Evidence Final S Review

EVIDENCE FINALS REVIEW Q AND A COMPILATION
EVIDENCE FINAL S REVIEW Judicial Admissions – An admission oral or written, made by a party in the course
of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be
RULE 128 GENERAL PROVISIONS contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that the
Section 1. Evidence defined. – Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of imputed admission was not in fact made.
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)
Sec. 2. Scope. – The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials
 Elements
and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (2)
Sec. 3. Admissibility of evidence. – Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the 1. Made by party to a case
issue and not excluded by the Constitution, the law or these Rules. (3a) 2. Made in the course of the proceedings
Sec. 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. – Evidence must have such a relation to the 3. Verbal or written
fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on  Defences:
collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable 1. Made through palpable mistake -mistake that is clear to the mind or plain
degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (4)
to see.
RULE 129 WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. - A court shall take judicial notice, 2. Imputed admission was not in fact made –taken out of context
without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states,  Notes:
their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of - To be considered as judicial admission, same must be made in the same
nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political case in which it is offered
constitution and history of the Philippines, official acts of the legislative, executive - XPN: If made in another case, or in another court, the fact of such
and judicial departments of the National Government of the Philippines, the laws of admission must be proved as in the case of any other fact, although if it
nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a)
Sec. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. – A court may take judicial notice of was made in a judicial proceedings
matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable - THUS, judicial admissions made in one case are admissible at the trial
demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. of another case provided they are proved and are pertinent to the
(2) issue involved in the latter, unless
Sec. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. – During the pre-trial and the trial,  Versus admissions by an adverse party
the court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety of - Section 3. Effect of admission. — Any admission made by a party
taking judicial notice of any matter. Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu
pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the pending action only and
proprio or upon motion, may take judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the
parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. (3a) shall not constitute an admission by him for any other purpose nor
Sec. 4. Judicial admissions. - An admission, oral or written, made by the party in the may the same be used against him in any other proceeding.
course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission - When may it be requested? At any time after the issues have been joined.
may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or - Difference: Sec 3, Rule 26 –admission made pursuant to request is for the
that the imputed admission was not, in fact, made. purpose of the pending action only
 Relate to Section 8, Rule 8

RULE 130 RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE - Section 8. How to contest such documents. — When an action or defense
Section 1. Object as evidence. – Objects as evidence are those addressed to the is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the
senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the
exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. (1) genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted
Notes (Since I’m reciting for this part) unless the adverse party, under oath specifically denies them, and sets
forth what he claims to be the facts, but the requirement of an oath does
RULE 129, SECTION 4 (JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS) not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the
1|Aleezah Gertrude
instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the - PLDT v. Pingol
original instrument is refused.  Pingol himself alleged the date of dismissal, he never denied making
- Implied admission of actionable document – Genuineness and due such an allegation.
execution shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party states under  Judicial admissions made by parties in the pleadings, or in the course
oath that he specifically denies them and set forth what claims to be facts of the trial or other proceedings in the same case are conclusive and
- Not contested in proper manner  admission arises so does not require further evidence to prove them.
 These admissions cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to
- Adverse party : does not appear to be a party / non-compliance the order to have been made through palpable mistake or that no such admission
review the original instrument was made
- He’s not however precluded from establishing that there’s (1) Fraud (2) - Theresita et al v. Jose and Sonia Monteiro
Accident (3) Mistake (4) compromise (5) payment (6) Payment (7) Statute  Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides that through estoppel, an
of Limitations (8) Estoppe (9) want of consideration admission is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and
 Relate to Art 1431 of the New Civil Code cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.
- Article 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered The respondent spouses had clearly relied on the petitioners’
conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved admission and so amended their original complaint for partition to
as against the person relying thereon. one for recovery of possession of a portion of the subject property.
- Waiver of proof  Thus, the petitioners are now estopped from denying or attempting to
- Admissions or representations is rendered conclusive upon person making prove that there was no partition of the property.
it cannot be denied or disporved as against person relying thereon - Sps. Noynay v. Citihomes Builder and Development Inc.
 Case Doctrines  To this end, the factual admissions made by the parties during the
- Cuenco v. Talisay Tourist Sports Complex preliminary conference would shed light on the matter. It must be
 Stipulation of facts at prê-trial constitutes judicial admission. The remembered that these judicial admissions are legally binding on the
veracity of the Judicial admissions require no further proofs and may party making the admissions.
be contraverted only upon clear showing that the admissions are  Similar to pre-trial admissions in a pre-trial order in ordinary civil
made through palpable mistake/ that admission was not in fact made. cases, the contents of the record of a preliminary conference control
 Any party may make a judicial admission in a (1) Pleading (2) Trial the subsequent course of the action, thereby, defining and limiting the
(Verbal/Written) (3) Other stages of the judicial proceeding issues to be tried.
- Toshiba Information v. CIR  A contrary ruling would render useless the proceedings during the
 CIR cannot escape the binding effect of the judicial admission in the preliminary conference and would, in fact, be antithetical to the very
joint stipulation if facts purpose of a preliminary conference, which is, among others, to allow
- Ching v. CA the parties to admit and stipulate on a given set of facts and to
 Amended complaint takes the place of the original. The latter is simplify the issues involved
regarded as abandoned and ceases to perform any further function as  Once the stipulations are reduced into writing and signed by the
a pleading. The original complaint no longer forms part of the record. parties and their counsels, they become binding on the parties who
- Sps. Antazo v. Doblado made them. They become judicial admissions of the fact or facts
 Failure to specifically deny an allegation constitutes as judicial stipulated. Even if placed at a disadvantageous position, a party may
admission not be allowed to rescind them unilaterally, it must assume the
 XPN: walang denial hindi magiging admission like : not an ultimate consequences of the disadvantage. (Bayas et al v. SB)
fact and unliquidated damages
2|Aleezah Gertrude
 XPN: IF CRIMINAL CASES –pre-trial. In writing and signed by (3) where the interests of justice so require. In such cases, courts
accused and counsel must step in and accord relief to a client who suffered thereby
 A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge the fact as - Villanueva v. People
judicial admissions are a waiver of proof; production of evidence is  The Court likewise makes exception to the general rule that the
dispensed with. A judicial admission also removes an admitted fact mistakes and negligence of counsel bind the client. Doubtless,
from the field of controversy.( Alfelor v. Halasan) the filing of the appeal before the CA by the petitioner's former
- Torres v. CA counsel was not simple negligence. It constituted gross
 In virtue thereof, the Amended Complaint takes the place of the negligence.
original. The latter is regarded as abandoned and ceases to  It bears stressing at this point, that the rule which states that the
perform any further function as a pleading. The original mistakes of counsel bind the client may not be strictly followed
complaint no longer forms part of the record. where observance of it would result in outright deprivation of
 If petitioner had desired to utilize the original complaint she the client's liberty or property, or where the interests of justice so
should have offered it in evidence. require.
 Having been amended, the original complaint lost its character  In rendering justice, procedural infirmities take a backseat
as a judicial admission, which would have required no proof, against substantive rights of litigants.
and became merely an extrajudicial admission, the admissibility  Corollarily, if the strict application of the rules would tend to
of which, as evidence, required its formal offer. frustrate rather than promote justice, this Court is not without
 Contrary to petitioner's submission, therefore there can be no power to exercise its judicial discretion in relaxing the rules of
estoppel by extrajudicial admission made in the original procedure.
complaint, for failure to offer it in evidence.  Adoptive Admissions
- Phil-Health Care Providers v. Estrada - Estrada v. Desierto
 As provided for in Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court,  An adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to a statement or
the general rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the party’s
party making it and does not require proof admits of two reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the
exceptions: 1) when it is shown that the admission was made other person.
through palpable mistake, and 2) when it is shown that no such  Under our rules of evidence, admissions of an agent (Secretary
admission was in fact made. The latter exception allows one to Angara) are binding on the principal (petitioner). 19 Jones very
contradict an admission by denying that he made such an well explains the reasons for the rule, viz: "What is done, by
admission. agent, is done by the principal through him, as through a mere
 We intoned therein that in spite of the presence of judicial instrument. So, whatever is said by an agent, either in making a
admissions in a party’s pleading, the trial court is still given contract for his principal, or at the time and accompanying the
leeway to consider other evidence presented (Antillo v. CA) performance of any act within the scope of his authority, having
 Admissions made in pleadings already dismissed –EXTRA- relation to, and connected with, and in the course of the particular
JUDICIAL. contract or transaction in which he is then engaged, or in the
- Sarraga v. Banco Filipino language of the old writers, dum fervet opus is, in legal effect,
 GR: Negligence of the counsel is negligence of the client said by his principal and admissible in evidence against such
 XPN: (1) where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives principal.
the client of due process of law; (2) when its application will  Moreover, the ban on hearsay evidence does not cover
result in outright deprivation of the clients liberty or property; or independently relevant statements.
3|Aleezah Gertrude
 These are statements which are relevant independently of whether  Autopic Proference  Physical evidence : Seen & Inspected
they are true or not. They belong to two (2) classes: (1) those  Categories of Object Evidence
statements which are the very facts in issue, and (2) those 1. Unique object  readily identifiable
statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue. 2. Object made unique  made readily identifiable
The second class includes the following: 3. Non-unique objects (No identifying marks)  no identifying marks and
a. Statement of a person showing his state of mind, that is, his not-marked
mental condition, knowledge, belief, intention, ill will and other  Ocular Inspection –Notice Requirement
emotions; - Ocular inspection conducted by the judge without notice to or presence of
b. Statements of a person which show his physical condition, as the parties is invalid as an ocular inspection is a part of the trial.
illness and the like; - Fact that an ocular inspection has been held does not preclude a party from
c. Statement of a person from which an inference may be made as introducing other evidence on the same issue
to the state of mind of another, that is, the knowledge, belief, - Admissibility: does the evidence sufficiently and accurately represent the
motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the latter; object it seeks to demonstrate or represent
d. Statements which may identify the date, place and person in  Demonstrative evidence
question; and - It is not the actual thing but it is referred to as demonstrate because it
e. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness. represents or demonstrated by the real thing.
- Not the very thing involved in the case but it appears to have been
RULE 130 SECTION 1
incorporated as an object evidence (map, diagram)
 Experimental results
 Object Evidence
- Scientific tests and experiment results  judicial discretion
- Where an object is relevant to a fact in issue, the court may acquire
- Identity + similarity of conditions  judicial discretion + testimony
knowledge thereof by actually viewing the object, in which case, such
- Out of court experiment  prove substantial similarity
object becomes the object (real) evidence
- Object evidence includes any article or object which may be known or  Object evidence v. Right against Self-Incrimination
perceived by the use of any of the senses. - Right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked against object evidence
- It includes any object which may be known by the senses (hearing, touch, .
taste or smell) - NO testimonial compulsion
- Fact that the object or an accurate representation thereof was perceived  Silent witness theory
through the senses of the court, constitutes the same into object(real - Method of authenticating and admitting evidence like photographs without
evidence) the need for witness to verify it
- Documents are object evidence if purpose is to prove their existence or - Photograph is reliable enough to be admitted into evidence
condition or the nature of handwritings thereon or to determine the age of  Police Line Up  no law: requiring police line up
paper used or blemishes or alterations thereon - Tangan v. CA
 REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT OR REAL  Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and
1. Relevant  relationship to the fact in issue and not to be it ranks high in the hierarchy of our trustworthy evidence. 5 For this
excluded by rules or law reason, it is regarded as evidence of the highest order. It speaks
2. Competent by passing the test of authentication  identified by more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.
someone to be the actual thing involved in the litigation
3. Formally offered in evidence
4|Aleezah Gertrude
- People v. Amestuzo 3) the statements concerned the occurrence in question

 Complainants' out-of-court identification of accused-appellant was and its immediately attending circumstances.
seriously flawed as to preclude its admissibility. In resolving the  Chain of Custody
admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identifications, we have - Reyes v. CA
applied the totality of circumstances test enunciated in the case  Lapses of the Prosecution were fatal to its proof of guilt because
of People vs. Teehankee15 which lists the following factors: they demonstrated that the chain of custody did not stay unbroken,
1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the thereby raising doubt on the integrity and identity of the
crime; dangerous drugs as evidence of the corpus delicti of the crimes
2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; charged.
3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; 1. 2 investing officer
4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the 2. investing office r
identification; 3. investigating to the court
5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; 4. court
and - People v. Constantino Jr.
6) the suggestiveness of the identification process.  As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule
- Marturillas v. People requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
 To be admissible, a dying declaration must sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
1) refer to the cause and circumstances surrounding the declarant’s proponent claims it to be.
death;  It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the
2) be made under the consciousness of an impending death; moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into
3) be made freely and voluntarily without coercion or suggestions evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit
of improper influence; would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was
4) be offered in a criminal case, in which the death of the declarant and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the
is the subject of inquiry; and condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was
5) have been made by a declarant competent to testify as a delivered to the next link in the chain.
witness, had that person been called upon to testify  The following links must be established in the chain of custody in a
 The fact that the victim’s statement constituted a dying declaration buy-bust situation:
does not preclude it from being admitted as part of the res gestae, if 1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
the elements of both are present drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
 Res gestae refers to statements made by the participants or the officer;
victims of, or the spectators to, a crime immediately before, during, 2) the turn over of the illegal drug seized by the
or after its commission apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
 A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in 3) the turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal
evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule, when the following drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
requisites concur: examination; and
1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling 4) the turn over and submission of the marked illegal
occurrence; drugs seized from the forensic chemist to the court
2) the statements were made before the declarant had - People v. Amaro
time to contrive or devise; and
5|Aleezah Gertrude
 Amaro had the burden of proof to overcome the presumption that  . In this light, the presumption of regularity in the performance of
the police officers handled the seized drugs with regularity, and that official duty accorded the buy-bust team by the courts below cannot
they properly performed their official duties. He failed. arise.
 Other than erroneously relying on the purported finding of the trial - People v. Umanito
court, no bad faith or planting of evidence was actually shown.  The method that was used to secure the samples were safe and
- People v. Ladip reliable.
 “Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized  Case to case
movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or  Crucial: transfer from 1 person to another
plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each  The samples were taken and handled by an expert, whose
stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic qualifications, integrity and dedication to her work is
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. unquestionable, hence, the possibility of substitution or
 To reiterate what we have held in past cases, we are not always manipulation is very remote.
looking for the strict step–by–step adherence to the procedural  The procedure adopted by the DNA section, Forensic Chemistry
requirements; what is important is to ensure the preservation of Division of the National Bureau of Investigation in analyzing the
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as samples was in accordance with the standards used in modern
these would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. technology
 We would like to add that non–compliance with Section 21 of said 1. Collected by expert neutral third party
law, particularly the making of the inventory and the 2. Tested parties are appropriately identified (tested)
photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not 3. Protected from tampering
render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. 4. Inspected explain: role nila sa chain of custody
 Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by
the law or these rules.
 For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which
forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence
must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will
[be] accorded it by the courts.
- People v. Havana
 While the chain of custody should ideally be perfect [and
unbroken], in reality it is not, ‘as it is almost always impossible to
obtain an unbroken chain.’
 "As such, what is of utmost importance "is the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will
be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused."
 In the case at bar, the evidentiary value and integrity of the alleged
illegal drug had been thoroughly compromised.
 Serious uncertainty is generated on the identity of the item in view
of the broken linkages in the chain of custody
6|Aleezah Gertrude
First session questions: Q: What if it is relevant but not competent
Q: What makes for relevancy? - evidence may be relevant but excluded. But it shall not be admissible. In
the present day, we can refer to the qualification of witnesses
- relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief as to its existence or non-
existence Q: What will make for the competency of a witness?
Q: What are the 2 notions making up admissibility? - Capable of perception And can make known his perception
- Relevance Q: Can you think of an instance where evidence may not be competent yet
- Competency relevant but admitted
- multiple admissibility (regalado) → where the evidence is relevant and
Q: What is Evidence? competent for two or more purposes, such should be admitted for any or
all the purposes for which it is offered, PROVIDED it satisfies all the
requirements of law for its admissibility.
- Rule 128 Sec 1
- Example in the book : res gestae as a dying declaration or as declaration
against interest (see People v. Yatco)
Q: Is there evidence in Quasi-Judicial Agencies?
- Conditional admissibility
- yes. Evidence has a place in QJ bodies , but the RULES of evidence in - Curative admissibility  doctrine treats upon the right of a party to
introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted
itself is merely suppletory to QJ bodies. The basis for the answer: Section
the same kind of evidence adduced by the adverse party. The
4, then procedural rules ng QJ agencies. Massachusetts rule, wherein the adverse partymay be permitted to
- Questions to ask: (1) Whether a QJ is involved (2) Whether they can introduce similar incompetent evidence in order to avoid a plain and unfair
receive evidence?(3) Whether the QJ has rules on evidence (4) What are prejudicecaused by the admission of the other party’s evidence. Sir
likewise discussed the American Rule and the English Rule.
the rules of QJ agencies? What is the Quantum of proof? (5) Is it
sufficient?
Q:What are collateral matters
Q: Direct v. Circumstantial?
- They are circumstantial evidence other than the facts in issue which are
- direct evidence is that which proves the fact in dispute without aid of any
offered as basis for inference as to the existence or non-existence of a fact
inference or presumption whereas circumstantial is the proof of fact or
in issue
facts from which taken, the existence of the particular fact in dispute may
be inferred as a necessary or probable consequences . Q: are collateral matters conclusions? Yes, conclusory daw ba siya?
- Collateral fact = intoxication
Q: For the purpose of admissibility what else should we consider other than - Circumstantial evidence = proof of collateral facts
relevancy?
Q: Examples of allowable inferences (collateral matters)
- we must consider competency. An evidence is competent if it is not
excluded the constitution the law or these rules. - Blood stains, fingerprint marks, etc
7|Aleezah Gertrude
Q: The drawing of the inference must we have 100% certainty of what - Mandatory and discretionary
happened?
Q:Is hearing necessary?
- NO - Yes when it is discretionary
- Issues in a pre-trial would be joined Section 1. When conducted. — After
Q: When are collateral matters needed? the last responsive pleading has been served and filed, the branch clerk of
court shall issue, within five (5) calendar days from filing, a notice of pre-
trial which shall be set not later than sixty (60) calendar days from the
- When there is no direct, “slamdunk” evidence that accused fired the shot.
filing of the last responsive pleading. (1a)
Q: Therefore the inference will point to what? Q: Strategically speaking, what is the difference between Mandatory v.
Discretionary?
- Inferred according to reason and experience it helps us to determine - Mandatory: Court is obliged to take judicial notice of the matters stated in
Probability or improbability of the fact in issue section 1 (matters Court ought to know); procedurally, Mandatory does
not need a hearing
Q: What is corroborative evidence? - Discretionary: Needs a hearing to “convince” the court to take judicial
- Supplements evidence already given tending to strengthen or confirm it. It notice of something - Sec. 3 of Rule 129
is additional evidence of a different character to the same point
Q: What is Processual presumption?
Q: Allegedly the house of representative and the senate issued resolutions - Foreign laws need to be proven in court. If not, it would be assumed that
expressing pointing to the fact that NTC to grant a provisional authority. the law in the foreign state is the same as the one in the PH
Can the courts take judicial notice of the resolution?
- NO. resolution is merely expression of sentiment of a legislative or Q: What is a judicial admission?
deliberative body. Therefore if it is merely an expression of sentiment, can - Oral or written admission made by party in the course of proceedings in
courts take judicial notice? Is oversight function an official act? A the same case
resolution, because it’s still an expression of sentiment, you still vote upon - Does not require proof
it. It can be a subject of mandatory notice
Q: How can it be contradicted?
Q: What is judicial notice? - May be contradicted only by showing that - it was made through palpable
- JN those things that can be presented without need for intro of evid. What mistake or
is known need not be proved. The purpose is for judicial expediency and - That the imputed admission was not in fact made
convenience
Q: What should characterize a judicial admission so that it would need not be
Q: Is there something in the ROC that would serve as your compass for proven?
convenience and expediency? - DEFINITE, CERTAIN, and UNEQUIVOCAL
- Rule 1, Section 6.Construction. — These Rules shall be liberally - Made by party in the course of the proceedings in the same case
construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and - NOTE: No particular form
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. - Relates to matter in a point in issue
Q: Requisites of Judicial Notice Q: Admission v. Confession

- Matter of public knowledge (must be notorious) - Is there a trait to look out for when determining if it is an admission or a
- Not doubtful or uncertain confession? Yes. Both made by parties. DEFINITE, CERTAIN, and
- Known to be within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts UNEQUIVOCAL
Q: Two species of Judicial Notice
8|Aleezah Gertrude
Q: Is there an instance when an extrajudicial confession could be a judicial

admission?
- JANJALANI CASE(?)
Q: Object as evidence
- Addressed to the senses of the court - Relevant to the fact in issue
Q: “Exhibited, examined, or viewed by Court”? So does this mean limited to

sight?
- NO. 5 senses
Q: Are there limits/Difficulties to the admission of object evidence?

- Yes. If it would result to questionable demonstration
Q: Example, feces kept in a container to be presented as evidence. How would you

object to it?
- In a particular case. Its about nuisance per se. Matters wc are repugnant
to the senses. If thats the case for example, in a particular court the
prosecution will present or preserve one way or another mounds of feces
as object evidence because they were thrown at the doorway of offended
party.
- If repulsive or indecent, it may still be exhibited but the court may
EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC FROM SUCH VIEW. -regalado
- Other options: (1) Demonstrative evidence (2) Occular Inspection (3) Rule
129: court should take judicial notice that feces has a foul odor
9|Aleezah Gertrude
2nd meeting o The motion picture can be offered to prove the contents of the
motion picture— w/n its similar to the case it supposedly copied.
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Q: Let’s verify if what you said is completely correct. So in case of copyright
Sec. 2. Documentary evidence. - Documents as evidence consist of writings, infringement, you can present a motion pic as documentary evidence and
recordings, photographs or any material containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, you’re saying that “okay, it may be similar to what another person produced”,
figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of written expression offered as I still cannot get because when I view the motion picture, I view it as an
proof of their contents. Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored images, entirety. It’s an experience. So, can you explain further or justify in what way
x-ray films, motion pictures or videos. (2a) can a motion picture be considered as a documentary evidence as to what you
Q: Are photographs considered as documentary evidence?
call an infrigement case.
- Yes
- If the person accused of infringement copies the exact motion picture and
has appropriated as his own.
Q: What is documentary evidence? (under Sec. 2)
- Consist of writings, recordings, photographs or any material containing Q: If its offered into evidence, the Court will view the motion picture in its entirety
letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or
- You have to zero-in on the specific content of the motion picture that has
other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents.
- Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films, been infringed. - Eg: If its the script, point to the script, particular parts,
motion pictures or videos. etc.
Q: What is common to all on the first part you mentioned Q: VAGUE!!! (Wild omg) A motion picture under sec 2 is classified as…?)
- They are offered as proof of their contents - Photograph
Q: Is there elaboration with regard to photographs? Q: So in what way can it be a document under section 2?
- include still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures - Sir if the motion picture is offered as proof of its contents
or videos
Q: What is lacking in your example?
Q: Can you give an example regarding sounds? How can you say that a - The STORYLINE of the motion picture. You have to zero into the
collection of sound would be on the same footing as a writing such as a content.
holographic will or a deed of sale - Toto: Like the SCRIPT.
- proof of their content” BUZZWORD - Sir: Always GO BACK to Evidence as the FACT IN ISSUE. SO zero in
- For example a witness heard a loud thud, it might mean that always!
something has fallen.
Q: So, now, the rule on Electronic Evidence. What is Electronic Document?
- Sec. 1(h) of Rule 2 of Rules on Electronic Evidence
Q: In what way can motion pictures be considered as documentary evidence? - refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures,
- When offered as proof of contents symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however
- infringement cases represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished,
- Copyright infringement. Offered as evidence to show that the same or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received,
content has also been made by another person to show na similar or recorded, transmitted, stored processed, retrieved or produced
identical kung evidence instead of being offered as merely object electronically.
evidence.
10 | A l e e z a h G e r t r u d e
- It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, Q: How about FAXES? Are they electronic evidence?
readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic - Jurisprudence: They are NOT considered under the definition of EE.
data message or electronic document.
- For purposes of these Rules, the term “electronic document” may be used Q: Sir: Why is this so?
interchangeably with electronic data message”. - Since it is not stored or recorded through electronic means.
- Doesn’t follow the US jurisprudence definition of EE.
Q: Let us say you have a paper-based document. For example, a deed of sale. In
the course of your discussion with the client, “oh atty, you just take photos of
the deed of sale via your Viber app” then you take photos page by page. Are
these photos appearing in the Viber app considered as “ELECTRONIC
EVIDENCE”? And if so, are they admissible?
- It is NOT ADMISSIBLE ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE if it is to prove the
CONTENT of the paper-based document. (If proof of contents, need
DOCUMENTARY)
- If is ADMISSIBLE ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE if it is to prove the
EXISTENCE of the paper-based document.
Q: If you are saying that the Viber photo is the functional equivalent of the paper-
based document, then how can you justify that the document has been digitally
signed? Can you not say that if you dovetail the RRE with the new rules that it’s
admissible as proof of CONTENTS because what was produced by the Viber photo
because it accesses the camera in a smartphone?
- NOTE: definition of Authentication
- The matter of establishing “that is indeed the document” is indeed under
the ODE. We present the original, and the original has many permutations.
When you read the Original of the document, it includes the duplicate
- Then again, recall that we took up authentication and proof of documents.
In relation to the Viber example, and assuming that is the only copy that
exists, one thing that the court would consider it, the question remains
“was it executed by the parties”?
- You have to present also the parties (ask whose signatures were done in
the photographs); If it is notarized, you also have to point that out to the
court.
- If there is a genuine question, note that the duplicate being considered as
an original is only Step 1 of W/N this was executed by the parties.
Q: If a signature exists, can you use the photo to prove that the document was
executed by the parties?
- NO, you can only prove its EXISTENCE
RULE 132 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by
B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record, or by his or her deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not
Sec. 19. Classes of documents. – For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the
documents are either public or private. Public documents are: office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, which is a contracting party
(a) The written official acts, or records of the sovereign authority, official bodies and to a treaty or convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or considered a
tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; public document under such treaty or convention pursuant to paragraph (c) of
(b)Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; Section 19 hereof, the certificate or its equivalent shall be in the form prescribed by
(c) Documents that are considered public documents under treaties and conventions such treaty or convention subject to reciprocity granted to public documents
which are in force between the Philippines and the country of source; and originating from the Philippines.
(d)Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to For documents originating from a foreign country which is not a contracting party to
be entered therein. a treaty or convention referred to in the next preceding sentence, the certificate may
All other writings are private. be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-
consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the
Sec. 20. Proof of private documents. – Before any private document offered as
seal of his or her office. A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its
authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved
equivalent may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate or its
by any of the following means:
equivalent being prima facie evidence of the due execution and genuineness of the
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written;
document involved. The certificate shall not be required when a treaty or convention
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker; or
between a foreign country and the Philippines has abolished the requirement, or has
(c) By other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity. Any other private
exempted the document itself from this formality. (24a)
document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. (20)
Sec. 25. What attestation of copy must state. – Whenever a copy of a document or
Sec. 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. –
record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance,
Where a private document is more than thirty (30) years old, is produced from a
that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case
custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any
may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if
alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity need
there be any, or if he or she be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of
be given. (21)
such court. (25a)
Sec. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. – The handwriting of a person
Sec. 26. Irremovability of public record. – Any public record, an official copy of
may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person
which is admissible in evidence, must not be removed from the office in which it is
because he or she has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his
kept, except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to
or hers upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired
the just determination of a pending case. (26)
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 Sec. 27. Public record of a private document. – An authorized public record of a
proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (22) private document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof,
attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such
Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence. – Documents consisting of entries in public officer has the custody. (27)
records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even Sec. 28. Proof of lack of record. – A written statement signed by an officer having
against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date the custody of an official record or by his or her deputy that, after diligent search, no
of the latter. (23) record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his or her
office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence
Sec. 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in that the records of his or her office contain no such record or entry. (28a)
Q: Then, how many kinds are classified?

