EVID/SPECPRO MOYA NOTES

15 April 2018

EVIDENCE
RULE 128

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)

Section 2. Scope. — The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and
hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (2a)

Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and
is not excluded by the law of these rules. (3a)

Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue
as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be
allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue. (4a)

Pre-trial is now mandatory.

Can there be trial without pre-trial?

- No. Rule 118.

Section 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. — In all criminal cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the court shall after arraignment and
within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
accused, unless a shorter period is provided for in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court,
order a pre-trial conference to consider the following:

(a) plea bargaining;

(b) stipulation of facts;

(c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties;

(d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;

(e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a
lawful defense; and

(f) such other matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil
aspects of the case. (secs. 2 and 3, cir. 38-98)

1 nerak17.inc
Is plea bargaining now allowed in criminal cases?
- Yes, effective Nov. 7, 2017 in the case of ESTIPONA vs. LOBRIGO. It became final and
executory.
- OCA Circular No. 09-2018 Plea Bargaining in Drug Cases Pursuant to Estipona v. Judge
Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, 15 August 2017
- DOJ Cir. 061, Nov. 21, 2017
- Plea bargaining is a rule of procedure.
- In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has been defined as "a process whereby the accused
and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to
court approval."49 There is give-and-take negotiation common in plea bargaining.50 The
essence of the agreement is that both the prosecution and the defense make concessions to
avoid potential losses.51 Properly administered, plea bargaining is to be encouraged because
the chief virtues of the system - speed, economy, and finality - can benefit the accused, the
offended party, the prosecution, and the court.
- Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage,53 the rules on plea bargaining neither
create a right nor take away a vested right.
- Prior to Nov. 7, 2017, no plea bargaining in CR cases.

Problem:
A was charged in violation of 9165 on May 2017. No bail recommended. A was not yet arraigned.
August 15, 2017 came. The Estipona case was promulgated by SC en banc allowing plea bargaining
in CR for 9165.
Is plea bargaining allowed?
Prior to finality if judgment, A entered into stipulation with the public prosec to plea in lesser offense,
is plea bargaining allowed?
The judge retired.
Nov. 21, 2017 came. There is a pending incident with regards to the issue of plea bargaining. Is plea
bargaining allowed?

Answer:
- Effective Nov. 7, 2017, plea bargaining is allowed as promulgated by the SC en banc in the
case of ESTIPONA vs. LOBRIGO for violation of RA 9165.
- Prior to Nov. 7, 2017, no plea bargaining in CR cases.

Massachusetts – plea bargaining

Quo warranto under rule 66

Is the case filed against CJ already barred by the statute of limitations?
What is the reckoning period of one year? Date from when the PO was appointed or date of discovery
that the appointment lacks the necessary requirement?
- If appointed, barred because CJ was appointed 6 years ago.
2 nerak17.inc
 - If SALN was assailed which happened 10 years ago, failure to file the corresponding SALN for
the past 10 years (UP and CJ)
o Reckoning period was when the Congress conducted an investigation for probable
cause. For all intents and purpose, the one year period is not yet barred.

EL INCOMBIT PROBOTION QUI DECIT NON QUI NEGAT ( he who allege must proved.)
MANLAR RICE MILL, INC. VS. DEYTO,
- It is a basic rule in evidence that he who alleges must prove his case or claim by the degree of
evidence required.
x x x Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. This Court has consistently applied
the ancient rule that “if the plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of
action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim, the
defendant is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense."

Facts: Praying that the Petition be denied, respondent Deyto in her Comment27 essentially argues
that petitioner Manlar’s claims are “products of pure imagination” , having no factual and legal
basis, and that Manlar’s impleading her is simply a desperate strategy or attempt to recover its
losses from her, considering that Ang can no longer be located. Furthermore, Deyto claims that
Manlar’s alleged rice deliveries are not covered by sufficient documentary evidence, and while it
may appear that Ang had transacted with Manlar, she did so in her sole capacity; thus, Deyto may
not be held liable under a transaction in which she took no part.

- Allegation is not evidence. It must be proven.

- Impeachment trial?
o If Senate against the CJ? Impeachment is a combination of political and judicial.
o 24 senators (Pimentel)

- Proof required does not shift. Allegation is not proof.

- Is good intention a defense? You stab B, it is good under the doctrine of self-preservation.
o No, Under the case of Catacutan vs. P, "It is well to remember that good
intentions do not win cases, evidence does."
o Facts: Accused while in the performance of his official duties, thus committing the act
in relation to his office, willfully, feloniously and unlawfully did then and there, with
grave abuse of authority and evident bad faith, refuse to implement the
promotion/appointments of the victims notwithstanding the issuance of the valid
appointments by the appointing authority, thereby causing undue injury to
complainants.

3 nerak17.inc
- Mere allegation is not a defense.
- Facts: A spouse who claims entitlement to death benefits as a primary beneficiary under
the Social Security Law must establish two qualifying factors, to wit: (1) that he/she is the
legitimate spouse; and (2) that he/she is dependent upon the member for support
- SSC vs. Favila, "The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not
equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be
given credence."

4 nerak17.inc
EVID MOYA NOTES
22 April 2018

EVIDENCE

Rules 130
Rules of Admissibility

1. OBJECT EVIDENCE OR REAL EVIDENCE

- Evidence which is directly addressed to the court’s senses.

Section 1. Object as evidence. — Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court.
When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the
court. (1a)
What is the corpus delicti in drug cases?

CACAO VS. P 2010

Jurisprudence holds that in prosecution of cases involving illegal possession of prohibited drugs,
the prosecution must establish with moral certainty the elemental act of possession of a
prohibited substance coupled with the fact that such possession is not authorized by law.

In a drug-related case is that the identity of the dangerous drug be established beyond
reasonable doubt. Since the dangerous drug constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense
and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction, it behooves upon the
prosecution to establish and prove with certainty that the dangerous drug presented in
court as evidence against the accused is the same item recovered from his possession.

Our own scrutiny of the records failed to show the role of Balolong in the operation since
admittedly, the only lawmen who participated therein were Mangapit and Pang-ag. In fact, as
testified to by Mangapit, Balolong proceeded to the hotel after the operation. How then was
Balolong able to get hold of the confiscated substance when he was neither a party to nor present
during the operation? Who entrusted the substance to him assuming that somebody requested
him to submit it for safekeeping? These are only some of the lingering questions which must be
answered convincingly and satisfactorily so as to ensure that there had been no substitution,
contamination or tampering with the sachet of shabu allegedly taken from petitioner. It must be
noted that Balolong was never presented to testify in this case. Thus, there is no evidence to prove
that what was turned over to the evidence custodian by Balolong and later presented in court was
the same substance recovered from petitioner.
The failure to establish the chain of custody is fatal to the prosecution’s case.

There can be no crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug when nagging doubts
persist on whether the item confiscated was the same specimen examined and established
to be the prohibited drug.

5 nerak17.inc
In People v. Casimiro, citing People v. Mapa, we acquitted the accused for failure of the prosecution to
establish the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti. Equally true in
Zarraga v. People, we also acquitted the accused in view of the prosecutions failure to indubitably
show the identity of the shabu.

At this juncture, it must be stressed that the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases
constitutes the drug itself. This means that proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of
the prohibited drug is essential.

Likewise, our ruling in People v. Gutierrez on chain of custody rule is instructive. Thus:

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

Finally, petitioners defenses of denial and frame-up are concededly inherently weak and
commonly used in drug-related cases. However, it must be stressed that conviction of the
accused must rest not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the evidence of
the prosecution.

P VS. BASILIO
Facts: Pursuant to an information he received the day before, Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Julian
T. Olonan (PSI Olonan) organized in the morning of November 2, 2006 a team to conduct a "buy-
bust" operation against a certain "Kagi" who was said to be active in the illegal sale of drugs. The
team was composed of SPO1 Teresito Cabanganan, PO3 Renato Jimenez (PO3 Jimenez), PO2
Richard Nieva, PO2 Ferdinand Manlapaz and SPO1 Federico Chua (SPO1 Chua). SPO1 Chua was
designated as the poseur-buyer and was thus provided with a ₱100-bill as purchase money, while
the rest of the team would serve as back-ups.

Held: Elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs established in this case.

To obtain a conviction for violation of Section 5,Article II of R.A. No. 9165 involving a buy-bust
operation, the following essential elements must be established: "(1) the identity of the buyer and
the seller, the object of the sale and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its
payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled
with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence."10Thus, the delivery of the illicit
drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the
illegal transaction.

