Evidence Case Notes

7/24/2019 Evidence Case Notes

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evidence-case-notes 1/10

Reyes v CA--------

Ong Chia v RepPet was admitted to Fil Cit by TC but Sol Gen Opposed because of

failue to comply with some e!uiements " CA evesed decision" Petcontended that CA eed in consideing docs which wee not pesentedas evidence# violation of ules on evidence" SC said# CA did not commitany eo" $n Rule %&' %' of Rules of Cout# it enumeated poceedingswhee such is not applicable# one of which is the natuali(ationpoceedings" Can only be applied suppletoily when its convenient andpacticable which is not in the case at ba"

)antolino# et all vs CA

$llegal dismissal case against Coca Cola )ottles# latte said no **-*R

elationship between them" +A and ,+RC concluded thee was soodeed einstatement and bacwages e.cept )antolino" CA a/medthat thee was ** *R el but said that a/davits of some complainantsincluding petitione should not be given pobative value as they havenot undegone coss e.amination # dismissed such"

Pet contended that ules of cout should not be stictly applied inadmin poceedings such as the case at ba"

SC agees" The agument that the a/davit is heasay because thea/ants wee not pesented fo coss-e.amination is not pesuasive

because the ules of evidence ae not stictly obseved in poceedingsbefoe administative bodies lie the ,+RC whee decisions may beeached on the basis of position papes only" Administative bodies liethe ,+RC ae not bound by the technical niceties of law and pocedueand the ules obtaining in couts of law---------Sasan S v ,+RC 0$1m yous2

* PC$ enteed into a contactual ageement with *PC$ ban fo 3anitoialsevices" Contact enewed yealy until *PC$ no longe did" 4$ t. petbut pet did not efule 0no 3usti5able eason# tantamount to

abandonment which is a gound fo dismissal2 so he was dismissed" Petnow alleged illegal dismissal as he is a eg employee of *PC$"

+abo Ab found out that its not 3ust 3anitoial sevices but alsomessenges# dives and one of them even woed as an electician"Such is not only diectly elated but ae necessay fo the conduct of business" Theefoe pet et all being employees of * PC$ and egula 0atleast % yea2 cannot be dimissed without 3ust cause and due pocess#



such seveance of employment in the guise of temination of contactis illegal"

6pon pesenation of 4$ of doc evidence to dispove thei being a laboonly contacto ,+RC modi5ed uling of +A"

CA A/med ,+RC dec"

Pet !uestioned the admisability of evidence pesented to the ,+RC fothe 5st time" ,+RC new ule does not pohibited such " The settled uleis that the ,+RC is not pecluded fom eceiving evidence on appeal astechnical ules of evidence ae not binding in labo cases" $n fact# laboo/cials ae mandated by the +abo Code to use evey and alleasonable means to ascetain the facts in each case speedily andob3ectively# without egad to technicalities of law o pocedue# all inthe inteest of due pocess

As egads the photocopy docs# the best evidence ule does not apply"Fist is that it only applies with the sub3ect of the !uiy is the content of docs and secondly# its an admin poceeding and theefoe not sub3ectto stictness and technicalities of poc ules"

---------------------Cite *mployees vs Cite *lectonics

The appellate cout1s uling that giving cedence to the 7Pahayag7 andthe minutes of the meeting which wee not vei5ed and notai(ed

would violate the ule on paol evidence is eoneous" The paolevidence ule# lie othe ules on evidence# should not be stictlyapplied in labo cases

Atien(a v )oad of 8edicine 0wong idney2

Petitione 5led his comments9ob3ections to pivate espondent1s :*dithaSioson1s; fomal o<e of e.hibits" 4e alleged that said e.hibits aeinadmissible because the same ae mee photocopies# not popelyidenti5ed and authenticated# and intended to establish mattes which

ae heasay" 4e added that the e.hibits ae incompetent to pove thepupose fo which they ae o<eed"

Petitione agues that the e.hibits fomally o<eed in evidence by*ditha= 0%2 violate the best evidence ule> 0?2 have not been popelyidenti5ed and authenticated> 0'2 ae completely heasay> and 0&2 aeincompetent to pove thei pupose" Thus# petitione contends that thee.hibits ae inadmissible evidence"



