text:
Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.
IntroductionDefinition the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the truthrespecting a matter of fact. (Rule 128, Sec. 1.)Scope of applicability rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings,except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (Rule 128, Sec 2.)
Notes: The Rules on Evidence apply only when there is going to be a trial. Note that there can be ajudgment on pleadings, by confession, consent and compromise etc. IN CIVIL CASES. Mere denial inthe answer in a CIVIL CASE will not present a probandum hence no need for the court to try thecase. Such general denial will be considered as an admission. In CRIMINAL CASES, We have to wait until the accused enters a plea. This time a generaldenial is allowed. If the accused enters a plea of guilty there is no probandum. However in CRIMINALCASES, the court could still try the case if the case involves a heinous crime. The Rules on evidence are not self-executing. So the rule is any evidence submitted will beadmitted so long as there is no objection. This principle is only for the purpose of admissibility. Itdoes not mean that the court will take these irrelevant evidence in evaluating on the merits of thecase.
Evidentiary Privilege- entitles the privilege holder to withhold competent evidence and, in somecircumstances, to prevent others from revealing such evidence. The privilege is granted when theprotected interest is considered important enough to outweigh the concern with determining thetruth. The privilege holder need not be a party to the proceeding in question. Unlike adisqualification, a privilege can be waived. Privileges are often intended to preserve confidentialrelationships.
Executive Privilege- members of the executive branch of government cannot legally be forced todisclose their confidential communications when such disclosure would adversely affect theoperations or procedures of the executive branch.
Notes: 1. In both CIVIL and CRIMINAL cases, the probandum contained in the pleadings could be hlp2009 Page 2 9/26/20172
changed in the pre-trial order. However, with respect to CRIMINAL CASES, the pre-trial orderSHOULD NOT substantially change the accusation/indictment contained in the information, otherwisethe case will be dismissed. 2. A court can validly try a fact in issue not raised in the pleadings or pre-trial order. Rule 10provides that a fact in issue may be raised with the express or implied consent of the parties duringthe trial (Amendment to conform to evidence) 3. Ascertainment of probandum does not apply in special proceedings. (i.e. If there is apetition for probate of a will, even if there is no opposition the petitioner is still required by law toprove that the will has been duly executed in accordance with the Civil Code)
I. AdmissibilityA. Relevance The evidence has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degreeto establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (Rule 128, Secs. 3 and 4.) - In conclusion, relevancy is not determined by law nor the rules of court. It is determined purely byLOGIC.B. Competence The evidence is not excluded by the law or the rules (Rule 128, Sec. 3.) Do not confuse COMPETENT WITNESS from COMPETENT EVIDENCE. The COMPETENCY TEST of evidence applies to the TESTIMONY of the qualified witness. Since admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance and competence, admissibilityis therefore an affair of logic and law. On the other hand, the weight to be given to such evidencedepends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided in Rule 133 and the jurisprudence laiddown by the court. (People vs. Turco, 2000) Relevant evidence is one that has any value in reason as tending to prove any matterprobable in an action. Evidence is said to be material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue asdetermined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings, while competent evidence is one that isnot excluded by law in a particular case. (Bautista vs. Aparece, 1995)
Any fact having rational probative value is admissible, unless some specific rule forbids itsadmission- ILLUSTRATION: In an issue involving forgery, the disposition of the persons characteras to acts of honesty or dishonesty is of some rational probative value towards showing that he didor did not do the act; it is therefore admissible, but this can only be done if the accused stepsforward first and adduces evidence of his good moral character.
Circumstantial- Indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact finder drawsfrom the evidence established Example: The testimony of the victim that he dreads the mere presence of the accused isdirect evidence that the statement was made. It is likewise circumstantial evidence to show that this fear prevented the victim fromattacking the accused without provocation.
Cumulative v. CorroborativeCumulative- evidence of the same kind that tends to prove the same fact Ex. Two or more witnesses testify that they saw the event which the first witness claimed hesaw, the subsequent testimonies are cumulative hlp2009 Page 5 9/26/20175
Corroborative- evidence which tends to confirm, validate or strengthen evidence already presented.Evidence may be of the same kind or different kind and tends to prove the same fact. Ex. A witness claims that he saw Mr. X sign the document subject of the action. Mr. X deniesthe authenticity of his signature. Evidence by a handwriting expert is corroborative.
Negative- A witness states that an event did not occur or that the facts alleged to exist did notactually exist. (Denial)
Derivative Evidence- type of evidence that is inadmissible as proof because of the application ofthe fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, which treats the original evidence and any evidence derivedfrom it as tainted because of the illegal way in which it was obtained by agents of the government.
Admissibility v. Weight - Evidence is ADMISSIBLE when it is relevant and is not excluded by any rule. - Probative value or WEIGHT is to be determined by the court when it decides the case
MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITYEvidence is admissible for two or more purposes. The rule is when a fact satisfies all rules applicableto it when offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy some other rule which would be applicable toit if offered for another purpose would not exclude it.
ILLUSTRATION: An extrajudicial confession may be inadmissible as against a party who did notsubscribe to it, yet such party may use said document as evidence of lack of guilt.
GR: The time for determining the admissibility of a particular fact is ordinarily the time when it isoffered to the court.Exception: When some facts depend on some other facts needed to be established first in order thatsaid former evidentiary facts would be admissible.
ILLUSTRATION: Mr. P files an action for recovery of ownership of a parcel of land against Mr. D. Thecomplaint alleges that Mr. P is the owner of the property. During the trial, Mr. P testifies and adducesevidence that a certain O bought the property from D. The testimony of O may be allowed if it wouldbe shown the chain of events that led to the ownership of P of the land.
CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITYThere is curative admissibility when a party offers an inadmissible fact which is received becausethere is no objection by the other party. The other party does not acquire the right to introduce inreply to the same kind of evidence, EXCEPT whenever it is needed for removing an unfair prejudicewhich might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence.
ILLUSTRATION: In an action for damages arising from a car accident, the plaintiff introducedevidence to show that on several occasions the defendant in the past had injured pedestriansbecause of his negligence. (This is inadmissible under Sec. 34 Rule 130- Prior acts as evidence).Under the concept of Curative admissibility the court must give the party against whom the evidencewas admitted the chance to contradict or explain the alleged past acts he committed to counteract hlp2009 Page 6 9/26/20176
the prejudice which the improperly admitted evidence may have caused.
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCESCourts are not mandated to take judicial notice of municipal ordinances unless the charter of theconcerned city provides for such judicial notice. (City of Manila vs. Garcia, 1967). But INFERIORCOURTS sitting in the respective municipalities or cities are MANDATED to take judicial notice. Thereason is that violations of the ordinances are usually vested to the inferior court EXCLUSIVELY inthe exercise of their original jurisdiction.
IF inferior court took judicial notice and there was an appeal, such court taking the appeal shouldlikewise take judicial notice. (U.S. v. Blanco, 37 Phil. 126)
COURT RECORDS:-Courts may take judicial notice of its own records of cases pending before it. (Ex. Pleadings;period of perfecting appeals.)-Records of preliminary investigation shall not form part of the record, however the court on its own hlp2009 Page 7 9/26/20177
initiative or that of any party may order the production of the record or any part thereof wheneverthe same shall be necessary in the resolution of the case or any incident therein or shall beintroduced as evidence by the party requesting for its production.-Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the record of other cases pendingor heard before them notwithstanding they are pending before the same judge.
Exceptions: 1. In the absence of objection from the adverse party, with the knowledge of theadverse party; or at the request or with the consent of the parties, the case is clearly referred to orthe original or part of the records of the case are actually withdrawn from the archives and admittedas part of the record of the case then pending. (Tabuena vs. CA, 1991) 2. The other case is so closely connected or interdependent 3. When interests of the public in ascertaining the truth is of paramount importance 4. In cases seeking to determine what is reasonable exercise of discretion 5. The finality of judgment in a case
FOREIGN LAWSIn general, courts may not take judicial notice of foreign laws, EXCEPT in a few instances where, inthe exercise of sound discretion, they may take judicial notice of such foreign laws of which they areevidently familiar. (Delgado v. Republic, L-2546, January 28, 1950; Pardo v. Republic, 85 Phil. 323)
Doctrine of Processual Presumption: Foreign law is the same as the law of the forum. Itarises if the foreign law, though properly applicable is either not alleged or if alleged is not dulyproved before a competent court.
FORMS OF ADMISSIONS: 1. Implied admissions of allegations of usury and in actionable documents if not specifically denied under oath (Sec. 11 & 8, Rule 8) 2. Admissions in pre-trial of civil cases and criminal cases (In criminal cases the admission must be reduced in writing and signed by accused and counsel- Sec. 4 Rule 118) 3. Implied admissions in the modes of discovery (Depositions; Interrogatories- Rule 23; Failure to specifically deny under oath w/in 15 days a Request for Admission in a pending case- Rule 26; ) hlp2009 Page 8 9/26/20178
4. Admissions in amended pleadings (Sec. 8 Rule 10) [N.B. Admissions in superseded pleadings are extra-judicial admissions which must be proven. Dismissed pleadings are likewise extrajudicial admissions] 5. Plea of guilt in criminal case (N.B. A withdrawn plea of guilt is inadmissible, unlike in civil cases where a withdrawn judicial admission is considered an extrajudicial admission) 6. Admissions by counsel are generally conclusive upon a client absent any gross negligence which deprives counsel of due process of law or there is outright deprivation of property or liberty. Note: Admissions in pleadings may not always be considered as judicial admissions because there are hypothetical admissions in civil cases. (i.e. Affirmative defenses in an answer; Motion to dismiss, where defendant admits allegations but sets up grounds such as lack of jurisdiction etc.)
