EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE
Basic Principles and Selected Problems
Alexander G. Gesmundo

I. WHEN EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY

Evidence is the means of proving the truth of a fact in judicial
proceedings1. It becomes necessary to present evidence in a case when the
pleadings filed present factual issues. Factual issues arise when a party
specifically denies material allegations in the adverse party’s pleading. These
are the issues which the judge cannot resolve without evidence being
presented thereon. Thus, whether a certain thing exists or not, whether a
certain act was done or not, whether a certain statement was uttered or not,
are questions of fact that require evidence for their resolution. Questions of
fact exist when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of
alleged facts.2

All facts in issue and relevant facts must, as a general rule, be proven
by evidence except the following: “(1) Allegations contained in the complaint
or answer immaterial to the issues; (2) Facts which are admitted or which are
not denied in the answer, provided they have been sufficiently alleged; (3)
Those which are the subject of an agreed statement of facts between the
parties; as well as those admitted by the party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case; (4) Facts which are the subject of judicial
notice; (5) Facts which are legally presumed; and (6) Facts peculiarly within
the knowledge of the opposite party.”3

Other than factual issues, the case invariably presents legal issues. A
question of law exists when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law
is on a certain state of facts. Legal issues are resolved by simply applying the
law or rules applicable, or interpreting the law applicable considering the facts
of the case. Generally, no evidence need be presented on what the
applicable law is. Everyone, including the judge, is presumed to know the law.

There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being
resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence. The
resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on a given
set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the
evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. If the query requires a
re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of

1
Section 1, Rule 128, Rules of Court.
2
Parañaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111538, February 26, 1997,
268 SCRA 727; Sps. Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120821, August 1, 2000, 337
SCRA 67, 74.
3
Republic v. Vda. De Neri, et al., G.R. No. 139588, March 4, 2004, 424 SCRA 676, 692.

F-1

EVIDENCE

surrounding circumstances and their relation to each other, the issue in that
query is factual.4

When the parties’ pleadings fail to tender any issue of fact, either
because all the factual allegations have been admitted expressly or impliedly
(as when a denial is a general denial), there is no need to conduct trial, as
there is no need to present evidence anymore. The case is then ripe for
judicial determination, either through a judgment on the pleadings 5 or by
summary judgment.6

During trial, parties to any action may agree, in writing, upon the facts
involved in the litigation and submit the case for judgment on the facts agreed
upon without the introduction of evidence.7

A party may waive its right to present testimonial evidence and opt to
adduce documentary evidence and, thereafter, submit the case for resolution
based solely on their pleadings and documentary evidence.8

II. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

The study of the law on Evidence involves two main problems, viz: (1)
determining whether a given piece of evidence is admissible, and (2) the
proper presentation of that evidence so that the court will consider it in
resolving the issues and deciding the case. Although evidence may, by itself,
be admissible, the court may not admit or consider it in the resolution of the
case, unless the evidence was properly presented.

A. Axiom of Admissibility of Evidence

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issues and is
competent, i.e., it is not excluded by the law or the Rules of Court. 9
Evidence is relevant when it has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
belief in its existence or non-existence.10

Collateral matters are those outside of the controversy or not
directly connected to the principal issues in dispute as may be determined

4
Royal Cargo Corp. v. DFS Sports Unlimited, Inc., G.R. No. 158621, December 10, 2008,
573 SCRA 414, 421; Juaban, et al v. Espina, et al., G.R. No. 170049, March 14, 2008, 548
SCRA 588; 610; Citibank, N.A. v. Jimenez, G.R. No. 166878, December 18, 2007, 540
SCRA 573, 582.
5
RULES OF COURT, Rule 34.
6
RULES OF COURT, Rule 35.
7
RULES OF COURT, Rule 30, Sec. 6.
8
Republic v. Vda de Neri, et al., supra note 3 at 690-691.
9
RULES OF COURT, Rule 128. Sec. 3.
10
RULES OF COURT, Rule 128, Sec. 4.

F-2

EVIDENCE

from the party’s pleadings. It is allowed if it tends in any reasonable
degree to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue. 11
Collateral evidence is of a lesser degree of reliability as evidence than
material evidence. Material evidence directly proves a fact in issue. Thus,
the testimony of an eyewitness to the commission of a crime is material;
the evidence of motive or flight of the accused may be relevant. Evidence
that is material or relevant must also be competent to be admissible. For
example, although the testimony of the eyewitness may be material, it
may be inadmissible if it is excluded by the marital disqualification rule.

Relevancy or materiality of evidence is a matter of logic, since it is
determined simply by ascertaining its logical connection to a fact in issue
in the case. It is, therefore, inadvisable for a judge to ask an objecting
counsel why an offered piece of evidence is irrelevant or immaterial. By
his inquiry, he shows his unfamiliarity with the issues in the case. A judge
is expected to be aware of the issues which he was supposed to have
defined and limited in his mandatory pre-trial order.12 On the other hand,
the grounds for objection to the competency of evidence must be
specified13 and are determined by the Rules or the law.

The opposites of the two requisites for admissibility of evidence, viz.,
irrelevancy, immateriality, or incompetency, are the general grounds for
objection. The first two are valid grounds for objection without need of
specification or explanation. The third ground for objection, incompetency,
if offered without further explanation, is not valid for being unspecific,
except when invoked in reference to the lack of qualification of a witness
to answer a particular question or give particular evidence.

B. Proper Presentation of Evidence

Every piece of evidence, regardless of its nature, requires certain
processes of presentation for its admissibility and admission.

It is to be noted that there is now a preclusion rule.14 [N]o evidence
shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial in support of a
party's evidence-in-chief other than those that had been identified and pre-
marked during the pre-trial. Any other evidence not indicated or listed in
the pre-trial order shall be considered waived by the parties. However, the
Court, in its discretion, may allow introduction of additional evidence in the

11
Id.
12
See A.M. No. 03-1-09 SC Re: Guidelines To Be Observed By Trial Court Judges and
Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures
13
RULES OF COURT, Rule 134, Sec. 36
14
As distinguished from the exclusionary rule as provided in RULES OF COURT, Rule 128, Sec.
3.

F-3

If the witness is otherwise allowed to testify.d. object evidence must be formally offered after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence. or he will be incompetent to answer the questions to be asked of him. the requirement of qualifying an expert witness may be dispensed with if: (a) the adverse counsel stipulates on the expert’s qualification. 35.18 It is essential that the proper foundation for the testimony of a witness must be laid. Object Evidence Object evidence must generally be marked (Exhibits A. (c) those to be utilized for rebuttal or sur-rebuttal purposes. etc. Rule 132. Sec. B.17 Objections may then be raised against the testimony of the witness. 1 F-4 . No.15 1. 16 RULES OF COURT. either by taking an oath or making an affirmation. 18 RULES OF COURT. Annex “B” and Annex “D”. he shall be sworn in. 03-1-09-SC.EVIDENCE following cases: (a) those to be used on cross-examination or re-cross- examination for impeachment purposes. thereof. 3. An expert witness must be specifically qualified as such. For example. as when the witness’ testimony is barred by the hearsay rule or the opinion rule. 17 Id. It must be formally offered at the time the witness is called to testify. If the objection is valid. An ordinary witness must be shown to have personal knowledge of the facts he shall testify to. Sec. Further. Oral Evidence Oral evidence is presented through the testimony of a witness. Rule 132. It must also be identified as the object evidence it is claimed to be. his testimony will be hearsay. for the plaintiff. 2. However. and (d) those not available during the pre-trial proceedings despite due diligence on the part of the party offering the same. or 15 A. otherwise. Exhibits 1. (b) those presented on re-direct examination to explain or supplement the answers of a witness during the cross-examination. This requires a testimonial sponsor.16 2. the witness will not be allowed to testify. a forensic chemist identifies marijuana leaves as those submitted to him in the case for examination. he cannot validly give his opinion on matters for which he may have been summoned as a witness. for the defendant) either during the pre-trial or during its presentation at the trial. Civil Cases 2. otherwise.M. etc. See A.

that although the aforesaid testimony was not expressly formally offered. 1985. that “Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made”. This view is premised on two related provisions in Rule 132. nonetheless. 1992. it has been asked whether it would be proper for the judge to disregard a witness’ direct testimony given without the prior. 54645-76. F-5 . 318 citing Cesar v.. whether the adverse party may be required to cross-examine that witness. Once the witness is allowed to testify. Sec. In this connection. each question propounded to elicit specific oral evidence may still be objected to as soon as a ground for objection becomes reasonably apparent. 49-50. But it is fundamental that an objection to evidence be validly raised only after an offer is made. the moment each question was propounded to elicit an answer. because the judge happens to be aware thereof on account of the judge’s judicial functions. presupposes a formal offer of the answer. especially on direct examination. 127. Ancheta. whether the witness shall be allowed to testify. The view can be advanced.EVIDENCE (b) the court takes judicial notice of the witness’ expertise. In People v. December 18. 35 requires and.e. the oral evidence sought to be elicited. 36.R. Sandiganbayan. Nos. 2004. hence. although not formally offered.19 Rule 132. Thus. 91646. the testimony may be considered by the court. 54719-50. the purpose of the express formal offer of oral evidence before the witness testifies is merely to determine. formal offer thereof which Rule 132. August 21. every question asked of a witness. corollarily. i. albeit impliedly and automatically. the latter is estopped from raising that objection which he is deemed to have waived. and that the purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. Sandiganbayan. June 4. on the basis of the stated substance of the testimony and its purpose. 20 the Supreme Court ruled that if a witness has given unoffered direct testimony without objection from the adverse party. 20 G. No. G. 34 provides that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.. Nos. 142 SCRA 304. 143935.R. formally offered. G. January 7. however. 431 SCRA 42. and that “Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefore shall have become reasonably apparent. 1986. It would seem. the constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail. No. it was.R. Sec. et al. It has been ruled that where the supposed expert’s testimony would constitute the sole ground for conviction and there is equally convincing expert testimony to the contrary. Marcos. People v.” Clearly.R. G. 19 Bayot v. 212 SCRA 748. 134 SCRA 105. Sec.

G. No. 465 SCRA 681. 558-559.R. Sec. 137283. reiterated in People v. 397 SCRA 306. No. No. Failure to interpose any objection in either stage amounts to a waiver of objection to its admissibility. People v. 2006. People v. G. 2002.EVIDENCE therefore.23 4. Legaspi. (3) authenticated. 482 SCRA 543. nor shall it or any copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any court until the requisite stamp or stamps shall have been affixed thereto and cancelled. 139211. issued. 2003. accepted or transferred without being duly stamped. either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance: 1. 583-584. (2) identified as the document which it is claimed to be (as when the witness asserts that the document presented to him is the same contract which he claims was executed between the two parties). expressly. 131516. 603-604. 397 SCRA 531. People. February 12. 201. 138471. 689-690. by proving its due execution and genuineness. March 5. before the witness testifies and. G. that unlike documentary and object evidence which are formally offered only after all the witnesses of a party have testified. 24 the Supreme Court set the following guidelines in appreciating age. 35. No.R. and (4) formally offered after all the proponent’s witnesses have testified. No. 2003. document or paper which is required by law to be stamped and which has been signed.21 3. 2007. again. Rule 132. 324-325. Pruna. February 16. 9010 [2001]. F-6 . shall not be recorded. Pruna. February 17. [1997] Sec.R. People v. No. 530 SCRA 84.R. 167147. oral evidence is offered twice: once.R. 2003. Villarama.R. October 10.22 An instrument. 23 Republic Act No. G. G. 24 People v. if a private document. with each question propounded to the witness.R. G. 8424. 8761 [2000] and Republic Act No. Documentary evidence Documentary evidence is (1) marked. August 3. 92. 168737. Jurisprudential guidelines on evidence admissible to establish age In People v. G. 22 RULES OF COURT. 155619. Cayabyab. August 14. 2005. Rullepa. as amended by Republic Act No. People v. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. 390 SCRA 577. 398 SCRA 567. Barcena. No. 545-546. 21 Bayani v.

In the absence of a certificate of live birth. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him. 5. In the absence of a certificate of live birth. such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. 3. since age or minority is not an element of this crime. b. the complainant's testimony will suffice. 591 SCRA 666. 683. similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age. If the prosecution has a burden related to age. shall be sufficient under the following circumstances: a.R. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old. authentic document. 2009. or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age. People. the testimony.EVIDENCE 2. In Sierra v. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim. Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence. F-7 . and 6. of the victim's mother or a member of the family. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old. G. 4. No. July 3. 182941. 25 the Supreme Court held that it is the defense which has the burden of proving the minority of the accused as an exempting circumstance in a crime of rape. if clear and credible. provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree. People. With respect to the 25 Sierra v. c. this burden relates to proof of the age of the victim as a circumstance that qualifies the crime of rape. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable.

30 Id.R. Sec. 522 SCRA 410.29 The party desiring to make a written offer of evidence should. November 13.M. G. and only where there is unusual difficulty in preparing the offer. however. Need for Statement of the Purpose of Evidence Evidence not formally offered will not be considered by the court in deciding the case. No. Sec. the judge shall make the ruling on the offer of evidence in open court. No. 65. Court of Appeals.30 A party makes a formal offer of his evidence by stating its substance or nature and the purpose or purposes for which the evidence 26 RULES OF COURT. F-8 . Parocha. 03-1-09-SC.. In short. 35 jointly considered. Otherwise. No. G. Sec. 35 of Rule 132 says that the trial court may allow the offer to be done in writing. at 418. 27 A.A. he is required to make his formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his last witness and the opposing party is required to immediately interpose his objection thereto. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006). citing Constantino v. 1996. 29 Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Formal Offer of Evidence. C. file a motion. set the date of the hearing not later than 10 days after the filing of the motion and serve it on the address of the party at least three (3) days before the hearing.EVIDENCE provision of R.27 The formal offer of one’s evidence is deemed waived after failing to submit it within a considerable period of time. in conformity with Rule 132. 416. pay the filing fee. 28 Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. 35. Rule 130. supra at 417-418.28 The pre-trial guidelines and Rule 132. it is made clear that the party who terminated the presentation of evidence must make an oral offer of evidence on the very day the party presented the last witness. Thereafter. April 27. 34. this can only be tolerated in extreme cases where the object evidence or documents are large in number – say from 100 and above. However.26 On the last hearing day allotted for each party. the last paragraph of Section 7 thereof provides that any doubt on the age of the child must be resolved in the child’s favor. 264 SCRA 59. the judge has the discretion to allow the offer of evidence in writing. While Sec. 116018. 155483.R. Parocha. No. it is a litigated motion and cannot be done ex parte. the court may consider the party’s documentary evidence waived. 2007.

G. the adverse party cannot interpose the proper objection. 493 SCRA 415. the declaration of a dying person made without consciousness of his impending death will not qualify as a dying declaration. supra note 28 at 419-420. Parocha. the testimony of a witness in a libel case that he heard the defendant call the plaintiff a liar and a crook. The former is done in the course of the pre-trial or the trial.EVIDENCE is offered. For that purpose. Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be considered for any other purpose. A piece of evidence may be admissible if offered for one purpose but may be inadmissible if offered for another. However. The mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit does not mean that it has already been offered as part of the evidence. 2006.R. without a disclosure of its purpose. otherwise. 126619. 164948. otherwise. F-9 . the witness would be the only person qualified to testify on and prove what he heard defendant say. No. It must be stressed that there is a significant distinction between identification of documentary evidence and its formal offer. 511 SCRA 335. People. June 27. 357. 31 Without a formal offer of evidence and. The trial court is bound to consider only the testimonial evidence presented and exclude the documents not offered. G. Titan-Ikeda Construction and Development Corporation. December 20. while the latter is done only when the party rests its case.32 For example. 2006. Sec. 430. Documents which may have been identified and marked as exhibits during pre-trial or trial but which were not formally offered in evidence cannot in any manner be treated as evidence. is certainly inadmissible for being hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the perceived statement. It must be emphasized that any evidence which a party desires to submit for the consideration of the court must formally be offered by the party. Similarly. and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit. 33 Landingin v. it cannot be determined whether it is admissible or not. 32 Uniwide Sales Realty and Resources Corporation v. No. Pasag v.R. 4.33 However. and not for another. it is excluded and rejected. This is so because it is the intended purpose for which a piece of evidence is offered that determines what rule of evidence will apply for its admissibility. hence. Rule 130. or may be admissible for one purpose. the rule may be relaxed in that evidence not formally 31 RULES OF COURT. It must be remembered that the purpose for which evidence is offered must be specified because such evidence may be admissible for several purposes under the doctrine of multiple admissibility. although it may be admissible if offered as part of the res gestae. Neither can such unrecognized proof be assigned any evidentiary weight and value. the same testimony is perfectly admissible if offered simply to prove that the statement was uttered.

