Evidence Rvidence Doctrines and Provisions

7/28/2019 Evidence Rvidence Doctrines and Provisions

1/28

Relevance of evidence and collateralmattersRule 128, Sec. 4

SEC. 4.Relevancy; collateral matters. Evidence must

have such a relation to the fact in issue as toinduce belief in its existence or non-existence.Evidence on collateral matters shall not be

allowed, except when it tends in any reasonabledegree to establish the probability orimprobability of the fact in issue.

RELEVANCY (None but facts having rational probativevalue are admissible).

1. The material presented as evidence must affect theissue or question. It must have a bearing on theoutcome of the case. It requires both:

a). rational or logical relevancy in that it has a

connection to the issue and therefore it has a

tendency to establish the fact which it is offeredto prove. The evidence must therefore haveprobative value.

b). legal relevancy in that the evidence is offered to

prove a matter which has been properly put inissue as determined by the pleadings in civilcases, or as fixed by the pre-trial order, or as

determined by substantive law. If so the matterhas materiality.

Illustration: the fact that the crime was committed at

nighttime is rationally or logically relevant to akilling at 12 midnight but evidence thereonwould be not be legally relevant if nighttimewas not alleged in the Information. It would be

immaterial.

The components of relevancy are therefore

probative value and materiality.

2. Rule as to collateral matters: Evidence on collateralmatters shall not be allowed, except when it

tends in any reasonable degree to establish the

probability or improbability of the facts inissue

a). collateral matters (def.)-facts or matters which are

not in issue, i.e. there is an absence of a direct

connection between the evidence and thematter in dispute. They are not generallyallowed to be proven except when relevant.

b) In criminal cases, the collateral matters allowed tobe proven, being relevant include:

(i). Antecedent Circumstances, or those in existingeven prior to the commission of the crime. They

include such matters as habit, custom, badmoral character when self defense is invoked;or plan design, conspiracy, or premeditation,agreement to a price, promise or reward

(ii) Concomitant circumstances or those whichaccompany the commission of the crime such

as opportunity to do the act or incompatibility

(iii).Subsequent circumstances or those which occurafter the commission of the crime, such asflight, escape, concealment, offer of

compromise

c. Multiple admissibility

Multiple Admissibility: when a material is asked by aparty to be admitted as evidence, the party presenting

must inform the court of the purpose which thematerial is intended to serve and the court then admitsthe material as evidence. Multiple admissibility maymean either (i) the evidence is admissible for several

purposes or (ii) an evidence is not admissible for onepurpose but may be admitted for a different purpose if

it satisfies all the requirements of the other purpose

Examples of the first concept: (a) a knife may beadmitted to prove the accused was armed with a deadlyweapon; to prove it was the weapon of the accused


2/28

which cause the wounds and not some other

instrument; to corroborate the statement of a witnesswho claims he saw the accused holding a bladedinstrument.

Example of the second concept: (a). the extra judicial

confession of one of several accused may not beadmitted to prove there was conspiracy among them orto prove the guilt of the other co-accused but it may be

admitted to prove the guilt of the confessant (b) thestatement of the victim may not be admitted as a dyingdeclaration but as part of the res gestae.

d. Conditional admissibility

Conditional Admissibility: An evidence is allowed to be presentedfor the time being or temporarily, subject to the condition that itsrelevancy or connection to other facts will later be proven, or that

the party later submit evidence that it meets certainrequirements of the law or rules. If the conditions are not later

met, the evidence will be stricken from the record.

Example:

1. A Xerox copy of a document may be allowed to presented

subject to the condition that the original be later presented

2. P vs. D to recover a parcel of land. P presents a document thatthe land belonged to X. If D objects to it as being irrelevant, P

can state that he will thereafter show that X sold the land to Ywho in turn sold it to Z and then to P. The Court may admit thedocument conditionally.

e. Curative admissibility

Curative admissibility or fighting fire with fire or Opening theDoor

1. This applies to a situation when improper evidence was allowedto be presented by one party, then the other party may be allowedto introduce or present similar improper evidence but only to cureor to counter the prejudicial effect of the opponents inadmissibleevidence.

2. The party presenting must have raised an objection to the

improper evidence, for if he did not, then it is discretionary for thecourt to allow him to present curative evidence

3. The evidence sought to be countered should not refer to those

which are incompetent due to an exclusionary rule

Example:

P vs. D for sum of money. P was allowed to introduce evidence thatD did not pay his debt as shown by his refusal to pay hisindebtedness to X, Y and Z. Defendant may introduce evidencethat he paid his debts to A, B and C.

f. Direct and circumstantial evidence

1. direct- that which proves a fact in issue or dispute without theaid of any inference or presumption. It is evidence to the precisepoint.

Example: The eye witness account; the scar to show the wound

2. circumstantial- proof of facts or fact from which taken singly or

collectively, the existence of the particular fact in issue may beinferred or presumed as a necessary or probable consequence

Important considerations on circumstantial evidence

a) This applies only in criminal cases and is governed under Rule

133(4) which for purposes of supporting a finding of guilt,requires:

i). that there be more than one circumstanceii).that the facts from which the inference are derived

are proven

iii). the combination of all the circumstances is such as toproduce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt

b) Per the Supreme Court: it is essential that the circumstantial

evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain whichleads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the

accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.

c). Guidelines in the appreciation of the probative value of


3/28

circumstantial evidence

i) It should be acted upon with caution

ii). All essential facts must be consistent with thehypothesis of guilt

iii). The facts must exclude every other theory but thatof guilt

iv). The facts must establishes such a certainty of guiltas to convince the judgment beyond reasonable doubtthat the accused is the one who committed the offense

g. Positive and negative evidence

a). positive-evidence that affirms the occurrence of anevent or existence of a fact, as when a witness declaresthat there was no fight which took place

b). negative when the evidence denies the occurrenceof an event or existence of a fact, as when the accusedpresents witnesses who testify that the accused was at

their party when the crime was committed. Denials andalibi are negative evidences.

*** The general rule is that positive evidence prevailsover negative evidence, or that a positive assertion isgiven more weight over a plain denial.

i. alibi

Alibi- an example of negative evidence

Alibi- a common name for the defense frequentlyoffered in criminal cases that the person accused wasso far away from the scene of the crime when it wascommitted, that he could not have committed it.

It is an evidence offered by one charged with a crime tosupport the statement that at the time of itscommission he was at a place so remote or that the

crime took place under such circumstances that hecould not possibly have committed it. Alibi is one of theweakest defenses that can be resorted to by anaccused.

Case:

Lejano v. People

Doctrine:To establish alibi, the accused must prove by

positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence that (a) he was

present at another place at the time of the perpetration ofthe crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him

to be at the scene of the crime.

A positive declaration from a witness that he saw the

accused commit the crime should not automatically cancel

out the accuseds claim that he did not do it. A lying

witness can make as positive an identification as a truthful

witness can. The lying witness can also say as forthrightly

and unequivocally, He did it! without blinking an eye.

Villarama dissent: Against positive evidence, alibibecomesmost unsatisfactory.Alibi cannot prevail over the positiveidentification of a credible witness

Competent and credible evidence

COMPETENT EVIDENCE - All facts having rational probative

value are admissible unless some specific law or rule forbids. In

short the evidence is not excluded by law or rules.

