- Requisites:
- Witness is dead or unable to testify
- His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the same parties or those representing the same interests
- The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although on different causes of action
- The issues testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in the present case
- The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former case
- Examples: Carlisle or Wigglesworth Tables and accepted actuarial and annuity tables
- Requisites:
- The court takes judicial notice thereof
- The same is testified to by a witness expert in the subject
- The court takes judicial notice
Review
Falls under R130.44
Lao: blotter vs. police report
Wallem: collation of entries vs. logbook (which is under specific duty of captain to record)
Manalo: Sheriff's return
2 lang case sa R130.43
Canque
Aznar
Aznar vs. Citibank
F: Aznar presented a printout given by the Ingtan Traveling Agency wherein it was indicated that the credit card of Aznar was declared over limit.
-It is a COMPUTER PRINTOUT
-as to the source of printout
*Is this a hearsay situation or a RIAA situation?
Elements of RIAA
(a) Act/declaration/omission
(b) there's an admission
(c) the admission is against the rights of a party
Here: Is there an admission which will prejudice the rights of another party?
Sabi ni Ma'am Oo.
Could Aznar have sued Ingtan instead?
Yes. Pero mahal so sa Manila sha nag-sue
If it was not Citibank who declared that Aznar was declared overlimit, why is he suing Citibank?
Ingtan could have only known (and could have gotten the COMPUTER PRINTOUT) only from Citibank. (from inference). In essence, it was CITIBANK who said that Aznar was already overlimit.
VAA: ONLINE transaction so kahit gaano kalayo ang Indonesia, instantaneous agad ung result.
The statement was from Ingtan but Aznar was saying that it was really Citibank's. RIAA!
How does a credit card work?
Aznar goes to Ingtan, wanting to make utang, for a plane ticket. If Ingtan honors the request, Ingtan would use its own funds to buy the ticket. Ingtan would then ask Citibank to reimburse. Citibank would then pay Ingtan (with interest) then collect with interest from Aznar. SO NOT JOINTLY INTERESTED.
DOES NOT FALL INTO ANY EXEMPTION UNDER RIAA! So inadmissibe under RIAA.
WHAT ABOUT HEARSAY EVIDENCE? IS IT ADMISSIBLE UNDER HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE?
When the document was alleged to be hearsay: Aznar was presenting a COMPUTER PRINTOUT. CITIBANK objected, hearsay! Nubi, who gave the printout, is not in the court and the contents are only showing the contents.
How do you make a computer document?
DIGITIZE: convert it from what to a digital file…
SCAN: you get
RECORDING
EMAILING
"it doesn't follow that the one who printed the printout was the one who made it."
How did the printout became questionable under hearsay?
Aznar presumed that Nubi given the document because Nubi signed it. However, as the paper had two signatures, it is doubtful who really made the computer printout. BUT IRRELEVANT RE: HEARSAY BECAUSE WHOEVER SIGNED IT, HE OR SHE IS OUT OF COURT!!!
VAA: "Don't ever say 'Official course of business'. Nakakalito un!"
-Not under R130.43
1. the person who made the entry must be dead, or unable to testify;
2. the entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to which they refer;
3. the entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
4. the entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or religious; and
5. the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
--the entrant was not identified . So how would the SC know if 3-5 were complied with
E.g. OLD BUSINESS DOCUMENTS OF A COMPANY. You want to trace it, and there's an official of the company to testify that these documents were kept by the custodian, and the custodian would be describe…and he performs it in the regular course of business. But the witness FORGOT THE CUSTODIAN'S NAME.
Would it be admissible under rule 130.43?
YES. IDENTITY not a requisite for R130.43 as long as it was established that the entrant was in the position, made the entries in the regular course of business or duty
VAA: IT IS DANGEROUS FOR THE SC TO RULE THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE ENTRANT MUST BE ESTABLISHED. DO NOT TAKE IT LITERALLY. BASTA AS LONG AS IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ENTRANT MADE THE ENTRIES IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS AND THAT THE ENTRANT WAS IN THE POSITION TO KNOW THE FACTS STATED THEREIN, PEDE R130.43.
So if nasa ibang lugar ka, how would you acquire an entry which may be admissible under 43 and 44?
Dapat yung 4 requisites hindi hearsay…
*Deposition OR
*let the entrant go to court in RP to witness
What other COA should have Aznar adopted here?
*NEGLIGENCE OF CITIBANK: It doesn't necessarily follow that if you're not listed in the black list you're not necessarily declared under limit
*SUE INGTAN
*The Black List bulletin is not conclusive as to the fact of WON Aznar was blacklisted
SO AS THE LAWYER OF AZNAR, how would you go about it?
Establish that declared overlimit = blacklisted: BUT THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE, the issue is WON CITIBANK ordered Ingtan not to pay for Aznar!!!! Aznar should show that being blacklisted is not a defense by citibank because it is IRRELEVANT! IF blacklisted, it may mean Aznar did not pay premiums etc.
HERCE vs. MUNICIPALITY OF CABUYAO, LAGUNA
F: Ordinary registry book shows that Cabuyao was given the DECREE 4244 over lot in 1911, map, ….
Solinap vs. LOCSIN
F: On the certificate of live birth (two presented: one from the local civil registrar vs. central registry)
H:
| Local (Exhibit D) | General (Exhibit 8) |
| *In a form printed in 1958 (NPO prints it) but the entries made in it were allegedly made in 1957 *The entry was merely pasted on the book, when the rest were sawn *No important particulars *The space which call for an entry of the legitimacy of the child is blank *photocopy *back of volume torn | *No signature of the late Juan C. Locsin
|
"From Batanes, to Aparri…(*pause*)di ba pareho yun?"
Fernandez vs. CA
H: Canonical documents not prima facie, not official records…
On the Baptismal Certificates
The baptismal certificates of petitioner Claro naming private respondent as his father has scant evidentiary value. There is no showing that private respondent participated in its preparation.
The rule is that although the baptismal record of a natural child describes her as a child of the decedent, yet, if it in the preparation of record the decedent had no intervention, the baptismal record cannot be held to be a voluntary recognition of parentage.The reason for this rule that canonical records do not constitute the authentic document prescribed by Arts. 115 and 117 to prove the legitimate filiation of a child is that such canonical record is simply proof of the only act to which the priest may certify by reason of his personal knowledge, an act done by himself or in his presence, like the administration of the sacrament upon a day stated; it is no proof of the declarations in the record with respect to the parentage of the child baptized, or of prior and distinct facts which require separate and concrete evidence.
While baptismal certificates may be considered public documents, they can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacraments on the dates so specified. They are not necessarily competent evidence of the veracity of entries therein with respect to the child's paternity.
On the Certificates of Live Birth
The certificates of live birth of the petitioners identifying private respondent as their father are not also competent evidence on the issue of their paternity. Again, the records do no show that private respondent had a hand in the preparation of said certificates. In rejecting these certificates.
Section 5 of Act No. 3793 and Article 280 of the Civil Code of the Philippines explicity prohibited, not only the naming of the father or the child born outside wedlock, when the birth certificates, or the recognition, is not filed or made by him, but, also, the statement of any information or circumstances by which he could be identified. Accordingly, the Local Civil Registrar had no authority to make or record the paternity of an illegitimate child upon the information of a third person and the certificate of birth of an illegitimate child, when signed only by the mother of the latter, is incompetent evidence of fathership of said child. A birth certificate not signed by the alleged father therein indicated is not competent evidence of paternity.
Rule 130.47
Section 47 - TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER PROCEEDING
The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him.
does it refer to res judicata?
NO. Not to COA
A vs. B. Witness is C. C was cross-examed. Case was still pending. C went abroad, can no longer be located. Subsequent case between A and B but different COA. Admissible? KELANGAN BA TAPOS NA YUNG UNANG CASE?
VAA (and ANTON :) ): NO. The rationale for this rule is that the witness is not available anymore and the previous parties over the same subject matter would want to use the testimony.
If one case labor, yung isa civil case: ADMISSIBLE?
- Administrative…
What about impeachment, then used in a subsequent criminal case?
INADMISSIBLE. Impeachment is not administrative in character - it's political!
COMELEC CASE?
?
Commercial Lists
Section 45 - COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE
Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein.
"Therein" - in the occupation
Who publishes these publication? Persons engaged in the occupation
ESTRADA v. NOBLE: Ballantyne Scale of Values
Sabungeros present a magazine of their kristos etch… ?
List of cargoes allowable etc…? Is it rellied upon by them? YES.
Mining Prospectus
Trade Circulars...
Learned Treatises
Section 46 - LEARNED TREATISES
A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject.
*ON PUBLICATION: BOTH ARE PUBLISHED! SO MULTIPLE HEARSAY!!!
The Verdict: Code Blue, referred to the book of the expert doctor, it was a published book. Any statement in that book admissible?
YES. Provided
Under Section 1/2/3? SECTION 3
Of what? VAA: of the fact stated therein...
No comments:
Post a Comment