EVIDENCE

Introduction
Definition the means, sanctioned by these
rules, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding, the truth respecting a matter of
fact. (Rule 128, Sec. 1.
Scope of applicability rules of e!idence
shall be the same in all courts and in all
trials and hearings, e"cept as other#ise
pro!ided by la# or these rules. (Rule 128,
Sec 2.
Notes: The Rules on Evidence apply only
when there is going to be a trial. Note that
there can be a judgment on pleadings, by
confession, consent and compromise etc.
IN I!I" #$E$. %ere denial in the answer
in a I!I" #$E will not present a
probandum hence no need for the court to
try the case. $uch general denial will be
considered as an admission.
In RI%IN#" #$E$, &e have to
wait until the accused enters a plea. This
time a general denial is allowed. If the
accused enters a plea of guilty there is no
probandum. 'owever in RI%IN#" #$E$,
the court could still try the case if the case
involves a heinous crime.
The Rules on evidence are not self(
e)ecuting. $o the rule is any evidence
submitted will be admitted so long as there
is no objection. This principle is only for the
purpose of admissibility. It does not mean
that the court will ta*e these irrelevant
evidence in evaluating on the merits of the
case.
DIFFERENCE IN RULES ON EVIDENCE
IN CRIMINAL CASES AND CIVIL CASES
BASIS Criminal
Case
Civil
Case
$uantum
of %roof
%roof &eyond
Reasonable
Doubt
%repond
erance of
e!idence
Denial 'eneral
Denial
(llo#ed
)ust be
Specific
Denial
*ithdra#al
of
%lea+(dmis
sion
*ithdra#n
plea is
inadmissible
,udicial
(dmissio
n
#ithdra#
n
becomes
an
e"trajudi
cial
admissio
n
-ross
."aminatio
n in
(pplicable /ot
applicabl
e
Summary
%rocedure
.0uiponder
ance Rule
(ccused is
ac0uitted
%arty
#ho
loses is
the one
#ho has
burden
of proof
%resence
of
-ircumstan
tial
.!idence
)ore than
one is
re0uired
1ne
suffices
%ri!iliged
-ommunic
ation2 Dr.2
%atient
/ot applicable (pplicabl
e
-ompulsio
n as a
#itness
-annot
compel
accused to be
a #itness
/o
prohibitio
n, rules
pro!ides
only
limitation
s
Evidentiary rivile!e" entitles the pri!ilege
holder to #ithhold competent e!idence and,
in some circumstances, to pre!ent others
from re!ealing such e!idence. 3he pri!ilege
is granted #hen the protected interest is
considered important enough to out#eigh
the concern #ith determining the truth. 3he
pri!ilege holder need not be a party to the
proceeding in 0uestion. 4nli5e a
dis0ualification, a pri!ilege can be #ai!ed.
%ri!ileges are often intended to preser!e
confidential relationships.
E#ecutive rivile!e" members of the
e"ecuti!e branch of go!ernment cannot
legally be forced to disclose their
confidential communications #hen such
disclosure #ould ad!ersely affect the
operations or procedures of the e"ecuti!e
branch.
FAC$UM ROBANDUM vs% FAC$UM
ROBANS
+actum ,robandum(proposition to be
established. The fact-s in issue.
+actum ,robans( materials evidencing the
proposition
Notes: .. In both I!I" and RI%IN#"
cases, the probandum contained in the
pleadings could be changed in the pre(trial
order. 'owever, with respect to RI%IN#"
#$E$, the pre(trial order $'/0"1 N/T
substantially change the
accusation-indictment contained in the
hlp2009 Page 1 8/24/20111
information, otherwise the case will be
dismissed.
2. # court can validly try a fact in
issue not raised in the pleadings or pre(trial
order. Rule .3 provides that a fact in issue
may be raised with the e)press or implied
consent of the parties during the trial
4#mendment to conform to evidence5
6. #scertainment of probandum
does not apply in special proceedings. 4i.e.
If there is a petition for probate of a will,
even if there is no opposition the petitioner
is still re7uired by law to prove that the will
has been duly e)ecuted in accordance with
the ivil ode5
EVIDENCE vs% ROOF
,roof( is the effect of evidence. It is the
probative effect of evidence and is the
conviction or persuasion of the mind
resulting from a consideration of the latter.
Evidence( is the cause necessary to
establish proof.

I% Admissi&ility
(. Rele!ance
3he e!idence has such a relation to the fact
in issue as to induce belief in its e"istence or
non2e"istence.
.!idence on collateral matters shall not be
allo#ed, e"cept #hen it tends in any
reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in
issue. (Rule 128, Secs. 6 and 7.
( In conclusion, relevancy is not determined
by law nor the rules of court. It is
determined purely by "/8I.
&. -ompetence
3he e!idence is not e"cluded by the la# or
the rules (Rule 128, Sec. 6.
Do not confuse
-1)%.3./3 *83/.SS from
-1)%.3./3 .98D./-.. 3he
-1)%.3./-: 3.S3 of e!idence
applies to the 3.S38)1/: of the
0ualified #itness.
$ince admissibility of evidence is
determined by its relevance and
competence, admissibility is therefore an
affair of logic and law. /n the other hand,
the weight to be given to such evidence
depends on judicial evaluation within the
guidelines provided in Rule .66 and the
jurisprudence laid down by the court.
4,eople vs. Turco, 23335
Relevant evidence is one that has
any value in reason as tending to prove any
matter probable in an action. Evidence is
said to be material when it is directed to
prove a fact in issue as determined by the
rules of substantive law and pleadings,
while competent evidence is one that is not
e)cluded by law in a particular case.
49autista vs. #parece, .::;5
E#clusionary Rules under t'e ()*+
Constitution
1.1 Secs. 2 ; 6, (rt. 888 3he right of the
people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and sei<ures of
#hate!er nature and for any purpose
shall be in!iolable, and no search
#arrant or #arrant of arrest shall issue
e"cept upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after
e"amination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the #itnesses he
may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be sei<ed.
3he pri!acy of communication and
correspondence shall be in!iolable
e"cept upon la#ful order of the court, or
#hen public safety or order re0uires
other#ise as prescribed by la#.
(ny e!idence obtained in !iolation of this
or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
1.2 Sec. 12, (rt 888 (ny person under
in!estigation for the commission of an
offense shall ha!e the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and
to ha!e competent and independent
counsel preferably of his o#n choice. 8f
the person cannot afford the ser!ices of
counsel, he must be pro!ided #ith one.
3hese rights cannot be #ai!ed e"cept in
#riting and in the presence of counsel.
/o torture, force, !iolence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means, #hich
!itiate the free #ill, shall be used against
him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited.
(ny confession or admission obtained in
!iolation of this or Section 1= hereof
shall be inadmissible in e!idence against
him.
Sec. 1=, (rt 888 /o person shall be
compelled to be a #itness against himself.
3his right is recogni<ed under he
Rules on .!idence, #hich pro!ides that, it is
the right of a #itness not to gi!e an ans#er
#hich #ill tend to subject him to a penalty
for an offense unless other#ise pro!ided by
la#. >Sec. 6 (7, Rule 162, R1-
/13.S (/D -1))./3S? 3he
human body could be used as e!idence
#ithout !iolating the right. )echanical acts
#ithout the use of intelligence do not fall
hlp2009 Page 2 8/24/20112
#ithin the scope of the protection. Some of
the acts #hich are not co!ered by the right
of self2incrimination are the follo#ing?
a. @ingerprinting, photographing nd
paraffin testing, physical e"amination. (4.S.
!. 3ang, 26 %hil. 17AB
b. %hysical e"amination of a #oman
accused of adultery to determine if she is
pregnant. (4.S. !. 1n Suy Con, 6D %hil.
=6AE 9illaflor !. Summers, 71 %hil. D2
c. 4ndergoing ultra2!iolet rays
e"amination to determine presence of
flourescent po#der on the hands. (%eople
!. 3ranca, 6A S-R( 7AA
d. Subpoena directing go!ernment
officials to produce official documents or
public records in their custody.
e. @itting the accused foot o!er a
foot print, putting on a pair of trousers, etc.
2. Statutory Rules o, E#clusion
2.1 Sec. 2F1, /8R- (n instrument,
document or paper #hich is re0uired by
la# to be stamped and #hich has been
signed, issued, accepted or transferred
#ithout being duly stamped, shall not be
recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof
or any record of transfer of the same be
admitted or used in e!idence in any
court until the re0uisite stamp or stamps
shall ha!e been affi"ed thereto and
cancelled.
2.2 R.(. 72FF (*ire2tapping
(ct
Sec. 1. 8t shall be unla#ful for any
person, not being authori<ed by all the
parties to any pri!ate communication or
spo5en #ord, to tap any #ire or cable, or
by using any other de!ice or
arrangement, to secretly o!erhear,
intercept, or record such communication
or spo5en #or5 by using a de!ice
commonly 5no#n as a Dictaphone or
dictograph or detectaphone or #al5ie2
tal5ie or tape recorder, or ho#e!er
other#ise described. " "
Sec. 7. (ny communication or spo5en
#ord, or the e"istence, contents,
substance, purport, effect, or meaning of
the same or any part thereof, or any
information therein contained, obtained
or secured by any person in !iolation of
the preceding sections of this (ct shall
not be admissible in e!idence in any
judicial, 0uasi2judicial, legislati!e or
administrati!e hearing or in!estigation.
#n e)tension telephone cannot be
placed in the same category as a
1ictaphone, dictograph or the other devices
enumerated in $ec. . of R# <233 as the
use thereof cannot be considered as
=tapping> the wire or cable of a telephone
line. 48aanan vs. I#, .:?@5
R# <233 e)pressly ma*es tape
recordings of tapped conversations
inadmissible in evidence absent a clear
showing that both parties to the phone
conversations allowed the recording.
4$alcedo(/rtaAeB vs. #, .::<5
E-CLUSIONAR. RULES under t'e
RULES OF COUR$
1. &est .!idence Rule
2. %arole .!idence
6. Cearsay Rule
Wigmores Axiom of Admissibility
=None but facts having rational probative
value are admissible>( 8GG4S3R(381/? In a
trial for homicide, the fact is offered that the
accused was re7uested, with others, to
touch the corpse of the murdered man to
see if blood flowed, but that he refused to
do soC this is admissible, not because the
flowing or retention of the blood at the guilty
manDs touch would be rationally evidential of
his guilt, but because his refusal to do could
constitute a lin* to the chain of evidence
necessary to produce a moral conviction of
guilt.
=#ny fact having rational probative value is
admissible, unless some specific rule
forbids its admission>( 8GG4S3R(381/? In
an issue involving forgery, the disposition of
the personDs character as to acts of honesty
or dishonesty is of some rational probative
value towards showing that he did or did not
do the actC it is therefore admissible, but this
can only be done if the accused steps
forward first and adduces evidence of his
good moral character.
Irrelevant vs. Incompetent vs.
Inadmissible vs. Immaterial Evidence
Irrelevant( no probati!e !alueE /o tendency
in reason to establish the probability or
improbability of a fact in issue. 8t does not
directly relate to a fact in issue.
N.9. #ll facts and circumstances
which afford reasonable inferences or throw
light upon the probability of matter or
matters contested are admissible in
evidence, 0N"E$$ e)cluded by some
established principle of evidence, such as
'E#R$#E E!I1ENE R0"E, R0"E /N
,#R/"E E!I1ENE and 9E$T
E!I1ENE R0"E.
Collateral Matters( matters other
than the facts in issue and which are offered
as a basis merely for inference as to the
e)istence or non(e)istence of the facts in
issue. These are not allowed unless satisfy
hlp2009 Page 3 8/24/20113
#"" the re7uirements of relevancy.
I""0$TR#TI/N$:
a. finger mar5s, foot prints and a bat
left by the accused in the place of the crime
b. 3he resemblance of a child to his
alleged father to pro!e paternity of the latter
c. &loodstains on the clothing of the
person charged #ith a crime
d. 3he destruction or fabrication of
e!idence
e. @light of the accused. (/.&. /on2
flight is not conclusi!e proof of innocence
f. Delay in the identification of
!ictimHs assailant
Incompetent( e)cluded by the rules or any
law
Inadmissible( not competent and irrele!ant
Immaterial( the offered e!idential fact is
directed to pro!e some probandum #hich is
not properly in issue. (/.&.2 3he rules on
substanti!e la# and of pleading determine
immateriality
%aterial evidence( proves a main
fact which is the subject of the in7uiry or any
circumstance which tends to prove that fact
or any fact or circumstance which tends to
corroborate or strengthen the testimony
relative to the subject of in7uiry or which
legitimately affects the credibility of any
witness who testifies.
Direct vs% Circumstantial Evidence
1irect( Evidence that directly proves a fact
without need to ma*e inference from
another fact
."ample? 3he testimony of the
prosecution #itness claiming that he sa#
that it #as actually the deceased #ho
attac5ed the accused #ithout the latterHs
pro!ocation is a direct e!idence.
ircumstantial( Indirectly proves a fact in
issue through an inference which the fact
finder draws from the evidence established
E)ample: 3he testimony of the !ictim
that he dreads the mere presence of the
accused is direct e!idence that t'e
statement /as made%
8t is li5e#ise circumstantial
e!idence to sho# that this fear pre!ented
the !ictim from attac5ing the accused
#ithout pro!ocation.
8/ -R8)8/(G -(S.S, circumstantial
e!idence is sufficient for con!iction #hen?
a. 3here is more than one
circumstance
b. 3he facts from #hich the
inferences are deri!ed are
pro!en
c. 3he combination of all the
circumstances is such as to
produce a con!iction beyond
reasonable doubt (Sec. 7 Rule
166
Cumulative v% Corro&orative
umulative( e!idence of the same 5ind that
tends to pro!e the same fact
.". 3#o or more #itnesses testify
that they sa# the e!ent #hich the first
#itness claimed he sa#, the subse0uent
testimonies are cumulati!e
orroborative( e!idence #hich tends to
confirm, !alidate or strengthen e!idence
already presented. .!idence may be of the
same 5ind or different 5ind and tends to
pro!e the same fact.
.". ( #itness claims that he sa# )r.
I sign the document subject of the action.
)r. I denies the authenticity of his
signature. .!idence by a hand#riting e"pert
is corroborati!e.
ositive v% Ne!ative Evidence
,ositive( ( #itness affirms in the stand that
a certain state of facts do e"ist or that a
certain e!ent happened
Negative( ( #itness states that an e!ent did
not occur or that the facts alleged to e"ist
did not actually e"ist. (Denial
Derivative Evidence" type of e!idence that
is inadmissible as proof because of the
application of the fruit of the poisonous tree
doctrine, #hich treats the original e!idence
and any e!idence deri!ed from it as tainted
because of the illegal #ay in #hich it #as
obtained by agents of the go!ernment.
Re&uttal Evidence" offered to contradict
other e!idence or to rebut a resumption of
fact.
Admissibility v. Weight
- .!idence is (D)8SS8&G. #hen it is
rele!ant and is not e"cluded by any
rule.
- %robati!e !alue or *.8'C3 is to be
determined by the court #hen it
decides the case
MUL$ILE ADMISSIBILI$.
Evidence is admissible for two or more
purposes. The rule is when a fact satisfies
all rules applicable to it when offered for that
purpose, its failure to satisfy some other rule
which would be applicable to it if offered for
another purpose would not e)clude it.
hlp2009 Page 4 8/24/20114
I""0$TR#TI/N: (n e"trajudicial confession
may be inadmissible as against a party #ho
did not subscribe to it, yet such party may
use said document as e!idence of lac5 of
guilt.
CONDI$IONAL ADMISSIBILI$.
8R: The time for determining the
admissibility of a particular fact is ordinarily
the time when it is offered to the court.
E)ception: &hen some facts depend on
some other facts needed to be established
first in order that said former evidentiary
facts would be admissible.
I""0$TR#TI/N: )r. % files an action for
reco!ery of o#nership of a parcel of land
against )r. D. 3he complaint alleges that
)r. % is the o#ner of the property. During
the trial, )r. % testifies and adduces
e!idence that a certain 1 bought the
property from D. 3he testimony of 1 may be
allo#ed if it #ould be sho#n the chain of
e!ents that led to the o#nership of % of the
land.
CURA$IVE ADMISSIBILI$.
3here is curati!e admissibility #hen a party
offers an inadmissible fact #hich is recei!ed
because there is no objection by the other
party. 3he other party does not ac0uire the
right to introduce in reply to the same 5ind of
e!idence, E-CE$ #hene!er it is needed
for remo!ing an unfair prejudice #hich might
other#ise ha!e ensued from the original
e!idence.
I""0$TR#TI/N: 8n an action for damages
arising from a car accident, the plaintiff
introduced e!idence to sho# that on se!eral
occasions the defendant in the past had
injured pedestrians because of his
negligence. (3his is inadmissible under Sec.
67 Rule 16F2 %rior acts as e!idence. 0nder
the concept of urative admissibility the
court must give the party against whom the
evidence was admitted the chance to
contradict or e)plain the alleged past acts
he committed to counteract the prejudice
which the improperly admitted evidence
may have caused.
II% 0'at Need Not &e roved
a. @acts #hich a court shall or may
ta5e judicial notice. (Secs. 1 and 2, Rule
12J, R1-
b. ,udicial admissions. (Sec. 7,
Rule 12J, R1-
c. -onclusi!e presumptions
d. Disputable presumptions not
disputed
Distin!uis' mandatory 1udicial notice
,rom discretionary 1udicial notice%
a. @or mandatory judicial notice the court is
compelled to ta5e judicial notice because of
the use of the #ord KshallK in Sec. 1, Rule
12J, R1- *C8G. for discretionary judicial
notice the court is not compelled because of
the use of the #ord KmayK in Sec. 2, Rule
12J, R1-.
b. )andatory judicial notice ta5es place at
the courtLs o#n initiati!e *C8G.
discretionary judicial notice may ta5e place
at the courtLs initiati!e, or on re0uest of a
party.
c. Discretionary judicial notice re0uires a
hearing and presentation of e!idence
*C8G. mandatory judicial notice does not
re0uire hearing and presentation of
e!idence.
A. Judicial otice ! "ule #$%& 'ecs #()*
"ule #+& 'ec. ,
1.When Mandatory ! >.%@2SG(%21G2)'M
2."istence and territorial e"tent of states
23heir political history
2@orms of go!ernment
2Symbols of nationality
2Ga# of nations
2(dmiralty and maritime courts of the #orld
and their seals
2%olitical constitution and history of the
%hilippines
21fficial acts of the legislati!e, e"ecuti!e,
and judicial
departments of
the %hilippines
2Ga#s of nature
2)easure of time
2'eographical di!isions
2.When -iscretionary
2)atters of public 5no#ledge
2)atters capable of un0uestionable
demonstration
2)atters #hich ought to be 5no#n to judges
because of their
judicial
functions.
6.When .earing is ecessary
2 During the trial? the court, on its o#n
initiati!e, or on re0uest of a party, may
announce its intention to ta5e judicial notice
of (/: )(33.R and allo# the parties to be
heard thereon.
2 (fter the trial, and before judgment or on
appeal? the proper court, on its o#n initiati!e
or on re0uest of a party, may ta5e judicial
notice of any matter and allo# the parties to
be heard thereon if such )(33.R 8S
D.-8S89. 1@ ( )(3.R8(G 8SS4. in the
case.
hlp2009 Page 5 8/24/20115
MUNICIAL ORDINANCES
ourts are not mandated to ta*e judicial
notice of municipal ordinances unless the
charter of the concerned city provides for
such judicial notice. 4ity of %anila vs.
8arcia, .:@F5. 9ut IN+ERI/R /0RT$
sitting in the respective municipalities or
cities are %#N1#TE1 to ta*e judicial
notice. The reason is that violations of the
ordinances are usually vested to the inferior
court EG"0$I!E"E in the e)ercise of their
original jurisdiction.
I+ inferior court too* judicial notice and
there was an appeal, such court ta*ing the
appeal should li*ewise ta*e judicial notice.
40.$. v. 9lanco, 6F ,hil. .2@5
COUR$ RECORDS2
(ourts may ta*e judicial notice of its own
records of cases pending before it. 4E).
,leadingsC period of perfecting appeals.
(Records of preliminary investigation shall
not form part of the record, however the
court on its own initiative or that of any party
may order the production of the record or
any part thereof whenever the same shall
be necessary in the resolution of the case or
any incident therein or shall be introduced
as evidence by the party re7uesting for its
production.
(ourts are not authoriBed to ta*e judicial
notice of the contents of the record of other
cases pending or heard before them
notwithstanding they are pending before the
same judge.
E)ceptions: .. In the absence of objection
from the adverse party, with the *nowledge
of the adverse partyC or at the re7uest or
with the consent of the parties, the case is
clearly referred to or the original or part of
the records of the case are actually
withdrawn from the archives and admitted
as part of the record of the case then
pending. 4Tabuena vs. #, .::.5
2. The other case is so closely
connected or interdependent
6. &hen interests of the public in
ascertaining the truth is of paramount
importance
<. In cases see*ing to determine
what is reasonable e)ercise of discretion
;. The finality of judgment in a case
FOREI3N LA0S
8n general, courts may not ta5e judicial
notice of foreign la#s, .I-.%3 in a fe#
instances #here, in the e"ercise of sound
discretion, they may ta5e judicial notice of
such foreign la#s of #hich they are
e!idently familiar. (Delgado !. Republic, G2
2A7D, ,anuary 28, 1JAFE %ardo !. Republic,
8A %hil. 626

0'en ,orei!n la/s may &e t'e su&1ect o,
1udicial notice.
a. *hen the local court is e!idently familiar
#ith the foreign la#.
b. *hen the foreign la# refers to the la# of
nations. (Sec. 1, Rule 12J, R1-
c. *hen the court ta5es judicial notice of a
published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on
a subject of la# as a learned treartise. (Sec.
7D, Rule 16F, Ibid.
d. *hen the foreign statute is acepted by
the %hilippine go!ernemnt. (Republic !.
'uan<on, D1 S-R( 6DF
e. *hen a foreign judgmen containing
foreign la# is recogni<ed for enforcement.
(Sec. 78, Rule 6J, R1-
f. 8f the foreign la# refers to common la#
doctrines and rules from #hich many of our
la#s #ere deri!ed. ((l<ua !. ,ohnson, 21
%hil. 6F8
-octrine of /rocessual
/resumption0 +oreign law is the same as
the law of the forum. It arises if the foreign
law, though properly applicable is either not
alleged or if alleged is not duly proved
before a competent court.
B. Judicial Admissions ! "ule #$%&
'ec. 1
2Definition? admissions, !erbal or #ritten,
made by the party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case
2%roof is not re0uired.
2Co# contradicted? 1/G: by sho#ing
N 3hat it #as made through palpable
mista5e or
N 3hat no such admission #as made
'aving been amended, the original
complaint lost its character as a judicial
admission, which would have re7uired no
proof and became merely any e)trajudicial
admission re7uiring a formal offer in order to
be admissible. 4Torres vs. #, .:?<5
FORMS OF ADMISSIONS2
1. 8mplied admissions of allegations of
usury and in actionable documents if
not specifically denied under oath
(Sec. 11 ; 8, Rule 8
2. (dmissions in pre2trial of ci!il cases
and criminal cases (8n criminal cases
the admission must be reduced in
#riting and signed by accused and
counsel2 Sec. 7 Rule 118
3. 8mplied admissions in the modes of
disco!ery (DepositionsE
hlp2009 Page 6 8/24/20116
8nterrogatories2 Rule 26E @ailure to
specifically deny under oath #+in 1A
days a Re0uest for (dmission in a
pending case( Rule 2@C 5
4. (dmissions in amended pleadings
(Sec. 8 Rule 1F >N.9. #dmissions in
superseded pleadings are e)tra(
judicial admissions which must be
proven. 1ismissed pleadings are
li*ewise e)trajudicial admissionsH
;. ,lea of guilt in criminal case 4N.9. #
withdrawn plea of guilt is
inadmissible, unli*e in civil cases
where a withdrawn judicial
admission is considered an
e)trajudicial admission5
D. (dmissions by counsel are generally
conclusi!e upon a client absent any
gross negligence #hich depri!es
counsel of due process of la# or
there is outright depri!ation of
property or liberty.
/ote? (dmissions in pleadings may
not al#ays be considered as judicial
admissions because there are
'y4ot'etical admissions in ci!il
cases. (i.e. (ffirmati!e defenses in
an ans#erE )otion to dismiss, #here
defendant admits allegations but
sets up grounds such as lac5 of
jurisdiction etc.

/otes? 1. 8t is not essential that an
admission is contrary to the interest of party
at the time it is made. 8t is enough that it be
8/-1/S8S3./3 #ith the position a party
ta5es in his pleadings or at trial.
2. (!erments in pleadings not
deemed admissions e!en if there is failure
to ma5e a specific denial? a 8mmaterial
allegationsE b -onclusions and non2
unltimate factsE c (mount of unli0uidated
damages.
