2021 Evidence Reviewer Evidence Reviewer

2021 Evidence-Reviewer Evidence-Reviewer
Juris Doctor (San Beda College Alabang)
Scan to open on Studocu
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])
1|EVIDENCE
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES A means of ascertaining the truth not in all types of

(Rule 128) proceedings, but specifically, in a “judicial proceeding.”
Basic Concepts of Evidence Purpose of Evidence: to ascertain the truth respecting a

Definition: matter of fact in a judicial proceeding.
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth The truth referred to in the definition is not necessarily
respecting a matter of fact. (Rule 128, Sec. 1) the actual truth but one aptly referred to as the judicial
or legal truth.
Nature and Characteristics
1. Procedural; Liberal Construction
2. Waivable in character;
These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to
3. Subject to stipulation;
promote their objective of securing just, speedy, and
4. Mostly exclusionary.
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
(Rule 1, Sec. 6)
Sources:
A. Rules of Court: Rules of procedure are tools designed to facilitate the
1. Rule 115 (Rules on Criminal Procedure) attainment of justice, and courts must avoid their strict
2. Rule 128-134 (Rules on Evidence) and rigid application which would result in technicalities
(amended by A.M. No. 19-08-15- that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial
SC) justice. It is proper where the lapse in literal observance
B. Special issuance of the SC: of a rule of procedure has not prejudiced the adverse
1. Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (A.M. party and has not deprived the court of its authority.
No. 004-07-SC); (Dauglas F. Anamavs Philippine Savings Bank, G.R. No.
2. Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01- 187021, January 25, 2012)
SC);
3. Rule on DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC); It should be emphasized that the resort to a liberal
4. Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC). application, or suspension of the application of
procedural rules, must remain as the exception to the
C. Statute Containing Provisions on Evidence: well settled principle that the rules must be complied
1. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA. 9165) with for the orderly administration of justice. (Building
specifically provisions on the chain of custody Care Corporation/Leopard Security & Investigation
rule; Agency and/or Ruperto Protocio vs. Myrna Macaraeg,
2. Anti- Wiretapping Law (RA. 4200) G. R. No. 198357, December 10, 2012)
3. Human Securities Act (RA 9372)
Construction of the Electronic Evidence Rule:
D. Constitutional Provisions The Rules shall be liberally construed to assist the parties
1. Due Process of Law; in obtaining a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition
2. Equal Protection of the laws; of every action and proceedings. (Rule 1, Sec.2)
3. Right Against Unreasonable Searches and
Seizure; Construction of the Child Witness Examination Rule:
4. Right to Privacy of Communication and This Rule shall be liberally construed to uphold the best
Correspondence; interests of the child and to promote maximum
5. Right to Remain Silent and to Counsel During accommodation of child witnesses without prejudice to
Custodial Investigation; the constitutional rights of the accused. (Rule on
6. Right to Bail; Examination of Child Witness, Sec.3)
7. Right to Due Process and Presumption of
Innocence; Source: (Tan, Evidence: A Compendium for the Bench
8. Right Against Self-Incrimination; and the Bar; p. 4-5.)
9. Right to Speedy Trial;
10. Rule Making Power of the SC.
E. Substantive and Remedial Statute
F. Judicial Decisions
EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

2|EVIDENCE
Scope of the Rules of Evidence The NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence, even
The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and for the first time on appeal, because technical rules of
in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided procedure are not binding in labor cases.
by law or these rules. (Rule 128 Sec.2)
Even if not bound by the technical rules of procedure,
It is guided by the Principle of Uniformity. As a general “the findings of facts of administrative bodies are,
policy, the rules on evidence shall be the same in all however, respected as long as they are supported by
courts and in all trials and hearings. Only evidence that substantial evidence, even if such evidence is not
has been formally offered shall be considered by the overwhelming or preponderant.”
court. (Rule 132, Sec. 34)
Note: Parole evidence rule should not be strictly applied
Applicability: in labor cases.
The Rules on evidence generally applies in a Judicial
Proceedings. It does not apply to: Application of the Rules on Electronic Evidence:
1. Election cases; 1. Civil actions and proceedings
2. Land Registration cases; 2. Quasi-judicial cases
3. Cadastral proceedings; 3. Administrative cases
4. Naturalization proceedings;
5. Labor cases; ➢ However, in People v Enojas, G.R. No. 204894,
6. Impeachment cases; March 10, 2014, applied Rules of Electronic
7. Insolvency proceedings; Evidence to criminal cases in conformity with A.M.
8. Other cases not mentioned in Sec 4, Rule 1 of the No. 01-7-01, September 4, 2012)
ROC.
There is no vested right in the rules on evidence because
Exception: said rules are subject to change by the Supreme Court
May apply by analogy or in a suppletory character and pursuant to its power to promulgate rules concerning
whenever practicable and convenient. Examples of pleading, practice and procedure. (Sec 5[5], Art VIII)
suppletory application:
1. Impeachment cases (Art. 6, Rules of impeachment The change in the rules on evidence is, however, subject
Trial in the Senate); to the constitutional limitation on the enactment of ex
2. Civil Forfeiture cases in relation to Anti-Money post facto laws. (Sec. 22, Art. III)
Laundering Act when not inconsistent with
provisions of the special rules; Waiver of the Rules on Evidence
3. Labor cases when there is absence in the applicable The rules on evidence may be waived. When otherwise
provision in the Rules (Sec. 3, Rule 1 of NLRC Rules objectionable evidence is not objected to, the evidence
of Procedure). becomes admissible because of waiver.
Rules on evidence are NOT applicable in administrative May the parties stipulate waiving the rules on
or quasi-judicial bodies evidence? (Art 6, CC) As long as no law or principles of
Administrative bodies are not bound by technical morality, good customs and public policy are
niceties of the rules obtaining in a court of law. (El Greco transgressed or no rights of third persons are violated,
Ship Maning and Management Corporation vs. CIC) the rules on evidence may be waived.
It is well-settled that the rules of evidence are not strictly Kinds of Evidence
applied in proceedings before administrative bodies such The kinds of evidence under the rules and existing law
as the BOM. (Atienza vs. BOM) and jurisdiction are as follows:
Technical rules of evidence are not binding in 1. Object or Real Evidence is the kind of evidence which
administrative proceedings, and the NLRC and the labor is directly addressed to senses of the court and consist
arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to of tangible things exhibited, viewed, or demonstrated in
ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively open court. (Rule 130, Sec. 1)
and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure,
all in the interest of due process. (Abosta Ships vs. 2. Documentary Evidence is an evidence which consist
NLRC) of writing, recordings, photographs or any material
containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures,

3|EVIDENCE
symbols or any mode of written expression offered as 6. Demonstrative Evidence is the kind of evidence which
proof of their contents. Photographs include still demonstrate the real thing.
pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion
pictures or videos. (Rule 130, Sec. 2, amended) 7. Corroborative Evidence is kind of evidence which
merely supplements evidence which has already been
3. Testimonial Evidence is an oral evidence given by the given tending to strengthen the same. It is deemed
witness on the witness stand or in any proceeding. necessary only when there are reasons to warrant the
suspicion that the witness falsified the truth or that his
4. Direct Evidence is a kind of evidence if proves the fact observation had been inaccurate.
in issue. It is not only the source of the conclusion of the
trial court. Direct evidence of the crime is not the only 8. Cumulative Evidence is kind of evidence in which is of
matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion the same kind and character tending to prove the same
and findings of guilt. The rules of evidence allow the trial proposition.
court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its
conclusion of guilt. 9. Positive Evidence (Testimony) is kind of evidence in
which a witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur.
5. Circumstantial Evidence is that evidence which proves In rape cases, Positive identification of rape victim
a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may prevails over alibi/denial of the accused if not
be established by inference. substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
➢ Four Basic Guidelines in the Appreciations of 10. Negative Evidence is a testimony that certain fact
Circumstantial Evidence: did not exist. Denial and alibi are negative evidence. The
1. It should be acted upon with caution well-established rule is that denial and alibi are self-
2. All the essential facts must be consistent with serving negative evidence; they cannot prevail over the
the hypothesis of guilt spontaneous, positive, and credible testimonies of the
3. The facts must exclude every other theory but prosecution witness who pointed to and identified the
that of guilt accused-appellant as the malefactor.
4. The facts must establish such a certainty of guilt
of the accused as to convince the judge beyond 11. Prima facie evidence are evidence which, if
reasonable doubt that the accused is the one unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain
who committed the offense. the proposition it supports or establish a facts – prima
facie means it is ‘’sufficient to establish a fact or raise a
➢ Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for presumption unless disproved or rebutted.’’
conviction provided the following requisites
concur:
12. Conclusive Evidence is evidence which establishes
1. There is more than one circumstance the fact.
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived
are proven 13. Substantial Evidence is the level of relevant evidence
3. The combination of all circumstances is such as which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
to produce a conviction beyond reasonable justify a conclusion. In proceedings before administrative
doubt. and quasi-judicial agencies, the quantum of the evidence
*Inferences cannot be based on other inferences required to establish a fact is substantial evidence.
(Sec.4, Rule 133, RoC) (Sec. 6, Rule 133)
All the circumstance proved must be considered with 14. Preponderance of Evidence refers to the
each other, and they are not to be taken together a comparative weight of the evidence presented by the
proved. opposing parties. As such, it has been defined as “the
weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on
Circumstantial evidence may be a basis for conviction
either side,” and is usually considered to be synonymous
and such conviction can be upheld provided the
with the term greater weight of the evidence or greater
circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain
weight of the credible evidence. It is proof that is more
which leads to one fair and erasable conclusion that
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that
points to the accused to the exclusion of all others as the
which is offered in opposition thereto.(Republic vs.
guilty person.
Bakunawa)
Circumstantial evidence is not a weaker defense vis-a-vis
direct evidence.

4|EVIDENCE
15. Proof of Beyond Reasonable Doubt is the required (c) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative,
quantum of evidence in order to convict an accused. A corroborative, or impeaching; and
judgement of conviction must rest on nothing less moral (d) the evidence must affect the merits of the case and
certainty in unprejudiced mind that it was the accused produce a different result if admitted.
who committed the crime, failing which the accused
must be exonerated. If the prosecution failed to Source: (Tan, Evidence: A Compendium for the Bench
discharge its burden of establishing the guilt of the and the Bar, p 6-11.)
accused, it is unnecessary to still pass on the accused’s
defense.
16. Clear and Convincing Evidence is a kind of evidence

which establishes in the minds of a trier of facts a firm Evidence in Civil Cases vs. Evidence in Criminal Cases
belief on the existence of the fact in issue. It is more
Although the rules of evidence are the same in all courts
than preponderance of evidence but less than proof
and in all trials and hearings, there are certain
beyond reasonable doubt.
differences in the evidence in civil and criminal case.
17. Competent Evidence is kind of evidence which is not
Civil Criminal
otherwise excluded bylaw or by the rules. (Rule 128, Sec.
No presumption as to Accused is presumed
3)
either party innocent until proven
otherwise
18. Incompetent evidence is kind of evidence which is
excluded by law or by the rule Offer of compromise does Offer of compromise is
NOT amount to admission implied admission of guilt
of liability
19. Relevant Evidence is a kind of evidence which has
The quantum of proof is The quantum of proof is
relation to the fact in issue. (Rule 128, Sec 3)
preponderance of guilt beyond reasonable
evidence doubt
20. Material Evidence is one that is directed to prove a
fact in issue as determined by the rules on substantive “Patient-Physician” “Patient-Physician”
law and pleadings. privilege may or may not cannot be invoke by the
be applied Physician or the accused
21. Rebuttal Evidence is any component evidence to Dying declaration is not In certain cases, dying
admissible declaration is admissible
explain, repel, counteract, or disprove adversary’s proof.
It is receivable only where new matters have been
developed by the evidence of one of the parties and is Evidence Proof
generally limited to a reply to new matters. Evidence is the means Proof is the effect or
sanctioned by the Rules, result of evidence, the
22. Sur-Rebuttal Evidence are evidence in reply to or to to ascertain in a judicial persuasion from
rebut new matter introduced in rebuttal. proceeding, the truth consideration of
respecting a matter of evidence.
fact.
23. Primary Evidence is a kind of evidence which assures
the greatest certainty of fact sought to be proved, and
which does not in itself, indicate the existence of other Factum Probandum vs Factum Probans
and better proof. Factum Probandum is the ultimate fact to be
established and the result of factum probans. Being the
24. Secondary Evidence is any evidence other than the end result, it is subject to being weight.
document itself; 1.a copy; 2.recital of its contents in
some authentic document; or 3.recollection of the Factum Probans is the evidentiary fact or facts by which
witness. factum probandum is to be established. It is subject to
the rules of admissibility.
25. Evidence in chief is the primary and main evidence
presented by the parties to prove their cause or defense. Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue
26. Newly Discovered Evidence is a ground for new trial, and is not excluded by the Constitution, the law or these
and requires the concurrence of the following rules. (Rule 128, Sec. 3)
conditions:
(a) the evidence must have been discovered after trial;
(b) the evidence could not have been discovered at the
trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence;


5|EVIDENCE
COMMENT: The exclusionary rule under the Constitution May a private document be offered and admitted in
was included, but even before the amendment, the term evidence both as documentary evidence and as object
“law” was understood to encompass the constitution. evidence? Yes, depending on the purposed for which the
(Señga) document is offered.
REQUISITES 2. Conditional Admissibility - where the evidence at the

a. It must be relevant to the issue sought to be proved; time of its offer appears to be immaterial or irrelevant,
b. It must be competent or not otherwise excluded by unless it is connected with the other facts to be
the Constitution, the law or the rules. subsequently proved, such evidence may be admitted on
the condition that the other facts shall be proved
COMPETENT EVIDENCE thereafter.
Competent evidence is one that is not excluded by the
Constitution, law or rules in a particular case. The test of 3. Curative Admissibility - this doctrine treats upon the
competence is the laws or rules. In relation to evidence right of a party to introduce incompetent evidence in his
in general, competence refers to the eligibility of an behalf where the court admitted the same kind of
evidence to be received as such. evidence adduced by the adverse party.
When applied to a witness, competence refers to the Does the concept of curative admissibility refer to a
qualifications of the witness. The objection should situation where incompetent evidence was erroneously
specify the ground for its incompetence such as leading, received by the court despite absence of objection from
hearsay or parol. the other party? The principle of curative admissibility
should not be made to apply the evidence admitted
For purposes of trial objections, evidence is never without objection because the failure to object
incompetent. It is people who are. constitutes a waiver of the inadmissibility of the
evidence.
In the case of Diokno vs. Stonehill, the court laid down
the principle that materials seized by virtue of a “general Time to determine Admissibility of Evidence
search warrant” is violative of the constitutional right 1. At the time it is offered to the court and must be
against unreasonable searches and seizure which offered orally. (Rule 132, Sec. 35)
requires that a warrant should particularly describe the 2. In case of documentary or object evidence, when it
place to be search and person and things to be seized. is presented to the court for viewing or evaluation;
Any evidence obtained in violation of this right shall not 3. In case of testimonial evidence, at the time the
be admissible for any purpose in any proceedings. witness is called at the witness stand/ to testify;
4. In case of documentary evidence, when it is
Test to determine admissibility: formally offered and before resting of the case.
The purpose to which the evidence is offered must be (Tan, Evidence: A Compendium for the Bench and
considered. Evidence may be admissible for one purpose the Bar)
and inadmissible for another.
Note: Objection not made is deemed waived. Further,
KINDS OF ADMISSIBILITY the objection on the admissibility of evidence cannot be
1. Multiple Admissibility - where the evidence is raised for the first time on appeal. (Pp vs. Salak, G.R. No.
relevant and competent for two or more purposes, such 181249, March 14, 2011)
evidence must be admitted for any or all of the purposes
for which it was offered. Admissibility of Evidence DISTINGUISHED from
Probative weight of Evidence:
Examples: Declaration of a dying person: As a dying Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of
declaration, part of the res gestae or declaration against whether or not the circumstance is to be considered at
interest. all, on the other hand, probative value of evidence refers
to the question of whether or not it proves an issue.
Evidence may also be admissible against one party but (Rico Rommel Atienza vs. Board of Medicine and Editha
not against another. Sioson, G.R. No. 177407, February 2011)
It must be remembered that the purpose for which the Admissibility of Evidence DISTINGUISHED from
evidence is offered must be specified because such Credibility of Evidence:
evidence may be admissible for several purposes. Refers to the duty of the court to receive or allow the
evidence, while credibility of evidence refers to the
worthiness of belief of the evidence.

6|EVIDENCE
Admissibility under the Anti-Wiretapping Law (RA 4200) who is authorized by the Anti-Terrorism Council to file
1. Evidence obtained in violation of RA 4200 shall not such application. It only requires an ex parte application.
be admissible in evidence:
a. Judicial Before the written order is issued, the applicant and the
b. Quasi-judicial witnesses he may produce shall be examined under oath
c. Legislative or affirmation to establish the ff matters:
d. Administrative a) There is a probable cause to believe that the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism has
A person who did not participate in tapping wire or cable been committed, or is being committed, or is about
or using dictaphone may be liable under Sec 1 of RA to be committed.
4200. This is because the law also considers it unlawful b) There is a probable cause to believe based on
to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that
record, or any such record or copies. evidence essential to the conviction of the charged or
suspected person, or evidence that would solve or
It is also unlawful to replay the same to any other prevent the crime, will be obtained
person. Even communicate, either verbally or in writing c) There is no other effective means readily available
to another. Also the furnishing of transcriptions of the for acquiring such evidence. (Sec 8, RA 9372)
recorded communication, whether complete or partial,
to any other person. And also those who willfully or The authorization shall be effective for the length of time
knowingly aid, permit or cause to be done the act specified in the written order which shall not exceed 30
described. days from the date of receipt of the written order by the
applicant. The period may be renewed for a non-
The acts mentioned as punishable would NOT constitute extendible period of 30 days from the expiration of the
a violation of the law if done by a peace officer original period upon proper application (Sec 10, RA
authorized by a written order of the court in cases 9372)
involving:
a) Treason Inadmissible evidence in connection with arrests,
b) Espionage searches and seizures
c) Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war A 1988 landmark case, People v Aminnudin
d) Piracy demonstrates the inadmissibility of evidence due to the
e) Mutiny in the high seas legal infirmity of an arrest for noncompliance with the
f) Rebellion requisites of the flagrante delicto exception. The SC
g) Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion ruled that the accused was not, at the moment of his
h) Inciting to rebellion arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was
i) Sedition about to do so or had just done so.
j) Conspiracy to commit sedition
k) Inciting to sedition It is settled that reliable information alone, absent any
l) Kidnapping overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the
m) Violations of CA 616 presence and within the view of the arresting officers, is
n) Other offenses against national security. not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would
justify an in flagrante delicto.
Surveillance of suspects, interception and recording of
communications under the Human Security Act of 2007: In Lagman, the Court likewise ratiocinated that illegal
Sec 7, RA 4200 notwithstanding, a police or law possession of regulated drugs is mala prohibita, and, as
enforcement official may listen to, intercept and record, such, criminal intent is not an essential element, but the
any communication, message, conversation, discussion, prosecution must prove the intent to posses (animus
or written or spoken words bet the ff: possidendi)
a) Members of a judicially declared and outlawed
terrorist organizations, assoc, or group of persons Possession is not only actual. Constructive possession
b) Any person charged with or suspected of the crime exists when the drug is under the dominion and control
of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism of the accused or when he has the right to exercise.
The above acts may be done only with written order of Whether a person should be liable under RA 4200 for
the CA. Such written order shall be granted only upon a listening to a conversation which he was not authorized
written application by a police or law enforcement to listen to using a telephone extension line? No.
official Telephone party lines were deleted from the final
provisions of the law. It was held that an extension

7|EVIDENCE
telephone line cannot be placed under the category of As decided by the SC in the case of Cambe vs. Office of
the enumerated devices. the Ombudsman, In preliminary investigation and
determination of probable cause conducted by the
Whether or not illegally wire-tapped recordings are Ombudsman,the doctrine of independently relevant
admissible in impeachment proceedings? Not settled. statements, regardless of their truth or falsity, the fact
An impeachment proceeding is SUI GENERIS (of its own that such statements have been made is relevant. The
kind or class) If an impeachment proceeding in the hearsay rule does not apply, and the statements are
Philippines is a class of its own, there would seem to be admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of
no reason therefore, to prevent the admissibility of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the
illegally- procured recordings. statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be
It does not consider it unlawful to record open and circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a
public communication. fact.
If only one party authorizes the recording and the other Relevance of evidence on the credibility of a witness
does not, there is a violation of the law. 1. Evidence on the credibility of a witness, or the lack of
RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE AND COLLATERAL MATTERS it, is always relevant.
RELEVANT EVIDENCE 2. The importance of the credibility of a witness in a
A kind of evidence which has relation to the fact in issue judicial proceeding is highlighted by rules which allow
(Sec. 3, Rule 128). There is no precise and universal test the adverse party to test such credibility through a
of relevancy provided by law. Determination of process called “cross-examination”
relevancy is largely at the discretion of the court in 3. Questions outside the subject matter of the direct
accordance to the teachings of logic and every day examination are not allowed.
experience.
Types of collateral matter
Relevance is a matter of relationship between the 1. Prospectant collateral matter is a matter which
evidence and the fact in issue. The determination of precedes the fact in issue but pointing forward to it,
relevance is a matter of inference and not of law. such as moral character, motive, conspiracy, plan and
design.
In the case of OCA vs. Judge Lerma the court ruled that
Relevancy is determinable by the rules of logic and 2. Retrospectant collateral matter is a matter which
human experience. Relevant evidence is any class of succeeds the fact in issue but pointing backward to it,
evidence which has rational probative value to the issue such as flight and concealment, behavior of the accused
in controversy. upon being arrested, or fingerprints or footprints which
may identify the culprit.
As a general rule, only relevant evidence is admissible
and evidence on collateral matter is not allowed. 3. Concomitant collateral matter accompanies the fact
However, collateral matter may be allowed when tends in issue and pointing to it, such as opportunity and
in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or incompatibility and alibi. (Domondon, Evidence, p 16-17)
improbability of the facts in issue
Collateral Evidence when it is on a “parallel or diverging II. JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
line,” merely “additional” or “auxiliary”. The term (Rule 129)
connotes a direct connection between the evidence and
the mater in dispute.
What need not be Proved
Example: Although evidence of character is generally A. Facts that do not need introduction of evidence.
inadmissible, the accused may provide his good moral 1. Facts which a court shall or may take judicial notice
character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved (sec 1 &2, Rule 129);
in the offense charged. 2. Judicial admission (ibid., sec 4);
3. Facts which may be presumed from proven facts
In civil cases, evidence of the moral character of a party (sec 2&3, Rule 131)
is admissible when pertinent to the issue of character 4. Where the facts are deemed established as a result
involved in the case. Also it is admissible when the of a refusal to comply with an order to make
character of a witness has been previously impeached. recovery (ibid., sec 3 (a), 29)
5. Upon failure to seasonably respond to a notice of
admission (ibid., sec 2 (1), 26)

8|EVIDENCE
6. When no factual issue exists in a case, there is no 10. The geographical divisions. (Rule 129, Sec. 1)
need to present evidence because where the case
presents a question of law, such question is resolved COMMENT: The new rule clarifies that only the official
by the mere application of the relevant statutes or acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments
rules of this jurisdiction to which no evidence is of the National Government are those subject of
required. mandatory judicial notice. Consequently, the official acts
7. When the pleadings in a civil case do not tender an of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of
issue of fact, a trial need not be conducted since local government units are generally not subject of
there is no more reason to present evidence. The mandatory judicial notice. (Señga)
case is then ripe for judicial determination through a
judgment on the pleadings (Rule 34 ROC) Other matters that the court should take judicial notice
8. Presentation of evidence may be dispensed with by mandatorily:
the agreement of the parties. 11. Amendment of the Rules of Court; decision of the
9. Evidence is not also required when a law or rule Supreme Court;
presumes the truth of a fact. Ex. Presumption of 12. Decision of the Supreme Court;
negligence and Presumption of Innocence 13. Official acts or declaration of the President;
14. Banking practices;
Matters of Judicial Notice 15. Financial status of the Government;
JUDICIAL NOTICE 16. Powers of the President;
It means what is known need not be proved.” It means 17. Court Records. (Tan, Evidence: A Compendium for
no more than the court will bring to its aid and consider the Bench and the Bar)
without proof of the facts, its knowledge of those
matters of public concern which are known by all well- In the case of Atienza vs. BOM, the SC held that Laws of
informed persons. (People vs. Lotis, 1991-CR, December nature involving the physical sciences, specifically
13, 1982) biology, which include the structural make-up and
composition of living things such as human beings, and
Requisites: the proper anatomical locations of human organs,
1. It must be a matter of general or common should be within the court’s mandatory judicial notice.
knowledge;
2. In case of foreign law, it must be proved like any In the case of Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, the court
other fact except when the court has actual stated that the Court will take judicial notice of the fact
knowledge of the foreign law or when the court has that the people’s ratification of the 1987 Constitution on
already ruled upon in a case involving the said February 2, 1987 signalled the return to normalcy of the
foreign law. political situation in the Philippines. Hence, petitioner
cannot excuse their failure to file an answer to a
Purpose: subpoena issued to them in the year 1991 on the
1. Taking the place of proof in connection with the premise that it was due to the threat to their lives during
issue in the case; the EDSA revolution.
2. To abbreviate the proceedings.
WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE MANDATORY? WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE DISCRETIONARY?

A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction A court may take judicial notice of matters which are:
of evidence: 1. Public knowledge; or
1. The existence and territorial extent of states; 2. Are capable of unquestionable demonstration; or
2. Their political history; 3. Ought to be known to judges because of their
3. Forms of government and symbols of nationality; judicial functions.(Rule 129, Sec.2)
4. The law of nations;
5. The admiralty and maritime courts of the world and Things of “common knowledge” of which the courts
their seals; take judicial matters coming to the knowledge of men
6. The political constitution and history of the generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of
Philippines; life, or. They may be matters which are generally
7. The official acts of the legislative, executive and accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready
judicial departments of the National Government of and unquestioned demonstration.
the Philippines;
8. The laws of nature; In the case of Salazar vs J.V. Brothers Marketing
9. The measure of time; Corporation, because the Negotiable Instruments Law is

9|EVIDENCE
silent with respect to crossed checks, although the Code which they sit. Likewise with the RTC, but only when
of Commerce makes reference to such instruments, the so required by law.
court has taken judicial cognizance of the practice that a 2. The CA may take judicial notice of. Municipal
check with two parallel lines in the upper left hand Ordinances because nothing in the Rules prohibits it
corner means that it could only be deposited and could from taking cognizance of an ordinance which is
not be converted into cash. Thus, the effect of crossing a capable of unquestionable demonstration.
check relates to the mode of payment, meaning that the
drawer had intended the check for deposit only by the No judicial notice if records of other cases; Exceptions:
rightful person, i.e., the payee named therein. The a) In the absence of any objection and knowledge of the
change in the mode of paying the obligation was not a opposing party, the contents of said other case are
change in any of the objects or principal condition of the clearly referred to by title and number in a pending
contract for novation to take place. action and adopted or read into the record of the
latter
Matters capable of unquestionable demonstration b) When the original record of the other case or any
pertain to fields of professional and scientific knowledge. part of it is actually withdrawn from the archives at
the court’s discretion upon the request, or with the
Judicial Notice and Knowledge of the Judge consent, of the parties, and admitted as part of the
Judicial notice may be taken of a fact which judges ought record of the pending case.
to know because of their judicial functions. But judicial
notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal The Court may take Judicial Not of its Own Acts and
knowledge of the judge is not judicial knowledge of the Records in the same case.
court and he is not authorized to make his individual In the case of BSP vs. Legaspi, the SC held that a court
knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the
known. same case, of facts established in prior proceedings in
the same case, of the authenticity of its own records of
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS; DOCTRINE OF another case between the same parties, of the files of
PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION related cases in the same court, and of public records on
It is well settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot file in the same court. Since a copy of the tax
take judicial notice of foreign laws. It must be alleged declaration, which is a public record, was attached to the
and proved. In the absence of proof, the foreign law will complaint, the same document is already considered as
be presumed to be the same as the laws of the on file with the court, thus, the court can now take
jurisdiction hearing the case under the doctrine of judicial notice of such.
processual presumption.
In the case of De Llana vs. Biong, it was held that courts
Exception: However, where the foreign law is within the cannot take judicial notice that vehicular accidents cause
actual knowledge of the court such as when the law is whiplash injuries. This proposition is not public
generally well known, has been ruled upon in previous knowledge, or is capable of unquestionable
cases before it and none of the parties claim otherwise, demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because
the court may take judicial notice of the foreign law. of their judicial functions. We have no expertise in the
field of medicine. Justices and judges are only tasked to
When the foreign law is part of a published treatise, apply and interpret the law on the basis of the parties’
periodical or pamphlet and the writer is recognized in his pieces of evidence and their corresponding legal
profession or calling as expert in the subject, the court, it arguments.
is submitted, may take judicial notice of the treatise
containing the foreign law (Sec. 46, Rule 130). When is hearing necessary in Judicial Notice?
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE LAW OF NATIONS During the pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu proprio
Under the Philippine Constitution (Sec. 2, Art II). Being or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety
parts of the law of the land, they are therefore, of taking judicial notice of any matter.
technically in the nature of local laws and hence, are
subject to mandatory judicial notice. Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu proprio
or upon motion, may take judicial notice of any matter
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES and shall hear the parties thereon if such matter is
1. Municipal courts must take judicial notice of decisive of a material issue in the case.
municipal ordinances in force in the municipality in

10 | E V I D E N C E
1. During pre-trial and trial, the court motu proprio, or 2. Certain;

upon motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety 3. And unequivocal.
of taking judicial notice of any matter.
2. After trial, and before judgment or on appeal – the Instances of Judicial Admissions
court, motu proprio, or upon motion may take 1. Admissions made in the pleadings;
judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the 2. Admissions made during pre-trial conference;
parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a 3. Admissions made in motions filed before the court;
material issue in the case. (sec 3, Rule 129) 4. Admissions made by the witness on the witness
stand;
COMMENT: 5. Admissions made in answer to written request for
Even during the pre-trial, matters sought to be taken admission;
judicial notice of may be heard. The old rule provided 6. Admissions made in the answer in the written
that the hearing on matters sought to be taken judicial interrogatories;
notice of may take place during trial, without mentioning 7. Admissions made in open court during trial;
pre-trial. 8. Admissions on testimonies, deposition and affidavits;
9. Agreement of facts by the parties.
With the amendment changing the term “may” to
“shall”, it appears that the intention is to make Judicial Admission vs. Judicial Confession
mandatory the hearing on the matter sought to be taken Judicial Admission Judicial Confession
judicial notice of, whether it be during pre-trial, trial, at Is an admission, verbal or Acknowledgement of
any time before judgment and even on appeal. written, made by the one’s guilt in the same
party in the course of the case
Note that generally, theories, issues and arguments not proceedings in the same
brought to the attention of the trial court will not be case
considered by a reviewing court, except when their Does not result in liability Connotes admission of
factual bases would not require presentation of any one’s liability
further evidence by the adverse party in order to enable May be express or Always express or tacit
him to properly meet the issue raised, such as when the implied
factual bases of such novel theory, issue or argument is More broader in scope Limited to the confession
(a) subject of judicial notice; or (b) had already been which includes judicial of a person
judicially admitted. (Borromeo v. Mina, G.R. No. 193747, confession
June 5, 2013) Maybe made by any Made by an accused in a
(Señga) party criminal proceedings
Judicial Admission Source: (Tan, Evidence: A Compendium for the Bench

