EVIDENCE & TRIAL TECHNIQUE – ATTY. PLARIDEL J. BOHOL II EVIDENCE: RULE 132, Secs. 22-24 Example: Section 22.
How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
Anyone in whose presence the document was signed
“Your Honor, this witness is going to establish the due execution and authenticity of the document.” Counsel: Whose signature is this appearing in the document? Witness: That is the signature of Mr. X Counsel: How did you know that? Witness: I was present when that was written.
By any witness who is familiar with the handwriting of such person (Sec. 22; Rule 130, Sec. 50 [b]);
Sections 20, 21 and 22 are the Rules on the Authentication of Private Documents.
A witness who can give his opinion, such opinion being an exception to the opinion rule An ordinary witness, because he has seen the person
Before any private document can be received in evidence, indeed even before a question can be asked on what it contains, its due execution and authenticity must first be established. This means that the document must be shown not to be fake or spurious, that it was really executed and signed by those whose names appear in the document or by those who claim to have executed it. (General Enterprises, Inc. vs. Lianga Bay Logging Co., 11 SCRA 733)
write and is familiar with his handwriting
Example: “Your Honor, this witness is going to establish the due execution and authenticity of the document.” Counsel: Mr. Witness, I am showing to you a letter. Whose signature appears here? Witness: That is my boss’ signature.
Ways of proving that a particular handwriting is the handwriting of a person:
Counsel: How did you know that? Witness: I have been his secretary for the past 25 years.
By any witness who has seen the person write (Rule 130, Sec. 2 [a]); Anyone who saw the document while being written Refers to signatories and instrumental witnesses
By making a comparison with a genuine handwriting of such person (Sec. 22);
Prepared by: DEUS E. DULAY – 3F
28 L. (Jones on Evidence) When a writing in issue is claimed on the one hand and denied upon the other to be the writing of a particular person.R. Sec. BOHOL II A comparison in writing is a rational method of investigation. (Rule 130. especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity. 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence explicitly authorizes the court. September 27. may be received in evidence. Pagpaguitan. with or without the aid of expert witnesses..”
Facts: The trial court nullified a deed of sale and the title issued based on it on the ground that the Special Power of Attorney of the alleged attorney-in-fact who sold the land was “highly questionable.EVIDENCE & TRIAL TECHNIQUE – ATTY. Ct.S. 1999) Where a comparison is permissible. order a party to write or sign his signature as a basis for comparison. J. PLARIDEL J. 166 Fed. 170)
examination of the documentary evidence at hand. to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting. is the decision correct?
comparison with the writing in dispute. Sec. “with the writing admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered. Sec. This the trial court judge can do without necessarily resorting to experts. Dr.S. DULAY – 3F
. 334. (Barnes vs. any other writing of that person may be admitted in evidence for the purpose of Ruling: Yes. 49) “Due to the technicality of the procedure involved in the examination of forged documents. experience or training which he shown to posses.” Issue:
By an expert witness (Rule 130. No. It bears stressing that the trial court may validly determine forgery from its own independent Since the parties. or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. however. Ernesto Jaranilla 417 SCRA 250. (People vs. which can be determined by visual comparison of specimen of the questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones. it may be made by the court. 2003 First Division: Azcuna. by
Prepared by: DEUS E. U. Ed. 14 S. spurious and self-evidently fabricated. (Hickory vs. the expertise of questioned document examiners is usually helpful. Leon and Lolita Estacio vs. agreed to dispense with the trial so that no witnesses were presented to prove or disprove the alleged forgery. 151 US 303. G. and The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge. skill. 116599. 49). in the exercise of its sound discretion. December 8.. 113) The court may.
(Lopez vs. All other public documents are evidence. whatever acts they do in discharge of
Sec. 21) The writing is a public document or record. Jan 23. p. BOHOL II (Heirs of Severa Gregorio vs. proved or certified in accordance with Sec. Court of Appeals.
their public duty may be given in evidence and shall be taken to be true under such a degree of caution as to the nature and circumstances of each case may appear to require. and therefore. 117609. 30. 1978). 1121). or
Public Documents as Evidence:
Entries in public records PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE of facts stated therein. Rosel. December 29. 148)
Authentication of a document is not required when:
1) 2) 3)
The writing is an Ancient Document.
