Remedial Law} Evidence} Memory Aid} Made 2002} by Ateneo} 28 Pages

8/13/2019 Remedial Law} Evidence} Memory Aid} Made 2002} by Ateneo} 28 Pages

1/22

R E M E D I A L L AW ( E V I D E N C E )M E M O R Y A I D

A T E N E O C E N T R A L B A R O P E R AT I O N S 2 0 0 2

EVIDENCE

1. Definitions

a. Factum probandum ultimate fact or the fact sought to be established

b. Factum probans evidentiary fact or the fact by which the factum probandum isto be established

2. Classification of !i" nc

a. Object (Real)

That which is directly addressed to the senses of the court and consists oftangible things exhibited or demonstrated in open court, in an ocularinspection, or at a place designated by the court for its view or observation ofan exhibition, experiment or demonstration; always relevant regardless ofcontents

Documentary

vidence supplied by written instruments or derived from conventionalsymbols, such as letter, by which ideas are represented on materialsubstances

Testimonial

That which is submitted to the court through the testimony or deposition of awitness

b. Relevant

vidence having any value in reason as tending to prove any matter provablein an action

Relevancy logical relation of evidentiary fact to fact in issue

Material

vidence directed to prove a fact in issue

Competent

!ne that is not excluded by law in particular case

c. Direct

That which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference orpresumption

Circumstantial

The proof of the facts other than the fact in issue from which, ta"en eithersingly or collectively, the existence of the particular fact in dispute may beinferred as a necessary or probable conse#uence

d. Cumulative

vidence of the same "ind and to the same state of facts

1


2/22



Corroborative

$dditional evidence of a different character to the same point for higherprobative value

e. Prima facie

That which standing alone, unexplained or uncontradicted is sufficient tomaintain a proposition

Conclusive

%lass of evidence which the law does not allow to be contradicted

f. Primary or Best

That which the law regards as affording greatest certainty of the fact in#uestion

econdary or ubstitutionary

That which is inferior to the primary evidence and is permitted by law onlywhen the best evidence is not available

g. Positive

The witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur

!e"ative

The witness states that he did not see or "now of the occurrence of a fact

R #LE $2% W&AT NEED NOT B E P ROVED

1' W at "o not n " to *+o! ", -NAPITAS.

a. &atters of 'udicial notice

b. (udicial admissions

c. )acts presumed

d. $llegations in complaint or answer which are immaterial to the issue

e. )acts admitted or not denied in the answer, provided they have been sufficientlyalleged

f. Those which are the sub'ect of an agreed stipulation of facts between the parties,as well as 'udicial admissions made in the course of the proceedings

g. T echnical admission when defendant fails to specifically deny the allegations ofplaintiff

2. Doct+in of *+oc ss/al *+ s/ *tion absent any evidence or admission, theforeign law in #uestion is presumed to be the same as that in the *hilippines

+. Man"ato+1 /"icial notic -SLAPTON3.

2


3/22



a. tates existence, territory, political history, government, symbols of nationality

b. - aw of nations

c. $ dmiralty and maritime courts and seals

d. * hilippine political constitution and history

e. ! fficial acts

%ourt cannot ta"e 'udicial notice of a law or regulation that is not yet effective

Decisions of % are proper sub'ects of mandatory 'udicial notice

f. -aws of nature

g. &easure of time

h. eographical division

/. Disc+ tiona+1 /"icial notic

a. &atters which are of public "nowledge

%ommon and general "nowledge0ndisputable

b. &atters capable of un#uestionable demonstration

c. !ught to be "nown by 'udges because of their 'udicial functions

ewspaper reports not sub'ect to 'udicial notice

Courts cannot take judicial notice of custom . %ustom must be proved as amatter of fact.

Pardon is granted by the %hief xecutive and as such is a private act which mustbe pleaded and proved by the person pardoned.

. 4/"icial A" issions,

3erbal or written; made by a party in course of the proceedings in the same case

May only be contradicted by showing that:a. &ade through palpable mista"e; or b. o such admission was made.

Admissions made in a pleading later amended 4 lose their status as 'udicialadmissions; become merely extra5'udicial admissions which must be offered.

$ stipulation made during a criminal proceeding is tantamount to a judicialadmission and need not be signed as re#uired by 6117, 8/ to be binding on the

accused.