G. viz: first. 110. G. November 14. e. Object evidence which could not be formally offered because they have disappeared or have become lost after they have been marked. of Sabanpan v.g. 417. 36 Hrs. naturalization and insolvency proceedings when it is not practicable and convenient to apply the Rules on formal offer of evidence. 137247.R. G. Comorposa. 4. May 6. 139961. In land registration. G. 31. 85423. Documents whose contents are admitted by the parties. 1999. cannot be considered by the court. identified and testified on and described in the record and became the subject of cross-examination of the witnesses who testified on them during the trial. 2006. 301 SCRA 387. affidavits and documents filed with the court. F-10 .R.38 34 Ramos v. depositions. 408 SCRA 692. Napat-A.. G. 357 SCRA 649. 328 SCRA 749. March 27. To the general rule that the court shall not consider any evidence not formally offered. 136860.. 35 unless the truth of their contents has been judicially admitted. 136308.37 and 6.R. 179 SCRA 403. 196 SCRA 650. People v. Court of Appeals. et al..R. Del Rosario v. January 21.R. the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and. admissions. August 12. No. August 7. Under the Rule on Summary Procedure. Heirs of Pasag v. In summary judgments under Rule 35. Documents whose contents are taken judicial notice of by the court. See also People v. Bonga. No. where no full blown trial is held in the interest of speedy administration of justice. 35 Spouses Ong v. 2000. No. Tabuena v. Toledo. 127240. No. G. No.R. No. 1991. 1989. 2001. No. G. 498 SCRA 17.R. the same must have been incorporated in the records of the case. Sr.R.R. 399. 350 SCRA 101. supra note 28 at 419-420. 38 Ong Chia v. second. 663. January 23. where the judge bases his decisions on the pleadings.36 2. there are certain exceptions: 1. marijuana involved in a prohibited drugs prosecution. 2001. 2003.34 Annexes attached to pleadings. Spouses Dizon. 37 People v. 756.EVIDENCE offered may be admitted and considered by the trial court. if not offered formally. No. January 20. Libnao. No. Republic. 2003. G. 84951. cadastral and election cases. 395 SCRA 407. Court of Appeals. 152807. Parocha. G. May 9. 5. 3. provided the following requirements are present. 117103.

MODES OF EXCLUDING INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE There are two ways of excluding inadmissible evidence.42 3. the following requisites must concur: 1. after such incompetency appears. 134074-75. B. Rule 132. Nos. Rule 132. The objection must be timely made. 40 RULES OF COURT. 36. the rules of exclusion are not self-operating. 35 41 RULES OF COURT. However. Sec. F-11 . 349 SCRA 180. Sec. Oral evidence is objected to after its express formal offer has been made before the witness testifies. 36. Rule 132. There must be an objection.R.39 A. the witness is allowed to testify. 39 RULES OF COURT. 42 People v. whether the objection is on the ground of want of mental capacity or for some other reason. One is by objection and the other is by a motion to strike out. may be effective to render evidence inadmissible.41 2.EVIDENCE III. despite having knowledge of the incompetency. The ground for objection must be specified. objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefore shall become reasonably apparent. 2. G. and 3. A party may waive his objections to the competency of a witness to testify if.40 When. January 16. such party fails to make timely objection. Duranan. They must be properly and timely invoked. 191. thereafter. Sec. Failure to seasonably object to offered evidence amounts to a waiver of the grounds for objection. Documentary and object evidence are objected to upon their formal offer after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence. 2001. In order that an objection or a motion to strike out after an answer has been given. Evidence is Objected to at the Time it is Offered and Not Before: 1.

g. The witness answers prematurely. irrelevant. A Motion to Strike Out Answer or Testimony is Proper in the Following Instances: 1. without prejudice to such action as the court may deem fit to take in deciding the case on the merits. Objections and Ruling As a matter of general practice.. 46 Id. 6.45 2. repetition of objection is unnecessary when a continuing objection is properly made. or improper. Unfulfilled condition in conditionally admitted testimony. This practice has added importance as regards the evidence for the prosecution in criminal cases. 39. there is no means to secure a review by appeal. for. no matter how erroneous the action of the lower court may have been. 43 Grounds not raised are deemed waived. Sec. The answer given is unresponsive. once the accused has been acquitted. 44 Objection to the purpose for which evidence is offered is not proper. Sec. Rule 132. 5. The ground for objection was not apparent when the question was asked. it is deemed best to resolve doubts in favor of the admission of the contested evidence. 44 RULES OF COURT.. Uncompleted testimony – e. The answer is incompetent. 37. D. However.EVIDENCE C.46 The incompetency referred hereto is limited to the incompetency of the witness to answer the question posed. 4. F-12 . The grounds for objection must be specified. 3. a witness who gave direct testimony subsequently becomes unavailable for cross-examination through no fault of the cross-examiner. 43 Id. 45 Id. E. it does not extend to the general concept of incompetency of evidence for being excluded by law or the Rules. Justice is most effectively and expeditiously administered in the courts where trivial objections to the admission of proof are received with least favor.

47 People v.48 F. Insurance Co.EVIDENCE The practice of excluding evidence on doubtful objections to its materiality or technical objections to the form of the questions should be avoided. 52 Phil. People v. even if the question as to its form. 1969. 63 SCRA 488. Moreover. upon final consideration of the case. In a case of any intricacy. On the other hand. G. a judge of first instance may possibly fall into error in judging the relevancy of proof where a fair and logical connection is in fact shown. 48 People v. to distinguish the relevant and material from the irrelevant and immaterial. how far said exhibits may affect the outcome of that case. and where there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the attorney offering the evidence.. 604-605. materiality. because the trial judge is supposed to know the law. v. lest they may be so hampered that the ends of justice may eventually be defeated or appear to be defeated. 29039. 1975. April 29. 30 SCRA 599. Montejo. 816-817 [1929]. the Supreme Court. Objections to Evidence may be Formal or Substantive 1. it is impossible for a judge of first instance. safely accept the testimony upon the statement of the attorney that the proof offered will be connected later. this court then has all the material before it necessary to make a correct judgment. If this course is followed and the cause is prosecuted to the Supreme Court upon appeal. Phoenix. Formal objections are based on the defective form of the question asked. Abalos. Parties should be allowed a certain latitude in the presentation of their evidence. When such a mistake is made and the proof is erroneously ruled out. the admission of proof in a court of first instance. No. can never result in much harm to either litigant. it must be remembered that in the heat of the battle over which he presides.108 Phil. and it is its duty. Montejo. November 28. as a rule. at an early stage of the proceedings. it is elemental that all parties therein are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to establish their respective pretenses. 807. 621 [1960]. No.47 Although it is not possible to determine with precision. upon appeal. or relevancy is doubtful.R. often finds itself embarrassed and possibly unable to correct the effects of the error without returning the case for a new trial — a step which this court is always very loath to take. The danger of leading to such result must be avoided.R. 489. the court may. citing Prats and Co. G. in the early stages of the development of the proof. 28699. to know with any certainty whether testimony is relevant or not. 613. F-13 .

e. 10 and 12. or a child of tender years. “what”. after having been declared by the court to be indeed unwilling or hostile.. 51 RULES OF COURT. wife of the plaintiff in this case?” e. 52 Id. 00-4-07. Leading questions may. b. i.49 a. etc. No. “why”. moreover. “where. SC Rule on Examination of Child Witness. F-14 . Sec.51 or (c) when the witness is an adverse party or an officer. 54 Id. Leading questions may also be asked when there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant. 50 RULES OF COURT. 10. such as “who”. asking a question which uses as a premise admitted facts or the witness’ previous answer is not for that reason objectionable as leading. Leading questions are allowed of a witness who cannot be reasonably expected to be led by the examining counsel. as (a) on cross-examination. the judge may suggest. Rule 132. in either case. Maria Morales. director.50 (b) when the witness is unwilling or hostile.M.54 d. 10. to expedite proceedings. Likewise. that counsel begin his questions with the proper interrogative pronouns. “how”. 49 RULES OF COURT. V-A of this Benchbook. Sec.EVIDENCE Examples: (1) leading questions which suggest to the witness the answer desired. after it has been demonstrated that the witness had shown unjustified reluctance to testify or has an adverse interest or had misled the party into calling him to the witness stand and. Rule 132. on facts not in controversy. Rule 132. If counsel finds difficulty in avoiding leading questions. or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party. “You are Mrs.53 or is feeble minded.52 c. For example. 53 See A. and offered only as basis for more important testimony to follow. or a deaf- mute. Secs. be asked on preliminary matters.

which challenge a witness’ testimony by engaging him in an argument. G. 2006. (4) disqualification or witness. or uncertain questions – not allowed because the witness cannot understand from the form of the question just what facts are sought to be elicited. February 6. and was the plaintiff there?” (4) vague. No. unless the court desires to take 55 RULES OF COURT. Witness that nobody could possibly see all the circumstances you mentioned in a span of merely two seconds.R.56 The ruling by the court on an objection must be given immediately after an objection is made. (7) hearsay.. (8) opinion. a Judge is undeniably clothed with authority to admit or reject evidence determinative of the outcome of the case.g. For example.EVIDENCE (2) misleading questions. and that either your observations are inaccurate or you are lying?” 2. the cross-examiner may ask a question already answered to test the credibility of a witness. Q: “Did you see the defendant enter the plaintiff’s house. Rule 132. (5) privileged communication. 694. or those already answered. and (10) private document not authenticated. (6) res inter alios acta. which are two or more queries in one. immaterial. F-15 . indefinite. 687. e. Q: “Isn’t it a fact Mr. As part of his judicial function.55 (3) double or multiple questions. 165606. (6) argumentative questions. on cross-examination. or contrary to that which he has previously stated.g.: (1) irrelevant. 56 Deutsche Bank Manila v. which assume as true a fact not testified to by the witness (question has no basis). However. 481 SCRA 672. Spouses Yok See. (9) evidence illegally obtained. (5) repetitious questions. e. Substantive objections are those based on the inadmissibility of the offered evidence. ambiguous.. et al. (3) parole evidence rule. (2) best evidence rule.

It would be incorrect for a judge to consider the objection “submitted” or “noted. If the issue raised by the objection is a particularly difficult one. However. 58 Id. The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. if the objection is based on two or more grounds.EVIDENCE a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented. This is non-ruling. he may simply give it little or no weight when deciding the case. But.58 Judges are advised to judiciously consider the validity of the grounds for objections and carefully rule on them. 57 RULES OF COURT. Another ruling that is ludicrous and even nonsensical is “Evidence admitted subject to the objections”. since the judge cannot validly consider it. F-16 . 38. Sec. as it implies a hasty and ill- considered resolution of the offer and the objections. the examination of the witness could not be expected to continue since.” Unless the objection is resolved. must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. the resolution must be given before the trial resumes. an objection to a question asked of a witness must be at once resolved by the court by either sustaining or overruling the objection. even if after the trial the judge realizes his mistake. but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situations presented by the ruling. if the judge had erred in admitting a piece of evidence. the only issue presented is the admissibility of evidence. since it refers to the weight or credibility of the evidence. A ruling that all evidence formally offered are “admitted for whatever they may be worth” will not reflect well on the judge. it is better policy to rule in favor of its admission. On the other hand. An erroneous rejection of evidence will be unfair to the offeror. In case of honest doubt about the admissibility of evidence. the weight of the evidence shall be considered only after the evidence shall have been admitted. At the formal offer. it would not be improper for the judge to perhaps declare a brief recess to enable him to quickly study the matter.57 Thus. the phrase “for whatever they may be worth” is improper. Rule 132. in all likelihood. certainly. the next question would depend on how the objection is resolved. or one or some of them. a ruling sustaining the objection. Besides.

These requisites must be established as foundations for the evidence. the foundation required by the Rules for the proper presentation of evidence must be laid. Sec. For example. and (2) the circumstances of the loss or destruction of the original. the official acts of the three departments of the Philippine government. the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals. the political Constitution and history of the Philippines. or that the original cannot be produced in court. Sec. (b) capable of unquestionable demonstration. forms of government and symbols of nationalities. and the geographical divisions.60 If the agent’s declaration is on a matter outside the scope of his agency. their political history. Judicial Notice 1. 62 RULES OF COURT. 1. the laws of nature. or (c) ought to be known to judges because of their official functions. the court must examine the requisites provided by the pertinent rule or law for its admissibility. and (3) the agency is shown by evidence other than by such declaration. lest the evidence be rejected. the agent’s declaration cannot be admitted against his principal.61 Courts may take judicial notice of matters which are: (a) of public knowledge. 2. the proponent must establish: (1) the existence or execution of the original document. as an exception to the res inter alios acta rule. Sec. the law of nations. Certain matters may be so well known to the court that to compel a party to prove it would be a waste of time and effort. Rule 129.EVIDENCE IV. F-17 . Under the Rules. Rule 130. 60 RULES OF COURT. Sec. For example. without the introduction of evidence. LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS FOR EVIDENCE In determining the competency of an offered piece of evidence. Similarly. 61 RULES OF COURT. 28.62 59 RULES OF COURT. (2) made during the existence of the agency. Rule 130. it shall be mandatory for the court to take judicial notice. 29. Rule 129. when the original of a document is unavailable.59 the declaration must be: (1) within the scope of the agent’s authority. or is made after the agency had ceased. for a declaration of an agent to be admissible against his principal. of the existence and territorial extent of states. the general rule of res inter alios acta will apply instead. the measure of time. A. Mandatory and Discretionary Judicial Notice Not everything alleged in a party’s pleading is required to be proved. before secondary evidence thereof is admitted.

138322. But judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. 153535. 140160. 65 RULES OF COURT. 451-452. to investigate.65 This procedure will apprise the parties of the possibility that the judge will or will not take judicial notice of a fact.R. 2005.R. No. G. G. Mindanao Ferroalloy Corporation.66 63 Garcia v. the court may hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of a certain matter. at its discretion. if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.R.64 2. or of his resolution either way. it may call the parties to a hearing to give them a reasonable opportunity to present information relevant to the propriety or impropriety of taking judicial notice of that fact. Hearing the Parties on Discretionary Judicial Notice During the trial. it will thus eliminate the element of surprise and enable the parties to act accordingly.63 To say that a court will take judicial notice of a fact is merely another way of saying that the usual form of evidence will be dispensed with if knowledge of the fact can be otherwise acquired. even after the trial and before judgment or on appeal. when a court is uncertain whether it may. G. Rule 129. Precisely. 78. and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a fact. before approving a loan. Sec. 64 Landbank v. October 2. 66 Solidbank Corporation v. Wycoco. Thus. 464 SCRA 409. and every reasonable doubt upon the subject should be resolved in the negative. 419 SCRA 67. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court. Certainly. Recio.EVIDENCE Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments. F-18 . 3. No. not generally or professionally known. January 13. 2001. both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven according to our law on evidence. the so-called “hearing” is not for the purpose of adducing evidence on that fact. 2004. 427. it has noted that it is their uniform practice. No. the basis of his action. hence. the Court has taken judicial notice of the practices of banks and other financial institutions. like any other facts. The power of judicial notice must be exercised with caution. Similarly. This is because the court assumes that the matter is so notorious that it will not be disputed. 366 SCRA 437. take judicial notice of a certain fact or not. examine and assess would-be borrowers’ credit standing or real estate offered as security for the loan applied for. July 28.

