evidence project volume2

7/24/2019 Evidence Project Volume2

1/85

Evidence Project Volumes

Volume 1: I. Admissibility of EvidenceII. What Need Not Be Proved

III. Real emonstrative EvidenceIV. Best Evidence Rule

Volume !: V. Parole Evidence RuleVI. Inter"retation of ocumentsVII. #ualifications of WitnessesVIII. Privile$ed %ommunications

Volume &: I'. Admissions ( %onfessions'. %onduct ( %haracter

Volume ): 'I. *earsay Rule'II. +"inion Rule

Volume ,: 'III. Burden of Proof ( Presum"tions'IV. Presentation of Evidence -Part. A. B. %. 1.to /.0

Volume : 'IV. Presentation of Evidence -Part %. 2. to 13.. E.0'V. Wei$ht ( 4ufficiency of Evidence

Volume 2: Table of Contents

V. Parole Evidence Rule

A. Rule 1&3 4ection 5.%ivil %ode Art. 1)3&.

B. %ases:

1. Enri6ue7 vs. Ramos!. %anuto vs. 8ariano&. 9u e; vs.


2/85

5. %ru7 vs. %A13. =echu$as vs. %A11. Incion$ vs. %A1!. +rtane7 vs. %A

VI. Inter"retation of ocuments

A. Rule 1&3 4ections 13>15.%ivil %ode Arts. 1&/3>1&/5.

B. %ases:1. =ambert vs. ?o@!. %a"ital Insurance vs. 4adan$

VII. #ualifications of Witnesses

A. 8ental Inca"acity or Immaturity1. Rule 1&3 4ections !3 ( !1.!. Peo"le vs. e esus&. Peo"le vs. 4alomon !!5 4 )3!). Peo"le vs. 8endo7a


3/85

!. Peo"le vs. %arlos

B. Attorney>%lient Privile$e1. Rule 1&3 4ection !) -b0.!. Dy %hico vs. Dnion =ife

&. Re$ala vs. 4andi$anbayan). Barton vs. =eyte As"halt,. +rient Insurance vs. Revilla. *ic;man vs. aylor/. D"ohn %om"any vs. D42. In Re:


4/85

no evidence of such terms other than the contents of theFritten a$reement.

*oFever a "arty may "resent evidence to modifye@"lain or add to the terms of the Fritten a$reement if he"uts in issue in his "leadin$:

-a0An intrinsic ambi$uity mista;e or im"erfection in theFritten a$reementH

-b0he failure of the Fritten a$reement to e@"resses thetrue intent and a$reement of the "arties theretoH

-c0 he validity of the Fritten a$reementH or-d0he e@istence of other terms a$reed to by the "arties

or their successors in interest after the e@ecution of theFritten a$reement.

he term a$reementJ includes Fills. -/a0

ARTICLE #*%$& CIVIL COE.

ARTICLE #*%$. he folloFin$ contracts are unenforceableunless they are ratified:-10 hose entered into in the name of another "erson by

one Fho has been $iven no authority or le$alre"resentation or Fho has acted beyond his "oFersH

-!0 hose that do not com"ly Fith the 4tatute of ?rauds asset forth in this number. In the folloFin$ cases an

a$reement hereafter made shall be unenforceable by aaction unless the same or some note or memorandumthereof be in Fritin$ and subscribed by the "artychar$ed or by his a$entH evidence therefore of thea$reement cannot be received Fithout the Fritin$ or asecondary evidence of its contents:

-a0 An a$reement that by its terms is not to be"erformed Fithin a year from the ma;in$ thereofH

-b0 A s"ecial "romise to ansFer for the debt defaultor miscarria$e of anotherH

-c0An a$reement made in consideration of marria$eother than a mutual "romise to marryH-d0 An a$reement for the sale of $oods chattels or

thin$s in action at a "rice not less than ?ive hundred"esos unless the buyer acce"t or receive "art ofsuch $oods and chattels or the evidences or someof them of such thin$s in action or "ay at the timesome "art of the "urchase moneyH but Fhen a sale is

3C 2003-2004 Evidence ProjectVol. 2 - 4 -


5/85

made by auction and entry is made by theauctioneer in his sales boo; at the time of the sale fthe amount and ;ind of "ro"erty sold terms of sale"rice names of the "urchasers and "erson on Fhoseaccount the sale is made it is sufficient

memorandumH-e0 An a$reement for the leasin$ for a lon$er "eriod

than one year or for the sale of real "ro"erty or ofan interest thereinH

-f0 A re"resentation as to credit of a third "erson.-&0 hose Fhere both "arties are inca"able of $ivin$ consentto a contract.

CASES:

Enri+ue, vs. Ramos- 'CRA 2#( #(-2/

Parole Evidence Rule

?A%4:A conditional deed of sale Fas e@ecuted betFeen Rodri$o Enri6ue7

and Pedro del Rosario coverin$ a "arcel of land consistin$ of ////! s6.m.at Ph"13Ks6.m the a$reed "urchase "rice Fas Ph"33333. 8oreover inthat said deed of sale the a$reement of the "arties Fas that del RosarioFould have "ossession of the "ro"erty in order to develo" it into a

subdivision that el Rosario Fas to "ay for the subdivision survey and theconstruction of roads. he said contract also sti"ulated that failure to "aythe "urchase "rice Fould mean that all the im"rovements made on the"ro"erty Fould automatically form "art of the "ro"erty and that there isno ri$ht of reimbursement for such im"rovements.

el Rosario failed to "ay the "urchase "rice hence Enri6ue7 initiatedliti$ation to collect on the money to avoid liti$ation the "arties alloFeddel Rosarios "artner 4ocorro Ramos -the oFner of National Boo;store0 to"urchase "art of the "ro"erty consistin$ of !3 lots at 1 "esos "er s6uaremeter the "ayment is a$reed u"on to be !&,3, "esos e@clusive of the

im"rovements made. Ramos made an initial "ayment of &,3, "esosthe remainin$ !33333 "esos is "ayable on installment 133333 "esos"ayable on the first year at an interest of L "er annum the remainin$133333 "esos on the second year at an interest of 1!L "er annum. hesale betFeen Enri6ue7 and Ramos is su""orted by a Real Estate 8ort$a$e-RE80 on the !3 lots located in #ue7on %ity and M interest on a "arcel ofland located in Bulacan. he said RE8 is duly re$istered on the Re$istryof eeds of #ue7on %ity and Pam"an$a.



6/85

he main "oint of contention in the case at bar is the a$reementbetFeen Enri6ue7 and Ramos on the sale of the !3 lots. he defendantRamos ar$ues that the %ontract of 4ale failed to re"resent the a$reementbetFeen the "arties as that said contract failed to sti"ulate certainconditions "articularly the construction of roads Fithin the subdivision

-alle$e to be "art of the oral a$reement betFeen the "arties0 FhereinRamos contributed ,3333 "esos for the construction of such roads andthe a$reed "urchase "rice. he "laintiff Enri6ue7 contends that that suchcondition is a su"erfluityKredundancy since a #ue7on %ity +rdinanceim"oses the construction of road in subdivisions hence it is deemedim"lied that such condition is included on all contracts of sale coverin$subdivision lots. *oFever Ramos further su""orts her alle$ations bythe "resentation of E@hibit & e@ecuted the very day the eed of 4ale Fassi$ned Fhich states that Ramos advanced ,3333 "esos - to be deductedfrom the "urchase "rice0 for the construction of roads Fhich Enri6ue7assumed to underta;e in com"liance Fith the ordinance of #ue7on %ity.8oreover Enri6ue7 also insists that no oral a$reement too; "lacebetFeen the "arties as to the construction of roads. As to the "urchase"rice Ramos ar$ues that the a$reed "urchase "rice is not !&,3, "esosbut 12,333.

I44DE:-10 Whether the %ontract of 4ale betFeen Enri6ue7 and Ramos

reduced into Fritin$ their actual terms of a$reement If notFhether "arole evidence should be admitted to determine their trueintent

-!0 Whether or not the action to foreclose the RE8 is"remature

RD=IN


7/85

amon$ betFeen the "arties relative to the construction of roads. ?or ifthe terms of an a$reement have been reduced to Fritin$ it is consideredto contain all the terms of a$reement betFeen the "arties.

*oFever this rule Fill only hold true if there is no alle$ation thatthe a$reement does not e@"ress the true intent of the "arties. ?or if there

is and this claim is "ut in issue in the "leadin$s the same may be subectto "arole evidence. he fact that the failure of the a$reement to containthe terms of the a$reement amon$ the "arties has been "ut in issue inthis case and has been s"ecifically "leaded.

he fact that Enri6ue7 failed to com"ly Fith a condition "recedent-i.e. the construction of roads0 embodied in the contract of sale theaction to foreclose the RE8 is "remature. he failure of Ramos to "ay therealty and income ta@es as $reed u"on and re$ister the RE8 coverin$ theBulacan Pro"erty is a minor matter.

Canuto vs. 0ariano$1 Pil. 3*% #(#3/


?A%4:A deed of sale Fith ri$ht of re"urchase Fas e@ecuted betFeen

Es"iridiona %anuto -seller0 and uan 8ariano -buyer0 coverin$ a "arcel ofland for &3 "esos on ecember ) 151& the ri$ht of re"urchase toe@"ire on ecember ) 151) -one year after0.

+n ecember ! 151) Fhile %anuto Fas Fashin$ her clothes near

a Fell 8ariano "assed by she sei7ed the o""ortunity to be$ an e@tensionof time to re"urchase the land since she Fill only be able to $et themoney to "ay 8ariano Fithin the end of the month that is ecember &1151). 8ariano a$reed to e@tend the "eriod of re"urchase to ecember&1. he conversation betFeen %anuto and 8ariano Fas Fitnessed by4everino Pascual.

he folloFin$ 4unday %anuto Fent to the house of 8ariano at thattime he "romised to meet her the ne@t day at the house of Atty. 8ercadoat ) ocloc; in the afternoon to receive the "urchase "rice and e@ecutethe necessary documents evidencin$ the transaction. he ne@t day she

too; the money to the laFyers house as a$reed u"on but 8ariano didnot shoF>u".

I44DE:-10 Whether the "eriod of redem"tion of the "arcel of land embodied inthe %ontract of 4ale Fas re"ealed by a subse6uent orala$reement amon$ the "arties



8/85

-!0 Whether "arole evidence should be admitted to determine their trueintent

RD=IN


9/85

delivered. In fact he is at liberty to "urchase su$ar in the mar;et orraise the su$ar himself to com"ly Fith his obli$ation.

I44DE:Whether "arole evidence should be admitted to determine as to the

true intent of "arties.