A court cannot take judicial notice of an admission made by a party in anothercase even if the latter case is pending before the same sala or judge , 5c *t,

a. 0n the absence of ob'ection;

b. 9ith "nowledge or upon re#uest of the parties;

+


4/22



c. 0t is part of the records.

R #LE $60 R #LES O7 A DMISSIBILITY

1. #dmissibility of object evidence

a. 6elevant to fact in evidence

b. !b'ect must be authenticated before it is admitted

2. Production of documents under t$is rule and %nder Rule &' (modes ofdiscovery) distin"uis$ed

R#LE $60 R #LE 28*roduction is procured by mere notice toadverse party, and re#uirements for suchnotice must be complied with as acondition precedent for the subse#uentevidence by the proponent

*roduction is by proper motion in the trialcourt, and is permitted only upon goodcause shown :mode of discovery

*resupposes that the document to beproduced is intended as evidence for theproponent who is presumed to have"nowledge of its contents, secondaryevidence thereof being available in case ofits non5production

%ontemplates situation wherein documentis either assumed to be favorable to theparty in possession thereof !6 that theparty see"ing its production is notsufficiently informed of the contents of thesame

BEST E VIDENCE R #LE

1. eneral Rule* 9hen the sub'ect of an in#uiry is the contents of a document, noevidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself. :0f only the factof execution


5/22


6/22



2. +,ceptions to t Pa+ol E!i" nc R/l ,

when a party puts in issue in his pleadings4 -7IVE.

a. 0ntrinsic ambiguity, mista"e or imperfection in the written agreement

b. ) ailure of the written agreement to express the true intent of the parties;

c. 3 alidity of the written agreement; !6

d. xistence of other terms agreed upon subse#uent to the execution of the writtenagreement

!OT+* *arol A evidence aliunde whether oral or written which tends to deny orcontradict documented agreement.

$ B6eceiptC or a BDeedC is not an exclusive memorial and facts contained thereinmay be shown irrespective of the terms of the document.

Distinction must be made between Bstatements of factC expressed in aninstrument and the BtermsC of the contractual act. The former may be varied byparol evidence.

*arol vidence 6ule not applicable to strangers to the contract ot third parties

6' Pa+ol E!i" nc R/l an" B st E!i" nc R/l Distin9/is "

P AROL E VIDENCE R #LE BEST E VIDENCE R #LE*resupposes that the original document isavailable in court

The original writing is not available and


7/22



But a child, regardless of age, may be considered as acompetent witness, if he is capable of !"C#:

1. ! bservation

2. 6 ecollection; and

+. % ommunication

MARITAL D IS:#ALI7ICATION R #LE

During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against theother without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one againstthe other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or thelatter?s direct descendants or ascendants.

1. xemptions to Marital $is%ualification

9ife may testify against the husband in a criminal case for falsification, where thehusband made it appear that the wife gave her consent to the sale of a con'ugalhouse :considered as a crime committed against the wife

0f husband5accused defends himself by imputing the crime to the wife, he isdeemed to have waived all ob'ections to the wife?s testimony against him.

DEAD MAN;S S TAT#TE

*arties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case isprosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceasedperson, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against theestate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind, cannot testifyas to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or beforesuch person became of unsound mind.

1. Re4uisites for #pplication of Dead Man0s tatute 6P#CO7

a. The witness is a *arty or assignor of a party to a case, or of a person on whosebehalf a case is prosecuted;

Dead &an tatute not applicable to a corporation?s officers and stoc"holdersin a suit instituted by the corporation. Thus, the officers and stoc"holdersmay testify.

b. The action is $gainst an executor, administrator or other representative of adeceased person, or against a person of unsound mind;

Eeirs of deceased person are considered BrepresentativesC of a deceasedperson.

c. The sub'ect matter of the action is a %laim or demand against the estate of suchdeceased person, or against such person of unsound mind;

d. The testimony refers to any matter of )act occurring fo+ the death of suchdeceased person, or fo+ such person became of unsound mind.

!ot covered by t$e Rule*

i. %ounterclaim by defendant :plaintiff may testify in his defense

F


8/22



ii. Deceased contracted with plaintiff thru an agent of the deceased


9/22



b. The 6elation of physician5patient existedc. The information was $c#uired by the physician while attending to the patient in

his professional capacityd. The information was ecessary for the performance of his professional dutye. The disclosure of the information would @lac"en the reputation of the patient

$ patient?s husband is not prohibited from testifying on a report prepared by hiswife?s psychiatrist since he is not the treating physician :although it would behearsay

$ physician is not prohibited from giving expert testimony in response to a strictlyhypothetical #uestion in a lawsuit involving the physical or mental condition of apatient he has treated professionally.

