EVIDENCE

Based on Atty. J.R.Torregosa’s Notes, ‘EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS’ (2021); The Peraltas’, “Insights on Evidence”, (2020); Riano’s Book on “Criminal Procedure”
(2016); Real Family Transcripts (2021) Olympus Notes on Evidence (2019); Tanya Notes on Evidence, (2017);

LEGAL PRESUMPTIONS Before the present amendment, photographs or sound

recordings ordinarily were classified as “object evidence” when
Conclusive Presumptions “addressed to the senses of the court”. More specifically,
Disputable Presmptions photographs were referred to as “demonstrative” object
evidence as they are not the real things themselves but mere
substitutes of the real objects that they represent.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE
Documentary Notice must be taken of the fact, however, that the inclusion in
Original Document Rule the amendment of sound recordings and photographs in the
Parol Evidence Rule conceptual definition of documentary evidence does not
necessarily negate their classification as object evidence. The
Object classification of evidence according to form, i.e, documentary,
Real object or testimonial, is determined by the purpose for which
Demonstrative the evidence is offered.
Testimonial TS: So now, you have additional types of documentary
Qualifications of Witness evidence, you have recording, photographs, and sounds.
But you have to take note that these should be offered as
Admissions proof of their contents. So the recording, the photograph and
the sounds should be offered as proof of their contents thereof.
Hearsay Evidence Rule
Exceptions JRT: Thus, if a sound recording or photograph is offered as
proof of its contents as when there is a dispute as to the
Double Hearsay accuracy of the words captured in the sound recording or of
Character Evidence Rule the words, figures, or symbols depicted in the photograph, the
Opinion Evidence Rule sound recording or photograph is documentary evidence. On
the other hand, if the purpose is to prove the existence of the
sound recording or photograph, such that it is exhibited for
RULE 130 viewing, examination, hearing, or observation by the court, the
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY sound recording, or photograph is classified as object
evidence.
Section 2. Documentary evidence. – Documents
as evidence consist of writings, recordings, What does photograph include?
photographs or any material containing letters, It includes still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray
words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or films, motion pictures or videos. (This was taken from
their equivalent, or other modes of written Mueller and Kirkpatrick, authors diay ni sila, a long established
expression offered as proof of their contents. authority in evidence. )
Photographs include still pictures, drawings,
stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or Now, let me highlight drawings. Sir pati drawings kasama yan?
videos. Yes. That was discussed in a US case, Seiler v. Lucas Films.
That is why drawings are included in the definition of a
photograph. But please take note, and I would like to be very
Old Rules on Evidence` Amended Rules on
clear on this, based on US authority, that the enumeration I
Evidence
mentioned is not exclusive. I repeat. The definition I gave
Section ti. Documentary Sec. ti. Documentary evidence. –
Documents as evidence consist you, based on the provision of the law, is not exclusive.
evidence. — Documents as
of writings, recordings, Therefore, if the Supreme Court feels that there are other items
evidence consist of writing or
photographs or any material that may be included by jurisprudence then, it may be included.
any material containing letters,
containing letters, words, sounds,
words, numbers, figures, numbers, figures, symbols, or
symbols or other modes of their equivalent, or other modes
written expression offered as of written expression offered as
proof of their contents. proof of their contents. Old Rules on Evidence` Amended Rules on
Photographs include still Evidence
pictures, drawings, stored
images, xray films, motion Section 3. Original document Section 3. Original document
pictures or videos. must be produced; must be produced;
exceptions. — exceptions. –

There are 3 basic classifications of evidence: we have When the subject of inquiry is
object evidence, documentary evidence, and we have the contents of a document,
testimonial evidence. We would take much time to discuss no evidence shall be
documentary and testimonial evidence. admissible other than the
original document itself,
1. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE except in the following cases:
The new Section ti of Rule 130 broadens the definition of (a) When the original has
documentary evidence. The old rules defined documentary been lost or destroyed, or
evidence as one consisting of writing or any material cannot be produced in court,
containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other without bad faith on the part
modes of written expression offered as proof of its contents. of the offeror;
Under the amendment, documentary evidence now covers
“recordings,” “photographs,” or any material containing letters, (b) When the original is in the
words, “sounds”, numbers, figures, symbols, or their custody or under the control
“equivalent.” It also further defines the concept of of the party against whom the
“photographs” to include still pictures, drawings, stored images, evidence is offered, and the
x-ray films, motion pictures or videos. latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;
What is the basis? People v. Zeta, May ti7, ti008
When the subject of inquiry is
the contents of a document,
writing, recording,
photograph or other record,
no evidence is admissible
other than the original
document itself, except in the
following cases:
(a) When the original is lost or
destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad
faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the
custody or under the control of
the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the
latter fails to produce it after

JDSEMPRON
1 / 10
EVIDENCE
Based on Atty. J.R.Torregosa’s Notes, ‘EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS’ (2021); The Peraltas’, “Insights on Evidence”, (2020); Riano’s Book on “Criminal Procedure”
(2016); Real Family Transcripts (2021) Olympus Notes on Evidence (2019); Tanya Notes on Evidence, (2017);

(c) When the original consists reasonable notice, or the witness or any form of secondary evidence is inadmissible, because
of numerous accounts or original cannot be obtained the original document is preferred over the secondary. If the original
other documents which by local judicial processes document is available and can be produced, the proponent is required
to present the original.
cannot be examined in court or procedures;
without great loss of time and
the fact sought to be (c) When the original consists Q: Does the original have more probative value than secondary
established from them is only of numerous accounts or other evidence?
the general result of the documents which cannot be A: No. This does not mean, however, that the original document has
whole; and examined in court without more probative value than the secondary. When a secondary evidence
great loss of time and the fact is admissible under the “Secondary Evidence Rule, the same has as
(d) When the original is a sought to be established from much probative value as the original document. The term “Original
Document Rule” is more descriptive of the legal concept of the rule.
public record in the custody them is only the general result
of a public officer or is of the whole;
recorded in a public office. [Exceptions of the Original Evidence Rule:]
(d) When the original is a The exceptions are more or less, intact. But there are two new
public record in the custody of concepts. Let me give you a rundown of the exceptions:
a public officer or is recorded
in a public office; and (a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the
offeror;
(e) When the original is not
closely-related to a
controlling issue. (3a) (b) When the original is in the custody or under the
control of the party against whom the evidence is
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable
notice, or the original cannot be obtained by local
judicial processes or procedures;
1. Original Document Rule
This is where one amendment is inserted. That is: "…or the original
Section 3. Original document must be produced; cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures;"
exceptions. – Meaning, the court have issued the processes, [such as] a subpoena
duces tecum, but despite the issuance, the original [document] cannot
be obtained.
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, writing, recording, photograph or JRT and TS: This fact situation is illustrated in Philippine National Bank
other record, no evidence is admissible other than the vs. Olalia, G.R. No. L-8189, ti3 March 1956, 98 Phil 10ti, where the
Supreme Court ruled that where the original is outside the jurisdiction
original document itself, except in the following cases: of the court, as when it is in a foreign country, secondary evidence is
admissible.
(a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the Next exception to the Original Document Rule:
offeror;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the other documents which cannot be examined in court
control of the party against whom the evidence is without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable established from them is only the general result of the
whole;
notice, or the original cannot be obtained by local
judicial processes or procedures;
Let's say, ganito ka-kapal ang documento, siguro mga ti feet, and all
you need to establish is the profit and loss of the company for the last
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or 15 years. If your intention is to establish the profit and loss, you don't
other documents which cannot be examined in court need to present all of these [documents]. All that the court requires, is
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be the general result of the whole.
established from them is only the general result of the
In the past, sasabihin namin yan, "Oh, summary, chart, graph, ganun."
whole; But that was not in the provision of the law—that was in US Rules on
Evidence. So, we have, to some extent, adopted it. But now, it is now
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of in the Rules. It is now part of our provisions, and in fact, you will find a
a public officer or is recorded in a public office; and provision on Summaries [Sec. 7 of Secondary Evidence Rule, Rule
130]