SC a/med SC" *vidence not violative of )est *vidence Rule and notheasay evidence as well"------------------------------------PC+ Shipping 0+eap of Faith2

*e had wo accident# *R efused 8ed so when it was aleadyunbeaable he 3umped" *R now said its abandonment"

The +abo Abite# ,+RC and the CA ae unanimous in thei 5ndingsthat pivate espondent is not guilty of desetion and that he has beenillegally teminated fom his employment"

The logboo pesented by Pet and the 8aine note # not beingnotaised cannot be used as bases fo concluding that pivateespondent was guilty of desetion

---------

Amoa v P 0Ason2

Petitione1s only eal challenge against the CA decision is the absenceof diect evidence to pove his culpability which ostensibly negates theappellate cout1s 5nding of guilt beyond easonable doubt"At the outset# it may be well to emphasi(e that diect evidence is notthe sole means of establishing guilt beyond easonable doubt" @*stablished facts that fom a chain of cicumstances can lead the mind

intuitively o impel a conscious pocess of easoning towads aconviction" $ndeed# ules on evidence and pinciples in 3uispudencehave long ecogni(ed that the accused may be convicted thoughcicumstantial evidence"

$ndeed# all these cicumstances# taen togethe# ae consistent withthe hypothesis that petitione is guilty# and at the same timeinconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent"

P v Ochate 0ape of @ yo# ,OT G6$+T2

TC convicted Ochate guilty beyond easonable doubt"" 0%2 thee mustbe moe than one cicumstance> 0?2 the infeence must be based onpoven facts> and 0'2 the combination of all cicumstances poduces aconviction beyond easonable doubt of the guilt of the accused"

And in the appeciation of cicumstantial evidence# thee ae fou basicguidelines= 0%2 it should be acted upon with caution> 0?2 all theessential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt> 0'2 the



facts must e.clude evey othe theoy but that of guilt> and 0&2 thefacts must establish such a cetainty of guilt of the accused as toconvince the 3udgment beyond a easonable doubt that the accused isthe one who committed the o<ense" %B

Automatic Review SC" Assignment of eos =%" $, CO,$CT$,G T4* ACC6S*D O, A++*G*D $,CR$8$,ATORC$RC68STA,T$A+ *$D*,C*"?"$$, TAE$,G AGA$,ST T4* ACC6S*D *R)A+ AD8$SS$O,S A++*G*D+8AD* D6R$,G C6STOD$A+ $,*ST$GAT$O, $, $O+AT$O, OF 4$S R$G4T TO R*8A$, S$+*,T A,D TO CO6,S*+"'"$n F$,D$,G T4* ACC6S*D G6$+T )*O,D R*ASO,A)+* DO6)T OF T4* CR$8* OF RAP* $T4 4O8$C$D*"7

uispudence instucts that whee the cicumstances obtaining in acase ae capable of two infeences# one of which is consistent with the

pesumption of innocence while the othe may be compatible with the5nding of guilt# the cout must ac!uit the accused because theevidence does not ful5ll the test of moal cetainty and# theefoe# isinsu/cient to suppot a 3udgment of conviction"

Confessions made by accused# not admissible because they wee inviolation of his constitutional ight# speci5cally mianda ights"

P v Tuco 0noc noc# apeH2

%?"I yo aped by 5st cousin" Fome1s testimony was given cedence

by cout"

9, the appellantJs contention that the medical ceti5cate may not beconsideed is with meit

?" es" ith egads to appellantJs agument on the poof of medicalceti5cate# while the ceti5cate could be admitted as an e.ception tothe heasay ule since enties in o/cial ecods constitute e.ceptionsto the heasay evidence ule# since it involved an opinion of one whomust 5st be established as an e.pet witness# it could not be givenweight o cedit unless the docto who issued it is pesented in cout to

show his !uali5cations" *mphasis must be placed on the distinctionbetween admissibility of evidence and the pobative value theeof"*vidence is admissible when it is elevant to the issue and is note.cluded by the law o the ules o is competent" Since admissibility of evidence is detemined by its elevance and competence# admissibilityis# theefoe# an a<ai of logic and law" On the othe hand# the weightto be given to such evidence# once admitted# depends on 3udicialevaluation within the guidelines povided in Rule %'' and the