CREDIBLE EVIDENCE: Evidence to be believed requires:

A.) That it be credible in itself i.e. such as the commonexperience and observation of mankind can approve as

probable under the circumstances. Testimony must benatural, reasonable and probable as to make it easy to

believe

B). Must come from a credible source- a credible witness isone who testifies in a categorical, straightforward

spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent oncross examination

PEOPLE VS ESPINOSA


4/28

DOCTRINE: If the trial court had the opportunity to assess the

credibility of the witnesses, absent a showing that the court wasarbitrary or without basis, its conclusions must be regarded withrespect and accepted as conclusive on appeal.

The discrepancies in the declarations of Arnold and Ariel arenot unnatural or evidence of perjury. The two brothers haddifferent vantage points that gave each of them a separate view of

the incident. It should also be considered that the victim was theirfather. Under this traumatizing and shocking circumstance,the two sons, who were then only sixteen and fifteen

respectively, can hardly be expected to remember the grislystabbing in perfect detail.

Burden of proof andburden of evidenceRule 131, Sec. 1

SECTION 1.Burden of proof.

Burden of proof is theduty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issuenecessary to establish his claim or defense by the

amount of evidence required by law.

Burden of proof is also known as the ONUS PROBANDI

1. Burden of Proof or Burden of Persuasion or Risk of Non

Persuasion- the duty of the party alleging the case to prove it.

a). This lies with the plaintiff

b). This lies too with the defendant as to his defenses andcounter-claim

2. Burden of Evidence or Burden of Going Forward- The duty orlogical necessity imposed upon a party, at any time during the trial,to establish a prima facie case in his favor or to overcome a prima

facie case against him

when the prosecution has succeeded in discharging the burdenof proof by presenting evidence sufficient to convince the court ofthe truth of the allegations in the Information, or has established aprima facie case against the accused, the burden of evidence shiftsto the accused making it incumbent upon him to adduce evidence

in order to meet and nullify, if not overthrow, that prima facie

evidence. ( PP vs. Villanueva, 506 SCRA 280)

Points of distinction:

a). The former never shifts but remains constant with theparty while the latter shifts from one party to the other as the

trial progresses

b). In civil cases where it lies is determined by the pleadingswhile the latter is determined by the rules of logic.

Who has the Burden of Proof?

1. The general rule is- he who would lose the case if no evidence ispresented. Hence it is the plaintiff as to his causes of action, and thedefendant as to his counterclaim.

2. In criminal cases, the burden of proving guilt is always theplaintiff/prosecution. But if the accused sets up an affirmativedefense, the burden is on him to prove such by clear, affirmative

and strong evidence

The foregoing rests on the maxim: EL INCOMBIT PROBOTION QUI

DECIT NON QUI NEGAT (He who asserts, not he who denies, mustprove)

DAVAO LIGHT AND POWER CO., INC. VS OPENA

(Dec. 9, 2005)

Doctrine: Even though no constitutional provision is violated by a statute

providing that proof by the state of some material fact or facts shall constitute

prima facie evidence of guilt, and that then the burden is shifted to the defendant

for the purpose of showing that such act or acts are innocent and are committed

without unlawful intention, the burden of proof never parts, thus, the proof of the

existence of theprima facie evidence is still the burden of the plaintiff. The plaintiff

must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the

defendants.

8. Presumptions

The facts in issue are either (i) proved by the presentation of testimonial,


5/28

documentary or object evidence or they are (ii) presumed

Presumption: An assumption or conclusion as to the existence of a fact based

on another fact or group of facts which were already established. These are

based on human experience or common sense, or laws of nature.

Classification:

Praesumption Legis: these are presumptions which the law directs to be made

by the court

a). Juris tantum- or prima facie, rebuttable or disputable presumption or

those which may be overcome or disproved

b). Juris et de Jure: conclusive or those which the law does not allow to be

contradicted

c). Statutory and Constitutional

Praesumption Hominis ( Fact) these are presumptions which may be made as a

result of the mental processes of inductive or deductive reasoning from a fact

Evidentiary Value:

1. Presumptions cannot substitute for evidence. They are to be indulged in

only when there is no evidence as to the fact in issue or t here is great difficulty

in obtaining direct evidence of the fact in issue

2. Once there is evidence of the fact in issue, the presumption ceases

3. The role and importance of presumptions is to relieve a party of the

difficulty of complying with the burden of proof.

Thus there is no need to present the Bank Representative in case ofViolation of B.P. 22

4. In case of Conflicting Presumptions or whenever several presumptions arise

from the same set of facts, the rule is: (1) that which has the weightier reason

prevails otherwise all will be considered as equal and therefore all will be

disregarded and (b) Constitutional prevails over statutory presumptions.

5. When there is a presumption of law, the onus probandi (burden of proof)

generally imposed upon the State, is now shifted to the party against whom

the inference is made to adduce satisfactory evidence to rebut the

presumption and hence, to demolish the prima facie case. Such prima facie

evidence , if unexplained or uncontroverted, can counter balance the

presumption of innocence to warrant a conviction ( Wa -acon vs. PP)

Components of a Presumption

1. The Ultimate Fact or the Presumed Fact

2. The basic fact or factual basis because a presumption cannot arise or be

based on another presumption. This may either be:

a). A fact within Judicial Knowledge in which case the presumption

becomes operative at the moment the case is filed or at any time

thereafter. The basic fact need not be proven.

For example: The presumption of innocence becomes operative

the moment an Information is filed in Court. So also the

presumption of sanity of parties and witnesses or the

presumption of good moral character of every party arises

whenever a case is filed in court and at the time the witness

testify.

b). The basic fact which must be proven.

For example: The presumption of a child being that of the husband

arises only after it is proven: that the parents were validly married

and the child was born thereafter. The presumption that a public

officer was regularly appointed or elected after it is first shown he

was acting as a public officer. Likewise the presumption of

survivorship.

Note: There must be a rational connection between the Ultimate Fact and the

Basic Fact

a. Conclusive presumptions

Rule 131, Sec. 2 (a) and (b)

SEC. 2.Conclusive presumptions. The following are

instances of conclusive presumptions:

(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or

omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to

believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief,

he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration,

act or omission, be permitted to falsify it;


6/28

(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his

landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of

landlord and tenant between them.

Conclusive: Juris et de jure or those which the law does not allow to

be contradicted

Conclusive Presumptions in Section 2

Estoppel in General: a principle which bars a person from denying or asserting

anything to the contrary of that which has been established as the truth

arising from his own acts or representations. It may be: (1). Estoppel in Pais or

equity (2).By deed i.e document and (3). By Record or Judgment i.e those

found and established as true by a court of competent jurisdiction

1. Estoppel in Pais: The essence is intentional misrepresentation

1. Requirements:

a). As to the party estopped: (i). a conduct amounting to false

representation or concealment of /material facts (ii). an intention

that the conduct be acted upon or that it will influence the other

party and (iii) knowledge of the true facts

b). As to the party claiming estoppel: (i) an absolute lack of

knowledge or of the means of knowledge as to the true facts, not

lack of diligence (ii) reliance in good faith upon the conduct of the

other party and (iii) the action or inaction resulted to his damage or

injury

Example:

A man who represents himself to be the t rue owner in a sale will not

be permitted later to deny the sale after he acquire title thereto

*But estoppel does not apply to the government for acts of the

public officials

2. Estoppel Against a Tenant

1. The relationship is that between parties to an original contract of

lease (not sublease) involving a real property . The tenant refers to

the lessee. What is deemed conclusive as to the tenant is the

ownership of the lessor over the property.

