Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

EVIDENCE: I. INTRODUCTION AND ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - Coggle Diagram

- - - - EXCLUSIONARY RULES UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
        
        a. SECTIONS 2 & 3, ART. III
        
        SECTION 2.
        RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO BE SECURE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCH & SEIZURE IS INVIOLABLE
        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
        PROBABLE CAUSE REQUIRED FOR SEARCH WARRANT AND WARRANT OF ARREST
        and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
        
        APPLIES AGAINST STATE ONLY
        The rule against unreasonable searches and seizures is meant only to protect a person from interference by the government or the state
        
        DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
        The Constitutional proscription enshrined in the Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the relation between a private individual and another individual. It governs the relationship between the individual and the State and its agents. [People v. Hipol]
        
        SECTION 3.
        
        PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION & CORRESPONDENCE SHALL BE INVIOLABLE
        The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
        
        INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IF VIOLATED
        Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
        
        LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT
        
        PUBLIC SAFETY
        
        LAW PRESCRIBES IT
        
        2 TYPES OF IMMUNITY STATUTES
        Immunity statutes may be generally classified into two: one, which grants "use immunity"; and the other, which grants what is known as "transactional immunity." The distinction between the two is as follows:
        
        USE IMMUNITY
        "Use immunity" prohibits use of witness' compelled testimony and its fruits in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness.
        
        3 more items...
        
        TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY
        On the other hand, "transactional immunity" grants IMMUNITY to the witness from prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimony relates.
        (Galman v. Pamaran)
        
        1 more item...
        
        b. SECTION 12, ART. III
        
        SECTION 12.
        
        RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
        Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice.
        RIGHT TO COUNSEL
        If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
        
        CAN ONLY BE WAIVED IN WRITING AND IN PRESENCE OF COUNSEL
        
        NO FORCE/INTIMIDATION
        No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him.
        NO SECRET/SOLITARY/INCOMMMUNICADO DETENTION PLACES
        Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
        
        INADMISSIBLE IF VIOLATED
        Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
        
        PENAL & CIVIL SANCTIONS + COMPENSATION & REHABILITATION
        The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.
        
        COMPULSION MAY SUFFICE;
        VIOLENCE NOT ALWAYS REQUIRED;
        "Compulsion as it is understood here*does not necessarily connote the use of violence; it may be the product of unintentional statements
        Pressure which operates to overbear his will, disable him from making a free and rational choice, or impair his capacity for rational judgment would in our opinion be sufficient.
        So is moral coercion tending to force testimony from the unwilling lips of the defendant.'"
        (Galman v. Pamaran)
        
        VIOLENCE NOT ALWAYS REQUIRED; PRESSURE CAN BE ENOUGH
        We are not persuaded that when they testified, they voluntarily waived their constitutional rights not to be compelled to be a witness against themselves much less their right to remain silent.
        "Compulsion as it is understood here does not necessarily connote the use of violence; it may be the product of unintentional statements
        ||| (Galman v. Pamaran, G.R. Nos. 71208-09, 71212-13, [August 30, 1985], 222 PHIL 588-680)
        
        ANY PERSON UNDER ANY "INVESTIGATION" IS ENTITLED TO THESE RIGHTS
        The fact that the framers of our Constitution did not choose to use the term "custodial" by having it inserted between the words "under" and investigation", as in fact the sentence opens with the phrase "any person" goes to prove that they did not adopt in toto the entire fabric of the Miranda doctrine. (Galman v. Pamaran)
        
        DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DETAINED
        However, there has been no pronouncement that a person who is not detained is not entitled to the constitutional admonition under Sec. 20, Art. IV of the Constitution
        
        c. SECTION 17, ART. III
        
        NO PERSON SHALL BE COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF
        No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
        SECTION 17.
        
        APPLIES TO ALL CASES, NOT JUST CRIMINAL
        The deletion of the phrase "in a criminal case" connotes no other import except to make said provision also applicable to cases other than criminal.
        (Galman v. Pamaran)
      - 2. STATUTORY RULES OF EXCLUSION
        
        Sec. 201, RA 8424:
        UNSTAMPED DOCUMENTS THAT MUST BE STAMPED ARE INADMISSIBLE
        Section 201. Effect of Failure to Stamp Taxable Document. – An instrument, document or paper which is required by law to be stamped and which has been signed, issued, accepted or transferred without being duly stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any court until the requisite stamp or stamps are affixed thereto and cancelled.
        (Section 201, RA 8424)
        
        RA 1405, LAW ON
        SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS
        
        RA 4200, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE WIRETAPPING ACT, IN RE RA 9372
        
        RA 7438, SECTION 2(D)
        
        EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS NOT IN WRITING OR SIGNED & VALIDLY WAIVERED ARE INADMISSIBLE
        (d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person
        
        arrested,
        
        detained or under
        
        custodial investigation
        shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence,
        
        upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him;
        otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
        (Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers.)
        
        1 more item...
        
        Section 1.
        (TS OIR)
        
        ACT: TAP
        
        INTENT: SECRETLY
        a. OVERHEAR
        b. INTERCEPT
        c. RECORD
        It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described:
        
        PRF
        
        POSSESS
        
        REPLAY
        
        FURNISH TRANSCRIPT
        It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly POSSESS any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to REPLAY the same for any other person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to FURNISH TRANSCRIPTIONS thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person:
        
        Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.
        
        Section 2. Any person who willfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding section or who violates the provisions of the following section or of any order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months or more than six years and with the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if the offender be a public official at the time of the commission of the offense, and, if the offender is an alien he shall be subject to deportation proceedings.
        