71 When there is an objection. 2004. 1967. 655-656. 2001. supra note 72 at 591. 119288. No.68 reference is made to it by name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated. No. June 27. 68 Landbank of the Philippines v. April 28. 130730. No. 434 SCRA 543. Section 47. supra note 69 at 495-496.R.EVIDENCE 3. G. Republic v. with the knowledge of the opposing party. 367 SCRA 631.R. Inc. therefore.69 or (2) when the original record of the other case or any part of it is actually withdrawn from the archives. 143276. Court of Appeals. however. 143561. G. 461 SCRA 272. Tan v. August 18. in the absence of objection. the interested party must present the witness to testify anew. cannot take judicial notice of a testimony or deposition given in another case. 1991. July 20. 552-553. may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him. G. Calamba Steel Center v. if the witness is already dead or unable to testify (due to a grave cause almost amounting to death.R.73 The pre-conditions set forth in this rule must be strictly complied with. supra note 67 at 645. Calaunan. the failure to object to the evidence because it does not conform to the statute is a waiver of the provision of law. People v. 72 Cariaga v. Mendoza. at the court’s discretion. v. G. May 16. et al. De Leon. 22793. G. Judicial Notice of Proceedings in another case In the adjudication of a case pending before it. G. Sec. 71 Clarion Printing House. De Leon. No. 1997. No. June 6. 70 Parenthetically. No. judicial or administrative.R. and admitted as part of the record of the pending case.74 67 Gener v. et al. 70 Tabuena v. and as a matter of convenience to all parties. Court of Appeals. 204 SCRA 288. January 25.R. pursuant to Rule 130. 358 SCRA 583. 96397.67 However. NLRC. 74 Cariaga v.R. CA. the court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of the case filed in its archives as read into the records of the case pending before it (1) when. a court is not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of another case even if said case has been tried or is pending in the same court. v. F-19 . upon the request or with the consent of the parties. G. involving the same parties and subject matter. 2007. Spouses Banal. his testimony or deposition given in a former case or proceeding. 151857. However.R. 591. 2005. No. Rule 130. 148372. G.. supra note 37. No. 150157. 457 SCRA 482. G.R. Commisioner of Internal Revenue. Commisioner of Internal Revenue. 496. 73 RULES OF COURT. and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been tried or are actually pending before the same judge. as when the witness is old and has lost the power of speech72). 512 SCRA 642. Court of Appeals. 69 Gener v. 47. Manliclic. 277 SCRA 633. Calamba Steel Center v. Court of Appeals. 20 SCRA 54. 293-294.R. 2001. 2005. October 19. 645. November 21. a court will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same case. No. and the judge.

113779-80. 76 A judicial admission need not be offered in evidence since it is not evidence. Court of Appeals. the other party may simply offer in evidence the record of that testimony or the deposition. without having to call the declarant-party to testify thereon. 26. On the other hand. F-20 . Such admissions may also be an act. 2.75 B. In open court. if testified to by the party himself at the trial. and 3. A party may make an admission in any of these ways: 1. the court will not consider it in deciding the case. Rule 130. 1995. In written pleadings. Sec. In his statement made outside the proceedings in the same case. 26. a party will offer the opposing party’s declaration as evidence only if it is prejudicial to the latter’s interest. G.77 This type of admission is regarded as evidence and must be offered as such. otherwise. A judicial admission does not require proof and may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. But it will not be incompetent evidence. either by his testimony on the stand or by his statement or that of his counsel. nor self-serving. If the extrajudicial statement of a party is not against his interest but is in his favor.R. Admissions: Judicial and Extrajudicial An admission is a party’s acknowledgment of a fact which is against his interest. Such declaration of a party against his interest is an extra-judicial admission which may be given in evidence against him. since it will be testified to by one who simply heard the statement and has no personal knowledge of it. Sec.78 75 RULES OF COURT. 4 77 RULES OF COURT. Rule 129. and stipulations filed in the case. Nos.EVIDENCE If the testimony or deposition given in another proceeding is that of a party in a case. Rule 130. 241 SCRA 695. February 23. motions and other papers. In the first two instances above-mentioned. Sec. it becomes a self-serving declaration which is inadmissible for being hearsay. declaration or omission made by a party as to a relevant fact and may be given in evidence against him. the admissions made are regarded as judicial admissions. It is superior to evidence and shall be considered by the court as established. 78 Tuason v. 76 RULES OF COURT. statements made by a party outside the proceedings in the same case are extrajudicial admissions. Certainly.

82 A stipulation of facts in criminal cases is sanctioned by law. 423. 81 RULES OF COURT. G. 2002. binding upon the parties. the declaration of a defendant in a case that the plaintiff therein is his agent is a judicial admission of the agency relationship between them if that fact is against the defendant’s interest. 4. the admission must be made in the same case in which it is offered. omission of the signatures of the accused and counsel renders the stipulation of facts inadmissible. June 3.. G. November 12.R.R. stipulations are recognized as declarations constituting judicial admissions. stipulations freely and voluntarily made during pre- trial are valid and binding and will not be set aside. et al. However. 79094. Schine Lexington Corporation. G.W. 430 SCRA 570. 146470. not all admissions made by a party during a judicial proceeding are judicial admissions. the fact of such admission must be proved as in the case of any other fact. Razul. If made in another case or in another court. 435 SCRA 480. Rule 118. 2004. 392 SCRA 553. 82 Bayas v. 578. 205 S. 823. 2d 1013. et al. another pleading being filed in its stead. June 22. but conviction of accused is proper if the prosecution evidence is able to establish the elements of the crime independently of the unsigned stipulation of facts. that same admission may only be an extrajudicial admission if considered in another case between the same parties. No. it would not be admissible at all. 1988.. Fule v. 83 People v. By virtue of such stipulation of facts. G. 2002. is not a judicial admission. Sec. 80 Jackson v. No. 143689-91. 162 SCRA 446. F-21 . hence. Bandang. To constitute judicial admission.79 Thus. and the defense has waived the right to contest or dispute the veracity of the statements contained in the exhibits. 144413. Qua. it is entitled to greater weight. If signed only by the attorney. 84 People v. No. Court of Appeals. With more reason. 586.EVIDENCE By the rule’s definition. although if made in a judicial proceeding. G.R. unless for good cause shown. Whether it will even be an extrajudicial admission would depend upon whether the document was signed by the client or only by his attorney. an admission made in a document drafted for purposes of filing as a pleading in the case but never filed.84 79 Republic Glass Corporation v. It is done in further pursuit of the objective of expediting trial by dispensing with the presentation of evidence on matters that the accused is willing to admit. 305 Ky. November 22. Sandiganbayan. July 30. 2004. for the unfiled document is not considered a pleading. Further. No. it should be noted that an admission or stipulation made by the accused during the pre-trial cannot be used in evidence against him. 492. unless reduced to writing and signed by him and his counsel.81 Conversely.R. since an attorney has authority to make statements on behalf of his client only in open court or in a pleading actually filed. 391 SCRA 415. the prosecution has dispensed with the introduction of additional evidence. No. 151314.80 In criminal cases.83 It is true that in criminal cases.R.

supra note 86 at 34. 90 Id. Hernandez. and any attempt to adduce evidence in contradiction of that admission may also be objected to.. 31408. 131 SCRA 24. of course. 108028. Plaza Enterprises. the judge may himself block such attempts as improper departures from the issues of the case. Rule 130. Ching v. a judicial admission does not require proof and cannot be contradicted. 543 SCRA 533..R. No. i. figures. 88 RULES OF COURT.. 504 SCRA 378. 37420. admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader xxx.A. v. February 4. 28297.. 85 Admissions in a pleading which had been withdrawn or superseded by an amended pleading. any attempt made by a party to still prove it may be objected to as immaterial. 538-539. 1996. Bastida v. 156132. March 30.R. 86 Ching v. 1984. 159240. 2000. et al. G. G. 2. Jr. 92 Citibank. July 30. G. in the trial court’s discretion.R. In either case. Investors’ Finance Corporation.92 85 People v. Sec..R. April 27. See also Silot.87 Consistently. 1991. although not signed by either of them. 58 Phil. 2008. 188 [1933]. the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. not in issue anymore. must be proved by the party who relies thereon86 by formally offering in evidence the original pleading containing such extrajudicial admission. 87 Director of Lands v. Torres v. 91 Id. 90 When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document. words. therefore. 260 SCRA 25.O. Javellana v. 459. 89 Id. No.e. Sec.. 8. numbers. although filed in the same case. April 22. G.R. G. G. are reduced to the status of extrajudicial admissions and. Court of Appeals. Rule 10. No. generally. No. July 31. Rule 129. 331 SCRA 16. it can be shown that the admission was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made at all.89 C. 196 SCRA 94. No. symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents. Menzi & Co. 2006.EVIDENCE But this rule does not apply to admissions made in the course of the trial. whenever on the case in hand the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring production. an admission made by an accused or his counsel during the trial may be used against the accused.. October 16. Thus. Court of Appeals. Best Evidence Rule The Best Evidence Rule is applicable only to documents. No. F-22 . no evidence shall be admissible other than the original writing itself. dela Rosa.”88 Since.R.R. Unless. N. G. Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters. D. No.. v. Court of Appeals. However. 33-34.91 Production of the original may be dispensed with. 1970. Inc. Court of Appeals. 110844. Rule 130. 32 SCRA 261.

e. 2006. destruction or unavailability of the rest of the original copies before secondary evidence can be given of any one. No. To determine the admissibility of object evidence. the original writing need not be presented. 281-282. Tandoy. 21438. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents. Ebreo. But if a party has lost his original document. People v. 98 RULES OF COURT. Sec.R. all of which are identical. February 28. G. G. No. 149454. the best evidence rule cannot apply. the testimony of a witness regarding a fact contemporaneous to the writing. or to make intelligible. v. 4 96 Ebreo et al. Thus. 97 Citibank Mastercard v. Sec. Thus. 1966. 2006. 139524. 411 SCRA 577. Air France v. all such copies are equally regarded as originals. 98 93 People v. Each of them may be offered as proof of their contents.. not to prove its contents. 150905.94 The original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry. September 28. Casa Montessori Internationale. No. to produce the document.R. Rule 130. when the adverse party who has custody of the original refuses.g. like oral testimony. Thus. where the purpose of presenting a document is not to prove its contents. 430 SCRA 261.R. 80505. October 12. 504 SCRA 378. No. In this case. October 16. 483 SCRA 583. 192 SCRA 28. 764.R. Bago. 342 SCRA 753. September 23. G. 2000. G. Sabeniano. 160065. the first copy and four (4) carbon copies of a contract. 156132. 95 Even a mere photocopy of a document may be treated as an original. Bank of the Philippine Islands v. the contents of the document are not sought to be proven. F-23 . for purposes of evidence. 2000. The existence or condition of that writing may be proved at once by any other evidence. or that it is done on sheepskin. 1990. No. as though the document had been lost. December 4. G. Rule 130.93 Closely related to the best evidence rule is the rule that a document or writing which is merely “collateral” to the issue involved in the case on trial need not be produced. the original of the document need not be presented. only object evidence. G. 96 A photocopy may not be used without accounting for the other originals. despite reasonable notice.R. G. No.EVIDENCE Not every writing is considered a document for purposes of the best evidence rule. are all considered originals. but merely to give coherence to. 18 SCRA 155. the best evidence rule does not apply. Hence. et al. Santos. April 6. but to prove some other fact. 6.R. 2003. 585. if the inquiry is regarding its contents. Teodoro. May 28.97 Secondary evidence may also be resorted to. it is. that the writing exists. Santos v. This is the collateral facts rule. he must account not only for the unavailability of his copy but also for the loss. or the size of the paper it is written on. Carrascoso.R. No. 94 Citibank. 596. 459-460. G.R. 2004. If a writing is offered. v. but are simply incidental to the fact being testified to. 128-129. 330 SCRA 115. 95 RULES OF COURT. No. 122290.

The offeror must prove that he has done all in his power to secure the best evidence by giving notice to the said party to produce the document. he must first show or prove that no copy of the document exists and. The notice may be in the form of a motion for the production of the original. be established by oral testimony. 99 Edsa Shangri-la Hotel and Resort.. 145842. provided that the party in custody of the original has sufficient time to produce the same. Section 6 requires that the adverse party be given reasonable notice. The mere fact that the original of the writing is in the custody or control of the party against whom it is offered does not warrant the admission of secondary evidence.99 In this case. 2008. in addition. and that the offeror offers satisfactory proof of its existence. 40.R. may prove its contents by a copy. Inc. or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. et al v. of course. Hence. Section 5 provides: When the original document has been lost or destroyed. but it must be established. such adverse party should not later be allowed to introduce the original for the purpose of contradicting the secondary evidence presented. This second layer of foundations may. Rule 130. 100 Wigmore on Evidence. F-24 . or cannot be produced in court.EVIDENCE To warrant the admissibility of secondary evidence when the original of a writing is in the custody or control of the adverse party. When such party has the original of the writing and does not voluntarily offer to produce it or refuses to produce it. before a party may offer the testimony of witnesses to prove the contents of a lost original. June 27. upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part.100 When the proper foundation for the reception of secondary evidence has been laid. or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document. G. or made in open court in the presence of the adverse party. BF Corporation. Rule 130. that he fails or refuses to produce the same in court. No. Thus. or via a subpoena duces tecum. secondary evidence may be admitted. that there exists no authentic document reciting the contents of the unavailable original. the best evidence rule insists on a preference in the type of secondary evidence that will be presented. the offeror. § 1210. 556 SCRA 25.

G. when presented. November 27. When the defendant invokes such exceptional situations in his answer. the authorities’ investigation ceases to be a mere general inquiry into the circumstances and authorship of the crime and begins to focus on the individual as a 101 Cruz v. F-25 .104 In order that parol evidence may be admissible. between the parties and their successors-in-interest. Court of Appeals. Otherwise. 143 SCRA 335. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals. E. December 10. No. August 6. including the fact of a subsequent agreement. either by way of a plea of guilty upon arraignment or made in the course of the trial. 136. 2000. no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.R. must be put in issue in the pleading. and there can be. such objection is deemed waived. 102 RULES OF COURT. Rule 130. No. Sec. Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confessions The confession of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged. 346 SCRA 126. 139495. 104 Lechugas v. nor assert a right arising from the instrument or established therein. Thus. which provides that “when the terms of a written agreement have been reduced to writing. the parol evidence is not objected to. 33. Rule 129. 1986. 105 RULES OF COURT. may be given in evidence against him. Parol Evidence Rule The Parol Evidence Rule applies only to contractual documents.R. Sec. the exceptional situation. G. such facts are sufficiently put in issue as to allow the presentation of parol evidence. 192 SCRA 209. Sec. or of any offense necessarily included therein. no parol evidence can be admissible. to the written instrument and does not base his claim. if. 106 RULES OF COURT.EVIDENCE D.R. Nos.102” applies to written agreements and has no application to a judgment of a court. 9 103 Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. 4. Rule 130.106 An extrajudicial confession may be given either before or during the custodial investigation stage. it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon. 39972 and 40300. a total stranger to the writing is not bound by its terms and is allowed to introduce extrinsic – or parol – evidence against the efficacy of the writing. it need not be offered in evidence since it is a judicial admission. 1990. However.105 Note that if the confession is judicially given. 101 Parol Evidence Rule. G. nor a privy to a party. 79962.103 It does not apply where at least one party to the suit is not a party. A person is placed under custodial investigation when after a crime has been committed.

2007. Art. 478. Nos. 263. G. 40677. Rapeza. et al.107 Under Republic Act No. RTC of Zamboanga del Norte. Detained. No. and Investigating Officers And Providing Penalties For Violations Thereof. July 6. When under custodial investigation. 147201. Camalog.EVIDENCE suspect. 105.R. Detaining. in a language or dialect he understands and in a manner he comprehends. 7438.R. No. a person shall have the constitutional right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. No. People v. 2001. 378 U.S. supra note 107 at 113-114. the condition for this presumption is that the prosecution is able to show that the constitutional requirements safeguarding an accused’s rights during custodial investigation have been strictly complied with. 135957-58. People v. 363 SCRA 96. 2002. 71 SCRA 186. 668. 111 People v. And while jurisprudence provides that extrajudicial confessions are presumed to be voluntary. especially when the extrajudicial confession has been denounced. See also People v. G.. he must be provided with one. preferably of his own choice. January 31. 384 U. G. Morial. supra note 107 at 116.. 134056. any confession or declaration given by him during said investigation shall be inadmissible. Samus. 128512. Morial. 419 SCRA 659. 77116. 112 People v. it must be made in practical terms.R. G. No. supra note 110 at 619. April 4. 402 SCRA 221.110 It must be noted that neither a lawyer NBI agent nor the City Legal Officer can be considered an independent counsel for this purpose.109 The competent and independent counsel so engaged must be present from beginning to end. 624. Or Under Custodial Investigation As Well As The Duties Of The Arresting. 113 People v. 1976. People v.113 107 Miranda v. Rapeza.108 custodial investigation shall include the practice of issuing an “invitation” to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed. et al. G. 110 People v. 169 SCRA 816.. G. except in writing and in the presence of counsel. 2000. Morial. No.112 The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty does not apply to in-custody confessions. Jimenez. April 30. G. August 15. May 31. Arizona. People v. No. 169431. 389 SCRA 93. Sayaboc.R. the information to be given to the accused regarding his rights must be more than a perfunctory recitation of such rights. III. These rights cannot be waived. If the person under custodial investigation has not been informed of any of the above-mentioned rights. Figueroa. 129295. the degree of explanation varying according to the person’s level of education and intelligence and other relevant personal circumstances of the person undergoing investigation. Belonghilot v. 520 SCRA 596. 335 SCRA 249. F-26 .R. 436.R. 110. 111 To be valid. Sec. 238. 12.R. Illinois. 2004. People v. 108 An Act Defining Certain Rights Of Persons Arrested. Escobedo v. 109 CONSTITUTION. G.R.. 2003. September 17. No. et al. If the person cannot afford the services of a counsel. et al. January 15.S. 1989.