2. The lessee cannot use his physical possession over the property as

basis to dispossess the lessor of the latters ownership. The law seeks

to protect owners of real property from being deprived of their

ownership by those in actual physical possession who are their own

lessees.

SEC. 4.No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. There is

no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born

after three hundred days following the dissolution of the

marriage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the

legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his

allegation.

D.M. Consunji Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

April 20, 2001 Kapunan, J.

DOCTRINE: As a rule of evidence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is peculiar to the

law of negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established

without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence.

One of the theoretical based for the doctrine is its necessity, i.e., that necessary

evidence is absent or not available.

ESTATE OF ROGELIO G. ONG vs. DIAZ

December 17, 2007

DOCTRINE: Though there exists a presumption of legitimacy o f a child who is born

when a couple is married, it is not conclusive and consequently may be o verthrownby evidence to the contrary.

o Art 255, FC (paraphrased) Children born 180 daysfollowing the celebration of a marriage, and before 300

days following its dissolution/separation of the spouses

shall be presumed legitimate.

o Against this presumption, no evidence shall be admittedother than that of the physical impossibility of the

husbands having access to his wife within the first 120

days of the 300 days preceding the birth of the child.


7/28

Such impossibility may be caused by 1)impotence of the husband; 2) husband and wife

were living separetly in such a way access was

impossible; 3) serious illness by the husband;

Del Carmen Jr. v. Bacoy

Doctrine: Res ipsa loquitur is "merely evidentiary, a mode of proof, or a mere

procedural convenience, since it furnishes a substitute for, and relieves a plaintiff

of, the burden of producing a specific proof of negligence. It "recognizes that

parties may establish prima facie negligence without direct proof, thus, it allows

the principle to substitute for specific proof of negligence. It permits th e plaintiff to

present along with proof of the accident, enough of the attending circumstances to

invoke the doctrine, create an inference o r presumption of negligence and t hereby

place on the defendant the burden of proving that there was no negligence on his

part."

9. Liberal construction of the rules of evidencePolicy of Liberality: In case a question arises as to whether or not a

particular material should be admitted as evidence, Courts are given

wide discretion what to admit and to be liberal in admitting materials

offered as evidence, unless the material is clearly incompetent. The

reasons are: (i) so that it may have a substantial range of facts as basis for

deciding the case and (ii) in case of appeal the appellate court may have

before it all the evidence to determine whether the decision appealed

from is in accordance with the evidence, (iii) to minimize any adverse

effect of the non-admission upon the party affected.

Limitations:

1. Evidence may be excluded even if relevant if its probative value is

outweighed by the risk that its admission will cause:

a). undue or unfair prejudice

b). confusion of the issues

c). misleads the court

d). undue delay or waste of time

2. The court has the power to limit the presentation of additional

evidence which are but cumulative, or to prove points which a party has

already well presented

10. Quantum of evidence (weight and sufficiency of evidence)A. Criminal cases: Proof of Guilt Must be Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

1. That degree of proof, which, excluding the possibility of error,

produces moral certainty. If the inculpatory facts are capable of two or

more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the

accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does

not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a

conviction.

B. Civil Cases: Preponderance of Evidence. This means that he weight,

credit and value of the aggregate evidenced of one is superior to the

other.

a. Appreciat ion of evidence

RULES IN THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

1. Courts shall consider and take into consideration : (a) all facts which were presented

during the trial whether testimonial, object, or documentary (b) all facts which were

stipulated or judicially admitted (c) those judicially noticed and (d) all facts which are

presumed

2. No extraneous matters shall be considered even if the Court knows them as existing in

his personal capacity

3. In determining the weight and sufficiency of a partys evidence, the court shall consider :

A.) All the facts and circumstances of the case.B). The testimonial characteristics of a witness such as:

i). The manner of testifying by a witness which includes his conduct and

behavior on the witness stand, the emphasis, gestures, and inflection of his

voice in answering questions. This is the reason why the rules require the

witness to personally testify in open court.

ii). The intelligence of the witness. This refers o this position to perceive by the

sue of his organs of sense, his opportunity for accurate observation and faithful

recollection of the facts to which he is testifying.


8/28

This intelligence must be coupled with integrity, a general reputation for truth,

honesty and integrity. This is because a witness to be believed must be truthful

in his narration of correct facts.

iii). The means and opportunity of knowing the facts which includes his

presence and observation of the facts.

iv). The nature of the facts to which the witness is testifying such as: whether

he did the act as a participant, whether he saw the occurrence of an accident

as he was a passenger; the identity of a person who is an old acquaintance;

thus as to the circumstances of the birth a person, the mother would be the

best witness on this point mother.

v). The absence or presence of interest or basis for bias or prejudice.

vi). Personal Credibility of the witness, referring to his general reputation for

truth, honesty or integrity as for example: (i) the case of an young girl who

makes a complaint for rape ; as for instance the accused claiming self defense

who is well built, broad shouldered a boxer and expert in martial arts claiming

the victim of assault by an ordinary person

viii). The probability or improbability of the testimony

C). The number of witnesses. However witnesses are to been weighed not numbered

because quantitative superiority does not necessarily mean legal preponderance. Thus an

accused may be convicted based solely on the testimony of one witness.

But where the evidence for both parties is principally testimonial where the version of each

exhibit equal tendency to be true and accurate, and the witnesses have not betrayed

themselves by major contradictions or other indications of falsehood, there exists every

reason to measure preponderance by numerical advantage. .

4. The Court has the power to stop the further presentation of evidence on the same point

as when the additional evidence is only corroborative or the point has already beenestablished, or when it results to unnecessary delay

5. As to the testimony of a witness:

A). the court must consider everything stated by the witness during the direct,

cross, re-direct and re-cross examinations

B). the testimony of a witness maybe believed in part and disbelieved in other

parts, depending on the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and

improbabilities of the case. It is accepted as a matter of common sense that if

certain parts of the testimony are true, his testimony can not be disregarded

entirely.

Contrast this with the so called Falsus in unos, falsus in omnibus

6. The Preference of Evidence must be observed in case of conflict:

A). Physical or Object evidence is evidence of the highest order and prevails

over contrary testimonial evidence

B). Documentary over testimonial evidence

C). Positive over negative evidence. E.G. positive identification over alibi; an

assertion of the occurrence of a thing over a plain denial. Denials, if

unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are deemed negative and

self-serving evidence unworthy of credence. ( Wa-acon vs. People, 510 SCRA

429)

D). Direct over circumstantial

E). Testimony in open court over sworn statements or affidavits

F). The Admitted Facts Rule- evidence of whatever description must yield to

the extent that it conflicts with admitted or clearly established facts. Thus

courts give superior credit to witnesses whose testimonies on material points

are in accord with facts already established ( Frondarina vs. Malazarte 510

SCRA 223)

7. Rule in criminal cases

A. For conviction

i). For conviction: the prosecution must adduce proof of guilt beyond

reasonable doubt i.e. moral certainty not absolute certainty

ii). Every doubt is to be resolved in favor of the accused

iii) Accusation is not synonymous with guilt

iv) Accused need not present evidence if the evidence against him is weak

because conviction must be on the strength of the evidence of theprosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence of the accused

B. Affirmative Defenses be shown by clear, positive and convincing evidence

C. Two Witness Rule in Treason

D. If conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. The requirements under section 4

must be present

i). There must be more than one circumstance

ii). The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven


9/28

iii). The combination of all such circumstances produces conviction beyond

reasonable doubt

E. If based on Extra Judicial Confession, same must be corroborated by evidence of corpus

delicti

i. Equipoise rule

The Equipoise Rule: where the evidence of the

parties is evenly balanced, the case will be

resolved against the plaintiff, thus in criminal cases

the accused must be acquitted and in civil cases,

the complaint must be dismissed.

