RULE 130 SECTION 48 – OPINION RULE from schizophrenia “before, during, and after the celevration of the

marriage, and until the present”

Section 48. General rule. — The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as 3. the expert witness: during the trial, the private respondent presented 3
indicated in the following sections. witnesses, among them was Dra. Acampado who is a Medical Specialist II
and in-charge of the Female Service of the National Center for Mental Health
a fellow of the Philippine Psychiatrist Association and a Diplomate of the
Why the general rule? Philippine Board of Psychiatrists. She was summoned as an expert
 This is because a witness must testify as to facts that were observed by witness. However, she also happened to be the attending
him and it is for the court to draw conclusion from the facts testified to. psychiatrist of the petitioner Nelly Lim.
 A witness is not allowed to express his opinions upon the very question 4. Motion to quash subpoena and suspend proceedings: the counsel of
to be determined by the court the petitioner then filed a motion to quash subpoena to be issued for Dra.
 The witness may not state his interference from data observed by him Acampado so that she may not be allowed to appear as a witness in court.
provided that the observed data on which the inference is based have 5. During the hearing for the motion:
been or cane be reproduced in court, by words or gestures of this a. Argument of the petitioner: Dra. Acampado is barred from
witness or others, so fully, exactly, and adequately, as a basis for the testifying under the rule on the confidentiality of a physician-patient
inference, that the witness’ opinion is merely superfluous to the relationship
assistance to the court In the ascertainment of the truth (W) b. Argument of respondent: Dra. Acampado is appearing as an
expert witness and would not be testifying on any information
Exceptions to the opinion rule: acquired while attending to her patient Nelly Lim in her professional
a) Expert Opinion capacity.
b) Opinion of Ordinary Witness on certain specific subjects 6. Denial of the motion by the RTC Judge: the trial court judge denied the
a. Identity of a person motion and stated in his order that: “the respondent’s motion [is denied]
b. Handwriting and forthwith allowed Dr. Acampado to testify. However, the Court advised
c. Mental sanity counsel for respondent to interpose his objection once it becomes apparent
d. Impressions of emotion, behavior, condition, or appearance of that the testimony sought to be elicited is covered by the privileged
a person communication rule.
7. Dra. Acampado then took the witness stand and it was established by
the RTC and the CA that Dra. Acampado was qualified by counsel for
private respondent as an expert witness and was asked hypothetical
(1) Nelly Lim vs. CA, Judge Victorio of RTC of Pangasinan, and Juan questions related to her field of expertise. She neither revealed the
Lim – 214 S 273 illness she examined and treated the petitioner for nor disclosed the
results of her examination and the medicines she had prescribed.
Facts: 8. The CA upheld the decision of the RTC Judge in allowing the testimony
1. petitioner Nelly Lim and Juan Lim were lawfully married to each other. of the Dra. Acampado when the petitioner filed before the said court a petition
2. petition for annulment: the Juan Lim then filed a petition for annulment for certiorari and prohibition to nullify the order denying the motion to exclude
of their marriage on the ground that his wife, the petitioner, was suffering Dra. Acampado. It stated that:

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 1

 a. First, the petitioner failed to establish the confidential nature of the patient whom he has attended professionally, where his opinion is based strictly
testimony of Dra. Acampado upon the hypothetical facts stated, excluding and disregarding any personal
b. Secondly, the statements that Dra. Acampado gave do not fall within the professional knowledge he may have concerning such patient. But in order to
realm of privileged communication because the information she disclosed avoid the bar of the physician-patient privilege where it is asserted in such a
were not obtained from the patient while attending her in her professional case, the physician must base his opinion solely upon the facts hypothesized in
capacity and neither where the information necessary to enable the physicial the question, excluding from consideration his personal knowledge of the patient
to prescribe or give treatment of the patient Nelly Lim. And neither does the acquired through the physician and patient relationship. If he cannot or does not
information obtained from the physician tend to blacken the character of the exclude from consideration his personal professional knowledge of the patient’s
patient or bring disgrace to her or invite reproach. condition he should not be permitted to testify as to his expert opinion."
9. Hence, the present action by the petitioner Nelly Lim.

Issue: May Dr. Acampado be a witness for the respondent Juan Lim?
(2) People vs. Galleno – 291 S 762
Ruling: Yes. As an expert witness.

Our careful evaluation of the submitted pleadings leads Us to no other course of Facts:
action but to agree with the respondent Court’s observation that the petitioner (1) the accused appellant Galleno was charged with the crime of Statutory Rape
failed to discharge that burden. of the 5 year old child Evelyn Obligar Garganera.
(2) During the trial, several witnesses were presented:
In the first place, Dr. Acampado was presented and qualified as an expert a. Evelyn Obligar who testified that when Galleno, a friend of their
witness. As correctly held by the Court of Appeals, she did not disclose anything family and neighbor, visited their house, he made her sit on his lap
obtained in the course of her examination, interview and treatment of the facing him. When she was already sitting on his lap, he inserted his
petitioner; moreover, the facts and conditions alleged in the hypothetical penis in his vagina.
problem did not refer to and had no bearing on whatever information or findings i. That this caused lacerations and bleeding. She needed
the doctor obtained while attending to the patient. There is, as well, no showing medical attention.
that Dr. Acampado’s answers to the questions propounded to her relating to the b. This is what is important: Three medical doctors who were able
hypothetical problem were influenced by the information obtained from the to examine the victim Evelyn were also presented. They were the
petitioner. Otherwise stated, her expert opinion excluded whatever information doctors to whom the parents of Evelyn brought her to treat her
or knowledge she had about the petitioner which was acquired by reason of the bleeding.
physician-patient relationship existing between them. As an expert witness, her i. Dr. Alfonso D. Orosco, the Rural Health Physician of
testimony before the trial court cannot then be excluded. The rule on this point is Maayon, Capiz stated that: Evelyn’s vaginal laceration
summarized as follows:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary could have been caused by a blunt instrument inserted
into the vagina, that it was possible that a human penis in
"The predominating view, with some scant authority otherwise, is that the full erection had been forcibly inserted into her vagina,
statutory physician-patient privilege, though duly claimed, is not violated by and that a human penis in full erection is considered a
permitting a physician to give expert opinion testimony in response to a strictly blunt instrument.
hypothetical question in a lawsuit involving the physical mental condition of a

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 2

 ii. Dr. Ma. Lourdes Lañada of the Roxas General finger of accused appellant which caused the laceration; and that
Hospital stated that: that “there was a 3 cm. lacerated she even disclosed this to accusedappellant’s father, Raul Galleno.
wound at the left anterior onethird of the vagina” and “the
presence of about 1015 cc of blood” at the vaginal vault. Issue: what is the significance of the testimonies of the three doctors?
Dr. Lañada recommended that Evelyn be admitted for Are they admissible? What is their evidentiary weight?
confinement in the hospital because the wound in her
vagina, which was still bleeding Ruling: They are admissible and sufficiently support the finding of guilt
iii. Dr. Toledo of the Roxas General Hospital stated that: of the accused appellant.
the child suffered severe compound laceration which could
have been caused by a normal and fully developed penis As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or give
of a man in a state of erection that was forcibly inserted opinions. It is the court’s duty to draw conclusions from the evidence and form
into her vagina and that the insertion caused her vagina to opinions upon the facts proved.
hemorrhage which thus required the transfusion of 255 cc
of blood. However, conclusions and opinions of witnesses are received in many cases,
c. Defense of the accused: the accused however, was tryoing to and are not confined to expert testimony, based on the principle that either
establish the fact the bleeding was not caused by his penis, but of because of the special skill or expert knowledge of the witness, or because of the
his ring finger with a long nail accidentally penetrating the vagina nature of the subject matter under observation, or for other reasons, the
of the victim while he was playing with her and throwing/lifting her testimony will aid the court in reaching a judgment.
up and down.
(3) Decision of the RTC: the RTc rendered a decision against the accused
appellant and convicted him of the crime as charged. In the case at bar, the trial court arrived at its conclusions not only with the
(4) By reason of the penalty imposed, the case was automatically aid of the expert testimony of doctors who gave their opinions as to the possible
raised to the SC for automatic review. cause of the victim’s laceration, but also the testimony of the other prosecution
a. Among the contentions of the accused appellant was that witnesses, especially the victim herself. In other words, the trial court did
the doctors made no conclusions as to what really caused not rely solely on the testimony of the expert witnesses. Such expert
the lacerations in the vagina of the victim. testimony merely aided the trial court in the exercise of its judgment
b. the testimony of the three expert witnesses presented by the on the facts. Hence, the fact that the experts enumerated various
prosecution, namely, Dr. Alfonso Orosco, Dr. Ma. Lourdes Lañada, possible causes of the victim’s laceration does not mean that the trial
and Dr. Machael Toledo, which convinced the trial court that rape court’s inference is wrong.
was committed against the offended party, is not impeccable
considering that they found that there was no presence of
spermatozoa, and that they were not sure as to what caused the
laceration in the victim’s vagina; that Dr. Lañada herself testified
that Evelyn told her that it was the finger of accusedappellant
which caused the laceration. In addition, accusedappellant banks
on the victim’s testimony on crossexamination, that it was the

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 3

 RULE 130 SECTION 49 – OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS his qualification as an expert must first be shown and he
may then state the facts showing his requisite knowledge
Section 49. OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS. –- The opinion of a witness on and skill.
a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is  upon such a question, the expert may testify not only as
shown to possess, may be received in evidence. to the facts but also to his conclusions based on the facts
because the court is without knowledge necessary to
Three things must concur in order for the opinion of the expert witness be enable it to draw the conclusion for itself without aid
admissible in court:  not limited to classified and special profession but is
admissible wherever peculiar skill and judgment applied to
1. Subject Matter: the subject under consideration must be one that a particular subject are required to explain the result by
requires that the court has the aid of knowledge or experience of an tracing them to their causes
expert which men not especially skilled do not have, and such therefore  there exists no test in determining such, but the court
cannot be obtained from ordinary witness; considers an expert a person who in the opinion of the
 Experts may give their opinions and inference upon court has a special acquaintance with the immediate line
questions of science, skill or trade, or other of the like of inquiry; yet he need not be thoroughly acquainted with
kind, or when the subject matter of the inquiry is such the differentia of the specific under consideration
that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove and are  one possessing, in regard to a particular subject
incapable of forming a correct judgment upon it without department of human activity, knowledge not usually
assistance, order to attain knowledge of it acquired by other persons
 Are not admissible when the inquiry is into a subject 3. Relevance and is the issue: the testimony must be to a matter that
matter, the nature of which is not as to require any is in issue.
peculiar habits or study, in order to qualify a man to  The testimony is not admissible as to a matter not in issue
understand
 Example: in a case for annulment under Art. 36 of the
Family Code, the courts must consider as decisive evience Mode of Examining an Expert witness
the expert opinion of the psychological and mental
temperaments of the parties; in identifying the blood o The expert need not have personal observation on the data on
stains in the clothing of the accused, a medical expert is which his opinion is to be based
necessary for such; expert testimony as to the identity of t o It is possible that the expert is stated with the data hypothetically,
fingerprint is admissible because the method of so that the court may be able to reject his opinion later if he does
identification of fingerprints is a science requiring close not accept the data that were his basis and for the parties to be able
study to dispute the said data
2. An Expert: the witness called as an expert must posses the
knowledge, skill or experience needed to inform the court in the
particular case under consideration; Probative Value of the Opinion of the Expert Witness
 Before a witness is presented as an expert can be asked o Although meriting consideration, it is not conclusive, and must be
to give any opinion on the subject matter of the inquiry, weighed in relation to other proofs presented

