Evidence

What’s discussed in a six-hour class on evidence? Here are my notes for the curious.

issuance of a negotiable instrument: when the author/maker makes (accomplishes) the negotiable instrument
fills in: signature of payor/date/
(case of cross-check: state investment)
figures and words

when you make it, it should be complete. issue to the name of the payee or his order, it should be dated, amount must be a sum certain in money, upon accomplishing it, it should be delivered
accomplish and put in cabinet: not issued
if encashed (maid got from cabinet, deposited in fictitious account, etc) was it duly issued? no bec it was not delivered; there must be delivery. but there is a presumption. the one saying there was falsification, burden of proof is on the one making the allegation.
once accomplished, presumed to have been given, unless it was post dated
endorsed – during negotiations, after issuance. subsequent activity after issuance. the payee endorses it.
negotiation through endorsement, either by the original or subsequent payee, bec there can be a second, third, fourth for as long as gusto mong ibayad.

re-discounting: minsan lang ang issue, initial delivery. pag payee ang magta-transfer, ang tawag ay endorsement.
sign at the back of the check. deliver also the check. kasama to para due course

rediscount: check can be sold to another, for a value much lower than the amount stated in the check, before the due date on the check. it must be endorsed and delivered.
means second endorsee

endorsement must be made before it is overdue, and at the place where the instrument was made. if the endorsement is made after the instrument was overdue, one is not a holder in due course. and anyone who pays it is not a payor in good faith and may be liable. endorsee becomes liable to personal defenses of the payor.

date on check is when it must be paid. if it is a bank, usually the term is presentment: when presented to bank for payment. when check is postdated, delivery is before the date on the check. if the bank encashes it before the date on the check, the bank is liable.

that a writing is truly dated:
applies on any kind of writing? basta may date? like a will?
for holographic wills, it is required that testator himself write the date, there is a specific civil code provision.
attested will, the presumption applies? any writing presumed authorship on the same date, authorship meaning creation.

letter:
CIR v metro star: notice of preliminary assessment must be received. before fan there must be pan. presumption did not arise because there was no proof that it was received. and the presumption requires that there was receipt.

letter duly directed: properly addressed. full and correct name and address
kahit walang zip code, basta correct. pag may isang kulang, hindi duly. the presumption does not arise.

mopia: the rules themselves provide the presumption that the letter was received so before it can be properly presumed that the letter was received, there must be a showing that the letter was correctly addressed, etc. there must be a showing in court for the presumption to arise.

why was it that the rules say that the moment it was properly addressed the presumption arises: based on the presumption of regularity in the bureau of posts
because the postman would not be able to deliver to the correct address even with the presumption of regularity kung mali ang spelling, kahit si superman maliligaw. must prove it was duly directed.

and mailed: not apply in metrostar because cir was not able to produce the receipt of notice of mailing.

when metro star disputed it, nabura ang presumption. burden of evidence shifted to the cir, who would have enjoyed the presumption. therefore, prove actual receipt, which is what the tax code says. the only way it can be done was the registry return card. that would show actual receipt of the mail. has to be signed either by the addressee or the person who received the mail. pag deliver the mail matter to the addresee, papipirma to whoever is there.

postman brings back to post office for recording and gives back to the one who mailed. how to prove pag walang accomplished? logbook, plus certification from post master that it was really received. if not logbook, postman executes affidavit that he did deliver it. ganoon kahalaga ang presumption, it is the substitute for evidence. it does away with evidence.

interplay of factum probandum and presumption:
before presumption arises, factum probandum
pag disputed, nabubura ang presumption, balik ang factum probandum, not only that it was mailed but that it was received

Rule 131
after an absence of seven years: at the end of seven years
for purposes of succession: after 10 years
if older than 75 years (after his birthday), only five years
to marry, four years, if there is a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead
summary procedure under family code. special proceedings for absentees under the civil action to declare absent person dead

in articulo mortis: in danger of death
*armed hostilities is different from armed conflict
*genocide is not part of armed conflict (but there is danger of death)

voyage is required: if vessel is anchored, does not apply
existence has not been known for four years: absent, unheard of

but has to prove that there is danger of death (ex: kidnapped by the abu sayyaf, unheard of for four years). criterion is: is your existence known? relatives knew as of that date still alive, but not heard of for more than four years. existence as a person, NOT AS A CORPSE is no longer known, so presumption may apply.

