Exercise 1:

1. Brothers A and B who were being recruited to a fraternity were simultaneously subjected to hazing rites, during
which things got out of hand. A had a heart attack when he saw his brother B fall to the ground after being clubbed in the head but managed to whisper to doctor D in the emergency room before he lapsed into a coma. Doc, if I dont last, I want you to know I saw X hit my brother B on the head with a club. Dr D tried his best but B died of brain injury. At the trial of P v X et all for violation of RA 8049 the hazing regulation act, the prosecution subpoenaed Dr. D who began to testify on the foregoing Counsel for x objected invoking the rule on the physician patient privilege, saying that Dr. D cannot be examined w/o the consent of his patient. The prosecutor argued that the rules on PC do not apply where the statement involved is a dying declaration citing US v Antipolo. Rule on the objection. Rule on the argument Answer: (1) Not a civil case (2) Who the patient is (3) What is the content of the message Criminal cases, privilege does not apply to criminal cases. In civil case: Its not about advise or treatment between physician and patient. Its about something that happened to somebody else. VAA: A is not dead. Therefore not analogous to dying declaration. Antipolo: death is relevant because of 22, not 24a. PC in 24a remains confidential even in death. VAA: Antipolo itself is WRONG about the death.

2. State whether true or false a. The court can take mandatory judicial notice: That a death cert proves the fact of death of the person that it certifies as dead FALSE. Not mandatory. It does not fall under 129.1 Of the contents of all ordinances VAA: ordinances are laws/legislative but within a limited territory. FALSE. Regalado. Judicial Notice is only of national ordinances except when the charter of the LGU dictates that the ordinance be taken mandatory judicial notice of. That former president marcos fled to Hawaii in 1986 TRUE. Part of the political history of the Philippines. That the Philippines has an extradition treaty with the USA TRUE. Official acts of the Executive and Legislative (because of concurrence) That a polygraph test is not conclusive TRUE. Official acts of the judicial department via Jurisprudence. Of the contents of the UN general assembly declarations TRUE. Part of Law of nations. That the government now has a budget deficit FALSE. Of the appointment of aglipay as PNP chief TRUE. Official act of the executive That the parties in a suit for declaration of nullity of marriage had in fact been married by and before him in a civil wedding ceremony FALSE, mandatory. FALSE, discretionary. Civil wedding is not a judicial function.

Joke: Motion for execution of judgment: come to bed with me. You dont want a marriage decision to be capable of execution. Of the contents of the complaint before it was amended by the plaintiff Mandatory False Discretionary False The court has no discretion because when a pleading has been amended, it is superseded.

b. The admissions of a person under custodial investigation may not be contradicted unless shown to have
been made through palpable mistake or was never made at all. True or False? FALSE. It is not a judicial admission. There is no rule that EJC cannot be contradicted. In fact, it can be recanted as in jurisprudence.

c. A party need only present in evidence, but need not prove the truth of a judicial admission. True or False?
TRUE. When you dont need to prove, you dont need to present in evidence.

d. A judicial admission will be admissible in evidence only if it comes from the adverse party, because
otherwise it will be self serving Not self-serving because the admission is against the interest of the party. In A v B, it doesnt matter if the admission came from A, B , C, it doesnt matter who its from, as long as it is an admission against your interest. 3. May the presiding judge take judicial notice of the following. If so, of what kind? RULE 129 SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary.A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.(1a) Of the fact that his neighbor owns a Doberman (where relevant to the case) False (?) This is something the judge knows personal to him Of the fact that the philippines is one of the most corrupt countries in the world False. It is not of public knowledge (Filipino public knowledge), it is controversial, debatable. There is no general consensus. Of the records in another case pending in his sala involving the same parties about another lot False General Rule. Not under Sec 1 or 2 True Exception Rule. Regala v SB, Tan v Of the records of preliminary investigation in a criminal case pending before him FALSE. Preliminary investigation is not part of a judicial proceeding. It is a record that initially is hearsay. Its only purpose is to establish probable cause. Of the deposition in perpetuam re memoriam that preceded the filing of a civil case pending before him Rule 24. Yes, it may be considered part of the judicial proceeding because the deposition was taken to be used in future cases that one desires to make (rule 24) That the 1987 constitutional right to protection against warrantless arrest and unreasonable search and seizure applies to all people in the phil, citizen or not, resident or not TRUE. Mandatory judicial notice because it is part of the constitution (VAA should be part of the the first problem) EXERCISE 2