Here, all the foregoing elements are obtaining. The prosecution witnesses positively identified
appellant as the seller of the substance to the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Chua, for the sum of ₱100.00.
6 nerak17.inc
The white crystalline substance presented during trial was identified bySPO1 Chua as the
substance sold and delivered to him by appellant. The substance when examined by Forensic
Chemical Officer PSI Reyes tested positive to methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Clearly,
the prosecution has adequately and satisfactorily proved all the elements of the offense.

Chain of custody unbroken; integrity and

evidentiary value of the seized drug
preserved.

The chain of custody requirement aims to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized item are preserved, so much so that doubts as to the identity of the evidence are
removed. "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.

P. VS. EYAM
Facts: At around 11:00 a.m. of July 15, 2003, Security Guard Rashied A. Sahid (S/G Sahid) was
doing routinary inspection of people entering the Guadalupe Commercial Complex. When it was
appellant's turn to be inspected, S/G Sahid patted appellant's back pocket and felt something
bulky. Thinking that appellant was carrying a bomb, S/G Sahid ordered him to empty his pocket.
Appellant brought out a plastic sachet[5] and when asked what it contained, replied "shabu".
Appellant was immediately apprehended and brought to the security office of the complex. S/G
Sahid marked the plastic sachet with appellant's initials, GEW.[6] Then, together with the Officer-
in-Charge (OIC) of the security office, he brought appellant and the plastic sachet to the Police
Community Precinct 2 for recording purposes and subsequently, to the Drug Enforcement Unit
(DEU) for investigation. Police investigator PO3 Conrado Mapili (PO3 Mapili) received the plastic
sachet containing the suspected shabu. Thereafter, he prepared a request for laboratory
examination[7] and submitted the specimen to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory.

Appellant avers that the identity of the illegal drug which constitutes the corpus delicti of the
crime and which must be established with certainty and conclusiveness was not proven in this
case. He also questions the chain of custody in the handling of the said specimen.

HELD: Regarding the chain of custody rule, records reveal that after S/G Sahid confiscated and
marked with GEW the plastic sachet containing the substance seized from appellant, S/G Sahid,
together with his OIC Ruben Geronimo, then immediately brought the appellant and the plastic
sachet to Police Community Precinct 2 from whence the incident was referred to the DEU for
investigation. PO3 Mapili thereafter received the plastic sachet and made a request for laboratory
examination of its contents. When the prosecution presented the marked specimen in court, these
witnesses positively identified it to be the same plastic sachet seized from the appellant. Thus, the
prosecution had indubitably established the crucial links in the chain of custody as the evidence
clearly show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated substance have been
preserved. This is the clear import of the chain of custody rule to ensure the preservation of
7 nerak17.inc
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized item as it would determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused.

Significantly, in no instance did appellant manifest or at least intimate before the trial court that
there were lapses in the handling and safekeeping of the seized item that might affect its
admissibility, integrity and evidentiary value. When a party desires the court to reject the
evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot
raise the question for the first time on appeal as we ruled in People v. Sta. Maria[13] and reiterated
in People v. Hernandez

Lastly, by his mere possession of the drug, there is already a prima facie evidence of knowledge,
which he failed to rebut.

Origin of chain of custody – Massachusetts

- In the White case, in evidence, chain of custody means the one who offers real evidence such as
the narcotics in a trial of a drug case must account for the custody of the evidence from the
moment in which it reaches custody until the moment it reaches and offers in evidence in such
evidence not to its inadmissibility. It is more on the weight and not on the admissibility or
inadmissibility of evidence.

Bouvier law dictionary re chain of custody

- A sequential record of possession or supervision of a particular piece of evidence.

- Is the testimony of the police man and the medico legal enough?
o Yes, it is enough that the police man and the medico legal state that someone has died.
It is mandatory that they are presented for the people. Otherwise, the case might
collapse.

- RA 9165, despite failure to follow Sec. 21.

- P vs. Diaz,
o Yes, there can be conviction despite not faithfully following Sec. 21 of RA 9165.
o In any event, it is "settled that an accused may still be found guilty, despite the
failure to faithfully observe the requirements provided under Section 21 of R.A.
[No.] 9165, for as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken." Here, it is
beyond cavil that the prosecution was able to establish the necessary links in the chain
of custody of the subject specimen from the moment it was seized from appellant up to
the time it was presented during trial as proof of the corpus delicti.

RA 9165. COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002

Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to
Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by
law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in
8 nerak17.inc
transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless
of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years
and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or
transport any controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such
transactions.

If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any

dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires within one
hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.

For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and
messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursors and essential chemical trade, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.

If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous
drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense herein
provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for
under this Section shall be imposed.

The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who
organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.

The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine
ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any
violator of the provisions under this Section.

Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous
drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:

(1) 10 grams or more of opium;

(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;

(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;

(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;

(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";

(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;

9 nerak17.inc
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and

(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to,
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or "ecstasy", paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA),
trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine
(GHB), and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without
having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements,
as determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be
graduated as follows:

(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to
Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride
or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams;

(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging
from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00),
if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of
opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin
oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not
limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly
introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity
possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three hundred (300) grams or more but less
than five (hundred) 500) grams of marijuana; and

(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging
from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium,
morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil,
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to,
MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs
and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far
beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/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),

10 nerak17.inc
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof;

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the
PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;

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

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

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

(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally
observe all of the above proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute an admission of
guilt. In case the said offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due
notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the
actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a
member of the public attorney's office to represent the former;

(7) After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal case wherein the representative
sample/s was presented as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the Board of the
final termination of the case and, in turn, shall request the court for leave to turn over the said
representative sample/s to the PDEA for proper disposition and destruction within twenty-four
(24) hours from receipt of the same; and
11 nerak17.inc
(8) Transitory Provision: a) Within twenty-four (24) hours from the effectivity of this Act,
dangerous drugs defined herein which are presently in possession of law enforcement agencies
shall, with leave of court, be burned or destroyed, in the presence of representatives of the Court,
DOJ, Department of Health (DOH) and the accused/and or his/her counsel, and, b) Pending the
organization of the PDEA, the custody, disposition, and burning or destruction of
seized/surrendered dangerous drugs provided under this Section shall be implemented by the
DOH.

WITHOUT THE DRUG, THERE CAN BE NO CONVICTION OF RA 9165.

CAN YOU PRODUCE AN EVIDENCE WITH A PICTURE OF THE ACCUSED HOLDING THE DRUG
ITSELF WITHOUT THE SHABU?
- You cannot do that because it would violate the doctrine of corpus delicti.

HOW ABOUT IN MURDER CASE, IS IT NECESSARY FOR THE CADAVER TO BE PRODUCED IN THE
COURT ROOM?
- No.
- The essence of due process is hear me first before you complain.

SEC. 21 OF RA 9165, IRR

The purpose of chain of custody is to guaranty the integrity of the physical evidence
and to prevent the introduction of evidence which is not authentic.

- 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 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: 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 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;

(b) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/
paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic
Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
12 nerak17.inc
(c) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath
by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the
receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, that when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the
completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be
provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the
forensic laboratory: Provided, however, that a final certification shall be issued on the completed
forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;

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

(e) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the
subject item/s which, together with the representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA, shall
be submitted to the court having jurisdiction over the case. In cases of seizures where no person is
apprehended and no criminal case is filed, the PDEA may order the immediate destruction or
burning of seized dangerous drugs and controlled precursors and essential chemicals under
guidelines set by the Board. In all instances, the representative sample/s shall be kept to a
minimum quantity as determined by the Board;

(f) The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally
observe all of the above proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute an admission of
guilt. In case the said offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due
notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the
actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a
member of the public attorney’s office to represent the former;

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

13 nerak17.inc
(h) Transitory Provision:

h.1) Within twenty-four (24) hours from the effectivity of the Act, dangerous drugs defined herein
which are presently in possession of law enforcement agencies shall, with leave of court, be
burned or destroyed, in the presence of representatives of the court, DOJ, Department of Health
(DOH) and the accused and/or his/her counsel; and

h.2) Pending the organization of the PDEA, the custody, disposition, and burning or destruction of
seized/surrendered dangerous drugs provided under this Section shall be implemented by the
DOH.

In the meantime that the PDEA has no forensic laboratories and/or evidence rooms, as well as the
necessary personnel of its own in any area of its jurisdiction, the existing National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) and Philippine National Police (PNP) forensic laboratories shall continue to
examine or conduct screening and confirmatory tests on the seized/surrendered evidence
whether these be dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, instruments, paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment; and the NBI and
the PNP shall continue to have custody of such evidence for use in court and until disposed of,
burned or destroyed in accordance with the foregoing rules: Provided, that pending
appointment/designation of the full complement of the representatives from the media, DOJ, or
elected public official, the inventory of the said evidence shall continue to be conducted by the
arresting NBI and PNP operatives under their existing procedures unless otherwise directed in
writing by the DOH or PDEA, as the case may be.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN

DRUG CASES?
It is ground for dismissal.