x: acquiescense resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was comformable to law or fact — amounts to good faith

y: this is what establishes motive. remember bernal: if the victim had an affair with the accused’s wife, establishes motive on part of accused because ordinary habits of life, including presumption that if your wife has affair you might be angry enough to kill.
what if person says, in good faith, should be presumed innocent. bec according to ordinary human nature, it is normal that you will be angry. same reason for unlawful intent for unlawful act, bec human nature includes positive and negative.
habits of life is everything: planets going around the sun.
do the presumption expand beyond the planet earth? only to the extent that has been scientifically proven. difficult to justify extending man made presumptions into life on planet earth. so life means life on planet earth.

that when you have a storm, trees are uprooted. if car is found underneath a tree, right after a typhoon, not going to say neighbor liable. (that if there is a storm, there will still be classes regardless of the strength of the typhoon, if it is under VAA).

if you act that way, it is presumed that there was basis to act that way: applies to partnership and to marriage

not in the family code. does it matter? no, family code does not rewrite the civil code. the presumption stays. in the civil code, five years for the presumption to arise.

cohabitation, is it the same as the law on concubinage?
cohabiting – section on dwelling refers to the mistress living in the conjugal dwelling. man cohabits with a woman, can be anywhere. cohabitation means living together. for purposes of this presumption, as man and wife.
difficult if the other woman is a domestic (maid), because they live together. this presumption will arise only if there is an additional fact: they’re doing things that a man and a wife do, not a man and a domestic

joint effort, work and industry: JEWI
AMPI – actual contribution of money, property or industry

*joint means equal

presumption sometimes based on substantive law, but not always

cc: have to prove that there was actual joint contribution. otherwise the presumption does not apply, bec it doesn’t follow that equal kayo. the advantage of first, capacitated sila, does not apply on the second bec they’re not capacitated. factum probandum that you show actual joint…that they’re equal

rule: if month, count by months
but since rule says by days, so one counts by day
termination of first marriage important for the 300 days of the next marriage
180 days is the solemnization of the second marriage

dd (1) a child born within 179 days of the second marriage and within 300 days of the first marriage, presumed child of the first spouse

the law will not presume that you had an affair. it would rather presume that if you had an affair, it was with the second spouse, whom you eventually married.

that is why, after 10 months from termination, cannot presume anymore. that’s a free for all.
“we don’t follow the benjamin button paradigm”
people grow old chronologically

that the law has been obeyed

presumptions: good faith or regularity.
that the law has been obeyed, two in one: both regularity and good faith

gg: a book that poses as official issuance, was so printed or published. meaning it’s presumed that it is official.
onar: rules and regulations of all administrative agencies, otherwise it will not be effective

will presumption apply to foreign issuances? NO, because as shown in the next presumption, in the country where the book is published

NOT amjur because it does not contain reports of cases, only summaries of cases. the provision refers to cases itself, such as federal reports, atlantic reporter, supreme court cases
crunch, wheat — english — name of the scrivener

queen’s bench: bec it is a reporter for the queen
not independent, bec under the monarchy. all subject to the whim of the king or queen

still, disputable presumption. can show that the reporter was wrong

ii: only applies to real property, take note.
trustee can be an implied trust or expressed, although it did not say
resulting and constructive — implied trust
expressed — three parties — trustor, trustee, beneficiary

jj: DOESN’T APPLY TO SUCCESSION — very crucial
there must be calamity: wreck, battle, conflagration (not close ended, equivalent may apply) — fire, water, man-made — naturally occuring
third parameter is there no indication who died first

in the absence of other parameters, that’s the only time you look to age and sex and apply these.
*wala pa silang ROTC (if below 15, sex does not matter)
*after 15 yrs old, male is more muscular
*after 60, age becomes determinative

kk: no presumption of death if there is a doubt between two or more person who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first

132 does not talk of object evidence, but it impliedly it includes. kasi identify rin naman; doesn’t mean you will not identify and authenticate object evidence. kasama ang object evidence dito.

examination of witnesses: you should imagine it

cases in presumptions:

borje:
was there a taking? (taking means theft, but this is a falsification case).
jj: must mean taken with intent, not if you are legally entitled to the thing

the recent wrongful act is something different from the taking. robbery with homicide: iba ang nakaw, iba ang pinatay mo pa. when there is a taking and something else happens din.