RD=IN


10/85

he "ayment of the substantial amount the e@tension shall be deemedas not $ranted and that =A4EE%+ shall be forced to see; le$al action.

In the case at bar 8rs. e


11/85

loan is covered by a "romissory note si$ned by ?. 8oreno in his oFnbehalf and in behalf of his "artner ose Padern "ayable to 4errano. hesaid "romissory note Fas indorsed by 4errano in favor of 8aulini theultimate creditor.

+n due date Padern and %o Fas not able to "ay so 8aulini initiated

collection "roceedin$s a$ainst Padern 8oreno ( %o and 4errano asindorser of the note.

hrou$h the "resentation of "arole evidence 4errano made thedefense that he is merely ne$otiatin$ as a$ent in behalf of 8aulini thecreditor to loan money to Padern the debtor that he received no otherconsideration for the said note other than a small amount for his servicestherefore he should not be held liable as an indorser. here bein$ noconsideration he is not for all intents and "ur"oses an indorser.

In turn 8aulini insisted that Fhen the terms of an a$reement havebeen reduced to Fritin$ no other evidence should be admitted todetermine the a$reement betFeen the "arties. In the case at bar the"romissory note serves as evidence that there Fas a contract ofindorsement as such it should be the only evidence admitted todetermine the facts and circumstances of the case. hat there bein$ nonote or sti"ulation in the "romissory note that there Fas noconsideration that 4errano is only an a$ent as such he should not beheld liable as an indorser the defenses of 4errano is untenable. ?orthere bein$ no such notation "arole evidence should not be admitted toshoF a contrary a$reement other than that Fhich Fas reduced to Fritin$.

I44DE:

Whether "arole evidence should be admitted to shoF the true intentof the "arties

RD=IN


12/85

(# Pil. 17- #(72/Parole Evidence Rule

?A%4:+n 8arch 1& 15)2 Benito 4eeto called at the branch of the

Phili""ine National Ban; -4uri$ao0 and "resented a chec; in the amountof P,333 dated at %ebu on 8arch 13 15)2 "ayable to cash or bearerand draFn by one


13/85

he su""osed assurances of refund in case of dishonor are "reciselythe ordinary obli$ations of an indorser. here Fas no e@"ress obli$ationassumed by 4eeto that he as an indorser Fould refund the amount ofthe chec; even if there Fas delay in its "resentation. *oFever under theNe$otiable Instruments =aF the liability of a $eneral indorser is that he

Fill "ay the amount thereof to the holder in case it is dishonored.

Parol evidence on the obli$ations of an indorser Fould therefore beadmissible. he assurances are but merely e@"ressions of the obli$ationsof the indorser as "rescribed in 4ection of said laF.

;oodouse vs.


14/85

Fas false as a matter of fact at the time of its e@ecution he no lon$erhad it as the same had e@"ired and that Woodhouse did not secure thefranchise but Fas $iven to *alili himself. *e ar$ues that his consent Fasvitiated by fraud and conse6uently the a$reement is null and void. hefraud and false "resentation is sou$ht to be "roven by means amon$

others of the drafts of the a$reement "rior to the final one Fhich draftsare "resumed to have already been inte$rated into the final a$reement.*alili ar$ues that in the "rior drafts Wooodhouse "resented himself asbein$ the e@clusive $rantee of the franchise. he trial court did notconsider this draft on the "rinci"le of inte$ration of ural acts.

I44DE: Whether those "rior drafts are e@cluded from the "rohibition ofthe "arol evidence rule.

RD=IN


15/85

?A%4:acarias Robles filed a com"laint a$ainst =i7arra$a *ermanos a

mercantile "artnershi" for the "ur"ose of recoverin$ com"ensation forim"rovements made by him u"on the hacienda Nahalinan and the valueof im"lements and farmin$ e6ui"ment su""lied to the hacienda by the

Robles as Fell as dama$es for breach of contract.he hacienda Nahalinan belon$ed ori$inally to the s"ouses

acarias Robles and Anastacia de la Rama "arents of the "resentacarias Robles r. D"on the death of acarias Robles 4r. his FidoFAnastacia de la Rama Fas a""ointed administratri@ of his estate. 4heleased the hacienda to acarias Robles r. for the "eriod of si@ years.ItFas sti"ulated that any "ermanent im"rovements necessary to thecultivation and e@"loitation of the hacienda should be made at thee@"ense of the lessee Fithout ri$ht to indemnity at the end of the term.Robles accordin$ly entered u"on the "ro"erty as lesseeH and madevarious im"rovements and additions to the "lant such as neF hydraulic"ress reconstruction of dFellin$ house buildin$ of camarinsreconstruction of ovens etc. All these e@"enses Fere borne e@clusively bythe lessee. he firm of =i7arra$a *ermanos Fas Fell aFare of the natureand e@tent of these im"rovements for the reason that the lessee Fas acustomer of the firm and had "urchased from it many of the thin$s thatFent into the im"rovements. =ater three years before the leaseFas to e@"ire =i7arra$a *ermanos came forFard Fith a "ro"osal to buyall of the "ro"erty belon$in$ to hacienda Nahalinan. In course of thene$otiations an obstacle Fas encountered in the fact that the lease ofacarias Robles still had over tFo years to run. It Fas accordin$ly

"ro"osed that he should surrender the last tFo years of his lease and"ermit =i7arra$a *ermanos to ta;e "ossession as "urchaser. Inconsideration of the shortenin$ of the term of the lease *ermanosa$reed to "ay Robles the value of all betterments that he had made onthe hacienda and furthermore to "urchase from him all that belon$ed tohim "ersonally on the hacienda. An instrument of conveyance Fas latere@ecuted. *oFever no reference is made in this conveyance to thesurrender of the Robles ri$hts as lessee e@ce"t in fi@in$ the date Fhenthe lease should endH nor is anythin$ said concernin$ the im"rovementsor the "ro"erty of a "ersonal nature Fhich the he had "laced on the

hacienda. As such Robles introduced in evidence a letter Fritten by4everiano =i7arra$a to the him in Fhich a reference is made to ana""raisal and li6uidation. his letter is relied u"on by the Robles asconstitutin$ Fritten evidence of the a$reement.

=i7arra$a *ermanos contends that the Fritten instrument ofconveyance must be ta;en as e@"ressin$ all of the facts a$reements andsti"ulations entered into betFeen the "arties Fith res"ect to theac6uisition of the hacienda. It also alle$es that there is no alle$ation in



16/85

the com"laint that the Fritten contract fails to e@"ress the a$reement ofthe "arties.

I44DE:Whether this letter is admissible as an e@ce"tion to the "arole

evidence rule on the contents of the instrument of conveyance "reviouslye@ecuted.

RD=INmatter Fhich "receded the e@ecution of the instrument in the absence ofaccident fraud or mista;e of fact.

*oFever it is reco$ni7ed that the rule e@cludin$ "arol evidence tovary or contradict a Fritin$ does not e@tend so far as to "reclude theadmission of e@trinsic evidence to shoF "rior or contem"oraneouscollateral "arol a$reements betFeen the "arties. 4uch evidence may bereceived re$ardless of Fhether or not the Fritten a$reement containsany reference to such collateral a$reement.

he rule that a "reliminary or contem"oraneous oral a$reement isnot admissible to vary a Fritten contract refers to the obli$atione@"ressed in the Fritten a$reement. It does not a""ly to matters of

consideration or inducement. In this case the deed of conveyance iscom"lete in itselfH the oral a$reement is also com"lete in itself and it iscollateral to the Fritten contract notFithstandin$ the fact that it dealsFith related matters.

he dis"uted deed of conveyance "ur"orts to transfer to *ermanoscertain "ro"erties. *oFever nothin$ is said concernin$ Robles ri$hts inthe hacienda Fhich he ac6uired by lease or the im"rovements "lacedthereon. he verbal contract Fhich the "laintiff has established in thiscase is therefore clearly inde"endent of the main contract of conveyanceand evidence of such verbal contract is admissible.

Cru, vs. Court of A99eals#(2 'CRA 2%( #((%/Parole Evidence Rule

?A%4:4alon$a filed a com"laint for collection a$ainst %ru7. 4alon$a claims

that %ru7 borroFed from him an amount of P&,333 and that only



17/85

P!3333 had been "aid. 4alon$a also alle$es that he and %ru7 enteredinto a "a;yaFanJ a$reement Fhereby the latter Fould $rant him ane@clusive ri$ht to "urchase the harvest of certain fish"onds. 4alon$aclaims that %ru7 failed to com"ly Fith his "art of the a$reement byrefusin$ to deliver the alle$ed harvest of the fish"ond and the amount of

indebtedness. %ru7 admitted havin$ received P&,333 but deniedhavin$ contracted any loan from 4alon$a. *e contends that theseamounts Fere received by him not as loans but as consideration for their"a;yaFJ a$reement. *e added that it Fas 4alon$a Fho oFed him moneysince 4alon$a actually occu"ied the fish"ond and has not "aid rentals forthe 13>month "eriod. It Fas also established that after a "reliminaryharvest they entered a$ain on a verbal a$reement Fhereby 4alon$a and%ru7 had a$reed that %ru7 Fho Fas then leasin$ from 9abut Fillsublease the fish"ond of the latter to 4alon$a. 4ometime later the oFnerof the fish"ond 9abut too; bac; the fish"ond from %ru7. 4alon$a noFclaims that aside from the P&,333 he delivered he also "aid P!2333 to%ru7 Fhich constituted the consideration for their "a;yaF a$reement.his Fas evidenced by a recei"t. %ru7 testified alon$ Fith his !Fitnesses that the recei"t e@"lained the transaction behind the"a;yaFan a$reement. *oFever it is ar$ued that the recei"t is very clearin its lan$ua$e and its tenor must not be clouded by any "arol evidenceintroduced by %ru7. ?urthermore it is contended that the recei"t is veryclear in its non>reference to the transaction referrin$ to the "a;yaFana$reement. he %A disre$arded the "arole evidenceoffered by %ru7 and noF a""eals.

I44DE:Whether the "arole evidence may be admissible to e@"lain the

relationshi" betFeen the recei"t and the "a;yaFanJ a$reement.

RD=IN


18/85

facts may be shoFn irres"ective of the terms of the recei"t. his isbecause usually a recei"t is merely a Fritten admission of a transactioninde"endently e@istin$ and not conclusive.

Althou$h the Ford "a;yaFJ Fas mentioned in the recei"t %ru7and his Fitnesses testified to shoF Fhen and under Fhat circumstances

the amount Fas received. heir testimonies do not in any Fay vary orcontradict the terms of the recei"t.