118 G. 2002. 1983. 175 SCRA 216. F-27 . No. No. 359 SCRA 310. Sec. 159734. No. 2003.R.R. The Supreme Court ruled that said receipts were in effect extrajudicial confessions given during custodial investigation and were. No. People v.R. 131131. 320. In People v.117 Thus. in People v. No. the failure of the defense to object to its presentation during trial is deemed a waiver of the objection to its admissibility. Nos. 124077. 320-321. No. February 23. G. shall be inadmissible in evidence. March 24.R. 158 SCRA 85. inadmissible for having been given without the assistance of counsel. G. Salonga. supra note 114 at 320. People v. People v. June 21.R. Thus. 2000. March 20. 100. therefore. 509 SCRA 302. Samus. 125983. Policarpio. An extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient for conviction. whether inculpatory or exculpatory. November 30. 2001. 121 SCRA 538. 115 People v. 119 Astudillo v. No. 116 G. although without a prior information of said rights and without the assistance of counsel. Rule 133. 651.119 114 People v. G. 231 SCRA 426. Ayson. 85215. 1985.00 as the purchase price of the marijuana. People v. G. 411 SCRA 81. in whole or in part. upon petition either by the detainee himself or by anyone in his behalf. Sec.R. 101003. Samus. a statement or confession voluntarily given by an employee during an administrative investigation that he had malversed his employer’s funds is admissible.118 the accused who validly gave a statement during custodial investigation confessing to the commission of homicide and robbery was convicted of homicide only and acquitted of the robbery charge in the absence of evidence establishing the corpus delicti of robbery. 1989.R. Sevilla. Any statement obtained in violation of this procedure. G. Ponce-Enrile. 135957-58. III. People. G. Janson.R. No. but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. 339 SCRA 625.115 that even if the uncounselled admission per se may be inadmissible.116 the accused who was arrested in a buy-bust operation refused to give a statement after having been informed of his Constitutional rights.EVIDENCE No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested. G. or by any person in his behalf.R.R. 117 RULES OF COURT. 51770. 389 SCRA 93.114 But note the ruling in People v.R. People v. 2003. Galit. 1988. 1994. The right to counsel may be waived. The rights guaranteed a person under Art. 400 SCRA 584. September 12. 135 SCRA 465. 2006. and he was also made to sign a receipt for P20. 12 of the Constitution are not available when he is not under custodial investigation. 144639. No. April 20. Salonga. 69844. but he was made to acknowledge in writing that six plastic bags of marijuana leaves were confiscated from him. 3. or appointed by the court. September 17. G. G. July 7. April 4. No. Barlis. 108. Go. September 5. People v. 599. unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. Morales v. 61016.

The Constitutional proscription enshrined in the Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the relation between a private individual and another individual. No. Sr. 1997. CSC.R. 346 Phil.. 321. 125 Also admissible are admissions made to a radio announcer who was not part of the investigation. 195 Phil. February 23. specifically. 2004 430 SCRA 261. Labtan. Ayson. People. 147786. 203 SCRA 750. G. 123 Remolona v. et al. G."123 Similarly competent is the admission of adulterous conduct made by a woman to her husband when the latter confronted her with incriminatory evidence in their residence. 117690. are admissible. supra note 120 at 277. Casa Montessori Internationale. 205. People v.C. G. 340-342. 292. admissions made during preliminary investigation.. and not in his official capacity. et al v. supra note 120 at 277. No.. December 4. 124 Arroyo v.126 As regards competency. September 1. 162 SCRA 642. confessions. No. even if made without counsel.” 121 whereby an individual orally admits to authorship of a crime. No. 519. 1024 [1997]. 1990. Hipol.” 120 The said constitutional provision does “not apply to spontaneous statements made in a voluntary manner. People. 1014. there must be an arrest or a deprivation of freedom. May 28. 525 (2000). with “questions propounded on him by the police authorities for the purpose of eliciting admissions. July 7. No. Casa Montessori Internationale. the exclusionary rule under §12. October 19. 967. 354. People. 2003. G. G. People v. et al. 500. Cruz. Construction Supply. 85215. 653. 413 Phil. June 27. 431-432.R. F-28 . G. People v. No. Mendoza. 377 Phil. 1988.R. People v.R. November 19. 185. 982. 5151. G. 660–661 [1997]. September 25.124 Likewise. Lumiqued v. March 15. 310 [1999]. "applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation. citing People v. 440 SCRA 519. or even to a mayor approached as a personal confidante. 1988. 233–234 [1981]. July 22. Amestuzo. Dy. G. Arondain.R. 807. 96602. No. v. No. G. et al. It governs the relationship between the individual and the State and its agents. See also Aballe v. No. G.R. Garchitorena. 1989. N. 64086. 2004.R. Casa Montessori Internationale. No. People v. the exclusionary rule as provided in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution does not apply to warrantless search by private individuals. 129296. Manuel v. 126 Astudillo v. 590. 414 Phil. G. 984 [1999]. or any information.EVIDENCE To fall within the ambit of Section 12. 648. G. November 18. Taylaran. People v.R.R. 1991. et al. See also People v. 365 Phil. paragraph (2) of the Bill of Rights. De la Cruz.127 The Supreme Court held that there is no merit in the contention of the accused-appellant that the search and seizure performed by the vessel security personnel should be considered as one 120 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. 2000. 49149. 418 Phil. Court of Appeals. 74517. 420 SCRA 326. November 30. 231. 144293. 393 SCRA 419. January 20. No.C. 159734. 125 Ladiana v. 509 SCRA 302.122 In fact. People v. 140549. People v. People v. 117565. No. G. 339 SCRA 515. Del Rosario. 367–368 [2001]. 341 SCRA 25.R. 407 SCRA 179.R. 531. 183 SCRA 196. 127 Tolentino. 123–124. 56291. G. Guillermo. 599 [2001]. People v. 121 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. No. 158 SCRA 111. Dano. 528. Valdez. 2000. 277. 344 Phil.R. No.R. See also Sebastian. 508 [2001].. 122 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. and Gamboa v. 2006. quoted above.R. 226. A. 397 Phil. 2004. 149454. Exevea. No. 2002. 175 SCRA 216. 822–823. 41-42.

These exceptional situations are governed by Rule 23.EVIDENCE conducted by the police authorities for like the latter. 159127. No. See also People v. the judge. 131 G. although cross-examination was afforded during the taking of the deposition. August 25. 130714 & 139634. 143944. No. 532. 394 SCRA 350. Generally. 360. The affidavits shall be in question and answer form. The affidavits shall be based on personal knowledge. 132 A. No. No. 129 The main purpose of requiring a witness to appear and testify orally in open court is to secure to the adverse party the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. 130 People v. Rojas. is a private employee and does not discharge any governmental function. Go. depositions may be used without the deponent being actually called to the witness stand by the proponent. F-29 . can order the parties to use the affidavits of witnesses as direct testimonies. 72 SCRA 428. may be opposed and excluded on the ground that it is hearsay: the party against whom it is offered has no opportunity to cross-examine. The vessel security officer.131 where the Supreme Court held that any deposition offered to prove the facts therein set out during a trial or hearing.132 128 People v. at his discretion. March 3. Another reason for such rule is to enable the judge to observe the countenance and demeanor of the witness while testifying.R. Nos. for normally. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak. Bongcarawan. G. However. Section 4 of the Rules of Court. and shall comply with the rules on admissibility of evidence. Sec. 363. 2002.128 F. G.R. the evidence is actually presented against him during the trial or hearing. the former are armed and tasked to maintain peace and order. in the case at bar. under certain conditions and for certain limited purposes. 384 SCRA 525. the answers of the witness shall be given orally. et al. in lieu of the actual oral testimony of the deponent in open court. 2008. however.. 2002.130 This rule was applied to the use of depositions in San Luis v. it would be impermissible and would be a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge to accept the affidavit of a witness in lieu of the latter’s direct testimony subject to cross- examination. July 11. 129 RULES OF COURT. Rule 132. Therefore. 03-01-09-SC.R. the testimony of a witness is elicited through questions propounded by the examining counsel in open court. and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. 547 SCRA 345. subject to the right to object to inadmissible portions thereof and to the right of cross- examination by the other party. Estenzo.M. 41166. In civil cases. G. Examination of Witnesses 1. December 27. 1.R. or the question calls for a different mode of answer. an important factor in determining the credibility of a witness. shall set forth facts as would be admissible in evidence. 1976.

527 SCRA 827. 139 A. however. the affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties’ witnesses constitute their direct testimonies subject. July 17. 522. 135 RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE. to cross-examination.137 Thus. Thus. 2003. Go. 143002-03. People.. 03-1-09-SC. when a sworn statement has been formally offered as evidence.R.136 But note also that evidence in criminal cases is not limited to the declarations made in open court. and other supporting evidence. it forms an integral part of the evidence which should not be ignored for it complements and completes the testimony on the witness stand. July 17.138 The Guidelines on the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition- Discovery Measures139 provides: a. 137 People v. 9. G. et al. 406 SCRA 508. shall be strictly adhered to subject to the courts’ discretion during trial on whether or not to extend the direct and/or cross examination for justifiable reasons. 138 Garces v. No. 136 Presidential Decree No. it includes all documents. It comprehends something more than just the mere testimony of a witness. Servano. while the complainant failed to categorically declare in her testimony that the accused employed force. No. the Supreme Court still appreciated this circumstance as it was included in the complainant’s sworn statement. affidavits or sworn statements of the witnesses. 838-839. 133 People v. 173858. Sec. supra note 130 at 361-362. the use of sworn statements of witnesses in lieu of direct examination in open court is proscribed. Sec. 15. Nos. 2007.EVIDENCE In criminal cases.R. Sec. in a rape case. A witness has to be fully examined in one (1) day only. together with their position papers setting forth the law and the facts relied upon by them. however.134 And in civil actions covered by the RRSP.M. 134 RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE.133 The rule that witnesses be examined in open court is relaxed under the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure (RRSP) where in criminal cases covered by said Rule. re-direct or re-cross examination. One-day Examination of Witness Rule. 16. G. 946 [1976]. F-30 . threat or intimidation against her.135 Another exception is found in the trial of agrarian cases where the parties submit affidavits of their witnesses subject to cross-examination. the parties shall submit the affidavit of their witnesses and other evidence on the factual issues defined in the preliminary conference order prepared by the judge after the termination of said conference.

the witness states matters irrelevant or immaterial or incompetent. While the general rule is that material and relevant facts are elicited from a witness by questions put to him.142 3. 143 When a witness had testified on direct examination.R. 142 People v. 141 Id. Most Important Witness Rule. It would expedite the trial and would perhaps furnish the court a clearer understanding of the matters related as they occurred. Calixtro. No. 535.J. Oral testimony may be taken into account only when it is complete. 1991. obtain a ruling of the court excluding such testimony from the case. by a motion to strike it out. 26. G. p. 2001. January 24. But if in giving such testimony. if the witness has been wholly cross-examined by the adverse party or the right to cross-examine is lost wholly or in part thru the fault of the adverse party. 143 People v. 349 SCRA 513. F-31 . it still rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge to determine whether a witness will be required to testify by question and answer. 141 While a witness may be permitted in the discretion of the court to narrate his knowledge of material facts bearing upon the case without specifically being interrogated in detail. One question often asked is whether a witness may be allowed to testify by narration.R. 132159. No.1. Some jurisprudential rules regarding uncompleted testimonies: 3. Determine the most important witnesses to be heard and limit the number of witnesses. or will be permitted to testify in narrative form. Givera. G.EVIDENCE b. A witness may be allowed to testify by narration if it would be the best way of getting at what he knew or could state concerning the matter at issue. it is the right and duty of counsel objecting to such testimony to interpose and arrest the narration by calling the attention of the court particularly to the objectionable matter and. but was not cross-examined because he dies or becomes 140 98 C.140 There is no legal principle which prevents a witness from giving his testimony in narrative form if he is requested to do so by counsel. 193 SCRA 303. The facts to be proven by each witness and the approximate number of hours per witness shall be fixed. Jan.S. Sec. 325. 92355. 18. that is. 2. Moreover. it is also within the discretion of the court to prohibit a witness from volunteering unsought information in connection with the case. narrative testimony may be allowed if material parts of his evidence cannot be easily obtained through piecemeal testimonies.

1980. and absence of a witness is not enough to warrant striking his testimony for failure to appear for further cross-examination where the witness has already been sufficiently cross-examined. He may examine or cross-examine a witness.148 144 Dela Paz. Lufthansa German Airlines. 460. Barbers. G. September 17. No. 390 SCRA 160. Jr. whereas the witness had all the time been available for cross-examination. his direct testimony shall be allowed to remain in the record and cannot be ordered stricken off. G.EVIDENCE incapacitated to testify after numerous postponements of his cross- examination attributable to the cross-examining party. 48883. 144052. No. 378 SCRA 495. He should have as much interest as a counsel in the orderly and expeditious presentation of evidence. 626.R.146 4. No. G. June 30. 2002. clarifying ambiguous remarks. supra at 535. A. supra at 171.R. Zheng Bai Hui. September 27. No.R. 338 SCRA 420. calling the attention of counsel to points at issue that are overlooked. Hatton. 146 People v.145 3. It cannot be taken against a judge if his clarifying questions happen to reveal certain truths which tend to spoil the theory of one party. No. 71537. A judge is not a mere referee like that of a boxing bout. 1992. August 6. 171. and the matter on which further cross-examination is sought is not in controversy. v. 2001. People v. People v. People v. Intermediate Appellate Court. De Leon.147 He may propound clarificatory questions to test the credibility of the witness and to extract the truth. A judge may intervene in the trial of a case to promote expedition and avoid unnecessary waste of time or to clear up some ambiguity. The number of times a judge intervenes in the examination of a witness is not necessarily an indication of bias. 512-514. Givera. 99 SCRA 92.R. G.R. supra note 144 at 171. v. Monje. The direct testimony of a witness who dies before conclusion of the cross-examination can be stricken only insofar as to the part not covered by the cross-examination. People v. 210 SCRA 1. RTJ-00-1568. 127580. Jr. No. 1975. 1987. Monje.144 3. 64 SCRA 610. the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered incompetent. directing them to ask questions that would elicit the facts on the issues involved. No.R. 154 SCRA 65.R.. June 16. 145 Ortigas. People v. when cross-examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party offering the witness. March 6. Señeris. 2000. 146689. G. G. G. On the contrary. The cross-examiner is deemed to have waived his right to cross-examine.3. 351 SCRA 606. 28773. No. Monje.M. 2002. et al. February 15. August 22. Laquio. F-32 . He may seek to draw out relevant and material testimony though the testimony may tend to support or rebut the position taken by one or the other party. v.2. 147 People v. 85043. 148 People v.