Sec. 29. How judicial record impeached. – Any judicial record may be impeached
by evidence of: - 2, public and private
(a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer;
(b) collusion between the parties; or Q: if there is no treaty or convention, how could it be authenticated?
(c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. (29)
- It must go thru the consul, vice-consul, or member authorized from foreign
Sec. 30. Proof of notarial documents. – Every instrument duly acknowledged or service; through a certification of the said officials
proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without - There must be a certification that it
further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the
execution of the instrument or document involved. (30)
Sec. 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. – The party producing a Q: What are public and private documents under Sec. 19? (Refer to Sec. 19 a-
document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after d)
its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, must account for the
alteration. He or she may show that the alteration was made by another, without his
- Written official acts, or records of the sovereign authority
or her concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or was
otherwise properly or innocently made, or that the alteration did not change the
meaning or language of the instrument. If he or she fails to do that, the document - Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and
shall not be admissible in evidence. (31a) testaments
Sec. 32. Seal. – There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private o Last wills and testaments are not included because it must be
documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. (32) probated before it can pass real or personal property (Civil
Code)
Sec. 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. – Documents written in
an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a - Documents that are considered public documents under treaties and
translation into English or Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or conventions which are in force between the Philippines and the country of
their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. (33) source
Q: If a signature exists, can you use the photo to prove that the document was
executed by the parties? Q: if there is no treaty or convention (therefore the state is not a contracting
party), what would the manner of authentication be?
- Process of proving due execution and genuineness of the document.
- Must go to either the consul, vice-consul or any other member authorized
Q: Authenticating and proving documents. Documents under Sec. 19, how are by the consular service through certification
they classified under Rule 132? - Answer: Certificate must be authenticated by the seal of office
- Effect of this answer: due execution and genuineness admitted; may be
- Classified as public documents presented in evidence without further proof as to whether or not it is in
fact what it purports to be
- Those not part of the list are considered private
Q: Is the character or weight of this particular evidence invulnerable? o A private document is MORE than 30 years old
(Conclusive presumption ba?)
o Is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found
- Prima facie evidence of its due execution and genuineness (disputable) if genuine
- Public records kept in the Philippines of private documents required by o Unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion
law to be entered therein.
Q: Irremovability of public record?
Q: Examples?
- You have the burden under Sec. 26
- Titles of land as registered in the Registry of Deeds (but Toto says these
are written official acts; referred to Torrens title) - Puts a burden on the person offering to go to the office, have a copy, get
- Contracts of sale (Toto: but if it involves real property, it would fall under attestation, or a certification
Sec. 19(b))
- Toto: “mestizo” siya – it’s like Sec. 19b and d which came together Q: Give an example of a private document that theoretically still a public
document required by law to be kept in some public record
Q: is there any kind of document which will not involve notarial intervention
yet considered as public documents? - CBA
- Marriage certificate Q: If it registered in NCMB and you want to use it, what can you do? There’s this
- Tenancy agreements (in relation to planting rice) irremovability of record
- Birth certificate
- Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of
Q: When is it considered as public document? evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct
copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The
- When it is recorded with the PSA or the local civil registry attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there
be any, or if he or she be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal
Q: How do you prove private documents? (Sec. 20) of such court.
- record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19,
- By anyone who saw the document executed or written when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official
publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal
- By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the
custody of the record, or by his or her deputy, and accompanied, if the
maker
record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has
- By other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity the custody
Q: What does those mean?
Q: What is the Ancient Documents Rule? (under Sec. 21) - As the litigator you have to get a copy of the document and get it
attested/certified
- No other evidence of its authenticity need be given if:
Q: Can a void document be admitted as evidence? In what way?
- It can be introduced as proof of the surrounding circumstances. In a deed Q: But there’s something more basic than that; ex. Im looking for a document
of sale where in the contract of deed of sale was void because there is a or file, I go to the RoD or City Hall. “Asanbnaba tong doc na to…” and they
prohibition of sale without spousal consent. Contract may be admitted for will go to court and certify that the said document has been found in the
the purposes of proving that there was a consideration paid. particular officer’s custody. Will that be admissible in court and have probative
value?
Q: What is the rule on public record of a private document?
- No
- Sec. 27
Q: I’m looking for two things, the manner of searching and what record or
- An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the entry are you after.
original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the
record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. - After diligent search, there was no record or entry found in the office
(27
- After that, it would be accompanied by a certificate stating that indeed it
cannot be found.
Q: Proof of lack of record? What’s the legal significance?
Q: Is it enough that we have a certification where it came from?
- Sec. 28
- No
- In a negative certification, it serves as proof that such record does not exist
- The rule provides that absent a official record, a written statement must be
accompanied by.a certification
Q: Sec. 28 talks of proof of lack of record? What is the rule? Q: Who will make this?
- The rule provides that a written statement is required to be made by the - It must be an officer having custody of an officer having official
officer or his deputy whose office is supposed to be found… (Toto: this is record; it is not the examiner of the documents but the REGISTRAR
incidental) HIMSELF/HERSELF.
- The certification is meant to state that the record is not found in that office Q: What is “of a specified tenor”?
Q: How does the rule operate Example: in a case of declaration of nullity of marriage, a party was trying to
prove that there was no marriage certificate and the officer having official
- CERTIFICATION by person who OFFICIALLY has custody of the record would state that the marriage certificate cannot be found
record.
Q: How is judicial record impeached?
- There must be a diligent search of the record
- Want of jurisdiction
- Despite such search, no record of entry is found to exist in his office - Collision
- Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings
Q: Documents in unofficial language the foregoing instrument which they acknowledged to me to be their
free and voluntary act and deed, consisting of only ______ (____) page/s,
- Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as including this page in which this Acknowledgement is written, duly signed
evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or by them and their instrumental witnesses on each and every page hereof.
Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their
attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial Q: What is the probative value of an affidavit? Is an affidavit with a jurat a public
document?
Q: Is it possible to admit documents that filled with alterations?
- YES. No probative value unless the affiant is presented otherwise it is
- YES. The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered hearsay?
and appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to
the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He or she may
show that the alteration was made by another, without his or her
concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or
was otherwise properly or innocently made, or that the alteration did not
change the meaning or language of the instrument. If he or she fails to do Sec. 4. Original of document. —
(a) An “original” of a document is the document itself or any counterpart intended to
that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence.
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
Q: Rule on Notarial Document? computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight or other
means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an “original.”
- Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided (b) A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original,
by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and
of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical
instrument or document involved. (30) reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the
- XPN: Notarial wills original.
(c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine
Q: Does an affidavit also enjoy this presumption? question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it
is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. (4a)
- Yes.
A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC July 17, 2001
Q: How does an acknowledgement read
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
- BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(Province/City/Municipality) of _____________, personally appeared
Rule 1
_____________ with Community Tax Certificate No. _____________ COVERAGE
issued on _____________ at _____________ (and Tax Identification No. Section 1. Scope. – Unless otherwise provided herein, these Rules shall apply
(T.I.N.) _____________), and _____________ with Community Tax whenever an electronic document or electronic data message, as defined in Rule 2
Certificate No. _____________ issued on _____________ at hereof, is offered or used in evidence.
_____________ (and Tax Identification No. (T.I.N.) _____________),
both known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed Section 2. Cases covered. – These Rules shall apply to all civil actions and
proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases.
"electronic data message".

Section 3. Application of other rules on evidence. – In all matters not specifically (i) "Electronic key" refers to a secret code which secures and defends sensitive
covered by these Rules, the Rules of Court and pertinent provisions of statutes information that crosses over public channels into a form decipherable only with a
containing rules on evidence shall apply. matching electronic key.
(j) "Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or sound
in electronic form, representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically
Rule 2
associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND CONSTRUCTION
methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person and executed or
Section 1. Definition of terms. – For purposes of these Rules, the following terms
adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating, signing or approving an
are defined, as follows:
electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, an
(a) "Asymmetric or public cryptosystem" means a system capable of generating a
electronic signature includes digital signatures.
secure key pair, consisting of a private key for creating a digital signature, and a
(k) "Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to telephone conversations, text
public key for verifying the digital signature.
messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic
(b) "Business records" include records of any business, institution, association,
forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained.
profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for
(l) "Information and communication system" refers to a system for generating,
profit, or for legitimate or illegitimate purposes.
sending, receiving, storing or otherwise processing electronic data messages or
(c) "Certificate" means an electronic document issued to support a digital signature
electronic documents and includes the computer system or other similar devices by
which purports to confirm the identity or other significant characteristics of the
or in which data are recorded or stored and any procedure related to the recording or
person who holds a particular key pair.
storage of electronic data messages or electronic documents.
(d) "Computer" refers to any single or interconnected device or apparatus, which, by
(m) "Key pair" in an asymmetric cryptosystem refers to the private key and its
electronic, electro-mechanical or magnetic impulse, or by other means with the same
mathematically related public key such that the latter can verify the digital signature
function, can receive, record, transmit, store, process, correlate, analyze, project,
that the former creates.
retrieve and/or produce information, data, text, graphics, figures, voice, video,
(n) "Private key" refers to the key of a key pair used to create a digital signature.
symbols or other modes of expression or perform any one or more of these
(o) "Public key" refers to the key of a key pair used to verify a digital signature.
functions.
(e) "Digital signature" refers to an electronic signature consisting of a transformation
of an electronic document or an electronic data message using an asymmetric or Section 2. Construction. – These Rules shall be liberally construed to assist the
public cryptosystem such that a person having the initial untransformed electronic parties in obtaining a just, expeditious, and inexpensive determination of cases.
document and the signer's public key can accurately determine: The interpretation of these Rules shall also take into consideration the international
i. whether the transformation was created using the private key that corresponds to origin of Republic Act No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act.
the signer's public key; and
ii. whether the initial electronic document had been altered after the transformation Rule 3
was made. ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
(f) "Digitally signed" refers to an electronic document or electronic data message Section 1. Electronic documents as functional equivalent of paper-based
bearing a digital signature verified by the public key listed in a certificate. documents. – Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term writing, document,
(g) "Electronic data message" refers to information generated, sent, received or record, instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing, such term shall be
stored by electronic, optical or similar means. deemed to include an electronic document as defined in these Rules.
(h) "Electronic document" refers to information or the representation of information,
data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however Section 2. Admissibility. – An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it
represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related
which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules.
stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed
documents and any print-out or output, readable by sight or other means, which
Section 3. Privileged communication. – The confidential character of a privileged
accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes
communication is not lost solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic
of these Rules, the term "electronic document" may be used interchangeably with
document.
ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES
Rule 4 Section 1. Electronic signature. – An electronic signature or a digital signature
BEST EVIDENCE RULE authenticated in the manner prescribed hereunder is admissible in evidence as the
Section 1. Original of an electronic document. – An electronic document shall be functional equivalent of the signature of a person on a written document.
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 Section 2. Authentication of electronic signatures. – An electronic signature may be
accurately. authenticated in any of the following manner:
(a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital signature
Section 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. – When a document is in two or and verify the same;
more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents, or is a (b) By any other means provided by law; or
counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same (c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the genuineness of
matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or the electronic signature.
by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original, such copies
or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original. Section 3. Disputable presumptions relating to electronic signatures. – Upon the
Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the authentication of an electronic signature, it shall be presumed that:
same extent as the original if: (a) The electronic signature is that of the person to whom it correlates;
(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or (b) The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of
(b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of authenticating or approving the electronic document to which it is related or to
the original. indicate such person's consent to the transaction embodied therein; and
(c) The methods or processes utilized to affix or verify the electronic signature
Rule 5 operated without error or fault.
AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
Section 1. Burden of proving authenticity. – The person seeking to introduce an Section 4. Disputable presumptions relating to digital signatures. – Upon the
electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authentication of a digital signature, it shall be presumed, in addition to those
authenticity in the manner provided in this Rule. mentioned in the immediately preceding section, that:
(a) The information contained in a certificate is correct;
Section 2. Manner of authentication. – Before any private electronic document (b) The digital signature was created during the operational period of a certificate;
offered as authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any (c) No cause exists to render a certificate invalid or revocable;
of the following means: (d) The message associated with a digital signature has not been altered from the
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have time it was signed; and,
signed the same; (e) A certificate had been issued by the certification authority indicated therein.
(b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be
authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic Rule 7
documents were applied to the document; or EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the Section 1. Factors for assessing evidentiary weight. – In assessing the evidentiary
judge. weight of an electronic document, the following factors may be considered:
(a) The reliability of the manner or method in which it was generated, stored or
Section 3. Proof of electronically notarized document. – A document electronically communicated, including but not limited to input and output procedures, controls,
notarized in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be tests and checks for accuracy and reliability of the electronic data message or
considered as a public document and proved as a notarial document under the Rules document, in the light of all the circumstances as well as any relevant agreement;
of Court. (b) The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified;
(c) The integrity of the information and communication system in which it is
recorded or stored, including but not limited to the hardware and computer programs
Rule 6
or software used as well as programming errors;
(d) The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the testify on the matters contained therein.
communication and information system; Section 2. Cross-examination of deponent. – The affiant shall be made to affirm the
(e) The nature and quality of the information which went into the communication contents of the affidavit in open court and may be cross-examined as a matter of
and information system upon which the electronic data message or electronic right by the adverse party.
document was based; or
(f) Other factors which the court may consider as affecting the accuracy or integrity
of the electronic document or electronic data message.
Rule 10
Section 2. Integrity of an information and communication system. – In any dispute
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
involving the integrity of the information and communication system in which an
Section 1. Electronic testimony. – After summarily hearing the parties pursuant to
electronic document or electronic data message is recorded or stored, the court may
Rule 9 of these Rules, the court may authorize the presentation of testimonial
consider, among others, the following factors:
evidence by electronic means. Before so authorizing, the court shall determine the
(a) Whether the information and communication system or other similar device was
necessity for such presentation and prescribe terms and conditions as may be
operated in a manner that did not affect the integrity of the electronic document, and
necessary under the circumstances, including the protection of the rights of the
there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the information and
parties and witnesses concerned.
communication system;
(b) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored by a party to the
proceedings with interest adverse to that of the party using it; or Section 2. Transcript of electronic testimony. – When examination of a witness is
(c) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored in the usual and done electronically, the entire proceedings, including the questions and answers,
ordinary course of business by a person who is not a party to the proceedings and shall be transcribed by a stenographer, stenotypist or other recorder authorized for
who did not act under the control of the party using it. the purpose, who shall certify as correct the transcript done by him. The transcript
should reflect the fact that the proceedings, either in whole or in part, had been
electronically recorded.
Rule 8
BUSINESS RECORDS AS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
Section 1. Inapplicability of the hearsay rule. – A memorandum, report, record or Section 3. Storage of electronic evidence. – The electronic evidence and recording
data compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by thereof as well as the stenographic notes shall form part of the record of the case.
electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from transmission Such transcript and recording shall be deemed prima facie evidence of such
or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular proceedings.
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 Rule 11
means, all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC, VIDEO, AND EPHEMERAL EVIDENCE
witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence. Section 1. Audio, video and similar evidence. – Audio, photographic and video
evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be
Section 2. Overcoming the presumption. – The presumption provided for in Section shown, presented or displayed to the court and shall be identified, explained or
1 of this Rule may be overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some other person
of information or the method or circumstances of the preparation, transmission or competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.
storage thereof.
Section 2. Ephemeral electronic communications. – Ephemeral electronic
Rule 9 communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the
METHOD OF PROOF same or has personal knowledge thereof. In the absence or unavailability of such
Section 1. Affidavit evidence. – All matters relating to the admissibility and witnesses, other competent evidence may be admitted.
evidentiary weight of an electronic document may be established by an affidavit A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral electronic communication
stating facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic shall be covered by the immediately preceding section.
records. The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to If the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in an electronic
document, then the provisions of Rule 5 shall apply. Q: What if I repeatedly write it?
Rule 12
EFFECTIVITY - Yes if parties intended it to be copies of the original
Section 1. Applicability to pending cases. – These Rules shall apply to cases  Regalado : Even if said signature on each copy was written through
pending after their effectivity.
separate acts or even separate occasions it would be more accurate to say
that all of the said copies are original, if each copy was intended as a
Section 2. Effectivity. – These Rules shall take effect on the first day of August 2001
repository the same legal act of the party thereto.
following their publication before the 20th of July 2001 in two newspapers of
general circulation in the Philippines.
Q: If data is stored in a computer how does that become an original?
Q: What is the Original Document Rule? - Pdf file of the deed of sale, an original document would be the printout or
other output readable by sight or other means which clearly reflect the data
- Sec. 3 of Rule 130
Q: What if word?
Q: In what way can the contents of a photograph be a subject of the inquiry?
- The same sir, it could be printed out to reflect the data accurately
- Example: in a murder case, a photograph is presented to show the location
of the parties in the crime scene, there can be an issue as to pieces of Q: Really? What if I have a docx and I print it?
evidence which was actually taken from the location…
- It must still be authenticated or proof that it’s not altered or its the final
file?
Q: So the photograph can have for its contents: objects, place, indication of lighting - It does not have the signatures yet so we can say that it does not reflect the
that portray or depict a crime scene? data accurately
- Yes Q: When can we say that a document is a counterpart of an original?
- duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the

Q: What is a original of a document? (under Sec. 4) original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including
enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording,
- Original is the document itself or any counterpart intended to have the or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which
same effect by a person executing or issuing it.
accurately reproduce the original.
- 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 Q: The law requires that the notary gets 2 copies and each party gets 1, the lawyer
accurately needs 1copy. We all need 5 copies. Now, we had 1 lacking copy. What can you do
right then and there to reproduce a counterpart?
Q: What do you mean by copy executed by the same person - Photocopy/take a picture
- It would be considered as duplicate of an original.
- Carbon copy.
- Sulat ka sa top, tatagos yun dun sa paper under the carbon paper Q: When can we not admit a duplicate?
- Via pen/typewriter
- Issue: authenticity - Court upon its discretion may choose not to if unjust or inequitable
- Inequitable
Q: is the inadmissibility a default under our rules? Q: Can a court admit it as proof of its contents
- Admissible as proof. A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an - YES, Toto referred to the definition of “duplicate”; “by means of
original photography”
Q: Going back to the “contract of sale” example photographed in Viber, would

Q: If there is a question as to authenticity of of the original, what happens?
it be considered as an original?
- Sec. 4c
- No, it would be considered as a duplicate
- Duplicate is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original
including enlargement and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-
recording or other equivalent techniques which ACCURATELY Q: How do you anticipate the genuine question part?
REPRODUCE THE ORIGINAL
- You satisfy the court that the original is indeed genuine
Q: Granting, is it admissible for purposes of authenticating the document?

Q: Excerpts of photos in Viber, went through electronic process, are considered
- It can still be authenticated because it has the weight similar to the original duplicate of the originals and may be the only evidence accessible to you.
document Granting that we set aside the matter of W/N the original is not available, then
- No need to present the original because the duplicate is as good as the the judge will tell you, do you have any other questions before the formal offer
original itself of evidence? (consider that the excerpts were considered as duplicates; name of
buyer/seller was bracketed as separate exhibits). Would that suffice for the
admissibility of the duplicate?
Q: So the court can admit those Viber photos? Your Honor these Viber pics
presented as a whole, 3 pages, presented as Exh. A, A-1, A-2, and have - Would suffice as long as the requisites of ODE are complied with (subject
prepared printouts which represent facsimile of screenshots and with of inquiry is the contents)
stipulation with adverse counsel that these are faithful reproductions of the - Photographs
particular pictures taken in the smartphone. Is it sufficient evidence because it
is a duplicate?
Q: Your client may be in danger because the “genuine question as to
- If the question is on the execution of the document, then it cannot be authenticity of the original” may be raised. What do you do in order to avoid
because the ODE is concerned only with the contents of the document but the problem in Sec. 4(c)?
NOT its execution
- Ex. Bracketed yung parties, present the one who took the photographs…
Would it be enough then?
Q: Are the contents of the photographs of the contract of sale (A… - Present integrity and reliability (relied on Sec. 2, Rule 5 of Rules on
bracket… ???) Electronic Evidence)
- May not if a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity
Answer: Lecture below
NOTE: definition of Authentication
The matter of establishing “that is indeed the document” is indeed under the ODE.
We present the original, and the original has many permutations. When you read the
Original of the document, it includes the duplicate.
Then again, recall that we took up authentication and proof of documents. In relation
to the Viber example, and assuming that is the only copy that exists, one thing that
the court would consider it, the question remains “was it executed by the parties”?
You have to present also the parties (ask whose signatures were done in the
photographs); If it is notarized, you also have to point that out to the court.
If there is a genuine question, note that the duplicate being considered as an original
is only Step 1 of W/N this was executed by the parties.
3rd meeting have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof
of its existence, he or she fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be
1. Original Document Rule presented as in the case of its loss. (6a)
Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. - When the subject of
inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph or other Sec. 7. Summaries. – When the contents of documents, records, photographs, or
record, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself, except in numerous accounts are voluminous and cannot be examined in court without great
the following cases: loss of time, and the fact sought to be established is only the general result of the
(a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without whole, the contents of such evidence may be presented in the form of a chart,
bad faith on the part of the offeror; summary, or calculation.
(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 The originals shall be available for examination or copying, or both, by the adverse
notice, or the original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures; party at a reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which court. (n)
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; (d)When the original
Sec. 8. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. — When
is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office;
the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
and (e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue. (3a)
public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public
officer in custody thereof. (7)
Sec. 4. Original of document. —
(a) An “original” of a document is the document itself or any counterpart intended to
Sec. 9. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. — A party who calls
have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An “original” of a
for the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as
photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data is stored in a
evidence. (8)
computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight or other
means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an “original.” Q: What is the original document rule?
(b) A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original,
or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and - When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing,
miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical recording, photograph or other record, no evidence is admissible
reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the other than the original document itself
original.
(c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine Q: Let’s say you have ITR, once filed with the BIR, it becomes a public
question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it document. This form can be downloaded from the internet, you print one form,
is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original fill it up, sign and then on the other hand, as your receiving copy, you have two
others but those are printed not from the printer attached to a computer but
printed from the Xerox machine. Now, let is say that the two photocopies are
2. Secondary Evidence
filled up with hand written entries. A person was subjected to a case for failure
Sec. 5. When original document is unavailable. – When the original document has to file. Lawyer wanted to present photocopies with the handwritten entries
been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its introduced by the accused TP. Is this particular tax return printed from
execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his or photocopy machine with handwriting of TP admissible?
her part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by recital of its contents in some
authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (5a) - Yes sir
Sec. 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. – If the Q: What is your reasoning?
document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party, he or she must
- One can argue that it is an original by saying that “it is intended to be - It is, even if unsigned.
a counterpart of an original
- You show that one who executed intended it to have the same effect as Q: I would grant you that. But is it the ITR contemplated under the law? Is it
an original. an original?
Q: How can you say that this particular ITR was as you’ve said intended to - No sir.
have the same effect by the person who is now on the witness stand?
Q: Is a duplicate always an original?
- First circumstance: TP filled it up once again, meaning he also signed
the ITR. - No, a “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the
original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including
Q: There is nothing in the problem indicating that he s igned. I only said he enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording,
filled it up with his own handwriting or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which
accurately reproduce the original.
- If it is not signed by the person who executed it, it is not considered as
an original Q: But section 4 (c) provides that a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as
an original. How do you reconcile?
Q: You’re saying that if not signed by the person who executed it, execution
means affixing signature. What if I tell you that’s a draft? - A duplicate then may be admissible as an original if that particular
document was intended to have the same effect
- The mere fact that he did not sign it, it means that he did not intend it
to be the same counterpart as an original. Q: But the thing there is you are talking about a counterpart; where can you
- There must therefore be a qualification that for a counterpart to be an find the counterpart? Is a counterpart an original per se or a duplicate?
original, the person executing it must have intended it to have the
same effect as the original Q: What is the difference between a counterpart vs. a duplicated potentially
can be admissible as if it were the original
Q: Why did you say that it is an original? Do not put any condition?
- Intent of the person making the document
- Filled up ITR sir is merely a secondary document
Q: Give an example
Q: But you said it’s original, I want you to justify. Unless you’re changing your
answer. - Original counterpart: employer having to file an ITR with the BIR, making
several copies as such; it is intended as original as to the
- The test would have to be the intention employer/employee/BIR
Q: How do you prove intent? Q: Are u talking about the ITR form not accomplished or not accomplished
- The mere fact that he filled up the form - accomplished
Q: Prosecutor could always argue that it is not a draft. Is it a document in the Q: The ITR has a particular form, it is printed out, and taxpayer fills it up,
first place? three of those are printed, then TP affix signature on each and every copy; is
the first copy first printed from the computer, would u agree with me, that Q: What is the rule when the original document is under the control of the
such, as printed, is an original adverse party
- Yes - If the document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party,
he or she must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice
Q: What if prior to filling up those ITR forms are photocopied and therefore and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he or she fails to produce the
they; TP fills up one of then and the others are filled up although unsigned they document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss.
constitute the same thing; are the two other copies which were printed not (6a)
through the computer but rather through photocopying, are they duplicates or
are they originals? Q: Summaries
- still original documents because in filling up that form, the person - When the contents of documents, records, photographs, or numerous
intended the document to have the same effect as the one printed; 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
Q: What can be the indication that it was intended by the person to give it the of the whole, the contents of such evidence may be presented in the form
same effect? If it is a case before the CTA and this person is being asked, you of a chart, summary, or calculation.
are the defense counsel, and you are presenting a tax return but forms are mere The originals shall be available for examination or copying, or both, by the
photocopies o f written entries ; you said that such is considered a counterpart? adverse party at a reasonable time and place. The court may order that
How will you do the Q and A to show that they were counterparts intended to they be produced in court. (n)
be same effect as the original
Q: Even if it has entries with the same handwriting as the accused, what needs Q: There is an action on the basis of a promissory notes: the defense during
to be established to show intention to have the same effect? it was not signed; so trial; the PNS were pre-marked, and therefore is now being presented in
how is it with the same effect? evidence by the plaintiff, among the issues; the defenses: 1. That he executed
the PN but the promissory note is different from the one being presented
- Must be signed also to be given same effect although its general terms and conditions were the same 2. Into so many
transactions, he had already paid the same loan covered by the PN. What was
Q: What if you are presenting a photocopy filled up; but for some reason, not
pre-marked during pre-trial was a simple photocopy (PN presented was merely
signed by the taxpayer; therefore, cannot be an original. Can u still use the ITR
a photo of every pagesent via whats app); even the purported signature was
to establish that the ITR was filed?
also a photocopy; as the plaintiffs counsel, right after he asked the plaintiff, is
- Resort to secondary evidence this the PNs u were talking about? Defense objection: the original is supposed
to be the best evidence; not original; will u sustain or deny the objection?
Q: what is the rule when original document is unavailable
- I will Sustain the objection based on the facts PN is merely a photocopy,
- When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be but before you present a photocopy, you must first prove that you’re
produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and unable to acquire the original copy of the promissory note. In this case,
the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his or her part, may there was no claim to be exempt from the original document.
prove its contents by a copy, or by recital of its contents in some authentic - mere photocopy; if the PN is with the adverse party, follow Section 6 Rule
document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (5a) 130; procedure not followed;
Q: Will your answer be different if you print out a jpeg copy produced via viber?
What if these pictures the once that you said which you call photocopies bear the
original signature of the defendant or an initial, with a date in his own handwriting,
the date being the same as the printed date in the promissory note
- sir it indicates that the photo through the application may be considered as
duplicate that would be admissible to the same strength as an original.
Q: Would your answer be the same if there is no date? You are the prosecutor
- Provision in section 4 states that the original must be accurately