Chain of the custody means the corpus delicti of the crime came from the scene of the crime
itself went to the investigator; to the evidence custodian; to the laboratory. And from the
laboratory, it is produced to the court for the presentation of evidence.

If there is defect, it is a ground for dismissal of the case.

Assuming that the corpus delicti happened in the scene of the New Era, one of your classmate was
caught with shabu, if you are the police officer, what is the first thing that you will do?
- Under Sec. 21 of the IRR of RA 9165, the first thing is inventory.
- During the inventory of the drugs, there must be a presence of any member of the press,
barangay member or officer of DOJ before bringing the suspect in the nearest police
station.

What if nearest barangay hall of the NEU? Can there be a violation of the chain of custody?
- None, because under Sec. 21 of the IRR, the presence of any barangay member is a
requisite.
- Also, pictures must be taken at the scene of the crime.

14 nerak17.inc
Exc: if members of the team will be in danger. You can bring the suspect and the corpus delicti to
the barangay station for the safety of the team or apprehending team.

Upon apprehension of the suspect, does Miranda rights attaches?

- Yes!
- Once the suspect is already in the custody of the police, Miranda rights attaches. You
must now inform the accused of his rights under Miranda rights.
- If you do not have any freedom of movement, Miranda rights attaches.
- It is curtailed when you are apprehended.

B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence consist of writing or any material
containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression offered
as proof of their contents.

1. BEST EVIDENCE RULE

Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself,
except in the following cases:

(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad
faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is
only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office. (2a)

Section 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. (3a)

What is the best evidence rule?

- It simply means that if the subject of the inquiry is the document itself, there is no other
evidence than the original of the document.

MARQUEZ VS. ESPEJO

The Best Evidence Rule states that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, the
best evidence is the original document itself and no other evidence (such as a reproduction,
photocopy or oral evidence) is admissible as a general rule. The original is preferred because it
reduces the chance of undetected tampering with the document.
15 nerak17.inc
FACTS: In the instant case, there is no room for the application of the Best Evidence Rule because there is
no dispute regarding the contents of the documents. It is admitted by the parties that the respondents Deed
of Sale referred to TCT No. T-62096 as its subject; while the petitioners Deeds of Voluntary Land Transfer
referred to TCT No. T-62836 as its subject, which is further described as located in Barangay Murong.

(How to apply? Determine first the matter inquired into. If the inquiry involves a document, and its
contents are the subject of that same inquiry, the best evidence rile applies and must, therefore, be
complied with. The procedural compliance requires the presentation of the original document, and
not a copy of the document. So long as the original is available, no other evidence can be substituted
because the original is the best evidence in relation to mere copies or substitutes.)

Ex. Promissory note. A has a debt to B in the form of the PN. Is it possible that a photocopy of the PN
is presented? If you are the counsel of the accused, what would you do?
- Atty. Moya did not provide an answer for this. Probably his intention was to state the exception
of BER.
- Suggested answer for prosec, (Riano book): The debt may be proved by the photocopy as long
as A lays the foundation or lays the basis for the introduction of the secondary evidence, to wit: (i) the
existence and due execution of the original; and (ii) the loss of the original without bad faith on his
part. (S5, R130)

EXC: ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE VS. BEST EVIDENCE RULE

Is text messages admissible as evidence in libel cases?

- Yes. Under the Electronic Evidence and Electronic Commerce Act as an exception to the BER.
- As to the admissibility of the text messages, the Rules of Electronic Evidence to criminal actions
(A.M. No. 01-7-01) provides,
Rule 4
BEST EVIDENCE 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.

Rule 3
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
Section 1. Electronic documents as functional equivalent of paper-based documents. –
Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term 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.

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.

16 nerak17.inc
 Section 3. Privileged communication. – The confidential character of a privileged
communication is not lost solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic
document.

HOW DO YOU PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL TEXT SENT TO YOU BY THE SENDER?
1. By showing the text in the cellular phone,
2. Certification of the telecommunication provider.

WILL IT VIOLATE PRIVACY?

- No, because you are the receiver asking for its copy. Hence, you are the owner of that message
you received.

Is photocopy of the documents now admissible as evidence?

- Photocopy is now admissible as evidence as provided by the Electronics Evidence Rule.
- Under the EER, if we can establish that the photocopy is the faithful reproduction of the original
itself or you can prove the origin.
- Why? Because email and text messages are admissible as evidence.

- What is the difference between the CA decision and the SC?

o You always cite the SC decisions because under the CC, it forms part of the law of the land
whether right or wrong.
o CA decisions are persuasive. If there is no available SC decision, you can cite CA decision.

2. Secondary Evidence

Section 5. When original document is unavailable. — When the original document has been
lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or
existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its
contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the
testimony of witnesses in the order stated.

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 adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If
after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document,
secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. (5a)

Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. — When the original of
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. (2a)

Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. — A party who calls for the
production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. (6a)

17 nerak17.inc
3. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

What is Parol evidence?

- It is evidence of any written agreement.
- If the evidence is reduced into writing, there is no other evidence that can be admitted other
than what is stipulated in the written agreement. One cannot go outside.

Why?
- Because isn’t it that an agreement is a contract and a contract is a meeting of minds between
two parties whereby one binds himself with respect to another to do something or to do some
services. That is the essence of the parol evidence. You cannot introduce any other evidence other
than the writing itself.

Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an agreement have been
reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can
be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other
than the contents of the written agreement.

However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written
agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a)

In relation with Article 1403 of the CC: (Combination of substantive and procedural law)

Art. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified:
(1) Those entered into in the name of another person by one who has been given no authority or legal
representation, or who has acted beyond his powers;

(2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth in this number. In the following
cases an agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some note
or memorandum, thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent;
evidence, therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary
evidence of its contents:

(a) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof;
(b) A special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another;

(c) An agreement made in consideration of marriage, other than a mutual promise to marry;

(d) An agreement for the sale of goods, chattels or things in action, at a price not less than five
hundred pesos, unless the buyer accept and receive part of such goods and chattels, or the evidences,
18 nerak17.inc
or some of them, of such things in action or pay at the time some part of the purchase money; but
when a sale is made by auction and entry is made by the auctioneer in his sales book, at the time of
the sale, of the amount and kind of property sold, terms of sale, price, names of the purchasers and
person on whose account the sale is made, it is a sufficient memorandum;

(e) An agreement of the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property or
of an interest therein;

(f) A representation as to the credit of a third person.

(3) Those where both parties are incapable of giving consent to a contract.

MARQUEZ VS. ESPEJO

The Parol Evidence Rule excludes parol or extrinsic evidence by which a party seeks to
contradict, vary, add to or subtract from the terms of a valid agreement or instrument. Thus,
it appears that what the CA actually applied in its assailed Decision when it refused to look
beyond the words of the contracts was the Parol Evidence Rule, not the Best Evidence Rule.
The appellate court gave primacy to the literal terms of the two contracts and refused to
admit any other evidence that would contradict such terms.
- Correlate with BER and 1403 of CC
- 500 above must be in writing
- Real property, regardless of the amount, in writing
- If the subject is real property and the document is not notarized, is there evidentiary value?
o Yes. It is admissible and good as between contracting parties but not to third parties.

- What is the purpose that the document must be notarized?

o In order to bind the government and real property.
o Once notarized, it is public document.

- Between a PN and REM, which one has greater value of evidence?

o NIL, Sec. 1 – PN
o PN is a principal contract. REM is accessory.
 PN is more secured. More weight.

- If the document is admitted, then there is no denial, what is the effect?

o No denial, not admissible.
o In Santos vs. Alcazar, the admission of the genuineness and due execution [of
such document] is meant that the party whose signature it bears admits that he
signed it or that it was signed by another for him with his authority.

19 nerak17.inc
- Is there need to prove the due execution and authenticity of the subject document of the case if
the party has already an admission?
o None, there is no need. It is already admitted by the adverse party.
o How can you be sure that it is admitted?
 During the pre-trial because those documents will be pre-marked.
 Its purpose, what is the document.
 If you are the counsel and if the due execution and genuineness is
questioned to be proven, you object that there is already an admission.

- Is the testimony of the lone witness enough to convict the accused?

o Yes.
o Nobody will rape with an audience. Exc: P vs. Jose (Maggie Dela Riva)

- Maria Clara doctrine

o SC decision en banc highest.
o Under the Constitution, no decision of the SC promulgated by the division or en
banc shall be overruled, overturned or reverse except by the decision of the SC en
banc.

