EVIDENCE MIDTERM EXAMINATION 2022-2023
Immediately before he died of gunshot wounds to his
JUSTICE LLOREN
ESSAY + MCQ
1. Explain the ff:
a. Good Samaritan Rule (6 pts)
b. Interlocking Confessions (6 pts)
c. “Presumed” Identity Approach (6pts)
a. An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or
other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in
evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
(Rule 130, Sec. 28)
b. Extrajudicial confessions made independently made
without collusion, which are identical with each other in their
material respects and confirmatory of the other are
admissible as circumstantial evidence against their
co-accused. (Notes on Rule 134, Sec. 3)
c. Foreign law not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved,
the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours.
(Notes on Rule 129, Sec. 2)
2. Plaintiff filed an action for recovery of several parcels
of land. Defendants, on the other hand, claimed that
parcels were sold to them by the husband of the
plaintiff. As evidence, defendants presented among
others,, a document showing receipt of the purchased
price for P400,000.00 but containing no reference as to
what property was being sold. The other documents
appeared to be undated and unsigned deed of sale in
lead pencil and grade paper making reference to a tax
declaration over certain parcels. Can the ambiguities in
the document be cured by parol evidence? Explain
briefly (8 pts.)
No, it cannot be cured by parol evidence. As part of the
exception to the parole evidence rule, which allows to
modify, explain or even add to the written agreement is when
there is intrinsic ambiguity to the written document. Parol
evidence may cure a written document provided that
document’s intrinsic ambiguity is put in issue in the case.
However if the ambiguity is extrinsic, parol evidence, will not
be admitted even if the ambiguity is put in issue. In this case,
since the document showing the receipt of land does not
refer to any property that is being sold, there is extrinsic
ambiguity. Therefore, this cannot be cure by parol evidence
and the court will not allow parol evidence to cure the said
ambiguity in order to supply the said deficiency of the
document provided.
Rule 129, Section 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 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 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:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in
the written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the
true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the
parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement.
The term “agreement” includes wills. (9a)
3.
chest, Venancio told his attending physician, in a very
feeble voice, that it was Arnulfo, his co-worker who had
shot him. Venancio added that it was also Arnulfo who
had shot Vicente, the man whose cadaver was lying on
the bed beside him. In the prosecution of Arnulfo for the
killing of Venancio and Vicente, are all the statements of
Venancio admissible as dying declaration? Explain
briefly your answer. (8 pts)
Not all statements of Venancio are admissible as dying
declarations. In dying declaration, it is the declaration of a
dying person, made under the consciousness of an
impending death, that can be received in any case where in
the death is the subject of the inquiry as evidence of the
case which is the surrounding circumstances of his death not
of anyone else. In this case, the declaration of Venancio as
to who shot him, is considered as a dying declaration.
However, on his declaration on who shot Vicente, the man
lying on the bed beside him cannot be a dying declaration
because it was neither about the cause nor the
circumstances of his death. Therefore, as to the statements
regarding who shot Vicente, it not admissible as evidence as
dying declaration because the subject of inquiry is the death
of someone else.
Rule 130, Section 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 her death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the
cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
4. Explain Evidence in Motion (8 pts)
As provided by the Rules, Evidence in motion is a motion
based on the facts that is not appearing on record. In this
case, the court may hear the matter on the affidavits of the
parties or its depositions but the court may direct that the
matter be wholly or partially on oral testimony or depositions.
Rule 133, Section 8. Evidence on motion. – 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 parties, but the court may direct that the matter be
heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions.
5. How many exceptions to the hearsay rule
a. Eleven
b. Twelve
c. Thirteen
d. Fourteen
e. Fifteen
f. None of the Above
The exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule are as follows,
to wit:
1) Dying declaration (Sec. 38);
2) Statement of a deceased or person of unsound
mind (Sec. 39);
3) Declaration against interest (Sec. 40);
4) Acts or declaration about pedigree (Sec. 41),
5) Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
(Sec. 42);
6) Common reputation (Sec. 43);
7) Res gestae (Sec. 44);
8) Records of regularly conducted business activity
(Sec. 45);
9) Entries in the official records (Sec. 46);
10) Commercial list and the like (Sec. 47);
11) Learned Treatise (Sec. 48);
12) Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
(Sec. 49);
13) Residual exceptions (Sec. 50)
14) Hearsay exception in child abuse cases. (Sec. 28
of the Child. Witness Examination Rule [A.M. No.
