EVIDENCE

1. Reyes vs. Court of The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and
Appeals hearings except as otherwise provided by law

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded

2. People vs. Turco
by the law or these rules (Section 3, Rule 128) or is competent

3. Agustin vs. Court of DNA evidence Rule shall apply in all criminal actions, civil actions and
Appeals special proceedings

The testimony as to the reputation of other firearms companies using the

same safety device is material and relevant to the issue of whether the
4. Lopez vs. Hessen
safety device on the Higgins Model 51 was unsafe or safe, and that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony
EVIDENCE

Articles found in person at the time of arrest were of course relevant and
5. State vs. Ball
admissible in evidence and there is no objection to them

In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by

6. People vs. Marti
the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State

In O’Connor the Court recognized that “special needs” authorize

warrantless searches involving public employees for work-related reasons.
7. People vs. David The Court thus laid down a balancing test under which government
interests are weighed against the employee’s reasonable expectation of
privacy”

An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a

dictaphone, dictagraph or the other device enumerated un Section 1 of R.A.
No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as “tapping” the wire or
8. Ganaan vs. IAC
cable of a telephone line. There must be either a physical interruption
through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement
in order to overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words
EVIDENCE

RA 4200 Section 1: It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized
by all parties to any private conversation or spoken word, to tap any wire
9. Salcedo-Ortanez vs. or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,
Court of Appeals intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device
commonly known as a dictaphone, or dictagraph or detectaphone or
walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described

Section 1 of the Act clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any
person, not authorized by all parties to any private communication to
10. Ramirez vs. Court of secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder. The
Appeals phrase “private communication” are put to rest by the fact that Senator
Tañ ada in his Explanatory Note to the Bill used “communication” and
“conversation” interchangeably

For in reversing his stand, the trial judge could have well taken – because
he was duty bound to take judicial notice of Ordinance 4566. The reason
11. City of Manila vs. Garcia being that the city charter of Manila requires that all courts sitting therein
to take judicial notice of all ordinances passed by the municipal board of
Manila

Courts have also taken judicial notice of previous cases to determine

12. Baguio vs. Vda. De
whether or not the case pending is a moot one or whether or not the
Jalagat
previous ruling is applicable in the case under consideration
EVIDENCE

As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice, in the
adjudication of the cases pending before them, of the contents of other
13. Prieto vs. Arroyo 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
actually pending before the same judge

To establish a valid foreign marriage two things must be proven: (1) the
existence of the foreign law as a question of fact; and (2) the alleged foreign
14. Yao-Kee vs. Sy-Gonzales
marriage by convincing evidence. She has failed to prove the Chinese laws
on marriage that would show the validity of her marriage to Sy

It applied the exception that “in the absence of objection,” “with the
knowledge of the opposing party,” or “at the request or with the consent of
15. Tabuena vs. Court of
the parties,” the case is clearly referred to or “the original or part of the
Appeals
records of the case are actually withdrawn from the archives” and admitted
as part of the record of the case then pending

In taking Judicial Notice, SC said that it is not aware that in rape cases, the
16. People vs. Godoy claim of the complainant of having been threatened appears to be a
common testimonial expedient and face-saving subterfuge
EVIDENCE

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
17. BPI-Savings vs. CTA
pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases
may have been heard or are actually pending before the same judge

18. Calamba Steel Center, Judicial notice could have been taken by the CA and the CTA of the 1996
Inc. vs. Commissioner of final adjustment return made by petitioner in another case then pending
Internal Revenue with the CTA

Death penalty should not have been imposed. It was incorrect for the Court
to take judicial notice of Mary Ann’s age without a proper hearing. Judicial
19. People vs. Tundag
notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and
act on without proof because they already know them

The Court held that its admission was proper, especially in view of the fact
that it was signed by Calupitan himself, who was acting as his own attorney.
Pleadings were originally considered as inadmissible as admissions
20. Lucido vs. Calupitan
because it contained only pleader’s matter (fiction stated by counsel and
sanctioned by the courts), modern tendency was to treat pleadings as
statements of real issues and herein, admissions of the parties
EVIDENCE

Having been amended, the original complaint lost its character as a judicial
21. Torres vs. Court of
admission, which would have required no proof, and became merely an
Appeals
extrajudicial admission of which as evidence, required its formal offer

The exception provided in Rule 129, Section 4 is that an admission may be

22. CIR vs. Petron contradicted only by a showing that it was made through a palpable
Corporation mistake, or that no such admission was made. In this case, however,
exception to the rule does not exist

Physical evidence is of the highest order and speaks more eloquently than
witnesses put together. The “old healed laceration” in the hymen, according
23. People vs. Bardaje to the testimony of the physician, would have occurred two weeks or even
1 month before. This shows that Marcelina and Adelino had amorous
relationship

The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when presented in

evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to its production and
testified as to the circumstances under which they were produced. The
24. Sison vs. People 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
EVIDENCE

A photograph may be put in evidence if relevant to the issue and if verified.

It does not have to be verified by the taker. Its verification depends on the
25. Adamczuk v. Halloway competency of the verifying witness and as to that the trial judge must in
the first instance decide, subject to reversal for substantial error. IT MUST
BE VERIFIED.

The quantum of authentication required by the courts before a photograph

may be admissible in evidence was stated thus: “that some witness, not
26. State v. Tatum necessarily the photographer, be able to give some indication as to when,
where and under what circumstances the photograph was taken, and the
photograph accurately portray the subject or subjects illustrated

When the identity of the dangerous drug recovered from the accused is not
the same dangerous drug presented to the forensic chemist for review and
27. People vs. Climaco examination, nor the same dangerous drug presented to the court, the
identity of the dangerous drug is not preserved due to the broken chain of
custody

Non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its

IRR relative to the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the
28. People vs. Cardenas
apprehended persons, is not a serious flaw that can render void the
seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation
EVIDENCE

When the dialogue happened, the impact of the startling occurrence was
29. Air France vs. still fresh and continued to be felt. The excitement had not as yet died
Carrascoso down. The utterance of the purser regarding his entry in the notebook was
spontaneous, and related to the circumstances of the ouster incident

The best evidence rule applies only when contents of writing are to be
proved which does not obtain in the case at bar. In prosecution for perjured
30. Meyers v. United States testimony given before the Senate committee, the testimony by chief
counsel of the senatorial committee as to what witnesses had sworn to was
not barred under the best evidence rule.

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
31. People vs. Tan
the pen which made the surface or exposed the 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 creative literary work and a photograph whose contents are sought to be

proved are both covered by the best evidence rule. It would be inconsistent
32. Seiler v. Lucas Film, Ltd.
to apply the rule to artwork which is literary or photographic but not to
artwork of other form
EVIDENCE

The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the document are
the subject of inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether or not such
33. People vs. Tandoy document was actually executed, or exists, or in the circumstances relevant
to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and
testimonial evidence is admissible.