represented. I would invoke that there’s a genuine issue on the
authenticity of the document
Q: Why was our questions useless?
- Best evidence rule would not apply because the issue is WON it has been
paid. The issue was not the contents of the PN
Q: degree of search
- High intensity search of the lost copy and recital of its contents in some
other document (wrong according to toto; q: why?)
- A: there is a question as to the authenticity of the document itself; The
objection should be overruled because there is no room for the best
evidence rule; because the subject of the inquiry is not the contents of the
PNS or we are talking about another note. The issue was the payment of
the note.
3. Parol Evidence Rule - Parties can stipulate any terms provided it’s not contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order and public policy
Sec. 10. 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 Q: We therefore adhere to the integrity of the contract?
there can be, as 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 - Yes. That’s why the law is “nagkukuripot” as to the exceptions.
present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if
he or she puts in issue in a verified pleading: Q: On the other hand, can evidence outside of the agreement still be presented?
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement; - Yes, provided that one of the four grounds is present. More importantly,
that such was placed in issue in a verified pleading.
(b)The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of
the parties thereto; Q: What do you mean by a verified pleading ?
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or - It is where the affiant signs or gives his oath that the contents of the
document or affidavit are true, based on his personal knowledge.
(d)The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest
after the execution of the written agreement. Q: If that is verified, and that verification is made part of the pleading, is that a
public document?
The term "agreement" includes wills
Q: What is the parol evidence rule? - Not necessarily. It’s a public document because oath was given by the
affiant.
- 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, as Q: Was it the oath? Because I can give an oath before Mr. Chan. Does that
between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such make my promise public document? What makes it a public document?
terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
- Intervention of a notary public.
Q: Is there an exception?
Q: In other words, let us say it is a complaint. It is a verified pleading. An
- However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the answer has a verification, and I will put into issue any of those enumerated
terms of the written agreement if he or she puts in issue in a verified under parol evidence rule. That verification and intervention by notary public,
pleading: which includes the affirmation of the notary public that was subscribed and
sworn to before it, is that prima facie evidence of execution of document? The
Q: What is the rationale behind the parol evidence rule? answer with verification is the document he speaks of. The verification per se .
Is that a public document?
- They want to give integrity to the written document. It is also labeled the
integration rule, because there is a presumption that the parties already - No.
intended to integrate the terms they wanted in the agreement
Q: Notwithstanding intervention of notary public?
Q: What’s autonomy of contracts?
- It is already considered a public document.
Q: The verification enjoys prima facie evidence of execution? - It constitutes a public document.
- Yes. Q: No. The probative value.
Q: Do you have your codal with you? We have to check if the verification also - It should be offered.
falls within Section 20, because if it is a verification, essentially, it is an
affidavit. From the word veritas , meaning truth. Does the verification contain Q: That will come later. You will have nothing to offer if you cannot answer my
an acknowledgement or jurat? question.
- It contains an acknowledgment. - The answer is that the affiant, he or she who presented the issue, must be
presented as witness . Otherwise, all of this will be hearsay . An affidavit
Q: Sure? Not a jurat? When there is a verification, I attest that I have read and can be considered as hearsay if u will not present the one who executed
understood, etc.— the affidavit.
- : Normally we expect the plaintiff or defendant to be placed in the witness
- It contains a jurat. stand because you will ask if he or she is the one who verified the
pleading. But, there are rare instances when the actual person was not
Q: Does the jurat enjoy the status of prima facie evidence as to execution under presented but another witness.
Section 30, Rule 132? Does word jurat even appear?
Q: What do you mean by mistake here in intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or
No. Jurat does not enjoy such a status.] imperfection in written agreement?
Q: What evidence? - Mistake referred to there should be one as a mistake of fact, not of law. In
addition, it must be a mutual mistake between the parties. It must also be
- Parol evidence.
proved by clear and convincing evidence.
Q: Not just that. Does the verification point to the allegations in the pleading?
Q: We go back. The verified pleading. A party may present evidence to modify,
- No. explain, or add to terms in written agreement, which he puts in issue in a
verified pleading. What does that tell you to what he or she is putting in issue?
Q: The verification does not point to the allegations in the pleading?! I have What must be done? Once the case enters trial?
read and understood, etc. and its allegations are true to my personal
knowledge. I attest to the authenticity of its annexes etc. If that’s the case, what - Evidence must be presented.
must be done if the verification is essentially an affidavit so that the party may
Q: Difference between jurat and acknowledgement?
prove intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, etc.?
- An acknowledgment certificate indicates that the signer:
- It must be duly acknowledged.
a) personally appeared before the Notary,
Q: No acknowledgment, right? A verified pleading is, in effect, an affidavit. b) was identified by the Notary, and
What is theprobative value of this verification together with the allegations in c) acknowledged to the Notary that the document was freely signed.
the pleading? - Jurat signifies that documents requiring a jurat must be signed in the
Notary’s presence
Q: You sued, plaintiff sells there’s intrinsic ambiguity in the contract. You have - It would only apply if the parties are parties to the written agreement
a verified pleading included is an affidavit of course. Before matter can be itself.
heard on notice, what is required? What is your relief?
Q: What if he stands to be benefited by the terms of the contract and he wants
- I will file for preliminary injunction and TRO. to introduce evidence collateral to the contract
Q: Therefore you must have a verified pleading for that. What is its probative - The parole evidence rule now applies. He must show that the
value? agreement they had is a collateral agreement and that the collateral
agreement did not contradict express provisions of the contract and
- No probative value unless affiant is presented as witness. that the collateral agreement was one that would not have been
ordinarily expected to be in writing.
Q: How come you’re saying that verification enjoys the presumption of validity
with respect to execution or that it’s prima facie evidence of the execution? Q: If collateral agreement applies, then parole evidence can be introduced to
Look at 132. vary or modify the terms that appear in writing in question?
- It contemplates acknowledgment. - Yes.
Q: What are the grounds that must be placed in issue? Q: But that would imply that you have already invoked the operation of the
parole evidence rule. Only that this is some sort of an exception
- (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement; - Yes
- (b)The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto; Q: You said collateral agreement is not inconsistent with the terms of contract.
- (c) The validity of the written agreement; or Let’s say we have a deed of sale for the purchase of a brand new vehicle. On or
- (d)The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors about the time of signing, there has been an executed, an after sales agreement.
in interest after the execution of the written agreement The vehicle was broken, and I presented the after sales agreement saying that
the car was a “lemon”. Would you sustain or overrule?
Q: What is that notarial act?
- Overruled since the after sales agreement can be considered as
- A jurat wherein it is provided that before the notary public, the person collateral contract to the main deed of sale.
presents competent evidence of his identity and subscribes and swears to
the contents of the document Q: Is it possible that an agreement is not a collateral and just an agreement that
happens to be just there
Q: What is the integration rule
- Yes sir.
- Whenever an agreement is placed in writing, it is assumed that whole
agreement is contained in that written agreement Q: What would be the basis for saying that it is a collateral contract that is
allowed to shed light?
Q: Stipulations affecting 3rd person, can the parole evidence rule apply?
- After sales service contract is not directly related to the deed of sale - I will, because there is an intrinsic ambiguity. These agreements are
itself, it could be argued that parties do not ordinarily stipulate such considered to have been made after the creation of the first agreement.
in the actual deed of sale.
- NOTE: “Shed light” should not be mentioned, that’s epal. Q: Your basis is time? Your reasoning will fall, because your determining
factor is time. Intrinsic ambiguity is given since that is the allegation. Now,
Q: Let us say, it was mentioned by Ms. Dayu, that the Parol Evidence Rule, the you’re saying since it was executed afterwards, you are allowing its intro to
rationale behind itis that the written agreement is deemed to be the repository evidence. Therefore, your determining factor is time. That it was afterwards.
of all that was agreed upon. It must have been considered as waived and Let us say you will allow its introduction just because it was after. What if the
abandoned, on matters not included therein. But there are documents which contract on the after sales service was executed before the deed of sale proper, in
are ancillary or related to a written document. In commerce, that usually effect a motivation with the sale in mind? Will your answer be the same? If it
happens more than often. What, then, is the rule? How do we deal with was prior in time?
collateral agreements?
- Well, if the basis is a timeline, then my answer will be different. But as to
- Jurisprudence has established that collateral agreements may be made. It the nature of the contract, it will still be the same.
should not be in any manner repugnant to the written agreements
themselves. It must be of such a character that is not ordinarily expected to Q: Will you stick to your answer, just because it was subsequent? Time is
be stipulated or reduced into writing by the parties. enough to justify the introduction of what is otherwise a collateral agreement?
Q: Let us say that there is a deed of sale between the car dealer and the buyer. - Not in itself, no.
There is another document which pertains to the sale, but it refers to after sales
service , such that it is an integral part of the overall business philosophy of the Q: What are you going to add, if any?
car dealer. When u buy the car, your relationship doesn't end, it simply begins
- There has to be the establishment that it is an ancillary agreement and no
because you have a partner, with respect to maintenance of the car. There is a
inconsistency.
question with respect to the written agreement, or the deed of sale itself. There
is an ambiguity there. Can you go to the after sales agreement for Q: If no inconsistency and they seem to dwell on the same subject matter, you
enlightenment with respect to certain provisions in the deed of sale proper? cannot introduce? But then again you can say that, for example, hindi namin ito
napagusapan.
- In that case, yes, because it is an integral part of the agreement itself even
if embodied in a different document. - Another factor can be control .
Q: But it refers to after sales service? Q: How can there be a continuing agreement with respect to the deed of sale?
The continuing would be the relationship between the parties as a marketing
- Then no. The general rule will apply.
tool, but the delivery and purchase price, after that, then that's that. If you are
Q: So your answer is that the party is not barred from presenting the after sales going to pay for it using financing from a bank, it is still a deed of sale. Chattel
contract for clarifying intrinsic ambiguity, etc. or failure to express intent of mortgage, only an owner can execute the chattel mortgage. What I'm looking
written parties? Will you allow, if you were the judge, the introduction to for is that if what you're saying is if they're dealing with the same subject
evidence of the after sales contract?” matter, then that's precisely the evil the parol evidence rule tries to avoid. I
agree with you that time is a factor, but I also agree with you that time is not
the only factor. If it is subsequent, what can be your reason? There are two
possibilities I can think of. Buzz words: S and N.
- It is subsequent and a novation .
Q: What is another subsequent? Because in the parol evidence rule, what are
we interested in?
- The terms of agreement.
Q: Let’s go to the graded part. When you say terms and they are subsequent,
and the terms are in the collateral agreement, they are what? Starts with S.
- Separable.
Q: What if there is, in a deed, there are two descriptions of what is deliverable.
One of them is rather incomplete and does not exactly capture the
specifications of the machine that is to be delivered. If there is a false
description, will this invalidate the contract?
- No. That in itself will not make the contract void. Falsa demonstratio non
nocet.
Q: Conditional agreement (BEFORE)
- not a part of a collateral matter.
Q: we go back to collateral agreement, remember that in section d “the word is

AFTER”
- yes not BEFORE THE AGREEMENT, not a prior agreement
Q: what kind of other collateral agreement?
- Subsequent and novates the original
Sir’s enumeration
1. Condition precedent
2. Separable
3. Novated
4. Not inconsistent
C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE (ii) Claimants through same deceased client. As to a communication relevant to
1. Qualification of Witnesses an issue between parties who claim through the same deceased client, regardless of
whether the claims are by testate or intestate or by inter vivos transaction;
Sec. 21. Witnesses; their qualifications. – All persons who can perceive, and (iii) Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As to a communication relevant to an
perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. (20a) issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her client, or by the client to his or her
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a lawyer; (iv) Document attested by the lawyer. As to a communication relevant to an
crime, unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification. issue concerning an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness; or
(20) (v) Joint clients. As to a communication relevant to a matter of common interest
between two or more clients if the communication was made by any of them to a
lawyer retained or consulted in common, when offered in an action between any of
[Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity.
the clients, unless they have expressly agreed otherwise.
(Deleted)]
(c) A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably believed by the patient to

Sec. 22. Testimony confined to personal knowledge. – A witness can testify only
be authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy cannot in a civil case,
to those facts which he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is, which
without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any confidential
are derived from his or her own perception. (36a)
communication made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s
physical, mental or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction,
Sec. 23. Disqualification by reason of marriage. – During their marriage, the between the patient and his or her physician or psychotherapist. This privilege also
husband or the wife cannot testify against the other without the consent of the applies to persons, including members of the patient’s family, who have participated
affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case in the diagnosis or treatment of the patient under the direction of the physician or
for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or psychotherapist.
ascendants. (22a)
A “psychotherapist” is:
Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communications. – The (a) A person licensed to practice medicine engaged in the diagnosis or treatment of a
following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following mental or emotional condition, or
cases: (b) A person licensed as a psychologist by the government while similarly engaged.
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined (d) A minister, priest or person reasonably believed to be so cannot, without the
without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by consent of the affected person, be examined as to any communication or confession
one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the made to or any advice given by him or her, in his or her professional character, in
other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest
latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. belongs.
(b)An attorney or person reasonably believed by the client to be licensed to (e) A public officer cannot be examined during or after his or her tenure as to
engage in the practice of law cannot, without the consent of the client, be examined communications made to him or her in official confidence, when the court finds that
as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. The communication shall remain
thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an privileged, even in the hands of a third person who may have obtained the
attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or other persons assisting the attorney be information, provided that the original parties to the communication took reasonable
examined without the consent of the client and his or her employer, concerning any precaution to protect its confidentiality
fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity, except in the
following cases:
(i) Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services or advice of the lawyer were 2. Testimonial Privilege
sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the
client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud;
Sec. 25. Parental and filial privilege. – No person shall be compelled to testify
against his or her parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct - I’ll say he is a crackpot. ANg angulo mo, crackpot siya, siya
descendants, except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against that argument niya religion. I’ll say he is delusional.
person or by one parent against the other. (25a)
Sec. 26. Privilege relating to trade secrets. – A person cannot be compelled to Q: But as you will recall, a person who may be mentally immature or
testify about any trade secret, unless the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or incapacitated are deemed to be competent witnesses in certain instances. What
otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is directed, the court shall take such will then milletate them from being a witness or conversely, what will justify
protective measure as the interest of the owner of the trade secret and of the parties them being witnesses?
and the furtherance of justice may require. (n)
- A person having a mental condition might still have been able to perceive
what he is testifying on and as long as he can intelligently communicate
Q: Who can be witnesses?
what he perceives to the court then he can still be a competent witness.
- Those who can perceive and can make known to others their perception.
Q: Let’s say in a particular case, the trial has started, the plaintiff has rested his
case, but he has noticed that in the course of trial, the exchanges have been
Q: Now, what about those persons who suffer from some form of mental
acervic (???). So the parties are making certain gestures. Come the time that
incapacity or immaturity. May they be witnesses?
the defendant is going to testify as he is called to the witness stand, the plaintiff
- General rule is yes, they can. objects to the presentation to the testimony of the defendant on the ground that
anything the defendant will say will be fully biased, because he is interested in
Q: What will be your justification for that? the outcome of the case. Will you sustain the objection of the plaintiff?
- Because the new revised rules removed the provision which disqualified - No, because under the Rules of Evidence, one may not be disqualified on
those suffering from mental illnesses and children. the ground that he may have a particular interest in the case
Q: Witness presented to you that would supposedly tell a narration of seeing Q: Is that rule always applicable?
the accused snatch a cellphone. You’re interviewing a witness. You’re the
prosecution. Witness keeps on saying he has recently seen, and while you’re - Sir, unless otherwise provided for by law.
talking, he keeps on saying he sees a tikbalang.
Q: Now, the oath as a pre-qualification for the witness to proceed with the
- Ask about what he saw, how was the snatching made? testimony -- is this requirement absolute?
- Establish elements of crime
- No, sir. The witness, if he does not want to make an oath, may make an
Q: If person is Quibuloy? AFFIRMATION.
- You can’t stop a person on the sole ground that he’s Quibuloy Q: What is the difference?
Religious belief not a ground for disqualification.
- An OATH is an outward promise to the Court that he will tell the truth
with regard to his testimony.
Q: As much as possible you do not want him to take the stand. It’s
normal, for your client, your client is the catholic
Q: Isn’t this the same definition as an AFFIRMATION? So what’s the
difference now?
- An OATH is a promise made verbally and you also ask God - or there is a Q: You’re familiar with article 36 of the family code. You would recall that
religious aspect. requisites would be (1) Grave (2) Incurrable (3) antecedence. Let’s say there’s
disqualification
Q: So, done verbally. Are you saying that a deaf-mute can’t make an OATH?
- Civil case against another
- Yes, a deaf-mute can, sir.
Q: So when I talk about disqualification by SPOUSAL IMMUNITY, is this sec.
Q: Oh, so what’s the difference? 23 or sec. 24.
- Sir, an OATH is done verbally and usually involves a promise to God. An - Sec. 23, sir. By reason of marriage.
AFFIRMATION is a declaration that you will tell the truth, but you will
not make a promise to death. Q: Let’s go to privileged communication. If there is SPOUSAL IMMUNITY,
there is also PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. What are the reqs so that the
Q: So an OATH has an appeal to a HIGHER BEING? So the court will be spousal privilege in this connection is applicable.
convinced that there is an inner compulsion to tell the truth by the witness.
- Requisites:
- Yes, sir. - 1. There must be valid marriage
- 2. Received in confidence
Q: In the rules, there are 2 disqualifications between husband and wife. What - 3. Received during the marriage
are those 2 and differentiate them.
Q: And the exceptions?
- So the two are:
- 1. By reason of marriage; and - Exceptions:
- 2. By reason of privileged communication that was taken during the - 1. Civil case filed by one against the other
marriage.For the FIRST one, this can only be invoked by the spouse in a - 2. Criminal cases committed by one against the other or the
case involving testifying against another spouse. On the other hand, the ascendants/descendants by the non-testifying spouse
SECOND involves an examination, so it’s not only a disqualified from - 3. When the other spouses consents or waives it.
testifying but also examining the spouses. And the other spouse need not - 4. When the information was also received from another person and not
be a party to the case. Another difference is that you can only invoke the directly received from the other spouse
FIRST one during the actual marriage; whereas in the SECOND one, you - 5. When the other spouse is already estranged
can invoke it during or after the marriage. - 6. Observations of specific acts and not direct communication
- 7. By its very character, it is not confidential (ex: quip or observation or
Q: You brought it up that under Sec 23, the disqualification is DURING THE overheard by a third person)
MARRIAGE? Sec 24, During or after marriage - 8. Dying Declaration for one spouse to another
- Sec 23 is concerned about PRESERVING marital relations or harmony of Q: What does this rule seek to protect?
their relationship
- Sec 24 : Privilege continues despite severance of the relationship. - The harmonious relationship between husband and wife to preserve
Information remains privileged. Focus is on the matter of communication marriage.
per se.
Q: Sec. 24 (a) is not the only matter in this section. What is the common thread Q: When are the instances where communication to a lawyer. How many types
with Sec. 24(a) are there? According to WON there is an atty-client
and the other subsections? - Course of

- View to
- It’s the confidence given to the one receiving the information.
Q: Rationale:
Q: What is the rule on privileged comms on atty-client?
- To protect client-free disclosure
- Cite Sec. 24 (b).
Q: You will prove or you will infer?
Q: And of course, there are exceptions under Sec. 24 (b), correct?
- Infer, sir.
- Yes, sir.
Q: But let us say that you were the other side and you wanted to say it IS
Q: I’m sure you are familiar that after the bar exams, a few of your friends will PRIVILEGED. How will you argue?
be hired as underbar associates. So let us say that underbar assoc A is in a
coffee shop and then he has some law books with him and a laptop and then he - That hiring the said underbar associate/firm is IMMATERIAL. I would
is approached by a certain person who converses with and then they talk of also say that the client reasonably believed to be an actual lawyer.
some sort of preliminary discussion on the legal needs of this client. But the
thing there is that the supposed client eventually hired another law firm. Then Q: So could be privileged because the underbar assoc is part of the law firm?
there was a case filed and the other party intends to present the testimony of
the underbar associate on that same conversation in that coffee shop. Is the - No, sir. I’ll point out that the client thought that the underbar assoc was an
communication privileged under Sec. 24 (b)? ACTUAL LAWYER, when he was NOT.
- It is NOT PRIVILEGED. I would argue that the client communicated the Q: And then, what's your other reason?
information to the underbar assoc without an intent to hire the said
- Sir, when the client communicated the information, the purpose of the
underbar assoc.
client was for future professional employment.
- Alternative answer: other persons assisting the attorney
Q: If the maker of the rules deemed it wise to include “with a view to
Q: How do you recon that with “view to”?
professional employment” in Sec. 24 (b), then there must be something here
- Privilege applies at time the communication was made. that may not be present in all other relationships. Who benefits from the
privilege here?
Q: With respect to other persons assisting. Is there a qualification?
- Client.
- Yes. Subject to the same restrictions
Q: Who can benefit?
Q: Is there an exception?
- Client.
- Consent of lawyer and client
Q: What then is the reason behind the privilege?
- Sir, it puts a more stringent requirement on the part of attorneys, because

they are considered officers of the court and they are set to another
standard to uphold.
Q: So if that's your reasoning, then it would just be because of the noble

character of being an attorney. What else could be the reason?
- To allow the client to have a more candid and free communication with
the lawyer.
SIR’S FINAL COMMENT: So it’s more on that, class. It’s so the client will feel
more free to share his/her problems to the lawyer without worrying about any
judgment
SESSION 4:MAY 27,2020 with the party. (29a)
RULE 130:
Continuation OF Sec 24-26 Sec. 31. Admission by conspirator. – The act or declaration of a conspirator in
furtherance of the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence
against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such
Rule 130 act of declaration. (30a)
3. Admissions and Confessions
Sec. 32. Admission by privies. – Where one derives title to property from another,
Sec. 27. Admission of a party. – The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a the latter’s act, declaration, or omission, in relation to the property, is evidence
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or her. (26a) against the former if done while the latter was holding the title. (31a)
Sec. 28. Offer of compromise not admissible. – In civil cases, an offer of Sec. 33. Admission by silence. – An act or declaration made in the presence and
compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act
against the offeror. or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when
proper and possible for him or her to do so, may be given in evidence against him or
Neither is evidence of conduct nor statements made in compromise negotiations her. (32a)
admissible, except evidence otherwise discoverable or offered for another purpose,
such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue Sec. 34. Confession. – The declaration of an accused acknowledging his or her guilt
delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution. In of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given
criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those in evidence against him or he
allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be Q: What is the rule on the privilege on the physician/psychotherapist? State the
received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. rule.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser - (c) A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably believed by the
offense is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. patient to be authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy cannot
Neither is any statement made in the course of plea bargaining with the prosecution,
in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any
which does not result in a plea of guilty or which results in a plea of guilty later
withdrawn, admissible. confidential communication made for the purpose of diagnosis or
treatment of the patient’s physical, mental or emotional condition,
An offer to pay, or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by including alcohol or drug addiction, between the patient and his or her
an injury, is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the physician or psychotherapist. This privilege also applies to persons,
injury. (27a) including members of the patient’s family, who have participated in the
diagnosis or treatment of the patient under the direction of the physician or
Sec. 29. Admission by third party. – The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by psychotherapist.
an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided. (28)
- Sec. 24(c), note buzz word “reasonably believed by the patient to be
Sec. 30. Admission by co-partner or agent. – The act or declaration of a partner or authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy”
agent authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or within
the scope of his or her authority, and during the existence of the partnership or - Privilege also applies to persons, including members of the patient’s
agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency family, who have participated in the diagnosis or treatment of the patient
is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the
act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested under the discretion of the physician or psychotherapist.
Q: Supposing a doctor was subpoenad in a particular case and the doctor is - Doctor will testify on things that are material to the civil aspect, and
being presented by the prosecutor for the purposes of proving that he dispensed the private prosecutor will do the examination?
medicine for the accused who is a machine operator in a factory, and it happens
that when he takes them, he becomes very sleepy or has an erratic behavior. Q: Why must there be a distinction between civil and criminal case?
Can the doctor testify? Accused is alive.
- Paramount public interest in a criminal prosecution. There was a
- In criminal cases, the rule does not apply. It only applies in civil cases. breach of peace.
- Yes the testimony can be allowed because this is a criminal case
Q: Who else can be included in the 2 nd sentence (above); can it extend to those
Q: What’s the reason for the rule? people who are not family members of the patient?
- To protect privacy and reputation of the person who made such - Assistant (?)
statement in confidence
- Doctor-patient confidentiality is based on the notion that a person Q: When the law says “psychotherapist” what does this mean?
shouldn't be worried about seeking medical treatment for fear that his
- It could either be “
or her condition will be disclosed to others. The objective of this
confidential relationship is to make patients feel comfortable enough (a) a person licensed to practice medicine engaged in the diagnosis or
providing any and all relevant information. treatment of a mental or emotional condition
Q: What if one presenting testimony is the private prosecutor? (b) a person licensed as a psychologist by the government while similarly
engaged
- Civil aspect is being prosecuted.
- I will sustain the objection. It only applies in civil cases, but the civil Q: Who are involved in (b)?
aspect in this case is just being prosecuted upon, but this is still a
CRIMINAL CASE. - Those regulated by the PRC (Philippine Regulatory Commission)
- Always use “every person criminally liable is civilly liable”
- Toto: Always use the sentence “Every person criminally liable is
civilly liable.” Therefore, the civil aspect is always incidental.
Q: He has been seeing a medical doctor and the medical doctor for some time
Q: Who will be the parties if this was a civil case? would prescribe to him certain medicine that would sometimes give him jerks
(involuntary movements). The theory of the prosecution is that the patient got
- Heirs v. Machine Operator addicted to this prescription. The patient got hit previously by a crane in a
particular construction site, the prosecution tried to establish the medical
Q: What if criminal? history by presenting the physician. Is that allowed? (sorry di ko nacatchyung
start ng facts)
- Heirs v. Machine Operator v. State (people)
Q: What would be your main argument?

Q: What if the defense counsel would say that judging from the offer of
- Privilege cannot be applied in a civil case
testimony of the physician, it appears that the physician’s testimony is zeroing
in on that particular history as it would cause particular damage to the other - Toto: Always use the sentence “Every person criminally liable is civilly
party. The testimony is geared towards the civil aspect of the case. What liable.” Therefore, the civil aspect is always incidental.
happens? The defense counsel objects to the testimony of the witness being
subject to disqualification under Sec. 24 after the testimony has been offered. Q: What if the testimony, let’s say the person testifying is a physician, also a
The judge will either sustain the objection or overrule the objection. If you civil case. An offer is made on the testimony of the doctor/physician. Upon
were the judge what would you do? offer, the lawyer who is going to present the doctor is going to say that the
doctor will simply IDENTIFY A MEDICAL ABSTRACT (a summary of the
- Overrule. As long as there is a criminal aspect involved, then it is not case of the patient once the patient is confined and treated in a hospital). The
covered under the privilege (under Sec. 24(c)). There is nothing in other party objects. Sec. 24 begins with “the following persons cannot testify”
particular in Sec. 24c but it emphasizes that the privilege will only apply which means it refers to testimonial evidence. How does it apply in this
when the case does not purely involve a civil case. situation given that the medical abstract is presented, which is a document?
Q: Does it say “purely”? - not covered by the privilege
- No sir, but… (restates Sec. 24c) - Sec. 24c involves confidential communication made for the purpose of
- Toto’s Point: “cannot in a civil case” diagnosis or treatment of the patient
Q: What if they say that if at all, the testimony of the witness should confine - It is covered under the privilege. The medical abstract, although
only to the criminal aspect but not to the civil aspect. What will be the ruling? documentary evidence, is used to corroborate (Corroborative)
- The privilege could not apply Q: So you’re saying that the disqualification will be applied?
Q: But almost nothing would be left with the testimony of the witness. Because - Yes
it sets the stage as basis for the damage. The person did not exercise care
because he was negligent. (before using the crane, he took the prescription
which made him do involuntary gestures or made him sleepy  accident) Q: It’s correct, but not exactly. There may be a better way. When you’re saying
corroborative, “this evidence is being presented right here right now and other
- in cases where a criminal aspect and civil aspect is involved, the privilege evidence is also presented.” What is a better answer?
cannot be claimed in a criminal case.
- Can be covered because the abstract needs to be also authenticated
Q: So that you will be happy, we will let the prosecutor conduct the direct and
be on top of the cross, re-direct and cross. Anyway the private prosecutor is - Since the medical abstract covers diagnosis of the patient, then it is
under supervision of the public prosecutor? covered under Sec. 24c
- Privilege still does not apply,the civil aspect is deemed instituted with Q: if there is a DQ under Sec. 24c, if rules have a verb indicating something to
the criminal case. not happen, what would it be?
Q: So for every criminal act, there is always a civil aspect, and that civil aspect - Action word: Testify!
is incidental in that case?
Q: “The following persons cannot testify.” There has to be a direct object, but
- Yes in this case it would have to be in a prepositional form to justify the answer.
Notwithstanding the fact that it’s documentary. Note, testify and the presence - EXCEPTIONS
of the medical abstract, justify why the medical abstract is covered under the - (1) Results of Raffle of Cases,
DQ. - (2) Actions taken by court on each case included in agenda of court
session,
- It may be documentary evidence but NECESSARILY, the physician - (3) Deliberations of Members in court sessions on cases and matters
pending before it
would have to TESTIFY ON WHAT IS THERE IN THE MEDICAL
- P + D Requirement - To qualify for protection under the Deliberative
ABSTRACT, which is PART of his TESTIMONY. Process Privilege, the agency must show that the document is both
pre-decisional and deliberative.
Q: Say the physician is called to testify on the fact that he recommended to the -
patient merely to take paracetamol in a civil case. Would you allow that? - • Pre-decisional – Precedes, in temporal sequence, the decision to
which it relates; made in attempt to make final decision
- No, the privilege extends to any matter or communication made in - • Deliberative – Whether disclosure of the information would
confidence discourage candid discussion within the agency
-
Q: But he’s still a doctor! What is the essence? What is the exception being Q: Requisites for presidential communications privilege
referred to here? (physician/psychotherapist)
- (1) The protected communication must relate to a quintessential and
non-delegable power
- BEST ANSWER: The recommendation to take paracetamol was not
- (2) The communication must be authored or solicited and received by
given in confidence or was not intended to be confidential. a close advisor of the President or the President himself.
- (3) The PCP remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a
- Exception being referred to: when the communication made is not showing of adequate need, such that the information sought likely
confidential in nature contains important evidence and by the unavailability of the
information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
- Sir: However there could be reasons that it couldn’t be allowed. We have - Operational Proximity Test – An advisor must be in operational
to look at the nature of the communication, the way it is made, the type of proximity with the President.
information sought to be established. - Exception to PCP – The 3rd requirement: If there is adequate need +
unavailability
Q: Executive privilege Q: Exchanges between president and the deputy executive secretary or the
assistant secretary?
- Deliberative Process privilege or Presidential Communications
privilege - Privilege still applies depending on the communication.
- Will he qualify? NOT IMMEDIATELY.
Q: Deliberation of SC en banc? - Operational proximity test should be applied
- Yes it is confidential Q: What questions should u ask

