U.P.

LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

[Sec. 2, Rule 128]

VIII.EVIDENCE 3. SC issuances [e.g., Judicial Affidavit Rule, Rules
on Procedure for Environmental Cases, Child
A. General Principles Witness Rule, Rules on Electronic Evidence,
Rules on DNA Evidence]

1. Concept of Evidence No Vested Right of Property in Rules of

Evidence
The means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining The general rule is that there is no vested right of
in a judicial proceeding, the truth respecting a matter property in rules of evidence [Aldeguer v. Hoskyn, G.R.
of fact [Sec. 1, Rule 128] No. 1164 (1903)] Any evidence inadmissible
according to the laws in force at the time the action
accrued, but admissible according to the laws in force
2. Scope and Applicability of at the time of trial, is receivable [Francisco 8, 1996 Ed.,
the Rules of Evidence citing Aldeguer v. Hoskyn, G.R. No. 1164 (1903)]

Rules of Evidence May be Waived

a. Scope of Application According to Francisco [9, 1996 Ed., citing American
cases], there are rules of evidence established merely
Under the Rules of Court (ROC), the rules of
for the protection of the parties. If, according to the
evidence are specifically applicable only to judicial
well-established doctrine, the parties may waive such
proceedings [Sec. 1, Rule 128]
rules during the trial of a case, there is no reason why
they cannot make the waiver in a contract (ex. a
This rule must be read as referring to the rules of
contract of insurance requiring the testimony of
evidence AS CONTAINED in the ROC, because
eyewitness as the only evidence admissible concerning
obviously constitutional evidentiary rules permeate
the death of the insured person' is valid or a contract
ALL proceedings and is the constant, bottomline
waiving the privilege against the disclosure of
yardstick for the validity of ALL acts in Philippine
confidential communications made by a patient to
territory [Prof. Avena]
physician). However, if the rule of evidence waived by
the parties has been established on grounds of public
Judicial proceedings are of THREE KINDS
policy, the waiver is void (ex. waiver of the privilege
ONLY
against the disclosure of state secrets).
1. Civil action which is of two kinds
a. ordinary civil action, and
b. special civil action 3. Evidence in Civil Cases v.
2. Criminal action
3. Special Proceeding
Evidence in Criminal Cases
[Sec. 3, Rule 1]
Preponderance of Proof beyond
Note: All other proceedings are NON-JUDICIAL, evidence reasonable doubt
hence, application of the rules of evidence in the ROC [Sec Rule ] [Sec Rule ]
is not mandatory unless provided to be so by law or Offer of compromise
Offer of compromise
regulation [see Sec. 4, Rule 1] NOT an admission of
by the accused may be
any liability, and is not
received in evidence as
admissible in evidence
b. Uniformity of Application against the offeror
an implied admission of
guilt.
[Sec. 27, Rule 130], as a
General rule: The rules of evidence shall be the same in general rule [Tan v.
all courts and in all trials and hearings [Sec. 2, Rule Exceptions:
Rodil Enterprises, G. R.
128] a. for quasi-offenses
No. 168071 (2006)]
or
Exceptions: b. those allowed by
Exceptions: The party
If otherwise provided by: law to be
making the offer
1. Law [e.g. 1987 Constitution, statutes] compromised,
admits the existence of
2. Rules of Court examples:
an indebtedness

Page 403 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

Preponderance of Proof beyond Preponderance of Proof beyond

evidence reasonable doubt evidence reasonable doubt
[Sec Rule ] [Sec Rule ] [Sec Rule ] [Sec Rule ]
combined with a 1. Sec 204, RA inserted by
proposal to settle the 8424 (Tax R.A. 8353]
claim amicably. In Tan, Reform Act of
petitioner made 1997), which A plea of guilty later
categorical judicial provides that withdrawn or an
admissions, not only as payment of unaccepted offer of a
to his liability, but also, any internal plea of guilty to a lesser
as to the amount of revenue tax offense, is not
indebtedness in the and all criminal admissible in evidence
form of rentals due: violations may against the accused who
a. Petitioner agreed be made the plea or offer
in open court to compromised, [Sec. 27, Rule 130]
pay the amount of except those Constitutional
P440,000.00, already filed in presumption of
representing Court and innocence does NOT
those apply [Sec. 14, Art. III,
rentals from involving Constitution refers
September 1997 to fraud;
June 2000; and 2. In rape cases,
that petitioner will the subsequent
pay the monthly valid marriage However, the ROC
rentals computed between the requires meeting the
Presumption of
at P13,750.00 on offended party burden of proof [Sec.
innocence a
or before the 5th shall 1, Rule 131] of
constitutional guarantee
day of each month extinguish the preponderance of
on the accused [Sec. 14,
after 30 June 2000, criminal action evidence [Sec. 1, Rule
Art. III, Constitution]
as detailed by the or the penalty 133]. Note also the
Order of the imposed. In disputable
MeTC; and case it is the presumption that a
b. In his Motion to legal husband person is innocent of
Allow Defendant who is the wrong [Sec. 3(a), Rule
to Deposit offender, the 131]. See also Sec. 3(m),
Rentals, petitioner subsequent (p), (x), (aa), and (ff),
stated that the forgiveness by Rule 131; Sec. 3(4),
rentals due on the the wife as the Rule 132; and Sec. 5,
premises in offended party Rule 133.
question from shall
September 1997 extinguish the An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital
up to the present criminal action or other expenses occasioned by an injury is NOT
amounted to or the penalty: admissible as proof of criminal or civil liability for the
P467,500.00, as of Provided, That injury [Sec. 27, Rule 130]
the date of filing the crime shall
the Motion. not be The following distinctions may also be noted
extinguished a. In terms of evidence in connection with
or the penalty constitutional law doctrines e.g., under par. 4,
shall not be Sec. 12, Art. III, Constitution, an uncounseled
abated if the extra-judicial confession elicited during custodial
marriage is investigation will be inadmissible in any criminal
void ab initio case against the accused, but will be admissible in
[Art. 266-C, a civil case for damages by the latter against the
RPC, as violator

Page 404 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

b. In terms of evidence arising from procedure or the ultimate fact can be established. [Dela Llana vs.
e.g.: Biong, G.R. No. 182356 (2018)]
1. Judicial Affidavit Rule [A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC]
does not apply to criminal case where 6. Classes of Evidence
penalty exceeds six years)
2. Guidelines in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and According to Form
Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures
[A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC] a. Object - those addressed to the senses of the
admissions made or entered during the pre- court [Sec. 1, Rule 130]
trial conference shall be reduced in writing b. Documentary - consists of writings or any
and signed by the accused and counsel, material containing letters, words, numbers,
otherwise, they cannot be used against the figures, symbols or other modes of written
accused. The agreements covering the expressions offered as proof of their contents
matters referred to in Section 1 of Rule 118 [Sec. 2, Rule 130]
8, Part c. Testimonial - evidence elicited from the mouth
B) of a witness [Riano 180, 2016 Ed., citing
c. The rules on search and seizure in Law Dictionary] It involves two levels of
constitutional law in connection with perception: that of the witness perceiving the
criminal procedure do not apply in civil event, and that of the judge evaluating the witness
actions involving infringement of intellectual
property, where the applicable rule is A.M. There is no hierarchy with respect to the physical
No. 02-1-06-SC (Rule on Search and Seizure forms of evidence. A fact may be proved by any kind;
in Civil Actions for Infringement of the court may admit. There is no rule (in general) that
Intellectual Property Rights) prefers one form rule as against another [Adzuara v.
C.A., G.R. No. 125134 (1999)]
4. Proof v. Evidence In Adzuara, the petitioner claimed that the medical
certificate presented by the prosecution was
Proof Evidence uncorroborated by actual testimony of the physician
Result or who accomplished the same and as such has no
Mode and manner of proving
effect of probative value insofar as the physical injuries
competent facts in judicial
evidence [2 suffered by the victim are concerned. The SC
proceedings [Bustos v. Lucero,
Regalado 698, disagreed, ruling that the fact of the injury resulting
G.R. No. L-2068, (1948)]
2008 Ed.] from the collision may be proved in other ways such
The end result The means to an end as the testimony of the injured person.

