7.

EVIDENCE and whenever practicable and convenient (Rule 1,

Sec. 4).
7.A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 The rule on formal offer of evidence (Rule
7.A.1. CONCEPT OF EVIDENCE 132, §34) is clearly not applicable to a
petition for naturalization; Decisions in
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the Rules naturalization proceedings are not covered
of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding by the rule on res judicata.
the truth respecting a matter of fact (Rule 128,  The NLRC may consider evidence, such as
Sec. 1). documents and affidavits, submitted by the
parties for the first time on appeal. The
Evidence prescribes the manner of presenting submission of additional evidence on appeal
evidence, as by requiring that it shall be given in does not preclude the other party for the
an open court by one, who personally knows the latter could submit counter-evidence(Rolando
thing to be true, appearing in person, and subject Sasan, Sr. vs. National Labor Relations
to cross-examination (RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Commission, G.R. No. 176240, October 17,
Lecture Series), 2016 Ed.). 2008).
 The Parol Evidence Rule, like other rules of
“Truth” is not necessarily the actual truth, but evidence, should not be strictly applied in
one referred to as the judicial or legal truth. labor cases. In labor cases pending before
(RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Lecture Series), 2016 Ed.). the Commission or the Labor Arbiter, the
rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law
 Evidence is the mode and manner of proving or equity are not controlling. Rules of
the competent facts and circumstances on procedure and evidence are not applied in a
which a party relies to establish the fact in very rigid and technical sense in labor cases
dispute in judicial proceedings (Bustos vs. (Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of
Lucero, G.R. No. L–2068, October 20, 1948). Free Workers vs. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., G.R. No.
190515, June 6, 2011).
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE
The rules on evidence, being components of the
7.A.2. SCOPE OF THE RULES ON EVIDENCE Rules of Court, apply only to judicial proceedings
(RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Lecture Series), 2016 Ed.,
p. 3).
PRINCIPLE OF UNIFORMITY:
There are only three kinds of Judicial
General Rule: The rules of evidence shall be the Proceedings:
same in all courts and in all trials and hearings. 1. Civil Action – which is of two kinds:
(Rule 128, Section 2) a. Ordinary Civil Action, and
b. Special Civil Action
Exception: 2. Criminal Action
When otherwise provided by law or these rules, 3. Special Proceeding (Sec. 3, Rule 1)
such as those enumerated under Rule 1, Sec. 4
of the Rules of Court: (NICOLE) Note: All other proceedings are NON-JUDICIAL,
hence, application of the rules of evidence in the
1. Election cases; ROC is not mandatory unless provided to be so
2. Land registration cases; by law or regulation (see Sec. 4, Rule 1)
3. Cadastral cases;
4. Naturalization proceedings; The rules on evidence may be waived. When
5. Insolvency proceedings; and otherwise objectionable evidence is not objected,
6. Other cases not herein provided for by law. the evidence becomes admissible because of
waiver. (RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Lecture Series),
Exception to the Exception: 2016 Ed., p. 15)

These rules may apply to the aforementioned

proceedings by analogy or in suppletory character

1
Evidence is required only when the court has to such as to produce a
resolve a question of fact. Where no factual issue conviction beyond
exists in a case, there is no need to present reasonable doubt.
evidence because where the case presents a Inferences cannot be
question of law, such question is resolved by the based on other
mere application of the relevant statutes or rules inferences (Rule 133,
of this jurisdiction to which no evidence is Sec. 4). (n)
required (RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Lecture Series), A party or defendant The accused cannot be
2016 Ed., p. 6). may be compelled to be compelled to be a
a witness provided witness against himself
Factual findings of administrative bodies charged written interrogatories (Art. III, Sec. 17, 1987
(Rules 25, Sec. 6) and Constitution).
with their specific field of expertise, are afforded
request for admission
great weight by the courts, and in the absence of (Rules 26, Sec. 5) have
substantial showing that such findings were made been served upon him.
from an erroneous estimation of the evidence The concept of The accused enjoys the
presented, they are conclusive, and in the presumption of constitutional
interest of stability of the governmental structure, innocence does not presumption of
should not be disturbed.(Sugar Regulatory apply and generally innocence. (RIANO,
Administration vs. Encarnacion B. Tormon, G.R. No. there is no presumption 2016 Ed.)
195640, December 4, 2012). for or against a party
except in certain cases
Evidence in Civil Cases and Evidence in provided for by law.
Criminal Cases, Distinguished (RIANO, 2016 Ed.)
Evidence of the moral General Rule:
character of a party in a The prosecution is not
CIVIL CASES CRIMINAL CASES
civil case is admissible allowed to prove the bad
The party having the The accused is entitled
only when pertinent to moral character of the
burden of proof must to an acquittal, unless
the issue of character accused even if it is
establish his or her case his or her guilt is shown
involved in the case pertinent to the moral
by a preponderance of beyond reasonable
[Rule 130, Sec. 54 (b)]. trait involved.
evidence. (Rule 133, doubt. (Rule 133,
Section 1) Section 2) Exception:
An offer of compromise General rule: If done in rebuttal [Rule
is not an admission of an offer of compromise 130, Sec. 54 (a)(2)].
any liability, and is not by the accused may be Rule on Doctor-Patient The rule does not apply.
admissible in evidence received in evidence as privileged
against the offeror. an implied admission of communication applies
(Rule 130, Section 28) guilt. [Rule 130, Sec. 24(c)].
Exceptions:
a. Prosecution of 7.A.3. DISTINGUISH: PROOF AND
quasi-offenses; and EVIDENCE
b. Criminal cases
allowed by law to be Evidence Proof
compromised. (Rule It is the medium or It is the effect and result
130, Section 28,) means of proving or of evidence. It is the
Rules on sufficiency of Circumstantial evidence disproving a fact probative effect of
circumstantial evidence is sufficient for (RIANO, Evidence (The evidence and is the
does not apply conviction if: Bar Lecture Series), conviction or persuasion
 There is more than 2016 Ed., p. 11). of the mind resulting
one circumstance; from the consideration
 The facts from which of the evidence (RIANO,
the inferences are Evidence (The Bar
derived are proven; Lecture Series), 2016
and Ed., p. 10).
 The combination of
all the The means to an end The end result
circumstances is

2
Note: evidence is a relative term; it signifies a a. Relevancy – it must have such a
relation between facts: the factum probans and relation to the fact in issue as to induce
factum probandum (Wigmore, Principles of Judicial belief in its existence or non-existence.
Proof, p. 5, as stated in RIANO, Evidence (The Bar
Lecture Series), 2016 Ed., p. 11) b. Competency – it must not be excluded
by the Constitution, the law or by the
7.A.4. DISTINGUISH: FACTUM PROBANS rules (Rule 128, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court,
AND FACTUM PROBANDUM as amended).
FACTUM
FACTUM PROBANS Admissibility and Probative Value,
PROBANDUM
Ultimate Facts
Distinguished
Intermediate or
Evidentiary Facts ADMISSIBILITY PROBATIVE VALUE
The fact by which the The fact or proposition As to question resolved
factum probandum is to to be established.
It refers to the It refers to the question
be established.
question of whether or of whether or not the
The fact to be proved; The probative or not the evidence is to evidence proves an issue.
the fact which is in issue evidentiary fact tending be considered at all
and to which the to prove the fact in (Republic of the
issue. Philippines vs. Carmen
evidence is directed.
Existent Hypothetical – what one Santorio Galeno, G.R.
party affirms and the No. 215009, January
other denies 23, 2017).
In civil cases: elements As to characteristic of evidence to which it
of the cause of action pertains
It pertains to It pertains to its tendency
In criminal cases: relevance and to convince and persuade
elements of the crime competence.
As to basis
(REGALADO, Remedial Law Compendium Vol. 2, 2008 It depends on logic It depends on the
Ed. p. 698-699) and law. guidelines provided in
Rule 133 and doctrines
laid down by the
One must adduce during trial the factum probans Supreme Court.
or the evidentiary facts by which the factum
probandum or the ultimate fact can be  The admissibility of evidence should not be
established. (Dela Llana vs. Biong, G.R. No. 182356, confused with its probative value.
December 4, 2013) Admissibility refers to the question of
whether certain pieces of evidence are to be
7.A.5 ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE considered at all, while probative value refers
to the question of whether the admitted
Admissibility of evidence refers to the evidence proves an issue. Thus, a particular
question of whether or not the circumstance (or item of evidence may be admissible, but its
evidence) is to be considered at all. On the other evidentiary weight depends on judicial
hand, the probative value of evidence refers to evaluation within the guidelines provided by
the question of whether or not it proves an issue the rules of evidence (Heirs of Sabanpan vs.
(PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation v. CA, G.R. Comorposa, G.R. No. 152807, August 12, 2003).
No. 107518, October 8, 1998).  There is no issue in the admissibility of the
subject sworn statement. However, the
7.A.5.a. Requisites for Admissibility of admissibility of evidence should not be
Evidence; Exclusions Under the equated with weight of evidence. The
Constitution, Laws, and the Rules of Court admissibility of evidence depends on its
relevance and competence while the weight
For evidence to be admissible, two elements must of evidence pertains to evidence already
concur: admitted and its tendency to convince and

3
 persuade. Thus, a particular item of evidence
may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight Exclusionary Rules of Evidence
depends on judicial evaluation within the
guidelines provided by the rules of evidence A. Constitutional exclusionary rules
(Tating vs. Marcella, G.R. No. 155208, March 27,
2007). 1. Unreasonable searches and seizures (Sec. 2,
 Since admissibility of evidence is determined Art. III, Constitution);
by its relevance and competence, 2. Privacy of communication and
admissibility is, therefore, an affair of logic correspondence (Sec. 3, Art. III, Constitution);
and law. On the other hand, the weight to be 3. Right to counsel, prohibition on torture,
given to such evidence, once admitted, force, violence, threat, intimidation or other
depends on judicial evaluation within the means which vitiate the free will; prohibition
guidelines provided in Rule 133 and the on secret detention places, solitary,
jurisprudence laid down by the Court. Thus, incommunicado (Sec. 12, Art. III,
while evidence may be admissible, it may be Constitution);and
entitled to little or no weight at all. 4. Right against self-incrimination (Sec. 17, Art.
Conversely, evidence which may have III, Constitution)
evidentiary weight may be inadmissible
because a special rule forbids its reception. B. Statutory exclusionary rules
(People v. Turco, G.R. No. 137757, August 14,
2000) 1. Lack of documentary stamp tax to documents
 To emphasize, “a preliminary investigation is required to have one makes such document
merely preparatory to a trial; it is not a trial inadmissible as evidence in court until the
on the merits.” Since “it cannot be expected requisite stamp/s shall have been affixed
that upon the filing of the information in court thereto and cancelled (Sec. 201, NIRC); and
the prosecutor would have already presented 2. Any communication obtained by a person,
all the evidence necessary to secure a not being authorized by all the parties to any
conviction of the accused,” the admissibility private communication, by tapping any
or inadmissibility of evidence cannot be ruled wire/cable or using any other
upon in a preliminary investigation. (Maza v. device/arrangement to secretly
Judge Turla, G.R. No. 187094, February 15, 2017) overhear/intercept/record such information
by using any device, shall not be admissible
Admissibility vs. Credibility in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial,
legislative or administrative hearing, or
 Admissibility of evidence is determined by investigation [Sec. 1 and 4, R.A. No. 4200 (Wire-
the concurrence of the two requisites of Tapping Act)]
relevancy and competency. Credibility is a
matter for the court to appreciate (People v.  There must be a law that renders the
Abellera, G.R. No. 23533, August 1, 1925). evidence inadmissible (Ejercito v.
 Parties are required to inform the courts of Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos. 157294-95,
the purpose of introducing their respective November 30, 2006)
exhibits to assist the latter in ruling on their  In this case, the SC held that nowhere in
admissibility in case an objection thereto is R.A. 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law) does it
made (Star Two v. Ko, G.R. No. 185454, March provide that an unlawful examination of
23, 2011) bank accounts shall render the evidence
 Trial courts may allow a person to testify as obtained therefrom inadmissible in
a witness upon a given matter because he is evidence.
competent but may thereafter decided
whether to believe or not to believe his C. Exclusionary Rules under Rule 130
testimony. Credibility depends on the
appreciation of his testimony and arises from 1. Original Document Rule – Originally
the brief conclusion of the court that said known as the “Best Evidence Rule”. When
witness is telling the truth. (Gonzales vs. Court the subject of the inquiry is the contents of
of Appeals, G.R. No. L-37453, May 25, 1979)

4
 the document, no evidence shall be The rule is based on the principle that evidence
admissible other than the original document illegally obtained by the State should not be used
(Rule 130, Sec. 3, as amended). to gain other evidence because the originally
2. Parol Evidence Rule – When the terms of illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence
the agreement have been reduced to subsequently obtained(People vs. Samontañez, G.R.
writing, it is considered as containing all the No. 134530 December 4, 2000).
terms agreed upon and there can be,
between the parties and their successors in 7.A.5.b. Relevance of Evidence and
interest, NO evidence of such terms other Collateral Matters
than the contents of the written agreement
(Rule 130, Sec. 10, as amended). Relevancy
3. Hearsay Evidence Rule – a witness can
testify only to those facts which he knows of Evidence is relevant when it is related to the fact
his personal knowledge; that is, which are in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
derived from his own perception (Rule 130, existence(RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Lecture Series),
Sec. 22, as amended). 2016 Ed., p. 18).
4. Offer of Compromise in Civil Cases – In
civil case, an offer of compromise is NOT Determinable by the rules of logic and human
admission of any liability and is NOT experience (REGALADO, Remedial Law Compendium
Vol. 2, 2008 Ed., p. 704)
admissible in evidence against the offeror
(Rule 130, Sec. 28, as amended).
Collateral Matters
5. Dead Man’s Statute – Disqualification by
Reason of Death or Insanity of Adverse Party Matters other than the fact in issue and which are
(Rule 130, Sec. 39, as amended).
offered as a basis for inference as to the
6. Disqualification by Reason of existence or non-existence of the facts in issue
Marriage(Rule 130, Sec. 23, as amended). (REGALADO, Remedial Law Compendium Vol. 2, 2008
7. Disqualification by Reason of Ed. P. 708)
Privileged Communication(Rule 130, Sec.
24). General Rule:

D. Exclusions under Court issuances Evidence on collateral matters shall not be

allowed (RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Lecture Series),
1. Rule on Electronic Evidence (e.g. compliance 2016 Ed., p. 20).
with authentication requirements for
electronic evidence); Exception:
2. Child Witness Rule (e.g. Sexual Abuse Shield
Rule); and Collateral evidence shall be allowed when it tends
3. Judicial Affidavit Rule in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in
Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree issue(Rule 128, Sec. 4).

Once the primary source ( the "tree") is shown to Note: What the Rules prohibit is evidence of
have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or irrelevant collateral facts (REGALADO, Remedial Law
derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is Compendium Vol. 2, 2008 Ed. P. 708)
also inadmissible. Stated otherwise, illegally
seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of 7.A.5.c. Multiple Admissibility
the illegal act, whereas the "fruit of the poisonous
tree" is the indirect result of the same illegal act. Where the evidence is relevant and competent for
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least once two or more purposes, such evidence may be
removed from the illegally seized evidence, but it admitted for any or all the purposes for which it
is equally inadmissible. is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements

5
of law for admissibility(People vs. Sagario, G.R. No. Requisites to warrant a conviction based on
L-18659, June 29, 1965). circumstantial evidence
a. there is more than one circumstance;
7.A.5.d. Conditional Admissibility b. the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and
Where the evidence at the time of its offer c. the combination of all the circumstances
appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is is such as to produce conviction beyond
connected with the other facts to be subsequently reasonable doubt (Rule 133, Sec. 4)
proved, such evidence may be received on the
condition that the other facts will be proved The totality of the evidence must constitute an
thereafter;otherwise, the evidence given will be unbroken chain showing the guilt of the accused
stricken out from the record(RIANO, Evidence (The beyond reasonable doubt (People v. Matito, G.R.
Bar Lecture Series), 2016 Ed., p. 26). No. 144405, February 24, 2004)

Example: a copy of a writing may not be Note: Circumstantial evidence is not a weaker
considered competent evidence until the original form of evidence vis-a-vis direct evidence (People
is proven to be lost or destroyed. v. Matito, G.R. No. 144405, February 24, 2004)

Conditional admissibility requires no bad faith on 7.A.5.g. Positive and Negative Evidence
the part of the proponent.
Positive evidence – when a witness affirms in
7.A.5.e. Curative Admissibility the stand that a certain state of facts does exist
or that a certain event happened.
Where improper evidence was admitted over the
objection of the opposing party, he should be Negative evidence – when the witness state
permitted to contradict it with similar improper that an event did not occur or that the state of
evidence. This is evidence introduced to cure, facts alleged to exist does not actually exist.
contradict or neutralize improper evidence
presented by the other party.  Denial is a self-serving negative evidence that
cannot be given greater weight than the
If one side introduces evidence irrelevant to the declaration of credible witnesses who testified
issue, which is prejudicial and harmful to the on affirmative matters (Roque vs. People, G.R.
other party, then, although it comes in without No. 138954, November 25, 2004). It is a long
objection, the other party is entitled to introduce recognized general rule of evidence that all
evidence which will directly and strictly contradict other things being equal, positive evidence is
it (State vs. Witham, 72. Me. 531, 535). stronger than negative evidence (Wa-acon vs.
People, G.R. No. 164575, December 06, 2006).
7.A.5.f. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
7.A.5.h. Competent and Credible Evidence
Direct Evidence
Competent evidence is one that is not excluded
Evidence which proves that the fact in dispute by law or rules in a particular case. Determined
without the aid of any inference or presumption by the prevailing exclusionary rules of evidence
(People vs. Fronda, G.R. No. 130602, March 15, 2000). (REGALADO, Remedial Law Compendium Vol. 2, 2008
Ed., p. 704)
Circumstantial Evidence
Credible evidence refers to probative value or
Evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue convincing weight. Weight involves the effect of
through an inference drawn from the evidence admitted, its tendency to convince and
evidence(People vs. Matito, G.R. No. 144405, persuade. It is not determined mathematically by
February 24, 2004). the numerical superiority of the witnesses
testifying to a given fact, but depends upon its
practical effect in inducing belief on the part of

6
the judge trying the case (FRANCISCO, Evidence,  It is basic that once an accused in a
1996 Ed.) prosecution for murder or homicide admitted
his infliction of the fatal injuries on the
7.A.6. BURDEN OF PROOF AND BURDEN OF deceased, he assumed the burden to prove
EVIDENCE
by clear, satisfactory and convincing
evidence the justifying circumstance that
Burden of Proof is the duty of a party to present
would avoid his criminal liability. He should
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
discharge the burden by relying on the
establish his or her claim or defense by the
amount of evidence required by law. Burden of strength of his own evidence, because the
proof never shifts (RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Lecture Prosecution’s evidence, even if weak, would
Series), 2016 Ed., p. 49). not be disbelieved in view of his admission of
the killing. Nonetheless, the burden to prove
Burden of Evidence is the duty of a party to guilt beyond reasonable doubt remained with
present evidence sufficient to establish or rebut a the State until the end of the proceedings
fact in issue to establish a prima facie case. (People of the Philippines vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No.
Burden of Evidence may shift from one party to 177743, January 25, 2012).
the other in the course of the proceedings,  An admission of carnal knowledge of the
depending on the exigencies of the case (RIANO, victim consequently places on the accused
Evidence (The Bar Lecture Series), 2016 Ed., p. 49). the burden of proving the supposed
relationship by substantial evidence (People
Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence, vs. Antonio, G.R. No. 157269, June3, 2004).
Distinguished  As an affirmative defense, sweetheart
defense must be established with convincing
BURDEN OF PROOF evidence – by some documentary and/or
BURDEN OF other evidence of relationship (People vs.
(Onus Probandi/ Risk
EVIDENCE Bautista, G.R. No. 140278, June 3, 2004).
Of Non-Persuasion)
Burden of proof is the Burden of evidence is the  As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and
duty of a party to present duty of a party to present must be proved by clear, positive and
evidence on the facts in evidence sufficient to convincing evidence; the burden of proof lies
issue necessary to establish or rebut a fact in on the party alleging forgery. One who
establish his or her claim issue to establish a prima alleges forgery has the burden to establish
or defense by the amount facie case (Rule 131, Sec.
his case by a preponderance of evidence or
of evidence required by 1).
law (Rule 131, Sec. 1). evidence which is of greater weight or more
Burden of proof never Burden of evidence may convincing than that which is offered in
shifts (Rule 131, Sec. 1) shift from one party to opposition to it. The fact of forgery can only
and remains throughout the other in the course of be established by a comparison between the
the entire case exactly the proceedings, alleged forged signature and the authentic
where the pleadings depending on the and genuine signature of the person whose
originally placed it. exigencies of the case
signature is theorized to have been forged
(Rule 131, Sec. 1).
(Gepulle-Garbo vs. Spouses Garabato, G.R. No.
Generally determined by Generally determined by
200013, January 14, 2005).
the pleadings filed by the the developments of the
parties in litigation. trial, or by the provisions
of substantive law or
BURDEN OF PROOF, Upon Whom it Rests
procedural rules, which CIVIL CASES CRIMINAL CASES
may relieve the party Plaintiff has the Prosecution has the
from presenting evidence burden of proof to burden of proving guilt of
on the facts alleged. show the truth of his the accused because of
allegations if the the presumption of
 The burden of proof in establishing adoption defendant raises a innocence (Macayan,Jr.,
is upon the person claiming such relationship negative defense. vs. People, G.R. No.
(Vda. de Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015).
135216, August 19, 1999). Defendant has the
burden of proof if he

7
 raises an affirmative c. For Issuance of Warrant of Arrest:
defense on the Probable Cause – that there is reasonable
complaint of the ground to believe that the accused has
plaintiff. committed an offense (Hao vs. People, G.R.
No. 183345, September 17, 2014).
Note: In Burden of Proof, the plaintiff is always
compelled to allege affirmative assertions in his 3. Administrative Cases: Substantial evidence
complaint. When he alleges a cause of action, he – such amount of relevant evidence which a
will be forced to allege that he has a right and reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
that such right was violated by the other party.
justify a conclusion (Glenda Rodriguez–Angat vs.
Thus, he has the duty to prove the existence of GSIS, G.R. No. 204738, July 29, 2015).
this affirmative allegation.
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE,
If the defendant files his answer and sets up Upon Whom it Rests
purely a negative defense and no evidence is
presented by both sides, it is the defendant who
CIVIL CASES CRIMINAL CASES
would win the case since the plaintiff has not
Plaintiff has to prove his Prosecution has to
presented the quantum of evidence required by
affirmative allegations in prove its affirmative
law. the complaint. allegations in the
information regarding
On the other hand, when the defendant in his the elements of the
answer sets up an affirmative defense, if there is crime as well as the
no evidence presented by both sides, it is the attendant
defendant who will lose the case. circumstances.
Defendant has to prove Defense has to prove its
Test for determining where the burden of the affirmative affirmative allegations
allegations in his regarding the existence
proof lies
counterclaim and his of justifying or
affirmative defenses. exempting
The test for determining where the burden of circumstances,
proof lies is to ask which party to an action or suit absolutory causes or
will lose the case if he offers no evidence mitigating
competent to show the facts averred as the basis circumstances.
for the relief he seeks to obtain(Aznar Brothers
Realty Company vs. Laurencio Aying, G.R. No. 144773,
May 16, 2005). 7.B. JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL
ADMISSIONS
Degree of Proof that Satisfies the Burden
of Proof  Judicial notice takes the place of proof and is
of equal force. It displaces evidence and
1. Civil Cases: Preponderance of evidence (Tan fulfills the purpose for which the evidence is
jr., vs. Hosana, G.R. No. 190846, February 3, designed to fulfill. Hence, it makes evidence
2016) unnecessary (Moran, Comments on the Rules of
Court, 1980, p. 38 citing Alzua vs. Johnson, 21
2. Criminal Cases: Phil. 308).
a. To sustain conviction: Evidence of guilt  Courts must take judicial notice with caution.
beyond reasonable doubt (Macayan, Jr., vs. Any reasonable doubt on the subject must be
People, G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015). resolved in the negative (court will not take
b. Preliminary Investigation: Prima facie Case judicial notice).
– sufficient to engender a well-founded 7.B.1. WHAT NEED NOT TO BE PROVED
belief that a crime has been committed and (DASMA-P)
that the accused is probably guilty thereof
(Yusop vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 138859– 1. Matters which are subject of Mandatory
60, February 22, 2001). judicial notice of(Rule 129, Sec. 1, as amended);

8
2. Matters which are subject of Discretionary 1. Mandatory;
judicial notice of(Rule 129, Sec. 1, as amended); 2. Discretionary; and
3. Those which are judicially Admitted(Rule 129, 3. That which requires a hearing.
Sec. 4, as amended); and,
4. Matters which are legally Presumed (Rule 131,  True, as a general rule, courts should not
Secs. 2 to 3, as amended); take judicial notice of the evidence presented
5. Matters which are not Specifically denied in in other proceedings, even if these have been
the Answer (Rule 8, Sec. 11, as amended); and tried or are pending in the same court, or
6. Facts Agreed upon by the parties (Rule 30, have been heard and are actually pending
Sec. 7, as amended). before the same judge. This is especially true
in criminal cases, where the accused has the
7.B.2. MATTERS OF JUDICIAL NOTICE constitutional right to confront and cross-
examine the witnesses against him (People vs.
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts Kulais, G.R. No. 100901, July 16, 1998).
that judges may properly take and act on without  The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the
proof because these facts are already known to wisdom and discretion of the courts. The
them. Put differently, it is the assumption by a power to take judicial notice is to be
court of a fact without need of further traditional exercised by courts with caution; care must
evidentiary support. (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan be taken that the requisite notoriety exists;
G.R. No. 152375, December 16, 2011) and every reasonable doubt on the subject
should be promptly resolved in the negative
Basis: This rule is based on consideration of (State Prosecutors vs. Muro, A.M. No. RTJ-92-876
expediency and convenience. September 19, 1994).
 Put differently, it is the assumption by a court
Purpose: It aims to dispense the presentation of of a fact without need of further traditional
evidence and fulfills the purpose for which the evidentiary support. The principle is based on
evidence is designed to fulfill. Its purpose is to convenience and expediency in securing and
abbreviate litigation by admission of matters that introducing evidence on matters, which are
needs no evidence because judicial notice is a not ordinarily capable of dispute and are not
substitute for formal proof of a matter by bona fide disputed. The foundation for
evidence (RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Lecture Series), judicial notice may be traced to the civil and
2016 Ed., p. 74). canon law maxim, manifesta (or notoria) non
indigent probatione. (Republic vs.
Note: Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge.
Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 152375, December 16,
The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not 2011)
the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not  Jurisprudence dictates that judicial notice
authorized to make his individual knowledge of a cannot be taken of a statute before it
fact, not generally or professionally known, the becomes effective. The reason is simple. A
basis of his action (LBP vs. Wycoco, G.R. No. 140160, law which is not yet in force and hence, still
January 13, 2004). inexistent, cannot be of common knowledge
capable of ready and unquestionable
Requisites of Judicial Notice:
demonstration, which is one of the
requirements before a court can take judicial
1) The matter must be of common knowledge;
notice of a fact. Evidently, it was impossible
2) It must be well and authoritatively settled and
for respondent judge, and it was definitely
not doubted or uncertain; and,
not proper for him, to have taken cognizance
3) It must be known to be within the limits of the
of CB Circular No. 1353, when the same was
jurisdiction of the court (South Davao
not yet in force at the time the improvident
Development Company Inc., vs. Sergio L. Gamo,
G.R. No. 171814, May 8, 2009).
order of dismissal was issued (State
Prosecutors vs. Muro, A.M. No. RTJ-92-876
September 19, 1994).
Three Kinds of Judicial Notice  The allegation of the assessed value of the
realty must be found in the complaint, if the

9
 action (other than forcible entry or unlawful Note: While courts are required to take
detainer) involves title to or possession of the judicial notice of the laws enacted by
realty, including quieting of title of the realty. Congress, the rule with respect to local
 If the assessed value is not found in the ordinances is different. Ordinances are not
complaint, the action should be dismissed for included in the enumeration of matters
lack of jurisdiction because the trial court is covered by mandatory judicial notice under
not thereby afforded the means of Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.
determining from the allegations of the basic
pleading whether the jurisdiction over the Even where there is a statute that requires a
subject matter of the action pertains to it or court to take judicial notice of municipal
to another court. Courts cannot take judicial ordinances, a court is not required to take
notice of the assessed or market value of the judicial notice of ordinances that are not
realty (Penta Pacific Realty Corporation vs Ley before it and to which it does not have access.
Construction and Development Corporation, G.R. The party asking the court to take judicial
No. 161589, November 24, 2014). notice is obligated to supply the court with the
full text of the rules the party desires it to have
7.B.2.a. Mandatory notice of. Counsel should take the initiative in
requesting that a trial court take judicial notice
As a general rule, when the matter is subject to of an ordinance even where a statute requires
a mandatory judicial notice, no motion or hearing courts to take judicial notice of local
is necessary for the court may take judicial notice ordinances.
of a fact.
The intent of a statute requiring a court to
1. Existence and territorial extent of states; take judicial notice of a local ordinance is to
2. Their political history, forms of government remove any discretion a court might have in
and symbols of nationality; determining whether or not to take notice of
3. The law of nations; an ordinance. Such a statute does not direct
the court to act on its own in obtaining
The Law of Nations is the body of legal evidence for the record and a party must
rules, norms, and standards that apply make the ordinance available to the court for
between sovereign states and other entities it to take notice(SJS vs. Atienza, Jr., G.R. No.
that are legally recognized as international 156052, February 13, 2008).
actors(Bentham).
7. The laws of nature;
Doctrine of Incorporation: as expressed in 8. The measure of time; and
Section 2, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, 9. The geographical divisions.
the Philippines adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law and  It would be error for the court not to take
international jurisprudence as part of the law judicial notice of an amendment to the Rules
of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, of Court (Siena Realty v. Gal-lang, G.R. No.
cooperation, and amity with all nations(Bayan 145169, May 13, 2004).
Muna vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618, February 1,
2011).
Laws of Nations Subject to Judicial Notice
4. The admiralty and maritime courts of the
The law of nations is subject to a mandatory
world and their seals;
5. The political constitution and history of the judicial notice. Under the Philippine Constitution,
we adopt the generally accepted principles of
Philippines;
international law as forming part of the law of the
6. The official acts of the legislative, executive land. Being parts of the law of the land, they are
and judicial departments of the National therefore technically in the nature of local laws
Government of the Philippines; and thus subject to mandatory judicial notice.

10
Doctrine of Processual Presumption facts and other fields of professional and
(Doctrine of Presumed-Identity Approach) scientific knowledge (FRANCISCO, Evidence,
1996 ed).
There is no conclusive presumption of knowledge
of foreign laws. Hence foreign laws must be Example: That December 8, 1995 falls on a
specially alleged and proved and our courts Friday
cannot take judicial notice of them. (Adong vs.
Cheong, G.R. No. 18081, March 3, 1922) 3) Matters ought to be known to judges because
of their Judicial functions
If the foreign law is not properly pleaded and
proved, our courts will presume that the foreign Example: That eyewitness reports provided
law is the same as our local or domestic or by children can be reliable, provided that the
internal law. (Bank of America, NT & SA vs. American questions presented to them are open-‐ ended
Realty Corp., G.R. No. 133876, December 29, 1999) and do not contain suggestion.

Other matters that the Court should  Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The
mandatorily take judicial notice mere personal knowledge of the judge is not
the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is
1. Amendment of the Rules of Court; not authorized to make his individual
2. Decision of the Supreme Court; knowledge of a fact, not generally or
3. Official acts or declarations of the President; professionally known, the basis of his action.
4. Banking practices; Judicial cognizance is taken only of those
5. Financial status of the government’ matters which are "commonly" known (State
6. Powers of the President; and Prosecutors vs. Muro, A.M. No. RTJ-92-876,
7. Court records September 19, 1994).
 Things of “common knowledge,” of which
7.B.2.b. Discretionary courts take judicial notice, may be matters
coming to the knowledge of men generally in
When the matter is subject to discretionary the course of the ordinary experiences of life,
judicial notice, a hearing is necessary before or they may be matters which are generally
judicial notice is taken of a matter. (PUJ) accepted by mankind as true and are capable
of ready and unquestioned demonstration.
1) Matters which are of Public knowledge (lbid.)

These are those matters coming to the The principal guide in determining what facts may
knowledge of men generally in the course of be assumed to be judicially known is that of
ordinary experiences of life, or they may be notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice
matters which are generally accepted by is limited to facts evidenced by public records and
mankind as true and are capable of ready and facts of general notoriety.
unquestioned demonstration. Judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to
a reasonable dispute in that it is either:
Examples: The fact that five (5) senators a. Generally known within the territorial
have been indicted; that Mayor Sotto won in jurisdiction of the trial court; or,
the elections, etc. b. Capable of accurate and ready determination
by resorting to sources whose accuracy
2) Matters capable of Unquestionable cannot reasonably be questionable (Expertravel
demonstration & Tours, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 152392, May 26,
2005).
These are facts, theories and conclusions
which have come to be established and Judicial Notice of Records of Another Case
accepted by the specialists in the areas of
natural science, natural phenomena, General Rule: Courts should not take judicial
chronology, technology, geography, statistical notice of the evidence presented in other

11
proceedings, even if these have been tried or are General Rule: Courts cannot take judicial notice
pending in the same court or have been heard of foreign laws. They must be alleged and
and are actually pending before the same judge proved.
(People vs. Kulais, G.R. No. 100901-08, July 16, 1998).
Exceptions:
Exceptions:
In the absence of objection, and as a matter of a. When the representations of the parties in
convenience to all parties, a court may properly action in regard to the foreign laws constitute
treat all or any part of the original record of a admissions of fact which the other parties
case filed in its archives as read into the record and the Court are being made to rely and act
of a case pending before it, when: upon;
b. When the foreign laws are well and generally
a. With the knowledge of the opposing party, known; or
reference is made to it for that purpose, by c. When the foreign laws have been actually
name and number or in some other manner ruled upon in other cases before it and none
by which it is sufficiently designated; or of the parties claim otherwise (PCIB v. Escolin,
b. The original record of the former case or any G.R. Nos. L-27860 L-278896, March 29, 1974);
part of it, is actually withdrawn from the d. When the foreign law is part of a published
archives by the court's direction, at the treatise, periodical or pamphlet and the
request or with the consent of the parties, writer is recognized in his profession or
and admitted as a part of the record of the calling as expert in the subject, the court, it
case then pending (US v Claveria, G.R. No. L- is submitted, may take judicial notice of the
9282, February 13, 1915) treatise containing the foreign law (Rule 130,
Sec. 48, as amended);
Courts may also take judicial notice of e. When the action is closely interrelated to
proceedings in other causes because of another case pending between the same
their: parties;
1. Close connection with the matter in f. Where there is finality of a judgment in
controversy. another case that was previously pending
determination and therefore, res judicata
Example: In a separate civil action against (Herrera, 1999);
the administrator of an estate arising from an g. Where the interest of the public in ascertain
appeal against the report of the committee the truth are of paramount importance.
on claims appointed in the administration
proceedings of the said estate, the court took Note: The appreciation of one judge of the
judicial notice of the record of the testimony of a certain witness is not binding on
administration proceedings to determine another judge who heard the testimony of the
whether or not the appeal was taken on time. same witness on the same matter. Each
2. To determine whether or not the case magistrate who hears the testimony of a witness
pending is a moot one or whether or not a is called upon to make his own appreciation of
previous ruling is applicable in the case under the evidence (People v. Langit, G.R. Nos. 134757-58,
consideration. August 4, 2000).
3. The other case had been decided by the
same court, involving the same subject 7.B.2.c.When Hearing is Necessary
matter, with the same cause of action, and
was between the same parties (which was During the Pre-Trial Before Judgment or
not denied), and constituted res judicata on and the Trial on Appeal
The court, motu proprio General Rule: The
the current cause before the court (Tiburcio v.
or upon motion, shall court CANNOT take
PHHC, G.R. No. L-13479, October 31, 1959)
hear the parties on the judicial notice of any
propriety of taking matter.
Judicial notice of foreign laws judicial notice of any
matter. Exception: the court,
motu proprio or upon

12
 motion, may take General Rule: A judicial admission is conclusive
judicial notice of any upon the party making it and does not require
matter and shall hear
proof.
the parties thereon if
such matter isdecisive of
a material issue in the Exceptions:
case.
(Rule 129, Sec. 3, as amended)  Upon showing that the admission was made
through palpable mistake; or
Hence, the court can take judicial notice of any  Upon showing that the imputed admission
matter during [the pre-trial and] the trial as long was not, in fact, made (Rule 129, Sec. 4, as
as there is a hearing. If trial is already over, the amended).
court can take judicial notice only of matters
decisive of a material issue in the case as long as Note: The theory of adoptive admission has
there is a hearing (FRANCISCO, Evidence 11th ed. p. been adopted by the court in this jurisdiction. An
88). adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to a
statement or action by another person when it is
Court’s Own Acts and Records reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an
 A court will take judicial notice of its own admission of something stated or implied by the
acts and records in the same case, of facts other person. The basis for admissibility of
established in prior proceedings in the same admissions made vicariously is that arising from
case, of the authenticity of its own records the ratification or adoption by the party of the
of another case between the same parties, statements which the other person had made.
of the files of related cases in the same
court, and of public records on file in the Elements of Judicial Admission (PC-OW)
same court (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 119288, August 18, 1997). 1. The admission must be made by a Party to
the case.
Mandatory Judicial Notice and
Discretionary Judicial Notice, Note: Admissions of a non-party do NOT fall
Distinguished within the definition of Rule 129, Sec 4.

MANDATORY DISCRETIONARY 2. The admission, to be judicial, must be made

JUDICIAL NOTICE JUDICIAL NOTICE
in the course of the proceedings in the same
Court is compelled to Court is not compelled to
take judicial notice take judicial notice
case.
Takes place at court’s May be at court’s own
initiative initiative or on request of General Rule: Judicial admissions should be
a party made in the same case.
No motion or hearing Needs hearing and
presentation of evidence Exception: Where there is identity of parties
in interest (Republic Glass vs. Qua, G.R. No.
7.B.3. JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS 144413, July 30, 2004 ).

An admission, oral or written, made by a party in Note: An admission made in another judicial
the course of the proceedings in the same case, proceeding will not be deemed a judicial
does not require proof. The admission may be admission in the case where the admission is not
contradicted only by showing that it was through made. Instead, it will be considered an
palpable mistake or that the imputed admission extrajudicial admission for purposes of the other
proceeding where such admission is offered
was not, in fact, made (Rule 129, Sec. 4, as (RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Lecture Series), 2016 Ed.,
amended). p. 87).

