence the original, or even a certified copy directing the issuance of a decree in favor of Serapio Lubis by presenting either the certified copy of the LRA decision in LRC Case No. 24 or original or certified true copy of the court's decision in favor of Serapio Lubis. However, the brothers failed to do so. Moreover, there is even no showing that the court records in LRC Case No. 24 and the copy of the decision transmitted to the Land Registration Commission (now the LRA) were missing, lost or destroyed. Therefore the Certifications by the different government agencies presented were not sufficient to prove that Decree No. 639024 was issued in favor of Serapio Lubis. Comment: There are certain documents that do not have duplicate originals. Just like this decree, there’s only one original. In the previous case, the checks issued—there was only one original. It is really important to show, in this case, the existence is proven. But how was the loss proven? According to the Supreme Court in this case, the offeror is not obliged to prove the loss or destruction of the original document beyond all possibility, as it is enough to prove a reasonable probability of such loss. It is not required to prove the impossible. It is enough to prove a reasonable probability of such loss. When we talk about “loss”, prove that there is bona fide and diligent search through fruitlessly made in places

where it is likely to be found. That is all that has to be proven. What about destruction of that lone original? Destruction signifies that the original no longer exists, while a loss signifies merely that it cannot be discovered. As in the previous case, it was destroyed/lost in a flash flood. So probably if there is loss, it is just lost and it is still somewhere. But it cannot be found. So remember that when it comes to nitty gritty discussions on how or what it means when you say loss or destruction. PACASUM vs. PEOPLE G.R. No. 180314 April 16, 2009 EN BANC : CHICO-NAZARIO,J. FACTS: Normallah Pacasum was charged before the Sandiganbayan with Falsification of Public Documents. It was alleged that Normallah Pacasum falsified her Employee Clearance by imitating the signature of Laura Y. Pangilan, for purposes of claiming her salary for the months of August and September 2000. During Trial, the prosecution a photocopy of the Employee Clearance. Pacasum argued that the photocopy of her Employees Clearance had no probative value in proving its contents and was inadmissible because the original thereof was not presented by the prosecution. ISSUE: Whether or not the photocopy of the Employees Clearance was correctly admitted in evidence RULING: YES One of the exceptions to the Best Evidence Rule is provided under Section 3(b) of Rule 130, which provides that secondary evidence of a writing may be admitted "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." In relation to such provision, the requisites for presentation of evidence is provided under Section 6, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which provides that: When original document is in adverse party’s custody or control. – If the document is in the custody or control of the adverse party, he must

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

147

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

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 loss. It means that, the mere fact that the original is in the custody or control of the adverse party against whom it is offered does not warrant the admission of secondary evidence. The offeror must prove that he has done all in his power to secure the best evidence by (1) giving notice to the said party to produce the document which may be in the form of a a. motion for the production of the original or b. made in open court in the presence of the adverse party or c. via a subpoenaduces tecum, provided that the party in custody of the original has sufficient time to produce the same. (2) When such party has the original of the writing and does not voluntarily offer to produce it, or refuses to produce it, secondary evidence may be admitted. In this case, Pacasum admitted that her Employees Clearance was always in the possession of her assistant secretary, Batuampar.

Facts: Baguio Trinity Developers filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the October 20 and 28, 1986 reconstitution orders of the Regional Trial Court, wherein a lot claimed by Baguio Trinity as its own was reconstituted in favor of the heirs of Ramos and the Nepas. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, for Baguio Trinity’s failure to attach a certified true copy of the RTC Order dated October 20, 1986. Thereafter, Baguio Trinity filed a motion for reconsideration. It explained that a certified true copy of the Order cannot be obtained because the records were destroyed during the 1990 earthquake, as certified by the Regional Trial Court. However, the Court of Appeals denied the motion, citing Section 4 of Rule 47, which requires the attachment of a certified copy of the judgment or final order to the original copy of the petition. According to the Court of Appeals, the requirement is mandatory; thus, Baguio Trinity is not allowed to submit some other copy of the Order. Issue: Whether or not a party can submit secondary evidence when the original has already been lost or destroyed. Ruling: YES

Now, the prosecution in its effort to produce the original copy of the said Employees Clearance of the accused, sent two (2) telegram subpoenas addressed to Pacasum, and Batuampar ordering them to submit the original of the Employees’ Clearance. Notwithstanding receipt of the said telegram subpoena the accused did not appear before or submit the original of the said Employees Clearance, much less offered to produce the same. Therefore, considering the circumstances, the presentation and admission of the photocopy of the original copy of the questioned Employees Clearance as secondary evidence to prove the contents thereof was justified. Comment: This is the direct application of the exception under Section 3 in relation to Section 6, how secondary evidence be presented or what are the requisites. Baguio Trinity Developers v. Heirs of Jose Ramos G.R. No. 188381 : December 14, 2011 Third Division: Abad, J.

Although the Supreme Court recognized the mandatory tenor of Rule 47, the Supreme Court explained that submission of secondary evidence is allowed in this case, since the 1990 earthquake resulted to the loss and destruction of the RTC records of the case. In cases where an original document is lost, it is the public officer who has custody of the original document who can issue a certified copy of the document. In this case, however, the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, who issued the challenged orders, already issued a certification that the relevant records are no longer available having been lost to an earthquake. With this, Baguio Trinity is allowed to submit secondary evidence. Pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 130, when an original document is lost, and its unavailability has already been established, the party “may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by testimony of witnesses in the order offered.” Here, Baguio Trinity was able to submit faithful copies of its challenged reconstitution orders, authenticated by a verified statement that these are

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

148

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

copies of the original orders. Thus, it was erroneous for the Court of Appeals to have dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment, given that Baguio Trinity was able to submit secondary evidence, which is allowed under Section 5 of Rule 130.

which must be applied such that the original copy of the document must be presented. However, the same rule also admits of certain exceptions such as when the original document cannot be produced in court, which is what happened in this case.

