Evidence

Section 1. Evidence defined. — Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of

ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)

Section 2. Scope. — The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials
and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (2a)

Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the

issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules. (3a)

Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence must have such a relation to the
fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral
matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish
the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (4a)

Evidence is the means sanctioned by the Rules of Court ascertaining in a judicial proceeding
the truth respecting as matter of fact. (S1 R128). Evidence also refers to the medium used to
prove the existence or non-existence of a fact in an issue.
Note: The rules on evidence apply only to judicial proceedings however the law specifically
provides for instances where the rule will not apply such as in cases involving land registration,
cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings.

Note: Administrative proceedings are not bound by the rules on evidence it is also not binding
on labor tribunals.

Note: The Electronic Evidence Rule applies to quasi-judicial and administrative cases as stated
under Section 2 Rule 1 of the REE.

Ephemeral Communications- referts to telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom

sessions, streaming audio. streaming video, and other forms of communication the evidence of
which is not recorded or retained.

Proof is the effect or result of evidence, while evidence is the medium of proof.

Factum Probandum- The fact or proposition to be established. It is the fact which is in issue in
a case and to which evidence is directed. (Elements of a cause of action)

Factum probans- the facts or material evidencing the fact or proposition to be established. It is
the probative or evidentiary fact tending to prove the fact in issue.

Admissibility

1. None but facts having rational probative value are admissible

2. That all facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific rules
forbids them
Note: In determining if the evidence is relevant to the case inference, expirience, logic and
common sense sets the parameters.

Note: As a rule collateral matters are not admissible in evidence however, if the purpose of
presenting the same tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability
of fact in issue the sae may be alllowed to be presented.

Probative value answers the questions of whether or not it proves an issue. It pertains to the
weight of the evidence to convince and persuade.

Curative Admissibility- Allows a party to introduce otherwise inadissible evidence to answer

the opposing party’s previous introduction of inadmissible evidence. Thus, a party who first
introduces either irrelevant or incompetent evidence into the trial cannot complain of the
subsequent admission of similar evidence from the adverse party relating to the same subject
matter.

Elements of Circumstantial evidence that would constitute conviction

a. There is more than one circumstance

b. The fact from which the inferences are derived are proven
c. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt

Cumulative evidence refers to evidence of the same kind and character as that already given
which tends to prove the same proposition whil Corroborative evidence is one that is
supplementary to that already given tending to strengthen or confirm it. It is additional evidence
of a different character to the same point.

Positive when a witness affirms in the stand that a certain state of facts does exist or that a
certain event happened. It is Negative when the witness states that an event did not occur or
that the state of facts alleged exist did not actually exist.

Note: Denial as a defense can only prosper when substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence

Evidence is classified according to its nature or form as follows: (DOT) 

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE- Writings or any material offered as proof of their
contents. 
OBJECT (OR REAL) EVIDENCE-Evidence which is directly addressed to the court's
senses. 
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE-Consists of the statement of a witness offered to the court.
Maybe oral/live or by judicial affidavit. 
Evidence is classified according to its in issue as follows: 
DIRECT EVIDENCE- That which proves the fact in issue without the aid of any inference
or presumption.
 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE-That which proves in issue by way of inference or
presumption. 
Cumulative evidence is evidence of the same kind - to the same state of facts, while
Corroborative evidence is additional evidence of a different character to same point.
More often however this fine distinction between cumulative and corroborative evidence
is not observed in law and in practice and corroborative evidence is defined or taken to
mean as additional evidence to the same point, whether of the same or different kind.
For instance “corroborative evidence" in Section 28 of the Rules on Examination of a
Child Witness, which refers to the act or declaration of a child declarant as an exception
to the hearsay rule, should be interpreted in the broad rather than in the strict sense. 
Prima facie evidence is that which by itself is sufficient to prove a fact but which may be
rebutted by contrary evidence, while conclusive evidence is one which may not be
rebutted or contradicted.
Positive Evidence when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur, while
Negative evidence is when the witness states he did not see or know of the occurrence
of a fact.
Admissibility and Relevance
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or by the
Rules of Court. et (S3 R128). Or to illustrate it by way of a formula: ADMISSIBILITY =
RELEVANCY + COMPETENCY. 
Evidence is relevant when it has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence
or non-existence. 
In certain states in the U.S., a distinction is drawn between relevant and material evidence:
evidence is relevant when it tends to prove or disprove a matter da terminative of the case
(although the matter may not have been put in issue) while evidence is material when it tends to
prove or disprove a fact in issue. In Philippine evidentiary law, there is no such distinction
because our rule definition of relevant evidence is the same as the American definition of
material evidence. 
Collateral matters are those which have no direct connection to the fact in issue. Thus in a suit
on a promissory note by P against D, the fact that D did not pay A in a prior loan is a collateral
matter. 
Evidence on collateral matters is not allowed except when it tends in any reasonable degree
to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue (S4 R128). In other words, the
existence or non 1 existence of the fact in issue is inferred by induction al from the collateral
matter. Hence evidence of the ac accused's pacific nature may be adduced by the defense in a
murder charge where the accused had pleaded self defense.
Even if the evidence is relevant, but it is excluded by the law or by the Rules of Court, the
evidence would be admissible. Otherwise put, evidence must not only relevant but it must also
be competent. Competency rules are based on public policy considerations which override the
relevancy of the evidence. 
Exclusionary rules are present in the Rules of Court, for example those relating to the various
disqualification rules and privileges, and in Supreme Court issuances, for instance the Rule on
Examination of a Child Witness. They may also be found in the Constitution such as under
Sections 2 and 3, Article III (right against unreason able search and seizure, right to privacy of
communication and correspondence), Section 12, Article III (rights of person under custodial
investigation), Section 17, Article III (right against self-incrimination), and in statutes, such as the
Anti-Wiretapping Law (R.A. No. 4200). 

Documentary Evidence
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence consist of writing or any

material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written
expression offered as proof of their contents. (n)

1. Best Evidence Rule

Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of

inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the
original document itself, except in the following cases:

(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without
bad faith on the part of the offeror;

(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;

(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot
be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established
from them is only the general result of the whole; and

(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in
a public office. (2a)

Section 4. Original of document. —

(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.

(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.

(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from
another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded
as originals. (3a)

2. Secondary Evidence
Section 5. When original document is unavailable. — 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 authentic
document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (4a)

Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. — If the

document is in the custody or under the control of adverse party, he must have
reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its
existence, he fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in
the case of its loss. (5a)

Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. — When the
original of document is in the custody of public officer or is recorded in a public office,
its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody
thereof. (2a)

Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. — A party who calls for the
production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence.
(6a)

Documentary evidence consists of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers,
symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents.
The Best Evidence Rule
The best evidence rule provides that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, the best evidence thereof is the original document itself and other evidence is
not admissible, subject to exceptions. (S3 WR130). In the United States, the best
evidence rule is known as the original documents pule. Presently we have two best
evidence rules. One under S3 R130 and another one under Rule 4 of the Rules on
Electronic Evidence. 
Note: Testimonies in a diary, photocopies of mark money in a buy bust operation are
admissible in evidence the former being not covered by the best evidence rule while the
latter is being presented as object evidence hence, the rule will not apply.

If it is not the contents of the document that is being testified the best evidence rule will
not apply.

Original means the document the contents of which are subject of the inquiry.

Duplicate- 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.

Regularly Repeated Business Entries- When an entry is repeated in the regular

course of business, one being copied from another at or near the time of transaction, all
the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals.
 Note: The SC ruled that the production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial
court’s discretion, if the opponent does not dispute the contents of the document and no
other useful purpose will be served by requiring production.

Note: Even if there is negligence on the part of the offeror in case of lost, destruction or
unavailability to produce the original he may still offer the presentation of secondary
evidence since it is bad faith that is prescribed by law not mere negligence.

Note: In requesting for a copy a specific document dilligence in the form of follow up
must necessesarily be established before the presentation of secondary evidence.
Likewise, if a document has three or more copies it must appear that all of them have
been lost, destroyed or unavailable before the presentation of secondary evidence may
be allowed.

The exceptions to the best evidence rule in which evidence other than the original
document is admissible to prove the contents of the document are: (CLAP) 
C- Custody/Control. Original is in the custody or control I of the adverse party and he
fails to produce despite reasonable notice. If after such notice and satisfactory proof of
its existence, he fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented
as in the case of its loss. 
L Lost- The original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court without
bad faith on the part of the offeror. Secondary evidence may be presented upon proof of
its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part. 
A - Accounts which are numerous and cannot be exam ined without great loss of time
and the fact sought to be established is only the general result of the whole. 
Public Record- Original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office. May be proved by a certified true copy issued by the public
officer in custody thereof. (S3, 5, 6, and 7, R130). An authorized public record of a
private document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by
the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the
custody. (S27 R132). 
Secondary evidence is that which may be used to pro the contents of a document where the
original is lost destroyed, or cannot be produced, or where the original is in the custody or
control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and who fails to produce it after
reasonable notice. 
Elements in producing secondary evidence in case of lost, destruction, unavailability

1. Proof of the execution or existence of the document

2. Proof of the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part
3. Proof of reasonable diligence and good faith on the part of the offeror in the search or
attempt to produce the original.
Secondary evidence consists of: (CRT)
a. A copy of the original,
b. 2. A recital of its contents in an authentic document, 
 c. The testimony of witnesses. (S5 R130). 
The proper foundation for the introduction of secondary evidence in the case
where the original is in the custody or control of the party against whom the
evidence is sought to be offered, the offeror must show: (EUR)
1. Proof of the execution or existence of the document. 
2. Proof of the cause of its unavailability, without bad faith on his part. (S5 R130). 
3. Proof of reasonable diligence and good faith on the part of the offeror in the search for
or attempt to produce the original. (Citibank v. Teodoro, G.R No. 150905, 23 September
2003). 
Elements in producing secondary evidence in case where the original is in
custody of the party against whom it is sought to be offered

1. Proof of existence of the document

2. Proof of reasonable notice to produce to the adverse part and failure to produce.

Condition Precedent for the admission of a summary of numerous documents

1. The party has shown that the underlying writings are numerous and that an in court
examination of these documents would be inconvenient.
3. The proponent must lay a proper foundation for the admission of the original
documents on which the summary is based.
4. The proponent must prove that the source of documents being summarized is also
admissible in court. The source of the document must be original and not
secondary.

Electronic Evidence Rule

An electronic document is defined in the REE as information or the representation of
information data figures, symbols or other modes of written expression which a right is
established or an obligation extinguished, or by which fact may be proved, which is
received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed retrieved, or produced electronically.
(S1((h) R2, REE). It includes digitally signed documents and print-outs.
An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it lies with the rules on admissibility
prescribed by he Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner
prescribed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence. (S2 R3 REE). 
An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document
under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other
means, shown to reflect the data accurately. (S1 R4 RÉE). The image of an electronic
document shown in the monitor is an original, as well as the printout thereof. 
DUPLICATE ORIGINALS- When a document is in two or more copies executed at or
about the same time with identical contents, or 
COUNTERPART- When a document is a counterpart produced by the same impression
original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by
 chemical re-production, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces
the original (M. MECE). A photocopy is a counterpart and hence equivalent to the
original. 
A copy or a duplicate shall not be admissible to the same extent as the original if: 
o A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or 
o In the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of
the original.
The Rules on Electronic evidence are those rules applicable whenever an electronic document
is offered or used in evidence. It applies to all criminal and civil actions and proceedings, as well
as quasi-judicial and administrative cases.

Electronic Document

Information or the representation of information , data, figures, symbols or other modes of

written expression by which a right is etsablished or obligation extinguished or by which fact
may be proved, which is recieved, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed , or produced
electronically. (i.e emails, text messages, and computer generated documents. Scanned
documents are also considered as electronic document) IT MUST BE ADISSIMIBLE AND
AUTHENTICATED

Original of an Electronic Document

An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the
Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means that shows the
data accurately.

Note: Photocopies of the original under the rules on electronic document are regarded as the
same as the original unlike in the ordinary best evidence rule. In REE duplicates and copies are
not considered as secondary evidence.

A copy or duplicate is not admissible as the equivalent of the original if the following are
present

1. A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original

4. Under the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in liue of the
original.

Note: In the case decided by the Court telexes or faxes that are not computer generated are not
considered as electronic documents.

Note: If not all the contents of a document are generated or recorded electronically, such as if
the document contains a manula signature and handwritten notations then a photocopy of which
will not be considered as its original equivalent.

Parol Evidence Rule

3. Parol Evidence Rule
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an agreement have
been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and
there can be, between the parties and their successors in 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 written
agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:

(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;

(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the
parties thereto;

(c) The validity of the written agreement; or

(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest
after the execution of the written agreement.

The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a)

Parol Evidence Rule is the rule which provides that once the terms of an agreement
have been reduced to writing it is cons as containing all the terms agreed upon and
there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such
terms other than the contents of the written agreement. (S9 R130). 
The reasons behind the parol evidence rule are the following: 
Under the Integration Rule, it is presumed that the par ties to a written contract intended
it to integrate all the terms of their agreement. 
The rule is also intended to give stability to written contracts and to remove the
possibility and temptation of perjury.
Parol Evidence rule vs Statue of Frauds
AS TO SCOPE. The parol evidence rule covers all written agreements while the Statute
of Frauds cove agreements mentioned in Article 1403 of the Civil 
AS TO PRESENCE OF WRITTEN AGREEMENT. In the parol evidence rule, there is a
written agreement, while in the Statute of Frauds, there is no written agreement. 
AS TO ENFORCEABILITY OF CONTRACT. In the parol evidence rule, there is an
enforceable agreement, while in the statute of frauds there is no enforceable contract. 
AS TO PURPOSE. In the parol evidence rule, the purpose is to bar parol evidence to
modify, explain, or add to the terms of the written agreement, while in the statute of
frauds, the purpose is to bar a party from proving certain agreements by oral evidence. 
Exception to the parol evidence rule: A party may present parol evidence to
modify explain, or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in
his pleading: (VISA)
1. The validity of the written agreement; 
 2. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement
of the parties thereto;
3. The existence of subsequent terms, i.e., terms agreed to by the parties or their
successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement; or
4. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection (AIM) in the written
agreement. 

Note: Parol evidence does not apply to all contracts it only applies to written contracts.

Note: Parol evidence rule applies only to parties and their successor in interest.

Exception regarding the failure to express the true intent of the agreement

If written agreement failed to express the parties’ true intent and agreement, it would be
anomalous to bar parol evidence showing the parties true intent in the agreement the
court must ascertain the true intent of the agreement by allowing the presentation of
parol evidence. It means that at the outset the intention of the parties cannot be
determined.

Exception regarding subsequent terms

Parol evidence may be introduced to prove the existence of other terms agreed to by the
parties or their successor in interest after the perfection of the written agreement. The
reason for which is that the parties are not precluded from entering into any subsequent
agreement modifying or altering the first written agreement.

Exception regarding intrinsic ambiguity

The kind of ambiguity that is the subject of the exception is latent ambiguity which refers
to the the kind of ambiguity wherein a word or phrase is succeptible of two or more
meanings.

Extrinsic or patent ambiguity- refers to the situation where a word or phrase has no
definite meaning at all or is not succeptible of any definite meaning. (parol evidence not
admissible since it will constitute new contract)

Mistake- refers to an error in the drafting or wording of the written agreement which
changes the intended meaning therof. It must be mutual to both parties or must have
been occasioned by the fraudulent or inequitable conduct.

Imperfection - refers to an inaccurate statement, or incompleteness in writting or the

presence of inconsitencies in the agreement.

Best evidence rule vs Parol evidence rule

BER Applies to all documentary evidence whereas, PER applies to written contracts
(except wills).
BER Original is not available in court whereas, PER Original is available in court
 BER Rule of preference, i.e secondary evidence may be offered if foundation for
introduction laid whereas, PER Rule of exclusion; parol or extrinsic evidence barred.
BER Purpose of the secondary evidence is to prove the contents of a written document
whereas, PER purpose of the parol evidence is to modify, explain or alter the terms of
the written conract.
BER Bars any proponent even if he is not a party document whereas, PER does not bar
a proponent who is not a party to the written contract.

BER Can be invoked by non-parties to the document whereas, PER can be invoked only
by a party to the written contract.
Object Evidence
RULE 130

Rules of Admissibility

A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

Section 1. Object as evidence. — Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses
of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to,
examined or viewed by the court. (1a)

Obiect evidence is that which is directly addressed to the senses of the court like
tangible things exhibited or demonstrated in open court. Unlike testimonial and
documentary evidence, the evidence is directly perceived by the court without any
intervening medium, i.e., the document or the witness. This class of evidence is referred
to by Wigmore as evidence by autoptic preference, i.e., by proferring or presenting in
open court the evidentiary articles for the observation or inspection of the court.
Obiect evidence may be classified into three: 
a) Objects that have readily identifiable marks like a WM particular painting or a car with
a plate number; 
b) Objects that are readily made identifiable like a hammer which is similar to other
hammers of the same make but on which an identifying mark, like a scratch or etching is
made.
c) Objects which are not readily identifiable nor can be made readily identifiable, like
drops of blood. hair, drugs, and soil.
Chain of custody is the method of authenticating object evidence, especially object evidence of
the third kind, by showing its movement and location from the time it was obtained until the time
it is offered in evidence. 
Ephemeral electronic communication refers to phone talks, text messages, chatroom
sessions, streaming au dio and video (PTC SS), and other electronic forms of communication
the evidence of which is not recorded or retained. (S2(k) R2, REE). If the communication is
recorded by audio, photo or video means, then it becomes audio, photo or video evidence. If
recorded by electronic or optical means, then the communication becomes an electronic
document. Thus a text message which is saved becomes an electronic document. 

Object Evidence

Chain of custody in drug cases- the duly authorized recorded movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage from the time of seizure to receipt in the laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court.

Requirements for the apprehending team

After seizure there must be physical inventory and photograph the evidence in the presence of
the accused or the persons from whom it was seized, or his counsel, representative from the
media and DOJ, and elected public official shall be required to sign the copies of inventory.

Ephemeral Electronic comminication

Ephemeral electronic communication refers to phone, text messages, chatroom sessions,

streaming audio and video. and other electronic forms of communication the evidence which is
not recorded or retained.

DNA testing
The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any person who
has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing after hearing and notice where
the following are shown (BN SNO): 
a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case.
b) The biological sample: 
(i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested; or
(ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing but 
c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique.
d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is
relevant to the proper resolution of the case. 
e) The existence of other factors, if any which the court may consider as potentially
affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.
NOTE: DNA testing is a proof of paternity if the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than
99.9%, the results of the DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence; if 99.9% or
higher there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity. (Rule on DNA Evidence). 
Qualifications and Disqualifications of Witness
1. Qualification of Witnesses
Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as provided in the next succeeding
section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known perception
to others, may be witnesses.

Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime
unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification. (18a)

Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. — The

following persons cannot be witnesses:

(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is
such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others;

(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the
facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully. (19a)

Section 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. — During their marriage, neither the
husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the
affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a
crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or
ascendants. (20a)

Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. — Parties or

assignor of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against
an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a
person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased
person or against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact
occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of
unsound mind. (20a)

Subject to specifically provided disqualification, any person who can perceive and make
known his perception to others is qualified to be a witness. (S20 R130). A Witness does
not need to be qualified beforehand as there is a presumption that the witness is
qualified to be such. 
The following persons cannot be witnesses: (MIM DIP) 
1. Those who are mentally incapacitated and immature children. (S21[a] R130).
2. Spouses under the marital disqualification rule. (S22 R130).
3. Claimants against the estate of a deceased per son or against an insane person. (S23
R130).
4. Those who are disqualified by reason of privileged communication. (S24 R130).
Disqualified by reason of Mental Incapacity- Those whose mental condition, at the time of
their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known
their perception to others.
Note: Insane person may qualify as witness provided that he is capable of intelligently making
known his perception to others.

Child Witness- As a rule a child is presumed qualified to be a witness. The court may conduct
a conpetency examination if it finda that substantial doubt exists as to the child’s competency to
testify.

A child witness is the one who at the time of giving testimony is below 18. In child abuse cases
it includes one whois 18 and above and is unable to fully take care of himself or protect himself
from cruelty, abuse, neglect, exploitation or discrimination.

Deaf-Mute- Qualified as witness where they can (1) understand and appreciate the sanctity of
an oath (2) can understand the facts they are going to testify on (3) can communicate their
ideas through interpreter.

C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. — The following

persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:

(a)The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the
consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the
other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a
criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct
descendants or ascendants;

Marital Disqualification rule is the rule which provides that during their spouse may not
testify for or as without the latter's consent. 
The exceptions to Marital Disqualification rule:
1. A civil case by one against the other, or 
2. A criminal case for a crime committed by one spouse against the other or the latter's
direct descendants or ascendants. 
Rule on Disqualification by the reason of insanity of the adverse party:
Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or person whose in behalf a case is prosecuted
against an insane person, upon a claim against such insane person, cannot testify as to
any matter of fact occurring before such person became insane.
Dead man’s rule:
Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or person whose in behalf a case is prosecuted
against an executor or administrator or other representative of deceased person, upon a
claim or demand against the estate of such person, cannot testify as to any matter of
fact occurring before the death such person.
Privilege Communications
The following are the privileges under the Rules on Evidence: - 
 Marital Communication Privilege
Attorney-Client Privilege
Physician-Patient Privilege
Priest-Penitent Privilege
Public Interest Privilege 
Marital Communication Privilege- It is the privilege which provides that the husband wife
cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any confidential communication
received from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other or in
a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct ascendants
or descendants. 
The marital disqualification rule is distinguished from the marital communication
privilege as follows: 
AS TO PERIOD OF EFFECTIVITY. The marital disqualification rule is effective only
during the existence of the marriage, while the marital communication rule subsists
even after the termination of the marriage. 
AS TO SCOPE. The marital disqualification rule is a total prohibition against any
testimony by one spouse for or against the other, while the marital communication
privilege applies only to confidential communications between the spouses. 
AS TO A SPOUSE BEING A PARTY TO THE ACTION. The marital disqualification
rule can be invoked only if one of the spouses is a party to the action, while the marital
communication privilege may be invoked whether or not a spouse is a party to the
action. 
Marital disqualification rule vs Marital communication privilege
Marital Disqualification is a blanket disqualification of a spouse from testifying for or
against each other whereas,Marital Communication Privilege is the privilege applies
only to confidential communications.
Marital Disqualification is Effective only during the existence of marriage whereas,
Marital Communication Privilege is effective during and after marriage.
Marital Disqualification can be invoked only if one of the spouses is a party to the
action whereas, Marital Privilege Communication may be invoked whether or not a
spouse is a party to the action.
Attorney Client Privilege
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or
with a view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer,
or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any
fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity;
 An Attorney-client privilege provides that an attorney cannot, without the client's consent,
be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or his advice given
thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment. The privilege
extends to the attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk, who cannot be examined
without the consent of the client and their employer. (S24[b] R130). 
The rules safeguarding privileged communication between attorney and client shall
apply to similar communications made to or received by the law student, acting for a
legal clinic. (S3 R138-A [Law Student Practice Rule]). 
Either the client or his lawyer may raise the privilege. (Republic Gear Co. v. Borg-Warner
Corp., 381 F.2d 551 [CA2 1967]. 
Exception to the attorney-client privilege A lawyer may reveal secrets when necessary
to collect fees or to defend himself, his associates, or employees. (Rule 21.01[C], Code of
Professional Responsibility). 
Client's identity is not covered by the attorney-client privilege. The general rule is that the client's
identity is not privileged because without a client, there can be no attorney-client privilege;
hence it is but proper that the client be identified before the privilege may be invoked
The general rule is however subject to the following exceptions:
1. Where a strong probability exists that revealing the client's name would implicate him
in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer's advice.
2. Where disclosure would expose the client to civil liability.
3. Where the government's lawyers have no case against an attorney's client unless, by
revealing the client's name, the said name would furnish the only link that would form the
chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime. 
4. Where the client's identity is relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on
which the client sought legal assistance. 
5. Where the nature of the attorney-client relationship has been previously disclosed and
it is the identity which is intended to be confidential, the client's identity is confidential
since revelation would result in disclosure of the entire transaction. (Regala v.
Sandiganbayan, 262 SCRA 124 [1996]). 
Work Product Doctrine
Work trial doctrine is the doctrine that the trial preparation materials of a lawyer or his
representative (e.g., paralegal, investigator, etc.) are protected from discovery unless the
other party shows that it has a substantial need for the materials to prepare its case, and
cannot, without undue hardship. obtain their substantial equivalent by other means. Trial
preparation materials include written documents, such as records, notes,
memorandums, and tangible things. If discovery will be allowed, the court must protect
against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories
of the lawyer or his representative. (See Rule 26(b)(3), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure). The work-product doctrine is also known as the work-product rule. It is not a
 privilege but a special protective rule which limits discovery of an attorney's work
product. 
Attorney-Client privilege vs Work-product doctrine
ACP is privilege whereas, WPD is not a privilege but a special protective rule against
discovery.
ACP is based on confidential communication between a client and attorney whereas,
WPD extends to all trial preparation material of the lawyer even if not based on attorney-
client communication.
ACP may not be overcome by a showing of “substantial need” and “undue hardship”
whereas, WPD may be overcome by showing of “substantial need” and “undue
hardship”
ACP applies broadly to all stages of legal proceedings whereas, WPD operates primarily
as a limitation on pre-trial discovery.
Physician-Patient Privilege
(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case,
without the consent of the patient, be 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 necessary to enable him to act in capacity,
and which would blacken the reputation of the patient;

Physician-Patient Privilege A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery, or

obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the patient's consent, be 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 necessary to
enable him to act in that capacity, and which would blacken the patient's reputation.
(S24[C] R130). 
Rule on Pyschologist or Psychometrician
A psychologist or psychometrician cannot, without consent of the client/patient, be
examined on any communication or information disclosed and/or acquired in the course
of giving psychological services to such client The protection accorded herein shall
extend to all pertinent records and shall be available to the secretary clerk, or other staff
of the licensed psychologist or psychometrician. Any evidence obtained in violation of
this provision shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (S30 R.A. No.
10029). 
Note: That the privilege applies in any proceeding, civil, criminal or administrative. The
requirement in the physician-patient privilege that the information "would blacken the patient's
reputation" is not found in Sec. 30 of R.A. No. 10029). 
Priest Confessant Privilege
(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession,
be examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional
character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or
priest belongs;

Priest-confessant privilege A minister or priest cannot, without the confessant's consent,

be examined as to any confession made to or advice given by him in his professional
character in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or
priest belongs. (S24[d] R130). The communication must be made with intent to obtain
penance and not merely for religious and spiritual counselling. 
Public Interest Privilege

(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to
communications made to him in official confidence, when the court finds that the public
interest would suffer by the disclosure. (21a)

Public interest privilege A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or
afterwards, as to communications made to him in official confidence, when the court
finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. (S24[e] R130). 
Executive privilege which protects the confidentiality of conversations that take place in
the President's performance of his official duties. The privilege may be invoked not only
by the President but also by his close ad visors under the “operational proximity" test.
(Neri v Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, G.R.
No. 180643, 25 March 2008). 
Note: The deliberative process privilege protects from disclosure advisory opinions,
recommendations, and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental
decisions and policies are formulated. Written advice from a variety of individuals is an
important element of the government's decision-making process and the interchange of advice
could be stifled if courts forced the government to disclose those recommendations; thus, the
privilege is intended to prevent the “chilling” of deliberative communications. (Department of
Foreign Af fairs v. BCA International Corp., 29 June 2016, Carpio, J.). An example would be
court deliberations and court sessions. (Id.). 
The identity of an informant on a suspect in the crime is confidential because Under Section 51
of the Human Security Act, the name and identity of an informant on a suspect in the crime of
terrorism shall be considered confidential and shall not be unnecessarily revealed until after the
pro ceedings against the suspect shall have been terminated. 
Newsman’s or Editorial Privilege
Newsman’s or editorial privilege is a privilege which provides that the publisher, editor,
columnist, or duly accredited reporter of a newspaper, magazine, or periodical of general
circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news report or in formation
appearing in said publication which was re lated in confidence to such publisher, editor,
columnist, or reporter. (R.A. No. 93). 
 It is subject to exception. Disclosure may be compelled if the court or a House or
committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by State security. (Id.). 
The privilege’s purpose serves to advance the public's right to information by
encouraging informants to disclose information to newsmen. Without the privilege,
informants would be reluctant to communicate information for fear of reprisal or
harassment. 
Privilege against self-incrimination is a constitutional privilege which provides that no person
shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. (Art. III, Section 17, Constitution). 
Parental- Filial Privilege
2. Testimonial Privilege

Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. — No person may be compelled to testify against
his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. (20a)

Parental privilege is No person may be compelled to testify against his children or other
direct descendants. (S25 R130).
Parental and filial privilege could not be invoked by the person against whom a witness
will testify but by the witness himself. In other words, under these privileges a witness
may not be compelled to testify against another.
S25 R130/ Article 215 Family code

A person may not be compelled to testify against his ascendants or descendants. This
provision covers both parental and filial privilege whereas, a descendant may not be
compelled to testify against his parents and grandparents. This provision is a filial
privilege only.
Applies to civil and criminal cases whereas, applies to criminal cases only.
No exception whereas, when the testimony is indispensable in a crime against the
descendant or by one parent against the other.
Note: In martital disqualification rule when the marriage is void the rule will not apply. Likewise,
mere estrangement and seperation does not exempt a spouse from testifying against his/her
spouse without the latter’s consent.

Note: In marital Disqualification rule the purpose is to preserve the harmony, peace, and
tranquility of the marital relation. If such marital relation has been impaired or there’s no more
harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility be disturbed the disqualification rule will no
longer apply.

Note: Dead man’s Rule bars only testimonial evidence but does not apply to documentary and
object evidence. The promissory note is a documentary evidence. It is not covered by the
disqualification.
Note: In Deadman’s rule if a party or assignor will testify by way of defense not by way of claim
the rule will not be applicable. Likewise, the filing of counterclaim by the administrator does not
constitute a waiver of the rule.

Note: In marital communication privilege if the communication comes into the hand of a third
party such third party may testify unless it can be proven that there has been a collusion
between the third party and the spouse.

Note: The attorney-client privilege extends to communications made by a person to a lawyer

with a view to professional employment. Even if the professional employment of the lawyer did
not push through, any communication made to the lawyer with the view to engaged his services
is privileged.

Note: A lawyer may reveal the secrets of his client when necessary to collect fees or to defend
himself, his associates, or employees.

Note: The Attorney client privilege covers only communications or information regarding past
crimes it is not applicable to future crimes. The lawyer as a law abiding citizen has a duty to
prevent crimes when he is in a position to do so.

Note: The determining point as to when the attorney-client privilege will apply depends on when
the communication was made not when the witness will testify.

Note: ACP applies even if the client is a corporation. The extent as to who will be covered by
the privilege is determined by the control group test. If the person making the communication is
in a position to control or even to take a substantial part in a decision then in effect he
personifies the corporation.

Note: Autopsies conducted by medico legal officers are not covered by the privilege since there
is no patient or treatment involved, the autopsy having been conducted on a dead person.

Note: An attending physician may testify as an expert witness provided his opinion is based
strictly upon the hypothetical facts stated excluding any personal knowldge of the patient.
Admissions

3. Admissions and Confessions

Section 26. Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a

relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. (22) Admission by a party-opponent
is an act, declaration, or omission of a party relevant fact and which may be given in
evidence against him. It is also called a party admission or admission by party-opponent.
(FRE 801[0][2]). 

The admissibility of a party admission does not rest upon the fact that it is against the
interest of the party but upon the adversary theory of litigation. A party can hardly object
that he had no opportunity to cross examine himself or that he is unworthy of credence
save when speaking under the sanction of an oath. (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No.
146710-15, 3 April 2001). 
 The use of the word “admission is somewhat misleading, implying that the act,
declaration, or omission must be “harmful” or against the party's interest. This is not the
case however. The mere fact that the act, declaration, or omission is being offered
against the party who made it would already constitute this as a party admission. In this
aspect, a party admission must be distinguished from a declaration against interest
which re quires that the same is against the declarant's inter est.
Extrajudicial admission vs Judicial admission
EA made outside of the proceedings in the case whereas, JA made in the course of the
proceedings in the same case.
EA must be offered in evidence in order to be considered by the court whereas,JA need
not to be offered in evidence since they already form parts of the records.
EA may be given in evidence against the admitter whereas, JA not only is it evidence
against the admitter but is binding upon him.
EA may be contradicted by the admitter whereas, JA may not be contradicted by the
admitter except by showing that the admission was made through palpable mistake or
that no such admission was made.
Party admission vs Declaration against interest
PA Made by a party whereas, DAI made by a non-party i.e the declarant.
PA Need not to be against the admitter’s interest whereas, DAI must be against the
declarant’s interest.
PA Not hearsays and thus admissible whereas, DAI hearsay but admissible as an
exception to the hearsay rule.
PA No requirement that the admitter is dead or unable to testify whereas, DAI the
declarant must be dead or unable to testify.
PA Admissible only against the admitter whereas, DAI admissible against the declarant
and third persons.
Acts as admissions

• Voluntary participation in the police re-enactment of a crime. 

• Flight from the scene of a crime.
• Changing one's appearance or name.
• Transfer of property. 

Section 32. Admission by silence. — An act or declaration made in the presence and
within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or
declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper
and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him. (23a)

Rule on admission by silence

an act or declaration made in the presence within the hearing or observation of a party who
does or says nothing.
(1) When the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment (ncac) if
not true, and
(2) When proper and possible (propo) for him to do so, may be given in evidence against
such party.
Doctrine of adoptive admission is where a party, by his words or conduct, voluntarily adopts
or ratifies another's state conduct, voluntarily adopts or ratifies. Evidence of the statement would
then be admissible against the party. (Republic v. Kenrick Dev G.R. No. 149576, 8 August
2006).  
Res Inter Alios Acta Rule
4. Previous Conduct as Evidence

Section 34. 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 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. (48a)

Res inter alios acta literally means "things done among others." Under the law on
evidence it means the declaration, or omission of a third party. The rule inter alios acta is
found in S28 R130 which provid that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an on
declaration, or omission of another. (Taer v. People, G.R. No. 85204, 18 June 1990).
The rule's meaning has also been extended to cover the similar acts rule in S34 R130,
although such usage is not altogether precise since the similar acts rule involves the
acts of a party himself, not of others. 

Res inter alios acta; branches

1. The expression if fully expressed reads: res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet
which literally means that "things done between strangers ought not to injure those who
are not parties to them”

2. The res inter alios acta rule has two branches, namely: 

(a) The rule that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration,
or omission of another (Sec. 28, Rule 130, Rules of Court). 
(b) The rule that evidence of previous conduct or similar acts at one time is not
admissible to prove that one did or did not do the same act at another time (Sec.
34, Rule 132, Rules of Court). 
 Exceptions to res inter allos acta rule The exceptions are the so-called vicarious
admissions under Sections 29 to 31 of Rule 130. These are the ad missions by: (J
CAPP) 
1. Co partner. (S29 R130). 
2. Agent (Id.)
3. Joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly in terested with the party. (Id.). 
4. Co-conspirator. (S30 R130).
5. Privies. (S31 R130). 
Section 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. — The act or declaration of a partner or
agent of the party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the
partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership
or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule
applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly
interested with the party. (26a)

Rule on admission by co-partner or agent. The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the
party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency,
may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration. (S29 R130). 

Admissions by a co-conspirator 

Section 30. Admission by conspirator. — The act or declaration of a conspirator

relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence
against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than
such act of declaration. (27)

1. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons ne to an agreement concerning the

commission of a felony decide to commit it (Art. 8, Revised Penal Code). Once the
conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the act of all. The statement, therefore, of one
may be admitted against the other co-conspirators as an exception to the rule on res
inter alios acta. 
2. Assume that two months after a successful bank robbery, A was arrested as a direct
participant in the crime. During a television interview, he admitted his participation in the
robbery. He also implicated B and C as his other companions in planning and executing
the robbery. Is his statement admissible? The statement is admissible as to him (Sec.
26, Rule 130, Rules of Court) but not as to B and C (Sec. 28, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
(Bar 1991)
To be admissible against B and C, the following must concur: 
(a) The declaration or act be made or done during the existence of the conspiracy; 
(b) The declaration or act must relate to the conspiracy; and 
 (c) The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than such declaration or act (Sec.
30, Rule 130, Rules of Court). 
Admission by privies
Section 31. Admission by privies. — Where one derives title to property from another, the
act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the
property, is evidence against the former. (28) For an admission of a predecessor-in-
interest to be admissible against the successor-in-interest, the following requisites must
be present;
a. There must be an act, declaration or omission by a predecessor-in-interest
b. The act, declaration, or omission of the predecessor must have occurred
while he wasa holding (not after) the tile to the property; and
c. The act, declaration or omission must be in relation to the propery
Interlocking confessions are independently made without a collusion which are identical with
each other in their corroborated by other evidence on circumstantial evidence against show the
probability of the latter's actual participation in the commission of the crime (Pesni SCRA 667). 
A person under investigation for the commission of an offense (custodial
investigation) shall have the following rights: (SC VS)
(1) Right to remain silent and right to be informed of such right. 
(2P Right to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice and
to be informed of such right. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
be provided with one. The right to remain silent and to counsel cannot be waived except
in writing and in the presence of counsel. 
(3) The right against torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
which vitiate the free will. 
(4) The right against secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of deten tion (siso). (Sec. 12, Art. III, Constitution). 
Similar Acts Rule
The similar acts rule provides that evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at
one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at
another time; but it may be received to prove a plan, intent, knowledge, identity, custom,
habit, usage, system, and the like. (PIKICHUS). 
Give the sexual abuse shield rule in criminal cases involving child abuse. 
Under the sexual abuse shield rule in criminal cases involving child abuse, the following
are not admissible: 
a. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual
behaviour.
b. Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim. (S30
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness). 
Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. — In civil cases, an offer of compromise
is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.

