PREMIDTERM REVIEW Flashcards
what is curative admissibility
Curative Admissibility is a principle which espouses the rule that a party may be allowed to submit an inadmissible evidence in the event that the adverse party was able to submit an inadmissible evidence but was erroneously admitted by the court, despite the objection of the adverse party
The doctrine of curative admissibility allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to answer the opposing party’s previous introduction of inadmissible evidence.
Thus, a party who first introduces either irrelevant or incompetent evidence into the trial cannot complain of the subsequent admission of similar evidence from the adverse party relating to the same subject matter.
Conversely, the doctrine should not be invoked where evidence was properly admitted
example of curative admissibility
action for damages arising from a car accident, the plaintiff, despite objection by the defendant, was allowed to introduce evidence to show that, on several occasions, the defendant, in the past, had injured pedestrians because of his negligence. The evidence was offered to prove the defendant’s propensity for negligence.
Of course, under the rules, this kind of evidence is inadmissible because evidence that a person did a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did the same or a similar thing at another time
If we were to follow the concept of curative admissibility, the court may be asked to give the defendant the chance to contradict or explain his alleged past acts and to show evidence of his past acts of diligence to counteract the prejudice which the improperly admitted evidence may have caused.
Also, if hearsay evidence prejudicial to the defendant is erroneously admitted despite objection, under the principle of curative admissibility, the court should allow hearsay evidence favorable to the same defendant
A, a suspected serial killer, was arrested for the murder of B on December 30, 2017, based on an eyewitness’s positive identification. The murder occurred in City X on December 25, 2017. [[During police questioning by Officer Y without counsel, A insisted he was in City Y at the time of B’s murder.]] The case was dismissed after the sole witness died.
At the same date and time, C was killed in City Y. Witnesses identified A fleeing C’s house. Charged with C’s murder, A claimed he was in City Z at the time. After the defense rested, the prosecution called Officer Y to testify that A previously claimed he was in City Y during B’s murder.
The defense objected, arguing the statement was obtained in violation of A’s Miranda rights. Resolve.
first was indeed violative of his right right therefore inadmissible
second is an extrajudicial admission
EJA is made out of court or even in a judicial proceeding other than the one under consideration;
therefore, formally offer the EJA however an EJA is not sufficient to convict so corroborate it with the corpus delicti
Further, any EJA made by a person under CI shall be in writing [and] signed in the presence of his counsel. OTHWISE, the EJA is inadmissible in ANY proceeding
[1st vew] - exonerating statements do not require it to be in writing, signed, with counsel so can be FO
[2nd view] - “any sattement” refers to incimrinating & exonerating” therefore cannot be FO as it is inadmissible
In this case,
B, struggling with a gambling addiction, borrowed One Million Pesos from A, promising to repay in a year.
After the loan became due, A filed a case to collect the debt. B admitted borrowing the money but claimed he had already paid it back.
During the trial, A testified that B never paid, but B failed to present evidence to support his claim.
The court dismissed A’s complaint, stating that B’s claim of payment in his Answer was a binding judicial admission.
Resolve.
No, Not all allegations/manifestations/admissions in the course of the proceeding is considered JA.
JA that are self-serving are not considered JA. IOW, JA contemplates that it is used against the confessor; if favorable to him, then JA finds no application.
In this case…
A is married to B.
A had sex with C below 18 w/ a promise to marry
C got pregnant and her parents filed for Seduction
Prosecution rested its Case
A took the stand & testified as witness for himself
Prosecution asked A to confirm the fact before having sex with C, A also had sex with D underaged and was impregnated by him
A invoked right against self-incrimination
Prosecutor argued that he cannot invoke as he is now in the witness tand
RESOLVE
Prosecutor’s argument is untenable
As a rule, the Constitution protects the rights of persons from being compelled to be a witness against themselves. However, such rule is subject to exceptions among which includes waiver on the part of the right-holder. In case of the accused in a criminal case, his agreement to take the witness stand serves as a waiver of his right against self-incrimination but only to the extent of the offense charged in that very same case
In this case…
- mantle of protection
The police set up a checkpoint on a public highway, led by Officer A and two others. They stopped a motorcycle driven by X, with Y as a passenger, because X wasn’t wearing a helmet. As X got off the motorcycle, her shirt lifted, revealing a handgun at her waist. Officer A arrested X for illegal possession of a firearm when she couldn’t present a license.
Believing Y might also be carrying something illegal, Officer A searched her and found five sachets of shabu in her pocket.
Separate cases for illegal possession of a firearm and drugs were filed against X and Y.
During Y’s trial, her lawyer argued the shabu was inadmissible due to an illegal search. The prosecution claimed the search was valid as a “search incident to a lawful arrest” or a “Terry Search.”
Resolve.
[LB-1] GR: In search in checkpoint of motor vehicle it is allowed so long as it is only VISUAL search which is the least intrusive
- which prohibits that the driver [or] passenger to get out
- prohibits opening of window
- prohibits questioning
XPN: warranted EXTENSIVE acts by Probable Cause –>If positive, then valid warrantless arrest
Here, the alighting was for purposes of a traffic vioklation and not for purposes of a search in checkpoint of a MV
[LB-2]
insofar as the SILA, it is a condition precedent that the search preceded the lawful arrest or search follows arrest
for there to be a valid warrantless arrest under in flagrante delicto
- had committed, committing, will commit an offense
- PO must have personal knowledge of the commission
SILA is limited to the frisking of the outer garments
Here…
Felipe shot Romeo to death. Felipe was charged with Homicide.