Ado4tive Admissions
( partyHs reaction to a statement or action
by another person #hen it is reasonable to
treat the partyHs reaction as an admission of
something stated or implied by the other
person.
Ado4ted Con,essions
( co2accused impliedly ac0uiesced in or
adopted the otherHs confession by not
0uestioning its truthfulness, as #here it #as
made in his presence and he did not
demonstrate against his being implicated
therein
III% Rules o, Admissi&ility
A.1bject (Real .!idence Rule 16F, Sec.
1.
2 .!idence addressed to the senses of the
court.
2 *hen an object is rele!ant to the fact in
issue, it may be e"hibited to, e"amined or
!ie#ed by the court.
AU$O$IC ROFERENCE 5VIE0 OF AN
OB6EC$7
2 *here the object in 0uestion cannot be
produced in court because it is immo!able
or incon!enient to remo!e, the natural
recourse is for the court to order an ocular
inspection and go to the object in its place
and obser!e it there.
Is t'ere an e#clusionary rule /'en it
comes to o&1ect evidence8
3here is none. Co#e!er, the court is gi!en
enough discretion to determine #hich object
e!idence should be presented, upon
determination #hether or not it #ill result to
scandal or it does not #or5 any additional
benefit to the plaintiff or that it #ill gi!e
undue prejudice to the defendant.
8GG4S3R(381/S?
2ootprints
( bloody foot print #as found upon a floor
near the dead body of a person. 4pon being
arrested, the accused #as ta5en to the
house #here the incident happen. 4pon
placing his foot o!er the foot print it #as
found that his foot corresponded e"actly to
said footprint. 'E"1: %roof of this
circumstance is admissible, not#ithstanding
that no photograph of the footprint #as
submitted in e!idence and that the board
itself upon #hich the footprint #as made
#as not produced in court. (0$ v. Iara, <6
,hil. 63?5
"esemblance& "ace& Age or /arentage
23o determine #hether a person is alien or
not, his personal appearance, ethnological
and racial characteristic, language, customs,
dress and manners may be ta5en into
consideration.
28n determining the age of the accused #ho
had no positi!e information on the subject,
the court too5 into account his appearance
and judged that he #as a youth of 18 or 1J
years of age.
2( physical comparison may be made
bet#een a minor -hinese applying for
admission into the country #ith his alleged
father.
/hotographs
2 *here deposition of subscribing #itnesses
hlp2009 Page 7 8/24/20117
to a #ill are ta5en, a photographic copy of
the #ill may be presented to the #itnesses
on their e"amination and they may be as5ed
the same 0uestion #ith respect to said copy
as if it #ere the original #ill and testimony as
to the identity of the photographic copy
sho#n to the #itnesses is admissible in
e!idence.
2%hotographs may be admissible upon proof
of their e"actness and accuracy by the
photographer himself #ho can testify of his
personal 5no#ledge of the correctness of
the representation. (3an 8t !. Sun 8nsurance
1ffice, A1 %hil. 212
/13.S?
3he photographer is not the only
#itness #ho can identify the pictures. 3he
faithful representation of the photograph
may be pro!ed prima facie by the testimony
of those #ho #ere present at the time it #as
ta5en, or by any other competent #itness
#ho can testify as to its e"actness and
accuracy. 1nce pro!ed, the court may
admit it subject to impeachment as to its
accuracy.
3he !alue of a photograph lies in its
being a correct representation or
reproduction of the original, and its
admissibility is determined by its accuracy in
portraying the scene at the time the picture
#as ta5en. (Sison !. %eople, 2AF S-R( A8,
=A2=D
%hotocopies or "ero" copies of
signed documents are not duplicate
originals because they are not signed.
()ahilum !. -ourt of (ppeals, 1= S-R(
782
Com4uter 4rintouts%
8f the data are stored in a computer
or similar de!ice, any printout or other
output readable by sight, sho#n to reflect
the data accurately, is an original.
(.!idence -ode of -alifornia, (dded by
Stats. 1J==, Sec. 1
8n a labor case, 8&) %hilippines, 8nc.,
et al., !. /GR-, et al., '.R. /o. 11=221,
prom. (pril 16, 1JJJ, the Supreme -ourt
held that computer printouts #hich #ere not
signed because they are unsigned. 3he
-ourt #ent on further to say that its
decisions, #hile adhering to a liberal !ie# in
the conduct of proceedings before
administrati!e agencies, ha!e nonetheless
consistently re0uired some proof of
authenticity or reliability as condition for the
admission of documents.
/ot one of the 18 print2out copies
submitted by 8&) #as e!er signed, either by
the sender or the recei!er. 3here is thus no
guarantee that the message sent #as the
same message recei!ed. /either #ere the
print2outs certified or authenticated by any
company official #ho could properly attest
that these came from 8&)Hs computer
system or that the data stored in the system
#ere not and+or could not ha!ed been
tampered #ith before the same #ere printed
out.
3allots
2 .!ery ballot needs to be presented in a
case of election protest. .!ery ballot
constitutes the #ill of e!ery !oter.
DEMONS$RA$IVE EVIDENCE
2 one #hich or represents demonstrates the
real thing. (e". )ap, diagram, photograph,
or a model
,hotographs: %ust faithfully represent what
it depicts 4$ame rules apply to motion
pictures and recordings5
G(Rays: %ust show location and e)tent of
injury
$cientific tests, demonstrations by physical
act and e)periments: This is a matter of
judicial discretion.
B. Documentary .!idence Rule 16F,
Sec. 2.
2 *ritings or any material containing letters,
#ords, numbers, figures, symbols or other
modes of #ritten e"pression offered as proof
of their contents.
1. 3est Evidence "ule
Rule 16F, Secs. 627
'eneral Rule? *hen the subject of in0uiry is
the contents of a document, no e!idence
shall be admissible other than the original
document itself.
."ceptions?
1. *hen the original has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, #ithout bad faith on the part of the
offerorE
2. *hen the original is in the custody or
under the control of the party against
#hom the e!idence is offered, and the
latter fails to produce it after reasonable
noticeE
3. *hen the original consists of numerous
accounts or other documents #hich
cannot be e"amined in court #ithout
great loss of time and the fact sought to
be established from them is only the
general result of the #holeE and
4. *hen the original is a public record in
the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office.
hlp2009 Page 8 8/24/20118
1riginal of a Document
1 3he original of the document is one the
contents of #hich are the subject of
in0uiry.
2 *hen a document is in t#o or more
copies e"ecuted at or about the same
time, #ith identical contents, all such
copies are e0ually regarded as originals.
3 *hen an entry is repeated in the regular
course of business, one being copied
from another at or near the time of the
transaction, all the entries are li5e#ise
e0ually regarded as originals.
Rules on .lectronic .!idence (Rule 7
Sec. 1. 1riginal of an .lectronic
Document (n electronic document
shall be regarded as the e0ui!alent of an
original document under the &est
.!idence Rule if it is a printout or output
readable by sight or other means, sho#n
to reflect the data accurately.
Sec. 2. -opies as e0ui!alent of the
originals *hen a document is in t#o or
more copies e"ecuted at or about the
same time #ith identical contents, or is a
counterpart produced by the same
impression as the original, or from the
same matri", or by mechanical or
electronic re2recording, or by chemical
reproduction, or by other e0ui!alent
techni0ues #hich accurately reproduces
the original. /ot#ithstanding the
foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not
be admissible to the same e"tent as the
original if? a genuine 0uestion is raised
as to the authenticity of the originalE or in
the circumstances it #ould be unjust or
ine0uitable to admit the copy in lieu of
the original.
arbon copies are deemed duplicate
originals. They may be introduced as
evidence without accounting for the non(
production of the original. 4,eople vs. Tan,
.:;:5
The 9est Evidence Rule applies only
when the contents of the document are the
subject of in7uiry. It does not apply when
the issue is only as to whether or not such
document was actually e)ecuted or in the
circumstances relevant to its e)ecution.
4,eople vs. Tandoy, .::35
SOME E-AMLES2
1. &aptismal and )arriage -ertificate
- 3hey are only e!idence to pro!e the
administration of the sacraments on
the dates therein specified
- &aptismal certificate is not
conclusi!e proof of filiation being
hearsay
2. )edical -ertificate
- 3o pro!e torture inflicted by the
police, the medical certificate alone
#ithout the testimony of the
e"amining physician is inadmissible
(%eople !. 9illagracia, 22D S-R(
6J8
6. Residence -ertificate
- 3he place of obtaining a residence
certificate and the date contained are
not conclusi!e as to the real
residence or domicile of a person
o#ning said certificate. (Ouellig !.
Republic, 86 %hil. =D8
7. 3a" declaration
- 8t can be used as e!idence that a
portion of land had been sold.
('acos !. -(, 212 S-R( 8
A. (ccounts and (ccount &oo5s
- *here the custom bro5erHs
authori<ed representati!e accepted
the cargo P1Q and completeR as
sho#n in the sur!eyorHs report
countersigned by him and it #as
ob!iously his assigned tas5 to note
defects in the cargo, said
acceptanceSif not being outright
upon the customHs bro5erSis at least
e!idence of the condition of the
goods #hen thus recei!ed.
(8nsurance -ompany of /orth
(merica !s. -.@. Sharp ; -o., 8nc.
18 S-R( 7D2
- (n audit made by or the testimony of
a pri!ate auditor is inadmissible in
e!idence as proof of the original
records, boo5s of accounts, reports
or the li5e. (-ompania )aritima !s.
(llied @ree *or5ers 4nion, == S-R(
27
A,ter com4lyin! /it' t'e BES$
EVIDENCE RULE /ill t'e court
necessarily admit t'e ori!inal /ritin!8
/o. 1 3he re0uirements of authentication of
documents must be met. 3here must be
proof of authentication. Co#e!er this applies
only #hen the #riting is a pri!ate document.
2 (fter authentication, the proponent has to
comply #ith the rule that if the original
#riting is not in an official language (.nglish
or @ilipino, it is his duty to gi!e to the court
a translation thereof. 6 8f there is an
alteration, he must e"plain such alteration.
Ce may sho# that the alteration #as made?
a by another,
b #ithout his concurrence, or
c made #ith the consent of the parties
hlp2009 Page 9 8/24/20119
affected by it, or
d #as other#ise properly or innocent
made, or
e 3he alteration did not change the
meaning or language of the instrument.
RIVA$E DOCUMEN$S% 9o/ roven N
Rule 162, Sec. 2F
&efore any pri!ate document offered as
authentic is recei!ed in e!idence, its due
e"ecution and authenticity must be pro!ed
either? (1 by anyone #ho say the document
e"ecuted or #rittenE or (2 by e!idence of
the genuineness of the signature or
hand#riting of the ma5er. (ny other pri!ate
document need only be identified as that
#hich it is claimed to be.
2 (ncient Document Rule N Rule 162, Sec.
21 (/ot Re0uired to (uthenticate
Re0uisites? (1 3he pri!ate document is
more than 6F years oldE (2 8t is produced
from a custody in #hich it #ould naturally be
found if genuineE (6 8t is unblemished by
any alterations or circumstances of
suspicion.
8f all re0uisites ha!e been met, no other
e!idence of its authenticity is re0uired.
2 9o/ 3enuineness o, 9and/ritin! is
roven N Rule 162, Sec. 22
8t may be pro!ed by any #itness #ho
belie!es it to be the hand#riting of such
person because he has seen the person
#rite, or has seen #riting purporting to be
his upon #hich the #itness has acted or
been charged, and has thus ac0uired
5no#ledge of the hand#riting of such
person.
.!idence respecting the hand#riting may
also be gi!en by a comparison made by the
#itness or the court, #ith #ritings admitted
or treated as genuine by the party against
#hom the e!idence is offered, or pro!ed to
be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
Not muc' /ei!'t is !iven to 'and/ritin!
e#4erts. 4nless, therefore, there is, in a
gi!en case, absolute absence, or manifest
dearth, or direct or circumstantial competent
e!idence of the character of a 0uestioned
hand#riting, much #eight should not be
gi!en to characteristic similarities, or
dissimilarities, bet#een the 0uestioned
hand#riting and an authentic one.
(%un<alan !. -ommission on .lections, '.R.
/o. 16276A prom. (pril 2=, 1JJ8 citing
Goren<o !. Dia<, A6 1.'. 711F27111, cited
in @rancisco on .!idence, 9ol. 988, %art 8,
1JJ= .dition, p. D=7
$uestions in!ol!ing the mere
similarity or dissimilarity of hand#ritings
could be determined by the court itself as
authori<ed under Sec. 22, Rule 162 of the
Rules of -ourt by ma5ing a comparison of
the disputed hand#riting K#ith #ritings
admitted or treated as genuine by the party
against #hom the e!idence is offered, or
pro!ed to be genuine to the satisfaction of
the judge.K (%un<alan !. -ommission on
.lections, supra
2. 'econdary Evidence
Rule 16F, Secs. A28
2.1 8nstances #hen secondary e!idence
may be introduced?
2.1.1 #hen original document is una!ailable
(lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in
court 2
2 3he offeror, upon proof of (1 its e"ecution
or e"istence and (2 cause of its
una!ailability, #ithout bad faith on his part
may pro!e its contents by?
N ( copy
N ( recital of its contents in some authentic
document
N 3he testimony of #itnesses.
3he order stated must be follo#ed.
2.1.2 *hen original document is in ad!erse
partyHs custody or
control.
2 8f after reasonable notice is gi!en to the
ad!erse party to produce the document and
after satisfactory proof of the e"istence of
the document is made, he fails to produce
the document, secondary e!idence may be
presented.
2.1.6 #hen original document is a public
record.
2 8ts contents may be pro!ed by a certified
copy issued by the public officer in custody
thereof.
2.2 ( party #ho calls for the production of a
document and inspects it is not obliged to
offer it as e!idence.
The voluminous character of the
document must be established before
evidence other than the original may be
introduced. 4ompania %aritima vs. #llied
+ree &or*ers, .:FF5
In the case where the original is in
the custody of the adverse party, it is not
necessary that it be in the actual possession
of the adverse party. It is enough that the
circumstances show that the writing is in his
possession or under his control. $econdary
evidence is admissible where the adverse
party denies having it in his possession.
4!illa Rey Transit vs. +errer, .:@?5
#ll duplicates or counterparts must
be accounted for before using copies as
hlp2009 Page 10 8/24/201110
evidence. 41e !era vs. #guilar, .:?65
6. /arol Evidence "ule
Rule 16F, Sec. J
Nature o, 4arol evidence rule2 8t is not a
rule of e!idence but of
substanti!e la#.
8t is part of the la# of contracts, the la# of
negotiable instruments, and the la# of #ills.
8t is
founded upon the substanti!e rights of the
parties. 8t #as made part
of the rules of e!idence in
order
that it may be considered in all its phases in
one place.
Reasons ,or t'e 4arol evidence rule2
1 *hen the parties ha!e reduced their
agreement in #riting,
2 it is presumed that
they ha!e made the
#riting
6 the only repository and memorial of
the truth, and
7 #hate!er is not found in the #riting
must be understood to
ha!e been #ai!ed or
abandoned.
'eneral Rule? *hen the terms of an
('R..)./3 (including *8GGS ha!e been
reduced to *R838/', it is considered as
containing (GG the terms agreed upon and
there can be, bet#een the parties and their
successors in interest, /1 e!idence
(testimonial or documentary of such terms
other than the contents of the #ritten
agreement.
."ceptions: ( party may present e!idence
to
a. )odify,
b. ."plain or
c. (dd to
the terms of #ritten agreement if he
puts in issue in his pleading?
(a (n intrinsic ambiguity, mista5e or
imperfection in the #ritten agreementE
(b 3he failure of the #ritten
agreement to e"press the true intent
and agreement of the parties theretoE
(c 3he !alidity of the #ritten
agreementE or
(d 3he e"istence of other terms
agreed to by the parties or their
successors in interest after the
e"ecution of the #ritten agreement.
8GG4S3R(381/? 3he !endee can
!alidly tell the court that the deed of
sale is not really one of sale but one
or mortgage as long as he puts in
issue in the pleadings, any of the
matters enumerated abo!e. >/.&.
(rt. 1DF2, /-- presumes that a
deed of sale is an e0uitable
mortgage #hen? 1M price of sale #ith
right to purchase is unusually
inade0uateE 2 9endor remains in
possession as lessee or other#iseE
6 *hen another instrument
e"tending period of redemption is
e"ecutedE 7 *hen purchaser retains
for himself a part of purchase priceE
A 9endor assumes ta"E D 1ther
circumstancesM
8GG4S3R(381/? 3here is a sale of a
piece of land in fa!or of ,uan dela
-ru<. 8f you read the document there
is really nothing #rong because
there is a !endor, there is a !endee
and there is an object and
consideration. &ut it turns out that
there are t#o persons #ho carry the
name ,uan de la -ru<. That
document is intrinsically
ambiguous because we do not *now
who the vendee in that sale. 3he
defect can be remedied by the
introduction of testimonial e!idence
or other documentary e!idence to
sho# to the court #ho is the ,uan
dela -ru< mentioned in the deed of
sale as the !endee.
&ut if in that deed of sale
#here ,uan dela -ru< is the !endee,
and there is only one ,uan dela
-ru<, but the property sold is simply
a piece of land. 3here is an
ambiguity #hat particular land is sold
as there is no description. 3he
ambiguity is e#trinsic. 8t arises from
the face of the document itself. Cere
#e cannot introduce e!idence
aliunde. 3he contract is !oid, #hich
under the Rules cannot allo# be
corrected and con!erted into a !alid
contract.
4S cases and some
%hilippine cases
recogni<ed intermediate
am&i!uity, and e!idence
aliunde may be admitted
by the court to e"plain or
add to its meaning. 3his
arises by the use of
e0ui!ocal #ord+s #hich is
susceptible of more than
one interpretation.
E)ample: 1efendant sold
to plaintiff a distilling
apparatus of guaranteed
hlp2009 Page 11 8/24/201111
capacity of @,333 liters
daily. 1efendant claimed
that the phrase referred
to =receiving> capacity.
'ere the word =capacity>
was susceptible of two
interpretations. $ held
that parol evidence is
admissible to show which
of the two interpretations
meant by the parties.
4,alanca v. +red &ilson
J o., 6F ,hil. ;3@5
What is the coverage of the parol
evidence rule and 4hat are the
exceptions to the parol evidence rule 5
a. Covered% 1nly prior and
contemporaneous agreements #hich are
deemed to ha!e been merged in the #riting
conformably to the Kintegration of the
agreement rule.K (*oodhouse !. Calili, J6
%hil. A2D
b. Not covered%
1 Subse0uent agreements,
not#ithstanding that such
agreements may ha!e the effect of
adding to, changing, modifying, or
e!en altogether abrogating the
contract of the parties as e!idenced
by the #riting.
2 -ollateral agreements
#hich although oral and
contemporaneous #ith the #riting
are separate and distinct
agreements. (%/& !. Seeto, J1 %hil.
=AD
6 8t also does not apply if the
issue re!ol!es around fraud and
false representation since they are
incidental to the e"ecution and not to
the integration. (*oodhouse !s.
Calili, 1JA6
7 8t does not apply either
#hen third parties are in!ol!ed.
(Gechugas !s. -(, 1J8D

/13.S?
a. Contem4oraneous a!reement% (
contemporaneous agreement is one entered
into at the same time as the agreement
#hich has been reduced to #riting.
b. $ests to determine /'et'er a
contem4oraneous oral a!reement is
se4arate and distinct ,rom t'e /ritten
a!reement and t'ere,ore 4rova&le &y
4arol evidence2
1 3he first test is the subject2matter
of the t#o agreements. 8f the
subject2matter of the #ritten
agreement is di,,erent from that of
the contemporaneous oral
agreement, then the latter is a
separate and distinct agreement
and, therefore, pro!able by parol
e!idence.
2 8f the t#o agreements refer to the
same subject2matter, the test is to
determine #hether or not the
contemporaneous oral agreement is
se4ara&le, then the
contemporaneous oral agreement is
separate and distinct and, therefore,
probable by parol e!idence. (Gese !.
Gamprecht, 1JD /.:. 62
c. E#am4le o, a!reement /'ic' CANNO$
&e 4roven &y 4arol evidence ? ."press
trusts concerning real property cannot be
pro!en by parol e!idence because title and
possession cannot be defeated by oral
e!idence #hich can easily be fabricated and
contradicted. (Sinaon, et al., !. Sorongon,
et al., 16D S-R( 71F
d. E#am4les o, collateral a!reements
/'ic' CAN &e 4roved &y 4arol evidence2
1 (n agreement of recon!eyance is
a distinct agreement, separate from
the sale itself, although the t#o
agreements are usually contained in
one and the same document.
(Gaureano !. Qilayco, 67 %hil. 178E
:acapin !. /eri, 7F %hil. D1
2 8nducements and representations
#hich led to the e"ecution of an
agreement may be pro!en by parol
e!idence because they do not !ary
the terms of the agreement.
(*oodhouse !. Calili, J6 %hil. A2DE
&ough !. -anti!eros, 7F %hil. 2FJ
6 %arol e!idence is admissible to
pro!e an independent and collateral
agreement #hich constitutes an
inducement to the ma5ing of the sale
or part of the consideration thereof.
(Robles !. Gi<arraga Cnos., AF %hil.
68=
7 ( condition precedent not
stipulated in #riting is pro!able by
oral e!idence. R.(S1/? &efore the
happening of the condition, there is
no #ritten agreement yet to #hich
the parol e!idence may apply.
A 9erbal assurances gi!en by the
indorser of an out2of2to#n chec5 to
the employees of the ban5 #here it
#as presented for encashment that
he #ould refund the amount if the
chec5 should be dishonored by the
dra#ee ban5 is a collateral
hlp2009 Page 12 8/24/201112
agreement separate and distinct
from the indorsement, by !irtue of
#hich the first ban5 #as induced to
cash the same, and therefore,
pro!able by parol e!idence. (%/& !.
Seeto, J1 %hil. =AD
D (ny prior or contemporaneous
con!ersaion in connection #ith a
note or its indorsement may be
pro!ed by parol e!idence. (%/& !.
Seeto, J1 %hil. =ADE %hilips !.
%reston, A Co#. >4.S.M 2=8
= (n e"trinsic agreement bet#een
indorser and indorsee #hich cannot
be embodied in the instrument
#ithout impairing its credit may be
pro!ed by parol e!idence. (%/& !.
Seeto, J1 %hil. =ADE J *igmore 178
8. 3he fact that parties #ho appear
to ha!e signed as principals did so
as merely sureties is pro!able by
parol e!idence. (3an )achan !. De
la 3rinidad, 6 %hil. D87
2A6'A -EM7'8"A8I7 7
7CE8
- =+alse description will not invalidate
an instrument>
- The erroneous description will be
considered as a surplusage.
I""0$TR#TI/N: 8n a deed of sale of
a parcel of land co!ered by? 3-3
1267A, located in -ity of )untinlupa.
3here is really a land co!ered by
3-3 1267A #ith same technical
description ho#e!er it is not located
in )untinlupa, but in Gaguna. The
erroneous description will not
invalidate the contract.
Best evidence rule distin!uis'ed ,rom
4arol evidence rule2
1 4nder the best e!idence rule, the issue
is contents of a #riting (Sec. 6, Rule 16F,
R1- *C8G. under the parol e!idence rule,
there is no issue as to contents of a #riting
(Sec. J, Rule 16F, R1-E
2 4nder the best e!idence rule, secondary
e!idence is offered to pro!e the contents of
a #riting, #hich is not allo#ed unless the
case falls under any of the e"ceptions (Sec.
6, Rule 16F, R1- *C8G. under the parol
e!idence rule, the purpose of the offer of
parol e!idence is to change, !ary, modify,
0ualify, or contradict the terms of a complete
#ritten agreement, #hich is not allo#ed
unless the case falls under any of the
e"ceptions. (Sec. J, Rule 16F, R1-
1nly the parties and their successors in
interest, and not strangers may in!o5e the
protection of the parol e!idence rule. (Sec.
J, Rule 16F, R1-
AROLE EVIDENCE DIS$IN3UIS9ED
FROM S$A$U$E OF FRAUDS
3he Statute of @rauds re0uires that certain
agreements be pro!ed by #riting or by some
note or memorandum thereof in order to be
enforceable. 1n the other hand, the %arole
.!idence Rule has nothing to do #ith the
manner of pro!ing agreements. 8ts object is
to prohibit alteration, change, modification,
!ariation or contradiction of the terms of a
#ritten agreement by Pparol e!idenceR.
7. Inter4retation o,
Documents : Rule (;<=
Secs% (<"()
S.-. 1F. Interpretation of a writing
according to its legal meaning. S3he
language of a #riting is to be interpreted
according to the legal meaning it bears in
the place of its e"ecution, unless the parties
intended other#ise.
S.-. 11. Instrument construed so as to give
effect to all provisions. S8n the construction
of an instrument #here there are se!eral
pro!isions or particulars, such a construction
is, if possible, to be adopted as #ill gi!e
effect to all.
S.-. 12. Interpretation according to
intentionC general and particular provisions.