        ADMISSIBLE WHEN
        
        PEACE OFFICER
        
        WRITTEN COURT ORDER
        
        CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
        
        APPLICATION
        
        RG THAT IT'S ESSENTIAL TO CONVICT
        
        NO OTHER MEANS
        Section 3.
        Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the two preceding sections in cases involving the crimes of
        
        treason,
        
        espionage,
        
        provoking war and disloyalty in case of war,
        
        piracy,
        
        mutiny in the high seas,
        
        rebellion,
        
        conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
        
        inciting to rebellion,
        
        sedition,
        
        conspiracy to commit sedition,
        
        inciting to sedition,
        
        kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code, and
        
        violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage and
        
        other offenses against national security:
        
        APPLICATION REQS:
        
        WRITTEN APPLICATION
        
        OATH/AFFIRMATION
        
        REASONABLE GROUNDS
        Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing:
        
        that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed:
        
        2 more items...
        
        Section 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
        
        Section 5. All laws inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or accordingly amended.
        
        Section 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
        
        LISTENING THROUGH AN EXTENSION LINE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE WIRETAPPING
        The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use of a "device or arrangement" for the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the communication. There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words.
        (Gaanan v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69809, [October 16, 1986], 229 PHIL 139-150)
        
        RATIONAL: EXTENSIONS ARE COMMON
        An extension telephone is an instrument which is very common especially now when the extended unit does not have to be connected by wire to the main telephone but can be moved from place to place within a radius of a kilometer or more.
        A person should safely presume that the party he is calling at the other end of the line probably has an extension telephone and he runs the risk of a third party listening as in the case of a party line or a telephone unit which shares its line with another. As was held in the case of Rathbun v. United States (355, U.S. 107, 2 L Ed 2d 137-138)||| (Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-69809, [October 16, 1986], 229 PHIL 139-150)
        
        PRIVATE CRIMINAL CONVERSATIONS HEARD OVER "CROSSED LINES" ARE NOT EXCLUDED, STILL ADMISSIBLE
        Because of technical problems caused by the sensitive nature of electronic equipment and the extra heavy loads which telephone cables are made to carry in certain areas, telephone users often encounter what are called "crossed lines". ||| (Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-69809, [October 16, 1986], 229 PHIL 139-150)
        
        RATIO: INNOCENT CITIZENS MAY OVERHEAR A CRIME
        An unwary citizen who happens to pick up his telephone and who overhears the details of a crime might hesitate to inform police authorities if he knows that he could be accused under Rep. Act 4200 of using his own telephone to secretly overhear the private communications of the would be criminals. Surely the law was never intended for such mischievous results.
        
        PERSONS PRIVY TO COMMUNICATION CAN QUALIFY AS A VIOLATOR TOO
        Even a (person) privy to a communication who records his private conversation with another without the knowledge of the latter will qualify as a violator" under this provision of R.A. 4200.||| (Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93833, [September 28, 1995], 318 PHIL 701-713)
        
        EVEN NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
        ARE INCLUDED
        ...definitions are broad enough to include verbal or non-verbal, written or expressive communications of "meanings or thoughts" which are likely to include the emotionally-charged exchange|||
        (Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No. 93833,
        [September 28, 1995], 318 PHIL 701-713)
        
        POLICY = TO ENCOURAGE DEPOSITING MONEY IN BANKING AND TO DISCOURAGE PRIVATE HOARDING
        Section 1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government to give encouragement to the people to deposit their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding so that the same may be properly utilized by banks in authorized loans to assist in the economic development of the country.
        
        DEPOSITS IN BANKS ARE CONFIDENTIAL IN NATURE AND MAY NOT BE EXAMINED, INQUIRED, OR LOOKED INTO
        Section 2. 1 All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office...
        
        WRITTEN PERMISSION
        (WIBM)
        EXCEPT upon written permission of the depositor, OR
        
        IN CASE OF IMPEACHMENT
        in cases of impeachment, OR
        
        IN CASE OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL'S
        
        BRIBERY/DERELICTION OF DUTY +
        
        UPON ORDER OF COURT
        upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, OR
        
        MONEY DEPOSITED/INVESTIGATED IS SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION
        in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.
        
        MERE EXISTENCE/NATURE OF DEPOSIT
        This is unwarranted If the purpose of such inquiry or investigation is merely to determine the existence and nature, as well as the amount of the deposit in any given bank account.
        (Luzon Stevedoring Co. Inc v. PSC,
        citing CBC v. Ortega)
        
        SCOPE: INVESTMENTS INCLUDED,
        NOT JUST DEPOSITS. LAW SAYS "WHATEVER NATURE"
        Generally, the law applies not only to money which is deposited but also to those which are invested. This further shows that the law was not intended to apply only to "deposits" in the strict sense of the word.
        (Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan)
        
        TRUST ACCOUNTS INCLUDED
        (Ejercito v. SB)
        
        UNLAWFUL TO DISCLOSE
        Section 3. It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of a banking institution to disclose to any person other than those mentioned in Section two hereof any information concerning said deposits.
        
        VIOLATION = INADMISSIBLE
        In sum, we hold that the testimony of Marasigan on the particulars of respondent's supposed bank account with Security Bank and the documentary evidence represented by the checks adduced in support thereof, are not only incompetent for being excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to the case, inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical and reasonable connection to the prosecution of respondent for qualified theft.||| (BSB Group, Inc. v. Go, G.R. No. 168644, [February 16, 2010], 626 PHIL 501-518)
        
        ??OVERTURNED??
        EJERCITO v. SB RULED THAT UNLAWFUL EXAMINATION WAS STILL ADMISSIBLE
        R.A. 1405, it bears noting, nowhere provides that an unlawful examination of bank accounts shall render the evidence obtained therefrom inadmissible in evidence. Section 5 of R.A. 1405 only states that "[a]ny violation of this law will subject the offender upon conviction, to an imprisonment of not more than five years or a fine of not more than twenty thousand pesos or both, in the discretion of the court."|||
        (Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 157294-95, [November 30, 2006], 538 PHIL 684-785)
      - NO EXCLUSIONARY RULE =
        NOT EXCLUDED
        Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 only provides for sanctions against persons violating the rule on confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does it state that procurement of birth records in violation of said rule would render said records inadmissible in evidence.
        The Revised Rules of Evidence only provides for the exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of illegal searches and seizures.
        (Tolentino v. Mendoza)
      - D. COMPETENCE AND CREDIBILITY; ADMISSIBILITY; TYPES OF EVIDENCE
        4
        