recent unlawful act must include taking, without the taking wala itong presumption na ito
there are two scenarios in jj:
kidnapping with ransom, belong to scenario no.2: yes, if ransom money was found, hindi ka lang taker, kidnapper ka pa. ransom: theft? robbery? in terms of nature of ransom, employing intimidation and threat. it is a taking, so just like theft and robbery.
bribery is a taking, but what is the larger, recent wrongful act.
but should construe the provision in that sense. in that way, nasaan ang borje? the presumption in borje refers to another presumption, not this.

borje: 1983.
compare with an old case, people v sendai-diego.
compare also with marquez v fernandez

possession of forged documents not enough to prove she was falsifier, but because she used it, and submitted it. that was dishonest. but there was no presumption.

did borje and marquez supersede people v sendaydiego? which said that person in possession of forged documents is presumed to be the forger.

L-33252 – sendaidiego – 1978
not know if good law because not have basis.
is it reasonable that if you’re in possession of falsified document, presumed to be forger? no.
in taking, the one in possession is presumed to be the taker, because usually what is taken is a movable because you cannot take possession of a real property. there is presumption like this because when you take possession of a movable it is valuable in itself. if wrongfully taken, at nasa bulsa mo, bakit nasa bulsa mo? kaya may presumption. does that apply to a forged document? because a forged document is useless until actually submitted and used. not enough to possess, the value of the document is not the in possesion, but in the contents.
kung deed of sale, walang silbi kung hindi na-register sa pangalan mo. hindi katulad ng movable, na may value.

in sendaydiego, parang the court had reason to arrive at that conclusion, that a person in possession of forged docus forged it because the accussed were a businessman and a cashier, bec the docus involved were govt papers, and falsified so sendaydiego could pocket the money. and cashier conducted it inside the room, when it was ministerial. sendaydiego followed it from one office to another, about ten steps. coupled with fact that he was beneficiary of falsified docus, led the court to suspect. it is pro hac vice, for that case only. very peculiar and unique. without those circumstances, not sure that there should be general presumption that possessor of falsified document is the falsifier.

in marquez, she was the beneficiary. marquez is kinda reasonable; agree that the fact she used the falsified documents. admin, so not reasonable doubt. borje was criminal, so there was added reason why it did not want to presume

capili is very illustrative case of res ipsa loquitor:
presumption of negligence, subject to three conditions.

general rule: prove negligence in order for liability to arise, but in certain situations, because of that presumption, you are lifted from the burden of proving…you are freed, you don’t have to prove negligence.

disputable? yes

when it comes to binding effect, two kinds of presumptions.
but even before you go to binding nature, look at nature and understand there are two kinds: presumption of fact and presumption of law

if there is a particular provision of law, kahit ano’ng rule, kahit hindi rules of court, it’s a presumption of law
rules of electronic evidence, etc
jurisprudence — presumption of law
when the sc adopts it, it’s because a presumption of fact that’s reasonable.
only when established already, because there are certain presumptions enunciated in jurisprudence that do not take roots
settled jurisprudence, presumption of law na. otherwise, presumptions of fact pa lang.
ex: heirs of ochoa, when sc said docu acceptable bec from usaid

capili:
first requirement: damage would not have resulted were it not from the negligence of the person
exclusive control and management (very impt)
person damaged did not contribute to the occurrence of incident, there was no contributory negligence. reasonable kasi kung may contributory, how can presume sa kabila? cannot attribute to a pin.. also reason for exclusivity.

origin of res ipsa: may nabagsakan ng paso. in the ordinary course of things, hindi lalakad yung paso mag-isa
exactly the same as capili.
beach: coconut tree, nabagsakan ng niyog. owner is liable.

santos v nso:
conclusive presumptions:
estoppel in pais — by act (kaya in pais)
root rationale: fairness and equity; a doctrine of equity. unfair kasi minislead mo ang tao
tenant not permitted to deny title of landlord

santos: sc discussed it by interpreting that nso did not know that the bank was the new owner. discovery had effect of changing the relationship. as if there was a change in the relationship.