5. Factum Probans v. Factum 7. Cumulative and

Probandum Corroborative Evidence
Note: This distinction refers to the uniformity of
evidentiary form, not the distinction between forms
Evidentiary fact Ultimate fact of evidence per se [Prof. Avena]
Fact by which the factum Cumulative Corroborative
Fact sought to
probandum is to be evidence evidence
be established
established Evidence of the same Additional evidence of a
Materials which establish that kind and to the same different character to
Proposition state of facts the same point
proposition
[2 Regalado 702, 2008 Ed.]
[2 Regalado 698-699, 2008 Ed.]
Cumulative evidence refers to pieces of evidence of
One must adduce during trial the factum probans or the same form, e.g. testimonies. Corroborative
the evidentiary facts by which the factum probandum evidence refers to pieces of evidence of different
forms, e.g. object and testimonial.

Page 405 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

8. and Conclusive Evidence

Conclusive
Class of evidence which the law does not allow
to be contradicted [2 Regalado 703, 2008 Ed.]

Note: This statement refers only to the second

part of the definition of conclusive evidence (i.e.,
Standing alone, unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient
its exclusionary feature).
to maintain the proposition affirmed [2 Regalado 703, 2008
Ed.]
The first part refers to the fact that a rule of law
has provided that it constitutes factum probans
that sufficiently establishes the factum
probandum without need of any other evidence
[Prof. Avena]
e.g. (1) The decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued shall become
incontrovertible, upon the expiration of the one-
year period within which any person deprived of
land or of any estate or interest therein by such
adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by
actual fraud, to file in the proper court a petition
for reopening and review of the decree of
registration [Sec. 32, P.D. 1529]; (2) The child
shall be considered legitimate although the
e.g. official records such as Police blotter [Sec. 44, Rule 130; mother may have declared against its legitimacy
public documents such as notarial register [Sec. 23, Rule or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.
132] [Art. 167, FC]. Factum probans that the child
was conceived or born during the marriage of its
parents conclusively establishes the factum
probandum of the legitimate status of that child,
and by providing that this factum probandum
the mother may have declared
against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced

any factum probans presented and offered to

prove the truth of the latter declaration (of the
mother) will be inadmissible in evidence.

9. Disputable and Conclusive b. Sources of above presumptions other than the

Rules of Court:
Presumption 1. law
2. SC issuances
a.
- 10. Primary and Secondary
Evidence
of Court (the latter being a presumption that is
satisfactory if uncontradicted, but which may be Primary evidence is that which the law regards as
contradicted and overcome by other evidence). affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question
[1 Regalado 703, 2010 Ed.]

Page 406 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

authentic document, or by the testimony of

Examples of primary evidence witnesses in the order stated [Sec. 5, Rule 130]
The filiation of legitimate children is established by b. If the document is in the custody of under the
any of the following control of the adverse party, he must have
a. The record of birth appearing in the civil register reasonable notice to produce it. If after such
or a final judgment; or notice and after satisfactory proof of its
b. An admission of legitimate filiation in a public existence, he fails to produce the document,
document or a private handwritten instrument secondary evidence may be presented as in the
and signed by the parent concerned. case of its loss [Sec. 6, Rule 130]
c. When the original of a document is in the custody
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the of a public officer or is recorded in a public
legitimate filiation shall be roved by: office, its contents may be proved by a certified
a. The open and continuous possession of the copy issued by the public officer in custody
status of a legitimate child; or thereof [Sec. 7, Rule 130]
b. Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court
and special laws Generic, non-
[Art. 172, FC] used in
A receipt, which is a written and signed
Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate acknowledgment that money and goods have been
filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as delivered, is the best evidence of the fact of
legitimate children [Par. 1, Art. 175, FC] payment although not exclusive [Vitarich v. Losin,
G.R. No. 181560 (2010)]
G.R. No. 177728, July 31,
2009 Vitarich
is referring to probative weight, not to admissibility.
1) Where the private handwritten instrument is Vitarich means that the
the lone piece of evidence submitted to
prove filiation, there should be strict to be exclusionary.
compliance with the requirement that the
same must be signed by the acknowledging Lastly, in another case, the SC ruled that a statement
parent; and in a written instrument regarding the payment of
2) Where the private handwritten instrument is consideration is merely in the nature of a receipt and
accompanied by other relevant and may be contradicted [Philippine Banking Corporation v.
competent evidence, it suffices that the claim C.A., G.R. No. 133710 (2004)]. The receipt in the
of filiation therein be shown to have been Philippine Banking case was not excluded as evidence,
made and handwritten by the acknowledging but was not given much weight. The respondent-
parent as it is merely corroborative of such defendant in Philippine Banking denied receiving the
other evidence. loan proceeds and presented evidence that on the day
the bank claimed to have credited the subject amount,
Best Evidence Rule: When the subject of inquiry is it was again debited or withdrawn by the bank,
the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admittedly upon the instruction of the officials from
admissible other than the original document itself head office.
[Sec. 3, Rule 130]

Secondary evidence
In the context of the Best Evidence rule in Sec. 3,
Rule 130, secondary evidence may be admitted
a. When the original document has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence
and the cause of its unavailability without bad
faith on his part, may prove its contents by a
copy, or by a recital of its contents in some