004-07-SC, December 15, 2000])
15) Inapplicability of the Hearsay Evidence Rule under
the Electronic Document Rule. (Sec. 1, Rule 8)
6. How many elements for the admissibility of a dying
declaration?
a. One
b. Two
c. Three
d. Any of the Above
e. None of the Above
7. How many elements for the admissibility of dying
declaration
a. One
b. Two
c. Three
d. Any of the Above
e. None of the Above
8. Which of the following is not a requisite for the
admissibility of a dying declaration?
a. The declaration relates to the facts or
circumstances pertaining to the fatal injury or
death.
b. The declarant is dead.
c. The declarant is made in connection with a
startling occurrence. (Part of Res Gestae)
d. The declarant would have been competent to
testify had he survived
Four requisites must concur in order that a dying declaration
may be admissible, thus:
First, the declaration must concern the cause and
surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death. This
refers not only to the facts of the assault itself, but also to
matters both before and after the assault having a direct
causal connection with it. Statements involving the nature of
the declarant’s injury or the cause of death; those imparting
deliberation and willfulness in the attack, indicating the
reason or motive for the killing; justifying or accusing the
accused; or indicating the absence of cause for the act are
admissible.
Second, at the time the declaration was made, the declarant
must be under the consciousness of an impending death.
The rule is that, in order to make a dying declaration
admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent death
must be entered by the declarant. It is the belief in impending
death and not the rapid succession of death in point of fact
that renders the dying declaration admissible. It is not
necessary that the approaching death be presaged by the
personal feelings of the deceased. The test is whether the
declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and looked on
death as certainly impending.
Third, the declarant is competent as a witness. The rule is
that where the declarant would not have been a competent
witness had he survived, the proffered declarations will not
be admissible. Thus, in the absence of evidence showing
that the declarant could not have been competent to be a
witness had he survived, the presumption must be sustained
that he would have been competent.
Fourth, the declaration must be offered in a criminal case for
homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is the
victim. [See Page 45 of Notes]
9. The police sought A for questioning in connection
with the killing of the deceased. He was wearing a
bloodstained shirt. During the interrogation. A was
assisted by counsel. He admitted his guilt and showed
the knife he used in committing the crime. What piece of
evidence is admissible?
a. The bloodstained shirt.
b. The knife he used to commit the crime
c. The extra-judicial confession
d. None of the above.
What is extrajudicial confession?
A declaration made at any time by a person, voluntarily, and
without compulsion or inducement, stating or acknowledging
that he has committed or participated in the commission of a
crime. [See Page 90 of Notes]
10. Plaintiff A filed a damage suit against Dr. B for
negligence. Plaintiff’s counsel calls Dr. B to the witness
stand as his first witness and Dr. B testifies that he
acted in accordance with the medical procedure.
a. Plaintiff A is bound by Dr. B’s testimony
because he took the risk and should not now
be allowed to disavow the testimony of his
own witness.
b. Plaintiff A is bound by Dr. B’s testimony
because Dr. B is an expert witness.
c. Plaintiff A is not bound by Dr. B’s testimony
because he (A) can call other witness to prove
his cause
d. Plaintiff A is not bound by Dr. B’s testimony
because Dr. B being the adverse party, is not
considered as his witness.
11. In a case for alleged drug pushing, evidence of:
a. The buy-bust money is indispensable.
b. The confidant’s testimony who accompanied
the poseur-buyer is necessary
c. The drugs subject to the case is indispensable.
d. The testimony of the chemist who examined
the alleged drug is indispensable.
The corpus delicti in the drug-related offenses of illegal sale
and illegal possession must be the substance possessed
and the very substance presented in court which is so
essential to the conviction and incarceration of the offenders.
[See Page 16 of Notes]
12. Evidence beyond reasonable doubt is-
a. The same as preponderance of evidence.
b. The equivalent of substantial evidence in
administrative case.
c. Absolutely certain to convict.
d. Morally certain, otherwise the accused is
entitled to acquittal.
