Evidence

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
LEGAL EVIDENCE (b) Burden of Proof and Presumption (By whom

-consists of those rules, statutory and judicial, must evidence be presented?;
which regulate the acceptance or rejection of the (c) Of what proposition in issue need be
information to a legal tribunal which will justify a presented without evidence?
conclusion or judgment upon the matter in issue
before it. 5. CLASSIFICATION OF RULES OF EVIDENCE
-(Sir James Stephen) that part of the law of a) Rules of Probative Policy
procedure which, with a view to ascertain individual i. Exclusionary Rules
rights and liabilities in particular cases, decides: -excludes evidence on grounds partly of relevancy and
(i) What facts may, and what may not be partly of policy, i.e., character of parties in civil cases
proved in such cases;
(ii) what sort of evidence must be given of a ii. Preferential Rules
fact which may be proved; and -rules requiring one kind of evidence in preference to
(iii) By whom and in what manner the any other, I.e., Best Evidence Rule.
evidence must be produced by which by which
any fact is to be proved. iii. Analytic Rules
-subjects certain kinds of evidence to rigid scrutiny, so
Rule 128. GENERAL PROVISIONS as to expose its possible weaknesses and shortcomings,
SEC 1. EVIDENCE, DEFINED. I.e., without an opportunity to cross-examine a
Sec 1. Evidence defined. -- Evidence is the means, testimony will make it hearsay.
sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. iv. Prophylactic Rules
1. 4 COMPONENT ELEMENTS -rules which apply beforehand, certain measures to
Evidence as a means of ascertainment prevent risk or falsity or mistake, I.e., rule that
(a) Sanctioned by these rules witness must take an oath before testifying.
-the evidence must be allowed by the RoC.
(b) In a judicial proceeding v. Quantitative Rules
-Rules of Court is not applicable in ADMINISTRATIVE -requires certain kinds of evidence to be produced in
PROCEEDINGS because they are only quasi-judicial specific quantity. I.e., Extrajudicial confession by
bodies, I.e., NLRC, SEC. accused must be corroborated by evidence of corpus
(c) The truth respecting a matter of fact delicti.
2. SOURCES OF RULES ON EVIDENCE b) Rules of Extrinsic Policy

i. Rules of Court, Rule 128-134 (As - rules seeking to exclude useful evidence for the
amended by the A.M. No. 19-08- 15- sake of upholding other policies considered more
SC) paramount and are either absolute or conditional.
ii. 1987 Constitution I.e., Art III Sec 3(2). Illegally seized evidence is
iii. Anti Wire Tapping Law (RA 4200) inadmissible as evidence.
iv. Bank Secrecy Law (RA 1405)
v. Rule 115 on Rules on Cross-examination 6. DIFFERENT KINDS OF EVIDENCE (RMCDC(+/-)R-
vi. Decisions of the SC PSXP-CCC)
a) Relevant Evidence
3. FACTUM PROBANDUM VS FACTUM PROBANS -when it has a tendency in reason to establish the
FACTUM PROBANDUM FACTUM PROBANS probability or improbability of fact in issue (Sec 4
(fact in issue) (Material proof) Rule 128)
-or the Proposition to -or material evidencing b) Material Evidence
be established is the the proposition. -when it is directed to prove a fact in issue as
ultimate fact to be determined by the rules of substantive law and
established. pleadings.
- It is what the party -It is the evidentiary c) Competent Evidence
affirms and the other fact or fact by which -when it is not excluded by law in a particular case.
denies, the tribunal the factum probandum d) Direct and Circumstantial
having as yet not is established. Direct Circumstantial
committed in either -evidence to the - indirectly related to
direction. precise point in issue the fact in issue, these
circumstances having
4. THE SETTLEMENT OF THE RELATION OF FACTUM been found by
PROBANS AND FACTUM PROBANDUM INVOLVES 3 experience so
DISTINCT QUESTIONS associated with that
(a) Admissibility (What facts may be presented?); fact in relation of cause
and effect they lead to
ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 1

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
a satisfactory Reconveyance and Damages by husband Jose Hosana.

conclusion. Tomas filed a Cross claim; Milagros is in default.
Tomas claims that his payment should be return to
e) Positive and Negative him. He alleged that he paid a total of P700,000, as
Positive Negative corroborated by his goddaughter.
-when the witness -when the witness RTC ruled that the sale is void. CA ruled that P200k
affirms that a fact did states the he did not be returned.
or did not occur see or know the ISSUE: Can a null and void contract be admitted as
evidence and used as the basis of the consideration
occurrence of a fact
paid?
f) Rebutting HELD. Yes.
-that which is given to repel counteract or disprove While the terms of a void contract cannot be
facts given in evidence on the other side. enforced since it is deemed inexistent, it does not
preclude the admissibility of the contract as evidence to
g) Primary/Best and Secondary prove matters that occurred in the course of executing
Primary/Best Secondary/Inferior the contract, I.e, what each party has given in the
-that which the law -it indicates the execution of the contract.
regards as affording the existence of more The purpose of introducing documentary evidence
greatest certainty of original source of is to ascertain the truthfulness of a matter at issue,
which can be the entire content or a specific
the facts in question information provision/term in the document.
h) Expert The deed of sale as a documentary evidence may
-testimony of one possessing, in regard to a particular be used as a means to ascertain the truthfulness of the
subject or department of human activity, knowledge consideration stated and its actual payment. The
purpose of introducing the deed of sale as evidence is
not usually acquired by other person.
not to enforce the terms written in the contract, which
i) Prima Facie is an obligatory force and effect of a valid contract. The
--standing alone unexplained or uncontroverted, is deed of sale, rather, is used as a means to determine
sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed. matters that occurred in the execution of such contract,
a) Conclusive Evidence I.e, the determination of what each party has given
-incontrovertible evidence under the void contract to allow restitution and prevent
b) Cumulative Evidence unjust enrichment.
-additional evidence of the same kind of bearing on Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the
issue and is not excluded by law of theses rules.
the same point.
There is no provision in the Rules of Evidence which
c) Corroborative excludes the admissibility of a void document. The
-additional evidence to a different kind and character, Rules only require that the evidence is relevant and
tending to prove the same point. not excluded by the Rules for its admissibility.
Hence, a void document is admissible as evidence
3. EVIDENCE VS PROOF because the purpose of introducing it as evidence is
Evidence Proof to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact, not
-the means of proof -the effect of the to enforce the terms of the document itself.
(2) TOLENTINO V. MENDOZA
evidence
***PROOF is that degree and quantity of evidence FACTS
that produces conviction. Petitioners (+)Romero Laygo, Solomon Lumalang
Sr, Meliton Evangelista Sr, and Nelson Melgar filed a
4. FORMS OF EVIDENCE case of Grossly Immoral Conduct, and Misconduct
May in a form of: against respondent alleging that he fathered two
a) Testimony given in open court; illegitimate children with his paramour. They submitted
b) Documentary evidence; the children’s birth certificate.
Respondent alleged that the evidence of Birth Cert
c) Form of tangible objects or exhibits. are inadmissible for being illegally procured , and a
d) Opinion testimony violation of -Rule 24. Non-Disclosure of Birth Records.
e) AO No.1, 1992.
5. STIPULATION AS TO EVIDENCE
-Individuals and parties litigant cannot, by ISSUE: ARE THE BIRTH CERTS ADMISSIBLE?
private contract, stipulate rules of evidence that HELD. YES
shall be binding on the courts. Respondent mistakenly argues that the birth
certificates of the children are inadmissible for having
been obtained in violation of such law.
CASE LAW Sec 3, Rule 128 of Revised Rules on Evidence provides
(1) TAN JR VS HOSANA (VOID DOCUMENT admissible as that “evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the
Evidence) issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules.”
There could be no dispute that the subject birth
FACTS certificates are relevant to the issue.
Milagros Hosana sold to Tomas, with forged SPA The only question, therefore, is whether the law
from Jose(Working in Japan), for P200,000. A Complaint or the rules provide for the inadmissibility of said birth
for Annulment of Sale/ Cancellation of TCT/ certificates allegedly for having been obtained in

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
violation of such law. d) OTHER CASES AS MAY BE PROVIDED FOR BY

Such law only provides for sanctions against persons LAW;
violating the rule on confidentiality of birth certificates, e) LAND REGISTRATION CASES; AND
but nowhere does it state that procurement of birth f) ELECTION CASES
certificate in violation of said rule would render said
records inadmissible in evidence.
(3) PEOPLE V. CARANGUIAN (Hearsay is Inadmissible) 3. EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES VS CRIMINAL CASES
EVIDENCE IN CIVIL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL
FACTS CASES CASES
Caranguian was charged with Murder for the killing -Preponderance of -Proof beyond
of Ben Lumboy. evidence reasonable doubt
Civil Volunteer Org Members, Ben Lumboy and -An offer of GR. An offer of
William Capili informed PO3Birung that they saw 2
compromise is not an compromise by the
CAFGU members . PO3 Birung accompanied them, and
had an encounter in the wooden bridge with the two admission of liability accused may be
CAFGU members. Ben was killed and was wounded. and is not admissible in received in evidence as
Caranguian averred he was 15 km away from the evidence against the an implied admission of
locus criminis. offeror guilt.
ISSUE: IS THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT? Testimony of EXC.

Lumboy and Palos to PO3 Birung- Hearsay 1. Criminal cases
PO3 Birung’s testimony is hearsay because he said
involving quasi-
he was informed by Lumboy and Capili that they sighted
two former CAFGU members in Catarauan. offenses; and
The hearsay rule bars the testimony of a witness who Criminal cases allowed
merely recites what someone else has told him, by law to be
whether orally or in writing. Sec 36, Rule 130 provides compromised
that a witness can testify only to those facts which he -Judicial admission -not admissible in
knows of his personal knowledge; that is which are withdrawn becomes evidence against the
derived from his own perception, except as otherwise extrajudicial admission accused who made plea
provided in the rules. In fact, PO3 Birung’s testimony is
even double or multiple hearsay, since it is based upon
or admission, when it is
“third-hand” information. withdrawn
-GR. There exists no The accused enjoys the
SEC 2. SCOPE presumption in favor of presumption of
Sec 2. Scope. -- The rules of evidence shall be either party, except in innocence
the same in all courts and in all trials and cases specially
hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or provided for by law
these rules. -IF THERE IS AN - Accused is acquitted
1. VARIATION BASED ON TYPE OF ACTION EQUIPONDERANCE OF
a) By preponderance of evidence EVIDENCE, the party
-meant simply evidence which is of greater weight, or who has the burden of
more convincing, than that which is offered in proof loses
opposition thereto. -No circumstantial -Circumstantial
b) Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt evidence available evidence applicable
-Moral certainty is only required, or that proof which only in criminal cases
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
SEC 3. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
-does not mean such degree of proof as excluding SEC 3. Admissibility of Evidence. -- Evidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
possibility of error, and or that degree of proof which
excluded by the constitution, the law or these rules.
produces absolute
-The exclusionary rule under the Constitution
certainty.
was included, but even before the amendment, the
c) Substantial Evidence
term “law” was understood to encompass the
-that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
constitution.
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
1. REQUIREMENTS OF ADMISSIBILITY
a) Relevancy -Evidence is relevant if it may
2. UNIFORMITY OF RULES OF EVIDENCE IN JUDICIAL
establish directly or indirectly the existence
PROCEEDINGS: The rules of evidence shall be the
or non-existence of the facts in issue.
same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except
b) Competency - that which is not excluded by
as otherwise provided by law or these rules, such as
the Rules on Evidence, the law and the
those enumerated under Sec 4, Rule 1 which are:
Constitution
(NICOLE)
2. TWO AXIOMS OF ADMISSIBILITY
a) NATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS;
a) Axiom of Relevancy
b) INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS;
c) CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS;

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
-none but facts having rational probative value

are admissible 6. EXCLUSIONARY RULES
b) Axiom of Competency a) Right against unreasonable search and
-all facts having rational probative value are seizure;
admissible unless some specific rule forbids their b) Right ti privacy and inviolability of
admission. communication;
c) Right of a person under investigation for an
3. TYPES OF ADMISSIBILITY offense;
a) Multiple Admissibility of Evidence d) Right against self-incrimination;
-may be admitted for any or all of the purposes e) RA 9745, Any confession, admission or
b) Conditional Admissibility of Evidence statement obtained as result of torture shall
-condition that the other facts will be proved be inadmissible as evidence EXCEPT if the
thereafter, otherwise it will be stricken out same person is used as evidence against a
c) Curative Admissibility of Evidence (Fire person or persons accused of committing
with fire) torture;
- where improper evidence was admitted over the f) RA No 9372, Any listened to, intercepted,
objection of the opposing party, he should be and recorded communications, messages,
permitted to contradict it with similar improper conversations, discussions, or spoken or
evidence introduced to cure, contradict, or neutralize written words, or any parts or parts thereof,
improper evidence presented by the other party. or any information or fact complained
ADMISSIBILTY WEIGHT therein, including their existence, content,
(PROBATIVE VALUE) substance, purport, effect, or meaning
As to the questions -refers to the question which have been secured in violation of the
resolved, it refers to of whether or not the provisions of the Human Security Act shall
the question of evidence proves an absolutely be inadmissible in any judicial,
whether or not the issue quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative
evidence is to be investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or
considered at all. hearing.
-pertains to its -pertains to its g) Evidence obtained in violation of RA No.
relevance and tendency to convince 4200.
competence and pursuade 7. DOCTRINE OF THE “FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS
-It depends on logic - it depends on the TREE
and law guidelines provided in -Once the primary source is shown to have been
Rule 133 and doctrines unlawfully obtained, any secondary evidence derived
laid down by the SC from it is also inadmissible.
-Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is
4. RULES OF EXCLUSION V. EXCLUSIONARY RULES obtained as as direct result of the illegal act, whereas
RULES OF EXCLUSION EXCLUSIONARY RULES the “fruit of the poisonous tree” is at least once
- in the system of -these are commonly removed from the illegally seized evidence, but it is
evidence, they are used for evidence equally inadmissible.
rules of exception to a excluded by the
general admissibility of Constitution. “But for” test or “Taint doctrine” -test is whether or
all that is rational and not the evidence could not have been obtained but for
probative the illegal action of the police.
E,g. the contents of a E.g. evidence obtained
photocopied document in violation of EXC. When the secondary evidence to which an
may be relevant but prohibition against objection is also made would have been inevitably
may be inadmissible searches and seizures discovered by law enforcement authorities by sources
under the BER or procedures independent of illegal search or seizure.
5. RULES OF EXCLUSION 8. ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS (CA)

a) Best Evidence Rule (i) Must COMPLY with the rules on admissibility
b) Parol Evidence Rule prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws; and
c) Hearsay Evidence Rule (ii) must be AUTHENTICATED in the manner
d) Offer of Compromise in Civil Cases prescribed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence
e) Disqualification of Witness by Reason of
Mental Incapacity or Immaturity 9. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN
f) Disqualification of Witness by Reason of VIOLATION OF LAW ON SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS
Death or Insanity of Adverse Party (RA 1405)
g) Disqualification by reason of marriage;
h) Disqualification by reason of Privileged Gen Rule: All deposits with banking institutions in the
Communication Philippines including investments in bonds issued by

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
the Government of the Philippines are considered as

of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the
examined, inquired or looked into by any person, inventory and the photographing of the drugs
government official, bureau or office. confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs
inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128
EXC. of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is
(1) written permission of the depositor, relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or
(2) In cases of impeachment, these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there
should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If
(3) Upon order of the competent court in cases of there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be
bribery and dereliction of duty of public officials, or admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will
(4) In cases where the money deposited is the accorded it by the courts. One example is that provided
subject matter of the litigation. in Section 31 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court wherein a
party producing a document as genuine which has been
- Nothing in RA 1405 provides that unlawful altered and appears to be altered after its execution, in
examination of bank accounts will make the a part material to the question in dispute, must account
evidence obtained thereby inadmissible. Sec 5 only for the alteration. His failure to do so shall make the
document inadmissible in evidence. This is clearly
punishes violators of the law with 5 years provided for in the rules.
imprisonment or fine, or both.
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or
ART 7 OF PD NO. 603, only provides for sanctions in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of
against persons violating the rule on confidentiality of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-
birth records, but nowhere does it state that compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
procurement of birth records in violation of said (2) BSB GROUP INC VS GO (BANK SECRECY LAW)
article would render said records inadmissible in FACTS
evidence. In 2002, Estafa/Qualified Theft -Several Checks-
CASE LAW P1,534,135.50 (Security bank-Divisoria)
Admissibility of Evidence Subpoena was issued against Managers of Security
(1) PEOPLE VS DEL MONTE (SEC 21 RA 9165) bank and Metrobank Jose Abad Santos .(Resp claims is
irrelevant in MTQ)
FACTS Respondent Invokes RA 1405. CA suppressed the
“Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act 2002” SCTC rep’s testimony
12/10/02(3pm) Confidential Informant informed ISSUE:Is testimony of Marasigan, SBTC Rep irrelevant to
PDEA Baliuag. Buy-bust operation was conducted by the case? Does it violate RA 1405?
SPO2 MAUNG (TL), PO1 TOLENTINO JR (POSEUR BUYER), HELD. YES. It is irrelevant.
and PO1 Barrerras as BackUp
Defense alleged that the procedure was in RELEVANCE: Whether they HAVE SUCH DIRECT RELATION
violation of SEC 21, RA 9165.Pictures not taken to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or
immediately. non-existence.
EXCEPTIONS to RA 1405.
(1) Upon written permission of depositor;
(2) in cases of impeachment,
ISSUE:Whether the evidence is inadmissible
(3) upon order of a competent court in cases of
for failure to comply with such provision?
bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or
(4) in cases where the money deposited or
HELD. NO. invested is the subject matter or invested is the subject
matter of litigation.
In People v. Pringas, we explained that non-
What constitutes “subject matter of litigation”, the
compliance with Section 21 will not render an accused's
money deposited in the account is itself the subject of
arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
action.
inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the
(3) DE JESUS VS SANCHEZ-MALIT
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items as the same would be utilized in the
FACTS
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Disbarment case: Grave misconduct, dishonesty,
In the case at bar, appellant never questioned the
malpractice
custody and disposition of the drug that was taken from
- 06/23/04- drafted and notarized REM of a public
him. In fact, he stipulated that the drug subject matter
market falsely naming himself as the owner. Mortgagee
of this case was forwarded to PNP Regional Crime
sued Atty for perjury
Laboratory Office 3, Malolos, Bulacan for laboratory
- notarized a contract without lessees’ signature.
examination which examination gave positive result for
-Notarized an agreement of sale of CLOA, without
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. We
telling him that such property is subject to prohibition
thus find the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
period.
drug seized from appellant not to have been
-Notarized 3 blank SPAs.. Additional evidence.
compromised.
IBP- immediate revocation of Notarial Commission
DEFENSE: Additional Evidence are inadmissible, in
We would like to add that non-compliance with violation of Sec 4 Rule VI off Rules on Notarial Practice.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
illegally obtained evidence taint all evidence

ISSUE: Is the additional evidence inadmissible for subsequently obtained.
violation of the Notarial Law? (5) NAVARRO VS CA ( RA4200)
HELD. No.
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Law contains no provision FACTS
declaring the inadmissibility of documents obtained in 2/4/90, nighttime, Accused, member of Lucena
violation thereof. Thus, the IBP correctly considered in Integrated National Police, assaulted IKE LINGAN inside
evidence the other notarized documents submitted by Lucena Police HQ. Hit the Butt of his Gun to the Head
complainant as additional evidence. Concussion of Linganm causing his death.
(4) PEOPLE VS SAMONTANEZ (Fruit of the Poisonous Stanley Jalbuena & Ike Lingan- Reportes of DWTI.
Tree) Jalbuena took a picture of a nude dancer at a stripclub.
“Kinakalaban mo si Kabo liquin?”. Jalbuena signed
FACTS a blotter with a gun in his head. Jalbuena was able to
11/25/95- Corazon Delas Alas- Lolita (18yo)- Ilaya, record on tape the exchange.
Batangas. 8pm same day- lifeless body of Lolita in mid
of sugar cane plantation ISSUE: Is the recording inadmissble because of RA
6:30pm. Accused left sugar cane plantation. 4200?
11/28-Roberto was arrested in his workplace. He HELD.No.
admitted in police headquarters, Lolita’s belongings The quarrel is not private. Law prohibits
were in his bag. overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private
RTC found him guilty. Sentenced to DEATH communications.
APPEAL: Plea of guilt is inadmissible, for having
improvidently made. No Counsel in Custodial Petitioner Navarro questions the credibility of the
Investigation. testimony of Jalbuena on the ground that he was a
“Fruits of the Poisonous Tree”:In Roberto’s bag:Omax biased witness, having a grudge against him. The
wrist watch, pawnshop receipt of gold ring owned by testimony of a witness who has an interest in the
Lolita, fan knife conviction of the accused is not, for this reason alone,
unreliable. Trial courts, which have the opportunity to
ISSUE 1: IS THE PLEA OF GUILT VALID? observe the facial expressions, gestures, and tones of
HELD. NO. voice of a witness while testifying, are competent to
Sec 2 Rule 116 provides for the mandate that trial determine whether his or her testimony should be given
courts should follow in case where the accused pleads credence. In the instant case, petitioner Navarro has not
guilty. shown that the trial court erred in according weight to
Based on the rule, three things are enjoined of the the testimony of Jalbuena.
trial court after a plea of guilty to a capital offense is
entered by the accused:
(1) The trial court must conduct a searching inquiry Indeed, Jalbuena's testimony is confirmed by the
into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the voice recording he had made. It may be asked whether
consequences of his plea; the tape is admissible in view of R.A. No. 4200, which
(2) The trial court must require the prosecution to prohibits wire tapping. The answer is in the affirmative.
present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and The law provides:
the precise degree of his culpability through the
requisite quantum of evidence, and SECTION 4. Any communication or spoken word, or
(3) The trial court ask the accused if he desires to the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or
present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any
he desires. It must be emphasized that the said information therein contained obtained or secured by
procedure is mandatory at any judge who fails to any person in violation of the preceding sections of this
observe it commits grave abuse of discretion. Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial,
quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or
ISSUE 2: ARE THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE? investigation.
HELD. No. The considered pieces of evidence that are
inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial (6) Thus, the law prohibits the overhearing,
“fruit of the poisonous tree:. intercepting, or recording of private
We have not only constitutionalized the Miranda communications. Since the exchange between
warnings in our jurisdiction. We have also adopted the petitioner Navarro and Lingan was not private, its tape
libertarian exclusionary rule known as the “fruit of the recording is not prohibited.
poisonous tree” , that once the primary source is shown
to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or SEC 4. RELEVANCY; COLLATERAL MATTERS
derivative evidence derived from it is also inadmissible/ SEC 4. RELEVANCY; COLLATERAL MATTERS--Evidence
Illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct must have such relation to the fact in issue as to
result of the illegal act, whereas the “fruit of the induce belief in its existence or non-existence;
poisonous tree” is the indirect result of the same illegal Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed,
act. except when it tends in any reasonable degree to
“The fruit of the poisonous tree” is at least once establish the probability or improbability of the fact
removed from the illegally seized evidence, but it is in issue.
equally inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle 1. RELEVANCY
that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not
be used to gain other evidence because the originally

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
-the evidence is relevant when it is related to a

fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence
2. TEST OF RELEVANCY
a) Experience and the Rule of Logic
-naturally and logically tends to establish a fact in
issue
b) The Rational or Logical Relevancy Test
-whether there is a logical or rational connection
between the fact which is sought to be proved
c) The Logical Connection Test in Collateral
Matters
-whether evidence is admissible to show collateral
fact or where proffered evidence is relevant to a
collateral issue.
3. EVIDENCE ON COLLATERAL MATTERS

-refers to matters other than the fact in issue.
These are matters outside the controversy, or are not
directly connected with the principal matter or issue
in dispute, as indicated in the pleadings of the parties.
-Evidence on collateral matters shall not be
allowed.
4. FACT IN ISSUE VS FACT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE

FACT IN ISSUE FACT RELEVANT TO
THE ISSUE
-those which the -are those facts which
plaintiff must prove in render probable the
order to establish his existence or non-
claim and those facts existence of a fact in
which the defendant issue, or some other
must prove in order to relevant fact.
establish a defense set
up by him, but only
when the fact alleged
by one party is not
admitted by the other
party.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
RULE 129 accepted it in goodwill. Contract of lease is novated by

WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED sale of lease rights.
MeTC- ordered Latip to pay 1 year rental- P720K
1. MATTERS THET NEED NOT BE PROVED:(JASPA) RTC- reversed. Lease contract was not notarized, no
signature of Chua’s husband, and signatures of SPS Latip
a) Facts which are the subject of judicial CA-reversed and ordered the ejectment of Sps Latip.
notice; Judicial notice of the common practice in the area in
b) Facts which are admitted; Baclaran, where Goodwill money is paid.
c) Matters are not Specifically denied in the
answer; ISSUE: Did CA err in taking judicial notice of the
d) Facts which are legally presumed; practice in Baclaran where goodwill money is paid?
e) Those which are the subject of an agreed RULING. YES.
statement of facts between the parties. It is apparent that the matter which CA took judicial
notice does not meet the requisite of notoriety. To
2. JUDICIAL NOTICE begin with, only the CA took judicial notice of this
- is the cognizance of certain facts which judges supposed practice to pay goodwill money. The practice
may properly take and act on without proof because was not of “common knowledge”.
they already know them.
3. EFFECT OF JUDICIAL NOTICE UPON THE BURDEN DISCUSSION ON JUDICIAL NOTICE
OF PROVING A FACT On this point, State Prosecutors v. Muro is instructive:
-Judicial notice relieves the parties from the
necessity of introducing evidence to prove the fact I. The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the
noticed wisdom and discretion of the courts. The power to take
-Stipulations and admissions of the parties or their judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with
counsel cannot prevail over the operation of the caution; care must be taken that the requisite
doctrine of judicial notice, and such stipulations and notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt on the
admissions are all subject to the operation of the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative.
doctrine of judicial notice,
Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have
4. MATERIAL REQUISITES [CSK] three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of
a) The matter must be one of COMMON AND common and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and
GENERAL knowledge; authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain;
b) It must be well and authoritatively settled and (3) it must be known to be within the limits of the
jurisdiction of the court. The principal guide in
and not doubtful or uncertain; and determining what facts may be assumed to be
c) It must be known to be within the limits of judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be
the jurisdiction of the court. said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced
by public records and facts of general notoriety.
5. TEST OF NOTORIETY
-the principal guide in determining what facts To say that a court will take judicial notice of a
may be assumed to be judicially known is that of fact is merely another way of saying that the usual form
notoriety. of evidence will be dispensed with if knowledge of the
- Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is fact can be otherwise acquired. This is because the
limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts court assumes that the matter is so notorious that it will
of general notoriety. not be disputed. But judicial notice is not judicial
knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of the
judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and
6. JUDGE’S PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge
-Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the
-Judicial Cognizance is taken only of those basis of his action. Judicial cognizance is taken only of
matters which are commonly known. those matters which are "commonly" known. SaHIEA
7. KINDS OF JUDICIAL NOTICE Things of "common knowledge", of which courts

a) Mandatory; and take judicial notice, may be matters coming to the
b) Discretionary knowledge of men generally in the course of the
ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters
CASE LAW which are generally accepted by mankind as true and
What Need Not be Proved are capable of ready and unquestioned demonstration.
(1) SPS LATIP VS CHUA Thus, facts which are universally known, and which may
be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other
FACTS publications, are judicially noticed, provided they are of
Lessor, Chua leased 2 cubicles at 1 st and 2nd floor, such universal notoriety and so generally understood
56sqm for P60K monthly. that they may be regarded as forming part of the
- Chua sent a letter demanding backpay and to vacate common knowledge of every person.
premises. Latip already paid P2,570,000.00 with
receipts in Rosalie’s handwriting. Rosalie averred she The principal guide in determining what facts may

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
evidence of the existence and territorial extent of

states, their political history, forms of government and
be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety.
symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty
Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to
and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the
facts evidenced by public records and facts of general
political constitution and history of the Philippines, the
notoriety.
official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the National Government of the
Moreover, a judicially noticed fact must be one not Philippines, the laws of nature. The measure of time,
subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is either: and the geographical divisions.
-Señga Notes-
(1) generally known within the territorial The new rule clarifies that only the official acts
jurisdiction of the trial court; or of the legislative, executive and judicial departments
of the National Government are those subject of
(2) capable of accurate and ready determination by mandatory judicial notice. Consequently, the official
resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
be questionable. departments of local government units are generally
not subject of mandatory judicial notice.
Things of "common knowledge", of which courts take In Social Justice Society v. Atienza, Jr., G.R.
judicial notice, may be matters coming to the
No. 156052 (Resolution), February 13, 2008, the
knowledge of men generally in the course of the
ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters Supreme Court ruled that while courts are required to
which are generally accepted by mankind as true and take judicial notice of the laws enacted by Congress,
are capable of ready and unquestioned demonstration. the rule with respect to local ordinances is different.
Thus, facts which are universally known, and which may Ordinances are not included in the enumeration of
be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other matters covered by mandatory judicial notice under
publications, are judicially noticed, provided, they are Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.
such of universal notoriety and so generally understood In this case, it was alleged that Section 50 of RA
that they may be regarded as forming part of the 409 or the Revised Charter of Manila, provides that
common knowledge of every person. As the common
knowledge of man ranges far and wide, a wide variety
“All courts sitting in the city shall take judicial notice
of particular facts have been judicially noticed as being of the ordinances passed by the [Sangguniang
matters of common knowledge. But a court cannot take Panglungsod].”
judicial notice of any fact which, in part, is dependent The Supreme Court ruled that the foregoing
on the existence or non-existence of a fact of which the provision cannot be taken to mean that the Supreme
court has no constructive knowledge. Court, since it has its seat in the City of Manila, should
(2) JUAN VS JUAN [ Internet Sources] have taken steps to procure a copy of the Manila
-”Lavandera Ko”-July 4, 1994- Certficate of Copyright in ordinance on its own, relieving the party of any duty
1997
to inform the Supreme Court about it. Even where
-1997,he formed Laundromatic Corp. Then he
discovered his brother Roberto, was able to register there is a statute that requires a court to take judicial
with IPO “lavendera ko” on 2001, and threatened his notice of municipal ordinances, a court is not required
franchisees of criminal and civil cases if they do not to take judicial notice of ordinances that are not
stop the use of the mark and name. before it and to which it does not have access. The
RTC ruled that parties are not entitled to the right of party asking the court to take judicial notice is
use and enjoy “Lavandera Ko” based on information obligated to supply the court with the full text of the
from the internet, which the RTC ruling cited. rules the party desires it to have notice of. Counsel
should take the initiative in requesting that a trial
ISSUE: Is the court allowed to take judicial notice of
such information from the internet? court take judicial notice of an ordinance even where
RULING. NO. a statute requires courts to take judicial notice of
RTCs basis or source, being an article appearing in a local ordinances.
website, in its ruling cannot be considered a subject of The intent of a statute requiring a court to take
judicial notice that does not need further judicial notice of a local ordinance is to remove any
authentication or verification. Judicial notice is the discretion a court might have in determining whether
cognizance of certain facts that judges may properly or not to take notice of an ordinance. Such a statute
take and act on without proof because these facts are
does not direct the court to act on its own in obtaining
already known to them.
The article in the website cited by the RTC patently evidence for the record and a party must make the
lacks a requisite for it to be of judicial notice to the ordinance available to the court for it to take notice.
court because such article is not well and
authoritatively settled, and is doubtful or uncertain. It 1. MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE (EP- NAP-ON- TG)
must be remembered that some articles appearing in a) The existence and territorial extent of
the internet or on websites are easily edited and their states;
sources are unverifiable. b) Their Political history, forms of
government, and symbols of nationality;
SEC 1. JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN MANDATORY c) The law of Nations;
SEC.1 JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN MANDATORY. --A court
shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
d) The Admiralty and maritime courts of the bulldozed and destroyed by Edgardo Espinosa. Despite
world and their seals; no opposition to their application for free patent, it was
e) The political constitution and history of the obstructed because of the existence TCT under the
Philippines; name of Peltan Devt. From a fictitious OCT.
RTC- Rey and Araujo not real party in interest,
f) The Official acts of the legislative, dismissed complaint
executive and judicial departments of the CA- reversed. SC reversed.
Philippines; CA failed to take judicial notice of “Margolles vs
CA” ruling( upheld the validity of OCT No. 4126).
Matters relating to the legislative department
-Bound to take judicial notice of the dates
when Congress begins and closes, its session, the RULING
number and functions, and privileges of its
members. Joint resolution of public character It is axiomatic nonetheless that a court has a
passed by the legislature must also be judicially mandate to apply relevant statutes and jurisprudence in
known. determining whether the allegations in a complaint
establish a cause of action. While it focuses on the
Matters relating to the executive department complaint, a court clearly cannot disregard decisions
-these include the organization of the material to the proper appreciation of the questions
before it. In resolving a motion to dismiss, every court
Executive Department and its principal officers,
must take cognizance of decisions this Court has
whether elected or appointed. rendered because they are proper subjects of
mandatory judicial notice as provided by Section 1 of
Matters relating to the SC courts of justice Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.
-SC has taken judicial notice of its record in
a previous case in connection with the conduct of The Court is well aware that a decision in Margolles
the litigant or witness on a similar matter. But vs. CA, rendered on 14 February 1994, upheld the
validity of OCT No. 4216 (and the certificates of title
the SC does not take judicial notice of derived therefrom), the same OCT that the present
proceedings in various courts of justice in the PH. complaint seeks to nullify for being "fictitious and
spurious." Respondent CA, in its assailed Decision dated
g) Laws of Nature; [ law on gravity, flow of 29 June 1994, failed to consider Margolles vs. CA. The
tides etc] Supreme Court promulgated Margolles ahead of the
h) Measure of Time; and assailed CA decision. It was incumbent upon Respondent
i) Geographical divisions CA to take judicial notice thereof and apply it in
resolving this case. That the CA did not is clearly a
reversible error.
CASE LAW
(3) PEOPLE VS SEVILLENO [Territorial Jurisdiction]
(1) PEOPLE VS DOCUMENTO [ Territorial Bounds]
Facts FACTS
4/22/96(Ochoa Ave), and 10/15/95((brgy 7/22/95(10am) Accused Paulino Tamayowas
Antongalon) In Butuan Cuty, Minor 16 yo, carnal charged with rape with homicide of 9yo niece, Virginia.
knowledge.RA 7659 She was found dead in Sugarcane fields “Campo 9”.
- She was raped when 10yo, and gave birth in 1993. He pled guilty to rape and murder of a 9yo girl.
Pled Not Guilty- Changed to Guilty- then said was Due to Typhoon Pepang- Accused escaped detention.
coerced by Prosecutor Trial in Absentia ensued. Accused was recaptured.
Accused said he had consensual sexual relations with The testimony of Norma Baquia was disregarded for
AAA, and disowned the handwritten letters of apology to failure to establish that the incident happened in the
AAA’s parents. territorial jurisdiction of the court.
RTC- DEATH; CA-Reclusion Perpetua ISSUE: Is the failure to account Norma’s testimony on
Accused avers that there is no territorial jurisdiction account that it failed to establish that the offense
over the crime, and that the prosecution failed to happened in the territorial jurisdiction of the court
establish that the two counts of rape were done in proper?
Butuan City. CA pointed out that although “Butuan City” HELD. NO.
was not mentioned in the testimony, it was stated that The court below erred in disregarding the testimony
it happened in Ochoa Ave and Brgy Antongalan. of Norma Baquia "for the reason that her testimony
ISSUE: Did the prosecution fail to establish the failed to establish that the incident happened within the
territorial jurisdiction where the crime was allegedly territorial jurisdiction of this court." The court did not
committed? consider her testimony purportedly because she only
HELD. No. testified that her sister Virginia went with the accused
The inclusion of the two barangays in the City of to Guindali-an without specifying as to what
Butuan is a matter of Mandatory Judicial Notice by municipality or city it was part of. Again, this is error.
the trial court. Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court requires courts
(2) PELTAN DEVELOPMENT INC. VS CA [Jurisprudence] to take judicial notice, without the introduction of
evidence, of the existence and geographical divisions of
Facts our country.
Filed for “Cancellation of titles and damages. . There is only one Sitio Guindali-an, Brgy. Guadalupe,
197,527sqm, Bar. Tindig na Manga, Las Pinas.Rey had San Carlos City (Negros Occidental). ET
been occupying and cultivating for many years. Illegally

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
FACTS
SEC 2. JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN DISCRETIONARY. 7/23/06- Viron Transit Corp ordered 14,000L of Diesel
Sec 2. Judicial Notice, When Discretionary. --A court worth P497,000 from United Oil Petroleum Phils owned
may take judicial notice of matters which are of public by Lao.
knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable Candelaria, a truck driver employed by Lao was
demonstration, or ought to be known to judges. dispatched to deliver the fuel.
Candelaria carnapped the lorry truck, plate no. PTA945.
1. DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE [PDF] RTC-Guilty
a) Matters which are of Public Knowledge; CA- guilty on circumstantial evidence.
b) Matters capable of unquestionable
Demonstration; ISSUE: Can the courts take judicial notice to
c) Matters ought to be known to judges determine the value of the thing stolen?
because of their judicial Functions. HELD.
2. FOREIGN LAWS
Gr. Foreign laws do not prove themselves nor can a The imposable penalty for the crime of Qualified
court take judicial notice of them, Like any other fact, Theft depends upon the value of the thing stolen. To
they must be alleged and proved prove the value of the stolen property for purposes of
fixing the imposable penalty under Articles 309 and 310
EXC. In certain decided cases however, judicial notice of the RPC, as amended, the Court explained in People
v. Anabe that the prosecution must present more than
has been taken of the laws of another country [C-
a mere uncorroborated "estimate."
PAWS]
(i) Common Law;
(ii) When a foreign law is part of a Published In the absence of independent and reliable
corroboration of such estimate, the courts may either
treatise, periodical, or pamphlet and the writer is
apply the minimum penalty under Article 309 or fix
recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the the value of the property taken based on the
subject, the court, may take judicial notice of the attendant circumstances of the case. In Merida v.
treatise; People (Merida), which applied the doctrine
(iii) Foreign statute Accepted by the government; enunciated in People v. Dator (Dator), the Court
(iv) those Generally WELL-KNOWN, is within the deemed it improper to take judicial notice of the selling
actual knowledge of the court , had been ruled upon I price of narra at the time of the commission of its
previous case before it and none of the parties claim theft, as such evidence would be "unreliable and
inconclusive considering the lack of independent and
otherwise; and
competent source of such information."
(v) Stipulation by the parties.
3. DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION However, in the more recent case of Lozano v.