Page 407 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

B. Admissibility of Evidence
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of the information in court the prosecutor would have
whether or not the circumstance (or evidence) is to be already presented all the evidence necessary to secure
considered at all. On the other hand, the probative
value of evidence refers to the question of whether or inadmissibility of evidence cannot be ruled upon in a
not it proves an issue [PNOC Shipping and Transport preliminary investigation. [Maza v. Judge Turla, G.R.
Corporation v. C.A., G.R. No. 107518 (1998)] No. 187094 (2017)].
Admissibility does not concern weight
Admissibility of evidence should not be equated with 1. Requisites for Admissibility
weight of evidence. The admissibility of evidence
depends on its relevance and competence, while the a. Relevant to the issue; and
weight of evidence pertains to evidence already b. Not excluded by law or the ROC [Sec. 3, Rule 128]
admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade. Regalado
Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, 704, 2008 Ed.]
but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial
evaluation within the guidelines provided by the Rules The Importance of Offer In Relation To
of Court [Dela Llana v. Biong, G.R. No. 182356 (2013)] Admissibility
Parties are required to inform the courts of the
Weight involves the effect of evidence admitted, its purpose of introducing their respective exhibits to
tendency to convince and persuade. It is not assist the latter in ruling on their admissibility in case
determined mathematically by the numerical an objection thereto is made [Star Two v. Ko, G.R. No.
superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact, 185454 (2011)]
but depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief
on the part of the judge trying the case [Francisco 11, Objection
1996 Ed.] a. Objection to evidence offered orally must be
made immediately after the offer is made.
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue 1. As regards the testimony of a witness, the
and is not excluded by the law or the rules or is offer must be made at the time the witness is
competent [Sec. 3, Rule 132]. Since admissibility of called to testify.
evidence is determined by its relevance and 2. Documentary and object evidence shall be
competence, admissibility is, therefore, an affair of
logic and law. On the other hand, the weight to be testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be
given to such evidence, once admitted, depends on done orally unless allowed by the court to be
judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided in done in writing.
Rule 133 and the jurisprudence laid down by the [Sec. 35, Rule 132]
Court. Thus, while evidence may be admissible, it may b. Objection to a question propounded in the
be entitled to little or no weight at all. Conversely, course of the oral examination of a witness shall
evidence which may have evidentiary weight may be be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall
inadmissible because a special rule forbids its become reasonably apparent.
reception. [People v. Turco, G.R. No. 137757, (2000)] c. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected
to within three (3) days after notice of the offer
The admissibility of evidence cannot be ruled unless a different period is allowed by the court.
upon in a preliminary investigation. d. In any case, the grounds for the objections must
In a preliminary investigation, ... the public be specified.
prosecutors do not decide whether there is evidence [Sec. 36, Rule 132]
beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the person
charged; they merely determine whether there is Every objection to the admissibility of evidence shall
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief be made at the time such evidence is offered, or as
that a crime has been committed and that respondent soon thereafter as the objection to its admissibility
is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. have become apparent, otherwise the objection shall
be considered waived [Abrenica v. Gonda, G.R. No. L-
10100 (1916)]

Page 408 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

Form When objection made Example

Objection to the qualification of In an administrative case for sexual harassment, the
the witness must be made at the respondent did not offer evidence that has a bearing
time he is called to the stand
charges for grave oral defamation, grave threats,
If the witness is qualified, the unjust vexation, physical injuries, malicious mischief,
objection should be raised when etc. filed against her. These pieces of evidence do not
the objectionable question is establish the probability or improbability of the
asked or after the answer is offense charged [Civil Service Commission v. Belagan,
given if the objectionable G.R. No. 132164 (2004)]
feature became apparent by
reason of such answer Note: The SC in this case discussed Sec. 51(a), Rule
Must be made either: 130 (character evidence in criminal cases) in relation
a. At the time it is presented to relevance but after the above-quoted statement
in ocular inspection or
demonstration, or what respondent was trying to establish is
b. When it is formally offered
or the improbability of the charge. In this regard, a
At the time it is formally offered 11, Rule 132). .
[2 Regalado 705, 2008 Ed.]
3. Multiple Admissibility
2. Relevance of Evidence and
Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two
Collateral Matters or more purposes, such evidence should be admitted
for any or all the purposes for which it is offered,
Relevancy provided it satisfies all the requisites of law for its
admissibility therefor [2 Regalado 706, 2008 Ed.]
the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or
non- . 4, Rule 128] e.g., Evidence as to When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is
the age of a person who has been raped is relevant in admissible insofar as it satisfies all rules applicable to
a situation where the age would qualify the offence to it when offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy
statutory rape some other rule which would be applicable to it if
offered for another purpose does not exclude it. Thus,
Determinable by the rules of logic and human a confession of an accused may not be competent as
experience [2 Regalado 704, 2008 Ed.] against his co-accused, being hearsay as to the latter,
or to prove conspiracy between them without the
Collateral matters conspiracy being established by other evidence,
Matters other than the fact in issue and which are nonetheless, the confession of the accused may be
offered as a basis for inference as to the existence or admitted as evidence of his own guilt [Francisco 11,
non-existence of the facts in issue [2 Regalado 708, 1996 Ed.]
2008 Ed.]

General rule: Evidence on collateral matters is NOT 4. Conditional Admissibility

allowed [Sec. 4, Rule 128]
Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to
Exceptions: When it tends in any reasonable degree to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with
establish the probability or improbability of the fact the other facts to be subsequently proved, such
in issue [Sec. 4, Rule 128] evidence may be received on condition that the other
facts will be proved thereafter; otherwise, the
Note: What the Rules prohibit is evidence of evidence already given shall be stricken out [2 Regalado
irrelevant collateral facts [2 Regalado 708, 2008 Ed.] 705, 2008 Ed.]

Page 409 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

beyond reasonable doubt [People v. Matito, G.R. No.

5. Curative Admissibility 144405 (2004)]

Note: Circumstantial evidence is not a weaker form of

A party has the right to introduce incompetent
evidence vis-a-vis direct evidence [People v. Matito,
evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted
G.R. No. 144405 (2004)]
incompetent evidence adduced by the adverse party,
[2 Regalado 706, 2008 Ed.]
7. Positive and Negative
What determines the rule of curative Evidence
admissibility
a. Whether the incompetent evidence was
seasonably objected to - Lack of objection to Positive
Negative evidence
incompetent evidence constitutes waiver by the evidence
party against whom it was introduced but the Witness affirms Witness states he/she did
opposing party is not deprived of his right to that a fact did or not see or know of the
similar rebutting evidence; and did not occur occurrence of a fact
b. Whether the admission of such evidence will [2 Regalado 703, 2008 Ed.]
cause a plain and unfair prejudice to the party
against whom it was admitted 8. Competent and Credible
[2 Regalado 707, 2008 Ed.]
Evidence
6. Direct and Circumstantial Competence
Evidence Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by (i)
law or (ii) the ROC [Sec. 3, Rule 128; 2 Regalado 704,
Direct evidence Circumstantial evidence 2008 Ed.]
Proof of facts from which,
Proves the fact in Determined by the prevailing exclusionary rules of
taken collectively, the
dispute without evidence [2 Regalado 704, 2008 Ed.]
existence of a particular fact
the aid of any
in dispute may be inferred as
inference or Note: Exclusionary rules may affect due process. To
a necessary or probable
presumption the extent that they might prejudice substantive
consequence
rights, therefore, they cannot be made to apply
[Francisco 2, 1996 Ed.]
retroactively.
Circumstantial evidence is the evidence of
EXCLUSIONARY RULES OF EVIDENCE
collateral facts or circumstances from which an
a. Constitutional exclusionary rules
inference may be drawn as to the probability or
1. Unreasonable searches and seizures [Sec. 2,
improbability of the fact in dispute. They are evidence
Art. III]
of relevant collateral facts [2 Regalado 708, 2008 Ed.]
2. Privacy of communication and
correspondence [Sec. 3, Art. III]
Requisites to warrant a conviction based on
3. Right to counsel, prohibition on torture,
circumstantial evidence
force, violence, threat, intimidation or other
a. there is more than one circumstance;
means which vitiate the free will; prohibition
b. the facts from which the inferences are derived
on secret detention places, solitary,
are proven; and
incommunicado [Sec. 12, Art. III]
c. the combination of all the circumstances is such
4. Right against self-incrimination [Sec. 17, Art.
as to produce conviction beyond reasonable
III]
doubt
[Sec. 4, Rule 133]
It is settled that for an extrajudicial confession to be
admissible in evidence against the accused, the same
The totality of the evidence must constitute an
unbroken chain showing the guilt of the accused
of a competent and independent counsel, (c) express,

