Preliminary Considerations

Evidence
Preliminary Considerations
Rule 128 General Provisions
Section 1 EVIDENCE DEFINED
Evidence is the means sanctioned !" these rules o#
ascertainin$ in a %udicial &roceedin$ the truth
res&ectin$ a matter o# #act
Section 2 ' SC(PE
)he rules o# evidence shall !e the same in all courts and
in all trials and hearin$s e*ce&t as other+ise &rovided
!" la+ or these rules,
Evidence - mode and manner of proving competent facts
in judicial proceedings
Proof - result or effect of evidence
When the requisite quantum of evidence of a
particular fact has been duly admitted and given
weight
Factum probandum ultimate fact or fact sought to be
established
proposition
Factum probans evidentiary fact or the fact by which
the factum probandum is to be established
!aterials which establishes the proposition
"aw on evidence procedural law
#hall not diminish$ increase or modify substantive
rights %#ec & %&'$ (rt )***$ +onsti'
,ew rules may be held applicable to cases pending
at the time of the change in rules as parties have no
vested right in the rules of evidence
- E.cept in criminal cases when the new rule
would permit reception of lesser quantum of
evidence to convict -/ unconstitutional$ e.
post facto
Principally found in 01+
- #pecial laws2 0( 3455$ +ode of +ommerce (rt
336$ +ivil +ode$ 0P+ (rt 478
9ill of 0ights #ec 4 and :
- #ee notes under #ec ::$ 0ule 7:5
- 0ight against self-incrimination cannot be
invo;ed in situations covered by immunity
statutes
0( 7:8< immunity to witnesses in
proceedings for forfeiture of unlawfully
acquired property
P= 83< immunity in bribery and graft
cases
#pecifically applicable only in judicial proceedings
- >uasi-judicial2 suppletory character whenever
practicable and convenient$ e.cept when the
governing law specifically adopts 01+
+lassification of evidence based on 01+2
7? 1bject that which is directly addressed to the
senses of the court and consists of tangible things
e.hibited or demonstrated in open court$ in an
ocular inspection or at a place designated by the
court for its view or observation of an e.hibition$
e.periment or demonstration
- (utoptic proference presenting in open court
the evidentiary articles for the observation or
inspection of the tribunal
4? =ocumentary evidence evidence supplied by
written instruments or derived from conventional
symbols$ such as letters$ by which ideas are
represented on material substances
:? @estimonial submitted to the court through the
testimony or deposition of a witness
1ther classifications
7? 0elevant$ !aterial$ and +ompetent Evidence
a? 0elevant evidence having any value in
reason as tending to prove any matter
provable in an action
@est of relevancy logical relation of the
evidentiary fact to the fact in issue$
whether it tends to prove the probability
or improbability of the fact in issue
b? !aterial evidence directed to prove a fact in
issue as determined by the rules of substantive
law and pleadings
!ateriality of evidence is determined by
W1, the fact it tends to prove is in issue
c? +ompetent one that is not e.cluded by the
0ules$ law or +onsti
4? =irect and +ircumstantial Evidence
a? =irect that which proves the fact in dispute
without the aid of any inference or
presumption
b? +ircumstantial proof of the fact or facts from
which$ ta;en either singly or collectively$ the
e.istence of a particular fact in dispute may be
inferred as a necessary or probable
consequence
:? +umulative and +orroborative Evidence
a? +umulative evidence of the same ;ind and to
the same state of facts
b? +orroborative additional evidence of a
different character to the same point
3? Prima facie and +onclusive Evidence
a? Prima facie that which$ standing alone$
une.plained or uncontradicted$ is sufficient to
maintain the proposition affirmed
b? +onclusive that class of evidence which the
law does not allow to be contradicted
&? Primary and #econdary Evidence
a? Primary or best evidence$ that which the law
regards as affording the greatest certainty of
the fact in question
b? #econdary evidence substitutionary
evidence$ that which is inferior to the primary
evidence and is permitted by law only when
the best evidence is not available
A? Positive and ,egative Evidence
a? Positive when a witness affirms that a fact
did or did not occur
Entitled to greater weight since witness
represents of his personal ;nowledge
b? ,egative witness states that he did not see
or ;now of the occurrence of a fact
@otal disclaimer of personal ;nowledge
Section - .D/ISSI0I1I)2 (F EVIDENCE
Evidence is admissi!le +hen it is relevant to the issue
and is not e*cluded !" the la+ or these rules
Section 3 RE1EV.NC24 C(11.)ER.1 /.))ERS
Evidence must have such a relation to the #act in issue
as to induce !elie# in its e*istence or non'e*istence,
Evidence on collateral matters shall not !e allo+ed
e*ce&t +hen it tends in an" reasona!le de$ree to
esta!lish the &ro!a!ilit" o# the #acts in issue
@wo requisites for admissibility2
7? 0elevance determinable by rules of logic and
human e.perience
- ,one but facts having rational probative value
are admissible %Wigmore'
4? +ompetence determined by prevailing
e.clusionary rules of evidence
- (ll facts having rational probative value are
admissible unless some specific rule forbids
their admission
@herefore$ admissibility is an affair of logic and law
(dmissibility determined at the time it is offered to the
court
1bject evidence offered when presented for the
courtBs view or evaluation
@estimonial offered by the calling of the witness to
the stand
=ocumentary formally offered by the proponent
immediately before he rests his case
1bjection to the admissibility made at the time such
evidence is offered or as soon as the objection to the
admissibility shall have become apparent
1therwise$ waived
+onditional admissibility where the evidence at the
time it is offered appears to be immaterial or irrelevant
unless it is connected with the other facts to be
subsequently proved$ such evidence may be received on
condition that the other facts will be proved thereafter$
otherwise the evidence will be stric;en out
>ualification2 no bad faith on the part of the
proponent
azereth
page 1
Preliminary Considerations
Evidence
- ,ecessary to avoid unfair surprises to the
other party
!ultiple admissibility where evidence is relevant and
competent for two or more purposes$ such evidence
should be admitted for any and all the purposes for
which it is offered provided it satisfies all the
requirements of law for its admissibility
+urative admissibility treats upon the right of a party
to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where
the court has admitted the same ;ind of evidence of the
adverse party
@heories2
7? (merican rule admission of such incompetent
evidence$ without objection by the opponent
does not justify such opponent in rebutting it
by similar incompetent evidence
4? English rule if a party has presented
inadmissible evidence? @he adverse party may
resort to similar incompetent evidence
:? !assachusetts rule adverse party may be
permitted to introduce similar incompetent
evidence in order to avoid a plain and unfair
prejudice caused by the admission of the other
partyBs
@o determine application2
7? W1, incompetent evidence was reasonably
objected to$ and
4? W1,$ regardless of the objection vel non$ the
admission will cause a plain and unfair
prejudice to the party against whom it is
admitted
- +onversely$ where admissible evidence has
been improperly e.cluded$ the other party
should not be permitted to introduce similar
evidence %!artin'
Former rule2 illegally obtained evidence still admissible
unless specifically forbidden
(bandoned in #tonehill vs? =io;no -/ documentary
evidence$ illegally obtained$ is inadmissible on a
timely motion or action to suppress
+ollateral matters matters other than the facts in issue
and which are offered as a basis for inference as to the
e.istence or non-e.istence of the facts in issue
*rrelevant collateral matters inadmissible
+ircumstantial evidence evidence of relevant
collateral facts
Weight to evidence$ once admitted$ depends on judicial
evaluation %0ule 7:: and jurisprudence'
azereth
page 2
What Need Not Be Proved
Evidence
What Need Not Be Proved
Rule 125 6hat Need Not 0e Proved
Section 1 78DICI.1 N()ICE 69EN /.ND.)(R2
. court shall ta:e %udicial notice +ithout the
introduction o# evidence o# the e*istence and territorial
e*tent o# states their &olitical histor" #orms o#
$overnment and s"m!ols o# nationalit" the la+ o#
nations the admiralt" and maritime courts o# the +orld
and their seals the &olitical constitution and histor" o#
the Phili&&ines the o##icial acts o# le$islative e*ecutive
and %udicial de&artments o# the Phili&&ines the la+s o#
nature the measure o# time and the $eo$ra&hical
divisions,
Section 2 78DICI.1 N()ICE 69EN DISCRE)I(N.R2
. court ma" ta:e %udicial notice o# matters +hich are o#
&u!lic :no+led$e or are ca&a!le to un;uestiona!le
demonstration or ou$ht to !e :no+n to %ud$es !ecause
o# their %udicial #unctions,
Section - 78DICI.1 N()ICE 69EN 9E.RING
NECESS.R2
Durin$ the trial the court on its o+n initiative or on
re;uest o# a &art" ma" announce its intention to ta:e
%udicial notice o# an" matter and allo+ the &arties to !e
heard thereon,
.#ter the trial and !e#ore %ud$ment or on a&&eal the
&ro&er court on its o+n initiative or on re;uest o# a
&art" ma" ta:e %udicial notice o# an" matter and allo+
the &arties to !e heard thereon i# such matter is
decisive o# a material issue in the case,
Cudicial notice cogniDance of certain facts which judges
may properly ta;e and act on without proof because they
already ;now them
9ased on considerations of e.pediency and
convenience
!ay be ta;en by court on its own motion or when it
is requested by either parties
- +ourt will allow the parties to be heard on the
matter in question
!ust be e.ercised with caution and every
reasonable doubt on the subject must be resolved in
the negative
+ourts are required to ta;e judicial notice of laws
=ifferent with ordinances2
- !@+ required to ta;e judicial notice of
ordinances of the municipality or city wherein
they sit
- 0@+ must ta;e judicial notice only2
7? When required to do so by statute
4? *n a case of appeal before them wherein
the inferior court too; judicial notice of an
ordinance involved in said case
1r when capable of unquestionable
demonstration %also applies with
administrative regulations'
+ourts are required to ta;e judicial notice of the
decisions of appellate courts but not of the decisions of
coordinate courts
,ot even the decision or the facts involved in
another case tried by the same court itself
- Enless the parties introduce the same in
evidence or doing so is convenient
Foreign laws question of fact
!ay not be ta;en judicial notice and have to be
proved
- E.cept2 said laws are within the actual
;nowledge of the court
@o prove written foreign law2 follow requirements in
#ec 43-4&$ 0ule 7:4
!ay be subject of judicial admission
Processual presumption - no proof nor admission$
foreign law presumed to be the same as that in the
Philippines
@o prove unwritten foreign law #ec 3A$ 0ule 7:5
Section 3 78DICI.1 .D/ISSI(NS
.n admission ver!al or +ritten made !" a &art" in the
course o# the &roceedin$s in the same case does not
re;uire &roo#, )he admission ma" !e contradicted onl"
!" sho+in$ that it +as made throu$h &al&a!le mista:e
or that no such admission +as made,
Cudicial admissions may be made in
7? Pleadings filed by the parties
4? @he course of the trial$ either by verbal or written
manifestations or stipulations
:? 1ther stages of the judicial proceeding
!ust be made in the same case in which it is offered
*f made in another case or in another court must
be proved as in any other fact$ but entitled greater
weight
- (dmissible unless2
7? !ade only for purposes of the first case
4? Withdrawn with the permission of the
court
:? +ourt deems it proper to relieve the party
(dmissions in a pleading which have been withdrawn or
supersede by an amended pleading
+onsidered as e.trajudicial admissions
Fowever$ the rule seems now to include superseded
pleadings as judicial admissions
1im vs, 7a!alde <1585=
Facts subject of a stipulation or agreement entered into
by the parties at the pre-trial of a case constitute judicial
admission by them which$ under this section$ do not require
proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to
have been made through palpable mista;e?
PCI0 vs, Escolin <15>3=
When the parties in a case agree on what the foreign
law provides$ these are admissions of fact which the other
parties and the court are made to rely and act uponG hence
they are in estoppel to subsequently ta;e a contrary position
azereth
page 3
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Admissibility of Evidence
Rule 1-? Rules o# .dmissi!ilit"
., (07EC) <RE.1= EVIDENCE
SEC)I(N 1 ' (07EC) .S EVIDENCE
(!%ects as evidence are those addressed to the senses
o# the court, 6hen an o!%ect is relevant to the #act in
issue it ma" !e e*hi!ited to e*amined or vie+ed !"
the court,
Where object is relevant to a fact in issue$ court may
acquire ;nowledge by2
7? (ctually viewing the object becomes object
evidence
4? 0eceiving testimonial evidence thereon
@he fact that an ocular inspection has been held does not
preclude a party from introducing other evidence on the
same issue
1cular inspection lies within the discretion of the
court
- *nvalid if conducted by a judge without notice
or presence of the parties
+ourt may refuse introduction of object evidence and rely
on testimonial evidence alone if2
7? E.hibition of such object is contrary to public policy$
morals or decency
- 9ut if view is necessary in the interest of
justice$ may still be e.hibited but the court
may e.clude the public from such view
- )iewing may not be refused if the indecent or
immoral object constitute the very basis for
the criminal or civil action
4? @o require its being viewed in court or in an ocular
inspection would result in delays$ inconvenience$
and e.penses out of proportion to the evidentiary
value of such object
:? #uch object evidence would be confusing or
misleading
3? @estimonial or documentary evidence already
presented clearly portrays the object in question as
to render a view unnecessary
1bject evidence includes any article or object which
may be ;nown or perceived by the use of any of the
senses sight %visual'$ hearing %auditory'$ touch
%tactile'$ taste %gustatory'$ or smell %olfactory'
*ncludes2
7? E.amination of the anatomy of a person or of
any substance ta;en therefrom
4? +onduct of tests$ demonstrations$ or
e.periments
:? E.amination of representative portrayals of the
object in question
1bservations of the court may be amplified by
interpretations afforded by testimonial evidence$
especially be e.perts
=ocuments are considered object evidence if the purpose
is to2
7? Prove their e.istence or condition or the nature
of the handwritings thereon
4? =etermine the age of the paper used or the
blemishes or alterations thereon
1therwise$ considered documentary evidence
0, D(C8/EN).R2 EVIDENCE
Section 2 D(C8/EN).R2 EVIDENCE
Documents as evidence consists o# +ritin$s or an"
material containin$ letters +ords num!ers #i$ures
s"m!ols or other modes o# +ritten e*&ressions o##ered
as &roo# o# their contents
1, 0ES) EVIDENCE R81E
Section - (RIGIN.1 D(C8/EN) /8S) 0E PR(D8CED4
E@CEP)I(NS
6hen the su!%ect o# in;uir" is the contents o# a
document no evidence shall !e admissi!le other than
the ori$inal document itsel# e*ce&t in the #ollo+in$
casesA
a, 6hen the ori$inal has !een lost or destro"ed or
cannot !e &roduced in court +ithout !ad #aith on
the &art o# the o##eror4
!, 6hen the ori$inal is in the custod" or under the
control o# the &art" a$ainst +hom the evidence is
o##ered and the latter #ails to &roduce it a#ter
reasona!le notice4
c, 6hen the ori$inal consists o# numerous accounts
or other documents +hich cannot !e e*amined in
court +ithout $reat loss o# time and the #act sou$ht
to !e esta!lished #rom them is onl" the $eneral
result o# the +hole4 and
d, 6hen the ori$inal is &u!lic record in the custod" o#
a &u!lic o##icer or is recorded in a &u!lic o##ice
Section 3 (RIGIN.1 (F D(C8/EN)
a, )he ori$inal o# a document is one the contents o#
+hich are the su!%ect o# in;uir",
!, 6hen a document is in t+o or more co&ies
e*ecuted at or a!out the same time +ith identical
contents all such co&ies are e;uall" re$arded as
ori$inals,
c, 6hen an entr" is re&eated in the re$ular course o#
!usiness one !ein$ co&ied #rom another at or near
the time o# the transaction all the entries are
li:e+ise e;uall" re$arded as ori$inals,
=ocument deed$ instrument or other duly authoriDed
paper by which something is proved$ evidenced$ or set
forth
9est Evidence 0ule rule of e.clusion
#econdary evidence cannot inceptively be
introduced as the original writing itself must be
produced in court
,on-production of the original document$ unless
justified under #ec :$ gives rise to the presumption
of suppression of evidence
(pplies only when the content of such document is
the subject of inquiry
*n criminal cases where the issue is not only with
respect to the contents of the document but also as
to whether such document actually e.isted with the
participation therein as imputed to the accused$ the
original itself must be presented?
- "ibel published in a newspaper2 copy of said
newspaper
- Falsification of a document2 original of the
document
=oes not apply if transactions have been recorded
in writing but the contents of such writing are not
the subject of inquiry
- (ffidavits and depositions strictly spea;ing$
9E0 does not apply$ but will not be admitted if
affiants or deponents are available as
witnesses
/ahilum vs, C. <15BB=
( signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document
e.ecuted at the same time as the originals is ;nown as a
duplicate original and may be introduced in evidence without
accounting for the non-production of the original?
Peo&le vs, )an <1?C Phil 1232=
With respect to documents prepared in several copies
through the use of carbon sheets$ #+ has held that each
carbon copy is considered an original provided that the writing
of a contract upon the outside sheet$ including the signature
of the party sought to be charged thereby$ produces a
facsimile upon the sheets beneath$ such signature being thus
reproduced by the same stro;e of the pen which made the
surface or e.posed impression
Fowever$ even if said signature on each copy was written
through separate acts$ all of carbon copies are regarded
as originals if each copy was intended as a repository of
the same legal act of the party thereto
*mperfect carbon copies merely secondary evidence
@elegrams and cables depends on the issue to be
proved
1riginal dispatch issue is the contents of the
telegram as received by the addressee
!essage delivered for transition issue as to the
telegram sent by the sender
azereth
page
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
9oth issue is the inaccuracy of the transmission
Provincial Fiscal o# Pam&an$a vs, Re"es <CC Phil 5?C=
1n the issue as to the contents of the articles sent by
the accused for publication$ the manuscript was the best
evidenceG but on the issue as to what was actually published$
a copy of the newspaper publication was the best evidence?
2, SEC(ND.R2 EVIDENCE
Section C 69EN (RIGIN.1 D(C8/EN) IS
8N.V.I1.01E
6hen the ori$inal document has !een lost or destro"ed
or cannot !e &roduced in court the o##eror u&on &roo#
o# its e*ecution or e*istence and the cause o# its
unavaila!ilit" +ithout !ad #aith on his &art ma" &rove
its contents !" a co&" or !" a recital o# its contents in
some authentic document or !" the testimon" o#
+itnesses in the order stated,
0equisites2 proof by satisfactory evidence of
7? =ue e.ecution of the original
- Proved through the testimony of either2
a? PersonHs who e.ecuted itG
b? Person before whom its e.ecution was
ac;nowledgedG or
c? (ny person who was present and saw it
e.ecuted and delivered or who thereafter
saw it and recogniDed the signatures$ or
one to whom the parties thereto had
previously confessed the e.ecution
thereof
4? "oss$ destruction or unavailability of all such
originals$ not due to bad faith
- *ntentional destruction of the originals by a
party who$ however$ had acted in good faith
does not preclude his introduction of secondary
evidence of the contents thereof
- !ay be proved by any person who2
a? Inew of fact of loss or destruction
b? Fad made a sufficient e.amination of the
places where the document or papers of
similar character are usually ;ept by the
person in whose custody the document
was and has been unable to find it
c? Fas made any other investigation which is
sufficient to satisfy the court that the
document is indeed lost
:? 0easonable diligence and good faith in the search or
attempt to produce the original
(ll duplicates or counterparts must be accounted for
before using copies thereof
De Vera vs, .$uilar <155-=
#ince all the duplicates or multiplicates are parts of the
writing to be proved$ no e.cuse for non-production of the
document can be regarded as established until it appears that
all of its parts are unavailable
PN0 vs, (lila <58 Phil 1??2=
When the original is outside the jurisdiction of the court$
as when it is in a foreign country$ secondary evidence is
admissible
#econdary evidence may consist of2
7? +opy of said document
4? 0ecital of its contents in an authentic document
:? 0ecollection of witnesses
*n this particular order
- E.cept when specifically required by law
E?g? lost notarial will testimony of at
least 4 credible witnesses
0econstitution governed by (ct :775 J jurisprudence
Section B 69EN (RIGIN.1 D(C8/EN) IS IN
.DVERSE P.R)2DS C8S)(D2 (R C(N)R(1
I# the document is in the custod" or under the control
o# the adverse &art" he must have reasona!le notice to
&roduce it, I# a#ter such notice and a#ter satis#actor"
&roo# o# its e*istence he #ails to &roduce the document
secondar" evidence ma" !e &resented as in the case o#
its loss
Section 8 P.R)2 69( C.11S F(R D(C8/EN) N()
0(8ND )( (FFER I)
. &art" +ho calls #or the &roduction o# a document and
ins&ects the same is not o!li$ed to o##er it as evidence
azereth
page !