3uispudence laid down by the Cout" Thus# while evidence may beadmissible# it may be entitled to little o no weight at all" Convesely#evidence which may have evidentiay weight may be inadmissiblebecause a special ule fobids its eception"

ithal# although the medical ceti5cate is an e.ception to the heasayule# hence admissible as evidence# it has vey little pobative valuedue to the absence of the e.amining physician" ,evetheless# it cannotbe said that the posecution elied solely on the medical ceti5cate" $nfact# eliance was made on the testimony of the victim heself which#standing alone even without medical e.amination# is su/cient toconvict" $t is well-settled that a medical e.amination is notindispensable in the posecution of ape" The absence of medical5ndings by a medico-legal o/ce does not dispove the occuence of ape" $t is enough that the evidence on hand convinces the cout thatconviction is pope" $n the instant case# the victimJs testimony alone is

cedible and su/cient to convict"

+ope( v 4eesen 0hunting gun2

hethe o not the tial cout committed eo in pemitting testimonyas to the geneal eputation of othe 5eams companies who use thesame modi5ed leaf safety device as the 4iggins 8odel I%"

The tial cout did not abuse its discetion in pemitting the e.pets toe.pess thei opinion"#

The opnions wee elevant to the case"

P v )ongcawaan

$n the case befoe us# the baggage of the accused-appellant wasseached by the vessel secuity pesonnel" $t was only afte they foundKshabuL inside the suitcase that they called the Philippine Coast Guad

fo assistance" The seach and sei(ue of the suitcase and thecontaband items was theefoe caied out without govenmentintevention# and hence# the constitutional potection againstuneasonable seach and sei(ue does not apply"

Thee is no meit in the contention of the accused-appellant that theseach and sei(ue pefomed by the vessel secuity pesonnel shouldbe consideed as one conducted by the police authoities fo lie the



latte# the fome ae amed and tased to maintain peace and ode" The vessel secuity o/ce in the case at ba is a pivate employee anddoes not dischage any govenmental function"

People v" 8ati# G"R" ,o" @%IM%# %N' SCRA I# anuay %@# %NN%

7Pacage of mai3uana to be sent aboad7

Ande 8ati and his wife Shiley wanted to send pacages to theifiend in Swit(eland and contacted the sevices of 8anila Pacing and*.pot Fowades" hen ased by the fowade if they could e.amineand inspect the pacages# 8ati efused# assuing that the pacagessimply contained boos and cigas" 4oweve# the popieto openedthe bo.es fo 5nal inspection as pat of thei SOP" 6pon opening# they

suspected that the contents wee illegal dugs" The popieto epotedthe incident to ,)$ which con5med that the suspected content weemai3uana" $n the pesence of the ,)$ agents# the bo.es wee openedand found died mai3uana leaves inside" Afte 8ati was taced by ,)$#he was chaged with violation of the Dangeous Dugs Act"

8ati assailed the admissibility of the dugs as evidence against him#which# accoding to him# is obtained in violation of his constitutionalights against uneasonable seach and sei(ue and pivacy of communication"

8ay an act of a pivate individual# allegedly in violation of appellant1sconstitutional ights# be invoed against the State ,O"

The Cout uled that in the absence of govenmental intefeence# thelibeties ganted by the Constitution cannot be invoed against theState" The constitutional ight against uneasonable seach and sei(ueefes to the immunity of one1s peson# whethe citi(en o alien# fomintefeence by govenment" $ts potection is diected only togovenmental action" This ight do not e!uie e.clusion of evidence obtained though aseach by a pivate citi(en"

