Rem Evidence R128 - R133

Question 1

Evidence
R128 - General Provisions

What is evidence?

What is the scope of rules? ( or how is it applied)

How is it applied in Administrative proceedings?
eg. Administrative disciplinary proceedings against judges & court staff

Answer 1

E is the means, sanctioned by the rules, of ASCERTAINING in a JP the TRUTH respecting a matter of fact

The rules of E shall be the SAME in ALL CTH courts, trials & hearings except as otherwise provided by law or rules.

R on E are NOT STRICTLY applied in AP
Eg. NLRC are NOT BOUND by the rules on E which bind regular courts.

Question 2

Evidence
R128 - General Provisions

Are the acts of local executives, local legislative bodies, and of Courts of Lower than the SC — subject of Mandatory Judicial Notice?

State the rule about the Admissibility of evidence.

There are exclusionary rules of evidence in the 1987 Constitution Art III

Answer 2

Those are not subject of mandatory JN

Admissible if 2 are present
1) Relevant &
2) Competent = aka Exclusionary rule: NOT excluded by law, rules of Constitution

Question 3

Evidence
R128 - General Provisions

When is evidence relevant?

Collateral matters ( Not the Main issue) - evidence on these secondary matters - state rule

Answer 3

Relevant if RPV
if it has Rational Probative Value (reasonably significant to the issue)

Evidence on CM are not allowed
Exc: if it helps determine the truth of the main issue

Question 4

Evidence
R129 - What need not be proved.

Explain the rule on judicial notice
Mandatory vs Discretionary

• Official acts in National Govt vs Local government
• Mandatory judicial notice of SC decisions

Answer 4

Mandatory judicial notice - eg. official acts of the LEJ branch of NATIONAL Govt, not the local government. Hence J is SC only because Art 8 SC declares that these shall form part of the law of the land.

MJN - court is required to recognize Facts without need of Evidence AUTOMATICALLY.
DJN - court may or may not recognize Facts & court may require verification or presentation of Evidence before taking JN

Question 5

Evidence
R129 - What need not be proved.

What is the GR on judicial notice of contents & records in the same court, same judge? Exception

Answer 5

GR: No JN of C & R in other cases in the same court or before same judge. (Eg. Asking judge to refer to a prior case information which is related to the current case).

Exc: If party presents it as evidence and other party did not object, Court on its discretion may take Notice UPON HEARING.

A judges knowledge does not equate to Judicial Notice.

Question 6

Evidence
R129 - What need not be proved.

Judicial admissions (oral or written statement or acknowledgement of fact) - state the rule.

Answer 6

JA are Conclusive on the party making them; Requiring no proof.

Eg. A sued B for car collission. In a pre trial deposition, B admitted over speeding. This is a JA requiring no proof

Question 7

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

A. What is Object evidence?

Answer 7

OE are those addressed to the senses of the court.
(Object evidence, also known as REAL evidence, consists of PHYSICAL ITEMS that can be perceived directly by the court through the senses of sight, touch, hearing, smell, or taste.)
Examples - stolen items, weapons used, photographs of events, etc

Question 8

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

B. What is documentary evidence?

“Documents presented to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein.”

Answer 8

Expanded the definition of DE as to include
- recorded sounds
- videos
- electronic documents
- photographs (need not be by the one who took the picture himself)

Question 9

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

MCQ 1
Scenario: In a theft case, the prosecution wants to introduce a recording of a phone call between the defendant and the alleged victim, where the defendant admits to stealing the victim’s property.

Question: Is the phone call recording admissible as evidence under the rule on documents as evidence?

MCQ 2
Scenario: In a breach of contract case, a company claims a competitor stole their confidential product design. As evidence, they want to present a 3D computer-generated model of their design.

Question: Is the 3D computer-generated model admissible as evidence under the rule on documents as evidence?

Answer 9

MCQ 1 - Answer: Yes.

Legal Reasoning: The rule states that recordings are a type of document considered evidence. The phone call recording, containing the defendant’s voice and words, qualifies as a recording under the rule. It can be offered as proof of the conversation’s content, potentially implicating the defendant in the theft.

MCQ 1 -
Answer: Yes.

Legal Reasoning: The rule specifies “stored images” as a category of documents considered evidence. A 3D computer-generated model can be considered a stored image representing the company’s product design. It can be offered as proof of the design’s existence and details, potentially supporting their claim of a stolen design.

Question 10

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

B. What is documentary evidence?

Contains Let & Num … as proof of the Contents of the Document.

Answer 10

Documentary evidence refers to any written or printed document, or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols, or other modes of written expression

OFFERED as PROOF of the CONTENTS of the document.

Question 11

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

Photographs as documentary evidence - rule?

Answer 11

Allowed if its relevant and verified

• need not be by the photographer himself
• can be made by other Witness who can testify as to its accuracy

Question 12

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

Best evidence rule ( Original document rule) - explain

Answer 12

BER is a misleading because it suggests that the doctrine applies to all types of evidence.
BER ONLY applies to Documents or Writings!

This doctrine requires that the “ORIGINAL of the Document be PRODUCED” when the subject of inquiry is the “CONTENTS” of the document.
But if there is NO ISSUE as to the CONTENTS of the Document, BER/OD rule Does not Apply

Question 13

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

Rule: Original document must be produced - rule. What is the exception?