3. An admission may either be Oral or Written.

13
 Note: There is no particular form for an them. They become judicial admissions of the
admission fact or facts stipulated.29 Even if placed at a
disadvantageous position, a party may not be
Extrajudicial Admission and Judicial allowed to rescind them unilaterally; it must
Admission, Distinguished assume the consequences of the
disadvantage. (Bayas vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
Extrajudicial Judicial Nos. 143689-91, November 12, 2002)
Admission Admission  The rule is that the testimony on the witness
Made outside of the Made in the course of stand partakes of the nature of a formal
proceedings in the same the proceedings in the judicial admission when a party testifies
case. same case. clearly and unequivocally to a fact which is
Must be offered in Need not be offered in peculiarly within his own knowledge (Republic
evidence in order to be evidence since they
of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
considered by the court. already form part of the
152154, July 15, 2003).
records.
May be given in Not only is it evidence
evidence against the against the admitter but
Admission and Confession
admitter. is binding upon him.
May be contradicted by May not be contradicted Admission is an act, declaration or omission of
the admitter. by the admitter except a party as to a relevant fact(Rule 130, Sec. 27).
upon showing that the
admission was made Confession is a categorical acknowledgement of
through palpable guilt made by an accused of the offense charged
mistake or that the or any offense necessarily included therein(Rule
imputed admission was
130, Sec. 34).
not, in fact, made.
(Riguera)
Instances of Judicial Admissions
 It is settled that judicial admissions may be
1. Admissions made in the course of the
made: (a) in the pleadings filed by the parties;
proceedings (Rule 129, Sec. 4).
(b) in the course of the trial either by verbal
2. The genuineness and due execution of an
or written manifestations or stipulations; or (c) actionable document copied or attached to a
in other stages of judicial proceedings, as in pleading, when the other party fails to
the pre-trial of the case. Thus, facts pleaded specifically deny under oath (Rule 8, Sec. 8, as
in the petition and answer, as in the case at amended);
bar, are deemed admissions of petitioner and 3. Material averments in a pleading asserting a
respondents, respectively, who are not claim or claims, when not specifically denied
permitted to contradict them or subsequently (Rule 8, Sec. 11, as amended);
take a position contrary to or inconsistent with 4. Negative Pregnant Denial;
such admissions (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003). Note: A defense is considered a negative
 A written statement is nonetheless competent pregnant when it contains a denial pregnant
as an admission even if it is contained in a with an admission of the substantial facts
document which is not in itself effective for the alleged in the pleading. Where a fact is alleged
purpose for which it is made, either by reason
with qualifying or modifying language and the
of illegality, or incompetency of a party
words of the allegation as so qualified or
thereto, or by reason of not being signed,
modified are literally denied, it has been held
executed or delivered. Accordingly, contracts
that the qualifying circumstances alone are
have been held as competent evidence of
denied while the fact itself is admitted
admissions, although they may be (Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan,
unenforceable (Republic of the Philippines vs. G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003).
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003). 5. Admissions in amended pleadings (Rule 10,
 Once the stipulations are reduced into writing Sec. 8, as amended);
and signed by the parties and their counsels,
they become binding on the parties who made

14
 Note: Admissions in the superseded pleading dispensed with. (Alfelor v. Halasan, G.R. No. 165987,
disappear from the record and cease to be March 31, 2006)
judicial admissions. While they may
nonetheless be utilized against the pleader as Consequently:
extra-judicial admissions, they must, in order 1. An admission made in the pleadings cannot
to have such effect, be formally offered in be controverted by the party making such
evidence (Director of Lands vs. CA, G.R. No. L- admission and are conclusive as to such
31408, April 22, 1991). party, and all proofs to the contrary or
inconsistent therewith should be ignored,
6. Admissions made by counsel; whether objection is interposed by the party
or not.
General Rule: The statements of counsel 2. The allegations, statements or admissions
made in open court during the hearing in his contained in a pleading are conclusive as
capacity as counsel of record of a party is against the pleader.
deemed to be in the nature of judicial 3. A party cannot subsequently take a position
admission made by him on behalf of his client contrary of or inconsistent with what was
(SURICON vs. PLASLU, G.R. No. L-22970, June 9, pleaded. (Florete, Sr. v. Florete, Jr., G.R. No.
1969). 223321, April 2, 2018)

Exceptions: 7.B.3.b. How Judicial Admissions May be

Contradicted
a. Upon showing that the admissions had a. Upon showing that the admission was
been made through palpable mistake;
made through palpable mistake; or
b. Unauthorized admissions during the pre-
b. Upon showing that the imputed admission
trial made by counsel should not bind the
was not, in fact, made (Rule 129, Sec. 4, as
client (Macaraeg vs. CA, G.R. No. L-48008, amended).
January 20, 1989);
c. An admission which operates as a waiver, Judicial Admissions in Pleadings Later
surrender, or destruction of the client’s Amended
cause is beyond the scope of the attorney’s
implied authority (People vs. Hermanes, G.R. In civil cases, an amended pleading becomes a
No. 139416, March 12, 2002). judicial admission; and the contents of the
pleading it amended which are not included in the
7. Admissions obtained through depositions,
amended pleading becomes extra-judicial
written interrogatories or requests for
admissions which must be offered in evidence for
admissions (Rules 23-26, as amended).
it to be considered by the trial court (Ching vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110844, April 27, 2000).
7.B.3.a. Effect of Judicial Admissions
General Rule: Judicial admissions made in one
General Rule: A judicial admission is conclusive
case are admissible at the trial of another case
upon the party making it and does not require provided they are proved and are pertinent to the
proof. issue involved in the latter.

Exceptions: Exceptions:

a. Upon showing that the admission was 1. The said admissions were made only for
made through palpable mistake; or purposes of the first case, as in the rule of
b. Upon showing that the imputed implied admissions and their effects under
admission was not, in fact, made (Rule Rule 26;
129, Sec. 4, as amended).
2. The same were withdrawn with the
permission of the court therein; or
A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later
3. The court deems it proper to relieve the party
challenge that fact, as judicial admissions are a
therefrom.
waiver of proof; production of evidence is

15
Self-serving Rule 7.C. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

a. It prohibits the admission of declaration 1. Inherent Limitations

of a witness in his favor. a. Irrelevant Evidence; and
b. It applies only to extra-judicial admission b. Illegally obtained evidence
and not to those made in open court. The 2. Non-inherent Limitation-Relevant evidence
admission made in open court is may be excluded on the ground that although
admissible because the witness may be relevant and authentic, its probative value is
cross-examined on the matter. It is exceeded by its prejudicial effect (FRANCISCO,
however up to the court to appreciate the supra at 110-112)
same.
7.C.1. NATURE OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
7.b.3c. Pre-Trial Admissions
Objects as evidence are those addressed to the
Pre-Trial Admissions in Civil Cases senses of the court. When an object is relevant
to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to,
The parties shall file with the court and serve on examined or viewed by the court. (Rule 130, Sec.
the adverse party, in such manner as shall ensure 1)
their receipt thereof at least three (3) calendar It is not limited to the view of an object. It covers
days before the date of the pre-trial, their the entire range of human senses: hearing, taste,
respective pre-trial briefs which shall contain, smell, and touch (RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Lecture
among others, A summary of admitted facts and Series), 2016 Ed.)
proposed stipulation of facts[Rule 18, Sec. 6(b), as Note: Evidence is admissible when it is relevant
amended]. to the issue and not excluded by the
Constitution, the law or these Rules.
The contents of the pre-trial order shall control
the subsequent proceedings, unless modified Object Evidence may be:
before trial to prevent manifest injustice (Rule 18, 1. Direct-Evidence can prove directly the
Sec. 7, as amended). fact for which is offered (e.g. in a
personal injury case, the direct real
The Pre-trial order shall include an enumeration evidence of disfiguring injury would be an
of the admitted facts [Rule 18, Sec. 7(a), as exhibition to the court of the injury itself)
amended].
2. Circumstantial-facts about the object are
Should there be no more controverted facts, or proved as the basis for an inference that
no more genuine issue as to any material fact, or the other facts are true ( e.g. in paternity
an absence of any issue, or should the answer fail case, a baby may be shown and the
to tender an issue, the court shall, without appearance will be compared with that of
prejudice to a party moving for judgment on the alleged father, if they look alike, the court
pleadings under Rule 34 or summary judgment may draw an inference that the parental
under Rule 35, motu proprio include in the pre- relationship exist) (HERERRA, supra at
trial order that the case be submitted for 132.)
summary judgment or judgment on the
pleadings, without need of position papers or Demonstrative Evidence- tangible evidence
memoranda (Rule 18. Sec. 10). (n) that merely illustrate a matter of importance
in the litigation. It is NOT the actual thing,
Pre-Trial Admissions in Criminal Cases rather it represents or demonstrates‖ the real
thing. It is not strictly real‖ evidence because
All agreements or admissions made or entered
it is not the very thing involved in the case.
during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced
in writing and signed by the accused and counsel,
Examples of Object Evidence
otherwise, they cannot be used against the
1. Any article or object which may be known or
accused (Rule 118, Sec. 2).
perceived using the senses;

16
2. Examination of the anatomy of a person or Cruz v. Insular Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 120,
of any substance taken therefrom; December 12, 1913)
3. Conduct of tests, demonstrations or
experiments; The Body of the Accused as Object Evidence
4. Examination of representative portrayals of The right against self-incrimination cannot be
the object in question (e.g.maps, diagrams); invoked against object evidence. Thus, an
5. Documents, if the purpose is to prove their accused may be compelled to submit himself to
existence or condition, or the nature of the bodily inspection and whatever object is retrieved
handwriting thereon or to determine the age on his person would be admissible even though it
of the paper used, or the blemishes or would incriminate such accused. Also, on
alterations (REGALADO, Remedial Law crossexamination, an accused may be compelled
Compendium Vol. 2, 2008 Ed.) to write so his handwriting may be used as object
evidence to compare with the one in question.
How Object Evidence is Presented: The right against self-incrimination guaranteed
Ocular Inspection or “View” under the fundamental law had no application in
The court can go to place where the object is this case because no testimonial compulsion was
located for instance that the object cannot be involved. (People v. Malimit, G.R. No. 109775, 1996).
brought to the court or if it’s inconvenient to The prohibition of the compelling a man in a
remove. Such inspection should be made in the criminal court to be a witness against himself is a
presence of the time and place set for the view. prohibition of the use of the physical or moral,
(HERRERA, supra at 144-146). compulsion to extort communications form him,
not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it
Experiment may be material. (People v, Salveron, GR 102079,
Court permits experiments to be performed in November 22, 1993)
court or out of it when said experiments are made
under similar conditions and like circumstances to 8.C.2. REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
those existing in the case under inquiry for the
purpose of proving facts in issue. In other words, 1. The object must be relevant to the fact
one desiring to make an experiment is to be made in issue;
or was made as the case may be under similar to 2. The object must be authenticated before
those prevailing at the time of the occurrence it is admitted;
(FRANCISCO, Evidence, p. 129-130) 3. The authentication must be made by a
A witness in a prosecution for murder may be competent witness;
permitted to testify to experiments made with a 4. The object must be formally offered in
pistol used in the killing for the purpose of evidence. (RIANO, Evidence (The Bar
showing how far it would powder-burn cloth, Lecture Series), 2016 Ed.).
similar to the shirt worn by the deceased.
(FRANCISCO, Evidence, p. 129-130) Reason for Admissibility -the evidence of
one’s own senses furnishes the strongest
Personal Appearance as Object Evidence probability of the existence of any sensible fact.
A person's appearance, where relevant, is Limitations on the Use of Object Evidence
admissible as object evidence, the same being The court MAY refuse the introduction of object
addressed to the senses of the court. A person's evidence and rely on testimonial evidence alone
appearance, as evidence of age (for example, of if:
infancy, or of being under the age of consent to 1. The exhibition of such object is contrary to
intercourse), is usually regarded as relevant; and, morals or decency; (REGALADO, p. 716 citing 5
if so, the tribunal may properly observe the Moran, op. cit., p. 72)
person brought before it (People vs. Rullepa, G.R. 2. To require its being viewed in court or in an
No. 131516, March 5, 2003) ocular inspection would result in delays,
To determine whether a person is an Alien or not, inconvenience, unnecessary expenses out of
his personal appearance, ethnological and racial proportion to the evidentiary value of such
characteristics, language, customs, dress and object; (REGALADO, p. 716 citing People v. Moreno
manners may be taken into consideration. (De la 83 Phil. 286)

17
3. Such object evidence would be confusing or Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.) Such record of
misleading, as when the purpose is to prove the movements and custody of seized item shall
former condition of the object and there is no include the identity and signature of the person
preliminary showing that there has been no who held temporary custody of the seized item,
substantial change in said condition (REGALADO, the date and time when such transfer of custody
p. 716 citing People v. Saavedra [CA], 50 o.g. 5407;) were made in the course of safekeeping and use
or in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
4. The testimonial or documentary evidence (People vs.Moner, G.R. No. 202206, March 5, 2018)
already presented clearly portrays the object in
question as to render a view thereof unnecessary Purpose: The function of the chain of custody
(REGALADO p. 716, citing Sec. 7, Rule 133) requirement is to ensure that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are
8.C.3 CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts
as to the identity of the evidence are removed
For Purpose of Presentation in court, object (People vs. Langcua, G.R. No. 190343, February 06,
evidence may be of that which consists in: 2013).
1. The exhibition or production of the object
inside or outside the courtroom 8.C.4.a. Chain of Custody in Drug-Related
Cases
2. The inspection of the object outside of The teaching consistently upheld in our
the courtroom; and jurisdiction is that in all prosecutions for violations
of R.A. No. 9165, the corpus delicti is the
3. The making of an experiment
dangerous drug itself, the existence of which is
(demonstrative evidence) (RIANO,
essential to a judgment of conviction; thus, its
Evidence (The Bar Lecture Series), 2016
Ed.,p. 147). identity must be clearly established. The
prosecution must be able to account for each link
For the Purpose of Authentication, object in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug
evidence may be classified into: from the moment of seizure up to its presentation
1. Unique objects– Those that have readily in court as evidence of the corpus delicti (People
identifiable marks (e.g.a caliber 40 gun vs. Lumagui, G.R. No. 224293, July 23, 2018)
with serial number XXX888); The chain of custody of the dangerous drugs has
been jurisprudentially established as follows:
2. Objects made unique– Those that are
made readily identifiable (e.g.a bolo knife 1. the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
with identifying marks on it); and illegal drug recovered from the accused;
3. Non-unique objects– Those which have Note: The apprehending team having initial
no identifying marks and cannot be custody and control of the drugs shall,
marked (e.g.drops of blood) (RIANO, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
Evidence (The Bar Lecture Series), 2016 Ed. physically inventory and photograph the same in
NOTE: In case of non-unique objects, the the presence of:
proponent of the evidence must establish the a. The Accused or his counsel,
chain of custody. b. A representative from the Media,
c. A representative from the DOJ, and
8.C.4. CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN RELATION d. Any Elected public official who shall be
TO SECTION 21 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE required to sign the copies of the
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT inventory and be given a copy thereof
(R.A. No. 9165, Sec. 21a)
“Chain of custody” means the duly recorded, Marking means the apprehending officer or the
authorized movements and custody of the seized poseur-buyer places his/her initials and signature
drugs at each stage, from the moment of on the seized item. The marking of the evidence
confiscation to the receipt in the forensic serves to separate the marked evidence from the
laboratory for examination until it is presented to corpus of all other similar or related evidence
the court. (Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board

18
from the time they are seized from the accused warrant, the Court religiously applies Sec.
until they are disposed of at the end of the 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended,
criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, including the mandatory presence of the
planting or contamination of evidence (People of required witnesses during the physical
the Philippines vs. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, inventory and taking of photographs of
2019); the seized drugs, and the preservation of
2. The turnover of the illegal drug by the the integrity and evidentiary value of the
apprehending officer to the investigating same in applying the saving clause under
officer; the IRR(Tumabini vs. People of the
3. The turnover by the investigating officer to Philippines, G.R. No. 224495, February 19,
the forensic chemist for laboratory 2020)
examination; and
4. The turnover and submission of the marked 8.C.5. DNA EVIDENCE
illegal drug by the forensic chemist to court
(People vs. Lumagui, G.R. No. 224293, July 23, 7.C.5.a. Meaning OF DNA
2018)
Deoxyribonucleic Acid, or DNA, is a molecule that
8.C.4.b. Effect of Non-Compliance of Chain encodes the genetic information in all living
of Custody organisms. A person’s DNA is the same in each
cell and it does not change throughout a person’s
 The failure of the arresting officers to lifetime. The DNA in a person’s blood is the same
prepare the required inventory and as the DNA found in his saliva, sweat, bone, the
photograph of the seized dangerous drug root and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, skin
militated against the guilt of an accused. tissue, and vaginal and rectal cells. Most
For under these circumstances, the importantly, because of polymorphisms in human
integrity and evidentiary value of the genetic structure, no two individuals have the
corpus delicti cannot be deemed to have same DNA, with the notable exception of identical
been preserved (People of the Philippines twins. (Agustin vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162571,
vs. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, June 15, 2005)
2019). DNA Evidence constitutes the totality of the DNA
 Generally, non-compliance with the chain profiles, results and other genetic information
of custody rule results to the acquittal of directly generated from DNA testing of biological
the accused, for it compromises the samples (Rule on DNA Evidence, Sec. 3c)
identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.
The exception is whenever compelling 7.C.5.b. Application for DNA Testing Order
reasons exist that would otherwise A person who has a legal interest in the litigation
warrant deviation from the established may file an application for DNA testing order
protocol so long as the integrity and before the appropriate court, at any time (Rule on
evidentiary value of the seized items are DNA Evidence, Sec. 4)
properly preserved (Ibid.).
 The amendment under R.A. No. 10640 The order for a DNA testing shall not, however,
uses the disjunctive "or," i.e., "with an be issued as a matter of course and from the
elected public official and a mere fact that the person requesting for the
representative of the National testing has a legal interest in the litigation. For
Prosecution Service or the media." Thus, the order to be issued:
a representative from the media and a 1. A biological sample exists that is relevant
representative from the National to the case;
Prosecution Service are now alternatives 2. The biological sample: (i) was not
to each other (People of the Philippins vs. previously subjected to the type of DNA
Alibudbud, G.R. No. 237850, September 16, testing now requested; or (ii) was
2020). previously subjected to DNA testing, but
 Jurisprudence has consistently held that the results may require confirmation for
in the seizure and confiscation of seized good reasons;
drugs in the implementation of a search

19
 3. The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid DNA testing to be conducted (Rule on DNA
technique; Evidence, Sec. 5)
4. The DNA testing has the scientific
potential to produce new information 7.C.5.c. Post-Conviction DNA Testing;
that is relevant to the proper resolution Remedy
of the case; and Post-conviction DNA testing may be available,
5. The existence of other factors, if any, without need of prior court order, to the
which the court may consider as prosecution or any person convicted by final and
potentially affecting the accuracy of executory judgment provided that: (ERP)
integrity of the DNA testing. (Sec. 4, Rule 1. A biological sample Exists;
on DNA Evidence) 2. Such sample is Relevant to the case; and
6. There must be a prima facie showing of 3. The testing would Probably result in the
relationship or paternity (Lucas v. Lucas, reversal or modification of the judgment
G.R. No. 190710, June 6, 2011) of conviction.
Note: A court order is not always required before
Confidentiality
undertaking a DNA testing. The last paragraph of A DNA profile and all results or other information
Sec. 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence allows a obtained from DNA testing shall only be released
testing without a prior court order if done before to any of the following, under such terms and
a suit or proceeding is commenced at the request conditions as may be set forth by the court:
of any party, including law enforcement agencies. 1. Person from whom the sample was
This also means that litigation need not exist prior taken;
to DNA testing. Thus, a court order shall be 2. Lawyers representing parties in the case
required only if there is a pending litigation, but or action where the DNA evidence is
not before the litigation. An order granting the offered and presented or sought to be
DNA testing shall be immediately executory and offered and presented;
3. Lawyers of private complainants in a
shall not be appealable. The remedy would be to
criminal action;
file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, but this
4. Duly authorized law enforcement
shall not, in any way, stay the implementation agencies; and
thereof, unless a higher court issues an injunctive 5. Other persons as determined by the
order (RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Lecture Series), court.
2016 Ed.,p. 145).
Exception: Unless the court orders the
Upon Compliance of the Requirement in disclosure to some other entities (A.M. No. 06-11-
Rule on DNA Evidence, Sec. 4), the court 5-SC, Sec. 11)
shall:
1. Order, where appropriate, that biological Remedy if the Results Are Favorable to the
samples be taken from any person or crime Convict
scene evidence; The convict or the prosecution may file a petition
2. Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin
designed to protect the integrity of the if the results of the post-conviction DNA testing
biological sample, the testing process and the are favorable to the convict. In the case the court,
reliability of the test results, including the after due hearing finds the petition to be
condition that the DNA test results shall be meritorious, if shall reverse or modify the
simultaneously disclosed to the parties judgment of conviction and order the release of
involved in the case; and the convict, unless continued detention is
3. If the biological sample taken is of such justified for a lawful cause.
amount that prevents the conduct of A similar petition may be filed either in the Court
confirmatory testing by the other or the of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with any
adverse party and where additional biological member of said courts, which may conduct a
samples of the same kind can no longer be hearing thereon or remand the petition to the
obtained, issue an order requiring all parties
to the case or proceedings to witness the

20
court of origin and issue the appropriate 7.C.5.e. Rules on Evaluation of Reliability
orders(A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, Sec. 10). Of The DNA Testing Methodology
In evaluating whether the DNA testing
7.C.5.d. Assessment of Probative Value of methodology is reliable, the court shall consider
DNA Evidence and Admissibility the following:
In assessing the probative value of DNA 1. The falsifiability of the principles or
evidence, courts should consider the following methods used, that is, whether the
data: theory or technique can be and has been
1. How the samples were collected, tested;
2. How they were handled, 2. The subjection to peer review and
3. Possibility of contamination, publication of the principles or methods;
4. Procedure followed in analyzing the 3. The general acceptance of the principles
samples, or methods by the relevant scientific
5. Whether proper standards of procedure community;
were followed in conducting the tests, 4. The existence and maintenance of
6. Qualification of the analyst who standards and controls to ensure the
conducted the test. (People v. Vallejo G.R. correctness of data generated;
No. 144656, May 9, 2002) 5. The existence of an appropriate
reference population database; and
By the terms of Sec. 5 of the Rule on DNA 6. The general degree of confidence
Evidence, the grant of a DNA testing application attributed to mathematical calculations
shall not be construed as an automatic admission used in comparing DNA profiles and the
into evidence of any component of the DNA significance and limitation of statistical
evidence that may be obtained as a result of the calculations used in comparing DNA
testing. This necessarily means that the court will profiles. (Sec. 8, Rule on DNA evidence)
still have to evaluate the probative value of the
proposed evidence before its admission. 7.D. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
The determination of the probative value of the
DNA evidence rests upon sound judicial 7.D.1. MEANING OF DOCUMENTARY
assessment taking into consideration the EVIDENCE
following matters:
1. The chain of custody, including how the Documentary evidence consists of writings,
biological samples were collected, how recordings, photographs or any material
they were handled, and the possibility of containing letters, words, sounds, numbers,
contamination of the samples; figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other
2. The DNA testing methodology, including modes of written expression offered as proof of
the procedure followed in analyzing the their contents.
samples, the advantages and
disadvantages of the procedure, and Photographs include still pictures, drawings,
compliance with the scientifically valid stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or
standards in conducting the tests; videos (Rule 130, Sec. 2, as amended). (n)
3. The forensic DNA laboratory, including
accreditation by any reputable standards Any object or material having any matter
setting institution and the qualification of expressed or described upon it by marks capable
the analyst who conducted the tests. If of being read.
the laboratory is not accredited, the
relevant experience of the laboratory in Note: A document may be offered as object
forensic casework and credibility shall be evidence or documentary evidence depending on
properly established; and the purpose for which it is presented in court. It
4. The reliability of the testing result, as is object evidence if thepurpose of its
hereinafter provided. (RIANO, Evidence presentation is to prove its existence. In contrast,
(The Bar Lecture Series), 2016 Ed., p. 146) it is documentary evidence if the purpose is to
citing Sec. 7, Rule on DNA Evidence) prove the contents of the document.

21
 General Rule: When the subject of inquiry is the
 Thus, when a document is presented to contents of a document, writing, recording,
prove its existence or condition it is photograph or other record, no evidence is
offered not as documentary, but as real, admissible other than the original document
evidence (Hernaez, et al. vs. McGrath, etc., itself.
et al., 91 Phil[.] 565).
 The [Original Document] Rule stipulates
7.D.2. REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY that in proving the terms of a written
document the original of the document
a) Relevant must be produced in court. When the
b) Competent evidence sought to be introduced concerns
c) Identified Not present in external facts, such as the existence,
d) Authenticated Testimonial execution or delivery of the writing,
e) Duly Marked; and Evidence without reference to its terms, the [Original
f) Formally Offered Document] Rule cannot be invoked. In
such a case, secondary evidence may be
Rules in Documentary Evidence admitted even without accounting for the
original (Heirs of Margarita Prodon vs. Heirs of
1) Original Document Rule Maximo S. Alvarez and Valentina Clave, G.R.
2) Parol Evidence Rule No. 170604, September 2, 2013).
3) Electronic Evidence Rule
Exceptions: (CLAP-N)
 While his Transcript of Records (TOR) may
reflect not only his outstanding academic 1. When the original has been Lost or destroyed,
performance but his excellent grade in or cannot be produced in court, without bad
subjects on Conduct during his four-year stay faith on the part of the offeror;
in the PMA, it does not necessarily follow that
he is innocent of the offense charged. It is For secondary evidence to be admissible,
enough to say that "evidence that one did or there must be satisfactory proof of:
did not do a certain thing at one time is not
admissible to prove that he did or did not do a. Existence or due execution of the original;
the same or similar thing at another time." b. Loss and destruction of the original or the
(Cudia vs. The Superintendent of the PMA, G.R. reason for its non-production in court,
No. 211362, February 24, 2015). without bad faith on the part of the offeror
 A certificate of live birth purportedly (Rule 130, Sec. 5); and
identifying the putative father is not c. Reasonable diligence and good faith on the
competent evidence of paternity when there part of the offeror in the search for or
is no showing that the putative father had a attempt to produce the originals (Citibank
hand in the preparation of the certificate. The vs. Teodoro, G.R. No. 150905, September 23,
local civil registrar has no authority to record 2003).
the paternity of an illegitimate child on the
information of a third person (Puno vs. Puno The offeror may prove the contents on
Enterprise Inc., G.R. No. 177066, September 11, theoriginal document: (CRT)
2009).
i. By a Copy of the original;
7.D.3. BEST EVIDENCE RULE ii. By a Recital of its contents in some
(also known as the “Original Document Rule”) authentic document; or
iii. By the Testimony of a witnesses (Rule 130,
Note: The “Best Evidence Rule” is often Sec. 5).
described as a misnomer because it is worded as
if it applies to all kinds of evidence when it is only Note: The order stated must be followed.
applicable to documentary evidence.
2. When the original is in the Custody or under
the control of the party against whom the

22
 evidence is offered, and the latter fails to c. The fact sought to be established is only
produce it after reasonable notice, or the the general result of the whole.
original cannot be obtained by local judicial
processes or procedures; 4. When the original is a Public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
If the document is in the custody or under the public office; and
control of adverse party, the offeror must
prove the following: (PERF) Note: When the original of document is in the
custody of public officer or is recorded in a
a. Existence of the original; public office, its contents may be proved by a
b. Possession of the original by the adverse certified copy issued by the public officer in
party; custody thereof (Rule 130, Sec. 8, as amended).
c. Reasonable notice to produce to the
adverse party; and 5. When the original is Not closely-related to a
d. Failure of the adverse party to produce the controlling issue (Rule 130, Sec. 3).(n)
original despite such notice (Rule 130, Sec.
6). Purposes:

Note: The non-production by the accused of 1. To prevent fraud – If a party is in

the original document unless justified under possession of such evidence and withholds it,
the exceptions in Section [3], Rule 130 of the and seeks to substitute inferior evidence in its
Rules of Court, gives rise to the presumption place, the presumption naturally arises that
of suppression of evidence adverse to him the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent
(Vallarta vs. CA, G.R. No. L-36543, July 27, 1988). purposes which its production would expose
and defeat.
3. When the original consists of numerous 2. To exclude uncertainties in the contents
Accounts or other documents which cannot be of a document – the best evidence rule
examined in court without great loss of time accepts the document itself as the best
and the fact sought to be established from evidence of its contents because it is certain;
them is only the general result of the whole; and rejects a copy thereof, because of the
uncertainty of its contents caused by the
Note: When the contents of documents, hazards of faulty duplication, or an oral
records, photographs, or numerous accounts description thereof, because of the
are voluminous and cannot be examined in uncertainty caused by the frailties of human
court without great loss of time, and the fact recollection.
sought to be established is only the general
result of the whole, the contents of such  The primary purpose of the [Original
evidence may be presented in the form of a Document] Rule is to ensure that the exact
chart, summary, or calculation. contents of a writing are brought before the
court, considering that (a) the precision in
The originals shall be available for presenting to the court the exact words of the
examination or copying, or both, by the writing is of more than average importance,
adverse party at a reasonable time and place. particularly as respects operative or
The court may order that they be produced in dispositive instruments, because a slight
court (Rule 130, Sec. 7). (n) variation in words may mean a great
difference in rights; (b) there is a substantial
a. When the contents of documents, records, hazard of inaccuracy in the human process of
photographs, or numerous accounts are making a copy by handwriting or typewriting;
voluminous; and (c) as respects oral testimony purporting
b. Such account or documents cannot be to give from memory the terms of a writing,
examined in court without great loss of there is a special risk of error, greater than in
time; and the case of attempts at describing other
situations generally. The rule further acts as

23
 an insurance against fraud (Heirs of Margarita their authenticity and due execution, means
Prodon vs. Heirs of Maximo S. Alvarez and that these documents are deemed sufficient
Valentina Clave, G.R. No. 170604, September 2, proof of the facts contained therein (Sy vs.
2013). Court of Appeals, 330 SCRA 550).
 If the party never objected to the submission
7.D.3.a. Meaning of Original Document of the photostatic copies as evidence, the
Rule production of the originals is dispensable.
This was our view in Estrada v. Hon.
Under the Original Document Rule which requires Desierto where we ruled that the production
that the highest available degree of proof must of the original may be dispensed with if the
be produced, no evidence which is merely opponent does not dispute the contents of
substitutionary in its nature shall be received so the document and no other useful purpose
long as the original evidence can be had. In other would be served by requiring its production.
words, the contents of a document must be In such case, we ruled that secondary
proved by producing the document itself evidence of the content of the writing would
(ANNOTATION: Admissibility of Documentary be received in evidence if no objection was
Evidence, 241 SCRA 225, February 09, 1995).
made to its reception (People vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 153304-05, February
7.D.3.b. When not applicable 7, 2012).

When Original Document Rule does NOT 7.D.3.c. Meaning of Original Document and
apply: Duplicate

The [Original Document Rule] applies only when An Original Document refers to:
the content of such document is the subject of
the inquiry. a) The document itself; or
b) Any counterpart intended to have the
Where the issue is only as to whether such same effect by a person executing or
document was actually executed, or exists, or on issuing it.
the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its
execution, the best evidence rule does not apply An original of a photograph includes:
and testimonial evidence is admissible. Any other
substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible a) The negative; or
without need for accounting for the original b) Any print therefrom.
(Citibank, N.A. vs. Sabeniano, G.R. No. 156132,
October 12, 2006). If data is stored in a computer or similar
device, any printout or other output readable by
 The [original document] rule does NOT sight or other means, shown to reflect the data
apply to the marked money in a buy bust accurately, is an original[Rule 130, Sec. 4(a)]. (n)
operation because the inquiry is not on the
contents of the marked bill, but merely its  A facsimile transmission is not the functional
existence (People vs. Tandoy, G.R. No. 80505, equivalent of an original under the Best
December 4, 1990). Evidence Rule. In an ordinary facsimile
transmission, there exists an original paper-
Waiver of the Original Document Rule based information or data that is scanned,
sent through a phone line, and re-printed at
 The [original document] rule may be waived the receiving end(MCC Industrial Sales
if not raised in the trial. In one case, Corporation vs. Ssangyong Corporation, G.R. No.
although the marriage certificate, the 170633, October 17, 2007).
marriage license, and other pieces of
documentary evidence were only A Duplicate is a counterpart produced:
photocopies, the fact that these have been (IMPRRO)
examined and admitted by the trial court,
with no objections having been made as to

24
 By the same Impression as the original; suppressed would be adverse if produced
 From the same Matrix (Loon vs. Power Master, Inc., G.R. No. 189404,
 By means of Photography, including December 11, 2013).
enlargementsand miniatures;
 By mechanical or electronic Re-recording; 7.D.4. SECONDARY EVIDENCE RULE
 By chemical Reproduction; or
 By Other equivalent techniques which 7.D.4.a. Meaning of Secondary Evidence
accurately reproduce the original [Rule 130,
Sec. 4(b)]. Secondary evidence refers to evidence other
than the original document itself. It is admissible
General Rule: A duplicate is admissible to the only when the best evidence is lost or
same extent as an original. inaccessible.

Exceptions:  Because these documents are mere

photocopies, they are simply secondary
a.) When a genuine question is raised as to the evidence, admissible only upon compliance
authenticity of the original, or with Rule 130, Section 5, which states,
b.) In the circumstances, it is unjust or “[w]hen the original document has been lost
inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
the original[Rule 130, Sec. 4(c)]. the offeror, upon proof of its execution or
existence and the cause of its unavailability
 When carbon sheets are inserted between without bad faith on his part, may prove its
two or more sheets of writing paper so that contents by a copy, or by a recital of its
the writing of a contract upon the outside contents in some authentic document, or by
sheet, including the signature of the party to the testimony of witnesses in the order
be charged thereby, produces facsimile upon stated.” (MCC Industrial Sales Corp. vs.
the sheets beneath, such signature being Ssangyong Corp., G.R. No. 170633, October
thus reproduced by the same stroke of the 17, 2007).
pen which made the surface or exposed
impression, all of the sheets so written on 7.D.4.b. When and How Secondary
are regarded as duplicate originals and Evidence May Be Admitted
either of them may be introduced in
evidence as such without accounting for the First Situation: When original document is
non-production of the others (People of the unavailable
Philippines vs. Tan, G.R. No. L-14257, July 31,
1959). When the original document has been lost or
 While we generally admit in evidence and destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the
give probative value to photocopied offeror must prove the following: (ELR)
documents in administrative proceedings,
allegations of forgery and fabrication should 1. Existence or due execution of the original;
prompt the adverse party to present the 2. Loss and destruction of the original or the
original documents for inspection. It was reason for its non-production in court, without
incumbent upon the respondents to present bad faith on the part of the offeror(Rule 130,
the originals, especially in this case where Sec. 5); and
the petitioners had submitted their specimen 3. Reasonable diligence and good faith on the
signatures. Instead, the respondents part of the offeror in the search for or attempt
effectively deprived the petitioners of the to produce the originals(Citibank vs. Teodoro,
opportunity to examine and controvert the G.R. No. 150905, September 23, 2003).
alleged spurious evidence by not adducing
the originals. This Court is thus left with no Note: The correct order of proof is as follows:
option but to rule that the respondents’ existence, execution, loss, and contents. At
failure to present the originals raises the the sound discretion of the court, this order
presumption that evidence willfully may be changed if necessary(Citibank

25
 Mastercard vs. Teodoro, G.R. No. 150905,  For secondary evidence to be admissible,
September 23, 2003). there must be satisfactory proof of (1) the
due execution of the original; (2) the
The offeror may prove the contents on the original’s loss, destruction or unavailability
original document: (CRT) that is not due to the offeror’s bad faith; and
(3) reasonable diligence and good faith in the
a.) By a Copy of the original; search for or attempt to produce the original
b.) By a Recital of its contents in some authentic (Citibank Mastercard vs. Teodoro, G.R. No.
document; or 150905, September 23, 2003).
c.) By the Testimony of a witnesses (Rule 130,
Sec. 5). Second Situation: When original document is in
adverse party's custody or control
Note: The order stated must be followed.
If the document is in the custody or under the
 In establishing the execution of a document, control of adverse party, the offeror must prove
the same may be established by the person the following: (PERF)
or persons who executed it, by the person
before whom its execution was 1. Existence of the original;
acknowledged, or by any person who was 2. Possession of the original by the adverse party;
present and saw it executed or who, after its 3. Reasonable notice to produce to the adverse
execution, saw it and recognized the party; and
signatures; or by a person to whom the 4. Failure of the adverse party to produce the
parties to the instrument had previously original despite such notice (Rule 130, Sec. 6).
confessed the execution thereof (De Vera vs.
Aguilar, G.R. No. 83377, February 9, 1993).  It is not necessary for a party seeking to
 Where the original has been lost or introduce a copy, to prove that the original is
destroyed, the offeror may prove its contents in actual possession of the adverse party as
by a recital of its contents in some authentic long as it is under his control; the adverse
document or by testimony of witnesses. The party need not admit that it is in his
certificate is one such authentic document possession before a copy may be introduced
(Municipality of Victorias vs. CA, 149 SCRA (Villa Rey Transit, Inc. vs. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-23893,
32). October 29, 1968).
 Failure to prove loss of all the originals
without fault of the offeror renders secondary General Rule:
evidence inadmissible (De Vera vs. Aguilar,
218 SCRA 602). If the original is not available, the same may be
substituted by presenting the following in the
 Secondary evidence is admissible when the order stated:(CRT)
original documents were actually lost or
destroyed. But prior to the introduction of 1. By a Copy of the original;
such secondary evidence, the proponent 2. By a Recital of its contents in some authentic
must establish the former existence of the document; or
instrument. The correct order of proof is as 3.By the Testimony of a witnesses (Rule 130, Sec.
follows: Existence; execution; loss; contents 5).
although this order may be changed, if
necessary, in the discretion of the court. The Note: This principle is commonly known as the
sufficiency of proof offered as a predicate for “Substitutionary Rule.”
the admission of an alleged lost deed lies
within the judicial discretion of the trial court Exception:
under all the circumstances of the particular
case (De Vera vs. Aguilar, 218 SCRA 602). The order does not apply where the law
specifically provides for the class or quantum of
secondary evidence to establish the contents of
the document.

26
  If the source documents of the summary are
Note: This principle is commonly known as the non-original, the trial court would commit a
“Definite Evidentiary Rule.” grave error in admitting and/or giving
probative value to the summary of non-
Third Situation: When the original consists of original documents; the evidence admitted
numerous accounts;Summaries(n) would be double hearsay(Republic vs.
Mupas,G.R. No. 181892, September 08, 2015).
1. When the contents of documents, records,
photographs, or numerous accounts are Fourth Situation: Evidence admissible when
voluminous; original document is a public record.
2. Such account or documents cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time; When the original of document is in the custody
and of public officer or is recorded in a public office,
3. The fact sought to be established is only the its contents may be proved by a certified copy
general result of the whole. issued by the public officer in custody thereof.