Nos. Sandiganbayan et. he should always remember that he is as much judge in behalf of the defendant accused of crime. 103501-03. 150 RULES OF COURT. Sec. he will usually not find it necessary to conduct such examinations. The judge is an important figure in the trial of a cause. in conducting a lengthy examination. The extent to which this shall be done must largely be a matter of discretion. While it is true that the manner in which a witness shall be examined is largely in the discretion of the trial judge. While he is not a mere figurehead or umpire in a trial. 401-402.149 5. for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of society. and it is his duty to see that justice is done. 6. This court. has more than once said that the examination of witnesses is the more appropriate function of counsel. The circumstances may be such in a given case as to justify the court in so doing xxx. It is always embarrassing for counsel to object to what he may deem improper questions by the court. and the instances are rare and the conditions exceptional which will justify the presiding judge in conducting an extensive examination. to question witnesses to the end that justice shall prevail.150 149 Tabuena vs. it must be understood that we have not adopted in this country the practice of making the presiding judge the chief inquisitor. However anxious a judge may be for the enforcement of the law. but in so doing he must not forget the function of the judge and assume that of an advocate xxx. we can conceive of no other reason. as he is judge in behalf of the state.. but it is never proper for a judge to discharge the duties of a prosecuting attorney. G. and while he has the right. Rule 133. We doubt not that the sole motive of the learned judge was to ascertain the truth of the transaction. February 17. 268 SCRA 332. 1997. even at the expense of occasional delays xxx. and it is often his duty. and whose liberty is in jeopardy. Then. for him to take the trial of the cause out of the hands of counsel. F-33 . The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. to be determined by the circumstances of each particular case. Ordinarily it is not good practice for the presiding judge himself to examine witnesses at length.R. it would be almost impossible for the judge to preserve a judicial attitude. a trial judge should not participate in the examination of witnesses as to create the impression that he is allied with the prosecution. It is better to observe our time-honored custom of orderly judicial procedure. But this power should be exercised with caution. however.EVIDENCE However. al.

(2) documents acknowledged before a notary public. Their due execution and genuineness must be proved. There are only three types of public documents. if an anonymous letter a party has received is relevant to the issues in a case. as an exception to the opinion rule provided the witness is shown to have sufficient familiarity with the handwriting. the Official Gazette. certified true copies of birth certificates or of death certificates issued by the local civil registrar. e. Sec. of private documents required by law to be entered therein. is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine.151 Public documents need not be authenticated. or (2) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. (3) public records. F-34 . Rule 132. viz. Sec. either (1) by anyone who saw the document executed or written. Thus.g. The last paragraph of Rule 132.: (1) the written official acts or records of official acts of the sovereign authority.. and is unblemished by any 151 Id. e. He only has to identify it as the anonymous letter he had received. If it is offered as a forgery. whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country. which reads: “Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence. although private in nature. Sec. 20 states that “Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.” This provision should be taken in relation to the first paragraph. 20. An ancient document. it need only be identified as that which the offeror claims it to be. transfer certificate of title.” If it is offered as a genuine writing. provided it appears to be more than thirty years old. official bodies and tribunals and public officers. The authenticity of the document is immaterial for he is not offering it as authentic. Sec.. 153 Id. If a private writing is offered not as an authentic document.153 Note that the opinion of an ordinary witness regarding the handwriting of a person is admissible under Rule 130. needs no authentication either. it must be proved to be a forgery. entries in the book of entries of judgments..EVIDENCE G. private documents have to be authenticated to be admissible in evidence. except last wills and testaments. it must be proved to be genuine.. kept in the Philippines.152 All other writings are private and thus ought to be authenticated. 50. he need not authenticate it since he cannot possibly do that anyway. its due execution and genuineness must be proved. documents are either public or private.g. Authentication and Proof of Documents For the purpose of their presentation in evidence. 19 152 Id.

2001. 2008. 533 SCRA 97. 155 Official entries are admissible in evidence regardless of whether the officer or person who made them was presented and testified in court.. which ought to be proved by competent evidence. G. et al. Sec. G. 146737.e. Locsin. 562. 119.157 But “All other public documents are evidence. under Rule 132. and public officers of the Philippines or of a foreign country. even against a third person. 159 Heirs of Deceased Spouses Arcilla. No. Sec. The death certificate is not evidence of the cause of death. a certified true copy of a death certificate issued by the local civil registrar – although a public document – is proof only of the fact which gave rise to its execution.. of course. September 12. It does not apply to documents acknowledged before a notary public abroad. It cannot be overemphasized that the required certification of an officer in the foreign service.. if the authenticity of a private document is judicially admitted by the other. 170583. 162886. the clerk of court need not be called to attest to the truth thereof. 154 Of course. F-35 . 157 In Re: Intestate of the Late Juan “Jhonny” Locsin.156 Hence. are only prima facie. Sec.e.. the entries made by the clerk of court in the book of entries of judgments are prima facie evidence of the entered facts. 2007. v. Such evidence. 23. i. et al.EVIDENCE alteration or circumstances of suspicion. Jr. G.. official bodies and tribunals. pursuant to the Civil Registry Law.R. good until rebutted by reliable contradictory evidence.R. a party need not authenticate it.”158 Thus. Not all public documents have the same probative value. of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.. December 10. People. Teodoro. 24 refers only to the documents enumerated in Section 19 (a). also. the fact of death and the date of that fact. to wit: written official acts or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority. v. 158 Id. 721.. When entries in the Certificate of Live Birth recorded in the Local Civil Registry vary from those appearing in the copy transmitted to the Civil Registry General. No. Sr. Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. 156 Fullero v. the variance has to be clarified in more persuasive and rational manner. 22. 155 Id. 371 SCRA 711. 561 SCRA 545.159 The notarization of a document does not guarantee its validity because it is not the function of a notary public to validate an instrument 154 Id.. No. August 11. i.R. since these entries are considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

.R.. No. he may move or request that it be attached to form part of the record of the case. the evidence must have been formally offered before the court.163 If an adverse judgment is eventually rendered against the offeror. 163 RULES OF COURT.M.R. As regards documentary or object evidence. No. Sec. July 14. April 25. 02-1-18-SC. 2005. See also A.M. Court of Appeals. Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law. 164 A. 476 SCRA 443. 140848.M. effective February 28. assign as error the rejection of the excluded evidence. 161 Yu v. 162 These procedures are known as offer of proof or tender of excluded evidence and are made for purposes of appeal.160 H. Cruz-Arevalo v. effective December 15. If the excluded evidence is oral. 2006. 605.M. November 29. 154115. Rule on Examination of a Child Witness164 SECTION 1. RTJ-06-2005. 451. the same cannot be denied by the trial court. Applicability of the Rule. If a party’s offered documentary or object evidence is excluded. 381 SCRA 594. A. counsel may manifest for the record what the witness would have answered if the witness had been allowed to do so. Heirs of Ramos Sr. G. accused of a crime. in his appeal. 2000. The appellate court will better understand and appreciate the assignment of error if the evidence involved is included in the record of the case. V. 04-10-11-SC. 00-4-07-SC. 2002. Layosa.Unless otherwise provided. 160 Ramos v. No. the evidence must have been identified and presented before the court. 13. Rule on Violence against Women and their Children. 40. And before formal offer of evidence is made. Rule 130. and witnesses to crime. F-36 . SPECIAL RULES ON EVIDENCE A. 162 Id. No..161 If a question asked of a witness by the counsel who presented him is objected to and the objection is sustained. he may. No. 495 SCRA 9.EVIDENCE that was never intended by the parties to have any binding legal effect on them. et al. 2004 for cross references to the Rule on the Examination of a Child Witness. Hon. No. 2002 and A. this Rule shall govern the examination of child witnesses who are victims of crime. And since the offer of proof is for appellate purposes. It shall apply in all criminal proceedings and non-criminal proceedings involving child witnesses. he may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. Tender of Excluded Evidence Evidence formally offered by a party may be admitted or excluded by the court. effective November 15. G.

audiotape.This Rule shall be liberally construed to uphold the best interests of the child and to promote maximum accommodation of child witnesses without prejudice to the constitutional rights of the accused. (e) A "guardian ad litem" is a person appointed by the court where the case is pending for a child who is a victim of. 7610 and other related laws. address. or sexual abuse. typewriting. (d) "Record regarding a child" or "record" means any photograph. including any court document. SECTION 4.EVIDENCE SECTION 2. – (a) A "child witness" is any person who at the time of giving testimony is below the age of eighteen (18) years. and facilitate the ascertainment of truth. description. (c) "Facilitator" means a person appointed by the court to pose questions to a child. (b) "Child abuse" means physical. . Definitions. Objectives. or a witness to a crime to protect the best interest of the said child. exploitation. printing. handwriting. F-37 . Construction of the Rule. accused of. neglect. encourage children to testify in legal proceedings. electronic recording. or other memorialization. pleading. that contains the name. In child abuse cases. videotape. computer data or printout. cruelty. or individual. a child includes one over eighteen (18) years but is found by the court as unable to fully take care of himself or protect himself from abuse. SECTION 3. school. . and criminal neglect as defined in Republic Act No. film. or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. psychological. or any other personal identifying information about a child or his family and that is produced or maintained by a public agency. minimize trauma to children.The objectives of this Rule are to create and maintain an environment that will allow children to give reliable and complete evidence. or any copy or reproduction of any of the foregoing. private agency.

SECTION 5. – (a) The court may appoint a guardian ad litem for a child who is a victim of. The guardian ad litem may be a member of the Philippine Bar. protection. socio-emotional. A person who is a witness in any proceeding involving the child cannot be appointed as a guardian ad litem. (i) "In-depth investigative interview" or "disclosure interview" is an inquiry or proceeding conducted by duly trained members of multidisciplinary team or representatives of law enforcement or child protective services for the purpose of determining whether child abuse has been committed. and trial proceedings in which a child participates. F-38 . psychological. It also means the least detrimental available alternative for safeguarding the growth and development of the child. Guardian Ad Litem. cognitive. if qualified. (b) The guardian ad litem: (1) Shall attend all interviews. social service programs. hearings. the court shall consider the background of the guardian ad litem and his familiarity with the judicial process. In making the appointment. (g) "Best interests of the child" means the totality of the circumstances and conditions as are most congenial to the survival. depositions. giving preference to the parents of the child. and moral abilities. and emotional development. or a witness to a crime to promote the best interests of the child. and child development. accused of. and feelings of security of the child and most encouraging to his physical. (h) "Developmental level" refers to the specific growth phase in which most individuals are expected to behave and function in relation to the advancement of their physical.EVIDENCE (f) A "support person" is a person chosen by the child to accompany him to testify at or attend a judicial proceeding or deposition to provide emotional support for him.

(7) May remain with the child while the child waits to testify. (6) Shall assist the child and his family in coping with the emotional effects of crime and subsequent criminal or non-criminal proceedings in which the child is involved. all legal proceedings. (8) May interview witnesses. 26. except privileged communications. (c) The guardian ad litem shall be notified of all proceedings but shall not participate in the trial. (4) Shall marshal and coordinate the delivery of resources and special services to the child. and records necessary to effectively advocate for the child. (5) Shall explain. he may object during trial that questions asked of the child are not appropriate to his developmental level.EVIDENCE (2) Shall make recommendations to the court concerning the welfare of the child. or opinion received from the child in the course of serving as a guardian ad litem. (d) The guardian ad litem may communicate concerns regarding the child to the court through an officer of the court designated for that purpose. and (9) May request additional examinations by medical or mental health professionals if there is a compelling need therefore. 25. evaluations. unless the court finds it necessary to promote the best interests of the child. statement. F-39 . in language understandable to the child. 27 and 31(c). (3) Shall have access to all reports. including police investigations. If the guardian ad litem is a lawyer. (e) The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any proceeding concerning any information. 10. he may file motions pursuant to sections 9. However. in which the child is involved.

— The questions asked at the competency examination shall be appropriate to the age and developmental level of the child. SECTION 6. however. (e) Developmentally appropriate questions. ask the child. — Examination of a child as to his competence shall be conducted only by the judge. — To rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by a child. Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. (2) The counsel for the parties. and (5) The defendant. F-40 . communicate. . (a) Proof of Necessity. the court shall conduct a competency examination of a child. distinguish truth from falsehood. the burden of proof lies on the party challenging his competence. The age of the child by itself is not a sufficient basis for a competency examination. remember. shall not be related to the issues at trial. Counsel for the parties. However. in his discretion. (4) One or more support persons for the child. (3) The guardian ad litem. (c) Person allowed at competency examination. when it finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive. — A party seeking a competency examination must present proof of necessity of competency examination. can submit questions to the judge that he may.EVIDENCE (f) The guardian ad litem shall be presumed to have acted in good faith in compliance with his duties described in sub-section (b). motu proprio or on motion of a party. communicate. unless the court determines that competence can be fully evaluated in his absence. or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court. Competency. — Only the following are allowed to attend a competency examination: (1) The judge and necessary court personnel. (b) Burden of Proof. (d) Conduct of examination. and shall focus on the ability of the child to remember.

.R. can be a competent witness if he or she can perceive. 167 People v.EVIDENCE distinguish between truth and falsehood. Oath or Affirmation. Gajo. One cannot expect a child of five (5) years to act the same way a ten (10)-year old or an older woman would. that is. regardless of age. G.R. although he or she is very young.Before testifying. . De Jesus. 406 SCRA 454. The requirements of a child’s competence as a witness are: (a) capacity of observation. If a party against whom a witness is presented believes that the witness is incompetent or is not aware of his obligation and responsibility 165 People v. F-41 .165 It is well-established that any child. This kind of apprehension comes to one when somebody older and close to her does something she does not comprehend but she just keeps quiet because the other person might get mad. The determination of the competence and capability of a child as a witness rests primarily with the trial judge. and perceiving. G. Fear would oftentimes overwhelm the victim or stupefy her into inaction. Not so in the case of a five (5)-year old who has not fathomed the ways of man. and (c) capacity of communication. — The court has the duty of continuously assessing the competence of the child throughout his testimony. If she did not cry while she was being raped. can make known his or her perception to others. 272.R. It cannot be argued that simply because a child witness is not examined on the nature of the oath and the need for her to tell the whole truth. No. he or she is capable of relating truthfully facts for which the child is examined. the competency of the witness and the truth of her testimony are impaired. July 25.167 SECTION 7. (b) capacity of recollection. it could be because she was afraid of what was being done to her. No. Crying is almost always brought about by the horrifying experience a woman has undergone and the shame and scandal that she has to go through after the dastardly act has been committed. 327 SCRA 612. and appreciate the duty to testify truthfully. 478. March 9. 127878. 2003. G. 166 People v. 2000. A child may be a competent witness where he or she has sufficient capacity to understand the solemnity of an oath and to comprehend the obligation it imposes. et al. a child shall take an oath or affirmation to tell the truth. 140895. and where he or she has sufficient intelligence to receive just impressions as to the facts of which the child is to testify and relate them correctly.166 Persons react differently when confronted with situations like this one. Bisda. No. July 17. 127749. (f) Continuing duty to assess competence. 2003. 407 SCRA 265.

psychiatrist. .168 the Court held that when a child of tender age is presented as a witness. The facilitator may be a child psychologist. disability. or the question calls for a different mode of answer. In United States v. motu proprio or upon motion. et al. - (a) When a child does not understand the English or Filipino language or is unable to communicate in said languages due to his developmental level. appoint a facilitator if it determines that the child is unable to understand or respond to questions asked. Buncad. Interpreter for Child. 169 People v.169 SECTION 8. he shall not be disqualified and may serve as the interpreter of the child. Bisda. The court may motu proprio conduct the voir dire examination. Facilitator to Pose Questions to Child. SECTION 9. the answers of the witness shall be given orally. The interpreter. move the court to allow him to testify in the manner provided in this Rule. The examination of a child witness presented in a hearing or any proceeding shall be done in open court. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak. supra note 165 at 476. it is the duty of the judge to examine the child to determine his competency. The party who presents a child witness or the guardian ad litem of such child witness may. (c) An interpreter shall take an oath or affirmation to make a true and accurate interpretation. to interpret for the child. social 168 25 Phil.. fear. however.EVIDENCE to tell the truth and the consequence of him testifying falsely. or other similar reason. shall testify ahead of the child. such party may pray for leave to conduct a voire dire examination on such witness to test his competency. who is also a witness. – (a) The court may. shyness. Examination of a Child Witness. 530 (1913). F-42 . (b) If a witness or member of the family of the child is the only person who can serve as an interpreter for the child. SECTION 10. however. motu proprio or upon motion. an interpreter whom the child can understand and who understands the child may be appointed by the court.