Comment: You know very well that under the 4 th exception, if it is a public document, it is required that it must be a certified true copy but since the original was already lost then it is possible to present a photocopy

But, in order to validly fall under the aforesaid exception, there are some matters which the offeror must prove first. This is found in Section 5 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

But on the part of the COC, the COC may still issue a certified true copy though the original was not around because such copy is comparable to the original, which are in the possession of the parties. However, in this case, since the COC does not want to issue a certified true copy of the original, then the parties may present a secondary evidence. Bank of the Philippine Islands vs Amado Mendoza G.R. No. 198799; March 20, 2017 First Division: Perlas-Bernabe Facts BPI filed a Complaint for sum of Money against Amado Mendoza and his mother. According to BPI, the Mendozas opened a foreign savings account with BPI and deposited therein $100 in cash and $16,164 in US Treasury Check. After the lapse of the thirty (30) day clearing period, the Mendozas withdrew $16,244 from their account. However, subsequently, BPI received a notice that the check was dishonored for being an altered check. This prompted BPI to inform the Mendozas of the dishonor of the check and demand reimbursement. Now, according to Amado, he is willing to pay BPI, if only the latter presented proper and authenticated proof of the dishonor of the check. What BPI presented here were merely: (1) an email advice stating that the check was returned unpaid and (2) a photocopy of the check because the original copy of the check was allegedly confiscated by the US government. Issue Whether or not the presentation of the photocopy of the check as secondary evidence is permissible Ruling Yes. Generally, when the contents of the document is under inquiry, it must be the Best Evidence Rule

Rule 130, Section 5. When Original Document Is Unavailable. – When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be presented 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 recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. In other words, the offeror must prove the following: (1) The existence or due execution of the original document; (2) The loss and destruction of the original, or the reason for its non-production in court; (3) The absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed. In this case, the Court held that BPI sufficiently complied with the foregoing requisites. The existence or due execution of the subject check was admitted by both parties. The reason for the non-presentation of the original check was justifiable as it was confiscated by the US government for being an altered check. Lastly, since the reason for the nonpresentation of the original check was justifiable, it follows then that no bad faith can be attributed to BPI for its failure to present the original check. Thus, the presentation of the photocopy of the check as secondary evidence is permissible. Comment: This also emphasizes the fact that when there is a judicial admission, there’s no need of proof. In this case, the parties admitted the existence of the check Robinol vs Bassig FACTS: The relationship of the parties in this case was that of a lessor and a lessee of a house owned by Robinol wherein Robinol was the lessor. She alleged that Atty. Bassig rented a house from her without any written contract and that he stopped paying rent later on and that there was a typhoon so

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

149

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Atty. Bassig had to leave; however, he never returned leaving a balance of rent payments owed to her. For his part, Atty. Bassig executed a promisorry note, promising to pay the balance of his rent. However, he reneged on his obligation. This prompted Robinol to file a disbarment case against Atty. Bassig. In these proceedings, Robinol presented the following evidence:  Photocopies of : (a) Receipts showing payment of Atty. Bassig to Robinol; (b) Promisorry note executed and signed by Atty. Bassig Atty. Basig failed to file his Answer despite due notice and failed to appear on the scheduled hearings. He was suspended for two years from the practice of law. ISSUE: Whether or not the evidence submitted in this case were admissible. RULING: NO They were inadmissible because, again, the evidence that were presented here were only photocopies. The Court, here, said that photocopies, being a mere secondary evidence, are not admissible unless it is shown that the original is unavailable. This is provided to us under Section 5 of Rule 130 and the Court, here, also cited the case of Country Bankers vs Lagman. This case provides what the offeror must prove the following before secondary evidence is allowed to be adduced. So in this case, the following were not shown or proved by the Robinol because nowhere in the records show that Robinol laid down the predicate for the admission of said photocopies. Aside from her bare allegations in her complaint, Robinol was not able to present any evidence to prove that Atty. Bassig failed to pay his rent and that he had in fact leased a house from Robinol. It is also important to note in this case, even if what was before the Supreme Court was a disbarment case, which is a disciplinary proceeding against a lawyer, compliance with the basic rules on evidence may not be altogether dispensed with. So, in conclusion, the evidence submitted in this case were only photocopies and Robinol failed to show/prove that the original of said documents were unavailable. Hence, secondary evidence submitted in this case were inadmissible. Comment: Yes, so this is an application of the general rule.

Cardenas vs Christian FACTS: In this case, the heirs of Cardenas filed a recovery of possession and use of real property and damages against CAMACOP. The heirs alleged that CAMACOP unlawfully occupied the subject property for their church activities and functions to the damage and prejudice of the heirs despite their repeated oral and written demands. However, CAMACOP avers in their answer that their occupation is lawful since they have purchased it from its registered owners who surrendered the owners duplicate copy to the representative of the church. Now, both the RTC and the CA arrived at a similar finding that a contract of sale was indeed entered into by the Spouses Cardenas and CAMACOP. In asserting that there was a sale, CAMACOP maintains that all of the copies of the Deed of Sale were supposedly submitted to the then Secretary of DENR pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 141. So, it resorted to a presentation of secondary evidence. It used eleven (11) letters and one (1) sworn affidavit and a testimony of the witness, Eudecia, who was then their secretary treasurer. ISSUE: Whether CAMACOP’s secondary evidence is admissible.