Answer 13

The Revised Rules on Evidence (RRE) under Rule 130 prioritizes the presentation of original documents. However, there are exceptions where secondary evidence (copies, duplicates, etc.) can be admitted:

Exceptions to the Original Document Rule:

1. Loss or Destruction: If the original document is demonstrably lost or destroyed, a copy can be presented.
   * Example:
   A fire destroys the company’s official contract with a supplier. A copy of the contract can be presented if its loss is proven.
2. Unavailable Due to Unreasonable Difficulty or Expense: If obtaining the original is unreasonably difficult or expensive, a copy can be admitted.
   * Example:
   A contract signed abroad needs to be presented in a Philippine court. If retrieving the original from another country is impractical and expensive, a certified copy can be used.
3. Public Document: Duly certified copies of public documents are generally admissible.
   * Example:
   A birth certificate can be presented as a certified copy issued by the Philippine Statistics Authority.
4. Document is in Possession of Opponent: If the original document is in the possession of the opposing party who refuses to produce it, a copy can be admitted.
   * Example:
   During a property dispute, one party needs the original purchase deed held by the other party who refuses to present it in court. A copy can be introduced if the court finds the refusal unjustified.
5. Admission of Authenticity: If all parties agree on the authenticity of a copy, it can be admitted without the original.
   * Example: Both parties in a lawsuit acknowledge a photocopy of a bank statement as an accurate copy of the original. The court can accept the photocopy as evidence.
6. Collateral Matters: When the content of a document is not essential to the case (collateral matters), a copy might be sufficient.
   * Example:
   A witness mentions seeing a newspaper article about a specific event. The exact content of the article might not be crucial. In this case, a copy or even a summary of the article could be allowed.

Remember:
The burden of proving the applicability of an exception falls on the party seeking to introduce the secondary evidence. The court has the discretion to determine if the exception is justified.

Question 14

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

“Original of document” - meaning under rules of evidence?

Answer 14

why original documents are preferred:

1) ACCURACY
The original document is considered the most reliable representation of its content, minimizing the risk of errors or alterations that might occur with copies.

2) AUTHENTICATION
It’s easier to verify the authenticity (genuineness) of the original document through physical examination and comparison with established standards.

Basically, the court wants to see the “real thing” whenever possible to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of the information presented as evidence.

Question 15

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

Evidence admissible when original document is a Public Record

What is a public record?

Answer 15

General Understanding:

Public records are documents, papers, or data CREATED, received, or kept BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES in the course of their OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS

These records are considered reliable sources of information due to their official nature.

SOURCES of Public Records:
Public records can originate from various government entities, including:
National government agencies (e.g., PSA birth certificates)
Local government units (LGUs) (e.g., land titles)
Courts (e.g., court decisions)

Question 16

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

Rule: Party who calls for document not bound to offer it.

Answer 16

So in summary, while formal offer is generally required for a document to be considered as evidence, the party who called for the document during trial has the discretion to offer it or not, unless the adverse party’s actions imply that the document has been offered

Question 17

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

Parol evidence rule - state the rule

PuTAW = all previous W/O agr that VARY the WC are Inadmissible
(GR: anything outside the WA is parol, inadmissible)

Answer 17

Parol Evidence Rule points to remember:

The Parol Evidence Rule states that when parties have PUT their Agreement in Writing, all previous oral or written AGREEMENTS that VARY or contradict the Written Contract are INADMISSIBLE in court.

• Exceptions: There are limited situations where parol evidence might be allowed:
  1) Fraud or Mistake:
  If there’s proof of fraud or mistake that influenced the written agreement, parol evidence might be used to clarify the true intent of the parties.
  2) Ambiguity:
  If the written agreement is ambiguous (unclear), parol evidence can be used to explain its meaning.
  3) Incomplete Integration:
  If the written agreement is demonstrably incomplete and doesn’t capture the entire agreement, parol evidence might be allowed to introduce additional terms.
  4) Existence of a Condition Precedent:
  Parol evidence can be used to establish a condition precedent (a condition that must be met before the agreement takes effect) that wasn’t included in the written document.

Remember: The burden of proving an exception to the Parol Evidence Rule falls on the PARTY Seeking to iNTRODUCE ORAL evidence.
Courts will carefully evaluate the situation before allowing it.

Question 18

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

Interpretation of documents:

Rule: Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning

Answer 18

When interpreting a written document, the court must consider its legal meaning and effect rather than just the literal wording.

Example:
In a contract for the sale of a “dozen” items, the legal interpretation would typically consider “dozen” to mean exactly 12 items, even if in casual usage some people might use “dozen” more loosely to mean “about 12” or “10-14”. The court would interpret the contract according to the precise legal meaning of “dozen” rather than any colloquial understanding.

This rule ensures that legal documents are interpreted consistently and in line with established legal definitions and precedents, rather than based on potentially variable common usage or individual interpretations.

Question 19

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

Interpretation of documents:

Rule: Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions

Question 20

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

Interpretation of documents:

Rule: Interpretation according to intention: general and particular provisions

Question 21

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

Interpretation of documents:

Rule: Interpretation according to circumstances

Question 22

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

Interpretation of documents:

Rule: Peculiar signification of terms

Question 23

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

Interpretation of documents:

Rule: Written words control printed

Question 24

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

Interpretation of documents:

Rule: Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings

Question 25

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

Interpretation of documents:

Rule: Of two constructions, which preferred

Question 26

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

Interpretation of documents:

Rule: Construction in favor of natural right

Question 27

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

Interpretation of documents:

Rule: Interpretation according to usage

Question 28

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

C. Testimonial evidence

1. To testify, what are the requirements to qualify as a witness?

Answer 28

To qualify as a witness in the Philippines, the following requirements must be met:

• Mental Competency: The witness must be mentally capable of understanding the questions posed and making known their perceptions clearly.
• Personal Knowledge: The witness must have personal knowledge of the facts they are testifying about. This means they should have directly seen, heard, or experienced the events in question.
• Age and Maturity: The witness must be of sufficient age and mental maturity to perceive the facts and relate them truthfully. Children may be disqualified if they lack the capacity to understand the proceedings.
• No Disqualifying Factors: The witness should not be disqualified due to reasons such as:
  
  • Marriage to a party involved in the case (without consent).
  • Mental incapacity or immaturity.
  • Privileged communications (e.g., confidential communications between spouses).
• Not Convicted of Certain Crimes: Generally, a witness should not have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude unless their civil rights have been restored.

These qualifications ensure that witnesses can provide reliable and credible testimony during legal proceedings.

Question 29

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

C. Testimonial evidence

Rule: Testimony generally confined to PK Personal Knowledge

Explain:
a) old concept of hearsay
b) new name for objection on ground of absence of personal knowledge aka LACK OF FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE

Question 30

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

C. Testimonial evidence

What is the Marital disqualification rule?