(e) When the original is not closely-related to a

controlling issue. (3a)
JRT: The rule is now referred to as “Original Document Rule,” instead
of “Best Evidence Rule”. Apparently, the amendment seeks to correct
the misnomer or common misconception that the rule provides for a
kind of hierarchy in the probative value of evidence that places the
original document at the top of the evidentiary chain.
So, what will you present? Not those numerous documents, but a
chart, a calculation, or a summary. That would suffice.
This was also repeatedly declared, since the case of Compana
Maritima vs Allied [inaudible ti1:ti4] Workers, a 1977 case. So, yan,
mas maliwanag na. Dati, wala yan. We have nothing to worry since it's
consistent with jurisprudence.

Sub-Committee: The Best Evidence Rule is a misnomer because it Next exceptions:

misleadingly suggests that the doctrine applies to all types of evidence.
The BER only applies to documents or writings.
TS: Originally, it [this rule] was only limited to documents. But now,
[as per the amendments], it extends to writings, recordings,
photographs, or other records.
The rule is, if the contents of the document is the subject of the
inquiry, which includes writings, recordings, photographs, or
other records, then, you will have to present the original.
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of
a public officer or is recorded in a public office; and
(e) When the original is not closely-related to a
controlling issue. (3a)
Ito ang binago. At dito madalas tinatanong ng abogado. Sabi nila,
"when the original is not closely related to the controlling issue."

Unless the case falls under any of the exceptions as when the original What is the controlling issue?
is lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in court, the testimony of a

JDSEMPRON
2 / 10
EVIDENCE
Based on Atty. J.R.Torregosa’s Notes, ‘EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS’ (2021); The Peraltas’, “Insights on Evidence”, (2020); Riano’s Book on “Criminal Procedure”
(2016); Real Family Transcripts (2021) Olympus Notes on Evidence (2019); Tanya Notes on Evidence, (2017);

So I will need to give you some background based on the discussion of

foreign authorities and this is thru Mueller vs Kirk Patrick (?). This
provision is an exception for collateral matters.
A collateral matter is that which has no relation to the fact in issue. But
the court may consider this if it would tend to establish proof in any
reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the
fact in issue. So, collateral matter, wala yun. But, this, according to the
Court, is an exception. Why? An exception to the collateral matter
according to Mueller, examples are, street names, license plates,
billboards, newspaper headlines, commercial establishments, and
grant (?) names.
A duplicate is a counterpart. For a duplicate to be considered as a
counterpart, it should be any of the following:
1. It was produced by the same impression as the original;
ti. It is from the same matrix;
3. It is produced by means of photography, including enlargements and
miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical
reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately
reproduce the original.
This is also found in the Rules on Electronic Evidence.

Can the duplicate be contested?

I think, for our purposes, this is not far from our jurisprudence, since we
have numerous cases that says, when the contents of the document is
Yes. A duplicated can be contested if:
not the subject of the inquiry, then the photocopy of it would suffice.
1. a question of its genuineness is raised;
ti. If based in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the
For Example: Deed of Absolute Sale, kung hindi pinagtatalunan kung
duplicate in lieu of the original.
ano ang nasa loob ng DOAS or the stipulations therein, then the
This is found under Sec 4 (C) of Rule 130.
photocopy of it would suffice. Because, the contents of the sale is NOT
the controlling issue of the case.

Ex: A plane ticket. What I need to establish is that I boarded the plane.
A photo copy of the plane ticket will be enough. Why? Because I am
not contesting the fine terms of the plane ticket, nor are the terms the Secondary Evidence: Summaries
subject of the inquiry.

What is the original? Section 7. Summaries. – When the contents of

Ito ay nagbago. Makikita niyo [sa Amendments], maraming guhit guhit.
And this was taken from the Federal Rules on Evidence.
Now, what was in the old Rule? The old rule states:
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)
documents, records, photographs, or numerous
accounts are voluminous and cannot be examined in
court without great loss of time, and the fact sought to
be established is only the general result of the whole,
the contents of such evidence may be presented in the
form of a chart, summary, or calculation.
While the a party is not obligated to present the original, and, in lieu of
that, he can present a chart, graphs, or summary, the other party, can
require examination of those records, and the Court will allow it within
a reasonable time and place.
Gaano man kakapal ang documento, if the contents of every document
are the subject of the inquiry, you will have to go thru the process of
presenting every single document.

Ano na ngayon? Fin-Joe 31:ti3

The original of the document is the document itself or its
counterpart.

Section 4. Original of document. –

(a) An “original” of a document is the document itself or
any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a
person executing or issuing it. An “original” of a
photograph includes the negative or any print
therefrom. If data is stored in a computer or similar
device, any printout or other output readable by sight or
other means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an
Glennie- starts at 31:titi
“original.”
I have at least 3 cases of large scale estafa prosecution. It took me
So, whether it be an original or a counterpart, the effect is the same if numerous hearings to have my witnesses identify it to have it
that is the intention of the one who issued or executed it. The drafters, authenticated. The only instance that you can do away with the original
[in effect,] have expanded the definition of a document. if the documents are numerous if it will entail great loss of time, and all
you need to establish is a general rule. What i’ve discussed as to
What is the original of a photograph? matters of procedure where an adverse party could ask for a copy and
It includes the negative or any print thereof. examination is a safety net of the law.
A printout? Yes. That is an original of a photograph.
How about, if it's a computer data (or an output of a similar device PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE
that is of a computer)? [YES. Original.] ANY print-out or any output Let us now proceed with parole evidence rule. If you ask me, sir,
readable by sight of that data is considered as the original. This is marami bang nagbago sa parole evidence rule? If you have a copy,
found in Rule 4, Sec. ti of the Rules on Electronic Evidence. isang word haha.
If it's a data or if it's an output or print out of a computer, then that is
considered as an original document.
Let me lead you to the rule. What is in the four corners of the
document is the repository of what the participants agreed upon
therefore, we cannot go outside of the terms thereof. Therefore, if the
What is a counterpart or a duplicate? compensation is P500,000, you cannot, by extraneous evidence or
what you call parole evidence, suggest that ohh isang milyon ang
Sec. 4. (b) A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by consideration yan.
the same impression as the original, or from the same
matrix, or by means of photography, including
The drafters of the law knew na kailangan yun because there are
enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or
instances wherein there are agreements subsequent thereto.
electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or
(example) Yes the original document says ti years but we have the
by other equivalent techniques which accurately
subsequent amendment of that agreement and agreement subsequent
reproduce the original.