- As to Court Records:
- GR - In line with the public's constitutional right to information, the 1. What did you communicate?
Court has adopted a policy of transparency with respect to documents 2. What kind of communication
in its possession or custody, necessary to maintain the integrity of its 3. Is it available elsewhere
sworn duty to adjudicate justiciable disputes.
- Q: Unpack Sec. 24e and tell the requisites for the application of the privilege.
- Communication was made in official confidence 1. Involve matters of fact and not law
2. Categorical and definite
- Made to a public officer 3. Knowingly and voluntarily made
4. Adverse to the admitter’s interest
- Made during or after his tenure (scope) Admission Confession
Statement of fact Acknowledgement of guilt
- Court determines that public interest would suffer Express or tacit Express
May be made by a third party Made only but the party himself, and in
Q: Ex. In RoD, is the assistant registrar there covered under the code of ethics? some instances are admissible against
his co-accused
- Yes
Declaration Against Interest Admission
Q: What about bar examiner assistants? (Ass. II, Ass. III) is this a public Against the proprietary or pecuniary Made by the party himself and is a
official or employee? interest of party primary evidence and competent
though he be present in court and
- Yes ready to testify
Must have been made ante mortem Made at any time
Q: Is there any other requirement to determine whether Sec. 24(e) would Q: What is an admission? How does it related to res inter alios acta?
apply? 3rd requisite?
- GR: The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may
- Determination by the court that public interest would suffer be given in evidence against him or her. (26a)
Q: So can Rule 24(e) apply here? What is the test of confidentiality here? - RES INTER ALIOS ACTA: Not admissible
- That the communication was relayed to the public officer in the Q: Admission of a party is the same as admission of a third party? Are these
performance of his public duty concepts related in the first place?
Q: Yes, but what is the crux of the matter? Why is it confidential/why are we so - Res inter alios acta provides that the acts, declarations, omission of one
apprehensive of the disclosure? party cannot bind another.
- Because of the repercussions of the public disclosure - Another specie of res inter alios acta is propensity of evidence or evidence
that since one person did/did not do a certain thing is not admissible to
Q: what is the scope of journalist privilege? prove that he did/did not do a similar thing at another time.
- Newspaper journalists Q: T/F. An act, declaration or omission of a party may be given in evidence
against him or her.
Q: Only? Won’t it be considered in the nature of a trade secret? Because being
a journalist is also a profession and business. So what the Sotto Law has - False, it must pertain to a relevant fact
amended in Sec. 26 is a trade secret?
Q: What is this notion of adoptive admission?
NOTES:
 To be admissible admission must - This can be shown that the party adopts this admission as his own.
Q: what are the possible occurrences of this adoptive admission? QUASI- Compromise is allowed, no offer of settlement shall be
OFFENSES/ considered as an admission of guilt
- Oral statement made by another TAX CASES
Q: Rule on offer of compromise? (Sec. 28)
- Hears a statement and he repeats it afterwards
- Sec. 28, Rule 130
- He builds an assertion toward another
- Civil cases: offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability
- Or he replies by way of rebuttal to some specific points and leaves other against the party, also known as the offeror neither is evidence of conduct
points nor statements made in compromise.
Q: Operator of vehicle charged because driver hit a pedestrian. Case is for criminal o EXCEPTION:
negligence, eventually it became homicide. Before filing of the case, the following
happened (1) operator paid (2) paid for funeral expenses (3) paid for tuition of child o proving bias or prejudice of a witness
(4) Medical outreach was paid for in honor of the old lady. Which can be used in
admissible as evidence o negativing a contention of undue delay; or
- Good samaritan doctrine’s rationale according to regalado : humanitarian o proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation
acts or charitable responses should be encouraged and rewarded, instead of
discouraged or penalized Q: In civil cases, GR evidence of conduct or statements made for
- Woman was rushed and the driver paid hospital Bills. - inadmissible under negotiations/compromise, they are not admissible except if offered for another
-GSR purpose (above). Aside from this, is there another characteristic/form/instance
- Also paid for funeral expenses - inadmissible under -GSR where such evidence may be admissible?
- Paid for tuition of the child of the old woman- admissible daw pag grade 1
namatay, grade 5 nagbayad - If it is “otherwise discoverable”
- The operator of the vehicle also spent for the medical outreach in honor of
the old lady. - admissible. But is it relevant? NOT REALLY Q: What is the rule with respect to criminal cases?
-
- Criminal cases: except those involving quasi-offenses or those allowed by
law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be
NOTES:
SUMMARY: RULE ON OFFER OF COMPROMISE received in evidence as implied admission of guilt
CIVIL GR Not a tacit XPN:
admission of liability - Evidence: clearly not only Q: What about plea of guilt?
to buy peace
CRIMINAL Implied admission of XPN: - In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal
guilt - Accused may be permitted negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of
to prove that offer was not compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied
EX: made under the admission of guilt.
 Offer of consciousness of guilt but - A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty
compromise in only to avoid risk of
to a lesser offense is not admissible in evidence against the accused who
rape cases criminal action
made the plea or offer.
- Neither is any statement made in the course of plea bargaining with the participation in the offense
prosecution, which does not result in a plea of guilty or which results in a
plea of guilty later withdrawn, admissible. Admission by privies
1. Relation of privity between party and declarant
Q: What is the good Samaritan rule? 2. Admission made by the declarant as predecessor in interest while holding
title to property
- Offer to pay or the payment of medical hospital or other expenses 3. Admission is in relation to property
occasioned by an injury, is not admissible in evidence as proof of CIVIL
or CRIMINAL liability for the injury Admission by silence
1. Must have heard or observed the act or declaration of a person
- Good samaritan doctrine’s rationale according to regalado : humanitarian 2. Opportunity to deny it
3. Understood the statement
acts or charitable responses should be encouraged and rewarded, instead of 4. Interest to object, such that he would naturally have done so if the
discouraged or penalized statement was not true
5. Facts were within his knowledge
Q: what are the acts occasioned? 6. Fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from silence is material to the
issue
- (1) offer to pay (2) payment
Admissibility of extra-judicial confession
NOTES 1. Involves an express or categorical acknowledgement of guilt
Requisites table: 2. Facts admitted is constitutive of a criminal offense
Admission by the third party 3. Confession intelligently made
1. Partnership, agency or joint interest is established by evidence other than 4. No violation of Sec 12 of the Bill of rights
that act or declaration
2. Act or declaration is within the scope of the partnership, agency or joint GR; Extrajudicial confession of an accused is only binding upon himself and is
interest not admissible against his co-accused
3. Such act/declaration must have been made during the existence of the
partnership, agency or joint interest XPN:
1. Latter impliedly acquiesced in or adopted said confession by not
Admission by a conspirator questioning its truthfulness
1. Conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde 2. Accused persons voluntarily and independently executed identical
2. Admission was made during the existence of conspiracy confessions without conclusion (interlocking confessions)
3. The admission relates to conspiracy itself 3. Accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after being appraised
of such confession
GR: Extra-judicial admissions made by a conspirator after the conspiracy had 4. Charged as co-conspirator of the crime which was confessed by one of the
terminated and even before trial are also not admissible against the co-conspirator accused and said confession is used only as corroborating evidence
XPN 5. Confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of
1. Made in the presence of the latter who expressly or impliedly agreed participation by the co-conspirator
therein 6. Confessant testified for his co-defendant
2. Fact in said admission are confirmed in the individual extrajudicial 7. Co-conspirators extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other
confessions made by co-conspirators after their apprehension evidence of record
3. Circumstances to determine the credibility of the witness Q: Rule on admission of a co-conspirator?
4. Circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the latter’s
- The act or declaration of a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy and - Admission – ADO of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in
during its existence may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator evidence against him/her
after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of - Confession – declaration of an accused acknowledging his/her guilt of the
declaration. offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be
given in evidence against him/her
Q: What is the rule with respect to admission by silence?
- An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or

observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or Q: Extrajudicial confession refers to other companions in the conspiracy
declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, (consider that the act of one is the act of all). What is the rule?
and when proper and possible for him or her to do so, may be given in
evidence against him or her. - Confession of the co-conspirator only applies to the person confessing
unless it was offered as evidence
Q: Rule on admission by a co-partner or agent?
- An extrajudicial confession cannot be utilized unless it was made in open
- The act or declaration of a partner or agent authorized by the party to court or cross examination
make a statement concerning the subject, or within the scope of his or her
authority, and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be
given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is
shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule
applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other
person jointly interested with the party.
Q: Selling of partnership property
- Claiming that a valid sale has been made

- SPA/ Reliance
- Partners are agents of each other
- Isolated transactions requires SPA
Q: How about rule on confession?
- The declaration of an accused acknowledging his or her guilt of the

offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be
given in evidence against him or her
- Toto: “authorized to make a statement”
Q: what is the difference between a confession and an admission?
4. Previous Conduct As Evidence
Sec. 35. Similar acts as evidence. – Evidence that one did or did not do a certain
thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he or she did or did not do the same
or similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or
knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.
(34a)
Sec. 36. Unaccepted offer. – An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money
or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected without
valid cause, equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money, instrument,
or property. (35)
Q: What is the rule on propensity evidence?
- Sec. 35
- Propensity evidence – evidence that would tend to show that an act done at
one time could have been also done in a different time
- Not admissible to prove that he or she did or did not do the same or similar
thing at another time.
- But it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity,

plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like
Q: Can you give an example of how this specie operates?
- Example from Regalado : previous act of negligence like selling

barium chlorate instead of potassium chlorate admissible to show
knowledge or intent
Q: Legal effect of an unaccepted offer?
- equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or

property
7. Opinion Rule Q: Then? Court receives the evidence, what would their concern be?
Sec. 51. General rule. – The opinion of a witness is not admissible, except as - The Fact in Issue.
indicated in the following sections. (48)
- Toto: The court is interested in facts! Not opinions!
Sec. 52. Opinion of expert witness. – The opinion of a witness on a matter
requiring special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, which he or she Q: What is the rule on the opinion of expert witness?
is shown to possess, may be received in evidence. (49a)
- The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,
Sec. 53. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. – The opinion of a witness, for which experience, training or education, which he or she is shown to possess,
proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding – (a) The identity of a may be received in evidence.
person about whom he or she has adequate knowledge;
(b)A handwriting with which he or she has sufficient familiarity; and Q: Supposing you are to present a handwriting expert, can you give us an
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he or she is sufficiently acquainted. outline of his testimony via bullet points such that it will comply with Sec. 52
The witness may also testify on his or her impressions of the emotion, behavior,
and it will not meet any obstacle with regard to Sec. 51. (State the purpose; give
condition or appearance of a person. (50a)
Q: What is the opinion rule, in general? What is the reason behind this rule? an outline of testimony)
- The reason for this rule is to limit the testimony or statements of persons - Toto: Handwriting expert is different from expert on someone’s
to testify on matters which they perceive or capable of perceiving to others handwriting
- Toto’s preferred answer: the opinion rule - I’m going to present Mr. Barron as an expert witness to testify as to the ff.
Q: how is the general rule worded? o That the witness has sufficient and long experience in
handwriting
- Opinion of a witness is not admissible
o Has been in the profession for 10 years
- Toto: so it’s kind of exclusionary
o Has testified as expert witness in other cases already in our
Q: Then state the rule. jurisdiction
- A witness can testify only to those facts which he or she knows of his or o He identified that the handwriting issue
her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his or her own
perception. o Mr. Barron is presently a handwriting expert connected with
NBI/CIDG/CIS
Q: What is more basic than Sec. 22 of Rule 130? Why must an opinion be
generally not admissible? Your Sec. 22 is in equal footing with Sec. 51. Where o “other documents” – Toto: what is this called? (????? Di raw
did all this come from? corroborative or documentary eventually this is referred to as
Specimen)
- Sec. 1 of Rule 128: Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact o “VAGUE!”
Q: In what way are you complying with Sec. 52? - That this is authentic
- Offering a witness to testify on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, - That this is for comparison
experience, training, or education (SK-SETE)
Q: what should be the standard for comparison? What is the fact in issue that
Q: But what is lacking in the answer? What must be established? Buzz word? you want to prove?
- That the expert witness possesses SK-SETE - With respect to the handwriting: that it is not forged and is actually made
by the person
- So you are showing that he/she possesses SK-SETE
- The handwriting expert looks at the strokes of the handwriting
Q: Wil you present only one document? No, you will also present other documents,
right? What do you call these other documents, such that they will qualify as the Q: For a particular document OTHER than the specimen signature in question,
proper manifestation that Mr. Barron indeed has the skill? what should you call these documents?
- Documentary evidence of other original documents that would possibly be - Letter of correspondence
handwriting or signatures of the other person
- That the documents are uncontested
- Also present that Mr. Barron has examined other docs or signatures…
- Answer: The documents should be CONTEMPORANEOUS.
Q: What kind of signature?
- Toto: Contemporaneous – made within the same time (ex. maybe 6
- Specimen months before, 6 months after; or even 1 yr before/after)
Q: what is the rule on the opinion of an ordinary witness?
Q: Specimen then contains what? What are those documents containing - The opinion of a witness, for which proper basis is given, may be received
specimens such as signatures? in evidence regarding:
- Contracts, wills, correspondence, demand letters, personal diary, notes o Identity of a person about whom he or she has adequate
knowledge
Q: Do you agree that Mr. Barron will testify to certain docs?
o Handwriting with which he or she has sufficient familiarity
- Yes
o Mental sanity of a person with whom he or she is sufficiently
Q: Do you agree that he will testify as to “other docs” (checks, etc.) acquainted
- Yes o The witness may also testify on his or her impressions of the
emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person
Q: How are you going to convince the court that Mr. Barron indeed exemplifies
that knowledge or experience?
Q: CASE: CRIM: FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENT (holographic will for
inter vivos probate) Zeke is the driver inserted legacies in my favor!

Hahahaha. Detrimental to the legitime of the compulsory heirs. Ms. Chang
handwriting expert
- Buzz words: Competence

- Where do you work? What is your title there? How long have you been at
that job? What are some of your duties at that place of employment?
Where did you attend school? What degrees do you possess? Have you
given any lectures? Are you a member of any professional associations?
Have you received any honors or awards? Did you specialize in any
particular field? Do you have a resume? (admit resume into evidence)
What specific training do you have in the area of your specialty? Do you
have any publications or research? What licenses do you possess? How
long have you had those licenses? Do you have any board certifications?
June 1, 2020 - Hearsay is a stament (1) declarant does not use in hearing or trial (2)
Offered to prove something
Sec. 37. Hearsay. – Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant Q: Are statements not considered as hearsay considered exceptions to the
while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted hearsay rule?
therein. A statement is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) a non-verbal conduct of
a person, if it is intended by him or her as an assertion. Hearsay evidence is - No
inadmissible except as otherwise provided in these Rules.
A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is Q: If they are different , What are statements not hearsay
subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is
(a) inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and was given under oath subject to - Par 2 of section 37 if declarant testifies at trial and hearing and is subject
the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition;
to examination.
(b) consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or
implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or - a) inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and was given under oath
motive; or subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or
(c) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her. (n) in a deposition;
Q: What is hearsay? - (b) consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an
express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or
- Hearsay means a statement other than one made by the declarant while improper influence or motive; or
testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts - (c) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her
asserted therein
- Toto: “other than the one made by the declarant at the time while Q: What is that type of statement? So that it is easy for us to consider it? In
testifying at a trial or hearing” such a case, upon consideration of a hearsay statement where do you find the
declarant?
Q: At its most basic what is its genus?
- Out of court
- Statement
Q: How do you know that declarant has made a stament which may “may be
Q: How does the rules and your materials define statement? considered as hearsay”?
1. Oral or written conduct - Sir for example there’s documentary evidence (TOTO: VAGUE)
2. Non-verbal conduct
Q: How do you become aware at the first instance that it is hearsay? By the
Q: if a statement is the atom of what constitutes hearsay, how do you define a way what do you call that statement of the various permutations under sec 37?
declarant?
- Out of court prior statement or simply prior statement
- Person who made the statement
Q: If that is the case, you are representing one of the parties in the case and
Q: What then, if you are to consider it as a statement made by the declarant, we trial is on going, how do you know that there’s a prior statement
now expand the meaning of hearsay. You have section 37, my problem is that it
does not make for easy reading. It has essentially two elements, in that regard - Present the witness and the witness testifies
how do you define it as a statement?
Q: There are three permutations in sec 37. Outline these particular species of (Sir: You’re telling me that his defense was he paid, why are you
prior statements impugning?)
- Sir, because his statement is that he paid. (sir: That statement is being
- a) inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and was given under oath challenged as fabricated and then what is being offered is the testimony of
subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or this person or his affidavit to rebut, so who will offer?)
in a deposition; - The declarant, to rebut evidence offered to him or her (Sir: what part of
- (b) consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an trial are you cross examining?)
express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or - Sir in redirect, the defendant will offer the affidavit and tell the court that
improper influence or motive; or there’s this affidavit proving that the person actually paid.
- (c) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her
Q: Why do you think that from the vantage point of a person who approaches
the statement and more particularly the matter asserted in the statement as Q: It is being proposed that his explanation that item b of section 37 can be
candidate for hearsay, why do you think that in all of these cases, they are not lived out in this example of his. Depict to the class the redirect so we test if his
considered as hearsay? example is an accurate representation of item b. start with this animal called
express or implied charge
- The purpose of the hearsay rule is to give the other party an opportunity
for cross examination but this is only applicable if certain considerations, - He is the defendant, he would ask what the plaintiff is saying about the
provided in these paragraphs are made. loan obligation . We’re concerned in the charge that he is fabricating the
- For example, in (a), the rule did not include those testimonies which is statement that he has paid
CONSISTENT it would flood the court with repetitive evidence
Q: what if any can you say about that?
Q: Give an example of B. Give an example of a witness in a current trial
- My client is about to present something is not hearsay
- Civil case between two parties for an action for specific for collection of - Objection, hearsay. Anyway, he can do a recross
sum of money.
- Declarant is the defendant, he testifies that he and plaintiff actually met Q: Give me an example of letter a
and he actually paid and gave the payment and he even got a receipt
(Sir:That’s a defense) - Case of estafa wherein the accused was called to the stand and then he
- The statement is that he actually paid the loan (SIR: That’s a mere testified that the accused was in Makati at 8pm. Complainant claims that
statement) he personally met with the accused.
- Sir, in that testimony he said that prior to these case, he actually executed - Complainant claims that he actually met with accused at Paranque.
an affidavit supporting his claim that he actually met the plaintiff in - There’s another tsn and in that trial, Mr.Infante testified that he was
paying his loan obligation. So in that case sir. (Sir: then I just present the actually in Rockwell
affidavit, why would you execute that? That’s crazy I will not allow my
Q: if you offer to the court this statement and you want this witness to say that
client to do that superfluity)
he actually made his testimony which is a tsn? can you not ask the court to take
- The execution of the affidavit relates to a case wherein plaintiff is not a
judicial notice?
party. (Sir: why is this not correct?)
- Sir because it must be offered to rebut an express or implied charge
against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.
- A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, of unsound mind, any statement of the deceased or the person of unsound mind, may
or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to be received in evidence if the statement was made upon the personal knowledge of
judges because of their judicial functions the deceased or the person of unsound mind at a time when the matter had been
recently perceived by him or her and while his or her recollection was clear. Such
Q: You are the counsel, how do you go about this particular tsn introduced in statement, however, is inadmissible if made under circumstances indicating its lack
of trustworthiness. (23a)
evidence to establish that accused was not telling the truth?
Sec. 40. Declaration against interest. – The declaration made by a person deceased
or unable to testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the
- Cross examining prosecutor will now attempt to present this affidavit declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to the declarant's own interest
that a reasonable person in his or her position would not have made the declaration
Q: How do you conduct the cross to establish inconsistency? unless he or she believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against himself
or herself or his or her successors in interest and against third persons. A statement
- Is it true that according to your testimony in the direct examination, you tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the
said that on January 10 at 8 pm you were in Rockwell Makati? accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the
- However according to this TSN you said in a testimony in a robbery case trustworthiness of the statement. (38a)
that on the same date and at the same time you were actually in Sucat
Paranaque. (ask him to identify the tsn) Sec. 41. Act or declaration about pedigree. – The act or declaration of a person
- Are you the same Mr.Infante accused therein and quoted in this tsn? 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
Q: Can you identify participation via tsn? I’m the defense counsel, I’d say
information concerning his or her pedigree, may be received in evidence where it
hearsay occurred before the controversy, and the relationship between the two persons is
shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The word "pedigree" includes
- TSN should not be considered hearsay because it was a testimony given relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places
under oath in a court proceeding regarding a robbery case against him. where these facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of
Contents therein are currently inconsistent with his present testimony family history intimately connected with pedigree. (39a)
Q: I say your honor so what, we’re not a privy to that case? Sec. 42. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. — The reputation or
tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree
- TSN says and as Mr.Infante just stated, he was the same Mr.Infante in the of any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying
same case. 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 portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree. (40a)
6. Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule
Sec. 38. Dying declaration. – The declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his or Sec. 43. Common reputation. — Common reputation existing previous to the
her death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding controversy, as to boundaries of or customs affecting lands in the community and
circumstances of such death. (37a) 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)
Sec. 39. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind. – In an action against
an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against Sec. 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
a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such
deceased person or against such person of unsound mind, where a party or assignor 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
of a party or a person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted testifies on a matter of
fact occurring before the death of the deceased person or before the person became accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance, may be received as part of the res gestae. (42a) justice will be best served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a
statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent makes
Sec. 45. Records of regularly conducted business activity. – A memorandum, known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the hearing, or by the pre-trial
report, record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, Q: What is a dying declaration?
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 - The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an
thereof, and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such impending death, may be received in any case wherein his or her death is
was the regular practice to make the memorandum, report, record, or data the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding
compilation by electronic, optical or similar means, all of which are shown by the circumstances of such death. (37a)
testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on
hearsay evidence. (43a)
Q: Let’s say a person is a victim of a stabbing incident. Person was mortally hit, hit
on the chest. He made a statement, he had a conversation with the attending nurse
Sec. 46. Entries in official records. – Entries in official records made in the
performance of his or her duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person after he was rushed in the hospital at the third day since the stabbing, he said Pedro
in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of was the one who stabbed me. After two days more, he passed away, is this statement
the facts therein stated. (44a) to the nurse admissible as a dying declaration?
Sec. 47. Commercial lists and the like. – Evidence of statements of matters of - Yes because the test to admit a dying declaration is the belief of his
interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, impending death, not really the time.
or other published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any
relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged Q: As long as he believes he will die, let’s say one month has passed since incident
in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein. (45) and he dies?
Sec. 48. Learned treatises. – A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a - No sir

subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a
matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the Q: What if he made the declaration to his spouse on the second, on the third day, he
subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or died.
pamphlet is recognized in his or her profession or calling as expert in the subject.
(46a)
- Information is not privilege albeit given to the wife.
Sec. 49. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. – The testimony or Q: what is independently relevant statements
deposition of a witness deceased or out of the Philippines or who cannot, with due
diligence, be found therein, or is unavailable or otherwise unable to testify, given in
- are statements that are admissible for some relevant reason independent of
a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties
and subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the their truth or falsity
opportunity to cross-examine him or her. (47a)
Q: Classes of independently relevant statements from your readings
Sec. 50. Residual exception. – A statement not specifically covered by any of the
foregoing exceptions, having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of - Two Classes of Independently Relevant Statements 1. Those statement s
trustworthiness, is admissible if the court determines that (a) the statement is offered which are the very fact in issue 2. Those statements which are
as evidence of a material fact; (b) the statement is more probative on the point for circumstantial evidence of the fact in issue.
which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through - TWO CLASSES OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS
reasonable efforts; and (c) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of - o The first class includes
- ▪ Statements which are the very facts in issue - Statement must have color of trustworthiness
- ▪ Statements which are circumstantial evidence of the fact in
- issue Q: What is the requirement?
- o The second class includes
- ▪ Statements of a person showing his state of mind, mental - Statement was made upon the personal knowledge of the deceased when
- condition, knowledge, belief, intention, ill- will and other the matter was recently perceived and his recollection was clear
- emotions
Q: Example of what Ms. Medel has mentioned?
- ▪ Statements of a person which shows his physical condition
- ▪ Statements of a person from which an inference may be - Mr.Infante told Ms.Chang that he had a loan with Mr.Capacite
- made as to the state of mind of another - This is a claim that survives. They are claiming against Mr.Capacite.
- ▪ Statements which may identify the date, place and person in - When did Mr. Infante say that he is indebted
- question
- ▪ Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness Q: Rule on declaration against interest
Q: What was erstwhile called the dead man’s statute? - The declaration made by a person deceased or unable to testify against the
interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the
- Section 39. time it was made so far contrary to the declarant's own interest that a
- DEAD MAN’S STATUTE reasonable person in his or her position would not have made the
- o Can the dead man’s statute be used as a bar to the admission of declaration unless he or she believed it to be true, may be received in
evidence? Yes evidence against himself or herself or his or her successors in interest and
- o What kind of evidence? Testimonial evidence against third persons. A statement tending to expose the declarant to
- o But in this case, what was sought to be president was documentary criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible
evidence. unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of
- o Under the dead man’s statute, what does “assignor” mean? What is the statement. (38a)
usually assigned? Incorporeal rights like credits, entitlement, shares of
stock. Q: What kinds of interest known to be subject of such ?
- ▪ An example of an assignor to the party in the case would be
- A assigning a promissory note to B made by X. So B can go against X. - With the deletion of the phrase "pecuniary or moral interest" from the
- • WHAT IF THE ONLY WITNESS IS THE EXECUTOR, WHAT CAN present provision, it is safe to assume that "declaration against interest"
- YOU DO? Since there are checks to be presented, it is documentary has been expanded to include all kinds of interest, that is, pecuniary,
evidence offered and any testimony affirming the EXISTENCE of the proprietary, moral or even penal.
document is NOT covered by the prohibition
- o Example? You say that the purpose of the testimony is to identify the Q: The other counsel was saying no, exception cannot apply because witness is not
checks that I found in the locker, but don’t say that these checks are interested in the case because he is not a party
executed etc (the fact occurring). Testify only as to the EXISTENCE of
the checks. - Could still be admissible
- The theory under which declarations against interest are received in
Q: How do you justify this? evidence notwithstanding they are hearsay is that the necessity of the
occasion renders the reception of such evidence advisable and, further that
the reliability of such declaration asserts facts which are against his own - Sec. 22. Testimony confined to personal knowledge. – A witness can
pecuniary or moral interest. testify only to those facts which he or she knows of his or her personal
- Declaration against interest applies even if the party is not a party to the knowledge; that is, which are derived from his or her own perception.
case, admission only, is only applicable against the party making the (36a)
declaration. - Sec. 21. Witnesses; their qualifications. – All persons who can perceive,
and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be
Q: What is the res gestae rule witnesses. (20a)
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or
- Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a
or immediately prior or subsequent thereto, under the stress of excitement ground for disqualification. (20)
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 Q: What cements that is an oath right?
significance, may be received as part of the res gestae
- Yes
Q: Res Gestae v. Dying declaration
Q: Example: Res gestae
- Person who is making the statement, for res gestae it can be anyone but
dying declaration, it’s the person who eventually dies (the victim) - Ms Chang is running, claiming that she was being chased
- Equivocal act is running.
Q: What about the accused?
Q: What gives them credence? In res geste what speaks to the court?
- Yes
- That statement was made immediately
Q: Dying declaration what’s the buzzword? - Startling occurrence/ event
- Belief of impending death Q: is pedigree are they the same as common reputation?
Q: in res gestae, what’s the source of trustworthiness - No sir.
- Startling occurrence / spontaneity Q: How do we distinguishe between the two
Q: It seems that when there’s testimony, when you say that when we consider what - Pedigree: made by the deceased or person unable to testify. Act may also
is hearsay, we have to be clear, what is a general norm? be made by a member of the familu
- Common reputation, it is about the boundaries or customs
- Competence and clarity - for sec 41/42 declarant is unavailable
- for sec 43 common reputation declarant is the witness itself
Q: What is competent
- Not excluded by the rules

- He must have personal knowledge Q:Can you use pedigree to establish age?
- Yes in the case of People v. Alegado

- Pedigree includes relationship, marriage, birth, family genealogy, death,
the dates when and the places where these facts occurred and the name of
the relatives. Declarations in regard to pedigree, although hearsay, are
admitted on the principle that they are natural expressions of persons who
must know the truth (See Sec. 33, Rule 130 Revised Rules of Court now
Sec. 39, Rule 130 under the new Rules). Pedigree testimony is admitted
because it is the best that the nature of the case admits and because greater
evil might arise from the rejection of such proof than from its admission
- Ms.Ybanez you’re the mother of Mr.Cruz, Mr.Cruz said there was no
record of birth certificate, how do you know that that is his age? What
proof if any do you have of his age?
- Evidence to use: Family album, school records, etc.
8. Character Evidence - According to The Notes of the advisory committee in Rule 406 of FRE,
Sec. 54. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions. – Evidence of a character is a generalized description of one’s disposition, or of one’s
person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving disposition in respect to a general trait such as honesty, temperance or
action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: peacefulness
(a) In Criminal Cases:
GR: a person’s character or trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of
(1) The character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion
reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
XPN:
(2) The accused may prove his or her good moral character, pertinent to the moral
trait involved in the offense charged. However, the prosecution may not prove his or CHARACTER WHEN TO ADMIT
her bad moral character unless on rebuttal. OF
Criminal Case Offended Party if it tends to establish in any reasonable