>. 6e#uisites for *riest5*enitent *rivilegea. %onfession was made or advice given by the priest in his professional character

in the course of the discipline en'oined by the church to which the priest orminister belongs;

b. The confession must be confidential and penitent in character

F. 6e#uisites for *ublic !fficer?s *rivilegea. %ommunication made to a public officer in official confidenceb. *ublic interest would suffer by the disclosure

7. B ewsman?s privilegeC a publisher, editor, columnist or duly accredited reportercannot be compelled to disclose the source of news report or information appearingin the publication which is related in confidence, the disclosure of which is notdemanded by the security of the state.

ADMISSIONS AND C ON7ESSIONS1. $dmission and %onfession distinguishedADMISSION CON7ESSION

tatement of fact which does not involvean ac"nowledgment of guilt or liability

0nvolves ac"nowledgment of guilt or liability

&ay be express or tacit &ust be express&ay be made by third persons, and incertain cases, are admissible against aparty

%an be made only by the party himself,and in some cases, are admissible againsthis co5accused

(!)&: 0f a 'ustification is alleged, it is merely an admission. 6ight against self5incrimination applies to the re5enactment of the crime by the

accused

2. 6e#uisites for admissibility of an admissiona. 0nvolves a matter of fact, not of lawb. %ategorical and definitec. Gnowingly and voluntarily maded. $dverse to the admitterJs interest, otherwise, self5serving and inadmissible as

hearsay

+. $dmissions and Declarations against self5interest distinguishedADMISSIONS DECLARATION A3AINST INTEREST

eed not be, though will greatly enhanceprobative weight if made against the

interest of the declarant

&ust have been made against theproprietary or pecuniary interest of the

parties&ade by the party himself and is a primaryevidence and competent though he bepresent in court and ready to testify

&ust have been made by a person who iseither deceased or unable to testify

%an be made at any time &ust have been made ante litem motam

/. %ompromises%ivil %ases4 not admission of liability

K


10/22



%riminal %ases4 implied admission of guilt.&'cept: #uasi5offenses or those allowed by law to be compromised, or whenmade to avoid ris"s of criminal actions against him.

$lso, offer to pay expenses occasioned by in'ury not admissible as proof of civilor criminal liability for the in'ury.

$ plea of forgiveness made with the "nowledge, consent or ac#uiescence of theaccused is tantamount to an offer to compromise by the accused.

0f the purpose of the offer is to buy peace and avoid litigation, then the offer isinadmissible.

$s held in the case of Daggett v. $tchinson, etc. :/7 %al.2d > , it is the generalrule that evidence of precautions ta"en and repairs made after the happening ofthe accident is not admissible to show a negligent condition at the time of theaccident.

. 6e#uisites for $dmission by ilence :$daptive $dmissionsa. The party heard the declaration or observed the act of the other person

b. Ee must have understood the statement or actc. Ee was at liberty to interpose a deniald. tatement was with respect to some matter affecting his rights or in which he

was then interested, and calling, naturally, for an answer e. )acts were within his "nowledgef. )acts admitted or inference to be drawn from his silence is material to the issueg. The party has no right to remain silent :as held in %ommonwealth v. Dravec=,

/2/ *a. 72 or 22F $52d KL/ 0f private complainant in a rape case fails to rebut testimonies of defense

witnesses that she and accused were sweethearts and that they had previoussexual encounters, she is deemed to have impliedly admitted the truth of thefacts asserted by said witnesses.

>. "es inter alios acta alteri nocero non debet a. )irst branch

ection 2L, the rights of a party cannot be pre'udiced by an act, declaration oromission of another

M% *T0! 4 where the third person is a partner, agent, 'oint owner, 'ointdebtor or has a 'oint interest with the party, or is a co5conspirator or a privy ofthe party, during the existence of the partnership, conspiracy, etc. asestablished by evidence other than such act or declaration, or while holdingtitle to property in relation to such

b. econd branchec. +/, evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time not

admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same


11/22



testify and cross5examine him. uch confession is not admissible as an $dmission by co5conspirator because it was made after the conspiracy hadended and after the commission of the crime.