People (Lozano), the Court fixed the value of the stolen
(Doctrine of Presumed-Identity Approach)
magwheels at P12,000.00 as the "reasonable allowable
-where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if limit under the circumstances," notwithstanding the
pleaded,is not proved, the presumption is that foreign uncorroborated testimony of the private complainant
law is the same as ours. therein. Lozano cited, among others, the case
of Francisco v. People (Francisco) where the Court
4. JUDICIAL NOTICE OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES ruled that "the trial court can only take judicial notice
a) Inferior courts should take mandatory of the value of goods which are matters of public
judicial notice of municipal or city knowledge or are capable of unquestionable
demonstration," further explaining that the value of
ordinances in force in their territorial
jewelry, the stolen items in the said case, is neither a
jurisdiction; matter of public knowledge nor is it capable of
b) The RTC should take judicial notice of unquestionable demonstration.
municipal ordinances in force in the
municipalities within their jurisdiction only
In this case, Candelaria has been found guilty of
when: stealing diesel fuel. Unlike in Francisco, where the
i. Required by law; Court had no reference to ascertain the price of the
ii. On appeal to it from the inferior court stolen jewelry, or in Merida and Dator, where the Court
in which the latter took judicial notice refused to take judicial notice of the selling price of
lumber and/or narra for "lack of independent and
5. JUDICIAL NOTICE OF RECORDS PREVIOUSLY TRIED competent source" of the necessary information at the
time of the commission of the theft, the value of diesel
fuel in this case may be readily gathered from price lists
published by the Department of Energy (DOE). In this
6. MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE VS DISCRETIONARY regard, the value of diesel fuel involved herein may
JUDICIAL NOTICE then be considered as a matter of public knowledge
which falls within the purview of the rules on
CASE LAW discretionary judicial notice.
Judicial Notice, When Discretionary
(1) CANDELARIA VS PEOPLE [Price of Diesel] To note, "judicial [notice], which is based on

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
considerations of expediency and convenience, expense in securing and introducing evidence on

displace[s] evidence since, being equivalent to proof, it matters that are not ordinarily capable of dispute or
fulfills the object which the evidence is intended to actually bona fide disputed, and the tenor of which can
achieve." safely be assumed from the tribunal's general knowledge
or from a slight search on its part.
While it is true that the prosecution had only presented
the uncorroborated testimony of the private Indeed, municipal courts may take judicial notice
complainant, Lao, to prove that the value of the diesel of the municipal ordinances in force in the municipality
fuel stolen is P497,000.00, the Court — taking judicial in which they sit. Such notice, however, is limited to
notice of the fact that the pump price of diesel fuel in what the law is and what it states.
August 2006 (i.e., the time of the commission of the A court may take discretionary judicial notice
crime) is within the range of P37.60 to P37.86 per where the boundaries of the lot covered by the law
liter — nonetheless remains satisfied that such amount are not a matter of public knowledge capable of
must be sustained. As the value of the goods may unquestionable demonstration.—The location of
independently and competently be ascertained from the Habagat Grill cannot be resolved by merely taking
DOE's price publication, adding too that the defense had judicial notice of Presidential Proclamation No. 20; such
not presented any evidence to contradict said finding location is precisely at the core of the dispute in this
nor cross-examined Lao anent her proffered valuation, case.
the Court, notwithstanding the solitary evidence of the Moreover, considering respondent’s allegation that
prosecution, makes this determination following the the supposed lot covered by the Ordinance has been lost
second prong set by case law — and that is, to fix the due to inundation by the sea, we cannot fathom how
value of the property taken based on the attendant the trial court could have known of the actual location
circumstances of the case. Verily, such circumstances of the metes and bounds of the subject lot. Neither may
militate against applying the alternative of imposing a the MTC take discretionary judicial notice under Section
minimum penalty and, more so, the CA's arbitrary 2 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, because the exact
valuation of P14,000.00, since the basis for which was boundaries of the lot covered by that law are not a
not explained. Therefore, for purposes of fixing the matter of public knowledge capable of unquestionable
proper penalty for Qualified Theft in this case, the value demonstration. Neither may these be known to judges
of the stolen property amounting to P497,000.00 must because of their judicial functions.
be considered. Conformably with the provisions of Hence, the CA was correct in disregarding the findings
Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC, the proper penalty to of the trial courts, because they had erred in taking
be imposed upon Candelaria is reclusion judicial notice of the exact metes and bounds of the
perpetua, without eligibility for parole, to conform property. The appellate court aptly relied on the Report
with prevailing law and jurisprudence. submitted by the survey team that had been constituted
(2) HABAGAT GRILL V. DMC URBAN PROPERTY by the trial court, precisely for the purpose of
determining the location of Habagat Grill in relation to
Facts respondent’s lot.
Consunji Inc. - residential lot situated in Matina
Davao City. SEC 3. JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN HEARING NECESSARY
6/13/91-David Consunji Inc transferred said lot to its Sec 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. --
sister company, the DMC Urban Property Developers, Inc During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on
(DMC) request of a party, may announce its intention to take
Alleging that Louie Biraogo forcibly entered said judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be
lot and built the Habagat Grill in December 1993, DMC heard.
filed [1994] a Complaint for Forcible Entry against After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal,
Habagat Grill and/or Louie Biraogo. rental value of said the proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a
lot is P10,000 a month. Louie Biraogo in his Answer party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow
denied illegally entering the lot in question. the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is
MTC- denied on lack of jurisdiction decisive of a material issue in the case.
Respondent argues that the trial court Judicial Notice, When Hearing Necessary. —
indiscriminately ignored the Report of the survey team
that had been constituted to determine the exact
During the pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu
location of Habagat Grill. Respondent further contends proprio or upon motion, shall hear the parties on
that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the the propriety of taking judicial notice of any
metes and bounds of the property covered by matter.
Presidential Proclamation No. 20. Although the lower Before judgment or on appeal, the court,
court may take judicial notice of PD No. 20, it may not motu proprio or upon motion, may take judicial
do so in regard to the metes and bounds of Times notice of any matter and shall hear the parties
Beach. Neither, may it claim knowledge of the thereon if such matter is decisive of a material
situational relation between the land in question and
issue in the case.
Times Beach.
RULING -SEÑGA NOTES
Even during the pre-trial, matters sought to be
taken judicial notice of may be heard. The old rule
SC agrees with respondent. "Judicial notice is the
cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly
provided that the hearing on matters sought to be
take and act on without proof because they already taken judicial notice of may take place during trial,
know them." Its object is to save time, labor and without mentioning pre-trial.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
With the amendment changing the term “may” to September 5, 1997, he was working as a watch
“shall”, it appears that the intention is to make repairman near Gals Bakery in Mandaue City Market and
mandatory the hearing on the matter sought to be went home tired and sleepy at around 11:00 o’clock
taken judicial notice of, whether it be during pre-trial, that evening. On November 7, 1997, he claims he was at
work.
trial, at any time before judgment and even on
appeal. Issue : Was it correct for the Court to take judicial
Note that generally , theories, issues and notice of Mary Ann’s age without a hearing?.
arguments not brought to the attention of the trial
court will not be considered by a reviewing court,
except when their factual bases would not require Held: No.
presentation of any further evidence by the adverse
party in order to enable him to properly meet the
With respect to other matters not falling within the
issue raised, such as when the factual bases of such mandatory or discretionary judicial notice, the court
novel theory , issue or argument is (a) subject of can take judicial notice of a fact pursuant to the
judicial notice; or (b) had already been judicially procedure in Section 3 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court
admitted. (Borromeo v. Mina, G.R. No. 193747, June which requires that — SEC. 3. Judicial notice, when
5, 2013) hearing necessary. — During the trial, the court, on its
own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce
1. STAGES UPON WHICH THE COURT MAY TAKE its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF A FACT allow the parties to be heard thereon. After the trial,
and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on
a) During Pre-trial (Revised Rules) its own initiative or on request of a party, may take
b) During trial; judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be
c) After trial and before judgment; or heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material
d) Appeal issue in the case.
2. PURPOSE OF HEARING In this case, judicial notice of the age of the victim is
improper, despite the defense counsel's admission
-to afford the parties reasonable opportunity to
thereof, acceding to the prosecution's motion. As
present information relevant to the propriety of taking required by Section 3 of Rule 129, as to any other
such judicial notice or the tenor of the matter to be matters such as age, a hearing is required before courts
noticed. can take judicial notice of such fact. Generally, the age
of the victim may be proven by the birth or baptismal
3. JUDICIAL NOTICE DURING PRE-TRIAL OR TRIAL VS certificate of the victim, or in the absence thereof,
BEFORE JUDGMENT OR ON APPEAL upon showing that said documents were lost or
destroyed, by other documentary or oral evidence
sufficient for the purpose.
DURING PRETRIAL OR TRIAL, the court may announce
(2) PEOPLE VS LIBAN (Minority must be alleged)
its intention to take judicial notice of “ any matter”
and may hear the parties thereon. Facts
AFTER TRIAL BUT BEFORE JUDGMENT OR ON APPEAL,

Having been found guilty of raping his own minor
the court may take judicial notice of any matter and
daughter, appellant was meted the penalty of death
allow the parties to be heard “if such matter is under RA 7659. Hence, this appeal, where appellant
decisive of a material issue in the case.” bewailed the penalty imposed upon him on the ground
that the prosecution failed to prove the real age of the
CASE LAW victim.
Judicial Notice, When hearing si Necessary
(1) PEOPLE VS TUNDAG (Age) Under RA 7659, rape of a minor by her own father
FACTS is punishable by death. However, to appreciate the
-her father, Tomas Tundag, raped her twice. First qualifying circumstance of minority of the victim in
was on 9/ 5/1997 and the other on 11/18/1997. Also incestuous rape cases, the same must not only be
alleged that she was 13 years old when she was raped by specifically alleged in the information but must likewise
her father. (However, the prosecution in the case at bar be established beyond reasonable doubt during trial.
was not able to show any documents pertaining to Mary
Ann’s age at the time of the commission of the rape.
The prosecution then asked the Court to take judicial Here, save the bare testimony of the victim that
notice that Mary Ann was under 18 years of age which she was 10 years old at the time of the first rape,
was subsequently granted without conducting a nothing else could be elicited from the records to
hearing.) ascertain the correct age of the victim.
After the commission of the second rape, Mary Ann
went to her neighbor, Bebie Cabahug. They reported ISSUE:Can the court take judicial notice of the
this to the police and was later examined by a doctor minority of the victim?
RTC- DEATH
CA, Tomas flatly denied that the incidents
complained of ever took place. He contends that on HELD. No

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
The Court here emphasizes that the severity, as -As a rule, it is -they are generally
well as the irreversible and final nature, of the penalty conclusive upon the disputable except when
of death once carried out makes the decision-making party making them elements of estoppel
process in capital offenses aptly subject to the most
are present
exacting rules of procedure and evidence.
It is to be recognized that, due to variable 2. REQUISITES [PCN]
circumstances, no two cases are really ever alike that, a) The same must be made by the Party to the
at times, may easily mislead one to perceive the Court case’
to be giving, albeit inaccurately, vacillating rulings. b) Admission must be made in the Course of
Relative particularly to the qualifying circumstance of the proceedings in the same Case; and
minority of the victim in incestuous rape cases, the c) There is not particular form for an
Court has consistently adhered to the idea that the admission--It may either be written or
victim's minority must not only be specifically alleged in
verbal
the information but must likewise be established
beyond reasonable doubt during trial. Neither the
obvious minority of the victim, nor the absence of any 3. WHAT NEED NOT TO BE PROVED
contrary assertion from the defense, can exonerate the a) Admission made in the course of the
prosecution from these twin requirements. proceedings
Judicial notice of the issue of age, without the b) Admissions in amended pleadings
requisite hearing conducted under Section 3, Rule - an amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it
129, of the Rules of Court, would not be considered amends. However, admissions in superseded pleadings
enough compliance with the law. The birth certificate
may be received in evidence against the pleader
of the victim or, in lieu thereof, any other documentary
evidence, like a baptismal certificate, school records c) Rule on Dismissed Pleadings
and documents of similar nature, or credible testimonial -merely extra judicial admissions
evidence, that can help establish the age of the victim
should be presented. While the declaration of a victim d) Rules on Pleadings not filed
as to her age, being an exception to the hearsay i. IF SIGNED BY THE PARTY, considered
proscription, would be admissible under the rule on EJC
pedigree, the question on the relative weight that may ii. IF SIGNED BY THE ATTY, not admissible
be accorded to it is another matter. Corroborative
“ An attorney has authority to make statements
evidence would be most desirable or even essential
when circumstances warrant. on behalf of hos client only in open court or in a
pleading actually filed.
SEC 4. JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
Sec 4. Judicial admissions. -- An admission, verbal oral e) Admission made by counsel
or written, made by a party in the course of the GR. Admissions made by a counsel are binding upon
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. the client.
The admission may be contradicted only by showing that EXC. In cases where reckless or gross negligence of
it was made through palpable mistake or that no such counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or
admission was made. the imputed admission was not, when its application will result in outright deprivation
in fact, made. of the client’s liberty or property, or where interest of
-the phrasing was changed by the Revised Rules on justice so require, relief is accorded to the client who
Evidence but the meaning remains the same. suffered by reason of the lawyer’s gross or palpable
mistake or negligence.
GR. A Judicial admission is conclusive upon the party
making it and does not require proof f) Implied admissions of Actionable
EXC. Documents
1. When it is shown that the admission was made g) Other cases of Judicial Admissions
through palpable mistake; and i. Failure to specifically deny the
2. When it is shown that no such admission was in fact allegations
made. ii. Negative pregnant
1. JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS VS EXTRA-JUDICIAL 4. REMEDY OF A PARTY WHO GAVE A JUDICIAL
ADMISSIONS ADMISION
JUDICIAL ADMISSION EXTRA-JUDICIAL a) In case of a written judicial admission,
ADMISSIONS MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEADINGS,
-admission, verbal or -those made out of MOTION OR OTHER WRITTEN INSTRUMENT
written, made by a court, or in a judicial CONTAINING SUCH ADMISSION;
party in the course of proceeding other than b) In case of an oral judicial admission,
the proceedings in the the one in COUNSEL IN OPEN COIRT MAY MOVE FOR THE
same case consideration EXCLUSION OF SUCH ADMISSION
-does not require proof -should be formally
offered in evidence 5. DOCTRINE OF ADOPTIVE ADMISSION
otherwise will not be
considered

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
-It is the party’s reaction to a statement or contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the
action by another person when it is reasonable to pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a position
treat the party’s reaction as an admission of contrary of or inconsistent with what was pleaded.
something stated or implied by the other person. (2) PEOPLE VS CASTILLO[ EJC]
CASE LAW FACTS
(1) ALFELOR VS HALASAN
Facts
Josefina filed an motion for intervention on the Accused-appellant Julian Castillo was convicted
Action for partition of Teresita, who claims to be the with Homicide and Illegal Possession of Firearms
surviving spouse. aggravated by Homicide.
Teresita testified that “While she did not know
Josefina personally, she knew that her husband had On November 14, 1995 at about 8:00 a.m., Rogelio
been previously married to Josefina and that the two Abawag was being closely pursued by Julian Castillo.
did not live together as husband and wife. She knew During the chase, Castillo pointed a gun at Abawag and
that Josefina left Jose in 1959. “ shot him.
CA ruled that Josefina is the surviving spouse, based
on Teresita’s admission in her reply to the intervention.
The police then arrested Castillo on board a vessel
bound for Cebu. The police also found in his possession
Teresita avers that Teresita's statement in the a .38 caliber handmade revolver, three empty shells and
Reply-in-Intervention admitting knowledge of the three live ammunitions. Further inquiry revealed that
alleged first marriage, is without probative value for the accused owned the gun but he has no license to
being hearsay. possess it.
Private respondent, for her part, reiterates that For his defense, Castillo interposed the theory of
the matters involved in this case fall under Section 4, self-defense. Appellant impugned solely his conviction
Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, and thus for illegal possession of firearm for which he was
qualify as a judicial admission which does not require sentenced to the supreme penalty of death.
proof.
In appellant’s extra-judicial confession, he

Issue: Should the admission be considered in the case, admitted that he does not have license to carry a gun.
to consider that Josefina is actually the surviving Prosecution did not present other evidence to prove
spouse? that he does not have a license.
HELD. YES ISSUE: Can the court rely on the extra-judicial

admission of appellant to prove his guilt in illegal
The fact of the matter is that Teresita Alfelor and possession of firearms?
her co-heirs, petitioners herein, admitted the existence
of the first marriage in their Reply-in-Intervention filed HELD. No.
in the RTC, to wit:
In the case at bar, although the appellant himself

1.1. Plaintiff Teresita S. Alfelor admitted that he had no license for the gun recovered
admits knowledge of the previous from his possession, his admission will not relieve the
marriage of the late Jose K. prosecution of its duty to establish beyond reasonable
Alfelor, with that of the herein doubt the appellant's lack of license or permit to
intervenor were married on possess the gun. In People vs. Solayao, we expounded
February 1, 1956; on this doctrine, thus: ". . . (b)y its very nature, an
'admission is the mere acknowledgment of a fact or of
Likewise, when called to testify, Teresita admitted circumstances from which guilt may be inferred, tending
several times that she knew that her late husband had to incriminate the speaker, but not sufficient of itself to
been previously married to another. To the Court's establish his guilt.' In other words, it is a 'statement by
mind, this admission constitutes a "deliberate, clear and defendant of fact or facts pertinent to issues pending,
unequivocal" statement; made as it was in the course of in connection with proof of other facts or
judicial proceedings, such statement qualifies as a circumstances, to prove guilt, but which is, of itself,
judicial admission. A party who judicially admits a fact insufficient to authorize conviction.' From the above
cannot later challenge that fact as judicial admissions principles, this Court can infer thatan admission in
are a waiver of proof; production of evidence is criminal cases is insufficient to prove beyond doubt the
dispensed with. A judicial admission also removes an commission of the crime charged.
admitted fact from the field of controversy.
Consequently, an admission made in the pleadings "Moreover, said admission is extrajudicial in

cannot be controverted by the party making such nature. As such, it does not fall under Section 4 of Rule
admission and are conclusive as to such party, and all 129 of the Revised Rules of Court which states: 'An
proofs to the contrary or inconsistent therewith should admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the
be ignored, whether objection is interposed by the party course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case
or not. The allegations, statements or admissions does not require proof.' "Not being a judicial admission,

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
said statement by accused-appellant does not prove of law and jurisprudence misplaced.

beyond reasonable doubt the second element of illegal
possession of firearm. It does not even establish
As provided for in Section 4 of Rule 129 of the
a prima facie case. It merely bolsters the case for the
Rules of Court, the general rule that a judicial.
prosecution but does not stand as proof of the fact of
admission is conclusive upon the party making it and
absence or lack of a license."
does not require proof admits of two exceptions: 1)
Additionally, as pointed out by both the appellant and when it is shown that the admission was made through
the Solicitor General, the extrajudicial admission was palpable mistake, and 2) when it is shown that no such
made without the benefit of counsel. admission was in fact made. The latter exception allows
(3) Constantino vs Heirs of Constantino one to contradict an admission by denying that he made
Facts such an admission.
CA ruled that the petitioners are in pari delicto
based on the admissions made in the pre-trial. "For instance, if a party invokes an 'admission' by
an adverse party, but cites the admission out of
RULING context,' then the one making the admission may show
that he made no 'such' admission, or that his admission
The records show that apart from respondent was taken out of context. This may be interpreted as to
Asuncion I,aquindanums's statement that the parcel of mean 'not in the sense in which the admission is made
land subject matter of the Deed of Extrajudicial to appear.' That is the reason for the modifier 'such.'"
Settlement with Waiver is not part of the estate of
Pedro Sr., their common ancestor, no other evidence Petitioner appears to have taken the admissions
was offered to support it. The CA in giving credence to made by LHUILLIER in paragraph 3.11 of his Answer "out
the respondents' claim, merely relied on the alleged of context. " Petitioner is seemingly misleading this
typographical error in the Deed. The basis for the CA's Court by isolating paragraph 3.11 of the said Answer
conclusion was the inclusion of the wife of Pedro Jr. and from the preceding paragraphs. A careful scrutiny of the
that of their children, which the CA considered as proof Answer in its entirety will show that paragraph 3.11 is
that the property was owned by Pedro Jr. and not part part of the affirmative allegations recounting how
of the estate of Pedro Sr. LHUILLIER was persuaded to invest in AMANCOR which
was previously owned and managed by petitioner.
Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party Paragraph 3.11 has reference to the fact that in all
making the admissions. Pre-trial admission in civil cases investments made with AMANCOR through stock
is one of the instances of judicial admissions explicitly purchases, only petitioner and LHUILLIER dealt with
provided for under Section 7, Rule 18 of the Rules of each other. It is more than obvious that paragraph 3.11
Court,which mandates that the contents of the pre-trial has nothing to do with the obligation of AMANCOR to
order shall control the subsequent course of the action, petitioner which is the subject of the present case.
thereby, defining and limiting the issues to be tried. Contrary to petitioner's allegations, LHUILLIER had
In Bayas, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et al., this Court categorically denied personal liability for AMANCOR's
emphasized that: corporate debts.
ADMISSION MADE IN ANSWER CAN BE OVERRIDDEN BY

Once the stipulations are reduced into writing and PARTY'S TESTIMONY IN OPEN COURT. — Granting
signed by the parties and their counsels, they become arguendo that LHUILLIER had in fact made the alleged
binding on the parties who made them. They become admission of personal liability in his Answer, We hold
judicial admissions of the fact or facts that such admission is not conclusive upon him.
stipulated. Even if placed at a disadvantageous Applicable by analogy is our ruling in the case of
position, a party may not be allowed to rescind them Gardner vs. Court of Appeals which allowed a party's
unilaterally, it must assume the consequences of the testimony in open court to override admissions he made
disadvantage. The exceptions allows one to contradict in his answer. It is clear that inspite of the presence of
an admission by denying that he made such an judicial admissions in a party's pleading, the trial court
admission. TECSH is still given leeway to consider other evidence
presented. This rule should apply with more reason
However, respondents failed to refute the earlier when the parties had agreed to submit an issue for
admission/stipulation before and during the trial. While resolution of the trial court on the basis of the evidence
denying ownership by Pedro Sr. of the 192 sq.m. lot, presented.
respondent Asuncion Laquindanum, when placed on the
stand, offered a vague explanation as to how such
parcel of land was acquired by Pedro Jr.
(4) ATILLO VS CA [admissions in pre-trial]
“A party’s testimony in open court may override
admissions he made in the answer.”
RULING
We find petitioner's contention to be without merit

and the reliance on the general rule regarding judicial
admissions enunciated by the abovementioned provision

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
RULE 130 Tangible object that Tangible evidence that

RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY played some actual role merely illustrates a
A. Object Evidence in the matter that gave matter of importance
1. Inherent limitation rise to the litigation. in the litigation.
a) Irrelevant evidence; and
b) Illegally obtained evidence No probative value in
2. Non-inherent limitation itself but serve merely
-relevant evidence may be excluded on the ground as a visual aid to the
that although relevant and authentic, its probative court in comprehending
value is exceeded by its prejudicial effect such as the verbal testimony of a
following: witness or other
a) Indecency and impropriety; evidence.
b) Undue prejudice; As to how foundation is laid
c) Offensive to sensibilities; The foundation that The foundation involves
d) Inconvenience and unnecessary expenses; must be laid in order to showing that the object
e) Confusing or misleading; or be admissible relates to fairly represents or
f) The testimonial or documentary evidence proving that the illustrates what is
presented in court already portrays the evidence is indeed the alleged to illustrate.
object such that a view thereof is object used in the
unnecessary. underlying event.
B. Documentary Evidence
a) Best Evidence Rule Types of Demonstrative Evidence
b) Parol Evidence Rule 1. Selected Demonstrative Evidence (existing genuine
c) Rules on Hearsay Evidence handwriting specimen)
C. Testimonial Evidence 2. Prepared or Reproduced Demonstrative Evidence
a) Rules on Hearsay Evidence (Scale, model, photograph)
b) Opinion Evidence
c) Character Evidence E. REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT
d) Parol Evidence Rule EVIDENCE
(1) The object must be relevant to the fact in issue;
A. OBJECTIVE (REAL) EVIDENCE and
SECTION 1. OBJECT AS EVIDENCE (2) The object must be authenticated before it is
Sec 1. Object as evidence. -- Objects as admitted.
evidence are those addressed to the senses of the
court. When an object is relevant to the fact in F. AUTHENTICATION
issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed The object sought to be offered must be shown
by the court. to have been the very same thing in issue and or what
A. OBJECT OR REAL EVIDENCE its proponent says it is. It is equivalent to
- that which is addressed to the senses of the identification insofar as object evidence is concerned.
court. It is not limited to view of an object but
extends to what is perceived by the senses of hearing, Authentic means what it is claimed to be even though
taste, smell or touch. It is the most credible kind of it consists of false information.
evidence.
Purpose of Authentication
B. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE 1. To prevent the introduction of an object different
-a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth and from the one testified about; and
it ranks high in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence-- 2. To ensure that there has been no significant
where the physical evidence on record runs counter to changes in the object’s condition
the testimonial evidence, the physical evidence should
prevail. (BPI v. REYES) Types of Authentication
1. By Testimony
C. Object Evidence may be: -if the real evidence is of a type which can be readily
1. Direct-- evidence can prove directly the fact for identified by a witness, the witness’ testimony will be
which it is offered. sufficient authentication.
2. Circumstantial--facts about the object are proved
as the basis for an interference that other facts are 2. By chain of custody
true. -if the real evidence is of a type which cannot easily
be recognized or readily be confused or tampered
D. OBJECT EVIDENCE VS DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE with, the proponent must present evidence of its chain
Object (Real) Demonstrative of custody. It must be shown that there was a strong
As to nature probability of correct identification.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
proceedings. Their presence is not an admission of

DOCTRINE OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY guilt to the commission of the crime.
The duly recorded authorized movements and iii. Non-compliance with the Doctrine of Chain of
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or Chain of Custody: It is NOT FATAL and will not make
plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory accused’s arrest illegal provided:
equipment of each stage from the time of (a) There is justifiable ground;
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic (b) The integrity and evidentiary value of the
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for items are properly preserved.
destruction. Includes the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody of the seized CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN DNA EVIDENCE
item, the date and time when such transfer of custody -applies in the assessment of the probative value
were made in the course of safekeeping and used in of DNA Evidence. Issues on how the biological samples
court as evidence, and the final disposition. (DDB were collected, handled and the possibility of
Regulation No.1 Series 2002) contamination will be taken into consideration. (Rule
on DNA Evidence Sec 7(a))
i. Purpose of Establishing Chain of Custody:
to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value Identification: To authenticate the object, there must
of the seized items are preserved, so much that be someone who would identify the object to be the
unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence actual thing involved in the litigation. An object
are removed. evidence, being inanimate, cannot speak for itself.
The evidence must be “sponsored” by a witness.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN DRUG RELATED CASES
The existence of the drug is the very corpus Testimonial Foundation: because there is some
delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous danger of fabrication, abuse or distortion with
drugs, and thus a condition sine qua non for demonstrative evidence prepared specifically for trial,
conviction. the law seeks to minimize these dangers by requiring
testimonial assurances of accuracy.
i. Marking the Evidence
-first stage in the chain of custody; G. Categories of Object Evidence
marked/signed in the presence of the apprehended A. For purposes of presentation in court, an object
violator immediately upon arrest. evidence may be that which consists in: (XNX)
i. The exhibition or production of the
ii. How chain of Custody is observed object inside or outside the courtroom;
1. Apprehending team shall make a physical ii. The inspection of the object outside
inventory and photograph of the objects seized in the courtroom; and
the presence of (AMNP) iii. The making of an experiment
(a) the accused or his representative or (Demonstrative evidence)
counsel; B. For purposes of authentication of an object, object
(b) Representative from the media; evidence may be classified into:
(c) Representative from the National i. Unique Objects -- objects that have
Prosecution Services; and readily identifiable marks (gun w/
(d) Any elected public official serial number)
2. The objects seized must be submitted to the ii. Objects made unique- object that are
PDEA for qualitative and quantitative examination made readily identifiable. (knife that
within 24 hours the witness can identify in court)
3. A certification of the results must be issued by iii. Non-unique objects -these are objects
the forensic laboratory within 24 hours after with no identifiable marks and cannot
receipt. be marked (drops of blood)
4. If the volume does not allow completion of
testing within the time frame, partial results may H. HOW OBJECT EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED: Exhibited,
be issued. Thereafter, the completed result must Examined; Viewed.
be issued within the next 24 hours.
5. Ocular inspection by the court within 72 hours Experiment: Permitting an experiment to be tried
after filing the criminal case, destruction or during the course of the trial is a matter which rests in
burning of the objects shall proceed through the the discretion of the trial judge.
PDEA. Experiment should be excluded, if it is too
6. Issuance by the board of a sworn statement of complicated to afford any fair inference, or of it
the fact of destruction or burning to be submitted cannot be performed in such a manner as fairly to
to the court illustrate the fact to be found.
The alleged offender, his representative or
counsel is allowed to personally observe the

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
Personal Appearance: To determine whether a person

is an alien or not; the age of a person. his or her age.
The body of the plaintiff as object evidence in

personal injury case: TWO THEORIES
1. The plaintiff cannot be compelled to subject
himself to an examination of his body. ISSUE 2: Should Ronnie be punished with Death Penalty
2. The plaintiff may be compelled on the theory that for rape of a woman below 7 years old or with Reclusion
Perpetua for the rape of a woman below 12 years?
“if the court is powerless, in action for personal
injuries, to require a plaintiff to submit himself to a
physical examination, then the law will permit him to HELD 2: Reclusion Perpetua for the rape of a woman
disclose just so much and such parts of the facts as, in below 12 years old.
his judgment would benefit his case, at the expense of
his adversary, and to invoke the court’s aid to This is because in the era of modernism and rapid
compensate him for the injury through a partial and growth, the victim's mere physical appearance is not
one-sided investigation. (Weight of authority in favor enough to gauge her exact age. For the extreme penalty
of death to be upheld, nothing but proof beyond
of 2nd theory)
reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the
crime must be substantiated. Verily, the minority of the
The body of the accused as object evidence in victim should be not only alleged but likewise proved with
criminal cases: The accused may be compelled to equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself. Be it
submit himself to an inspection of his body for the remembered that the proof of the victim's age in the
purpose of ascertaining identity or for other purposes. present case spells the difference between life and
death.47
The prohibition of compelling a man to be a witness
against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical In the present case, the prosecution did not offer
or moral compulsion to extort communications from the victim's certificate of live birth or similar authentic
him, NOT an exclusion of his body as evidence when it documents in evidence.
may be material.
CASES Because of the vast disparity between the alleged
Object Evidence age (three years old) and the age sought to be proved
1. PEOPLE VS GUINTO (3yo rape; Physical Appearance) (below twelve years), the trial court would have had no
difficulty ascertaining the victim's age from her
appearance. No reasonable doubt, therefore, exists that
FACTS the second element of statutory rape, i.e., that the
victim was below twelve years of age at the time of the
Nov 17 1995, in QC, Cyra May Francisco Buenafe, 3.5 commission of the offense, is present.
years old, was raped by Ronnie Guinto, the houseboy.
Cyra Mae told her mother,Gloria, that Ronnie inserted his Whether the victim was below seven years old, however,
penis in her anus and mouth. is another matter. Here, reasonable doubt exists. A
mature three and a half-year old can easily be mistaken
RTC sentenced Ronnie with death penalty. for an underdeveloped seven-year old. The appearance of
the victim, as object evidence, cannot be accorded much
weight and, following Pruna, the testimony of the mother
Rape when the victim is less than 7yo is Death is, by itself, insufficient.
Penalty, whil Rape of a victim less than 12 yo is
punishable by Reclusion Perpetua (Art 335 RPC, as
amended by RA 7659). Prosecution did not present As it has not been established with moral certainty
Certificate of Live Birth as evidence. that Cyra May was below seven years old at the time of
the commission of the offense, accused-appellant cannot
be sentenced to suffer the death penalty. Only the
penalty of reclusion perpetua can be imposed upon him.
ISSUE 1: Absent certificate of live birth, or the like, is the PRUNA DOCTRINE
presentation of the victim’s appearance admissible as
evidence to prove her age?
People v. Pruna, established a set of guidelines in
appreciating age as an element of the crime or as a
HELD 1: Yes. qualifying circumstance, to wit:
A person's appearance, where relevant, is admissible as 1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended
object evidence, the same being addressed to the senses party is an original or certified true copy of the
of the court. certificate of live birth of such party.
There can be no question, therefore, as to 2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar
the admissibility of a person's appearance in determining