CASES:

SABILI v. COMELEC

(April 24, 2012)

DOCTRINE: When the evidence presented by the parties are in equipoise that it is

impossible for the court to determine with certainty the real intent of the person

whose domicile is in question, the presumption requires the Court to decide

against a change of domicile and the retention of a domicile in question. Hence,

the burden of proving a change of domicile lies on the person who claims a

change has occurred. (*found in dissent)

GERONIMO DADO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

(November 18, 2002)

DOCTRINE: Under equipoise rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact is in

equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party

having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds application if, as in the

present case, the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more

explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the

other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of

moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction. Briefly stated, the

needed quantum of proof to convict the accused of the crime charged is found

lacking.

. English Exchequer Rule

A mid-1800 rule pursuant to which a trial court's

error as to the admission o f evidence was presumed

to have caused prejudice and therefore, almost

automatically required a new trial. The Exchequer

rule has long been laid to rest, for even English

appellate courts now disregard an error in the

admission of evidence unless in its opinion, some

substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has been

occasioned. American courts adopted this approach

especially after the enactment of a 1915 federal

statute which required a federal appellate court to

give judgment after an examination of the entire

record before the court, without regard to technical

errors, defects, or exceptions which do not affect

the substantial rights of the parties.

CASE:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE JR

(October 6, 1995 | GR No 111206-08)

DOCTRINE:

Appellant cannot hope to exculpate himself simply because the trial judge violated

the rule on res inter alios acta when he considered his involvement in previous

shooting incidents. This stance is a specie of a mid-1800 rule known as the English

Exchequer Rule pursuant to which "a trial court's error as to the admission of

evidence was presumed to have caused prejudice and therefore, almost

automatically required a new trial." The Exchequer rule has long been laid to rest

for even English appellate courts now disregard an error in the admission of

evidence "unless in its opinion, some substantial wrong or miscarriage (of justice)

has been occasioned." American courts adopted this approach especially after the

enactment of a 1915 federal statute which required a federal appellate court to

"give judgment after an examination of the entire record before the court, withoutregard to technical errors, defects, or exceptions which do not affect the

substantial rights of the parties."160

We have likewise followed the harmless error

rule in our jurisdiction. In dealing with evidence improperly admitted in trial, we

examine its damaging quality and its impact to the substantive rights of the litigant.

If the impact is slight and insignificant, we disregard the error as it will not

overcome the weight of the properly admitted evidence against the prejudiced

party.

In the case at bar, the reference by the trial judge to reports about the

troublesome character of appellant is a harmless error. The reference is not the


10/28

linchpin of the inculpatory evidence appreciated by the trial judge in convicting

appellant. As aforestated, the appellant was convicted mainly because of his

identification by three (3) eyewitnesses with high credibility.

iii. Subject to two interpretations

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is that degree of proof, which, excluding the

possibility of error, produces moral certainty. If the inculpatory facts are capable of

two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the

accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill

the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.

b. Proof beyond reasonable doubt

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is that degree of proof,

which, excluding the possibility of error, produces moral

certainty. Applicable in criminal cases for conviction.

Rule 133, Sec. 2

SEC. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In a criminal case,the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is

shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable

doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding

possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral

certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which

produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

Rule 133, Sec. 3

SEC. 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for

conviction. An extrajudicial confession made by an

accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless

corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.

Rule 133, Sec. 4

SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstance;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are

proven; and

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to

produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Degrees of proof in criminal cases

i. filing the Information

Probable Cause- that required for filing of an Information in Court or for the

issuance of a warrant of arrest

Probable cause (def.)- is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has

the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to

obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered.

Allado v. Dioko

(May 5, 1994)

DOCTRINE: Probable cause is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is,

or may be, well founded, such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as

would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an

honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so. The term does not mean "actual and

positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion

and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry

into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it

is it believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offensecharged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution

in support of the charge.

ii. issuing a warrant of arrest

CASE:

PEOPLE v. GREY

(July 26, 2010)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. JOSEPH "JOJO" V. GREY, FRANCIS B.

GREY, and COURT OF APPEALS-CEBU CITY, EIGHTEENTH DIVISION, Respondents.

DOCTRINE: What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal

responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable

cause. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a

warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant

and his witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1)

personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the

fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a

warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may

disregard the fiscals report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of

witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable

cause.


11/28

What the law requires as personal determination on the part of a judge is thathe should not rely solely on the report of the investigating prosecutor.

oThis means that the judge should consider not only the report of theinvestigating prosecutor but also the affidavit and the documentary

evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit of the accused and his

witnesses, as well as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the

preliminary investigation, if any, submitted to the court by the

investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the Information.

. granting bail in capital offense

CASES:

PEOPLE v CABRAL

(February 18, 1999)

Doctrine: The grant or denial of an application for bail is dependent on whether

the evidence of guilt is strong which the lower court should determine in a hearing

called for the purpose. Even though there I reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the

accused, if upon examination of the entire record the presumption is great thataccused is guilty of a capital offense, bail should be refused. Discretion in granting

or denying bail is not absolute nor beyond control.

The test is not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt

but rather whether it shows evident guilt or a great presumption of guilt. As such,

the court is ministerially bound to decide which circumstances and factors are

present which would show evident guilt or presumption of guilt as defined above.

PADERANGA v. COURT OF APPEALS

Manuel P. Paderanga,petitioner, v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines,

respondents

Doctrines:1. Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law,

furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearing before

any court as required under the conditions specified in Rule 114. As bail

is intended to obtain or secure ones provisional liberty, the same cannot

be posted before custody over him has been acquired by the judicial

authorities, either by his (a) lawful arrest or (b) vo luntary surrender.

2. The general rule is that prior to conviction, an accused is entitled to bereleased on bail as a matter of right (see Const. art III, sec.13; Rule 114,

Sec.4). The exception is when the accused is charged with a capital

offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life

imprisonment and the evidence of guilt is strong. In such cases, the grant

of bail becomes a matter of judicial discretion on the part of the court,

and a hearing, mandatory in nature, is required precisely to ascertain

whether the evidence of guilt is strong.

LEVISTE V. CA

DOCTRINE: The grant of bail pending appeal is addressed to the sound judicial

discretion of the appellate court.Further, such discretion must be exercised with

grave caution and only for strong reasons.

NOTE: This case discusses the discretionary nature of bail pending appeal. The

evidence aspect of the case is not manifest but the standards of evidence required

for bail applications should be the same as those for bail prior to conviction (i.e.

when the evidence of guilt is strong in capital offenses). The difference lies in the

fact that pending appeal, there already is a prima facie determination of the guilt of

applicant (by the trial court).

Rule 114 Sec. 5 provides in full:Sec. 5. Bail, when discretionary. Upon conviction by the Regional Trial

Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life

imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The application for bail

may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice

of appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original record to the

appellate court. However, if the decision of the trial court convicting the

accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable,

the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the

appellate court.

Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed tocontinue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under

the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman.