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 4

 o The Court is not bound by the opinion of an expert and ordinarily not 3. During the cleaning of Tank Top No. 12 where there cleaners were, a
conclusive fire broke out and ultimately causing the destruction and the sinking of
o The probative force of the testimony of the expert does not lie in a the said vessel.
mere statement of his theory or opinion, but rather in the aid that he 4. Hence, William Lines filed a complaint against Cebu Shipyard for
can render to the courts in showing the facts which serve as a basis for complaint for damages against CSEW, alleging that the fire which broke
his criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of his conclusions is out in M/V Manila City was caused by CSEW’s negligence and lack of
founded care.
o Like any other testimony, in the light of the judge’s general knowledge 5. During the trial of the case, Cebu Shipyard introduced expert
and experience on the subject of the inquiry, it will be weighed witnesses Messrs, David Grey and Gregory Southeard, fire
especially when there are conflicting expert opinions experts, for the probable origin of the fire in MV Manila City.
a. the said fire experts were one in their opinion that the fire did
For example, cases of forgery will not depend entirely on the expert opinion not originate in the area of Tank Top No. 12 where the JNB
of a handwriting expert, and in fact, not indispensable workers were doing hotworks but on the crew accommodation
cabins on the portside No. 2 deck.
6. The trial court rendered a decision against Cebu Shipyard and this was
Case 1. Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc. vs. William Lines, upheld by the CA.
Inc. – 306 S 762 7. Hence, the present action by the petitioner arguing among all others
that the lower courts were wrong in disregarding that testimonies of the
Parties of this case: expert witness in showing the origin of the fire and the negligence of
o Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works (Cebu Shipyard) is a domestic the crew members of MV Manila City. The said courts should have given
corporation engaged in the business of dry docking and repairing of weight to the said testimonies in its decision.
marine vessels
o William Lines, the plaintiff, is the owners of the Vessel M/V Manila City Issue: What is the significance of the expert testimonies of the fire experts?
o The private respondent Prudential is the insurer of William Lines who is
the subrogee
Ruling: Although admissible and entitled to consideration, probative value
of the testimonies may still vary as the courts may still weigh the expert
1. William Lines contracted with Cebu Shipyard for the repairs to be done
testimonies in relation to other pieces of evidence presented in court. And in this
on the vessel M/V Manila City.
case, the other testimonies of the persons who were there at the time the fire
2. After the major repairs were done, it was then transferred from Cebu
broke out were of more value.
Shipyard’s grave dock to the docking quay where the remaining repair
to be done was the replating of the top of Water Ballast No. 12. Such
Courts are not bound by the testimonies of expert witnesses. Although
was done by JNB General Services, the subcontractor of Cebu Shipyard
they may have probative value, reception in evidence of expert
for the said repair and cleaning.
testimonies is within the discretion of the court. Section 49, Rule 130
a. At such time, the crew of MV Manila employed by William Lines
of the Revised Rules of Court, provides:
were using the accommodations in the vessel

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 5

SEC. 49. Opinion of expert witness.—The opinion of a witness on a matter RULE 130 SECTION 50. OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESS.
requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to
possess, may be received in evidence. Section 50. The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given may be
received in evidence regarding:
The word “may” signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness as a) the identity of a person, about whom he has adequate knowledge;
evidence is a prerogative of the courts. It is never mandatory for judges to give b) a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
substantial weight to expert testimonies. If from the facts and evidence on c) the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
record, a conclusion is readily ascertainable, there is no need for the judge to d) The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion,
resort to expert opinion evidence. behavior, condition or appearance of a person.

In the case under consideration, the testimonies of the fire experts Conditions for admissibility
were not the only available evidence on the probable cause and origin 1. the opinion is relevant
of the fire. There were witnesses who were actually on board the 2. it is the best nature of the case admits of
vessel when the fire occurred. Between the testimonies of the fire 3. must come from a competent witness
experts who merely based their findings and opinions on interviews
and the testimonies of those present during the fire, the latter are of
more probative value. Verily, the trial court and the Court of Appeals RULE 130 SECTION 51. Character Evidence
did not err in giving more weight to said testimonies.
Definition:
o Character is the aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to and
distinguish an individual person; it refers to what a man is depends on
the attributes he possesses
o Must be differentiated with reputation because such is the dependent
on the view of the others as to the qualities he possesses.
o Character is what the person really is and reputation is what the person
based on others

SECTION 51. Character Evidence not generally admissible; exceptions —

a) In Criminal Cases:
1. the accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent
to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
2. Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral
character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged;

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 6

 3. The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be Reason for allowing the Rule:
proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the o The defendant’s character showing the probability of his doing or not
probability or improbability of the offense charged. the act charged, is essentially relevant
o Hence. The defendant may give evidence as to his good moral
b) In Civil Cases. Evidence of Good moral character of a party in a civil character to evidence the improbability of his doing of the act
case is admissible only when the issue of pertinent character is involved charged, unless there is some collateral reason for exclusion
in the case. o Affords the presumption against the commission of a
c) The character of Witnesses- in the case provided or in Rule 132, Section crime; and strengthens the presumption of innocence
14.
Two issues to be resolved in relation to character evidence: (W) Weight:
o The influence of good moral character of the accused as evidence in
1. Relevance and Admissibility: is a person’s disposition—i.e., a trait, criminal cases depends upon the nature and circumstances of the crime
or group of traits, or the sum of his traits admissible and relevant for charged and upon the probative force of the proof presented as to the
certain purposes? circumstances of the crime charged and upon the probative force of the
2. Mode of Proving: Whenever it is so admissible as an evidentiary fact proof presented as to the guilt of the accused;
and thus becomes its turn a proposition to be proved, how it is to be o For example, if the crime charged is one which involves cool
evidenced, -- by the community’s reputation, and by that only, and deliberation and involved in the common and daily life of the accused,
what conditions the same is strong; but when the crime is unusual that it must have
been induced by motives not frequently operating on the accused’s
mind, good character as an evidence is weak. Another example is that
General Rule: Character evidence, as a rule, is not admissible when the evidence of the crime is clear and convincing, character
o Because it is generally irrelevant in determining c controversy because evidence will not be of use
the evidence of a person’s character or trait is not admissible to prove o An accused is not entitled to acquittal because of his good moral
that a person acted in conformity with such character or trait in a character and exemplary conduct alone
particular issue
o If the courts would be allowed to be influenced by the character or
reputation of the parties, the trial would be apt to have the aspects of a
2. Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad
popularity contest rather than rely on the factual inquiry onto the merits
moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in
of the case the offense charged;

A. Criminal Cases
The Prosecution is not allowed to initially attack the character of the
accused Except when (concurrence of both):
1. Accused proving his good moral character pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged Reason for the rule: to prevent the prejudice that may be caused by the showing
of bad character

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 7

First: it is in rebuttal o “character involved in the issue” is a technical expression, which does
o the purpose is to refute the claim that he accused has good character not mean simply that the character may be affected by the result, but
and thus to prevent the court from drawing therefrom the inference that it is of a particular importance in the suit itself, as the character of
that the accused is innocent of the crime charged the plaintiff in an action for slander or that of a woman in an action for
seduction
Second: when it is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charge o example:
o having reference and analogy to the moral trait involved in the crime 1. action for defamation: bad reputation and character of the plaintiff
charged would entitle the plaintiff for lesser damages
o for example, the defendant’s character for truth is irrelevant in a case 2. action for breach of promise to marry or alienation of affection: the
for attempted murder plaintiff’s dissolute character may lessen entitlement to damages
3. prosecution for keeping a bawdy-house or gambling house-
reputation of the house is the actual issue
4. in a case for seduction- the reputation and character of the woman
is an issue

3. The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be

proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense charged.

Character of the offended party

o character of the offended party may only be proved if it tends to

establish the probability or the improbability of the offense charged
o must be related to the traits and characteristics involved in the
crime charged
o e.g., character of chastity on the crime of rape; character for
peaceableness or violence on the charge of assault; character
for honesty on a charge of embezzlement

b) In Civil Cases. Evidence of Good moral character of a party

in a civil case is admissible only when the issue of pertinent
character is involved in the case.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 8

RULE 131 SECTION 1 – BURDEN OF PROOF 2. Burden of proof in a proceedings lies first on that party against whom
the judgment of the court would be given, if no evidence at all were
Section 1. Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the duty of a party to produced on either side
present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim
or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. A. Civil Cases

o “onus probandi” refers to the obligation of a party to a litigation to Negative Allegations

persuade the court that he is entitled to relief o general rule: they need not be proved
o the burden of proof lies with the party who asserts his/her right o Exception: it should be proved when it is an essential part of the statement
o also called the risk of non-persuasion (W) of the right or title upon which the cause of action or defense is founded
o Example: allegation of the plaintiff that the debt has not yet been
Burden of proof rule applies to both the plaintiff and the defendant paid must be proven; plaintiff must show that in an action for
o It is inaccurate to state that the burden of proof lies only with the damages, failure of the defendant to follow the plans must be
plaintiff because the rules states not only of a claim but also of defense proven;
o He who asserts or denies must prove o Exception to the Exception: if it is denial of the existence of the
o Whoever asserts the affirmative of an issue is the party who has the document, the custody of which belongs to the other party, it need not be
burden to prove it proved
o Hence, the plaintiff always has the burden of proof for its
positive assertions B. Burden of proof in Criminal Cases
o On the other hand, the defendant:
 in making affirmative defenses is not a denial of the The accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
plaintiff’s cause of action but one which, if Hence, the prosecution shall have the onus probandi of establishing the
established, will be a good defense as such is an guilt of the accused
avoidance of the claim
 in making his denials, he must also prove the same
The Doctrine of Equipoise or Equiponderance Doctrine
Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence o Refers to the situation where the evidence of the parties is evenly
Never shifts and it remains exactly shifts to one party when the other has balanced, or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates
throughout the entire case exactly produced sufficient evidence to be (or weighs heavily). In this case the decision should be against the
where the pleadings (complaint and entitled as a matter of law to a ruling party with the burden of proof
answer) placed it in his favor o Hence, where the burden of proof is with the plaintiff and the evidence
does not suggest that the scale of justice should weigh in his favor, the
Test for determining who has the burden of proof: court should render a verdict for the defendant
1. Lies on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue o In a criminal case, where the evidence is evenly balanced, the
a. The suitor who relies upon a fact should be called upon to constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor
prove his own cause of the accused
b. Prove own affirmative allegations

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 9

 It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative
1. Jimenez vs. NLRC – 256 S 84 allegation. Since the burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts an
affirmative allegation, the plaintiff or complainant has to prove his affirmative
allegations in the complaint and the defendant or respondent has to prove the
FACTS: affirmative allegations in his affirmative defenses and counterclaim. Considering
1. Private respondents Pedro and Fredelito Juanatas, father and son, filed a that petitioners herein assert that the disputed commissions have been paid,
claim for unpaid wages/commissions, separation pay and damages against they have the bounden duty to prove that fact.
petitioners JJ’s Trucking and/or Dr. Jimenez.
 Alleged that they were hired by Jimenez as driver/mechanic and helper, As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even
respectively, in JJ’s Trucking, where they were assigned to a 10-wheeler where the plaintiff must allege nonpayment, the general rule is that
truck to haul Coca-cola soft drinks and paid on commission basis, the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on
initially at 17% later increased to 20%. the plaintiff to prove nonpayment. The debtor has the burden of
 That they received only partial commission (P84k) from JJ’s total gross showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by
income of almost P1M for 2 years. Consequently, there was unpaid payment. When the existence of a debt is fully established by the evidence
balance of P106,211.86 contained in the record, the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by
2. Jimenez and JJ’s contend: payment devolves upon the debtor who offers such a defense to the claim of the
 that Fredelito was not an employee of the firm but was merely a helper creditor. Where the debtor introduces some evidence of payment, the
of his father; burden of going forward with the evidence—as distinct from the
 that all commissions were duly paid; general burden of proof—shifts to the creditor, who is then under a
 that the truck driven by Pedro was sold to a third person, therefore, duty of producing some evidence to show nonpayment.
they were not illegally dismissed.
3. Labor Arbiter: ordered JJ’s and Jimenez to pay jointly and severally Pedro Although private respondents admit receipt of partial payment, petitioners still
Juanatas a separation pay. Complaint of Fredelito was dimissed for lack of have to present proof of full payment. Where the defendant sued for a debt
merit. admits that the debt was originally owed, and pleads payment in whole or in
4. NLRC: modified. Fredelito was declared an employee and shares in the part, it is incumbent upon him to prove such payment. That a plaintiff admits
commission and separation pay awarded to Pedro; JJ’s and Jimenez are that some payments have been made does not change the burden of
jointly and severally liable to pay complainants their unpaid commissions proof. The defendant still has the burden of establishing payments
(P84,387.05). beyond those admitted by plaintiff.

ISSUE: WON NLRC correctly ruled that private respondents were not paid their In this case, petitioners failed to present evidence to prove payment.
commissions in full.

RULING: YES. NLRC correctly ruled that the entire amount of

commissions was not paid. 2. Mallari vs. CA – 265 S 456
Reason: evident failure of herein petitioners to present evidence
that full payment thereof has been made Facts:

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 10

 1. Sometime on December 27, 1990Pat. Manipon and Pfc. Esguerra, who
were both then assigned at the Capas Police Station, received reliable In criminal prosecutions, the prosecution has the burden of proving all of the
information that appellant Diosdado Mallari, who has a standing warrant elements, even if they are in the negative.
of arrest in connection with Criminal for Homicide in 1989, was seen at
Sitio 14, Sta. Rita, Capas, Tarlac. In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution has the burden
2. The police officers immediately proceeded to Sitio 14, Sta. Rita, Capas, of proving the elements thereof, viz:
Tarlac. Upon reaching the place, the arresting officers surrounded the (a) the existence of the subject firearm and
house of appellant, arrested him and told him to remain stationary. (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have
Thereupon, the arresting officers searched him and found a the corresponding license or permit to possess the same.
homemade gun (paltik) with one M16 live ammunition.
3. the petitioner was charged with the crime of Illegal Possession of The latter is a negative fact which constitutes an essential ingredient of
Firearms and Ammunition, and pleaded not guilty on arraignment. the offense of illegal possession, and it is the duty of the prosecution
4. The RTC rendered a decision convicting the appellant guilty of Illegal not only to allege it but also to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
possession of Firearms and Ammunition. This was upheld by the CA. In
its decision, the Court of Appeals held that the testimonies of the In the case at bench, the testimony of a representative of, or a certification from
prosecution witnesses, Pfc. Manipon and Pat. Esguerra "unequivocally the PNP (FEU) that petitioner was not a licensee of the said firearm
proved that the handgun (paltik) and the live M16 ammunition were would have sufficed for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable
recovered from the person of the appellant (herein petitioner). doubt the second element of the crime of illegal possession.