In the absence of the original document, it is improper to conclude, with

only a copy of the said original in view, that there has been a falsification of
34. U.S. vs. Gregorio
a document which was neither found nor exhibited, because, in such a case,
even the existence of such original may be doubted.

The offeror must prove that he has done all in his power to secure the best
evidence by giving notice to the said party to produce the document which
may be in the form of a motion for the production of the original or made in
open court in the presence of the adverse party or via a subpoena
35. Pacasum vs. People
ducestecum, provided that the party in custody of the original has sufficient
time to produce the same. 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.

The evidence must be relevant, and not hearsay. The copies of the weekly
36. Fiscal of Pampanga vs. where the libellous article was published, and its translation, constitute the
Reyes best evidence of the libel charged. The newspaper itself is the best evidence
of an article published in it.
EVIDENCE

What applies to this case is the general rule "that an audit made by, or the
37. Compania Maritima vs.
testimony of, a private auditor, is inadmissible in evidence as proof of the
Allied Free Workers
original records, books of accounts, reports or the like

The requisites for admissibility of secondary evidence when the original is

in the custody of the adverse party are:
38. Villa Rey Transit vs. 1. opponent’s possession of the original;
Ferrer 2. Reasonable notice to opponent’s possession of the original;
3. satisfactory proof of existence,
4. failure or refusal of opponent to produce the original in court.

Trial courts do well in refusing at all times to permit the introduction of

incompetent evidence and particularly secondary evidence of the contents
39. Michael & Co. vs.
of written instruments unless the facts required by the Code of Civil
Enriquez
Procedure as the conditions precedent for such evidence are clearly shown
to exist.

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
40. De Vera vs. Aguilar
instrument. The correct order of proof is as follows: (1) existence, (2)
execution, (3) loss, (4) contents, although this order may be changed in the
discretion of the court.

41. National Power When the subject of inquiry is the contents of documents, no evidence shall
Corporation vs. Codilla be admissible other than the original documents themselves, except in
certain cases specifically enumerated therein. Which are:
a) When the original has been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court;
b) When the original is in the possession of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice.
c) When the original is a record or other document in the custody of a
public officer;
EVIDENCE
d) When the original has been recorded in an existing record a certified
copy of which is made evidence by law; and
e) 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.
 Evidence is called hearsay when its probative force depends, in whole or in
part, on the competency and credibility of some persons other that the witness
by whom it is sought to produce it. There are three reasons for excluding
hearsay evidence: (1) absence of cross examination; (2) absence of demeanor
evidence, and (3) absence of the oath. Not at all hearsay evidence, however, is
inadmissible as evidence. Over the years, a huge body of hearsay evidence has
been admitted by courts due to their relevance, trustworthiness and necessity.

42. Estrada vs. Desierto  A complete analysis of any hearsay problem requires that we further
determine whether the hearsay evidence is one exempted from the rules of
exclusion. A more circumspect examination of our rules of exclusion will show
that they do not cover admissions of a party and the Angara Diary belongs to
this class rule on res inter alios acta this rule is expressed in section 28 of Rule
130 of the Rules of Court, viz: “The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.” The
res inter alios acta rule has several exceptions. One of them is provided in
section 29 of Rule 130 with respect to admissions by a co-partner or agent.

43. MCC Industrial Sales

The term “Electronic Data Message” and “electronic Document” do not
Corporation vs.
include a facsimile transmission or “fax”
Ssangyong Corporation

Considering that the annotation of the disputed Deed of Sale in a tax

declaration is not sufficient proof of the transfer of property and inasmuch
44. Ebreo v. Ebreo
as the subject of inquiry is the Deed of Sale, it was incumbent on the
petitioners to adduce in evidence the original or a copy of the deed.
EVIDENCE

When the terms of an agreement had been reduced to writing it is to be

considered as containing all that has been agreed upon and that no
45. Enriquez vs. Ramos evidence other than the terms there can be admitted between the parties.
This rule, however, only holds true if there is allegation that the agreement
does not express the intent of the parties.

The rule forbidding the admission of parole or extrinsic evidence to alter,

vary, or contradict a written instrument does not apply so as to prohibit the
establishment by parole of an agreement between the parties to a writing,
46. Canuto vs. Mariano entered into subsequent to the time when the written instrument was
executed, such agreement may have the effect of adding to, changing,
modifying, or even altogether abrogating the contract of the parties as
evidenced by the writing.

While parol evidence is admissible in a variety of ways to explain the

meaning of written contracts, it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating
47. Yu Yek vs. Gonzales
into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not
mentioned at all in the writing, unless there has been fraud or mistake

When the operation of the contract is made to depend upon the occurrence
48. Land Settlement vs.
of an event, which, for that reason is a condition precedent, such may be
Garcia Plantation
established by parol evidence.
EVIDENCE

The prohibition against parol evidence is to prevent alteration, change,

modification, or contradiction of the term of a written instrument,
admittedly existing, by the use of some parol evidence except in cases
specifically named in the action. The purpose was to show that the contract
49. Maulini vs. Serrano
of indorsement ever existed; that the minds of the parties never met on the
terms of such contract that they never mutually agreed to enter into such
contract and that there never existed a consideration upon which such an
agreement could be founded.

Any prior or contemporaneous conversation in connection with a note or

50. PNB vs. Seeto
its indorsement may be proved by parol evidence.

The purpose of considering the drafts is not to vary, alter, or modify the
51. Woodhouse vs. Halili agreement, but to discover the intent of the parties thereto and the
circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract.

The purpose of the parole evidence is to enforce an independent or

52. Robles vs. Lizarraga
collateral agreement constituting an inducement or the making of the sale,
Hermanos
or part of the consideration therefore.
EVIDENCE

The parole evidence is predicated on the existence of a document

53. Cruz vs. CA embodying the terms of an agreement. A receipt is not and could have not
been intended by the parties to the sole memorial of their agreement.

The parol evidence rule does not apply, and may not properly be invoked
by either party to the litigation against the other, where at least one of the
parties to the suit is not party or a privy of a party to the written
54. Lechugas vs. CA
instrument in question and does not base a claim on the instrument or
assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation established
thereby.

The parole evidence rule does not specify that the written agreement needs
to be a public document. What is required is that the agreement be in
writing since written evidence is so much more certain and accurate than
that which rests in fleeting memory only, that it would be unsafe, when
55. Inchiong vs. CA
parties have expressed the terms of their contract in writing, to admit
weaker evidence to control and vary the stronger and to show that the
parties intended a different contract from that expressed in the writing
signed by them.

Spoken words could be notoriously unreliable unlike a written contract

which speaks of a uniform language. Examining the deeds of sale, we cannot
56. Ortanez vs. CA
even make an inference that the sale was subject to any condition. As a
contract, it is the law between the parties.
EVIDENCE

Documents must be taken as explaining all the terms of the agreement

57. Rosario Textile Mills vs. between the parties when there appears to be no ambiguity in the language
Home Bankers of said documents nor any failure to express the true intent and agreement
of the parties.

