EVIDENCE

BY ATTY JOSEPH RANDI TORREGOSA | PRE-MIDTERMS | EH404 2017-18

TOPIC 1: GETTING STARTED A complaint for graft and corruption was filed before the city
I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS prosecutor. One of the documents submitted was an affidavit of a

EVIDENCE AS DEFINED BY THE RULES OF COURT former employee, testifying that during her employment at the
time the bank was under receivership, the managers would notify

RULE 128
Section 1. Evidence defined. – them ahead of time of a tip-off of an impending audit to be
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial conducted by the PDIC. Another was that she was made to transfer
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. funds to an account of a BSP employee making her infer the
understanding that it was for the “professional fee” of the BSP
EVIDENCE employee, making her believe that this was the one who gives the
• is the MEANS tip-offs.
A means to an end.
A medium, a tool to establish a proposition. The employee (who made the affidavit) does not actually know
The purpose of evidence is to establish a proposition. whether or not this under the table agreement exists with the BSP
In a case of collection of sums, the plaintiff will try to employee and the bank managers, thus hearsay.
establish the proposition that the other party is liable,
while the defendant will try to establish that the plaintiff Defense argued that applying the technical rules on evidence, this
has no cause of action. should be deemed inadmissible.

And to establish this proposition, there is only one SC set aside the argument ruling that in PI, the technical ROE do not
strictly apply. Even hearsay evidence can be admitted for purposes
means allowed by the Rules, and that is evidence.
of PI.

• SANCTIONED BY THESE RULES
Atty Torregosa: This is a very dangerous policy adopted by the SC.
Not all information that can establish the proposition can be
Your client can go to jail for a non-bailable offense, on the basis of
considered as evidence.
hearsay testimonies. But then during trial, the prosecution cannot
There can be several sources of information but if they are not
prove its case because all they can offer are hearsay evidence, yet
sanctioned by the rules, these are not evidence and these cannot
you were imprisoned on the basis of those same evidence in the PI.
be a means to establish the truth.

Refers to COMPETENCE.
• The TRUTH
Pertains to LEGAL TRUTH
• IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING

Determine the kind of proceedings where evidence can be used as
LEGAL TRUTH
a means.
Truth which the evidence says it is, what the evidence can

prove.
GR: Technical Rules on Evidence only apply to judicial proceedings.

XPN: Can also be applied SUPPLETORILY to non-judicial
MORAL TRUTH
proceedings or by ANALOGY whenever practicable or convenient.
Truth as it actually is.


Quasi-judicial or administrative bodies have their own set of rules
There is a world of difference between the two and as lawyers, we
that govern its proceedings. Some of these rules incorporate a
are only concerned about the LEGAL truth. As lawyers, you must
provision that makes suppletory application of the Rules of
have the intestinal fortitude never be bothered by your conscience
Evidence. Absent this reference, general rule is that ROE do not
when a client who is in the moral truth, guilty but gets off the hook.
apply and their own rules govern.


If somebody gets run over by the truck. The driver with evident
BANTOLINO v COCA COLA BOTTLERS
premeditation kills the victim intentionally. A case is filed against
Proceedings in the NLRC are governed by their own procedural
him for murder. During trial, prosecution cannot establish intent to
rules. The most common problem which has an impact on the ROE
kill, that being a state of the mind. In the absence of evidence, the
is this rule this rule Labor procedure that allows presentation of
judge is inclined to rule that it is a case merely of reckless
evidence through affidavits.
imprudence.


Evidence: Without the affiant being presented for cross
The moral truth was murder, the legal truth was reckless
examination, the other party is denied due process.
imprudence. But remember that our purpose as lawyers is to make
Labor procedure: Submission of affidavits is sufficient to comply
sure our system works, and our system operates on the premise
with due process. On the basis of position papers attached with
that everyone is deemed innocent until proven guilty. What is
affidavits of witnesses, the Labor Arbiter can then adjudge on the
contemplated by law is the legal guilt, never the moral guilt.
merits of the case and render judgment.

So, your duty is to ask the client if he wants to plead guilty. If he

PDIC v CASIMIRO doesn’t, it is the job of the prosecution to establish the guilt.
The same applies in proceedings in the DOJ, particularly in the city
or provincial prosecutors in preliminary investigation. “In defending even the scum of the earth, you have to presume
them innocent… until they are proven broke.”
Preliminary investigations are quasi-judicial in nature where the -donotquotemeonthat
prosecutor acts as quasi-judicial officer in the appreciation of the
presence or absence of probable cause. • To ascertain ISSUES OF FACT
Evidence is relevant for purposes of trial. In trial, the purpose of
Here, evidence is being appreciated but for the purposes of PI, the which is to ascertain the truth of the facts in question.
prosecutor is not required to apply the technical rules of evidence. Questions of law is not the subject of evidence but only questions
of fact.

ANGOT BALAGON BERDUGO CAMPILAN DALUMBAR GALAS ROJAS SARMIENTO SALERA| 1

 EVIDENCE BY ATTY JOSEPH RANDI TORREGOSA | PRE-MIDTERMS | EH404 2017-18

TOPIC 2: ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE AND ITS REQUISITES Statutory rape.

EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH TRUTH Elements: 1) Woman below 12; 2) fact of sexual intercourse.

OVERVIEW If defense presents evidence of consent from the minor, such
To establish truth respecting a matter of fact, evidence must pass two tests: as a sweetheart defense, it will be objected as immaterial as
consent or non-consent is not an element in the crime and
1) ADMISSIBILITY thus, it is not a fact in dispute.
a. RELEVANCE
i. Probativeness BP 22
ii Materiality Mere issuance of worthless check constitutes a crime.
b. COMPETENCE
Thus, if defense present that the check was issues only as a
2) CREDIBILITY guaranty, it is inadmissible as it is immaterial because the
Weight and sufficiency. purpose of the issuance is not a fact in issue.

ADMISSIBILITY TN: When an evidence is material it does not mean that it is relevant. It can
Test of RELEVANCE and COMPETENCE. also be that if an evidence is relevant, it does not automatically mean that it is
Result: The fact becomes part of the records of the case, and the court is material. To pass the test of relevance, evidence must BOTH be RELEVANT and
compelled to consider the evidence. MATERIAL.