Answer 30

Marital disqualification rule prohibits one spouse from testifying

for or against the other

without the consent of the affected spouse,

except in certain cases like those involving crimes against the other spouse or their family.

Question 31

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

C. Testimonial evidence

Witness disqualified by reason of privileged communication; exceptions
1. Attorney-client privilege
2. Psychotherapist-Patient privilege
3. Priest-Penitent privilege
4. Executive privilege

Answer 31

Here are the key phrases for each of the privileges you mentioned:

1. Attorney-Client Privilege: “Confidential communications between attorney and client made for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice.”
2. Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege: “Confidential communications between a psychotherapist and patient made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of mental or emotional conditions.”
3. Priest-Penitent Privilege: “Confidential communications made to a clergy member in their role as a spiritual advisor or confessor.”
4. Executive Privilege: “The President’s or executive branch’s right to withhold information from Congress, the courts, or the public to protect the confidentiality of presidential communications and decisions.”

Question 32

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

C. Testimonial evidence

2. Testimonial privilege
   i. Parental privilege
   ii. Privilege relating to trade secrets

Answer 32

Testimonial Privilege

Parental and Filial Privilege
This privilege protects the relationship between parents and children by preventing forced testimony against each other, except in cases of crimes committed by one against the other.

Privilege Relating to Trade Secrets
This privilege protects confidential business information from compelled disclosure. However, the court may order disclosure if it’s necessary to prevent fraud or injustice, while taking measures to protect the owner’s interest.

Question 33

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

C. Testimonial evidence

3. Admissions & Confessions

What is the rule on admission of a party?

Answer 33

Admission of a Party

An admission is a statement made by a party in the case, whether oral or written, which is against his or her interest. It is considered as evidence against the party who made it.

Admissions may be judicial or extrajudicial. Judicial admissions are those made in the pleadings, during the trial, or in other formal proceedings. Extrajudicial admissions are those made outside the courtroom.

Question 34

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

C. Testimonial evidence

State the rules on ‘Offer of Compromise’

Answer 34

Evidence of an offer of compromise is generally NOT ADMISSIBLE to PROVE LIABILITY for the claim,
but
may be Admissible for other purposes such as
A) proving bias or prejudice of a witness,
B) negating a contention of undue delay, or
C) proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

Example:
In a car accident case in Manila, the defendant offers to pay the plaintiff ₱100,000 to settle the matter out of court. If the plaintiff rejects this offer and the case goes to trial, the plaintiff cannot use evidence of this ₱100,000 offer to prove that the defendant was at fault for the accident. However, if the defendant later claims he was not involved in the accident at all, the plaintiff might be able to introduce evidence of the compromise offer to show that the defendant’s current claim is inconsistent with his earlier behavior.

This rule encourages parties to engage in settlement negotiations without fear that their offers will be used against them if the case goes to trial, while still allowing such evidence to be used for other relevant purposes in certain circumstances.

Question 35

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

C. Testimonial evidence
3. Admissions & Confessions

Admission by a third party - what is the ‘Res InTer Alios Acta’ rule?

Answer 35

The ‘Res Inter Alios Acta’ rule states that acts, declarations, or agreements between strangers (third parties) are not admissible as evidence against a party who is not privy to such acts, declarations, or agreements.

Example: In a car accident case, if Person A sues Person B for damages, a statement made by Person C (who was not involved in the accident) admitting fault cannot be used as evidence against Person B, as it is considered ‘res inter alios acta’ - an act between others not party to the case.

This rule protects parties from being unfairly prejudiced by statements or actions of individuals who are not directly involved in the legal matter at hand. It ensures that evidence admitted in court is relevant and directly related to the parties in the case.

Question 36

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

C. Testimonial evidence
3. Admissions & Confessions

Admission by a co-partner or agent - state the rule

Answer 36

The rule on admission by a co-partner or agent states that statements made by a partner or agent within the scope of their authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency relationship

can be admitted as evidence against the partnership or principal.

Example: In a business dispute, if a managing partner of a company makes a statement admitting fault in a contract breach during negotiations with the other party, this admission could potentially be used as evidence against the company in court, even if other partners did not explicitly authorize the statement.

This rule is based on the principle that partners and agents, acting within their authority, can bind the partnership or principal they represent. However, it’s important to note that the specific application of this rule may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the particular circumstances of the case.

Question 37

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

C. Testimonial evidence
3. Admissions & Confessions

Admission by a conspirator - state the rule

Answer 37

Rule:
Under the Philippine Revised Rules on Evidence, an admission made by one conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy is admissible against the other conspirators.

Example:
In a case of bank robbery, if one of the conspirators, while planning the robbery, admits to another conspirator that they have insider information about the bank’s security system, this admission can be used as evidence against all conspirators involved in the crime.

This rule is based on the principle that conspirators are considered agents of each other in furthering the conspiracy, and therefore, statements made by one conspirator in the course of the conspiracy can be attributed to all members of the conspiracy.

Question 38

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

C. Testimonial evidence
3. Admissions & Confessions

Admission by privies - state the rule

Answer 38

Admission by Privies

The act, declaration, or omission of a person who previously held a title to property is admissible as evidence against the person who currently holds title to that property, if such act, declaration, or omission was made

IN RELATION TO THE PROPERTY

while the former held title. In essence, the successor in interest is bound by the acts, declarations, or omissions of the predecessor-in-interest.

Question 39

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

C. Testimonial evidence
3. Admissions & Confessions

Admission by silence - state the rule

Answer 39

The rule regarding admission by silence, often referred to as “adoptive admissions,” states that a person’s silence or failure to respond to an accusation or statement can be considered an admission if the person, under the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to deny the statement if it were untrue.

For example, if someone is accused of a wrongdoing in their presence and they remain silent when they have the opportunity to deny the accusation, this silence can be interpreted as an implicit admission of the truth of the accusation.

