Atty. Phil Juris

  G.R. No. 168424 In Philippine jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has allowed the admission of secondary evidence when the proponent successfully establishes the basis for its presentation, in accordance with the Revised Rules on Evidence. In Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Spouses Parocha (G.R. No. 168424, September 30, 2005) , the Court reiterated that secondary evidence of the contents of a document is admissible only upon compliance with Rule 130, Section 5, which requires: Proof of the execution or existence of the original document ; Proof of the loss, destruction, or unavailability of the original ; and A showing that the unavailability was not due to bad faith on the part of the proponent . ( Or laying the basis rule ) In this case, the petitioners were able to establish the loss of the original document and the due execution of the same, thereby satisfying the requirements for the admission of secondary evidence. Similarly, in Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) v. ...

The admissibility of CCTV footage as evidence is governed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence, particularly Rule 11, Section 1 of the  of A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC . This provision states that audio, photographic, and video evidence is admissible if it is "shown, presented, or displayed to the court and identified, explained,   or authenticated by the person who made the recording [ o]r by some other person competent to testify on its accuracy. The use of the conjunction "or" in this rule is significant. It indicates that authentication of such evidence is not limited to the individual who originally recorded it. Instead, any person who can competently testify to the accuracy and integrity of the footage may authenticate it. This flexibility is crucial in situations where the original recorder is unavailable or unknown. For instance, in People v. Manansala (G.R. No. 233104, September 2, 2020), the Supreme Court clarified that individuals authorized to authenticate video ...

  Q. No. 10 | Political Law | Bar 2023 | Suggested Answer Q. No. 10 | Political Law | Bar 2023 “The Secretary of the Department of Education (DepEd) issued Department Order (DO) No. 35 providing guidelines for teaching good manners and right conduct in all primary educational institutions. As part of the materials to be used during the sessions, the handbook for instructors contains a chapter on “Values from Religious Traditions and Indigenous Cultures”. The DepEd will provide the handbooks, but educational institutions shall be free to adapt the contents of the handbook in accordance with their respective mission and vision. Attendance at the sessions shall be compulsory for all students. Concerned parents and teachers questioned DO No. 35 before the Supreme Court as being violative of the establishment clause and their primary right and duty to rear their children. Are the parents and teachers correct? Explain briefly[.]”   SUGGESTED ANSWER Article II, Section 6 of the 1987 ...

Q. No. 6 | Political Law | Suggested Answer | Bar 2023 Q. No. 6 | Political Law “Hector, a government employee, asked Ignacio to take the Police Officer I Examination in his behalf. Upon investigation, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) observed that the picture of Hector and signature in the application form and seat plan were not identical with those found in his Personal Data Sheet. Thus, the CSC concluded that Hector conspired with Ignacio by allowing the latter to impersonate him (Hector) and found him (Hector) guilty of dishonesty, meting out the penalty of dismissal. Hector appealed his dismissal to the Court of Appeals. He argued that the CSC has been divested of its authority and jurisdiction to conduct investigations and render administrative decisions based on alleged anomalies in police entrance and promotional examinations after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 8551 or the Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act. The law transferred the power to admin...

 Q. No. 5 | Political Law | Suggested Answer | Bar 2023 Q. No. 5 | Political Law “1. Section 1, Article IV on Bangsamoro Parliament Electoral Tribunal of the Proposed Electoral Code of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao states: “ Section 1. Creation and Jurisdiction. – The Bangsamoro Parliament shall have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the Parliament .”   Is the proposed provision constitutional? Explain.   SUGGESTED ANSWER: NO, Section 1, Article IV of the Bangsamoro Parliament Electoral Tribunal of the Proposed Electoral Code of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao is NOT constitutional because it is contrary to the 1987 Constitution.   The said proposed provision impliedly revised the fundamental government structure of the existing government that requires Revision of the 1987 Constitution.   Mere legislation to...