ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
Remedial Law
SUMMER REVIEWER
EVIDENCE
RULE 128
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1. Evidence defined
Section 2. Scope
PROOF - the result or effect of evidence. When the
requisite quantum of evidence of a particular fact has
been duly admitted and given weight, the result is
called the proof of such fact.
FACTUM PROBANDUM
- the ultimate fact or the fact sought to be
established.
- Refers to proposition
FACTUM PROBANS
- is the evidentiary fact or the fact by which the
factum probandum is to be established.
- Materials which establish the proposition.
 The law of evidence is fundamentally a
procedural law.
 In criminal cases, if the alteration of these
rules may validly be made applicable to
cases pending at the time of such change, as
the parties to an action have no vested right
in the rules of evidence.
 In criminal cases, if the alteration of these
rules of evidence would, for instance, permit
the reception of a lesser quantum of
evidence than what the law required at the
time of the commission of the offense in
order to convict, then the retroactive
application of such amendatory law would be
unconstitutional for being ex post facto.
 The rules of evidence are
specifically applicable only in
judicial proceedings.
 In quasi-judicial proceedings, the
rules of evidence shall apply by
analogy, or in a suppletory character
and whenever practicable and
convenient except where the
governing law on that particular
proceeding specifically adopts the
rules of evidence in the Rules of
Court.
 In cases before the Court of Agrarian
Relations, the Rules of Court were
not applicable even in a suppletory
character, except in criminal and
expropriation cases, which
procedure has been superseded by
the provisions of RA 6657.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE ACCORDING TO
FORM
1. OBJECTIVE OR REAL EVIDENCE – directly
addressed to the senses of the court and
consist of tangible things exhibited or
demonstrated in open court, in an ocular
inspection, or at place designated by the
court for its view or observation of an
exhibition, experiment or demonstration. This
is referred to as autoptic preference.
2. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – evidence
supplied by written instruments or derived
from conventional symbols, such as letters,
by which ideas are represented on material
substances
3. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE – is that which is
submitted to the court through the testimony
or deposition of a witness.
RELEVANT, MATERIAL AND COMPETENT
EVIDENCE
RELEVANT EVIDENCE – evidence having any value
in reason as tending to prove any matter provable in
an action. The test is the logical relation of the
evidentiary fact to the fact in issue, whether the
former tends to establish the probability or
improbability of the latter.
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
MATERIAL EVIDENCE – evidence directed to prove
a fact in issue as determined by the rules of
substantive law and pleadings. The test is whether
the fact it intends to prove is an issue or not. AS to
whether a fact is in issue or not is in turn determined
by the substantive law, the pleadings, the pre-trial
order and by the admissions or confessions on file.
Consequently, evidence may be relevant but may be
immaterial in the case.
COMPETENT EVIDENCE– one that is not excluded
by this Rules, a stature or the Constitution.
DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
DIRECT EVIDENCE – that which proves the fact in
dispute without the aid of any inference or
presumption
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - is the proof of a
fact or facts from which taken either singly or
collectively, the existence or a particular fact in
dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable
consequence.
CUMULATIVE AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE – evidence of the same
kind and to the same state of facts.
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE – is additional
evidence of a difference character to the same point.
PRIMA FACIE AND CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE – that which is standing
alone, unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to
maintain the proposition affirmed.
CONCLUSVE EVIDENCE – the class of evidence
which the law does not allow to be contradicted.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE
PRIMARY EVIDENCE – that which the law regards
as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in
question. Also referred to as the best evidence.
SECONDARY EVIDENCE – that which is inferior to
the primary evidence and is permitted by law only
when the best evidence is not available. Known as
the substitutionary evidence.
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EVIDENCE
POSITIVE EVIDENCE – when the witness affirms
that a fact did or did not occur. Entitled to a greater
weight since the witness represents of his personal
knowledge the presence or absence of a fact.
NEGATIVE EVIDENCE - when the witness did not
see or know of the occurrence of a fact. There is a
total disclaimer of persona knowledge, hence without
any representation or disavowal that the fact in
question could or could not have existed or
happened. It is admissible only if it tends to contradict
positive evidence of the other side or would tend to
exclude the existence of fact sworn to by the other
side.
What do the rules of evidence determine?
All rights and liabilities are dependent upon
and arise out of facts.
Every judicial proceeding whatever has for its
purpose the ascertaining of some right or liability. If
the proceeding is Criminal, the object is to ascertain
the liability to punishment of the person accused. If
the proceeding is Civil, the object is to ascertain
some right of property or status, or the right of one
party and the liability of other to some form of relief.
Two branches of the law of procedure:
1. The law of the pleadings which determines
the questions in a dispute between the
parties
2. The law of evidence, which determines how
the party can convince the court of the
existence of facts which according to the
provisions of substantive law, would establish
the existence of the right or liability which
they allege to exist.
Why should the rule of evidence be uniform?
1. the relation between the evidentiary fact and
a particular proposition is always the same,
without regard to the kind of litigation in
which that proposition becomes material to
be proved.
2. if the rules of evidence prescribe the best
course to arrive at the truth, that must be and
are the same in all civilized countries.
Differences in the Rules of Evidence in Criminal
and Civil Cases
Civil Criminal
Parties attend by The accused attends
accord by compulsion
There is no Presumption of
presumption as to innocence attends the
either party accused throughout
the trial until the same
has been overcome by
Page 2 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
prima facie evidence of competent; on the other hand, their admission, if
his guilt they turn out later to be irrelevant or incompetent,
An offer to It is an implied can easily be remedied by completely discarding
compromise does not, admission of guilt. them or ignoring them.
as a general rule,
amount to an Section. 3 Admissibility of evidence.
admission of liability
Must prove by Guilt beyond
preponderance of reasonable Section. 4 Relevancy; collateral matters.
evidence: Reason is doubetween
that there is no 2 AXIOMS OF ADMISSIBILITY:
presumption and due 1. None but facts having rational probative
to the fact that the value are admissible
proof will only result in 2. all facts having rational probative value are
a judgment of admissible unless some specific rule forbids
pecuniary damages or their admission.
establish CIVIL
RIGHT. The Admissibility of Evidence is Determined at
the Time it is Offered to the Court
 Any evidence inadmissible according to the laws When offered When may be
in force at the time the action accrued, but objected
admissible according to the laws in force at the When the Be made
time of the trial, is receivable. There is no vested same is either at the
right of property in rules of evidence. presented for the time it is
 Reason: The rules of evidence are merely its view or presented in
methods for ascertaining facts. It must be evaluation, as an ocular
supposed that change of law merely makes it Object in ocular inspection or
more likely that the fact will be truly ascertained, evidence inspection or demonstration
either by admitting evidence whose former demonstration s or when it is
suppression or by suppressing evidence helped s, or when the formally
to conceal the truth. party rest his offered
case and the
real evidence
 There are rules of evidence established merely consists of
for the protection of the parties. If according to objects
the well-established doctrine, the parties may exhibited in
waive such rules during the trial of a case, there court.
is no reason why they cannot make the waiver in By calling of As to the
a contract. However, if the rule of evidence the witness to qualification of
waived by the parties has been established by the stand the witness –
law on grounds of public policy, the waiver is should be
void. made at the
time he is
 Trial courts are enjoined to observe the strict called to the
enforcement of the rules of evidence which stand.
crystallized through constant use and practice If otherwise
and are very useful and effective aids in the qualified -
search for truth and for the effective Testimonial objection
administration of justice. But in connection with evidence should be
evidence which may appear to be of doubtful raised when
relevancy or incompetence or admissibility, it is the
safest policy to be liberal, not rejecting them on objectionable
doubtful or technical grounds, but admitting them question is
unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial or asked or after
incompetent, for the reason that their rejection the answer is
places them beyond the consideration of the given if the
court, if they are thereafter found relevant or objectionable

Page 3 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
features by similar incompetent evidence.
became
apparent by b. English rule – if a party has
reason of such presented inadmissible evidence, the
answer. adverse party may resort to similar
Formally At the time it is inadmissible evidence
Documentary offered by the formally
evidence proponent offered.
c. Massachusetts rule – the adverse
immediately
before he rests party may be permitted to introduce
his case. similar incompetent evidence in
order to avoid a plain and unfair
prejudice caused by the admission of
 Every objection to the admissibility of evidence
the other party’s evidence.
shall be made at the time such evidence is
offered, or as soon thereafter as the objection to
What should determine the application of the rule
its admissibility shall have become apparent,
of curative admissibility:
otherwise the objection shall be considered
waived.
1) whether the incompetent evidence was
seasonably objected to
CERTAIN DOCTRINES OR RULES OF
2) whether, regardless of the objection, the
ADMISSIBILITY:
admission of such evidence shall cause a
plain and unfair prejudice to the party against
1. Conditional admissibility
whom it is admitted.
Where the evidence at the time of its offer
 The evidence which was illegally obtained is
appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is
inadmissible on a timely motion or action to
connected with the other facts to be subsequently
suppress.
proved, such evidence may be received ob condition
that the other facts will be proved thereafter,
 The rules prohibit the admission of irrelevant
otherwise the evidence given will be stricken out.
collateral facts only.
This is subject to the qualification that there should
be no bad faith on the part of the proponent.
 Circumstantial evidence is legal evidence
and if sufficient, can sustain a judgment.
2. Multiple admissibility
Circumstantial evidence is evidence of
relevant collateral facts.
Where the evidence is relevant and competent
for two or more purposes, such evidence should be
ISSUE – is the point or points in question, at the
admitted for any or all the purposes for which it is
conclusion of the pleadings which one side affirms,
offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of
and the other side denies.
law for its admissibility therefore.
FACT – thing done or existing.
3. Curative admissibility
FACTS IN ISSUE - are those facts which the plaintiff
This treats upon the right of the party to introduce
must prove in order to establish his claim and those
incompetent evidence in his behalf where the court
facts which the defendant must prove in order to
has admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by
establish a defense set up by him, but only when the
the adverse party.
fact alleged by the one party is not admitted by the
other party..

FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE - are those facts

Three theories on curative admissibility:
a. American rule – the admission of
such incompetent evidence, without
objection by the opponent does not
justify such opponent in rebutting it
which render the probable existence or non-existence
of a fact in issue, or some other relevant fact.
The effect of the pleadings is that they help in
determining whether the evidence offered is relevant
to the case, for it is a familiar proposition that the