FIRST TEST: RELEVANCE SECOND TEST: COMPETENCE
Determined by exclusionary rules:
In our jurisdiction, our concept of relevancy presupposed two components: • Constitution
1. PROBATIVENESS – strictly relevancy • Existing laws
2. MATERIALITY • Existing rules

Thus, relevant evidence is both having a logical connection to the fact in issue In the absence of law that excludes it then that evidence is competent and
and it must be offered to prove a fact in issue. along with relevancy that evidence is deemed admissible.

1- RELEVANCE / PROBATIVENESS EXCLUSIONARY RULES:
Relevant evidence is an evidence which has a tendency in reason, to 1. CONSTITUTION
establish the probability or the improbability of the fact. 4 exclusionary rules under Article 3 Bill of Rights
There must exist a probable connection which is subjected to the test of 1. Section 2 – Right against unreasonable search and seizure
1. Logic/reason 2. Section 3 – Right to privacy and inviolability of communication
2. Common sense 3. Section 12 – Miranda rights
3. Human experience 4. Section 17 – Right against self-incrimination

In a crime of rape, is it consistent with human nature that this piece of Atty Torregosa: All these uniformly provide that any evidence obtained in
evidence, the pair of shoes of Mr. Villanueva was found at the crime scene. violation of these rights is inadmissible being fruit of the poisonous tree.
Does it have a logical connection that Mr Villanueva committed the crime?
PP v MARTI
LOPEZ v HASEEN Bill of Rights can be invoked only against the state or its agents.
Anything that throws light upon the issue should be admitted as relevant


If the act complained of violative of that right complained of is violative of
2- MATERIALITY
that private citizen, this principle cannot be invoked to exclude the
Materiality is not expressly required by the ROC but our jurisdiction submits
that materiality is a component subsumed in the more broader concept of evidence. It doesn't mean that the person has no cause of action against
relevance. the private individual responsible for the act of complained of civilly,
administratively or criminally. But as to the issue of whether it inadmissible
Materiality is when the evidence offered to prove a fact in issue or in or not, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply.
dispute.
WON the fact is in issue is determined by: If your house was illegally searched by a neighbor, a private citizen, and
1. Pleadings recovered kilos of shabu. You cannot cry fruit of poisonous tree because a
Collection for sums of money. private citizen is not an agent of the State.
Plaintiff claims that the defendant refuses to pay 1M he owes
the Plaintiff. In the answer, the defendant admits that he ZULUETA v CA
borrowed money from the plaintiff but claimed that he paid Zulueta is a solitary case. Zulueta enunciates the principle that marriage
already. does not defeat the spouse's right to privacy. Zulueta argued that the
evidence ceased by the wife was inadmissible in violation of the husband's
So obviously WON the obligation was incurred is not in right to privacy and inviolability of communication. The SC in Zulueta was
dispute. The only issue was WON that obligation was paid. unmindful of the prevailing doctrine in Marti.

The rules in pleading tells us that the only factual issue there Due process can be invoked against private persons in Labor Cases
is the payment. You don’t have to prove evidence that an In an administrative investigation conducted by a private company, under
obligation has been incurred because that will be immaterial. the Labor Law, the why is the employee is entitled to due process, notice
and hearing.
2. Substantive law
Substantive law defines the elements of a particular crime.

ANGOT BALAGON BERDUGO CAMPILAN DALUMBAR GALAS ROJAS SARMIENTO SALERA| 2

 EVIDENCE BY ATTY JOSEPH RANDI TORREGOSA | PRE-MIDTERMS | EH404 2017-18

The due process being contemplated by the law is statutory in nature. It is SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL SEARCH PRECEEDING ARREST
specifically provided for under the Labor Code that an employee ARREST
undergoing an administrative proceeding initiated by the employer should a. Overt acts/manifestation Probable cause - refers to such
be given notice of hearing consistent with the due process under the b. Such acts must be known to the circumstances that any person
Constitution. The procedural statutory due process embodied in the Labor arresting officer would believe that a crime has
Code is constitutionally rooted. just been committed.

Due process is more than notice and hearing. There are two aspects of due The requirement of personal knowledge applies only in situations where the
process, the substantive and the procedural. The one in the Labor Code is arrest precedes the search (in flagrante arrest resulting in incidental search).
the procedural, but the requirement for just and valid cause is consistent But if search precedes the arrest, personal knowledge is not required.
with substantive. Probable cause, will suffice which may consist merely of a reliable tip
information
This is the ironic, because as it is now, due process as contemplated in the
Labor Code can be invoked against a private citizen. If an employee is PP v QUEBRAL
terminated without substantive or procedural due process, the termination A day before the arrest, the police received confidential information that two
men and a woman were to make a drug deal somewhere, but at no specific
is illegal. And in effect, it allows the employee to invoke due process against
time.
the private entity, which is inconsistent with Marti Doctrine. The statutory

due process based on the Constitution appears to be unlimited in
This led to a surveillance the following day where a jeepney with the identified
application, it can be invoked both against the government and against a plate number was followed to a nearby gasoline station. A Tamaraw FX
private person, while the due process as directly enshrined from the arrived, where a man alighted and approached the woman from the jeepney.
Constitution is limited in application to only against the State. In the course of their conversation, the woman handed a white envelope to
the man. It was at this precise moment that the police swooped down
Section 2 - Right against unreasonable search and seizure and seized the envelope and opened it which yielded illegal drugs.