Note: When the contents of documents, records, Note: A party who calls for the production of a
photographs, or numerous accounts are document and inspects the same is not obliged to
voluminous and cannot be examined in court offer it as evidence(Rule 130, Sec. 9, as amended).
without great loss of time, and the fact sought to
be established is only the general result of the  Certified true copies of the cadastral map of
whole, the contents of such evidence may be Liliw and the corresponding list of claimants
presented in the form of a chart, summary, or of the area covered by the map were
calculation. presented by two public officers. The first
was Crisostomo Arves, Clerk III of the
The originals shall be available for examination or Municipal Assessor's Office, a repository of
copying, or both, by the adverse party at a such documents. The second was Dominga
reasonable time and place. The court may order Tolentino, a DENR employee, who, as a
that they be produced in court (Rule 130, Sec. 7). record officer, certifies and safekeeps records
(n) of surveyed land involving cadastral maps.
The cadastral maps and the list of claimants,
 As a condition precedent to the admission of as certified true copies of original public
a summary of numerous documents: records, fall under the exception to the best
evidence rule (Dimaguila v. Sps. Monteiro, GR
a. The proponent must prove that the source No. 201011, January 27, 2014).
documents being summarized are also
admissible if presented in court; 7.D.5. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
b. The source documents must be shown to
be original, and not secondary; and 7.D.5.a. Meaning of Parole Evidence Rule
c. The source documents must likewise be
accessible to the opposing party so that the Parol Evidence is any evidence aliunde,
correctness of the summary of the whether oral or written, which is intended or
voluminous records may be tested on tends to vary or contradict a complete and
cross-examination and/or may be refuted enforceable agreement embodied in a document
in pleadings. (ANNOTATION: Equitable Mortgage, 339 SCRA 111,
August 25, 2000).
 In ordinary trial-type proceedings, a proper
foundation for the introduction of a summary It is based upon the consideration that when the
may be established through the “testimony of parties have reduced their agreement on a part
the person who is responsible for the matter into writing, all their previous and
summary's preparation, or the person who contemporaneous agreements on the matter are
supervised the preparation of the summary.” merged therein (ANNOTATION: Essentials of Parol
Evidence, 108 SCRA 64, September 30, 1981).

27
 4. The Existence of other terms agreed to by
 The reason for the rule is the presumption the parties or their successors in interest
that when the parties have reduced their after the execution of the written
agreement to writing they have made such agreement.
writing the only repository and memorial of
the truth, and whatever is not found in the Note: The term “agreement” includes wills.
writing must be understood to have been
waived or abandoned (Cruz vs. Court of  The Parol Evidence Rule does not apply when
Appeals, G.R. No. 79962, December 10, 1990). third parties or those not privy to the written
instrument are involved and does not base a
7.D.5.b. Purpose of the Parol Evidence Rule claim or assert a right originating in the
instrument (Lechugas vs. CA, G.R. No. L-39972
1) To give stability to written agreement; & L-40300, August 6, 1986).
2) To remove the temptation and possibility of  The Parol Evidence Rule is predicated on the
perjury, which would be afforded if parol existence of a document embodying the
evidence was admissible; and terms of an agreement.Areceiptdoes not
3) The prevent possible fraud (Herrera). contain such an agreement. It is only a
receipt attesting to the fact that on May 4,
1982, the petitioner received from the private
7.D.5.c. Application of the Parol Evidence respondent the amount of P35,000. At most,
Rule the receipt can only be considered a casual
It becomes operative when the issues in the memorandum of a transaction between the
litigation are the terms of a written agreement. parties and an acknowledgment of the
receipt of money executed by the petitioner
General Rule: for the private respondent's satisfaction. A
writing of this nature, as Wigmore observed,
When the terms of an agreement have been is not covered by the ParolEvidenceRule(Cruz
reduced to writing, it is considered as containing vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 79962, December
all the terms agreed upon and there can be, as 10, 1990).
between the parties and their successors in
interest, NO evidence of such terms other than 7.D.5.d. Requisites for the Applicability of
the contents of the written agreement. Parol Evidence Rule (PWV3)

 The Parol Evidence Rule forbids any addition 1. There must be a Valid contract;
to the terms of a written instrument by 2. The terms of the agreement must be reduced
testimony purporting to show that, at or into Writing;
before the signing of the document, other or 3. Evidence aliunde Vary the terms of the written
different terms were orally agreed upon by contract;
the parties (Ortañez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 4. The dispute is between the Parties to the
No. 107372, January 23, 1997). written instrument; and
5. Grounds for the applicability must be put in
Exceptions: issue in the Verified pleading.

A party may present evidence to modify, explain  The parol evidence rule applies only to the
or add to the terms of the written agreement if parties to the contract and their successors-
he or she puts in issue in a verified pleading: in-interest. Where the proponent of the parol
(FIVE) evidence is a stranger to the deed of sale, he
is not bound by the parol evidence rule
1. An Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or (Lechugas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-39972,
imperfection in the written agreement; August 6, 1986).
2. Failure of the written agreement to express
the true intent and agreement of the parties; Previous acts and contemporaneous transaction
3. Validity of the written agreement; or of the parties are deemed integrated and merged

28
in the written instrument which they have the purpose of
executed. aiding the court
in arriving at the
General Rule: When the parties have reduced meaning of the
language used.
their agreement to writing, it is presumed that
Curable by Cannot be Curable by
they have made the writing the only repository evidence cured by evidence aliunde
and memorial of the truth, and whatever is not aliunde or evidence or extraneous
found in the writing must be understood to have extraneous aliunde evidence as long
been waived and abandoned. evidence as as such
long as such ambiguity is put
Exception: Collateral Oral Agreement A ambiguity is in issue in the
contract made prior to or contemporaneous with put in issue in proponent’s
another agreement and if oral and not the verified
proponent’s pleading.
inconsistent with written contract, it is admissible
verified
within the exception to parol evidence rule. pleading.
(RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Lecture Series), 2016 Ed.,
An agreement is “collateral” if it meets the p. 160-161)
following requirements:
In order that parol evidence may be
1. It is NOT a part of the integrated written admissible to show a mistake in the written
agreement in any way; instrument, the concurrence of three things
2. It is not inconsistent with the written are necessary: (FCC)
agreement in any way, including both the i. The mistake should be of a Fact and not a
express and implied provisions of the written mistake of law;
agreement; and, ii. The mistake should be proved by Clear and
3. It is not closely connected with the principal convincing evidence; and
transaction as to form part and parcel thereof. iii. The mistake should be Common to both
parties to the instrument
7.D.5.e. When Parol Evidence Can Be
Introduced b. Failure of the written agreement to express
the true intent and agreement of the parties;
A party may present evidence to modify, explain
or add to the terms of the written agreement if Parol evidence is competent and admissible in
he or she puts in issue in a verified pleading: support of allegations that an instrument in
(FIVE) writing, purporting on its face to transfer the
title with a mere right to repurchase under
a. An Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or specific conditions reserved to the vendor,
imperfection in the written agreement; was in truth and in fact given merely as a
security for the repayment of loan (Madrigal vs.
Intrinsic or Extrinsic or Intermediate Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142944, April 15, 2005).
Latent Patent Ambiguity Similarly, parol evidence is admissible to show
Ambiguity Ambiguity
that an endorsement was made wholly
When the Ambiguity is where the
writing, on its patent on the ambiguity
without consideration and, and, that in
face appears face of the consists in the making it, the endorser acted as agent for the
clear and writing itself use of equivocal endorsee and as mere vehicle for the transfer
unambiguous, and requires words of the naked title from the maker to the
BUT there are something to designating the endorsee (Maulini vs. Serrano, G.R. No. L-8844,
collateral be added in person or December 16, 1914).
matters or order to subject matter,
circumstances ascertain the parol evidence c. Validity of the written agreement; or
which makes meaning of of collateral or
the meaning the words extrinsic matter
uncertain. used. may be
Parol Evidence Rule does not apply where the
introduced for purpose of parol evidence is to show that no

29
 written contract ever existed (Maulini vs. independent contract, provided such contract is
Serrano, G.R. No. L-8844, December 16, 1914). not invalid under the statute of frauds or
otherwise.
The operation of the parol evidence rule
requires the existence of a valid written Express Trusts on Immovables cannot be
agreement. It is, thus, not applicable in a proved by parol evidence (Art. 1443, NCC).
proceeding where the validity of such
agreement is the fact in dispute, such as when  An implied trust is neither dependent upon an
a contract may be void for lack of express agreement nor required to be
consideration(Heirs of Policronio M. Ureta, Sr. vs. evidenced by writing. Article 1457 of our Civil
Heirs of Liberato M. Ureta, G.R. No. 165748, Code authorizes the admission of parol
September 14, 2011). evidence to prove their existence. Parol
Inducement by fraud may be proved by parol evidence that is required to establish the
because it goes into the validity of the existence of an implied trust necessarily has
agreement (Woodhouse vs. Halili, 93 Phil. 526). to be trustworthy and it cannot rest on loose,
equivocal or indefinite declarations (Tong vs.
d. The Existence of other terms agreed to by the TiatKun, G.R. No. 196023, April 21, 2014).
parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement. Statute of Frauds

Parol evidence may be received to determine If the following agreements are NOT in writing
whether the written agreement contains any and subscribed, it is unenforceable and evidence
reference to the collateral agreement and thereof is inadmissible:
whether the action is at law or in equity even
if it deals with related matters (Robles vs. 1. Special promise to answer for the debt,
Lizarraga, GR No. L-16736, December 22, 1921). default, or miscarriage of another;
2. Obligations not to be performed within a year
Rule on Conditional Agreements from the making thereof;
3. Agreement made in consideration of marriage,
1. Conditions Precedent – may be other than a mutual promise to marry;
established by parol evidence because there 4. Agreement for the sale of goods, chattels or
is no varying of the terms of the written things in action, at a price not less than P500,
contract by extrinsic agreement for the unless the buyer accept and receive part of
reason that there is no contract in existence; such goods and chattels, or the evidences, or
there is nothing upon which to apply the some of them, of such things in action or pay
excluding rule. at the time some part of the purchase money;
5. Lease for more than 1 year, or sale of real
2. Conditions Subsequent – may NOT be property or of an interest therein;
established by parolevidence(Herrera). 6. Representation as to the credit of a third
person(Art. 1403, NCC).
Rule on Subsequent Agreements
The rule forbidding the admission of parol Exceptions to the Statute of Frauds:
evidence to alter or contradict a written
instrument does NOT apply so as to prohibit the a. Failure to object to the presentation of
establishment by parol evidence of an agreement oral evidence; or
between the parties in writing, entered into b. Acceptance of benefit under the
subsequent to the time when the written agreement.
instrument was executed, notwithstanding that
such agreement may have the effect of changing  Parol Evidence is inadmissible to incorporate
the contract of the parties as evidenced by the additional contemporaneous conditions
writing; for parol evidence merely goes to show which are not mentioned at all in the writing,
that the parties have exercised their right to unless there is fraud or mistake (Yu Tek & Co.
change the same, or to make a new and vs. Gonzales, 29 Phil. 384).

30
 With the exception of Applies to all kinds of
Waiver of the Parole Evidence Rule wills, applies only to writing.
documents which are
The parol evidence rule can be waived by failure contractual in nature.
to invoke the benefits of the rule. This waiver may
(Riano, Evidence (The Bar Lecture Series), 2016 Ed.,
be made by failure to object to the introduction p. 165)
of evidence aliunde. Inadmissible evidence may
be rendered admissible by failure to object. Principle of “falsademonstratio non nocet
Failure to object to the parol evidence presented cum de corporeconstat"
by the adverse party operates as a waiver of the
protection of the parol evidence rule (Riano, 2016, False description does NOT injure or vitiate a
citing Santiago vs. CA, GR No. 103959, August 21,
document, provided that the thing or person
1997).
intended has once been sufficiently described.
Probative Value
7.D.6. INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
Even if patrol evidence is admitted, such
1. The language of a writing is to be interpreted
admission would not mean that the court would
according to the legal meaning it bears in the
give probative value to the parol evidence.
place of its execution, unless the parties intended
Admissibility is not equivalent of probative value
otherwise (Rule 130, Sec. 11).
or credibility (RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Lecture
Series), 2016 Ed., p. 164).
2. In the construction of an instrument, where
there are several provisions or particulars, such a
Original Document Rule and Parol Evidence
construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will
Rule, Distinguished
give effect to all (Rule 130, Sec. 12).
PAROL EVIDENCE ORIGINAL
RULE DOCUMENT RULE
 It is a basic rule in the interpretation of
As to availability of the original contracts that the various stipulations of a
Presupposes that the Contemplates a situation contract shall be interpreted together,
original is available in when the original is not attributing to the doubtful ones that sense
court. available in court and/or which may result from all of them taken
there is a dispute as to jointly (Licaros vs. Gatmaitan, G.R. No. 142838,
whether said writing is August 9, 2001).
the original.
As to what is prohibited by the rule 3. In the construction of an instrument, the
Prohibits the varying Prohibits the introduction intention of the parties is to be pursued; and
of the terms of a of substitutionary when a general and a particular provision are
written agreement. evidence in lieu of the
inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the
original document
regardless of whether or former. So a particular intent will control a
not it varies the contents general one that is inconsistent with it [Rule 130,
of the original Sec. 13].
As to who may invoke the rule
Can be invoked only Can be invoked by any Principle of “Generalia Specialibus Non
when the controversy party to an action Derogant”
is between the regardless of whether
parties to the written such party participated or A general law does not nullify a special law. The
agreement, their not in the writing general law will yield to the special law in the
privies, or any party involved. specific and particular subject embraced in the
directly affected
latter.
thereby.

As to documents to which it may be  These two laws both support the

applicable confidentiality of bank deposits. There is no
conflict between them. Republic Act No. 1405

31
 was enacted for the purpose of giving sale of property" is unsubstantiated and
encouragement to the people to deposit their leaves much to be desired (Moreno vs. Private
money in banking institutions and to Management Office, G.R. No. 159373, November
discourage private hoarding so that the same 16, 2006).
may be properly utilized by banks in
authorized loans to assist in the economic 6. When an instrument consists partly of written
development of the country. words and partly of a printed form, and the two
 It covers all bank deposits in the Philippines are inconsistent, the former controls the latter
and no distinction was made between (Rule 130, Sec. 16).
domestic and foreign deposits. Thus,
Republic Act No. 1405 is considered a law of 7. When the characters in which an instrument is
general application. On the other hand, written are difficult to be deciphered, or the
Republic Act No. 6426 was intended to language is not understood by the court, the
encourage deposits from foreign lenders and evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the
investors. It is a special law designed characters, or who understand the language, is
especially for foreign currency deposits in the admissible to declare the characters or the
Philippines. meaning of the language [Rule 130, Sec. 17].
 A general law does not nullify a specific or
special law. Generalia specialibus non 8. When the terms of an agreement have been
derogant. Therefore, it is beyond cavil that intended in a different sense by the different
Republic Act No. 6426 applies in this case parties to it, that sense is to prevail against either
(GSIS v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 189206, June party in which he or she supposed the other
8, 2011). understood it, and when different constructions
of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that
4. For the proper construction of an instrument, is to be taken which is the most favorable to the
the circumstances under which it was made, party in whose favor the provision was made
including the situation of the subject thereof and [Rule 130, Sec. 18].
of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the
judge may be placed in the position of those  In a long line of cases, we have consistently
whose language he or she is to interpret [Rule held that the party who draws up the
130, Sec. 14]. contract, in which obscure words or phrases
appear, bears the responsibility for causing
5. The terms of a writing are presumed to have the ambiguity or obscurity, and hence, these
been used in their primary and general must be construed against him. In this case,
acceptation, but evidence is admissible to show it was petitioner’s spouse who prepared the
that they have a local, technical, or otherwise sub-lease contract in question. Consequently,
peculiar signification, and were so used and the ambiguity must be construed against
understood in the particular instance, in which herein petitioner as she is presumed to have
case the agreement must be construed confirmed the same. There is also no
accordingly [Rule 130, Sec. 15]. question that the 10% guaranteed yearly
increase of rents provided for in the sub-lease
 The reliance of the trial court in the Webster agreement is for the benefit of respondent
definition of the term "indicative," as also herein, being the sub-lessor of the premises.
adopted by petitioner, is misplaced. The As such, any doubt in its interpretation must
transaction at bar involves the sale of an be interpreted in its favor (Horrigan vs Troika
asset under a privatization scheme which Commercial Inc., G.R. No. 148411, November 25,
attaches a peculiar meaning or signification 2005).
to the term "indicative price." Under No. 6.1
of the General Bidding Procedures and Rules Ambiguity Doctrine or Contra Proferentem
of respondent, "an indicative price is a ball- Rule
park figure and [respondent] supplies such a
figure purely to define the ball-park." The The ambiguity shall not be construed in favor of
plain contention of petitioner that the the party who caused the obscurity which could
transaction involves an "ordinary armslength

32
have been avoided by the exercise of a little more personal knowledge of that to which he is
care. testifying. Thus, the narration of events given
orally in court by a witness is a testimonial
 The real estate mortgage in issue appears in evidence of the event in question (ANNOTATION:
a standard form, drafted and prepared solely Fundamental Concepts in the Handling of Evidence,
by petitioner, and which, according to 238 SCRA 626, December 05, 1994).
jurisprudence must be strictly construed
against the party responsible for its 7.E.2. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
preparation. If the parties intended that the
"blanket mortgage clause" shall cover Witness is a person who testifies in a case or
subsequent advancement secured by gives evidence before a judicial tribunal.
separate securities, then the same should
have been indicated in the mortgage Qualification
contract. Consequently, any ambiguity is to
be taken contra proferentum, that is, General Rule: All persons who can perceive,
construed against the party who caused the and perceiving, can make known their perception
ambiguity which could have avoided it by the to others, may be witnesses.
exercise of a little more care. To be more
emphatic, any ambiguity in a contract whose Exception: Unless the law or the Rules render a
terms are susceptible of different person disqualified from being a witness.
interpretations must be read against the An intellectually disabled person is not, solely by
party who drafted it, which is the petitioner this reason, ineligible from testifying in court. "He
in this case (Prudential Bank vs Alviar, G.R. No. or she can be a witness, depending on his or her
150197, July 28, 2005). ability to relate what he or she knows." If an
intellectually disabled victim's testimony is
9. When an instrument is equally susceptible of coherent, it is admissible in court(People vs.
two interpretations, one in favor of natural right Corpuz, G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017 – J. Leonen
and the other against it, the former is to be penned case).
adopted (Rule 130, Sec. 19)
Note: Religious or political belief, interest in the
outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime
10. An instrument may be construed according to
unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be
usage, in order to determine its true character
ground for disqualification(Rule 130, Sec. 21, as
(Rule 130, Sec. 20)
amended).
 It must be stated at the outset that a bill of
lading operates both as a receipt and as a The following persons cannot be witnesses: (not
contract. It is a receipt for the goods shipped exclusive)
and a contract to transport and deliver the 1. Spouses under the marital disqualification rule
(Rule 130, Sec. 23, as amended);
same as therein stipulated. As a receipt, it
2. Those who are disqualified by reason of
recites the date and place of shipment,
privileged communication (Rule 130, Sec. 24, as
describes the goods as to quantity, weight,
amended);
dimensions, identification marks and 3. Those who are disqualified from being
condition, quality, and value. As a contract, it discharged to be state witness (Rule 119, Sec.
names the contracting parties, which include 17); and
the consignee, fixes the route, destination, 4. Those who are disqualified from being
and freight rate or charges, and stipulates the witnesses to a will (Art., 821, NCC).
rights and obligations assumed by the parties
(Phoenix Assurance vs. United States Lines, G.R. When Determined
No. L-24033, February 22, 1968). Qualification of a witness is determined at the
time the said witness is produced for examination
7.E. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE or at the taking of his deposition.
7.E.1. Meaning of Testimonial Evidence  With exceptions provided in the Rules of
Testimonial evidence consists of the narration Court, all persons who can perceive, and
or deposition by one who has observed or has

33
 perceiving, can make known their perception The party or assignor of a party or a person in
to others, may be witnesses. That is even whose behalf a case is prosecuted can testify
buttressed by the Rule on Examination of a subject to Hearsay Rule;
Child Witness which specifies that every child
(See: 8.E.5.ii Hearsay Rule: Statement of
is presumed qualified to be a witness. To
decedent or person of unsound mind.)
rebut this presumption, the burden of proof
lies on the party challenging the child's
Absolute Relative
competence. Only when substantial doubt Disqualification Disqualification
exists regarding the ability of the child to Objections based on Objections based on
perceive, remember, communicate, absolute relative disqualifications
distinguish truth from falsehood, or disqualifications may may be raised when it
appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court be raised upon the becomes apparent that
will the court, motu proprio or on motion of a calling of the the subject matter of the
party, conduct a competency examination of disqualified witness. testimony covers
a child. Thus, petitioners’ flimsy objections on inadmissible matters.
Rachel’s lack of education and inability to
read and tell time carry no weight and cannot
overcome the clear and convincing testimony  The specific enumeration of disqualified
of Rachel as to who killed her father (People witnesses excludes the operation of causes of
of the Philippines vs. Ibañez, G.R. No. disability other than those mentioned in the
197813, September 25, 2013). Rules. It is a maxim of recognized utility and
merit in the construction of statutes that an
Competency vs. Credibility of a Witness express exception, exemption, or saving
clause excludes other exceptions. As a
general rule, where there are express
Competency of a Credibility of the
exceptions, these comprise the only
Witness Witness
limitations on the operation of a statute and
It refers to the basic It refers to the
no other exception will be implied. The Rules
qualification of a believability of the
should not be interpreted to include an
witness as his witness and has
exception not embodied therein (Marcos vs.
capacity to perceive nothing to do with the
Heirs of Navarro, G.R. No. 198240, July 3, 2013).
and to communicate law or the rules. It
the same to others. refers to the weight
ABSOLUTE disqualifications:
It also includes the and the
1. Cannot perceive (Rule 130, Sec. 20);
absence of any of the trustworthiness or
2. Cannot make known their perception to
qualifications imposed reliability of the
others (Rule 130, Sec. 20);
upon a witness. testimony.
3. Those disqualified by reason of insanity or
immaturity;
7.E.3. DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES 4. Marital disqualification (Rule 130. Sec. 22);and
Persons Disqualified to be A Witness: 5. Parental and filial privilege (Rule 130, Sec. 25).
1. Persons disqualified by reason of marriage or
the “Marital Disqualification Rule”(Rule 130, RELATIVE disqualifications:
Sec. 23, as amended); and 1. Dead man’s statute (Rule 130, Sec. 39, as
2. Persons disqualified on ground of privileged amended);
communication (Rule 130, Sec. 24, as amended); 2. Marital communication privilege [Rule 130,
Sec. 24(a)];
Notable Changes Brought About by the 3. Attorney-client privilege [Rule 130, Sec. 24(b),
2019 Amendments: as amended];
1. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity 4. Physician/Psychotherapist -Patient Privilege
or immaturity (formerly Rule 130, Sec. 21)has [Rule 130, Sec. 24(c), as amended];
been deleted; and 5. Minister/Priest-Penitent Privilege[Rule 130,
2. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity
Sec. 24(d)]; and
of adverse party or the “Dead Man’s Statute
6. State Secrets [Rule 130, Sec. 24(e)].
(formerly Rule 130, Sec. 23) has been modified.

34
 the witness is duly sworn to answer as to his
NOT grounds for disqualification: competency. This is conducted by asking leading
1. Religious belief; questions.
2. Political belief; There is no provision of the Rules disqualifying
3. Interest in the outcome of the case; or parties declared in default from taking the
4. Conviction of a crime, unless otherwise witness stand for non-disqualified parties (Marcos
provided by law. vs. Heirs of Navarro, G.R. No. 198240, July 3, 2013).

General Rule: A person convicted of a crime is 8.E.3.a. Disqualification By Reason of

NOT disqualified to be a witness (Rule 130, Sec. Marriage
21, as amended). During their marriage, the husband or the wife
cannot testify against the other without the
Exception: When otherwise provided by law:
consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil
1. Under Art. 821 of the Civil Code, a person case by one against the other, or in a criminal
convicted of any of the following crimes case for a crime committed by one against the
cannot be a witness to a will: other or the latter's direct descendants or
a) Falsification of documents; ascendants (Rule 130, Sec. 23, as amended).
b) Perjury; or
c) False testimony Note: The spouse-witness can now testify in
2. A state witness must not have been convicted favor of the spouse-litigant even without the
of any crime involving moral turpitude [Rule latter’s consent.
119, Sec. 17 (e)].
Rationale:
When to Raise Objection to Competency 1. There is identity of interests between husband
Objection to the offer of evidencemust be orally and wife;
immediately after the offer is made(Rule 132, Sec. 2. If one were to testify for or against the other,
36, as amended). there is consequent danger of perjury;
3. The policy of the law is to guard the security
 The acceptance of an incompetent witness to and confidences of private life, even at the risk
testify in a civil suit, as well as the allowance of an occasional failure of justice, and to
of improper questions that may be put to him prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness;
while on the stand is a matter resting in the and
discretion of the litigant. He may assert his 4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility
right by timely objection or he may waive it, there is danger of punishing one spouse
expressly or by silence. In any case the through the hostile testimony of the
option rests with him. Once admitted, the other(Alvarez vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439,
testimony is in the case for what it is worth October 14, 2005).
and the judge has no power to disregard it
for the sole reason that it could have been General Rule: During their marriage, the
excluded, if it had been objected to, nor to husband or the wife cannot testify against the
strike it out on its own motion (Razon vs. other without the consent of the affected spouse.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74306,
March 16, 1992 quoting Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, Exceptions:
GR No. 79962, December 10, 1990). 1. In a civil case by one against the other;
2. In a criminal case for a crime committed by
Test of Competency one against the other or the latter's direct
Whether the individual has sufficient descendants or ascendants;
understanding to appreciate the nature and 3. Where the testimony was made outside the
obligation of an oath, and sufficient capacity to marriage;
observe and describe the facts in regard to which 4. Where the spouse-litigant gives consents to
he is called to testify. the testimony;

Voir dire Examination is a preliminary Example of offenses which impair conjugal

examination conducted by the trial judge where relation:

35
1. Falsification of public document forging wife’s relation between him and his wife Esperanza.
signature; His act, as embodied in the Information for
arson filed against him, eradicates all the
 The act complained of as constituting the major aspects of marital life such as trust,
crime of Falsification of Public Document is confidence, respect and love by which virtues
the forgery by the accused of his wife's the conjugal relationship survives and
signature in a deed of sale, thereby making it flourishes (Alvarez vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439,
appear therein that said wife consented to October 14, 2005).
the sale of a house and lot belonging to their
conjugal partnership when in fact and in truth Marrying the Witness
An accused can effectively “seal the lips” of a
she did not. It must be noted that had the
witness by marrying the witness. As long as
sale of the said house and lot, and the signing
of the wife's name by her husband in the marriage is in existence at the time of the trial,
the witness-spouse cannot be compelled to
deed of sale, been made with the consent of
the wife, no crime could have been charged testify even though the marriage was entered
against said husband. Clearly, therefore, it is into for the express purpose of suppressing the
the husband's breach of his wife's confidence testimony.
which gave rise to the offense charged. And
it is this same breach of trust which prompted Who May Object
the wife to make the necessary complaint Only the spouse-party may object on the
with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal which, testimony and not the spouse who is offered as a
accordingly, filed the aforesaid criminal case witness.
with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga.  A wife who is a co-defendant of her husband
To rule, therefore, that such criminal case is in a case of collusive fraud, where their
not one for a crime committed by one spouse interests are not separate, cannot be
against the other is to advance a conclusion examined as a hostile witness by the adverse
which completely disregards the factual party (Lezama vs. Rodriguez, GR No. L-25643,
antecedents of the instant case (People of the June 27, 1968).
Philippines vs. Castañeda, Jr., G.R. No. L-46306,
February 27, 1979). Note: Disqualification by reason of death or
insanity of adverse party or the “Dead Man’s
2. Rape of their common daughter; Statute”orthe“Survivorship Rule”, has been
removed as a ground for disqualification.
 Applying the foregoing criterion in said case (See: 8.E.5.ii Hearsay Rule: Statement of
of Ordoño vs. Daquiganthis Court held that decedent or person of unsound mind.)
the rape committed by the husband of the
witness-wife against their daughter was a 8.E.3.b. Disqualification By Reason of
crime committed by the husband against his Privileged Communication; Rule on Third
wife. Although the victim of the crime Parties
committed by the accused in that can was not
his wife but their daughter, this Court, Privileged communications:
nevertheless, applied the exception for the 1. Husband and Wife [Rule 130, Sec 24(a)];
reason that said criminal act "Positively 2. Attorney and Client [Rule 130, Sec. 24(b), as
undermine (d) the connubial relationship amended];
(People of the Philippines vs. Castañeda, Jr., G.R. 3. Physician and Patient [Rule 130, Sec.24)(c), as
No. L-46306, February 27, 1979). amended];
4. Minister/Priest and Penitent [Rule 130, Sec.
3. Committing arson of the house of the sister of 24(d), as amended]; and
the wife knowing that the wife was in the 5. Public Officers and Third Person [Rule 130, Sec.
house 24(e), as amended].
Note: There are, however, other privileged
 Obviously, the offense of arson attributed to matters that are not mentioned by Rule 130.
petitioner, directly impairs the conjugal Among others are the following:

36
1. Editors may not be compelled to disclose the 4. The spouse against whom such evidence is
source of published news; being offered has not given his or her Consent
2. Voters may not be compelled to disclose for to such testimony.
whom they voted[B.P. No. 881, Sec. 261(z)(5)]; 5. The case is not one of the Exceptions provided
3. Information contained in tax census returns; in the rule[Rule 130, Sec. 24 (a)].
and
4. Bank deposits (Air Philippines Corporation vs. The communication shall remain privileged, even
Pennswell, Inc., G.R. No. 172835, December 13, in the hands of a third person who may have
2007); obtained the information, provided that the
5. National security matters and intelligence original parties to the communication took
reasonable precaution to protect its
information.
confidentiality (Rule 130, Sec. 24, last paragraph).
i. Marital Privilege, Husband and Wife The law insures absolute freedom of
The husband or the wife, during or after the communication between the spouses by making
marriage, cannot be examined without the it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify
consent of the other as to any communication for or against the other without the consent of
received in confidence by one from the other the affected spouse while the marriage subsists.
during the marriage except in a civil case by one Neither may be examined without the consent of
against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime the other as to any communication received in
committed by one against the other or the latter's confidence by one from the other during the
direct descendants or ascendants[Rule 130, Sec. marriage, save for specified exceptions. But one
24(a)]. thing is freedom of communication; quite another
is a compulsion for each one to share what one
General Rule: There is a presumption of knows with the other. And this has nothing to do
confidentiality on all communications between with the duty of fidelity that each owes to the
husband and wife. other(Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383,
February 20, 1996).
Exceptions:
a) In a civil case by one against the other; Communications overheard by third persons
b) In a criminal case for a crime committed by without knowledge of spouses are still
one against the other or the latter's direct confidential between the spouses, and neither of
descendants or ascendants; them can testify without the consent of the other
c) When the communication was not intended to (Francisco, Vicente J., Revised Rules on Court:
be kept in confidence, like the husband’s dying Evidence).
declaration for instance (U.S. vs. Antipolo, GR Marital Disqualification Rule (Rule 130, Sec.
23, as amended)
No. L-13109, March 6, 1918); or
 The marital disqualification rule refers to all
d) Where the spouse-litigant gives consents to
matters, whether or not communicated by
the testimony.
one spouse to the other. It applies only
during the existence of the marriage. It can
Note: The marital privilege rule, being a rule of be invoked only if one spouse is a party to
evidence, may be waived by failure of the the action. It is an absolute disqualification
claimant to object timely to its presentation or by and can be invoked the moment that one
any conduct that may be construed as implied spouse is called to testify.
consent (Lacurom vs. Jacoba, A.C. No. 5921,
March 10, 2006). Marital Privilege Rule, being a rule of
evidence, can be waived for failure of the
Requisites: (DEV-CoCo) claimant to object timely to its presentation
1. There must be a Valid marriage between or by any conduct that may be construed as
husband and wife; an implied consent (Lacurom vs. Jacoba, A.C.
2. There is communication received in No. 5921, March 10, 2006).
Confidence by one from the other;
3. The confidential communication was received  Where the privilege communication from one
During the marriage; spouse to the other comes into the hands of

37
 a 3rd party, without collusion or voluntary claims are by testate or intestate or by inter
disclosure on the part of either spouse, it is vivos transaction;
not privileged; illegality of seizure must be 3. Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As to a
raised by motion before trial for return of communication relevant to an issue of breach
letter; unanswered letter is inadmissible of duty by the lawyer to his or her client, or
(People vs. Carlos, GR No. L-22948, March 17,
by the client to his or her lawyer;
1925).
4. Document attested by the lawyer. As to a
Spousal Immunity vs. Marital Privilege communication relevant to an issue
MARITAL MARITAL concerning an attested document to which
DISQUALIFICATION PRIVILEGE the lawyer is an attesting witness; or
(Sec. 23) [Sec. 24(a)] 5. Joint clients. As to a communication relevant
Covers all matters Covers only those to a matter of common interest between two
regardless of source communicated by or more clients if the communication was
one spouse to made by any of them to a lawyer retained or
another consulted in common, when offered in an
Applies during the Applies during and action between any of the clients, unless they
marriage after the marriage have expressly agreed otherwise [Rule 130,
A spouse must be a A spouse need not Sec. 24(b), as amended]. (n)
party-litigant be a party-litigant
Invoked when a spouse Invoked when the Requisites: (PEA-CoCo)
is called to testify testimony appears 1. There must be a communication made by the
to cover privileged client to the Attorney or to a person
matters reasonably believed by the client to be
Absolute disqualification Relative licensed to engage in the practice of law;
disqualification 2. The communication made by the client to
him/her is to be examined without the
ii. Attorney-Client Privilege. Consent of the client;
An attorney or person reasonably believed by the 3. Communication must have been made in
client to be licensed to engage in the practice of Confidence;
law cannot, without the consent of the client, be 4. The communication must have been given
examined as to any communication made by the either in the course of or with a view to
client to him or her, or his or her advice given Professional employment; and
thereon in the course of, or with a view to, 5. The case is not one of the Exceptions provided
professional employment, nor can an attorney's in the rule[Rule 130, Sec. 24(b)].
secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or other
persons assisting the attorney be examined Note: The privilege extends to the attorney’s
without the consent of the client and his or her secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or other
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of persons assisting the attorney concerning any
which has been acquired in such capacity, fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in
except in the following cases: such capacity.

1. Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services The phrase “with a view to” includes those
or advice of the lawyer were sought or communication made during consultation
preparatory to professional employment.
obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit
Preliminary communication made for the purpose
or plan to commit what the client knew or
of creating attorney-client relationship is within
reasonably should have known to be a crime the privilege(RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Lecture
or fraud; Series), 2016 Ed., p. 209).
2. Claimants through same deceased client. As
to a communication relevant to an issue The relationship between the attorney and the
between parties who claim through the same client is said to exist where a person employs the
deceased client, regardless of whether the professional services of an attorney or seeks

38
professional guidance, even though the attorney
declines to handles the case. Exceptions:
However, if the communications were not made a. Furtherance of Crime or Fraud
for the purpose of creating that relationship, they (Future Crime-Fraud Exception)
will not be covered by the privilege.
Condition: The legal services or advice of
 The reason for the prohibition is found in the the lawyer were sought or obtained to
relation of attorney and client, which is one enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to
of trust and confidence of the highest degree. commit what the client knew or reasonably
A lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts should have known to be a crime of fraud
connected with his client's case. He learns [Rule 130, Sec. 24(b)(i)].
from his client the weak points of the action
as well as the strong ones. Such knowledge Rationale: clients are not entitled to use
must be considered sacred and guarded with lawyers tohelp them in pursuing unlawful or
care (Samala vs. Valencia, A.C. No. 5439, January fraudulent objectives. If the privilege were
22, 2007). tocloak such activity, the result would be loss
of public confidence and corruption ofthe
Not Applicable: profession [Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern
Evidence, Section 5.22 (1995)]
a. When the communication was made in
furtherance of crime or fraud [Rule 130, Sec. The policy of the privilege is that of
24(b)(i)]; promoting the administration of justice and
b. When the communication is relevant to an itwould be a perversion of the privilege to
issue between parties who claim through the extend it to the client who seeks adviceto aid
same deceased client[Rule 130, Sec. 24(b)(ii)]; him in carrying out an illegal fraudulent
c. When the communication is relevant to an scheme. This would be tantamountto
issue ofbreach of duty by lawyer or client[Rule participating in a conspiracy [McCormick on
130, Sec. 24(b)(iii)]; Evidence, 3rd ed., p. 229 (1984)].
d. When the communication is relevant to an
issue concerningdocuments attested by the b. Claimants Through Same Deceased
lawyer[Rule 130, Sec. 24(b)(iv)]; Client
e. When the communication is relevant to a
matter of common interest between joint Condition: The communication is relevant
clients, unless they have expressly agreed to an issue between parties who claim
otherwise [Rule 130, Sec. 24(b)(v)]; through the same deceased client,
f. When the communication is intended to be regardless of whether the claims are by
made public; testate or intestate or by inter vivos
g. When the communication is intended to be transaction [Rule 130, Sec. 24(b)(ii)].
communicated to others;
h. When the communication is made in the Rationale: While the attorney-client
presence of 3rd persons; or privilege survives the death of the client,
i. When the communication is received from there is no privilege in a will contest or other
third persons not acting in behalf of or as case between parties who both claim
agents of the client. through that very client. This is because his
communications may be essential to an
Note: The lawyer-client privilege extends to the accurate resolution of competing claims of
attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk. succession, and the testator would
Hence, in this case, the rule that “if made in the presumably favor disclosure in order to
presence of 3rd persons, it is not considered dispose of his estate accordingly [Mueller &
confidential” is not applicable. Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 5.24
(1995)].
General Rule: A lawyer may invoke the privilege
and refuse to divulge the name or identify of his c. Breach of Duty by Lawyer or Client
client. (Self-Defense Exception)

39
 Condition: The communication is relevant
Condition: The communication is relevant to a matter of common interest between two
to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer or more clients if the communication was
to his or her client, or by the client to his or made by any of them to a lawyer retained or
her lawyer[Rule 130, Sec. 24(b)(iii)]. consulted in common, when offered in an
action between any of the clients, unless
Rationale: If the lawyer and client become they have expressly agreed otherwise[Rule
involved in a dispute between themselves 130, Sec. 24(b)(v)].
concerning the services provided by the
lawyer, the privilege does not apply to their Rationale: Joint clients do not intend their
dispute. Thus, where a client alleges a communication to be confidential from each
breach of duty on the part of the lawyer, i.e. other, and typically their communications
professional malpractice, incompetence, or are made in each other’s presence. xxx
ethical violations – or where the lawyer sues Agreeing to joint representation means that
a client for his fee, either the lawyer or the each joint client accepts the risk that another
client may testify as to communications joint client may later use what he or she has
between them. said to the lawyer [Mueller & Kirkpatrick,
Modern Evidence, Section 5.14 (1995)].
In theory, the client has impliedly “waived”
the privilege by making allegations of breach  If the unlawful purpose is avowed, as in this
of duty against lawyer [Mueller & Kirkpatrick, case, the complainant’s alleged intention to
Modern Evidence, Section 5.23 (1995)]. bribe government officials in relation to his
case, the communication is not covered by
A lawyer may reveal secrets when the privilege as the client does not consult the
necessary to collect fees or to defend lawyer professionally. It is not within the
himself, his associates or employees (Rule profession of a lawyer to advise a client as to
21.01[c], Code of Professional Responsibility). how he may commit a crime as a lawyer is
not a gun for hire. Thus, the attorney-client
d. Document Attested by the Lawyer privilege does not attach, there being no
Condition: The communication is relevant professional employment in the strict sense
to an issue concerning an attested (Genato vs. Silapan, Adm. Case. No. 4078, July 14,
2003).
document to which lawyer is an attesting
 A lawyer should not, even after the
witness [Rule 130, Sec. 24(b)(iv)].
severance of the relation with his client, do
anything which will injuriously affect his
Rationale: The privilege does not apply to
former client in any matter in which he
“a communication relevant to an issue
previously represented him nor should he
concerning an attested document to which
disclose or use any of the client's
the lawyer is an attesting witness.” This
confidences acquired in the previous
should not really be an exception because
relation. The reason for the rule is that the
the privilege never arises, as a lawyer who
client's confidence once reposed cannot be
acts as an attesting witness is not
divested by the expiration of the
providing professional legal services. When
professional employment (Samala vs.
an attorney serves as an attesting witness,
Valencia, A.C. No. 5439, January 22, 2007)
he is not acting as a lawyer and the client’s
obvious intent is to have him available to The communication shall remain privileged,
testify to the matter attested [Mueller & even in the hands of a third person who may
Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 5.25
have obtained the information, provided that
(1995); Lempert, R. &Saltzburg, S., A Modern
Approach to Evidence, 3rd ed., pp. 269-370 the original parties to the communication took
(1982)]. reasonable precaution to protect its
confidentiality (Rule 130, Sec. 24, last paragraph).
e. Joint Clients
iii. Physician/Psychotherapist–Patient
Privilege

40
A physician, psychotherapist or person 4. The confidential information was made for
reasonably believed by the patient to be the purpose of Medicaldiagnosis or treatment
authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy of the patient.
cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the
Note: The privilege survives the death of the
patient, be examined as to any confidential
patient.
communication made for the purpose of
diagnosis or treatment of the patient's physical,
Not applicable:
mental or emotional condition, including alcohol
1. When the communication was not given in
or drug addiction, between the patient and his or
confidence;
her physician or psychotherapist. This privilege
2. When the communication is irrelevant to the
also applies to persons, including members of the
professional employment;
patient's family, who have participated in the
3. Then the communication was made for an
diagnosis or treatment of the patient under the
unlawful purpose;
direction of the physician or psychotherapist.
4. When the information was intended to be
made public;
A psychotherapist is:
5. When there was a waiver of the privilege
a) A person licensed to practice medicine
either by provisions of contract or law;
engaged in the diagnosis or treatment of a
6. When the doctor is a medico-legal;
mental or emotional condition; or
7. The physician-patient privilege is not violated
b) A person licensed as a psychologist by the
by permitting physician to give expert
government while similarly engaged [Rule
testimony regarding hypothetical facts (Lim
130, Sec. 24(c)].
vs. CA, G.R. No. 91114, September 25, 1992); or
 The physician-patient privileged 8. Non-physician testimony on a medical
communication rule essentially means that psychologist’s report is not covered by the
a physician who gets information while physician-patient privilege (Krohn vs. CA, G.R.
NO. 108854, June 14, 1994).
professionally attending a patient cannot in
a civil case be examined without the The communication shall remain privileged, even
patient’s consent as to any facts which in the hands of a third person who may have
would blacken the latter’s reputation. This obtained the information, provided that the
rule is intended to encourage the patient to original parties to the communication took
open up to the physician, relate to him the reasonable precaution to protect its
history of his ailment, and give him access confidentiality (Rule 130, Sec. 24, last paragraph).
to his body, enabling the physician to make
a correct diagnosis of that ailment and iv. Priest–Penitent Privilege
provide the appropriate cure. Any fear that A minister, priest or person reasonably believed
a physician could be compelled in the future to be so cannot, without the consent of the
to come to court and narrate all that had affected person, be examined as to any
transpired between him and the patient communication or confession made to or any
might prompt the latter to clam up, thus advice given by him or her, in his or her
putting his own health at great risk (Chan vs. professional character, in the course of discipline
Chan, G.R. No. 179786, July 24, 2013). enjoined by the church to which the minister or
priest belongs [Rule 130, Sec. 24(d), as amended].
Requisites: (PCo-CiM)
1. There must be a communication made by the Requisites: (PrEn-Co)
patient to the Physician, psychotherapist or 1. The communication or confession must be
person reasonably believed by the patient to made to the minister or Priest or person
be authorized to practice medicine or reasonably believed to be so, in his
psychotherapy; professional character;
2. Such communication is to be examined 2. The communication or confession must be
without the Consent of the patient; made in the course of discipline Enjoined by
3. The privilege is invoked in a Civil case; and the church to which her belongs; and

41
3. The communication or confession was being  At common law a governmental privilege
examined without the Consent of the penitent against disclosure is recognized with respect
(affected person). to state secrets bearing on military,
diplomatic and similar matters. This privilege
Note: The old provision limited the privilege to is based upon public interest of such
“penitential communications” made to a minister paramount importance as in and of itself
or priest in the course of discipline enjoined by transcending the individual interests of a
the church to which the priest or minister private citizen, even though, as a
belongs. As worded, it is unduly preferential to consequence thereof, the plaintiff cannot
the Roman Catholic Church. The amendment enforce his legal rights (Almonte vs. Vasquez,
expands the privilege to embrace any confidential G.R. No. 95367, May 23, 1995).
communication by a person to a minister or priest  The expectation of a President to the
in his professional character as a spiritual advisor. confidentiality of his conversations and
correspondence, like the claim of
Not applicable: confidentiality of judicial deliberations, for
1. When the communication was not given in example, has all the values to which we
confidence; accord deference for the privacy of all
2. Then the communication was made for an citizens and, added to those values, is the
unlawful purpose; necessity for protection of the public
3. When the information was intended to be interest in candid, objective, and even blunt
made public; or or harsh opinions in Presidential decision-
4. When there was a waiver of the privilege. making. A President and those who assist
him must be free to explore alternatives in
The communication shall remain privileged, even the process of shaping policies and making
in the hands of a third person who may have decisions and to do so in a way many would
obtained the information, provided that the be unwilling to express except privately.
original parties to the communication took These are the considerations justifying a
reasonable precaution to protect its presumptive privilege for Presidential
confidentiality (Rule 130, Sec. 24, last paragraph). communications. The privilege is
fundamental to the operation of the
v. Public Officers and Third Person government and inextricably rooted in the
A public officer cannot be examined during or separation of powers under the Constitution
after his or her tenure as to communications (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, May 23,
made to him or her in official confidence, when 1995 quoting United States vs. Nixon, 418 U.S.
the court finds that the public interest would 683, 1973).
suffer by the disclosure [Rule 130, Sec. 24(e), as  Judicial control over the evidence in a case
amended]. cannot be abdicated to the caprice of
executive officers. Yet we will not go so far
Requisites: (GCo-PuT) as to say that the court may automatically
1. The holder of the privilege is the Government require a complete disclosure to the judge
which acts through the public officer. before the claim of privilege will be
2. The communication must have been made to accepted in any case. It may be possible to
a public officer in Confidence; satisfy the court, from all the circumstances
3. The communication was made during his or of the case, that there is a reasonable
her Tenure; and danger that compulsion of the evidence will
4. Public interest would suffer by the disclosure expose military matters which, in the
of the communication. interest of national security, should not be
divulged. When this is the case, the
 Absent a claim of need to protect military, occasion for the privilege is appropriate,
diplomatic or sensitive national security and the court should not jeopardize the
secrets, executive privilege cannot prevail security which the privilege is meant to
over due process (US vs. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683). protect by insisting upon an examination of
the evidence, even by the judge alone, in
chambers.

42
 In each case, the showing of necessity President does (Neri vs. Senate Committee, G.R. No.
which is made will determine how far the 180643, September 4, 2008).
court should probe in satisfying itself that
the occasion for invoking the privilege is Not applicable:
appropriate. Where there is a strong a) When the information is useful evidence to
showing of necessity, the claim of privilege vindicate the innocence of an accused
should not be lightly accepted, but even the person;
most compelling necessity cannot b) When such information would lessen the risk
overcome the claim of privilege if the court of a false testimony;
is ultimately satisfied that military secrets c) When it is essential to the proper disposition
are at stake. A fortiori, where necessity is of the case; or
dubious, a formal claim of privilege, made d) When the benefit to be gained is greater than
under the circumstances of this case, will
any injury that could inure to the relation by
have to prevail (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No.
a disclosure of the information, then
95367, May 23, 1995 quoting United States vs.
Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 1953). disclosure will be compelled.
 The confidentiality of judicial deliberations"
 On the other hand, where the claim of
mentioned in the opinion of the Court
confidentiality does not rest on the need to
referred to the fact that Justices of the U.S.
protect military, diplomatic or other national
Supreme Court and judges of lower federal
security secrets but on a general public
courts have traditionally treated their
interest in the confidentiality of his
working papers and judicial notes as private
conversations, courts have declined to find in
property. A 1977 proposal in the U.S.
the Constitution an absolute privilege of the
Congress that Justices and judges of lower
President against a subpoena considered
federal courts "should be encouraged to
essential to the enforcement of criminal
make such arrangements as will assure the
laws(Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, May
preservation and eventual availability of
23, 1995)
their personal papers, especially the deposit  With these safeguards outlined, it is believed
of their papers in the same depository they that a satisfactory resolution of the conflicting
select for [their] Public Papers" was claims of the parties is achieved. It is not
rebuffed by the Justices who, in a letter to amiss to state that even matters of national
the Chairman of the Subcommittee on security have been inquired into in
Regulation and Government Information of appropriate in camera proceedings by the
the U.S. Senate, referred to "difficult courts. In Lansang vs. Garcia this Court held
concerns respecting the appropriate closed door sessions, with only the
separation that must be maintained immediate parties and their counsel present,
between the legislative branch and this to determine claims that because of
Court." (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, subversion there was imminent danger to
May 23, 1995).
public safety warranting the suspension of
 There are, in addition to such privileges,
the writ of habeas corpus in 1971. Again in
statutorily-created ones such as the
Marcos vs. Manglapus the Court met behind
Government's privilege to withhold the
closed doors to receive military briefings on
identity of persons who furnish information of
the threat posed to national security by the
violations of laws (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R.
return to the country of the former President
No. 95367, May 23, 1995).
and his family. In the United States, a similar
Note: The Supreme Court clarified that the inquiry into the danger to national security as
President or the Executive Secretary can invoke a result of the publication of classified
the executive privilege. Once invoked, then the documents on the Vietnam war was upheld
Senate cannot compel the members of the by the U.S. Supreme Court. We see no reason
executive to testify before it (Neri vs. Senate why similar safeguards cannot be made to
Committee, G.R No. 169777, April 20, 2006). enable an agency of the Government, like the
Members of the executive or cabinet secretaries Office of the Ombudsman, to carry out its
do not enjoy the presumption of privilege but the constitutional duty to protect public interests

43
 while insuring the confidentiality of classified 2. Rule on Examination of Child Witness
documents (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No.
95367, May 23, 1995). General Rule: The guardian ad litem shall
not testify in any proceeding concerning any
The communication shall remain privileged, even information, statement, or opinion received
in the hands of a third person who may have from the child in the course of serving as a
obtained the information, provided that the guardian ad litem.
original parties to the communication took
reasonable precaution to protect its Exception: When the court finds it necessary
confidentiality (Rule 130, Sec. 24, last to promote the best interests of the child.
paragraph).
3. Election Offenses Under the Omnibus
Special Laws with Regard to State Secrets: Election Code
Voters may not be compelled to disclose for
R.A. No. 7653 (New Central Bank Act), Sec.16 whom they voted [B.P. No. 881, Sec. 261(z)(5)]
General Rule: Non-disclosure of any 4. Secrecy of Bank Deposits
information of a confidential nature or any
information on the discussions or resolutions of General Rule: All deposits of whatever
the Monetary Board. nature with banks or banking institutions in
the Philippines including investments in bonds
Exception: when such data or information is issued by the Government of the Philippines,
required to be submitted to the President and/or its political subdivisions and its
Congress, or required to be published. instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of
an absolutely confidential nature and may not
R.A. No. 6981 (Witness Protection Act), Sec.7 be examined, inquired or looked into by any
All proceedings involving application for person, government official, bureau or office.
admission into the program and the action taken
thereon shall be confidential in nature. Exceptions:
a. Upon written permission of the
S.C. Circular (A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA) depositor;
The mediation proceedings and all incidents b. In cases of impeachment;
thereto shall be kept strictly confidential, unless c. Upon order of a competent court in
otherwise specifically provided by law, and all cases of bribery or dereliction of duty
admissions or statements made therein shall be of public officials;
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. d. In cases where the money deposited
Other Privileged Matters: or invested is the subject matter of the
litigation (R.A. No. 1405, Sec. 2); or
1. Newsman’s privilege e. In cases of violation of the Anti-Money
Laundering Act, the Anti-Money
General Rule: The publisher, editor, Laundering Council may inquire into a
columnist or duly accredited reporter of any bank account upon order of any
newspaper, magazine or periodical of general competent court (Doña Adela Export
circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the International, Inc. vs. TIDCORP, G.R. No.
source of any news report or information 201931, February 11, 2015).
appearing in said publication which was f.
related in confidence to such publisher, editor Note: The privilege applies only to bank
or reporter. deposits. As to other property being held by a
bank, bank personnel may be examined upon
Exception: When the Court or a House or order of a court [R.A. No. 8791, Sec. 55.1 (d)].
Committee of Congress finds that such
revelation is demanded by the security of the 5. Privileged Communication Under the
State (R.A. No. 53 as amended by R.A. No. 1477, Labor Code
Sec. 1).

44
 Information and statements made at incompetent or disqualified to testify against an
conciliation proceedings shall be treated as ascendant. This refers to a privilege not to testify,
privileged communication and shall not be which can be invoked or waived like other
used as evidence in the Commission. privileges (People vs. Invencion, G.R. No. 131636,
Conciliators and similar officials shall not March 05, 2003).
testify in any court or body regarding any Filial Privilege under Rules of Court and
matters taken up at conciliation proceedings Filial Privilege Under the Civil Code,
conducted by them (Art. 233, LC). Distinguished

8.E.3.c. Parental and Filial Privilege Rule Distinction Rule 130 Art. 215 of
(Rule 130, Sec. 25, as amended) Sec.25, as Family Code
amended
General Rule: No person shall be compelled to
As to who A person may A descendant
testify against his or her parents, other direct
may not be not be may not be
ascendants, children or other direct descendants.
compelled compelled to compelled to
testify against testify against
Exception: When such testimony is
his ascendants his parents
indispensable in a crime against that person or by
or and
one parent against the other.
descendants. grandparents.
As to Both parental Filial privilege
Note: There is no distinction between legitimate
Coverage and filial only.
or illegitimate relations.
privilege.
As to Civil and Criminal
This is a testimonial privilege, not a testimonial
Applicability criminal cases cases only
disqualification, found in Sections 22-24 of Rule
130 [careful not to be confused in the multiple As to When such testimony is
use of the word “privilege”]. Here, the witness is Exceptions indispensable in a crime against
the holder of the privilege and has the power to that person or by one parent
invoke or waive the privilege. The relative against against the other.
whom he is testifying cannot invoke nor waive the
privilege. However, this must be construed in the 7.E.3.d. Trade Secrets
light of Art. 215 of the Family Code, viz: A person cannot be compelled to testify about
any trade secret, unless the non-disclosure will
No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. When
case, to testify against his parents and disclosure is directed, the court shall take such
grandparents, except when such testimony is protective measure as the interest of the owner
indispensable in a crime against the descendant of the trade secret and of the parties and the
or by one parent against the other. furtherance of justice may require (Rule 130, Sec.
26). (n)
Hence, a descendant may be compelled to testify
in a criminal case where:
General Rule: A person cannot be compelled to
 The descendant-witness himself is the victim;
testify about any trade secret.
or,
 The descendant-witness’s parent commits a
Exception: The non-disclosure will conceal fraud
crime against the descendant-witness’s other
or otherwise work injustice.
parent.
Note: When disclosure is directed, the court shall
A stepmother can be compelled to testify against
take such protective measure as the interest of
stepdaughter considering that they have no
the owner of the trade secret and of the parties
common ancestry. The privilege applies only to
and the furtherance of justice.
“direct” ascendants and descendants (Lee v. CA,
G.R. No. 177861, July 13, 2010).
The privilege is not strictly a rule on A trade secret was defined in Air Philippines
disqualification because a descendant is not Corporation vs. Pennswell, Inc. (G.R. No. 172835,
December 13, 2007) “as a plan or process, tool,

45
mechanism or compound known only to its owner b. Informal judicial admissions
and those of his employees to whom it is 2. Extrajudicial Admissions
necessary to confide.” The definition was held to a. Express extrajudicial admissions; and
extend to “a secret formula or process not b. Implied extrajudicial admissions
patented, but known only to certain individuals
using it in compounding some article of trade A formal judicial admission is a party’s own,
having a commercial value.” The Court went on deliberate, clear, and unequivocal statement
to explain that a trade secret may “consist of any about a material fact. Once made, the statement
formula, pattern, device or compilation of cannot be contradicted and is therefore
information that (1) is used in one’s business, and conclusively bound to the party.
(2) gives the employer an opportunity to obtain  The rule is that the testimony on the witness
an advantage over competitors who do not stand partakes of the nature of a formal
possess the information. judicial admission when a party testifies
clearly and unequivocally to a fact which is
7.E.4. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS peculiarly within his own knowledge (Republic
Admission is an act, declaration or omission of a vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, July 15,
party as to a relevant fact (Rule 130, Sec. 27). 2003).
Confession is a categorical acknowledgement of
guilt made by an accused of the offense charged Informal judicial admissions are facts that
or any offense necessarily included therein (Rule are “incidentally” admitted during the judicial
130, Sec. 34). proceeding and are simply regarded as a piece of
evidence that is not binding or conclusive. Similar
Admission Confession to any other form of evidence, informal
An acknowledgment An acknowledgment admissions are subject to contradiction or
of some fact or in express terms, by a explanation.
circumstance which in party in a criminal
itself is insufficient to case, of his guilt of Express extrajudicial admissions are those
authorize a the crime charged made in definite, certain and unequivocal
conviction, and which (People vs. Agustin, G.R. manner.
tends only to establish No. 110290, January 25,
the ultimate fact of 1995). Implied extrajudicial admissions are those
guilt (People vs. which may be inferred from the act, conduct,
Agustin, G.R. No. declaration, silence or omission of a party
110290, January 25, (Herrera).
1995).
There is merely a There is an Admissions that are admissible against a
statement of fact not acknowledgment of party: (PACo-ACo-Si-JC)
directly involving an guilt (Ladiana vs. 1. Admissions Against interest (Rule 130, Sec. 27);
acknowledgment of People, G.R. No. 2. Compromises (Rule 130, Sec. 28);
guilt or of the criminal 144293, December 4, 3. Exceptions to Res Inter Alios Acta:
intent to commit the 2002). a. Co-partner’s admissions (Rule 130, Sec. 30);
offense with which b. Agent’s admissions (Rule 130, Sec. 30);
one is charged c. Admissions by a Joint owner, joint debtor,
(Ladiana vs. People, or other person jointly interested with the
G.R. No. 144293, party (Rule 130, Sec. 30);
December 4, 2002). d. Co-conspirator’s statements (Rule 130, Sec.
May be made by a Can be made only by 31);
third person the party himself e. Admission by Privies (Rule 130, Sec. 32);
May be express or Must be in express and
implied terms 4. Admission by Silence (Rule 130, Sec. 33)

Classifications of Admissions: 7.E.4.a. Admission by a Party

1. Judicial Admissions The act, declaration or omission of a party as to
a. Formal judicial admissions; and a relevant fact may be given in evidence against

46
him. His admission is, however, not admissible in showing that the
his favor because it would be self-serving admission was made
evidence. through palpable
An admission may be in the form of: (ASO) mistake or that the
a. An Act; imputed admission
b. A Statement or declaration; or was not, in fact,
c. An Omission (Riguera). made.
(Riguera)
Elements for an Admission to be
Admissible: (FACK)  The admission having been made in a
1. Must involve matters of Fact, not of law; stipulation of facts at pre-trial by the parties,
2. Must be Categorical and definite; it must be treated as a judicial admission.
3. Must be Knowingly and voluntarily made; and, Under Section, 4 Rule 129 of the Rules of
4. Must be Adverse to the admitter’s interest. Court, a judicial admission requires no proof
Otherwise, it would be self-serving and (SCC Chemicals Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,
generally inadmissible. G.R. No. 128538, February 28, 2001).
 A party who judicially admits a fact cannot
The common objection known as “self-serving” is later challenge the fact as judicial admissions
not correct because almost all testimonies are are a waiver of proof; production of evidence
self-serving. The proper basis for objection is is dispensed with. A judicial admission also
“hearsay” (People vs. Singco, G.R. No. 188130, July removes an admitted fact from the field of
26, 2010). controversy. Consequently, an admission
Self-serving statements are those made by a made in the pleadings cannot be
party out of court advocating his own interest; controverted by the party making such
they do not include a party’s testimony as a admission and are conclusive as to such
witness in court. Self-serving statements are party, and all proofs to the contrary or
inadmissible because the adverse party is not inconsistent therewith should be ignored,
given the opportunity for cross-examination, and whether objection is interposed by the party
their admission would encourage fabrication of or not. The allegations, statements or
testimony. This cannot be said of a party’s admissions contained in a pleading are
testimony in court made under oath, with full conclusive as against the pleader. A party
opportunity on the part of the opposing party for cannot subsequently take a position contrary
cross-examination(People vs. Singco, G.R. No. of or inconsistent with what was pleaded
188130, July 26, 2010). (Constantino vs. Heirs of Costantino, Jr., G.R. No.
181508, October 2, 2013).
Extrajudicial Admission and Judicial  The extrajudicial admission or confession of
Admission, Distinguished a co-conspirator out of court is different from
Extrajudicial Judicial the testimony given by a co-accused during
Admission Admission trial. The first is admissible against the
Made outside of the Made in the course of declarant alone, but the second is perfectly
proceedings in the the proceedings in the admissible against his co-accused’ who had
same case. same case. the right and opportunity to cross-examine
Must be offered in Need not be offered the declarant (People of the Philippines vs.
evidence in order to in evidence since they Flores, G.R. No. 71980, March 18, 1991).
be considered by the already form part of
Party Admission and Declaration Against
court. the records.
Interest, Distinguished
May be given in Not only is it evidence
evidence against the against the admitter Party Declaration
admitter. but is binding upon Admission Against
him. Interest
May be contradicted May not be
by the admitter. contradicted by the
admitter except upon

47
 Made by party. Made by a non- The reason for the rule is that, on a principle of
party, i.e. the good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s own
acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence
declarant. against him. So are his conduct and declarations.
Need not be Must be against Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but
against the the declarant’s also manifestly unjust, that a man should be
admitter’s interest. bound by the acts of mere unauthorized
strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound
interest.
by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts
Not hearsay and Hearsay but oo conduct be used as evidence against him
thus admissible. admissible as an (People vs. Raquel, G.R. No. 119005 December 2,
exception to the 1996, as cited in People vs. Cui, G.R. No. 121982,
September 10, 1999).
hearsay rule.
No requirement The declarant The res inter alios acta rule refers only to
that the admitter must be dead or extrajudicial declarations or admissions and not
is dead or unable unable to testify. to testimony given on the witness postand where
the party adversely affected has the opportunity
to testify.
to cross-examine the declarant (People vs.
Admissible only Admissible against Comiling, G.R. No. 140405, March 4, 2004).
against the the declarant and
admitter. third persons. Exceptions: (CoCo-JAP)
(Riguera) 1. Admission by a Co-partner (Rule 130, sec. 30,
7.E.4.b. Res Inter Alios Acta Rule as amended);
2. Admission by an Agent (Rule 130, sec. 30, as
“Res inter alios acta alterinocere non amended);
debet” 3. Admission by a Joint owner, joint debtor, or
“Things done between strangers ought not to other person jointly interested with the party
(Rule 130, sec. 30, as amended);
injure those who are not parties to them.”
4. Admission by a Co-conspirator (Rule 130, Sec.
31, as amended); and
There are two (2) branches of the rule of res
5. Admission by Privies (Rule 130, Sec. 32, as
inter alios acta, namely:
amended).
1. Admission by Third Party – The rule that
the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by
Note: These exceptions are collectively classified
an act, declaration, or omission or another
as “vicarious admissions”.
(Rule 130, Sec. 29, as amended); and
2. Previous Conduct as Evidence – The rule
A vicarious admission may be defined as an
that evidence that one did or did not do a
assertion made by some person whose words or
certain thing at one time is not admissible to
acts are treated through the operation of
prove that he or she did or did not do the
substantive law as those of the litigant (Witkin).
same or a similar thing at another time (Rule
The basis for admitting the above admissions is
130, Sec. 35, as amended).
that the person making the statements is under
the same circumstances as the person against
7.E.4.c. Admission by a Third Party
whom it is offered. Such circumstances give him
substantially the same interest and the same
General Rule:
motive to make a statement about certain
The res inter alios acta rule ordains that the rights
matters (Wigmore).
of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another. An extra-
7.E.4.d. Admission by a Co-Partner or Agent
judicial confession is binding only upon the
The act or declaration of a partner or agent
confessant and is not admissible against his co-
authorized by the party to make a statement
accused.
concerning the subject, or within the scope of his
or her authority and during the existence of the

48
partnership or agency, may be given in evidence 3. The admission must have been made While
against such party after the partnership or the declarant was engaged in carrying out the
agency is shown by evidence other than such act conspiracy (People vs. Cui, G.R. No. 121982,
or declaration (Rule 130, Sec. 30, as amended). September 10, 1999).

Requisites: (SDE) A conspiracy exists when two or more persons

1. The acts or declaration were made During the come to an agreement concerning the
existence of partnership or agency; commission of a felony and decide to commit it
2. That the partnership or agency be previously (Art. 8, RPC).
proven by Evidence other than the admission
itself; and, The exception provided under Sec. [31], Rule 130
3. The acts or declaration refers to matters of the Rules of Court to the rule allowing the
within the Scope of his authority, or matters admission of a conspirator requires the prior
on which he was authorized by the party to establishment of the conspiracy by evidence
make a statement other than the confession. Mere association with
the principals by direct participation, without
It is well established that the statements and more, does not suffice. Relationship, association
admissions of an agent are properly admissible in and companionship do not prove conspiracy
evidence against the principal if they qualify as (Salapuddin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 184681,
vicarious admissions (Wigmore). February 25, 2013).
The same rule applies to the act or declaration of
In order that a declaration of one party to a
a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly
conspiracy or common enterprise may be
interested with the party (Rule 130, Sec. 30, as
received against another, it is necessary that such
amended)
declaration should relate to the common object
7.E.4.e. Admission by a Conspirator and be made while declarant is engaged in
carrying it out. Statements concerning past
The act or declaration of a conspirator in transactions are not within the usual scope of the
furtherance of the conspiracy and during its agency conferred by the unity of purpose, and
existence, may be given in evidence against the hence a declaration by a conspirator, made after
co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by the common purpose has been accomplished or
evidence other than such act or declaration (Rule the common enterprise abandoned, is
130, Sec. 31, as amended). incompetent against his associates (ANNOTATION:
The InterAlios Acta Rule Revisited, 331 SCRA 562, May
09, 2000).
 The general rule is that extra-judicial
declarations of a co-conspirator made
The extra-judicial statements of an accused
before the formation of the conspiracy or
implicating a co-accused may not be utilized
after the accomplishment of its object are
against the latter, unless these are repeated in
inadmissible in evidence as against the other
open court. If the accused never had the
co-conspirators, on the ground that the
opportunity to cross-examine his co-accused on
accused in a criminal case has the
the extra-judicial statements, it is elementary that
constitutional right to be confronted with the
the same are hearsay as against said accused.
witnesses against him and to cross-examine
That is exactly the situation, and the
them (People of the Philippines vs. Cui, G.R. No.
disadvantaged plight of appellants, in the case at
121982, September 10, 1999).
bar (People vs. Cui, G.R. No. 121982, September 10,
1999).
Requisites: (ECW)
The rule that the statement of a conspirator
1. The conspiracy must first be proved by
relating to the conspiracy is not admissible in
Evidence other than the admission itself;
evidence unless the conspiracy is first shown by
2. The admission relates to the Common objects;
other independent evidence, applies only to an
and
admission in an extrajudicial confession or
declaration. It does not apply to a testimony

49
given directly in court where the defendants have a. Where the declarations are made in the
the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. presence of the transferee and he
Provided it is sincere in itself, given unhesitatingly acquiesce in the statement or asserts no
and in a straightforward manner, and full of right where he ought to speak;
details which by their nature could not have been b. Where there has been prima facie case of
the result of deliberate afterthought, the fraud established, as where the
testimony of a co-conspirator, even if possession of the thing after the transfer
uncorroborated, is sufficient (People of the remains with the seller or transferor; or
Philippines vs. Flores, G.R. No. 71980, March 18, c. Where the evidence establishes a
1991). continuing conspiracy to defraud.

7.E.4.f. Admission by privies 7.E.4.g. Admission by silence

Where one derives title to property from another, An act or declaration made in the presence and
the latter’s act, declaration, or omission, in within the hearing or observation of a party who
relation to the property, is evidence against the does or says nothing when the act or declaration
former if done while the latter was holding the is such as naturally to call for action or comment
title (Rule 130, Sec. 32, as amended). if not true, and when proper and possible for him
Privies are those who have mutual or successive or her to do so, may be given in evidence against
relationship to the same right of property or him or her (Rule 130, Sec. 33, as amended).
subject matter.
Basis is the Latin maxim is “Qui tacet
 By the term "privies" is meant those consentireveditur”, meaning “He who is silent
between whom an action is deemed binding appears to consent.”
although they are not literally parties to the The natural instinct of man impels him to resist
said action. Privity in estate denotes the an unfounded claim and defend himself. It is
privity between assignor and assignee, against human nature to just remain reticent and
donor and donee, grantor and grantee, joint say nothing in the face of false accusations
tenant for life and remainderman or (People v. Castañeda, G.R. No. 208290, Dec. 11,
reversioner and their respective assignees, 2013).
vendor by deed of warranty and a remote
vendee or assignee. A privy in estate is one, Requisites: (OO-MaKEU)
it has been said, who derives his title to the
property in question by purchase; one who 1. The party must have heard or Observed the
takes by conveyance (Constantino vs. Heirs of act or declaration of the other person;
Costantino, Jr., G.R. No. 181508, October 2, 2. He must have had the Opportunity to deny it;
2013). 3. He must have Understood the act or
declaration;
Kinds of Privies: 4. He must have an Interest to object as he
Those arising from would naturally have done if the act or
a) Contract; declaration was not true;
b) Law – e.g. Succession; or 5. The facts are within his Knowledge; and
c) Blood – e.g. Father and son 6. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn
from his silence is Material to the issue
Requisites: (ADO-HI ) (Pamplona vs. Cueto, G.R. No. 204735, February
1. Act, Declaration, or Omission is made by a 19, 2018).
predecessor-in-interest;
2. Act, declaration, or omission is made while  Silence during custodial investigation is not
Holding the title in relation to the property; admission by silence as he has the right to
and, remain silent during that stage (People v.
3. Act, declaration, or omission must be In Guillen, G.R. No. 191756, Nov. 25, 2013).
relation to the property.
Doctrine of Adoptive Admission
Exceptions:

50
An adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to a The rationale for the admissibility of a confession
statement or action by another person when it is is that if it is made freely and voluntarily, a
reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an confession constitutes evidence of a high order
admission of something stated or implied by the since it is supported by the strong presumption
other person. Where it appears that a party that no sane person or one of normal mind will
clearly and unambiguously assented to or deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be
adopted the statements of another, evidence of the perpetrator of a crime, unless prompted by
those statements is admissible against him truth and conscience (People vs. Satorre, G.R. No.
(Republic vs. Kenrick Development Corporation, G.R. 133858, August 12, 2003).
No. 149576, August 8, 2006).
Note: Confessions are presumed to be
Adoptive admission may occur when a voluntary and the onus is on the defense to
party: prove that it was involuntary for having been
a) expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral obtained by violence, intimidation, threat,
statement made by another; promise of reward or leniency (People vs. Garcia,
b) hears a statement and later on essentially G.R. No. L-8298, May 29, 1957).
repeats it;
c) utters an acceptance or builds upon the Requisites for Admissibility of
assertion of another; Confessions:
d) replies by way of rebuttal to some specific
points raised by another but ignores further 1. Express and categorical acknowledgment of
points which he or she has heard the other guilt;
make; or 2. Facts admitted are constitutive of the
e) reads and signs a written statement made by criminal offense;
another (Republic vs. Kenrick Development 3. Voluntarily given;
Corporation, G.R. No. 149576, August 8, 2006). 4. Intelligently made; and,
5. There is no violation of Art. III, Sec. 3 of the
7.E.4.h. Confessions Constitution (Rights of the Accused) (People
Confession is a categorical acknowledgement of vs. Racquel, G.R. No. 119005, December 2,
guilt made by an accused of the offense charged 1996).
or any offense necessarily included therein (Rule
130, Sec. 34).  The basic test for the validity of a confession
is was it voluntarily and freely made. The
 The declaration of an accused term voluntary means that the accused
acknowledging his guilt of the offense speaks of his free will and accord, without
charged, or of any offense necessarily inducement of any kind, and with a full and
included therein, may be given in evidence complete knowledge of the nature and
against him. consequences of the confession, and when
 A confession is an acknowledgment in the speaking is so free from influences
express terms, by a party in a criminal case, affecting the will of the accused, at the time
of his guilt of the crime charged, while an the confession was made, that it renders it
admission is a statement by the accused, admissible in evidence against him (People vs.
direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the Satorre, G.R. No. 133858, August 12, 2003).
issue, and tending, in connection with proof  A confession is not required to be in any
of other facts, to prove his guilt. In other particular form. It may be oral or written,
words, an admission is something less than formal or informal in character. It may be
a confession, and is but an acknowledgment recorded on video tape, sound motion
of some fact or circumstance which in itself pictures, or tape (Id.).
is insufficient to authorize a conviction, and
which tends only to establish the ultimate Kinds of Confession:
fact of guilt (People of the Philippines vs.
Lorenzo, G.R. No. 110107, January 26, 1995 Judicial confession is one made before a court
citing Wharton). in which the case is pending and in the course

51
of legal proceedings therein, and by itself, can properly inform a suspect of his rights during a
sustain a conviction even in capital offenses. custodial investigation renders the confession
valueless and inadmissible (People vs. Sayaboc,
Extrajudicial confession is one made in any G.R. No. 147201, January 15, 2004).
other place or occasion.
 In the present case, while it is undisputed
General Rule: An extrajudicial confession that petitioner gave an uncounselled written
cannot sustain a conviction. statement regarding an anomaly discovered
in the branch he managed, the following are
Exception: When it is corroborated by evidence clear: (1) the questioning was not initiated
of the corpus delicti (Rule 133, Sec. 3). by a law enforcement authority but merely
by an internal affairs manager of the bank;
 Note that what must be corroborated is the and, (2) petitioner was neither arrested nor
extrajudicial confession and not the restrained of his liberty in any significant
testimony of the person to whom the manner during the questioning. Clearly,
confession is made, and the corroborative petitioner cannot be said to be under
evidence required is not the testimony of custodial investigation and to have been
another person who heard the confession deprived of the constitutional prerogative
but the evidence of corpus delicti. Except during the taking of his written statement
when expressly required by law, the (Tenenggee vs. People, G.R. No. 179448, June
testimony of a single person, if credible and 26, 2013).
positive and if it satisfies the court as to the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable Corpus delicti refers to a particular crime and
doubt, is sufficient to convict. In signifies that the specific offense had been
determining the value and credibility of actually committed by someone.
evidence, witnesses are to be weighed, not
numbered (People of the Philippines vs. General Rule: An extrajudicial confession is
Lorenzo, G.R. No. 110107, January 26, 1995). admissible against the confessor only. It is
incompetent evidence against his co-accused for
Requisites for Admissibility of being hearsay and because of the res inter alios
Extrajudicial Confessions: (RI-VICE) acta rule.

1. Express and categorical acknowledgment of Exceptions: When admissible against the co-
guilt; defendants
2. Facts admitted are Constitutive of the
criminal offense; 1. If the co-defendants impliedly acquiesced in
3. Voluntarily given; or adopted said confession;
4. Intelligently made; 2. Interlocking confessions – if the accused
5. Any extrajudicial confession made by a persons voluntarily and independently
person arrested, detained or under custodial executed identical confession without
investigation shall be in writing and signed collusion and corroborated by other
by such person In the presence of his evidence;
counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a 3. Where the accused admitted the facts stated
valid waiver [R.A. No. 7438, Sec. 2(d)]; by the confessant after being apprised of
6. There is no violation of Art. III, Sec. 12 of such confession;
the Constitution (Rights of the accused) 4. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the
(People vs. Racquel, G.R. No. 119005, December crime which was confessed by one of the
2, 1996). accused and said confession is used only as
corroborating evidence;
Note: Even if the confession may appear to 5. Where the confession is used as
have been given voluntarily since the confessant circumstantial evidence to show the
did not file charges against his alleged probability of participation by the
intimidators for maltreatment, the failure to conspirator;

52
 6. When the confessant testified for his co- b) When the
defendant; and evidence is
7. Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial offered for
confession is corroborated by other evidence Another
of record (ANNOTATION: The Inter Alios Acta purpose, such
Rule Revisited, 331 SCRA 562, May 09, 2000). as:
i.Proving bias or
Note: Any confession or admission obtained in prejudice of
violation of Sections 12 and 17, Article III of the a witness;
1987 Constitution shall be inadmissible as ii. Negativing a
evidence against the confessor or admitter. contention
of undue
Illegal confessions and admissions are delay; or
inadmissible against the confessant or the iii. Proving an
admitter but are admissible against the persons effort to
who violated the constitutional prohibition in obstruct a
obtaining such illegal confessions on admissions. criminal
investigation
Admissibility of Offers of Compromise of
prosecution.
Civil Cases Criminal Cases (Rule 130, Sec. 28, as amended)
General Rule: General Rule:
The following are An offer of compromise Reason Compromise is Allowed in Civil
neither admissions by the accused may be Cases:
of guilt nor received in evidence as It is the policy of the law to favor the settlement
admissible in an implied admission of of disputes, to foster compromises and to
evidence: (PESO) guilt. promote peace (Genato vs. Silapan, Adm. Case. No.
1.Offer of 4078, July 14, 2003).
compromise; Exceptions:
2.Evidence of (PAWUK-AQu) If a party denies the existence of a debt but offers
conduct; to pay the same for the purpose of buying peace
3.Statements 1. Those involving and avoiding litigation, the offer of settlement is
made in Quasi-offenses; inadmissible. If in the course thereof, the party
compromise 2. Those Allowed by making the offer admits the existence of an
negotiations; law to be indebtedness combined with a proposal to settle
and compromised (i.e. the claim amicably, then, the admission is
4. Offer to pay or Tax Cases); admissible to prove such indebtedness (Tan vs.
the Payment 3. Plea of guilty later Rodil Enterprises, G.R. No. 168071, December 18,
2006).
of medical, Withdrawn;
hospital or 4. As Unaccepted offer Note: An offer of compromise that may be
other of a plea of guilty to considered an implied admission need NOT be
expenses a lesser offense; made by the accused himself, it may be made by
occasioned by 5. An offer or Payment his lawyer or relatives, provided it is made with
the injury. of medical, hospital the consent of the accused or with his knowledge
or other expenses and he does not stop it.
Exceptions: occasioned by an For a compromise to amount to an implied
(DA-PNP) injury; and admission of guilt, the accused should have been
a) When the 6. Those covered by present or at least authorized the proposed
evidence is the Katarungang compromise (People vs. Erguiza, G.R. No. 171348,
otherwise Pambarangay Law. November 26, 2008).
Discoverable;
or Good Samaritan Rule

53
An offer to pay or the payment of medical,  Evidence is not admissible when it shows, or
hospital or other expenses occasioned by an tends to show, that the accused in a criminal
injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of case has committed a crime independent
civil or criminal liability for the injury (Rule 130, from the offense for which he is on trial. A
Sec. 28, as amended). man may be a notorious criminal, and may
have committed many crimes, and still be
Rationale innocent of the crime charged on trial
The reason for this Rule is to promote and (People v. Pineda, G.R. No. 141644, May 27,
encourage humanitarian acts or charitable 2004).
responses rather than discourage or penalize
them. Otherwise, someone who may just want to Rape Shield
help might hold back for fear that doing so will be
taken as a sign of guilt (Regalado). In prosecutions for rape, evidence of
complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion
Unaccepted Offer thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be
An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of admitted unless, and only to the extent that the
money or to deliver a written instrument or court finds, that such evidence is material and
specific personal property, if rejected without relevant to the case (R.A. No. 8505, Sec. 6).
valid cause, is equivalent to the actual production
and tender of the money, instrument, or property Sexual Abuse Shield Rule in Examination of
(Rule 130, Sec. 26). a Child Witness

7.E.5. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE General Rule: The following evidence is not
admissible in any criminal proceeding involving
7.E.5.a. Similar Acts as Evidence alleged child sexual abuse:
1. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged
General Rule: Evidence that one did or did not victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and
do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to 2. Evidence offered to prove the sexual
prove that he or she did or did not do the same predisposition of the alleged victim [A.M. NO.
or similar thing at another time. 004-07-SC, Sec. 30(a)].

