Regalado Vol II Evidence_2

TABLE OP CONTENTS

Page Sec. 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence, where to fi le .............

689

Rule 127. Provisional Remedies in Criminal Cases Sec. Sec.

1. Availability of provisional rem ed ies..... 2. A ttachm ent................................................

695 695

IV. EVIDENCE A.

Preliminary Considerations

Kule 128. General Provisions Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. B.

1. 2. 3. 4.

Evidence d efin ed ........................................ S cop e............................................................. Admissibility of evidence.......................... Relevancy; collateral m a tters .................

698 698 703 704

Adm issibility of Evidence

Rule 130. Rules of Admissibility A. Object (Real) Evidence Sec.

1. Object as e v id e n ce ..................................... B. Documentary Evidence S ec. 2. Documentary E viden ce............................. 1. Best Evidence Rule Sec. 3. O riginal docum ent m ust be produced; excep tion s.................................................... Sec. 4. Original of docum ent................................. 2. Secondary Evidence Sec. 5. When original document is unavailable Sec. 6 . When original document is in adverse party’s custody or con tro l......................... Sec. 8 . Party who calls for document not bound to offer i t ...................................................... 3. Parol Evidence Rule Sec. 7. Evidence admissible when original docu­ ment is a public re co rd .............................. xlvii

715 718

718 719 723 726 726

728

REMEDIAL I-AW COMPENDIUM

Page Sec.

9.

Sec. 10. Sec. 11. Sec. 12. Sec. 13. Sec. 14. Sec. 15. Sec. 16. Sec. 17. Sec. 18. Sec. 19.

Sec. 20. Sec. 2 1 . Sec. 22. Sec. 23. Sec. 24.

Sec. 25. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec.

26. 27. 28. 29.

Evidence of written agreem ents............ 4. Interpretation of Documents Interpretation of a writing according to its legal m eaning......................................... Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions..................... ..................... Interpretation according to intention; general and particular p rovision s.......... Interpretation according to circu m ­ s t a n c e s ......................................................... Peculiar signification of term s............... Written words control p rin ted ............... Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain w ritin gs..................... Of two constructions, which preferred .. Construction in favor of natural rig h t... Interpretation according to u sa g e ......... C. Testimonial Evidence 1 . Qualification of Witnesses Witnesses; their qualifications.............. D isqualification by reason of mental incapacity or im m aturity.......................... D isqualification by reason of marriage D isqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse p a rty .......................... Disqualification by reason of privileged com m unication............................................ 2. Testimonial Privilege Parental and filial privilege................... 3. Admissions and Confessions Admissions of a p a rty ............................... Offer of compromise not adm issible...... Admission by third p a rty ......................... Admission by co-partner or a g e n t.........

xlviii

729

735

735 735 736 736 736 736 736 737 737

737 738 740 743 746 753 754 756 758 759

TAHI,® OK CONTENTB

Page Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec.

30. 31. 32. 33.

Hqc. 34. Sec. 35. Hoc. 36.

Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec.

37. 38. 39. 40.

Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec.

41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

Sec. 48. Sec. 49. Sec. 50. C.

Admission by con spirator........................ Admission by p riv ie s ................................ Admission by sile n ce ................................ Confession.................................................... 4. Previous Conduct as Evidence Similar acts as ev id en ce.......................... Unaccepted o ffe r ........................................ 5. Testimonial Knowledge T estim ony gen era lly con fin ed to p e r ­ sonal knowledge; hearsay ex clu d ed ...... 6 . Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule Dying decla ra tion ...................................... Declaration against in te re st................... Act or declaration about p ed ig ree ......... Family reputation or tradition regarding p edigree........................................................ Common reputation................................... Part of the res g es ta e................................. Entries in the course of b u sin ess........... Entries in official record s........................ Commercial lists and the lik e ................. Learned treatises....................................... T estim on y or d e p osition at a form er proceeding.................................................... 7. Opinion Rule General ru le................................................. Opinion of expert w itnesses.................... Opinion of ordinary w itn esses................

760 762 762 764 774 775

775 778 782 784 784 786 787 791 792 795 796 796 800 800 800

B u rd en o f P r o o f and W hat N eed N ot be P ro v e d

R u le 131. B u r d e n o f P r o o f a n d P re s u m p tio n s Sec.

1. Burden o f p r o o f...........................................

xlix

815

REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Page S ec. 2 . Conclusive presum ptions......................... Sec. 3. Disputable presum ptions......................... S ec. 4. No p resu m p tion o f le g itim a cy or i l ­ legitim acy.....................................................

820 820 831

Rule 129. What Need Not Be Proved Sec. S e c. Sec. S ec. D.

1. 2.

3. 4.

Judicial notice, when m an datory. 832 Judicial notice, when discretionary.. 832 Judicial notice, when hearing necessary 832 Judicial adm issions......................... 836

Presentation of Evidence

Rule 132. Presentation of Evidence A. Examination of Witnesses Sec. 1 . Examination to be done in open co u rt... S ec. 2. Proceedings to be recorded...................... Sec. 3. Rights and obligations of a w itn e ss ...... Sec. 4. O rder in the exam in ation o f an in d i­ vidual w itn e ss ............................................ Sec. 5. Direct exam ination.................................... Sec. 6 . C ross-ex a m in a tion ; its p u rp ose and extent............................................................ Sec. 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and exten t............................................................ Sec. 8 . Re-cross-exam ination................................ Sec. 9. Recalling w itn ess....................................... Sec. 10 . Leading and misleading questions......... Sec. 11 . Impeachment of adverse party’s witness Sec. 12 . Party may not impeach his own witness Sec. 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statem ents............................ Sec. 14. Evidence of good character of w itn ess... Sec. 15. Exclusion and separation of w itnesses..

1

839 839 841 844 845 845 845 845 847 848 848 849 849 852 853

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Sec. 16. When witness may refer to memoran­ dum ................................................................ Sec. 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the remainder adm issible.................................................... Bee I K. Right to inspect w riting shown to w it­ ness ................................................................ It Authentication and Proof of Documents Bor. 19. Classes of docu m en ts................................ Hoc. 20. Proof of private d ocu m en t....................... Sec. 2 1 . When evidence of authenticity o f pri­ vate document not necessary.................. Sec. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence................. Sec. 24. Proof of official record ............................... Sec. 25. What attestation of copy must s ta te ..... Sec. 26. Irremovability o f public record ............... Sec. 27. Public record of a private docu m en t..... Sec. 28. Proof of lack of r e c o r d ............................... Sec. 29. How judicial record im peached............... Sec. 30. Proof of notarial docum ents.................... Sec. 31. Alterations in document, how to explain Sec. 32. S e a l................................................................ Sec. 33. Docum entary evidence in an unofficial language ...................................................... Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec.

34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

C. Offer and Objection Offer of eviden ce........................................ When to make o ffe r ................................... O bjection...................................................... When repetition of objection unnecessary R u lin g ........................................................... Striking out answer................................... Tender of excluded eviden ce...................

li

854

855 855 856 858 858 858 860 860 861 861 862 862 862 863 866 866

867 867 868

869 869 869 870 870

HK.MI'-IWAI. I;AW C O M P E N D I U M

Page E.

W eight and Sufficiency of Evidence

Rule 133. W eight and Sufficiency of Evidence Sec.

1 . Preponderance of evidence, how deter­

mined .......................................................... S ec. 2 . Proof beyond reasonable d ou bt............. Sec. 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction............................... Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient Sec. 5. Substantial evid en ce............................... Sec. 6 . Power o f the court to stop further evi­ dence ........................................................... Sec. 7. Evidence on m otion .................................

876 876 896 898 900 901 901

APPENDICES A - An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State o f A ny P rop erty Found to H ave Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer or E m p loyee and P ro v id in g for the Procedure Therefor (R.A. 1379)..................

905

B - An Act Requiring Judges of Courts to Speedily Try Criminal Cases Wherein the Offended Party is a Person About to Depart from the Philippines with No Definite Date of Return (R.A. 4 9 0 8 ).......................................................