Page 4 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
evidence must be confined to the facts put in issue by
the pleadings.
RULE 129
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
Section 1. Judicial Notice, when mandatory
JUDICIAL NOTICE – no more than that the court will
bring to its aid and consider, without proof of the
facts, its knowledge of those matters of public
concern which are known by all well-informed
persons.
– cognizance of certain facts
which judges may take and act on without proof
because they are already known to them
 The object of judicial notice is to save time,
labor and expense in securing and
introducing evidence on matters which are
not ordinarily capable of dispute and not
actually bona fide disputed, and the tenor of
which can safely be assumed form the
tribunal’s general knowledge or from slight
search on its part.
 Judicial notice is based on convenience and
expediency.
Two kinds of judicial notice :
1) mandatory
2) discretionary
 The direct effect of judicial notice upon the
burden of proving a fact is to relieve the
parties from the necessity of introducing
evidence to prove the fact noticed. It makes
evidence unnecessary.
 The stipulation and admission of the parties
or counsel cannot prevail over the operation
of the doctrine of judicial notice, and such
stipulation and admissions are all subject to
the operation of the doctrine.
 Municipal trial courts are required to take
judicial notice of the ordinances of the
municipality or city wherein they sit.
 In the RTC, they must take such judicial
notice only
1. when required to do so by statute and
2. in a case on appeal before them and wherein
the inferior court took judicial notice of an
ordinance involved in said case.
 Courts are required to take judicial notice of
the decisions of the appellate courts but not
of the decisions of coordinate trial courts
Section 2. Judicial Notice, when discretionary .
 The mere personal knowledge of the judge is
not the judicial knowledge of the court;
Judicial cognizance is taken only of those
matters which are commonly known.
 It is not essential that matters of judicial
cognizance be actually known to the judge if
the subject is proper for judicial knowledge,
the judge may at his discretion, inform
himself in any way which may seem best to
him, and act accordingly.
 The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the
wisdom and discretion of the courts. The
power to take judicial notice is to be
exercised by courts with caution; care must
be taken that the requisite notoriety exists;
and every reasonable doubt upon the subject
should be promptly resolved in the negative.
 Foreign laws may not be taken judicial
notice of and have to be proved like any
other fact EXCEPT where said laws are
within the actual knowledge of the court such
as when they are well and generally known
or they have been actually ruled upon in
other cases before it and none of the parties
claim otherwise.
 To prove a written foreign law, the
requirements must be complied with, that is,
by an official publication or by a duly attested
and authenticated copy thereof.
DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION –
absent any of the evidence or admission, the foreign
law is presumed to be the same as that in the
Philippines.
Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing
necessary
 The purpose of the hearing is not for the
presentation of evidence but to afford the
parties reasonable opportunity to present
information relevant to the proprietary of
taking such judicial notice or to the tenor of
the matter to be noticed.
Page 5 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
What stage may the court take judicial notice of a
fact?
1. During trial
2. after trial and before judgment
3. appeal
 A DISTINCTION is made between judicial
notice taken during trial and that taken after
trial but before judgment or on appeal.
During the trial: the Court may announce its
intention to take judicial notice of any matter and may
hear the parties thereon.
After trial but before judgment or on
appeal: the Court may take judicial notice of any
matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if
such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case
 The judge may consult works on collateral
science, or arts, touching the topic on trial.
Section 4. Judicial Admissions.
 JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS are those so made in
the pleadings filed or in the progress of a trial.
 EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS are those made
out of court, or in a judicial proceeding other than
the one under consideration
 Extrajudicial admissions or other admissions
are, as a rule and where elements of
estoppel are not present, disputable.
 A judicial admission may be oral as a verbal
waiver of proof made in open court, a
withdrawal of a contention or a disclosure
made before the court, or an admission
made by a witness in the course of his
testimony or deposition, or may be in writing
as in pleading, bill of particulars, stipulation of
facts, request for admission, or a judicial
admission contained in an affidavit used in
the case.
 To be considered a judicial admission, the
admission must be made in the same case,
otherwise, it is an extrajudicial admission.
 When a defendant is declared in default for
having failed to answer the complaint, such a
failure does not amount to an admission of
the facts alleged in the complaint.
 Stipulations voluntarily entered into between
the parties will be respected and enforced by
the courts unless contrary to public policy or
good morals. However, the binding effect of
the facts applies only to the parties in
agreement.
 Pleadings superseded or amended
disappear from the record of judicial
admissions, and in order that any statements
contained therein may be considered as an
extrajudicial admission, it should be offered
formally in evidence.
RULE 130
RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY
Section 1. Object as evidence
 Where an object is relevant to a fact in issue,
the court may acquire knowledge thereof by
actually viewing the object, in which case
such object becomes object evidence or by
receiving testimonial evidence thereon.
 The fact that an ocular inspection has been
held does not preclude a party from
introducing other evidence on the same
issue.
 Whether an ocular inspection is to be made
or not lies in the discretion of the trial court.
 An ocular inspection conducted by a
judge without notice to or presence of the
parties is invalid as an ocular inspection
is a part of the trial.
THE COURT MAY REFUSE THE INTRODUCTION
OF OBJECT EVIDENCE AND RELY ON
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE ALONE IF:
1. the exhibition of such object is contrary to
morals or decency
2. to require its being viewed in court or in an
ocular inspection would result in delays,
inconvenience, unnecessary expenses out of
proportion to the evidentiary value of such
object
3. such object evidence would be confusing or
misleading, as when the purpose is to prove
the former condition of the object and there is
no preliminary showing that there has been
no substantial change in said condition
4. the testimonial or documentary evidence
already presented clearly portrays the object
in question as to render a view thereof
unnecessary.
Page 6 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
 Even if the object is repulsive or indecent, if a
view of the same is necessary in the interest
of justice, such evidence may still be
exhibited but the court may exclude the
public from such view.
 Object evidence includes any article or object
which may be known or perceived by the use
of any of the senses.
Example: examination of the anatomy of a
person or of any substance taken therefrom, or the
examination of the representative portrayals of the
object in question, such as maps, diagrams or
sketches, pictures or audio-visual recordings,
provided the same are properly authenticated.
 Just like ocular inspection, which are only
auxiliary remedies afforded to the court, such
observations of the court may be amplified by
interpretations afforded by testimonial
evidence, especially by experts.
 Documents are object evidence if the
purpose is to prove their existence or
condition, or the nature of the
handwriting thereon, or to determine the
age of the paper used, or the blemishes
or alterations thereon, as where
falsification is alleged. Otherwise, they are
considered documentary evidence if the
purpose is to establish the contents or tenor
thereof.
 Object evidence may consist of articles or
persons, which may be exhibited inside or
outside the courtroom; it may also be a mere
inspection of an object or an experiment.
OBJECT EVIDENCE - is a tangible object that
played some actual role on the matter that gave rise
to the litigation. For instance, a knife.
DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE - is a tangible
evidence that merely illustrates a matter of
importance in the litigation such as maps, diagrams,
models, summaries and other materials created
especially for litigation.
 The DISTINCTION between object and
demonstrative evidence is important
because it helps determine the standards
that the evidence must meet to be
admissible. For OBJECT EVIDENCE, the
required foundation relates to proving that
the evidence is indeed the object used in the
underlying event. The foundation for
DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE, does not
involve showing that the object was the one
used in the underlying event, but the
foundation generally involves the showing
that the demonstrative object fairly
represents or illustrates what it is alleged to
illustrate.
 Physical evidence is the highest form of
evidence.
REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE
OBJECT EVIDENCE:
1. Must be relevant to the fact in issue.
Example: In murder case, the prosecution
offered in evidence a gun. The gun must
have some connection to the crime. There
must be a logical nexus between the
evidence and the point on which it is offered.
2. Object must be authenticated before it is
admitted. Authentication usually consists of
showing that the object was involved in
underlying event.
The “chain of custody” method of authentication
requires that every link in the chain of custody –
every person who possessed the object since it was
first recognized as being relevant to the case, must
explain what he did with it.
 In order that photographs may be given as
evidence, it must be shown that it is the true
and faithful representation of the place or
object which to which they refer.
Photographs may be verified by the
photographer or any person acquainted with
the object represented and testify that the
same faithfully represents the object.
For tape recordings, the ff. must be shown:
1. the recording device was capable of
recording testimony
2. the operator of the device was competent
3. establishment of the correctness or
authenticity of the recording
4. deletions, additions, changes have not been
made
5. manner of the preservation of the recording
6. identification of the speakers
7. Testimony elicited was voluntarily made.
 Authenticated fingerprints may be compared
to fingerprints found on the crime scene.
Page 7 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
2 theories on whether the court may compel the
plaintiff to submit his body for inspection in
personal injury cases:
1. No, because the right of a person to be
secured of the possession or control of his
person is sacred.
2. Yes, because if it is not allowed then the
court will be an instrument of the grossest
injustice and therefore the object for which
courts are instituted would be defeated since
the courts will be compelled to give a one-
sided decision.
Weight of authority favors the first 2nd theory
 The accused may be compelled to submit
himself to an inspection of his body for the
purpose of ascertaining identity or for other
purpose.
 There cannot be any compulsion as to the
accused taking dictation from the prosecuting
officer for the purpose of determining his
participation in the offense charged.
 Whenever the defendant, at the trial of his
case, testifying in his own behalf, denies that
a certain writing or signature is in his own
hand he may on cross-examination be
compelled to write in open court in order that
the jury may be able to compare his
handwriting with the one in question.
 Where the object in question cannot be
produced in court because it is immovable or
inconvenient to remove, it is proper for the
tribunal to go to the object in its place and
there observe it.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2 Documentary evidence
DOCUMENT – any substance having any matter
expressed or described upon it by marks capable of
being read.
 If it is produced without regard to the
message which it contains, it is treated as
real evidence.
1. Best Evidence Rule
Section 3. Original document must be produced;
exceptions
GENERAL RULE: the original document must be
produced
EXCEPTIONS:
1. When the original has been lost or destroyed,
or cannot be produced in court, without bad
faith on the part of the offeror;
2. When the original is in the custody or under
the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
produce it after reasonable notice;
3. When the original consists of numerous
accounts or other documents which cannot
be examined in court without great loss of
time and the fact sought to be established
from them is only the general result of the
whole; and
4. When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office
BEST EVIDENCE RULE - is that rule which requires
the highest grade of evidence obtainable to prove a
disputed fact.
Purpose of the rule requiring the production of
the best evidence: is the prevention of fraud
because if the best evidence is not presented then
the presumption of suppression of evidence will be
present.
 Best evidence rule applies only when the
purpose of the proof is to establish the
terms of writing.
For the application of the best evidence, it is
essential that: the original writing or if it is a private
document, be first duly identified, and a sufficient and
a sufficient foundation be laid, so as to entitle the
writing to be admitted in evidence, and it must be
available to the opposite party for cross-examination
Section 4. Original document.
WHAT IS AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT?
(a) the original of a document is one in two the
contents of which are the subject of inquiry.
(b) When a document is in two or more copies,
executed at or about the same time, with
identical contents, all such copies are equally
regarded as originals
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular
course, of business, one being copied from
another at or near the time of the transaction,
all entries are likewise equally regarded as
originals.
Document - is a deed, instrument or other duly
authorized appear by which something is proved,
Page 8 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
evidenced or set forth.
 Documentary evidence is that which is
furnished by written instruments, inscriptions
and documents of all kinds.
RULE OF EXCLUSION: that which is secondary
evidence cannot inceptively be introduced as the
original writing itself must be produced in court,
except in the four instances mentioned in Section 3.
 The non-production of the original document
unless justified in Section 3, gives rise to the
presumption of suppression of evidence.
 In the case of real evidence, secondary
evidence of the fact in issue may readily be
introduced without having to account for the
non-production of such primary evidence.
 With respect to documentary evidence, the
best evidence rule applies only when the
content of such document is the subject of
inquiry.
 If carbon copies are signed, they are
considered as originals.
 In criminal cases, where the issue is not only
with respect to the contents of the document
but also as to whether such document
actually existed, the original itself must be
presented.
 Affidavits and depositions are considered as
not being the best evidence, hence not
admissible if the affiants or deponents are
available as witness.
 If the issue is the contents of the telegram as
received by the addressee, then the original
dispatch received is the best evidence; and
on the issue as to the telegram sent by the
sender, the original is the message delivered
for transmission. If the issue is the
inaccuracy of transmission, both telegrams
as sent and received are originals.
GENERAL RULE: an objection by the party against
whom secondary evidence is sought to be introduced
is essential to bring the best evidence rule into
application. Where secondary evidence has been
admitted, the rule of evidence might have been
successfully invoked if proper and timely objection
had been taken.
 When a duplicate or a copy is amended or
altered by the party, it becomes the original.
 Blueprints and vellum tracings have been
held to be originals rather than copies.
 Xerox copies are not originals since they are
reproduced at a latter time.
 When an entry is repeated in the regular
course of business, one being copied from
another at or near the time of the transaction,
all the entries are regarded as originals.
2. Secondary Evidence
Section 5. When original document is unavailable
SECONDARY EVIDENCE – shows that better or
primary evidence exists as to the proof of fact in
question. It is deemed less reliable.
What must be proved to admit secondary
evidence?
(a) The execution of the original
(b) loss, destruction or unavailability of all such
originals
(c) Reasonable diligence and good faith in the
search for or attempt to produce the original.
The due execution can be proved through the
testimony of either:
1) the person who executed it
2) The person before whom its execution was
acknowledged
3) any person who was present and saw it
executed and delivered or who thereafter
saw it and recognized the signatures, or one
to whom the parties thereto had previously
confessed the execution thereof
 Intentional destruction of the originals by a
party who, however, had acted in good faith
does not preclude his introduction of
secondary evidence of the contents thereof.
 When the original is outside the jurisdiction of
the court, as when it is in a foreign country,
secondary evidence is admissible.
Secondary evidence may consist of (IN THE
SAME ORDER):
1. a copy of said document
2. recital of its contents in an authentic
document
Page 9 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
3. the recollection of the witnesses
 Where the law specifically provides for the
class and quantum of secondary evidence to
establish the contents of a document, such
requirement is controlling.
 It is not necessary to prove the loss beyond
all possibility of mistake. A reasonable
probability of its loss is sufficient, and this
may be shown by bona fide and diligent
search for it in place where it is likely to be
found.
 Where both parties admit that an instrument
has been lost, it is sufficient to warrant the
reception of secondary evidence.
 The fact of loss or destruction must, like any
other fact, be proved by a fair preponderance
of evidence, and this is sufficient.
 The fact that a writing is really a true copy of
the original may be shown by the testimony
of a person who has had the opportunity to
compare the copy with the original and found
it to be correct. In order that the testimony of
such person may be admissible, it is
sufficient that the original was read to him by
another person while he read the copy and
found that it corresponded with what was
read to him. It is also sufficient where the
person who made the original a short time
thereafter made a copy by writing down the
dictation of another reading from the original.
 As long as the originals of a public document
in the possession of the parties have been
proven lost, a certified copy of the document
made before it was lost is admissible as
secondary evidence of its contents, and the
burden of proof is upon the party questioning
its authenticity to show that it is not a true
copy of the original.
 In proving the contents of the original in
some authentic document, it is sufficient if it
appears in a private document which is
proved to be authentic. “Authentic” means
that the document should be genuine. It need
not be a public document.
 It is not expected of a witness to state the
contents of a document with verbal accuracy,
it is enough that the substance of the
documents be stated.
Section 6. – When original document is in
adverse party’s custody or control
FACTS WHICH MUST BE SHOWN BY THE PARTY
OFFERING SECONDARY EVIDENCE:
1) The adverse party’s custody or control of the
original document.
2) That reasonable notice was given to the
adverse party who has the custody or control
of the document
3) Satisfactory proof of its existence
4) Failure or refusal by the adverse party to
produce it in court.
 No particular form of notice is required, as
long as it fairly apprises the other party as to
what papers are desired.
 Even an oral demand in open court for
production at a reasonable time thereafter
will suffice.
 Notice must be given to the adverse party, or
his attorney, even if the document is in the
actual possession of a third party.
 Where receipt of the original of a letter is
acknowledged on a carbon copy thereof,
there is no need for a notice to the other
party to produce the original of the latter.
 It should be observed that the duplicate copy,
if complete, is itself an original copy and the
only point in issue is the receipt of the basic
original copy thereof
 The justified refusal or failure of the adverse
party to produce the document does not give
rise to the presumption of suppression of
evidence or create an unfavorable inference
against him. It authorizes the introduction of
secondary evidence.
 Under this rule, the production of the original
document is procured by mere notice to
adverse party and the requirements for such
notice must be complied with as a condition
precedent for the subsequent introduction of
secondary evidence by the proponent.
 Where the nature of the action is in itself a
notice, as where it is for the recovery or
annulment of documents wrongfully obtained
or withheld by the other party, no notice to
produce said document is required.
Section 7. Evidence admissible when original
Page 10 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
documents is a public record generally not admissible to vary, contradict, or defeat
the operation of a valid document.
 Such document may be evidenced by an
official publication thereof or by a copy PAROL EVIDENCE – any evidence aliunde, whether
attested by the officer having the legal oral or written, which is intended or tends to vary or
custody of the record, and in case of an contradict a complete and enforceable agreement
authorized public record of a private writing, embodied in a document.
the same may also be proved by a copy
thereof attested by the legal keeper of the  Formerly, even if there was a written
record. agreement on a particular subject matter,
the parol evidence rule did not apply to or
Section 8. Party who calls for document not bar evidence of a collateral agreement
bound to offer it. between the same parties on the same or
related subject matter, in the ff instances:
 Production of papers or documents upon the 1) Where the collateral agreement is not
trial, pursuant to a notice duly served, does inconsistent with the terms of the written
not make such papers or documents contract
evidence. It is not until the party who 2) Where the collateral agreement has not
demanded the production of the papers been integrated in and is independent of the
examine them and offers them in evidence written contract as where it is suppletory to
that they assume the status of evidentiary the original contract
matter. 3) where the collateral agreement is
subsequent to or novatory of the written
contract; and
3. Parol Evidence Rule 4) Where the collateral agreement constitutes a
condition precedent which determines
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements whether the written contract may become
operative or effective, but this exception shall
GENERAL RULE: When the terms of an agreement not apply to a condition subsequent not
have been reduced to writing, it is to be considered stated in the agreement.
as containing all the terms agreed upon and there
can be, between the parties and their successors in  Parol evidence rule does not apply, and
interest, no evidence of such terms other than the may not properly be invoked by either party
contents of the written agreement. to the litigation against the other, where at
least one party to the suit is not a party or
However, a party may present evidence to privy to the written instrument in question
modify, explain or add to the terms of the written and does not base a claim or assert a
agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading any right originating in the instrument or the
of the following: relation established thereby.
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
imperfection in the written agreement; Parol Evidence Rule Best Evidence Rule
(b) The failure of the written agreement to It presupposes that the Contemplates the
express the true intent and agreement of the original document is situation wherein the
parties thereto; available in court original writing is not
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or available and/or there
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by is a dispute as to
the parties or their successors in interest whether said writing is
after the execution of the written agreement. the original.
Prohibits the varying of Prohibits the
The term “agreement” includes wills. the terms of a written introduction of
agreement substitutionary
The parol evidence rule is based upon the evidence in lieu of the
consideration that when the parties have reduced original document
their agreement on a particular matter into writing, all regardless of whether
their previous and contemporaneous agreements on or not it varies the
the matter are merged therein, hence evidence of a contents of the original
prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is With the exception of Applies to all kinds of

Page 11 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
the wills, the parol writings
evidence rule applies
only to documents
which are contractual
in nature
Can be invoked only It can be invoked by
when the controversy any party to an action
is between the parties regardless of whether
to the written or not such party has
agreement, their participated in the
privies, or any party writing involved.
directly affected
thereby (this is to
prevent fraudulent
operation of the
instrument upon the
rights of strangers)
 In order that the parol evidence may be
admissible, the mistake or imperfection of the
document, or its failure to express the true
intent and agreement of the parties, or the
validity of the agreement must be put in issue
by the pleadings. Where the plaintiff failed to
allege any such fact in his complaint, he
cannot introduce parol evidence thereon.
 If the defendant invoked such fact in his
answer, parol evidence may be introduced as
such fact is now put in issue.
 Even if such defenses were not raised in the
pleadings, but the parol evidence is not
objected to, such objection is deemed
waived. Such mistake or imperfection must
be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
 When no timely objection or protest is made
to the admission of parol evidence in respect
to a contract relative to real estate and when
the motion to strike out said evidence came
too late; and if the other party against whom
such evidence was presented cross-
examined the witnesses who testified in
respect to the contract, said party will be
understood to have waived the benefits of
the law. Parol evidence under those facts is
competent and admissible.
 An intrinsic ambiguity in the written
agreement is now required to be put in issue
in the pleading in order that parol evidence
therein may be admitted.
 The “mistake” under the first exception
refers to a mistake of fact which is mutual to
the parties where the innocent party was
imposed upon by unfair dealing of the other.
 “Imperfection” includes an inaccurate
statement in the agreement, or
incompleteness in the writing, or the
presence of inconsistent provisions therein.
As a matter of substantive law, when one
party was mistaken and the other knew that
the instrument did not state their real
agreement but concealed the fact from the
former, the instrument may be reformed.
 The purpose of the second exception is to
enable the court to ascertain the true
intention of the parties or the true nature of
the transaction between the parties.
 As earlier stated, it now includes a latent or
intrinsic ambiguity in the writing. There is
latent ambiguity when the writing on its face
appears clear and unambiguous but there
are collateral matters or circumstances which
make the meaning uncertain, or where a
writing admits of two constructions both of
which are in harmony with the language
used.
 Example of latent ambiguity is when the
documents refers to a particular person but
such name pertains to many persons with
same name.
PATENT OR EXTRINSIC AMBIGUITY - is such
ambiguity which is apparent on the face of the writing
itself and requires something to be added in order to
ascertain the meaning of the words used. In this
case, parol evidence is not admissible, otherwise the
court would be creating a contract between the
parties.
INTERMEDIATE AMBIGUITY – situation where an
ambiguity partakes of the nature of both patent and
latent. In this, the words are seemingly clear and with
a settled meaning, is actually equivocal and admits of
two interpretations. Here, parol evidence is
admissible to clarify the ambiguity provided that the
matter is put in issue by the pleader. Example:
Dollars, tons and ounces
 False description does not vitiate a
document if the subject is sufficiently
identified. The incorrect description shall be
rejected as surplusage while the correct and
complete description standing alone shall
sustain the validity of the writing.
 No express trust concerning an immovable or
Page 12 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
any interest therein may be proved by parol prohibits is varying the terms of the writing by
evidence. parol evidence.

Rules governing the admissibility of parol  To determine whether or not the subject
evidence to explain ambiguity of an oral agreement is separate and
1) Where the instrument itself seem to be clear distinct from the subject of a writing: it is
and certain on its face, and the ambiguity essential to ascertain first what is the whole
arises from extrinsic or collateral matter, the subject intended by the parties to be covered
ambiguity may be helped by parole evidence by such writing. This question may be
(Latent ambiguity) determined from the contract itself, in the
light of the subject matter with which it deals
2) Where the ambiguity consists in the use of and of the circumstances standing its
equivocal words designing the person or execution. The next step is to ascertain the
subject-matter, parole evidence of collateral subject of the oral agreement offered to be
or extrinsic matter may be introduced for the proved. Then a comparison should be made
purpose of aiding the court in arriving at the between the writing and the oral negotiation
meaning of the language used (Intermediate and from that comparison it may be seen
ambiguity) whether or not the subject of the writing is
separate and distinct from that of the oral
3) Where the ambiguity is such that a perusal of negotiation. Parol evidence is admitted if the
the instrument shows plainly that something subject of the oral negotiation is not so
more must be added before the reader can closely connected with the subject of the
determine what of several things is meant, writing.
the rule is inflexible that parol evidence
cannot be admitted to supply the deficiency.  The prohibition does not apply when the
intent is to show that there is no meeting of
the minds or there is no perfected contract.
To justify the reformation of a written instrument
upon the ground of mistake, the concurrence of  This rule has no application to conditions or
three things is necessary: stipulations which are antecedent to the
existence of the contract and on the faith of
1. Mistake should be of fact – does not which the supposed contract is executed.
correctly express the intention of the parties
applies only to a mistake of facts  Where the provisions of a written contract are
ambiguous and there is sufficient evidence
2. Mistake should be mutual or common to showing the existence of other agreements
collateral thereto, parol evidence is
both parties to the instrument –
admissible to prove the real agreement of the
Reformation is then given because mistake is
parties.
mutual. The parties must have come to an
actual oral agreement before they have
4. Interpretation of Documents
attempted to reduce it in writing,
Section 10. Interpretation of a writing according
3. The mistake should be alleged and
to its legal meaning
proved by clear and convincing evidence
The language of a writing is to be interpreted
 When the operation of the contract is made
according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of
to depend upon the occurrence of an event,
the execution unless the parties intended otherwise.
which for that reason is a condition
precedent, such may be established parol
Section 11 Instrument construed so as to give
evidence. This is not varying the terms of the
effect to all provisions
written contract by extrinsic agreement for
In the construction of an instrument where there are
the simple reason that there is no contract in
several provisions or particulars such a construction
existence; there is nothing to which to apply
is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.
the excluding rule.
Section 12 Interpretation according to intention;
 Due execution of a writing may proved by
general and particular provisions
parol evidence because what the rule