In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those

allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromised by the accused may be
received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.

A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser

offense, is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer.

An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an

injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
(24a)

Section 28. Admission by third party. — The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided. (25a)

Section 33. Confession. — The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the
offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in
evidence against him. (29a)

Section 35. 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. (49a)

Offer of compromise

In civil cases an offer of comprimise is not an admission of liability and not admissibke in
evidence.

In criminal cases an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an

implied admission of guilt. Except if the offer in criminal cases involving quasi-offenses or
allowed by law to be compromised.

Note: The offer of the accused to marry the victim is an implied admission of guilt.

Note: The accused act pleading for forgivness is analogous to an attempt to compromise.

Note: Any offer of compromise before the complaint or after the filing of the same is admissible
as an implied admission of guilt. What is required is that after committing a crime the accused
himself or through his agent made the offer.

Note: It doesn’t matter who offered the compromise so long as the accused made an offer or
accepted an offer of compromise is a sign of implied admission.

Note: Offer to pay for medical expenses is not considered as a form of implied admission of
guilt since it stems fromm social obligation and good samaritan rule.

Note: Evidence of post accident repairs or subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible to
prove negligence or wrong-doing since there is a public policy concern.
Hearsay

5. Testimonial Knowledge

Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. — A

witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that
is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these
rules. (30a)

Hearsay- is an out of court statment made by a person who is not presented as a witness but
which statement is offered as a proof of the matter stated. A statement other than one made by
the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the
matter asserted.

The hearsay rule states that it is inadmissible as evidence unless it falls under the exceptions
prescribed by law.

Hearsay may consist of non-verbal conduct if the same is intended by a person as an assertion.
It may also come in the form of writing provided that the writer of an affidavit or any written
document will be presented as witness.

Reasons for excluding hearsay (COD)

a.The lack of opportunity on the part of the party against which it is offered to CROSS
EXAMINE the declarant

b. The statement or declaration is not made UNDER OATH.

c. The court does not have the opportunity to OBSERVE THE DEMEANOR of the
declarant.

Independently Relevant Statement- an out of court statement which is relevant for the truth of
a matter asserted therein but for something else i.e state of mind, intent, beliefm the mere fact
of utterance or legal effect. Otherwise put the statement is relevant for something else other
than its truth.

Exceptions to hearsay rule that requires Death and Unavailability

1. Business entries
2. Former testimony or deposition
3. Dying declaration
4. Act of declaration about pedigree
5. Declaration against interest
6. Declaration by a child about an act or attempted act of childe abuse

Exceptions where there is no need for death or unavailability

1. Res Gestate
7. Family Reputation
8. Common Reputation
 9. Commercial List
10. Official records
11. Learned treastises
12. Electronic business records

Dying Declaration Elements

6. Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule

Section 37. Dying declaration. — The declaration of a dying person, made under

the consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his
death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances
of such death. (31a)

a. The declarant is dead

b. His death is the subject of inquiry in the case
c. The declaration was made under the conciousness of an impeding death
d. The declaration is about the cause and surrounding circumstances of his death.

Entries in the course of business or duty (This also applies to electronic evidence)

Section 44. Entries in official records. — Entries in official records made in the
performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated. (38)

a. The entries be made at, or near the time of the transactions to which they refer.
e. The entrant must be dead or unable to testify
f. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated therein have personal
knowledge of the information he is entering.
g. The entrant must have made the entries in his professional capacity or in
performance of a duty
h. The entries must have been made in the ordinary or regular course of business or
duty. Otherwise, put, the entry is not an isolated or sporadic act but is one of many
dine regularly in the ordinary course of business or duty.

Electronic business Records (memo, report, record, data compilation of acts, conditions,
events, or opinions)

a. The electronic business record is made at or near the time of the transaction
i. The electronic business record is made by, or from transmission or supply of
information by a person with knowledge of the transaction
j. The electronic business record is kept in the regular course of a business activity
k. It is the regular practice to keep electronic business records

Business entries exception rule vs Electronic Evidence Rule

Section 43. Entries in the course of business. — Entries made at, or near the time of
transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a
position to know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if
such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty
and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. (37a)

1. Business entries exception rule applies to non-electronic & electronic business

entries whereas, Electronic business record exception applies only to electronic
business records
13. In BEE entrant mus be dead or unavailable whereas, in EEB availability or
availability of the entrant is immaterial
14. In BEE the entrant must be in a position to know the facts stated in the entry
whereas in EEB the entrant need not have knowledge of the information recorded, it
being sufficient that the records made by or from transmission or supply of
infromation by a person with knowledge therof.

Former testimony or deposition (Statements mad during PI not covered)

Section 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. — The testimony or
deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter,
may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-
examine him. (41a)

l. The witness or deponent is dead or unable to testify

m. The former case or proceeding involves the same parties and subject matter
n. The adverse party had the opportunity to cross examine the witness or deponent in
the former case or proceeding

Act or declaration about pedigree

Section 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. — The act or declaration of a person
deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him
by birth or marriage, may be received in evidence where it occurred before the
controversy, and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other
than such act or declaration. The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family
genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these fast
occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history
intimately connected with pedigree. (33a)

a. The declarant is dead or unable to testify

o. The act or declaration is about pedigree of another person related to the declarant by
birth or marriage
p. The relationship between the relative and the declarant is shown by evidence other
than such act or declaration.
q. The act or declaration occured before the controversy.

Declaration against interest

Section 38. Declaration against interest. — The declaration made by a person deceased,
or unable to testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact is asserted in the
declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant's own interest, that a
reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed
it to be true, may be received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest
and against third persons. (32a)

a. The declarant must be dead or unable to testify

r. The declaration must be against the interest (pecuniary, moral, or penal) of the
declarant
s. The fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to
declarant’s own interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made
the declaration unless he believed it to be true.

Declaration against interest vs Party admission

1. In DAI the declarant is a non party whereas, in PA the statement was made by a
party
15. In DAI the statement must be made against the declarant’s interest whereas in PA it
need not be against the admitter’s interest.
16. In DAI it is hearsay but admissible as an exception to the rule whereas, in PA not
hearsay thus admissible
17. In DAI the declarant must be dead or unable to testify whereas, in PA there is no
requirement that the admitter is dead or unable to testify
18. In DAI it is admissible against declarant and third persons whereas, in PA it is
admissible only against the admitter.

Admissions of a child’s statement describing any act or attempted act of child abuse

1. The statement must be made by a child

19. The statement describes any act or attempted act of child abuse
20. The child is unavailable to testify meaning that the child is

a. is dead
b. Suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, or mental illness.
c. will be exposed to severe psychological injury
d. is absent from the hearing and proponent of his statement has been unable
to procure his attendance by process other reasonable means

4. The hearsay statement is corroborated by other admissible evidence

5. The proponent shall make known to the adverse party the intention to offer such
statement and its particulars to provide him a fair opportunity to object

Factors for the court to consider in ruling on the admisibility of the child’s statement

1. Whether there is a motive to lie

21. The general character of the child declarant
22. Whether more than one person heard the statement
23. Whether the statement was spontaneous
24. The timing of the statement and the relationship between the child declarant and
witness
25. Cross examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the child declarant
26. The possibility of faulty recollection of the child declarant is remote
27. The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason to
suppose the child declarant misrepresented the involvement of the accused.
Part of the Res Gestae (Excited utterances and Verbal Acts )

Section 42. Part of res gestae. — Statements made by a person while a starting
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the
circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res gestae. So, also,
statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance, may be received as part of the res gestae. (36a)

Excited utterances- Statements made by a person while a STARTLING occurence is

taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto regarding the circumstances
therof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae.

Verbal acts exception to the hearsay rule- Statements accompanying an equivical act
material to the issue and giving it legal significance may be received in evidence as part
of the resg estate.

Family Reputation

Section 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. — The reputation or

tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of
any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be
also a member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or
other family books or charts, engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may be
received as evidence of pedigree. (34a)

Generally, the reason why reputation may not be introduced in order to prove a matter
subject of the reputation is that reputation evidence is hearsay evidence as the witness
is not testifying to a matter of his personal knowledge but rather as to the reputation. The
persons or people who are the source of the reputation cannot be cross examined.

The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, regarding the
pedigree of any one of its members, may be recieved in evidence if the witness testifying
theron be also a member of the family either by consanguinity or affinity.

Note that the witness must be a member of the family whose reputation or tradition he is
testifying about the pedigree of anyone of its members.

*IT MUST BE ABOUT PEDIGREE OR COMMON REPUTATION NOT ONLY

PRESENT IN THE FAMILY

Common Reputation

Section 41. Common reputation. — Common reputation existing previous to the

controversy, respecting facts of public or general interest more than thirty years old, or
respecting marriage or moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and
inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation. (35)
 a. Existed previous to the controversy or is ante litem mortam
t. Is about facts of public or general interest more than 30 years old, or about marriage
or moral character

Commercial Publication

Section 45. Commercial lists and the like. — Evidence of statements of matters of
interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or
other published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant
matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that
occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein. (39)

A commercial publication is a list, register, periodical , or othe published compilation

containing statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation,
published for use by persons engaged in that occupation, and is generally used and
relied upon by them.

a. There is a list , register, or periodical, or the published compilation

u. Such published compilation contains statements of matters of interest to persons
engaged in an occupation
v. The compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation
w. The compilation is generally used and relied upon by the persons engaged in that
occupation

Official Records

Entries in official records made in the peformance of his duty by a public officer of the
Philippines or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law are
excepted from the hearsay rule.

a. The entries must have been made by a public official records

x. The entry must have been made by a public officer of the Philippines in the
performance of his duty or by a person in the performance of a duty specially
enjoined by law.
y. The entrant must have personal knowledge of the facts stated by him or such facts
were acquired by him from reporst ade by persons under a legal duty to submit the
same.

Examples of private persons specially enjoined by aw to make official entries

1. Log book entries required to be kept by a ship captain regarding the incidents of
navigation
28. Stamp of dishonor and its reason required from the drawee check under BP 22
29. Parties to a marriage ceremony and the solemnizing officer are required to sign and
attest the marraige certificate and solemnizing officer required to keep a copy.

Learned Treastise
Section 46. Learned treatises. — A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a
subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a
matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject
testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is
recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. (40a)

a. There is a published treatise, periodical or phamplet

z. It is on the subject of law, art, science, or history
aa. The writer of the statement in the treastise, periodical, or phamplet is recognized in
his profession or calling as an expert in the subject. Such recognition may be proved
by an expert witness or taken judicial notice by the court

Multiple Double Hearsay

Double or multiple hearsay occurs when a hearsay declaration is embedded in another

with the result that there are two or more levels of hearsay. This frequently happens
where a party seeks to introduce a written report by a declarant of another declarant’s
out of court statement. Hearsay included within this hearsay is not excluded under the
rule if each level of hearsay conforms with the exception to the hearsay rule.

Opinion Rule

7. Opinion Rule

Section 48. General rule. — The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as indicated
in the following sections. (42)

Section 49. Opinion of expert witness. — The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring
special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he shown to posses, may be
received in evidence. (43a)

Section 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. — The opinion of a witness for which proper
basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding —

(a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;

(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and

(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.

The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or
appearance of a person. (44a)

As a general rule the opinion of a witness is not admissible in evidence subkect to

certain exceptions such as:

1. Expert Opinion
30. Lay opinion on handwriting, identit, and sanity
31. Short hand opinions
 Expert opinion- The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience, or trainin which he is hsown to posses. (No need for special training) Unlike,
ordinary witnesses an expert witness may testify based on hypothetical or assumed
facts.

Rule on admissibility of a report by a government medical, chemical or laboratory expert

A certified copy of the report of a government medical, chemical, or laboratory expert

relating to a criminal case shall be admissible as prima facie evidence of the truth of its
contents. The personal appearance in court of a witness who prepared the report shall
be unnecessary unless demanded by the accused for the purpose of cross examination.

Opinion of Ordinary Witness when admissible

a. The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge

b. A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity
c. The mental sanity
d. The witness may also testify on his impressions of the condition, appearance, behavior
or emotion of a person. This is known as shorthand opinions or impressions.

Character evidence

8. Character Evidence

Section 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions: —

(a) In Criminal Cases:

(1) The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged.

(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.

(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to
establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense
charged.

(b) In Civil Cases:

Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible only when pertinent
to the issue of character involved in the case.

(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14, (46a, 47a)

Character vs Reputation

Character is what you are, reputation is what community knows you are. Reputation is
used to prove charatcer. Common reputation is excepted from hearsay rule.
 As a general rule character evidence is not admissible as evidence. The reason is that it
is irrelavent. A case should be decided based on the facts and the law, not on the
character of the parties.

Uses of character evidence

1. As circumstantial evidence that is that a person acted in conformity with his character
32. As direct evidence of character where character itself is fact in issue
33. To impeach the adverse party’s witness
34. To rehabilitate a witness whose character has been impeached

Civil cases involving character issues

1. In civil actions for libel or slander, where the character of the aggrieved person is a
fact in issue that may be proved by both plaintiff and defendant
35. In civil actions for seduction where the woman seduced be of good reputation
36. In cases involving negligent hiring
37. In child custody cases where the character of the parents of guardian is a fact in
issue
Character evidence in Criminal Cases

The accused may prove his good moral character if pertinent to the moral trait involved
in the offense charged.

The offended party may present in evidence his good or bad moral character if it tends
to establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged.

The adverse party may introduce evidence that a witness’s general reputation for
honesty, integrity, or truth is bad for purposes of impeaching the witness

Party’s witness if the the good character of the witness has been impeached, the party
presenting the witness may rehabilitate his witness by presenting evidence of his good
moral character.

How is character proved?

1. Reputation evidence- Evidence of common reputation is the standard method of

proving charater. Common reputation is presented to prove moral character.

38. Scientific instances of conduct- Generally specific instances of conduct may not
be used to prove character. This would cause unfair surprise uoon the other party
and result in the case getting bogged by collateral issue. However, where character
itself is in issue evidence of specific cinduct would be admissible.

39. Witness opinion- is not admissible to prove character unless character is itself in
issue or in rape cases where the character of the victim’s past sexual conduct is
admissible.

Rule 129 What need not be Proved in Court

RULE 129

What Need Not Be Proved

Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice, without
the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their
political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the
admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and
history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the
geographical divisions. (1a)

Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take judicial notice of
matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable demonstration,
or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. (1a)

Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the trial, the court, on its
own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice
of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon.

After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or
on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be
heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. (n)

Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in

the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission
may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that
no such admission was made. (2a)

Matters which the court has taken judicial notice and judicial notice that do not require
proof

Judicial Notice - Is a process whereby the court takes note of certain facts which are
capable of being known to a veritable certainty by consulting sources of indisputable
accuracy, thereby relieving one party of the burden of producing evidence to prove these
facts. Judicial notice may be mandatory or discretionary.

Judicial Notice when mandatory

1. States- The existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms
of government and symbles of nationality.
2. International Law- The law of nations, admirality and maritime courts of the world
and their seals
3. Philippines- The political constitution and history of PH the official acts of the
legislative, executive, and judicial departments
4. Laws of Nature
5. Measure of time
6. Geographical divisions

Judicial Notice when Discretionary

 A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or
capable of unquestionable demonstration or ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions.

Judicial admission

A judicial admission is an admission, oral or written, made by a party in the

course of the proceedings in the same case. It dkes not require proof.

Examples of Admissions

1. The genuiness and due execution of an actionable document copied in or

attached to a pleading isdeemed admitted by the adverse party if he does not
specifically deny it under oath and set forth what he claims to be the facts

7. Material averment in the complaint, other than those as to the amount of

unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied.

8. Request for admission under rule 26 each of the mattters of which an admission
is requested shall be deemed admitted.

9. Stipulation of facts

10. Admissions in the pleadings

Effects of Judicial Admission

1. They do not require further proof

3. They cannot be contradicted because they are conclusive upon the party making it

Contradicting a Judicial Admission

1. Showing that it was made due to palpable mistake

4. Showing that there is no such admission was made

Opinion Evidence

Note: The right against self incrimination does not apply in object or real evidence it only applies
to testimonial evidence.
GN: As a rule opinion of a witness is inadmissible. Because when a witness testifies, he must
testify only to the facts known to him or in other words as to the facts which he has personal
knowledge.

Exceptions to the inadmissibility of Opinion Evidence

1. Whe the opinion of a witness requiring special knowledge, skill, experience. or training which
he is shown to possess.
2.
3. Opionion of ordinary witness is admissible when it pertains to
 1. The identity of a person about whom the witness has adequate knowldge
2. The handwriting of a person with which the witness has sufficient familiarity
3. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted
4. The impressions of the witness of the emotion behavior, condition or appearance of a
person

Character Evidence

Character- It is the aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to and distinguish an
indvidual person. It is the general results of one’s distinguishing attributes. It refers to what a
man is.

Reputation- Is what he is supposed to be in accordance with what people say he is, and is
independent on how people perceive him to be.

As a rule character evidnece is not admissible since it is generally irrelevant in determining a

controversy because it is not enough to prove that a person acted in conformity with such
character or trait in a particular occassion.

In criminal cases the prosecution cannot prove the bad moral character of the accused in its
evidence in chief. It can only do so in rebuttal. This means that the prosecution cannot offer the
character of the accused as evidence unless the latter offer it first.

The accused may likewise offer his good moral character so long as it is relevant to the offense
charged.

The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved by the accused if it tends
to establish in reasonable degree the probability or improbabality of the offense charged.

In Civil Cases evidence of the moral character of a party is admissible only when pertinent to
the issue of character is involved in the case.

Evidence of the Good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been
impeached.

Offer of Evidence and Trial Objections

C. OFFER AND OBJECTION

Section 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
(35)

Section 35. When to make offer. — As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must
be made at the time the witness is called to testify.

Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's
testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be
done in writing. (n)
Section 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately
after the offer is made.

Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness

shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.

An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of
the unless a different period is allowed by the court.

In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)

Section 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary. — When it becomes reasonably

apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the question being
propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made, whether
such objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the
objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to
such class of questions. (37a)

Section 38. Ruling. — The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the
objection is made, unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on
the question presented; but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such
time as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation
presented by the ruling.

The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. However, if the
objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or
some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. (38a)

Section 39. Striking out answer. — Should a witness answer the question before the
adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, and such
objection is found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order the
answer given 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. (n)

Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. — If 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. (n)

An evidence not formally offered must not be considered by the court. It is necessary because it
is the duty of the court to rest its findings of fact and judgement base on the evidence offered.

Any document or any article is not considered as evidnece when it is simply marked for
identification. It must be formally offered and the opposing counsel be given an opportunity to
object.
Identification or marking if documentary evidence is done in the course of trial and accompanied
by marking of evidence as an exhibit while formal offer is done when the party rests its case.

When no need of formal offer of evidence is required

1. In summary proceedings
4. Documents judicially admitted or taken judicial notice of
5. Docmuments, affidavits and depositions used in rendering summary judgement
6. Documents or affidavits used in deciding quasi judicial or administrative cases.
7. Lost objects previously marked and identified in the record.

