Tiu, Jaclyn Christy O.

3-D

EVIDENCE
Judge Bonifacio

9 November 2012
Case Digests I

REYES V. CA
Facts
Petitioner was the widow of a tenant in a parcel of land. After the death of her husband (the tenant), the owner possessed
the land and refused to return possession to petitioner. Petitioner thus issued an affidavit, on the basis of which the trial
court rendered a decision in her favor and against the owners of the land. The affiant herself was not presented in court.
The defendants thus assail the admissibility of the affidavit. Defendants claim that without the presentation of the affiant,
the affidavit is mere hearsay.
Issue
Whether an affidavit presented in court without also presenting the affiant of such affidavit renders that affidavit
inadmissible for being hearsay.
Held
The affidavit is admissible
Ratio
The applicable law in the case at bar is the Agrarian Reform Law. The Rules of Court, including the Rules on Evidence
are therefore merely applied suppletorily because the law itself expressly allows mere substantial evidence to determine
who has the right to possess a parcel of land. The case at bar falls under the exception to the Rule that the Rules on
evidence must be the same in all courts and in all cases and hearings because such exception is expressly provided for
by special law (other exceptions include those expressly provided by the Rules or by the Constitution)

PEOPLE V. TURCO
Facts
During a trial for rape, the medical examination of the victim was presented in court without presenting the medico-legal
officer who conducted the examination of the victim to testify. The accused in the case assailed the admissibility of the
medical examination report claiming that such is mere hearsay if it is not accompanied by the testimony of the medicolegal officer who conducted it.
Issue
Whether the medical examination report of the rape victim is inadmissible without the testimony of the medico-legal officer
who conducted it
Held
The medical report is admissible
Ratio
Conviction of the accused was not made dependent solely on the medical report. The victim was found by the lower court
to be credible and her testimony sufficient to convict the accused for rape. Furthermore, presence or absence of the
testimony of the medico-legal officer presenting the medical examination conducted on the victim goes into the WEIGHT
that the court may give to such medical report, not to the reports admissibility. The report was found to be relevant,
material and competent. It is therefore admissible as evidence. Admissibility must not be confused with the probative
value or weight that the court gives to the evidence presented before it.

AGUSTIN V. CA
Facts
In an action for support, the mother and child filed for an order of the court requiring the supposed father to submit to a
paternity test. The father refused on the ground that such test is a violation to his right against self incrimination the results
of which is inadmissible in court.
Issue
Whether DNA or paternity test is inadmissible for being violative of ones right against self-incrimination
Held
DNA testing and its results is admissible
Ratio
Ones right against self-incrimination may be invoked only against testimonial evidence.

PEOPLE V. ANCHETA
Facts
In a kidnapping case, the accused assail credibility of the victims testimony because the victim failed to execute a sworn
statement indicating that she positively identified her kidnappers. Furthermore, one of the accused content that they were
illegally arrested. Thus the supposed letter he gave to the victim asking for forgiveness is also inadmissible for having
been obtained as a result of an illegal arrest
Issue
Whether the testimony of the victim is admissible when such was not executed in a sworn statement
Held
The testimony of the victim in the case at bar is admissible
Ratio
The lower court found the victim and her testimony to be credible and sufficient to convict the accused. Such finding by
the lower court is given high respect, if not conclusive effect because the lower courts have the opportunity to observe the
countenance and demeanor of the witnesses during trial.

BAUTISTA V. APERECE
Facts
In a land dispute, the subsequent possessor executed before guerilla officers an affidavit stating that rightful possession
belonged to the Aperece and that the property would thus be returned. During trial however, such subsequent possessor
assailed that the affidavit should be proclaimed by the court as inadmissible for having been executed under force and
intimidation of the guerilla officers. The lower court ruled in favor of Aperece.
Issue
Whether the affidavit is admissible as evidence
Held
Affidavit is admissible
Ratio
The ruling of the trial court was not based solely on the affidavit executed by plaintiff. When such public document was
taken together with other facts and evidence presented, there is sufficient proof that the land in question indeed belongs
to Aperece.

GAANAN V. IAC
Facts
A party to a telephone conversation asked a third person to listen in on the conversation through an extension phone.
During trial, defendant assailed that the testimony of the third person claiming to have heard the conservation must be
deemed inadmissible for violating the provisions of the Anti-Wire Tapping Act.
Issue
Whether the testimony of a person listening in on the conversation through an extension phone is inadmissible
Held
Testimony admissible
Ratio
The law refers to an actual tap or a physical device that is installed or mounted for the purpose of overhearing
conversations. An extension phone is not such device because there is no actual tapping onto a telephone wire using the
extension phone. The testimony obtained through such means is therefore admissible because there is no violation of the
Anti-wire tapping act.

SALCEDO-ORTANEZ V. CA
Facts
The trial court admitted as evidence tapes containing recordings made by a husband for the purpose of showing to the
court the psychological incapacity of his wife so that his petition for annulment of marriage may be approved
Issue
Whether the recordings are admissible given that the wife had no knowledge that her conversations were being recorded
Held
Recordings are inadmissible
Ratio
Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversation allowed the recording, any recording of such
conversation shall be considered unauthorized and merely hearsay and therefore not admissible as evidence.

RAMIREZ V. CA
Facts
While being insulted and bashed by Ester Garcia, Socorro Ramirez recorded the conversation and used such recording to
file a case against Garcia. Garcia assailed the validity of such recording since she did not know nor give her consent to it.
Ramirez, on the other hand, claims that the law only prohibits wire tapping or recording made by one not a party to the
conversation. The law does not prohibit recording by one who is a party to the conversation
Issue
Whether Ramirezs recording may be admitted as evidence
Held
The recording of Ramirez is inadmissible
Ratio
The clear intention of the law is to cover ALL forms of wiretapping. There is no limitation set that only third persons not a
party to the conversation may be punished for wiretapping.