If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six

(6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled

upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the

following or other similar circumstances:


12/28

(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual

delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the

circumstance of reiteration;

(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement,

evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without

a valid justification;

(c) That he committed the offense while under probation,

parole, or conditional pardon;

(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability

of flight if released on bail; or

(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime

during the pendency of the appeal.

The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, reviewthe resolution of the Regional Trial Court after notice to the adverse party

in either case. (Emphasis in the original)

This Rule provides for two distinct situations if the penalty imposed ismore than six years but less than 20 years:

o If none of the FIVE circumstances are present, bail is a matter ofdiscretion

o If one or more of the FIVE circumstances are present, NO BAILshall be granted

In the first situation, bail is a matter of SOUND JUDICIAL DISCRETION.Hence an application for bail may be DENIED even if none of thecircumstances are present. The appellate court has the power to

determine the advisability of granting bail or denying it subject to the rule

that bail pending appeal should be exercised with grave caution and

only for strong reasons

The second situation is simpler, as the existence of any of thesecircumstances warrants the denial or cancellation of bail as the case may

be

Conviction

For conviction

i). For conviction: the prosecution must adduce proof of guilt beyond reasonable

doubt i.e. moral certainty not abso lute certainty

ii). Every doubt is to be resolved in favor of the accused

iii) Accusation is not synonymous with guilt

iv) Accused need not present evidence if the evidence against him is weak because

conviction must be on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on

the weakness of the evidence of the accused

Mercedes G. DUDUACO vs. Judge Lily Lydia A. LAQUINDANUM

In administrative proceedings, complainants have the burden of proving by

substantial evidence the allegations in their complaints. Administrative proceedings

against judges are by nature, highly penal in character and are to be governed by

the rules applicable to criminal cases. The quantum of proof required to support

the administrative charges should thus be more substantial and they must beproven beyond reasonable doubt.

To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must not only be

contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but were motivated by bad faith, fraud,

dishonesty and corruption.On the other hand, misconduct is any unlawful conduct

on the part of a person concerned in the administration of justice prejudicial to the

rights of parties or to the right determination of the cause. It generally means

wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or

intentional purpose.

Reyes vs Mangino

(January 31, 2005)

Doctrine: Inasmuch as what is imputed against the respondent Judge connotes a

misconduct so grave that, if proven, it would entail dismissal from the bench, the

quantum of proof required should be more than substantial.

Thus, the ground for the removal of a judicial officer should be established

beyond reasonable doubt. Such is the rule where the charge on which removal is

sought is misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption, or incompetence. The

general rules in regard to admissibility of evidence in criminal trials apply.


13/28

LOPEZ v. JUDGE FERNANDEZ

(September 11, 1980)

To hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling would be

nothing short of harassment and would make his position unbearable. According to

Justice Malcolm in Re: Horrileno, proceedings of this character are in their nature

highly penal in character and are to be governed by the rules of law applicable tocriminal cases. The charges must, therefore, be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

This decision has been subsequently adhered to in a number of cases decided by

this Court.

Dulay v. Lelina, Jr.

(July 14, 2005)

Doctrine: In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of

proving the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence (that amount of

relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a

conclusion).

Judge case as well but only applied substantial evidence.

SPOUSES VICENTE and GLORIA MANALO vs. HON. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, in

her capacity as Undersecretary of Labor and Employment, JOSE SARMIENTO as

POEA Administrator, CAREERS PLANNERS SPECIALISTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., and

SPOUSES VICTOR and ELNORA FERNANDEZ

(November 19, 1992)

DOCTRINE: In the administrative proceedings for cancellation, revocation or

suspension of Authority or License, no rule requires that testimonies of

complainants be corroborated by documentary evidence, if the charge of unlawful

exaction is substantially proven. All administrative determinations require only

substantial proof and not clear and convincing evidence as erroneously contendedby pubic respondents.

Clear and convincing proof is ". . . more than mere preponderance, but not to

extent of such certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal

cases . . ." while substantial evidence ". . . consists of more than a mere scintilla

of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance . . . ."

Consequently, in the hierarchy of evidentiary values, We find proof beyond

reasonable doubt at the highest level, followed by clear and convincing evidence,

preponderance of evidence, and substantial evidence, in that order.

Spouses Vicente and Gloria Manalo vs. Roldan Confessor

DOCTRINE:

Public respondents may be correct in saying that where two conflicting versions are

supported by substantial evidence, the administrative body may choose which to

uphold and for that reason even flip-flop on its factual findings without thereby

incurring grave abuse of discretion. In this case however, public respondentreversed the penalty, not on the basis that one version is more believable than the

other, but that the testimonies ofcomplainants, after describing them to be more

convincing than respondents stand and which inspired belief, were not clear

and convincing. Thus, to that extent, public respondents committed grave abuse of

discretion correctable by certiorari.

BAUTISTA vs. CA

August 11, 2004

DOCTRINE: A duly notarized contract enjoys the prima facie presumption of

authenticity and due execution. To overturn this legal presumption, evidence must

be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant to establish that there

was forgery

Rockwell Perfecto Gohu v Sps. Alberto Gohu and Adelaida Gohu

October 13, 2000

Nature: Petition for review of the decision of the CA

Doctrine: There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of

bias and partiality. Bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not suffice.

Bias and prejudice cannot be presumed especially if weighed against a judge's

sacred obligation under his oath of office to administer justice without respect to

person and do equal right to the poor and the rich.

GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION v. OLALIA

(April 19, 2007)

DOCTRINE: Clear and convincing evidence should be used in granting bail in

extradition cases. This standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable

doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JANAIRO

(July 22, 1999)


14/28

DOCTRINE: Invoking self-defense is admitting authorship of the killing. Hence, the

burden of proof shifts to the accused, who must establish with clear convincing

evidence all of these elements of the justifying circumstance: (1) unlawful

aggression on the part of the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means

employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of

the person resorting to self-defense.

ABARQUEZ,COVERDALE vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Every person accused has the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is

proven beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence stands as a

fundamental principle of both constitutional and criminal law. Thus, the

prosecution has the burden of proving every single fact establishing guilt. Every

vestige of doubt having a rational basis must be removed. The defense of the

accused, even if weak, is no reason to convict. Within this framework, the

prosecution must prove its case beyond any hint of uncertainty. The defense need

not even speak at all. The presumption o f innocence is more than sufficient.

The equipoise rule finds application if, as in this case, the inculpatory facts and

circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent

with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then

the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to

produce a conviction. Briefly stated, the needed quantum of proof to convict the

accused of the crime charged is found lacking.

Preponderance of evidence

Rule 133, Sec. 1

SECTION 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined.

In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must

establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In

determining where the preponderance or superior weight ofevidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider

all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses'

manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and

opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are

testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the

probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest

or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far

as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The

court may also consider the number of witnesses, though

the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater

number.

Preponderance of Evidence- that evidence which is greater

or superior in weight than that of the other

partys.Applicable in civil cases.

d. Substantial

evidence

Rule 133, Sec. 5

SEC. 5. Substantial evidence. In cases tiled before

administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact maybe

deemed established if it is supported by substantial

evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a

conclusion.