lessee did not know there was a new owner, so when it signed second and third contract, it was as if santos still owned it. but when nso discovered it was not santos anymore, there was a change, kasi hindi pala owner, walang karapatang mag-lease. that was analysis bec of doctrine that while it was true there was a conclusive presumption, if there was a change in the relationship in the sense that there was a transfer of ownership, title had expired or conveyed to another, defeated by a title paramount to another’s. — three situations — lessee is not bound to respect title of lessor

court mentioned one ground for dismissal that was correct but which was not elaborated on. santos was not real party to interest, no personality to sue, ground to dismiss: failure of complaint to state cause of action. mas accurate na procedural analysis. court did not use bec preferred to analyze from another point of view

a way for nso to win is to say that santos’ complaint did not state cause of action, bec no longer owner when he sued. but sc chose to analyze from a different angle, that nso is not estopped bec of the discovery which is equivalent to a change. without change, one is estopped, bec at the time you signed the lease contracts, supposed to have acknowledged title of lessor. sc said chose not to apply to a subsequent time when…discovery was four days before the end of the third contract. if estoppel is applied, unfair to nso. estoppel is equity but kawawa nso if applied to nso bec matatapos na ang kontrata.

extrajudicial foreclosure: must comply with actual notice.
grand farms: there was no actual notice given if there was publication. plaintiff asked for summary judgment, simply on basis of admission no actual notice. that was the rule in grand farms, this samonte case is superseding grand farms.
ruling being: that actual notice is not a ground for annulment bec requirement is substantially complied with simply by publication. just jurisprudence. in act 3135, kailangan ng actual notice. how they graduated from grand farms to century, don’t understand. this is the latest.

alferez is very impt: bp 22 has presumption against person issuing the check. if a person issues a check and that check bounces and, after notice of dishonor, fails to make good the checks within five days, presumed to have issued the checks even though he knew of the insufficiency of funds

metro star: notify the taxpayer, changed to informing
alferez: word is still notice of dishonor, but interpretation of court is no notice kung di nakarating. mere issuance of notice is not enough, notice must have been received.

receipts for registered letters and returnee checks should be authenticated
prof: maybe court was trying to say witness only testified but official should identify it. postman or official of post office should have testified. entries in official records: absolutely. not have to be entrant himself, basta entrant declarant was in position to know the facts

the court was strict here bec it was a criminal case. in other situations when a document was presented in court and there was no objection, it was waived. ito, beyond reasonable doubt dapat, bp 22 ito. the court becomes strict in criminal cases.

heirs of ochoa: factum probandum: actual income, as in loss of income
two levels of analysis: presentation of witnesses and presumption as in rule 131.
dela cruz did not come to court; he did not identify the document. if you look at official documents, includes documents of foreign govts, 132.19 (a) is USAID a foreign govt? NO, therefore not public document. in order to be presented under 132 must be authenticated by a person who will come to court. did author come to court, the one who issued it? malay mo kung sinong poncio pilato pumirma dun.
if nobody goes to court to say yes that’s my signature, what’s the basis of the court to look at it? what doctrine did the court use not only to consider it admissible but also credible?

presumption talks about the contents. before you can talk about the contents, you have to know it’s genuine. the presumption of regularity, is to show that he did it within the scope of his authority, that he is who he purports to be. if you say regularity in contracts or private transactions, trying to say consent was not vitiated. how know signature is genuine in first place? bec someone will identify it. to rely on authenticity of document, does court has right to use judicial notice? did it use judicial notice? of usaid as independent govt agency.

first factum probandum authenticity.
without solving that, it looked to the contents. purports to have been issued by usaid, and using that fact which was judicially noticed, tried to justify it’s believing the truth of the contents.

what was facts judicially noticed: usaid independent federal govt agency that receives overall foreign policy guidance from sec of state
internationall known orgs that gives aid, etc
prestige and renown and repute
— because of this usaid will not issue certification

court jumped to conclusion that it was issued by usaid even if dela cruz did not testify…true bec usaid cannot tell a lie

the truth is, it’s like the sc slid: used the presumption in stature to justify its non-authentication. oo, usaid. kung usaid, totoo ang laman. in terms of truth, was the use of judicial notice proper? no.

