I. Object Evidence
One which is submitted to the court and will view it to the full range of human senses
o Apply the rule on Relevancy
o Then Authenticate
 Chain of Custody
o Marking of the seized items immediately
o Inventory & Photograph
 With the accused or his representative
 Elected official
 National Prosecution Service or Media
o Where?
 With Warrant – Place of seizure
 Without Warrant – Nearest Police Station
 Exception to Chain of Custody: Substantial Compliance Rule
o Integrity and evidentiary value are preserved
o With justifiable reason for non-compliance
Demonstrative Evidence
 Anyone who is familiar can authenticate(Sison vs People)
o EVENT- persons needs to be present at the time of happening
 DNA Test
o Biological Sample is relevant to the case
o Sample was not previously tested or was previously tested but still needs confirmation for
good reasons
o Uses a scientifically valid technique
o Potential to produce new information which is relevant to the case
o Existence of other factors which the court may consider
o Prima Facie evidence of paternity(Lucas vs. Lucas)

II. Documentary Evidence
 Evidence consist of writing or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or
other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents
 Best Evidence Rule
o Original Document
 Original is one of the contents subject of inquiry
 2 or more copies executed at the same time with identical contents (People vs. Tan)
 Entry is repeated in the regular course of business and made at or near the time of
 When BER does not apply

Bar Bet Notes
Exclusive use for Bar Bets only
By: Arfil Sta. Ana Yongco
Page 1

Tandoy) o Waiver (Dela Cruz vs.) o Original consists of numerous accounts  Establish the numerous nature the documents  Original is made accessible to the adverse party(Compania Meritima vs. destroyed or cannot be presented in court  Establish the existence and due execution of the original  May be proven by testimonial witness o Either party o A witness to the execution o Notary Public o Any person who was shown the copy of the original o Someone who was made aware by either party about the execution of the contract  Prove the fact of loss of ALL the original (De Vera vs Aguilar) o Any person who is personally aware of the fact of loss o Anyone who can prove that he exerted reasonable efforts to locate the missing document in the place where it is usually kept o A person who made any other form of examination to locate the original  Prove the contents o Copy of the original o Certification or recital of the contents in other authentic documents o Testimony of a witness  No Bad Faith o Original is in the custody of the adverse party  Prove the existence of the original  Prove that it is in possession of the adverse party  Prove that with reasonable notice he was unable to produce the original (Shangri-La vs BF Corp. o Original is a public record  Electronic Evidence o Rules on Authentication  As Documentary Evidence o It was digitally signed by the person who is purported to have signed it o Any procedure on authentication authorized by SC or Law Bar Bet Notes Exclusive use for Bar Bets only By: Arfil Sta. Allied Free Workers)  Facts sought to be established are mere general result of the whole instrument. Rule 130) o Original has been lost. EVIDENCE o Document is merely collateral to the fact in issue (Air France vs. Ana Yongco Page 2 . CA)  Exceptions to BER (Sec 3. Carracoso) o Purpose is to establish a fact which has an existence independent from the document (Meyers o Express or Implied Admission of the genuineness and due execution of the document o Purpose is to prove external matters (People vs.

Ana Yongco Page 3 . Testimonial Evidence  A witnesses perception of a past event being recollected and communicated to the court in any form of communication  Qualifications of a Witness o Personal Knowledge/Perception o Capacity to Remember o Communication o Take an Affirmation or Oath o Not Disqualified by Law  Disqualification Rule o Mental Incapacity o Immaturity(Child as a Witness) o Spousal Immunity  Except  Civil case between each other Bar Bet Notes Exclusive use for Bar Bets only By: Arfil Sta. Ramos)  Exception to the exception – Statute of Frauds o Exception to the exception to the exception – Partially/Fully executed  Validity of the agreement(Oreta vs.)  Failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties(Enriquez vs. EVIDENCE o Any other evidence as long as the court is satisfied to the integrity and reliability of the electronic evidence  As Object Evidence o Someone who caused the recording o Someone who can testify as to the accuracy of the recording  Authentication of Text Messages ( People vs Enojas) o Party to the communication o Anyone aware of the communication  Parol Evidence Rule o Applies only to documentary evidence o Precludes presentation of any other evidence than the written agreement  Where Parol Evidence Does Not Apply o Document do not constitute a contract(Cruz vs CA) o 1 of the parties to the suit is not a party to the contract(Lechugas vs CA)  Stipulation pour autrui(Pacres vs Ygona) o Collateral Agreement Rule(Robles vs Hermanos) o Failure to object(Willex vs CA)  Exceptions to PER o Needs to be put in issue to the pleadings  Intrinsic ambiguity. Oreta)  Agreement subsequent to the written agreement(Canoto vs Mariano) III. mistake or imperfection(Palanca vs Wilson Co.

or person in behalf the suit is prosecuted is disqualified to testify (Guerrero vs St. administrator. Ana Yongco Page 4 . EVIDENCE  Criminal case for crimes commited by one against the other or against the direct ascendants or descendant of the other  With consent of the AFFECTED spouse  When the reason for the rule does not anymore exist (Alvarez vs. Claire)  DMS does not Apply  If the estate interposes a counterclaim against the complainant (Gunye vs CA)  Represented by an agent and the agent was still alive (Gunye vs CA)  Something the deceased could not rebut even if he were still alive  Testimonies on events that occurred after the death (Mendezona vs Vda. Union Assurance Life) o Physician-Patient  Applies only in Civil Cases  Made in the course of professional employment  Treatment given in the Dr’s professional capacity (Lim vs. Ramirez)  Valid Marriage  Affected spouse is a party to the case  Marriage still subsists o Dead Man Statute  Defendant is sued as executor. or representative of the deceased (Guerrero vs St. CA)  Given in Confidence Bar Bet Notes Exclusive use for Bar Bets only By: Arfil Sta. De Guitia)  Negative Testimony  Privilege Communication o Spouses  There must be a Valid Marriage  Given in CONFIDENCE  Exception o Civil case between the spouses o Criminal case for crimes commited by one against the other or against the direct ascendants or descendant of the other o When the privileged information has been relayed to a 3rd person (People vs Carlos) o Lawyer-Client  Lawyer-Client Relationship  Except  Common defense or Joint interest (US vs. Sandiganbayan)  Given in CONFIDENCE (Uichico vs. Claire)  Suit AGAINST the estate ( Tiongco vs Vianzon)  Only the plaintiff. heir. Mcpartlin)  Information is in respect to a PAST Crime/Act (People vs. assignor.

EVIDENCE  May only be invoked against a person authorized to practice medicine. or obstetrics (Krohn vs CA) o Priest – Penitence  Given during confession  Minister is duly ordained by the church Bar Bet Notes Exclusive use for Bar Bets only By: Arfil Sta. surgery. Ana Yongco Page 5 .