Recits Situation: The companion was validly arrested and around his Arrest then ensued. Accused questioned the legality of the search, invoking
surroundings was a bag belonging to his companion which was thereafter the doctrine laid down in Aminnudin.
searched.
Ruling: The reliance in the case of Aminnudin is misplaced. In said case, the
Answer: In relation to 1 - SEARCH INCIDENT TO LAWFUL ARREST. arrest took place before the search. However, here, the reverse happened.
As an exception to the requirement of judicial warrant for searches. The search took place before the arrest.
CONTEMPLATES:
1) VALID ARREST – with warrant or warrantless. To effect a warrantless search, personal knowledge is not required. Probable
2) WARRANTLESS SEARCH as consequence of the arrest cause is sufficient. Here, the probable cause is the confidential report received
from the informant corroborated with what the police witnessed before when
Police officer who effected the warrantless arrest and the the transaction took place. Hence there was reasonable belief that crime
consequent warrantless search has the right not only to bodily was being committed, enough to effect a warrantless search.
search the person arrested but the right to warrantless search
extends to the immediate surrounding of the person arrested. MANDAUE BRIDGE CASE
Group of friends attended a party in Mandaue. When they went home, six of
Rationale: them rode 3 separate motorcycles, 2 in each motorcycle.
1. To protect himself
2. Prevent destroying the evidence One of the motorcycles was searched in a checkpoint. Having failed to produce
his license, the driver was requested to alight from his vehicle. However, when
Coverage of “immediate surrounding” he alighted from the motorcycle the gun in his waist protruded.
Refers to surrounding under the control of person arrested.
However, it’s possible that the immediate surrounding of a The meat of the controversy is with regard to the backrider (Sir’s client) who
person arrested may pertain to the property of another person was carrying a backpack, the backpack was searched and it turns out that the
who is also entitled to his individual rights. Will this principle latter was subsequently found to be in possession of an illegal drug in his bag.
allow or be applied as to intrude into the rights of another?
ISSUE: Whether the search on the back rider was valid?
Argument 1: Doctrine should not be overstretched to intrude
into the rights of another otherwise that could be a very As pointed out by the arresting officer, the search was made first before the
dangerous policy. Imagine in a crowded place you happen to be arrest. If search precedes the arrest, personal knowledge is not required.
beside someone arrested validly because evidence is in plain Probable cause, will suffice which may consist merely of reasonable cause on
view and because you happen to be beside that fellow you get the part of the arresting officer to think and entertain the idea that the back
arrested as well. rider is equally armed.

Each person has a right against unreasonable searches and (Case currently pending, not yet resolved by Atty Torregosa feels the
seizures and that extends to his properties. prosecution has a strong argument using search preceding arrest)

Argument 2: Search preceding arrest from probable cause. The 2- STOP AND FRISK/ TERRY SEARCH
arresting officer has probable cause to think that the companion Another exemption for a valid warrantless search
of the criminal is as well, equally armed/guilty.
This is allowed if the officer has a reasonable belief based on a genuine
reason and in the light of the officer’s experience and the surrounding
circumstances, that a crime has either taken place or is about to take place
and the person to be stopped is armed and dangerous.

ANGOT BALAGON BERDUGO CAMPILAN DALUMBAR GALAS ROJAS SARMIENTO SALERA| 3

 EVIDENCE BY ATTY JOSEPH RANDI TORREGOSA | PRE-MIDTERMS | EH404 2017-18

But must comply with requisites first: Custodial Investigation refers to such proceeding where the person is
1) Introduce as policeman arrested and placed under interrogation by the police authorities for
2) Ask reasonable inquiry purpose of eliciting incriminating information against the person arrested.
It covers any question initiated by law enforcers after a person has been
TN: Probable cause is determined by the arresting officer. taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way.
3- CHECKPOINTS
Another exemption for a valid warrantless search MODERN CONCEPT:
The Miranda rights are extended to situations which are not strictly police
proceedings or interrogation but also to such interrogations made by other
• Searches conducted in check points are valid as long as they are
state actors.
warranted by the exigencies of public peace and order and are

conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists.
PP v BALOLOY
• Only limited to VISUAL search - For as long as the vehicle is neither
Atty Torregosa: Interrogation was made by the Judge, it partakes the nature
searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and the
of a custodial investigation. Thus, Miranda rights attaches.
inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine checks

cannot be regarded as violative of an individual’s right against unreasonable
The evil sought to be avoided by affording the Miranda rights during custodial
search.
investigation is the same evil sought to be avoided in the probing conducted

by the judge, that is, to prevent the accused from providing incriminating
Question: How about drivers of motorcycles? Can the police officer ask
information out of fear and intimidation due to the intimidating and hostile
the driver to open the toolbox?
atmosphere.
A: No. The search must be effected in the least intrusive manner to the

motorists. Before an extensive search may be conducted, the driver of the
Facts: The dead body of an 11-year-old girl was found at a waterfall. The one
motor vehicle should have committed either: a.) an illegal act or a violation
who caused its discovery was accused himself, who claimed that he had
of certain traffic law or b.) overt act which would raise suspicion on the part
caught sight of it while he was catching frogs in a nearby creek.
of the arresting officer.
However, during the wake, the ownership over a black rope found in the
Q: Should the limitation of visual search depend on the place? For crime scene was inquired into, where the accused admitted to own the
example, in Lanao, drivers and passengers of motor vehicle are requested same. Because of this, suspicion that he was the one responsible for the
to alight from their respective vehicle because of the on-going exigencies. crime prevailed. In the process, he made some extrajudicial confessions
Is such act by the arresting officers valid? to the barangay captain.
A: No. It does not matter if there are exigencies which would want warrant
a search. What the valid search in checkpoints only allow is VISUAL search. Later, he was arrested and brought to the MTC where the judge made some
Only when there is probable cause can there be extensive search. inquiry. In the process, the accused made some incriminating confessions.

4- PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE Issue: Whether the accused is entitle to Miranda rights when he was
from the recits interrogated by the Judge
ELEMENTS:
Ruling: The accused’s constitutional rights during custodial investigation were
1. valid justification for intrusion
violated by the judge when the latter propounded to him incriminating
2. inadvertent discovery
questions without informing him of his constitutional rights.
3. apparent illegality
It is settled that at the moment the accused voluntarily surrenders to, or is
Section 12 – MIRANDA RIGHTS arrested by, the police officers, the custodial investigation is deemed to have
started. So, he could not then be asked about his complicity in the offense
CONSTITUTION Section 12, Article III without the assistance of counsel.
“Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
have the right to: The judge’s claim that no complaint has yet been filed and that neither was
(a) Be informed of his right to remain silent he conducting a preliminary investigation deserves scant consideration.
(b) Have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own The fact remains that at that time, the accused was already under the
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be custody of the police authorities, who had already taken the statement of
provided with one. the witnesses who were then before Judge Dicon for the administration of
(c) Be informed of the above rights” their oaths on their statements.