A deed is not conclusive of every fact stated therein. A distinctionshould be made betFeen a statement of fact e@"ressed in the instrumentand the terms of the contractual act. he former may be varied by "arolevidence but the latter may not. he Parol Evidence Rule clearly refers tothe terms of the a$reement or contractual act.

he statement in the recei"t is ust a statement of fact. It is a mereac;noFled$ment of the distinct act of "ayment made by 4alon$a. Itsreference to the amount as consideration of the "a;yaF contract does notma;e it "art of the terms of the a$reement. Parol evidence may thereforebe introduced to e@"lain the recei"t "articularly Fith res"ect to the dateFhen said amount Fas received.

Even assumin$ that the recei"ts Fere covered by the Parol EvidenceRule no obection Fas made by 4alon$a Fhen %ru7 introduced evidenceto e@"lain the circumstances behind the e@ecution and issuance of saidinstrument. he rule is that obections to evidence to must be made assoon as the $rounds therefore become reasonably a""arent. ?or4alon$as failure to obect to evidence introduced by %ru7 he is deemedto have Faived the benefit of the "arol evidence rule.

Parol evidence admissible.

Lecu=as vs. Court of A99eals#*$ 'CRA $$7 #(3-/Parole Evidence Rule

?A%4:=echu$as filed a com"laint for forcible entry Fith dama$es a$ainst

the =o7as alle$in$ that the latter by means of force intimidationstrate$y and stealth unlaFfully entered lots A and B corres"ondin$ tothe middle and northern "ortion of the "ro"erty oFned by the =echu$as.4he alle$ed that they a""ro"riated the "roduce thereof for themselves

and refused to surrender the "ossession of the same des"ite demands.he com"laint Fas dismissed but =echu$as a""ealed to the R%.Victoria =echu$as testified that she bou$ht the land noF

subect of this liti$ation from =eoncia =asan$ue as evidenced by a "ubliceed of Absolute 4ale Fhich "laintiff had caused to be re$istered in the+ffice of the Re$ister of eeds. =o7a et. al. on theother hand maintain that the land Fhich =echu$as bou$ht from =eoncia=asan$ue in 15,3 is different from the land noF subect of this action.



19/85

heir evidence in chief is that their "redecessor *u$o =o7a "urchased a"arcel of land from one Victorina =imor and the adoinin$ "arcel of landfrom one Emeterio =asan$ue. hese tFo "arcels of land Fere consolidateddurin$ the cadastral survey Fhile the remainin$ "ortion of the lot bou$htfrom Victorina =imor Fas desi$nated se"arately. he =o7as claim that

the lot bou$ht by =echu$as from =asan$ue is situated south of the landnoF subect of this action.

=eoncia =asan$ue =echu$as vendor testified for the =o7as statin$that she sold si@ hectares of her inherited "ro"erty to =echu$as under a"ublic instrument. he land sold to her is the one south of the land inliti$ation. =asan$ue herself althou$h illiterate Fas able to s"ecifically"oint out the land Fhich she sold to the =echu$as. he %Aadmitted and $ave credence to the testimony of the =asan$ue re$ardin$the sale of the dis"uted lot. he testimony is contrary to the contents ofthe deed of sale e@ecuted betFeen =asan$ue and =echu$as. =echu$asnoF contends that the %A erred Fhen it subected the true intent anda$reement to "arol evidence over her obection. 4he alle$es that "arolevidence should not be admissible in order to vary the subect matter ofthe deed of sale because the land described therein is delimited by metesand bounds. ?urthermore =echu$as ar$ues that to im"u$n a Frittena$reement the evidence must be conclusive.

I44DE:Whether the testimony of the vendor Fhich is contrary to the terms

of the a$reement is admissible as an e@ce"tion to the "arol evidencerule.

RD=IN


20/85

rule does not a""ly Fhere either one of the "arties betFeen Fhom the6uestion arises is a stran$er to the Fritten a$reement and does not claimunder or throu$h one Fho is "arty to it.

Incion= vs. Court of A99eals

271 'CRA 713 #((-/Parole Evidence Rule

?A%4:Incion$ si$ned a "romissory note Fith Naybe and Pantanosas in the

amount of P,3333 on ?ebruary & 152& holdin$ themselves ointly andseverally liable to Phili""ine Ban; of %ommunications -PB%0. he"romissors failed to "ay their obli$ation on the e@"iration date of thenote. *ence PB% sent letters demandin$ "ayment to both Incion$ anfNaybe. *avin$ received no res"onse PB% filed a com"laint for collectionof the sum of P,3333.33 a$ainst the three obli$ors.

he loFer court dismissed the case a$ainst defendant Pantanosasas "rayed for by PB%. In the meantime only the summons addressed toIncion$ Fas served as the sheriff learned that defendant Naybe had $oneto 4audi Arabia.

Incion$ contends that "arol evidence may overcome the contents ofthe "romissory note because the latter is not a "ublic deed but a merecommercial "a"er Fhich does not bear the si$nature of attestin$Fitnesses. hus in his ansFer Incion$ attem"ted to adduce evidence todefeat the terms of the "romissory note. *e asserted that he Fas only"ersuaded by %am"os a "artner of io en$a$ed in the falcata lo$s

o"eration business to act as a co>ma;er of the loan incurred by Naybe.Naybe Fas alle$edly interested in the business of the said "artnershi" butinca"able of "rocurin$ money to buy a chainsaF to be contributedthereto. io the branch mana$er of PB% assured Naybe of the a""rovalof the latters loan Fith PB%. Incion$ hoFever maintained that he onlysi$ned as co>ma;er for the loan of P,333.33 and not P,3333.33. obolster such contention Incion$ stressed that in one of the five co"ies ofthe blan; "romissory note he si$ned he indicated that he bound himselfonly for the amount of P,333.33. *e claimed that it Fas by tric;eryfraud and misre"resentation that he Fas made liable for the amount of

P,3333.33.he loFer %ourt ruled in favor of PB% Fhich Fas affirmed by the%ourt of A""eals. *ence Incion$ brou$ht the instant "etition for revieFon certiorari to the 4u"reme %ourt.

I44DE4:



21/85

1. Whether or not Incion$ can adduce "arole evidence tocontravene the terms of his a$reement Fith PB% reduced intoFritin$ in the form of a "romissory note

!. Whether or not the "arol evidence rule is a""licable onlyon Fritten a$reements that are "ublic documents

RD=INma;ers a$reed to a loan of P,333.33 only.*oFever fraud must be established by clear and convincin$evidence. his Incion$ failed to do because his testimony Fasuncorroborated.

!. he "arole evidence rule does not s"ecify that the Frittena$reement be a "ublic document as can be clearly "erceived in itsfirst "ara$ra"h:

When the terms of an a$reement have been reducedto Fritin$ it is considered as containin$ all the termsa$reed u"on and there can be betFeen the "arties andtheir successors>in>interest no evidence of such termsother than the contents of the Fritten a$reement.J

?or the "arol evidence rule to a""ly a Fritten contract need not bein any "articular form or be si$ned by both "arties. Anythin$

Fritten that embodies an a$reement suffices because it alreadysatisfies the "roduction of an accurate evidence of the a$reementas o""osed to that Fhich rests on fleetin$ memory. 4uch"roduction of a reliable and accurate evidence to avoid variances inthe terms of the a$reement is the obect of the "arole evidencerule.

Ortane, vs. Court of A99eals2-- 'CRA 7-# #((1/


?A%4:4"ouse Inocentes sold tFo "arcels of re$istered land to +rtane7 for

a consideration of P&,333.33 and P!3333.33 res"ectively Fhich thelatter "aid to the former. 4"ouses Inocentes hoFever failed to deliverthe titles of the lands to +rtane7. +rtane7 demanded the delivery of thetitles of the lands but the s"ouses refused. hey claim that the title of



22/85

the first lot is in the "ossession of another "erson. As to the second lotthe s"ouses claim that +rtane7s ac6uisition of the same is subect to thefolloFin$ oral conditions that Fere never reflected in the deed of sale: -10the se$re$ation of +rtane7s ri$ht of Fay amountin$ to &52 s6. m.H -!0he submission to the s"ouses the a""roved "lan for the se$re$ationH -&0

the buildin$ of a stron$ Fall betFeen +rtane7s "ro"erty and that ofs"ouses lot to se$re$ate the formers ri$ht of FayH and -)0 the "aymentby +rtane7 of ca"ital $ains ta@ and all other e@"enses that may beincurred by reason of sale.

+rtane7 obected to the introduction of evidence on the said oralconditions as bein$ barred by the "arol evidence rule. *oFever the loFercourt overruled the said obection and dismissed the com"laint Fhich the%ourt of A""eals affirmed. +rtane7 sou$ht recourse to the 4u"reme%ourt.

I44DE:Whether or not "arol evidence to "rove the oral conditions that

Fere never reflected in the contract of sale is admissible

RD=IN


23/85

"leadin$s that there Fas failure of the Fritten a$reement to e@"ress thetrue intent of the "arties but merely alle$ed the "resence of the fourconditions>"recedent not mentioned in the contract.

VI. I!TERPRETATIO! O> OC"0E!T'

A. Rule #$%& 'ections #%?#(.

R"LE #$%

4ec. 13. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning. She lan$ua$e of a Fritin$ is to be inter"reted accordin$ to the le$almeanin$ it bears in the "lace of its e@ecution unless the "arties intendedotherFise. -20

4ec. 11. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. SIn the construction of an instrument Fhere there are several "rovisionsor "articulars such a construction is if "ossible to be ado"ted as Fill$ive effect to all. -50

4ec. 1!. Interpretation according to intentionH general and particularprovisions. S In the construction of an instrument the intention of the"arties is to be "ursuedH and Fhen a $eneral and a "articular "rovisionare inconsistent the latter is "aramount to the former. 4o a "articularintent Fill control a $eneral one that is inconsistent Fith it. -130

4ec. 1&. Interpretation according to circumstances. S ?or the "ro"erconstruction of an instrument the circumstances under Fhich it Fasmade includin$ the situation of the subect thereof and of the "arties toit may be shoFn so that the ud$e may be "laced in the "osition ofthose Fho lan$ua$e he is to inter"ret. -110

4ec. 1). Peculiar signification of terms. S he terms of a Fritin$ are"resumed to have been used in their "rimary and $eneral acce"tationbut evidence is admissible to shoF that they have a local technical orotherFise "eculiar si$nification and Fere so used and understood in the

"articular instance in Fhich case the a$reement must be construedaccordin$ly. -1!0

4ec. 1,. Written words control printed. S When an instrument consists"artly of Fritten Fords and "artly of a "rinted form and the tFo areinconsistent the former controls the latter. -1&0



24/85

4ec. 1. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certainwritings. S When the characters in Fhich an instrument is Fritten aredifficult to be deci"hered or the lan$ua$e is not understood by the courtthe evidence of "ersons s;illed in deci"herin$ the characters or Fhounderstand the lan$ua$e is admissible to declare the characters or the

meanin$ of the lan$ua$e. -1)0

4ec. 1/. Of Two constructions, which preferred. S When the terms ofan a$reement have been intended in a different sense by the different"arties to it that sense is to "revail a$ainst either "arty in Fhich hesu""osed the other understood it and Fhen different constructions of a"rovision are otherFise e6ually "ro"er that is to be ta;en Fhich is themost favorable to the "arty in Fhose favor the "rovision Fas made. -1,0

4ec. 12. Construction in favor of natural right. S When an instrumentis e6ually susce"tible of tFo inter"retations one in favor of natural ri$htand the other a$ainst it the former is to be ado"ted. -10

4ec. 15. Interpretation according to usage. SAn instrument may beconstrued accordin$ to usa$e in order to determine its true character.-1/0

CIVIL COE& Arts. #$1%?#$1(.