Even when a document appears on its face to be a sale, the owner of the
property may prove that the contract is really a loan with mortgage by
58. Madrigal vs. CA
raising as an issue the fact that the document does not express the true
intent of the parties.

There is no showing that she could not convey her ideas by words or signs.
Clara gave sufficiently intelligible answers. The Court was satisfied that
59. People vs. De Jesus
Clara can perceive and transport in her own way her perceptions. The
ruling of the lower court was affirmed.

A mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a
witness. As in the case of other witnesses, acceptance of his testimony
60. People vs. Solomon
depends on its nature and credibility or, otherwise put, the quality of his
perceptions and the manner he can make them known to the court.
EVIDENCE

The positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses prevail over

61. People vs. Mendoza
appellant's defense of denial.

Mental retardation per se does not affect credibility. A mentally retarded

may be a credible witness. The acceptance of his or her testimony depends
62. People vs. Macapagal
on the quality of his or her perceptions and the manner he or she can make
them known to the court.

When an offense directly attack or directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal
relation, it comes within the exception to the statute that one shall not be a
63. Ordono vs. Saquigan
witness against the other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime
committed (by) one against the other.

In this case, the same principle should be applied because the person who
stands to be prejudiced by the forgery is not a third person but his wife.
Also, it directly and vitally impairs the conjugal relation. By reason of public
64. People vs. Castaneda
policy, the wife should not be disqualified because to do otherwise would
set a dangerous precedent where the husband may conjure as many
falsifications as possible with impunity.
EVIDENCE

Objections to the competency of a husband or wife to testify in a criminal

prosecution against the other may be waived as in the case of the other
65. People vs. Francisco witnesses generally. Thus, the accused waives his or her privilege by calling
the other spouse as a witness for him or her, thereby making the spouse
subject to cross examination in the usual manner.

When the interest of the husband and wife are necessarily interrelated, the
66. Lezama vs. Rodriguez
wife or husband may invoke the marital disqualification rule.

67. Guerrero vs. St. Claire Dead Man’s Rule inapplicable when there is no claim or demand against the
Realty estate of the deceased Manuel Guerrero

There was a waiver of the prohibition when the counsel for the
68. Abraham vs. Recto-
administratix extensively crosse-examined the witness son the matters
Kasten
subject of the prohibition
EVIDENCE

A waiver occurs when plaintiff's deposition is taken by the representative

69. Goni vs. Court of Appeals of the estate or when counsel for the representative cross-examined the
plaintiff as to matters occurring during deceased's lifetime.

Officers and/or stockholders of a corporation are not disqualified from

testifying, for or against the corporation which is a party to an action upon
70. Lichauco vs. Atlantic Gulf
a claim or demand against the estate of a deceased person, as to any matter
of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person

The law twice makes use of the word "against." The actions were not
brought "against" the administratrix of the estate, nor were they brought
71. Tongco vs. Vianzon
upon claims "against" the estate. In the cadastral case, the action is one by
the administratrix to enforce demand "by" the estate.

The dead man’s statute does not apply where the case is filed by the estate.
Besides, cross-examination of the witness is a waiver of the privilege. The
72. Razon vs. IAC purpose of the law is to "guard against the temptation to give false
testimony in regard to the transaction in question on the part of the
surviving party.
EVIDENCE

73. Londres vs. Court of Prohibition applies to a case against the administrator or representative of
Appeals an estate upon a claim against the estate of the deceased person.

Where a privileged communication from one spouse to the other comes

into the hands of a third party, whether legally or not, without collusion and
74. People vs. Carlos voluntary disclosure on the part of either spouse, the privilege is thereby
extinguished and the communication, if otherwise competent, becomes
admissible.

When the attorney has faithfully carried out his instructions be delivering
the communication to the third person for whom it was intended and the
75. Uy Chico vs. Union Life latter acts upon it, it cannot, by any reasoning whatever, be classified in a
legal sense as a privileged communication between the attorney and his
client.

The general rule is however qualified by some important exceptions. 1)

Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing
the client’s name would implicate that client in the very activity for which
76. Regala vs.
he sought the lawyer’s advice 2) Where disclosure would open the client to
Sandiganbatan
civil liability, his identity is privileged. 3) Where the said name would
furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to
convict an individual of a crime, the client’s name is privilege.
EVIDENCE

The law protects the client from the effect of disclosures made by him to his
77. Barton vs. Leyte Asphalt attorney in the confidence of the legal relation, but when such a document,
& Mineral Oil Co. containing admissions of the client, comes to the hand of a third party, and
reaches the adversary, it is admissible in evidence.

Contracts between attorneys and clients are inherently personal and

private matters, but they are a constant subject of litigation, and contracts
78. Orient Insurance vs. relating to fees are essentially not of a privileged nature. Privilege primarily
Revilla refers to communications from client to attorney, an idea which of course
includes communications from attorney to client relative to privileged
matters.

Having been made for purposes of a future offense, those communications

are outside the pale of the attorney-client privilege. It is well settled that in
79. People vs.
order that a communication between a lawyer and his client may be
Sandiganbayan
privileged, it must be for a lawful purpose or in furtherance of a lawful end.
The existence of an unlawful purpose prevents the privilege from attaching.

It suffices to note that the protective cloak of this privilege does not extend
to information which an attorney secures from a witness while acting for
80. Hickman vs. Taylor his client in anticipation of litigation. Nor does this privilege concern the
memoranda, briefs, communications, and other writings which reflect an
attorney's mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories.
EVIDENCE

Communications made by a client to its counsel in anticipation of possible

litigation shall be covered by the attorney-client privilege even though the
81. Upjohn Co. vs. U.S. managers of the parent stateside company were the ones who hired the
counsel and the persons responding to the queries were its foreign
employees

The disclosure of the client’s identity generally does not enjoy the
82. In re Grand Jury
protection of the attorney-client privilege save in narrowly construed
Investigation
exceptions.

Uninhibited communication among joint parties and their counsel about

matters of common concern is often important to the protection of their
83. U.S. Vs. McPartlin interests in criminal cases it can be necessary to a fair opportunity to
defend. Therefore, waiver is not to be inferred from the disclosure in
confidence to a co-party's attorney for a common purpose.

A communication divulged to "strangers" or outsiders can scarcely be

considered a confidential communication between attorney and client.
84. U.S. Vs. Gordon-Nikkar
Therefore, this communication is not protected by the attorney-client
privilege
EVIDENCE

The privilege derived from the work-product doctrine is not absolute. Like
other qualified privileges, it may be waived. Here respondent sought to
adduce the testimony of the investigator and contrast his recollection of the
85. U.S. Vs. Nobles
contested statements with that of the prosecution's witnesses. Respondent,
by electing to present the investigator as a witness, waived the privilege
with respect to matters covered in his testimony.