Rule 133, Section 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
beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of
proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute
certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of
proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
(2a)
13. Who may not be excluded from the proceeding of a
case?
a. Parties to the action or the accused in criminal
case.
b. Expert Witness
c. Rebuttal witness.
d. All of them.
Rule 132, Section 15. Exclusion and separation of
witnesses. – The court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall
order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the
testimony of other witnesses. This rule does not authorize
exclusion of (a) a party who is a natural person, (b) a duly
designated representative of a juridical entity which is a party
to the case, (c) a person whose presence is essential to the
presentation of the party’s cause, or (d) a person authorized
by a statute to be present.
The court may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and
to be prevented from conversing with one another, directly or
through intermediaries, until all shall have been examined.
(15a)
14. Which of the following is not a public document?
a. The written official acts , or records of the
official acts of the sovereign authority, official
bodies and tribunals, and public officers.
b. Documents acknowledge before a notary
public
c. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of
private documents required by law to be
entered therein.
d. Last wills and testaments.
Section 19. Classes of documents. – xxxxx
Public documents are: xxxx
(a) Documents acknowledged before a notary public
except last wills and testaments;
xxxxx
TRUE OR FALSE
15. For purpose of impeaching a witness by
evidence that has been convicted of a crime
is allowed if the was punishable even by
F less than 6 months involving moral
turpitude.
[See Rule 132, Section 12]
16. Photographs under the new rules is
considered documentary evidence to prove
its existence.
Documents as evidence consist of writing or
any material containing:
a) Recordings;
b) Photographs including still pictures,
T drawings, stored images, x-ray films,
motion pictures or videos; or
c) Any material containing letters,
words, sounds, numbers, figures,
symbols or their equivalent or other
modes of written expressions offered
as proof of their contents.
[See Page 21 of Notes]
17. Negative pregnant is an admission of
unsubstantial fact in the pleading
responding which is not squarely denied.
A negative pregnant is a denial pregnant with
F the admission of the substantial facts in the
pleading responded to which are not squarely
denied. It is in effect an admission of the
averment it is directed to. [Philamgen v. Sweet
Lines, G.R. No. 87434, 1993.]
18. During the pre-trial the court, motu
proprio shall hear the parties on the
propriety on taking judicial notice on the
F matter decisive on the material issue in the
case.
[See Rule 129, Section 3]
19. Declarations of a dormant partner
relating to partnership are admissible
against co- partners.
T assistance of counsel is not admissible
[See Rule 130, Section 30; Own
understanding: Rule did not qualify what kind of
partner, whether dormant or not]
20. The right to remain silent…. ” Can be
cross-examined, if he testifies on his behalf.
Own understanding: Right to be informed of
T one’s right to remain silent is a constitutional
provision against extrajudicial confessions
(Article III, Section 12) but this right to remain
silent does not mean that the party may not
anymore be cross-examined.
21. No person can be compelled to be a
witness against himself, “does not give a
witness the right to disregard a subpoena. "
The right against self-incrimination is accorded
to every person who gives evidence, whether
voluntary or under compulsion of subpoena, in
any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
T The right is not to be compelled to be a witness
against himself. It secures to a witness,
whether he be a party or not, the right to refuse
to answer any particular incriminatory question,
i.e., one the answer to which has a tendency to
incriminate him for some crime. However, the
right can be claimed only when the specific
question, incriminatory in character, is actually
put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any
other time. It does not give a witness the right
to disregard a subpoena, decline to appear
before the court at the time appointed, or to
refuse to testify altogether. The witness
receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as
required, take the stand, be sworn and answer
questions. It is only when a particular question
is addressed to which may incriminate himself
for some offense that he may refuse to answer
on the strength of the constitutional guaranty.
[Rosete vs. Lim, G.R. No. 136051, June 8,
2006]
22. Generally, mala in se crimes will not
always involve moral turpitude.
F
Own understanding: It is mala prohibita which
generally do not involve moral turpitude.
23. An agreement not to be performed
within a year from the making can be
remedied by parol evidence.
Own understanding: Since it is covered by the
Statute of Frauds (Article 1403 (2a), NCC),
then it has to be made in writing.
Rule 130, Section 10 provides that: “When the
F terms of an agreement have been reduced to
writing, it is considered as containing all the
terms agreed upon and 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.”