        1. COMPETENCE AND CREDIBILITY
        
        CREDIBLE SOURCE + CREDIBLE IN ITSELF
        The Court has previously held that evidence to be worthy of credit, must not only proceed from a credible source but must, in addition, be credible in itself.
        (Serra v. Mumar)
        
        NATURAL, REASONABLE, AND PROBABLE; CONFORMS TO KNOWLEDGE &
        COMMON EXPERIENCE
        The evidence must be natural, reasonable and probable as to make it easy to believe. No better test has yet been found to determine the value of the testimony of a witness than its conformity to the knowledge and common experience of mankind.
        (Serra v. Mumar)
        
        INCONSISTENCES:
        INCONSISTENCIES IN MINOR DETAILS or COLLATERAL MATTERS DO NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT WITNESS' DECLARATION
        It is also basic that inconsistencies bearing on minor details or collateral matters should not adversely affect the substance of the witness' declaration, veracity, or weight of testimony.
        (People v. Sabadlab y Bayquel)
        
        PERFECT NARRATION OF DIFFERENT WITNESSES MAY BE FABIRICATED OR REHEARSED
        Jurisprudence even warns against a perfect dovetailing of narration by different witnesses as it could mean that their testimonies were pre-fabricated and rehearsed.
        (People v. Camat)
        
        INCONSISTENCIES FOR ACQUITTALS MUST REFER TO SIGNIFICANT FACTS VITAL TO GUILT OF ACCUSED.
        People v. Lazaro states that "[f]or a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as basis for acquittal, it must refer to the significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused for the crime charged.
        (People v. Magundayao y Alejandro)
        
        INCONSISTENCIES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR ACQUITTAL
        An inconsistency which has nothing to do with the elements of the crime cannot be a ground for the acquittal of the accused."
        
        WITNESSES ARE TO BE WEIGHED, NOT NUMBERED; ONE MAY SUFFICE
        in determining the value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered. The testimony of only one witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to convict.
        (Bastian v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160811, [April 18, 2008], 575 PHIL 42-59)
        
        QUALITY OVER QUANTITY OF WITNESSES
        Truth is established not by the number of witnesses, but by the quality of their testimonies.
        (People vs Ramos, quoting People vs Toyco)
        
        PHYSICAL EVIDENCE RANKS HIGH AS TRUSTWORTHY EVIDENCE
        Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth. It ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. The Court has on many occasions relied principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining the truth.
        
        WHERE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE RUNS COUNTER TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SHOULD PREVAIL
        Where the physical evidence on record runs counter to the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses, physical evidence should prevail.
        
        DEFINED:
        COMPETENT EVIDENCE ARE THOSE NOT EXCLUDED BY CONSTI/LAW/RULES
        Not excluded by the Constitution, the law, or the Rules [Sec. 3, Rule 128]
        DETERMINED BY EXCLUSIONARY RULES
        Determined by the prevailing exclusionary rules of evidence [2 Regalado 704, 2008 Ed.]
        EXCLUSIONARY RULES CANNOT RETROACT
        Exclusionary rules may affect due process. To the extent that they might prejudice substantive rights, therefore, they cannot be made to apply retroactively.
        
        CREDIBLE EVIDENCE
        Refers to probative value or convincing weight
        Weight involves the effect of evidence admitted, its tendency to convince and persuade. It is not determined mathematically by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact, but depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief on the part of the judge trying the case [Francisco 11, 1996 Ed.
        
        2. MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY,
        CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY,
        CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY,
        DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
        
        DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
        
        CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
        Circumstantial evidence is that evidence that INDIRECTLY proves a fact in issue through
        an INFERENCE which the fact-finder draws from the evidence established
        
        CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN BE STRONGER THAN DIRECT EVIDENCE
        It is not a weaker form of evidence vis-a-vis direct evidence. Cases have recognized that in its effect upon the courts, the former may surpass the latter in weight and probative force.
        (People v. Matito y Torres, G.R. No. 144405, [February 24, 2004], 468 PHIL 14-33)
        People v. Matito 423 SCRA 617 (2004)
        
        CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN STILL CONVICT A CRIMINAL OF A CRIME
        It is not only by direct evidence that an accused may be convicted of the crime for which he is charged. Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases, result in setting felons free and denying proper protection to the community.
        (People v. Lara y Orbista, G.R. No. 199877, [August 13, 2012], 692 PHIL 469-487)
        
        2 more items...
        
        INFERENCES CANNOT BE BASED ON OTHER INFERENCES
        Rule 133 Sec. 4 - ...Inferences cannot be based on other inferences
        
        DIRECT EVIDENCE
        Proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption
        
        MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY
        Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any or all the purposes for which it is offered, provided it satisfies all the requisites of law for its admissibility therefor
        [2 Regalado 706, 2008 Ed.]
        
        EVIDENCE MAY STILL BE ADMISSIBLE FOR ONE PURPOSE EVEN IF INADMISSIBLE FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSE
        When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is admissible insofar as it satisfies all rules applicable to it when offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy some other rule which would be applicable to it if offered for another purpose does not exclude it. [Francisco 11, 1996 Ed.]
        
        ACCUSED'S CONFESSION MAY NOT BE COMPETENT AGAINST CO-ACCUSED OR TO PROVE CONSPIRACY, BUT STILL ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE OF DECLARANT'S OWN GUILTY
        Under the rule of multiple admissibility of evidence, even if an accused's confession may not be competent as against his co-accused, being hearsay as to the latter, or to prove conspiracy between them without the conspiracy being established by other evidence, the confession is nevertheless, admissible as evidence of the declarant's own guilt||| (People v. Yatco)
        
        CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY
        Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with the other facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence may be received on condition that the other facts will be proved thereafter; otherwise, the evidence already given shall be stricken out [2 Regalado 705, 2008 Ed.]
        