Instances when the court may allow the admission of evidence not formally offered

1. The evidence must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded
8. The same must have been incorporated in the records of the case

When is evidence is to be offered

Depending on the nature of evidence

1. As regards the testimony of the witness, the offer is to be made at the time the witness is
called to testify
9. As regards documentary and object evidence, they are to be offered after the presentation
of a party’s testimonial evidence.

Note: The presentatioh of a documentary evidence or object evidence for marking and
identification during the course of the trial is not the offer contemplated under the rules. Failure
to object should not be construed as waiver.

How an offer of evidence is made

1. When a party makes a formal offer of his evidence he must state the natire or substance of
the evidence and the specific purpose why it is being offered
10. The court shall consider the evidence solely for the purpose for which it is offered and not
for any other purpose.

Objections

a. To keep out admissibke evidence that would cause harm to a client’s cause
b. To protect the record
c. To protect a witness from being embarassed on the stand or from being harassed by the
adverse counsel
d. To expose the adversary’s unfair tactics like this consistently asking leading questions
e. To give the trial court an opportunity to correct its won errors and at the same time warn the
court that aruling may subject the case for appeal
f. To avoid waiver of inadmissibility of an indadmissible evidence.

Formal and Substantive Objections

Formal Objections- One directed against the alleged dfect in the formulation of the question.
(ambigous, leading, misleading,repetitous, multiple, argumentative)
Substantive Objections- One made and directed against the very nature of the evidence it is
inadmissible because it is irrelevant or incompetent (parol, best evidence, hearsay, privileged,
res inter alios acta, opinion)

Time to object depending on the manner the evidence is offered

1. If the evidence is offered orally objection to the evidence must be made immediately after
the offer is made
11. An objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of the witness
shall be made as soon as the grounds thereof shall become apparent
12. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected within 3 days after notice unless different
date prescribed by the court

Striking out an asnwer or testimony

1. When the answer is premature

13. When the answer of the witness is irrelevant incompetent, or improper
14. When the answer is unresponsive
15. When the witness becomes unavailable for cross examination through no fault of the cross
examining party
16. The testimony was allowed conditionally and the condition for its admissibility was not
fulfilled

If a judge sustains an objection he considers the question as improper and the witness will not
be allowed to answer the question.

If a judge overrules the objection this means the the question is proper and the witness will be
allowed to answer.

Tender of excluded evidence- if documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the
court, the offerror may the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence is
excluded the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the
witness and the substance of the proposed testimony.

Doing so would allow the court to know the nature of the testimony or the documentary
evidnece. And, even if he is not convicted to reverse his earlier ruling the tender is made to
create and preserve a record for appeal.

Formal offer of evidence- refers to either offer of the testimony of a witness prior to the latter’s
testimony or offer of object or documentary evidence after a party has presented his testimonial
evidence.

Offer of proof- is the process by which a proponent of an excluded evidence tenders the same.

Burden of Proof, Quantum of Evidence and Presumptions

RULE 133

Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases, the party
having burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In
determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues
involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the
witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of
knowing the facts to which there are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they
testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of
interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear
upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. (1a)

Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is entitled
to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error,
produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (2a)

Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. — An

extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for
conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3)

Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is

sufficient for conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstances;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. (5)

Section 5. Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial

bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or
that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion. (n)

Section 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. — The court may stop the
introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is
already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to
be additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised with caution. (6)

Section 7. 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.

RULE 133

Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases, the party
having burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In
determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues
involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the
witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of
knowing the facts to which there are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they
testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of
interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear
upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. (1a)

Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is entitled
to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error,
produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (2a)

Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. — An

extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for
conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3)

Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is

sufficient for conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstances;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. (5)

Section 5. Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial

bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or
that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion. (n)

Section 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. — The court may stop the
introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is
already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to
be additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised with caution. (6)

Section 7. 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. (7)

The burden of proof refers to the obligation of a party to litigation to persuade the court that he is
entitle to relief. He who alleges must prove the same.
The burden of proof lies with both the defense and the prosecution. Since, the law states that
the burden of proof must be proven by a “party” not by plaintiff alone.

Civil Case- Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence is whole, superior to that of
the other side.

Administrative Case- The complainant bears the onus probandi and the quantum required is
substantial evidence.

Disbarment proceedings- The complainant bears the burden of proof. The quantum required
is clear and convincing evidence.

Labor Cases- The burden of proof lies with the employer to show substantial evidence

Note: The burden of proof rests with the party who wants to establish a legal right in his favor.
The burden of proof is fixed in the pleadings. The claims of the parties spells out the pary who
must bear the burden of proof.

Burden of evidence- is the duty of a party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow the
evidence against him. Burden of evidence may shift but burden of proof will never shift.

Equipoise rule- The equipoise doctrine is based on the principle that no one shall be deprived
of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The doctrine refers to a situation where the
evidence of the parties is evenly balanced or there is doubt on which side the evidence
preponderates.

In criminal case the equipoise rule provides that where the evidence is evenly balanced, the
constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused.

Presumptions

Presumption is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such fact to be
assumed from another fact or group of fact to be assumed from another fact. A presumption is
not evidence. They merely affect the offering of evidence. It is a mandatory inference unless
rebutted.

Inference vs Presumption

Inference is a factual conclusion that can rationally be drawn from other facts. It is a result of
the reasoning process.

Presumption on the other hand is a rule of law that if a party proves a certain facts at a trial or
hearing the fact finder must also accept additional fact as proven unless otherwise rebutted.
Presumption is a mandatory inference unless rebutted.

Kinds of Presumption
presumptions:

(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and
deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief,
he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted
to falsify it:

(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. (3a)

Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if

uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:

(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;

(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;

(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;

(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;

(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;

(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;

(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;

(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;

(i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is
produced;

(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful
act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a person
possess, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;

(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the money, or
the delivery of anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly;

(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it;

(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;

(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was
acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;

(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and
passed upon by it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute
submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them;

(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular;

(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;

(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;

(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;

(t) That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was
overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated;

(u) That a writing is truly dated;

(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 being unknown whether or not the absentee
still lives, he is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.

The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till
after an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an
absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.

The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the
estate among the heirs:

(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft with is missing,
who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;

(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been
missing for four years;

(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose
existence has not been known for four years;

(4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse present
may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent
spouse is already death. In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death the
circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for
the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any case, before
marrying again, the spouse present must institute a summary proceedings as provided
in the Family Code and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee,
without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.

(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was
conformable to the law or fact;

(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary
nature habits of life;

(z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartneship;

(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into
a lawful contract of marriage;

(bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each
other and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage or under void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts, work or
industry.

(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to
marry each other and who have acquire properly through their actual joint contribution of
money, property or industry, such contributions and their corresponding shares
including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal.

(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within
three hundred days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall
govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:

(1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the
subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage, even
though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former
marriage.

(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the
subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage, even
though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former
marriage.

(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of the
nature;

(ff) That the law has been obeyed;

(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by public

authority, was so printed or published;

(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting contain reports of cases adjudged in
tribunals of the country where the book is published, contains correct reports of such
cases;

(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a
particular person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to
perfect the title of such person or his successor in interest;

(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in the same
calamity, such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and
there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is
determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes,
according to the following rules:

1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have survived;

2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived;

3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed to have
survived;
4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the male is deemed to
have survived, if the sex be the same, the older;

5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the latter is
deemed to have survived.

(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed
each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the
other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have
died at the same time. (5a)

Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. — There is no presumption of

legitimacy 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. (6)

Presumption of Law - I.e presumption of innocence until proven guilty

Presumption of Fact- Either conclusive or disputable

Effects of presumptions- a party in whose favor the legal presumption exists may rely on and
invoke such legal presumption to establish a fact in issue.

Conclusive Presumption

When the presumption becomes irrebuttable upon the presentation of evidence then any
presumption tending to be presented as an evidence to rebutt the same is inadmissible.

The are inferences which the law makes so preremptory that it will not allow them to be
overtunrned by any proof however strong. It is not a presumption at all since it is not rebuttable.

Disputable Presumption

It is disputable presumption if it may be contradicted or overcome by other evidence. They are

disputable if satisfactorily be contradicted and overcome by other evidence.

Conclusive Presumptions

1. Whenever a party has by his won declaration, act, or omission, intentionally or deliberately
led another to believe a particular thing is true and to act uppon such belief, he cannot, in
any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission be permitted to falsify it.
17. The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement
of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.

Effects of Disputable Presumptions

The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting
evidence to overcome the prima facie case created by the presumption. If no contrart proof is
offered the presumption will prevail.
Examples of Disputable Presumptions

1. That a person is innocent of a crime or wrong

18. That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent
19. That a person intends the ordianary consequences of his voluntary act
20. That a person takes ordinary care of his business
21. That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced
22. That money paid by one to another was due to the latter
23. That the thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter
24. That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid
25. That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is produced
26. That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it
27. That official duty has been regularly performed
28. That a court or judge acting as such whether in the Philippines or elsewehere was acting in
the lawful exercise of his jurisdiction

Quantum of Proof

RULE 131

Burden of Proof and Presumptions

Section 1. Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence
on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of
evidence required by law. (1a, 2a)

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt- Is the degree of proof that after the investigation of the whole
record, produces moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind of the accused’s culpability. Only
moral certainty is required.

Preponderance of Evidence- Superior weight of evidence on the issues invilved lies at the
discretion of the court. It is the weight, value, and credit of the aggregate evidence on either side
and is usually considered synonymous with the term greater weight of evidence.

Considerations in Determining Preponderance of Evidence

a. all the facts and circumstances of the case

g. the witnessess and manner of testifying
h. the witnessess interest and want of interest plus their personal credibility
i. the number of witnesses

Substantial Evidence- refers to such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.

Judicial Notice and Judicial Admissions

Judicial Notice are matters in litigation which must be admitted without a need for evidence. It is
based on the maxim “what is known need not be proved.” hence when the rule is invoked the
court may dispense with the presentation of evidence.

When Judicial Notice is Mandatory

This means that no motion or hearing is necessary for the court to take judicial notice of such
matter.

Matters subject to Mandatory Judicial Notice

a. existence and territorial extent of states

j. politcal history, forms of government and symbols of nationality of states
k. law of nations
l. admirality and maritime courts of the world and their seals
m. political constitution and history of the Philippines
n. official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines
o. Laws of nature
p. measure of time and geographical divisions

When Judicial Notice is Discretionary

A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of
unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial function.
Judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety.

Mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court and he is not
authorized to make his individual knowledge of a fact not generally or professionally known.

Judicial Notice may be taken during the trial of the case. The court may do so on its own iniative
or on the request of any party.

Judicial Notice may likewise be taken by the proper court after the trial, and before judgement. It
also applies during appeal.

Judicial Admissions

An admission verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same
case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was
made through papalble mistake or that no such admission was made.

A judicial admission requires no poof they are legally binding on the party making the
admission.

Elements of judicial admission

1. The same must be made by a party to the case

29. The admission to be judicial must be made in the course of the proceeding in the same
case. It must be in the same case where it was offered
30. Judicial admission requires no form

Note: Stipulation of facts at the pre trial of a case constitutes judicial admission. A party may
make judicial admissions in a. the pleadings b. during trial either written or verbal stipulations c.
in other stages of judicial proceedings
Note: Admissions made in drafts of pleadings not yet filed ar obviously not judicial admissions
because they are not part of the record of the case

Admissions in the pre-trial as well as those made during depositions, interrogatories or

request for admission are deemed as judicial admissions.

Pre- trial agreements in criminal cases is not necessarily admissible against te admitter. To
be admissible it must first conform with the requirements prescribed by law. Which states that;
All agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre trial conference made or entered
during the pre trial conference sahll be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and
counsel, otherwise they cannot be used against the accused.

Admissions in amended pleadisngs superseds the pleading that it ammends and the
admissions in the superseded pleading may be received in evidence against the pleader. They
are considered as extrajudicial admissions which must be proven. For being extrajudicial
admissions they must be formally offered in evidence.

Admissions by counsel are generally conclusive upon a client. Even the negligence of the
lawyer binds the client. In cases where the negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due
process of law, or when its applicaton will result in outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or
property relief is accorded to the client.

Effects of Judicial Admission

1. They do not require proof

31. They cannot be contradicted because they are conclusive upon the party making it

Ways to contradict Judicial Admission

1. By showing that the admission was made through palpable mistake

32. By showing that no such admission was made

Authentication and Proof of Documents 132

B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS

Section 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of their presentation evidence,
documents are either public or private.

Public documents are:

(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a
foreign country;

(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and

(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to the
entered therein.
All other writings are private. (20a)

Section 20. Proof of private document. — Before any private document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved
either:

(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.
(21a)

Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. — Where a
private document is more than thirty years old, is produced from the custody in which it
would naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or
circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity need be given. (22a)

Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The handwriting of a person may
be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because
he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the
witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting
of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a
comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as
genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to
the satisfaction of the judge. (23a)

Section 23. Public documents as evidence. — Documents consisting of entries in public

records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of
the facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third
person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. (24a)

Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in
paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an
official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of
the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the
record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which
the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. (25a)

Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or
record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance,
that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may
be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any,
or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)

Section 26. Irremovability of public record. — Any public record, an official copy of which
is admissible in evidence, must not be removed from the office in which it is kept, except
upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just
determination of a pending case. (27a)

Section 27. Public record of a private document. — An authorized public record of a

private document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by
the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the
custody. (28a)

Section 28. Proof of lack of record. — A written statement signed by an officer having the
custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search no record or entry
of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a
certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office
contain no such record or entry. (29)

Section 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 the record, in respect to the proceedings.
(30a)

Section 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. (31a)

Section 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. (32a)

Section 32. Seal. — There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private
documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. (33a)

Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. — Documents written in an

unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a
translation into English or Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their
attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. (34a)

Objects and Documents introduced in evidence need to be authenticated it is the preliminary

step in showing the admissibility of an evidence.

Document- A deed, instruent, or other duly authorized paper by whic something is proved,
evidenced or set forth.

Public Documents- The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals and public officers whether of the Philippines or foreign
country.
Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments

Public records kept in the Philippines of private docomenst required by law to be entered
therein.

Note: A will is still a private document even notarized

Proof of Private Document

a. By anyone who saw the document executed or written

q. By evidence of the genuiness of the signature or handwriting of the maker

Ways of authenticating a Document

a. Rely on the Personal knowledge of the witness

r. Does not require that the document be executed in the presence of the witness. Here the
witness testifies or shows evidence that the signature or handwriting of the maker is
genuine.

When authentication of Private document is not required

a. When the document is an ancient one

s. When the genuiness and authenticity of an actionable document have not been specifically
denied
t. When the genuiness and authenticity of the document have been admitted
u. When the document is not being offered as authentic as implied

Genuiness of a Handwriting

a. He has seen the person write

v. He has seem writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged
acquired knowldge of that person
w. By a comparison made by the witness or the court with writings admitted or treated as
genuine by the party against whom the document is offered

Note: A public document requires no further authentication as opposed public document.

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
acknowledgement being a prima facie evidence of its execution.

Record of Public Document may be Evidenced by

1. An official publication thereof

33. A copy of the document attested by the officer having legal custody of the record or by the
attestation of his deputy.

Irremovability of public record- any public record, an official copy of which is admissible in
evidence, must not be removed from office in which its kept except upon order of a court when
inspection is essential in the case.
Note: A special power of attorney without authentication issued by the Philippine embassy
abroad cannot be considered as a public document therefore not enforceable within the
Philippine jurisdiction.

Public record of a private document may be proved by the followng

a. the original record

x. by a copy of the document attested by the legal custodian of the record with the appropriate
certificate

Proof of lack of record

Written statement proving lack of record must contain the following

a. there has been a diligent search of the record

y. despite the diligent search no record of entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the
records of his office

Note: Last will and testament must undergo an authentication process even if notarized.

Alterations must contain the following to be considered as genuine

a. That the alteration was made by another without concurrence

z. That the alteration was made with the consent of the parties affected by it
aa. That the alteration was otherwise or properly made
bb. That the alteration did not in anyway change the meaning or the language of the instrument

Impeachment of Judicial Record

Evidence required to impeach judicial record

a. Lack of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer

cc. Collusion between the parties
dd. Fraud in the party offering the record in respect to the proceedings

Foreign Judgement requirements

a. An official publication
ee. Copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document.
If not kept in PH it must be accompanied by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in
PH and authenticated by the seal of his office.

Examination of Witness

RULE 132

Presentation of Evidence

A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. — The examination of witnesses
presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or affirmation.
Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the questions calls for a different mode
of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally. (1a)

Section 2. Proceedings to be recorded. — The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing,

including the questions propounded to a witness and his answers thereto, the
statements made by the judge or any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference
to the case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand or stenotype or by other means of
recording found suitable by the court.

A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official stenographer,

stenotypist or recorder and certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie a
correct statement of such proceedings. (2a)

Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. — A witness must answer questions,

although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him. However, it is the right of
a witness:

(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or
insulting demeanor;

(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;

(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;

(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless
otherwise provided by law; or

(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it to be the
very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a
witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense. (3a, 19a)

Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness. — The order in which the
individual witness may be examined is as follows;

(a) Direct examination by the proponent;

(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;

(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;

(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent. (4)

Section 5. Direct examination. — Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a

witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. (5a)

Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. — Upon the termination of the
direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to many
matters stated in the direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness
and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or
the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (8a)

Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent. — After the cross-examination
of the witness has been concluded, he may be re-examined by the party calling him, to
explain or supplement his answers given during the cross-examination. On re-direct-
examination, questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination, may be
allowed by the court in its discretion. (12)

Section 8. Re-cross-examination. — Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination,

the adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct
examination, and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its
discretion. (13)

Section 9. Recalling witness. — After the examination of a witness by both sides has
been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The court will
grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of justice may require. (14)

Section 10. Leading and misleading questions. — A question which suggests to the
witness the answer which the examining party desires is a leading question. It is not
allowed, except:

(a) On cross examination;

(b) On preliminary matters;

(c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who
is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;

(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or

(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a

public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.

A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the
witness, or contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is not allowed. (5a, 6a, and
8a)

Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. — A witness may be impeached by

the party against whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his
general reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made
at other times statements inconsistent with his present, testimony, but not by evidence
of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of the
witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense. (15)

Section 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. — Except with respect to witnesses
referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party producing a witness is not
allowed to impeach his credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court
upon adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his
having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand.