It is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in and the Bar, p 85, 91-97.)
the course of the proceedings in the same case which
dispenses with the need for proof with respect to the As a general rule, facts alleged in a party’s pleading are
matter or fact admitted. It may be contradicted only by a deemed admissions of the party and are binding upon
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or him, but this is not an absolute and inflexible rule. An
imputed admission was not, in fact, made. (Sec 4, Rule answer is a mere statement of fact which the party filing
129) it expects to prove, but it is not evidence.
EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS An admission may likewise be inferred from the failure
1. They do not require proof to specifically deny the material allegations in the other
2. They cannot be contradicted because they are party’s pleadings.
conclusive upon the party making it
Implied Admissions of Actionable Documents:
EXCEPTIONS The failure to deny the genuineness and due execution
1. Upon showing that the admission was made through of the said documents amounts to a judicial admission
palpable mistake pursuant to Section 8, Rule 8 of the ROC (Bell Carpets
2. When the imputed admission was not, in fact, made. International vs. CA). However it does not preclude the
party from arguing against the document by evidence of
Requisites: fraud, mistake, compromise, payment, statute of
1. Must be definite; limitations, estoppel, and want of consideration. He is

however precluded from arguing the document is a the blade of a knife to know whether or not it could have
forgery because genuineness of the document has been produced the incision characteristic of sharp blades.
impliedly admitted by his failure to deny the same under
oath and sets forth what he claims to be the facts. When the object evidence is relevant to the fact in
issue, it may be;
Note: Requirement of an oath does not apply when the 1. Exhibited to
adverse party does not appear to be a party to the 2. Examined
instrument or when compliance with an order for an 3. Viewed by court
inspection of the original instrument is refused.
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
A motion to dismiss hypothetically admits the truth of
(a) The evidence must be relevant;
the allegations of the complaint.
(b) The evidence must be authenticated;
Admissions by counsel are generally conclusive upon a
(c) The authentication must be made by a competent
client. Exception, in case where reckless or gross
witness; and
negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process
(d) The object must be formally offered in evidence.
of law, or when its application will result in outright
deprivation of the client’s liberty or property or when
The requirements of relevance and the testimony by a
interests of justice so require.
competent witness rarely pose a problem. Relevance is a
matter of reasoning and the court will draw an inference
A party who judicially admits a fact cannot. Later
of the relevancy of the evidence from the issues of the
challenge the fact, as judicial admissions are waiver of
case. Also, almost no party would offer a witness who
proof, productions of evidence is dispensed with.
has no personal knowledge of the object to be
authenticated. The problem commonly lies in showing
that the object sought to be admitted is in fact the real
III. SPECIFIC RULE OF ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
thing and not a mere substitute or representation of the
(Rule 130)
real thing. This problem of authentication is commonly
called "laying the foundation" for the evidence.
A. Object Evidence (Real)
The authentication of the object by a competent witness
Object as evidence are those addressed to the senses of is to comply with the element of competence as an
the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, essential ingredient of admissibility. After its
it may be exhibited or viewed by the court. authentication, the object needs to be offered in
evidence at the appropriate time.
NATURE OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
Object evidence does not refer the perception of the The formal offer of evidence is particularly a vital act
witness and a recollection of that perception. It is not a before the admission of evidence because the court
reconstruction of past events as related by a witness on "shall consider no evidence which has not been formally
the stand. Real or object evidence is not a verbal offered". (Rule 132, Sec. 34)
description of something. It is not a replica or a mere
representation of something. 1. The admissibility of object or real evidence like any
other evidence requires that the object be both relevant
Object or real evidence appeals directly to the senses of and competent. To be relevant the evidence must have a
the court. Instead of relying on the recollection of the relationship to the fact in issue. To be competent it must
witness, an object evidence will enable the court to have not be excluded by the rules or by law.
its own firsthand perception of the evidence. If the court
wants to know whether the bolo used in the crime is 2. For the object not to be excluded by the Rules, the
long or short, big or small, sharp or blunted, the object same must pass the test of authentication. The threshold
evidence would be the bolo itself. foundation for real evidence is its being authenticated. Is
it the real thing? In other words, is it the actual object it
Object evidence is not visual alone. It covers the entire is claimed to be? To authenticate the object, it must be
range of human senses: hearing, taste, smell and touch. shown that the object is the very thing that is either the
In a case where the issue is infringement of a musical subject matter of the lawsuit or the very one involved to
composition, the court may listen to the composition prove an issue in the case.
involved. The court may not only look at but also touch
Illustration:

If the prosecution wants the admission of the gun used 2. When the purpose is to prove the nature of the
in the murder, it must prove that it was the very same handwriting in the document
gun used by the accused. Another gun although identical 3. When the intention of the party is to determine the
with the actual gun in all respects, would not satisfy the age of the paper or material used.
requirements of authentication. 4. When its purpose is to prove the alterations,
blemishes or forgery in a document.
How to authenticate the object:
This is a very basic rule. In layman's term, the evidence CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
must be "sponsored" by a witness. To authenticate the
1. For purposes of authentication of an object or for
object, the witness must have capacity to identify the
laying the foundation for the exhibit, object evidence
object as the very thing involved in the litigation. Better
may be classified into the following (29A Am Jur, §§945-
still, he must have actual and personal knowledge of the
947):
exhibit he is presenting for admission. This is because "a
(a) Objects that have readily identifiable marks (unique
witness can only testify to those facts which he knows of
objects);
his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from
(b) Objects that are made readily identifiable (objects
his own perception..."
made unique); and
(c) Objects with no identifying marks and cannot be
Even a supposedly ancient document (a private
marked (non-unique objects).
document that is more than thirty years old produced
from a custody in which it would naturally be found if
2. If the object has a unique characteristic, like the serial
genuine and is unblemished by any alterations or
number of a caliber 45 pistol, it becomes readily
circumstances of suspicion), requires a witness to testify
identifiable.
on the characteristics of the document even if the
document no longer requires authentication. (Rule 132,
So long as the witness testifies that the object has a
Sec. 21).
unique characteristic, he saw the object on the relevant
date, remembers its characteristics, asserts that the
Object Evidence and the Right Against Self-
object shown to him in court is the same or substantially
incrimination The right against self-incrimination cannot
in the same condition as when he first saw it and alleges
be invoked against object evidence.
that those characteristics are those of the object he is
In one early case, in his assignment of error, the accused
identifying in court, the authentication requirement is
appellant asseverates that the admission as evidence of
satisfied.
the victim's wallet together with its contents, viz.,
(1) his residence certificate;
3. If the object does not have a unique characteristic,
(2) his identification card; and
like the typical kitchen knife that has no serial number, is
(3) bunch of keys, violates his right against self-
commonplace, and is identical with a lot of knives of the
incrimination.
same kind and quality, the witness may be able to
identify the same in court if he claims that he made the
The Court held that the right against self-incrimination
thing acquire a unique characteristic like placing
guaranteed under our fundamental law finds no
identifying marks on it. All he has to do in court is to
application in this case because no testimonial
testify as to what he did to make the object identifiable
compulsion was involved.
and that the object presented to him for identification in
court has the characteristics he made on the object.
Said the Court: "This right, as put by Mr. Justice Holmes
in Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245,
". . . is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE
compulsion, to extort communications from him . It is 1. Demonstrative evidence is not the actual thing but it
simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from is referred to as "demonstrative" because it represents
the accused's own lips, against his will, admission of his or demonstrates the real thing. It is not strictly "real"
guilt. It does not apply to the instant case where the evidence because it is not the very thing involved in the
evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating case. A map, a diagram, a photograph and a model, fall
statement but an object evidence. ’’ under this category.
Instances where a document is considered as object 2. The admissibility of this type of evidence largely
evidence; depends on laying the proper foundation for the
1. When it tends to prove the existence or non – evidence. The rule boils down to one basic question:
existence of the document Does the evidence sufficiently and accurately represent

the object it seeks to demonstrate or represent? If it Under the electronic evidence rules, photographic
does, the evidence would be admissible. evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be
admissible in evidence provided:
a. Photographs — Photographs of persons, things and (a) It shall be presented, displayed and shown to the
places when instructive to the understanding of the court; and
case, will be admitted in evidence. For a still photograph (b) It shall be identified, explained or authenticated by
to be admitted, the same must be relevant and either;
competent. It is competent when it is properly (i) The person who made the recording, or by
authenticated by a witness who is familiar with the (ii) Some other person competent to testify on the
scene or person portrayed and who testifies that the accuracy thereof (Sec. 1, Rule 11, Electronic Rules of
photograph faithfully represents what it depicts. Evidence).
Some courts insist on requiring the photographer to The admissibility of photographs is within the discretion
testify but this view has been eroded by the tendency of of the trial court, and its ruling in this respect will not be
modern courts to admit as a witness one who has interfered with except upon a clear showing of an abuse
familiarity with the scene portrayed. of discretion. In determining whether photographs
should be admitted, a trial judge must determine
b. Motion pictures and recordings — The rules that whether they are relevant, and whether a proper
apply to photographs generally apply to motion pictures foundation has been laid.
and recordings. Because of the possibility of tampering
and distortion, courts have traditionally required a c. Diagrams, models and maps— These types of
stricter standard for laying the foundation for motion demonstrative evidence are presented to indicate the
pictures and tape recordings. relative locations or positions of objects and persons.
Aside from the requirement of relevance, a diagram,
Courts then would require detailed testimony as to the model or map must be identified by a witness who is
qualifications of the operator, a detailed description of familiar with what the evidence depicts, and that the
the equipment used, the conditions under which the same is an accurate representation of the scene it
photograph and the recordings were taken. Modern portrays.
courts however, have taken judicial notice of how
motion cameras and tape recorders work and their Like any other exhibit, the touch stone for admissibility
general reliability and their prevalent use. of maps, diagrams and models is the ability of the
witness to authenticate the exhibit. Some courts may
Court practices regarding motion pictures and tape require that the model, diagram or map be made or
recording shave been liberalized and the testimony of a drawn to scale. If not drawn to scale, the court must be
person present when the activities of taking the picture so informed. The question as to the sufficiency of the
and the recording has been held sufficient. He must authentication is a matter of judicial discretion (29A
testify that the motion picture accurately, faithfully Am Jur 2d, Evidence,
represents the place or person, it purports to portray. §§989, 990).
In the case of tape recordings, the witness should d. X-ray pictures — X-ray pictures, also referred to as
identify the speakers, state how he recognizes their "ski graphs" or "radiographs" are admissible when
voices and that recording was not taken in violation of shown to have been made under circumstances as to
the Anti Wire- Tapping Law (R.A. No. 4200).The modern assure their accuracy and where relevant to a material
approach to motion pictures and recordings is reflected issue in the case. Authenticated x-rays are normally
in local rules. involved in personal injury cases to show the location
and the extent of the injury. X-rays are properly
Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the authenticated by the X- ray technician or the physician
authentication process need not involve the person who who testifies to the competence of the person taking it,
actually made the recording. It can be done by some the procedure taken and that the X-ray picture shown is
other person as long as he is one who can testify as to that of the person, the anatomical part or the object
its accuracy. involved in the case.
There is also a requirement that the recording be shown, Because the science of taking X-ray pictures is now well-
presented or displayed to the court (Sec. 1, Rule 11, founded and generally recognized, almost all courts no
Rules on Electronic Evidence). longer require testimony as to the reliability of an X-ray
machine ( 29A Am Jur 2d, Evidence, §§977).

e. Scientific tests, demonstrations and experiments — by her at the time of the offense speak well of the use of
The issue of refusing or granting requests for force and the presence of a struggle. As the trial court
demonstrations, experiments and tests in open court is a noted:
matter subject to judicial discretion. In-court re-
enactment of material events by witnesses has been Her T-shirt was torn which corroborates her testimony
held permissible to help illustrate the testimony of a that it was forcibly removed. It also proves that she
witness. offered resistance to the criminal advances of the
accused. Her shorts, like her panty, had blood stains. Her
NOTE: panty was detached from her shorts. Her bra was torn,
Recordings, photographs are now considered also denoting that it was forcibly removed. These
documentary evidence under the amended rules of physical evidence . . . are consistent only with the force
evidence. and compulsion applied on her; they prove she offered
Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored resistance and her defloration was against her will.
images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos. (Sec. 2,
Rule 130)
VIEW OF AN OBJECT EVIDENCE
JURISPRUDENCE
View of an Object or Scene
Romeo S. Sison et. al vs. People of the Philippines 1. Under Sec. 1 of Rule 130, when an object is relevant
The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or
presented in evidence, must be identified by the viewed by the court.
photographer as to its production and testified as to the
circumstances under which they were produced. The 2. Courts have recognized that there are times when a
value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct party cannot bring an object to the court for viewing in
representation or reproduction of the original, and its the courtroom. In such a situation the court may take a
admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying view of an object. The court may make an ocular
the scene at the time of the crime. inspection of a contested land to resolve questions of
fact raised by the parties.
The photographer, however, is not the only witness who
can identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness The court may inspect a crime scene to clarify itself with
of the photograph as a faithful representation of the certain matters raised by the litigants. It may view the
object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by conditions of vehicles involved in a civil case for
the testimony of the person who made it or by other damages. Going out of the courtroom to observe places
competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it and objects is commonly termed a "view."
subject to impeachment as to its accuracy. Photographs, The "view" is expressly authorized by Sec. 1 of Rule 130
therefore, can be identified by the photographer or by and even without this express provision; it is well-
any other competent witness who can testify to its recognized that the court has an inherent power to
exactness and accuracy. order a view when there is a need to do so. (Rule 135,
Sec. 5)
People vs. Tacipit
In reviewing the evidence of this case, this Court was 3. A view disrupts the usual trial process and is time
guided by the three (3) settled principles in reviewing consuming. Hence, in almost all jurisdictions, the trial
rape cases, namely, judge is granted discretion to grant or refuse a request
(1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is for a view.
difficult to prove but more difficult for the person
accused, though innocent, to disprove it; 4. The inspection may be made inside or outside the
(2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape courtroom. An inspection or view outside the courtroom
where only two persons are usually involved, the should be made in the presence of the parties or at least
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with with previous notice to them. It is error for the judge for
extreme caution; example, to go alone to the land in question, or to the
(3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall place where the crime was committed and take a view
on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw without the previous knowledge of the parties. Such
strength from the weakness of the evidence for the inspection or view is part of the trial since evidence is
defense. thereby being received.
For one, although there was an absence of external Paraffin Tests

injuries on the body of the complainant, the clothes 1. Paraffin tests, in general, have been considered as
worn inconclusive by the Court because scientific experts


concur in the view that paraffin tests have proved (a) The chain of custody, including how the biological
extremely unreliable in use. The tests can only establish samples were collected, how they were handled, and the
the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the possibility of contamination of the samples;
hand but the tests alone cannot determine whether the
source of the nitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a (b) The DNA testing methodology, including the
firearm. procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the
advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and
The presence of nitrates should be taken only as an compliance with the scientifically valid standards in
indication of a possibility or even a probability but not of conducting the tests;
infallibility that a person has fired a gun, since nitrates
are also admittedly found in substances other than (c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including its
gunpowder. A person who tests positive may have accreditation and the qualification of the analyst who
handed one or more substances with the same positive conducted the test; if the laboratory is not accredited,
reaction for nitrates such as explosives, fireworks, the court shall consider the relevant experience of the
fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, tobacco and leguminous laboratory in forensic casework and its credibility shall
plants. be properly established; and
The argument that the negative result of gunpowder (d) The reliability of the testing result (Sec. 7, RDE).
nitrates from the paraffin test conducted shows an
absence of physical evidence that one fired a gun, is Are the DNA profiles of a person open to public
untenable as it is possible for one to fire a gun and yet scrutiny?
be negative for the presence of nitrates as when the They are not. DNA profiles and all the results or other
hands are washed before the test. information obtained from DNA testing are confidential
(Sec.11, RDE). Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in
The paraffin test is merely corroborative evidence, any form any information concerning a DNA profile
neither proving nor disproving that a person did indeed without the proper court order shall be liable for indirect
fire a gun. The positive or negative results of the test can contempt of the court wherein such DNA evidence was
be influenced by certain factors, such as the wearing of offered, presented or sought to be offered and
gloves by the subject, perspiration of the hands, wind presented (Sec. 11, RDE).
direction, wind velocity, humidity, climate conditions,
the length of the barrel of the firearm, or the open or Except upon order of the court, the DNA profiles and
closed trigger guard of the firearm. other results shall only be released to any of the
following:
Polygraph Tests (Lie Detector Tests) (a) The person from whom the sample was taken;
1. A polygraph test operates on the principle that stress (b) Lawyers representing parties in the case or action
causes physiological changes in the body which can be where the DNA evidence is offered and presented or
measured to indicate whether the subject of the sought to be offered and presented;
examination is telling the truth. During an examination in (c) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action;
which a polygraph is used, sensors are attached to the (d) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and
subject so that the polygraph can mechanically record (e) Other persons as determined by the court (Sec.11,
the subject's physiological responses to a series of RDE).
questions.
The person from whom the biological sample was taken
2. Courts accordingly uniformly reject the results of may also request that his D N A profile and all results or
polygraph tests when offered in evidence for the other information obtained from the DNA testing be
purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence of one disclosed to the person designated in his request. This
accused of a crime because it has not yet attained request however, must be in writing and verified and
scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of filed with the court that allowed the DNA testing (Sec.
ascertaining truth or deception 11, RDE).
DNA Evidence The trial court is mandated to preserve the DNA

The determination of the probative value of the DNA evidence in its totality, including all biological samples,
evidence rests upon sound judicial assessment taking DNA profiles and results or other genetic information
into consideration the following matters: obtained from DNA testing in accordance with Sec. 12 of
the RDE.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses
1. The third category refers to those objects which are would then describe the precautions taken to ensure
not readily identifiable, were not made identifiable or that there had been no change in the condition of the
cannot be made identifiable like drops of blood or oil, item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to
drugs in powder form, fiber, grains of sand and similar have possession of the same.
objects. Under this situation, the proponent of the
evidence must establish a chain of custody. Marking of evidence
The chain of custody rule requires that the marking of
2. The purpose of establishing a chain of custody is to the seized items should be done in the presence of the
guaranty the integrity of the physical evidence and to apprehended violator and immediately upon the
prevent the introduction of evidence which is not confiscation to ensure that they are the same items that
authentic but where the exhibit is positively identified enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in
the chain of custody of physical evidence is irrelevant. evidence.
3. Since it is called a chain, there must be links to the Chain of Custody in Drug Cases
chain. The links are the people who actually handled or 1. Section Kb) of the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation
had custody of the object. No. 1, Series of 2002 (in relation to Sec. 81[b] of R.A.
No.9165) which implements R.A. No. 9165, defines
Each of the links in the chain must show how he "chain of custody "as follows:
received the object, how he handled it to prevent "b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded
substitution and how it was transferred to another. Each authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
of the handlers of the evidence is a link in the chain and controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs
must testify to make the foundation complete. This is or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
the ideal way to show the chain of custody although the seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory
ideal way is not absolutely required. to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
There is authority supporting the view that the Such record of movements and custody of seized item
prosecution is not required to elicit testimony from shall include the identity and signature of the person
every custodian or from every person who had an who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date
opportunity to come in contact with the evidence sought and time when such transfer of custody were made in
to be admitted. the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence,
and the final disposition".
As long as one of the "chains" testifies and his testimony But a mere statement that the integrity and evidentiary
negates the possibility of tampering and that the value of the evidence is not enough. It must be
integrity of the evidence is preserved, his testimony accompanied by proof.
alone is adequate to prove the chain of custody of
evidence is possessed jointly by two people, it is not "What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
necessary for both to testify as to the chain of custody. integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the
As long as one of the joint possessors testifies and that same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt
testimony negates the possibility of tampering, it alone or innocence of the accused.”
is adequate to prove chain of custody.
The existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine
"As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous
custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be drugs.
preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to JURISPRUDENCE
be.
People vs. Piad
It would include testimony about every link in the chain, The chain of custody requirement is essential to ensure
from the moment the item was picked up to the time it that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are
is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person removed through the monitoring and tracking of the
who touched the exhibit would describe how and from movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the
whom it was received, where it was and what happened police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the
to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in court.21 Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and
which it was received and the condition in which it was Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 provides:

reasonable doubt. In other words, it must be established

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug
and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure presented in court as evidence against the accused is the
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph same as that seized from him in the first place. The chain
the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s of custody requirement performs this function in that it
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative of the evidence are removed.
from the media and the National Prosecution Service,
and any elected public official who shall be required to However, under the same proviso aforecited, non-
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy compliance with the stipulated procedure, under
thereof; justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
shall be conducted at the place where the search are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.
warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at While nowhere in the prosecution's evidence would
the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, show the "justifiable ground" which may excuse the
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; police operatives involved from making an immediate
Provided, further, that non-compliance with these physical inventory of the drugs confiscated and/or
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the seized, such omission shall not render appellants' arrest
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are illegal or the items seized/confiscated from them as
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, inadmissible in evidence.
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items. Said "justifiable ground" will remain unknown in the light
of the apparent failure of appellants to specifically
Evidently, the law requires "substantial" and not challenge the custody and safekeeping or the issue of
necessarily "perfect adherence" as long as it can be disposition and preservation of the subject drug before
proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the trial court. They cannot be allowed too late in the
the seized items were preserved as the same would be day to question the police officers' alleged non-
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of compliance with Section 21 for the first time on appeal.
the accused.
Moreover, the rule on chain of custody under the
People vs. Tamano and Gulmatico foregoing enactments expressly demands the
In the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous identification of the persons who handled the
drugs, the dangerous drug itself constitutes the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the
very corpus delicti of the offense and, in sustaining a authorized movements of the illegal drugs from the time
conviction therefor, the identity and integrity of they are seized from the accused until the time they are
the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been presented in court.
preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the
illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it The chain of custody requirement performs the function
indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of
tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident the seized items are preserved, so much so that
or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence
on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence are removed. To be admissible, the prosecution must
must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in show by records or testimony, the continuous
court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it
accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for illegal came into possession of the police officers until it was
possession of dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165 fails. tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up
to the time it was offered in evidence.
Similarly, in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the dangerous drug itself constitutes the However, while the procedure on the chain of custody
very corpus delicti of the offense, and the fact of its should be perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is almost
existence beyond reasonable doubt, plus the fact of its always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. Thus,
delivery and/or sale, are both vital and essential to a failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of
judgment of conviction. And more than just the fact of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused's
sale, of prime importance is that the identity of the arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him
dangerous drug be likewise established beyond inadmissible. The most important factor is the

preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the B. Documentary Evidence

seized item.
MEANING OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
In a number of cases, We held that with the implied
judicial recognition of the difficulty of complete
compliance with the chain of custody requirement, Sec. 2, Rule 130. Documentary evidence – Documents as
substantial compliance is sufficient as long as the evidence consist of writings, recordings, photographs, or
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item are any material containing letters, words, sounds, numbers,
properly preserved by the apprehending officers. We figures , symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of
ruled that the failure to photograph and conduct written expression offered as proof of their contents.
physical inventory of the seized items are not fatal to the Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored
case against the accused, and do not ipso facto render images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos.
inadmissible in evidence the items seized. What is
important is that the seized item marked at the police The definition of a documentary evidence was amended
station is identified as the same item produced in court. to further include recordings and photographs or any
material containing sounds or the equivalent of letters,
Furthermore, the defense of frame-up or denial in drug words, sounds, numbers figures or symbols. The term
cases requires strong and convincing evidence because photograph was further defined to include still pictures,
of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or
acted in the regular performance of their official duties. videos.
The presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed can only be overcome through clear and Prior to the amendment, some a took the position that
convincing evidence showing either of two things: videos or photographs take the nature of object
(1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or evidence. With the amendment, they are now
(2) that they were inspired by any improper motive. considered as documentary evidence, provided that they
are offered as proof of their contents.
People vs. Sonia Bernal Nuarin
The ‘Marking’ Requirement vis-à-vis the Chain of Notably, under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, Audio,
Custody Rule Photographic and video evidence are under Rule 11,
separate from the definition of an electronic document,
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, under Rule 3 thereof.
which implements R.A. No. 9165, defines chain of
custody as "the duly recorded authorized movements With the amendment, it is clear that the photographic,
and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or video and audio evidence are not electronic documents
plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory but rather, simply documentary evidence. (Señga)
equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory Documents as evidence do not exclusively refer to
to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction." writings. They may refer to any other material like
objects as long as the material contains letters, words,
A crucial step in proving chain of custody is the marking numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written
of the seized drugs or other related items immediately expression and offered as proof of their contents.
after they are seized from the accused. "Marking" means
the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur- There are therefore, two categories of documents as
buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items evidence, namely:
seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the (a) writings, or
custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized (b) any other material containing modes of written
contraband be immediately marked because succeeding expressions.
handlers of the specimens will use the markings as Under the first category are those instantly recognizable
reference. documents like written contracts and wills. Under the
second category are those which are not traditionally
The marking of the evidence serves to separate the considered as writings but are actually objects but which
marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or contain modes of written expressions.
related evidence from the time they are seized from the
accused until they are disposed of at the end of the However, being writings or materials containing modes
criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching, of written expressions do not ipso facto make such
"planting," or contamination of evidence. writings or materials documentary evidence. For such
writings or

materials to be deemed documentary evidence, the This knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit at the
same must be offered as proof of their contents. If time of the issuance of the check involves a state of
offered for some other purpose, the writings or mind of the person making, drawing or issuing the check
materials would not be deemed documentary evidence which is difficult to prove. Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22
but merely object evidence. creates a prima facie presumption of such knowledge.
Said section reads:
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY SEC. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. –
The following are the requisites for the admissibility of The making, drawing and issuance of a check
documentary evidence: payment of which is refused by the drawee because
(a) The document must be relevant; of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when
(b) The evidence must be authenticated; presented within ninety (90) days from the date of
(c) The document must be authenticated by a competent the check, shall be prima facie evidence of
witness; and knowledge of such insufficiency of
(d) The document must be formally offered in evidence. funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the
holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes
JURISPRUDENCE arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such
check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice
Miguel J. Osorio Pension Foundation vs. CA that such check has not been paid by the drawee. The
The law expressly allows a co-owner (first co-owner) of a presumption is brought into existence only after it is
parcel of land to register his proportionate share in the proved that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor
name of his co-owner (second co-owner) in whose name and that within five days from receipt thereof, he failed
the entire land is registered. The second co-owner serves to pay the amount of the check or to make
as a legal trustee of the first co-owner insofar as the arrangements for its payment. The presumption or prima
proportionate share of the first co-owner is concerned. facie evidence as provided in this section cannot arise, if
The first co-owner remains the owner of his such notice of non-payment by the drawee bank is
proportionate share and not the second co-owner in not sent to the maker or drawer, or if there is no proof
whose name the entire land is registered. as to when such notice was received by the drawer,
since there would simply be no way of reckoning the
For Article 1452 to apply, all that a co-owner needs to crucial 5-day period.
show is that there is "common consent" among the A notice of dishonor received by the maker or drawer of
purchasing co-owners to put the legal title to the the check is thus indispensable before a conviction can
purchased property in the name of one co-owner for the ensue. The notice of dishonor may be sent by the
benefit of all. Once this "common consent" is shown, "a offended party or the drawee bank. The notice must be
trust is created by force of law." The BIR has no option in writing. A mere oral notice to pay a dishonored check
but to recognize such legal trust as well as the beneficial will not suffice. The lack of a written notice is fatal for
ownership of the real owners because the trust is the prosecution.
created by force of law. The fact that the title is The requirement of notice, its sending to, and its actual
registered solely in the name of one person is not receipt by, the drawer or maker of the check gives the
conclusive that he alone owns the property. latter the option to prevent criminal prosecution if he
pays the holder of the check the amount due thereon, or
Documents acknowledged before notaries public are makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee
public documents and public documents are admissible of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving
in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to notice that the check has not been paid.
their authenticity and due execution. They have in their All that the Bouncing Checks Law thus requires is that
favor the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the accused must be notified in writing of the fact of
the same, there must be evidence that is clear, dishonor.
convincing and more than merely preponderant. Otero vs. Tan
Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that
The trustor-beneficiary is not estopped from proving its the authenticity and due execution of a private
ownership over the property held in trust by the trustee document, before it is received in evidence by the court,
when the purpose is not to contest the disposition or must be established. Thus:
encumbrance of the property in favor of an innocent Sec. 20. Proof of private document. – Before any private
third-party purchaser for value. document offered as authentic is received in evidence,
its due execution and authenticity must be proved
Lourdes Azarcon vs. People and Marcosa either:
a) By anyone who saw the document executed or
written; or
b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or

handwriting of the maker.

Any other private document need only be identified as or existence and the cause of its unavailability without
that which it is claimed to be. bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy,
NOTE: Under the Amended Rules of Evidence, private or by a recital of its contents in some authentic
documents can now be proved by other evidence document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order
showing its due execution and authenticity. (Sec. 20c, stated.
Rule 132)
A private document is any other writing, deed, or On the other hand, a canonical certificate of marriage is
instrument executed by a private person without the not a public document. It has been settled that church
intervention of a notary or other person legally registries of births, marriages, and deaths made
authorized by which some disposition or agreement is subsequent to the promulgation of General Orders No.
proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign 68 and the passage of Act No. 190 are no longer public
character of a public document, or the solemnities writings, nor are they kept by duly authorized public
prescribed by law, a private document requires officials. They are private writings and their authenticity
authentication in the manner allowed by law or the must therefore be proved as are all other private
Rules of Court before its acceptance as evidence in writings in accordance with the rules of evidence.
court. Accordingly, since there is no showing that the
The requirement of authentication of a private authenticity and due execution of the canonical
document is excused only in four instances, specifically: certificate of marriage of Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela was
(a) when the document is an ancient one within the duly proven, it cannot be admitted in evidence
context of Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court;
(b) when the genuineness and authenticity of an Birth Certificate; admissible
actionable document have not been specifically denied A certificate of live birth is a public document that
under oath by the adverse party; consists of entries (regarding the facts of birth) in public
(c) when the genuineness and authenticity of the records (Civil Registry) made in the performance of a
document have been admitted; or duty by a public officer (Civil Registrar). Thus, being
(d) when the document is not being offered as genuine. public documents, the respondents' certificates of live
The statements of account which Tan adduced in birth are presumed valid, and are prima facie evidence
evidence before the MTCC indubitably are private of the truth of the facts stated. "Prima facie evidence is
documents. Considering that these documents do not defined as evidence good and sufficient on its face. Such
fall among the aforementioned exceptions, the MTCC evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is sufficient to
could not admit the same as evidence against Otero establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts
without the required authentication thereof pursuant to constituting the party's claim or defense and which if not
Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. During rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient.
authentication in court, a witness positively testifies
that a document presented as evidence is genuine It is well settled that other proofs can be offered to
and has been duly executed, or that the document is establish the fact of a solemnized marriage.
neither spurious nor counterfeit nor executed by Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage may be
mistake or under duress. Here, Tan, during the ex proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage
parte presentation of his evidence, did not present certificate. Hence, even a person's birth certificate may
anyone who testified that the said statements of be recognized as competent evidence of the marriage
account were genuine and were duly executed or that between his parents. Thus, in order to prove their
the same were neither spurious or counterfeit or legitimate filiation, the respondents presented their
executed by mistake or under duress. Betache, the respective Certificates of Live Birth issued by the
one who prepared the said statements of account, was National Statistics Office where Fidela signed as the
not presented by Tan as a witness during the ex parte Informant in item no. of both documents.
presentation of his evidence with the MTCC. Considering
that Tan failed to authenticate the aforesaid statements Peregrina Macua Vda. De Avenido vs. Tecla Hoybia
of account, the said documents should not have been Avenido
admitted in evidence against Otero. While a marriage certificate is considered the primary
evidence of a marital union, it is not regarded as the sole
Calimag vs. Heirs of Silvestre N. Macapaz and exclusive evidence of marriage. Jurisprudence
Marriage Contract and Canonical Certificate of Marriage; teaches that the fact of marriage may be proven by
inadmissible relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate. It
should be stressed that the due execution and the loss
A secondary evidence is admissible only upon of the marriage contract, both constituting the condition
compliance with Rule 130, Section 5, which states that: sine qua non for the introduction of secondary evidence
when the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot of its contents, were shown by the very evidence they
be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its
execution

have disregarded. They have thus confused the evidence A: I was in the Manila Cathedral attending the wedding of
to show due execution and loss as "secondary" evidence H and W where I stood as a principal sponsor.
of the marriage.
Q: Can you tell this Court what happened when you
In the present case, due execution was established by were there?
the testimonies of Adela Pilapil, who was present during A: There was a marriage ceremony officiated by the
the marriage ceremony, and of petitioner herself as a parish priest for the marriage of H and W.
party to the event. The subsequent loss was shown by Opposing counsel objects at this stage: "Objection, Your
the testimony and the affidavit of the officiating priest, Honor! The best evidence is the marriage contract!"
Monsignor Yllana, as relevant, competent and admissible
evidence. Since the due execution and the loss of the Should the court sustain the objection? No! The original
marriage contract were clearly shown by the evidence document rule does not apply.
presented, secondary evidence–testimonial and
documentary–may be admitted to prove the fact of For the original document rule to apply, two requisites
marriage. must concur. (RIANO)
(a) The subject matter must involve a document; and
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE (b) The subject of the inquiry is the contents of the
document.
The “Best Evidence Rule” was changed to the “Original
Document Rule” because the former is a misnomer as it Where Original Document Rule does not Apply
does not refer to some hierarchy of evidence. Rather,
There is no reason to apply the "original document" rule
the rule simply states that there is preference for
when the issue does not involve the contents of a
original documents to prove the actual contents thereof.
writing. Sec.3 of Rule 130 is clear on this point: The rule
In other jurisdictions, the Best Evidence Rule is also
will come into play only "when the subject of inquiry is
known as the Original Writing Rule or the Original
the contents of a document, writing, recording,
Document Rule, which is now reflected in the amended
photograph or other record."
rule (Señga)
When Document is Merely Collaterally in Issue
Original Document must be Produced 1. When a document is involved in the inquiry but the
“When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document is only collaterally in issue, the original
document, writing, recording, photograph or other document rule does not apply. A document is
record, no evidence is admissible other than the original collaterally in issue when the purpose of introducing the
document itself.” (par. 1, Sec. 3, Rule 130) document is not to establish its terms but to show facts
that have no reference to its contents like its existence,
COMMENT: condition, execution or delivery.
The first paragraph was amended to take into account
the revised definition of a documentary evidence, that 2. If a witness testifies that the victim was writing a
includes recordings, photographs or other records. letter when he was shot by the accused, the judge would
(Señga) likely rule against the party who insists on the
presentation of the letter because the letter is not the
As held, the "original document rule" applies only when subject of an important issue in the case and hence, is
the content of such document is the subject of the merely collateral.
inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether such
document was actually executed, or exists, or on the 3. If a witness testifies that he actually saw the debtor
circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, tender payment of his obligation to the creditor, he need
the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial not be required to produce the original promissory note
evidence is admissible. Any other substitutionary evidencing the debt because it is the act of payment
evidence is likewise admissible without need to account which is the focal point of the testimony, not the
for the original. document.
Illustrative Applications of the Original Document Rule The document need not be likewise presented when the
In a case where counsel wants to show that a marriage witness merely testifies to the delivery of a deed of sale
ceremony took place between H and W, the following by X to Y because the contents of the document itself is
questions were asked: not the purpose of the testimony.
Q: Mr. Witness, where were you on September 26,
2008at around 7:30 in the evening?