How about the decision in ENRILE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN?

- Bail is to assure that the accused will be present during the trial. (en banc)
- An en banc decision of the Honorable SC.

- Law of God is the perfect law.

- What are the guiding principles in the interpretation of contracts under our PL and SL?
o Marquez vs. Espejo.
 Well-settled is the rule that in case of doubt, it is the intention of the contracting parties
that prevails, for the intention is the soul of a contract,[45] not its wording which is
prone to mistakes, inadequacies, or ambiguities. To hold otherwise would give life,
validity, and precedence to mere typographical errors and defeat the very purpose of
agreements.
 In this regard, guidance is provided by the following articles of the Civil Code
involving the interpretation of contracts:

(Substantive)
Article 1370. If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon
the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its
stipulations shall control.

If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties,

the latter shall prevail over the former.

20 nerak17.inc
 Article 1371. In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties,
their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally
considered.

(Procedural)
Rule 130, Section 13 which provides for the rules on the interpretation of
documents is likewise enlightening:

Section 13. Interpretation according to circumstances. For the proper

construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was made,
including the situation of the subject thereofand of the parties to it, may be
shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of those whose language
he is to interpret.

Held: Applying the foregoing guiding rules, it is clear that the Deed of Sale was
intended to transfer the Lantap property to the respondents, while the VLTs
were intended to convey the Murong property to the petitioners. This may be
seen from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties.

- Commercial law – the written figures prevail

- Conflict between S and P – S will prevail because S is higher than P.

IMPORTANCE OF PAROL EVIDENCE: It seeks to preserve what the parties have reduced in
writing and prohibits evidence alliunde or oral testimonial evidence from being presented to vary
the terms of, or add stipulations to, the written agreements. In other words, any oral evidence of
an agreement should be excluded when the existing agreement is already in writing.

Section 9 specifically states that Parol evidence is exclusive only as between the parties and
their successors-in-interest.

Why? Because the parties are the ones that admit that they are the signatories.

Ex. PN. If you are in debt to the bank, what is the effect if there is annulment of marriage?
Under the FC, what is yours is mine. Under the PN, the debt is payable for two years and the amount
is 2 million pesos. A and B are husband and wife. Before the end of the two year period, they
separated. When the loan became due and demandable, to whom should the bank sue? Is it necessary
that despite the annulment of the marriage, the bank should sue the couple?
- Remember at the time of the execution of the parol evidence which is the PN, they are
still married. So the annulment of marriage has no effect to the parol evidence. They are
liable.
- The presumption is they are still married. The bank is not a party to the marriage of A
and B.

21 nerak17.inc
Problem:
Ertemio and the other heirs of Emeterio executed an Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate and Absolute
Sale8 (Absolute Sale) adjudicating among themselves Lot 3154 and selling a 207-square meter
portion of the same to the spouses Wilfredo and Judith Sillero (spouses Sillero). The document, did
not, however, identify the portion being sold as Lot No. 3154-A.

The spouses Sillero, immediately after the sale, fenced Lot No. 3154-A and built a house thereon. Not
long after, they sold Lot 3154-A to petitioner Gil Macalino, Jr. (Gil) by virtue of a Deed of Sale.

Intending to have Lot 3154-A registered in his name, Gil caused the survey of the same by Geodetic
Engineer Rilthe P. Dorado (Engr. Dorado) sometime in 1998.14 Engr. Dorado, however, discovered
that the portion occupied by Gil consists of 140 square meters only and not 207.

Petitioners, in order to further their case, rely on the failure of the Absolute Sale to state that the 207-
square meter portion conveyed by Artemio and his coheirs to the spouses Sillero was Lot 3154-A.
Artemio, on the other hand, puts emphasis on the fact that the Deed of Sale between Gil and the
spouses Sillero expressly stated that the lot subject of the sale was Lot 3154-A only. Plainly, the
parties' respective arguments hinge on two relevant documents which they adopted as common
exhibits - (1) the Absolute Sale subject of which, among others, is the conveyance made by Artemio
and his co-heirs to the spouses Sillero; and (2) the Deed of Sale between the spouses Sillero and Gil. It
is worthy to note that there is no dispute regarding the contents of these documents, that is, neither
of the parties contests that the Absolute Sale did not state that the 207-square meter portion sold to
the spouses Sillero was Lot 3154-A nor that the Deed of Sale between Gil and the spouses Sillero
expressly mentioned that the subject of the sale between them was Lot 3154-A.

Based on the facts, will Parol evidence apply?

No, parol evidence rule applies only to written contracts.

It has been held in the case of Macalino, Jr. vs. Pis-an, that "[w]hen the parties admit the
contents of written documents but put in issue whether these documents adequately and
correctly express the true intention of the parties, the deciding body is authorized to look
beyond these instruments and into the contemporaneous and subsequent actions of the
parties in order to determine such intent."

Moreover, the "[P]arol [E]vidence [R]ule is exclusive only as 'between the parties and their
successor-in-interest'

Here, petitioners were not party in the Extra Judicial Settlement and Absolute Sale executed
by Artemio and his co-heirs. Likewise, Artemio was not a party to the Deed of Sale entered into
by and between Gil and the spouses Sillero. Hence, the inapplicability of the Parole Evidence
Rule.

22 nerak17.inc
Is there a need for a proof of authentication if the adverse party has made an admission?
- There are two kinds of admission. Admission in the court room and admission in the pleadings.
- Once there is already an admission, you do not need to prove it.
- If there was an admission and during the cross examination, it was still asked, you object. “Your
Honor, there was already an admission.”

When does the first admission made?

- Pre-trial is now mandatory. R18 for CC and R118 for CR.
- Once there is an admission, the court will issue a pre-trial.

If you are the counsel for the defendant, the proposed stipulation of the counsel for the P is will the
defendant admit that there is PN payable within two years? Assuming you are the counsel for the D,
will you admit it?
- Deny it. Do not admit it because the case will be finished.

If you are the counsel for the plaintiff, what will you do?
- You proposed. Second stipulation, will the counsel for the D admit the due authenticity of the
PN.
Q: Is med cert as a DE necessary? Is it mandatory?
In P vs. Lagangga 2015, “the absence of a medical certificate is not fatal to the cause of the
prosecution. Case law has it that in view of the intrinsic nature of rape, the only evidence
that can be offered to prove the guilt of the offender is the testimony of the offended party.
"Even absent a medical certificate, her testimony, standing alone, can be made the basis of
conviction if such testimony is credible. Moreover, the absence of external injuries does not
negate rape. In fact, even the [presence] of spermatozoa is not an essential element of
rape.”

Why? In rape cases, there are two parties.

- Since the crime of rape is essentially one committed in relative isolation or even
secrecy, it is usually only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the
forced coitus. In its prosecution, therefore, the credibility of the victim is almost always
the single and most important issue to deal with." "If the testimony of the victim is credible,
convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, the accused
may be convicted solely on the basis thereof."

4. Interpretation Of Documents

Section 13. Interpretation according to circumstances. — For the proper construction of an

instrument, the circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the
subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the
position of those who language he is to interpret.

23 nerak17.inc
What are the guiding principles in construing the contracts under our substantive laws? Explain your
answer.

Art. 1370. If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the
contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.

If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over
the former. (1281)

Art. 1371. In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and
subsequent acts shall be principally considered. (1282)

C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as provided in the next succeeding section,
all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known perception to others,
may be witnesses.

Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless
otherwise provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification. (18a)

Who is considered a credible witness?

- If the witness is neutral, he has nothing to do with the case but he or she is a witness, plain
and simple, he is considered as credible witness.

Can a blind be considered a witness?

- No. The testimonial evidence to be believed must not come only from the mouth of a credible
witness but also must be credible, reasonable and accord with human experience.

So in rape cases, if the witness to be presented by the prosecution is blind, is he a credible witness? Is
he believable, reasonable?
- No, how can he see? A person incapable of perception is pro tanto incapable of testifying.
- Can a blind person distinguish a video file from an actual rape? No. The testimonial evidence
to be believed must not come only from the mouth of a credible witness but also must be
credible, reasonable and accord with human experience.
- According to human experience, blind witnesses are rare in physical cases.