Therefore, parol evidence may not prove an
agreement not to be performed within a year
from the making.
24. Doctrine of Processual presumption
means that foreign law is the same as local
law in the absence of competent evidence.
T
[See Page 12-13 of Notes; Rule 129, Section
2]
25. A statement of person undergoing
preliminary investigation without the
because it is part of custodial investigation.
Article III, Section 12(1) of the 1987
Constitution provides: (1) Any person under
investigation for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to be informed of his right
to remain silent and to have competent and
T independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services
of counsel, he must be provided with one.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing
and in the presence of counsel.
In relation to that, Section 12(3) provides: (3)
Any confession or admission obtained in
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
26. The hearing required for the court to
take judicial notice is to determine whether
or not judicial notice of a certain matter is
proper.
T Own understanding: The hearing for judicial
notice is not on for the purpose of resolving the
issue of the case but rather only as to the
propriety of taking judicial notice over the thing
sought to be judicially noticed.
 27. Corroborative evidence is additional
evidence of the same kind bearing different
point.
F TRUE ILANG ANSWER I DUNNO WHY
Corroborative evidence - It is additional
evidence of a different kind and character
tending to prove the same point.
28. Cumulative evidence is addition
evidence of the same kind bearing different
point.
F offered as evidence of a material fact; (b) the
Cumulative evidence - It is additional evidence
of the same kind and character tending to
prove the same proposition.
29. Voluntary admission of guilt to the
media is admissible as part of res gestae.
For the State, the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) counters that the evidence
clearly shows that the appellant admitted
committing the crime in several instances, not
just during the custodial investigation. First, he
admitted having killed his employer to the
security guard, Campos, and even sought
Campos’ help in disposing of Keyser’s body.
This admission may be treated as part of the
res gestae and does not partake of
uncounselled extrajudicial confession,
according to the OSG. Thus, OSG contends
said statement is admissible as evidence
against the appellant. Second, the appellant’s
statements before members of the media are
T likewise admissible in evidence, according to
the OSG, as these statements were made in
response to questions by news reporters, not
by police or other investigating officer. The
OSG stresses that appellant was interviewed
by media on two separate occasions, and each
time he made free and voluntary statements
admitting his guilt before the news reporters.
He even supplied the details on how he
committed the crime. xxxxx The OSG submits
that at these points in time, appellant was not
yet under custodial investigation. Rather his
statements to the police at the crime scene
were spontaneous and voluntary, not elicited
through questioning, and hence must be
treated as part of the res gestae and thus, says
the OSG, admissible in evidence. [People vs.
Garcia, G.R. No. 147786, January 20, 2004]
30. An attempt to compromise violation of
the Internal Revenue Code before the case
is filed in court is considered an implied
admission of guilt.
Rule 130, Section 28. xxxx In criminal cases,
except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal
negligence) or those allowed by law to be
compromised, an offer of compromise by the
accused may be received in evidence as an
F implied admission of guilt.
Instances in which the law allows criminal
cases to be compromised
a) Section 284 of the National Internal
Revenue Code — offer of
compromise on internal revenue
taxes — not admissible in evidence;
xxxxx
[see Pages 38-39 of Notes]
31. Onus Probandi is defined as the duty of
a party to present on the fact in issue
T necessary to establish his claim or defense
[Rule 131, Section 1]
32. There are four requisites of a residual
exceptions.
DAPAT FALSE DIBA?
Section 50. Residual exception. – A statement
not specifically covered by any of the foregoing
exceptions, having equivalent circumstantial
guarantees of trustworthiness, is admissible if
the court determines that (a) the statement is
statement is more probative on the point for
which it is offered than any other evidence
T which the proponent can procure through
reasonable efforts; and (c) the general
purposes of these [R]ules and the interests of
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 known to the
adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the
hearing, or by the pre-trial stage in the case of
a trial of the main case, to provide the adverse
party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet
it, the proponent’s intention to offer the
statement and the particulars of it, including the
name and address of the declarant. (n)
33. Records regularly conducted business
activity such as reports, data compilations,
is among the exceptions to the hearsay rule
even if the person responsible for the
entries of the records is still alive and able
T to testify.