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
Physical Evidence Physical Evidence

- Teller’s Tape -Deposit slip
authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and
Testimonial Evidence: Testimonial Evidence
school records which show the date of birth of the victim
- Emerenciana Tornero, Teller -Jesusa and Joan’s testimonies
would suffice to prove age.
Respondents failed to successfully prove by
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is preponderance of evidence that respondent Jesusa
shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise made an initial deposit of P 200,000.00 in her
unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the Express Teller account.
victim's mother or a member of the family either by Respondent Jesusa's bare claim, although
affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on corroborated by her daughter, that the former
matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date deposited P 100,000.00 cash in addition to the fund
of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, transfer of P 100,000.00, is not established by
Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient physical evidence. While the duplicate copy of the
under the following circumstances: deposit slip was in the amount of P 200,000.00 and
bore the stamp mark of teller Torneros, such
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and duplicate copy failed to show that there was a cash
what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years deposit of P 100,000.00. An examination of the
old; deposit slip shows that it did not contain any entry
in the breakdown portion for the specific
denominations of the cash deposit. This demolishes
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and the testimonies of respondent Jesusa and her
what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 daughter Joan.
years old; The deposit slip only contained a Tornerno’s
stamp but it was not machine validated. Tornero’s
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and teller’s tape gave established the fact that Jesusa
what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 Reyes’ initial intention was to deposit P200,00
years old. which was why there were alterations.
DOCTRINE
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent
document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our
relatives concerning the victim's age, the complainant's hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. We have, on
testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and many occasions, relied principally upon physical
clearly admitted by the accused. evidence in ascertaining the truth. Where the
physical evidence on record runs counter to the
5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses,
age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to we consistently rule that the physical evidence
object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not should prevail.
be taken against him. 3. RICALDE VS PEOPLE (No trace of Sperm in anus or
recent trauma)
6. The trial court should always make a categorical FACTS

finding as to the age of the victim XXX, 10 year old boy, invited Richard Ricalde, 31 yo
2. BPI VS REYES [OPENING BANK ACCOUNT;PHYSICAL distant relative and textmate of XXX, for dinner with his
EVIDENCE] mother. After dinner XXX slept in the couch while XXX
slept in the living room floor. Later that night, XXX went
FACTS to his mother crying that Ricalde raped him. Ricalde was
Plaintiff Jesusa Reyes contended that she opened an asked to leave the house.
ATM account and deposited P200,000 consisting of Mother and XXX went to the barangay and subjected XXX
P100,000 cash and P100,000 from her existing account to a medical examination.
from BPI Zapote Branch. Bank Teller, Cicero Capati, Dr. Roy Camarillo examined XXX and found no signs of
arranged for her opening of account. Whereby there was recent trauma in his anal orifice that was also "NEGATIVE
an alteration in the withdrawal slip of P200,000 to for spermatozoa.”
P100,000 as countersigned by Jesusa Reyes. Jesusa Reyes RTC found Ricalde guilty for rape through sexual
was given a deposit slip of P200,000. assault. CA affirmed.
When she learned that only P100k reflected on her Ricalde’s argues the medico-legal testified that he
account, she presented the deposit slip, but such was found "no physical signs or external signs of recent trauma
validated and made to reflect P100k. She filed a [in XXX’s] anus," or any trace of spermatozoa. He
complaint for the return of her P100,000. contends that physical evidence "ranks high in [the
BPI alleged that only P100,000 from her account was court’s] hierarchy of trustworthy evidence."
deposited, and no cash was given.
RTC and CA ruled in favor of Mrs Jesusa Reyes , giving ISSUE: Should Ricalde be exculpated for the physical
credence to Jesusa Reyes and Joan’s testimonies. evidence in the medico-legal finding no trace of
spermatozoa or recent trauma in the anus?
ISSUE: Are the evidence sufficient to rule that BPI should
pay P100,000? HELD. No.
HELD. No.
BPI Reyes

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
electronic documents but rather, simply

Petitioner’s reliance on the medico-legal’s finding of documentary evidence.
no recent trauma in XXX’s anal orifice, or any trace of
spermatozoa, lacks merit. The absence of spermatozoa in 1. DOCUMENT, when Object or Documentary
XXX’s anal orifice does not negate the possibility of an Evidence
erection and penetration. This result does not contradict A document may constitute as object(real) and as
the positive testimony of XXX that the lower courts found documentary evidence depending on the purpose for
credible, natural, and consistent with human nature. which the document is offered.
If it is produced without regard to the message
This court has explained the merely corroborative which it contains, it is treated as real evidence. In
character of expert testimony and the possibility of such case, the Best Evidence rule does not apply.
convictions for rape based on the victim’s credible lone If the document is offered to prove what is
testimony.
written on it, its contents, then the document will be
treated as documentary evidence.
In any case, the medico-legal explained that his
negative finding of trauma in the anal orifice does not 2. HOW TO PRESENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
remove the possibility of an insertion considering the
(AIMO)
flexibility of the sphincter:
1. it should be Authenticated and proved in the
manner provided in the rules of court;
4. When the court asked Dr. Roy why he testified that XXX 2. It should be Identified and Marked ; and
was sodomized even if his findings states that he did not
3. It should be formally Offered to the court and
find any congestion or abrasion. Dr. Roy answered: “based
on my examination[,] there were no external signs of shown to the opposing party so that the latter may
recent trauma to the anus. It should be realized that the have the opportunity to object thereto.
sphincter, that is the particular portion of the anus
controlling the bowel movement, it exhibits a certain
flexibility such that it can resist any object inserted and SECTION 3. BEST EVIDENCE RULE
that area is very vascular, meaning to say, it is rich in ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE
blood supply, such that any injuries would be healed in 24 Sec. 3. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT MUST BE
hours or less than 24 hours.”
PRODUCED; EXCEPTIONS-- When the subject of
inquiry is the contents of a document, writing,
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
recording, photograph or other record, no
SECTION 2. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
evidence shall be admissible other than the
Sec 2. Documentary evidence. --Documents as original document itself, except in the following
evidence consist of writings, recordings, cases:
photographs or any material containing letters, (a) When the original has been is lost or
words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
their equivalent, or other modes of written without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
expressions offered as proof of their contents. (b) When the original is in the custody or under
Photographs include still pictures, drawings, the control of the party against whom the
stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
videos. produce it after reasonable notice, or the
-Señga Notes- original cannot be obtained by local judicial
The definition of a documentary evidence was processes or procedures;
amended to further include recordings and (c) When the original consists of numerous
photographs or any material containing sounds or the accounts or other documents which cannot be
equivalent of letters, words, sounds, numbers figures examined in court without great loss of time and
or symbols. the fact sought to be established from them is
The term photograph was further defined to only the general result of the whole; and
include still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray (d) When the original is a public record in the
films, motion pictures or videos. custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
Prior to the amendment, some took the position public office; and
that videos or photographs take the nature of object (e) When the original is not closely-related
evidence. With the amendment, they are now to a controlling issue.
considered as documentary evidence, provided that -Señga Notes-
they are offered as proof of their contents. The “Best Evidence Rule” was changed to the
Notably, under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, “Original Document Rule” because the former is a
Audio, Photographic and video evidence are under misnomer as it does not refer to some hierarchy of
Rule 11, separate from the definition of an electronic evidence. Rather, the rule simply states that there is
document, under Rule 3 thereof. preference for original documents to prove the actual
With the amendment, it is clear that the contents thereof. In other jurisdictions, the Best
photographic, video and audio evidence are not Evidence Rule is also known as the Original Writing

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
Rule or the Original Document Rule, which is now 3. When the original is in the custody or under the
reflected in the amended rule. control of the party Against whom the evidence is
The first paragraph was amended to take into offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
account the revised definition of a documentary reasonable notice, or the original cannot be obtained
evidence, that includes recordings, photographs or by local judicial processes or procedures;
other records. 4. When the original consists of Numerous accounts or
Paragraph (a) was amended to reflect a present other documents which cannot be examined in court
tense. without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
Paragraph (b) was amended to reflect the rule established from them is only the general result of the
that the notice may be in the form of a motion for whole;
the production of the original or made in open court 5. Irrelevant evidence (as amended by Revised Rules
in the presence of the adverse party or via a of Evidence)
subpoena duces tecum, provided that the party in
custody of the original has sufficient time to produce NOTE: Non-production of an original document,
the same. When such party has the original of the UNLESS falling within the exception, will give rise to
writing and does not voluntarily offer to produce it or PRESUMPTION OF SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE adverse
refuses to produce it, secondary evidence may be to the part who withholds it.
admitted. (Bayani Magdayao v. People, G.R. No.
152881, August 17, 2004)
No change in paragraphs (c), and (d). 2. APPLICABILITY OF BER
Paragraph (e) is a new insertion. It means that Only when the terms of writing are in issue.
secondary evidence may be admitted if the original CASES
documentary evidence is not closely-related to a 1. CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORP V. DEL
controlling issue in the case. This paragraph appears MONTE MOTOR WORKS (Duplicate of Original
to pertain to irrelevant evidence. However, by Promissory Note; ISSUE IS NOT THE TERMS)
definition, evidence, to be admissible, must be
FACTS
relevant. Here, it contemplates an irrelevant
Petitioner Solidbank filed before RTC Manila a
document or evidence. There is no need to produce complaint for the recovery of sum of money against
the original of an irrelevant document. The issue now respondent corporation, and impleading Sps Morales,
is, if it is irrelevant then it would not have been alleging that it extended a loan of P1,000,000 as
admitted in the first place. It appears that this evidenced by a Promissory Note.
paragraph contemplates a situation where there is Under the promissory note, respondents Del Monte
an irrelevant document or evidence that was Motor Works, Inc. (respondent corporation) and Morales
nevertheless admitted in evidence (lack of bound themselves jointly and severally to pay petitioner
the full amount of the loan through 25 monthly
objection/admitted by the court). In such a situation,
installments, to which they defaulted.
the original thereof need not be produced. Petitioner attached to its complaint as Annexes A, B,
and C, respectively, a photocopy of the promissory note
1. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE (ODR) supposedly executed by respondents, a copy of the
- Formerly known as the BEST EVIDENCE RULE demand letter it sent respondents dated 20 January
(BER) 1983, and statement of account pertaining to
-is that which requires the highest grade of respondents loan.
evidence obtainable to prove a disputed act. Respondent Corporation alleged that the promissory
note is void for want of consideration.
In requiring the production of the best evidence
Respondent Morales averred that he never signed the
applicable to each particular fact, it means that no PN attached to the complaint in his personal capacity,
evidence shall be received which is merely that the PN is ineffective, unenforceable and void for
substitutionary in nature, so long as the original lack of consideration.
evidence can be had. As the original copy of Exhibit A could no longer be
“BEST” = “ORIGINAL” OR “PRIMARY EVIDENCE” ≠ found, petitioner instead sought the admission of the
“PROBATIVE VALUE” DUPLICATE ORIGINAL OF THE PN, under exhibit E.
Respondents averred the exclusion of such evidence
and filed separate MTD. RTC dismissed the complaint.
GR: ODR (BER) states that when the subject of
CA affirmed on the ground of Best Evidence Rule.
inquiry is the contents of a document, the best
evident is the original document itself and no other ISSUE: Does the Best Evidence Rule apply in this case?
evidence is admissible.
HELD. No.
EXCEPTION: (PLAN)
1. When the original is a Public record in the custody The rule finds no application to this case. It should
of a public officer or is recorded in a public office; be noted that respondents never disputed the terms and
conditions of the promissory note thus leaving us to
2. When the original has been is lost or destroyed, or
conclude that as far as the parties herein are
cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the concerned, the wording or content of said note is clear
part of the offeror; enough and leaves no room for disagreement.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
In their responsive pleadings, respondents principal Branch and delivered such to RICKY OLVIS for payment
defense rests on the alleged lack of consideration of the of his obligation in the amount of P600,000, which was
promissory note. In addition, respondent Morales also dishonored when presented due to insufficient funds.
claims that he did not sign the note in his personal Olvis alleged that when he initially filed a complaint
capacity. These contentions clearly do not question the in Sept 4, 1992, Bayani offered to pay Olvis with two
precise wording of the promissory note which should checks, retrieving the dishonored check. Bayani failed
have paved the way for the application of the best to make goof with his promise.
evidence rule. It was, therefore, an error for the Court
of Appeals to sustain the decision of the trial court on
The prosecution offered in evidence the photocopy
this point.
of PNB Check No. 399967, which the court admitted.
Besides, the best evidence rule as stated in our
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure is not absolute. As Bayani did not attend court hearings. Bayani filed an
quoted earlier, the rule accepts of exceptions one of Omnibus Supplemental Motion and to Allow Him to
which is when the original of the subject document is in Adduce Evidence alleging, inter alia, that due to the
the possession of the adverse party. As pointed out by absence of the original and only a xerox copy of the PNB
petitioner in its motion to inhibit, had it been given the check, which he allegedly paid already.
opportunity by the court a quo, it would have
sufficiently established that the original of Exhibit A was
Prosecution averred that the original check was
in the possession of respondents which would have
already returned to petitioner. It also pointed out that
called into application one of the exceptions to the best
the petitioner failed to object to the presentation of
evidence rule.
the photocopy of the dishonored check.
Significantly, Respondents failed to deny specifically
the execution of the promissory note. This being the
case, there was no need for petitioner to present the RTC convicted him of violation of BP 22. CA
original of the promissory note in question. Their affirmed.
judicial admission with respect to the genuineness and
execution of the promissory note sufficiently established
their liability to petitioner regardless of the fact that
petitioner failed to present the original of said note.
DOCTRINE: RATIONALE OF BER ISSUE: Is the photocopy of the check inadmissible as
evidence due, applying the Best Evidence Rule?
According to McCormick, an authority on the rules of
evidence, the only actual rule that the best evidence HELD.
phrase denotes today is the rule requiring the
production of the original writing the rationale being:
When original document is in adverse party’s
custody or control. If the document is in the custody or
(1)that precision in presenting to the court under the control of the adverse party, he must have
the exact words of the writing is of more than average reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and
importance, particularly as respects operative or after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to
dispositive instruments, such as deeds, wills and produce the document, secondary evidence may be
contracts, since a slight variation in words may mean a presented as in the case of its loss.
great difference in rights,
The mere fact that the original of the writing is in
(2) that there is a substantial hazard of the custody or control of the party against whom it is
inaccuracy in the human process of making a copy by offered does not warrant the admission of secondary
handwriting or typewriting, and evidence. The offeror must prove that he has done all in
his power to secure the best evidence by giving notice
to the said party to produce the document. The notice
(3) as respects oral testimony purporting to
may be in the form of a motion for the production of
give from memory the terms of a writing, there is a
the original or made in open court in the presence of
special risk of error, greater than in the case of
the adverse party or via a subpoena duces tecum,
attempts at describing other situations generally. In the
provided that the party in custody of the original has
light of these dangers of mistransmission, accompanying
sufficient time to produce the same. When such party
the use of written copies or of recollection, largely
has the original of the writing and does not voluntarily
avoided through proving the terms by presenting the
offer to produce it or refuses to produce it, secondary
writing itself, the preference for the original writing is
evidence may be admitted.
justified.
The petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the need

for the production of the original copy of PNB Check No.
2. Engr. BAYANI MAGDAYAO V. PEOPLE (EXCEPTION 399967, and the fact that the prosecution was able to
TO BER; ORIGINAL IS IN CUSTODY OF RESPONDENT) present in evidence only a photocopy thereof because
the original was in his possession. In fact, in the
FACTS Omnibus Supplemental Motion dated February 8, 1996,
An Information was filed charging petitioner, Engr. and in his Special Manifestation filed on May 28, 1996,
Bayani Magdayao with violation of B.P. Blg. 22, alleging the petitioner complained of the prosecutions violation
that he issued a check with drawee bank PNB Dipolog

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
FACTS
of the best evidence rule.
In 1975, Ambrosia Lelina, married to Aquilino Lelina,
conveyed 1/2 of a 1,600sqm land to Roberto Rodolfo,
The petitioner, however, never produced the her son, through a Deed of Absolute Sale.
original of the check, much less offered to produce the In 1995, Anita Lorenzana claims that she is now the
same. The petitioner deliberately withheld the original owner of the entire 1,600sqm land by virtue of a Deed
of the check as a bargaining chip for the court to grant of Final Conveyance, after the land was foreclosed due
him an opportunity to adduce evidence in his defense, to the debt of Aquilino Lelina.
which he failed to do following his numerous unjustified RTC ruled in favor of Rodolfo and cancelled the
postponements as shown by the records. Deed of Final Conveyance because the land was entitled
only to Ambrosia, excluding Aquilino. CA affirmed.
Anita questions the ruling, averring that Rodolfo’s
There was no longer a need for the prosecution to
sole basis of claim is a Deed of Absolute Sale, to which
present as witness the employee of the drawee bank
he cannot produce the original thereof. Only a
who made the notation at the dorsal portion of the
photostatic copy of the Deed was produced.
dishonored check to testify that the same was
dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient
ISSUE: Should the Best Evidence Rule apply?
funds.
HELD.No.
3. JOSEF V. PEOPLE (EXCEPTION TO BER; ORIGINAL IN The best evidence rule requires that when the
THE POSSESSION OF RESPONDENT AND ESTOPPEL) subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no
evidence is admissible other than the original document
FACTS itself except in the instances mentioned in Section 3,
From June -Aug 1991, Petitoner Albino Josef, a Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. As such, mere
Marikina-based manufacturer and seller of shoes, photocopies of documents are inadmissible pursuant to
purchased materials from respondent Agustin Alarilla, a the best evidence rule. Nevertheless, evidence not
seller of leather products from Meycauayan, Bulacan, objected to is deemed admitted and may be validly
for which he issued 26 post dated checks against his considered by the court in arriving at its
account, which was dishonored due to closed accounts. judgment. Courts are not precluded to accept in
Josef issued new checks and retrieved the dishonored evidence a mere photocopy of a document when no
checks, but retained photocopies of such. The new objection was raised when it was formally offered.
checks were also dishonored. In order to exclude evidence, the objection to
As a result, the private respondent filed criminal admissibility of evidence must be made at the proper
complaints against petitioner for violation of BP 22. time, and the grounds specified. Objection to evidence
RTC convicted petitioner on all counts. CA affirmed. must be made at the time it is formally offered.
Petitioner admits having issued the 26 dishonored In case of documentary evidence, offer is made
checks, but interposed that such checks were paid in after all the witnesses of the party making the offer
cash, and applying the Best Evidence Rule, the have testified, specifying the purpose for which the
photocopies of the original checks are inadmissible, evidence is being offered. It is only at this time, and not
until after he had been given reasonable notice to at any other, that objection to the documentary
produce the original. evidence may be made. And when a party failed to
interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time
ISSUE: Is the Best Evidence Rule applicable in this they were offered in evidence, such objection shall be
case? considered as waived. This is true even if by its nature
HELD. No. the evidence is inadmissible and would have surely been
Having admitted, albeit impliedly, that the rejected if it had been challenged at the proper time.
photostatic copies of the checks admitted in evidence Moreover, grounds for objection must be specified in
by the Court a quo were the faithful reproduction of the any case. Grounds for objections not raised at the
original copies in his possession, the Petitioner was thus proper time shall be considered waived, even if the
estopped from invoking Section 3, Rule 130 of the evidence was objected to on some other ground. Thus,
Revised Rules of Evidence. even on appeal, the appellate court may not consider
We agree with the Court of Appeals. By admitting any other ground of objection, except those that were
that the originals were in his possession and even raised at the proper time.
producing them in open court, petitioner cured In this case, the objection to the Deed of Absolute
whatever flaw might have existed in the prosecutions Sale was belatedly raised. Respondent submitted his
evidence. The fact that these originals were all Formal Offer of Evidence on February 12, 2003 which
stamped account closed merely confirmed the included the Deed of Absolute Sale as Exhibit A. While
allegations of the respondent that the checks were petitioner filed a Comment and Objection on
dishonored by reason of the account being closed. February 21, 2003, she only objected to the Deed of
Because they were entirely consistent with its main Absolute Sale for being self-serving. In the
theory, the prosecution correctly adopted these Order dated February 27, 2003, the RTC admitted the
originals as its own evidence. In addition, by petitioners Deed of Absolute Sale, rejecting the objection of
own admission, five of the original checks were lost, petitioner. Having failed to object on the ground of
thus rendering the photocopies thereof admissible as inadmissibility under the best evidence rule,
exceptions to the Best Evidence Rule. petitioner is now deemed to have waived her
objection on this ground and cannot raise it for the
4. ANITA LORENZANA V. RODOLFO LELONA first time on appeal.
(Photocopy of Deed of Absolute Sale; WAIVER OF BEST 5. PEOPLE V. GENARO CAYABYAB (Rape 6yo; Birth
EVIDENCE RULE) Certificate; BER EXCEPTION; WHEN ORIGINAL IS A

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
PUBLIC RECORD IN CUSTODY OF A PUBLIC OFFICER) of the prosecution, does not prove the victim's minority,
for said photocopy does not qualify as competent
FACTS evidence for that purpose.
Alpha Jane was born on November 26, 1994, she was However, there are other exceptions to the 'best
six years and nine months old when the rape was evidence rule as expressly provided under Section 3,
committed on August 7, 2001. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
6:00 p.m., Alpha Jane was at home taking care of Without doubt, a certificate of live birth is a
her younger siblings. Her mother went to buy kerosene, public record in the custody of the local civil registrar
while her father was out. On the guise of teaching who is a public officer. Clearly, therefore, the
arithmetic, GENARO CAYABYAB went to the victim's presentation of the photocopy of the birth certificate of
house and asked her to lie down on her father's bed. Alpha Jane is admissible as secondary evidence to prove
When she refused, appellant removed her clothes and its contents. Production of the original may be
his own clothes, then forced her to lie down on the bed dispensed with, in the trial court's discretion, whenever
and laid on top of her and inserted his penis into her in the case at hand the opponent does not bona fide
vagina. Alpha Jane shouted in pain which startled the dispute the contents of the document and no other
appellant who sprayed her with tear gas and left. useful purpose will be served by requiring production.
On August 10, 2001, appellant was charged with rape In the case at bar, the defense did not dispute the
before the RTC Pasay. contents of the photocopied birth certificate; in fact it
RTC found Cayabyab guilty of Rape under Art 335, admitted the same. Having failed to raise a valid and
and sentenced him with Death Penalty. timely objection against the presentation of this
secondary evidence the same became a primary
ISSUE: Should the photocopy of the certificate of live evidence, and deemed admitted and the other party is
birth be inadmissible as evidence to prove her age, bound thereby.
applying Best Evidence Rule? In fine, we find that the prosecution sufficiently proved
Held. No. that Alpha Jane was only six-years-old, being born on
To paraphrase Pruna, the best evidence to prove November 26, 1994, when the rape incident happened
the age of a person is the original birth certificate or on August 7, 2001.
certified true copy thereof; in their absence, similar 6. HEIRS OF PRODON V. HEIRS OF ALVAREZ ( BER
authentic documents may be presented such as Exceptions; Original Title in Register of Deeds)
baptismal certificates and school records. If the original
or certified true copy of the birth certificate is not FACTS
available, credible testimonies of the victim's mother or In a complaint for quieting of title and damages
a member of the family may be sufficient under certain against Margarita Prodon, Heirs of Alvarez averred hat
circumstances. In the event that both the birth their parents were the registered owners of the subject
certificate or other authentic documents and the parcel of land. They said that they could not locate
testimonies of the victim's mother or other qualified their duplicate copy of the title, but the original was
relative are unavailable, the testimony of the victim with RD Manila.
may be admitted in evidence provided that it is
expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.
Heirs of Alvarez contends that the original copy
In Pruna, no birth certificate or any similar
contained an entry stating that the property had been
authentic document, such as the baptismal certificate
sold to defendant Prodon subject to the right of
of the victim was presented to prove her age. The trial
repurchase; and that the entry had been maliciously
court based its finding that Lizette was 3 years old when
done by Prodon because the deed of sale with right to
she was raped on the Medico-Legal Report, and the fact
repurchase covering the property did not exist.
that the defense did not contest her age and questioned
Consequently, they prayed that the entry be cancelled,
her qualification to testify because of her tender age. It
and that Prodon be adjudged liable for damages.
was however noted that the Medico-Legal Report never
mentioned her age and only the testimony of her
mother was presented to establish Lizette's age. The Custodian of the records of the property attested
Court found that there was uncertainty as to the that the copy of the deed of sale with right to
victim's exact age, hence, it required that corroborative repurchase could not be found in RD Manila.
evidence, such as her birth certificate, baptismal
certificate or any other authentic document should be
RTC ruled that there was a “right of repurchase” ,
introduced in evidence in order that the qualifying
although the deed itself could not be presented as
circumstance of 'below seven (7) years old is
evidence in court, its contents could nevertheless be
appreciated.
proved by secondary evidence in accordance with
Unlike in Pruna, the trial court in this case made
Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, upon proof of
a categorical finding that Alpha Jane was only 6 years
its execution or existence and of the cause of its
old at the time she was raped, based not only on the
unavailability being without bad faith.
testimonies of the complainant and her mother, but
also on the strength of the photocopy of Alpha Jane's
birth certificate. It is well to note that the defense The RTC concluded that the original copy of the
did not object to the presentation of the birth deed of sale with right to repurchase had been lost, and
certificate; on the contrary it admitted the same 'as that earnest efforts had been exerted to produce it
to fact of birth. before the court.
We are not unaware of our ruling in People v.
Mantis that a mere photocopy of the birth certificate, in
the absence of any showing that the original copy was ISSUE: Is the Best Evidence Rule applicable?
lost or destroyed, or was unavailable, without the fault

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
HELD: No. common-law remedy for the removal of any cloud or

doubt or uncertainty on the title to real property by
reason of any instrument, record, claim,
Best Evidence Rule was not applicable herein
encumbrance, or proceeding that is apparently valid
or effective, but is, in truth and in fact, invalid,
The Best Evidence Rule stipulates that in proving ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be
the terms of a written document the original of the prejudicial to said title.
document must be produced in court. The rule excludes
any evidence other than the original writing to prove
The action for quieting of title may be based on
the contents thereof, unless the offeror proves:
the fact that a deed is invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
unenforceable. The terms of the writing may or may not
(a) the existence or due execution of the original; be material to an action for quieting of title, depending
on the ground alleged by the plaintiff. For instance,
when an action for quieting of title is based on the
(b) the loss and destruction of the original, or the
unenforceability of a contract for not complying with
reason for its non-production in court; and
the Statute of Frauds, Article 1403 of the Civil
Code specifically provides that evidence of the
(c) the absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror to agreement cannot be received without the writing, or
which the unavailability of the original can be a secondary evidence of its contents. There is then no
attributed. doubt that the Best Evidence Rule will come into play.
The primary purpose of the Best Evidence Rule is to

ensure that the exact contents of a writing are brought 7. MARQUEZ V. ESPEJO ( ADMISSION OF THE
before the court, considering that CONTENTS BUT ASSAILS TRUE INTENT; DEED OF SALE
DESCRIPTION DISCREPANCY)
(a) the precision in presenting to the court the
exact words of the writing is of more than average FACTS
importance, particularly as respects operative or Property located at Barangay Lantap, Bagabag,
dispositive instruments, such as deeds, wills and Nueva Vizcaya and the Murong Property located at
contracts, because a slight variation in words may Brgy. Murong of the same town which were subsequently
mean a great difference in rights; foreclosed and sold to Rural Bank of Bayombong, Inc.
(RBBI) due to their failure to pay the loans in the said
bank. But a Deed of Sale was made covering the Murong
(b) there is a substantial hazard of inaccuracy in the property without description as to the location of the
human process of making a copy by handwriting or subject property whether it is in Brgy. Murong or
typewriting; and Brgy.Lantap.
(c) as However, both TCTs did not specifically state its

TCT No. T-62096 TCT No.respects oral testimony purporting to give
T-62836 (RBBI)
from memory location whether it is in Barangay Lantap or Barangay
Murong Property Lantap Property the terms of a writing, there is a
special risk of error, greater than in the case of Murong.
attempts at describing other situations generally. RBBI executed separate Deeds of Voluntary Land
Transfer (VLTs) in favor of Marquez and Dela Cruz
covered by TCT of Lantap Property but described being
The rule further acts as an insurance against located in Brgy. Murong.
fraud. Verily, if a party is in the possession of the best Espejos filed Complaint before the RARAD based on
evidence and withholds it, and seeks to substitute the Deed of Sale indicating that TCT No. T-62096
inferior evidence in its place, the presumption naturally (referring to Murong Property) was the subject of their
arises that the better evidence is withheld for buy-back transaction.
fraudulent purposes that its production would expose CA. In using the Best Evidence Rule embodied in Rule
and defeat. Lastly, the rule protects against misleading 130, Section 3, the Deed of Sale is the best evidence as
inferences resulting from the intentional or to its contents, particularly the description of the land
unintentional introduction of selected portions of a which was the object of the sale. Since the Deed of Sale
larger set of writings. expressed that its subject is the land covered by TCT
No. T-62096 – the Murong property – then that is the
But the evils of mistransmission of critical facts, property that the respondents repurchased.
fraud, and misleading inferences arise only when the
issue relates to the terms of the writing. Hence, the ISSUE: Is the Best Evidence Rule Applicable?
Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a HELD. No.
writing are in issue. When the evidence sought to be Indeed, the appellate court erred in its application
introduced concerns external facts, such as the of the Best Evidence Rule. The Best Evidence Rule
existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without states that when the subject of inquiry is
reference to its terms, the Best Evidence Rule cannot be the contents of a document, the best evidence is
invoked. In such a case, secondary evidence may be the original document itself and no other evidence
admitted even without accounting for the original. (such as a reproduction, photocopy or oral evidence) is
admissible as a general rule. The original is preferred
because it reduces the chance of undetected tampering
This case involves an action for quieting of title, a

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
with the document.

In the instant case, there is no room for the
application of the Best Evidence Rule because there is
no dispute regarding the contents of the documents. It
is admitted by the parties that the respondents' Deed of
Sale referred to TCT No. T-62096 as its subject; while
the petitioners' Deeds of Voluntary Land Transfer
referred to TCT No. T-62836 as its subject, which is
further described as located
in Barangay Murong. DSAICa
The real issue is whether the admitted contents of these
documents adequately and correctly express the true
intention of the parties. As to the Deed of Sale,
petitioners (and RBBI) maintain that while it refers to
TCT No. T-62096, the parties actually intended the sale
of the Lantap property (covered by TCT No. T-62836).