Page 410 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

device/arrangement to secretly
Moreover, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7438 overhear/intercept/record such information
requires that "any person arrested, detained or under by using any device, shall not be admissible
custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by in evidence in any judicial/quasi-
judicial/legislative/administrative hearing or
investigation [Secs. 1 and 4, R.A. 4200 (Wire-
G.R. No. 218130 (2018) Tapping Act)]
Fernandez testified that he was brought to the
Binmaley Police Station at 6:00 a.m. on June 16, The use of a telephone extension for the
2011 and was asked if he was the one responsible purpose of overhearing a private
for the crime and if he would rather admit the conversation without authorization did not
same. Despite the fact that he was already violate R.A. 4200 because a telephone
considered as a suspect of the crime, Fernandez extension devise was neither among those
was not assisted by a lawyer at that time. Atty.
Francisco only arrived past 1:00 p.m. after therein, following the principle that "penal
Fernandez had already been subjected to statutes must be construed strictly in favor of
questioning by the police officers starting 6:00 a.m. Ganaan v. IAC, 145 SCRA
Thus, prior to 1:00 p.m., while Fernandez was in 112]
the custody of the Binmaley police and under
investigation as a suspect, he was not able to confer c. Under the ROC, Rule is the applicable
with any lawyer. rule in determining the admissibility of
evidence.
Moreover, Atty. Francisco was not an independent d. Court issuances, such as
counsel. Atty. Francisco was a legal consultant in 1. Rule on Electronic Evidence, e.g.
the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Binmaley. As compliance with authentication
such, his duty was to provide legal advice to the requirements for electronic evidence
Mayor whose duty, in turn, is to execute the laws 2. Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, e.g.
and ordinances and maintain peace and order in sexual abuse shield rule
the municipality. 3. Judicial Affidavit Rule

Atty. Francisco cannot be considered as an Competence Credibility

independent counsel since protecting the rights of Eligibility of evidence to Worthiness of belief;
Fernandez as a suspect is in direct conflict with his be received as such
duty to the Municipal Mayor and the local
government of the Municipality. Note: Credibility does not, per se, exclude. It only does
in so far as it makes the piece of evidence irrelavant
Atty. Francisco was not vigilant in protecting the to the fact in issue. (e.g. the cross-examination of a
rights of Fernandez during the course of the witness is primarily about his credibility)
custodial investigation. Atty. Francisco allowed
Fernandez to answer each question without
reminding him that he can refuse to answer them
and/or remain silent.

b. Statutory exclusionary rules

1. Lack of documentary stamp tax to
documents required to have one makes such
document inadmissible as evidence in court
until the requisite stamp/s shall have been
affixed thereto and cancelled [Sec. 201,
NIRC];
2. any communication obtained by a person,
not being authorized by all the parties to any
private communication, by tapping any
wire/cable or using any other

Page 411 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

established any factum probandum in the first place

C. Burden of Proof and [Prof. Avena]
Burden of Evidence The burden of proof does not shift as it remains
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present throughout the trial with the party upon whom it is
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish imposed; the burden of evidence shifts from party
his claim or defense by the amount of evidence to party depending upon the exigencies of the case in
required by law [Sec. 1, Rule 131] the course of the trial [2 Regalado 816, 2008 Ed., see
Bautista v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. L-45137 (1985)]
In civil cases, the quantum of evidence required to
sustain the proponent of an issue is preponderance of The burden of proof is generally determined by the
evidence [Sec. 1, Rule 133] The burden of proof is on pleadings filed by the party; the burden of evidence
the party who would be defeated if no evidence were is generally determined by the developments at the
given on either side [2 Regalado 816, 2008 Ed.], the trial, or by the provisions of the substantive law or
plaintiff with respect to his complaint, the defendant procedural rules which may relieve the party from
with respect to his counterclaim, and the cross- presenting evidence on the fact alleged, i.e.,
claimant, with respect to his cross-claim. presumptions, judicial notice and admissions [2
Regalado 816-817, 2008 Ed.]
In criminal cases:
In both civil and criminal cases, the burden of
For the issuance of warrant of arrest - evidence evidence lies with the party who asserts an affirmative
of probable cause that there exist a reasonable
allegation [2 Regalado 817, 2008 Ed.]
ground that the accused has committed an
offense [Algas v. Garrido, A.M.289-MJ, (1974)) Example
To warrant the filing of an information if In a case for collection of a sum of money, if the
there is sufficient ground to engender a well- defendant asserts that she has paid, then she has the
founded belief that a crime has been committed burden of proving that she had, not on the creditor
and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, that she had not. While the creditor had needed to
and should be held for trial [Sec. 1, Rule 112] prove the existence of a debt, the burden shifts to the
To sustain a conviction - evidence of guilt debtor because she alleged an affirmative defense,
beyond reasonable doubt [Sec. 2, Rule 133] Vitarich v.
To deny bail when discretionary when the Losin, G.R. No. 181560 (2010)]
evidence of guilt is strong
To accept a plea of guilty to a capital offense Equipoise Rule or Equipoise Doctrine
that the accused voluntarily and fully The doctrine refers to the situation where the
comprehended the consequences of his plea [Sec. evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or there is
3, Rule 116] doubt on which side the evidence preponderates. In
To grant demurrer to evidence the evidence is this case, the decision should be against the party with
insufficient to sustain a conviction [Sec. 23, Rule the burden of proof [Rivera v. C.A., G.R. No. 115625
119] (1998); Marubeni v. Lirag, G.R. No. 130998, (2001)]

The burden of proof rests on the prosecution [Boac v In criminal cases, the equipoise rule provides that
People, G.R. No. 180597 (2008)] where the evidence is evenly balanced, the
constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the
A party will have the burden of evidence only (i.e., scales in favor of the accused [Malana v. People, G.R.
will have to be a proponent) if there is any factum No. 173612, (2008)]
probandum (whether evidentiary or otherwise) that
the adverse party has already established (whether by
law, rule, or by virtue of evidence that he has
presented) that he (the potential proponent) has to
overcome. That factum probandum may, but does
not have to be, nor is limited to a "prima facie
presumption." Likewise, a party will not have any
burden of evidence at all if the adverse party has not

Page 412 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

D.Presumptions Realty, G.R. No. 144268

(2006)]
Presumptions are inferences as to the existence of a
fact not actually known, arising from its usual 1. Conclusive Presumptions
connection with another which is known, or a
conjecture based on past experience as to what course a. A party is not permitted falsify a thing whenever:
human affairs ordinarily take. Presumptions embody 1. By his own declaration, act or omission;
values and revealed behavioral expectations under a 2. He intentionally and deliberately led another
given set of circumstances [University of Mindanao, Inc. to believe a particular thing is true;
v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 194964-65 3. To act upon such belief; and
(2016)] 4. The litigation arises out of such declaration
act or omission.
A rule of law that attaches probative value to specific b. A tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his
facts, or directs that an inference be drawn as to landlord at the time of the commencement of the
existence of a fact, not actually known, arising from relation of landlord and tenant between them
its usual connection with other particular facts which [Sec. 2, Rule 131]
are known or established [Francisco at 51]
These conclusive presumptions are based upon the
A presumption can rest only upon ascertained facts. doctrine of estoppel in pais, see Arts. 1431-1439, Civil
It cannot be based on other presumptions, Code [2 Regalado 820, 2008 Ed.]
assumptions, probabilities or inferences [ibid. At 52]
Once a contract of lease is shown to exist between the
Presumptions are not allegations, nor do they supply parties, the lessee cannot by any proof, however
their absence. Presumptions are conclusions. They do strong, overturn the conclusive presumption that the
not apply when there are no facts or allegations to lessor has a valid title to or a better right of possession
support them [University of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko to the subject premises than the lessee [Santos v.
Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 194964-65 (2016)] National Statistics Office., G.R. No. 171129, (2011)]