– (a) A child testifying at a judicial proceeding or making a deposition shall have the right to be accompanied by one or two persons of his own choosing to provide him emotional support. if the child is not likely to understand the same. (c) The facilitator shall take an oath or affirmation to pose questions to the child according to the meaning intended by counsel. Support Persons.EVIDENCE worker. or relative. (4) The court shall instruct the support persons not to prompt. (1) Both support persons shall remain within the view of the child during his testimony. SECTION 11. judge. in words that are comprehensible to the child and which convey the meaning intended by counsel. the court may disapprove the choice if it is sufficiently established that the attendance of the support person during the testimony of the child would F-43 . (b) If the court appoints a facilitator. provided the support person does not completely obscure the child from the view of the opposing party. teacher. religious leader. the respective counsels for the parties shall pose questions to the child only through the facilitator. (b) If the support person chosen by the child is also a witness. (2) One of the support persons may accompany the child to the witness stand. (3) The court may allow the support person to hold the hand of the child or take other appropriate steps to provide emotional support to the child in the course of the proceedings. or hearing officer. parent. guidance counselor. sway. The questions shall either be in the words used by counsel or. or influence the child during his testimony.

SECTION 12. The judge need not wear his judicial robe. facilitator. if he chooses to look at them. the court may. The witness chair or other place from which the child testifies may be turned to facilitate his testimony but the opposing party and his counsel must have a frontal or profile view of the child during the testimony of the child. Nothing in this section or any other provision of law. The child may be allowed to testify from a place other than the witness chair.EVIDENCE pose a substantial risk of influencing or affecting the content of the testimony of the child. his testimony shall be presented ahead of the testimony of the child. movement and deportment of all persons in the courtroom including the parties. The waiting area for children should be furnished so as to make a child comfortable. Courtroom Environment. in its discretion. SECTION 13. . SECTION 15. re-direct.The courts are encouraged to provide a waiting area for children that is separate from waiting areas used by other persons.The court may order that the testimony of the child should be taken during a time of day when the child is well-rested. cross. except official in-court identification provisions. and re-cross examinations as often as necessary depending on his developmental level. child. guardian ad litem. support persons. Testimony During Appropriate Hours. . . . shall be construed to require a child to look at the accused. F-44 . (c) If the support person who is also a witness is allowed by the court. their counsel. Waiting Area for Child Witnesses.The child may be allowed reasonable periods of relief while undergoing direct. without turning his body or leaving the witness stand. witnesses. Accommodations for the child under this section need not be supported by a finding of trauma to the child. direct and supervise the location. The witness chair or other place from which the child testifies may also be rearranged to allow the child to see the opposing party and his counsel. and court personnel.To create a more comfortable environment for the child. SECTION 14. Recess During Testimony.

2003. 374 SCRA 365. SECTION 20. drawings. 665. The reasons are spelled out in our Rule on Examination of a Child Witness. 2002. Testimonial Aids.170 No prior proof of difficulty in eliciting intelligible answers from the child witness is required in order to allow leading questions. SECTION 17. 371. SECTION 18. G. 137385. puppets. The court may allow the child witness to testify in a narrative form. namely: (1) to facilitate the ascertainment of the truth. The court may prohibit a counsel from approaching a child if it appears that the child is fearful of or intimidated by the counsel. Mode of Questioning. and (4) avoid waste of time. G. mannequins.The court shall exercise control over the questioning of children so as to (1) facilitate the ascertainment of the truth.EVIDENCE SECTION 16. and (4) avoid waste of time. It is sufficient that the witness is shown to be a child of tender years. May 27.R. January 23.The court shall permit a child to use dolls. People v. Emotional Security Item. . Daganio. . No. 543. toy. or any other appropriate demonstrative device to assist him in his testimony. . a child shall be allowed to have an item of his own choosing such as a blanket. (2) to ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate to the developmental level of the child. or doll. (3) protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment.171 170 People v. Leading questions in all stages of examination of a child are allowed if the same will further the interests of justice. No. (3) to protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment. . 429 SCRA 651.While testifying. Legaspi. No. 137283. which took effect on December 15. anatomically-correct dolls. SECTION 19.The court may allow leading questions in all stages of examination of a child if the same will further the interests of justice. February 17. . (2) ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate to the developmental level of the child. 2004. G. The trend in procedural law is to give wide latitude to the courts in exercising control over the questioning of a child witness. 149366-67. Leading Questions. F-45 . Escultor. 397 SCRA 531. 2000.R. Approaching the Witness.R. 171 People v.

and facilitate the ascertainment of truth. motu proprio. Objections to Questions. The same Rule on Examination of a Child Witness provides that when a child testifies. including members of the press. or intimidate the child. Cañete.173 SECTION 22. who do not have a direct interest in the case. 173 People v. his relationship to the accused and to persons attending the trial. the nature of his testimony regarding the crime. . frighten and intimidate the child. exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during trial is of such character as to be offensive to decency or public morals. Objections to questions should be couched in a manner so as not to mislead. 215. His testimony.When a child testifies. No. No. Ugos. motu proprio. 122. The court may. G. 565 SCRA 207.Corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of a child. the court shall consider the developmental level of the child. the court may order the exclusion from the courtroom of all persons. Such an order may be made to protect the right to privacy of the child or if the court determines on the record that requiring the child to testify in open court would cause psychological harm to him. March 28. encourage them to testify in legal proceedings. the court may. September 12. except court personnel and the counsel of the parties. inter alia. his desires. SECTION 23. shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact. or judgment subject to the standard of proof required in criminal and non-criminal cases. G. . 2003. Child witnesses may testify in a narrative form and leading questions may be allowed by the trial court in all stages of the examination if the same will further the interest of justice. the developmental level of the child.R. conclusion. the nature of the crime. 400 SCRA 109.EVIDENCE The afore-cited rule was formulated to allow children to give reliable and complete evidence. The court may also. hinder the ascertainment of truth. 142930. .Objections to questions should be couched in a manner so as not to mislead. order the exclusion from the courtroom of all persons who do not have a direct interest in the case. 2008. or timidity. if credible by itself. exclude the public from trial. or result in his inability to effectively communicate due to embarrassment.172 SECTION 21. the nature of the crime. frighten. confuse. In making its order. Excluding the Public. on motion of the accused. F-46 . 181633.R. confuse. and the nature of 172 People v. fear. Corroboration. In issuing such order. the court is to consider. minimize trauma to children. and the interests of his parents or legal guardian.

he himself may apply for the order. Persons Prohibited from Entering and Leaving Courtroom. 2006. 371. Before the guardian ad litem applies for an order under this section. It may also exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced is of such character as to be offensive to decency or public morals. whose presence or conduct causes fear to the child. The questions of the judge shall not be related to the issues at trial but to the feelings of the child about testifying in the courtroom. guardian ad litem.174 SECTION 24. In case the guardian ad litem is convinced that the decision of the prosecutor or counsel not to apply will cause the child serious emotional trauma. A. No. Rivera. 174 Genil v. . (d) The judge may exclude any person. prosecutor. (b) The court may motu proprio hear and determine. SECTION 25. 479 SCRA 363. The person seeking such an order shall apply at least five (5) days before the trial date. with notice to the parties. and counsel for the parties.The court may order that persons attending the trial shall not enter or leave the courtroom during the testimony of the child. in the presence of the support person. MTJ-06-1619. Live-Link Television in Criminal Cases Where the Child is a Victim or a Witness. (c) The judge may question the child in chambers. - (a) The prosecutor. he shall consult the prosecutor or counsel and shall defer to the judgment of the prosecutor or counsel regarding the necessity of applying for an order. unless the court finds on the record that the need for such an order was not reasonably foreseeable. F-47 . January 23. including the accused. counsel or the guardian ad litem may apply for an order that the testimony of the child be taken in a room outside the courtroom and be televised to the courtroom by live-link television.M.EVIDENCE his testimony regarding the crime. or in some comfortable place other than the courtroom. the need for taking the testimony of the child through live-link television.

(11) The custodial situation of the child and the attitude of the members of his family regarding the events about which he will testify.EVIDENCE (e) The court shall issue an order granting or denying the use of live-link television and stating the reasons therefore. (8) His reaction prior to trial when the topic of testifying was discussed with him by parents or professionals. (7) His reaction to any prior encounters with the accused in court or elsewhere. F-48 . his counsel or the prosecutor as the case may be. (6) His relationship with the accused or adverse party. The trauma must be of a kind which would impair the completeness or truthfulness of the testimony of the child. (10) Testimony of expert or lay witnesses. (2) His physical and mental health. (5) Any threats against the child. (4) The nature of the alleged abuse. (9) Specific symptoms of stress exhibited by the child in the days prior to testifying. It shall consider the following factors: (1) The age and level of development of the child. or psychological injury experienced by him. such as court atmosphere and formalities of court procedure. (3) Any physical. and (12) Other relevant factors. including any mental or physical disability. (f) The court may order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link television if there is a substantial likelihood that the child would suffer trauma from testifying in the presence of the accused. emotional.

he shall consult with the F-49 . and Other Devices to Shield Child from Accused. persons necessary to operate the closed- circuit television equipment. victim. or the court may allow the child to identify the accused by observing the image of the latter on a television monitor. digital disc.EVIDENCE (g) If the court orders the taking of testimony by live-link television: (1) The child shall testify in a room separate from the courtroom in the presence of the guardian ad litem. if any. prosecutor. taking into consideration the best interests of the child. and the public unless excluded. (4) The court may set other conditions and limitations on the taking of the testimony that it finds just and appropriate. the court may allow the child to enter the courtroom for the limited purpose of identifying the accused. accused. the facilitator and interpreter. Screens. counsel for the parties. The testimony of the child shall be transmitted by live-link television into the courtroom for viewing and hearing by the judge. and counsel for the parties shall be in the courtroom. a court officer appointed by the court. or other similar devices which shall be made part of the court record and shall be subject to a protective order as provided in section 31(b). - (a) The prosecutor or the guardian ad litem may apply for an order that the chair of the child or that a screen or other device be placed in the courtroom in such a manner that the child cannot see the accused while testifying. prosecutor. (3) If it is necessary for the child to identify the accused at trial. (h) The testimony of the child shall be preserved on videotape. one or both of his support persons. One-way Mirrors. SECTION 26. accused. and other persons whose presence are determined by the court to be necessary to the welfare and well-being of the child. Before the guardian ad litem applies for an order under this section. (2) The judge.

it shall issue an order that the deposition of the child be taken and preserved by videotape. Videotaped Deposition. (b) If the court grants an application to shield the child from the accused while testifying in the courtroom. subject to sub-section (e). (2) The defense counsel. Objections to deposition testimony or evidence. The other persons who may be permitted to be present at the proceeding are: (1) The prosecutor. Before the guardian ad litem applies for an order under this section. – (a) The prosecutor or the guardian ad litem may apply for an order that a deposition be taken of the testimony of the child and that it be recorded and preserved on videotape. (3) The guardian ad litem. (5) Other persons whose presence is determined by the court to be necessary to the welfare and well- being of the child.EVIDENCE prosecutor or counsel subject to the second and third paragraphs of section 25(a) of this Rule. the courtroom shall be arranged to enable the accused to view the child. (c) The judge shall preside at the videotaped deposition of a child. The court shall issue an order stating the reasons and describing the approved courtroom arrangement. and the grounds for the objection shall be stated and shall be ruled upon at the time of the taking of the deposition. F-50 . (4) The accused. (b) If the court finds that the child will not be able to testify in open court at trial. he shall consult with the prosecutor or counsel subject to the second and third paragraphs of section 25(a). or parts thereof. SECTION 27.

EVIDENCE (6) One or both of his support persons. the facilitator and interpreter. shall not be violated during the deposition. If the accused is excluded from the deposition. the court shall order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link television in accordance with section 25 of this Rule. at the time of trial. it is not necessary that the child be able to view an image of the accused. (e) If the order of the court is based on evidence that the child is unable to testify in the physical presence of the accused. (h) The videotaped deposition and stenographic notes shall be subject to a protective order as provided in section 31(b). the court may admit into evidence the videotaped deposition of the child in lieu of his testimony at the trial. (f) The videotaped deposition shall be preserved and stenographically recorded. (g) The court may set other conditions on the taking of the deposition that it finds just and appropriate. F-51 . the court finds that the child is unable to testify for a reason stated in section 25(f) of this Rule. the constitutional rights of the accused. (7) The court stenographer. taking into consideration the best interests of the child. the court may direct the latter to be excluded from the room in which the deposition is conducted. (d) The rights of the accused during trial. (i) If. and (8) Persons necessary to operate the videotape equipment. In case of exclusion of the accused. if any. especially the right to counsel and to confront and cross-examine the child. The videotape and the stenographic notes shall be transmitted to the clerk of the court where the case is pending for safekeeping and shall be made a part of the record. The court shall issue an order stating the reasons therefor. Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. or is unavailable for any reason described in section 4(c). and other relevant factors.

The court may order an additional videotaped deposition to receive the newly discovered evidence. any party may file any motion for additional videotaping on the ground of newly discovered evidence. the court shall. content and circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia of reliability. (6) Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declaration child. not otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule. SECTION 28. the court shall consider the time. its proponent shall make known to the adverse party the intention to offer such statement and its particulars to provide him a fair opportunity to object. (b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement. When the child is unavailable. the fact of such circumstance must be proved by the proponent. and F-52 . If the child is available. .A statement made by a child describing any act or attempted act of child abuse. upon motion of the adverse party.EVIDENCE (j) After the original videotaping but before or during trial. may be admitted in evidence in any criminal or non-criminal proceeding subject to the following rules: (a) Before such hearsay statement may be admitted. (5) The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant child and witness. require the child to be present at the presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-examination by the adverse party. (3) Whether more than one person heard the statement. (4) Whether the statement was spontaneous. (7) The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant of child is remote. (2) The general character of the declarant child. It shall consider the following factors: (1) Whether there is a motive to lie. Hearsay Exception in Child Abuse Cases.

(d) When the child witness is unavailable. Admissibility of Videotaped and Audiotaped In- depth Investigative or Disclosure Interviews in Child Abuse Cases. (b) The interview of the child was conducted by duly trained members of a multidisciplinary team or representatives of law enforcement or child protective services in situations where child abuse is suspected so as to determine whether child abuse occurred. suffers from physical infirmity. . mental illness. F-53 .The court may admit videotape and audiotape in- depth investigative or disclosure interviews as evidence. (c) The party offering the videotape or audiotape must prove that: (1) the videotape or audiotape discloses the identity of all individuals present and at all times includes their images and voices. (c) The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following situations: (1) Is deceased. under the following conditions: (a) The child witness is unable to testify in court on grounds and under conditions established under section 28 (c). or (2) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means. SECTION 29. his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other admissible evidence. or will be exposed to severe psychological injury. (2) the statement was not made in response to questioning calculated to lead the child to make a particular statement or is clearly shown to be the statement of the child and not the product of improper suggestion.EVIDENCE (8) The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason to suppose the declarant child misrepresented the involvement of the accused. lack of memory.

(b) Exception. Sexual Abuse Shield Rule. Before the videotape or audiotape is offered in evidence. or other physical evidence shall be admissible. SECTION 30. (5) the videotape or audiotape is authentic and correct. (4) the person operating the device was competent to operate it. — The following evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse: (1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior. The individual conducting the interview of the child shall be available at trial for examination by any party. - (a) Inadmissible evidence. for good cause. all parties shall be afforded an opportunity to view or listen to it and shall be furnished a copy of the written transcript of the proceedings. F-54 . It may. specifically describing the evidence and stating the purpose for which it is offered. and (6) it has been duly preserved. unless the court.EVIDENCE (3) the videotape and audiotape machine or device was capable of recording testimony. A party intending to offer such evidence must: (1) File a written motion at least fifteen (15) days before trial. however. and (2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim. — Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen. injury. be considered in determining the reliability of the statements of the child describing abuse. The fact that an investigative interview is not videotaped or audiotaped as required by this section shall not by itself constitute a basis to exclude from evidence out-of-court statements or testimony of the child.