PP V BONGKIKO
PURPOSE OF THE MIRANDA WARNING
Atty Torregosa: Interrogation was made by the prosecutor during the

preliminary investigation, it partakes the nature of a custodial investigation.
The intimidating and hostile atmosphere created when a person arrested is

placed under investigation of the police authorities which coerces the latter
The purpose of the Miranda warning is to avoid a situation where a person is
to provide incriminating information out of fear and intimidation is the evil
forced into making incriminating statements because of inherent intimidating
sought to be avoided by the Miranda warning. The presence of the lawyer
atmosphere attendant to a police custodial investigation. Such atmosphere is
for the person arrested neutralizes and deflects such coercive atmosphere.
evident during preliminary investigation where the accused is placed under

the relentless and coercive probing by the prosecutor.
WHEN IS THE RIGHT AVAILABLE?


Facts: This involves a brutal murder of an employer. The two accused
TRADITIONAL CONCEPT:
Traditionally, the Miranda Rights or Miranda Warnings are available only were arrested, and during the preliminary investigation before the public
during custodial investigation. prosecutor, the accused Bongkiko made an extrajudicial admission detailing
how they planned and executed the killing. Admissibility of the admission
was questioned.

ANGOT BALAGON BERDUGO CAMPILAN DALUMBAR GALAS ROJAS SARMIENTO SALERA| 4

 EVIDENCE BY ATTY JOSEPH RANDI TORREGOSA | PRE-MIDTERMS | EH404 2017-18

State argued that the same was not covered by Miranda warning because it All in all, the trust of MIRANDA WARNINGS is that information obtained from
was not under the custodial investigation. the accused must be upon the appraisal of his rights.
Ruling: There are certain pre-trial stages critical to the trial process where a
suspect is subjected to a similar intimidating and relentless process no if a statement is made in an environment where a person is entitled to
different from police interrogation. Miranda rights but was not afforded to him, and a statement is made obviously
that is inadmissible. But if a statement is made in a situation where he is not
The purpose of the Miranda warning is to avoid a situation where a person is entitled to Miranda rights in the first place, because that is not the situation
forced into making incriminating statements because of inherent intimidating covered in the warning, then any statement given is admissible. You cannot
atmosphere attendant to a police custodial investigation. This intimidating, cry violation of the Miranda rights because Miranda rights do not find
relentless, and coercive environment is similarly obtaining in a preliminary application in that situation.
investigation proceeding where prosecutors relentlessly pursue persons
who may be responsible for the crime. In answering the exam, ask these to yourself:
1) Does the situation attach with it the Miranda rights?
NON-APPLICATION OF MIRANDA RIGHTS 2) If yes, was the accused properly appraise with the Miranda rights?

1- SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS SITUATION
Statements given by accused not elicited by police questioning but rather An accused was arrested. He was taken into custody and interrogated. But the
given in an ordinary manner. The purpose of the Miranda Warning is to police investigator is so calm, so gentle, without any intimidation in the
prohibit testimonial compulsion but it does not prohibit the suspect from process, and it so happen that the suspect although criminal is honest. Even
being honest. without the slightest coercion, in the course of questioning, the suspect
willingly offers to provide information by admitting his crime. No coercion but
PP v GOTENG the situation is such that it calls for Miranda Rights. If he was not afforded
Facts: Son killed his father. After committing the crime, went to the police
these rights, even if it was voluntarily given, so long as it is given in the course
station and admitted voluntarily to the crime to the two police men who were
of police questioning, it is inadmissible.
at that moment are present in the police station by saying “ako ang sumaksak

sa kanya”.
Disabuse your mind with the notion that Miranda warnings applies only when
Issue: Whether or not the Miranda Right applies in the present case. the statement is forcibly obtained. Even if willingly given but is not afforded
with the rights, it is inadmissible.
Ruling: No, it partakes the nature of a spontaneous statement. The said
incriminating information was given by the accused voluntarily even before he Section 17 – RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
was arrested and placed under interrogation. The prohibition against
testimonial compulsion does not attach. Can only be invoked AGAINST THE STATE.
The right against self-incrimination can be invoked in all proceedings -
PP VS ANDAN criminal, civil, administrative proceedings imitated by Government
Facts: This involves the rape and slay of a 19 year old student. When the agencies, so long as it is initiated by the government, consistent with Marti.
suspect was arrested and while detained in the police precinct, the mayor
paid him a visit. The suspect requested to confer with the mayor, where he DE CASTRO v PP
broke down and confessed. Atty Torregosa: If the administrative proceeding is initiated by a private
company, consistent with Marti, right against self-incrimination does not
Issue: Whether the confession made spontaneously by the suspect with the apply
mayor is admissible in light of the fact that it was made without the assistance
of counsel. De Castro, a bank teller of the BPI Family Savings Bank in Pasay City branch,
was convicted of four counts of estafa through falsification of a commercial
Ruling: Yes. Notwithstanding the fact that the accused was already arrested document by forging the signatures of bank depositors in withdrawal slips.
and deprived of his liberty, the determining factor is the fact that the said De Castro enabled herself to withdraw from the savings accounts.
incriminating information was made by the accused spontaneously and not

elicited through police questioning.
De Castro initially denied the claims against her but when she was asked by

the branch manager to write her statement down, she confessed to her
2 – SNITCHES
guilt. She started crying and locked herself inside the bathroom. She came
TWO CONTRASTING VIEWS
1. In the Philippines, snitches are not employed primarily because it out only when another superior arrived to ask her some questions. Since
is a form of trickery and deception by which it circumvents through then, she executed three more statements in response to the investigation
the Miranda right. It deprives the accused of its constitutionally conducted by the bank's internal auditors. She also gave a list of the
guaranteed right by pretending not to be a member of the police depositors' accounts from which she drew cash and which were listed
force. Upholding employment of stitch is similar as to rewarding methodically in her diary.
the commission of trickery and deception, defeating
constitutionally guaranteed rights. Issue: Whether the conviction was invalid because her constitutional rights
2. Proponents of the employment of snitches provides two against self-incrimination, to due process and to counsel were denied.
justifications:
a. Confession made by an accused with a snitch partakes the Ruling: The accused in the case may not be said to be under custodial
nature of a spontaneous statement which was made by investigation. She was not even being investigated by any police or law
the former voluntarily, in the absence of testimonial enforcement officer. She was under administrative investigation by her
compulsion which is the evil sought to be prevented by the superiors in a private firm and in purely voluntary manner. She was not
Miranda rights.
restrained of her freedom in any manner. She was free to stay or go. There
b. There is neither trickery nor fraud. Employing snitches are
was no evidence that she was forced or pressured to say anything. It was
similar to entrapment operations which are basically also
an act of conscience that compelled her to speak, a true mental and moral
a form of deception employed by police authorities. Not all
catharsis that religion and psychology recognize to have salutary effects on
deceptive means are considered illegal.
ANGOT BALAGON BERDUGO CAMPILAN DALUMBAR GALAS ROJAS SARMIENTO SALERA| 5
 EVIDENCE BY ATTY JOSEPH RANDI TORREGOSA | PRE-MIDTERMS | EH404 2017-18