        ADMISSION OF COPIES
        Example: a copy of a writing may not be considered competent evidence until the original is proven to be lost or destroyed. Conditional admissibility requires no bad faith on the part of the proponent.
        
        CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY
        The right of a party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted incompetent evdience adduced by the adverse party
        
        RATIONALE: TO PREVENT MANIFEST INJUSTICE
        To prevent manifest injustice
        
        3. CUMULATIVE AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
        
        CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IS ONLY NECESSARY WHEN THERE ARE REASONS TO SUSPECT THE WITNESS FALSIFIED THE TRUTH OR THAT HIS OBSERVATIONS WERE INACCURATE
        Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to suspect that the witness falsified the truth or that his observations were inaccurate.
        (Mangangey v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 147773-74, [February 18, 2008], 569 PHIL 383-403)
        
        4. POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EVIDENCE;
        ALIBI;
        FRAME-UP;
        DELAY IN REPORTING
        
        POSITIVE & NEGATIVE EVIDENCE
        
        POSITIVE EVIDENCE
        Witness affirms that a certain state of facts did exist or that a certain event happened.
        
        NEGATIVE EVIDENCE
        Witness states he did not see or does not know of the occurrence of a fact
        
        DENIAL IS THE WEAKEST FORM OF DEFENSE
        It is well-settled that denial is essentially the weakest form of defense and it can never overcome an affirmative testimony particularly when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.
        (People v. Mendoza y Butones, G.R. Nos. 152589 & 152758 (Resolution)
        
        DENIAL MUST BE BUTTRESSED BY STRONG EVIDENCE OF NON-CULPABILITY
        Already beyond cavil is the evidentiary rule that mere denial does not overturn the relative weight and probative value of an affirmative assertion. Denial is inherently a weak defense. To be believed, it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is purely self-serving and is with no evidentiary value.
        (Tan v. Pacuribot, A.M. Nos. RTJ-06-1982 & RTJ-06-1983, [December 14, 2007], 565 PHIL 1-58)
        
        1 more item...
        
        DENIAL CAN NEVER OVERCOME AFFIRMATIVE TESTIMONY FROM THE MOUTH OF A CREDIBLE WITNESS
        (People v. Mendoza)
        
        ADMISSIBLE ONLY IF IT CONTRADICTS POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF OTHER SIDE
        It is admissible only if it tends to contradict positive evidence of the other side or would tend to exclude the existence of fact sworn to by the other side.
        
        ALIBI
        
        ALIBI DEFINED:
        PLEA OF BEING ELSEWHERE OTHER THAN THE SCENE OF THE CRIME
        Alibi, the plea of having been somewhere other than at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, is a plausible excuse for the accused.
        (People v. Baro, G.R. Nos. 146327-29, [June 5, 2002], 432 PHIL 625-643)
        
        PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY IS REQUIRED FOR ALIBI TO PROSPER
        For the appellant's defense of alibi to prosper, he should have proven that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed.
        
        ALIBI SHOULD BE REJECTED WHEN THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED IS SUFFICIENTLY AND POSITIVELY ESTBALISHED BY THE PROSECUTION
        ...Alibi, on the other hand, is one of the weakest defenses in a criminal case and should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the prosecution. 31
        
        1 more item...
        
        PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY = DISTANCE & FACILITY OF ACCESS BETWEEN SCENE OF THE CRIME AND LOC OF DEFENDANT
        By physical impossibility we refer to the distance and the facility of access between the situs criminis and the place where he says he was when the crime was committed.
        (People v. Nueva y Samaro, G.R. No. 173248, [November 3, 2008], 591 PHIL 431-452)
        
        ALIBI IS NOT ALWAYS A WEAK DEFENSE
        Contrary to the common notion, alibi is not always a weak defense. Sometimes, the fact that the accused was somewhere else may just be the plain and unvarnished truth.
        
        RATIO: NO PERSON CAN BE IN TWO PLACES AT A TIME
        The reason is that no person can be in two places at the same time.||| (People v. Baro, G.R. Nos. 146327-29, [June 5, 2002], 432 PHIL 625-643)
        
        1 more item...
        
        FRAME-UP
        
        FRAME-UPS ARE NOT FAVORED FOR BEING CONVENIENTLY CONCOCTED & USUALLY ASSERTED BY CULPRITS
        Verily, defenses of frame-up and extortion are not looked upon with favor due to their being conveniently concocted and usually asserted by culprits arrested for violations of Republic Act No. 9165.
        (People v. Bautista y Santos)
        
        SIR: COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF JUDGES
        Based on our collective experience as judges, we know that drug pushing has been committed with so much casualness even between total strangers.||| (People v. Bautista y Santos)
        
        DELAY IN REPORTING
        
        DELAY IN REPORTING DOES NOT RENDER TESTIMONIES FALSE OR INCREDIBLE
        Witnesses' delayed reporting of what they know about a crime does not render their testimonies false or incredible...
        (People v. Navarro)
        
        RATIO: PEOPLE NATURALLY RETICENT & ABHORRENT IN BEING INVOLVED IN A CRIMINAL CASE + FEAR OF REPRISAL
        for the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case.
        But more than this, there is always the inherent fear of reprisal, which is quite understandable, especially if the accused is a man of power and influence in the community.
        (People v. Navarro)
        
        RETRACTION
        
        RECANTATIONS ARE VERY UNRELIABLE
        The Court has held in a number of cases that a recantation of a testimony is exceedingly unreliable, for there is always the probability that such recantation may later on be itself repudiated. 29
        
        RETRACTIONS DO NOT NECESSARILY NEGATE EARLIER CREDIBLE TESTIMONY
        A retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration.
        Where a witness who testified for the prosecution subsequently testifies for the defense by retracting his previous testimony, as in the present case, the test to decide which testimony to believe is a comparison coupled with the application of the general rules of evidence. 32
        (People v. Navarro, G.R. No. 129566, [October 7, 1998], 357 PHIL 1010-1035)
        
        RATIO:
        RETRACTIONS ARE EASILY OBTAINED THROUGH INTIMIDATION OR MONEY
        Courts look with disfavor upon retractions, because they can easily be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or for monetary consideration.
        