Notes: 1. It is not essential that an admission is contrary to the interest of party at the time it ismade. It is enough that it be INCONSISTENT with the position a party takes in his pleadings or attrial. 2. Averments in pleadings not deemed admissions even if there is failure to make a specificdenial: a) Immaterial allegations; b) Conclusions and non-unltimate facts; c) Amount of unliquidateddamages.
Adoptive AdmissionsA partys reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat thepartys reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person.
Adopted ConfessionsA co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or adopted the others confession by not questioning itstruthfulness, as where it was made in his presence and he did not demonstrate against his beingimplicated therein
FootprintsA bloody foot print was found upon a floor near the dead body of a person. Upon being arrested, theaccused was taken to the house where the incident happen. Upon placing his foot over the foot printit was found that his foot corresponded exactly to said footprint. HELD: Proof of this circumstance isadmissible, notwithstanding that no photograph of the footprint was submitted in evidence and thatthe board itself upon which the footprint was made was not produced in court. (US v. Zara, 43 Phil.308) hlp2009 Page 9 9/26/20179
Photographs- Where deposition of subscribing witnesses to a will are taken, a photographic copy of the will maybe presented to the witnesses on their examination and they may be asked the same question withrespect to said copy as if it were the original will and testimony as to the identity of the photographiccopy shown to the witnesses is admissible in evidence.-Photographs may be admissible upon proof of their exactness and accuracy by the photographerhimself who can testify of his personal knowledge of the correctness of the representation. (Tan Itv. Sun Insurance Office, 51 Phil. 212)
NOTES: The photographer is not the only witness who can identify the pictures. The faithfulrepresentation of the photograph may be proved prima facie by the testimony of those who werepresent at the time it was taken, or by any other competent witness who can testify as to itsexactness and accuracy. Once proved, the court may admit it subject to impeachment as to itsaccuracy. The value of a photograph lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of theoriginal, and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time thepicture was taken. (Sison v. People, 250 SCRA 58, 75-76) Photocopies or xerox copies of signed documents are not duplicate originals because theyare not signed. (Mahilum v. Court of Appeals, 17 SCRA 482)
Computer printouts. If the data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readableby sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an original. (Evidence Code of California, Added byStats. 1977, Sec. 1) In a labor case, IBM Philippines, Inc., et al., v. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 117221, prom. April13, 1999, the Supreme Court held that computer printouts which were not signed because they areunsigned. The Court went on further to say that its decisions, while adhering to a liberal view in theconduct of proceedings before administrative agencies, have nonetheless consistently required someproof of authenticity or reliability as condition for the admission of documents. Not one of the 18 print-out copies submitted by IBM was ever signed, either by the sender orthe receiver. There is thus no guarantee that the message sent was the same message received.Neither were the print-outs certified or authenticated by any company official who could properlyattest that these came from IBMs computer system or that the data stored in the system were notand/or could not haved been tampered with before the same were printed out.
Ballots- Every ballot needs to be presented in a case of election protest. Every ballot constitutes the will ofevery voter.
DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE- one which or represents demonstrates the real thing. (ex. Map, diagram, photograph, or a model)
Photographs: Must faithfully represent what it depicts (Same rules apply to motion pictures andrecordings)X-Rays: Must show location and extent of injuryScientific tests, demonstrations by physical act and experiments: This is a matter of judicial hlp2009 Page 10 9/26/201710
Original of a Document1 The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.2 When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals.3 When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals.
SOME EXAMPLES: 1. Baptismal and Marriage Certificate - They are only evidence to prove the administration of the sacraments on the dates therein specified - Baptismal certificate is not conclusive proof of filiation being hearsay
2. Medical Certificate - To prove torture inflicted by the police, the medical certificate alone without the testimony of the examining physician is inadmissible (People v. Villagracia, 226 SCRA 398) hlp2009 Page 11 9/26/201711
3. Residence Certificate - The place of obtaining a residence certificate and the date contained are not conclusive as to the real residence or domicile of a person owning said certificate. (Zuellig v. Republic, 83 Phil. 768)
4. Tax declaration - It can be used as evidence that a portion of land had been sold. (Gacos v. CA, 212 SCRA 8)
After complying with the BEST EVIDENCE RULE will the court necessarily admit theoriginal writing?No. 1) The requirements of authentication of documents must be met. There must be proof ofauthentication. However this applies only when the writing is a private document. 2) Afterauthentication, the proponent has to comply with the rule that if the original writing is not in anofficial language (English or Filipino), it is his duty to give to the court a translation thereof. 3) Ifthere is an alteration, he must explain such alteration. He may show that the alteration was made:a) by another,b) without his concurrence, orc) made with the consent of the parties affected by it, ord) was otherwise properly or innocent made, ore) The alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument.
Not much weight is given to handwriting experts. Unless, therefore, there is, in a given case,absolute absence, or manifest dearth, or direct or circumstantial competent evidence of thecharacter of a questioned handwriting, much weight should not be given to characteristic similarities, hlp2009 Page 12 9/26/201712
General Rule: When the terms of an AGREEMENT (including WILLS) have been reduced to WRITING,it is considered as containing ALL the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties andtheir successors in interest, NO evidence (testimonial or documentary) of such terms other than thecontents of the written agreement.Exceptions: A party may present evidence to a. Modify, b. Explain or c. Add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading: hlp2009 Page 13 9/26/201713
ILLUSTRATION: The vendee can validly tell the court that the deed of sale is not really one of sale but one or mortgage as long as he puts in issue in the pleadings, any of the matters enumerated above. [N.B. Art. 1602, NCC presumes that a deed of sale is an equitable mortgage when: 1] price of sale with right to purchase is unusually inadequate; 2) Vendor remains in possession as lessee or otherwise; 3) When another instrument extending period of redemption is executed; 4) When purchaser retains for himself a part of purchase price; 5) Vendor assumes tax; 6) Other circumstances]
ILLUSTRATION: There is a sale of a piece of land in favor of Juan dela Cruz. If you read the document there is really nothing wrong because there is a vendor, there is a vendee and there is an object and consideration. But it turns out that there are two persons who carry the name Juan de la Cruz. That document is intrinsically ambiguous because we do not know who the vendee in that sale. The defect can be remedied by the introduction of testimonial evidence or other documentary evidence to show to the court who is the Juan dela Cruz mentioned in the deed of sale as the vendee.
But if in that deed of sale where Juan dela Cruz is the vendee, and there is only one Juan dela Cruz, but the property sold is simply a piece of land. There is an ambiguity what particular land is sold as there is no description. The ambiguity is extrinsic. It arises from the face of the document itself. Here we cannot introduce evidence aliunde. The contract is void, which under the Rules cannot allow be corrected and converted into a valid contract.
What is the coverage of the parol evidence rule and what are the exceptions to the parolevidence rule ? a. Covered. Only prior and contemporaneous agreements which are deemed to have beenmerged in the writing conformably to the "integration of the agreement rule." (Woodhouse v. Halili,93 Phil. 526) b. Not covered. 1) Subsequent agreements, notwithstanding that such agreements may have the effect of adding to, changing, modifying, or even altogether abrogating the contract of the parties as evidenced by the writing. 2) Collateral agreements which although oral and contemporaneous with the writing are separate and distinct agreements. (PNB v. Seeto, 91 Phil. 756) 3) It also does not apply if the issue revolves around fraud and false representation since they are incidental to the execution and not to the integration. (Woodhouse vs. Halili, 1953) 4) It does not apply either when third parties are involved. (Lechugas vs. CA, 1986) hlp2009 Page 14 9/26/201714
NOTES:a. Contemporaneous agreement. A contemporaneous agreement is one entered into at thesame time as the agreement which has been reduced to writing.
ILLUSTRATION: In a deed of sale of a parcel of land covered by: TCT 12345, located in City of Muntinlupa. There is really a land covered by TCT 12345 with same technical description however it is not located in Muntinlupa, but in Laguna. The erroneous description will not invalidate the contract. hlp2009 Page 15 9/26/201715
1) Under the best evidence rule, the issue is contents of a writing (Sec. 3, Rule 130, ROC) WHILEunder the parol evidence rule, there is no issue as to contents of a writing (Sec. 9, Rule 130, ROC);2) Under the best evidence rule, secondary evidence is offered to prove the contents of a writing,which is not allowed unless the case falls under any of the exceptions (Sec. 3, Rule 130, ROC)WHILE under the parol evidence rule, the purpose of the offer of parol evidence is to change, vary,modify, qualify, or contradict the terms of a complete written agreement, which is not allowed unlessthe case falls under any of the exceptions. (Sec. 9, Rule 130, ROC)
Only the parties and their successors in interest, and not strangers may invoke the protection of theparol evidence rule. (Sec. 9, Rule 130, ROC)
C. Testimonial EvidenceQualifications of Witnesses Rule 130, Sec. 20- Can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known perception to others.