presentation

RULING: The Supreme Court said that no; citing Section 5 of Rule 130 that when the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror may prove its contents by presenting secondary evidence. So, the kind of secondary evidence that can be presented, are these three: Now, in this case, the Supreme Court found that CAMACOP was not able to provide any sufficient secondary evidence to establish the existence and that contents of the 1962 Deed of Sale covering the said property. In order for CAMACOP to prove the existence and contents of the purportedly lost Deed of Sale, this must be followed in order. It means that when you lose a document: (a) First, you must present a copy of the purported Deed of Sale; (b) Present an authentic document containing a recital of the contents; or (c) A witness who can testify as tot the existence.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

150

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

So, again, the Supreme Court emphasized that these must be followed in order. Here, it presented that as to the first order, which is the copy of the purported deed of sale, CAMACOP was not able to present even a photocopy or any other copy of the Deed of Sale. It said that it is quite unbelievable and extraordinary that not even a single copy of the purported deed of sale was retained by CAMACOP or its counsel considering the grave importance of such document. If it was true that it was with the DENR, it would have been easy to ask for the issuance of a subpoena. As to the second order, since they have not presented the actual Deed of Sale, it is an authentic document containing a recital of the contents. In here, CAMACOP could not even provide a single shred of credible evidence to the existence of the Deed of Sale in the notarial register of its notary public. Also, the eleven (11) letters and the sworn affidavits were all unavailing. None of these documents contain a recital of the contents of the purported Deed of Sale. At most, these merely mention that the Deed of Sale were transmitted to the DENR and these letters are all self-serving documents. To make matters worse, these are all inauthentic and inadmissible documents. Finally, to the last order of secondary documents that can be presented – a witness. However, in this case, the very witness of CAMACOP, Eudecia, confirmed under oath that if ever there was really a sale between CAMACOP and Pastora, such sale did not cover the entire subject property. So the Supreme Court, said that CAMACOP’s explanation as to the complete absence of any available copy of the Deed of Sale is far-fetched and implausible. Comment: So, this is a 2019 case penned by Justice Caguioa where the Supreme Court really laid down the guidelines for the use of secondary evidence. There is a hierarchy of secondary evidence. It is not enough to choose one and then present it. Rule 130, Section 8 case Republic vs El Gobierno FACTS: This case involves a Petition for Reconstitution of Lost Certificate of Title which involve Republic Act No. 26. So, the Supreme Court said that the document submitted here falls under letter F of the said law. A brief background of this case is that, here,

Severiana Gacho filed a petition for reconstitution of lost certificate of title. She alleged that she bought the said property from a certain Tirso Tumulak, which acquired the same property from a decision rendered by the court. Upon this decision, a decree was issued in favor of the predecessor and followed by an original certificate of title which is named to Tirso Tumulak, married to Engracia Pongasi. She further alleged that these copies – the decree and the original certificate of title, were either lost or destroyed during World War II. Among the evidence submitted by Gacho here is a photocopy of the decision adjudging the property to Tirso. It must be noted that this photocopy of the decision was certified by a geodetic engineer. By virtue of all these documents submitted, the Court of Appeals, here, granted the said petition. However, this was opposed by the Republic stating that these documents submitted are non-acceptable and insufficient bases for the reconstitution and the decision which is a photocopy is in violation of Section 7 of Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence. ISSUE Whether or not there is a violation of Section 7 of Rule 130. RULING: The Supreme Court held yes. As we already know, for public documents, the said documents should be certified by the public officer having custody thereof. In this case, it is shown that the decision in the latter portion of the said decision it stated that a certified true copy in Cebu, April 19, 1995 was certified by a certain Bonito Bunagan, a geodetic engineer. In this case, the Supreme Court held that it fails to establish that said geodetic engineer is a public officer who is in the custody of said decision. Thus, the said photocopy of the decision has no probative value for the claim of Gacho for the reconstitution case. Comment Take note that this is now under Section 8 because we have a new Section 7 under the amendment summaries. This is very easy – for public record to be presented in evidence, one must submit a certified true copy certified by the one in custody thereof. So, you have to look at the office. From what office was this public record taken? Obviously, this one is a decision of the court, so it must be the clerk of court who must certify it as a true copy. ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE RULE AM NO. 01-7-01

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

151

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Electronic Evidence Rule So, this is the En Banc Resolution. Effectivity: August 1, 2001 following publication before the 20th of July to newspapers of general circulation. This rule has been around for 20 years. RULE 1 COVERAGE Section 1. Scope. – Unless otherwise provided herein, these Rules shall apply whenever an electronic document or electronic data message, as defined in Rule 2 hereof, is offered or used in evidence DISCUSSION: So, we are talking about an electronic data message that is offered or presented in evidence. That is the general rule unless otherwise provided herein. Section 2. Cases Covered. – These Rules shall apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases This particular section has been amended in 2002 to include criminal cases. So, previously, criminal cases were not included under this Rule. Section 3. Application of other rules on evidence. – In all matters not specifically covered by these Rules, the Rules of court and pertinent provisions of statutes containing rules on evidence shall apply. This is not a long rule. Perhaps, it does not cover everything that has to do with electronic evidence and offer, use, and presentation thereof. So, we can also apply the Rules of Court and other statutes containing Rules on Evidence. RULE 2 DEFINITION OF TERMS AND CONSTRUCTION Section 1.Definition of terms.– For purposes of these Rules, the following terms are defined, as follows: (a) "Asymmetric or public cryptosystem" means a system capable of generating a secure key pair, consisting of a private key for creating a digital signature, and a public key for verifying the digital signature. (b) "Business records" include records of any

business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit, or for legitimate or illegitimate purposes. (c) "Certificate" means an electronic document issued to support a digital signature which purports to confirm the identity or other significant characteristics of the person who holds a particular key pair. (d) "Computer" refers to any single or interconnected device or apparatus, which, by electronic, electro-mechanical or magnetic impulse, or by other means with the same function, can receive, record, transmit, store, process, correlate, analyze, project, retrieve and/or produce information, data, text, graphics, figures, voice, video, symbols or other modes of expression or perform any one or more of these functions. (e) "Digital signature" refers to an electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic data message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a person having the initial untransformed electronic document and the signer's public key can accurately determine: i. whether the transformation was created using the private key that corresponds to the signer's public key; and ii. whether the initial electronic document had been altered after the transformation was made. (f) "Digitally signed" refers to an electronic document or electronic data message bearing a digital signature verified by the public key listed in a certificate. (g) "Electronic data message" refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means. (h) "Electronic document" refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, the term "electronic document" may be used interchangeably with