Own understanding: Rule 130, Section 45 does
not qualify whether the person responsible for
such records is alive or not, therefore the
above statement is true.
34. It is required that common reputation
existing previous to the controversy must
be more than 30 years old in order to be
admissible.
[Rule 130, Section 43]
F
Own understanding: The rule that the common
reputation previous to the controversy must be
more than 30 years old under the old Rules on
Evidence (Rule 130, Section 41) was changed
in the amendments. Rule 130, Section 43 does
not require such a period anymore.
35. Under the New Rules on Evidence, there
are less than thirteen exceptions in the
hearsay rule.
F
There are 15 exceptions to the hearsay rule
under the New Rules on Evidence. [see Page
45 of Notes]
36. The priest-penitent privilege is limited to
confession of a penitential character with a
view to obtain pardon and spiritual advice
or assistance.
T
The privilege covers only confession of a
penitential character that is confession of sins
with the end view of obtaining pardon and
spiritual advice and assistance
37. Attorney-client privilege communication
may extend to a lawyer acting as attesting
witness.
T
The exceptions to the application of the
disqualification on the ground of privilege
 communication between attorney and client are
as follows:
xxxx
Lawyer-attesting witness exception rule: As to
a communication relevant to an issue
concerning an attested document to which the
lawyer is an attesting witness.
38. Attorney-client privilege communication
may extend to lawyer’s caregiver.
Rule 130, Section 24. xxxxx
(b) An attorney or person reasonably believed
by the client to be licensed to engage in the
practice of law cannot, without the consent of
the client, be examined as to any
T communication made by the client to him or
her, or his or her advice given thereon in the
course of, or with a view to, professional
employment, nor can an attorney’s secretary,
stenographer, or clerk, or other persons
assisting the attorney be examined without the
consent of the client and his or her employer,
concerning any fact the knowledge of which
has been acquired in such capacity, xxxxx
39. The hearing on the propriety of taking
judicial notice is for the purpose of
litigating the issue of the case.
F Own understanding: The hearing for judicial
notice is not on for the purpose of resolving the
issue of the case but rather only as to the
propriety of taking judicial notice over the thing
sought to be judicially noticed.
40. Documentary evidence must be offered
as proof of its existence or circumstances
surrounding its execution.
Rule 130, Section 5. When original document
is unavailable. – When the original document
has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
F produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its
execution or existence and the cause of its
unavailability without bad faith on his or 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)
41. Where a private document is more than
twenty-five years old, is produced from
custody in which would naturally be found
if genuine, no other evidence of its
authenticity is given.
TRUE ILANG ANSWER DIBA DAPAT
FALSE?
T
Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of
private document not necessary. – Where a
private document is more than thirty (30) years
old, is produced from a custody in which it
would naturally be found if genuine, and is
unblemished by any alterations or
circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence
of its authenticity need be given. (21)
42. Statute of Frauds applies to oral
antenuptial agreement between the parties
to the marriage or to their parents.
T evidence, and constitute an exception to the
Article 1403(c) An agreement made in
consideration of marriage, other than a mutual
promise to marry;
T 43. Affidavit is part of hearsay evidence.
Basic is the rule that, while affidavits may be
considered as public documents if they are
acknowledged before a notary public, these
Affidavits are still classified as hearsay
evidence.
44. It is not correct to say that “it is not the
general rule that judicial admission are
conclusive against the party making the
admission because it can be controverted if
done through a palpable mistake”
T Rule 129, Section 4. 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
contradicted only by showing that it was made
through palpable mistake or that the imputed
admission was not, in fact, made.
45. Declaration against interest is made
ante litem mortem while Admission against
interest is made at anytime.
T
Declaration against interest is made ante litem
mortem. Admission is made at anytime. [see
Page 38 of Notes]
46. Nolo Contendere where the accused
may enter a plea in which he does not
accept nor deny responsibility for the
charges by agreeing to accept punishment
as if he had pleaded guilty.
Rule on plea of Nolo Contendere under the
T Philippine Competition Act – An entity charged
in a criminal proceeding pursuant to Sec. 14(a)
and 14(b) of this Act may enter a plea of Nolo
Contendere, in which he does not accept nor
deny responsibility for the charges but agrees
to accept punishment as if he had pleaded
guilty.