$n this case# the evidence was pimaily discoveed and obtained by apivate peson# acting in a pivate capacity and without theintevention of State authoities" Theefoe# thee is no eason why itshould not be admitted to posecute him"8ati# howeve# alleged that the ,)$ agents made an illegal seach andsei(ue of the evidence" The Cout pointed out that= a2 $t was the popieto who made aeasonable seach of the pacages in compliance with SOP A,D b2 the



mee pesence of the ,)$ agents did not convet the easonable seache<ected into a waantless seach and sei(ue" 8eely to obseve andloo at that which is in plain sight is not a seach"8ati futhe agued that since the Constitution e.pessly declaes asinadmissible any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional

pohibition against illegal seach and sei(ue# it mattes not whethethe evidence was pocued by police authoities o pivate individuals" The Cout answeed that the Constitution# in laying down the pinciplesof the govenment and fundamental libeties of the people# does notgoven elationships between individuals"

Additional notes=

hen a pivate individual violates anothe pesonJs ight to pivacy#the evidence obtained theefom is admissible> howeve the violatocould be held civilly liable unde Aticle '? of the Civil Code"

-------Facts= )itish 4oace illiam )ae 0consultant of )2 was slain insidehis house in Tuba# )enguet while his Filipino wife# Teesita 8endo(a wasbadly batteed with lead pipes on the occasion of a obbey" Twohousehold helpes of the victims identi5ed Salvamante 0a fomehouseboy of the victims2 and 8a!ueda as the obbes" 8ie Tabayanand his fiend also saw the two accused a ilomete away fom thehouse of the victims that same moning# when the two accused asedthem fo diections"

8a!ueda was then aested in Guinyangan# Que(on" 4e was taen to

Calauag# Que(on whee he signed a Sinumpaang Salaysay wheein henaated his paticipation in the cime" Accoding to SPO' 8olleno# heinfomed 8a!ueda of his constitutional ights befoe he signed suchdocument" Aftewads he was bought to the )enguet Povincial ail"hile he was unde detention# 8a!ueda 5led a 8otion to Gant )ail"4e stated theein that 7he is willing and volunteeing to be a Statewitness in the above entitled case# it appeaing that he is the leastguilty among the accused in this case"7

8a!ueda also admitted his involvement in the commission of theobbey to Posecuto aate and to Salvosa"

$ssue= hethe o ,ot the tial cout was coect in holding that theSinumpaan Salaysay is admissible as evidence"

4eld= ,o" The Sinumpaang Salaysay is inadmissible because it was inclea violation of the constitutional ights of the accused" Fist# he was



not infomed of his ight to emain silent and his ight to counsel"Second# he cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself" At thetime of the confession# the accused was aleady facing chages incout" 4e no longe had the ight to emain silent and to counsel but hehad the ight to efuse to be a witness and not to have any pe3udice

whatsoeve esult to him by such efusal" And yet# despite his nowingfully well that a case had aleady been 5led in cout# he still confessedwhen he did not have to do so"

The contention of the tial cout that the accused is not entitled to suchights anymoe because the infomation has been 5led and a waantof aest has been issued aleady# is untenable" The e.ecise of theights to emain silent and to counsel and to be infomed theeof undeSection %?0%2 of the )ill of Rights ae not con5ned to that peiod pioto the 5ling of a ciminal complaint o infomation but ae available atthat stage when a peson is 7unde investigation fo the commission of

an o<ense"7

Pusuant to Section %?0'2 of the )ill of Rights theefoe# such e.ta- 3udicial admission is inadmissible as evidence"

As to the admissions made by 8a!ueda to Posecuto aate and RayDean Salvosa# the tial cout admitted thei testimony theeon only topove the teno of thei convesation but not to pove the tuth of theadmission because such testimony was ob3ected to as heasay"8a!ueda voluntaily and feely made them to Posecuto aate not inthe couse of an investigation# but in connection with 8a!ueda1s plea

to be utili(ed as a state witness> and as to the othe admission0Salvosa2# it was given to a pivate peson theefoe admissible"

,ote= a distinction between a confession and admission has beenmade by the SC=Admission of a paty" The act# declaation o omission of paty as toa elevant fact may be given in evidence against him"

Confession" The declaation of an accused acnowledging his guilt of the o<ense chaged# o of any o<ense necessaily included theein#may be given in evidence against him"