However, several conditions must be met for such silence to be admissible as evidence:
1. The statement or accusation must be clear and unambiguous.
2. The accused must have had the opportunity to respond.
3. The circumstances must suggest that a reasonable person would have denied the statement if it were false.

This rule is based on the principle that silence in the face of an accusation can be seen as a tacit acknowledgment of the truth of the accusation.

Question 40

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

C. Testimonial evidence
3. Admissions & Confessions

Confession - state the rule

Question 41

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

C. Testimonial evidence
4. Previous conduct as evidence

Similar act as evidence - state the rule & Exc

Unaccepted Offer - state the rule

Question 42

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

C. Testimonial evidence

5. Hearsay
   - Define
   - State the rule & Exc (3) on H

Answer 42

Hearsay Definition:

• Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in that statement.

Key Points for Easy Memorization:

• Out-of-Court Statement: The statement is made outside of the current court proceedings.
• Truth of the Matter: The statement is being used to establish the truth of what it asserts.
• Declarant: The person who made the statement is not present in court to testify.
• Inadmissibility: Hearsay is generally inadmissible in court due to reliability concerns, as the opposing party cannot cross-examine the declarant.
• Exceptions: There are several exceptions to the hearsay rule that allow certain hearsay statements to be admitted as evidence.

This concise definition and key points provide a clear understanding of hearsay in legal contexts.

Question 43

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

C. Testimonial evidence

6. Exceptions to the Hearsay rule that its not admissible:

Exception - Dying Declaration

Declaration against interest vs. Admission against interest

Act or declaration about Pedigree

Family Reputation or Tradition regarding Pedigree

Common Reputation

Part of Res Gestate

Entries in the course of business

Entries in official records

Commercial lists and the like

Learned treatises

Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding

Residual exceptions

Answer 43

GR: Hearsay is inadmissible

Exceptions, hence Admissible:

The admissibility of evidence in court depends on whether it meets the criteria established under the rules of evidence, including the hearsay exceptions. Here’s an analysis of the provided examples in the context of their admissibility:

1. Dying Declaration
   
   • Example: A victim, believing they are about to die from a gunshot wound, tells a witness, “John shot me.”
   • Admissibility: Yes, if the victim genuinely believed death was imminent and the statement pertains to the cause or circumstances of their death, it is admissible as a dying declaration.
2. Declaration against Interest vs. Admission against Interest
   • Declaration against Interest:
     
     • Example: A person admits in a private conversation that they embezzled company funds.
     • Admissibility: Yes, if the declarant is unavailable and the statement is against their pecuniary or proprietary interest.
   • Admission against Interest:
     
     • Example: A defendant admits during a negotiation meeting that they falsified financial statements.
     • Admissibility: Yes, admissions by a party-opponent are generally admissible.
3. Act or Declaration about Pedigree
   
   • Example: A family member states, “My grandmother was born in 1900 and married in 1920.”
   • Admissibility: Yes, such statements are admissible if they concern family history and the declarant is a family member or close associate.
4. Family Reputation or Tradition regarding Pedigree
   
   • Example: Testimony that it is widely accepted in the family that a particular individual is the eldest son of the deceased.
   • Admissibility: Yes, this is admissible as evidence of pedigree if it reflects a long-standing family tradition.
5. Common Reputation
   
   • Example: Community members testify that it is commonly known in the neighborhood that a certain person has always been regarded as the owner of a disputed piece of property.
   • Admissibility: Yes, common reputation regarding matters of public interest or general notoriety in the community is admissible.
6. Part of Res Gestae
   
   • Example: A witness hears someone shout “Watch out, the car is speeding!” right before a car accident occurs.
   • Admissibility: Yes, spontaneous statements made contemporaneously with the event are admissible as part of the res gestae.
7. Entries in the Course of Business
   
   • Example: A company’s regularly kept sales ledger showing transactions made on specific dates.
   • Admissibility: Yes, regularly kept business records are generally admissible if made in the regular course of business.
8. Entries in Official Records
   
   • Example: A birth certificate from a government registry showing the date and place of a person’s birth.
   • Admissibility: Yes, official records and documents are admissible if they are properly authenticated.
9. Commercial Lists and the Like
   
   • Example: A published credit rating report from a recognized financial institution.
   • Admissibility: Yes, such documents are admissible if they are regularly used and relied upon in the conduct of business.
10. Learned Treatises
    
    • Example: A medical textbook explaining symptoms and treatment of a particular disease.
    • Admissibility: Yes, if used by an expert witness to support their testimony, learned treatises are admissible.
11. Testimony or Deposition at a Former Proceeding
    
    • Example: Testimony from a witness in a previous trial who is now deceased or unavailable.
    • Admissibility: Yes, prior testimony is admissible if the party against whom it is now offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony in the previous proceeding.
12. Residual Exceptions
    
    • Example: A detailed, notarized letter from an expert who unexpectedly passed away, explaining their analysis and findings.
    • Admissibility: Yes, under certain conditions, if it has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is more probative on the point for which it is offered, and if it serves the interests of justice.

For each of these examples to be admissible, they must meet specific conditions outlined in the rules of evidence and may also be subject to the court’s discretion.

Question 44

Explain each of the exceptions to the Hearsay Rule

Answer 44

Here are key words/phrases to remember for each of the hearsay exceptions:

1. Dying Declaration
   
   • Key Words: Belief of imminent death, cause of death.
2. Declaration against Interest vs. Admission against Interest
   
   • Declaration against Interest:
     
     • Key Words: Unavailable declarant, against own interest.
   • Admission against Interest:
     
     • Key Words: Party-opponent, own statement.
3. Act or Declaration about Pedigree
   
   • Key Words: Family history, lineage, relative.
4. Family Reputation or Tradition regarding Pedigree
   
   • Key Words: Family tradition, long-standing, reputation.
5. Common Reputation
   
   • Key Words: Community knowledge, general belief, public interest.
6. Part of Res Gestae
   
   • Key Words: Spontaneous statement, contemporaneous, event.
7. Entries in the Course of Business
   
   • Key Words: Regularly kept, business record, routine practice.
8. Entries in Official Records
   
   • Key Words: Government document, official, authenticated.
9. Commercial Lists and the Like
   
   • Key Words: Published lists, reliable, business reliance.
10. Learned Treatises
    
    • Key Words: Authoritative, expert reliance, professional.
11. Testimony or Deposition at a Former Proceeding
    
    • Key Words: Prior testimony, unavailable witness, similar motive.
12. Residual Exceptions
    
    • Key Words: Trustworthiness, justice, necessity, probative value.