Page 13 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
In the construction of an instrument, the intention of
the parties is to be pursued and when a general and
a particular provisions are inconsistent, the latter is
paramount to the former. So a particular intent will
control a general one that is inconsistent with it.
Section 13 Interpretation according to
circumstances
For the proper construction of an instrument, the
circumstances under which it was made, including
the situation of the object thereof and of the parties to
it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in
the position of those whose language he is to
interpret.
Section 14 Peculiar signification of terms
The terms of a writing are presumed to have been
used in their primary and general acceptation, but
evidence is admissible to show that they have been a
local, technical, or otherwise peculiar signification,
and were so used and understood in the particular
instance, in which case the agreement must be
construed accordingly
Section 15 Written words control printed
When an instrument consists partly of written words
and partly of a printed form, and the two are
inconsistent, the former controls the latter.
Section 16 Experts and interpreters to be used in
explaining certain writings
When the characters in which an instrument is written
are difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not
understood by the court, the evidence of persons
skilled in deciphering the characters, or who
understand the language, is admissible to declare the
characters or the meaning of the language.
Section 17 Of two constructions, which preferred
When the terms of an agreement have been intended
in a different sense by the different parties to it, that
sense is to prevail against either party in which he
supposed the other understood it, and when different
constructions of a provision are otherwise equally
proper, that it is to be taken which is the most
favorable to the party in whose favor the provision
was made.
Section 18 Construction in favor of natural right
When an instrument is equally susceptible of two
interpretations, one in favor of natural rights and the
other against it, the former is to be adopted.
Section 19 Interpretation according to usage
An instrument may be construed according to usage,
in order to determine its true character.
 The laws in force at the time the contract was
made must govern its interpretation and
application.
 The clear terms of the contract should not be
subject to interpretations.
QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
C. Testimonial Evidence
Section 20 Witness; their qualifications –
WITNESS – reference to a person who testifies in a
case or gives evidence before a judicial tribunal
COMPETENCY OF A WITNESS – is the legal fitness
or ability of a witness to be heard on the trial of a
cause.
GENERAL RULE: when a witness takes the stand to
testify, the law, on grounds of public policy, presumes
that he is competent. The court cannot reject the
witness if there is not proof of his incompetency.
 The burden is upon the party objecting to the
competency of a witness to establish the
grounds of incomeptency.
 It is the judge who has the decision as to the
competency of the witness.
 The objection to the competency of a
witness must be made before he has
given any testimony if a party knows
before the trial that the witness is
incompetent, and if the incompetency
appears on the trial, the objection must be
interpreted as soon as it becomes apparent.
 When the incompetency of a witness is only
partial, the objection need not be raised until
he is asked to testify to those matters as to
which he is incapacitated.
 The testimony of the interested witness,
while rightfully subjected to careful scrutiny,
should not be rejected on the ground of bias
alone.
Page 14 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
 The interest of the witness affects only
his credibility but not his competency.
 When an attorney is a witness to his client,
except as to merely formal matters, such as
the attestation or custody of an instrument
and the like, he should leave the trial of the
case to other counsel. Except when essential
to the ends of justice, a lawyer should avoid
testifying in court in behalf of his client.
 It is objectionable for a judge to be a witness
on the same trial. However, the trial judge is
competent when his testimony concerns
merely formal or preliminary matters about
which there is no dispute, as where he
testifies in a perjury prosecution that the
defendant gave testimony before him in
another proceeding in another court.
 Persons who have been convicted of perjury
is cannot be discharged as a witness for the
government when he is a co-accused in a
criminal case. The same goes for witnesses
to a will.
 Upon the timely objection to the
incompetency of a witness being raised, it is
the duty of the court to make such
examination as will satisfy him as to the
competency or incompetency of the witness
to testify in the case, and thereupon, to rule
on the objection accordingly.
 The failure to object to the competency of
a witness is tantamount to a waiver and
once the evidence is admitted the same
shall stay in the records and be judge
according to its merits; the judge has no
right to discard it solely for the reason
that it could have been excluded had it
been objected to.
Acts of a party entitled to object that can be
considered as waiver of an objection:
1) where the party fails to raise the objection
when the witness testifies, though at that
time the party knows of his incompetency;
2) where one party who might have made the
objection calls the witness in support of his
own case.
Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental
incapacity or immaturity
THE FOLLOWING CANNOT BE WITNESSES:
1) Those whose mental conditions, at the time
of their production for examination, is such
that they are incapable of intelligently making
known their perception to others;
2) Children whose mental maturity is such as to
render them incapable of perceiving the facts
respecting which they are examined and
relating to them truthfully.
 The qualifications and disqualifications of
witnesses are determined as of the time the
said witnesses are produced for examination
in court or at the taking of their depositions.
 With respect to children of tender years,
their competence at the time of the
occurrence to be testified to should be taken
into account, especially if such event took
place long before their production as
witnesses.
UNSOUND MIND - any mental aberration, whether
organic or functional, or induced by drugs or
hypnosis.
 Unsoundness of mind does not per se render
a witness incompetent, one may be medically
insane but in law capable of giving
competent testimony.
GENERAL RULE: lunatic or a person affected with
insanity is admissible as a witness if he has sufficient
understanding to apprehend the obligation of an oath
and is capable of giving a correct account of the
matters which he has seen or heard with respect to
the questions at issue.
 If the witness is a lawful inmate of an asylum
for the insane, he will not be presumed to be
competent and before he can testify his
competency should be made to appear by
the party offering him. This is because the
insanity is presumed to continue as a mental
state, if it has once existed, until the contrary
is shown.
 Idiots are incompetent witnesses. They may
be classed as insane persons. An idiot, being
one who has no understanding of his nativity,
the law presumes that he will never attain
any.
Page 15 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
 However, it is not prudent to admit the
interpretation of a teacher if he cannot
understand properly the signs given by the
deaf-mute who was not even his student.
 Drunkenness does not per se disqualify a
witness from testifying. The point of inquiry is
the moment of examination.
 A witness is not rendered incompetent by the
fact that he was under the influence of a drug
at the time of the occurrence as to which he
testifies, or at the time of giving his
testimony.
Deaf-mutes are competent witnesses when:
1. they can understand and appreciate the
sanctity of an oath;
2. can comprehend facts they are going to
testify to; and
3. can communicate their ideas through a
qualified interpreter.
In the case of a child witness, the court in
determining his competency must consider his
capacity:
(a) at the time the fact to be testified to occurred
such that he could received correct
impressions thereof
(b) to comprehend the obligation of an oath and
(c) to relate those facts truly at the time he is
offered as a witness. The court should take
into account his capacity for observation,
recollection and communication.
 A child who witnessed the crime when he
was 11 years old and testified thereto when
he was already 15, is a competent witness.
 The intelligence of the child is the test of his
competency and not his age.
 The court, not the judge as an individual, is to
be satisfied of the competency of the child
Section 22 Disqualification by reason of marriage
 This is called the “spousal immunity”. This
is different from marital privilege.
 The rule forbidding one spouse to testify for
or against the other is based on principles
which are deemed important to preserve the
marriage relation as one of full confidence
and affection, and that this is regarded as
more important to the public welfare than that
the exigencies of the lawsuits should
authorize domestic peace to be disregarded
for the sake of ferreting out facts within the
knowledge of strangers.
 The rule applies to any form of testimony;
therefore it protects against using the
spouse-witness’s admission or against
compelling him to produce documents.
 In order that this will apply, it is necessary
that the marriage is valid and existing as
of the time of the offer of testimony and
that the other spouse is a party to the
action.
 The privilege to object to testimony
concerning anti-marital facts may be
claimed only when the spouse for or
against whom the testimony of the other
is offered as a party to the case.
 After the death or the divorce of one spouse,
the privilege ceases, for the reason ceases.
 The prosecuting attorney has no right to call
a wife as a witness or to attempt to draw from
her statements that the accused had married
her for the purpose of suppressing her
testimony.
 The wife is competent to testify for the other
defendant if the case against his husband as
a party was dismissed.
 No unfavorable inference may be drawn from
the fact that a party spouse invokes the
privilege to prevent the witness-spouse from
testifying against him or her
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE:
1. that the case in which the husband or the
wife is called to testify is a civil case instituted
by one against the other
2. it is a criminal case for a crime committed by
one against the other.
 The reason for the exception is that the
identity of the interest of person disappears
and the consequent danger of perjury based
on that identity is non-existent. And in such a
situation, the security and confidence of
private life which the law aims at protecting
will be nothing but ideals which, through their
absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy
home.
 This can be waived just like any other
Page 16 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
objection to the competency of other
witnesses. Can be waived through failure to
interpose timely objection or by calling the
other spouse as a witness
 Where the accused husband in his testimony
imputed the commission of the crime to his
wife, he is deemed to have waived his
objection to the latter’s testimony in rebuttal.
 In a prosecution of the husband for the rape
of their daughter, the wife is not disqualified
to testify for the prosecution since the crime
may be considered as having been
committed against the wife and the conjugal
harmony sought to be protected by this rule
no loner exists.
 The exception to the marital disqualification
rule was applied where the wife was the
complainant in a case against her husband
for falsification of her signature in a deed of
sale involving their conjugal property.
 Where the wife is a co-defendant in a suit
charging her and her husband with collusive
fraud, she cannot be called as an adverse
party witness as this will violate the
disqualification rule.
Section 23 Disqualification by reason of death or
insanity of adverse party
 This section is called THE SURVIVORSHIP
DISQUALIFICATION RULE OR DEAD MAN
STATUTE.
 It constitutes only a partial disqualification as
the witness is not completely disqualified but
is only prohibited from testifying on the
matters therein specified, unlike the marital
disqualification rule which is complete and
absolute disqualification.
 This applies to both civil and criminal
cases
REQUISITES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THIS
RULE:
1. the witness offered for examination is a
party plaintiff, or the assignor of said
party, or a person in whose behalf a case
is prosecuted.
- such plaintiff must be the real party in
interest. This disqualification does not apply
where a counterclaim has been interposed
by the defendant as the plaintiff would
thereby be testifying in his defense. The
same is true where the deceased contracted
with the plaintiff through an agent and said
agent is alive and can testify, but the
testimony of the plaintiff should be limited to
acts performed by the agent.
- the term “assignor” of a party means
assignor of a cause of action which has
arisen, and not the assignor of a right
assigned before any cause of action has
arisen
- A witness may testify against an estate,
provided he is not a party, or an assignor of a
party, or a person in whose behalf the suit is
instituted. Interest in the outcome of the suit,
per se, seemingly, does not disqualify a
witness from testifying
2. the case is against the executor or
administrator or other representative of a
person deceased or of unsound mind
- The term “representative of a deceased
person” has been interpreted to include not
only the executor or administrator of a
deceased person, but also the person who
has succeeded to the right of the deceased,
whether by purchase or descent or operation
of law.
- It is necessary that the said defendant is
being sued and defends in such
representative capacity and not in his
individual capacity. Even if the properties
have been judicially adjudicated to the heirs,
they are still protected under this rule against
such prohibited testimony as they are
considered as the representatives of the
deceased.
- The rule applies regardless of whether the
deceased died before or alter the suit against
him is filed provided he is already dead at
the time the testimony is sought to be given
3. the case is upon a claim or demand
against the estate of such person who is
deceased or of unsound mind
- the rule does not apply where it is
administrator who brings an action to recover
property allegedly belonging to the estate or
the action is by the heirs of a deceased
plaintiff who were substituted for the latter.
- this is restricted to debts or demands
enforceable by personal actions upon which
money judgments can be rendered.
- An action for damages for breach of
agreement to devise property for services
Page 17 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
rendered is a claim against an estate; hence
the plaintiff is not a competent witness.
- Estate of a deceased person includes all
properties, real and personal, belonging to
the deceased person.
4. The testimony to be given is on matter of
fact occurring before the death, of such
deceased person or before such person
became of unsound mind.
- This includes any matter of fact which bears
upon a transaction or communication
between the witness and the decedent, even
though without the presence or participation
of the latter.
- Negative testimony, that the fact did not
occur during the life time of the deceased, is
not covered by the prohibition.
- Testimony on the present possession by the
witness of a written instrument signed by the
deceased is also not covered by the
prohibition, as such fact exists even after the
decedent’s demise.
- the parties plaintiff to an action is not
rendered incompetent to testify to fraudulent
transactions of the deceased, as the rule is
not designed to shield wrongdoers. But
before admitting the testimony of parties
plaintiff in this kind of action, the court should
compel such parties to clearly establish the
alleged fraudulent acts.
 In land registration case instituted by the
decedent’s representatives, this prohibition
does not apply as the oppositors are
considered defendants and may therefore,
testify against the petitioner. This prohibition
does not also apply in cadastral cases since
there is no plaintiff or defendants therein.
 Since the purpose of this rule is to
discourage perjury and protect the estate
from fictitious claims, the prohibition does not
apply even if all the 4 requisites above are
present, where the testimony is offered to
prove a claim less than what is established
under a written document or is intended to
prove a fraudulent transaction of the
deceased, provided such fraud is first
established by evidence aliunde
 This is designed to close the lips of the party
as plaintiff when the death has closed the lips
of the party defendant. If the purpose of the
oral testimony is to prove a lesser claim than
what might be warranted by clear evidence,
to avoid prejudice to the estate of the
deceased, the law has certainly no reason for
its application.
 The disqualification under this rule is waived
if the defendant does not timely object to the
admission of such evidence or testifies on
the prohibited matters or cross-examines
thereon.
 If the case is brought against the partnership
of the deceased, the witness is still credible
because the testimony is not against the
deceased nor his estate.
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of
privileged communication
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS CANNOT TESTIFY
AS TO MATTERS LEARNED IN CONFIDENCE IN
THE FF CASES:
1. The husband or the wife, during or after the
marriage, cannot be examined without the
consent of the other as to any
communication received in confidence by
one from the other during the marriage
except in a civil case by one against the
other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the
latter’s direct descendants or ascendants
2. An attorney cannot, without the consent of
his client, be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him, or
his advice given thereon in the course of, or
with a view to, professional employment, nor
can an attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or
clerk be examined, without the consent of the
client and his employer, concerning any fact
the knowledge of which has been acquired in
such capacity.
3. A person authorized to practice medicine,
surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case,
without the consent of the patient, be
examined as to any evidence or treatment
given by him or any information which he
may have acquired in attending such patient
in a professional capacity, which information
was necessary to enable him to act in that
capacity, and which would blacken the
reputation of the patient.
4. A minister or priest cannot, without the
consent of the patient, be examined as to
any advice or treatment given by him or any
Page 18 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
information which he may have acquired in
attending such patient in a professional
capacity, which information was necessary to
enable him to act in that capacity, and which
would blacken the reputation of the patient.
5. A public officer cannot be examined during
his term of office or afterwards, as to
communications made to him in official
confidence, when the court finds that the
public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
EXCEPTIONS TO MARITAL PRIVILEGE:
 Objections under the disqualification rules
can be invoked only by the persons protected
thereunder and may be waived by said
persons in the same manner, either
expressly or impliedly.
third party, whether legally or not, by reason
of the fact that while the spouse is covered
by the prohibition, such third party is not
and, consequently, can testify thereon. It is
necessary, however, that there was no
collusion with or voluntary disclosure by
either spouse to the third person, otherwise
the latter becomes an agent of the spouse
and would thereby be covered by the
prohibition.
1. that the case in which the husband or the
wife is called to be examined is not a civil
case instituted by one against the other
2. that it is not a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other

Marital Privilege Disqualification by Marital Privilege

reason of Marriage
REQUISITES FOR MARITAL PRIVILEGE TO Can be invoked only if Can be claimed
APPLY: one of the spouses is whether or not the
1) there was a valid marital relation a party to the action, spouse is a party to
2) the privilege is invoked with respect to a the action.
confidential communication between the Applies only if the Can be claimed even
spouses during said marriage marriage is existing at after the marriage has
3) the spouse against whom such evidence is the time the testimony been dissolved
being offered has not given his or her to such is offered
testimony Constitutes a total Applies only to
prohibition against the confidential
 Consequently, the privilege cannot be spouse of the witness communications
claimed with respect to communications between the spouse
made prior to the marriage of the spouse
 The privilege in principle, belongs to the
 The privilege on principle applies to any communicating spouse not to the other one.
form of confident disclosure. Usually this
will be a communication in words but it may  Even if the communication between the
also include conduct. spouse who is a party to the action can still
prevent the other spouse from testifying
 Marital communications are presumed to against him under the marital disqualification
be confidential but the presumption may rule
be overcome by proof that they were not
intended to be private.  Even if the spouse who is a party to the
action does not object to the other testifying
 Since the confidential nature of the therein, thus waiving the marital
communication is the basis of the privilege, disqualification, he can still prevent the
the same cannot be invoked where it was disclosure by said spouse-witness of
not intended to be kept in confidence by confidential communications covered by the
the spouse who received the same, as in privilege.
the case of a dying declaration of the
husband to his wife as to who was his  Conspiracy between spouses to commit a
assailant, which communications was crime is not covered by the privilege since it
obviously intended to be reported to the is not the intention of the law to protect the
authorities. commission of a crime.

 The privilege is lost if the communication  This does not apply when spouses are living
is overheard or comes into the hands of a separately and there is an active hostility. But

