La Dirección Ejecutiva de Administración Judicial

The leading questions were neither conclusions of facts merely put into the mouth of JONALYN nor prepared statements which she merely confirmed as true. The questions were indeed carefully phrased and sometimes based on her Sinumpaang Salaysay to make JONALYN understand the import of the questions. In the same vein, the prosecution’s referral to JONALYN’s Sinumpaang Salaysay to refresh her memory was also reasonable. The purpose of refreshing the recollection of a witness is to enable both the witness and her present testimony to be put fairly and in their proper light before the court.

A. Public documents 1. R132.19, 23-30

Sec. 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of their presentation evidence, documents are either public or private.

Public documents are:

a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;

b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and

c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to the entered therein. All other writings are private. (20a)

Under the rules of evidence, official documents are “public documents.” Those acknowledged before persons authorized to administer oaths are public documents but are further governed by Sec. 30, while commercial and private documents fall under “private documents.”

Private documents required by law to be entered in public records are considered as public documents and are subject to Sec. 27.

GEN RULE: Public documents generally include notarial documents and are admissible in evidence w/o the necessity of preliminary proof as to its authenticity and due execution (Antillon v. Barcelon)

EXCEPTION: where a special rule of law requires proof thereof despite its being a document acknowledged in accordance w/ Sec. 30, as in the case of probate of notarial wills where the testimony of the attesting witnesses are still required for its probate (R132.76 & 30)

Requisites for admissibility of copy of foreign official document 1. Attested by the officer having legal custody of the

records or by his deputy; and

2. Accompanied by a certificate of the Philippine diplomatic or consular representative to the foreign country certifying that such attesting officer has the custody of the document

• This requirement is intended to justify the giving of full faith and credit to the genuineness of a document in a foreign country (Valencia v. Lopez) A document, to be public, must be an official written act of a public officer.

If a private writing itself is inserted officially into a public record, its record/recordation/incorporation into the public record becomes a public document, but that does not make the private writing itself a public document so as to make it admissible w/o authentication. (Republic v. Worldwide Insurance)

A claim for the enforcement of a foreign judgment can be brought only before the regular courts and not in an administrative agency. A foreign decision purporting to be the written record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country is a public writing under R132.19(a), and

must be proved in accordance w/ Secs. 24 & 25 of the same Rule.

Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence. — Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. (24a)

Sec. 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. (25a)

Sec. 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)

Sec. 26. Irremovability of public record. — Any public record, an official copy of which is admissible in evidence, must not be removed from the office in which it is kept, except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case. (27a) A public record cannot be removed from the office in w/c it is kept w/o a court order, such as a subpoena duces tecum, and even the court cannot order its removal therefrom.

EXCEPTION: when essential to the just determination of a pending case

NOTE that this rule refers only to a public record an official copy of w/c could be made available to the interested part and is admissible in evidence.

§24: requirements for admissibility in evidence of a foreign public document.

Absent the attestation of the officer having the legal custody of the records and the certificate to that effect by a Philippine foreign service officer, a mere copy of the foreign document is not admissible as evidence to prove the foreign law. (Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. v. CA) Sec. 27. Public record of a private document. — An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.

Sec. 28. Proof of lack of record. — A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search no record or entry of a

specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. (29)

Sec. 29. How judicial record impeached. — Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: (a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, (b) collusion between the parties, or (c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. (30a)

RIANO:

Judicial record : the record of judicial proceedings. Includes official entries or files, official acts of a judicial officer, and judgment of the court

Sec. 30. Proof of notarial documents. — Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. (31a) Public documents may be proved by:

1. The original copy;

2. An official publication thereof; or 3. A certified true copy thereof

When a CTC is presented, § 24 & 25 provide what should appear in the certification or attestation of said true copy and w/c must have the documentary stamp affixed thereto in order to be admissible (§201, RA 8424), UNLESS specifically exempted therefrom, as in the case of baptismal/birth certificates of contracting parties to a marriage (FC 13). It’s presumed that the requisite stamps have been affixed to the original copy of a document where only the carbon copies thereof are available. (Mahilum v. CA)

Where the SPA is executed and acknowledged before a notary public or other competent officer in a foreign country, it can’t be admitted in evidence in Philippine courts UNLESS it’s certified as such in accordance w/ R132.24 by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul-general/consul/vice- consul/consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in w/c the record is kept of said public document and authenticated by the seal of his office. (Lopez v. CA)

The probative value of public instruments depends on the kind of document that is presented in evidence. (Dupilas v. Cabacungan)

Only baptismal certificates issued by the priests during the Spanish regime are considered public documents. (Adriano v. de Jesus) However, a baptismal certificate issued after the Spanish regime is a private document and cannot even be considered prima facie evidence of the fact that gave rise to its execution – the fact of baptism and the date thereof – and is therefore hearsay and inadmissible evidence even as to the date of baptism unless the priest who performed the baptismal rites and made the certificate is produced. (People v. Barcebal)

Baptismal certificates are not sufficient to prove paternity (Arde v. Anicoche) or voluntary recognition of a child. (Berciles v. GSIS)

NOTE: While recognizing the primacy of a birth certificate as proof of the victim’s age, SC held that in the absence of such evidence, the victim’s minority may be proved by other documentary evidence such as her baptismal certificate or other authentic records. (People v. Llandelar)

A death certificate is not proof of the cause of death, its probative value being confined only to the fact of death, and the statement therein contained regarding the duration of illness and the cause of death are mere hearsay. (Sison v. Sun Life Assurance)

BUT it has been held that a death certificate is admissible to prove the residence of the deceased at the time of his death. (Garcia Fule v. Malvar)

2. CC408

CC403. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding article, a daughter above twenty-one but below twenty-three years of age cannot leave the parental home without the consent of the father or mother in whose company she lives, except to become a wife, or when she exercises a profession or calling, or when the father or mother has contracted a subsequent marriage. (321a)

Cf. CC 402. Majority commences upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years. The person who has reached majority is qualified for all acts of civil life, save the exceptions established by this Code in special cases.