Protection of Privacy and Safety. their expert witness. and (2) Serve the motion on all parties and the guardian ad litem at least three (3) days before the hearing of the motion. The child shall not be required to testify at the hearing in chambers except with his consent. the court must conduct a hearing in chambers and afford the child. (4) The guardian ad litem. (2) No tape. (2) The prosecuting attorney. – (a) Confidentiality of records.EVIDENCE requires a different time for filing or permits filing during trial. the parties. his guardian ad litem. Except upon written request and order of the court. SECTION 31. — Any videotape or audiotape of a child that is part of the court record shall be under a protective order that provides as follows: (1) Tapes may be viewed only by parties. except as necessary for the trial. (3) Defense counsel. a record shall only be released to the following: (1) Members of the court staff for administrative use. (b) Protective order. The motion and the record of the hearing must be sealed and remain under seal and protected by a protective order set forth in section 31(b). shall be divulged by any person mentioned in sub-section (a) to any other person. and their counsel a right to attend and be heard. — Any record regarding a child shall be confidential and kept under seal. (5) Agents of investigating law enforcement agencies. and the guardian ad litem. F-55 . or any portion thereof. their counsel. and (6) Other persons as determined by the court. Before admitting such evidence.

(4) Each of the tape cassettes and transcripts thereof made available to the parties. their counsel. (d) Publication of identity contemptuous. given. loaned. or disclosed to any person. and respective agents shall bear the following cautionary notice: "This object or document and the contents thereof are subject to a protective order issued by the court in (case title). his parents. read. viewed. or the guardian ad litem. F-56 . (c) Additional protective orders. issue additional orders to protect the privacy of the child. and that in case of violation thereof." (5) No tape shall be given. the child. legal guardian. Any person violating such protective order is subject to the contempt power of the court and other penalties prescribed by law. inspected. that he submits to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the protective order. its transcription or any part thereof unless he signs a written affirmation that he has received and read a copy of the protective order. sold. (case number). motu proprio or on motion of any party. sold. (7) This protective order shall remain in full force and effect until further order of the court. No additional copies of the tape or any of its portion shall be made. — Whoever publishes or causes to be published in any format the name. They shall not be examined. or shown to any person without prior court order. or copied by any person. (6) Within thirty (30) days from receipt. or shown to any person except as ordered by the court. — The court may. except as provided in the protective order. he will be subject to the contempt power of the court.EVIDENCE (3) No person shall be granted access to the tape. all copies of the tape and any transcripts thereof shall be returned to the clerk of court for safekeeping unless the period is extended by the court on motion of a party.

all the records of the case shall be considered as privileged and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone for any purpose whatsoever.D. telephone number. all the records of his case shall also be considered as privileged and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone except to determine if a defendant may have his sentence suspended under Article 192 of P. if said liability has been imposed in the criminal action. Where a youthful offender has been charged and the court acquits him. 968 or to enforce his civil liability. telephone number. and other information that could endanger his physical safety or his family. — Any videotape or audiotape of a child produced under the provisions of this Rule or otherwise made part of the court record shall be destroyed after five (5) years have elapsed from the date of entry of judgment. The youthful offender concerned shall not be held under any provision of law to be guilty of perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation by reason of his failure to acknowledge the case or recite any fact related thereto in response to any inquiry made to him for any purpose.D.D. No. The court may. or an immediate family of the child shall be liable to the contempt power of the court. — A child has a right at any court proceeding not to testify regarding personal identifying information. require the child to testify regarding personal identifying information in the interest of justice. — Where a youthful offender has been charged before any city or provincial prosecutor or before any municipal judge and the charges have been ordered dropped. or dismiss the case or commits him to an institution and subsequently releases him pursuant to Chapter 3 of P. No. school. (f) Destruction of videotapes and audiotapes. school. including his name. address. exclusion of evidence. (e) Physical safety of child.EVIDENCE address. "Records" within the meaning of the sub-section shall include those which may be in the files of the National Bureau of Investigation and with any police department or government F-57 . (g) Records of youthful offender. however. 603 or if he may be granted probation under the provisions of P. No. or other identifying information of a child who is or is alleged to be a victim or accused of a crime or a witness thereof. 603.

and evidence shall be applied in a suppletory character. No. the following terms are defined. SECTION 2. as follows: (a) "Asymmetric or public cryptosystem" means a system capable of generating a secure key pair. effective August 1. institution. conditional examination of witnesses. as defined in Rule 2 hereof. or for legitimate or illegitimate purposes. Application of other rules on evidence. and a public key for verifying the digital signature. Definition of Terms. — For purposes of these Rules. 175 A. 603) SECTION 32. — These Rules shall apply to all civil actions and proceedings. as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases. consisting of a private key for creating a digital signature.D. and calling of every kind. 01-7-01-SC. . B. No. is offered or used in evidence. — Unless otherwise provided herein. 2002 F-58 . (Art. Scope. whether or not conducted for profit. Rules on Electronic Evidence175 RULE 1 Coverage SECTION 1. — In all matters not specifically covered by these Rules. SECTION 3.The provisions of the Rules of Court on deposition. effective October 14.EVIDENCE agency which may have been involved in the case. occupation. these Rules shall apply whenever an electronic document or electronic data message. Applicability of Ordinary Rules.M. profession. (b) "Business records" include records of any business. RULE 2 Definition of Terms and Construction SECTION 1. 2001 as amended. association. 200. P. the Rules of Court and pertinent provisions of statutes containing rules on evidence shall apply. Cases covered.

record. text. sent. (ii) whether the initial electronic document had been altered after the transformation was made. store. (d) "Computer" refers to any single or interconnected device or apparatus. data. retrieve and/or produce information. readable by sight or other means. (g) "Electronic data message" refers to information generated.EVIDENCE (c) "Certificate" means an electronic document issued to support a digital signature which purports to confirm the identity or other significant characteristics of the person who holds a particular key pair. graphics. and. which is received. retrieved or produced electronically. received or stored by electronic. by electronic. which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. electro-mechanical or magnetic impulse. figures. analyze. or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed. transmit. (e) "Digital Signature" refers to an electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic data message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a person having the initial untransformed electronic document and the signer's public key can accurately determine: (i) whether the transformation was created using the private key that corresponds to the signer's public key. described or however represented. processed. figures. correlate. by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished. data. process. It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output. symbols or other modes of written expression. (f) "Digitally signed" refers to an electronic document or electronic data message bearing a digital signature verified by the public key listed in a certificate. or by other means with the same function. symbols or other modes of expression or perform any one or more of these functions. voice. which. the term "electronic document" may be used interchangeably with "electronic data message". F-59 . can receive. (h) "Electronic document" refers to information or the representation of information. video. optical or similar means. recorded. For purposes of these Rules. project. transmitted. stored.

(k) "Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to telephone conversations. (m) "Key Pair" in an asymmetric cryptosystem refers to the private key and its mathematically related public key such that the latter can verify the digital signature that the former creates. Accordingly. and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained. (l) "Information and Communication System" refers to a system for generating. representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating. F-60 . do not include a facsimile transmission. signing or approving an electronic data message or electronic document. text messages. a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic evidence. chatroom sessions. The terms "electronic data message" and "electronic document. It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence. streaming video. receiving.EVIDENCE (i) "Electronic key" refers to a secret code which secures and defends sensitive information that crosses over public channels into a form decipherable only with a matching electronic key. storing or otherwise processing electronic data messages or electronic documents and includes the computer system or other similar devices by or in which data are recorded or stored and any procedure related to the recording or storage of electronic data messages or electronic documents. (o) "Public Key" refers to the key of a key pair used to verify a digital signature. characteristic and/or sound in electronic form. (n) "Private Key" refers to the key of a key pair used to create a digital signature." as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000. streaming audio. For purposes of these Rules. sending. an electronic signature includes digital signatures. (j) "Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark.

M. No. 536 SCRA 408. 455 SCRA 288. processed. October 17. — These Rules shall be liberally construed to assist the parties in obtaining a just. the argument of petitioner that since these paper printouts were produced through an electronic process. 177 National Power Corporation v. transmitted. 299. 455. transmitted. Salud. stored. if not preposterous. Sales.. F-61 . with greater reason is a photocopy of such a fax transmission not electronic evidence. Codilla. 124893.R. 178 Nuez v. 170491. 271 SCRA 767. v. 2007.R. cited in Vidallon-Magtolis v. CA-05-20-P. A perusal of the information contained in the photocopies submitted by petitioner will reveal that not all of the contents therein. retrieved or produced electronically. stored. then these photocopies are electronic documents as defined in the Rules on Electronic Evidence is obviously an erroneous. clearly. transmitted. No. Rule 1 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence. the information contained in an electronic document is received." and cannot be considered as electronic evidence by the Court. Having thus declared that the offered photocopies are not tantamount to electronic documents. 1997.177 Short Messaging System or text messages are admissible in evidence under Section 1(k). No.M. it is consequential that the same may not be considered as the functional equivalent of their original as decreed in the law. stored. CA-05-18-P. Ssangyong. However. A.EVIDENCE Since a facsimile transmission is not an "electronic data message" or an "electronic document. recorded. Jr.R.176 The rules use the word "information" to define an electronic document received. such as the signatures of the persons who purportedly signed the documents. processed. and inexpensive determination of cases. Construction. April 3. what differentiates an electronic document from a paper-based document is the manner by which the information is processed. expeditious. G.178 SECTION 2. 2005. 779 . April 12. 170633. recorded. No. September 9. retrieved or produced electronically. This would suggest that an electronic document is relevant only in terms of the information contained therein. April 18. Hence. may be recorded or produced electronically. similar to any other document which is presented in evidence as proof of its contents. 2005. G. Cruz-Apao. recorded. 461- 462. See also Garvida v. G. 469 SCRA 439. 520 SCRA 412. By no stretch of the imagination can a person's signature affixed manually be considered as information electronically received. processed. 176 MCC Industrial Sales Corp. retrieved or produced. interpretation of the law. 2007. No. 423. A.

RULE 3 Electronic Documents SECTION 1. — An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means. Copies as equivalent of the originals. copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the original if: F-62 . SECTION 3. such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original. instrument. SECTION 2. or from the same matrix. — An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules. Privileged communication. RULE 4 Best Evidence Rule SECTION 1. otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act. or by mechanical or electronic re-recording. Original of an Electronic Document. Notwithstanding the foregoing. — The confidential character of a privileged communication is not lost solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic document. or by chemical reproduction. — When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents. such term shall be deemed to include an electronic document as defined in these Rules. document. Electronic Documents as functional equivalent of paper-based documents. Admissibility. or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original. 8792. SECTION 2. — Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term writing.EVIDENCE The interpretation of these Rules shall also take into consideration the international origin of Republic Act No. memorandum or any other form of writing. shown to reflect the data accurately. record. or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original.

SECTION 2. — An electronic signature or a digital signature authenticated in the manner prescribed hereunder is admissible in evidence as the functional equivalent of the signature of a person on a written document. SECTION 3. Proof of electronically notarized document. its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means: (a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same.EVIDENCE (a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original. — A document electronically notarized in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be considered as a public document and proved as a notarial document under the Rules of Court. or (c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the Judge. — The person seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner provided in this Rule. Manner of authentication. — Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence. F-63 . Electronic signature. Burden of proving authenticity. RULE 6 Electronic Signatures SECTION 1. or (c) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the original. (b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document. RULE 5 Authentication of Electronic Documents SECTION 1.

(e) A certificate had been issued by the certification authority indicated therein. — Upon the authentication of a digital signature. (b) By any other means provided by law.EVIDENCE SECTION 2. or (c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the genuineness of the electronic signature. in addition to those mentioned in the immediately preceding section. — An electronic signature may be authenticated in any of the following manner: (a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital signature and verify the same. and (c) The methods or processes utilized to affix or verify the electronic signature operated without error or fault. (b) The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of authenticating or approving the electronic document to which it is related or to indicate such person's consent to the transaction embodied therein. (d) The message associated with a digital signature has not been altered from the time it was signed. (c) No cause exists to render a certificate invalid or revocable. SECTION 3. and. it shall be presumed that: (a) The electronic signature is that of the person to whom it correlates. — Upon the authentication of an electronic signature. F-64 . (b) The digital signature was created during the operational period of a certificate. it shall be presumed. that: (a) The information contained in a certificate is correct. Disputable presumptions relating to digital signatures. SECTION 4. Authentication of electronic signatures. Disputable presumptions relating to electronic signatures.

EVIDENCE

RULE 7
Evidentiary Weight of Electronic Documents

SECTION 1. Factors for assessing evidentiary weight. — In
assessing the evidentiary weight of an electronic document, the
following factors may be considered:

(a) The reliability of the manner or method in which it
was generated, stored or communicated, including but
not limited to input and output procedures, controls, tests
and checks for accuracy and reliability of the electronic
data message or document, in the light of all the
circumstances as well as any relevant agreement;

(b) The reliability of the manner in which its originator
was identified;

(c) The integrity of the information and communication
system in which it is recorded or stored, including but not
limited to the hardware and computer programs or
software used as well as programming errors;

(d) The familiarity of the witness or the person who made
the entry with the communication and information
system;

(e) The nature and quality of the information which went
into the communication and information system upon
which the electronic data message or electronic
document was based; or

(f) Other factors which the court may consider as
affecting the accuracy or integrity of the electronic
document or electronic data message.

A computer print out must be authenticated or its due execution be
duly established to deserve evidentiary weight.179

SECTION 2. Integrity of an information and communication
system. — In any dispute involving the integrity of the
information and communication system in which an electronic

179
Aznar v. Citibank, N.A. (Philippines), G.R. No. 164273, March 28, 2007, 519 SCRA 287,
308.

F-65

EVIDENCE

document or electronic data message is recorded or stored, the
court may consider, among others, the following factors:

(a) Whether the information and communication system
or other similar device was operated in a manner that did
not affect the integrity of the electronic document, and
there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the
integrity of the information and communication system;

(b) Whether the electronic document was recorded or
stored by a party to the proceedings with interest
adverse to that of the party using it; or

(c) Whether the electronic document 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 it.

RULE 8
Business Records as Exception to the Hearsay Rule

SECTION 1. Inapplicability of the hearsay rule. — A
memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events,
conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by electronic, optical
or other similar means at or near the time of or from
transmission or supply of information by a person with
knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular course or conduct of
a business activity, and such was the regular practice to make
the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by
electronic, optical or similar means, all of which are shown by
the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is
excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence.

SECTION 2. Overcoming the presumption. — The presumption
provided for in Section 1 of this Rule may be overcome by
evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source of information
or the method or circumstances of the preparation,
transmission or storage thereof.

RULE 9
Method of Proof

SECTION 1. Affidavit evidence. — All matters relating to the
admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic document
may be established by an affidavit stating facts of direct

F-66

EVIDENCE

personal knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records.
The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the
affiant to testify on the matters contained therein.

SECTION 2. Cross-examination of deponent. — The affiant
shall be made to affirm the contents of the affidavit in open
court and may be cross-examined as a matter of right by the
adverse party.

RULE 10
Examination of Witnesses

SECTION 1. Electronic testimony. — After summarily hearing
the parties pursuant to Rule 9 of these Rules, the court may
authorize the presentation of testimonial evidence by electronic
means. Before so authorizing, the court shall determine the
necessity for such presentation and prescribe terms and
conditions as may be necessary under the circumstances,
including the protection of the rights of the parties and
witnesses concerned.

SECTION 2. Transcript of electronic testimony. — When
examination of a witness is done electronically, the entire
proceedings, including the questions and answers, shall be
transcribed by a stenographer, stenotypist or other recorder
authorized for the purpose, who shall certify as correct the
transcript done by him. The transcript should reflect the fact
that the proceedings, either in whole or in part, had been
electronically recorded.

SECTION 3. Storage of electronic evidence. — The electronic
evidence and recording thereof as well as the stenographic
notes shall form part of the record of the case. Such transcript
and recording shall be deemed prima facie evidence of such
proceedings.