K. $dmissions by *riviesa. &ust be a relation of privity between the party and the declarantb. $dmission was made while declarant as predecessor in interest, while holding

title to the propertyc. $dmission is in relation to said property

E!9 3 6, such evidence is still not admissible to contradict the terms of thewritten instrument

1L. !pinion of a witnessa. xpert special "nowledge, s"ill experience or training

i. The matter to be testified to is one that re#uires expertiseii.The witness has been #ualified as an expert

0t is not enough that a witness who is being presented as an expert belongs tothe profession or calling to which the sub'ect matter of the in#uiry relates. Eemust further show that he possesses special "nowledge to the #uestion on whichhe proposes to express an opinion.

b. !rdinaryi. 0dentity of person about whom he has ade#uate "nowledgeii. Eandwriting, if with sufficient familiarityiii. &ental sanity, if sufficiently ac#uaintediv. 0mpressions on emotion, behavior, condition or appearance which he has

observedv. !rdinary matters common to all men of common perception

&EARSAY R #LE1. xceptions to hearsay rule

a. Dying declaration * ante mortem or in articulo mortisb. Declaration against interestc. $ct or declaration against pedigreed. )amily reputation or traditions regarding pedigreee. %ommon reputationf+ "es gestaeg. ntries in course of businessh. ntries in official recordsi. %ommercial lists and the li"e

'. -earned treatisesi. %ourt ta"es 'udicial notice; or ii. Testified to by an expert

". Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding ewspaper clippings are hearsay and have no evidentiary value unless

substantiated by persons with personal "nowledge of the facts.

2. Doct+in of in" * n" ntl1 + l !ant stat nts0ndependent of whether the facts stated are true, they are relevant since they arethe facts in issue o+ are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue

ot covered by the hearsay rule&'ample: The statements or writings attributed to a person who is not on thewitness stand are being offered, not to prove the truth of the facts stated therein,but only to prove that such statements were actually made or such writings wereexecuted, or to prove the tenor thereof.

+. 6e#uisites of Declaration $gainst 0nteresta. Declarant dead or unable to testify

&ere absence from 'urisdiction does not ma"e declarant Bunable to testify.Cxception contemplates that the declarant is dead, mentally incompetent or

physically incapacitated

11


12/22



b. Declaration was against his own interestc. 6easonable man in declarant?s position would not have made the declaration

unless he believed it to be true Declarations by accused against his interest are inadmissible if done in violation

of his constitutional rights

/. 6e#uisites of $ct or Declaration about *edigreea. Declarant dead or unable to testifyb. Declarant is related to the person whose pedigree is in #uestionc. &ade ante litem motamd. 6elationship between declarant and person whose pedigree is in #uestion

showed by evidence other than the declaration M% *T if claiming from thedeclarant, where the declaration itself is sufficient

. 6e#uisites of )amily 6eputation. 6e#uisites of %ommon 6eputationa. )acts to which the reputation refers are of public or general interestb. 6eputation is ancient :or more than +L years oldc. 6eputation must have been formed among a class of persons who were in a

position to have some sources of information and to contribute intelligently to theformation of the opinion

d. 6eputation must exist ante litem motamE!9 3 6, if the reputation concerns marriage or moral character, there#uisite that the reputation must be ancient does !T apply

F. 6e#uisites of Dying Declarationsa. Declaration is conscious of impending deathb. Declaration relates to the facts or circumstances pertaining to the fatal in'ury or

deathtatements referring to the antecedents of the fatal encounter or opinion,

impressions, or conclusions of the declarant are not admissible. :*rofessor@autista believes that the opinion rule is still applicable in dying declarations.

c. Declarant would have been comptent to testify had he survivedd. Declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarant?s death is the sub'ect of the

in#uiry.Dying declarations are admissible in $ O case not only in criminalprosecutions for homicide which was the former rule.

7. "es gestae2 "inds


13/22



v. ature and circumstances of the statement itself b. 3erbal acts4

6e#uisites4i. "es gestae or principal act must be e#uivocalii. $ct material to issueiii. tatements must accompany e#uivocal activ. tatements must give legal significance to e#uivocal act

K. 6es gestae and Dying Declarations distinguishedRES 3 ESTAE D YIN3 DECLARATIONS

tatement of the "iller himself after orduring the "illing, or that of a third person:e.g., victim, bystander