        TRIAL JUDGES' RESPECT
        
        GREAT WEIGHT OR FINAL:
        TRIAL JUDGES' CONCLUSIONS ON CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES ARE OF GREAT WEIGHT AND MAY EVEN BE FINAL TO THE APPELLATE COURT
        The Court accords the utmost respect to the findings and conclusions on the credibility of witnesses reached by the trial judge on account of his unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and on account of his personal access to the various indicia available but not reflected in the record.
        Tersely put, when a trial judge makes his findings as to the issue of credibility, such findings bear great weight, at times even finality, on the appellate court.
        (People v. Sabadlab y Bayquel, G.R. No. 175924, [March 14, 2012], 684 PHIL 269-283)
        
        TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT CANNOT BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL
        As a rule, the findings of fact of the trial court when affirmed by the CA are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal by this Court, as long as they are borne out by the record or are based on substantial evidence. 10
        
        SUBJECT TO REVIEW IF
        Such rule however is not absolute, but is subject to well-established exceptions, which are:
        
        MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN/ABSURD/IMPOSSIBLE
        When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
        
        GAD
        When there is a grave abuse of discretion;
        
        SPECULATIONS/SURMISES/CONJECTURES
        When the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures;
        
        CA'S MISAPPREHENTION OF FACTS
        When the judgment of the CA is based on a misapprehension of facts;
        
        CONFLICT IN FINDINGS OF FACT
        When the findings of facts are conflicting;
        
        CA'S FINDINGS WENT BEYOND ISSUES + CONTRARY TO ADMISSIONS OF BOTH APPELLANT & APPELLEE
        When the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case, and those findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
        
        CA AND TC'S FINDINGS ARE CONTRARY
        When the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court;
        
        NO CITATION OF SPECIFIC EVIDENCE
        When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
        
        OVERLOOKED FACTS + UNDISPUTED + WOULD JUSTIFY A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION
        When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and
        
        CA'S FINDINGS PREMISED ON ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE + CONTRADICTED BY RECORD
        When the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.
        
        (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177, [February 11, 2008], 568 PHIL 188-205)
        
        PUBLIC CLAIM OF RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT
        That the New Peoples' Army allegedly publicly claimed responsibility for the killing of the victim is beside the point. It is not binding on the Court. It does not preclude the Court from determining the real killer in accordance with the rule of evidence and settled jurisprudence.
        (Bastian v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160811, [April 18, 2008], 575 PHIL 42-59)
        
        HOWEVER, IF THE JUDGE WHO HEARD & SAW WITNESSES TESTIFY IS NOT THE SAME JUDGE WHO PENNED THE DECISION,
        REVIEW MAY BE DONE
        For a better perspective on the calibration of the evidence on hand, it must first be stressed that the judge who had heard and seen the witnesses testify was not the same judge who penned the decision.
        Thus, not having heard the testimonies himself, the trial judge or the appellate court would not be in a better position than this Court to assess the credibility of witnesses on the basis of their demeanor.||| (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177, [February 11, 2008], 568 PHIL 188-205)
        
        RATIO: FIRST-HAND IMPRESSIONS ARE KNOWN TO TRIAL JUDGES
        We hardly need to remind that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses and of weighing their credibility is best left to the trial judge by virtue of the first-hand impressions he derives while the witnesses testify before him.
        The demeanor on the witness chair of persons sworn to tell the truth in judicial proceedings is a significant element of judicial adjudication because it can draw the line between fact and fancy.
        Their forthright answers or hesitant pauses, their quivering voices or angry tones, their flustered looks or sincere gazes, their modest blushes or guilty blanches — all these can reveal if the witnesses are telling the truth or lying in their teeth.
    - - RELEVANCY = INDUCE BELIEVE IN ITS
        EXISTENCE/NON-EXISTENCE
        Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
        
        COLLATERAL MATTERS:
        EVIDENCE ON COLLATERAL MATTERS NOT ALLOWED
        Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed...
        
        EXCEPT WHEN IT TENDS TO ESTABLISH THE PROBABILITY/IMPROBABILITY OF THE FACT IN ISSUE, IN ANY REASONABLE DEGREE
        except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (4a)
        
        COMPETENCY OF COLLATERAL FACT IS NOT DETERMINED BY CONCLUSIVENESS OF INFERENCES
        The competency of a collateral fact to be used as the basis of legitimate argument is not to be determined by the conclusiveness of the inferences it may afford.
        (Knapp v. State)
        
        TEND TO ELUCIDATE:
        IT IS ENOUGH THAT THEY REMOTELY ASSIST A DETERMINATION PROBABLY FOUNDED IN TRUTH
        It is enough if these may tend to elucidate the inquiry or to assist, though remotely, to a determination probably founded in truth.
        (K v. S)
        
        COLLATERAL MATTERS:
        DEFINED
        Matters other than the fact in issue and which
        are offered as a basis for inference as to the
        existence or non-existence of the facts in issue
        [2 Regalado 708, 2008 Ed]
        
        RELEVANCY IS THAT WHICH CONDUCES TO THE PROOF OF A PERTINENT HYPOTHESIS
        Relevancy is that which conduces to the proof of a pertinent hypothesis
        
        WHETHER EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT RESTS LARGELY AT THE COURT'S DISCRETION
        However, the determination of whether particular evidence is relevant rests largely at the discretion of the court, which must be exercised according to the teachings of logic and everyday experience.
        (People v. Galleno)
        
        RELEVANCY IS DETERMINABLE BY RULES OF LOGIC AND HUMAN EXPERIENCE
        This means that relevancy is determinable by the rules of logic and human experience.
        There is no precise and universal test of relevancy provided by law.
        