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
RULE ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE of authenticating or approving an electronic data

(A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, August 1, 2001) message or electronic document.
1. ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS AS FUNCTIONAL 8. AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES

EQUIVALENT OF PAPER-BASED DOCUMETS a) By evidence that a method or process was
utilized to establish a digital signature and
2. ADMISSIBILITY verify the same;
The Rules on Electronic Evidence regards an b) By any other means provided by law;
Electronic document as admissible in evidence if:
A. It complies with the rules on admissibility ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ACT
prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws; and (RA 8792)
B. Is authenticated in the manner prescribed by
the rules 1. REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT (SEC 7)
3. ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE VS ELECTRONIC a) Where the law requires a document to be in
DOCUMENT writing, the requirement is met by an
Electronic Data Electronic Document electronic document if the said electronic
Message document maintains its integrity and
-has reference to - the document itself reliability and can be authenticated so as to
information be usable for subsequent reference;
electronically sent, i. The E-document has remained
stored, or transmitted, complete and unaltered, apart from
it does not necessarily the addition of any endorsement and
mean that it will give any authorized change or any change
rise to a document. which arises in the normal course of
communication;
4. BEST EVIDENCE RULE ii. The E-document is reliable in the light
ORIGINAL OF AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT, Electronic of the purpose for which it was
evidence and its printout generated and in light of all relevant
circumstances
COPIES AS EQUIVALENT OF THE ORIGINALS, When a b) Paragraph(1) applies whether the
document is printed two or more copies at same time requirement is in the form of an obligation
or whether the law simply provides
5. MANNER OF AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC consequences for the document not being
DOCUMENT presented or retained in its original form;
a) By evidence that it has been digitally signed c) Where the law requires that the document
by the person purported to have signed the be presented or retained in its original
same; form, that requirement is met by an
b) By evidence that other appropriate security electronic document, if:
procedures or devices as may be authorized i. There exists a reliable assurance as to
by the SC or by law for the authentication of the integrity of the document from the
electronic documents were applied to the time it was first generated in its final
document; or form; and
c) By other evidence showing its integrity and ii. That document is capable of being
reliability to the satisfaction of the judge. displayed to the person to whom it is
to be presented; provided that no
6. ELECTRONICALLY NOTARIZED DOCUMENT provision of this act shall apply to vary
- a document electronically notarized in any and all requirements of existing
accordance with the rules promulgated by the SC shall laws on formalities required in the
be considered as a public document and proved as a execution of documents for their
notarial document under the RoC. validity.
7. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE CASE LAW

- refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic, (1) GARCILLANO VS HOUSE OF REP COMMITTEE ON
and/or sound in electronic form, representing the PUBLIC INFO (Senate Rules and Guidelines; Publication)
identity of a person and attached to or logically
Doctrine: RA 8792 only recognizes electronic documents
associated with the electronic data message or as evidence and not as a means of publishing.
electronic document or any methodology or
procedures employed or adopted by a person and FACTS
executed or adopted by such person with the intention A wiretapped conversation, purportedly of Pres. GMA
and COMELEC Chair Virgilio Garcillano, or the “HELLO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
GARCI” Tapes circulated, giving cloud to the 2004 phone and communicated with the other suspects,
Presidential elections, whereby PGMA won over FPJ. resulting in an entrapment operation.
Intervenor Sagge alleges violation of his right to Enojas, along with several other defendants, was
due process considering that he is summoned to attend charged with murder in 2006 before the Las Pinas
the Senate hearings without being apprised not only of Regional Trial Court.
his rights therein through the publication of the Senate
Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of ISSUE: Are the text messages admissible as evidence
Legislation, but also of the intended legislation which against Enojas?
underpins the investigation. HELD.Yes
Respondents justify their non-observance of the As to the admissibility of the text messages, the
constitutionally mandated publication by arguing that RTC admitted them in conformity with the Court's
the rules have never been amended since 1995 and, earlier Resolution applying the Rules on Electronic
despite that, they are published in booklet form Evidence to criminal actions.
available to anyone for free, and accessible to the Text messages are to be proved by the testimony
public at the Senate’s internet web page. of a person who was a party to the same or has personal
Respondent invokes RA No. 8782, or the knowledge of them. Here, PO3 Cambi, posing as the
Electronic Commerce Act. accused Enojas, exchanged text messages with the
other accused in order to identify and entrap them. As
Issue: Whether or not publication of the Rules of the recipient of those messages sent from and to the
Procedures Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation mobile phone in his possession, PO3 Cambi had personal
through the Senate’s website, satisfies the due knowledge of such messages and was competent to
process requirement of law. testify on them.
The Court found that the text messages were
Held: No. properly admissible because the police officer, posing
The publication of the Rules of Procedure in the as Enojas, had personal knowledge of the messages
website of the Senate, or in pamphlet form available at and was competent to testify about them.
the Senate, is not sufficient under the Tañada v.
Tuvera ruling which requires publication either in the (3) MAIKSI VS COMELEC [ PRINTED OUT BALLOT
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general IMAGES]
circulation. The Rules of Procedure even provide that
the rules "shall take effect seven (7) days after FACTS
publication in two (2) newspapers of general During the 2010 Elections, the Municipal Board of
circulation," precluding any other form of publication. Canvassers proclaimed Saquilayan the winner for the
Publication in accordance with Tañada is mandatory to position of Mayor of Imus, Cavite.
comply with the due process requirement because Maliksi, the candidate who garnered the second
the Rules of Procedure put a person’s liberty at risk. A highest number of votes, brought an election protest in
person who violates the Rules of Procedure could be the RTC IMUS in Imus alleging irregularities in the
arrested and detained by the Senate. counting of votes in 209 clustered precincts.
The invocation by the respondents of the RTC held a revision of the votes, and, based on the
provisions of R.A. No. 8792, otherwise known as the results of the revision, declared Maliksi as the duly
Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, to support their claim elected Mayor of Imus commanding Saquilayan to cease
of valid publication through the internet is all the more and desist from performing the functions of said office.
incorrect. R.A. 8792 considers an electronic data Saquilayan appealed to the COMELEC. In the meanwhile,
message or an electronic document as the functional the RTC granted Maliksi’s motion for execution pending
equivalent of a written document only for evidentiary appeal, and Maliksi was then installed as Mayor.
purposes. In other words, the law merely recognizes the In resolving the appeal, the COMELEC First
admissibility in evidence (for their being the original) of Division, without giving notice to the parties, decided to
electronic data messages and/or electronic recount the ballots through the use of the printouts of
documents. It does not make the internet a medium for the ballot images from the CF cards. Thus, it issued an
publishing laws, rules and regulations. order dated March 28, 2012 requiring Saquilayan to
Given this discussion, the respondent Senate deposit the amount necessary to defray the expenses for
Committees, therefore, could not, in violation of the the decryption and printing of the ballot images.
Constitution, use its unpublished rules in the legislative ISSUE: Whether the ballot images in the CF cards are
inquiry subject of these consolidated cases. The conduct mere secondary evidence that should only be used
of inquiries in aid of legislation by the Senate has to be when the physical ballots are not available
deferred until it shall have caused the publication of the HELD. No.
rules, because it can do so only "in accordance with its
duly published rules of procedure."
We have already ruled that the ballot images in
(2) PEOPLE VS HINGPIT (TEXT MESSAGES) the CF cards, as well as the printouts of such images,
are the functional equivalent of the official physical
FACTS ballots filled up by the voters, and may be used in an
The defendant, taxi driver Enojas was asked by election protest.
police officers to accompany them to the police station.
Enojas agreed. On the way, the officers stopped at a In the recent consolidated cases of Vinzons-Chato
7/11 to use the restroom. Returning to the police car, v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and
he found that Enojas had fled the scene. Later, the Panotes and Panotes v. House of Representatives
police searched his abandoned taxi car and found Electoral Tribunal and Vinzons-Chato, the Court ruled
Enojas’ phone. They monitored the messages on the that "the picture images of the ballots, as scanned and

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
recorded by the PCOS, are likewise 'official ballots' that physical ballots are electronically and instantaneously
faithfully capture in electronic form the votes cast by generated by the PCOS machines once the physical
the voter, as defined by Section 2 (3) of R.A. No. ballots are fed into and read by the machines." Hence,
9369." The Court declared that the printouts of the the ballot images are not secondary evidence. The
ballot images in the CF cards "are the functional official physical ballots and the ballot images in the CF
equivalent of the paper ballots filled out by the voters cards are both original documents. The ballot images in
and, thus, may be used for purposes of revision of votes the CF cards have the same evidentiary weight as the
in an electoral protest." In short, both the ballot images official physical ballots. HDIATS
in the CF cards and the printouts of such images have
the same evidentiary value as the official physical
The Court notes that Maliksi did not raise any
ballots filled up by the voters.
allegation that the use of the ballot images falls under
any of the exceptions under Section 2, Rule 4 of A.M.
Hence, the COMELEC First Division did not gravely No. 01-7-01-SC that would make their use inadmissible
abuse its discretion in using the ballot images in the CF as original ballots.
cards.
(2) BARTOLOME VS MARANAN [Court Stenographer;
Maliksi further alleged that the ballot images in TEXT MESSAGES; EPHEMERAL ELECTRONIC
the CF cards should merely be considered as secondary COMMUNICATIONS]
evidence and should be resorted to only when the
physical ballots are not available or could not be FACTS
produced. Ella Bartolome filed a case against Rosalie Maranan,
Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 20, Imus, Cavite with charging her with
Maliksi is mistaken. extortion, graft and corruption for asking for P200,000
to facilitate the filing of an annulment of marriage. She
Rule 4 of A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC is clear on this issue. It attached in her complaint the transcript and sim card
states: containing their conversation.
SECTION 1. Original of an Electronic Document. — An Respondent was apprehended in an entrapment

electronic document shall be regarded as the operation.
equivalent of an original document under the Best
Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by In support of her allegations, the complainant
sight or other means, shown to reflect the data attached to her affidavit-complaint the transcribed
accurately. electronic communications (text messages) between
her and the respondent; a copy of an Electronic
SECTION 2. Copies as equivalent of the Psychiatric History form given to her by the respondent
originals. — When a document is in two or more copies for her to accomplish in filing the petition for
executed at or about the same time with identical annulment of marriage;
contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same
impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or The respondent's actions from the time the
by mechanical or electronic recording, or by chemical complainant started communicating with her on October
reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which 21, 2009 and thereafter through a series of messages
accurately reproduces the original, such copies or they exchanged via SMS, until the entrapment operation
duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the on November 11, 2009, showed that the complaint is
original. indeed meritorious. The respondent's text messages sent
to the complainant corroborate that she promised to
Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or expedite — in exchange for a monetary consideration of
duplicates shall not be admissible to the same P160,000.00 and that she would provide the lawyer who
extent as the original if: would file the annulment case — the complainant's
annulment case once it is filed.
(a) a genuine question is raised as to the

authenticity of the original; or ISSUE: Are the sms messages admissible as evidence?
(b) in the circumstances it would be Held. Yes.

unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu
of the original. (Emphasis supplied) Ephemeral electronic communications are now
admissible evidence, subject to certain conditions.
The ballot images, which are digital, are "Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to
electronically generated and written in the CF cards telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom
when the ballots are fed into the PCOS machine. The sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other
ballot images are the counterparts produced by electronic forms of communication the evidence of
electronic recording which accurately reproduce the which is not recorded or retained.
original, and thus are the equivalent of the original. As
pointed out by the COMELEC, "[t]he digital images of the

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
It may be proven by the testimony of a person who enacting the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, Congress
was a party to the communications or has personal intended virtual or paperless writings to be
knowledge thereof. the functional equivalent and to have the same legal
In the present case, we have no doubt regarding the function as paper-based documents.Further, in a virtual
probative value of the text messages as evidence in or paperless environment, technically, there is no
considering the present case. The complainant, who was original copy to speak of, as all direct printouts of the
the recipient of the text messages and who therefore virtual reality are the same, in all respects, and are
has personal knowledge of these text messages, considered as originals. Ineluctably, the law's definition
identified the respondent as the sender through of "electronic data message," which, as aforesaid, is
cellphone number 09175775982. The respondent herself interchangeable with "electronic document," could not
admitted that her conversations with the complainant have included facsimile transmissions, which have
had been thru SMS messaging and that the cellphone anoriginal paper-based copy as sent and a paper-based
number reflected in the complainant's cellphone from facsimile copy as received. These two copies are
which the text messages originated was hers. She distinct from each other, and have different legal
confirmed that it was her cellphone number during the effects. While Congress anticipated future
entrapment operation the Imus Cavite Police conducted. developments in communications and computer
(3) MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES CORP VS SAANGYONG CORP technology when it drafted the law, it excluded the
(FAX; NOT ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE) early forms of technology, like telegraph, telex and
FACTS telecopy (except computer-generated faxes, which is a
MCC Industrial Sales (MCC), a domestic corporation newer development as compared to the ordinary fax
engaged in the business of importing and wholesaling machine to fax machine transmission), when it defined
stainless steel products and one of its supplier the term "electronic data message."
Ssangyong Corporation (Ssangyong), conducted business Clearly then, the IRR went beyond the parameters
through telephone calls and facsimile or telecopy of the law when it adopted verbatim the UNCITRAL
transmissions. Model Law's definition of "data message," without
Ssangyong would send the pro forma invoices considering the intention of Congress when the latter
containing the details of the steel product order to MCC; deleted the phrase "but not limited to, electronic data
if the latter conforms thereto, its representative affixes interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex or
his signature on the faxed copy and sends it back to telecopy." The inclusion of this phrase in the IRR offends
Ssangyong, again by fax. a basic tenet in the exercise of the rule-making power
On April 13, 2000, Ssangyong Manila Office sent, of administrative agencies. After all, the power of
by fax, a letter addressed to Gregory Chan, MCC administrative officials to promulgate rules in the
Manager [also the President of Sanyo Seiki Stainless implementation of a statute is necessarily limited to
Steel Corporation], to confirm MCC's and Sanyo Seiki's what is found in the legislative enactment itself. The
order of 220 metric tons (MT) of hot rolled stainless implementing rules and regulations of a law cannot
steel under a preferential rate of US$1,860.00 per MT. extend the law or expand its coverage, as the power to
Chan, on behalf of the corporations, assented and amend or repeal a statute is vested in the
affixed his signature on the conforme portion of the Legislature.Thus, if a discrepancy occurs between the
letter. basic law and an implementing rule or regulation, it is
Ssangyong then filed, on November 16, 2001, a the former that prevails, because the law cannot be
civil action for damages due to breach of contract broadened by a mere administrative issuance—an
against MCC for breach of their contract. administrative agency certainly cannot amend an act of
RTC rendered its Decision on March 24, 2004, in Congress.
favor of Ssangyong. CA Affirmed, and ruling that Pro Had the Legislature really wanted ordinary fax
Forma Invoice Nos. ST2-POSTS0401-1 and ST2- transmissions to be covered by the mantle of the
POSTS0401-2 were admissible in evidence, although Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, it could have easily
they were mere facsimile printouts of MCC's steel orders lifted without a bit of tatter the entire wordings of the
UNCITRAL Model Law.
Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in Incidentally, the National Statistical Coordination
sustaining the admissibility in evidence of the pro- Board Task Force on the Measurement of E-
forma invoices despite the fact that the same were Commerce,on November 22, 2006, recommended a
mere photocopies of facsimile printouts. working definition of "electronic commerce," as "[a]ny
Held: YES commercial transaction conducted through electronic,
The definitions under the Electronic Commerce Act optical and similar medium, mode, instrumentality and
of 2000, its IRR and the Rules on Electronic Evidence, at technology. The transaction includes the sale or
first glance, convey the impression that facsimile purchase of goods and services, between individuals,
transmissions are electronic data messages or electronic households, businesses and governments conducted over
documents because they are sent by electronic means. computer-mediated networks through the Internet,
The expanded definition of an "electronic data message" mobile phones, electronic data interchange (EDI) and
under the IRR, consistent with the UNCITRAL Model Law, other channels through open and closed networks." The
further supports this theory considering that the Task Force's proposed definition is similar to the
enumeration "xxx [is] not limited to, electronic data Organization of Economic Cooperation and
interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex Development's (OECD's) broad definition as it covers
or telecopy." And to telecopy isto send a document from transactions made over any network, and, in addition, it
one place to another via a fax machine. adopted the following provisions of the OECD definition:
Accordingly, in an ordinary facsimile transmission, (1) for transactions, it covers sale or purchase of goods
there exists an original paper-based information or data and services; (2) for channel/network, it considers any
that is scanned, sent through a phone line, and re- computer-mediated network and NOT limited to
printed at the receiving end. Be it noted that in Internet alone; (3) it excludes transactions

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
received/placed using fax, telephone or non-interactive which are the subject of inquiry is inaccurate since a
mail; (4) it considers payments done online or offline; secondary document would also have its contents as
and (5) it considers delivery made online (like the subject of inquiry.
downloading of purchased books, music or software The definition was also revised to include any
programs) or offline (deliveries of goods).
We, therefore, conclude that the terms
counterpart of an original document intended to
"electronic data message" and "electronic document," have the same effect as the original document by
as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of the person executing or issuing it. (See paragraph b)
2000, do not include a facsimile transmission. The revision also includes the definition of an original
Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be document, which contemplates either the negative or
considered as electronic evidence. It is not the print of the photograph. The definition also adopted
functional equivalent of an original under the Best the definition used for an original of an electronic
Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic document in that if the data is stored in a computer
evidence.
Since a facsimile transmission is not an "electronic data
or similar device, “any printout or other output
message" or an "electronic document," and cannot be readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect
considered as electronic evidence by the Court, with the data accurately” is an original.
greater reason is a photocopy of such a fax transmission However, while the definition adopted the
not electronic evidence. In the present case, therefore, phrasing of an original of an electronic document, it
Pro Forma Invoice Nos. ST2-POSTS0401-1 and ST2- appears that definition of a document under the
POSTS0401-2 (Exhibits "E" and "F"), which are mere revised rules does not contemplate an electronic
photocopies of the original fax transmittals, are not document. This is because under Section 1(h) of the
electronic evidence, contrary to the position of both the
trial and the appellate courts.
Rules on Electronic Evidence, the electronic document
refers to those that are “received, recorded,
transmitted, stored processed, retrieved or produced
SECTION 4. ORIGINAL OF THE DOCUMENT
Sec 4. ORIGINAL OF DOCUMENT--
electronically”. The revised rule, only states that if
(a) The original of a document is one the contents of the document or data is stored in a computer or other
which are the subject of inquiry. similar device, any printout or other output readable
(b) When a document is in two or more copies by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data
executed at or about the same time, with identical accurately, is considered as its original.
contents, all such copies are equally regarded as Under the amendment, the phrase “duplicate is
originals. a counterpart produced by the same impression as
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course the original”, may still encompass the definition
of business, one being copied from another at or near
the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise
under the original paragraph (b).
equally regarded as originals. A duplicate produced by photography, such as
(a) An “original” of a document is the for instance, a screen shot, is still considered the
document itself or any counterpart intended to original, given that by definition, a photograph is a
have the same effect by a person executing or documentary evidence.
issuing it. An "original" of a photograph includes Enlargements, miniatures, mechanical or
the negative or any print therefrom. If data is electronic re- recording, or by chemical reproduction,
stored in a computer or similar device, any or by other equivalent techniques which accurately
printout or other output readable by sight or reproduce the original cover the expanded definition
other means, shown to reflect the data of the document, meaning that an enlargement of an
accurately, is an "original." x-ray film, for instance, is considered the duplicate
(b) A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced thereof, and hence, the original. An electronic re-
by the same impression as the original, or from recording can pertain to a re-recorded audio or video,
the same matrix, or by means of photography, such as a CCTV footage.
including enlargements and miniatures, or by Note, however, that consistent with the ruling in
mechanical or electronic recording, or by National Power Corporation v. Codilla, Jr., G.R. No.
chemical reproduction or by other equivalent 170491, April 3, 2007, a reproduction of a paper based
techniques which accurately reproduce the document with the use of a photocopy machine, would
original. not make the copy produced thereby an original
(c) A duplicate is admissible to the same document. It is still secondary to the original paper
extent as an original unless (1) a genuine based that was photocopied, similar to MCC Industial
question is raised as to the authenticity of the Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp., G.R. No. 170633,
original, or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust October 17, 2007, where it was held that the facsimile
or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of copy is not an original but secondary evidence, there
the original. being a paper based original thereof.
-Señga notes- The new paragraph (c) became necessary such
It appears that the term “original” is defined in that the foregoing duplicates shall not be admissible
its ordinary sense as the original of the document as original if:
itself. It may be because defining the “original (1) a genuine question is raised as to the
document” under the old rule as one the contents of authenticity of the original; or

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
(2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or

inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the FACTS
original.
The new paragraph (c) became necessary to
January 1995, Maria Teresa Michaela Ong, as Sales
address questions on the authenticity of or to Executive of SMP, Inc. undertook the acceptance and
encompass other issues or circumstances that would servicing of a purchase order of CLOTHESPAK
render the duplicate inadmissible. MANUFACTURING PHILS. (Clothespak) for 4,000 bags or
The new paragraph (c) is similar to the exception sacks of General purpose (GPS) polystyrene products.
under Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rule on Electronic The ordered products were delivered, for which
Evidence, which provides that copies of the original delivery receipts were issued.
shall be deemed as equivalent of the
original (see complete definition thereunder which is As payment, Clothespak issued postdated checks
the same as the revised rule) but the same shall not in favor of plaintiff SMP and delivered the same to Maria
be admissible if the grounds under paragraph (c) are Teresa Michaela Ong. When the same were deposited by
present. SMP Inc. on their maturity dates, the drawee bank
With the deletion of the old paragraph (c), it dishonored and returned said checks for the reason
"Account Closed."
appears that an entry repeated in the regular course
of business, one being copied from another at or
near the time of the transaction, is no longer In order to discredit the claim of ownership by
considered an original, unless it may be argued to fall SMP, petitioner questions the admissibility of the
receipt presented by the former, wherein the ownership
under the definition of a counterpart produced by the
was reserved for the buyer until after full payment of
same impression as the original, or from the same the purchase price. Petitioner claims that the same was
matrix, among others. inadmissible in evidence and was in contravention of
the best evidence rule.
**** Before Secondary Evidence can be presented, all
duplicates or counterparts must be accounted for, and
no excuse for the non-production of the original
document itself can be regarded as established until
ISSUE: Are the receipts presented admissible?
all its parts are unavailable.
1. RULE ON DUPLICATE ORIGINAL HELD. No.

- Must be executed at or about the same time
with identical contents and all such copes are equally The best evidence rule is the rule which requires
regarded as originals. (under the old rule) the highest grade of evidence obtainable to prove a
-is a counterpart produced by the same disputed fact. Although there are certain recognized
impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or exceptions when the subject of inquiry is the contents
of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other
by means of photography, including enlargements and
than the original document itself.
miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic recording,
or by chemical reproduction or by other equivalent
techniques which accurately reproduce the original. However, in the instant case, contrary to
petitioner's contention, the receipt presented by SMP is
deemed as an original, considering that the triplicate
2. RULES ON COPIES OF A DOCUMENT copy of the provisional receipt was executed at the
a) Carbon Copy- duplicate and admissible as same time as the other copies of the same receipt
best evidence involving the same transaction. Section 4, Rule 130 of
b) Letter Press Copies- not duplicate originals the Rules of Court provides:
as they are not produced simultaneously
with the original copies Sec. 4. Original of document. —
c) Photographs and photographic copies
-Under the new rules, A duplicate produced
(a) The original of the document
by photography such as a Screen shot is an is one the contents of which are
original. the subject of inquiry.
d) Blueprints and tracings- considered originals
e) Telegraph messages -
(b) When a document is in two or
i. If the fact to be proved is the telegram more copies executed at or about
as received, it is the original the same time, with identical
ii. If the issue is the telegram as sent, the contents, all such copies are
original is the telegram delivered for equally regarded as originals.
transmission.
CASE LAW (c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of
(1) BPI VS SMP business, one being copied from another at or near the
time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise
equally regarded as originals.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
(2) CAPITAL SHOES FACTORY VS TRAVELER KIDS evidence were mere photocopies.
( Carbon copy; Invoice Slips) The TSNs further reveal that after the comparison, the
photocopies were the ones retained in the records.
FACTS:
In 2000, Capital Shoes Factory Ltd., (CSFL) and
Traveler Kids, Inc. (TKI) entered into an agreement
where TKI would pay 30% of purchase price by way of
credit, and the balance of 70% by way of telegraphic
transfers. They failed to pay the agreed payments.
During trial, CSFL through its witness, identified
several sales invoices and order slips it issued as
evidence of its transactions with TKI.
TKI objected to the identification, pointing out
that the documents being presented were mere
photocopies.
ISSUE: Should the invoices and order slips be

admitted?
HELD. Yes.
RATIO:
CA erred in not admitting the invoices and order
slips which were duplicate originals.
Section 4(b), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court reads:
Sec. 4 . Original of document. —
(b) 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.
In Trans Pacific Industrial Supplies v. The Court of
Appeals and Associated Bank, it was stressed that
duplicate originals were admissible as evidence:
“It is undisputed that the documents presented
were duplicate originals and are therefore admissible
as evidence. Further, it must be noted that respondent
bank itself did not bother to challenge the
authenticity of the duplicate copies submitted by
petitioner. In People vs. Tan, (105 Phil. 1242
[1959]), we said:
When carbon sheets are inserted between two or
more sheets of writing paper so that the writing of a
contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature
of the party to be charged thereby, produces a facsimile
upon the sheets beneath, such signature being thus
reproduced by the same stroke of pen which made the
surface or exposed impression, all of the sheets so
written on are regarded as duplicate originals and either
of them may be introduced in evidence as such without
accounting for the non-production of the others.”
The transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs)
clearly show that Chiu convincingly explained that CSFL
usually prepared two (2) copies of invoices for a
particular transaction, giving one copy to a client and
retaining the other copy.
The Court combed through her testimony and found
nothing that would indicate that the documents offered
were mere photocopies.
The Court sees no reason why Section 4(b), Rule
130 of the Rules of Court should not apply. At any rate,
those exhibits can be admitted as part of the testimony
of Chiu.
The Court went over the RTC records and the TSNs
and found that, contrary to the assertion of TKI, the
duplicate originals were produced in court and
compared with their photocopies during the hearing
before the trial court.
The transcripts bare all of these but were missed
by the appellate court, which believed the assertion of
TKI that what were produced in court and offered in

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in

Sec 5. When Original document is unavailable. -- some authentic document, or by the testimony of
When the original document has been lost or destroyed, witnesses in the order stated. Proof of the due
or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof execution of the document and its subsequent loss
of its execution or existence and the cause of its would constitute the basis for the introduction of
unavailability without bad faith on his or her part, may secondary evidence.
prove its contents by a copy or by a recital of its In MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Sangyong
contents in some authentic documents, or by the Corporation, it was held that where the missing
testimony of witnesses in the order stated. document is the foundation of the action, more
strictness in proof is required than where the document
is only collaterally involved.
Guided by these norms, the court holds that Julio,
Jr. failed to prove the due execution of the original of
affidavit as well as its subsequent loss. His testimony
was riddled with improbabilities and contradictions
CASE LAW which tend to erode his credibility and raise doubt on
(1) DANTIS V. MAGHIRANG JR. (PROOF OF DUE the veracity of his evidence. his claim of Julio, Jr. that
EXECUTION) Emilio affixed his signature on the original affidavit in
1953 is highly improbable because record shows that
FACTS 6milio died even before that year, specifically, on
The case draws its origin from a complaint for November 13, 1952.
quieting of title and recovery of possession with Seemingly, Julio, Jr. wanted to prove the sale by
damages filed by petitioner Rogelio Dantis (Rogelio) a receipt when it should be the receipt that should
against respondent Julio Maghinang, Jr. (Julio, Jr.) " further corroborate the existence of the sale. At best,
Julio claimed that his father, Julio Maghinang Sr., his testimony only alleges but does not prove the
bought the said lot from the parents of Rogelio Dantis. existence of the verbal agreement. Julio, Jr. miserably
He admitted that the affidavit was not signed by the failed to establish by preponderance of evidence.
alleged vendor, Emilio Dantis, the father of Rogelio (2) COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE VS LAGMAN (Proof
Dantis. The receipt he presented was admittedly a mere of Loss before Secondary Evidence is Allowed)
photocopy.
RTC rendered its decision declaring Rogelio as the FACTS
true owner of the entire as evidenced by his TCT over
the same.
Nelson Santos (Santos) applied for a license with
CA held that the receipt was an indubitable proof
the National Food Authority (NFA) to engage in the
of the sale of the 352 square meter lot between Emilio
business of storing not more than 30,000 sacks
and Julio, Sr. It also ruled that the partial payment of
of palay in his warehouse.
the purchase price, coupled with the delivery of the res,
gave efficacy to the oral sale and brought it outside the
operation of the statute of frauds. Under the General Bonded Warehouse Act, the
approval for said license was conditioned upon
Issues: Is the receipt admissible as secondary posting of a cash bond.
evidence?
HELD. No.
Lagman's insists on the novation of the1990
The undated handwritten receipt of initial
Bond.
downpayment in the amount of P100.00 supposedly
issued by Emilio to Julio, Sr. in connection with the sale
of the subject lot jurisprudence dictates that an Lagman presented a mere photocopy of the
affidavit is merely hearsay evidence where its 1990 Bond. We rule as inadmissible such copy.
affiant /maker did not take the witness stand.
The sworn statement of Ignacio is hearsay evidence.
It cannot be deemed a declaration against interest for
the matter to be considered as an exception to the
hearsay rule because the declarant was not the seller ISSUE: Is the photocopy of the 1990 Bond
(Emilio), but his father Ignacio". On the other hand, the admissible?
undated handwritten receipt is considered secondary
evidence being a mere photocopy which, in this case,
HELD. No.
cannot be admitted to prove the contents of such
receipt. The best evidence rule requires that the
highest available degree of proof must be produced. For Under the best evidence rule, the original
documentary evidence, the contents of a document are document must be produced whenever its contents
best proved by the production of the document itself to are the subject of inquiry. The rule is encapsulated
the exclusion of secondary or substitutionary evidence, in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.A
pursuant to Rule 130, Section 3. photocopy, being a mere secondary evidence, is not
A secondary evidence is admissible only upon admissible unless it is shown that the original is
compliance with Rule 130, Section 5,which states that: unavailable.
when the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot
be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its
Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary
execution or existence and the cause of its
evidence to prove the contents of the original, the
unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
offeror must prove the following: (1) the existence or original TCT was lost. Hence, the filing of this petition.
due execution of the original; (2) the loss and
destruction of the original or the reason for its non-
It was alleged that CA erred in giving weight to the
production in court; and (3) on the part of the
photocopy of the owner’s duplicate of TCT, as a
offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the
secondary evidence, as basis of the order for the
unavailability of the original can be attributed. The
reconstitution of the title.
correct order of proof is as follows: existence,
execution, loss, and contents.
ISSUE:Should the photocopy of the title be admissible
as secondary evidence?
In the case at bar, Lagman mentioned during HELD.NO.
the direct examination that there are actually four
(4) duplicate originals of the 1990 Bond: the first is
Section 3 of R.A. No. 26, “AN ACT PROVIDING A
kept by the NFA, the second is with the Loan Officer
SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR THE RECONSTITUTION OF
of the NFA in Tarlac, the third is with Country
TORRENS CERTIFICATES OF TITLE LOST OR DESTROYED,”
Bankers and the fourth was in his possession.
which has been quoted by the trial court in its decision,
enumerates the sources-documents-bases of a
A party must first present to the court proof of reconstitution of a transfer certificate of title. To
loss or other satisfactory explanation for the non- repeat, they are, in the following order:
production of the original instrument. When more
than one original copy exists, it must appear that all
1. the owner’s duplicate of the title
of them have been lost, destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court before secondary evidence can be
given of any one. A photocopy may not be used 2. the co-owner’s mortgagee’s, or lessee’s
without accounting for the other originals. duplicate of the title
Despite knowledge of the existence and 3. a certified copy of the title previously

whereabouts of these duplicate originals, Lagman issued by the register of deeds or by a legal
merely presented a photocopy. He admitted that he custodian
kept a copy of the 1990 Bond but he could no longer
produce it because he had already severed his ties with
4. an authenticated copy of the decree of
Country Bankers. However, he did not explain why
registration or patent, as the case may be,
severance of ties is by itself reason enough for the non-
pursuant to which the OCT was issued
availability of his copy of the bond considering that, as
it appears from the 1989 Bonds, Lagman himself is a
bondsman. Neither did Lagman explain why he failed to 5. a document, on file in the registry of
secure the original from any of the three other deeds, by which the property . . . is . . .
custodians he mentioned in his testimony. While he encumbered or an authenticated copy of said
apparently was able to find the original with the NFA document showing that its original had been
Loan Officer, he was merely contented with producing registered; and any other document which, in
its photocopy. Clearly, Lagman failed to exert diligent the judgment of the court, is sufficient and
efforts to produce the original. proper basis for reconstituting the lost or
destroyed title.
REPUBLIC VS SPS MATEO [Proof of Lost]
Since, except for the last above-enumerated
document, the Mateos have failed to present
any of the other documents, the rule on
secondary evidence under Sec. 5 of Rule 130
FACTS applies.
Spouses Lorenzo and Feliciana Mateo filed a As the immediately quoted provision of the Rules
Petition for the Reconstitution of the Original Copy as directs, the order of presentation of secondary evidence
well as the Owner‘s Duplicate Copy of Transfer is: existence, execution, loss, contents. The order may,
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-38769 issued by the however, be changed if necessary in the discretion of
Registry of Deeds of Bataan in the name of Jose Tan. the court. The sufficiency of the proof offered as a
The property under the said title was purchased by the predicate for the admission of an allegedly lost
Spouses Mateo from Jose Tan. Nevertheless, the original document lies within the judicial discretion of the trial
copy of the said TCT was deemed lost and cannot be court under all the circumstances of the particular
located in the Registry of Deeds. case.
The Regional Trial Court of Balanga denied the Assuming that the existence and execution of the
petition and the Motion for Reconsideration. On appeal, original of the TCT has been satisfactorily shown, and
the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court‘s decision that it was taken in 1973 by the Department of Justice
and held that Mateo satisfactorily proved that the and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in
connection with the investigation of the judge on whose
order the OCT from which the TCT was transferred,

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
which OCT was also taken by said government agencies, (1) the existence or due execution of the original;
there is no satisfactory showing that the TCT has been
lost.
(2) the loss and destruction of the original or the
reason for its nonproduction in court; and
In fine, the Mateos have not satisfactorily shown
that the original of the TCT has been lost or is no longer
(3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad
available. On this score alone, the Mateos’ petition for
faith to which the unavailability of the original can be
reconstitution fails.
attributed. The correct order of proof is as
In any event, even assuming that the original of the TCT follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents. At
was lost or is no longer available, not only is the the sound discretion of the court, this order may be
photocopy of the alleged owner’s duplicate copy thereof changed if necessary.
— Exh. “1” partly illegible. When, where and under
what circumstances the photocopy was taken and where LOSS OF THE ORIGINALS AND REASONABLE DILIGENCE
it was kept to spare it from being also “lost” were not IN THE SEARCH FOR THEM, NOT ESTABLISHED IN CASE
even shown. These, not to mention the conduct by the AT BAR. — In the present case,the existence of the
Department of Justice and NBI of an investigation original sales invoices was established by the
behind the issuance of the OCT and TCT caution and photocopies and the testimony of Hernandez.
lead this Court to rule against the sufficiency of the Petitioner, however, failed to prove that the originals
Mateos’ evidence and propriety of a grant of their had been lost or could not be produced in court after
petition for reconstitution. reasonable diligence and good faith in searching for
them. Indeed, the loss of the originals and reasonable
CITIBANK VS TEODORO diligence in the search for them were conditions that
were not met, because the sales invoices might have
been found by Equitable. Hernandez, testifying that he
FACTS had requested the originals from Equitable, failed to
show that he had subsequently followed up the request.
Respondent Efren S. Teodoro was one of the
WHEN MORE THAN ONE ORIGINAL COPY EXISTS, A
cardholders of the petitioner Citibank, N.A. Mastercard.
PHOTOCOPY MAY NOT BE USED WITHOUT
On January 25, 1995, respondent's obligations stood at
ACCOUNTING FOR THE OTHER ORIGINALS. — [W]hen
P191,693.25, inclusive of interest and service charges.
more than one original copy exists, it must appear
Thus, petitioner filed a complaint for collection.
that all of them have been lost, destroyed, or cannot
be produced in court before secondary evidence can be
During the hearing, petitioner presented several given of any one. A photocopy may not be used without
photocopies of sales invoices or charge slips to the total accounting for the other originals. In Santos v.
amount of P24,388.36. Santos the Court upheld the pronouncement of the CA
that before the appellees therein could be allowed to
adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the
The Court of Appeals ruled that that the original, they had to prove - with the requisite quantum
photocopies of the sales invoices or charge slips were of evidence - the loss, the destruction or the
incompetent proofs of the obligation of respondent. unavailability of all original copies of the document.
Hence, this petition for review.
SECTION 6. WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS IN
ISSUE:ARE THE PHOTOCOPIES OF SALES INVOICE ADVERSE PARTY’S CUSTODY OR CONTROL
ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE?
Sec 6. When original document is in adverse
party’s custody or control. -- If the document is
HELD: NO. in the custody or control of the adverse party, he
or she must have reasonable notice to produce it.
The original copies of the sales invoices are the best If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of
evidence to prove the alleged obligation. Photocopies its existence, he or she fails to produce the
thereof are mere secondary evidence. As such, they are document, secondary evidence may be presented
inadmissible because petitioner, as the offeror, failed to as in the case of its loss.
prove any of the exceptions provided under Section 3 of
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, as well as the conditions
of their admissibility. Because of the inadmissibility of (1) ENGR. BAYANI VS PEOPLE
the photocopies in the absence of the originals,
respondent's obligation was not established. [ Original is in the custody of the adverse party]
REQUISITES BEFORE A SECONDARY EVIDENCE MAY BE Under Section 3(b), Rule 130 of the said Rules,
PRESENTED. — Applying Sec. 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of secondary evidence of a writing may be admitted when
Court to the present case, before a party is allowed to the original is in the custody or under the control of the
adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the
original sales invoices, the offeror must prove the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice. To
following: warrant the admissibility of secondary evidence when
the original of a writing is in the custody or control of

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
or is recorded in a public office, its contents may

the adverse party, Section 6 of Rule 130 provides that be proved by a certified copy issued by the public
the adverse party must be given reasonable notice, that officer in custody thereof.
he fails or refuses to produce the same in court and that
the offeror offers satisfactory proof of its existence. CASE LAW
(1) REPUBLIC VS DEVELOPMENT REOSURCES
The mere fact that the original of the writing is in the
[ Probative Weight of Land Classification Map;
custody or control of the party against whom it is
Compare with SAAD AGRO CASE]
offered does not warrant the admission of secondary
evidence. The offeror must prove that he has done all in
FACTS
his power to secure the best evidence by giving notice
to the said party to produce the document. The notice
may be in the form of a motion for the production of This case is about the probative weight of a
the original or made in open court in the presence of Land Classification (LC) Map which the Republic of
the adverse party or via a subpoena duces tecum, the Philippines (Republic) presented to prove that the
provided that the party in custody of the original has land was not alienable and disposable at the time it
sufficient time to produce the same. When such party was adjudicated to the original owner.
has the original of the writing and does not
voluntarily offer to produce it or refuses to produce
The RTC ruled that LC Map has no probative
it, secondary evidence may be admitted.
value because: (1) the copy presented in court was a
reproduction and not the original or certified copy;
and (2) it does not show that the land was declared
SECTION 7. EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE WHEN THE ORIGINAL alienable and disposable only as of August 6, 1923;
DOCUMENT IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUMMARIES rather that it was certified on that date.
Sec 7. Evidence admissible when original
document is a public record. -- When the original ISSUE: Should the LC Map be admitted as evidence?
of a document is in the custody of a public officer
or is recorded in a public office, its contents may HELD: No.
be proved by a certified copy issued by the public
officer in custody thereof.
The Court held in SAAD Agro-Industries, Inc. v.
Republic of the Philippines that a mere photocopy
Sec 7. Summaries. — When the contents of of an LC Map is not a competent evidence of the
documents, records, photographs, or numerous existence of such map. While evidence is
accounts are voluminous and cannot be examined admissible when the original of a document is in
in court without great loss of time, and the fact the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
sought to be established is only the general result public office, as in this case, there is a need to
of the whole, the contents of such evidence may present a certified copy of it issued by the public
be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or officer having custody of the document to prove its
contents.
calculation.
The originals shall be available for
examination or copying, or both, by the adverse The Republic of course claims that its version of LC
party at a reasonable time and place. The court Map 47 should be regarded as the original itself because
it was the official copy of the region furnished by the
may order that they be produced in court.
National Mapping and Resources Inventory Authority
The original Section 7 is renumbered to Section where the original is kept. But, as admitted by Crisanto
8. Section 7 under the amended rule is a new Galo, the Land Evaluation Coordinator for DENR Region
insertion. It should be read together with Rule 130, XI, the copy they presented was neither marked nor
Sec. 3 (c). certified as a reproduction of the original. Hence, it
The new Section 7 provides the manner by which cannot be considered as an official copy, more so an
the original consisting of voluminous accounts may be original copy.
presented, i.e., in the form of a chart, summary or (2) BUNAGAN-BANSIG V. CELERA [Marriage Contract]
calculation. While the summary may be produced, still
FACTS
the originals of the voluminous accounts shall be This is a petition for disbarment by complainant
available for examination or copying, or both, by the Bunagan-Bansig against Respondent Atty. Celera for
adverse party at a reasonable time and place. The Gross Immoral Conduct.
court may also order that the voluminous accounts be Respondent was married to complainant's sister,
produced in court. Gracemarie R. Bunagan (Bunagan), as evidenced by a
certified photocopy of the contract of marriage dated
May 8, 1997. Notwithstanding this, Respondent
contracted marriage to one Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba
SECTION 7 8. EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE WHEN THE (Alba), as evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS A PUBLIC RECORD certificate of marriage issued by the City Registration
Sec 7. 8. Evidence admissible when original Officer of San Juan, Manila.
document is a public record. -- When the original
of a document is in the custody of a public officer ISSUE: Are the certified xerox copies of marriage

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
contracts admissible as evidence?