Waiver of the Rule (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of
The original document rule may be waived if not raised a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
in the trial. (e) When the original is not closely-related to a
controlling issue.
In one case, although the marriage certificate, the
marriage license, and other pieces of documentary COMMENTS:
evidence were only photocopies, the fact that these Paragraph (b) was amended to reflect the rule that the
have been examined and admitted by the trial court, notice may be in the form of a motion for the production
with no objections having been made as to their of the original or made in open court in the presence of
authenticity and due execution, means that these the adverse party or via a subpoena duces tecum,
documents are deemed sufficient proof of the facts provided that the party in custody of the original has
contained therein sufficient time to produce the same. When such party
has the original of the writing and does not voluntarily
What To Do To Apply The Original Document Rule offer to produce it or refuses to produce it, secondary
1. The first step to apply the rule is to determine the evidence may be admitted. (Bayani Magdayao v. People,
matter inquired into. If the inquiry involves a document, G.R. No. 152881, August 17, 2004) (Señga)
writing, recording, photograph or other record and its
contents are the subject of that same inquiry, the best Paragraph (e) is a new insertion. It means that secondary
evidence rule applies and must therefore, be complied evidence may be admitted if the original documentary
with. evidence is not closely-related to a controlling issue in
the case. This paragraph appears to pertain to irrelevant
evidence. However, by definition, evidence, to be
2. Now what is to be done if for one reason or another, admissible, must be relevant. Here, it contemplates an
the original cannot be presented in evidence? irrelevant document or evidence. There is no need to
produce the original of an irrelevant document. The
If this happens, the second step now comes into play. issue now is, if it is irrelevant then it would not have
This step involves two stages: been admitted in the first place. It appears that this
(1) Finding an adequate legal excuse for the failure to paragraph contemplates a situation where there is an
present the original; and irrelevant document or evidence that was nevertheless
(2) Presenting a secondary evidence sanctioned by the admitted in evidence (lack of objection/admitted by the
Rules of Court. court). In such a situation, the original thereof need not
be produced. (Señga)
If the rule were to be restated into a simple formula, the
rule would be: "Present the original, except when you Meaning of Original
can justify its unavailability in the manner provided for 1. Section 4, of Rule 130 elucidates on the concept
by the Rules of Court." of the term “original”, thus:
Excuses for Not Presenting the Original Document "Sec. 4. Original of document. —
The excuses for the non-production of the original (a) ) An “original” of a document is the document itself
document refer to the instances when the original does or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by
not have to be produced even when the contents of the a person executing or issuing it. An "original" of a
document are the subjects of inquiry. photograph includes the negative or any print
therefrom. If data is stored in a computer or similar
These instances are those mentioned in Sec. 3, Rule 130 device, any printout or other output readable by sight or
of the Rules of Court, namely: other means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or "original."
cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the
part of the offeror; (b) ) A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the same impression as the original, or from the same
control of the party against whom the evidence is matrix, or by means of photography, including
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or
reasonable notice or the original cannot be obtained by electronic rerecording, or by chemical reproduction, or
local judicial processes or procedures; by other equivalent techniques which accurately
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or reproduce the original.
other documents cannot be examined in court without
great loss of time and the fact sought to be established (c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an
from them is only the general result of the whole; and original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the

authenticity of the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it

is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of Note, however, that consistent with the ruling in
the original. National Power Corporation v. Codilla, Jr., G.R. No.
170491, April 3, 2007, a reproduction of a paper based
COMMENTS: document with the use of a photocopy machine, would
It appears that the term “original” is defined in its not make the copy produced thereby an original
ordinary sense as the original of the document itself. It document. It is still secondary to the original paper
may be because defining the “original document” under based that was photocopied, similar to MCC Industial
the old rule as one the contents of which are the subject Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp., G.R. No. 170633, October
of inquiry is inaccurate since a secondary document 17, 2007, where it was held that the facsimile copy is not
would also have its contents as the subject of inquiry. an original but secondary evidence, there being a paper
based original thereof.
The definition was also revised to include any
counterpart of an original document intended to have The new paragraph (c) became necessary such that the
the same effect as the original document by the person foregoing duplicates shall not be admissible as original if:
executing or issuing it. (See paragraph b) The revision (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of
also includes the definition of an original document, the original; or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or
which contemplates either the negative or print of the inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.
photograph. The definition also adopted the definition
used for an original of an electronic document in that if The new paragraph (c) became necessary to address
the data is stored in a computer or similar device, “any questions on the authenticity of or to encompass other
printout or other output readable by sight or other issues or circumstances that would render the duplicate
means, shown to reflect the data accurately” is an inadmissible.
original.
The new paragraph (c) is similar to the exception under
However, while the definition adopted the phrasing of Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rule on Electronic Evidence,
an original of an electronic document, it appears that which provides that copies of the original shall be
definition of a document under the revised rules does deemed as equivalent of the original (see complete
not contemplate an electronic document. This is because definition thereunder which is the same as the revised
under Section 1(h) of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, rule) but the same shall not be admissible if the grounds
the electronic document refers to those that are under paragraph (c) are present.
“received, recorded, transmitted, stored processed,
retrieved or produced electronically”. The revised rule, With the deletion of the old paragraph (c), it appears
only states that if the document or data is stored in a that an entry repeated in the regular course of business,
computer or other similar device, any printout or other one being copied from another at or near the time of
output readable by sight or other means, shown to the transaction, is no longer considered an original,
reflect the data accurately, is considered as its original. unless it may be argued to fall under the definition of a
counterpart produced by the same impression as the
Under the amendment, the phrase “duplicate is a original, or from the same matrix, among others. (Señga)
counterpart produced by the same impression as the
original”, may still encompass the definition under the JURISPRUDENCE
original paragraph (b).
Heirs of Margarita Prodon vs. Heirs of Maximo S.
A duplicate produced by photography, such as for
Alvarez and Valentina Clave
instance, a screen shot, is still considered the original,
given that by definition, a photograph is a documentary
Best Evidence Rule (Original Document Rule) applies only
evidence.
when the terms of writing are in issue. When the
evidence sought to be introduced concerns external
Enlargements, miniatures, mechanical or electronic
facts, such as the existence, execution or delivery of the
rerecording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other
writing, without reference to its terms, the Best
equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the
Evidence Rule cannot be invoked. In such a case,
original cover the expanded definition of the document,
secondary evidence may be admitted even without
meaning that an enlargement of an x-ray film, for
accounting for the original.
instance, is considered the duplicate thereof, and hence,
the original. An electronic rerecording can pertain to a
rerecorded audio or video, such as a CCTV footage.

This case involves an action for quieting of title, a The Best Evidence Rule states that when the subject of
common-law remedy for the removal of any cloud or inquiry is the contents of a document, the best evidence
doubt or uncertainty on the title to real property by is the original document itself and no other evidence
reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, (such as a reproduction, photocopy or oral evidence) is
or proceeding that is apparently valid or effective, but is, admissible as a general rule. The original is preferred
in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or because it reduces the chance of undetected tampering
unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title. In with the document.
such an action, the competent court is tasked to
determine the respective rights of the complainant and Nissan North Edsa vs. United Philippine Scout Veterans
other claimants to place things in their proper place and Detective and Protective Agency
to make the one who has no rights to said immovable The best evidence rule is the rule which requires the
respect and not disturb the other. highest grade of evidence to prove a disputed fact.
The terms of the writing may or may not be material to However, the same applies only when the contents of a
an action for quieting of title, depending on the ground document are the subject of the inquiry. In this case, the
alleged by the plaintiff. For instance, when an action for contents of the service contract between Nissan and
quieting of title is based on the unenforceability of a United have not been put in issue. Neither United nor
contract for not complying with the Statute of Frauds, Nissan disputes the contents of the service contract; as
Article 1403 of the Civil Code specifically provides that in fact, both parties quoted and relied on the same
evidence of the agreement cannot be received without provision of the contract (paragraph 17) to support their
the writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents. respective claims and defenses. Thus, the best evidence
There is then no doubt that the Best Evidence Rule will rule finds no application here.
come into play.
SECONDARY EVIDENCE
In this case, the action does not involve the terms or
Secondary evidence is any evidence other than the
contents of the deed of sale with right to repurchase.
document itself:
The principal issue raised by the respondents as the
Example:
plaintiffs, which Prodon challenged head on, was
1. a copy
whether or not the deed of sale had really existed. The
2. recital of its contents in some authentic document
fact sought to be established by the requested
3. recollection of the witness
testimony was the execution of the deed, not its terms.
4. a chart, summary, or calculation.
Heirs of Late Felix M. Bucton vs. Spouses Gonzalo and
RIANO: Before secondary evidence can be presented, it
Trinidad Go
is imperative that all the originals of a deed must be
As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be
accounted for.
proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and
the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.
The burden of proof in establishing loss or destruction of
The best evidence of a forged signature in the
the original is on the proponent of the secondary
instrument is the instrument itself reflecting the alleged
evidence.
forged signature. The fact of forgery can only be
established by comparison between the alleged forged
signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the Requisites
person whose signature is theorized upon to have been What is the rule in case original document was lost?
forged. The rule requiring the presentation of the original
document is NOT absolute: secondary evidence of the
While it is true that a notarized document carries the contents of the original can be adduced, when the
evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its original has been lost without bad faith on the part of
due execution, and has in its favor the presumption of the party offering it.
regularity, this presumption, however, is not absolute. It
may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the RIANO: This exception does not only cover loss or
contrary. The testimony of Constantino and Nicanora, destruction but also other reasons for failure to produce
had it been properly appreciated, is sufficient to the original in court even if not loss or destroyed as
overcome the presumption of regularity attached to when original is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the
public documents and to meet the stringent court or in cases of inscription on immovable objects
requirements to prove forgery. such as tombstones.
Salun-at Marquez vs. Espejo

What are the requisites in order secondary evidence c. That the proponent of secondary evidence has given
may be presented? the adverse party reasonable notice to produce the
a. Prove the due execution of the original original document
b. Proof of the loss, destruction or unavailability of all d. That the adverse party failed to produce the original
such originals document despite reasonable notice.
c. Proof that reasonable diligence and good faith in the
search for at least an attempt to produce the original RIANO: The offeror must prove that he has done all in
his power to secure the best evidence by giving notice to
When Original Document is Unavailable the said party to produce the document. The notice may
RIANO: Accordingly the correct order of proof is as be in the form of motion for the production of the
follows: existence, execution, loss and contents, original or made in open court in the presence of the
although at the sound discretion of the court, this order adverse party or via subpoena duces tecum.
may be changed if necessary.
A copy of the original is the best secondary evidence. If Summaries
it is available, other secondary evidence will not be
admitted. When the contents of documents, records, photographs,
The presentation or the offer of the original may be or numerous accounts are voluminous and cannot be
WAIVED. If the party against whom the secondary examined in court without great loss of time, and the
evidence is offered does not object thereto when the fact sought to be established is only the general result of
same is offered in evidence, the secondary evidence the whole, the contents of such evidence may be
becomes the primary evidence. But even if admitted as presented in the form of a chart, summary, or
primary evidence, its probative value must still meet the calculation. The originals shall be available for
various test by which its reliability is to be determined. examination or copying, or both, by the adverse party at
a reasonable time and place. The court may order that
How to prove the due execution of a lost or destroyed
they be produced in court. (Sec. 7, Rule 130)
original document?
a. The testimony if the persons who executed it
COMMENTS:
b. The testimony of any person before whom its
The original Section 7 is renumbered to Section 8.
execution was acknowledged
Section 7 under the amended rule is a new insertion. It
c. Any person who was present and saw it executed
should be read together with Rule 130, Sec. 3 (c). The
and delivered or who thereafter saw it and recognized
new Section 7 provides the manner by which the original
the signature
consisting of voluminous accounts may be presented,
i.e., in the form of a chart, summary or calculation.
How to prove loss or destruction of the original
While the summary may be produced, still the originals
document?
of the voluminous accounts shall be available for
a. The loss may be shown by any person who knew the
examination or copying, or both, by the adverse party at
fact of its loss
a reasonable time and place. The court may also order
b. By anyone who has made, in the judgment of the
that the voluminous accounts be produced in court.
court, a sufficient examination in the place or places
(Señga)
where the document or papers of similar character are
usually kept
What are the requisites for the introduction of
c. By the person in whose custody the document was
secondary evidence when the original consists of
lost and unable to find it
numerous accounts?
d. Those who has made any other investigation which is
a. If the original consists of numerous accounts or other
sufficient to satisfy the court that the instrument is
documents
indeed lost.
b. They cannot be examined in court without great loss
of time
When Original Document is in Adverse Party’s Custody c. The fact sought to be established from them is only
What is the rule in case the original of the document is the general result of the truth.
under the control of the adverse party? RIANO: The voluminous records must however be made
a. That the original exists accessible to the adverse party so that the correctness of
b. That said document is under the custody and control the summary of the voluminous records may be tested
of the adverse party on cross examination.
There When Originalwhen

are instances Document is a Public
the original Record is a
of a document

public record or is recorded in a public office. Public PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

records are generally not to be removed from the places
When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to
where they are recorded and kept.
writing, it is considered as containing all the terms
agreed upon and there can be, as between the parties
For this reason, the proof of the contents of a document
and their successors in interest, no evidence of such
which forms part of a public record may be done by
terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
secondary evidence. This evidence is a certified true
(par. 1, Sec. 10, Rule 130)
copy of the original. This certified copy is to be issued by
the public officer in custody of the public records. (Rule Only the parties and successors in interest are bound by
130, Sec.8) the parol evidence rule. The rule that the terms of an
agreement are to be proven only by the contents of the
COMMENTS: writing itself refers to the suits between “parties and
their successors in interest”. The rules do not bind suits
The original Section 8 and the new Section 9 are the involving strangers to the contract.
same. This rule should be read in relation to Section 1,
Rule 27. The production or inspection of documents or What are the exceptions to the parol evidence rule?
things as a mode of discovery sanctioned by the rules A party may present evidence to modify, explain, or add
may be availed of by any party upon a showing of good to the terms of the agreement of HE PUTS IN ISSUE IN a
cause therefor before the court in which an action is VERIFIED PLEADING:
pending. The court may order any party: a) to produce
and permit the inspection and copying or photographing (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the
of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, written agreement
letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, which
are not privileged; which constitute or contain evidence (b) The failure of the written agreement to express the
material to any matter involved in the action; and which true intent and agreement of the parties thereto.
are in his possession, custody or control; or b) to permit
entry upon designated land or other property in his (c) The validity of the written agreement; or
possession or control for the purpose of inspecting,
measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the
any designated relevant object or operation thereon. parties or their successors in interest after the execution
of the written agreement.
Rule 27 sets an unequivocal proviso that the documents,
papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or The term agreement includes wills.
tangible things that may be produced and inspected
should not be privileged. The documents must not be COMMENTS:
privileged against disclosure. On the ground of public The second paragraph addresses gender sensitivity and
policy, the rules providing for production and inspection requires that any of the issues warranting the exception
of books and papers do not authorize the production or to the Parol Evidence Rule should be raised in a verified
inspection of privileged matter; that is, books and papers pleading. Prior to the amendment, it was enough to
which, because of their confidential and privileged raise said issue in a pleading that is not necessarily
character, could not be received in evidence. Such a verified. The verification here must take into account the
condition is in addition to the requisite that the items be amended definition of a verification under the amended
specifically described, and must constitute or contain Rule 7, Sec. 6. All the grounds warranting the application
evidence material to any matter involved in the action of said exception are the same. (Señga)
and which are in the party's possession, custody or
control (Air Philippines Corp. v. Pennswell, Inc., G.R. No. RIANO: The parol evidence rule, therefore forbids any
172835, 13 December 2007) (Señga) addition to or contradiction of, the terms of a written
agreement by testimony or other evidence purporting to
Party Who Calls for Document Not Bound to Offer it show that different terms were agreed upon by the
What is the rule in case the party calls for the parties, varying the purport of the written contract.
production of a document?
A party who calls for the production of a document and Whatever is not found in the writing is understood to
inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. have been waived and abandoned.
(Sec. 9, Rule 130)

Parol evidence rule does not per se bar the introduction contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned
of parol evidence as long as the pleader puts in issue in at all in the writing unless there has been fraud or
the pleading any of the matters set forth in the rule. mistake.
Unless duly pleaded, a party will be barred from offering
extrinsic evidence over the objection of the adverse The failure of the writing to express the true agreement
party. of the parties is another ground of admitting parol
evidence as long as the issue is raised in the pleadings.
Distinctions between the Original Document Rule &
Parol Evidence Rule Aside from mistake there are some other reasons for the
failure of the instrument express the true intention of
Parol Evidence Original Document Rule the parties like fraud, inequitable conduct or accident,
The original of the The original document is ignorance, lack of skill, negligence or bad faith on the
document is available in not available in court. part of the person drafting the instrument.
court.
Prohibits the varying Prohibits the introduction In an action for reformation of the instrument the
terms of the of substitutionary or plaintiff may introduce parol evidence to show the real
written secondary evidence. intention of the parties. If there is no meeting of the
agreement. minds between the parties because of mistake, fraud,
The controversy is Involves any parties to the inequitable conduct or accident, the proper remedy is
between the parties in action. NOT reformation but an action for annulment
the written agreement.
Waiver of Parol Evidence
Intrinsic Ambiguity, Mistake or Imperfection The parol evidence rule can be waived by failure to
What are the kinds of ambiguities? invoke the benefits of the rule. This waiver may be made
1. LATENT AMBIGUITY- When the writing on its face is by failure to object to evidence aliunde. Inadmissible
clear and unambiguous but there are collateral matters evidence may be rendered admissible by failure to
or circumstances which makes the meaning uncertain or object. Even if parol evidence is admitted such admission
the writing admits of two constructions. would not mean that the court would give probative
value to the parol evidence.
2. PATENT OR EXTRINSIC AMBIGUITY- When ambiguity is
apparent on the face of the writing itself and requires JURISPRUDENCE
something to be added in order to ascertain the
meaning of the word. Sps. Paras vs. Kimwa
WHEN PAROLE EVIDENCE IS ALLOWED- when there is
3. INTERMEDIATE AMBIGUITY-When the words in the mistake, imperfection or failure to express the true
writing are all sensible and have settled meaning, but intent of parties
admit 2 interpretations according to the subject matter
in contemplation of the parties. Ortanez vs. CA
The parol evidence herein introduced is inadmissible.
RIANO: Parol evidence particularly refers only to an First, private respondents' oral testimony on the alleged
INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY. As long as latent ambiguity is conditions, coming from a party who has an interest in
raised as an issue in the pleadings, the court will allow the outcome of the case, depending exclusively on
evidence aliunde to explain the ambiguity to give effect human memory, is not as reliable as written or
to the intention of the parties. documentary evidence. Spoken words could be
notoriously unreliable unlike a written contract which
What are the requisites in order that mistake will be an speaks of a uniform language.
exception under the parol evidence rule? Thus, under the general rule in Section 9 of Rule 130 of
a. That the mistake should be one of fact. the Rules of Court, when the terms of an agreement
b. That the mistake must be common to both parties. were reduced to writing, as in this case, it is deemed to
c. That it must be alleged and proved by clear and contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of
convincing evidence. such terms can be admitted other than the contents
thereof. Considering that the written deeds of sale were
RIANO: Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the only repository of the truth, whatever is not found in
the meaning of a contract, it cannot serve the purpose said instruments must have been waived and abandoned
of incorporating into the contract additional by the parties. Examining the deeds of sale, we cannot
and

even make an inference that the sale was subject to any The comparable provisions are exactly the same, except
condition. As a contract, it is the law between the for: (1) Section 13 (now Section 14) and Section 17 (now
parties. Secondly, to buttress their argument, private Section 18), which contain amendments to address
respondents rely on the case of Land Settlement gender sensitivity; and (2) the renumbering of the
Development, Co. vs. Garcia Plantation where the Court sections. (Señga)
ruled that a condition precedent to a contract may be NOTE: Rules for the interpretation of contracts are
established by parol evidence. However, the material provided by Arts. 1370-1379 of the Civil Code. For the
facts of that case are different from this case. In the rules on interpretation or construction of wills, see Arts.
former, the contract sought to be enforced expressly 788-794 of the same Code.
stated that it is subject to an agreement containing the C. Testimonial Evidence
conditions-precedent which were proven through parol
Testimonial or oral evidence is evidence elicited from the
evidence. Whereas, the deeds of sale in this case, made
mouth of a witness as distinguished from a real and
no reference to any pre- conditions or other agreement.
documentary evidence. (Black’s Law Dictionary)
In fact, the sale is denominated as absolute in its own
terms. Competent evidence means evidence that is not
Third, the parol evidence herein sought to be introduced excluded by law. Applying it to witnesses, competence
would vary, contradict or defeat the operation of a valid means that the witness is qualified to take the stand and
instrument, hence, contrary to the rule that: testify. (Riano, 2009 p.244).
The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to . . . the
terms of a written instrument by testimony purporting
QUALIFICATION OF A WITNESS
to show that, at or before the signing of the document,
other or different terms were orally agreed upon by the
All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
parties.
known their perception to others, may be witnesses.
Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of
meaning of a contract, "it cannot serve the purpose of
the case, or conviction of a crime, unless otherwise
incorporating into the contract additional
provided by law, shall not be a ground for
contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned
disqualification. (Sec. 21, Rule 130)
at all in the writing unless there has been fraud or
mistake." No such fraud or mistake exists in this case.
Who may be witnesses : All persons who:
Fourth, we disagree with private respondents' argument
1. Can perceive and in perceiving
that their parol evidence is admissible under the
2. Can make known their perception to others (Sec. 21,
exceptions provided by the Rules, specifically, the
Rule 130);
alleged failure of the agreement to express the true
3. The examination of a witness in trial or hearing shall
intent of the parties. Such exception obtains only in the
be done under oath or affirmation (Sec. 1, Rule 132;
following instance:
Riano, 2013); and
Where the written contract is so ambiguous or obscure
4. Must not possess the disqualifications imposed by law
in terms that the contractual intention of the parties
or the rules (Riano, 2013).
cannot be understood from a mere reading of the
instrument. In such a case, extrinsic evidence of the
NOTE: The ability to make known the perception of the
subject matter of the contract, of the relations of the
witness to the court involves two factors:
parties to each other, and of the facts and circumstances
surrounding them when they entered into the contract
(a) The ability to remember what has been perceived;
may be received to enable the court to make a proper,
and
interpretation of the instrument.
(b) The ability to communicate the remembered
In this case, the deeds of sale are clear, without any
perception. It is of common reason to realize that a
ambiguity, mistake or imperfection, much less obscurity
witness is presented to testify on a matter he has
or doubt in the terms thereof.
perceived. If he cannot remember what he perceived, he
One last thing, assuming arguendo that the parol
cannot be a competent witness (Riano, 2013).
evidence is admissible, it should nonetheless be
disbelieved as no other evidence appears from the
NOTE: The number of witnesses does not determine the
record to sustain the existence of the alleged conditions.
outcome of the case. The testimonies of witnesses are
Not even the other seller, Asuncion Inocentes, was
weighed and not based on how many. Cases are not won
presented to testify on such conditions.
by the fact that one side has more witnesses than the
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
other. In a case of rape, the Supreme Court has held that
See Rule 130, Sections 11-20 positive identification will prevail over the defense of

alibi, alibi being considered as a weaker defense since it XPNs: There is prima facie evidence of incompetency in
can be easily fabricated. the following:
1. The fact that a person has been recently found of
Ability to perceive unsound mind by a court of competent jurisdiction; or
A witness can testify only to those facts which he or she 2. That one is an inmate of an asylum for the insane
knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is, which (Torres v. Lopez, 48 Phil. 772).
are derived from his or her own perception. (Sec. 22,
Rule 130) Competency vs. Credibility
Competency of a witness has reference to the basic
COMMENTS: qualifications of a witness as his capacity to perceive and
The original Section 36 was moved to the amended his capacity to communicate his perception to others. It
Section 22 and the sequence seems proper since it also includes the absence of any of the disqualifications
provides for what a witness should testify on – those imposed upon a witness. Hence it is a matter of law or
facts of his or her personal knowledge. Previously, this the rules.
provision was placed right before the exceptions to the
hearsay rule. Since there was a change in order, the last Credibility refers to the weight and the trustworthiness,
phrase laying the basis for the exceptions to the hearsay reliability of the testimony or believability of the witness
rule that would refer to the provisions following the and has nothing to do with law or the rules, but lies with
same was deleted, since the exceptions to the hearsay the discretion of the court.
rule no longer follow the new Section 22. The deletion
does not mean that there is no more admissible hearsay In deciding the competence of a witness, the court will
evidence or exceptions to the hearsay evidence. There is not inquire into the trustworthiness of the witness.
still admissible hearsay evidence and the title on Accordingly, a witness who has given contradicting
Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule found in the later part of testimony is still a competent witness. (Riano 2009,
the rules was maintained. p.250)
Other than the foregoing and the amendment to address Other Factors that Do Not Affect the Competency of a
gender sensitivity, the comparable provisions are the Witness
same. (Señga)
GR:
Hence it is absurd to ask a blind man to testify to what 1. religious belief
he saw, or a deaf man to what he heard. (Riano 2009, 2. political belief
p.247) 3. interest in the outcome of the case
4. conviction of a crime
NOTE: Deaf-mutes are not necessarily incompetent,
where they : XPN:
1. can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath; 1. if provided by law (e.g falsification of a document,
2. can comprehend facts they are going to testify to; and perjury or false testimony are disqualified from being
3. can communicate their ideas through a qualified witnesses to a will)
interpreter. (Riano, citing People vs Tuangco 345 SCRA
429) 2. Those who have been convicted of an offense
involving moral turpitude cannot be discharged to
Time when the witness must possess the qualifications become a State witness (Sec. 17, Rule 119; Sec. 10, R.A.
The qualifications and disqualifications of witnesses are 6981, Evidence;
determined as of the time said witnesses are produced Domondon p. 305);
for examination in court or at the taking of theira
depositions (Regalado, 2008).
NOTE: The issue which a judge must resolve before a
Presumption in favor of competence of a witness witness is allowed to take the stand is whether the
GR: Generally, a person who takes the witness stand is witness understands the nature of an oath, realizes the
presumed to be qualified to testify. A party who desires moral duty to tell the truth, and understands the
to question the competence of a witness must do so by prospects of being punished for a falsehood. A person is
making an objection as soon as the facts tending to not qualified to be a witness if he is incapable of
show incompetency are apparent (Jones on Evidence, understanding the duty to tell the truth. (Riano, 2013)
Vol. 3, Sec. 796).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS

(a) The judge and necessary court personnel;

COMMENTS:
The provision referring to the original Section 21 was (b) The counsel for the parties;
deleted. The originally deleted provision, in referring to
the now deleted original Section 21 meant that: (a) (c) The guardian ad litem;
those whose mental condition at the time of their
production for examination, is such that they are (d) One or more support persons for the child; and
incapable of intelligently making known their perception
to others; and (2) children whose mental maturity is (e) The defendant, unless the court determines that
such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts competence can be fully evaluated in his absence
respecting which they are examined and of relating them (Section 6[c], Rule on Examination of A Child Witness).
truthfully, cannot be witnesses. Also, the competency examination shall be conducted
only by the judge. If the counsels of the parties desire to
It is submitted that reference to the foregoing was ask questions, they cannot do so directly. Instead, they
deleted because: 1. those with mental condition that are allowed to submit questions to the judge which he
cannot make known their perception is already may ask the child in his discretion. (Ibid.)
encompassed in the definition of those qualified to
testify. The definition in the original Section 20, now Disqualification by Reason of Marriage
Section 21, states that qualified witnesses are those who
Marital Disqualification Rule/ Rule on Spousal
can perceive and can make known their perceptions.
Immunity During their marriage, the husband or the
Thus, if one cannot make known his perception due to a
wife cannot testify for against the other without the
mental condition, then the witness is disqualified. The
consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by
deletion was probably to remove redundancy. 2. The
one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
disqualification on the child witness is no longer relevant
committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct
with the Rule on Examination of Child Witness, which
descendant or ascendants (Sec. 22, Rule 130).
provides that every child is presumed qualified to be a
witness (Rule on Examination of Child Witness, Sec. 6)
Requisites for the applicability of spousal immunity
(Señga)
1. That the spouse against whom the testimony of the
other is offered is a party to the case;
COMPETENCY OF CHILD WITNESS
2. That the spouses are legally married
Under the Rule on Examination of a Child witness, a
3. That the testimony is offered during the existence of
child witness is:
the marriage
1. Any person who at the time of giving testimony is
below the age of 18 years.
NOTE (RIANO):
2. In child abuse cases, a child includes one over 18 yrs
1. The spouses must be legally married. It does not cover
but is found by the court as unable to fully take care of
cohabitation or common law spouses.
himself or protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
2. As long as the testimony is offered during the
Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness.
existence of the marriage, it does not matter if the facts
This is the presumption established by the Rule on
subject of the testimony occurred or came to the
Examination of a Child Witness (Section 6 of A.M. No.
knowledge of the witness-spouse before the marriage.
004-07-SC) and to rebut the presumption of competence
enjoyed by a child, the burden of proof lies on the party
3. As soon as the marriage is dissolved, the immunity
challenging his competence. (Section 6[b], Rule on
does not apply hence testimony may be offered.
Examination of Child Witness).
4. The testimony covers only those adverse to the
The Court may motu proprio or upon motion, conducts
spouse.
a competency examination of the child when it finds
that there is substantial doubt existing as to his ability to
5. Also to extends to criminal or civil cases, since the rule
perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish from
did not distinguish.
falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in
court. (Sec. 6 of Rule in Examination of child witness)
6. The prohibited testimony is one that is given or
offered “during their marriage”.
The competency examination of a child witness is not
open to the public. Only the following are allowed to
attend the examination:

