Bryce Alden N.

King
2017839751

EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM

A. DEFINITIONS

1. Absolute Privileged Communication Rule (5 points)

As defined in the US Corpus Juris Secundum, and adopted in the local

case of Sison v. David, Absolute Privileged Communication is one of two
forms of Priviliged Communication where in this case, the act or statement of
the accused, by reason of the occasion on which it is made, is absolutely
barred from damages in a civil action for slander or libel. Even the existence
of express malice does not destroy the privilege.

2. Future Crime-Fraud Exception (5 points)

As defined in the US case of Alexander v. FBI, Future Crime/Fraud

Exception is an exception from the protection of attorney/client privileged
communication in cases where the communication contains intentions or
plans to: assert a false claim, commit fraud against a public agency, kill a
witness, bribe a juror, fabricate evidence or commit perjury, conceal or
destroy evidence, file fraudulent documents, and other illegal behavior.

B. CASE DIGEST

1. People v. Palanas
GR 214453 June 17, 2015
(20 points)

Facts
 Witness Zapanta heard 4 successive gunshots and saw 2 men armed with
.38 caliber revolvers standing a meter away from the victim Borre. He saw
the suspect Palanas but could not identify the other shooter.
 Zapanta and Borre’s stepson Ranol brought Borre to the Pasig City
General Hospital.
 On the way, Borre told Ranola and Zapanta that it was “Abe/Aspog/Abe
Palanas” who shot him. This was repeated to his wife Resurreccion.
 Borred died in the hospital due to the gunshot wounds.
 During the trial, Planas used the defense of alibi.
 RTC declared Planas guity relying on Borre’s statement as res gestae and
due to positive identification by Zapanta.

Issue
W/N Borre’s statement is a dying declaration and res gestae [Yes]

Decision
 For a dying declaration to constitute an exception to the hearsay evidence
rule, four (4) conditions must concur:

a. declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of

the declarant’s death;
b. at the time the declaration was made, the declarant is conscious of his
impending death;
c. declarant was competent as a witness; and
d. declaration is offered in a criminal case for Homicide, Murder, or
Parricide where the declarant is the victim.

On the other hand, a statement to be deemed to form part of the res

gestae, and thus, constitute another exception to the rule on hearsay
evidence, requires the concurrence of the following requisites:

a. the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;

b. the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or
devise; and
c. the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its
immediately attending circumstances.

In this case, Borre’s statements constitute a dying declaration, given that

they pertained to the cause and circumstances of his death and taking into
consideration the number and severity of his wounds, it may be reasonably
presumed that he uttered the same under a fixed belief that his own death
was already imminent. This declaration is considered evidence of the
highest order and is entitled to utmost credence since no person aware of
his impending death would make a careless and false accusation. Verily,
because the declaration was made in extremity, when the party is at the
point of death and when every motive of falsehood is silenced and the mind
is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth, the law
deems this as a situation so solemn and awful as creating an obligation
equal to that which is imposed by an oath administered in court.

Also, Borre’s statements refer to a startling occurrence, i.e., him being shot
by Palanas and his companion. While on his way to the hospital, Borre had
no time to contrive the identification of his assailants. Hence, his utterance
was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to the startling occurrence.
Definitely, such statement is relevant because it identified Palanas as one
of the authors of the crime.

2. Gerry A. Salapuddin v. CA, et. al

G.R. 184681 February 25, 2013
(30 points)

Facts
 After the adjournment of the day's session in Congress, a bomb exploded
near the entrance of the South Wing lobby of the House of
 Representatives. The blast led to the death of Representative Wahab
Akbar and others.
 Acting on a confidential information, the police raided an alleged ASG
safehouse located in Payatas, Quezon City, leading to the arrest of
several persons, one of which was Ikram Indama, who was the driver of
petitioner Gerry Salapuddin.
 In one of the affidavits executed by Ikram, he said that he heard
Salapuddin ordering Redwan to kill Rep. Akbar of Basilan.
 The CA decided that the totality of the evidence "sufficiently indicates the
probability that Salapuddin lent moral and material support or assistance
to the perpetrators in the commission of the crime.”