These key words/phrases can help you quickly recall the essential elements and conditions for each hearsay exception during an examination.

Question 45

Question 1:
Scenario: During a trial for a car accident, a witness testifies that the victim told them, “I saw the other car speeding just before it hit me.” The victim is now deceased.

Question: Is this statement admissible under any hearsay exception?
A. Yes, as a dying declaration.
B. Yes, as a statement against interest.
C. Yes, as part of res gestae.
D. No, it is inadmissible hearsay.

Answer 45

Answer: C. Yes, as part of res gestae.
Legal Basis: The statement is admissible as part of res gestae because it was made spontaneously and contemporaneously with the event (the car accident), reflecting the victim’s immediate perception of the event.

Question 46

Question 2:
Scenario: In a fraud case, the defendant’s business partner, who is now unavailable, had previously stated, “We falsified the financial records to attract investors.”

Question: Is this statement admissible under any hearsay exception?
A. Yes, as a dying declaration.
B. Yes, as a declaration against interest.
C. Yes, as an admission against interest.
D. No, it is inadmissible hearsay.

Answer 46

Answer: B. Yes, as a declaration against interest.
Legal Basis: The statement is admissible as a declaration against interest because it was made by an unavailable declarant and was against their own interest, potentially exposing them to liability.

Question 47

Question 3:
Scenario: A genealogist testifies in a probate case, stating that a family Bible contains entries about the birth and death dates of the decedent’s ancestors.

Question: Is this testimony admissible under any hearsay exception?
A. Yes, as a dying declaration.
B. Yes, as a declaration about pedigree.
C. Yes, as part of res gestae.
D. No, it is inadmissible hearsay.

Answer 47

Answer: B. Yes, as a declaration about pedigree.
Legal Basis: The testimony is admissible as a declaration about pedigree because it pertains to family history and lineage, which are recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Question 48

Question 4:
Scenario: In a defamation lawsuit, the plaintiff seeks to introduce a newspaper article that reports the community’s general belief that the defendant is dishonest.

Question: Is this article admissible under any hearsay exception?
A. Yes, as a dying declaration.
B. Yes, as common reputation.
C. Yes, as an admission against interest.
D. No, it is inadmissible hearsay.

Answer 48

Answer: B. Yes, as common reputation.
Legal Basis: The article is admissible under the hearsay exception for common reputation because it reflects the community’s general belief and public interest regarding the defendant’s character.

Question 49

Question 5:
Scenario: A medical expert in a malpractice case relies on a well-known medical textbook to support their testimony about the standard of care.

Question: Is the textbook admissible under any hearsay exception?
A. Yes, as a dying declaration.
B. Yes, as a learned treatise.
C. Yes, as part of res gestae.
D. No, it is inadmissible hearsay.

Answer 49

Answer: B. Yes, as a learned treatise.
Legal Basis: The textbook is admissible under the hearsay exception for learned treatises because it is an authoritative source that experts in the field rely upon for professional knowledge.

Question 50

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

C. Testimonial evidence

7. Opinion rule

Answer 50

The opinion of a witness is NOT admissible
EXCEPT:

1. Opinion of Expert witness
2. Opinion of Ordinary witness

Question 51

When is an opinion of a witness admissible in court?

These exceptions allow for the admission of opinion testimony when it is based on the witness’s personal knowledge, expertise, or familiarity with the subject matter. The key is that the opinion must be rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful to understanding the testimony or determining a fact in issue.

It’s important to note that even when opinion testimony is allowed, the court still has discretion to determine its admissibility based on relevance and other factors. The opposing party also has the right to cross-examine the witness on the basis of their opinion.

Answer 51

Under Section 51 of the Revised Rules of Evidence in the Philippines, the general rule is that opinion testimony by a witness is not admissible. However, there are several important exceptions to this rule. Here are the key exceptions with illustrative examples:

1. Expert Witness Testimony:
   An expert witness may give opinion testimony within their field of expertise.

Example: In a medical malpractice case, a doctor can provide an expert opinion on whether the defendant physician’s actions met the standard of care.

2. Opinion on Handwriting:
   A witness who is familiar with a person’s handwriting may give an opinion on whether a disputed writing is in that person’s handwriting.

Example: A long-time secretary can testify that a signature on a contract looks like her boss’s signature based on her familiarity with it.

3. Opinion on Sound:
   A witness may give an opinion on the identity of a person by voice.

Example: In a criminal case, a witness who knows the defendant well can testify that they recognized the defendant’s voice during a recorded phone call.

4. Opinion on Speed and Distance:
   A witness may give an opinion on the speed of a vehicle or the distance of an object.

Example: In a car accident case, a witness can testify about how fast they thought a car was going when it crashed.

5. Opinion on Mental or Physical Condition:
   A lay witness may give an opinion on the apparent condition or state of a person or thing.

Example: A witness can testify that someone appeared drunk based on their behavior and appearance.

6. Opinion on Value:
   The owner of property may testify as to its value.

Example: In a theft case, the owner of a stolen item can give their opinion on its value.

7. Opinion on Emotion or Behavior:
   A witness may give an opinion on a person’s emotion or behavior that they observed.

Example: A witness can testify that a person seemed angry or upset during an incident.

Question 52

Evidence
R130 - Rules on Admissibility

C. Testimonial evidence

8. Character evidence

A. in Criminal cases
B. in Civil cases

When is a good character of a witness be proven?

How to Prove the Character of a Witness?