Exception: It may be received to prove a Exception: Evidence of specific instances of

specific: (I-SKIP-SCHUL) sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove
that a person other than the accused was the
1. Intent; source of semen, injury, or other physical
2. Knowledge; evidence shall be admissible [A.M. NO. 004-07-SC,
3. Identity; Sec. 30(b)].
4. Plan;
5. System; 7.E.5.b. Admissibility of Offers of
6. Scheme; Compromise
7. Habit
8. Custom; or Offer of Compromise
9. Usage; and Civil Cases Criminal Cases
10. The Like (Rule 130, Sec. 35, as amended). General Rule: General Rule:
The following are An offer of
 While lying may constitute a habit, we neither admissions of compromise by the
believe that the falsehoods committed by guilt nor admissible accused may be
Lorielyn, assuming them for the moment to in evidence: (PESO) received in evidence
be true, are petty and inconsequential. They 1. Offer of as an implied
are not as serious as charging one's own compromise; admission of guilt.
father of the sordid crime of rape, with all of 2. Evidence of
its serious repercussions (People of the conduct; Exceptions:
Philippines vs. Nardo, G.R. No. 133888, March 1, (PAWUK-AQu)
2001).

54
 3. Statements made Rodil Enterprises, G.R. No. 168071, December 18,
in compromise 1. Those involving 2006).
negotiations; Quasi-offenses;
and 2. Those Allowed by Note: An offer of compromise that may be
4. Offer to pay or law to be considered an implied admission need NOT be
the Payment of compromised made by the accused himself, it may be made by
medical, hospital (i.e. Tax Cases); his lawyer or relatives, provided it is made with
or other 3. Plea of guilty later the consent of the accused or with his knowledge
expenses Withdrawn; and he does not stop it.
occasioned by 4. As Unaccepted For a compromise to amount to an implied
the injury. offer of a plea of admission of guilt, the accused should have been
guilty to a lesser present or at least authorized the proposed
Exceptions: offense; compromise (People vs. Erguiza, G.R. No. 171348,
November 26, 2008).
(DA-PNP) 5. An offer or
a) When the Payment of
Good Samaritan Rule
evidence is medical, hospital
An offer to pay or the payment of medical,
otherwise or other
hospital or other expenses occasioned by an
Discoverable; or expenses
injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of
b) When the occasioned by an
civil or criminal liability for the injury (Rule 130,
evidence is injury; and
Sec. 28, as amended).
offered for 6. Those covered by
Another the Katarungang
Rationale
purpose, such Pambarangay
The reason for this Rule is to promote and
as: Law.
encourage humanitarian acts or charitable
i. Proving bias or
responses rather than discourage or penalize
prejudice of a
them. Otherwise, someone who may just want to
witness;
help might hold back for fear that doing so will be
ii. Negativing a
taken as a sign of guilt (Regalado).
contention of
undue delay;
Unaccepted Offer
or
An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of
iii. Proving an
money or to deliver a written instrument or
effort to
specific personal property, if rejected without
obstruct a
valid cause, is equivalent to the actual production
criminal
and tender of the money, instrument, or property
investigation of (Rule 130, Sec. 36).
prosecution.
(Rule 130, Sec. 28, as amended)
7.E.6. TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE (see
discussion on hearsay rule)
Reason Compromise is Allowed in Civil
Cases: It is the policy of the law to favor the 7.E.7. HEARSAY AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE
settlement of disputes, to foster compromises HEARSAY RULE
and to promote peace (Genato vs. Silapan, Adm.
Case. No. 4078, July 14, 2003).
7.e.7.a. Meaning of Hearsay
If a party denies the existence of a debt but offers
Hearsay is a statement other than one made by
to pay the same for the purpose of buying peace
the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing,
and avoiding litigation, the offer of settlement is
offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted
inadmissible. If in the course thereof, the party
therein.
making the offer admits the existence of an
indebtedness combined with a proposal to settle
A statement is (1) an oral or written assertion
the claim amicably, then, the admission is
or (2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is
admissible to prove such indebtedness (Tan vs.
intended by him or her as an assertion.

55
A statement is not a hearsay if the declarant independently relevant statements” (Espineli
1. Testifies at the trial or hearing, and vs. People, G.R. No.179535, June 9, 2014).
2. He/she is subject to cross-examination 3. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule – Those
concerning a statement, and the statement is: which are classified as hearsay but are
a. inconsistent with the declarant’s deemed admissible by the Rules for certain
testimony, and was given under oath reasons.
subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial,
hearing, or other proceeding, or in  By hearsay evidence is meant that kind of
deposition; evidence which does not derive its value solely
b. consistent with the declarant’s testimony from the credence to be attributed to the
and is offered to rebut an express or witness herself but rests solely in part on the
implied charge against the declarant of veracity and competence of some persons
recent fabrication or improper influence or from whom the witness has received the
motive; or information. It signifies all evidence which is
c. one of identification of a person made not founded upon the personal knowledge of
after perceiving him or her (Rule 130, Sec. the witness from whom it is elicited, and
37, as amended). (n) which, consequently, is not subject to cross-
examination. The basis for the exclusion
A witness can testify only to those facts which he appears to lie in the fact that such testimony
knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which is not subject to the test which can ordinarily
are derived from his own perception (Rule 130, be applied for the ascertainment of truth of
Sec. 22, as amended). Pursuant to this rule, a testimony, since the declarant is not present
witness’ testimony as to what he merely learned and available for cross-examination. In
from others, either through being told or having criminal cases, the admission of hearsay
heard or read of the same, may not be received evidence would be a violation of the
as proof of the truth of what he has so learned. constitutional provision while the accused
Similarly, writings or documents may not be shall enjoy the right to confront and cross-
admitted as evidence of the facts stated therein examine the witness testifying against him
where the persons who wrote or made them are (People vs. Ulit, G.R. Nos. 131799-801, February
not presented to testify thereon. Such kinds of 23, 2004).
evidence are considered hearsay (ANNOTATION:
Hearsay Evidence, 24 SCRA 613, August 14, 1968). General Rule: When the purpose of introducing
the out-of-court statement is to prove the truth
Classification of Out-of-Court Statements: of the facts asserted, therein, such statement
shall be inadmissible as hearsay evidence.
1. Hearsay – Those which are considered as
hearsay and therefore inadmissible. This Exceptions:
occurs when the purpose for introducing the 1. Those which are classified as hearsay but are
out-of-court statement is to prove the truth of deemed admissible by the Rules for certain
the facts asserted therein. reasons, namely:
2. Non-Hearsay – The Doctrine of a. Dying declaration (Rule 130, Sec. 38);
Independently Relevant Statements b. Statement of decedent or person of
Regardless of the truth or falsity of a unsound mind (Rule 130, Sec. 39);
statement, when what is relevant is the fact c. Declaration against interest (Rule 130, Sec.
that such statement has been made, the 40);
hearsay rule does not apply and the statement d. Act or declaration about pedigree (Rule 130,
may be shown. As a matter of fact, evidence Sec. 41);
as to the making of the statement is not e. Family reputation or tradition regarding
secondary but primary, for the statement itself pedigree (Rule 130, Sec. 42);
may constitute a fact in issue or is f. Common reputation (Rule 130, Sec. 43);
circumstantially relevant as to the existence of g. Part of res gestae (Rule 130, Sec. 44);
such a fact. This is known as the “doctrine of h. Records of regularly conducted business
activity (Rule 130, Sec. 45);
i. Entries in official records (Rule 130, Sec. 46);

56
 j. Commercial lists and the like (Rule 130, Sec. (Estrada vs. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, April 3,
47); 2001).
k. Learned treatises (Rule 130, Sec. 46);
l. Testimony or deposition at a former Affidavit as Hearsay Evidence
proceeding (Rule 130, Sec. 49);and General Rule: An affidavit is merely hearsay
m. Residual exception (Rule 130, Sec. 50);and evidence where its affiant/maker did not take the
witness stand (Dantis vs. Maghinang, Jr., G.R. No.
2. Failure to object to the introduction of hearsay 191696, April 10, 2013).
evidence.
The reason for this rule is that they are not
Note: As a rule, hearsay evidence is excluded generally prepared by the affiant, but by another
and carries no probative value. However, the one who uses his or her own language in writing
rule does admit of an exception. Where a the affiant's statements, parts of which may thus
party failed to object to hearsay evidence, be either omitted or misunderstood by the one
then the same is admissible. The rationale for writing them. Moreover, the adverse party is
this exception is to be found in the right of a deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the
litigant to cross-examine. It is settled that it is affiants. For this reason, affidavits are generally
the opportunity to cross-examine which rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiants
negates the claim that the matters testified to themselves are placed on the witness stand to
by a witness are hearsay (SCC Chemicals testify thereon (Republic vs. Gimenez, G.R. No.
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128538, 174673, January 11, 2016).
February 28, 2001).
 Any evidence, whether oral or documentary,  Appellant Santos now complains that the
is hearsay if its probative value is not based affidavit of Ronaldo Guerrero was hearsay
on the personal knowledge of the witness but evidence, considering that the prosecution
on the knowledge of another person who is did not present Ronaldo Guerrero as a
not on the witness stand. Hearsay evidence, witness during the trial. Appellant had
whether objected to or not, has no probative waived the hearsay character of this
value unless the proponent can show that the evidence by failure seasonably to object to
evidence falls within the exceptions to the the admission of the affidavit; it is too late in
hearsay evidence rule (Benguet Exploration, Inc. that day to raise the hearsay rule in the
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117434, February 9, appellant's memorandum after prosecution
2001). and defense had presented their respective
 It renders inadmissible as evidence out-of- cases and had made their respective offers
court statements made by persons who are of evidence (People of the Philippines vs.
not presented as witnesses but are offered as Santos, G.R. Nos. 100225-26, May 11, 1993).
proof of the matters stated. This rule proceeds
from the basic rationale of fairness, as the Exception: The rule that an affidavit is
party against whom it is presented is unable considered hearsay is liberally applied in labor
to cross-examine the person making the cases.
statement. (DST Movers Corporation vs. People’s
General insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 198627, It is not necessary for the affiants to appear and
January 13, 2016 – case penned by J. Leonen) testify and be cross-examined by counsel for the
adverse party. To require otherwise would be to
7.E.7.b. Reasons for Excluding Hearsay negate the rationale and purpose of the summary
Evidence: (COD) nature of the proceedings mandated by the Rules
1. The lack of opportunity on the part of the and to make mandatory the application of the
party against which it is offered to Cross- technical rules of evidence (Lepanto Consolidated
examine the declarant, that is, the person who Mining Company vs. Dumapis, G.R. No. 163210,
made the statement. August 13, 2008).
2. The statement or declaration is not made
under Oath. Double Hearsay
3. The court does not have the opportunity to
observe the Demeanor of the declarant

57
The testimony of a person with respect to what which is created by a positive oath administered
was told him by one who was not an eyewitness in a court of justice (ANNOTATION: A Dying
to the crime but who obtained knowledge thereof Declaration, 102 SCRA 236, January 27, 1981).
only from the alleged victim constitutes “double
hearsay” (People vs. Manhuyod, Jr., G.R. 124676, Requisites: (C4-HMP)
May 20, 1998).
1. The declaration must concern the Cause and
7.E.7.c. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule surrounding circumstances of the declarant's
1. Dying declaration (Rule 130, Sec. 38); death;
2. Statement of decedent or person of unsound 2. At the time the declaration is made, the
mind (Rule 130, Sec. 39); declarant is under a Consciousness of an
3. Declaration against interest (Rule 130, Sec. 40); impending death;
4. Act or declaration about pedigree (Rule 130, 3. The declarant is Competent as a witness
Sec. 41); 4. The declaration is offered in a criminal case
5. Family reputation or tradition regarding for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide, in which
pedigree (Rule 130, Sec. 42); the declarant is a victim (People vs. Santillan,
6. Common reputation (Rule 130, Sec. 43); G.R. No. 227878, August 09, 2017); and
7. Part of res gestae (Rule 130, Sec. 44); 5. That the statement is Complete in itself
8. Records of regularly conducted business (People vs. De Joya, G.R. No. 75028, November 8,
activity (Rule 130, Sec. 45); 1991).
9. Entries in official records (Rule 130, Sec. 46);
10.Commercial lists and the like (Rule 130, Sec.  To be complete in itself does not mean that
47); the declaration must recite everything that
11.Learned treatises (Rule 130, Sec. 46); constituted the res gestae of the subject of
12.Testimony or deposition at a former his statement, but that his statement of any
proceeding (Rule 130, Sec. 49); and given fact should be a full expression of all
13.Residual exception (Rule 130, Sec. 50). that he intended to say as conveying his
meaning in respect of such fact (People vs. De
 Hearsay evidence is admissible in Joya, G.R. No. 75028, November 8, 1991).
determining probable cause in preliminary
investigations because such investigation is Note: If the declarant does not die, the
merely preliminary, and does not finally declaration would not be admissible under this
adjudicate rights and obligations of parties rule but considered as part of the res gestae.
(PCGG v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 194159, Oct. 21,
2015, reiterating Estrada v. Ombudsman, G.R. Form
No. 212140-41, January 21, 2015). A dying declaration has no particular form. It may
be in writing or verbal, and under oath or not. It
i. Dying Declaration may consist of acts of the declarant such as
nodding his head, pointing a finger at his
Sometimes referred to as ante-mortem assailant, or pointing by way of answer to the
statement, it is a statement made under the accused who was lying side by side with the
consciousness of an impending death on the declarant in the hospital (ANNOTATION: Dying
cause and surrounding circumstances of the Declaration, 203 SCRA 355, November 08, 1991).
declarant’s death (Rule 130, Sec. 38, as amended).
ii. Statement of Decedent or Person of
When a person is at the point of death, every Unsound Mind
motive for falsehood is silenced and the mind is
induced by the most powerful consideration to Note: This rule is commonly known as the “Dead
speak the truth. Such a declaration, made in Man’s Statute” or the “Survivorship Rule”.
extremis when the party is at the point of death The “Dead Man's Statute” provides that if one
and the mind is induced by the most powerful party to the alleged transaction is precluded from
consideration to speak the truth, occasioned by a testifying by death, insanity, or other mental
situation so solemn and awful, is considered by disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to
the law as creating an obligation equal to that the undue advantage of giving his own

58
uncontradicted and unexplained account of the 4. The declarant had No motive to falsify and
transaction (Garcia v. Vda. de Caparas, G.R. No. believed such declaration to be true (People vs.
180843, April 17, 2013). Bernal, G.R. No. 113685, June 19, 1997).

Requisites: (PACB) General Rule: A statement tending to expose

1. The witness is a Party or assignor of a party the declarant to criminal liability and offered to
to case or persons in whose behalf a case in exculpate the accused is not admissible.
prosecuted;
2. The action is Against an executor or Exception: When corroborating circumstances
administrator or other representative of a clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the
deceased person or a person of unsound statement (Rule 130, Sec. 40).(n)
mind;
3. The subject-matter of the action is a Claim or Rationale
demand against the estate of such deceased Being an admission against interest, the
person or against person of unsound mind; documents are the best evidence which affords
and the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute. The
4. His testimony refers to any matter of fact of rationale for the rule is based on the presumption
which occurred Before the death of such that no man would declare anything against
deceased person or before such person himself unless such declaration was true. Thus, it
became of unsound mind (Sunga-Chan vs. Chua, is fair to presume that the declaration
G.R. No. 143340, August 15, 2001). corresponds with the truth, and it is his fault if it
does not (Rufina Patis Factory vs. Alusitain, G.R. No.
General Rule: 146202, July 14, 2004).
Any out-of-court statement of the deceased or
the person of unsound mind is inadmissible as  With the deletion of the phrase "pecuniary
hearsay. or moral interest" from the present
provision, it is safe to assume that
Exception: "declaration against interest" has been
Any statement of the deceased or the person of expanded to include all kinds of interest, that
unsound mind may now be received in evidence, is, pecuniary, proprietary, moral or even
provided that: penal (People of the Philippines vs. Bernal, G.R.
1. The statement was made upon the personal No. 113685, June 19, 1997).
knowledge of the deceased or the person of
unsound mind; and Declaration Party Admission
2. It was made at a time when the matter had Against Interest
been recently perceived by him or her, and Made by a non-party, Made by a party.
while his or her recollection was clear (Rule i.e., the declarant.
130, Sec. 39, as amended). (n) Must be against the Need not be against
declarant’s interest. the admitter’s
Exception to the Exception: interest.
Such statement, however, is inadmissible if made Hearsay but Not hearsay and thus
under circumstances indicating its lack of admissible as an admissible.
trustworthiness (Rule 130, Sec. 39, as amended).(n) exception to the
hearsay rule.
iii. Declaration Against Interest The declarant must be No requirement that
dead or unable to the admitter is dead
Requisites: (DAC-No)
testify. or unable to testify.
1. The declarant is Dead or unable to testify;
Admissible against Admissible only
2. The declaration relates to a fact Against the
declarant and third against the admitter.
interest of the declarant;
persons.
3. At the time he made said declaration the
declarant was aware that the same was
Contrary to his aforesaid interest; and

59
 ADMISSION BY DECLARATION term is applied to persons or families, who trace
PRIVIES AGAINST their origin or descent (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd
INTEREST Ed.).
One of the exceptions Exception to hearsay.
to res inter alios acta. Pedigree includes relationship, family genealogy,
birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the
Evidence against the Evidence against even places where these facts occurred, the names of
successor in interest the declarant, his the relatives, and facts of family history intimately
of the admitter. successor in interest, connected with pedigree (Rule 130, Sec. 41, as
or 3rd persons. amended).
Admitter need not be Declarant is dead or
dead or unable to unable to testify. v. Family Reputation or Traditions
testify. Regarding Pedigree
Relates to title to Relates to any Requisites:
property. interest. 1. There is a controversy in respect to the
Admission need not Declaration must be pedigree of any members of a family;
be against the against the interest of 2. The reputation or tradition of the pedigree of
admitter’s interest. the declarant. the person concerned existed ante litem
motam or previous to the controversy; and
iv. Act or Declaration About Pedigree 3. The witness testifying to the reputation or
tradition regarding the pedigree of the person
The act or declaration of a person deceased or
must be a member of the family of said person
unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of
(People vs. Llanita, G.R. No. 134101, September 5,
another person related to him or her by birth, 2001).
adoption, or marriage, or, in the absence thereof,
with whose family he or she was so intimately The reputation or tradition existing in a family
associated as to be likely to have accurate
previous to the controversy, in respect to the
information concerning his or her pedigree, may pedigree of any one of its members, may be
be received in evidence where it occurred before received in evidence if the witness testifying
the controversy, and the relationship between the thereon be also a member of the family, either by
two persons is shown by evidence other than consanguinity or affinity, or adoption. Entries in
such act or declaration (Rule 130, Sec. 41, as
family bibles or other family books or charts,
amended).
engravings on rings, family portraits and the like,
may be received as evidence of pedigree (Rule
Requisites:
130, Sec. 42, as amended).
1. The actor or declarant is dead or unable to
testify;
It is evident that this provision may be divided
2. The act or declaration is made by a person into two (2) parts:
related to the subject by birth, adoption, or
1. The portion containing the first underscored
marriage or, in absence thereof, with whose clause which pertains to testimonial evidence,
family the declarant was so intimately under which the documents in question may
associated as to be likely to have accurate not be admitted as the authors thereof did not
information concerning his/her pedigree; take the witness stand; and
3. The relationship between the declarant/actor
2. The section containing the second
and the subject is shown by evidence other underscored phrase. What must then be
than such act/declaration; and ascertained is whether the Exhibits, as private
4. The act/declaration was made ante litem documents, fall within the scope of the clause
motam or prior to the controversy (Tison vs. “and the like” as qualified by the preceding
CA, G.R. No. 121027, July 31, 1997).
phrase [e]ntries in family bibles or other family
books or charts, engravings on rings [and]
Pedigree is the state of the family as far as
family portraits (Jison vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
regards the relationship of the different
No. 124853, February 24, 1998).
members, their births, marriages and deaths; this

60
The scope of the enumeration contained in the as evidence of common reputation (Rule 130, Sec.
second portion of this provision, in light of the 43, as amended).
rule of ejusdem generis, is limited to objects
which are commonly known as "family Common reputation refers to the prevailing belief
possessions," or those articles which represent, in in the community as to the existence of certain
effect, a family's joint statement of its belief as to facts or aggregates of facts arrived at from the
the pedigree of a person. These have been people’s observations, discussions, and
described as objects "openly exhibited and well consensus. There is absent serious opposition,
known to the family," or those "which, if adverse or contrary opinion. They are not just
preserved in a family, may be regarded as giving rumors or unverified reports or say-so.
a family tradition." Other examples of these Note: The requirement of antiquity (“more than
objects which are regarded as reflective of a 30 years old”) is removed. Instead, reliability is
family's reputation or tradition regarding pedigree ensured because the testimony represents the
are inscriptions on tombstones, monuments or consensus of the community.
coffin plates (Jison vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
124853, February 24, 1998). Common Reputation May be Admitted to
Prove:
 The testimony of the witness as to his age 1. Matters relating to boundaries of lands in the
as he had learned from his parents and community;
relatives is admissible although hearsay and 2. Matters relating to customs affecting lands in
though he can have no personal knowledge the community;
of the date of his birth as all the knowledge 3. Matters relating to events of general history
he has of his age is acquired from what he important to the community;
is told by his parents. His testimony in such 4. Matters respecting marriage or moral
case is an assertion of family tradition (People character and related facts; and,
vs. Alegado, G.R. No. 93030-31, August 21, 5. Individual moral character.
1991). Note: Common reputation cannot establish
pedigree.
ACT OR FAMILY
DECLARATION REPUTATION OR Evidence of Negative Good Repute
ABOUT TRADITION
PEDIGREE REGARDING Where the foundation proof shows that the
PEDIGREE witness was in such position that he would have
Witness need not Witness is a member of heard reports derogatory to one’s character, the
be a member of the family. reputation testimony may be predicated on the
the family. absence of reports of bad reputation or on the
Testimony is Testimony is about fact that the witness had heard nothing against
about what family reputation or the person.
declarant, dead or tradition covering
unable to testify, matters of pedigree. vii. Res Gestae
has said
concerning the Statements made by a person while a startling
pedigree of the occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
declarant’s family. subsequent thereto, under the stress of
excitement caused by the occurrence with
vi. Common Reputation respect to the circumstances thereof, may be
given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So,
Common reputation existing previous to the also, statements accompanying an equivocal act
controversy, as to boundaries of or customs material to the issue, and giving it a legal
affecting lands in the community and reputation significance, may be received as part of the res
as to events of general history important to the gestae (Rule 130 Sec. 44, as amended).
community, or respecting marriage or moral
character, may be given in evidence. Monuments Res gestae refers to statements made by the
and inscriptions in public places may be received participants or the victims of, or the spectators

61
to, a crime immediately before, during, or after excitement caused by the occurrence with
its commission. These statements are a respect to the circumstances thereof.
spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the
excitement of the occasion, without any Requisites: (SBC)
opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false 1. The principal act, the res gestae, is a
statement (People vs. Calungsag, G.R. No. 208749, Startling occurrence;
November 26, 2014). 2. The statements were made Before the
declarant had time to contrive or devise a
Test for Admissibility falsehood; and,
3. The statements must concern the
1. Whether the act, declaration, or exclamation occurrence in question and its immediately
is so intimately interwoven or connected with attending Circumstances (People of the
the principal fact or event that it characterizes Philippines vs. Lobrigas, G.R. No. 147649,
as to be regarded as a part of the transaction December 17, 2002).
itself; and
2. Whether it clearly negatives any Reason for Admissibility
premeditation or purpose to manufacture
testimony (People vs. Calungsag, G.R. No. The reasons for the admissibility of
208749, November 26, 2014). spontaneous statements are: (1)
trustworthiness and (2) necessity. The
Spontaneity, How Determined: statements are trustworthy because they are
1. The time that has lapsed between the made instinctively, while the declarant’s
occurrence of the act or transaction and the mental powers for deliberation in concocting
making of the statement; matters are controlled and stilled by the
2. The place where the statement is made; shocking influence of a startling occurrence,
3. The condition of the declarant when the so that all utterances at the time are the reflex
utterance is given; product of immediate sensual impressions,
4. The presence or absence of intervening unaided by retrospective mental action. It is
events between the occurrence and the due to necessity because said natural and
statement relative thereto; and spontaneous utterances are more convincing
5. The nature and the circumstances of the than the testimony of the same person in the
statement itself (Manulat vs. People, G.R. No. stand (ANNOTATION: Res Gestae, 74 SCRA 141,
190892, August 17, 2015). November 29, 1976).
b) Verbal Acts – Refers to the first sentence of
Rationale Rule 130, Sec. 44, as amended, viz:
Statements accompanying an equivocal act
The basis of the ante is the well-founded belief material to the issue, and giving it a legal
that statements made instinctively at the time of significance.
a specific transaction or event without the
opportunity for formulation of statements Requisites: (SMAL)
favorable to one’s own cause are likely to cast 1. Act or occurrence characterized must be
important light upon the matter at issue. As to Equivocal;
such statements, the law creates a presumption 2. Such act must be Material to the issue;
of their truthfulness (20 Am. Jr. 556). 3. Statements must Accompany the equivocal
act; and
Types of Res Gestae 4. Statements give Legal significance to the
a) Spontaneous Statements – Refers to the equivocal act (Talidano vs. Falcon Maritime
first sentence of Rule 130, Sec. 44, as and Allied Services, Inc., G.R. No. 172031, July
amended, viz: 14, 2008).
Statements made by a person while a startling
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior
or subsequent thereto under the stress of Reason for Admissibility

62
 The motive character, and object of an act, viii. Records of Regularly Conducted
are frequently indicated by what was said by Business Activity
the person engaged in the act. Such
statements are in the nature of verbal acts and A memorandum, report, record or data
are admissible in evidence with the remainder compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions,
of the transaction which they illustrate or diagnoses, made by writing, typing, electronic,
(ANNOTATION: Res Gestae, 74 SCRA 141, optical or other similar means at or near the time
November 29, 1976). of or from transmission or supply of information
by a person with knowledge thereof, and kept in
Verbal Acts and Spontaneous Statements, the regular course or conduct of a business
Distinguished activity, and such was the regular practice to
make the memorandum, report, record, or data
SPONTANEOUS compilation by electronic, optical or similar
VERBAL ACTS
STATEMENT means, all of which are shown by the testimony
The res gestae is The res gestae is the of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is
the equivocal act. startling occurrence. excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence (Rule
Verbal act must be Statements may be 130 Sec. 45, as amended).
contemporaneous made prior, while or
with or must immediately after the Requisites:
accompany the startling occurrence. 1. The entries may consist of a memorandum,
equivocal act. report, record or data compilation of acts,
events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses,
Statements must Statements need not made by writing, typing, electronic, optical or
explain the explain the principal other similar means at or near the time of or
equivocal act and fact. from transmission or supply of information
give it a legal 2. Such entries were made by a person with
significance. knowledge thereof;
3. Such entries were kept in the regular course
Res Gestae and Dying Declarations, or conduct of business activity;
Distinguished 4. Such was a regular practice to make the
memorandum, report, record, or data
RES GESTAE IN compilation by electronic, optical or similar
CONNECTION DYING means; and
WITH A DECLARATIONS 5. The foregoing must be shown by the
HOMICIDAL ACT testimony of the custodian or other qualified
May be made by: Can be made only by witnesses.
a. The accused the victim.
himself after or ix. Entries in the Official Records
during the Entries in official records made in the
killing; or performance of his or her duty by a public officer
b. That of a 3rd of the Philippines, or by a person in the
person performance of a duty specially enjoined by law,
May precede, Made only after the are prima facie evidence of the facts therein
accompany or be homicidal attacks has stated (Rule 130, Sec. 46, as amended).
made after the been committed.
homicidal attacks Requisites:
was committed. 1. The entries were made by:
Justification in the Trustworthiness a) A public officer in the performance of his
spontaneity of the based upon its being duties; or,
statement. given an awareness b) A person in the performance of a duty
of impending death. specially enjoined by law.
2. Entrant has personal knowledge of the facts
stated by him or such facts were acquired by

63
 him from reports made by persons under a
legal duty to submit the same; and x. Commercial Lists and the Like
3. Such entries were duly entered in a regular Evidence of statements of matters of interest to
manner in the official records (DST Movers persons engaged in an occupation contained in a
Corporation v. People’s General Insurance list, register, periodical, or other published
Corporation, G.R. No. 198627, January 13, 2016). compilation is admissible as tending to prove the
truth of any relevant matter so stated if that
Entries in police records made by a police officer compilation is published for use by persons
in the performance of the duty especially engaged in that occupation and is generally used
enjoined by law are prima facie evidence of the and relied upon by them therein (Rule 130, Sec.
fact therein stated, and their probative value may 47).
be either substantiated or nullified by other
competent evidence (Lao vs. Standard Insurance Co. Requisites:
Inc., G.R. No. 140023, August 14, 2003). The
necessity of this rule consists in the A document is a commercial list if:
inconvenience and difficulty of requiring the
official's attendance as a witness to testify to the 1. It is a statement of matters of interest to
innumerable transactions in the course of his persons engaged in an occupation;
duty. The document's trustworthiness consists in 2. Such statement is contained in a list, register,
the presumption of regularity of performance of periodical or other published compilation;
official duty (Dimaguila vs. Monteiro, G.R. No. 3. Said compilation is published for the use of
201011, January 27, 2014). persons engaged in that occupation, and
4. It is generally used and relied upon by persons
 Although A Traffic Accident Investigation in the same occupation (PNOC Shipping and
Report cannot be given probative weight Transport Corporation, G.R. No. 107518, October
when the investigating officer who prepared 8, 1998).
the same was not presented in court to
testify that he had sufficient knowledge of  Statement of matters contained in a
the facts therein stated, and that he periodical, may be admitted only "if that
acquired them personally or through official compilation is published for use by persons
information (Standard Insurance Co., Inc. v. engaged in that occupation and is generally
Cuaresma, G.R. No. 200055, September 10, used and relied upon by them therein"
2014). (Manila Electric Company vs. Quisumbing, G.R.
 Cadastral maps are the output of cadastral No. 127598, February 22, 2000).
surveys. The DENR is the department tasked
to execute, supervise and manage the xi. Learned Treatises
conduct of cadastral surveys. It is,
therefore, clear that the cadastral map and How Introduced as Evidence
the corresponding list of claimants qualify as 1. The court takes judicial notice that the writer
entries in official records as they were of the statement in the treatises, periodical or
prepared by the DENR, as mandated by law. pamphlet is recognized in his profession of
As such, they are exceptions to the hearsay calling as expert in the subject; or,
rule and are prima facie evidence of the 2. A witness, expert in the subject, testifies that
facts stated therein (Dimaguila vs. Monteiro, the writer of the statement in the treaties,
G.R. No. 201011, January 27, 2014). periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his
profession or calling as expert in the subject
Note: In official records, the person making the (Rule 130, Sec. 48).
entry need not be deceased or unable to testify,
but he must be a public officer or a person in the Reason for Admissibility
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law.
In business records, the person making the entry 1. Necessity – the inaccessibility, or
must be deceased or unable to testify. Both inconvenience to the authors or researchers;
official and business records are only prima facie
and
evidence.

64
 2. Trustworthiness – The authors have no they shall be given the same weight as that to
motive to misrepresent and awareness that which the testimony may be entitled (Manliclic vs.
the work will be subjected to inspection, Calaunan, G.R. No. 150157, January 25, 2007).
scrutiny and refutation, and criticism; the
works were carefully researched before being  The adoption by the Makati trial court of the
facts stated in the decision of the Parañaque
published and were purposely geared
trial court does not fall under the exception
towards the truth.
to the right of confrontation because the
exception contemplated by law covers only
xii. Testimony or Deposition at a Former
the utilization of testimonies of absent
Proceeding witnesses made in previous proceedings,
The testimony or deposition of a witness and does not include utilization of previous
deceased or out of the Philippines or who cannot, decisions or judgments (People vs. Ortiz-
Miyake, G.R. Nos. 115338-39, September 16,
with due diligence, be found therein, or is
1997).
unavailable or otherwise unable to testify, given
in a former case or proceeding, judicial or
xiii. Residual Exception
administrative, involving the same parties and
subject matter, may be given in evidence against A statement not specifically covered by any of the
the adverse party who had the opportunity to foregoing exceptions, having equivalent
cross-examine him or her (Rule 130, Sec. 49, as circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is
amended). admissible subject to court determination.
 Rather than add a number of exceptions to
Requisites: (W-DOCU-PSIC) the hearsay rule, the Sub-Committee opted
to adopt the residual or catch-all exception
1. That the Witness whose testimony is offered provided in Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of
in evidence is Evidence.
a) Dead;
b) Out of the Philippines The catch-all exception found in the FRE
c) In the Philippines but whose location stemmed from the ruling in Dallas County v.
Cannot, with due diligence, be found Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd.,
therein; or which admitted an old newspaper article to
d) Unavailable or unable to testify. prove that a fire occurred at the court tower
2. His testimony or deposition was given in a during construction. Although not falling
former case or proceeding, judicial or under any of the recognized hearsay
administrative, between the same Parties or exceptions, the news article was admitted
those representing the same interests; because of “circumstantial guarantees of
3. The former case involved the same Subject trustworthiness based on the fact that the
as that in the present case, although on individual reporting the fire had no motive to
different causes of action; falsify and that a false report of a matter so
4. The issue testified to by the witness in the easily checked by readers of the paper would
former trial is the same Issue involved in the have subjected the reporter to considerable
present case; and embarrassment.”
5. The adverse party had an opportunity to
Cross-examine the witness in the former The catch-all exception should be “used very
case (Manliclic vs. Calaunan, G.R. No. 150157, rarely and only in exceptional circumstances [286
January 25, 2007). F. 2d 388 (5th Cir. 1961)].”

Note: Though said section speaks only of Requisites: (MaTH-MP)

testimony and deposition, it does not mean that
documents from a former case or proceeding 1. The statement is Hearsay not covered by any
cannot be admitted. Said documents can be of the exceptions to the Hearsay Rule
admitted they being part of the testimonies of 2. The statement has the circumstantial
witnesses that have been admitted. Accordingly, guarantees of Trustworthiness;

65
3. Proponent Makes known to the adverse party, 1. Statements of a person showing his state of
sufficiently in advance of the hearing, his mind; that is, his mental condition,
intention to offer the statement and its knowledge, belief, intention, ill will and other
particulars, including the name and address of emotions
the declarant; and 2. Statements that may identify the date, place
4. The court determines that: and condition as illness and the like
a. the statement is offered as evidence of a 3. Statements of a person from which an
Material fact; inference may be drawn as to the state of
b. the statement is more Probative on the mind of another person; i.e., the knowledge,
point for which it is offered than any other belief, good or bad faith noticed of the latter
evidence which the proponent can procure 4. Statements that may identify the date, place
through reasonable efforts; and and person in question
c. the general purposes of these rules and 5. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a
the Interest of justice will be best served witness (Estrada vs. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-
by admission of the statement into 15, April 3, 2001).
evidence (Rule 130, Sec. 50). (n)
 The doctrine on independently relevant
7.E.7.d. Independently Relevant statements holds that conversations
Statements communicated to a witness by a third person
may be admitted as proof that, regardless of
Note: Independently relevant statements are their truth or falsity, they were actually made
non-hearsay. (Republic of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Alejaga,
G.R. No. 146030, December 3, 2002).
If the purpose of placing the statement on the
record is merely to establish the fact that the  In the report of Special Investigator, Recio
statement, or the tenor of such statement, was supposedly admitted that he had not actually
made, such evidence is not hearsay. Regardless conducted an investigation and ocular
of the truth or falsity of a statement, when what inspection of the parcel of land. Cartagena’s
is relevant is the fact that such statement has statement on Recio’s alleged admission may
been made, the hearsay rule does not apply and be considered as "independently relevant." A
the statement may be shown. This is known as witness may testify as to the state of mind of
the “Doctrine of Independently Relevant another person -- the latter’s knowledge,
Statements” (Espineli vs. People, G.R. No.179535, belief, or good or bad faith -- and the former’s
June 9, 2014). statements may then be regarded as
independently relevant without violating the
Evidence as to the making of such statements is hearsay rule (Republic of the Philippines vs. Heirs
not secondary but primary, for in itself it: of Alejaga, G.R. No. 146030, December 3, 2002).

a) Constitutes a fact in issue; or 7.E.8. OPINION RULE

b) Is circumstantially relevant to the existence of
such fact (Lea Mer Industries, Inc. vs. Malayan General Rule: The opinion of a witness is not
Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 161745, September admissible (Rule 130, Sec. 51, as amended).
30, 2005).
Exceptions: Admissible opinion evidence
The ban on hearsay evidence does not cover
independently relevant statements. These are 1. Opinion of Expert Witness on a matter
statements which are relevant independently of requiring special knowledge, skill, experience
whether they are true or not. They belong to two or training or education, which he is shown to
(2) classes: (1) those statements which are the possess (Rule 130, Sec. 52, as amended);
very facts in issue, and (2) those statements 2. Opinion of Ordinary Witness regarding:
which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in (IHMI)
issue. The second class includes the following: a. The Identity of a person about whom he
has adequate knowledge (Rule 130, Sec.
53[a], as amended);

66
 b. A Handwriting with which he has sufficient Probative Value of Opinions of Handwriting
familiarity (Rule 130, Sec. 53[b], as amended Experts
);
c. The Mental sanity of a person with whom The opinions of handwriting experts are not
he is sufficient acquainted (Rule 130, Sec. necessarily binding upon the court, the expert’s
53[c], as amended); and function being to place before the court data
d. The witness’ Impression of the emotion, upon which the court can form its own opinion.
behavior, condition or appearance of a Handwriting experts are usually helpful in the
person (Rule 130, Sec. 53, as amended) examination of forged documents because of the
technical procedure involved in analyzing them.
7.E.8.a. Opinion of Expert Witness; Weight But resort to these experts is not mandatory or
Given indispensable to the examination or the
An expert witness is one who belongs to the comparison of handwriting. A finding of forgery
profession/calling to which the subject matter of does not depend entirely on the testimonies of
the inquiry relates and who possesses special handwriting experts, because the judge must
knowledge on questions on which he proposes to conduct an independent examination of the
express an opinion. questioned signature in order to arrive at a
reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity
There is no definite standard of determining the (Lorzano vs. Tabayag, Jr., G.R. No. 189647, February
degree of skill/knowledge that a witness must 6, 2012).
possess in order to testify as an expert. It is
sufficient that the following factors are present: Expert Testimony in Medical Negligence
a) Training and education; Cases
b) Particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts
of the case; or Medical negligence cases are best proved by
c) Presentation of authorities or standards upon opinions of expert witnesses belonging in the
which his opinion is based (People vs. Abriol, same general neighborhood and in the same
G.R. No. 123137, October 17, 2001). general line of practice as defendant physician or
surgeon (Lucas vs. Tuaño, G.R. No. 178763, April 21,
The use of the word “may” in Sec. [52], Rule 130 2009).
signifies that the use of opinion of an expert
witness is permissive and not mandatory on the Expert Opinion in Annulment of Marriage
part of the courts (Tabao vs. People, G.R. No. Cases
187246, July 20, 2011).
By the very nature of Article 36, courts, despite
Probative Value of Expert Opinions having the primary task and burden of decision-
making, must not discount but, instead, must
Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive in consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion
the sense that they must be accepted as true on on the psychological and mental temperaments
the subject of their testimony, but are generally of the parties (Ngo Te vs. Yu-Te, G.R. No. 161793,
regarded as purely advisory in character; the February 13, 2009).
courts may place whatever weight they choose
upon such testimony and may reject it, if they It is no longer necessary to introduce expert
find it is inconsistent with the facts in the case or opinion in a petition under Article 36 of the Family
otherwise unreasonable (Ceballos vs. Intestate Code if the totality of evidence shows that
Estate of the Late Emigdio Mercado, G. R. No. 155856, psychological incapacity exists and its gravity,
May 28, 2004). juridical antecedence, and incurability can be duly
established (Agraviador vs. Amparo-Agraviador, G.R.
 When faced with conflicting expert opinions, No. 170729, December 8, 2010).
courts give more weight and credence to
that which is more complete, thorough and 7.E.8.b. Opinion of Ordinary Witness
scientific (Eduarte vs. CA, G.R. No. 105944,
February 9, 1996).