Substantial evidencethat amount of relevant evidence which a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a

conclusion.Applicable in administrative cases.

e. Clear and convincing evidence

Clear and convincing evidencethat evidence that produces

in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or co nviction as

to allegations sought to be established

Hierarchy

1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt

2. clear and convincing proof

3. preponderance of evidence

4. substantial evidence

f. Circumstantial evidence

Rule 133, Sec. 4

SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. Circumstantial

evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstance;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;

and

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to

produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.


15/28

Circumstantial evidence is that which indirectly proves a fact in issue. The fact-finder must draw an

inference from such evidence. An accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence where

the circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair reasonable conclusion and pointing to

the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CESAR GALVEZ

People of the Philippines v. Rolando Pineda

In resolving the admissibility of out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have

adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors: (1)

the witness opportunity to view the perpetrator of the crime; (2) the witness degree of

attention at the time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4)

the level of certainty shown by the witness of his identification; (5) the length of time

between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the

identification procedure.

Although showing mug shots of suspects is one of the established methods of

identifying criminals, the procedure used in this case is unacceptable. The first rule inproper photographic identification procedure is that a series of photographs must be

shown, and not merely that of the suspect. The second rule directs that when a witness

is shown a group of pictures, their arrangement and display should in no way suggest

which one of the pictures pertains to the suspect.

Where a photograph has been identified as that of the guilty party, any subsequent

corporeal identification of that person may be based not upon the witnesss recollection

of the features of the guilty party, but upon his recollection of the photograph. Thus,

although a witness who is asked to attempt a corporeal identification of a person

whose photograph he previously identified may say, "Thats the man that did it," what

he may actually mean is, "Thats the man whose photograph I identified."

SC found that witnesses Ferrer and Ramos were not able to adequately identify Pineda.Ferrer managed to glance the mirror, Ramos likewise only glanced the side of the

perpetrators face. The more important duty of the prosecution is to prove the identity

of the perpetrator and not to establish the existence of the crime. For even if the

commission of the crime is established, without proof beyond reasonable doubt of the

identity of the perpetrator, the trial court cannot convict any one.37

Ferrer and Ramos

mental conception of the incident, the resulting inaccuracy in their narration, and the

suggestiveness of the pictures presented to them for identification cast doubt on their

testimonies that appellant is one of the perpetrators of the crime.

Abad v CA

We have consistently held that the mere presence of accused-appellant at the locus

criminis cannot be solely interpreted to mean that he committed the killing. The mere

presence of accused-appellant at the crime scene, without more, is inadequate to

support the conclusion that, indeed, he committed the crime.

Ana Paulins testimony fails to state whether the man she saw was carrying a weapon,

or whether he was bloodied or not. Indeed, there is an absence of positive proof that

accused-appellant assaulted the victim.

in order to support a conviction, motive must be coupled with evidence from which it

may be reasonably deduced that the accused-appellant was the malefactor

Given the paucity of evidence in the instant case, to conclude that the killing arose from

the previous altercation between accused-appellant and the victim would be more

speculative than factual While his alibi is rather weak, this is no reason for us to sustain

his conviction, as the burden of proof still lies with the prosecution to establish that

accused-appellant killed the victim

PEOPLE v. Villaflores

Power of court to stop further evidence

Rule 133, Sec. 6

SEC. 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. The

court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon

any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so

full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be

reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. But this

power should be exercised with caution.

h. Evidence onmotion

Rule 133, Sec. 7

SEC. 7. Evidence on motion. When a motion is based on

facts not appearing of record the court may hear the

matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the

respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter

be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions.

This refers to collateral issues or motions based on facts

not appearing on record such as (i) proof of service by


16/28

publication (ii) relief from order of default (iii) Taking of

depositions (iv) motion for new trial (v) relief from

judgment (vi) issuance of writ of preliminary injunction.

Judicial notice and judicial admissions

1. What need not be provedPrinciples:

A. Each Party Must Prove His Own Allegation. Likewise, the court limits

itself to only such evidence as were properly presented and admitted

during the trial and does not consider matters or facts outside the

court.

B. A Party Can Not Prove What He Did Not Allege (Non Alegata Non

Proba). A party however is not authorized to introduce evidence on

matters which he never alleged..

C. But a party may be relieved from presenting evidence on certain

matters, such as on the following:

1. Matters or facts subject of judicial notice

2. Matters or facts subject of judicial admission

3. Matters or facts which are legally presumed

4. Matters or facts stipulated upon

5. Matters or facts which are exclusively within the knowledge of the

opposing party

6. Matters or facts which are irrelevant .

7. Matters or facts in the nature of negative allegations subject to

certain exceptions

2. Matters of judicial noticeCONCEPT: Refers to the act of the court in taking cognizance of matters as true

or as existing without need of the introduction of evidence, or the authority of

the court to accept certain matters as facts even if no evidence of their

existence has been presented. The action is often expressed thusThe court

takes judicial notice of

Purpose: To save time, labor and expenses. It is based on expediency andconvenience.

General Classification of Matters Subject of Notice

A. Adjudicative Matters- those facts related to the case under

consideration and which may affect the outcome thereof.

Eg. In a case where the accused set up denial and alibi being thenin Manila, court may take judicial notice that normal travel time by

bus from Manila to Baguio City is between 6 to 7 hours

B. Legislative Matters- those facts which relate either to: (i) the

existence of a law or legal principle (ii) the reason, purpose or

philosophy behind the law or of a legal principle as formulated by the

legislature or the court (iii) the law or principle itself.

Eg. The need to protect Filipino OFWs as a primary reason behind the

Migrant Workers Act or the increase in the incidence of drug related

crimes as reason for the increase in the penalty for violation of the

drug law

Limitations. The taking of judicial notice may be abused and might

unfairly favor a party who is unable to prove a material point.

Conversely the non-taking notice of a fact might unduly burden a

party where proof is not readily available or impossible to obtain and

proof thereof is unnecessary, but still the court refuses to take noticeof the fact.

A. As to what may be taken notice of: the matter must be one covered

by section 1 or is authorized under Section 2 of Rule 129.

B. As to the procedure: there must be a prior hearing pursuant to

Section 3.

a. Mandatory

Rule 129, Sec. 1

SECTION 1.Judicial notice, when mandatory. A court shall

take judicial notice, without the introduction of

evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of

states, their political history, forms of government

and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the

admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their

seals, the political constitution and history of the

Philippines, the official acts of the legislative,


17/28

executive and judicial departments of the

Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time,

and the geographical divisions.

If a fact falls under any of the matters enumerated, then the court may

not compel a party to present evidence thereon and necessarily, it

may not decide against the party for the latters failure to present

evidence on the matter. The enumeration is exclusive.

I. As to Foreign States: their existence and territorial extent; forms of

government (monarchial, presidential, parliamentary, royalty),

symbols of nationality ( flag, national costume, anthem).

A. Limitation: However the recognition of a foreign state or

government is subject to the decision of the political leadership

II. The Law of Nations: the body of principles, usages, customs and

unwritten precepts observed by, and which governs, the relations

between and among states.

A. Example: (i). The Principle of Equality of States (ii) Sovereign

Immunity of visiting Heads of States and the protocol observed for

said visiting dignitary such as the 21 gun salute (iii) The Diplomatic

Immunity of foreign diplomatic representatives (iv) recognition ofpiracy as a crime against humanity

III. The Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction of the World and their

Seals

IV. The Philippine as a state

A. Its constitution and political history: the political set up of the government

B. The official acts of the legislature, executive and judicial departments

V. The Laws of Nature

Examples:

1. laws relating to science which are so well known such as that the

DNA of each person being distinct, or blood groupings as proof of

filiation; or of finger prints and dententures being distinct and

dissimilar from one person to another.

