Access over 20 million homework & study documents

Integration Management Class Notes_41235044-Evidence-class-notes-Vinluan

Content type
User Generated
Subject
Business
Type
Note
Rating
Showing Page:
1/22
Page 1 of 22
29 June 2010
PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE
Remember that it must be put in issue in the pleading. As held in
Ortanez, the applicable exception must be expressly invoked in the
pleading. It’s not enough to alleged that the contract of sale was
subject to conditions.
VII. Qualifications of Witnesses
(Lucas) MENTAL INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY
Rule 130, Sec. 20
Every person is presumed to be competent. Competent means
qualification to be a witness. Burden of proof is on the person
challenging the competency.
Are there other requirements of the law before you can be allowed to
testify?
Oath
Personal knowledge clear that he does not possess PK
from the initial questions. Later we distinguish that, lack of
personal knowledge is often confused with hearsay rule but
those two things are different.
2
nd
par:
There was a time when atheist and parties were not allowed to
testify. But eventually all the states abolished that requirement.
Bias of the witness because he is a party in the case will not
disqualify him but only in the weight of the testimony.
Conviction of a crime can be used to impeach the witness’
credibility
DEADMAN’S STATUTE
Sort of compromise when the disqualification relating to parties was
adopted. Surviving party will not be allowed if the other is dead.
Remnant of old rule disqualifying parties from testifying.
Rule 130, Sec. 21
Children Child Witness Rule; every child is presumed to be
competent. But the court may look into competency of child motu
propio or by request of a party
Are you still considered a child under the rules? 18 years old
Take into account his ability to perceive “at the time of the
event” he was to testify to. Especially if the case happened
7 years ago. With respect to children, consider their
capacity to:
o Observe
o Recollect
o Communicate
Feeble-minded witnesses
Mental retardates
Deaf mutes
Competent witnesses for as long as they can communicate
their ideas even with the use of interpreters
Drug addiction
Ground for disqualification? Nope but it will only go to the
weight
What questions will you ask a 4-5 year old child?
Offer of testimony before you can proceed
Judge says: Okay proceed!
What do you ask child to show that he understands?
Pro bono case in Cabugao, Ilocos Sur. Habeas corpus for
Custody. No longer English speaking, Ilocan na. Mother likes
to go out with Blacks. Coached na pinalabas na loose morals
yung nanay.
Ordinarily pag direct examinations, not leading questions: i.e. answer
the question you desire. Pwede leading questions.
You know you have to tell the truth?
You know what will happen if you don’t say the truth? I go
to hell or Congress.
Sec. 21 is superfluous because it’s already covered by Sec. 20 when it
said “all persons
MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION
It is one of the marital privileges. In the US, it’s limited to civil cases.
Aka “adverse spousal testimony privilege” a spouse cannot testify in a
criminal case but our law is broader because it applies to both
criminal and civil. It’s not only immunity “against” but “for or against”
I told you earlier, we have this because certain social values are more
important that the truth. BUT please take note that this must be
construed strictly because they are in derogation of search for truth.
What societal values are involved? Foster marital harmony.
Atty-client: encourage and promote candor between atty/physician-
client/patient
What do you understand by privilege?
(Manotoc absent)
(Venus bebe)
The right to withhold information or prevent other persons from
disclosing information. Cannot compel a spouse to testify against
another spouse.
Spouses immunity privilege. Limited to adverse testimony. But ours is
broader.
Let’s call it a privilege. Can be invoked only during the marriage.
Who is the holder of the privilege? The affected spouse. There must
be an actual case.
Exceptions?
Rationale for this privilege?
- Wala nang identity of interests ngayon. Hindi na cinicite yan
ngayon
- Domestic peace? To enforce their marital harmony and
prevent perjury
Ewan ko bakit nilagay yung for eh. It is understandable bakit yung
against. Walang mag-oobject. Pinapatangal ko yan sa bagong edition.
What will happen if you don’t have this privilege? Danger of perjury,
spouse’s witness will be tempted to lie or the witness spouse may
refuse to testify in which case the court may cite him for contempt or
testifies and tells the truth and betrays his/her loved one. Avoid
placing the wintess spouse in a trilemma: perjury, contempt and
betrayal of loved one!
What if the spouse is willing to testify, what marital harmony is there
to preserve? Holder of the privilege is with the witness spouses.
That’s the US SC but we don’t follow that. It’s simple that if a spouse
is willing to testify, the marriage is beyond repair, no more marital