GR: A disinterested person could be compelled to give his testimony through subpoenaExceptions: Persons who are immune from the process of subpoena by tradition, convention orlaw: a. Ambassadors of foreign countries by virtue of treaty obligations b. President of the Philippines or other country
Disqualifications a. Mental incapacity or immaturity (Sec. 21, Rule 130, ROC);b. Marriage (Sec. 22, Ibid);c. Death or insanity of adverse party (Sec. 23, Ibid.)d. Privileged communication (Sec. 24, Ibid.) [Applies to Rules on Electronic Evidence] 1) Marital privileged communication rule (Sec. 24 [a], Ibid.); 2) Lawyer-client privileged communication rule (Sec. 24 [b], Ibid.); 3) Doctor-patient privileged communication rule (Sec. 24 [c], Ibid.)- (N/A in criminal cases) 4) Priest-penitent privileged communication rule (Sec. 24 [d], Ibid.); and 5) Public officer privileged communication rule (Sec. 24 [e], Ibid.).e. Parental and filial testimonial privilege rule (Sec. 25, Rule 130, ROC) Note: Conviction of a crime does not disqualify a person from testifying but may disqualify him from being discharged as a state witness. (Sec. 9 [e], Rule 119, ROC) Note: This is not an exclusive enumeration of the Rules on privilege communication. Other examples are: a. Under Rules on Alternative dispute Resolution, information or communication given by parties who participate in ADR is confidential b. Information derived by editors, reporters and publishers c. The negotiations under the Witness Protection Program (Accused discharged as state witness)
The right to invoke this disqualification belongs to the spouse-party (Ortiz v. Arambulo, 8 Phil. 98)against or for whom the testimony is being proferred. It may be waived1) By a failure to interpose timely objection, or2) By calling the other spouse as witness (Ibid., People v. Francisco, 78 Phil. 694) hlp2009 Page 17 9/26/201717
The privilege could be invoked even if the spouse is testifying in favor of the spouse-party becausedamaging testimony may be elicited during the cross-examination.
d. Even if the communication is not confidential, the marital disqualification may still be invoked
e. Marital disqualification is more concerned with the consequences. If the rule is not there, perjuryand domestic disunity may result.- Privilege protects the hallowed confidences inherent in marriage b/w husband and wife andtherefore guarantees the preservation of the marriage and further the relationship between thespouses as it encourages the disclosure of confidential matters without fear of revelation.
CASE: A filed a complaint against husband and wife for annulment of a contract by reason offraud. (H&W both defendants). A subpoenaed the wife to be his hostile witness which is allowed incivil cases. When the wife received the subpoena, the husband filed a motion in court for thequashing of the subpoeana, on the ground that there is a violation of the rule on maritaldisqualification/spousal immunity. A told the court that this is not a case where the wife will begiving testimony as an adverse witness in favor of the plaintiff. So the rule on spousal immunitydoes not apply. Ruling of the Court: Spousal immunity applies. If the wife was allowed to testify asan adverse witness for the plaintiff, she might give testimony that he will harm her interest and thatof her husband. So that there will be a violation of the spousal immunity. A conceded. A told the court now that if he cannot compel the wife to be an adverse witness, thenhe should be allowed to get the deposition of the wife, because under the Rules of Court when thedeposition of a person is taken, it does not necessarily mean that the deponent will be used as awitness in court, since it is only a mode of discovery. Ruling of the Court: Even if the purpose isjust to get the deposition of the wife the rule on spousal immunity applies.
CASE: A son filed a complaint against his own father for recovery of property or some assets. Theson asked her mother to testify in his favor. SC held that there will be a violation of the spousalimmunity rule.
Note: As long as there is a case INVOLVING the husband OR wife, the disqualification is absolute.
- Other representativeof a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind,upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person ofunsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring BEFORE the death of such deceasedperson or before such person became of unsound mind.
CASE: Mr. D approaches Mr. C to borrow P100,000 to be paid next year. Mr. C gives Mr. D theamount. Mr. C did not require Mr. D to execute a promissory note. A day before the agreed date ofpayment, Mr. D died. Mr. C went to the executor of the estate of Mr. D and claims the payment ofthe debt. In this case, Mr. C is incompetent to testify as to the transaction he had with Mr. D.
D. Privileged Communication1. Marital Privilege Rule 130, Sec. 24 (a)Husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of theother as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage- EXCEPT:= In a civil case by one against the other, or= In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's directdescendants or ascendants;
CASE: If the communication is made in front of the children of the husband and wife. Can theprivilege be invoked? YES, if the children are still minors.
Note: The assumption is any communication given by one spouse to the other is presumablyconfidential because there is no standard given in the Rules. hlp2009 Page 19 9/26/201719
Waiver of the marital privileged communication rule: The privilege is claimable by the spouse not called as witness, so that it its waivable only by him or her; and it is waivable by any act of such spouse which might be considered as an express or implied consent to the disclosure of the communication. (People v. Hayes, 140 N.Y. 484).
The attorney-client privilege may not be invoked to refuse to divulge the identity of the client, EXCEPT: (1) When a strong probability exists that revealing the name would implicate that person in the very same activity for which he sought the lawyers advice; (2) When disclosure would open the client to liability; (3) When the name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict. (Regala vs. Sandiganbayan, 1996) LAST LINK DOCTRINE: Non-privileged information, such as identity of the client is protected if the revelation of such information would necessarily reveal the privileged information.
- It is enough that the client reasonably believed that the person consulted is a lawyer. - Communications may refer to anticipated litigations or may not refer to any litigation at all. - Privilege does not extend to communications where the clients purpose is the furtherance of a future intended crime or fraud
expressly or impliedly. It is impliedly waived like any other privilege rule. (Penn. Mutual Life Ins.Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind. 92)- The waiver may be by a contract as in medical or life insurance- When the patient answers questions on cross examination, there is waiver- Under Rule 28 ROC, the court may order a party to submit to a physical or mental examination, solong as the mental or physical condition is in dispute. The party examined may request a report ofthe examination. By doing so, he waives any privilege he may have in that action regarding thetestimony of every other person who has examined him in respect of the same examination. This privilege does not apply when the doctor is presented as an expert witness and onlyhypothetical problems were presented to him. (Lim vs. CA, 1992)
N.B. There is an inconsistency between the ROC and Family Code with respect to this privilege. ROCprevails since it took effect in 1989 and is made by the SC. While the Family Code took effect in1989, and though substantive is procedural in character.
implicating him in a crime cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his participation in thecommission of the crime. (People vs. Alegre, 1979)
Self-serving evidenceAn admission favorable to the party making it. (Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., 84 Phil. 342)a. Self-serving or favorable admissions made out of court not admissible: REASONS: 1) A man may be safely believed if he declares against his own interest, but not if he advocates his interest. (Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., 84 Phil. 342) 2) It is excluded on the same ground as any hearsay evidence, that, the lack of opportunity for cross-examination by the adverse party. (National Development Co., v. Workmen's Compensation Commission, 19 SCRA 865)b. When self-serving or favorable admissions are admissible: 1) If made in open court 2) giving full opportunity to the adverse party 3) to exercise his right of cross-examination.
Second is an EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION. Under this rule, the admission is admissible only if it isagainst the interest of the admitter. (otherwise it is a self-serving statement) Example: Flight is considered a disserving act, since it is prejudicial to the interest of theaccused. Flight is considered as circumstantial evidence of the guilt of the accused. BUT non-flightcannot be used as evidence to prove his innocence, because that will be considered as an act that isfavorable to the interest of the accused.