RULE 11
Audio, Photographic, Video, and Ephemeral Evidence

SECTION 1. Audio, video and similar evidence. — Audio,
photographic and video evidence of events, acts or
transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be shown,
presented or displayed to the court and shall be identified,
explained or authenticated by the person who made the

F-67

SECTION 2. — Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof. 8792180 1. C. page 7675 on November 27. Ephemeral electronic communications. then the provisions of Rule 5 shall apply. — These Rules shall apply to cases pending after their effectivity. Applicability to pending cases. F-68 . The Electronic Commerce Act. 2001 following their publication before the 20th of July. Act No. 48. If the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in an electronic document. Implementing Rules and Regulations on Electronic Signatures 3. RULE 12 Effectivity SECTION 1. 2000. 2000. Implementing Rules and Regulations of the “Electronic Commerce Act” 2. other competent evidence may be admitted. In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses. 2000. 02 Providing Implementing Rules and Regulations of Electronic Authentication and Electronic Signatures 180 SECTION 42. Effectivity. — This Act shall take effect immediately after its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. Joint DTI-DOST Department Administrative Order No. SECTION 2. 96 No.EVIDENCE recording or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof. — These Rules shall take effect on the first day of August. Rep. Approved: June 14. Vol. A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral electronic communication shall be covered by the immediately preceding section. Published in Malaya and Philippine Post on June 19. Effectivity. Published in the Official Gazette. 2001 in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.

the alleged father.EVIDENCE The full text of the foregoing law. the available objections to the admission of DNA test results as evidence. trial judges are tasked with ascertaining the admissibility of expert evidence. 518. 2007. as fact-finders and initial decision-makers in the Philippine legal system. effective October 15. 06-11-5-SC. photographing. The DNA from the mother. et al.). p. 26. The analysis is based on the fact that the DNA of a child/person has two (2) copies. The University of the Philippines Natural Science Research Institute (UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the capability to conduct DNA typing using short tandem repeat (STR) analysis. 2004.M. together with its implementing rules and regulations and Administrative Order No.e. Rule on DNA Evidence SECTION 1. 74. Vol. as defined in Section 3 hereof. et al v. or proposed to be offered or used as evidence in all criminal and civil actions as well as special proceedings. G.182 We have now the facility and expertise in using DNA test for identification and parentage testing. No. assessing their credibility. 2.R. As gatekeepers of evidence and. 2001. Yatar. March 8.184 In case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be difficult to obtain.R. the proper procedures.. No. which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of the illegitimate child 181 A. used. 3.. 182 The Court Systems Journal. In performing these tasks. NO. May 19. etc. more importantly. as there is no testimonial compulsion involved. one copy from the mother and the other from the father. 125901. 354 SCRA 17. including testimony on DNA test results and. No. Scope. are all appended to this work and in the CD version of the bench book. necessary laboratory reports. thereafter. protocols. is offered. — This Rule shall apply whenever DNA evidence. September 2007. as well as the probative value of DNA evidence. the possible sources of error. CA. 183 Tijing. trial judges should not only be aware of the underlying technology of DNA evidence and its real significance but. DNA testing. 428 SCRA 504.183 A person may be compelled to submit to fingerprinting. G. and child are analyzed to establish parentage. blood and DNA. 150224. F-69 . more importantly. should be given prescribed parameters on the requisite elements for reliability and validity (i. paraffin. 181 D. 184 People v. 12.

results and other genetic information directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples. which biological sample is clearly identifiable as originating from that person. COMELEC. DNA identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. 172607. No. hairs and bones. 424 SCRA 277. 537 SCRA 553. which is the chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of the body. and ensuring the proper administration of justice in every case. F-70 .186 SECTION 2. tissues. Umanito.R. No. It can assist immensely in effecting a more accurate account of the crime committed. 2004. even if found in inanimate objects. could be resorted to. efficiently facilitating the conviction of the guilty. (e) "DNA testing" means verified and credible scientific methods which include the extraction of DNA from biological samples. The totality of an individual's DNA is unique for the individual. For purposes of criminal investigation. or to exonerate a wrongly accused suspect. (d) "DNA profile" means genetic information derived from DNA testing of a biological sample obtained from a person. Application of Other Rules on Evidence. (c) "DNA evidence" constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles. 161434. — In all matters not specifically covered by this Rule. 560. the generation of DNA profiles and the 185 Tecson.185 DNA print or identification technology has been advanced as a uniquely effective means to link a suspect to a crime. 2007. et al. (b) "DNA" means deoxyribonucleic acid. securing the acquittal of the innocent. — For purposes of this Rule.. the following terms shall be defined as follows: (a) "Biological sample" means any organic material originating from a person's body. where biological evidence has been left.. SECTION 3. the Rules of Court and other pertinent provisions of law on evidence shall apply. 345. G. G. This includes blood. saliva and other body fluids. that is susceptible to DNA testing. October 26. supra note 184 at 514 reiterated in People v. March 3. et al.R. Yatar. 186 People v. except identical twins. A positive match would clear up filiation or paternity. v.EVIDENCE and any physical residue of the long dead parent. Definition of Terms.

188 People v. No. mucus. Hair and fiber from clothing. with the notable exception of identical twins. urine. Application for DNA Testing Order. DNA is an organic substance found in a person’s cells which contains his or her genetic code. Yatar. or saliva which can be left on the victim's body or at the crime scene. Most importantly. 187 People v. crime scene or assailant. 208. at any time. each person’s DNA profile is distinct and unique. no two individuals have the same DNA. earwax. skin tissue.188 SECTION 4. skin tissue. 144656. order a DNA testing. Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the following: (a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case. Except for identical twins. either motu proprio or on application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation. the root and shaft of hair. Forensic DNA evidence is helpful in proving that there was physical contact between an assailant and a victim. DNA evidence collected from a crime scene can link a suspect to a crime or eliminate one from suspicion in the same principle as fingerprints are used. 382 SCRA 192. whether or not the DNA obtained from two or more distinct biological samples originates from the same person (direct identification) or if the biological samples originate from related persons (kinship analysis). A person's DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change throughout a person's lifetime. or furniture could also be transferred to the victim's body during the assault. G. because of polymorphisms in human genetic structure. bone. supra note 184 at 514-515 F-71 . blood. with reasonable certainty.EVIDENCE comparison of the information obtained from the DNA testing of biological samples for the purpose of determining. sweat. May 9. semen. and vaginal and rectal cells. and (f) "Probability of Parentage" means the numerical estimate for the likelihood of parentage of a putative parent compared with the probability of a random match of two unrelated individuals in a given population. DNA can be compared with known samples to place the suspect at the scene of the crime. Vallejo. carpets.R. the DNA in a person's blood is the same as the DNA found in his saliva. If properly collected from the victim. Incidents involving sexual assault would leave biological evidence such as hair. — The appropriate court may. 2002. bedding.187 DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms.

Vallejo. before a suit or proceeding is commenced. This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing. This is the evidence sample. which the court may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing. and (e) The existence of other factors. This might occur for a variety of reasons. to obtain a more conclusive result. or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing. The evidence sample is then matched with the reference sample taken from the suspect and the victim. The test may yield three possible results: 1) The samples are different and. but the results may require confirmation for good reasons.189 189 People v. contamination.EVIDENCE (b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested. or failure of some aspect of the protocol. if any. (c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique. the analyst proceeds to determine the statistical significance of the similarity. material is collected from the scene of the crime or from the victim's body for the suspect's DNA. whether the samples have similar DNA types (inconclusive). including law enforcement agencies. therefore. F-72 . based on the results of the test. at the behest of any party. The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an association exists between the evidence sample and the reference sample. the samples are found to be similar. The samples collected are subjected to various chemical processes to establish their profile. and could have originated from the same source (inclusion). without need of a prior court order. This conclusion is absolute and requires no further analysis or discussion. including degradation. When a crime is committed. (d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case. In such a case. or 3) The samples are similar. supra note 187 at 208-209. must have originated from different sources (exclusion). Various parts of the analysis might then be repeated with the same or a different sample. 2) It is not possible to be sure.

G.R. The grant of a DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that may be obtained as a result thereof. 2007. No. 497. in any way. Any petition for certiorari initiated therefrom shall not. DNA Testing Order. the court shall — (a) Order. where appropriate. Post-conviction DNA Testing. 363. to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment provided that (a) a biological sample exists.191 SECTION 5. — Post-conviction DNA testing may be available. stay the implementation thereof. No. — If the court finds that the requirements in Section 4 hereof have been complied with. December 17. issue an order requiring all parties to the case or proceedings to witness the DNA testing to be conducted. SECTION 6. the testing process and the reliability of the test results. 361. that biological samples be taken from any person or crime scene evidence.190 the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals denial of petitioner’s Motion to Direct Parties to Submit to DNA Testing since he had been long declared in default. unless a higher court issues an injunctive order. G. Pondevida. (b) Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing designed to protect the integrity of the biological sample. An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately executory and shall not be appealable. citing Section 4 of this Rule. precluding him to present evidence on appeal. 145527. 191 Estate of Rogelio Ong v. 540 SCRA 480. 2002. Diaz. without need of prior court order.R. (b) such 190 Gan v. and (c) If the biological sample taken is of such an amount that prevents the conduct of confirmatory testing by the other or the adverse party and where additional biological samples of the same kind can no longer be obtained. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of Appeals remanding the case to the trial court for DNA testing even if one of the parties had died during appeal. The Supreme Court held that the death of the petitioner does not ipso facto negate the application of DNA testing for as long as there exists appropriate biological samples of his DNA. Pondevida. 171713. 382 SCRA 357. May 28. F-73 .EVIDENCE In Gan v. including the condition that the DNA test results shall be simultaneously disclosed to parties involved in the case.

See also Herrera v. and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. Alba. The Vallejo standards.193 The issue of “DNA tests” as a more accurate and authoritative means of identification. the following data: how the samples were collected. including the procedure followed in analyzing the samples. the possibility of contamination of the samples. (b) The DNA testing methodology. supra note 184 at 519. and (c) the testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction. including how the biological samples were collected. the procedure followed in analyzing the samples. as hereinafter provided. the relevant experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be properly established. courts should consider.192 The science of DNA typing involves the admissibility. DNA profiling requires a factual determination of the probative weight of the evidence presented. — In assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence presented. 193 People v. SECTION 7. Assessment of Probative Value of DNA Evidence. how they were handled. Yatar. including accreditation by any reputable standards-setting institution and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. and the possibility of contamination of the samples. and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests. is that in assessing the probative value of DNA evidence. than eyewitness identification. relevance and reliability of the evidence obtained under the Rules. supra note 187 at 209. and (d) The reliability of the testing result. the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure. the court shall consider the following: (a) The chain of custody. supra at 212. The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation of evidence shall apply suppletorily. (c) The forensic DNA laboratory. Vallejo. whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests. need not be 192 People v. If the laboratory is not accredited. among others things. according to the Supreme Court. F-74 . how they were handled.EVIDENCE sample is relevant to the case.

the results of the DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence. the court shall consider the following: (a) The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance of mismatching DNA evidence. F-75 . 194 Andal. (e) The existence of an appropriate reference population database.EVIDENCE belabored.9%. v.9% or higher. (d) The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the correctness of data generated. — In evaluating the results of DNA testing. et al.194 SECTION 8. 138268-69. SECTION 9. People. 1999. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99. that is. Nos. (b) The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other evidence presented in the case. whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested. — In evaluating whether the DNA testing methodology is reliable. and (f) The general degree of confidence attributed to mathematical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles and the significance and limitation of statistical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles. Reliability of DNA Testing Methodology. Evaluation of DNA Testing Results. (c) The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant scientific community. there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity.R. (b) The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or methods. 654. 307 SCRA 650. G. and that (c) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive proof of non-paternity. the court shall consider the following: (a) The falsifiability of the principles or methods used. May 26. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99. The accused were all properly and duly identified by the prosecution’s principal witness.

For this reason. then there is refutable presumption of paternity. mother and child are subjected to DNA analysis compared to those conducted between the putative father and child alone. et al.9%. will not violate the right against self- incrimination. Alba.196 Obtaining DNA samples from an accused in a criminal case or from the respondent in a paternity case. G. DNA analysis that excludes the putative father from paternity should be conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the DNA types match. 2004. It is not enough to state that the child's DNA profile matches that of the putative father. 460 SCRA 197. is required to compute for W. G. then he is not excluded as the father. trial courts should require at least 99. such as the Philippine population database.197 195 Cabatania v. the forensic scientist looks at a number of these variable regions in an individual to produce a DNA profile. If the man's DNA types do not match that of the child. 197 Herrera v. following the highest standard adopted in an American jurisdiction.R.195 In [a] paternity test. the man is excluded as the father. No. which match the paternal types in the child. it is possible to determine which half of the child's DNA was inherited from the mother. W will never equal to 100%. W is a numerical estimate for the likelihood of paternity of a putative father compared to the probability of a random match of two unrelated individuals. 441 SCRA 96. The other half must have been inherited from the biological father.9% as a minimum value of the Probability of Paternity ("W") prior to a paternity inclusion. the accuracy of W estimates is higher when the putative father. If the value of W is less than 99. A complete match between the DNA profile of the child and the DNA profile of the putative father does not necessarily establish paternity. October 21. 148220. However. 196 Herrera v. F-76 . This refutable presumption of paternity should be subjected to the Vallejo standards. Alba. Comparing next the DNA profiles of the mother and child. June 15. 105. Court of Appeals.R. the extremely subjective test of physical resemblance or similarity of features will not suffice as evidence to prove paternity and filiation before the courts of law. Due to the probabilistic nature of paternity inclusions. 124814. The alleged father's profile is then examined to ascertain whether he has the DNA types in his profile. This privilege applies only to evidence that is “communicative” in essence taken under duress. If the value of W is 99. 2005.9% or higher.EVIDENCE In this age of genetic profiling and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis. the results of the DNA analysis should be considered as corroborative evidence. An appropriate reference population database.. 209-211. supra at 219. No.

2004. In case the court. unless continued detention is justified for a lawful cause. Post-conviction DNA Testing. a DNA profile and all results or other information obtained from DNA testing shall only be released to any of the following. Unlike a new trial under Rule 121. under such terms and conditions as may be set forth by the court: (a) Person from whom the sample was taken. such a remedy is sui generis to give the convicted felon a chance to adduce DNA evidence until Rule 121 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is revised anew. Except upon order of the court. which stands until recalled by the court as a result of the new trial. (c) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action. which is available only before final judgment. November 17. F-77 .198 SECTION 11. — DNA profiles and all results or other information obtained from DNA testing shall be confidential. 158802.R. after due hearing.EVIDENCE SECTION 10. — The convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin if the results of the post-conviction DNA testing are favorable to the convict. a new trial for post- conviction DNA testing does not vacate the judgment of conviction. (d) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies. 442 SCRA 706. A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. However. 734. Moreover. which may conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the court of origin and issue the appropriate orders. G. or with any member of said courts. DNA testing must not have been available or possible during the original trial. A new trial after final conviction may be ordered only on the sole ground that DNA testing will establish that the convicted felon could not have committed the crime. finds the petition to be meritorious. and 198 In Re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa. it shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict. No. Confidentiality. A new trial on the ground of post-conviction DNA testing is different from a new trial under Rule 121. (b) Lawyers representing parties in the case or action where the DNA evidence is offered and presented or sought to be offered and presented. Remedy if the Results Are Favorable to the Convict.

DNA profiles and results or other genetic information obtained from DNA testing. or. the court may order the appropriate government agency to preserve the DNA evidence as follows: (a) In criminal cases: i. or (b) The person from whom the DNA sample was obtained has consented in writing to the disposal of the DNA evidence. the same may be disclosed to the persons named in the written verified request. Whoever discloses. Where the person from whom the biological sample was taken files a written verified request to the court that allowed the DNA testing for the disclosure of the DNA profile of the person and all results or other information obtained from the DNA testing. — The trial court shall preserve the DNA evidence in its totality.EVIDENCE (e) Other persons as determined by the court. for not less than the period of time that any person is under trial for an offense. including all biological samples. SECTION 12. until such time as the accused has served his sentence. ii in case the accused is serving sentence. F-78 . presented or sought to be offered and presented. For this purpose. and (b) In all other cases. utilizes or publishes in any form any information concerning a DNA profile without the proper court order shall be liable for indirect contempt of the court wherein such DNA evidence was offered. provided that: (a) A court order to that effect has been secured. Preservation of DNA Evidence. The court may allow the physical destruction of a biological sample before the expiration of the periods set forth above. until such time as the decision in the case where the DNA evidence was introduced has become final and executory.

2007. SECTION 14. — Except as provided in Sections 6 and 10 hereof. this Rule shall apply to cases pending at the time of its effectivity. Effectivity. following publication in a newspaper of general circulation.EVIDENCE SECTION 13. F-79 . — This Rule shall take effect on October 15. Applicability to Pending Cases.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful