Evid Doctrines

7/28/2019 Evid Doctrines

1/10

Admissibility of Evidence

1. Reyes v. CA

This is a case wherein affidavits were presented in an agrarian case

but the affiants were not brought to court. The evidence in this casewas ruled as admissible. Since substantial evidence shall sufficein agrarian cases.

2. People v Turco

Admissibility of medical certificate in a rape case. Although the medicalofficer who prepared it was not presented in this case, the saidcertificate is still admissible. Evidence is admissible when it isrelevant to the issue and it is not excluded by the law or theserules. (Rule 128.3)

Relevance

1. Bautista v Aparece

A public document instituted before a guerilla officer is relevant thusadmissible. The mere fact that the public document was executedbefore a guerilla officer does not make the same irrelevant, immaterialor incompetent to the main issue raised in the pleadings.

2. Lopez v Heesen

The expert testimony is admissible in this case being relevant to thecase. The allegations on the ultimate facts in issue involve whether theHiggins Model 51 rifle was in dangerous and defective condition due toits negligent manufacture, in that the safety mechanism moved readily

from safe to fire position. This is an issue, the properunderstanding of which, requires knowledge or experience and cannotbe determined independently merely from deductions made andinferences drawn on the basis of ordinary knowledge.

3. State v Ball


2/10


3/10

clearly identified, the inspection limited to the subject matter of thepending case before the court of competent jurisdiction. The bankpersonnel and the account holder must be notified to be presentedduring the inspection and such inspection may cover only the accountidentified in the pending case.

In the case at bar, there is yet no pending litigation before any court ofcompetent authority. What is existing is an investigation by the officeof the Ombudsman. In short, what the office of the Ombudsman wouldwish to do is to fish for additional evidence to formally charge AmadoLagdameo et. Al with the Sandiganbayan. Clearly, there was nopending case in court which would warrant the opening of the bankaccount for inspection.

6. Ejercito v Sandiganbyan

The protection afforded by the Bank Secrecy Law is, however, not

absolute, there being recognized exceptions thereto, as above quotedSec. 2 provides. In the present case, two exceptions apply: (1) theexamination of bank accounts is upon order of a competent court incases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, and (2) themoney deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.

Petitioner contends that since plunder is neither bribery nor dereliction,his accounts are not excepted from the protection of RA No. 1405. PNBv Gancayo holds otherwise:

Cases of unexplained wealth are similar to cases of bribery ordereliction and no reason is seen why these two class of cases cannotbe excepted from the rule making bank deposits confidential. Thepolicy as to one cannot, be different from the policy as to the other.

This policy expresses the notion that a public office is a public trustand any person who enters upon its discharge does so with the fullknowledge that his life, so far as relevant to his duty, is open to publicscrutiny.

7. People v Yatar

DNA Evidence collected from a crime scene can link a suspect to acrime or eliminate one from suspicion from the same principle as


4/10

fingerprints are used. Incidents involving sexual assault would leavebiological evidence such as hair, skin tissue, semen, blood or salivawhich can be left on the victims body or at the crime scene. Hair andfiber from clothing, carpets, bedding or furniture could also betransferred to the victims body during the assault. Forensic DNAevidence is helpful in proving that there was physical contact between

and assailant and its victim. If properly collected from the victim, crimescene or assailant, DNA can be compared with known samples to placethe suspect at the scene of the crime.

8. People v Bardaje

This case also constitutes an exception to the general belief that a

young girl would not expose herself to the ordeal of public trial if shewere not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit who hadravished and shamed her placed behind bars. As we view it,MARCELINA was confronted with a paradoxical situation as a daughter

of relative tender age who could not shamefacedly admit to herparents that she had eloped and voluntarily submitted to sexualintercourse, since the elopement must have met with righteousindignation on the part of her parents. As a result, MARCELINA wasfaced with no other choice but to charge Adelino with rape or incur theire of her parents and social disrepute from a small community.

In respect of the alleged confession of Adelino, suffice it to re-state thatan extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficientground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpusdelicti. Corpus delicti is proved when the evidence on record shows

that the crime prosecuted had been committed. That proof has notbeen met in the case at bar, the evidence establishing more of anelopement rather than kidnapping or illegal detention or forcibleabduction, and much less rape.

WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

JUDICIAL NOTICE

1. City of Manila v Garcia

The trial judge was correct in finding that it was necessary to expandthe school grounds (the lot affected was occupied by squatters-complainant) when it took judicial notice of Ordinance 4566 whichrecites that an amount of 100K had been set aside for the constructionof an additional building in an elementary school.


5/10

2. Baguio v Vda. De Jalagat

The trial court may take judicial notice of the finality of judgment in a

case that was previously pending and thereafter decided by it. Courtscould take judicial notice of previous cases to determine whether or

not the case pending is moot or one whether or not the previous rulingis applicable in the case after consideration

3. Prieto v Arroyo

As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice, in

the adjudication of cases pending before them, of the contents or othercases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in thesame court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have

been tried or actually pending before the same judge.

Exemption is when in the absence of objection or with the knowledgeof the opposing party.

4. Yao Kee v Sy-Gonzales

Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws or customs.

They must be alleged and proved as a fact. If not alleged and provenas a fact, the doctrine of processual presumption shall apply. (Or anassumption that the foreign law is the same with domestic law. )

5. Tabuena v CA

The trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the contents of recordsof other cases in the adjudication of the cases pending before them, or(apply the exemption in Prieto), since in this case. It was clear thatsuch judicial notice was without the knowledge of the opposing party.

6. People v Godoy

Judicial notice in rape cases The SC took judicial notice of the fact

that in rural areas, young ladies are strictly required to act withcircumspection and prudence. Great reputation is observed so thattheir reputation will remain untainted.

7. BPI Savings v CTA


6/10

Sec. 2 Rule 129 provides that courts may take judicial notice of matters

ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. In thiscase, the Court notes that a copy of the Decision in the CTA wasattached to the Petition for Review filed before this Court.

8. Manufacturers Hanover Trust v Guerrero

Foreign laws are NOT a matter of judicial notice. Like any other fact,

they must be alleged and proven. Certainly, the conflicting allegationsas to whether New York or Philippine law applies to Guerreros claimpresent a clear dispute in material allegations which can be resolvedonly by trial on the merits.

Under Sec. 24 of Rue 132, the record of public documents of asovereign authority or tribunal may be proved by (1) an officialpublication thereof or (2) a copy attested by the officer having legal

custody of thereof. Such official publication or copy must beaccompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with acertificate that the attesting officer has the legal custody thereof. Thecertificate may be issued by any of the authorized Philippine embassyor consular officials stationed in the foreign country in which the recordis kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. The attestationmust state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of theoriginal, or specific part thereof, as the case may be and must beunder the official seal of the attesting officer.

9. People v Rullepa

Judical notice can be applied sometimes in rape cases. However this

was NOT APPLIED in this case. The mothers testimony which statedthat the child was only 3 when the crime occurred cannot suffice in theabsence of certificate of live birth. (If below 7, it will be consideredstatutory rape which is more grave) Whether the victim was below 7years old, however, is another matter. Here reasonable doubt exists. Amature three and a half year old can easily be mistaken for anunderdeveloped 7 year old. The appearance of the victim, as objectevidence, cannot be accorded much weight and following Pruna, the

testimony of the mother is, by itself insufficient.

10.Landbank v Banal

Well settled is the rule that courts are nit authorized to take judicialnotice of the contents of the records of other cases even when saidcases have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the


7/10

same judge. They may only do so in the absence of objection andwith the knowledge of the opposing party which are not obtaininghere.

11. Pigao v Rabanillo

We agree with respondent. We cannot take cognizance of this

document the conditional contract to sell between Bernabe and thePHHC alleged to be pro-forma contract used by PHHC with itsapplicants which petitioners are presenting for the first time. Thisdocument is not among the matters the law mandatorily requires us totake judicial notice of. Neither can we consider it of public knowledgenor capable of unquestionable demonstration nor ought to be known tothe judge because of their judicial functions. We have held that:

Matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter

must be one of common and general knowledge; (2) it must be welland authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; (3) it must beknown to be within the limits of jurisdiction of the court. The power oftaking judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution. Caremust be taken that the requisite notoriety exists and every reasonabledoubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative.

Consequently, for this document to be properly considered by us, itshould have been presented during trial and formally offered asevidence. Otherwise, we would be denying due process of law torespondent.

JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

1. Lucido v Calupitan

The original answer to the complaint which stated that the transactionwas one of sale with right of repurchase was deemed as an admissionof the party and was treated as a statement of real issue.

Pleadings superseded or amended disappear from the record asjudicial admissions. However, any statement contained therein may beconsidered as an extrajudicial admission, and as such, in order that thecourt may take it into consideration, it should be offered formally inevidence.

2. Torres v Court of Appeals


8/10

Having been amended, the original complaint lost its character as a

judicial admission, which would have required no proof, and becamemerely and extrajudicial admission of which as evidence, required itsformal offer.

3. Atillo v CA

Judicial admissions can be contradicted if it is taken out of context. As

provided in Sec. 4 of Rule 129, the general rule is that judicialadmission is conclusive upon a party making it and does not requireproof admits of two exception: (1) when it is shown that the admissionwas made through a palpable mistake, and (2) when it is shown that nosuch admission was in fact made. The latter exception allows one tocontradict an admission by denying that he made such admission.

For instance, if a party invokes an admission by an adverse party,

but cites the admission out of context then the one making theadmission may show that he made no such admission, or that hisadmission was taken out of context.

4. Republic v Sandiganbayan

The Government forfeited the Swiss funds of the Marcoses, when it

considered its answer as judicial admissions. Marcoses made judicialadmissions of their ownership of the subject Swiss bank deposits. Intheir answer, the General/Supplemental Agreement, Mrs. Marcosmanifestation and Constancia dated May 5, 1999, and the undertaking

dated Feb. 10, 1999. We take note of the fact that the Associate Justiceof the Sandiganbayan were unanimous in holding that respondent hadmade judicial admissions of their ownership of the Swiss funds.

In their answer, aside from admitting the existence of the Swiss funds,respondent also likewise admitted ownership thereof.

5. People v Lacson

The respondents contention that his admission made in his pleading

and during the hearing on the CA cannot be used in the present case

as they were made in the course of a different proceeding does nothold water. It should be borne in mind that the proceedings before theCourt was by way of an appeal under Rule 45 of the ROC as amended,from the proceedings from the CA; as such, the present recourse is buta mere continuation of the proceeding in the appellate court. This isnot a new trial, but a review of proceedings which commenced fromthe trial court, which later passed through the CA. The respondents isbound by the judicial admissions he made in the CA, and such


9/10

admission so hold him in the proceedings before this court. Ascategorically stated in Havecker v Clark Equipment Company:

Judicial Admissions in issues of fact, including those made by counselon behalf of a client during a trial are binding for the purpose of the

case including appeal

6. Herrera-Felix v CA

The admission made in a motion are judicial admissions which are

binding on the party who made them. Such party is precluded fromdenying the same unless there is proof of palpable mistake or that nosuch admission was made.

By filing the said motion, through counsel, the petitioner therebysubmitted herself to the jurisdiction of the trial court.

7. Heirs of Pedro Clemena v Heirs of Irene Bien

Petitioners contention that the land was never in their possession

should be dismissed outright for two reasons:

First, petitioners predecessor Pedro Clemena y Zurbano alleged in hisanswer that the land declared was In his exclusive possession. Thatstatement, in so far as it confirmed the allegation in the complaint thatpetitioners predecessor had retained possession of the land in questiontook on the character of judicial admission contemplated in Sec. 4,Rule 129 of the ROC:

An admission, verbal or written made by a party in the course ofproceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admissionmay be contradicted only by showing that it was made throughpalpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

A judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it. He cannotthereafter contradict it. The exception is found only in those rareinstances when the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion andbecause of strong reasons to support its stand, may relieve a party

from the consequences of his admission.

8. Luciano Tan v Rodil Enterprises

The petitioners judicial admission in open court, as found by the MeTC

and affirmed by the CA finds particular significance when viewedtogether with his Motion to allow defendant to Deposit Rentals,


10/10

Documents

Evid Doctrines