How can the court access the credibility of the prosec witness?
- Vidar vs. P 2010
One thing which bolsters the prosecution witnesses credibility is the fact that they
had no motive to prevaricate against the petitioners. They were not actuated by improper
motive to fabricate the facts and to foist a very serious offense against them. Where there is
no evidence, as in this case, to indicate that the prosecution witnesses were actuated by improper
motive, the presumption is that they were not so actuated and that their testimonies are entitled to
full faith and credit. For personal motive on the part of a witness to testify against the accused to be
appreciated as showing bias, its presence should be supported by satisfactory proof. Aside from
24 nerak17.inc
 their bare allegation, petitioners miserably failed in this regard. On the contrary, we are not
prepared to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses testimonies on their vital points substantiating
the circumstances of time and place of the offense charged against petitioners.

FACTS OF VIDAR VS. P:

- Petitioners vehemently denied the accusations against them. Marbella averred that he does not
know Dioneda and that he was in his house in Lungib, Pilar, Sorsogon on April 30, 2001 while
Vidar asserted that he has no knowledge of the killing of Dioneda. Butalon, on the other hand,
professed his innocence, claiming that he also does not know Dioneda and that he was in his
house at Omoroy, Legaspi City on April 30, 2001. Collectively, they alleged that the possible
motive behind the charge against them is that they were known members of the New Peoples
Army (NPA).
AFFIDAVIT VS. TESTIMONY
- Usually this is heard in cross-examination. Open court different written affidavit.
- It is settled that written affidavits taken ex-parte are incomplete and inaccurate. Therefore, it
is the statements made in an open court that prevail over written affidavit.

IN RAPE CASES, IS TIMING OR TIME IMPORTANT?

- No. Time is immaterial in rape cases.
- In sustaining the view that the exact date of commission of the rape is immaterial, we ruled
in People v. Purazo that, “Date is not an essential element of the crime of rape, for
the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman.”

IN MURDER CASES, DOES THE TESTIMONY OF THE LONE WITNESS ENOUGH TO CONVICT THE
WITNESS?
- Yes.
- P vs. Bustamante, “the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, if credible, is
enough to warrant conviction.”

In cases on appeal, if both the TC and the CA found that the testimony is credible, it is entitled to
great weight. It is not the number of the witnesses but it is about the credibility or the quality of the
witness.

P VS. WAHIMAN 2015

What is the weight of the testimonial evidence compared documentary evidence in murder cases for
the purpose of computing the loss of earning capacity?
J. Leonen, if TE, if not questioned for credibility, is the same weight as DE. Testimonies given by the
deceased-spouse, children or parent should be given weight because these individuals are presumed
to know the income of their spouse, child or parent. If the defense did not question the credibility of
the witness during trial, they cannot question it on appeal as last resort.

How does the court treat the testimony of the child witness?
-The court has been consisted in giving credence to the testimony of children especially in rape cases.

25 nerak17.inc
- P. vs. GARCIA 2012. Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit,
since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect
all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed.

MARIA CLARA DOCTRINE - No young Filipina would publicly admit that she had been criminally
abused and ravished unless it is the truth.
-12 below – statutory rape
- 17 below – minor

Does the MC doctrine does not apply anymore in rape cases because there is equality of gender these
days?
-Rape is now a crime against person and not chastity.
Exc:
- Decision of the SC promulgated by the SC en banc or division cannot be reversed except through en
banc decision.
- If the decision is promulgated by the division, it is inferior or it does not reverse the en banc decision
promulgated by the SC.
- It is only the Supreme Court sitting en banc that could abandon a doctrine.

- If the rape victim is a minor, Maria Clara doctrine applies. If the minor says she was raped, she was
indeed rape. It is hard to believe that this minor would fabricate.

What is the presumption if the testimony is made by public officers?

- Rep. vs. Daclan 2015. In the absence of any controverting evidence, the testimonies of public
officers are given full faith and credence, as they are presumed to have acted in the regular
performance of their official duties. (Doctrine of regulatory in the performance of official duties)

IN RAPE CASES, CAN THE ACCUSED BE CONVICTED WITH THE SOLE TESTIMONY OF THE LONE
WITNESS?
- Yes.
- P vs. Lagangga 2015. Since the crime of rape is essentially one committed in relative isolation
or even secrecy, it is usually only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the
forced coitus.

P vs. Lumaque (?)

Is the filing of the rape case after years or months after its concurrence diminished the credibility of
the witness?
- No. The filing of rape after months or even years by the witness depends on the circumstances. It
does not diminish the credibility of the witness or undermined the charge of rape when the delay can
be because of the pattern of the rape especially by one who exercises moral ascendancy.

26 nerak17.inc
Q: How are the testimonies of the witnesses presented on trial treated on appeal?
- SC. In the absence of any ill-motive, they are treated as worthy of full weight and credit.
- In criminal cases, where the defense is alibi, SC stressed that it is weak and becomes weaker in the
presence of positive identification.

P VS. BIGLETE, 2012

Appellant's defense constitutes merely of his denial and alibi. Both were correctly disregarded by
the trial court and the CA. Aside from being inherently weak, the same were unsubstantiated
and thus self-serving. Placed side by side with the evidence presented by the prosecution,
appellant's denial and alibi must fail. Besides, appellant also failed to impute ill-motive on the
part of the prosecution witnesses to testify against him.
VIDAR VS. P 2010
The twin defenses of denial and alibi raised by petitioners must necessarily fail in view of the
positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses. Alibi and denial are inherently weak
defenses and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively
ascertained the identity of the accused. And it is only axiomatic that positive testimony prevails
over negative testimony.

If you are the prosecutor, what is your primordial duty in the initial salvo?
- First duty is to positively identify the accused.
- Without the accused being positively identified, you might lose the case.

Why do AC do not disturb the findings of the TC in the credibility of the witnesses?
- It is settled that the credibility of the witnesses is best left to the TC because of their unique
opportunity to scrutinize the witnesses first hand and observe their conduct, demeanor and attitude
under grilling examination.
Exc: If it is shown that it overlook or misunderstood a certain fact or there is a misapprehension of
facts that if treated differently would altered the outcome of the case committed by the TC, then the
AC may reverse the findings as to the credibility of the witness.

Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. — Parties or assignor
of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or
administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind,
upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of
unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased
person or before such person became of unsound mind.

27 nerak17.inc
Explain the Dead Man’s Statute/Survivorship rule

GARCIA VS. ROBLES

Under the Dead Man's Statute Rule, "if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded
from testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the other party is not
entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained account
of the transaction." Thus, the alleged admission of the deceased Pedro Caparas (Pedro) that he
entered into a sharing of leasehold rights with the petitioners cannot be used as evidence against
the herein respondent as the latter would be unable to contradict or disprove the same.

SUNGA-CHAN VS. CHUA

The Dead Mans Statute provides that if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from
testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to the
undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the
transaction.[9] But before this rule can be successfully invoked to bar the introduction of
testimonial evidence, it is necessary that:
1. The witness is a party or assignor of a party to a case or persons in whose behalf a case
is prosecuted.
2. The action is against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased
person or a person of unsound mind;
3. The subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand against the estate of such
deceased person or against person of unsound mind;
4. His testimony refers to any matter of fact which occurred before the death of such
deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.[10]
Two reasons forestall the application of the Dead Mans Statute to this case.
First, petitioners filed a compulsory counterclaim[11] against respondent in their answer
before the trial court, and with the filing of their counterclaim, petitioners themselves effectively
removed this case from the ambit of the Dead Mans Statute.
Second, the testimony of Josephine is not covered by the Dead Mans Statute for the simple
reason that she is not a party or assignor of a party to a case or persons in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted. Plainly then, Josephine is merely a witness of respondent, the latter being the party
plaintiff.
Witness is able to testify during the direct. Before the cross-examination, the witness dies. What is the
effect of the testimony?
- It will be expunged from the records because it is violative of the due process clause. A direct
testimony given without cross-examination will be expunged from the record.

Problem:
Flora is the owner of a farm being build by the Eugenio as agricultural lessee under a leasehold
agreement. Before Flora passed away, she appointed her niece Amanda as her Attorney in Fact.
28 nerak17.inc
When Eugenio passed away, he succeeded by his children Christina and Pedro. Amanda and Pedro
entered into a Agricultural leasehold Contract recognizing the latter as the Agricultural Lessee and
cultivator of the land. When Pedro passed away, his wife Dominga took over as Agricultural lessee.
Pedro’s sister filed a complaint for verification of leasehold and restoration of rights as agricultural
lessee of its Pedro’s surviving spouse. The only evidence presented was Amanda’s declaration of
affidavit that Pedro falsely represented Flora and to her that he is the actual cultivator of the land
and that when she confronted him about this and alleged alternate farmings.

Is the affidavit of Amanda with regards to Pedro’s statement admissible in evidence?

A:
No, Amanda’s declaration in her Affidavit is inadmissible for being a violation of the Dead
Man’s Statute.