what we’re taking judicial notice of are the contents. so not applicable. ano’ng connection ng judicial notice on reputation, stature, etc sa laman ng document? labas ng document that was not authenticated? hearsay. sino’ng pumirma, wala siya sa korte.
self serving not objection per se. part of rationale of an objection.

baka hindi nag-object ang kabila; sana sinabi na lang na walang objection.
court of appeals division that decided on lance corporal smith was composed of three women.

usaid: why the need to make that statement, why are you talking self-serving? it crops up only if you want an out of court declaration to be admitted as an admission. objection: self-serving. yun ang context. if there is no admission being sought to be admitted anyway, what’s the connection of self-serving?

sc lifted definition of self-serving from context of admissions and transplanted to a situation where there is no admission. parang ang point, if there is an admission, in reference to an out of court statement by a party. nawala ang context whether or not against interest or in favor. in apropos. out of context, hindi naman pinag-uusapan ang admission dito. ang rule is not admission, but hearsay.

factum probandum: sweldo, for damages.
usaid certification: out of court
presented to prove truth thereof
not available for cross exam.

therefore, hearsay.
look out for those out of context statements, and don’t be misled. spot so you are not misled

another doctrine is the judicial notice, apart from the contents
general rule: cannot admit without documents, but …nature of work is that there is no documentary evidence of sweldo (judicial notice)….court took judicial notice that in labor law, when self-employed, or minimum wage earner. usually walang document so pwede na testimony.
judicial notice: discretionary, by reason of function as judge (supposed to know labor law, you’re a judge).

in alferez, why was civil liability adjudged even if the case was acquitted?
even if not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, obligation subsists and was not extinguished.

general rule with respect to extinction of civil liability in case of acquittal?
only extinguished if the act which gave rise to civil liability found not to have been committed and so no civil liability. but if act was committed even if not tantamount to a crime, but was committed, then the civil liability subsists and accused is liable as long as proved by preponderance of evidence.
was the act proved? yes, the act of purchasing the materials. so the judgment was valid in awarding civil damages

presumption was not applied bec it was a criminal case that requires proof beyond reasonable doubt

CHARACTER EVIDENCE

analysis does not have to rely on opinion rule, but in issue was doctrine studied from the beginning.

bus driver: res inter alios acta
buddy dacer thing: daughter would testify in court in the criminal case against the suspected murderer that her father used to tell her if he was killed there would only be one suspect

if: not an assertion of fact but of opinion, because could not predict death. it was a speculation.

deeper doctrine: irrelevant. pag opinion mo ba nangyari? kung nga eh. you’re supposed to prove facts, otherwise madam auring will be competent as a witness.

character: moral character of parties to a case, or of a witness

why is evidence of character inadmissible?irrelevant. because proving the character does not necessarily mean you are proving the truth of the facts in issue.
if there is no relation, does not even tend to make you believe…no probative value, irrelevant.

exceptions, bec in these situations, yes there is a relation, yes there is a probative value. the general rule is 12 angry men.

truth, honesty, integrity: do we limit it to that, or not?our culture tells us there is a moral dimension to things bec of religion, but law tells us there is a moral dimension when it comes to dishonesty
moral turpitude is different from moral character
in some societies, polygamy is legal, not immoral. muslims are allowed four wives, but from our standards, it is bigamy. but from their point of view, it is not immoral. yet our religious culture tells us it is; should distinguish between legal and cultural morality

if idea is the moment a crime is heinous and shocking, already immoral, is not really true.
murder is not necessarily immoral. crime can be heinous, doesn’t mean it is immoral per se.
abortion, infanticide – di lahat yan immoral.

siguro you’re very strict bec you’re a priest, mr madrid
sagot: i was thinking discipline is also a moral trait
iba ang cultural sa legal, even if legal follows culture

truth, honesty, integrity, shows moral character
whether it goes beyond that — rape, etc — has to be debated

rape was supposed to be a personal crime, crime of passion and lust. but changed bec truth is it’s a crime of power. the reason doesn’t always has to do with how the victim looks.

the accused can always show his good moral character. why? di ba irrelevant? as long as pertinent to the case.