the soul. In this setting, the invocation of the right to remain silent or to The nature of the civil case: If the defendant will lose in the case,
counsel is simply irrelevant. he will be denied of the property because the Plaintiff would be
allowed to recover such property from the Defendant.
The accused makes a final argument against her conviction by contending
that she did not get effective legal representation from her former counsel So judging the nature of the civil proceedings on the basis of how
who was already old and feeble when the case was being heard. In fact, the the SC defined the civil proceedings “penal in nature”, it would
appear that it may be considered as penal in nature.
records show, her counsel died during the pendency of the case, an

octogenarian at that.
SC ruled that petitioner cannot prevent the presentation of the

deposition altogether. Deposition is akin to taking the stand. SC
MANNER OF INVOKING RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION:
said that you cannot altogether refuse. You can only invoke
Right against Self-Incrimination can be invoked in all proceedings, it only
“Right against self incrimination” only to specific incriminating
varies in the manner of invoking.
questions.


CRIMINAL CASE:
In other words, the SC ruled that that the civil case was not penal
Accused: Refuse to take the stand altogether, The reason is that
in nature, and yet the nature of the civil action was to deprive
when the State calls the accused to the stand, its purpose is to
the defendant of the property subject of the action.
incriminate him.
Witness: Only when an incriminating question is propounded. Atty Torregosa: You can also argue that the ruling in Rosette is
merely an obiter dictum because the refusal of witness stand
CIVIL CASE: was not in issue in the case. I think Rosette case left much to be
When an incriminating question is being propounded. desired.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE: WHEN TO INVOKE THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
When an incriminating question is being propounded.
XPN: When administrative case partakes a penal nature: What is an ‘INCRIMINATING QUESTION’?
Refuse the stand altogether. The issue is deemed incriminating if it calls for an answer that tends to
expose a witness to a criminal liability.
PASCUAL v BOM; CABAL v KAPUNAN
If the liability is civil or administrative, that is not self-incriminating
Administrative proceeding is penal in nature if it results to some
question. The right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked.
adverse consequence (e.g., revocation of license, deprivation of

property).
Example: “Is it not true Mr. Albano that you have been convicted in the
Query: If forfeiture of a right converts an administrative case to a past for multiple rape?”
penal case, can a civil case be deemed penal in nature considering That is not self-incriminating. There is no criminal liability, the accused is
it also involves deprivation of some rights (property rights, etc)? already convicted. The question is incriminating if the answer tends to
expose the witness or the party to possible criminal liability or possible
Argument 1: It likewise involves deprivation of rights = penal in criminal prosecution.
nature
No matter how offensive the question is, even if the question would
Argument 2: There should be a difference in the treatment of expose you now to some derogatory imputations, so long as it would not
civil cases. The purpose of civil liability is not punishment but amount to a crime, it’s not incriminating.
indemnification. Otherwise, if we use the standard on the
definition of “penal” in administrative cases, then all civil liability RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION CAN BE WAIVED
will be penal because it entails the losing party to give something The waiver can take the form of taking the stand in the criminal case. The
they own to the prevailing party. accused, by taking the stand, risks himself. He cannot invoke right against

self-incrimination.
Administrative Civil

The nature of penalty in Civil liability here is not punitive Waiver is not absolute
administrative in nature. The liability is The waiver only applies to the present crime being prosecuted.
proceeding is really supposed to compensate the If the accused is prosecuted for rape, takes the stand, you can only be
punitive in nature. plaintiff, not really to punish the cross examined by the prosecutor on all questions that will tend to
Meaning, it’s really to defendant but to compensate incriminate you for the crime of rape.
penalize the offender. the plaintiff for the damage that
the defendant caused him. PP v AYSON
It must however be made clear that if the defendant in a criminal action
So in that respect, liability in be asked a question which might incriminate him, not for the crime with
civil proceedings is not penal in which he is charged, but for some other crime, distinct from that of which
nature. he is accused, he may decline to answer that specific question, on the
strength of the right against self-incrimination. Thus, assuming that in a
ROSETTE v LIM
prosecution for rape, the accused should testify in his behalf, he may not
But these cases arose from the same set of facts:
on cross-examination refuse to answer any question on the ground that

he might be implicated in that crime of rape; but he may decline to
In the civil case: The Plaintiff sought to recover property from
the Defendant, claiming that they were deceived by the answer any particular question which might implicate him for a different
Defendant. They filed an estafa case. and distinct offense, e.g. murder or robbery.

ANGOT BALAGON BERDUGO CAMPILAN DALUMBAR GALAS ROJAS SARMIENTO SALERA| 6

 EVIDENCE BY ATTY JOSEPH RANDI TORREGOSA | PRE-MIDTERMS | EH404 2017-18

Query: If the right against self-incrimination can only be invoked in cases to advantage/disadvantage because the facts are not parallel to each other
that were instituted by the state, why was it discussed in Rosette vs Lim (might prove a stronger/weaker fact).
when the civil case was filed by a private person?
Precisely why it was incriminating is because it can result to criminal liability. CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THERE IS WAIVER
In criminal liability, we’re talking about the State- the People of the
Philippines. Situation: Inadmissible evidence is offered, opposing party fails to object, thus
court is constrained to admit the evidence.
You invoke Right against Self Incrimination because the question would
expose you to a possible criminal liability in which the State may initiate This equates to a WAIVER. Remember, curative evidence does not apply if the
against you. In that respect, you are invoking it against the State. right to object was waived, because there was NO ERROR from the court
because court cannot motu proprio object to the admissibility, it must be
That’s why the incriminating nature of the question lies in the fact that the raised by the other party.
answer would tend to expose the witness to a possible criminal liability.
Thus, if the admission of the inadmissible evidence was pursuant to a WAIVER,
Even in private crimes, although it can be initiated by the private offended curative admissibility cannot apply.
party, once filed in court, there will always be the participation of the State.
But the effect of the waiver is only the admission of the evidence. It does not
CREDIBILITY necessarily follow that the court should give credence because it is possible
Test of Weight and sufficiency. that the court will admit it because there was no objection but in the
Based on logic, human experience, reason appreciation of the probative value of evidence the court will just the same
ignore it.
Credibility of both the witness and the story.
You can present St. Francis, the most credible person on earth, but the court TOPIC 3: JUDICIAL NOTICE
may not believe the story he relays. Atty Torregosa: Just memorize the mandatory and the discretionary