In the case of GARCIA VS. ROBLES, it was held that, “[i]f one party to the alleged transaction is
precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the other party is
not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained
account of the transaction."

Thus, since Pedro is deceased, Amanda’s declaration cannot be admitted and used against Dominga,
who is placed in an unfair situation by reason of her being unable to contradict or disprove such
declaration as a result of her husband-declarant Pedro’s prior death.

5. Testimonial Knowledge

Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. — A witness
can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are
derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.

What is hearsay evidence?

ESPINELI VS. P 2014

Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on the
competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to
produce.
Facts:
The testimony of NBI Agent Segunial that while he was investigating Reyes, the latter confided to
him that he (Reyes) heard petitioner telling Sotero “Ayaw ko nang abutin pa ng bukas yang si
Berbon” and that he saw the two (petitioner and Sotero) armed with a .45 caliber pistol and an
armalite, respectively, before boarding a red car, cannot be regarded as hearsay evidence.

29 nerak17.inc
Is hearsay evidence admissible during preliminary investigations?
-Yes.
- ESTRADA VS. OMBUDSMAN. Probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as
long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible
in determining probable cause in a preliminary investigation because such investigation is
merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties.

However, in administrative cases, where rights and obligations are finally adjudicated, what
is required is "substantial evidence" which cannot rest entirely or even partially on hearsay
evidence. Substantial basis is not the same as substantial evidence because substantial
evidence excludes hearsay evidence while substantial basis can include hearsay evidence.
To require the application of Ang Tibay, as amplified in GSIS, in preliminary investigations will
change the quantum of evidence required in determining probable cause from evidence of
likelihood or probability of guilt to substantial evidence of guilt.

Others: Hearsay may be the basis for issuance of the warrant.

EXCEPTION TO THE NON-APPLICATION OF THE HEARSAY RULE: while the testimony of a witness
regarding a statement made by another person given for the purpose of establishing the truth of the
fact asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the
statement on the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement, or the tenor of such
statement, was made.

DOCTRINE OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENT

(Primary evidence and not secondary.)

- The law, provides for specific exceptions to the hearsay rule. One is the doctrine of independently
relevant statements, where only the fact that such statements were made is relevant, and the truth
or falsity thereof is immaterial. The hearsay rule does not apply; hence, the statements are
admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but
primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant
as to the existence of such a fact. The witness who testifies thereto is competent because he
heard the same, as this is a matter of fact derived from his own perception, and the purpose is to
prove either that the statement was made or the tenor thereof. (REP. VS. HEIRS OF FELIPE 2002,
People vs. Malibiran [2009])

-The doctrine on independently relevant statements holds that conversations communicated to a

witness by a third person may be admitted as proof that, regardless of their truth or falsity, they
were actually made. Evidence as to the making of such statements is not secondary but primary,
for in itself it (a) constitutes a fact in issue[36] or (b) is circumstantially relevant to the existence of
such fact.

30 nerak17.inc
FACTS:

Cartagena took the witness stand and opened himself to cross-examination, the Investigation
Report[33] he had submitted to the director of the Bureau of Lands constitutes part of his
testimony. Those portions of the report that consisted of his personal knowledge, perceptions and
conclusions are not hearsay.[34] On the other hand, the part referring to the statement made by
Recio may be considered as independently relevant.

The report of Special Investigator Isagani P. Cartagena has not been successfully rebutted. In that
report, Recio supposedly admitted that he had not actually conducted an investigation and ocular
inspection of the parcel of land. Cartagenas statement on Recios alleged admission may be
considered as independently relevant. A witness may testify as to the state of mind of another
person -- the latters knowledge, belief, or good or bad faith -- and the formers statements may
then be regarded as independently relevant without violating the hearsay rule. (After the filing of
the application, the law requires sufficient notice to the municipality and the barrio where the
land is located, in order to give adverse claimants the opportunity to present their claims. [24] Note
that this notice and the verification and investigation of the parcel of land are to be
conducted after an application for free patent has been filed with the Bureau of Lands.)

Since Cartagenas testimony was based on the report of the investigation he had conducted, his
testimony was not hearsay and was, hence, properly admitted by the trial court.

Free patent granted to Felipe Alejaga Sr. is void.

The reasons for the admissibility of a dying declaration as an exception to the hearsay rule
are (a) necessity and (b) trustworthiness.

6. Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule

Section 37. Dying declaration. — The declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject
of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.

What is the probative value of dying declaration?

P VS. CABTALAN
A dying declaration is an evidence of the highest order; it is entitled to the utmost credence on the
premise that no x x x person who knows of his impending death would make a careless and false
accusation. At the brink of death, all thoughts on concocting lies disappear."

Problem:
A person was stabbed. There was no witness. He was brought to the hospital. The police
interviewed him. Before dying, he placed his thumb over his blood and marked it on the affidavit.

Is it admissible as evidence? YES

31 nerak17.inc
Is it considered as a dying declaration? YES

- P VS. LATAYADA.
A dying declaration pertains to ones statement, made under a consciousness of
impending death,[33] on the cause and the surrounding circumstances thereof. It is given
credence on the premise that no one who knows of ones impending death will make a
careless and false accusation.[34]
For a dying declaration to be admissible in evidence, it must be shown that 1) death
was imminent and the declarant was conscious of that fact; 2) the declaration refers to the
cause and the surrounding circumstances of the death; 3) the declaration relates to facts
that the victim was competent to testify on; 4) the declarant thereafter died; and 5) the
declaration is being offered in a criminal case in which the declarants death is the subject of
inquiry.[35]
The law, however, does not require the declarant to state explicitly a perception of the
inevitability of death.[36] The foreboding may be gleaned from surrounding circumstances, such as
the nature of the declarants injury and conduct that would justify a conclusion that there was
consciousness of impending death.[37]
There is no merit in the averment that the thumbmark of the victim, imprinted on his
Statement with his own blood, has not been authenticated. His wife, Gina, testified that he could
not sign the Statement because of the wound on his back below his right shoulder.[44] Thus, SPO1
Busalla held the hand of her husband and imprinted the latters thumbmark on the
Statement,[45] which she signed [46] as a witness.
Her testimony was corroborated by SPO1 Busalla. As the police officer[47] who had taken the
Statement of the victim, the former identified the thumbprint appearing thereon as the
latters.[48] Further testifying that Payla could no longer move his hand to sign the Statement, SPO1
Busalla allegedly placed the formers right thumbprint on it, using as ink the blood drawn from the
left side of the victims face.[49]
In the light of these circumstances, the trial court did not err in admitting Paylas antemortem
Statement.

What is the probative value of that statement taken by the police officer and thumbmarked by the
victim?
P vs. TEMPLO - A DYING DECLARATION DOES NOT REQUIRE THE SIGNATURE OF WITNESSES
FOR ITS VALIDITY. The Solicitor General’s view is that THE DYING DECLARATION SUBJECT OF
THE INSTANT CRIMINAL CASE, IS CREDIBLE NOT ONLY BECAUSE THE DECLARANT WAS
DYING BUT ALSO BECAUSE HIS TESTIMONY IN ITSELF IS WORTHY OF CREDENCE.

32 nerak17.inc
Section 43. Entries in the course of business. — Entries made at, or near the time of transactions to
which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the
facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in
his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of
business or duty.

What are the requisites for the business entries exception to the hearsay rule?

LANDBANK VS. OÑATE

The party offering them must establish that:
(1) the person who made those entries is dead, outside the country, or unable to testify;
(2) the entries were made at, or near the time of the transaction to which they refer;
(3) the entrant was in a position to know the facts stated therein;
(4) the entries were made in the professional capacity or in the course of duty of the entrant;
and,
(5) the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.

FACT:
Land Bank asserts that the reports of the Board cannot prevail over the entries in the passbooks
which were made in the regular course of business.
- Land Bank has neither identified the persons who made the entries in the passbooks nor
established that they are already dead or unable to testify as required by Section 43,67
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

Problem:

A is a local recruitment agency based in Makati City. Sometime in 2004, B hired the services of A to
provide sales ladies for the shoe space in a shoemart. A failed to pay B in the amount of 5 million
pesos for the salaries and wages of the sales ladies.

In January 2015, B instituted a collection sum of money in the RTC of Makati. If you are the counsel
of A, what is your line of defense?

In the course of the trial, B presented receipts. However, these are photocopies reasoning that
their office was burned in 2010. B sent his personnel officer to testify as to the burning. If you are
the counsel of the defendant, what would be your objection to the presentation of the witness
personnel officer? Reasons.

Motion to dismiss under rule 16. What is your ground?

Is the testimony of the PO admissible?

Does it qualify under section 43?