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/22
Page 2 of 22
harmony to preserve. Highly criticized decision because it encourages
the government to pit one spouse against the other. Coconspirate
yung wife to testify against husband, we’ll let you go. For your
information lang yan. US v Trammel.
What is the requirement about the marriage: it must be a valid
marriage, not bigamous etc. Otherwise privilege will not apply
Can this privilege be waived by the affected spouse? Yes. In addition
this, there is privilege relating to confidential info. Even when spouse
allowed testify, the affected spouse can still object on the confidential
communication.
Daquigan
At the time this case arose, that was the old rule which did not
include the witness’s spouse direct descendants/ascendants.
What did the SC cite? US Case of Cargill where it was held that…
“when the vitally impairs the conjugal relation…” Take note of that
doctrine.
Castaneda
What was the crime there? Who filed case against husband subject
to the objection of the husband?
Toff’s question re de facto separation: Alvarez v Ramirez (page 742)
fact of estrangement
(Ibanez)
Francisco
Lezama
What if you marry your GF just to prevent her from testifying against
you.
Take note: Applies even to acts or events that took place even before
the marriage.
This is a complete ban.
DEADMAN’S STATUTE
1. Who are the witnesses who cannot testify?
o Parties
o Assignors of parties
o Person in whose ___
2. What is the action? An action against the persons specified
in the rule
3. Nature of the action? Involves a claim or demand on the
___
4. What is the prohibited testimony? Matters that occurred
before the death of the deceased or before insane person
lost his mind
Rationale? Level the playing field, equalize the opportunities for
proof between the surviving party and the deceased. Why? In what
sense? What do you understand by that? Unsound mind might
recover his sanity someday, so deceased person muna. Where death
has sealed the lips of one party, then the law will seal the lips of the
other.
Question: Is that a good rationale? Jeremy Bentham thought this was
blind and brainless rule. Cause justice to the dead and do injustice to
the living. Is that fair rule, you lent 1 million to your now dead friend.
Majority of the states have abolished this statutes. They liberalized
the rule. They’ll allow the surviving party to testify but at the same
time, rule allows the estate any hearsay evidence. that’s the
compromise in the US. The Evidence Rule revision committee has
decided to adopt that. Magiging exception to the hearsay rule yun.
Allow surviving party to testify but allow hearsay evidence to be
introduced by the estate.
You should have no problem applying this rule. Why? You’re given a
problem. Can this witness testify. You look at the witness. If he is not
a party or assignor of a party or person in whose behalf, rule will not
apply. Then look at the action:
Guerrero v St. Claire
Who were the witnesses being offered to testify?
Action requires that the action must be against the estate.
What if the executor or administrator interposed a counterclaim? The
surviving party may continue to testify. In that case the surviving
party will be the defendant.
Guerrero v St. Claire
Who were the witnesses being offered to testify?
1 July 2010
(Esperas) Abraham v Recto-Kasten
It’s usually a problem during trial, e.g. you object “hearsay” but court
overruled your objection so when the time for your cross-
examination comes, what will you do, will you cross examine? We will
tell the court, without prejudice to our/waiving our objection? That’s
what we usually do.
On appeal you assign it as error and then the appellee court sustains
your objection. On the other hand, court sustains the ruling of the
lower court, what will happen on appeal. The better practice is what
we do. There is a decision of US court where that the ruling should be
taken as law of the case if you cross-examine, you are deemed not to
have waived your objection. It is still assignable as error.
Goni v CA
What is the effect when the deceased was represented by an agent
and the agent at the time of the suit was still alive? Deadman statute
will not apply because agent can rebut the surviving party’s position
(at least as to the part of transaction where deceased is represented
by the agent).
Tongco v Vianzon
Does deadman statute apply in a cadastral proceeding? No. Because
there’s neither plaintiff nor defendant.
Lichauco
Where the plaintiff is a corporation against the estate? Are the
officers and stockholders covered? No. Why? Citing City Savings Bank
v Enos: interest no longer disqualifies. Corporation has separate and
distinct personality
Razon v IAC
Not applicable also.
No problem applying DMS because it should only satisfy the
requisites. Sir enumerates them.
How about this situation: In a vehicle collision, one of the parties to
the collision died. The surviving party sues the estate of the deceased
driver on the theory that deceased was the one negligent. Can

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/22

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 22 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Page 1 of 22 29 June 2010 PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE Remember that it must be put in issue in the pleading. As held in Ortanez, the applicable exception must be expressly invoked in the pleading. It’s not enough to alleged that the contract of sale was subject to conditions. VII. Qualifications of Witnesses (Lucas) MENTAL INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY Rule 130, Sec. 20 Every person is presumed to be competent. Competent means qualification to be a witness. Burden of proof is on the person challenging the competency. Are there other requirements of the law before you can be allowed to testify?  Oath  Personal knowledge – clear that he does not possess PK from the initial questions. Later we distinguish that, lack of personal knowledge is often confused with hearsay rule but those two things are different. 2nd par: There was a time when atheist and parties were not allowed to testify. But eventually all the states abolished that requirement. Bias of the witness – because he is a party in the case will not disqualify him but only in the weight of the testimony. Conviction of a crime – can be used to impeach the witness’ credibility DEADMAN’S STATUTE Sort of compromise when the disqualification relating to parties was adopted. Surviving party will not be allowed if the other is dead. Remnant of old rule disqualifying parties from testifying. Rule 130, Sec. 21 Children – Child Witness Rule; every child is presumed to be competent. But the court may look into competenc ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Goes above and beyond expectations!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4