The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party, may
be impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the
adverse party, except by evidence of his bad character. He may also be impeached and
cross-examined by the adverse party, but such cross-examination must only be on the
subject matter of his examination-in-chief. (6a, 7a)

Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. — Before a

witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements
inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the
circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he must be asked
whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements
be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him
concerning them. (16)

Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness. — Evidence of the good character of
a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached. (17)

Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. — On any trial or hearing, the judge
may exclude from the court any witness not at the time under examination, so that he
may not hear the testimony of other witnesses. The judge may also cause witnesses to
be kept separate and to be prevented from conversing with one another until all shall
have been examined. (18)

Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. — A witness may be allowed to
refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or
under his direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at
any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and 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 chooses, cross examine the
witness upon it, and may read it in evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such
writing or record, though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to
swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such
evidence must be received with caution. (10a)

Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the remainder,
the remainder admissible. — When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or
record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired
into by the other, and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is
given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary
to its understanding may also be given in evidence. (11a)

Section 18. Right to respect writing shown to witness. — Whenever a writing is shown to
a witness, it may be inspected by the adverse party. (9a)

Examination of witness in open court and unless the question calls for a different mde the
answer of the witness shall be given orally. This allows the court the opportunity to observe the
demeanor of the witness and allows the adverse party to cross examine the witness.
Oath - An oath is an outward pledge made under an immediate sense of responsibility to God
or solemn appeal to the Supreme Being.

An Affirmation- is a substitute for an oath and is a solemn and formal declaration that the
witness will tell the truth

Note: The witness who refuses to take an oath or give any affirmation may be barred

Questions not requires an answer for being violative of one’s rights

a. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense
ff. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
demeanor
gg. Not to be examined except only as matters pertinent to the issue
hh. Not to be detained longer than the interest of justice requires
ii. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation

Examination of a child witness; live-link television

The examination of a child witness presented in a hearing or any proceeding shall be done
in open court. The answer of the witness shall be given orally, unless the witness is
incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of answer.

The examination in this provision does not refer to the competency examination of the child
pursuant to Sec. 6_of the same rule, but to a situation where the child is already testifying in
court. Under Sec. 6(c), only specified persons are allowed to attend the competency
examination of the child and is obviously not an open court examination. 

When the child is testifying, the court may exclude the public and persons who do not have
a direct interest in the case, including members of the press. The order shall be made if the
court determines on the record that to testify in open court would cause psychological harm
to him, hinder the ascertainment of truth, or result in his inability to effectively communicate
due to embarrassment, fear or timidity. The court may also motu proprio exclude the public
from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during trial is of such character as to be
offensive to decency or public morals. The court may also, on motion of the accused,
exclude the public from trial, except court personnel and the counsel of the parties.. 
The court may also order that persons attending the trial shall not enter or leave the
courtroom during the testimony of the child
When a child does not understand the English or Filipino language or is unable to
communicate in said languages due to his developmental level, fear, shyness, disability,
or other similar reason, an interpreter whom the child can understand and who can
understand the child may be appointed by the court, motu proprio or upon motion, to
interpret for the child (Sec. 9[a], ibid.). Being another witness in the same case or a
member of the family of the child is not in itself a disqualification. Such a person may be
an interpreter if he is the only one who can serve as interpreter. If the interpreter is also a
witness, he shall testify ahead of the child
If the court determines that the child is unable to understand or respond to questions
asked, the court may, motu proprio or upon motion, appoint a facilitator. The facilitator
may be a child psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, guidance counselor, teacher,
religious leader, parent, or relative.

A child testifying at a judicial proceeding or making a deposition shall have the right to be
accompanied by one or two persons of his own choosing to provide him emotional support.
Said support persons shall remain within the view of the child during his testimony. One of the
support persons may even accompany the child to the witness stand and the court may also
allow the support person to hold the hands of the child or to take other appropriate steps to
provide emotional support to the child in the course of the proceedings but the court shall
instruct the support persons not to prompt, sway, or influence the child during his testimony.

The support person may be another witness but the court shall disqualify him if it could be
sufficiently established that the attendance of such support person would pose a substantial
risk of influencing or affecting the content of the testimony of the child. If the support person
who is also a witness is allowed by the court, he shall testify ahead of the child.
An application may be made for the testimony of the child to be taken in a room outside the
courtroom and be televised to the courtroom by live-link television. The application may be
made by the prosecutor, counselor guardian ad litem at least five (5) days before the trial
date.
The court may order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link television if there is
a substantial likelihood that the child would suffer trauma from testifying in the presence of
the accused, his counsel or the prosecutor as the case may be. The trauma should be of a
kind which would impair the completeness or truthfulness of the testimony of the child.
If the child is testifying by live-link television and it is necessary to identify the accused at
trial, the court may allow the child to enter the courtroom for the limited purpose of
identifying the accused, or the court may allow the child to identify the accused by
observing his image on a television monitor.

The testimony of the child shall be preserved on Videotape, digital disc, or other similar
devices which shall be made part of the court record and be subject to a protective order.
To shield the child from the accused, the court may allow the child to testify in such a
manner that the child cannot see the accused by testifying through one-way mirrors, and
other devices
Records regarding a child shall be confidential and kept under seal. Except upon
written request and order of the court, a record shall only be released to the
following: 
(1) Members of the court staff for administrative use; 
(2) The prosecuting attorney;
(3) Defense counsel;
(4) The guardian ad litem; 
(5) Agents of investigating law enforcement agencies; and 
(6) Other persons as determined by the court
Whoever publishes or causes to be published in any format the name, address, telephone
number, school, or other identifying information of a child who is or is alleged to be a victim
or accused of a crime or a witness thereof, or an immediate family of the child shall be
liable to the contempt power of the court
Where a youthful offender has been charged before any city, or provincial prosecutor or
any municipal judge and the charges have been dropped, all the records of the case shall
be considered as privileged and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone for
any purpose whatsoever. If he is charged and acquitted or the case is dismissed, the
records are also privileged, as a rule/
The youthful offender, who fails to acknowledge the case against him or to recite any fact
related thereto in response to any inquiry made to him for any purpose, shall not be held
under any provision of law to be guilty of perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation.

Kinds of examinations 
1. Direct examination - This is the examination-in chief of a witness by the party
presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue (Sec. 5, Rule 132, Rules of Court). It
is actually a procedure for obtaining information from one's own witness in an orderly
fashion. It is information which counsel wants the court to hear. The purpose is to elicit
facts about the client's cause of action or defense. This examination is now subject to
the Judicial Affidavit Rule which took effect on January 1, 2013. The Rule is discussed
at the end of this chapter. 
2. Cross-examination – This is the examination of the witness by the adverse
party after said witness has given his testimony on direct examination. As a rule, the
scope of the cross-examination is not confined to the matters stated by the witness in
the direct examination. Thus, under the Rules of Court, an objection that the question in
the cross-examination is on a matter not touched upon by the witness in his testimony
will seldom be sustained provided the question covers matters allowed to be asked by
way of cross-examination. This is because the rule allows questions designed to test
the accuracy and truthfulness of the witness, his freedom from interest or bias, or the
reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue
Although Sec. 6 of Rule 132 allows the cross-examiner a wide latitude in asking his
questions, this provision merely states a general rule. Where the witness is an unwilling
or a hostile witness as so declared by the court, he may be cross examined only as to
the subject matter of his examination in-chief he same limited scope of a cross
examination is imposed upon the cross-examiner where the witness examined is an
accused because he is subject to cross examination on matters covered by the direct
examination

Cross-examination has two basic purposes, namely:

(a) To bring out facts favorable to counsel's client not established by the direct testimony, and
(b) To enable counsel to impeach or to impair the credibility of the witness. 
3. Re-direct examination - This examination is con ducted after the cross-examination of the
witness. The party who called the witness on direct examination may re-examine the same
witness to explain or supplement his answers given during the cross-examination. It is the
examination of a witness by the counsel who conducted the direct examination after the cross-
examination. In re-direct examination the counsel may elicit testimony to correct or repel any
wrong impression or inferences that may have been created in the cross-examination. It may
also be an opportunity to rehabilitate a witness whose credibility has been damaged. In its
discretion, the court may even allow questions on matters not touched in the cross-examination
4. Re-cross examination – This is the examination conducted upon the conclusion of the re-
direct examination. Here, the adverse party may question the witness on matters stated in his
re-direct examination and also on such matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. 
Death or absence of a witness
If the witness dies before his cross-examination is over, his testimony on the direct may be
stricken out only with respect to the testimony not covered by the cross examination. The
absence of the witness is not enough to warrant striking out his testimony for failure to appear
for further cross-examination where the witness has already been sufficiently cross-examined,
and the matter on which the cross-examination is sought is not in controversy
If the witness was not cross-examined because of causes attributable to the cross-examining
party and the witness had always made himself available for cross examination, the direct
testimony of the witness shall remain in the record and cannot be ordered stricken off because
the cross-examiner is deemed to have waived the right to cross examine the witness
Recalling a witness 
If a witness has been examined by both sides, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of
court. Recalling a witness is a matter of judicial discretion. In the exercise of its discretion, the
court shall be guided by the interests of justice
Leading questions 
A leading question is one that is framed in such a way that the question indicates to the witness
the answer desired by the party asking the question. In the words of Sec. 10 of Rule 132, it is a
question “which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires." 
Leading questions are not appropriate in direct and re-direct examinations particularly when the
witness is asked to testify about a major element of the cause of action or defense. Leading
questions are allowed in cross and re cross examinations. In fact, leading questions are the
types of questions that should be employed in a cross-examination. Such questions enable the
counsel to get the witness to agree with his client's version of the facts. Most lawyers will agree
that a "why" question should not be asked in cross examination. This kind of question allows a
witness to explain his or her position, emphasize key points of harmful testimony and control the
pace and scope of the examination. It invites the witness to deliver an unwanted “lecture” in the
courtroom. Short and leading questions will help control the witness. 
Leading questions are, however, allowed in a direct examination in the following
instances:
(a) on preliminary matters;
(b) when the witness is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is feeble-minded or a deaf-mute
and there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from such witness;
(C) when the witness is a hostile witness; or
(d) When the witness is an adverse party, or an officer, director, or managing agent of a
corporation, partnership or association which is an adverse party
Leading questions to a child witness 
As to a child witness, Sec. 10, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court should be deemed modified by
Sec. 20 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness. Under the said rule, the court may allow
leading questions in all stages of examination of a child under the condition that the same will
further the interest of justice. Under the Rules of Court, a leading question may be asked of a
child only if there is difficulty of eliciting from said child a direct and intelligible answer.

Misleading questions 
1. A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness,
or contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is not allowed. 
Impeachment of a Witness 
Impeachment is basically a technique employed usually as part of the cross-examination to
discredit a witness by attacking his credibility. Destroying credibility is vital because it is linked
with a witness' ability and was tell the truth 
The rules enumerate certain guideposts in impeaching a witness: 
(a) The impeachment of a witness is to be done by the party against whom the witness is called.
(b) Subject to certain exceptions, the party producing the witness is barred from impeaching his
own witness
(c) By way of exception to the immediately pre ceding rule, if the witness is unwilling or hostile,
the party calling him may be allowed by the court to impeach who the witness. But it is not for
the party calling the witness to make a determination that the witness is unwilling or W hostile.
Whether or not a witness is hostile is addressed to judicial evaluation and the declaration shall
be made only if the court is satisfied that the witness possesses W an interest adverse to the
party calling him or there is adequate showing that the reluctance of the witness is unjustified, or
that he misled the party into calling him as a witness (Sec. 12, ibid.). 
A party may also be allowed to impeach his own witness when said witness is an adverse party
or is an officer, director, or managing agent of a corporation, partnership or association which is
an adverse party (Sec. 12, ibid.). 
(d) It is also improper for the party calling the witness to present evidence of the good character
of his own witness. The same is allowed only if the character of the witness has been
impeached (Sec. 14, ibid.). Thus, evidence of the good character of the witness is allowed only
to rebut the evidence offered to impeach the witness' character. If he has been impeached, then
he can be rehabilitated by evidence of his good character. 
How to impeach a witness 
1. Sec. 11 of Rule 132 specifies the manner of impeach ing the witness of the adverse party. It
declares: 
"SEC. 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. - A witness may be impeached by the party
against whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by évidence that his general reputation
for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at other times statements
inconsistent with his present testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except
that it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he
has been convicted of an offense.” 
2. Under the above rule, a witness may be impeached through the following modes: 
(a) By contradictory evidence; 
(b) By evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity is bad; or 
(c) By evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present
testimony
A witness cannot be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts except evidence of his
conviction of an offense as disclosed by his examination or the record of the judgment
An unwilling or hostile witness so declared by the court or the witness who is an adverse party
cannot be impeached by evidence of his bad character
Impeachment by contradictory evidence 
Every ethical trial lawyer will tell us that one basic rule in impeaching a witness by contradictory
evidence is the observance of fairness. Fairness demands that th impeaching matter be raised
in the cross-examination witness sought to be impeached by allowing him to admit deny a
matter to be used as the basis for impeachment hi contradictory evidence. 
Normally, the basis of this mode of impeachment is a declaration made by the witness in his
direct testimony. The cross-examiner's intention is to show to the court that there were
allegations made by the witness that do not correspond to the real facts of the case. 
This mode of impeachment may also be used to contradict conclusions made by expert
witnesses during their testimonies. Usually, the adverse party may also call another expert to
testify to a contrary conclusion. 
Impeachment by prior inconsistent statements 
1. Prior inconsistent made by a witness on an earlier occasion which contradict the statements
he later of Sec. 13 of Rule 132, they are "that he has made at other times statements
inconsistent with his present testimony." These inconsistent statements are admissible to
impeach the credibility of the witness making them. Impeachment by a prior inconsistent
statement to the most commonly used method because of its simplicity and the impact it makes
when properly used. The relevant rule provides: 
"SEC. 13. How witness impeached by evidence inconsistent statements-Before a witness can
be impeached by evidence that  he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his
present testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times
and places and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements,
and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the
witness before any question is put to him concerning them.” 
2. Effectively impeaching a witness by prior inconsistent statements requires laying the proper
foundation for the impeachment. Laying the foundation, commonly referred to as “laying the
predicate,” is a preliminary requirement before the impeachment process prospers. The
elements of this foundation are clearly spelled out in Sec. 13 of Rule 132. These are: 
(a) The alleged statements must be related to the witness including the circumstances of the
times and places and the persons present. If the statements are in writing, they must be shown
to him; and 
(b) He must be asked whether he made such statements and also to explain them if he admits
making those statements. 
The mere presentation of the prior declarations of the witness without the same having been
read to him while testifying in court is insufficient for the desired impeachment of his testimony,
if he was not given the ample opportunity to explain the supposed discrepancy. This rule is
founded, not only upon common sense, but is essential to protect the character of the witness
(People v. De Guzman, 288 SCRA 346, 354). 
To achieve a dramatic effect, the first step in setting up the prior inconsistent statement would
actually be to ask the witness to repeat or reaffirm his most recent statement. The second step
would be to relate to the witness his prior inconsistent statement and, at the same time,
"building up" or highlighting the contradictory utterance by relating to the witness the
circumstances of times, persons and places. Then, the witness is asked whether or not the
statements were made
The underlying purpose for laying the predicate is to allow the witness to admit or deny the prior
statement and afford him an opportunity to explain the same. Non-compliance with the
foundational elements for this mode of impeachment will be a ground for an objection based on
"improper impeachment.” Over a timely objection, extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent
statement without the required foundation is not admissible. 
Impeachment by showing bad reputation 
1. When a witness testifies, he puts his credibility at issue because the weight of his testimony
depends upon his credibility. One way to impair his credibility is by showing a not so pleasing
reputation. Hence, the prevailing rule allows his impeachment by evidence that he has a bad
general reputation. 
2. Not every aspect of a person's reputation may be the subject of impeachment. Evidence of
bad reputation for the purpose of impeachment should refer only to the following specific
aspects: (a) for truth; (b) for honesty; or (c) for integrity (Sec. 11, Rule 132, Rules of Court).
These are aspects of a person's reputation that are relevant to his credibility. He cannot be
impeached for his reputation on other grounds. Thus, it would be improper for a witness to be
impeached because of his reputation for being troublesome and abrasive. 
No impeachment by evidence of bad character but by bad reputation 
It should be noted that Sec. 11 does not allow im peachment by evidence of bad character but
by bad reputa tion. 
Evidence of good character of the witness 
Be it noted, too, that the party calling a witness cannot initiate proof of his good character. Thus,
if the plain tiff in a civil case presents Mr. W to testify on a vehicular collision, the counsel is not
allowed to ask questions tending to show the good character or reputation of the witness. Any
question to that effect can be validly objected to as “improper character evidence.” Because a
witness is presumed to be truthful and of good character, the party presenting him does not
have to prove he is good because he is presumed to be one. It is only after his character has
been attacked can he prove his being good. He must first be discredited before his reputation or
character can be bolstered. This basic procedural rule is supported by the provisions of Sec. 14
of Rule 132: 
"SEC. 14. Evidence of mind character of witness. Evidence of the good character of a witness is
not admissible until such character has been impeached." 
The rule that bars evidence of the good character of the witness, who has not yet been
impeached, has reference only to a mere witness. It does not refer to an accused in a riminal
case. In a criminal case the accused may prove his good moral character relevant to the offense
charged even hefore his character is attacked (Sec. 51[a][1], Rule 130, Rules of Court).
However, the prosecution cannot initiate proof of the bad character of the accused. It can only
do so by way of rebuttal. This means that the prosecution can prove the bad character of the
accused only if the latter had first presented evidence of his good character. 
As earlier mentioned, Sec. 11 of Rule 132 disallows the impeachment of a witness by evidence
of his particular wrongful acts. 
There is, however, a particular wrongful act that is admissible in evidence under the same
section – his prior conviction of an offense. This prior conviction of the witness is shown through
either of two ways: (a) by his examination, i.e., by cross-examining him, or (b) by presenting the
record of his prior conviction. 
Examining another witness to elicit from his lips the prior conviction of another witness is not the
correct procedure, unless the witness is one who is competent (like an official custodian of
records) to present in court the record of conviction. The rule is clear on this. It should be by
"the examination of the witness." This witness is obviously the one whose prior conviction is the
subject of inquiry. 
Exclusion and separation of witnesses 
1. The judge may exclude a witness who, at the time of exclusion, is not under examination so
that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses
2. The judge may cause the witnesses to be kept separate and be prevented from conversing
with one another until all shall have been examined
When the witness may refer to a memorandum 
During his testimony, in order to refresh his memory, a witness may refer to a memorandum or
to anything written or recorded by himself, or written or recorded by someone acting under his
direction. Such memorandum should be written at the time the fact occurred or immediately
thereafter or at any time when the event or fact was fresh in his memory. It is necessary too that
athe witness affirm that the fact was correctly written or recorded. Also, the memorandum must
be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party.
The witness may testify from the memorandum, writing or record, although he has no more
recollection of the facts written therein as long as he swears that the memoran dum, writing or
record correctly stated the fact or transaction when the recording was made. This type of
evidence must, however, be received with caution.