S8n the construction of an instrument, the
intention of the parties is to be pursuedE and
#hen a general and a particular pro!ision
are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to
the former. So a particular intent #ill control
a general one that is inconsistent #ith it.
S.-. 16. Interpretation according to
circumstances. S@or the proper
construction of an instrument, the
circumstances under #hich it #as made,
including the situation of the subject thereof
and of the parties to it, may be sho#n, so
that the judge may be placed in the position
of those #hose language he is to interpret.
S.-. 17. ,eculiar signification of terms. S
3he terms of a #riting are presumed to ha!e
been used in their primary and general
acceptation, but e!idence is admissible to
sho# that they ha!e a local, technical, or
other#ise peculiar signification, and #ere so
used and understood, in the particular
instance, in #hich case the agreement must
be construed accordingly.
S.-. 1A. &ritten words control printed. S
*hen an instrument consists partly of
#ritten #ords and partly of a printed form,
hlp2009 Page 13 8/24/201113
and the t#o are inconsistent, the former
controls the latter.
S.-. 1D. E)perts and interpreters to be
used in e)plaining certain writings. S*hen
the characters in #hich an instrument is
#ritten are difficult to be deciphered, or the
language is not understood by the court, the
e!idence of persons s5illed in deciphering
the characters, or #ho understand the
language, is admissible to declare the
characters or the meaning of the language.
S.-. 1=. /f two constructions, which
preferred. S*hen the terms of an
agreement ha!e been intended in a different
sense by the different parties to it, that
sense is to pre!ail against either party in
#hich he supposed the other understood it,
and #hen different constructions of a
pro!ision are other#ise e0ually proper, that
is to be ta5en #hich is the most fa!orable to
the party in #hose fa!or the pro!ision is
made.
S.-. 18. onstruction in favor of natural
right. S*hen an instrument is e0ually
susceptible of t#o interpretations, one in
fa!or of natural right and the other against it,
the former is to be adopted.
S.-. 1J. Interpretation according to usage.
S(n instrument may be construed
according to usage, in order to determine its
true character.
C. $estimonial Evidence
>uali,ications o, 0itnesses : Rule (;<=
Sec% ?<
2 -an percei!e, and percei!ing, can ma5e
their 5no#n perception to others.
3R2 ( disinterested person could be
compelled to gi!e his testimony through
subpoena
E#ce4tions2 ,ersons who are immune from
the process of subpoena by tradition,
convention or law:
a. (mbassadors of foreign
countries by !irtue of treaty
obligations
b. %resident of the %hilippines
or other country
-is9ualifications :
a. )ental incapacity or immaturity (Sec. 21,
Rule 16F, R1-E
b. )arriage (Sec. 22, 8bidE
c. Death or insanity of ad!erse party (Sec.
26, 8bid.
d. %ri!ileged communication (Sec. 27, 8bid.
>(pplies to Rules on
.lectronic .!idenceM
1 )arital pri!ileged
communication rule (Sec.
27 >aM, 8bid.E
2 Ga#yer2client
pri!ileged communication
rule (Sec. 27 >bM, 8bid.E
6 Doctor2patient
pri!ileged communication
rule (Sec. 27 >cM, 8bid.2
(/+( in criminal cases
7 %riest2penitent
pri!ileged communication
rule (Sec. 27 >dM, 8bid.E
and
A %ublic officer
pri!ileged communication
rule (Sec. 27 >eM, 8bid..
e. %arental and filial testimonial pri!ilege
rule (Sec. 2A, Rule 16F,
R1-
/ote? -on!iction of a crime does not
dis0ualify a person from testifying but
may dis0ualify him from being
discharged as a state #itness. (Sec. J
>eM, Rule 11J, R1-
/ote? 3his is not an e"clusi!e
enumeration of the Rules on pri!ilege
communication. 1ther e"amples are?
a. 4nder Rules on (lternati!e
dispute Resolution, information or
communication gi!en by parties #ho
participate in (DR is confidential
b. 8nformation deri!ed by
editors, reporters and publishers
c. 3he negotiations under the
*itness %rotection %rogram ((ccused
discharged as state #itness
(. &y reason of mental incapacity or
immaturity Rule 6F, Sec. 21
2 3hose #hose mental condition, at the time
of their production for e"amination, is such
that they are incapable of intelligently
ma5ing 5no#n their perception to othersE
2 -hildren #hose mental maturity is such as
to render them incapable of percei!ing the
facts respecting #hich they are e"amined
and of relating them truthfully.
# mental retardate is not for this
reason alone dis7ualified from being a
witness. 4,eople vs. $alomon, .::65
Re7uisites of competency of a child
as witness: capacity of observationC
capacity of recollectionC and capacity of
communication. 4,eople vs. %endoBa,
.::@5
&. )arital Dis0ualification Rule
16F, Sec. 22
8eneral Rule: During their marriage, neither
the husband nor the #ife may testify for or
against the other #ithout the consent of the
affected spouse.
E)ceptions:
hlp2009 Page 14 8/24/201114
2 8n a ci!il case by
one against the
other or,
2 8n a criminal case for a crime committed
by one against the other or the latterLs direct
descendants or ascendants.
The right to invo*e this dis7ualification
belongs to the spouse(party (1rti< !.
(rambulo, 8 %hil. J8 against or for #hom
the testimony is being proferred. 8t may be
#ai!ed
1 &y a failure to interpose timely objection,
or
2 &y calling the other spouse as #itness
(8bid., %eople !. @rancisco, =8 %hil. DJ7
The privilege could be invo*ed even if the
spouse is testifying in favor of the spouse(
party because damaging testimony may be
elicited during the cross(e)amination.
DIFFERENCE B@0 RIVILE3E AND
MARI$AL DIS>UALIFICA$ION
a. %ri!ilege is applicable regardless of
#hether the spouses are parties or not
2 )arital dis0ualification is applicable only
#hen one or both spouses are parties
b. 3he pri!ilege applies to testimonies on
confidential communication only
2)arital dis0ualification applies to testimony
on any fact
c. )arital dis0ualification ceases after
dissolution of marriage
2%ri!ileged communication lasts e!en after
the death of either spouse
d. .!en if the communication is not
confidential, the marital dis0ualification may
still be in!o5ed
e. )arital dis0ualification is more concerned
#ith the conse0uences. 8f the rule is not
there, perjury and domestic disunity may
result.
2 %ri!ilege protects the hallo#ed
confidences inherent in marriage b+#
husband and #ife and therefore guarantees
the preser!ation of the marriage and further
the relationship bet#een the spouses as it
encourages the disclosure of confidential
matters #ithout fear of re!elation.
AMarryin! t'e 0itnessB
(n accused can effecti!ely Pseal the lipsR of
a #itness by marrying the #itness. (s long
as a !alid marriage is in e"istence at the
time of the trial, the #itness2spouse cannot
be compelled to testifySe!en #here the
crime charged is against the #itnessH
person, and e!en though the marriage #as
entered into for the e"press purpose of
suppressing the testimony. ()arriage for
con!enience
-(S.? ( filed a complaint against
husband and #ife for annulment of a
contract by reason of fraud. (C;* both
defendants. ( subpoenaed the #ife to be
his hostile #itness #hich is allo#ed in ci!il
cases. *hen the #ife recei!ed the
subpoena, the husband filed a motion in
court for the 0uashing of the subpoeana, on
the ground that there is a !iolation of the
rule on marital dis0ualification+spousal
immunity. ( told the court that this is not a
case #here the #ife #ill be gi!ing testimony
as an ad!erse #itness in fa!or of the
plaintiff. So the rule on spousal immunity
does not apply. Rulin! o, t'e Court2
Spousal immunity applies. 8f the #ife #as
allo#ed to testify as an ad!erse #itness for
the plaintiff, she might gi!e testimony that he
#ill harm her interest and that of her
husband. So that there #ill be a !iolation of
the spousal immunity.
( conceded. ( told the court no# that if he
cannot compel the #ife to be an ad!erse
#itness, then he should be allo#ed to get
the deposition of the #ife, because under
the Rules of -ourt #hen the deposition of a
person is ta5en, it does not necessarily
mean that the deponent #ill be used as a
#itness in court, since it is only a mode of
disco!ery. Rulin! o, t'e Court2 .!en if the
purpose is just to get the deposition of the
#ife the rule on spousal immunity applies.
-(S.? ( son filed a complaint against his
o#n father for reco!ery of property or some
assets. 3he son as5ed her mother to testify
in his fa!or. S- held that there #ill be a
!iolation of the spousal immunity rule.
Note2 (s long as there is a case
INVOLVIN3 the husband OR #ife, the
dis0ualification is absolute.
-. Dead )anHs Statute Rule
16F, Sec. 26
2 Sometime called the
PSur!i!orHs dis0ualification
ruleR
%arties or assignor of parties to a case, or
persons in #hose behalf a case is
prosecuted, against
2 (n e"ecutor or
2 (dministrator or
2 1ther representati!e
hlp2009 Page 15 8/24/201115
of a deceased person, or against a person
of unsound mind,
upon a claim or demand against the estate
of such deceased person or against such
person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to
any matter of fact occurring &.@1R. the
death of such deceased person or before
such person became of unsound mind.
E#ce4tions to t'e survivorBs
disCuali,ication rule2
1 1rdinary #itnesses, #ho are not the
plaintiff, assignor of plaintiff, or person in
#hose behalf the case is prosecuted may
testify. (@rancia !. Cipolito, J6 %hil. JD8
2 *hen the plaintiff is a corporation, the
officers or stoc5holders thereof are not
dis0ualified. (Gichauco !. (tlantic 'ulf, et c.,
87 %hil. 66F
6 *hen there is an imputation of fraud
against the deceased, the plaintiff is not
barred from testifying to such fraud. ('o -hi
'un !. -o -ho, JD %hil. D22
7 *hen the plaintiff is the e"ecutor,
administrator or legal representati!e of the
deceased, or the person of unsound mind,
the defendant or defendants are free to
testify against the plaintiff. (3ongco !.
9ian<on, AF %hil. DJ8
A *hen the defendant or defendants,
though heirs of the deceased, are sued in
their personal and indi!idual capacities, the
plaintiff may testify against them. ('o -hi
'un !. -o -ho, JD %hil. D22
D *hen the sur!i!orLs testimony refers to a
negati!e fact. ()ende<ona !. !da. de
'oitia, A7 %hil. AA=
= *hen the sur!i!orLs testimony is
fa!orable to the deceased. (8card !.
)arasigan, =1 %hil. 71J
8 3he ad!erse party is competent to testify
to transactions or communications #ith the
deceased or incompetent person #hich
#ere made #ith an agent of such person in
cases in #hich the agent is still ali!e and
competent to testify. &ut the testimony of
the ad!erse party must be confined o those
transactions or communications #hich #ere
had #ith the agent. ('oni, et al., !. -ourt of
(ppeals, et al., 177 S-R( 261
9o/ 4rotection o, t'e dead manBs statute
is /aived2
1 &y not objecting to plaintiffLs testimony
on prohibited matters.
()arella !. Reyes, 12 %hil. 1
2 &y cross2e"amining the plaintiff on
prohibited matters. (3ongco !.
9ian<on, AF %hil. DJ8
6 &y calling #itnesses to testify on
prohibited matters. ((rroyo !.
(<ur, =D %hil. 7J6
7 *hen the plaintiffLs deposition is ta5en
by the representati!e of the estate or #hen
counsel for the representati!e cross2
e"amined the plaintiff as to matters
occurring during the deceasedLs lifetime.
('oni, et al., !. -ourt of (ppeals, et al., 177
S-R( 261
-(S.? )r. D approaches )r. - to borro#
%1FF,FFF to be paid ne"t year. )r. - gi!es
)r. D the amount. )r. - did not re0uire )r.
D to e"ecute a promissory note. ( day
before the agreed date of payment, )r. D
died. )r. - #ent to the e"ecutor of the
estate of )r. D and claims the payment of
the debt.
8n this case, )r. - is incompetent to
testify as to the transaction he had #ith )r.
D.
D. %ri!ileged -ommunication
1. )arital %ri!ilege Rule 16F, Sec. 27 (a
Cusband or the #ife, during or after the
marriage, cannot be e"amined #ithout the
consent of the other as to any
communication recei!ed in confidence by
one from the other during the marriage
2 .I-.%3?
N 8n a ci!il case by one against the other, or
N 8n a criminal case for a crime committed
by one against the other or the latterLs direct
descendants or ascendantsE
-(S.? 8f the communication is made in front
of the children of the husband and #ife. -an
the pri!ilege be in!o5edT :.S, if the
children are still minors.
/ote? 3he assumption is any communication
gi!en by one spouse to the other is
presumably confidential because there is no
standard gi!en in the Rules.
(pplications of the marital pri!ileged
communciation rule?
1 .!ery communication bet#een spouses
is presumed to be confidential. (Se"ton !.
Se"ton, 12J 8a. 78=E *igmore, Sec. 266D
2 -ommunications made in the presence
of third parties are not confidential, unless
the third person may be considered as an
agent of the spouses. (@loyd !. )iller, D1
8nd. 227
6 -ommunications o!erheard by third
persons remain confidential as bet#een the
spouses, but the third person #ho
o!erheard may be called upon to testify.
(%eople !. -arlos, 7= %hil. D2D
7 -ommunications coming into the hands
of third persons, #hether legally or illegally,
remain confidential as bet#een the spouses,
but the third person may be called upon to
hlp2009 Page 16 8/24/201116
testify. (%eople, and Cammons, supra
&ut if the third person ac0uired 5no#ledge
of the communication by collusion and
!oluntary disclosure on the part of either of
the spouses, he thereby becomes an agent
of such spouses so that the pri!ilege is
claimable against him. (8bid.
A -ommunications intended for
transmission to third persons are not
confidential. (4.S. !. (ntipolo, 6= %hil. =2D
0aiver o, t'e marital 4rivile!ed
communication rule2 3he pri!ilege is
claimable by the spouse not called as
#itness, so that it its #ai!able only by him or
herE and it is #ai!able by any act of such
spouse #hich might be considered as an
e"press or implied consent to the disclosure
of the communication. (%eople !. Cayes,
17F /.:. 787
2. (ttorney2-lient %ri!ilege Rule 6F, Sec.
27 (b
(n attorney cannot, #ithout the consent of
his client, be e"amined as to
2 (ny communication made by the client to
him, or
2 Cis ad!ice gi!en thereon in the course of,
or #ith a !ie# to, professional employment,
nor can an attorneyLs secretary,
stenographer, or cler5 be e"amined, #ithout
the consent of the client and his employer,
concerning any fact the 5no#ledge of #hich
has been ac0uired in such capacityE
2 %ri!ilege is o#ned by the client. 8t is he
#ho can in!o5e the pri!ilege. 8f the client
#ai!es the pri!ilege, no one else including
the attorney can in!o5e it. 'ence it the client
is as*ed on cross(e)amination of his
communications to his lawyer and reveals
the same there would be a waiver. There is
also a waiver if the client does not object to
the attorneyDs testimony.
The attorney(client privilege may not
be invo*ed to refuse to divulge the identity
of the client, EGE,T: 4.5 &hen a strong
probability e)ists that revealing the name
would implicate that person in the very
same activity for which he sought the
lawyerDs adviceC 425 &hen disclosure would
open the client to liabilityC 465 &hen the
name would furnish the only lin* that would
form the chain of testimony necessary to
convict. 4Regala vs. $andiganbayan, .::@5
LAS$ LIND DOC$RINE2 /on2
pri!ileged information, such as identity of the
client is protected if the re!elation of such
information #ould necessarily re!eal the
pri!ileged information.
- It is enough that the client
reasonably believed that the person
consulted is a lawyer.
- ommunications may refer to
anticipated litigations or may not
refer to any litigation at all.
- ,rivilege does not e)tend to
communications where the clientDs
purpose is the furtherance of a
future intended crime or fraud
6. %hysician2%atient %ri!ilege Rule 6F,
Sec. 27 (c
( person authori<ed to practice medicine,
surgery or obstetrics cannot in a -898G
-(S., #ithout the consent of the patient, be
e"amined as to
2 (ny ad!ice or treatment gi!en by him or
2 (ny information #hich he may ha!e
ac0uired in attending such patient in a
professional capacity, #hich information #as
necessary to enable him to act in capacity,
and #hich #ould blac5en the reputation of
the patientE
2 3his pri!ilege belongs to the patient, so
that it is only he that can claim or #ai!e it. 8t
is #ai!able e"pressly or impliedly. 8t is
impliedly #ai!ed li5e any other pri!ilege rule.
(%enn. )utual Gife 8ns. -o. !. *iler, 1FF 8nd.
J2
2 3he #ai!er may be by a contract as in
medical or life insurance
2 *hen the patient ans#ers 0uestions on
cross e"amination, there is #ai!er
2 4nder Rule 28 R1-, the court may order a
party to submit to a physical or mental
e"amination, so long as the mental or
physical condition is in dispute. 3he party
e"amined may re0uest a report of the
e"amination. &y doing so, he #ai!es any
pri!ilege he may ha!e in that action
regarding the testimony of e!ery other
person #ho has e"amined him in respect of
the same e"amination.
This privilege does not apply when
the doctor is presented as an e)pert witness
and only hypothetical problems were
presented to him. 4"im vs. #, .::25
7. %riest2 %enitent %ri!ilege Rule 6F, Sec.
27 (d
( minister or priest cannot, #ithout the
consent of the person ma5ing the
confession, be e"amined as to
2 (ny confession made to or
2 (ny ad!ice gi!en by him in his professional
character in the course of discipline enjoined
by the church to #hich the minister or priest
belongs
hlp2009 Page 17 8/24/201117
A. %ublic 1fficer %ri!ilege Rule 6F, Sec. 27
(e
( public officer cannot be e"amined during
his term of office or after#ards, as to
communications made to him in official
confidence, #hen the court finds that the
public interest #ould suffer by the
disclosure.
D. %arental and @ilial %ri!ilege Rule 16F,
Sec. 2A
( person cannot be compelled to testify
against his parents, other direct ascendants,
children or other direct descendants.
/.&. 3here is an inconsistency bet#een the
R1- and @amily -ode #ith respect to this
pri!ilege. R1- pre!ails since it too5 effect in
1J8J and is made by the S-. *hile the
@amily -ode too5 effect in 1J8J, and though
substanti!e is procedural in character.
0'o are not covered and may &e
com4elled to testi,y2
1 Relati!es by affinity.
2 &rothers and sisters.
6 (unts, uncles, nephe#s, nieces.
7 -ousins of #hate!er degree.
A 1ther collateral relati!es.
/ote? %arental and filial testimony
dies not prohibit !oluntary testimony or
compelled testimony against relati!es by
affinity or collateral relati!es.
/ote? 8t is belie!ed that adopted and
adopter are co!ered by the parental and
filial testimonial pri!ilege rule but only
insofar as the parent and child is concerned.
8t does not e"tend to the direct ascendants
of the adopter because the adopti!e relation
is bet#een the adopter and the adopted
only. 3he reason for this opinion is the
rationale behind the pri!ilege, #hich is to
preser!e harmonious relations bet#een
parent and child #hich could be ruptured
through testifying in court. @urthermore,
perjury may result because the parent or the
child may gi!e false testimony to protect the
other.
Admissions and Con,essions
Admissions Rule 16F, Sec. 2D
2 (ny act, declaration or omission of a party
as to a rele!ant fact may be gi!en in
e!idence against him.
$uch admission may be received in
evidence not only against the party who
made it or his successors(in(interest but
also against third persons. 4!iacrucis vs.
#, .:?@5
The silence of an accused under
custody or his failure to deny statements by
another implicating him in a crime cannot be
considered as a tacit confession of his
participation in the commission of the crime.
4,eople vs. #legre, .:F:5
'elf(serving evidence
(n admission fa!orable to the party ma5ing
it. (Gichauco !. (tlantic 'ulf ; %acific -o.,
87 %hil. 672
a. Sel,"servin! or ,avora&le admissions
made out o, court not admissi&le2
REASONS?
1 ( man may be safely belie!ed if
he declares against his o#n interest,
but not if he ad!ocates his interest.
(Gichauco !. (tlantic 'ulf ; %acific
-o., 87 %hil. 672
2 8t is e"cluded on the same ground
as any hearsay e!idence, that, the
lac5 of opportunity for cross2
e"amination by the ad!erse party.
(/ational De!elopment -o., !.
*or5menLs -ompensation
-ommission, 1J S-R( 8DA
b. 0'en sel,"servin! or ,avora&le
admissions are admissi&le?
1 8f made in open court
2 gi!ing full opportunity to the
ad!erse party
6 to e"ercise his right of cross2
e"amination.
Rule (?) Sec% E vs% Rule (;< Sec% ?F
@irst is a ,4D8-8(G (D)8SS81/, #hich is
conclusi!e upon the admitter #hether in
#riting or oral. 3his applies to ci!il, criminal
cases and e!en special proceedings.
Second is an .I3R(,4D8-8(G
(D)8SS81/. 4nder this rule, the admission
is admissible only if it is against the interest
of the admitter. (other#ise it is a self2ser!ing
statement
E)ample: +light is considered a
disserving act, since it is prejudicial to the
interest of the accused. +light is considered
as circumstantial evidence of the guilt of the
accused. 3:8 non(flight cannot be used as
evidence to prove his innocence, because
that will be considered as an act that is
favorable to the interest of the accused.
E#tra"1udicial Con,ession vs% Admission
( confession, as distinguished from
admission, is a declaration made at any time
by a person, !oluntarily and #ithout
compulsion or inducement, stating or
ac5no#ledging that he had committed or
participated in the commission of a crime.
3he term, admission, on the other hand, is
usually applied in criminal cases to
hlp2009 Page 18 8/24/201118
statements of fact by the accused #hich do
not directly in!ol!e an ac5no#ledgment of
the guilt of the accused or of criminal intent
to commit the offense #ith #hich he is
charged. (4.S. !. -orrales, 28 %hil. 6DA
Admission by silence.
a. (n act or declaration made
1 in the presence and
2 #ithin the hearing or
6 obser!ation
b. of a party #ho does or says nothing
c. #hen the act or declaration
1 is such as naturally to call for
action or comment if not true, and
2 #hen proper and possible for him
to do so,
d. may be gi!en in e!idence against him.
(Sec. 62, Rule 16F, R1- arrangement and
numbering supplied
E#ce4tions to t'e rule on admission &y
silence or instances /'ere t'ere is no
admission &y silence ?
1 *here no good reason e"ists for the
party to comment on the act or declaration
(9eil !. Strong, 1F 9t. 7AA, as #hen the act
or declaration #as not specifically directed
to the party #ho remained silent. (8F
(.G.R., (nno., 12=2
2 *hen the party had no opportunity to
comment on the act or declaration. (%eople
!. Ranario, 7J %hil. 22F
6 *here the act or declaration #as made
in the course of an official in!estigation.
(%eople !. 3ia @ong, J8 %hil. DFJ
7 *hen silence is upon ad!ice of counsel.
(%eople !. Qo<lo#s5i, 11A (.G.R. 1AFA
res inter alios acta alteri nocere non
de&et or res inter alios acta Rule
(@irst %art of Rule Statements made or
matters accomplished bet#een t#o parties
cannot prejudice a third party. (&lan<a !.
(rcangel, 21 S-R( 7
3he rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another, e"cept as hereinafter
pro!ided. (Sec. 28, Rule 16F, R1-
E#ce4tions to res inter alios acta2
1 *hen there is a rational similarity or
resemblance bet#een the conditions gi!ing
rise to he fact offered and the circumstances
surrounding the issue or fact to be pro!ed.
(-ru<, et al., !. -ourt of (ppeals, et al., '.R.
/o. 12D=16, prom. ,uly 2=, 1JJ8
2 8n actions based on fraud and deceit,
because it sheds light on the state of mind
or 5no#ledge of a personE it pro!ides insight
into such personLs moti!e or intentE it
unco!ers a scheme, design or planE or it
re!eals a mista5e. (-ru<, supra
6 (9icarious (dmissions2 3he rights of a
party may be prejudiced by the act,
declaration or omission of another #hen
bet#een the party ma5ing the admission
and against #hom it is offered there e"ists a
relation of?
a partnershipE
b agencyE
c joint interestE
d conspiracyE or
e pri!ity.
E#ce4tions to t'e rule t'at e#tra1udicial
statements o, an accused im4licatin! a
co"accused may not &e utiliGed a!ainst
t'e latter2
(1 the co2accused impliedly ac0uiesced in
or adopted the confession by not
0uestioning its truthfulnessE
(2 the accused persons !oluntarily and
independently e"ecuted identical
confessions #ithout collusion and #ithout
contradiction by the others presentE
(6 the accused admitted the facts after
being apprised of the confessionE
(7 if they are charged as co2conspirators of
the crime #hich #as confessed by 1 of the
accused and the confession is used only as
a corroborating e!idenceE
(A the confession is used as circumstantial
e!idence to sho# the probability of
participation by the co2conspiratorE
(D the confessant testified for his co2
defendantE
(= the co2conspiratorHs e"trajudicial
confession is corroborated by other
e!idence on record. (%eople !s. Ra0uel,
1JJD
Rule on admission &y co"4artner or
a!ent2
1 3he act or declaration of a partner or
2 agent #ithin the scope of his authority
and during the e"istence of the partnership
or agency,
6 may be gi!en in e!idence against such
party
7 after the partnership or agency
a is sho#n by e!idence
>(testimonial or documentary, #hich may be
2ndary e!idenceM
b other than such act or
declaration.