2. The law of gravity, mathematical equations, weights and

measurements

VI. Measures of Time: into seconds, minutes, days, weeks months and years

VII. Geographical Division of the World such as the number and

location of the continents, and the major oceans, the division intohemispheres; longitudes and latitudes

b. Discretionary

Rule 129, Sec. 2

SEC. 2.Judicial notice, when discretionary. A court

may take judicial notice of matters which are of

public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable

demonstration, or ought to be known to judges

because of their judicial functions.

This section authorizes a court to take judicial notice of certain

matters in its discretion. The matters fall into three groups: 1. Those

which are of public knowledge 2. Those which are capable of

unquestionable demonstration and 3. Matters ought to be known to

judges because of their judicial functions.

I First Group: Matters of Public Knowledge.

A. These are matters the truth or existence of which are accepted by

the public without qualification, condition or contention.

B. Requirements:

1. Notoriety of the Facts in that the facts are well and publicly known.

The existence should not be known only to a certain portion of thecommunity

2. The matter must be well and authoritatively settled and not

doubtful or uncertain

3. The matter must be within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of

the court

Examples:The existence and location of hospitals, public buildings,

plazas and markets, schools and universities, main thoroughfares,

parks, rivers and lakes


18/28

II. Second Group: Matters Capable of Unquestionable Demonstration

A. These are matters which, even if not notorious, can be immediately

shown to exist or be true so as to justify dispensing with actual proof.

Examples:That poison kills or results to serious injury

Vehicles running at top speed do not immediately stop even when the

brakes are applied and will leave skid marks on the road

III. Third Group: Matters Ought To Be Known to Judges because of

their Judicial Functions

A. These are matters which pertain to the office of the Judge or known

to them based on their experience as judges

Examples:

1. The behavior of people to being witnesses such as their reluctance

to be involved in cases thus requiring the issuance of subpoenae to

them; the varied reaction of people to similar events

2. Procedures in the reduction of bail bonds

V. Principles Involved

A. The matter need not be personally known to the judge in order to

be taken judicial notice of, as in fact the judge maybe personally

ignorant thereof

B. Personal knowledge by the Judge of a fact is not necessarily

knowledge by the Court as to be the basis of a judicial notice

C. As to whether a party can introduce contrary proof: (1). If the

matter is one subject of mandatory judicial notice, contrary proof is

not allowed (2). If the matter is one which the court is allowed to take

notice in its discretion, the prohibition applies to civil cases only, but

in criminal cases, the accused may still introduce contrary proof as

part of his right to defend himself

VI. Judicial Notice of Certain Specific Matters

A. As To Foreign Laws.

1. As a general rule, Philippine Courts cannot take judicial notice of

the existence and provisions/contents of a foreign law, which matters

must be alleged and proven as a fact. If the existence and

provisions/contents were not properly pleaded and proven, the

Principle of Processual Presumption applies i.e. the foreign law will be

presumed to be the same as Philippine Laws and it will be Philippine

Laws which will be applied to the case.

2. Exceptions or when Court may take judicial notice of a foreign law

a. When there is no controversy among the parties as to the existence

and provision of the foreign law

b. When the foreign law has been previously ruled upon the court as

to have acquired actual knowledge of it. For example: Knowledge of

the Texan law on succession based on the Christiansen cases; notice of

the existence of the Nevada Divorce Law

c. The foreign law has been previously applied in the Philippines e.g.the Spanish Codigo Penal

d. The foreign law is the source of the Philippine Law e.g. the

California Law on Insurance, the Spanish Civil Code

e. When the foreign law is a treaty in which the Philippines is a

signatory it being part of the Public International Law

B. Domestic Laws, Administrative Rules and Regulations

1. As to laws, rules and regulations of national applications, their

passage and effectivity and provisions are governmental matters

which must be noticed mandatorily

2. As to laws of local application:

a. For lower Courts: they may take notice of ordinances, resolutions

and executive or administrative orders enforced within the town nor

city where they sit

b. For the RTCs: they may do so only when a case has been appealed

to them and the lower court has taken notice thereof

c. For appellate courts: on appeal and all those enforced within any

town or city in the Philippines


19/28

C. Decisions of Courts

1. Decisions of appellate courts must be taken notice of mandatorily by trial

courts

2. As to the records of cases pending or decided by other courts: thesemay not be taken judicial notice of

3. As to Records of Other Cases Pending Before the Same Court

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

the contents of records of other cases tried or pending in the same

court, even when these cases were heard or actually pending before

the same judge.

b). However, this rule admits of exceptions, (i). as when reference to

such records is sufficiently made without objection from the opposing

parties Reference is by name and number or in some other manner

by which it is sufficiently designated or (ii) when the original record

of the former case or any part of it, is actually withdrawn from the

archives by the courts direction, at the request or with the consent ofthe parties, and admitted as part of the records of the case then

pending (Calamba Steel Center Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal

Revenue. April 28, 2005)

D. Commercial Usages and Practices: those pertaining to business,

occupation or profession. Notice may be taken only of those which are

well known and established. Examples:

1. The closure of banks on Saturdays and Sundays and of the banking

hours being until 3:00 P.M.

2. That no official receipts are issued by sidewalk or market vendors

E. Customs, Habits and Practices of People: Notice may be taken only

of those which are generally known and established and uniformly

acted upon. Particular customs, and those peculiar only to certain

people must be established as a fact. Examples:

1. Variations in handwriting

2. The instinct of self preservation

3. Sleeping habits of people in the barrios

4. Rituals digging and cleansing of bones of buried loved ones among

certain tribes and other tribal practices, must be proved as a fact

5. What about the natural shyness of the Filipina woman?

F. As to religious matters: Courts may take notice of the general tenets

or beliefs of a particular group including their organizational

structures, but not as to specific practices, tenets and dogmas.

Examples:

1.Thus notice maybe taken of the belief Catholics consider Jesus as

God, whereas the INC do not but as a man, and the Muslims regard

Him merely as a prophet lesser in stature to Mohammed

2. That the Pope is the titular head of the Catholic Church while the

Dalai Llama is head of the Tibetan Monks; Mecca is the Holiest City of

the Muslims; the Muslim belief in Ramadan; the belief in reincarnation

among the Hindus and Buddhists while the Christians believe in

resurrection after death; whereas Christians believe in heaven the

Buddhist have their Nirvana. Notice is proper of the Christian Bible

and the Muslim Koran as their respective Holy Books.Rule 129, Sec. 3

SEC. 3.Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. During the trial, the court,

on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to

take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon.After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own

initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and

allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material

issue in the case.

When and How Notice is taken.

A. By the Trial Court : either Motu Proprio or upon motion by a party

.Generally this is during the trial or presentation of evidence, but itmay be made thereafter but before judgment and only upon a matter

which is decisive of the issue.

B. By the appellate court: before Judgment

Need for Hearing

A. If motuproprio, the Court must announce its intention and give the

parties the opportunity to give their view on whether or not the

matter is a proper subject of judicial notice.


20/28

B. If on motion of a party, the opposing party must likewise be given

the opportunity to comment thereon.

PEOPLE vs ALIDO

DOCTRINE: We take judicial notice of the fact that in the month of May and

June, the days are long and the sun sets after 6:00 in the afternoon, for which

reason even though it was actually 6:00 in the afternoon, when the assault wasmade, both Demetrio Hervas and his mother could easily see and recognize the

assailants of the deceased because it was not yet dark.