909

C - An Act Requiring Courts to Give Preference to Criminal Cases Where the Party or Parties Involved are Indigents (R.A. 6 0 3 3 )............

910

D - An A ct P rovidin g T ran sportation and O ther Allowances for Indigent Litigants (R.A. 6034)

912

E - An Act Requiring Stenographers to Give Free Transcript of Notes to Indigent and Low Incom e L itig a n ts and P en a lty for the Violation Thereof (R.A. 6 0 3 5 ).....................

914

lii

IV. EVIDENCE* A. PR ELIM IN AR Y C O N SID ER ATIO N S RULE 128 GEN ER AL PR O VISIO N S S ection 1 . E vidence defined. — E viden ce is the m eans, sanctioned by these rules, o f ascertaining in a ju d ic ia l p roceed in g s the tru th resp e ctin g a m atter o f fact. (1) Sec. 2. S cope. — The ru les o f ev id en ce sh all be th e sam e in a ll c o u r ts and in all tr ia ls and hearings, except as otherw ise provided by law or these rules. (2a) NO TES 1 . Sec. 1 o f Rule 128 provides the legal definition of evidence. Evidence is the m ode and m anner o f proving com petent facts in judicial proceedings (Bustos vs. Lucent, etc., 81 Phil. 640). 2 . P roof is the result or effect o f evidence. W hen tho requisite quantum o f evidence of a particular fact has been duly adm itted and given weight, the result is called Hi" p roof o f such fact.

3. “Factum p rob a n d u m ” is the ultim ate fact or t h0

3. A n expert w itn ess is one w ho b elon g s to the profession or calling to w hich the subject m atter o f the in q u iry rela tes and who possesses sp ecia l k n ow ledge on q u e s t io n s on w h ich he p r o p o s e s to e x p r e s s an opinion. There is no definite standard o f determ ining the degree o f skill or k n ow ledge that a w itn ess m ust possess in order to testify as an expert. It is sufficient that the follow ing factors be present: (a) tra in in g and education; (b) particular, first-hand fam iliarity w ith the fa cts o f the case; and (c) p resen ta tion o f a u th orities or stan dards upon w hich his opinion is b ased (P eople vs. A briol, G.R. No. 123137, Oct. 17, 2001). Expert evidence is adm issible only if (a) the m atter to be testified to is one that requires expertise, and (b) the w itness has been qualified as an expert. H ypothetical questions may be asked o f an expert to elicit his opinion. C o u rts, h o w e v e r, are n ot n e c e s s a r ily b o u n d by the e x p e rt’s fin d in gs (P eop le vs. F loren d o, 68 P h il. 619). G enerally, expert evidence is regarded, not as conclusive, but p u re ly a d visory in ch a ra cter (P eople vs. D eauna, G.R. Nos. 143200-01, Aug. 1, 2002). 4. Some decisional rules on expert evidence have been laid down by our appellate courts, viz.: a. T he rule in A m erican ju risp ru d en ce is that in w eighing the testim ony o f an expert w itness, courts m ust n ecessarily con sider all the circum stances o f the case, am ong them his qualifications, experience and degree of learning, the basis and logic o f his conclusion, and the other evidence of record. It has been held that the value o f expert testim ony depends largely on the extent o f the experience or studies o f the w itness, because the greater his experience or knowledge, the greater is the value o f his opinion resting upon the sam e (W ells vs. Leek, 151 Pa. 431, 439, 25 Atl. 101; H anley vs. West Virginia, etc., 59 W. Va. 419, 430, 53 S.E. 625).