        WITNESSES MUST STATE FACTS AND NOT DRAW CONCLUSIONS OR GIVE OPINIONS
        Witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or give opinions.
        
        IT IS THE COURT'S DUTY TO
        DRAW CONCLUSIONS AND FORM OPINIONS
        It is the court's duty to draw conclusions from the evidence and form opinions upon the facts proved.
        
        CREDIBLE WITNESS + CREDIBLE IN ITSELF
        evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but must be credible in itself
        (P v. C)
        
        COMPETENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO OVERTURN THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
        Unless the prosecution overturns the constitutional presumption of innocence of an accused by competent and credible evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption remains.
        (People v. Calumpang)
        
        BURDEN TO PROVE ALIBI DOES NOT SWITCH BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIM CASES
        The rule that an accused must satisfactorily prove his alibi was never intended to change or shift the burden of proof in criminal cases.
        (P v. C)
      - DOUBTS ARE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF ADMITTING CONTESTED EVIDENCE
        As a matter of general practice, it is deemed best to resolve doubts in favor of the admission of the contested evidence, without prejudice to such action as the court may deem fit to take in deciding the case on the merits.
        (People v. Abalos)
        
        COURT MAY ACCEPT TESTIMONY ON ATTY'S STATEMENT THAT IT WILL BE CONNECTED LATER
        and where there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the attorney ordering the evidence, the court may as a rule safely accept the testimony upon the statement of the attorney that the proof ordered will be connected later.
        (P v. A)
        
        RATIO: COURT IS LOATH TO RETURN CASE NEW TRIAL
        When such a mistake is made and the proof is erroneously ruled out, the Supreme Court, upon appeal, often finds itself embarrassed and possibly unable to correct the effects of the error without returning the case for a new trial, — a step which this court is always very loath to take.
        
        IN CRIMINAL CASES, THIS HAS ADDED IMPORTANCE
        This practice has ADDED IMPORTANCE as regards evidence for the prosecution in criminal cases…
        (P v. A; P v. Y)
        
        RATIO: ACQUITTAL CANNOT BE REVIEWED
        Because once the accused has been acquitted, there is no means to secure a review by appeal, no matter how erroneous the action of the lower court may have been.
        (P v. A)
        
        ADMISSIBILITY DEPENDS ON (RC)
        
        RELEVANCE
        
        COMPETENCE
        
        PROBATIVE VALUE DEPENDS ON (CP)
        TENDENCY TO
        
        CONVINCE AND
        
        PERSUADE
        The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight of
        evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.
        (Dela Llana v. Biong)
        
        EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE BUT MAY BE ENTITLED TO LITTLE/NO WEIGHT AT ALL
        Evidence may be admissible but it may be entitled to little or no weight at all.
        ALSO, EVIDENCE MAY HAVE EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT BUT IS NOT COMPETENT
        Conversely, evidence may have evidentiary weight but it may be inadmissible as a special rule forbids its reception
        
        EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE WHEN IT IS
        
        RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE &
        
        NOT EXCLUDED BY THE [CONSTI] LAW & RULES
        Evidence is admissible when it is:
        Relevant to the issue & is not excluded by the law/rules or competent
        
        With this said, admissibility is an affair of logic and law
        
        RELEVANCY IS THE
        VALUE IN REASON AS
        TENDING TO PROVE ANY MATTER PROVABLE IN AN ACTION
        Relevant evidence is evidence having any value in reason as tending to prove any matter provable in an action.
        
        PROBATIVE VALUE IS THE WEIGHT GIVEN TO EVIDENCE AFTER ADMISSION, DEPENDING ON JUDICIAL EVALUATION
        The weight to be given to evidence, after being admitted, depends on judicial evaluation w/in the guidelines provided in:
        
        Rule 133; and
        
        Jurisprudence
        
        OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE CANNOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL
        Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.
        (People v. Del Monte y Gapay)
        
        VOID DOCUMENTS ARE ADMISSIBLE
        A void document is admissible as evidence as the purpose of introducing it as evidence is to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact, not to enforce the terms of the document itself.
        (Tan v. Hosana)
        
        ADMISSIBILITY IS AN AFFAIR OF LOGIC & LAW
        Since admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance and competence, admissibility is, therefore, an affair of logic and law.
        PV DEPENDS ON JUDICIAL EVALUATION WITHIN GUIDELINES IN RULE 133
        On the other hand, the weight to be given to such evidence, once admitted, depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided in Rule 133 and the jurisprudence laid down by the Court.||| (People v. Turco, Jr)
        
        BUT EVIDENCE MAY BE REJECTED IF PLAINLY IRRELEVANT, IMMATERIAL, OR INCOMPETENT
        Unless, the same is plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent.
        This is because rejection places them beyond the consideration of the court, if they are thereafter found relevant or competent. On the other hand, their admission if they turn out later irrelevant or incompetent can be easily remedied by completely discarding them or ignoring them.
        (Tan v. Hosana)
        
        RATIONALE: THE JUDGE CANNOT KNOW AT THE ONSET WHETHER TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT OR NOT
        In a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of first instance, in the early stages of the development of the proof, to know with any certainty whether testimony is relevant or not;
        
        RATIONALE: LIBERAL ATTITUDE; EXCLUDING EVIDENCE ON DOUBTFUL OBJECTION SHOULD BE AVOIDED
        The court commends the maintenance of a liberal attitude on the part of trial judges in the matter of admission of proof.
        The practice of excluding evidence on doubtful objections to its materiality, or relevancy, or technical objections to the questions, should be avoided.||| (Prats & Co. v. Phoenix Insurance Co; People v. Yatco)
        