1. 6 mos after H and W tied the knot before their friend, a pastor of the amazing grace ministry (gr 185843 held the
ministry valid) w left home with her children. In Hs suit for custody of the kids, would there be any valid objection to the following

a. H letter of apology to w for his having concealed his drug addition all this time VAA: when there is a suit between spouses where there is disharmony, the confidentiality becomes admissible because, as an exception, it loses the confidentiality because nag-aaway nga sila. A custody suit is a suit between the spouses, it is a battle involving the interest of either party to assert custody over the children. As long as the spouses assert an interest that contradicts each other. Answer: Admissible.

b. The drug test result which W obtained from the house-help whom she had instructed to rummage thru Hs
personal belongings Zulueta v CA applicable? VAA: Zulueta is a big problem because it is not supported by our culture. Secondly 130.24a, the doctrine in People v Carlos (There is no more privilege if the information comes to the hands of 3rd persons) does not come in. The maid as acting as the wifes agent. Collusion is an exception to the Carlos doctrine, because the 3rd party is an alter-ego of the spouse. c. Testimony of the medical technician who conducted the drug test A medtech is not a doctor and does not fall under 130.24c VAA Caveat: if you want to qualify the question, explain it. But answer the question with and without your qualification! The facts: Custody suit. The drug abuse is relevant to the spouses assertion of custody.

2. When ms a attemted to take the bar examinations, her frustrated exboyfriend filed a complaint for disciplinary
sanctions against her with the supreme court, on the ground that she represented that she had graduated of the dean o the UP college of law when in truth and in fact, she had not. To prove that her representation was true, ms a presented the certification of the dean of the UP College f Law. This was objected by the counsel for the complainant on the ground that the best evidence is her diploma from the UP college of law. Rule Objection overruled. BER does not apply because it is not the contents of the document that is in question. It is the authenticity of the document itself. 3. In an action to recover life insurance proceeds by the widow of the decedent-insured, the testimony of the witnessnurse was offered by the counsel for the defendant insurance company for the purpose of proving that the decedent-insured made a dying declaration to the effect that he took his own life because his lingering illness was incurable anyway in support of its defense that the case of death (suicide) was an excepted risk. Admissible? De Lara: where the subject of inquiry is the death VAA: this is an old doctrine. The new doctrine is it is relevant as long as the subject of death is IN ISSUE VAA: the case is one where the death is subject of inquiry. Cautious answer: The twin rationale of exceptions is necessity and trustworthiness. Most Jurisprudence, the death was not planned by the declarant, which preserves the spontaneity and reliability of the statement. But in this case, there may be alterior motives in making those declarations.

4. Is the letter of Atty Benjamin Pinpin admissible to prove the trust of the statement therein to the effect that he took
his own life because he was being pressured to make certain admissions? Answer: It is hearsay. But does it fall under the exception? VAA: Importance of the twin rationales. If the rationale is not there, the application of the exception is not there.

Dying Declaration? Perhaps not, for the same reason as the previous one. Another angle: can you use this as proof of conspiracy? VAA: No. The moment one decides to squeal on your conspirator, there conspiracy no longer exists.

5. In the middle of 2008, C sent 18yr old S a demand letter asking the latter to vacate the apartelle unit that he (S) and
his father F have been occupying for 3 yrs before F died in early 2007 for the reason that f had already sold the same to him C since early 2006. In his reply-letter, S stated that the alleged 2006 deed of sale is a forgery and that the unit subject thereof was duly inherited by him. C filed an action to recover possession based on the alleged sale, attaching an alleged copy thereof to the complaint, and presenting the original of the said alleged deed of sale during the pre-trial. In his answer, S specifically denied the authenticity and due execution of the said deed under oath alleging that the same was falsified and that C is a liar. C died before he could testify.

Would you have any objection/s if at the trial:

a. W, the wife of C, comes home from abroad and testifies n the signature of C on the deed of sale as well as the payments she made thereon to F.