Page 19 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
if there is a chance to reconcile, then this
privilege will apply (sabi ni sir, give them a
chance)
Attorney-Client Privilege
REQUISITES:
1) there is an attorney and client relation
2) The privilege is invoked with respect to a
confidential communication between them in
the course of professional employment
3) The client has not given his consent to the
attorney’s testimony.
Basis: public policy
 The client owns the privilege and therefore
he alone can invoke it.
 For the privilege to apply, the attorney must
have been consulted in his professional
capacity, even if no fee has been paid
therefore. However, if the communications
were not made for the purpose of creating
that relationship, they will not be covered by
the privilege even if thereafter the lawyer
becomes the counsel of the party in a case
involving said statements
 The test is whether the communications are
made to an attorney with a view of obtaining
professional assistance or advice.
 Communications to an attorney are not
privileged where they are voluntary made
after he has refused to accept employment.
 There is no privilege communication in cases
where abstract legal opinions are sought and
obtained on general questions of law, either
civil or criminal, in such cases, no facts are or
need be disclosed implicating the client, and
so there is nothing of a confidential character
to conceal.
 The communications covered by the privilege
include verbal statements and documents or
papers entrusted to the attorney, and of facts
learned by the attorney through the act or
agency of his client.
 Confidential relations made in reliance upon
the supposed relation of attorney and client,
whether the party assuming to act as such is
an attorney or not, are excluded by the court.
 Sidewalk advice from attorney upon legal
question for which no compensation is asked
or expected and none given except a
luncheon, should not be regarded as
privileged communications
 The privilege is applicable to counsel de
oficio. Even in cases where the consent of
the client is obtained, it is his duty to ask first
to be relieved and have another attorney take
his place before testifying so that he may be
cross-examined and not leave his client
without proper representation.
 An attorney who becomes a subscribing
witness to his client’s will, may testify to the
attending circumstances of the execution of
his client’s will for by requesting his attorney
to become a subscribing witness to the will,
the testator waives privilege as to his
attorney’s testimony concerning testamentary
communications.
 Communication made by a client to an
attorney as a public officer to enable him to
act in his capacity is not privilege
 The privilege does not apply when the action
was brought by the client against the
attorney.
THE PRIVILEGE DOES NOT APPLY TO
COMMUNICATIONS WHICH ARE:
1. intended to be made public
2. intended to be communicated to others
3. intended for an unlawful purpose
4. received from third person not acting in
behalf or as agent of the client
5. made in the presence of third parties who are
strangers to the attorney-client relationship
 The period to be considered is that date
when the privileged communication was
made by the client to the attorney in relation
to either a crime committed in the past or
with respect to a crime intended to be
committed in the future
 Professional communications continues even
after the relation of client and attorney is
terminated
 Communications regarding a crime already
committed made by the offender to an
attorney, consulted as such, are privileged
communications
 Contemplated criminal acts are not covered
Page 20 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
 The privilege does not attach when the
attorney is a conspirator
 The privilege does not apply when all the
attorney has to do it to either affirm or deny
the secret revealed by the client to the court.
Physician-Patient Privilege
 This privilege is intended to facilitate and
make safe, full and confidential disclosure by
patient to physician of all facts,
circumstances, and symptoms, untrammeled
by apprehension of their subsequent and
enforced disclosure and publication on the
witness stand, to the end that the physician
may form a correct opinion, and be enabled
safely and efficaciously to treat his patient.
REQUISITES:
1) the physician is authorized to practice
medicine, surgery, or obstetrics
2) the information was acquired or the advice or
treatment was given by him in his
professional capacity for the purpose of
treating and curing the patient.
3) The information, advice or treatment, if
revealed, would blacken the reputation of the
patient
4) the privilege is invoked in a civil case,
whether patient is a party or not
 It is not necessary that the physician-patient
relationship was created through the
voluntary act of the patient. For example the
treatment may have been given at the behest
of another, the patient being in extremis
 The privilege extends to all forms of
communications as well as to the
professional observations and examinations
of the patient
THE PRIVILEGE DOES NOT APPLY WHERE:
1) the communication was not given in
confidence
2) the communication is irrelevant to the
professional employment
3) the communication was made for an unlawful
purpose, as when it is intended for the
commission or concealment of a crime
4) the information was intended to be made
public
5) there was a waiver of the privilege either by
provisions of contract or law
REQUISITES:
 The rule does not apply to mere causal
information stated by the witness because
such information is not necessary for the
treatment of the patient.
 If the physician confined himself merely to
the ascertainment of the nature and
character of the injury for the purpose of
reporting them to the defendant, physician
may testify.
 The burden of proving that such relation
does not exist is upon the person
objecting it.
 Death of the patient does not extinguish the
relation
 Under Rule 28 of the Rules of Court, the
results of the physical and mental
examination of a person, when ordered by
the court, are intended to be made public,
hence they can be divulged in that
proceeding and cannot be objected to on the
ground of privilege
 Result of autopsies or post mortem
examinations are generally intended to be
divulged in court, aside from the fact the
doctor’s services were not for purposes of
medical treatment
 An example of a waiver of the privilege by
provision of law is found in Section 4 of said
Rule 28 under which if the party examined
obtains a report on said examination or takes
the deposition of the examiner, he thereby
waives any privilege regarding any other
examination of said physical or mental
condition conducted or to be conducted on
him by any other physician.
 Waiver of the privilege by contract may be
found in stipulations in life insurance policies.
 The disqualification due to privilege
communications between ministers or priests
and penitents require that the same were
made pursuant to a religious duty enjoined in
the course of discipline of the sect or
denomination to which they belong and must
be confidential and penitential in character.
Example: under seal of the confessional
Privileged communications to Public Officers
Page 21 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
1) that it was made to the public officer in official
confidence
2) that public interest would suffer by the
disclosure of such communication, as in the
case of State secrets.
 Where no public interest will be prejudiced,
this rule will not apply.
PUBLIC INTEREST – something in which the
community at large has some pecuniary interest by
which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.
Other instances of privilege
 Under RA 53 as amended by RA 1477, the
publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter
of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of
general circulation cannot be compelled to
reveal the source of any news report or
information appearing in said publication
which was related in confidence to him
unless the court or a House or committee of
Congress finds that such revelation is
demanded by the Security of the State.
 Art. 233 of the Labor Code provides that all
information and statements made at
conciliation proceedings shall be treated as
privileged communications and shall not be
used as evidence in the National Labor
Relations Commission, and conciliators and
similar officials shall not testify in any court or
body regarding any matter taken up at the
conciliation proceedings conducted by them.
 Voters are cannot be compelled to reveal
their bets
 Trade Secrets will be covered by this
privilege
 Prosecutor is not to be compelled to dispose
the identity of the informer unless the
informer is already known to the accused and
when the identity of the informer is vital.
 GENERAL RULE: Bank deposits may not be
disclosed
 EXCEPTION:
1. authorized by depositor
2. Impeachment under the Constitution
3. Upon order of the court in case of bribery or
deriliction of duty
4. When the subject matter is the deposits
5. Anti-graft cases
2. Testimonial Privilege
Section 25 Parental and filial Privilege
 This section is an expanded amendment of
the former provision found in Section 20 (e),
a disqualification by reason of relationship
which, in turn, was reproduced from Art. 315
of the Civil Code.
 It was not correctly a rule of disqualification,
as the descendant was not incompetent or
disqualified to testify against his ascendants,
but was actually a privilege to testify, hence it
was referred to as “filial privilege”.
 However, under the Family Code, the
descendant may be compelled to testify
against his parents and grandparents, if such
testimony is indispensable in prosecuting a
crime against the descendant by one parent
against the other (Art. 215)
 Under the present formulation, both parental
and filial privileges are granted to any
person, which privileges against compulsory
testimony he can invoke in any case against
any of his parents, direct ascendants,
children or direct descendants.
 The reason for the rule is to preserve
“family cohesion” deploring the lack of this
provision under former laws as doing
violence to the most sacred sentiments
between members of the same family.”
 The privilege may now be invoked in both
civil and criminal cases.
3. Admissions and Confessions
Section 26 Admission of a party
ADMISSION - any statement of fact made by a party
against his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion
for which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts
alleged by him.
 Admission is a voluntary acknowledgment in
express terms or by implication, by a party
interest or by another by whose statement he
is legally bound, against his interest, of the
existence or truth of a fact in dispute material
to the issue (Francisco).
Page 22 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
 Delay in instituting a criminal prosecution
 EXPRESS ADMISSIONS are those made in unless satisfactorily explained, creates
definite, certain and unequivocal language. suspicion about the motive of the supposed
offended party and gives rise to reasonable
Example: Action for personal injuries caused by a doubt of the guilt of the defendant.
collision between P’s carriage and D’s automobile. D
was not in the automobile when the accident  Implied admission is cannot be inferred from
occurred. D’s son was driving the automobile, having an act of repairing a defect which caused on
taken it without express permission from D. Before injury. This is founded on sound reason and
trial D told P’s husband that he had bought the good policy. A person may have exercised all
automobile for the pleasure of his family and for the care which the law required and yet, in
business; that members of the family might take it the light of his new experience, after an
without asking; and that so far as the liability unexpected accident has occurred, and as a
extended (D) was responsible. On the bases of this measure of extreme caution, he may adopt
express admission, verdict was rendered for P. additional safeguards.
Likewise, defendant duly executes and signs a
document before a notary public stating therein that Admission and Confession Distinguished
his wife is the true and absolute owner of the lands
which are the subject matter of the litigation. Said Admission Confession
document is an express admission that defendant is An admission is a It involves an
not the owner of the land, and admissible against statement of fact which acknowledgment of
him. does not involve an guilt or liability
acknowledgement of
 IMPLIED ADMISSIONS are those which may guilt or liability
be inferred from the acts, declarations or It may be express or Must be express
omission of a party. Therefore, an admission tacit
may be implied from conduct, statement of May be made by third Can be made only by
silence of a party. persons the party himself and
 For instance, the payment of interest of a in some instance, are
debt is an implied admission of the existence admissible against his
of the debetween The repair made by the co-accused
landlord is the implied admission that it is not
the duty of the tenant to repair. The  The rule that the act, declaration or omission
immediate flight of the accused and prolong of a party may be given in evidence against
stay in other country is the implied him is based upon the presumption that
consciousness of guilt. no man could declare anything against
himself, unless such declarations were
 Failure to answer a letter does not give rise true.
to an implied admission as to the truth of the
statements contained therein, since there is  It is a rule that a “statement is not competent
no duty upon the addressee to reply. as an admission where it does not, under a
However, where the good faith requires that reasonable construction, appear to admit or
the addressee state his position frankly so acknowledge the fact which is sought to be
that the addressee be not misled, proved by it.”
acquiescence may be inferred from non-
denial. REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF
ADMISSIONS:
 Failure to return or object to a bill or 1) They must involve matters of fact and not of
statement sent by the debtor, within a law
reasonable time, is competent evidence (but 2) They must be categorical and definite
rebuttable) that the account is correct. Undue 3) They must be knowingly and voluntarily
delay in the enforcement of a right is strongly made
persuasive of a lack of merit in the claim, 4) They must be adverse to the admitter’s
since it is human nature for a person to interests, otherwise it would be self-serving and
assert his rights most strongly when they are inadmissible.
threatened or invaded.
An admission may be introduced in evidence in

Page 23 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
two ways: extrajudicial admissions.
1. independent evidence
2. impeaching evidence  Testimony of the accused in a particular case
to the effect that he was married to the victim
Independent evidence – admissions are original is an admission against his penal interest
evidence and no foundation is necessary for their and sustain his conviction even in the
introduction in evidence absence of independent evidence to prove
such marriage
 If the admission was made orally, it may be
proved by any competent witness who heard Admission Declaration Against
them or by the declarant himself. The law Interest
does not require impossibilities. If the witness An admission need to The declaration
states the substance of the conversation or be, although, of against interest must
declaration, the admission of his testimony is course, it will greatly have been made
not erroneous. enhance its probative against the proprietary
weight if it be so made or pecuniary interest of
Impeaching evidence –a proper foundation must be the parties
laid for the impeaching questions, by calling attention Made by a party Must have been made
of such party to his former statement so as to give himself, and is a by person who is either
him an opportunity to explain before such admissions primary evidence and deceased or unable to
are offered in evidence. competent though he testify
be present in court and
 Example to illustrate the rules regarding ready to testify
the introduction of admissions in Admission can be The declaration
evidence either as an independent or as made any time against interest must
impeaching evidence: have been made ante
P sues D for a balance due and unpaid for litem motam
groceries furnished. The claim is for P175 due on
July 31. D disputes the amount due, and offers a  SELF SERVING DECLARATION is one
statement of account sent by P in September reading which has been made extrajudicially by The
“Balance due – P75”. This is admissible and may be party to favor his interests. It is not
presented as part of the evidence in chief of D. admissible in evidence
Action was brought by broker P for
commissions on stock shares bought and sold for D.  The vital objection to the admission of this
All the transactions had been made through D’s office kind of evidence is its hearsay character. To
manager. P claims the interest at 8% was understood permit introduction would open the door to
to be charged monthly on balances. The manager frauds and perjuries.
testifies that the interest was to be 5%. However,
there is a letter of D to P dated June 1, containing the
sentence “as usual this year, I expect to pay 8%
interest on monthly balances. I D had taken the stand Reasons for the inadmissibility of self-serving
as a witness and had testified in corroboration of his declarations:
manager’s statements as to the understanding, it 1. the inherent untrustworthiness of the
would be necessary for P’s counsel to ask D if he had declarations
written such a letter, before introducing it in rebuttal 2. the fact that to permit their introduction would
as D’s admission for the purpose of discrediting D’s open the door to fraud and fabrication of
testimony. testimony.
3. the fact that if testified to by one other than
 Admissions may be verbal or written, express the declarant, they would be hearsay.
or tacit, judicial or extrajudicial.
 Self serving testimony refers to extrajudicial
 A JUDICIAL ADMISSION is one made in statement of a party which is being urged for
connection with a judicial proceeding in admission in court. It does not include his
which it is offered, while an extrajudicial testimony as a witness in court. It has no
admission is any other admission. application to a court declaration. Where the
statement was not made in anticipation of a
 Section 26 and 32 of this Rule refer to future litigation, the same cannot be