3. §201, RA 8424

NIRC, Sec. 201. Effect of Failure to Stamp Taxable Document. - An instrument, document or paper which is required by law to be stamped and which has been signed, issued, accepted or transferred without being duly stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any court until the requisite stamp or stamps are affixed thereto and cancelled.

Cases:

PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS SHIPPING CORP . V . NLRC

•

The Dubai decision was not properly proved before the POEA. The Dubai decision purports to be the written act or record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country, and therefore a public writing under R132.20(a)

•

Also, the Dubai decision is accompanied by a document which purports to be an English translation of that decision, but that translation is legally defective. R132.34 requires that documents written in a non-official language (Arabic) shall not be admitted as evidence unless accompanied by a translation into English or Spanish or Filipino.

PEOPLE V . LAZARO

Either the testimony of a representative of, or a certification from, the PNP Firearms and Explosive Office attesting that a person is not a licensee of any firearm would suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of possession of illegal firearms. Moreover, the rule on hearsay evidence admits of several exceptions. One such exception is that provided for under R130.44 (Entries in official records). Relative to this provision, R132.28 of the same Rules allows the admission of the said document.

MONTEVERDE V . PEOPLE

A private document acquires the character of a public document when it becomes part of an official record and is certified by a public officer duly authorized by law.

SORIANO V . GALIT

Public documents by themselves may be adequate to establish the presumption of their validity. However, their probative weight must be evaluated not in isolation but in conjunction with other evidence adduced by the parties in the controversy, much more so in this case where the contents of a copy thereof subsequently registered for documentation purposes is being contested.

DELFIN V . BILLONES

Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Nevertheless, this presumption is disputable and is satisfactory only if uncontradicted, and may be overcome by other evidence to the contrary.

SEVILLA V . CARDENAS

The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.

B. Private documents (R132.20-22, 32-33)

Sec. 20. Proof of private document. — Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:

a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. (21a)

Sec. 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. — Where a private document is more than thirty years old, is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity need be given. (22a)

Sec. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (23a)

R132.20-22: rules on authentication of private documents Doctrine of self-authentication

Where the facts in the writing could only have been known by the writer

Rule of authentication of the adverse party

Where the reply of the adverse party refers to and affirms the transmittal to him and his receipt of the letter in question, a copy of which the proponent is offering as evidence

Instances when authentication of a document is NOT required

1. The writing is an ancient document, under the requisites of §21

2. The writing is a public document or record per §19 3. It’s a notarial document acknowledged, proved, or

certified in accordance w/ §30

4. The authenticity and due execution of the document has been expressly or impliedly admitted by a failure to deny the same under oath, as in the case of actionable documents per R8.8

The authenticity and due execution of a private document are proved, inter alia, by evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker

Genuineness of maker’s handwriting proved by:

1. A witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument (§20[a])

2. A witness familiar w/ such handwriting (§22) and who can give his opinion thereon, such opinion being an exception to the opinion rule (R.130.50[b]) 3. A comparison by the court of the questioned

handwriting and admitted genuine specimens thereof (§22)

4. Expert evidence (R.130.49)

§22 merely enumerates the methods of proving handwriting but does not give preference or priority to a particular method (Lopez v. CA)

Sec. 32. Seal. — There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. (33a)

Sec. 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. — Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial.

PD 155 (1973) provides that “the Spanish language shall continue to be recognized as an official language in the Philippines while important documents in government files are in the Spanish language and not translated into either English or Pilipino language.”

1987 Consti: the official languages are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English, w/ the regional languages as auxiliary official languages in the region Cases:

BARTOLOME V . IAC

Under R132.21, the due execution and authenticity of a private writing must be proved either by anyone who saw the writing executed, by evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker, or by a subscribing witness. CEQUEÑA V . BOLANTE

• An ancient document is one that is (1) more than 30 years old, (2) found in the proper custody, and (3) unblemished by any alteration or by any circumstance of suspicion. It must on its face appear to be genuine.

• Not all notarized documents are exempted from the rule on authentication. Thus, an affidavit does not automatically become a public document just because it contains a notarial jurat.

• By itself, an affidavit is not a mode of acquiring ownership.

MALAYAN INSURANCE V . PNWC

Under R132.20, before a private document is admitted in evidence, it must be authenticated either by the person who executed it, the person before whom its execution was acknowledged, any person who was present and saw it executed, or who after its execution, saw it and recognized the signatures, or the person to whom the parties to the instruments had previously confessed execution thereof. JIMENEZ V . COMMISSION ON ECUMENICAL MISSION R132.22 explicitly authorizes the court, by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting "with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge."

PAN PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL SALES V . CA

The presumption of regularity does not hold true with respect to the [notarized] Marital Consent which is a private writing. It is subject to the requirement of proof under R132.20 which states the Marital Consent was merely a jurat, and thus a private document whose execution and authenticity required proof under R132.20.

C. Alteration in documents (R132.31)

Sec. 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. — The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He may show that the alteration was made by another, without his concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or was otherwise properly or innocent made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. If he fails to do that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence. Cases:

CABOTAJE V . PADUNAN

In document Formación Autodirigida para el Área del Talento Humano (página 35-47)