A 3he same rule applies to the act or
declaration of a joint o#ner, joint debtor, or
other person jointly interested #ith the party%
(Sec. 2J, Rule 16F, R1- arrangement and
numbering supplied
Rule on admission &y cons4irator2
hlp2009 Page 19 8/24/201119
1 3he act or declaration of a conspirator
2 relating to the conspiracy and during its
e"istence,
6 may be gi!en in e!idence against the co2
conspirator
7 after the conspiracy
a is sho#n by e!idence
(-ircumstantial .!idence2 cannot be pro!en
by documentary e!idence, since
conspirators do not normally reduce their
agreement in #riting
b other than such act or
declaration. (Sec. 6F, Rule 16F
U3his refers to e"trajudicial acts and
declarations of a conspirator and not to his
testimony as a #itness in the trial. (%eople
!. (tencio, G2222A18, ,an. 1=, 1JD8
Rule on Admission &y rivies : Rule (;<=
Sec% ;(
2 *here one deri!es title to property from
another, the act, declaration, or omission of
the latter, #hile holding the title, in relation to
the property, is e!idence against the former
."ample? I, father of O, #hile the
former #as ali!e, openly told his
ac0uaintances, that the land #here his
house stood had already been sold to :.
'ere, the declaration by G is not admissible
against I, the sole heir of E, because the
statement was made after G held title to the
land.
Second art o, Inter alios acta Rule
5Similar Acts as Evidence7
Rule 16F, Secs. 67
2 .!idence that one did or did not do a
certain thing at one time is not admissible to
pro!e that he did or did not do the same or
similar thing at another timeE but it may be
recei!ed to pro!e a specific intent or
5no#ledgeE identity, plan, system, scheme,
habit, custom or usage, and the li5e.
Con,essions Rule 16F, Sec. 166E Rule
11A (eE (rt. 888, Sec. 1=, 1J8=
-onstitution
2 Declaration of an accused ac5no#ledging
his guilt of the offense charged, or of any
offense necessarily included thereinE may be
gi!en in e!idence against him.
2 -onfession is e!idence of high order?
1 3here is no e!idence of a higher 0uality
than a confession, 8t represents the out#ard
manifestation of a man. 4nless, therefore,
the confession is nullified by e!idence of
duress, the same is admissible as an
e!idence of guilt of a high 0uality. (%eople
!. 'arcia, A7 %hil. 62J, 6A8
2 8f a confession be true and !oluntary,
the deliberate act of the accused #ith a full
comprehension of its significance, there is
no impediment to its admission as e!idence
and it then becomes e!idence of a high
order, since it is supported by the
presumption, a !ery strong one, that no
person of normal mind #ill deliberately and
5no#ingly confess himself to be the
perpetrator of a crime, especially if it be a
serious crime, unless prompted by truth and
conscience. (%eople !. Oea, et al., 16F
S-R( 8=, 88
/robative value of recantations0 3hey are
loo5ed upon #ith disfa!or as recantations
are usually secured through intimidation or
for a monetary consideration. ()olina !.
%eople, 2AJ S-R( 168

3eneral rule on admissi&ility o,
con,ession2 ( confession is admissible
only against the accused #ho made it and
not against his co2accused, for as against
the latter, the confession #ould be hearsay
and res inter alios acta. (%eople !. 3alledo,
8A %hil. A66
E#ce4tions2 #hen a confession is
admissible against co2accused?
1 *hen the confession of an accused
implicating his co2accused is made judicially
at a joint trial (4.S. !. )acamay, 6D %hil.
8J6 or #hen the e"trajudicial statements
implicating a co2accused are repeated in
open court (%eople !. 1la, '.R. /o. G2
7=17=, ,uly 6, 1J8=, because the co2
accused as a chance to cross2e"amine.
2 *hen the offer in e!idence of an
e"trajudicial confession against a co2
accused is not objected to. (%eople !.
(tien<a, 8D %hil. A=D
6 *hen the co2accused against #hom an
e"trajudicial confession is offered had, by
his acts, conducts and declarations adopted
he confession as his o#n. (%eople !.
(tien<a, supraE %eople !. 1rencia, 7= %hil.
J=F
7 *here se!eral accused, #ithout
collusion, made e"trajduicial confessions
#hich are identical in essential details and
corroborated by other e!idence, such
confession is admissible against the others.
(%eople !. %elonia, G217D27, ,uly 27, 1JDF
A 3he confession of a conspirator is
admissible against his co2conspirator
pro!ided it #as made during the e"istence
of the conspiracy. (Sec. 6F, Rule 16F, R1-E
%eople !. Ramire<, G2A8=A, )ay 1A, 1JA6
D *hen the recitals in the e"trajudicial
confession of an accused is corroborated in
its important details by other proofs in the
record, it may be admitted against the other
accused. (%eople !. 9illanue!a, G212D8=,
,uly 61, 1JD2
hlp2009 Page 20 8/24/201120
E#tra1udicial con,essions identical in
material res4ects 5also Hno/n as
interlocHin! con,essions7 admissible
against all declarants?
1 As circumstantial evidence%
."trajudicial confessions independently
made #ithout collusion and are identical
#ith each other in their material respects
and confirmatory of the other are admissible
as circumstantial e!idence against co2
accused implicated therein to sho# the
probability of the latterLs actual participation
in the commission of the crime. (%eople !.
.ncipido, et al., 17D S-R( 7J2
2 As corro&orative evidence% 3hey are
admissible as corroborati!e e!idence
against the other accused, if it is clear from
other facts and circumstances presented
that persons other than the declarants
themsel!es participated in the commission
of the crime charged and pro!ed. (8bid.
3hey are #hat is commonly 5no#n
as interloc5ing confession and constitute an
e"ception to the general rule that
e"trajudicial confessions+admissions are
admissible in e!idence only against the
declarants thereof. (8bid.
3he in!ocation of amnesty is in the
nature of a plea of confession and
a!oidance, #hich means that the pleader
admits the allegations against him, but
disclaims liability therefor on account of
inter!ening facts #hich, if pro!ed, #ould
bring the crime charged #ithin the scope of
the amnesty proclamation. (%eople !. Salig,
et al., 166 S-R( DJ citing 9era !. %eople, =
S-R( 1A6
0'at is meant &y cor4us delicti 8
a. 8t refers to a particular crime and
signifies that the specific offense had been
actually committed by someone, being
composed of t#o elements?
1 certain results #ere produced,
and
2 someone is criminally
responsible. (%eople !. )ar0ue<, == %hil.
86
b. 8t also means actual commission
of the crime charged. (%eople !. )adrid, 88
%hil. 1E %eople !. Sanche<, 8J %hil. 726, or
the specific fact of loss or injury. (%eople !.
'arcia, JJ %hil. 681

E#am4les o, cor4us delicti2
a. 8n murder or homicide, the corpus delicti
is the fact of death (%eople !. 'arcia, JJ
%hil. 681, #hich may be pro!ed e!en
circumstantially. (%eople !. Sasota, J1 %hil.
111E %eople !. )oro (nsang, J6 %hil. 77.
b. 8n robbery or theft, the fact of loss.
(%eople !. /iem, =A %hil. DD8
c. 8n arson, the fact of burning, (%eople !.
)ar0ue<, == %hil. 86E %eople !. )ones, A8
%hil. 7D
d. 8n an affray, the fact that pistol shots
#ere heard and a bystander #as 5illed by
one of the shots constitute e!idence of
corpus delicti, #hich is the !iolent death of a
person, #hether feloniously caused or not.
(%eople !. /ocum, == %hil. 1F18
-on!iction for murder proper e!en if !ictimHs
body is not produced? 8n all crimes against
persons in #hich the death of the !ictim is
an essential element of the offense, there
must be satisfactory e!idence of the fact of
death and the identity of the !ictim that a
crime has been committed #hich is #hat
corpus delicti really means.

3he failure of the prosecution to produce the
body of the !ictim does not imply the
absence of corpus delicti for the term does
not refer to the body of the murdered
person. (%eople !. -enteno, et al., 16F
S-R( 2FJ
" Sec% (+= Art III : No 4erson s'all &e
com4elled to &e a /itness a!ainst
'imsel,%
The operative act in determining
whether the right against self(incrimination
has been violated is when the police
investigation is no longer a general in7uiry
into an unsolved crime but has begun to
focus on a particular suspect who has been
ta*en into custody by the police to carry out
a process of interrogation that lends itself to
eliciting incriminatory statements and not
the signing by the suspect of his supposed
e)trajudicial confession. 4,eople vs. ompil,
.::;5
9y affi)ing their signatures on the
bo)es, accused in effect made a tacit
admission of the crime charged. These
signatures are tantamount to an
e)trajudicial confession made without the
assistance of counsel, which is not
sanctioned by the 9ill of Rights. 4,eople vs.
&ong huen %ing, .::@5
#ny confession, including a re(
enactment without admonition of the right to
silence and to counsel, and without counsel
chosen by the accused is inadmissible in
evidence. 4,eople vs. Eip &ai %ing, .::@5
The declaration of an accused e)pressly
ac*nowledging his guilt of the offense may
be given in evidence against him and any
person, otherwise competent to testify as a
witness who heard the confession is
hlp2009 Page 21 8/24/201121
competent to testify as to the substance of
what he heard if he heard and understood it.
4,eople vs. %a7ueda, .::;5
Com4romises Rule 16F, Sec. 2=
1.-i!il -ases (n offer of compromise is
not an admission of any liability, and is not
admissible against the offeror.
2. -riminal -ases (n offer of compromise
by the accused may be recei!ed in e!idence
as an implied admission of guilt .I-.%3 in
cases in!ol!ing 0uasi2offenses
(criminal negligence or those allo#ed by
la# to be compromised.
2 ( plea of guilty later #ithdra#n, or an
unacce4ted o,,er of a plea of guilty to
lesser offense, is not admissible in e!idence
against the accused #ho made the plea or
offer.
$'e 3ood Samaritan Rule2 (n offer to pay
or the payment of medical, hospital or other
e"penses occasioned by an injury is not
admissible in e!idence as proof of ci!il or
criminal liability for the injury.
It has long been held that in cases of
public crimes, the accused is permitted to
show that the offer was not made under a
consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid
the inconvenience of imprisonment of for
some other reason which would justify a
claim by the accused that the offer was not
in truth an admission of his guilt or an
attempt to avoid the legal conse7uences
which would ordinarily ensue therefrom.
4,eople vs. 8odoy, .::;5
# plea of forgiveness may be
considered as analogous to an attempt to
compromise. 4,eople vs. 1e 8uBman,
.::@5
#n offer to compromise does not
re7uire that a criminal complaint be first filed
before the offer can be received as
evidence against the offeror. 4,eople vs.
Eparriguirre, .::F5
8.E 9earsay Rule
(% $estimonial Dno/led!e :
Rule (;<= Sec% ;F
1 *hat can a #itness testify toT
2 ( #itness can testify only to those facts
#hich he 5no#s of his personal 5no#ledge
N those #hich are deri!ed from his o#n
perception, e"cept as other#ise pro!ided in
these rules.
The hearsay evidence rule applies
also to affidavits when the supposed affiant
never identified the affidavit and there was
no opportunity for the prosecution to cross(
e)amine him-her. 4,eople vs. 9rioso, .:F.5.
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 is
merely to establish the fact that the
statement was made, or the tenor of such
statement. 4,eople vs. usi, .:@;5
The testimony of a witness on the
confession made to him by the accused is
not hearsay. 'e is testifying to a fact which
he *nows of his personal *nowledge 4was
testifying to the fact that the accused told
him that he stabbed the victim5 and not to
the truth of the statement of the accused.
4,eople vs. 8addi, .:?:5
E)amples of hearsay evidence:
.5 The testimony of a witness as to what he
has heard another person say about the
facts in dispute. 4,eople v. Reyes, F@ ,hil.
6;<C #ldecoa J o., v. &#rner 9arnes J
o., 63 ,hil. .;65 N/TE: $ee concept of
independent relevant statement.
25 #ffidavits. 4%arisfos7ue v. "una, "(:3:;,
%ay 2;, .:;FC ,eople v. ,ag*aliwagan, F@
,hil.
<;F5
;eneral rule0 #ffidavits without
presenting affiant in court is mere hearsay:
The constitutional right to confrontation
precludes reliance on affidavits. $uch a
constitutional safeguard cannot be satisfied
unless the opportunity is given to the
accused to test the credibility of any person,
who, by affidavit or deposition would impute
the commission of an offense to him. It
would be to disregard one of the most
valuable guarantees of a person accused if
solely on the affidavits presented, his guilt
could be predicated. 4,eople v. $antos, et
al., .6: $R# ;?@(;?F citing ,eople v.
"avareB, 26 $R# .63.5
Exceptions0 when affidavits are
given weight:
.5 &here said affidavits are
overwhelming, uncontroverted by
competent evidence and not
inherently improbable. 4Top(&eld
%anufacturing, Inc. v. EE1, $.#.,
et al., .6? $R# .625
25 0nder the Rule on $ummary
,rocedure for civil casesC
65 &hen a motion is based on facts
not appearing of record the court
may hear the matter on affidavits or
depositions presented by the
respective parties, but the court may
direct hat the matter be heard wholly
or partly on oral testimony or
depositions. 4$ec. F, Rule .66,
hlp2009 Page 22 8/24/201122
R/5
65 # letter offered in evidence to establish
the facts in issue. 4,astor v. 8aspar, 2 ,hil.
;:2C ,eople v. arlos, <F ,hil. @2@5
<5 # medical certificate to the e)tent of the
injuries found by the doctor on the offended
partyKs body. 41e 8uia v. %eralco, <3 ,hil.
F3@5
;5 # resolution of the municipal council of a
certain municipality as to the character of an
accused in a criminal case. 40.$. v.
Tanjuatco, . ,hil. 6F<5
@5 Newspaper #rticles( 41ouble dec*
hearsay or 1ouble hearsay5
8heory of the hearsay rule: &hen a
human utterance is offered as evidence of
the truth of the fact asserted in it, the credit
of the assertor becomes the basis of
inference, and therefore the assertion can
be received as evidence only when made
on the witness stand, subject to the test of
cross(e)amination.
8W7 C7CE/8' 72 .EA"'A<
E=I-ECE0
.. $econd hand information 4not
derived from personal *nowledge of
witness5
2. Testimony by a witness derived from
his personal *nowledge 90T the
adverse party is not given
opportunity to cross(e)amine
E)ample 4No. 25: ,laintiff presents
witness #. # testifies in court on
matters personally *nown to him.
#fter direct e)amination, court tells
that defendant can cross e)amine
on ne)t scheduled hearing. /n the
ne)t scheduled hearing witness # no
longer appears and could no longer
be located. LThe remedy here now is
to as* that the testimony of witness
# be stric*en out since it now
becomes hearsayH
"ationale behind the non(admissibility of
hearsay evidence0
.5 # witness can testify only to those facts
which he *nows of his own *nowledgeC and
25 To preserve the right of parties to cross(
e)amine the original witness or person
claiming to have *nowledge of the
transaction or occurrence. 4,eople v.
,ag*aliwagan, F@ ,hil. <;F5
The right to cross(e)amine he adverse
partyKs witnesses is essential in the
administration of justice for it is the only
means of testing the credibility of witnesses
and their testimony, and this right is not
available in respect of hearsay evidence
since he declarant is not in court. 41onnelly
v. 0.$., 22? 0.$. 2<65
/rinciple of Independently "elevant
'tatements
( 0nder this principle regardless of the truth
or falsity of a statement, the fact that such
statements have been made is relevant.
The hearsay rule does not apply, and the
statements are admissible as evidence.
Evidence as to the ma*ing of such
statement is not secondary but primary, for
the statement itself may constitute a fact in
issue or be circumstantially relevant as to
the e)istence of such a fact.
( Independent relevant statements are
hearsay in character but not legal hearsay,
hence they are not considered as
e)ceptions to the hearsay rule.
8llustration? ( #as drin5ing #ith his buddies.
( told them that? P)y neighbor is a thiefR.
Gater on (Hs neighbor #as charged #ith
theft. %rosecution calls as his #itness one of
the drin5ing buddies. 3he drin5ing buddy
testifies in court saying? P3he accused is a
thief because 8 heard ( says so.R >3C8S 8S
C.(RS(: .98D./-.M
/o#, supposing the neighbor filed a
libel case against (. 3he drin5ing buddy
ser!es as a #itness for the plaintiff, and
says? P8 heard ( said that the plaintiff is a
thief.R. >/o# this time this is not hearsay,
because the @(-3 8/ 8SS4. is #hether or
not the utterances #ere made by a
particular person, regardless of the truth or
falsity of the statementM
CASE2 ES$RADA v% DESIER$O= ARIL ;=
?<<(
8ssue? *hether or not the use of the (ngara
diary to determine the state of mind of
%resident .strada !iolates the rule against
the admission of hearsay e!idence
Celd? 1 (ngara diary is not an 14321@2
-14R3 S3(3.)./3, since it is part of the
pleadings in the case.
2 (ngara diary is not co!ered by the
hearsay rule. Evidence is called hearsay
when its probative force depends in whole
or in part, on the competency and credibility
of some persons other than the witness by
whom it is sought to produce it.
6 (dmission are not e"cluded by hearsay
e!idence. The #ngara diary contains direct
statements of petitioner which can be
categoriBed as admissions of a party. #nd
though the diary is not EstradaDs hence non(
binding on him, $ held that the doctrine of
adoptive admission applies.
<5 res inter alios acta rule( e)ception:
admissions by a co(partner or agent.
hlp2009 Page 23 8/24/201123
."ecuti!e Secretary (ngara #as the little
president, an alter ego of the president.
8ndeed, he #as authori<ed by the petitioner
to act for him in the critical hours and days
before he abandoned )alacanan.
A 8ndependently Rele!ant Statement2 there
are t#o classes? (1 Statements #hich are
the !ery facts in issueE (2 Statements #hich
are circumstantial e!idence. 3he second
class includes?
a. Statement of a person 5no#ing his
state of mind, that is his mental condition,
5no#ledge, belief, intention, ill #ill and other
emotions
b. Statements of a person #hich
sho# his physical condition as illnesses and
the li5e
c. Statements of a person #hich an
inference may be made as to the state of
mind of another, that is the 5no#ledge,
belief, moti!e, good or bad faith of the latter
d. Statements #hich may identify the
date, place and persons in 0uestions
e. Statements sho#ing the lac5 of
credibility of a #itness
The #ngara diary contains statements of the
petitioner which reflect his state of mind and
are circumstantial evidence of his intent to
resign .
?% E#ce4tions
2.1 -ying -eclaration
Rule 16F, Sec. 6=
2 Declaration #as made under the
consciousness of an impending death
2 Declaration refers to cause and
surrounding circumstances of the death of
the declarant
2 Declaration may be recei!ed in any case
#herein declarantHs death is the subject of
in0uiry (8n one case. 3he husband #as shot
and #ife #as stabbed. 3he #ife died
instantly. 3he husband #as brought to the
hospital and made a statement that it #as I
#ho stab her #ife. 3he husband then died.
The statement is not a dying declaration
because it pertains to the wife5
2 3he declarant must be competent as a
#itness (*hat if declarant is pro!ed to be a
congenital liarT Still this e"ception may
apply, because he is not dis0ualified from
testifying in court if he #ere ali!e
2 3he declarant actually died, other#ise, the
declaration may be admitted as part of the
res gestae and not as a dying declaration
ALICABILI$.2 &oth -i!il and -riminal.
>-riminal? 1nly those #hich in!ol!e death,
homicide, murder, parricide, robbery #ith
homicide, rape #ith homicideM
Victim need not state t'at 'e 'as lost all
'o4e o, recovery% 8t is sufficient that
circumstances are such as to ine!itably lead
to the conclusion that at the time the
declaration #as made, the declarant #ould
not e"pect to sur!i!e the injury from #hich
he actually died.
3he degree and seriousness of the
#ounds and the fact that death super!ened
thereafter constitute substantial e!idence of
the !ictimLs consciousness of his impending
death. (%eople !. 3anaman, et al., '.R. /o.
=1=D8, ,uly 28, 1J8=
Dyin! declaration 'as /ei!'t even i,
declarant did not die immediately a,ter
'is declaration? 3he fact that the declarant
died four (7 hours after his statement does
not diminish the probati!e !alue of the dying
declaration since it is not indispensable that
the a declarant e"pires immediately
thereafter.
8t is the belief of impending death
and not the rapid succession of death that
renders the dying declaration admissible.
(%eople !. &autista, '.R. /o. 11117J, prom.
September A, 1JJ=
Mere !esture o, dyin! victim
inconclusive2 3he gesture of a dying
#oman in pointing to a direction, #hen
as5ed for the identity of her assailant, is too
!ague to be gi!en such probati!e !alue in
determining the culpability of the accused.
REASON2 4nli5e an oral or a
#ritten declaration, a simple gesture of the
hand unaccompanied by #ords, is open to
!arious interpretations by the #itness #ho
testifies to its e"istence. 3hus, the e!idence
comes to the court couched in the #itnessL
second hand perception and possibly,
imbued #ith his personal meanings and
biases. 3his is #hat ma5es hearsay
e!idence objectionable. 3he second hand
e!idence is placed before the court #ithout
the benefit of cross2e"amination by the party
against #hom it is brought, nor of any other
means of assessing the competence and
credibility of the source. (%eople !. 1la,
'.R. /o. G27=17=, ,uly 6, 1J8=
CASE2 3he crime charged is rape #ith
homicide. 3he !ictim before death tells to
the police in!estigator+doctor? P8 #as raped.R
>3his is not a dying declaration, because the
statement has nothing to do #ith the cause
and circumstances surrounding the death.
&ut this may be admitted as part of res
gestaeH
2.2 "es ;estae Rule 16F, Sec. 72
2 *hat are admissible as part of the res
gestae?
hlp2009 Page 24 8/24/201124
2 Statements made by a person #hile a
starting occurrence is ta5ing place or
immediately prior or subse0uent thereto #ith
respect to the circumstances thereof
2 Statements accompanying an e0ui!ocal
act material to the issue and gi!ing it legal
significance
3*1 -1/-.%3S?
(. Spontaneous Statements
&. Statements accompanying .0ui!ocal
(cts2 .0ui!ocal means ambiguousC capable
of different interpretations.
E-AMLE2 a S%1/3(/.14S
S3(3.)./3? I barged into the house of :,
tied her to a chair and robbed her. I brought
:Hs maid to a bedroom and raped her. :
could hear the maid crying? PCu#agV )aa#a
5a sa a5inVR. *hen I fled, : #ith the maid
rushed to the police station and told the
police #hat happened. 3he maid told the
police that despite her pleas I still raped
her. 3he police noticed that the maid #as
hysterical and on the !erge of collapse. I
#as charged #ith robbery #ith rape. During
the trial the maid could no longer be located.
3he prosecution presents the policeman to
testify on #hat the maid told him. >The
testimony would be hearsay but as an
e)ception to the hearsay rule. The
statements made by the maid fall within the
res gestae ruleH
b .$4891-(G+9.R&(G (-3S? (
#itness testifies on the stand for the plaintiff
in a collection case #here the defendant
denies ha!ing borro#ed %1F,FFF from the
plaintiff. 3he debt is not e!idenced by a
promissory note because plaintiff claims that
defendant had orally borro#ed money from
him in the past and had al#ays paid. 3his
time he refuses to pay. 3he #itness testifies
that one year ago he sa# the plaintiff gi!e
money to the defendant. (nd that he heart
the plaintiff said that? PCereHs the money you
are borro#ing from me.R @urther, he said
that he heard the defendant say? P3han5
you, 8 #ill pay one year after.R >Cere the
e0ui!ocal act of handing the money #as
gi!en significance by the statement of the
plaintiffM
D.IN3 DECLARA$ION vs% RES 3ES$AE
Time when statements made: D:8/'
D.-G(R(381/2 statements must be made
after the injury has been inflicted upon the
applicant.
R.S '.S3(.2 in so
far as startling occurrence is concerned, the
statements could be made prior or
simultaneous #ith or after the startling
occurrence.
1eath of declarant: D:8/' D.-G(R(381/2
declarant must die
R.S '.S3(.2 no need for
declarant to die
1eclarant: D:8/' D.-G(R(381/2 must be
the !ictim
R.S '.S3(.2 anybody
EOLE vs% CLOUD 5?FI SCRA E+?7
Conce4t o, inde4endently relevant
statements and res !estae a44lied
simultaneously% JN%B% dyin! declaration
may liHe/ise &e a44lied simultaneously
/it' inde4endently relevant statementK
Mosephine #guilar was at the emergency
room of a hospital to have some stitches
removed from her daughterDs head when
she saw a boy being carried by a man,
followed by an old woman who was
shouting hysterically. The boyDs face was
swollen and bruised and his body covered
with dry blood. The old woman, apparently
the boyDs grandmother, cried and repeatedly
screamed. =,inatay siya ng sariling amaN>.