%an be made only by the victim

tatement may precede, accompany or bemade after the homicidal act wascommitted

&ade only after the homicidal attac" hasbeen committed

(ustified by the spontaneity of thestatement

Trustworthiness is based upon its beinggiven under awareness of impending death

1L. 6e#uisites of ntries in the course of businessa. ntrant is deceased or unable to testifyb. ntries made at or near the time of the transaction to which they relatec. ntries made by entrant in his professional capacity or in the performance of a

dutyd. ntries were made in the ordinary or regular course of businesse. ntrant must have been in a position to "now the facts therein stated

eirs of Conti vs+ CA 5 baptismal certificates are admissible as entries in theordinary course of business, even absent the testimony of the officiating priest orofficial recorder

11. 6e#uisites of ntries in official recordsa. ntry was made by public officer of the *hilippines or by a person especially

en'oined by law to ma"e such entryb. ntry was made in the performance of entrant?s dutyc. ntrant must have been in a position to "now the facts therein stated

@aptismal certificates or parochial records are not public or official records andare not proof of relationship or filiation of the child bapti=ed.

12. ntries in the course of business and ntries in official records distinguished

ENTRIES

IN

T&E

CO#RSE

O7

B#SINESS

ENTRIES

IN

O77ICIAL

RECORDS

ufficient that entrant made the entriespursuant to a duty either legal, contractual,moral or religious, or in the regular courseof business or duty

entrant is a public officer in performance ofduty, or if a private individual, must haveacted pursuant to a specific legal duty:specially en'oined by law

The person who made such entries mustbe dead or unable to testify

there is no such re#uirement foradmissibility, precisely because the officeris excused

1+. 6e#uisites of Testimony or Deposition in former proceedinga. 9itness whose testimony is offered is dead or unable to testifyb. *arty against whom the evidence is offered, or his privy, was a party to the

former case or proceeding, 'udicial or administrativec. Testimony or deposition relates to the same sub'ect matter :identity of issueThe re#uirement of identity

d. $dverse party had opportunity to cross5examineTestimony given during preliminary investigation where the defense had theopportunity to cross5examine the unavailable witness is admissible in the criminalcase

1+


14/22



1/. &odes of xtra5'udicial 0dentification of $ccuseda. how5ups where accused alone is brought face5to5face with the witness for

identificationb. &ug shots where photographs are shown to the witness for identificationc. -ine5ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined

up for the purpose 0dentification will be admissible if it passes the totality of circumstances test

which considers the following factors4i. The witness? opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crimeii. 9itness? degree of attention at that timeiii. $ccuracy of any prior description by the witnessiv. The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identificationv. -ength of time between the crime and identificationvi. uggestiveness of the identification procedure

1 . The % approved an additional exception to the hearsay rule in its $.&. no. LL5/5LF5% approving the *roposed 6ule on xamination of a %hild 9itness.

$ statement made by a child describing any act or attempted act of child abuse!T otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in evidence

in any criminal or non5criminal proceeding subject to the following rules4b. @efore such statement may be admitted, its proponent shall ma"e "nown to

the adverse party the intention to offer such statement and its particulars toallow him an opportunity to ob'ect.iii. 0f the child is available

The court shall re#uire the child to be present at the presentation ofthe hearsay statement for cross5examination by the adverse party.

iv. 0f the child is unavailableThe fact of such circumstance must be proved by the proponent.

c. 0n ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shallconsider the time, content and circumstances thereof which provide sufficientindicia of reliability. 0t shall consider the following factors4i. 9hether there is a motive to lieii. The general character of the declarant childiii. 9hether more than one person heard the statementiv. 9hether the statement was spontaneousv. The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant

child and witness.vi. %ross5examination could not show the lac" of "nowledge of the declarant

child.vii. The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child;viii. The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no

reason to suppose the declarant child misrepresented the involvement ofthe accused.

d. The child witness shall be considered unavailable in the following situations4i. 0s deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lac" of memory, mental

illness or will be exposed to severe psychological in'ury;ii. 0s absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been

unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means.d. 9hen the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be

admitted only if corroborated by other admissible evidence.

R#LE $6$ B #RDEN O7 P ROO7 AND P RES#MPTIONS1. *resumptions of law

a. &ay be conclusive or absolute, or disputable or rebuttableb. $ certain inference must be made whenever the facts appear which furnish the

basis of the inferencec. 6educed to fix rules and form a part of the system of 'urisprudence

2. *resumptions of fact

*

The resolution came out last ovember 21, 2LLL. The rule too" effect last December 1 , 2LLL.