At trial, the prosecution presented Bryce as an eyewitness, claiming he saw the killing in Cebu City on April 15, 2020. However, Judge A acquitted Felipe, dismissing Bryce’s testimony as impossible by taking judicial notice that Bryce was in a bar in Quezon City on that date, as Judge A personally saw him there.
Is Judge A correct?
No,
DJN contemplates that court may take JN on
- matters of public knowledge
- matters capable of unquestionable demonstration
- matters ought to be known by judges by reason of their judicial function
Here…
Judge A’s knowledge of Mr. Bryce location relates to his PERSONAL knowledge – not a matter that is known or ought to be known by him by reason of his being a judge
Sean and Trina are legally married. Sean is a Congressman, and Trina is a Mayor in Bohol. They live separately most of the time due to their work.
One night, Sean flew to Bohol to surprise Trina for their wedding anniversary. When he entered their bedroom, he caught Trina in bed with Paolo. Devastated, Sean called his bodyguard, Rey, and they forcibly took Trina on a boat. While in Cebu’s territorial waters, Sean shot Trina twice in the head. Rey then wrapped Trina’s body with a fish net, added rocks, and threw it into the sea.
Trina’s son, as the beneficiary of her life insurance policy, filed a claim after two months, presenting Rey’s testimony that he saw Sean kill Trina. The insurance company filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing the claim is premature because Trina’s body has not been found, and she can only be presumed dead after seven years of disappearance.
Rule on the demurrer to evidence.
The law provides for instances where Legal Presumptions apply among which includes Death under Extraordinary Circumstances. The law provides that a person whose absence was due to an extraordinary circumstance is deemed dead, for all lawful purposes, after 4) years from the time of incident causing the disappearance. However, such a presumption would not apply when in the first place, there is PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE to prove that, under the circumstances, the person who has disappeared is already dead.
Licinio and Ella were suspected members of a terrorist group. Based on a written authority from the Court of Appeals, SPO1 Ouano conducted surveillance and intercepted their private communications. During this, an intimate phone conversation between Licinio and Ella was recorded.
Burt, Ella’s husband, later discovered the affair and filed an adultery case against them. The prosecution presented the intercepted conversation as evidence. Licinio and Ella objected, claiming the evidence was inadmissible under the Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA 4200).
Rule on the objection.
As a rule, the Anti-Terrorism Act now warrants the interception of a private conversation for as long as a Judicial Authorization was properly secured. However, the use of such lawfully intercepted communication must only be limited to the offenses sought to be charged against the persons in the conversation and information germane to the successful prosecution thereof, which offenses are violations of the same Act. Otherwise, the use of the recording shall not be admissible for other purposes, such as establishing another offense not falling under the aforementioned Act.
Novah borrowed ₱5 million from Renzo but couldn’t pay. To hide her property from Renzo, she executed a fake Deed of Absolute Sale, making it appear she sold her land to her friend Jose. Two years later, Jose filed a case against Novah, claiming ownership of the land based on the deed.
In her answer, Novah denied selling the property, saying the deed was fake and executed only to prevent Renzo from claiming the land. At trial, Novah testified the deed lacked valuable consideration and was made solely to protect the property from Renzo.
Jose objected, invoking the parol evidence rule. Rule on Jose’s objection.
The Parole Evidence Rule provides that parties, as well as their succcesors-in-interest, to a written agreement are barred from presenting evidence tending to prove Terms and Agreements other than what is stipulated in the written agreement. As a matter of exception, however, a party may contest the applicability of the Parole Evidence Rule by assailing the validity of the contract in his/her verified pleading.
Suppose in the preceding problem, Novah testified that Jose’s advice for Novah to execute a fictitious deed of absolute sale in favor of Jose was even tape-recorded by Novah with the prior consent of Jose. To controvert Novah’s testimony, Jose testified that while his conversation with Novah was indeed tape-recorded with his consent, he, however, never gave Novah such advice. Jose further claimed that the audiotape mentioned by Novah is not an accurate recording of his conversation with Novah. By way of rebuttal, Novah presented in evidence a written transcript which she prepared based on the tape-recorded conversation between her and Jose to prove the tenor of their conversation. Is the evidence admissible? If yes, explain your answer. If not, on what ground?
The original document rule provides, as a general rule, that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a documentary evidence, no evidence other than the original shall be offered and admitted by the Court. For an audio recording, the original thereof is the very recording itself which contents are the subject of inquiry.
Here, following the original document rule, Novah could not present a written transcript of the audio recording as the same could not be considered as the Original Document. The situation is also bereft of any circumstances warranting the application of the recognized exceptions. Since Jose is already questioning the accuracy of the contents of the recording, then the Rule provides that it is now incumbent upon Novah to present no other evidence other than the audio recording itself.