I!TERPRETATIO! O> CO!TRACT'

Art. 1&/3. If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt u"onthe intention of the contractin$ "arties the literal meanin$ of itssti"ulations shall control.

If the Fords a""ear to be contrary to the evident intention of the "artiesthe latter shall "revail over the former. -1!210

Art. 1&/1. In order to ud$e the intention of the contractin$ "arties theircontem"oraneous and subse6uent acts shall be "rinci"ally considered.-1!2!0

Art. 1&/!. *oFever $eneral the terms of a contract may be they shallnot be understood to com"rehend thin$s that are distinct and cases thatare different from those u"on Fhich the "arties intended to a$ree. -1!2&0

Art. 1&/&. If some sti"ulation of any contract should admit of severalmeanin$s it shall be understood as bearin$ that im"ort Fhich is mostade6uate to render it effectual. -1!2)0



25/85

Art. 1&/). he various sti"ulations of a contract shall be inter"retedto$ether attributin$ to the doubtful ones that sense Fhich may resultfrom all of them ta;en ointly. -1!2,0

Art. 1&/,. Words Fhich may have different si$nifications shall be

understood in that Fhich is most in ;ee"in$ Fith the nature and obect ofthe contract. -1!20

Art. 1&/. he usa$e or custom of the "lace shall be borne in mind in theinter"retation of the ambi$uities of a contract and shall fill the omissionof sti"ulations Fhich are ordinarily established. -1!2/0

Art. 1&//. he inter"retation of obscure Fords or sti"ulations in acontract shall not favor the "arty Fho caused the obscurity. -1!220

Art. 1&/2. When it is absolutely im"ossible to settle doubts by the rulesestablished in the "recedin$ articles and the doubts refer to incidentalcircumstances of a $ratuitous contract the least transmission of ri$htsand interests shall "revail. If the contract is onerous the doubt shall besettled in favor of the $reatest reci"rocity of interests.

If the doubts are cast u"on the "rinci"al obect of the contract in such aFay that it cannot be ;noFn Fhat may have been the intention or Fill ofthe "arties the contract shall be null and void. -1!250

Art. 1&/5. he "rinci"les of inter"retation stated in Rule 1!& of the Rules

of %ourt shall li;eFise be observed in the construction of contracts. -n0

Cases:

Lambert vs. >o@2- P


26/85

li6uidated dama$es shall be "aid for the violation of the a$reement unless"revious consent in Fritin$ to the sale transfer or dis"osition is obtained.

Before the la"se of one year ?o@ sold his stoc; to 8c%ullou$h Fhois connected to the cor"orations com"etitor firm a$ainst the "rotest of=ambert. =ambert brou$ht an action a$ainst ?o@ to recover the

P1333.333 "enalty indicated in the fore$oin$ a$reement.he trial court rendered ud$ment in favor of the defendant Fhich

construed the a$reement as bein$ effective only until the cor"orationreach a sound financial basis. 4uch event havin$ already occurred beforethe e@"iration of one year from the e@ecution of the contract ?o@ cannotbe held liable for the "enalty indicated in the said a$reement. hus=ambert brou$ht the "resent a""eal to the 4u"reme %ourt.

I44DE:Whether or not =ambert is entitled to the "enalty "rescribed in his

a$reement Fith ?o@.

RD=IN


27/85

rentals. %a"ital sou$ht reimbursement from Pinto s"ouses 4adan$ butthe latter failed to "ay. *ence %a"ital filed a case a$ainst Pinto and hisindemnitors for the collection of the amount it "aid 8acondray.

he court in the said collection case ruled accordin$ to thea$reement reached by the "arties therein. he ud$ment stated that if

the amount is not fully satisfied after the sale of "ro"erties subect of theindemnity a$reement and deed of mort$a$e then %a"ital may file ase"arate civil action a$ainst s"ouses 4adan$. %a"ital noF see;s torecover the deficiency from s"ouses 4adan$ by virtue of the above>mentioned ud$ment.

4"ouses 4adan$ contend that their liability under the mort$a$econtract is limited to the first P!3333.33 that mi$ht be incurred underthe bond. hus they are liable to "ay only the amount of P&33.33because Pinto already "aid 8acondray the amount of P15/33.33 bein$the only remainin$ deficiency from the first P!3333.33 incurred underthe bond. his contention of the s"ouses is based on the inter"retation ofthe folloFin$ sti"ulation in the mort$a$e contract:

his mort$a$e is constituted to indemnify themort$a$ee for any dama$e cost e@"enses and char$es ofFhatever ;ind and nature that it may incur or sustain as aconse6uence of havin$ acted as surety on the bond referredto above and or its substitution modification alterationchan$e andKor reneFals. hat liability secured by the above"ro"erties is limited to the first P!3333.33 that mi$ht beincurred under the bond issued in favor of the 8acondray?arms Inc.

he trial court ruled in favor of %a"italJ.While the s"ouses based their claim on the second sentence above%a"ital hoFever stresses on the $eneral statement "recedin$ the samestatin$ that any dama$e or cost sustained by %a"ital must be "aid to thelatter. %a"ital further em"hasi7es that even if the construction offered bythe s"ouses is correct still the P15/33.33 "aid by Pinto before hedefaulted should not be considered as "art of the first P!3333.33 thatmi$ht be incurred under the bond because at that time no liability to"ay the same ever attached to it.

4"ouses 4adan$ offered oral testimony to shoF that there Fere tFo

mort$a$e contracts e@ecuted but the first one Fas not si$ned by thembecause the same does not bear the second sentence in the sti"ulationabove>6uoted Fhich Fas intended to "ut em"hasis to the "artiesintention that the s"ouses liability is limited to the first P!3333.33incurred under the bond Fhich Fhen "aid releases automatically thelatter from any obli$ation.

Issue:



28/85

Whether or not s"ouses 4adan$ can offer "arol evidence to "rovethe real intention of the "arties in draftin$ the contract

Rulin=:4"ouses 4adan$ can offer "arol evidence to "rove the real intention of

the "arties Fhen the a$reement failed to e@"ress the same. In the"resent case the sti"ulation above>mentioned is va$ue and ambi$uoushavin$ tFo seemin$ly contradictin$ statements. he said ambi$uity mustbe resolved a$ainst %a"ital Fhose attorney drafted the same. 8oreoverthe "arol evidence introduced by the s"ouses remains uncontradicted.

#. B"ALI>ICATIO!' O>;IT!E''E'

A. 0ental Inca9acit or Immaturit

#. Rule #$%& 'ections 2% 8 2#.

4ec. !3. WitnessesH their 6ualifications. S E@ce"t as"rovided in the ne@t succeedin$ section all "ersons Fhocan "erceive and "erceivin$ can ma;e their ;noFn"erce"tion to others may be Fitnesses.

Reli$ious or "olitical belief interest in the outcome of the

case or conviction of a crime unless otherFise "rovided bylaF shall not be $round for dis6ualification. -12a0

4ec. !1. is6ualification by reason of mental inca"acityor immaturity. S he folloFin$ "ersons cannot beFitnesses:

-a0 hose Fhose mental condition at the time of their"roduction for e@amination is such that they are inca"ableof intelli$ently ma;in$ ;noFn their "erce"tion to othersH

-b0 %hildren Fhose mental maturity is such as to renderthem inca"able of "erceivin$ the facts res"ectin$ Fhichthey are e@amined and of relatin$ them truthfully. -15a0

Cases:



29/85

Peo9le vs. e esus#2( 'CRA * #(3*/

0ental Inca9acit or Immaturit

>acts:

%lara 8ina !2 unmarried and feeble>minded lived Fith her"arents. 4he Fas unable to bathe herself comb her hair or Fash herclothes.

Pastora 4imon %laras mother Fent to the field to "lant "alay oneafternoon leavin$ %lara alone in the house the other members of thefamily havin$ already left for the field Fhile %laras father had been aFayfor four days already. hereafter Ro$elio e esus a nineteen>year oldfarmer Fho ;neF of %laras mental infirmity Fent and entered %larashouse. It Fas alle$ed further that e esus often see %lara left alonebecause he lived in his sisters house Fhich is only 1, meters aFay from%laras house. %lara Fas seated on the trun; Fhen e esus enteredcarried her laid her on the floor and had se@ual intercourse Fith her Fhilei$norin$ her obections to Fhat Fas bein$ done to her.

8eanFhile Pastora started Fal;in$ bac; to her house to $et acello"hane sensin$ that it Fas about to rain. D"on enterin$ the houseshe found e esus na;ed and lyin$ on to" of %lara. 4he rushed to the;itchen to $et a club but e esus s"otted her and ran aFay. Pastorathen re"orted the incident to the baran$ay ca"tain Fho loo;ed for eesus but failed to locate the same.

he ne@t day %lara accom"anied by her "arents denounced eesus to the "olice. hereafter %lara Fas subected to "hysical

e@amination Fhich revealed that she had hymenal lacerations "ossiblysustained a day before.

e esus Fas surrendered by his brother>in>laF to the "oliceauthorities. *e e@ecuted before ud$e E$i"to an affidavit admittin$ thathe had se@ual intercourse Fith %lara but denyin$ that he ra"ed her. *elater FithdreF the said admission and testified that he only inserted hisforefin$er inside %laras "rivate "arts. *e im"u$ned his affidavit alle$in$that he Fas maltreated and forced to si$n the same. *e further assailedthe com"etence of %lara to testify because she is feeble>minded.

Issue:Whether or not %lara is a com"etent Fitness

Rulin=:%lara is a com"etent Fitness. Althou$h %lara dis"layed difficulty in

com"rehendin$ the 6uestions "ro"ounded on her she Fas able to conveyher ideas by Fords or si$ns. 4he $ave intelli$ible ansFers to the6uestions "ro"ounded on her. 4he can thus "erceive and transmit her



30/85

"erce"tion to others. he 4u"reme %ourt thus $ave more credence toher testimony and convicted e esus for ra"e.