47. Marital communication does not require
that one of the spouses is a party to a case.
T
Marital communication does not require that
one of the spouses are party to the case
48. Confession is verbal acknowledgement
of a crime while admission is statement of
the accused either directly or impliedly of
facts pertinent to the issue in connection
F with proof to other facts to prove his guilt.
Confession is always expressed or tacit. [see
Page 38 of Notes]
49. Admission is lower than confession.
Admission is more of a broader scope which
T includes confession. Confession is only limited
to the confession of a person. [see Page 38 of
Notes]
50. Admission against interest are those
made neither by a party nor by a person in
privity with a party in a suit.
Declarations against interest are those made
F by a person who is neither a party nor in privity
with a party to the suit, are secondary
hearsay rule. They are admissible only when
the declarant is unavailable as a witness.
51. Declaration against interest are those
F made by party litigants or by any one in
privy to or identified in legal interest with
 such party, and are admissible whether the
declarant is available as a witness.
Admissions against interest are those made by
a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or
identified in legal interest with such party, and
are admissible whether or not the declarant is
available as a witness.
52. Marital disqualification can be invoked
even after the marriage was dissolved.
F Marital communication can be invoked even if
the marriage dissolved. Marital disqualification
is invoked only during the marriage.
53. Marital disqualification can be invoked
only during the marriage.
T not require such a period anymore.
Marital disqualification can be invoked only
during the marriage.
54. Marital communication refers only to
confidential communications made during
the marriage while Marital disqualification
applies to any fact.
T Parental privilege provides that “No person
Marital communication refers only to
confidential communications made during the
marriage while Marital disqualification applies
to any fact.
55. Marital disqualification does not require
that one of the spouses is a party to a case.
F descendants.”
Marital disqualification requires that one of the
spouses are party to the case
56. A “catch-all exceptions” rule is now
excluded in the exceptions to the hearsay
rule.
Rule 130, Section 50. Residual exception. – A
statement not specifically covered by any of the
F foregoing exceptions, having equivalent
circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is
admissible if the court xxxxx
Own understanding: It is now included as an
exception to the hearsay rule.
57. Police report becomes admissible when
the person who prepares it refused to
testify in court.
F [yawards wala koy makita legal basis but
basaha gani ang sentence klaro kaayo nga
false kay ayha ra lugar ma admissible kung
magrefuse ang police officer naunsa]
58. Admission against interest are those
made by person who is neither a party nor a
privy with a party to a suit.
F Admissions against interest are those made by
a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or
identified in legal interest with such party, and
are admissible whether or not the declarant is
available as a witness. [see Page 46 of Notes]
59. Hearsay evidence rule applies only to
oral evidence if its probative value is not
based on personal knowledge of the
witness.
F Rule 130, Section 37. Hearsay. – Hearsay is a
statement other than one made by the
declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing,
offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted
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 inadmissible
except as otherwise provided in these Rules.
xxxxx
60. Monuments and inscriptions in public
places may be received as evidence of
common reputation provided it must be 30
years old or more.
[Rule 130, Section 43]
F
Own understanding: The rule that the common
reputation previous to the controversy must be
more than 30 years old under the old Rules on
Evidence (Rule 130, Section 41) was changed
in the amendments. Rule 130, Section 43 does
61. Doctrine of parental privilege is that no
person may be compelled to testify against
his other direct ascendants, children and
descendants.
Doctrine of parental privilege
F may be compelled to testify against his
parents.”
Doctrine of filial privilege
Filial privilege provides that “No person may be
compelled to testify against his other direct
ascendants, children or other direct
62. The confidential character of a
privileged communication is not lost solely
on the ground that it is the form of
electronic document.
T
The confidential character of a privileged
communication is not lost solely on the ground
that it is in the form of an electronic document.
[see Page 35 of Notes]
63. When two or more clients engaged the
services of a common lawyer, the later
action between the joint clients arose the
testimony of a common lawyer is not barred
by the lawyer-client privilege.
Rule 130, Section 24 (b)(v). Joint clients. As to
T a communication relevant to a matter of
common interest between two [(2)] 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 the clients, unless they have expressly
agreed otherwise.
64. There are four exceptions to the parol
evidence rule.
T
[See Rule 130, Section 10]