HELD: YES.
1. When the original has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without
The certified xerox copies of the marriage bad faith on the part of the offeror;
contracts, issued by a public officer in custody thereof,
are admissible as the best evidence of their contents, as
2. When the original is in the custody or
provided for under Section 7 of Rule 130 of the Rules of
under the control of the party against whom the
Court.
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it
after reasonable notice;
Moreover, the certified xerox copies of the
marriage certificates, other than being admissible in
3. When the original consists of numerous
evidence, also clearly indicate that respondent
accounts or other documents which cannot be
contracted the second marriage while the first marriage
examined in court without great loss of time and the
is subsisting. By itself, the certified xerox copies of the
fact sought to be established from them is only the
marriage certificates would already have been sufficient
general result of the whole; and
to establish the existence of two marriages entered into
by respondent. The certified xerox copies should be
accorded the full faith and credence given to public 4. When the original is a public record in
documents. For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
these Marriage Certificates bearing the name of public office.
respondent are competent and convincing evidence to
prove that he committed bigamy, which renders him
In this case, respondent claims that the
unfit to continue as a member of the Bar.
presentation of the original L.C. Map is unnecessary
since it is in the custody of a public officer or is
(3) SAAD AGRO-INDUSTRIES VS REPUBLIC [LC Maps] recorded in the public office. Evidence, indeed, is
admissible when the original of a document is in the
FACTS custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public
office. However, to prove its contents, there is a need
Socorro Orcullo (Orcullo) filed her application for to present a certified copy issued by the public officer
Free Patent which was granted. Subsequently, the in custody thereof.
subject lot was sold to SAAD Agro-Industries, Inc.
(petitioner) by one of Orcullo's heirs. In addition, while the L.C. Map may be considered a
public document and prima facie evidence of the facts
Sometime in 1995, the Republic of the Philippines, stated therein, the map, to be admissible for any
through the Solicitor General, filed a complaint for purpose, must be evidenced by an official publication
annulment of title, on the ground that the issuance of thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having legal
the said free patent and title for Lot No. 1434 was custody of the record.
irregular and erroneous, following the discovery that the SEC 8. 9. PARTY WHO CALLS FOR
lot is allegedly part of the timberland and forest reserve DOCUMENT NOT BOUND TO OFFER IT
of Sibonga, Cebu. Sec 8. 9. Party who calls for document not
bound to offer it. -- A party who calls for the
CA held that timber or forest lands, to which the production of a document and inspects the same
subject lot belongs, are not subject to private is not obliged to offer it as evidence.
ownership, unless these are first classified as The original Section 8 and the new Section 9 are
agricultural lands, relying on the photocopy of a land
the same.
classification map submitted as evidence.
This rule should be read in relation to Section 1,
ISSUE: IS THE LC MAP ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE? Rule 27. The production or inspection of documents or
HELD: things as a mode of discovery sanctioned by the rules
may be availed of by any party upon a showing of good
However, at the hearing on 6 June 1997, the trial cause therefor before the court in which an action is
court denied admission of the map for the purpose of pending. The court may order any party:
showing that the subject lot falls within a timberland a) to produce and permit the inspection and
reserve after respondent had failed to submit either a copying or photographing of any designated
certified true copy or an official publication documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
thereof. The Court observes that the document photographs, objects or tangible things, which are not
adverted to is a mere photocopy of the purported privileged; which constitute or contain evidence
original, and not the blue print as insisted by material to any matter involved in the action; and
respondent.
which are in his possession, custody or control; or
b) to permit entry upon designated land or other
A mere photocopy does not qualify as competent property in his possession or control for the purpose of
evidence of the existence of the L.C. Map. Under the inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the
best evidence rule, the original document must be
produced, except:
property or any designated relevant object or
operation thereon.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
Rule 27 sets an unequivocal proviso that the

documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things that may be
produced and inspected should not be privileged. The
documents must not be privileged against disclosure.
On the ground of public policy, the rules providing for
production and inspection of books and papers do not
authorize the production or inspection of privileged
matter; that is, books and papers which, because of
their confidential and privileged character, could not
be received in evidence. Such a condition is in
addition to the requisite that the items be specifically
described, and must constitute or contain evidence
material to any matter involved in the action and
which are in the party's possession, custody or control
(Air Philippines Corp. v. Pennswell, Inc., G.R. No.
172835, 13 December 2007)
RULE 27
PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS OR
THINGS
SEC 1. Motion for production or inspection; order. --

Upon motion of any party showing good cause therfor,
the court in which an action is pending may
(a) order any party to produce and permit the
inspection and copying or photographing, by or on
behalf of the moving party, of any designated
documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things, not privileged,
which constitute or contain evidence material to any
matter involved in the action and which are in his
possession, custody or control; or
(b) Order any party to permit entry upon
designated land or other property in his possession or
control for the purpose of inspecting, measuring,
surveying, or photographing the property or any
designated relevant object or operation thereon.
The order shall specify the time, place and
manner of making the inspection and taking
copies and photographs, and may prescribe such
terms and conditions as are just.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
3.PAROLE EVIDENCE Policy, or of the failure of said contract to express the

SEC 9. 10. EVIDENCE OF WRITTEN AGREEMENTS true intent and agreement of the parties thereto in its
Sec 9.10. Evidence of written agreements. -- Complaint.
When the terms of an agreement have been Xxx depending exclusively on human memory, is not
as reliable as written or documentary evidence.
reduced to writing, it is considered as containing Spoken words could be notoriously undesirable unlike
all the terms agreed upon and there can be, as a written contract which speaks of a uniform
between the parties and their successor in language. Xxxx
interest, no evidence of such terms other than
the contents of the written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to
modify, explain or add to the terms of the written (2) EAGLERIDGE DEV’T CORP VS CAMERON GRANVILLE
agreement if he or she puts in issue in his a (NOT A PARTY)
verified pleading.
FACTS
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or CA ordered respondent Cameron to produce the
imperfection in the written agreement; LOAN SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT (LSPA).
(b) The failure of the written agreement to Respondent argues that the production of the LSPA will
express the true intent and agreement of the violate the parole evidence rule.
parties thereto; Petitioners contend that respondent was not a party
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or to the deed of assignment, but Cameron Granville Asset
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by Management Inc, hence not a violation of PER.
Petitioner argues PER is not applicable because they
the parties or their successors in interest after
were not parties to the deed of assignment and they
the execution of the written agreement. cannot be prevented from seeking evidence to
determine the complete terms of the Deed of
The term “agreement” includes wills. Assignment.
The second paragraph addresses gender ISSUE: Will the allowance the LSPA constitute a
violation of the Parol Evidence Rule?
sensitivity and requires that any of the issues HELD: No.
warranting the exception to the Parol Evidence Rule The PER does not apply to the petitioners who are
should be raised in a verified pleading. Prior to the not parties to the deed of assignment and do not base
amendment, it was enough to raise said issue in a their claim on it. Hence, they cannot be prevented from
pleading that is not necessarily verified. The seeking evidence to determine the complete terms of
verification here must take into account the amended the deed of assignment.
definition of a verification under the amended Rule 7, Even assuming that Rule 130 Sec 9 is applicable, an
Sec. 6. exception to the rule under the second paragraph is
when the party puts in issue the validity of the written
All the grounds warranting the application of said agreement, as in the case a quo.
exception are the same. Besides, what is forbidden under the parol evidence
CASE LAW rule is the presentation of oral or extrinsic evidence,
(1) PILIPINAS BANK VS CA (INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY) not those expressly referred to in the written
agreement.
FACTS
Petitioner Pilipinas Bank obtained an insurance
policy from Meridian Assurance Corp. While the “Documents ca be read together when one refers to
insurance was in force, petitioner’s armored vehicle was the other.” By the express terms of the deed of
robbed by two armed men wearing police uniforms. assignment, it is clear that the deed of assignment was
Respondent denied claim arguing that such is not meant to be read in conjunction with the LSPA.
covered by the policy. Petitioner presented as witness (3) MANILA ELECTRIC CO. VS HEIRS OF SPS DELOY
Mr Cesar to testify the existence of the policy and to (MERALCO ITSELF SUBMITTED THE EVIDENCE;
testify on the negotiations that were made, and that led Constitute admission)
to the attachment of warranties, to prove that the loss
was covered. FACTS
Petitioner filed a motion to Recall witness, to allow Respondents, the owners of land in Trece Martires
Cesar to testify on the negotiations pertaining to the City, donated a portion of the property to CEDA for the
terms and conditions of the policy. Respondent objects latter to provide cheap and affordable electric supply to
on the ground that it would violate the parol evidence the province of Cavite, whereby a Deed of Donation was
rule. executed. CEDA sold it to MERALCO,embodied in a MOA.
ISSUE: Would the petitioner’s Motion to Recall Cesar Respondents offered to sell the property to
constitute a violation of the Parole Evidence Rule? MERALCO, but they denied. Respondents filed a
HELD. YES. complaint for unlawful detainer.
Sec 9 Rule 130 expressly requires that for Parol MERALCO avers that the extrinsic or extraneous
Evidence to be admissible to vary the terms of the evidence (Letter and Internal Memorandum) submitted
written agreement, the mistake or imperfection thereof by respondents cannot contradict the terms of the deed
or its failure to express the true agreement of the of sale between CEDA and MERALCO pursuant to PER.
parties should be put in issue by the pleadings. In the letter and internal memorandum, MERALCO
Petitioner failed to raise the issue of an intrinsic acknowledged that the owners of the subject property
ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the terms of the were the Deloys.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
human memory, is not a reliable as written or

ISSUE: Is the admission of the extrinsic evidence documentary evidence. Spoken words could be
submitted by respondent a violation of the PER? notoriously unreliable unlike a written contract which
HELD. No. speaks of a uniform language.”
MERALCO never disputed the declarations contained This, however, is merely a general rule. Provided
in these letters which were even marked as its own that a party puts in issue in its pleading any of the
exhibits. Pursuant to Sec 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of four(4) items enumerated in the 2nd paragraph of Rule
Evidence, these admissions and/or declarations are 130, Sec 9, “ a party may present evidence to modify,
admissible against MERALCO. explain or add to the terms of the agreement.”
Raising any of these items as an issue in a pleading
such that it falls under the exception is not limited
The letter and the internal memorandum presented,
to the party initiating an action.
offered and properly admitted as part of the evidence
on record by MERALCO itself, constitute an admission
against its own interest. Hence, MERALCO should If the defendant set up the affirmative defense
appropriately be bound by the contents of the that the contract mentioned in the complaint does
documents. not express the true agreement of the parties, then
(4) SPS PARAS VS KIMWA CONSTRUCTION AND DEVT parol evidence is admissible to prove the true
CORP [ EXCEPTIONAL CASE ALLOWING ADMISSION OF agreement of the parties. Moreover, as with all
PAROLE EVIDENCE] possible objections to the admission of evidence, a
party’s failure to timely object is deemed a waiver,
FACTS and parol evidence may then be entertained.
Spouses Paras filed a complaint against respondent (5) MARQUEZ VS ESPEJO [ True Intention of the
Kimwa for violation of their agreement. Kimwa asserted Documents; Respondents are not parties to the VLT]
that the Agreement articulated the parties’ true intent
that 40,000 cubic meters was a maximum limit and that FACTS
May 15,1995 was never set as a deadline. - Case about the Deed of Voluntary Transfer having
Invoking the Parol Evidence Rule, it insisted that the indicating the wrong TCT No. VLT had the TCT
Spouses paras were barred from introducing evidence number of the Lantap Property but the description of
which would show that the parties had agreed location in Brgy. Murong.
differently. CA ruled that the Deed of Voluntary Transfer is
controlling, upholding the BER, and PER.
ISSUE: Is the production of evidence to prove the ISSUE: Was the PER properly applied in this case?
intent of the parties other than the agreement itself a HELD. No.
violation of Parol Evidence Rule? The application of the Parol Evidence Rule is
HELD. No. improper int he case at bar.
Petitioners Sps Paras pleaded in the Complaint they (1) Respondents are not parties to the VLTs executed
filed before the trial court a mistake or imperfection in between RBBI and petitioners; they are strangers to the
the Agreement, as well as the Agreement’s failure to written contracts. Rule 130 Sec 9 specifically provides
express the true intent of the parties. Further, that parol evidence rule is exclusive only as “between
respondent Kimwa also responded to petitioners the parties and their successors-in-interest.” The parol
pleading these issues. This is thus an EXCEPTIONAL evidence rule may not be invoked where at least one of
CASE ALLOWING ADMISSION OF PAROL EVIDENCE. the parties to the suit is not a party or a privy of a party
Considering how the Agreement’s mistake, to the written document in question, and does not base
imperfection, or supposed failure to express the parties’ his claim on the instrument or assert a right originating
true intent was successfully put in issue in petitioners in the instrument.
Sps Paras’ Complaint, and respondents Answer, this case (2) The case falls under the exceptions to the Parol
falls under the exceptions provided in Sec 9 Rule 130. Evidence Rule. A party may present evidence to modify,
Accordingly, the testimonial and documentary parol explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if
evidence sought to be introduced by the petitioners Sps he puts in issue in his pleading:
Paras, which attest to these supposed flaws and what (i) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection
they aver to have been the parties’ true intent, may be in the written agreement;
admitted and considered. (ii) The failure of the written agreement to
PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE ; DISCUSSION express the true intent and agreement of the parties
Per this rule, reduction to written form, regardless thereto.
of the formalities observed, “forbids any addition to, or (6) SPS AMONCIO VS BENEDICTO [No Objection]
contradictions of, the terms of a written agreement by
testimony or other evidence purporting to show that DOCTRINE
different terms were agreed upon by the parties, “Where a party entitled to the benefit of the parol
varying the purport of the written contract. evidence rule allows such evidence to be received
This rule is animated by a perceived wisdom in without objection, he cannot, after the trial has closed
deferring to the contracting parties’ articulated intent. and the case has been decided against him, invoke the
In choosing to reduce their agreement in writing, they rule in order to object to the respondent’s testimony in
are deemed to have done so meticulously and carefully, the trial court, petitioners waived the protection of the
employing specific-- frequently, even technical-- parol evidence rule.”
language as are appropriate to theur contect. From an RULING
evidentiary standpoint, this is also because “oral”
testimony … coming from a party who has an interest in
Although the present case does not appear to fall
the outcome of the case, depending exclusively on
under any of the given exceptions written in Sec 9 of

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
Rule 130, however, a party to a contract may prove the of the Rules of Court holds that when the terms of an
existence of any separate oral agreement as to any agreement have been reduced into writing, it is
matter which is not inconsistent with its terms. This considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and
may be done if, from the circumstances of the case, the there can be, between the parties and their successors
court believes that the document dies not convey in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the
entirely the whole of the parties’ transaction. contents of the written agreement. It, however, admits
(7) SPS TRINIDAD VS IMSON [True Intention] of exceptios such as when the parties subsequently
modify the terms of their original agreement.”
FACT (9) ROSARIO TEXTILE MILLS CORP VS HOMES BANKERS
CA ruled in favor of respondents after considering SAVINGS AND TRUST CO.
the records of payment of purchase price through
personal checks, acknowledgment of payment by way of FACTS
affidavit and receipts, and respondent’s exercise of acts Yujuico contends that the suretyship agreement
of ownership prove that she is the owner of the disputed does not bind him, the same being a mere formality.
condominium unit and, thus is entitled to the possession
thereof. RULING.
Petitioners content that since the former owners, as The Suretyship Agreement signed by petitioner
well as respondent, are all parties to the Deed of Yujuico binds him. The terms clearly show that he
Assignment and transfer of Rights, they are bound by agreed to pay jointly and severally with RTMC.
the said Deed and they cannot allege terms
which are not found within the said agreement.
“Under this Rule (PER), the terms of a contract are
rendered conclusive upon the parties and evidence
ISSUE: Should the Parol Evidence Rule be applied to
aliunde is not admissible to vary or contradict a
bar evidence adduced by respondents?
complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a
HELD. No.
document. We have carefully examined the Suretyship
CA correctly held that the existence and due
Agreement signed by Yujuico and found no ambiguity
execution of these the Deed of Assignment and Transfer
therein, Documents must be taken as explaining all the
of Rights and Deed of Absolute Sale are not in issue The
terms of the agreement between the parties when there
presumption of truth of the facts stated in notarized
appears to be no ambiguity in the language of said
documents is merely prima facie, which means that this
documents nor any failure to express the true intent and
presumption can be overcome by clear and convincing
agreement of the parties.”
evidence. Hence, the truth of the facts stated in the
disputed Deed of Assignment and Transfer of Rights as 4. INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
well as the Deed of Absolute Sale may be rebutted by [SECTION 10-19 11-20]
evidence.
The provisions on the Interpretation of
In the present case, what is being asserted by Documents under the amended rule are contained
respondent is that the above documents do not embody under Sections 11-20.
the true intent and agreement of the parties to this The comparable provisions are exactly the same,
end, respondent submitted sufficient proof to refute the except for: (1) Section 13 (now Section 14) and Section
contents of the documents and to establish the real 17 (now Section 18), which contain amendments to
intent of the parties. address gender sensitivity; and (2) the renumbering of
(8) LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PHILS VS CNP the sections.
INDUSTRIES [ Modification of the Terms of the Original
Agreement]
ISSUEL Whether or not the case falls within an

exception to the PER after petitioner approved of the
additional cost estimates, in effect modifying the
original agreement in the subcontract.
HELD. YES.
The scope of work was defined in the subcontract as
the completion of the structural steel works according
to the main drawing, technical specifications and the
main contract. Thus to determine whether the roof
ridge ventillation and crane beams were included in the
scope of work, reference to the main drawing, technical
specifications, and the main contract is necessary.
The main contract stated that the structural steel
works included Drawing . This, according to petitioner
and respondent referred to the roof ridge ventillation
and crane beams. Hence, the said works clearly
included in the sub-contract works.
“ The parol evidence rule, embodied in Sec 9 Rule 130

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE (Oral Evidence) WHAT WILL THE WITNESS TESTIFY ON?
-evidence elicited from the mouth of a witness GR. All persons who can perceive, and perceiving,
as distinguished from real and documentary can make known their perception to others, may be
evidence. witnesses.
-viva voce evidence, meaning “living voice” or Religious or political belief, interest in the
by word of mouth outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime shall
not be a ground for disqualification.
Based on jurispridence, Testimonial evidence has
the least weight, if incredible.
EXCEPTIONS. The following are prohibited by law or
REASON: Man’s memory is being relied upon. rules to testify:
Moreover, both parties and their witnesses will recall
1. Those disqualified under Sections 21 22 to
only those favorable to them and deliberately for get
24 of Rule 130 { Disqualified by reason of mental
those which are adverse
incapacity, by reason of marriage, by reason of
death or insanity of adverse party, or by reason of
1.QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES privileged communication};
Sec. 20. 21. Witnesses; their qualifications. -- Except 2. Art 821 of the Civil Code disqualifies those:
as provided in the next succeeding section, all 3. Section 17, Rule 119 of the RoC requires
persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
that the accused sought to be discharged to be state
known their perception to others, may be witnesses.
witness has not at any time been convicted of any
offense involving MORAL TURPITUDE. The same
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome requirement is provided for a state witness under
of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise
R.A 6981 or the Witness Protection, Security and
provided by law, shall not be a ground for
disqualification. Benefit Act.
-SEÑGA NOTES-
The provision referring to the original Section 21 2. A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his
was deleted. The originally deleted provision, in client, EXCEPT. (FS)
referring to the now deleted original Section 21 meant (1) On FORMAL MATTERS, such as the mailing,
that: authentication or custody of an instrument, and the
(a) those whose mental condition at the time of like; or
their production for examination, is such that they are
(2) On SUBSTANTIAL MATTERS, in cases where his
incapable of intelligently making known their
testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in
perception to others; and
which event he must, during his testimony entrust
(2) children whose mental maturity is such as to
the trial of the case to another counsel.
render them incapable of perceiving the facts
respecting which they are examined and of relating QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS
them truthfully, cannot be witnesses. A prospective witness must show that he has
It is submitted that reference to the foregoing the following abilities: (ORRR)
was deleted because:
1. those with mental condition that cannot make (a) To OBSERVE- the testimonial quality of
known their perception is already encompassed in the perception;
definition of those qualified to testify. The definition (b) To REMEMBER- the testimonial quality of
in the original Section 20, now Section 21, states that memory;
qualified witnesses are those who can perceive and
can make known their perceptions. Thus, if one (c) To RELATE - the testimonial quality of
cannot make known his perception due to a mental narration; and
condition, then the witness is disqualified. The (d) To RECOGNIZE a duty to tell the truth - The
deletion was probably to remove redundancy. testimonial quality of sincerity.
2. The disqualification on the child witness is no
3. COMPETENCY OF WITNESS means the legal fitness
longer relevant with the Rule on Examination of Child
or ability of a witness to be heard on trial of a cause.
Witness, which provides that every child is presumed
qualified to be a witness (Rule on Examination of Child CASE LAW
Witness, Sec. 6)
1.WITNESS 1. ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES RETIREMENT
AND SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM VS. REPUBLIC (No
-refers to a person who testifies in a case or
gives evidence before judicial tribunal.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
against him. He was likewise facing other charges such

as concealment of deadly weapon and other crimes
Authority Required; VP)
against property.
Pat. Felino Noguerra went to the Tiaong Municipal
Jail, and sought the help of MANALO to identify the
source of the marijuana. In return he asked the
policeman to help him in some cases pending against
FACTS
him. He was told to buy marijuana with marked bills.
Few minutes thereafter, Manalo returned with two
Petitioner was "created under Presidential (2) foils of dried marijuana which were allegedly bought
Decree (P.D.) No. 361 and was designed to establish a from the accused Gloria Umali. Thereafter, he was
separate fund to guarantee continuous financial support asked to make a statement.
to the Armed Forces of the Philippines military After securing a search warrant, with the help of
retirement system as provided for in Republic Act No. Manalo’s affidavit, supported by the toils of marijuana,
340." the police operatives, went to the house of Gloria
Petitioner filed an Application for Registration Umali.
of Title over three parcels of land located in West Gloria Umali avers that the witness Francisco
Bicutan, Taguig City, as granted by former Pres. FVR on Manalo is not reputed to be trustworthy and reliable,
May 8, 1998. that he has several charges against him, and that he was
The petitioner then presented as its witness, likely to tell falsehood to have his cases dismissed.
Ms. Alma P. Aban (Ms.Aban), its Vice President and Head ISSUE: Should Manalo’s testimony should be given
of its Asset Enhancement Office. credit?
In response, the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) filed a MR dated May 12, 2008, wherein it argued HELD: Yes.
that the petitioner failed to prove that it has personality Religious or political belief, interest in the
to own property in its name and the petitioner failed to outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless
show that the witness it presented was duly authorized otherwise provided by law, shall not be aground for
to appear for and in its behalf. disqualification.
The phrase "conviction of a crime unless otherwise
ISSUE: Was the dismissal of the application for land provided by law" takes into account Article 821 of the
registration on the ground of failure to prosecute due Civil Code which states that persons convicted of
to the lack of authority of Ms. Aban to testify on falsification of a document, perjury or false testimony"
behalf of the petitioner? are disqualified from being witnesses to a will."
Since the witness Francisco Manalo is not
HELD: YES. convicted of any of the above-mentioned crimes to
disqualify him as a witness and this case does not
Cavili v. Judge Florendo speaks of the disqualifications: involve the probate of a will.
Sections 19 and 20 of Rule 130 provide for We rule that the fact that said witness is facing several
specific disqualifications. criminal charges when he testified did not in any way
Section 19 disqualifies those who are disqualify him as a witness.
mentally incapacitated and children whose tender age
or immaturity renders them incapable of being
3. PEOPLE V. DOMINGUEZ (Pending Criminal Case)
witnesses.
Section 20 provides for disqualification
based on conflicts of interest or on relationship.
Section 21 provides for disqualifications FACTS:
based on privileged communications. Accused ELEUTERIO DE LEON and REYNALDO
Section 15 of Rule 132 may not be a rule MANAYAO were charged with the crime of murder.
on disqualification of witnesses but it states the grounds Aug 23, 1992, 10am, in Angat, Province of Bulacan,
when a witness may be impeached by the party against Philippines armed with Armalite rifles and Caliber .45
whom he was called. pistols, ambushed, attacked and shot from behind
Marcelino Santiago who was hit at the head while he
A reading of the pertinent law and was driving his owner-type jeep, and as a result he died
jurisprudence would show that Ms.Aban is qualified to instantaneously.
testify as a witness for the petitioner since she The prosecution presented three witnesses: the
possesses the qualifications of being able to perceive two eyewitnesses, namely, Simon Mariano, a farmer
and being able to make her perceptions known to from Angat, Bulacan, and Ramon Chavez, an employee
others. of Robal Transit; and SPO2 Alfredo Bartolome.
Petitioner alleges that Mariano is disqualified to be
FURTHERMORE, she possesses none of the a witness because of a pending criminal case against
disqualifications described above. him.
2. PEOPLE VS UMALI (Drug Addict witness) ISSUE: Did the pendency of a criminal case against a
Mariano disqualify him from becoming a witness?
FACTS HELD: NO.
Francisco Manalo, was investigated by operatives Clearly, the mere pendency of a criminal case
of the Tiaong, Quezon Police Department and for which against a person does not disqualify him from becoming
a case for violation of the Dangerous Drug Act was filed a witness. As a matter of fact, conviction of a crime

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
does not disqualify such person from being presented as a witness must be assayed and scrutinized in exactly the
a witness unless otherwise provided by law. same way the testimony of other witnesses must be
examined for its relevance and credibility. None of the
cases cited by the appellants militates against this
proposition.
4. PEOPLE VS DE LEON (Previously Convicted) Oscar Cagod did not dispute his prior conviction for
murder when he was only twelve (12) years old. Because
of his minority, instead of being imprisoned, he was
FACTS: placed under the custody of Judge Boligor and her late
2/6/86, 8pm, on the eve of the "snap" presidential husband, who was then Chief of Police of Sinacaban.
election, appellant Prudencio Dominguez (Mayor of Cagod lived with the for eighteen (18) or nineteen (19)
Sinacban, Misamis Occidental, and affiliated with KBL, years until Judge Boligor was slain. During that period of
and working for the reelection of Pres. Marcos) and his time, Cagod had no record of any bad or socially
brother Roger C. Dominguez went to visit their second destructive behavior. He had in fact been of much help
cousin, Judge Purita A. Boligor, who was promoting the around the Boligors' house and had in fact worked for
candidacy of Mrs Corazon Aquino. appellant Mayor Dominguez himself as a motorcar
Mayor Dominguez and Roger arrived at Judge driver. His testimony was not in favor of an accused
Boligor's house in an Integrated National Police ("INP") "comrade," and Oscar Cagod, moreover, was obviously
jeep, and met with Judge Boligor and her brother not a hardened criminal. Taking account of these
Luther Avanceña who was then the UNIDO Chairman in circumstances, the Court considers that Oscar Cagod's
Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental. credibility was not put in doubt by reason alone of
About ten (10) minutes later, Rodolfo Macalisang conviction of a crime when he was twelve (12) years
entered Judge Boligor's house with an M-16 armalite old.
automatic rifle and bursts of gunfire were heard. Shortly
thereafter, Mayor Dominguez and Roger ran out of the 5. PEOPLE VS ALEMAN (DEAF MUTE: Urinating
house, got into the jeep which had been waiting for Witness, Fat man killed)
them and sped away.
Prosecution's case rested mainly on the testimony
of Oscar Cagod who witnessed the above sequence of
events from a store across the street. FACTS:
The defense, for its part, attacked the credibility Mark, witness, was 14 yo when he testified, deaf-
and the testimony of Oscar Cagod on the following mute and assisted by a licensed sign language
grounds: interpreter from the Phil. Registry of Interpreters for
First, Cagod was not a disinterested witness, Deaf, who has been teaching since 1990.
having lived in the house of Judge Boligor for eighteen 2/10/03, 7pm, Mark went out of his to play
(18) to nineteen (19) years and having treated the Judge basketball. When he went to urinate he saw a fat man
like his own mother; talking on his phone while being followed by 2 men who
Second, Cagod waited for four (4) months stabbed the fat man repeatedly.
after the slaying of Judge Boligor and Luther Avanceña He followed them to where they burried the knife,
before he executed his sworn statement; and to another place where the culprits uncovered their
Third, Cagod, according to the defense, faces.
executed his sworn statement only after the police Accused-appellant also attempted to show
authorities had arrested him and promised him that the eyewitness, Mark, failed to identify him during
immunity from prosecution. the police line-up. He further stated that Mark failed to
His testimony therefore came from a polluted identify accused-appellant during the police line-up.
source and should be received only with utmost caution.
Fourth, Cagod had been convicted, when he was ISSUE: Whether or not Mark, being a deaf-mute, is
twelve (12) years old, of murder, a crime involving qualified to be a witness.
moral turpitude and accordingly his testimony
deserved no credence.Last, the defense assailed the HELD: The mere fact that Mark is a deaf-mute does not
testimony of Cagod as being incredible in itself. render him unqualified to be a witness. The rule is that
"all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
ISSUE: WON the prior conviction of a crime of Oscar known their perception to others, may be witnesses."
Cadot would discredit him as a witness. A deaf-mute may not be able to hear and speak
but his/her other senses, such as his/her sense of sight,
remain functional and allow him/her to make
HELD. NO. observations about his/her environment and
Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court provides as experiences.
follows: Sec. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. — . . . The inability to hear and speak may prevent a
[C]onviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by deaf-mute from communicating orally with others but
law, shall not be a ground for disqualification. . he/she may still communicate with others in writing or
through signs and symbols and, as in this case,
In Cordial v. People, this Court echoed the above sketches. Thus, a deaf-mute is competent to be a
cited provision of law stating that even convicted witness so long as he/she has the faculty to make
criminals are not excluded from testifying in court so observations and he/she can make those observations
long as, having organs of sense, they "can perceive and known to others.
perceiving can make known their perceptions to others.
The fact of prior criminal conviction alone does When a deaf-mute testifies in court, “the manner in
not suffice to discredit a witness; the testimony of such which the examination should be conducted is a matter