The old woman told the people inside the
emergency room that the boyDs father had
beaten him up, tied his hands, and stabbed
him.
Ruling of $: Insofar as the statements of
Rufina #lconyes4old woman5 are
concerned, they are admissible as part of
the res gestae, they having been caused by
and did result from the startling, if not
gruesome, occurrence that she witnessedC
and these were shortly thereafter uttered by
her with spontaneity, without prior
opportunity to contrive the same.
The report made thereof by
Mosephine #guilar is not hearsay since she
was actually there and personally heard the
statements of #lconyes which she
recounted in court. 'er account of said
statements of #lconyes are admissible
under the doctrine of independently relevant
statements, with respect to the tenor and
not the truth thereof, since independent of
the truth or falsity of the same they are
relevant to the issue on the cause of the
death of the victim.
2.6 -eclaration Against Interest Rule
16F, Sec. 68
&y #hom made? a person deceased, or
unable to testify, against the interest of the
declarant
Subject of declaration+act? the fact asserted
in the declaration #as at the time it #as
made so far contrary to declarantLs o#n
hlp2009 Page 25 8/24/201125
interest, that a reasonable man in his
position #ould not ha!e made the
declaration unless he belie!ed it to be true
(gainst #hom recei!ed? such may be
recei!ed in e!idence against himself or his
successors in interest and against third
persons.
"E>:I'I8E'0
a. 3he declaration is made by
1 a person deceased, or
2 unable to testify >i.e. in foreign
country or physical+mental impairmentsM
b. against the interest of the declarant,
>declarant )4S3 Q/1* that it is against his
interestM
c. if the fact asserted in the declaration
1 #as at the time it #as made
2 so far contrary to declarantLs o#n
interest,
6 that a reasonable man in his
position
a #ould not ha!e made the
declaration
b unless he belie!ed it to be
true% (Sec. 68, Rule 16F,
R1-
Declaration a!ainst interest
distin!uis'ed ,rom admission2
1 (n admission is not necessarily against
the interest of the admitter *C8G. the
declaration must be against the declarantLs
o#n interest(penal, proprietary, financial
2 (n admission may be recei!ed e!en if
the admitter is ali!e *C8G. the declarant
must be dead or is unable to testifyE
6 (n admission may be recei!ed in
e!idence only against the admitter and
those identified #ith him in legal interest
*C8G. the declaration may be recei!ed
e!en against third persons. (Smith !.
)oore, 172 /.-. 2==
8nability to testify N either dead, mentally
incapacitated or physically incompetent.
)ere absence from the jurisdiction does not
ma5e him ipso facto una!ailable. @uentes
!s. -( (1JJD
CASE2 eo4le v% 9ol!ado
,ose #as 5illed. %edro admitted that he #as
the one #ho 5illed ,ose. 4nfortunately,
%edro also died. 3he prosecutor filed an
information charging ,uan #ith homicide of
,ose. 3he defense presented a #itness #ho
heard %edro say that he #as the one #ho
5illed ,ose. S- held that %edroHs declaration
is a declaration against interest. 8t is
therefore admissible to sho# that the
accused did not commit the crime charged.
2.7 /edigree Rule 16F, Sec. 6J
&y #hom made? person deceased, or
unable to testify
Subject of declaration+act? pedigree of
another person related to him by birth or
marriage
*hen admissible? occurred before the
contro!ersy, and the relationship bet#een
the t#o persons is sho#n by e!idence other
than such act or declaration.
%edigree 2 includes relationship, family
genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates
#hen and the places #here these fast
occurred, and the names of the relati!es. 8t
embraces also facts of family history
intimately connected #ith pedigree.
2.A 2amily 8radition
Rule 16F, Sec. 7F
Subject of e"ception? reputation or tradition
e"isting in a family pre!ious to the
contro!ersy, in respect to the pedigree of
any one of its members, may be recei!ed in
e!idence if the #itness testifying thereon be
also a member of the family, either by
consanguinity or affinity.
2.ntries in family bibles or other family
boo5s or charts, engra!ings on rings, family
portraits and the li5e, may be recei!ed as
e!idence of pedigree.
2.D Common "eputation Rule 16F, Sec.
71
2 *hat are admissibleT
2 -ommon reputation e"isting pre!ious to
the contro!ersy, respecting facts of public or
general interest W 6F years old, or
respecting marriage or moral character, may
be gi!en in e!idence.
2 )onuments and inscriptions in public
places may be recei!ed as e!idence of
common reputation
Note: &hen it comes to presentation
of evidence concerning the good or bad
moral character, the only evidence
admissible is evidence of /%%/N
RE,0T#TI/N. $o if character evidence is
allowed a litigant cannot present proof that
he is of good moral character.
E)ample: ( parish priest of the
community #here the accused belongs is
presented as #itness. (nd the parish priest
testifies that the accused goes to mass
e!eryday and recei!es holy communion.
>3he testimony is not admissible to sho# the
accusedHs good moral characterE )oral
character for purposes of e!idence can be
demonstrated 1/G: by e!idence of
R.%43(381/M. $o the parish priest should
tell the court what is the reputation of the
hlp2009 Page 26 8/24/201126
accused in the community.
rinci4le o, NE3A$IVE REU$E
8f in a community nothing good or bad is
heard about a particular person, the
presumption is that he is really a good
person, because that flo#s from the
established principle in substanti!e la# that
e!eryone is acting in good faith.
2.= Entries in the
Course of 3usiness
Rule 16F, Sec. 72E
Rule 8, R..
*hen made? .ntries made at, or near the
time of transactions to #hich they refer
&y #hom made? by a person deceased, or
unable to testify, #ho #as in a position to
5no# the facts therein stated,
3reatment of such e!idence? prima facie
e!idence, if such person made the entries in
his professional capacity or in the
performance of duty and in the ordinary or
regular course of business or duty.
Rule 8, Section 1. Cearsay rule e"ception?
( memorandum, report, record or data
compilation of acts, e!ents, conditions,
opinions, or diagnoses, made by electronic,
optical or other similar means at or near the
time of or from transmission or supply of
information by a person #ith 5no#ledge
thereof, and 5ept in the regular course or
conduct of a business acti!ity, and such #as
the regular practice to ma5e the
memorandum, report, record, or data
compilation by electronic, optical or similar
means, all of #hich are sho#n by the
testimony of the custodian or other 0ualified
#itnesses.
Rule 8, Section 2. 3his presumption may be
o!ercome by e!idence of the
untrust#orthiness of the source of
information or the method or circumstances
of the preparation, transmission or storage
thereof.
2.8 7fficial "ecords
Rule 16F, Sec. 77
*hen made? .ntries made at, or near the
time of transactions to #hich they refer.
&y #hom made? by a person deceased, or
unable to testify, #ho #as in a position to
5no# the facts therein stated,
3reatment of such e!idence? prima facie
e!idence, if such person made the entries in
his professional capacity or in the
performance of duty and in the ordinary or
regular course of business or duty.
The report submitted by a police
officer in the performance of his duties on
the basis of his own personal observation of
the facts reported, may properly be
constituted as an e)ception. 4alte) vs.
#frica, .:@@5
Entries in a police blotter are not
conclusive proof of the truth of such entries.
4,eople vs. abuang, .::65
2.J Commercial 6ists
Rule 16F, Sec. 7A
.!idence of statements of matters of
interest to persons engaged in an
occupation contained in a list, register,
periodical, or other published compilation is
admissible as tending to pro!e the truth of
any rele!ant matter so stated if that
compilation is published for use by persons
engaged in that occupation and is generally
used and relied upon by them therein.
2.1F 6earned 8reatises
Rule 16F, Sec. 7D
( published treatise, periodical or pamphlet
on a subject of history, la#, science, or art is
admissible as tending to pro!e the truth of a
matter stated therein if the court ta5es
judicial notice, or a #itness e"pert in the
subject testifies, that the #riter of the
statement in the treatise, periodical or
pamphlet is recogni<ed in his profession or
calling as e"pert in the subject.
2.11 /rior 8estimony
Rule 16F, Sec. 7=
&y #hom made? a #itness deceased or
unable to testify,
*hen gi!en? in a former case or proceeding,
judicial or administrati!e, in!ol!ing the same
parties and subject matter,
*hen admissible? may be gi!en in e!idence
against the ad!erse party #ho had the
opportunity to cross2e"amine him.
P4nable to testifyR refers to an
inability proceeding from a gra!e cause
almost amounting to death as #hen the
#itness is old and has lost the po#er of
speech. (3an !s. -(, 1JD=
Conduct and C'aracter as Evidence
Conduct Rule 16F, Secs. 6726A
2 .!idence that one did or did not do a
certain thing at one time is not admissible to
pro!e that he did or did not do the same or
similar thing at another timeE but it may be
recei!ed to pro!e a specific intent or
5no#ledgeE identity, plan, system, scheme,
habit, custom or usage, and the li5e.
2 (n offer in #riting to pay a particular sum
of money or to deli!er a #ritten instrument
or specific personal property is, if rejected
#ithout !alid cause, e0ui!alent to the actual
hlp2009 Page 27 8/24/201127
production and tender of the money,
instrument, or property.
C'aracter Rule 16F, Sec. A1E Rule 162,
Sec. 17
'eneral Rule? -haracter e!idence is not
admissible, >because it is purely
circumstantialM e"ceptions2
1. 8n criminal cases
2 (ccused N may pro!e his good moral
character #hich is pertinent to the moral trait
in!ol!ed in the offense charged.
2 %rosecution N may not pro!e his bad
moral character unless in rebuttal.
2 1ffended %arty N his+her good or bad
moral character may be pro!ed if it tends to
establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense
charged.
2. 8n ci!il cases
2 .!idence of the moral character of a party
in a ci!il case is admissible only #hen
pertinent to the issue of character in!ol!ed
in the case.
2 *itness N .!idence of his+her good
character is not admissible until such
character has been impeached.
&hile evidence of another crime is,
as a rule, not admissible in a prosecution for
robberyC it is admissible when it is otherwise
relevant, as when it tends to identify
defendant as the perpetrator and tends to
show is presence at the scene of the crime
or in the vicinity of the crime at the time
charged, or when it is evidence of a
circumstance connected with the crime.
4,eople vs. Irang, .:6F5
8ood or bad moral character of the
victim is not necessary in a crime of murder
where the *illing is committed through
treachery or premeditation. 4,eople vs.
$oliman, .:;F5
V% O4inion Rule Rule 16F, Secs. 782AF
'eneral Rule: 3he opinion of a #itness is
not admissible (R16F, X78
."cept?
1. ."pert #itness? opinion of a #itness on a
matter re0uiring special 5no#ledge, s5ill,
e"perience or training #hich he sho#n to
possess (R16F, X7J
2. 1rdinary #itness? 3he opinion of a
#itness for #hich proper basis is gi!en, may
be recei!ed in e!idence regarding S
(a 3he identity of a person about #hom he
has ade0uate 5no#ledgeE
(b ( hand#riting #ith #hich he has
sufficient familiarityE and
(c 3he mental sanity of a person #ith
#hom he is sufficiently ac0uainted.
(d 3he #itness may also testify on his
impressions of the emotion, beha!ior,
condition or appearance of a person.
(R16F, XAF
There is no precise re7uirement as
to the mode in which s*ill or e)perience
shall have been ac7uired. $cientific study
and training are not always essential to the
competency of a witness as an e)pert.
Onowledge ac7uired by doing is no less
valuable than that ac7uired by study. 41ilag
o. vs. %erced, .:<:5
,olygraph test has not as yet
attained scientific acceptance as a reliable
and accurate means of ascertaining truth or
deception. 4,eople vs. #doviso, .:::5
E)pert opinions are not ordinarily
conclusive in the sense that they must be
accepted as true on the subject of their
testimony, but are generally regarded as
purely advisoryC the courts may place
whatever weight they choose upon such
testimony and may reject it, if they find that
it is inconsistent with the facts in the case
or otherwise unreasonable.4,unBalan v.
ommission on Elections, et al., 8.R. No.
.2@@@:5
Testimony of handwriting e)pert not
indispensable to /%E"E. 'andwriting
e)perts, while probably useful, are not
indispensable in e)amining or comparing
handwritingC this can be done by the
/%E"E itself. It was ruled by the
$upreme ourt that evidence aliunde is not
allowed to prove that a ballot is mar*ed, an
inspection of the ballot itself being sufficient.
44,unBalan v. ommission on Elections, et
al., 8.R. No. .2@@@:5
VI%Burden o, roo, and resum4tions
1. &urden of %roof Rule 161, Sec. 1
&urden of proof (Ris5 of non2persuasion?
duty of a party to present e!idence on the
facts in issue necessary to establish his
claim or defense by the amount re0uired by
la#.
-riminal -ases? 3he burden of proof is
on the prosecution, because under Rule 166
the accused is entitled to ac0uittal unless his
guilt is demonstrated by proof beyond
reasonable doubt
-i!il -ases? 3he usual principle is that
#hoe!er ma5es an affirmati!e allegation has
the burden of proof
8nfringement cases? 3he burden of proof
to substantiate a charge of infringement is
#ith the plaintiff. &ut #here he plaintiff
introduces the patent in e!idence, and the
same is in due form, there is created a
prima facie presumption of its correctness
and !alidity. 3he decision of the
-ommissioner of %atent (no# the Director of
hlp2009 Page 28 8/24/201128
the 8ntellectual %roperty 1ffice, in granting
the patent is presumed to be correct.
3he burden of going for#ard #ith the
e!idence (burden of e!idence then shifts to
the defendant to o!ercome by competent
e!idence this legal presumption. ()aguan
!. -ourt of (ppeals, et al., 17D S-R( 11D,
11=
3#o separate burdens in &urden of
%roof?
1. &urden of going for#ard2 that of
producing e!idence
2. &urden of persuasion2 burden of
persuading the trier of fact that the
burdened party is entitled to pre!ail
8llustration of going for#ard #ith the
e!idence? @or e"ample after the e"istence
of a debt has been pro!en by the creditor
the burden of pro!ing payment de!ol!es
upon the debtor. *here the debtor
introduces e!idence of payment, the burden
of going for#ard #ith the e!idence 2 as
distinct from the general burden of proof2
shifts to the creditor #ho is then under the
duty of producing e!idence to sho# non2
payment. (,imene<, et al, !. /GR-, et al.,
'.R. /o,. 11DJDF, prom. (pril 2, 1JJD
8n short, the burden of going for#ard is
the burden of producing e!idence.
E22EC8 72 A3'ECE 72 E=I-ECE
or no evidence is presented
-R8)8/(G -(S.? (ccused is ac0uitted
-898G -(S.?
a. *hen defendant does not file an
ans#er2 %laintiff #ins
b. *hen defendant files an ans#er and
sets up purely negati!e defenses
and no e!idence is presented by
both sides2 Defendant #ins because
plaintiff has not carried his burden
c. *hen defendant files an ans#er and
sets up affirmati!e defenses and no
e!idence is presented by both sides2
%laintiff #ins
E)ample: The defendant filed
an answer: =I admit that I borrowed money
from the plaintiff, but the plaintiff has no
reason to run after me because I have paid
that account long time ago.> LIf no evidence
is presented by both sides then plaintiff wins
because the defendant admitted the
e)istence of loan. #nd it is the defendantDs
burden to prove his affirmative defense.H
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE" the duty resting
upon a party, by means of e!idence, to
create or meet a prima facie case.
BURDEN OF ROOF vs% BURDEN OF
EVIDENCE
9urden of ,roof NE!ER $'I+T$, #hile
9urden of Evidence is TR#N$+ERRE1
from one litigant to another depending on
the progress of trial.
8llustration? %laintiff files a complaint for
reco!ery of a defaulted loan. Defendant files
an ans#er #ith a negati!e defense, denying
the e"istence of the loan. > (t the start, the
plaintiff has the burden of proof and also
burden of e!idence, he should go to trial and
present e!idence to sho# that he has a
cause of action. 8f he has introduced enough
proof that he has a cause of action, the
burden of e!idence #ill no# be shifted to the
defendant. 8f defendant presents enough
e!idence to pro!e his negati!e defense then
the burden of e!idence is shifted again to
the plaintiff on rebuttal e!idence.M
Can t'e accused in a criminal@civil case
&e,ore 4resentin! 'is o/n evidence
ascertain conditionally or 4rovisionally
/'et'er t'e evidence 4resented &y t'e
4rosecution is enou!' to convict 'im8
:es. 8n a criminal+ci!il case, the
accused(defendant+plaintiff can easily
determine the sentiment of the court
concerning the 0uantum of e!idence
presented by the
prosecution(defendant+plaintiff by simply
filing a demurrer to evidence #ith lea!e of
court.
RINCILE OF NE3A$IVIN3 AVERMEN$
( negati!e a!erment do not ha!e to be
pro!en 4/G.SS the negati!e a!erment is
an essential part of the cause of action or
defense.
E)ample: In an information for illegal
possession of firearms, the information will
contain an averment that the accused does
not have a license to possess the
firearmLnegative avermentH.
P In this case, the negative averment is
an essential part of the commission of the
crime, hence this must be proven.
Doctrine o, eCui4oise or ECui4onderance
Rule
&here the evidence on an issue of fact
is in e7uipoise or there is doubt on which
side the evidence preponderates, the party
having the burden of proof fails upon that
issue. 4Rivera v. ourt of #ppeals, et al.,
8.R. No. ..;@2;, prom. Manuary 26, .::?5
Therefore, as neither party was able to
ma*e out a case, neither side could
establish its cause of action and prevail with
hlp2009 Page 29 8/24/201129
the evidence it had. They are thus no better
off than before they proceeded to litigate,
and, as a conse7uence thereof, the courts
can only leave them as they are. 4Rivera,
supra citing %unicipality of andijay, 9ohol
v. ourt of #ppeals, 2;. $R# ;635
2. %resumptions Rule 161, Secs. 227
%resumption2 an inference as to the
e"istence or non2e"istence of a fact #hich
courts are permitted to dra# from the proof
of other facts.
CLASSIFICA$IONS
(% RESUM$ION 6URIS OR OF LA02 a
deduction #hich the la# e"pressly directs to
be made from particular facts
2)ust be made #hene!er the facts
appear #hich furnish the basis for the
inference
2Reduced to fi"ed rules and form part of
the system of jurisprudence
?% RESUM$ION 9OMINIS OR OF FAC$"
a deduction #hich reason dra#s from facts
pro!ed #ithout an e"press direction from the
la# to that effect
2Discretionary on the court
2Deri!ed from circumstances of a
particular case through common e"perience
of man5ind
CLASSIFICA$IONS OF RESUM$IONS
OF LA0
1. -onclusi!e2 not permitted to be o!ercome
by any proof to the contrary
2. Disputable2 la# permits to be o!ercome
or contradicted
$.# Conclusive
2.1.1. *hene!er a party by his o#n
declaration, act, omission, has led another
1 to belie!e a particular thing to
be true (/D
2 to act upon such belief,
he cannot in any litigation arising out of such
declaration, act or omission be permitted to
falsify it. (.stoppel
2.1.2. 3he 3./(/3 is not permitted to
deny the title of his landlord at the time of
the -1))./-.)./3 of the relation of
landlord and tenant bet#een them.
Note: There is also a conclusive
presumption under
the Rule 6:, which is
a public policy
principle of
res judicata 4a judgment is conclusive upon
the title to the thing or upon the political or
legal condition of a person, Qjudgment in
rem or in personamR5
$.$ -isputable
CLASSIFICA$IONS2
1. %resumption of innocence (%resumption
of good faith
2. %resumption of regularity of official and
judicial acts
6. %resumption of regularity of pri!ate
transactions
2 %erson is innocent of a crime or #rongE
2 4nla#ful act is done #ith an unla#ful
intentE
2 %erson intends the ordinary conse0uences
of his !oluntary actE
2 %erson ta5es ordinary care of his
concernsE
2 .!idence #illfully suppressed #ould be
ad!erse if produced
E"E%ENT$:
a. 3he suppression is #ilful. (Sec.
62e, Rule 161, R1- continue
b. 3he suppression is not in the
e"ercise of a pri!ilege.
c. 3he e!idence suppressed is not
merely corroborati!e.
d. 3he e!idence is at the disposal
only of the suppressing party.

/13.S? 8nstances #here ad!erse
presumption from suppression of e!idence
does not apply?
a. 8f the e!idence is at the disposal
of both parties. (%eople !. Ducay, 22A
S-R( 1
b. 3he suppression #as not #illful.
c. 3he suppressed e!idence is
merely corroborati!e or cumulati!e.
d. 3he suppression is an e"ercise of
a pri!ilege. (%eople !. /a!aja, 22F S-R(
D27
2 )oney paid by one to another #as due to
the latterE
2 3hing deli!ered by one to another
belonged to the latterE
2 1bligation deli!ered up to the debtor has
been paidE
2 %rior rents or installments had been paid
#hen a receipt for the later ones is
producedE
2 ( person found in possession of a thing
ta5en in the doing of a recent #rongful act is
the ta5er and doer of the #hole actE
other#ise, that things #hich a person
possesses or e"ercises acts of o#nership
o!er, are o#ned by himE
2 %erson in possession of an order on
himself for the payment of the money or the
deli!ery of anything has paid the money or
deli!ered the thing accordinglyE person
acting in public office #as regularly
hlp2009 Page 30 8/24/201130
appointed or elected to itE
2 1fficial duty has been regularly performedE
2 ( court or judge acting as such, #hether in
the %hilippines or else#here, #as acting in
the la#ful e"ercise of jurisdictionE
2 (ll the matters #ithin an issue raised in a
case #ere laid before the court and passed
upon by itE all matters #ithin an issue raised
in a dispute submitted for arbitration #ere
laid before arbitrators and passed upon by
themE
2 %ri!ate transactions ha!e been fair and
regularE
2 ordinary course of business has been
follo#edE
2 there #as a sufficient consideration for a
contractE
2 negotiable instrument #as gi!en or
indorsed for a sufficient considerationE
2 (n indorsement of negotiable instrument
#as made before the instrument #as
o!erdue and at the place #here the
instrument is datedE
2 ( #riting is truly datedE
2 Getter duly directed and mailed #as
recei!ed in the regular course of the mailE
2 (bsentee of = years, it being not 5no#n
#hether or not he is ali!e, is considered
dead for all purposes e"cept for succession.
N @or the purpose of opening his
succession? an absence of 1F years, if
disappeared after age of =A, absence of A
years.
N 3he follo#ing shall be considered dead for
all purposes including the di!ision of the
estate among the heirs?
N %erson on board a !essel lost during a
sea !oyage, or an aircraft #ith is missing,
#ho has not been heard of for 7 years since
the loss of the !essel or aircraftE
N )ember of the armed forces #ho has
ta5en part in armed hostilities, and has been
missing for 7 yearsE
N %erson #ho has been in danger of death
under other circumstances and #hose
e"istence has not been 5no#n for four
yearsE
N Spouse, of a married person absent for 7
consecuti!e years, may contract a
subse0uent marriage if he or she has #ell2
founded belief that the absent spouse is
already deathE 2 years in case of
disappearance, #here there is a danger of
death the circumstances hereinabo!e
pro!ided. &efore marrying again, the spouse
present must institute a summary
proceedings as pro!ided in the @amily -ode
and in the rules for declaration of
presumpti!e death of the absentee, #ithout
prejudice to the effect of reappearance of
the absent spouse.
2 (c0uiescence resulted from a belief that
the thing ac0uiesced in #as conformable to
the la# or factE
2 3hings ha!e happened according to the
ordinary course of nature and ordinary
nature habits of lifeE
2 %ersons acting as copartners ha!e entered
into a contract of co2partnershipE
2 ( man and #oman deporting themsel!es
as husband and #ife ha!e entered into a
la#ful contract of marriageE
2 %roperty ac0uired by a man and a #oman
#ho are capacitated to marry each other
and #ho li!e e"clusi!ely #ith each other as
husband and #ife #ithout the benefit of
marriage or under !oid marriage, has been
obtained by their joint efforts, #or5 or
industry.
2 8n cases of cohabitation by a man and a
#oman #ho are not capacitated to marry
each other and #ho ha!e ac0uire properly
through their actual joint contribution of
money, property or industry, such
contributions and their corresponding shares
including joint deposits of money and
e!idences of credit are e0ual.
2 8f the marriage is terminated and the
mother contracted another marriage #ithin
three hundred days after such termination of
the former marriage, these rules shall
go!ern in the absence of proof to the
contrary?
2 ( child born before 18F days after the
solemni<ation of the subse0uent marriage is
considered to ha!e been concei!ed during
such marriage, e!en though it is born #ithin
the 6FF days after the termination of the
former marriage.