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
,o particular form of notice is required
(s long as it fairly appraises the other party as to
what papers are desired
Even oral demand in court is allowed
!ade on a reasonable time
,otice must be given to the adverse party or his counsel
even if papers is in the hands of a third person
Phil, Read"'/i* Concrete Co, vs, Villacorta et al <58
Phil 55-=
Where receipt of the original of a letter is ac;nowledged
on a carbon copy thereof$ there is no need for a notice to the
other party to produce the original of the letter
0emember2 the duplicate copy$ if complete is itself an
original copy
1nly issue2 receipt of the original
Custified refusal of the adverse party to produce the
document K presumption of suppression of evidence
1nly authoriDes the introduction of secondary
evidence
Where such document is produced K admissibility
0equisites for admissibility must be present
Production of evidence under 0ule 7:5 K Production of
evidence under 0ule 48
6arner 0arnes E Co, 1td, vs, 0uena#lor <-B (G -25?=
Where the nature of the action is in itself a notice$ as
where it is for the recovery or annulment of documents
wrongfully obtained or withheld by the other party$ no notice
to produce said documents is required
@hird e.ception to 9E0 justified not only by the fact
that the records are voluminous but also because the
fatum probandum is just the general result of the whole
For e.ception to apply
7? @he voluminous character of the records must
be established
4? #uch records must be made available to the
adverse party so that their correctness may be
tested on cross-e.amination
1riginals have to be produced if2
- =etailed contents of the records are challenged
for being hearsay
7
- *ssues are raised as to the authenticity or
correctness of the detailed entries
Section > EVIDENCE .D/ISSI01E 69EN (RIGIN.1
D(C8/EN) IS . P801IC REC(RD
6hen the ori$inal o# a document is in the custod" o# a
&u!lic o##icer or is recorded in a &u!lic o##ice its
contents ma" !e &roved !" a certi#ied co&" issued !"
the &u!lic o##icer in custod" thereo#
+omplements the 3
th
e.ception to 9E0
#ee 0ule 7:4 #ections 43 and 48
-, P.R(1 EVIDENCE R81E
Section 5 EVIDENCE (F 6RI))EN .GREE/EN)S
6hen the terms o# an a$reement have !een reduced to
+ritin$ it is considered as containin$ all the terms
a$reed u&on and there can !e !et+een the &arties and
their successors in interest no evidence o# such terms
other than the contents o# the +ritten a$reement,
9o+ever a &art" ma" &resent evidence to modi#"
e*&lain or add to the terms o# +ritten a$reement i# he
&uts in issue in his &leadin$A
a, .n intrinsic am!i$uit" mista:e or im&er#ection in
the +ritten a$reement4
!, )he #ailure o# the +ritten a$reement to e*&ress the
true intent and a$reement o# the &arties thereto4
c, )he validit" o# the +ritten a$reement4 or
d, )he e*istence o# other terms a$reed to !" the
&arties or their successors in interest a#ter the
e*ecution o# the +ritten a$reement,
)he term Fa$reementF includes +ills,
7
E# vs? 0aDon %:8 Phil 6&A'
De GuGman vs, Calma <1?? Phil 1??8=
Parol evidence is based upon the consideration that
when the parties have reduced their agreement on a particular
matter into writing$ all their previous and contemporaneous
agreements on the matter are merged therein
azereth
page "
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Parol evidence evidence aliunde %oral or written'
*ntended or tends to vary or contradict a complete
and enforceable agreement embodied in a
document
(s long as they have been put into issue $ parol evidence
did not bar evidence of a collateral agreement in
instances where2
+ollateral agreement is not inconsistent with the
terms of the contract
+ollateral agreement has not been integrated in and
is independent of the written contract %suppletory to
the original document'
+ollateral agreement is subsequent to the written
contract
+ollateral agreement constitutes a condition
precedent which determines whether the written
contract may become effective
- =oes not apply to a condition subsequent not
stated in the agreement
Parol evidence does not apply where at least one party to
the suit is not a party or privy of a party to the written
agreement in question
Parol Evidence 0est Evidence
Presupposes that the original
document is available in
court
#ituation wherein the original
writing is not available andHor
there is a dispute as to
whether said writing is
original
Prohibits the varying of the
terms of a written agreement
Prohibits the introduction of
substitutionary evidence in
lieu of the original document
(pplies only documents that
are contractual in nature
(pplies to all ;inds of writings
+an be invo;ed only when
the controversy is between
the parties to the written
agreement$ their privies or
any party directly affected
thereby %cestui que trust'
+an be invo;ed by any party
to the action
@o be admissible$ mista;e or imperfection of the
document or its failure to e.press the true intent and
agreement of the parties$ or the validity of the document
must be put in issue by the pleadings
Plaintiff failed to allege in his complaint cannot
introduce parol evidence
- 9ut if defendant invo;ed such fact in his
answer$ parol evidence may be introduced
4
Fowever$ even if not raised on the pleadings but
parol evidence is not objected to$ objection deemed
waived
!ista;e or imperfection must be proved by clear
and convincing evidence
:
!ista;e refers to mista;e of fact which is mutual to the
parties
3
1r where the innocent party was imposed upon by
unfair dealing of the other
CC .rt, 1-B-
6hen one &art" +as mista:en and the other :ne+
or !elieved that the instrument did not state their
real a$reement !ut concealed that #act #rom the
#ormer the instrument ma" !e re#ormed,
Failure to e.press true intent
Purpose2 enable the court to ascertain the true
intent of the parties
&
or the true nature of their
agreement
4
P,0 vs? +F* of (lbay %7<86'
:
@olentino vs? LonDales #y +hiam %&5 Phil &&6'
3
9P* vs? Fidelity M #urety +o? %&7 Phil &8'
&
@olentino vs? LonDales #y +hiam %&5 Phil &&6'
"atent ambiguity when the writing on its face appears
clear and unambiguous but there are collateral matters
or circumstances which ma;e the meaning uncertain
1r where the writing admits of two constructions
both of which are in harmony with the language
used
A
A
*gnacio vs? 0ementeria %<< Phil 75&3'
azereth
page #
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Palanca vs, Fred 6ilson E Co, <8> Phil C?B=
@he phrase Ncapacity of A$555 litersO used in connection
with a distilling apparatus was held to be a latent
ambiguity which had to be clarified by parol evidence to
determine whether it meant receiving$ treating$ or the
producing capacity of the machine
Patent ambiguity e.trinsicG such ambiguity which is
apparent on the face of the writing itself and requires
something to be added in order to ascertain the meaning
of the words used
Parol evidence is not admissible
- +ourt would not be construing a contract$ but
creating a contract for the parties
*ntermediate ambiguity the words of the writing$
though seemingly clear and with a settled meaning$ is
actually equivocal and admits of two interpretations
8
E.ample2 NdollarsO may refer to currency of E# or
FI or (ustralia
N@onO can be long ton$ short ton$ displacement
ton$ freight ton or timber ton
Parol evidence is admissible to clarify the ambiguity
0emember2 falsa demonstration non nocet cum de
corpore constat
False description does not vitiate a document if the
subject is sufficiently identified
,o e.press trust concerning an immovable or any
interest therein may be proved by parol evidence
Section 1? ' IN)ERPRE).)I(N (F . 6RI)ING
.CC(RDING )( I)S 1EG.1 /E.NING
)he lan$ua$e o# a +ritin$ is to !e inter&reted accordin$
to the le$al meanin$ it !ears in the &lace o# its
e*ecution unless the &arties intended other+ise,
Section 11 ' INS)R8/EN) C(NS)R8ED S( .S )( GIVE
EFFEC) )( .11 PR(VISI(NS
In the construction o# an instrument +here there are
several &rovisions or &articulars such a construction is
i# &ossi!le to !e ado&ted as +ill $ive e##ect to all,
Section 12 ' IN)ERPRE).)I(N .CC(RDING )(
IN)EN)I(N4 GENER.1 .ND P.R)IC81.R PR(VISI(NS
In the construction o# an instrument the intention o#
the &arties is to !e &ursued4 and +hen a $eneral and a
&articular &rovision are inconsistent the latter is
&aramount to the #ormer, So a &articular intent +ill
control a $eneral one that is inconsistent +ith it,
Section 1- ' IN)ERPRE).)I(N .CC(RDING )(
CIRC8/S).NCES
For the &ro&er construction o# an instrument the
circumstances under +hich it +as made includin$ the
situation o# the su!%ect thereo# and o# the &arties to it
ma" !e sho+n so that the %ud$e ma" !e &laced in the
&osition o# those +hose lan$ua$e he is to inter&ret,
Section 13 ' PEC81I.R SIGNIFIC.)I(N (F )ER/S
)he terms o# a +ritin$ are &resumed to have !een used
in their &rimar" and $eneral acce&tation !ut evidence
is admissi!le to sho+ that the" have a local technical
or other+ise &eculiar si$ni#ication and +ere so used
and understood in the &articular instance in +hich case
the a$reement must !e construed accordin$l",
Section 1C ' 6RI))EN 6(RDS C(N)R(1 PRIN)ED
6hen an instrument consists &artl" o# +ritten +ords
and &artl" o# a &rinted #orm and the t+o are
inconsistent the #ormer controls the latter,
Section 1B ' E@PER)S .ND IN)ERPRE)ERS )( 0E 8SED
IN E@P1.INING CER).IN 6RI)INGS
6hen the characters in +hich an instrument is +ritten
are di##icult to !e deci&hered or the lan$ua$e is not
understood !" the court the evidence o# &ersons s:illed
in deci&herin$ the characters or +ho understand the
lan$ua$e is admissi!le to declare the characters or the
meanin$ o# the lan$ua$e,
8
0eferred to in (merican jurisprudence
Section 1> ' (F )6( C(NS)R8C)I(NS 69IC9
PREFERRED
6hen the terms o# an a$reement have !een intended in
a di##erent sense !" the di##erent &arties to it that
sense is to &revail a$ainst either &art" in +hich he
su&&osed the other understood it and +hen di##erent
constructions o# a &rovision are other+ise e;uall"
&ro&er that is to !e ta:en +hich is the most #avora!le
to the &art" in +hose #avor the &rovision +as made,
Section 18 ' C(NS)R8C)I(N IN F.V(R (F N.)8R.1
RIG9)
6hen an instrument is e;uall" susce&ti!le o# t+o
inter&retations one in #avor o# natural ri$ht and the
other a$ainst it the #ormer is to !e ado&ted,
Section 15 ' IN)ERPRE).)I(N .CC(RDING )( 8S.GE
.n instrument ma" !e construed accordin$ to usa$e in
order to determine its true character,
0ules on interpretation
For contracts2 ++ (rticles 7:85 to 7:8<
For wills2 ++ (rticles 866 to 8<3
C, )ES)I/(NI.1 EVIDENCE
1, H8.1IFIC.)I(N (F 6I)NESSES
Section 2? ' 6I)NESSES4 )9EIR H8.1IFIC.)I(NS
E*ce&t as &rovided in the ne*t succeedin$ section all
&ersons +ho can &erceive and &erceivin$ can ma:e
their :no+n &erce&tion to others ma" !e +itnesses,
Reli$ious or &olitical !elie# interest in the outcome o#
the case or conviction o# a crime unless other+ise
&rovided !" la+ shall not !e $round #or
dis;uali#ication,
Section 21 ' DISH8.1IFIC.)I(N 02 RE.S(N (F
/EN).1 INC.P.CI)2 (R I//.)8RI)2
)he #ollo+in$ &ersons cannot !e +itnessesA
a, )hose +hose mental condition at the time o#
their &roduction #or e*amination is such that
the" are inca&a!le o# intelli$entl" ma:in$
:no+n their &erce&tion to others4
!, Children +hose mental maturit" is such as to
render them inca&a!le o# &erceivin$ the #acts
res&ectin$ +hich the" are e*amined and o#
relatin$ them truth#ull",
>ualificationsHdisqualifications of witnesses - determined
as of the time the witnesses are produced for
e.amination in court or at the ta;ing of their depositions
+hildren of tender years ta;e into account their
competence at the time of the occurrence to be
testified
*nterest in the subject matter does not disqualify
(ffects only his credibility$ not his competency
E.cept2 =ead !anBs #tatute
=efendant declared in default not disqualified from
testifying fro his non-defaulting co-defendant
+onviction of a crime not ground for disqualification
9ut must answer to the fact of a previous final
conviction as it may affect credibility
E.cept2 conviction of falsification of a document$
perjury or false testimony disqualified from being
witnesses to a will$ therefore cannot testify on
probate
NEnsound mindO any mental aberration whether
organic or functional or induced by drugs or hypnosis
(t the time of the testimony
*f at the time of the fact to be testifies affects only
his credibility
Peo&le vs, De 7esus <1583=
(s long as the witness can convey ideas by words or
signs and give sufficiently intelligent answers to questions
propounded$ she is a competent witness even if she is feeble-
minded
1r a mental retardate$ or is a schiDophrenic
0equirements for deaf-mutes2
7? +an understand and appreciate the sanctity of an
oath
azereth
page $
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
4? +an comprehend facts they are going to testify to
:? +an communicate their ideas through a qualified
interpreter
+onsiderations for a child witness2
7? +apacity at the time the fact to be testified occurred
such that he could receive correct impressions
thereof
4? +apacity to comprehend the obligation of an oath
:? +apacity to relate those facts truly at the time he is
offered a witness
Section 22 DISH8.1IFIC.)I(N 02 RE.S(N (F
/.RRI.GE
Durin$ their marria$e neither the hus!and nor the +i#e
ma" testi#" #or or a$ainst the other +ithout the consent
o# the a##ected s&ouse e*ce&t in a civil case !" one
a$ainst the other or in criminal case #or a crime
committed !" one a$ainst the other or the latterDs
direct descendants and ascendants
+alled rule on marital disqualification or spousal
immunity
0equisites2
7? !arriage is valid and e.isting as of the time of the
offer of testimony
4? @he other spouse is a party to the action
!ay be waived as in the case of other witnesses
generally
1eGama vs, Rodri$ueG <15B8=
Where the wife is a co-defendant in a suit charging her
and her husband with collusive fraud$ she cannot be called as
an adverse party witness under %#ec 75$ 0ule 7:4' as this will
violate the marital disqualification rule?
Section 2- DISH8.1IFIC.)I(N 02 RE.S(N (F DE.)9
(R INS.NI)2 (F .DVERSE P.R)2
Parties or assi$nors o# &arties to a case or &ersons in
+hose !ehal# a case is &rosecuted a$ainst an e*ecutor
or administrator or other re&resentative o# a deceased
&erson or a$ainst a &erson o# unsound mind u&on a
claim or demand a$ainst the estate o# such deceased
&erson or a &erson o# unsound mind cannot testi#" as
to an" matter o# #act occurrin$ !e#ore the death o# such
deceased &erson or !e#ore such &erson !ecame o#
unsound mind
=ead man statute
Dead /an Statute
/arital Dis;uali#ication
Rule
Partial disqualification
=isqualified only to testify
as matter of facts
occurring before the death
of deceased person or
before deceased person
became of unsound mind
+omplete disqualification
(pplies only to civil case or
special proceeding over the
estate of deceased H insane
person
(pplies to civil or criminal
case
0equisites2
7? Witness offered for e.amination is a party plaintiff$
or the assignor of said party$ or a person in whose
behalf a case is prosecuted
- Plaintiff must be the real party in interest
- ,ot applicable to mere witnesses
- (ssignor one who transferred his interests in
a case
(ssignee not disqualified
- =oes not apply where a counterclaim has been
interposed by the defendant as the plaintiff
would thereby be testifying in his defense
- (lso if deceased contracted through an agent
4? +ase is against the e.ecutor or administrator or
representative of the deceased or insane person
- ,ecessary that defendant is being sued in his
representative capacity and not in individual
capacity
- *f property involved has already been
adjudicated to the heirs$ still protected
considered as representatives of the deceased
- (pplies whether the deceased died before or
after the suit was filed as long as he was dead
at the time the testimony is to be presented
:? +ase is upon a claim or demand against the estate
of such deceased H insane person
- =oes not apply where it is the administrator
who brought the action to recover property for
the estate
3? @estimony to be given is on a matter of fact
occurring before the death of such deceased person
or before such person became of unsound mind
- ,egative testimony testimony that the fact
did not occur during the lifetime of the
deceased not covered
- @estimony of the present possession by the
witness of a written instrument signed by the
deceased is also not covered
!aBam2 misleading because the document
contains acts of the deceased before he
died
=oes not apply to land registration cases or cadastral
cases
Purpose2 discourage perjury and protect the estate from
fictitious claim
Prohibition does not apply despite meeting all
requirements if2
7? @estimony is offered to prove a claim less than what
is established under a written document
4? @estimony is intended to prove a fraudulent
transaction of the deceased$ provided such fraud is
first established by evidence aliunde
=isqualification waived2
7? =efendant does not timely object to the admission
of such evidence
4? =efendant testifies on the prohibited matters
:? =efendant cross-e.amines thereon
Section 23 DISH8.1IFIC.)I(N 02 RE.S(N (F
PRIVI1EGED C(//8NIC.)I(N
)he #ollo+in$ &ersons cannot testi#" as to matters
learned in con#idence in the #ollo+in$ casesA
a, )he hus!and or the +i#e durin$ or a#ter the
marria$e cannot !e e*amined +ithout the consent
o# the other as to an" communication received in
con#idence !" one #rom the other durin$ the
marria$e e*ce&t in a civil case !" one a$ainst the
other or in a criminal case #or a crime committed
!" one a$ainst the other or the latterDs direct
descendants or ascendants4
!, .n attorne" cannot +ithout the consent o# his
client !e e*amined as to an" communication made
!" the client to him or his advice $iven thereon in
the course o# or +ith a vie+ to &ro#essional
em&lo"ment nor can the attorne"Ds secretar"
steno$ra&her or cler: !e e*amined +ithout the
consent o# the client and his em&lo"er concernin$
an" #act the :no+led$e o# +hich has !een ac;uired
in such ca&acit"4
c, . &erson authoriGed to &ractice medicine sur$er"
or o!stetrics cannot in a civil case +ithout the
consent o# the &atient !e e*amined as to an"
advice or treatment $iven !" him or an"
in#ormation +hich he ma" have ac;uired in
attendin$ such &atient in a &ro#essional ca&acit"
+hich in#ormation +as necessar" to ena!le him to
act in that ca&acit" and +hich +ould !lac:en the
re&utation o# the &atient4
d, . minister or &riest cannot +ithout the consent o#
the &erson ma:in$ the con#ession !e e*amined as
to an" con#ession made to or an" advice $iven !"
him in his &ro#essional character in the course o#
disci&line en%oined !" the church to +hich the
minister or &riest !elon$s4
e, . &u!lic o##icer cannot !e e*amined durin$ his
term o# o##ice or a#ter+ards as to an"
communications made to him in o##icial con#idence
azereth
page %
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
+hen the court #inds that the &u!lic interest +ould
su##er !" the disclosure,
1bjections can only be made by the persons protected
and may be waived by the same persons e.pressly or
impliedly
/arital Privile$e
0equisites for marital privilege2
7? @here was a valid marital relations
4? Privilege was invo;ed with respect to a
confidential communication between the
spouses during the said marriage
:? #pouse against whom the testimony is given
did not give hisHher consent
Privilege cannot be claimed to confidential matters given
before the marriage
Privilege cannot be invo;ed if the communication was not
intended to be confidential
*f third person heard the communication$ such person is
not covered by the prohibition
9ut if person is the agent of one spouse$ covered by
the prohibition
/arital Privile$e /arital Dis;uali#ication
+an be claimed W1, the
spouse is a party to the
action
+an be invo;ed only if the
spouse is a party to the
action
+an be claimed even after
the marriage has been
dissolved
+an only apply if the
marriage is e.isting at the
time the testimony is offered
(pplies only to confidential
communications between the
spouses
+onstitutes a total prohibition
against any testimony for or
against the spouse of the
witness
.ttorne" Client Privile$e
0equisites2
7? @here is an attorney-client relation
4? Privilege is invo;ed with respect to a confidential
communication between them in the course of
professional employment
:? +lient has not given his consent to the disclosure of
the communication
(ttorney must have been consulted in his professional
capacity even if pro bono
Preliminary communications made for the purpose of
creating attorney-client relationship are within the
privilege
+ommunications include verbal statements$ papers$
document or even actions
=oes not apply to communication2
7? *ntended to be made public
4? *ntended to be communicated to others
:? *ntended for an unlawful purpose
3? 0eceived from third persons not acting as agent of
the client
&? !ade in the presence of third persons who are
strangers to the attorney-client relationship
Period to be considered is that date when the
communication was made
*n determining whether past or future crime
+ommunication having to do with a future crime is
not covered by the privilege
*f attorney is a co-conspirator to the crime$ privilege not
applicable
Ph"sician Patient Privile$e
0equisites2
7? Physician is authoriDed to practice medicine$ surgery
or obstetrics
4? *nformation was acquired or the advice or treatment
was given by him in his professional capacity for the
purpose of treating or curing the patient
:? *nformation$ advice or treatment$ if revealed$ would
blac;en the reputation of the patient
3? Privilege is invo;ed in a civil case$ whether the
patient is a party thereto or not
,ot necessary that the relationship was created by the
voluntary act of the patient may have been acquired by
another
E?g? patient in e.tremis
Privilege e.tends to all forms of communication$ advice
or treatment
azereth
page 1&
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
*ncludes information acquired by the physician
through his observations and e.aminations of the
patient
=oes not apply where2
7? +ommunication not given in confidence
4? +ommunication is irrelevant to the professional
employment
:? +ommunication was made for an unlawful purpose
3? *nformation was intended to be made public
&? @here was a waiver of the privilege either by
provisions of contract or law
Rule 28 P92SIC.1 .ND /EN).1 E@./IN.)I(N (F
PERS(NS
Section 3 6.IVER (F PRIVI1EGE
0" re;uestin$ and o!tainin$ a re&ort o# the
e*amination so ordered or !" ta:in$ the de&osition
o# the e*aminer the &art" e*amined +aives an"
&rivile$e he ma" have in that action or an" other
involvin$ the same controvers" re$ardin$ the
testimon" o# ever" other &erson +ho has e*amined
or ma" therea#ter e*amine him in res&ect o# the
same mental or &h"sical e*amination
/inisterIPriest Penitent Privile$e
0equires that communication was made pursuant to a
religious duty enjoined in the course of discipline of the
sect or denomination
!ust be confidential in character
E?g? under the seal of the confessional
Privile$ed Communications as to Pu!lic (##icials
0equisites2
7? *t was made to the public officer in official
confidence
4? Public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the
communication
(thers
0( &:$ as amended by 0( 7388
Publisher$ editor or duly accredited reporter of any
newspaper$ magaDine or periodical of general
circulation cannot be compelled to revel the
source of any news report which was related to him
in confidence
Enless the court or a Fouse or committee of
+ongress finds that such revelation is demanded by
the security of the #tate
(rticle 4:: of "abor +ode
(ll information and statements made at conciliation
proceedings shall be treated as privileged
communications and shall not be used as evidence
in the ,"0+$ and the conciliators and similar officials
shall not testify in any court or body regarding the
matter ta;en up at the conciliation proceedings
conducted by them
(lternative =ispute 0esolution (ct %0( <46&'
#ec < %a' *nformation obtained through mediation
shall be privileged and confidential
2, )ES)I/(NI.1 PRIVI1EGE
Section 2C ' P.REN).1 .ND FI1I.1 PRIVI1EGE
No &erson ma" !e com&elled to testi#" a$ainst his
&arents other direct ascendants children or other
direct descendants,
=isqualification by reason of relationship
Filial privilege - not correctly a rule of disqualification$ as
the descendant was not incompetent to testify against
his ascendants$ but was actually a privilege not to testify
.rt, 21C FC
No descendant shall !e com&elled in a criminal
case to testi#" a$ainst his &arents and
$rand&arents e*ce&t +hen such testimon" is
indis&ensa!le in a crime a$ainst the descendant or
!" one &arent a$ainst the other,
9oth parental and filial privileges are granted to any
person
+an be invo;ed in any case against any of his
parents$ direct descendants$ children or direct
ascendants
azereth
page 11
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
-, .D/ISSI(NS .ND C(NFESSI(NS
Section 2B ' .D/ISSI(N (F . P.R)2
)he act declaration or omission o# a &art" as to a
relevant #act ma" !e $iven in evidence a$ainst him,
(dmission any statement of fact made by a party
against his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for
which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts
alleged by him
.dmissions Con#essions
#tatement of fact which does
not involve an
ac;nowledgement of guilt or
liability
*nvolves an
ac;nowledgement of guilt or
liability
!ay be e.press or tacit !ust be e.press
!ay be made by third
persons and$ in certain cases$
are admissible against a
party
+an be made only by the
party himself and$ in certain
cases$ are admissible against
his co-accused
@o be admissible$ an admission must2
7? *nvolve matters of fact$ not of law
4? 9e categorical and definite
:? 9e ;nowingly and voluntarily made
3? 9e adverse to the admitterBs interest
- 1therwise would be self-serving and
inadmissible
Cudicial admission one made in connection with a
judicial proceeding in which it is offered
E.trajudicial admission any other admission
Peo&le vs, .lin$ <158?=
Facts2 ,orija !ohamad was stabbed in the chest and
diaphragm and she died two days later in the hospital? Lirlie
(ling and ,orijaBs daughter =aria brought ,orija to the
hospital? @hey learned from the police that ,orija was stabbed
by her husband (irol (ling? (ling was investigated by the
police and he declared in +havacano dialect that he ;illed his
wife because he was informed in prison by his relatives that
his wife was fooling around with other men? (ling was charged
with parricide and during arraignment$ he pleaded guilty
although he had no lawyer? ( counsel de oficio was appointed
for him? When he was again arraigned$ he pleaded guilty with
the assistance of counsel? (ling was placed on the witness
stand and e.amined by his counsel and after being informed
that the penalty for parricide is death or life imprisonment$
(ling still admitted ;illing his wife?
*ssue2 W1, the marriage of (ling and ,orija was proven
Feld2 Pes
0atio2 @he testimony of (ling that he was married to ,orija is
an admission against his penal interest? *t was a confirmation
of the ma.im simper praesumitur matrimonio and the
presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves
to be husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of
marriage?