Presumption of fact Presumption of law What a tenant is estopped from denying is the title of
Praesumptiones hominis [2 Praesumptiones juris [2 his landlord at the time of the commencement of the
Regalado 819, 2008 Ed.] Regalado 819, 2008 Ed.] landlord-tenant relation. If the title asserted is one
Those which the law that is alleged to have been acquired subsequent to the
Those which the commencement of that relation, the presumption will
requires to be drawn
experience of mankind not apply. Hence, the tenant may show that the
from the existence of
has shown to be valid, landlord's title has expired or been conveyed to
established facts in the
founded on general another or himself; and he is not estopped to deny a
absence of contrary
knowledge and claim for rent, if he has been ousted or evicted by title
evidence; derived from
information; essentially paramount [Ermitaño v Paglas, G.R. No. 174436
the law itself rather
an inference (2013)]
from common logic or
probability
e.g. Inference of guilt
upon discovery of 2. Disputable Presumptions
e.g. Presumption of
bloodied garment in
innocence in favor of a. Person is innocent of crime or wrong;
possession of accused
the accused b. Unlawful act is done with an unlawful intent;
c. Person intends the ordinary consequences of his
Conclusive Disputable voluntary act;
Satisfactory if d. Person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
Inferences which the law
uncontradicted, e. Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse
makes so peremptory that it
but may be if produced;
will not allow them to be
contradicted and f. Money paid by one to another was due to the
overturned by any contrary
overcome by latter;
proof however strong
other evidence g. Thing delivered by one to another belonged to
[Datalift Movers v. Belgravia
[Sec. 3, Rule 131] the latter;

Page 413 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

h. Obligation delivered up to the debtor has been death, an absence of only 2 years shall
paid; be sufficient for remarriage
i. Prior rents or installments had been paid when a 2. Qualified absence The following shall be
receipt for the later ones is produced; considered dead for all purposes including
j. A person found in possession of a thing taken in the division of the estate among the heirs
the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and i. A person on board a vessel lost during
doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things a sea voyage, or an aircraft which is
which a person possesses or exercises acts of missing, who has not been heard of for
ownership over are owned by him; 4 years since the loss of the vessel or
k. Person in possession of an order on himself for aircraft
the payment of the money, or the delivery of ii. A member of the armed forces who
anything, has paid the money or delivered the has taken part in armed hostilities, and
thing accordingly; has been missing for 4 years
l. Person acting in a public office was regularly iii. A person who has been in danger of
appointed or elected to it; death under other circumstances and
m. Official duty has been regularly performed; whose existence has not been known
n. A court, or judge acting as such, whether in the for 4 years
Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful x. Acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing
exercise of jurisdiction; acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact
o. All the matters within an issue raised in a case y. Things have happened according to the ordinary
were laid before the court and passed upon by it; course of nature and the ordinary habits of life
and in like manner that all matters within an issue z. Persons acting as co-partners have entered into a
raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were contract of co-partnership;
laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by aa. A man and woman deporting themselves as
them; husband and wife have entered into a lawful
p. Private transactions have been fair and regular; contract of marriage;
q. Ordinary course of business has been followed; bb. Property acquired by a man and a woman who
r. There was a sufficient consideration for a are capacitated to marry each other and who live
contract; exclusively with each other as husband and wife
s. Negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for without the benefit of marriage or under a void
a sufficient consideration; marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts,
t. An indorsement of a negotiable instrument was work or industry;
made before the instrument was overdue and at cc. In cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman
the place where the instrument is dated; who are not capacitated to marry each other and
u. A writing is truly dated; who have acquired property through their actual
v. Letter duly directed and mailed was received in joint contribution of money, property or
the regular course of the mail; industry, such contributions and their
w. Presumptions concerning absence: corresponding shares including joint deposits of
1. Ordinary but continued absence of: money and evidences of credit are equal;
a. 7 years, it being unknown WON the dd. Presumptions governing children of women who
absentee still lives, he is considered contracted another marriage within 300 days after
dead for all purposes, except for those termination of her former marriage (in the
of succession absence of proof to the contrary):
b. 10 years the absentee shall be
considered dead for the purpose of When Child was
Presumption
opening his succession; but if he Born
disappeared after the age of 75 years, Considered to have
an absence of 5 years shall be sufficient been conceived during
to open his succession Before 180 days after
the former marriage,
c. 4 consecutive years the spouse the solemnization of
provided it be born
present may contract a subsequent the subsequent
within 300 days after
marriage if s/he has a well-founded marriage
the termination of the
belief that the absent spouse is already former marriage
dead; but where there is danger of

Page 414 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

Considered to have
been conceived during No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy
After 180 days the subsequent There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy
following the marriage, even though of a child born after 300 days following the
celebration of the it be born within the dissolution of marriage or the separation of spouses.
subsequent marriage 300 days after the Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such
termination of the child must prove his allegation [Sec. 4, Rule 131]
former marriage.
The application of disputable presumptions on a
ee. A thing once proved to exist continues as long as given circumstance must be based on the existence of
is usual with things of the nature; certain facts on which they are meant to operate
ff. The law has been obeyed; [University of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,
gg. A printed/published book, purporting to be G.R. No. 194964-65 (2016)]
printed/published by public authority, was so
printed/published; MCMP contends that the Contract presented by
hh. A printed/published book, purporting to contain Monark is not the contract that they entered into. Yet,
reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the it has failed to present a copy of the Contract even
country where the book is published, contains despite the request of the trial court for it to produce
correct reports of such cases; its copy of the Contract. Normal business practice
ii. A trustee or other person whose duty it was to dictates that MCMP should have asked for and
convey real property to a particular person has retained a copy of their agreement. Thus, MCMP's
actually conveyed it to him when such failure to present the same and even explain its failure
presumption is necessary to perfect the title of gives rise to the disputable presumption adverse to
such person or his successor in interest; MCMP that "evidence willfully suppressed would be
jj. Presumptions regarding survivorship: adverse if produced [MCMP Construction v. Monark
(Applicable for all purposes except succession) Equipment, G.R. No. 201001 (2014)]
1. When 2 persons perish in the same calamity
2. It is not shown who died first; and The adverse presumption of suppression of
3. There are no particular circumstances from evidence is not applicable when:
which it can be inferred, a. The suppression is not willful;
b. The evidence suppressed or withheld is merely
The survivorship is determined from the probabilities corroborative or cumulative;
resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes: c. The evidence is at the disposal of both parties;
Person and
Situation presumed to d. The suppression is an exercise of a privilege
have survived [Tarapen v. People, G.R. No. 173824 (2008)]
Both < 15 y/o The older
Both > 60 y/o The younger The presumption of regularity in the performance of
One < 15 y/o, official duty obtains only when there is no deviation
The one < 15 from the regular performance of duty. Where the
the other > 60 y/o
Both > 15 and < 60 y/o, of official act in question is irregular on its face, no
The male presumption of regularity can arise [People v.
different sexes
Both > 15 and <60 y/o, of Casabuena, G.R. No. 186455 (2014)]
The older
the same sex
One < 15 or > 60 y/o, and The one between When there is gross disregard of the procedural
the other between those ages those ages safeguards set forth in Republic Act No. 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002),
kk. As between 2 or more persons called to succeed serious uncertainty is generated as to the identity of
each other: If there is a doubt as to which of them the seized items that the prosecution presented in
died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior evidence. Such doubt cannot be remedied by merely
to the other, shall prove the same. In the absence invoking the presumption of regularity in the
of proof, they shall be considered to have died at performance of official duties [People v. Lagahit, G.R.
the same time. No. 200877 (2014)]
[Sec. 3, Rule 131]