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

152

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

"electronic data message". (i) "Electronic key" refers to a secret code which secures and defends sensitive information that crosses over public channels into a form decipherable only with a matching electronic key. (j) "Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or sound in electronic form, representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating, signing or approving an electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, an electronic signature includes digital signatures. (k) "Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained. (l) "Information and communication system" refers to a system for generating, sending, receiving, storing or otherwise processing electronic data messages or electronic documents and includes the computer system or other similar devices by or in which data are recorded or stored and any procedure related to the recording or storage of electronic data messages or electronic documents. (m) "Key pair" in an asymmetric cryptosystem refers to the private key and its mathematically related public key such that the latter can verify the digital signature that the former creates. (n) "Private key" refers to the key of a key pair used to create a digital signature. a. (o) "Public key" refers to the key of a key pair used to verify a digital signature.

DISCUSSION: Rule 2 is purely a definition rule. So, we have different terms like this and that – digital signature, etc. The Electronic Data Message is the subject of the electronic evidence rule. (i) “Electronic key”  A secret code  Which secures and defends

   

Sensitive information That crosses over public channels Into a form Decipherable only with a matching electronic key

(j) “Electronic signature” –  Any distinctive mark, characteristics and/or sound in electronic form.  Representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating, signing or approving an electronic data message or electronic document.  For purposes of these Rules, an electronic signature includes digital signatures. Comment: Electronic signature is a broader term. And it also includes digital signatures. (k) “Ephemeral* Electronic Communication”  Telephone conversations  Text messages  Chatroom sessions  Streaming audio  Streaming video and  Other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained. *something that lasts for a very short time RULE 3 ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS Section 1. Electronic Documents as functional equivalent of paper-based documents – Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term of writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an electronic document as defined in these Rules. Comment: So, this is related to our documentary evidence. An electronic document can be considered a documentary evidence. Section 2. Admissibility – An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules. When an Electronic Document is admissible in evidence – When:

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

153

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

 

It complied with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and It is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules.

Section 3. Privileged Communication – The confidential character of a privileged communication is not solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic document. RULE 4 BEST EVIDENCE RULE (ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE) Section 1. Original of an electronic document – An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately. Original of an Electronic Document Q: When shall an electronic document be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule (Original Document Rule) A: If it is:  A printout or output  Readable by sight or other means  Shown to reflect the data accurately Comment: So, when you go to court and present an electronic document, you have to comply with the best evidence rule. What is the best evidence rule? You don’t have to bring your laptop and show it to the judge. You have to print it out or an output (whatever is stored in your laptop) and show it to the judge. It must be readable by sight or other means. So, what are those other means? Perhaps for the blind or for the deaf. The data must be reflected accurately in your electronic document. Remember we have an amendment, what is an original? When are copies regarded as an original? When the document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time and identical contents. It does not have to be executed at the same time with identical contents. Example: A contract in 7 copies and there are 7 contracting parties and all of them signed then they need more copies so some are printed out minutes or hours later and then the other parties would come a few hours later. Those are still considered duplicate originals or this term “counterpart”. What is a

counterpart? Hopefully, the cases will explain what a counterpart means. Exceptions – the above copy or duplicate shall not be regarded as the equivalent of the original when a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or under the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit a copy in lieu of the original. We have the best evidence which is the printout and we have the duplicate or a copy which is executed at or about the same time or it is a counterpart produced by the same impression etc. So those are considered duplicates. Again, what is the best evidence when it comes to electronic documents? It is still the original with respect to this rule. CASES UNDER ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE RULE 1 PEOPLE VS ENOJAS GR. No. 204894 March 10, 2014 Facts: The City Prosecutor of Las Piñas charged Enojas, Gomez, Santos and Jalandoni with murder P/Insp. Torred, the Chief of Investigation, testified that he and PO2 Rosarito immediately responded to PO2 Gregorio's urgent call. Suspecting that accused Enojas, the taxi driver who fled, was involved in the attempted robbery, they searched the abandoned taxi and found a mobile phone that Enojas apparently left behind. P/Ins. Torred instructed PO3 Joel Cambi (PO3 Cambi) to monitor its incoming messages. PO3 Cambi and PO2 Rosarito testified that they monitored the messages in accused Enojas' mobile phone and, posing as Enojas, communicated with the other accused. The police then conducted an entrapment operation that resulted in the arrest of accused Santos and Jalandoni. Subsequently, the police were also able to capture accused Enojas and Gomez. The prosecution presented the transcripts of the mobile phone text messages between Enojas and some of his co-accused. Enojas et al, pointed out that they were entitled to an acquittal since they were all illegally arrested and since the evidence of the text messages were inadmissible, not having been properly identified. Issue: WON the text messages are admissible as evidence.