The Court held that in order for patient-doctor privilege can be claimed, the
following requisites must concur:
1.Privilege claimed is in a civil case;
2. The person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized
86. Lim vs. Court of Appeals to practice medicine;
3.Such person acquired the information while he was attending to the
patient in his professional capacity; and
4. The information was necessary for him to enable him to act in that
capacity.

The person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly
authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics. He is simply the
patient's husband who wishes to testify on a document executed by medical
87. Krohn vs. Court of practitioners. Plainly and clearly, this does not fall within the claimed
Appeals prohibition. Neither can his testimony be considered a circumvention of the
prohibition because his testimony cannot have the force and effect of the
testimony of the physician who examined the
patient and executed the report.

Presidential communication is protected, however when the

communication is not of a governmental nature, and there is a public
interest in those communications, then the immunity granted by the
Constitution does not exist. In applying the balance test, Presidential
88. U.S. vs. Nixon
communications are indeed protected generally, but in the instance of a
criminal case, the protection cannot remain, for it would “cut deep into the
guarantee of due process law and gravely impair the basic function of the
courts.
EVIDENCE

Any statute declaring in general terms that official records are confidential
89. Banco Filipino vs. should be liberally construed to have an implied exception for disclosure
Monetary Board when needed in a court of justice. The deliberations may indeed be
confidential but not necessarily absolute and privileged.

90. Neri vs. Senate The bases are presidential communications privilege and executive
Committee privilege on matters relating to diplomacy or foreign relations.

The testimony and the public document constitute declarations of the

Costelos adverse to their interest which is admissible in evidence, pursuant
91. Viacrusis vs. Court of
to the rule on declarations against interests. Such admission may be
Appeals
received in evidence, not only against the party who made it or his
successor’s interest, but also against third persons.

The pieces of documentary evidence (chattel mortgage, settlement of the

debt, letters of Adao and Lorenzo) are sufficient to prove the liability of COB
92. Keller & Co. vs. COB and to justify the foreclosure of the two mortgages executed by Manahan
and Lorenzo. The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact
may be given in evidence against him “as an admission of a party
EVIDENCE

The rule allowing silence of a person to be taken as an implied admission of

the truth of the statements uttered in his presence is applicable in criminal
cases. They must however comply with the following requisites: 1. That one
heard and understood the statement, 2. That he was at liberty to interpose
93. People vs. Paragsa a denial, 3. That the statement was in respect to some matter affecting his
rights or in which he was then interested, and calling, naturally, for an
answer, 4. The facts were within his knowledge, and 5. That the fact
admitted or the inference to be drawn from his
silence would be material to the issue.

The silence of an accused (or in this case, the three appellants) under
custody, or his failure to deny statements by another implicating him in a
94. People vs. Alegre crime, especially when such accused is neither asked to comment or reply
to such implications or accusations, cannot be considered as a tacit
confession of his participation in the commission of the crime.

Silence simply stands for the assertion that one cannot be compelled to
95. Griffin vs. California incriminate themselves, either by being forced to testify, or by having their
own silence construed against them

As a general rule, the extrajudicial declaration of an accused, although

deliberately made, is not admissible and does not have probative value
96. People vs. Alegre
against his co-accused. It is merely hearsay evidence as far as the other
accused are concerned.
EVIDENCE

Extrajudicial statements made during custodial investigation without the

assistance of counsel are inadmissible and cannot be considered in the
adjudication of the case. While the right to counsel may be waived, such
97. People vs. Raquel
waiver must be made with the assistance of counsel. An extrajudicial
confession is binding only upon the confessant and is not admissible
against his co-accused.

98. Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Statements made by an employee against his employer are admissible
Survival & Research against the latter, where the statements while in employ and where they
Center concerned a matter within the scope of his employment

 In the absence of any other evidence to prove the existence of an

alleged conspiracy, extra-judicial statements and admissions of an
individual cannot be taken as evidence against an alleged co-
conspirator

99. People vs. Cabrera  An extrajudicial statement made by a co-accused is, by itself,
insufficient to convict an accused of a crime charged because said
statement is inadmissible since they were made not during the
existence of the conspiracy but after the said conspiracy had already
ceased and when the co-accused was already in the custody of the
police.
 The rule regarding statements made by a co-conspirator refers to
statements made by one conspirator during the pendency of the
unlawful enterprises and in furtherance of its object and not to a
confession made long after the conspiracy had been brought to an
end.
100. People vs. Yatco
 Under the rule on multiple admissibility of evidence, the confession
of a co--accused may be inadmissible against his co-accused for
being hearsay but may nevertheless be admissible against the
declarant’s own guilt.
EVIDENCE

The Conspiracy must be proved by independent evidence other than the

confession. The admissibility of a confession by one accused against the
other in the same case, must relate to statements made by one conspirator
101. People vs. Chaw Yaw during the pendency of the unlawful enterprise (or during its existence)
Shun and in furtherance of its objects, and not to a confession made, as in this
case, long after the conspiracy had been brought to an end. Conspiracy
must be real and not presumptive. It must be proved as the crime itself,
independent from the confession.

The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during

its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the
conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration,"
applies only to extra-judicial acts or declaration, but not to testimony given
on the stand at the trial, where the defendant has the opportunity to cross-
102. People vs. Serrano
examine the declarant. And while the testimony of accomplices or
confederates in crime is always subject to grave suspicion, "coming as it
does from a polluted source," and should be received with great caution
and doubtingly examined, it is nevertheless admissible
and competent.
 Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy; it may be
established by acts of the accused before, during and after the
commission of the crime charged, from which it may be logically
inferred the existence of a common purpose to commit the same.
The prosecution must prove conspiracy by the same quantum of
103. People vs. Bulan evidence as the felony charged itself.

 Once conspiracy is established, it is unnecessary to prove who

among the conspirators inflicted the fatal injury. If conspiracy is
proved, all the conspirators are criminally liable for the crime
charged and proved. The act of one is the act of all.
Concerning the meaning of the expression “privies”, Manresa has his tiny to
say “The said word denotes the idea of succession, not only by right of
heirship and testamentary legacy, but also that of succession by singular
title, derived from acts inter vivos and for special purposes;; hence, an
104. Alpuerto vs. Pastor assignee of a credit, and one subrogated to it, et., will be privies;; in short,
he, who, by succession is placed in the position of one of those who
contracted the juridical relation and executed the private document and
appears to be substituting him in his personal rights and obligations, is a a
privy.
EVIDENCE

The act of a predecessor to a land is not binding on the successor if the

105. City of Manila vs. Del acts/declarations made by the predecessor acknowledging ownership or
Rosario offering to purchase the property from a third party were made before the
predecessor held title to the land

 Admissions obtained during custodial interrogations without the

benefit of counsel although later reduced to writing and signed in
the presence of counsel are flawed under the Constitution and as
such they cannot be admitted.
106. People vs. Compil
 Even if counsel arrives prior to the actual signing of the statement,
his absence during the making but presence during the signing will
not cure the defect.