The term, admission, on the other hand, is usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact bythe accused which do not directly involve an acknowledgment of the guilt of the accused or ofcriminal intent to commit the offense with which he is charged. (U.S. v. Corrales, 28 Phil. 365)
Admission by silence. a. An act or declaration made 1) in the presence and 2) within the hearing or 3) observation b. of a party who does or says nothing c. when the act or declaration 1) is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and 2) when proper and possible for him to do so,d. may be given in evidence against him. (Sec. 32, Rule 130, ROC arrangement and numberingsupplied)
3) Where the act or declaration was made in the course of an official investigation. (People v. TiaFong, 98 Phil. 609)4) When silence is upon advice of counsel. (People v. Kozlowski, 115 A.L.R. 1505)
res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet or res inter alios acta Rule (First Part of Rule) Statements made or matters accomplished between two parties cannotprejudice a third party. (Blanza v. Arcangel, 21 SCRA 4) The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, exceptas hereinafter provided. (Sec. 28, Rule 130, ROC)
Confessions Rule 130, Sec. 133; Rule 115 (e); Art. III, Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution- Declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offensenecessarily included therein; may be given in evidence against him.- Confession is evidence of high order:1) There is no evidence of a higher quality than a confession, It represents the outwardmanifestation of a man. Unless, therefore, the confession is nullified by evidence of duress, thesame is admissible as an evidence of guilt of a high quality. (People v. Garcia, 54 Phil. 329, 358)2) If a confession be true and voluntary, the deliberate act of the accused with a fullcomprehension of its significance, there is no impediment to its admission as evidence and it thenbecomes evidence of a high order, since it is supported by the presumption, a very strong one, thatno person of normal mind will deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of acrime, especially if it be a serious crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience. (People v. Zea,et al., 130 SCRA 87, 88)
Probative value of recantations: They are looked upon with disfavor as recantations are usuallysecured through intimidation or for a monetary consideration. (Molina v. People, 259 SCRA 138)
General rule on admissibility of confession: A confession is admissible only against the accusedwho made it and not against his co-accused, for as against the latter, the confession would behearsay and res inter alios acta. (People v. Talledo, 85 Phil. 533) Exceptions: when a confession is admissible against co-accused:1) When the confession of an accused implicating his co-accused is made judicially at a joint trial(U.S. v. Macamay, 36 Phil. 893) or when the extrajudicial statements implicating a co-accused arerepeated in open court (People v. Ola, G.R. No. L-47147, July 3, 1987), because the co-accused as achance to cross-examine.2) When the offer in evidence of an extrajudicial confession against a co-accused is not objected to.(People v. Atienza, 86 Phil. 576)3) When the co-accused against whom an extrajudicial confession is offered had, by his acts,conducts and declarations adopted he confession as his own. (People v. Atienza, supra; People v.Orencia, 47 Phil. 970)4) Where several accused, without collusion, made extrajduicial confessions which are identical inessential details and corroborated by other evidence, such confession is admissible against theothers. (People v. Pelonia, L-14624, July 24, 1960)5) The confession of a conspirator is admissible against his co-conspirator provided it was madeduring the existence of the conspiracy. (Sec. 30, Rule 130, ROC; People v. Ramirez, L-5875, May15, 1953) hlp2009 Page 24 9/26/201724
6) When the recitals in the extrajudicial confession of an accused is corroborated in its importantdetails by other proofs in the record, it may be admitted against the other accused. (People v.Villanueva, L-12687, July 31, 1962)
b. It also means actual commission of the crime charged. (People v. Madrid, 88 Phil. 1;People v. Sanchez, 89 Phil. 423), or the specific fact of loss or injury. (People v. Garcia, 99 Phil.381)
Conviction for murder proper even if victims body is not produced: In all crimes against persons inwhich the death of the victim is an essential element of the offense, there must be satisfactoryevidence of the fact of death and the identity of the victim that a crime has been committed which iswhat corpus delicti really means.
The failure of the prosecution to produce the body of the victim does not imply the absence of corpusdelicti for the term does not refer to the body of the murdered person. (People v. Centeno, et al.,130 SCRA 209)
- Sec. 17, Art III No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The operative act in determining whether the right against self-incrimination has beenviolated is when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime buthas begun to focus on a particular suspect who has been taken into custody by the police to carryout a process of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting incriminatory statements and not the hlp2009 Page 25 9/26/201725
signing by the suspect of his supposed extrajudicial confession. (People vs. Compil, 1995) By affixing their signatures on the boxes, accused in effect made a tacit admission of thecrime charged. These signatures are tantamount to an extrajudicial confession made without theassistance of counsel, which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights. (People vs. Wong Chuen Ming,1996) Any confession, including a re-enactment without admonition of the right to silence and tocounsel, and without counsel chosen by the accused is inadmissible in evidence. (People vs. Yip WaiMing, 1996)
The declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be given inevidence against him and any person, otherwise competent to testify as a witness who heard theconfession is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understoodit. (People vs. Maqueda, 1995)
- A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense, is notadmissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer.
The Good Samaritan Rule: An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expensesoccasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for theinjury. It has long been held that in cases of public crimes, the accused is permitted to show thatthe offer was not made under a consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid the inconvenience ofimprisonment of for some other reason which would justify a claim by the accused that the offer wasnot in truth an admission of his guilt or an attempt to avoid the legal consequences which wouldordinarily ensue therefrom. (People vs. Godoy, 1995) A plea of forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise.(People vs. De Guzman, 1996) An offer to compromise does not require that a criminal complaint be first filed before the offercan be received as evidence against the offeror. (People vs. Yparriguirre, 1997)
Theory of the hearsay rule: When a human utterance is offered as evidence of the truth of thefact asserted in it, the credit of the assertor becomes the basis of inference, and therefore theassertion can be received as evidence only when made on the witness stand, subject to the test ofcross-examination.
have been made is relevant. The hearsay rule does not apply, and the statements are admissible asevidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for thestatement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence ofsuch a fact.- Independent relevant statements are hearsay in character but not legal hearsay, hence they arenot considered as exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Illustration: A was drinking with his buddies. A told them that: My neighbor is a thief. Later on Asneighbor was charged with theft. Prosecution calls as his witness one of the drinking buddies. Thedrinking buddy testifies in court saying: The accused is a thief because I heard A says so. [THIS ISHEARSAY EVIDENCE] Now, supposing the neighbor filed a libel case against A. The drinking buddy serves as awitness for the plaintiff, and says: I heard A said that the plaintiff is a thief.. [Now this time this isnot hearsay, because the FACT IN ISSUE is whether or not the utterances were made by a particularperson, regardless of the truth or falsity of the statement]
2. Exceptions2.1 Dying Declaration Rule 130, Sec. 37- Declaration was made under the consciousness of an impending death- Declaration refers to cause and surrounding circumstances of the death of the declarant- Declaration may be received in any case wherein declarants death is the subject of inquiry (In onecase. The husband was shot and wife was stabbed. The wife died instantly. The husband wasbrought to the hospital and made a statement that it was X who stab her wife. The husband thendied. The statement is not a dying declaration because it pertains to the wife)- The declarant must be competent as a witness (What if declarant is proved to be a congenital liar?Still this exception may apply, because he is not disqualified from testifying in court if he were alive)- The declarant actually died, otherwise, the declaration may be admitted as part of the res gestaeand not as a dying declaration
APPLICABILITY: Both Civil and Criminal. [Criminal: Only those which involve death, homicide, hlp2009 Page 28 9/26/201728
Victim need not state that he has lost all hope of recovery. It is sufficient that circumstancesare such as to inevitably lead to the conclusion that at the time the declaration was made, thedeclarant would not expect to survive the injury from which he actually died. The degree and seriousness of the wounds and the fact that death supervened thereafterconstitute substantial evidence of the victim's consciousness of his impending death. (People v.Tanaman, et al., G.R. No. 71768, July 28, 1987)
Dying declaration has weight even if declarant did not die immediately after hisdeclaration: The fact that the declarant died four (4) hours after his statement does not diminishthe probative value of the dying declaration since it is not indispensable that the a declarant expiresimmediately thereafter. It is the belief of impending death and not the rapid succession of death that renders thedying declaration admissible. (People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 111149, prom. September 5, 1997)
Mere gesture of dying victim inconclusive: The gesture of a dying woman in pointing to adirection, when asked for the identity of her assailant, is too vague to be given such probative valuein determining the culpability of the accused. REASON: Unlike an oral or a written declaration, a simple gesture of the handunaccompanied by words, is open to various interpretations by the witness who testifies to itsexistence. Thus, the evidence comes to the court couched in the witness' second hand perceptionand possibly, imbued with his personal meanings and biases. This is what makes hearsay evidenceobjectionable. The second hand evidence is placed before the court without the benefit of cross-examination by the party against whom it is brought, nor of any other means of assessing thecompetence and credibility of the source. (People v. Ola, G.R. No. L-47147, July 3, 1987)
CASE: The crime charged is rape with homicide. The victim before death tells to the policeinvestigator/doctor: I was raped. [This is not a dying declaration, because the statement hasnothing to do with the cause and circumstances surrounding the death. But this may be admitted aspart of res gestae]
Time when statements made: DYING DECLARATION- statements must be made after the injury hasbeen inflicted upon the applicant. RES GESTAE- in so far as startling occurrence is concerned, the statementscould be made prior or simultaneous with or after the startling occurrence.
PEOPLE vs. CLOUD (265 SCRA 472) Concept of independently relevant statements and resgestae applied simultaneously. [N.B. dying declaration may likewise be appliedsimultaneously with independently relevant statement]Josephine Aguilar was at the emergency room of a hospital to have some stitches removed from herdaughters head when she saw a boy being carried by a man, followed by an old woman who wasshouting hysterically. The boys face was swollen and bruised and his body covered with dry blood.The old woman, apparently the boys grandmother, cried and repeatedly screamed. Pinatay siya ngsariling ama!. The old woman told the people inside the emergency room that the boys father hadbeaten him up, tied his hands, and stabbed him.
Ruling of SC: Insofar as the statements of Rufina Alconyes(old woman) are concerned, they areadmissible as part of the res gestae, they having been caused by and did result from the startling, ifnot gruesome, occurrence that she witnessed; and these were shortly thereafter uttered by her withspontaneity, without prior opportunity to contrive the same. The report made thereof by Josephine Aguilar is not hearsay since she was actually thereand personally heard the statements of Alconyes which she recounted in court. Her account of saidstatements of Alconyes are admissible under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, withrespect to the tenor and not the truth thereof, since independent of the truth or falsity of the samethey are relevant to the issue on the cause of the death of the victim.