.dmissions Declarations .$ainst
Interest
,eed not be made against
the proprietary or pecuniary
interest of the parties
9ut if so made$ it will greatly
enhance its probative weight
!ust have been made against
the proprietary or pecuniary
interest of the parties
!ade by the party himself$
and$ is a primary evidence
and competent though he be
present in court and ready to
testify
!ust have been made by the
person who is either
deceased or unable to testify
+an be made anytime !ade ante litem motam
#elf-serving declaration one which has been made
e.trajudicially by a party to favor his interests
,ot admissible in evidence
=oes not include his testimony as a witness in court
+annot be considered self-serving if it was not made
in anticipation of a future litigation
Peo&le vs, 0ocasas <158C=
Flight from justice is an admission by conduct and
circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt
@he act of repairing a machine$ bridge or other facility
after an injury has been sustained therein is not an
implied admission of negligence by conduct
!erely a measure of e.treme caution
Section 2> ' (FFER (F C(/PR(/ISE N() .D/ISSI01E
In civil cases an o##er o# com&romise is not an
admission o# an" lia!ilit" and is not admissi!le in
evidence a$ainst the o##eror,
In criminal cases e*ce&t those involvin$ ;uasi'o##enses
<criminal ne$li$ence= or those allo+ed !" la+ to !e
com&romised an o##er o# com&romised !" the accused
ma" !e received in evidence as an im&lied admission o#
$uilt,
. &lea o# $uilt" later +ithdra+n or an unacce&ted o##er
o# a &lea o# $uilt" to lesser o##ense is not admissi!le in
evidence a$ainst the accused +ho made the &lea or
o##er,
.n o##er to &a" or the &a"ment o# medical hos&ital or
other e*&enses occasioned !" an in%ur" is not
admissi!le in evidence as &roo# o# civil or criminal
lia!ilit" #or the in%ur",
1ffer of compromise %civil case' not a tacit admission
of liability and cannot be proved over the objection of the
offeror
1ffer of compromise %criminal case' implied admission
of guilt
9ut accused is permitted to prove that offer was not
made under consciousness of guilt but merely to
avoid ris;s of criminal action against him
1ffer of compromise %violation of internal revenue law'
not admissible in evidence
Peo&le vs, .miscua <15>1=
*n a rape case$ an offer to compromise for a monetary
consideration$ and not to marry the victim$ is an implied
admission of guilt
Peo&le vs, /anGano <1582=
*n a rape case$ the attempt of the parents of the
accused to settle the case with the complainant was
considered an implied admission of guilt?
Peo&le vs, ValdeG <158>=
(n offer of marriage by the accused during the
investigation of the rape case is also an admission of guilt
+riminal cases involving criminal negligence or quasi-
offenses are allowed to be compromised$ hence an offer
of settlement is not an admission of guilt
1ffer to pay or the actual payment of medical bills by
reason of victimBs injuries not admissible to prove civil
or criminal liability
Section 28 ' .D/ISSI(N 02 )9IRD P.R)2
)he ri$hts o# a &art" cannot !e &re%udiced !" an act
declaration or omission o# another e*ce&t as
hereina#ter &rovided,
First branch of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet
E.ceptions2 third person is a partner$ agent$ or has joint
interest with the party$ or is a co-conspirator or a privy
of the party
Peo&le vs, Valero <1582=
Facts2 !ichael and (nnabel$ children of +eferino )elasco$ died
of poisoning after eating bread containing endrin$ a
commercial insecticide? @heir sister *melda would have also
died if not for the timely medical assistance given to her? (t
about the same time$ : puppies of )elasco under the balcony
where the children ate the bread also died of poisoning?
Earlier that morning$ )elasco was seen throwing poisoned rats
in the river near his house?
azereth
page 12
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
@he evidence of the prosecution shows that the poisoned
bread was given to the children by (lfonso )alero alias Pipe$
deaf-mute brother of accused "ucila )alero$ and that it was
"ucila who gave (lfonso the bread to be delivered to the
children? "ucila denies the allegation? @he evidence of the
defense tends to show that the children might have eaten one
of the sliced poisoned bread used by their father in poisoning
the rats?
:H< witnesses for the prosecution2
7? 0odolfo >uilang testified that he saw "ucila deliver
something wrapped in a piece of paper to (lfonso and
instructed him by sign language to deliver the same to
the )elasco children? Fe never saw what was inside the
piece of paper? Fis testimony as to W1, he saw the
parcel delivered to the children was a series of
contradictions? Fe is what the defense counsel calls and
Neleventh-hour witness
4? Federico Caime and +eferino )elasco did not see "ucila
deliver to (lfonso the alleged parcel$ as well as the
alleged instruction? 9oth claimed that they learned the
information from Pipe after interviewing him by means of
sign language? @estimony of Caime was confusing? @here
is nothing in the testimony of )elasco indicating that
(lfonso pointed to "ucila as the source of the poisoned
bread?
*ssue2 W1, the testimonies of Caime and )elasco may be
admitted
Feld2 ,o
0atio2 @he evidence is pure hearsay? *t violates the principle
of res inter alios acta? (lfonso$ who was the source of the
information$ was never presented as a witness either for the
defense or the prosecution? @estimony of )elasco cannot be
considered as part of res gestae because when the
information was allegedly obtained by )elasco from (lfonso$
nobody was poisoned yet? With regard to the testimony of
Caime$ there is no showing that the revelation was made by
(lfonso under the influence of a startling occurrence?
@he failure of the defense counsel to object to the
presentation of incompetent evidence does not give such
evidence probative value? @he lac; of objection may ma;e any
incompetent evidence admissible? 9ut admissibility of
evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence?
Fearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative
value
Section 25 ' .D/ISSI(N 02 C('P.R)NER (R .GEN)
)he act or declaration o# a &artner or a$ent o# the &art"
+ithin the sco&e o# his authorit" and durin$ the
e*istence o# the &artnershi& or a$enc" ma" !e $iven in
evidence a$ainst such &art" a#ter the &artnershi& or
a$enc" is sho+n !" evidence other than such act or
declaration, )he same rule a&&lies to the act or
declaration o# a %oint o+ner %oint de!tor or other
&erson %ointl" interested +ith the &art",
0equisites2
7? @hat the partnership$ agency or joint interest is
established by evidence other than the act or
declaration
4? @hat the actHdeclaration must have been within the
scope of the partnership$ etc?
:? #uch actHdeclaration must have been made during
the e.istence of the partnership$ etc?
(dmissions made in connection with the winding up
still admissible
(dmission by counsel admissible against client %agent-
principal'
"imitation2
7? admission should not amount to a compromise
4? admission should not amount to a confession
of judgment
7aucian vs, Huerol
@he phrase joint debtor does not refer to a mere
community of interest but should be understood according to
its meaning in the common law system from which the
provision was ta;en$ that is$ in solidum$ and not
mancomunada
7
st
e.ception to #ection 46
Word omission in #ection 46 doesnQt appear here
9ecause if it was$ can become vague %same as with
#ection :5'
*t only appears in #ection :72 admission by privies
What predecessors didnQt do is binding on you
R this is the rationale in including the word
omission in #ection :7
L02 admission of some7 else shouldnQt be ta;en against
you
9ut #ection 4< is an e.ception2 admission of another can
be ta;en against you fairS
Section -? ' .D/ISSI(N 02 C(NSPIR.)(R
)he act or declaration o# a cons&irator relatin$ to the
cons&irac" and durin$ its e*istence ma" !e $iven in
evidence a$ainst the co'cons&irator a#ter the
cons&irac" is sho+n !" evidence other than such act o#
declaration,
Peo&le vs, Serrano
@his rule applies only to e.trajudicial acts or statements
and not to testimony given on the witness stand at the trial
where the party adversely affected thereby has the
opportunity to cross-e.amine the declarant?
(n admission by a conspirator is admissible against his
co-conspirator if2
7? #uch conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde
4? (dmission was made during the e.istence of the
conspiracy
:? (dmission relates to the conspiracy itself
@hese are not required in admissions during the trial as the
co-accused can e.amine the declarant?
Cudicial admissions - admissions after the conspiracy has
ended
E.istence of conspiracy may be inferred from
7? (cts of the accused
4? +onfessions of the accused
:? 9y prima facie proof thereof
Peo&le vs, .le$re <15>B=
Where there is no independent evidence of the alleged
conspiracy$ the e.trajudicial confession of an accused cannot
be used against his co-accused as the res inter alios rule
applies to both e.trajudicial confessions and admissions
E.trajudicial admission made by a conspirator after the
conspiracy has ended and even before trial not
admissible against co-conspirator
E.cept2
7? *f made in the presence of the co-
conspirator who e.pressly or impliedly
%tacit admission$ 0ule 7:5?:4' agreed
therein
4? Where the facts stated in the said
admissions are confirmed in the individual
e.trajudicial confessions made by the co-
conspirators after their apprehension
:? as a circumstance to determine the
credibility of a witness
3? as circumstantial evidence to show the
probability of the co-conspiratorBs
participation in the offense
Peo&le vs, (la <158>=
*n order that the e.trajudicial statements of a co-
accused may be ta;en into consideration in judging the
testimony of a witness$ it is necessary that the statements are
made by several accused$ the same are in all material
respects identical$ and there could have been no collusion
among said co-accused in ma;ing such statements?
Section -1 ' .D/ISSI(N 02 PRIVIES
6here one derives title to &ro&ert" #rom another the
act declaration or omission o# the latter +hile holdin$
the title in relation to the &ro&ert" is evidence a$ainst
the #ormer,
0equisites2
7? @here must be a relation of privity between the
party and the declarant
azereth
page 13
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
4? @he admission was made by the declarant$ as
predecessor in interest$ while holding title to the
property
:? @he admission is in relation to said property
Privity in estate may have arisen by succession$ by acts
mortis causa or by acts inter vivos
Section -2 ' .D/ISSI(N 02 SI1ENCE
.n act or declaration made in the &resence and +ithin
the hearin$ or o!servation o# a &art" +ho does or sa"s
nothin$ +hen the act or declaration is such as naturall"
to call #or action or comment i# not true and +hen
&ro&er and &ossi!le #or him to do so ma" !e $iven in
evidence a$ainst him,
0equisites to be admissible against a party2
7? Fe must have heard or observed the act or
declaration of the other person
4? Fe must have had the opportunity to deny it
:? Fe must understood the statement
3? Fe must have an interest to object$ such that he
would naturally have done so$ if the statement was
not true
&? @he facts were within his ;nowledge
A? @he fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from
his silence is material to the issue
(pplies where a person is surprised or even if he is
already in the custody of the police
)oluntary participation in the reenactment of the
crime conducted by police is considered tacit
admission of complicity
- 9ut to be given weight$ the validity and
efficacy of the confession must first be shown
Section 12 .rticle III 158> Constitution
1, .n" &erson under investi$ation #or the commission
o# an o##ense shall have the ri$ht to !e in#ormed o#
his ri$ht to remain silent and to have com&etent
and inde&endent counsel &re#era!l" o# his o+n
choice, I# the &erson cannot a##ord the services o#
counsel he must !e &rovided +ith one, )hese
ri$hts cannot !e +aived e*ce&t in +ritin$ and in
the &resence o# counsel,
2, No torture #orce violence threat intimidation or
an" other means +hich vitiate #ree +ill shall !e
used a$ainst him, Secret detention &laces solitar"
incommunicado or other similar #orms o# detention
are &rohi!ited
-, .n" con#ession or admission o!tained in violation
o# this or Section 1> hereo# shall !e inadmissi!le in
evidence a$ainst him,
3, )he la+ shall &rovide #or &enal and civil sanctions
#or violations o# this section as +ell as
com&ensation to and reha!ilitation o# victims o#
torture or similar &ractices and their #amilies,
Section 1> .rticle III 158> Constitution
No &erson shall !e com&elled to !e a +itness
a$ainst himsel#
0ule does not apply2
if the statements adverse to the party were made
in the course of an official investigation
1r where the party had a justifiable reason to
remain silent %e?g? acting on advice of counsel'
Ieep in mind that a person under investigation for the
commission of a crime has the right to remain silent and
to be informed of that right
0ule applies to adverse statements in writing if the party
was carrying on a mutual correspondence with the
declarant
*f no such mutual correspondence$ rule is rela.ed
- @heory2 a prompt response can generally not
be e.pected if the party still has to resort to a
written reply$ as opposed to a statement orally
made
Section -- C(NFESSI(N
)he declaration o# an accused ac:no+led$in$ his $uilt
o# the o##ense char$ed or o# an" o##ense necessaril"
included therein ma" !e $iven in evidence a$ainst him,
+onfession categorical ac;nowledgement of guilt made
by an accused in a criminal case$ without any
e.culpatory statement or e.planation
*f there is an allegation of a justification for the act$
merely an admission
+onfession of judgment made in a civil case where the
party e.pressly admits his liability
+onfession can be made orally or in writing
azereth
page 1
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
*i in writhing need not be under oath
Cudicial confession one made before a court in which
the case is pending and in the course of legal
proceedings therein
9y itself$ can sustain a conviction
E.trajudicial confession one made in any other place or
occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unless
corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti
Rule 1-- Section - ' E@)R.78DICI.1
C(NFESSI(N N() S8FFICIEN) GR(8ND F(R
C(NVIC)I(N
.n e*tra%udicial con#ession made !" an accused
shall not !e su##icient $round #or conviction unless
corro!orated !" evidence o# corpus delicti,
0equisites for admissibility
7? +onfession must involve an e.press and categorical
ac;nowledgement of guilt
4? Facts admitted must be constitutive of an offense
:? +onfession must have been given voluntarily
3? +onfession must have been intelligently made$ the
accused realiDing the importance of his act
&? ,o violation of #ec 74$ (rt *** of the +onstitution
Peo&le vs, Garcia <1?1 Phil B1C=
+onfessions are presumed to be voluntary and the onus
is on the defense to prove that it was involuntary for having
been obtained by violence$ intimidation$ threat or promise of
reward or leniency?
*ndicia of voluntariness of confession
7? contains details which the police could not have
supplied or invented
4? contains details which could have been ;nown only
to the accused
:? contains statements which are e.culpatory in nature
3? contains corrections made by the accused in his
handwriting or with his initials
&? accused sufficiently educated and aware of his the
consequences of his acts
A? made in the presence of an impartial witness with
the accused acting normally on that occasion
8? lac; of motive on the part of the investigators to
e.tract a confession
6? accused questioned the voluntariness of his
confession only on trial
<? contents were affirmed by the accused in his
voluntary participation in the reenactment of the
crime
75? facts in confession were confirmed by other
subsequent facts
77? after confession$ accused subjected to physical
e.amination and there were no signs of
maltreatment or accused never complained thereof
- not applicable when accused failed to complain
because of a reasonable apprehension of
further maltreatment as he was still in the
custody of his torturers
Custifications for inadmissibility of involuntary confessions
7? unreliable
4? humanitarian considerations
:? legal considerations of their violative of the
+onstitution
9ut there were cases stating that involuntary admissions
are admissible if they contain the truth
,o longer applies because of the ruling in #tonehill
vs? =io;no
Section 2? .rticle IV 15>- Constitution
No &erson shall !e com&elled to !e a +itness
a$ainst himsel#, .n" &erson under investi$ation #or
the commission o# an o##ense shall have the ri$ht
to remain silent and to counsel and to !e in#ormed
o# such ri$ht, No #orce violence threat
intimidation or an" other means +hich vitiates the
#ree +ill shall !e used a$ainst him, .n" con#ession
in violation o# this section shall !e inadmissi!le in
evidence
*f confession obtained before effectivity of 7<8:
+onstitution %78 Can 7<8:'$ admissible even without
informing the accused of his right to remain silent
azereth
page 1!
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Draculan vs, Donato <15>8=
Where$ before the statement containing the e.trajudicial
confession of guilt was ta;en$ the accused was as;ed whether
he was familiar with the provisions of #ec 45$ (rt *)$ 7<8:
+onstitution and he answered in the affirmative$ and the
statement which he signed states that he had been apprised
of his constitutional rights with the warning that anything he
would say might be used against him in court$ such
e.trajudicial confession is admissible
Peo&le vs, )am&us <158?=
Where the verbal e.trajudicial confession was made
without counsel$ but it was spontaneously made by the
accused immediately after the assault$ the same is admissible$
not under the confession rule$ but as part of the res gestae
Peo&le vs, Feli&e <1581=
Where the accused was merely told of his constitutional
rights and as;ed if he understood what he was told$ but he
was never as;ed whether he wanted to e.ercise or avail
himself of such rights$ his e.trajudicial confession is
inadmissible
Peo&le vs, 0ro;ueGa <1588=
Where the e.trajudicial confession of the accused while
under custodial investigation was merely prefaced by the
investigator with a statement of his constitutional rights$ to
which he answered that he was going to tell the truth$ the
same is inadmissible as his answer does not constitute a
waiver of his right to counsel and he was not assisted by one
when he signed the confession? Fis short answer does not
show that he ;new the legal significance of what were as;ed
of him
/orales 7r, vs, Enrile <158-=
@he waiver of the right to counsel during custodial
investigation must be made with the assistance of counsel
0equirement is now embodied in the 7<68 +onstitution
Peo&le vs, 7ara <158B=
Where a confession was illegally obtained from two of
the accused and$ consequently$ are not admissible as against
them$ with much more reason should the same be
inadmissible against a third accused who had no participation
therein
Promise of immunity or leniency vitiates a confession if
given by the offended party or by the fiscal
,ot if given by a person whom the accused could
not have reasonably e.pected to be able to comply
with such promise %e?g? investigator who is not a
prosecuting officer' or could not bind the offended
party which was a corporation
8S vs, /ercado <B Phil --2=
Where the accused voluntarily made a second
e.trajudicial confession after he has been maltreated in order
to e.tort the first confession$ such second confession is
admissible only if it can be proved that he was already
relieved of the fear generated by the previous maltreatment
Entire confession must be admitted in evidence
9ut court may$ in appreciating it$ reject such
portions as are incredible
Camasura vs, Provost /arshal <>8 Phil 1-1=
Where the e.trajudicial confession was obtained by
maltreatment$ the judgment based solely thereon is null and
void and the accused may obtain his release on a writ of
habeas corpus
@he e.trajudicial confession of an accused is binding only
upon him and is not admissible against his co-accused
E.cept if2
7' +o-accused impliedly adopted said confession
by not questioning its truthfulness
4' *nterloc;ing confessions accused persons
voluntarily and independently e.ecuted
identical confessions without conclusion$
which confessions are corroborated by
other evidence and not contradicted by
the co-accused who was present
:' (ccused admitted the facts stated in the
confession after being apprised of such
confession
3' +harged as co-conspirators and confession is
used only as corroborating evidence
&' +onfession is used as circumstantial evidence
to show the probability of participation by the
co-conspirator
A' +onfessant testified fro his co-defendant
8' +o-conspiratorBs e.trajudicial confession is
corroborated by other evidence of record
+onfession of the accused admissible not only with
respect to the offense charged but also any offense
necessarily included therein
7<68 +onstitution illegal confessions and admissions
are inadmissible against confessant or admitter
9ut admissible against the person who violated the
constitutional provision against obtaining illegal
confessions or admissions
Peo&le vs, Domanta" <1555=
Facts2 @he body of si. year old Cennifer =omantay$ bearing
several stab wounds$ was found sprawled amidst a bamboo
grove? @he investigation by the police pointed to 9ernardino
=omantay$ cousin of the victimBs grandfather$ as the lone
suspect in the crime? Police officers %!ontemayor$ =e la +ruD
and =e LuDman' pic;ed up =omantay at the public mar;et
and too; him to the police station? Epon questioning by #P17
EspinoDa$ =omantay confessed to the ;illing of Cennifer? Fe
also said that he had given the bayonet he used in the ;illing
to +asingal spouses$ his aunt and uncle? @he ne.t day$ #P17
EspinoDa and another policeman too; =omantay to the
+asingal spouses where they recovered the bayonet?
@he prosecution presented 8 witnesses2
7? Edward =omantay testified that in the morning of the
incident$ he was drin;ing with +aballero$ !acasaeb and
=omantay? @here$ =omantay rolled up his shirt and said
that he will massacre somebody in their place? Edward
saw that tuc;ed in the left side of =omantayBs waistline
was a bayonet without a cover handle? Edward has seen
that bayonet being carried by =omantay many times?
4? CieDl =omantay %75 years old' testified that at about
4pm$ she saw =omantay and Cennifer wal;ing towards
the bamboo grove where the body of Cennifer was later
found? =omantay was about 4 meters ahead of Cennifer?
3. "orenDo =omantay corroborated CenniferBs testimony?
Fe said that he saw =omantay standing at the spot in
the bamboo grove where CenniferBs body was later found?
=omantay appears restless and worried as he ;ept
loo;ing around? "orenDo was in a hurry and did not try to
find out why =omantay was restless?
3? Coselito !ejia a tricycle driver? Fe said that when he
was about to ta;e his lunch$ =omantay approached him
and implored him to ta;e him %=omantay' to !alasiqui at
once? !ejia said he will first ta;e his lunch? =omantay
pleaded with him and said that they will not be long so
!ejia agreed? =omantay alighted near the !ormon
church outside !alasiqui$ instead of the town proper
&? #P17 (ntonio EspinoDa testified that he investigated
the case? 9efore questioning =omantay$ he appraised the
latter of his constitutional right to remain silent and to
have a competent and independent counsel$ in English$
which was later translated into Pangasinense? =omantay
agreed to answer the questions even in the absence of
counsel and admitted to the ;illing of Cennifer? =omantay
also disclosed the location of the bayonet he used?
%+ross-e.amination' EspinoDa admitted that =omantay
was not assisted by counsel during the course of the
questioning? ,either was =omantayBs statement reduced
into writing? @his testimony was admitted over the
objection of the defense?
A? +elso !anuel radio reporter of =WP0? Fe interviewed
=omantay who was then detained in the municipal jail?
Fe introduced himself as a media reporter to =omantay?
Fe said that =omantay was willing to state what
happened? When he as;ed =omantay if he committed the
crime$ =omantay said yes? =omantay also said that he
;illed Cennifer in his revenge for a boundary dispute and
that he is willing to accept his punishment? %+ross'
!anuel e.plained that the interview was conducted in the
jail$ 4-: meters away from the police station? (n uncle of
Cennifer was with him? @he nearest policeman was 4-:
azereth
page 1"
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
meters away? @here was no lawyer present and it was
the first time that he was called to testify regarding an
interview he conducted? @his testimony was admitted
over the objection of the defense
8? =r? 0onald 9andonill conducted an autopsy of the
victim?
=efense presented =omantay as its lone witness? =omantay
denied the allegations against him? Fe denied EdwardBs claim?
Fe admitted that he passed the bamboo grove but said that
he did not ;now that Cennifer was following him? Fe admitted
hiring !ejia to get to !alasiqui to meet his brother$ who did
not come? Fe denied confessing to #P17 EspinoDa and he
denied having a grudge against CenniferBs parents because of
a boundary dispute? Fe admitted being interviewed by !anuel
but denied ever admitting anything to the reporter?
=omantay was convicted by the trial court
*ssue2 W1, the e.trajudicial confessions made by =omantay
to #P17 EspinoDa and !anuel are admissible
Feld2 ,o and Pes$ respectively
0atio2 (rt ***$ #ec 74 of the 7<68 +onstitution applies to
custodial investigation$ when the investigation is no longer a
general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a
particular person as a suspect? 0( 83:6 e.tended the
constitutional guarantee to situations in which an individual
has not been formally arrested but has merely been NinvitedO
for questioning?