The signatures of the accued on the boxes, as well as on the plastic bags
containing “shabu” are inadmissible in evidence. The accused were never
informed of their fundamental rights during the entire time that they were
under investigation. Specifically, they were not informed of their Miranda
107. People vs. Wong
rights. By affixing their signatures on the boxes and on the plastic bags,
Chuen Ming
accused in effect made a tacit admission of the crime charged for mere
possession of shabu is punished by law. These signatures of accused are
tantamount to an uncounselled extra-judicial confession which is not
sanctioned by the Bill of Rights

While an accused is in custody, his silence may not be taken in evidence

against him as he has a right to remain silent; his silence when in custody
108. People vs. Alegre
may not be used as evidence against him, otherwise, his right of silence
would be illusory.
EVIDENCE

Any confession, including a re-enactment without admonition of the right

109. People vs. Yip Wai
to silence and to counsel, and without counsel chosen by the accused is
Ming
inadmissible in evidence

 In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt. On the other

hand, the term admission is usually applied in criminal cases to
statements of fact by the accused which do not directly involve an
acknowledgment of his guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the
offense charged.
110. People vs. Maqueda
 The rights of an accused are not confined to the period prior to the
filing of information but are available at that stage when a person is
under investigation for the commission of an offense. These rights
are available to a person at any time before arraignment whenever
he is investigated for the commission of an offense.
 The Confrontation Clause does not bar admission into evidence of
every relevant extrajudicial statement by a non testifying declarant
simply because it in some way incriminates the defendant. And an
instruction directing the jury to consider a co defendant's
extrajudicial statement only against its source is generally sufficient
to avoid offending the implicated defendant's confrontation right.
111. Parker vs. Randolph
 The court may admit into evidence interlocking confessions of co-
defenants/accused even without giving the accused an opportunity
to cross-examine his co-defendant. The rule however is different
when a co-defendant does not confess. In such cases, the co-
defendant must be given an opportunity to cross- examine the
confessant if and when such person takes the witness stand.

Although the testimony in substance relates to similar acts of negligence of

the accused at other times. It is admissible where the purpose is to
112. U.S. vs. Pineda- ascertain defendant’s knowledge and intent and to fix his negligence. If the
Moreno defendant has more than one occasion, performed similar acts, accident in
good faith is possibly excluded, negligence is intensified and fraudulent
intent may even be established.
EVIDENCE

While evidence of another crime is generally not admissible in another

prosecution, it is admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as where it tends
to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery charged, or
113. People vs. Irang
tends to show his presence at the scene or in the vicinity of the crime at the
time charged or when it is evidence of a circumstance connected with the
crime.

While good or bad character may be availed of as an aid to determine the

probability or improbability of the commission of an offense (Section 15,
Rule 123), such is not necessary in crime of murder where the killing is
114. People vs. Soliman committed through treachery premeditation. The proof of such character
may only be allowed in homicide cases to show "that it has produced a
reasonable belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a
justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessary.

While it is true that when the defense of the accused is that he acted in self
defense, he may prove the deceased to have been of a quarrelsome,
115. People vs. Babiera
provoking and irascible disposition, the proof must be of his general
reputation in the community and not of isolated and specific acts.

A witness cannot be impeached by the party against whom he has been

116. U.S. Vs. Mercado called, except by showing a) that he has made contradictory statements or
b) that his general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity is bad.
EVIDENCE

Even the testimony adduced by the defense portraying Cheril as a

disrespectful and wayward child does not detract from her credibility as a
witness narrating her ordeal in the hands of her father. Moral character is
immaterial in the prosecution and conviction of persons accused of rape, as
117. People vs. Umbana
even prostitutes can be the victims of rape. Moreover, we recognize that a
rape victim’s testimony against her father is entitled to great weight,
since reverence and respect for elders is deeply ingrained in Filipino
children and is recognized by law.

Affidavits are generally rejected in a judicial proceeding as hearsay, unless

118. People vs. Brioso
the affiants themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon.

The testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person

is hearsay and is inadmissible if offered to prove the truth of the facts
119. People vs. Cusi
stated therein. However, such may be admitted if intended only to establish
the fact that such statement was made or the tenor of such statement.

A statement is not hearsay if it is offered for the purpose of proving that the
120. People vs. Gaddi fact or assertion was made by the declarant, and not to prove the truth of
the declaration.
EVIDENCE

Field notes of an investigator will not be admitted into evidence if the

121. Allenleake vs. Hagert person who gave the statement does not testify in open court, pursuant to
the Hearsay Rule.

To be hearsay an assertion must be made. They were not made to prove

122. U.S. Vs. Zenni that the place they were calling from was a bookmaking establishment, but
simply made to place bets.

Classes of hearsay:
1.Those statements which are the very facts in issue,
2. Those statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue.

123. Estrada vs. Desierto The second class includes the following: Statement of a person showing his
state of mind; Statement of a person showing his physical condition;
Statement of a person to infer a state of mind of another person; Statements
which may identify the date, place and person in question; Statements to
show a lack of credibility of a witness.

As correctly observed by the court a quo, the disqualification is between

husband and wife, the law not precluding the wife from testifying when it
124. People vs. Quidato involves other parties or accused. Hence, Gina Quidato could testify in the
murder case against Reynaldo and Eddie, which was jointly tried with
accused-appellants case.
EVIDENCE

The dying declaration is not admissible as an ante-mortem declaration

since the deceased was in doubt as to whether he would die or not. The
125. People vs. Laquinon deceased did not believe himself "at the point of death when every hope of
recovery is extinct, which is the sole basis for admitting this kind of
declarations as an exception to the hearsay rule.

 The admission of dying declarations has always been strictly limited

to homicide or murder as evidence of the cause and surrounding
circumstances of death
126. People vs. Sabio
 That death did not ensue till three days after the declaration was
made will not alter its probative force since it is the belief in
impending death and not the rapid succession of death, that renders
the dying declaration admissible

The declaration can be translated into English or Pilipino as it is already

127. People vs. Salison
admitted in evidence and forms part of the record.

A dying declaration must identify with certainty the assailant. Otherwise, it

128. People vs. Ador
loses its significance.
EVIDENCE

It was a confirmation of the maxim semper praesumitur matrimonio and

129. People vs. Majuri the presumption "that a man and woman deporting themselves as husband
and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage

 But they are not rendered inadmissible by the mere fact that the
declarant isunavailable, - something else is necessary. One fact
which will satisfy this necessity is that the declaration is or was
against the declarant's interest, and this is because no sane person
130. People vs. Toledo will be presumed to tell a falsehood to his own detriment.