7. The testimony is prohibited only over the objection of charged is against the witness’ person, and even though
the affected spouse, or the spouse against whom the the marriage was entered into for the express purpose
testimony is offered. It is the latter spouse who has the of suppressing the testimony (Herrera, 1999, citing [I]
right to object to the competency of the spouse-witness. A.L.R. 2d 649).
Hence w/o objection, it can be waived.
Testimony by Estranged Spouse
8. It covers not only utterances but also production of Since the prohibition lies during the subsistence of a
documents. marriage, this would also cover separation de facto, as it
does not sever the marriage bonds and the spouses
COMMENTS: remain legally married to each other. (Ibid,m p,272,
Under the original Section 22, the disqualification Alvarez vs. Ramirez)
includes testifying in favor of, or against the spouse. The
amended rule removed the disqualification on testifying Disqualification by Reason of
in favor of the spouse. This means that with or without Privileged Communications
the consent of the affected spouse, the other spouse
Scope
may now testify in favor of the former. (Señga)
The disqualification by reason of privileged
The reasons given for the rule are:
communication applies to both civil and criminal cases
1. There is identity of interests between husband and
except as to the doctor-patient privilege, which is
wife;
applicable only in civil cases. Unless waived, the
2. If one were to testify against the other, there is
disqualification under Sec. 24 remains even after the
consequent danger of perjury;
various relationships therein have ceased to exist.
3. The policy of the law is to guard the security and
confidences of private life, even at the risk of an
Privileged Communication:
occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic
1. Marital
disunion and unhappiness; and
2. Attorney and client
4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility there is
3. Patient and doctor
danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile
4. Priest and confessant/penitent
testimony of the other (Alvarez vs. Ramirez, G.R. No.
5. Public Officer (State Secrets)
143439, October 14, 2005).
6. Parental and filial privilege rule
Exceptions to spousal immunity
Who may assert the privilege
1. Consent is given by the party-spouse or failure to
The holder of the privilege, authorized persons and
object;
persons to whom privileged communication were made
2. In a civil case filed by one against the other;
may assert the privilege (Herrera, 1999).
3. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one
against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or
ascendants (Sec. 22, Rule 130); or a. Marital Privilege
4. Where the testimony was made after the dissolution The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage,
of the marriage (Riano, 2013). cannot be examined without the consent of the other as
to any communication received in confidence by one
Testimony where spouse is accused with others from the other during the marriage except in a civil case
In a case where a spouse testifies against his/her spouse by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
and the latter’s co-accused the disqualification is committed by one against the other or the latter's direct
between the husband and wife, but not to the other descendants or ascendants (Sec. 24(a), Rule 130).
parties. However, the testimony cannot be used against
the accused- spouse directly or through the guise of REQUISITES:
taking judicial notice of the proceedings in the case w/o 1. There must be a valid marriage between the husband
violating the marital disqualification rule. This is an and wife;
example of “what cannot be done directly cannot be 2. There is a communication received in confidence by
done indirectly” (Riano 2009, p. 270, People vs. one from the other;
Quidato) 3. The confidential communication was received during
the marriage (Riano, 2013); and
Marrying the witness 4. The spouse against whom such evidence is being
An accused can effectively “seal the lips” of a witness by offered has not given his or her consent to such
marrying the witness. As long as a valid marriage is in testimony (Regalado, 2008).
existence at the time of the trial, the witness-spouse
cannot be compelled to testify – even where the crime

Cases when marital privilege is inapplicable b. Attorney-Client Privilege

1. In a civil case by one against the other; or
An attorney or person reasonably believed by the client
2. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one
to be licensed to engage in the practice of law cannot,
against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or
without the consent of the client, be examined as to any
ascendants (Sec. 24(a), Rule 130).
communication made by the client to him or her, or his
3. Information acquired by a spouse before the marriage
or her advice given thereon in the course of, or with a
even if received confidentially will not fall squarely
view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney's
within the privilege (Riano, 2013).
secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or other persons
assisting the attorney be examined without the consent
Other items of communication overheard or in
of the client and his or her employer, concerning any
presence of third parties
fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such
GR: Third persons who, without the knowledge of the
capacity, except in the following cases:
spouses, overhear the communication are not
(i) Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services or advice
disqualified to testify.
of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid
anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client
XPN: When there is collusion and voluntary disclosure to
knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or
a third party, that third party becomes an agent and
fraud
cannot testify (Francisco, 1993).
(ii) Claimants through same deceased client. As to a
communication relevant to an issue between parties
Confidential Communication
who claim through the same deceased client, regardless
For it to be considered as confidential, it must be made
of whether the claims are by testate or intestate or by
during and by reason of the marital relations and is
inter vivos transaction;
intended not to be shared with others. Without such
(iii) Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As to a
intention, the information is not confidential.
communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty by
the lawyer to his or her client, or by the client to his or
Thus if a third person is present with the knowledge of
her lawyer;
the communicating spouse, it is not covered, and the
(iv) Document attested by the lawyer. As to a
communication is unprivileged.
communication relevant to an issue concerning an
attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting
If children of the family are present, this likewise
witness; or
deprives the conversation of protection, unless the
(v) Joint clients. As to a communication relevant to a
children are too young to understand what is said.
matter of common interest between two or more clients
if the communication was made by any of them to a
Marital Disqualification Rule vs Marital Privileged
lawyer retained or consulted in common, when offered
Communication Rule
in an action between any of the clients, unless they have
1. In Marital Disqualification Rule (MDR), the prohibition
expressly agreed otherwise (Sec. 24(b), Rule 130).
is a testimony for or against the other, while in Marital
Privileged Communication Rule (MPC), what is SEÑGA NOTES:
prohibited is the examination of a spouse as to matters The disqualification under paragraph (b) now covers a
received in confidence by one from the other during the person who is not a lawyer, but is reasonably believed
marriage. by the client to be licensed to engage in the practice, as
well as any other person assisting the attorney. The
2. MDR is broader than MPC. The former includes facts, amended rule also includes exceptions to the
occurrences or information even prior to the marriage disqualification, such as when the commination/advice
unlike the latter, which applies only to those received thereon pertains to: 1. The furtherance of crime or
during the marriage. The former applies to any fraud, which the client knew or reasonably could have
information/facts/occurrences observed by the other known to be a crime or fraud; 2. communication
spouse, but the latter applies only to confidential relevant to an issue between parties who claim through
information. the same deceased client, regardless of whether the
3. The MDR can no longer be invoked once the marriage claims are by testate or intestate or by inter vivos
is dissolved, whereas MPC can be invoked even after the transaction; 3. communication relevant to an issue of
dissolution of marriage. breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her client, or by
the client to his or her lawyer; 4. Communication
4. MDR requires that the spouse for or against whom the relevant to an issue concerning an attested document to
testimony is offered is a party to the action, but this is which the lawyer is an attesting witness; 5.
not required in MPC. (Riano 2009, p.278) communication relevant to a matter of common interest
between two or


more clients if the communication was made by any of XPNs:

them to a lawyer retained or consulted in common, 1. Where a strong possibility exists that revealing the
when offered in an action between any of the clients, client’s name would implicate the client in the very
unless they have expressly agreed otherwise. activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice;
2. Where disclosure would open the client to civil
REQUISITES: liability; or
1. There must be a communication made by the client to 3. Where the government’s lawyers have no case against
the attorney or to a person reasonably believed by the an attorney’s client unless, by revealing the client’s
client to be licensed to engage in the practice of law or name, the said name would furnish the only link that
an advice given to the client; would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict
an individual for a crime (Regala vs. Sandiganbayan,
2. The communication or advice must have been given in G.R. No. 105938, September 20, 1996).
confidence; and
Last-Link Doctrine
3. The communication or advice must have been given Q: Does the privilege preclude inquiries into the fact
either in the course of the professional employment or that the lawyer was consulted?
with a view to professional employment.
A: The traditional and still applicable rule is that an
Purpose of Attorney-Client Relationship inquiry into the fact of consultation or employment is
To encourage full disclosure by client to her attorney of not privileged. Under the Last Link Doctrine, Non-
all pertinent matters, so as to further the administration privileged information, such as the identity of the client,
of justice (Herrera, 1999). is protected if the revelation of such information would
necessarily reveal privileged information. (In re Grand
Confidential communication Jury Proceedings [GJ90-2J, 946 2d 746 [11th Cir. 1991]).
It refers to information transmitted by voluntary act of
disclosure between attorney and client in confidence RIANO NOTES:
and by means which, so far as the client is aware, 1. No need for a perfected attorney-client relationship, it
discloses the information to no third person other than is enough that the communication or advice be with a
one reasonably necessary for the transmission of the view to professional employment. This extends to
information or the accomplishment of the purpose for preliminary negotiations.
which it was given (Mercado v. Vitriolo, A.C. No. 5108,
May 26, 2005). 2. The relationship between the attorney and the client
is said to exist where a person employees the
Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege professional services of an attorney or seeks professional
The privilege is personal and it belongs to the client. If guidance, even though the lawyer declines to handle the
the client waives the privilege, no one else including the case.
attorney can invoke it (Riano, 2013, citing In Re: Young’s
Estate, 33 Utah 382, 94 P 731, 732). 3. There is authority to support the theory that it is
enough if he reasonably believes that the person
Cases when the attorney-client privilege is inapplicable consulted is a lawyer, although in fact he is not as in a
The privilege does not apply to communications which case of a detective pretending to be a lawyer.
are:
1. Intended to be made public; 4. For the privilege to exist, payment of a fee is not
2. Intended to be communicated to others; essential.
3. Intended for an unlawful purpose; 5. Even if the person is an attorney, and was consulted
4. Received from third persons not acting in behalf or as as a friend w/o view to professional employment, it is
agents of the client; or not covered.
5. Made in the presence of third parties who are
strangers to the attorney-client relationship (Regalado, 6. The privilege does not extend to communications
2008). where the client’s purpose is the furtherance of a future
intended crime or fraud.
Applicability of the rule with regard to the identity of
the client 7. The communication must be intended to be
GR: A lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to confidential.
divulge the name or identity of his client.
8. The privilege is not extended to suits between the
attorney and clients themselves.

treatment of the patient under the direction of the

9. Generally, the privilege survives the death of the physician or psychotherapist.
client. However, when there is an attack on the validity As with the old rule, the application of the rule is still
on the will, communications made to the attorney on limited to civil cases.
the drawing of the will is not required to be in secret.
Under the old rule the privilege pertains to “any advice
10. Attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or other or treatment given by him or any information which he
persons assisting the attorney are coverd by the privilege may have acquired in attending such patient in a
as to any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired professional capacity, which information was necessary
in such capacity. The exceptions are applicable to them to enable him to act in capacity, and which would
as well. blacken the reputation of the patient”. The new rule
pertains to “any confidential communication made for
c. Physician and Patient Privilege the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient's
A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably physical, mental or emotional condition, including
believed by the patient to be authorized to practice alcohol or drug addiction, between the patient and his or
medicine or psychotherapy cannot in a civil case, her physician or psychotherapist,” regardless of whether
without the consent of the patient, be examined as to the information would blacken the reputation of the
any confidential communication made for the purpose of patient.
diagnosis or treatment of the patient's physical, mental
or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug Requisites for the applicability of physician and patient
addiction, between the patient and his or her physician privilege
or psychotherapist. This privilege also applies to persons, 1. The privilege is claimed in a civil case;
including members of the patient's family, who have 2. The person against whom the privilege is claimed is a
participated in the diagnosis or treatment of the patient physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably believed
under the direction of the physician or psychotherapist. by the patient to be authorized to practice medicine or
A "psychotherapist" is: psychotherapy;
(a) A person licensed to practice medicine engaged in 3. The information was confidential and made for the
the diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient's
condition, or physical, mental or emotional condition, including
(b) A person licensed as a psychologist by the alcohol or drug addiction.
government while similarly engaged.
(Sec. 24(c), Rule 130). Waiver of Privilege
The waiver may be made expressly or impliedly. The
Purpose of this privilege waiver may be by a contract as in medical or life
The privilege is intended to facilitate and make safe, full insurance. When there is disclosure by the patient of the
and confidential disclosure by patient to doctor of all information, there is necessarily, a waiver. When the
facts, circumstances, and symptoms, untrammeled by patient answers questions on matters which are
apprehension of their subsequent and enforced supposedly privileged on cross-examination, the waiver
disclosure and publication on the witness stand, to the also exists (Riano, 2013). There could also be waiver by
end that the physician may form a correct opinion, and operation of law (Sec. 4, Rule 28).
be enabled safely and efficaciously to treat his patient
(Herrera, 1999). Cases when Physician and Patient Privilege is
inapplicable:
SEÑGA COMMENTS: The privilege does not apply where:
The coverage of Paragraph (c) was amended. It now 1. The communication was not given in confidence;
states physician, and includes a psychotherapist or 2. The communication is irrelevant to the professional
person reasonably believed by the patient to be employment;
authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy. 3. The communication was made for an unlawful
Psychotherapist was defined as a person licensed: (a) to purpose;
practice medicine engaged in the diagnosis or treatment 4. The information was intended to be made public; or
of a mental or emotional condition; or (b) as a 5. There was a waiver of the privilege either by
psychologist by the government while similarly engaged. provisions of contract or law (Regalado, 2008).
It also applies to persons, including members of the
patient's family, who have participated in the diagnosis NOTE: It is essential that at the time the communication
or was made, the professional relationship is existing, that
is, while the doctor was attending to the patient for
curative, preventive or palliative treatment. It is not

however necessary that the physician-patient official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
relationship was created through the voluntary act of the government research data used as basis for policy
patient. The treatment may have been given at the development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to
behest of another, the patient being in extremis such limitations as maybe provided by law (Sec. 7, Article
(Regalado, 2008). III, 1987 Constitution).
d. Priest/Minister-Penitent Privilege Requisites for its application of the privilege

A minister, priest or person reasonably believed to be so 1. The holder of the privilege is the government, acting
cannot, without the consent of the affected person, be through a public officer;
examined as to any communication or confession made 2. The communication was given to the public officer in
to or any advice given by him or her, in his or her official confidence;
professional character, in the course of discipline 3. The communication was given during the term of
enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest office of the public officer or afterwards;
belongs. (Sec. 24(d), Rule 130). 4. The public interest would suffer by the disclosure of
the communication (Herrera, 1999).
SEÑGA NOTES:
The disqualification under paragraph (d) was broaden to Cases when the privilege is inapplicable
include any person reasonably believed to be a minister If what is asked is among the following, disclosure will be
or priest. The privilege now covers any communication, compelled:
and not just confession made to or advice given. 1. Useful evidence to vindicate the innocence of an
However, it appears that “any communication” is still accused person;
qualified by the provision that the same is made in the 2. To lessen risk of false testimony;
professional character and in the course of discipline 3. Essential to the proper disposition of the case; or
enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest 4. The benefit to be gained by a correct disposition of
belongs. the litigation was greater than any injury which could
inure to the relation by a disclosure of information
Requisites for the applicability of the priest-penitent (Francisco, 1996).
privilege
1. The confession or any communication must have been NOTE: The disclosure or non-disclosure is not dependent
made to the priest or person reasonably believed to be on the will of the officer but on the determination by a
so or the advice was given by him or her in his competent court (Riano, 2013).
professional character in the course of discipline
enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest This last paragraph was added under the revised rule
belongs. (Sec. 24(d), Rule 130); and and states that the communication, even in the hands of
a third person who may have obtained the information,
2. Communications made must be confidential. provided that the original parties to the communication
took reasonable precaution to protect its confidentiality.
Thus, if there is no reasonable precaution to protect its
e. Public Officer as regards Communications Made in confidentiality then it may be construed as waiver
Official Confidence thereof and hence, not covered by the privilege. (Señga)
A public officer cannot be examined during or after his
or her tenure as to communications made to him or her Executive privilege
in official confidence, when the court finds that the It is the power of the government to withhold
public interest would suffer by the disclosure. information from the public, the courts, and the
The communication shall remain privileged, even in the Congress. There are certain types of information which
hands of a third person who may have obtained the the government may withhold from the public like
information, provided that the original parties to the military, diplomatic and other national security secrets
communication took reasonable precaution to protect its (Riano, 2013).
confidentiality. (Sec. 24(e), Rule 130).
f. Parental and Filial Privilege Rule
Reason: General grounds of public policy No person shall be compelled to testify against his or her
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct
The right of the people to information on matters of descendants, except when such testimony is
public concern shall be recognized. Access to official indispensable in a crime against that person or by one
records, and to documents and papers pertaining to parent against the other (Sec. 25, Rule 130).

example, a machine or formula, but can be a price list or

The new rule incorporates Article 215 of the Family catalogue or specialized customer list. Trade secrets
Code, which is mandatory in character (as compared to constitute proprietary rights. The inventor, discoverer, or
the directory character of the old rule), and provides for possessor of a trade secret or similar innovation has
the exception when testimony may be compelled, i.e., rights therein which may be treated as property, and
when the testimony is indispensable in a crime against ordinarily an injunction will be granted to prevent the
that person or by one parent against the other. (Señga) disclosure of the trade secret by one who obtained the
information "in confidence" or through a "confidential
Under the Family Code, no descendant shall be relationship. (Air Philippines Corp. v. Pennswell, Inc., G.R.
compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his No. 172835, 13 December 2007)
parents and grandparents. As an exception, the
descendant may be compelled to give his testimony in In Cocoland Development Corp. v. National Labor
the following instances: Relations Commission, G.R. No. 98458, 17 July 1996, it
was ruled that any determination by management as to
1. When such testimony is indispensable in a crime the confidential nature of technologies, processes,
committed against said descendant; or formulae or other so -called trade secrets must have a
substantial factual basis which can pass judicial scrutiny.
2. In a crime committed by one parent against the other The Court rejected the employer’s naked contention that
(Riano, 2013, citing Art. 215, Family Code). its own determination as to what constitutes a trade
secret should be binding and conclusive upon the NLRC.
g. Privilege relating to Trade Secrets As a caveat, the Court said that to rule otherwise would
A person cannot be compelled to testify about any trade be to permit an employer to label almost anything a
secret, unless the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or trade secret, and thereby create a weapon with which
otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is directed, he/it may arbitrarily dismiss an employee on the pretext
the court shall take such protective measure as the that the latter somehow disclosed a trade secret, even if
interest of the owner of the trade secret and of the in fact there be none at all to speak of. Hence, in
parties and the furtherance of justice may require. (Rule Cocoland, the parameters in the determination of trade
130, Sec. 26) secrets were set to be such substantial factual basis that
can withstand judicial scrutiny.
Señga Notes:
This is a new insertion. There is no similar provision However, for compelling reasons, the courts may lift the
under the old rules. However, while this provision was veil of confidentiality which shields trade secrets. (Air
not under the old rule, it has long been recognized that Philippines Corp. v. Pennswell, Inc., G.R. No. 172835, 13
there are other privileged matters that not mentioned by December 2007)
Rule 130. Among them are the following: (a) editors may
not be compelled to disclose the source of published Thus, under the new rule, a person cannot be compelled
news; (b) voters may not be compelled to disclose for to testify about any trade secret, unless the non-
whom they voted; (c) trade secrets; (d) information disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice.
contained in tax census returns; and (d) bank deposits. Even when disclosure is directed, the court shall still take
Jurisprudence has consistently acknowledged the private such protective measure as the interest of the owner of
character of trade secrets. There is a privilege not to the trade secret and of the parties and the furtherance
disclose one’s trade secrets. The Supreme Court has of justice may require
declared that trade secrets and banking transactions are
among the recognized restrictions to the right of the OTHER PRIVILEGED MATTERS
people to information as embodied in the Constitution.
1. The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any
The drafters of the Constitution also unequivocally
proceeding concerning any information, statement, or
affirmed that, aside from national security matters and
opinion received from the child in the course of serving
intelligence information, trade or industrial secrets
as guardian ad litem, unless the court finds it necessary
(pursuant to the Intellectual Property Code and other
to promote the best interests of the child (Sec. 5(e), Rule
related laws) as well as banking transactions (pursuant
on Examination of a Child Witness);
to the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act), are also exempted
from compulsory disclosure (Air Philippines Corp. v.
2. Editors may not be compelled to disclose the source
Pennswell, Inc., G.R. No. 172835, 13 December 2007)
of published news (R.A. 53, as amended by R.A. 1477);
A trade secret is a process or device intended for
continuous use in the operation of the business, for

3. Information and statements made at conciliation An admission by a party may be given in evidence
proceedings (Art. 233, Labor Code); against him or her (Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court). His
admission is not admissible in his favor, because it would
4. Institutions covered by the law and its officers and be self-serving evidence. Declarations of a party
employees who communicate a suspicious transaction to favorable to himself are not admissible as proof of the
the Anti-Money Laundering Council (Sec. 6 of R.A. 9194 facts asserted.
amending Sec. 9 of R.A. 9160); and
Judicial admission vs. Extrajudicial admission
5. The prosecutor may not be compelled to present an
informer to protect his identity and when his testimony Judicial Admissions Extrajudicial Admissions
would be merely corroborative and cumulative (Herrera, Those made in the Those made out of court
1999). course of the or in a judicial proceeding
proceeding in the same other than the one under
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS case consideration
An admission, in general sense, includes confessions, the Do not require proof Regarded as evidence and
former being a broader term because, accordingly, a and may be must be offered as such,
confession is also an “admission… by the accused of the contradicted only by otherwise the court will
fact charged against him or of some fact essential to the showing that it was not consider it in deciding
charge” (4 Wigmore, Sec. 1050). made through palpable the case.
mistake or that no such
Admission Confession admission was
A statement of fact A statement of fact which made (Sec. 4, Rule 129).
which does not involve involves a positive Judicial admissions need Requires formal offer for it
an acknowledgment of acknowledgment of guilt not be offered in to be considered
guilt or liability. or liability . evidence since it is not
May be made by third Can be made only by the evidence. It is superior
persons and in certain party himself and, in to evidence and shall be
cases, are admissible some instances, are considered by the court
against a party. admissible against his co- as established.
accused. Conclusive upon the Rebuttable
Applies to both criminal Applies only to criminal admitter
and civil cases. cases. Admissible even if self- Not admissible if self-
May be express or Must be express. serving serving
implies. Subject to cross- Not subject to cross-
Judicial/ Extrajudicial Judicial/Extrajudicial examination examination
A confession is a specific type of admission which refers
only to an acknowledgement of guilt. As used, the term
admission refers to an acknowledgement of facts which, Offer of Compromise
although may be incriminating, falls short of an Offer of Compromise in Civil Cases
admission of guilt (Riano, 2013). In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission
of any liability, and is not an admission in evidence
An admission is an act, declaration or omission of a party against the offeror. (Sec. 28, Rule 130)
as to a relevant fact (Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court). It
is a voluntary acknowledgment made by a party of the The old and new rule are the same insofar as it provides
existence of the truth of certain facts which are that in civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an
inconsistent with his claims in an action (Black's Law admission of any liability, and is not admissible in
Dictionary, 5th Ed., 44). evidence against the offeror. (Señga)
In a confession, there is an acknowledgement of guilt; in As to evidence of conduct or statements made in

an admission, there is merely a statement of fact not compromise negotiations:
directly involving an acknowledgement of guilt or of the Neither is evidence of conduct nor statements made in
criminal intent to commit the offense with which one is compromise negotiations admissible, except evidence
charged. (Ladiana v. People) otherwise discoverable or offered for another purpose,
such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing
Effects of Admissions a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to
obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution. (Ibid.)

If the plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not accepted,

The new rule adds that evidence of conduct and the rule does not provide for an adverse consequence of
statements made in compromise negotiations are also the unaccepted plea. On the contrary, the rule provides
not considered as admission of any liability, and are not that an unaccepted plea of guilty to a lesser offense, is
admissible in evidence against the offeror. This new not admissible in evidence against the accused who
addition is subject to the exception: that evidence made the plea or offer. Neither is any statement made in
otherwise discoverable or offered for another purpose, the course of plea bargaining with the prosecution,
such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing which does not result in a plea of guilty or which results
a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to in a plea of guilty later withdrawn, admissible.
obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution would be
admissible. (Señga) An Offer to Pay or the Payment of Medical, Hospital or
Other Expenses
Offer of Compromise in Criminal Cases An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or
An offer of compromise by the accused may be received other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible
in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the
injured party.
Example: Although the marriage of the accused in a rape
case extinguishes the penal action, an offer of marriage In other jurisdictions, this act of rendering aid is
is, generally, speaking, an admission of guilt. sometimes called the "good Samaritan rule." The phrase
is used to refer to the rendering of voluntary aid to a
There is no implied admission of guilt if the offer of suffering person.
compromise is in relation to:
(a) quasi-offenses (criminal negligence); or Subsequent Remedial Measures
(b) in those cases allowed by law to be compromised. Assume that PP, while negotiating the stairs from the
(Ibid.) lobby of a hotel to his third floor room, slipped and fell
from the stairs and sustained head injuries. The hotel
The second paragraphs under the old and new rules are owner, upon learning of the accident, immediately
the same. ordered the maintenance department of the hotel to
install a non-slippery material on every step of the
Plea of Guilty Later Withdrawn stairway. In an action for damages against the hotel
The Rules of Criminal Procedure, allows the accused, at owner by PP, may the latter introduce evidence of the
arraignment, to plead guilty to a lesser offense with the subsequent remedial measures taken to prove an
consent of the offended party and the prosecutor admission by the defendant of the hazardous condition
provided that the lesser offense is necessarily included in of the stairway at the time of the incident?
the offense charged. He may also plead guilty to a lesser
offense even after arraignment after withdrawing his No direct legal provision in this jurisdiction addresses the
plea of not guilty. question as it is. It is however, interesting to observe
that the U. S. Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) in Rule 407
In case the accused withdraws his guilty plea, that plea thereof, prohibits the admission of evidence of
of guilty later withdrawn, is not admissible in evidence subsequent remedial measures when offered to prove
against the accused who made the plea or offer. Neither the negligence of the defendant.
is any statement made in the course of plea bargaining
with the prosecution, which does not result in a plea of Evidence of such measures may however, be admissible
guilty or which results in a plea of guilty later withdrawn, to prove some other purpose like the fact that the
admissible. defendant had ownership of the hotel or control over
the same and all the fixtures therein.
The first sentence of the third paragraphs under the old
and new rules are the same. The new rule adds that the Accordingly the rule is based on the policy of
rule also now covers and makes inadmissible any encouraging potential defendants to remedy hazardous
statement made in the course of plea bargaining with conditions without fear that their actions will be used as
the prosecution, which does not result in a plea of guilty evidence against them.
or which results in a plea of guilty later withdrawn. This
should also be read in connection with Section 5, Rule To adopt the contrary rule would discourage owners
116 on withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty. (Señga) from improving the condition causing the injury because
of their fear of the evidential use of such improvement
An Unaccepted Plea of Guilty to a Lesser Offense to

their disadvantage (Werner v. Upjohn Co. [CA4 MD] 628 testimony and not subject of the res inter alios acta rule
F2d, 848; 29 Am Jur 2d §463- 464). since such testimony is subject to cross examination.
The rule (FRE 407) provides that: Admission by a Party

"When after an event, measures are taken which, if
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a
taken previously, would have made the event less likely
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or
to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not
her (Sec. 27, Rule 130).
admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in
connection with the event. This rule does not require the
Requisites for the admissibility of an admission
exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when
1. The act, declaration or omission must have been
offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership,
made by a party or by one by whom he is legally bound;
control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if
2. The admission must be as to a relevant fact; and
controverted, or impeachment." (FRE Rule 407)
3. The admission may only be given in evidence against
him or her (Ibid.; Herrera, 1999).
Res Inter Alios Acta Rule
Reason for the rule on res inter alios acta Classifications of Admissions
On principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a Express It is a positive statement or act.
man’s own acts are binding upon himself and are Implied It is one which may be inferred from
evidence against him. So are his conduct and the declarations or acts of a person.
declarations. It would not only be rightly inconvenient Judicial When made in the course of a judicial
but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound proceeding.
by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a Extrajudicial When made out of court or even in a
party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, proceeding other than the one under
neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence consideration.
against him (People v. Guittap, G.R. No. 144621, May 9, Adoptive It is a party’s reaction to a statement
2003). or action by another person when it is
reasonable to treat the party’s
Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet
reaction as an admission of something
This principle literally means “things done between
stated or implied by the other person.
strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties
A third person’s statement becomes
to them” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.; Dynamic
the admission of the party embracing
Signmaker Outdoor Advertising Services, Inc. v.
or espousing it. Adoptive admission
Potongan,
may occur when a party:
G.R. No. 156589, June 27, 2005).
1. Expressly agrees to or concurs in an
oral statement made by another;
Two (2) branches of res inter alios acta rule
2. Hears a statement and later on
1. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
essentially repeats it;
declaration, or omission of another. (Sec. 29, Rule 130);
3. Utters an acceptance or builds upon
2. Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at
the assertion of another;
one time is not admissible to prove that he or she did or
4. Replies by way of rebuttal to some
did not do the same or similar thing at another time
specific points raised by another but
(Sec. 35, Rule 130).
ignores further points which he or she
has heard the other make; or
Exceptions to the res inter alios acta rule (first branch):
5. Reads and signs a written statement
1. Admission by a co-partner or agent (Sec.30, Rule 130);
made by another.
2. Admission by a co-conspirator (Sec. 31, Rule 130); and
3. Admission by privies (Sec. 32, Rule 130).
NOTE: The rule has reference to extrajudicial Admission by a Third Party

declarations. Hence, statements made in open court by a GR: The act, declaration or omission made out of court
witness implicating persons aside from him are of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence
admissible as declarations from one who has personal against him but may not be given in evidence against
knowledge of the facts testified to (Riano, 2013). another person.
NOTE: The testimony of the accused against his co- XPN:

accused in open court is considered as admissibile
Admission by a Co-Partner or Agent

The act or declaration of a partner or agent authorized construction, the new addition is encompassed by the
by the party to make a statement concerning the subsequent provision of “or within the scope of his or
subject, or within the scope of his or her authority, and her authority”, such that regardless of any authority to
during the existence of the partnership or agency, may make the statement, the act or declaration would be
be given in evidence against such party after the binding against the party. With this construction, there is
partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than no substantial change between the new and old rule.
such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the act
or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other It being unclear, at this point, what is the intention of
person jointly interested with the party (Sec. 29, Rule this provision, it is respectfully submitted that we will
130). have to wait for jurisprudence that would clarify the
import of the amended rule.
Requisites for an admission of a partner to bind his co-
partners or for an agent to bind his principal Dissolved Partnership
1. The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the GR: Admissions made after a partnership has been
party must be within the scope of his authority; dissolved do not fall within the exception because such
2. The admission was made during the existence of the are made when the partnership ceased to exist.
partnership or agency; and
3. The existence of the partnership or agency is shown XPN: Where the admissions are made in connection with
by evidence other than such act or declaration. (Ibid.). the winding up of the partnership affairs, said
The Articles of Incorporation or a Special Power of admissions are still admissible as the partner is acting as
Attorney may be presented for such purpose (Suarez and an agent of his co-partner in said winding up (Regalado,
De la Banda, 2000). 2008)
SEÑGA NOTE: Admission by a Conspirator

The revised rule is capable of 2 constructions.
The act or declaration of a conspirator in furtherance of
the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in
First. It may mean that the declaration is qualified by the
evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy
new insertion that the declaration by the partner or
is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.
agent would only be binding if the agent was authorized
(Sec. 31, Rule 130).
to make the statement concerning the subject. This
would mean that the past rule would no longer hold true
Conspiracy
- that regardless of the authority to make the statement,
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
the declaration made by a partner or agent within the
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
scope of authority and during the existence of the
and decide to commit it (Herrera, 1999).
partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against
such party. For example, in Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos.
NOTE: Once conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the
146710-15 and 146738, 3 April 2001, former President
act of all. The statement therefore of one may be
Estrada never categorically authorized then Executive
admitted against the other co-conspirators as an
Secretary Angara to make the statements on his behalf
exception to the rule of res inter alios acta (Riano, 2013).
as contained in the Angara Diary. Nevertheless, the same
was admitted in evidence against then President Estrada,
Requisites of an admission by a conspirator
even if the latter objected to the same. Assuming the
1. The declaration or act be made or done during the
revised rule is to be construed as mentioned above, then
existence of the conspiracy;
it would mean that the ruling in Estrada and similar
cases would no longer hold true – that unless there is
2. The declaration or act must done in the furtherance of
authority to make that statement, such would not be
the conspiracy; and
binding against the party.
3. The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than
Second. It may just be a harmless addition that adds that
the declaration or act (evidence aliunde) (Sec. 30, Rule
declarations of a partner or agent authorized by the
130).
party to make a statement concerning the subject, in
addition to the existing rule that acts or declarations of a
NOTE: This rule applies only to extrajudicial acts or
partner or agent, within the scope of his or her
admission and not to testimony at trial where the party
authority, and during the existence of the partnership or
adversely affected has the opportunity to cross-examine
agency, may be given in evidence against such party
the witness (People vs. Baharan, January 10, 2011).
after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence
other than such act or declaration. In other words,
under this second


Self-serving declaration 1. One (successor in interest) derives title to property

It is one which has been made extra-judicially by the from another (predecessor in interest) through any legal
party to favor his interest. It is not admissible in means of transfer
evidence because they are inherently untrustworthy, 2. A statement, act or declaration is made by the
and would open the door to fraud and fabrication of predecessor in interest in relation to the property and
testimony. while holding the title thereof
3. Said statement, act or declaration is evidence against
NOTE: Self-serving evidence are inadmissible because his successor in interest (Sec. 31, Rule 130; Suarez and
the adverse party is not given the opportunity for cross- De la Banda, 2006).
examination, and their admission would encourage
fabrication of testimony. Admission by Silence
An act or declaration made in the presence and within
Statements in affidavits are not sufficient to prove the
the hearing or observation of a party who does or says
existence of agricultural tenancy. It is self-serving. It will
nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally
not suffice to prove consent of the owner. Independent
to call for action or comment if not true, and when
evidence is necessary.
proper and possible for him or her to do so, may be
given in evidence against him or her. (Sec. 33, Rule 130).
Extrajudicial admissions made after the conspiracy had
terminated
Requisites of an admission by silence
GR: Extrajudicial admissions made by a conspirator after
1. He/She must have heard or observed the act or
the conspiracy had terminated and even before trial are
declaration of the other person;
not admissible against the co-conspirator.
2. He/She must have had the opportunity to deny it;
3. He/She must have understood the statement;
XPNs:
4. He/She must have an interest to object, such that
1. If made in the presence of the co-conspirator who
he/she would naturally have done so, if the statement
expressly or impliedly agreed therein;
was not true;
2. Where the facts in said admission are confirmed in
5. The facts were within his or her knowledge; and
the individual extrajudicial confessions made by the co-
6. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from
conspirator after their apprehension;
his or her silence is material to the issue. (People v.
3. As a circumstance to determine the credibility of the
Paragsa, G.R. No. L-44060, July 20, 1978; Sec. 32, Rule
witness; or
130; Regalado, 2008).
4. As circumstantial evidence to show the probability of
the co-conspirator’s participation in the offense
NOTE: The rule on admission by silence does not apply
(Regalado, 2008).
when a person is under an official investigation. For the
silence of a person under a custodial investigation for
When extrajudicial admission becomes a judicial
the commission of an offense should not be construed
admission
as an admission by silence because a person has the
While it is true that statements made by a conspirator
right to remain silent and to be informed of that right
against a co-conspirator are admissible only when made
(Sec. 12, Art. III, 1987 Constitution; Riano, 2009).
during the existence of the conspiracy, if the declarant
repeats the statement in court, his extrajudicial
However, if it is not the police investigators who
confession becomes a judicial admission, making the
confronted the accused but the owner of a carnapped
testimony admissible as to both conspirators.
vehicle, the silence of one after being implicated by the
other accused serves as an admission by silence as he
Admission by Privies
did not refute the statements of his co-accused despite
Where one derives title to property from another, the having heard of them (People v. Garcia, Jr., G.R. No.
latter's act, declaration, or omission in relation to the 138470, April 1, 2003).
property, is evidence against the former if done while
the latter was holding the title. (Sec. 32, Rule 130). PRINCIPLE OF ADOPTIVE ADMISSION
It is a party’s reaction to a statement or action by
Privies
another person when it is reasonable to treat the party’s
They refer to persons who are partakers or have an
reaction as an admission of something stated or implied
interest in any action or thing, or any relation to another
by the other person. The basis for admissibility of
(Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.).
admissions made vicariously is that arising from the
ratification or
Requisites of an admission by privies

adoption by the party of the statements which the other and is admissible against one’s co-accused. It is governed
person had made (Estrada v. Desierto, April 3, 2001). by Secs. 1, 3 & 4 of Rule 116.
NOTE: One good example of adoptive admission is the

alleged admissions made by President Estrada when his Extrajudicial - One made in any other place or occasion
options had dwindled when, according to the Angara other than the court where the case is pending and
Diary, the Armed Forces withdrew its support from him cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated by
as President and Commander-in-Chief. Thus, Angara had evidence of corpus delicti. It is generally binding only
to allegedly ask Senate President Pimentel to advise upon the confessant and is not admissible against his co-
Estrada to consider the option of “dignified exit or accused. It is governed by Sec. 33 of Rule 130 (Regalado,
resignation.” Estrada did not object to the suggested 2008).
option but simply said he could never leave the country.
According to the court, his silence on this and other NOTE: If the accused admits having committed the act in
related suggestions can be taken as adoptive admissions question but alleges a justification therefor, such as
by him (Ibid.). absence of criminal intent, the same is merely an
admission (Ibid.).
Confessions
The declaration of an accused acknowledging his or her Effect of Extrajudicial Confession of Guilt; Corpus Delicti
guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense While a judicial confession may sustain a conviction, an
necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence extrajudicial confession is not sufficient for conviction.
against him or her. (Sec. 34, Rule 130). The rule requires that the confession be corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti (Sec. 3, Rule 133, Rules of
Requisites for the admissibility of a confession
Court).
1. It must involve an express and categorical
acknowledgement of guilt;
Corpus delicti is the 'body of the crime' or the offense.
2. Facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal
Strictly speaking, it means the actual commission of the
offense;
crime and someone criminally responsible therefor
3. It must have been given voluntarily;
4. It must have been intelligently made, the accused
It is the substance of the crime; the fact that a crime has
realizing the importance or legal significance of his act;
actually been committed .
and
5. There must have been no violation of Sec. 12, Art. III,
Corpus delicti has two elements: (1) proof of the
1987 Constitution
occurrence of a certain event —for example, that a man
has died or a building has been burned; and (2) some
NOTE: A confession to a person, who is not a police
person's criminal responsibility for the act.
officer, is admissible in evidence. The declaration
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any
Corpus delicti, and all the elements thereof, may be
offense necessarily included therein, may be given in
proved by circumstantial evidence but such proof must
evidence against the declarant. Such admissions are not
be convincing and compatible with the nature of the
covered by Secs. 12 (1) and (3), Article III, 1987
case
Constitution, because they were not extracted while he
was under custodial investigation.
While an extrajudicial confession will not be sufficient for
conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus
6. It must be in writing and signed by such person in the
delicti a judicial confession will support conviction
presence of his counsel or in the latter’s absence, upon a
without proof of corpus delicti independent of the
valid waiver and in the presence of any of the parents,
judicial confession.
elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal
mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor or
Admissibility of extrajudicial confessions
priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him (Sec.
GR: An extrajudicial confession is not admissible against
2(d), R.A. 7438).
the confessor’s co-accused. Said confession is hearsay
evidence and violative of the res inter alios acta rule.
CLASSIFICATION OF CONFESSION
Judicial - One made by the accused before an open court
XPN: It may be admitted in evidence against his co-
in which the case is pending and in the course of legal
accused in the following cases:
proceedings therein and, by itself, can sustain conviction
1. In case of implied acquiescence of the co-accused to
the extrajudicial confession;

2. In case of interlocking confessions; 6. Scheme;

3. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the 7. Habit;
confessant after being apprised of such confession; 8. Custom;
4. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime 9. Usage; and
which was confessed by one of the accused and said 10. The like (Ibid.).
confession is used only as corroborating evidence;
5. Where the confession is used as circumstantial Purpose of the rule
evidence to show the probability of participation by the Evidence of similar acts or occurrences compels the
co-conspirator; defendant to meet allegations that are not mentioned in
6. When the confessant testified for his co-defendant; the complaint, confuses him in his defense, raises a
and variety of relevant issues, and diverts the attention of
7. Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession is the court from the issues immediately before it. Hence,
corroborated by other evidence on record (Regalado, the evidentiary rule guards the practical inconvenience
2008). of trying collateral issues and protracting the trial, and
prevents surprise or other mischief prejudicial to litigants
Requirements for an admission of guilt of an accused (Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 126713, July 27, 1998).
during a custodial investigation to be admitted in
evidence
1. The admission must be voluntary (Sec. 12(1), 1987 UNACCEPTED OFFER
Constitution); An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or
2. The admission must be in writing (R.A. 7438); to deliver a written instrument or specific personal
3. The admission must be made with the assistance of property is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent to
competent, independent counsel (Sec. 12, 1987 the actual production and tender of the money,
Constitution); instrument, or property. (Sec. 35, Rule 130)
4. The admission must be express. (People vs. Prinsipe,
G.R. No. 135862, May 2, 2002); HEARSAY
5. In case the accused waives his rights to silence and to
Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the
counsel, such waiver must be in writing, executed with
declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to
the assistance of competent, independent counsel (R.A.
prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. A
7438).
statement is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) a non-
verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him or her
Doctrine of Interlocking Confessions
as an assertion. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except
It states that extrajudicial confessions independently
as otherwise provided in these Rule.
made without collusion which are identical with each
other in their essential details and corroborated by other
A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at
evidence against the persons implicated, are admissible
the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination
to show the probability of the latter’s actual
concerning the statement, and the statement is (a)
participation in the commission of the crime (People v.
inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was
Mulit, G.R. No. 181043, October 8, 2008).
given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a
trial hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition; (b)
Similar Acts as Evidence consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered
to rebut an express or implied charge against the
2nd branch of the Res Inter Alios Acta
declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or
GR: Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at
motive; or (c) one of identification of a person made
one time is not admissible to prove that he or she did or
after perceiving him or her.
did not do the same or similar thing at another time
(Sec. 37, Rule 130)
(Sec. 35, Rule 130). This is also referred to as the
“Propensity Rule.”(Bar 2002)
This is a new insertion. Prior to the amendment, there is
XPNs: Evidence of similar or previous acts may be no exact section providing for definition of hearsay
received to prove the following: evidence, and instead, it was implied under the old
1. Specific intent; Section 36, such that if it does not fall under Section 36,
2. Knowledge; then it is hearsay. Note that not all hearsay is
3. Identity; inadmissible, as it admits of exceptions, which were and
4. Plan; are recognized under the old and new rules.
5. System;

The new rule provides that hearsay is a statement other Rationale for Hearsay Rule
than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial
There is no opportunity to cross-examine the outside
or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts
declarant.
asserted therein. Even without the amendment, it has
been recognized that if the statement is not being Double hearsay
offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein It is a testimony of a person with respect to what was
but only to prove that the statement was made, it is told him by one who was not an eyewitness to the crime
admissible under the rule on independent relevant but who obtained knowledge thereof only from the
statements. alleged victim (People v. Manhuyod, Jr., G.R. No.
124676, May 20, 1998).
Additionally, the rule provides that it is not hearsay if the
declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to Classification of out-of-court statements:
cross-examination concerning the statement, and the 1. Hearsay – Its probative force depends, in whole or in
statement is (a) inconsistent with the declarant's part, on the competency and credibility of some persons
testimony, and was given under oath subject to the other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce
penalty of perjury at a trial hearing, or other proceeding, it. It is inadmissible as evidence when the purpose for
or in a deposition; (b) consistent with the declarant's introducing the out-of-court statement is to prove the
testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied truth of the facts asserted therein (Estrada v. Desierto,
charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or supra).
improper influence or motive; or (c) one of identification 2. Non-hearsay – This occurs when the purpose for
of a person made after perceiving him or her. (Señga) introducing the statement is not to prove the truth of
the facts asserted therein but only the making of the
It also includes all assertions where, though derived statements and are admissible in evidence when the
from personal knowledge, the adverse party is not given making of the statement is relevant. These are the so-
an opportunity to cross-examine (Herrera, 1999). called independently relevant statements (Herrera,
1999).
NOTE: Newspaper clippings are hearsay and of no 3. Exceptions to the hearsay rule – Those which are
evidentiary value at all whether objected to or not, hearsay but are considered as exceptions to the hearsay
unless offered for a purpose other than proving the truth rule and are therefore admissible.
of the matter asserted (Feria v. CA, G.R. No. 122954,
February 15, 2000). Independently relevant statements
These are statements which are relevant independently
Medical certificates cannot be admitted in the absence of whether they are true or not. They are neither
of the testimony of the physician who examined the hearsay nor an exception to the hearsay rule as the
complaint for alleged torture wounds. purpose thereof is not to prove the truth of the
declaration or document (Estrada v. Desierto, supra).It
Affidavits are inadmissible unless the affiants themselves merely proves the fact that a statement was made and
are placed in the witness stand to testify therefrom. not the truth of the fact asserted in the statement.
Statements made through an interpreter Classification of independently relevant statements

GR: Statements made through an interpreter are 1. Those statements which are the very facts in issue;
considered hearsay if a witness is offered to testify to 2. Those statements which are circumstantial evidence
the statements of another person, spoken in a language of the fact in issue. It includes the following:
not understood by him, but translated for him by an
interpreter, such witness is not qualified, because he a. Statements of a person showing his state of mind, that
does not speak from personal knowledge. All that he can is, his mental condition, knowledge, belief, intention, ill-
know as to the testimony is from the interpretation will and other emotions;
thereof which is in fact given by another person.
b. Statements of a person which show his physical
XPNs: In cases where the interpreter had been selected: condition, as illness and the like;
1. By common consent of the parties endeavoring to
converse; c. Statements of a person from which an inference may
be made as to the state of mind of another, i.e., the
2. By a party against whom the statements of the knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the
interpreter where offered in evidence (Principal-Agent latter;
Rule).

6. That the statement is complete in itself – “Doctrine of

d. Statements which may identify the date, place and Completeness” (People v. De Joya, G.R. No. 75028,
person in question; and November 8, 1991); and
e. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness 7. The declarant should have died (if he survives, his
(Ibid.). declaration may be admissible as part of the res gestae)
(Riano, 2013).
Non-human evidence
It is the testimony of a witness as to statements made by Factors in determining whether the declarant is
a non-human declarant (e.g. machines and computers). conscious of his impending death
It does not violate the rule on hearsay, hence not 1. The words or statements of the declarant on the same
covered by the Rule. Machines and animals, unlike occasion;
humans, lack conscious motivation to tell falsehoods. 2. His conduct at the time the declaration was made; and
The workings of the machines can be explained by 3. The serious nature of his wounds as would necessarily
human witnesses who may then be cross-examined engender a belief on his part that he would not survive
(Herrera, 1999). therefrom (Regalado, 2008).
Exceptions to the Hearsay Evidence Rule NOTE: The dying declaration of the deceased is not
It is not correct to say that the exceptions to the hearsay admissible as an ante-mortem declaration when the
rule are not hearsay. They are hearsay evidence but they deceased was in doubt as to whether he would die or
are deemed admissible by reason of necessity and not. It may, however, be admitted as part of res gestae
trustworthiness (Riano, 2013). when it is made immediate after a startling occurrence.
Reason for admissibility Assailing a dying declaration

They are admissible by reason of relevancy, necessity The declaration may be attacked in the same manner as
and trustworthiness (Estrada vs. Desierto, supra). one would do a testimony in open court. The declarant
himself may be impeached through the normal methods
1. Dying Declaration provided for under the rules.
The declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be received 2. Statement of Decedent or Person of Unsound Mind
in any case wherein his or her death is the subject of
inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding In an action against an executor or administrator or
circumstances of such death (Sec. 37, Rule 130 other representative of a deceased person, or against a
person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand
These are ante mortem statements made by a person against the estate of such deceased person or against
after the mortal wound has been inflicted under the such person of unsound mind, where a party or assignor
belief that the death is certain, stating the fact of a party or a person in whose behalf a case is
concerning the cause of and the circumstances prosecuted testifies on a matter of fact occurring before
surrounding the attack (Herrera, 1999). the death of the deceased person or before the person
became of unsound mind, any statement of the
NOTE: Where the elements of both a dying declaration deceased or the person of unsound mind, may be
and a statement as part of the res gestae are present, received in evidence if the statement was made upon
the statement may be admitted as a dying declaration the personal knowledge of the deceased or the person
and at the same time as part of res gestae. of unsound mind at a time when the matter had been
recently perceived by him or her and while his or her
Requisites for the admissibility of a dying declaration recollection was clear. Such statement, however, is
1. The declaration is one made by a dying person; inadmissible if made under circumstances indicating its
2. The declaration was made by said dying person under lack of trustworthiness. (Sec. 39, Rule 130).
a consciousness of his or her impending death;
3. The declaration refers to the cause and circumstances SEÑGA COMMENTS:
surrounding the death of the declarant and not of The amended section 39 may be compared with the old
anyone else; Section 23, which deal with similar subject matters
4. The declaration is offered in a case wherein the
declarant’s death is the subject of the inquiry The original Section 23 deals with a similar matter as
5. The declarant is competent as a witness had he that contained under the amended Section 39.
survived (Ibid.);
Dead Man’s Statute

The old Section 23 was also known as the “Dead Man's The following cannot testify as to any matter of fact
Statute”, which provides that if one party to the alleged occurring before the death of such deceased person or
transaction is precluded from testifying by death, before such person became of unsound mind:
insanity, or other mental disabilities, the surviving party 1. Parties or assignors of parties to a case or persons in
is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own whose behalf a case is prosecuted;
uncontradicted and unexplained account of the 2. Against an executor or administrator or other
transaction. representative of a deceased person, or against a person
of unsound mind
REQUISITES:
But before this rule can be successfully invoked to bar Waiver of the protection of the Dead Man’s Statute
the introduction of testimonial evidence, it is necessary The protection may be waived by:
that: 1. Failing to object to the testimony;
1. The witness is a party or assignor of a party to a case 2. Cross-examining the witness on the prohibited
or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. testimony; or
2. The action is against an executor or administrator or 3. Offering evidence to rebut the testimony (Riano,
other representative of a deceased person or a person 2013).
of unsound mind;
3. The subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand Cases not covered by the Dead Man’s Statute
against the estate of such deceased person or against 1. The rule has no application to mere witnesses) who
person of unsound mind; are neither parties to the case, their assignors, nor
4. His testimony refers to any matter of fact which persons in whose behalf the case is prosecuted, nor to a
occurred before the death of such deceased person or nominal party, nor to officers and stockholders of a
before such person became of unsound mind. (Sunga- plaintiff corporation (Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific
Chan v. Chua, G.R. No. 143340, August 15, 2001) Co. of Manila, 84 Phil. 330);
The presence of the foregoing requisites under the old NOTE: The rule is exclusive and cannot be construed to
Section 23 renders the testimonial evidence extend its scope by implication so as to disqualify
inadmissible. persons not mentioned therein. Mere witnesses who are
not included in the above enumeration are not
Applicability of Dead Man’s Statute prohibited from testifying as to a conversation or
Under the new rule, with the foregoing requisites, any transaction between the deceased and a third person, if
statement of the deceased or the person of unsound he took no active part therein. (Sanson v. CA, G.R. No.
mind, may now be received in evidence, provided that: 127745, April 22, 2003).
1. The statement was made upon the personal
knowledge of the deceased or the person of unsound 2. When a counterclaim is set up by the administrator
mind; [or executor or representatives] of the estate, the case is
2. It was made at a time when the matter had been removed from the operation of the dead man’s statute.
recently perceived by him or her, and while his or her When it is the executor or administrator or
recollection was clear. representatives of the estates that sets up the
counterclaim, the plaintiff, herein respondent, may
Such statement, however, is inadmissible if made under testify to occurrences before the death of the deceased
circumstances indicating its lack of trustworthiness. to defeat the counterclaim (Sunga-Chan v. Chua, G.R.
(Señga) No. 143340, August 15, 2001);
This rule “applies only to a civil case or a special 3. The adverse party is competent to testify to
proceeding over the estate of a deceased or insane transactions or communications with the deceased or
person” incompetent person which were made with an agent of
such person in cases in which the agent is still alive and
Who may invoke the protection of the Dead Man’s competent to testify. But the testimony of the adverse
Statute party must be confined to those transactions or
The persons entitled to invoke the protection of the communications which were had with the agent
dead man’s statute are the executor, administrator and (Herrera, 1999, citing Goñi v. CA, G.R. No. L-27434,
any other representative of a deceased person, when September 23, 1986);
they are the defendants in a claim against the estate of 4. In land registration cases instituted by the decedent’s
the deceased. The protection may likewise be invoked by representatives, this prohibition does not apply as the
a person of unsound mind in a claim filed against him oppositors are considered defendants and may,
(Riano, 2013).

therefore, testify against the petitioner. This prohibition accused is not admissible unless corroborating
does not also apply in cadastral cases since there is no circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the
plaintiff or defendant therein (Tongco v. Vianzon, G.R. statement. (Sec. 40, Rule 130).
No. 27498, September 20, 1927);
The new rule adds a second sentence, not present under
5. The disqualification under this rule is waived if the the old rule. It provides that a statement against interest
defendant does not timely object to the admission of tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and
such evidence or testifies on the prohibited matters or offered to exculpate the accused (which is presumably
cross-examines thereon (Tongco v. Vianzon, supra); different from the declarant) is not admissible unless
corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the
6. The rule will not apply where the plaintiff is the trustworthiness of the statement. (Señga)
executor or administrator as representative of the These are ante litem motam statements made by a
deceased or if the plaintiff is the person of unsound person who is neither a party nor in privity with a party
mind (Riano, 2013); to the suit. Such are considered secondary evidence and
admissible only when the declarant is already dead or
7. Where the testimony is intended to prove a unavailable to testify as a witness and may be admitted
fraudulent transaction of the deceased, provided such against himself or successors-in-interest and against
fraud is first established by evidence aliunde (Babao v. third persons.
Perez, G.R. No. L-8334, December 28, 1957);
Reason for the admissibility of declaration against
8. Negative testimony, that is, testimony that a fact did interest
not occur during the lifetime of the deceased Necessity, as such declaration, act, or omission is
(Mendezona v. Vda. De Goitia, G.R. No. L-31739, March frequently the only mode of proof available and
11, 1930); trustworthiness, because of the first presumption that
men will neither falsify nor commit mistakes when such
9. Testimony on the present possession by the witness of falsehood or mistake would be prejudicial to their own
a written instrument signed by the deceased, as such pecuniary interest, and because of the fact that any
fact exists even after the decendent’s demise (Regalado, fraudulent motive for making the statement may be
2008); shown.
10. When the defendants, as heirs of the deceased, are Requisites of declaration against interest:
sued in their personal capacity (Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho, 1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify – but the
96 Phil. 622); and inability to testify must be serious.
2. Declaration relates to a fact against the interest of the
11. In an action against a partnership, plaintiff partners declarant;
may testify against a deceased partner (Fortis v. 3. At the time he made said declaration, he was aware
Gutierrez Hermanos, 6 Phil. 100). that the same was contrary to his interest; and
4. Declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such
12. Testimonies as to matters which transpired after the declaration to be true.
death or insanity of the person. (Riano, 2009 p.263)
Declaration against interest vs. Admission against
13. Testimonies beneficial to the estate of the deceased interest
or person of unsound mind. (Riano, 2009 p. 263)
3. Declaration Against Interest

The declaration made by a person deceased or unable to
testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact
asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made
so far contrary to the declarant's own interest that a
reasonable person in his or her position would not have
made the declaration unless he or she believed it to be
true, may be received in evidence against himself or
herself or his or her successors in interest and against
third persons. A statement tending to expose the
declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate
the
Declaration against Admission against Interest EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020
Interest

Made by a person who is Made by a party to a
neither a party nor in litigation or by one in
privity with a party to privity with or identified in
the suit is a secondary legal interest with such
evidence. party.
Secondary evidence is Primary evidence is
admissible only when admissible whether or not
the declarant is already the declarant is available
dead or unavailable to as a witness.
testify as a witness.

Exception to the hearsay Covered by the hearsay 3. The declarant must be a relative of the person whose
rule rule pedigree is in question, either by by birth, adoption, or
marriage or, in the absence thereof, with whose family
Must have been made May be made at any time, he or she was so intimately associated as to be likely to
ante litem motam, i.e. before or during the trial. have accurate information concerning his or her
before the controversy pedigree;
May be admitted Used only against the 4. The declaration must be made ante litem motam or
against himself or party admitting before the controversy occurred; and
successors-in- interest 5. The relationship between the declarant and the
and against person whose pedigree is in question must be shown by
third persons evidence other than such act or declaration.
4. Act or Declaration about Pedigree NOTE: Such declarations are natural expressions of
The act or declaration of a person deceased or unable to persons who must know the truth. Although hearsay, it
testify, in respect to the pedigree of another person is best that the nature of the case admits and because
related to him or her by birth, adoption, or marriage or, greater evil might arise from the rejection of such proof
in the absence thereof, with whose family he or she was than from its admission.
so intimately associated as to be likely to have accurate
information concerning his or her pedigree, may be 5. Family Reputation or Tradition Regarding Pedigree
received in evidence where it occurred before the The reputation or tradition exisiting in a family previous
controversy, and the relationship between the two to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one
persons is shown by evidence other than such act or of its members, may be received in evidence if the
declaration. (Sec. 41, Rule 130). witness testifying thereon be also a member of the
family, either by consanguinity, affinity, or adoption.
Pedigree Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts,
The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family engraving on rings, family portraits and the like, may be
genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and received as evidence of pedigree (Sec. 42, Rule 130).
the places where these facts occurred, and the names of
the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history The declarant is the witness himself and a member of
intimately connected with pedigree. (Ibid.). the family. The witness is the one to whom the fact
relates, it is not necessary for him to establish by
NOTE: The relationship between the declarant and the independent evidence his relationship to the family.
person subject of the inquiry must be legitimate unless
the issue is the legitimacy itself. Reason for admissibility
There is no provision as to the extent of degree of These are admissible by reason of necessity since
relationship. tradition is often the sole method by which proof of
matters of pedigree can be obtained.
The new rule includes relationship by adoption and adds
that in the absence of those mentioned under the rule, Requisites for the admissibility of family reputation or
with whose family he or she was so intimately tradition regarding pedigree
associated as to be likely to have accurate information 1. There is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any
concerning his or her pedigree. (Señga) member of the family;
2. The reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the
Reason for admissibility person concerned existed previous to the controversy;
Necessity and trustworthiness. Necessity since the facts 3. The statement is about the reputation or tradition of
about pedigree is usually those which occurred many the family in respect to the pedigree of any member of
years before the trial and known only to a few persons. the family; and
Trustworthiness since these are matters which members 4. The witness testifying to the reputation or tradition
of a family are presumed to be interested in ascertaining regarding pedigree of the person concerned must be a
the truth. member of the family of said person either by
consanguinity, affinity, or adoption. (Sec. 42, Rule 130).
Requisites for the admissibility of acts or declarations
about pedigree How to establish family reputation or tradition with
1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify; respect to one’s pedigree
2. The pedigree should be in issue


1. Through testimony in open court of a witness who from a partial or qualified one, although it need not be
must be a member of the family either by consanguinity unanimous (Regalado, 2008).
or affinity;
2. Through entries in: NOTE: As a general rule, the reputation of a person
a. Family bible; should be that existing in the place of his residence; it
b. Family books or charts; may also be that existing in the place where he is best
c. Engravings on rings; or known (Ibid.). Character is what a man is, and reputation
d. Family portraits and the like. is what he is supposed to be in what people say he is.
Sec. 41 (act or declaration about pedigree) vs. Sec. 42 Reasons for admissibility
(family reputation regarding pedigree) 1. Necessity arising from the inherent difficulty of
obtaining any other evidence than that in the nature of
Declaration about Section 42 common reputation; and
pedigree Family reputation or
tradition regarding 2. Trustworthiness of the evidence arising from:
pedigree a. The supposition that the public is conversant with the
Act or declaration about Family reputation or subject to be proved because of their general interest
pedigree. tradition regarding therein; and
pedigree. b. The fact that the falsity or error of such evidence
Witness need not be a Witness is a member of could be exposed or corrected by other testimony since
member of the family. the family. the public are interested in the same (Francisco, 1992).
Relation of the declarant The witness is the one to
and the person subject whom the fact relates, it is Requisites for admissibility of common reputation
of the inquiry must be not necessary for him to 1. The facts must be related as to boundaries of or
established by establish by independent customs affecting lands in the community and reputation
independent evidence. evidence his relationship as to events of general history important to the
to the family (Francisco, community or respecting marriage or moral character;
1992). 2. The reputation must have been one formed among a
Testimony is about what Testimony is about family class of persons who were in a position to have some
the declarant has said reputation or tradition sources of information and to contribute intelligently to
concerning the pedigree covering matters of the formation of the opinion; and
of the family. pedigree. 3. The common reputation must have been existing
previous to the controversy.
6. Common Reputation
Common reputation existing previous to the Matters that may be established by common reputation
controversy, as to boundaries of or customs affecting 1. Matters of public and general interest more than 30
lands in the community and reputation as to events of years old;
general history important to the community, or 2. Matters respecting marriage or moral character and
respecting marriage or moral character, may be given in related facts; and
evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public places 3. Individual moral character.
may be received as evidence of common reputation.
(Sec. 43, Rule 130). NOTE: Marriage, if not proven through an act or
declaration about pedigree may be proven through
The old rule speaks of common reputation existing common reputation (Trinidad v. CA, G.R. 118904, April
previous to the controversy as to: (1) facts of public or 20, 1998).
general interest more than thirty years old; or (2)
respecting marriage or moral character. Difference between matters of public interest and
matters of general interest
The new rule replaced the first item with boundaries of Matters of public interest involve those which are
or customs affecting lands in the community and common to all citizen of the state or to the entire people
reputation as to events of general history important to while matters of general interest involve those which are
the community. (Señga) common only to a single community or to a considerable
number of persons forming part of the community.
It is the definite opinion of the community in which the 7. Part of the Res Gestae
fact to be proved is known or exists. It means the
Res Gestae
general or substantially undivided reputation, as
distinguished

Statements made by a person while a startling concern the occurrence in question and its immediately
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or attending circumstances;
subsequent thereto, under the stress of excitement 5. The statements must be made under the stress of
caused by the occurrence with respect to the excitement caused by the occurrence. (Rule 130, Sec 44)
circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part
of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an NOTE: The reason for the admissibility of spontaneous
equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal statements is trustworthiness and necessity, because
significance, may be received as part of the res gestae. statements are made instinctively, and because said
(Sec. 44, Rule 130). natural and spontaneous utterances are more convincing
than the testimony of the same person on the stand.
It is a Latin phrase which literally means "things done."
As an exception to the hearsay rule, it refers to those Verbal Acts
exclamations and statements by either the participants, 1. The principal act to be characterized must be
victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, equivocal;
during or immediately after the commission of the 2. The equivocal act must be material to the issue;
crime, when the circumstances are such that the 3. The statement must accompany the equivocal act; and
statements were made as spontaneous reactions or 4. The statement gives a legal significance to the
utterances inspired by the excitement of the occasion, equivocal act (Ibid).
and there was no opportunity for the declarant to
deliberate and fabricate a false statement (Capila v. NOTE: The reason for the admissibility of verbal acts is
People, G.R. No. 146161, July 17, 2006). that the motive, character and object of an act are
frequently indicated by what was said by the person
Reason for admissibility engaged in the act.
The reason for the rule is human experience. It has been
shown that under certain external circumstances of Part of Res Gestae vs. Dying Declaration
physical or mental shock, the state of nervous
excitement which occurs in a spectator may produce a Part of Res Gestae Dying Declaration
spontaneous and sincere response to the actual It is the event itself A sense of impending
sensations and perceptions produced by the external which speaks death takes the place of
shock. an oath and the law
regards the declarant as
As the statements or utterances are made under the testifying
immediate and uncontrolled domination of the senses, May be made by the Can be made by the victim
rather than reason and reflection, such statements or killer after or during the only.
utterances may be taken as expressing the real belief of killing or that of a third
the speaker as to the facts he just observed. The person.
spontaneity of the declaration is such that the May precede, or Confined to matters
declaration itself may be regarded as the event speaking accompany or follow the occurring after the
through the declarant rather than the declarant speaking principal act. homicidal act.
for himself. Justification is the Justification is the
spontaneity of the trustworthiness, being
The new rule makes clear that the statements made statement. given by the person who
must be under the stress of excitement caused by the was aware of his
occurrence, although even without such revision, this impending death.
qualification was recognized under the old rule. (Señga)
Two Types of Res Gestae
Requisites for the admissibility of res
Verbal Acts Spontaneous Statements
gestae Spontaneous Statements Utterances which Statements or
1. That there is a startling event or occurrence taking accompany some act or exclamations made
place; conduct to which it is immediately after some
2. A statement was made, while the event is taking place desired to give legal exciting occasion by a
or immediately prior to or subsequent thereto; effect; When such act participant or spectator
3. The statement was made before the declarant had has intrinsically no and asserting the
time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and definite legal circumstances of that
4. The statement relates to the circumstances of the significance, or only an occasion as it is observed
startling event or occurrence or that the statements
must


4. ambiguous one, its legal by him. The entries were made in his professional capacity or
in the performance
purport or tenorofmay
a duty,
be whether legal, contractual, moral or religious; and
5. ascertained by The entries were made in the ordinary or regular
course of businessthe
considering or duty (Canque v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96202, 13 April 1999)
words
accompanying it, and
these utterances thus Under the amended rule, it is no longer required that
enter merely as verbal the person who made the entry must be dead, outside
part of the act. the country or unable to testify.
The res gestae is the The res gestae is the
equivocal act. startling occurrence. Also, under the revised rule, the entries are not only just
Verbal act must be May be prior to, made at or near the time of the transactions to which
contemporaneous with simultaneous with, or they refer. Now, they refer to memorandum, report,
or must accompany the subsequent to the startling record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions,
equivocal act to be occurrence. opinions, or diagnoses, made by writing, typing,
admissible.
Factors to determine whether statements offered in electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the
evidence as part of the res gestae have been made time of or from transmission or supply of information.
spontaneously
1. The time that has elapsed between the occurrence of Similar to the old rule, it is made by a person with
the act and transaction and the making of the knowledge thereof.
statement;
2. The place where the statement was made; It must also be kept in the regular course or conduct of a
3. The condition of the declarant when he made the business activity, and such was the regular practice to
statement; make the memorandum, report, record, or data
4. The presence or absence of intervening occurrences compilation by electronic, optical or similar means.
between the occurrence and the statement relative
thereto; and All of the foregoing must be shown by the testimony of
5. The nature and circumstances of the statement itself the custodian or other qualified witnesses, to be
(Francisco, 1992). excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence.
8. Records of Regularly Conducted Business Activity Reason for admissibility

A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of What a man has actually done and committed to writing
acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by when under obligation to do the act, it being in the
writing, typing, electronic, optical or other similar means course of the business he has undertaken, and he being
at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of dead, there seems to be no danger in submitting to the
information by a person with knowledge thereof, and consideration of the court.
kept in the regular course or conduct of a business
activity, and such was the regular practice to make the NOTE: Reliability is furnished by the fact that regularly
memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by kept records typically have a high degree of accuracy.
electronic, optical or similar means, all of which are The law does not fix any precise moment when the
shown by the testimony of the custodian or other entries should be made. It is sufficient if the entry was
qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay made within a reasonable period of time so that it may
evidence. (Sec. 45, Rule 130). appear to have taken place while the memory of the
facts was unimpaired.
SEÑGA NOTE:
The old rule under Section 43 requires the following NOTE: The law does not fix any precise moment when
requisites to be present: the entries should be made as long as the entry was
1. The person who made the entry must be dead, made within a reasonable period of time so that it may
outside the country or unable to testify; appear to have taken place while the memory of the
2. The entries were made at or near the time of the facts was unimpaired.
transactions to which they refer;
3. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated Proof of regularity of the entries
in the entries; It may be proved by the form in which they appear as
entries in the books/ledgers. There is no need to present
for testimony the clerk who manually made the entries.

