SURVEY OF RECENT CASES IN EVIDENCE

1. Waiver of Objection When the ground for objection becomes reasonably apparent, seasonably raised upon objection, otherwise waived, since the right to object is merely a privilege which the party may waive (Sps. Ambrosio Decaleng, et al. vs. Phil Episcopal Church, et al., G.R. No. 171209, June 27, 2012).

2. Certified Copy a. Republic of the Philippines vs. Lucia M. Gomez, G.R. No. 189021, February 22, 2012 b. NYK International Knitwear Corp. Phils., et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 146267, February 17, 2003

3. Best Evidence Rule When secondary evidence may be received (People of the Phils. Vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 153304-05, February 7, 2012)

4. A party’s declaration of the completion of the presentation of his evidence prevents him from introducing further evidence. Exception. (Republic of the Phils. Vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 152375, December 16, 2011).

7. Chain of Custody/ Presumption of Regularity (Peo. Vs 7. Chain of Custody/ Presumption of Regularity (Peo. Vs. Zaida Kamad y Ambing, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010)

What constitutes sufficient compliance with the Chain of Custody rule: As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an Exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the Exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witnesses’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precaution taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

8. Confession/Admission to Media (Peo. Vs. Michael A. Hipona, G. R. No 8. Confession/Admission to Media (Peo. Vs. Michael A. Hipona, G.R. No. 185709, February 18, 2010) Confessions made to media are admissible as they are made in response to questions by news reporters, not by the police or other investigating officer. Statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence.

9. Filiation (Ben-Hur Nepomuceno vs 9. Filiation (Ben-Hur Nepomuceno vs. Arhbencel Ann Lopez, represented by her mother Araceli Lopez (G.R. No. 181258, March 18, 2010)

In its rulings, the Supreme Court has specified what incriminating acts are acceptable as evidence to establish filiation. The issue of paternity still has to be resolved by such conventional evidence as the relevant incriminating verbal and written acts by the putative father. Under Art. 278 of the New Civil Code, voluntary recognition by a parent shall be made in the record of birth, as well as, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing. To be effective, the claim of filiation must be made by the putative father himself and the writing must be the writing of the putative father. Standing alone, neither the baptism certificate nor family pictures are sufficient to establish filiation.

10. Cancellation or Correction of Entry in Local Civil Registrar (In Re : Petition for cancellation and correction of entries in the record of birth. Emma K. Lee vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 177861, July 13, 2010)

11. Equipoise Rule (G.R. No. 161083, August 3, 2010)

Under the Equipoise rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise, or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of 2 or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not suffice to produce a conviction. The equipoise rule has been generally applied when the parties already concluded the presentation of their respective evidence.

12. Positive Identification- (People vs. Delfin Caliso [G. R. No 12. Positive Identification- (People vs. Delfin Caliso [G.R. No. 183830, October 19, 2011])

In every criminal prosecution, the identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the first duty of the Prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the criminal, for even if the commission of the crime can be established, there can be no conviction without proof of identity of the criminal beyond reasonable doubt.

The identification of the malefactor, to be positive and sufficient for conviction, does not always require direct evidence from an eyewitness; otherwise, no conviction will be possible in crimes where there are no eyewitnesses. Indeed, trustworthy circumstantial evidence can equally confirm the identification and overcome the constitutionally presumed innocence of the accused. Thus, the Court has distinguished two types of positive identification in People vs. Gallarde, to wit: (a) that by direct evidence, through an eyewitness to the very commission of the act; (b) that by circumstantial evidence, such as where the accused is last seen with the victim immediately before or after the crime.

The test to determine the moral certainty of an identification is its imperviousness to scepticism on account of its distinctiveness. To achieve such distinctiveness, the identification of evidence should encompass unique physical features or characteristics, like the face, the voice, the dentures, the distinguishing marks or tattoos on the body, fingerprints, DNA, or any other physical facts that set the individual apart from the rest of humanity.

13. Judicial Admission (Sps. Manuel and Florentina Del Rosario vs 13. Judicial Admission (Sps. Manuel and Florentina Del Rosario vs. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc. [G.R. No. 170575, June 8, 2011])

Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that: Sec. 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. . . . "A judicial admission is one so made in pleadings filed or in the progress of a trial as to dispense with the introduction of evidence otherwise necessary to dispense with some rules of practice necessary to be observed and complied with." Correspondingly, "facts alleged in the complaint are deemed admissions of the plaintiff and binding upon him." "The allegations, statements or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader."

14. Electronic Evidence (Rustan P. Ang vs. CA, et al. , G. R. No 14. Electronic Evidence (Rustan P. Ang vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010) Rule on Electronic Evidence does not apply to criminal cases. It applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings

15. DNA (Jesse U. Lucas vs. Jesus S. Lucas, G. R. No 15. DNA (Jesse U. Lucas vs. Jesus S. Lucas, G.R. No. 190710, June 6, 2011 Is a prima facie showing necessary before a court can issue a DNA testing order?

16. Rico Rommel Atienza vs. Board of Medicine and Editha Sioson, G. R 16. Rico Rommel Atienza vs. Board of Medicine and Editha Sioson, G.R. No. 177407. February 9, 2011 Admissibility should not be equated with probative weight