Ideas: Goni v CA: the suit of C is a claim upon the estate of the decedent. C and W are co-owners due to ACP, and should have been a formal party. W should have been substituted for C not as heir but as co-owner. Does 130.23 apply? What is the effect? If W substitutes C, does she become banned? Regalado: Testimony/Evidence that continues on even after the death of the party, will not be covered by 130.23 The deed of sale was a matter of fact occurring even before the death of either party and continues even after the death. So does that mean that the rule where where death seals the lips of one party. Should 130.23 bar her testimony? VAA: best thing is to get the Notary Public or the witnesses. The main idea is the matter of fact is occurring on the deed of sale.

BUT the matter of payments is a different issue. If there is no secondary evidence of payments and only the testimony of a party, it becomes unfair, and therefore, the rational in 23 will apply.

b. A notary public testifies, identifying the signatures of C and F on the deed of sale. Answer: Yes, no bjections to 23

6. Does 130.24c apply against a doctor who wishes to prove in a collection suit against his patient the fact that the
patient consulted, filled up a questionnaire, was examined, was treated, the dates when these occurred and the fact that he did not pay? If we apply 130.24.C strictly, the doctor will never be able to bill the client. But if we are too loose in the exception, it may divulge the secrets of the patient. Is there anything that can be analogized with 130.24.B Answer: the rule is meant to protect the confidentiality to access to information (to preserve right to lawyer).
4

But its not mean to be used to escape liability. The parties can ask the court to have the case in chambers. R132 7. B borrowed 500K from his best friend A. When a was about to go abroad as an OFW, B hurriedly send an iou to as residence, which iou was received by as wife. A thereafter learned abroad that b had died of a heart attack. A thus advised his wife to request payment from Bs heirs as representative of Bs estate. The heirs did not pay because they were not sure of the truthfulness of bs claim. Thus, as wife filed suit for the settlement of bs estate, believing upon her lawyers advice, in the admissibility of bs iou because she can identify the same. The lawyer based on his advice upon the doctrine to the effect that testimony on the present possession by the witness of a written instrument signed by the deceased is also not covered by the prohibition (4 Martin, op) as such fact exists even after the decedents demise Regalado 2004 p 707

8. Capt Marlon Mendoza (MM) [ Chief Security Officer (CSO) of former Comelec commissioner virgilio garcillano (VG)
during the 2004 pre-election period testified today before the senate regarding garci and the time he (MM) was acting as such CSO as follows -During a drinking spree in the resthouse of Gov. Villafuerte in CamSur at which VG and Comelec officials for the area were present, he heard VG say in substance Aprub na yong budget na 300 mio na binibigay ni Bong Pineda para siguraduhin ang panalo ni GMA and saw VG and other officials, happy and laughing, toast to what he just said If MM were to be presented by the prosectution in corresponding criminal cases against VG et al for the crimes of bribery graft and corruption, election fraud, would you object to its admissibility? Admission of VG through the testimony of MM. Kung affidavit yan, hearsay yan. What if nag-abroad siya? Does it come under an exception to hearsay rule?

9. Dr a sued x to recover payment of his medical fee. Dr a testified that their agreement was that x will pay 500 if Xs
blindness is cured and that X will only pay 200 if he is not cured. When his turn came, X wanted to present evidence to show that upon coming out of Dr As office, he (x0 told y that dr a said his fee will be 200 (unfinished) 10. Rule a. In the case of people v h for the negligent shooting death of S (son of accused h and w) the prosecution rpesented w as its first witness to testify against H. Admissible? Admissible. Comes into exception of 22 when the case is a criminal case.

b. In the same case, H testified in his own favor and pointed to his wife w as the perpetrator. Admissible?
Admissible. 130.22 not even applicable

c. [The prosecutor did not anticipate that this was Hs defense so he was not able to imagine objecting (much
less bringing W to court).] The prosecutor now wants to present W on rebuttal to testify that it was really H, not her, who negligently caused the death of their son. May H now validly object to Ws testimony? We want to cite Francisco, because 22 will not apply

d. Granted H objects, may W validly argue against Hs objection on the ground that the exception in Rule
130.22 applies in her favor and not H? No. she cant argue that its in her favor not his. Her rationale is wrong bec. 130.22 does not apply in her favor in fact, The rule per se says whoeer you are, you cannot testify for/against if your spouse is a party. If ever the spouse-witness needs to testify, its Francisco case.

e. Granting W happens to be in the courtroom, may she validly object (thru prosecutor or otherwise)?
Answer: even if she is not there, an objection can be raised by another representative.