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

154

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Ruling: Yes. SECTION 1. Scope. — These rules shall apply:  Whenever an electronic document;  Electronic data message is offered or used in evidence. SECTION 2. Cases covered. — These Rules shall apply to: 1. all civil actions and proceedings, 2. quasi-judicial and 3. administrative cases. RULE 1 SECTION 2. Cases covered. — These Rules shall apply to the: 1. Criminal, 2. Civil action and proceeding; 3. quasi-judicial; and 4. administrative cases. “Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained. RULE 11 SECTION 2. Ephemeral electronic communications. —Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person: 1. who was a party to the same or 2. has personal knowledge thereof. In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses,  other competent evidence may be admitted. As to the admissibility of the text messages, the Regional Trial Court admitted them in conformity with the Court's earlier Resolution applying theRules on Electronic Evidenceto criminal actions. 

Text messages are to be proved by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge of them.

Here, PO3 Cambi, posing as the accused Enojas, exchanged text messages with the other accused in order to identify and entrap them. As the recipient of those messages sent from and to the mobile phone in his possession, PO3 Cambi had personal knowledge of such messages and was competent to testify on them.

The Enojas lament that they were arrested without a valid warrant of arrest. But, assuming that this was so, it cannot be a ground for acquitting them of the crime charged but for rejecting any evidence that may have been taken from them after an unauthorized search as an incident of an unlawful arrest, a point that is not in issue here. At any rate, a crime had been committed — the killing of PO2 Pangilinan — and the investigating police officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the persons they were to arrest had committed it. The text messages to and from the mobile phone left at the scene by accused Enojas provided strong leads on the participation and identities of the accused. Indeed, the police caught them in an entrapment using this knowledge. Comment: Here we have text messages, Ephemeral Evidence. How is this proven? Does it have to be the owner of the phone who must identify the messages? No. by the testimony of a person who is a party to the scene. So in this case, the police got the phone of the taxi driver Enojas and used it to communicate with the other robbers or with the other kidnappers and he is the one who could actually prove such ephemeral electronic communication. So, there is no need for the others because this is already proven by the testimony of such person. There are 4 ways of proving. So, if it is recorded, the provisions of Rule 5 shall apply. The recordings must be authenticated, and a recording shall be covered by Section 1 which is the provision on Scope. TABAO VS LACABA AC 9269 March 13, 2019 Facts: Tabao filed a complaint against Atty. Lacaba for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Tabao’s allegations: Atty. Lacaba notarized a twopage Counter-Affidavit without the personal appearance of the affiants, knowing fully well that somebody else signed in their behalf. Atty. Lacaba’s defense: • He never denied notarizing the CounterAffidavit without the personal presence of the affiants. • He avers that he notarized such by

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

155

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

contacting the affiants through video call. He merely narrated that he could see the affiants in the monitor of the laptop and after reading to them the contents of the subject counter-affidavit the latter affirmed, and voluntarily and knowingly authorized their representatives to sign in their behalf. Citing the Rules on Electronic Evidence, Atty. Lacaba alleged that the requirement of personal appearance was satisfied through the video call conversation with the affiants

Section 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals – When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix or by mechanical or electronic rerecording or by chemical reproduction or by other equivalent techniques which is accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original.

Issue: Can the video call conversation be considered a substitute of personal appearance in accordance with Electronic Evidence Rule?

Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the original if: (a) A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (b) In the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit a copy in lieu of the original.

•

Ruling: No. The Rules on Electronic Evidence does not apply in this case. Rule I, Section 1. Scope. – Unless otherwise provided herein, these Rules shall apply whenever an electronic data message, as defined in Rule 2 hereof, is offered or used in evidence. Atty. Lacaba did not present or offer in evidence the video call conversation. He merely offered substantial compliance and narrated what took place during the video call conversation to justify his act of notarizing without the personal appearance of the affiants. Section 2(b), Rule IV and Section 2(e), Rule VI of the Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a notary public is not allowed to notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. In the case of Bon v. Ziga, the Court rejected the defense of substantial compliance to the requirement of personal appearance of the affiant through the telephone call conversation of the affiants securing their affirmation that their signatures were genuine, which was not offered or used as evidence. Thus, applying such ruling in the case at bar, the video call conversation cannot substitute the requirement of personal presence. Comment: Those who violate the notarial rules cannot use the Rules on Electronic Evidence to justify the fact that the affiants did not personally appear before them.

When copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original  General Rule – A copy or duplicate shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original when the document:  Is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents or  Is a counterpart produced: o By the same impression as the original or o From the same matrix or o By mechanical or electronic rerecording or o By chemical reproduction or o By other equivalent techniques which accurately produces the original  Exceptions – The above copy or duplicate shall not be regarded as the equivalent of the original when:  A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the originals or  In the circumstances it would be unjust or inequivalent to admit a copy in lieu of the original. AUGUST 17, 2020 Voluntary case under Rule 129, Section 4 CASE: AGUENZA vs METROBANK Comment:

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

156

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Q: Are you saying there was no ratification or authority given to the one who made the admission? Who made the admission? A: The lawyer of Intertrade Corporation in its Answer.

Ms. Nelson appealed and argued that under ER 1001 (d), Title 10 of Washington State Court Rules on Evidence, the five (5) still photographs are inadmissible since they are not “duplicates”.

Q: Who signed the Answer? A: It was not discussed in the case. The case merely ruled that in absence of ratification expressed by the corporation, the simple admission made by the counsel in the Answer will not bind the corporation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the five (5) still photographs are considered duplicates and are admissible

Q: No ratification? So you are not sure if it was lack of ratification or lack of authority? A: It was held I the case that there was really no ratification. Q: Ratification by whom? A: Ratification by the Corporation so as to make it liable to the obligation incurred by Perez and Arrieta. Q: What’s the date of the case? A: April 7, 1997. Voluntary case under Rule 130, Section 4 STATE OF WASHINGTON VS HELEN JOLENE NELSON NO. 76534-5-I, OCTOBER 1, 2018 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE: SMITH, J. FACTS: The State charged Ms. Nelson was convicted with attempted theft of a motor vehicle. At trial, The State presented Officer Edwin Scheepers who described what he saw on the surveillance video, and testified that he just took still photographs because (1) downloading the surveillance video was not a possibility at the time that he visited the Tesoro station, and that (2) a lot of the stores in Anacortes took a very long time to get back to them. The five still photographs were presented because they would establish that Ms. nelson was indeed the suspect. The photographs, as taken from the video, showed that earlier that morning when the crime was committed, Ms. nelson had been carrying two bags, the same bags which were left in the car when the suspect ran away after being chased by the station clerk. The trial court admitted the five (5) still photographs. Thereafter, the jury convicted Ms. Nelson as charge.