2 ( child born after 18F days follo#ing the
celebration of the subse0uent marriage is
considered to ha!e been concei!ed during
such marriage, e!en though it be born #ithin
the 6FF days after the termination of the
former marriage.
2 ( thing once pro!ed to e"ist continues as
long as is usual #ith things of the nature
2 3he la# has been obeyedE
2 ( printed or published boo5, purporting to
be printed or published by public authority,
#as so printed or publishedE
2 ( printed or published boo5, purporting
contain reports of cases adjudged in
tribunals of the country #here the boo5 is
published, contains correct reports of such
casesE
2 ( trustee or other person #hose duty it
#as to con!ey real property to a particular
person has actually con!eyed it to him #hen
such presumption is necessary to perfect
the title of such person or his successor in
interestE
2 ."cept for purposes of succession, #hen 2
persons perish in the same calamity, and it
hlp2009 Page 31 8/24/201131
is not sho#n #ho died first, and there are no
particular circumstances from #hich it can
be inferred, the sur!i!orship is determined
from the probabilities resulting from the
strength and the age of the se"es, according
to the follo#ing rules?
N &oth Y 1A? older sur!i!edE
N &oth W DF? younger sur!i!edE
N 1ne Y1AE other WDF? Y1A sur!i!edE
N &oth W1A, YDF and the se" be different,
the male is deemed to ha!e sur!i!ed, if the
se" be the same, the olderE
N 1ne Y 1A or W, and the other bet#een
those ages, the latter is deemed to ha!e
sur!i!ed.
2 3hat if there is a doubt, as bet#een t#o or
more persons #ho are called to succeed
each other, as to #hich of them died first,
#hoe!er alleges the death of one prior to
the other, shall pro!e the sameE in the
absence of proof, they shall be considered
to ha!e died at the same time. (Aa
The presumption that evidence not
produced or willfully suppressed is adverse
to the party, will not apply if the evidence is
at the disposal of both the defense and the
prosecution and if the evidence is merely
conclusive. 4,eople vs. ,adiernos, .:F@5
VII% resentation o, Evidence
/ote? 3he Rules apply to Summary
%rocedure but in a modified form, since in
Summary %rocedure the testimonies of the
#itnesses, (in ci!il cases #ill be reduced
into #riting in the form of affida!it. Cence,
there is no direct, cross, re2cross or re2direct
e"amination.
(ffiant is not allo#ed in Summary
%rocedure to embody hearsay testimony.
8n criminal cases under Summary
%rocedure, the affida!its of the #itnesses
ta5e the place of the direct e"amination.
3here is cross e"amination
VOIR DIRE2 preliminary e"amination of
#itnesses for the purpose of establishing
#hether or not a #itness really is 0ualified
as such. (Gi5e#ise done in e"amination of a
child #itness, but it is only the judge #ho
can as5 0uestions, plaintiff and defendant
can #rite their 0uestions and gi!e it to the
judge
Note: /rdinary witnesses are not allowed to
be e)amined in a narrative form, e)cept a
child witness.
A. ."amination of *itnesses
1. .o4 done
Rule 162, Sec. 1
open court
under oath or affirmation
2 )ode of ans#ering
'eneral Rule? oral
."ception?
o *itness is incapacitated to spea5
or
o $uestion calls for a different
mode of ans#er
2. "ights and 7bligations Rule 162,
Sec. 6
1bligation of a #itness? ans#er 0uestions,
although his ans#er may tend to establish a
claim against him.
Rights of a #itness?
2.1 3o be protected from irrele!ant,
improper, or insulting 0uestions, and from
harsh or insulting demeanorE
2.2 /ot to be detained longer than the
interests of justice re0uireE
2.6 /ot to be e"amined e"cept only as to
matters pertinent to the issueE
2.7 /ot to gi!e an ans#er #hich #ill tend to
subject him to a penalty for an offense
unless other#ise pro!ided by la#E or
2.A /ot to gi!e an ans#er #hich #ill tend to
degrade his reputation, unless it to be the
!ery fact at issue or to a fact from #hich the
fact in issue #ould be presumed. &ut a
#itness must ans#er to the fact of his
pre!ious final con!iction for an offense.
-ase? Supposing a #itness refused to
ans#er because he feels the 0uestion is
incriminatory. Co#e!er, the court directs the
#itness to gi!e an ans#er and the #itness
obeys the order of the court. Gater on the
ans#er turns out to be incriminatory and
later on the #itness #as indicted for the
commission of this offense, can his
testimony in court be gi!en in e!idence
against him in the form of an admissionT
/1, because the #itnsess has initially
objected and he ga!e the ans#er only in
compliance #ith an order of the court.
(ccording to some decisions that could be
treated as a compelled testimony gi!en
under duress and therefore could not be
used against the #itness.
E-CE$IONS $O RULE A3AINS$ SELF"
INCRIMINA$ION
(% Use Immunity2 the #itness #ill still be
indicted for the commission of an offense,
but the statements gi!en by the #itness
cannot be used against him. Ce is not
immuni<ed from prosecution.
?% $ransactional Immunity" 3here is
absolute immunity, both to prosecution and
hlp2009 Page 32 8/24/201132
use of the statements gi!en by the #itness.
6. 7rder in the Examination Rule 162,
Sec. 7
6.1 Direct ."amination Rule 162, Sec. A
2 ."amination2in2chief of a #itness by the
party presenting him on the facts rele!ant to
the issue.
6.2 -ross2."amination Rule 162, Sec. D
2 &hen conducted: upon termination of
direct e"amination
2 %atters covered: #itness may be cross2
e"amined by the ad!erse party as to
N (ny matters stated in the direct
e"amination, or connected there#ith, #ith
sufficient fullness and freedom to test his
accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from
interest or bias, or the re!erse, and
N 3o elicit all important facts bearing upon
the issue.
8mplied #ai!er of cross2e"amination 3he
party #as gi!en the opportunity Dela %a< !s.
8(- (1J8=
8W7 ":6E' 7 6IMI8' 72 C"7''
E?AMIA8I7
1. En!lis' Rule2 #here a #itness is called
to testify to a particular fact, he becomes a
#itness for all purposes and may be fully
cross2e"amined upon all matters material to
the issue, the e"amination not being
confined to the matters in0uired about in the
direct e"amination.
2. American Rule2 restricts cross2
e"amination to facts and circumstances
#hich are connected #ith the matters that
ha!e been stated in the direct e"amination
of the #itness. (applies #hen #itness is the
accused in a criminal caseE and #hen
#itness is hostile or ad!erse party #itness
6.6 Re2direct ."amination Rule 162, Sec.
=
( &hen conducted: after the cross2
e"amination of the #itness has been
concluded
( &hy conducted: to e"plain or supplement
his ans#ers gi!en during the cross2
e"amination. 1n re2direct2e"amination, the
court in its discretion may allo# 0uestions
on matters not dealt #ith during the cross2
e"amination.
6.7 Re2cross ."amination Rule 162, Sec.
8
2 (d!erse party may re2cross2e"amine the
#itness on matters stated in his re2direct
e"amination, and also on such other matters
as may be allo#ed by the court in its
discretion, upon the conclusion of the re2
direct e"amination.
7. "ecalling Witnesses Rule 162, Sec. J
2 (fter the e"amination of a #itness has
been concluded by both sides has been
concluded, the #itness cannot be recalled
#ithout lea!e of court. 3he court #ill grant
or #ithhold lea!e in its discretion as the
interests of justice may re0uire.
There must be a satisfactory
showing of some concrete, substantial
ground 4i.e. particularly identified material
points were not covered in the cross(
e)aminationC particularly described vital
documents were not presented to the
witnessC the cross(e)amination was
conducted in so inept a manner as to result
in a virtual absence thereof. 4,eople vs.
Rivera, .::.5
A. 6eading and Misleading >uestions
Rule 162, Sec. 1F
Geading 0uestions
$uestions that suggest to the #itness
the ans#er, #hich the e"amining party
desires, are leading 0uestions.
8eneral Rule: /ot allo#ed
E)ceptions:
1. 1n cross e"aminationE
2. 1n preliminary mattersE
6. *hen there is a difficulty is getting
direct and intelligible ans#ers from a
#itness #ho is ignorant, or a child of
tender years, or is of feeble mind, or
a deaf2muteE
7. 1f an unwilling or hostile witnessE or
o ( #itness may be considered as
un#illing or hostile only if so
declared by the court upon
ade0uate sho#ing of his 2
ad!erse interest,
unjustified reluctance to
testify, or
his ha!ing misled the party
into calling him to the #itness
stand.
D. 1f a #itness #ho is an ad!erse party
or an officer, director, or managing
agent of a public or pri!ate
corporation or of a partnership or
association #hich is an ad!erse
party.
&hen the answer is derived from a
leading 7uestion the evidence has
no probative value at all even if there
is no objection to a leading 7uestion.
Misleadin! Cuestions
1 3hose that assume as true a fact not yet
testified to by the #itness, or contrary to
that #hich he has pre!iously stated.
2 /ot allo#ed.
hlp2009 Page 33 8/24/201133
DOC$RINE OF INCOMLE$E
$ES$IMON.? *hen cross e"amination
cannot be done or completed due to causes
attributable to the party #ho offered the
#itness, the incomplete testimony is
rendered incompetent and should be
stric5en from the record. E#ce4t2 #here the
prosecution #itness #as e"tensi!ely cross2
e"amined on the material points and
thereafter failed to appear and cannot be
produced despite a #arrant for his arrest.
(%eople !. '1rospe, 'R A1A16, )ay 1A,
1J87
Sco4e o, 1ud!eBs 4artici4ation at trial ? (
judge #ho presides at a trial is not a mere
referee. Ce must acti!ely participate therein
by directing counsel to the facts in dispute,
by as5ing clarifying 0uestions, and by
sho#ing an interest in a fast a fair trial.
(-larin !. :atco, AD 1.'. =F72, /o!. 17,
1JDF
Ce can interrogate #itnesses to elicit
the truth, to obtain clarification, or to test
their credibility. (%eople ! )oreno, 86 %hil.
28D
Co#e!er, this po#er must be
e"ercised by the court sparingly and
judiciously. (%eople !. @errer, 77 1.'. 112.
1f course, the judge cannot curtail counselLs
right to interrogate #itnesses. (%eople !.
&edia, 86 %hil. JFJ
3here is no prohibition against the
judge conducting the e"amination of the
#itness. 3he counsel may object to the
0uestions propounded by the judge.
o/er o, court to sto4 ,urt'er evidence ?
1 3he court may stop
2 the introduction of further testimony
6 upon any particular point
7 #hen the e!idence upon it is already so
full
A that more #itnesses to the same point
D cannot be reasonably e"pected
= to be additionally persuasi!e.
&ut this po#er should be e"ercised #ith
caution% *hen the e!idence already
presented on one point is sufficient and the
party merely see5s to present cumulati!e
e!idence #hich cannot produce additional
persuasi!e effect or that he is not sure of
#hat the other #itnesses #ould testify, the
court may in its sound discretion stop the
introduction of such further e!idence.
(%eople !. Reyes, et al., 166 S-R( A1
Role o, attorney durin! 4resentation o,
evidence? (n attorney has a dual role to
perform relati!e to pro!ing the truth
respecting a matter of fact.
Ce must ensure that all e!idence
supporting the material allegations, #hether
raised in the pleadings or not are admitted
by the court. Cis other role is to bloc5 the
admission of e!idence supporting his
opponentsL material allegations #hether
raised in the pleadings or not.
8n order to perform this dual role the
attorney should ensure that the e!idence he
offers are admissible in accordance #ith the
Rules of -ourt and those of his opponent
are properly objected to for being
inadmissible
@. Impeachment of Witnesses
D.1. 8mpeachment of (d!erse %artyHs
*itness Rule 162, Sec. 11
2 Co# done?
by contradictory e!idenceE
by e!idence that his general reputation for
truth, honesty or integrity is badE or
by e!idence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent #ith his present
testimony.
2 .!idence of particular #rongful acts is not
allo#ed e"cept that it may be sho#n by the
e"amination of the #itness, or the record of
the judgment, that he has been con!icted of
an offense.
D.2. 8mpeachment of 1#n *itness
Rule 162, Sec. 12
2 'eneral Rule? 3he party producing a
#itness is not allo#ed to impeach the latterHs
credibility.
2 ."ception? 3he #itness is an un#illing or
hostile #itness.
N ( #itness may be considered as
un#illing or hostile only if so declared by the
court upon ade0uate sho#ing of his 2
ad!erse interest,
unjustified reluctance to
testify, or 2
his ha!ing misled the party
into calling him to the #itness
stand.
2 3he impeachment may be made by the
party presenting the hostile or un#illing
#itness in all respects as if he had been
called by the ad!erse party, e"cept by
e!idence of bad character. Ce may also be
impeached and cross2e"amined by the
ad!erse party, but such cross2e"amination
must only be on the subject matter of his
e"amination2in2chief.
D.6. 8mpeachment by %rior
8nconsistent Statements Rule 162,
Sec. 16
hlp2009 Page 34 8/24/201134
2 &efore a #itness can be impeached by
e!idence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent #ith his present
testimony? the statements must be related to
him, #ith the circumstances of the times and
places and the persons present, and he
must be as5ed #hether he made such
statements, and if so, be allo#ed to e"plain
themE if the statements be in #riting they
must be sho#n to the #itness before any
0uestion is put to him concerning them
5layin! t'e 4redicate7%
Layin! t'e ,oundation or layin! t'e
&asis" refers to a situation #here an
e!idence #hich is other#ise incompetent
#ill be introduced in e!idence because it
falls under the e"ceptions to that rule on
e"clusion.
."ample? 8f a party desires to
introduce secondary or substitutionary
e!idence he must first lay the foundation or
lay the basis. Ce must first pro!ed that there
#as a #riting duly e"ecuted and that the
original has been lost or destroyed.
=. Exclusion and 'eparation of
Witnesses Rule 162, Sec. 17
2 3he judge may e"clude from the court any
#itness not at the time under e"amination,
so that he may not hear the testimony of
other #itnesses. 3he judge may also ha!e
the #itnesses separated and pre!ented from
con!ersing #ith each other until all ha!e
been e"amined.
8. "efreshing "ecollection of Witnesses
Rule 162, Sec. 1D
8.1 Re!i!al of %resent )emory
2 ( #itness may be allo#ed to refresh his
memory respecting a fact, by anything
#ritten or recorded by himself or under his
direction at the time #hen the fact occurred,
or immediately thereafter, or at any other
time #hen the fact #as fresh in his memory
and 5ne# that the same #as correctly
#ritten or recorded,
2 &43 in such case the #riting or record
must be produced and may be inspected by
the ad!erse party, #ho may, if he chooses,
cross e"amine the #itness upon it, and may
read it in e!idence.
Note: The memorandum is not evidence, it
is still the testimony
8.2 %ast Recollection Recorded
2 ( #itness may testify from such #riting or
record, (as in the case in re!i!al of present
memory though he retain no recollection of
the particular facts, if he is able to s#ear
that the #riting or record correctly stated the
transaction #hen madeE but such e!idence
must be recei!ed #ith caution.
Note: It is the memorandum that will serve
as evidence 4documentary evidence5
*hat is the conse0uence of gi!ing in
e!idence a part of an act, declaration,
con!ersation, #riting or recordT (Rule 162,
Section 1= >R4G. 1@ -1)%G.3./.SSM
2 3he #hole of the same subject may be
in0uired into by the other, and #hen a
detached act, declaration, con!ersation,
#riting or record is gi!en in e!idence, any
other act, declaration, con!ersation, #riting
or record necessary to its understanding
may also be gi!en in e!idence.
Rule on E#amination o, a C'ild 0itness
(pplicability of the Rule. S 4nless
other#ise pro!ided, this Rule shall go!ern
the e"amination of child #itnesses #ho are
!ictims of crime, accused of a crime, and
#itnesses to crime. 8t shall apply in all
criminal proceedings and non2criminal
proceedings in!ol!ing child #itnesses. (X1
-hild #itness
I. Definition (X7(a
(ny person #ho at the time of gi!ing
testimony is Y 18 years.
8n child abuse cases? a child includes
one o!er eighteen (18 years but is
found by the court as unable to fully ta5e
care of himself or protect himself from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, e"ploitation, or
discrimination because of a physical or
mental disability or condition.
II. -ompetency of a -hild *itness? .!ery
child is presumed 0ualified to be a
#itness. 3o rebut the presumption of
competence enjoyed by a child, the
burden of proof lies on the party
challenging his competence. (XXD, D(b
-ompetency e"am
A. *hen conducted2
( %otu proprio or on motion of
a party, #hen it finds that
substantial doubt e"ists
regarding the ability of the
child to percei!e, remember,
communicate, distinguish
truth from falsehood, or
appreciate the duty to tell the
truth in court. (XD
( ( party see5ing a
competency e"amination
must present proof of
necessity of competency
e"amination. 3he age of the
child by itself is not a
hlp2009 Page 35 8/24/201135
sufficient basis for a
competency e"amination.
(XD(a
B. *ho are allo#ed to attend2
( 3he judge and necessary
court personnelE
( 3he counsel for the partiesE
( 3he guardian ad litem E
( Support person+s for the
childE and
( 3he defendant, unless the
court determines that
competence can be fully
e!aluated in his absence.
(XD(c
Co# conducted2
( &y #hom conducted? by the
judge, counsel for the parties,
ho#e!er, can submit
0uestions to the judge that he
may, in his discretion, as5 the
child. (XD(d
( $uestions as5ed? appropriate
to the age and
developmental level of the
childE shall not be related to
the issues at trialE and shall
focus on the ability of the
child to remember,
communicate, distinguish
bet#een truth and falsehood,
and appreciate the duty to
testify truthfully. (XD(e
( 3he court has the duty of
continuously assessing the
competence of the child
throughout his testimony.
(XD(f
III. 3estifying
(. 1ath? &efore testifying, a child shall
ta5e an oath or affirmation to tell the
truth. (X=
&. ."amination
1. Co# conducted
8eneral Rule: open court, unless the
#itness is incapacitated to spea5, or
the 0uestion calls for a different
mode of ans#er, the ans#ers of the
#itness shall be gi!en orally. (X8
E)ception-s:
a) ."clusion of the public
( *hy made?
3o protect the right to
pri!acy of the child or
8f the court determines on
the record that re0uiring
the child to testify in open
court #ould cause
psychological harm to
him, hinder the
ascertainment of truth, or
result in his inability to
effecti!ely communicate
due to embarrassment,
fear, or timidity.
( 8n ma5ing its order, the court
shall consider the
de!elopmental le!el of the
child, the nature of the crime,
the nature of his testimony
regarding the crime, his
relationship to the accused
and to persons attending the
trial, his desires, and the
interests of his parents or
legal guardian.
( 3he court may, motu proprio,
e"clude the public from the
courtroom if the e!idence to
be produced during trial is of
such character as to be
offensi!e to decency or public
morals.
( 3he court may also, on
motion of the accused,
e"clude the public from trial,
e"cept court personnel and
the counsel of the parties.
(X26
b) 3he court may order that persons
attending the trial shall not enter
or lea!e the courtroom during the
testimony of the child. (X27
c) )otion by party #ho presents a
child #itness or the guardian ad
litem of such child #itness may,
ho#e!er, mo!e the court to allo#
him to testify in the manner
pro!ided in this Rule (X8?
i. "ive(lin* television testimony
in criminal cases where the
child is a victim or a witness.
(X2A
*ho may apply for an order
that testimony of the child be
ta5en in a room outside the
courtroom and be tele!ised to
the courtroom by li!e2lin5
tele!ision?
1 prosecutor,
2 counsel or the
3 guardian ad litem
%eriod for application? 3he
person see5ing such an order
shall apply at least fi!e (A
days before the trial date,
unless the court finds on the
record that the need for such
an order #as not reasonably
foreseeable.
Cearing on the application?
hlp2009 Page 36 8/24/201136
3he court may motu proprio
hear and determine, #ith
notice to the parties, the need
for ta5ing the testimony of the
child through li!e2lin5
tele!ision.
3he judge may 0uestion the
child in chambers, or in some
comfortable place other than
the courtroom, in the
presence of the support
person, guardian ad litem,
prosecutor, and counsel for
the parties. 3he 0uestions of
the judge shall not be related
to the issues at trial but to the
feelings of the child about
testifying in the courtroom.
3he judge may e"clude any
person, including the
accused, #hose presence or
conduct causes fear to the
child.
1rder denying+granting use
of li!e2lin5 39?
3he court shall issue an order
granting or denying the use
of li!e2lin5 tele!ision and
stating the reasons therefor.
@actors considered by the
court in granting+denying
application?
(1Z3he age and
le!el of de!elopment of
the childE
(2ZCis physical and
mental health, including
any mental or physical
disabilityE
(6Z(ny physical,
emotional, or
psychological injury
e"perienced by himE
(7Z3he nature of
the alleged abuseE
(AZ(ny threats
against the childE
(DZCis relationship
#ith the accused or
ad!erse partyE
(=ZCis reaction to
any prior encounters #ith
the accused in court or
else#hereE
(8ZCis reaction prior to
trial #hen the topic of
testifying #as discussed
#ith him by parents or
professionalsE
(JZSpecific
symptoms of stress
e"hibited by the child in
the days prior to
testifyingE
(1FZ3estimony of
e"pert or lay #itnessesE
(11Z3he custodial
situation of the child and
the attitude of the
members of his family
regarding the e!ents
about #hich he #ill
testifyE and
(12Z1ther rele!ant
factors, such as court
atmosphere and
formalities of court
procedure.
3he court may order that the
testimony of the child be
ta5en by li!e2lin5 tele!ision if
there is a substantial
li5elihood that the child #ould
suffer trauma from testifying
in the presence of the
accused, his counsel or the
prosecutor as the case may
be. 3he trauma must be of a
5ind #hich #ould impair the
completeness or truthfulness
of the testimony of the child.
Co# done?
#here testimony is ta5en? in a
room separate from the
courtroom
#ho are present?
o guardian ad litemE
o one or both of his
support personsE
o the facilitator
o and interpreter, if anyE
o a court officer
appointed by the
courtE
o persons necessary to
operate the closed2
circuit tele!ision
e0uipmentE and
o other persons #hose
presence are
determined by the
court to be necessary
to the #elfare and
#ell2being of the childE
2 3he judge, prosecutor,
hlp2009 Page 37 8/24/201137
accused, and counsel for
the parties shall be in the
courtroom. 3he
testimony of the child
shall be transmitted by
li!e2lin5 tele!ision into the
courtroom for !ie#ing and
hearing by the judge,
prosecutor, counsel for
the parties, accused,
!ictim, and the public
unless e"cluded.
2 8f it is necessary for the
child to identify the
accused at trial, the court
may allo# the child to
enter the courtroom for
the limited purpose of
identifying the accused,
or the court may allo# the
child to identify the
accused by obser!ing the
image of the latter on a
tele!ision monitor.
2 3he court may set other
conditions and limitations
on the ta5ing of the
testimony that it finds just
and appropriate, ta5ing
into consideration the
best interests of the child.
( 3he testimony of the child
shall be preser!ed on
!ideotape, digital disc, or
other similar de!ices
#hich shall be made part
of the court record and
shall be subject to a
protecti!e order as
pro!ided in section 61(b.
ii. $creens, one(way mirrors,
and other devices to shield
child from accused. (X2D
*ho may apply for an order
that the chair of the child or
that a screen or other de!ice
be placed in the courtroom in
such a manner that the child
cannot see the accused #hile
testifying?
1 prosecutor or
2 guardian ad litem
(consultation #ith
prosecutor or counsel as
in application for use of
li!e2lin5 39. also
re0uired
1rder granting application?
3he court shall issue an order
stating the reasons and
describing the appro!ed
courtroom arrangement
8f the court grants an
application to shield the child
from the accused #hile
testifying in the courtroom,
the courtroom shall be
arranged to enable the
accused to !ie# the child.
iii.
!ideotaped deposition. (X2=
*ho may apply for an order
that a deposition be ta5en of
the testimony of the child and
that it be recorded and
preser!ed on !ideotapeT
1 prosecutor,
2 counsel, or
3 guardian ad litem
(consultation #ith
prosecutor or counsel as in
application for use of li!e2
lin5 39. also re0uired
*hen allo#ed?Z8f the court
finds that the child #ill not be
able to testify in open court at
trial, it shall issue an order that
the deposition of the child be
ta5en and preser!ed by
!ideotape.
Deposition2ta5ing?
*ho are present
o ,udge #ho shall
preside at the
!ideotaped deposition
of a childE
o %rosecutorE
o defense counselE
o 'uardian ad litemE
o (ccused, pro!ided that,
if the order of the court
is based on e!idence
that the child is unable
to testify in the physical
presence of the
accused, the court may
direct the latter to be
e"cluded from the room
in #hich the deposition
is conducted. 8n case
of e"clusion of the
accused, the court shall
order that the testimony
of the child be ta5en by
li!e2lin5 tele!ision in
hlp2009 Page 38 8/24/201138
accordance #ith section
2A of this Rule. 8f the
accused is e"cluded
from the deposition, it is
not necessary that the
child be able to !ie# an
image of the accused.
o 1ther persons #hose
presence is determined
by the court to be
necessary to the
#elfare and #ell2being
of the childE
o Support person+s, the
facilitator and
interpreter, if anyE
o -ourt stenographerE
and
o Z%ersons necessary to
operate the !ideotape
e0uipment.