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
to be regulated and controlled by the trial court in its would not be prudent to admit the deaf-mute's
discretion, and the method adopted will not be testimony as interpreted by the teacher.
reviewed by the appellate court in the absence of a
showing that the complaining party was in some way
7. PEOPLE VS TUANGCO
injured by reason of the particular method adopted.
[ANG] [People v. Tuangco, G.R. No. 130331,

6. PEOPLE VS BUSTOS (A 1928 case; Ruling opposite of
November 22, 2000
the case of People vs Aleman)
DOCTRINES: Deaf Mutes are competent where they
a) can understand and appreciate the sanctity of
DOCTRINE: The testimony given at trial by a deaf-mute an oath;
interpreted by a teacher of deaf-mutes is INADMISSIBLE b) Can comprehend facts they are going to testify
AS EVIDENCE when said interpreter has not had frequent on; and
contact with the Deaf-Mute witness so as to enable her c) Can communicate their ideas through qualified
to understand the latter’s signs. interpreter.
FACTS: In the morning of January 4, 1995, the naked

cadaver of Aurea Eugenio, a bookkeeper employed by
FACTS: the Centro Escolar University Credit Cooperative in
Manila was found lying beside a creek about 50 meters
10/24/25, Laureana Yumul, Angel Del Castillo’s wife, away from the national highway in Apalit.
who was also at the place of fight went to her home. On Appellants Adel Tuangco and Nelson Pineda Jr. (Jun
her way she saw her deaf-mute daughter SOLEDAD Tatoo) and Sonny Tuangco(Baba) were charged and
ENCARNACION, under a mango tree gesticulating and covicted of rape with homicide and theft of Aurea
making signs, and pointed to her son Felipe Del Castillo, Eugenio.
who was expired moments later. The principal evidence against the accused
Laureana Yumul testified that her dying son consisted of the testimony of an eyewitness, Silvestre
told her Francisco Bustos and Antonio Macaspac hacked Sanggalan, a deaf-mute who was 3.5 meters away from
him. the scene. He gave his testimony through sign language,
The prosecution also presented Soledad which was interpreted by a sign language expert.
Encarnacion, deaf-mute daughter of Laureana Yumul, EVA SANGCO, sign language interpreter;22
who was interpreted by a teacher from the deaf and years of teaching experience at the Philippine School for
dumb school the Deaf.
(a)who had never taught the witness;
(b) nor had the latter ever been to such a DEFENSE:Silvestre Sanggalan had no formal schooling in
school a special school for deaf-mutes. Certain portions of
Sanggalan's testimony which appeared unclear, e.g., the
ISSUE: Should Soledad Encarnacion’s testimony, as a witness admitted that the place where the incident
deaf-mute interpreted by a teacher, admitted as happened was "very dark", and he was inconsistent as to
evidence? who, between Adel Tuangco or Jun Tatoo, was the first
to rape the victim. Thus, his handicap prevented a
truthful narration of what really transpired.
HELD:No.
While it is true that modern pedagogy has made
ISSUE: Is the testimony of the deafmute Sanggalan
tremendous strides in the instruction and education of
admissible?
persons so afflicted, even to the extent of enabling the
HELD: Yes.
blind to read by means of the sense of touch and deaf-
-The theory that Sanggalan could not truthfully
mutes to receive instruction through conventional signs
and convincingly convey what really happened on that
and objects, nevertheless, with respect to deaf-mutes,
fateful night because he had no formal schooling in a
it is necessary that he who is to communicate with
school for special persons like him and the interpreter
them know the meaning of their signs, either from
was not the one who had taught his is not tenable.
having had them taught to him, or from having
The imperfections or inconsistencies cited do not
acquired a knowledge of them through frequent
detract from the credibility of his testimony, much less
contact with the same. Without these circumstances,
justify the total rejection of the same.
although it is possible to guess part of what deaf-mutes
What is material is that he knew personally the
mean by their signs even without having had much to do
accused-appellants, was with them on the fateful night
with them, still much of what they wish to say escapes
when the incident happened, and had personally
us, and in our eagerness to understand them, we resort
witnessed the rape-slay and theft 3.5 meters away from
to enjecture. It will be seen how dangerous then in such
the scene.
a procedure to arrive at the truth, and above all when
He did not waiver in the identification of the 3
the life and liberty of an accused man are at stake.
accused despite rigorous cross-examination, and
This was shown in the present case, in which during the
positively pointed to the accused-appellants as the
course of interpretation, there were times when the
persons who raped and killed Eugenio and took her
interpreter could not make out what the witness
personal effects.
meant by such signs as she uses, and this is due to the
fact that the deaf-mute had never been a pupil of the
interpreter, nor had the latter previously had anything
to do with the former, such as would have given her an 8. PEOPLE VS GERONES
opportunity to acquire some knowledge of the meaning
of the signs the deaf-mute used. In view of this, it

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
DOCTRINE: A Mental Retardate who can make her that she is no longer a virgin and were inflicted more
perception made to others can testify. than seven (7) days prior to the examination.
Dr. Celeste Peña-Vista, a resident physician at the
FACTS: Liliosa Gargantilla, a mental retardate,filed a National Center for Mental Health, conducted a
complaint for rape against Calixto Raga alias "Calix" and psychiatric examination of Mary Grace and found that
Leonardo Gerones alias "Nanding or Narding". Mary Grace was retarded with a mental age of a seven-
DEFENSE: the complaint did not give jurisdiction to the year-old. She was perceptive but had difficulty in
trial court the same having been signed by a mentally interpretation. She could tell what happened but found
incompetent woman. Initially, a complaint was filed it difficult to know the meaning of things.
with the barangay captain by Francisco Gargantilla, the
victim's father. ISSUE: Whether or not the testimony of a mental
Rule 110, Section 5 also provides that in the case retardate may be given probative value.
of a deceased or incapacitated person, the State may
initiate the criminal action in her behalf. The HELD: YES. Although Mary Grace was mentally retarded,
information filed by the Provincial Prosecutor, the her testimony cannot be discredited. All persons who
complaint initiated by the father, and the complaint can perceive, and perceiving can make known their
filed by the offended party herself sufficiently confer perception to others, may be witnesses. Mere
jurisdiction on the trial court. intellectual weakness of a witness is not a ground to
disqualify, or at the very least discredit, a witness.
ISSUE: Whether or not an incompetent's testimony may The intellectual weakness of Mary Grace does not
be given credence. make her incompetent as a witness if, at the time she
testified, she had the mental capacity to distinguish
HELD: YES. Determination of the competency of between right and wrong, understand the nature and
witnesses to testify in the hands of the trial court. obligation of an oath, and give a fairly intelligent and
The records show that the victim managed to reasonable narrative of the matters about which she
communicate her ordeal to the court clearly and testifies. Her narration as to how the rape was
consistently. The trial court found Liliosa to have the committed, in the court's view, was straightforward,
mental capacity of a ten year old. We are convinced despite her mental weakness.
that a ten year old girl can adequately narrate facts A perusal of said testimony would readily show that
which show that she has been raped. Thus, the trial Mary Grace despite her mental deficiency was able to
court observed: ". . . In the overall, she was able to testify clearly and persuasively. The psychiatrist who
communicate that the man who is not blind and the man examined her testified that Mary Grace was capable of
without eyes helped each other in deflowering her thru being receptive and perceptive. She could tell what
force and intimidation. Her narration was crude but she happened but found difficulty in interpreting things.
managed to communicate the traumatic incident". Mary Grace's credibility commands great weight and
Moreover, while the psychiatry report states that respect.
the victim cannot be expected to be a capable witness,
at the same time it admitted that Liliosa can
10. PEOPLE VS DEAUNA
comprehend the nature of her acts under a limited
extent. The same report concludes that she is verbally
productive although she talks in incomplete sentences
at times. What is required by the rules merely is that FACTS: Sometime in September 1996, victim Josephine
the witness is able to make her perception known to Deauna who was 19 years old at that time, was at their
others. house in Litex Village San Jose, Montalban, Rizal. She
Considering the foregoing, we agree with the trial was lying down while her sister Jasmin was already
court that Liliosa Gargantilla is a competent witness. sleeping when a man suddenly held her hand. She
What is decisive in the rape charge is the recognized the man to be her father, appellant Richard
complainant's positive identification of the accused- Deauna, who thereafter raped her.
appellants as the malefactors. The victim was even able Richard Deauna was convicted two counts of the
to testify that only one actually had sexual intercourse rape of his daughter Josephine Deauna.
with her and that was the blind, man while the other The defense presented the testimonies of two
man who was not blind held her and pointed a knife at medical officers in the National Center for Mental
her while the former was raping her. Health, one of which noted that the subject Josephine
was insane because her thought processes were loose,
there was derailment in the words used, and
9. PEOPLE VS HAMTO
depersonalization (a strange sense of the personal self
or the body) was evident.
DOCTRINE: Mere Intellectual weakness of a witness is
not a ground to disqualify a witness, or at the very ISSUE: Is Josephine, a credible witness?
least discredit a witness.
FACTS: HELD: NO.
"Iniyot ako ni Mario, Fernan and Dondon." That The accused may be convicted on the basis of the
statement uttered by mental Retardate Mary Grace lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim,
Labatete to her sister Werlinia upon seeing Fernan provided that her testimony is clear, credible,
Pervera. convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature
Mario Hamto was convicted of rape of Mary Grace. and the normal course of things. When a rape victim’s
Dr. Ma. Cristina Freyra, Medico-legal Officer of the testimony is straightforward, unflawed by any material
Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, confirmed or significant inconsistency, it deserves full faith and
that Mary Grace had deep-healed lacerations indicating credence and cannot be discarded.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
In determining the credibility of the testimony of

private complainant, the pivotal question to be resolved
HELD. Yes.
is whether she was insane when she testified in court
on the rape incidents.
The normal state of mind of the victim was Sweet’s testimony should not be disregarded.
unperturbed even after the foregoing initial mental
examination and remained intact during the early and
A witness’ young age will not deter him or her
the middle part of the trial. Although one of the expert
from being a competent and credible witness. All the
witnesses testified that the mental illness of the victim
requirements to be a competent child witness were
could have existed prior to the diagnosis made on her,
met by Sweet.
no clear and categorical statement to this effect was
presented. In any event, courts are not bound by the
opinions of expert witnesses on such matters, especially 12. PEOPLE VS MENDOZA
when they appear to be merely speculative and
conjectural, as in this case.
Even assuming that the victim was already insane DOCTRINE: Any Child, regardless of age, can be a
during her earlier testimony, this fact alone will not competent witness.
render her statements incredible or inadmissible in
evidence. Her mental imbalance or abnormal state of FACTS
mind would not automatically affect her credibility.
Indeed, even a mental retardate or feeble-minded
person may qualify as a competent witness, considering Maria Gina Avila Mendoza was put to file in her
that all persons who can perceive and, perceiving, can home in Bulacan. Her husband, Rolando Mendoza, was
make known their perception to others, may be accused of parricide.
witnesses.
Unsoundness of mind does not per se render a Prosecution presented as its witnesses, Paul
witness incompetent. One may be insane, yet be Michael Mendoza, 5 yo child of the victim and
capable in law of giving competent testimony. The accused.
general rule is that lunatics or persons affected with
insanity are admissible as witnesses, if they have
sufficient understanding to apprehend the obligation At first, the child only said that his father boxed
of an oath and are capable of giving correct accounts his mother in the mouth, but the court noticed that
of the matters that they have seen or heard with he was only scared of his father because he was
respect to the questions at issue. looking at his father the whole time. When he was
again presented as witness, the accused was placed
out of direct sight of the witness, where he testified
11. PEOPLE VS ACBANGIN that he personally saw his father put kerosene over
his mother.
DOCTRINE: To be a competent child witness, the
following criteria must be met:
(a) capacity of observation; ISSUE: Is the witness, 4 yo boy, a credible witness?
(b) capacity of recollection and HELD. YES
(c) capacity of communication. A child,regardless of age, can be a competent witness

if he can perceive, and perceiving, can make known
his perception to others and of relating truthfully
FACTS
facts respecting which he is examined.
Jocelyn Acbangin was charged with the crime of

kidnapping and serious illegal detention of her 4 year 13. PEOPLE VS. GALAS
old nice, Sweet Grace Acbangin.
DOCTRINE:
According to Sweet’s father, she was last seen at
Jocelyn’s house playing at the appellant’s house but FACTS
appellant denied knowing the child’s whereabouts.
12/23/95, 9pm, Fedrico Gamayon and his 15yo son
Sweet’s testimony stated that it was Jocelyn who Crisanto, who was riding on a carabao, and 6yo
brought her to Niu’s house. nephew JOEMAR, who was riding on the sled was on
their way home, when Federico was called by
GONZALO GALAS, who hacked Federico with a bolo,
thereafter Josue, Dimas, and Maximo ganged up on
Federico.
ISSUE: Is Sweet a credible witness?
DEFENSE: Joemar’s testimony should be disregarded

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
(6) Religious Teacher;

because of its unreliability, claiming that he cannot (7) Parent; or
even remember the month and the year when the
incident happened. (8) Relative
5. SUPPORT PERSON
ISSUE: ARE JOEMAR credible witnesses, with regard to
-is a person chosen by the child to accompany
their relationship to the victim and age?
him to testify at or attend a judicial proceeding or
deposition to provide emotional support for him.
HELD. No.
6. COMPENTENCY OF A CHILD WITNESS
A close scrutiny of his testimony discloses that Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness.
Joemar was clear on the facts he observed (Sec 6)
surrounding the death of Federico which according to
him took place on a date “nearing Christmas”. - It does not preclude the court from conducting a
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION/ competency examination of
the child.
RULES ON THE EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS -The court shall conduct a Voir Dire Examination of a
(A.M. No. 004-07-SC. November, 21, 2000) child, motu proprio or on motion of a party, when it
finds that substantial doubt exists regarding:
1. the ability of the child to perceive;
1. APPLICABILITY
2. The ability of the child to remember;
Unless otherwise provided, this Rule shall givern
the examination of the following witnesses : (VAW) 3. The ability of the child to communicate,
distinguish truth from falsehood; or
a. Child witnesses who are victims of crime;
4. The ability of the child to appreciate the duty
b. Child witnesses who are accused of a crime; to tell the truth in court.
and
c. Child witnesses who are witnesses to crime.
(Sec 1) CASE LAW
N.B. Applies to all criminal proceedings and non- (1) PEOPLE VS ESUGON (5yo Muymoy; Robbery)
criminal proceedings involving child witnesses. DOCTRINE: Every child is presumed qualified to be a
witness. The party challenging the competency of a
2. “CHILD WITNESS” child as a witness has the burden of substantiating his
-any person who at the time of giving testimony challenge.
is below the age of 18 years.
FACTS
In child abuse cases, a child includes one over 18 years Carl or Muymoy, (5 yo) son of victim Josephine
but is found by the court as: Castro testified that he saw “Nonoy” enter their house
while everyone was sleeping and stabbed his mother.
a) Unable to fully take care of himself because of a Muymoy was peeping through a chair. Carl identified the
physical or mental disability or condition; or appellant as the neighbor who often goes to their house.
Muymoy admitted that he did not see very well the
b) Unable to protect himself from abuse, neglect, perpetrator because there was no light.
cruelty, exploitation because of a physical or
mental disability or condition. DEFENSE: Muymoy’s testimony is filled with
inconsistencies, thus not credible.
3. DETERMINATION: made at the time of giving the
ISSUE: Is Muymoy a credible witness?
testimony.
HELD. Yes.
4. FACILITATOR
That the witness is a child cannot be the sole reason
- a person appointed by the court to pose questions to for disqualification.The dismissiveness with which the
a child. testimonies of child witnesses were treated in the past
has long been erased.
-the facilitator may be a :
Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness,
(1) Child Psychologist; every child is now presumed qualified to be a witness.
(2) Psychiatrist; To rebut this presumption, the burden of proof lies on
the party challenging the child’s competency.
(3) Social worker;
Only when substantial doubt exists regarding the
(4) Guidance counselor; ability of the child to perceive, remember,
communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or
(5) Teacher; appreciate the duty to tell the truth will the court,

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
motu proprio or on motion of a party, condct a case, the trial judge’s evaluation will not be disturbed
competency examination. on review,UNLESS it is clear from the record that his
judgment is erroneous.
Appellant did not object to Carl’s competency as a
witness. He did not attempt to adduce evidence to This conclusion is in accord with the spirit and
challenge such competency by showing that the child letter of the Rule on Examination of Child Witness
was incapable of perceiving events and of which became effective last December 15,2000.
communicating his perceptions, or that he did not
posses the basic qualifications of a competent witness. SEC 21. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MENTAL
INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY
(2) PEOPLE VS IBANEZ
FACTS Sec 21. Disqualification by reason of mental
8/29/04 in Bulacan, Wilfredo Atendido was invited by
incapacity or immaturity. -- The following persons
Afredo to a drinking session with Jesus and Edwin. cannot be witnesses:
Rachel, 10 yo Wilfredo’s daughter, was underneath (a) Those whose mental condition, at the time
the house of a neighbor, 3 meters away from the place of their production for examination, is such that
where he saw his father get murdered. they are incapable of intelligently making known
DEFENSE: Rachel was a mere child who was only able to their perception to others;
study up to 1st grade and could barely read and did not (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as
know how to tell time. to render them incapable of perceiving the facts
respecting which they are examined and of
ISSUE: Is Rachel’s testimony credible? relating them truthfully.
HELD. YES.
There is no showing that her mental maturity The original Section 21 was deleted, to remove
rendered her incapable of testifying and of relating the redundancy.
incident truthfully.
CASE LAW
Petitioner’s flimsy objections to Rachel’s lack of
education and inability to read and tell time carry no 1. PEOPLE VS OBOGNE (AAA, 12 yo)
weight and cannot overcome the clear and convincing FACTS
testimony of Rachel as to who killed her father.
JERRY OBOGNE was charged of the crime of rape a
(3) PEOPLE VS RAMA (5yo Roxanne; Biscuit) 12 year old mentally retarded person, AAA.
DOCTRINE: Trial court’s assessment of credibility of Obogne argues that the testimony of AAA deserves
child witness will not be disturbed on review. no credence because she was incapable of intelligently
making known her perception to others by reason of her
FACTS
mental disability.
Roger Rama was convicted of kidnapping an infant
ISSUE: Should AAA’s testimony be disregarded due to
child, Joyce Ann Cabiguin, based on the testimony of 5
her mental disability?
yo Roxanne.
HELD. NO.
Roxanne testified that in the evening of January 1,
1998, while she was playing with her relatives, Rama AAA is totally qualified to take the witness stand
called Roxanne and told her that if she would bring her notwithstanding her mental condition. She was able to
beautiful cousin to him, he would give him a biscuit. recall what had happened to her.
Accused gave her 1 biscuit. Roxanne carried Joyce Ann
Mental retardation per se does not affect a witness’
to the accused who ran away with little Joyce Anne.
credibility. A mental retardate may be a credible
Roger claims that Roxanne’s testimony does not witness.
deserve credit and that he was convicted based on
single eye witness account. 2. DULLA VS CA (3 year old Andrea)
ISSUE: Is Roxanne’s testimony sufficient for Roger’s FACTS

conviction? Nicanor Dulla was charged with the crime of rape
HELD. YES. of Andrea Ortega, 3 years old. Andrea testified against
her uncle who touched her vagina while doing a
The trial court correctly relied upon the sole pumping motion with his penis exposed to her.
testimony of 5 yo Roxanne who was straightforward in
identify the accused Rama as the culprit. Trial court convicted him of Acts of Lasciviousness.
The determination of credibility of child as a witness ISSUE: IS Andrea a credible witness?

rests primarily with the trial judge as he had the HELD. Yes.
opportunity to see the demeanor of the witness, his
In the case at bar, Andrea was 3 years old and 10
apparent intelligence or lack of it, and his
months old at the time she testified.
understanding of the nature of the oath. As many of
these qualities cannot be conveyed by the record of the Despite her young age, however, she was able to

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
respond to the questions put to her. She answered “yes”

accused-appellants as among the three men she saw in
and “no” to questions and, when unable to articulate
the warehouse. She narrated how they stabbed the face
what was done to her by petitioner, Andrea
and genitals of angel, hit her with a piece of wood , and
demonstrated what she meant. During her interrogation,
raped her as she bled then killed her. She saw how they
she showed an understanding of what was being asked.
tied her hands and feet, wrapped her in a yellow table
She was consistent in her answers to the questions asked
cloth, and put her in a sack.
by the prosecutor, the defense counsel and even the
judges. Because of her hearing impairment, the defense
sought to disqualify Barlam on the ground of
3. PEOPLE VS GOLIMLIM incompetence. She was referred to the National Center
FACTS for Mental Health upon repeated motion of defense
counsels to determine if she was competent to testify.
Evelyn Canchela, a mental retardate, was left
Where Barlam met the minimum requirements for
under the custody of her aunt Jovita Guban and uncle
qualifying as a witness.
SALVADOR GOLIMLIM.
August 1996, While Jovita was away, SALVADOR
raped Evelyn while pointing a knife at her. When she ISSUE: Is the testimony of Barlam admissible?
told Jovita about it, she scolded Evelyn. HELD. YES.
When Evelyn was transferred to her half-sister, Barlam adequately met the minimum requirements
Lorna Hachero, She discovered that Evelyn was for qualifying as a witness. Barlam could certainly
pregnant. perceive and make known her perception to others.
ISSUE: Should Evelyn’s testimony be given credence? Even if she is deaf, she saw what happened and she
HELD. Yes related what she saw to the police, to the psychiatrists,
and the trial court.
That Evelyn is a mental retardate does not disqualify
her as a witness not render her testimony bereft of Everybody understood her even is some of her
truth. statements on minor points were inconsistent. A perusal
of the transcript of stenographic notes would readily
A mental retardate or a a feebleminded person is
reveal that counsels for the defense attempted in vain
not, per se, disqualified from being a witness, he
to confuse her on relevant facts, even confronting her
rmental condition not being a vitiation of her
with her own statement
credibility. It is now universally accepted that
intellectual weakness, no matter what form it assumes, SECTION 22. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF
is not a valid objection to the competency of a witness MARRIAGE TESTIMONY CONFINEDTO PERSONAL
so long as the latter can still give a fairly intelligent and KNOWLEDGE
reasonable narrative of the matter testified to.
Sec 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. --
If a mental retardate’s testimony is COHERENT, it During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife
is admissible in court. may testify for or against the other without the consent
4. PEOPLE VS MACEDA (Left alone; 32 yo Maribeth) of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one
against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
FACTS committed by one against the other or the latter’s
Maribeth Quinto, 32 yo mental retardate, while direct descendants or ascendants.
alone in the house because her mother wasn’t able to
get back home, opened the door for Edgardo “Boboy”
Maceda who was looking for Maribeth’s youngest Sec 36. 22. Testimony generally confined to
brother. When she said that he wasn’t there, he entered personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. — A
the house and raped Maribeth. witness can testify only to those facts which he or
Maceda was convicted of rape. He argues that
she knows of his or her personal knowledge; that
complainant;s mental condition rendered her testimony is, which are derived from his or her own
so vague, uncertain and incoherent that it could not be perception, except as otherwise provided in these
understood. rules.
ISSUE: Should Maribeth be disqualified to testify?
The original Section 36 was moved to the
HELD. NO. amended Section 22 and the sequence seems proper
It has been held that the mental unsoundness of the since it provides for what a witness should testify on –
witness at the time the fact to be testified to occurred those facts of his or her personal knowledge.
affects only her credibility. As long as the questions Previously, this provision was placed right before the
propounded, she is a competent witness even if she is a exceptions to the hearsay rule. Since there was a
mental retardate.
change in order, the last phrase laying the basis for
5. PEOPLE VS LAGARTO Y PETILLA the exceptions to the hearsay rule that would refer to
FACTS the provisions following the same was deleted, since
the exceptions to the hearsay rule no longer follow the
Henry Lagarto and Ernesto Cordero were convicted
new Section 22. The deletion does not mean that
of raping and slaying a 7yo ANGLE ALQUIZA.
there is no more admissible hearsay evidence or
Prosecution relied mainly on the statements and exceptions to the hearsay evidence. There is still
testimonies of Herminia Barlam. She pointed to

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
admissible hearsay evidence and the title on

Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule found in the later part Prior to the commission of the offense, the
of the rules was maintained. relationship between petitioner and his wife was
Other than the foregoing and the amendment to already strained. In fact, they were separated de facto
address gender sensitivity, the comparable provisions almost 6 months before the incident. Indeed the facts
are the same. presented reveal that the preservation of the marriage
between petitioner and Esperanza is no longer an
interest the State aims to protect.
SECTION 22. 23. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF
2. PEOPLE V. QUIDATO (Parricide)
MARRIAGE
Sec 22. 23. Disqualification by reason of marriage. --
During their marriage, neither the husband nor or the FACTS
wife may cannot testify for or against the other without Bernardo Quidato Jr. was charged with parricide of
the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil his father, Bernardo Quidato Sr, together with Reynalo
case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a and Eddie Malita, who was charged separately but tried
crime committed by one against the other or the jointly.
latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.
Prosecution presented as witnesses Quidato’s
brother, wife and Pat. Lucrecio.
CASE LAW Gina Quidato, wife of accused, testified that on
the evening before the killing, her husband and the
1. ALVAREZ V. RAMIREZ (Arson) Malita brothers were drinking tuba at their house and
DOCTRINES: The reasons given for the rule are: overheard them planning to go to her father-in-laws
house to get money from the latter.
1. There is identity of interest between husband
and wife; Bernardo objected to his wife’s testimony on the
ground of marital disqualification. RTC still allowed the
2. Of one were to testify for or against the other, testimony despite cognizance of such rule.
there is consequent danger of perjury;
ISSUE: Did the RTC correctly ruled on the applicability
3. The policy of the law is to guard the security of the wife’s testimony?
and confidences of private life, even at the risk of an
occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic HELD. No.
disunion and unhappiness; The disqualification is between husband and wife,
4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility the law not precluding the wife from testifying when it
there is danger of punishing one spouse through the involves other parties or accused. Hence, Gina could
hostile testimony of the other. testify in the murder case against Reynaldo and Eddie,
which was jointly tried with accused-appellant’s case.
The testimony cannot be used against accused-
FACTS appellant directly or through the guise of taking judicial
Susan Ramirez filed a complaint against Maximo notice of the proceedings in the murder case without
Alvarez, husband of her sister, Esperanza Alvarez. violating the marital disqualification rule,
Private prosecutor called Esperanza Alvarez,
estranged wife of accused, as witness. She said that she “What cannot be done directly cannot be done
saw Maximo pour gasoline in the house of her sister and indirectly.”
ignited it, knowing that she and her family was there.
She testified while showing “uncontrollable emotions”.
Trial court disqualified Esperanza from further testifying SEC 24. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF
and deleted her testimony from the record. PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
ISSUE: Can Esperanza testify against her husband?
Sec 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
HELD. Yes. communication. — The following persons cannot
There are exceptions to the marital disqualification testify as to matters learned in confidence in the
rile, both in civil actions between the spouses and in following cases:
criminal cases for offenses committed by one against (a) The husband or the wife, during or after
the other. Like the rule itself, the exceptions are the marriage, cannot be examined without the
backed by sound reasons which, in the excepted cases, consent of the other as to any communication
outweigh those in support of the general rule. received in the other during the marriage except
Obviously, the offense of arson attributed to in a civil case by one against the other, or in a
petitioner, directly impairs the conjugal relation criminal case for a crime committed by one
between him and his wife Esperanza. His act, embodied against the other or the latter's direct
in the information for arson filed against him, descendants or ascendants.
eradicates all the major aspects of marital life as trust,
(b) xxx
confidence, respect, and love by which virtues the
conjugal relationship survives and flourished. (c) xxx
(d) xxx
(e) xxx

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
of duty by the lawyer to his or her client, or by

the client to his or her lawyer;
(iv) Document attested by the lawyer. As to
CASE LAW a communication relevant to an issue
concerning an attested document to which the
1. EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORP. VS CAMERON lawyer is an attesting witness; or
GRANVILLE (v) Joint clients. As to a communication
relevant to a matter of common interest
between two or more clients if the
2. AIR PHILIPPINES CORP. VS PENNSWELL communication was made by any of them to a
lawyer retained or consulted in common, when
offered in an action between any of the clients,
unless they have expressly agreed otherwise.
-Señga Notes-
A. HUSBAND AND WIFE The disqualification under paragraph (b) now
covers a person who is not a lawyer, but is reasonably
CASE LAW believed by the client to be licensed to engage in the
practice, as well as any other person assisting the
1. ZULUETA VS CA attorney. The amended rule also includes exceptions
to the disqualification, such as when the
commination/advice thereon pertains to:
2. LACURON VS JACOBA 1. The furtherance of crime or fraud, which the
client knew or reasonably could have known to be a
crime or fraud;
3. UNITED STATES VS ANTIPOLO 2. Communication relevant to an issue between
parties who claim through the same deceased client,
regardless of whether the claims are by testate or
4. PEOPLE VS CARLOS intestate or by inter vivos transaction;
3. Communication relevant to an issue of breach
of duty by the lawyer to his or her client, or by the
client to his or her lawyer;
4. Communication relevant to an issue concerning
B. ATTORNEY VS CLIENT an attested document to which the lawyer is an
attesting witness;
Sec 24 (a)xxx 5. Communication relevant to a matter of
(b) An attorney or person reasonably common interest between two or more clients if the
believed by the client to be licensed to engage communication was made by any of them to a lawyer
in the practice of law cannot, without the retained or consulted in common, when offered in an
consent of his client, be examined as to any action between any of the clients, unless they have
communication made by the client to him or her, expressly agreed otherwise.
or his or her advice given thereon in the course
of, or with a view to, professional employment,
nor can an attorney's secretary stenographer, or
clerk or other persons assisting the attorney be CASE LAW
examined, without the consent of the client and
1. HILADO VS DAVID
his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge
of which has been acquired in such capacity,
except in the following cases:
(i) Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the 2. REGALA VS SANDIGANBAYAN
services or advice of the lawyer were sought or
obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or
plan to commit what the client knew or 3. SAURA JR. VS AGDEPPA
reasonably should have known to be a crime or
fraud;
(ii) Claimants through same deceased client. 4. SANVICENTE VS PEOPLE
As to a communication relevant to an issue
between parties who claim through the same C. PEOPLE AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE AND
deceased client, regardless of whether the PATIENT
claims are by testate or intestate or by inter
vivos transaction; (c) A person authorized to practice medicine,
(iii) Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As to surgery or obstetrics A physician,
a communication relevant to an issue of breach psychotherapist or person reasonably believed

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
by the patient to be authorized to practice

medicine or psychotherapy cannot in a civil
case, without the consent of the patient, be 2. LIM VS CA
examined as to any advice or treatment given by
him or any information which he may have
acquired in attending such patient in a
professional capacity, which information was 3. CHAN VS CHAN
necessary to enable him to act in capacity, and
which would blacken the reputation of the
patient;any confidential communication made 4. KROHN VS CA
for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the
patient's physical, mental or emotional
condition, including alcohol or drug addiction,
between the patient and his or her physician or
psychotherapist. This privilege also applies to D. MINISTER OR PRIEST AND PERSON MAKING
persons, including members of the patient's CONFESSION
family, who have participated in the diagnosis (d) A minister or priest or person reasonably
or treatment of the patient under the direction believed to be cannot, without the consent of
of the physician or psychotherapist. the affected person making the confession, be
examined as to any communication or confession
A "psychotherapist" is: made to or any advice given by him or her in his
(a) A person licensed to practice medicine or her professional character in the course of
engaged in the diagnosis or treatment of a discipline enjoined by the church to which the
mental or emotional condition, or minister or priest belongs;
(b) A person licensed as a psychologist by The disqualification under paragraph (d) was
the government while similarly engaged. broaden to include any person reasonably believed
The coverage of Paragraph (c) was amended. It to be a minister or priest. The privilege now covers
now states physician, and includes a psychotherapist any communication, and not just confession made to
or person reasonably believed by the patient to be or advice given. However, it appears that “any
authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy . communication” is still qualified by the provision that
Psychotherapist was defined as a person licensed: the same is made in the professional character and in
(a) to practice medicine engaged in the diagnosis the course of discipline enjoined by the church to
or treatment of a mental or emotional condition; or which the minister or priest belongs.
(b) as a psychologist by the government while
similarly engaged. It also applies to persons, including
members of the patient's family, who have E. PUBLIC OFFICER
participated in the diagnosis or treatment of the (e) A public officer cannot be examined during his
patient under the direction of the physician or term of office or afterwards, or after his or her
psychotherapist. tenure as to communications made to him or her
As with the old rule, the application of the rule is in official confidence, when the court finds that
still limited to civil cases. the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
Under the old rule the privilege pertains to “any The communication shall remain privileged,
advice or treatment given by him or any information even in the hands of a third person who may
which he may have acquired in attending such patient have obtained the information, provided that
in a professional capacity, which information was the original parties to the communication took
necessary to enable him to act in capacity, and which reasonable precaution to protect its
would blacken the reputation of the patient”. The confidentiality.
new rule pertains to “any confidential communication The privilege under paragraph (e) was
made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the paraphrased under the new rule but the rule remains
patient's physical, mental or emotional condition, the same.
including alcohol or drug addiction, between the This last paragraph was added under the revised
patient and his or her physician or psychotherapist,” rule and states that the communication, even in the
regardless of whether the information would blacken hands of a third person who may have obtained the
the reputation of the patient. information, provided that the original parties to the
communication took reasonable precaution to protect
its confidentiality. Thus, if there is no reasonable
precaution to protect its confidentiality then it may be
CASE LAW construed as waiver thereof and hence, not covered
by the privilege.
1. GONZALES VS CA