perjury case: b, as accused, can present evidence of his good moral character. if you look at lis mota, what b is going to prove is:
lis mota: facts of the perjury case
complaint: you made statements under oath that were not true
first defense: truth. the statements were true.
to prove the lis mota, you can present facts not only showing the truth but also character evidence
first level of analysis: if pnp and nbi certifies no case filed, there was no case filed against you? NO.
>can go direct to the judge in an mtc case.
mtc judges, except in metro manila, conduct preliminary investigation
>ombudsman
certification is irrelevant

second level of analysis: fact that not charged with crime is different from moral character
factum probandum: doesn’t tell a lie
ultimate defense: innocence
relevance: collateral matter. if you’re a good guy, you didn’t do it.
it’s really circumstantial evidence, it will not directly prove whether or not you told a lie. it’s gonna say, mabait yan kaya chances are hindi nagsisinungaling.

goes to mass every sunday: these things are ritual, not the real thing. the essence is when you go out to the world and love the least of your brethren, that’s the real thing.

awards? professional achievement. just talks about your achievement.

by the same token, why cannot the prosecution try to show the opposite? if you look at rule 132, your record of conviction will always be admissible. bad moral character bawal if it looks to particular wrongful act, exception to the exception, record of prior conviction always admissible

132 or 130.51, which prevails? pwede ba ipresent conviction ahead?
132 refers to impeachment of a witness, procedure of showing the incredibility, impeaching the credibility of the witness, not competence. that comes in when you are already examining the witness. character evidence refers to the substance of what you’re going to present to the court. this rule is primary in the sense that even before you think of the procedure, going to look at the content of what you will show the court.

rule is: accused can always show good moral character if relevant bec accused. have the privilege of trying to show everything in defense as long as relevant. prosecution has baggage, at the initial stage, bawal. kailangan mauna ang accused. you bootstrap — nagbuhat ka ng bangko, if you don’t do that, di ka pwede atakihin sa rebuttal. kasi nanggaling tayo sa jury system. these rules evolved from the jury system, baka ma-prejudice. the jury might be prejudiced and influenced to convict not bec guilty but bec they don’t like ang mga may tattoo. na-adapt natin ang jury system. that’s why you can attack the accused with bad moral character evidence only on rebuttal, meaning na-raise as defense. pag di naraise ng defense, wala kang ire-rebutt.

offended party:
going to show the immoral character of the offended party.
crime: acts of lasciviousness
people v a for having done it to b
under rule on rape and child victims: rape shield rule and child abuse rule: not allowed; doesn’t follow that bec you did it in the past you did it in the present

only to prove not source of semen or physical injury
to prove complainant was predisposed, sweetheart injury, consent: irrelevant
by provision of law to protect: incompetent
in general irrelevant but by special provision of law, ginawang incompetent

past conduct: sec 34. res inter alios pa rin. doesn’t follow that one did or did not do

ex: complainant was convicted for perjury, but refers to plagiarism, not theft. relevant as defense in a crime for theft? NO.

straus-kahn case:
complainant had made other claims about other rape committed against her
about the rape incident itself

first class, about generic falsification of facts, fit in with facts i’m asking for?
no. taken cognizance of bec no case yet in court, at level of prosecutor. i am going to the jury with you as principal witness, will it stand scrutiny? no. so we’re not filing case. level of probable cause for purposes of filing criminal charge in court.
not about admissibility of evidence in court. a prosecutor’s discretion is thin –you’re skating on thin ice. it can work both ways..

ex: people v x. provocateur, basagulero, his temper is that he really gets into these kinds of things. using character evidence to persuade: collateral matter — kung ganyan ang character niya, believe me that i did not cause the physical injuries, they were in self-defense.
NO. moral character ba ang pambubugbog?!
(in contrast to what regalado said.)
in genosa, what was the character of the guy? good for nothing, bully, abuser. irresponsible clout. is abuse an illustration of immoral character, or is it simply power play?

because if you say power play is immoral, then employers who exploit laborers will also be immoral. is the fact that you’re using power to abuse you, immoral? the moment you include power to define immoral, then everything in this world is immoral.

moral character has more to do with integrity and honesty. includes to a certain extent that you’re not abusing, but cannot be in a very generic sense, but more close to honesty. not in the sense of being an ideal employer or non-abuser, non cheater pa pwede. kasi honesty ang cheating. any other kind of abuse, question mark.