Hence, the present action by the appellant arguing, among all

others, that even assuming that the handgun and ammunition had in fact
been found in his possession, the prosecution failed to prove that he had no
license therefor and absent this essential element of the crime of illegal
possession of firearms, it was manifest error for the Court of Appeals to
uphold his conviction. In other words, the prosecution failed to discharge its
burden of proving that he did not have the requisite license for the firearm
and ammunition found in his possession.

On the other hand, it is the position of the SOLGEN that as the firearm
involved is a homemade gun or "paltik" and is illegal per se. It could not have
been the subject of license. This, according to the Solicitor General, dispenses
with the necessity of proving that petitioner had no license to possess the
firearm. Hence, it does not even attempt to show evidence on record of
petitioner's nonpossession of a license or permit for there really is no such
evidence.

Issue: Who has the burden of proving that the appellant has no
license?

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 11

What need not be proved:
1. those which are judicially noticed Classes of Presumption Juris
2. those which are admitted
3. those which are presumed Conclusive presumption Disputable presumptions
Absolute presumptions of law which Which suffices until overcome by
Presumption Judicial Notice Judicial are not permitted to be overcome by contrary evidence
Admission any proof to the contrary, however,
Proponent still As a rule, proponent does not have strong
has to introduce to introduce evidence Considered as if it is not a presumption
evidence as at all; it is substantive directing the
basis for the rpoof of certain basic facts conclusive
presumption
RULE 131. SECTION 2: CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
Presumptions
o Assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such fact Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are instances of
to be assumed from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise conclusive presumptions:
established in the action
o It is not evidence and merely affects the burden of offering evidence (a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally
o During the trial of ana action, the party whi has the burden of proof and deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon
upon an issue may be aided in establishing his claim or defense by the such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or
operation of presumption omission, be permitted to falsify it.
o Or the probative value of which the law attached to a specific
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of
state of facts
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. (3a)
Effect:
o a party in whose favour the legal presumption exists may rely on and
Equitable Estoppel or Estoppel in Pais
invoke such legal presumption to establish a fact in issue
o one need not introduce evidence to prove the fact for a
Estoppel is a principle rooted upon natural justice, preventing a person from
presumption is prima facie proof of the fact assumed
going back upon his own acts and representations, to the prejudice of others
o It may operate against an adversary who has not introduced to rebut
who have relied on them
the presumption
o Denies the person the right to repudiate his acts, admission, or
representations which have been relied upon by the person to whom
Classes of presumptions:
they were directed and whose conduct they were intended to, and did,
1. Presumption of Law or juris: deduction which the law considers as
influence
established from the facts given
2. Presumption of facts or hominis: deduction or inference which reason or
Elements on the part of the person estopped:
experience draws form other facts proved

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 12

 (1) there must have been a false representation or concealment of material 3. sale by minors of real estate who represented that they are capacitated,
facts which are inconsistent with the position taken and said party is and if they have reached the ages of puberty and adolescence then
subsequently asserting majority, cannot excuse themselves form the obligations assumed by
(2) the representation must have been made with knowledge of the facts; them or seek annulment
(3) must have been made with intention that the other party would act 4. corporations by estoppel
upon it
(4) the party to whom it was made must have been ignorant of the truth of
the matter (b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them
Elements for the party claiming estoppel: one who was misled by the
misrepresentation o the ROC sufficiently protects the lessor from being questioned by the
lessee, regarding his title or better right of possession as lessor because
(1) lack of knowledge and the means of ascertaining the truth as to the having admitted the existence of lessor and lessee relationship,
facts in question the lessee is barred from assailing the lessor’s title of better
(2) reliance in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of the party to right of possession
be estopped o for as long as the lessor-lessee relationship exists, the lessee
(3) action or inaction based thereon of such character as o change the
cannot by any proof, however strong, overturn the conclusive
position or status of the party claiming the estoppel, to his injury,
presumption that the lessor has valid title or better right of
detriment or prejudice
possession
o it also applies even thought the lessor had no title at the time
the relation of the lessor and lessee was created
o why? Because the relationship between them is not dependent
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, on the ownership of the lessor but on the agreement between
intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing true, them
and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such
declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.
Example:
1. in an action for ejectment, the plaintiff is presumed to be the owner of
example: the property or that he at least, has the right to the possession, and he
1. an accused who enters a plea of guilty under a wrong name is estopped cannot be compelled, and need not present evidence showing his
form later on questioning the jurisdiction of the court over his person; ownership
2. one who clothes another with apparent authority as his agent and holds a. the tenant then cannot deny the title of his landlord at the time
him as such in the public, cannot be permitted to deny the authority of of the commencement of the relation
such person to act as his agent to the prejudice of innocent third 2. in an action brought by the Catholic Church against the priest who was
persons dealing with such agent in good faith and in honest belief that out in possession to administer the property, the latter is estopped from
he is what he appears to be alleging ownership at the time he took possession either to himself or in
a third person

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 13

 3. RULE 131 SECTION 3 – DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS  failure to produce books and records in his possession gives rise to the
presumption that they would be adverse if produced
 failure of the prosecution to present evidence to refute testimony of
Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are appellant and his witness, despite being able to do so because it had at
satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other its disposal the power to compel production of adverse evidence
evidence: necessarily constitutes an argument against said prosecution
 party’s fraud in preparation and presentation of his case, his fabrication
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong; and suppression of evidence
 production of fabricated documents
 it is presumed that a person in innocent of a crime or wrong  not applicable when: (People vs Naranja)
 it is applicable in criminal and civil cases a. the evidence is at the disposal of both parties
 however, there is no constitutional objection to the passage of a law b. the suppression is not willful
providing that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by a c. it is merely corroborative or cumulative
contrary presumption founded upon human conduct d. suppression is an exercise of privilege
e. failure to present witness listed in the information does not
give rise to such presumption
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;

(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
 example: publication of defamatory matter was done with malice
presumably
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the
latter;
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his
voluntary act;
 hence, it may be shown that there is a mistake in the delivery
or making of the act. If the presumption is rebutted, there is
 hence, where an accused inflicts injuries upon a person other than the
solutio indebiti
one whom he intended to injure, he is liable for the act and all its
natural consequences
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;

(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;

 possession by the debtor of the private document evidencing
the debt raises the presumption tat the creditor voluntarily
 example, a person will not sell his land for 1/7 th of its value, and less
delivered the document to him; when creditor is in possession
thatn ½ of its annual revenue unless the sale is intended to be made
of the instrument, it is presume that the amount of the debt
merely as a security
has not yet been paid
 how rebutted: the delivery of the instrument may be shown
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if
to be done demand payment and not to leave the instrument
produced;
evidencing credit

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 14

 (i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a (m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
receipt for the later one is produced;
 when the law imposes certain duties and obligationsit will be
 not applicable when the contracts are separate: by a contract presumed that such duties and obligation have been
separate and distinct form the contract of lease performed
 how to rebut the presumption: it is expressly made to
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the appear to the contrary
doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the o evidence of ill-motive
whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possess, or o clear and convincing evidence that the police officers
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him; did not properly perform their duty or that there was
deviation from their regular performance of business
section has 2 parts: or that they were inspired by an improper motive
o hence, defense of frame-up will require stronger proof
First: presumption from possession of stolen goods because of the presumption of regularity in the
prefomance of duty
 unexplained possession of articles recently stolen creates the
presumption that the possessor is the author of the theft or (n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the
robbery Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of
jurisdiction;
Second: presumption of ownership from possession or exercise
of acts of ownership
 it is established as a general rule, that where a court of
general jurisdiction has exercised its powers, every step
 it is to be presumed that the articles, goods, or chattels found
necessary to confer jurisdiction will be presumed to have been
in the store of a corporation is owned by the corporation, not
of any members thereof taken in the absence of proof to the contrary
 continued occupation and use of public land by a municipality  when not applicable:
gives presumption that such is owned through a government i. cannot apply in a petition for writ of amparo under
grant in its favor Section 17 of the Rule of the Writ of Amparo
ii. People vs Camat: it is incumbent upon the
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the prosecution to show that that prior to questioning
payment of the money, or the delivery of anything, has paid the during the custodial investigation, all the
money or delivered the thing accordingly; constitutionally protected rights were observed

 bad faith or wrong is not presumed (o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were
laid before the court and passed upon by it; and in like manner
(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted
appointed or elected to it;

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 15

 for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon c. May not be invoked also for truth of collateral facts such
by them; as for example, the presence of alleged signers

 Where nothing appears in the record as to whether or not the (v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the
accused was granted a preliminary investigation, it is regular course of the mail;
presumed that the procedure prescribed by law had been
observed  When a letter or other mail matter is addressed and mailed
with postage prepaid there is a rebuttable presumption of fact
(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular; that it was received by the addressee as soon as it could have
been transmitted to him in the ordinary course of business
 Settlements of accounts are presumed to be correct  Provided that:
 It is the duty of the contracting parties to learn and know the a. It is addressed properly
contents of the contract before signing and delivering it b. It is mailed

(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed; (w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown
whether or not the absentee still lives, he is considered dead
(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract; for all purposes, except for those of succession.

(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening
sufficient consideration; his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after
the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be
sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.
(t) That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made
before the instrument was overdue and at the place where the
instrument is dated; The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the
division of the estate among the heirs:
(u) That a writing is truly dated;
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea
voyage, or an aircraft with is missing, who has not
 Dates written in the written instrument are presumed to be
been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel
correct and that such instruments are presumed to have been
or aircraft;
executed at the times indicated by the dates they bear
 It does not apply however, in the following:
a. Does not apply where a deed is offered to support an (2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part
action against one who is neither a party nor privy to it in armed hostilities, and has been missing for four
b. May not be invoked in forged instrument or if there is years;
fraud or collusion

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 16

 (3) A person who has been in danger of death under (z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a
other circumstances and whose existence has not been contract of copartneship;
known for four years;
(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband
(4) If a married person has been absent for four and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage;
consecutive years, the spouse present may contract a
subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded  Every intendment of the law of fact leans toward the validity of
belief that the absent spouse is already death. In case marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds
of disappearance, where there is a danger of death the
circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of (bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who are
only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with
contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any each other as husband and wife without the benefit of
case, before marrying again, the spouse present must marriage or under void marriage, has been obtained by their
institute a summary proceedings as provided in the joint efforts, work or industry.
Family Code and in the rules for declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice
(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who
to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.
are not capacitated to marry each other and who have acquire
properly through their actual joint contribution of money,
b. Why? Springs from necessity of settling property rights property or industry, such contributions and their
and status corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and
c. This disputable presumption arises only until the evidences of credit are equal.
expiration of the seventh or tenth year, or fifth or fourth
year
(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother
d. It is invoked either in an action or in a special proceeding
contracted another marriage within three hundred days after
which is tried or heard by, and submitted for decision to a
such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall
competent court
govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:
e. Independently of such action or special proceeding, the
presumption cannot be invoked, not can it be subject of
(1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after
an action or special proceeding
the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is
considered to have been conceived during such
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing
marriage, even though it be born within the three
acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact;
hundred days after the termination of the former
marriage.
(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary
course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life;
(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days
following the celebration of the subsequent marriage is

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 17

 considered to have been conceived during such 2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is
marriage, even though it be born within the three deemed to have survived;
hundred days after the termination of the former
marriage. 3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the
former is deemed to have survived;
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is
usual with things of the nature; 4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex
be different, the male is deemed to have survived, if
 Hence, a person proven to be insane or sane is presumed to the sex be the same, the older;
be such until the contrary is proven
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other
(ff) That the law has been obeyed; between those ages, the latter is deemed to have
survived.
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed
or published by public authority, was so printed or published; (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
(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting contain first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall
reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be
book is published, contains correct reports of such cases; considered to have died at the same time. (5a)