0equirements for admissibility of e.trajudicial confessions2
7? *t must be voluntary
4? *t must be made with the assistance of a competent and
independent counsel
:? *t must be e.press
3? *t must be in writing
When =omantay was brought to the police station he was
already under custodial investigation and the rights
guaranteed by the +onstitution apply to him? Even though he
waived the assistance of counsel$ the waiver was not put into
writing nor made in the presence of counsel? @herefore the
waiver is invalid and the confession is inadmissible? @he
bayonet is also inadmissible in evidence as it was a Nfruit of a
poisonous treeO?
=omantayBs confession to !anuel is admissible? @he 9ill of
0ights does not concern itself with the relation between
private individuals? @he prohibitions therein are primarily
addressed to the #tate and its agents?
=omantay claims that the atmosphere during the interview
was tense and intimidating? @he +ourt does not agree? @here
is no indication that the presence of the police officers e.erted
any undue pressure or influence on =omantay and coerced
him into giving his confession? @here is also no evidence that
!anuel was a police beat reporter and it has not been shown
that his purpose in conducting the interview was to elicit
incriminating information from =omantay?
=omantayBs e.trajudicial confession is corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti$ as required by 0ule 7::$ #ec :?
Peo&le vs, /antun$ <1555=
Facts2 !aribel !ayola and 0enjie 9alderas were found dead
inside the vault room of the !aywood branch of +ebuana
"huiller where they were employed? @he jewelries ;ept inside
the safe were all gone and the cash drawer had been emptied
of its contents? *n the counter$ a holster was placed on top of
a letter addressed to !ary (nn Lordoncillo$ district manager
of +ebuana "huiller? @he letter was written by Luiamad
!antung$ the security guard assigned to the branch? !antung
wrote in Filipino that he ;illed !ayola and 9alderas because
they gave him por; which his !oslem religion prohibited him
from eating? Fe also admitted ta;ing the cash and jewelry
inside the vault$ claiming that he needed the money? Fe wrote
another letter addressed to his wife$ which was found in the
office logboo;? !antung was later arrested in #ultan Iudarat$
+otabato and several pieces of jewelry believed to be part of
the loot were recovered from him? (fter his arrest$ he was
immediate brought to Paramour where he was presented to
the media at a press conference called by !ayor Coey
!arqueD? When !ayor !arqueD then as;ed him if he is the
one who ;illed the two employees$ !antung answered yes and
said that he ;illed the victims because they induced him to eat
por;? @he news about !antonBs admission to the ;illings
appeared in the *nquirer and !anila 9ulletin the following day?
+lippings of these reports were presented as evidence by the
prosecution during the trial?
@he defense presented the lone testimony of !antung to
substantiate his claims of innocence? Fe claimed that on the
day of the incident$ he was loc;ing one of the doors of the
shop when : men approached him from behind and one of
them held him at gunpoint? !ayola and 9alderas saw what
was happening and shouted for help? !antung was ta;en to
the comfort room when he heard 4 gunshots and the shouts of
!ayola and 9alderas stopped? @he men too; him out$ pushed
him inside a red car and blindfolded him? (fterwards$ he felt
the car stop and he was left alone by his captors? Fe then
seiDed the opportunity to escape? Fe saw that they stopped in
the pier so he mingled with the people and boarded a ship to
+ebu and from there went to +otabato? Fe denied that pieces
of jewelry were recovered from him? Fe refuted the reports
saying he admitted to the ;illing of the victims in the press
conference? (ccording to him$ he did not tell anyone what
happened because he was confused and he did not ;now what
to do?
*ssue72 W1, !antungBs admission during the press
conference is admissible
Feld72 Pes
0atio72 @he clippings of the news articles reporting !antungBs
confession is hearsay because their writers were not
presented to affirm the veracity of the reports? Fowever$
0icardo =iago$ an employee of +ebuana "huiller present
during the press conference$ was presented as rebuttal
witness to prove that !antung indeed claimed responsibility
for the ;illings?
@he constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not
apply to a spontaneous statement$ not elicited through
questioning by the authorities$ but given in an ordinary
manner whereby accused orally admitted having committed a
crime? @he rights under #ec 74 are guaranteed to preclude the
slightest use of coercion by the #tate as would lead the
accused to admit something false$ not to prevent him from
freely and voluntarily telling the truth %People vs? (ndan'?
@here is nothing to show that !antungBs admission was
coerced or made under duress?
1adiana vs, Peo&le <2??2=
Facts2 Cosue "adiana$ a police officer$ was accused of ;illing
Francisco #an Cuan$ a 9arangay +aptain? @he case was filed in
the #andiganbayan and "adiana was found guilty of homicide?
@he prosecution presented & witnesses2
1. +aridad #an Cuan wife of the victim? #he testified that
#an Cuan was the 9arangay +aptain of 9rgy? #alac$
"umban$ "aguna? #he said that she was in her house
when an unidentified woman came and told her that her
husband was ;illed by "adiana? #he also presented the
death certificate of her husband? %+ross' #he admitted
that she did not witness the ;illing of her husband?
4? P14 "eopoldo +acalda Cr? Fe recounted that somebody
whose name he could not recall reported to him about an
e.isting trouble in the scene of the incident? Fe
responded by going to the scene$ accompanied by
another person? @here$ he saw the dead body of #an
Cuan? Fe gathered from the people milling around the
body that it was "adiana who ;illed #an Cuan? Fe
immediately left to loo; for "adiana? Fe later learned that
"adiana surrendered to the police? %+ross' Fe testified
that he did not witness the incident? Fe also said that it
was the people around the incident who told him that
"adiana already left? Fe also saw a stab wound on
"adianaBs right bicep but he did not as; him how he got
it?
:? =r? 0ogelio Cavan performed the necropsy
3? #P14 Percival Labinete his testimony was dispensed
with upon the admission of the defense that he was part
of the group that responded to the incident
&? !ario +orteD retired (ssistant Prosecutor of "aguna?
Prior to the conduct of e.amination-in-chief of +orteD$
defense counsel admitted to the authorship$ authenticity$
and voluntariness of the e.ecution of the counter-
affidavit of "adiana? *n the counter-affidavit$ "adiana
admitted shooting Francisco but he allegedly did so in
self-defense as Francisco was then attac;ing "adiana and
had in fact already inflicted a stab wound on the arm of
"adiana? +orteD emphasiDed that he was not the one who
conducted the P*? Fe also said that he would not be able
to recogniDe the face of the affiant in the counter-
affidavit but maintained that there was a person who
appeared and identified himself as Cosue "adiana before
him?
=efense filed a =emurrer to Evidence
azereth
page 1#
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
*ssue2 W1, the counter-affidavit e.ecuted by "adiana during
the preliminary investigation is admissible although no counsel
was present when he e.ecuted it
Feld2 Pes
0atio2 @he constitutional guarantee applies only during
custodial investigations? +ustodial investigation is the
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a
person has been ta;en into custody or otherwise deprived of
freedom of action in any significant way?
@he +ourt held that the right to counsel does not e.tend to
P*s? ( P* is an inquiry or a proceeding to determine whether
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed$ and that the respondent is
probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial? ( person
undergoing P* before a public prosecutor cannot be considered
as being under custodial investigation?
Fowever$ the accused possesses rights that must be
safeguarded2
7? 0ight to refuse to be made witness
4? 0ight not to have any prejudice whatsoever imputed to
him by such refusal
:? 0ight to testify on his own behalf$ subject to cross-
e.amination by the prosecution
3? While testifying$ the right to refuse to answer a specific
question that tends to incriminate him for some crime
other than that for which he is being prosecuted
"adianaBs counter-affidavit is not an e.trajudicial confession$ it
is only an admission? *n confession$ there is an
ac;nowledgement of guilt? *n an admission$ there is merely a
statement of fact not directly involving an ac;nowledgement
of guilt or of criminal intent to commit the offense with which
one is charged? *n the counter-affidavit$ "adiana admits
shooting #an Cuan but denies having done it with criminal
intent since he claimed that it was done in self-defense?
@here is no doubt as to the voluntariness of the counter-
affidavit? @he admissions of "adiana made through his counsel
during the trial are very clear?
*n general$ admissions may be rebutted by confessing their
untruth or by showing that they were made by mista;e?
"adiana never offered any rationaliDation why he made the
admission?
3, PREVI(8S C(ND8C) .S EVIDENCE
Section -3 SI/I1.R .C)S .S EVIDENCE
Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thin$ at
one time is not admissi!le to &rove that he did or did
not do the same or similar thin$ at another time4 !ut it
ma" !e received to &rove a s&eci#ic intent or
:no+led$e identit" &lan s"stem scheme ha!it
custom or usa$e and the li:e,
#econd branch of res inter alios acta
(pplies to both criminal and civil cases
#trictly enforced in all cases applicable
E.ceptions to the rule2 evidence of similar acts may
prove
7? #pecific intent or ;nowledge
4? *dentity
:? Plan$ system or scheme
3? #pecific habit
&? Established customs$ usages and the li;e
Evidence of another crime is admissible in a prosecution
for robbery where it has the tendency to identify the
accused or show his presence at the scene of the crime
9ut not where the evidence is to prove that he
committed another crime wholly independent of that
for which he is on trial
Previous acts of negligence is admissible to show
;nowledge or intent
Section -C 8N.CCEP)ED (FFER
.n o##er in +ritin$ to &a" a &articular sum o# mone" or
to deliver a +ritten instrument or s&eci#ic &ersonal
&ro&ert" is i# re%ected +ithout valid cause e;uivalent
to the actual &roduction and tender o# the mone"
instrument or &ro&ert"
!erely evidentiary complement to the rule on payment
#uch tender of payment must be followed by
consignation of the amount in court in order to produce
the effects of valid payment
C, )ES)I/(NI.1 JN(61EDGE
Section -B )ES)I/(N2 GENER.112 C(NFINED )(
PERS(N.1 JN(61EDGE4 9E.RS.2 E@C18DED
. +itness can testi#" onl" to those #acts +hich he
:no+s o# his &ersonal :no+led$e4 that is +hich are
derived #rom his o+n &erce&tion e*ce&t as other+ise
&rovided in these rules,
Fearsay evidence any evidence$ whether oral or
documentary$ whose probative value is based not on
personal ;nowledge of the witness but on the ;nowledge
of some other person not on the witness stand
E.cluded because the party against whom it is
presented is deprived of the right to cross-e.amine
the persons to whom the statements or writings are
attributed
*f a party does not object admissible
Savor" 1uncheonette vs, 1a:as n$ /an$$a$a+an$
Pili&ino <15>C=
@he repeated failure of the party to cross-e.amine the
witness is an implied waiver of such right and the testimony of
the said witness who died thereafter should not be e.cluded
from the record
Peo&le vs, Cusi 7r, <15BC=
Facts2 (rcadio Puesca$ Walter (pa$ Cose Lustilo$ Filomeno
!acalinao$ 0icardo =ario and !agno !ontano were charged
with robbery in band with homicide?
=uring trial$ while #gt? 9ano was testifying as prosecution
witness regarding the e.trajudicial confession made to him by
Puesca$ he said that Puesca admitted his participation in the
offense and revealed the name of other persons who
conspired with him? +ounsel for !acalinao$ Lustilo and =ario
objected to the naming of the co-conspirators? @rial judge
resolved the objection directing the witness to name the co-
conspirators other than the : objectors?
*ssue2 W1, the witness should be allowed to name all the
conspirators as stated to him by Puesca
Feld2 Pes
0atio2 While the testimony of a witness regarding a statement
made by another person$ if intended to establish the truth of
the facts asserted in the statement$ is clearly hearsay
evidence$ it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the
statement in the record is merely to establish the fact that the
statement was made or the tenor of such statement?
For the limited purpose of establishing the fact that Puesca
mentioned the names of his co-conspirators$ the evidence
should be admitted but with the understanding that the
testimony shall not be ta;en as competent evidence to show
that the persons named really and actually conspired with
Puesca?
9ut even if hearsay evidence not objected to is
admissible$ it has no probative value and as opposed to
direct primary evidence$ the latter always prevails
Section 28 Rule on E*amination o# a Child 6itness
9E.RS.2 E@CEP)I(N IN C9I1D .08SE C.SES
. statement made !" a child descri!in$ an" act or
attem&ted act o# child a!use not other+ise
admissi!le under the hearsa" rule ma" !e
admitted in evidence in an" criminal or non'
criminal &roceedin$ su!%ect to the #ollo+in$ rulesA
a, 0e#ore such hearsa" statement ma" !e
admitted its &ro&onent shall ma:e :no+n to
the adverse &art" the intention to o##er such
statement and its &articulars to &rovide him a
#air o&&ortunit" to o!%ect, I# the child is
availa!le the court shall u&on the motion o#
the adverse &art" re;uire the child to !e
&resent at the &resentation o# the hearsa"
statement #or cross'e*amination !" the
adverse &art", 6hen the child is unavaila!le
the #act o# such circumstance must !e &roved
!" the &ro&onent
!, In rulin$ on the admissi!ilit" o# such
hearsa" statement the court shall consider
the time content and circumstances thereo#
+hich &rovide su##icient indicia o# relia!ilit", It
shall consider the #ollo+in$ #actorsA
1, 6hether there is motive to lie4
azereth
page 1$
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
2, )he $eneral character o# the declarant
child4
-, 6hether more than one &erson heard
the statement4
3, 6hether the statement +as
s&ontaneous4
C, )he timin$ o# the statement and the
relationshi& !et+een the declarant child
and +itness4
B, Cross'e*amination could not sho+ the
lac: o# :no+led$e o# the declarant child4
>, )he &ossi!ilit" o# #ault" recollection o#
declarant child is remote4 and
8, )he circumstances surroundin$ the
statement are such that there is no reason
to su&&ose the declarant child
misinter&reted the involvement o# the
accused,
c,)he child +itness shall !e considered
unavaila!le under the #ollo+in$ situationsA
1, Is deceased su##ers #rom &h"sical
in#irmit" lac: o# memor" mental illness
or +ill !e e*&osed to severe &s"cholo$ical
in%ur"4 or
2, Is a!sent #rom the hearin$ and the
&ro&onent o# his statement has !een
una!le to &rocure his attendance !"
&rocess or other reasona!le means,
d, 6hen the child +itness is unavaila!le
his hearsa" testimon" shall !e admitted onl" i#
corro!orated !" other admissi!le evidence,
,ot covered by hearsay rule - where the statements or
writings attributed to a person who is not on the witness
stand are being offered not to prove the truth of the facts
stated therein but to prove that those statements were
made or writings e.ecuted
Witness who testifies is competent these are
matters derived from his own perception
=octrine of independently relevant statements
independent of whether the facts stated are true or not$
they are relevant because they are the facts in issue or
are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue
Peo&le vs, .r$uel <158?=
,ewspaper clippings or facts published in the
newspapers are hearsay and have no evidentiary value unless
substantiated by persons with personal ;nowledge of said
facts
B, E@CEP)I(NS )( )9E 9E.RS.2 R81E
D"in$ Declaration
Section -> D2ING DEC1.R.)I(N
)he declaration o# a d"in$ &erson made under the
consciousness o# an im&endin$ death ma" !e received
in an" case +herein his death is the su!%ect o# in;uir"
as evidence o# the cause and surroundin$
circumstances o# such death,
=ying declaration antemortem statement or statement
in articulo mortis
0equisites2
7? @hat death is imminent and the declarant is
conscious of that fact
- +onsiderations for the consciousness of
imminent death2
a? Words or statements of the declarant
b? Fis conduct at the time the declaration
was made
c? #erious nature of his wounds as to
engender a belief on his part that he
would not survive
4? @hat the declaration refers to the cause and the
surrounding circumstances of such death
:? @hat the declaration relates to facts which the victim
is competent to testify to
3? @hat the declaration is offered in a case wherein the
declarantBs death is the subject of the inquiry
*ntervening time from the ma;ing of the declaration up
to the actual death is immaterial as long as the
declaration was made under the consciousness of
impending death and as long as no retraction was made
by the declarant before his death
azereth
page 1%
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Peo&le vs, Sa!io <1581=
*t is the belief in the impending death at the time the
statement was made$ and not the rapid succession of death$
that renders the dying declaration admissible?
*nterval of time may be ta;en into account where the
declaration was ambiguous as to whether the declarant
believed that his death was imminent when he made the
declaration
Peo&le vs, .ntonio <15>?=
Where the declarant stated that he would not die if
treated$ such statement indicates an awareness of death and
the nature of his wound and his death an hour later qualifies
such statement into a dying declaration$ or at least$ as part of
res gestae?
Peo&le vs, Gueron <158-=
Where$ shortly after he was wounded$ the victim was
as;ed as to whether he believed he would die and to which he
replied$ N* cannot ascertain$O and he died the following day$
his statement is admissible both as part of res gestae and as a
dying declaration?
Peo&le vs, 1a;uinon <158C=
Where the victim$ when as;ed as to whether he thought
he would die$ replied$ N* donBt ;now$O his declaration was not
made under the consciousness of his imminent death and
does not qualify as an antemortem statement$ although the
same may be admitted as part of the res gestae since it was
made immediately after the incident
@he credibility and weight of the admitted dying
declaration should be determined under the same rules
used in other testimonial evidence
( dying declaration is admissible only to insofar as it
refers to facts regarding the cause and surrounding
circumstances of the declarantBs death
( dying declaration is admissible in any case as long as
the requisite concur
( dying declaration may be oral or written or made by
signs which could be testified to by a witness thereto
Peo&le vs, (dencio <15>5=
*f the antemortem statement was made orally$ the
witness who heard it may testify thereto$ without necessarily
reproducing the e.act words as long as he can give the
substance thereof$ and if the deceased had an unsigned dying
declaration$ the same may be used as a memorandum by the
witness who too; it down
!ay be attac;ed on the absence of any of the requisites
and may be impeached in the same manner as the
testimony of any other witness on the stand
(merican jurisprudence2 dying declarations are on
the same footing as testimony of a witness on a
stand and whatever would disqualify the witness
would also ma;e such declaration incompetent
evidence
Peo&le vs, /olas <155-=
Facts2 9ernardo 0esonable went home after wor;ing in his
farm? @here he found his son (belardo %6' bleeding at the
doorway of their house? 9ernardo carried (belardo inside the
house? (belardo informed his father that Cosue !olas was the
person who not only inflicted his injuries but also stabbed his
sister =ulcesima and mother #oledad? !olas and =ulcesima
were sweethearts and engaged to be married? While 9ernardo
loo;ed for the bodies of his wife and daughter$ (belardo was
brought to the hospital by his brother ,icholas? (belardo died
the ne.t day?
*ssue2 W1, the statement of (belardo is admissible
Feld2 Pes
0atio2 (belardoBs statement was given to his father while he
lay at deathBs door$ bleeding from stab wounds$ as a result of
which he died the ne.t day? *t was indubitably a dying
declaration?
@o be admissible$ a dying declaration must2
7? +oncern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the
declarantBs death
4? @hat the time it was made$ the declarant was under a
consciousness of impending death
:? @hat he was a competent witness
3? @hat his declaration was offered in evidence in a criminal
case for homicide$ murder or parricide in which the
declarant is the victim
(ll these circumstances were present when (belardo made his
declaration
Peo&le vs, /olo <15>5=
Facts2 ,ot long after the couple )enacio Lapisa and #imeona
0apa-Lapisa had retired for the night$ #imeona heard and
indistinct sound of murmur and gnashing teeth? )enacio was
asleep by then? (lthough seiDed by fear$ #imeona managed to
peep through the dilapidated buri wall and saw =ominador
!olo attired only in short pants$ alone? #he tried to awa;en
)enacio but he did not respond? !olo had already climbed up
the stairs and barged into the house? When he found )enacio
asleep near the door$ he immediately grabbed the latterBs left
wrist and started hac;ing the old man? )enacio wo;e up and
tried to fight bac; but he was unable to retaliate because !olo
started hac;ing him again? #imeona rushed out of the house
and called for help? Fer son (lejandro and 0oman !angaring
ran towards the house and there they found )enacio bleeding
profusely? When (lejandro too; his father in his arms$ )enacio
told him that he was boloed by 9oslo$ the name by which !olo
was ;nown in their locality? 0oman also as;ed )enacio who
his assailant was and the latter answered 9oslo? )enacio was
rushed to the hospital where he died a few minutes after
arrival?
*ssue2 W1, the statements made by )enacio to (lejandro and
0oman are admissible
Feld2 Pes
0atio2 @he statements of )enacio identifying !olo as his
assailant to (lejandro and 0oman are dying declarations?
+onsidering the nature of the wounds$ 6 in all$ )enacio must
have the seriousness of his condition and that it can therefore
be inferred that he made the incrimination under the
consciousness of an impending death?