(b) In Civil Cases: degree the probability or improbability of
the offense charged.
Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case is admissible only when
pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. Accused His or her good moral character, pertinent
to the moral trait involved in the offense
(c) In Criminal and Civil Cases: charged.
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character However, the prosecution may not prove
has been impeached. his or her bad moral character unless on
rebuttal.
In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is
admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in Civil Cases Offended Party or Only when pertinent to the issue of
the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant Accused character involved in the case
specific instances of conduct. i.e. case of fraud
In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential Criminal and Witness Not admissible until such character has
element of a charge, claim or defense, proof may also be made of specific Civil Cases been impeached
instances of that person’s conduct. (51a; 14, Rule 132)
Sec. 54. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions. –
Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the

purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion,
Notes:
 As found in Rule 404 of FRE, the general rule is that evidence of a person’s
character or trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion, the
SEC 54 (Just my own notes because I’ll be reciting)
person acted in accordance with the character or trait
PRELIMINARIES
What is character?  Rationale: Trial would have the aspect of a popularity contest rather than a
- Possession of certain qualities of mind and morals that distinguish one factual inquiry of the merits of the case.
from the others  According to the notes of the advisory committee on Rule 404 of FRE:
character evidence is of slight probative value and may be very prejudicial. character is not necessary. The presence of this aggravating
It tends to distract the trier from the main question of what actually circumstance negates the necessity of proving the victim's bad
happened on the particular occasion. It subtly permits the trier of fact to character to establish the probability or improbability
reward a good man to punish the bad man because of their respective People vs. Diopita
characters despite of what evidence in the case.  the accused was saying that it was impossible for him to have raped
 Character questions arise in two fundamentally different ways (1) Character the victim because he was a ministerial servant
may itself be an element of a crime, claim or defense an example would be  The Court ruled his having attained the position of "Ministerial
the chastity of a victim as an element of the crime of seduction Servant" in his faith is no guarantee against any sexual perversion
 Purpose: Character evidence is susceptible of being used for the purpose of and plunderous proclivity on his part.
suggesting an inference that a person acted on the occasion in question  Indeed, religiosity is not always an emblem of good conduct, and it
consistently with his character. is not the unreligious alone who succumbs to the impulse to rob
 It’s merely used as a circumstantial evidence and rape. An accused is not entitled to an acquittal simply because
 We don’t want to deflect the focus of the trial and of the judge from the real of his previous good moral character and exemplary conduct.
issues.
 Any case has to be proven by the causes of action/elements otherwise there Except
will be confusion of issues unfair practice and prejudice. (a) In Criminal Cases:
For example if the issue is the violation of a provision of a contract like Notes
non-payment,although it’s interesting to talk about the character of a  The prosecution cannot initially attack the character of the accused and can
person being naturally chismosos and chismosas, character is irrelevant. only do so if the accused opens that issue by introducing evidence of good
When there’s non-payment, that’s it good or bad character cannot be moral character when he makes a defense.
used to rebut an explicit and clear provision of a contract.
 Rationale: Avoid unfair prejudice to the accused who might otherwise be
- Ms.Zabala and I entered into a loan contract wherein I loaned
convicted not because he is guilty of the charge but he is a person of bad
her P600K. There was default in payment and it is specifically
character
provided for in the contract that in case of non-payment I can
now subject the property held in security to a foreclosure sale.
In this case, character evidence wouldn’t be an issue. We can (1) The character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in
talk all day about her character/reputation, pwede nating pag- any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
chismisan yung mga inaway niya sa law school for how many
hours, but it would be irrelevant to the case because the issue Notes:
is simply whether or not she has paid me or not  Accused may introduce evidence of the character of the victim as in
Jurisprudence as an example: support of a claim of self-defense to a charge of homicide or consent in
People vs. Lee the case of rape
 While good or bad moral character may be availed of as an aid  Offended party can present character evidence if it tends to establish the
to determine the probability or improbability of the commission probability or improbability of a charge
of an offense (Section 15, Rule 123), such is not necessary in  For example, slander by deed or unjust vexation, the accused says it’s the
the crime of murder where the killing is committed through offended party as the starter of fights. The offended party can say no I did
treachery or premeditation. not.
 The proof of such character may only be allowed in homicide  Also, in criminal cases, the good or bad moral character of the offended party
cases to show "that it has produced a reasonable belief of may always be proved by either party as long as evidence tends to establish the
imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a probability or improbability of the offense charged
justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was
necessary. The rule does not apply to cases of murder. For example I am charing Mr.Garcia for unjust vexation. In unjust
 Following the ruling in People v. Soliman, where the killing of vexation, being a felony by dolo (deceit), malice is an inherent element of
the victim was attended by treachery, proof of the victim's bad the crime. Good faith is a good defense to a charge for unjust vexation
because good faith negates malice. in recognition and appreciation of all the contributions and sacrifices of
Mr.Garcia can introduce evidence to refute my claim and say that the mothers, not only for their families but also for the community,
no,actually, Ms.Regado has this reputation of being a starter of fights. She’s which are vital in nation-building. Known for being honest.
the one who’s causing annoyance in the neighborhood. In fact on June 12, Mr.Lumbre can now introduce evidence to establish my bad moral
she went infront of our neighbor’s house, drunk and said “lumabas kayo character.
jan, magsuntukan tayo”.
*** Prosecution for homicide. Accused, says: self-defense/violent. Jurisprudence as an example:
CSC vs. Belagan
(2) The accused may prove his or her good moral character, pertinent to the  the Court of Appeals is correct in holding that the character or
moral trait involved in the offense charged. However, the prosecution may not reputation of a complaining witness in a sexual charge is a proper
prove his or her bad moral character unless on rebuttal. subject of inquiry.
Notes:  This leads us to the ultimate question — is Magdalena's
 Meaning accused may introduce pertinent evidence of good character, in which derogatory record sufficient to discredit her credibility? A careful
event, the prosecution may rebut evidence of bad character review of the record yields a negative answer
 He didn’t have to introduce good moral character.
 In offenses involving moral turpitude like estafa, the accused wants to (b) In Civil Cases:
introduce evidence that he is a church leader and he occupies a certain
position in the parish/awarded as ulirang ama or ina by some association,
that is admissible because it’s pertinent to the charge. It goes into his Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case is admissible only
reputation as having a good moral character. But if the accused does that, when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.
the prosecution may establish his bad moral character.
 Accused has to open the gate by introducing good moral character. Notes:
 The prosecution may not at the outset prove the bad moral character of the  Let’s say a case for damages based on vehicular accident. The issue is
accused recklessness, it’s pertinent to the issue. So the issue of character is admissible
 If the accused however in his defense attempts to prove his good moral  Contract of carriage—extra ordinary diligence
character, then the prosecution can introduce evidence of such bad moral For example:
character at the rebuttal stage  Ms.Guevarra was driving 80km/h in a road that’s barely lit, she
accidentally hits the car of Ms.Zabala. Ms.Zabala was injured, she
For example: I’m accused by Mr.Lumbre of estafa by means of deceit. sues Ms.Guevarra for damages caused by her negligence.
he elements of estafa by means of deceit are as follows: (1) That there Ms,Zabala can introduce a testimony made by Ms.Guevarra’s
must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means(2) That previous employers that Ms.Guevarra is actually a reckless driver.
such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or  Due diligence of supervision
executed prior to ot simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. (c) In Criminal and Civil Cases:
(3) That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such
fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with character has been impeached.
his money or property because of the fraudulent act or fraudulent Notes:
means. (4) That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage  Witness  General reputation for truth, honesty and integrity : affecting
credibility
I say, no Mr.Lumbre! I could not do such a thing. In fact Mr.Lumbre  Character of a witness may be gone into as bearing to his credibility
I’ve been elected as the Treasurer of Front Row, I can introduce  Rule 608 of FRE states that a witness’s credibility may be attacked or
elements that throughout my term which lasted for 10 years, I’ve never supported by testimony about the witness’s reputation of having character for
misappropriated any amount. Employee of the month for 6 truthfulness or untruthfulness or by testimony on form of an opinion about that
consecutive.I’ve even been awarded as an Ulirang Ina coducted by character but evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the
Alay Kay Ina ng Lungsod Quezon Foundation, Inc. It’s an award given witnesses’ character for truthfulness have been attacked
 Opinion that the witness is untruthful specifically qualifies as an attack under testing knowledge and credibility of such witness
the rule and evidence or misconduct including conviction of a crime or of  Content pertinent to trait or character was testified on direct
corruption also fall within this category  Rule 132 sec 12, prior conviction.
 We read this in connection with 132 regarding impeachment of a witness.  You cannot introduce extrinsic evidence
 If you’re a witness, you’re supposed to be insolated from this, to impeach you  Example: Diba nung January 1
under rule 132, evidence of prior conviction may be introduced. If that is done,
you can have the party proponent introduce evidence of good character
In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential
element of a charge, claim or defense, proof may also be made of specific
In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is instances of that person’s conduct. (51a; 14, Rule 132)
admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in  Example: Ay niloko ako nagrerecover ako ng damages nag-falsify yan.
the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant That would have to be proven by specific instances
specific instances of conduct.  Simple seduction : good reputation : victim
Notes
 Elements charge: existence/non-existence no question
 Rule 405 of FRE (Methods of Proving Character) (a) by reputation or
opinion(b) Specific instances of conduct
 The rule deals only with allowable methods of proving character, not with Transcript 3D (Other relevant matters)
regard to the admissibility of character evidence as provided for in the previous CHARACTER EVIDENCE
paragraphs How do we appreciate a character of a particular witness.
 Rule confines use of evidence of this kind to cases in which character in the  In People v. Caete (2003): Presented what we have already encountered with
strict sense is in issue and hence deserving of a searching inquiry. respect to sexual crimes. Private complainant (victim) lived in a rural area
 Rationale for using “reputation”  persistence of reputation evidence is due unaffected by the worldly ways of human life. Story of defloration and
largely to its being opinion in disguise. Traditionally, character has been examination of private parts in which he can be imposed a penalty of RP or
regarded primarily in moral overtones of good and bad: chaste, peaceable, Death.
truthful and honest.  Courts take judicial notice of the degree of innocence in the ways of the
 Opinion may range from an opinion of an employer who has found his world of barrio classes. Thing here was that the defense was an alibi and
employee to be honest to an opinion of a psychiatrist upon examination and appellant failed to prove that with clear and convincing evidence. Alibi is a
testing. No effective dividing line exists between character and mental capacity weak defense but it does not necessarily mean that you can’t win a case with an
and the latter is traditionally provable by opinion alibi.
 Cross examination inquiry is allowable to shed light as to the accuracy of his  TIP: If you are handling a case for the victim, you place yourself in the shoes of
hearing and reporting the victim. The degree of awareness of the victim, even the religiosity in the
 HOW TO PROVE CHARACTER: area, the milieu of the barrio.
1. Testimony on reputation – traditional form (how person perceive  But you may have to make a distinction between those young women who are
you) living in the poblacion areas vs. Those who live in taga bukid who live far off.
2. Testimony in the form of an opinion – previously not allowed, but  Another tip is be careful with stereotypes with respect to women because we
now recognized that testimony on reputation is just “opinion” have magna carta for women.
(ordinary witness can testify, reputation is more than opinion in  In Obedencio v. Murillo : I included these because in the certain nuances in
disguise) palaaway yan the examination of a child witness. There are of course a protocol on the
 Character is something intangible. presentation of a child witness who is a victim or accused of in a crime.
 If I’m the witness and I say that the person has good moral character, I may say Protection accorded by such rule covers even the accused, even a witness
that to me, he is of good moral character or that as a representative of my and it is said that in the absence or incapacity of the parents/guardians,
community, I can say that the person is a good person court may appoint a guardian ad litem to promote their interest.
3. On cross-examination only: the character witness may be asked Remember that almost any rule of procedure finds its source of inspiration in
about relevant prior specific conduct for the limited purpose of
more substantive law. Here it is best interest of a child. 14 year old minor - Yes, because according to the FRE, the ratio for disallowing it is tht it
executed an affidavit of desistence. What happens? Court would have to require would punish a bad man just because of the people’s perspective about
the affiant to be presented in court. Normally it would have to be the lawyer him.
(public or private prosecutor) so that court would be satisfied that it was a free
and voluntary act. But with respect to a child witness, he must be accompanied When you consider the DEFINITION of EVIDENCE, what does it tell you
by the parents, in this case it was the grandparents
about the Rules’ attitude on character and reputation?
 People v. Barring (2002) is instructive. First in terms of corroboration under
the rule on examination of a child witness. Corroboration is not required in a
- X X X It is circumstantial evidence
testimony of a child. (If testimony is sufficient in itself.) You don’t really
expect a child to lie. Secondly, court educated those in the medico legal
because it is said here that the external vaginal oritis was it admits the tip of the It is evidence interested with what?
examiners smallest finger. RA 7610 should be read with the rule on
examination. When we speak of a child, we speak of a child under 18 , - In proving a matter of fact.
unless under some medical cause, someone above 18 should not fend for
himself or herself and therefore would not have the maturity of an adult . Rebuttal
Examination should be conducted with maximum sensitivity. Examining
doctor is the witness, what if other party would file a criminal case for a child - Form of evidence presented to contradict or nullify other evidence that has
abuse, violation of RA 7610, the witness would have a difficulty. In other been presented by an adverse party
words, we cannot take this lightly, this matter of taking care of the best interest - Meaning accused may introduce pertinent evidence of good character, in
of the child. which event, the prosecution may rebut evidence of bad character
We have been talking about reputation. Is character the same as reputation?
What’s the rationale for criminal cases?
- NO. Character is the aggregate of moral qualities of an inidvudual pero; it
results to his distnguoishing attributed. Reputation depends on the - Cite codal
perspective of other people.
We know of course of the however, won’t it that create imbalance?
Hence, focus on how the collection officer is seen by others. That would have to
be the tone or tenor of the cross-examination. What is the default orientation of - No sir, because in the first place there’s presumption of innocence in favor
the Rule in regard to character evidence with respect to admissibility? of the accused
- For example: I’m accused by Mr.Lumbre of estafa by means of deceit. he
- GR: Not admissible; elements of estafa by means of deceit are as follows: (1) That there must
be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means(2) That such false
Why? What is the principle?
pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed
prior to ot simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. (3) That the
- If character evidence would be allowed, the trial would have to consider
offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or
popularity contests that a factual inquiry of the case.
fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or
The general prohibition with respect to admissibility of character evidence is property because of the fraudulent act or fraudulent means. (4) That as a
that it may turn the case into a popularity contest. If that is the case, what result thereof, the offended party suffered damage
about reputation? - I say, no Mr.Lumbre! I could not do such a thing. In fact Mr.Lumbre I’ve
been elected as the Treasurer of Front Row, I can introduce elements that
throughout my term which lasted for 10 years, I’ve never misappropriated
any amount. Employee of the month for 6 consecutive.I’ve even been
awarded as an Ulirang Ina coducted by Alay Kay Ina ng Lungsod Quezon The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party,
Foundation, Inc. It’s an award given in recognition and appreciation of all may be impeached by the party presenting him or her in all respects as if he or she
the contributions and sacrifices of the mothers, not only for their families had been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of his or her bad character.
but also for the community, which are vital in nation-building. Known for He or she may also be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party, but such
cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his or her examination-in-
being honest.
chief. (12a)
Sec. 14. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. — Before

a witness can be impeached by evidence that he or she has made at other times
RULE 132 statements inconsistent with his or her present testimony, the statements must be
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE related to him or her, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons
A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES present, and he or she must be asked whether he or she made such statements, and if
so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing, they must be shown to
Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. – The examination of witnesses the witness before any question is put to him or her concerning them. (13a)
presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or
affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a [Sec. 14. Evidence of good character of witness. – (Incorporated in Section 54,
different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally. (1) Rule 130)]
Sec. 11. Impeachment of adverse party’s witness. – A witness may be impeached Sec. 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. – The court, motu proprio or upon
by the party against whom he or she was called, by contradictory evidence, by motion, shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of
evidence that his or her general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, or other witnesses. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (a) a party who is a natural
by evidence that he or she has made at other times statements inconsistent with his person, (b) a duly designated representative of a juridical entity which is a party to
or her present testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that the case, (c) a person whose presence is essential to the presentation of the party’s
it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or record of the judgment, that cause, or (d) a person authorized by a statute to be present.
he or she has been convicted of an offense. (11a)
The court may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented from
Sec. 12. Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime. – For the purpose of conversing with one another, directly or through intermediaries, until all shall have
impeaching a witness, evidence that he or she has been convicted by final judgment been examined. (15a)
of a crime shall be admitted if (a) the crime was punishable by a penalty in excess of
one year; or (b) the crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of the penalty.
Sec. 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. – A witness may be allowed to
refresh his or her memory respecting a fact by anything written or recorded by
However, evidence of a conviction is not admissible if the conviction has been the himself or herself, or under his or her direction, at the time when the fact occurred,
subject of an amnesty or annulment of the conviction. (n) or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his or her
memory and he or she knew that the same was correctly written or recorded; but in
Sec. 13. Party may not impeach his or her own witness. – Except with respect to such case, the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the
witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10 of this Rule, the party adverse party, who may, if he or she chooses, cross-examine the witness upon it and
presenting the witness is not allowed to impeach his or her credibility. may read it in evidence. A witness may also testify from such a writing or record,
though he or she retains no recollection of the particular facts, if he or she is able to
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such
upon adequate showing of his or her adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to evidence must be received with caution. (16a)
testify, or his or her having misled the party into calling him or her to the witness
stand. Sec. 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the
remainder admissible. – When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or
record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be - No
inquired into by the other, and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, Evidence for general reputation can you do that?
writing or record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, - Yes
writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence. (17) I have a witness and the witness in a robbery, in that robbery, present witness being
a neighbor was able to see what happened. By way of preliminary I ask witness do
Sec. 18. Right to inspect writing shown to witness. – Whenever a writing is shown you know person A? Since when? We are now at rebuttal stage, witness is being
to a witness, it may be inspected by the adverse party. (18) asked as to the conduct?
Specific form of an oath - A particular wrongful act before
- Done in open court

What do you mean by a particular wrongful act
- Specific wrongful act
How will you conduct the oath?Is it limited to those conducted in court?
- Not the witness who is in trial
What is the purpose of an oath?
- It’s not limited to cases in court as long as there’s a promise that he
wouldn’t lie. - To make a promise that you will tell the truth on the matter you are
supposed to testify about;
Is there a form?
What do you mean by in open court?
- In open court
a) Understands the nature of an oath
(b) Realizes the moral duty to tell the truth
How will you conduct the oath? Is it not possible in an ocular inspection
(c) Understands the prospects of being punished for a falsehood
being conducted by the judge (ex. Witness shall narrate using the physical
environment as part of the evidence)?
What do you mean by impeachment?
- technique employed to discredit a witness by attacking his credibility - In open court – BEFORE A JUDGE; not just any other persons authorized
- done generally by the party against whom he/she was called. to take an oath
How is it done? What do you mean by impeachment for purposes of Rule 132?
- For the purpose of impeaching a witness, evidence that he or she has been
convicted by final judgment of a crime shall be admitted if (a) the crime - When you call the adverse party as a witness.
was punishable by a penalty in excess of one year; or (b) the crime
involved moral turpitude, regardless of the penalty. Is that the general rule? Is it standard operating procedure to call the
What is record of judgment?
adverse party?
- Certified true copy
Admission of evidence pointing to the fact that witness has been convicted. Is there
any other instance where evidence to such effect may be effected? - NO. It is the exception!
- Moral turpitude. What is it?
- An act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard When does impeachment happen and who does it?
of the community
- It is an offense or points to an act or omission which is immoral regardless - It is done by the party against whom he or she is called. It usually happens
of whether or not it is punishable by law. during cross-examination.
Could you impeach witness based on wrongful acts done before?
What is impeachment and what is its objective? - You could not impeach a witness using wrongful acts that the witness
committed before
- A technique to attack the credibility of the witness.
Note, however, you can use evidence showing his general reputation x xx.
Impeachment of Witness by conviction of a crime Now there is a robbery, and a neighbor saw what happened and was
familiar with the robber. The prosecutor asked the witness, do you know
- [CODAL] person A? Yes. Since when? Ever since we moved to the neighborhood.
When was that? Around 2008. Would you recall any event involving him?
What type of evidence would that be, when you say the he was convicted
One evening he entered our garage and got our radio. Is that allowed?
by final judgment?
- Yes, because he personally saw him.
- Record of Judgment. Get a CERTIFIED TRUE copy of the final judgment
and present it to the present court. Let’s modify. At rebuttal,the witness is being asked as to the conduct of the
accused who has testified before.
The admission of evidence pointing to the fact that a witness has been
convicted by final judgment, the crime must be punishable by a penalty - The witness could not be impeached because of a particular wrongful act
more than one year he committed before.
- It may still be admitted if the crime involves moral turpitude What do you mean by particular wrongful acts?
What do you mean by a crime involving moral turpitude? - It does not necessarily pertain to his credibility;
- Not in accord with morality or it is evil, regardless of whether or not Why must the court say “by evidence of particular wrongful acts?” Focus
punishes it. Even if there is no law, it is always wrong. on Sec. 11
In Section 12, is there any exception? When is evidence of conviction not - Because it is not the witness who is on trial; the prosecution is presenting
admissible? this witness to convict the accused and not to convict the witness.
- If the conviction has been subject to amnesty or the annulment of the Can you think of other reasons? What is your purpose in impeaching
conviction witnesses under Sec. 11.
- [CODAL]
- To discredit a witness.
Impeachment of an adverse party’s witness. Under Sec. 11, what are the
ways may a witness be impeached? When you are out to discredit, what do you mean?
- There are three modes: (1) Contradictory evidence; (2) General reputation - I want to show to the court that the witness is not willing to tell the truth.
for truth, honesty or integrity is bad; (3) the witness has made prior
statements that were inconsistent with the present testimony Is it a matter of intention?
Under Sec. 11, what cant you do? - No, it is about the witness’ ability to tell the truth.
Can you make it more down to earth?What’s the root word? turn top present evidence, he presented another witness who will say that
the collection officer who testified about many demands by to the
- Credit; you are telling the court that the witness cannot be believed; defendant – “Mr. Witness, do you know collection officer?” Yes. I used to
anything that comes out of his mouth is not true. work with him from 2010 to 2018, I was the Asst. Collection Officer. I
remember that in order to impress our boss, he sent demand letters even if
It is you objective that the witness be not believed. However, you are the debt is not due. Also, when I accompanied him, he shouted and hurled
shackled by the term “particular wrongful act”? What is the danger that it verbal threats against the borrower. He was also planning to do this
seeks to prevent? against the defendant. The plaintiff’s counsel asked that those instances
narrated be stricken off the record.
- The person who want to impeach a witness would use such acts and that
the content of the testimony, even if truthful, would not be used in the case - It does not pertain to his ability to tell the truth but it is evidence of his
just because zeal.
Whose perspective is that? Does it speak of reputation? The witness testified with specifity. Are acts
and reputation equal?
- The person who wants to impeach the witness.
- The acts are particularly wrongful acts. They must be stricken off the
We should focus on the perspective of the court. If the perspective of the
record.
court is jarred one way or another, who will be considered by such
development? How then can you improve so that it will not be contrary to Sec. 11?Can
you present is at the general reputation of the collection officer?
- The one who is calling the witness
- In the SOP of the company, who send the demand letter? The Collection
What does the term “particular wrongful act” remind you of?
Officer. When should the demand letter be received or given to the debtor,
- You are interested in the past CONDUCT of such witness. is there a grace period given? It should be on the due date and that a grace
period of 5 days is given. Is there any that a demand letter be given before
Therefore, what is the prevailing attitude of the Rules with respect to the due date? No.
previous conduct?
What do you mean by reputation?
- It cannot be used against the person who is responsible for such conduct;
the courts, in default, have this attitude towards previous conduct – we - Perception of other people (?)
have to be extra careful.
Is there any one else in the office that what the officer did is contrary to
Can you recall a similar provision? company SOP; (2) whether the collecting office adinistratively
sanctioned;If there was an instance of shouting against his colleagues,
- Previous conduct as evidence. [codal] would it be relevant?
If there is a witness – a collection officer - for the plaintiff and such - It shows that he has no tact
plaintiff said many things against the defendant – has taken the plaintiff
for a ride with respect to payment of debt – when it was the defendant’s Is it helpful for your cause is establishing general reputation? Because the
next question should be “what is the reaction of his colleagues?”
- His anger manageent issues might affect his credibility.

Sec. 38. Ruling. – The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the
That is speculative. It does not affect his integrity. What does “laying the objection is made, unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself
predicate” mean? on the question presented; but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at
such time as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the
- It is used in Sec. 14. When the witness ay be ipeached by inconsistent situation presented by the ruling.
statements.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. However, if
What is the rule? the objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on
one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. (38)
- Before the witness could be impeached x x x x [CODAL].
Sec. 39. Striking out of answer. – Should a witness answer the question before the
adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, or where a
question is not objectionable, but the answer is not responsive, or where a witness
testifies without a question being posed or testifies beyond limits set by the court, or
C. OFFER AND OBJECTION
when the witness does a narration instead of answering the question, and such
objection is found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order
Sec. 34. Offer of evidence. – The court shall consider no evidence which has not such answer, testimony or narration to be stricken off the record.
been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be
specified. (34)
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are
incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper. (39a)
Sec. 35. When to make offer. – All evidence must be offered orally.
The offer of the testimony of a witness in evidence must be made at the time the
Sec. 40. Tender of excluded evidence. – If documents or things offered in evidence
witness is called to testify.
are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of
The offer of documentary and object evidence shall be made after the presentation of
the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the
a party's testimonial evidence. (35a)
name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the
proposed testimony. (40)
Sec. 36. Objection. – Objection to offer of evidence must be made orally
immediately after the offer is made.
RULE 133
Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a formal offer must be made as
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
soon as the witness begins to testify. Objection to a question propounded in the
course of the oral examination of a witness must be made as soon as the grounds
therefor become reasonably apparent. Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases, the party
having the burden of proof must establish his or her case by a preponderance of
evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on
The grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)
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
Sec. 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary. – When it becomes reasonably opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts
apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the questions being to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their
propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made, interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may
whether such objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of
the witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. (1a)
objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his or her continuing
objection to such class of questions. (37a)
Sec. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is entitled
to an acquittal, unless his or her guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof Sec. 8. Evidence on motion. – When a motion is based on facts not appearing of
beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding record, the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the
possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly
that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (2a) on oral testimony or depositions. (7)
Sec. 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. – An What do you mean by burden of evidence?
extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for
conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3) - Duty of a party to present evidence sufficient to establish or rebut a fact in
issue to establish a prima facie case
Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is
sufficient for conviction if: What is that?
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
- Burden of evidence sir
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
Does burden of evidence shift?
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt. - Yes. Burden of proof does not shift
Inferences cannot be based on other inferences. (4a) In a civil case what is the quantum of proof required?
Sec. 5. Weight to be given opinion of expert witness, how determined. – In any case - Preponderance of evidence
where the opinion of an expert witness is received in evidence, the court has a wide - In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his or
latitude of discretion in determining the weight to be given to such opinion, and for her case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the
that purpose may consider the following: preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies,
(a) Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient facts or data;
the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the
witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and
(b) Whether it is the product of reliable principles and methods;
opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of
the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their
(c) Whether the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts
of the case; and testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The
(d) Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to make such determination. (n) court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.
Sec. 6. Substantial evidence. – In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial
bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, You mean things can be taken quantitatively except the witnesses?
or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion. (5) - No.
- The rule must be with respect to greater weight of evidence
Sec. 7. Power of the court to stop further evidence. — The court may stop the
introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon Do we employ the same rule with respect to criminal cases?
it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably
expected to be additionally persuasive. This power shall be exercised with caution. - No because there’s presumption of innocence
(6a)
What do you mean by evidence on motion? - Inference must be based on a fact, if it’s based on another inference, it
cannot be considered because facts from which it is inferred is not proven
- When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record, the court may
hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective When I present expert witness, as long as all these norms are followed, the
parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly court is duty bound to consider?
on oral testimony or depositions. (7)
- No. Court can give weight to evidence they are merely guide lines.
Example?
What is substantial evidence? Is it the same as clear and convincing
- Motion for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence
- Substantial evidence is defined as the relevant evidence a reasonable mind
How do we treat an extrajudicial confession might accept to support a conclusion
- Clear and convincing , produces a firm believe as to the fact/conviction
- Not a sufficient ground for conviction, it must be corroborated by corpus sought to be established
delicti
- As applied to an offense it’s the actual commission of a crime charged When does this apply? Example
- Example: In theft, that a property was taken by another.
- Conviction of a judge
As mentioned there must be a corpus? It’s perceivable right? What’s the
corpus delicti in your example? What about a writ of amparo?
- Property was lost by felonious taking and it is found in the possession of - Substantial evidence
the accused.
What is the rule on the part of the court to stop further evidence
What if in a particular case, the item was not found with the accused and he
confesses?Is a corpus delicti still possible? - Rule 133 Sec 7
- The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any
- Yes, if it can be proven that he took the lost thing. particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more
witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be
I mentioned circumstantial evidence, can a person be convicted of additionally persuasive. This power shall be exercised with caution. (6a)
circumstantial evidence?
Example?
- Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
- (a) There is more than one circumstance; - Criminal case for murder, publicly done. There are several witnesses. The
- (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and court may stop presentation when prior eye witnesses are already
- (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a sufficient.
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Inferences cannot be based on other inferences. (4a) If you were the prosecution, how do you argue to the judge? The judge would
say let’s stop further evidence, we’re hearing the same thing? How do you
What is the rule on inferences upon inferences? Give me an example? argue by way of MR?
- It is necessary to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the

accused and the witnesses are not repetitive.
How do you give substance to that?
- Witnesses are reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive
LAST SESSION: means:

 (a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported
Rule on Electronic Evidence (focus on authentication), in relation to the to have signed the same;
Original Document Rule]  (b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as
may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication
(h) "Electronic document" of electronic documents were applied to the document; or
 refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures,  (c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the
symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however satisfaction of the Judge.
represented,
 by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which SECTION 3. Proof of electronically notarized document. —
a fact may be proved and affirmed,  A document electronically notarized in accordance with
 which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court
produced electronically.  shall be considered as a public document and proved as a notarial
 It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, document under the Rules of Court.
readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects
the electronic data message or electronic document.
 For purposes of these Rules, the term "electronic document" may be used
interchangeably with "electronic data message". Rule 901 (b)(4), FRE; and Rule 902 (13) and (14), FRE
RULE 3 Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