802

HUliK mo

R tJU IS OP A D M IS S IB IL IT Y

SHCS, 48-60

I). 11 has also been held in our ju risd iction that, w ith respect to a handw riting expert, the value o f his opinion deponds not upon his m ere statem ent w hether a w riting is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he m ay afford in pointing out distinguishing m arks, characteristics and discrepancies in and betw een genuine and false specim ens o f w r itin g w h ich w o u ld o r d in a r ily e sca p e n o tic e or detection by an untrained observer (U.S. vs. Kosel, 24 Phil. 594; People vs. Florendo, 40 O.G. [2nd S upp.] 224). c. W hether or not courts are bound by the testim ony o f an expert depends greatly upon the nature of the subject o f inquiry. I f the same is one that falls w ithin the general k n o w le d g e o f ju d g e s , c o u r ts a re n ot b o u n d b y th e conclusions o f even a real expert along such line (Paras vs. N arciso, 35 Phil. 244; D olar vs. D iansin, et al., 55 Phil. 479). It is only w here the subject o f inquiry is o f such a te ch n ica l nature th a t a laym an can p ossib ly have no know ledge th ereof that courts must depend and rely upon expert evidence (Raym undo vs. Legaspi, 47 O.G. 807, cited in N A R IC vs. F irst N ational Security & A ssu rance Co., Inc., et al., [CA], 64 O.G. 10607). d. C o n flictin g ex p ert ev id en ce have n e u tra lizin g effect on contradictory conclusions. They generate doubt (People vs. Sy Yen, et al., [CA], 67 O.G. 9645). W here the su pposed ex p ert’s testim on y w ould con stitu te the sole ground for con viction and there is equally expert testim ony to the contrary, the constitutional presum ption o f in n ocen ce m ust preva il (C esa r vs. S an d igan bayan , et al., G.R. Nos. 54719-50, Jan. 17, 1985; Siasat, et al. vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 67889, Oct. 10, 1985). e. Expert evidence on handw riting is, at best, weak an d u n s a tis fa c to r y . L ess w e ig h t sh ou ld be g iv e n to inferences from com parison, than to direct and credible testim onies o f w itnesses as to the m atters w ithin their

803

RULE 130

REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SECS. 48-50

personal observation (Cirujano vs. PNB, [CA], 59 O.G. 8404). The d ecision s o f b oth P h ilip p in e and U n ited States courts are to the effect that p roof o f handw riting by com parison is in most cases unsafe, even w hen several docum ents are used as bases for com parison (D A n g elo vs. N ocilasi, 2 So. 2nd, 216); that positive testim on y o f a credible w itness to the effect that the testator signed the w ill in his presence is not overcom e by the opin ion of handw riting experts (In re M iller’s Will, 229 N.W. 656); th a t e v id e n ce by co m p a riso n o f h a n d w ritin g is very unreliable (H ardy vs. Harbin, 154 U.S. 598). The expert evidence given by the p la in tiff’ s handw riting expert can not overcom e the positive testim ony of the notary public h im self before whom the deed o f donation w as ratified, and that o f the other two w itnesses to the execution and signing o f the docum ent (Beraha, etc. vs. R illom a, et al., [CA], 55 O.G. 2488, citing M arvel B uilding Corp., et al. vs. David, etc., 94 Phil. 376). For a contrary ruling, see Lopez vs. CA, et al. (L-31494, Jan. 23, 1978). f. As a rule, the opinions o f handw riting experts are not necessarily binding upon the courts, m ore so w here the expert was not presented as a witness to give the party a d v e rs e ly a ffected by his o p in ion the o p p o rtu n ity to cross-exam ine him (Encabo vs. Cebu P ortland Company, L -17571, D ec. 17, 1966). T he opinion o f h a n d w ritin g experts are not conclusive upon the court (M oore on Facts, S ec. 6 42 ; C a la n gi vs. A m u ra o, C A -G .R . N o. 2 27 8 -R , D ec. 10, 1948; Incion vs. Lum bera, CA-G.R. No. 58578, N ov. 2, 1982). W h ere the q u e s tio n o f s im ila r ity or d is s im ila r it y ca n be c le a r ly d e te r m in e d b y a m ere com parison o f the existing signatures, the opinion o f a handw riting expert is not necessary for a correct resolution by the court (People vs. A gam ata, [CA], 64 O.G. 2735). The law makes no preference among or any distinction b e tw e e n the m eans sta ted in this R u le to p rove the