Issue
W/N evidence was sufficient to implicate Salapuddin [No]

Decision
The only direct material evidence against Salapuddin, is the confession made
by Ikram. While the confession is arguably relevant, this is not the evidence
competent to establish the probability that Salapuddin participated in the
commission of the crime on account of the principle of res inter alios acta
alteri nocere non debet expressed in Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court:

Sec. 28. Admission by third-party. – The rights of a party cannot be

prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as
hereinafter provided.

Thus, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant. It cannot

be admitted against his or her co-accused and is considered as hearsay
against them. The exception provided under Sec. 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court to the rule allowing the admission of a conspirator requires the prior
establishment of the conspiracy by evidence other than the confession.

In this case, there is no proof demonstrating the participation of Salapuddin in

a conspiracy to set off a bomb. No other persons arrested claimed that
Salapuddin was involved in the plan to set off the bomb.

3. People v. Anecito Estibal

G.R. No. 208749, November 26, 2014
(30 points)

 This is a rape case on automatic review to the Supreme Court committed by

the accused against his 13 year old daughter, AAA.
 BBB, the wife of the accused and mother of AAA, together with the latter,
complained to National Police Women and Children Protection Center of
Taguig City.
 Members of the Barangay Security Force arrested the accused.
 However, AAA, did not appear in court despite several subpoenas. Later on,
BBB and AAA, manifested their desistance stating that AAA has already
forgiven her father.
 As a result, the incriminatory statements, which were allegedly made by AAA,
were conveyed to the court by the arresting officers the one who recorded the
statement.
 The recording officer made a summation of what she claims was AAA’s
narration of her ordeal, along with her observations of her demeanor during
the investigation.
 The trial court convicted the accused, ruling that the testimony the officer was
part of the res gestae.

Issue
W/N the testimonies presented be considered as hearsay evidence [Yes]

Decision
All witnesses must be subjected to the cross-examination by the adverse party as
further elaborated in Section 6, Rule 142 of the rules of Court

Upon the termination of the direct examination, the witnesses may be cross-
examined by the adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct examination, or
connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and
truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse and to elicit all
important facts bearing upon the issue.

The rule excluding hearsay as evidence is based upon serious concerns about the
trustworthiness and reliability of the hearsay evidence due to its not being given
under oath or solemn affirmation and due to its not being subjected to cross-
examination by the opposing counsel to test the perception, memory, veracity and
articulateness of the out-of-court declarant or actor upon whose reliability the
worth of the out-of-court statement depends.

Also, excluding hearsay aims to preserve the right of the opposing party to cross-
examine the original declarant claiming to have direct knowledge of the
transaction or occurrence. If hearsay is allowed, the right stands to be denied
because the declarant is not in court. It is then to be stressed that the right to
cross-examine the adverse party’s witness, being the only means of testing the
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, is essential to the administration of
justice.

C. Q&A

1. What requirement was deleted in Section 45, Rule 130 of the NEW
Rules of Evidence? (5 points)

Rule 130 Section 45 of the new 2019 Rules of Evidence deletes the
requirement in Rule 130 Section 43 of the previous Rules of Evidence that
state that the admissibility of business records relies on the person
recording it being “a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a
 position to know the facts therein stated” such a requirement is no longer
stated in the new Rules of Evidence.

2. Cite and explain the rationale on Residual Exception in the NEW Rules
of Evidence.(5 points)

Rule 130 Section 50 of the new Rules on Evidence catch all provision for all
testimonial evidence which provides that, if said testimony is not qualified in
any of the exception provided in the Rules of Evidence for hearsay, but if the
statement is: (a) offered as evidence for material facts, (b) more probative for
it purpose than any other evidence procured in the case; and (c) its for the
interest of justice. Such a statement can be admitted under an exception, but
only if such statement is let known to the adverse party in advance of the
hearing or pre-trial.