1/


15/22



a. $ discretion is vested in the tribunal as to drawing the inferenceb. Derived wholly and directly from the circs of the particular case by means of the

common experience of man"ind

+. @urden of proof!nus probandi !bligation imposed upon a party who alleges the existence of facts necessary forthe prosecution of his action or defense to establish the same by the re#uisitepresentation of evidence0n civil cases, it is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence is given oneither side; in criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden of proof.Does not shift; remains on party upon whom it is imposedDetermined by pleadings filed by party

ffect of a legal presumption on @urden of *roof4 The effect is to create thenecessity of presenting evidence to meet the prima facie case created by thepresumption; and if no proof to the contrary is offered, the presumption will

prevail. T l 9al *+ s/ *tion "o s not s oft t /+" n of *+oof . Theburden of proof remains where it is, but by the presumption, the one who has theburden is relieved, for the timebeing, from producing evidence in suuport of hisaverment, because the presumption stands in place of evidence.

/. @urden of evidence-ies with party asserting affirmative allegations

hifts during trial, depending on exigencies of the caseDetermined by developments at trial or by provisions of law :presumptions,

'udicial notice, admissions 0n criminal cases, a negative fact must be proven if it is an essential element of

the crime.

People vs+ Macagaling in a charge of illegal possession of firearms, the burdenis on the prosecution to prove that the accused had no license to possess thesame.

People vs+ Manalo in a charge for selling regulated drugs without authority, itwas held that although the prosecution has the burden of proving a negativeaverment which is an essential element of the crime :i.e. lac" of license to sell ,the prosecution, in view of the difficulty of proving a negative allegation, needonly establish a prima facie case from the best evidence obtainable. 0n this case,the lac" of license was held to have been established by the circumstances thatthe sale of the drug was consummated not in a drug store or hospital, and that itwas made at 1L4LL *&.

R#LE $62 P RESENTATION O7 E VIDENCE1. Nse immunity

*rohibits use of the witnessJ compelled testimony and its fruits in any manner inconnection with the criminal prosecution of the witness9here the statute grants only use immunity, merely testifying and


16/22



(!)&: !ne who voluntarily offers a witness? testimony is bound by such : i+e.cannot impeach or contradict , e'cept 4i. Eostile witnessii. $dverse party or rep. of adverse partyiii. ot voluntarily offered but re#uired by law : e+g+, subscribing witnesses to a

will/. 0mpeaching witness of adverse party

a. %ontradictory evidence from testimony in same caseb. vidence of prior inconsistent statementc. vidence of bad character


17/22



a. $ncient documenti. &ore than +L years oldii. %ontains no alterations or circumstances of suspicioniii. *roduced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine

b. *ublic document or recordc. otarial document ac"nowledged, proved or certifiedd. $uthenticity and due execution has been expressly or impliedly admitted : e+g+,

actionable documents, failure to deny under oath%omputer printouts are inadmissible unless properly authenticated by a witnessattesting that they came from the computer system or that the data stored in thesystem were not and could not have been tampered with before the same wereprinted out.

11. Eandwriting4 evidence of genuinenessa. 9itness actually saw person writing the instrumentb. )amiliar with handwriting and witness can give opinionc. %omparison of #uestioned handwriting and admitted genuine specimensd. xpert evidence

O77ER AND O B4ECTION1. The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The

purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.&'ception: 0f there was repeated reference thereto in the course of the trial byadverse party?s counsel and of the court, indicating that the documents were part ofthe prosecution?s evidence.

Two re#uisites must concur : People vs+ (apta-a. The document must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded.b. The document must have been incorporated to the records of the case.

2. $ party who has introduced evidence is not entitled as matter of right to withdraw it infinding that it does not answer his purpose; B.) he may withdraw an offer of anexhibit any time before the court has passed on its admissibility.

+. vidence offered is presumed to be admissible or competent until the contrary hasbeen established.

Thus, the opposing party must !@( %T to its introduction.

/. 9hen to ob'ectO77ER TIME TO O B4ECT

!ffered orally &ade immediately after the offer is madeQuestion propounded in the course of theoral examination of a witness

hall be made as soon as the groundsthereof shall become reasonably apparent

!ffer of evidence in writing hall be ob'ected to within + days afternotice of the offer unless a different periodis allowed by the court.