1bjections to testimony or
e!idenceE rights of the
accused
o 1bjections to deposition
testimony or e!idence,
or parts thereof, and the
grounds for the
objection shall be stated
and shall be ruled upon
at the time of the ta5ing
of the deposition.
o 3he rights of the
accused during trial,
especially the right to
counsel and to confront
and cross2e"amine the
child, shall not be
!iolated during the
deposition.
3he !ideotaped deposition
shall be preser!ed and
stenographically recorded. 3he
!ideotape and the stenographic
notes shall be transmitted to
the cler5 of the court #here the
case is pending for
safe5eeping and shall be made
a part of the record.
3he court may set other
conditions on the ta5ing of the
deposition that it finds just and
appropriate, ta5ing into
consideration the best interests
of the child, the constitutional
rights of the accused, and other
rele!ant factors.
3he !ideotaped deposition and
stenographic notes shall be
subject to a protecti!e order as
pro!ided in section 61(b.
8f, at the time of trial, the court
finds that the child is unable to
testify for a reason stated in
section 2A(f of this Rule, or is
una!ailable for any reason
described in section 7(c, Rule
26 of the 1JJ= Rules of -i!il
%rocedure, the court may admit
into e!idence the !ideotaped
deposition of the child in lieu of
his testimony at the trial. 3he
court shall issue an order
stating the reasons therefor.
(fter the original !ideotaping
but before or during trial, any
party may file any motion for
additional !ideotaping on the
ground of ne#ly disco!ered
e!idence. 3he court may order
an additional !ideotaped
deposition to recei!e the ne#ly
disco!ered e!idence.
*hen conducted? 3he court may
order that the testimony of the child
should be ta5en during a time of day
#hen the child is #ell2rested. (X17
%ro!isions for ease of child in
testifying+accommodations for a child
a. 8nterpreter for child (XJ
Co# appointed? the court
motu proprio or upon
motion
*hen appointed?Z*hen
a child does not
understand the .nglish or
@ilipino language or is
unable to communicate in
said languages due to his
de!elopmental le!el, fear,
shyness, disability, or
other similar reason
*ho may be interpreterT
Z8f a #itness or
member of the family of
the child is the only
person #ho can ser!e as
an interpreter for the
child, he shall not be
dis0ualified and may
ser!e as the interpreter of
the child. 3he interpreter,
ho#e!er, #ho is also a
#itness, shall testify
(n interpreter shall
hlp2009 Page 39 8/24/201139
ta5e an oath or
affirmation to ma5e a true
and accurate
interpretation.
b. @acilitator to pose
0uestions to child (X1F
Co# appointed? 3he court
motu proprio or upon
motion,
*hen appointed? child is
unable to understand or
respond to 0uestions
as5ed.
*ho may be a facilitator?
3he facilitator may be a
child psychologist,
psychiatrist, social
#or5er, guidance
counselor, teacher,
religious leader, parent,
or relati!e. 3he facilitator
shall ta5e an oath or
affirmation to pose
0uestions to the child
according to the meaning
intended by counsel.
@unction of facilitator?Z
Respecti!e counsels for
the parties shall pose
0uestions to the child only
through the facilitator.
3he 0uestions shall either
be in the #ords used by
counsel or, if the child is
not li5ely to understand
the same, in #ords that
are comprehensible to
the child and #hich
con!ey the meaning
intended by counsel.
c. Support persons (X11
( child testifying at a
judicial proceeding or
ma5ing a deposition shall
ha!e the right to be
accompanied by one or
t#o persons of his o#n
choosing to pro!ide him
emotional support.
(1Z&oth
support persons shall
remain #ithin the !ie#
of the child during his
testimony.
(2Z1ne of the
support persons may
accompany the child
to the #itness stand,
pro!ided the support
person does not
completely obscure
the child from the
!ie# of the opposing
party, judge, or
hearing officer.
(6Z3he court
may allo# the support
person to hold the
hand of the child or
ta5e other appropriate
steps to pro!ide
emotional support to
the child in the course
of the proceedings.
(7Z3he court
shall instruct the
support persons not
to prompt, s#ay, or
influence the child
during his testimony.
Support person, also a
#itness
1 1isapproved if it is
sufficiently
established that the
attendance of the
support person
during the testimony
of the child #ould
pose a substantial
ris5 of influencing or
affecting the content
of the testimony of
the child.Z
2 8f allowed his
testimony shall be
presented ahead of
the testimony of the
child.
d. *aiting area for child
#itnesses (X12 that is
separate from #aiting
areas used by other
persons.
e. -ourtroom en!ironment
(X16
(im? create a more
comfortable en!ironment for
the child
court may, in its discretion,
direct and super!ise the
location, mo!ement and
deportment of all persons in
the courtroom including the
parties, their counsel, child,
#itnesses, support persons,
guardian ad litem, facilitator,
and court personnel.
3he child may be allo#ed to
testify from a place other than
the #itness chair.
hlp2009 Page 40 8/24/201140
3he #itness chair or other
place from #hich the child
testifies may be turned to
facilitate his testimony but the
opposing party and his
counsel must ha!e a frontal
or profile !ie# of the child
during the testimony of the
child. 3he #itness chair or
other place from #hich the
child testifies may also be
rearranged to allo# the child
to see the opposing party and
his counsel, if he chooses to
loo5 at them, #ithout turning
his body or lea!ing the
#itness stand.
3he judge need not #ear his
judicial robe.
/othing in this section or any
other pro!ision of la#, e"cept
official in2court identification
pro!isions, shall be construed
to re0uire a child to loo5 at
the accused.
(ccommodations for the child
under this section need not
be supported by a finding of
trauma to the child.
f. Recess during testimony
(X1A
3he child may be
allo#ed reasonable
periods of relief #hile
undergoing direct, cross,
re2direct, and re2cross
e"aminations as often as
necessary depending on
his de!elopmental le!el.
g. 3estimonial aids (X1D?
use of dolls, anatomically2
correct dolls, puppets,
dra#ings, manne0uins, or
any other appropriate
demonstrati!e de!ice to
assist him in his
testimony.
h. .motional security item
(X1=? *hile testifying, a
child shall be allo#ed to
ha!e an item of his o#n
choosing such as a
blan5et, toy, or doll
i. -onduct in 0uestioning
the #itness?
i. -onduct of
counsel? a counsel
may be prohibited
from approaching
a child if it appears
that the child is
fearful of or
intimidated by the
counsel. (X18
ii. )ode of
0uestioning?
2 3he court shall
e"ercise control o!er
the 0uestioning of
children so as to
(1 facilitate
the ascertainment of
the truth,
(2 ensure that
0uestions are stated
in a form appropriate
to the de!elopmental
le!el of the child,
(6 protect
children from
harassment or undue
embarrassment, and
(7 a!oid
#aste of time.
2 3he court
may allo# the child
#itness to testify in a
narrati!e form.
iii.
$uestions and
objections thereto
leading 0uestions in
all stages of
e"amination of a child
may be allo#ed if the
same #ill further the
interests of justice
(X2F
1bjections to
0uestions should be
couched in a manner
so as not to mislead,
confuse, frighten, or
intimidate the child.
(X21
j. *eight gi!en to testimony
of child #itness? strongE
corroboration not re0uired
2 Cis testimony, if credible
by itself, shall be sufficient
to support a finding of
fact, conclusion, or
judgment subject to the
standard of proof re0uired
in criminal and non2
criminal cases. (X22
IV. >uestions o, Admissi&ility
hlp2009 Page 41 8/24/201141
C% 9earsay E#ce4tion in C'ild
A&use Cases 5L?*7
0'ere admitted2 child abuse cases,
criminal or non2criminal
9o/ admitted2
1) &efore such hearsay statement
may be admitted, its proponent
shall ma5e 5no#n to the ad!erse
party the intention to offer such
statement and its particulars to
pro!ide him a fair opportunity to
object.
a% -hild is a!ailable
3he court shall,
upon motion of the
ad!erse party, re0uire
the child to be present
at the presentation of
the hearsay statement
for cross2e"amination
by the ad!erse party.
b. -hild is una!ailable
the fact of such
circumstance must be
pro!ed by the
proponent.
*hen una!ailable?
(1Z8s
deceased, suffers
from physical infirmity,
lac5 of memory,
mental illness, or #ill
be e"posed to se!ere
psychological injuryE
or
(2Z8s absent
from the hearing and
the proponent of his
statement has been
unable to procure his
attendance by
process or other
reasonable means.
Z*hen the child
#itness is
una!ailable, his
hearsay testimony
shall be admitted only
if corroborated by
other admissible
e!idence.
2) 8n ruling on the admissibility of
such hearsay statement, the
court shall consider the time,
content and circumstances
thereof #hich pro!ide sufficient
indicia of reliability. 8t shall
consider the follo#ing factors?
c. *hether there is a moti!e
to lieE
d. 3he general character of
the declarant childE
e. *hether more than one
person heard the
statementE
f. *hether the statement
#as spontaneousE
g. 3he timing of the
statement and the
relationship bet#een the
declarant child and
#itnessE
h. -ross2e"amination could
not sho# the lac5 of
5no#ledge of the
declarant childE
i. 3he possibility of faulty
recollection of the
declarant child is remoteE
and
j. 3he circumstances
surrounding the
statement are such that
there is no reason to
suppose the declarant
child misrepresented the
in!ol!ement of the
accused.
D. 9ideotaped and audiotaped in2
depth in!estigati!e or disclosure
inter!ie#s in child abuse cases
(X2J
*hen admissible?
1 3he child #itness 2
(1Z8s deceased, suffers from
physical infirmity, lac5 of
memory, mental illness, or
#ill be e"posed to se!ere
psychological injuryE or
(2Z8s absent from the
hearing and the proponent of
his statement has been
unable to procure his
attendance by process or
other reasonable means.
2 &efore the !ideotape or
audiotape is offered in
e!idence, all parties shall be
afforded an opportunity to
!ie# or listen to it and shall
be furnished a copy of a
#ritten transcript of the
proceedings.
&y #hom conducted?
duly trained members of a
multidisciplinary team or
representati!es of la# enforcement
or child protecti!e ser!ices in
situations #here child abuse is
suspected so as to determine
#hether child abuse occurred.
hlp2009 Page 42 8/24/201142
indi!idual conducting the
inter!ie# of the child shall be
a!ailable at trial for e"amination
by any party.
%roof of the follo#ing must be gi!en
by party offering the !ideotape or
audiotape?
(1Z3he !ideotape or audiotape
discloses the identity of all
indi!iduals present and at all times
includes their images and !oicesE
(2Z3he statement #as not made in
response to 0uestioning calculated
to lead the child to ma5e a particular
statement or is clearly sho#n to be
the statement of the child and not the
product of improper suggestionE
(6Z3he !ideotape and audiotape
machine or de!ice #as capable of
recording testimonyE
(7Z3he person operating the de!ice
#as competent to operate itE
(AZ3he !ideotape or audiotape is
authentic and correctE and
(DZ8t has been duly preser!ed.
9alue of an in!estigati!e inter!ie#
that #as not done as re0uired in this
Rule? 3he fact that an in!estigati!e
inter!ie# is not !ideotaped or
audiotaped as re0uired by this
section shall not by itself constitute a
basis to e"clude from e!idence out2
of2court statements or testimony of
the child. 8t may, ho#e!er, be
considered in determining the
reliability of the statements of the
child describing abuse.
.. Se#ual a&use s'ield rule
8nadmissible e!idence in any
criminal proceeding in!ol!ing
alleged child se"ual abuse?
(1 .!idence offered to pro!e
that the alleged !ictim engaged
in other se"ual beha!iorE and
(2 .!idence offered to pro!e the
se"ual predisposition of the
alleged !ictim.
*hen admissible? .!idence
of specific instances of
se"ual beha!ior by the
alleged !ictim to pro!e that a
person other than the
accused #as the source of
semen, injury, or other
physical e!idence shall be
admissible.
Co# admitted?
1. ( party intending to
offer such e!idence must?
(1 @ile a #ritten
motion at least 1A days
before trial, specifically
describing the e!idence
and stating the purpose
for #hich it is offered,
unless the court, for
good cause, re0uires a
different time for filing or
permits filing during trialE
and
(2 Ser!e the motion
on all parties and the
guardian ad litem at
least 6 days before the
hearing of the motion.
2. &efore admitting such
e!idence, the court must
conduct a hearing in
chambers and afford the
child, his guardian ad litem,
the parties, and their counsel
a right to attend and be
heard. 3he motion and the
record of the hearing must be
sealed and remain under seal
and protected by a protecti!e
order set forth in section
61(b. 3he child shall not be
re0uired to testify at the
hearing in chambers e"cept
#ith his consent.
V. 1ther protecti!e measures for the child
(X61
@. -onfidentiality of records.
*hen records may be released? upon
#ritten re0uest and order of the court
3o #hom may be released?
(1 )embers of the court staff for
administrati!e useE
(2 3he prosecuting attorneyE
(6 Defense counselE
(7 3he guardian ad litemE
(A (gents of in!estigating la#
enforcement agenciesE and
(D 1ther persons as determined
by the court.
'. %rotecti!e order
*hat are co!ered? (ny !ideotape or
audiotape of a child that is part of the
court record
%ro!isos of the protecti!e order?
(1 3apes may be !ie#ed only by
parties, their counsel, their e"pert
#itness, and the guardian ad litem.
(2 /o tape, or any portion thereof,
shall be di!ulged by any person
mentioned in sub2section (a to any
hlp2009 Page 43 8/24/201143
other person, e"cept as necessary for
the trial.
(6 /o person shall be granted
access to the tape, its transcription or
any part thereof unless he signs a
#ritten affirmation that he has recei!ed
and read a copy of the protecti!e orderE
that he submits to the jurisdiction of the
court #ith respect to the protecti!e
orderE and that in case of !iolation
thereof, he #ill be subject to the
contempt po#er of the court.
(7 .ach of the tape cassettes and
transcripts thereof made a!ailable to
the parties, their counsel, and
respecti!e agents shall bear the
follo#ing cautionary notice?
P3his object or
document and the
contents thereof are
subject to a protecti!e
order issued by the court
in (case title, (case
number. 3hey shall not
be e"amined, inspected,
read, !ie#ed, or copied
by any person, or
disclosed to any person,
e"cept as pro!ided in
the protecti!e order. /o
additional copies of the
tape or any of its portion
shall be made, gi!en,
sold, or sho#n to any
person #ithout prior
court order. (ny person
!iolating such protecti!e
order is subject to the
contempt po#er of the
court and other penalties
prescribed by la#.R
(A /o tape shall be gi!en, loaned,
sold, or sho#n to any person e"cept as
ordered by the court.
(D *ithin 6F days from receipt, all
copies of the tape and any transcripts
thereof shall be returned to the cler5 of
court for safe5eeping unless the period
is e"tended by the court on motion of a
party.
(= 3his protecti!e order shall
remain in full force and effect until
further order of the court.
C. (dditional protecti!e orders. S 3he
court may, motu proprio or on motion of
any party, the child, his parents, legal
guardian, or the guardian ad litem, issue
additional orders to protect the pri!acy of
the child.
8. %ublication of identity contemptuous.
*hat is prohibited? %ublication or
causing publication in any format the
name, address, telephone number,
school, or other identifying information of
a child #ho is or is alleged to be a !ictim
or accused of a crime or a #itness
thereof, or an immediate family of the
child
Giability of !iolator? contempt of court
,. %hysical safety of childE e"clusion of
e!idence.
( child has a right at any court
proceeding not to testify regarding
personal identifying information,
including his name, address, telephone
number, school, and other information
that could endanger his physical safety
or his family.
3he court may, ho#e!er, re0uire the
child to testify regarding personal
identifying information in the interest of
justice.
Q. Destruction of !ideotapes and
audiotapes produced under the
pro!isions of this Rule or other#ise
made part of the court record shall be
destroyed after A years ha!e elapsed
from the date of entry of judgment.
G. Records of youthful offender? pri!ileged
1. :outhful offender has been charged
before any city or pro!incial
prosecutor or before any municipal
judge and the charges ha!e been
ordered dropped
(ll the records of the case
shall be considered as
pri!ileged and may not be
disclosed directly or indirectly
to anyone for any purpose
#hatsoe!er.
2. :outhful offender has been charged
and the court ac0uits him, or
dismisses the case or commits him
to an institution and subse0uently
releases him pursuant to -hapter 6
of %. D. /o. DF6,
(ll the records of his case
shall also be considered as
pri!ileged and may not be
disclosed directly or indirectly
to anyone .I-.%3 to
determine if a defendant may
ha!e his sentence
suspended under (rticle 1J2
of %. D. /o. DF6 or if he may
be granted probation under
the pro!isions of %. D. /o.
JD8 or to enforce his ci!il
hlp2009 Page 44 8/24/201144
liability, if said liability has
been imposed in the criminal
action.
3he youthful offender
concerned shall not be held
under any pro!ision of la# to
be guilty of perjury or of
concealment or
misrepresentation by reason
of his failure to ac5no#ledge
the case or recite any fact
related thereto in response to
any in0uiry made to him for
any purpose.
VI. Suppletory application of Rules of -ourt?
3he pro!isions of the Rules of -ourt on
deposition, conditional e"amination of
#itnesses, and e!idence shall be
applied in a suppletory character. (X62
Aut'entication and roo, o, Documents
1. -lasses of Documents
1.1 /ublic -ocuments Rule 162, Sec. 1J
1.1.12( *ritten official acts of the so!ereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and
public officers, #hether of the %hilippines or
of a foreign countryE
2 9o/ roven N Rule 162, Sec. 26
2 Documents consisting of entries in public
records made in the performance of a duty
by a public officer are prima facie e!idence
of the facts therein stated. (ll other public
documents are e!idence, e!en against a
third person of the fact #hich ga!e rise to
their e"ecution and of the date of the latter.
1.1.12&Records of the official acts of the
so!ereign authority, official bodies and
tribunals, and public officers, #hether of the
%hilippines or of a foreign country.
2 9o/ roven N Rule 162, Sec. 27
2 3he record may be e!idenced by? (1 an
official publication thereofE (2 a copy
attested by the officer ha!ing the legal
custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not 5ept in the
%hilippines, #ith a certificate that such
officer has the custody.
8f the record is in a foreign country, the
certificate may be made by a secretary of
the embassy or legation, consul2general,
consul, !ice2consul, or consular agent or by
any officer in the foreign ser!ice of the
%hilippines stationed in the foreign country
in #hich the record is 5ept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office.
MContents o, Attestation N Rule 162, Sec
2A
2 3he attestation must state that the copy is
a correct copy of the original or a specific
part thereof, as the case may be. 3he
attestation must be under the official seal of
the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he
be the cler5 of a court ha!ing a seal, under
the seal of such court.
" Irremova&ility o, Record N Rule 162,
Sec. 2D
2 (ny public record, an official copy of #hich
is admissible in e!idence, must not be
remo!ed from the office in #hich it is 5ept,
e"cept upon order of a court #here the
inspection of the record is essential to the
just determination of a pending case.
1.1.2 /otarial Documents e"cept last #ills
and testamentsE
2 9o/ roven N Rule 162, Sec. 6F
2 /otarial documents may be presented in
e!idence #ithout further proof, the certificate
of ac5no#ledgment being prima facie
e!idence of the e"ecution of the instrument
or document in!ol!ed.
1.1.6 %ublic Records (5ept in the
%hilippines of %ri!ate Documents re0uired
by la# to be entered therein
2 9o/ roven N Sec. 2=
2 Such may be pro!ed by the original record,
or a copy thereof, attested by the legal
custodian of the record, #ith an appropriate
certificate that such officer has the custody.
2 roo, o, LacH o, Record N Sec. 28
( #ritten statement signed by an officer
ha!ing the custody of an official record or by
his deputy that after diligent search, no
record or entry of a specified tenor is found
to e"ist in the records of his office,
accompanied by a certificate that such
officer has the custody, is admissible to
pro!e that the records of his office contain
no such record or entry.
1.2 /rivate -ocuments
2 9o/ roven N Rule 162, Sec. 2F
&efore any pri!ate document offered as
authentic is recei!ed in e!idence, its due
e"ecution and authenticity must be pro!ed
either? (1 by anyone #ho say the document
e"ecuted or #rittenE or (2 by e!idence of
the genuineness of the signature or
hand#riting of the ma5er. (ny other pri!ate
document need only be identified as that
#hich it is claimed to be.
2 Ancient Document Rule N Rule 162, Sec.
21
Re0uisites? (1 3he pri!ate document is
more than 6F years oldE (2 8t is produced
from a custody in #hich it #ould naturally be
found if genuineE (6 8t is unblemished by
hlp2009 Page 45 8/24/201145
any alterations or circumstances of
suspicion.
8f all re0uisites ha!e been met, no other
e!idence of its authenticity is re0uired.
1. 9o/ 3enuineness o, 9and/ritin! is
roven N Rule 162, Sec. 22
8t may be pro!ed by any #itness #ho
belie!es it to be the hand#riting of such
person because he has seen the person
#rite, or has seen #riting purporting to be
his upon #hich the #itness has acted or
been charged, and has thus ac0uired
5no#ledge of the hand#riting of such
person.
.!idence respecting the hand#riting may
also be gi!en by a comparison made by the
#itness or the court, #ith #ritings admitted
or treated as genuine by the party against
#hom the e!idence is offered, or pro!ed to
be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
2. Im4eac'ment o, 6udicial Record
Rule 162, Sec. 2J
Co# done &y e!idence of (a #ant of
jurisdiction in the court or judicial officerE (b
collusion bet#een the partiesE or (c fraud in
the party offering the record, in respect to
the proceedings.
6. Alterations Rule 162, Sec. 61
2 3he party producing a document as
genuine, #hich has been altered and
appears to ha!e been altered after its
e"ecution, in a part material to the 0uestion
in dispute, must account for the alteration.
@ailure to do so #ould result in the
inadmissibility of e!idence.
2 Ce may sho# that the alteration #as made
f by another,
g #ithout his concurrence, or
h made #ith the consent of the parties
affected by it, or
i #as other#ise properly or innocent
made, or
j 3he alteration did not change the
meaning or language of the instrument.
Seal : Rule (;?= Sec% ;?
2 3here shall be no difference bet#een
sealed and unsealed pri!ate documents
insofar as their admissibility as e!idence is
concerned.
Documents 0ritten in an Uno,,icial
Lan!ua!e Rule 162, Sec.66
2 /ot admissible unless accompanied #ith a
translation into .nglish or @ilipinoE parties or
their attorneys are directed to ha!e such
translation prepared before trial.
IS $9ERE AN. 0A. $O AVOID $9E
$EDIOUS ROCESS OF
AU$9EN$ICA$ION8
1. Rule on actionable documents (Rule 8. 8t
pro!ides that if an actionable document is
the basis of a complaint of an ans#er, the
la# re0uires that it should be anne"ed to the
pleading or that the contents thereof be
copied in !erbatim. 8f there is failure to
specifically deny under oath the
genuineness and due e"ecution of an
actionable document that judicial admission
#ill ta5e the place of authentication
2. )ode of disco!ery2 Re0uest for
admission of the genuineness and due
e"ecution of a pri!ate #riting. @ailure to
object #ithin 1A days, deemed admitted.
6. %re2trial of ci!il and criminal case #herein
parties may enter into stipulations, #here
they #ill admit the genuineness and due
e"ecution of the pri!ate #riting.
O,,er and O&1ection
1. O,,er o, Evidence Rule 162, Sec, 67
1 &hy madeS
2 @or e!idence to be considered by the court
2 court shall consider no e!idence, #hich
has not been formally offered.
1.1 *hen to ma5e offer Rule 162, Sec. 6A
2 3estimonial .!idence N at the time the
#itness is called to testify.
2 Documentary .!idence N after the
presentation of a partyHs testimonial
e!idenceE offer shall be done orally unless
allo#ed by the court to be done in #riting.
When evidence admitted even if not
formally offered0
1. 3he same must ha!e been duly identified
by testimony duly recorded
2. 3he same must ha!e been incorporated
to the records of the case (%ata !da. 1e
/nate vs. #5
S$A3ES in t'e 4resentation o,
documentary evidence
1. 8dentification2 proof that the document
being offered is the same one referred to by
the #itness in his testimony
2. )ar5ing
6. (uthentication2 proof of documentHs due
e"ecution and genuineness
7. 8nspection
A. @ormal 1ffer
D. 1bjections
2. O&1ection 2 Rule 162, Sec. 6D
2 3estimonial .!idence N must be objected
to immediately after the offer is made.
N 1bjection to a 0uestion propounded in the
course of the oral e"amination of a #itness
shall be made as soon as the grounds
therefore shall become reasonably
apparent.
hlp2009 Page 46 8/24/201146
2 Documentary .!idence N shall be objected
to #ithin 6 days after notice of the offer
unless a different period is allo#ed by the
court.