Declaration .$ainst Interest
Section -8 DEC1.R.)I(N .G.INS) IN)ERES)
)he declaration made !" a &erson deceased or una!le
to testi#" a$ainst the interest o# the declarant i# the
#act asserted in the declaration +as at the time it +as
made +as so contrar" to declarantDs o+n interest that
a reasona!le man in his &osition +ould not have made
the declaration unless he !elieved it to !e true ma" !e
received in evidence a$ainst himsel# or his successors
in interest and a$ainst third &ersons,
!ade by a person who is neither a party nor in privity
with a party to the suit
(dmissible only when the declarant is unavailable as
a witness
0equisites2
7? =eclarant is dead or unable to testify
4? *t relates to the facts against the declarant
:? (t the time he made the declaration$ he is aware
that the same was contrary to the aforesaid interest
3? =eclarant had no motive to falsify and believed such
declaration to be true
.ct or Declaration .!out Pedi$ree
Section -5 .C) (R DEC1.R.)I(N .0(8) PEDIGREE
)he act or declaration o# a &erson deceased or una!le
to testi#" in res&ect to the &edi$ree o# another &erson
related to him !" !irth or marria$e ma" !e received in
evidence +here it occurred !e#ore the controvers" and
the relationshi& !et+een the t+o &ersons is sho+n !"
evidence other than such act or declaration, )he +ord
K&edi$reeL includes relationshi& #amil" $enealo$"
!irth marria$e death the dates +hen and the &laces
+here these #acts occurred and the names o# the
relatives, It em!races also #acts o# #amil" histor"
intimatel" connected +ith &edi$ree,
0equisites2
7? @he actor or declarant is dead and unable to testify
4? @he act or declaration is made by the person related
to the subject by birth or marriage
:? @he relationship between the declarant or the actor
and the subject is shown by evidence other than
such act or declaration
azereth
page 2&
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
3? @he act or declaration was made prior to the
controversy
=o not require any specific degree of relationship
9ut may affects the weight of such act or
declaration
Famil" Re&utation or )radition Re$ardin$ Pedi$ree
Section 3? F./I12 REP8).)I(N (R )R.DI)I(N
REG.RDING PEDIGREE
)he re&utation or tradition e*istin$ in a #amil" &revious
to the controvers" in res&ect to the &edi$ree o# an"
one o# its mem!ers ma" !e received in evidence i# the
+itness testi#"in$ thereon !e also a mem!er o# the
#amil" either !" consan$uinit" or a##init", Entries in
#amil" !i!les or other #amil" !oo:s or charts
en$ravin$s on rin$s #amil" &ortraits and the li:e ma"
!e received as evidence o# &edi$ree
0equisites2
7? Witness testifying thereto must be a member$ by
consanguinity or affinity$ of the same family as the
subject
4? #uch tradition or reputation must have e.isted in
that family ante litem motam
PersonBs statement of date of birth and age declaration
of family tradition
Prevails over mere opinion of the trial judge
9ut cannot generally prevail over secondary
statement of the father
Common Re&utation
Section 31 C(//(N REP8).)I(N
Common re&utation e*istin$ &revious to the
controvers" res&ectin$ #acts o# &u!lic or $eneral
interest more than -? "ears old res&ectin$ marria$e or
moral character ma" !e $iven in evidence, /onuments
and inscri&tions in &u!lic &laces ma" !e received as
evidence o# common re&utation
+ommon reputation general reputationG definite
opinion of the community in which the fact to be proved
is ;nown or e.ists
Leneral or substantially undivided reputation and
need not be unanimous
(dmissible to prove2
- Facts of public or general interest more than
:5 years old
Public interest national interest
Leneral interest affecting inhabitants of
a particular region or community
!ust be more than :5 years old
Established only by persons who
have had ;nowledge of that fact for
such length of time$ or by
monuments or documents e.isting
for that length of time
- !arriage
- !oral character
,ot required to be more than :5 years old
!ust be ante litem motam
Established by2
7? @estimonial evidence of competent witness
4? !onuments and inscription in public places
:? =ocuments containing statements of
reputation
0eputation opinion of him by others
+haracter inherent qualities of a person
Ender this section$ character may be established
through common reputation
(s a rule$ reputation of a person should be that e.isting
in the place of his residence
9ut$ it may also be that e.isting in the place where
he is best ;nown
8S vs, Choa Chio:
@he character of a place as an opium joint may be
proved by its common reputation in the community
Res Gestae
Section 32 P.R) (F )9E RES GES).E
Statements made !" a &erson +hile a startlin$
occurrence is ta:in$ &lace or immediatel" &rior or
su!se;uent thereto +ith res&ect to the circumstances
thereo# ma" !e $iven in evidence as &art o# the res
$estae, So also statements accom&an"in$ an e;uivocal
act material to the issue and $ivin$ it a le$al
si$ni#icance ma" !e received as &art o# the res $estae
0es gestae %Nthings doneO' refers to2
7? #pontaneous statements in connection with a
startling occurrence relating to that fact and in
effect forming part thereof
4? #tatements accompanying an equivocal act %verbal
act' on the theory that they are the verbal parts of
the act to be e.plained
0equirements2
7? @he principal act %res gestae' is a startling
occurrence
4? @he statements forming a part thereof were made
before the declarant had the opportunity to
contrive
:? #tatements refer to the occurrence in question and
its attending circumstances
1nly such statements as appear to have been
involuntarily wrung from the witness by the impact
of the occurrence are admissible
*nterval of time between the startling occurrence and the
statement depends upon the circumstances
9ut statement must have been made while the
declarant was under the immediate influence of the
startling occurrence
- *f declarant rendered unconscious after the
startling occurrence$ his statement relative to
thereto upon regaining consciousness still
forms part of re gestae regardless of the time
that intervened between
Peo&le vs, 0erame <15>B=
*f the statement was made under the influence of a
startling event and the declarant did not have time to concoct
or contrive a story$ even if made < hours after the ;illing$ the
statement is admissible as part of res gestae
#tatements or outcries as part of res gestae had been
admitted to establish the identity of assailant$ prove the
complicity of another person to the crime$ establish
admission of liability on part of the accused
0equirements for verbal acts to be admissible2
7? 0es gestae be characteriDed as equivocal
4? #uch act must be material to the issue
:? #tatements must accompany the equivocal act
3? #tatements give a legal significance to the
equivocal act
N)erbal actO used to denote that such statements
are the verbal parts of the equivocal act of which
such statements are e.planatory
0orromeo vs, C. <15>B=
,otes ta;en regarding a transaction by a person who is
not a party thereto and who has not been requested to ta;e
down such notes are not part of the res gestae
Res Gestae <re a homicidal
act=
D"in$ Declaration
#tatement may also be made
by the ;iller himself or by a
third person
=eclaration can only be made
by the victim
#tatement may precede$
accompany$ or be made after
the homicidal act was
committed
=eclaration made only after
the homicidal attac; was
committed
Fas its justification in the
spontaneity of the statement
@rustworthiness is based
upon its being given under
the awareness of impending
death
azereth
page 21
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
#tatement may not be a dying declaration because it was
not made under the consciousness of an impending
death$ but may be admissible as part of res gestae if
made immediately after the incident
Where the elements of both are present$ may be
admitted as both
Entries in the Course o# 0usiness
Section 3- EN)RIES IN )9E C(8RSE (F 08SINESS
Entries made at or near the time o# the transactions to
+hich the" re#er !" a &erson deceased or una!le to
testi#" +ho +as in a &osition to :no+ the #acts therein
stated ma" !e received as &rima #acie evidence i# such
&erson made the entries in his &ro#essional ca&acit" or
in the &er#ormance o# a dut" and in the ordinar" or
re$ular course o# !usiness or dut",
0equisites2
7? @he person who made the entry must be dead or
unable to testify
4? @he entries were made at or near the time of the
transaction to which they refer
:? @he entrant was in a position to ;now the facts
stated in the entries
3? @he entries were made in his professional capacity
or in the performance of a duty$ whether legal$
contractual$ moral or religious
&? @he entries were made in the ordinary or regular
course of business or duty
Can$ 2ui vs, Gardner <-3 Phil ->B=
*f the entrant is available as a witness$ the said entries
will not be admitted as an e.ception to the hearsay rule$ but
they may nevertheless be availed of by said entrant as a
memorandum to refresh his memory while testifying on the
transactions reflected therein
Rule 1-2 Section 1B 69EN 6I)NESS /.2 REFER
)( /E/(R.ND8/
. +itness ma" !e allo+ed to re#resh his memor"
res&ectin$ a #act !" an"thin$ +ritten or recorded
!" himsel# or under his direction at the time +hen
the #act occurred or immediatel" therea#ter or at
an" other time +hen the #act +as #resh in his
memor" and he :ne+ that the same +as correctl"
+ritten or recorded4 !ut in such case the +ritin$ or
record must !e &roduced and ma" !e ins&ected !"
the adverse &art" +ho ma" i# he chooses cross'
e*amine the +itness u&on it and ma" read it in
evidence, So also a +itness ma" testi#" #rom such
a +ritin$ or record thou$h he retain no
recollection o# the &articular #acts i# he is a!le to
s+ear that the +ritin$ or record correctl" stated
the transaction +hen made4 !ut such evidence
must !e received +ith caution,
2e: )on$ Fire E /arine Insurance Co, Inc, vs,
GutierreG et al <C. C5 (G 8122=
*n the presentation and admission as evidence of entries
made in the regular course of business$ there is no overriding
necessity to bring into court all the cler;s or employees who
individually made the entries in a long account? *t is sufficient
that the person who supervises the wor; of the cler;s or other
employees ma;ing the entries testify that the account was
prepared under his supervision and that the entries were
regularly entered in the ordinary course of business
Entries in (##icial Records
Section 33 EN)RIES IN (FFICI.1 REC(RDS
Entries in o##icial records made in the &er#ormance o#
his dut" !" a &u!lic o##icer o# the Phili&&ines or !" a
&erson in the &er#ormance o# a dut" s&eciall" en%oined
!" la+ are &rima #acie evidence o# the #acts therein
stated
!erely prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated
0equisites2
7? Entries were made by a public officer in the
performance of his duties or by a person in the
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law
4? @he entrant had personal ;nowledge of the facts
stated by him or such facts were acquired by him
from reports made by persons under a legal duty to
submit the same
:? #uch entries were duly entered in a regular manner
in the official records
!otor vehicle accident report made at about the time of
the accident by a police officer in the performance of his
duties
(dmissible if based upon information given by the
drivers who figured in the accident
Prima facie evidence of facts therein stated
#heriffBs return e.ception to hearsay
#heriff need not testify in court
Entrant must have been competent
Remi$io vs, (rti$a <-- Phil B13=
While a priest who officiates at a baptism acts pursuant
to a legal duty in recording the facts of such baptism in a
register$ such entries in the register are not admissible to
prove the date of birth of the child or its relation to particular
persons as the entrant priest is not competent to testify with
respect to the truth of these latter facts
+hurch registries no longer public writings pursuant to
L1 ,o? &6 and (ct ,o? 7<5
9ut still admissible as evidence of the facts stated
therein
9ut necessary to be authenticated as private
writings
( copy of the certificate transmitted to the public
officer as required by law becomes a public
document
- (dmissible without prior authentication
Entries in official records may be proved and evidenced
in the manner provided by 0ule 7:4 #ections 43 and 4&
Commercial 1ists
Section 3C ' C(//ERCI.1 1IS)S .ND )9E 1IJE
Evidence o# statements o# matters o# interest to
&ersons en$a$ed in an occu&ation contained in a list
re$ister &eriodical or other &u!lished com&ilation is
admissi!le as tendin$ to &rove the truth o# an" relevant
matter so stated i# that com&ilation is &u!lished #or use
!" &ersons en$a$ed in that occu&ation and is $enerall"
used and relied u&on !" them therein,
E.amples2 +arlisle or Wigglesworth @ables and accepted
actuarial and annuity tables
1earned )reatises
Section 3B ' 1E.RNED )RE.)ISES
. &u!lished treatise &eriodical or &am&hlet on a
su!%ect o# histor" la+ science or art is admissi!le as
tendin$ to &rove the truth o# a matter stated therein i#
the court ta:es %udicial notice or a +itness e*&ert in
the su!%ect testi#ies that the +riter o# the statement in
the treatise &eriodical or &am&hlet is reco$niGed in his
&ro#ession or callin$ as e*&ert in the su!%ect,
0equisites2
7? @he court ta;es judicial notice thereof
4? @he same is testified to by a witness e.pert in the
subject
+( too; judicial notice of the 9allantyne #cale of )alues
6
"egal treatises also included
)estimon" or De&osition at a Former Proceedin$
Section 3> ' )ES)I/(N2 (R DEP(SI)I(N .) . F(R/ER
PR(CEEDING
)he testimon" or de&osition o# a +itness deceased or
una!le to testi#" $iven in a #ormer case or &roceedin$
%udicial or administrative involvin$ the same &arties
and su!%ect matter ma" !e $iven in evidence a$ainst
the adverse &art" +ho had the o&&ortunit" to cross'
e*amine him,
0equisites2
6
Estrada vs? ,oble %+($ 3< 1L 7:<'
azereth
page 22
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
7? Witness is dead or unable to testify
4? Fis testimony or deposition was given in a former
case or proceeding$ judicial or administrative$
between the same parties or those representing the
same interests
:? @he former case involved the same subject as that
in the present case$ although on different causes of
action
3? @he issues testified to by the witness in the former
trial is the same issue involved in the present case
&? @he adverse party had an opportunity to cross-
e.amine the witness in the former case
#ubsequent failure or refusal to appear at the second
trial$ or hostility since testifying at the first trial K
inability to testify
*nability should proceed from a grave cause almost
amounting to death
.ldecoa vs, 7u$o <B1 Phil ->3=
5
@estimony given by a witness in a civil case is not
admissible in a subsequent criminal case$ even if said witness
had died in the interim$ because the former testimony
referred to in sec 7& of L1 ,o? &6
75
as being admissible in the
trial of the criminal case refers to testimony given in the
preliminary investigation or prior trial of said criminal case and
not to testimony ta;en in a prior civil case$ the actions being
essentially different
Guevara vs, .lmario <CB Phil 3>B=
@he testimony of the witness in a prior criminal action
for libel as to the reputation of the offended party would be
admissible in the civil case arising from the same criminal
offense if said witness was no longer available
(dmissibility of prior judgment governed by different
rules
.lmeida Chantan$co vs, .!aroa <3? Phil 1?CB=
( judgment in a criminal proceeding or in an
administrative proceeding cannot be read in evidence in a civil
action against a person not a party thereto to establish any
fact therein determined? @he matter is res inter alios and
cannot be invo;ed as res judicata
#uch judgment may only be admitted in evidence in a
civil case by way of inducement$ or to show a collateral
fact relevant to the issue in the civil action
77
Cudgment can only prove that a certain defendant
has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to the
penalty therein imposed
74
/iranda vs, /alate Gara$e E )a*ica! Inc,
<55 Phil B>?=
( judgment of conviction$ in the absence of collusion
between the accused and the offended party$ is binding and
conclusive upon the person subsidiarily liable not only with
regard to his subsidiary liability but also with regard to the
amount thereof
#aid judgment is admissible in evidence in the civil action
brought to enforce said subsidiary liability
7:
>, (PINI(N R81E
Section 38 ' GENER.1 R81E
)he o&inion o# +itness is not admissi!le e*ce&t as
indicated in the #ollo+in$ sections,
Section 35 ' (PINI(N (F E@PER) 6I)NESS
)he o&inion o# a +itness on a matter re;uirin$ s&ecial
:no+led$e s:ill e*&erience or trainin$ +hich he sho+n
to &osses ma" !e received in evidence,
<
(lso in People vs? )illaluD %7<6:'
75
"ater 7<A3 01+ 0ule 77& #ec 7%f'
77
Ed (? Ieller M +o? %"td?' vs? Ellerman M 9uc;nall #teamship +o?
%"td?' %:6 Phil &73'G +ity of !anila vs? !anila Electric +o? %&4 Phil
&6A'
74
(rambulo vs? !anila Electric +o? %&& Phil 8&'
7:
Pajarito vs? #eneris %7<86'
Section C? ' (PINI(N (F (RDIN.R2 6I)NESSES
)he o&inion o# a +itness #or +hich &ro&er !asis is $iven
ma" !e received in evidence re$ardin$
a, )he identit" o# a &erson a!out +hom he has
ade;uate :no+led$e4
!, . hand+ritin$ +ith +hich he has su##icient
#amiliarit"4 and
c, )he mental sanit" o# a &erson +ith +hom he is
su##icientl" ac;uainted,
)he +itness ma" also testi#" on his im&ressions o# the
emotion !ehavior condition or a&&earance o# a &erson,
Leneral rule2 #ection 36
E.ceptions2 #ections 3< and &5
1pinion of a witness is admissible in the following
circumstances2
7? 1n a matter requiring special ;nowledge$ s;ill$
e.perience or training which he possesses$ that is$
when he is an e.pert thereon
4? 0egarding the identity or the handwriting of a
person$ when he has ;nowledge of the person or
handwriting$ whether he is an ordinary or e.pert
witness
:? 1n the mental sanity of a person$ if the witness is
sufficiently acquainted with the former or if the
latter is an e.pert witness
3? 1n the emotion$ behavior$ condition or appearance
of a person which he has observed
5. 1n ordinary matters ;nown to all men of common
perception as the value of ordinary household
articles
73
E.pert witness one who belongs to the profession or
calling to which the subject matter of the inquiry relates
and who possesses special ;nowledge on questions on
which he proposes to e.press an opinion
,o definite standard of determining degree of
;nowledge or s;ill
Factors2
7? @raining and education
4? Particular$ first-hand familiarity with the facts
of the case
3. Presentation of authorities or standards upon
which his opinion is based
7&
E.pert evidence is admissible only when2
7? @he matter to be testified to is one that
requires e.pertise
4? @he witness has been qualified as a witness
Fypothetical questions may be as;ed of an e.pert
+ourts are not bound by the e.pertBs findings
7A
Lenerally not regarded as conclusive$ but purely
advisory in character
78
6ells vs, 1ee: <1C1 Pa, 3-1 3-5 2C .tl, 1?1=
*n weighing the testimony of an e.pert witness$ courts
must necessarily consider all the circumstances of the case$
among them his qualifications$ e.perience and degree of
learning$ the basis and logic of his conclusion$ and the other
evidence of record? @he value of e.pert testimony depends
largely on the e.tent of the e.perience or studies of the
witness$ because the greater his e.perience or ;nowledge$ the
greater is the value of his opinion resting upon the same
8S vs, Josel <23 Phil C53=
With respect to a handwriting e.pert$ the value of his
opinion depends not upon his mere statement whether the
handwriting is genuine or false$ but upon the assistance he
may afford in pointing out the distinguishing mar;s$
characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and
false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape
notice or detection by an untrained observer
Whether or not courts are bound by the testimony of an
e.pert depends greatly upon the nature of the subject of
inquiry
73
Lalian vs? #tate (ssurance +o? "td? %4< Phil 37:'
7&
People vs? (briol %4557'
7A
People vs? Florendo %A6 Phil A7<'
78
People vs? =eauna %4554'
azereth
page 23
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
*f the same is one that falls within the general
;nowledge of judges$ courts are not bound by the
conclusions of even a real e.pert along such line
76
1nly where the subject of inquiry is of such a
technical nature that a layman can possibly have no
;nowledge thereof that the courts must depend and
rely upon e.pert evidence
7<
+onflicting e.pert evidence have neutraliDing effect
Lenerates doubt
76
Paras vs? ,arciso %:& Phil 433'G =olar vs? =iansin %&& Phil 38<'
7<
0aymundo vs? "egaspi %38 1L 658'$ cited in ,(0*+ vs? First
,ational #ecurity M (ssurance +o?$ *nc? %+($ A3 1L 75A58'
Cesar vs, Sandi$an!a"an <158C=
2?
Where the supposed e.pertBs testimony would
constitute the sole ground for conviction and there is equally
e.pert testimony to the contrary$ the constitutional
presumption of innocence must prevail
E.pert evidence on handwriting is at best$ wea; and
unsatisfactory
Proof of handwriting by comparison is in most cases
unsafe$ even when several documents are used as
bases for comparison
+ontrary ruling2 see "opeD vs? +( %7<86'
1pinions of handwriting e.perts are not necessarily
binding upon the courts
(uthenticity of a questioned signature cannot be
determined solely upon its general characteristics$
similarities or dissimilarities with the genuine signature
=issimilarities are not decisive on the question of a
signatureBs authenticity
+ommon ;nowledge that that the writing of a person
changes as time passes
Ciru%ano vs, PN0 <C. C5 (G 83?3=
"ess weight should be given to inferences from
comparison$ than to direct and credible testimony of witnesses
as to the matters within their personal observation
=iphenaline or Paraffin @est proved to be e.tremely
unreliable in use
Peo&le vs, /endoGa <1585=
@he Paraffin test is not conclusive as to the presence of
gunpowder because fertiliDers$ cosmetics$ cigarettes$ urine$
and other nitrogenous compounds with nitrites and nitrates
will give a positive reaction
Peo&le vs, Castillon III <2??1=
( finding that the paraffin test yielded negative results
is not conclusive evidence that the accused had not fired a
gun? *t is possible for a person to have fired a gun and yet be
negative for the presence of nitrates$ as when he wore gloves
or washed his hands afterwards
0esults of blood grouping tests on the filiation of a child$
competently conducted by qualified persons$ are
admissible and conclusive on the non-paternity of a
person over a child
(dmissibility of =,( evidence has been upheld by the #+
*n assessing the probative value$ necessary to
consider$ inter alia$ how the samples were collected$
how they were handled$ the possibility of
contamination of the samples$ the procedure
followed in analyDing the samples$ the
determination of whether or not the proper
standards and procedures were followed in
conducting the tests and the qualification of the
analyst who conducted those tests
0r"an vs, Eastern E .ustralian S,S, Co, 1td,
<28 Phil -1?=
@he testimony of a witness s;illed in the unwritten law
of a foreign country is not necessarily binding on our courts
8, C9.R.C)ER EVIDENCE
Section C1 ' C9.R.C)ER EVIDENCE N() GENER.112
.D/ISSI01E4 E@CEP)I(NSA
a, In Criminal CasesA
1, )he accused ma" &rove his $ood moral
character +hich is &ertinent to the moral trait
involved in the o##ense char$ed,
2, 8nless in re!uttal the &rosecution ma" not
&rove his !ad moral character +hich is
&ertinent to the moral trait involved in the
o##ense char$ed, )he $ood or !ad moral
character o# the o##ended &art" ma" !e &roved
i# it tends to esta!lish in an" reasona!le
de$ree the &ro!a!ilit" or im&ro!a!ilit" o# the
o##ense char$ed,
!, In Civil CasesA
45
#iasat vs? *(+ %7<6&'
azereth
page 2
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Evidence o# the moral character o# a &art" in civil
case is admissi!le onl" +hen &ertinent to the issue
o# character involved in the case,
c, In the case &rovided #or in Rule 1-2 Sec 13,
#ummary of the rules on character evidence2
With respect to the nature of the case
+riminal cases
Prosecution at the outset may not prove the
bad moral character of the accused which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged
*ntended to avoid unfair prejudice to the
accused
*f accused in his defense attempts to
prove his good moral character$
prosecution can introduce evidence of bad
moral character in rebuttal
Lood or bad moral character of the offended
party may be proved by either party as long as
such evidence is relevant
+ivil cases
!oral character of either party cannot be
proved unless pertinent to the issue of
character involved
With respect to the person
(ccused2 character evidence must be pertinent to
the moral trait involved in the offense charged
1ffended party2 sufficient that character evidence is
relevant
Witness2 bad moral character may always be proved
by either party %0ule 7:4 #ec 77'
,ot evidence of his good moral character
unless it has been impeached %0ule 7:4 #ec
73'
azereth
page 2!
B'rden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved
Evidence
B'rden of Proof and What Need
Not Be Proved
Rule 1-1 0urden o# Proo# and Presum&tions
1, 08RDEN (F PR((F
Section 1 08RDEN (F PR((F
0urden o# &roo# is the dut" o# a &art" to &resent
evidence on the #acts in issue necessar" to esta!lish his
claim or de#ense !" the amount o# evidence re;uired !"
la+
9urden of proof onus probandiG obligation imposed
upon a party who alleges the e.istence of facts necessary
for the prosecution of his action or defense to establish
the same by the requisite quantum of evidence
+ivil cases preponderance of evidence
Rule 18- Section 1
+riminal cases
- For issuance of warrant of arrest after P*
evidence of probable cause
0easonable ground to believe that the
accused committed the offense
- @o warrant the filing of an information prima
facie evidence
- @o sustain a conviction evidence beyond
reasonable doubt
+harge of misconduct against judges clear and
convincing evidence
- 0emoval beyond reasonable doubt
(grarian cases substantial evidence
- 1nly such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept$ as sufficient to support a
conclusion
- (lso applies to cases filed before administrative
or quasi-judicial bodies
0urden o# Proo# 0urden o# Evidence
+ivil cases - on the party who
would be defeated if no
evidence were given on
either side
+riminal cases always on
the prosecution
9oth civil and criminal cases
lies with party who asserts
an affirmative allegation
=oes not shift as it remains
throughout the trial with the
party upon whom it is
imposed
#hifts from party to party
depending upon the
e.igencies of the case in the
course of the trial
Lenerally determined by the
pleading filed by the party
Lenerally determined by the
developments at the trial or
by provisions of law
,egative allegations do not have to be proved
E.cept where such are essential parts of the +1( or
defense in a civil case or essential ingredients of the
offense
- E?g? breach of contract2 prove the fact that the
defendant did not comply with the obligation
*llegal possession of firearms2 absence of a
license
- Fowever$ in civil cases$ even if negative
allegation is an essential part of the +1( or
defense$ such does not have to be proven if it
is only for the purpose of denying the
e.istence of a document which would properly
be in the custody of the adverse party
- @he general rule is if the criminal charge is
predicated on a negative allegation or that a
negative averment is an essential element of
the crime$ the prosecution has the burden of
proving the charge? Where the negative of an
issue does not permit of direct proof$ or where
the facts are more immediately within the
;nowledge of the accused$ the onus probandi
rests on him? *t is not incumbent upon the
prosecution to adduce positive evidence to
support a negative averment the truth of which
is fairly indicated by established circumstances
and which$ if untrue$ could readily be
disproved by documents or other evidence
within the ;nowledge or control of the accused?