(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey

real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to
him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of other presumptions under law and jurisprudence:
such person or his successor in interest;
a) Art. 1387 of the Civil Code: All contracts by virtue of which the debto
(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons alienates property by gratuitous title are presumed to have been
perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or entered into in fraud of creditors, when the donor did not reserve
conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are sufficient property to pay all debts contracted before the donation.”
no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the a. Also when there is alienation of property by onerous title made
survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from by a debtor against whom some judgment has been rendered
the strength and the age of the sexes, according to the in any instance or some writ of attachment has been issued .
following rules: from the tenor of law, the decision or arrangement need not
refer to the property alienated and need not have been
1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older obtained by the party seeking rescission
is deemed to have survived;

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 18

 b) A judgment or final order against a person, redender by a tribunal of a Lozano vs. De Los Santos – 274 S 44
foreign country with jurisdiction to render said judgment is presumptive
evidence of a right as between parties and their successors-in-interest 1. The petitioner Reynaldo M. Lozano filed Civil Case for damages before
a. Unless it be shown that: (a) there is want of jurisdiction; (b) the MTC against respondent Anda alleging that they were presidents of
want of notice to the other party; (c) collusion; (d) fraud; (e) their respective PUJ Associations using the Mabalacat- Angeles route;
clear mistake of law or fact a. That they have agreed to consolidate their associations and
c) Common carriers are presumed to be negligent and at fault when there elect one set of officers who shall govern the consolidated
is injury or damage to passengers or goods association.
d) It is presumed that when a driver is in violation of a law, he is negligent b. That they had an election wherein the petitioner won as
e) Res ipsa loquitur: president.
a. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the c. Alleging fraud, Anda protested and refused to recognize the
absence of someone’s negligence results of the election and to abide by their agreement, and
b. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control continued to collect the dues from the members of his previous
of the defendant or defendants association despite several demands to desist
c. The possibility f contributing conduct which would make the 2. Private respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of
plaintiff responsible is eliminated jurisdiction, claiming that jurisdiction was lodged with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC). this motion to dismiss was denied by the
General Rule on Presumptions MTC.
o Presumptions are not admissible, except when the fact form which they 3. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC finding
are deduced are fully proved that the dispute is intra-corporate in nature, hence, subject to the
o No presumption can, with safety, be drawn from another presumption jurisdiction of the SEC.
4. Among the arguments of the private respondent was the doctrine of
corporation by estoppel, hence, for the present action, it must be
considered as an intracorporate case.

Issue: Should the doctrine of Corporation by estoppel apply?

Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy . — There is no
Ruling: No.
presumption of legitimacy of a child born after three hundred days following the
dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the
Corporation by estoppel is founded on principles of equity and is designed to
legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation. (6)
prevent injustice and unfairness.19 It applies when persons assume to form a
corporation and exercise corporate functions and enter into business relations
with third persons. Where there is no third person involved and the conflict arises
only among those assuming the form of a corporation, who therefore know that
it has not been registered, there is no corporation by estoppel.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 19

Hence, the conclusive presumption of presence of corporate entity that will bind Issue: Should the LRTA be held liable? Yes
the parties acting for such association will not apply.
Controlling Issue: was the petitioner able to rebut the presumption of negligence
occasioned by the death of passenger Navidad?

5. LRT vs. Natividad – 397 S 75 Ruling: The LRTA was not able to rebut the presumption of negligence based on
the civil code.
Transpo case to guys! Disputable presumption of negligence on common carriers
if there is injury to passengers or damage to goods.  Ratio: the Civil Code States:
Article 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common
FACTS: carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
1. Nicanor Navidad entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary
“token” (representing payment of the fare), who was at this time drunk. diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.
2. While standing on the platform near the LRT tracks, Escartin (security The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost
guard assigned to the area) approached Navidad. diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all circumstances. Such
3. A misunderstanding or altercation apparently ensued that led to a fist duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers so obligates it not
fight and later Navidad fell on the tracks. At that exact moment, an LRT only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its
train, operated by petitioner Roman, was coming in. premises and where they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage.
4. Navidad was struck by the moving train and was killed instantaneously. The statutory provisions render a common carrier liable for death of or injury to
5. Thereafter, respondent Marjorie Navidad, along with her children, filed a passengers (a) through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or b)
complaint for damages against Escartin, Roman, the LRTA, the Metro on account of wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the
Transit Organization, and Prudent Security Agency for the death of her common carriers employees through the exercise of due diligence could have
husband. prevented or stopped the act or omission. 
6. The trial court rendered a decision finding Escartin and Prudent Security
liable to the heirs of Navidad, but dismissing the complaint as against In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at
the LRTA and Roman. fault or been negligent, and by simple proof of injury, the passenger is
7. Upon appeal, the CA exonerated Prudent from any liability and instead relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the
found the LRTA and Roman solidarily liable, explaining that a contract of carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to
carriage already existed when Navidad entered the place where prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure.
passengers were supposed to be after paying the fare, and that Roman In the absence of satisfactory explanation by the carrier on how the
failed to establish the fact that the application of the emergency breaks accident occurred, which petitioners, according to the appellate court,
could not have stopped the train. have failed to show, the presumption would be that it has been at
8. Hence, this appeal. fault, an exception from the general rule that negligence must be
LRTA: That it was Escartin’s assault upon Navidad which caused the proved.
latter to fall on the tracks; that such was an act of a stranger that could
not have been foreseen or prevented. There is no such showing of proof, in the present case, to rebut and overcome
the presumption of negligence to common carriers.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 20

 2. Delsan vs C&A Construction

FACTS:

a) On October 9, 1994, M/V Delsan Express, a ship owned and operated

monitoring of consistent compliance with the rules. Corollarily, in Ramos v. Court
by petitioner Delsan Transport Lines, Inc., anchored at the
of Appeals, the Court stressed that once negligence on the part of the employees
Navotas Fish Port for the purpose of installing a cargo pump and
is shown, the burden of proving that he observed the diligence in the selection
clearing the cargo oil tank.
and supervision of its employees shifts to the employer.
b) At around 12:00 midnight of October 20, 1994, Captain Demetrio T.
In the case at bar, however, petitioner presented no evidence that it formulated Jusep of M/V Delsan Express received a report from his radio head
rules/guidelines for the proper performance of functions of its employees and operator in Japan that a typhoon was going to hit Manila in about 8
that it strictly implemented and monitored compliance therewith. Failing to hours.
discharge the burden, petitioner should therefore be held liable for the negligent c) At approximately 8:35 in the morning of October 21, 1994, Capt. Jusep
act of Capt. Jusep. tried to seek shelter at the North Harbor but could not enter the area
because it was already congested. At 10:00 a.m., Capt. Jusep decided
So also, petitioner cannot disclaim liability on the basis of respondents failure to
to drop anchor at the vicinity of Vitas mouth, 4 miles away from a
allege in its complaint that the former did not exercise due diligence in the
Napocor power barge. At that time, the waves were already reaching 8
selection and supervision of its employees. In Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v.
to 10 feet high.
Delos Santos, it was held that it is not necessary to state that petitioner was
d) Capt. Jusep ordered his crew to go full ahead to counter the wind which
negligent in the supervision or selection of its employees, inasmuch as its
was dragging the ship towards the Napocor power barge. To avoid
negligence is presumed by operation of law. Allegations of negligence against the
collision, Capt. Jusep ordered a full stop of the vessel. He succeeded in
employee and that of an employer-employee relation in the complaint are
avoiding the power barge, but when the engine was re-started and the
enough to make out a case of quasi-delict under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
ship was maneuvered full astern, it hit the deflector wall constructed by
respondent. The damage caused by the incident amounted to
P456,198.24.
e) Respondent demanded payment of the damage from petitioner
but the latter refused to pay. Consequently, respondent filed a
complaint for damages with the RTC.
f) In its answer, petitioner claimed that the damage was caused by a
fortuitous event.

RTC: complaint filed by respondent was dismissed. The trial court ruled
that petitioner was not guilty of negligence because it had taken all the
necessary precautions to avoid the accident. Applying the emergency rule, it
absolved petitioner of liability because the latter had no opportunity to
adequately weigh the best solution to a threatening situation. It further
held that even if the maneuver chosen by petitioner was a wrong move, it

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 21

cannot be held liable as the cause of the damage sustained by respondent was unfortunately was already congested. The finding of negligence cannot be
typhoon Katring, which is an act of God. rebutted upon proof that the ship could not have sought refuge at the North
Harbor even if the transfer was done earlier.
CA: the decision of the trial court was reversed and set aside. It found
Capt. Jusep guilty of negligence in deciding to transfer the vessel to the When he ignored the weather report notwithstanding reasonable foresight of
North Harbor only at 8:35 a.m. of October 21, 1994 and thus held harm, Capt. Jusep showed an inexcusable lack of care and caution which an
petitioner liable for damages. ordinary prudent person would have observed in the same situation. Had he
moved the vessel earlier, he could have had greater chances of finding a space
at the North Harbor considering that the Navotas Port where they docked was
Hence, the present action by the petitioner. very near North Harbor. Even if the latter was already congested, he would still
have time to seek refuge in other ports.
Argument of the petitioner: No negligence on the party of Capt. Jusep hence, it
cannot be held vicariously liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code 2ND ISSUE: should the petitioner shipping company then be held liable
because respondent failed to allege in the complaint that petitioner for the negligence of its employee, Capt. Jusep?
was negligent in the selection and supervision of its employees.

Granting that Capt. Jusep was indeed guilty of negligence, petitioner is

Ruling: Yes.
not liable because it exercised due diligence in the selection of Capt. Jusep who
is a duly licensed and competent Master Mariner, and was able to rebut the we find petitioner vicariously liable for the negligent act of Capt. Jusep.
presumption of negligence as an employer. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code an employer may be held solidarily
liable for the negligent act of his employee. Thus

Art. 2180. The obligation imposed in Article 2176 is demandable not only for
ISSUE/S: (1) Whether or not Capt. Jusep was negligent; (2) If yes, whether or
ones own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
not petitioner is solidarily liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code for the quasi-
responsible.
delict committed by Capt. Jusep?
xxxxxxxxx

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
RATIO:
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though
the former are not engaged in any business or industry.

FIRST ISSUE: YES. xxxxxxxxx

There is negligence on the part of the employee, Capt. Jusep. In the The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein
case at bar, the CA was correct in holding that Capt. Jusep was negligent in mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family
deciding to transfer the vessel only at 8:35 in the morning of October 21, 1994. to prevent damage.
As early as 12:00 midnight of October 20, 1994, he received a report from his
Whenever an employees negligence causes damage or injury to
radio head operator in Japan that a typhoon was going to hit Manila after 8
another, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that the
hours. This, notwithstanding, he did nothing, until 8:35 in the morning of
employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection
October 21, 1994, when he decided to seek shelter at the North Harbor, which
(culpa in eligiendo) or supervision (culpa in vigilando) of its employees.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 22

To avoid liability for a quasi-delict committed by his employee, an
employer must overcome the presumption by presenting convincing 6. People vs. De Guzman – 229 S 795- MEDRANO
proof that he exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a
family in FACTS:
1. Accused-appellant de Guzman has been in the watch list of the police
authorities as a prohibited drug peddler. On 2 occasions, they tried to entrap
First: selection of the employees and him without any success. On the third time, the police officers
succeeded in their buy-bust operation.
Second: supervision of his employees
2. Pat. Manzon posed as a Metro Manila aide. Together with a confidential
In the present case, the petitioner failed to prove the second requisite. informant, he casually approached de Guzman and asked if he could “score”
The defense raised by petitioner was that it exercised due diligence in the (buy) a deck of “shabu.” De Guzman informed him that a deck would cost
selection of Capt. Jusep because the latter is a licensed and competent Master P50. Manzon then handed the accused a previously marked P50 bill. In
Mariner. Such is not enough. It is not enough that the employees chosen be exchange, the accused gave him an aluminum foil containing crystalline
competent and qualified, inasmuch as the employer is still required to exercise granules. Manzon scrutinized the contents of the foil and then executed the
due diligence in supervising its employees. prearranged signal to his companion, Patrolman Chiapoco. The accused was
forthwith arrested by Pat. Chiapoco. The accused was frisked and the search
So also, petitioner cannot disclaim liability on the basis of respondents failure to
yielded 4 aluminum foils containing white crystalline granules. Accordingly,
allege in its complaint that the former did not exercise due diligence in the
Manzon and Chiapoco executed a Joint Affidavit of Apprehension leading to
selection and supervision of its employees. Allegations of negligence against the
the arrest of de Guzman. A Chemical analysis report confirmed that the 5
employee and that of an employer-employee relation in the complaint are
aluminum foils contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
enough to make out a case of quasi-delict under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
3. Consequently, an information was filed against de Guzman.
4. RTC: de Guzman-guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of unlawfully
selling shabu.
5. Hence, this appeal. De Guzman faults the TC for favoring the
arresting officers with the disputable presumption of regularity in
the performance of their official duty. He urges that this presumption
no longer subsist for certain irregularities were committed by the two
officers in the discharge of their duty, (1) Chiapoco did not read the
Joint Affidavit of Apprehension before signing it; and (2) the police
bungled its 2 previous operations against him.