REQUISITES:a. The declaration is made by 1) a person deceased, or 2) unable to testify [i.e. in foreign country or physical/mental impairments]b. against the interest of the declarant, [declarant MUST KNOW that it is against his interest]c. if the fact asserted in the declaration 1) was at the time it was made 2) so far contrary to declarant's own interest, 3) that a reasonable man in his position a) would not have made the declaration b) unless he believed it to be true. (Sec. 38, Rule 130, ROC) hlp2009 Page 30 9/26/201730
Inability to testify = either dead, mentally incapacitated or physically incompetent. Mere absencefrom the jurisdiction does not make him ipso facto unavailable. Fuentes vs. CA (1996)
2.7 Entries in the Course of Business Rule 130, Sec. 42; Rule 8, REEWhen made: Entries made at, or near the time of transactions to which they referBy whom made: by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the factstherein stated,Treatment of such evidence: prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in hisprofessional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of businessor duty.
Rule 8, Section 1. Hearsay rule exception: A memorandum, report, record or data compilation ofacts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by electronic, optical or other similar meansat or near the time of or from transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledgethereof, and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such was the regularpractice to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by electronic, optical orsimilar means, all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses.
Rule 8, Section 2. This presumption may be overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of thesource of information or the method or circumstances of the preparation, transmission or storagethereof.
2. In civil cases - Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case is admissible only when pertinent to theissue of character involved in the case.- Witness = Evidence of his/her good character is not admissible until such character has beenimpeached. While evidence of another crime is, as a rule, not admissible in a prosecution for robbery; itis admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as when it tends to identify defendant as the perpetratorand tends to show is presence at the scene of the crime or in the vicinity of the crime at the timecharged, or when it is evidence of a circumstance connected with the crime. (People vs. Irang,1937) Good or bad moral character of the victim is not necessary in a crime of murder where thekilling is committed through treachery or premeditation. (People vs. Soliman, 1957)
prove that a ballot is marked, an inspection of the ballot itself being sufficient. ((Punzalan v.Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. No. 126669)
Illustration of going forward with the evidence: For example after the existence of a debt has beenproven by the creditor the burden of proving payment devolves upon the debtor. Where the debtorintroduces evidence of payment, the burden of going forward with the evidence - as distinct from thegeneral burden of proof- shifts to the creditor who is then under the duty of producing evidence toshow non-payment. (Jimenez, et al, v. NLRC, et al., G.R. No,. 116960, prom. April 2, 1996) In short, the burden of going forward is the burden of producing evidence.
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE- the duty resting upon a party, by means of evidence, to create or meet aprima facie case.
Illustration: Plaintiff files a complaint for recovery of a defaulted loan. Defendant files an answer witha negative defense, denying the existence of the loan. [ At the start, the plaintiff has the burden of hlp2009 Page 34 9/26/201734
proof and also burden of evidence, he should go to trial and present evidence to show that he has acause of action. If he has introduced enough proof that he has a cause of action, the burden ofevidence will now be shifted to the defendant. If defendant presents enough evidence to prove hisnegative defense then the burden of evidence is shifted again to the plaintiff on rebuttal evidence.]
Can the accused in a criminal/civil case before presenting his own evidence ascertainconditionally or provisionally whether the evidence presented by the prosecution isenough to convict him?Yes. In a criminal/civil case, the accused(defendant/plaintiff) can easily determine the sentiment ofthe court concerning the quantum of evidence presented by the prosecution(defendant/plaintiff) bysimply filing a demurrer to evidence with leave of court.
Example: In an information for illegal possession of firearms, the information will contain anaverment that the accused does not have a license to possess the firearm[negative averment]. * In this case, the negative averment is an essential part of the commission of the crime, hencethis must be proven.
Presumption- an inference as to the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are permittedto draw from the proof of other facts.
CLASSIFICATIONS1. PRESUMPTION JURIS OR OF LAW- a deduction which the law expressly directs to be madefrom particular facts -Must be made whenever the facts appear which furnish the basis for the inference -Reduced to fixed rules and form part of the system of jurisprudence2. PRESUMPTION HOMINIS OR OF FACT- a deduction which reason draws from facts provedwithout an express direction from the law to that effect -Discretionary on the court -Derived from circumstances of a particular case through common experience of mankind
2.1 Conclusive2.1.1. Whenever a party by his own declaration, act, omission, has led another 1 to believe a particular thing to be true AND 2 to act upon such belief,he cannot in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission be permitted to falsify it.(Estoppel)2.1.2. The TENANT is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the hlp2009 Page 35 9/26/201735
Note: There is also a conclusive presumption under the Rule 39, which is a public policy principle ofres judicata (a judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing or upon the political or legalcondition of a person, {judgment in rem or in personam})
2.2 Disputable
CLASSIFICATIONS:1. Presumption of innocence (Presumption of good faith)2. Presumption of regularity of official and judicial acts3. Presumption of regularity of private transactions- Person is innocent of a crime or wrong;- Unlawful act is done with an unlawful intent;- Person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;- Person takes ordinary care of his concerns;- Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced ELEMENTS: a. The suppression is wilful. (Sec. 3-e, Rule 131, ROC) continue b. The suppression is not in the exercise of a privilege. c. The evidence suppressed is not merely corroborative. d. The evidence is at the disposal only of the suppressing party.
NOTES: Instances where adverse presumption from suppression of evidence does not apply: a. If the evidence is at the disposal of both parties. (People v. Ducay, 225 SCRA 1) b. The suppression was not willful. c. The suppressed evidence is merely corroborative or cumulative. d. The suppression is an exercise of a privilege. (People v. Navaja, 220 SCRA 624)
absence of 5 years.= The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate amongthe heirs:= Person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft with is missing, who has notbeen heard of for 4 years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;= Member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been missing for 4years;= Person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has notbeen known for four years;= Spouse, of a married person absent for 4 consecutive years, may contract a subsequent marriageif he or she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already death; 2 years in case ofdisappearance, where there is a danger of death the circumstances hereinabove provided. Beforemarrying again, the spouse present must institute a summary proceedings as provided in the FamilyCode and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to theeffect of reappearance of the absent spouse.- Acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law orfact;- Things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life;- Persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of co-partnership;- A man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contractof marriage;- Property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who liveexclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under voidmarriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry.- In cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other andwho have acquire properly through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry,such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and evidences ofcredit are equal.- If the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within three hundreddays after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence of proofto the contrary:- A child born before 180 days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered tohave been conceived during such marriage, even though it is born within the 300 days after thetermination of the former marriage.- A child born after 180 days following the celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered tohave been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born within the 300 days after thetermination of the former marriage.- A thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of the nature- The law has been obeyed;- A printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by public authority, was soprinted or published;- A printed or published book, purporting contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of thecountry where the book is published, contains correct reports of such cases;- A trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular person hasactually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person orhis successor in interest;- Except for purposes of succession, when 2 persons perish in the same calamity, and it is not shownwho died first, and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, thesurvivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of thesexes, according to the following rules:= Both < 15: older survived;= Both > 60: younger survived;= One <15; other >60: <15 survived;= Both >15, <60 and the sex be different, the male is deemed to have survived, if the sex be thesame, the older;= One < 15 or >, and the other between those ages, the latter is deemed to have survived. hlp2009 Page 37 9/26/201737
- That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, asto which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove thesame; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at the same time. (5a) The presumption that evidence not produced or willfully suppressed is adverse to the party,will not apply if the evidence is at the disposal of both the defense and the prosecution and if theevidence is merely conclusive. (People vs. Padiernos, 1976)
Note: The Rules apply to Summary Procedure but in a modified form, since in Summary Procedurethe testimonies of the witnesses, (in civil cases) will be reduced into writing in the form of affidavit.Hence, there is no direct, cross, re-cross or re-direct examination. Affiant is not allowed in Summary Procedure to embody hearsay testimony.
In criminal cases under Summary Procedure, the affidavits of the witnesses take the place ofthe direct examination. There is cross examination
VOIR DIRE- preliminary examination of witnesses for the purpose of establishing whether or not awitness really is qualified as such. (Likewise done in examination of a child witness, but it is only thejudge who can ask questions, plaintiff and defendant can write their questions and give it to thejudge)
Note: Ordinary witnesses are not allowed to be examined in a narrative form, except a child witness.
A. Examination of Witnesses1. How done Rule 132, Sec. 1 open court under oath or affirmation- Mode of answering General Rule: oral Exception: o Witness is incapacitated to speak or o Question calls for a different mode of answer
Rights of a witness:2.1 To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or insultingdemeanor;2.2 Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;2.3 Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;2.4 Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwiseprovided by law; or2.5 Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it to be the very fact atissue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a witness must answer to thefact of his previous final conviction for an offense.
Case: Supposing a witness refused to answer because he feels the question is incriminatory.However, the court directs the witness to give an answer and the witness obeys the order of thecourt. Later on the answer turns out to be incriminatory and later on the witness was indicted for thecommission of this offense, can his testimony in court be given in evidence against him in the formof an admission? NO, because the witnsess has initially objected and he gave the answer only in compliance withan order of the court. According to some decisions that could be treated as a compelled testimony hlp2009 Page 38 9/26/201738
given under duress and therefore could not be used against the witness.