JDSEMPRON
3 / 10
EVIDENCE
Based on Atty. J.R.Torregosa’s Notes, ‘EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS’ (2021); The Peraltas’, “Insights on Evidence”, (2020); Riano’s Book on “Criminal Procedure”
(2016); Real Family Transcripts (2021) Olympus Notes on Evidence (2019); Tanya Notes on Evidence, (2017);
thereto that is 10 years. As you could present extraneous evidence as
to validity or it does not reflect the true agreement of the parties which
is the most common, or there is imperfection, intrinsic ambiguity or
mistake. But that mistake should be a mistake of fact and not of law.
What was inserted in the law is the word “VERIFIED” why is it
verified? For you to present all of those exceptions that i’ve
enumerated for the parole evidence rule, you have to put it in the issue
in the pleadings and once you put it, you can modify, explain and add
it. Pwede mong patunayun dun sa pleadings mo, paliwanag mo na
mali ho yang dokumento na yan, mali yung piniprisinta nyan, there was
a subsequent document or the document is actually different from what
the parties intended. You could explain to the court but you have to put
it in issue in the pleadings. It should be verified meaning sumpaan mo
ang sinabi mo, that yung sinabi mo does not reflect the true intent of
the parties kasi pag ikaw binura mo ang husgado, madedemanda ka,
ma perjury ka jan.
So that’s the only insertion and when you talk of verified, it should be
under oath, there is an affidavit in support of your contentions.
If you notice in my draft there is no testimonial evidence and you will
notice that there is a deleted provision. The original section SEC ti1
of Rule 130.
That partained to mental incapacity or mental immaturity, wala na yan.
It does not mean though that it’s no longer a disqualification. Because
if the person is insane definitely, he is disqualified to testify. But that is
consistent with now the present section ti1 on the qualification of the
witness.
Section ti1. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity
or immaturity. — The following persons cannot be witnesses:
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their
production for examination, is such that they are incapable of
intelligently making known their perception to others;
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render
them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are
examined and of relating them truthfully.
Has this been changed, no it was not changed. It remains to be a rule
that the person to be a witness is able to perceive and perceiving can
make known his perception. Therefore, even with the deletion of that, it
doesn’t change the fact that if a person has an unsound mind or if a
child is a child of tender years, he is disqualified. Take note, the child
witness examination rule remains to be a good rule of the Supreme
Court and it says that it is the duty of the court, if confronted or
presented with a child, to conduct a competency examination if the
child knows what’s right and what’s wrong. This applies to a child
witness, to a child victim, and to a child accused. So lahat yan basta
testigo na bata covered yan.
Let me just give you another example on mental capacity. There are
numerous jurisprudence that has allowed a person with slight mental
retardation to testify. Marami yan for example he has a physical age of
48 but a mental age of 16, can he testify? Yes he could satisfy. This is
where the court has to ascertain the ability of the witness though he
may have some retardation but only slight to be able to perceive and
make known his perception to another.
TESTIMONY CONFINED TO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
This is now Sec. 22 but originally this was Sec 36. You don’t have to
worry because this is consistent with the qualification of the witness
that he has personal knowledge or first-hand knowledge. Sec titi is
consistent with Sec. ti1.
Section titi. Disqualification by reason of marriage. —
During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may
testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected
spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a
criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or
the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.
One of the disqualifications that is popular among the students is
the disqualification by reason of marriage. This is the only major
difference: in the past, it says “for and against” therefore, the
prohibition to testify is for or against. So if you will support the
declaration of your spouse let us say accusado or party sa kaso, bawal
yun nuon, hindi pwede yun nuon. Now, the preposition “for” was
dropped. So what was retained was only a testimony against the
spouse yun nalang ang disqualification. We can now say that the wife
or husband can now testify in favor of the other spouse. Hindi ba self-
serving yun? The drafters were aware of that but again we have judges
that are expected to scrutinize every testimony to judiciously
understand the evidence presented.
The reason for this disqualification is to promote the harmony of
marriage. If you would recall the case of Alvarez v. Ramirez (ti005),
sabi nung lalaki sa misis nya, ayokong magtestify ka. Kaya pala kasi
there was a criminal case at gustong mag testify nung wife against the
husband dahil nga namatay yung kapatid nya, nasunog eh. Inallow ba
nung court? Yes, while you remain to be married, you have been
separated in fact for quite some time and strained na talaga ang
relationship ninyo, there is no harmony of marriage to promote so hindi
na-aaply yang adverse spousal testimony.
PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATIONS
This is covered by Sec. ti4 of Rule 130.
Section ti4. Disqualification by reason of privileged
communication. — The following persons cannot testify as to
matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage,
cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any
communication received in confidence by one from the other
during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the
other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against
the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants;
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be
examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or
his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to,
professional employment, nor can an attorney's secretary,
stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the
client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of
which has been acquired in such capacity;
(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or
obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the
patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him
or any information which he may have acquired in attending such
patient in a professional capacity, which information was
necessary to enable him to act in capacity, and which would
blacken the reputation of the patient;
(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the
person making the confession, be examined as to any confession
made to or any advice given by him in his professional character
in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the
minister or priest belongs;
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of
office or afterwards, as to communications made to him in official
confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would
suffer by the disclosure.
Subsection A pertaining to marital privilege, unchanged. Before I start
discussing privilege communications, I want you to take note of this:
1) This is rooted on relationships: it may be filial, husband and wife,
professional relationship, doctor-patient, attorney-client, or a public
officer in relation to the state.
ti) Confidential Information, not just any information.
A) Attorney-Client Relationship
Ito ang mga nagbago:
(1) not only is this a-c privilege extends only to an attorney but now
extends to someone who is reasonably believed by the client to be
licensed to engage in the practice of law. Is the person pretending to
be a lawyer covered by the privilege, should he keep the information
confidential, should he be prevented from testifying? The answer is
yes.
Fin- Glennie 46:45
Bella- Starts at 0:46:46 (Note: I’m not fluent in tagalog, so i had a hard
time understanding and transcribing verbatim what the lecturer was
saying when he would talk fast, so i just translated the Tagalog parts to
English to the best of my ability. Sorry in advance.)
It extends beyond that. So all those who pretend or who are
reasonably believed by the client to be licensed to practice law are also
JDSEMPRON
4 / 10
EVIDENCE
Based on Atty. J.R.Torregosa’s Notes, ‘EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS’ (2021); The Peraltas’, “Insights on Evidence”, (2020); Riano’s Book on “Criminal Procedure”
(2016); Real Family Transcripts (2021) Olympus Notes on Evidence (2019); Tanya Notes on Evidence, (2017);
covered by this. How would these people be disbarred when they
aren't even lawyers? You can sue him civilly for damages by reason of
[inaudible] you can even sue him criminally that there was fraud
committed or any other offense he committed. So you can still sue him
civilly or criminally.
1. Reasonably believed to be a lawyer.
2. The coverage of the agency is now expanded.
Before the amendment, this attorney-client privilege is the only
privilege that extends its privilege to a secretary, stenographer (this is
in the original provision, this isn’t new). Let me give you some insight
on this. It is a different kind of relationship; the relationship of a
secretary to a client, especially to the client of a lawyer. The lawyer is
usually absent and so the client usually talks to the secretary. Most of
the time, the secretary hears confidential information from the client
(“This is what is happening in my case”) until the attorney arrives. So it
extends to the secretary and stenographer, but based on the
amendment, it now extends to all those assisting the attorney and
who are those assisting the attorney? Paralegal, apprentice, how about
an associate of the lawyer? Yes, it extends to him or to her. How about
the private investigator? (Actually in some states in the US, it extends
to them as well, as long as they assist the lawyer.) But I don’t want to
venture giving an opinion on this because I want to wait for the
decision of the Supreme Court.
(ti) And the next amendment on the attorney-client privilege is this: a
rundown of the exceptions.
There are 5 exceptions.
1. If the information received by the lawyer and shared by
the client is in furtherance of a crime. Meaning to enable
or aid in the commision of the offense. You cannot use this
as a shield not to testify. We have a jurisprudence on that,
People v Sandiganbayan 341 Phil 1997.
2. Claimants through the same deceased client. And I think
this is a very good amendment. For your guidance, this was
taken from the Federal Rule on Evidence 503. As to a
communication relevant to an issue between parties
who claim through the same deceased client, regardless
of whether the claims are by testate or intestate
succession or by inter vivos transaction. So when can
you use this? In cases of “will contest”. Because to the mind
of the court and the authorities in the US, the lawyer will be
in a better position if there are disputing heirs, if there is a
will contest, and this will be a way to share to the court what
is in the mind of the decedent during his lifetime. So a good
example of this is a will contest.
3. Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As you know the
attorney and the client have what you call a [inaudible]
relationship, it is a trust relationship. Therefore if it is
breached, if it is violated by the lawyer: if the lawyer meddles
with the property of the client, if he meddles with the money