ISSUE: WON the TC erred in favoring the arresting officers with the disputable
presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duty.

RULING: NO. The trial court correctly gave the apprehending officers
the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 23

A disputable presumption has been defined as a species of evidence that
may be accepted and acted on where there is no other evidence to 7. People vs. Navaja – 220 S 624- PASCUAL
uphold the contention for which it stands, or one which may be
overcome by other evidence. FACTS:
 One such disputable/rebuttable presumption is that an official act or 1. Alexander Navaja was the object of a buy-bust operation conducted by
duty has been regularly performed. the Anti-Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Section (ANDDRUS) of the Cebu
o Presumption of this nature is indulged by the law for the City Police Station.
following fundamental reasons: 2. At the time the poseur buyer signaled to his companions after the completed
i. innocence, and not wrongdoing, is to be presumed; transaction with Navaja, the same was able to evade arrest and get away
ii. an official oath will not be violated; and with the buy bust money.
iii. a republican form of government cannot survive long 3. The police, however, were able to get his name from people in the
unless a limit is placed upon controversies and certain neighborhood.
trust and confidence reposed in each governmental 4. The evidence confiscated (the item bought from Navaja) was submitted for
department or agent by every other such department or field test examination. The same were found positive for marijuana.
agent, at least to the extent of such presumption. 5. A warrant of arrest was issued against Navaja and the same was
subsequently apprehended.
The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative 6. During trial, the prosecution presented Pfc. Ranulfo Espina, a
evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, member of the team which conducted the buy-bust operation, and the
however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and regional chemist and chief of chemistry to identify the pieces of evidence as
convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is positive for marijuana.
rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in 7. The trial court convicted the accused Navaja finding him guilty of selling a
support of the presumption and in case of doubt as to an officer’s act being prohibited drug in violation of the DDA, relying on the affirmative
lawful or unlawful, construction should be in favor of its lawfulness. testimony of Pfc. Espina and his positive identification of the accused.
8. Hence this appeal.
In the case at bench, what is clearly established is that the drug pushing 9. Navaja contends that although Epsina had 5 other companions, none of
activities of the accusedappellant have long before been brought to the attention them were presented as a witness ; moreover, their non-presentation was
of the police authorities and that accusedappellant had been the subject of a not sufficiently explained. He concludes that the companions’ testimonies
continuing surveillance. There is not an iota of evidence that the police would have been adverse if presented in court.
authorities who apprehended accusedappellant had any illmotive
against him. The records clearly show that accusedappellant was ISSUE: WON there is a presumption of adverse testimony because of non-
finally caught in flagrante delicto selling “shabu”, a regulated drug, presentation of the other team members (for reason the same constitutes
without authority. He was rightfully convicted. “suppression of evidence”).

RULING: NO. The non-presentation of corroborative witnesses does not

constitute suppression of evidence and would not be fatal to the
prosecution's case. Besides, there is no showing that the other peace officers
were not available to the accused for the latter to present as his own witnesses.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 24

The rule is settled that the adverse presumption from a suppression of 8. People vs. Castañeda – 252 S 247- SALTERAS
evidence is NOT applicable when:
(1) the suppression is not willful, Facts:
(2) the evidence suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative, (1) the accused-appellant Castañeda was charged with the crime of Robbery
(3) the evidence is at the disposal of both parties and with Rape. The private complainant, Eugenia Sese alleged that she was at
(4) the suppression is an exercise of a privilege. home with her children and her home is well lit by three kerosene lamps and
the moon was bright that night.
 There is no rule of evidence which requires the presentation of a specific or  That at about 10pm n the evening, she went outside of their
minimum number of witnesses to sustain a conviction for any of the offenses house to expose their ampalaya leaces to dewdrop outside.
described in the Dangerous Drugs Act. It is the prosecuting fiscal's  That in no time, an intruder grabbed the complainant and
prerogative to determine who or how many witnesses are to be presented in poked a knife at her neck with his right hand and demanded
order to establish the quantum of proof necessary for conviction. In this money
case, the prosecution deemed it sufficient to present Pfc. Espina alone since  That since she had no money, they had to go inside the house
any other testimony which would have been given by the other and get money from the apador
members of the buy-bust team would be merely corroborative in  That the robber not satisfied with the measly amount, ordered
nature. her to pull down her pants and raped her
 He then disappeared into the darkness.
Furthermore, (2) Private complainant woke up her children and sought help from Mariano
Peace officers presumed to have done their duty. Apolinar and his wife, Apong Gunding. The house of Apolinar is forty (40) to
fortyfive (45) meters away from her house. She recounted her ordeal to
The accused was seen—not caught as he had escaped—in flagrante as a result them but sealed her lips about the threat. Apolinar, in turn, summoned
of the buybust operation. In such an operation, what is important is the fact that Barangay Captain Ponciano Cunanan and Councilman Rodolfo Manaloto. She
the poseurbuyer received the marijuana from the accused and that the same was retold her story to the barangay officials, who decided to report the matter
presented as evidence in court. This Court has consistently held in drug cases to the police authorities.
that absent any proof to the contrary, law enforcers are presumed to have (3) It was 11:00 p.m. The barangay officials walked with private complainant to
regularly performed their duty. In the instant case, there exists no such contrary the police headquarters in Concepcion, Tarlac. On their way, she saw a man
proof. Accused has not presented evidence of any ulterior motive that could have wearing red shorts and white striped shirt passing in front of a lighted house
moved Ranulfo Espina to testify against him. The rule is also settled that in the near the boundary of barangays San Jose and Sta. Maria. She recognized
absence of evidence that would show why the prosecution witness would testify the man as the one who robbed and raped her. She pointed him to Mariano
falsely, the logical conclusion is that no improper motive existed and that such Apolinar. When they approached him, it turned out to be the accused
testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. appellant.
(4) During the trial,
 The defendant was trying to establish the alibi that he was
with his brother-in-law’s birthday party and stayed there
 On the other hand, the prosecution presented among all
others, the Barangay Tanod, that private complainant told him

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 25

 that she could not identify the person who robbed and 9. People vs. Simbulan – 214 S 537 – ARANETA
molested her. She described the criminal to be tall, thin, with a
tie around his head, and that the suspect belonged to the Abstract: a buy bust operation was done and the accused Simbulan and Suguui
Llarves family. were eventually convicted by the courts for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
(4) The RTC convicted the accused appellant of the crime of robbery with They were found guilty heavily based on the testimonies of the officers who
rape. This was upheld by the CA. conducted the buy-bust operation. The accused questioned the credibility of the
said officers, but the SC held the presumption of regularity in the performance of
their duties because of the absence of proof of evidence to the contrary or
Hence, the present action by the appellant, contending among others that, he having done so by improper motives.
was misidentified as barangay tanod David testified that the culprit was
described by private complainant as tall, slim, and a Llarves. Allegedly, this 1. The Buy- Bust Operation:
description was given in the presence of barangay officials who were not called a. a male informant came to the office NARCOM and relayed to
as witnesses by the prosecution. He charges the prosecution with suppression of Lt. Reuben Sindac the information that NENE (Irene Simbulan)
evidence. and ELVIE (Elvira Sugui), herein accused, were engaged in the
selling of shabu at Masangkay St., Makati, Metro Manila.
Issue: May the presumption on suppression of evidence apply in the present b. Finding this information to be viable (to use his own word), Lt.
case? Sindac submitted to Lt. Col. Raval of the NARCOM a pre-
operation report. Lt. Col. Raval approved the said preoperation
Ruling: No. report and directed Lt. Sindac to constitute a team and
conduct a buybust operation.
The contention cannot succeed. The rule on suppression of evidence cannot be c. Upon reaching the house of NENE the informant knocked on
invoked by accusedappellant where the same evidence is available to him. In the the door and when NENE opened the door and came out, he
case at bar, accusedappellant could have subpoenaed the barangay officials who introduced Sgt. Directo as a person wanting to buy shabu.
allegedly heard the description of the culprit given by the private complainant. d. Almost simultaneously @ NENE handed to Sgt. Directo a
These barangay officials were not under the control of private complainant, a transparent plastic bag containing what appeared to be shabu.
lowly housewife in barangay Sta. Maria, Concepcion, Tarlac. It is far fetched to Upon her receipt thereof, Sgt. Directo raised her right hand
accuse her and the prosecution of suppressing their testimonies. which was the prearranged signal to her coteam members that
she had already concluded the purchase of shabu.
Moreover, their testimonies could only be corroborative. In People v. Lorenzo,22 2. By reason of this operation, the appellant- accused were arrested and
we held that the presumption laid down in Section 5(e), Rule 131 of the Rules of eventully charged with the conspiracy in the sale and delivery of .17
Court that “evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced” does not gram of “shabu” in violation of Section 21(b), Article IV, in relation to
apply when the testimony of the witness not produced would only be Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425.
corroborative. 3. During the trial of the case: the following were presented:
a. For the prosecution: officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation were presented and established the abovementioned
narration of facts;

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 26

 b. For the defense: the accused appellants gave completely Furthermore, we have perforce to once again reiterate the entrenched rule that
different versions of the operations as expected. They made it the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and
appear that the a certain Angel which they have known for a most competently performed by the trial judge, who, unlike appellate
long time was the person who was buying and that NENE magistrates, can weigh such testimony in the light of the declarant’s demeanor,
merely gave the shabu she did not own. The money she had conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent
given to Elvie was actually payment for the wristwatch she position to discriminate between the true and the false.7 Appellate courts will not
bought.’ disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimony of
4. After evaluating the conflicting testimonies of the parties, the RTC gave witnesses unless it be clearly shown that the latter court had overlooked or
more weight to the testimonies of the officers than that of the accused disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case.8
appellants and stated that:
In the case at bar, we find nothing which would warrant deviation from
“x x x, in the course of their testimonies, the Court was intently the general rule.
observing the prosecution witnesses, particularly Sgt. Directo and Lt.
Sindac, and the Court was impressed by their candidness and
straightforward manner of testifying, which in the mind of the Court
indicated that they had testified truthfully. As a matter of fact, Lt.
Sindac, who is only 27 years (old) had impressed the Court that he is a
professional whose only concern is to do his job and to do it well. x x
x.”11

hence, the present action of accused appellants, questioning mainly the

credibility of the said officers in giving their testimonies.
(di na na-specify sa case kung ano yung mga questions talag sabi lang,
credibility of the witnesses, which is exactly why, natalo ang mga accused)

Issue: Was the lower court correct in giving more credence and weight to the
testimony of the officers?

Ruling: Yes.

The narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses are worthy

of credit. They are police officers who are presumed to have performed
their duties in a regular manner, there being no evidence to the
contrary,and more so since there is nothing in the record which would
indicate that they were actuated by improper motives.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 27

 On the other hand, the defense was trying to establish that the sacks containing
10. People vs. Baludda – 318 S 503- the confiscated marijuana were not theirs and they were brought by the police
FACTS: agents themselves and had no knowledge of such. They are also trying to
establish that they had no knowledge that the sacks they are carrying contains
The version of the prosecution as summarized by the Solicitor General, runs
marijuana.
thus:
On January 13, 1994, after trial, the lower court upheld the Peoples
(1) In the morning of September 24, 1990, C1C Mauro Camat was at Sitio
version, on the basis of which it handed down the judgment of
Dangdangla, Barangay Cardis, Bagulin, La Union together with other
conviction appealed from.
members of the Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU), a regular
unit of the Philippine National Police composed of civilian volunteers, when
they received information about people passing by the area carrying huge
ISSUE/S: WON accused-appellant, Mateo Baludda took part in the alleged sale
quantities of marijuana. The CAFGU units Commanding Officer, First
or transport of the subject marijuana.
Lieutenant Manuel de Vera, immediately ordered Camat and his companions
to patrol the area. HELD: Yes.
(2) The following day, the police officers encountered appellant Baludda
RATIO: Under the Rules of Evidence, it is disputably presumed that
together with Maximo Baludda, Domingo Atebew and Ben Baristo carrying
things which a person possesses or over which he exercises acts of
sacks on their backs. The encounter with appellant and his companions took
ownership, are owned by him.
place in a forested area on the mountain of Sitio Dangdangla and it was
noticed that the sacks they were carrying were bulging.
(3) About five (5) meters away from appellant and his companions, Camat
In U.S. vs. Bandoc, the Court ruled that the finding of a dangerous drug in the
halted them and introduced themselves as CAFGUs. However, upon being
house or within the premises of the house of the accused is prima facie evidence
told that the CAFGU unit merely wanted to see what was in the sacks they
of knowledge or animus possidendi and is enough to convict in the absence of a
were carrying, appellant and his companions ran away except for Maximo
satisfactory explanation.
Baludda who stayed behind.
(4) Although Ben Baristo and Domingo Atebew were able to elude arrest, In cases of possession, the burden of proving the knowledge or animus
appellant and Maximo Baludda were apprehended. The sacks carried by possidendi is shifted to the defense, as an exception to the
appellant and his companions were opened and found to contain marijuana presumption of innocence rule.
leaves.
 The constitutional presumption of innocence will not apply as
(5) The accused appellants were then apprehended by the CAFGU and charged
long as there is some logical connection between the fact
with the crime of Illegal Possession of Marijuana.
proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and the inference of
The defense theorized as follows: one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as
to be a purely arbitrary mandate. The burden of evidence is
2. That on January 7, 1991, the four accused were charged under SECTION 4 of
thus shifted on the possessor of the dangerous drug to explain
R.A. 6425 as amended on the strength of the complaint of the PC arresting team.
absence of animus possidendi.
3. Meanwhile, also, Mateo Baludda filed a complaint of frustrated murder and
In the case under consideration, it is not disputed that appellant was
robbery against Alberto Bacasen and Camilo Bacasen who shot him on that same
apprehended while carrying a sack containing marijuana. Consequently, to
incidence before the Provincial Fiscal of La Union.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 28

warrant his acquittal, he must show that his act was innocent and done without
intent to possess, i.e. without knowledge that what he possessed was a
prohibited drug.