6+6*TA CA

FACTS= Petitione Cecilia ulueta is the wife of pivate espondentAlfedo 8atin" On 8ach ?M# %NM?# petitione enteed the clinic of hehusband# a docto of medicine# and in the pesence of he mothe# adive and pivate espondent1s secetay# focibly opened the dawes



and cabinet of he husband1s clinic and too %I documents consistingof pivate espondents between D" 8atin and his alleged paamous#geeting cads# cancelled chec# diaies# D" 8atin1s passpot# andphotogaphs" The documents and papes wee sei(ed fo use inevidence in a case fo legal sepaation and fo dis!uali5cation fom the

pactice of medicine which petitione had 5led against he husband"

$SS6*= hethe o not the papes and othe mateials obtained fomfocible entusion and fom unlawful means ae admissible as evidencein cout egading maital sepaation and dis!uali5cation fom medicalpactice"

4*+D= $ndeed the documents and papes in !uestion ae inadmissible inevidence" The constitutional in3uction declaing 7the pivacy of communication and coespondence to be inviolable7 is no less

applicable simply because it is the wife 0who thins heself aggievedby he husband1s infedility2 who is the paty against whom theconstitutional povision is to be enfoced" The only e.ception to thepohibition in the constitution is if thee is a 7lawful ode fom thecout o which public safety o ode e!uie othewise# as pescibedby law"7 Any violation of this povision endes the evidence obtainedinadmissible 7fo any pupose in any poceeding"7

The intimacies between husband and wife do not 3ustify anyone of them in beaing the dawes and cabinets of the othe and inansacing them fo any telltale evidence of maital infedility" A peson#

by contacting maiage# does not shed he9his integity o he9his ightto pivacy as an individual and the constitutional potection is eveavailable to him o to he"

The law insues absolute feedom of communication between thespouses by maing it pivileged" ,eithe husband no wife may testifyfo o against the othe without the consent of the a<ected spousewhile the maiage subsists" ,eithe may be e.amined without theconsent of the othe as to any communication eceived in con5denceby one fom the othe duing the maiage# save fo speci5ede.ceptions" )ut one thing is feedom of communication> !uite anothe

is a compulsion fo each one to shae what one nows with the othe"And this has nothing to do with the duty of 5delity that each owes tothe othe"

ateous Dug Cop

Facts= Antonia 8elodia Catolico was hied as a phamacist by ateousDug Cop"



Catolico sold to SP $nc" %B bottles of oen Tablets at P'@& pe unit"4oweve# the nomal selling pice is P'?B pe unit" Catolicoovechaged by PM& pe unit fo a total of PM&B" SP sent a checpayable to Catolico as a KefundL fo the 3aced-up pice" $t was sent in

an envelope addessed to he" Saldana# the cle of ateous DugCop" opened the envelope and saw that thee was a chec fo PM&Bfo Catolico"

ateous Dug Cop" odeed the temination of Catolico fo acts of dishonesty"

,+RC= Dismissed the Petition" *vidence of espondents 0chec fom SP2 being endeed inadmissible# by vitue of the constitutional ightinvoed by complainants"

Petitiones= $n the light of the decision in the People v" 8ati# theconstitutional potection against uneasonable seaches and sei(uesefes to the immunity of oneJs peson fom intefeence bygovenment and cannot be e.tended to acts committed by pivateindividuals so as to bing it within the ambit of alleged unlawfulintusion by the govenment"

$ssue= 9, the chec is admissible as evidence

4eld= es"

Ratio= 0People vs" 8ati2 8ati uling= The )ill of Rights does not potectciti(ens fom uneasonable seaches and sei(ues pepetated bypivate individuals"

$t is not tue# as counsel fo Catolico claims# that the citi(ens have noecouse against such assaults" On the contay# and as said counseladmits# such an invasion gives ise to both ciminal and civil liabilities"Despite this# the SC uled that thee was insu/cient evidence of causefo the dismissal of Catolico fom employment Suspicion is not amongthe valid causes povided by the +abo Code fo the temination of *mployment"

--------

Documents

Evidence Case Notes