. 9hen is a motion to stri"e out answer properRa. 9hen the witness answered the #uestion before the counsel has a chance to

ob'ectb. 9here a #uestion which is not ob'ectionable may be followed by an ob'ectionable

unresponsive answer c. 9here a witness has volunteered statements in such a way that the party has not

been able to ob'ect theretod. 9here a witness testifies without a #uestion being addressed to hime. 9here a witness testifies beyond the ruling of the court prescribing the limits

within which he may answer f. 9hen a witness dies or becomes incapacitated to testify and the other party has

not been given the opportunity to cross5examine the witness.

1F


18/22



There must be an ob'ection first before a motion to stri"e. 0f the party slept onhis right to ob'ect, he cannot later on avail a motion to stri"e to exclude theevidence.

>. 9hen is a motion to stri"e out improperRa. $ party cannot insist that competent and relevant evidence be stric"en

out for reasons going to his weight, sufficiency or credibilityb. !ne cannot move to stri"e it out because it proves unfavorable to him

F. 0f court improperly excludes an otherwise admissible evidence, remedy is to tenderthe excluded evidence, also "nown as !)) 6 !) *6!!)4b. Documentary by attaching the document or ma"ing it part of the recordc. Testimonial by stating the personal circumstances of witness and the

substance of proposed testimony

R#LE $66 W EI3&T AND S #77ICIENCY O7 E VIDENCE1. *roof beyond reasonable doubt

Does not mean such degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, producesabsolute certainty&oral certainty only is re#uired, or that degree of proof which producesconviction in an unpre'udiced mind

2. %ircumstantial evidence to sustain conviction must4a. &ore than one circumstanceb. )acts from which inferences are derived are provenc. %ombination of all circumstances such as to produce conviction beyond

reasonable doubt

+. ubstantial evidenceThat amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept asade#uate to 'ustify a conclusion.

P ERTINENT P ROVISIONS O7 T&E IMPLEMENTIN3 R #LES O7 T&E E


19/22



$ct and ection +F of these 6ules, nothing in the $ct or these 6ules re#uires a person touse or accept information contained in electronic data messages, electronic documents,or electronic signatures, but a personJs consent to do so may be inferred from thepersonJs conduct.

ection ; or F of the $ct shall be the best evidence of theagreement and transaction contained therein.

ection ;&8 3olemn Contracts+ 0 o provision of the $ct shall apply to vary any and allre#uirements of existing laws and relevant 'udicial pronouncements respectingformalities re#uired in the execution of documents for their validity. Eence, when the lawre#uires that a contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or enforceable, orthat a contract is proved in a certain way, that re#uirement is absolute andindispensable. / &4A/ " &C!4(1)1!( !5 & /&C)"!(1C 3 14(A)."&3

ection ;=8 /egal "ecognition of &lectronic 3ignatures+ $n electronic signature relatingto an electronic document or electronic data message shall be e#uivalent to thesignature of a person on a written document if the signature4

a. 0s an electronic signature as defined in ection >:g of these 6ules; andb. 0s proved by showing that a prescribed procedure, not alterable by the parties

interested in the electronic document or electronic data message, existed under

which4i. $ method is used to identify the party sought to be bound and to indicate

said party?s access to the electronic document or electronic datamessage necessary for his consent or approval through the electronicsignature;

ii. aid method is reliable and appropriate for the purpose for which theelectronic document or electronic data message was generated or

1K


20/22



communicated, in the light of all circumstances, including any relevantagreement;

iii. 0t is necessary for the party sought to be bound, in order to proceedfurther with the transaction, to have executed or provided the electronicsignature; and,

iv. The other party is authori=ed and enabled to verify the electronicsignature and to ma"e the decision to proceed with the transactionauthenticated by the same.

v. The parties may agree to adopt supplementary or alternative proceduresprovided that the re#uirements of paragraph :b are complied with.

)or purposes of subparagraphs :i and :ii of paragraph :b , the factors referredto in Anne' 678 may be ta"en into account.

ection ;>8 Presumption "elating to &lectronic 3ignatures+ 0 0n any proceeding involvingan electronic signature, the proof of the electronic signature shall give rise to therebuttable presumption that4

a. The electronic signature is the signature of the person to whom it correlates; andb. The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of signing

or approving the electronic data message or electronic document unless theperson relying on the electronically signed electronic data message or electronicdocument "nows or has notice of defects in or unreliability of the signature orreliance on the electronic signature is not reasonable under the circumstances.