(1) Appellant theorized that he merely acceded to the request of Maximo

Baludda, his uncle, to carry the sack without knowing that it contained
marijuana. As ratiocinated below, it is contrary to human experience
that a man, 32 years of age, would readily agree to carry the load of his
uncle, without even knowing the place where to deliver such load, and
without asking, while negotiating a forested area, how far is their
destination and how long it would take them to reach the place,
especially so because when they were apprehended at around 5:00 in the
afternoon, they had already been walking for around three (3) hours.

(2) Worse still for appellant is the undeniable fact that he and his companions,
except Maximo Baludda, fled towards different directions after the police
authorities announced their presence. If appellant had nothing to do with the
transporting of subject prohibited drugs, or if he really had no knowledge that
the sack he carried contained marijuana, there would have been no cause for
him to flee. If he had to run at all, it would have been more consistent with his
protestation of innocence if he ran towards, and not away from, the police
officers. Obviously, what appellant did removed any shred of doubt over
his guilt; exemplifying the biblical adage: The wicked flee when no man
pursueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 29

 EXCPT:
RULE 132 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE  witness in incapacitated to speak
 question calls for a different mode of answer
A. EXAMINITION OF WITNESSES

I. Examination to be done in open court How does a witness appear in court

(1) voluntarily or
SECTION 1. The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall (2) as required by the court through a subpoena
be done in open court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is
incapacitated to speak, or question calls for a different mode of answer, the
answers of the witness shall be given orally. RULE 132 SECTION 2: PROCEEDINGS TO BE RECORED
Section 2: The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, including the questions
GR: examination of witness should be done in open court propounded to a witness and his answers thereto, the statements made by the
Excpt: testimonies, which need not be made in open court judge or any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference to the case,
a) Under the Rules of Summary Procedure, the affidavits of the shall be recorded by means of shorthand or stenotype or by other means of
parties shall constitute the direct testimonies of the witnesses recording found suitable by the court.
b) Depositions need not be taken in open court and may be taken
before a notary public or before any person authorized to A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official stenographer,
administer oaths stenotypist, or recorder and certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima
facie correct statement of such proceedings.
When is it in open court?
 The act done publicly in the presence of the judge and the
other officers of the court, as opposed to “in chambers” RULE 132 SECTION 3 – RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS
(IN RELATION TO THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-
Reason for the rule: INCRIMINATION)
 To enable to the court to judge the credibility of the witness by
the witness’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, and their Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. — A witness must
appearance answer questions, although his answer may tend to establish a claim against
him. However, it is the right of a witness:
Must be made under oath or affirmation
Oath Affirmation (1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from
harsh or insulting demeanor;
Any form o attestation by which a Solemn and formal declaration or
person signifies that he is bound in assertion that the witness will tell the
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
conscience to perform an act faithfully truth substituting oath
and truthfully; outward pledge made in
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;
Why?
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an
 To affect the conscience and if he willfully falsifies the truth, he may be
offense unless otherwise provided by law; or
punished for perjury
 He will be barred if he refuses to take oath or affirmation
(6) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it to
be the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be
General Rule: must be made orally

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 30

 presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final which he has been admitted on the ground of the right against self
conviction for an offense. incrimination
b) the court may compel the accused to submit himself to a blood test/
other rights: DNA test
 right against self-incrimination is not violated because there
a) any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall is no testimonial compulsion involving such tests
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the
person cannot afford the services of a counsel, he must be provided
with one. There rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the 1. People vs. Salveron – 228 S 92
presence of a counsel.
b) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this shall be Facts:
inadmissible in evidence against him 1. Raul Salveron was shot to death inside a bus by a passenger who
c) No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. escaped and has not been arrested to date. A few weeks later, Jesus
d) in all criminal proceedings, the defendant is entitled to be Dalida waskilled in his house under mysterious circumstances that have
exempt from being a witness against himself yet to be unraveled. Mauricio Dumangas was luckier: he too was
attacked with apparent intent to kill but survived to accuse his
attackers.
general rule: the witness has the obligation to answer even if such 2. The killing was imputed to the herein appellant, Henry Salveron, the son
answer may be a claim against himself. EXCEPT in the following cases: of the late Raul Salveron, in an information for murder filed against him
and Federico Sadava.1 This is the case now before the Court.
3. During the trial, the prosecution presented as a witness:
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a a. Captain Nicanorito Gomez, station commander of the
penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law; or Integrated National Police branch at Balasan, testified that
after conducting an investigation of the killing, he and his men
went out to look for Salveron and Sadava and were informed
Right against Self- incrimination that they had gone to Camansi, Anilao, Iloilo, about 100
 the right of the accused to be exempt from being a witness against kilometers away. The team proceeded to this place and there
himself is due to the abhorrence with which confession coerced by found the two, who willingly went with them to the PC
inquisitorial torture were regarded in all civilizes countries headquarters at Camp Delgado, Iloilo city.4 There, the
 public policy and humanity suspects were subjected to a paraffin test by Zenaida
 it would place the witness under the strongest temptation to commit Sinfuego, a forensic chemist, who said she found them
perjury, and to prevent the extortion of confessions by duress both positive for gunpowder residue.
 an accused may totally refuse to take the witness stand; but a mere 4. The defense pleaded alibi. According to Salveron his uncle Romeo
witness may not do so completely. Before he refuses to answer, h must Salveron fetched him on March 21, 1986, so he could work at his farm
wait for the incriminating question in the town of Anilao as the latter was no longer able to do so because
he was sick of tuberculosis. He started plowing the following morning at
6:00 o’clock and ended at 9:00, after which he and his uncle went
No self-incrimination in the following: hunting with a licensed .22 caliber rifle.
a) a witness admitted into the witness protection program cannot refuse to 5. Judge Ricardo P. Galvez of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City
testify or gve evidence or produce books, documents, or records or acquitted Federico Sadava for lack of evidence of conspiracy but found
writing necessary for the prosecution of the offense or offenses for Henry Salveron guilty as charged.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 31

Hence, the present action by the appellant Henry Salveron: arguing among all 4. Hence the present action by the appellant Malimit. Among all others to
others that the paraffin test violated his right against self-incrimination. support his prayer for acquittal, he argues that the admission as
evidence of the victim’s wallet with its contents, and a bunch of keys
Ruling: did the police officers violate the right of the accused against self
violates his right against self- incrimination.
incrimination when he was subjected to a paraffin test?

Ruling: No. such rule only applies in testimonial evidence. Issue: May the appellant invoke the right against self-incrimination to the
admission of object evidence?
The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness
against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral Ruling: No.
compulsion to extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his
body as evidence when it may be material.
The right against selfincrimination guaranteed under our fundamental law finds
Furthermore, even if the paraffin tests were not admitted, the assumptions he no application in this case. It is simply a prohibition against legal process to
protests are merely corroborative of the principal evidence of the prosecution, extract from the [accused]'s own lips, against his will, admission of his guilt. It
which is the testimony of Gregorio, that is the positive identification and actual does not apply to the instant case where the evidence sought to be excluded is
seeing of the commission of the crime. not an incriminating statement but an object evidence. Wigmore, discussing the
question now before us in his treatise on evidence, thus, said:

2. People vs. Malimit – 264 S 167 (supra)

If, in other words (the rule) created inviolability not only for his
[physical control of his] own vocal utterances, but also for his
Facts: physical control in whatever form exercise, then, it would be
1. Appellant Malimit was charged with the special complex crime of possible for a guilty person to shut himself up in his house, with
robbery with homicide of the victim Malaki. all the tools and indicia of his crime, and defy the authority of the
2. During trial, it was established by the accounts of the two witnesses law to employ in evidence anything that might be obtained by
Batin the home cook of Malaki and by Rondon, a neighbor that: forcibly overthrowing his possession and compelling the surrender
a. One night of April 1999, when Malaki was attending to his of the evidential articles — a clear reduction ad absurdum. In
store, Batid proceeded to the said store to ask if he was to other words, it is not merely compulsion that is the kernel of the
prepare supper. Much to his surprise, he saw the appellant privilege, . . . but testimonial compulsion
Malimit coming out of the store with a bolo, while his boss was
bathing in his own blood on the floor. Furthermore, the Miranda Rights will also not apply as to the admissibility of
b. Rondon, who was outside and barely five (5) meters away evidence as violations of Miranda rights will only have the effect of making the
from the store, also saw appellant Jose Malimit rushing out extrajudicial confession or admissions during custodial investigation inadmissible.
through the front door of Malaki's store with a bloodstained
bolo. Rondon clearly recognized Malimit Hence, in the present case, even if indeed he was not informed of his rights,
3. Decision of the trial court: the trial court convicted Malimit with the these constitutional shortcuts do not affect the admissibility of Malaki's wallet,
special complex crime of robbery with homicide and was sentenced identification card, residence certificate and keys for the purpose of establishing
with the penalty of reclusion perpetua. other facts relevant to the crime. Thus, the wallet is admissible to establish the
fact that it was the very wallet taken from Malaki on the night of the robbery.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 32

The identification card, residence certificate and keys found inside the wallet, on RULE 132 SECTION 4 – ORDER IN THE EXAMINATION OF AN
the other hand, are admissible to prove that the wallet really belongs to Malaki. INDIVIDUAL WITNESS

Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that these pieces of evidence are

Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness. —
inadmissible, the same will not detract from appellant's culpability considering The order in which the individual witness may be examined is as follows;
the existence of other evidence and circumstances establishing appellant's
identity and guilt as perpetrator of the crime charged. (a) Direct examination by the proponent;
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent.

(by the proponent) on behalf of the opponent to support the latter's

tand; it should cover all the facts which the party expects to elicit from
direct
direct
examination the witness
examination

(by the opponent) to weaken or discredit the testimony given on the

direct examination; purpose is to bring the truth of the facts testified in
cross
cross
examination the first stage
examination

(by the proponent) to rebut the cross examination

re-direct
re-direct
examination
examination

(by the opponent) to refute the matters disclosed in the direct

re-cross
re-cross examination
examination
examination

Kinds of Examinations of Witnesses:

a. Direct Examination
b. Cross Examination
c. Re-direct examination
d. Re-cross examination

Section 5. Direct examination. — Direct examination is the

examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts
relevant to the issue.

