EVIDENCE 2014 [ ] 1

RULE 130Rules of Admissibility

SECTION 1 - OBJECT REAL EVIDENCE

1. What is the Rule when the physical Evidence runs counter to the testimonial evidence?

BPI vs. Reyes, February 11, 2008

2. What is the chain custody rule in drug cases/ corpus delicti in drug cases?

People vs. Martinez, GR 191366, December 13, 2010/ Cacao vs. People, 610 SCRA 636/Carino vs. People

3. What are the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation? (MEMO)

People vs. Kamad, 610 SCRA 295

4. Whether the chain of custody be established with absolute rigidity for the conviction of the accused

People vs. Guiara , 601 SCRA 310

5. Whether accused may be identified thru sense of touch People vs. Reynaldo, 291 SCRA 701

6. Whether facial similarity may be used as evidence to prove kinship?

Tijing vs. CA, 354 SCRA 15, March 6, 2001

7. Whether appearance may be used as evidence to establish age

People vs. Rupeia, 398 SCRA 567, March 5, 2003

8. Whether marks of physical violence is indispensable to prove the fact of rape

People vs. Ulzoron, 286 SCRA 644, March 2, 1998

9. Whether the explosives used in illegal fishing is indispensable to prove the offense

Argoncillo vs. CA, 292 SCRA 316, July 10, 1998

10. Whether presentation of the firearm is indispensable to convict the accused in illegal possession of firearm

1

EVIDENCE 2014 [ ] 2

People vs. Narvasa, 298 SCRA 637, November 16, 1998/ Velaroso vs. People 546 SCRA 450

11. Whether negative test of nitrate is conclusive evidence that one did not fire a gun

Abalos vs. CA, 321 SCRA , December 22, 1998

12. What are the requisites so that a tape recording must be admitted in evidence

Toralba vs. People, 467 SCRA 552

13. READ A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC (RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE)

SECTION 2 – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

1. Rule when documentary evidence runs counter to testimonial evidence

Abelalla vs. CA, 257 SCRA 462, June 20, 1996

2. What documentary evidence can prove civil status Villanueva vs. CA, 198 SCRA 473, June 21, 1991

3. What documentary evidence can establish age People vs. Ibarrientos, 432 SCRA 424, June 17, 2004 / People vs. Coarial, 403 SCRA 577, June 10, 2003

4. What documentary evidence can establish fact of death Philamlife vs. CA, 344 SCRA 620, November 15, 2000

5. Who should identify photographs when presented in court as evidence

Sison vs. People 250 SCRA 58, November 16, 1995

6. Whether presentation of the photographer is indispensable People vs. Penones, GR NO. L-71153, August 22, 1991

7. Whether unsigned and undated document is admissible in evidence

Callanata vs. NLRC, 225 SCRA 526/ Asuncion vs. NLRC, 326 SCRA 56, July 31, 2001

8. Are computer printouts unauthenticated by the officers of the company admissible in evidence?

PLDT vs. TIAMZON, 474 SCRA 761

2

EVIDENCE 2014 [ ] 3

9. Is a certificate of title conclusive evidence of ownership of a piece of land?

Erasusta vs. CA, 495 SCRA 319

SECTION 3 – BEST EVIDENCE RULE

1. Is the presentation of the dishonored check an indispensable requirement for the conviction under BP 22?

Arceo vs. People, 495 SCRA 276

2. When the contents of the documents is not the subject of inquiry Consolidated vs. Del Monte Motor, 465 SCRA 117/ Nissan vs. United Philippines Scout, 618 SCRA 584, Marquez vs. Espejo, 629 SCRA 117 (2010)