Rationale: The law reposes a particular confidence in public officers that it presumes that they will discharge their several trusts with accuracy and fidelity. L-31494. — 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. (Antillon vs. characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writings which would ordinarily escape notice or detection by an untrained observer.S. 277. 594) This section should be correlated with Sec. v. 37 Phil. Barcelon. 1998) Handwriting experts are not mandatory It depends upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks. PLARIDEL J. et al.R. 44 of Rule 130. Jones on Evidence. (Sec. of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. (Regalado)
All other public documents Evidence even against a 3 person of the: FACT which gave rise to their execution.
By the author himself (Herrera. (Sec. p. DULAY – 3F
. Court of Appeals. and DATE of execution.EVIDENCE & TRIAL TECHNIQUE – ATTY. (U. even against a third person. which states that entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines. 1999 edition. No. 19) It is a notarial document acknowledged.
Prepared by: DEUS E. 24 Phil.
Made in the performance of a duty by public officer PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE of facts stated therein
When the authenticity and due execution of the document has been expressly or impliedly admitted by a failure to deny the same under oath (Actionable Documents). Public documents as evidence. 22 of this Rule merely enumerates the methods of proving handwriting but does not give preference or priority to a particular method. G. Doctrine of Self-Authentication – where the facts in the writing could only have been known by the writer (Regalado)
evidence of the facts therein stated. or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. are prima facie
Lim fraudulently transferred all her real property to her children in bad faith and in defraud of creditors. BOHOL II deed was registered only on July 1991 because she was seriously Prima Facie Evidence . there must be evidence that is clear. the alleged debt of Lim in favor of petitioner was incurred in August 1990.EVIDENCE & TRIAL TECHNIQUE – ATTY. Notably. is sufficient to sustain a judgment in favor of the issue which it supports. PLARIDEL J. payable to “cash. Siguan claimed that through an antedated Deed of Donation. 1999 First Division: Davide. Lim registered a Deed of Donation conveying certain parcels of land in favor of her children. convincing and more than merely preponderant. while the deed of donation was purportedly executed on 10 August 1989. November 19. the Deed of Donation. The said deed was purportedly executed on August 1989. DULAY – 3F
. The CA explained that under Sec.. She alleged that the Petitioner’s contention that the public documents referred to in said Section 23 are only those entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer does not hold water.
Ruling: Facts: On August 1990. public. ill.
Prepared by: DEUS E. Lim maintained that the deed was not antedated but was made in good faith. being a public document. appears on its face to have been executed on August 10. CA reversed holding that the Deed of Donation. prior to petitioner’s credit. Jr. As such.J. 23 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Evidence. if unexplained or uncontradicted.evidence which. that deed is a public document. 1989.
Maria Antonia Siguan vs. is evidence of the fact which gave rise to its execution and of the Illustrative case: date thereof. pursuant to Section 23. Yes. the checks were dishonored for the reason that the account has been closed. Siguan filed an accion pauliana against Lim to rescind the deed. C. RTC ruled in favor of Siguan. We are not convinced with the allegation of the petitioner that the questioned deed was antedated to make it appear that it was made On July 1991. Rosa Lim 318 SCRA 725.” Upon presentment with the drawee bank.
Issue: Whether or not the CA is correct in reversing the RTC. it having been acknowledged before a notary public. In the instant case. Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Demands to make good the checks proved futile. Lim issued 2 checks to Siguan. it is evidence of the fact which gave rise to its execution and of its date. which was executed and acknowledged before a notary To contradict the facts contained in a notarial document and presumption of regularity in its favor.