Electronic Documents (b) Examples. The following are examples only — not a complete list — of
SECTION 1. Electronic Documents as functional equivalent of paper-based evidence that satisfies the requirement:
documents. —
 Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term writing, document, record, (4) Distinctive Characteristics and the Like.
instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing, The appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive
 such term shall be deemed to include an electronic document as defined in characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.
these Rules.
Notes:
SECTION 2. Admissibility. — Example (4). The characteristics of the offered item itself, considered in the light of
 An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with circumstances, afford authentication techniques in great variety.
the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related  Thus a document or telephone conversation may be shown to have
laws and emanated from a particular person by virtue of its disclosing knowledge of
 is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules. facts known peculiarly to him; Globe Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Braniff,
89 Okl. 105, 214 P. 127 (1923); California Evidence Code §1421;
RULE 5  similarly, a letter may be authenticated by content and circumstances
Authentication of Electronic Documents indicating it was in reply to a duly authenticated one. McCormick §192;
SECTION 1. Burden of proving authenticity. — California Evidence Code §1420.
 The person seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal  Language patterns may indicate authenticity or its opposite. Magnuson v.
proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner State, 187 Wis. 122, 203 N.W. 749 (1925); Arens and Meadow,
provided in this Rule. Psycholinguistics and the Confession Dilemma, 56 Colum.L.Rev. 19
SECTION 2. Manner of authentication. — (1956).
 Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received
in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following
Rule 902. Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating the admissibility requirements for authenticity. The opponent remains free to object
The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require no extrinsic to admissibility of the proffered item on other grounds—including hearsay,
evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted: relevance, or in criminal cases the right to confrontation. For example, assume that a
plaintiff in a defamation case offers what purports to be a printout of a webpage on
(13) Certified Records Generated by an Electronic Process or System. which a defamatory statement was made. Plaintiff offers a certification under this
 A record generated by an electronic process or system that produces an Rule in which a qualified person describes the process by which the web page was
accurate result, as shown by a certification of a qualified person that retrieved. Even if that certification sufficiently establishes that the webpage is
complies with the certification requirements of Rule 902(11) or (12). authentic, defendant remains free to object that the statement on the webpage was
 The proponent must also meet the notice requirements of Rule 902(11). not placed there by defendant. Similarly, a certification authenticating a computer
(14) Certified Data Copied from an Electronic Device, Storage Medium, or File. output, such as a spreadsheet, does not preclude an objection that the information
 Data copied from an electronic device, storage medium, or file, if produced is unreliable—the authentication establishes only that the output came
authenticated by a process of digital identification, as shown by a from the computer.
certification of a qualified person that complies with the certification A challenge to the authenticity of electronic evidence may require technical
requirements of Rule (902(11) or (12). The proponent also must meet the information about the system or process at issue, including possibly retaining a
notice requirements of Rule 902 (11). forensic technical expert; such factors will affect whether the opponent has a fair
opportunity to challenge the evidence given the notice provided.
The reference to Rule 902(12) is intended to cover certifications that are made in a
Notes: foreign country.
Paragraph (13). The amendment sets forth a procedure by which parties can
authenticate certain electronic evidence other than through the testimony of a
foundation witness. As with the provisions on business records in Rules 902(11) and
(12), the Committee has found that the expense and inconvenience of producing a Paragraph (14). The amendment sets forth a procedure by which parties can
witness to authenticate an item of electronic evidence is often unnecessary. It is authenticate data copied from an electronic device, storage medium, or an electronic
often the case that a party goes to the expense of producing an authentication file, other than through the testimony of a foundation witness. As with the provisions
witness, and then the adversary either stipulates authenticity before the witness is on business records in Rules 902(11) and (12), the Committee has found that the
called or fails to challenge the authentication testimony once it is presented. The expense and inconvenience of producing an authenticating witness for this evidence
amendment provides a procedure under which the parties can determine in advance is often unnecessary. It is often the case that a party goes to the expense of
of trial whether a real challenge to authenticity will be made, and can then plan producing an authentication witness, and then the adversary either stipulates
accordingly. authenticity before the witness is called or fails to challenge the authentication
Nothing in the amendment is intended to limit a party from establishing authenticity testimony once it is presented. The amendment provides a procedure in which the
of electronic evidence on any ground provided in these Rules, including though parties can determine in advance of trial whether a real challenge to authenticity will
judicial notice where appropriate. be made, and can then plan accordingly.
A proponent establishing authenticity under this Rule must present a certification Today, data copied from electronic devices, storage media, and electronic files are
containing information that would be sufficient to establish authenticity were that ordinarily authenticated by "hash value". A hash value is a number that is often
information provided by a witness at trial. If the certification provides information represented as a sequence of characters and is produced by an algorithm based upon
that would be insufficient to authenticate the record if the certifying person testified, the digital contents of a drive, medium, or file. If the hash values for the original and
then authenticity is not established under this Rule. The Rule specifically allows the copy are different, then the copy is not identical to the original. If the hash values for
authenticity foundation that satisfies Rule 901(b)(9) to be established by a the original and copy are the same, it is highly improbable that the original and copy
certification rather than the testimony of a live witness. are not identical. Thus, identical hash values for the original and copy reliably attest
The reference to the "certification requirements of Rule 902(11) or (12)" is only to to the fact that they are exact duplicates. This amendment allows self-authentication
the procedural requirements for a valid certification. There is no intent to require, or by a certification of a qualified person that she checked the hash value of the
permit, a certification under this Rule to prove the requirements of Rule 803(6). Rule proffered item and that it was identical to the original. The rule is flexible enough to
902(13) is solely limited to authentication, and any attempt to satisfy a hearsay allow certifications through processes other than comparison of hash value,
exception must be made independently. including by other reliable means of identification provided by future technology.
A certification under this Rule can establish only that the proffered item has satisfied Nothing in the amendment is intended to limit a party from establishing authenticity
of electronic evidence on any ground provided in these Rules, including through was Zhyltsou's profile page from a Russian social networking site akin to Facebook.
judicial notice where appropriate. The district court admitted the printout over Zhyltsou's objection that the page had
A proponent establishing authenticity under this Rule must present a certification not been properly authenticated under Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
containing information that would be sufficient to establish authenticity were that ISSUE:
information provided by a witness at trial. If the certification provides information Did the district court abuse its discretion in admitting the web page evidence without
that would be insufficient to authenticate the record of the certifying person testified, proper authentication under Fed. R. Evid. 901?
then authenticity is not established under this Rule. ANSWER:
The reference to the "certification requirements of Rule 902(11) or (12)" is only to Yes.
the procedural requirements for a valid certification. There is no intent to require, or CONCLUSION:
permit, a certification under this Rule to prove the requirements of Rule 803(6). Rule Conviction was vacated. Where the Government, during defendant's criminal trial on
902(14) is solely limited to authentication, and any attempt to satisfy a hearsay a single charge of transfer of a false identification document, offered into evidence a
exception must be made independently. printed copy of a web page, which it claimed was defendant's profile page from a
A certification under this Rule can only establish that the proffered item is authentic. Russian social networking site, it was an abuse of discretion to admit the web page
The opponent remains free to object to admissibility of the proffered item on other evidence because the district court did so without proper authentication under Fed.
grounds—including hearsay, relevance, or in criminal cases the right to R. Evid. 901. Thus, the Government did not provide a sufficient basis on which to
confrontation. For example, in a criminal case in which data copied from a hard conclude that the proffered printout was what the Government claimed it to be,
drive is proffered, the defendant can still challenge hearsay found in the hard drive, defendant's profile page. The court held that this error was not harmless because it
and can still challenge whether the information on the hard drive was placed there was vital to the Government's case to prove that it was in fact defendant who used a
by the defendant. particular email address to send a fake birth certificate, and the prosecution's case on
A challenge to the authenticity of electronic evidence may require technical this point was far from overwhelming.
information about the system or process at issue, including possibly retaining a
forensic technical expert; such factors will affect whether the opponent has a fair United States v. Browne 834 F.3d 403 (3d. Cir. 2016)
opportunity to challenge the evidence given the notice provided. In Browne, under the Facebook account name "Billy Button," Browne began
exchanging messages with one of his female victims, with whom he eventually met
in person and exchanged sexually explicit photographs through Facebook chats.
United States v. Vayner, 769 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014)

The Superior Court favorably cited the Third Circuit’s decision in United States v.
RULE: Browne, 834 F.3d 403 (3d Cir. 2016), which permitted the admission of properly
Fed. R. Evid. 901 does not definitively establish the nature or quantum of proof that authenticated social media posts. The Superior Court distinguished the Third
is required preliminarily to authenticate an item of evidence. The type and quantum Circuit’s authentication of the social media posts in Browne by noting the extensive
of evidence required is related to the purpose for which the evidence is offered and evidence the government proffered in Browne to authenticate the defendant as the
depends upon a context-specific determination whether the proof advanced is author of the posts in question, including the defendant’s own testimony, testimony
sufficient to support a finding that the item in question is what its proponent claims of the recipients of several message, and a certificate attesting the government
it to be. The bar for authentication of evidence is not particularly high. obtained the logs directly from Facebook.In light of Browne and the existing
FACTS: Superior Court precedent, the key takeaway from Mangel is that Rule 901 requires a
Aliaksandr Zhyltsou was convicted after trial on a single count of the unlawful proponent of social media evidence to proffer evidence, either direct or
transfer of a false identification document. At trial, the government's principal circumstantial (for example, through contextual clues in the post or forensic
evidence against Zhyltsou was the testimony of Vladyslav Timku, a Ukrainian evidence beyond the content of the account itself), that corroborates the authorship
citizen residing in Brooklyn who testified pursuant to a cooperation agreement and of a social media post
who had earlier pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, aggravated identity
theft, and impersonating a diplomat. In Defendant-Appellant Aliaksandr Zhyltsou's
criminal trial on a single charge of transfer of a false identification document, the
government offered into evidence a printed copy of a web page, which it claimed United States v. Bertram 259 F. Supp. 638, relate to Section 901(b)(4)
I.
In 1982, a Secret Service Special Agent, operating undercover during the course of 871 (1st Cir.1982), in which the First Circuit held that an individual did not violate
an investigation into suspected counterfeiting violations, met with Bertram in 18 U.S.C. § 485 by possessing counterfeit South African Krugerrands with intent to
Amarillo, Texas, and discussed the purchase price of counterfeit South African defraud,4 and on the fact that each of the counterfeit Krugerrands had the word
Krugerrands. After their discussions, the agent agreed to pay Bertram the price of "copy" embossed thereon, Bertram contends that the government could not have
$150 per coin in "the finished state," i.e., with the word "copy" polished off and the succeeded in prosecuting him for a violation of the counterfeiting statute and that the
coin gold-plated. At this meeting, Bertram told the agent that he had sent eleven of evidence should therefore have been suppressed.
the counterfeit Krugerrands in the finished state to Las Vegas, Nevada. He also told The test for probable cause does not involve speculation about the outcome of a trial
the agent that he had one thousand of the counterfeit Krugerrands, but because he on the merits of a particular charge, but rather upon an assessment of whether the
felt that federal agents would not make an arrest based upon a partial recovery of the knowledge of the arresting officer at the time of the arrest would be sufficient to
known outstanding counterfeit coins, he would only deliver a third of them at a time. warrant a prudent man's believing [719 F.2d 738] that the person arrested had
Four days after this meeting, Bertram informed the agent that the counterfeit coins committed or was committing an offense. United States v. Atkinson, 450 F.2d 835,
would not be delivered in the polished and gold-plated state. Instead, they would be 838 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 923, 92 S.Ct. 1790, 32 L.Ed.2d 123
delivered with the word "copy" embossed on the coins. As a result, the purchase (1972). Although the evidence sufficient for probable cause must be more than what
price would be reduced to $100 for each coin. Bertram agreed to meet with the agent amounts to a mere suspicion, it is considerably less than what is required for a
on February 18, 1982, at an Amarillo restaurant. At the meeting on February 18, conviction of guilt. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108, 85 S.Ct. 741, 745,
Bertram delivered to the agent 333 of the counterfeit South African Krugerrands 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965). In examining probable cause, a court must deal with
bearing the word "copy" in probabilities. "`[T]hey are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life
[719 F.2d 737] on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.'" Adams v.
very small letters. The agent immediately arrested Bertram for a violation of 18 Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 1924, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972)
U.S.C. § 485.1 (citing Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1310, 93 L.Ed.
During a subsequent search of Bertram's person, a Smith & Wesson 9 mm pistol and 1879 (1949)).
a North American Arms .22 caliber revolver were obtained. In the course of a In the context of this case, it is the considerations of a reasonable and prudent Secret
subsequent investigation, the government also obtained the Alcohol, Tobacco & Service Agent which must be evaluated. Bertram may have been able to convince a
Firearms Agency Forms 4473 which had been completed by Bertram when he jury that the word "copy" on each coin made it impossible to defraud anyone. We
purchased the 9 mm pistol and a .357 magnum pistol. 2 Bertram was indicted for are unable to conclude, however, that the presence of this word in minuscule letters
various firearms violations as well as for possessing, passing and uttering, with (and they are indeed minuscule) made it impossible for a reasonable and prudent
intent to defraud, a false, forged and counterfeited coin, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § agent to believe that the coins were not counterfeit.
485. The government subsequently dropped the charge concerning the possession of That there was a subsequent court decision which holds that an individual who
counterfeit South African Krugerrands. possesses counterfeit Krugerrands with intent to defraud cannot be convicted of a
Bertram filed a motion to suppress various items, including the 9 mm pistol, the .22 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 485 does not warrant a conclusion that on February 18,
pistol and the ATF forms 4473. The district court denied Bertram's motion, 1982, a reasonable and prudent agent could not believe that Bertram had violated
reserving a decision on admissibility for trial. At trial, the district court allowed the that section. The First Circuit did not render its decision in Falvey until April 18,
items to be admitted into evidence. Based upon this evidence, Bertram was 1982. To reach that decision, the First Circuit decided that the scope of the second
convicted of the firearms charges. He appeals. paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 485 must be read identically with that of the first. This
required the court to read a limitation into the plain wording of the second
II. paragraph. Moreover, in November 1981, the United States District Court for the
On appeal, Bertram argues that the government agent had no probable cause to Northern District of Texas, the district where the arrest occurred, had denied a
arrest him for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 485, 3 and that therefore the incriminating defense motion to dismiss several counts of an indictment in a similar counterfeiting
weapons as well as the incriminating ATF 4473 forms which were discovered as the prosecution. In doing so, it had refused to limit the scope of the second paragraph
result of a search incident to an arrest for a violation of that statute should have been with respect to foreign coins to those current or in actual use and circulation as
suppressed by the district court. In contending that there was no probable cause to money within the United States. Under these circumstances, with no decision
arrest him, Bertram, in essence, argues that the existence and validity of probable implying such a limitation, the evidence known to the agent at the time of Bertram's
cause depended on the likelihood that the government would succeed in proving that arrest was sufficient to persuade a person of reasonable caution that Bertram had
Bertram violated 18 U.S.C. § 485. Relying on United States v. Falvey, 676 F.2d committed a crime. Because the agent had probable cause to arrest Bertram for a
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 485, the incriminating firearms and the incriminating ATF
forms 4473, being the fruit of a lawful search, were properly admitted into evidence. residence. By the time law enforcement arrived in the vicinity of Wilson's residence,
For the above and foregoing reasons, Bertram's conviction is the suspects had left the area. The assailants were not apprehended that night.
AFFIRMED. Marteeka Hamilton—one of Petitioner's on-again, off-again girlfriends—testified
that she received a call from Petitioner on Wilson's cell phone around midnight on
State v. Browne 818 S.E. 2d 735. (This is State v. Brown, not sure if sir just the night of the robbery, asking her to pick them up near Wilson's residence because
made a typo) they needed a ride. Hamilton testified that she picked up Petitioner and Wilson near
The central issue before the Court concerns authentication of Global Positioning the entrance of the subdivision around 1:00 a.m. that Christmas Eve. She testified
System (GPS) monitoring evidence. Specifically, is the requirement for that she overheard Wilson talking on the phone and stating that he had accidentally
authentication satisfied by testimony that GPS data is accurate because "[w]e use it shot someone. She also testified that Petitioner chimed in and chastised Wilson for
in court all the time"? The answer is an unqualified "no."A Zaxby's restaurant in shooting the victim. Hamilton dropped them off at the Northwoods Mall a few miles
Goose Creek, South Carolina, was robbed by two males wearing ski masks and away. Days later, Hamilton visited Petitioner and Wilson at a Motel Six near the
gloves while carrying a gun and knife, around midnight on Christmas Eve. During mall and saw several shopping bags in the room.
the robbery, a Zaxby's employee was shot by one of the robbers. As a result of law During trial, cell phone records from Wilson's phone were admitted to corroborate
enforcement's investigation—including a traced scent trail, DNA evidence found on this testimony.
a ski mask and gun, an executed search warrant, and a tip that Petitioner confessed Cynthia Garrett was Petitioner's other on-again, off-again girlfriend. Garrett testified
to committing the crime with Christopher Wilson—Petitioner and Wilson were that Petitioner confessed to her that he had robbed Zaxby's with Wilson and she
arrested and charged with robbery, as well as other crimes stemming from the relayed this information to the police. Garrett testified that, prior to the robbery, she
incident. In addition, during the course of their investigation, law enforcement offered to provide transportation so Petitioner could accept a job offer, but Petitioner
discovered that Wilson was wearing a GPS ankle monitor at the time of the robbery. told her that he would "rather rob than work," informed her that he was planning to
Wilson's GPS records reflected that he was at Zaxby's during the robbery. Wilson do a "lick" with Wilson, and asked to borrow Garrett's car. Garrett refused to let
pled guilty prior to Petitioner's trial. Petitioner borrow her car. In addition, Garrett knew Petitioner had a gun prior to the
At Petitioner's trial, the State connected Wilson to Petitioner, through Wilson's GPS robbery and instructed him to remove it from her house. Approximately one week
records and otherwise. As noted, this appeal is centered on Petitioner's challenge that before the robbery, Garrett kicked Petitioner out of her home due to an argument.
the State failed to authenticate Wilson's GPS records. We hold that the State failed to Garrett explained that the word "lick" is a term used to describe a robbery.
properly authenticate the GPS records, and it was error to admit this evidence. On the night of the robbery, Petitioner called Garrett from Wilson's cell phone
Nevertheless, due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt, we affirm the court of around midnight asking her to give them a ride. Although Garrett was unaware at the
appeals in result because this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. time why Petitioner and Wilson needed a ride and Petitioner offered a couple
I. hundred dollars for it, she refused. Garrett testified that Petitioner became angry and
A Zaxby's restaurant in Goose Creek was robbed around midnight on December 24, hung up the phone. Petitioner then called Hamilton, as discussed above, and she
2011, and an assistant manager was shot during the robbery. There were several gave Petitioner and Wilson a ride.
employees present at Zaxby's during the time of the robbery who testified at trial. Again, during trial, cell phone records from Wilson's phone were admitted to
They testified that, while Zaxby's was in the process of being closed for the evening, corroborate this testimony.
two men wearing dark clothing, ski masks, and gloves robbed them with a gun and Regarding Garrett's tip to law enforcement, the assigned investigator sent officers to
knife. One of the robbers shot the assistant manager as she lay on the ground. In the Motel Six where Garrett said Petitioner had stayed after the robbery and they
addition, one victim testified that the assailants used a knife to rip his pants and take confirmed that Petitioner had checked in there. In addition, the dollar amount that
his wallet from his back pocket. Garrett provided as being stolen during the robbery closely matched the one that law
Within minutes of the robbery, a car narrowly avoided hitting two men dressed in enforcement obtained from management at Zaxby's.
dark clothing who were exiting the woods near Zaxby's, crossing the road, and At that time, the assigned investigator submitted the DNA on the ski mask found at
running along a wooded area. The citizen relayed this information to the law the scene for comparison with Wilson's DNA. The forensic test results revealed it
enforcement officers who were gathered at the nearby Zaxby’s. Based on this was a match. Based upon their advancing investigation—including Garrett's
information, law enforcement utilized a dog from a K-9 unit to track the scent at the statement and Wilson's DNA on the ski mask—law enforcement obtained a search
entrance of a subdivision across the street and, along the trail, found money dropped warrant for Wilson's residence.
at various places before the scent was lost. Law enforcement also discovered a ski While executing the search warrant, law enforcement discovered Petitioner alone in
mask, which was submitted for DNA testing. The scent trail ended at Wilson's Wilson's house. During their search, officers located the gun used during the
robbery. In addition, they found a knife matching the description of the one used
during the crime and a social security card for one of the victims whose wallet had concerning the matter of authentication, the following colloquy occurred on direct
been stolen during the robbery. examination:
Ballistic results were admitted at trial, which revealed the gun matched a casing Q. And what does [your job duty involving GPS monitoring] entail?
found at Zaxby's.
Thereafter, law enforcement requested a DNA analysis on various items, including A. There is a GPS monitor affixed to the ankle of the offender, and their movements
the gun recovered at the residence. The State's DNA expert testified that the test are tracked wherever they go.
results revealed Petitioner's DNA could not be excluded from the handle of the gun
although approximately 97.8% of the population could be excluded. As the expert Q. How do they work?
explained,
We can conclude that all of the peaks in [Petitioner's] DNA profile could be found in ....
the mixture profile from the handle of the gun, so we have to report that he is a
possible contributor. ... If all of his data peaks are there, he is one of those people— A. The State has a GOC, general operations center, in Columbia. These offenders
he's either one of those unlucky people that, you know, came to the attention of the are tracked, 24 hours a day, seven days a week so they're always monitored. Us field
police and just by coincidence all of his data peaks are there, or he handled the gun. agents—and what I mean is someone like me at a local office, we can log on to our
Those are the two possibilities. computers and see in realtime where these offenders are.
The expert concluded, "The most likely explanation for this mixture profile is that
Christopher Wilson and [Petitioner] ... both handled the gun. We could not exclude Q. Is that information recorded?
Christopher Wilson or [Petitioner]." A. It's recorded and it's archived.
While Petitioner was incarcerated and awaiting trial, Lanier Daniels was his
cellmate. During this time, Petitioner confessed to Daniels that he planned and Q. How is it recorded?
committed the robbery with Wilson. In particular, Daniels testified that Petitioner
said he was "the one who set up the whole thing" and Petitioner explained to him A. It's recorded by a third party vendor [Omni Link] that supplied the software and
"what had happened at Zaxby's that night" and "how they got away." Daniels the hardware, the actual ankle monitor, for the system.
testified that Petitioner said he was upset with Wilson because Wilson shot his
uncle's girlfriend—the assistant manager—during the robbery. Daniels testified that Q. Is that information accurate?
Petitioner disclosed "his baby mother"—Hamilton—picked Wilson and Petitioner up
after the robbery. Petitioner told Daniels that he was arrested while "he was at a A. It is very accurate. We use it in court all the time.
friend's house" and "getting rid of the gun." (emphasis added). The GPS records were admitted into evidence.
In addition, the State entered Wilson's cell phone records at trial, without objection, The jury found Petitioner guilty of criminal conspiracy, burglary second degree,
which reflected that Wilson's phone was used to call Hamilton and Garrett during three counts of armed robbery, and five counts of kidnapping; however, the jury
the time periods that they testified Petitioner had called them and stated that he found Petitioner not guilty of possession of a weapon during the commission of a
needed a ride for himself and Wilson on the night of the robbery. violent crime and attempted murder (or the lesser charge of assault and battery of a
Law enforcement also discovered that Wilson was wearing a GPS ankle monitor and high and aggravated nature). Petitioner was sentenced to prison and he appealed to
requested the GPS records from the South Carolina Department of Probation, the court of appeals.
Pardon, and Parole Services (the "Department"). The GPS records, which are the The court of appeals affirmed Petitioner's convictions and sentences in an
focus of this appeal, purportedly placed Wilson at Zaxby's just prior to and during unpublished opinion pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, finding no abuse of discretion
the time of the robbery. During trial, the State submitted Wilson's GPS records, to in the admission of the GPS evidence and, in any event, any error was harmless
which Petitioner objected on the basis that the State was unable to authenticate the beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Brown , Op. No. 2016-UP-447, 2016 WL
records or comply with the business records exception. See Rules 803(6) and 901, 6471970 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Nov. 2, 2016). Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of
SCRE. The trial court overruled the objections and admitted the GPS records. certiorari, which we granted.
II. III.
The State presented Agent Steward Powell's testimony to authenticate the GPS "The admission or exclusion of evidence is a matter addressed to the
records. Agent Powell testified that he is a probation agent with the Department and sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be disturbed in the absence
explained that his job duties include supervising offenders after they are sentenced. of a manifest abuse of discretion accompanied by probable prejudice." State v.
Part of the supervision involves the use of GPS monitoring systems. In particular, Douglas , 369 S.C. 424, 429, 632 S.E.2d 845, 847–48 (2006) (citations omitted).
"An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack acceptance of GPS technology does not, however, translate to the State getting a
evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law." Id. at 429–30, 632 S.E.2d pass from making a minimum showing that the GPS records it seeks to introduce
at 848 (citations omitted). IV. into evidence are accurate.
The main issue before this Court is whether Agent Powell's testimony was sufficient Here, the testimony of Agent Powell failed to authenticate because it shed no light
to authenticate the GPS records. We hold that the GPS records were not properly on the accuracy of the GPS records. The State's argument that authentication was
authenticated. We do not doubt that Agent Powell was a proper witness and likely fulfilled through other means fails to appreciate the nature of GPS records and that
able to lay the necessary foundation. But in terms of establishing the accuracy of the these records are generated and result from, at least in part, the process or system
GPS records, Agent Powell simply observed the GPS records are accurate because used by a machine.
"[w]e use it in court all the time." Such a response provides no assistance in Moreover, the State failed to meet the authentication requirements for the other
assessing the accuracy of the GPS records. Without this component of authentication subitems it proposes—through testimony of a witness with knowledge, a showing of
satisfied, it was error to admit this evidence. distinctive characteristics, or as a public record—because Agent Powell did not pull
Because we agree with Petitioner that the trial court erred in admitting the GPS the GPS records, the GPS records did not reflect Wilson's name on every page, the
records, it is not necessary to address Petitioner's other challenges to this pages were not in sequential or even chronological order, the records contained
evidence. Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc. , 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 inconsistent serial numbers as well as various unexplained time and date gaps, and
S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (stating an "appellate court need not address remaining the records did not reflect compliance with the statute requiring that the Department
issues when disposition of prior issue is dispositive" (internal citation omitted) ). use a "web-based computer system that actively monitors and records a person's
It is black letter law that evidence must be authenticated or identified in order to be location at least once every minute twenty-four hours a day ." S.C. Code Ann. § 23-
admissible. See State v. Rich , 293 S.C. 172, 173, 359 S.E.2d 281, 281 (1987) 3-540 (Supp. 2017) ; see also Rule 901(b)(1), (4), (7), SCRE.
(noting prior to the adoption of the rules of evidence that an exception to the hearsay As recognized by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, "Any concerns about the
rule does not "absolve the offering party from the usual requirements of reliability of such machine-generated information is addressed through the process
authentication"). Upon adoption of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence, this of authentication ...." United States v. Washington , 498 F.3d 225, 231 (4th Cir.
common law rule was codified at Rule 901, SCRE. See State v. Anderson , 386 S.C. 2007). "When information provided by machines is mainly a product of ‘mechanical
120, 128–132, 687 S.E.2d 35, 39–41 (2009). This rule specifically provides, "The measurement or manipulation of data by well-accepted scientific or mathematical
requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to techniques,’ " then "a foundation must be established for the information through
admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in authentication, which Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(9) allows such proof to be
question is what its proponent claims." Rule 901(a), SCRE. In addition, the rule authenticated by evidence ‘describing [the] process or system used to produce [the]
contains examples of "authentication or identification conforming with the result’ and showing it ‘produces an accurate result.’ " Id. (citation omitted).
requirements of this rule." Rule 901(b), SCRE. The method at issue here is: See United States v. Espinal-Almeida , 699 F.3d 588, 610 (1st Cir. 2012) (finding a
"With the exception of subsection (b)(10) ... this rule is identical to the federal rule." serial number sufficient to identify the GPS device, but evaluating whether the GPS
Note, Rule 901, SCRE. This remains true even after the Federal Rules of Evidence data was properly authenticated under Rule 901(b)(9), FRE, because it is the
were restyled in 2011 as there was "no intent to change any result in any ruling on provision "typically ... employed to authenticate data generated by a mechanism" as
evidence admissibility." Fed. R. Evid. 901 advisory committee's note to 2011 "evidence derived from the operation of a machine or instrument normally depends
amendment. for its validity on the premise that the device was in proper working order" (citations
Rule 901 provides examples of authentication "[b]y way of illustration only, and not omitted) ); see also United States v. Lizarraga-Tirado , 789 F.3d 1107, 1110 (9th
by way of limitation." Rule 901, SCRE. Cir. 2015) (similar); United States v. Lamons , 532 F.3d 1251, 1265 (11th Cir. 2008)
(9) Process or System. Evidence describing a process or system used to produce a (similar).
result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result. Other persuasive authority supports this approach. See, e.g. , Subdivision (b)(9)—
Rule 901(b)(9), SCRE. Process or System, 31 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 7114 (1st ed. Apr. 2018) (stating
The State acknowledges that it is required to authenticate the GPS records, but " Rule 901(b)(9) governs the authentication of data produced by a machine
argues that this burden is not high. We agree, and moreover, we acknowledge that purporting to measure or detect something, such as a radar gun, a breathalyzer, a
the reliability or operation of GPS technology in general is not genuinely global positioning system device , and the like" (emphasis added) ); see also Rule
disputed. See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Thissell , 457 Mass. 191, 928 N.E.2d 932, 902(13), FRE (allowing "[a] record generated by an electronic process or system that
938 n.15 (2010) (reviewing the origins of GPS technology as a "U.S.-owned utility produces an accurate result" to be certified). Thus, we hold that the State needed to
that provides users with positioning, navigation, and timing [PNT] services" and present "[e]vidence describing [the] process or system used to produce" the GPS
consists of three segments maintained by the United States Air Force). This general records and "showing that the process or system produces an accurate result" in
accordance with Rule 901(b)(9), SCRE, to authenticate Wilson's GPS records in this different components of the device" and "testified about how the device operates
case. using a combination of GPS signals and cell phone triangulations to track the
We emphasize that "[n]o elaborate showing of the accuracy of the recorded data is location of the electronic monitoring device at least every four minutes." Id. In
required"; however, the State must make some showing to authenticate the addition, he explained how the "tracking data is then uploaded from the device to a
records. People v. Rodriguez , 16 Cal.App.5th 355, 224 Cal.Rptr.3d 295, 309 (2017). secured server where it is stored" and "that the device primarily uses GPS signals,
Other jurisdictions have allowed GPS records to be authenticated by someone who which are very accurate, usually within four to ten meters." Id. He also testified that
has general knowledge and experience with the system used, explains how the he "never had any issue with the accuracy of the data." Id. at 54. Moreover, the court
records are generated, and confirms the accuracy of the result. See, e.g. , United noted that the sergeant "described how he retrieved the data for defendant's
States v. Brooks , 715 F.3d 1069, 1077–79 (8th Cir. 2013) (affirming, as to the electronic monitoring device for [the specific dates at issue] and produced the event
specific device's accuracy, that the GPS records were authenticated because the log entered into evidence." Id. The court held that the evidence was properly
Government's witness "had been trained by the company, he knew how the device authenticated and admitted. Id. at 55.
worked, ... he had demonstrated the device for customers dozens of times," other After reviewing various authorities, we require that a witness should have
testimony confirmed the device's accuracy, and any brief lapse in the device's experience with the electronic monitoring system used and provide testimony
transmission was explained); United States v. Espinal-Almeida , 699 F.3d 588, 612– describing the monitoring system, the process of generating or obtaining the records,
13 (1st Cir. 2012) (stating "[t]he issues surrounding the processes employed by the and how this process has produced accurate results for the particular device or data
GPS and software, and their accuracy, were not so scientifically or technologically at issue. As noted, the witness need not be an expert. However, even under the
grounded that expert testimony was required to authenticate the evidence, and thus minimally burdensome test we set forth, Agent Powell failed to properly
the testimony of ... someone knowledgeable, trained, and experienced in analyzing authenticate the accuracy of the GPS records. Thus, it was error for the trial court to
GPS devices, was sufficient to authenticate the GPS data and software generated admit this evidence because the GPS records were not properly authenticated. V.
evidence" given the "testimony about the processes employed by both the GPS and See, e.g. , Johnson v. State , 457 Md. 513, 179 A.3d 984, 995 (2018) (recognizing
the software"); Rodriguez , 224 Cal.Rptr.3d at 309–10 (holding the GPS data was "[c]ourts in other jurisdictions have admitted evidence derived from GPS tracking
properly authenticated through the sergeant's testimony as he "testified about his devices over objections to the lack of technical expertise of the sponsoring witness,"
familiarity and knowledge of how the ankle monitor transmitted defendant's location such as "tracking reports from GPS devices concealed in currency stolen from
through GPS data, the computer software used to track the ankle monitor and the banks, data reports from GPS monitoring devices worn by probationers, and data on
GPS data, and how the GPS report was generated" as well as "testified about the a GPS device seized from drug smuggling boat," and rejecting "a categorical rule
accuracy and reliability of the GPS report generated from the ankle monitor's that expert testimony is required whenever location and duration information
signals"); State v. Kandutsch , 336 Wis.2d 478, 799 N.W.2d 865, 875– derived from a GPS device is offered into evidence" (citing Brooks , 715 F.3d
76 (2011)superseded by statute on different grounds , Wis. Stat. § 907.02, as 1069 ; United States v. Thompson , 393 Fed. Appx. 852 (3d Cir.
recognized in In re Commitment of Jones , 381 Wis.2d 284, 911 N.W.2d 97 (2018) 2010) ; Jackson , 748 S.E.2d 50 ; Thissell , 928 N.E.2d 932 ; Espinal-Almeida , 699
(finding "the State was permitted to authenticate and lay a foundation for the EMD F.3d 588 (footnotes omitted) ) ).
report by providing testimony describing the electronic monitoring system and the --------
process by which the daily summary reports are generated and showing that this Despite this error, we hold that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
process produces an accurate result" through the department of correction's agents, due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt presented against Petitioner.
who were familiar with its operation and testified regarding the installation of the "Generally, appellate courts will not set aside convictions due to insubstantial errors
specific device and its accuracy). not affecting the result." State v. Pagan , 369 S.C. 201, 212, 631 S.E.2d 262,
One jurisdiction, North Carolina, appears to use the same or similar vendor as the 267 (2006). "Where ‘guilt has been conclusively proven by competent evidence such
one used in this case—Omni Link—and has found an officer's testimony sufficient that no other rational conclusion can be reached,’ an insubstantial error that does not
to authenticate GPS records. In State v. Jackson , 229 N.C.App. 644, 748 S.E.2d affect the result of the trial is considered harmless." State v. Byers , 392 S.C. 438,
50 (2013), an individual, wearing an electronic monitoring device, was accused of 447, 710 S.E.2d 55, 60 (2011) (citing Pagan , 369 S.C. at 212, 631 S.E.2d at 267 ).
sexually assaulting a victim. At trial, the State introduced evidence from the "A harmless error analysis is contextual and specific to the circumstances of the
defendant's electronic monitoring device in order to place the defendant at the scene case." Id. at 447–48, 710 S.E.2d at 60. "Where a review of the entire record
of the assault. Id. at 53. On appeal, the court evaluated whether the GPS tracking establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should
evidence was properly authenticated. 748 S.E.2d 50. The court stated, "Regarding not be reversed." State v. Price , 368 S.C. 494, 499, 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006).
the specific electronic monitoring device worn by defendant, [a trained sergeant] Under the circumstances presented in this case and based on the evidence described
identified the device as the Omni–Link 210." Id. at 54. The sergeant "described the in the first section of this opinion, the error did not contribute to the verdict and was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. - hash value is a number that is often represented as a sequence of
VI. characters and is produced by an algorithm based upon the digital contents
In sum, we hold the State failed to authenticate the GPS records because Agent of a drive, medium, or file. If the hash values for the original and copy are
Powell's testimony—"[w]e use it in court all the time"—failed to authenticate the different, then the copy is not identical to the original. If the hash values
GPS evidence concerning its accuracy. However, the error was harmless beyond a
for the original and copy are the same, it is highly improbable that the
reasonable doubt. The court of appeals is affirmed in result.
AFFIRMED IN RESULT. original and copy are not identical. Thus, identical hash values for the
original and copy reliably attest to the fact that they are exact duplicates.
This amendment allows self-authentication by a certification of a qualified
What is the rule at least in our jurisidiction on the authentication of electronic person that she checked the hash value of the proffered item and that it
evidence? Who has the burden and what is the manner? was identical to the original. The rule is flexible enough to allow
certifications through processes other than comparison of hash value,
- SECTION 1. Burden of proving authenticity. — including by other reliable means of identification provided by future
The person seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal technology.
proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner
provided in this Rule. Do not read, what is it?
- SECTION 2. Manner of authentication. —
Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received - The numeric value of a fixed length that uniquely identifies data.
in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following
means: When you have an apple id, what do you do?
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to
- I sign up, put my name, email, password, fill up forms, agree with the
have signed the same;
terms and conditions . From there I can navigate through applications
(b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as
through the use of the ID
may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication
of electronic documents were applied to the document; or How will you go about proving existence of the agreement which was electronically
(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the entered into? Illustrate step by step.
satisfaction of the Judge.
- Send a letter of request to apple indicating the purpose
Therefore you are introduced in the concept in what is a digital signature? Is it the - Print out the accepted terms and conditions from the receiver/sender
same as an electronic document?
Vague! Let’s do a reverse engineering? Who will be your witnesses? What will you
- "Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or present? Do the offer of the testimony and then the persons qualifications should
sound in electronic form, representing the identity of a person and attached come out. Establish that it is authentic and it’s equivalent to an original document.
to or logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic
document or any methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a - Who will be your witness? - MR Y: Stipulating the purpose and contents
person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of of the terms and conditions agreed upon (reliable + has integrity)
authenticating, signing or approving an electronic data message or - Ask Mr.X is this the terms and conditions agreed upon? Printed diba +
electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, an electronic signature preview na lang sa projector (if gusto mo softcopy)
includes digital signatures - Witness: Apple With Data Custodian something?
- Purpose? What will he prove?
What is a hash value?
- Computer programmer of apple testifying as to the manner of storing the - Put forth before the court the agreement was recorded as a document
data, preservation of integrity, systems in place to protect the data from electronically, therefore it’s an electronic document
being tampered - There’s a signature via checking of the tick box, it’s a distinctive mark
(REJECTED BY SIR)
associated with a message.
- To prove that there was registration
Is parole evidence applicable?
- In terms of the security features and reliability, in apple’s data storage,
- Yes. Sec. 10. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an witness should testify the security features employed by apple.
agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all - Witness must be able to explain the whole process.
the terms agreed upon and there can be, as between the parties and their - Prove that the copy of the terms and conditions offered in court is the
successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of actual agreement agreed upon
the written agreement.
How can you tell the court to enunciate your offer of testimony that this particular
At the very least, there’s no issue with parol evidence contract, e-document consisting of pre-approved/pre-signed agreement? Is the
consent of apple indicated already in the program?
- Yes
- Yes
We focus on the original documents rule
If I click agree, do I affix a signature?
What does Sec 2 Rule 6 tell you?
- Yes
- Section 2. Authentication of electronic signatures. – An electronic
Do you agree that witness should inform the court with such process?
signature may be authenticated in any of the following manner:
- Yes
- (a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital
signature and verify the same; How do we materialize all those requirements?
- (b) By any other means provided by law; or - Through the testimony of the expert witness, with regard to the process
- (c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the If that testimony it would have been in the hear and now, it wouldn’t have been
genuineness of the electronic signature. filed. Paano yun? Bakit expert? Is there hypothetical question?
What will you first prove to the judge? What’s your order of presentation? - With regard to the process only of registering apple id
- That mr.y will prove that mr. x registered an account from apple using a All of this, anong panghahawakan ng judge. Where’s the evidence there?
particular email
- Prove that there’s an agreement done to use apple, between mr. x and - Affidavits or exhibits showing the actual process or showing how the
apple to use various applications registration comes about.
- To prove that such agreement between x and apple existed
How are you going to tell the court that Mr.X indeed agreed and apple agreed?
- Ask whether an account would be given - If viber, telegram, they are OTT messaging services. (Overt the top)
- I establish that the person was aware by which apple agrees or confirms - Youtube, Netflix
- Prove the in the process, the document was authentic in the first place.
- Prove that he opened an account How did they present the case?
- Ask if he knows about the terms and conditions
- I would ask X if in the process of registering, would it automatically… - Special agent was asked to present evidence. He showed the webpage of
how would it mean automatically allowing or agreeing? KV.com, claiming that it belongs to Zhyltsou.
-
How do you establish the problem?
How will you establish that via testimony of this witness?
- I present Timku and ask about the exchange of messages
- I establish that’s it’s not trash and it’s not printed via photoshop. - I would ask him how he could be sure that it was Zhyltsou and not
- I confirm the accuracy from the testimony. anybody else
- There should be a certification that this system can be relied upon. That all
How did the state convince the judge?
data from this system is authentic
- , the government offered into evidence a printed copy of a web page,
What happened in Vayner ?
which it claimed was Zhyltsou's profile page from a Russian social
- Narrate mo beh. networking site akin to Facebook.
How did the client prove the particular birth certificate that he was the author and What was the ruling?
that it would be an accepted excuse so that you will not be pulled through? It is an
- Ruling was against the government. They were not able to prove that
important fact of the case?
email was not being used by someone else other than Zhyltsou
- Transmission was made through email
Was the print out helpful?
How did the state tell us that because I see email, I will just be holding some visual
- No they offered the same argument because it is possible that another
material? How did the state built the story that it is Zhyltsou'who sent the birth
person could have made the profile page for Zhyltsou.
certificate
- Court did not rule out the possibility that Timku could have made the
- The birth certificate was transmitted via gmail profile to help his case.
- They presented a webpage of VK.com - VK profile was not enough.
What are the basic facts you have to determine? What is the rule on distinctive characteristics? How relevant is the consideration of
the principle of distinctive characteristics?
- Zhyltsou sent an email, and his email was shown.
- The appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive
If I say the element of the offense/mode of omitting the offense is transmission characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.
electronically? If I ask you what are the modes of transmitting electronically?
What happened in the case of US v. Browne?
- Email, facebook messenger ,e-messaging platform.
- Narrate the case na lang Toto: When it comes to electronic evidence, data, email, one thing is that you cannot
to a certain extend really be sure if what is beheld by your eyes is really authentic
You’re aware that chats are being monitored by facebook? because it can be a visual / audiovisual experience. A good deal of effort to establish
integrity and authenticity is required. One approach is from a system’s approach,
- Yes. what is inside the computer, what is inside the server? With the cases, it can be that
we can also it not simply from an electronic perspective. These ar eintrincally
The only way for FB to act on our complaint for violating community standards
electronic in character but the norms are applied to how to prove and identify
would be to monitor various activities. Can you not say that what is introduced
electronic material or data. In the case of State v. Brown, we have an instance
in FB records like market place, are these not business records and are an
wherein a 3rd party provider, thing there is that any concerns with regard to the
exception to the hearsay rule?
reliability is addressed to the process of authentication. We started with that. It can
be that when information is provided by machines as product of measurement or
- No business rules contemplated by FRE is the records of transactions to
manipulation of data, as generated by scientific or mathematical techniques, the
which the record keeper is a party.
approach is that there should be a foundation established through authentication.
In this case, were they able to trace this to the defendant? That is the logic behind rule 5, foundational evidence.
- Yes by presenting extrinsic evidence to prove authenticity of FB chats
Accused even used an alias, when alias is used like a screen name, that may be a free
speech matter, yet the prosecution was able to say that fb account refers to Browne.
How did the prosecution get to this conclusion?
- Witness testified on the contents of the chat, the testimonies are similar to
the record of chat , the evidence presented
- After the arrest, he admitted, he gave his password.
- There are certain records in the chat which identified Mr. Browne, such as
he is a plumber.
Class, the person must be an administrator of that particular fnction in the platform,
that’s what you should do in the apple question
What happened in Bertram?
- Narrate mo gurl
- Email may be proven through the testimony of a person other than the
sender/receiver because ms. Keizer because she performs billing services,
she was familiar with the style of communication
Supreme Court AC No. 15-06-10-SC (Revised Guidelines of Continuous Trial