M !$&3 !5 A .) &()1CA)1!(

ection ;?8 Method of Authenticating &lectronic $ocuments, &lectronic $ata Messages,and &lectronic 3ignatures+ 0 lectronic documents, electronic data messages andelectronic signatures, shall be authenticated by demonstrating, substantiating andvalidating a claimed identity of a user, device, or another entity in an information orcommunication system.

Nntil the upreme %ourt, by appropriate rules, shall have so provided, electronicdocuments, electronic data messages and electronic signatures, shall be authenticated,among other ways, in the following manner4

a. The electronic signature shall be authenticated by proof that a letter, character,number or other symbol in electronic form representing the persons named inand attached to or logically associated with an electronic data message,electronic document, or that the appropriate methodology or security procedures,when applicable, were employed or adopted by a person and executed oradopted by such person, with the intention of authenticating or approving anelectronic data message or electronic document;

b. The electronic data message or electronic document shall be authenticated byproof that an appropriate security procedure, when applicable was adopted andemployed for the purpose of verifying the originator of an electronic datamessage or electronic document, or detecting error or alteration in thecommunication, content or storage of an electronic document or electronic datamessage from a specific point, which, using algorithm or codes, identifying wordsor numbers, encryptions, answers bac" or ac"nowledgement procedures, orsimilar security devices.

ection ;@8 Burden of Authenticating &lectronic $ocuments or &lectronic $ataMessages+ 0 The person see"ing to introduce an electronic document or electronic datamessage in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity by evidencecapable of supporting a finding that the electronic data message or electronic document

is what the person claims it to be.

M !$&3 5!" & 3)AB/13 1(4 1 ()&4"1)9

ection ;'8 Method of &stablishing the 1ntegrity of an &lectronic $ocument or &lectronic$ata Message+ 0n the absence of evidence to the contrary, the integrity of theinformation and communication system in which an electronic data message or

2L


21/22



electronic document is recorded or stored may be established in any legal proceeding,among other methods

a. @y evidence that at all material times the information and communication systemor other similar device was operating in a manner that did not affect the integrityof the electronic document or electronic data message, and there are no otherreasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the information and communicationsystem;

b. @y showing that the electronic document or electronic data message wasrecorded or stored by a party to the proceedings who is adverse in interest to theparty using it; or

c. @y showing that the electronic document or electronic data message wasrecorded or stored in the usual and ordinary course of business by a person whois not a party to the proceedings and who did not act under the control of theparty using the record.

A$M1331B1/1)9 A($ & 1$&()1A/ 2 &14 )

ection ;98 Admissibility and &vidential 2eight of &lectronic $ata Messages and&lectronic $ocuments+ 0 )or evidentiary purposes, an electronic document or electronicdata message shall be the functional e#uivalent of a written document under existinglaws. 0n any legal proceeding, nothing in the application of the rules on evidence shalldeny the admissibility of an electronic data message or electronic document in evidence4

a. !n the sole ground that it is in electronic form; orb. !n the ground that it is not in the standard written form.

The $ct does not modify any statutory rule relating to the admissibility ofelectronic data messages or electronic documents, except the rules relating toauthentication and best evidence.

0n assessing the evidential weight of an electronic data message or electronicdocument, the reliability of the manner in which it was generated, stored orcommunicated, the reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified, andother relevant factors shall be given due regard.

ection ;:8 Proof by Affidavit and Cross0&'amination+ 0 The matters referred to inection 12 of the $ct on admissibility and evidentiary weight, and ection K of the $ct on

the presumption of integrity of electronic signatures, may be presumed to have beenestablished by an affidavit given to the best of the deponent?s or affiant?s personal"nowledge sub'ect to the rights of parties in interest to cross5examine such deponent oraffiant as a matter of right. uch right of cross5examination may li"ewise be en'oyed bya party to the proceedings who is adverse in interest to the party who has introduced theaffidavit or has caused the affidavit to be introduced.

$ny party to the proceedings has the right to cross5examine a person referred toin ection 11, paragraph /, and sub5paragraph :c of the $ct.

" &)&()1!( !5 & /&C)"!(1C $ A)A M &33A4& A($ & /&C)"!(1C $ !C.M&()

ection &


22/22



c. 6elevant government agencies tas"ed with enforcing or implementing applicablelaws relating to the retention of certain documents may, by appropriateissuances, impose regulations to ensure the integrity, reliability of suchdocuments and the proper implementation of ection 1+ of the $ct.

Remedial Law} Evidence} Memory Aid} Made 2002} by Ateneo} 28 Pages

Documents