 Where, however, the declarant is dead or has disappeared, his

previous statements, out of court, if not inadmissible on other
grounds, are the best evidence.

To admit declarations against interest as exceptions to the hearsay rule:

a. the declarant must not be able to testify due to death, mental incapacity
131. Fuentes vs. CA or physical incompetence rather than mere absence from the courts;
b. the declaration must concern a matter of fact cognizable by the declarant;
c. the circumstances render it improbable that a motive to falsify exists

A statement of fact in a verified petition and an accompanying silence about

any contrary fact may be appreciated in more than one context—a
declaration against interest and a judicial admission combined; A
132. Heirs of Miguel
declaration against interest is the best evidence which affords the greatest
Franco vs. CA
certainty of the facts in dispute; A judicial admission 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.
EVIDENCE

While a person can have no personal knowledge of the date of his birth, he
133. Gravador vs. may nevertheless testify as to his age which he learned from his parents
Mamingo and relatives and his testimony in such case is an assertion of a family
tradition

“Pedigree” under Section 39 has three requisites for its admissibility:

1. there is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any member of the
family;
2. the reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person concerned
existed prior to the controversy; and
134. People vs. Alegado
3. the witness testifying to the reputation or tradition is a member of the
family of the said person. Although a person can have no personal
knowledge of the date of his birth, he may testify as to his age as he learned
it from his parents and relatives and his testimony in such case is an
assertion of a family tradition.

Where a party claims a right to the part of the estate of the declarant, the
declaration of the latter that the former is her niece is admissible and
135. Tison vs. Court of constitutes sufficient proof of such relationship, notwithstanding the fact
Appeals that there was no other preliminary evidence thereof, the reason that such
declaration is rendered competent by virtue of the necessity of receiving
such evidence to avoid a failure of justice.

Requisites for admissibility of acts or declarations about pedigree, family

reputation or tradition:
1. that the declarant is dead or unable to testify;
136. Ferrer vs. de 2. that the declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is subject to
Ynchausti inquiry;
3. that such relationship be shown by evidence other than the declaration;
and
4. that the declaration be made ante litem moam
EVIDENCE

137. City of Manila vs. Del Testimony does not constitute common reputation unless such is
Rosario equivalent to universal reputation.

Res Gestae requires that the statement be spontaneous and made at a time
138. People vs. Lungayan
when there was no opportunity to concoct or develop a story.

Although a declaration does not appear to have been made by the declarant
under the expectation of a certain and impending death, and for this reason,
139. People vs. Putian
is not admissible as a dying declaration, such declaration can fall squarely
in the rule on res gestae.

Requisites for res gestae:

1. That the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence ;
2. that the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive
140. People vs. Tolentino
or devise;
3. and that the statements made must concern the occurrence in question
and their immediately attending circumstances.
EVIDENCE

The act which allows the admission of business entries refers only to
141. Palmer vs. Hoffman records kept in the regular course of business and not those kept in the
regular course of conduct related to business.

Sec. 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court may not be invoked in order to
142. Philam Life vs. justify the admission of a statement of account identified by a witness
Capital Assurance whose office made the entries thereof but who has no personal knowledge
Corporation about how the account had arisen or of the transactions to which the
entries refer.

Police reports in the course of duty, on the basis of his own personal
143. Caltex vs. Africa observation of the facts reported, may properly be considered as an
exception to the hearsay rule.

A medical certificate prepared by a government hospital doctor, even if

144. People vs. Leones he/she was not presented as witness, is admissible as prima facie evidence
of the facts therein stated and is an exception to the hearsay rule.
EVIDENCE

A sheriff’s return is an official statement by a public official in the

performance of his duty specially enjoined by law and forming part of
145. Manalo vs. Robles
official records and is prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. The
Trans. Co., Inc.
sheriff making the return need not testify in court as to the facts stated in
his entry.

Entries in a police blotter, though regularly done in the course of

performance of official duty, are not conclusive proof of the truth of such
146. People vs. Cabuang
entries. They are only prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated since
they would be incomplete or inaccurate.

For entries in official record to be admissible in evidence three (3)

requisites must concur: (a) The entry was made by a police officer or by
another person specially enjoined by law to do so; (b) It was made by the
public officer in the performance of his duties or by such other person in
147. People vs. Gabriel
the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and, (c) The public
officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated,
which must have been acquired by him personally or through official
information

The rule that documents acknowledged before notaries public are public
documents which are admissible in evidence without necessity of
preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due execution. They have in
their favor the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the same, there
148. Dela Cruz vs. Sison
must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely
preponderant. The burden of proof to overcome the presumption of due
execution of a notarial document lies on the one contesting the same.
Petitioner failed to discharge this burden.

 To satisfy the threshold the judge must be convinced that the

compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that
occupation and is generally considered useful and reliable. If these
conditions are met, statements from the compilation are admissible
149. State vs. Lungsford to prove the truth of the relevant matter stated.

 The business record exception is predicated not only on the

circumstance that the record itself is kept in the usual course of the
business but also on the circumstance that the recorded information
EVIDENCE
is obtained by the recorder from a declarant having a "business"
duty to communicate it truthfully.

A document is a commercial list if: (1) it is a statement of matters of

interest to persons engaged in an occupation; (2) such statement is
150. PNOC Shipping vs. contained in a list, register, periodical or other published compilation; (3)
Court of Appeals said compilation is published for the use of persons engaged in that
occupation, and (4) it is generally used and relied upon by persons in the
same occupation.

Subsequent failure or refusal to appear at the second trial or hostility since

151. Tan vs. Court of testifying at the first trial does not amount to inability to testify, but such
Appeals inability proceeding from a grave cause, almost amounting to death, as
when the witness is old and has lost the power of speech.

When a hearsay declarant is not present for cross-examination at trial, the

Confrontation Clause normally requires a showing that he is unavailable. A
152. Ohio vs. Roberts witness is “unavailable” for purposes of the exception to the confrontation
requirement unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith
effort to obtain his presence at trial.

Generally speaking, any person who by study or experience has acquired

153. Dilag & Co. vs. particular knowledge or experience may be allowed to give in evidence his
Merced opinion upon matters of technical knowledge and skill relating to such
business or employment.
EVIDENCE

Expert testimony constitutes evidence worthy of meriting consideration,

although not exclusive, on questions of a professional character. Courts,
however, are not bound to submit their findings necessarily to such
154. U.S. vs. Trono testimony; they are free to weigh them, and they can give or refuse to give
them any value as proof, or they can even counterbalance such evidence
with the other elements of conviction which may have been adduced during
the trial.

As with other jurisdictions, the Philippines also rejects the results of

polygraph tests as evidence of establish the guilty or innocence of a person
155. People vs. Adoviso
for the reason that polygraph has not as yet attained scientific acceptance
as a reliable and ascertaining truth or deception.