in Criminal Cases) : 11. Form of Testimony
Evidence aspect of Parts 10, 11, 12, and 13. Note also Part 1 as to Applicability. (a) For First Level Courts
10. Bail  In all criminal cases, including those covered by the Rule on Summary
(a) Petition for bail Procedure, the testimonies of witnesses shall consist of
Petition for bail filed after the filing of the information shall be set for summary  the duly subscribed written statements given to law enforcement or peace
hearing after arraignment and pre-trial. Testimony of a witness in petition for bail officers or the affidavits or counter-affidavits submitted before the
may be in the form allowed by subheading III, item no. 11, par. b (Form of investigating prosecutor, and if such are not available,
Testimony) of the Revised Guidelines, provided that the demeanor of the witness is  testimonies shall be in the form of judicial affidavits, subject to additional
not essential in determining his/her credibility. direct and cross-examination questions.
Petition for bail shall be heard and resolved within a non-extendible period of thirty
 The trial prosecutor may dispense with the sworn written statements
(30) calendar days from date of the first hearing, except in drug cases which shall be
submitted to the law enforcement or peace officers and prepare the
heard and resolved within twenty (20) calendar days, without need of oral argument
judicial affidavits of the affiants or modify or revise the said sworn
and submission of memoranda, consistent with the summary nature of the
statements before presenting it as evidence.
proceedings. (See Annexes 8-A and 8-B)
Motion for reconsideration on the resolution of petition for bail shall be resolved
within a non-extendible period of ten (10) calendar days from date of submission of (b) For Second Level Courts, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals
the motion.  In criminal cases where the demeanor of the witness is not essential in
Sample flowcharts with Petition for Bail determining the credibility of said witness, such as forensic chemists,
A. Regular Rules medico-legal officers, investigators, auditors, accountants, engineers,
custodians, expert witnesses and other similar witnesses, who will testify
on the authenticity, due execution and the contents of public documents
and reports, and
B. Drug Cases
 in criminal cases that are transactional in character, such as falsification,
malversation, estafa, or other crimes where the culpability or innocence of
the accused can be established through documents, the testimonies of the
witnesses shall be
 the duly subscribed written statements given to law enforcement or peace
officers or the affidavits or counter-affidavits submitted before the
investigating prosecutor, and if such are not available, testimonies shall be
in the form of judicial affidavits, subject to additional direct and cross-
examination questions.
(b) Evidence in petition for bail
 In all other cases where the culpability or the innocence of the accused is
 The resolution of petition for bail shall be based solely on the evidence based on the testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses, the testimonies of
presented during the bail proceedings by the prosecution. these witnesses shall be in oral form.
 The prosecution shall present only pieces of evidence that are essential in
establishing that the evidence of guilt is strong.
 The accused need not present evidence to contradict or rebut the
prosecution’s evidence. 12. Stipulations
 During pre-trial/preliminary conference, the court shall require the parties
to enter into stipulations on the subject of both direct and cross-
© Non-suspension of the presentation of evidence
examinations of witnesses who have no personal knowledge of the
 The court shall not suspend the presentation of the evidence in chief
material facts constituting the crimes, such as forensic chemists, medico-
while awaiting resolution of the petition for bail or the motion for
legal officers, investigators, auditors, accountants, engineers, custodians,
reconsideration.
expert witnesses and other similar witnesses, who will testify on the
authenticity, due execution and the contents of public documents and same.
reports; corroborative witnesses; and those who will testify on the civil If the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence is granted, and the
liability. subsequent demurrer to evidence is denied, the accused shall likewise present and
 This rule is without prejudice to allowing additional direct and cross- terminate his/her evidence (one day apart, morning and afternoon) and shall orally
examination questions. offer and rest his/her case on the day his/her last witness is presented. The court
 If stipulations cannot be had in full, where the adverse party does not shall rule on the oral offer of evidence of the accused and the comment or objection
waive the right to cross-examination, the subject of the direct testimony of of the prosecution on the same day of the offer. If the court denies the motion to
these witnesses should be stipulated upon, without prejudice to additional present rebuttal evidence because it is no longer necessary, it shall consider the case
direct and cross-examination questions. submitted for decision. (See Annex 10)
13. Trial (e) Presentation of Rebuttal and Sur-rebuttal Evidence. —

(c) Offer of evidence. —  If the court grants the motion to present rebuttal evidence, the prosecution shall
 The offer of evidence, the comment/objection thereto, and the court ruling immediately proceed with its presentation after the accused had rested his/her
shall be made orally. case, and orally rest its case in rebuttal after the presentation of its last rebuttal
 A party is required to make his/her oral offer of evidence on the same day witness.
after the presentation of his/her last witness, and the opposing party is  Thereafter, the accused shall immediately present sur-rebuttal evidence, if there
required to immediately interpose his/her oral comment/objection thereto. is any, and orally rest the case in sur-rebuttal after the presentation of its last
Thereafter, the court shall make a ruling on the offer of evidence in open sur-rebuttal witness. Thereafter, the court shall submit the case for decision.
court. (See Annexes 11 to 13)
 In making the offer, the counsel shall cite the specific page numbers of the
court record where the exhibits being offered are found, if attached (f) One-day examination of witness rule. —
thereto. The court shall ensure that all exhibits offered are submitted to it  The court shall strictly adhere to the rule that a witness has to be fully
on the same day of the offer. examined in one (1) day.
 If the exhibits are not attached to the record, the party making the offer
must submit the same during the offer of evidence in open court. I. Applicability
The Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (Revised
(d) Demurrer to Evidence. — After the prosecution has rested its case, the court Guidelines) shall apply to all newly-filed criminal cases, including those governed
shall inquire from the accused if he/she desires to move for leave of court to file a by Special Laws and Rules, 1 in the First and Second Level Courts, the
demurrer to evidence, or to proceed with the presentation of his/her evidence. ( See Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals as of effectivity date. The Revised
Annex 9) Guidelines shall also apply to pending criminal cases with respect to the remainder
If the accused orally moves for leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence, the of the proceedings.
court shall orally resolve the same. If the motion for leave is denied, the court shall
issue an order for the accused to present and terminate his/her evidence on the dates Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, the Revised Guidelines shall not
previously scheduled and agreed upon, and to orally offer and rest his/her case on apply to criminal cases filed under the Rule on Summary Procedure.
the day his/her last witness is presented.
If despite the denial of the motion for leave, the accused insists on filing the
Sections 7 and 8, Human Security Act, RA 9372 (relate to RA 4200)
demurrer to evidence, the previously scheduled dates for the accused to present
evidence shall be cancelled.
The demurrer to evidence shall be filed within a non-extendible period of ten (10) SECTION 7. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of
calendar days from the date leave of court is granted, and the corresponding Communications. —
comment shall be filed within a non-extendible period of ten (10) calendar days  The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) to the
counted from date of receipt of the demurrer to evidence. The demurrer shall be contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official and the
resolved by the court within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) calendar days members of his team may,
from date of the filing of the comment or lapse of the ten (10)-day period to file the  upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and
record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or
surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise
use of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any described:
communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written  It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in
words the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly
 between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record,
organization, association, or group of persons or of any person charged or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either
with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by
terrorism. this law; or
 Provided, That surveillance, interception and recording of  to replay the same for any other person or persons; or
communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients,  to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to
journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondence furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other
shall not be authorized. person:
 Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in
any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3
SECTION 8. Formal Application for Judicial Authorization. — hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.
 The written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals to ||| (Anti-Wire Tapping Law, Republic Act No. 4200, [June 19, 1965])
track down, tap, listen to, intercept, and record communications, messages,
conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words of any person
suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit Section 10, in relation to relevant portions of RA 10168, Terror Financing
terrorism Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012
 shall only be granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals Sections 16 to 23, 29 to 31, and 35, and other relevant provisions, Senate Bill
upon an ex parte written application of a police or of a law enforcement No. 1083, proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.
official who has been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism
Council created in Section 53 of this Act to file such ex parte application, Sec. 10. Recruitment to and Membership in a Terrorist Organization. –
and upon examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the  Any person who shall recruit another to participate in, join, commit or
witnesses he may produce to establish: support any terrorism or a terrorist individual or any terrorist
 (a) that there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of organization, association or group of persons proscribed under Section 26
facts or circumstances that the said crime of terrorism or conspiracy to of this Act, or designated by the United Nations Security Council as a
commit terrorism has been committed, or is being committed, or is about terrorist organization, or organized for the purpose of engaging in
to be committed; terrorism, shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit
 (b) that there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of of parole and the benefits of Republic Act No. 10592.
facts or circumstances that evidence, which is essential to the conviction  The same penalty shall be imposed on any person who organizes or
of any charged or suspected person for, or to the solution or prevention of, facilitates the travel of individuals to a state other than their state of
any such crimes, will be obtained; and, residence or nationahty for the purpose of recruitment which may be
 (c) that there is no other effective means readily available for acquiring committed through any of the following means:
such evidence.  (a) Recruiting another person to serve in any capacity in or with an armed
||| (Human Security Act of 2007, Republic Act No. 9372, [March 6, 2007]) force in a foreign state, whether the armed force forms part of the armed
forces of the government of that foreign state or othemise;
SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the  (b) Publishing an advertisement or propaganda for 6 the purpose of
parties to any private communication or spoken word, recruiting persons to serve in any capacity in or with such an armed
 to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to force;
secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word  (c) Publishing an advertisement or propaganda containing any
information relating to the place at which or the manner in which persons
may make applications to serve or obtain information relating to service  (c) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against
in any capacity in or with such armed force or relating to the manner in Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted
which persons may travel to a foreign state for 14 the purpose of serving by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1973;
in any capacity in or with such armed force; or  (d) International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by
 (d) Performing any other act with the intention of facilitating or the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17 December 1979;
promoting the recruitment of persons to serve in any capacity in or with  (e) Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted
such armed force. Any person who shall voluntarily and knowingly join at Vienna on 3 March 1980;
any organization, association or group of persons knowing that such  (f) Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports
organization, association or group of persons is proscribed under Section Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention
26 of this Act, or designated by the United Nations Security Council as a for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil
terrorist organization, or organized for the purpose of engaging in 5 Aviation, done at Montreal on 24 February 1988;
terrorism, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years.  (g) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety
of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988;
 (h) Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of
Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10
(The Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012, Republic Act March 1988; or
No. 10168 , [June 18, 2012])  (i) International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings,
(i) Terrorist refers to any natural person who: adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December
 (1) commits, or attempts, or conspires to commit terrorist acts by any 1997. DCASEc
means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully;
 (2) participates, as a principal or as an accomplice, in terrorist acts; (k) Terrorist organization, association or a group of persons
 (3) organizes or directs others to commit terrorist acts; or  refers to any entity owned or controlled by any terrorist or group of
 (4) contributes to the commission of terrorist acts by a group of persons terrorists that:
acting with a common purpose where the contribution is made  (1) commits, or attempts to commit, terrorist acts by any means, directly or
intentionally and with the aim of furthering the terrorist act or with the indirectly, unlawfully and willfully;
knowledge of the intention of the group to commit a terrorist act.  (2) participates as an accomplice in terrorist acts;
 (3) organizes or directs others to commit terrorist acts; or
(j) Terrorist acts refer to the following:  (4) contributes to the commission of terrorist acts by a group of persons
 (1) Any act in violation of Section 3 or Section 4 of the Human acting with common purpose of furthering the terrorist act where the
Security Act of 2007; contribution is made intentionally and with the aim of furthering the
 (2) Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a terrorist act or with the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit
civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities a terrorist act.
in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its
nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Sec. 16. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of
government or an international organization to do or to abstain from Communications. –
doing any act;  The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200, otherwise known as the "Anti-
 (3) Any act which constitutes an offense under this Act, that is within the Wire Tapping Law” to the contrary notwithstanding, law enforcement
scope of any of the following treaties of which the Republic of the agent or military personnel may, upon a written order of the Court of
Philippines is a State party: Appeals secretly wiretap, overhear and listen to, intercept, screen, read,
 (a) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, done survey, record or collect, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of
at the Hague on 16 December 1970; electronic, mechanical or other equipment or device or technology now
 (b) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety known or may hereafter be known to science or with theuse of any other
of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 23 September 1971; suitable ways and means for the above purposes, any private
communications, conversation, discussion/s, data, information, messages  Being classified information, access to the said documents and any
in whatever form, kind or nature, spoken or written words information contained in the said documents shall be limited to the
 a) between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist 7 applicants, duly authorized personnel of the ATC, the hearing justices, the
organization, as provided in Section 26 of this Act; clerk of court and duly authorized personnel of the hearing or issuing
 (b) between members of a designated person as defined in 9 Section 3(E) court. The written order of the authorizing division of the Court of
of Repubbc Act No. 10168; or Appeals shall specify the following;
 (c) any person charged with or suspected of committing any of the crimes  (a) the identity, such as name and address, if known, of the person or
defined and penalized under the provisions of this Act; Provided, That, persons whose communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or
surveillance, interception and recording of communications between spoken or written words are to be tracked down, tapped, listened to,
lawyers and clients, doctors and 14 patients, journalists and their sources intercepted, and recorded; and, in the case of radio, electronic, or
and confidential business correspondence shall not be authorized. The law telephonic (whether wireless or otherwise) communications, messages,
enforcement agent or military personnel shall likewise be obligated to conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words, the electronic
 (1) file an ex-parte application with the Court of Appeals for the issuance transmission systems or the telephone numbers to be tracked down,
of an order, to compel telecommunications service providers (TSP) and tapped, listened to, intercepted, and recorded and their locations or if the
internet service providers (ISP) to produce all customer information and person or persons suspected of committing any of the crimes defined and
identification records as well as call and text data records, content and penalized under the provisions of this Act are not fully known, such
other cellular or internet metadata of any person suspected of any of the person or persons shall be the subject of continuous surveillance;
crimes defined and penalized under the provisions of this Act; and  (b) the identity of the law enforcement agent or military personnel,
 (2) furnish the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) a copy including the individual identity of the members of his team, judicially 18
of said application. The NTC shall likewise be notified upon the issuance authorized to undertake surveillance activities;
of the order for the purpose of 8 ensuring immediate compliance.  (c) the offense or offenses committed, or being committed, or sought to
be prevented; and,
Sec. 17. Judicial Authorization, Requisites. - The authorizing division of the  (d) the length of time within which the authorization shall be used or
Court of Appeals shall issue a 11 written order to conduct the acts mentioned in carried out.
Section 16 of this Act upon:
 (1) Fifing of an ex parte written application by a law enforcement agent or Sec. 19. Effective Period of Judicial Authorization.
military personnel, who has been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-  Any authorization granted by the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Section
Terrorism Council 16 (ATC); and 17 of this Act, shall only be effective for the length of time specified in
 (2) After examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the the written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals
witnesses he may produce, the issuing court determines; which shall not exceed a period of sixty (60) days from the date of
 (a) that there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of receipt of the written order by the applicant law enforcement agent or
facts or circumstances that the crimes defined and penalized under military personnel.
Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 4 10, 11 and 12 of this Act has been committed, or  The authorizing division of the Court of Appeals may extend or renew
is being committed, or is about to be committed; and the said authorization to a non-extendible period, which shall not exceed
 (b) that there is probable cause to beheve based on personal knowledge of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the original period:
facts or circumstances that evidence, which is essential to the conviction  Provided, That the issuing court is satisfied that such extension or renewal
of any charged or suspected person for, or to the solution or 10 prevention is in the public interest: and Provided, further. That the ex parte
of, any such crimes, will be obtained. application for extension or renewal, which must be filed by the original
applicant, has been duly authorized in writing by the ATC.
Sec. 18. Classification and Contents of the Order of the Court. –  In case of death of the original applicant or in case he is physically
 The written order granted by the authorizing division of the Court of disabled to file the application for extension or renewal, the one next in
Appeals as well as the application for such order, shall be deemed and are rank to the original applicant among the members of the team named in
hereby declared as classified information. the original written order shall file the application for extension or
renewal;
 Provided, finally, That, the applicant law enforcement agent or military

