evidence riano

Chapter IV: Testimonial Evidence Competency and Credibility  Bar 2004 Q: Distinguish: competency of the witness and credibility of the witness A: Competency of a witness has reference to the basic qualifications of a witness as his capacity to perceive and his capacity to communicate his perception to others. It also includes the absence of any of the disqualifications imposed upon a witness. Credibility of the witness refers to the believability of the witness and has nothing to do with the law or the rules. It refers to the weight and the trustworthiness or reliability of the testimony. In deciding the competence of a witness, the court will not inquire into the trustworthiness of the witness. Accordingly, a prevaricating witness of one who has given contradicting testimony is still a competent witness. Bar 1994 Q: Al was accused of raping ourdes. o urdes. !nly ourdes testified on how the crime was perpetrated. !n the other hand, the defense presented Al"s wife, son and daughter to testify that Al was with them when the alleged crime too# place. $he $ he prosecution interposed a timely ob%ection to the testimonies on the ground of obvious bias due to the close relationship of the witnesses with the accused. If you were the  %udge, how would would you rule rule on the ob%ection& A: I would overrule the ob%ection, interest in the outcome of a case which also includes close relationship is not a ground to disqualify a witness 'sec. () *+(Bar 1994

Q: ouis is being charged with frustrated murder of *oy. $he prosecutions lone lo ne witness, ariter, testified to having seen ouise prepare the poison which she later surreptitiously poured into *oy"s wine glass, ouise sought the disqualification of ariter as witness on account of her previous conviction of per%ury. *ule on ouise"s contention. A: $he contention of ouise has no legal basis. /asic is the rule that previous conviction is not a ground for disqualification of a witness, unless otherwise provided by law. ariter"s conviction is not sufficient to have her disqualified to testify. 0er situation is not one of the e1ceptions provided for by law. Competency of a Child Witness Q: ay a person over +2 years old be sometimes considered as a child& A: sometimes, he may. In child abuse cases, a child includes one over +2 + 2 years but is found by the court as unable to fully ta#e care of himself or protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, e1ploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition '*ule on 31amination of a Child 4itness-. Bar 2005 Q: 4hen may the trial court order that the testimony of a child be ta#en by live5lin# television& A: $he court may order that the testimony of the child be ta#en by live5lin# tv if there is a li#elihood that the child would suffer trauma from testifying the presence of the accused, his counsel or the prosecutor as the case may be. $he trauma must be of a #ind which would impair the completeness or truthfulness of the testimony of the child '31amination of a child witness-.

Survivorship Disqualification Rule of the Dead Man’s Statute 0ypo: r. D approaches r. C one rainy 6unday morning to borrow one hundred thousand pesos to be paid e1actly a year after. 4ithout hesitation, c gives d the amount requested. C does not require d to e1ecute a promissory note. $hey had been very good friends for as long as they can remember. 7ears ago, when r. C"s small business was on the verge of ban#ruptcy it was the generosity of the then wealthy r. D that bailed him out. 31actly a day before the agreed date for payment, r. D dies without paying the debt. 4hat does r. C do& 4ell he does what every creditor would do under the circumstances. 0e goes to the e1ecutor of what remains of the estate of r. D, and tells him of the debt of r. D. he says: 8$oday is supposed to be the due date of his debt. I cannot demand payment from him because his dead. 7ou are the e1ecutor and alive. 4hat is the effect of the death of r. D& r. C is rendered incompetent to testify as to the transaction he has with D. he is incompetent because of the possibility that his claim is fraudulent. If C were to be heard there would be a high ris# of paying a fraudulent or a fictitious claim. It is C who has the motive to lie. 0e is the survivor. D cannot lie. 0e is dead. 0e did not survive9 he cannot answer bac#, nor disprove the claim of C. $o level the playing field between the luc#y survivor and the poor deceased our remedial law ancestors devised a rule that would seal the lips of the survivor by declaring him incompetent to testify on the transaction between him and the deceased the rule is definitely one that does not protect the survivor even at the ris# of not paying a %ust and valid claim because it is the survivor who has the stronger reason to file a false claim. $he

rule is for the protection of the guy who died. 0ence the name, dead man"s statute.  $he rule will not apply where the plaintiff is the e1ecutor or administrator as representative of the deceased or if the plaintiff is the person of unsound mind. 6o if the e1ecutor of the estate of r. C sues r. D to collect an unpaid debt incurred in favor of C by D before the death of C, D although a survivor, is not precluded from testifying as to the transaction he previously had with C because the case is not upon a claim against the estate of C but a claim by his estate against D. Bar 200 Q: a1imo filed an action against edro, the administrator of the estate of the deceased ;uan, for the recovery of a car which is part of the latter"s estate. During the trial, a1imo presented witness ariano who testified that he was present when a1imo and ;uan agreed that the latter would pay a rental of ()))) for the use of a1imo"s car for one month after which ;uan should immediately return the car to a1imo. edro ob%ected to the admission of ariano"s testimony. If you were the %udge, would you sustain edro"s ob%ection& 4hy& A: $he ob%ection of edro should not be sustained. $he testimony is admissible because the witness is not qualified to testify. $hose disqualified under the dead man"s statute or the survivorship disqualification rule are parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. $he witness is not one of those enumerated under the rule 'sec( * +)-.