67
The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is case, and not the man; and a very bad man may
given, may be received in evidence regarding: have a righteous cause (People vs. Lee, G.R. No.
(IHMI) 139070, May 29, 2002).
1. The Identity of a person about whom he has
adequate knowledge (Rule 130, Sec. 53[a], as Exceptions:
amended); A. In Criminal Cases:
2. A Handwriting with which he has sufficient 1. The Accused may prove his/her good moral
familiarity (Rule 130, Sec. 53[b], as amended); character which is pertinent to the moral trait
3. The Mental sanity of a person with whom he involved in the offense charged [Rule 130, Sec.
is sufficient acquainted (Rule 130, Sec. 53[c], as 54(a)(2)].
amended); and
4. The witness’ Impression of the emotion, When the accused presents proof of his good
behavior, condition or appearance of a person moral character, this strengthens the
(Rule 130, Sec. 53, as amended) presumption of innocence, and where good
character and reputation are established, an
7.E.9. CHARACTER EVIDENCE inference arises that the accused did not
Character consists of the individual patterns of commit the crime charged. This view proceeds
behavior and characteristics which make up and from the theory that a person of good
distinguish one person from another (People vs. character and high reputation is not likely to
Lee, G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002). have committed the act charged against him
Reputation is the general opinion of people in the (People vs. Lee, G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002).
community as to a person’s character traits, and
is therefore evidence of character. 2. The prosecution may not prove the bad
moral character of the accused except only in
Good moral character includes all the elements rebuttal and when such evidence is pertinent
essential to make up such a character; among to the moral trait involved in the offense
these are common honesty and veracity, charged [People vs. Lee citing Rule 130, Sec.
especially in all professional intercourse; a 54(a)(2)].
character that measures up as good among
This is intended to avoid unfair prejudice to
people of the community in which the person
the accused who might otherwise be
lives, or that is up to the standard of the average
convicted not because he is guilty but because
citizen; that status which attaches to a man of
he is a person of bad character. The offering
good behavior and upright conduct (People vs. Lee,
of character evidence on his behalf is a
G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002).
privilege of the defendant, and the
Note: Common reputation is an exception to the prosecution cannot comment on the failure of
Hearsay Rule. the defendant to produce such evidence. Once
the defendant raises the issue of his good
General Rule: Evidence of a person’s character character, the prosecution may, in rebuttal,
or a trait of character is not admissible for the offer evidence of the defendant’s bad
purposes of proving action in conformity character (People vs. Lee, G.R. No. 139070, May
therewith on a particular occasion (Rule 130, Sec. 29, 2002).
54, as amended). 3. The character of the offended party may be
proved if it tends to establish in any
The rule is that the character or reputation of a reasonable degree the probability or
party is regarded as legally irrelevant in improbability of the offense charged [Rule 130,
determining a controversy, so that evidence Sec. 54(a)(1)].
relating thereto is not admissible. Ordinarily, if 4. Evidence of the good character of a witness
the issues in the case were allowed to be is not admissible until such character has been
influenced by evidence of the character or impeached [Rule 130, Sec. 54(c)].
reputation of the parties, the trial would be apt to
have the aspects of a popularity contest rather Exceptions to the Exception:
than a factual inquiry into the merits of the case. 1. Proof of the bad character of the victim in a
After all, the business of the court is to try the murder case is NOT admissible if the crime

68
 was committed through treachery and established prima facie by the legal
premeditation (People vs. Lee, G.R. No. 139070, presumption of its truth is disproved, it must
May 29, 2002). stand as proved (Tison vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
2. In prosecution for rape, evidence of No. 121027, July 31, 1997).
complainant’s past sexual conduct, opinion  Ordinarily, when a fact is presumed, it implies
thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be that the party in whose favor the
admitted unless, and only to the extent that presumption exists does not have to
the court finds that such evidence is material introduce evidence to establish that fact, and
and relevant to the case (Rape Shield, R.A. No. in any litigation where that fact is put in issue,
8505, Sec. 6). the party denying it must bear the burden of
proof to overthrow the presumption(Tison vs.
B. In Civil Cases: Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121027, July 31, 1997).
1. Evidence of the moral character of a party in  Presumptions are not allegations, nor do they
a civil case is admissible only when pertinent supply their absence. Presumptions are
to the issue of character involved in the case conclusions. They do not apply when there
[Rule 130, Sec. 54(b)]. are no facts or allegations to support them
2. Evidence of the good character of a witness (University of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng
is not admissible until such character has been Pilipinas, G.R. No. 194964-65, January 11, 2016)
impeached [Rule 130, Sec. 54(c)].
Classification of Presumptions:
Manner of Proving Character
1. Presumption of Law (Presumptio Juris) is
1. By Reputation or Opinion: a deduction which the law expressly directs
a) By testimony as to reputation; to be made from the facts proven. It is a
b) By testimony in the form of an opinion; or presumption determined by law and it
c) On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable consists of a presumption juris et de jure or
into relevant specific instances of conduct conclusive presumptions, which is not
(Rule 130, Sec. 54[c], as amended). (n)
permitted to be overcome by any proof to the
2. By Specific Instances of Conduct: contrary, however strong; and a presumption
In cases in which character or a trait of juris tantum or disputable presumption,
character of a person is an essential element which is presumption that stands unless
of a charge, claim or defense, proof may also rebutted by evidence. In the absence of a
be made of specific instances of that person’s legal provision or ruling, there is no
conduct (Rule 130, Sec. 54[c], as amended).(n) presumption of law.

7.F. PRESUMPTIONS 2. Presumption of Fact (Presumptio Hominis)

is a deduction which reason draws from facts
7.F.1. Meaning of Presumption proved without an express direction from the
It is an inference of the existence or non- law to that effect (Martin vs. CA, G.R. No. 82248
existence of a fact which is permitted to be drawn January 30, 1992).
from the proof of other facts(Delgado Vda. de De la
Rosa vs. Heirs of Marciana Rustia Vda. de Damian, G.R. Presumptions of facts are borne by reason
No. 155733, January 27, 2006). through human experience. Those which the
experience of mankind has shown to be valid,
 Where there is an entire lack of competent founded on general knowledge and information;
evidence to the contrary, and unless or until essentially an inference.
it is rebutted, it has been held that a
presumption may stand in lieu of evidence Presumption of Law and Presumption of
and support a finding or decision. Perforce, a Fact, Distinguished
presumption must be followed if it is
uncontroverted. This is based on the theory PRESUMPTION OF PRESUMPTION OF
that a presumption is prima facie proof of the LAW FACT
fact presumed, and unless the fact thus

69
 Certain inference must A discretion is vested in act upon such belief, he cannot, in any
be made whenever the tribunal as to drawing litigation arising out of such declaration,
the facts appear which the inference. act or omission, be permitted to falsify it;
furnish the basis of and
the inference.
b. The tenant is not permitted to deny the
Reduced to the fixed Derived wholly and
rules and form part of directly from the
title of his landlord at the time of
the system of circumstances of the commencement of the relation of
jurisprudence particular case by means landlord and tenant between them [Rule
of the common 131, Sec. 2(b)].
experience of man
(Robert P. Wa–acon v. People of the Philippines, G.R.  Scientific experts concur in the view that the
No. 164575, December 6, 2006). result of a paraffin test is not conclusive.
While it can establish the presence of nitrates
7.F.2. KINDS OF PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW or nitrites on the hand, it does not always
indubitably show that said nitrates or nitrites
1. Conclusive Presumption (juris et de jure) were caused by the discharge of firearm. The
is not permitted to be overcome by any proof person tested may have handled one or more
to the contrary (RIANO, Evidence (The Bar of a number of substances which give the
Lecture Series), 2016 Ed., p. 59). same positive reaction for nitrates or nitrites,
such as explosives, fireworks,
2. Disputable Presumption (juris tantum) is pharmaceuticals, and leguminous plants such
that which the law permits to be overcome or as peas, beans, and alfalfa. A person who
contradicted by proofs to the contrary, uses tobacco may also have nitrate or nitrite
otherwise, the same remains satisfactory and deposits on his hands since these substances
is considered sufficient evidence of the fact in are present in the products of combustion of
dispute(RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Lecture tobacco. The presence of nitrates, therefore,
Series), 2016 Ed., p. 60). should be taken only as an indication of a
possibility but not of infallibility that the
7.F.2.a. Conclusive Presumptions person tested has fired a gun (People vs.
Baconguis, G.R. No. 149889, December 2, 2003).
Classes of Conclusive Presumptions:
Essential Elements in Relation to the Party
1. Estoppel In Pais– Whenever a party has, Sought to be Estopped: (CIK)
by his own declaration, act, or omission,
intentionally and deliberately led another to 1. Conduct amounting to false representation
believe a particular thing true, and to act or Concealment of material facts;
upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation 2. Intent, or at least expectation that this
arising out of such declaration, act or conduct shall be acted upon; and
omission, be permitted to falsify it[Rule 131, 3. Knowledge, actual or constructive, of the
Sec. 2(a), as amended]. actual facts (Planters Development Bank vs.
Sps. Lopez, G.R. No. 186332, October 23,
2. Estoppel by Deed– The tenant is not 2013).
permitted to deny the title of his landlord at
the time of the commencement of the Essential Elements in Relation to the Party
relation of landlord and tenant between Claiming Estoppel: (LRA)
them[Rule 131, Sec. 2(b), as amended].
1. Lack of knowledge and of the means of
Instances of Conclusive Presumptions: knowledge of the truth as to the facts in
question;
a. Whenever a party has, by his own 2. Reliance in good faith, upon the conduct
declaration, act, or omission, or statements of the party to be estopped;
intentionally and deliberately led another and
to believe a particular thing true, and to

70
3. Action or inaction based thereon of such they assume a completely different legal
character as to change the position or position. They claim that the lease contract
status of the party claiming the estoppel, ceased to be effective because Virgilio’s
to his injury, detriment or prejudice (Estacio assumption of ownership of the land stripped
vs. PELCO, G.R. No. 183196, August 19, 2009). the respondents of ownership of the building.
They argue that, under Article 440 of the Civil
Statutory Instances of Estoppel: Code, Virgilio’s title over the lot necessarily
included the house on the said lot, thus
1. Non-owner transferor who later acquires title automatically canceling the contract. After
passes ownership to the transferee by recognizing the validity of the lease contract
operation of law (Art. 1434, NCC); for two years, the petitioner spouses are
2. Agent who alienates cannot claim title barred from alleging the automatic
against the transferee (Art. 1435, NCC); cancellation of the contract on the ground
3. A lessee or a bailee is estopped from that the respondents lost ownership of the
asserting title to the thing leased or received, house after Virgilio acquired title over the lot
as against the lessor or bailor (Art. 1436, NCC); (Alcaraz vs. Tangga-an, G.R. No. 128568, 401
4. In a contract between 3rd persons SCRA 84, April 9, 2003).
concerning immovable property, if one of
them is misled by a person with respect to  A party may not go back on his own acts and
the ownership or real right over the real representations to the prejudice of the other
estate, the latter is precluded from asserting party who relied upon them. In the law of
his legal title or interest therein, provided ALL evidence, whenever a party has, by his own
these requisites are present: declaration, act or omission, intentionally and
deliberately led another to believe a
a. Fraudulent representation or wrongful
particular thing true, and to act upon such
concealment of facts is known to the party
estopped; belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out
b. Party precluded must intend that the of such declaration, act, or omission, be
other should act upon the facts as permitted to falsify it (Metropolitan Bank and
Trust Company vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
misrepresented;
122899, 333 SCRA 212, June 8, 2000).
c. Party misled must have been unaware of
the true facts; and, 7.F.2.b. Disputable Presumptions
d. Party defrauded must have acted in
accordance with the misrepresentation
1. That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
(Art. 1437, NCC).
5. One who has allowed another to assume
apparent ownership of personal property for Note: The presumption of innocence is a
the purpose of making any transfer of it, constitutional prerogative embodied in the Bill
cannot, if he received the sum for which a of Rights. It requires that an accused person
pledge has been constituted, set up his own shall be presumed innocent until the contrary
title to defeat the pledge of the property, is provided in all criminal prosecutions [Sec.
made by the other to a pledgee who received 14(2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution]. This
the same in good faith and for value(Art. 1438 presumption continues until overthrown by
NCC). proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this
regard, any judgment of conviction should
 At the time of the perfection of the contract, depend upon the strength of the evidence of
the petitioner spouses, as lessees, were the prosecution and not on the weakness of
aware that the NHA, and not Virginia (the the defense (ANNOTATION: The Effect of
lessor) owned the land on which the rented Presumption in the Prosecution of a Criminal Case,
house stood, yet they signed the same, 245 SCRA 750, July 11, 1995).
obliged themselves to comply with the terms
thereof for five years and performed their 2. That an unlawful act was done with an
obligations as lessees for two years. Now unlawful intent;

71
3. That a person intends the ordinary regularity in the performance of their duties.
consequences of his voluntary act; (People v Enriquez, G.R. No. 214503, June 22,
4. That a person takes ordinary care of his 2016)
concerns;
5. That evidence wilfully suppressed 14. That a court, or judge acting as such,
would be adverse if produced; whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was
acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
If it shows that a person has attempted to 15. That all the matters within an issue raised in
falsify, fabricate, suppress or destroy a case were laid before the court and passed
evidence, such may be justly construed as an upon by it; and in like manner that all matters
indication of his consciousness that his case within an issue raised in a dispute submitted
or defenses lacks merit or that the truth is for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators
disclosed would be detrimental to his and passed upon by them;
interest. 16. That private transactions have been fair
and regular;
6. That money paid by one to another was due
to the latter; An individual intends to do the right rather
7. That a thing delivered by one to another than the wrong and intends to do only what
belonged to the latter; he has the right to do, in the absence of the
8. That an obligation delivered up to the debtor proof to the contrary, there is a presumption
has been paid; that all men act fairly, honestly and in good
9. That prior rents or instalments had been paid faith. (HERERRA, supra at p. 73)
when a receipt for the later one is produced;
10. That a person found in possession of a thing 17. That the ordinary course of business has
taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is been followed;
the taker and the doer of the whole act; 18. That there was a sufficient consideration for
otherwise, that things which a person a contract;
possess, or exercises acts of ownership over, 19. That a negotiable instrument was given or
are owned by him; indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
11. That a person in possession of an order on 20. That an endorsement of negotiable
himself for the payment of the money, or the instrument was made before the instrument
delivery of anything, has paid the money or was overdue and at the place where the
delivered the thing accordingly; instrument is dated;
12. That a person acting in a public office was 21. That a writing is truly dated;
regularly appointed or elected to it; 22. That a letter duly directed and mailed
13. That official duty has been regularly was received in the regular course of
performed; the mail;

Reasons: When a letter or other mail matter is

a. Innocence and not wrongdoing is to be addressed and mailed with postage prepaid
presumed; there is rebuttable presumption of fact that it
b. An official oath will not be violated; and was received by the addresses as soon as it
c. A republican form of government cannot could have been transmitted to him in the
survive long unless a limit is placed upon ordinary course of the mail (FRANCISCO, supra
controversies and certain trust and at p. 76).
confidence reposed in each
governmental department or agent at 23. That after an absence of seven years, it being
least to the extent of such presumption. unknown whether or not the absentee still
lives, he is considered dead for all purposes,
This applies to both criminal and civil cases. except for those of succession which shall be
When police officers have no motive to testify an absence of ten years.
falsely against the accused, courts are
inclined to uphold the presumption of

72
 The following shall be considered dead for all has been obtained by their joint efforts, work
purposes including the division of the estate or industry.
among the heirs: 29. That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a
woman who are not capacitated to marry
a. A person on board a vessel lost during a each other and who have acquired properly
sea voyage, or an aircraft with is missing, through their actual joint contribution of
who has not been heard of for four years money, property or industry, such
since the loss of the vessel or aircraft; contributions and their corresponding shares
b. A member of the armed forces who has including joint deposits of money and
taken part in armed hostilities, and has evidences of credit are equal.
been missing for four years; 30. That if the marriage is terminated and the
c. A person who has been in danger of mother contracted another marriage within
death under other circumstances and three hundred days after such termination of
whose existence has not been known for the former marriage, these rules shall govern
four years; in the absence of proof to the contrary:
d. If a married person has been absent for
four consecutive years, the spouse WHEN CHILD WAS
PRESUMPTION
present may contract a subsequent BORN
marriage if he or she has well-founded Before 180 days after Considered to have
belief that the absent spouse is already the solemnization of been conceived
the subsequent during the former
dead.
marriage marriage, provided it
be born within 300
In case of disappearance, where there is a days after the
danger of death under the circumstances termination of the
hereinabove provided, an absence of only former marriage
two years shall be sufficient for the
purpose of contracting a subsequent After 180 days Considered to have
marriage. following the been conceived
celebration of the during the
However, in any case, before marrying subsequent marriage subsequent
marriage, even
again, the spouse present must institute a
though it be born
summary proceedings as provided in the within the 300 days
Family Code and in the rules for declaration after the termination
of presumptive death of the absentee, of the former
without prejudice to the effect of marriage
reappearance of the absent spouse.

24. That acquiescence resulted from a belief that 31. That a thing once proved to exist continues
the thing acquiesced in was conformable to as long as is usual with things of the nature;
the law or fact; 32. That the law has been obeyed;
25. That things have happened according to the 33. That a printed or published book, purporting
ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature to be printed or published by public authority,
habits of life; was so printed or published;
26. That persons acting as co-partners have 34. That a printed or published book, purporting
entered into a contract of co-partnership; contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals
27. That a man and woman deporting of the country where the book is published,
themselves as husband and wife have contains correct reports of such cases;
entered into a lawful contract of marriage; 35. That a trustee or other person whose duty it
28. That property acquired by a man and a was to convey real property to a particular
woman who are capacitated to marry each person has actually conveyed it to him when
other and who live exclusively with each such presumption is necessary to perfect the
other as husband and wife without the title of such person or his successor in
benefit of marriage or under void marriage, interest;

73
36. That except for purposes of succession, when  No rule of law is better settled than that a
two persons perish in the same calamity, party having it in his power to prove a fact,
such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it if it exists, which, if proved, would benefit
is not shown who died first, and there are no him, his failure to prove it must be taken as
particular circumstances from which it can be conclusive that the fact does not exist
inferred, the survivorship is determined from (Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Court
the probabilities resulting from the strength of Appeals, G.R. No. 122899, 333 SCRA 212, June
and the age of the sexes, according to the 8, 2000 quoting Manila Bay Club Corporation vs.
following rules: Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110015 October 13,
1995).
PRESUMED
SITUATION Where facts are in evidence affording legitimate
SURVIVOR
Both <15 y/o The older inferences to establish the ultimate fact that the
Both >60 y/o The younger evidence is designed to prove, and the party to
be affected by the proof, with an opportunity to
One <15 y/o, the other The <15 y/o one
>60 y/o do so, fails to deny or explain them, they may
Both >15 y/o and <60 The male well be taken as admitted with all the effect of
y/o, of different sexes the inferences afforded.
Both >15 y/o and <60 The older
y/o, of the same sex  The ordinary rule is that one who has
One <15 y/o or >60 The one between knowledge peculiarly within his own control,
y/o, the other between those ages and refuses to divulge it, cannot complain if
those ages the court puts the most unfavorable
construction upon his silence, and infers that
37. That if there is a doubt, as between two or a disclosure would have shown the fact to be
more persons who are called to succeed each as claimed by the opposing party
other, as to which of them died first, whoever (Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Court
alleges the death of one prior to the other, of Appeals, G.R. No. 122899, 333 SCRA 212, June
shall prove the same. 8, 2000 quoting Manila Bay Club Corporation vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110015 October 13,
In the absence of proof, they shall be 1995).
considered to have died at the same time
(Rule 131, Sec. 3, as amended). The adverse presumption of suppression of
evidence is not applicable when: (DNCE)
Evidence Suppressed Would be Adverse if
Produced, When Presumed 1. the evidence is at the Disposal of both
parties;
a. The evidence tends to prove a 2. the suppression was Not willful;
material fact which imposes a liability 3. the evidence is merely Corroborative or
on a party; cumulative; and,
b. That party has it in his power to 4. the suppression is an Exercise of a
produce evidence; privilege(Angeles vs. People, G.R. No. 172744,
c. The evidence, from its very nature, September 29, 2008).
must overthrow the case made
against the party if it is not founded Plainly, there was no suppression of evidence
on fact; and, in this case. First, the defense had the
d. The party refuses to produce such opportunity to subpoena Rowena even if the
evidence. prosecution did not present her as a witness.
Instead, the defense failed to call her to the
Note: Here, the presumption arises that the witness stand. Second, Rowena was certified
evidence, if produced, would operate to the to be suffering from "Acute Psychotic
party’s prejudice, and support the case of his Depressive Condition" and thus "cannot
adversary. stand judicial proceedings yet." The non-
presentation, therefore, of Rowena was not

74
 willful. Third, in any case, while Rowena was Under the first paragraph of Article 308 the
the victim, Nimfa was also present and in fact essential elements of theft are (1) the taking of
witnessed the violation committed on her personal property; (2) the property belongs to
sister (People vs. Padrigone, G.R. No. 137664, another; (3) the taking away was done with
May 9, 2002). intent of gain; (4) the taking away was done
without the consent of the owner; and (5) the
No presumption of legitimacy or taking away is accomplished without violence or
illegitimacy intimidation against person or force upon
things(People vs. Rodrigo, G.R. No. L-18507, March
There is no presumption of legitimacy or 31, 1966).
illegitimacy of a child born three hundred (300)
days after the dissolution of the marriage or the Furthermore, jurisprudence provides that intent
separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act which
legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove can be established through the overt acts of the
his allegation (Rule 131, Sec. 4). offender and is presumed from the proven
unlawful taking(People vs. Manlao, G.R. No. 234023,
7.F.3. Presumptions in civil actions and September 03, 2018).
proceedings; against an accused in criminal In the above scenario, intent to gain or animus
cases lucrandi is the “presumed fact”, while the
unlawful taking is the “basic fact”. Proof of
In Civil Actions and Proceedings unlawful taking beyond reasonable doubt permits
the inference that intent to gain was present
A presumption imposes on the party against upon the commission of the crime charged.
whom it is directed the burden of going forward
with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption. Note: For the presumption to arise, the
presumed fact must either:
Note: If the presumptions are inconsistent, the
presumption that is founded upon weightier a. Be an element of the offense charged; or
considerations of policy shall apply. If b. Negate a defense.
considerations of policy are equal weight, neither
presumption applies (Rule 131, Sec. 5). (n) 7.G. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

Bursting-Bubble Theory 7.G.1. EXAMINATION OF WITNESS

Once the other party produces evidence on the In general, the examination of witnesses
issue sufficient to support a finding contrary to presented in a trial or hearing shall be given orally
the presumed fact, the bubble is burst, and the in open court, and under oath or affirmation.
presumption no longer exists in the case Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or
(Wigmore, Evidence, p. 9, 1981). the questions calls for a different mode of
answer, the answers of the witness shall be given
Presumption Against an Accused in orally (Rule 132, Sec. 1).
Criminal Cases
General Rule: Examination of witness
If a presumed fact that establishes guilt, is an presented in a trial or hearing:
element of the offense charged, or negates a
defense, the existence of the basic fact must be 1. Done in open court;
proved beyond reasonable doubt and the 2. Under oath or affirmation; and
presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond 3. Answers of the witness shall be given orally.
doubt (Rule 131, Sec. 6). (n)
Exceptions:
Illustration:
1. When the witness is incapacitated to speak; or
2. When the question calls for a different mode of

75
 answer. only, shall be strictly adhered to subject to the
3. In civil cases, by depositions pursuant to and courts' discretion during trial on whether or not
under the limitations of Rules 23 and 24 to extend the direct and/or cross-examination for
(REGALADO, 2008); justifiable reasons [A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, paragraph
4. In criminal cases, by depositions or conditional 5(i)].
examinations, pursuant to Secs. 12 to 15,
Rule 119, and Sec. 1, Rule 123; or, by the Requisites for transcript to be deemed
records of the Preliminary Investigation, prima facie a correct statement of the
under the circumstance of Sec. 1(f) of Rule proceedings:
115 (REGALADO, 2008);
5. In criminal cases covered by the Rule on a. Made by the official stenographer, stenotypist
Summary Procedure, the affidavits of the or recorder; and
parties shall constitute the direct testimonies b. Certified as correct by him. (Rule 132, Sec. 2)
of the witnesses who executed the same
(RIANO, Criminal Procedure, 2016 ed., citing Sec. Note: The rules now require even the statements
15, Rules on Summary Procedure); of the judge be recorded.
6. In civil cases covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure, the parties are merely required to 7.G.1.b. Rights and Obligations of a
submit the affidavits of their witnesses and Witness
other pieces of evidence on the factual
issues, together with their position papers, Obligation of a Witness
setting forth the law and the facts relied upon
(RIANO, Civil Procedure, Vol. I, 2016 ed., citing To answer questions, although his or her answer
Sec. 9 Rules on Summary Procedure); and may tend to establish a claim against him or her.
7. Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the judicial
affidavit shall take the place of direct Rights of a Witness (PI-DDS)
testimonies of witnesses (Sec. 2, Judicial
Affidavit Rule). a. To be protected from Irrelevant,
improper, or insulting questions, and
Purpose: To enable the court to judge the from harsh or insulting demeanor;
credibility of the witness by the witness‘ manner b. Not to be Detained longer than the
of testifying, his intelligence and demeanor interests of justice require;
(Francisco).
c. Not to be examined except only as to
matters Pertinent to the issue;
Oath and Affirmation, Distinguished
d. Not to give an answer which will tend to
Subject him or her to a penalty for an
Oath Affirmation offense, unless otherwise provided by
An appeal made by a A solemn and formal law; and
person to a God to declaration or e. Not to give an answer which will tend to
witness the truth of assertion that the Degrade his or her reputation, unless it
what he declares, and witness will tell the be to the fact at issue or from which the
an imprecation of truth, etc., this being fact in issue would be presumed of his or
Divine punishment or substituted for an her previous final conviction for an
vengeance upon him oath in certain cases. offense(Rule 132, Sec. 3, as amended).
if what he says is
false. Note: The exception in number (4) above refers
to immunity statutes wherein the witness is
granted immunity from criminal prosecution for
offenses admitted in his testimony(Section 14, R.A.
7.G.1.a. The One-Day Examination of No. 6981 or the Witness Protection Act).
Witness Rule
7.G.1.c. Kinds of Immunity Statutes
A witness has to be fully examined in one (1) day

76
Transactional Immunity original statement based solely on recantation. It
should determine which statement should be
● Grants immunity to the witness from given credence through a comparison of the
prosecution for an offense to which his original and the new statements, applying the
compelled testimony relates (Galman vs. general rules of evidence (PLDT vs. Bolso, G.R
Pamaran, G.R. Nos. 71208-09, August 30, No. 159701, August 17, 2007).
19850).
● Broader in the scope of its protection in 7.G.1.e. Order in the examination of an
the sense that by its grant, a witness can individual witness
no longer be prosecuted for any offense
whatsoever arising out of the act or 1. Direct examination by the proponent.
transaction to which the testimony 2. Cross-examination by the opponent.
relates (Tanchanco vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 3. Re-direct examination by the proponent.
Nos. 141675-96, November 25, 2005). 4. Re-cross-examination by the opponent.

Use-and-Derivative- Use Immunity Direct examination is the examination-in- chief

● Prohibits the use of witness' compelled of a witness by the party presenting him or her
testimony and its fruits in any manner in on the facts relevant to the issue (Rule 132, Sec. 5,
connection with the criminal prosecution as amended).
of the witness (Galman vs. Pamaran, G.R.
Nos. 71208-09, August 30, 1985). Submission of Judicial Affidavits and
● A witness is only assured that his or her Exhibits in Lieu of Direct Testimonies
particular testimony and evidence
derived from it will not be used against In civil actions, the parties shall file with the court
him or her in a subsequent prosecution and serve on the adverse party:
(Tanchanco vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
141675-96, November 25, 2005).
1. The judicial affidavits of their witnesses,
which shall take the place of such witnesses'
A witness need not worry that the oral
direct testimonies; and
examination might subject him or her
2. The parties' documentary or object evidence,
tobadgering by adverse counsel. The trial court‘s
if any, which shall be attached to the judicial
duty is to protect every witness against
affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and
oppressive behavior of an examiner and this is
so on in the case of the complainant or the
especially true where the witness is of advanced
plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in
age (Lee vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 177861, July
the case of the respondent or the defendant
13, 2010).
(A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Judicial Affidavit Rule, Sec.
2, as amended).
7.G.1.d. Testifying in Narrative Form
Note: Every pleading stating a party's claims or
General Rule: The witness‘ testimony should be defenses shall, in addition to those mandated by
elicited by way of questions and answers, and not Rule 7, Sec. 2, state the following:
in the narrative form. The reason is that if witness
testifies in narrative form, the adverse party is a. Names of witnesses who will be presented
deprived of the opportunity to object to the to prove a party's claim or defense;
testimony beforehand (Riguera). b. Summary of the witnesses' intended
testimonies, provided that the judicial
Exception: The court may allow the child affidavits of said witnesses shall be
witness to testify in a narrative form (A.M. No. 004- attached to the pleading and form an
07-SC, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, Sec.
integral part thereof. Only witnesses
19).
whose judicial affidavits are attached to
Recantation of a Witness the pleading shall be presented by the
parties during trial. Except if a party
Courts must NOT automatically exclude the presents meritorious reasons as basis for
the admission of additional witnesses, no

77
 other witness or affidavit shall be heard or 146697, July 23, 2002).
admitted by the court; and Documentary  In formulating those questions on cross-
and object evidence in support of the examination, defense counsel obviously did
allegations contained in the pleading (Rule not take into account that he was cross-
7, Sec. 6)(n). examining a child of tender age (Michelle was
approximately nine [9] years of age at the
The Judicial Affidavit Rule shall apply to all time she gave her testimony in open court),
criminal actions: susceptible to confusion and probably easily
intimidated. The questions posed by defense
a. Where the maximum of the imposable counsel to Michelle appear to us to have been
penalty does not exceed six years; long, elaborate and circumlocutious difficult to
b. Where the accused agrees to the use of comprehend even for adults. Thus, at one
judicial affidavits, irrespective of the point, the trial court directed the defense
penalty involved; or counsel to simplify his questions. Defense
c. With respect to the civil aspect of the counsel, after that directive from the trial
actions, whatever the penalties involved court, tried once more but did not succeed in
are [A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Judicial Affidavit Rule, simplifying his questions. Promptly thereafter,
Sec. 9(a)]. defense counsel ceased cross-examination
after stating for the record that Michelle was
Cross-Examination "unable to answer the question propounded
by him" and that such counsel would "just
Upon the termination of the direct examination, leave it to the sound discretion of the
the witness may be cross-examined by the honorable court. No further questions." It is
adverse party on any relevant matter, with clear to this Court that defense counsel
sufficient fullness and freedom to test his or her exercised no substantial effort to present
accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from intelligible questions to complaining witness
interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all Michelle Dolorical designed to elicit
important facts bearing upon the issue (Rule 132, straightforward answers. We consider that
Sec. 6, as amended). Michelle in all probability, simply failed to
grasp some of the questions put to her on
Purpose: cross-examinations. The defense had made it
very difficult if not practically impossible for
1. To discredit the witness; her to answer those questions intelligently and
2. To discredit the testimony of the witness; truthfully (People of the Philippines vs. Guamos,
3. To elicit admissions from a witness; and G.R. No. 109662, February 21, 1995).
4. To clarify certain matters.
Scope or Limits of Cross-Examination
 The cross-examination of a witness is a
prerogative of the party against whom the The rule on cross-examination has shifted from
witness is called. The purpose of cross- the American Rule to English Rule.
examination is to test the truth or accuracy of
the statements of a witness made on direct American Rule
examination. The party against whom the
witness testifies may deem any further Commonly known as the ―Scope-of-Direct Rule.”
examination unnecessary and instead rely on The cross-examination of the witness shall be
any other evidence theretofore adduced or limited to the matters taken up in the direct
thereafter to be adduced or on what would be examination or anything connected therewith.
believed is the perception of the court
thereon. Certainly, the trial court is not bound English Rule
to give full weight to the testimony of a
witness on direct examination merely because Commonly known as the ―Wide-Open Rule. The
he is not cross- examined by the other party witness may be fully cross-examined upon all
(People of the Philippines vs. Fabre, G.R. No. matters material to the issue, the examination not

78
being confined to the matters inquired about in After the cross-examination of the witness has
the direct examination. been concluded, he or she may be re-examined
by the party calling him or her, to explain or
Witness may be cross-examined by the supplement his or her answers given during the
adverse party cross-examination. On re-direct examination,
questions on matters not dealt with during the
1. As to any relevant matter; cross-examination, may be allowed by the court
2. With sufficient fullness and freedom, to test his in its discretion (Rule 132, Sec. 7, as amended).
accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from
interest or bias, or the reverse; and Purpose: To explain or supplement the answers
3. To elicit all important facts bearing upon the given during the cross-examination.
issue.
Note: Court may allow questions on matters not
Doctrine of Incomplete Testimony dealt with during the cross-examination.

When cross-examination cannot be done or Re-cross-examination

completed due to causes attributable to the party
who offered the witness, the incomplete Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination,
testimony is rendered incompetent and should be the adverse party may re-cross- examine the
stricken from the record (People of the Philippines witness on matters stated in his or her re-direct
vs. Seneris, G.R. No. L-48883, August 6, 1980). examination, and also on such other matters as
may be allowed by the court in its discretion (Rule
Effect of death or absence of a witness after 132, Sec. 8, as amended).
the direct examination by the proponent
Note: Court may allow questions on matters not
1. If the witness was not cross-examined dealt with during the re-direct examination.
because of causes attributable to the cross-
examining party and the witness had always Recalling Witness When made: After the
made himself available for cross- examination of a witness by both sides has been
examination, the direct testimony of the concluded.
witness shall remain on record and cannot be
stricken off because the cross-examiner is The witness cannot be recalled without leave of
deemed to have waived his right to cross- the court. The court will grant or withhold leave
examine (Dela Paz vs. IAC, G.R No. 71537, in its discretion, as the interests of justice may
September 17, 1987). require (Rule 132, Sec. 9).
2. If the witness was partially cross-examined
but died before the completion of his cross- The discretion to recall a witness is not properly
examination, his testimony on direct may be invoked or exercisable by an applicant‘s mere
stricken out but only with respect to the general statement that there is a need to recall a
testimony not covered by the cross- witness ―in the interest of justice,‖ or ―in order
examination (People vs. Seneris, G.R No. L- to afford a party full opportunity to present his
48883, August 6, 1980). case,‖ or that, as here, ―there seems to be many
3. The absence of a witness is NOT sufficient to points and questions that should have been
warrant the striking out of his testimony for asked‖ in the earlier interrogation. Something
failure to appear for further cross- more than the bare assertion of the need to
examination where the witness has already propound additional questions is essential before
been sufficiently cross-examined, and the the Court‘s discretion may rightfully be exercised
matter on which cross-examination is sought to grant or deny recall. There must be a
is not in controversy (People vs. Seneris, G.R satisfactory showing of some concrete,
No. L-48883, August 6, 1980). substantial ground for the recall. Absent such
particulars there would be no foundation for a
Re-Direct Examination trial court to authorize the recall of any witness
(People vs. Rivera, G.R. No. 98376, August 16, 1991).