Peo&le vs, /acala!a <2??-=
@hus where the charge is made that the accused carried
on a business without a license$ the fact that he has a license
is a matter which is peculiarly within his ;nowledge and he
must establish that fact or suffer conviction?
2, 69.) NEED N() 0E PR(VED
., F.C)S 69IC9 .RE PRES8/ED
Presumption inference of an e.istence or non-e.istence
of a fact which courts are permitted to draw from the
proof of other facts
+ompared to judicial notice and judicial admission
- Presumption2 proponent still has to introduce
evidence of the basis of the presumption$
evidence of the e.istence or non-e.istence of
facts from which the court can draw the
inference of the fact in issue
- Cudicial notice and judicial admission2 as a
rule$ proponent does not have to introduce
evidence
Presum&tions o# 1a+ Presum&tions o# Fact
Praesumptiones juris Praesumptiones hominis
+ertain inference must be
made whenever the facts
appear which furnish the
basis for the inference
=iscretion is vested in the
tribunal as to drawing the
inference
0educed to fi.ed rules and
form a part of the system
of jurisprudence
=erived wholly and directly
from the circumstances of the
particular case by means of the
common e.perience of
man;ind
@ypes2
7? +onclusive %juris et de
jure'
4? =isputable %juris
tantum or prima facie'
1= Conclusive Presum&tions
Section 2 C(NC18SIVE PRES8/P)I(NS
)he #ollo+in$ instances are conclusive &resum&tionsA
a, 6henever a &art" has !" his o+n declaration act
or omission intentionall" and deli!eratel" led
another to !elieve a &articular thin$ true and to
act u&on such !elie# he cannot in an" liti$ation
arisin$ out o# such declaration act or omission !e
&ermitted to #alsi#" it4
!, )he tenant is not &ermitted to den" the title o# his
landlord at the time o# the commencement o# the
relation o# landlord and tenant !et+een them,
9ased upon doctrine of estoppel in pais
2= Dis&uta!le Presum&tions
Section - DISP8).01E PRES8/P)I(N
)he #ollo+in$ &resum&tions are satis#actor" i#
uncontradicted !ut ma" !e contradicted and overcome
!" other evidenceA
a, )hat a &erson is innocent o# crime or +ron$4
!, )hat an unla+#ul act +as done +ith unla+#ul
intent4
c, )hat a &erson intends the ordinar" conse;uences
o# his voluntar" act4
d, )hat a &erson ta:es ordinar" care o# his concerns4
azereth
page 2"
B'rden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved
Evidence
e, )hat evidence +ill#ull" su&&ressed +ould !e
adverse i# &roduced4
#, )hat the mone" &aid !" one to another +as due to
the latter4
$, )hat the thin$ delivered !" one to another
!elon$ed to the latter4
h, )hat an o!li$ation delivered u& to the de!tor has
!een &aid4
i, )hat &rior rents or installments had !een &aid
+hen a recei&t #or the latter ones is &roduced4
%, )hat a &erson in &ossession o# a thin$ ta:en in the
doin$ o# a recent +ron$#ul act is the ta:er and the
doer o# the +hole act4 other+ise that thin$s +hich
a &erson &ossesses or e*ercises acts o# o+nershi&
over are o+ned !" him4
:, )hat a &erson in &ossession o# an order on himsel#
#or the &a"ment o# mone" or the deliver"
an"thin$ has &aid the mone" or delivered the
thin$ accordin$l"4
l, )hat a &erson actin$ in a &u!lic o##ice +as re$ularl"
a&&ointed or elected to it4
m, )hat o##icial dut" has !een re$ularl" &er#ormed4
n, )hat a court or %ud$e actin$ as such +hether in
the Phili&&ines or else+here +as actin$ in the
la+#ul e*ercise o# %urisdiction4
o, )hat all the matters +ithin an issue raised in a case
+ere laid !e#ore the court and &assed u&on !" it4
and in li:e manner that all matters +ithin an issue
raised a dis&ute su!mitted #or ar!itration +ere laid
!e#ore the ar!itrators and &assed u&on !" them4
&, )hat &rivate transactions have !een #air and
re$ular4
;, )hat the ordinar" course o# !usiness have !een
#ollo+ed4
r, )hat there +as su##icient consideration #or a
contract4
s, )hat a ne$otia!le instrument +as $iven or indorsed
#or a su##icient consideration4
t, )hat an indorsement o# a ne$otia!le instrument
+as made !e#ore the instrument +as overdue and
at the &lace +here it +as dated4
u, )hat a +ritin$ is dul" dated4
v, )hat a letter dul" directed and mailed +as received
in the re$ular course o# the mail4
+, )hat a#ter an a!sence o# > "ears it !ein$ un:no+n
+hether or not the a!sentee still lives he shall !e
considered dead #or all &ur&oses e*ce&t those o#
succession,
)he a!sentee shall not !e considered dead #or the
&ur&ose o# o&enin$ his succession till a#ter an
a!sence o# 1? "ears, I# he disa&&eared a#ter the
a$e o# >C an a!sence o# C "ears shall !e su##icient
in order that his succession ma" !e o&ened,
)he #ollo+in$ shall !e &resumed dead #or all
&ur&oses includin$ the division o# the estate
amon$ the heirsA
1= . &erson on !oard a vessel lost durin$ a
sea vo"a$e or an aircra#t +hich is missin$
+ho has not !een heard o# #or 3 "ears since
the lost o# the vessel or aircra#t4
2= . mem!er o# the armed #orces +ho has
ta:en &art in armed hostilities and has !een
missin$ #or 3 "ears4
-= . &erson +ho has !een in dan$er o# death
under other circumstances and +hose
e*istence has not !een :no+n #or 3 "ears4
3= I# a married &erson has !een a!sent #or 3
consecutive "ears the s&ouse &resent ma"
contract a su!se;uent marria$e i# he or she
has a +ell'#ounded !elie# that the a!sent
s&ouse is alread" dead, In case o#
disa&&earance +here there is dan$er o# death
under the circumstances hereina!ove
&rovided an a!sence o# onl" 2 "ears shall !e
su##icient #or the &ur&ose o# contractin$ a
su!se;uent marria$e, 9o+ever in an" case
!e#ore marr"in$ a$ain the s&ouse &resent
must institute a summar" &roceedin$ as
&rovided in the Famil" Code and in the rules
#or declaration o# &resum&tive death o# the
a!sentee +ithout &re%udice to the e##ect o#
the rea&&earance o# the a!sent s&ouse,
*, )hat ac;uiescence resulted #rom a !elie# that the
thin$ ac;uiesced in +as con#orma!le to the la+ or
#act4
", )hat thin$s have ha&&ened accordin$ to the
ordinar" course o# nature and the ordinar" ha!its
o# li#e4
G, )hat &ersons actin$ as co'&artners have entered
into a contract o# &artnershi&4
aa, )hat a man and +oman de&ortin$ themselves as
hus!and and +i#e have entered into a la+#ul
contract o# marria$e4
!!, )hat &ro&ert" ac;uired !" a man and a +oman +ho
are ca&acitated to marr" each other and +ho live
e*clusivel" +ith each other as hus!and and +i#e
+ithout the !ene#it o# marria$e or under a void
marria$e has !een o!tained !" their %oint e##orts
+or: or industr"4
cc, )hat in cases o# coha!itation !" a man and a
+oman +ho are not ca&acitated to marr" each
other and +ho have ac;uired &ro&ert" throu$h
their actual %oint contri!ution o# mone" &ro&ert"
or industr" such contri!utions and their
corres&ondin$ shares includin$ %oint de&osits o#
mone" and evidences o# credit are e;ual4
dd, )hat i# the marria$e is terminated and the mother
contracted another marria$e +ithin -?? da"s a#ter
such termination o# the #ormer marria$e these
rules shall $overn in the a!sence o# &roo# to the
contrar"A
1= . child !orn !e#ore 18? da"s a#ter the
solemniGation o# the su!se;uent marria$e is
considered to have !een conceived durin$ the
#ormer marria$e &rovided it !e !orn +ithin
-?? da"s a#ter the termination o# the #ormer
marria$e,
2= . child !orn a#ter 18? da"s #ollo+in$ the
cele!ration o# the su!se;uent marria$e is
considered to have !een conceived durin$
such marria$e even thou$h it !e !orn +ithin
-?? da"s a#ter the termination o# the #ormer
marria$e,
ee, )hat a thin$ once &roved to e*ist continues as lon$
as is usual +ith the thin$s o# that nature4
##, )hat the la+ has !een o!e"ed4
$$, )hat a &rinted or &u!lished !oo: &ur&ortin$ to !e
&rinted or &u!lished !" &u!lic authorit" +as so
&rinted or &u!lished4
hh, )hat a &rinted or &u!lished !oo: &ur&ortin$ to
contain re&orts o# cases ad%ud$ed in tri!unals o#
the countr" +here the !oo: is &u!lished contains
correct re&orts o# such cases4
ii, )hat a trustee or other &erson +hose dut" it +as to
conve" the real &ro&ert" to a &articular &erson has
actuall" conve"ed it to him +hen such &resum&tion
is necessar" to &er#ect the title o# such &erson or
his successor'in'interest4
%%, )hat e*ce&t #or &ur&oses o# succession +hen 2
&ersons &erish in the same calamit" such as
+rec: !attle or con#la$ration and it is not sho+n
+ho died #irst and there are no &articular
circumstances #rom +hich it can !e in#erred the
survivorshi& is determined #rom the &ro!a!ilities
resultin$ #rom the stren$th and a$e o# the se*es
accordin$ to the #ollo+in$ rulesA
1= I# !oth +ere under the a$e o# 1C the older is
deemed to have survived4
2= I# !oth +ere a!ove the a$e o# B? the "oun$er
is deemed to have survived4
-= I# one is under 1C and the other is a!ove B?
the #ormer is deemed to have survived4
3= I# !oth !e over 1C and under B? and the se* is
di##erent the male is deemed to have
survived4 i# the se* is the same the older4
C= I# one !e under 1C or over B? and the other
!et+een those a$es the latter is deemed to
have survived
::, )hat i# there is dou!t as !et+een 2 or more
&ersons +ho are called to succeed each other as to
+hich o# them died #irst +hoever alle$es the death
o# one &rior to the other shall &rove the same4 in
the a!sence o# &roo# the" shall !e considered to
have died at the same time,
azereth
page 2#
B'rden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved
Evidence
Par %a'
"egislature may provide for prima facie evidence of
guilt provided there be a rational connection
between the facts proved and the ultimate fact
presumed
- 0P+$ (rticle 478
0equisites for par? %e'
7? @he evidence is material
4? Party had the opportunity to produce the same
:? #aid evidence is available only to said party
- Presumption does not apply if evidence is
equally available to both parties$ or is merely
corroborativeHcumulative or unnecessary
Peo&le vs, Realon <158?=
Presumption does not arise from the failure of the
prosecution to present the ,9* agents and the results of the
fingerprint and paraffin tests in view of the overwhelming
evidence on the positive identification of the accused?
Furthermore$ the defense could have availed of said evidence
which was equally available to it
Peo&le vs, Nava%a <155-=
@he adverse presumption of suppression of evidence
does not arise when2
7? @he suppression is not willful$
4? @he evidence withheld is merely corroborative or
cumulative$
:? @he evidence is at the disposal of both parties$
3? @he suppression is an e.ercise of a privilege
Par? %i' is connected with the +ivil +ode principles
Civil Code .rticle 11>B
)he recei&t o# the &rinci&al !" the creditor +ithout
reservation +ith res&ect to the interest shall $ive
rise to the &resum&tion that said interest has !een
&aid,
)he recei&t o# a later installment o# a de!t +ithout
reservation as to &rior installments shall li:e+ise
raise the &resum&tion that such installments have
!een &aid,
Par %j' similar rationale2
Peo&le vs, Senda"die$o <15>8=
*f a person had in his possession a falsified document
and he made use of it$ ta;en advantage of it and profited
thereby$ the presumption is that he is the material author of
the falsification?
Par %v' it must be proved that the letter was properly
addressed with postage pre-paid and that it was actually
mailed
*f not returned to sender$ it is presumed that it was
received by the addressee
0arrameda vs, Castillo <15>>=
Ender 0ule 7:$ #ec 75$ service by pleadings by mail is
complete upon the e.piration of 75 days after mailing$ unless
the court otherwise provides$ while service by registered mail
is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee$ but if he
fails to claim his mail from the post office within & days from
the date of first notice$ the service is complete at the
e.piration of such time? @here must$ however$ be conclusive
proof that a first notice was sent to the addressee as the
presumption that official duty has been regularly performed
does not apply to this situation
Ferraren vs, Santos <1582=
*f$ however$ the postmaster certifies that first notice
was sent$ the presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed arises and overrides the contrary claim of the
addressee?
Par %w' ta;en from +ivil +ode
#ub par 7M4 the absentee is presumed to have
died at the end of the period %&H8H75 years'
#ub par : %qualified absence' absentee is
presumed to have died at the time he was e.posed
to the danger or peril
- (t the start of the 3 year period
- ,umber %3' does not actually provide for a
presumption corollary procedural rule
Victor" Shi&&in$ 1ines vs, 6CC <1?B Phil 11BC=
Where the fate of the vessel is ;nown$ and not where
the vessel was merely lost or missing$ the disputable
azereth
page 2$
B'rden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved
Evidence
presumption of death does not arise and the fact of death$
must$ instead$ be established by preponderance of evidence
Par %dd' ta;en from (rt 4&< of the +ivil +ode$ in line
with (rt 7A6 of the Family +ode
Par %jj' requisites2
7? =eaths occurred in a calamity
4? @here are no particular circumstances from which it
can be inferred that one died ahead of the other
azereth
page 2%
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
Presentation of Evidence
Rule 1-2 Presentation o# Evidence
., E@./IN.)I(N (F 6I)NESSES
Section 1 E@./IN.)I(N )( 0E D(NE IN (PEN C(8R)
)he e*amination o# +itnesses &resented in a trial or
hearin$ shall !e done in o&en court and under oath or
a##irmation, 8nless the +itness is inca&acitated to
s&ea: or the ;uestion calls #or a di##erent mode o#
ans+er the ans+ers o# a +itness shall !e $iven orall"
Section 2 PR(CEEDINGS )( 0E REC(RDED
)he entire &roceedin$s o# a trial or hearin$ includin$
the ;uestions to !e &ro&ounded to a +itness and his
ans+er thereto the statements made !" the %ud$e or
an" o# the &arties counsel or +itnesses +ith re#erence
to the case shall !e recorded !" means o# shorthand or
stenot"&e or !" other means o# recordin$ #ound
suita!le !" the court,
. transcri&t o# the record o# the &roceedin$s made !"
the o##icial steno$ra&her stenot"&ist or recorder and
certi#ied as correct !" him shall !e deemed &rima #acie
a correct statement o# such &roceedin$s,
@o be admissible$ testimony of a witness may be given in
open court
!ay be supplanted by2
7? +ivil cases depositions %0ules 4: 43'
4? +riminal cases depositions or conditional
e.aminations %0ule 77< #ections 74-7& and
0ule 74: #ec 7'
!ere presentation of affidavits of witnesses subject
to cross-e.amination is not allowed by the rules
9ut$ under 9P 74<$ summary procedures may be
authoriDed by #+ in special cases
- !ay provide that affidavits and counter-
affidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral
testimony
@estimony of witness should be elicited by questions of
counsel
9ut +ourt itself may propound questions or may
suggest questions to counsel
Peo&le vs, /analo <158>=
@he court should be given reasonable leeway to
ascertain the truth$ and the e.tent to which such e.amination
may be conducted rests in its discretion and will not be
controlled in the absence of abuse of discretion to the
prejudice of either party
Section - ' RIG9)S .ND (01IG.)I(NS (F . 6I)NESS
. +itness must ans+er ;uestions althou$h his ans+er
ma" tend to esta!lish a claim a$ainst him, 9o+ever it
is the ri$ht o# a +itnessA
1, )o !e &rotected #rom irrelevant im&ro&er or
insultin$ ;uestions and #rom harsh or insultin$
demeanor4
2, Not to !e detained lon$er than the interests o#
%ustice re;uire4
-, Not to !e e*amined e*ce&t onl" as to matters
&ertinent to the issue4
3, Not to $ive an ans+er +hich +ill tend to su!%ect
him to a &enalt" #or an o##ense unless other+ise
&rovided !" la+4 or
C, Not to $ive an ans+er +hich +ill tend to de$rade
his re&utation unless it to !e the ver" #act at issue
or to a #act #rom +hich the #act in issue +ould !e
&resumed, 0ut a +itness must ans+er to the #act o#
his &revious #inal conviction #or an o##ense, <-a
15a=
Witness cannot refuse to answer questions material to
the inquiry even if it may tend to establish a claim
against him
9ut may refuse if2
7? Ender the right against self-degradation unless2
a? #uch question is directed to the very fact in
issue
b? 0efers to his previous final conviction or
offense
4? Ender the right against self-incrimination
- +riminal cases 0ule 77& #ection 7%e'2
accused may refuse to ta;e the stand
altogether
(ccused2 may be with reference to the
offense involved in the same case wherein
he is charged or to an offense for which
he may be charged and tried in another
case
Witness2 offense involved is one for which
he may be tried in another case
0ight should be seasonably invo;ed and
may be waived
- 1ther casesHproceedings a party may be
compelled to ta;e the stand but he may object
to incriminating questions
0eltran vs, Samson <C- Phil C>?=
Where in a prosecution for falsification$ the
accused too; the stand and testified denying his
authorship of the alleged falsified signature$ on
cross-e.amination he can be compelled to give a
sample of his handwriting and it was not a denial of
his right against self-incrimination
0ermudeG vs, Castillo <B3 Phil 38-=
Where$ in a disbarment case$ the complainant on
cross-e.amination denied authorship of certain
handwritten letters$ she could not be compelled to
give samples of her handwriting as it would amount
to a denial of her right against self-incrimination in
a possible charge for perjury
- +onflict can be reconciled2
9eltran2 it was the accused himself who
opened the issue on his direct
e.amination
Fe could have refused to testify
altogether
@herefore$ he waived his right
9ermudeD2 complainant could not refuse
to testify without an unfavorable inference
being drawn against her
(lso$ issue was raised during cross-
e.amination$ hence she did not
waive the right
- NEnless otherwise provided by lawO refers to
immunity statutes wherein the witness is
granted immunity from criminal prosecution
Section 3 ' (RDER IN )9E E@./IN.)I(N (F .N
INDIVID8.1 6I)NESS
)he order in +hich the individual +itness ma" !e
e*amined is as #ollo+s4
a, Direct e*amination !" the &ro&onent4
!, Cross'e*amination !" the o&&onent4
c, Re'direct e*amination !" the &ro&onent4
d, Re'cross'e*amination !" the o&&onent,
Section C ' DIREC) E@./IN.)I(N
Direct e*amination is the e*amination'in'chie# o# a
+itness !" the &art" &resentin$ him on the #acts
relevant to the issue,
Section B ' CR(SS'E@./IN.)I(N4 I)S P8RP(SE .ND
E@)EN)
8&on the termination o# the direct e*amination the
+itness ma" !e cross'e*amined !" the adverse &art" as
to man" matters stated in the direct e*amination or
connected there+ith +ith su##icient #ullness and
#reedom to test his accurac" and truth#ulness and
#reedom #rom interest or !ias or the reverse and to
elicit all im&ortant #acts !earin$ u&on the issue,
Section > ' RE'DIREC) E@./IN.)I(N4 I)S P8RP(SE
.ND E@)EN)
.#ter the cross'e*amination o# the +itness has !een
concluded he ma" !e re'e*amined !" the &art" callin$
him to e*&lain or su&&lement his ans+ers $iven durin$
the cross'e*amination, (n re'direct'e*amination
;uestions on matters not dealt +ith durin$ the cross'
azereth
page 3&
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
e*amination ma" !e allo+ed !" the court in its
discretion,
Section 8 ' RE'CR(SS'E@./IN.)I(N
8&on the conclusion o# the re'direct e*amination the
adverse &art" ma" re'cross'e*amine the +itness on
matters stated in his re'direct e*amination and also on
such other matters as ma" !e allo+ed !" the court in
its discretion,
( witness may be cross e.amined by the adverse party
not only as to matters stated in the direct e.amination
but also as to matters connected therewith$ and this
should be allowed to do with sufficient fullness and
freedom to test the witnessB accuracy$ truthfulness and
freedom from interest or bias$ and also to elicit from him
any important fact bearing upon the issue
(merican rule cross-e.amination must be
confined to the matters inquired about in the direct
e.amination
English rule witness may be cross-e.amined not
only upon matters relevant to the issue
@his jurisdiction more on English rule
EnwillingHhostileHadverse party witness cross
e.amination shall only be on the subject of his
e.amination-in-chief
#ame as accused testifying on his own behalf
>uestion which assumes facts not on the record2
*f on cross e.amination objectionable for bring
misleading
*f on direct e.amination objectionable for lac; of
basis
0achrach /otor Co, Inc, vs, CIR <15>8=
When cross e.amination is not and cannot be done or
completed due to causes attributable to the party who offered
the witness$ the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered
incomplete and should be stric;en from the record
Peo&le vs, Seneris <158?=
Where in a criminal case the prosecution witness was
e.tensively cross e.amined on the essential elements of the
crime and what remained for further cross-e.amination was
the matter of the priDe or reward which was treated therein as
merely an aggravating circumstance$ his failure to appear for
further cross-e.amination thereon will not warrant the stri;ing
out of his direct e.amination$ especially since further cross-
e.amination could not be conducted due to the subsequent
death of the said witness$ a circumstance not attributable to
the prosecution
Section 5 ' REC.11ING 6I)NESS
.#ter the e*amination o# a +itness !" !oth sides has
!een concluded the +itness cannot !e recalled +ithout
leave o# the court, )he court +ill $rant or +ithhold
leave in its discretion as the interests o# %ustice ma"
re;uire,
0ecall based on discretion of the court
9ut recall is a matter of right if the e.amination of
the witness has not been concluded or the recall has
been e.pressly reserved by a party with the
approval of the court
Section 1? ' 1E.DING .ND /IS1E.DING H8ES)I(NS
. ;uestion +hich su$$ests to the +itness the ans+er
+hich the e*aminin$ &art" desires is a leadin$
;uestion, It is not allo+ed e*ce&tA
a, (n cross e*amination4
!, (n &reliminar" matters4
c, 6hen there is a di##icult" is $ettin$ direct and
intelli$i!le ans+ers #rom a +itness +ho is
i$norant or a child o# tender "ears or is o# #ee!le
mind or a dea#'mute4
d, (# an un+illin$ or hostile +itness4 or
e, (# a +itness +ho is an adverse &art" or an o##icer
director or mana$in$ a$ent o# a &u!lic or &rivate
cor&oration or o# a &artnershi& or association
+hich is an adverse &art",
. misleadin$ ;uestion is one +hich assumes as true a
#act not "et testi#ied to !" the +itness or contrar" to
that +hich he has &reviousl" stated, It is not allo+ed,
Section 11 ' I/PE.C9/EN) (F .DVERSE P.R)2MS
6I)NESS
azereth
page 31
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
. +itness ma" !e im&eached !" the &art" a$ainst
+hom he +as called !" contradictor" evidence !"
evidence that his $eneral re&utation #or truth honestl"
or inte$rit" is !ad or !" evidence that he has made at
other times statements inconsistent +ith his &resent
testimon" !ut not !" evidence o# &articular +ron$#ul
acts e*ce&t that it ma" !e sho+n !" the e*amination o#
the +itness or the record o# the %ud$ment that he has
!een convicted o# an o##ense,
Section 12 ' P.R)2 /.2 N() I/PE.C9 9IS (6N
6I)NESS
E*ce&t +ith res&ect to +itnesses re#erred to in
&ara$ra&hs <d= and <e= o# Section 1? the &art"
&roducin$ a +itness is not allo+ed to im&each his
credi!ilit",
. +itness ma" !e considered as un+illin$ or hostile
onl" i# so declared !" the court u&on ade;uate sho+in$
o# his adverse interest un%usti#ied reluctance to testi#"
or his havin$ misled the &art" into callin$ him to the
+itness stand,
)he un+illin$ or hostile +itness so declared or the
+itness +ho is an adverse &art" ma" !e im&eached !"
the &art" &resentin$ him in all res&ects as i# he had
!een called !" the adverse &art" e*ce&t !" evidence o#
his !ad character, 9e ma" also !e im&eached and cross'
e*amined !" the adverse &art" !ut such cross'
e*amination must onl" !e on the su!%ect matter o# his
e*amination'in'chie#,
Section 1- ' 9(6 6I)NESS I/PE.C9ED 02 EVIDENCE
(F INC(NSIS)EN) S).)E/EN)S
0e#ore a +itness can !e im&eached !" evidence that he
has made at other times statements inconsistent +ith
his &resent testimon" the statements must !e related
to him +ith the circumstances o# the times and &laces
and the &ersons &resent and he must !e as:ed +hether
he made such statements and i# so allo+ed to e*&lain
them, I# the statements !e in +ritin$ the" must !e
sho+n to the +itness !e#ore an" ;uestion is &ut to him
concernin$ them,
"eading question one which suggests to the witness the
answer desired
!ay cause the witness$ by reacting to an inference
in his mind$ to testify in accordance with the
suggestion by the question
- (nswer may be Nrather an echo of the question
than a genuine recollection
@estimony on direct e.amination elicited through
leading questions has little probative value
Peo&le vs, Dela CruG <2??2=
"eading questions may be permitted in the e.amination
of a witness who is immatureG aged and infirmG an bad
physical conditionG uneducatedG ignorant of$ or unaccustomed
to$ court proceedingsG ine.periencedG unsophisticatedG feeble-
mindedG confused and agitatedG terrified$ timid or
embarrassed while on standG lac;ing in comprehension of
questions or slow to understandG deaf and dumbG or unable to
spea; or understand the English language or only imperfectly
familiar therewith
!isleading question one which assumes facts not in
evidence or without sufficient basis or which assumes
testimony or proof which has not been given
FernandeG vs, )antoco <35 Phil -8?=
( party who voluntarily offers the testimony of a witness
in the case is$ as a rule$ bound by the testimony of the said
witness? @he e.ceptions to the rule are2
7? *n case of a hostile witness
4? Where the witness is the adverse party or the
representative of a judicial person which is the adverse
party
:? When the witness is not voluntarily offered but is
required by law to be presented by the proponent$ as in
the case of a subscribing witness to a will
Party can impeach adverse partyBs witness by2
7? +ontradictory evidence other testimony of the
same witness$ or other evidence presented by him
in the same case$ but not the testimony of another
witness
4? Evidence of prior inconsistent statements
statements$ oral or documentary$ made by the
witness sought to be impeached on occasions other
than the trial in which he is testifying
- N"aying the predicateO
a? 9y confronting him with such statements$
with the circumstances under which they
were made
b? 9y as;ing him whether he made such
statement
c? 9y giving him a chance to e.plain the
inconsistency
*mpeachment is incomplete if
witness is not given the chance to
e.plain the discrepancy
9ut defect is waived if no objection
on that ground is raised when the
document involved is offered for
admission
- ,o need to lay the predicate if the prior
inconsistent statement appears in a deposition
of the adverse party and not a mere witness
#tatements are in the nature of an
admission
7uan 2smael E Co, Inc, vs, 9ashim
<C? Phil 1-2=
Where previous statements of a witness are
offered as evidence of an admission$ and not merely
to impeach him$ the rule on laying the predicate
does not apply
:? Evidence of bad character
3? Evidence of bias$ interest$ prejudice or
incompetence
Party can impeach his own witness only by2
7? Evidence contradictory to his testimony
4? Evidence of prior inconsistent statements
*n case of hostileHadverse partyHinvoluntary
witnesses can also be impeached by other modes
of impeachment
Section 13 ' EVIDENCE (F G((D C9.R.C)ER (F
6I)NESS
Evidence o# the $ood character o# a +itness is not
admissi!le until such character has !een im&eached,
Section 1C ' E@C18SI(N .ND SEP.R.)I(N (F
6I)NESSES
(n an" trial or hearin$ the %ud$e ma" e*clude #rom the
court an" +itness not at the time under e*amination so
that he ma" not hear the testimon" o# other +itnesses,
)he %ud$e ma" also cause +itnesses to !e :e&t se&arate
and to !e &revented #rom conversin$ +ith one another
until all shall have !een e*amined,
Power of e.clusions apply only to witnesses and not to
parties in the civil case
Parties have a right to be present at the trial
Either by themselves or by their counsels
#ince they have such right$ they cannot be divested
thereof by an e.clusion order
PaeG vs, 0eren$uer <8 Phil 3C>=
( party to an action has a right to be present in court
while his case is being tried$ and the rule authoriDing the
e.clusion of witnesses during trial cannot be understood to
e.tend to him
*f witness violates the order of e.clusion$ court may bar
him from testifying or give little weight to his testimony
(side from his liability for contempt
Peo&le vs, 1ua Chu <CB Phil 33=
*t is within the power of the trial judge to refuse to
order the e.clusion of the principal witness of the government
during the hearing of a criminal case and it may not$ on that
count alone$ be considered as an abuse of his discretion
Section 1B ' 69EN 6I)NESS /.2 REFER )(
/E/(R.ND8/
azereth
page 32
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
. +itness ma" !e allo+ed to re#resh his memor"
res&ectin$ a #act !" an"thin$ +ritten or recorded !"
himsel# or under his direction at the time +hen the #act
occurred or immediatel" therea#ter or at an" other
time +hen the #act +as #resh in his memor" and :ne+
that the same +as correctl" +ritten or recorded4 !ut in
such case the +ritin$ or record must !e &roduced and
ma" !e ins&ected !" the adverse &art" +ho ma" i# he
chooses cross e*amine the +itness u&on it and ma"
read it in evidence, So also a +itness ma" testi#" #rom
such +ritin$ or record thou$h he retain no recollection
o# the &articular #acts i# he is a!le to s+ear that the
+ritin$ or record correctl" stated the transaction +hen
made4 !ut such evidence must !e received +ith caution,
(merican jurisprudence2
First sentence Nrevival of present memoryO
- (pplies if witness remembers the facts
regarding his entries and is entitled to greater
weight
#econd sentence revival of past recollection
- (pplies where the witness does not recall the
facts involved and is entitled to lesser weight
(pplies only when it is shown beforehand that there is a
need to refresh the memory of the witness
!emorandum used to refresh the memory of the witness
does not constitute evidence and may not be admitted as
such
0eason2 the witness has just the memorandum to
testify on the basis of refreshed memory
!emorandum not admissible as corroborative
evidence
0orromeo vs, C. <15>B=
Where the witness has testified independently of or
after his memory has been refreshed by a memorandum of
the events in dispute$ such memorandum is not admissible as
corroborative evidence$ since the witness may not be
corroborated by any written statement prepared wholly by
him? Fe cannot be more credible just because he supports his
open-court declaration with written statements of the same
facts even if he did prepare them during the occasion in
dispute$ unless the proper predicate of his failing memory is
priorly laid down
Section 1> ' 69EN P.R) (F )R.NS.C)I(N 6RI)ING
(R REC(RD GIVEN IN EVIDENCE )9E RE/.INDER )9E
RE/.INDER .D/ISSI01E
6hen &art o# an act declaration conversation +ritin$
or record is $iven in evidence !" one &art" the +hole o#
the same su!%ect ma" !e in;uired into !" the other and
+hen a detached act declaration conversation +ritin$
or record is $iven in evidence an" other act
declaration conversation +ritin$ or record necessar"
to its understandin$ ma" also !e $iven in evidence,
#imilar rule in depositions
Rule -2 Section 3 (.)9 (F C(//ISSI(NER
0e#ore enterin$ u&on his duties the commissioner
shall !e s+orn to a #aith#ul and honest
&er#ormance thereo#
Section 18 ' RIG9) )( RESPEC) 6RI)ING S9(6N )(
6I)NESS
6henever a +ritin$ is sho+n to a +itness it ma" !e
ins&ected !" the adverse &art",
0, .8)9EN)IC.)I(N .ND PR((F (F D(C8/EN)S
Section 15 ' C1.SSES (F D(C8/EN)S
For the &ur&ose o# their &resentation evidence
documents are either &u!lic or &rivate,
Pu!lic documents areA
a, )he +ritten o##icial acts or records o# the o##icial
acts o# the soverei$n authorit" o##icial !odies and
tri!unals and &u!lic o##icers +hether o# the
Phili&&ines or o# a #orei$n countr"4
!, Documents ac:no+led$e !e#ore a notar" &u!lic
e*ce&t last +ills and testaments4 and
c, Pu!lic records :e&t in the Phili&&ines o# &rivate
documents re;uired !" la+ to the entered therein,
.ll other +ritin$s are &rivate,
+lassification in 0P+ is different
NPublic documentsO
.ntillon vs, 0arcelon <-> Phil 138=
Public documents generally include notarial documents
and are admissible in evidence without the necessity of
preliminary proof as to authenticity and due e.ecution
azereth
page 33
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
E.cept if law requires proof
- E?g? notarial wills law still requires witnesses
for its probate
Iinds2
7? 1fficial documents
0equisites for admissibility of copy of
foreign official document2
a? !ust be attested by the officer
having legal custody of the records
or his deputy
b? !ust be accompanied by a Philippine
diplomatic or consular representative
to the foreign country certifying that
such attesting officer has the
custody of the document
- 0equirement is not merely a
technicality but is intended to
justify the giving of full faith
and credit to the genuineness
of a document in a foreign
country
4? @hose ac;nowledged before persons authoriDed
to administer oaths further governed by
#ection :5
:? Private documents required by law to entered
in public records subject to provisions of
#ection 48
While public records of private writings
are also public documents$ the public
writing is not the writing itself but the
Npublic recordO thereof
Re&u!lic vs, 6orld+ide Insurance E
Suret" Co, <C. B2 (G 88C>=
*f a private writing itself is inserted officially
into a public record$ its record$ its recordation$
or its incorporation into the public record
becomes a public document$ but that does not
ma;e the private writing itself a public
document so as to ma;e the private writing it
admissible without authentication
NPrivate documentsO commercial and private
documents
Section 2? ' PR((F (F PRIV.)E D(C8/EN)
0e#ore an" &rivate document o##ered as authentic is
received in evidence its due e*ecution and authenticit"
must !e &roved eitherA
a, 0" an"one +ho sa+ the document e*ecuted or
+ritten4 or
!, 0" evidence o# the $enuineness o# the si$nature or
hand+ritin$ o# the ma:er,
.n" other &rivate document need onl" !e identi#ied as
that +hich it is claimed to !e,
Section 21 ' 69EN EVIDENCE (F .8)9EN)ICI)2 (F
PRIV.)E D(C8/EN) N() NECESS.R2
6here a &rivate document is more than thirt" "ears old
is &roduced #rom the custod" in +hich it +ould
naturall" !e #ound i# $enuine and is un!lemished !"
an" alterations or circumstances o# sus&icion no other
evidence o# its authenticit" need !e $iven,
Section 22 ' 9(6 GEN8INENESS (F 9.ND6RI)ING
PR(VED
)he hand+ritin$ o# a &erson ma" !e &roved !" an"
+itness +ho !elieves it to !e the hand+ritin$ o# such
&erson !ecause he has seen the &erson +rite or has
seen +ritin$ &ur&ortin$ to !e his u&on +hich the
+itness has acted or !een char$ed and has thus
ac;uired :no+led$e o# the hand+ritin$ o# such &erson,
Evidence res&ectin$ the hand+ritin$ ma" also !e $iven
!" a com&arison made !" the +itness or the court
+ith +ritin$s admitted or treated as $enuine !" the
&art" a$ainst +hom the evidence is o##ered or &roved
to !e $enuine to the satis#action o# the %ud$e,
0ules of authenticity
*n addition$ (merican jurisprudence also gives2
=octrine of self-authentication - where the facts in
the writing could only have been ;nown by the
writer
0ule of authentication by adverse party where the
reply of the adverse party refers to and affirms the
sending to him and his receipt thereof of the letter
in question$ a copy of which the proponent is
offering as evidence
(uthentication of document not required if2
7? @he writing is an ancient document %#ec 47'
4? @he writing is a public document or record %#ec 7<'
:? *t is a notarial document ac;nowledged$ proved or
certified in accordance with #ec :5
3? @he authenticity and due e.ecution of the
document has been e.pressly or impliedly admitted
by a failure to deny the same under oath
- (ctionable documents %0ule 6$ #ection 6'
(uthenticity and due e.ecution of a private document is
proved by$ inter alia$ evidence of genuineness of the
handwriting of the ma;er
Fandwriting is proved by2
7? Witness who actually saw the person writing
the instrument %#ec 45a'
4? Witness familiar with such handwriting %#ec
44' and who can give his opinion thereon$ such
opinion being e.ception to opinion rule %0ule
7:5$ #ec &5b'
:? +omparison by the court of the questioned
handwriting and admitted genuine specimens
thereof %#ec 44'
3? E.pert evidence %0ule 7:5 #ec 3<'
1o&eG vs, C. <15>8=
0ule 7:4 #ection 44 merely enumerates the methods of
proving handwriting but does not give preference or priority to
a particular method
Section 23 ' PR((F (F (FFICI.1 REC(RD
)he record o# &u!lic documents re#erred to in &ara$ra&h
<a= o# Section 15 +hen admissi!le #or an" &ur&ose
ma" !e evidenced !" an o##icial &u!lication thereo# or
!" a co&" attested !" the o##icer havin$ the le$al
custod" o# the record or !" his de&ut" and
accom&anied i# the record is not :e&t in the
Phili&&ines +ith a certi#icate that such o##icer has the
custod", I# the o##ice in +hich the record is :e&t is in
#orei$n countr" the certi#icate ma" !e made !" a
secretar" o# the em!ass" or le$ation consul $eneral
consul vice consul or consular a$ent or !" an" o##icer
in the #orei$n service o# the Phili&&ines stationed in the
#orei$n countr" in +hich the record is :e&t and
authenticated !" the seal o# his o##ice,
Section 2C ' 69.) .))ES).)I(N (F C(P2 /8S) S).)E
6henever a co&" o# a document or record is attested
#or the &ur&ose o# evidence the attestation must state
in su!stance that the co&" is a correct co&" o# the
ori$inal or a s&eci#ic &art thereo# as the case ma" !e,
)he attestation must !e under the o##icial seal o# the
attestin$ o##icer i# there !e an" or i# he !e the cler: o#
a court havin$ a seal under the seal o# such court,
Section 2B ' IRRE/(V.0I1I)2 (F P801IC REC(RD
.n" &u!lic record an o##icial co&" o# +hich is
admissi!le in evidence must not !e removed #rom the
o##ice in +hich it is :e&t e*ce&t u&on order o# a court
+here the ins&ection o# the record is essential to the
%ust determination o# a &endin$ case,
Public record cannot be removed from the office in
which it is ;ept without a court order such as subpoena
duces tecum
Even court cannot order its removal e.cept when
essential to the just determination of the pending
case
0efers only to a public record an official copy of
which could be made available to the interested
party and is admissible in evidence
6ildvalle" Shi&&in$ Co, 1td, vs, C. <2???=
(bsent the attestation of the officer having the legal
custody of the records and the certificate to that effect by a
Philippine foreign service officer$ a mere copy of the foreign
document is not admissible as evidence to prove the foreign
law
azereth
page 3
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
Section 2> ' P801IC REC(RD (F . PRIV.)E D(C8/EN)
.n authoriGed &u!lic record o# a &rivate document ma"
!e &roved !" the ori$inal record or !" a co&" thereo#
attested !" the le$al custodian o# the record +ith an
a&&ro&riate certi#icate that such o##icer has the
custod",
Section 28 ' PR((F (F 1.CJ (F REC(RD
. +ritten statement si$ned !" an o##icer havin$ the
custod" o# an o##icial record or !" his de&ut" that a#ter
dili$ent search no record or entr" o# a s&eci#ied tenor is
#ound to e*ist in the records o# his o##ice accom&anied
!" a certi#icate as a!ove &rovided is admissi!le as
evidence that the records o# his o##ice contain no such
record or entr",
Section 25 9(6 78DICI.1 REC(RD I/PE.C9ED
.n" %udicial record ma" !e im&eached !" evidence o#A
a, 6ant o# %urisdiction in the court or %udicial o##icer
!, Collusion !et+een the &arties or
c, Fraud in the &art" o##erin$ the record in res&ect to
the &roceedin$s,
0ule :< #ec 7
Section -? ' PR((F (F N().RI.1 D(C8/EN)S
Ever" instrument dul" ac:no+led$ed or &roved and
certi#ied as &rovided !" la+ ma" !e &resented in
evidence +ithout #urther &roo# the certi#icate o#
ac:no+led$ment !ein$ prima facie evidence o# the
e*ecution o# the instrument or document involved,
Public documents may be proved by2
7? 1riginal copy
4? 1fficial publication thereof
:? +ertified true copy thereof
- 0equirements in #ecs 43 and 4&
Enless specifically e.empted %F+$ (rt 74'
/ahilum vs, C. <15BB=
*t is presumed that the requisite stamps
have been affi.ed to the original copy of a
document where only the carbon copies
thereof are available
1o&eG vs, C. <158>=
Where the special power of attorney is
e.ecuted and ac;nowledged before a notary
public or other competent officer in a foreign
country$ it cannot be admitted in evidence in
Philippine courts unless it is certified as such in
accordance with 0ule 7:4 #ec 43 by a
secretary of the embassy or legation$ consul-
general$ consul$ vice-consul$ consular agent or
by any officer in the foreign service in the
Philippines stationed in the foreign country in
which the record is ;ept of said public
document and authenticated by the seal of his
office
Even public documents do not have uniform probative
value
Probative value depends on the ;ind of document
that is presented in evidence
9aptismal certificates
Feld as analogous to the records of birth in ++ (rt
4A&$ before the establishment of civil registry in
7<78
- +onsidered presumptive evidence of facts
stated therein
*ssued by priests during #panish regime
considered as public documents
*ssued after the #panish regime private document
and cannot even be prima facie evidence of the fact
that gave rise to its e.ecution %the fact of the
baptism and the date thereon'
- Fearsay and inadmissible
Enless the priest who performed the
baptismal rights and made the certificate
is produced
,ot sufficient to prove paternity
47
or voluntary
recognition of a child
44
47
(rde vs? (nocoche %7<86'
444
9erciles vs? L#*# %7<63'
azereth
page 3!
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
/acadan$dan$ vs, C. <158?=
( baptismal certificate is proof only of the baptism
administered by the priest who baptiDed the child but not
the veracity of the declarations and statements in the
certificates concerning the relationship of the person
baptiDed
(bove doctrines modified by the #+ in determining
the minority of the victim in statutory rape or where
that fact is an element of qualified rape
Peo&le vs, 1landelar <2??1=
2-
While recogniDing the primacy of a birth certificate as
proof of the victimBs age$ the #+ held that$ in the
absence of such evidence$ the victimBs minority may be
proved by other documentary evidence such as her
baptismal certificate or other authentic records
=eath certificate
Sison vs, Sun 1i#e .ssurance Co, o# Canada
<C. 3> (G 15C3=
( death certificate is not proof of the cause of death$ its
probative value being confined only to the fact of death$ and
the statement therein
Garcia Fule vs, /alvar <15>B=
( death certificate is admissible to prove the residence
of the deceased at the time of his death
Section -1 ' .1)ER.)I(N IN D(C8/EN) 9(6 )(
E@P1.IN
)he &art" &roducin$ a document as $enuine +hich has
!een altered and a&&ears to have !een altered a#ter its
e*ecution in a &art material to the ;uestion in dis&ute
must account #or the alteration, 9e ma" sho+ that the
alteration +as made !" another +ithout his
concurrence or +as made +ith the consent o# the
&arties a##ected !" it or +as other+ise &ro&erl" or
innocent made or that the alteration did not chan$e the
meanin$ or lan$ua$e o# the instrument, I# he #ails to do
that the document shall not !e admissi!le in evidence,
Section -2 SE.1
)here shall !e no di##erence !et+een sealed and
unsealed &rivate documents inso#ar as their
admissi!ilit" as evidence is concerned,
Section -- ' D(C8/EN).R2 EVIDENCE IN .N
8N(FFICI.1 1.NG8.GE
Documents +ritten in an uno##icial lan$ua$e shall not
!e admitted as evidence unless accom&anied +ith a
translation into En$lish or Fili&ino, )o avoid interru&tion
o# &roceedin$s &arties or their attorne"s are directed
to have such translation &re&ared !e#ore trial,
#ection :$ (rticle T*)$ 7<:& +onstitution English and
#panish ( official languages
#ection :%:'$ (rticle T)$ 7<8: +onstitution English and
Pilipino
P= 7&& #panish language shall continue to be
recogniDed as an official language while important
documents in government files are in the #panish
language and not translated into Pilipino or English
#ection 8$ (rticle T*)$ 7<68 +onstitution - the official
languages are Filipino and$ until otherwise provided by
law$ English$ with the regional languages as au.iliary
official languages in the region
C, (FFER .ND (07EC)I(N
Section -3 ' (FFER (F EVIDENCE
)he court shall consider no evidence +hich has not
!een #ormall" o##ered, )he &ur&ose #or +hich the
evidence is o##ered must !e s&eci#ied,
Section -C ' 69EN )( /.JE (FFER
.s re$ards the testimon" o# a +itness the o##er must
!e made at the time the +itness is called to testi#",
Documentar" and o!%ect evidence shall !e o##ered a#ter
the &resentation o# a &art"Ms testimonial evidence, Such
4:
(lso in People vs? Calosjos %4557' and People vs? Fruna %4554'
o##er shall !e done orall" unless allo+ed !" the court to
!e done in +ritin$,
azereth
page 3"
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
Section -B (07EC)I(N
(!%ection to evidence o##ered orall" must !e made
immediatel" a#ter the o##er is made,
(!%ection to a ;uestion &ro&ounded in the course o# the
oral e*amination o# a +itness shall !e made as soon as
the $rounds there#or shall !ecome reasona!l" a&&arent,
.n o##er o# evidence in +ritin$ shall !e o!%ected to
+ithin three <-= da"s a#ter notice o# the o##er unless a
di##erent &eriod is allo+ed !" the court,
In an" case the $rounds #or the o!%ections must !e
s&eci#ied,
Section -> ' 69EN REPE)I)I(N (F (07EC)I(N
8NNECESS.R2
6hen it !ecomes reasona!l" a&&arent in the course o#
the e*amination o# a +itness that the ;uestion !ein$
&ro&ounded are o# the same class as those to +hich
o!%ection has !een made +hether such o!%ection +as
sustained or overruled it shall not !e necessar" to
re&eat the o!%ection it !ein$ su##icient #or the adverse
&art" to record his continuin$ o!%ection to such class o#
;uestions,
Section -8 R81ING
)he rulin$ o# the court must !e $iven immediatel" a#ter
the o!%ection is made unless the court desires to ta:e a
reasona!le time to in#orm itsel# on the ;uestion
&resented4 !ut the rulin$ shall al+a"s !e made durin$
the trial and at such time as +ill $ive the &art" a$ainst
+hom it is made an o&&ortunit" to meet the situation
&resented !" the rulin$,
)he reason #or sustainin$ or overrulin$ an o!%ection
need not !e stated, 9o+ever i# the o!%ection is !ased
on t+o or more $rounds a rulin$ sustainin$ the
o!%ection on one or some o# them must s&eci#" the
$round or $rounds relied u&on,
Section -5 ' S)RIJING (8) .NS6ER
Should a +itness ans+er the ;uestion !e#ore the
adverse &art" had the o&&ortunit" to voice #ull" its
o!%ection to the same and such o!%ection is #ound to !e
meritorious the court shall sustain the o!%ection and
order the ans+er $iven to !e stric:en o## the record,
(n &ro&er motion the court ma" also order the stri:in$
out o# ans+ers +hich are incom&etent irrelevant or
other+ise im&ro&er,
Section 3? ' )ENDER (F E@C18DED EVIDENCE
I# documents or thin$s o##ered in evidence are e*cluded
!" the court the o##eror ma" have the same attached to
or made &art o# the record, I# the evidence e*cluded is
oral the o##eror ma" state #or the record the name and
other &ersonal circumstances o# the +itness and the
su!stance o# the &ro&osed testimon",
Parties who offer objections to questions on whatever
ground are entitled to a ruling at the time the objection
is made
Enless they present a question with regard to which
the court desires to inform itself before ma;ing a
ruling
1o&eG vs, ValdeG <-2 Phil B33=
*f no ruling is made during the course of the trial$
counsel would have no means of ;nowing whether or not he
would be compelled to meet any evidence at all$ hence it
would prejudice the substantial rights of his client
Peo&le vs, Sin$h <3C Phil B3C=
@he failure of the court to ma;e such ruling should be
brought to its attention$ failing which the case cannot be
reopened for a new trial on that ground
Peo&le vs, )avera <3> Phil B3C=
@he reservation of a ruling made by the court on an
objection to the admissibility of evidence$ without
subsequently e.cluding the same$ amounts to a denial of said
objection
Peo&le vs, .!alos <C. C8 (G C33B=
@he courts should consider the evidence only for the
purpose for which it was offered
(liveros vs, (liveros <1?B Phil -B5=
23
@he trial courts should permit all e.hibits presented by
the parties$ although not admitted$ to be attached to the
records so that$ in case of appeal$ the appellate court may be
able to e.amine the same and determine the propriety of their
rejection
0aNeG vs, C. <15>3=
Where documentary evidence was rejected by the trial
court and the offeror did not move that the same be attached
to the record$ the same cannot be considered by the appellate
court
De Castro vs, C. <>C Phil 823=
=ocuments forming no part of the of proofs before the
appellate court cannot be considered in disposing of the case?