Answer 52

GR: Character evidence is INADMISSIBLE
Rationale: the “circumstantial use” of Character evidence, that a person Acted in a SIMILAR way in the Past (because that is his character)
Its inadmissible and prohibited because its circumstantial at best and it tends to confuse the issues

Exceptions: Admissible
A. in Criminal cases
1) Accused - may prove his moral trait pertinent to the offense charged
2) Offended party - character may be proved if it tends to establish probability of the charge

B. in Civil cases
1) CE allowed ONLY when moral character of a party is Pertinent to the issue of character involved

GC of a W is proven ONLY AFTER his character has Been Impeached

Character is proven:
1) Testimony on Reputation
2) Testimony in the form of Opinion

Question 53

Explain the Rules on Character Evidence

Answer 53

1. General Rule: Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
2. Exceptions in Criminal Cases:
   a) The accused may offer evidence of their pertinent trait of character.
   b) The prosecution may offer evidence to rebut the accused’s character evidence.
   c) The prosecution may offer evidence of the accused’s character trait of dishonesty or evidence of a pertinent character trait of the victim.
3. Exceptions in Civil Cases:
   Evidence of a pertinent character trait may be offered when it is an essential element of a claim or defense.
4. Methods of Proving Character:
   a) Testimony about reputation
   b) Testimony in the form of an opinionNote: On cross-examination, inquiry into relevant specific instances of conduct is allowed.
5. Admissibility of Character Evidence in Sexual Offense Cases:
   In prosecutions for rape, attempted rape, or acts of lasciviousness, reputation or opinion evidence of the complainant’s alleged past sexual behavior is not admissible to prove consent or impeach credibility, unless constitutionally required.
6. Evidence of Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts:
   a) Not admissible to prove a person’s character to show action in conformity therewith.
   b) May be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

These key points outline the general rule against character evidence, specific exceptions in criminal and civil cases, methods of proving character, special rules for sexual offense cases, and the treatment of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts under Section 54 of the revised Rules on Evidence in the Philippines.

Question 54

Evidence
R131 - Burden of Proof; Burden of Evidence; & Presumptions

Conclusive Presumptions vs Disputable presumptions

Answer 54

Conclusive Presumptions and Disputable Presumptions:

1. Rebuttability:

Conclusive Presumptions:
- Cannot be contradicted or overcome by evidence
- The fact presumed is taken as absolutely true, regardless of any contrary evidence

Disputable Presumptions:
- Can be rebutted or overcome by presenting contrary evidence
- The presumed fact is only considered true until proven otherwise

2. Effect on Burden of Proof:

Conclusive Presumptions:
- Completely removes the burden of proof for the fact presumed
- No need to present evidence on the presumed fact

Disputable Presumptions:
- Shifts the burden of proof to the party against whom the presumption operates
- That party must present evidence to rebut the presumption

3. Examples in Law:

Conclusive Presumptions:
- A child below 7 years old is conclusively presumed to be incapable of committing a crime
- Legitimacy of a child born during a valid marriage is conclusively presumed

Disputable Presumptions:
- A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty
- Official duty is presumed to have been regularly performed

These differences highlight that conclusive presumptions are absolute in nature and cannot be challenged, while disputable presumptions allow for the presentation of contrary evidence to overcome them.

The choice between these types of presumptions in law often reflects policy decisions about which facts should be open to debate in legal proceedings and which should be treated as irrefutable.

Question 55

1. In a criminal case, a 6-year-old child is accused of theft. The defense argues that the child cannot be held criminally liable. Which conclusive presumption applies?

A) The child is presumed to have acted with discernment
B) The child is conclusively presumed to be incapable of committing a crime
C) The child is presumed innocent until proven guilty
D) The child is presumed to understand the consequences of their actions

Answer 55

Answer: B) The child is conclusively presumed to be incapable of committing a crime

Legal reasoning: Under Rule 131, Section 2(a), “Children nine (9) years of age and below are conclusively presumed to be incapable of committing any crime.” Since the child is 6 years old, this conclusive presumption applies, and no evidence can be presented to rebut it.

Question 56

2. A couple has been married for five years when the wife gives birth to a child. The husband suspects he is not the father and wants to contest paternity. Which presumption applies?

A) The child is presumed to be illegitimate
B) The husband is presumed to be the father of the child
C) The child is conclusively presumed to be legitimate
D) The paternity is presumed to be in question

Answer 56

Answer: C) The child is conclusively presumed to be legitimate

Legal reasoning: Rule 131, Section 2(b) states, “The issue of a valid marriage is conclusively presumed legitimate.” As the couple is validly married, the child born during their marriage is conclusively presumed to be legitimate, regardless of the husband’s suspicions.

Question 57

1. In a criminal case, the prosecution presents evidence that the accused was in possession of stolen property shortly after a robbery. Which disputable presumption applies?

A) The accused is presumed innocent
B) The accused is presumed to be the thief
C) The accused is presumed to have knowledge of the theft
D) The accused is presumed to have acted with intent

Answer 57

Answer: B) The accused is presumed to be the thief

Legal reasoning: Under Rule 131, Section 3(j), “That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him.” This presumption applies in this scenario, but it can be rebutted by contrary evidence.

Question 58

2. A government official is accused of misconduct in office. The official claims all duties were performed properly. Which presumption applies?

A) The official is presumed guilty of misconduct
B) The official is presumed to have performed duties regularly
C) The official is presumed to have acted in bad faith
D) There is no presumption applicable in this case

Answer 58

Answer: B) The official is presumed to have performed duties regularly

Legal reasoning: Rule 131, Section 3(m) states, “That official duty has been regularly performed.” This presumption applies to government officials and their actions in office. However, this is a disputable presumption and can be overcome by evidence of irregularity or misconduct.

Question 59

3. In a civil case, a document appears to be more than 30 years old and is produced from proper custody. Which presumption applies regarding its authenticity?

A) The document is presumed to be a forgery
B) The document is presumed to be authentic
C) There is no presumption regarding the document’s authenticity
D) The document is presumed to be inadmissible

These MCQs highlight key aspects of disputable presumptions in Philippine law, emphasizing that while these presumptions are accepted as true initially, they can be challenged and overcome by contrary evidence. This reflects the nature of disputable presumptions as opposed to conclusive presumptions.