RULING: YES Under the Best Evidence Rule, to prove the content of a videotape, the original videotape is ordinarily required, unless an exception applies. Moreover, ER 1003 provides: “A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original ER 1001 (d) provides that “a duplicate is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography…. ER 1001(d) is similar to Section 4(b), Rule 130 of the Amended Rules on Evidence, wherein they both provide that one of the means by which a duplicate of the original may be produced is by means of photography. In this case, Officer Scheepers testified that he created the still photographs from the surveillance video by means of photography. Therefore, since under ER 1001, photography is one of the means by which a duplicate of the original may be produced, the still photographs are considered duplicates and as such, they were properly admitted in evidence. Comment Q: Which 4(b) are you talking about? The original or the amended one? A: The amended one. So, you can see that our Supreme Court is copying from US jurisprudence and if in the US, a photograph of a CCTV footage is admissible, perhaps it would also be considered admissible here since our amended Section 4(b) is the same as the basis of the court in rendering the decision that such still photographs of video recordings are admissible as duplicates. They even have the same exception. CASES UNDER ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE RULE MAGTOLIS vs. SALUD

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

157

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

A.M. No. CA-05-20-P; September 9, 2005 EN BANC: CALLEJO, SR.,J.: Facts: Administrative case was filed against Salud for directly or indirectly having financial and material interest in an official transaction. Atty. Madarang, conversed with Salud, through call and through exchange of text messages. This conversation pertains to the payment for the provisional liberty of an accused. Here Salud even stated that the said amount shall be given to Justice Magtolis. As proof for the said transaction, Atty. Madarang stated in his affidavit the text messages and the number which it came from, allegedly from Salud. During the Trial: Salud admitted that he was the sender of the text messages in Atty. Madarang’s cellphone and that he called Atty. Madarang several times. However, Salud claims that the admission of the text messages as evidence constitutes a violation of his right to privacy.

Salud admitted that the cellphone number reflected in Atty Madarang’s cellphone from which the messages originated was. Moreover, any doubt Salud may have had as to the admissibility of the text messages had been laid to rest when he and his counsel signed and attested to the veracity of the text messages between him and Atty. Madarang. Thus, the text messages are admissible in this case. Comment: Q: What is the best evidence of a text message? What you told us earlier is a text message is admissible in evidence because it is considered Ephemeral Electronic Evidence. So my question to you is what is the best evidence of a text message? The printout? What is your basis? A: Rule 4, Section 1 says “An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately.”

Issue: WON the text messages are admissible as evidence? YES.

Q: Does it have to be a printout? Let’s say it is on your smartphone. What other means? R: Picture, ma’am.

Ruling: Under Rules on Electronic Evidence, Rule 2 Section 1(k). "Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to telephone conversations, text messages … and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained." Rule 11 Section 2. Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof. In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses, other competent evidence may be admitted.

Q: Picture. Yes. In other words, under the Electronic Evidence Rule, it is not merely a printout that is considered the best evidence of an electronic document. Other output readable by sight or other means. So, you go to a photography studio, have that picture in your smartphone printed out, etc. But it is still a printout, whether it is printed in a computer, printer, or whatever other means. So, it is really better to have that text message printed out because you cannot submit your smartphone in evidence. You cannot attach that to your documents.

A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral electronic communication shall be covered by the immediately preceding section.

So, if you can get a printout of any electronic document then that is the best evidence under the Electronic Document Rule. It is considered an original if you printout from the official site.

Any question as to the admissibility of such messages is now moot and academic, as the Salud himself, as well as his counsel, already admitted that he was the sender of the messages on Atty. Madarang’s cell phone. In this case, Atty. Madarang who was the recipient of the said messages and therefore had personal knowledge thereof testified on their contents and import.

Like, for example, that one – the text message. If it is the original text message, it hasn’t been tampered with and it is printed out then that is a printout of an electronic document and it is considered an original, equivalent of an original. In many countries, their decisions or judgment s are available online, especially divorce judgments. So, some of my clients who were divorced abroad, they would just give a printout of the divorce judgment that

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

158

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

was taken from the official site of the Nevada County Court, something like that. As long as it is printed out from the official site then that is the equivalent of an original. Ellery March G. Torres v. PAGCOR G.R. No. 193531; 14 Dec 2011 EN BANC : PERALTA,J. Facts: Torres was a Slot Machine Operations Supervisor (SMOS) of Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). Later on, he was found to be part of a syndicate which involves the padding of the Credit Meter Readings (CMR) of the slot machines at PAGCOR-Hyatt Manila, which involved the slot machine and internal security personnel of PAGCOR, and in connivance with slot machine customers. On August 4, 2007, Torres received a letter from the Managing Head of PAGCOR's Human Resource and Development Department, dismissing him from the service. On September 14, 2007, Torres filed with the CSC a Complaint against PAGCOR and its Chairman for illegal dismissal, non-payment of backwages and other benefits. The CSC, treating Torres’ complaint as an appeal from the PAGCOR's decision dismissing him from the service, issued Resolution denying said appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time. Both the CSC and Court of Appeals did not gave credence to Torres’ contention that he filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration through facsimile transmission with PAGCOR but the latter did not act on it. The CA found that Torres failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence that he had filed a motion for reconsideration. Issue: Whether or not a motion for reconsideration filed through facsimile transmission is admissible as evidence. Held: No. We should note here that under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, a motion for reconsideration may either be filed by mail or personal delivery. Even assuming arguendo that Torres indeed submitted a letter reconsideration which he claims was sent through a facsimile transmission, such letter reconsideration did not toll the period to appeal. The Court cited Garvida v. Sales, Jr.,where it found inadmissible in evidence the filing of pleadings through fax machines, that “a facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It is, at best, an exact copy preserving all the marks of an original. Without the original, there is no way of determining on its face whether the facsimile pleading is genuine