Dinds o, O&1ection
1. 'eneral or broadside2 does not go
beyond declaring the e!idence as
immaterial, incompetent, irrele!ant, or
inadmissible. Does not specify the grounds
2. Specific2 States the ground
" 0'en re4etition is unnecessary : Rule
(;?= Sec% ;+ 5Rule on Continuin!
O&1ection7
8t shall not be necessary to repeat the
objection #hen it becomes reasonably
apparent in the course of the e"amination of
a #itness that the 0uestions being
propounded are of the same class as those
to #hich objection has been made, #hether
such objection #as sustained or o!erruled.
8t shall be sufficient for the ad!erse party to
record his continuing objection to such class
of 0uestions.
2 Rulin! : Rule (;?= Sec% ;*
N 'i!en immediately after the objection is
made, unless the court desires to ta5e a
reasonable time to inform itself on the
0uestion presentedE but the ruling shall
al#ays be made during the trial and at such
time as #ill gi!e the party against #hom it is
made an opportunity to meet the situation
presented by the ruling.
N 3he reason for sustaining or o!erruling an
objection need not be stated. Co#e!er, if
the objection is based on t#o or more
grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on
one or some of them must specify the
ground or grounds relied upon.
6. Motion to StriHe Rule 162, Sec. 6J
2 3he court may sustain an objection and
order the ans#er gi!en to be stric5en off the
record should a #itness ans#er the 0uestion
before the ad!erse party had the opportunity
to !oice fully its objection and such objection
is found to be meritorious.
2 3he court may also, upon proper motion,
order the stri5ing out of ans#ers, #hich are
incompetent, irrele!ant or other#ise
improper.
7. $ender o, E#cluded Evidence Rule
162, Sec. 7F
2 Documentary e!idence the offeror may
ha!e the same attached or made part of the
record.
2 3estimonial e!idence the offeror may
state for the record the name and other
personal circumstances of the #itness and
the substance of the proposed testimony.
There is a distinction between
identification of documentary evidence and
its formal offer as an e)hibit. The former is
done in the course of the trial and is
accompanied by the mar*ing of the
evidence while the latter is done only when
the party rests his-her case. That a
document has been identified does not
mean that it will be offered. 4Interpacific
Transit vs. #viles, .::35
&hile there was no offer of the
testimony, petitioner waived this defect by
failing to object when the ground became
reasonably apparent the moment private
respondent was called to testify without any
prior offer having been made. 4atuira vs.
#, .::<5
The rule re7uiring that there must be
a formal offer of evidence before the
evidence can be considered may be rela)ed
provided the evidence must have duly
identified by testimony duly recorded and
they must have been incorporated in the
records of the case. 4!da. 1e /Aate vs.
#, .::;5
OFFER OF ROOF@$ENDER OF
E-CLUDED EVIDENCE vs% OFFER OF
EVIDENCE
+irst, is only resorted to if admission is
refused by the court for purposes of review
on appeal. $econd, refers to testimonial,
documentary or object evidence that are
presented or offered in court by a party so
that the court can consider his evidence
when it comes to the preparation of the
decision.
VIII% 0ei!'t and Su,,iciency o, Evidence
A. ReCuired >uantum o, Evidence
1. re4onderance o,
Evidence 5Civil Cases7
Rule 166, Sec. 1
( 'ow determinedS 3he court may consider?
N (ll the facts and circumstances of the
caseE
N 3he #itnessesH manner of testifyingE
N 3heir intelligenceE
N 3heir means and opportunity of 5no#ing
the facts to #hich they testifyE
N 3he probability or improbability of their
testimonyE
N 3heir interest or #ant of interestE
N %ersonal credibility so far as the same
may legitimately appear upon the trialE
N /umber of #itnesses (note
preponderance that is not necessarily
e0uated #ith the no. of #itnesses
hlp2009 Page 47 8/24/201147
2. roo, Beyond
Reasona&le Dou&t
5Criminal Cases7 Rule
166, Sec. 2
( &hat is proof beyond reasonable doubtS
N 3hat degree of proof #hich produces
con!iction in an unprejudiced mind.
N (bsolute certainty is not re0uired, only
moral certainty.
6. Su&stantial Evidence
5Administrative@>uasi"
6udicial Cases7
Rule166, Sec. A
( &hat is substantial evidenceS 3he amount
of rele!ant e!idence #hich a reasonable
mind might accept as ade0uate to support a
conclusion.
B. E#tra1udicial Con,essions : Rule (;;=
Sec% ;
2 (n e"trajudicial confession made by an
accused, is not a sufficient ground for
con!iction 4/G.SS corroborated by
e!idence of corpus delicti.
C. Circumstantial Evidence : Rule (;;=
Sec% E
( Re7uisites for circumstantial evidence to
be sufficient for conviction:
a. 3here is more than 1 circumstanceE
b. 3he facts from #hich the inferences are
deri!ed are pro!enE and
c. 3he combination of all the circumstances
is such as to produce a con!iction beyond
reasonable doubt.
OU$"OF"COUR$ IDEN$IFICA$ION, 3C.
313(G83: 1@ -8R-4)S3(/-. 3.S3
1. *itnessH opportunity to !ie# the
criminal act at the time of the crime
2. *itnessH degree of attention at that
time
3. 3he accuracy of any prior description
gi!en by the #itness
4. 3he le!el of certainty demonstrated
by the #itness at the identification
5. 3he length of time bet#een the crime
and the identification
6. 3he suggesti!eness of the
identification procedure
res i4sa loCuitur 5$'e t'in! s4eaHs ,or
itsel,7" ( procedural de!ice #hich presumes
that the person is negligent, #hen he is in
control of an instrumentality causing an
injury in the absence of some e"planation by
him.
Falsus in uno= ,alsus in omni&us 5False
in one t'in!= ,alse in everyt'in!72 8f the
testimony of the #itness on a material issue
is #illfully false and gi!en #ith an intention
to decei!e, court may disregard all the
#itnessH testimony. (/ot a mandatory rule of
e!idence
- It deals only with the weight of
evidence and not a positive rule of
law
- The witnessesD false or e)aggerated
statements on other matters shall
not preclude the acceptance of such
evidence as is relieved from any
sign of falsehood
- The court may accept and reject
portions of the witnessD testimony
depending on the inherent credibility
thereof.
U)ay the court stop the introduction of
further testimonyT :.S upon any particular
point #hen the e!idence upon it is already
so full that more #itnesses to the same
point cannot be reasonably e"pected to be
additionally persuasi!eE this po#er should
be e"ercised #ith caution. (Rule 166,
Section D
UCo# #ill the court dispose of a motion
#hich is based on facts not appearing of
recordT -ourt may hear the matter on
2 (ffida!its or
2 Depositions
presented by the respecti!e parties but the
court may direct that the matter be heard
#holly or partly on oral testimony or
depositions. (Rule 166, Section =
E)amples of motion which need hearing
hence the presentation of evidence:
RI%IN#" #$E$:
%otion for bail 40nder riminal
,rocedure, the evidence ta*en up during
the hearing of the motion will form part
automatically of the records of the case, so
there is no need to repeat in the trial what
have been covered in the hearing of the
motion5
I!I" #$E$:
#pplication for preliminary
attachment-injunction
%otion to dismiss founded on certain
facts which are not solely predicated on
absence of jurisdiction or failure to state a
/#, i.e. it is predicated on the ground of
payment
(Same #ith -riminal -ase, e!idence ta5en
up during hearing made part automatically
of records of the case
Rules on Electronic Evidence
Scope
hlp2009 Page 48 8/24/201148
4nless other#ise pro!ided herein, these
Rules shall apply #hene!er an electronic
document or electronic data message (R1,
X1
-ases co!ered.
(ll ci!il actions and proceedings, as #ell as
0uasi2judicial and administrati!e cases. (R1,
X2
.lectronic data message
8nformation generated, sent, recei!ed or
stored by electronic, optical or similar
means. (R2, X1g
.lectronic Signatures (R2, X1j
Refers to any distincti!e mar5, characteristic
and+or sound in electronic form,
representing the identity of a person and
attached to or logically associated #ith the
electronic data message or electronic
document or any methodology or procedure
employed or adopted by a person and
e"ecuted or adopted by such person #ith
the intention of authenticating, signing or
appro!ing an electronic data message or
electronic document.
8ncludes digital signatures
o Refers to an electronic signature
consisting of a transformation of an
electronic document or an electronic
data message using an asymmetric
or public cryptosystem such that a
person ha!ing the initial
untransformed electronic document
and the signerHs public 5ey can
accurately determine?
(i *hether the transformation #as
created using the pri!ate 5ey that
corresponds to the signerHs
public 5eyE and,
(ii *hether the initial electronic
document had been altered after
the transformation #as made.
(R2, X1e
o PDigitally signedR refers to an
electronic document or electronic
data message bearing a digital
signature !erified by the public 5ey
listed in a certificate. (R2, X1f
(dmissible in e!idence as the functional
e0ui!alent of the signature of a person on a
#ritten document. (RD, X1
Co# authenticatedT (RD, X2
1. &y e!idence that a method or
process #as utili<ed to establish a
digital signature and !erify the sameE
2. &y any other means pro!ided by la#E
or
6. &y any other means satisfactory to
the judge as establishing the
genuineness of the electronic
signature.
Disputable presumptions relating to e2
signatures? (RD, X6
1. 3he electronic signature is that of the
person to #hom it correlatesE
2. 3he electronic signature #as affi"ed
by that person #ith the intention of
authenticating or appro!ing the
electronic document to #hich it is
related or to indicate such personHs
consent to the transaction embodied
thereinE and
3. 3he methods or processes utili<ed to
affi" or !erify the electronic signature
operated #ithout error or fault.
Disputable presumptions relating to digital
signatures? (RD, X7
1. 3he information contained in a
certificate is correctE
2. 3he digital signature #as created
during the operational period of a
certificateE
3. /o cause e"ists to render a
certificate in!alid or re!ocableE
4. 3he message associated #ith a
digital signature has not been altered
from the time it #as signedE and,
5. ( certificate had been issued by the
certification authority indicated
therein.
Electronic document (R2, X1h
8nformation or the representation of
information, data, figures, symbols or other
modes of #ritten e"pression, described or
ho#e!er represented,
by #hich a right is established or an
obligation e"tinguished, or
by #hich a fact may be pro!ed and
affirmed,
#hich is recei!ed, recorded, transmitted,
stored, processed, retrie!ed or produced
electronically.
8ncludes digitally signed documents and any
printout or output, readable by sight or other
means, #hich accurately reflects the
electronic data message or electronic
document. @or purposes of these Rules,
the term Pelectronic documentR may be used
interchangeably #ith Pelectronic data
messageR.
Functional eCuivalent o, 4a4er"&ased
documents. (R6, X1
(dmissible in e!idence if it complies #ith the
hlp2009 Page 49 8/24/201149
rules on admissibility prescribed by the
Rules of -ourt and related la#s and is
authenticated in the manner prescribed by
these Rules. (R6, X2
-onfidential character of a pri!ileged
communication is not lost solely on the
ground that it is in the form of an electronic
document. (R6, X6
BES$ EVIDENCE RULE2 (R7
o (n electronic document shall be
regarded as the e0ui!alent of an
original document under the &est
.!idence Rule if it is a printout or
output readable by sight or other
means, sho#n to reflect the data
accurately.
o 1riginals (nd -opies?
*hen copies or duplicates
regarded as originals?
1. *hen a document is in t#o or
more copies e"ecuted at or
about the same time #ith
identical contents, or
2. 8s a counterpart produced by
the same impression as the
original, or from the same
matri", or by mechanical or
electronic re2recording, or by
chemical reproduction, or by
other e0ui!alent techni0ues
that accurately reproduces
the original.
*hen copies or duplicates shall
not be admissible to the same
e"tent as the original?
3. 8f a genuine 0uestion is
raised as to the authenticity
of the originalE or
4. 8f in the circumstances it
#ould be unjust or
ine0uitable to admit the copy
in lieu of the original.
Aut'entication o, Electronic
Documents 5RI7
1 9urden of proving authenticity:
person see5ing to introduce an
electronic document in any legal
proceeding has the burden of
pro!ing its authenticity.
2 %anner of authentication &efore
any pri!ate electronic document
offered as authentic is recei!ed in
e!idence, its authenticity must be
pro!ed by any of the follo#ing
means?
(a by e!idence that it had been
digitally signed by the person
purported to ha!e signed the
sameE
(b by e!idence that other
appropriate security procedures
or de!ices as may be authori<ed
by the Supreme -ourt or by la#
for authentication of electronic
documents #ere applied to the
documentE or
(c by other e!idence sho#ing its
integrity and reliability to the
satisfaction of the judge.
3 ( document electronically notari<ed
in accordance #ith the rules
promulgated by the Supreme -ourt
shall be considered as a public
document and pro!ed as a notarial
document under the Rules of -ourt.

Evidentiary 0ei!'t O, Electronic
Documents (R=
W +actors for assessing evidentiary weight.
(a 3he reliability of the manner or
method in #hich it #as generated,
stored or communicated, including
but not limited to input and output
procedures, controls, tests and
chec5s for accuracy and reliability of
the electronic data message or
document, in the light of all the
circumstances as #ell as any
rele!ant agreementE
(b 3he reliability of the manner in #hich
its originator #as identifiedE
(c 3he integrity of the information and
communication system in #hich it is
recorded or stored, including but not
limited to the hard#are and
computer programs or soft#are used
as #ell as programming errorsE
(d 3he familiarity of the #itness or the
person #ho made the entry #ith the
communication and information
systemE
(e 3he nature and 0uality of the
information #hich #ent into the
communication and information
system upon #hich the electronic
data message or electronic
document #as basedE or
(f 1ther factors #hich the court may
consider as affecting the accuracy or
integrity of the electronic document
or electronic data message.
W Integrity of an information and
communication system. 8n any dispute
in!ol!ing the integrity of the information and
communication system in #hich an
electronic document or electronic data
message is recorded or stored, the court
may consider, among others, the follo#ing
factors?
(a *hether the information and
communication system or other
similar de!ice #as operated in a
hlp2009 Page 50 8/24/201150
manner that did not affect the
integrity of the electronic document,
and there are no other reasonable
grounds to doubt the integrity of the
information and communication
systemE
(b *hether the electronic document
#as recorded or stored by a party to
the proceedings #ith interest ad!erse
to that of the party using itE or
(cZ*hether the electronic document
#as recorded or stored in the usual
and ordinary course of business by a
person #ho is not a party to the
proceedings and #ho did not act
under the control of the party using
it.
9earsay rule e#ce4tion? ( memorandum,
report, record or data compilation of acts,
e!ents, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses,
made by electronic, optical or other similar
means at or near the time of or from
transmission or supply of information by a
person #ith 5no#ledge thereof, and 5ept in
the regular course or conduct of a business
acti!ity, and such #as the regular practice to
ma5e the memorandum, report, record, or
data compilation by electronic, optical or
similar means, all of #hich are sho#n by the
testimony of the custodian or other 0ualified
#itnesses. (R8, X1
3his presumption may be o!ercome by
e!idence of the untrust#orthiness of the
source of information or the method or
circumstances of the preparation,
transmission or storage thereof. (R8, X2
9o/ are matters relatin! to t'e
admissi&ility and evidentiary /ei!'t o,
an electronic document esta&lis'ed8
5R)7
o by an affida!it stating facts of direct
personal 5no#ledge of the affiant or
based on authentic records.
3he affida!it must affirmati!ely
sho# the competence of the
affiant to testify on the matters
contained therein.
3he affiant shall be made to
affirm the contents of the affida!it
in open court and may be cross2
e"amined as a matter of right by
the ad!erse party.
E#amination O, 0itnesses 5R(<7
Electronic testimony
1 (fter summarily hearing the
parties pursuant to Rule J of
these Rules, the court may
authori<e the presentation of
testimonial e!idence by
electronic means. &efore so
authori<ing, the court shall
determine the necessity for such
presentation and prescribe terms
and conditions as may be
necessary under the
circumstances, including the
protection of the rights of the
parties and #itnesses
concerned.
2 *hen e"amination of a #itness
is done electronically, the entire
proceedings, including the
0uestions and ans#ers, shall be
transcribed by a stenographer,
steno typist or other recorder
authori<ed for the purpose, #ho
shall certify as correct the
transcript done by him. 3he
transcript should reflect the fact
that the proceedings, either in
#hole or in part, had been
electronically recorded.
3 3he electronic e!idence and
recording thereof as #ell as the
stenographic notes shall form
part of the record of the case.
Such transcript and recording
shall be deemed prima facie
e!idence of such proceedings.
E4'emeral electronic communication
1 Refers to telephone con!ersations, te"t
messages, chatroom sessions,
streaming audio, streaming !ideo, and
other electronic forms of communication
the e!idence of #hich is not recorded or
retained. (R2, X15
2 Shall be pro!en by the testimony of a
person #ho #as a party to the same or
has personal 5no#ledge thereof. 8n the
absence or una!ailability of such
#itnesses, other competent e!idence
may be admitted. (R11, X2
Audio= 4'oto!ra4'ic and video evidence
5R((= LL("?7
(udio, photographic and !ideo e!idence of
e!ents, acts or transactions shall be
admissible pro!ided it shall be sho#n,
presented or displayed to the court and shall
be identified, e"plained or authenticated by
the person #ho made the recording or by
some other person competent to testify on
the accuracy thereof.
o Same rule co!ers a recording of the
telephone con!ersation or
ephemeral electronic communication
shall be co!ered by the immediately
preceding section.
8f ephemeral, audio, photographic and !ideo
hlp2009 Page 51 8/24/201151
e!idence are recorded or embodied in an
electronic document, then the pro!isions
authentication electronic documents apply.
(R11, X2
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE
(a KBiolo!ical sam4leK means any organic
material originating from a personLs body,
e!en if found in inanimate objects, that is
susceptible to D/( testing. 3his includes
blood, sali!a and other body fluids, tissues,
hairs and bonesE
(b KDNAN means deo"yribonucleic acid,
#hich is the chain of molecules found in
e!ery nucleated cell of the body. 3he totality
of an indi!idualLs D/( is uni0ue for the
indi!idual, e"cept identical t#insE

(c NDNA evidenceN constitutes the totality
of the D/( profiles, results and other
genetic information directly generated from
D/( testing of biological samplesE

(d NDNA 4ro,ileN means genetic
information deri!ed from D/( testing of a
biological sample obtained from a person,
#hich biological sample is clearly identifiable
as originating from that personE
(e NDNA testin!N means !erified and
credible scientific methods #hich include the
e"traction of D/( from biological samples,
the generation of D/( profiles and the
comparison of the information obtained from
the D/( testing of biological samples for the
purpose of determining, #ith reasonable
certainty, #hether or not the D/( obtained
from t#o or more distinct biological samples
originates from the same person (direct
identification or if the biological samples
originate from related persons (5inship
analysisE and
(f Nro&a&ility o, arenta!eN means the
numerical estimate for the li5elihood of
parentage of a putati!e parent compared
#ith the probability of a random match of
t#o unrelated indi!iduals in a gi!en
population.
A44lication ,or DNA $estin! Order% 3he
appropriate court may, at any time, either
motu proprio or on application of any person
#ho has a legal interest in the matter in
litigation, order a D/( testing. Such order
shall issue after due hearing and notice to
the parties upon a sho#ing of the follo#ing?
(a ( biological sample e"ists that is
rele!ant to the caseE
(b 3he biological sample?
(i #as not pre!iously subjected to
the type of D/( testing no# re0uestedE or
(ii #as pre!iously subjected to D/(
testing, but the results may re0uire
confirmation for good reasonsE
(c 3he D/( testing uses a scientifically
!alid techni0ueE
(d 3he D/( testing has the scientific
potential to produce ne# information that is
rele!ant to the proper resolution of the caseE
and chan robles !irtual la# library
(e 3he e"istence of other factors, if any,
#hich the court may consider as potentially
affecting the accuracy or integrity of the
D/( testing.

3his Rule shall not preclude a D/( testing,
#ithout need of a prior court order, at the
behest of any party, including la#
enforcement agencies, before a suit or
proceeding is commenced.
(n order granting the D/( testing shall be
immediately e#ecutory and shall not &e
a44eala&le.
%etition for certiorari shall not stay the
implementation of order unless a higher
court issues an injuncti!e order.
'rant of a D/( testing application /13 an
automatic admission of D/( e!idence.
%ost2con!iction D/( testing may be
a!ailable, #ithout need of prior court order,
to the prosecution or any person con!icted
by final and e"ecutory judgment pro!ided
that
(a a biological sample e"ists,
(b such sample is rele!ant to the case, and
(c the testing #ould probably result in the
re!ersal or modification of the judgment of
con!iction.
Factors in Assessment o, 4ro&ative
value o, DNA evidence%
(a 3he chain of custody, including ho# the
biological samples #ere collected, ho# they
#ere handled, and the possibility of
contamination of the samplesE
(b 3he D/( testing methodology, including
the procedure follo#ed in analy<ing the
samples, the ad!antages and
disad!antages of the procedure, and
compliance #ith the scientifically !alid
standards in conducting the testsE
(c 3he forensic D/( laboratory, including
accreditation by any reputable standards2
setting institution and the 0ualification of the
analyst #ho conducted the tests. 8f the
laboratory is not accredited, the rele!ant
hlp2009 Page 52 8/24/201152
e"perience of the laboratory in forensic
case#or5 and credibility shall be properly
establishedE and
(d 3he reliability of the testing result
FAC$ORS in evaluatin! t'e Relia&ility o,
DNA $estin! Met'odolo!y%
(a 3he falsifiability of the principles or
methods used, that is, #hether the theory or
techni0ue can be and has been testedE
(b 3he subjection to peer re!ie# and
publication of the principles or methodsE
(c 3he general acceptance of the principles
or methods by the rele!ant scientific
communityE
(d 3he e"istence and maintenance of
standards and controls to ensure the
correctness of data generatedE
(e 3he e"istence of an appropriate
reference population databaseE and
(f 3he general degree of confidence
attributed to mathematical calculations used
in comparing D/( profiles and the
significance and limitation of statistical
calculations used in comparing D/(
profiles.
FAC$ORS in Evaluation o, DNA $estin!
Results%
(a 3he e!aluation of the #eight of matching
D/( e!idence or the rele!ance of
mismatching D/( e!idenceE
(b 3he results of the D/( testing in the
light of the totality of the other e!idence
presented in the caseE and
(c D/( results that e"clude the putati!e
parent from paternity shall be conclusi!e
proof of non2paternity. 8f the !alue of the
%robability of %aternity is less than JJ.J[,
the results of the D/( testing shall be
considered as corroborati!e e!idence. 8f the
!alue of the %robability of %aternity is JJ.J[
or higher, there shall be a disputable
presumption of paternity.
Remedy i, t'e Results Are Favora&le to
t'e Convict.
3he con!ict or the prosecution may file a
petition for a #rit of habeas corpus in the
court of origin.
8n case the court, after due hearing, finds
the petition to be meritorious, it shall re!erse
or modify the judgment of con!iction and
order the release of the con!ict, unless
continued detention is justified for a la#ful
cause.
( similar petition may be filed either in the
-ourt of (ppeals or the Supreme -ourt, or
#ith any member of said courts, #hich may
conduct a hearing thereon or remand the
petition to the court of origin and issue the
appropriate orders.
"E6EA'E 72 -A results.
3hrough order of the court.
Shall only be released to any of the
follo#ing, under such terms and conditions
as may be set forth by the court?
(a %erson from #hom the sample #as
ta5enE
(b Ga#yers representing parties in the case
or action #here the D/( e!idence is offered
and presented or sought to be offered and
presentedE
(c Ga#yers of pri!ate complainants in a
criminal actionE
(d Duly authori<ed la# enforcement
agenciesE and
(e 1ther persons as determined by the
court.
Indirect Contem4t2 to those #ho publishes
or disclose the D/( results #ithout proper
court order
reservation o, DNA Evidence% 3he trial
court shall preser!e the D/( e!idence in its
totality, including all biological samples,
D/( profiles and results or other genetic
information obtained from D/( testing. @or
this purpose, the court may order the
appropriate go!ernment agency to preser!e
the D/( e!idence as follo#s?
(a 8n criminal cases?
i. for not less than the period of time that
any person is under trial for an offenseE or
ii. in case the accused is ser!ing sentence,
until such time as the accused has ser!ed
his sentenceE and

(b 8n all other cases, until such time as
the decision in the case #here the D/(
e!idence #as introduced has become final
and e"ecutory. chan robles !irtual la#
library
'ysical destruction o, a &iolo!ical
sam4le &e,ore t'e e#4iration o, t'e
4eriods set ,ort' a&ove= 4rovided t'at2
(a 3here is a court order or
(b 3he person from #hom the D/( sample
#as obtained has consented in #riting to the
disposal of the D/( e!idence.
hlp2009 Page 53 8/24/201153