Generally, a lay witness may testify only to facts and not to opinions or
conclusions, but may be permitted to use so-called short hand descriptions,
156. State vs. Garver
in reality opinions, in presenting to court their impressions of the general
physical condition of a person.

On questions of science, skill, or trade, or others of like kind, persons of

157. U.S. vs. Stifel skill, sometimes called experts, may not only testify to facts, but are
permitted to give their opinions in evidence.
EVIDENCE

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the trial judge must ensure that any
158. Daubert v. Merrell
and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant but
Dow Pharmaceuticals
reliable.

Even though the question may call for a yes or no answer, it is not leading
for that reason unless it is so worded that by permitting the witness to
159. State vs. Scott
answer the yes or no, he would be testifying in the language of the
interrogator rather than his own.

If a witness is called on the part of the plaintiff who swears what is palpably
false, it would be extremely hard for the plaintiff’s case should for that
reason be sacrificed. The court knows no rule of law by which the truth is
160. Becker v. Eisenstodt on such an occasion to be shut out and justice to be perverted. A party must
not be obliged to receive everything which a witness called by him may
swear to, If his witness has been false or mistaken in his testimony, he may
prove the truth by the testimony of others.

The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a

judicial litigation, is fundamental right which is part of due process. Until
such cross-examination has been finished, the testimony of the witness
161. Dela Paz vs. IAC cannot be considered as complete and may not be allowed to form part of
the evidence to be considered by the court in deciding the case. But the
right to cross-examine is a personal one which may be waived expressly or
impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the said right.
EVIDENCE

The right to cross-examine is a personal right which may be forfeited by

failure of a party to avail of the ample opportunity given him. Where the
failure to obtain cross-examination was imputable to the cross-examiner’s
162. Fulgado vs. CA
fault, the lack of cross-examination is no longer a ground for exclusion
according to the general principle that an opportunity, though waived, will
suffice.

The adverse party may, on cross- examination, elicits from the plaintiff’s
163. Capital Subdivision
witness all important facts bearing on the issue and which are not taken up
vs. Negros Occidental
in the witness’ direct examination

The cross-examination of a witness as to the inadmissible evidence, or the

introduction by the ruling's opponent of rebutting evidence, does not waive
the vitality of his continuing objection, for the party is entitled to rely upon
164. U.S. vs. Marshall the trial judge's ruling as the law of the case, without waiving his rights
under the continuing objection to question subsequently on appeal the
admission of any evidence of the nature specifically objected to by him
initially.

 Bias is a term used in the “common laws of evidence” to describe the

relationship between a party and a witness which might lead the witness to
slant, unconsciously or otherwise, his testimony in favor of or against a
party. Bias may be induced by a witness' like, dislike, or fear of a party, or
by the witness' self interest.
165. U.S. v. Abel
 Proof of bias is almost always relevant because the jury, as finder of
fact and weigher of credibility, has historically been entitled to
assess all evidence which might bear on the accuracy and truth of a
witness' testimony.
EVIDENCE

Bias of a witness is not collateral issue and extrinsic evidence is admissible

166. U.S. v. Harvey
to prove that witness has motive to testify falsely

The defense tool sanctioned by Sections 15 and 16 of Rule 132 is that

witnesses have given conflicting testimonies, which are inconsistent with
167. Villalon vs. IAC
their present testimony and which would accordingly cast a doubt on their
credibility.

The apparent contradictions which may be noted in the declarations made

during preliminary investigation and the testimony before the court may
not be used to impeach the credibility of the witness because the witness
was not given ample opportunity, by reading to him of his declarations
168. People vs. Resabal
during the preliminary investigation, to explain the discrepancies. The
mere presentation of the transcript showing the prior testimony, without
said declaration having been read to the witness while he testified in court,
is no ground for impeaching his testimony.

When an object is relevant to a fact in issue, it may be exhibited to,

examined or viewed by the court. In this case, the object need not have
169. U.S. v. Webster been presented before the court because it was irrelevant to the fact in
issue, because it could not be connected in any way to the defendant, and
the jury in the case was already informed of such fact.

 Proffered testimony of clinical psychologist as to mental condition of

prosecuting witness at time of alleged rape was relevant and competent in
rape prosecution and should have been received, not in extenuation of rape,
but for its bearing upon question of weight to be accorded to prosecuting
170. Mosley v.
witness' testimony, and exclusion of the psychologist's testimony
Commonwealth
constituted prejudicial error.

 Although, generally, a witness may be impeached only as specified

by the rules of civil procedure, the modern trend is to permit the
EVIDENCE
jury to consider expert testimony in the field of mental disorders
and relax the rule in sex offense cases.

When questioning a witness about a prior inconsistent statement, the

171. Coles v. Harsh
statement must be shared with the witness so he may deny or explain it.

 A witness may always be impeached by proof of a prior conviction if

the crime involved ”dishonesty or false statement” i.e. crimes such as
perjury or subornation of perjury, false statement, criminal fraud,
embezzlement, or false pretense, or any other offense in the nature
of crimen falsi, the commission of which involves some element of
deceit, untruthfulness or falsification bearing on the accused's
propensity to testify truthfully.

172. U.S. v. Medical  There is a vast difference between putting that witness' veracity in
Therapy Services issue by eliciting the impeaching facts and merely revealing the
witness' background. Indeed, even in jurisdictions where a party
may not discredit his own witness, it has been held that the fact of
prior convictions may be brought out on direct examination for non-
impeachment purposes.

 When such convictions are used for impeachment purposes, as they

were on cross-examination here, we think that the door is opened to
evidence in support of truthfulness.

In impeachment of witness by showing previous conviction of crime,

counsel should ask witness the question directly, and not by indirect
173. Newton v. State
question, as to whether he had not given same testimony during previous
trial at which he had been convicted.
EVIDENCE

A witness cannot be impeached upon matters collateral to the principal

issues being tried. The purpose of the rule is basically two-fold: (1)
avoidance of undue confusion of issues, and (2) prevention of unfair
174. State v. Oswalt advantage over a witness unprepared to answer concerning matters
unrelated or remote to the issues at hand. The test of collateralness is:
Could the fact, as to which error is predicated, have been shown in evidence
for any purpose independently of the contradiction?

Given the problems inherent in the hypnotic process, such as the enhanced
suggestibility of the subject, his tendency to confabulate when there are
gaps in his recollection, his increased confidence in the truthfulness and
accuracy of his post-hypnotic recall which may preclude effective cross-
examination, and the inability of either experts or the subject to distinguish
between memory and confabulation, hypnotically refreshed testimony is
simply too unreliable to be used as evidence in a judicial setting. Adopting a
175. State v. People series of procedural safeguards would not be effective in combating the
dangers we see in hypnotically refreshed testimony. We hold, therefore,
that hypnotically refreshed testimony is inadmissible in judicial
proceedings.Our rule of inadmissibility does not, however, render all
testimony of a previously hypnotized witness inadmissible. A person who
has been hypnotized may testify as to facts which he related before the
hypnotic session. The hypnotized witness may not testify to any fact not
relate by the witness before the hypnotic session.