remember before the labor laws, all employees were exploited. if you say power play is immoral, what do we call what pal is doing?
the moment a company gives bonuses, if it’s a practice that’s standardized, becomes a right. if you’re contractual, doesn’t apply.
behest loan, immoral? if it involves dishonesty, yes.
but not abuse per se, in the generic term.

just remember parameters: got to be moral character
doesn’t go to proving lis mota, it’s evidence of collateral matter, that is relevant only in the sense that it tends to. so scale of one to one hundred, papasok.
employer certification, etc pasok: basta may isang patak ng probative value. as long as there is moral character involved.

civil case: issue of character involved when:
is land grabbing pertinent to a moral trait? yes, honesty.
string shows an exception to res inter alios acta because the scheme…plan, shows land grabbing spanning 20 years…fact that samuel rodriguez with him for decades, hindi kaya plano yun.
string of past activities, admissible as exception to res inter alios acta rule: scheme, plan…dami nang kaso, panay falsified.

RULE 132

.13: tih: truth, integrity, honesty
three ways to impeach testimony of witness:
contradictory evidence
general reputation
prior inconsistent statements (PIS)

as long as related to witness with circumstances of time and place, with persons present, allowed to explain

that procedure of giving the witness a chance, is called LAYING THE PREDICATE
if you do not lay the predicate, as in molo and buduhan, character of witness may not be impeached. the prior inconsistent statement will be ignored by the court, not be appreciated as impeaching his credibility, not reason for court not to believe him

contradictory evidence to impeach witness, gives what scenario:
accusation: guilty of homicide by shooting
contradictory evidence is possible by showing that: autopsy report showing that wounds were caused by a knife
object or documentary: documentary (autopsy report)
object (knife shown)
testimonial: (shown that accused that was not present)

general reputation: truth, honesty and integrity
objection: general rule on opinion evidence. answer?
under the opinion rule, is that a valid objection?
insofar as it is based on facts, opinion rule has no connection. insofar as based on opinion, is it opinion?
when people talk about your reputation, is it really opinion? no. when people talk about your reputation, it is based on facts except it is really multiple multiple hearsay. admissible, under sec 41. reputation develops based on facts, not on opinion alone.
ex: pagkakilala diyan lasenggo. bec people saw him drinking. may pinagbabasehan kaya lang multiple multiple hearsay kaya akala mo opinion na.

opinion rule: first hand testimony on behavior, condition, appearance, allowed.

reputation can come from many things: can come from actual facts. reputation where accused comes from: (kilala ko yan, yan yung nakulong dun. actual fact. opinion: pagkaalam namin lasenggo yan. pwedeng actual fact or opinion).

there’s got to a conglomeration. kung hotly contested, not reputation. that’s a debate, a controversy. reputation must be a community-held position. that’s reputation is all about. does it include opinion? yes. is it only opinion? no. how do we reconcile with the opinion rule?

dwell on it. what does reputation evidence mean?
when you impeach credibility based on reputation, in the end it means section 41.

RULE 132. FINALLY.

when you look at offer of evidence, iba ang treatment sa object, document, testimonial.

when it comes to exam, what are the rules?
without rule on summary proceeding, is there an exception to this rule (that witness shall be presented in open court; for ordinary court procedure) depositions
different mode of answer: there are many ways. electronic testimony

open court, as opposed to chambers
question and answer, as opposed to: narrative (di pwede, unless bata (under child witness rule). kung adult, no so as to afford space for objections. kaya bini-break down. otherwise before you know nasabi na ang objectionable di ka pa na-object. especially with leading and misleading questions.

rights of the witness:
to be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor
not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require
not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to issue..

if violated:
objection. badgering the witness. (harsh and insulting demeanor)
if witness doesn’t know testimony is self-incriminatory: sumagot na. – move to strike. on the ground that (two bases for striking out an answer: sec. 39: if there was no chance if the witness answered before counsel could object)

supposed to prepare the witness, that’s of judicial notice. nothing objectionable, witness is expected to consult lawyer. doesn’t imply he’s being coached, he is being prepared.