Page 415 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

There is a disputable presumption that things have

happened according to the ordinary course of nature
and the ordinary habits of life. All of the foregoing
E. Liberal Construction of
evidence, that a person with typical Filipino features
is abandoned in Catholic Church in a municipality
the Rules of Evidence
where the population of the Philippines is The Rules of Court, including the Revised Rules on
overwhelmingly Filipinos such that there would be Evidence, shall be liberally construed in order to
more than a 99% chance that a child born in the promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
province would be a Filipino, would indicate more inexpensive disposition of every action and
than ample probability if not statistical certainty, that proceeding [Sec. 6, Rule 1]
petitioner's parents are Filipinos. That probability and
the evidence on which it is based are admissible under Rules on Electronic Evidence shall likewise be
Rule 128, Section 4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence liberally construed [Sec. 2, Rule 2, Rules on Electronic
[Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697 Evidence]
(2016)]

Page 416 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

F. Quantum of Evidence
3. Substantial Evidence
(Weight and Sufficiency
of Evidence) a. Degree of evidence required in cases filed before
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies
b. Definition: Amount of relevant evidence which a
1. Proof beyond Reasonable reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion.
Doubt [Sec. 5, Rule 133]
In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an Also applies to petitions under the Rule on the Writ
acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable of Amparo [Sec. 17, Rule on the Writ of Amparo] and
doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean the Rule on the Writ of Habeas data [Sec. 16, Rule on
such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of the Writ of Habeas data]
error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty
only is required, or that degree of proof which Substantial Evidence Rule
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind [Sec. 2, Factual findings, especially when affirmed by the
Rule 133] Court of Appeals, are accorded not only great respect
but also finality, and are deemed binding upon this
The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt Court so long as they are supported by substantial
beyond reasonable doubt, NOT on the accused to evidence [Tan Brothers Corp. v. Escudero, G.R. No.
prove his/her innocence [Boac v People, G.R. No. 188711 (2013)]
180597, (2008)]

The prosecution must not rely on the weakness of the 4. Clear and Convincing
evidence of the defense [Ubales v People, G.R. No. Evidence
175692, (2008); People v. Hu, G.R. No. 182232, (2008)]
The standard of proof required in granting or denying
2. Preponderance of Evidence onvincing

Applicable quantum of evidence in civil cases [Sec. 1, risk and will abide with all the orders and process of
Rule 133] the extradition court [Government of Hongkong Special
Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr., G.R. No. 153675,
Means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a (2007)]
whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of
the other [Habagat Grill v. DMC-Urban Property It must be added that the defenses of denial and
Developer, Inc., G.R. No. 155110, (2005); Bank of the improper motive can only prosper when
Philippine Islands v. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177, (2008)] substantiated by clear and convincing evidence [People
v. Colentava, G.R. No. 190348 (2015)]
In determining preponderance of evidence, the court
may consider: It is used for overturning disputable presumptions,
a. All the facts and circumstances of the case; such as the presumption of regularity in the
b. performance of official duties [Portuguez v. People, G.R.
intelligence, their means and opportunity of No. 194499, (2015)] or the existence of a valuable
knowing the facts to which they testify, the nature consideration [Tolentino v. Sps. Jerera, G.R. No. 179874
of the facts to which they testify, the probability (2015)]
or improbability of their testimony, their interest
or want of interest, and also their personal Note direct denial
credibility so far as the same may legitimately receipt of mail alleged to have been mailed to it
appear upon the trial; defeats the presumption in Sec. 3(v), Rule 131 and
c. Number of witnesses (although preponderance is shifts the burden upon the party favored by the
not necessarily with the greater number) [Sec. 1, presumption to prove that the mailed letter was
Rule 133] indeed received by the addressee [Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Metro Star, G.R. No. 185371 (2010)]

Page 417 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

It is also the standard of proof for invoking the

G. Judicial Notice and
justifying circumstance of self-defense for the defense
and proving the aggravating circumstance of
Judicial Admissions
treachery for the prosecution [People v. C.A.sas, G.R.
No. 212565 (2015)] The former is because having 1. What Need Not Be Proved
admitted the killing requires the accused to rely on the
strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of a. Facts of Judicial Notice
b. Judicial Admissions
not be disbelieved in view of his admission [People v. c. Conclusive Presumptions
Mediado, G.R. No. 169871 (2011)]
Note: Evidence is also not required when the issue is
Clear and convincing evidence is more than mere
preponderance, but not to extent of such certainty as in Sec. 1, Rule 128
is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal
cases [Manalo v. Roldan-Confesor, G.R. No. 102358 2. Matters of Judicial Notice
(1992)]
Judicial Notice
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that
judges may properly take and act on without proof
because these facts are already known to them. Put
differently, it is the assumption by a court of a fact
without need of further traditional evidentiary
support. The principle is based on convenience and
expediency in securing and introducing evidence on
matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute
and are not bona fide disputed [Republic v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166859, (2011)]

a. When Mandatory
1. Existence and territorial extent of states;
2. Their political history, forms of government, and
symbols of nationality;
3. Law of nations;
4. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and
their seals;
5. Political constitution and history of the
Philippines;
6. Official acts of the legislative, executive and
judicial departments of the Philippines;
7. Laws of nature;
8. Measure of time; and
9. Geographical divisions [Sec. 1, Rule 129]

Note: Even if not raised or alleged by petitioner, courts

should take mandatory judicial notice of an
amendment to the Rules of Court [Siena Realty v. Gal-
lang, G.R. No. 145169 (2004)]

The Management Contract entered into by petitioner

and the PPA is clearly not among the matters which
the courts can take judicial notice of. It cannot be