 The court may grant or withhold leave to recall a witness, in its

discretion, and as the interests of justice may require.
176. People vs. Del
 Where there are circumstances tending to show insidious attempts
Castillo
to tamper with the witnesses for the prosecution and would only
encourage the perversion of the truth and make a mockery of the
proceedings, the judge is correct in denying leave to recall a witness.

If a witness who has already testified and who has been cross-examined
extensively about his citizenship, alien certificate of registration and the
177. Victorias Milling Co.,
other name being used (an alias) and the only purpose for the recall on
Inc. vs. Ong Su
rebuttal was to determine if such witness had the authority to use the alias,
the court may refuse to admit such witness on recall.

 The discretion of a judge to exercise discretion in recalling witnesses

must rely on something more than the bare assertion of the need to
178. People vs. Rivera
propound additional questions is essential before the court's
discretion may rightfully be exercised to grant or deny recall. There
EVIDENCE
must be a satisfactory showing of some concrete, substantial ground
for the recall.

 Judge cannot strike out testimony of a witness who did not show up
under recall especially when if the defense did not file a motion to
strike such testimony from the records and most importantly if the
defense had already crossed examined and re-cross examined such
witness.

When one party moves to exclude witnesses and the other party voices no
objection, the motion should always be granted. But when the motion is
opposed, the trial court’s discretion comes into place. Judicial discretion is
179. People vs. Sandal
to be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner to
subserve and not defeat the ends of justice. The trial court must weigh the
good cause shown.

The practice of excluding witnesses is designed to prevent one witness

being influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by hearing the testimony of
prior witnesses. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a litigant to
establish that the presence of prospective witnesses in the courtroom
180. State vs Bishop
during the trial resulted in the testimony of any one of them being
influenced by what he heard before called to the witness stand. Thus, when
a trial court has abused its discretion by not excluding witnesses, we must
assume prejudice unless the record affirmatively reflects the contrary.

The validity and authenticity of the execution of an unnotarized deed of

181. Bunag vs. Court of
absolute sale must be proven, more so if such was signed by a mere
Appeals
thumbmark and that there were no instrumental witnesses.

The requirements for the application of the “ancient document rule” is that
the document must be:
1. at least 30yrs old;
2. is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be found if
182. Heirs of Lacsa vs.
genuine; and
Court of Appeals
3. unblemished by any alteration or circumstances of suspicion. Also, when
the copy of a document is certified as an exact copy by a public office in
which the original is located, said copy is considered as compliant with the
2nd requirement mentioned above.
EVIDENCE

The requirements for the application of the “ancient document rule” is that
the document must be:
1. at least 30yrs old;
183. Bartolome vs. IAC
2. is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be found if
genuine; and
3. unblemished by any alteration or circumstances of suspicion.

 A copy of a decision of a foreign court sought to be enforced in the

Philippines must be attested of the legal custodian of the original
with a certificate from the Philippine embassy and authenticated by
the seal of his office.

184. Pacific Asia Overseas  Documents written in an unofficial language must be accompanied
Shipping Corp. vs. NLRC by a translation into English of Filipino made by an official court
interpreter, an interpreter competent in both languages whose
identity is revealed, or a translator agreed upon by the parties. The
translation may also be one sworn to by translator as an accurate
translation of the original or the translation may be agreed upon by
the parties as a true and faithful one.

Written law may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a

copy attested by the officers having the legal custody of the record, or by
his deputy, and accompanied with a certificate that such officer has
185. Zalamea vs. Court of custody. The certificate may be made by a secretary of an embassy or
Appeals legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by any
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
office.

Affidavits written entirely in local dialects must be accompanied by a

186. People vs. Monleon
translation for it to be admitted in court.
EVIDENCE

If a party does not object to the admission of a document written in an

187. Salison vs. People unofficial language which does not have a corresponding translation, then
the objection is waived, and the said document is admissible in evidence.

Official records made in the performance of duty by a public officer of the

Philippines or by a person in performance of a duty specifically enjoined by
law are prima facie evidence of facts stated. A written statement signed by
188. People vs. Lazaro the officer having custody of official record or by his deputy that after
diligent search no record or entry of specified tenor is found to exist in
records of his office accompanied by certification is admissible as evidence
that records of office contains no such record or entry.

The lack of confidence in the prosecution witness should not in any way
189. People vs. Burgos affect the integrity of the diskettes or the right of the prosecution to show
the contents of the diskettes.

The decisions of the Supreme Court, while adhering to a liberal view in the
190. IBM Phils., Inc. vs. conduct of proceedings before administrative agencies, have nonetheless
NLRC consistently required some proof of authenticity or reliability as condition
for the admission of documents.
EVIDENCE
A perusal of the entire records of the case shows that the defense did not
formally offer in evidence such sworn statements and evidence not
formally offered cannot be considered by the court. The trial court only
considered what was formally offered to it. From the testimonies of the
prosecution’s witnesses, the trial court established that the three
191. People vs. Carino
accused acted in concert and with a common design and purpose as shown
by their simultaneous arrival at the scene of the crime, mutually helping
one another in the killing of Lolito Talisic and in the stabbing of Melencio
Talisic and in the robbingof the store and by their simultaneous
flight from the scene of the crime.

Objection to documentary evidence must be made at the time it was

192. Interpacific Transit
formally offered, and not when the particular document is marked is
vs. Aviles
identified and marked as an exhibit.

Formal offer of evidence is hardly applicable in summary proceedings

193. Delos Reyes vs. IAC where no full-blown trial is held in the interest of a speedy administration
of justice.

The right to object is a mere privilege which the parties may waive; and if
the ground for objection is known and not reasonably made, the objection
194. Peolple vs. Yatco
is deemed waived and the Court has no power, on its own motion, to
disregard the evidence.
EVIDENCE

Judicial admissions, verbal or written made by the parties in the pleadings

or in the court of the trial or other proceedings in the same case are
195. PHILAMGEN vs.
conclusive no evidence being required to prove the same, and cannot be
Sweet Lines, Inc.
contradicted unless shown to have been made through palpable mistake or
that no such admission was made.

The new rule would require the testimony of a witness to offer it at the time
the witness is called to testify. This is the best time to offer the testimony so
196. Catuira vs. CA that the court's time will not be wasted. Since it can right away rule on
whether the testimony is not necessary because it is irrelevant or
immaterial.

evidence not formally offered to be admitted and considered by the trial

197. Vda. de Onate vs. court provided the following requirements are present, viz.: first, the same
Court of Appeals must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and, second, the
same must have been incorporated in the records of the case