        RATIONALE: IF LATER FOUND IRRELEVANT OR INCOMPETENT, CAN BE EASILY DISCARDED/IGNORED
        This is because rejection places them beyond the consideration of the court, if they are thereafter found relevant or competent. On the other hand, their admission if they turn out later irrelevant or incompetent can be easily remedied by completely discarding them or ignoring them.
  - - - WHAT LAW APPLIES FOR ADMISSIBILITY:
        LAWS IN FORCE AT TIME OF TRIAL
        Evidence inadmissible under laws in force at the time action accrued but admissible according to laws in force at time of trial is receivable
    - - THUS, IT IS THE DUTY OF EACH PARTY TO PRESENT ALL MATERIAL AND RELEVANT FACTS KNOWN TO HIM
        It is the duty of each contending party to lay before the court the facts in issue — fully and fairly; i.e., to present to the court all the material and relevant facts known to him, suppressing or concealing nothing, nor preventing another party, by clever and adroit manipulation of the technical rules of pleading and evidence, from also presenting all the facts within his knowledge.
        (RP v. SB)
        
        THIS DUTY IS ACCOMPLISHED BY ONLY SETTING OUT THE ULTIMATE FACTS I.E. BAREST OUTLINE OF FACTUAL BASIS
        Initially, that undertaking of laying the facts before the court is accomplished by the pleadings filed by the parties; but that, only in a very general way. Only "ultimate facts" are set forth in the pleadings; hence, only the barest outline of the factual basis of a party's claims or defenses is limned in his pleadings.
        The law says that every pleading "shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts." 31
        (RP v. SB)
      - WHEN CAN YOU DISPENSE WITH MOTION FOR LEAVE?
    - - ONLY 3 KINDS OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
        
        CIVIL (Both Ordinary & Special)
        
        CRIMINAL
        
        SPECIAL
        
        WHEN PARTIES MAY WAIVE ROE
        
        RULES IS FOR
        PROTECTION OF PARTIES ONLY
        
        BUT NOT IF THE RULE IS ESTABLISHED FOR PUBLIC POLICY
        
        NOT MANDATORY BEFORE
        NON-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (NJP)
        Note: ALL other proceedings are NON-JUDICIAL, hence, application of the rules of
        evidence in the ROC is not mandatory unless
        provided to be so by law or regulation
        
        NOT APPLICABLE IN AGRARIAN CASES, EVEN IN A SUPPLETORY CHARACTER
        The Rules of Court are not applicable in agrarian cases even in a suppletory character. In the hearing, investigation, and determination of any question or controversy, affidavits and counter-affidavits may be allowed and are admissible in evidence
        (Reyes v. CA)
  - - - JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Rule 35)
        
        JUDICIAL NOTICE AND ADMISSIONS
        (Rule 129)
        
        RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
        (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, Resolutions dated July 17, 2001 and September 24, 2002) –
        
        THE RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE SHALL APPLY TO ALL CIVIL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS QUASI-JUDICIAL & ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
        Section 2. Cases covered. – These Rules shall apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases.
        Rule 1, Section 2
        
        Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trials
        
        MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE TAKEN OF:
        Rule 129 Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. —
        A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of
        
        STATES' EXISTENCE & TERRITORIAL EXTENT
        The existence and territorial extent of states,
        
        POLITICAL HISTORY OF SUCH STATES
        Their political history,
        
        FORMS OF GOV'T & SYMBOLS OF NATIONALITY
        Forms of government and symbols of nationality,
        
        LAW OF NATIONS
        The law of nations,
        
        ADMIRALTY & MARITIME COURTS OF THE WORLD AND THEIR SEALS
        The admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals,
        
        POLITICAL CONSTITUTION & HISTORY OF PH
        The political constitution and history of the Philippines,
        
        LEGISLAITVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL ACTS OF THE PH
        The official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of National Government of the Philippines,
        
        LAWS OF NATURE
        The laws of nature,
        
        MEASURE OF TIME
        The measure of time, and
        
        GEOGRAPHICAL DIVISIONS
        The geographical divisions. (1a)
        
        PARTIES MAY MAKE ADMISSIONS,
        VERBAL OR WRITTEN;
        DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF
        Rule 129 Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof...
        
        HOW CONTRADICTED:
        SHOWING OF PALPABLE MISTAKE OR
        THAT NO SUCH ADMISSION WAS MADE
        (Sec. 4 cont)...The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. (2a)
        
        CLAIMANT'S MOTION
        WHEN CLAIMANT MAY FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: ANY TIME AFTER THE PLEADING TO A CLAIM HAS BEEN SERVED
        HOW: WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS, DEPOSITIONS OR ADMISSIONS (ADAs)
        Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant. – A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his or her favor upon all or any part thereof. (1a)
        Rule 35
        
        DEFENDANT'S MOTION
        WHEN DEFENDANT MAY FILE MOTION FOR SUM JUDGMENT: ANY TIME
        Section 2. Summary judgment for defending party. – A party against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is sought may, at any time, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his or her favor as to all or any part thereof. (2a)
        
        THE MOTION SHALL CITE
        
        THE SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS,
        
        DEPOSITIONS, OR
        
        ADMISSIONS, AND
        
        THE SPECIFIC LAW RELIED UPON
        Section 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. –
        The motion shall cite the supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions, and the specific law relied upon.
        
        THE ADVERSE PARTY MAY FILE...
        
        A COMMENT
        
        ...AND SERVE
        
        OPPOSING AFFIDAVITS
        
        DEPOSITIONS
        
        ADMISSIONS
        
        WHEN: FIVE (5) CALENDAR DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THE MOTION
        The adverse party may file a comment and serve opposing affidavits, depositions, or admissions within a non-extendible period of five (5) calendar days from receipt of the motion.
        (Sec. 3 cont)
        
        JUDGMENT SHALL BE RENDERED IF
        
        PLEADINGS & ADAs SHOW THAT THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT
        
        MOVING PARTY I ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
        Unless the court orders the conduct of a hearing, judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
        (Sec. 3 cont)
        
        2 more items...
        