and authentic and was originally signed by the party and his counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham pleading.” Moreover, a facsimile transmission is not considered as an electronic evidence under the Electronic Commerce Act as held in MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation. In that case, the Court held that the terms "electronic data message" and "electronic document," as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence. Comment: So, when we were in law school, the case that was cited under the Electronic Evidence Rule or when it was proposed that a facsimile be considered Electronic Evidence, it was Gavida vs Sales. And that was a long time ago but up to now, this case of Torres – So, the Supreme Court still does not consider (and this is an En Banc case penned by Justice Peralta) – it is difficult to determine the source of a fax. When you receive a fax, you don’t know what the original looks like. It is difficult to compare. Unless it is certified and becomes a certified true copy of the original.But pure filing by fax under this case is not allowed. But we don’t know under the New Rules on Electronic Filing. The Supreme Court is already very aggressive in promoting electronic filing. I am not sure if a fax is already allowed but from this 2011 case, it is still not considered electronic evidence. CASE: BARTOLOME vs MARANAN Q: In this case, were the text messages retained or were they deleted? Reporter: It was retained since Bartolome submitted a transcript of the text messages. Atty. Suarez: If the text messages are deleted, they can still be retrieve from the NPC. So, there is a way of retrieving them. It is very, very difficult to prove or to present electronic evidence like a text message or a message in a chat session if it cannot be seen, it cannot be printed out, it cannot be photographed – if it only comes from the memory of the witness. It is very difficult. Sometimes maybe if there is no other evidence, maybe the court will admit that. But for ephemeral electronic communications, especially those that are sent through Globe, Smart, or

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

159

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

whatever, through our service providers, it is possible to have them retrieved. I am not so sure about Viber messages or Facebook messenger. Perhaps those things can also be retrieved. But those things can be edited or deleted things like that. Unlike the text messages which from the smart phone cannot be edited – I don’t know about you millennials if you know how to edit but I don’t know how to do it. But for an electronic message like a text message to be admissible or to have credibility, it must not be tampered with. It must be shown that it is the original and there was no tampering that took place. CASE: People vs Kent (Volunteer Case under Rule 3) Comment: When it comes to phone records, telephone conversations which under Rule 2, Section 1(k) on Ephemeral Electronic Communication, telephone conversations are the most difficult to be admitted because they are normally not recorded. We have the Anti-Wiretapping Act that we will take up later. So, there are a lot of requirements and in that US case, there are two requirements and if one is not complied with then the records are not admissible. We still have to look into cases involving telephone conversations here in our country to be able to determine how to comply with the requirements to make these telephone conversations admissible in evidence. MCC vs. Ssangyong G.R. No. 170633; October 17, 2007 NACHURA,J. Facts: MCC ordered steel products from Ssangyong. Ssangyong forwarded through facsimilie transmission to MCCPro FormaInvoice No.ST2POSTSO401containing the terms and conditions of the transaction. Ssangyong then filed a civil action for damages due to breach of contract against defendants MCC et. al. before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. MCC filed a Demurrer to Evidence alleging that Ssangyong failed to present the original copies of thepro formainvoices on which the civil action was based because only photocopy of the fax transmittal was presented Issue: Whether the print-out and/or photocopies of facsimile transmissions are considered electronic evidence and admissible as such.

The terms "electronic data message" and "electronic document," as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, afacsimile transmissioncannot be considered aselectronic evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible aselectronic evidence. In a virtual or paperless environment, technically, there is no original copy to speak of, as all direct printouts of the virtual reality are the same, in all respects, and are considered as originals. Unlike in this case, there is an original copy to speak of- the Pro Forma invoice made by Ssangyong and was transmitted to MCC through facsimile transmission. Therefore, a facsimile transmission is not an "electronic data message" or an "electronic document," and cannot be considered as electronic evidence by the Court, with greater reason is a photocopy of such a fax transmission not electronic evidence. Comment: And they are not even sure that the document that was inserted in to the sending fax machine was really the original. It could probably be just a photocopy. That is why fax copies are not really considered trustworthy and do not have the status given to electronic documents as equivalent to the original. A fax copy is merely a copy. But there is nothing wrong with having it certified. But there are rules on having it certified as well. Not any person who sent the fax message can actually certify a document. It has to be somebody who has custody of the document or in some cases a lawyer, a notary public. But what notary public will certify that if the notary public was not the one who received the fax? So, fax contracts are not really that reliable and cannot be admitted in evidence. CASE: MALIKSI vs COMELEC Comment: So, it would seem like in this case, even though the printouts of the images - because the PCOS machines automatically take photographs of all the ballots placed into them so the printouts actually look like that ballots and under the Electronic Evidence Rule, it is regarded as the equivalent of the original. But in this case, it would seem like the Supreme Court applied our Rules on Evidence and even though it is the equivalent of an original, the Supreme Court said that it is not the best evidence hence, it is not really considered an original but secondary evidence. Because the Supreme Court said you have to make sure to prove that the original ballots have been lost, or destroyed, or tampered with. So, kinda iffy, no, the decision of this court in this case of Maliksi.