PEOPLE vs AYONAYON

(March 30, 1962)

Doctrine: The defenses of alibis appeared as of very little weight or value,

especially in view of the fact that the witnesses for the prosecution clearly

identified the accused, such identification being positive and immediate.

(Judicial notice is relevant on the discussion of the appreciation, by the Court, of

the facts and the testimonies of the witnesses who identified the accused. See

the underlined last parts of the Held & Ratio section.)

While it was already dark,the Court checked the time when the sun set on

August 5, 1959 and they were informed that the sun set on that date at about

6:38 in the evening, which shows that at 6:00 o'clock, the surrounding of the

house where the victims were shot, were not yet dark. The use of a kerosene

lamp inside a house does not mean that outside the house, where the

assailants were seen, was also dark. The inside of a house is necessarily

darker than the outside; so the use of a kerosene lamp while the inmatesare taking supper, does not mean that persons outside cannot be

identified from within the house.

Capital is made of the fact that the witness GenovevaLazo said that during the

day there were stars. She did not say that during the daytime there were stars;

she must have meant that during the time when the assault was made therewere stars in the sky at night. Beside we take judicial notice of the fact that

while it is true that the month of August is characterized by showers or

rains, they generally are passing showers and rains, after which the

atmosphere becomes clear.

PEOPLE vs MADERA

Doctrine: The courts may take judicial notice of the laws of nature, in this case,

the time when the moon rises or sets on a particular day.

PEOPLE vs SISON

(27 October 1983)

DOCTRINE: This Court sitting in Metro Manila, can take judicial notice of the

geography of said metropolis, and the approximate distance from Galas to

EspaaRotonda, from EspaaRotonda to Balintawak, and from Balintawak to

Novaliches, the passenger routes to said place, the nature of traffic along said

routes, the heavy population in Metropolitan Manila, and the habits of the

residents therein

REPUBLIC vs CA

CFI took judicial notice of practice in post offices that a registered letter when

posted is immediately stamped with the date of its receipt, indicating therein

the number of the registry, both on the covering envelope itself and on the

receipt delivered to the person who delivered the letter to the office.

Undoubtedly, the post office practice of which the Court of First Instance took

judicial notice is not covered by any of the specific instances cited above.

Neither can it be classified under "matters which are of public knowledge, orare capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges

because of their judicial functions ... . " For a matter to be taken judicial notice of

by the courts of law, it must be a subject of common and general knowledge. In

other words, Judicial notice of facts is measured by general knowledge of the

same facts. A fact is said to be generally recognized or known when its

existence or operation is accepted by the public without qualification or

contention. The test is whether the 'act involved is so notoriously known as to

make it proper to assume its existence without proof. The fact that a belief is

not universal, however, is not controlling for it is very seldom that any belief is

accepted by everyone. It is enough that the matters are familiarly known to the

majority of mankind or those persons f with the particular matter in question

(20 Am Jur 49-50; Martin, Rules of Court 37, Second Edition). Furthermore, a

matter may be personally known to the judge and yet tot be a matter of judicial

knowledge and vice versa, a matter may not be actually known to an individual

judge, and nevertheless be a proper subject of judicial cognizance.

The post office practice herein involved is not tested by the aforestated

considerations, a proper matter of judicial notice. Moreover, the certification

issued by the very postmaster of the post office where the letter containing the

questioned motion for extension of time was posted, is a very clear

manifestation that the said post office practice is not of unquestionable

demonstration. Indeed, the doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and

discretion of the courts. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by

the courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists;and every reasonable doubts upon the subject should be promptly resolved in

the negative (31 CJS 522; Martin, Rules of Court 38, Second Edition).


21/28

Latip v. Chua

State Prosecutors v. Muro is instructive:

a. The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom anddiscretion of the courts. The power to take judicial notice is

to be exercised by courts with caution; care must be takenthat the requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable

doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the

negative.

b. Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have threematerial requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common

and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and

authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and (3)

it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of

the court. The principal guide in determining what facts may

be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety.

Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts

evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety.

c.

To say that a court will take judicial notice of a fact is merelyanother way of saying that the usual form of evidence will be

dispensed with if knowledge of the fact can be otherwise

acquired. This is because the court assumes that the matter

is so notorious that it will not be disputed. But judicial notice

is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of

the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is

not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a fact,

not generally or professionally known, the basis of his

action. Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters

which are "commonly" known.

d. Things of "common knowledge," of which courts takejudicial notice, may be matters coming to the knowledge of

men generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of

life, or they may be matters which are generally accepted by

mankind as true and are capable of ready and unquestioned

demonstration. Thus, facts which are universally known, and

which may be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other

publications, are judicially noticed, provided they are of such

universal notoriety and so generally understood that they

may be regarded as forming part of the common knowledge

of every person.

In this case, the requisite of notoriety is belied by the necessity of attachingdocumentary evidence, i.e., the Joint Affidavit of the stallholders, to Rosalies

appeal before the CA. In short, the alleged practice still had to be proven by

Rosalie; contravening the title itself of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court What

need not be proved.

SONGCO vs NLRC

(March 23, 1990)

DOCTRINE: We take judicial notice of the fact that some salesmen do not

receive any basic salary but depend on commissions and allowances or

commissions alone, are part of petitioners' wage or salary. We take judicial

notice of the fact that some salesman do not received any basic salary but

depend on commissions and allowances or commissions alone, although an

employer-employee relationship exists.

MANDARIN VILLA, INC. vsCA

(June 20, 1996)

Doctrine: A case where the Court took judicial notice of the current practice

among major establishments to accept payment by means of credit cards in lieu

of cards, following Sec. 2 of Rule 129.

PEOPLE vs BESMONTE

In the instant cases, both rapes complained of were committed in the middle ofthe night. It is of judicial notice that it is at this time when children are in

deep slumber and could not be easily awakened.

OLIZON vs CA

We take judicial notice of the fact that newspaper publications have more far-

reaching effects than posting on bulletin boards in public places. There is a

greater probability that an announcement or notice published in a newspaper

of general circulation, which is distributed nationwide, shall have a readership

of more people than that posted in a public bulletin board, no matter how

strategic its location may be, which caters only to a limited few. Hence, the

publication of the notice of sale in the newspaper of general circulation alone is

more than sufficient compliance with the notice-posting requirement of the

law. By such publication, a reasonably wide publicity had been effected such


22/28

that those interested might attend the public sale, and the purpose of the law

had been thereby subserved.

STATE PROSECUTORS vs MUROSeptember 19, 1994

DOCTRINE: The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicialknowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his individual

knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis of his

action. Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters which are "commonly"

known.

People v. Tipay

However, in a similar and recent case (People vs. Javier, G.R. No. 12696, July 26,

1999), this court pronounced: [I]t is significant to note that the prosecution

failed to present the birth certificate of the complainant. Although the victim's

age was not contested by the defense, proof of age of the victim is particularly

necessary in this case considering that the victim's age which was then 16 years

old is just two years less than the majority age of 18. In this age of modernism,there is hardly any difference between a 16-year old girl and an 18-year old one

insofar as physical features and attributes are concerned. A physically

developed 16-year old lass may be mistaken for an 18-year old young woman,

Documents

Evidence Rvidence Doctrines and Provisions