Result: If evidence passes the test of credibility, the court is convinced of your MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
evidence and makes it a basis of its conclusion.
SECTION 129
CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take judicial
notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and
CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and
symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime
• Not in the ROC, but adopted from American concept. courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of
• Deals with INADMISSIBLE evidence ERRONEOUSLY admitted by the the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial
court. departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time,
and the geographical divisions. (1a)
Situation: an inadmissible evidence is offered by one party. The
opposing party objects to the admission of the evidence. The judge MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
overrules the objection and erroneously admits the evidence. • existence and territorial extent of states;
• their political history;
Important: For curative admissibility to apply, there must be error • forms of government and symbols of nationality;
on the part of the court.
• the law of nations (Public International Law);

• the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
REMEDY:
• the political constitution and history of the Philippines;
1) APPEAL
• the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
Include in your appeal the erroneous admission of the evidence.
Philippines;
But this remedy is available long after the proceedings and
presupposes there already is an adverse judgment. • the laws of nature;
• the measure of time;
2) CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY • geographical divisions
You can offer the same nature of inadmissible evidence and invoke
the same ruling of the court. PP v CABIGQUEZ; ATIENZA v BOM
You can only admit evidence to controvert the same fact to be Prices of commodities; Anatomical location of kidney
established by inadmissible evidence erroneously admitted. Cases where the application of mandatory judicial notice was applied.
Precisely, the purpose is to correct.
Evidence team: But isn’t PP v Cabigquez on the application of discretionary judicial notice?


If Mr. Villanueva is charged with acts of lasciviousness. Mr
PP v DE LLANA
Albaño testifies that Ms. Balagon told him that Mr. Villanueva
Whiplash was a matter of medical knowledge, of which courts do not take
admitted to her the crimes ~ hearsay was admitted by court
judicial knowledge. Compare to Atienza case, where the anatomy of the
despite objection.
kidney can be considered as within the laws of nature.


Thus, during the defense, defense may introduce another
DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE
hearsay evidence of Ms Lee testifying that Ms Villegas told her
that Mr Villanueva admitted his innocence to her. Here, you SECTION 129
invoke curative admissibility to admit this hearsay. Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take judicial
notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable to
TN: Curative admissibility must pertain to SAME NATURE, SAME ISSUE OF unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because
FACT. Because the purpose is to play fire with fire to level the playing field. If of their judicial functions. (1a)
it was allowed that the curative evidence pertain to another fact, it may result
ANGOT BALAGON BERDUGO CAMPILAN DALUMBAR GALAS ROJAS SARMIENTO SALERA| 7
 EVIDENCE BY ATTY JOSEPH RANDI TORREGOSA | PRE-MIDTERMS | EH404 2017-18

TOPIC 4: JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH TRUTH

JUDICIAL ADMISSION vs EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSSION
SEC. 26, RULE 130.
Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or omission of a party
SEC. 4, RULE 129
as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.
An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the

proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission

may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through

palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
1. May take the form of an admission made outside of the
court proceedings; or
ELEMENTS: 2. If made in the course of the court proceedings, but in
1. Admission, verbal or written another case.
2. Made by a party XPN: Request for Admission
3. In the same case RULE 26 SEC. 3. Effect Of Admission.
DEFINIT
But it doesn’t mean that JA can only be made inside the Any admission made by a party pursuant to such
ION
court. What makes the proceeding judicial is when the request is for the purpose of the pending action
admission is made in a court-related proceedings. only and shall not constitute an admission by him
for any other purpose nor may the same be used
Example: Deposition taking. against him in any other proceeding.
This can be done outside but it is court-sanctioned.
Any admission made by a party pursuant to such request
TN: Not all admissions made in the course of the proceedings in court is for the purpose of the pending action only and shall
can be considered as judicial admission. not constitute an admission by him for any other purpose
1. When that admission made is used for purposes of another case, it nor may the same be used against him in any other
is an extra-judicial confession proceeding.


GR: No need for formal offer
Reason: JA takes the place of evidence

XPN:
1. In case of deposition
Must be offered because not everything in the deposition
is a judicial admission

Deposition is the same in as an ordinary trial. But here, you
have your deposition officer who unlike the judge, has no
authority to judge on the substantial OBJECTIONS,
especially on the EVIDENTIARY RULES.

RULE 23, SEC 6 AND 8 specifically require a formal offer for
these evidences so that they may be objected.

2. When accused pleads guilty of a capital offense

Punishable by reclusion perpetua Must be formally offered.
HOW TO

PROVE
Rule 116 Sec. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense;
reception of evidence. – When the accused pleads
guilty to a capital offense the court shall conduct a
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full
comprehension of the consequences of his plea and
shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and
the precise degree of culpability. The accused may
present evidence in his behalf.

Prosecution still has to prove guilt beyond reasonable
doubt because of the gravity of the imposable penalty.

So even if the accused pleaded guilty, but the
prosecution failed to present enough evidence,
then the accused may still be acquitted because
guilt is not yet proven beyond reasonable doubt.
ANGOT BALAGON BERDUGO CAMPILAN DALUMBAR GALAS ROJAS SARMIENTO SALERA| 8
 EVIDENCE BY ATTY JOSEPH RANDI TORREGOSA | PRE-MIDTERMS | EH404 2017-18
Presumption of innocence cannot be overcome
even by the honesty of the accused because of the
gravity of the penalty

GR: Conclusive upon the admitter

The admitter cannot introduce evidence to contradict or
contravert his own JA.