Answer 59

Answer: B) The document is presumed to be authentic

Legal reasoning: According to Rule 131, Section 3(q), “That a document or writing more than 30 years old is genuine, when it is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion.” This presumption applies to ancient documents but can be rebutted by evidence challenging its authenticity.

Question 60

Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings - State 2 rules

Answer 60

Rule 1. Presumption should affect only the burden of evidence or production of evidence, not the BOP.

Example: Property Tax Assessment Case

Scenario:
- The local government (plaintiff) files a case against a property owner (defendant) for unpaid property taxes.
- The local assessor’s office has records showing the property’s assessed value and tax due.

Application of the presumption:

1. Initial Presumption: The court presumes that the local assessor performed their duties regularly in assessing the property value and calculating the tax due.
2. Burden Shift: The property owner (defendant) now has the burden to produce evidence showing irregularity in the assessment process.
3. Rebuttal: The property owner presents evidence that the assessor failed to consider recent renovations that decreased the property’s value.
4. Burden Shifts Back: If the property owner’s evidence is sufficient to rebut the presumption, the burden of producing evidence shifts back to the local government to support its original assessment.
5. Ultimate Burden: Throughout this process, the ultimate burden of proving that taxes are owed remains with the local government (plaintiff).

This example illustrates how the presumption affects only the burden of producing evidence at different stages of the case, without altering the ultimate burden of proof. It facilitates the presentation of evidence by allowing the party benefiting from the presumption (in this case, the local government) to rely on the presumption initially, while giving the opposing party a fair opportunity to rebut it.

Rule 2 - in case of conflicting presumptions, determine logical basis for each presumption and decide which is more important to Prevail.

Question 61

Rule 132 - Presentation of Evidence

A. Examination of Evidence
B. Authentication and Proof of Documents
C. Offer and objection

Answer 61

A. Examination of Evidence:
Key Point:
The examination of evidence must be relevant to the facts in issue.
Example: In a theft case, the prosecution presents CCTV footage showing the defendant entering the store and leaving with items without paying, directly relevant to proving the crime of theft.

B. Authentication and Proof of Documents:
Key Point:
Documents must be authenticated to be admissible as evidence.
Example: To prove ownership of a property, the plaintiff submits a certified copy of the title deed with a notarized affidavit from the register of deeds confirming its authenticity.

C. Offer and Objection:
Key Point:
Evidence must be formally offered and objected to for it to be considered by the court.
Example: During a trial, the defense attorney objects to a witness’s testimony as hearsay, prompting the judge to sustain the objection and exclude the testimony from consideration.

These principles ensure that evidence presented in court is relevant, authenticated, and subject to proper procedural handling, thereby safeguarding the integrity of judicial proceedings and ensuring fair adjudication of cases.

Question 62

What are the key points as to Presentation of Evidence?

Answer 62

Presentation of evidence:

1. Order of Presentation:
   
   • The plaintiff or prosecution presents evidence first, followed by the defendant or accused.
   • Rebuttal and sur-rebuttal evidence may be allowed at the court’s discretion.
2. Manner of Examination:
   
   • Direct examination by the party presenting the witness
   • Cross-examination by the adverse party
   • Re-direct examination by the presenting party
   • Re-cross examination by the adverse party
3. Leading Questions:
   
   • Generally not allowed on direct examination, except:
     a) On preliminary matters
     b) When dealing with an unwilling or hostile witness
     c) When the witness has difficulty communicating
     d) To clarify or supplement a witness’s answer
   • Allowed on cross-examination
4. Impeachment of Witnesses:
   
   • A party may impeach their own witness if the witness becomes hostile or adverse
   • Methods include prior inconsistent statements, evidence of bias, etc.
5. Offer of Excluded Evidence:
   
   • If evidence is excluded, the offering party may make an offer of proof
   • This preserves the issue for appeal
6. Oral Offer and Objection:
   
   • Offers and objections to evidence must be made orally unless the court allows written submissions
7. Judicial Notice:
   
   • Courts may take judicial notice of certain facts without formal introduction of evidence
8. Stipulation of Facts:
   
   • Parties may agree on certain facts, eliminating the need for proof
9. Demurrer to Evidence:
   
   • After the plaintiff rests their case, the defendant may move for dismissal based on insufficiency of evidence
10. Reopening of Cases:
    
    • The court may allow a case to be reopened for further evidence before judgment
11. Formal Offer of Evidence:
    
    • After presenting testimonial evidence, parties must make a formal offer of documentary and object evidence
12. Objections to Formal Offer:
    
    • The adverse party may object to the formal offer within three days

Question 63

1. A farmer in Batangas signs a written contract to sell his rice harvest to a local distributor. Later, the farmer claims there was an oral agreement that the distributor would provide transportation for the harvest, which isn’t mentioned in the contract. Under which exception to the Parol Evidence Rule might the farmer introduce evidence of this oral agreement?

A) Fraud or Mistake
B) Ambiguity
C) Incomplete Integration
D) Existence of a Condition Precedent

Answer 63

Answer: C) Incomplete Integration

Legal reasoning: The farmer could argue that the written contract is incomplete as it doesn’t capture the entire agreement between the parties. The oral agreement about transportation could be seen as an additional term that was part of the overall agreement but not included in the written document. This falls under the exception of incomplete integration.

Question 64

2. A real estate developer in Manila signs a contract to purchase land for a new condominium project. The contract states the land is “approximately 5,000 square meters.” The developer later discovers the actual size is only 4,500 square meters. Which exception to the Parol Evidence Rule might allow the introduction of evidence about discussions regarding the exact size of the land?

A) Fraud or Mistake
B) Ambiguity
C) Incomplete Integration
D) Existence of a Condition Precedent

Answer 64

Answer: B) Ambiguity

Legal reasoning: The term “approximately” in the contract creates ambiguity about the exact size of the land. Under the ambiguity exception, parol evidence could be introduced to clarify the parties’ understanding of the land’s size at the time of contracting.