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
F. OTHERS following: (a) editors may not be compelled to disclose

the source of published news; (b) voters may not be
compelled to disclose for whom they voted; (c) trade
(a) RULES ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS secrets; (d) information contained in tax census
(b) RA 1405, An Act Prohibiting Disclosure of Or returns; and (d) bank deposits. Jurisprudence has
Inquiry Into, Deposits with Any Banking Institution consistently acknowledged the private character of
and Providing Penalty Therefor trade secrets. There is a privilege not to disclose one’s
trade secrets. The Supreme Court has declared that
(c) RA 10365, An Act Further Strengthening The trade secrets and banking transactions are among the
Anti-Money Laundering Law, Amending For the recognized restrictions to the right of the people to
Purpose RA No. 9160, Otherwise Known as the information as embodied in the Constitution. The
“Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001” as amended drafters of the Constitution also unequivocally
affirmed that, aside from national security matters
CASE LAW and intelligence information, trade or industrial
secrets (pursuant to the Intellectual Property Code
1. NERI VS SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTING OF
PUBLIC OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATIONS and other related laws) as well as banking transactions
(pursuant to the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act), are
also exempted from compulsory disclosure
(Air Philippines Corp. v. Pennswell, Inc., G.R. No.
2. PNB VS GANCAYCO
172835, 13 December 2007)
A trade secret is a process or device intended for
continuous use in the operation of the business, for
3. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK V. example, a machine or formula, but can be a price list
PURISIMA or catalogue or specialized customer list. Trade
secrets constitute proprietary rights. The inventor,
discoverer, or possessor of a trade secret or similar
4. PEOPLE VS ESTRADA innovation has rights therein which may be treated as
property, and ordinarily an injunction will be granted
to prevent the disclosure of the trade secret by one
5. PENTAGON STEEL CORP VS CA who obtained the information "in confidence" or
through a "confidential relationship. (Air Philippines
SEC 25. PARENTAL FILIAL RELATIONSHIP Corp. v. Pennswell, Inc., G.R. No. 172835, 13
December 2007)
Sec 5. Parental and filial privilege. — No person
In Cocoland Development Corp. v. National Labor
may be shall compelled to testify against his or
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 98458, 17 July 1996, it
her parents, other direct ascendants, children or
was ruled that any determination by management as
other direct descendants, except when such
to the confidential nature of technologies, processes,
testimony is indispensable in a crime against
formulae or other so-called trade secrets must have a
that person or by one parent against the other.
substantial factual basis which can pass judicial
The new rule incorporates Article 215 of the scrutiny. The Court rejected the employer’s naked
Family Code, which is mandatory in character (as
contention that its own determination as to what
compared to the directory character of the old rule), constitutes a trade secret should be binding and
and provides for the exception when testimony may be
conclusive upon the NLRC. As a caveat, the Court said
compelled, i.e., when the testimony is indispensable that to rule otherwise would be to permit an employer
in a crime against that person or by one parent against
to label almost anything a trade secret, and thereby
the other create a weapon with which he/it may arbitrarily
dismiss an employee on the pretext that the latter
somehow disclosed a trade secret, even if in fact
SEC 26.PRIVILEGE RELATING TO TRADE SECRETS
there be none at all to speak of. Hence, in Cocoland,
Sec 26. Privilege Relating to Trade Secrets. — A the parameters in the determination of trade secrets
person cannot be compelled to testify about were set to be such substantial factual basis that can
any trade secret, unless the non-disclosure will withstand judicial scrutiny.
conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. However, for compelling reasons, the courts may lift
When disclosure is directed, the court shall the veil of confidentiality which shields trade secrets.
take such protective measure as the interest of (Air Philippines Corp. v. Pennswell, Inc., G.R. No.
the owner of the trade secret and of the parties 172835, 13 December 2007)
and the furtherance of justice may require. Thus, under the new rule, a person cannot be
This is a new insertion. There is no similar compelled to testify about any trade secret, unless the
provision under the old rules. However, while this non-disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work
provision was not under the old rule, it has long been injustice. Even when disclosure is directed, the court
recognized that there are other privileged matters shall still take such protective measure as the interest
that not mentioned by Rule 130. Among them are the

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
of the owner of the trade secret and of the parties and

the furtherance of justice may require.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
3. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS any liability, and are not admissible in evidence
SEC 26. 27. ADMISSIONS OF A PARTY against the offeror. This new addition is subject to
SEC 26. 27. The act, declaration or omission of a the EXCEPTION: that evidence otherwise discoverable
party as to a relevant fact may be given in or offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or
evidence against him or her. prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of
undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a
criminal investigation or would be admissible.
CASES prosecution would be admissible.
SAN VICENTE V. PEOPLE The new rule adds that the rule also now covers
and makes inadmissible any statement made in the
PEOPLE VS LORENZO CORSINO
course of plea bargaining with the prosecution,
which does not result in a plea of guilty or which
ESTRADA VS DISIERTO
results in a plea of guilty later withdrawn. This should
PEOPLE VS CARITATIVO also be read in connection with Section 5, Rule 116 on
withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty.
ESTRELLA VS COURT OF APPEALS
CUISON VS COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE VS MAGDAYAO
PEOPLE VS LICAYAN CIVIL CASES

CASES
HEIRS OF CLEMEÑ ZURBANO VS HEIRS OF BIEN SMITH BELL AND CO VS CA
TRANS-PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES VS C
SEC 27. 28. OFFER OF COMPROMISE NOT ADMISSIBLE TAN VS RODIL ENTERPRISES
Sec 27. 28. Offer of Compromise Not
SERVICE WIDE SPECIALISTS VS CA
Admissible.
— In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not
EL VARADERP DE MANILA VS INSULAR LUMBER CO
an admission of any liability, and is not admissible
in evidence against the offeror. Neither is PAL INC VS PAL EMPLOYEES SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOC,
evidence of conduct nor statements made in INC
compromise negotiations admissible, except
evidence otherwise discoverable or offered for
another purpose, such as proving bias or CRIMINAL CASES
prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention CASES
of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct PEOPLE VS DE JOYA
a criminal investigation or prosecution.
PEOPLE VS MEJIA Y VILLAFANIA
In criminal cases, except those involving
quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those SAN MIGUEL CORP VS KALALO
allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of
compromise by the accused may be received in PEOPLE VS MANUEL
evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an PEOPLE VS MANGAT
unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser
offense is not admissible in evidence against the BRICENIO VS PEOPLE
accused who made the plea or offer. Neither is
any statement made in the course of plea PEOPLE VS DE GUZMAN
bargaining with the prosecution, which does not
PEOPLE VS ABADIES Y CLAVERIA
result in a plea of guilty or which results in a
plea of guilty later withdrawn, admissible. PEOPLE VS PRADES
An offer to pay, or the payment of medical,
hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury PEOPLE VS ERGUIZA
, is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or
criminal liability for the injury . PEOPLE VS BAYANI
The old and new rule are the same insofar as it
provides that in civil cases, an offer of compromise is SEC 28. 29. ADMISSION BY THIRD PARTY
not an admission of any liability, and is not RES INTER ALIOS ACTA, PART ONE
admissible in evidence against the offeror. Sec 28. 29. Admission by Third Party. — The
However, the new rule adds that evidence of rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
conduct and statements made in compromise declaration, or omission of another, except as
negotiations are also not considered as admission of hereinafter provided.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
agency is shown by evidence other than such act or

declaration. In other words, under this second
CASES construction, the new addition is encompassed by the
PEOPLE VS RAQUEL subsequent provision of “or within the scope of his or
her authority”, such that regardless of any authority
TAMARGO VS AWINGAN
to make the statement, the act or declaration would
FGU INSURANCE CORP VS GP SARMIENTO TRUCKING be binding against the party. With this construction,
CORP there is no substantial change between the new and
old rule.
REYES VS OMBUDSMAN It being unclear, at this point, what is the
intention of this provision, it is respectfully submitted
SALAPUDDIN VS CA that we will have to wait for jurisprudence that would
clarify the import of the amended rule.
SANTIAGO VS CA
SEC 29. 30. ADMISSION BY CO-PARTNER OR AGENT

Sec 29. 30. Admission by Co-Partner or Agent.
-The act or declaration of a partner or agent
of the party authorized by the party to make a
statement concerning the subject, or within the
scope of his or her authority and during the
existence of the partnership or agency, may be CASES
given in evidence against such party after the ESTRADA VS DESIERTO [ Rule on Admission by Partner
partnership or agency is shown by evidence other is no longer applicable under the first construction of
than such act or declaration. The same rule the rule under Revised Rules.]
applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner,
LEARNING CHILD INC VS AYALA ALABANG VILLAGE
joint debtor, or other person jointly interested ASSOCIATION
with the party.
The revised rule is capable of 2 constructions. NARRA NICKEL MINING & DEVELOPMENT VS REDMONT
First. It may mean that the declaration is CONSOLIDATED MINES CORP
qualified by the new insertion that the declaration by
the partner or agent would only be binding if the
agent was authorized to make the statement SEC 30. 31. ADMISSION BY CONSPIRATOR
concerning the subject. This would mean that the Sec 30. 31. Admission by conspirator. — The act
past rule would no longer hold true - that regardless of or declaration of a conspirator relating to the
the authority to make the statement, the declaration conspiracy in furtherance of the conspiracy and
made by a partner or agent within the scope of during its existence, may be given in evidence
authority and during the existence of the partnership against the co- conspirator after the conspiracy is
or agency, may be given in evidence against such shown by evidence other than such act or
party. declaration.
For example, in Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. This rule, prior to the amendment, relates to
146710-15 and 146738, 3 April 2001, former acts or declarations made in furtherance of the
President Estrada never categorically authorized then conspiracy. It appears that the new rule only further
Executive Secretary Angara to make the statements on clarified this.
his behalf as contained in the Angara Diary.
Nevertheless, the same was admitted in evidence CASES
against then President Estrada, even if the latter PEOPLE VS BOKINGO
objected to the same. Assuming the revised rule is to
PEOPLE VS PALIJON
be construed as mentioned above, then it would mean
that the ruling in Estrada and similar cases would no PEOPLE VS CACHUELA
longer hold true – that unless there is authority to
make that statement, such would not be binding PEOPLE VS CONSTACIO
against the party.
Second. It may just be a harmless addition that PEOPLE VS COMILING
adds that declarations of a partner or agent
authorized by the party to make a statement PEOPLE VS BAYDO
concerning the subject, in addition to the existing rule
that acts or declarations of a partner or agent, within PEOPLE VS BAHARAN
the scope of his or her authority , and during the
existence of the partnership or agency, may be given SEC 31. 32. ADMISSION BY PRIVIES
in evidence against such party after the partnership or Sec 31. 32. Admission by privies. — Where one

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
derives title to property from another, the

latter’s act, declaration, or omission of the PEOPLE VS DENIEGA
latter, while holding the title, in relation to the
property, is evidence against the former if done PEOPLE VS FELIMINIA
while the latter was holding the title.
PEOPLE VS JIMENEZ
The old and new provisions are the same except
for the re- arrangement of the sentence. PEOPLE VS CHI CHAN LIU
REPUBLIC VS SANDIGANBAYAN AQUINO VS PAISTE
MESINA VS PEOPLE
SEC 32. 33. ADMISSION BY SILENCE
Sec 32. 33. Admission by Silence. PEOPLE VS GUTING
- An act or declaration made in the presence
and within the hearing or observation of a party PEOPLE VS SISON
who does or says nothing when the act or
MANUEL VS N.C. CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY
declaration is such as naturally to call for action
or comment if not true, and when proper and PEOPLE VS MARRA
possible for him or her to do so, may be given in
evidence against him or her. PEOPLE VS SUAREZ
PEOPLE VS ROA PEOPLE VS BULURAN
PEOPLE VS GERONA PEOPLE VS GALGARIN
PEOPLE VS PARAGSA GUTANG VS PEOPLE
SOLAS VS POWER TELEPHONE SUPPLY PHILS INC PEOPLE VS PAYNOR
PEOPLE VS RANARIO PEOPLE VS CARREON
PEOPLE VS OMILIG
SEC 33. 34. CONFESSION
Sec 33. 34. Confession. — The declaration of an LADIANA VS PEOPLE
accused acknowledging his or her guilt of the
offense charged, or of any offense necessarily
included therein, may be given in evidence
against him or her.
PEOPLE VS DELOS SANTOS
PEOPLE VS SATORRE
PEOPLE VS CAVITE
US VS CORRALES
PEOPLE VS ARTELLERO
PEOPLE VS URRO
PEOPLE VS BASCUGIN
PEOPLE VS MUIT
Ra 7438, An Act Defining Certain Rights Of Person Arrested,

Detained Or Under Custodial Investigation As Well As The
Duties Of The Arresting, Detaining And Investigating Officers,
And Providing Penalties For Violations Thereof
PEOPLE VS OMILIG

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
4. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE
SEC. 34. 35. SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE/

RES INTER ALIOS ACTA, PART 2
Sec 34. 35. Similar acts as evidence. — Evidence
that one did or did not do a certain thing at one
time is not admissible to prove that he or she did
or did not do the same or similar thing at another
time; but it may be received to prove a specific
intent or knowledge; identity , plan, system,
scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.
CASES
CRUZ VS CA
TANZO VS DRILON
PEOPLE VS ACOSTA
PEOPLE VS MAGPAYO
PEOPLE VS DADLES
TANZO VS DRILON
PEOPLE VS MAGTULOY
MALIG VS SANDIGANBAYAN
PEOPLE VS SAGUBAN
RA 8505, Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998
RA 10364, Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012

Child Witness, A.M. No. 004-07-SC, December 15, 2000
SEC 35. 36. UNACCEPTED OFFER

Sec 35. 36. Unaccepted offer. — An offer in
writing to pay a particular sum of money or to
deliver a written instrument or specific personal
property is, if rejected without valid cause,
equivalent to the actual production and tender of
the money, instrument, or property.
MCLAUGHLIN VS CA

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
5. HEARSAY (c) one of identification of a person made after

perceiving him or her.
SEC 36. TESTIMONY GENERALLY CONFINED TO
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE; HEARSAY EXCLUDED CASES
SEC 37. HEARSAY ESPINELI VS PEOPLE
Sec 37. Hearsay.
-Hearsay is a statement other than one made GULAM VS SPOUSES SANTOS
by the declarant while testifying at a trial or
BAYANO VS PEOPLE
hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts
asserted therein. LEA MER INDUSTRIES VS MALAYAN INSURANCE CO. INC
A statement is
(1) an oral or written assertion or
(2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is 6. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
intended by him or her as an assertion.
Hearsay evidence is INADMISSIBLE except as SEC 37.38. DYING DECLARATION
otherwise provided in these Rule. Sec 37. 38. Dying declaration. — The declaration
of a dying person, made under the consciousness
A statement is not hearsay of the declarant of an impending death, may be received in any
testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to case wherein his or her death is the subject of
cross-examination concerning the statement, inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding
and the statement is circumstances of such death.
(a) inconsistent with the declarant’s
testimony, and was given under oath subject to
the penalty of perjury at a trial hearing, or CASES
other proceeding, or in a deposition; PEOPLE VS DE LAS ERAS ZAFRA
(b) consistent with the declarant’s
testimony and is offered to rebut an express or PEOPLE VS PEÑA
implied charge against the declarant of recent
PEOPLE VS NORRUDIN
fabrication or improper influence or motive; or
(c) one of identification of a person made
after perceiving him or her.
This is a new insertion. Prior to the amendment, SEC 23.DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF DEATH OR
there is no exact section providing for definition of INSANITY OF ADVERSE PARTY
hearsay evidence, and instead, it was implied under SEC 39. STATEMENT OF DECEDENT OR PERSON OF
the old Section 36, such that if it does not fall under UNSOUND MIND
Section 36, then it is hearsay. Note that not all
hearsay is inadmissible, as it admits of exceptions, Sec 23. Disqualification by reason of death or
which were and are recognized under the old and new insanity of adverse party. 39. Statement of
rules. Decedent or Person of Unsound Mind.
The new rule provides that hearsay is a — Parties or assignor of parties to a case, or
statement other than one made by the declarant while persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, In
testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the an action against an executor or administrator or
truth of the facts asserted therein. Even without the other representative of a deceased person, or
amendment, it has been recognized that if the against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or
statement is not being offered to prove the truth of demand against the estate of such deceased
the facts asserted therein but only to prove that the person or against such person of unsound mind,
statement was made, it is admissible under the rule on cannot testify as to any where a party or
independent relevant statements. assignor of a party or a person in whose behalf a
Additionally, the rule provides that it is not case is prosecuted testifies on a matter of fact
hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing occurring before the death of such the deceased
and is subject to cross- examination concerning the person or before such person became of unsound
statement, and the statement is mind, any statement of the deceased or the
(a) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, person of unsound mind, may be received in
and was given under oath subject to the penalty of evidence if the statement was made upon the
perjury at a trial hearing, or other proceeding, or in a personal unsound mind at a time when the
deposition; matter had been recently perceived by him or
(b) consistent with the declarant's testimony and her and while his or her recollection was clear.
is offered to rebut an express or implied charge Such statement, however, is inadmissible if
against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper made under circumstances indicating its lack of
influence or motive; or trustworthiness.
The original Section 23 deals with a similar matter as
that contained under the amended Section 39.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
The old Section 23 was also known as the “Dead REQUISITES: (PA-CB) (amended by the new rules)
Man's Statute”, which provides that if one party to the 1. The witness is a PARTY or assignor of a party to a
alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by case or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted;
death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the
surviving party is not entitled to the undue advantage 2. The action is AGAINST an executor or administrator
of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained or other representative of a deceased person or person
account of the transaction. But before this rule can be of unsound mind;
successfully invoked to bar the introduction of 3. The subject-matter of the action is a CLAIM or
testimonial evidence, it is necessary that: demand against the estate of such deceased person or
1. The witness is a party or assignor of a party to against person of unsound mind; and
a case or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted.
2. The action is against an executor or 4. The subject matter of the testimony refers to any
administrator or other representative of a deceased matter of fact which occurred BEFORE the death of
person or a person of unsound mind; such deceased person or before such person became of
3. The subject-matter of the action is a claim or unsound mind.
demand against the estate of such deceased person or SEC 38. 40. DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
against person of unsound mind; Sec 38. 40. Declaration against interest. — The
4. His testimony refers to any matter of fact declaration made by a person deceased, or unable
which occurred before the death of such deceased to testify , against the interest of the declarant,
person or before such person became of unsound if the fact is asserted in the declaration was at
mind. (Sunga- Chan v. Chua, G.R. No. 143340, August the time it was made so far contrary to
15, 2001) declarant's own interest, that a reasonable man
The presence of the foregoing requisites under person in his or her position would not have
the old Section 23 renders the testimonial evidence made the declaration unless he or she believed it
inadmissible. to be true, may be received in evidence against
Under the new rule, with the foregoing himself or herself or his or her successors in
requisites, any statement of the deceased or the interest and against third persons. A statement
person of unsound mind, may now be received in tending to expose the declarant to criminal
evidence, provided that: liability and offered to exculpate the accused is
(1) the statement was made upon the personal not admissible unless corroborating
knowledge of the deceased or the person of circumstances clearly indicate the
unsound mind; trustworthiness of the statement.
(2) it was made at a time when the matter had The new rule adds a second sentence, not
been recently perceived by him or her, and while present under the old rule. It provides that a
his or her recollection was clear. statement against interest tending to expose the
Such statement, however, is inadmissible if made declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate
under circumstances indicating its lack of the accused (which is presumably different from the
trustworthiness. declarant) is not admissible unless corroborating
circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of
the statement.
CASES
LAZARO VS AGUSTIN
DEAD MAN’S STATUTE
PAREL VS PRUDENCIO
(Survivorship Disqualification Rule)
PHIL FREE PRESS INC. VS CA
-Parties or assignor of parties to a case, or
persons in whose behalf a case is prosecutedm against
an executor or administrator or other representative
of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound SEC 39. 41. ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE
mid, upon a claim or demand against the estate of Sec 39. 41. Act or declaration about pedigree.
such deceased person or against such person of — The act or declaration of a person deceased,
unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of
occurring before the death of such deceased person or another person related to him or her by birth,
before such person became of unsound mind. adoption, or marriage or, in the absence
REASON: (1) If the death has closed the lips of thereof, with whose family he or she was so
one party, the policy of law is to close the lips of the intimately associated as to be likely to have
other.; (2) Temptation to falsehood and concealment accurate information concerning his or her
in such cases is considered too great to allow the pedigree, may be received in evidence where it
surviving party to testify in his own behalf. occurred before the controversy, and the
relationship between the two persons is shown by

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
evidence other than such act or declaration. The thereto, under the stress of excitement caused
word "pedigree" includes relationship, family by the occurence with respect to the
genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence
when and the places where these facts occurred, as part of res gestae. So, also, statements
and the names of the relatives. It embraces also accompanying an equivocal act material to the
facts of family history intimately connected with issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be
pedigree. received as part of the res gestae
The new rule makes clear that the statements
CASES made must be under the stress of excitement caused
HERRERA VS ALBA by the occurrence, although even without such
revision, this qualification was recognized under the
DELA CRUZ VS GRACIA old rule.
TECSON VS COMELEC
CASES
DBP POOL OF ACCREDITED INSURANCE CO. V.
RADIO MINDANAO NETWORK INC
SEC 40. 42. ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE
Sec 40. 42. Family reputation or tradition PEOPLE VS LOBRIGAS
regarding pedigree. — The reputation or tradition
existing in a family previous to the controversy, in CAPILA VS PEOPLE
respect to the pedigree of any one of its
members, may be received in evidence if the PEOPLE VS PALANAS
witness testifying thereon be also a member of
the family, either by consanguinity or affinity; or PEOPLE VS PALMONES
adoption. Entries in family bibles or other family
books or charts, engravings on rings, family TALIDANO VS FALCON MARITIME & ALLIED
portraits and the like, may be received as SERVICES INC
evidence of pedigree.
PEOPLE VS PRECIADOS
PEOPLE VS GALLANO
SEC 43. ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS

SEC 41. 43. COMMON REPUTATION SEC 45. RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED
Sec 41. 43. Common reputation. — Common BUSINESS ACTIVITY
reputation existing previous to the controversy, as Sec 43. Entries in the course of business. —
to boundaries of our customs affecting lands in Entries made at, or near the time of transactions
the community and reputation as to events of to which they refer, by a person deceased, or
general history important to the community, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know
respecting facts of public or general interest more the facts therein stated, may be received as
than thirty years old, or respecting marriage or prima facie evidence, if such person made the
moral character, may be given in evidence. entries in his professional capacity or in the
Monuments and inscriptions in public places may performance of duty and in the ordinary or
be received as evidence of common reputation regular course of business or duty.
The old rule speaks of common reputation
existing previous to the controversy as to: (1) facts of Sec 45. Records of Regularly Conducted
public or general interest more than thirty years old; Business Activity. — A memorandum, report,
or (2) respecting marriage or moral character. record or data compilation of acts, events,
The new rule replaced the first item with conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by
boundaries of or customs affecting lands in the writing, typing, electronic, optical or other
community and reputation as to events of general similar means at or near the time of or from
history important to the community. transmission or supply of information by a
person with knowledge thereof, and kept in the
CSC VS BELAGAN regular course or conduct of a business activity,
and such was the regular practice to make the
memorandum, report, record, or data
compilation by electronic, optical or similar
SEC 42. 44. PART OF RES GESTAE means, all of which are shown by the testimony
Sec 42. 44. Part of res gestae. — Statements of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is
made by a person while a startling occurrence is excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence.
taking place or immediately prior or subsequent

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
The old rule under Section 43 requires the Sec 45. 47. Commercial lists and the like. —
following requisites to be present: Evidence of statements of matters of interest to
1. The person who made the entry must be dead, persons engaged in an occupation contained in a
outside the country or unable to testify; list, register, periodical, or other published
2. The entries were made at or near the time of compilation is admissible as tending to prove the
the transactions to which they refer; truth of any relevant matter so stated if that
3. The entrant was in a position to know the facts compilation is published for use by persons
stated in the entries; engaged in that occupation and is generally used
4. The entries were made in his professional and relied upon by them therein.
capacity or in the performance of a duty, whether
legal, contractual, moral or religious; and
5. The entries were made in the ordinary or Manila Electric Co. v. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 127598
regular course of business or duty (Canque v. Court of (Resolution), February 22, 2000
Appeals, G.R. No. 96202, 13 April 1999)
Under the amended rule, it is no longer required SEC 46. 48 LEARNED TREATISES
that the person who made the entry must be dead, Sec 46. 48. Learned treatises. — A published
outside the country or unable to testify. treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of
Also, under the revised rule, the entries are not history, law, science, or art is admissible as
only just made at or near the time of the tending to prove the truth of a matter stated
transactions to which they refer. Now, they refer to therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a
memorandum, report, record or data compilation of witness expert in the subject testifies, that the
acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical
by writing, typing, electronic, optical or other similar or pamphlet is recognized in his or her profession
means at or near the time of or from transmission or or calling as expert in the subject.
supply of information.
Similar to the old rule, it is made by a person Paje, et al., v. Casiño, et al., G.R. Nos. 207257-76, 207282 &
with knowledge thereof. 207366, February 3, 2015
It must also be kept in the regular course or
conduct of a business activity, and such was the SEC 47. 49 TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER
regular practice to make the memorandum, report, PROCEEDING
record, or data compilation by electronic, optical or Sec 47. 49. Testimony or deposition at a former
similar means. proceeding. — The testimony or deposition of a
All of the foregoing must be shown by the witness deceased or out of the Philippines or
testimony of the custodian or other qualified who cannot, with due diligence, be found
therein, or is unable or otherwise unable to
witnesses, to be excepted from the rule on hearsay
testify, given in a former case or proceeding,
evidence. judicial or administrative, involving the same
CASES
parties and subject matter, may be given in
JOSE JR. VS MICHAELMAR PHILS INC
evidence against the adverse party who had the
LBP VS MONET’S EXPORT AND MANUFACTURING CORP opportunity to cross-examine him or her.
The new rule adds the deposition of a witness out
SECURITY BANK & TRUST CO VS GAN of the Philippines or who cannot, with due diligence,
be found therein or is unavailable, in addition to one
who is unable to testify.
SEC 44. 46. ENTRIES OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
Sec 44. 46. Entries in official records. — Entries
in official records made in the performance of his Ilao-Quianay, et al., v. Mapile, G.R. No. 154087, October 25,
or her duty by a public officer of the Philippines, 2005
Ambray, et al., v. Tsourous, et al., G.R. No. 209264, July 5,
or by a person in the performance of a duty
2016
specially enjoined by law, are prima facie
SEC 50. RESIDUAL EXCEPTION.
evidence of the facts therein stated.
Sec 50. Residual Exception.
-A statement not specifically covered by any
CASES of the foregoing exceptions, having equivalent
DST MOVERS CORP VS PEOPLE’S GENERAL circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is
INSURANCE CORP admissible if the court determines that
(a) the statement is offered as evidence of a
BARCELON, ROXAS SECURITIES INC VS CIR material fact;
(b) the statement is more probative on the
DIMAGUILA VS SPS MONTEIRO point for which it is offered than any other
evidence which the proponent can procure
through reasonable efforts; and
SEC 45. 47. COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
(c) the general purposes of these rules and

the interests of justice will be best served by
admission of the statement into evidence.
However, a statement may not be admitted
under this exception unless the proponent
makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently
in advance of the hearing, or by the pre-trial
stage in the case of a trial of the main case, to
provide the adverse party with a fair
opportunity to prepare to meet it, the
proponent’s intention to offer the statement
and the particulars of it, including the name
and address of the declarant.
This is a new insertion. The residual exception to

the hearsay rule provides that any statement not
covered by the enumerated exceptions in the previous
sections but having equivalent circumstantial
guarantees of trustworthiness, shall be admissible if
the court determines that:
(a) the statement is offered as evidence of a
material fact;
(b) the statement is more probative on the
point for which it is offered than any other evidence
which the proponent can procure through
reasonable efforts; and
(c) the general purposes of these rules and the
interests of justice will be best served by admission
of the statement into evidence.
It appears that all three should be present to
warrant the application of the residual exception rule.
The new rule adds that a statement may not be
admitted under the foregoing exception unless the
proponent makes known to the adverse party ,
sufficiently in advance of the hearing, or by the pre-
trial stage in the case of a trial of the main case, to
provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to
prepare to meet it, the proponent's intention to offer
the statement and the particulars of it, including the
name and address of the declarant.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
7. OPINION RULE moral character, pertinent to the moral trait

involved in the offense charged. (2) Unless in
SEC 48. 51. GENERAL RULE rebuttel,However, the prosecution may not prove
Sec 48. 51. General Rule. – The opinion of a his or her bad moral character unless on
witness is not admissible, except as indicated in rebuttal. which is pertinent to the moral trait
the following sections. involed in the offense charged.
(b) In Civil Case:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in a
SEC 49. 52. OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS civil case is admissible only when pertinent to the
Sec 49. 52. Opinion of Expert Witness. –The issue of character involved in the case.
opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special (c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Sec 14
knowledge, skill, experience, training or In Criminal and Civil Cases:
education, which he or she is shown to possess, Evidence of the good character of a witness
may be received in evidence. is not admissible until character has been
impeached.
CASES In all cases in which evidence of character or
MARCOS VS HEIRS OF LATE DR. ANDRES NAVARRO a trait of character of a person is admissible,
proof may be made by testimony as to
TABAO VS PEOPLE
reputation or by testimony in the form of an
opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is
allowable into relevant specific instances of
SEC 50. 53. OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESSES conduct.
Sec 50. 53. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. In cases in which character or a trait of
--The opinion of a witness for which proper character of a person is an essential element of
basis is given, may be received in evidence a charge, claim or defense, proof may also be
regarding— made of specific instances of that person’s
(a) the identity of a person about whom he or conduct.
she has adequate knowledge; The new rule adds a first paragraph. It provides
(b) A handwriting with which he or she has the general rule that Evidence of a person's
sufficient familiarity; and character or a trait of character is not admissible for
(c) the mental sanity of a person with whom he the purpose of proving action in conformity
or she is sufficiently acquainted. therewith on a particular occasion. This general rule
The witness may also testify on his or her is subject to the exceptions as provided under the
impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition old and new sections.
or appearance of a person. The revised rule rearranges the numbering where
the first and second items under the old rule are
CASES joined together under item 2 of the new rule and the
DELA LLANA VS BIONG third item under the old rule is renumbered to the
first item under the first rule. The meaning of the
PEOPLE VS DURANAN provisions are the same, although rephrased
differently.
HERNANDEZ VS SAN JUAN-SANTOS The old and new provisions under paragraph (c)
are essentially the same. The old rule mentions
SPS LIM ET.AL VS. CHUATOCO
Section 14, Rule 132, while the new rule reproduces
said provision under paragraph (c). The new rule also
8. CHARACTER EVIDENCE makes clear that the exception under this paragraph
SEC 51. 54. CHARACTER EVIDENCE NOT GENERALLY applies to criminal and civil cases.
ADMISSIBLE; EXCEPTIONS. The last 2 paragraphs are new insertions. It
Sec 51. 54. Character Evidence not generally appears that the character evidence may be given in
admissible; Exceptions. the form of an opinion, which means that this is
--Evidence of a person’s character or trait of another exception to the general rule on the
character is not admissible for the purpose of inadmissibility of opinion.
proving action in conformity therewith on a The last paragraph explains how character, when
particular occasion, except: an essential element of a charge, claim or defense,
(a) In Criminal Cases: may be proven, i.e., by specific instances of that
(3) (1) The good or bad moral character of person's conduct.
the offended party may be proved if it tends to
establish in any reasonable degree the PEOPLE VS LEE
probability or improbability of the offense
charged.
(1) (2) The accused may prove his or her good

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
RULE 131 evidence:

BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDENCE (a) That a person is innocent of crime or
AND PRESUMPTIONS wrong;
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an
SEC 1. BURDEN OF PROOF unlawful intent;
Sec 1. Burden of proof and Burden of Evidence. (c) That a person intends the ordinary
— Burden of proof is the duty of a party to consequences of his voluntary act;
present evidence on the facts in issue necessary (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his
to establish his or her claim or defense by the concerns;
amount of evidence required by law. Burden of (e) That evidence willfully suppressed would
proof never shifts. be adverse if produced;
Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to (f) That money paid by one to another was
present evidence sufficient to establish or rebut due to the latter;
a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case. (g) That a thing delivered by one to another
Burden of evidence may shift from one party to belonged to the latter;
the other in the course of the proceedings, (h) That an obligation delivered up to the
depending on the exigencies of the case. debtor has been paid;
The old and new provisions for defining burden of (i) That prior rents or installments had been
proof are the same, except for amendment to address paid when a receipt for the later one is produced;
gender sensitivity and the new rule adds that the (j) That a person found in possession of a
burden of proof never shifts. However, even without thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act
the amendment, the rule that Burden of proof never is the taker and the doer of the whole act;
shifts has long been settled. otherwise, that things which a person possess, or
The new rule adds burden of evidence under exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by
Section 1 and provides for its definition. him;
(k) That a person in possession of an order on
himself for the payment of the money, or the
CASES delivery of anything, has paid the money or
SUPREME TRANSLINER VS CA delivered the thing accordingly;
(l) That a person acting in a public office was
PEOPLE VS KINOK
regularly appointed or elected to it;
(m) That official duty has been regularly
performed;
SEC 2. CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS (n) That a court, or judge acting as such,
Sec 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was
are instances of conclusive presumptions: acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
(a) Whenever a party has, by his or her own (o) That all the matters within an issue raised
declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and in a case were laid before the court and passed
deliberately led to another to believe a particular upon by it; and in like manner that all matters
thing true, and to act upon such belief, he or she within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for
cannot, in any litigation arising out of such arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and
declaration, act or omission, be permitted to passed upon by them;
falsify it; and (p) That private transactions have been fair
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the and regular;
title of his or her landlord at the time of (q) That the ordinary course of business has
commencement of the relation of landlord and been followed;
tenant between them. (r) That there was a sufficient consideration
for a contract;
CASES (s) That a negotiable instrument was given or
DATALIFT MOVERS INC VS BELGRAVIA REALTY & DEVT indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
(t) That an endorsement of negotiable
SPS TRINIDAD VS IMSON instrument was made before the instrument was
overdue and at the place where the instrument is
CONCEPCION VS CA dated;
(u) That a writing is truly dated;
PNB VS SPS REBLANDO (v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was
received in the regular course of the mail;
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it
SEC 3. DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS
being unknown whether or not the absentee still
Sec 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following lives, he is considered dead for all purposes,
presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, except for those of succession.
but may be contradicted and overcome by other