Philippine Reports and Appellate Court Reports are prima facie evidence of their authenticity. if the record is not kept in the Philippines. Proof of official record. BOHOL II The phrase “all other public documents” in the second sentence of Section 23 means those public documents other than the entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer. the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation. consul general. which is 10 August 1989. consul general. consul. all resolutions of a public nature of Congress. it is evidenced by:
The written official acts. PLARIDEL J. attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record or his deputy. What are considered Official Records (Rule 132. 19 [a]) If it is a FOREIGN RECORD. All public records such as all legislative acts. with a certificate that such officer has the custody. (See Secs. or by his deputy. except last wills and testaments. and accompanied by a certificate by: secretary of the embassy or legation. are public documents and are evidence of the facts that gave rise to their execution and of their date. or records of the official acts of:
1) 2) 3)
The sovereign authority. 22 The fact that the questioned Deed was registered only on 2 July 1991 is not enough to overcome the presumption as to the truthfulness of the statement of the date in the questioned deed. 24 lays down the requirements for the admissibility in evidence of a foreign public document or record)
An official publication. may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record. or A copy thereof. and Public officers
and 35 of the Administrative Code)
What may be presented in evidence to prove official records? If it is a DOMESTIC RECORD. and authenticated by the seal of his office.
(Sec.EVIDENCE & TRIAL TECHNIQUE – ATTY. vice consul. when admissible for any purpose. It bears repeating that notarial documents. attested by the officer having custody of the record or his deputy. Sec. decisions or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court published in the Official Gazette. and accompanied. like the subject deed of donation. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country. or a year after the questioned alienation. 21. or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19. consul. all executive orders. or A copy thereof. DULAY – 3F
Prepared by: DEUS E. Official bodies and tribunals. with a certificate that such officer has the custody. Section 24. Petitioner’s claim against Lim was constituted only in August 1990. And these include notarial documents. it is evidenced by:
An official publication.
who attested the documents. DULAY – 3F
. But if the same document is offered in evidence in the Philippines. 1 de Orinoco. Oscar Leon Monzon. including Malandrinon. J. is the officer who had legal custody of those records made by diplomatic or consular officials in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in Venezuela.. With To prove Venezuela law. vs. For a copy of a foreign public document to be admissible. 1. the Assistant Harbor Master and Chief of Pilots at Puerto Ordaz.
Prepared by: DEUS E. October 6. or notarized or authenticated by the consul. ran aground while navigating through Orinoco River in Venezuela.. PLARIDEL J. consul general. it obstructed the ingress and egress of other vessels. It must be guaranteed as authentic by an official in the embassy. and Ruling: No. Wildvalley presented Capt..
It must be accompanied by a certificate by the secretary of the embassy or legation. or consular agent or foreign service officer. It is not enough that the Gaceta Oficial. vice consul. Ltd. the following requisites are mandatory: Whether or not the copies of the laws produced by Wildvalley is admissible in evidence. it must be authenticated by an official of the Philippine embassy in California. Ltd. It is also required by the Rules of Court that a certificate that Monzon. or consular agent or foreign service officer laws as printed in Gazeta Oficial and the Reglamento Para la Zona de Pilotaje No. and authenticated by the seal of his office. parol proof is objectionable. As a consequence. consul. sued President Lines for damages in the RTC of Manila. as well as the rules governing the navigation on Orinoco River.
2. Venezuela. Inc. or a book published by the Ministerio Comunicaciones of Venezuela. The witness produced in court photocopies of the respect to proof of written laws. and with the seal of his office.
with the seal of his office. The owner of the latter vessel. a vessel owned by Philippine President Lines. Issue: Example: A document was notarized in California. was presented with Monzon attesting it. for the written law itself is the best evidence. Wildvalley Shipping Company. 2000 Second Division: Buena. Illustrative case: It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by his deputy. BOHOL II vice consul. USA. Court of Appeals 342 SCRA 213. it is a public document.
Facts: President Roxas.EVIDENCE & TRIAL TECHNIQUE – ATTY.
Wildvalley Shipping Co.
DULAY – 3F
Prepared by: DEUS E. PLARIDEL J. Jr. Salazar Evidence (the Bar Lecture Series) by Willard B. Iñigo Compendium on Evidence by Jose Agaton R. Sibal and Jaime N. Evidence: A Lawyer’s Companion by Melissa Romana P. Pronove. Riano
Edition by Florenz D. Lectures of Hildegardo F. Peralta. 11 Regalado Perspectives of Evidence by Eduardo B.EVIDENCE & TRIAL TECHNIQUE – ATTY. De La Banda Evidence in Action by Ricardo L. Jr. Vol. BOHOL II References: Remedial Law Compendium. Suarez and Gil A. II.