Question 65

3. A small business owner in Cebu signs a loan agreement with a bank. The owner claims that during negotiations, the bank orally agreed that the loan wouldn’t need to be repaid if the business failed within the first year, but this condition isn’t in the written agreement. Under which exception might the business owner try to introduce evidence of this oral agreement?

A) Fraud or Mistake
B) Ambiguity
C) Incomplete Integration
D) Existence of a Condition Precedent

Answer 65

Answer: D) Existence of a Condition Precedent

Legal reasoning: The business owner could argue that the oral agreement about loan forgiveness in case of business failure within a year constitutes a condition precedent - a condition that affects the enforceability of the contract. This falls under the exception allowing parol evidence to establish the existence of a condition precedent not included in the written document.

Question 66

1. A Filipino overseas worker (OFW) in Saudi Arabia needs to present her employment contract in a labor dispute case in the Philippines. The original contract is with her employer in Saudi Arabia, who refuses to release it. Which exception to the Best Evidence Rule would most likely allow the OFW to present a copy of the contract?

A) Loss or Destruction
B) Unreasonable Difficulty or Expense
C) Public Documents
D) Possession of Opponent

Answer 66

Answer: B) Unreasonable Difficulty or Expense

Legal reasoning: Given that the OFW is in the Philippines and the original contract is in Saudi Arabia, obtaining the original would likely involve significant travel costs and potential legal hurdles. This situation falls under the exception of “Unreasonable Difficulty or Expense” as retrieving the original document from another country would be impractical and costly for the OFW.

Question 67

2. In a land dispute case in Mindanao, the original land title was destroyed during a recent armed conflict. The plaintiff presents a certified true copy obtained from the Registry of Deeds before the conflict. The defendant argues this copy is inadmissible. Which exception to the Best Evidence Rule would likely apply?

A) Loss or Destruction
B) Unreasonable Difficulty or Expense
C) Public Documents
D) Admission of Authenticity

Answer 67

Answer: C) Public Documents

Legal reasoning: While the loss or destruction of the original title is relevant, the key factor here is that the document in question is a certified true copy of a land title, which is a public document. Under the exception for public documents, duly certified copies are generally admissible without needing the original. Land titles, being official records maintained by the Registry of Deeds, fall under this category of public documents.

Question 68

3. In a high-profile corruption case against a government official, prosecutors allege the existence of a secret bank account. The bank, citing confidentiality laws, refuses to provide the original statements. The prosecution has obtained copies of the statements from a whistleblower. Which exception, if any, might allow these copies to be admitted?

A) Loss or Destruction
B) Unreasonable Difficulty or Expense
C) Possession of Opponent
D) None of the above

Answer 68

Answer: D) None of the above

Legal reasoning: This scenario doesn’t clearly fit any of the standard exceptions. The original documents are not lost or destroyed, and while there’s difficulty in obtaining them, it’s due to legal restrictions rather than practical difficulties. The documents are not in possession of the opposing party (the accused official) but a third party (the bank). The copies weren’t obtained through official channels, raising questions about their authenticity. In this case, the court would likely need to carefully weigh the public interest in prosecuting corruption against the legal protections for bank secrecy, possibly requiring additional legal procedures to admit the evidence.

Question 69

In a criminal trial for robbery, the prosecution presents a witness who testifies about the defendant’s behavior in the hours leading up to the crime. The defense objects, arguing that this testimony is irrelevant. How should the court rule?

A. Sustain the objection because the testimony does not directly relate to the act of robbery.
B. Overrule the objection because witness testimony about the defendant’s behavior is always admissible.
C. Sustain the objection unless the prosecution can establish a clear link between the behavior and the commission of the robbery.
D. Overrule the objection because any witness testimony relevant to the defendant’s character is admissible.

Answer 69

Answer: C. Sustain the objection unless the prosecution can establish a clear link between the behavior and the commission of the robbery.

Legal Reasoning: The key principle here is that evidence must be relevant to the facts in issue. In a robbery case, testimony about the defendant’s behavior before the crime may be relevant if it establishes a motive or intent. However, if the link between the behavior and the robbery is not clear, the objection should be sustained to avoid introducing irrelevant evidence.

Question 70

In a land dispute case, the plaintiff presents a photocopy of a land title as evidence of ownership. The defendant objects, stating that the photocopy is not admissible without proper authentication. How should the court rule?

A. Overrule the objection because a photocopy of a land title is sufficient evidence of ownership.
B. Sustain the objection unless the plaintiff presents a certified copy of the land title or other authenticated documents.
C. Overrule the objection because land titles are public documents and can be admitted without authentication.
D. Sustain the objection only if the defendant can prove that the photocopy is not a faithful reproduction of the original document.

Answer 70

Answer: B. Sustain the objection unless the plaintiff presents a certified copy of the land title or other authenticated documents.

Legal Reasoning: The rule requires that documents must be authenticated to be admissible as evidence. A photocopy of a land title may not be admissible unless it is certified or properly authenticated. This ensures that only reliable and authenticated documents are used as evidence in court proceedings.

Question 71

During a trial for assault, the prosecution calls a witness who starts to testify about a conversation they overheard between the defendant and another person. The defense objects, stating that the testimony is hearsay. How should the court rule?

A. Sustain the objection because hearsay testimony is generally not admissible unless an exception applies.
B. Overrule the objection because witness testimony about conversations is always admissible.
C. Sustain the objection unless the prosecution can prove the conversation falls under a hearsay exception.
D. Overrule the objection because any witness testimony relevant to the defendant’s actions is admissible.

Answer 71

Answer: A. Sustain the objection because hearsay testimony is generally not admissible unless an exception applies.

Legal Reasoning: Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is generally not admissible unless it falls under a recognized exception. The objection should be sustained unless the prosecution can demonstrate that the conversation falls under an exception to the hearsay rule, ensuring that only reliable and admissible evidence is considered by the court.

These MCQs and answers illustrate how these fundamental principles of evidence ensure fairness and accuracy in the judicial process under the Philippines legal system.