79
7.G.1.f. Exclusion and Separation of A child of tender years may be asked leading
Witnesses questions under Section 10(c), Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court. Section 20 of the 2000 Rule on
General Rule: The court, motu proprio or upon Examination of a Child Witness also provides that
motion, shall order the witnesses excluded so the court may allow leading questions in all
that they cannot hear the testimony of other stages of examination of a child if the same will
witnesses. further the interests of justice. This rule was
formulated to allow children to give reliable and
Exceptions: (ERNA) complete evidence, minimize trauma to children,
encourage them to testify in legal proceedings
a. A party who is a Natural person; and facilitate the ascertainment of truth (People v.
b. A duly designated Representative of a Ilogon, G.R. No. 206294, June 29, 2016).
juridical entity which is a party to the case;
c. A person whose presence is Essential to Note: A witness may be considered as unwilling
the presentation of the party‘s cause; or or hostile only if so declared by the court upon
d. A person Authorized by statute to be adequate showing of his or her: (MAU)
present.
a. Adverse interest;
Note: The court may also cause witnesses to be b. Unjustified reluctance to testify; or
kept separate and to be prevented from c. Having Misled the party into calling him
conversing with one another, directly or through or her to the witness stand (Rule 132, Sec.
intermediaries, until all shall have been examined 13, as amended).
(Rule 132, Sec. 15, as amended).
Misleading question – one which assumes as
7.G.1.g. Leading and Misleading Questions true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
contrary to that which he has previously stated
Leading question – a question which suggests (Rule 132, Sec. 10, as amended).
to the witness the answer which the examining
party desires. Note: Misleading questions are never allowed;
there are no exceptions (Ibid.).
General Rule: Leading questions are NOT
allowed. 7.G.1.h. Impeachment of Witness

Exceptions: (PCAChU-D-ChIFD) Impeachment of a witness means to destroy or

put in doubt the credibility of the witness or his
1. On Cross-examination; testimony. It is not limited to showing that the
2. On Preliminary matters; witness is lying but also to show that witness may
3. There is Difficulty in getting direct and be mistaken in his observation or narration
intelligible answers from a witness who is: (Riguera).
a. Ignorant;
b. A Child of tender years; Impeachment is an attack against the credibility
c. Feeble mind; or of a witness (Sheppard v. State, 145 S.E. 654; Words
d. A Deaf-mute; & Phrases, 1940 ed., Vol. 20, pp. 195, 196). It
4. On an Unwilling or hostile witness; constitutes then a grave challenge to a witness‘
5. Witness is an Adverse party or an officer,
veracity (People vs. Kali, G.R. No. L-1175, December
22, 1948).
director, or managing agent of a public or
private corporation or of a partnership or
Adverse Party's Witness
association which is an adverse party (Rule
132, Sec. 10, as amended).
6. In all stages of examination of a Child IF the
Means of Impeaching Adverse Party‘s Witness:
same will further the interests of justice (Sec. (GP-CoCo)
20, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, A.M
No. 004-07 SC). a. Contradictory evidence;
b. By evidence that his General reputation for

80
 truth, honesty, or integrity is bad; Exceptions:
c. By Prior inconsistent statements; or
d. Conviction. a. Where contradictions are natural
concomitants to human limitations;
Note: A witness may not be impeached by b. Where contradiction is overcome by the
evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that probable nature of the witness‘ story;
it may be shown by the examination of the c. Contradiction of aged and ignorant
witness, or the record of the judgment, that he witnesses;
or she has been convicted of an offense (Rule 132, d. Contradiction in details by confusion,
Sec. 11, as amended). excitement, and fright;
e. Where discrepancies refer to minor details;
Contradictory Evidence and
f. Where contradictions are satisfactorily
Evidence that the witness‘ testimony is wrong or explained (ANNOTATION: Impeachment of
untrue. The purpose is not just to show an Witness, 53 SCRA 309, October 23, 1973).
inconsistency but to prove outright that the
witness is mistaken or lying. Predicate need not
be laid (Riguera). The Witness is Impeached by Evidence of
Inconsistent Statements by:
Prior Inconsistent Statements
1. The statements must be related to the witness,
Evidence that the witness has made at other with the circumstances of the times and
times statements inconsistent with his present places and the persons present.
testimony. The predicate must first be laid 2. the witness must be asked whether he made
(Riguera). The witness needs to be cross- such statements, and if so, he must be
examined upon the point of prior contradictory allowed to explain them.
statements. Unless a ground is thus laid upon 3. If the statements are in writing, they must be
cross- examination, evidence of contradictory shown to the witness before any question is
statements are not admissible to impeach a put to him concerning them (Rule 132, Sec.
witness (People vs. Badilla,G.R. No. L-23792, 14).
February 17, 1926).
The witness must be given a chance to recollect
 Laying the predicate means that it is the duty and to explain the apparent inconsistency
of a party trying to impugn the testimony of between his two statements and state the
a witness by means of prior or subsequent circumstances under which they were made. This
inconsistent statements, whether oral or in Court held in People vs. Escosura that the
writing, to give the witness a chance to statements of a witness prior to her present
reconcile his conflicting declaration (People of testimony cannot serve as basis for impeaching
the Philippines vs. Relucio,G.R. Nos. 132484-85,
her credibility unless her attention was directed
November 15, 2002).
to the inconsistencies or discrepancies and she
 A witness cannot be impeached by evidence
was given an opportunity to explain said
of contradictory or prior inconsistent
inconsistencies (People of the Philippines vs.
statements until the proper foundation or
Castellano, G.R. No. 139412, 400 SCRA 401, April 2,
predicate has been laid by the party against 2003).
whom said witness was called (People of the
Philippines vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 117217,
December 2, 1996).
Witness ADMITS the Making of
Contradictory Statements:
Prior Inconsistent Statements
● The accused has the benefit of the
General Rule: A witness may be impeached by admission, while the witness has the
evidence contrary to his testimony or by involving opportunity to explain the discrepancy, if
him in material or serious contradiction. he can (People vs Castillano G.R No. 139412,
April 2, 2003).

81
Witness DENIES the Making of b. A crime involving moral turpitude,
Contradictory Statements regardless of penalty.

● The accused has the right to prove that Exceptions: If the conviction has been the
the witness made such statement. subject of an amnesty or annulment of the
● If the fiscal should refuse, upon due conviction (Rule 132, Sec. 12).(n)
notice, to produce the document,
secondary evidence of the contents Impeaching a Party’s Own Witness
thereof would be admissible (People vs
Castillano, G.R No. 139412, April 2, 2003). General Rule: The party producing a witness is
NOT allowed to impeach his credibility.
Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus
Exceptions: When the witness is: (UHA)
The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus deals
only with the weight of evidence and is not a a. An Unwilling witness;
positive rule of law; the rule is not an inflexible b. A Hostile witness; or
one of universal application. Modern trend in c. An Adverse party or an officer, director, or
jurisprudence favors more flexibility when the managing agent of a public or private
testimony of a witness may be partly believed and corporation or of a partnership or
partly disbelieved depending on the corroborative association which is an adverse party (Rule
evidence presented at the trial. Thus, where the 132, Sec. 13).
challenged testimony is sufficiently corroborated
in its material points, or where the mistakes arise Note: A witness may be considered as unwilling
from innocent lapses and not from an apparent or hostile only if so declared by the court upon
desire to pervert the truth, the rule may be adequate showing of his or her: (MAU)
relaxed. It is a rule that is neither absolute nor
mandatory and binding upon the court, which a. Adverse interest;
may accept or reject portions of the witness b. Unjustified reluctance to testify; or
testimony based on its inherent credibility or on c. Having Misled the party into calling him
the corroborative evidence in the case (People vs. or her to the witness stand.
Lucena, G.R. No. 137281, April 3, 2001).
An unwilling or hostile witness may also be
Other Modes of Impeaching a Witness: impeached and cross-examined by the adverse
party, but such cross-examination must only be
a. By involving him during cross-examination on the subject matter of his or her examination-
in contradiction; in-chief (Rule 132, Sec. 13, as amended).
b. By showing the impossibility or
improbability of his testimony; 7.G.1.i. Referral of Witness to
c. By proving action or conduct of the witness Memorandum Present Recollection
inconsistent with his testimony; or Revived
d. By showing bias, interest or hostile feeling
against the adverse party (Herrera, 1999). A witness may be allowed to refresh his or her
memory respecting a fact, by anything written or
Impeaching a Witness By Evidence of recorded by himself or herself or under his or her
Conviction of Crime. direction at the time when the fact occurred, or
immediately thereafter, or at any other time
General Rule: when the fact was fresh in his or her memory and
he or she knew that the same was correctly
The witness may be impeached if he or she has written or recorded.
been convicted by final judgment of:
Note: The writing or record must be produced
a. A crime punishable by a penalty in excess and may be inspected by the adverse party, who
of one year; or may, if he or she chooses, cross-examine the

82
witness upon it, and may read it in evidence (Rule 7.G.1.j. Examination of a Child Witness (A.M.
132, Sec. 16, as amended). NO. 004-07-SC, November 21, 2000)

Past Recollection Recorded Applicability of the Rule

A witness may testify from such a writing or General Rule: This Rule shall apply in all
record, though he or she retain no recollection of criminal proceedings and non-criminal
the particular facts, if he or she is able to swear proceedings involving child witnesses.
that the writing or record correctly stated the
transaction when made. This Rule shall govern the examination of
child witnesses who are: (VAW)
Note: Such evidence must be received with
caution (Rule 132, Sec. 16, as amended). a. Victims of crime;
b. Accused of a crime; and
Requisites: c. Witnesses to crime.

1. The written record or memorandum must Exception: Where the Rule provides otherwise
have been written by the witness himself or (Sec. 1).
by someone under his direction;
2. It must have been written at the time the fact Construction of the Rule
or event occurred or immediately thereafter
or at any time when the facts were still fresh This Rule shall be liberally construed to uphold
in his mind; the best interests of the child and to promote
3. The record or memorandum must be maximum accommodation of child witnesses
produced and may be inspected by the without prejudice to the constitutional rights of
adverse party who may cross-examine the the accused (Sec. 3).
witness on it, and may read it in evidence.
Meaning of “Child Witness"
Present Recollection Revived
General Rule: A “child witness” is any person
a. the memory of the witness is obscure but who at the time of giving testimony is below the
there is still memory. The witness is age of eighteen (18) years, and
presented the memorandum or record
with the expectation that it will jog his Exception: In child abuse cases, a child includes
memory so that the he can testify from one over eighteen (18) years but is found by the
his now refreshed memory. court as unable to fully take care of himself or
b. It is the testimony of the witness, not the protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
memory aid, that serves as the evidence. exploitation, or discrimination because of a
c. The witness simply testifies that he physical or mental disability or condition [Sec.
knows that the memorandum is correctly 4(a)].
written by him or under his direction; no
need to swear. Guardian ad Litem

Past Recollection Recorded A person appointed by the court where the case
is pending for a child who is a victim of, accused
a. The witness fails to have her memory of, or a witness to a crime to protect the best
refreshed after being presented with the interests of the said child [Sec. 4(e)].
writing.
b. It is the writing itself, not the oral Relative Disqualification of Guardian ad
testimony, that becomes the evidence. Litem
c. Witness must swear that the writing
correctly states the transaction. The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any
proceeding concerning any information,

83
statement, or opinion received from the child in 5. Developmentally appropriate
the course of serving as a guardian ad litem, questions. - The questions asked at the
unless the court finds it necessary to promote the competency examination shall be appropriate
best interests of the child [Sec. 5(e)]. to the age and developmental level of the
child; shall not be related to the issues at
Competency of a Child Witness trial; and shall focus on the ability of the child
to remember, communicate, distinguish
General Rule: Every child is presumed qualified between truth and falsehood, and appreciate
to be a witness. the duty to testify truthfully.
6. Continuing duty to assess competence.
Exception: When substantial doubt exists - The court has the duty of continuously
regarding the ability of the child to: (PCARD) assessing the competence of the child
throughout his testimony (Sec. 6).
a. Perceive;
b. Remember; Examination of a Child Witness
c. Communicate;
d. Distinguish truth from falsehood; or General Rule: The examination of a child
e. Appreciate the duty to tell the truth in witness presented in a hearing or any proceeding
court. shall be done in open court. The answers shall be
given orally.
Note: The court shall conduct a competency
examination of a child, motu proprio or on motion Exceptions:
of a party when it finds that such substantial
doubt exists. a. When witness is incapacitated to speak;
or
1. Proof of necessity. - A party seeking a b. When the question calls for a different
competency examination must present proof mode of answer.
of necessity of competency examination. The
age of the child by itself is not a sufficient Note: The party who presents a child witness or
basis for a competency examination. the guardian ad litem of such child witness may,
2. Burden of proof. - To rebut the however, move the court to allow him to testify
presumption of competence enjoyed by a in the manner provided in this Rule (Sec. 8).
child, the burden of proof lies on the party
challenging his competence. Mode of Questioning
3. Persons allowed at competency
examination. Only the following are The court shall exercise control over the
allowed to attend a competency examination: questioning of children so as to:
a. The judge and the necessary court
personnel; a. Facilitate the ascertainment of the truth;
b. The counsel for the parties; b. Ensure that questions are stated in a
c. The guardian ad litem; form appropriate to the developmental
d. One or more support persons for the level of the child;
child; and c. Protect children from harassment or
e. The defendant, unless the court undue embarrassment; and
determines that competence can be fully d. Avoid waste of time (Sec. 19).
evaluated in his absence.
Testifying in Narrative Form
4. Conduct of examination. - Examination of
a child as to his competence shall be The court may allow the child witness to testify in
conducted only by the judge. Counsel for the a narrative form (Sec. 19).
parties, however, can submit questions to the
judge that he may, in his discretion, ask the Leading Questions, When Allowed
child.

84
The court may allow leading questions in all emotional trauma, he himself may apply for the
stages of examination of a child if the same will order [Sec. 25(a)].
further the interests of justice (Sec. 20).
Period of Application
Under Section 20 of A.M. No. 004-07-SC or the
Rule on the Examination of a Child Witness, , the General Rule: The person seeking such an order
court may allow leading questions in all stages of shall apply at least five (5) days before the trial
examination of a child if the same will further the date.
interests of justice. This rule was formulated to
allow children to give reliable and complete Exception: When the court finds on the record
evidence, minimize trauma to children, that the need for such an order was not
encourage them to testify in legal proceedings reasonably foreseeable [Sec. 25(a)].
and facilitate the ascertainment of truth (People
vs. Golidan, G.R. No. 205307, January 11, 2018). Determination by the Judge

Child witnesses may testify in narrative form and The court may motu proprio hear and determine,
leading questions may be allowed by the trial with notice to the parties, the need for taking the
court in all stages of the examination if the same testimony of the child through live-link television
will further the interest of justice (People vs. [Sec. 25(b)].
Santos, G.R. No. 172322, September 8, 2006).
The judge may question the child in chambers, or
Corroboration in some comfortable place other than the
courtroom, in the presence of the support person,
Corroboration shall not be required of a testimony guardian ad litem, prosecutor, and counsel for
of a child. His testimony, if credible by itself, shall the parties. The questions of the judge shall not
be sufficient to support a finding of fact, be related to the issues at trial but to the feelings
conclusion, or judgment subject to the standard of the child about testifying in the courtroom [Sec.
of proof required in criminal and non- criminal 25(c)].
cases.
The court may order that the testimony of the
Live-Link Television Testimony of a Child child be taken by live-link television if there is a
Witness substantial likelihood that the child would suffer
trauma from testifying in the presence of the
When Applicable accused, his counsel or the prosecutor as the
case may be. The trauma must be of a kind which
In a criminal case where a child is a witness or a would impair the completeness or truthfulness of
victim, the prosecutor, counsel or the guardian ad the testimony of the child [Sec. 25(f)].
litem may apply for an order that the testimony
of the child be taken in a room outside the Exclusion of Any Person
courtroom and be televised to the courtroom by
live-link television. The judge may exclude any person, including the
accused, whose presence or conduct causes fear
Application by Guardian ad Litem to the child [Sec. 25(d)].

General Rule: Before the guardian ad litem Videotaped Deposition of a Child Witness
applies for an order under this section, he shall
consult the prosecutor or counsel and shall defer Who may apply
to the judgment of the prosecutor or counsel
regarding the necessity of applying for an order. The prosecutor, counsel, or guardian ad litem
may apply for an order that a deposition be taken
Exception: In case the guardian ad litem is of the testimony of the child and that it be
convinced that the decision of the prosecutor or recorded and preserved on videotape [Sec. 27(a)].
counsel not to apply will cause the child serious

85
Before the guardian ad litem applies for an order The court may admit into evidence the
under this section, he shall consult with the videotaped deposition of the child in lieu of his
prosecutor or counsel subject to the second and testimony at the trial if at the time of trial, the
third paragraphs of section 25(a) . court finds that the child is:

When applicable a. Unable to testify for a reason stated in

Section 25(f) of this Rule; or
If the court finds that the child will not be able to b. Unavailable for any reason described in
testify in open court at trial, it shall issue an order Section 4(c), Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules
that the deposition of the child be taken and of Civil Procedure [Sec. 27(i)].
preserved by videotape [Sec. 27(b)].
Note: The court shall issue an order stating the
Conduct of Deposition reasons therefor.

The judge shall preside at the videotaped Hearsay Exception in Child Abuse Cases
deposition of a child. Objections to deposition
testimony or evidence, or parts thereof, and the A statement made by a child describing any act
grounds for the objection shall be stated and shall or attempted act of child abuse, not otherwise
be ruled upon at the time of the taking of the admissible under the hearsay rule, may be
deposition [Sec. 27(c)]. admitted in evidence in any criminal or non-
criminal proceeding (Sec. 28).
Persons Who May be Permitted to be
Present Rules in Admitting Hearsay Statement

1. The prosecutor; Before such hearsay statement may be admitted,

2. The defense counsel; its proponent shall make known to the adverse
3. The guardian ad litem; party the intention to offer such statement and
4. The accused, subject to sub-section (e); its particulars to provide him a fair opportunity to
5. Other persons whose presence is determined object. If the child is available, the court shall,
by the court to be necessary to the welfare upon motion of the adverse party, require the
and well-being of the child; child to be present at the presentation of the
6. One or both of his support persons, the hearsay statement for cross-examination by the
facilitator and interpreter, if any; adverse party. When the child is unavailable, the
7. The court stenographer; and fact of such circumstance must be proved by the
8. Persons necessary to operate the videotape proponent [Sec. 28(a)].
equipment [Sec. 27(c)].
Ruling on the Admissibility
Exclusion of the Accused
In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay
If the order of the court is based on evidence that statement, the court shall consider the time,
the child is unable to testify in the physical content and circumstances thereof which provide
presence of the accused, the court may direct the sufficient indicia of reliability. It shall consider the
latter to be excluded from the room in which the following factors:
deposition is conducted. In case of exclusion of
the accused, the court shall order that the 1. Whether there is a motive to lie;
testimony of the child be taken by live-link 2. The general character of the declarant child;
television in accordance with Section 25 of this 3. Whether more than one person heard the
Rule. If the accused is excluded from the statement;
deposition, it is not necessary that the child be 4. Whether the statement was spontaneous;
able to view an image of the accused [Sec. 27(e)]. 5. The timing of the statement and the
relationship between the declarant child and
Videotape Deposition in Lieu of Testimony witness;
at the Trial 6. Cross-examination could not show the lack of

86
 knowledge of the declarant child; is offered, unless the court, for good cause,
7. The possibility of faulty recollection of the requires a different time for filing or permits
declarant child is remote; and filing during trial; and
8. The circumstances surrounding the 2. Serve the motion on all parties and the
statement are such that there is no reason to guardian ad litem at least three (3) days
suppose the declarant child misrepresented before the hearing of the motion.
the involvement of the accused [Sec. 28(b)].
Before admitting such evidence, the court must
Unavailable Child Witness conduct a hearing in chambers and afford the
child, his guardian ad litem, the parties, and their
The child witness shall be considered unavailable counsel a right to attend and be heard. The
if the child: (SEx-DAb) motion and the record of the hearing must be
sealed and remain under seal and protected by a
a. Is Deceased; protective order set forth in section 31(b). The
b. Suffers from physical infirmity, lack of child shall not be required to testify at the hearing
memory, mental illness; in chambers except with his consent (Sec. 30).
c. Will be Exposed to severe psychological
injury; or Confidentiality of Records
d. Is Absent from the hearing and the
proponent of his statement has been General Rule:
unable to procure his attendance by
process or other reasonable means [Sec. Any record regarding a child shall be confidential
28(c)]. and kept under seal. record shall only be released
to the following: (PD-GAMOt)
When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay
testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated 1. Members of the court staff for administrative
by other admissible evidence [Sec. 28(d)]. use;
2. The Prosecuting attorney;
Sexual Abuse Shield Rule 3. Defense counsel;
4. The Guardian ad litem;
General Rule: The following evidence is not 5. Agents of investigating law enforcement
admissible in any criminal proceeding involving agencies; and
alleged child sexual abuse: 6. Other persons as determined by the court.

1. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged Exception: Upon written request and order of
victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and the court [Sec. 31(a)].
2. Evidence offered to prove the sexual
predisposition of the alleged victim [Sec. Note: Whoever publishes or causes to be
30(a)]. published in any format the name, address,
telephone number , school, or other identifying
Exception: Evidence of specific instances of information of a child who is or is alleged to be a
sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove victim or accused of a crime or a witness thereof,
that a person other than the accused was the or an immediate family of the child shall be liable
source of semen, injury, or other physical to the contempt power of the court [Sec. 31(d)].
evidence shall be admissible [Sec. 30(b)].
7.G.2. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
Procedure DOCUMENTS

A party intending to offer such evidence must: 7.G.2.a. Authentication

1. File a written motion at least fifteen (15) days ● It the process of proving the due
before trial, specifically describing the execution and genuineness of the
evidence and stating the purpose for which it document.

87
 ● It refers to a rule of evidence which private documents required by law to be
requires that evidence must be sufficient entered therein.
to support a finding that the matter in
question is what its proponent claims. All other writings are private (Rule 132, Sec. 19, as
amended). A private document is a document
Private documents, as a rule, must be other than a public document (Riguera).
authenticated before they may be received in
evidence (Rule 132, Sec. 20). Public documents,  The act of notarization by a notary public
however, may be received in evidence without converts a private document into a public
the need for authentication (Riguera). Public document, making it admissible in evidence
documents enjoy the presumption of regularity without further proof of its authenticity. By
and is a prima facie evidence of the facts stated law, a notarial document is entitled to full
therein – which may only be overcome by faith and credit upon its face. It enjoys the
evidence that is clear, convincing and more than presumption of regularity and is a prima facie
merely preponderant (Heirs of Spouses Angel evidence of the facts stated therein – which
Liwagon and Francisca Dumalagan vs. Heirs of Spouses may only be overcome by evidence that is
Liwagon, G.R. No. 193117, November 26, 2014). clear, convincing and more than merely
preponderant. Without such evidence, the
When Authentication NOT Required:
presumption must be upheld (Heirs of Spouses
Angel Liwagon and Francisca Dumalagan vs. Heirs
a. The writing is an ancient document; of Spouses Liwagon, G.R. No. 193117, November
b. The writing is a public document or 26, 2014).
record;
c. The writing is a notarial document, When Private Writing Requires
except last wills and testaments; Authentication
d. The authenticity and due execution of
the document has been expressly Before any private document offered as authentic
admitted or impliedly admitted by failure is received in evidence, its due execution and
to deny the same under oath; or authenticity must be proved by any of the
e. When such genuineness and due following means: (AGO)
execution are immaterial to the issue
(RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Lecture Series), a. By Anyone who saw the document
2016 Ed., p. 169-170). executed or written
b. By evidence of the Genuineness of the
Classes of Documents signature or handwriting of the maker; or
c. By Other evidence showing its due
For purposes of their presentation in evidence, execution and authenticity. (n)
documents are either public or private.
Any other private document need only be
Public documents are: identified as that which it is claimed to be (Rule
132, Sec. 20, as amended).
a. The written official acts, or records of the
sovereign authority, official bodies and When Evidence of Authenticity of a Private
tribunals, and public officers, whether of Writing is NOT Required
the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
b. Documents acknowledged before a 1. Where a private document is more than thirty
notary public, except last wills and (30) years old, is produced from a custody in
testaments; which it would naturally be found if genuine,
c. Documents that are considered public and is unblemished by any alterations or
documents under treaties and circumstances of suspicion, no other
conventions which are in force between evidence of its authenticity need be given
the Philippines and the country of source; (Rule 132, Sec. 21).
and
d. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of Note: This provision is commonly referred to as

88
the “Ancient Document Rule.” testimonies of handwriting experts, because
the judge must conduct an independent
Requisites: examination of the questioned signature in
order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as
a. The private document is more than thirty to its authenticity (Multi-International Business
(30) years old; Data System, Inc. vs. Martinez, G.R. No. 175378,
b. It is produced from a custody in which it November 11, 2015).
would naturally be found if genuine; and
c. It is unblemished by any alterations or 7.6.2.c. Proof of Official Record
circumstances of suspicion.
2. The authenticity and due execution of the Public Documents as Evidence; Proof of
document has been expressly admitted or Official Record
impliedly admitted by failure to deny the
same under oath; or Documents consisting of entries in public records
3. When such genuineness and due execution made in the performance of a duty by a public
are immaterial to the issue. officer are prima facieevidence of the facts
therein stated. All other public documents are
7.G.2.b. Genuineness of Handwriting evidence, even against a third person, of the fact
which gave rise to their execution and of the date
The handwriting of a person may be proved by: of the latter(Rule 130, Sec. 23).

1. The person whose signature is disputed; Public documents referred to in Sec. 19(a),
Rule 132
Note: Section 22 of Rule 132 accommodates
the testimony of the very person whose 1. Domestic records:
signature is disputed as a means to establish a. By an official publication thereof; or
the genuineness of handwriting. After all, the b. By a copy attested by the officer having
owner of such disputed signature may fall the legal custody of the record, or by his
within the category of ―any witness who or her deputy (Rule 132, Sec. 24, paragraph
believes it to be the handwriting of such 1).
person because he has seen the person write' 2. Foreign recordskept in a foreign country
and has thus acquired knowledge of the which is a contracting party to a treaty or
handwriting of such person (Dela Rama vs. convention to which the Philippines is also a
Papa, G.R. No. 142309, January 30, 2009). party:
a. By an official publication thereof; or
2. Any witness has seen the person write; or b. By a copy attested by the officer having
3. A comparison, made by the witness or the the legal custody of the record, or by his
court, with writings admitted or treated as or her deputy, and accompaniedwith a
genuine by the party against whom the certificate that such officer has the
evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine custody (Rule 132, Sec. 24, paragraph 1).
to the satisfaction of the judge (Rule 132, Sec.
22). Note: The certificate or its equivalent shall
be in the form prescribed by such treaty or
Note: The opinions of handwriting experts, convention subject to reciprocity granted to
even those from the NBI and the PC, are not public documents originating from the
binding upon courts. Handwriting experts are Philippines(Rule 132, Sec. 24, paragraph 2);(n)
usually helpful in the examination of forged
documents because of the technical 3. Foreign records originating from a foreign
procedure involved in analyzing them. But country which is not a contracting party to a
resort to these experts is not mandatory or treaty or convention referred to in the next
indispensable to the examination or the preceding section:
comparison of handwriting. A finding of a. By an official publication thereof; or
forgery does not depend entirely on the b. By a copy attested by the officer having

89
 the legal custody of the record, or by his For the purposes of the present Convention,
or her deputy, and accompanied with a legalization means only the formality by which the
certificate that such officer has the diplomatic or consular agents of the country in
custody (Rule 132, Sec. 24, paragraph 1). which the document has to be produced certify
the: (ACId)
Note: The certificate may be made by a
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul a. Authenticity of the signature;
general, consul, vice-consul, or consular b. Capacity in which the person signing the
agent or by any officer in the foreign service document has acted; and
of the Philippines stationed in the foreign c. Where appropriate, the Identity of the
country in which the record is kept, and seal or stamp which it bears (Apostille
authenticated by the seal of his or her office Convention, Art, 3).
(Rule 132, Sec. 24, paragraph 3).
The present Convention shall apply to public
Public documents referred to in Sec. 19(c), documents which have been executed in the
Rule 132 territory of one Contracting State and which have
to be produced in the territory of another
By a certificate or its equivalent which shall be in Contracting State(Apostille Convention, Art, 2).
the form prescribed by such treaty or convention
subject to reciprocity granted to public For the purposes of the present Convention, the
documents originating from the Philippines (Rule following are deemed to be public documents:
132, Sec. 24, paragraph 2).(n) (DANO)

A document that is accompanied by a certificate a. Documents emanating from an authority

or its equivalent may be presented in evidence or an official connected with the courts or
without further proof, the certificate or its tribunals of the State, including those
equivalent being prima facie evidence of the due emanating from a public prosecutor, a
execution and genuineness of the document clerk of a court or a process-server
involved. (“huissier de justice”);
b. Administrative documents;
The certificate shall not be required when a treaty c. Notarial acts; and
or convention between a foreign country and the d. Official certificates which are placed on
Philippines has abolished the requirement, or has documents signed by persons in their
exempted the document itself from this formality private capacity, such as official
(Rule 132, Sec. 24, paragraph 4). (n) certificates recording the registration of a
document or the fact that it was in
Hague Convention Abolishing the existence on a certain date and official
Requirement of Legalization for Foreign and notarial authentications of
Public Documents signatures.

On May 14, 2019, the Philippines‘ accession to the However, the present Convention shall not apply
Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of to:
Legalization for Foreign Public Documents (the
“Apostille Convention” took effect. The Apostille a. Documents executed by diplomatic or
Convention was created to abolish the consular agents; or
requirement for diplomatic or consular b. Administrative documents dealing
legalization of foreign public documents. directly with commercial or customs
operations (Apostille Convention, Art, 1).
Each Contracting State shall exempt from
legalization documents to which the present 7.G.2.d. Formality Required to Certify
Convention applies and which have to be Authenticity
produced in its territory.
General Rule: The only formality that may be

90
required is the addition of the certificate issued removed from the office in which it is kept.
by the competent authority of the State from
which the document emanates(Apostille Exception: Upon order of a court, where
Convention, Art, 3). inspection of the record is exercised to the just
determination of a pending case.
The certificate shall be:
 Anent the best evidence rule, Section 3(d) of
a. Placed on the document itself or on an Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that
―allonge; when the subject of inquiry is the contents of
b. In the form of the model annexed to the a document, no evidence shall be admissible
present Convention. other than the original document itself,
except when the original is a public record in
The certificate may, however, be drawn up in the the custody of a public officer or is recorded
official language of the authority which issues it. in a public office. Section 7 of the same Rule
The standard termsappearing therein may be in provides that when the original of a
a second language also. The title ―Apostille document is in the custody of a public officer
(Convention de La Haye du 5 octobre 1961) shall be or is recorded in a public office, its contents
in the French language(Apostille Convention, Art, 4). may be proved by a certified copy issued by
the public officer in custody thereof. [Rule
Exception: When either the laws,regulations, or 132, Section 24, as amended] provides that
practice in force in the State where the document the record of public documents may be
is produced or an agreement betweentwo or evidenced by a copy attested by the officer
more Contracting States have abolished or having the legal custody or the record
simplified it, or exempt the document itself from (Dimaguila vs. Monteiro, G.R. No. 201011, January
legalization (Apostille Convention, Art, 3). 27, 2014).

Attestation of a Copy 7.G.2.e. Proof of Lack of Record

Whenever a copy of a document or record is The absence of an official record is proven by a

attested for the purpose of evidence: written statement signed by an officer having the
custody of an official record or by his or her
1. The attestation must state that the copy is a deputy. The written should state that:
correct copy of the original, or a specific part
thereof, as the case may be; and a. 1.There has been a diligent search for the
2. The attestation must be under the official record; and
seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, b. 2.Despite diligent search, no record or
or if he or she be the clerk of a court having entry of a specified tenor is found to exist
a seal, under the seal of such court (Rule 132, in the records of his or her office (Rule
Sec. 25). 132, Sec. 28).

Public Record of a Public Document How a Judicial Record is Impeached Any

judicial record may be impeached by
Any public record, an official copy of which is evidence of:
admissible in evidence, must not be removed
from the office in which it is kept, except upon a. Want of jurisdiction in the court or
order of a court where the inspection of the judicial officer;
record is essential to the just determination of a b. Collusion between the parties; or
pending case (Rule 132, Sec. 26). c. Fraud in the party offering the record, in
respect to the proceedings (Rule 132, Sec.
Doctrine of Irremovability of Public Record 29).

General Rule: Any public record, an official copy 7.G.2.f. Proof of Notarial Documents
of which is admissible in evidence, must not be
Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved

91
and certified as provided by law, may be If he or she fails to do that, the document shall
presented in evidence without further proof, the not be admissible in evidence (Rule 132, Sec. 31).
certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie
evidence of the execution of the instrument or 7.G.2.h. Documentary Evidence in an
document involved (Rule 132, Sec. 30). Unofficial Language

Note: Not all types of public documents are General Rule: Documents written in an
deemed prima facie evidence of the facts therein unofficial language shall not be admitted as
stated. “Public records made in the performance evidence
of a duty by a public officer” include those
specified as public documents under Section Exception: When accompanied with a
19(a), Rule 132 of the Rules of Court and the translation into English or Filipino.
acknowledgement, affirmation or oath, or jurat
portion of public documents under Section 19(d). Note: To avoid interruption of proceedings,
Hence, under Section 23, notarized documents parties or their attorneys are directed to have
are merely proof of the fact which gave rise to such translation prepared before trial (Rule 132,
their execution, and of the date of the latter, but Sec. 33).
is not prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated. Additionally, under Section 30 of the same 7.G.3. OFFER OF EVIDENCE
Rule, the acknowledgement in notarized
documents is prima facie evidence of the General Rule: The court shall consider no
execution of the instrument or document evidence which has not been formally offered.
involved(Republic vs. Gimenez, G.R. No. 174673, The purpose for which the evidence is offered
January 11, 2016). must be specified (Rule 132, Sec. 34).

Seal refers to a device for affixing a mark, image Exceptions:

or impression on all papers officially signed by the
notary public(A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, Sec. 13). 1. Marked exhibits not formally offered may be
admitted provided it complies with the
There shall be no difference between sealed and following requisites:
unsealed private documents insofar as their a. Must be duly identified by testimony
admissibility as evidence is concerned(Rule 132, duly recorded; and
Sec. 32). b. Must have been incorporated in the
records of the case (Ramos vs Dizon,
7.G.2.g. Alterations in a Document G.R No. 137247, August 6, 2006).
2. Under the Rule on Summary Procedure,
The party producing a document as genuine where no full-blown trial is held in the interest
which has been altered and appears to have been of speedy administration of justice;
altered after its execution, in a part material to 3. In summary judgments under Rule 35 where
the question in dispute, must account for the the judge based his decisions on the
alteration. pleadings, depositions, admissions, affidavits
and documents filed with the court;
He or she may show that: (WINC) 4. Documents whose contents are taken judicial
notice of by the court;
a. The alteration was made by another 5. Documents whose contents are judicially
Without his or her concurrence; admitted;
b. It was made with the Consent of the 6. Object evidence which could not be formally
parties affected by it; offered because they have disappeared or
c. It was otherwise properly or Innocently have become lost after they have been
made; or marked, identified and testified on and
d. The alteration did Not change the described in the record and became the
meaning or language of the instrument. subject of cross-examination of the witness
who testified on them during the trial
(Tabuena vs CA, G.R No. 85423, May 6, 1991;

92
 People vs Napat-a, G.R No. 84951, November 14,  Mere fact that a document is marked as an
1989); and exhibit does not that mean it has been
7. Documents and affidavits used in deciding offered as evidence. Marking at the pre-trial
quasi-judicial or administrative cases was only for the purpose of identifying them
(Bantolino vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Inc., G.R No. at that time (Tabuena vs. CA, G.R. No. 85423,
153660, June 10, 2003). May 6, 1991).
 It is basic in law of evidence that the court
7.G.3.a. Purpose of Offer of Evidence shall consider evidence solely for the purpose
for which it was offered (Ragudo vs Fabella
a. To give the adverse party the opportunity Estate Tenants Assoc. Inc., G.R No. 146823,
to interpose the proper objection; August 9, 2005).
b. To notify the party of possible objection,
and for the offeror to make necessary 7.G.3.b. When to Make Offer
correction at the trial level to meet the
objection; How When
c. To allow the trial judge to rule properly; Testimonial Evidence
d. To lay basis for appeal so that the All evidences must be Made at the time the
appellate court can decide intelligently offered orally. witness is called to
(Regalado, 2008) testify.
Documentary and Object Evidence
General Rule: A formal offer is necessary since All evidences must be Made after the
judges are required to base their findings of fact offered orally. presentation of a
and their judgment, solely and strictly, upon the party's testimonial
evidence offered by the parties at the trial (Aludos evidence.
vs. Suerte, G.R No. 165285, June 18, 2012). (Rule 132, Sec. 35, as amended)

 Evidence not formally offered during the trial Offer of documentary or object (real) evidence is
cannot be used for or against a litigant. the submission, when a party is about to rest his
Neither may it be taken into account on an case, for admission by the court documents
appeal. Any evidence that has not been and/or objects previously identified and
offered shall be excluded and rejected. numbered as exhibits by stating their nature and
Objection to evidence must be made after the the purpose or purposes for which they are being
evidence is formally offered (Westmont submitted (ANNOTATION: Failure to Make an Offer of
Investment Corp. vs Francia, G.R. No. 194128, Evidence: A Fatal Omission, 301 SCRA 408).
December 7, 2011).
 To allow parties to attach any documents to
Note: The mere fact that a particular document
their pleadings and then expect the court to
is identified and marked as an exhibit does not
consider it as evidence, even without formal
mean it will be or has been offered as part of the
offer and admissions, may draw unwarranted
evidence of the party. The party may decide to
consequences. Opposing parties will be
formally offer it if it believes this will advance its
deprived of their chance to examine the
cause, and then again it may decide not to do so
document and to object to its admissibility.
at all. In the latter event, the trial court is, under
On the other hand, the appellate court will
Rule 132, Section [34] not authorized to consider
have difficulty reviewing the documents not
it (Ramos vs Dizon, G.R No. 137247, August 6, 2006).
previously scrutinized by the court below
(Candido vs CA, G.R No. 107493, February 1,
 Where the genuineness and due execution of
1996).
documents of an instrument attached to a
complaint are deemed admitted by failure to
Exception: Even if there was no formal offer
specifically deny it under oath, such
made, marked exhibits may be admitted when
instruments are considered as evidence
the following requisites are present: it was (1)
although they were not formally offered
duly identified by testimony; and, (2)
(Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. CA, G.R. No.
incorporated in the records of the case (Ramos vs 97626 March 14, 1997).
Dizon, G.R No. 137247, August 6, 2006).
 Offer of testimonial evidence is the

93
 submission of the testimony of a witness for otherwise it will be deemed to have been waived.
admission by making a brief recital of the The proper time is when from the question
nature of his testimony at the time he is addressed to the witness, or from the answer
called to testify (ANNOTATION: Failure to Make thereto, or from the presentation of the proof, the
an Offer of Evidence: A Fatal Omission, 301 SCRA inadmissibility of the evidence is, or may be
408). inferred (Tison vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121027,
July 31, 1997).
7.G.4. OBJECTION
Note: Failure without just cause of a party and
7.G.4.a. When Objection Must be Made counsel to appear during pre-trial, despite notice,
is waiver of any objections to the faithfulness of
a. Objection must be made as soon as the the reproductions marked, or their genuineness
witness begins to testify (Rule 132, Sec. and due execution [Rule 18, Sec. 4(h), Rules of
36, as amended). Court, as amended].(n)
b. Objection must be made as soon as the
grounds therefor become reasonably 7.G.4.c. Evidence Sought to be Introduced
apparent (Rule 132, Sec. 36, as amended).
c. When the document or object evidence is a. Testimonial evidence which was not
offered in evidence. offered at the time the witness was not
d. Objection must be made as soon as the called to testify
party presenting the judicial affidavit of b. Testimonial evidence where the question
his witness in place of direct testimony propounded in the course of the oral
shall state the purpose of such testimony examination in objectionable
at the start of the presentation of the c. Documentary and object evidence
witness. The adverse party may move to d. Judicial Affidavit Rule
disqualify the witness or to strike out his
affidavit or any of the answers found in it 7.G.4.d. Kinds of Objections
on ground of inadmissibility (A.M. No. 12-
8-8-SC, Sec. 6). 1. Specific – is one which employs a specific
ground therefor. Example: Hearsay
* The grounds for the objections must be 2. General – uses broad or sweeping grounds
specified (Rule 132, Sec. 36, as amended). such as ―irrelevant and incompetent‖. Note:
There is no provision in the Rules of Evidence
Note: The revised rule no longer sanctions offer expressly prohibiting general objections. It is
of evidence in writing. All evidence must now be submitted that they are not prohibited where
offered orally (Rule 132, Sec. 35, as amended) the evidence is orally offered. In such a case
.Consequently, the manner of objecting to the if the objection is overruled, the objector
evidence offered in writing is no longer available must follow up with specific objection.
in the Rule 132 Sec. 36, as amended. Otherwise, he cannot assign any error to the
court‘s ruling.
7.G.4.b. Waiver of Objection 3. Formal – objection is one directed against
the alleged defect in the formulation of the
It is elementary that an objection shall be made question. Examples: ambiguous questions;
at the time when an alleged inadmissible misleading; answer not responsive and to
document is offered in evidence. Otherwise, the have it stricken-off; question has no basis;
objection shall be treated as waived, since the incompetent; irrelevant.
right to object is merely a privilege which the 4. Substantive – is one made and directed
party may waive (Tison vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. against the very nature of the evidence, i.e.,
No. 121027, July 31, 1997). it is admissible either because it is irrelevant
or incompetent or both. (RIANO, Evidence (The
As explained in Abrenica vs. Gonda, et al., it has
Bar Lecture Series), 2016 Ed.) Examples: parol;
been repeatedly laid down as a rule of evidence
not the best evidence; hearsay; privileged
that a protest or objection against the admission
communication; not authenticated; opinion;
of any evidence must be made at the proper time,

94
 res inter alios acta. Objection

Repetition of an Objection General Rule: The reason for sustaining or

overruling an objection need not be stated.
Note: This rule is commonly known as the ―Rule
on Continuing Objections Exception: If the objection is based on two or
more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the on one or some of them must specify the ground
course of the examination of a witness that the or grounds relied upon (Rule 132, Sec. 38).
questions being propounded are of the same
class as those to which objection has been made, Note: The parties may ask for the ground for the
whether such objection was sustained or ruling, even if the rule does not require the judge
overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the to so state.
objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party
to record his or her continuing objection to such 7.G.4.f. Striking Out of An Answer
class of questions (Rule 132, Sec. 37).
Requisites: (BROWN-MS)
7.G.4.e. Ruling of the Court After Objection
1. In the course of the testimony:
General Rule: The ruling of the court must be a. The witness answers the question before
given immediately after the objection is made. the adverse party had the Opportunity to
voice fully its objection to the same;
Exception: When the court desires to take a b. The question propounded is not
reasonable time to inform itself on the question objectionable, but the answer is not
presented. Responsive;
c. The witness testifies Without a question
Note: The ruling shall always be made during being posed;
trial, and at such time as will give the party d. The witness testifies Beyond limits set by
against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the court; or
the situation presented by the ruling (Rule 132, e. The witness does a Narration instead of
Sec. 38). answering the question
2. Objection is found to be Meritorious; and
Overruled Objections vs. Sustained 3. Court Sustains objection and orders such
Objections answer, testimony or narration to be stricken
off the record (Rule 132, Sec. 39, as amended).
When the court “overrules” an objection
Note: On proper motion, the court may also
● It refuses to recognize as sufficient an order the striking out of answers which are
objection made in the course of a trial, as incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper
to the introduction of particular evidence (Rule 132, Sec. 39, as amended).
(Black‘s Law Dictionary, 2nd ed.). It is the
refusal by a judge to sustain an objection Further, upon motion to strike may be availed
set forth by an attorney during a trial, when the witness becomes unavailable for cross-
such as an objection to a particular examination through no fault of the cross-
question posed to a witness (West's examining party, or when the testimony was
Encyclopedia of American Law, 2nd ed.). allowed conditionally and the condition for its
admissibility was not fulfilled (RIANO, Evidence
When the court “sustains” an objection (The Bar Lecture Series), 2016 Ed.