Bar 200!

*efer more to pp(5(B '*iano-

True or False

E%ceptions to arital !is"uali#ication $ule

Q: $he surviving parties rule bars aria from testifying for the claimant as to what the deceased ;ose ad said to her, in a claim filed by edro against the estate of ;ose. A: M After raping Candida, Dencio fled from the house with the loot. Candida then untied arcela and rushed to the police station about a #ilometer away and told olice !fficer *oberto aawa that Dencio had

barged into the house of arcela, tied the latter to a chair and robbed her of her  %ewelry and money. Candida also related to the police officer that despite her pleas, Dencio had raped her. $he policeman noticed that Candida was hysterical and on the verge of collapse. Dencio was charged with robbery with rape. During the trial, Candida can no longer be located. a- If the prosecution presents olice !fficer *oberto aawa to testify on what Candida had told him, would such testimony of the policeman be hearsay& 31plain. A: $he testimony would be hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the statement of Candida, but an admissible hearsay as an e1ception to the hearsay rile. Jnder the rules of court, statements made by a person while a startling occurrence are ta#ing place or immediately proper or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, maybe given in evidence as part of the res gestae. $he statements made by Candida to the police officer falls within the res gestae rule. If the statement of Candida is offered merely to prove the tenor of the statement, i.e. what Candida told the police officer without regard to whether the statement is true or not, it may be considered as an independently relevant statement and this not hearsay. 55o!oN

Chapter VI Burden o# -roo# +uantum o# Evidence and -resumptions

Bar 200#

+: !ist: /urden of proof and burden of evidence A: /urden of proof is the obligation of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. /urden of evidence is the duty of a party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow any prima facie presumption against him. Bar $$& Q: 31plain the equipoise doctrine in the law of evidence and cite its constitutional basis. A: $he equipoise doctrine is based on the principle that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.  $he doctrine refers to a situation where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates. In this case the decision should be against the party with the burden of proof. 0ence, where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff and the evidence does not suggest that the scale of  %ustice should weigh in his favor the court should render a verdict for the defendant. )u'stantial Evidence Bar 200' +: Dist preponderance of evidence from substantial evidence A: $he term 8preponderance of evidenceM applies to civil cases. It means the “greater or superior weight of evidence”. It is the evidence that is more convincing and more credible than the one offered by the adverse party. It means that the evidence as a whole adduced by one side is superior to that of the other.

“!ubstantial "vidence” applies to cases filed before administrative or quasi5%udicial bodies and which requires that in order to establish a fact, the evidence should constitute that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 55o!!N Chapter VII ##er o# Evidence and Trial 'ections hen Formal ##er o# Evidence is /ot $e"uired * formal offer of evidence is not required in certain cases: +. In a summary proceeding because it is a proceeding where there is no full blown trial (. Documents %udicially admitter or ta#en %udicial notice of  . Documents, affidavits and depositions used in rendering a summary %udgment9 H. Documents or affidavits used in deciding quasi5%udicial or admin. Cases K. ost ob%ects previously mar#ed, identified, described in the record and testified to by witnesses who had been sub%ects of cross5 e1amination in respect to said ob%ects Bar 200' Q: E and 7 were charged for murder. Jpon application of the prosecution, 7 was discharged from the information to be utili?ed as a state witness. $he prosecutor presented 7 as witness but forgot to state the purpose oof his

testimony much less offer it in evidence. 7 testified that he and E conspired to #ill the victim but it was E who actially shot the victim. $he testimony of J was the only material evidence establishing the guilt of E. 0 was thorognly cross5e1amined by the defense counsel, after the prosecution rested its case, the defense filed a motion for demurrer to ecidence based on the following grounds: a. $he testimony of 7 should be e1cluded because its purpose was not initially stated and it was not formally offered in evidence as required by s. H r +( off evidence *ule on the motion of the demurrer. A: $he demurrer to evidence should be denied. 4hile under the *ules of Court, the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered this is true only when the failure to offer evidence has been ob%ected to. $he failure to ob%ect to the omission of the prosecutor and the cross5e1amination of the witness by the adverse party, ta#en together, constitute a waiver of the defect. o; an ##er o# Evidence is ade Bar $%' Atty.