ELAYDA VS CA
Even if the evidence offered to contradict a JA is not objected to Not conclusive, can be contraverted.
by the adverse party, the court is not suppose to consider it. It is against the Admitter but it does not preclude the Admitter from
presenting contrary evidence because the nature of EJA is that, it’s not
NATURE
This emphasizes the conclusive nature of JA. They are bound by conclusive.
it. You cannot introduce contrary evidence to disprove your
earlier JA. Even if the other party does not do anything about it.
XPN:
1. The admission was made through palpable mistake.
2. No such admission was made; admission was made out of
context. (ATILLO III v CA)

Made also by a party, stated outside of the court

BUT the one in the Witness stand is not that party. He Is simply relaying
to the court the admission that was made by the party outside
(messenger/ intermediary).

A Hearsay evidence. But under Sec. 26, Rule 130:
Admissions of a party. The act, decision or omission of a party as to a
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.

This makes EJA admissible even if testified to by a third party. It’s
admissibile by the very nature of admission.

The one testifying in court is the party himself. Whatever is said in the It is EJA if:
course of the proceeding, that would bind him. SOURCE it is against the interest of the Declarant- the party who made the
admission outside.

Not EJA:
If the admission is self-seving.
It is Hearsay evidence because that Messenger/Witness has no
personal knowledge as to the truth of the statement as he merely
heard the statement from the source.

The source is not in the Witness stand, hence cannot be cross-
examined.

Otherwise, if the Messenger will be cross-examined, he’ll simply allege
“I don’t know. The one who talked about this is the source.”

ANGOT BALAGON BERDUGO CAMPILAN DALUMBAR GALAS ROJAS SARMIENTO SALERA| 9

 EVIDENCE BY ATTY JOSEPH RANDI TORREGOSA | PRE-MIDTERMS | EH404 2017-18

allegations in the complaint because during the trial. Where there is
AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS
that is judicial admission. variance in the defendant’s
SEC. 5, RULE 10: pleadings and the evidence adduced
by it at the trial, the Court may treat
Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence. —
the pleading as amended to conform
When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or
with the evidence.
implied consent of the parties they shall be treated in all respects as if they
had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may
be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these
issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after
judgment; but failure to amend does not effect the result of the trial of
these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is
not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the
pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation
of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be The Rule on Amendments collides also with the Principle of Materiality,
because an evidence is introduced during the trial to prove something not in
subserved thereby. The court may grant a continuance to enable the
issue. It’s not in issue as it’s not in the pleadings of the parties. So even on the
amendment to be made.
ground of Immateriality, that allegation should be excluded.

This applies to a situation where there is variance between an allegation and Atty Torregosa: But look at these rules, it’s really a mess.
evidence.
Take note: Allegations in the pleadings are not evidence. They have Can we say that Judicial Admission is a later rule (Rule 129) than Amendment
no probative value. It needs evidence to substantiate them. (Rule 10)?
Ex. Your complaint alleges something but during the trial, your No, because in Civil Procedure 1997, Rule 10 is the later rule.
evidence proves another thing. Atty Torregosa: But I’m not sure whether that rule is already incorporated to
If an issue is tried which was not alleged in the pleading: Amendment should the new rules. This perspective is a long shot.
be made.
The pleading should be amended to conform to that evidence. Humans as we are, at the time you prepared your pleadings, it’s very likely that
Ex: If during the trial some evidence are introduced and proves you only have a vague or rather a provisional understanding of the case, or
something which are not issues in the case as they were not raised possibly at the start of the case, you have no evidence at all.
in the pleading, the court is not supposed to disregard the
evidence. So you only have to make a very good pleading- just with no meat as there’s
Hence, the pleading should be amended to now include the no evidence. So when during the trial, lo and behold, whether genuine or
matters that came out during the trial. manufactured, your Witness provides you very relevant evidence that would
help you in the case. You can invoke the amendment rule.
Evidence prevails over pleading.
It should be the pleadings that will be changed to conform to the evidence Amendment is encouraged to promote justice.
presented at the trial. In fact, the policy now is liberality. Because what determines the legal truth is
not allegation, it’s evidence.

The other party may or may not object. Million dollar question: So which one should prevail?
But this same rule states that even if no amendment is made, it doesn’t change Atty Torregosa: I really don’t know. But by practice, whichever is favorable to
the result. The court should proceed with the evidence even if no amendment your case prevails.
was made, consistent with the policy that between evidence and allegation-
it’s the evidence that should prevail. So my point is, be aware of these two principles in procedure, for these will
prove helpful in your practice. Let’s stop pretending expert on which law is the
HOW TO RECONCILE WITH JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS? correct one. It’s not our job. It’s enough that we know all these principles and
apply it to the case at hand.
JUDICIAL ADMISSION AMENDMENT TO CONFORM TO
EVIDENCE
A party makes admission in the You can always amend the pleading
pleading in the context of judicial to conform to the evidence.
admission, this is his final card, so to You are not prohibited from
speak. You cannot present evidence introducing evidence even if it
in the trial that will controvert your would go against your own
admission because it’s conclusive. allegations in the pleading.

If you allege that the obligation is Q: Can a party object to the
1M, that binds you. You cannot amendment?
allege in the trial that actually the Of course you can always object, but
obligation is 2M. the rule states that the amendment
should be encouraged in the interest
of justice.

ELAYDA V CA (Elayda Doctrine) AZOLA FARMS VS CA
Prohibits the introduction of Courts are given the discretion to
evidence that will contradict the allow amendments of pleadings to
conform to the evidence presented

ANGOT BALAGON BERDUGO CAMPILAN DALUMBAR GALAS ROJAS SARMIENTO SALERA| 10

 EVIDENCE BY ATTY JOSEPH RANDI TORREGOSA | PRE-MIDTERMS | EH404 2017-18

TOPIC 5: LEGAL PRESUMPTIONS PP v CELEDONIO

CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS If one is in possession of a property claimed to be stolen from somebody else
it beholds that possessor to explain how he came into possession otherwise
RULE 131 the police can presume that he is a thief.
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. —
The following are instances of conclusive presumptions: PP v NEWMAN; PP v ASEJO
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, They were convicted on the basis of presumption because they were unable
intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing to explain how they came into possession of such effects. All the police did
true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of was prove that the accused were caught in the possession of the stolen items.
such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it:
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time RULE:
of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. If you are in possession of a property claimed to be stolen, you are presumed
(3a) the taker UNLESS you can explain to the police how you came into possession
of such properties, then, you shall be respected in your possession and
TENANT CANNOT DENY TITLE OF LANDLORD deemed the owner.