804

Kill ,14 KID

K U L E 8 OK A D M IS S IB IL IT Y

S E C S . 4 8 -5 0

handw riting o f a person. A s already stated, the courts are also not bound to give probative value to the opinions o f handw riting experts and resort to their services is not m andatory (D om ingo vs. Dom ingo, et al., G.R. No. 150897, A pril 11, 2005). g. The authenticity o f a questioned signature cannot be d eterm in ed solely upon its general ch a ra cteristics, sim ilarities, or dissim ilarities w ith the genuine signature. D issim ilarities as regards spontaneity, rhythm , pressure o f the pen, loops in the strokes, signs o f stops, safes, etc., that may be found betw een the questioned signature and the genuine one are not decisive on the question o f the fo r m e r’ s a u th en ticity. The resu lt o f ex a m in a tion s o f qu estion ed h a n d w ritin g, even w ith the b en efit o f aid o f experts and scientific instrum ents, is, at best in con ­ clusive. There are other factors that m ust be taken into consideration. The position o f the w riter, the condition o f the surface on w hich the paper w here the questioned signature is w ritten is placed, his state o f mind, feelings and nerves, and the kind o f pen and paper used, play an im portant role on the general appearance o f the signature. Unless, therefore, there is, in a given case, absolute absence or m anifest dearth o f direct or circum stantial com petent evidence on the character o f the questioned handw riting, m uch w eight should be given to characteristic sim ilarities or dissim ilarities between the questioned handw riting and the authentic ones (Lorenzo, et al. vs. Diaz, [CA], 53 O.G. 4107). h. It is o f com m on know ledge that the w ritin g o f a p erson changes as tim e elapses. A person ’ s signature m ay ch ange as he advances in years. The trem orou s characteristics o f the w riting depend upon the conditions and circum stances o f the tim e. The pen stops or join ts in the line o f w riting, indicating retouching, m ay also occur even w hen the w riting is m ade by sexagenarians. The

805

RULE 130

REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SECS. 48-60

difference in the construction and direction o f signatures may happen even if the writing is made by a norm al person. Also, from the ink alone, either ordinary irongall ink or logw ood ink, it is im possible to determ ine: (1) w hether an ink w riting is one year old or three years old or four years old, or six, or five or eight or tw elve years old; (2) that a w riting is a few m onths old but not a year old; (3) w hether a w riting is ten days old or thirty days old; (4) that one w riting m ay be ten or tw elve years old but that it is not tw enty years old; (5) that a w riting that m ay be tw enty years old is not th irty or forty years old; (6) w hether nigrosine, India or carbon ink is ten days, ten w eeks, ten m onths, or ten years old; (7) w hether a colored ink — red, blue, or purple — is ten days, ten w eeks, or ten years old; (8) that an ordinary pencil w riting or a colored copying pencil w riting is not ten days or ten weeks or ten m onths or ten years old [Osborn, Q uestioned D ocum ents, 2d Ed., p. 465] (Bayanid vs. Reyes, [CA], 53 O.G. 4877). i. The fact that, in a particular litigation, an NBI expert exam in es certa in con tested docu m en ts, at the request, not o f a public officer or agency o f the G overn­ ment, but o f a private litigant, does not necessarily nullify the exam in ation made. Its purpose is, presum ably, to assist the court having jurisdiction over said litigation in the perform ance o f its duty to settle correctly the issue relative to said docum ents. Even a non-expert private in d iv id u a l, m ay exam in e the sam e, if th ere are facts w ithin his know ledge w hich m ay help the court in the determ ination o f said issue. Such exam ination, which m ay p ro p e rly be u n derta k en by a n on -exp ert private in d iv id u a l, does not c e r ta in ly b ecom e n u ll and void w hen the exam iner is an expert and/or an officer o f the NBI (Sali vs. Abubakar, et al., L-24439, Aug. 29, 1966). j. In People vs. M endoza (G.R. No. 67658, June 29, 1989), th e S u p rem e C ourt q u oted w ith a p p rov a l the

806

lUH.K I HO

IUII.MS ()K A D M IS S IB IL IT Y

SEC S.