First. Direct Examination

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 33

 Purpose and Value
Definition  (1) CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS: By means of this, the situation
 This is the examination-in-chief of a witness by a party presenting of the witness, with respect to the parties and to the subject of
hiom on the facts relevant to the issue litigation, his interest, his motive, his inclination and prejudices, his
 Procedure for obtaining information from one’s own witness in an means of obtaining a correct and certain knowledge of the fact to which
orderly fashion he bears testimony, the manner in which he has used those means, his
 It is the information that the counsel wants the court to hear powers of discernment, and submitted to the consideration of the court
 Firs interrogation or examination of a witness, on the merits, b the before whom he has testified, and who has this had an opportunity of
party on whose behalf he is called observing his demeanor, and of determining the just weight and value
of his testimony
Second. Cross Examination  (2) to bring out facts favourable to counsel’s client not
established during the direct testimony
Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. — Upon the
termination of the direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the  This is also in accordance with Section 14 (2) of Art. III of the
adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct examination, or connected Constitution which provides that the accused shall enjoy the right to
therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to
truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all- secure the attendance of the witness and the production of evidence ion
important facts bearing upon the issue. his behalf

Definition What is the effect if there is no cross examination without the fault of
 Examination by witness by the adverse party after said witness has the opposing party?
given his testimony on direct examination  It is considered as incomplete and hence, not admissible in
Scope evidence. It may stricken off the record.
 Not confined with matters stated in the direct examination and is
granted a wide latitude and leeway for cross examination of a witness Effect of Death or absence:
 Adverse party may elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue, even (1) if the witness dies before his cross examination is over, his testimony on the
if not embraced in the direct examination, without making him a witness direct may be stricken out only with respect to the testimony which was not
of the party on whose behalf the cross examination is being done covered by the cross examination
o Thus, if a part of conversation or transaction ahs ben disclosed (2) if the witness was not cross-examined because of causes attributable to the
in direct testimony, the remainder, so far as it is relevant, may cross examining party and the witness had always made himself available
be called out during the cross examination for cross examination, the direct testimony of the witness shall be in the
o As the inquiry in the answer may tend to impeach, rebut, record and cannot be stricken off record because the cross examiner is
explain, or qualify the testimony which has already been given deemed to have waived his right to cross examine such.
Exception:
 An accused who testifies on his own behalf may be cross-examined Third: Re-direct Examination
only on matters covered by his direct examination
Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent. — After the
“RULE 115, Section 1. (d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but cross-examination of the witness has been concluded, he may be re-examined by
subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination. the party calling him, to explain or supplement his answers given during the
His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.” cross-examination. On re-direct-examination, questions on matters not dealt with
during the cross-examination, may be allowed by the court in its discretion.

Purpose

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 34

  Examination by the party who called the witness for direct examination direct examination or brought out, on redirect
conducted after the cross examination of the witness (2) or as to a new mater which was examination
 Affords the witness to explain or amplify the testimony which he has brought out on re-direct (2) matters already fully covered, or
given on cross examination and to explain any apparent contradiction or examination discussed at length on cross
inconsistency in his statement, an opportunity which is not ordinarily (3) or which is designed to test the examination
accorded to him during his cross examination credibility of the witness or (3) matters with respect to which the
 To correct or repel any wrong impression or inferences that may have testimony elicited on re-direct wintess was examined on direct
been created in the cross examination examination examination
 Also be the opportunity to rehabilitate the credibility of the witness (4) or as to which there was an
challenged by the cross examination opportunity to cross examine him,
where there is no claim of
Scope oversight, and there is no reason
stated why the matter was not
 Ordinarily confined to the matters as to which the witness was inquired into during the cross
cross examined examination proper
 It should not extend to collateral matters which have not been touched B.
upon in the cross- examination unless, allowed by the court in its
discretion

Example, when the witness was asked about a certain conversation during the 1. Bachrach Motors Co. Inc. vs. CIR – 86 S 27
cross examination, on re-direct, the witness may be examined as to the details of
such conversation Facts:
1. In 1958, Bachrach Motor operated under the name Rural Motors.
 In that year the Rural Transit Employees Association went on strike and
the dispute between the management and the union reached the Court
Fourth: Re-Cross Examination of Industrial Relations for compulsory arbitration.
Section 8. Re-cross-examination. — Upon the conclusion of the re-direct 2. While this labor dispute was pending with the Court of Industrial Relations
examination, the adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters (CIR) Bachrach filed a “Petition for Authority to discharge driver Maximo
stated in his re-direct examination, and also on such other matters as may be Jacob from the service”, dated July 24, 1961. The reasons given for the
allowed by the court in its discretion. petition were alleged violations of the Motor Vehicle Law by Maximo Jacob
resulting in damage to property and injuries to third parties.
Definition: 3. The petition of Bachrach was heard on January 23, 1963, during which
 This is the examination conducted upon the conclusion of the re-direct petitioner presented its one and only witness, Mr. Joseph Kaplin, general
examination manager of Rural Transit, and various documents marked as Exhibits “l” to
 The adverse party may question the witness on matters stated in his re- “8F” inclusive. Mr. Kaplin testified on the contents of the said exhibits.
direct examination and also on such matters as may be allowed by the 4. After Mr. Kaplin concluded his direct testimony, with agreement of the
court in its discretion parties, the hearing was scheduled for another date for purposes of cross-
examination of the witness. The case was reset on various dates but Mr.
Scope: Kaplin failed to appear because he had left for abroad.
5. the employee’s association filed a motion praying among all other that the
Proper exclude testimony of Mr. Joseph Kaplin be stricken from the records
(1) matter which was opened upo on (1) matters which were not aopend up 6. the CIR judge then dismissed the petition of the bus company and ordered
the reinstatement of the driver Jacob to service.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 35

 Inasmuch as the testimony of Joseph Kaplin is stricken off the record and the
Hence, the present action by the herein petitioner arguing that The respondent contents of Exhibits “1” to “8F” are hearsay, and there is no other evidence
court erred in dismissing the petition of the herein petitioner, after ordering the which substantiates the charges against Maximo Jacob, the dismissal of the
testimony of Joseph Kaplin to be stricken off the record, notwithstanding the fact company’s petition to discharge Jacob from its service is in order.
that the service records of Maximo Jacob, upon the basis of which his dismissal
could be justified were admitted by it.

2. People vs. Padero – 226 S 810

Issue: Was the CIR correct in ordering that the testimony of Mr. Kaplin be
stricken off record because he was not cross examined? Topic: Significance of cross-examination

Ruling: Yes.
Facts:
(1) “The right of a party to confront and crossexamine opposing witnesses in a (1) Jocelyn Cadeliña, a sixteenyearold lass and a resident of sitio Amalao,
judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before barangay Tagpo of Bais City, charged Henry Padero, her uncleinlaw, with
administrative tribunals with quasi judicial powers, is fundamental right the crime of rape armed buy a knife by means of force and intimidation
which is part of due process.” (2) The prosecution presented as its witnesses complainant Jocelyn Cadeliña
(2) In the present case, Petitioner presented only one witness, Joseph Kaplin, and Cherryl Palacios for its evidence in chief, and Clara Cadeliña, Rev.
to prove its case against driver Jacob. The witness failed however to appear Lemuel Felecio, and Damiana Cadeliña on rebuttal.
at the scheduled hearings for his cross examination for the simple reason (3) The accused took the witness stand in his defense and presented Loreta
that he left for abroad. Having been deprived, without fault on its part, of its Samane, Elsa Garcia, Macrina Padero, and Marietta Padero as his witnesses.
right to crossexamine Kaplin, respondent association was entitled to have  The accused was trying to establish that in act, he and his niece, the
the direct testimony of the witness stricken off the record. complainant were in an illicit love affair and the date alleged to be the
(3) Why this rule? “Oral testimony may be taken into account only when it is date when the rape happened was just one of the few times they have
complete, that is, if the witness has been wholly crossexamined by the had sexual intercourse as lovers. Hence, there was no rape because
adverse party or the right to crossexamine is lost wholly or in part thru the Jocelyn consented to all of them.
fault of such adverse party. But when cross examination is not and cannot (4) The decision of the RTC: found the accused guilty beyond reasonable
be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party offering the doubt. Giving full faith and credit to the version of the complainant who it
witness, the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered incompetent. said testified “with sincerity, honesty and candidness, and with answers
direct to the point, in a logical and straightforward manner, and free from
Would not the documents presented which were admitted be enough? inconsistencies.”

Ruling: no. Hence, the present action arguing that the lower court erred in giving credence
to the testimony of complainant jocelyn ‘joy’ cadeliña considering that it is
The opposing party was still entitled to crossexamine the witness on the matters contrary to common human knowledge and experience and this is highly
written on Exhibits “1” to “8F” especially if they adversely affected the substantial improbable.
rights of the party against whom they were being presented, namely, driver
Maximo Jacob. When Atty. Santiago admitted that the signature appearing in The issue of whether or not there was rape in this case was resolved
Exhibits “1” to “8 F” was that of witness Kaplin, the counsel of petitioner then, through the SC’s method of revisiting the direct and the cross
Atty. Joven Erurile, should have inquired if the party was admitting likewise the examination of the complainant when she was put into the witness
veracity of the contents of the documents; not having done so, petitioner must stand. The SC deemed such as necessary because the credibility of the
now suffer the consequences. complainant was being questioned.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 36

Ruling: there was no rape. The accused not only was able to show their RULE 132. SECTION 9. RECALLING WITNESS
relationship and consent to the sexual intercourse, but that the
complainant witness herself, by her testimonies during the cross Section 9. Recalling witness. — After the examination of a witness by both
examination, established such. sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the
court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of
justice may require.
(1) we find enough evidence of the intimate relationship between the
complainant and the accused. On crossexamination, she admitted that the
accused used to sleep in the unit of the house which she rented from his Recalling Witness
mother.  recalling witness is a matter of judicial discretion
(2) And, as further testified to by her on crossexamination, she declared that  in its exercise of discretion, the judge shall be guided by the interests of
the accused usually came to her rented unit every weekend since June justice and may be limited by, aside from rules of admissibility and
1991 and slept there despite the fact that the house of his mother is only competence, the rule that the witnesses must not be subject to any
nearby. unnecessary delay, inconvenience, or expense
(3) Also, her conduct during and after coitus unmistakably discloses absence  if the court is not satisfied by the evidence adduced in criminal cases,
of even token resistance and betrays her consent to the sexual congress. he may, on his own motion, call additional witnesses or recall some of
(4) In one salient portion of the crossexamination, we find her totally the same witnesses, for the purpose of questioning them himself and
submissive in the face of the assault against her most prized possession satisfying his mind with reference to particular facts
and unusually observant of the preparatory acts of the accused and his
eventual physiological and emotional transformation in fulfilled libido.
RULE 132 SECTION 10 – LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS
In relation to the knife: The claim of threat or intimidation through the use of a
knife merits scant consideration Section 10. Leading and misleading questions. — A question which
(1) As admitted by the complainant during the crossexamination, she suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a
allegedly saw it for the first time when she was roused from her sleep leading question. It is not allowed, except:
and she noticed the accused on top of her, holding the knife in his right
hand. (a) On cross examination;
(2) In this position, the accused could only be facing down at her. However,
on direct examination, she declared that when she saw him wielding a (b) On preliminary matters;
knife and holding her arm, “[h]e was lying down, faced [sic] up
(3) From then on she was silent about the knife. Although she distinctly (c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers
remembered that the accused did not stand up immediately after the from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble
sexual act, that thereafter both of them sat down for a while, and that mind, or a deaf-mute;
later the accused went down to the ground floor to sleep, she did not
mention anything more about the knife. (d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or

Conclusion: We therefore have serious doubts on the guilt of the (e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or
accused for the crime charged. managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or
association which is an adverse party.

A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by
the witness, or contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is not allowed.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 37

Definition the judge to rely upon is discretion and good judgment in deciding on
 a leading question is one that is framed in such a way that the question the relevance and propriety of the questions which may have been put
indicated to the witness the answer desired by the party asking the to the witness, to the end that, in passing judgment, he may be enabled
question to administer strict justice with rectitude and impartiality.
 suggestion plays an important part and may affect heavily the testimony
of a witness such that:
a. it may increase the errors of his evidence Definition of Misleading Question: It is not allowed. Absolutely.
b. influences the value of the reply to the question A misleading question is one which:
 it creates an inference in his mind, causing him to testify in accordance (1) Assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
with the suggestion conveyed in the question (2) Contrary to that which he has previously stated.