Page 418 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

considered an official act of the executive department. 12435 (1917); U.S. v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 9699
The PPA was only performing a proprietary function (1915)]
when it entered into a Management Contract with Note: The principal guide in determining what facts
petitioner. As such, judicial notice cannot be applied may be assumed to be judicially-known is that of
[Asian Terminals v. Malayan Insurance, G.R. No. 171406 notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is
(2011)] limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts
of general notoriety. Morever, a judicially-noticed fact
The RTC declared that the discrepancy arose from the must be one not subject to a reasonable dispute in that
fact that Barrio Catmon was previously part of Barrio it is either (1) generally known within the territorial
Tinajeros. The RTC has authority to declare so jurisdiction of the trial court; or (2) capable of
because this is a matter subject of mandatory judicial accurate and ready determination by resorting to
notice. Geographical divisions are among matters that sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
courts should take judicial notice of [B.E. San Diego, questionable [Riano 76-77, 2016 Ed.]
Inc. v. C.A., G.R. No. 159230 (2010)]
c. When Hearing Necessary
b. When Discretionary
During the Trial
1. Matters of public knowledge; The court, on its own initiative, or on request of a
2. Matters capable of unquestionable party, may announce its intention to take judicial
demonstration; and notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard
3. Matters ought to be known to judges because of thereon [Sec. 3, Rule 129]
their judicial functions [Sec. 2, Rule 129]
After the Trial and Before Judgment or on Appeal
Requisites The proper court, on its own initiative or on request
1. The matter must be one of common and general of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and
knowledge; allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is
2. It must be well and authoritatively settled and not decisive of a material issue in the case [Sec. 3, Rule
doubtful or uncertain; 129]
3. It must be known to be within the limits of the
jurisdiction of the court
[State Prosecutors v, Muro, A.M. No. RTJ-92-876 (1994)] Records
A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and
Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere records in the same case, of facts established in prior
personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial proceedings in the same case, of the authenticity of its
knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to own records of another case between the same
make his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally parties, of the files of related cases in the same court,
or professionally known, the basis of his action. and of public records on file in the same court
Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters [Republic v. C.A., G.R. No. 119288 (1997)]
which are "commonly" known [State Prosecutors v,
Muro, A.M. No. RTJ-92-876 (1994)] d. With Respect to Records of
With Respect to Ordinances Other Cases
Municipal trial courts are required to take judicial
notice of the ordinances of the municipality or city General rule: Courts are not authorized to take judicial
wherein they sit [2 Regalado 833, 2008 Ed.] notice of the contents or records of other cases even
if both cases may have been tried or are pending
Regional Trial Courts must take judicial notice of before the same judge [Prieto v. Arroyo, G.R. No. L-
such ordinances only: 17885 (1965)]
1. When required to do so by statute e.g. in Manila
as required by the city charter [City of Manila v. Exceptions:
Garcia, et al., G.R. No. L-26053 (1967)]; and In the absence of objection, and as a matter of
2. In a case on appeal before them and wherein the convenience to all parties, a court may properly treat
inferior court took judicial notice of an ordinance all or any part of the original record of a case filed in
involved in said case [U.S. v. Blanco, G.R. No.

Page 419 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

its archives as read into the record of a case pending sharing with the accused's sister [People v. Tundag, G.R.
before it, when: Nos. 135695-96. (2000)]
1. With the knowledge of the opposing party,
reference is made to it for that purpose, by name Laws of nature involving the physical sciences,
and number or in some other manner by which it specifically biology, include the structural make-up
is sufficiently designated; or and composition of living things such as human
2. The original record of the former case or any part beings. The Court may take judicial notice that a
of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by
the court's direction, at the request or with the locations [Atienza v. Board of Medicine, G.R. No. 177407
consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of (2011)]
the record of the case then pending
[US v Claveria, G.R. No. G.R. No. 9282 (1915)] The distance between places may be taken as a matter
of judicial notice [Maceda v. Vda. De Macatangay, G.R.
Courts may also take judicial notice of proceedings in No. 164947 (2006)]
other causes because of their:
1. Close connection with the matter in controversy. The Court may take judicial notice of the assessed
Ex: In a separate civil action against the value of the property. Considering that the subject
administrator of an estate arising from an appeal land was more than 4 million square kilometers, RTC
against the report of the committee on claims acted properly when it took judicial notice of the total
appointed in the administration proceedings of area of the property involved and the prevailing
the said estate, the court took judicial notice of assessed value of the titled property, and it would also
the record of the administration proceedings to be at the height of absurdity if the assessed value of
determine whether or not the appeal was taken the property with such an area is less than P20,000
on time, [Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 205966
2. To determine whether or not the case pending is (2016)]
a moot one or whether or not a previous ruling is
applicable in the case under consideration. The Court may not take judicial notice of contracts
3. The other case had been decided by the same entered into by GOCCs in the exercise of their
court, involving the same subject matter, with the proprietary function. These cannot be considered an
same cause of action, and was between the same official act of the executive department [Asian
parties (which was not denied), and constituted Terminals v. Malayan Insurance, G.R. No. 171406 (2011)]
res judicata on the current cause before the court
[Tiburcio v. PHHC, G.R. No. L-13479, (1959)] 3. Judicial Admissions
Courts cannot take judicial notice that vehicular
In General
accidents cause whiplash injuries [Dela Llana v Biong,
To be a judicial admission, the same:
G.R. No. 182356 (2013)]
a. Must be made by a party to the case;
b. Must be made in the course of the proceedings in
The classification of the land is obviously essential to
the same case; and
the valuation of the property. The parties should thus
c. May be verbal or written
have been given the opportunity to present evidence
[Sec. 4, Rule 129]
on the nature of the property before the lower court
took judicial notice of the commercial nature of a
Note: The admission, to be judicial, must be made in
portion of the subject landholdings [LBP v. Honeycomb
the course of the proceedings in the same case. Thus,
Farms, G.R. No. 166259 (2012)]
an admission made in another judicial proceeding will
not be deemed a judicial admission in another case
It can be considered of public knowledge and
where the admission is not made. Instead, it will be
judicially noticed that the scene of the rape is not
considered an extrajudicial admission for purposes of
always nor necessarily isolated or secluded for lust is
the other proceeding where such admission is offered
no respecter of time or place. The offense of rape can
[Riano 87, 2016 Ed.]
and has been committed in places where people
congregate, e.g. inside a house where there are
Judicial admissions may be made in
occupants, a five (5) meter room with five (5) people
a. the pleadings filed by the parties,
inside, or even in the same room which the victim is

Page 420 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

b. in the course of the trial, either by verbal or Note: The theory of adoptive admission has been
written manifestations or stipulations, or adopted by the court in this jurisdiction. An adoptive
c. in other stages of the judicial proceeding; as in the
pre-trial of the case. by another person when it is reasonable to treat the

