This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| From the records, it appears that there is no necessity to disturb the factual findings and conclusions of law by the CA. Time and again, it has been ruled that he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof.[17] Upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. Once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor in the course of the trial, however, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff's prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff.[18] | |||||
|
2013-10-23 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends on the competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to be produced. The exclusion of hearsay evidence is anchored on three reasons: (1) absence of cross-examination; (2) absence of demeanor evidence; and (3) absence of oath.[52] Basic under the rules of evidence is that a witness can only testify on facts within his or her personal knowledge. This personal knowledge is a substantive prerequisite in accepting testimonial evidence establishing the truth of a disputed fact. Corollarily, a document offered as proof of its contents has to be authenticated in the manner provided in the rules, that is, by the person with personal knowledge of the facts stated in the document.[53] | |||||