Example:
Leading question: was the dog white or brown? 1. People vs. Caparas – 111 S 68
Appropriate question: what is the color of the dog
Facts:
Example #2: the issue was whether the victim was killed in 1989 as contended
by the prosecution. There was no positive proof that the killing of the victim was The present case involves to motions for reconsideration, but in relation to our
done in 1989. All of the questions of the prosecution were made in the following topic, the motion for reconsideration filed by accused appellant Caparas is what
form: is relevant. The accused appellants were charged with the crime of the murder of
Simeon Paez and the prosecution was trying to show the conspiracy exisiting
1. do you remember in one of the months of 1898 to have seen a certain between the accused appellants.
Vicente?
2. At that time, that is in 1989, do you know in what barrio Vicente lived in? 1. As regards appellant Caparas, the motions for reconsideration seek the
3. In what way were you acquainted with Vicente in 1989 when that affair review of the testimonies of the two principal witnesses, Laureano
happened? Salvador and Lydia Posadas, upon which said appellant was convicted, on
The prosecuting attorney was trying to lead the witness with reference to the ground of conspiracy between him and Diamsay.
time when the crime was committed. 2. Caparas points out some facts and circumstances which are alleged to
impair the credibility of the aforesaid witnesses and thereby leaves the
Example #3: what were the names of those two persons who went into your fact of conspiracy unproven beyond reasonable doubt as it should be.
house at the time when mr. Mariano Vicente was there? 3. Thus, Caparas points out that Laureano’s testimony was extracted
through leading questions.
Situation: prior to this question, there had been no intimation by question or
answer that two persons or any other number of persons had entered the Here is the transcript: (feel ko papaidentify ni sir saan yung leading
house on the occasion when Vicente was taken. questions and will be asked to reformulate the questions)

When should it be raised? “Q Do you know the purpose of Carlos Gregorio in coming to your
 The question must be raised during the trial and the objection must be house?
made immediately after each suggestive question; failure to do such “A Yes, sir.
prevents the court from taking note the said issue
“Q What was his purpose?
How is it determined? “A Regarding the landholding I was farming and his help I requested.
 The law prohibits all suggestive questions, but not those the purpose of
which is to discover the truth of the facts that occurred an dit authorizes

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 38

“Q Did you go to any place with Carlos Gregorio after that? “Q Who else?
“A Yes, sir. “A Eufemio Caparaz, sir.
“Q Anybody else?
“Q Where? “A Carling Gregorio, sir.
“A To his house.
“Q And you?
Q: ‘ You are referring to the house of Carlos Gregorio? ‘Q “A I was present.
“A Yes, sir.
Xxx xxx

“Q When you arrived at the house of Carlos Gregorio, who were with “Q Now, in the vernacular, in Tagalog Language that you have been
you? testifying, you said, Patayin n’yo, means plural, do you know to whom
“A Carlos Gregorio, sir. this word n’yo’ referred to?
“A He was ordering me, Carling, and Tisio Diamsay, sir.
“Q Who were the persons, if any, that you have seen at the house of
Carlos Gregorio? “Q Ordering to what?
“A Eufemio Caparaz and Diamsay, sir. Xxx “A To kill.

“Q Now, when you arrived in that house, what happened? “Q To kill Simeon Paez?
“A We talked regarding the landholding, sir. “A Yes, sir.”

“Q You said, ‘we’, to whom are you referring?

“A Eufemio Caparaz, sir. Issue: were the question of the prosecutor leading to the effect that the
credibility of the testimony of the principal witness be questioned?
“Q What did you talk about that landholding?
“A Regarding the landholding which he said would be given to me. He said there Ruling: Yes.
is already one.
Ratio: We are constrained to agree that the testimony of Laureano on the
“Q And what did you answer when this was said to you by Eufemio supposed conspiracy was elicited by means of leading questions, the probative
Caparaz? value of which, according to accepted legal authorities, is thus diminished or
“A I said, ‘if there is, I give thanks’, but he said that the land he was giving me lessened.
had some trouble.
“The probative value of a witness’ testimony is very much lessened where it is
“Q And what did you say? obtained by leading questions which are so put that the witness merely assents
“A I said that seems hard’, but he said, ‘that is easy’. to or dissents from a statement or assertion of an examining consul put with
such vocal inflection as to be a question.”
“Q What else transpired?
“A I asked him what he meant by easy and he said ‘it is easy under this
condition’, and I asked him what condition, and he said ‘you kill him’.

“Q During all that time, who were present inside that house?
“A Tisio Diamsay.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 39

RULE 132 SECTION 11—IMPEACHMENT OF ADVERSE PARTY’S
WITNESS Contradictory Evidence (see laying the predicate)

Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. — A witness may be How is this done?
impeached by the party against whom he was called, by contradictory evidence,  Usually, fairness demands that the matter subject of the impeachment
by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or be brought during the cross examination of the witness by allowing the
by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his witness to admit or deny a matter sued as the basis of impeachment
present, testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it  And this declaration made by the witness is the basis of the introduction
may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, of the contradictory evidence
that he has been convicted of an offense.  May also be used to contradict the conclusions of the expert witness by
calling another witness
 For the testimony of a witness to merit credit, it is indispensible that it
be not incompatible with his other statements as well as the o
What is impeachment?
Examples of credibility of the witness being impeached:
 Contradiction of a witness in two possible significations: (1) in a case for murder, a witness testifies on direct examination that he was
1. charge or accusation of want of veracity barely 5 meters away from the accused when the victim was shot.
2. establishment of the said chard  Impeaching the witness: The prosecution may show that indeed, the
 it is an attack against the credibility of the witness and constitutes as a witness was several miles away, by raising during the cross examination
challenge to a witness’ veracity whether he was in a wedding miles away on that date. If the witness
 imports the destruction of a witness’ involving not only the attack on the denies the fact that he was in the wedding, the opponent may show
testimony but also the credibility of the witness contrary evidence of the witness’ whereabouts (e.g., pictures, other
testimonies).
(2) A complainant who declared that she lost consciousness but was able to
narrate the detail surrounding the rape is not credible.
Modes of Impeaching a Witness:
Examples of situations when the credibility of the witness was not
(1) by contradictory evidence affected:
(1) discrepancies between the actual and recorded serial numbers of
(2) by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honestly, or the marked moneys during the buy-bust operation are plainly
integrity is bad, or nothing but clerical errors and do not warrant that the recording of
numbers was not made prior to the buy-bust operation
(3) by evidence that he has made at other times statements (2) discrepancies between the affidavit and the testimony in court in
inconsistent with his present, testimony, relation to minor details does not constitute sufficient ground to
impeach the credibility of said witness
but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts,
(4) except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or
the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an When should issues impeaching the credibility of the witness must be
offense. raised?
 The imputation challenging or charging the testimony of the witness
(e.g., receiving reward from the party on whose behalf he is testifying)
should be raised during the cross examination to impeach his credibility.
In the absence of such, his testimony must be taken as any other

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 40

 testimony with the presumption of trustfulness as it was govern under unpaid subscriptions to the capital stock of the corporation. Defendant
oath. was produced as witness by the plaintiff. Applying the general rule,
the plaintiff was bound by the assertions of the defendant that
he signed the instrument of subscription with the understating
RULE 132 SECTION 12—PARTY MAY NOT IMPEACH HIS OWN WITNESS that he would not be considered to have joined the corporation
until he is able to send the money. Hence, the plaintiff could not
Section 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. — Except with contend that the defendant was unworthy of credit, especially where
respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the the testimony is uncontradicted. It must be made clear that the witness
party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility. was among the exceptions and the court must make a finding as to
such.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the
court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to Exception to the rule; when the Prohibition Against Impeaching his
testify, or his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. own Witness; When party not bound by adverse testimony of witness:

The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse (1) the witness is hostile who:
party, may be impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had a. declared by the court as
been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of his bad character. He b. showing his adverse interest or
may also be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party, but such c. unjustified reluctance to testify or
cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his examination-in- d. have misled the party into calling him in the witness stand
chief. (2) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing
agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association
which is an adverse party.
Who may impeach a witness?
How is one’s own witness impeached if under the exceptions?
General Rule: (1) Allowed to impeach the party presenting him in all respects as if he had
 Impeachment of a witness is to be done by the party against whom been called by the adverse party, using all the modes provided in Section
the witness is called 11.
o As a general rule, the party producing the witness is  The adverse party may subject the witness to cross examination also
barred from impeaching his own witness (paano yun, babaligtarin mo purpose ng cross examination?)
o Hence, even if the would appear that the testimony of the
party’s witness is adverse to the proponent, the proponent (2) EXCEPT: EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER.
is bound
Exceptions: Example:
(1) Section 10 (d): Unwilling or hostile witness as determined by the court Plaintiff sought to recover a parcel of land alleging that she acquired by purchase
(2) Section 11 (e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, the said land from the defendant as seen by in “Exhibit A” the deed of sale
director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a signed by the defendants.
partnership or association which is an adverse party.
She brought as one witness on the to establish that the said document was
signed by the defendants.
Example of the general rule:
 Plaintiff, as assignee of the insolvent corporation, brought an action for On the other hand, one of the defendants denied having signed the said
collection of a sum of money against the defendant representing his document.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 41

Hence, constrained to prove the plaintiff’s assertion that they indeed signed the How?
document themselves and to contradict the statements made by one of the First, ask the witness to repeat or reaffirm his most recent statement
defendants, the plaintiff called to the witness stand one of the other defendants Second, relate to the witness his prior inconsistent statement
as rebuttal evidence. Third, build up or highlight such inconsistency relating to the circumstances,
persons, and places
When the said defendant was called to testify, he was asked to sign 3 times. The Fourth, ask whether he made such statement (or ask if he executed the
opponent objected arguing that such constitutes a cross examination on his own document)
witness.
Why?
The objection was overruled considering that the trial court found that the  to allow the witness to admit or deny and also to afford opportunity to
witness is hostile and is an adverse party. explain the same
 otherwise, it may be objected to on the ground of improper
impeachment and would generally be inadmissible
RULE 132 SECTION 13 – HOW WITNESS IMPEACHED BY EVIDENCE OF
INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS

Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent

statements. — Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has
made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the
statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and
places and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such
statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing
they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning
them.

Requisites of “Laying the predicate”

 The mere presentation of the prior declaration of the witness
without the same having been read to him while testifying in
court, will be insufficient for the desired impeachment of his
testimony.
 Hence laying the predicate is necessary: it is the process of cross-
examining a witness upon the point of prior contradictory statement, for
the introduction of contradictory statements.
o it is the general rule that unless a ground is thus laid upon
cross examination, evidence of contradictory statements are
not admissible to impeach a witness

How does one lay the predicate?

(1) the alleged statements must be related to the witness including the
circumstances of the times and places and the person present. if
the statements are in writing, it must be shown to him; and
(2) he must be asked whether he made such statements and also to
explain them if he admits making those statements

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 42

Cases:

1. US vs. Baluyot – 40 P 385

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 43

 2. People vs. Relucio – 86 S 227

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 44

 3. People vs. Winston De Guzman – 288 S 346

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 45

RULE 132 SECTION 14-- EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER OF WITNESS RULE 132 SECTION 15. EXCLUSION AND SEPARATION OF WITNESS

Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness. — Evidence of the

good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. — On any trial or
impeached. hearing, the judge may exclude from the court any witness not at the time under
examination, so that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses. The
Impeachment by Showing Bad Reputation judge may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented from
 One of the ways to impair the credibility of the witness is to show his conversing with one another until all shall have been examined.
not so pleasing reputation. The prevailing rule allows his impeachment
by evidence that he has a bad general reputation. NOTE THAT THIS RIGHT IS DISCRETIONARY
 However, evidence of such bad reputation must relate only to the
following: GENERALLY:
(1) For truth (1) the judge may exclude from the court any witness not at the time under
(2) For honesty examination, so that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses
(3) For integrity (2) The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be
 Hence, a witness may not be impeached by reason of his reputation prevented from conversing with one another until all shall have been
being troublesome and abrasive examined.

Evidence of good character of witness WHEN NOT APPLICABLE:

(1) Parties in a civil case who are entitle to be present during the trial
General Rule: evidence of good character of witness is not admissible (2) An accused who has the right to confront the witnesses or the
complainant
Unless the character of the witness has been impeached
Effect as to the admissibility of the testimony of the witness who
 Note that this must be differentiated with the rule related to the stayed in court despite order to exclude all witness from the court
accused introducing evidence of his good character and the prohibition  Rejection or admission of testimony of Party remaining after order of
on the part of the accused to give evidence of bad character unless as exclusion is discretionary with the Court
rebuttal by the prosecution

Impeachment of witness by evidence of wrongful acts

General Rule: impeachment of a witness by evidence of his particular

wrongful acts is disallowed

Except: in relation to his prior conviction of an offense through cross

examination and or by presenting the record of his prior conviction

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 46

 RULE 132. SEC. 17—WHEN PART OF TRANSACTION, WRITING OR
RULE 132 SEC. 16—WHEN WITNESS MAY REFER TO MEMORANDUM RECORD GIVEN IN EVIDENCE, THE REMAINDER ADMISSIBLE

Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. — A witness may Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in
be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything written or evidence, the remainder, the remainder admissible. — When part of an
recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred, or act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by one
immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and
memory and knew that the same was correctly written or recorded; but in such when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in
case the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary to
adverse party, who may, if he chooses, cross examine the witness upon it, and its understanding may also be given in evidence.
may read it in evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such writing or
record, though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to
swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made; but
such evidence must be received with caution.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 47

RULE 132 SECTION 18—RIGHT TO RESPECT WRITING SHOWN TO
WITNESS

Section 18. Right to respect writing shown to witness. — Whenever a

writing is shown to a witness, it may be inspected by the adverse party.

V. Araneta Notes. Evidence. Atty. Custodio. Term 2 Ay 2015-2016 48