Page 24 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
considered self-serving.
 The mere fact of death alone does not render
competent self-serving conduct, admissions
or declarations of the deceased person
during his life-time.
 Unsworn declarations by others for the
declarant would be inadmissible.
Persons whose unsworn declarations in behalf of
a party are not admissible in favor of the latter:
1) agents, as regards their principals
2) a co-defendant or co-partner, as regards the
other
3) a guardian as regards his word.
4) a principal as regards his surety
5) a husband or wife as regards his or her
spouse
6) an employee, as regards his employer
7) officers of the corporation
8) public officers as regards public corporation
9) predecessors in title, as regards am owner of
property
Self serving declarations made by a party are
admissible in his own behalf in the ff:
1) When they form part of res gestae, including
spontaneous statements and verbal acts
2) when they are in the form of complaint and
exclamations of pain and suffering
3) when they are part of a confession offered by
the prosecution, that his testimony is a recent
fabrication, in which case his prior
declaration, even of a self serving character,
may be admitted, provided they were made
at a time when a motive to misrepresent did
not exist.
4) where they are offered by the argument. The
objections which have been pointed out do
not apply against the reception of the
statements of one party as evidence when
such statements are offered by his
adversary. Every written statements of a
party in his own favor can be successfully
turned when such statements are offered
against him.
5) when they are offered without objection, the
evidence cannot afterward be objected to as
incompetent.
 Diaries, as a general rule, are inadmissible
because they are self-serving in nature,
unless they have the nature of books of
account; but it has been held that an entry in
diary, being in the nature of a declaration, if it
was against interest when made, is
admissible.
 An invoice prepared by a merchant in the city
covering merchandise consigned to his agent
in the province, and a letter of said merchant
requesting confirmation of the receipt of said
merchandise by the agent, are not self-
serving if they had been prepared not in
anticipation of litigation in which they were
presented as evidence. Carbon copies of
letters of demands sent to defendant, receipt
of which was acknowledged.
 Flight from justice is an admission by
conduct and circumstantial evidence of
consciousness guilt.
 Evidence of attempts to suppress evidence,
as by destruction of documentary evidence
are admissible under the same rationale.
 The act of reporting a machine, bridge, or
other facility after an injury has been
sustained therein is not an implied admission
of negligence by conduct. It is merely a
measure of extreme caution by adopting
additional safeguards since, despite due care
and diligence, an unexpected accident can
still occur.
Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible
COMPROMISE - is an agreement made between two
or more parties as a settlement matters in dispute.
Civil cases - an offer of compromise is not an
admission of any liability, and is not admissible in
evidence against the offeror.
Criminal cases - except those involving quasi-
offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by
law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by
the accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt.
 A compromise agreement is valid when the
true essence of which resides in reciprocal
concessions.
GENERAL RULE – an offer of compromise is not an
admission of any liability and is not admissible in
evidence against an offeror
Page 25 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
EXCEPTIONS:
1. an express admission of liability made during
negotiations for a compromise;
2. Express and unqualified admission of
indebtedness accompanying an offer of
compromise;
3. An admission of the correctness of an
account or of specific items;
4. admission involving interest in property;
5. admission affecting liability for a tort.
 It is the policy of the law to favor the
settlement of disputes, to foster compromise,
and to promote peace. If every offer to buy
peace could be used as evidence against
him who presents it, many settlements would
be prevented, and unnecessary litigation
would be produced and prolonged.
 While a bare offer to compromise does not
constitute an admission on the part of the
person making it, the fact that a writing
contains an offer of compromise does not
render it inadmissible in evidence if it is
competent evidence for other purposes.
 If a statement forming part of an offer of
compromise or made in the course of
negotiations to effect a settlement is an
admission of fact pertinent to an issue
between the parties, it is admissible on the
trial of such issue, unless it is so closely
connected with the offer of compromise as to
be inseparable therefrom, is a tentative or
hypothetical statement as distinguished from
a definite statement of fact or is expressly
made without prejudice or indicates that it is
made in confidence that a compromise will
be affected.
 An express admission of liability made during
negotiations for a compromise has been held
admissible.
 A pedestrian is run over by a driver, he was
injured. Later on the driver approached the
pedestrian and said sorry because he was
drunk that night and offered a payment. The
pedestrian may not introduce the fact that he
was offered a money to show that driver is
liable. However, he can introduce the fact
that the driver was drunk.
 In criminal cases, an offer of compromise is
an implied admission of guilt, although the
accused may be permitted to prove that such
offer was not made under consciousness of
guilt but merely to avoid the risks of criminal
action against him.
 No compromise may be entered into as
regards the penal action, however it may be
with respect to the civil liability.
 In criminal cases where compromise is
allowed by law as in opium or usury cases,
no implied admission of guilt arises against
the accused who makes an offer to
compromise.
 In prosecution for violation of the internal
revenue law, such offers of compromise are
not admissible in evidence as the law
provides that the payment of any internal
revenue tax may be compromised, and all
criminal violations may likewise be
compromised, except those already filed in
court and those involving fraud.
 Actual marriage, in rape case, criminal
liability is extinguished. An offer to
compromise a monetary consideration and
not to marry the victim, is an implied
admission of guilt. The attempt of the parents
of the accused to settle the case with the
complainant was considered an implied
admission of guilt. The SC has held that an
offer of marriage by the accused, during the
investigation of the rape case is also
admission of guilt.
 What matter is the fact of marriage and
not the intent behind the marriage.
Example, it does not matter whether the
accused married the victim for the reason of
exculpating him from criminal liability.
 The amendment regarding the admissibility
of a plea of guilty later withdrawn or an
unaccepted offer to plead guilty to a lesser
offense as a consequence of the present
provisions in criminal procedure on plea
bargaining. One of the practical reasons
advanced is that encouragement of
negotiations between the defense and
prosecution counsel with respect to pleas
requires flexibility in making and withdrawing
them without prejudice.
 The court allows the accused to change plea
when the previous plea was made
improvidently.
Page 26 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
 Criminal cases involving criminal negligence,
or the quasi-offenses contemplated in Art.
365 of the RPC, are allowed to be
compromised under the amendment to this
section, hence, an offer of settlement is not
an implied admission of guilt.
 An offer to pay or the actual payment of the
medical, hospital or other expenses by
reason of the victim’s injuries is not
admissible to prove civil or criminal liability
therefore. Such humanitarian acts or
charitable responses should be encouraged
and rewarded, instead of being discouraged
or penalized by being considered as
admissions of liability.
 A troublesome question arises when an
express admission of liability is coupled with
an offer of assistance. Some courts have
stated that both should be admitted since the
express admission insured that the offer or
tender of assistance was “not merely an act
of benevolence, but some admission of fault”.
If the admission can be disclosed without
mentioning the furnishing, offering or promise
to pay medical expenses, then it should be
admitted.
Section 28. Admissibility by third party
 Unless he assents thereto, a party to an
action cannot be affected by the
admission of a person who does not
occupy toward him any relation of privity,
agency or joint interest.
 The act, declaration or omission of another is
generally irrelevant, and that in justice a
person should not be bound by the acts of
mere unauthorized strangers.
 The rule is well-settled that a party is not
bound by any agreement of which he has
no knowledge and to which he has not
given his consent and that his rights
cannot be prejudiced by the declaration,
act or omission of another, except by
virtue of a particular relation between
them.
 This section refers to the first branch of the
rule of “RES INTER ALIOS ACTA ALTERI
NOCERE NON DEBET”. It is corollary
known as the second branch of the rule, is
found in Section 34 of Rule 130.
EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RULE:
1. are in those instances where the third person
is a partner, agent, joint owner, joint debtor or
has a joint interest with the party (Section
29);
2. or is a con-conspirator (Section 30) ;
3. or a privy of the party (Section 31).
 The basis of the exceptions is that a third
party may be so united in interest with the
party-opponent that the other person’s
admissions may be receivable against the
party himself. The term “privy” is the orthodox
catchword for the relation.
Section 29. Admission by co-partner or agent
 The admission of one partner is received
against another on the ground that they are
identified in interest , and that each is agent
for the other and that the acts or declarations
of one during the existence of the
partnership, while transacting its business
and within the scope of the business, are
evidence against the others.
REQUISITES:
1. That the partnership, agency, or joint interest
is established by evidence other than the act
or declaration – partnership relation must be
shown
2. the act or declaration is within the scope of
the partnership, agency or joint interest – the
fact that each has individually made a
substantially similar admission does not
render the aggregate admission competent
against the firm, this is with regard to a non-
partnership affair.
3. Such act or declaration must have been
made during the existence of the partnership,
agency or joint interest.
 The declaration of one partner, not made
in the presence of his co-partner, are not
competent to prove the existence of a
partnership between them as against
such other partner. The existence of a
partnership is cannot be established by
general reputation, humor or hearsay.
 Even where one partner is shown to be
hostile to another, the admissions of such
first partner may be received, although, of
course, such hostility may affect the question
Page 27 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
of weight of the evidence. The declarations of
a deceased partner, relating to the
partnership business, are admissible against
his survivors.
 Declarations or admissions made by a
partner after the dissolution of the
partnership are not competent against the
other partners in the absence of prior
authority or subsequent ratification, even
though such declarations relate to matters
pending at the time of dissolution.
 With respect to the relevant substantive
provisions on these matters, refer to the Civil
Code provisions on partners, agents, co-
owners and solidary debtors
 As a rule, statements made after a
partnership has been dissolved do not fall
within this exception, but where the
admissions are made in connection with the
winding up of the partnership affairs, said
admissions are still admissible as the partner
is acting as an agent of his co-partners in
said winding up.
 What is done by an agent is done by the
principal through him, as through a mere
instrument.
 The admission or declaration of an agent
subsequent to a transaction in controversy,
or after this agency has terminated are not
binding upon, or evidence against his
principal. But when the admission or
declaration is made at the time of the
transaction, or during his employment, when
it pertains to the matter in hand, as agent,
which is within the cope of his employment,
his admissions and declarations are
competent, though not conclusive against his
principal.
 When a party to any proceeding expressly
refers to any other person for an answer on a
particular subject in dispute, such answer, if
restricted to the subject matter in relation to
which the reference is made, is in general,
evidence against said party, for the reason
that he makes such third person his
accredited agent for the purpose of giving
such answer.
 The admissions of a third person are
receivable in evidence against the party who
has expressly referred another to him for
information in regard to an uncertain or
disputed matter.
 But such a reference does not make the
person referred to an agent for the purpose
of making general admissions, the
declarations are not evidence unless strictly
within the subject matter in relation to which
reference is made.
 When the reference was not made to any
particular person but in general, the rule
above-stated is not applicable.
 Admissions by counsel are admissible
against the client as the former acts in
representation and as an agent of the client,
subject to the limitation that the same should
not amount to a compromise or confession of
judgment
 The phrase “joint debtor” does not refer to
mere community of interest but should be
understood according to its meaning in the
common law system from which the provision
was taken, that is, in solidum, and not
mancomunada.
 The quantum of interest of the declarant
does not affect the application of the rule. It is
the fact of joint interest, not the size of the
fractional part, which governs. If he is liable
to the plaintiff in the same manner that his
co-defendants are liable, the extent to which
they are bound by his admission cannot be
measured or graduated by the quantity of his
interest in the contract.
Section 30. Admission by conspirator
 Under the Revised Penal Code, a conspiracy
exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it.
 Conspiracies are generally proved by a
number of indefinite acts, conditions, and
circumstances which vary according to the
purposes to be accomplished. If it be proved
that the defendants pursued by their acts the
same object, one performing one part and
another performing part of the same, so as to
complete it, with a view to the attainment of
the same object, one will be justified in the
conclusion that they were engaged in the
conspiracy to effect that object.
Page 28 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
 This rule applies only to extrajudicial acts
or statements and not to testimony given
on the witness stand at the trial where the
party adversely affected thereby has the
opportunity to cross-examine the
declarant. Hence, the requirement that the
conspiracy must preliminary be proved by
evidence other than the conspirator’s
admission applies only to extrajudicial, but no
to judicial, admissions.
REQUISITES:
1. such conspiracy is shown by evidence
aliunde – conspiracy must be established by
prima facie proof in the judgment of the court.
2. the admission was made during the
existence of the conspiracy –after, the
termination of a conspiracy, the statements
of one conspirator may not be accepted as
evidence against any of the other
conspirators.
3. the admission related to the conspiracy itself-
should relate to the common object
 These are not required in admissions during
the trial as the co-accused can cross-
examine the declarant and besides these are
admissions after the conspiracy has ended.
 Direct proof is not essential to prove
conspiracy.
 The conspiracy may be inferred from the acts
of the accused or from the confessions of the
accused or by prima facie proof thereof.
 The concurrence of minds essential to
conspiracy may be inferred where the
parties are apparently pursuing the same
object whether acting separately or
together by common or different means
leading to the same lawful result, and a
common purpose is inferable from
concerted action converging to a definite
objective and whether or not the parties
meet, or confer and formulate their plans.
 Conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly
and convincingly as the commission of the
offense itself.
 A person charged with conspiracy is
presumed to be innocent, and the burden is
on the prosecution to establish his guilt.
 The rule of evidence with regard to
conspiracy is founded on the principle which
apply to agencies and partnerships, the
association should be bound by the acts of
one of its members in carrying out the
design.
 Where there is no independent evidence
of the alleged conspiracy, the
extrajudicial confession of an accused
cannot be used against his co-accused as
the res inter alios rule applies to both
extrajudicial confessions and admissions
GENERAL RULE: Extra judicial admissions made by
a conspirator after the conspiracy has terminated and
even before trial are also not admissible against the
co-conspirator
EXCEPTIONS:
1. made in the presence of the latter who
expressly or impliedly agreed therein, as
there would be a tacit admission under
Section 32
2. Where the facts stated in said admission are
confirmed in the individual extrajudicial
confessions made by the co-conspirators
after their apprehension (interlocking
confessions)
3. as a circumstance to determine the credibility
of a witness
4. as circumstantial evidence to show the
probability of the latter’s participation in the
offense.
 If made after the act designed is fully
accomplished and after the object of the
conspiracy has been either attained of finally
defeated, the declaration will be admissible
only against the person who made it.
 In order that the extrajudicial statements of a
co-accused may be taken into consideration
in judging the testimony of a witness, it is
necessary that the statements are made by
several accused, the same are in all material
respects identical, and there could have been
no collusion among said co-accused in
making such statements.
 If this testimony is introduced to prove the
truth of B’s statement, it will be hearsay, but it
will fall within the co-conspirator exception to
hearsay rule. This is because the statement
was:
1) made by a co-conspirator
2) made during the course of the conspiracy
3) made in furtherance of the objectives of the
conspiracy
Page 29 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
Section 31. Admission by privies
PRIVITY - mutual succession of relationship to the
same rights of property.
PRIVIES - those who have mutual or successive
relationship to the same right of property or subject
matter, such as “personal representatives, heirs,
devisees, legatees, assigns, voluntary grantee or
judgment creditors or purchasers from them without
notices to the fact.
REQUISITES:
1. there must be a relation of privity between
the party and the declarant
2. The admission was made by the declarant,
as predecessor in interest, while holding the
title to the property.
3. The admission is in relation to said property.
 The privity in estate may have arisen by
succession by acts mortis cause or by acts
inter vivos.
 It is an established rule in evidence that the
declaration of a person under whom the title
is claimed are receivable against the
successor so claiming, on the theory that
there is sufficient identity of interest to render
the statements of the former equally
receivable with the admissions of the present
owner, and that the rights of the latter are
those of the former.
 The principle on which such evidence is
received is that the declarant was so situated
that he probably knew the truth, and his
interest were such that he would not have
made the admissions to the prejudice of his
title or possession, unless they were true.
The regard which one so situated would have
to his interest is considered sufficient security
against falsehood.
 In order to render an admission of a former
owner of property competent against his
successor in title, it must have been made at
a time when the title was in the declarant.
 An admission of a former owner may not be
received against his successor in title, if it
was made either before declarant acquired
title or after it had passed from him, unless
the successor has concurred or acquiesced
therein.
GENERAL RULE: Declarations of the transferor,
made subsequent to the transfer, are inadmissible
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Where the declarations are made in the
presence of the transferee and he
acquiesces in the statements or asserts no
rights where he ought to speak;
2. Where there has been a prima facie case of
fraud established as where the thing granted
has a corpus, and the possession of the thing
after the sale or transfer, remains with the
seller or transferor;
3. Where the evidence establishes a continuing
conspiracy to defraud, which conspiracy
exists between the vendor and the vendee.
Section 32. Admission by silence
 The rule that the silence of the party against
whom a claim or a right is asserted may be
construed as an admission of the truth of the
assertion rests on that instinct of our nature,
which leads us to resist an unfounded
demand.
 This rule applies in both criminal as well
as in civil cases.
REQUISITES:
1. he must have heard or observed the act or
declaration of the other person;
2. He must have had the opportunity to deny it
3. He must have understood the statement;
4. He must have an interest to object, such that
he would naturally have done so, as if the
statement was not true;
5. the facts are within his knowledge
6. The fact admitted or the inference to be
drawn from his silence is material to the
issue.
 The rule on admission by silence applies
where a person was surprised in the act or
even if he is already in the custody of the
police.
 Voluntary participation in a reenactment of
the crime conducted by the police is
considered a tacit admission of complicity.
 However, for a reenactment to be given any
evidentiary weight, the validity and efficacy of
the confession must first be shown. The
implication of guilt is not derived from mere
silence but from appellant’s silent
Page 30 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
acquiescence in participating in the
reenactment of the crime
 The rule does not apply if the statements
adverse to the party were made in the course
of an official investigation, as where he was
pointed out in the course of a custodial
investigation and was neither asked to reply
nor comment on such imputations or where
the party had a justifiable reason to remain
silent, as where he was acting on advice of
counsel, otherwise his right to silence would
be illusory.
 No admission can be implied from silence
where the failure to answer was caused by
constraint, or the party was not aware at the
time that he had an interest, or believed that
he had no interest, or was only indirectly
affected, or where as the matter was
presented, he had no interest to object, for
example, where the statement was not
addressed to him or was in his favor.
 The same absence of relevancy occurs
where an answer would be unseemly
interruption of orderly proceedings then in
progress, such as the delivery of a sermon,
the taking of the deposition or of testimony in
open court or the discharge by a judge,
magistrate, counsel, or other person of his
proper function in court proceedings.
 It should be kept in mind that a person under
investigation for the commission of an
offense has the right to remain silent and to
be informed of that right.
 The rule applies to adverse statements in
writing if the party was carrying on a mutual
correspondence with the declarant. However,
if there was no such mutual correspondence,
the rule is relaxed on the theory that while
the party would have immediately reacted by
a denial of the statement were orally made in
his presence, such prompt response can
generally not be expected if the party still has
to resort to a written reply.
Section 33. Confession
CONFESSION - categorical acknowledgement of
guilt made by an accused in a criminal case, without
any exculpatory statement or explanation. If the
accused admits having committed the act in question
but alleges a justification therefore, the same is
merely an admission.
 There can also be a confession of judgment
in a civil case where the party expressly
admits his liability.
 Confession may either be oral or in writing
and if in writing, it need not be under oath.
 The fact that the extrajudicial confession
was made while the accused was under
arrest does not render it inadmissible
where the same was made and admitted
prior to the 1973 Constitution.
 A confession may either be judicial or
extrajudicial.
 JUDICIAL CONFESSION - one made before
a court in which the case is pending and in
the course of legal proceedings therein and,
by itself, can sustain a conviction even in
capital offenses.
 EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION - one
made in any other place or occasion and
cannot sustain a conviction unless
corroborated by evidence of the corpus
delicti. This section refers to extrajudicial
confessions.
REQUISITES:
1. The confession must involve an express and
categorical acknowledgment of guilt.
2. The facts admitted must be constitutive of a
criminal offense
3. The confession must have been given
voluntarily
4. the confession must have been intelligently
made, the accused realizing the importance
or legal significance of this act.
5. There must have been no violation of Section
12, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution.
 Confessions are presumed to be voluntary
and the onus is on the defense to prove that
it was involuntary for having been obtained
by violence, intimidation, threat or promise of
reward or leniency.
The following circumstances have been held to
be indicia of the voluntariness of a confession:
• The confession contains details which the
police could not have supplied or invented.
• The confession contains details which could
have been known only to the accused
• The confession contains statements which
are exculpatory in nature
• The confession contains corrections made by
Page 31 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
the accused in his handwriting or with his
initials and which corrected facts are best
known to the accused.
• The accused is sufficiently educated and
aware of the consequences of his act.
• It was made in the presence of impartial
witnesses with the accused acting normally
on that occasion
• There is lack of motive on the part of the
investigators to extract a confession, with
improbabilities and inconsistencies in the
attempt of the accused to repudiate his
confession.
• The accused questioned the voluntariness of
the confession only for the first time at the
trial of the case.
• The contents of the confession were affirmed
by the accused in his voluntary participation
in the reenactment of the crime, as shown by
his silent acquiescence thereto.
• The facts contained in the confession were
confirmed by other subsequent facts
• After his confession, the accused was
subjected to physical examination and there
were no signs of maltreatment or the
accused never complained thereof, but not
where he failed to complain to the judge on a
reasonable apprehension of further
maltreatment as he was still in the custody of
his torturers
 If the extrajudicial confession was obtained
before the effectivity of the 1973
Constitution on January 17, 1973, the same
is admissible in evidence even if the
confessant was not informed of his right to
silence and to counsel as this constitutional
mandate should be given a prospective, and
not a retrospective effective and this doctrine
applies even if the confession was made
while the accused was under arrest.
 Under the current rule, the confession is
inadmissible if there is a violation of the
accused’s right to counsel and to silence.
 Where, before the statement containing the
extrajudicial confession of guilt was taken,
the accused was asked whether he was
familiar with the provisions of then Section
20, Art. IV of the 1973 Constitution and he
answered in the affirmative, and the
statement which he signed states that he had
been apprised of his constitutional rights with
the warning that anything he would say might
be used for or against him in court, such
extrajudicial confession is admissible in
evidence, especially where he thereafter
failed to impugn the same by not taking the
witness stand although assisted by counsel.
 Where the verbal extrajudicial confession
was made without counsel, but it was
spontaneously made by the accused
immediately after the assault, the same is
admissible not under the confession rule but
as part of the res gestae, aside from the
consideration that no custodial investigation
was involved.
 Where the accused was merely told of his
constitutional rights and asked if he
understood what he was told, but he was
never asked whether he wanted to exercise
or avail himself of such rights, his
extrajudicial confession is inadmissible.
 Where the extrajudicial confession of the
accused while under custodial investigation
was merely prefaced by the investigator with
a statement of his constitutional rights, to
which he answered that he was going to tell
the truth, the same is inadmissible as his
answer does not constitute a waiver of his
right to counsel and he was not assisted by
one when he signed the confession. His
short answer does not show that he knew the
legal significance of what were asked of him,
especially where the accused is illiterate and
it was not shown how his constitutional rights
were explained by the investigator.
 The waiver of the right to counsel during
custodial investigation must be made with the
assistance of counsel. Counsel must be
independent and competent.
 Where a confession was illegally obtained
from two of the accused and, consequently,
are not admissible against them, with much
more reason should the same be
inadmissible against third accused who had
no participation therein.
 Any form of coercion, whether physical,
mental or emotional, renders the extrajudicial
confession inadmissible.
 A promise of immunity or leniency vitiates a
confession if given by the offended party or
by the fiscal, but not if given by a person
whom the accused could not have
reasonably expected to be able to comply
with such promise, such as an investigator
Page 32 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
who is not a prosecuting or could not bind the
offended party which was a corporation
 Where the accused voluntarily made a
second extrajudicial confession after he had
been maltreated in order to extort the first
confession, such second confession is
admissible only if it can be proved that he
was already relieved of the fear generated by
the previous maltreatment.
 The entire confession should be admitted
in evidence but the court may, in
appreciating the same, reject such
portions as are incredible.
 Where the extrajudicial confession was
obtained by maltreatment, the judgment
based solely thereon is null and void and the
accused may obtain his release on a writ of
habeas corpus.
GENERAL RULE: The extrajudicial confession of an
accused is binding only upon himself and is not
admissible against his co-accused EXCEPTIONS:
1. if the latter impliedly acquiesced in or
adopted said confession by not questioning
its truthfulness, as where it was made in his
presence and he did not remonstrate against
his being implicated therein
2. If the accused persons voluntarily and
independently executed identical confessions
without conclusion, commonly known as
interlocking confessions which confessions
are corroborated by other evidence and
without contradiction by the co-accused who
was present.
3. If the accused persons voluntarily and
independently executed identical confessions
without conclusion, commonly known as
interlocking confessions, which confessions
are corroborated by other evidence, and
without contradiction but the co-accused who
was present.
4. Where the accused admitted the facts stated
by the confessant after being apprised of
such confession
5. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the
crime which was confessed by one of the
accused and said confession is used only as
a corroborating evidence.
6. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the
crime which was confessed by one of the
accused and said confession is used only as
a corroborating evidence.
7. Where the confession is used as
circumstantial evidence to show the
probability of participation by the co-
conspirator.
8. where the confessant testified for his co-
defendant or
9. where the co-conspirator’s extra judicial
confession is corroborated by other evidence
of record.
 This section, as now amended, declares as
admissible the confession of the accused not
only with respect to the offense charged but
also any offense necessarily included
therein. On the other hand, the 1987
Constitution specifically provides that, illegal
confessions and admissions are inadmissible
against the confessant or the admitter, hence
they are admissible against the persons who
violated the constitutional prohibition against
obtaining illegal confessions or admissions.
Section 34. Similar acts as evidence
GENERAL RULE: Evidence that one did or did not
do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to
prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar
thing at another time
EXCEPTIONS:
Where the evidence or similar acts may prove:
1. a specific intent or knowledge;
2. identity;
3. a plan, system or scheme;
4. a specific habit;
5. stablished customs, usages and the like
 The reason for the rule is to compel the
defendant to meet charges of which the
indictment gives him no information,
confuses him in his defense, raises a variety
of issue, and thus diverts the attention of the
court from the charge immediately before it. It
is an application of the principle that the
evidence must be confined to the point in
issue in the case on trial. In other words,
evidence of collateral offenses must not be
received as substantive evidence of the
offense on trial.
 SEC. 34 IS THE SECOND BRANCH OF
THE RULE OF RES INTER ALIOS ACTA
AND APPLIES TO BOTH CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL CASES. This section just like the
first branch of the res inter alias acta rule
provided for in Sec. 28, Rule 130, is strictly
enforced in all cases where it is applicable.
Page 33 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
 Evidence of similar offenses involving the
making of other false representations, is
admissible against the prisoner to show that
he is aware of the falsity of the statements
made by him in the present case and that
knowing them to be false, he made them with
intent to deceive.
 Evidence of a number of crimes is admissible
in a prosecution for robbery where it has the
tendency to identify the accused or show his
presence at the scene of the crime but not
where the evidence is to prove that the
accused committed another crime wholly
independent of that for which he is on trial.
 Previous acts of negligence, that is, selling
barium chlorate instead of potassium
chlorate, is admissible to show knowledge or
intent.
 In civil cases the rule as to proof of
commission of an act by showing the
commission of similar acts by the same
person at other times and under other
circumstances is the same as in a criminal
prosecution.
Section 35. Unaccepted offer
 This section complements the rule on tender
of payment (Art. 1256, Civil Code) by
providing that said offer of payment must be
made in writing. Such tender of payment
must, however, be followed by consignation
of the amount in court in order to produce the
effects of valid payment.
The rule covers:
1. payment of sum of money - if the amount is
short of the amount of liability or not in the
currency which is the legal tender here in the
Philippines, the creditor has a reason not to
accept the tender. Or even if the legal tender
is not that one to which the parties agreed
2. delivery of document – if not that agreed
document, creditor may refused acceptance;
3. delivery of personal property – creditor may
refuse and it does not amount to a tender if
the personal property is not that one agreed
upon
 Delivery or unaccepted offer does not
release the debtor from obligation but it can
excuse the debtor from delivery.
 Upon a valid unaccepted offer, the creditor
shall absorb all the circumstantial damages
to the property. However, the debtor must
prove that there is no negligent on his part.
 The court has to resolve the issue on
whether there is a just cause in the refusal if
the creditor denied the consignation of the
debtor in the basis that there is no just cause.
 It should be noted that the requirement that
the tender of payment must have been
refused without just cause by the creditor
does not imply that for the judicial authority to
accept consignation it has to examine
whether or not the creditor had a just reason
for refusing the tender. In order that the
consignation of an amount or thing may be
made the refusal of the creditor of the tender
of payment is enough, without regard to the
reason for his refusal, which will only be
taken into account to resolve definitely
whether the consignation made will be
efficacious against his opposition.
Section 36. Testimony generally confined to
personal knowledge; hearsay excluded.
HEARSAY RULE
Any evidence, whether oral or documentary
is hearsay if its probative value is not based on the
personal knowledge of the witness but on the
knowledge of some other person not on the witness
stand.
 Hearsay evidence is excluded because the
party against whom it is presented is
deprived of his right and opportunity to cross
examine the person to whom the statements
or writings are attributed.
 Hearsay evidence not objected to may be
admissible but whether objected to or not,
has no probative value, and as opposed to
direct primary evidence, the latter always
prevails.
GENERAL RULE: Hearsay Evidence is inadmissible
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Dying Declaration
2. Declaration Against Interest
3. Act Or Declaration Against Pedigree
4. Family Reputation Or Tradition Against
Pedigree
5. Common Reputation
6. Res Gestae
7. Entries In The Ordinary Course of Business
Page 34 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
8. Entries In Official Records
9. Commercial Lists
10. Learned Treatises
11. Testimony Or Deposition At A Former
Proceeding
 The exceptions are admissible for reasons of
NECESSITY and TRUSTWORTHINESS.
DOCTRINE OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT
STATEMENTS
The witness may testify to the statements
made by a person, if for instance, the fact that such
statements were made by the latter would indicate
the latter’s mental state and physical condition.
Independent of whether the facts stated are
true or not, they are relevant since they are the facts
in issue or are circumstantial evidence of the facts in
issue.
TWO CLASSES OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT
STATEMENTS
1. Those statement s which are the very fact in
issue;
2. Those statements which are circumstantial
evidence of the fact in issue. It includes the
following:
a. Statement of a person showing his
state of mind that is, his mental
condition, knowledge, belief,
intention, ill-will, and other emotions;
b. Statements of persons which shows
his physical condition as illness and
the like;
c. Statements of a person from which
an inference may be made as to the
state of mind of another, that is,
knowledge, belief, motive, good/bad
faith of the latter;
d. Statements which may identify the
date, place, person in question;
e. Statements showing the lack of
credibility of a witness
Section 37. Dying declaration.
DYING DECLARATION - The ante mortem
statements made by a person after the mortal wound
has been inflicted under the belief that the death is
certain, stating the fact concerning the cause of and
the circumstances surrounding the attack.
 It applies to any case where the death of the
declarant is the subject of the inquiry.
REQUISITES:
1. That the death is imminent and the declarant
is conscious of such fact
2. That the declaration refers to the cause and
the surrounding circumstances of such
death
3. That the declaration refers to the facts which
the victim is competent to testify to
4. That the declaration is offered in a case
wherein the declarant’s death is subject of
the inquiry (the victim necessarily must have
died)
5. That the statement must be complete in
itself. (People vs. De Joya, 203 SCRA 343).
Reason for its admission
1. Necessity – because the declarant’s death
renders impossible his taking the witness
stand
2. Trustworthiness – at the point of death, every
motive for falsehood is silenced. The mind is
induced by the most powerful consideration
to speak the truth.
Determination of consciousness of impending
death:
1. utterances
2. circumstances – that at the time of the
making of the declaration, the declarant did
not expect to survive the injury from which he
actually died
3. actual character and seriousness of his
wounds
4. By his conduct.
5. A dying declaration may be oral or written or
made by signs which could be interpreted
and testified to by a witness thereto.
 There must be settled, hopeless expectation
that death is at hand. It is sufficient that he
believed himself in imminent danger of death
at the time of such declaration.
 Dying declarations favorable to the accused
are admissible.
 Dying declarations may also be regarded as
part of the res gestae as they were made
soon after the startling occurrence without
the opportunity for fabrication or concoction.
 Dying declaration is not considered as a
confidential communication between the
spouses.
 A dying declaration may be attacked on the
Page 35 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
ground that any of the requisites for its Act or declaration Family reputation or
admissibility are not present and the same against pedigree tradition regarding
may be impeached in the same manner as pedigree
the testimony of any of the witness on the Witness need not be a Witness is a member
stand. member of the family of the family
Testimony is about Testimony is about
what declarant, who is family reputation or
Section 38. Declaration against interest. dead or unable to tradition covering
testify, he said matters of pedigree.
REQUISITES: concerning the
1. That the declarant is dead and unable to pedigree of the
testify. declarant’s family
2. That it relates to facts against the interest of
the declarant. PEDIGREE – includes relationship, family genealogy,
3. That at the time he made the said declaration birth, marriage, death, the dates when, and the placer
the declarant was aware that the same was where these facts occurred and the names of their
contrary to his aforesaid interest; and relatives. It embraces also facts of family history
4. That the declarant had no motive to falsify intimately connected with pedigree.
and he believed such actual declarant to be
true. Section 41. Common reputation.