of the client, if he does not do his duty as a lawyer, he is
negligent, he may be disciplined. He cannot invoke the
attorney-client privilege. In the same manner, if the client
breached that relationship, if he refused to pay the lawyer
and the lawyer is forced to sue the client, then the client
cannot invoke the privilege.
4. Document attested by a lawyer. And please bear in mind,
document attested by a lawyer. Here, the lawyer is not really
a lawyer in a strict sense, not acting in the course of or in
lieu to a professional engagement. His engagement here or
participation is only to attest to the document, and therefore
he is just an attesting witness. In pure and simple words, he
is not acting as a lawyer but as an attesting witness.
Therefore, the privilege of attorney-client does not apply. He
cannot use that shield.
5. Joint clients. This is very common today. As to
communication relevant to a matter of common interest
between two or more clients. For example, I am a lawyer
with 7 or 8 clients that have common interest but definitely
they will also have their own separate, individual interests.
But in that particular instance, because there is one case
and they all have a common interest, there is a free flow of
information. And that information that they share, to the best
of their knowledge, is not intended to be confidential among
themselves. However, when they have a suit amongst
themselves involving the same matter that they have
consulted the lawyer, that is an exception. But you can
safeguard that information if it was stipulated/agreed upon.
[inaudible]
B) Doctor-Patient Privilege.
What were the amendments? In the past, doctor of medicine, that is all
that is in the old rule. Now it has been extended.
So now it extends to:
1. A doctor of medicine
2. A psycho-therapist
3. A person reasonably believed to be licensed to practice
medicine or psycho-therapy.
Kindly take note, the application of the privilege remains to be limited
to civil cases. The privilege cannot be invoked in criminal.
Now, kindly take note also that to some extent, the communication of
the information received by the doctor (and now the psycho-therapist)
was a bit expanded. Because in the past it was the communication
received by the doctor to give advice or treatment. But now it is “for
purposes of diagnosis or treatment”. Diagnosis was inserted.
And now, it is no longer limited as in the past to physical illness
(“information obtained by reason of physical conditional, mental and
emotional). But now, it even includes drug addiction or alcohol
addiction. So mas malawak na. Most of you will agree that dapat la
ito. Because in the past, when the old law was drafted, the wordings
were framed in the late 80’s.
Now, kindly take note of its application. Now it has an agency. In the
past it was just doctor and patient. But today, it also applies to
members of the family who were there in the diagnosis or
treatment of the patient or all other individuals under the direction
of the doctor/physician or psychotherapist. What are examples of
this? The nurse, a medical resident and a clinical assistant (those who
were really there during the process).
The last important amendment is now the definition of a
psychotherapist. This is very American but I think it really applies to us
also.
Psychotherapist: A person who is licensed to practice medicine
and engage in the diagnosis or treatment of mental or emotional
condition.
Now in the Philippines, if you ask those practicing medicine, the
definition refers to a psychiatrist. But if you read the provision in the
law, it does not limit itself to a psychiatrist because it says a person
who is licensed to practice medicine and engage in the diagnosis or
treatment of mental or emotional condition.
Now you would tell me “Sir, meron pa bang iba?” Yes, family doctors
pwede. To some extent we will have to wait until new jurisprudence will
be touched on by the Supreme Court. Will it just be limited to
psychiatrists or how about other doctors of medicine who to some
extent did a diagnosis of mental or emotional conditions? And the
second one that is really known to us all that falls under the definition
of psychotherapist is the psychologist who is licensed by the
government.
And finally, this is what is no longer included. The phrase “that which
would blacken the reputation of the patient” has been dropped.
Let us proceed to the penitented priest (????)
C) Penitented Priest
Now let me give you a general idea of what his privilege is. When I was
a student I remember this, “it is of a penitential character”. If you will
look at the old provision, what is written there “is a person making
confession”. It is very limited to making penance, to making a
confession. And that is why (this is based on US authorities, I’m not
just saying this) they say that this favors the Roman Catholics. And
sure enough they have a sacrament, they have a religious rule on the
matter is very clear.
But now with the amendment it is now expanded in terms of its
application, it includes non-penitential communication. What is
non-penitential communication? As a spiritual advisor. But take note, in
all this i have told you, it must be in a confidential nature. So a spiritual
advisor is included? Yes kasama na. But I would want to remind you
of this, should you handle a case of this nature, always remember this
phrase which was part of the old and new, unchanged, “in the course
of the discipline enjoined by the church to which it belongs”. So here
we will ask the question, our question is “enjoined by the discipline to
which it belongs”.
Fin- Bella 1:0ti:ti9
Cza Starts at 01:0ti:30
JDSEMPRON
5 / 10
EVIDENCE
Based on Atty. J.R.Torregosa’s Notes, ‘EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS’ (2021); The Peraltas’, “Insights on Evidence”, (2020); Riano’s Book on “Criminal Procedure”
(2016); Real Family Transcripts (2021) Olympus Notes on Evidence (2019); Tanya Notes on Evidence, (2017);
So we have to look at.. ang tanong dyan eh, pwede ho ba
oral? sinabing that is a practice in our church or in our
denomination? That's an important question.
Second, should it be a written rule on the religious group?
Because based on the provision of the rule, "in the course of
the discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister
belongs". This is another, uh, I don't wanna say problem area,
but a point of concern that the Supreme Court will give some
enlightenment in the future.
Because sa aking pananaw, kung ako ang judge at
tatanggapin ko yun, ngayon sasabihin mo sakin, di sinabi ko
hindi yun pwedeng magsalita yung ating priest, ating minister,
pastor, kasi ho ano contingent yan, sabi ko confidential. NO.
The qualification is it should be enjoined by the discipline
to which you belong and of course there should be a
rule(?) 1:03:ti4
Let us now proceed to the next. So tapos na tayo sa
penitented priest, punta na tayo sa ano, Public Officer and the
State. Eto yung sinabi ko sainyo. In fact, this is the only
privilege among those privilege that I discussed in Section ti4,
when the partner is not an individual. It's a public officer in
relation to the State, tama?
The change here is not really material. Hindi naman ganun
kalaki ang pagbabago. Bakit? Ang binago lamang is yung
trace. Originally it was during his term; a public officer cannot
be examined, eto ho yung original ha, during his term or
afterwards for communications that he has received in
confidence. And, that "during his term or afterward" has
now been replaced with a more accurate wording - during
or after his tenure. Pareho parin yung effect; "during or after
his tenure" if the disclosure (so that is a privilege) the public
officer will not be allowed to disclose if the public interest will
suffer.
Before I leave this Section ti4, I would want to call your
attention on the last paragraph. Tingnan po ninyo yan, hindi
lang yan nag-aapply sa isang prohibition pero *inaudible*
1:04:46 pahaba ho yang ganyan. Therefore, it applies to all the
privilege communication under Section ti4.
Now, before I proceed, kindly take note that it appears to the
mindset of the drafters that it would be to protect the
confidentiality even if there is a spillover, if it passes on to the
hands of third persons. The only requirement of the standard
laid down by the rule, is that the original parties to the
communication took what? reasonable precaution. The
original parties took reasonable precaution to maintain or
protect its confidentiality. So ganun yun. Ganun na yun. Dun
sa diniscuss ko nag-aapply yun.
So, if by chance nag spillover yan, if the intention is it's
confidential and there is reasonable precaution, then it is
treated as confidential. Dadagdagan ko kayo ng konting
example, babalikan ko yung si *inaudible* 1:05:47. Dun sa
mag-asawa, let's say kapapanganak pa lang nung mag-
asawa, nag-uusap sila o nag-aasikaso, very common yun sa
Pilipinas yung nag-aasikaso yung kapatid na bata. And
eventually pag-uusapan *inaudible* 1:06:01.. ako yung ano,
ako yung nagholdap ng banko eh. Narinig niya.
If it's *inaudible* 1:06:09 the provision of the law, if they took
reasonable precaution, talagang makikita mo based on the
facts and circumstances to protect the confidentiality, then it
may be po. So take note of that last paragraph; and that is the
new provision.
Let us now proceed to the next: Filial Privilege. Ito'y iba. Still
privilege but again it's a different category. Meaning, what is
the amendment? The amendment is just on the exception. I
don't want to use "just" noh kase material yun eh - the
exceptions - but the rule is still the same. I, let's say, cannot be
compelled to testify against my father. I cannot be compelled to
testify against my son. Unless that testimony is
indispensable in a crime committed by my father against
me or a crime committed by my father against my mother.
So kindly take note.
But there's one thing I would want you to remember- very clear
in our Philippine Jurisprudence- the use of the word "cannot be
compelled". Therefore, in a case decided by the Supreme
Court, kapatid ako, ni-rape yung kapatid kong babae ng aking
ascendant. In-invoke ng ascendant ko "you cannot testify.
You're my son", sabi niya. But in a case decided by the
Supreme Court, I was allowed to testify for my sister who was
the victim. Why? Because it was voluntary. Now, please take
note, the exceptions were taken in Article ti15 of the Family
Code. Let us now proceed to the next.
Privilege relating to trade secret - a person cannot be
compelled to testify about any trade secret. Please take note,
this is not absolute. This is based on a US jurisprudence with
the title of *no idea* 1:08:36. Yan po yung ruling case dyan,
okay? So this is not an absolute privilege although you
cannot be compelled to disclose trade secret except:
(1) if it is used to conceal fraud.
(ti) if to hide it or not to disclose will work injustice. Can
the court issue an order? YES. The Court may direct the
disclosure for as long as the Court should take protective
measures to protect the interest of the owner and the parties.
(3) in the furtherance of justice.
Merong umiikot ngayon yung journalist and *inaudible* 1:09:33
In fact, in one of my lectures, I made mention of her. And the
jumble(??) was really brought along by the matrix goofing
around in schools. Nasa mga studyante, nasa mga professors.
All of that we will discuss here and dun except that there is a
journalist of course. But I want to be very clear that the
*inaudible* 1:09:5ti was that part of that *inaudible* 1:09:57
version of the Supreme Court en banc. So hindi siya kasama.
Pero wag mag-worry sabihin mo sir gusto ko to, maganda to
lalo na ngayon andaming nagte-take ng news. Ano ngayon?
Wag kayong mag-worry because you have R.A. 11458.
Now very briefly, the (1) publisher; (ti) editor; (3) columnist; (4)
reporter cannot be compelled to disclose the source of