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
The absentee shall not be considered dead for former marriage, these rules shall govern in the
the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of proof to the contrary:
absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the (1) A child born before one hundred eighty
age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years (180) days after the solemnization of the
shall be sufficient in order that his succession may subsequent marriage is considered to have been
be opened. conceived during the former such marriage,
The following shall be considered dead for all provided even though it be born within the three
purposes including the division of the estate hundred days after the termination of the former
among the heirs: marriage; and
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a (2) A child born after one hundred eighty days
sea voyage, or an aircraft with is missing, who has following the celebration of the subsequent
not been heard of for four years since the loss of marriage is considered to have been conceived
the vessel or aircraft; during such marriage, even though it be born
(2) A member of the armed forces who has within the three hundred days after the
taken part in armed hostilities, and has been termination of the former marriage.
missing for four years; (ee) That a thing once proved to exist
(3) A person who has been in danger of death continues as long as is usual with things of the
under other circumstances and whose existence nature;
has not been known for four years; (ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(4) If a married person has been absent for (gg) That a printed or published book,
four consecutive years, the spouse present may purporting to be printed or published by public
contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has authority, was so printed or published;
well-founded belief that the absent spouse is (hh) That a printed or published book,
already dead. In case of disappearance, where purporting contain reports of cases adjudged in
there is a danger of death the circumstances tribunals of the country where the book is
hereinabove provided, an absence of only two published, contains correct reports of such cases;
years shall be sufficient for the purpose of (ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty
contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in it was to convey real property to a particular
any case, before marrying again, the spouse person has actually conveyed it to him or her
present must institute a summary proceedings as when such presumption is necessary to perfect
provided in the Family Code and in the rules for the title of such person or his successor in
declaration of presumptive death of the interest;
absentee, without prejudice to the effect of (jj) That except for purposes of succession,
reappearance of the absent spouse. when two persons perish in the same calamity,
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is
that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to not shown who died first, and there are no
the law or fact; particular circumstances from which it can be
(y) That things have happened according to inferred, the survivorship is determined from the
the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature probabilities resulting from the strength and the
habits of life; age of the sexes, according to the following rules:
(z) That persons acting as co-partners have 1. If both were under the age of fifteen years,
entered into a contract of co-partneship; the older is deemed to have survived;
(aa) That a man and woman deporting 2. If both were above the age sixty, the
themselves as husband and wife have entered into younger is deemed to have survived;
a lawful contract of marriage; 3. If one is under fifteen and the other above
(bb) That property acquired by a man and a sixty, the former is deemed to have survived;
woman who are capacitated to marry each other 4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and
and who live exclusively with each other as the sex be different, the male is deemed to have
husband and wife without the benefit of marriage survived, if the sex be the same, the older;
or under void marriage, has been obtained by 5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and
their joint efforts, work or industry. the other between those ages, the latter is
(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man deemed to have survived.
and a woman who are not capacitated to marry (kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two
each other and who have acquired property or more persons who are called to succeed each
through their actual joint contribution of money, other, as to which of them died first, whoever
property or industry, such contributions and their alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall
corresponding shares including joint deposits of prove the same; in the absence of proof, they
money and evidences of credit are equal. shall be considered to have died at the same
(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and time.
the mother contracted another marriage within There appears to be a typographical error under
three hundred days after such termination of the the first item. The old rule is based on and is exactly

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
the same as Article 168 of the Family Code. Under the Criminal Cases. – If a presumed fact that
old rule and the Family Code, the child born before establishes guilt, is an element of the offense
180 days after the solemnization of the subsequent charged, or negates a defense, the existence of
marriage is considered to have been born during the the basic fact must be proved beyond
former marriage. reasonable doubt and the presumed fact must
Under the new rule, it is considered to have been be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the
conceived during such subsequent marriage. The presumed fact follows from the basic fact
revised rule cannot modify or amend substantive beyond reasonable doubt.
law. Also, the phrase “even though it be born within This is a new insertion that deals with presumed
300 days after the termination of the former facts that establish guilt in that the existence of the
marriage” under the first item seems to be incorrect basic fact must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
since the same first item under paragraph 1 of the old and the presumed fact follows from the basic fact
rule and the Family Code states instead “provided it beyond reasonable doubt.
be born within 300 days after the termination of the
former marriage”. It is respectfully submitted that this
must be a typographical error.
CASES
PEOPLE VS URZAIS
BARCELON, ROXAS SECURITIES INC VS CIR
BLUE CROSS HEALTH CARE, INC VS OLIVARES
ROYAL CARGO CORP VS DFS SPORTS UNLIMITED INC
SEC 4. NO PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACE

OR ILLEGITIMACY
Sec 4. No Presumption of Legitimacy or
illegitimacy. –There is no presumption of
legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after
three hundred days following the dissolution of
the marriage or the separation of the spouses.
Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of
such child must prove his allegation.
SEC 5. PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL ACTIONS

AND PROCEEDINGS
Sec 5. Presumptions in Civil Actions and
Proceedings. – In all civil actions and
proceedings not otherwise provided for by the
law or these Rules, a presumption imposes on
the party against whom it is directed the
burden of going forward with evidence to rebut
or meet the presumption.
If presumptions are inconsistent, the
presumption that is founded upon weightier
considerations of policy shall apply. If
considerations of policy are of equal weight,
neither presumption applies.
This is a new insertion. The first paragraph deals
with burden of evidence.
The second paragraph provides the rule on how
to treat inconsistent presumptions.
SEC 6. PRESUMPTIONS AGAINST AN ACCUSED

IN CRIMINAL CASES
Sec 6. Presumption against an Accused in

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
RULE 132 (b) Cross-examination by the proponent;

PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE (c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent.
A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESS
SEC 5. DIRECT EXAMINATION
Sec 5. Direct Examination. – Direct examination is the
SEC 1. EXAMINATION TO BE DONE IN OPEN COURT
examination-in-chief of a witness by the party
Sec 1. Examination to be done in open court. –The
presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue.
examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing
shall be done in open court, and under oath or
Judicial Affidavit Rule
affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to
speak, or the question calls for a different mode of
answer, the answer of the witness shall be given orally. SEC 6. CROSS-EXAMINATION;
People v. Go, G.R. Nos. 130714 and 139634, 140845-46, ITS PURPOSE AND EXTENT
December 27, 2002 Sec 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and
San Luis v. Rojas, G.R. No. 159127, March 3, 2008 extent. — Upon the termination of the direct
Santamaria v. Cleary, G.R. Nos. 197122 &197161, June 15, examination, the witness may be cross-examined
2016 by the adverse party on any relevant matter, as
People v. Servano, G.R. Nos. 143002-03, July 17, 2003 to any matters stated in the direct examination,
or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, A.M. No. 004-07-SC,
December 15, 2000 and freedom to test his or her accuracy and
truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or
the reverse, and to elicit all important facts
SEC 2. PROCEEDINGS TO BE RECORDED bearing upon the issue.
Sec 2. Proceedings to be recorded. – The entire The old rule provides that the cross-examination
proceedings of a trial or hearing, including the questions may be on any matters stated in the direct
propounded to a witness and his or her answers thereto, examination, or connected therewith, while the new
the statements made by the judge or any of the parties, rule provides that the cross- examination may be on
counsel, or witnesses with reference to the case, shall
any relevant matter, meaning that it is allowed even if
be recorded by means of shorthand or stenotype or by
other means of recording found suitable by the court. it is not necessarily stated in the direct examination,
A transcript of the record of the proceedings made provided it is relevant. However, even prior to the
by the official stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and amendment, it was recognized that even if the matter
certified as correct by him or her shall be deemed was not exactly stated in the direct examination but is
prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings. connected therewith, cross- examination thereon may
be allowed. The new rule seems to just further clarify
the old rule.
SEC 3. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS
Sec 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. – A witness
must answer questions, although his or her answer may People v. Ortillas y Gamlanga, G.R. No. 137666, May 20, 2004
tend to establish a claim against him. However, it is the People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 139180, July 31, 2001
right of a witness: People v. Estibal y Calungsag, G.R. No. 208749, November 26,
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or 2014
insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
demeanor;
SEC 7. REDIRECT EXAMINATION;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interest of
justice require; IT’S PURPOSE AND INTENT
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters Sec 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent.
pertinent to the issue; — After the cross-examination of the witness has been
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject concluded, he or she may be re-examined by the party
him or her to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise calling him or her, to explain or supplement his or her
provided by law; or answers given during the cross-examination. On re-
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade direct-examination, questions on matters not dealt with
his reputation, unless it be to the very fact at issue or to during the cross-examination, may be allowed by the
a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. court in its discretion.
But a witness must answer to the fact of his or her
previous final conviction for an offense. SEC 8. RE-CROSS EXAMINATION
Sec 8. Re-cross-examination. — Upon the conclusion of
the re-direct examination, the adverse party may re-
Lee v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 177861, July 13, 2010 cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his or
her re-direct examination, and also on such other
matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion.
SEC 4. ORDER IN THE EXAMINATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL
WITNESS
Sec 4. Order in the examination of an individual SEC 9. RECALLING WITNESS
witness. – The order in which an individual witness may Sec 9. Recalling witness. — After the examination of a
be examined is as follows: witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness
(a) Direct examination by the proponent;

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The court This is a new insertion. A witness may now be
will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as the impeached by evidence that the witness was
interests of justice may require. previously convicted by final judgment involving:
(1) a punishable penalty exceeding 1 year,
People v. Ortillas y Gamlanga, G.R. No. 137666, May 20, 2004 regardless of whether the crime involves moral
Zaldivar v. People, G.R. No. 197056 (Resolution), March 2,
turpitude, or
2016
People v. Leodones, G.R. No. 138735, November 22, 2000 (2) a crime of moral turpitude, regardless of the
penalty.
SEC 10. LEADING AND MISLEADINGS QUESTIONS
SEC 12. 13. PARTY MAY NOT IMPEACH
Sec 10. Leading and misleading questions. — A
HIS OR HER OWN WITNESS
question which suggests to the witness the answer which
the examining party desires is a leading question. It is Sec 12. 13. Party may not impeach his or her
not allowed, except: own witness. — Except with respect to witnesses
(a) On cross examination; referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10
(b) On preliminary matters; of this Rule, the party presenting the producing
(c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and a witness is not allowed to impeach his or her
intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a credibility.
child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf- A witness may be considered as unwilling or
mute;
hostile only if so declared by the court upon
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an adequate showing of his adverse interest,
officer, director, or managing agent of a public or unjustified reluctance to testify, or his or her
private corporation or of a partnership or association having misled the party into calling him or her to
which is an adverse party. the witness stand.
A misleading question is one which assumes as The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or
true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or the witness who is an adverse party, may be
contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is not impeached by the party presenting him or her in
allowed.
all respects as if he or she had been called by the
adverse party, except by evidence of his or her
bad character. He or she may also be impeached
and cross-examined by the adverse party, but
Dulla v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123164, February 18, 2000
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, A.M. No. 004-07-SC, such cross-examination must only be on the
December 15, 2000 subject matter of his or her examination-in-chief.
SEC 11. IMPEACHMENT OF ADVERSE PARTY’S Gomez v. Gomez-Samson, G.R. No. 156284, February 6, 2007
Ng Meng Tam v. China Banking Corp., G.R. No. 214054,
WITNESS
August 5, 2015
Sec 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. — A
witness may be impeached by the party against whom SEC 13. 14. HOW WITNESS IMPEACHED BY EVIDENCE
he or she was called, by contradictory evidence, by OF INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS.
evidence that his or her general reputation for truth, SEC 13. 14. How witness impeached by evidence of
honestly, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he or inconsistent statements. — Before a witness can be
she has made at other times statements inconsistent impeached by evidence that he or she has made at
with his or her present testimony, but not by evidence other times statements inconsistent with his or her
of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown present testimony, the statements must be related to
by the examination of the witness, or the record of the him or her, with the circumstances of the times and
judgment, that he or she has been convicted of an places and the persons present, and he or she must be
offense. asked whether he made such statements, and if so,
allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing
Civil Service Commission v. Belagan, G.R. No. 132164, they must be shown to the witness before any question
October 19, 2004 is put to him or her concerning them
SEC 12. IMPEACHMENT BY EVIDENCE OF People v. Doca, G.R. No. 126781, September 13, 2000
CONVICTION OF CRIME People v. Sambahon y Nueva, G.R. No. 182789, August 3,
Sec 12. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of 2010
Crime. – For the purpose of impeaching a witness, People v. Bajada y Bautista, G.R. No. 180507, November 20,
evidence that he or she has been convicted by final 2008
judgment of a crime shall be admitted if People v. Castillano, G.R. No. 139412, April 2, 2003
(a) the crime was punishable by a penalty in
excess of one year; or SEC 15. EXCLUSION AND SEPARATION OF WITNESSES
(b) the crime involved moral turpitude regardless Sec 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses.
of the penalty. —The court, motu proprio or upon motion,
However, evidence of a conviction is not shall order witnesses excluded so that they
admissible if the conviction has not been the subject cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses.
of an amnesty or annulment of the conviction. This rule does not authorize exclusion of

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
(a) a party who is a natural person, or she chooses, cross-examine the witness upon it and
(b) a duly designated representative of a may read it in evidence. So, also, A witness may also
juridical entity which is a party to the case, testify from such a writing or record, though he or she
retains no recollection of the particular facts, if he or
(c) a person whose presence is essential to
she is able to swear that the writing or record correctly
the presentation of the party’s cause, or stated the transaction when made; but such evidence
(d) a person authorized by a statute to be must be received with caution.
present.
On any trial or hearing, the judge may exclude Borromeo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-31342, L-31740,
from the court any witness not at the time under April 7, 1976
examination, so that he may not hear the Canque v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96202, April 13, 1999
testimony of other witnesses. The court judge People v. Plasencia y Desamparado, G.R. No. 90198,
may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and November 7, 1995
to be prevented from conversing with one
SEC 17. WHEN PART OF TRANSACTION, WRITING OR
another, directly or through intermediaries, RECORD GIVEN IN EVIDENCE, THE REMAINDER ADMISSIBLE
until all shall have been examined. Sec 17. When part of transaction, writing or record
The purpose of the rule remains the same, that given in evidence, the remainder admissible. — When
witnesses may be excluded so that they cannot hear part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or
the testimony of other witnesses. However, the record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of
amended rule provides that the following shall not be the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and
excluded: when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing
(a) a party who is a natural person; or record is given in evidence, any other act,
declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary
(b) a duly designated representative of a juridical to its understanding may also be given in evidence.
entity which is a party to the case;
(c) a person whose presence is essential to the
presentation of the party's cause; or People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 139180, July 31, 2001
(d) a person authorized by a statute to be People v. Kempis, G.R. No. 97169, May 10, 1993
present. Chan v. Chan, G.R. No. 179786, July 24, 2013
The foregoing exceptions were not present under
the old rule. SEC 18. RIGHT TO INSPECT WRITING
SHOWN TO WITNESS
Likewise, it was directory or not mandatory for
Sec 18. Right to respect writing shown to
the court under the old rule to order exclusion of witness. — Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it
witnesses, as the old rule used the word “may”. The may be inspected by the adverse party.
amended rule now mandates the court to exclude
witnesses, with the use of the word “shall”, subject to
the exceptions provided in the amended rule.
The second paragraph under the amended rule is
similar to the second sentence under the old rule, in
that apart from excluding the witnesses from trial or
hearing to prevent them from hearing the testimony of
other witnesses, the court may also order that they be
kept separate from each other to be prevent them
from conversing with one another. The amended rule
provides additionally that this may be done not only to
prevent the witnesses from conversing directly with
one another but also through intermediaries, until all
have been examined.
People v. Sandal, G.R. Nos. 32394, 32395, September 5, 1930

Design Sources International, Inc. v. Eristingcol, G.R. No.
193966, February 19, 2014
SEC 16. WHEN WITNESSES MAY

REFER TO MEMORANDUM
Sec 16. When Witness May Refer to Memorandum.
— A witness may be allowed to refresh his or her
memory respecting a fact by anything written or
recorded by himself or herself, or under his or her
direction, at the time when the fact occurred, or
immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the
fact was fresh in his or her memory and he or she knew
that the same was correctly written or recorded; but in
such case, the writing or record must be produced and
may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion,

no other evidence of its authenticity need be
SEC 19. CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS given.
Sec 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose
of their presentation in evidence, documents are Aldemita v. Silva, G.R. No. 166403
either public or private.
Public documents are: SEC 22. HOW GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING PROVED
Sec 22. How Genuineness of Handwriting Proved. —
(a) The written official acts, or records of the
The handwriting of a person may be proved by any
sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such
and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or person because he or she has seen the person write, or
of a foreign country; has seen writing purporting to be his or hers upon which
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
public except last wills and testaments; acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.
(c) Documents that are considered public Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given
documents under treaties and conventions by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with
writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party
which are in force between the Philippines and
against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be
the country of source; and genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
(d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of
private documents required by law to be entered Progressive Trade & Service Enterprises v. Antonio, G.R. No.
therein. 179502, September 18, 2009
All other writings are private . Raz v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73010, April
The old and new provisions are the same except 27, 1990
that under the amended rule, an additional item was SEC 23. PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE
added under public document - Documents that are Sec 23. Public documents as evidence.
considered public documents under treaties and — Documents consisting of entries in public
conventions which are in force between the records made in the performance of a duty by a
Philippines and the country of source. An example of public officer are prima facie evidence of the
this treaty is the Apostille Convention, which became facts therein stated. All other public documents
effective in the Philippines on 14 May 2019. are evidence, even against a third person, of the
fact which gave rise to their execution and of the
date of the latter.
Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012
Salas v. Sta. Mesa Market Corp., G.R. No. 157766, July 12, Reyes v. Sotero, G.R. No. 167405, February 16, 2006
2007 Republic v. Galeno, G.R. No. 215009, January 23, 2017
Republic v. Spouses Gimenez, G.R. No. 174673, January 11, Teoco v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No.
2016 162333, December 23, 2008
Iwasawa v. Gangan, G.R. No. 204169, September 11, 2013 SEC 24. PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD
Heirs of Ochoa v. G & S Transport Corp., G.R. No. 170071, Sec 24. Proof of official record. — The record of
170125 (Resolution), July 16, 2012 public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of
SEC 20. PROOF OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may
Sec 20. Proof of private document. — Before any be evidenced by an official publication thereof or
private document offered as authentic is received in
by a copy attested by the officer having the legal
evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be
proved either: custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
written; or Philippines, with a certificate that such officer
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature has the custody .
or handwriting of the maker. If the office in which the record is kept is in
Any other private document need only be identified a foreign country, which is a contracting party
as that which it is claimed to be. to a treaty or convention to which the
Philippines is also a party, or considered a
Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012
public document under such treaty or
Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Philippine Nails & Wires Corp., convention pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section
G.R. No. 138084, April 10, 2002 19 hereof, the certificate or its equivalent shall
Dycoco v. Orina, G.R. No. 184843, July 30, 2010 be in the form prescribed by such treaty or
convention subject to reciprocity granted to
SEC 21. WHEN EVIDENCE BY AUTHENTICITY OF PRIVATE public documents originating from the
DOCUMENT NOT NECESSARY Philippines.
Sec 21. When evidence of authenticity of If the office in which the record is kept is in
private document not necessary. — Where a foreign country, For documents originating from
private document is more than thirty years old, is a foreign country which is not a contracting
produced from the custody in which it would party to a treaty or convention referred to in
naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished the next preceding sentence, the certificate

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
may be made by a secretary of the embassy or Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Guerrero, G.R. No.
legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or 136804, February 19, 2003
consular agent or by any officer in the foreign Heirs of Spouses Arcilla v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 162886, [August
11, 2008
service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept, and SEC 25. WHAT ATTESTATION OF COPY MUST STATE
authenticated by the seal of his or her office. Sec 25. What Attestation of Copy Must State. —
A document that is accompanied by a Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for
certificate or its equivalent may be presented the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in
in evidence without further proof, the substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the
certificate or its equivalent being prima facie original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be.
evidence of the due execution and genuineness The attestation must be under the official seal of the
attesting officer, if there be any, or if he or she be the
of the document involved. The certificate shall
clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such
not be required when a treaty or convention court.
between a foreign country and the Philippines
has abolished the requirement, or has Willamette Iron & Steel Works v. Muzzal, G.R. No. 42538, May
exempted the document itself from this 21, 1935
formality. Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. Rotterdam v. Glow Laks Enterprises,
The first sentence of the old and revised rules Ltd., G.R. No. 156330, November 19, 2014
are the same. Sobejana-Condon v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
198742, August 10, 2012
A second paragraph was inserted, which refers to
and should be read in connection with the revised SEC 26. IRREMOVABILITY OF PUBLIC RECORD
Section 19 (c) of Rule 132, on Documents that are Sec 26. Irremovability of public record. — Any public
considered public documents under treaties and record, an official copy of which is admissible in
conventions which are in force between the evidence, must not be removed from the office in which
Philippines and the country of source. This it is kept, except upon order of a court where the
presupposes that the Philippines is a contracting party inspection of the record is essential to the just
to the treaty together with the foreign country determination of a pending case.
concerned. The treaty shall govern the form of the
SEC 27. PUBLIC RECORD OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT
certificate of its equivalent, subject to reciprocity
Sec 27. Public record of a private document. — An
granted to public documents originating from the authorized public record of a private document may be
Philippines. proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof,
The second sentence of the old rule may be attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
compared with the third paragraph of the amended appropriate certificate that such officer has the
rule. This provision presupposes that the foreign custody.
country from where the document originates is not a
party to a treaty with the Philippines. Under the old Salas v. Sta. Mesa Market Corp., G.R. No. 157766, July 12,
rule, there was no distinction. However, as earlier 2007
mentioned, the Apostille Convention came into force
SEC 28. PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD
on 14 May 2019, hence this revision. Thus, the old Sec 28. Proof of lack of record. — A written statement
second sentence applies to foreign documents signed by an officer having the custody of an official
originating from countries not party to a treaty with record or by his deputy that after diligent search no
the Philippines. record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in
The last paragraph under the revised rule is a the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate
new insertion, and it makes clear that the document as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the
that is accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent records of his office contain no such record or entry.
may be presented in evidence without further proof,
Sevilla v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 167684, July 31, 2006
the certificate or its equivalent being prima facie
Abbas v. Abbas, G.R. No. 183896, January 30, 2013
evidence of the due execution and genuineness of the Kho v. Republic, G.R. No. 187462, June 1, 2016
document involved. However, the certificate shall not Vitangcol v. People, G.R. No. 207406, January 13, 2016
be required when a treaty or convention between a
foreign country and the Philippines has abolished the
requirement, or has exempted the document itself
from this formality. See Apostille Convention.
SEC 29. HOW JUDICIAL RECORD IMPEACHED
Sec 29. How judicial record impeached. — Any judicial
record may be impeached by evidence of: (a) want of
jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, (b) collusion
between the parties, or (c) fraud in the party offering
Sec. 24. Proof of official record
the record, in respect to the proceedings.
Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. Rotterdam v. Glow Laks Enterprises,
Ltd., G.R. No. 156330, November 19, 2014
Yucuanseh Drug Co., Inc., et al., v. National Labor Union,
G.R. No. L-9900, April 30, 1957

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
SEC 30. PROOF OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS

Sec 30. Proof of notarial documents. — Every
instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified
as provided by law, may be presented in evidence
without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the
execution of the instrument or document involved.
Destreza v. Riñoza-Plazo, G.R. No. 176863, October 30, 2009

Gutierrez v. Mendoza-Plaza, G.R. No. 185477, December 4,
2009
SEC 31. ALTERATIONS IN DOCUMENT,

HOW TO EXPLAIN
Sec 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. — The
party producing a document as genuine which has been
altered and appears to have been altered after its
execution, in a part material to the question in dispute,
must account for the alteration. He may show that the
alteration was made by another, without his
concurrence, or was made with the consent of the
parties affected by it, or was otherwise properly or
innocent made, or that the alteration did not change
the meaning or language of the instrument. If he fails to
do that, the document shall not be admissible in
evidence.
Cabotaje v. Pudunan, G.R. No. 134712, August 13, 2004

Republic v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 175493, March 25, 2015
Spouses Cirelos v. Spouses Hernandez, G.R. No. 146523
SEC 32. SEAL

Sec 32. Seal. — There shall be no difference between
sealed and unsealed private documents insofar as their
admissibility as evidence is concerned.
Sec. 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language

People v. Tomaquin, G.R. No. 133188, July 23, 2004
Pisueña v. Unating, G.R. No. 132803, August 31, 1999
People v. Siojo, G.R. No. 41746, March 27, 1935

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
C. OFFER AND OBJECTION provides that in case a witness begins to testify

without the offer of testimony being made prior to
SEC 34. OFFER OF EVIDENCE said testimony, the objection to such lack of formal
Sec 34. Offer of Evidence. -The court shall offer must be made as soon as the witness begins to
consider no evidence which has not been formally testify.
offered. The purpose for which the evidence is The provision on when an objection to written
offered must be specified. offer of evidence was deleted. It appears that unlike
the old rule, the court no longer has discretion to
Ala-Martin v. Sultan, G.R. No. 117512, October 2, 2001 allow the formal offer of evidence in writing.
Parel v. Prudencio, G.R. No. 146556, April 19, 2006
Westmont Investment Corporation v. Francia, Jr., G.R. No.
194128, December 7, 2011
Republic v. Go, G.R. No. 168288, January 25, 2017
People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 180501, December 24, 2008
SEC 35. WHEN TO MAKE OFFER Chan v. Chan, G.R. No. 179786, July 24, 2013
Sec 35. When to Make Offer. – As regards All People v. Boras, G.R. No. 127495, December 22, 2000
evidence must be offered orally.
The offer of the testimony of a witness in SEC 37. WHEN REPETITION OF OBJECTION
evidence, the offer must be made at the time the UNNECESSARY
witness is called to testify. Sec 37. When repetition of objection
The offer of documentary and object evidence unnecessary.—When it becomes reasonably
shall be made offered after the presentation of a apparent in the course of the examination of a
party's testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be witness that the questions being propounded are
done orally unless allowed by the court to be of the same class as those to which objection has
done in writing. been made, whether such objection was sustained
The amended provision should be read in relation or overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat
to the revised Rule 30, Section 6, which provides that the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse
after presentation of evidence, the offer of exhibits party to record his or her continuing objection to
shall be made orally and thereupon, the objections such class of questions.
thereto shall be made and the court shall also orally
rule on the same. This is also consistent with the rules SEC 38. RULING
on continuous trial for criminal cases. Sec 38. Ruling. – The ruling of the court must be
While the timing when the offer of evidence for given immediately after the objection is made,
testimonial, object and documentary evidence remain unless the court desires to take a reasonable time
the same, the revised rules require that the same shall to inform itself on the question presented; but
be made orally. Under the old rules, it shall be done the ruling shall always be made during the trial
orally unless allowed by the court to be in writing. and at such time as will give the party against
whom it is made an opportunity to meet the
People v. Vargas, G.R. No. 122765, October 13, 2003 situation presented by the ruling.
People v. Dequito, G.R. No. 132544, May 12, 2000 The reason for sustaining or overruling an
Rodson Philippines, Inc., v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. objection need not be stated. However, if the
141857, June 9, 2004
objection is based on two or more grounds, a
ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of
SEC 36. OBJECTION
them must specify the ground or grounds relied
Sec 36. Objection. — Objection to offer of evidence
offered orally must be made orally immediately after upon.
the offer is made.
Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC Branches 29,
a formal offer must be made as soon as the witness 56 & 57, Libmanan, Camarines Sur, A.M. No. 98-1-11-RTC,
begins to testify. Objection to a question propounded in October 7, 1999
the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be
made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become SEC 39. STRIKING OUT ANSWER
reasonably apparent. Sec 39. Striking out answer. – Should a witness
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to answer the question before the adverse party had
within three (3) days after notice of the unless a the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the
different period is allowed by the court.
same, or where a question is not objectionable,
In any case, The grounds for the objections must be
specified. but the answer is not responsive, or where a
The old rule was revised so that there is no more question is not objectionable, but the answer is
distinction between an oral and written offer of not responsive, or where a witness testifies
evidence. Thus, the first sentence now states without a question being posed or testifies
objection to offer of evidence, without distinction as beyond limits set by the court, or when the
to whether the evidence was offered orally or not, witness testifies beyond limits set by the court,
unlike under the old rule. The revised rule also or when the witness does a narration instead of

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
answering the question, and such objection is

found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain
the objection and order such answer, testimony
or narration to be stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order
the striking out of answers which are
incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper.
The revised rule adds instances for striking the
answer of a witness.
The old rule was limited to striking an answer to
a question when the answer was made before the
adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its
objection to the same. In addition to the foregoing,
the revised rule also provides:
(1) where the question is not objectionable but
the answer of the witness is not responsive to the
question,
(2) a witness testifies without a question being
posed,
(3) a witness testifies beyond limits set by the
court, or
(4) when the witness does a narration instead of
answering the question,
and objection thereto is properly raised and
found meritorious, the court shall sustain the
objection and order such answer, testimony or
narration to be stricken off the record.
The second paragraphs are the same. Even
without the new insertions under the revised rule, the
same may still fall within the contemplation of the
second paragraph.
Gochan v. Gochan, G.R. No. 143089, February 27, 2003
SEC 40. TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE

Sec 40. Tender of Excluded Evidence. – if the
documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by
the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or
made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is
oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and
other personal circumstances of the witness and the
substance of the proposed testimony.
Yu v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154115, November 29, 2005

Fortune Tobacco Corporation v. CIR, G.R. No. 192024, July 1,
2015
Catacutan v. People, G.R. No. 175991, August 31, 2011

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
RULE 133. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE witness is received in evidence, the court has a wide
latitude of discretion in determining the weight to be
SEC 1. PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE given to such opinion, and for that purpose may
Sec 1. Preponderance of Evidence, How Determined. consider the ff:
— (a) Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient
In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof facts of data;
must establish his or her case by a preponderance of (b) Whether it is the product of reliable principles
evidence. In determining where the preponderance or and methods;
superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, (c) Whether the witness has applied the principles
the court may consider all the facts and circumstances and methods reliably to the facts of the case; and
of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their (d) Such other factors as the court may deem
intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing helpful to make such determination.
the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the This is a new insertion. It provides that in case of
facts to which they testify, the probability or opinion of expert witness, the court has a wide
improbability of their testimony, their interest or want latitude of discretion in determining the weight of
of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as
the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The
evidence to be given to such opinion. Even prior to
court may also consider the number of witnesses, this amendment, such rule was already settled by
though the preponderance is not necessarily with the jurisprudence.
greater number. The opinion of an expert witness or expert
evidence is admissible, but such testimony is merely
Ogawa v. Menigishi, G.R. No. 193089, July 9, 2012 persuasive and are not binding upon the courts.
Spouses Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150284, (Orense, Jr. v. Recasas, G.R. No. 199992 (Notice), 19
November 22, 2010 April 2017)
Ong v. Yap, G.R. No. 146797, February 18, 2005
Courts may place whatever weight they may
SEC 2. PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the
Sec 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. –In a criminal facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency
case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province
or her guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and
beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree character of the witness, his actions upon the witness
of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by
absolutely certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or which he has supported his opinion, his possible bias in
that degree of proof which produces conviction in an favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that
unprejudiced mind.
he is a paid witness, the relative opportunities for
study and observation of the matters about which he
Amanquiton v. People, G.R. No. 186080, August 14, 2009 testifies, and any other matters which deserve to
Mahawan v. People, G.R. No. 176609, December 18, 2008 illuminate his statements. The problem of the
San Mateo v. People, G.R. No. 200090, March 6, 2013 credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of
his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court
SEC 3. EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION, NOT SUFFICIENT whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the
GROUND FOR CONVICTION absence of abuse of discretion. (Tabao v. People, G.R.
Sec 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground No. 187246, 20 July 2011)
for conviction.—An extrajudicial confession made by an
accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction,
With the incorporation of the foregoing
unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. jurisprudential pronouncement, the revised rule also
provides for the factors for the court to consider in
determining the weight to be given to such opinion.
People v. Licayan y Sucano, G.R. No. 144422, February 28,
2002 SEC 5.6. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
SEC 4. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHEN SUFFICIENT Sec 5.6. Substantial Evidence. – In cases filed before
Sec 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.- administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: deemed established if it is supported by substantial
(a) There is more than one circumstance; evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
are proven; and conclusion.
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Office of the Ombudsman v. Zaldarriaga, G.R. No. 175349,
Inferences cannot be based on other inferences. June 22, 2010
People v. Abdulah, G.R. No. 182518, January 20, 2009 SEC 6. 7. POWER OF THE COURT
Espineli v. People, G.R. No. 179535, June 9, 2014 TO STOP FURTHER EVIDENCE
Sec 6. 7. Power of court to stop further evidence. –
SEC 5. WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN The court may stop the introduction of further
OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS testimony upon any particular point when the evidence
Sec 5. Weight to be Given Opinion of Expert Witness, upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the
How Determined. same point cannot be reasonably persuasive. This power
-In any case, where the opinion of an expert should be shall be exercised with caution.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
Sec. 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence

Go v. Looyuko, G.R. No. 147923, 147962, 154035, October 26,
2007
SEC 7. 8. EVIDENCE ON MOTION

Sec 7. 8. Evidence on Motion. – When a motion is based
on facts not appearing of record, the court may hear the
matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the
respective parties, but the court may direct that the
matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or
depositions.
Sec. 7. Evidence on motion

Parel v. Prudencio, G.R. No. 146556, April 19, 2006

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE
Rule on DNA Evidence

People v. Umanito, G.R. No. 172607, October 26, 2007
Herrera v. Alba, G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005
Estate of Rogelio G. Ong v. Diaz, G.R. No. 171713, December
17, 2007
Lejano v. People, G.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
RULES ON EVIDENCE

Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW

LEGAL EVIDENCE (b) Burden of Proof and Presumption (By whom

2. SOURCES OF RULES ON EVIDENCE b) Rules of Extrinsic Policy

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 1

a satisfactory Reconveyance and Damages by husband Jose Hosana.

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 2

violation of such law. d) OTHER CASES AS MAY BE PROVIDED FOR BY

ISSUE: IS THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT? Testimony of EXC.

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 3

-none but facts having rational probative value

5. RULES OF EXCLUSION 8. ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS (CA)

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 4

the Government of the Philippines are considered as

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 5

illegally obtained evidence taint all evidence

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 6

-the evidence is relevant when it is related to a

3. EVIDENCE ON COLLATERAL MATTERS

4. FACT IN ISSUE VS FACT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 7

RULE 129 accepted it in goodwill. Contract of lease is novated by

7. KINDS OF JUDICIAL NOTICE Things of "common knowledge", of which courts

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 8

evidence of the existence and territorial extent of

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 9

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 10

3. DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION However, in the more recent case of Lozano v.

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 11

considerations of expediency and convenience, expense in securing and introducing evidence on

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 12

AFTER TRIAL BUT BEFORE JUDGMENT OR ON APPEAL,

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 13

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 14

In appellant’s extra-judicial confession, he

HELD. YES ISSUE: Can the court rely on the extra-judicial

In the case at bar, although the appellant himself

Consequently, an admission made in the pleadings "Moreover, said admission is extrajudicial in

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 15

said statement by accused-appellant does not prove of law and jurisprudence misplaced.

ADMISSION MADE IN ANSWER CAN BE OVERRIDDEN BY

We find petitioner's contention to be without merit

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 16

RULE 130 Tangible object that Tangible evidence that

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 17

proceedings. Their presence is not an admission of

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 18

Personal Appearance: To determine whether a person

The body of the plaintiff as object evidence in

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 19

Physical Evidence Physical Evidence

6. The trial court should always make a categorical FACTS

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 20

electronic documents but rather, simply

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 21

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 22

The petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the need

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 23

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 24

ENGR. ARIEL MARK PILOTIN 25

HELD: No. common-law remedy for the removal of any cloud or