Reasons for such admission: THE FOLLOWING MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY

1. Necessity – such declarations are the only
mode of proof available
2. Trustworthiness – persons do not make
statements that are disadvantageous to
themselves without substantial reason to
believe that the statements are true. Self-
interest induces men to be cautious in saying
anything against themselves. In other words,
we can safely trust a man when he speaks
against his interest.
Interest covered:
1. proprietary interest
2. penal interest
3. pecuniary interest
COMMON REPUTATION:
1. matters of public interest more than 30 years
old;
2. matters of general interest more than 30
years old;
3. matters respecting marriage or moral
character and related facts;
4. Individual moral character.
COMMON REPUTATION – is the definite opinion of
the community in which the fact to be proved is
known or exists. It means the general or
substantially undivided reputation, as distinguished
from a partial or qualified one, although it need not be
unanimous.

 The declarant must realize at the very time of
making the declaration that his declaration is
against his interest, that a reasonable man in
his position would not have made the
declaration unless he believed it to be true.
 It is essential that at the time of the
statement, the declarant’s interest affected
thereby should be actual/real/apparent not
merely contingent, future or unconditional,
otherwise, the declaration would not in reality
be against interest.
As a general rule, the reputation of a person should
be that existing in the place of his residence; it may
also be that existing in the place where he is best
known.
EVIDENCE OF NEGATIVE GOOD REPUTE
Where the foundation proof shows that the
witness was in such position that he would have
heard reports derogatory to one’s character, the
reputation testimony may be predicated on the
absence of reports of bad reputation or on the fact
that the witness heard nothing against the person.

Section 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. Section 42. Part of res gestae

Section 40. Family reputation or tradition. RES GESTAE – literally means things done; it
includes circumstances, facts, and declarations
incidental to the main facts or transaction necessary
Section 39 Section 40 to illustrate its character and also includes acts,

Page 36 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
words, or declarations which are closely connected What the law distrusts is not the “after
therewith as to constitute part of the transaction. speech” but the after thought.

TWO TYPES OF RES GESTAE Distinctions between Res Gestae in connection

with a homicidal act and dying declaration
SPONTANEOUS VERBAL ACTS
STATEMENTS RES GESTAE in Dying declarations
spontaneous statements connection with a
statements in accompanied by AN homicidal act
connection with a EQUIVOCAL ACT May be made by the Can be made only by
startling occurrence MATERIAL TO THE killer himself after or the victim.
relating to that fact and ISSUE AND giving it a during the killing OR
in effect forming part legal significance that of a 3rd person.
thereof; May precede or be Made only after the
made after the homicidal attack has
REQUISITES homicidal attack was been committed.
1. there must be a 1. the act or committed.
startling occurrence; occurrence Justification in the Trustworthiness based
2. the statement must characterized must spontaneity of the upon in its being given
relate to the be equivocal; statement. in awareness of
circumstances of the 2. verbal acts must impending death.
startling occurrence; characterize or
and explain the
3. The statement must equivocal act; Distinctions between verbal acts and
be spontaneous. 3. equivocal act must spontaneous statements
be relevant to the
issue; and VERBAL ACTS SPONTANEOUS
4. Verbal act must be STATEMENTS
contemporaneous The res gestae is the The res gestae is the
with the equivocal equivocal act. startling occurrence
act. Verbal act must be Statements may be
contemporaneous with made prior, or
Grounds for admissibility or accompany the immediately after the
1. Necessity – natural equivocal act. startling occurrence.
and spontaneous
utterances are more
convincing than the Section 43. Entries in the course of business
testimony of the
same person on the REQUISITES:
stand. 1. That the entrant made the entry in his
2. Trustworthiness – professional capacity or in the performance
the statement is of a duty;
made indistinctively. 2. The entry was made in the ordinary course of
The facts speaking business or entry;
thru the party not 3. The entries must have been made at or near
the party talking the time of the transaction to which they
about the facts. relate;
4. The entrant must have been in a position to
know the facts stated in the entries;
5. The entrant must be deceased or unable to
 It is essential that spontaneous statements testify.
should have been caused by something
startling enough to produce nervous  The law does not fix any precise moment
excitement. The declarant must be a witness when the entry should be made. It is
to the event to which the utterance relates. sufficient that the entry was made within a
He must have personally observed the fact. reasonable period of time so that it may
appear to have taken place while the

Page 37 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
memory of the facts was unimpaired.
How regularity of the entries proved
 It may be proved by the form in which they
appear in the corresponding book.
Section 44. Entries in official records
REQUISITES:
1. that it was made by a public officer or by
another person specially enjoined by the law
to do so; and
2. that it was made any a public officer in the
performance of his duty specially enjoined by
law; and
3. The public officer or the other person has
sufficient knowledge of the facts by him
stated, which must have been acquired by
him personally or through official information.
Reasons for admission
1. Necessity – practical impossibility of requiring
the official’s attendance as a witness to
testify to the innumerable transactions
occurring in the course of his duty.
2. Trustworthiness – there is a presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty.
 Probative value: only prima facie evidence
of the facts stated therein.
It is not essential for the officer making the official
statement to have a personal knowledge of the facts
stated by him, it being sufficient that the official
information was acquired by officers who prepared
the report from persons who not only have personal
knowledge of the facts stated but must have the duty
to give such statements for the record.
People vs. Cabrera Jr., G.R. No. 138266, April 30,
2003
It is well settled that entries in the police
blotter should not be given due significance or
probative value as they are not conclusive evidence
of the truth of their contents but merely of the fact
that they were recorded. Hence, they do not
constitute conclusive proof.
Section 45. Commercial list and the like
REQUISITES:
1. Statements of matters of interest to persons
engaged in an occupation;
2. The statements must be contained in a list,
register, periodical or other published
compilation;
3. The compilation was published for use by
persons engaged in that occupation; and
4. Is generally relied upon by them.
Reasons for admission:
1. Necessity – because of the unusual
accessibility of the persons responsible for
the compilation of matters contained in a list,
register, periodical or other published
compilation and tremendous inconvenience it
would cause to the court if it would issue
summons to these numerous individuals.
2. Trustworthiness – they have no motive to
deceive and they further realize that unless
the list, register, periodical or other published
compilation are prepared with care and
accuracy, their work will have no commercial
and probative value.
Section 46. Learned Treatises
In order that a published treatise, periodical, or
pamphlet on a subject of law, history, science, or art
may be admissible, it is necessary either:
1. That the court can take judicial notice of it; or
2. A witness expert on the subject testifies that
the writer of the statement in the treatise,
periodical, or pamphlet is recognized in his
profession or calling as expert in the subject.
Reasons for admission
1. Necessity – even if such person is legally
procurable, the expense is frequently
disproportionate.
2. Trustworthiness – learned writers have no
motive to misrepresent. He is aware that his
work will be carefully scrutinized by the
learned members of his profession and that
he may be subject to criticisms and ultimately
rejected as an authority of the subject matter
if his conclusions are found to be invalid.
Section 47. Testimony or deposition at a former
proceeding
REQUISITES:
1. The testimony or depositions of a witness
deceased or unable to testify;
2. The testimony was given in a former case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative;
3. Involving the same parties;
4. Relating to the subject matter;
5. The adverse party having had an opportunity
to cross-examine him.
OPINION RULE
Page 38 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
OPINION – an inference or conclusion drawn from
facts observed.
Section 48. General Rule
GENERAL RULE: Witnesses must give the facts and
not their inference, conclusions, or opinions
EXCEPTIONS:
1. On a matter requiring SPECIAL knowledge,
skill, experience or training which he is
shown to possess (Section 49);
2. The identity of a person about whom he ahs
adequate knowledge (Section 50[a]);
3. A handwriting with which he has sufficient
familiarity (Section 50 [b]);
4. The mental sanity of a person with whom he
is sufficiently acquainted (Section 50[c])
5. The witness’ impressions of the emotion,
behavior, condition, or appearance of a
person (Section 50[d])
Section 49. Opinion of expert witnesses
EXPERT WITNESS – one who belongs to the
profession or calling to which the subject matter of
the inquiry relates to and who possesses special
knowledge on questions on which he proposes to
express an opinion.
 There is no definite standard of determining the
degree of skill or knowledge that a witness must
possess in order to testify as an expert.
 It is sufficient that the following factors are
present:
1. training and education
2. particular, first hand familiarity with the facts
of the case
3. presentation of authorities or standards upon
which his opinion is based.
 An expert witness may base his opinion
either on the first-hand knowledge of the
facts or on the basis of hypothetical
questions where the facts are presented to
him and on the assumption that they are true,
formulates his opinion on the hypothesis.
Expert evidence is admissible only if:
1. the matter to be testified requires expertise;
and
2. The witness has been qualified as an expert.
How to present an expert witness
1. Introduce and qualify the witness;
2. Let him give his factual testimony, if he has
knowledge of the facts;
3. Begin the hypothetical question by asking
him to assume certain facts as true;
4. Conclude the question, by first asking the
expert if he has an opinion on a certain point
assuming that these facts are true and
secondly, asking him, after he has answered
affirmatively, to give his opinion on the point;
5. After he has stated his opinion, ask him to
give his reasons.
Hypothetical questions may be asked on an expert to
elicit his opinion. Courts, however, are NOT
necessarily bound by the expert’s findings.
Section 50. Opinion of ordinary witness
ORDINARY OPINION EVIDENCE – that which is
given by a witness who is of ordinary capacity and
who has by opportunity acquired a particular
knowledge which is outside the limits of common
observation and which may be of value in elucidating
a matter under consideration.
CHARACTER AS EVIDENCE
Sec 51. Character evidence not generally
admissible
CHARACTER – the aggregate of the moral qualities
which belong to and distinguish an individual person.
GENERAL RULE: character evidence is not
admissible in evidence
EXCEPTIONS:
CRIMINAL CASES
1. Accused may prove his good moral character
which is pertinent to the moral trait involved
in the offense charge;
2. The prosecution may not prove bad moral
character of the accused unless in rebuttal
when the latter opens the issue by
introducing evidence of his good moral
character;
3. As to the offended party, his good or bad
moral character may be proved as long as it
tends to establish the probability or
improbability of the offense charged.
Exceptions to this exception:
1. proof of the bad character of the victim
in a murder case is not admissible if
Page 39 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
the crime was committed through
treachery and evident premeditation;
and
2. In prosecution for rape, evidence of
complainant’s past sexual conduct,
opinion thereof or of his/her reputation
shall not be admitted unless, and only
to the extent that the court finds that
such evidence is material and relevant
to the case. (Rape Shield, RA 8505
Section 6)
CIVIL CASES
The moral character of either party thereto
CANNOT be proved UNLESS it is pertinent to the
issue of character involved in the case.
AS TO WITNESSES
Both criminal and civil, the bad moral character of a
witness may always be proved by either party
(Section 11, Rule 132) but not of his good moral
character, unless such character has been
impeached. (Section 14)
RULE 131
BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS
Section 1. Burden of proof
BURDEN OF PROOF/RISK OF NON-PERSUASION
– the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts
in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense
by the amount of evidence required by law.
PROOF– the establishment of a requisite degree of
belief in the mind of the trier of fact as to the fact in
issue.
Two separate burdens in burden of proof:
1. burden of going forward – that of producing
evidence
2. Burden of persuasion – the burden of
persuading the trier of fact that the burdened
party is entitled to prevail.
UPON WHOM BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS:
A. Civil Cases
1. the plaintiff has the burden of proof to show
the truth of his allegations if the defendant
raises a negative defense;
2. The defendant has the burden of proof if he
raises an affirmative defense on the
complaint of the plaintiff.
NOTE: In a civil case, the plaintiff is always
compelled to allege affirmative assertions in his
complaint. When he alleges a cause of action, he will
be forced to allege that he has a right and that such
right was violated by the other party. Thus he has
the duty to prove the existence of this affirmative
allegation.
When the defendant files his answer and sets up
purely a negative defense and no evidence is
presented by both sides, it is the defendant who
would win the case since the plaintiff has not
presented the quantum evidence required by law.
On the other hand, when the defendant in his answer
sets up an affirmative defense, if there is no evidence
presented by both sides, it is the defendant who will
lose the case.
B. Criminal Cases
The burden of proof is on the prosecution by
reason of presumption of innocence.
The burden of proof as to the guilt of the
accused must be borne by the prosecution. It is
required that courts determine first if the evidence of
the prosecution has at least shown a prima facie
case before considering the evidence of the defense.
If the prosecution does not have a prima facie case, it
is futile to waste time in considering the evidence
presented by the defense. Should the prosecution
succeed in establishing a prima facie case against
the accused, the burden is shifted upon the accused
to prove otherwise.
Under the Speedy Trial Act, if the accused
was NOT brought to trial within the time required, the
information shall be dismissed on the motion of the
accused. In this case, THE BURDEN OF PROOF of
supporting such motion is with the accused (Section
13, Republic Act 8493).
DEGREE OF PROOF THAT SATISFIES THE
BURDEN OF PROOF
A. Civil Cases – Preponderance of evidence
B. Criminal Cases
To sustain conviction – Evidence of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
Preliminary investigation – Engenders a well founded
belief of the fact of the commission of a crime.
Issuance of warrant of arrest – Probable cause, i.e.
that there is reasonable ground to believe that the
accused that committed an offense.
C. Administrative Cases – Substantial evidence.
Page 40 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
EXCEPTION: When such negative allegations are
HIERARCHY OF EVIDENCE essential parts of the cause of action or defense in a
1. proof beyond reasonable doubt civil case, or are essential ingredients of the offense
2. clear and convincing evidence in a criminal case or defenses thereto.
3. preponderance of evidence
4. substantial evidence HOWEVER, in CIVIL CASES, even if the
negative allegation is an essential part of the
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE– logical necessity on a cause of action or defense, such negative
party during a particular time of the trail to create a allegation does not have to be proved if it is
prima facie case in his favor or to destroy that only for the purpose of denying the existence
created against him by presenting evidence. of a document which should properly be in
the custody of the adverse party.
In both civil and criminal cases, the burden of
evidence lies on the party who asserts an affirmative In a CRIMINAL CASE, the rule if the subject
allegation. of a negative averment inheres in the offense
as an essential ingredient thereof, the
Distinctions Between Burden of Proof and prosecution has the burden of proving the
Burden of Evidence same. In view however, of the difficult office
BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF of proving a negative allegation, the
EVIDENCE prosecution, under such circumstance, need
Does not shift and Shifts from party to to do no more than make a prima facie case
remains throughout party depending upon from the best evidence obtainable. (People
the entire case exactly the exigencies of the vs. Cabral, 68 Phil. 564)
where the original case in the course of
pleadings placed it. the trial
Generally determined Generally determined PRESUMPTION - An inference as to the existence or
by the pleadings filed by the developments non-existence of a fact which courts are permitted to
by the party. of the trial, or by the draw from the proof of other facts.
provisions of
substantive law or A presumption shifts the burden of going forward with
procedural rules which the evidence. It imposes on the party against whom
may relieve the party it is directed the burden of going forward with
from presenting evidence to meet or rebut the presumption.
evidence on the facts
alleged. CLASSIFICATION OF PRESUMPTIONS:
1. PRESUMPTION JURIS OR OF LAW – is a
UPON WHOM BURDEN OF EVIDENCE RESTS: deduction which the law expressly directs to
be made from particular facts.
A. Civil Cases: 2. PRESUMPTION HOMINIS OR OF FACT – is
The plaintiff is to prove his affirmative a deduction which reason draws from facts
allegations in his counter claim and his affirmative proved without an express direction from the
defenses. law to that effect
B. Criminal Cases: PRESUMPTIONS OF PRESUMPTIONS OF
The PROSECUTION has to prove its LAW FACT
affirmative allegations in the information regarding Certain inference must Discretion is vested in
the elements of the crime as well as the attendant be made whenever the the tribunal as to
circumstances; while the DEFENSE has to prove its facts appear which drawing the inference.
affirmative allegations regarding the existence of furnish the basis of the
justifying or exempting circumstances, absolutory inference.
causes or mitigating circumstances.
Reduced to fixed rules Derived wholly and
and form a part of the directly from the
PRINCIPLE OF NEGATIVE AVERMENTS:
system of circumstances of the
jurisprudence. particular case by
GENERAL RULE: Negative allegations need not be
means of the common
proved, whether in a civil or criminal action.
experience of