Judicial Affidavit Rule

Scope of the Judicial Affidavit Rule 

1. The Rule shall apply to all(a) actions, (b) proceedings or (C) incidents requiring the
reception of evidence

2. The Rule, in effect, applies to all courts, other than the Supreme Court. It also applies
to certain non-judicial bodies. The Rule specifies the following courts and bodies;

(a) Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts and the Shari'a Circuit Courts but shall not, however, apply to small claims
cases; 
(b) Regional Trial Courts and Shari'a District Courts; 
(c) Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Court of Appeals and Shari'a Appellate Courts; 
(d) Investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence,
including the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and 
(e) Special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject to disapproval
of the Supreme Court

Contents of the judicial affidavit

The judicial affidavit shall contain the questions asked of the witness and his answers to the
questions, all asked of the witness and his answers to the questions, all consecutively
numbered.

(a) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon
which he testifies:
(b) elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case
presents; and 
(c) identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their
authenticity (Sec. 3[d], Judicial Affidavit Rule). 

Effect of non-compliance with the attestation requirement 

A iudicial affidavit which does not conform to the attes tation requirement of Sec. 4 of the
Judicial Affidavit Rule shall not be admitted by the court in evidence (Sec. 10[c]. Judicial
Affidavit Rule). The court may, however, allow the submission of a compliant replacement
judicial affidavit as long as the replacement shall be submitted before the hearing or trial and
provided further that the following requisites are met;

1. The submission shall be allowed only once; 

2. The delay is for a valid reason; 

3. The delay would not unduly prejudice the opposing party; and 

4. The public or private counsel responsible for the preparation and submission of the affidavit
pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court
(Sec. 10[c], Judicial Affidavit Rule). 

Remedy in case of late submission 

The court mav allow the late submission of the judicial affidavit and exhibits provided
following requisites concur: 

(a) late submission shall be allowed only once;

(b) The delay is for a valid reason; 
(c) The late submission will not unduly prejudice the opposing party; and 
(d) The defaulting party pays a fine of not less than D1000.00 nor more than
P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court (Sec. 10[a], Judicial Affidavit Rule)

RULE 134

Perpetuation of Testimony

Section 1. Petition. — A person who desires to perpetuate his own testimony or that of
another person regarding any matter that may be cognizable in any court of the
Philippines, any file a verified petition in the court of the province of the residence of any
expected adverse party.

Section 2. Contents of petition. — The petition shall be entitled in the name of the
petitioner and shall show: (a) that the petitioner expects to be a party to an action in a
court of the Philippines by is presently unable to bring it or cause it to be brought; (b) the
subject matter of the expected action and his interest therein; (c) the facts which he
desires to establish by the proposed testimony and his reasons for desiring to
perpetuate it; (d) the names of a description of the persons he expects will be adverse
parties and their addresses so far as known; and (e) the names and addresses of the
persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit
from each, and shall ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to take the depositions of
the persons to be examined named in the petition for the purpose of perpetuating their
testimony.

Section 3. Notice and service. — The petitioner shall thereafter serve a notice upon each
person named in the petition as an expected adverse party, together with a copy of a
petition, stating that the petitioner will apply to the court, at a time and place named
therein, for the order described in the petition. At least twenty (20) days before the date
of hearing the notice shall be served in the manner provided for service of summons.

Section 4. Order of examination. — If the court is satisfied that the perpetuation of the
testimony may prevent a failure or delay of justice, it shall make an order designating or
describing the persons whose deposition may be taken and specifying the subject matter
of the examination, and whether the depositions shall be taken upon oral examination or
written interrogatories. The depositions may then be taken in accordance with Rule 24
before the hearing.
Section 5. Reference to court. — For the purpose of applying Rule 24 to depositions for
perpetuating testimony, each reference therein to the court in which the action is
pending shall be deemed to refer to the court in which the petition for such deposition
was filed.

Section 6. Use of deposition. — If a deposition to perpetuate testimony is taken under

this rule, or if, although not so taken, it would be admissible in evidence, it may be used
in any action involving the same subject matter subsequently brought in accordance
with the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 24.

Section 7. Depositions pending appeal. — If an appeal has been taken from a judgment of
the Regional Trial Court or before the taking of an appeal if the time therefor has not
expired, the Regional Trial Court in which the judgment was rendered may allow the
taking of depositions of witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for use in the event of
further proceedings in the said court. In such case the party who desires to perpetuate
the testimony may make a motion in the said Regional Trial Court for leave to take the
depositions, upon the same notice and service thereof as if the action was pending
therein. The motion shall show (a) the name and the addresses of the persons to be
examined and the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit from each; and
(b) the reason for perpetuating their testimony. If the court finds that the perpetuation of
the testimony is proper to avoid a failure or delay of justice, it may make an order
allowing the depositions to be taken, and thereupon the depositions may be taken and
used in the same manner and under the same conditions as are prescribed in these rules
for depositions taken in actions pending in the Regional Trial Court.

Riano Annotations Summary

Preponderance of Evidence (Bar 2003; 2011)

1. Section 1 of rule 133 provides:

“SECTION 1. Preponderance Of evidence; how determined. – In civil cases. The

party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance or
superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court might consider
all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses’ manner of testifying,
the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of
their testimony, their interest or want of same may legitimately appear upon the
 trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses. Though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.”

2. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence id the weight, credit,
and value of the aggregate evidence on either side is usually considered to be
synonymous with term “greater weight of the evidence” or “greater weight of
credible evidence.”

3. Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which in the last analysis, means the

possibility of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as
worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.

4. Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side, is as

a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. It is evidence
which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than which is offered in
opposition thereto.

5. In determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may

consider the following;

(a) All the facts and circumstances of the case;

(b) The witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and
opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature
of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their
testimony;
(c) The witnesses’ interest or want of interest and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial;
(d) The number of witnesses, although it does not mean that the
preponderance is necessarily with the greater number.
(e)
Substantial evidence (Bar 2003; 2011)

1. The pertinent rule on substantial evidence is found in Sec. 5 of rule 133. The
relevant provision declares:

“SEC 5. Substantial evidence. – In cases filed before administrative or quasi-

judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it supported by substantial
evidence or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.”

2. Substantial evidence refers to such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In administrative cases, the
quantum of evidence required is that of substantial evidence. It does not require
evidence that is overwhelming or even preponderant.
 3. In administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings, like those conducted before the
NLRC, the standard of proof is substantial evidence which is understood to be
more than just a scintilla or such amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

Quantum of evidence in a petition for Writ of Amparo

In a petition for a writ of amparo, the parties shall establish that their claims by
substantial evidence

Effect on the criminal case of failure to prove administrative liability

In Paredes v. Court of Appeals, 528 SCRA 577, the accused argued that as his
liability in the administrative case against him was not established by substantial
evidence, so will his criminal case necessarily fall, demanding as it does, a heavier
quantum of proof i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ti this argument the Supreme
Court declared:

Clear and convincing evidence (Bar 2011)

1. Evidence is clear and convincing if it produces in the mind of the trier of fact, a
firm belief or conviction as to allegations sought to be established. It is
intermediate, being more than preponderance, but not to the extent of such
certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases

2. The Court in, Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia,

Jr. (521 SCRA 470), explained this quantum of evidence thus;

3. One recent case makes a more liberal use of the “clear and convincing
evidence” rule when it declared; “once an accused in a prosecution for murder or
homicide admitted his infliction of the fatal injuries he assumed the burden to
prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence the justifying circumstance
that would avoid his criminal liability.”

Evidentiary weight of electronic evidence

1. In assessing the evidentiary weight of electronic evidence, certain factors may be

considered, like;

(a) The reliability of the manner which it was generated, stored or

communicated;
(b) The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified;
(c) The integrity of the information and communication system
 (d) The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with
the communication and information system;
(e) The nature and the quality of the information which went into the
communication and information system; and
(f) Other factors which the court may consider

2. All matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic

document may be established by an affidavit must affirmatively show the
competence of the affiant to testify on the matters contained therein.

When judicial notice is mandatory

1. A matter of judicial notice may either be mandatory or discretionary. When the

matter is subject to a mandatory judicial notice, no mention or hearing is
necessary for the court to take judicial notice of such manner because it is what
it says it is --- “mandatory”

2. The following are matters subject to mandatory judicial notice;

(a) Existence and territorial extent of states

(b) Political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality
states;
(c) Law of nations;
(d) Admiralty and maritime courts of the word and their seals;
(e) Political constitution and history of the Philippines;
(f) Official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
Philippines;
(g) Laws of nature;
(h) Measure of time; and
(i) Geographical divisions

3. It would be error for a court not to take judicial notice of an amendment to the
Rules of Court. In a case, the Supreme Court declared that even if petitioners did
not raise or allege the amendment of the Rules of Court in their motion of
reconsideration before it, the court of appeals should have taken mandatory
judicial notice of the Supreme Court’s resolution in A.M. No. 00-02-03-SC
amending Sec. 2 of Rulw 65, effective September 1, 2000. Under Sec, 1 of Rule
129, a court shall take judicial notice, among others, of the official acts not only
on the legislative and executive departments but also of the judicial department.

3. In a case questioning the title of the University of the Philippines to certain lots,
the court ruled that the lower courts should take judicial notice of the fact that the
congress and Supreme Court have both officialy recognized the university’s
indefeasible titles to its landloadings. The official acts of the legislative, executive
and judicial departments of the Philippines are matters of judicial notice.
Judicial notice of proprietary acts of government-owned and controlled
corporations
A management contract entered into by a government-owned and controlled
corporation like that involving the Philippine Ports Authority is not among the matters
which the courts can take judicial notice of. It cannot be considered an official act of the
executive department because it was entered into while performing a proprietary
function.

Judicial notice of post office practices

That a registered letter when posted is immediately stamped with the date of its
receipt, indicating there in the number of the registry, both on the covering envelope
itself and on the receipt delivered to the person who delivered the letter to the office is
not a proper subject of judicial notice.

This post office practice is not covered by any of the instance under the Rules and is not
of unquestionable demons (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 107 SCRA 504). 

Judicial notice of banking practices 

May judicial notice be taken of the practice of banks in conducting background checks
on borrowers and sureties? 

While a court is not mandated to take judicial notice of this practice under Sec. 1 of Rule
129 of the Rules of Court, it, nevertheless, may do so under Sec. 2 of the same rule on
discretionary judicial notice. Sec. 2 of Rule 129 provides that a court may take judicial
notice of “matters which are of public knowledge, or ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions.” Thus, the Court has taken judicial notice of the
practices of banks and other financial institutions. Precisely, it has noted that it is their
uniform practice, before approving a loan, to investigate, examine and assess would-be
borrowers' credit standing or real estate offered as security for the loan applied for.

Judicial notice of the financial condition of the government 

Judicial notice could be taken of the fact that the government is and has for many years
been financially strapped, to the point that even the most essential services have
suffered serious curtailment.

Judicial notice of presidential powers 

The trial court should take judicial notice of R.A. No. 6734, as implemented by E.O. No.
429, as legal basis of the President's power to reorganize the executive department.
The official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments are proper
subjects of mandatory judicial notice.

How judicial admissions may be contradicted 

1. Sec. 4 of Rule 129 provides for either of two ways to contradict a judicial admission,
namely: 

(a) by showing that the admission was made through palpable mistake, or 1.
(b) by showing that no such admission was made. 

The mistake that would relieve a party from the effects of his admission is not any
mistake. It must be one that is “palpable," a mistake that is clear to the mind or plain to
see” (New Oxford American Dictionary, 2001 Ed., p. 1232). It is a mistake that is
“readily perceived by the senses or the mind”

2. A party may also argue that he made "no such admission." This argument may be
invokedwhen the statement of a party is taken out of context or that his statement made
not in the sense it is made to appear by the other party Here, the party upon whom the
admission is imputed does not deny making a statement. What he denies is the
meaning. What he denies is the meaning attached to his statement a meaning made to
appear by the adverse party as an admission.

Requisites for admissibility of object evidence 

1. The admissibility of object or real evidence, like any other evidence, requires that the
object be both relevant and competent. To be relevant, the evidence must have a
relationship to the fact in issue. To be competent, it must not be excluded by the rules
or by law. The legal basis of this requirement is Sec. 3 of Rule 128: “Evidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these
rules.” 

2. For the object not to be excluded by the Rules, the same must pass the test of
authentication. The threshold foundation for real evidence is its being authenticated. Is it
the real thing? In other words, is it the actual object it is claimed to be? 

To authenticate the object, it must be shown that it is the very thing that is either
the subject matter of the lawsuit or the very one involved to prove an issue in the
case. If the prosecution wants the admission of the gun used in the murder, it
must prove that it was the very same gun used by the accused. Another gun,
although identical with the actual gun in all respects, would not satisfy the
requirements of authentication. 

3. To authenticate the object, there must be someone who should identify the object to
be the actual thing involved in the litigation. This someone is the witness. An object
evidence, being inanimate, cannot speak for itself. It cannot present itself to the court as
an exhibit. Even a supposedly ancient document (a private document that is more than
thirty years old produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine
and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion) requires a witness
to testify on the characteristics of the document even if it no longer requires
authentication (See Sec. 21, Rule 132, Rules of Court). 

4. It must be emphasized that every evidence, whether it be a document or an object,

needs a witness. Even object evidence requires statements from a witness to make its
way into the realm of admissible evidence. In short, testimonial evidence provides the
foundation for all types of evidence. This is a very basic rule. In layman's term, the
evidence must be "sponsored” by a witness. To authenticate the object, the witness
must have capacity to identify the object as the very thing involved in the litigation.
Better still, he must have actual and personal knowledge of the exhibit he is presenting
for admission. This is because “a witness can only testify to those facts which he knows
of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception ..." (Sec.
36, Rule 130, Rules of Court). 

5. An object evidence is not taken in isolation. It is weighed in relation to the testimony

of a witness. Also, in giving credence to a testimony, the court takes into consideration
the physical evidence. If the testimony bears a striking similarity with the physical
evidence, the testimony becomes worthy of belief (People v. Larrañaga, 463 SCRA
652)
6. When the truth or falsity of a fact in issue may be explained by the presentation of an
object, the same may be exhibited before the court. If the witness wants to show the
condition of a particular article or substance, his testimony will be enhanced by the
presentation of said article or substance. More often than not, the presentation of object
evidence supplements the credibility of the testimony of a witness when the object has a
clear relevance to the issue of the case. 

Cutting through all the legal foliage, the Court finds the following as the basic requisites
for the admissibility of an object or real evidence: 

(a) The evidence must be relevant;

(b) The evidence must be authenticated;
(c) The authentication must be made by a competent witness; and 
(d) The object must be formally offered in evidence.

Object evidence and the right against self-incrimination (Bar 2010) 

The right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked against object evidence. 

In one early case, the accused-appellant argued that the admission as evidence of the
victim's wallet, together with its contents, viz., (1) his residence certificate; (2) his
identification card; and (3) bunch of keys, violated his right against self incrimination. 

The Court held that the right against self-incrimination, guaranteed under the
fundamental law, had no application in this case because no testimonial compulsion
was involved (People v. Malimit, 264 SCRA 167). 
Demonstrative evidence 

1. Demonstrative evidence is not the actual thing but it is referred to as "demonstrative”

because it represents or demonstrates the real thing. It is not strictly “real” evidence
because it is not the very thing involved in the case. A map, a diagram, a photograph,
and a model, fall under this category. This category of evidence is not separately
defined in the Rules of Court and appears to have been incorporated under the general
term "object" evidence. 

2. The admissibility of this type of evidence largely depends on laying the proper
foundation for the evidence. The rule boils down to one basic question: Does the
evidence sufficiently and accurately represent the object it seeks to demonstrate or
represent? If it does, the evidence would be admissible. 

3. Photographs - Photographs of persons, things and places, when instructive to the

understanding of the case, will be admitted in evidence. For a still photograph to be admitted,
the same must be relevant and competent. It is competent when it is properly authenticated by a
witness who is familiar with the scene or person portrayed, and who testifies that the
photograph faithfully represents what it depicts. 

Some courts insist on requiring the photographer to testify but this view has been eroded by the
tendency of modern courts to admit as a witness one who has familiarity with the scene
portrayed (Sison v. People, 250 SCRA 58, 75). 

Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, photographic evidence of events, acts or transactions
shall be admissible in evidence provided that: 

(a) It shall be presented, displayed and shown to the court; and 

(b) It shall be identified, explained or authenticated by either: 
(i) The person who made the recording; or 
(ii) Some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof (Sec. 1, Rule 11, Rules
on Electronic Evidence).

The admissibility of photographs is within the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling in this
respect will not be interfered with, except upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. In
determining whether photographs should be admitted, a trial judge must determine whether they
are relevant, and whether a proper foundation has been laid.

Links in the chain of custody 

1. Since it is called a chain, there must be links to the chain. The links are the people
who actually handled or Cod custody of the object. Each of the links in the chain must
show how he received the object, how he handled it to prevent substitution, and how it
was transferred to another. Each of the handlers of the evidence is a link in the chain
and must testify to make the foundation complete. This is the ideal way to show the
chain of custody. 
2. Jurisprudence identified the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of
custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: 

First, the seizure and marking of the confiscated drugs recovered from the
accused; 

Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigatingofficer; 

Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and 

Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug by the forensic
chemist to the court

3.Because of the definition of custody as defined by Sec. 1(b) of the Dangerous Drugs
Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, the movement of the drugs from one person to
another must be duly recorded. Such record of movements and custody of seized item
shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the
seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course
of safekeeping and use in court of evidence.

Importance of marking the evidence

It must be noted that “marking" is not found in DA 0165 as amended. It is different from
the inventor taking and photography under Sec. 21 of the said law. However, long
before Congress passed R.A. 9165, the Supreme Court had consistently held that
failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs would cast reasonable
doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.

“Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other
related items immediately after they had been seized from the accused. “Marking"
means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and
signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial
link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because
succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking
of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from x x x all other similar or
related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed
of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or
contamination of evidence”

Effect of non-compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A 9165, as amended 

1. In case there is a failure to comply with the requirements of the law in the
handling of confiscatedrugs, the law, as amended by R.A 10640, clearly
requires the authorities to show the following;
 (a) the non-compliance must be because of justifiable grounds; and
(b) the apprehending officer/team must have properly preserved the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items.

2. Failure to strictly comply with the law does not necessarily render the arrest
of the accused illegal or render inadmissible the items seized or confiscated
from him (People , Dahil. G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015; See also
People Tanugav. G.R. No. 200336, February 11, 2015; People v. Enad. G.R.
No. 205764, February 3, 2016). However, the prosecution must still prove
that (a) there is a justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and (b) the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved

DNA Evidence

1. In a case where the admissibility of DNA testing as a means for determining paternity
has become the focal issue in controversy for the first time, the Supreme Court
described DNA in the following words: 

“DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is a molecule that encodes the genetic

information in all living organisms. A person's DNA is the same in each cell and
it does not change throughout a person's lifetime, lifetime: the DNA in A found in
his a person's blood is the same as the DNA found in saliva, sweat, bone, the
root and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, skin tissue and vaginal or rectal
cells. Most importantly, because of polymorphisms in human genetic structure,
no two individuals have the game the notable exception of identical twins"

2. Agustin has its roots in an action for support filed by a mother and her son against the
latter's alleged biological father who denied having sired the child. The plaintiffs then
moved for the issuance of an order directing all the parties to submit themselves to DNA
testing pursuant to Rule 28 (Physical and Mental Examination of Persons) of the Rules
of Court. The defendant opposed the motion by invoking his constitutional right against
self-incrimination. He, likewise. moved for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of a
cause of action. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and ordered the parties to
submit themselves to DNA paternity testing. The Court of Appeals later affirmed the trial
court.