1therwise$ it would infringe on the constitutional right of
the adverse party to due process of law
4&
@he practice of e.cluding evidence on doubtful objections
should be avoided
Prats E Co, vs, Phoeni* Insurance Co, <C2 Phil 8?>=
*n a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of
first instance$ in the early stages of the development of the
proof$ to ;now with any certainty whether testimony is
relevant or notG and where there is no indication of bad faith
on the part of the attorney offering the evidence$ the court
may$ as a rule$ safely accept the testimony upon the
statement of the attorney that the proof offered will be
connected later
Peo&le vs, Diano <C. BB (G B3?C=
Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be
considered for any other purpose
Sheraton'Palace hotel vs, Hui%ano <C. B3 (G 5118=
( document or writing which is admitted not as
independent evidence but merely as part of the testimony of a
witness does not constitute proof of the facts related therein
*dentification of documentary evidence K its formal offer
*dentification made in the course of the trial
- Evidence identified and mar;ed as e.hibits
may be withdrawn before formal offer
Formal offer when proponent rests his case
- Where objection may be made
Vda de Flores vs, 6CC <15>>=
2B
=ocuments which may have been mar;ed as e.hibits
during the hearing but which were not formally offered in
evidence cannot be considered as evidence nor can they be
given evidentiary value
Peo&le vs, /ate <1581=
%+riminal case for ;idnapping with murder' Even if there
was no formal offer of the e.hibits but the same have been
duly identified by testimony duly recorded and the e.hibits
have been incorporated in the records of the case$ said
e.hibits are admissible against the accused
Peo&le vs, 7ose <15>B=
2>
+onsidering the gravity of the offenses and in the
interest of justice$ the #+ allowed the presentation and
admitted the birth certificates of the accused to prove the
mitigating circumstance of minority although said birth
certificates were not presented or offered in the trial courts
#ection :8 party may just enter a general and
continuing objection to the same class of evidence the
ruling of the court shall be applicable to all such evidence
of the same class
Ed, ., Jeller E Co, <1td,= vs, Ellerman E 0uc:nall
Steamshi& Co, <1td,= <-8 Phil C13=
43
(lso "amagan vs? =ela +ruD %7<87'
4&
@insay vs? Pusay %38 Phil A:<'
4A
(lso 0epublic vs? +( and People vs? +( %7<64'$ cf? People vs?
Pecardal and #oliman vs? #andiganbayan %7<6A'
48
(lso +o vs? +a %7<65'
azereth
page 3#
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
@he court itself may motu proprio treat the objection as
a continuing one
Peo&le vs, 0ande
(n erroneous rejection or admission of evidence by the
trial court is not a ground for a new trial or reversal of the
decision if there are other independent evidence to sustain the
decision$ or if the rejected evidence$ if it had been admitted$
would not have changed the decision
1therwise$ a new trial is warranted by reason of the
erroneous ruling which goes into the merits of the case
and would have affected the decision
46
)insa" vs, 2usa" <3> Phil B-5=
*f the trial court erroneously ruled out the evidence and
discovered such error before the judgment had become final
or before an appeal therefrom had been perfected$ it may re-
open the case
0ulings of trial court on procedural questions and on
admissibility of evidence during the course of the trial are
interlocutory in nature and may not be the subject of
separate appeals or review on certiorari
46
E# vs? )illanueva %76 Phil A:<'
azereth
page 3$
(nde)
Evidence
Weight and *'fficiency of
Evidence
Rule 1-- 6ei$ht and Su##icienc" o# Evidence
Section 1 ' PREP(NDER.NCE (F EVIDENCE 9(6
DE)ER/INED
In civil cases the &art" havin$ !urden o# &roo# must
esta!lish his case !" a &re&onderance o# evidence, In
determinin$ +here the &re&onderance or su&erior
+ei$ht o# evidence on the issues involved lies the court
ma" consider all the #acts and circumstances o# the
case the +itnessesM manner o# testi#"in$ their
intelli$ence their means and o&&ortunit" o# :no+in$
the #acts to +hich there are testi#"in$ the nature o# the
#acts to +hich the" testi#" the &ro!a!ilit" or
im&ro!a!ilit" o# their testimon" their interest or +ant
o# interest and also their &ersonal credi!ilit" so #ar as
the same ma" le$itimatel" a&&ear u&on the trial, )he
court ma" also consider the num!er o# +itnesses
thou$h the &re&onderance is not necessaril" +ith the
$reater num!er,
Section 2 ' PR((F 0E2(ND RE.S(N.01E D(80)
In a criminal case the accused is entitled to an
ac;uittal unless his $uilt is sho+n !e"ond reasona!le
dou!t, Proo# !e"ond reasona!le dou!t does not mean
such a de$ree o# &roo# e*cludin$ &ossi!ilit" o# error
&roduces a!solute certainl", /oral certainl" onl" is
re;uired or that de$ree o# &roo# +hich &roduces
conviction in an un&re%udiced mind,
#ections 7M4 give the rule on the requisite quantum of
evidence in civil and criminal cases
"ast 4 sentences of #ec72 factors which the court
may ta;e into consideration in determining the
weight to be given in testimonial evidence
Evidence must be from a credible source and must be
credible in itself
*t shall be natural$ reasonable$ and probable as to
ma;e it easy to believe
@o be believed$ it should be in accord with common
;nowledge and e.perience of man;ind
Leneral rule2 findings of judge who tried the case and
heard the witnesses are not to be disturbed on appeal$
unless there are substantial facts and circumstances
which have been overloo;ed and which$ if properly
considered$ might affect the result of the case
*ssue2 credibility of the witness - trial court is in the
better position to decide the question$ having heard
and observed the demeanor of the witness
- Enless it has plainly overloo;ed certain facts of
substance and value which$ if considered$
might affect the outcome of the case
- =oes not apply if one judge heard the
witnesses and another judge penned the
decision
Peo&le vs, /a$allanes <15B8=
@he matter of assigning values to declarations at the
witness stand is best and most competently performed by a
trial judge$ who$ unli;e appellate magistrates$ can weigh such
testimony in light of the defendantBs behavior$ demeanor$
conduct and attitude at the trial$ and the conclusions of the
trial courts command great weight and respect
Peo&le vs, Enri;ueG <C. 33 (G -8C-=
@he trial court should not discredit a witness by the
supposed e.pression of lac; of sincerity in his face? Facial
e.pressions are not necessarily indicative of oneBs feelings?
@he trial court should have made it appear in the record and
allowed the witness the opportunity to e.plain why he was
showing such an e.pression on his face
Caluna vs, Vicente <15C1=
(s a general rule$ the number of witnesses should not in
and by itself determine the weight of evidence$ but in case of
conflicting testimonies of witnesses$ the numerical factor may
be given certain weight
Peo&le vs, Huilino <C. C? (G B8=
@he failure of a party to present merely corroborative or
cumulative evidence does not give rise to any adverse or
unfavorable presumption
azereth
page 3%
(nde)
Evidence
Peo&le vs, Rivera <C. C8 (G B8=
9y credibility of a witness is meant his integrity$
disposition and intention to tell the truth in the testimony he
has given as distinguished from the credibility of his testimony
.rro"o vs, El 0eaterio del Santissimo Rosario de /olo
<15B8=
@o hold that a particular person is competent to testify
upon a given matter does not mean that his testimony
thereon must be believed by the court or must be deemed by
it to be of sufficient probative value to establish the point
which it was intended to prove? +ompetency of a witness is
one thing$ and it is another to be credible witness? +ourts
allow a person to testify as a witness upon a given matter
because he is competent but may thereafter decide whether
to believe or not to believe his testimony
8S vs, /acuti <2B Phil 1>?=
*t is a well-settled doctrine that the demeanor$ the
emphasis$ gestures and inflection of the voice of a witness$
while testifying$ are potent aids in the proper evaluation of his
credibility
/ondra$on vs, C. <15>3=
When a witness ma;es two sworn statements and these
two statements incur in the gravest contradictions$ the court
cannot accept either statement as proof? @he witness by his
own act of giving false testimony impeaches his own
testimony and the court should e.clude it from all
consideration
Peo&le vs, Re"es <C. C? (G BBC=
*t has been said that Nperhaps the most subtle and
prolific of all fallacies of testimony arises out of unconscious
partisanship? Epon the happening of an accident$ the
occasional passengers on board of a streetcar are very apt to
side with the employees in charge of the car %citing Wellman$
@he (rt of +ross-E.amination'
Peo&le vs, 7uareG <C. C> (G 2C18=
@he fact that a person has reached the Ntwilight of his
lifeO is not always a guaranty that he would tell the truth? *t is
also quite common that advanced age ma;es a person
mentally dull and completely haDy about things which have
happened to him and$ at times$ it wea;ens the resistance to
outside influence
8S vs, 1a!an <21 Phil 25>=
@he record of a P* constitutes no part of the final
proceedings in a cause$ unless it is presented in evidence$ and
the facts adduced therein are evidence only for the purpose of
testing the credibility of the witnesses
9ias that which e.cites the disposition to see and
report matters as they are wished for rather than as they
are
Peo&le vs, 6atin <C. B> (G C855=
When the witnesses on both sides are equally interested
or otherwise biased$ especially if there is no numerical
preponderance on either side$ bias ceases to be a
consideration in determining where the weight of evidence
rests? +redit should be given to the one whose demeanor and
manner of testifying convinces the court of his veracity
@estimony of interested witness not necessarily biased
or self-serving
9ut may affect their credibility
Peo&le vs, .;uino <15>3=
While the testimony of a co-conspirator or an
accomplice is admissible$ such testimony comes from a
polluted source and must be scrutiniDed with great caution as
it is subject to grave suspicion
@estimony of a single witness may support a conviction
if trustworthy and reliable
(nd clear and convincing
@estimony of offended party not essential to convict
accused if there are already other evidence to prove the
guilt of the accused
Prosecution not obliged to present each and every
person who witnesses the occurrence but only a
sufficient number to prove the commission of the
crime
*nconsistencies on mere details do not impair the
credibility of the witness
(ctually indicate veracity rather than prevarication
Perfect dovetailing of witnesses testimonies can
generate suspicion prefabricated story
Falsus in uno$ falsus in omnibus deals only with eight
of evidence and is not a positive rule of law and the rule
is not an infle.ible one of universal application
!odern trend testimony of a witness may be
believed in part and disbelieved in part
- =epending upon the corroborative evidence
and the probabilities and improbabilities of the
case
- =oes not apply where2
7? @he challenged testimony is sufficiently
corroborated on many grounds
4? @he falsity consists of mista;es on points
that are not material
:? #uch mista;es do not arise from the
apparent desire to pervert the truth but
from innocent lapses and the desire of the
witness to e.culpate himself but not
completely
Peo&le vs, .!onales <1?B Phil 15?=
@he non-production of a corroborative witness without
any e.planation given why he was not so produced$ wea;ens
the testimony of the witness who named the corroborating
witness in his testimony
0ape cases2 corroborative statements not required
9ut testimony should be e.ercised with greatest
care
Garcia vs, Garcia <B- Phil 315=
@he testimony of persons accidentally present at the
time of the e.ecution of the will$ but who have nothing to do
with the transaction$ is not as weighty as that of the
subscribing witness
(ffirmative testimony stronger than negative testimony
Lreater weight must be given to the positive
testimony of the witness than to the denial of the
defendant
+onflict in the testimony of 4 witnesses may be due to
difference in observation or memory
=oes not necessarily imply falsehood
=elay of the witness in revealing to the authorities what
he ;nows of the crime does not render his testimony
false
(ttributed to natural reticence and abhorrence to
get involved in a criminal case
1r inherent fear of reprisal
1r intense grief
0elationship of witness to the victim does not impair
his clear and positive testimony nor give it lesser credit
Enless there is a showing of improper motive

)unala vs, Diola <C. B2 (G 353B=
Where a party resorts to falsehood to advance his suit$
it is presumed that he ;nows perfectly well that his cause is
groundless$ and this presumption affects the whole mass of
evidence presented by such party
(ffidavits generally subordinated in importance to open
court declarations
1ften e.ecuted when the affiant is at a high pitch of
e.citement
,ot complete reproductions of what the declarant
have in mind because they are generally prepared
by the administering officer and the affiant simply
signs after the same have been read to him
=iscrepancies between the affidavit and the open
court statement
- =o not discredit the witness because e. parte
affidavits are generally incomplete for want of
suggestion and inquiries
- =oes not apply where the self-contradiction or
inconsistencies are on very material and
substantial matters
azereth
page &
(nde)
Evidence
1nly prima facie evidence of wea; probative force
and should be received with caution
+onspiracy need not establish that all parties agreed to
every detail
Enough that it may be reasonably deduced that
they had a common plan to commit the felony
9ut must be proven beyond reasonable doubt
,eed not be established by direct evidence
- !ay be proved by a number of indefinite acts$
conditions and circumstances
>ualifying and aggravating circumstances must be
proved in an evident and incontestable manner
(s conclusively as the crime itself
#elf-defense one who sets up must rely on the strength
of his own evidence and not on the wea;ness of the
prosecution
>uantum2 clear and convincing evidence
(libi one of the wea;est defenses
!ay be considered only when established by
positive$ clear and satisfactory evidence
!ust be physically impossible for the accused to be
at the scene of the crime at the time of the
commission
#trong defense when there is no positive and proper
identification of the accused as the author of the
offense
When set up$ the court should not at once have a
mental prejudice against him
Peo&le vs, .;uiedo <1?8 Phil 18B=
Where one accused withdraws his appeal after realiDing
the futility of his defense$ and the other escapes from
confinement thereby causing the dismissal of his appeal$ said
acts are unmista;able signs of guilt
Flight evidence of guilt and a guilty conscience
N@he wic;ed flee even when no man pursueth$
whereas the righteous are as brave as a lionO
,on-flight not an indication of innocence
Payment of ta.es
+ontinuous payment evidence of great weight in
favor of ownership$ especially if accompanied by
1+E(, possession
- 9ut not conclusive evidence of ownership
,on-payment indicative of the fact that claimant
does not believe himself to be the owner of the
property
!otive of the accused in a criminal case immaterial
9ut necessary in the following instances2
7? Where identity of the assailant is in question
4? @o determine the voluntariness of the criminal
act or the sanity of the accused
:? @o determine from which side the unlawful
aggression commenced %self-defense'
3? @o determine the specific nature of the crime
committed %murder or homicide'
&? @o determine whether the shooting was
intentional or accidental
A? Where the accused contended that he acted in
the defense of a stranger
8? Where the evidence is circumstantial and
inconclusive
6? Where malice is an element of the offense
!ere proof of motive$ no matter how strong$ cannot
sustain a conviction if there is no other evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused
Evidence is wea;$ without any motive reasonable
doubt
N@otality of circumstanceO test used for the
admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identification
of suspects
Factors2
7? WitnessB opportunity to view the criminal at the
time of the crime
4? WitnessB degree of attention at the time
:? (ccuracy of any prior description given by the
witness
3? "evel of certainty demonstrated by the witness
at the identification
&? "ength of time between the crime and the
identification
A? #uggestiveness of the identification procedure
0es ipsa loquitur the fact of the occurrence of an
injury$ ta;en with the surrounding circumstances$ may
permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence
or ma;e out a plaintiffBs prima facie case and present a
question of fact for the defendant to meet with an
e.planation
=octrine is merely evidentiary or procedural in
nature
- =oes not dispense with the requirement of
proof of negligence
Section - ' E@)R.78DICI.1 C(NFESSI(N N()
S8FFICIEN) GR(8ND F(R C(NVIC)I(N
.n e*tra%udicial con#ession made !" an accused shall
not !e su##icient $round #or conviction unless
corro!orated !" evidence o# corpus delicti,
+orpus delicti actual commission by someone of the
particular crime charged
+ommon fact made up of 4 things2
E.istence of a certain act or result forming the basis
of the criminal charge
E.istence of a criminal agency as the cause of the
act or result
*dentity of the accused not a necessary element
"iterally means Nbody of the crimeO
Proved when the evidence on record shows that the
crime prosecuted had been committed
@heft2 corpus delicti
7? Property was lost by the owner
4? *t was lost by felonious ta;ing
+rime may be established without recovery of the
property
*llegal possession of firearms
7? E.istence of the firearm
4? *t has actually been held with animus possidendi by
the accused without the corresponding license
!urder2 corpus delicti is the fact of death
Where there is doubt as to the identity of the
cadaver$ in the absence of any other evidence$
there is no corpus delicti
( mere voluntary e.trajudicial confession uncorroborated
by independent proof of corpus delicti is not sufficient to
sustain a judgment of conviction
Evidence may be circumstantial but it must
substantiate the confession
9ut corpus delicti is not synonymous with the whole
charge
- ,eed not require that all the elements of the
crime be established independently
- Were it required that$ independent of the
confession$ evidence be adduced sufficient in
itself to convict$ the utility of a confession as a
species of proof would be illusory
Peo&le vs, Sasota <51 Phil 111=
When the comple. crime of robbery with homicide is
charged and the e.trajudicial confession of the accused of the
entire charge is corroborated by corpus delicti of homicide
alone$ the entire confession is admissible although there is no
independent evidence of the robbery
Section 3 ' CIRC8/S).N)I.1 EVIDENCE 69EN
S8FFICIEN)
Circumstantial evidence is su##icient #or conviction i#A
a, )here is more than one circumstances4
!, )he #acts #rom +hich the in#erences are derived are
&roven4 and
c, )he com!ination o# all the circumstances is such as
to &roduce a conviction !e"ond reasona!le dou!t,
Peo&le vs, )an'Choco4 Peo&le vs, 7ara <158B=
*n order to convict a person accused of a crime on the
strength of circumstantial evidence alone$ it is incumbent
upon the prosecution to present such circumstantial evidence
which will and must necessarily lead to the conclusion that the
accused is guilty of the crime charged beyond reasonable
doubt$ e.cluding all and each and every reasonable hypothesis
consistent with his innocence
+ircumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction in
capital offenses
azereth
page 1
(nde)
Evidence
E.cept when law specifies the quantum of evidence$
such as in treason
Falsification$ bigamy and libel - circumstantial
evidence not sufficient to sustain a conviction
- =ocuments involved must be presented
- 9igamy2 direct evidence of first marriage is
necessary
0eputation or cohabitation merely
corroborative
#ame as in adultery$ parricide or other
cases where issue of marriage is primarily
involved
Prior and coetaneous$ as well as subsequent$ acts of the
accused are circumstantial evidence of guilt
While motive of the accused is generally immaterial not
being an element of the crime$ such motive becomes
important when the evidence of the crime is purely
circumstantial
Peo&le vs, )urto$a <2??2=
@he fact that the accused was in dire need of money
and the victim scolded him for soliciting a loan from her$
robbery as the motive e.plains the ;illing
Section C ' S80S).N)I.1 EVIDENCE
In cases #iled !e#ore administrative or ;uasi'%udicial
!odies a #act ma" !e deemed esta!lished i# it is
su&&orted !" su!stantial evidence or that amount o#
relevant evidence +hich a reasona!le mind mi$ht
acce&t as ade;uate to %usti#" a conclusion,
0ia:'na'0ato /inin$ Co, vs, )anco <1551=
#ubstantial evidence does not necessarily mean
preponderant proof as required in ordinary civil cases$ but
such ;ind of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion
1r evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent
men in the conduct of their affairs
Section B ' P(6ER (F )9E C(8R) )( S)(P F8R)9ER
EVIDENCE
)he court ma" sto& the introduction o# #urther
testimon" u&on an" &articular &oint +hen the evidence
u&on it is alread" so #ull that more +itnesses to the
same &oint cannot !e reasona!l" e*&ected to !e
additionall" &ersuasive, 0ut this &o+er should !e
e*ercised +ith caution,
Guinea vs, Vda, De Ramonal <15>C=
@he court has the power to stop the introduction of
testimony which will merely be cumulative
Section > ' EVIDENCE (N /()I(N
6hen a motion is !ased on #acts not a&&earin$ o#
record the court ma" hear the matter on a##idavits or
de&ositions &resented !" the res&ective &arties !ut the
court ma" direct that the matter !e heard +holl" or
&artl" on oral testimon" or de&ositions,
Sa&ida vs, De Villanueva <15>2=
While the court may hear and rule upon motions solely
on the basis of affidavits or counter-affidavits$ if the affidavits
contradict each other on matters of fact$ the court can have
no basis to ma;e its findings of fact and the prudent course is
to subject the affiants to cross-e.amination so that the court
can decide whom to believe
azereth
page 2