Page 41 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
mankind.
PRESUMPTION JURIS may be divided into:
1. CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION (juris et de
jure) – which is a presumption of law that is
not permitted to be overcome by any proof to
the contrary; and
2. DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS (juris
tantum) - is that which the law permits to be
overcome or contradicted by proofs to the
contrary; otherwise the same remains
satisfactory.
Section 2. Conslusive Presumptions
CLASSES OF CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
1. ESTOPPEL IN PAIS (Rule 131, Sec. 2(a)) –
whenever a party has, by his own
declaration, act, or omission, intentionally
and deliberately lead another to believe a
particular thing to be true and act upon such
belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out
of such declaration, act or omission, be
permitted to falsify it.
2. ESTOPPEL BY DEED (Rule 131, Sec. 2 (b))
– the tenant is not permitted to deny title of
his landlord at the time of the
commencement of the land-lord tenant
relationship. If the title asserted is one that is
alleged to have been acquired subsequent to
the commencement of that relation, the
presumption will not apply.
Section 3. Disputable presumptions
CLASSES OF DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS
1. Presumption of Innocence - Applies to both
civil and criminal cases
This presumption accompanies the accused
throughout the trial down to the moment of
conviction. This presumption disappears after
conviction and the appellate court then will
presume the accused guilty.
By reason of this presumption, an accused is
not called upon to offer evidence on his
behalf for his freedom is forfeited only if the
requisite quantum of proof necessary for
conviction be in existence.
 BASIS: founded on the principles of justice
and is intended not to protect the guilty but to
prevent the conviction of an innocent
persons.
 Equipose Rule: Where the evidence gives
rise to two probabilities, one consistent with
defendant’s innocence, and another
indicative of his guilt, that which is favorable
to the accused should be considered.
2. Presumption that a person takes ordinary
care of his concerns: (Vales vs. Villa, 35
PHIL 769)
All men are presumed to be sane and normal
and subject to be moved by substantially the
same motives.
When of age and sane, they must take care
of themselves. Courts operate not because
one person has been defeated or overcome
by another but because he has been
defeated or overcome illegally. There must
be a violation of law, the commission of what
the law known as an actionable wrong before
the courts is authorized to lay hold of the
situation and remedy it.
3. Presumption from possession of stolen
goods:
This is not in conflict with the presumption of
innocence. At the start of the criminal case,
the court will apply the presumption of
innocence. But once the prosecution is able
to prove that a certain object has been
unlawfully taken, that there is a crime of theft
committed and that the prosecution has also
proven that the accused is in possession of
this object unlawfully taken, and then the
presumption of innocence disappears. The
new presumption of guilt takes place.
4. Presumption that a person in a public
office was regularly appointed or elected
to it:
REASON: It would cause great
inconvenience if in the first instance strict
proof were required of appointment or
election to office in all cases where it might
Page 42 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
be collaterally in issue.
The burden of proof is on the adverse party
to show that he was not appointed or
designated.
5. Presumption that an official duty has
been regularly performed
Reasons:
1. innocence and not the wrongdoing is
to be presumed
2. an official oath will not be violated
3. a republican form of government
cannot survive un less a limit is placed
upon controversies and certain trust
and confidence reposed in each
government, department, or agent at
least to the extent of such
presumption.
The presumption of regularity and legality of
official acts is applicable to criminal as well
as civil cases.
This presumption of authority is not confined
to official appointees. It has been extended
to persons who have been appointed
pursuant to a local or special statute to act in
quasi-public or quasi-official capacities and to
professional men like surgeons and lawyers.
6. Omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter
esse acta donec probetur in contrarium –
all things are presumed to have been done
regularly and with due formality until the
contrary is proved.
While ordinarily, irregularity will not be presumed,
an adverse assumption may arise when the
official act in question appears to be irregular
upon its face.
7. Presumptions of regularity of judicial
proceedings, that a court, or judge acting
as such, whether in the Philippines or
elsewhere, was acting in a lawful exercise
jurisdiction.
The copurt rendering the judgement is
presumed to have jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the poarties and to have
rendered a judgement valid in every respect.
Jurisdiction is presumed in all cases, be it
superior or inferior court.
However, jurisdiction to render a judgement
in a particular case or against a particular
case, or against persons may not be
presumed when the record itself shows that
jurisdiction has not been acquired or there
was something on the record showing the
absence of jurisdiction.
8. Presumption that private transactions
have been done fair and regular: An
individual intends to do right rather than
wrong and intends to only whet he has the
right to do.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, there
is a presumption that all men act fairly
honestly, and in good faith.
9. Presumption that an ordinary course of
business has been followed: Those who
were engaged in a given trade or business
are presumed to be acquainted with the
general customs and usages of the
occupation and with such other facts as are
necessarily incident to the proper conduct of
the business.
RULE 132
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Section 1. Examination to be done in open court.
How oral evidence is given:
It is usually given orally in open court. Therefore,
generally, the testimonies of witnesses cannot be
presented in affidavits.
One instance when the testimonies of witnesses may
be given in affidavits is under the Rules of Summary
Procedure.
Purpose: to enable the court to judge the credibility
of the witness by the witness’ manner of testifying,
their intelligence, and appearance.
GENERAL RULE: Testimony of witnesses shall be
given under oath or affirmation.
Two fold object in requiring a witness to be
sworn:
1. by affecting the conscience of the witness to
compel him to speak the truth;
Page 43 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
2. if he willfully falsifies that truth, that he may 2. The rule may be invoked in any court or
be punished by perjury. proceedings;
3. The rule covers only testimonial compulsion
The right to have the witness sworn may be waived, if and production by him of incriminating
a party fails to object to the taking of the testimony of documents and articles.
a witness without the administration of an oath, he
will be deemed to have waived his objection. Rationale against testimonial compulsion:
The court may not extract from the
Questions propounded to a witness must: defendant’s own lips and against his will an
1. not be indefinite or uncertain; admission of his guilt.
2. be relevant;
When is an act testimonial?
3. not be argumentative;
If it explicitly or implicitly relate a factual
4. not for conclusion of law;
assertion or discloses information.
5. not call for opinion or hearsay evidence;
6. not call for illegal answer;
When is there compulsion?
7. not call for self-incriminating testimony;
It is present only when a witness has
8. not be leading;
asserted a right to refuse to disclose self-
9. not be misleading;
incriminating information and this refusal has been
10. not to tend reputation of witness;
overridden.
11. not to be repetitions;
12. not call for a narration.
Forced Reenactment comes within the ban since
prohibition against testimonial compulsion extends to
Section 2. Proceedings to be recorded
those communicative in nature.
Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness
Rights of a defendant
He has the right to be exempt from being a
RIGHTS OF A WITNESS
witness against himself, cannot be compelled be
1. To be protected from irrelevant , improper,
compelled to testify or produce evidence in the
or insulting questions, and from harsh or
criminal case in which he is the accused or one of the
insulting demeanor;
accused, he cannot be compelled to do so even by
2. Not to be detained loinger than the interest
subpoena or other process or order of the court. He
of justice require;
cannot be required wither for the prosecution, for co-
3. Not to be examined except only as to
accused, or even for himself.
matters pertinent to the issue;
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to
An ordinary witness of a party in a civil action
subject him to a penalty for an offense unless
An ordinary witness may be compelled to
otherwise provided by law;
testify by subpoena having only the right to refuse to
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to
answer a particular incriminating question at the time
degrade his reputation, unless it be to the
it is put to him.
very fact at issue or to a fact from which the
fact at issue would be presumed. But a
Limitation if a witness is a party in a civil action:
witness must answeer to the fact of his
Before the plaintiff can compel the defendant
previous final conviction for an offense.
to be a witness, the plaintiff must first prove that he
has submitted written interrogatories of the
Right of a witness to be free from personal
defendant.
violence
The act of the judge in seizing the witness by
The exception under no. 4 refers to IMMUNITY
the shoulder and turning him about was
STATUTES wherein the witness is granted immunity
unwarrante4d and an interference with that freedom
from criminal prosecution for offenses admitted in his
from unlawful personal violence to which every
testimony, e.g. under Sec. 8, R.A. 1379, the law
witness is entitled while giving the testimony in court,
providing for the forfeiture of unlawfully acquired
which his attorney had the right to protest and
property; and under PD 749, in prosecutions for
demand that the incident be made of record.
bribery and graft.
Scope of the right against self-incrimination:
CLASSIFICATION OF IMMUNITY STATUTES
1. No person should be compelled to be a
witness against himself; 1. Use Immunity – Only prohibits the unse of

Page 44 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
witness’ compelled testimony and its fruits in
any manner in connection with the criminial
prosecution of the witness. It does not
render a witness immune from prosecution.
2. Transactional Immunity – grants
immunity to the witness from prosecution for
an offense to which his compelled testimony
relates.
 For purposes of evidence, right against self-
incrimination refers only to testimonial
compulsion.
 Right against self-incrimination is granted
only in favor of individuals.
 Right against self-incrimination extends to
administrative proceedings with a criminal or
penal aspect.
When leading questions allowed:
a. On cross
b. On preliminary matters
c. Difficulty in getting direct and intelligible
answers
d. Unwilling or hostile witness
e. Adverse party or an officer, director or a
corporation or partnership which is an
adverse party
 A misleading question, though not objected
to, will not be evidence of the fact assumed
by the improper question.
GENERAL RULE: One who voluntarily offers a
witness’ testimony is bound by such (i.e. cannot
impeach or contradict),
EXCEPTIONS:
i. Hostile witness
ii. Adverse party or rep. of adverse party
iii. Not voluntarily offered but required by
law (e.g., subscribing witnesses to a will)
People v. Givera 349 SCRA 573 (Jan. 2001)
Facts: A was charged with murder. The prosecution
formally offered the testimony of the medico-legal
officer taken in the first case involving 3 other
accused for the death of the same victim.
Issue: Whether the said testimony is admissible.
Held: No. The defense did not have the opportunity
to cross-examine the medico-legal officer so his
testimony cannot be used in evidence against the
accused.
Impeaching witness of adverse party
a. Contradictory evidence from testimony in same
case
b. Evidence of prior inconsistent statement
c. Evidence of bias, interest, prejudice or
incompetence
d. Evidence of mental, sensory derangement or
defect
e. Evidence of conviction of an offense which
affects credibility of witness
People v. Peralta 350 SCRA 198 (Jan. 2001)
Facts: A was found guilty of murder. A attempted to
impeach the credibility of 3 prosecution witnesses,
especially witness W. A pointed out that W testified
that as the victim’s fraternity brother, he would do
“anything and everything” for the victim.
Issue: Whether A was able to properly impeach the
witnesses on account of bias.
Held: No. A witness may be said to biased when
his relation to the cause or to the parties is such that
he has an incentive to exaggerate or give false color
or pervert the truth, or to state what is false. To
impeach a biased witness, the counsel must lay the
proper foundation of the bias by asking the witness
facts constituting the bias. In this case, there was no
proper impeachment by bias of the 3 prosecution
witnesses. W’s testimony that he would do anything
for his fellow brothers was too broad and general so
as to constitute a motive to lie before the court.
People v. Macandog et. al. 6 June 2001
Facts: A was accused of the murder of V. E, a
witness of the prosecution, testified that A was
among those present at the crime scene. A argued
that E’s testimony should not have been given
credence because she was biased, as she was the
sister of the deceased.
Issue: Whether E is a biased witness.
Held: No. The fact that E is the sister of deceased
does not per se make her a biased witness. Mere
relationship of the victim to a witness does not
automatically impair her credibility and render her
testimony less worthy of credence where no
improper motive can be ascribed. Such relationship
lends more credence to the testimony considering
her natural interest to see the guilty punished. It
would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in
vindicating the crime to accuse anyone other than
the real culprit.
IMPEACHING OWN WITNESS
GENERAL RULE:
A party is not allowed to impeach his own witness
EXCEPTIONS:
a. Unwilling or adverse witness so declared
Page 45 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
by the court Additional modes of authenticating a private
b. Witness who is also an adverse party writing:
c. Witnesses required by law (e.g., subscribing a. Doctrine of self-authentication
witnesses to a will) Where the facts in the writing could only have
May be impeached in all respects as if called by been known by the writer
other party, EXCEPT by evidence of bad moral
character. b. Rule of authentication by the adverse party
Where reply of the adverse party refers to
When a witness who is partly cross-examined dies, and affirms the sending and his receipt of the
his direct examination cannot be expunged. In letter in question, a copy of which the
People v. Señeris (99 SCRA 92), the direct proponent is offering as evidence.
testimony of a witness who dies before conclusion of
the cross can be stricken only insofar as not covered People v. Banzales 336 SCRA 64 (July 2000)
by the cross. However, Professor Bautista does not Facts: A was charged with illegal recruitment. The
like this decision because although the cross was POEA issued a certificate stating that A was an
substantially complete, still, the court ordered the unlicensed illegal recruiter. A argued that the
direct examination to be stricken out. prosecution filed to establish 1 element of the offense
considering that no representative of the POEA was
REQUISITES OF REVIVAL OF PRESENT presented in court to testify as to the authenticity of
MEMORY: the certificate.
a. Memorandum has been written Issue: Whether authenticity of the certificate needs
by him or under his direction; and to be proved.
b. Written by him: Held: No. A POEA certification is a public
i. When the fact document issued by a public officer in the
occurred or performance of an official duty; hence it is prima facie
immediately evidence of the facts therein stated (Rule 132 § 23).
thereafter; or Public documents are entitled to a presumption of
ii. At any other time regularity; consequently, the burden of proof rests
when the fact was fresh in his memory upon him who alleges the contrary.
and he knew that the same was correctly
recorded Estrada v. Aniano Desierto 03 Apr. 2001
Facts: The Court, in a previous decision, relied not
REQUISITES OF REVIVAL OF PAST upon the original but only a copy of the Angara Diary
RECOLLECTION: as published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
a. Witness Issue: Does the use of the AD violate the rule on
retains no recollection of the particular facts; authentication of private writings and best evidence?
b. But he his able Held: No.
to swear that the record or writing correctly 1. The Supreme Court, citing Wigmore, stated that: “
stated the transaction when made Production of the original may be dispensed with, in
the trial court’s discretion, whenever in the case in
Revival of present memory and Revival of past hand the opponent does not bona fide dispute the
recollection distinguished contents of the document and no other useful
Present Recollection Past Recollection purpose will be served by requiring publication.
Revived Recorded 2. Estrada had an opportunity to object to the
Applies if the witness Applies where the admissibility of the AD when he filed his
remembers the facts witness does not recall Memorandum, Supplemental Memorandum and
regarding his entries the facts involved Second Supplemental Memorandum, but he did not
Entitled to greater weight Entitled to lesser weight object to its admissibility. He was not therefore
Evidence is the testimony Evidence is the writing or denied due process.
record
Rule of evidence affected Rule of evidence affected AUTHENTICATION NOT REQUIRED FOR:
is competency of is the best evidence rule a. Ancient document
witness, examination of i. More than 30 years old
witness (laying the ii. Contains no alterations or circumstances
predicate) of suspicion
iii. Produced from a custody in which it
would naturally be found if genuine

Page 46 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
b. Public document or record Offered orally Made immediately after
c. Notarial document acknowledged, proved or the offer is made
certified Question propounded in Shall be made as soon
d. Authenticity and due execution has been the course of the oral as the grounds thereof
expressly or impliedly admitted (e.g., examination of a witness shall become reasonably
actionable documents, failure to deny under apparent
oath) Offer of evidence in Shall be objected to
writing within 3 days after notice
 Computer printouts are inadmissible unless of the offer unless a
properly authenticated by a witness attesting different period is allowed
that they came from the computer system or by the court.
that the data stored in the system were not
and could not have been tampered with WHEN A MOTION TO STRIKE OUT ANSWER IS
before the same were printed out. PROPER
a. When the witness answered the question
EVIDENCE OF GENUINENESS OF before the counsel has a chance to object
HANDWRITING: a. Where a question which is not objectionable
a. Witness actually saw person writing the may be followed by an objectionable
instrument unresponsive answer
b. Familiar with handwriting and witness can b. Where a witness has volunteered statements
give opinion in such a way that the party has not been
c. Comparison of questioned handwriting able to object thereto
and admitted genuine specimens c. Where a witness testifies without a question
d. Expert evidence being addressed to him
d. Where a witness testifies beyond the ruling of
OFFER AND OBJECTION the court prescribing the limits within which
he may answer
GENERAL RULE: e. When a witness dies or becomes
The court shall consider no evidence which has not incapacitated to testify and the other party
been formally offered. The purpose for which the has not been given the opportunity to cross-
evidence is offered must be specified. examine the witness.
 There must be an objection first before a
EXCEPTION: motion to strike. If the party slept on his
If there was repeated reference thereto in the course right to object, he cannot later on avail a
of the trial by adverse party’s counsel and of the motion to strike to exclude the evidence.
court, indicating that the documents were part of the
prosecution’s evidence.