The person who supervised such clerk is competent to Business

testify that: The entrant, if a private It is sufficient that the
1. The account was prepared under his supervision; and individual, must have entrant made the entries
2. That the entries were regularly entered in the acted pursuant to a pursuant to a duty be it
ordinary course of business (Regalado, 2008). specific legal duty legal, contractual, moral or
specially enjoined by religious.
NOTE: Baptismal certificates are admissible as entries in law.
the ordinary course of business, even absent the Entrant need not be Entrant must be dead or
testimony of the officiating priest or official recorder dead or unable to testify unable to testify.
because it is one of its transactions in the exercise of Need not be Needs authentication
ecclesiastical duties and recorded in the book of the authenticated.
Church during the course of its business (Heirs of Conti v. Exception to the best Best Evidence Rule applies
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118464, December 21, 1998.) evidence rule
(irremovability of public
9. Entries in Official Records records)
Entries in official records made in the performance of his
or her duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a 10. Commercial Lists and the Like
person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons
by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register,
stated (Sec. 46, Rule 130). periodical, or other published compilation is admissible
as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so
Official record stated if that compilation is published for use by persons
The original document that is legally recognized and thus engaged in that occupation and is generally used and
ensuring the quality of a fact when it is established. It relied upon by them therein. (Sec. 47, Rule 130).
may be a:
1. Register; Reason for admissibility
2. Cash book; or Because of the usual inaccessibility of the persons
3. An official return or certificate (Regalado, 2008). responsible for the compilation of matters contained in
such lists, it would cause the court inconvenience if it
Reason for admissibility would issue summons to these numerous individuals.
1. Necessity - due to the impossibility of requiring the Persons responsible for such lists have no motive to
official’s attendance as a witness to testify to the deceive and they further realize that unless the list,
innumerable transactions occurring in the course of his register or periodical or other published compilation are
duty; prepared with care and accuracy, their work will have no
2. Trustworthiness – there is a presumption of regularity commercial or probative value.
in the performance of official duty.
Requisites for the admissibility of commercial lists and
Requisites for the admissibility of entries in official the like
records 1. Statements of matters of interest to persons engaged
1. Entries were made by a public officer in the in an occupation;
performance of his duties or by a person in the 2. Statements must be contained in a list, register,
performance of a duty especially enjoined by law; periodical, or other published compilation;
3. Compilation is published for use by persons engaged
2. Entrant had personal knowledge of the facts stated by in that occupation; and
him or such facts were acquired by him from reports 4. Such is generally relied upon by them.
made by persons under a legal duty to submit the same;
and Examples of commercial lists
1. Trade journals reporting current prices and other
3. Such entries were duly entered in a regular manner in market data
the official records (Ibid.). 2. Mortality tables compiled for life insurance;
3. Abstracts of title compiled by reputable title
Entries in official record vs. Entries in the course of examining institutions or individuals; or
business Entries 4. Business directories, animal pedigree registers, and
the like (Francisco, 1992).
Entries in Official Record Entries in the Course of

11. Learned Treaties same parties and the same subject matter does not fall
A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject under the exception. What is considered as a testimony
of history, law, science, or art is admissible as tending to in the former trial is the “transcript of the witness’
prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court testimony.”
takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject
testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise, Grounds which make a witness unable to testify in a
periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his or her subsequent case
profession or calling as expert in the subject (Sec. 48, 1. Death;
Rule 130). 2. Insanity or mental incapacity or the former witness’
loss of memory through old age or disease;
Reason for admissibility 3. Physical disability by reason of sickness or advanced
The learned writers have no motive to misrepresent due age;
to the awareness that his work will be carefully 4. The fact that the witness has been kept away by
scrutinized by the learned members of the profession contrivance of the opposite party; or
and that he shall be subject to criticisms and be 5. The fact that after diligent search the former witness
ultimately rejected as an authority on the subject matter cannot be found (Francisco, 1992).
if his conclusions are found to be invalid.
Proof of former testimony
Requisites for the admissibility of learned treatises 1. If reduced to writing, such writing is the primary
1. When the court can take judicial notice of them; or evidence thereof and should be used;
2. When an expert witness testifies that the author of 2. The stenographic notes or a copy thereof.
such is recognized as expert in that profession (Sec. 46,
Rule 130). NOTE: The judge’s notes are not evidence of what the
witness said, and, as a rule, they can be used only to
12. Testimony or Deposition at a Former Trial refresh the memory of a witness.
The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or
out of the Philippines or who cannot, with due diligence, 12. Residual Exception
be found therein, or is unavailable or otherwise unable A statement not specifically covered by any of the
to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial foregoing exceptions, having equivalent circumstantial
or administrative, involving the same parties and subject guarantees of trustworthiness, is admissible if the court
matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse determines that (a) the statement is offered as evidence
party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him or of a material fact; (b) the statement is more probative
her. (Sec. 49, Rule 130). on the point for which it is offered than any other
evidence which the proponent can procure through
The new rule adds the deposition of a witness out of the reasonable efforts; and (c) the general purposes of these
Philippines or who cannot, with due diligence, be found rules and the interests of justice will be best served by
therein or is unavailable, in addition to one who is admission of the statement into evidence. However, a
unable to testify. (Señga) statement may not be admitted under this exception
unless the proponent makes known to the adverse party,
Requisites for admissibility sufficiently in advance of the hearing, or by the pre-trial
1. The witness evidence is dead or out of the Philippines stage in the case of a trial of the main case, to provide
or who cannot, with due diligence, be found therein, or the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to
is unavailable or otherwise unable to testify; meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement
2. The testimony or deposition was given in a former and the particulars of it, including the name and address
case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, between of the declarant. (Sec. 50, Rule 130)
the same parties or those representing the same
interests; This is a new insertion. The residual exception to the
3. The former case involved the same subject as that in hearsay rule provides that any statement not covered by
the present case, although on different causes of action; the enumerated exceptions in the previous sections but
4. The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of
is the same issue involved in the present case; and trustworthiness, shall be admissible if the court
5. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross- determines that:
examine the witness in the former case. (a) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact;
(b) the statement is more probative on the point for
NOTE: What may be admitted as evidence is testimony which it is offered than any other evidence which the
or deposition. A decision in a previous case involving
the

proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and c. Presentation of authorities or standards upon
(c) the general purposes of these rules and the interests which his opinion is based.
of justice will be best served by admission of the
statement into evidence. 1. The court is not however, bound by the opinion of an
expert i.e. a handwriting expert.
It appears that all three should be present to warrant
the application of the residual exception rule. 2. Expert opinion evidence is to be considered or
weighed by the court like any other testimony, in the
The new rule adds that a statement may not be light of its own general knowledge and experience upon
admitted under the foregoing exception unless the the subject of inquiry.
proponent makes known to the adverse party,
sufficiently in advance of the hearing, or by the pre-trial 3. The probative force of the testimony of an expert
stage in the case of a trial of the main case, to provide does not lie in a mere statement of his theory or
the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to opinion, but rather in the aid that he can render to the
meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement courts in showing the facts which serve as a basis for his
and the particulars of it, including the name and address criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of his
of the declarant. (Señga) conclusion is founded.
OPINION RULE 4. The resort to handwriting experts, although helpful in

the examination of forged documents because of the
GENERAL RULE; Not Admissible technical procedure involved in analyzing them, is not
The opinion of a witness is not admissible, except as mandatory or indispensable to the examination or
indicated in sections 52 & 53 of Rule 130. (Sec. 51, Rule comparison of handwriting, and a finding of forgery does
130) not entirely depend upon the testimony of these
experts.
Ratio: This is because when a witness testifies, a witness
does so with respect to facts personally observed by him 5. Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive. When
and it is for the court to draw conclusions from the facts faced with conflicting expert opinions, courts give weight
testified to. and credence to that which is more complete, thorough
and scientific.
EXCEPTIONS; When Admissible 6. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the
testimonies of handwriting experts, because the judge
Opinion of Expert Witness must conduct an examination of the questioned
The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as
knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, to its authority
which he or she is shown to possess, may be received in
evidence. (Sec. 52, Rule 130) 7. Dra. dela Llana’s medical opinion cannot be given
probative value for the reason that she was not
The new rule adds “education” not present under the old presented as an expert witness. As an ordinary witness,
rule. she was not competent to testify on the nature, and the
cause and effects of whiplash injury. (Dela Llana vs.
Expert evidence is admissible only if the Biong) Hence, an expert witness’ opinion to be given
a. matter to be testified to is one that requires expertise; probative value must be presented in court as an expert
and witness, otherwise even if the subject of inquiry by the
b. the witness has been qualified is an expert. court calls for his/her expertise or special skill and
he/she is qualified, the same will not be given weight.
Who is an Expert Witness Opinion of Ordinary Witness

No definite standard of determining the degree of skill or When the opinion is that of a witness who is not an
knowledge that a witness must possess in order to testify expert (ordinary witness) provided that the proper basis
as an expert; of the opinion is given and the subject of the opinion is
any of the following matters.
It is sufficient that the following factors be present;
a. Training and education (a) The identity of a person about whom he or she has
b. Particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts of adequate knowledge;
the case and

(b) The handwriting of the person of which he or she has the first rule. The meaning of the provisions are the
sufficient familiarity; (whether ordinary/expert witness) same, although rephrased differently. (Señga)
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he or she is The rule likewise discourages the presentation of the so
sufficiently acquainted; (whether ordinary/expert called “propensity evidence” (evidence that one acts in
witness) and accordance with one’s character)
(d) His or her impressions on the emotion, behavior, Evidence of good moral character of the accused
condition or appearance of a person. (Section 53, Rule The offering of evidence of good moral character is a
130, Rules of Court). privilege of the accused and the prosecution cannot
comment on his failure to produce such evidence.
(e) On ordinary matters known to all men of common
perception, such as the value of ordinary household The general rule against propensity evidence does not
articles. (Regalado) apply to the accused who is allowed to offer evidence of
his good moral character. But only those moral traits
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
involved in the offense charged that are provable, as
Character is the aggregate of the moral qualities which long as it is germane to the issue.
belong to and distinguish an individual person.
He may not however prove his character by evidence of
Reputation is an attribute which others believe one to specific instances of good conduct.
possess.
The prosecution may not prove the bad moral character
GR: — Evidence of a person's character or a trait of of the accused except only in rebuttal and when such
character is not admissible for the purpose of proving evidence is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. offense charged.
(Sec.54, Rule 130)
Evidence of character of the Offended Party
The new rule adds a first paragraph. It provides the
general rule that Evidence of a person's character or a The good or bad moral character of the offended party
trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of maybe proved by the accused if it tends to establish in
proving action in conformity therewith on a particular any reasonable degree the probability or improbability
occasion. This general rule is subject to the exceptions as of the offense charged.
provided under the old and new sections. (Señga)
This only applies to criminal cases and not administrative
Character or reputation is regarded as legally irrelevant offenses.
in determining a controversy because the evidence of a
person’s character or trait is not admissible to prove that Character evidence must be limited to the traits and
a person acted in conformity with such character in a characteristics involved in the type of offense charged.
particular occasion.
Moral character of the victim not material in rape cases.
The accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the
Character Evidence in Criminal Cases
testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing and
In Criminal Cases: consistent with human nature.
(1) The character of the offended party may be proved if
it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the
Character Evidence in Civil Cases
probability or improbability of the offense charged.
(2) The accused may prove his or her good moral In a civil case, evidence of the moral character of a party
character, pertinent to the moral trait involved in the is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of
offense charged. However, the prosecution may not character involved in the case. (Ibid.)
prove his or her bad moral character unless on rebuttal.
Evidence of good character of a Witness
The revised rule rearranges the numbering where the Evidence of the good character of a witness is not
first and second items under the old rule are joined admissible until such character has been impeached.
together under item 2 of the new rule and the third item
under the old rule is renumbered to the first item under In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of
character of a person is admissible, proof may be made
by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the
form

of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable own evidence to counteract whatever positive

into relevant specific instances of conduct. impression which the evidence of the other party may
have been created in the mind of court, this duty is
In cases in which character or a trait of character of a called the burden of coming forward, or burden of
person is an essential element of a charge, claim or evidence. (Riano, page 54)
defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of
that person's conduct. Burden of Proof v. Burden of Evidence
Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence

NOTES: Duty of a party to Duty of a party to present
It is an error for counsel to offer evidence of the good present evidence to evidence sufficient to
character of his witness who is presented in court for the establish his or her claim establish or rebut a fact in
first time since he could not have been previously or evidence by the issue to establish a prima
impeached. amount of evidence facie case.
required by law.
The old and new provisions under paragraph (c) are Does not shift and The burden of going
essentially the same. The old rule mentions Section 14, remains throughout the forward with the evidence
Rule 132, while the new rule reproduces said provision entire case exactly may shift from party to
under paragraph (c). The new rule also makes clear that where the pleadings party as the exigencies of
the exception under this paragraph applies to criminal originally placed it. the trial require
and civil cases. Generally determined by Generally determined by
the pleadings filed by the developments of the
The last 2 paragraphs are new insertions. It appears that the party trial, or by the provisions
the character evidence may be given in the form of an of substantive law or
opinion, which means that this is another exception to procedural rules which
the general rule on the inadmissibility of opinion. may relieve the party from
presenting evidence on the
The last paragraph explains how character, when an facts alleged.
essential element of a charge, claim or defense, may be
proven, i.e., by specific instances of that person's 3. Prima facie evidence – evidence which, if unexplained
conduct. (Señga) or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain the proposition
it supports or to establish the facts.
IV. BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDENCE,
AND PRESUMPTIONS Burden of proof in;
(Rule 131) Criminal cases – lies in the prosecution
A negative fact alleged by the prosecution need not be
A. Definitions proved unless it is an essential ingredient of the offense
1. Burden of Proof- Burden of proof is the duty of a charged. (Domondon, Page 113)
party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary
to establish his or her claim or defense by the amount of When burden of proof is on the accused; once an
evidence required by law. Burden of proof never shifts. accused for murder or homicide admitted his infliction of
(Sec. 1) the fatal injuries on the deceased, he assumed the
burden to prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing
2. Burden of Evidence – Burden of evidence is the duty evidence the justifying circumstances that would avoid
of a party to present evidence sufficient to establish or his criminal liability. (People v. Fontanilla)
rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case.
Burden of evidence may shift from one party to the Civil cases – lies in the party who substantially asserts
other in the course of the proceedings, depending on the affirmative allegations.
the exigencies of the case. (Ibid.)
Any other proceedings – lies in the party who would be
The burden of coming forward with the evidence- as the defeated if no evidence were given on either side
trial progress one party may have presented an evidence The Burden of Proof lies with the “party who alleges the
that weighs heavily in his favor and sufficient to convince existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution
the court of the justness of his claim. If this occurs, the or defense of an action” and may be determined by the
other party has the burden to come forward with his allegation in the pleadings.

the decision should be against the party with the burden

Such burden lies on the defendant if he alleges an of proof.
affirmative defense which is not a denial of an essential
ingredient in the plaintiff’s cause of action. B. Presumptions: Conclusive and Disputable
Presumption is the assumption of facts resulting from
Infringement cases – rests on the plaintiff, but when the
rule of law.
plaintiff introduces the patent evidence, and the same is
in due form, there is created a prima facie presumption
Presumption in law is an inference as to the existence of
of its correctness and validity, the burden of going
a fact not actually known, arising from its usual
forward (burden of evidence) then shifts to the
connection with another which is known.
defendant to overcome the legal presumption.
Classes of Presumption
Labor cases–the burden of proving the payment of
1. Presumption of fact (hominis) – is a deduction
monetary claims rests on the employer.
which reason draws from facts proved without an
express direction to the effect
Termination cases – rests upon the employer to show
that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause.
2. Presumption of law (juris) – divided into conclusive
and disputable presumptions as provided by the
Medical Negligence cases – complainant has the burden
ROC and other laws
of establishing breach of duty on the part of the doctors.
Kinds of Legal Presumptions
Eminent domain cases – the local government that
1. Conclusive Presumptions (imperative presumptions;
seeks to expropriate private property has the burden of
absolute presumptions; presumptions juris et de
proving that the elements have been complied with.
jure)
- are presumptions which always hold as true
Insurance cases – the insured’s beneficiary must prove
and cannot be overcome by evidence to the
that the cause of death was due to the covered peril.
contrary.
International law- the party who wants a foreign law to
2. Disputable Presumptions (prima facie
be applied must prove such foreign law. (Riano, page 52)
presumptions; debatable presumptions; rebuttable
Payment – the party who alleges to have made such
presumptions)
payment.
- are presumptions of law which always holds true only
as long as they are not overcome by competent
Foreclosure Proceedings – the mortgagor, in order to
evidence to the contrary.
prove that the foreclosure proceedings were not validly
conducted.
Inference vs. Presumption
Bail Hearing – the prosecution, in order to prove that
Inference Presumption
evidence of guilt is strong, for offenses punishable by
A factual conclusion Is a rule of law directing
Death, RP, or life imprisonment. (Rule 114, Sec. 8, ROC)
that can rationally be that if a party proves
drawn from the other certain facts (basic facts)
Competency Test of Child Witness – the party seeking a
facts at the trial, the fact finder
competency test, in order to prove the necessity of
must also accept an
competency examination. (Sec. 6, CWER)
additional fact (presumed
fact) as proven unless
Test in Determining Burden of Proof
sufficient evidence is
Ask which party to an action or suit will fail if he offers introduced tending to
no evidence competent to show that facts averred as rebut the presumed fact.
the basis for the relief he seeks to obtain. (Aznar Need not have a legal Has a definite legal effect;
Brothers Realty v. Aying) effect – not mandated mandatory
by the law
EQUIPOSE RULE or EQUIPONDERANCE DOCTRINE –
Where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, or
there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, Effect of Presumptions
One need not to introduce evidence to prove the fact for
a presumption is prima facie proof of the fact presumed.
C. ConclusiveEVIDENCE
Presumptions
REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Estoppel – is the preclusion in law, which prevents a such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national
man from alleging or denying a fact, in consequence of security; and the yeas and nays on any question
which his own previous act, allegation or denial of a shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members
contrary tenor. present, be entered in the Journal
Estoppel v. Waiver Each House shall also keep a Record of its

proceedings.
Estoppel Waiver The Journal is regarded as conclusive with respect to
Equitable estoppel may Voluntary and intentional matters that are required by the Constitution to be
arise, in the absence of abandonment or recorded therein. With respect to other matters, in
any intention on the part relinquishment of a known the absence of evidence to the contrary, the
of the person estopped right. It must be supported Journals have also been accorded conclusive effect.
to relinquish or change by an agreement founded
any existing right, and it upon a valid consideration. 4. Knowledge of the Law –This knowledge is presumed
need not be supported and its ignorance is not a defense for its violation.
by any consideration,
agreement, or legal Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance
obligation therewith. (NCC Art. 3)
Instances of Conclusive Presumptions: 5. Conclusiveness of Judgment – The judgment or

order of the court when declared by the court to be
1. Estoppel in pais - Whenever a party has, by his or conclusive.
her own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally
and deliberately led another to believe a particular Presumption in case of Foreign Judgments:
thing true, and to act upon such belief, he or she In case of judgment or final order upon a specific thing,
cannot, in any litigation arising out of such the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title
declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify to the thing. (Sec. 48, Rule 39)
it
Effects of Judgment or Final Order: (Rule 39, Sec. 47)
The fact which the party in estoppel has
represented to be true is conclusively presumed as
against him to be true and he is not permitted to
introduce evidence to the contrary.
2. Estoppel against Tenant - The tenant is not

permitted to deny the title of his or her landlord at
the time of the commencement of the relation of
landlord and tenant between them.
NOTE: If the title asserted is one that is alleged to

have been acquired subsequent to the
commencement of that relation, the presumption
will not apply.
If there was a change in the nature of the title of the

landlord during the substinence of the lease, then
the conclusive presumption does not apply. (e.g.
title has expired/conveyed to another/ defeated by
a paramount title)
3. Correctness of Legislative Journals -The keeping of

the Journal is required by the Constitution, Art. VI,
Sec. 16(4) provides:
Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings,

and from time to time publish the same, excepting

Judgments/Final
human Orders what evidence
conduct, and declaring Effect
shall be sufficient to overcome such presumption of innocence.
With respect to the Conclusive upon the title
probate of a will, or to the thing, the will or The legislature may provide for prima facie evidence of
administration of the administration, or the guilt provided there be a rational connection between
estate of the deceased condition, status, or the facts proved and theultimate fact presumed (People
person, or with respect relationship of the person vs. Mingoa).
to the personal,
political, or legal However, the probate of a c. That a person intends the ordinary consequences of
condition, or status of a will or grant of letters of his or her voluntary act;
particular person or administration shall only d. That a person takes ordinary care of his or her
his be prima facieevidence of concerns;
relationship to another the death of the testator e. That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse
or intestate. if produced;
With respect to matters Conclusive between the
directly adjudged or any parties and their Requisites for application of presumption in suppression
other matter that could successors in interestby of evidence:
have been raised in title subsequent to the a. The evidence is material
relation thereto commencement of the b. The party had the opportunity to produce the same
action or special c. The evidence is available only to said party.
proceeding, litigating for
the same thing and under Instances when such presumption will not apply:
the same title in the same a. Suppression is not willful
capacity b. Evidence withheld is merely corroborative
Any other litigation Only that deemed to have c. Evidence is at the disposal of the party
between the same been adjudged in a former d. The suppression is an exercise of privilege
parties or their judgment or final order
successors in interest which appears upon its f. That money paid by one to another was due to the
face to have been so latter;
adjudged, or which was g. That a thing delivered by one to another belonged
actually and necessarily to the latter;
included therein or h. That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has
necessary thereto. been paid;
D. Disputable Presumptions (Juris Tantum) i. That prior rents or installments had been paid when
The following presumptions are satisfactory if
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome a receipt for the later ones is produced;
by other evidence (Sec. 3, Rule 131): j. That a person found in possession of a thing taken in
the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and
a. That a person is innocent of crime or wrong; the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things
All person charged with a criminal offense shall have the which a person possesses, or exercises acts of
following rights: ownership over, are owned by him or her;
He shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is The doctrinal rule is that before an inference of guilt
proved. (1987 Consti Art. 3, Sec. 14) arising from possession of recently stolen goods canbe
made, the following basic facts need to be proved bythe
Equipose/Equiponderance Doctrine – When the prosecution, viz.:
circumstances are capable of two or more inferences,
the presumption of innocence must prevail, and the (1) the crime was actually committed;
court must acquit. (2) the crime was committed recently;
(3) the stolen property was found in the possession of
b. That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful the accused; and
intent; (4) the accused is unable to satisfactorily explain
his possession thereof.
There is no constitutional objection to a law providing
that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by For purposes of conclusively proving possession, it is
a contrary presumption founded upon the experience of necessary that

(1) the possession must be unexplained by any a. A person on board a vessel lost during a sea
innocent origin; voyage, or an aircraft which is missing, who has
(2) the possession must be fairly recent; and not been heard of for four years since the loss of
(3) the possession must beexclusive the vessel or aircraft;
b. A member of the armed forces who has taken
k. That a person in possession of an order on himself part in armed hostilities, and has been missing
or herself for the payment of the money, or the for four years;
delivery of anything, has paid the money or c. A person who has been in danger of death under
delivered the thing accordingly; other circumstances and whose existence has
l. That a person acting in a public office was regularly not been known for four years;
appointed or elected to it; d. If a married person has been absent for four
m. That official duty has been regularly performed; consecutive years, the spouse present may
contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has a
The presumption of regularity exists when there is no well-founded belief that the absent spouse is
deviation from the standard conduct of official duty. already dead.
Otherwise, where the official act in question is irregular
in its face, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of In case of disappearance, where there is danger of
course. death under the circumstances hereinabove
provided, an absence of only two years shall be
n. That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the sufficient for the purpose of contracting a
Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful subsequent marriage.
exercise of jurisdiction;
o. That all the matters within an issue raised in a case However, in any case, before marrying again, the
were laid before the court and passed upon by it; spouse present must institute a summary
and in like manner that all matters within an issue proceeding as provided in the Family Code and in
raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were the rules for a declaration of presumptive death of
laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of
them; reappearance of the absent spouse.
p. That private transactions have been fair and regular;
q. That the ordinary course of business has been x. That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the
followed; thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or
r. That there was a sufficient consideration for a fact;
contract;
s. That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed y. That things have happened according to the
for a sufficient consideration; ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits
t. That an endorsement of a negotiable instrument of life;
was made before the instrument was overdue and z. That persons acting as copartners have entered
at the place where the instrument is dated; into a contract of co-partnership;
u. That a writing is truly dated; aa. That a man and woman deporting themselves as
v. That a letter duly directed and mailed was received husband and wife have entered into a lawful
in the regular course of the mail; contract of marriage;
w. That after an absence of seven years, it being bb. That property acquired by a man and a woman
unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he who are capacitated to marry each other and who
or she is considered dead for all purposes, except live exclusively with each other as husband and
for those of succession. wife without the benefit of marriage or under a
void marriage, has been obtained by their joint
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the efforts, work or industry.
purpose of opening his or her succession until after
an absence of ten years. If he or she disappeared The presumption that the property is conjugal property
after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of may be rebutted only by strong, clear, and convincing
five years shall be sufficient in order that his or her evidence – there must be strict proof of exclusive
succession may be opened. property ownership of one of the spouses, the burden
resting upon the party asserting it.
The following shall be considered dead for all cc. That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman
purposes including the division of the estate who are not capacitated to marry each other and
among the heirs: who have acquired property through their actual

joint contribution of money, property or industry, jj. That except for purposes of succession, when two
such contributions and their corresponding shares persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck,
including joint deposits of money and evidences of battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who
credit are equal. died first, and there are no particular circumstances
dd. That if the marriage is terminated and the mother from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is
contracted another marriage within three hundred determined from the probabilities resulting from the
days after such termination of the former marriage, strength and age of the sexes, according to the
these rides shall govern in the absence of proof to following rules:
the contrary: 1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the
a. (1) A child born before one hundred eighty older is deemed to have survived;
(180) days after the solemnization of the 2. If both were above the age of sixty, the younger
subsequent marriage is considered to have is deemed to have survived;
been conceived during such marriage, even 3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty,
though it be born within the three hundred the former is deemed to have survived;
days after the termination of the former 4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the
marriage; and sex be different, the male is deemed to have
b. A child born after one hundred eighty days survived; if the sex be the same, the older; and
following the celebration of the subsequent 5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the
marriage is considered to have been conceived other between those ages, the latter is deemed
during such marriage, even though it be born to have survived.
within the three hundred days after the
termination of the former marriage. kk. That if there is a doubt, as between two or more
Note: persons who are called to succeed each other, as to
There appears to be a typographical error under the first which of them died first, whoever alleges the death
item. The old rule is based on and is exactly the same as of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in
Article 168 of the Family Code. Under the old rule and the absence of proof, they shall be considered to
the Family Code, the child born before 180 days after have died at the same time.
the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is
considered to have been born during the former Constitutionality of Law Creating Presumptions
marriage. Under the new rule, it is considered to have There is no constitutional objection to a law providing
been conceived during such subsequent marriage. The that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by
revised rule cannot modify or amend substantive law. a contrary presumption founded upon the experience of
Also, the phrase “even though it be born within 300 days human conduct, and declaring what evidence shall be
after the termination of the former marriage” under the sufficient to overcome such presumption of innocence.
first item seems to be incorrect since the same first item
under paragraph 1 of the old rule and the Family Code The legislature may provide for prima facie evidence of
states instead “provided it be born within 300 days after guilt provided there be a rational connection between
the termination of the former marriage”. It is the facts proved and the ultimate facts presumed.
respectfully submitted that this must be a typographical (People vs. Mingoa)
error.
Thus prima facie presumption of guilt under Rule 217,
ee. That a thing once proved to exist continues as long Revised Penal Code, is valid. (Evidence, Regalado, p. 821)
as is usual with things of that nature;
ff. That the law has been obeyed; Presumption of Constitutionality of Law
gg. That a printed or published book, purporting to be
Every statute is presumed valid. The presumption is that
printed or published by public authority, was so
the legislature intended to enact a valid, sensible and
printed or published;
just law and one which operates no further than may be
hh. That a printed or published book, purporting to
necessary to effectuate the specific purpose of the
contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the
law. Every presumption should be indulged in favor of
country where the book is published, contains
the constitutionality and the burden of proof is on the
correct reports of such cases;
party alleging that there is a clear and unequivocal
ii. That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to
breach of the Constitution. (Farias v. The Executive
convey real property to a particular person has
Secretary)
actually conveyed it to him or her when such
presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such
To justify the nullification of the law or its
person or his or her successor in interest;
implementation, there must be a clear and unequivocal,

not a doubtful, breach of the Constitution. In case of Negligence of Employer

doubt in the sufficiency of proof establishing
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable
unconstitutionality, the Court must sustain legislation
not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for
because to invalidate [a law] based on x x x baseless
those of persons for whom one is responsible.
supposition is an affront to the wisdom not only of the
legislature that passed it but also of the executive which Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by
approved it. their employees and household helpers acting within the
scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former
This presumption of constitutionality can be overcome are not engaged in any business or industry. (NCC Art.
only by the clearest showing that there was indeed an 2180)
infraction of the Constitution, and only when such a
conclusion is reached by the required majority may the
No Presumption of Legitimacy or Illegitimacy
Court pronounce, in the discharge of the duty it cannot
escape, that the challenged act must be struck down. There is no presumption of legitimacy of a child born
(Lawyers Against Monopoly vs. Secretary of Budget and after three hundred days following the dissolution of the
Management) marriage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever
alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must
prove his or her allegation. (Rule 131, Sec. 4)
Res Ipsa Loquitur
The concept of res ipsa loquitur has been explained in The legitimacy of a child born after three hundred days
this wise: following the termination of the marriage shall be
proved by whoever alleges such legitimacy or
While negligence is not ordinarily inferred or presumed,
illegitimacy. (NCC Rule 131, Sec. 169)
and while the mere happening of an accident or injury
will not generally give rise to an inference or
presumption that it was due to negligence on Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings
defendants part, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise
which means, literally, the thing or transaction speaks provided for by the law or these Rules, a presumption
for itself, or in one jurisdiction, that the thing or imposes on the party against whom it is directed the
instrumentality speaks for itself, the facts or burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet
circumstances accompanying an injury may be such as to the presumption.
raise a presumption, or at least permit an inference of If presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption that is
negligence on the part of the defendant, or some other founded upon weightier considerations of policy shall
person who is charged with negligence. apply. If considerations of policy are of equal weight,
neither presumption applies. (Sec. 5, Rule 131)
x x x where it is shown that the thing or instrumentality Note:
which caused the injury complained of was under the This is a new insertion. The first paragraph deals with
control or management of the defendant, and that the burden of evidence.
occurrence resulting in the injury was such as in the The second paragraph provides the rule on how to treat
ordinary course of things would not happen if those who inconsistent presumptions. (Señga)
had its control or management used proper care, there
is sufficient evidence, or, as sometimes stated, Presumptions against an Accused in Criminal Cases
reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by If a presumed fact that establishes guilt, is an element of
the defendant, that the injury arose from or was caused the offense charged, or negates a defense, the existence
by the defendants want of care. (Malayan Insurance vs. of the basic fact must be proved beyond reasonable
Rodelio Alberto) doubt and the presumed fact follows from the basic fact
beyond reasonable doubt. (Sec. 6, Rule 131)
Negligence of Common Carrier
This is a new insertion that deals with presumed facts that
establish guilt in that the existence of the basic fact must
Vigilance over Goods Safety of Passengers
be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the presumed fact
Presumed to be Presumed to be negligent
follows from the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt.
negligent or at fault in or at fault in case death or
(Señga)
case of loss, destruction, injury to passengers.
or deterioration.
V. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
Unless they prove that they observed extraordinary
(Rule 132)
diligence.