3. If the party does not deny authenticity of the document, does the BER apply?

Gaw vs. Chua, 551 SCRA 505

4. Does BER apply if the dispute refers to the existence of the documents?

Manila Mining vs. Tan

5. Can the COMELEC entertain petition filed thru facsimiles Gervida vs. Sales Jr , 271 SCRA 767, April 18, 1997

6. Can a request for provisional arrest sent thru facsimile signature be admitted in evidence?

Cuevas vs. Munos, 346 SCRA 542, December 18, 2000

7. Can a certification bearing a facsimile signature be admitted in evidence?

Heirs vs. Comorposa, 408 SCRA 692, August 12, 2003

8. Is the presentation of the photocopy of the marked money in a buy bust operation case suffice to establish marriage?

People vs. Dandoy, 192 SCRA 28, December 14, 1990

9. Is the presentation of unauthenticated copy of the marriage contract suffice to establish marriage?

Garcia vda. De Chua vs. CA, 287 SCRA 33, March 5, 1998

10. In estafa case, are unauthenticated copies of the documents presented suffice to indict or convict the accused?

Ong vs. People, 342 SCRA 372, October 9, 2000

3

EVIDENCE 2014 [ ] 4

11. The rule on voluminous accounts explained CIA Maritima vs. Allied Free Workers Union, 77 SCRA 24

SECTION 4 – ORIGINAL OF THE DOCUMENT

1. Whether duplicate copies or carbon sheets of a document are considered original

Trans-Pacific vs. CA, 235 SCRA 494, November 18, 1994

2. Whether entries in the account ledgers are considered original of the document

Ramos vs. CA, 203 SCRA 657, November 18, 1991

3. What is to be considered original document under this rule READ Section 1, Rule 4 of Electronic Evidence Rule

SECTION 5 - SECONDARY EVIDENCE

1. What are the requisites for the admissibility of secondary evidence?

Vda. De Jacob vs. CA, 312 SCRA 772, August 19, 1999

2. Whether search of the original must be done first before secondary evidence is allowed to be presented

Tan vs. CA, 137 SCRA 278

3. Whether proof of loss of the original must be established first Citybank vs. Teodoro, 411 SCRA 577, September 23, 2003/ De Vera vs. Aguilar, 218 SCRA 602, February 9, 1993

4. The rule on who may testify to establish loss of a document Michael & Co vs. Enriquez, 33 Phil 871

5. When secondary evidence is presented in lieu of the original, presentor must account for all the copies; What is the effect if the adverse party does not object?

Heirs of Dela Cruz vs. CA, 298 SCRA 172, October 21, 1998

6. Destruction and Loss of the document, distinguished Republic vs. Masongsong, 470 SCRA 574

SECTION 6 – WHEN THE ORIGINAL IS IN ADVERSE PARTY’S CUSTODY

4

EVIDENCE 2014 [ ] 5

1. Is there a need to request for production of document in the possession of the accused before secondary evidence can be presented?

People vs. Tan Bomping, GR NO. L – 24187, March 15, 1926

2. Is a telegraphic demand to produce the original allowed? Pacasum vs. People, 585 SCRA 616

3. May the photocopy of the check subject of the case admissible if the original is in the possession of the accused?

Magdayao vs. People , 435 SCRA 677, August 17, 2004

SECTION 7 – WHEN THE ORIGINAL IS A PUBLIC RECORD

1. When the original is in the custody of a public officer recorded in a public office

People vs. Cayabyab, 465 SCRA 661

2. May a certified true copy of a resolution in the office be admissible in evidence?

Cabugao vs. People, 435 SCRA 624, July 30, 2004

3. Is it necessary for the establishment of due execution and subsequent loss of the original copy before a certified copy of the title would be admissible?

Widows & Orphans Association vs. CA, 212 SCRA 360 , August 7, 1992

4. Who may issue a certified true copy of the document? Republic vs. El Gobierno, 459 SCRA 533

SECTION 8 – PARTY WHO CALL FOR A DOCUMENT NOT BOUND TO OFFER IT

SECTION 9 – PAROL EVIDENCE RULE (PER)

CASES:

1. Allied Banking vs. Cheng, 472 SCRA 101

2. Lighten Contractors vs. CNP Industries, 614 SCRA 645

3. SPS Amoncio vs. Benedicto, 560 SCRA 219

4. Norton vs. All Asia Bank, 605 SCRA 37

5

EVIDENCE 2014 [ ] 6

5. May a promise/ agreement for the exercise of the right of first refusal be proved by parol evidence? Estate of Llenado vs. Llenado, 580 SCRA 546

6. Does the PER apply to a subsequent agreements? Raymundo vs. Lunaria , 569 SCRA 649

7. What are the requisites for mistake to validly constitute as an exception to the PER?

Maagad vs. Maagad, 588 SCRA 49

8. Who may the PER in a case Marquez vs. Espejo, 629 SCRA 117

9. Does the PER apply to private documents? Inciong , Jr. vs CA, 257 SCRA 578, June 26, 1996

10. Failure to express intent of the parties to the agreement Paradise Sauna vs. Ng, 181 SCRA 719, February 5, 1990

11. Validity of the document in issue Pagsuyuin vs. IAC, 193 SCRA 547, February 6, 1991

12. Issue of ambiguity not raised in the pleading Pilipinas Bank vs. CA, 341 SCRA 527, September 29, 2000

13. Meaning of Extrinsic Ambiguity Borillo vs. CA, 209 SCRA 130, May 21, 1992

14. Are receipts covered by the PER Cruz vs. CA, 192 SCRA 209, December 10, 1990

SECTION 10-13 – INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS

1.Whether subsequent circumstances/action of the parties may be used to interpret their agreement

Marquez vs. Espejo, 629 SCRA 117 (2010)

2. Applicability during trial

Prosperity Credit Resources vs. CA, 301 SCRA 53, January 15, 1999

6

EVIDENCE 2014 [ ] 7

SECTION 20 – QUALIFICATION OF A WITNESS

1. May a convicted felon be allowed to testify?

People vs. Dominquez, 217 SCRA 170, January 18, 1993

7