Ruling: NO. ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

160

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

This is an En Banc case decided in April 11 of 2013. We have a smilar case, another En Banc case – the case of Vinzons-Chato vs HRET. So, in this Maliksi case, the ponente is Justice Bersamin. This one (Chato case) is Perlas-Bernabe. Let’s see how to Supreme Court tackled the situation here. VINZONS CHATO VS HRET GR., NO. 204637, April 16, 2013 EN BANC: Reyes Facts Vinzons-Chato lost in the election as Camarines Norte representative to Panoles. She filed an election protest and it was discovered that the ballot boxes were irregular. Due to this, the HRET ruled that the picture images of the ballots as scanned by the PCOS machine should be used, citing Rule 4 of the Electronic Evidence Rule. Issue: Whether or not the picture images of the ballots are equivalent to the original ballots? Ruling: Yes. Rule 4 Section 1 of the Electronic Evidence Rule provides that an electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means. Rule 4 Section 2 of the Electronic Evidence Rule also provides that when a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, and is produced by mechanical or electronic re-recording, among others, such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original. In this case, the individual voters personally insert the official ballots inside the PCOS machine, which in turn scans and takes digital images of the same and stores them as an encrypted file. Hence, there is no question that the same can be considered as equivalents of the original ballots, which can be used when the intergrity of the original ballots has not been preserved. Comment: Actually, there is no conflict between the two rulings, it is just that in the earlier discussed case of Maliksi, there was just a little issue there to prove the integrity of the original ballots. But both cases are saying that the printout of the images, the scanned images of the ballots are still equivalent to the original. In fact, it is

less likely that these printout would be tampered with because they are stored in the PCOS machine unless some genius is able to figure out a way to change the images. The ballot boxes, however, could be tampered with so a lot of irregularities are discovered when it comes to the contents of ballot boxes So, it is really very useful to have those printout, those scanned images of the ballots because that ballot is placed into the scanner by the voter himself. Hence, that is exactly the ballot that was filled up by the voter and under the Electronic Evidence Rule, is equivalent to the original. RULE 11 AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC VIDEO AND EPHEMERAL EVIDENCE Section 1. Audio, video and similar evidence – Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be admissible provided is shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court and shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof. Admissibility of Audio, Photographic and Video Evidence –  Audio, photographic and video evidence of:  Events  Acts or  Transactions  Shall be admissible  Provided it shall be:  Shown, presented, or displayed to the court and  Identified. Explained or authenticated by:  The person who made the recording or  Some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof. Discussion: Section 1 talks about audio, video, and similar evidence. So, this is still on admissibility. Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions – like weddings, funerals, signing of documents - shall be admissible provided is shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court – so, show the video, play the audio, show the photographs – and identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof. Section 2. Ephemeral electronic communication – Ephemeral electronic communication shall be

ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

161

RULES ON EVIDENCE FIRST EXAM From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof. In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses, other competent evidence may be admitted. A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral electronic communication shall be covered by the immediately preceding section. If the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in an electronic document then the provisions of Rule 5 shall apply. How Ephemeral Electronic Communication Proven  By the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof. Discussion: So we already saw from the cases that were reported on earlier. As long as the person who identifies the text message was a party to the message then that is already enough to prove the text message. 

In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses, other competent evidence may be admitted.

Discussion: So, other competent evidence – whatever that is. 

A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral electronic communication – shall be covered by the Sec 1.

Discussion: The text message can be identified by the person who sent it or the one who made it. 

If the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in an electronic document – the provisions of Rule 5 shall apply.

Discussion: Rule 5 is on authentication. Authentication is very confusing because the Supreme Court uses such word for many, many things and many, many acts. So, we will not discuss that now but we will take that up when we reach Rule 132. Nuez v. Cruz-Apao AM No. CA-05-18-P; 12 April 2005 EN BANC – PER CURIAM

Nuez & Cruz-Apao met twice for the transaction. On both occasions, Nuez was accompanied by a reporter of Imbestigador. Cruz-Apao was entrapped, and charged with dishonesty and grave misconduct. Issue: Whether or not the text messages are admissible as evidence Held: Yes. Text messages – Ephemeral electronic communication, are covered under Sec. 1(k) of Rule 2 of the Electronic evidence rule. Issue: Whether or not the text messages were properly proven Held: Yes. Ephemeral electronic communication - proven by the testimony of (1) a person who was a party to the same or (2) who has personal knowledge thereof. (Sec. 2, Rule 11) In this case, Nuez testified on the contents and import of the text messages. She was the recipient of said messages and therefore had personal knowledge thereof. Also, In administrative cases, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. Comment: So, if you notice, for Ephemeral Electronic Communication like text messages, under Rule 11, they have to be identified by the person who made the recording. They have to be explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording. Or some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof. So, the receiver or the recipient of the message can be considered “some other person” because that person who received it is competent to testify to the accuracy of the message – that it was not tampered with, it was not edited or anything. REPUBLIC ACT 4200 ANTI-WIRETAPPING LAW The provision related to Evidence under RA 4200 as amended are Section 1 and Section 4.

FACTS: Nuez, has a case pending with CA, he sought the assistance of Cruz-Apao, assistant of the clerk of court of the CA. Cruz demanded one million pesos in exchange of a favorable and speedy disposition of the case. ARANJUEZ, BALLOS, BARUIS, BEJANO, BRAGANZA, MALIONES, MARTINEZ, NONO, PACLIBAR, SAMBRANO, SOSOBAN, WEILL

162

Rules On Evidence - PDFCOFFEE.COM (2025)

References