● It agrees with the objection and disallows Matters stricken off are still part of the records. It
the question, testimony, or evidence. only means that they would NOT be considered
for resolution.
Specifying the Reason for Sustaining an

95
7.G.4.g. Tender of Excluded Evidence evidence that which was not offered by one
party at all during the proceedings below
Also commonly known as “Proffer of Evidence” or would infringe the constitutional right of the
“Offer of Proof.” adverse party (Fortune Tobacco Corp. vs CIR;
G.R. No. 192024, July 01, 2015).
The rule is that evidence formally offered by a
party may be admitted or excluded by the court. 7.H. JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE (A.M. No. 12-
If a party's offered documentary or object 8-8-SC)
evidence is excluded, he may move or request
that it be attached to form part of the records of Purpose
the case. If the excluded evidence is oral, he may
state for the record the name and other personal The rule was promulgated by the Supreme Court
circumstances of the witness and the substance with the intention to address case congestion and
of the proposed testimony. These procedures are delays, the high percentage of criminal cases
known as offer of proof or tender of excluded dismissed annually due to complainants’ failure to
evidence and are made for purposes of appeal. If prosecute,and enhance foreign investment.
an adverse judgment is eventually rendered
against the offeror, he may in his appeal assign Scope and Application
as error the rejection of the excluded evidence
(Fortune Tobacco Corporation vs. CIR, G.R. No. This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings,
192024, July 1, 2015). and incidents requiring the reception of evidence
before:
Purposes:
1. The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal
1. To allow the court to know the nature of the Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial
testimony or the documentary evidence and Courts, the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and
convince the trial judge to permit the the Shari' a Circuit Courts;
evidence or testimony; and 2. The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari'a
2. To create and preserve a record for appeal. District Courts;
(RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Lecture Series), 2016 3. The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals,
Ed. the Court of Appeals, and the Shari'a Appellate
Courts;
How Done: 4. The investigating officers and bodies
authorized by the Supreme Court to receive
1. Object or Documentary Evidence – have the evidence, including the Integrated Bar of the
same attached or made part of the record. Philippine (IBP); and
2. Testimonial – state for the record: a. The name 5. The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies
and other personal circumstances of the whose rules of procedure are subject to
witness; andb. The substance of the disapproval of the Supreme Court [Sec. 1(a)].
proposed testimony.
Submission In Lieu of Direct Testimony
Note: If an adverse judgment is eventually
rendered against the offeror, he may, in his In civil actions, the parties shall file with the court
appeal, assign as an error the rejection of the and serve on the adverse party:
excluded evidence (Rule 132, Sec. 40).
1. The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which
 Where the documentary evidence was shall take the place of such witnesses' direct
rejected by the lower court and the offeror testimonies; and
did not move that the same be attached to 2. The parties' documentary or object evidence,
the record, the same cannot be considered if any, which shall be attached to the judicial
by the appellate court, as documents forming affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and
no part of proofs before the appellate court so on in the case of the complainant or the
cannot be considered in disposing the same. plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in
For the appellate court to consider as

96
 the case of the respondent or the defendant If NOT in English or Filipino, it must be
[Sec. 2(a), as amended]. accompanied by a translation in English or
Filipino, and shall contain the following:
Note: Every pleading stating a party's claims or
defenses shall, in addition to those mandated by 1. Name, age, residence or business address,
Rule 7, Sec. 2, of the Rules of Court, as amended and occupation of the witness;
state the following: 2. Name and address of the lawyer who conducts
or supervises the examination of the witness
a) Names of witnesses who will be presented to and the place where the examination is being
prove a party's claim or defense; held;
b) Summary of the witnesses' intended 3. Statement that the witness is answering the
testimonies, provided that the judicial questions asked of him, fully conscious that he
affidavits of said witnesses shall be attached does so under oath, and that he may face
to the pleading and form an integral part criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;
thereof. 4. Questions asked of the witness and his
corresponding answers, consecutively
Only witnesses whose judicial affidavits are numbered, that:
attached to the pleading shall be presented by a. Show the circumstances under which the
the parties during trial. Except if a party witness acquired the facts upon which he
presents meritorious reasons as basis for the testifies;
admission of additional witnesses, no other b. Elicit from him those facts which are
witness or affidavit shall be heard or admitted relevant to the issues that the case
by the court; and presents; and
c. Identify the attached documentary and
c) Documentary and object evidence in support object evidence and establish their
of the allegations contained in the pleading authenticity in accordance with the Rules
(Rule 7, Sec. 6, Rules of Court, as amended). (n) of Court;
5. The signature of the witness over his printed
Should a party or a witness desire to keep the name; and
original document or object evidence in his 6. Jurat (Sec. 3).
possession, he may, after the same has been
identified, marked as exhibit, and authenticated, Tasks and Liability of the Lawyer
warrant in his judicial affidavit that the copy or
reproduction attached to such affidavit is a The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn
faithful copy or reproduction of that original [Sec. attestation at the end, executed by the lawyer
2(b)]. who conducted or supervised the examination of
the witness, to the effect that:
Note: The party or witness shall bring the
original document or object evidence for 1. He faithfully recorded or caused to be
comparison during the preliminary conference recorded the questions he asked and the
with the attached copy, reproduction, or pictures. corresponding answers that the witness gave;
The evidence shall NOT be admitted if this and
requirement was not complied with [Sec. 2(b)]. 2. Neither he nor any other person then present
or assisting him coached the witness
This is without prejudice to the introduction of regarding the latter's answers [Sec. 4(a)].
secondary evidence in place of the original when
allowed by existing rules. A false attestation shall subject the lawyer
mentioned to disciplinary action, including
Contents disbarment [Sec. 4(b)].

A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in a language Examination of the Witness on his Judicial
known to the witness. Affidavit

97
The adverse party shall have the right to cross-
examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and a) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty
on the exhibits attached to the same. The party does not exceed six years;
who presents the witness may also examine him b) Where the accused agrees to the use of
as on re-direct. judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty
involved; or
In every case, the court shall take active part in c) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions,
examining the witness to determine his credibility whatever the penalties involved are [Sec. 9(a)].
as well as the truth of his testimony and to elicit
the answers that it needs for resolving the issues Effects of Non-Compliance
(Sec. 7).
General Rule: A party who fails to submit the
Offer and Objection to Testimony in required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time
Judicial Affidavit shall be deemed to have waived their submission.

1. Party who presents the judicial affidavit of his Exception: The court may, allow only once the
witness in place of direct testimony shall state late submission of the same, provided:
the purpose of the testimony at the start of
the presentation of the witness. 1. The delay is for valid reasons;
2. The adverse party may move to: 2. The delay would not unduly prejudice the
a. disqualify the witness; or, opposing party; and
b. strike out his affidavit or any answers if 3. The defaulting party pays a fine of not less
inadmissible under the Rules. than Php. 1,000 nor more than Php. 5,000, at
3. The court shall promptly rule on the motion. the discretion of the Court [Sec. 10(a)].
If granted, the court shall cause the marking
of any excluded answer by placing it in The court shall not consider the affidavit of any
brackets under the initials of an authorized witness who fails to appear at the scheduled
court personnel, without prejudice to tender hearing of the case as required [Sec. 10(b)].
of excluded evidence. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause
despite notice shall be deemed to have waived
Oral Offer and Objections to Exhibits his client's right to confront by cross-examination
the witnesses there present [Sec. 10(b)].
1. Upon the termination of the testimony of his
last witness, a party shall immediately make The court shall not admit as evidence judicial
an oral offer of evidence of his documentary affidavits that do not conform to the content
or object exhibits, piece by piece, in requirements of Section 3 and the attestation
chronological order, stating the purpose or requirement of Section 4 [Sec. 10(c)].
purposes for which he offers the particular
exhibit. Note: Every pleading stating a party's claims or
2. After each exhibit is offered, the adverse defenses shall, in addition to those mandated by
party shall state the legal ground for his Rule 7, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court, as amended,
objection, if any, to its admission, and the state the following:
court shall immediately make its ruling
respecting that exhibit (Sec. 8). a. Names of witnesses who will be
presented to prove a party's claim or
An Affidavit has no probative value if it is not defense;
presented formally in evidence (People vs. Amores, b. Summary of the witnesses' intended
G.R. No. L-32996, August 21, 1974). testimonies, provided that the judicial
affidavits of said witnesses shall be
Application in Criminal Cases attached to the pleading and form an
integral part thereof.
The Judicial Affidavit Rule shall apply to all
criminal actions:

98
Only witnesses whose judicial affidavits are and to make mandatory the application of the
attached to the pleading shall be presented by technical rules of evidence (Lepanto Consolidated
the parties during trial. Except if a party presents Mining Company vs. Dumapis, G.R. No. 163210,
meritorious reasons as basis for the admission of August 13, 2008).
additional witnesses, no other witness or affidavit
shall be heard or admitted by the court; and 7.I. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE
Documentary and object evidence in support of
the allegations contained in the pleading (Rule 7, Weight of Evidence is the probative value or
Sec. 6, Rules of Court, as amended).(n) credit that the court gives to particular evidence
admitted to prove a fact in issue.
Affidavit as Hearsay Evidence
Q: When is evidence credible?
General Rule: An affidavit is merely hearsay
evidence where its affiant/maker did not take the A: It is credible if it is admissible and
witness stand (Dantis vs. Maghinang, Jr., G.R. No. believable and worthy of belief, such that
191696, April 10, 2013). it can be used by the courts in deciding a
case.
The reason for this rule is that they are not
generally prepared by the affiant, but by another Equipoise Doctrine
one who uses his or her own language in writing
the affiant's statements, parts of which may thus The doctrine refers to a situation where the
be either omitted or misunderstood by the one evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or
writing them. Moreover, the adverse party is there is doubt on which side the evidence
deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the preponderates. In such case the decision should
affiants. For this reason, affidavits are generally be against the party with the burden of proof
rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiants (Marubeni Corp. v. Lirag, G.R. No. 130998, Aug. 10,
themselves are placed on the witness stand to 2001).
testify thereon (Republic vs. Gimenez, G.R. No.
174673, January 11, 2016). The Constitution provides that no person shall be
deprived of life, liberty or property without due
Appellant Santos now complains that the affidavit process of law, nor shall any person be denied
of Ronaldo Guerrero was hearsay evidence, the equal protection of the law (Sec. 1, Art. III.,
considering that the prosecution did not present 1987 Constitution). In a criminal case, its
Ronaldo Guerrero as a witness during the trial. constitutional basis is the presumption of
Appellant had waived the hearsay character of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond
this evidence by failure seasonably to object to reasonable doubt for conviction.
the admission of the affidavit; it is too late in that
day to raise the hearsay rule in the appellant's In criminal cases, the equipoise rule provides that
memorandum after prosecution and defense had where the evidence is evenly balanced, the
presented their respective cases and had made constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the
their respective offers of evidence (People of the scales in favor of the accused (Malana v. People,
Philippines vs. Santos, G.R. Nos. 100225-26, May 11, G.R. No. 173612, Mar. 26, 2008).
1993).
Equiponderance of Evidence in Criminal
Exception: The rule that an affidavit is and Civil Cases
considered hearsay is liberally applied in labor
cases. Criminal Cases Civil Cases
The equipoise rule When the scale of
It is not necessary for the affiants to appear and provides that where justice shall stand on
testify and be cross-examined by counsel for the the evidence of the equipoise and nothing
adverse party. To require otherwise would be to parties in a criminal in the evidence
negate the rationale and purpose of the summary case is evenly inclines a conclusion
nature of the proceedings mandated by the Rules

99
 balanced, the to one side or the court(Government of Hong
constitutional other, the court will Kong Special Administrative
presumption of find for the defendant Region vs. Olalia Jr., G.R. No.
innocence should tilt (Republic vs. Mupas, 153675, April 19, 2007).
the scales in favor of G.R. No. 181892,
the accused (Malana September 8, 2015).
vs. People, G.R. No.
173612, March 26, Hierarchy of Evidentiary Values
2008).
Proof beyond reasonable doubt
Quantum of Evidence
● Required to convict an accused
Civil Cases Preponderance of ● Moral certainty or that degree of
evidence (Tan jr., vs. proof which produces conviction in an
Hosana, G.R. No. 190846,
unprejudiced mind
February 3, 2016)
● Does not demand an absolute
Criminal Cases
certainty and the exclusion of the
To sustain Evidence of guilt
possibility of error
conviction beyond reasonable
doubt (Macayan, Jr., vs.
People, G.R. No. 175842,
March 18, 2015)
Clear and convincing evidence
Preliminary Prima facie Case –
Investigation sufficient to engender a
● Degree of proof which produces in
well-founded belief that a
the mind of court a firm belief or
crime has been committed
conviction as to the allegation sought
and that the accused is
to be established
probably guilty thereof
● Adduced to overcome a prima facie
(Yusop vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 138859–60, case or a disputable presumption
February 22, 2001).
For Issuance Probable Cause – that
of Warrant there is reasonable ground
of Arrest to believe that the accused Preponderance of evidence
has committed an offense
(Hao vs. People, G.R. No. ● Degree of proof required in civil cases
183345, September 17, ● Evidence which is of greater weight of
2014). evidence than that which is offered in
Administrative Substantial evidence – opposition of it
Cases such amount of relevant
evidence which a
reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to Substantial evidence
justify a conclusion (Glenda
Rodriguez–Angat vs. GSIS, ● Applicable in cases filed before
G.R. No. 204738, July 29, administrative or quasi-judicial bodies
2015). ● Such relevant evidence as a
Bail in The potential extraditee reasonable mind might accept as
Extradition must prove by "clear and adequate to support a conclusion
Cases convincing evidence"
that he is not a flight risk
and will abide with all the Note: Evidence, to be worthy of credit, must not
orders and processes of only proceed from a credible source but must also
the extradition be credible in itself. It must be natural,

100
reasonable and probable as to make it easy to convincing evidence 1. He was at some
believe (People v. Peruelo, G.R. No. 50631, June 29, becomes negative other place when
1981). and self-serving, the crime was
deserving no weight committed; and
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT in law, and cannot be 2. It was physically
given greater impossible for him to
Does not mean such a degree of proof as, evidentiary value be at the locus
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute over convincing, criminis at the time of
certainty. Only moral certainty is required, or that straightforward and its commission
degree of proof which produces conviction in an probable testimony (People vs. Villanueva,
unprejudiced mind (Rule 133, Sec. 2). on affirmative G.R. No. 211082,
matters (People vs. December 13, 2017).
 A conviction in a criminal case must be Villanueva, G.R. No.
supported by proof beyond reasonable 211082, December 13,
doubt, which means a moral certainty that 2017).
the accused is guilty; the burden of proof
rests upon the prosecution (People of the Motive
Philippines vs. Patentes, G.R. No. 190178,
February 12, 2014). General Rule: The prosecution need not prove
 Moral certainty is that degree of certainty that motive on the part of the accused when the latter
convinces and directs the understanding and has been positively identified as the author of the
satisfies the reason and judgment of those crime. Motive would not bar conviction of the
who are bound to act conscientiously upon it. accused as long as the crime itself and the
It is certainty beyond reasonable doubt. This identity of the perpetrator had been indubitably
requires that the circumstances, taken established (Gorong vs. People, G.R. No. 148971,
together, should be of a conclusive nature November 29, 2006).
and tendency; leading, on the whole, to a
satisfactory conclusion that the accused, and Exception: Motive becomes important when the
no one else, committed the offense charged evidence on the commission of the crime is purely
(People of the Philippines vs. Yatar, G.R. No. circumstantial or inconclusive (Crisostomo vs.
150224, May 19, 2004). Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152398, April 14, 2005).

Denial and Alibi In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove

two things:
Denial Alibi
A defense which The evidence offered 1. the fact of the crime; and
traverses an by one charged with 2. the fact that the accused is the perpetrator of
allegation made in a crime to support the crime (People vs. Dela Peña, G.R. No.
the pleading of an the statement that at 183567, January 19, 2009).
adverse party or in the time of its
the direct commission, he was PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
examination by the at a place so remote Is that which is more convincing and more
prosecution and puts or that the crime took credible than the one offered by the adverse
the matter so denied place under such party (Glenda Rodriguez–Angat vs. GSIS, G.R. No.
in issue, to be circumstances that he 204738, July 29, 2015).
resolved upon the could not possibly
trial of the action have committed it  Preponderance of evidence" is the weight,
(ANNOTATION: Denial (ANNOTATION: Denial credit, and value of the aggregate evidence
and Alibi, 84 Phil., 945, and Alibi, 84 Phil., 945, on either side and is usually considered to be
November 09, 1949). November 09, 1949) synonymous with the term "greater weight
A defense of denial For the defense of of the evidence" or "greater weight of the
which is unsupported alibi to prosper, credible evidence." Preponderance of
and unsubstantiated accused-appellant evidence is a phrase which, in the last
by clear and must prove that: analysis, means probability of the truth. It is

101
 evidence which is more convincing to the  Substantial evidence means more than a
court as worthy of belief than that which is scintilla, but may be somewhat less than
offered in opposition thereto (Philippine preponderance, even if other reasonable
Commercial International Bank vs. Balmaceda, minds might conceivably opine otherwise
G.R. No. 158143, September 21, 2011 quoting (Spouses Manalo vs. Hon. Roldan-Confessor, G.R.
Encinas v. National Bookstore, Inc., 485 Phil. 683, No. 102358, November 19, 1992).
2004).  To satisfy the substantial evidence
 In civil cases, the degree of evidence requirement for administrative cases,
required of a party in order to support his hearsay evidence should necessarily be
claim is preponderance of evidence or that supplemented and corroborated by other
evidence adduced by one party which is evidence that are not hearsay (Gumaton vs.
more conclusive and credible than that of Amador, A.C. No. 8962, July 09, 2018).
the other party (Stronghold Insurance
Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
No. 83376, May 29, 1989, 173 SCRA 619, 625
cited in Philippine Airlines Inc. vs. Ramos, G.R.
No. 92740, March 23, 1992).  Is that evidence which produces in the mind
of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction
In civil cases, the party having burden of proof as to allegations sought to be established
must establish his or her case by a (Dela Paz vs. Republic, G.R. No. 195726,
November 20, 2017).
preponderance of evidence.
 Clear and convincing proof is more than
mere preponderance, but not to the extent
In determining where the preponderance or
of such certainty as is required beyond
superior weight of evidence on the issues
reasonable doubt as in criminal cases
involved lies, the court may consider the
(Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora, G.R. No.
following: 200558, July 01, 2015).

1. Facts and circumstances of the case; Clear and Convincing Evidence in Granting
2. Witnesses’ manner of testifying; Bail in Extradition Cases
3. Witnesses’ intelligence;
4. Witnesses’ means and opportunity of The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and
knowing the facts to which they are convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk
testifying; and will abide with all the orders and processes
5. Nature of the facts to which they of the extradition court (Government of Hong Kong
testify; vs. Olalia, Jr., G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007).
6. Probability or improbability of their
testimony;  In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then
7. Witnesses’ interest or want of Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Reynato
interest; and S. Puno, proposed that a new standard
8. Witnesses’ personal credibility so far which he termed "clear and convincing
as the same may legitimately appear evidence" should be used in granting bail in
upon the trial. extradition cases. According to him, this
standard should be lower than proof beyond
Note: The court may also consider the number reasonable doubt but higher than
of witnesses, though the preponderance is not preponderance of evidence (Government of
necessarily with the greater number (Rule 133, Hongkong Special Administrative Region vs.
Sec. 1, as amended). Olalia, Jr., G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007).
 The foregoing standard of proof required to
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE establish one's filiation is founded on the
principle that an order for recognition and
Such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind support may create an unwholesome
might accept as adequate to support a atmosphere or may be an irritant in the
conclusion. (Rule 133, Sec. 6, as amended) family or lives of the parties, so that it must
be issued only if paternity or filiation is

102
 established by clear and convincing evidence A confession is admissible in evidence if it is
(Jison vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124853, satisfactorily shown to have been obtained within
February 24, 1998). the limits imposed by the 1987 Constitution.
 We begin our resolution of this issue with the Furthermore, in order for an extrajudicial
well-settled rule that the party alleging fraud confession to be admissible, it must conform to
or mistake in a transaction bears the burden the following requisites: (WAVE)
of proof. The circumstances evidencing
fraud are as varied as the people who 1. the confession must be in Writing.
perpetrate it in each case. It may assume 2. the confession must be made with the
different shapes and forms; it may be Assistance of a competent and
committed in as many different ways. Thus, independent counsel, preferably of the
the law requires that it be established by confessant’s choice;
clear and convincing evidence (Republic of the 3. the confession must be Voluntary; and
Philippines vs. Heirs of Alejaga, G.R. No. 146030, 4. the confession must be Express (People
December 3, 2002). vs. Tuniaco, G.R. No. 185710, January 19,
 The defense of alibi cannot save the 2010).
appellants from conviction. They have not
established by clear and convincing evidence General Rule: An extrajudicial confession made
that they were at some other place and for by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for
such a period of time as to negate their conviction.
presence at the time when and the place
where the crimes were committed (People of Exception: When corroborated by evidence of
the Philippines vs. Flores, G.R. No. 71980, March corpus delicti (Rule 133, Sec. 3).
18, 1991).
 Appellant’s bare denial is not only an Corpus delicti is defined as the body or
inherently weak defense. It is not supported substance of the crime and, in its primary sense,
by clear and convincing evidence. It cannot refers to the fact that a crime was actually
thus prevail over the positive declaration of committed. It is a compound fact made up of two
Evelyn who convincingly identified him as elements, namely:
her rapist (People of the Philippines vs. Golimlim,
G.R. No. 145225, April 2, 2004).
1. The existence of a certain act or result
 An allegation that one was framed can be
forming the basis of the criminal charge;
made with ease. That allegation must
and
therefore be proved by clear and convincing
2. The existence of a criminal agency as the
evidence. The presumption that law
cause of the act or result (People vs.
enforcers have regularly performed their
Nepomuceno, G.R. No. 216062, September
duties perforce requires that proof of a 19, 2018).
frame-up must be strong (People of the
Philippines vs. Tranca, G.R. No. 110357 August CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
17, 1994).
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction
Extrajudicial Confession, Not Sufficient
if: (MIC)
Ground for Conviction
1. There is More than one circumstance;
A confession is a declaration of an accused
2. The facts from which the Inferences are
acknowledging guilt for the offense charged, or
derived are proven; and
for any offense necessarily included therein. It is
3. The Combination of all the circumstances
something less than a confession and is but an
is such as to produce a conviction beyond
acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance
reasonable doubt (Espineli vs. People, G.R.
which in itself is insufficient to authorize a
No. 179535, June 9, 2014).
conviction, and which tends only to establish the
ultimate fact of guilt (People vs. Licayan, G.R. No. Note: Inferences cannot be based on other
144422, February 28, 2002).
inferences (Rule 133, Sec. 4, as amended).

103
 Direct Evidence Circumstantial
Evidence EVIDENCE ON MOTION
It proves a challenged It indirectly proves a
fact without drawing fact in issue, such that When a motion is based on facts not appearing
any inference. the factfinder must of the record, the court may hear the matter on
draw an inference or affidavits or depositions presented by the
reason from respective parties, but the court may direct that
circumstantial the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral
evidence. testimony or depositions (Rule 133, Sec. 8, as
The difference between direct evidence and amended).
circumstantial evidence involves the
relationship of the fact inferred to the facts that
constitute the offense. Their difference does 7.J. RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)
not relate to the probative value of the
evidence. The probative value of direct
7.J.1. CASES COVERED
evidence is generally neither greater than nor
superior to circumstantial evidence. The Rules
The Rules on Electronic Evidence shall apply to all
of Court do not distinguish between direct
civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-
evidence of fact and evidence of circumstances
judicial and administrative cases (Rule 1, Sec. 2).
from which the existence of a fact may be
inferred (Tabones vs. People, G.R. No. 204544,
Note: Effective October 14, 2022, in a Supreme
July 3, 2017).
Court En Banc Resolution, Section 2 of this Rule
was amended to include criminal cases.
WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN OPINION OF EXPERT
WITNESS (Rule 133, Sec. 5, as amended)
7.J.2. ADMISSIBILITY
In any case where the opinion of an expert
Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term of
witness is received in evidence, the court has a
writing, document, record, instrument,
wide latitude of discretion in determining the
memorandum or any other form of writing, such
weight to be given to such opinion, and for that
term shall be deemed to include an electronic
purpose may consider the following:
document as defined in these Rules (Rule 3, Sec.
1).
1. Where the opinion is based upon
sufficient facts or data; Q: State the rule on the admissibility of
2. Whether it is the product of reliable electronic evidence.
principles and methods;
3. Whether the witness has applied the A: An electronic document is admissible in
principles and methods reliably to the evidence if it complies with the rules on
facts of the case; and admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court
4. Such other factors as the court may and related laws and is authenticated in the
deem helpful to make such manner prescribed by the Rules on Electronic
determination. Evidence (Rule 3, Sec. 2).
POWER OF THE COURT TO STOP FURTHER 7.J.2.a. Meaning Of Electronic Document;
EVIDENCE Electronic Data Massage
The court may stop the introduction of further Electronic document refers to information or
testimony upon any particular point when the the representation of information, data, figures,
evidence upon it is already so full that more symbols or other modes of written expression,
witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably described or however represented, by which a
expected to be additionally persuasive. This right is established or an obligation extinguished,
power shall be exercised with caution (Rule 133, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed,
Sec. 7, as amended).
which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored,

104
processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It programs or software used as well as
includes digitally signed documents and any programming errors;
print-out or output, readable by sight or other d. The familiarity of the witness or the
means, which accurately reflects the electronic person who made the entry with the
data message or electronic document [Rule 2, Sec. communication and information
1(h)]. system;
e. The nature and quality of the
Electronic Data Message refers to information information which went into the
generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, communication and information
optical or similar means [Rule 2, Sec. 1(g)]. system upon which the electronic
data message or electronic document
While "data message" has reference to was based; or
information electronically sent, stored or f. Other factors which the court may
transmitted, it does not necessarily mean that it consider as affecting the accuracy or
will give rise to a right or extinguish an obligation, integrity of the electronic document or
unlike an electronic document (MCC Industrial Sales electronic data message (Rule 7, Sec.
Corporation vs. Ssangyong Corporation, G.R. No. 1).
170633, October 17, 2007).
The rule does not absolutely require that the 7.J.3. METHOD OF PROOF
electronic document be initially generated or
produces electronically. A contract, for instance, Affidavit of Evidence. All matters relating to
prepared through the traditional written way may the admissibility and evidentiary weight of an
be converted to an electronic document if electronic document may be established by an
transmitted or received or later recorded affidavit stating facts of direct personal
electronically (RIANO, Evidence (The Bar Lecture knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic
Series), 2016 Ed. records. The affidavit must affirmatively show the
competence of the affiant to testify on the
The confidential character of a privileged matters contained therein (Rule 9, Sec. 1).
communication is not lost solely on the ground
that it is in the form of an electronic document Cross-Examination of Deponent. The affiant
(Rule 3, Sec. 3). shall be made to affirm the contents of the
affidavit in open court and may be cross-
7.J.2.b Evidentiary Weight of Electronic examined as a matter of right by the adverse
Documents; Method of Proof party (Rule 9, Sec. 2).

Q: What are the factors to be considered in 7.J.4. AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC

assessing evidentiary weight of an DOCUMENTS AND ELECTRONIC
electronic document? SIGNATURES
A:
a. The reliability of the manner or Q: How is an electronic document
method in which it was generated, authenticated?
stored or communicated, including
but not limited to input and output A:
procedures, controls, tests and checks a. By evidence that it had been digitally
for accuracy and reliability of the signed by the person purported to
electronic data message or document, have signed the same;
in the light of all the circumstances as b. By evidence that other appropriate
well as any relevant agreement; security procedures or devices as
b. The reliability of the manner in which may be authorized by the Supreme
its originator was identified; Court or by law for authentication of
c. The integrity of the information and electronic documents were applied
communication system in which it is to the document; or
recorded or stored, including but not
limited to the hardware and computer

105
 c. By other evidence showing its Disputable Presumptions relating to
integrity and reliability to the Electronic Signatures
satisfaction of the judge (Rule 5, Sec.
2). Upon the authentication of an electronic
signature, it shall be presumed that:
7.J.4.a. Burden of Proving Authenticity
1. The electronic signature is that of the person
The person seeking to introduce an electronic to whom it correlates;
document in any legal proceeding has the burden 2. The electronic signature was affixed by that
of proving its authenticity (Rule 5, Sec. 1). person with the intention of authenticating or
approving the electronic document to which
Electronically Notarized Document it is related or to indicate such person’s
consent to the transaction embodied therein;
A document electronically notarized in and
accordance with the rules promulgated by the 3. The methods or processes utilized to affix or
Supreme Court shall be considered as a public verify the electronic signature operated
document and proved as a notarial document without error or fault (Rule 6, Sec. 3).
under the Rules of Court (Rule 5, Sec. 3).
Digital signature
Electronic Signature
It refers to an electronic signature consisting of a
It refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic transformation of an electronic document or an
and/or sound in electronic form, representing the electronic data message using an asymmetric or
identity of a person and attached to or logically public cryptosystem such that a person having
associated with the electronic data message or the initial untransformed electronic document
electronic document or any methodology or and the signer’s public key can accurately
procedure employed or adopted by a person and determine:
executed or adopted by such person with the
intention of authenticating, signing or approving 1. Whether the transformation was created
an electronic data message or electronic using the private key that corresponds to the
document. [Rule 2, Sec. 1 (j)]. signer’s public key; and
2. Whether the initial electronic document had
An electronic signature or a digital signature
authenticated in the manner prescribed been altered after the transformation was
hereunder is admissible in evidence as the made [Rule 2, Sec. 1(e)].
functional equivalent of the signature of a person
on a written document (Rule 6, Sec. 1). Disputable Presumptions in relation to
Digital Signatures
Q: How is an electronic signature
authenticated? Upon the authentication of a digital signature, it
shall be presumed that:
A:
a. By evidence that a method or 1. The electronic signature is that of the person
process was utilized to establish a to whom it correlates;
digital signature and verify the 2. The electronic signature was affixed by that
same; person with the intention of authenticating or
b. By any other means provided by approving the electronic document to which
law; or it is related or to indicate such person’s
c. By any other means satisfactorily consent to the transaction embodied therein;
to the judge as establishing the and
genuineness of the electronic 3. The methods or processes utilized to affix or
signature (Rule 6, Sec. 2). verify the electronic signature operated
without error or fault (Rule 6, Sec. 3).

106
4. The information contained in a certificate is data message” and “electronic document,”
correct; as defined under the Electronic Commerce
5. The digital signature was created during the Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile
operational period of a certificate; transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile
6. No cause exists to render a certificate invalid transmission cannot be considered as
or revocable; electronic evidence. It is not the
7. The message associated with a digital functional equivalent of an original under the
signature has not been altered from the time Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as
it was signed; and electronic evidence. Since a facsimile
8. A certificate had been issued by the transmission is not an “electronic data
certification authority indicated therein (Rule message” or an “electronic document,” and
6, Sec. 4). cannot be considered as electronic evidence
by the Court, with greater reason is a
Best Evidence Rule (Referred to as the photocopy of such a fax transmission not
“Original Document Rule” in the 2019 Revised electronic evidence (MCC Industrial Sales
Rules of Evidence) Corporation vs. Ssangyong Corporation, G.R. No.
170633, October 17, 2007).
An electronic document shall be regarded as the
equivalent of an original document under the Best 7.J.6. BUSINESS RECORDS AS EXCEPTION
Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable TO THE HEARSAY RULE
by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data
accurately (Rule 4, Sec. 1). Q: When is the Hearsay Rule not
applicable to electronic documents?
7.J.5. COPIES AS EQUIVALENT TO THE
ORIGINALS A: A memorandum, report, record or
data compilation of acts, events,
General Rule: conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made
by electronic, optical or other similar
When a document is in two or more copies means at or near the time of or from
executed at or about the same time with identical transmission or supply of regular course
contents, or is a counterpart produced by the of conduct of a business activity, and
same impression as the original, or from the same such was the regular practice to make
matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re- the memorandum, report, record or data
recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by compilation by electronic, optical or
other equivalent techniques which accurately similar means, all of which are shown by
reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates the testimony of the custodian or other
shall be regarded as the equivalent of the qualified witnesses, is excepted from the
original. rule on hearsay evidence (Rule 8, Sec. 1).

Exceptions: Note: The presumption provided for in Section 1

of this Rule may be overcome by evidence of the
Copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the untrustworthiness of the source of information or
same extent as the original if: the method or circumstances of the preparation,
transmission or storage thereof (Rule 8, Sec. 2).
a. A genuine question is raised as to the
authenticity of the original; or 7.J.7. AUDIO, VIDEO AND SIMILAR
b. In the circumstances it would be unjust EVIDENCE
or inequitable to admit a copy in lieu of
the original (Rule 4, Sec. 2). Q: May parties present audio,
photographic or video evidence? Discuss.
Facsimile transmissions are not, in this
sense, “paperless,” but verily are paper- A: Yes. Audio, photographic and video
based. Furthermore, the terms “electronic evidence of events, acts or transactions

107
 shall be admissible provided it shall be Q: Are text messages admissible as
shown, presented or displayed to the evidence?
court and shall be identified, explained or A: YES. Text messages have been
authenticated by the person who made classified as ephemeral electronic
the recording or by some other person communication under Section 1(k), Rule
competent to testify on the accuracy 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence,
thereof (Sec. 1, Rule 11). and shall be proven by the testimony of
a person who was a party to the same or
The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, has personal knowledge thereof (Vidallon-
when presented in evidence, must be identified Magtolis vs. Salud, A.M. No. CA-05-20-P,
by the photographer as to its production and September 09, 2005).
testified as to the circumstances under which
they were produced. The value of this kind of
evidence lies in its being a correct representation
or reproduction of the original, and its
admissibility is determined by its accuracy in
portraying the scene at the time of the crime. The
photographer, however, is not the only witness
who can identify the pictures he has taken. The
correctness of the photograph as a faithful
representation of the object portrayed can be
proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the
person who made it or by other competent
witnesses, after which the court can admit it
subject to impeachment as to its accuracy.
Photographs, therefore, can be identified by the
photographer or by any other competent witness
who can testify to its exactness and accuracy
(Sison vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 108280-
83 November 16, 1995).

7.J.8. EPHEMERAL ELECTRONIC

COMMUNICATION
It refers to telephone conversations, text
messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio,
streaming video, and other electronic forms of
communication the evidence of which is not
recorded or retained [Rule 2, Sec 1(k)].

Q: How shall ephemeral electronic

communication be proven?
A: It shall be proven by: (PPO)
a) The testimony of a person who
was a Party to the same;
b) The testimony of a person who
has Personal knowledge thereof;
or
c) In the absence or unavailability
of such witnesses, Other
competent evidence may be
admitted (Rule 11, Sec. 2).

108