A. Examination of a Witness 3. When motion to quash on the ground of double

1. Examination of Witness, Definition – is the jeopardy or prescription of action or liability is
elicitation of information in a court by question and granted under Rule 117;
answer of a witness which connotes trial conducted 4. When there is a provisional dismissal under Rule
before the court. 117:
2. Trial, Definition – is a judicial process of 5. Failure of the prosecution to bring the accused to
investigating and determining the legal trial within the time prescribed under the Rules;
controversies starting with the production of 6. When the case was dismissed due to the grant of
evidence by the plaintiff and ending with his closing the motion for judicial determination of probable
arguments. cause.
3. Nature of Trial – Trial before the court is adversarial
in character, and which requires the presentation of Kinds of Trial
evidence and examination of witnesses on the
witness stand. Trial on the Trial of Substantive Issue
4. Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial –All persons Merits
shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their The accused admitted the crime
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or but interposes an exculpatory
administrative bodies. (1987 Consti Art. 3 Sec. 16) Inverted Trial defense, and the burden of proof is
now on him and he will be the
Trial Hearing first to
Limited only to the Broader in scope as it present evidence.
presentation of evidence includes the pre-trial Conducted after the accused has
and witnesses before the conference, hearing on Trial in been arraigned and he was duly
court. the motion, and trial. absentia notified of the trial and his failure
to appear thereat is unjustified.
General Rule: Trial is necessary if there are legal and A complete re-trial of the case after
factual issues involved in the case which requires New Trial or judgment has been rendered based
presentation of evidence and witnesses. Trial de Novo on the grounds specified under Sec.
1 Rule 37.
Exceptions: Held in public, in the presence of
a. In Civil Cases the public, or in a place accessible
1. Case falls under Rules on Summary Procedure; Public Trial and open to the attendance of the
2. The parties enter into an amicable settlement or public at large, or of a person who
compromise of their claims in the mediation before may properly be admitted.
the Philippine Mediation Center, Judicial Dispute Conducted according to the law of
Resolution, or Alternative Dispute Resolution; Speedy Trial criminal procedure and the rules
3. Dismissal of the action under Rule 16; and regulations, free from
4. Dismissal of the action under Secs. 1,2 and 3 of Rule vexatious, capricious delays.
17; When actions involving common
5. Dismissal of the action for failure of the plaintiff to questions of law or fact are
appear during pre-trial conference under Rule 18; pending before the court, it may
6. Judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34; order a joint hearing or trial of any
7. Summary judgment under Rule 35; Joint or or all the matters in issue in the
8. When the parties to any action agree, in writing, Consolidated actions; it may order all the actions
upon the facts involved in the litigation, and submit Trial consolidated; and it may make such
the case for judgment on the facts agreed upon, orders concerning proceedings
without the introduction of evidence under Sec. 6, therein as may tend to avoid
Rule 30. unnecessary costs or delay.
The court, in furtherance of
b. In Criminal Cases convenience or to avoid prejudice,
1. When the accused pleads guilty to the offense Separate Trial may order a separate trial of any
during arraignment under Rule 116; claim, cross-claim, counter-claim,
2. Plea bargaining during arraignment or pre-trial or third-party complaint, or of any
conference; separate issue or of any number of
claims , cross-claims, counterclaims,
third-party complaints or issue
By written consent of both parties,

Thirty days from the time

the the parties
court may have
orderreceived
any or the pre-trial order, the trial of the case shall commence which generally
all of
shall be on the following
theorder:
issues in a case to be referred
Trial by to a commissioner to be agreed
Commissioner upon by the parties or to be 1. The prosecution shall be the first one to present its
appointed by the court. evidence in chief, to prove the elements of the
“Commissioner” includes a referee, offense/crime charged in the information, as well as
an auditor, and an examiner the civil liability arising from the crime/offense.
Impartial Trial Conducted by a disinterested judge 2. After the prosecution’s evidence followed by the
without favoring any party presentation of the evidence in chief for the
Order of Trial in Civil Cases as to Presentation of defense.
Evidence 3. Then presentation of rebuttal by the prosecution.
Subject to the provisions of Sec. 2 of Rule 31, and unless 4. Lastly by the sur-rebuttal evidence by the accused.
the court for special reasons otherwise directs, the trial
shall be limited to the issues stated in the pre-trial order Presentation of a Witness
and shall proceed as follows:
A. Examination in Open Court
1. The plaintiff shall adduce evidence in support of his The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or
complaint. hearing shall be done:
1. In open court
2. The defendant shall then adduce evidence in
support of his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, Purpose:
and third- party complaint. • Opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness
• Allows adverse party to cross- examination
3. The third-party defendant, if any, shall adduce
evidence of his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, 1. Under oath or affirmation
and fourth-party complaint. No special wording is necessary for an oath or
affirmation, provided that the language used is
4. The fourth-party, and so forth, if any, shall adduce designed to impress upon the individual the duty to
evidence of the material facts pleaded by them. tell the truth.
5. The parties against whom any counterclaim or cross- Oath – solemn appeal to the Supreme Being in
claim has been pleaded, shall adduce evidence in attestation of the truth of some statement
support of their defense, in the order to be
prescribed by the court. NOTE: The object of the rule is to affect the conscience
of the witness to compel him to speak the truth, and
6. The parties may then respectively adduce rebutting also to lay him open to punishment for perjury if he
evidence only, unless the court, for good reasons testifies falsely.
and in furtherance of justice, permits them to
adduce evidence upon their original case. Affirmation – substitute for an oath, formal declaration
that the witness will tell the truth.
7. Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be
deemed submitted for decision, unless the court NOTE: The option to take either an oath or affirmation is
directs the parties to argue or to submit their given to the witness and not to the court (Riano, 2013).
respective memoranda or any further pleadings.
Waiver of the right to have the witness sworn
If several defendants or third-party defendants, and so The right to have the witness sworn may be waived. If a
forth, having separate defenses appear by different party admits proof to be taken in a case without an oath,
counsel, the court shall determine the relative order of after the testimony has been acted upon by the court,
presentation of their evidence. and made the basis of a judgment, such party can no
longer object to the admissibility of the testimony. He
Order of Trial in Criminal Cases as to Presentation of will be deemed to have waived the objection. (People v.
Evidence Bisda, G.R. No. 140895, July 17, 2003).

Where the witness refuses to take an oath or give any A witness must answer questions, although his or her
information, the testimony may be barred. (U.S. v. answer may tend to establish a case against him or her.
Fowler)
However it is the right of the witness:
2. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the 1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
question calls for a different mode of answer, the insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
answers of the witness shall be given orally. demeanor.
2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of
Testimonies need not to be given orally in open court; justice require.
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters
1. Under the Rule on Summary Procedure – pertinent to the issue
a. In criminal cases – affidavits of the parties shall 4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him
constitute the direct testimonies of the witnesses who to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise
executed the same. (Sec 15, Rule on Summary provided by law.
Procedure)
NOTE: The constitutional assurance of the right against
b. In civil cases – parties are merely required to submit self-incrimination is a prohibition against the use of
the affidavits of their witnesses and other pieces of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications
evidence on the factual issues, together with their from the accused. It is simply a prohibition against legal
position paper. (Sec 9, Rule on Summary Procedure) process to extract from the accused’ own lips, against his
will, admission of his guilt (Ong v. Sandiganbayan &
2. Depositions need not to be taken in open court; they Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 126858, September
may be taken before a notary public or before any 16, 2005).
person authorized to administer oaths. (Rule 23,Sec. 14)
NOTE: A witness invited by the Senate who refused to
3. In criminal cases, a party may utilize testimony of a testify and arrested for contempt, cannot invoke the
witness who is deceased, out of the country, right against self-incrimination in a petition for certiorari
unavailable, or unable to testify, in another proceeding, and prohibition. The said right may be invoked only
judicial or administrative, provided it involved same when the incriminating question is being asked, since he
parties and subject matter and the adverse party had the has no way of knowing in advance the nature or effect of
opportunity to cross examine the witness. (Sec. 1 (f), the questions to be asked of him. That this right may
Rule 115, Rules of Court) possibly be violated or abused is no ground for denying
the Senate Committees their power of inquiry (In Re:
4. Under Judicial Affidavit Rule – the judicial affidavit Sabio, G.R. Nos. 174340, 174318 & 174177, October 17,
shall take place of direct testimonies of witnesses. (Sec 2006).
2, Judicial Affidavit Rule)
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his
B. Proceedings to be Recorded reputation, unless it to be the very fact at issue or to
The entire proceeding of a trial or hearing, including the fact from which the fact in issue would be
questions propounded to a witness, his or her answers presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of
thereto, and the statements made by the judge or any of his previous final conviction for an offense.
the parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference to the
case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand or 6. No person shall be compelled to be a witness
stenotype or by other means of recording found against himself (1987 Consti Art. 3 Sec. 17)
suitable by the court.
NOTE: However, under Sec. 14 of RA 6981 (Witness
NOTE: These shall be recorded by means of shorthand or Protection, Security and Benefit Act), a witness admitted
stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable into the witness protection program cannot refuse to
by the court. Such transcript of the record of the testify or give evidence or produce books, documents,
proceedings made by the official stenographer, records or writings necessary for the prosecution of the
stenotypist, or recorder, and certified as correct by him offense or offenses for which he has been admitted on
shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such the ground of the right against self-incrimination.
proceedings. (Evidence, Riano)
C. Rights and Obligations of a Witness If the witness is the accused, he may totally refuse to
take the stand. A mere witness cannot altogether
refuse to

take the stand. Before he refuses to answer, he must wait determined in a hearing by the proper court, his
for the incriminating question. (Bagadiong v. Gonzales) immunity shall be removed and he shall be subject to
contempt or criminal prosecution. Moreover, the
Refusal of a witness to take the witness stand enjoyment of all rights and benefits under R.A. 6981 shall
GR: A witness may not refuse to take the witness stand. be deemed terminated. The witness may, however,
purge himself of the contumacious acts by testifying at
XPNs: any appropriate stage of the proceedings (Sec. 13, R.A.
1. An accused in a criminal case; or 6981).
2. A party who is not an accused in a criminal case is
Right against self-incrimination not available under the
allowed not to take the witness stand – in administrative
Witness Protection Program
cases/proceedings that partook of the nature of a
Any witness admitted into the program of the Witness
criminal proceeding or analogous to a criminal
Protection, Security and Benefit Act cannot refuse to
proceeding. As long as the suit is criminal in nature, the
testify or give evidence or produce books, documents,
party thereto can altogether decline to take the witness
records or writings necessary for the prosecution of the
stand. It is not the character of the suit involved but the
offense or offenses for which he has been admitted into
nature of the proceedings that controls (Rosete, et. al. v.
the Program on the ground of the constitutional right
Lim, et. al., G.R. No. 136051, June 8, 2006).
against self-incrimination but he shall enjoy immunity
from criminal prosecution and cannot be subjected to
Persons eligible to the Witness Protection, Security and any penalty or forfeiture for any transaction, matter or
Benefit Program thing concerning his compelled testimony or books,
Any person who has witnessed or has knowledge or documents, records and writings produced (Sec. 14, R.A.
information on the commission of a crime and has 6981).
testified or is testifying or about to testify before any
judicial or quasi-judicial body, or before any investigating
D. Order of Examination of an Individual Witness
authority may be admitted provided that:
The order in which the individual witness may be
1. The offense in which his testimony will be used is a examined is as follows:
grave felony as defined under the Revised Penal Code, or
its equivalent under special laws; 1. Direct examination by the proponent – is the
2. His testimony can be substantially corroborated in its examination-in-chief of a witness by the party
material points; presenting him or her on the facts relevant to the
3. He or any member of his family within the second civil issue. (Rule 132, Sec. 5)
degree of consanguinity or affinity is subjected to threats
to life or bodily injury or there is a likelihood that he will Accused as witness v. mere witness
be killed, forced, intimidated, harassed or corrupted to If the witness is the accused, he may totally refuse to
prevent him from testifying, or to testify falsely, or take the stand.
evasively, because or on account of his testimony; and
4. He is not a law enforcement officer, even if he would A mere witness cannot altogether refuse to take the
be testifying against the other law enforcement officers. stand unless there is an incriminating question
In such a case, only the immediate members of his family (Bagadiong v. Gonzales).
may avail themselves of the protection provided for
under the Act (Sec. 3, R.A. 6981). 2. Cross-examination by the opponent – upon the
termination of the direct examination, the witness
may be cross-examined by the adverse party on any
relevant matter, with sufficient fullness and freedom
State witness may be liable for contempt or criminal to test his or her accuracy and truthfulness and
prosecution freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to
A State witness may be liable for contempt or criminal elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.
prosecution. If he fails or refuses to testify or to continue (Rule 132, Sec. 6)
to testify without just cause when lawfully obliged to do
so, he shall be prosecuted for contempt. If he testifies Note:
falsely or evasively, he shall be liable to prosecution for American Rule - cross-examination must be confined to
perjury. If a State witness fails or refuses to testify, or the matters inquired about in the direct examination.
testifies falsely or evasively, or violates any condition
accompanying such immunity without just cause, as

English Rule - a witness may be cross-examined not only Day one Examination Rule– a witness has to be fully
upon matters testified to by him on his direct examined in one (1) day only, shall be strictly adhered to
examination, but also on all matters relevant to the subject to the court’s discretion during trial o whether or
issue. not to extend the direct and/or cross-examination for
justifiable reasons.
The old rule provides that the cross-examination may be
on any matters stated in the direct examination, or Most Important Witness Rule – determine the most
connected therewith, while the new rule provides that important witnesses to be heard and limit the number of
the cross-examination may be on any relevant matter, witnesses.
meaning that it is allowed even if it is not necessarily
stated in the direct examination, provided it is relevant.
Examination of a child witness; live-linked television
However, even prior to the amendment, it was
The examination of a child witness presented in a hearing
recognized that even if the matter was not exactly stated
or any proceeding shall be done in open court (as
in the direct examination but is connected therewith,
opposed to Competency Examination of the Child where
cross-examination thereon may be allowed. The new
only specified persons are allowed to attend.)
rule seems to just further clarify the old rule. (Señga)
However, the court may exclude the public and persons
who do not have a direct interest in the case, including
A witness on cross examination with sufficient fullness
the members of the press if the court determines that to
and freedom may be tested on:
testify in open court would cause psychological harm to
a. His accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from
the child, hinder ascertainment of truth, or result in his
interest or bias, or the reverse
inability to communicate due to embarrassment, fear, or
b. Eliciting all important facts bearing upon the issue.
timidity.
(Rule 132, Sec. 6)
An application may be made for the testimony of the
child to be taken in a room outside the courtroom and be
When cross-examination is not and cannot be done
televised to the court courtroom by live-linked
or completed due to causes attributable to the party
television. The application may be made by the
who offered the witness, the uncompleted
prosecutor, counsel, or guardian ad litem at least 5 days
testimony is thereby rendered incompetent and
before the trial date. (Section 25, Rules on Examination
should be stricken from the record. (Bachrach Motor
of a Child Witness)
Co., Inc., et al. vs. CIR, et al.,L-26136)
Records regarding a child – shall be confidential and
kept under seal. Except upon written request and order
3. Re-direct examination by the proponent – after the
of the court, a record shall only be released to the
cross examination of the witness has been
following;
concluded, he or she may be re-examined by the
1. Prosecuting Attorney
party calling him, to explain or supplement his or
2. Defense Counsel
her answers given during the cross-examination.
3. Guardian ad litem
(Rule 132, Sec. 7)
4. Agents of the investigating law enforcement agencies
5. Other persons as determined by court.
Note: Questions on matters not dealt with during the cross- E. Leading and Misleading Questions
examination may be allowed by the court in its discretion
4. Re-cross examination by the opponent – upon the Leading Is a question which suggest to the
conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse Question witness the answer which the examining
party may re-cross-examine the witness on: party desires
a. Matters stated in his or her re-direct examination
b. Such other matters as may be allowed by the court Misleading One which:
in its discretion (Rule 132, Sec. 8) Question 1. Assumes as true a fact not yet
testified to by the witness; or
5. Recalling the Witness – after the examination of a 2. Contrary to that which he or she has
witness by both sides has been concluded, the previously stated.
witness cannot be recalled without leave of the Harmless Is a question which is of small importance
court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its Question or has no relation to the fact in issue
direction, as the interests of justice may require. Open Is a question which allows a witness to
(Rule 132, Sec. 9) Question answer the way he wants to
Trick Is a question which leaves the witness in
Question a no-win situation

Undeniabl Is a question that the cross-examiner can Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime. — For
e Question ask of the witness, the which, the latter the purpose of impeaching a witness, evidence that he
cannot deny or she has been convicted by final judgment of a crime
shall be admitted if (a) the crime was punishable by a
As a general rule, leading questions are NOT allowed penalty in excess of one year; or (b) the crime involved
except: moral turpitude, regardless of the penalty.
a. On cross-examination;
b. On preliminary matters; However, evidence of a conviction is not admissible if
c. When there is a difficulty in getting direct and the conviction has been the subject of an amnesty or
intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, annulment of the conviction. (Rule 132, Sec. 12)
or a child of tender years, or is feeble of mind, or a
deaf-mute; Señga notes:
d. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; This is a new insertion. A witness may now be
e. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, impeached by evidence that the witness was previously
director, or managing agent of a public or private convicted by final judgment involving: (1) a punishable
corporation or of a partnership or association which penalty exceeding 1 year, regardless of whether the
is an adverse party. crime involves moral turpitude, or (2) a crime of moral
turpitude, regardless of the penalty.
NOTE: In examination of a child, the court may allow
leading questions in all stages of examination under the G. Impeachment by inconsistent statements
condition that the same will further the interest of Before a witness can be impeached
[Laying by evidence that he
the Predicate]
justice. or she has made at other times statements inconsistent
with his or her present testimony, the statements must
F. Impeachment of a Witness be related to him or her, with the circumstances of the
times and places and the persons present, and he or she
A. Impeachment of Adverse party’s Witness
must be asked whether he or she made such
A witness may be impeached by the party against whom
statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the
he was called, by:
statements be in writing, they must be shown to the
a. Contradictory evidence; witness before any question is put to him or her
concerning them. (Sec. 14, Rule 132)
b. By evidence that his or her general reputation for
truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that Elements:
he or she has made at other times statements 1. The alleged statements must be related to the
inconsistent with his or her present testimony. But witness including the circumstances of the times
not by evidence of particular wrongful acts , except and places and the persons present. If the
that it may be shown by the examination of the statements are in writing, they must be shown to
witness; him; and
c. The record of the judgment, that he has been 2. He must be asked whether he made such
convicted of an offense. (Sec. 11, Rule 132) statements and also to explain them if he admits
making those statements.
d. Deposition against the testimony of a deponent
witness (Rule 23. Sec. 4, par.a) NOTE: The reading of the prior inconsistent statement
must be verbatim, not a mere summary.
NOTE:
B. Impeachment of Party’s Own Witness
Contradictory evidence refers to other testimony of the As a general rule, a party is not allowed to impeach his
same witness, or other evidence presented by him in the own witness, except:
same case NOT the testimony of others. a. of an unwilling or hostile witness
b. of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer,
Prior inconsistent statement refers to statements, oral director or managing agent of a public or private
or documentary, made by the witness sought to be corporation or of a partnership or association which is an
impeached on occasion other than the trial in which he adverse party.
is testifying.
B. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime

NOTE: A witness is considered unwilling or hostile when mandates the court to exclude witnesses, with the use
so declared by the court upon: of the word “shall”, subject to the exceptions provided
a. Adequate showing of his adverse interest; in the amended rule.
b. Unjustified reluctance to testify;
c. His having misled the party into calling him to the The second paragraph under the amended rule is similar
witness stand. to the second sentence under the old rule, in that apart
from excluding the witnesses from trial or hearing to
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the prevent them from hearing the testimony of other
witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached by
witnesses, the court may also order that they be kept
the party presenting him or her in all respects as if he or
separate from each other to be prevent them from
she had been called by the adverse party, except by
evidence of his or her bad character. He or she may also conversing with one another. The amended rule
be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party, provides additionally that this may be done not only to
but such cross-examination must only be on the subject prevent the witnesses from conversing directly with one
matter of his or her examination-in-chief. (Sec. 13, Rule another but also through intermediaries, until all have
132) been examined.
Recantation of a witness
Courts must not automatically exclude the original NOTE: This rule applies ONLY to witnesses NOT to parties
statement based solely on the recantation. It should in the case. (Tan p. 394)
determine which statement should be given credence This may be made by the judge:
through a comparison of the original and the new a. If the evidence to be produced during trial is of such
statements, applying the general rules of evidence (PLDT character as to be offensive to decency or public morals
vs. Bolso, G.R. No. 159701, August 17, 2007). b. On motion of the accused
The following may not be excluded:

H. Exclusions and Separation of Witnesses
1. An accused in a criminal case as it is his constitutional
The court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall order right to be present at all stages of the proceedings;
witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the 2. Parties to the litigation will generally not be excluded,
testimony of other witnesses. This rule does not their presence usually being necessary to a proper
authorize exclusion of (a) a party who is a natural management of the case;
person, 3. Party in interest though not a party to the record and
(b) a duly designated representative of a juridical entity an agent of such party, if the presence of such agent is
which is a party to the case, (c) a person whose presence necessary;
is essential to the presentation of the party's cause, or 4. Officers and complaining witnesses are customarily
(d) a person authorized by a statute to be present. excepted from the rule unless the circumstances warrant
otherwise; and
The court may also cause witnesses to be kept separate 5. Expert witnesses are not excluded until production of
and to be prevented from conversing with one another, evidence bearing upon the question or subject as to
directly or through intermediaries, until all shall have which they have been called or unless liable to be
been examined. (Sec. 15, Rule 132) influenced by the testimony of the other witnesses
(Herrera, 1999).
Señga Notes:
The purpose of the rule remains the same, that
I. Reference to a Memorandum by Witnesses
witnesses may be excluded so that they cannot hear the
testimony of other witnesses. However, the amended A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory
rule provides that the following shall not be excluded: respecting a fact, by:
(a) a party who is a natural person; (b) a duly designated
representative of a juridical entity which is a party to the 1. Anything written or recorded by himself or under his
case; (c) a person whose presence is essential to the direction at the time when the fact occurred, or
presentation of the party's cause; or (d) a person immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the
authorized by a statute to be present. The foregoing fact was fresh in his memory and knew that the same
exceptions were not present under the old rule. was correctly written or recorded;
Likewise, it was directory or not mandatory for the court 2. In such case the writing or record must be produced
under the old rule to order exclusion of witnesses, as the and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if
old rule used the word “may”. The amended rule now

he chooses, cross examine the witness upon it, and may 4. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private
read it in evidence. documents required by law to the entered therein.
Requirements: b. Private
1. Such memorandum should be written at the time All other writings. (Rule 132, Sec. 19)
the fact occurred or immediately thereafter or at
any time when the event or fact was fresh in his Señga Notes:
memory. The old and new provisions are the same except that
2. The witness affirms that the facts was correctly under the amended rule, an additional item was added
written or record. under public document - Documents that are considered
3. The memorandum must be produced and may be public documents under treaties and conventions which
inspected by the adverse party. (Sec. 16, Rule 132) are in force between the Philippines and the country of
source. An example of this treaty is the Apostille
Revival of Past Recollection Rule Convention, which became effective in the Philippines on
A witness may testify from such writing or record, 14 May 2019.
though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if
he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly Proof of Private Documents
stated the transaction when made; but such evidence
must be received with caution. (Rule 132, Sec. 16) Before any private document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity
Rule when only a part of a transaction, conversation, must be proved either:
writing or record is given in evidence a. By anyone who saw the document executed or
The whole of the same subject may be inquired into by written; or
the other. (Rule 132, Sec. 17) b. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker;
Rule when a detached act, declaration, conversation, c.By other evidence showing its due execution and
writing or record is given in evidence authenticity.
Any other act, declaration, conversation, writing or Any other private document need only be identified as
record necessary to its understanding may also be given that which it is claimed to be. (Rule 132, Sec. 20)
in evidence. (Rule 132, Sec. 17)
Señga:
Right to Inspect Writing Under the first paragraph of the old rule, there were only
Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be 2 ways of proving the execution and authenticity of
inspected by the adverse party. (Rule 132, Sec. 18) private documents, i.e., (a) By anyone who saw the
document executed or written; or (b) By evidence of the
B. Authentication and Proof of Documents genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the
Authentication - A proper or legal attestation. Acts done maker. The revised rule adopted the same 2 ways but
with a view of causing an instrument to be known and added a third manner, which broader in scope – by other
identified. (Domondon, p. 276) evidence showing its due execution and authenticity.
The second paragraph is the same under the old and
Classes of Documents revised rules.
a. Public
1. The written official acts, or records of the official
acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and When Authentication Not Required
tribunals, and public officers, whether of the 1. Ancient Document Rule - The document is ancient i.e.
Philippines, or of a foreign country; more than thirty years old, produced from the custody in
which it would naturally be found if genuine, and is
2. Documents acknowledge before a notary public unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of
except last wills and testaments; suspicion. (Rule 132, Sec. 21);
2. The genuineness and authenticity of an actionable
3. Documents that are considered public documents document have not been specifically denied under oath
under treaties and conventions which are in force by the adverse party;
between in the Philippines and the country of 3. The genuineness and authenticity of the document
source; or have been admitted;
4. The document is not being offered as genuine.


Proof of Genuineness of Signature For documents originating from a foreign country which
The testimony of the very person whose signature is is not a contracting party to a treaty or convention
disputed is a competent proof of the genuineness of referred to in the next preceding sentence, the
such signature. certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy
or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or
NOTE: There is no preferential rule that such testimony consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of
of the writer is the only competent proof; it is merely the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which
the best evidence. (affects only the weight/probative the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
value)
or her office.
Proof of handwriting of a person: A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its
By testimony of a witness who: equivalent may be presented in evidence without further
1. Believes it to be the handwriting of such person proof, the certificate or its equivalent being prima facie
because he has seen the person write, or evidence of the due execution and genuineness of the
document involved. The certificate shall not be required
2. Has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the when a treaty or convention between a foreign country
witness has acted or been charged, and has thus and the Philippines has abolished the requirement, or
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. has exempted the document itself from this formality.
(Rule 132, Sec. 24)
3. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be
given by a comparison, made by the witness or the Notes: (Señga)
court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by The first sentence of the old and revised rules are the
the party against whom the evidence is offered, or same.
proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
(Rule 132, Sec. 22) A second paragraph was inserted, which refers to and
should be read in connection with the revised Section 19
Proof of Public Documents (c) of Rule 132, on Documents that are considered public
Documents consisting of entries in public records made documents under treaties and conventions which are in
in the performance of a duty by a public officer are force between the Philippines and the country of source.
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. This presupposes that the Philippines is a contracting
party to the treaty together with the foreign country
All other public documents are evidence, even against a concerned. The treaty shall govern the form of the
third person, of the fact which gave rise to their certificate of its equivalent, subject to reciprocity
execution and of the date of the latter. (Rule 132, Sec. granted to public documents originating from the
23) Philippines.
Proof of Official Record The second sentence of the old rule may be compared
The record of public documents referred to in paragraph with the third paragraph of the amended rule. This
(a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may provision presupposes that the foreign country from
be evidenced by: where the document originates is not a party to a treaty
a. An official publication thereof or with the Philippines. Under the old rule, there was no
distinction. However, as earlier mentioned, the Apostille
b. By a copy attested by the officer having the legal Convention came into force on 14 May 2019, hence this
custody of the record, or by his deputy, and revision. Thus, the old second sentence applies to
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, foreign documents originating from countries not party
with a certificate that such officer has the custody. to a treaty with the Philippines.
If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign The last paragraph under the revised rule is a new
country, which is a contracting party to a treaty or insertion, and it makes clear that the document that is
convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent may be
considered a public document under such treaty or presented in evidence without further proof, the
convention pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section 19 certificate or its equivalent being prima facie evidence of
hereof, the certificate or its equivalent shall be in the the due execution and genuineness of the document
form prescribed by such treaty or convention subject to involved. However, the certificate shall not be required
reciprocity granted to public documents originating from when a treaty or convention between a foreign country
the Philippines. and the Philippines has abolished the requirement, or
has
exempted the document itself from this formality. See

Apostille Convention. Rule on Alterations in a Document
Rule on Attestation of Document
The party producing a document as genuine which has
Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for been altered and appears to have been altered after its
the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in execution, in a part material to the question in dispute,
substance, that: must:
1. The copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific 1. Account for the alteration.
part thereof, as the case may be. 2. He may show that the alteration was made by
2. The attestation is under the official seal of the another, without his concurrence, or was made with the
attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a consent of the parties affected by it, or was otherwise
court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (Rule properly or innocent made, or that the alteration did not
132, Sec. 25) change the meaning or language of the instrument.
Rule on Public Record of a Private Document If he fails to do that, the document shall not be
An authorized public record of a private document may admissible in evidence. (Rule 132, Sec. 31)
be proved by
Rule on Seal
1. The original record, or
There shall be no difference between sealed and
2. By a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of
unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility
the record, with an appropriate certificate that such
as evidence is concerned. (Rule 132, Sec. 32)
officer has the custody. (Rule 132, Sec. 27)
Rule on Proof of Lack of Record Rule on Documentary Evidence in
an Unofficial Language
In case the office has no record or entry of an official Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be
record, it can be proved subject to the following admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a
requirements: translation into English or Filipino.
1. A written statement signed by an officer having the To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their
custody of an official record or by his deputy that after attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared
diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is before trial. (Rule 132, Sec. 33)
found to exist in the records of his office,
2. Accompanied by a certificate as above provided. (Rule Importance of Knowing Whether a Document is Public
132, Sec. 28) or Private:
Determines how they may be presented in evidence in
Rule on Impeachment of Judicial Record court. Public document is admissible in court without
Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: further proof of its due execution and authenticity.
a. Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer,
b. Collusion between the parties, or Private document, because it lacks the official and
c. Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to sovereign character of a public document, or solemnities
the proceedings. (Rule 132, Sec. 29) prescribed by the law, requires authentication.
Rule on Proof of Notarial Documents Notarial seal converts a document from a private to
public document.
Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and
certified as provided by law:
1. May be presented in evidence without further proof; Chemistry report of a public officer showing a
2. The certificate of acknowledgment being prima positive result of paraffin test is a public document.
facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or (Kummer v. People)
document involved. (Rule 132, Sec. 30)
Picture Seat Plan prepared by Civil Service
NOTE: Notarized documents enjoy presumption of Commission in implementing examination, is a public
regularity but not validity of its contents. document. (CSC v. Vergel de Dios)
Improperly notarized documents are not public
documents. Irremovability of Public Record

Any public record, an official copy of which is admissible The purpose must be specified because such evidence
in evidence, must not be removed from the office in may be admissible for several purposes under the
which it is kept, except upon order of a court where the doctrine of multiple admissibility, or may be admissible
inspection of the record is essential to the just for one purpose and not for another, otherwise, the
determination of a pending case. (Rule 132, Sec. 26) adverse cannot interpose the proper objection. (People
vs. Diano)
NOTE: The certificate and attestation are required
because of the general rule on the “Irremovability of The Rules of Procedure and jurisprudence do not
Public Record” embodied in Section 26, Rule 132. sanction the grant of evidentiary value to evidence
which was not formally offered. “It is well to remember
Notary Public in a foreign country is not one of those that good intentions do not win cases, evidence does.”
who can issue the certificate. (Lopez v. CA) (Jose R. Catacutan vs. People)
Registration of contracts:
For purposes of registration and convenience, acts and Exception to rule on formal offer of evidence:
contracts which have for their object the creation, 1. In a summary proceeding (because there is no full
transmission, modification, or extinguishment of real blown trial)
rights over immovable property must appear in a public 2. Documents judicially admitted or taken judicial
document. notice of;
3. Documents, affidavits and depositions used in
Examples: rendering a summary judgment;
a) Donation of immovable 4. Documents or affidavits used in deciding quasi-
b) Donation of movable with a values exceeding 5, 000 judicial or administrative cases.
pesos 5. Lost objects previously marked, identified, described
c) A partnership where immovable property or real in the record, and testified to by the witnesses who
rights are contributed. had been subjects of cross-examination in respect to
said objects. (Tabuena v. CA)
Foreign judgments; divorce
A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce Provided;
decree itself. a) The evidence must have been duly identified by
testimony duly recorded; and
Church registries b) It must have been incorporated in the records of the
Church registries of birth, marriages, and death made case. (People v. Napat-a)
subsequent to the promulgation of General Order No. 68
promulgated on December 18, 1889 are no longer public NOTE: Evidence attached to motion for reconsideration
writings, nor are they kept by duly authorized public on the decision by the Court of Appeals should be
officials. refused to be considered (Sps. Tan vs. Republic)
They are private writings and their authenticity must, When to make an Offer
therefore, be proved.
When to Make Offer. — All evidence must be offered
orally.
The offer of the testimony of a witness in evidence must
C. Offer and Objection
be made at the time the witness is called to testify.
Offer of Evidence – as used in sec. 35 of Rule 132, must The offer of documentary and object evidence shall be
be understood to mean presentation or introduction of made after the presentation of a party's testimonial
evidence. evidence (Rule 132, Sec. 35)
Hence, a document or article is not evidence when it is Señga Note:
simply marked for identification. (People vs. Whipkey) The amended provision should be read in relation to the
revised Rule 30, Section 6, which provides that after
Rule on Offer of Evidence
presentation of evidence, the offer of exhibits shall be
The court shall consider no evidence which has not been made orally and thereupon, the objections thereto shall
formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is
be made and the court shall also orally rule on the same.
offered must be specified. (Rule 132, Sec. 34)
This is also consistent with the rules on continuous trial
for criminal cases.