3. When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute; 4. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or o A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his - adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. 6. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.
When the answer is derived from a leading question the evidence has no probative value at all even if there is no objection to a leading question.
Misleading questions1 Those that assume as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to that which he has previously stated.2 Not allowed.
Scope of judges participation at trial : A judge who presides at a trial is not a mere referee. Hemust actively participate therein by directing counsel to the facts in dispute, by asking clarifyingquestions, and by showing an interest in a fast a fair trial. (Clarin v. Yatco, 56 O.G. 7042, Nov. 14,1960) He can interrogate witnesses to elicit the truth, to obtain clarification, or to test theircredibility. (People v Moreno, 83 Phil. 286) However, this power must be exercised by the court sparingly and judiciously. (People v.Ferrer, 44 O.G. 112). Of course, the judge cannot curtail counsel's right to interrogate witnesses.(People v. Bedia, 83 Phil. 909) There is no prohibition against the judge conducting the examination of the witness. Thecounsel may object to the questions propounded by the judge.
But this power should be exercised with caution. When the evidence already presented on one pointis sufficient and the party merely seeks to present cumulative evidence which cannot produceadditional persuasive effect or that he is not sure of what the other witnesses would testify, the courtmay in its sound discretion stop the introduction of such further evidence. (People v. Reyes, et al.,133 SCRA 51)
Role of attorney during presentation of evidence: An attorney has a dual role to performrelative to proving the truth respecting a matter of fact. hlp2009 Page 40 9/26/201740
He must ensure that all evidence supporting the material allegations, whether raised in thepleadings or not are admitted by the court. His other role is to block the admission of evidencesupporting his opponents' material allegations whether raised in the pleadings or not. In order to perform this dual role the attorney should ensure that the evidence he offers areadmissible in accordance with the Rules of Court and those of his opponent are properly objected tofor being inadmissible
6. Impeachment of Witnesses6.1. Impeachment of Adverse Partys Witness Rule 132, Sec. 11- How done:by contradictory evidence;by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity is bad; orby evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony.
- Evidence of particular wrongful acts is not allowed except that it may be shown by the examinationof the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense.
Laying the foundation or laying the basis- refers to a situation where an evidence which isotherwise incompetent will be introduced in evidence because it falls under the exceptions to thatrule on exclusion. Example: If a party desires to introduce secondary or substitutionary evidence he must firstlay the foundation or lay the basis. He must first proved that there was a writing duly executed andthat the original has been lost or destroyed.
- BUT in such case the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverseparty, who may, if he chooses, cross examine the witness upon it, and may read it in evidence.
What is the consequence of giving in evidence a part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing orrecord? (Rule 132, Section 17) [RULE OF COMPLETENESS]- The whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and when a detached act,declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration,conversation, writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence.
Child witnessI. Definition (4(a)) Any person who at the time of giving testimony is < 18 years. In child abuse cases: a child includes one over eighteen (18) years but is found by the court as unable to fully take care of himself or protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.II. Competency of a Child Witness: Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. To rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by a child, the burden of proof lies on the party challenging his competence. (6, 6(b)) Competency exam A. When conducted- - Motu proprio or on motion of a party, when it finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court. (6) - A party seeking a competency examination must present proof of necessity of competency examination. The age of the child by itself is not a sufficient basis for a competency examination. (6(a)) B. Who are allowed to attend- - The judge and necessary court personnel; - The counsel for the parties; - The guardian ad litem; - Support person/s for the child; and - The defendant, unless the court determines that competence can be fully evaluated in his absence. (6(c)) C. How conducted- - By whom conducted: by the judge, counsel for the parties, however, can submit questions to the judge that he may, in his discretion, ask the child. (6(d)) - Questions asked: appropriate to the age and developmental level of the child; shall not be related to the issues at trial; and shall focus on the ability of the child to remember, communicate, distinguish between truth and falsehood, and appreciate hlp2009 Page 42 9/26/201742
III. Testifying A. Oath: Before testifying, a child shall take an oath or affirmation to tell the truth. (7) B. Examination 1. How conducted General Rule: open court, unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally. (8) Exception/s: a) Exclusion of the public - Why made: To protect the right to privacy of the child or If the court determines on the record that requiring the child to testify in open court would cause psychological harm to him, hinder the ascertainment of truth, or result in his inability to effectively communicate due to embarrassment, fear, or timidity. - In making its order, the court shall consider the developmental level of the child, the nature of the crime, the nature of his testimony regarding the crime, his relationship to the accused and to persons attending the trial, his desires, and the interests of his parents or legal guardian. - The court may, motu proprio, exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during trial is of such character as to be offensive to decency or public morals. - The court may also, on motion of the accused, exclude the public from trial, except court personnel and the counsel of the parties. (23) b) The court may order that persons attending the trial shall not enter or leave the courtroom during the testimony of the child. (24) c) Motion by party who presents a child witness or the guardian ad litem of such child witness may, however, move the court to allow him to testify in the manner provided in this Rule (8):
The judge may question the child in chambers, or in some comfortable place other than the courtroom, in the presence of the support person, guardian ad litem, prosecutor, and counsel for the parties. The questions of the judge shall not be related to the issues at trial but to the feelings of the child about testifying in the courtroom.
The judge may exclude any person, including the accused, whose presence orhlp2009 Page 43 9/26/201743
How done: where testimony is taken: in a room separate from the courtroom who are present: o guardian ad litem; o one or both of his support persons; o the facilitator o and interpreter, if any; o a court officer appointed by the court; o persons necessary to operate the closed-circuit television equipment; and o other persons whose presence are determined by the court to be necessary to the welfare and well-being of the child; - The judge, prosecutor, accused, and counsel for the parties shall be in the courtroom. The testimony of the child shall be transmitted by live-link television into the courtroom for viewing and hearing by the judge, prosecutor, counsel for the parties, accused, victim, and the public unless excluded. - If it is necessary for the child to identify the accused at trial, the court may allow the child to enter the courtroom for the limited purpose of identifying the accused, or the court may allow the child to identify the accused by observing the image of the latter on a television monitor. - The court may set other conditions and limitations on the taking of the testimony that it finds just and appropriate, taking into consideration the best interests of the child.hlp2009 Page 44 9/26/201744
- The testimony of the child shall be preserved on videotape, digital disc, or other similar devices which shall be made part of the court record and shall be subject to a protective order as provided in section 31(b).
ii. Screens, one-way mirrors, and other devices to shield child from accused. (26) Who may apply for an order that the chair of the child or that a screen or other device be placed in the courtroom in such a manner that the child cannot see the accused while testifying: 1 prosecutor or 2 guardian ad litem (consultation with prosecutor or counsel as in application for use of live-link TV. also required)
If the court grants an application to shield the child from the accused while testifying in the courtroom, the courtroom shall be arranged to enable the accused to view the child.
When allowed:If the court finds that the child will not be able to testify in open court at trial, it shall issue an order that the deposition of the child be taken and preserved by videotape.
Deposition-taking: Who are present o Judge who shall preside at the videotaped deposition of a child; o Prosecutor; o defense counsel; o Guardian ad litem; o Accused, provided that, if the order of the court is based on evidence that the child is unable to testify in the physical presence of the accused, the court may direct the latter to be excluded from the room in which the deposition is conducted. In case of exclusion of the accused, the court shall order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link television in accordance with section 25 of this Rule. If the accused is excluded from the deposition, it is not necessary that the child be able to view an image of the accused. o Other persons whose presence is determined by the court to be necessary to the welfare and well-being of the child; o Support person/s, the facilitator and interpreter, if any; o Court stenographer; and o Persons necessary to operate the videotape equipment. Objections to testimony or evidence; rights of the accusedhlp2009 Page 45 9/26/201745
The child may be allowed to testify from a place other than the witness chair.
The witness chair or other place from which the child testifies may be turned to facilitate his testimony but the opposing party and his counsel must have a frontal or profile view of the child during the testimony of the child. The witness chair or other place from which the child testifies may also be rearranged to allow the child to see the opposing party and his counsel, if he chooses to look at them, without turning his body or leaving the witness stand.
Accommodations for the child under this section need not be supported by a finding of trauma to the child.
2. Before admitting such evidence, the court must conduct a hearing in chambers and afford the child, his guardian ad litem, the parties, and their counsel a right to attend and be heard. The motion and the record of the hearing must be sealed and remain under seal and protected by a protective order set forth in section 31(b). The child shall not be required to testify at the hearing in chambers except with his consent.
1. Classes of Documents1.1 Public Documents Rule 132, Sec. 191.1.1-A Written official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and publicofficers, whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country;- How Proven = Rule 132, Sec. 23- Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a publicofficer 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 thelatter.
1.1.1-B Records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and publicofficers, whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country.- How Proven = Rule 132, Sec. 24- The record may be evidenced by: (1) an official publication thereof; (2) a copy attested by the hlp2009 Page 51 9/26/201751
officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is notkept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody.If the record is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy orlegation, consul-general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreignservice of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, andauthenticated by the seal of his office.