        SIR:
        I use this in protest cases, tax cases
      - THE FF. ARE CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
        Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:
        
        IN CASE OF INTENTIONAL & DELIBERATE DECLARATION-ACT-OMISSION,
        IF...
        a. A PARTY'S OWN DAO
        b. INTENTIONALLY AND DELIBERATELY
        c. LED ANOTHER TO BELIEVE A PARTICULAR THING TRUE
        d. AND TO ACT UPON SUCH BELIEF
        
        THEN...
        HE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO FALSIFY IT
        (IN ANY LITIGATION ARISING OUT OF SUCH DAO)
        (a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it; and
        
        TENANT CANNOT DENY TITLE OF HIS LANDLORD AT THE TIME OF COMMENCEMENT OF THEIR RELATION OF LANDLORD & TENANT
        
        (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. (3a)
        Rule 131, Section 2
    - - PARTIES SHALL FILE AND SERVE THEIR RESPECTIVE PRE-TRIAL BRIEFS WHICH SHALL CONTAIN...
        A SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS & PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS
        HOW: ON THE ADVERSE PARTY, IN SUCH MANNER AS SHALL ENSURE THEIR RECEIPT THEREOF AT LEAST 3 CALENDAR DAYS BEFORE THE DATE OF PRE-TRIAL
        Section 6. Pre-trial brief. – The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, in such manner as shall ensure their receipt thereof at least three (3) calendar days before the date of the pre-trial, their respective pre-trial briefs which shall contain, among others:
        (b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts;
        Section 6(b),
        
        UPON TERMINATION OF PRE-TRIAL, THE COURT SHALL ISSUE AN ORDER WHICH SHALL RECITE IN DETAIL THE MATTER TAKEN UP (WITHIN 10 CALENDAR DAYS).
        Section 7. Pre-Trial Order. – Upon termination of the pre-trial, the court shall issue an order within ten (10) calendar days which shall recite in detail the matters taken up.
        
        THE ORDER SHALL INCLUDE
        The order shall include:
        
        AN ENUMERATION OF ADMITTED FACTS
        (a) An enumeration of the admitted facts;
        
        MINUTES OF THE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE
        (b) The minutes of the pre-trial conference;
        
        LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUE/S TO BE TRIED
        (c) The legal and factual issue/s to be tried;
        
        APPLICABLE LAW, RULES, AND JURISPRUDENCE
        (d) The applicable law, rules, and jurisprudence;
        
        EVIDENCE MARKED
        (e) The evidence marked;
        
        SPECIFIC TRIAL DATES FOR CONTINOUS TRIAL (WITHIN PERIOD SET BY RULES)
        (f) The specific trial dates for continuous trial, which shall be within the period provided by the Rules;
        
        CASE FLOWCHART
        (g) The case flowchart to be determined by the court, which shall contain the different stages of the proceedings up to the promulgation of the decision and the use of time frames for each stage in setting the trial dates;
        
        STATEMENT THAT ONE-DAY EXAMINATION OF WITNESS AND MOST IMPORTANT WITNESS RULE SHALL BE STRICTLY FOLLOWED
        (h) A statement that the one-day examination of witness rule and most important witness rule under A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC (Guidelines for Pre-Trial) shall be strictly followed; and
        
        STATEMENT THAT COURT SHALL RENDER JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS/SUMMARY JUDGMENT
        (i) A statement that the court shall render judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, as the case may be.
        
        (Sec. 7 cont)
        
        DIRECT TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES FOR THE PLAINTIFF SHALL BE IN JUDICIAL AFFIDAVITS
        AFTER IDENTIFICATION OF AFFIDAVITS, CROSS-EXAMINATION SHALL PROCEED IMMEDIATELY
        The direct testimony of witnesses for the plaintiff shall be in the form of judicial affidavits. After the identification of such affidavits, cross-examination shall proceed immediately.
        (Sec. 7 cont)
        
        GENERALLY, POSTPONEMENT OF PRESENTATION OF WITNESSES IS PROHIBITED
        EXCEPTION: ACTS OF GOD, FORCE MAJEURE, OR DULY SUBSTANTIATED PHYSICAL INABILITY OF WITNESS TO APPEAR & TESTIFY
        THE PARTY WHO CAUSED THE POSTPONEMENT IS WARNED THAT THE PRESENTATION OF ITS EVIDENCE MUST STILL BE TERMINATED WITHIN THE REMAINING DATES PREVIOUSLY AGREED UPON
        Postponement of presentation of the parties’ witnesses at a scheduled date is prohibited, except if it is based on acts of God, force majeure or duly substantiated physical inability of the witness to appear and testify. The party who caused the postponement is warned that the presentation of its evidence must still be terminated within the remaining dates previously agreed upon.
        (Sec. 7 cont)
        
        SHOULD THE OPPOSING PARTY FAIL TO APPEAR WITHOUT VALID CAUSE, ABSENT PARTY WAIVES THE RIGHT TO INTERPOSE OBJECTION AND CONDUCT CROSS-EXAMINATION
        Should the opposing party fail to appear without valid cause stated in the next preceding paragraph, the presentation of the scheduled witness will proceed with the absent party being deemed to have waived the right to interpose objection and conduct cross-examination.
        (Sec. 7 cont)
        
        1 more item...
        
        SIR: SOMETIMES, WHEN YOU OBJECT TO THE RELEVANCY OF THE EVIDENCE, THE COURT WILL ASK YOU FOR THE FF.
        Your Pre-Trial Brief
        The opposing's Pre-Trial Brief
        The Pre-Trial Order
- - - - ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS (EIOR)
        While a medcert could be admitted as an exception to the hearsay evidence rule since entries in official records [under Sec 44 Rule 130 ROC (now Sec 46)] constitute exceptions to the said rule,
        (People v. Turco)
        
        BUT FOR MEDCERTS TO HAVE PV, THE DOC WHO ISSUED IT MUST BE PRESENTED
        it could not be given weight or credit unless the doctor who issued it is presented in court to show his/her qualifications.
        (People v. Turco)
        
        RATIO: IT IS OPINION OF ONE WHO MUST BE ESTABLISHED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS
        This is because a medcert involves an opinion of one who must first be established as an expert witness
        (P v. T)