3. In 2001, however, the Supreme Court showed signs of opening up to DNA evidence,
in Tijing v. Court of Appeals (354 SCRA 17), when it recognized the existence of the
facility (UP-NSRI DNA Analysis Laboratory) and expertise in using DNA test for
identification and parentage testing. Although acknowledging that the test is still open to
challenge being a novel scientific technique, the Supreme Court, in Tijing, categorically
declared that "eventually, courts should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA
evidence ... courts should apply the results of science when competently obtained in aid
of situations presented, since to reject said result is to deny progress. Though it is not
necessary in this case to resort to DNA testing, in the future, it would be useful to all
concerned in the prompt resolution of parentage and identity issues.” 

4. One year after Tijing, in what could be considered as a landmark decision, the
Supreme Court in People v. Vallejo (382 SCRA 192 [2002]), a rape-slay case of a 9-
year old girl, admitted in evidence the DNA samples of the victim which were found in
the bloodstained garments of the accused. Vaginal swabs taken from the victim were
also admitted and were found to show the DNA profile of the accused who was
subsequently convicted. Vallejo is considered by the Court to be the "first real
breakthrough of DNA as admissible and authoritative evidence in Philippine
jurisprudence.” From a mere recognition of the existence of DNA testing, Vallejo moved
towards an open use of DNA evidence in deciding cases. Vallejo adopted the following
guidelines to be used by courts in assessing the probative value of DNA evidence: 

(a) How the samples were collected; 

(b) How they were handled;
(c) The possibility of contamination of the samples; 
(d) The procedure followed in analyzing the samples; 
(e) Whether the proper standards and procedure were followed in condducting
the tests; and
(f) The qualification of the analyst who conducted the test (Bar 2009; 2010). 

In People v. Janson (400 SCRA 584), the importance of DNA evidence was, likewise,
recognized although the accused, who was charged with rape, was acquitted because
of doubts as to who the real malefactor was. Here, the Court lamented the lack of DNA
evidence as a means to still the Court's doubts. 

In Tecson v. COMELEC (424 SCRA 277), the Court acknowledged the weight of DNA
evidence when the Court was faced with the issue of filiation of Fernando Poe, Jr. Any
doubt as to filiation or paternity, according to the Court, would have been cleared up by
a positive match through DNA testing. 

5. Following the trail blazed by Vallejo, the Supreme Court in 2004 in People v. Yatar,
428 SCRA 504 (May 19, 2004), relied on evidence, including DNA evidence, in affirming
the conviction of the accused for rape with homicide when the test showed that a match
existed between the DNA profile of the semen found in the victim and the DNA profile of
the blood sample given by the accused. Yatar also made a lengthy discussion on DNA,
the process of DNA testing and the reasons for its admissibility. Yatar significantly
upheld the constitutionality of compulsory DNA testing and rejected the contention that it
would infringe on the constitutional right against self-incrimination. The case significantly
and clearly recognized DNA testing and the admissibility of its results as evidence. 

6. A clear acknowledgment of the importance of DNA evidence is exemplified in the

later case of In re Estate of Rogelio Ong v. Diaz (540 SCRA 480). The case originated
in a complaint for compulsory recognition and support filed by a minor represented by
her mother. The defendant, Rogelio Ong died during the pendency of his appeal.
The determination of the probative value of the DNA evidence rests upon sound judicial
assessment taking; consideration the following matters: 

(a) The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were collected, how they
were handled and the possibility of contamination of the samples; 
(b) The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing the
samples, the advan tages and disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with the
scientifically-valid standards in conducting the tests; mo bat 
(c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including its accreditation and the qualification of the
analyst who conducted the test; if the laboratory is not accredited. the court shall
consider the relevant experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and its credibility
shall be properly established; and 
(d) The reliability of the testing result

10. If a person has already been convicted under a final and executory judgment, may he still
avail of DNA testing? (Bar 2012) 

He may still have DNA testing. The test after his conviction is termed a "post-conviction” DNA
testing. Significantly Sec 6 of the RDE allows a post-conviction DNA testing. It may be available
to (a) the prosecution, or (b) the person convicted by a final and executory judgment, provided
that the following requirements are met: 

(a) a biological sample exists; 

(b) such sample is relevant to the case; and 
(c) the testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of
conviction (Sec. 6, RDE). 

Except upon order of the court, the DNA profiles and other results shall only be released
to any of the following:

(a) The person from whom the sample was taken:

(b) Lawyers representing parties in the case action where the DNA evidence is ofered
and orsought to be offered and presented; 
(c) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action; 
(d) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies;
(e) Other persons as determined by the court (Sec. 11, RDE). 

Requisites for admissibility of documentary evidence 

The following are the requisites for the admissibility of documentary evidence: 

(a) The document must be relevant; (b) The evidence must be authenticated; 
(c) The document must be authenticated by a competent witness; and 
(d) The document must be formally offered in evi dence. 

Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence in case of loss,

destruction, or unavailability of the original 
 1. Secondary evidence refers to evidence other than the original instrument or
document itself (EDSA Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc. v. BF Corporation, 556
SCRA 25).

Secondary evidence, like a copy of the original, is admis sible as an exception if

the original writing has been lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in court
without bad faith on the part of the party offering the secondary evidence. This
exception does not only cover loss or destruction but also other reasons for the
failure to produce the original in court even if the original is not lost or destroyed,
as when the original is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court (Reynolds
on Evidence, 2nd Ed., $61; PNB v. Olila, 98 Phil. 1002). 

2. Under Sec. 5 of Rule 130, secondary evidence may be admitted only by laying the
basis for its production. Specifically, laying such basis requires compliance with the 
following: 

(a)The offeror must prove the existence and execution of the original
document; 
(b)The offeror must show the cause of its unavail ability such as the loss or
destruction of the original; and 
(c)The offeror must show that the unavailability was not due to his bad faith
(See also R G.R. No. 181892, September 8, 2015). 

After complying with the requirements for lo basis for the introduction of secondary
evidence. The offeror may now be allowed to prove the contents of the documents by
seondary evidence.
 
3. Based on the Rules, the presentation of seco evidence should be in the
following order: 

(a) a copy of the original; 

(b) a recital of the contents of the document in some authentic document; or 
(c) by the testimony of witnesses (Sec. 5, Rule 130 Rules of Court). 

Accordingly, the correct order of proof is as follow existence, execution, loss and
contents although, at the sou discretion of the court, this order may be changed if
necessary

4. One case, involving two women who claimed to be the legal spouse of the same
man, is illustrative.
 
In the case, the respondent filed an action for the declaration of nullity of the second
marriage of her husband to the petitioner. The respondent alleged in her complaint that
she had married her husband in 1942. The petitioner, on the other hand, claimed to be
the legal wife of the same man on the basis of her marriage to him in 1979. She alleged,
by way of defense, that the man she married was not the legal husband, but only the
common law husband, of the respondent. 

The respondent, who had no original marriage certificate to prove the marriage, offered
in evidence the certifications from both the civil registrar of the place of marriage and
the National Statistics Office, attesting to the destruction of all records of marriage
during the Second World War. Since there was no copy of the record of marriage, she
submitted the following secondary evidences: (a) certificate of her marriage to her
husband issued by the parish priest of the place where marriage was solemnized: (b)
birth certificates of her Children by her husband; (c) certificate of baptism of one child
indicating that he was born to respondent and her husband (d) the testimony of
respondent herself; and (e) the testimony of the sister of her husband as to the fact of
marriage. 

The Court ruled that the evidences offered established the fact of marriage of
respondent to the man she claimed to ho her husband. The marriage of petitioner to the
same man. was declared null and void (See Macua Vda. de Avenido v. Avenido, G.R.
No. 173540, January 22, 2014). 

Citing the precedents the court, in the same case declared;

“While a marriage certificate is considered the primary evidence of a marital union, it is

not regarded as the sole and exclusive evidence of marriage. Jurisprudence teaches
that the fact of marriage may be proven as relevant evidence other than the marriage
certificate. Hence, even a person's birth certificate may be recognized as competent
evidence of the marriage between his parents." 

Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence when the original is in the
custody or control of the adverse party 

1. A showing that the original document is in the custody or under the control of the
adverse party does not ipso facto authorize the introduction of secondary evidence to
prove its contents. The party who seeks to present secondary evidence must first lay
the basis for its introduction. Laying the basis requires proof of the following: 

(a) that the original exists; 

(b) that said document is under the custody or control of the adverse party; 
(c) that the proponent of secondary evidence has given the adverse party
reasonable notice to produce the original document; and 
(d) that the adverse party failed to produce the original document de
spite the reasonable notice. 

2 In one case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the mere fact that the original of the
writing is in the custody or control of the party against whom it is offered does not want
the admission of secondary 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 may be in the form of a motion for the production of the original,
or made in open court in the presence of the adverse party, or via a subpoena duces
tecum, provided that the party in custody of the original has sufficient time to produce
the same. When such party has the original of the writing and does not voluntarily offer
to produce it or refuses to produce it, secondary evidence may be admitted

3. After the foundational requirements for the introduction of secondary evidence have
been complied with, secondary evidence may now be presented as in the case of loss
(Sec. 6, Rule 130, Rules of Court). This means that the contents of the document may
now be proven by a copy of the document, a recital of its contents in some authentic
document, or by testimony of witnesses in the order stated (Sec. 5, Rule 130, Rules of
Court). 

Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence when the original consists
of numerous accounts 

1. Under this exception, secondary evidence is admissible: 

(a) if the original consists of numerous accounts other documents; 

(b) such accounts or documents cannot be examined in court without great loss
of time; and 
(c) the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the
whole

Meaning of "original” (Bar 1997; 2001) 

1. Sec. 4 of Rule 130 elucidates on the concept of the term "original,” thus: 
"SEC. 4. Original of document. —

(a) The original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of
inquiry. 
(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. 
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being
copied from
another or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally
regarded as originals.

To be considered originals under this provision certain requisites must be

complied with;

(a) there must be entries made and repeated in the regular course of business;
and 
(b) the entries must be made at or near the time of the transaction. 
Application of the parol evidence rule (Bar 1978; 1981; 1983; 2012)

1. The "parol evidence rule” is embodie 130 of the Rules of Court which provides: 

“SEC. 9 Evidence of written agreements--- When the terms of an agreement have been
reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there
can be, between the parties and successors in interest, no evidence of such torment
than the contents of the written agreement.

However, a party may present evidence to modifv. explain or add to the terms of the
written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading: 

(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfec tion in the written agreement; 

(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement
of the parties thereto; 
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or 
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in
interest after the execution of the written agreement. 
The term "agreement” includes wills." 

When and how to introduce parol evidence 

1. The rule prohibiting parol evidence is not absolute. A party may present evidence
when he desires to modify. explain or add to the terms of the written agreement 

(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement; 

(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement
of the parties thereto (Saberola v. Suarez, 558 SCRA 135); 
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors-in-
interest after the execution of the written agreement (Sec. 9, Rule 130, Rules of
Court). 

Public and private documents 

2 Sec. 19 of Rule 132 enumerates the public documents, thus: 

"SEC. 19. Classes of documents. — For the purpose of their presentation in evidence,
documents are either public or private. 

Public documents are: 

(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philip
pines, or of a foreign country; 
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and
testaments; and 
 (c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law
to be entered therein. 

All other writings are private." 

Proof of a private document 

1. Sec. 20 of Rule 132 provides: 

"SEC. 20. Proof of private document. – Before any private document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved
either: 

(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or 

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the
maker. 

Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.”

When authentication of private documents is not required

The requirement of authentication of a private document is excused in some instances,

specifically: 

(a) when the document is an ancient one within the context of Sec. 21,
Rule 132 of the
(b) Rules of Court; 

(b) when the genuineness and authenticity of an actionable document

have not been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party under
Sec. 8 of Rule 8 of the Rules of Court; 
(c) when the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been
admitted under Sec. 4 of Rule 129. or 
(d) when the document is not being offered as authentic as implied from
Sec. 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which requires authentication
only when the document is offered as `authentic (See Patula v. People
669 SCRA 135, 157, April 11, 2012). 

Proof of official record; attestation of a copy 

1. While a public document does not require authentication imposed upon a private document a
necessity for showing to the court that indeedom the official acts of official bodies, tribunals or of
public exists. How is this effected? Sec. 24 of Rule 132 supplies the answer. The record of a
public document may be evidenced by;

(a) An official publication thereof; or 

(b) A copy of the document attested by the officer having legal custody of the record or by the
attestation of his deputy; if the record is not kept in the Philippines the attestation must be
accompanied with a certificate that such officer has the custody; if the office in which the record
is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or
legation, consul-general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign
service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office. 

Public record of a private document 

A public record of a private document may be proved by any of the ff:

(a) By the original record; or 

(b) By a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate
certificate that such officer has the custody (Sec. 27, Rule 132, Rules of Court).

Proof of lack of record

Proof of lack of record of a document consists of a written statement signed by the officer
having custody of an official record or by his deputy. The written statement must contain the
following matters: 

(a) there has been a diligent search of the record; 

(b) that despite the diligent search, no record of entry of a specified tenor is found to
exist in the records of his office. 

The written statement must be accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody of
official records (Sec. 28, Rule 132, Rules of Court). 

Explaining alterations in a document 

For such purpose, he may show any of the following:

(a) that the alteration was made by another with out his concurrence; or 
(b) that the alteration was made with the consen of the parties affected by it; 
(c) that the alteration was otherwise properly or innocently made; or 
(d) that the alteration did not in anyway chang the meaning or language of the
instrument. Failure to do any of the above will make the document inadmissible in
evidence (Sec. 31, Rule 132, Rules of Court) 

Qualifications of a witness 

1. As to the qualifications of a witness, Sec. 20, Rule 130 of the Rules of court
provides;

"SEC. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as provided in the next succeeding
section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception
to others, may be witnesses. 
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime
unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification." 

2. The above provision supplies the basic qualifications of a witness, namely: 

(a) He can perceive; and 

(b) He can make known his perception to others. To these, we may add the
following: 
(c) He must take either an oath or an affirmation (Sec. 1, Rule 132, Rules of
Court);

Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity 

1. In relation to a disqualification by reason of mental incapacity, Sec. 21(a) of Rule 130

declares: 

"SEC. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity X X X. — The following

persons cannot be witnesses: 

(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is
such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others; 

2. To be disqualified as a witness by reason of mental incapacity, the following must

concur: 

(a) the person must be incapable of intelligently making known his perception to others;
and (b) his incapability must exist at the time of his production for examination. 

Sec. 21(a) of Rule 130 establishes the rule that the mental incapacity of a witness at the
time of his perception 

Disqualification by reason of immaturity 

1. Sec. 21(b) of Rule 130 provides: 

“SEC. 21. Disqualification by reason of x x x immaturity. — The following persons

cannot be witnesses: 

(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving
the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truth fully." 

2. To be disqualified as a witness by reason of immaturity, the following must concur: 

(a) the mental maturity of the witness must render him incapable of perceiving the facts
respecting which he is examined; and 
(b) he is incapable of relating his perception truthfully (Sec. 21[b], Rule 130, Rules of
Court). 

The competency examination of a child witness is not open to the public. Only the
following are allowed to attend the examination:

(a) The judge and necessary court personnel; 

(b) The counsel for the parties;
(c) The guardian ad litem;
(d) One or more support persons for the child; and 
(e) The defendant, unless the court determines that competence can be fully
evaluated in his absence (Sec. 6[c), Rule on Examination of a Child Witness). 

Survivorship disqualification rule or the dead man's statute (Bar 2001) 

1.The survivorship disqualification rule (dead man's statute) is detailed in Sec. 23 of

Rule 130 which provides: 

"SEC. 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. - Parties or

assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against
an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a
person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased
person or against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact
occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of
unsound mind." 

2. This rule “applies only to a civil case or a special proceeding over the estate of a
deceased or insane person" (Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II, 2008 Ed..
p. 743). 

The following are the elements for the application of this rule: 

(a) The suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against the estate of said deceased or
person of unsound mind;
(b) The defendant in the case is the executor or administrator or a representative
of the deceased or the person of unsound mind; 
(c) The witness is the plaintiff, or an assignor of that party, or a person in whose
behalf the case is prosecuted; and 
(d) The subject of the testimony is as to any matter of fact occurring before the
death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind
(Sec. 23, Rule 130, Rules of Court). 

Marital Disqualification rule (Spousal immunity) (Bar 2000; 2010)

1. The marital disqualification rule is provided for in Sec. 22 of Rule 130, viz.: 
“SEC. 22. Disqualification by reason of During their marriage, neither the husband nor
the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse,
except in a civil case against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by
one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants." 

2. The case of Alvarez v. Ramirez (473 SCRA 72) gives the specific reasons for the
rule, thus: 

(a) There is identity of interests between husband and wife; 

(b) If one were to testify for or against the other, there is a consequent danger of
perjury; 
(c) The policy of the law is to guard the security and confidences of private life,
even at the risk of an occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic
disunion and unhappiness; and 
(d) Where there is want of domestic tranquility, there is danger of punishing one
spouse through the hostile testimony of the other. 

Exceptions to the marital disqualification ru;e

1. In the following instances, a spouse may testify for or against the other even without
the consent of the latter;

(a) in a civil case by one against the other; or

(b) in a criminal case for a crime commited against the other, or the latter's direct
descendants or ascendants

2. Under the provisions of Sec. 24(a) of Rule 130, the husband or the wife cannot be
examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in
confidence he one from the other during the marriage. 

The application of the rule requires the presence of the following elements: 

(a) there must be a valid marriage between thr husband and wife; 
(b) there is a communication received in confidence  by one from the other; and 
(c) the confidential communication was received during the marriage. 

Attorney-client privilege (Bar 2008) 

1. The following is the applicable provision under Rule 130 involving privileged
communications between an attorney and his client;

“SEC 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication---- The following

persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:

(a) XXX 
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client. be examined as to any
communication by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of,
 or with a view to, professional employment nor can an attorney's secretary,
stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of the has been acquired in such
capacity." 

2. The following requisites must be present for the privilege to arise:

(a) There must be a communication made by the  client to the attorney, or an

advice given by the attorney to his client; 
(b) The communication or advice must be given in confidence; and 
(c) The communication or advice must be given either in the course of the
professional employment or with a view to professional employment. 

Physician-patient privilege

The person against whom the privilege is claimed is a person duly authorized to
practice medicine, surgery, or obstetrics. 
The information which cannot be disclosed refers to: 

(a) any advice given to the client;

(b) any treatment given to the client; 
(c) any information acquired in attending such patient provided that the advice,
treatment or information was made or acquired in a professional capacity and
was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and 
(d) the information sought to be disclosed would tend to blacken the reputation
of the patient (Sec. 24[c], Rule 130, Rules of Court). The word “reputation” is
used instead of the previous word, “character.” 