33 nerak17.inc
 RULE 131
BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS

Section 1. Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence
on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence
required by law.

Who has the burden of proof in purchaser of value and good faith?

HEIRS OF SPOUSES MANGUARDIA AND MANALO VS. HEIRS OF VALLES

It must be emphasized that “the burden of proving the status of a purchaser in good faith
and for value lies upon him who asserts that standing. In discharging the burden, it is not
enough to invoke the ordinary presumption of good faith that everyone is presumed to act in good
faith. The good faith that is here essential is integral with the very status that must be proved. x x x
Petitioners have failed to discharge that burden.

FACTS:
It appears, however, that on October 28, 1968, a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale over Lot 835 was
executed by Simplicio and Marta in favor of their brothers, Melquiades and Rustico; Simplicio’s
daughter, Adelaida Valles (Adelaida); and Marta’s daughter, Encarnacion. The Deed of Absolute
Sale ostensibly bore the signature of Marta and the thumb marks of Simplicio and his wife.

It is just that in this particular case, the circumstances strongly show that fraud was committed by
relatives against relatives and the evidence adduced by petitioners was insufficient to remove the
cloud of doubt pertaining to the good faith of their predecessors-in-interest in acquiring the
properties in question.

Petitioners’ contention of acquisitive prescription cannot prevail over the rights of respondents.

In Civil cases, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff.

In CR – prosecution.
In admin – complainant
Exc in CR: If the accused invokes self-defense which must be complete. There would be a reverse trial.
The accused will present evidence first.
Self-defense is a JC. If it is justified, the accused has no criminal liability.

Is there INC self-defense?

Yes.

In boundary dispute of real property?

- Usually tax declarations are their evidence.
- Under the law, even if there is no title, tax declaration may be used as evidence of ownership.
- Quiet title is to remove cloud in the title.

34 nerak17.inc
 RULE 132
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

Quantum of evidence:

Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases, the party having
burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the
preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider
all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence,
their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are testifying, the nature of the
facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or
want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear
upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is
not necessarily with the greater number. (1a)

- That which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to
it; synonymous with the terms “greater weight of evidence” or “greater weight of credible
evidence.” It means probably the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as
worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.

Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to
an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainly.
Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.

- Highest

Section 5. Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial

bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion.

- More than a scintilla but may be somewhat less than preponderance

Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The handwriting of a person may
be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he
has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness
has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such
person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by
the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against
whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.

35 nerak17.inc
How proven?

HEIRS OF SALUD VS. RURAL BANK OF SALINAS

1. A witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument.
2. A witness familiar with such handwriting. His opinion thereon being an exception to the
opinion rule.
3. Comparison by the court of the questioned writing by the admitted specimen evidence.
4. Expert witness.

Can the son or daughter be a witness to his/her parents’ signature?

Yes, much more that they are aware of their parents’ witness.

Opinion of the expert witness: Has only a persuasive effect on the decision. It is not 100 percent
because the judge must evaluate the testimony and the evidence.

Is the judge bound by the opinion handwriting expert?

- No, the law makes no preference in proving the handwriting of the person.

Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. — Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and
certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document
involved.

What is the probative value of a notarized document?

GUTIERREZ VS. PLAZA

A notarial document is evidence of the facts expressed therein. A notarized document enjoys
a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. Clear and convincing evidence
must be presented to overcome such legal presumption.

The non-registration of the aforesaid deed does not also affect the validity
thereof. Registration is not a requirement for validity of the contract as between the parties, for
the effect of registration serves chiefly to bind third persons.

Unotarized vs. Notarized

- The notarized. Because there is a presumption of authenticity and due execution

Consequence if the notary public is not commissioned?

- A defective notarization will stripped off its public character and will reduce it to a private
instrument. But it is binding between the parties.
- It forms part of the public document and binds everybody. It serves as notice to the public.

36 nerak17.inc
C. OFFER AND OBJECTION

Section 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally
offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (35)

Section 35. When to make offer. — As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made
at the time the witness is called to testify.

Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial
evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. (n)

When to make the offer?

- Testimonial – before the witness testify
- Documentary – after the termination of the presentation of evidence (formal offer of DE)

What is the effect f JUDAF?

- Serves as the direct testimony.
- Filed in court. Furnished with the opposing counsel at least 5 days before the trial.
- Purpose? For the opposing counsel to prepare under the one day witness rule. Meaning the
testimony of the witness will be terminated in one day.

What is the purpose of the formal offer?

- Judges are mandated to rest their findings strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at
the trial.
- No evidence shall be considered by the court unless formally offered in court.

Is it proper to object when the witness is merely identifying the evidence?

- No.
- Object when the DE is formally offered.

When do you register your objection for TE?

- Right after the question is asked by the opposing counsel and before the witness answer.

After the witness answers, can you object?

- No, it is deemed waived.

What are the consequences if the evidence are not formally offered?
- Failure to make formal offer within the considerable time shall be deemed waived.

Is the rule on formal offer applicable in tax cases in CTA?

- Yes.
- Dizon vs. CTA. Under Section 8 of RA 1125, the CTA is categorically described as a court
of record. As cases filed before it are litigated de novo, party-litigants shall prove every
minute aspect of their cases. Indubitably, no evidentiary value can be given the pieces
of evidence submitted by the BIR, as the rules on documentary evidence require that
these documents must be formally offered before the CTA.[34] Pertinent is Section 34,
Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence which reads:
37 nerak17.inc
 SEC. 34. Offer of evidence. The court shall consider no evidence which has not been
formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.

Exc: If you forgot to formally offer your evidence and you want the court to appreciate your offer,
what would you do?
- You attached it. Make a manifestation and attach it for purposes for appeal. (considered as
gross ignorance of law)
- If not offered, waived.

Can you raise your on appeal?

- No.
- The AC is bound by the findings of the TC unless there is a misapprehension of facts.

Section 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the
offer is made. Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a
witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent. An offer
of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of the unless a
different period is allowed by the court. In any case, the grounds for the objections must be
specified. (36a)

Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. — If documents or things offered in evidence are
excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the
evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal
circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony.

What is the available remedy to the party if the TC erroneously rejected the introduction of certain
evidence?

Catacutan vs. P
- If an exhibit sought to be presented in evidence is rejected, the party producing it should ask
the courts permission to have the exhibit attached to the record.

Is Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence applicable to witnesses during trial?

- Yes, your Honor can I use tender of excluded evidence? But you state for the record your
question then you state for the record the answer for the record.
- Applies to both oral and documentary evidence rejected in court.
- If D, ask the court for leave. File a manifestation with prior leave of court with attachment.
- If O or in trial, you ask the court what is your question and what is your answer. The
purpose is so that it would appreciated on appeal.

38 nerak17.inc
 RULE 133
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases, the party having burden of
proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the
preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider
all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence,
their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are testifying, the nature of the
facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or
want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear
upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is
not necessarily with the greater number. (1a)

If you are a public officer and a case is filed against you in OMB, what are the cases filed against you
in a single affidavit?
- Take note of the three fold doctrine.
- It is a doctrine promulgated by the SC that if a public officer is sued before the office of the
OMB, he has a triple liability - CC, CR and A.

If the case in OMB is dismissed, can you still be held liable A?

- Yes, in CR is proof beyond reasonable doubt. In A, preponderance of evidence.

If the A is dismissed and CR is pursued, what is the effect in A?

- None. Because the quantum of proof in CR is higher than A. It has no bearing or effect at all. It
may proceed independently.

If you are CR, what is the consequence?

- You are also civilly liable under Art. 100 of the RPC. If a person who is criminally liable, he
is also civilly liable.

Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for

conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstances;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. (5)

39 nerak17.inc
Circumstantial evidence.
P vs. Alawig
- Circumstantial evidence is that evidence "which indirectly proves a fact in issue through an
inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence established.

Facts: There was a conspiracy to kill a person. Accused were acquitted because CE.

What is the requirement?

- There must at least two or more circumstances in order to become a concrete evidence.

Absent any direct evidence in the CR case, can a CE be derived?

- Yes. Provided there must be at least two or more circumstances.

It is true that proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed, however as an exception, CE may be also
derived to convict the accused provided that there are two or more circumstances pursuant to S4,
Rule 133.

Section 5. Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a

fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (n)

- It is required that substantial evidence is used.

- Allegation is not equivalent to proof. Allegation remains an allegation.
- There must be some substantial proof in order for the accused to be liable.

Problem:

You file an admin case against a Korean national for deportation. A Korean national is asking for 1
million pesos. There is another case against the Korean for human trafficking. Recommended that HT
is dismissed, 1 million pesos must be pursued. It took four years for the HO to decide the case.