information of a media. Hangga't na-amend yan, isinama niyan
ang broadcast, okay? Originally print lang yan, naging
broadcast. Then, wire service electronic mass media even
cable are now included, TV and its variant. So today, covered
na lahat yan. And they cannot be compelled to disclose it
unless the Court as exception under R.A. 11458, sinabi nung
husgado idisclose mo yan or sinabi ng House of
Representative or ng senado.
As you know, some privileged communications are not even
under the provision of the law. But in jurisprudence, there is:
(1) judicial privilege, (ti) executive privilege - universally
recognized; (3) diplomatic privilege. There is also what you call
bank secrecy law privilege (R.A. 1405) and the Foreign
Currency Deposit Act. Yan, privilege yan. Even if they are not
in the provision of law recognized; non-disclosure of who you
voted for, non-disclosure of the result of the census - all of
these are well-recognized privilege.
Let us continue with offer of compromise. As you know, every
single law student and every lawyer would know that an offer
of compromise in a civil case cannot be considered as an
admission of liability. The offer itself is not admissible in
evidence. That's the wording of the law, and remains to be the
law (old and new). Neither is the conduct or even your
statement will be considered by the Court except: (kahit na
civil case eto, kahit na nag-uusap tayo on a compromise, my
conduct, my statement is towards a compromise in a civil case,
the following will be allowed)
(1) the evidence is otherwise discoverable. Meaning, if you
find a way, you could still get that evidence not through the
conduct of the discussion.
(ti) it is offered for another purpose such as to leave bias or
prejudice.
(3) the conduct of the statement made in the course of the
exchange will negate any claims of delay.
JDSEMPRON
6 / 10
EVIDENCE
Based on Atty. J.R.Torregosa’s Notes, ‘EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS’ (2021); The Peraltas’, “Insights on Evidence”, (2020); Riano’s Book on “Criminal Procedure”
(2016); Real Family Transcripts (2021) Olympus Notes on Evidence (2019); Tanya Notes on Evidence, (2017);
(4) proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or
prosecution. And I received a question on this point when I
became a lawyer. Sabi niya sakin ganito, hindi ba that because
of this provision, some of the parties may be hesitant in talking
of a compromising a civil case? Most specially in the
commercial transaction if there appears to have been some
effort to obstruct a criminal investigation, assuming that the
talks for compromise pays off. Sabi ko, yes.
So you have to be very careful also that you do not give so
much information that it would reflect or prove that it will
obstruct criminal investigation. I'm not saying that you should
obstruct. What I'm saying is that the lawyer should know the
information that the *inaudible* 1:15:41 would expose. But you
should not obstruct investigation or prosecution.
How about yung criminal cases, nabago o hindi? Remains to
be the same. An offer of compromise in a criminal case is an
implied admission of liability. Now, there is no change. Here,
there is a change: offer of compromise when there is a
plea of guilt withdrawn or an accepted offer. So there is an
amendment on that point. That which relates to statements
made in the course of a plea bargaining. Aminin ko nalang
theft, robbery ang demanda mo? Estafa ako, pwede? Murder?
Homicide nalang. Ganun ang usapan. So, is that something
that could be taken against the accused?
NO. If the plea bargaining was unsuccessful or it did not
result to a plea of guilt, it cannot be used against him nor
can that be considered as an admission; or even if there
was already a plea of guilt, and later the accused realized I
would want to withdraw; it cannot be used against him as an
admission.
----------
PART ti
Carly
00:07 The old provision on personal knowledge, as I've
mentioned in 36 was transferred, now, to titi and hearsay has
its own definition. Now, how is hearsay defined now based on
the provision of the law? Hearsay is a statement other than
that made by the declarant while testifying under trial. So,
obviously, it's a statement other than that which that person,
the witness, is testifying in court. To be able to help you
understand, it is an out of court statement. It is an out of
court statement made by a witness. Kasi sa foreign
jurisprudence ginagamit nila, "at an out court statemnent by a
"at trial" witness. So, just to simplify, an out of court statement
made by a witness who is now in court. If it is hearsay, if it is
offered to prove the truth of the facts ascertained therein. I
think I need to give you some background for a better
understanding.
01:40 The prevailing practice, and this is the practice before
this amendment that we adopted from the US is this: All out of
court statements, meaning the established practice treats all
prior statements of a witness on the stand exempted from
hearsay. So ibig sabihin mo dun, for as long as you're subject
to cross examination, lusot yun. That was the prevailing
practice. Kasi ang hirap naman iascertain but, of course, it
doesn't mean that we will not ascertain what is hearsay and
what is first hand knowledge. So, the prevailing rule, before the
amendment, is everything that the witness will testify in court
even if it is an out of court statement is exempted from
hearsay.
0ti:31 Now, the present definition now means, makes an out of
court statement by a witness hearsay, not admissible as to the
substantive evidence for the truth of the matter ascertained. So
hindi na siya pwedeng tanggapin ang out of court statement on
assertion of the witness stand on substantive evidence of a
fact upon which it offered. Now, this definition, likewise, now
defines what is hearsay. It is oral or written assertion and
even a conduct, even if just a conduct, it is also treated as
hearsay if it is intended to be an assertion. Now, in the
effort to make it more understandable, let us look at the type of
hearsay. It is that which focuses on the type of the
statement and the purpose for which it is offered. And I
hope with this example, we will have a good sense on what is
hearsay and what is first hand knowledge.
03:36 Now, Joey was in NAIA 3 on October 10, ti019 at 4 pm.
That's look at the variation. 1st variation: If Joey, tells me that
he was in NAIA 3 on October 10, ti019 at 4 pm, and the
purpose of the testimony is that he communicated that to me,
can I sit on the sit on the witness stand if my purpose is to
show that Joey communicated that to me? Yes. Did I perceive?
Yes. I actually perceived. I have first hand knowledge that he
communicated to me that he told me that he was in NAIA 3 on
October 10, ti019 at 4 pm in the afternoon. But, as of the
truthfulness of whether or not he is there is another matter. Di
ko alam, sabi nya yun eh. And, I think a great number of us will
know na "ah yun yung independent relevant statement, that the
truthfulness of his being present there would have to be proven
independently. But to that extent of his communication to me
and in the purpose of my testifying, "ah sa sinabi niya sa akin
yun, naguusap kami, tas sinabi niya" is first hand knowledge.
04:56 Let us look at another variation: I am in court, the same
witness who will testify and I assert: "Joey, sinsabi ko na to ha,
Joey was in NAIA 3 on October 10 ti019." That is an assertion
on 4 pm. Naturally, that is objectionable, because that is what?
I don't have personal knowledge. And one would even object it
on "uy hearsay yun, wala ka dun, di mo rin mapatunayan eh."
And that is the slippery slope when it comes to hearsay.
05:40 Now, if there is a definition of hearsay, there is also that
which is not hearsay or that would fall outside of the same
exceptions. Statement is not hearsay of the declarant
testifies in court and is subject to cross examination.
Which is the practical way of doing it. Basta dalhin mo sa
witness stand, sa trial, subject to cross examination ka na ha,
linimit na nila eh because of the definition of the 1st paragraph.
And you are limited to the items which are enumerated here, 3
items which are allowable exceptions. And what is that?
Inconsistent to the declarant's testimony and para mantandaan
nyo this is very simple, an inconsistent with the declarant's
testimony, which is under oath, to be subject of perjury, it is a
prior inconsistent statement. So, the purpose of which is to
impeach on a prior inconsistent statement. So the declarant,
now, is making an assertion in court, and then, on cross
examination he has been confronted on a prior inconsistent
statement. Is that allowed? That is allowed. That is not
hearsay.
07:04 But, considering that it is a prior inconsistent statement,
kindly take note, that you have make the basis of time, place
and persons, based on the provision of the law. tind: Another
exception is that which is consistent with the declarant's
testimony. It is allowed based on the following narrow
requirements. The purpose of putting this as an exception is to
prevent or to cut the practice of some in using affidavits. eh
yung ginagamit affidavit tapos ipapaattest yun. For all intents
and purposes it's an out of court statement. so sabi ng
authorities, di na po pwede yun although we have so many
jurisprudence on that. Consistent with the declarant's
testimony and is offered to rebut. So ibig sabihin, you could
present consistent testimony for as long as it is to rebut a
charge against the person. If there is a charge, express or
implied charge against the declarant, you could present
consistent statement.
No. ti: or to rebut a recent publication or improper
influence or motive. And, to help you remember this,
according to authorities, "this is cumulative proof." Sometimes,
to be superfluous, they say, but it is a cumulative proof. It is an
evidence of the same kind or character to establish the same
fact.
JDSEMPRON
7 / 10
EVIDENCE
Based on Atty. J.R.Torregosa’s Notes, ‘EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS’ (2021); The Peraltas’, “Insights on Evidence”, (2020); Riano’s Book on “Criminal Procedure”
(2016); Real Family Transcripts (2021) Olympus Notes on Evidence (2019); Tanya Notes on Evidence, (2017);
08:59 The last one of these exceptions is one of identification
of a person made after perceiving the same. So what do you
have here is not an in-court identification because that is
subject immediately to cross. What is contemplated here, is an
out-of-court identification but why is it accepted here as an
exception because they say that out-of court identification is
closer to the incident and the identifying party should be, if
possible, available for cross examination. So this is an out-of-
court identification. And why is it reliable? Because it is closer
in time to the event in question.
09:46 Let us now look at to the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
makikita naman nyo dito na hindi naman lahat binago. ang una
kong pagusapan dito ay nasa Sec. 39. This is altogether new.
Rule 130 Sec. 39. And what is that, statement of the decedent
or person of unsound mind. Why is it hearsay? Because what
is presented to the court is the statement of a person of
unsound mind or the deceased. And there is someone who
may have received that declaration, by its nature it is hearsay.
But, why is it trustworthy and reliable? It is reliable because it
was made at the time when he has personal knowledge of the
deceased or the person of unsound mind and when the matter
was recently perceived and while his recollection is still clear.
10:55 For a better understanding let me discuss this further. As
I've said this was originally Sec. ti3, a great chunk of the same
was Sec. ti3 which was transferred here, to Sec. 39. It was
originally a disqualification (Deadman statute noon), ngayon,
this is now an exception to the hearsay rule because the