Two requisites must concur (People v. Napta)
a. The document must have been duly
identified by testimony duly recorded.
b. The document must have been
incorporated to the records of the case.
A party who has introduced evidence is not entitled
as matter of right to withdraw it in finding that it does
not answer his purpose; BUT he may withdraw an
offer of an exhibit any time before the court has
passed on its admissibility.
Evidence offered is presumed to be admissible or
competent until the contrary has been established.
Thus, the opposing party must OBJECT to its
introduction.
WHEN TO OBJECT
Offer Time to Object
WHEN A MOTION TO STRIKE OUT IS IMPROPER
a. A party cannot insist that competent
and relevant evidence be stricken out for
reasons going to his weight, sufficiency or
credibility
b. One cannot move to strike it out
because it proves unfavorable to him
If court improperly excludes otherwise admissible
evidence, remedy is to tender the excluded evidence,
also known as OFFER OF PROOF:
b. Documentary – by
attaching the document or making it part of
the record
c. Testimonial – by
stating the personal circumstances of witness
and the substance of proposed testimony

Page 47 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
RULE 133
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
1. PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
 Does not mean such degree of proof as,
excluding possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty
 Moral certainty only is required, or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in
an unprejudiced mind
2. Circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction:
a. More than one circumstance
b. Facts from which inferences are derived are
proven
c. Combination of all circumstances such as to
produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt
3. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
 That amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to justify a conclusion.
People v. Pedigero 337 SCRA 274 (Aug. 2000)
Facts: A was convicted of robbery with homicide. A
claimed that the court erred in holding that the
circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution
sufficiently established his guilt.
Issue: When is circumstantial evidence sufficient to
convict?
Held: Rule 133 § 4 enumerates the 3 elements that
should be present in order for circumstantial
evidence to be sufficient for conviction. A judgment of
conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be
sustained only when the circumstances proved form
an unbroken chain that leads to a fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion
of all others, as the culprit. The circumstances
proved must be consistent with each other,
consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is
guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with any
other hypothesis except that of guilt.
People v. Rayos 7 Feb. 2001
Facts: A was charged and convicted of the rape-
slay of a 9-year old mental retardate. He argued that
the circumstantial evidence presented by the
prosecution was not sufficient to establish his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue: When is circumstantial evidence sufficient to
convict?
Held: When there are no eyewitnesses to a crime,
resort to circumstantial evidence becomes almost
certainly unavoidable. In rape with homicide, the
evidence against the accused is basically
circumstantial because of the nature of the crime.
The circumstances must be consistent with each
other from which the only rational hypothesis that can
be drawn therefrom would be that the accused is
guilty. The circumstances must create a solid chain
of events, coherent and intrinsically believable, that
pinpoints the accused, to the exclusion of others, as
being the perpetrator of the crime and thereby
sufficiently overcome the presumption of innocence
in his favor. The circumstantial pieces of evidence in
this case, taken in their entirety, unmistakably point
to the guilt of A.
Mollaneda v. Umacob 6 June 2001
Facts: A, the Schools Division Superintendent, was
criminally charged before the court. A was acquitted.
Complainants filed an administrative case against A
to dismiss him from the service. A argued that the
dismissal of the criminal case against him meant that
the administrative case cannot prosper.
Issue: Whether A is correct.
Held: No. The dismissal of a criminal case on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence against an
accused who is a respondent in an administrative
case does not foreclose the administrative
proceeding against him or give him a clean bill of
health in all respects. In dismissing the case, the
court is simply saying that the prosecution was
unable to prove the guilt of the respondent beyond
reasonable doubt. In administrative proceedings, the
quantum of proof required is only substantial
evidence. A’s culpability has been proven by
substantial evidence. The dismissal of the criminal
case cannot bind this Court in the disposition of the
instant administrative case. There was justifiable
ground for A’s dismissal from the service.
Pertinent Provisions of the
Implementing Rules of the E-Commerce Act:
CHAPTER II
LEGAL RECOGNITION OF ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGES AND
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
Section 7. Legal Recognition of Electronic Data
Messages and Electronic Documents
Information shall not be denied validity or
enforceability solely on the ground that it is in the
form of an electronic data message or electronic
document, purporting to give rise to such legal effect.
Electronic data messages or electronic documents
shall have the legal effect, validity or enforceability as
any other document or legal writing. In particular,
subject to the provisions of the Act and these Rules:
a. A requirement under law that information
is in writing is satisfied if the information is
in the form of an electronic data message
Page 48 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
or electronic document.
b. A requirement under law for a person to
provide information in writing to another
person is satisfied by the provision of the
information in an electronic data message
or electronic document.
c. A requirement under law for a person to
provide information to another person in a
specified non-electronic form is satisfied
by the provision of the information in an
electronic data message or electronic
document if the information is provided in
the same or substantially the same form.
d. Nothing limits the operation of any
requirement under law for information to
be posted or displayed in specified
manner, time or location; or for any
information or document to be
communicated by a specified method
unless and until a functional equivalent
shall have been developed, installed, and
implemented.
Section 8. Incorporation by Reference
Information shall not be denied validity or
enforceability solely on the ground that it is not
contained in an electronic data message or electronic
document but is merely incorporated by reference
therein.
Section 9. Use Not Mandatory
Without prejudice to the application of Section 27 of
the Act and Section 37 of these Rules, nothing in the
Act or these Rules requires a person to use or accept
information contained in electronic data messages,
electronic documents, or electronic signatures, but a
person's consent to do so may be inferred from the
person's conduct.
Section 10. Writing
Where the law requires a document to be in writing,
or obliges the parties to conform to a writing, or
provides consequences in the event information is
not presented or retained in its original form, an
electronic document or electronic data message will
be sufficient if the latter:
a. Maintains its integrity and reliability; and
b. Can be authenticated so as to be usable for
subsequent reference, in that:
a. It has remained complete and unaltered,
apart from the addition of any
endorsement and any authorized change,
or any change which arises in the normal
course of communication, storage and
display; and
b. It is reliable in the light of the purpose for
which it was generated and in the light of
all relevant circumstances.
Section 11. Original
Where the law requires that a document be
presented or retained in its original form, that
requirement is met by an electronic document or
electronic data message if –
a. There exists a reliable assurance as to the
integrity of the electronic document or electronic data
message from the time when it was first generated in
its final form and such integrity is shown by evidence
aliunde (that is, evidence other than the electronic
data message itself) or otherwise; and
b. The electronic document or electronic data
message is capable of being displayed to the person
to whom it is to be presented.
c. For the purposes of paragraph (a) above:
i. The criteria for assessing integrity shall be
whether the information has remained complete and
unaltered, apart from the addition of any
endorsement and any change which arises in the
normal course of communication, storage and
display; and
ii. The standard of reliability required shall be
assessed in the light of the purpose for which the
information was generated and in the light of all
relevant circumstances.
An electronic data message or electronic document
meeting and complying with the requirements of
Sections 6 or 7 of the Act shall be the best evidence
of the agreement and transaction contained therein.
Section 12. Solemn Contracts
No provision of the Act shall apply to vary any and all
requirements of existing laws and relevant judicial
pronouncements respecting formalities required in
the execution of documents for their validity. Hence,
when the law requires that a contract be in some
form in order that it may be valid or enforceable, or
that a contract is proved in a certain way, that
requirement is absolute and indispensable.
LEGAL RECOGNITION OF ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES
Section 13. Legal Recognition of Electronic
Signatures
An electronic signature relating to an electronic
Page 49 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
document or electronic data message shall be
equivalent to the signature of a person on a written
document if the signature:
a. Is an electronic signature as defined in
Section 6(g) of these Rules; and
b. Is proved by showing that a prescribed
procedure, not alterable by the parties
interested in the electronic document or
electronic data message, existed under
which:
i. A method is used to identify the party
sought to be bound and to indicate
said party’s access to the electronic
document or electronic data
message necessary for his consent
or approval through the electronic
signature;
ii. Said method is reliable and
appropriate for the purpose for which
the electronic document or electronic
data message was generated or
communicated, in the light of all
circumstances, including any
relevant agreement;
iii. It is necessary for the party sought to
be bound, in order to proceed further
with the transaction, to have
executed or provided the electronic
signature; and,
iv. The other party is authorized and
enabled to verify the electronic
signature and to make the decision
to proceed with the transaction
authenticated by the same.
v. The parties may agree to adopt
supplementary or alternative
procedures provided that the
requirements of paragraph (b) are
complied with.
For purposes of subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of
paragraph (b), the factors referred to in Annex “2”
may be taken into account.
Section 14. Presumption Relating to Electronic
Signatures
In any proceeding involving an electronic signature,
the proof of the electronic signature shall give rise to
the rebuttable presumption that:
a. The electronic signature is the signature
of the person to whom it correlates; and
b. The electronic signature was affixed by
that person with the intention of signing or
approving the electronic data message or
electronic document unless the person
relying on the electronically signed
electronic data message or electronic
document knows or has notice of defects
in or unreliability of the signature or
reliance on the electronic signature is not
reasonable under the circumstances.
MODES OF AUTHENTICATION
Section 15. Method of Authenticating Electronic
Documents, Electronic Data Messages, and
Electronic Signatures
Electronic documents, electronic data messages and
electronic signatures, shall be authenticated by
demonstrating, substantiating and validating a
claimed identity of a user, device, or another entity in
an information or communication system.
Until the Supreme Court, by appropriate
rules, shall have so provided, electronic documents,
electronic data messages and electronic signatures,
shall be authenticated, among other ways, in the
following manner:
a. The electronic signature shall be
authenticated by proof that a letter,
character, number or other symbol in
electronic form representing the persons
named in and attached to or logically
associated with an electronic data
message, electronic document, or that the
appropriate methodology or security
procedures, when applicable, were
employed or adopted by a person and
executed or adopted by such person, with
the intention of authenticating or
approving an electronic data message or
electronic document;
b. The electronic data message or electronic
document shall be authenticated by proof
that an appropriate security procedure,
when applicable was adopted and
employed for the purpose of verifying the
originator of an electronic data message
or electronic document, or detecting error
or alteration in the communication,
content or storage of an electronic
document or electronic data message
from a specific point, which, using
algorithm or codes, identifying words or
numbers, encryptions, answers back or
acknowledgement procedures, or similar
security devices.
Section 16. Burden of Authenticating Electronic
Page 50 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
Documents or Electronic Data Messages
The person seeking to introduce an electronic
document or electronic data message in any legal
proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity
by evidence capable of supporting a finding that the
electronic data message or electronic document is
what the person claims it to be.
MODES FOR ESTABLISHING INTEGRITY
Section 17. Method of Establishing the Integrity
of an Electronic Document or Electronic Data
Message
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the
integrity of the information and communication
system in which an electronic data message or
electronic document is recorded or stored may be
established in any legal proceeding, among other
methods
a. By evidence that at all material times the
information and communication system or
other similar device was operating in a
manner that did not affect the integrity of
the electronic document or electronic data
message, and there are no other
reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity
of the information and communication
system;
b. By showing that the electronic document
or electronic data message was recorded
or stored by a party to the proceedings
who is adverse in interest to the party
using it; or
c. By showing that the electronic document
or electronic data message was recorded
or stored in the usual and ordinary course
of business by a person who is not a party
to the proceedings and who did not act
under the control of the party using the
record.
ADMISSIBILITY AND EVIDENTIAL WEIGHT
Section 18. Admissibility and Evidential Weight of
Electronic Data Messages and Electronic
Documents
For evidentiary purposes, an electronic document or
electronic data message shall be the functional
equivalent of a written document under existing laws.
In any legal proceeding, nothing in the application of
the rules on evidence shall deny the admissibility of
an electronic data message or electronic document in
evidence:
a. On the sole ground that it is in electronic
form; or
b. On the ground that it is not in the standard
written form.
The Act does not modify any statutory rule
relating to the admissibility of electronic data
messages or electronic documents, except the rules
relating to authentication and best evidence.
In assessing the evidential weight of an
electronic data message or electronic document, the
reliability of the manner in which it was generated,
stored or communicated, the reliability of the manner
in which its originator was identified, and other
relevant factors shall be given due regard.
Section 19. Proof by Affidavit and Cross-
Examination
The matters referred to in Section 12 of the Act on
admissibility and evidentiary weight, and Section 9 of
the Act on the presumption of integrity of electronic
signatures, may be presumed to have been
established by an affidavit given to the best of the
deponent’s or affiant’s personal knowledge subject to
the rights of parties in interest to cross-examine such
deponent or affiant as a matter of right. Such right of
cross-examination may likewise be enjoyed by a
party to the proceedings who is adverse in interest to
the party who has introduced the affidavit or has
caused the affidavit to be introduced.
Any party to the proceedings has the right to
cross-examine a person referred to in Section 11,
paragraph 4, and sub-paragraph (c) of the Act.
RETENTION OF ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE AND ELECTRONIC
DOCUMENT
Section 20. Retention of Electronic Data Message
and Electronic Document
Notwithstanding any provision of law, rule or
regulation to the contrary:
a. The requirement in any provision of law that
certain documents be retained in their
original form is satisfied by retaining them in
the form of an electronic data message or
electronic document which:
i. Remains accessible so as to be
usable for subsequent reference;
ii. Is retained in the format in which it
was generated, sent or received, or
in a format which can be
demonstrated to accurately represent
the electronic data message or
electronic document generated, sent
or received; and,
iii. Where applicable, enables the
Page 51 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
identification of its originator and
addressee, as well as the
determination of the date and the
time it was sent or received.
b. The requirement referred to in paragraph (a)
is satisfied by using the services of a third
party, provided that the conditions set forth in
subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of paragraph
(a) are met.
c. Relevant government agencies tasked with
enforcing or implementing applicable laws
relating to the retention of certain documents
may, by appropriate issuances, impose
regulations to ensure the integrity, reliability
of such documents and the proper
implementation of Section 13 of the Act.
Proof of Previous Conviction
People v. FELWA 20 Apr. 2001
Facts: A was charged with kidnapping and serious
illegal detention. In the course of the trial, the
prosecution attempted to bring out A’s former
conviction of another crime.
Issue: Can the proof of A’s past conviction be used
to prove his guilt of the crime charged?
Held: No. A previous decision or judgment, while
admissible in evidence, may only prove that an
accused was previously convicted of a crime. It may
not be used to prove that the accused is guilty of a
crime charged in a subsequent case.
Recantation
People v. Nardo 1 Mar. 2001
Facts: A was charged with rape by his 14-year old
daughter. He was convicted by the TC and
sentenced to death. A raised the defense that the
victim desisted in pursuing the case against her
father by showing two letters. However, these were
not subscribed and sworn to by the victim.
Issue: Should the letters be admitted in order to
acquit the accused?
Held: No. A recantation of a testimony is
exceedingly unreliable for there is always the
probability that such recantation may later on be itself
repudiated. Courts look with disfavor upon retractions
because they can easily be obtained from witnesses
through intimidation or for monetary consideration. A
retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier
declaration. Especially, recantations made after the
conviction of the accused deserve only scant
consideration. Even if sworn to, the victim’s
recantation could hardly suffice to overturn the
finding of guilt by the TC which was based on her
own clear and convincing testimony given during a
full-blown trial. An affidavit of recantation, being
usually taken ex parte, would be considered inferior
to the testimony given in open court.
Credibility
People v. Buenaflor 27 June 2001
Facts: RTC found A guilty for raping 14-yr. old V
who was asleep at the time of the commission of the
crime. During the initial reception of evidence for the
prosecution, V said she did not know A because it
was her first time to see his face at the time the
incident took place, but later on cross-examination,
she admitted that what she said was false because
actually A is their neighbor. The TC thought that
considering that the offended party is a very young
girl of 15 years, it is not uncommon for the young girl
to conceal the assaults because of the rapist's
threats on her life.
Issue: Whether V is a credible witness.
Held: No. In a prosecution for rape, the
complainant's credibility becomes the single most
important issue. In this case, the testimony of the
complainant is not credible because it is replete with
inconsistencies, and narrations that are contrary to
common experience, human nature and the natural
course of things.
Alibi
People v. Abendan et. al. 28 June 2001
Facts: RTC found A et. al. guilty of murder. The trial
court gavwe credence to the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses that there was treachery and
conspiracy in the killing of the victim, who was asleep
when he was fatally shot. A argued that the trial court
erred in ignoring his alibi.
Issue: Whether the trial court was correct in not
giving weight to A’s alibi.
Held: Yes. Positive identification, where
categorical and consistent and without any showing
of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying
on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial which, if
not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence,
are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving
of weight in law. Alibi becomes unworthy of credit
when it is established mainly by the accused himself
and his relative, and not by credible persons.
Medical/Chemical Evidence
People v. Nubla 19 June 2001
Facts: A was convicted for the rape of V, committed
Page 52 of 53
Remedial Law Summer Reviewer
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
by means of force and intimidation; in particular, by
inducing V to drink iced tea laced with drugs causing
the latter to lose consciousness. A denied that V was
drugged and pointed to the absence of any medical
or chemical evidence to support her claim.
Issue: Whether the fact that V was drugged was
sufficiently proven.
Held: Yes. While no chemical analysis was
conducted on the blood of the complainant
immediately after the incident, the physical
manifestations (dizziness, bodily weakness, strong
desire to sleep) were proved during the trial.

Page 53 of 53