TENANT CANNOT DENY, QUESTION THE TITLE OF HIS LANDLORD In effect, the police here are given the leeway to determine for himself
on the commencement of the relationship of landlord and tenant between whether to apply the presumption of a thief or the presumption of ownership.
the two of them.
The tenant is conclusively presumed to have acknowledged that the PRESUMPTION OF DEATH
landlord is the owner or has a better right of possession as a possessor
of the property for the landlord to lease the property to the tenant. (w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not
the absentee still lives, he is considered dead for all purposes, except for
DATALIFT V. BELGRAVIA those of succession.
Demonstrated this principle of conclusive presumption.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his
ERMITANO V. PAGLAS succession till after an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age
Demonstrated the non-application, as the presumption is only on the of seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order
commencement of the relationship of landlord and tenant. that his succession may be opened.

DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the

division of the estate among the heirs:
Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are
satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by (1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an
other evidence: aircraft with is missing, who has not been heard of for four years
xxx long list — pls refer to your codals xxx since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed
CONFLICT OF PRESUMPTION: TAKER or OWNER? hostilities, and has been missing for four years;

POSSESSOR IS THE TAKER AND DOER OF THE WRONG (3) A person who has been in danger of death under other
circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a years;
recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; xxx (4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years,
the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or
POSSESSOR IS THE OWNER she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already
death. In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death
(j) xxx otherwise, that things which a person possess, or exercises acts of the circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of only two
ownership over, are owned by him; years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a
subsequent marriage. However, in any case, before marrying
Presumption that one is a taker Presumption of Ownership again, the spouse present must institute a summary proceedings
(basic principle in property) as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect

of reappearance of the absent spouse.
One in possession of a property One in possession of the property

illegally taken or stolen is in the concept of the owner
RULES:
presumed to be the taker and the should be respected in his
ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES:
doer of the whole crime position and he who claims For all purposes except succession: Seven (7) years
adverse interest should go to For succession:
court. 75 yo and below – Ten (10) years
Above 75 yo – Five (5) years
EDU v GOMEZ For remarriage: Four (4) years
The presumption of ownership prevails, the present possessor in good faith
should be respected, he who claims otherwise should go to court and file EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES:
replevin or any appropriate action but in the meantime the present possessor For all purposes: Four (4) years
should not be dispossessed of the property. For remarriage: Two (2) years






ANGOT BALAGON BERDUGO CAMPILAN DALUMBAR GALAS ROJAS SARMIENTO SALERA| 11
 EVIDENCE BY ATTY JOSEPH RANDI TORREGOSA | PRE-MIDTERMS | EH404 2017-18

VICTORIA SHIPPING v WCC; EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v LUCERO SC disagreed with insurance company. For this presumption to
Preponderance of evidence precludes the presumptions. If there is apply the suppression must be willful. The willfulness of the
preponderance of evidence that this person really died except that his body suppression is negated by the fact that the instruction of the
could not be found, presumptions cannot apply. patient to the physician was never to disclose the medical records
were pursuant to an exercise of a right. The right being the
PRESUMPTION OF SURVIVORSHIP privileged communication between the physician and the patient.

(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in the
same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown 2. The evidence suppressed must be only available to the person
who died first, and there are no particular circumstances from which it can allegedly suppressing it.
be inferred, the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting
from the strength and the age of the sexes, according to the following PP v PADIERNOS
rules: A woman who killed her husband. There was this witness whose
1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to affidavit was taken But the prosecutor in the trial did not call the
have survived; witness to the stand. The defense said that while you were
2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to have preparing it you took the affidavit of the witness. You did not
survived; present the witness obviously the testimony of the said witness is
3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed adverse to the prosecution invoking this presumption.
to have survived;
4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the SC said that’s wrong because if you believed that the testimony of
male is deemed to have survived, if the sex be the same, the older; the witness would have been favorable to the defense then you
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those should have presented that witness by yourselves. This is available
ages, the latter is deemed to have survived. all the time.

There is no willful suppression if the evidence suppressed is only
PRESUMPTION OF SURVIVORSHIP
corroborative.
‘Survivor’ – pertains to who died later; but actually, both died.

Presumption based on age and gender in correlation to chances of surviving.
3. There is no willful suppression if the evidence suppressed is only
Application: For all purposes EXCEPT Succession
corroborative.

Since the evidence is merely corroborative, it is not vital in
1. If both below 15 yo – the older is deemed to have survived
2. If both above 60 yo – the younger is deemed to have survived establishing the proposition. It is then the prerogative of the
3. If one is below 15; the other above 60 – the below 15 yo survived proponent to choose which evidence he will present. There is no
4. If both over 15 and under 60 willful suppression because there is reasonable explanation.
a) Sex is different – Male survived
b) Same sex – the older survived
5. If one below 15 or over 60; the other in between 15-60 – the one
in between 15-60 survived.

SIMULTANIETY OF DEATH

(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are
called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever
alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the
absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at the same time.

SIMULTANEITY OF DEATH
Application: For purposes of SUCCESSION.
Two rules:
1. He who claims the death of the other one should prove;
2. In the absence of proof, both died simultaneous

When do you apply survivorship and when do you apply simultaneity?
Look at the purpose. If Succession, simultaneity. If not, survivorship.

WILLFULLY SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE IS ADVERSE

(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;

REQUISITES:
1. The suppression must be willful.
Willful in the sense that there is no justifiable reason almost
amounting to fraud.

BLUE CROSS HEALTH v OLIVARES
If the suppression is made pursuant to a right, the refusal to
produce the evidence cannot be deemed willful. Because willful
there should be understood as unjustified refusal. The only
justifiable reason is that the presentation would be unfavourable
to you.
ANGOT BALAGON BERDUGO CAMPILAN DALUMBAR GALAS ROJAS SARMIENTO SALERA| 12