parties who claimed or the assignors of parties to the estate of
the deceased person or a person of unsound mind can now
testify. Yun kasi sa old rule, di sila pwede magtestify,
disqualified. ngayon pwede na sila, although hearsay yun
sasabihin nila. In fact I received this question from a student of
mine: Doesn't make sense, pwede nya sabihin everything that
favors him because he is the claimant to the estate? The
provision gives this a certain level of reliability if the statement
was made by the deceased or the person of unsound mind at
the time that they had personal knowledge when it has been
recently perceived and while his recollection is clear. Now, of
course, this is where the wisdom of our judges will have to
come in. The judicious test in determining in assessing the kind
of evidence because there is a provision in the law that says
such statements, however, is inadmissible if made under
circumstances indicating lack of trustworthiness. So that is
where our judges determination will have to come here. So
ano ang direction? give him a chance to testify because di
naman lage yan nagsisinungaling eh. Besides there is the case
of Sansan, a ti003 case, that if a claimant raises a claim, he
will have to support it would with documents like contracts,
checks, he will have to support it. Hindi naman syempre ang
judge magrerely lang sa isang declaration. According to the
provision of the law, if it is not appear to be trustworthy then
the court would recheck it.
13:ti7 The next, declaration against interest. This is very
interesting. A declaration against interest is reliable and
trustworthy as an exception because the mindset of the rule is
that if it is not true, he would not have made that statement
because it is a declaration against his interest.
Joe Starts at 13:54
“Syempre natural sa tao, ako magaling, eh, ako ang masuhay,
eh, ako ang mayaman eh. Ganun ang nature ng tao.” So, the
provision of the law, as an exception goes, “pag sinabi mong
hindi sayo, baka maaring totoo.” You wouldn’t have said that if
it were not true. These kinds of statements are given a certain
level of reliability, [because no person would testify against his
own interests] besides the person who made the declaration is
already dead or unavailable.
Pero, nabago ang concepto. What has been changed so far,
is the declaration against pecuniary interest. This was
taken from the case of People vs. Toledo (19ti8). Syempre
yung nag-deklara, if patay na or unavailable, hindi sya
matatakot (?) 14:57 that's why, this should be taken with care.
Di basta lang tatanggapin, kaya may standard na binigay ang
batas.
Why? The statement tending to expose the declarant (the
person whose dead or unavailable) to criminal liability, can only
be offered to exculpate the accused if it is with corroborating
evidence.
So, if it's just a singular statement, such as when a person
says: "Oh, ako ang gumawa ng krimen na yan eh." and the
person was dead or unavailable to testify, the court will not
accept that, because the requirement of the law is, not only
that he declares, not only that his purpose is to exculpate
the accused from liability, but there should also be
corroborating evidence or circumstances, clearly
indicating trustworthiness.
In this point in time, I would like to highlight the word
"trustworthiness". For students who are listening to me right
now, always remember that an exception to the Hearsay
Rule is that it could be ascertained in the light of
trustworthiness and reliability.
An act or declaration as to Pedigree
Section 41. Act or declaration about pedigree. – The
act or declaration of a person deceased or unable to
testify, in respect to the pedigree of another person
related to him or her by birth[,] adoption, or marriage
or, in the absence thereof, with whose family he
or she was so intimately associated as to be likely
to have accurate information concerning his or
her pedigree, may be received in evidence where it
occurred before the controversy, and the relationship
between the two [(ti)] persons is shown by evidence
other than such act or declaration. The word
“pedigree” includes relationship, family genealogy,
birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places
where these facts occurred, and the names of the
relatives. It embraces also facts of family history
intimately connected with pedigree. (39a)
Sa makikita niyo dito, ang amended lang dito ay dalawa lang.
Ano yun? “adoption” and the second one is: “or, in the
absence thereof, with whose family he or she was so
intimately associated as to be likely to have accurate
information concerning his or her pedigree,..”
For Example: Mrs. A made the declaration that he's related to
Mr. X, by birth. A is already dead. IOW, yung nag deklara (Mrs.
A), sabihin niya: "Anak ko yan si Mr. X, eh.”
That declaration is given to another one, who, at some later
time, because of lack of available evidence, will attest to Mrs.
A’s declaration during the time that she was alive. Kaya lang
Mrs. A is not anymore available to testify, so here, another
person would testify. By its nature, the witness of the
declaration need not even be related to Mrs. A (the deceased
in the example).
Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree.
Section 4ti. Family reputation or tradition regarding
pedigree. – The reputation or tradition existing in a
family previous to the controversy, in respect to the
pedigree of any one of its members, may be received
in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a
member of the family, either by consanguinity[,]
affinity, or adoption. Entries in family bibles or other
family books or charts, engraving on rings, family
JDSEMPRON
8 / 10
EVIDENCE
Based on Atty. J.R.Torregosa’s Notes, ‘EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS’ (2021); The Peraltas’, “Insights on Evidence”, (2020); Riano’s Book on “Criminal Procedure”
(2016); Real Family Transcripts (2021) Olympus Notes on Evidence (2019); Tanya Notes on Evidence, (2017);
portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of
pedigree. (40a)
Now, if you would note I did not include that in our outline yung
part on Family Reputation (Sec. 4ti, Rule 130 as Amended).
Because it only amended one word: "Adoption".
But unlike the previous provision (Sec 41) that there should be
a declaration and there's a witness who received the
declaration who will testify in court, here, in family reputation,
the source of information is unknown BUT is already reliable,
because it is moving around the networks of the family,
passed on from generations to generation. And who will
testify here? He should be a member of the family, as
distinguished from the previous provision.
Common Reputation
Section 43. Common reputation. – Common
reputation existing previous to the controversy, as to
boundaries of or customs affecting lands in the
community and reputation as to events of general
history important to the community, or respecting
marriage or moral character, may be given in
evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public
places may be received as evidence of common
reputation. (41a)
Reputation is how people perceive you, as distinguished from
character, who you really are. Your reputation could be bad,
but that's not who you are in terms of your character.
As per the old Rule: “Common reputation existing previous to
the controversy, respecting facts of public or general interest
more than thirty years old” Wala na po ito. Because based on
US authorities, there's a dearth of examples of this. This
provision has been replaced by " boundaries of or customs
affecting lands in the community and reputation as to
events of general history important to the community,
Now, why was it replaced? Because, the common reputation is
subject to scrutiny in the community, making it a reliable
information. Because it is subject to scrutiny of the community,
then it is subject to the consensus of the community. Example:
"Ay yan, yung lupa na tinatayuan ng building na iyan ay dating
train station." General history important to the community, and
that's known, which has been passed on to person to person.
Besides, if it's something that is already settled, readily
verifiable, and na-isulat na, that is subject to judicial notice.
Again, as to marriage, common reputation, has not been
changed.
Res Gestae
Section 44. Part of the res gestae. – Statements
made by a person while a startling occurrence is
taking place or immediately prior or subsequent
thereto[,] under the stress of excitement caused
by the occurrence with respect to the circumstances
thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res
gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an
equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a
legal signifi cance, may be received as part of the res
gestae. (4tia)
You recall what Res Gestae is? This is also an exception to the
Hearsay Rule. There are two kinds of Res Gestae:
1. Those which are arising from a startling occurrence;
(Here, you were startled, excited, and there is no room for you
to reflect, contemplate, and for that reason, there's no room to
fabricate). HIndi ako pwede gumawa ng kwento, kasi startled
pa ako.
ti. Equivocal Acts
But the equivocal act is only given legal significance by the
statement. Di natin pag-uusapan ito. Ang ating pag-uusapan
ay ang res gestae of the first kind, because the amendment is
on that point.
And based on the original provision: “Statements made by a
person while a starting occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the
circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res
gestae.“ Pero now with the Amendments, dinagdagan: "Under
the stress of excitement caused by the occurrence"
It only highlights what I mentioned to you because when you
are under the stress of excitement, you cannot fabricate nor
make up a story.
Ex: I went out of my classroom at 7:00 pm and I saw a student
hitting another person with a pipe, and I saw he was covered
in blood. So I called the authorities. When I went home, wala
akong asawa, walang kasama, nakatulog ako, kumain ko, after
4-5 hours, dumating ang police to verify, now I am no longer
under the stress of excitement.
Now you ask: Sir, does it mean therefore, that it [the statement]
should be immediately after the occurrence? NO. Because
there are numerous jurisprudence in the Philippines that allows
res gestae statements even after two, three hours, for as long
as he is still under that state of excitement. For as long as
there is no room to `fabricate and make up a story. Kasi diba,
pag nag settle down na kayo, iba na ang kwento? Ganun yon.
Yan ang pinoprotektahan ng batas.
Records of Regularly Conducted Business Activity
Section 45. Records of regularly conducted
business activity. – A memorandum, report,
record or data compilation of acts, events,
conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by
writing, typing, electronic, optical or other similar
means at or near the time of or from transmission
or supply of information by a person with
knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular course
or conduct of a business activity, and such was
the regular practice to make the memorandum,
report, record, or data compilation by electronic,
optical or similar means, all of which are shown
by the testimony of the custodian or other
qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on
hearsay evidence. (43a)
From the Old Rule, you will remember that this provision was
"Entries in the Regular Course of Business".
Old Rule:
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. (37a)
JDSEMPRON
9 / 10
EVIDENCE
Based on Atty. J.R.Torregosa’s Notes, ‘EVIDENCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS’ (2021); The Peraltas’, “Insights on Evidence”, (2020); Riano’s Book on “Criminal Procedure”
(2016); Real Family Transcripts (2021) Olympus Notes on Evidence (2019); Tanya Notes on Evidence, (2017);