stages for presentation of evidence:
evidence in chief (criminal or civil)
defense evidence (if criminal)
respondent (special proceeding or petition for review)
evidence for defendant (if civil)
rebuttal evidence

stages in examination of witness:
direct exam
cross
redirect
recross

proponent – presenting witness
opponent – adverse party

people v x

who presents evidence first?
prosecution. presents evidence in chief.
(how many witnesses? three. victim, brother, doctor).
doctor first.
direct exam. who conducts q&a? prosecutor. under the control and supervision of public prosecutor. complainant or aggrieved party’s lawyer, only for civil liability. if you don’t pay docket fees for claim, cannot. have to pay moment file information, otherwise case is dismissed. it’s a very powerful thing. in one recent case, SLAPP (strategic lawsuits suit against public participation) harassment cases against particular sectors…if not on the merits, merely to harass, that’s SLAPP. three korean companies in mining sector, filed libel suits against officials involved in activity. involved report to malacanang — memo not under oath, but part of a study. filed libel suit, criminal case. multinationals, asking for millions of damages. which of course translates to docket fees. moved to dismiss, attached certification they haven’t paid filing fees at time of filing of info based on alfeche.

usually it’s the private complainant that really prosecutes.
through q&a the prosecutor tells the story. should not include leading questions. leading questions are not allowed. because it suggests to the witness the answer. leading is coaching. what’s wrong with that? in that case it would be the counsel testifying, testimony would have no probative value kasi lahat kin-oach ng lawyer.

is it not true that sperm cells were found in victim’s private parts.
objection on two grounds.
leading.
irrelevant. (touching can be rape, sperm cells not relevant).

better doctor to testify, private or govt?
govt. tarapen: prima facie presumption in favor of truth of govt employees bec of oath that govt employees take; entries in official records enjoy presumption bec of four pronged rationale: nature of oath, regularity of it, lack of motivation to falsify…

doctor volunteered? no, should’ve been summoned through subpoena ad testificandum.
no physician patient privilege if cadaver, not live patient.
there are times when you lead the witness. is that allowed, sometimes? yes.
on preliminary matters (esp on criminal cases. the usual question is, on this date and place, did something extraordinary matter? allowed, to get to the point.)

when witness is: child of tender years, deaf mute, feeble mind, unwilling or hostile witness, witness of adverse party…

is there anything you should not ask on direct, apart from leading questions?
everything else. otherwise you will meet with objections.
if you ask a question that is not proper in direct, bec it might come in only in sur-rebuttal (ex: character evidence)
132 also has rules of not exactly incompetency, but propriety in presentation of evidence. not proper…with respect to stage.

you want witness to testify on findings of medical certificate. so it is the medical certificate that he will testify on. is he refreshing his memory? no.
why is he presenting the medical certificate? to authenticate it. he is presenting it as documentary evidence so he is there to authenticate. it doesn’t have to be refreshing. refreshing have their own roles to play; take it out, may silbi pa rin ang testigo, to authenticate it.

whether public or private, how do you authenticate a document? what do you authenticate?
document.
which part of the document are you trying to say is genuine when you authenticate?
when you authenticate, about genuiness,not consent or vitiation. what is it you want to say is genuine, which part of the document?
the signatures (pwede bang walang signature ang document, yet authentic) or handwriting
bec medical certificate is public document, signed but ang labas is entry in official record. not matter if 44 or not bec author is there. only need 44 if author not available to testify; it becomes hearsay otherwise. you need 44 for admission, exceptions to hearsay

if someone says, use 44 bec of prima facie presumption, sayang advantage.
di mawawala bec govt doctor. in tarapen doctor testified, 44 not used. instead 131 was used, that official duty was regularly performed.

did you bring it? yes
presents. there’s signature appearing, do you know this?
yes it’s mine. way to authenticate, under sec 22, how genuiness of handwriting proved.

did you personally examine this person, complainant in case?
misleading. not yet established that complainant was the one examined by the doctor.
asking a fact that has not yet been established. important bec in cross, can be trapped in respect with identity.

cross. by lawyer of accused.
aim is to test accuracy and trutfulness, freedom from bias, etc.
of all stages of exam of witness, the broadest is cross exam.
sometimes when objection is tenuous, etc, the answer is i’m on cross. supposedly afforded with sufficient fullness and freedom
why is leading allowed? you can trap, kalaban eh. the theory is, if witness telling the truth, will not be trapped unless misleading ang tanong.
bakit bawal ang misleading? it’s possible testimony was voluminous, not fair to trap witness just because he cannot remember. then it’s not the truth you’re testing, it’s his memory. will it lead to the truth?no.