Is the allegation of the Korean national sufficient to penalize the hearing officer? Does it satisfy the
SE rule?
- Allegation is not equivalent to proof.
- Remember that in immigration, it is not the hearing officer (HO) that decides the case, it is BI
(Bureau of Immigration) or the BOC (Board of Commissioners of BI) consisting of three. The
HO is just like a fiscal. He will just decide if there is a probable cause or none at all.
- It is not the HO but the BI or BOC.

40 nerak17.inc
 SPECPRO

What is the purpose of the writ of kalikasan?

A Writ of Kalikasan is a legal remedy under Philippine law that provides protection of one's
Constitutional right to a healthy environment, as outlined in Section 16, Article II of the Philippine
Constitution, which says the "state shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature."

What is the nature of the writ of kalikasan?

Section 1, Rule 7. Nature of the writ. - The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical
person, entity authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any
public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of
persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened
with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual
or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

What are the requisites to avail the writ of kalikasan.

Under Section 1 of Rule 7, the following requisites must be present to avail of this extraordinary
remedy: (1) there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology; (2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of
a public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and (3) the actual or threatened
violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the
life, health or property ofinhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

Expectedly, the Rules do not define the exact nature or degree of environmental damage but only
that it must be sufficiently grave, in terms of the territorial scope of such damage, so as tocall for
the grant ofthis extraordinary remedy. The gravity ofenvironmental damage sufficient to grant the
writ is, thus, to be decided on a case-to-case basis. (Paje vs. CASIÑO 2015)

Can the validity of the ECC be challenged by a writ of kalikasan?

- Yes, the validity of an ECC can be challenged via a writ of Kalikasan because such writ is
principally predicated on an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology, which involves environmental damage of a magnitude that
transcends political and territorial boundaries. (Paje vs. CASIÑO 2015)

Salient provisions of the rules of environmental cases that empower the court to obtain sufficient
information in deciding the case

Sec. 6.1, Rule 3 in relation to Sec. 12, Rule 7

Section 6. Failure to settle. - If there is no full settlement, the judge shall:

(a) Adopt the minutes of the preliminary conference as part of the pre-trial proceedings
and confirm the markings of exhibits or substituted photocopies and admissions on the
genuineness and due execution of documents;

41 nerak17.inc
 (b) Determine if there are cases arising out of the same facts pending before other courts
and order its consolidation if warranted;

(c) Determine if the pleadings are in order and if not, order the amendments if necessary;

(d) Determine if interlocutory issues are involved and resolve the same;

(e) Consider the adding or dropping of parties;

(f) Scrutinize every single allegation of the complaint, answer and other pleadings and
attachments thereto, and the contents of documents and all other evidence identified and
pre-marked during pre-trial in determining further admissions;

(g) Obtain admissions based on the affidavits of witnesses and evidence attached to the
pleadings or submitted during pre-trial;

(h) Define and simplify the factual and legal issues arising from the pleadings and evidence.
Uncontroverted issues and frivolous claims or defenses should be eliminated;

(i) Discuss the propriety of rendering a summary judgment or a judgment based on the
pleadings, evidence and admissions made during pre-trial;

(j) Observe the Most Important Witness Rule in limiting the number of witnesses,
determining the facts to be proved by each witness and fixing the approximate number of
hours per witness;

(k) Encourage referral of the case to a trial by commissioner under Rule 32 of the Rules of
Court or to a mediator or arbitrator under any of the alternative modes of dispute
resolution governed by the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution;

(l) Determine the necessity of engaging the services of a qualified expert as a friend of the
court (amicus curiae); and

(m) Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates for continuous trial, comply with the
one-day examination of witness rule, adhere to the case flow chart determined by the court
which shall contain the different stages of the proceedings up to the promulgation of the
decision and use the time frame for each stage in setting the trial dates.

Section 12. Discovery Measures. - A party may file a verified motion for the following reliefs:

(a) Ocular Inspection; order — The motion must show that an ocular inspection order is
necessary to establish the magnitude of the violation or the threat as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. It shall state in detail
the place or places to be inspected. It shall be supported by affidavits of witnesses having
personal knowledge of the violation or threatened violation of environmental law.

42 nerak17.inc
 After hearing, the court may order any person in possession or control of a designated land
or other property to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting or

photographing the property or any relevant object or operation thereon.

The order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the inspection and the
date, time, place and manner of making the inspection and may prescribe other conditions
to protect the constitutional rights of all parties.

(b) Production or inspection of documents or things; order – The motion must show that a
production order is necessary to establish the magnitude of the violation or the threat as to
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

After hearing, the court may order any person in possession, custody or control of any
designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible
things, or objects in digitized or electronic form, which constitute or contain evidence
relevant to the petition or the return, to produce and permit their inspection, copying or
photographing by or on behalf of the movant.

The production order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the production and
the date, time, place and manner of making the inspection or production and may prescribe other
conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all parties.

What is the evidentiary value of experts testimony in environmental cases?

Although courts are not ordinarily bound by testimonies of experts, they may place
whatever weight they choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the
case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the
province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his
actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has
supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies,the fact
that he is a paid witness, the relative opportunities for study and observation of the matters
about which he testifies, and any other matters which serve to illuminate his statements. The
opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it isto be considered by the court in view of
all the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert
opinion may be given controlling effects (20 Am. Jur., 1056-1058). The problem of the credibility
of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court
whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable inthe absence of an abuse of that discretion. (Paje vs.
CASIÑO 2015)

Can a party on appeal raise QF in EC to the SC?

- Only violations of the Environmental law or writ of kalikasan that you can raise mixed
questions of fact or law pursuant to Section 16.

Section 16. Appeal. - Within fifteen (15) days from the date of notice of the adverse judgment or
denial of motion for reconsideration, any party may appeal to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court. The appeal may raise questions of fact.
43 nerak17.inc
 RULE 129
What Need Not Be Proved

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.

- When is JA made?
- What is JA?
o There are two kinds of JA. Verbal or written.
o Verbal – trial
o Written – pleadings
o When there is JA, you don’t need to prove it.
- Where is JA to be related?
o In CC – submit a pre-trial brief. Rule 18
o In CR – pre-trial brief is optional.
 What is the purpose? For JA. There will be stipulation of facts, definition of
issues, determine how many witnesses will be presented, summary of
testimonies, marking of exhibits.
 After pre-trial, there will be an order that no evidence will be admitted unless it
is pre-marked in the pre-trial.
 Exc: For good reasons, the court may allow additional evidence provided that it
is relevant and made with prior leave with court.
 Any admission in the pre-trial is considered as JA under S 4, Rule 109 in the RR
of evidence.
 Limit what will be in the trial. Define the issue. It will the plaintiff or prosec who
will first stipulate.

- Proposed for marriage, is it considered as marriage? Amounted to annulment of marriage.

- What is the effect made in the pleadings by the parties?
o In the case of CENTENNIAL TRANSMARINE v. QUIAMBAO, “It is settled that
statements made in the pleadings in the course of judicial proceedings are
considered judicial admissions.” Judicial admissions cannot be controverted by
the party making the admissions.[31] They are conclusive and legally binding as
against the pleader who cannot subsequently take a position contrary to or
inconsistent with what was pleaded.
o Facts: "[T]he company-designated physician is expected to arrive at a definite
assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability within the
period of 120 or 240 days. That should he fail to do so and the seafarer's medical
condition remains unresolved, the seafarer shall be deemed totally and permanently
disabled,"[1] as in this case.
- What are the instances that a party can be bind by JA?
o Pleadings
o During trial – verbal or written stipulations
o Other stages of the judicial proceedings

- Can be JA contradicted?
44 nerak17.inc
 o No.
o DE GUZMAN VS. FILINVEST
o "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. It is an established principle that judicial admissions
cannot be contradicted by the admitter who is the party himself and 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."41 Since petitioners
already judicially admitted that the right of way affects a number of road lots, they
cannot not now claim that it only comprises Road Lot 15. Their admission is binding
on them.
o Exc: Palpable mistake but very rare

- In CR, the accused to the offense charged. But when the accused learned Estipona became
final and executor before the start of the trial, he wants to change his plea from not guilty to
guilty to lesser offense. Can the accused do that?
- In CR, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. In statcon, in case of doubt, in must be
resolved in favor of the accused and against the state. Therefore, it is only in CR cases as an
exception that the accused even if there is denial or admission, he can change his plea. He can
change his plea from guilty to not guilty.
- Why? For the court to save money, manpower and also to speedily resolve the CR.

- How about decision of the SC favorable to the accused? Can it be given retroactive effect?
o

45 nerak17.inc