1.1.3 Public Records (kept in the Philippines) of Private Documents required by law to be enteredtherein- How Proven = Sec. 27- Such may be proved by the original record, or a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian ofthe record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.- Proof of Lack of Record = Sec. 28A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy thatafter diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of hisoffice, accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody, is admissible to prove that therecords of his office contain no such record or entry.
If all requisites have been met, no other evidence of its authenticity is required.
between the parties; or (c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.3. Alterations Rule 132, Sec. 31- The party producing a document as genuine, which has been altered and appears to have beenaltered after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, must account for thealteration. Failure to do so would result in the inadmissibility of evidence.- He may show that the alteration was madef) by another,g) without his concurrence, orh) made with the consent of the parties affected by it, ori) was otherwise properly or innocent made, orj) The alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument.
= Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall bemade as soon as the grounds therefore shall become reasonably apparent.
- Documentary Evidence = shall be objected to within 3 days after notice of the offer unless adifferent period is allowed by the court.
Kinds of Objection1. General or broadside- does not go beyond declaring the evidence as immaterial, incompetent,irrelevant, or inadmissible. Does not specify the grounds2. Specific- States the ground
res ipsa loquitur (The thing speaks for itself)- A procedural device which presumes that theperson is negligent, when he is in control of an instrumentality causing an injury in the absence ofsome explanation by him.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (False in one thing, false in everything)- If the testimony ofthe witness on a material issue is willfully false and given with an intention to deceive, court maydisregard all the witness testimony. (Not a mandatory rule of evidence) - It deals only with the weight of evidence and not a positive rule of law - The witnesses false or exaggerated statements on other matters shall not preclude the acceptance of such evidence as is relieved from any sign of falsehood - The court may accept and reject portions of the witness testimony depending on the inherent credibility thereof. hlp2009 Page 55 9/26/201755
*May the court stop the introduction of further testimony? YES upon any particular point when theevidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonablyexpected to be additionally persuasive; this power should be exercised with caution. (Rule 133,Section 6)
*How will the court dispose of a motion which is based on facts not appearing of record? Court mayhear the matter on - Affidavits or - Depositionspresented by the respective parties but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly orpartly on oral testimony or depositions. (Rule 133, Section 7)
CIVIL CASES: Application for preliminary attachment/injunction Motion to dismiss founded on certain facts which are not solely predicated on absence ofjurisdiction or failure to state a COA, i.e. it is predicated on the ground of payment (Same with Criminal Case, evidence taken up during hearing made part automatically of records ofthe case)
Cases covered.All civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases. (R1, 2)
Includes digitally signed documents and any printout or output, readable by sight or other means,which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of theseRules, the term electronic document may be used interchangeably with electronic data message.
Confidential character of a privileged communication is not lost solely on the ground that it is in theform of an electronic document. (R3, 3)
Hearsay rule exception: A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events,conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by electronic, optical or other similar means at or near thetime of or from transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof, and keptin the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such was the regular practice to makethe memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by electronic, optical or similar means, all ofwhich are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses. (R8, 1) This presumption may be overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source of information or the method or circumstances of the preparation, transmission or storage thereof. (R8, 2) hlp2009 Page 58 9/26/201758
How are matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronicdocument established? (R9) o by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records. The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to testify on the matters contained therein. The affiant shall be made to affirm the contents of the affidavit in open court and may be cross-examined as a matter of right by the adverse party.
If ephemeral, audio, photographic and video evidence are recorded or embodied in an electronicdocument, then the provisions authentication electronic documents apply. (R11, 2)
(a) "Biological sample" means any organic material originating from a person's body, even if foundin inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva and other bodyfluids, tissues, hairs and bones;
(b) "DNA" means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of molecules found in every nucleatedcell of the body. The totality of an individual's DNA is unique for the individual, except identicaltwins; hlp2009 Page 59 9/26/201759
(c) "DNA evidence" constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results and other geneticinformation directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples;
(d) "DNA profile" means genetic information derived from DNA testing of a biological sampleobtained from a person, which biological sample is clearly identifiable as originating from thatperson;
(e) "DNA testing" means verified and credible scientific methods which include the extraction ofDNA from biological samples, the generation of DNA profiles and the comparison of the informationobtained from the DNA testing of biological samples for the purpose of determining, with reasonablecertainty, whether or not the DNA obtained from two or more distinct biological samples originatesfrom the same person (direct identification) or if the biological samples originate from relatedpersons (kinship analysis); and
(f) "Probability of Parentage" means the numerical estimate for the likelihood of parentage of aputative parent compared with the probability of a random match of two unrelated individuals in agiven population.
Application for DNA Testing Order. The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprioor on application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNAtesting. Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of thefollowing:(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;(b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may require confirmation forgood reasons;(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;(d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to theproper resolution of the case; and chan robles virtual law library(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting theaccuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.
This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court order, at the behest of anyparty, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced.
An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately executory and shall not be appealable.
Petition for certiorari shall not stay the implementation of order unless a higher court issues aninjunctive order.
Post-conviction DNA testing may be available, without need of prior court order, to the prosecutionor any person convicted by final and executory judgment provided that(a) a biological sample exists,(b) such sample is relevant to the case, and(c) the testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction.
institution and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If the laboratory is notaccredited, the relevant experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall beproperly established; and(d) The reliability of the testing result
A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with anymember of said courts, which may conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the court oforigin and issue the appropriate orders.
Indirect Contempt- to those who publishes or disclose the DNA results without proper court order
Preservation of DNA Evidence. The trial court shall preserve the DNA evidence in its totality,including all biological samples, DNA profiles and results or other genetic information obtained fromDNA testing. For this purpose, the court may order the appropriate government agency to preserve hlp2009 Page 61 9/26/201761
(b) In all other cases, until such time as the decision in the case where the DNA evidence wasintroduced has become final and executory. chan robles virtual law library
Physical destruction of a biological sample before the expiration of the periods set forthabove, provided that:(a) There is a court order or(b) The person from whom the DNA sample was obtained has consented in writing to the disposal ofthe DNA evidence.


text:
Mississauga Libraries Make Self-Serve Check-Out Easy and Convenient
Mississauga Library System has introduced self-serve check-out machines as a fast way for cardholders to check out and renew library items. The user-friendly, touch screen machines are now available at 17 libraries with the final set of machines being installed at Mississauga Central Library in June.
More than 50 machines have been installed to provide a fast, convenient check out option in addition to the friendly, personalized service delivered by Library staff.
The new machines are very simple to use. There are no barcodes to scan cardholders can checkout and renew items just by placing them on a reader pad.
The self-service machines use Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags to store barcode numbers to identify items in the Library's collection. This means the self-serve check-out machine can read multiple items without scanning a barcode. RFID tags are turned off when an item is checked out and are turned back on when an item is returned. More than 1.3 million items in the collection have been tagged using the RFID system.
For more information about the Mississauga Library System's new self-serve check-out system, please visit mississauga.ca/selfservecheckout

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Events for May 4, 2019
Events Search and Views Navigation
10:00 am
Drop-In Workshop
Donation Requested.
Stop in and learn about May Day and take part in some May Day crafts! Our drop-in workshops provide hands-on activity where you and your family can learn about the past!Find out more »


text:
Posts Tagged 'cms'
Advertisement :
Sponsered Links :
Nuxeo Document Management
Submitted by britnilinda • December 14, 2013
cmsconsulting.ca - CMS Consulting has customized system or applications software which allows your organization to easily track and store electronic documents. This software is capable of keeping track of the different versions of your documents (modified by different users), and allowing periodic ...
OpenText Corporation
Submitted by britnilinda • November 29, 2013
cmsconsulting.ca - To provide our clients and end-users with highly reliable enterprise solutions software, CMS Consulting Inc. established a strategic partnership with one of the world's largest Enterprise Information Management (EIM) company, the Open Text Corporation. OTC boasts of being Canada's largest ...