This old provision is medjo malabo. If not properly explained,
the students will not understand that it is an exception to the
rule on Hearsay, not because of the witness, who will later
testify, but because of that document and the circumstances of
the entry. Kaya nagkakaproblema doon. But now, (and this is
why I'm very happy with the amendment.) with the amendment,
it practically covers "any memorandum, report, data
compilation, made by writing, typing, electronic, optical or other
similar means, at or near the time of the transmission or supply
of information which the person has no knowledge."
So before, the wording used was “at or near the time”, but here
now, it says: "At or near the time of the transmission or supply
of information which the person has no knowledge."
And kindly take note that the data, information, documents of
memorandum that I'm referring to is made in the Regular
Course or Conduct of the Business.
kinwuestion ngayon nung mga doctor na hindi naman expert yan eh he
is not even a pediatrician. The Supreme Court states that although that
is ideal, his experience on dengue cases which run to almost 40 cases
will qualify that doctor as an expert.
Character Evidence
In the new rule is states that a person’s character cannot be presented
or it is not admissible to prove an action or even a particular occasion.
Character cannot be used to establish an offense, a crime, a cause of
action because it will confuse issues and unfair practice and prejudice.
In criminal cases, what was changed was the presentation. The
defendant’s good and bad character can be presented if it will be
established to a reasonable degree the probability or improbability of
the offense charged.
Provision on character of a witness was just taken from Sec 14 Rule
13ti so that is just a transferred provision.

Proof of character evidence in civil and criminal cases:

So again, ano yung nawala? Yung "Dead or unavailable to
testify" provision, nawala na yun; and yung "in the 1) Testimony as to reputation as how people perceived you to be
performance of his official function".
ti) Testimony in the form of an opinion

Fin-Glennie 41:00
Glennie- Starts at ti7:35

You will see that here, the memorandum report or data compilation,
whether electronic, optical or other similar means are shown by
testimony by the custodian or qualified witnesses. Sa dating rule, wala Bella
yan. Nuon, malilito ka under the old rule. Now, it is very clear basta at
or near the time of the transmission information and under which the
person has knowledge and under the regular course of business.

Testimony taken or given in another proceeding Cza

It was stated there that a person is dead, witness is deceased or
unavailable to testify, that is the old rule. But now, the unavailable has
been expanded. Now, when you talk about being unavailable, it means
you are outside the Philippines or you cannot, with due diligence, be
brought to court or be found in the Philippines or unavailable to testify.
Efforts should be made para hanapin sya. This was taken from Rule
115 SEC1(F). Niliwanag lamang ito. The same rules apply and there is
an opportunity to cross-examine.

Last exception of Hearsay Rule: Residual Exception (Advance

Notice to the Party)
This is patterned from US Rule 803 and 804 of the Federal Rule on
Evidence. The congressional intent there was to make it a catch-all
exception so it will just be rarely used and only in exceptional
circumstances or less accessible to practice.

Dallas County v. Union (1961)-it all started with a newspaper article

that made mention of a fire that occurred in a certain place and it was
given certain a level of trustworthiness and because it could not fall in
any of the exceptions, sabi nila, residual exception. Because sabi ng
courts in the US, the exception should not hamper the search of the
truth.

There are now two views that are evolving in the US: Street view and
the more open view. Kung magagamit sya, gagamitin yan in the search
for the truth. What is required is careful, sensitive and judicial
examination of the offered evidence and the justifications for admitting
the same. There is a procedure that is to be followed, if I intend to use
the residual exception, I will have to give notice to the adverse party
when during pretrial or in advance of the hearing to provide the
adverse party the fair opportunity.

Opinion Rule
Ang binago rito ay ang Sec. 5ti Rule 130 the in depth definition on who
can give an opinion, opinion of a witness on matters involving special
knowledge, skill, expertise, training, and education. Every expert will
have to be qualified because no expert can be presented in court
unless he passes the qualification.
Education- the drafters were well aware that there are some expertise
that would require education before they attain that expertise like for
example, doctors. But education alone will not suffice, their experience
and the years of training will help them be qualified as an expert.

In fact, in one case decided by the court, it involved a dengue death.

May namatay na bata sa isang public hospital dahil nga sa wrong
diagnosis so denemanda ang public hospital at mga doctor. So

JDSEMPRON
10 / 10