Admissions obtained through depositions, written or implied by the other person. The basis for
interrogatories or requests for admission are also admissibility of admissions made vicariously is that
considered judicial admissions [2 Regalado 836-837, arising from the ratification or adoption by the party
2008 Ed.] of the statements which the other person had made.
In the Angara Diary
Examples of item (c) above are dwindle when the armed forces withdrew its support.
1. Stipulations of facts by the parties in a pre-trial Thus, Executive Secretary Angara had to ask Senate
conference. See People v. Hernandez [G.R. No. President Pimentel to advise petitioner to consider
108028 (1996)] the option of dignified exit or resignation. Estrada
2. Motions, see Republic v. de Guzman, G.R. No. did not object to the suggested option but simply said
175021 (2011), where allegations made in a he could never leave the country. His silence on this
motion to dismiss were considered to be, among and other related suggestions can be taken as an
others requiring denial by the adverse party and admission by him [Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos.
absence of such led to the application of Sec. 4, 146710-15 (2001)]
Rule 129
Judicial Proceeding [Sec. 3, Rule 1]
Note: a. Civil includes special civil actions
a. Sec. 8, Rule 10 b. Criminal
pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. c. Special Proceeding
However, admissions in superseded
pleadings may be received in evidence Examples of statements made that are not judicial admissions
against the pleader a. Statements made during preliminary
investigation
evidenc - b. Statements during Court-Annexed Mediation
judicial in nature the moment the pleading
containing them are superseded by virtue of Note: Execution of judgment is part of a judicial
amendment. See Bastida v. Menzi & Co, Inc [G.R. proceeding. The Court retains control over the case
No. L-35840 (1933)], cited in 2 Regalado 837, 2008 until the full satisfaction of the final judgment [People
Ed. v. Gallo, G.R. No. 124736 (1999)]
b. Admissions made by a party pursuant to a request
for admission is for the purpose of the pending a. Effect of Judicial Admissions
action only [Sec. 3, Rule 26]
c. In criminal cases, all agreements or admissions It does not require proof and CANNOT be
made or entered during the pre-trial conference contradicted [Sec. 4, Rule 129]
shall be reduced in writing and signed by the
accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be An original complaint, after being amended, loses its
used against the accused [Sec. 2, Rule 118] character as a judicial admission, which would have
However, in the civil case instituted with the required no proof. It becomes merely an extra-judicial
criminal case, such admission will be admissible admission requiring a formal offer to be admissible
against any other party. [Torres v. C.A., G.R. No. L-37420, (1984)]
There are averments made in pleadings which are not A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later
deemed admissions even if the adverse party fails to challenge that fact as judicial admissions are a waiver
make a specific denial of the same like immaterial of proof; production of evidence is dispensed with
allegations [Sec. 11, Rule 8], conclusions, non- [Alfelor v. Halasan, G.R. No. 165987 (2006)]
ultimate facts in the pleading [Sec. 1, Rule 8] as well
as the amount of liquidated damages [Sec. 11, Rule 8] A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later
[Riano 89, 2016 Ed.] challenge that fact as judicial admissions are a waiver
of proof; production of evidence is dispensed with. A

Page 421 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

judicial admission also removes an admitted fact from

the field of controversy. 4. Judicial Notice of Foreign
Consequently: Laws, Law of Nations and
1. an admission made in the pleadings cannot be Municipal Ordinance
controverted by the party making such admission
and are conclusive as to such party, and all proofs
to the contrary or inconsistent therewith should FOREIGN LAWS
be ignored, whether objection is interposed by
the party or not; General rule: Courts cannot take judicial notice of
2. The allegations, statements or admissions foreign laws. They must be alleged and proved as any
contained in a pleading are conclusive as against other fact [Yao-Kee v. Sy-Gonzales, G.R. No. L-55960
the pleader. (1988)]
3. A party cannot subsequently take a position
contrary of or inconsistent with what was Written foreign law may be proved by:
pleaded. [Florete, Sr. v. Florete, Jr., G.R. No. a. An official publication; or
223321, (2018)] b. A duly attested and authenticated copy
[Sec. 24, Rule 132]
b. How Judicial Admissions May Attested copy
be Contradicted a. Attestation must be made by the officer having
legal custody of the record or by his deputy [Sec.
As an exception to the general rule, judicial 24, Rule 132]
admissions may be contradicted only by showing that: 1. It must state, in substance, that the copy is a
1. It was made through palpable mistake; or correct copy of the original, or a specific part
2. No such admission was made thereof [Sec. 25, Rule 132]
[Sec. 4, Rule 129] 2. It must be under the official seal of the
3. In the case of a pre-trial admission in civil cases, attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be a
to prevent manifest injustice [Sec. 7, Rule 18]; or clerk of court having a seal, under the seal of
4. In criminal cases, if the pre-trial admission was such court [Sec. 25, Rule 132]
reduced to writing and signed by the accused and b. It must be accompanied by a certificate that
his counsel [Secs. 2 and 4, Rule 118] attesting officer has custody. The certificate may
be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation,
This may be invoked when the statement of a party is consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular
taken out of context or that his statement was made agent or by any officer in the foreign service of
not in the sense it is made to appear by the other party the Philippines stationed in the foreign country
[Phil. Health Care Providers v. Estrada, G.R. No. 171052, in which the record is kept, and authenticated by
(2008), citing Atillo, III v. C.A. (1997)] the seal of his office [Sec. 24, Rule 132]

An admission against interest binds the person who Unwritten foreign law
makes the same, and absent any showing that this was Where the foreign law sought to be proved is
made through palpable mistake, no amount of "unwritten," the oral testimony of expert witnesses is
rationalization can offset it, especially so in this case admissible, as are printed and published books of
where respondents failed to present even one piece of reports of decisions of the courts of the country
evidence in their defense. [Heirs of Donton v. Stier, G.R. concerned if proved to be commonly admitted in
No. 216491 (2017)] such courts [Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. v. C.A., G.R.
No. 119602 (2000)]

Doctrine of Processual Presumption

In the absence of proof, the foreign law will be
presumed to be the same as the laws of the
jurisdiction hearing the case [Northwest Orient Airlines
v. C.A., G.R. No. 112573 (1995)]

Page 422 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

The court may take judicial notice of the foreign

law
a. Where the foreign law is within the actual
H. Object (Real) Evidence
knowledge of the court such as when the law is
well and generally known such as when they are 1. Meaning of Object Evidence
well and generally known or they had been ruled
upon in other cases before it and none of the Object Evidence
parties claim otherwise [PCIB v Escolin G.R. L- Those addressed to the senses of the court [Sec. 1,
27860 and L-27896 (1974], citing Moran] Rule 130]
b. When the foreign law is part of a published
treatise, periodical or pamphlet and the writer is
recognized in his/her profession or calling as as object evidence, the same being addressed to the
expert in the subject [Sec. 46, Rule 130] senses of the court [People v. Rullepa y Guinto, G.R. No.
131516 (2003)]
Law Of Nations
The Philippines adopts the generally accepted An ocular inspection of the body of the accused is
principles of international law as part of the law of the permissible [Villaflor v. Summers, G.R., No. 16444
land [Sec. 2, Art. II, Constitution] (1920)]
Being part of the law of the land, they are therefore in The right against self-incrimination cannot be
the nature of local laws, and hence, subject to invoked against object evidence [People v. Malimit,
mandatory judicial notice under Sec. 1 of Rule 129. G.R. No. 109775 (1996)]
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE
2. Requisites for Admissibility
Municipal trial courts are required to take judicial
notice of the ordinances of the municipality or city Basic requisites for admissibility
wherein they sit [2 Regalado 833, 2008 Ed.] a. Evidence must be relevant;
b. Evidence must be authenticated;
Regional Trial Courts must take judicial notice of c. Authentication must be made by a competent
such ordinances only: witness; and
a. When required to do so by statute e.g. in Manila d. Object must be formally offered [Sec. 34, Rule
as required by the city charter [City of Manila v. 132]
Garcia, et al., G.R. No. L-26053 (1967)]; and [Riano 101, 2016 Ed.]
b. In a case on appeal before them and wherein the
inferior court took judicial notice of an ordinance Requisites for the admissibility of tape recording
involved in said case [U.S. v. Blanco, G.R. No. a. A showing that the recording was capable of
12435 (1917); U.S. v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 9699 taking testimony
(1915)] b. A showing that the operator of the recording
device is competent
c. Establishment of the authenticity and correctness
of recording
d. A showing that no changes, deletions, or
additions have been made on the recordings
e. A showing of the manner of preservation of the
recording
f. Identification of speakers
g. A showing that the testimony elicited was
voluntarily made without any kind of inducement
[Torralba v. People, G.R. No. 153699 (2005))

Page 423 of 481