Advertisement :


text:
Shop for a film
Director's cut with updated and previously unseen footage. The DVD includes 6 hours of Extras including exclusive interviews with Paul McCartney, Johnny Depp, Joan Baez, Yoko Ono, Andy Warhol, William Burroughs, Philip Glass, Abbie Hoffman, Hunter S, Thompson, Timothy Leary, Bob Dylan and Patti Smith. more
Click for pricing information
Frédéric, a former high school rebel, ethnomusicologist, and multinational executive, returns from decades abroad, to a France that is both familiar and on edge. A quirky and moving portrait by outsiders, exploring what it is to be French in the 21st century. A delightful film by Les McLaren and Annie Stiven. more
A Life of Its Own aims to provide clarity and understanding of one of Australia's most stigmatized and controversial issues – medicinal cannabis. Award-winning journalist, Helen Kapalos, takes the audience on a wide-ranging voyage of discovery about medicinal cannabis. more
13 half hour episodes detailing the happy, sad, funny and dramatic endeavours of a community of battlers united through footy. Narrated by Dale Kickett, LIFE OF THE TOWN is a homage to grass roots football and is a window into the lives of the men, women and children who are passionate about their community. more
A superbly photographed and fascinating journey into the underwater world of the Dampier Archipelago, WA, where scientists from the WA Museum are documenting the co-existence of industrial development and marine wildlife. more
LIFE'S BURNING DESIRE follows the rise of Paul Mercurio, the star of STRICTLY BALLROOM, as an internationally acclaimed actor, dancer and choreographer. more
The remarkable life and work of Aboriginal artist Danny Eastwood and his contribution to the well-being of his community in western Sydney, and to Reconciliation and Australian culture at large. more
Dr Catherine Hamlin's 50 year journey for the destitute women of Ethiopia. EXTRA FEATURES include 3 additional short films: A COMPASSIONATE VISION, HEAVEN SENT and LABOUR OF LOVE. more
A reflection on place, history, memory and photography - the work of Australian photographer OLIVE COTTON. more
Four seasons in one of Australia's most successful boutique wineries - Paringa Estate Winery on the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria. more
On the road with Link-up, an organisation that re-unites Aboriginal families more
In 1968, a young Aboriginal boxer named Lionel Rose punched his way to history in Japan when he became the undisputed bantamweight champion of the world. This is his story, before and after he became a legend. more
Taking a stand on domestic violence in regional, rural and remote communities. more
Traditional owners of proposed nuclear waste dump sites in central Australia show us what's at stake if the unthinkable happens. A film by David Tranter. more
A play about Ben Chifley by Bob Ellis and Robin McLachlan * Currency Press 2005 * Paperback (small) * 63 pages The script of the outstanding play about Ben Chifley, performed nationally with Tony Barry in the title role. The co-author, Robin McLachlan, was a principal collaborator on the film, THE CHIFLEYS OF BUSBY... more
A classic documentary about an Aboriginal dance festival organised by the Lockhart River community in far north Queensland. more
In 1929, 10,000 miners found themselves locked out of their Hunter Valley coal mines in a bitter industrial dispute over pay rates. What began as an undeclared war on industrial labour ended up overpowering a government, crippling an industry and besieging a community. more
All 3 parts sold separately. These three documentary films (ALL UNDER HEAVEN, SMALL HAPPINESS and TO TASTE 100 HERBS) offer extraordinary portraits of Chinese life in the early 1980s. Carma Hinton is uniquely qualified as an observer of China. Three one-hour films about the village of Long Bow in northern China. Pt 1: ALL... more
THE LONG GOODBYE follows the journeys of three families living with dementia as they struggle to maintain the identity and dignity of those they love. Filmed over a 3 year period, the documentary celebrates the capacity of the human spirit to search for meaning and hope when the end is known and inescapable. more
This documentary studies South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), set up by the post-apartheid, democratic government to consider amnesty for perpetrators of crimes committed under apartheid's reign. more
: About us
: Catalogue
: Latest news
: Privacy
: Terms
: Email Newsletter sign-up
© Ronin Films 2019.
Please help us to simplify your shopping experience by customising your user settings here:
Due to contractual obligations, some films may not be available in your territory.


text:
Great Parenting and Great Managing – How Are They Similar?
Recently, I heard Julie Lythcott-Haims speak about ways parents are going awry in raising children in today's world. She refers to the critical balance of two needs parents must fulfill with children.
One need is for parents to be DEMANDING in expectations of their children to learn, to contribute to "chores" and larger causes, and to progress along the path toward adulthood. The other is for parents to be RESPONSIVE to children's needs along the way. This includes their needs to feel loved and cared for, to bring forth their own voices, and to learn and grow constantly.
Both are necessary. Too little of one or both creates conditions in which children suffer over time.
Fear of not being tough enough can easily lead to imbalance. Fear of not being understanding enough can as easily lead to imbalance.
Consider how this applies to managing and to leading others.
What is cultivated from an improper balance of demand and responsiveness: what are costs to those we manage, to the climate in which we expect people to perform, and to resultant performance?
Thinking of great leaders and managers I know, I realize that consistently they are demanding AND responsive; they have highly functioning people who are learning, are motivated, and are committed to accomplishing meaningful objectives.
This weekend, after digesting Haims' comments a bit, I heard about a manager who recently took over a big office. She is "very demanding" yet also is inclusive in picking the brains of team members, in putting forth real challenges, in seeking solutions, and in getting people engaged and interested. She clearly balances both needs
HOW can we get better in HOW we demand and incorporate the needs and considerations of those we serve -- and do this in a way that stimulates their interests, development, and commitment to tackling the big agendas at work?


text:
Reviews Soundings
Advice to science writersBMJ 2006; 332 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7552.1281-a (Published 25 May 2006) Cite this as: BMJ 2006;332:1281
View Full Text
- Imre Loefler, editor
- Nairobi Hospital Proceedings, Kenya
Make sure that you indicate in the introduction to your paper that the problem you are addressing is of the utmost importance to the survival of mankind. If the topic is a "disease," quantify the proportion of the world population that might become its victims, calculate that proportion in absolute numbers, and proceed to address the annual expense that humanity incurs in consequence of that disease.
Never admit that your choice of research topic …
Log in
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Subscribe from £138 *
Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.
* For online subscription
Access this article for 1 day for:
£30 / $37 / €33 (plus VAT)
You can download a PDF version for your personal record.


text: Mr. Tom Willecome 0 Report post Posted November 3, 2004 Go on. It'll be fun. Basically I'm seeing if we could possibly get a global forum get together going. John says he won't be able to make this year's San Diego Con and that the only way he'll be able to do it at all is if a load of us go. So, is anyone up for San Diego 2006? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites


text:
Dallas Federal Reserve President Robert Kaplan: Monetary Policy and the Eco...
Robert Kaplan, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas; Former Professor of Management Practice and Senior Associate Dean, Harvard Business School
In Conversation with Evelyn Dilsaver, Chair, Commonwealth Club Board of Governors; Former Executive Vice President, Charles Schwab; Former President and CEO, Charles Schwab Investment Management
Robert Kaplan has served as the 13th president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas since September 8, 2015. He also represents the 11th Federal Reserve District on the Federal Open Market Committee in the formulation of U.S. monetary policy.
Prior to joining Harvard in 2006, Kaplan was vice chairman of the Goldman Sachs Group Inc., with global responsibility for the firm's investment banking and investment management divisions. Previously, he served as global co-head of the investment banking division. He serves as chairman of Project ALS and co-chairman of the Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation, a global venture philanthropy firm that invests in developing nonprofit enterprises dedicated to addressing social issues.
Come for a rare conversation with a representative of the Federal Reserve about international and national economies and U.S. monetary policy.
Location: 110 The Embarcadero, Taube Family Auditorium, San Francisco
Time: 11 a.m. check-in, noon program
Notes: Attendees subject to search
All ticket sales are final and nonrefundable.


text:
- December 3, 1923 - March 2, 2019
- Powderly, Kentucky
of Margaret's Passing
Share This Obituary
Arrangements made by
Tucker Funeral Home
113 North Third Street
Central City, KY 42330
Get Directions
Profile of Tucker Funeral Home
View Phone Number
View Fax Number
Email Us
Receive Obituary Notifications by Email
Memories & CandlesPrevious
"Prayers and Love.
1 of 3 | Posted by: Larry and Charlotte Thornsberry - KY
"So sorry to hear of Margaret's passing. She was a great lady & taught me so much when I worked with her at Greenville Hospital. Praying for you all.
2 of 3 | Posted by: Pam Knight- King - Columbia, KY
"I loved my Aunt Midge. A visit with her was like a visit with my Mom (Mary B. Vincent). I have so many fond memories, but perhaps one of my favorites...Read More »
3 of 3 | Posted by: Cheryl V Clark - Wellborn, FL
POWDERLY – Margaret "Midge" Helen Edwards died March 2, 2019, at 6:50 AM, at Maple Nursing and Rehabiltation Center in Greenville.
Margaret was born on December 3, 1923, in Muhlenberg County to James R. Holmes and Grace Pittman Holmes. On November 20, 1940 she married the love of her life Charles "Chalk" Edwards and they spent 69 wonderful years together working, raising a family and enjoying their many grandchildren and great-grandchildren prior to his death in January of 2010.
Midge was a devoted Christian wife, mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and great-great grandmother. She spent many years supporting her community in various roles while working at Muhlenberg Community Hospital for 25+ years as a Nurses Aide (CNA) before retiring in 1989.
She was a member of Powderly United Methodist Church for more than 80 years and served in many roles that supported her strong Christian faith.
She was preceded in death by her parents; husband; brother James Holmes; sisters Mary Beatrice Vincent and Betty Jo Barnett; a granddaughter, Vanessa Edwards Wells and a grandson, Eddie Barnett in 2005.
Survivors include her five children: Tom Edwards of Chicago, IL; Ann (Billie) Faith of Huntsville, AL; Charlie Edwards of Powderly; Carole (Harold) Mullins of Hazard, KY and Mike Edwards of Powderly; 10 grandchildren; 25 great-grandchildren; 9 great-great-grandchildren and several nieces and nephews.
Services are Sunday March 3, 2019 1:00 PM, at Tucker Funeral Home in Central City, with the Rev. Danny Greene officiating.Visitation will be Sunday after 10:30 AM at the funeral home. Burial will be in Memorial Gardens Cemetery in Powderly alongside her beloved husband of 69 years.