Executive privilege; Presidential communications privilege

Chavez v. PCGG (299 SCRA 744) ruled that there on certain matters involving is a
privilege against disclosure on certain matter state secrets regarding the following: 

(a) military;
(b) diplomatic; and
(c) other national security matters 

Parental and filial privilege (Bar 1998) 

1. Two privileges are embodied in Sec. 25 of Rule 130, namely: (a) the parental
privilege rule; and (b) the filial privilege rule. 

2.Under the parental privilege rule, a parent cannot be compelled to testify against his
child or other direct descendants. 
In criminal cases, the Family code of the Phillipines lays down as a general rule, a
policy substantially similar to Sec. 25. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Under the Family
code, no descendant shall be compelled in a criminal case against his parents and
grandparents specifically provides for an exception. The descendant may give his
testimony in the following instances:

(a) when such testimony is indispensable in a crime committed against said

descendant, or 
(b) in a crime committed by one parent against the other (Art. 215, Family Code
of the Philippines). The relevant article provides: 

"Art. 215. No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his
parents and grandparents, except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime,
against the descendant or by one parent against the other." 

Other privileged communications not found in the Rules of Court 

1. Sec. 24 of Rule 130 deals with the types of dis qualifications by reason of privileged
communication, to wit: (a) communication between husband and wife; (b)
communication between attorney and client; (c) communication between physician
and patient; (d) communication between priest penitent; and (e) public officers and
public interest 

2. There are, however, other privileged matters that not mentioned under Rule 130.
Among them are the 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 secrets; (d) information contained in tax census returns; and (e) bank deposits.

Examination of witnesses and record of proceedings (Bar 1978)

1. The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in

open court and under oath or affirmation. The answers of the witness shall be
given orally except if: (a) the witness is incapacitated to speak, or (b) the
question calls for a different mode of answer (Sec. 1. Rule 132 Rules of Court). 
2. 8. Records regarding a child shall be confidential and kept under seal. Except
upon written request and court, a record shall only be released to the following; 

(1) Members of the court staff for administrative use; 

(2) The prosecuting attorney; 
(3) Defense counsel;
(4) The guardian ad litem; 
(5) Agents of investigating law enforcement agencies; and 
(6) Other persons as determined by the court (Sec. 31[a], ibid.). 

Concept of admissions and confessions 

1. An admission is an act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact (Sec. 26. Rule
130, Rules of Court). It is a voluntary acknowledgment made by a party of the existence of the
truth of certain facts which are inconsistent with his claims in an action (Black's Law Dictionary,
5th Ed., p. 44). 

In a confession, there is an acknowledgement of guilt; in an admission, there is merely a

statement of fact not directly involving an acknowledgement of guilt or the criminal intent to
commit the offense with which one is charged (Ladiana v. People, 393 SCRA 419). 

2. A confession is the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged,
or of any offense necessarily included therein (Sec. 33, Rule 130, Rules of Court; Tracy's
Handbook, 62 Ed., 242). It is a statement by the accused that he engaged in conduct which
constitutes a crime. Hence, when a person declares in his counter-affidavit that he performed an
act like shooting the victim but denies that he did so with criminal intent because the shooting
was done in self-defense, the declaration is merely an admission and not a confession.

3. An admission, in a general sense, includes confessions, the former being a broader term
because, accordingly, a confession is also an "admission ... by the accused of the fact charged
against him or of some fact essential to the charge. A confession is a specific type of admission
which refers only to an acknowledgment of guilt. As used, the term admission refers to
acknowledgment of facts which, although may be incriminating, falls short of an admission of
guilt. 

4. An admission may be implied like an admission by silence. A confession cannot be implied. It

should be a direct and positive acknowledgment of guilt because Sec. 33 of Rule 130 describes
a confession as a “declaration" unlike an admis sion which is described not only as a
“declaration” but also as an "act" or "omission” (Sec. 26. Rule 130, Rules of Court). 

An adoptive admission is a party's reaction to a state ment or action by another person when it
is reasonable to treat the party's reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the
other person. By adoptive admission, a third person's statement becomes the admission of the
party embracing or espousing it.

Adoptive admission may occur when a party: 

(a) expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral state ment made by another; 

(b) hears a statement and later on essentially re peats it; 
(c) utters an acceptance or builds upon the asser tion of another; 
(d) replies by way of rebuttal to some specific points raised by another but ignores
further points which he or she has heard the other make; or (e) reads and subsequently
signs a written state ment made by another (Republic v. Kenrick Development
Corporation, 498 SCRA 220, 231). 

Effect of Extrajudicial confession of guilt; corpus delicti

For an accused to be convicted of illegal possessions of drugs, it is necessary that the following
elements be established;
 (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a
prohibited drug; 
(b) such possession is not authorized by law; 
(c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug (People v. Gustafsson,
677 SCRA 612, 621, July 30, 2012; For further readings, see People v. Domingo, G.R.
No. 211672, June 1, 2016). 

Res inter alios acta; branches

1. The expression if fully expressed reads: res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet which
literally means that "things done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties
to them”

2. The res inter alios acta rule has two branches, namely: 

(a) The rule that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another (Sec. 28, Rule 130, Rules of Court). 
(b) The rule that evidence of previous conduct or similar acts at one time is not
admissible to prove that one did or did not do the same act at another time (Sec. 34,
Rule 132, Rules of Court). 

Exceptions to the res inter alios acta rule (first branch)

1. The first branch of the rule admits of certain exceptions, to wit: 

(a) admission by a co-partner or agent (Sec. 29, mRute 130), 
(b) admission by a co-conspirator (Sec. 30, Rule a 130); and 
(c) admission by privies (Sec. 31, Rule 130). 

Admissions by a co-conspirator 

1. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons ne to an agreement concerning

the commission of a felony decide to commit it (Art. 8, Revised Penal Code).
Once the conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the act of all. The statement,
therefore, of one may be admitted against the other co-conspirators as an
exception to the rule on res inter alios acta. 

2. Assume that two months after a successful bank robbery, A was arrested as a
direct participant in the crime. During a television interview, he admitted his
participation in the robbery. He also implicated B and C as his other companions
in planning and executing the robbery. Is his statement admissible? The
statement is admissible as to him (Sec. 26, Rule 130, Rules of Court) but not as
to B and C (Sec. 28, Rule 130, Rules of Court). (Bar 1991)

To be admissible against B and C, the following must concur: 

(a) The declaration or act be made or done during the existence of the conspiracy; 
(b) The declaration or act must relate to the conspiracy; and 
(c) The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than such declaration or act (Sec.
30, Rule 130, Rules of Court). 

Admission by privies

For an admission of a predecessor-in-interest to be admissible against the successor-

in-interest, the following requisites must be present;
(a) There must be an act, declaration or omission by a predecessor-in-interest
(b) The act, declaration, or omission of the predecessor must have occurred
while he wasa holding (not after) the tile to the property; and
(c) The act, declaration or omission must be in relation to the propery.

When evidence of similar acts or previous conduct is admissible 

1. Evidence of similar acts is admissible for any of the following purposes: 

(a) specific intent;

(b) knowledge;
(c) identity;
(d) plan;
(e) system;
(f) scheme;
(g) habit;
(h) custom;
(i) usage; and 
(j) the like (Sec. 34, Rule 130, Rules of Court).

2. Evidence of similar acts may frequently become relevant, especially in actions based
on fraud and deceit, because it sheds light on the state of mind or knowledge of a
person, his motive or intent, or they may uncover a scheme, design or plan (Cruz v.
Court of Appeals, 293 SCRA 239).
 
3. The admissibility of similar acts or previous conduct would depend on the purposes
for which such acts or conduct are offered. 

Scope of the Judicial Affidavit Rule 

1. The Rule shall apply to all(a) actions, (b) proceedings or (C) incidents requiring the
reception of evidence (

2. The Rule, in effect, applies to all courts, other than the Supreme Court. It also applies
to certain non-judicial bodies. The Rule specifies the following courts and bodies;

(a) Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts,
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and the Shari'a Circuit Courts but shall not, however,
apply to small claims cases; 
(b) Regional Trial Courts and Shari'a District Courts; 
(c) Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Court of Appeals and Shari'a Appellate
Courts; 
(d) Investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive
evidence, including the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and 
(e) Special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject to
disapproval of the Supreme Court (Sec. 1, Judicial Affidavit Rule). 

Contents of the judicial affidavit

The judicial affidavit shall contain the questions asked of the witness and his answers to
the questions, all asked of the witness and his answers to the questions, all
consecutively numbered.

(a) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts
upon which he testifies:
(b) elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the
case presents; and 
(c) identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish
their authenticity (Sec. 3[d], Judicial Affidavit Rule). 

Effect of non-compliance with the attestation requirement 

A iudicial affidavit which does not conform to the attes tation requirement of Sec. 4 of
the Judicial Affidavit Rule shall not be admitted by the court in eviden ce (Sec. 10[c].
Judicial Affidavit Rule). The court may, however, allow the submission of a compliant
replacement judicial affidavit as long as the replacement shall be submitted before the
hearing or trial and provided further that the following requisites are met;

1. The submission shall be allowed only once; 

2. The delay is for a valid reason; 

3. The delay would not unduly prejudice the opposing party; and 

4. The public or private counsel responsible for the preparation and submission of the
affidavit pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the
discretion of the court (Sec. 10[c], Judicial Affidavit Rule). 

Remedy in case of late submission 

The court mav allow the late submission of the judicial affidavit and exhibits provided
following requisites concur: 

(a) late submission shall be allowed only once;

(b) The delay is for a valid reason; 
 (c) The late submission will not unduly prejudice the opposing party; and 
(d) The defaulting party pays a fine of not less than D1000.00 nor more than
P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court (Sec. 10[a], Judicial Affidavit Rule). 

When evidence is hearsay 

1. Although hearsay evidence presupposes lack of personal knowledge of the truth

of the fact asserted by a purpose for which the evidence is offered is a vital
element of hearsay evidence. It is the purpose for which the evidence is offered
which would determine whether the same is hearsay or not. 

2. The element of “purpose” had long been recognized in this jurisdiction, as was
done in the early case of Robles v. Lizarraga Hermanos (42 Phil. 584; also cited
by Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 5, p. 289). 

This definition considers "hearsay" as a statement. But what is a 'statement'? In Rule

801(a), Federal Rules of Evidence, a statement is either an oral or written assertion or a
nonverbal conduct intended by the person as an assertion. To constitute hearsay,
therefore, there must be: 

(1) an out-of-court statement, oral, written or * nonverbal conduct, made by one other
than the one made by the declarant or witness testifying at the trial; and 

(2) the out-of-court statement must be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted
in the out-of-court statement

Specific elements of hearsay evidence 

1. There is a common thread running through all the cited definitions. There is
agreement that the following are the specific elements of hearsay evidence: 

(a) First, there must be an out-of-court statement. It does not really matter what the form
of the statement is. It may be oral. It may be written. It may even be a conduct, as long
as that conduct is intended by the actor as an assertion. What matters is that the
statement was not made by the declarant in the hearing or trial. 

(b) Second, that the statement made out of court is repeated and offered by the witness
in court to prove the truth of the matters asserted by the statement. 

2. A more recent pronouncement which clearly embodies the element of “purpose”

holds: “To be hearsay, the testimony of a witness, regarding a statement made by
another person, is given for the purpose of establishing the truth of the fact asserted in
the statement”

Independently relevant statement (Bar 2003; 2009; 2011)

The first class includes the following: 

(a) statements which are the very facts in issue: and 

(b) statements which are circumstantial evidence of the fact in issue.

The second class includes the following: 

(a) statements of a person showing his state of mind that is, his mental condition,
knowledge, belief. intention, ill-will and other emotions: 

(b) statements of a person which show his physical condition, as illness and the like; 

(c) statements of a person from which an inference may be made as to the state ofmind
of another; that is knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the latter; 

(d) statements which may identify the date, place, and person in question; and 

(e) statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness. 

Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule

1. The Rules of Court enumerates the following exceptions to the hearsay rule: 

(a) Dying declarations (Sec. 37, Rule 130);

(b) Declaration against interest (Sec. 38, Rule 130); 

(c) Act or declaration about pedigree (Sec. 39, Rule 130); 

(d) Family reputation or tradition regarding pedi gree (Sec. 40, Rule 130); 

(e) Common reputation (Sec. 41, Rule 130);

(f) Part of the res gestae (Sec. 42, Rule 130);

(g) Entries in the course of business (Sec. 43, Rule 130); 

(h) Entries in official records (Sec. 44, Rule 130); 

(i) Commercial lists and the like (Sec. 45, Rule 130); 

(j) Learned treatises (Sec. 46, Rule 130); 

(k) Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding (Sec. 47, Rule 130). 

Elements of a dying declaration (Bar 1985; 1991) 

1. The Court in People v. Gatarin, G.R. No. 198022, April 7, 2014), accurately
enumerates the elements of a dying declaration, thus: 
“A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay
character, may, nonetheless, be admitted when the following requisites con cur,
namely: 
(a) the declaration concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances of the
declarants' death; 

(b) it is made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a
consciousness of an impending death; 

(c) the declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she survived; and 

(d) the dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of inquiry involves the
declarant's death." 

A. Spontaneous statements 

1. Spontaneous statements (spontaneous exclamations or excited utterances), to be

admitted in evidence, must have the following characteristics:

(a) There is a startling event or occurrence taking place; 

(b) A statement was made while the event is taking place, or immediately prior to, or
subsequent thereto; 

(c) The statement was made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a
falsehood; and 

(d) The statement relates to the circumstances of the startling event or occurrence (Sec.
42, Rule 130, Rules of Court), or that the statements must concern the occurrence in
question and its immediate attending circumstances

B. Verbal acts (Bar 2011) 

1. The last sentence of Sec. 42 of Rule 130 defines a verbal act as "statements
accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance. ”
A verbal act presupposes a conduct that is equivocal or ambiguous, one which, in itself,
does not signify anything when taken separately. It only acquires a meaning, specifically
what the rules call a legal significance, only because of the statements that accompany
the act. It is the statement contemporaneous with the act that identifies or indicates the
character, purpose or motive of the act. 
To be admissible under this category, the following requisites must be present: 

(a) the principal act to be characterized must be equivocal; 

(b) the equivocal act must be material to the issue; 

(c) the statement must accompany the equivocal act; and 

(d) the statement gives a legal significance to the equivocal act (Talidano v. Falcom
Maritime & Alteu Services, Inc., 558 SCRA 279). 

2. Objections to the admissibility of verbal acts depend upon whether or not the
proponent has established foundations for admissibility. The objector has to consider
the following questions: 

(a) Is there an act that is equivocal or ambiguous? If the act is clear, it needs no
explanation and so there is no res gestae to speak of. The act of swinging a baseball
bat at the victim in a physical injuries case is not equivocal and need not be explained
by any statement to understand the nature of the act. The bat was swung to cause
injuries to the victim. 

(b) Will the statement accompanying the ambiguous or equivocal act explain the act or
give legal significance to it? If it will not, then the statement is not admissible. Thus, the
statement, “I will hit you with this” as he swung the bat at the victim, does not explain
the act in the physical injuries case. Because of the nature of the case, the
accompanying words will not add a new meaning to it. However, where the indictment is
attempted homicide where intent to kill is an element, the swinging of the bat may be
ambiguous as to whether or not it was swung with or without the intent to kill. The
utterance accompanying the act may explain the nature of the act. Thus, if the accused,
while swinging at the victim, said “Adios Amigo! See you in hell," the statement may
help explain the purpose of the act of the accused. 

(c) Is the equivocal act material to the issue? Mate riality is necessary for relevance. As
earlier mentioned in a previous chapter, it is matter of logic and is absolutely necessary
for the admissibility of evidence and the reference to it in the rules is a redundancy. 

(d) Does the statement accompany the equivocal act? The requirement that the
statement accompany the act is explicit in Sec. 42 of Rule 130. This element is one
distinction between a spontaneous statement and a verbal act. A spontaneous
statement may be prior to, simultaneous with, or subsequent to the startling event or
occurrence. This is not so in a verbal act. The statement in the latter must ‘accompany
the equivocal act which evidently means that it must be contemporaneous with the act. 

Entries in the course of Business (Business records rule)

Before entries in the course of business coul be excepted from the hearsay rule, the
concurrence of the following requisites must be shown: 

(a) The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify; 

(b) The entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to which they r efer; 

(c) The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries; 
(d) The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty,
whether legal, contractual, moral, or religious; and 

(e) The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty

Declaration about pedigree 

1. The exception as provided in Sec. 39 of Rule 130 states: 

“SEC. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. - The act or declaration of a person
deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of another person related to
him by birth or marriage, may be received in evidence where it occurred before the
controversy and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other
than such act or declaration. The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family
genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these facts
occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history
intimately connected with pedigree.” 

2. To be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, it must be shown that: 

(a) The declarant is dead, or unable to testify; 

(b) The declarant is related by birth or marriage to the person whose pedigree is in
issue; 

(c) The declaration was made before the controversy; and 

(d) The relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act
or declaration (Sec. 39, Rule 130, Rules of Court). 

Entries in official records

The requisites for the admissibility in evid entries in official records, as an

exception to the hearsay rule are: 

(a) The entry was made by a public officer or h another person specially
enjoined by law to do so; 
 (b) It was made by the public officer, or by such other person in the performance
of a duty specially enjoined by law; and 

(c) The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by
him or her
stated, which must have been acquired by the public officer or other person
personally or through official information

Exception to the hearsay rule in child abuse cases

Aside from the above requirements, the following must likewise be complied
with: 

(a) The proponent shall make known to the adverse party the intention to offer
such statement and its particulars to provide him a fair opportunity to object
before the hearsay statement may be admitted. 

(b) If the child is available, the court shall, upon motion of the adverse party,
require the child to be present at the presentation of the hearsay statement for
cross-examination by the adverse party; and 

(c) When the child is unavailable (as when the child is deceased, suffers from
physical infirmity, mental illness, loss of memory, or because the child will be
exposed to severe psychological injury), the fact of such circumstance must be
proved by the proponent and the hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if
corroborated by other admissible evidence (Sec. 28[a], Rule on Examination of a
Child Witness)

C. Opinion Evidence

The rules on opinion evidence provide: 

"SEC. 48. General rule. — The opinion of a witness is not admissible, except as
indicated in the following sections. 

SEC. 49. Opinion of expert witness. — The opinion of a witness on a matter

requiring special knowledge skill, experience or training which he is shown to
possess, may be received in evidence. 

SEC. 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. – The opinion of a witness for which
proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding - 

(a) The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge; 

 (b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and 

(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. 

The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior,
condition or appearance of a person." 

Opinion of an ordinary witness; when admissible (Bar 2005) 

1. When the opinion is that of a witness who is not an expert (ordinary witness), his
testimony may be admitted in evidence provided that the proper basis of the opinion is
given and the subject of the opinion is any of the following matters: 

(a) The identity of a person about whom the witness has adequate knowledge; 

(b) The handwriting of a person with which the witness has sufficient familiarity; 

(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted; and 

(d) The impressions of the witness of the emotion, behavior, condition or

appearance of a person (Sec. 50. Rule 130, Rules of Court).