personnel shall have thirty (30) days after the termination of the period Any person, law enforcement agent or military officer who violates any of the acts
granted by the Court of Appeals as provided in the preceding paragraphs proscribed in the preceding paragraph shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
within which to file the appropriate case before the Public Prosecutor's ten 10) years.
Office for any violation of this Act.
 For purposes of this provision, the issuing court shall require the Sec. 22. Disposition of Deposited Materials. - The sealed envelope or sealed
applicant law enforcement or military official to inform the court, after package and the contents thereof referred to in Section 20 of this Act, shall be
the lapse of the 30-day period of the fact that an appropriate case for deemed and are hereby declared classified information. The sealed envelope or
violation of this Act has been filed with the Public Prosecutor’s Office. sealed package shall not be opened, disclosed, or used as evidence unless authorized
by a written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals which written
Sec. 20. Custody of Intercepted and Recorded 18 Communications. – order shall be granted only upon a written apphcation of the Department of Justice
All tapes, discs, other storage devices, recordings, notes, memoranda, summaries, (DOJ) duly authorized in writing by the ATC to file the application with proper
excerpts and all copies thereof obtained under the judicial authorization granted by written notice to the person whose conversation, communication, message,
the Court of Appeals shall, within forty-eight (48) hours after the expiration of the discussion or spoken or written words have been the subject of surveillance,
period fixed in the written order or the extension or renewal granted thereafter, be monitoring, recording and interception to open, reveal, divulge, and use the contents
deposited with the issuing court in a sealed envelope or sealed package, as the case of 5 the sealed envelope or sealed package as evidence.
may be, emd shall be accompanied by a joint affidavit of the applicant law The written apphcation, with notice to the party concerned, for the opening,
enforcement agent or military personnel and the members of his team. replaying, disclosing, or using as evidence of the sealed package or the contents
In case of death of the applicant or in case he is physically disabled to execute the thereof shall clearly state the purpose or reason for its opening, replaying,
required affidavit, the 11 one next in rank to the applicant among the members of 1 disclosing, or its being used as evidence. Violation of this section shall be penalized
the team named in the written order of the authorizing division of the Court of by imprisonment of ten (10) years.
Appeals shall execute with the members of the team that required affidavit.
It shall be unlawful for any person, law enforcement agent or mditary personnel or Sec. 23. Evidentiary Value of Deposited Materials. - Any listened to, intercepted,
any custodian of the tapes, discs, other storage devices recordings, notes, and recorded communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or
memoranda, summaries, excerpts and ah copies thereof to remove, delete, expunge, written words, or any part or parts thereof or any information or fact contained
incinerate, shred or destroy in any manner the items enumerated above in whole or therein, including their existence, content, substance, purport, effect, or meaning,
in part under any pretext whatsoever. which have been secured in violation of the pertinent provisions of this Act, shall be
Any person who removes, deletes, expunges, incinerates, shreds or destroys the inadmissible and cannot be used as evidenceagainst anybody in any judicial, quasi-
items enumerated above shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years. judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or hearing
Sec. 21. Contents of Joint Affidavit. — The joint affidavit of the law enforcement Sec. 29. Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest. - The provisions of
agent or military personnel shall state: Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to the contrary notwithstanding, any law
(a) the number of tapes, discs, and recordings that have been made; enforcement agent or military personnel, who, having been duly authorized in
(b) the dates and times covered by each of such tapes, discs, and recordings; and writing by the ATC has taken custody of a person suspected of committing any of
(c) the chain of custody or the list of persons who had possession or custody over the acts defined 2 and penalized under Sections 4, 6, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of 3
the tapes, discs and recordings. The joint affidavit shall also certify under oath that this Act, shall, without incurring any criminal liability for delay in the delivery of
no duplicates or copies of the whole or any part of any of such tapes, discs, other detained persons to the proper 5 judicial authorities, deliver said suspected person to
storage devices, recordings, notes, memoranda, summaries, or excerpts have been theproper judicial authority within a period of fourteen (14) calendar days counted
made, or, if made, that all such duplicates and copies are included in 1 the seeded from the moment the said suspectedperson has been apprehended or arrested,
envelope or sealed package, as the case may be, deposited with the authorizing detained, and taken into custody by the law enforcement agent or mihtary personnel.
division of the Court of Appeals. The period of detention may be extended to a maximum period of ten (10) calendar
It shall be unlawful for any person, law enforcement agent or mditary personnel to days if it is established that
omit or exclude from the joint affidavit any item or portion thereof mentioned in (1) further detention of the person/s is necessary to preserve evidence related to the
this Section. terrorism or complete the investigation;
(2) further detention of the person/s is necessary to prevent the commission of

another terrorism; and Sec. 31. Violation of the Rights of a Detainee. - The penalty of imprisonment of
(3) the investigation is being conducted properly and without delay. Immediately ten (10) years shall be imposed upon any law enforcement agent or military
after taking custody of a person suspected of committing terrorism or any member personnel who has violated the rights of persons under then- custody, as provided
of a group of persons, organization or association proscribed under Section 26 for in Sections 29 and 30 of this Act.
hereof, the law enforcement agent or military personnel shall notify in writing the Unless the law enforcement agent or military personnel who violated the rights of a
judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension or ari-est of the following detainee or detainees as stated above is duly identified, the same penalty shall be
facts: imposed on the head of the law enforcement unit or 17 military unit having custody
(a) the time, date, and manner of arrest; of the detainee at the time the 18 violation was done
(b) the location or locations of the detained suspect/s and
(c) the physical and mental condition of the detained suspect/s. Sec. 35. Anti-Money Laundering Council Authority to Investigate, Inquire into
The law enforcement agent or military personnel shall likewise furnish the ATC and Examine Bank Deposits. -Upon the issuance by the court of a preliminary
and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) of the written notice given to the order of proscription or in case of designation under Section 25 of this 11 Act, the
judge. The head of the detaining facility shall ensure that the detained suspect is AMLC, either upon its own initiative or at the 12 request of the ATC, is hereby
informed of his/her rights as a detainee and shall ensure access to the detainee by authorized to investigate:
his/her counsel or agencies and entities authorized by law to exercise visitorial (a) any property or funds that are in any way related to 14 financing of terrorism as
powers over detention facihties. 1 The penalty of miprisonment of ten (10) years defined and penahzed under Repubhc Act No. 10168, or violation of Sections 4, 6,
shall be imposed upon the pohce or law enforcement agent or military personnel 7, 10, 11 or 12 of this Act;
who fails to notify any judge as provided in the preceding paragraph. (b) property or funds of any person or persons in relation to whom there is probable
cause to believe that such person or persons are committing or attempting or
Sec. 30. Rights of a Person under Custodial Detention. - The moment a person conspiring to commit, or participating in or facilitating the financing of the
charged with or suspected of committing any of the acts defined and penalized aforementioned sections of 2 this Act.
under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Act is apprehended or arrested The AMLC may also enlist the assistance of any branch, department, bureau, office,
and detained, he shall forthwith be informed, by the arresting law enforcement agency or instrumentality of the government, including government owned and
agent or military personnel by the law enforcement agentor military personnel to controlled corporations in undertaking measures to counter the financing of these
whose custody the personconcerned is brought, of his or her right: terrorism, which may include the use of its personnel, facilities and 9 resources.
(a) to be informedof the nature and cause of his arrest, to remain silent and to have For purposes of this Section and notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act
competent and independent counsel preferably of his choice. If the person cannot No. 1405, otherwise known as 12 the “Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits”, as
afford the services of counsel of his or her choice, the law enforcement agent or amended; 1 Republic Act No. 6426, otherwise known as the "Foreign 1 Currency
military personnel concerned shall immediately contact the free legal assistance unit Deposit Act of the Philippines”, as amended; Republic Act No. 8791, otherwise
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) or the Public Attorney's Office (PAO). known as “The General Banking Law of 2000” and other laws, the AMLC is hereby
It shall be the duty of the free legal assistance unit of the IBP 1 or the PAO thus authorized to inquire into or examine deposits and investments with any banking
contacted to immediately visit the person/s detained and provide him or her with institution or non-bank financial institution and their subsidiaries and affiliates
legal assistance. without a court order.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of his/her
counsel of choice;
(b) informed of the cause or causes of his/her detention in the1 presence of his legal Continuous Trial Rule
counsel;
(c) allowed to communicate freely with his/her legal counsel and to confer with How does the provision on how the courts will resolve the matter of
them at any time without restriction; bail impact the respective parties (prosec and accused)?
(d) allowed to communicate freely and privately without restrictions with the
members of his/her family or with his/her nearest relatives and to be visited by
- The resolution of petition for bail shall be based solely on the
evidence presented during the bail proceedings by the
them; and,
prosecution.The prosecution shall present only pieces of evidence
(e) allowed freely to avail of the service of a physician or physicians of choice.
that are essential in establishing that the evidence of guilt is strong.
The accused need not present evidence to contradict or rebut the - AMLC authorized into inquire into or examine the deposits or
prosecution's evidence. investments with any financing or non-banking institutions even
without a court order.
When is a petition for bail filed?
- In essence what does RA 4200 provide?
- After the Information is filed.
- Penalizing wiretapping and other related violations of the privacy of
Is it theoretically possible for the court to consider also the evidence communications.
presented by the court even if the accused need not present evidence?
During cross-examination of the witnesses of the prosecution (impeachment Under the Anti-Wire Tapping Act, am I allowed to pry into
of witnesses). For documentary evidence, object to admissibility. conversations by telephone?
- No.
For criminal cases with respect to first level courts, what should be the
default with respect to the matter which will constitute the basis for the
testimony of your witnesses, specially for the prosecution? What about communications without wire? Emails, cellphone etc, are
they covered? Is the Anti-Wire Tapping Act limited to those with wires?
- Instead of judicial affidavits, duly subscribed written statements
given before peace officers. - No sir. Limited only to those with wires or cables.
- Ex: Sinumpaang Salaysay given before the police officers.
Granting without admitting that you are correct, what is the relevance
How is the manner of presentation? of the Anti-Wire Tapping Act with respect to the Human Security Act?
- In the form of a question and answer. - Human Security Act is an exception to the Anti-Wire Tapping Act.
Specifically, upon written order of the CA, a police or law
For purposes of trial, what methods or devices does the Continuous enforcement official and the members of his team may listen to,
Trial Rule encourage? intercept and record any communication between members of a
judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association,
- Methods of discovery, application for conditional examination of or group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of
witness. the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.

During the semester we have been talking about privileged information. The law enforcers only need to file an ex-parte application for that purpose
In the Financing Terrorism Act of 2012, what is the authority given to who has been duly authorized in writing by the AMLC.
the Anti Money Laundering Council?
- With the adoption of the SB 1083, adopted in full by the House,
- SEC. 10. Authority to Investigate Financing of Terrorism. — The what is the change introduced in the Human Security Act?
AMLC, either upon its own initiative or at the request of the ATC, is
hereby authorized to investigate: (a) any property or funds that are For the surveillance of suspects and recording of communications, they can
in any way related to financing of terrorism or acts of terrorism; (b) tap private communications between members of designated persons as
property or funds of any person or persons in relation to whom defined Sec 3(e) of RA 10168:
there is probable cause to believe that such person or persons are
committing or attempting or conspiring to commit, or participating in - (1) any person or entity designated and/or identified as a terrorist,
or facilitating the financing of terrorism or acts of terrorism as one who finances terrorism, or a terrorist organization or group
defined herein. under the applicable United Nations Security Council Resolution or
by another jurisdiction or supranational jurisdiction;
ATC? Anti-Terrorism Council. So there’s already an Anti-Terrorism - (2) any organization, association, or group of persons proscribed
Council even before the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.Okay pursuant to Section 17 of the Human Security Act of 2007; or
so what’s the impact of that on the privileged information?
- (3) any person, organization, association, or group of persons particular rule. So it will be good for you to look at the rules of
whose funds or property, based on probable cause are subject to evidence this way:
seizure and sequestration under Section 39 of the Human Security - There are fundamental rules: original document, parole, hearsay
Act of 2007. etc. Then there’s the next level of rules which would be important
Can electronic media be intercepted? also, like for ex in hearsay, there’s the residual exception rule for
- Emails? Yes. instance. There are many rules that are derived not merely from the
rules of court. They can be plucked out from jurisprudence or even
What if let us say there are persons suspected to be terrorists and they statute which are deemed read into the rules. You already saw for
may also fall under the Financing Terrorism Act of 2012 and the matter instance the distinctive characteristics rule. You have to be aware
that was intercepted was emails. They were able to identify at least two of that.
email addresses which corresponds to Instagram and facebook - For example the problem is case-based, you have to engage in
accounts. The matter intercepted relates to trade secrets and the what you call problem characterization so you will have to apply the
business plans, and the proceeds will be funneled to acts of terrorism. particular rule. It may ostensibly be about res gestate, but actually it
Is that an exception to the Anti-Wire Tapping and admissible in is not.
evidence under the new bill?
- At the same time, there’s the possibility also of MCQ items. If there
- No pursuant to the qualifying proviso under Sec 16, are MCQ items, the norm is always to choose the best answer.
- “Provided, That, surveillance, interception and recording of When you are asked to evaluate a particular testimony, baka
communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, mamaya ang answer nyo nalang is independently relevant
journalists and their sources and confidential business statement. Avoid that unless that is the only answer. Don’t just
correspondence shall not be authorized.” So the nature of trade throw it into the arena.
secrets being privileged still remain privileged. -
Questions to sir:
- Offer of Evidence – is there still a formal offer of evidence
submitted in writing?
- Under the new Rules, all offer of evidence shall be done orally. But
the ideal really is there’s a stenographer. In the JA rule, you need
not even make a description just say exhibit a and jump to the
purpose. The thing there is that if you have voluminous exhibits, the
judge will literally beg you to just put it all in writing. So you’ll go
back to rule 1 for liberal interpretation.

Tips for exams?
- The exams is 12-3 so 3 hours and 30 mins allowance for
submission. You have to download it before 12nn. After 3, the office
will give you sometime to submit or upload.
- Exam is comprehensive. A good deal of them will be problem-
oriented. Hindi sya yung parang passing of information lang yung
what is ganyan ganyan.. Hindi ganun. If there will be such type of
questions, it will still be in the context of how a practitioner will meet
a problem like if the client asks you about it, are you aware of this
ADDITIONAL READING For evidentiary purposes, an electronic document shall be the functional equivalent
of a written document under existing laws.
CHAPTER II
This Act does not modify any statutory rule relating to the admissibility of electronic
Legal Recognition of Electronic Data Messages and Electronic Documents data messages or electronic documents, except the rules relating to authentication
and best evidence.
SECTION 6. Legal Recognition of Electronic Data Message. — Information shall
not be denied validity or enforceability solely on the ground that it is in the form of SECTION 8. Legal Recognition of Electronic Signatures. — An electronic signature
an electronic data message purporting to give rise to such legal effect, or that it is on the electronic document shall be equivalent to the signature of a person on a
merely incorporated by reference in that electronic data message. written document if the signature is an electronic signature and proved by showing
that a prescribed procedure, not alterable by the parties interested in the electronic
SECTION 7. Legal Recognition of Electronic Documents. — Electronic documents document, existed under which —
shall have the legal effect, validity or enforceability as any other document or legal
writing, and — a.) A method is used to identify the party sought to be bound and to indicate said
party's access to the electronic document necessary for his consent or approval
(a) Where the law requires a document to be in writing, that requirement is met by through the electronic signature;
an electronic document if the said electronic document maintains its integrity and
reliability and can be authenticated so as to be usable for subsequent reference, in b.) Said method is reliable and appropriate for the purpose for which the electronic
that — document was generated or communicated, in the light of all circumstances,
including any relevant agreement;
(i) The electronic document has remained complete and unaltered, apart from the
addition of any endorsement and any authorized change, or any change which arises c.) It is necessary for the party sought to be bound, in order to proceed further with
in the normal course of communication, storage and display; and the transaction, to have executed or provided the electronic signature; and
(ii) The electronic document is reliable in the light of the purpose for which it was d.) The other party is authorized and enabled to verify the electronic signature and to
generated and in the light of all relevant circumstances. make the decision to proceed with the transaction authenticated by the same.
(b) Paragraph (a) applies whether the requirement therein is in the form of an SECTION 9. Presumption Relating to Electronic Signatures. — In any proceedings
obligation or whether the law simply provides consequences for the document not involving an electronic signature, it shall be presumed that,
being presented or retained in its original form.
a.) The electronic signature is the signature of the person to whom it correlates; and
(c) Where the law requires that a document be presented or retained in its original
form, that requirement is met by an electronic document if — b.) The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of signing
or approving the electronic document unless the person relying on the electronically
i) There exist a reliable assurance as to the integrity of the document from the time signed electronic document knows or has notice of defects in or unreliability of the
when it was first generated in its final form; and signature or reliance on the electronic signature is not reasonable under the
circumstances.
ii) That document is capable of being displayed to the person to whom it is to be
presented: Provided, That no provision of this Act shall apply to vary any and all SECTION 10. Original Documents. — (1) Where the law requires information to be
requirements of existing laws on formalities required in the execution of documents presented or retained in its original form, that requirement is met by an electronic
for their validity.
data message or electronic document if: employed for the purpose of verifying the originator of an electronic data message or
electronic document, or detecting error or alteration in the communication, content
(a) the integrity of the information from the time when it was first generated in its or storage of an electronic document or electronic data message from a specific
final form, as an electronic data message or electronic document is shown by point, which, using algorithm or codes, identifying words or numbers, encryptions,
evidence aliunde or otherwise; and answers back or acknowledgment procedures, or similar security devices.
(b) where it is required that information be presented, that the information is capable The Supreme Court may adopt such other authentication procedures, including the
of being displayed to the person to whom it is to be presented. use of electronic notarization systems as necessary and advisable, as well as the
certificate of authentication on printed or hard copies of the electronic documents or
(2) Paragraph (1) applies whether the requirement therein is in the form of an electronic data messages by electronic notaries, service providers and other duly
obligation or whether the law simply provides consequences for the information not recognized or appointed certification authorities. cdphil
being presented or retained in its original form.
The person seeking to introduce an electronic data message or electronic document
(3) For the purposes of subparagraph (a) of paragraph (1): in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity by evidence
capable of supporting a finding that the electronic data message or electronic
(a) the criteria for assessing integrity shall be whether the information has remained
document is what the person claims it to be.
complete and unaltered, apart from the addition of any endorsement and any change
which arises in the normal course of communication, storage and display; and In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the integrity of the information and
communication system in which an electronic data message or electronic document
(b) the standard of reliability required shall be assessed in the light of the purpose for
is recorded or stored may be established in any legal proceeding —
which the information was generated and in the light of all the relevant
circumstances. (a) By evidence that at all material times the information and communication system
or other similar device was operating in a manner that did not affect the integrity of
SECTION 11. Authentication of Electronic Data Messages and Electronic
the electronic data message or electronic document, and there are no other
Documents. — Until the Supreme Court by appropriate rules shall have so provided,
reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the information and communication
electronic documents, electronic data messages and electronic signatures, shall be
system;
authenticated by demonstrating, substantiating and validating a claimed identity of a
user, device, or another entity in an information or communication system, among (b) By showing that the electronic data message or electronic document was
other ways, as follows: recorded or stored by a party to the proceedings who is adverse in interest to the
party using it; or
(a) The electronic signature shall be authenticated by proof that a letter, character,
number or other symbol in electronic form representing the persons named in and (c) By showing that the electronic data message or electronic document was
attached to or logically associated with an electronic data message, electronic recorded or stored in the usual and ordinary course of business by a person who is
document, or that the appropriate methodology or security procedures, when not a party to the proceedings and who did not act under the control of the party
applicable, were employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such using the record. cdrep
person, with the intention of authenticating or approving an electronic data message
or electronic document; SECTION 12. Admissibility and Evidential Weight of Electronic Data Messages or
Electronic Documents. — In any legal proceedings, nothing in the application of the
(b) The electronic data message or electronic document shall be authenticated by rules on evidence shall deny the admissibility of an electronic data message or
proof that an appropriate security procedure, when applicable was adopted and
electronic document in evidence — by a party to the proceedings who is adverse in interest to the party who has
introduced the affidavit or has caused the affidavit to be introduced.
a. On the sole ground that it is in electronic form; or
(2) Any party to the proceedings has the right to cross-examine a person referred to
b. On the ground that it is not in the standard written form, and the electronic data in Section 11, paragraph 4, sub-paragraph c.
message or electronic document meeting, and complying with the requirements
under Sections 6 or 7 hereof shall be the best evidence of the agreement and CHAPTER III
transaction contained therein.
Communication of Electronic Data Messages or Electronic Documents
In assessing the evidential weight of an electronic data message or electronic
document, the reliability of the manner in which it was generated, stored or SECTION 16. Formation and Validity of Electronic Contracts. — (1) Except as
communicated, the reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified, otherwise agreed by the parties, an offer, the acceptance of an offer and such other
and other relevant factor shall be given due regard. elements required under existing laws for the formation of contracts may be
expressed in, demonstrated and proved by means of electronic data messages or
SECTION 13. Retention of Electronic Data Message or Electronic Document. — electronic documents and no contract shall be denied validity or enforceability on
Notwithstanding any provision of law, rule or regulation to the contrary — the sole ground that it is in the form of an electronic data message or electronic
document, or that any or all of the elements required under existing laws for the
(a) The requirement in any provision of law that certain documents be retained in formation of the contracts is expressed, demonstrated and proved by means of
their original form is satisfied by retaining them in the form of an electronic data electronic data messages or electronic documents. cdasia
message or electronic document which —
(2) Electronic transactions made through networking among banks, or linkages
i. Remains accessible so as to be usable for subsequent reference; thereof with other entities or networks, and vice versa, shall be deemed
consummated upon the actual dispensing of cash or the debit of one account and the
ii. Is retained in the format in which it was generated, sent or received, or in a format corresponding credit to another, whether such transaction is initiated by the
which can be demonstrated to accurately represent the electronic data message or depositor or by an authorized collecting party: Provided, That the obligation of one
electronic document generated, sent or received; bank, entity, or person similarly situated to another arising therefrom shall be
considered absolute and shall not be subjected to the process of preference of
iii. Enables the identification of its originator and addressee, as well as the
credits.
determination of the date and the time it was sent or received. prcd
SECTION 17. Recognition by Parties of Electronic Data Message or Electronic
(b) The requirement referred to in paragraph (a) is satisfied by using the services of a
Document. — As between the originator and the addressee of an electronic data
third party, provided that the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of
message or electronic document, a declaration of will or other statement shall not be
paragraph (a) are met.
denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely on the ground that it is in the
SECTION 14. Proof by Affidavit. — The matters referred to in Section 12, on form of an electronic data message or electronic document.
admissibility and Section 9, on the presumption of integrity, may be presumed to
SECTION 18. Attribution of Electronic Data Message. — (1) An electronic data
have been established by an affidavit given to the best of the deponent's knowledge
message or electronic document is that of the originator if it was sent by the
subject to the rights of parties in interest as defined in the following section.
originator himself.
SECTION 15. Cross-Examination. — (1) A deponent of an affidavit referred to in
(2) As between the originator and the addressee, an electronic data message or
Section 14 that has been introduced in evidence may be cross-examined as of right
electronic document is deemed to be that of the originator if it was sent: error in the electronic data message or electronic document as received.
(a) by a person who had the authority to act on behalf of the originator with respect (6) The addressee is entitled to regard each electronic data message or electronic
to that electronic data message or electronic document; or document received as a separate electronic data message or electronic document and
to act on that assumption, except to the extent that it duplicates another electronic
(b) by an information system programmed by, or on behalf of the originator to data message or electronic document and the addressee knew or should have known,
operate automatically. had it exercised reasonable care or used any agreed procedure, that the electronic
data message or electronic document was a duplicate.
(3) As between the originator and the addressee, an addressee is entitled to regard an
electronic data message or electronic document as being that of the originator, and to SECTION 19. Error on Electronic Data Message or Electronic Document. — The
act on that assumption, if: addressee is entitled to regard the electronic data message or electronic document
received as that which the originator intended to send, and to act on that assumption,
(a) in order to ascertain whether the electronic data message or electronic document unless the addressee knew or should have known, had the addressee exercised
was that of the originator, the addressee properly applied a procedure previously reasonable care or used the appropriate procedure —
agreed to by the originator for that purpose; or
(a) That the transmission resulted in any error therein or in the electronic data
(b) the electronic data message or electronic document as received by the addressee message or electronic document when the electronic data message or electronic
resulted from the actions of a person whose relationship with the originator or with document enters the designated information system, or
any agent of the originator enabled that person to gain access to a method used by
the originator to identify electronic data messages or electronic documents as his (b) That electronic data message or electronic document is sent to an information
own. system which is not so designated by the addressee for the purpose. cdtai
(4) Paragraph (3) does not apply: SECTION 20. Agreement on Acknowledgment of Receipt of Electronic Data
Messages or Electronic Documents. — The following rules shall apply where, on or
(a) as of the time when the addressee has both received notice from the originator before sending an electronic data message or electronic document, the originator and
that the electronic data message or electronic document is not that of the originator, the addressee have agreed, or in that electronic document or electronic data message,
and has reasonable time to act accordingly; or the originator has requested, that receipt of the electronic document or electronic
data message be acknowledged:
(b) in a case within paragraph (3) sub-paragraph (b), at any time when the addressee
knew or should have known, had it exercised reasonable care or used any agreed a.) Where the originator has not agreed with the addressee that the acknowledgment
procedure, that the electronic data message or electronic document was not that of be given in a particular form or by a particular method, an acknowledgment may be
the originator. given by or through any communication by the addressee, automated or otherwise,
or any conduct of the addressee, sufficient to indicate to the originator that the
(5) Where an electronic data message or electronic document is that of the originator
electronic data message or electronic document has been received.
or is deemed to be that of the originator, or the addressee is entitled to act on that
assumption, then, as between the originator and the addressee, the addressee is b.) Where the originator has stated that the effect or significance of the electronic
entitled to regard the electronic data message or electronic document as received as data message or electronic document is conditional on receipt of the
being what the originator intended to send, and to act on that assumption. The acknowledgment thereof, the electronic data message or electronic document is
addressee is not so entitled when it knew or should have known, had it exercised treated as though it has never been sent, until the acknowledgment is received.
reasonable care or used any agreed procedure, that the transmission resulted in any
c.) Where the originator has not stated that the effect or significance of the electronic These rules apply notwithstanding that the place where the information system is
data message or electronic document is conditional on receipt of the located may be different from the place where the electronic data message or
acknowledgment, and the acknowledgment has not been received by the originator electronic document is deemed to be received.
within the time specified or agreed or, if no time has been specified or agreed, within
a reasonable time, the originator may give notice to the addressee stating that no SECTION 23. Place of Dispatch and Receipt of Electronic Data Message or
acknowledgment has been received and specifying a reasonable time by which the Electronic Documents. — Unless otherwise agreed between the originator and the
acknowledgment must be received; and if the acknowledgment is not received addressee, an electronic data message or electronic document is deemed to be
within the time specified in subparagraph (c), the originator may, upon notice to the dispatched at the place where the originator has its place of business and received at
addressee, treat the electronic data message or electronic document as though it had the place where the addressee has its place of business. This rule shall apply even if
never been sent, or exercise any other rights it may have. the originator or addressee had used a laptop other portable device to transmit or
receive his electronic data message or electronic document. This rule shall also
SECTION 21. Time of Dispatch of Electronic Data Messages or Electronic apply to determine the tax situs of such transaction. cdasia
Documents. — Unless otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee,
the dispatch of an electronic data message or electronic document occurs when it For the purpose hereof —
enters an information system outside the control of the originator or of the person
who sent the electronic data message or electronic document on behalf of the a. If the originator or the addressee has more than one place of business, the place of
originator. cdasia business is that which has the closest relationship to the underlying transaction or,
where there is no underlying transaction, the principal place of business.
SECTION 22. Time of Receipt of Electronic Data Messages or Electronic
Documents. — Unless otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee, b. If the originator or the addressee does not have a place of business, reference is to
the time of receipt of an electronic data message or electronic document is as be made to its habitual residence; or
follows:
c. The "usual place of residence" in relation to a body corporate, means the place
(a.) If the addressee has designated an information system for the purpose of where it is incorporated or otherwise legally constituted.
receiving electronic data messages or electronic documents, receipt occurs at the
SECTION 24. Choice of Security Methods. — Subject to applicable laws and/or
time when the electronic data message or electronic document enters the designated
rules and guidelines promulgated by the Department of Trade and Industry with
information system: Provided, however, That if the originator and the addressee are
other appropriate government agencies, parties to any electronic transaction shall be
both participants in the designated information system, receipt occurs at the time
free to determine the type and level of electronic data message or electronic
when the electronic data message or electronic document is retrieved by the
document security needed, and to select and use or implement appropriate
addressee.
technological methods that suit their needs.
(b.) If the electronic data message or electronic document is sent to an information
||| (Electronic Commerce Act, Republic Act No. 8792, [June 14, 2000])
system of the addressee that is not the designated information system, receipt occurs
at the time when the electronic data message or electronic document is retrieved by
the addressee;
(c.) If the addressee has not designated an information system, receipt occurs when
the electronic data message or electronic document enters an information system of
the addressee.

Evidence Final S Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Evidence Final S Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence Final S Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVIDENCE FINALS REVIEW Q AND A COMPILATION

 Relate to Section 8, Rule 8

- People v. Amestuzo 3) the statements concerned the occurrence in question

First session questions: Q: What if it is relevant but not competent

Q: Requisites of Judicial Notice Q: Admission v. Confession

Q: Two species of Judicial Notice

Q: Is there an instance when an extrajudicial confession could be a judicial

Q: “Exhibited, examined, or viewed by Court”? So does this mean limited to

Q: Are there limits/Difficulties to the admission of object evidence?

Q: Example, feces kept in a container to be presented as evidence. How would you

Q: Then, how many kinds are classified?

Q: What does those mean?

"electronic data message".

- Yes Q: When can we say that a document is a counterpart of an original?

- duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the

Q: Going back to the “contract of sale” example photographed in Viber, would

Q: Granting, is it admissible for purposes of authenticating the document?

- May not if a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity

Answer: Lecture below

NOTE: definition of Authentication

- The mere fact that he filled up the form - accomplished

- Provision in section 4 states that the original must be accurately

Q: Why was our questions useless?

- Yes. Q: No. The probative value.

- It contemplates acknowledgment. - Yes.

- It is subsequent and a novation .

- The terms of agreement.

Q: Conditional agreement (BEFORE)

- not a part of a collateral matter.

Q: we go back to collateral agreement, remember that in section d “the word is

- yes not BEFORE THE AGREEMENT, not a prior agreement

Q: what kind of other collateral agreement?

- Subsequent and novates the original

(c) A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably believed by the patient to

and the other subsections? - Course of

Q: What then is the reason behind the privilege?

- Sir, it puts a more stringent requirement on the part of attorneys, because

Q: So if that's your reasoning, then it would just be because of the noble

SESSION 4:MAY 27,2020 with the party. (29a)

Q: What would be your main argument?

Q: Does it say “purely”? - not covered by the privilege

- Yes it is confidential Q: What questions should u ask

- An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or

Q: Selling of partnership property

- Claiming that a valid sale has been made

Q: How about rule on confession?

- The declaration of an accused acknowledging his or her guilt of the

- Toto: “authorized to make a statement”

Q: what is the difference between a confession and an admission?

4. Previous Conduct As Evidence

- But it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity,

Q: Can you give an example of how this specie operates?

- Example from Regalado : previous act of negligence like selling

Q: Legal effect of an unaccepted offer?

- equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or

Q: what is the rule on the opinion of an ordinary witness?

Q: CASE: CRIM: FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENT (holographic will for