Peo9le vs. 'alomon

22( 'CRA *%2 #(($/0ental Inca9acit or Immaturit

>acts:4ylvia 4oria is a tFenty>year old mental retardate. 4he Fas

Fal;in$ alon$ the 8aharli;a *i$hFay Fhere 4alomon and %on$e FereFaitin$ for her. he tFo accosted 4ylvia forcibly too; her to the ricefieldten meters aFay from the hi$hFay and ra"ed her. +n her Fay home4oria met her brother and told the latter Fhat ha""ened. 4ylvias familyre"orted the incident to the "olice on the same ni$ht. 4ylvias fathersi$ned a com"laint for ra"e for his dau$hter and subected 4ylvia tomedical e@amination Fhich revealed that the latter had va$inallacerations.

After four months 4alomon and %on$e Fas arrested. rialcommenced and the "rinci"al Fitness for the "rosecution Fas 4ylvia.

he accused hoFever denied the char$e of ra"e. %on$e testifiedthat he only shoved his five fin$ers into 4ylvias va$ina in an$er becausethe latter hit him in the nec; Fith a "iece of Food. 4alomon corroborated%on$es testimony. he tFo denied that they Fent to 8asbate to esca"ealle$in$ that they headed there to "urchase tFo horses.

he trial court found the tFo accused $uilty of ra"e as cons"irators.

+n a""eal the accused im"u$ned the com"etence of 4ylvia as a Fitnessin their brief.

Issue:Whether or not 4ylvia 4oria is a com"etent Fitness

Rulin=:4ylvia is a com"etent Fitness. A mental retardate is not

dis6ualified as a Fitness form such reason alone. he com"etence oftestimony de"ends on the 6uality of "erce"tions and the manner ofconveyin$ the same u"on e@amination. Althou$h 4ylvias s"eech Fas

slurred and there Fas necessity to as; her leadin$ 6uestions hertestimony Fas "ositive clear "lain coherent and credible. *er mentalcondition did not im"air her credibility. he 4u"reme %ourt thus $avecredence to her testimony and affirmed the conviction of the tFoaccused.

Peo9le vs. 0endo,a



31/85

2-* 'CRA #3 #((-/0ental Inca9acit or Immaturit

>acts:mentioned re6uirement because he canalready s"ea; and understand thin$s ha""enin$ around him. 8oreoverthe fact that Paul 8ichael Fas found in a state of shoc; after his motherburned clearly shoFs that he understood Fhat ha""ened.

?urthermore accordin$ to section !1 -b0 of Rule 1&3 "rovides thatchildren Fhose mental maturity is such as to render them inca"able of"erceivin$ the facts res"ectin$ Fhich they are e@amined and of relatin$them truthfully are dis6ualified from bein$ Fitnesses. hus a child of

any a$e can be a com"etent Fitness as lon$ as he can "erceive andclearly convey his "erce"tions u"on e@amination. he re6uirements of achilds com"etency as a Fitness consist of the ca"acity of observationrecollection and communication. *ence it is not a$e Fhich conclusivelydetermines the ca"acity of a child as a Fitness.



32/85

Peo9le vs. Roberto 6on,ales alas Dobbit$## 'CRA 7*1 #(((/

0ental Inca9cit

>acts:

he R% of avao convicted Bobbit of murder and sentenced him to deathfor the ;illin$ of & children namely 9olen *orte7ano 1 years old osel*orte7ano 5 years old and Aileen *orte7ano , years old Fith the use ofan 2 ;itchen ;nife. he children sle"t in one room Fith tFo othersiblin$s one of Fhom Fas 8ary Iris *orte7ano the ei$ht>year oldeyeFitness and sister of the victims. 8ary Iris $ave the testimony thatfacilitated Bobbits conviction. 4he testified that:

4he Fas aslee" Fith her brothers and sisters 9olen ocelle Aileen andunun. +n the date of the incident their "arents Fere not at homebecause they Fere at the fiesta at =a"ula"u %ity. At around midni$ht ofNovember !3 155) Fhile slee"in$ Fith her brothers and sisters she FasaFa;ened by the entry of Bobbit their nei$hbor Fho bar$ed into theirhouse throu$h the FindoF. Bobbit immediately "laced -"aton$0 hisbody over that of her sister 9olen Fhose stomach Fas bein$ "ressed byBobbitH Fhen 9olen ;e"t on resistin$ Bobbit slashed her sisterQs nec;Fith a ;nife. *er brother ocelle Fho Fas beside 9olen Fas alsoaFa;ened by the entry of the accused into their house. ocelle fainted butaccused also slashed his nec;H then accused slashed the nec; of Aileen

Fho Fas then slee"in$ beside 8ary Iris because she had fever at thattime. 4he further testified that she Fas not ;illed because her body Fasalready stained Fith blood and accused "robably thou$ht she Fas alreadydead. After Bobbit ;illed Aileen he stood u" "laced his hands in a;imboand left "assin$ the main door of the victimQs house.

+ther Fitnesses for the "rosecution Fere -10 r. Ariel %. Ro6ue the8unici"al *ealth +fficer Fho conducted the auto"sy of the victimsQcor"sesH -!0 P+& Elvis 8. Arche the "olice officer Fho facilitated thearrest of BobbitH and -&0 9olanda *orte7ano the mother of the victimsFho Fas "resented to "rove the civil as"ect of the case.

+nly Bobbit himself testified for his defense. *e $ave the alibi of ;noFin$nothin$ of the crime until he Fas arrested and alle$ed that he Fas beateninto si$nin$ the e@traudicial confession -Fhich said he committed thecrime bein$ $uided to do so by an enchanted s"irit0 assisted only by acounsel that Fas not of his oFn choice. *e also testified that he Fasforced into admittin$ havin$ oFned the sli""ers that "olice officer Arche



33/85

claimed caused the bloody foot"rints leadin$ from the victims to Bobbitshouse.

Issues:

10 Whether or not the testimony of 8ary Iris should be $iven credencesince her direct e@amination Fas re"lete Fith leadin$ 6uestions andher tender a$e at the time the crime occurred "revented her fromrememberin$ the details Fith accuracy.

!0 Whether or not Bobbits e@traudicial confession should be useda$ainst him.


34/85

8oreover minor la"ses are to be e@"ected Fhen a "erson is recountin$details of a traumatic e@"erience too "ainful to recall. A Fitness is note@"ected to remember an occurrence Fith "erfect recollection of minorand minute details. ?urthermore it has been held that minor

inconsistencies do not discredit but rather stren$then the testimony of aFitness as they erase any sus"icion of a rehearsed testimony. hus thetestimony of 8ary Iris that there Fas a lam" and the reference to a"arol and a ;erosene lam" by the "rosecution are mere minorinconsistencies Fhich do not destroy the fact that the "lace of the incidentFas li$htedH enou$h for 8ary Iris to identify Bobbit Fhom she has ;noFnbecause they Fere nei$hbors. And it has been held that the illuminationfrom a ;erosene lam" is sufficient to "ermit the identification of amalefactor

Re$ardin$ the admissibility of the e@traudicial confession such isadmissible since the document Fas si$ned in the "resence of Atty. eofiloumula; and subscribed by the 8unici"al 8ayor haddeus urano. AlaFyer "rovided by the investi$ators is deemed en$a$ed by the accusedFhere as in this case he never raised any obection a$ainst the formerQsa""ointment durin$ the course of the investi$ation and the accusedthereafter subscribed to the veracity of his statement before the sFearin$officer. here is no evidence adduced by Bobbit to discredit theconfession.

8ore im"ortant it should be stressed that the e@traudicial confession

Fas not the basis of Bobbits conviction. Where there is inde"endentevidence a"art from this uncounseled confession that the accused istruly $uilty the latter nevertheless faces a conviction. 8ary Irisstestimony bein$ credible and "ositive is sufficient to Farrant aconviction.

. 0arital is+ualification

#. Rule #$%& 'ection 22.

4ec. !!. is6ualification by reason of marria$e. Surin$ their marria$e neither the husband nor theFife may testify for or a$ainst the other Fithout theconsent of the affected s"ouse e@ce"t in a civil caseby one a$ainst the other or in a criminal case for a



35/85

crime committed by one a$ainst the other or thelatterQs direct descendants or ascendants. -!3a0

Cases:

OrdoFo vs. a+ui=an-2 'CRA 21% #(17/

0arital is+ualification

>acts:Avelino +rdoUo Fas char$ed Fith havin$ ra"ed his dau$hter

=eonora on +ctober 11 15/3 in 4an


36/85

disturbed the reason based u"on such harmony and tran6uility fails.Dsin$ the criterion udiciously enunciated in %ar$ill vs. 4tate it can beconcluded that in the laF of evidence the ra"e "er"etrated by the fathera$ainst his dau$hter is a crime committed by him a$ainst his Fife -thevictims mother0. hat conclusion is in harmony Fith the "ractice and

traditions of the ?ili"ino family Fhere normally the dau$hter is close tothe mother Fho havin$ breast>fed and reared her offs"rin$ is alFaysready to render her counsel and assistance in time of need. IndeedFhen the dau$hter is in distress or suffers moral or "hysical "ain sheusually utters the Fords Inay -8other0 before she invo;es the name ofthe =ord.

Peo9le vs. CastaFeda& r.33 'CRA 7-2 #(1(/


>acts:Benamin 8analoto Fas char$ed Fith the crime of ?alsification of

Public ocument on the basis of the com"laint of his Fife Victoria8analoto before the %ourt of ?irst Instance of Pam"an$a "resided byud$e *on. 8ariano %astaUeda r. Benamin alle$edly for$ed thesi$nature of his Fife in a deed of sale e@ecuted by the said accusedFherein he sold a house and lot belon$in$ to the conu$al "artnershi" ofsaid s"ouse in favor of Ponciano =acsamana thereby ma;in$ it a""earthat his s"ouse Victoria $ave her marital consent to said sale Fhen in fact

and in truth she did not.At the trial the "rosecution called the com"lainant>Fife to the

Fitness stand but the defense moved to dis6ualify her as Fitnessinvo;in$ 4ec. !3 Rule 1&3 of the Revised Rules of %ourt. he"rosecution o""osed the said motion to dis6ualify on the $round that thecase falls under the e@ce"tion to the rule contendin$ that it is a criminalcase for a crime committed by one a$ainst the other.J NotFithstandin$such o""osition res"ondent ud$e $ranted the motion dis6ualifyin$Victoria from testifyin$ for or a$ainst her husband. *ence this "etitionfor certiorarifiled by the office of the "rovincial fiscal see;in$ to set aside

the order of the res"ondent ud$e and "rayin$ that a "reliminaryinunction or tem"orary restrainin$ order be issued enoinin$ the saidud$e from "roceedin$ Fith the trial.Issue:

Whether or not the criminal case for ?alsification of Publicocument may be considered as a criminal case committed by a husband



37/85

a$ainst his Fife and therefore an e@ce"tion to the rule on maritaldis6ualification.

Rulin=:9es. In the case of +rdoUo vs. a6ui$an this court held that the

ra"e committed by the husband of the Fitness>Fife a$ainst theirdau$hter Fas a crime committed by the husband a$ainst his Fife.Althou$h the victim of the crime committed by the accused in that caseFas not his Fife but his dau$hter this %ourt nevertheless a""lied thee@ce"tion for the reason that said criminal act "ositivelyJ undermine-d0the connubial relationshi".

With more reason must the e@ce"tion a""ly to the instant caseFhere the victim of the crime and the "erson Fho stands directly"reudiced by the falsification is not a third "erson but the Fife herself.And it is undeniable that the criminal act com"lained of had the effect ofdirectly and vitally im"airin$ the conu$al relation. a;en collectively theactuations of the Fitness>Fife underscore the fact that the marital anddomestic relations betFeen her and the accused>husband have becomeso strained that there is no more harmony to be "reserved nor "eace andtran6uility Fhich may be disturbed. In such a case as We have occasionto "oint out in "revious decisions identity of interests disa""ears and theconse6uent dan$er of "erury based on that identity is none@istent.

Peo9le vs. >rancisco13 Pil -(* #(*1/


>acts:uan ?rancisco Fas held as a detention "risoner in the munici"al ail

on char$es of robbery. *e Fas $ranted "ermission by the %hief of "oliceto $o home to his Fife for the "ostin$ of bail bond. 4$t. Pimentel FentFith him. Pimentel heard the scream of a Foman. Runnin$ u"stairs hemet ?ranciscos Fife runnin$ out of the room and holdin$ her ri$ht breastFhich Fas bleedin$. 4till moments later Pimentel saF defendant lyin$doFn Fith little son Romeo a$ed 1 year and a half on his breast.

Pimentel also found defendant to have a Found in his belly Fhile his childhad a Found in the bac;. he child Fas dead.he "rosecution in recommendin$ the im"osition of the ca"ital

"enalty u"on the accused relies mainly on the affidavit Fhich is a virtualconfession of the accused the record made by the ustice of the "eace of8ansalay of the arrai$nment of the defendant u"on Fhich the latterentered a "lea of $uilty and the rebuttal testimony of Emilia aladtad theFife of the a""ellant.



38/85

Issue:Whether or not the testimony of the Fife is admissible.

Rulin=:

he reasons $iven by laF te@t>Friters and courts Fhy neither ahusband nor Fife shall in any case be a Fitness a$ainst the other e@ce"tin a criminal "rosecution for a crime committed by one a$ainst the otherhave been stated thus: ?irst identity of interestsH second the conse6uentdan$er of "eruryH third the "olicy of the laF Fhich deems it necessary to$uard the security and confidences of "rivate life even at the ris; of anoccasional failure of ustice and Fhich reects such evidence because itsadmission Fould lead to domestic disunion and unha""inessH and fourthbecause Fhere a Fant of domestic tran6uility e@ists there is dan$er of"unishin$ one s"ouse throu$h the hostile testimony of the other.

*oFever as all $eneral rules this one has its oFn e@ce"tions bothin civil actions betFeen the s"ouses and in criminal cases for offensescommitted by one a$ainst the other. =i;e the rule itself the e@ce"tionsare bac;ed by sound reasons Fhich in the e@ce"ted cases outFei$hthose in su""ort of the $eneral rule. ?or instance Fhere the marital anddomestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be"reserved nor "eace and tran6uility Fhich may be disturbed the reasonbased u"on such harmony and tran6uility fails.

he defendant Fho Fas accused of ;illin$ his son testifyin$ in hisoFn behalf not only limited to himself to denyin$ that he Fas the ;illerbut Fent further and added Fhat Fas really a neF matter consistin$ in

the im"utation of the crime u"on his Fife. hus in $ivin$ such testimonythe husband must in all fairness be held to have intended all its naturaland necessary conse6uences. By his said act the husbandShimselfe@ercisin$ the very ri$ht Fhich he Fould deny to his Fife u"on the $roundof their marital relationsSmust be ta;en to have Faived all obection tothe latters testimony u"on rebuttal even considerin$ that such obectionFould have been available at the outset.

Le,ama vs. Rodri=ue,2$ 'CRA ##-- #(-3/0arital is+ualification

>acts:+n uly 12 153 ose ineros actin$ as receiver of the =a Pa7 Ice

Plant ( %old 4tora$e %o. filed an action for the annulment of a ud$mentrendered a$ainst the com"any and in favor of defendants 8arciano Ro6ue



39/85

and s"ouses 8anuel and Pa6uita =e7ama. he com"laint alle$ed thatbecause of mismana$ement by the =e7amas the com"any Fas "lacedunder the receivershi" of ineros and that durin$ the receivershi" Ro6uebrou$ht an action a$ainst the com"any for the collection of P1,3333Fhich sum he su""osedly lent to it. Also that the summons Fere issued

not on the receiver but on the =e7amas and throu$h the s"ousescollusion Fith Ro6ue the latter Fas able to obtain a ud$ment by defaulta$ainst the com"any. he s"ouses denied enterin$ into collusion FithRo6ue and averred that they did not contest his claim because they ;neFit to be a le$itimate obli$ation "ursuant to a resolution of its board ofdirectors.

At the hearin$ ineros as;ed the court to issue a sub"oena toPa6uita to testify as a Fitness. he re6uest for the sub"oena indicatedthat Pa6uita Fas to do no more than testify as an adverse "arty in thecase and because it Fas she Fho as secretary of the com"any si$nedthe minutes of the meetin$ at Fhich her husband Fas alle$edlyauthori7ed to ne$otiate the loan. he re6uest Fas $ranted over theobection of the "etitioners Fho invo;ed the Rules of %ourt statin$ themarital dis6ualification rule.

Issue:In this case Fhere the Fife is a co>defendant in a suit char$in$

fraud a$ainst the s"ouses can the Fife be com"elled to testify as anadverse "arty Fitness concernin$ her "artici"ation in the alle$ed fraudFithout violatin$ section !3 -b0 of Rule 1&3

Rulin=:9es. A husband cannot be e@amined for or a$ainst his Fife Fithout

her consent and vice versa as a $eneral rule as stated in Rule 1&3 4ec.!3 -b0. his "rovision and rule deals Fith tFo different matters Fhichrest on different $rounds of "olicy: the dis6ualification of husband andFife to testify in each others behalf as Fell as their "rivile$e not totestify a$ainst each other. he fundamental theory of the common laF issaid to be that relationshi" of the s"ouses not their "ecuniary interest isthe basis of the dis6ualification. Indeed section !3 of Rule 1&3 is entitledis6ualification by reason of @@@ relationshi"J.

Even in those urisdictions Fhich alloF one s"ouse to be subectedto e@amination by the adverse "arty as a hostile Fitness Fhen boths"ouses are "arties to the action either the interests of the s"ouses arese"arate or se"arable or the s"ouse offered as a Fitness is merely aformal or nominal "arty is a mere concession for the sa;e of discoveryfrom the rule Fhich "recludes the husband or the Fife from becomin$ themeans of the others condemnation. he said rule of discovery should



40/85

therefore not be e@"anded in meanin$ or in sco"e as to alloF e@aminationof ones s"ouse in a situation Fhere this natural re"u$nance obtains.

C. ead 0anGs 'tatute

#. Rule #$%& 'ection 2$.

4ec. !&. is6ualification by reason of death orinsanity of adverse "arty. S Parties or assi$nor of"arties to a case or "ersons in Fhose behalf a caseis "rosecuted a$ainst an e@ecutor or administratoror other re"resentative of a deceased "erson ora$ainst a "erson of unsound mind u"on a claim ordemand a$ainst the estate of such deceased "ersonor a$ainst such "erson of unsound mind cannottestify as to any matter of fact occurrin$ before thedeath of such deceased "erson or before such "ersonbecame of unsound mind. -!3a0

Cases:

6uerrero vs. 't. ClaireGs Realt 8 Co.#2* 'CRA 77$ #(3$/ead 0anGs 'tatute

>acts:Isidro


41/85

Issue:Whether or not the ead 8ans 4tatute is A""licable.

Rulin=:No the ead 8ans 4tatute is not a""licable. he "resent case is

not a claim or demand a$ainst the estate of the deceased 8anuel


42/85

counsel of Recto>Casten inter"osed a $eneral and continuin$ obection tothe testimony of ?lorencia invo;in$ the "rovision of 4ec. ! -c0 Rule 1!&-old rule0. *oFever the said counsel len$thily cross>e@amined theclaimants on the very matters a$ainst Fhich he inter"osed a $eneralobection. he rial %ourt alloFed the claim a$ainst the 9samel estate.

he %ourt of A""eals reversed on the $round of "rescri"tion laches andthat the claimants failed to establish a valid claim.

Issue:Whether or not the ead 8ans 4tatute is a""licable.

Rulin=:No it is not a""licable. Records shoF that the heirs of Abraham

have established the due e@ecution and $enuineness of the PN. ?lorenciae@tensively described the e@ecution of the PN amd Recto>Casten failed tocontradict this. ?urther the alle$ation of Recto>Casten that the notehave already been "aid Fas not su""orted by any evidence.

here is a Faiver of the "rohibition under the dead mans statuteFhen the counsel for Recto>Casten e@tensively cross>e@amined theFitness on the very matters subect of the "rohibition. It Fas for thisreason that the trial ud$e eventually overruled the counsels $eneral andcontinuin$ obection and admitted ?lorencias testimony.

It is difficult to believe that the counsels len$thy cross>e@aminationon the "rohibited matter Fas merely for the "ur"ose of establishin$ themotive "reudices and "redilection of the Fitness.

6oni vs. Court of A99eals#** 'CRA 222

ead 0anGs 'tatute

>acts:he three haciendas ;noFn as 4an 4ebastian 4arria and ulce

Nombre de 8aria situated in the 8unici"ality of Bais Ne$ros +rientalFere ori$inally oFned by the ABA%A=ERA. In 15)5 Pra@edes .Villanueva "redecessor>in>interest of "etitioners ne$otiated Fith

ABA%A=ERA for the "urchase of said haciendas. As he did not havesufficient funds to "ay the "rice Villanueva Fith the consent ofABA%A=ERA offered to sell *acienda 4arria to 4antia$o Ville$as FhoFas later substituted by oa6uin Ville$as.


43/85

P1&23/.33. his a$reement Fas reduced to Fritin$ and si$ned by"etitioner fact of Villanueva.

Villanueva Fas able to raise funds by sellin$ a "ro"erty in Ayun$onNe$ros +riental. *e thus Fent to Vicente for the "ur"ose of rescindin$ thecontract. *oFever as the amount of P1!)3.!) had already been

debited from "rivate res"ondentQs account it Fas a$reed that lots ) and1& of the *acienda ulce Nombre de 8aria Fould merely be leased to"rivate res"ondent Vicente for a "eriod of five years.

ABA%A=ERA e@ecuted a formal deed of sale coverin$ the threehaciendas in favor of Villanueva. ?ields Nos. & ) and 1& of the *aciendaulce Nombre de 8aria Fere thereafter re$istered in the name ofVillanueva.Intestate "roceedin$s Fere instituted after Villanueva died. Amon$ the"ro"erties included in the inventory submitted to the court Fere fieldsnos. & ) and 1& of *acienda ulce Nombre de 8aria.

+n the day before the intestate "roceedin$s Fere ordered closedand the estate of the deceased delivered to his heirs Vicente institutedan action for recovery of "ro"erty -field no. & of the *acienda ulce0a$ainst "etitioner


44/85

testimony. It is desi$ned to close the li"s of the "arty "laintiff Fhendeath has closed the li"s of the "arty defendant in order to remove fromthe survivin$ "arty the tem"tation to falsehood and the "ossibility offictitious claims a$ainst the deceased.he case at bar althou$h instituted a$ainst the heirs of Villanueva after

the estate of the latter had been distributed to them remains Fithin theambit of the "rotection. he reason is that the defendants>heirs are"ro"erly the re"resentatives of the deceased not only because theysucceeded to the decedentQs ri$ht by descent or o"eration of laF butmore im"ortantly because they are so "laced in liti$ation that they arecalled on to defend Fhich they have obtained from the deceased andma;e the defense Fhich the deceased mi$ht have made if livin$ or toestablish a claim Fhich deceased mi$ht have been interested to establishif livin$.4uch "rotection hoFever Fas effectively Faived Fhen counsel for"etitioners cross>e@amined "rivate res"ondent Vicente. A Faiver occursFhen "laintiffQs de"osition is ta;en by the re"resentative of the estate orFhen counsel for the re"resentative cross>e@amined the "laintiff as tomatters occurrin$ durin$ deceasedQs lifetime. It must further beobserved that "etitioners "resented a counterclaim a$ainst "rivateres"ondent Vicente. When Vicente thus too; the Fitness stand it Fas in adual ca"acity as "laintiff in the action for recovery of "ro"erty and asdefendant in the counterclaim for accountin$ and surrender of fields nos.) and 1&. Evidently as defendant in the counterclaim he Fas notdis6ualified from testifyin$ as to matters of fact occurrin$ before thedeath of Villanueva said action not havin$ been brou$ht a$ainst but by

the estate or re"resentatives of the estateKdeceased "erson.=i;eFise under a $reat maority of statutes the adverse "arty iscom"etent to testify to transactions or communications Fith the deceasedor incom"etent "erson Fhich Fere made Fith an a$ent of such "erson incases in Fhich the a$ent is still alive and com"etent to testify. But thetestimony of the adverse "arty must be confined to those transactions orcommunications Fhich Fere had Fith the a$ent. he contractK"romise tosell under consideration Fas si$ned by "etitioner in>factof Villanueva. *e Fas "rivy to the circumstances surroundin$ thee@ecution of such contract and therefore could either confirm or deny any

alle$ations made by "rivate res"ondent Vicente Fith res"ect to saidcontract. he ine6uality or inustice sou$ht to be avoided by 4ection !3-a0of Rule 1&3 Fhere one of the "arties no lon$er has the o""ortunity toeither confirm or rebut the testimony of the other because death has"ermanently sealed the formerQs li"s does not actually e@ist in the case abar for the reason that "etitioner


45/85

Ton=co vs. Vian,on-(3 P


46/85

that the laF Fas desi$ned to aid in arrivin$ at the truth and as not desi$nto su""ress the truth.

he laF tFice ma;es use of the Ford a$ainstJ. he actions Ferenot brou$ht a$ainstJ the administratri@ of the estate nor Fere theybou$ht u"on claims a$ainstJ the estate. In the first case the action is

one by the same administratri@ to enforce a demand by the estate. Inthe second case the same analo$y holds true for te claim Fas "resentedin cadastral "roceedin$s Fhere in one sense there is no "laintiff and thereis no defendant. 8oreover a Faiver Fas accom"lished Fhen the adverse"arty undertoo; to cross>e@amine the adverse "arty -Anastacia0 Fithres"ect to the "rohibited matter.

Licauco vs. Atlantic 6ulf3* P


47/85

Issue:Whether or not officers are of the cor"oration Fhich is a "arty to an

action a$ainst an administrator are dis6ualified fro testifyin$ as to anymatter of fact occurrin$ before the death of the deceased under Rule1!& sec.! -c0 of the Rules of %ourt noF Rule 1&3 sec.!&.

Rulin=:No. he 4u"reme %ourt of the Phili""ines ado"ted the rulin$ of the

4u"reme %ourt of %alifornia in the case of %ity 4avin$s Ban; vs. Enos toFit: to hold that the statute dis6ualifies all "ersons from testifyin$ Fhoare officers or stoc;holders of a cor"oration Fould be e6uivalent tomaterially amendin$ the statute by udicial le$islation. he laF "lainlydis6ualifies only "arties or assi$nors of the "arties and does not a""ly to"ersons Fho are merely em"loyed by such "arties or assi$nors of "arties.he officers andKor stoc;holders of a cor"oration are not dis6ualified fromtestifyin$ for or a$ainst the cor"oration Fhich is a "arty to an action u"ona claim or demand a$ainst the estate of a deceased "erson as to anymatter of fact occurrin$ before the death of such deceased "erson.

Ra,on vs IAC2$* 'CRA 2%1

ead 0anGs 'tatute

>acts:In 15! Enri6ue Ra7on -defendant0 or$ani7ed the E. Ra7on Inc.

-defendant0 for the "ur"ose of biddin$ for the arrastre services in 4outh*arbor 8anila. In 15 a stoc; certificate for 1,33 shares of stoc; ofdefendant cor"oration Fas issued and Fere "aid in the name of uan%huidian. +n the basis of the same shares of stoc; the late uan%huidian and after him Enri6ue Ra7on Fere elected as directors of E.Ra7on Inc. Both of them actually serve and Fere "aid com"ensation asdirectors of the cor"oration.

?rom the time the certificate of stoc; Fas issued to A"ril 15/1Ra7on had not 6uestioned the oFnershi" by %huidian of the shares ofstoc; in 6uestion and had not brou$ht any action to have the certificate of

stoc; over the said shares cancelled. he certificate of stoc; Fas in the"ossession of Ra7on Fho refused to deliver said shares to the "laintiff-Vicente %huidian0 until the same Fas surrendered by the Ra7on andde"osited in a safety bo@ in the Phili""ine Ban; of %ommerce.

efendants alle$ed that after or$ani7in$ E. Ra7on Inc. Ra7ondistributed shares of stoc; "reviously "laced in the name of theFithdraFin$ nominal incor"orators to some friends includin$ uan .%huidian. he certificate coverin$ the 1,33 shares of stoc; u"on



48/85

instruction of the late %huidian in 15 Fas "ersonally delivered to the%or"orate 4ecretary of the Atty. e =eon Fho Fas himself an associate ofthe %huidian =aF +ffice. 4ince then Ra7on Fas in "ossession of saidstoc; certificate even durin$ the lifetime of the late chuidian from thetime %huidian delivered the said stoc; certificate to Ra7on. he certificate

of stoc; Fas delivered to Ra7on by the late %huidian because it Fas theformer Fho "aid for all the subscri"tion on the shares of stoc; of thedefendant cor"oration and that the understandin$ Fas that he Fas theoFner of the said shares and Fas to have "ossession until such time ashe Fas "aid therefore by the other nominal incor"orators.

he IA% reversed the trial court courts decision and ruled that un%huidian is the oFner of the shares of stoc;

Enri6ue Ra7on assails the a""ellate courts decision on the alle$edmisa""lication of the dead mans statute rule under 4ec.!3 -a0 Rule 1&3of the Rules of %ourt. 8oreover Vicente %huidian as "laintiff in the casedid not obect to his oral testimony re$ardin$ the oral a$reement betFeenhim and the late %huidian that the oFnershi" of the shares of stoc; Fasactually vested in the "etitioner unless the deceased o"ted to "ay thesameH and that he Fas subect to a ri$id cross e@amination re$ardin$such testimony.

Issue:Whether or not the testimony of the "etitioner is Fithin the

"rohibition of the dead mans statute.

Rulin=:

No. he rule delimits the "rohibition it contem"lates in that it isa""licable to a case a$ainst the administrator or its re"resentatives of anestate u"on a claim a$ainst the estate of the deceased "erson.

In the instant case the a""ellate court e@cluded the oral testimonyof Ra7on re$ardin$ the oral a$reement betFeen him and the late %huidianas re$ards the oFnershi" of the shares of stoc;. he case Fas filed bythe administrator of the estate of the late %huidian to recover shares ofstoc; in E. Ra7on Inc. alle$edly oFned by the late %huidian.

It is clear therefore that the testimony of Ra7on is not Fithin the"rohibition of the rule. he case Fas not filed a$ainst the administrator

of the estate nor Fas it filed u"on claims a$ainst the estate.?urthermore the records shoF that Vicente %huidian neverobected to the testimony of Ra7on as re$ards the true nature of histransaction Fith the late %huidian. 8oreover Ra7ons testimony Fassubect to cross>e@amination by the "rivate res"ondents counsel. *ence$rantin$ that the "etitioners testimony is Fithin the "rohibition of 4ec. !3-a0 Rule 1&3 of the Rules of %ourt the "rivate res"ondent is deemed tohave Faived the rule.



49/85

VIII. PRIVILE6E CO00"!ICATIO!'

A. 0arital Communications

#. Rule #$%& 'ection 2* a/.

4ec. !). is6ualification by reason of "rivile$edcommunication. S he folloFin$ "ersons cannottestify as to matters learned in confidence in thefolloFin$ cases:

-a0 he husband or the Fife durin$ or after themarria$e cannot be e@amined Fithout the consentof the other as to any communication received inconfidence by one from the other durin$ themarria$e e@ce"t in a civil case by one a$ainst theother or in a criminal case for a crime committed byone a$ainst the other or the latterQs directdescendants or ascendantsH

Cases:

Peo9le vs. Carlos*1 Pacts:r. Pablo 4ityar in 8arch & 15!) in the 8ary %hiles *os"ital

"erformed a sur$ical o"eration u"on the defendants Fife for a""endicitisand certain other ailments. After the release of the defendants Fife fromthe hos"ital she Fas re6uired to $o several times to the clinic of r.4ityar for the "ur"ose of dressin$ the Founds caused by the o"eration.+n these occasions she Fas accom"anied by the defendant. +n one oftheir visits r. 4ityar sent the defendant to buy some medicine and Fhilehe Fas out for an errand r. 4ityar outra$ed his Fife of Fhich he Fasinformed after leavin$ the hos"ital. NotFithstandin$ this fact he Fenta$ain to the doctors clinic to consult some lun$ trouble from Fhich heFas sufferin$.



50/85

While the defendant Fas confined in another hos"ital he received aletter from r. 4ityar as;in$ for the immediate settlement of the accountfor the "rofessional services rendered his Fife.

After his release from the hos"ital he Fent for several times to ther. 4ityars clinic. In one these occasions the defendant Fithout

"reliminary 6uarrel betFeen him and the deceased attac;ed the latterFith a fan>;nife and stabbed him thrice and as a conse6uence of Fhichhe died

he defendant admits that he ;illed the deceased but maintain thathe did so in self>defense. he trial court found that the crime Fascommitted Fith "remeditation and therefore constituted murder ta;in$ asevidence E@hibit =J a letter sei7ed by the "olice in searchin$ his effectson the day of the arrest. he letter Fas Fritten to the defendant by hisFife tFo days before the commission of the crime and shoFs that theFriter feared that the defendant contem"lated resortin$ to "hysicalviolence in dealin$ Fith the deceased.

%ounsel for the defendant ar$ues vi$orously that the letter Fas"rivile$ed communication and therefore not admissible in evidence.

Issue:Whether or not the letter is a "rivile$ed communication and

therefore not admissible in evidence.

Rulin=:he numerical Fei$ht of authority is to the effect that Fhere a

"rivile$ed communication from one s"ouse to another comes into the

hands of a third "arty Fhether le$ally or not Fithout collusion andvoluntary disclosure on the "art of either of the s"ouses the "rivile$e isthereby e@tin$uished and the communication if otherFise com"etentbecomes admissible. If the documents of communications Fere obtainedfrom the addressee by voluntary delivery they should still be "rivile$edfor otherFise the "rivile$e could by collusion be "ractically nullified forFritten communicationsH but if they Fere obtained surre"titiously orotherFise Fithout the addressees consent the "rivile$e should cease.

he letter should be e@cluded as such Fas Fritten by the Fife of thedefendant and if she had testified at the trial the letter mi$ht have been

admissible to im"each her testimony but she Fas not "ut on the Fitnessstand and the letter Fas therefore not offered for that "ur"ose. If thedefendant either by ansFer or otherFise had indicated his assent to thestatements contained in the letter it mi$ht also have been admissiblebut such is not the case here the fact that he had the letter in his"ossession I no indication of ac6uiescence or assent on his "art. heletter is therefore nothin$ but hearsay and its admission in evidenceviolates the constitutional ri$ht of the defendant in criminal case to be



51/85

confronted Fith the Fitnesses for the "rosecution and have theo""ortunity to cross>e@amine.

As E@hibit =J is e@cluded it is the o"inion of the 4u"reme %ourtthat no sufficient evidence in the record that the crime Fas "remeditated.

. Attorne?Client Privile=e

#. Rule #$%& 'ection 2* b/.

4ec. !). is6ualification by reason of "rivile$edcommunication. S he folloFin$ "ersons cannottestify as to matters learned in confidence in thefolloFin$ cases:

-b0 An attorney cannot Fithout the consent of hisclient be e@amined as to any communication madeby the client to him or his advice $iven thereon inthe course of or Fith a vieF to "rofessionalem"loyment nor can an attorneyQs secretarysteno$ra"her or cler; be e@amined Fithout theconsent of the client and his em"loyer concernin$any fact the ;noFled$e of Fhich has been ac6uiredin such ca"acityH

Cases:

" Cico vs. "nion Life Assurance 'ociet2( Pacts:he father of the "laintiff died in125/ at Fhich time he Fas

conductin$ business under his oFn name Dy =ayco. he "laintiff and hisbrother too; over the business and continued it under the same name.Before the date of fire the "laintiff "urchased his brothers share andcontinued the business. At the time of the fire Dy =aycoJ Fas heavilyindebted and the creditors "etitioned for a""ointment of an administrator.urin$ the course of these "roceedin$s the "laintiffs attorneysurrendered the "olicies of insurance to the administrator of the estateFho com"romised Fith the insurance com"any for M their face value

he "laintiff noF brin$s this action maintainin$ that the "olicies and$oods insured belon$ to him and not to the estate of his deceased father



52/85

and alle$es that he is not bound by the com"romise effected by theadministrator of his fathers estate.

he defendant insurance com"any introduced evidence shoFin$that the attorney had surrendered the "olicies to the administrator Fiththe understandin$ that such com"romise Fas to be effected. he "laintiff

Fas as;ed Fhile on the on the Fitness stand if he had any obection tohis attorneys testifyin$ concernin$ the surrender of the "olicies to Fhichhe ansFered in the ne$ative. he attorney Fas then called for that"ur"ose but the counsel for the "laintiff formally FithdreF the Faiver"reviously $iven and obected to the testimony of the attorney on the$round that it is "rivile$ed.

Issue:Whether or not the testimony in 6uestion is "rivile$ed.

Rulin=:No. A laFyer must strictly maintain inviolate the confidence and

"reserve the secrets of his client. *e shall not be "ermitted in any courtFithout the consent of his client $iven in o"en court to testify to anyfacts im"arted to him by his client in "rofessional consultation or for the"ur"ose of obtainin$ advice u"on le$al matters.

he very essence of the veil of secrecy Fhich surroundscommunications made betFeen attorney and the client is that suchcommunications made betFeen attorney and client are not intended forthe information of the third "ersons or to be acted u"on by them but forthe "ur"ose of advisin$ as to his ri$ht.

he testimony Fas to the effect that Fhen the laFyer delivered the"olicies to the administrator he understood that there Fas a com"romiseto be effected and that Fhen he informed the "laintiff of the surrender ofthe "olicies for that "ur"ose the "laintiff made no obection Fhich issufficient to shoF that the "laintiff a$reed to the com"romised.

%ommunications made by a client to his attorney for the "ur"ose ofbein$ communicated to others are not "rivile$ed after they have beencommunicated after they have been so communicated may be "roved bythe testimony of the attorney. he rule a""lies to a com"romisea$reement "erfected by the attorney Fith the authority and under

he instructions of his client.

Re=ala v. 'andi=anbaan2-2 'CRA #2* #((-/

Attorne?Client Privile=e

>acts:



53/85

he Re"ublic of the Phili""ines throu$h P%defendants0 as accorded "rivate res"ondent Roco. he 4andi$anbayandenied their e@clusion since they did not accede to the conditions set byP%client "rivile$e.



54/85

%onsiderations favorin$ confidentiality in laFyer>client relationshi"sare many and serve several constitutional and "olicy concerns. In theconstitutional s"here the "rivile$e $ives flesh to one of the mostsacrosanct ri$hts available to the accused the ri$ht to counsel. If the"rice of disclosure is too hi$h or if it amounts to self>incrimination then

the floF of information Fould be curtailed thereby renderin$ the ri$ht"ractically nu$atory.

arton v. Lete As9alt 8 0ineral Oil Co.*- Pil ($3 #($*/


>acts:=eyte As"halt a""ears to be the oFner of a valuable de"osit of

bituminous limestone and other as"halt "roducts located on the Island of=eyte and ;noFn as the =ucio mine. In 15!3 one William Anderson as"resident and $eneral mana$er of the defendant com"any addressed aletter to Barton authori7in$ the latter to sell the "roducts of the =uciomine in Australia and NeF ealand u"on a scale of "rices indicated in saidletter.

Barton instituted an action in the %?I of 8anila to recover dama$esfor the alle$ed breach of contract and to obtain a udicial "ronouncemententitlin$ him to an e@tension of the of the sales a$ency contract.

urin$ trial the defendant offered in evidence E@hibit 1) Fhichconsists of a carbon co"y of a letter Fritten by the "laintiff to his

attorney ?ran; B. In$ersoll and in Fhich "laintiff states amon$ otherthin$s that his "rofits from the 4an ?rancisco contract Fould have beenat the rate of ei$hty>five cents -$old0 "er ton. he authenticity of thisdocument is admitted. When it Fas offered in evidence by the attorneyfor the defendant the counsel for the "laintiff announced that he had noobection to the introduction of this carbon co"y in evidence if counsel forthe defendant Fould e@"lain Fhere this co"y Fas secured. D"on this theattorney for the defendant informed the court that he received the letterfrom the former attorneys of the defendant Fithout e@"lanation of themanner in Fhich the document had come into their "ossession. he trial

ud$e thereu"on e@cluded the document on the $round that it Fas a"rivile$ed communication betFeen client and attorney.

Issue:Whether or not E@hibit 1) is covered by the attorney>client "rivile$e

Rulin=:



55/85

No. he trial courts rulin$ e@cludin$ E@hibit 1) Fas erroneousH foreven su""osin$ that the letter Fas Fithin the "rivile$e this "rivile$e Faslost Fhen the letter came to the hands of the adverse "arty. And it ma;esno difference hoF the adversary ac6uired "ossession. he laF "rotectsthe client from the effect of disclosures made by him to his attorney in

the confidence of the le$al relation but Fhen such a documentcontainin$ admissions of the client comes to the hand of a third "artyand reaches the adversary it is admissible in evidence.

4ince the "rivile$e is dero$ation from the $eneral testimonial dutyand should be strictly construed it Fould be im"ro"er to e@tend its"rohibition to third "ersons Fho obtain ;noFled$e of the communications.+ne Fho overhears the communications Fhether Fith or Fithout theclientQs ;noFled$e is not Fithin the "rotection of the "rivile$e. he samerule ou$ht to a""ly to one Fho surre"titiously reads or obtains "ossessionof a document in ori$inal or co"y.

When "a"ers are offered in evidence a court Fill ta;e no notice ofhoF they Fere obtained Fhether le$ally or ille$ally "ro"erly orim"ro"erlyH nor Fill it from a collateral issue to try that 6uestion.

Orient Insurance Co. v. Revilla7# Pil (#( #($%/


>acts:eal 8otor %o. Inc. is the "laintiff in a civil action instituted in the

%?I of 8anila for the "ur"ose of recoverin$ u

evidence project volume2

Documents