While the timing when the offer of evidence for Kiancdtisoo jectiOobnjes cti Objections Deferred
testimonial, object and documentary evidence remain nfs Ob ons Objectio
the same, the revised rules require that the same shall taken by ns
be made orally. Under the old rules, it shall be done the court granted by
orally unless allowed by the court to be in writing. denied by the the court
court ruling by
the court
Rules on Objection is
Objection. — Objection to offer of evidence must be reserved
made orally immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a

formal offer must be made as soon as the witness begins
to testify.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the

oral examination of a witness must be made as soon as
the grounds therefor become reasonably apparent.
The grounds for the objections must be specified. (Rule

132, Sec. 36)
NOTE: Objection to admissibility of evidence cannot be

made for the first time on appeal.
Evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and may

be validly considered by the court in arriving at its
judgment.
Objection based on the Statute of Fraud must be raised

at the earliest possible opportunity.
(Señga) The old rule was revised so that there is no

more distinction between an oral and written offer of
evidence. Thus, the first sentence now states objection
to offer of evidence, without distinction as to whether
the evidence was offered orally or not, unlike under the
old rule.
The revised rule also provides that in case a witness
begins to testify without the offer of testimony being
made prior to said testimony, the objection to such lack
of formal offer must be made as soon as the witness
begins to testify.
The provision on when an objection to written offer of
evidence was deleted. It appears that unlike the old rule,
the court no longer has discretion to allow the formal
offer of evidence in writing.
Objection to Admissibility of Depositions

Subject to the provisions of Sec. 29 of the RoC,
objections may be made in the following occasions:
a. At the trial
b. Hearing to receiving in evidence any deposition or
part thereof for any reason which would require the Specific Grounds for Objections:
exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then 1. Irrelevant/immaterial evidence;
present and testifying.

2. Incompetent evidence; “will be taken into consideration” “under advisement”

3. Opinion of witness; “submitted” “objections are noted’ “evidence is
4. Leading question; admitted subject to objections” “admitted for whatever
5. Misleading question; they may be worth” are not proper rulings.
6. Compound question;
7. General question; Striking Out of an Answer
8. Question calling for narration;
9. Vague question; Instances when the court may order the striking out of
10. Hypothetical question; an answer are as follows:
11. Embarrassing question;
12. Question on admitted matters; 1. Should a witness answer the question before the
13. Question already answered; adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its
14. Hearsay evidence; objection to the same, or where a question is not
15. Parol evidence; objectionable, but the answer is not responsive, or
16. Best evidence rule; where a witness testifies without a question being posed
17. Privileged communication between husband and or testifies beyond limits set by the court, or when the
wife; witness does a narration instead of answering the
18. Privileged communication between attorney-client; question and such objection is found to be meritorious,
19. Privileged communication between doctor-patient; the court shall sustain the objection and
20. Privileged communication between priest-penitent;
21. Privileged communication on state secrets; 2. On proper motion, the court may also order the
22. Lack of basis; striking out of answers which are incompetent,
23. Self-incriminating question; irrelevant, or otherwise improper. (Rule 132, Sec. 39)
24. Argumentative or harassing question;
25. Illegally obtained evidence; A motion to strike may be availed of in the following
26. Disqualification by reason of spousal immunity; instances;
27. Disqualification by reason of the Dead Man’s Statute; a) When the answer is premature
28. Parental and filial privilege. b) Irrelevant
c) Unresponsive
d) The witness becomes unavailable for cross-
Repetition of an Objection
examination through no fault of cross-examining
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of party
the examination of a witness that the question being e) When the testimony was allowed conditionally and
propounded are of the same class as those to which the condition for its admissibility was not fulfilled.
objection has been made, whether such objection was
sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to Note: (Señga)
repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse The revised rule adds instances for striking the answer of
party to record his continuing objection to such class of a witness. The old rule was limited to striking an answer
questions. (Rule 132, Sec. 37) to a question when the answer was made before the
adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its
Ruling objection to the same. In addition to the foregoing, the
The ruling of the court must be given immediately after revised rule also provides: (1) where the question is not
the objection is made, unless the court desires to take a objectionable but the answer of the witness is not
reasonable time to inform itself on the question responsive to the question, (2) a witness testifies
presented; but the ruling shall always be made during without a question being posed, (3) a witness testifies
the trial and at such time as will give the party against beyond limits set by the court, or (4) when the witness
whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation does a narration instead of answering the question, and
presented by the ruling. objection thereto is properly raised and found
meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection order such answer, testimony or narration to be stricken
need not be stated. However, if the objection is based off the record.
on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the
objection on one or some of them must specify the The second paragraphs are the same. Even without the
ground or grounds relied upon. (Rule 132, Sec. 38) new insertions under the revised rule, the same may still
fall within the contemplation of the second paragraph.

Tender of Excluded Evidence (Offer of Proof) b. Civil cases – preponderance of evidence

An offeror whose evidence excluded may tender such c. Administrative cases – substantial evidence
evidence. d. Extradition cases – clear and convincing
evidence
Documents –the offeror may have the same attached to
or made part of the record. Hierarchy of Evidentiary Values
1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for 2. Clear and convincing evidence
the record the name and other personal circumstances 3. Preponderance of evidence
of the witness and the substance of the proposed 4. Substantial evidence
testimony. (Rule 132, Sec. 40)
1. Secs. 1 and 2 give the rules on the requisite quantum
Reasons: of evidence in civil and criminal cases. The last two
1. To allow the court to know the nature of the sentences of Sec. 1 suggest the factors which the
testimony or the documentary evidence and court may take into consideration in determining the
convince the trial judge to permit the evidence or weight to be given to testimonial evidence, and these
testimony. factors apply to both civil and criminal cases.
2. Even if he is not convinced to reverse the earlier
ruling, tender is made to create and preserve a 2. Evidence, to be worthy of credit, must not only
record for appeal. proceed from a credible source but must, in addition,
be credible in itself. And by this is meant that it shall
Formal offer of evidence Offer of proof be natural, reasonable and probable as to make it
Offer of the testimony of A process by which a easy to believe.
a witness or documentary proponent of excluded
and object evidence. evidence tenders the 3. Facial expressions are not necessarily indicative of
same. one’s feelings.
Additional evidence after the case is rested; 4. The failure of a party to present merely corroborative
Rules of Court do not prohibit a party from requesting or cumulative evidence does not give rise to any
the court to allow it to present additional evidence even adverse or unfavorable presumption.
after it has rested its case. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan)
5. When a witness makes two sworn statements and
these two statements incur in the gravest
VI. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE contradictions, the court cannot accept either
(Rule 133) statement as proof. This is different from the
situation wherein the testimony of two witnesses
contradict each other, in which case the court shall
A. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence Generally
adopt such testimony which it believe to be true.
Weight of evidence is the probative value that the court
gives to particular evidence admitted to prove a fact in 6. The record of a preliminary investigation constitutes
issue, and particular evidence admitted only if it is no part of the final proceedings in a cause, unless it is
relevant and it is not excluded by law or the rules. (Tan, presented in evidence, and the facts adduced therein
2014) are evidence only for the purpose of testing the
credibility of witnesses.
1. If there is an inconsistency between the affidavit and
the testimony of a witness, the latter should be given 7. While the testimony of a co-conspirator or an
more weight since affidavits being taken ex-parte are accomplice is admissible, such testimony comes from
usually incomplete and inaccurate. a polluted source and must be scrutinized with great
caution as it is subject to grave suspicion. Conspiracy
2. Positive identification of the accused prevails over can be proved by circumstantial evidence but it must
incomplete entry in the blotter. be proved with as much certainty as the crime itself.
Summary of quantum of evidence required for different 8. Corroboration is not required or expected in the
cases: crime of rape which, as a rule, is committed
a. Criminal cases – proof beyond reasonable doubt without

anybody else being present except the rapist and the 2. Preponderance of evidence is required in actions
victim. brought to recover ill-gotten wealth. (Republic v.
Bakunawa)
9. Tax declarations or the payment of real estate taxes
on the land are not conclusive evidence of ownership 3. Although there is no direct evidence to prove
of the declarant or payor. forgery, (annotated SPA at the back of the lost TCT)
preponderance of evidence indubitably favors the
10. There is no doctrine that, in every instance, non- heirs of Felix xxx Preponderance of evidence is a
flight by the accused is an indicator of innocence. phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability
of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing
to the court as worthier of belief than that which is
B. Preponderance of Evidence
offered in opposition thereto. (Heirs of the late Felix
Preponderance of evidence means the “greater or Bucton v. Bacero)
superior weight of evidence”. It is the evidence that is
more convincing and more credible than the one offered 4. To establish the invalidity of a mortgage,
by the adverse party. preponderance of evidence is essential to prove a
case. (Ramos v. Obispo)
It is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side and is usually considered to be 5. As a general rule, the number of witnesses should
synonymous with the term “greater weight of the not in and by itself determine the weight of
evidence” or “greater weight of the credible evidence.” evidence, but in case of conflicting testimonies of
witnesses, the numerical factor may be given certain
The concept of preponderance of evidence refers to weight. (Regalado)
evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing,
than that which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom,
EQUIPOISE RULE
it means probability of truth. (Metropolitan Bank and
Trust Company v. Custodio) Where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are
capable of two or more explanations, one of which is
It is a quantum of evidence applicable to civil cases. consistent with the innocence of the accused and the
other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does
HOW PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE DETERMINED not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient
to support a conviction. The equipoise rule provides that
The court may consider the following: (F-W-N)
where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balances,
a. All the facts and circumstances of the case;
the constitutional, presumption of innocence tilts the
b. The witnesses’ (M-I-M-N-P-I-C)
scales in favor of the accused. (People v. Urzais)
1. Manner of testifying
2. Their intelligence
6. Positive testimony vs. Negative testimony
3. Their means and opportunity of knowing the
facts to which they are testifying
4. The nature of the facts to which they testify Positive Testimony Negative Testimony
5. The probability or improbability of their It is when the witness It is when a witness
testimony affirms that a fact did or states that he did not see
6. Their interest or want of interest did not occur. or know of the
7. And also their personal credibility so far as the occurrence of a fact.
same may legitimately appear upon trial It has greater weight than It has lesser weight than
negative testimony since positive testimony
c. The court may also consider the number of the witness represents of because there is only a
witnesses, thought the preponderance is not his personal knowledge total disclaimer of
necessarily with the greater number (Sec. 1, Rule the presence or absence personal knowledge.
133) of a fact.
1. To persuade by the preponderance of evidence is CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE

not to take the evidence quantitatively but
qualitatively. (McDonald v. Union Pacific) Evidence that produces in the mind of the trier of fact a
firm belief or conviction as to allegations sought to be
established; it is intermediate, being more than

preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty • A notarized document, enjoys the presumption of
as is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal due execution. Ony clear and convincing evidence
cases. to the contrary can overcome this presumption.
(Viaje v. Pamintel)
An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the
standard of proof required in granting or denying bail • The person claiming moral damages must prove
can neither be proof beyond reasonable doubt in the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing
criminal cases not the standard of proof of evidence. (Resolution of the SC in Cual v. Leonis
preponderance of evidence in civil cases. While Navigation)
administrative in character, the substantial evidence
used in administrative cases cannot likewise apply given • The presumption of regularity in the performance
the object of extradition law which is to prevent the of official duties will stand if the defense failed to
prospective extradite from fleeing our jurisdiction. present clear and convincing evidence that the
(Government of Honking Special Administrative Region v. police officers did not properly perform their duty
Olalia, Jr.) or that they were inspired by an improper motive.
(People v. Concepcion)
• Clear and positive evidence = Proof beyond
reasonable doubt (People v. Tubongbanua) • It is doctrinally settled that a person who seeks
confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title
Some Jurisprudential Pronouncement on Clear and to a piece of land on the basis of possession by
Convincing Evidence: himself and his predecessors-in-interest shoulders
• There should be clear and convincing evidence to the burden of proving by clear and convinving
prove the charge of bias and partiality of judge. evidence, compliance with the requirement of the
(Rivera v. Mendoza) applicable law. (Republic v. Imperial Credit
Corporation)
• Fraud is never presumed but must be proved by
clear and convincing evidence, mere • The proving of bad faith by clear and convincing
preponderance of evidence not even being evidence rests on the one alleging it. (UNICAN v.
adequate (Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc.) NEA)
• Forgery cannot be presumed; it should be proved • Paternity and filiations requires clear and
by clear and convincing evidence, and whoever convincing evidence (Perla v. Baring)
alleges it has the burden of proving the same • Presumption that the property is conjugal
(Sumbad v. CA) property may be rebutted by clear, positive and
convincing evidence. (Dewara v. Lamela)
• The established legal principle in actions for
annulment or reconveyance of title is that a party
seeking it should establish not merely by a C. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
preponderance of evidence, but by clear and In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal,
convincing evidence that the land sought to be
unless his or her guilt is shown beyond reasonable
reconveyed is his (Manotok Relaty, Inc. v. CLT
doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean
Realty Development Corp.)
such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error,
• It is a well-settled doctrine that when an accused produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is
invokes self-defense, the onus is on him to required, or that degree of proof which produces
establish by clear and convincing evidence his conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (Rule 133, Sec. 2)
justification for the killing. (People v. Tomolin)
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the required quantum
• An allegation of frame-up and extortion by police of evidence in order to convict an accused.
officers must be substantiated by clear and
convincing evidence. (People v. Boco) The basis of acquittal is reasonable doubt, which simply
means that the evidence of the prosecution was not
• For alibi to prosper, it must also be proved by sufficient to sustain the guilt of the accused-appellant
clear and convincing evidence that it was beyond the point of moral certainty. Proof beyond
physically impossible for him to have been at the reasonable doubt, however, is a burden particular to the
scene of the crime at the time of its commission prosecution and does not apply to exculpatory facts as
and commit the crime. (People v. Agunos)

may be raised by the defense; the accused is not there is no indication of a sinister scheme to
required to establish matters in mitigation or defense prevaricate. (People v. Ramirez)
beyond a reasonable doubt, nor is he requires to
establish the truth of such matters by a preponderance The exception is in treason cases where “No person
of the evidence, or even to a reasonable probability. shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony
(People vs. Urzais) of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or on
confession of the accused in open court.”(RPC,
1. In criminal cases, the burden of proof as to the guilt Art.114, 2nd par.) (Domondon)
of the accused lies with the prosecution because of
the presumption that the accused is presumed 8. In determining the defense of alibi to prosper, two
innocent until the contrary is proven (Art. III, Bill of requisites must concur:
Rights). i. The appellant was at a different place at the
time the crime was committed, and
2. General Rule: The obligation to convince the trier of ii. It was physically impossible for him to be at
facts to show the guilt of the accused beyond the crime scene at the time of its commission.
reasonable doubt is upon the prosecution, (Domondon)
throughout the trial.
9. Motive
Exception: However, when the accused invokes a General Rule: The prosecution need not prove
justifying circumstance like for instance, self-defense, motive on the part of the accused when the latter
the burden of proof rests upon the defense to prove has been positively identified as the author of the
that the killing was justified. (Riano, 2009) crime.
3. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such Exception: It becomes relevant only when the
a degree of proof that excludes all possibility of error. accused has not been positively identified and proof
Only MORAL CERTAINTY is required. (Sec. 2, Rule thereof becomes essential only when the evidence of
133) the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial
or is inconclusive.
4. Reasonable doubt is that state of the case which,
after a comparison of all the evidence, does not lead Herrera
the judge to have in his mind, a moral certainty of 10. Totality of Circumstances Test- Factors to be
the truth of the charge. considered:
a) The witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at
5. Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that the the time of the crime
conviction of the accused but rest, not on the b) The witness’ degree of attention at that time
weakness of the defense, but on the strength of the c) The accuracy of any prior description given by
prosecution. the witness
d) The level of certainty demonstrated by the
6. When a prima facie case is established by the witness at the identification
prosecution in a criminal case, as in the case at bar, e) The length of time between the crime and the
the burden of proof does not shift to the defense. It identification
remains throughout the trial with the party upon f) The suggestiveness of the identification
whom it is imposed- the prosecution. It is the burden procedure
of evidence which shifts from party to party
depending upon the exigencies of the case in the 11. The first duty of the prosecution is not prove the
course of the trial. This burden of going forward with crime but to prove the identity of the criminals. For
the evidence is met by evidence which balances that even if the commission of the crime can be
introduced by the prosecution. Then the burden established, without proof of identity of the criminal
shifts back. beyond reasonable doubt there can be no
conviction.
7. May the uncorroborated testimony of a witness be
the basis of conviction? In the affirmative case, state 12. Identification by the sound of voice of the person is
the the exception if any. sufficient and acceptable means of identification
Yes. The uncorroborated testimony of a single where it is established that the witness and the
eyewitness is sufficient basis for conviction, if such accused had known each other personally and
testimony is credible and positive and produces a closely for a number of years. (US v. Manabat)
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. More so when
Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected]) EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

13. Wick lamps, flashlight, even moonlight, and starlight D. Extrajudicial Confession
may, in proper situations, be sufficient illumination
General Rule: Extrajudicial Confession is not sufficient for
to identify another. (Vide People v. Briones)
conviction.
14. The Constitution mandates that an accused in a
Exception: Sufficient if corroborated by evidence of
criminal case shall be presumed innocent until the
corpus delicti.
contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. xxx
.When the circumstance are capable of two or more
*See discussion in extrajudicial confession.
inferences, as in this case, one of which is consistent
with innocence and the other is compatible with
1. Corpus delicti means “the body or substance of the
guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail,
crime.” It is the actual commission by someone of
and the court must acquit. (People v De Guzman)
the particular crime charged.
15. An acquittal based on reasonable doubt will
2. It is made up of two things:
prosper even though the accused innocence may be
a. The existence of a certain act or result forming
doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the
the basis of the criminal charge
strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not
b. And the existence of a criminal agency as the
on the weakness of the defense. (People v. Angus,
cause of the act or result
Jr.)
3. Corpus Delicti for the following crimes:
16. Evidence during hearing for application for bail is
• Theft: that the property was lost by the owner and
not sufficient to convict.
that is was lost by a felonious taking. The failure to
recover the property does not detract from the fact
17. "The hearing of an application for bail should be
that a crime may be established without recovery of
summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court.
the stolen object.
By 'summary hearing' [is] meant such brief and
• Illegal possession of firearm are (a) the existence of
speedy method of receiving and considering the
the firearm, and (b) that it has been actually held
evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent
with animus possidendi by the accused without the
with the purpose of the hearing which is merely to
corresponding license therefor.
determine the weight of the evidence for the
• Murder, the fact of death Is the corpus delicti-where
purpose of bail. In such a hearing, the court 'does there is doubt as to the identity of a cadaver, in the
not sit to try the merits or to enter into any nice absence of any other evidence, there is no corpus
inquiry as to the weight that ought to be allowed to delicti.
the evidence for or against accused, nor will it • The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case,
speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and
further evidence may be therein offered is in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No.
admitted.' 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti
. . . The course of the inquiry may be left to the must definitely be shown to have been preserved.
discretion of the court which may confine itself to (People v. Alcuizar)
receiving such evidence as has reference to • Homicide, the death certificate and necropsy report
substantial matters avoiding unnecessary need not be submitted to prove the fact of death
thoroughness in the examination and cross- which can be established by testimonial evidence.
examination of witnesses and reducing to a • In case of arson there must be evidence that the
reasonable minimum the amount of corroboration burning was intentionally done not merely the fact
particularly on details that are not essential to the that a fire has occurred.
purpose of the hearing." (Tambunting v. CA) • Corpus delicti in robbery with homicide was
established by the necropsy report and the robbery
18. In every criminal prosecution, however, the identity by testimonial evidence.
of the offender, like the crime itself, must be
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Where the verbal extrajudicial confession was made
(People v. Wagas) without counsel, but it was spontaneously made by
the accused immediately after the assault, the same
19. Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the physical acts is admissible not under the confession rule, but as
constituting the crime itself, the elements of part of the res gestae, aside from the consideration
conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable that no custodial investigation was involved.
doubt. (Cruz v. People)

5. When the accused was mere told of his d) The facts must establish such a certainty of guilt
constitutional rights and asked if he understood of the accused as to convince the judge beyond
what he was told, but he was never asked whether reasonable doubt that the accused is the one
he wanted to exercise or avail himself of such rights, committed the offense.
his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible.
Regalado
6. A promise of immunity or leniency vitiates a 2. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction
confession if given by the offended party or by the even in capital offenses, except when the law
fiscal, but not if given by a person whom the specifies the species and the quantum of evidence
accused could not have reasonably expected to be as, in treason. (Art. 114, RPC) and formerly, for
able to comply with such promise, such as an certain subversive activities punishable by prision
investigator who is not a prosecuting officer, or mayor to death (Sec. 7, RA 1700).
could not bind the offended party which was a
corporation. 3. It is also submitted that circumstantial evidence
would not suffice to sustain a conviction for
7. Where the accused voluntarily made a second falsification, bigamy and libel through written
extrajudicial confession after he had been publications, and the documents involved must be
maltreated in order to extort the first confession, presented. In bigamy direct evidence of the first
such second confession is admissible only if it can be marriage is necessary. The same doctrine has been
proved that he was already relieved of the fear applied in actions for adultery, parricide, and other
generated by the previous maltreatment. cases where the issue of marriage is primarily
involved.
8. Signature of the accused in the receipt of the
property seized considered as extra judicial 4. It has also been held that while motive of the
confession – inadmissible in evidence. accused is generally immaterial not being an
element of the crime, such motive becomes
important when the evidence of the crime is purely
E. Circumstantial Evidence
circumstantial.
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a
fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may 5. Conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial
be established by inference. evidence not only direct evidence. (Tan)
Circumstantial Evidence, When Sufficient. —
There are instances when, although a witness may
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
not have actually witnessed the commission of a
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
crime, he may still be able to positively identify a
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are
suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as
proven; and
when, for instance, the latter is the person last seen
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
with the victim immediately before and right after
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
the commission of the crime. This is the type of
positive identification, which forms part of
Inference cannot be based on other inferences.
circumstantial evidence.
Note (Señga):
6. Penetration in the crime of rape can be established
The requisites are the same. The revised rule adds that
by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct
Inferences cannot be based on other inferences. Even
evidence.
without this amendment, such rule is settled as in fact,
paragraph (b) provides that the inferences are derived
7. Circumstantial evidence must be established by
from proven facts.
chain of events.
1. Four Basic Guidelines in the Appreciations of
8. Two types of Positive Identification:
Circumstantial Evidence:
a. that by direct evidence, through an eyewitness to
a) It should be acted upon with caution
the very commission of the act
b) All the essential facts must be consistent with
the hypothesis of guilt
b. that by circumstantial evidence, such as where the
c) The facts must exclude every other theory but
accused is last seen with the victim immediately
that of guilt
before or after the crime. (Domondon)

F. Substantial Evidence 7. A different quantum of evidence was however, used

1. This degree of evidence applies to administrative by the Court in a case where a judge was charged
cases, i.e., those filed before administrative and with “unbecoming conduct and/or harassment”
quasi-judicial bodies and which requires that in used the “substantial evidence rule.” Declared the
order to establish a fact, the evidence should Court:
constitute that amount of relevant evidence which
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to Administrative charges against members of the
support a conclusion. (Sec. 6, Rule 133) judiciary must be supported at least by substantial
evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a
2. Substantial evidence is more an a mere scintilla of conclusion. (Gutierrez v. Belen)
evidence or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, 8. In an administrative case against an OIC-Clerk of
even if other minds, equally reasonable, might Court for unexplained wealth, the quantum of proof
conceivably opine otherwise. required to establish a respondent’s malfeasance is
not proof beyond reasonable doubt but substantial
3. In claims for workmen’s compensation, the degree evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that
of proof required is merely substantial evidence. a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
Likewise in agrarian cases. support a conclusion. (Alejandro v. Martin)
4. In one case, while recognizing the rule that in 9. In another case against a process server for
administrative proceedings, complainants have the dereliction of duty, conduct prejudicial to the best
burden of proof of proving the allegations in their interest of the service, incompetence and absence
complaints by substantial evidence, the Supreme without official leave, the Court followed the
Court held that administrative proceedings against “substantial-evidence-rule.” (Necesario v. Dinglasan)
judges are highly penal in character and are to be
governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases.
The quantum of proof required to support Preponderance of Substantial evidence
administrative charges against judges should thus be Evidence
more than substantial and requires proof beyond It is the evidence that is It is required in order to
reasonable doubt. (Daducao v. Laquindanum) more convincing and establish a fact, the
more credible than the evidence should
5. This quantum of proof was later extended to an one offered by the constitute that amount
administrative case filed against a sheriff for adverse party. It means of relevant evidence
harassment and misconduct where the court held that the evidence as a which a reasonable
that administrative proceedings against judicial whole adduced by one mind might accept as
employees, are by nature, highly penal in character side is superior to that of adequate to support a
and are to be governed by the rules governing the other. conclusion.
criminal cases. It applies in civil cases It applies to cases filed
before administrative or
6. A similar ruling was made in another case where a quasi-judicial bodies
judge was administratively charged with sexual
harassment by a court employee. The Court ruled:
10. In a petition for a writ of amparo, the parties shall
While substantial evidence would ordinarily suffice establish their claims by substantial evidence. (Sec.
to support a finding of guilt, the rule is different 17, Rule on the Writ of amparo)
where the proceedings involve judges charged with
grave offenses. Administrative proceedings against 11. Effect of failure to prove administrative liability on
judges are highly penal in character and are to be the criminal case:It is indeed a fundamental
governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases. principle…that administrative cases are independent
The quantum of proof required to support the from criminal actions for the same act or omission.
administrative charges or to establish the ground/s Thus, an absolution from a criminal charge is not a
for removal of judicial officer should thus be more bar to an administrative prosecution, or vice versa.
than substantial; they must be proven beyond One thing is administrative liability; quite another
reasonable doubt. (Alcuizar v. Carpio)

thing is the criminal liability for the same act.

(Paredes v. CA) 2. An arbitrary or unreasonable limitation of the
number of witnesses as to the main facts or issues
Domondon or those the sole issue is, no doubt, an abuse of
12. Administrative or quasi-judicial bodies which require judicial discretion, and in numerous cases appellate
only substantial evidence: (to name a few) courts have reversed such limiting trial court rulings
a. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that are found to be arbitrary and unreasonable.
b. Commission on Audit (COA) (Herrera, 1999)
c. Boar of Medicine (BOM)
d. Professional Regulation Commission (PRC)
H. Evidence on Motion
13. Generally, findings of fact by administrative When a motion is based on facts not appearing of
agencies and quasi-judicial bodies are generally record, the court may hear the matter on affidavits or
accorded great respect, if not finality, by the courts depositions presented by the respective parties, but the
by reason of the special knowledge and expertise of court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or
said administrative agencies and quasi-judicial partly on oral testimony or depositions.
bodies over matters falling under their jurisdiction.
(Doctrine of great respect and finality) 1. While the court may hear and rule upon motions
Exceptions: solely on the basis of affidavits or counter-affidavits,
a) When the finding is grounded entirely on if the affidavits contradict each other on matters of
speculations, surmise or conjecture fact, the court can have no basis to make its findings
b) When inference made is manifestly absurd, of fact and the prudent course is to subject the
mistaken or impossible affiants to cross-examination so that the court can
c) When the judgment is premised on a decide whom to believe. (Regalado)
misrepresentation of facts
d) When there is grave abuse of discretion in the 2. Examples:
appreciation of facts a) A Motion to Lift an Order of Default must be
e) When the findings of fact are conflicting supported by an Affidavit of Merits stating
f) When the findings of fact are conclusions fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
without citation of specific evidence on which and a meritorious defense
they are based b) A Motion for Summary Judgement may be
g) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as proved on the basis of affidavits
in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not c) In a Motion to Postpone, an affidavit of the
disputed by the respondents doctor or a medical certificate under oath is
necessary
14. Probable cause for a search warrant is defined as d) Motion for Bail when bail is not a matter of
such facts and circumstances which would lead a right since prosecutor must prove that the
reasonably discrete and prudent man to believe that evidence of guilt is strong
an offense has been committed and that objects
sought in connection with the offense are in the
place sought to be searched. Probable cause I. Weight to be given opinion of expert witness
demands more than bare suspicion; it require less
than evidence which would justify conviction. Weight to be Given Opinion of Expert Witness, How
Determined. — In any case where the opinion of an
expert witness is received in evidence, the court has a
G. Power of the Court to Stop Further Evidence
wide latitude of discretion in determining the weight to
The court may stop the introduction of further be given to such opinion, and for that purpose may
testimony upon any particular point when the consider the following:
evidence upon it is already so full that more (a) Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient facts or
witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably data;
expected to be additionally persuasive. This power (b) Whether it is the product of reliable principles and
shall be exercised with caution. (Sec. 7, Rule 133) methods;
(c) Whether the witness has applied the principles and
1. The court has the power to stop the introduction of
methods reliably to the facts of the case; and
testimony which will merely be cumulative.
(d) Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to
(Regalado)
make such determination

Notes (Señga):
This is a new insertion. It provides that in case of opinion
of expert witness, the court has a wide latitude of
discretion in determining the weight of evidence to be
given to such opinion. Even prior to this amendment,
such rule was already settled by jurisprudence.
The opinion of an expert witness or expert evidence is

admissible, but such testimony is merely persuasive and
are not binding upon the courts. (Orense, Jr. v. Recasas,
G.R. No. 199992 (Notice), 19 April 2017) Courts may
place whatever weight they may choose upon such
testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. The
relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is
peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide,
considering the ability and character of the witness, his
actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process
of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion,
his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he
testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative
opportunities for study and observation of the matters
about which he testifies, and any other matters which
deserve to illuminate his statements. The problem of the
credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his
testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court
whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence
of abuse of discretion. (Tabao v. People, G.R. No.
187246, 20 July 2011)
With the incorporation of the foregoing jurisprudential

pronouncement, the revised rule also provides for the
factors for the court to consider in determining the
weight to be given to such opinion.

2021 Evidence Reviewer Evidence Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 Evidence Reviewer Evidence Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 Evidence Reviewer Evidence Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 Evidence-Reviewer Evidence-Reviewer

Juris Doctor (San Beda College Alabang)

Scan to open on Studocu

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES A means of ascertaining the truth not in all types of

Basic Concepts of Evidence Purpose of Evidence: to ascertain the truth respecting a

E. Substantive and Remedial Statute

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

16. Clear and Convincing Evidence is a kind of evidence

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

REQUISITES 2. Conditional Admissibility - where the evidence at the

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE MANDATORY? WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE DISCRETIONARY?

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

1. During pre-trial and trial, the court motu proprio, or 2. Certain;

Judicial Admission Source: (Tan, Evidence: A Compendium for the Bench

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

For one, although there was an absence of external Paraffin Tests

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

DNA Evidence The trial court is mandated to preserve the DNA

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

reasonable doubt. In other words, it must be established

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the B. Documentary Evidence

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

authenticity of the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by Ronald Lasin ([email protected])

Salun-at Marquez vs. Espejo

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

There When Originalwhen

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020