You are on page 1of 50

EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

PROVISIONS
RULE 129 General Provisions
RULE 128. SEC. 1 Evidence defined. Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining
in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.

Case Cano vs PNP [1]


Why need to determine whether:
o Pure Question of Fact appeal before the CA or other appellate lower court
o Pure Question of Law can make appeal directly to SC
o Mixed Questions of Law and Fact - appeal before the CA or other appellate lower court

Quantum of Proof:
o Proof beyond reasonable doubt criminal cases
o Preponderance of evidence civil cases
o Substantial Evidence administrative cases
o Clear and convincing evidence certain cases
o Least limitable quantum- quantum of conscience (e.g. impeachment cases)

[CODAL R128, Sec. 1] Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules xxx (emphasis supplied)

o What is the meaning - sanctioned by these rules?


Evidence must be allowed by the Rules of Court.

o There are the several provisions that may be considered as evidentiary rules.
(1) Art 1403 NCC statutes of frauds requirement ( in writing)
(2) Art. 2199, in torts, in actual damages that needs to be proven actual pecuniary loss in relation
to Art 2216 in MENTL damages no proof of pecuniary loss is needed
(3) With respect to moral, nominal, temperate, exemplary and liquidated damages, Art. 2216
provides that we are not supposed to present proof of pecuniary loss for you to be entitled
for those type of damages. Thats the evidentiary rule.
(4) To be entitled to liquidated damages - Do not prove your injury; prove that a contract has
been breached.
(5) Res ipsa loquitor the thing speaks for itself; This is a common-law doctrine which tells you
that in a particular situation which leads to no other conclusion than that the damage was definitely
caused by a particular actor, then he should be held liable for his negligence
EFFECT?
That would lead to a disputable presumption that he was negligent.
It throws upon the other party a burden of proof. In that case, it was the burden of
the vessel to prove that it was not negligent.
Case:
RP vs Luzon Stevedoring [2]
(6) Another is the constitutional presumption of innocence; the requirement that the guilt must
be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[CODAL R128, Sec. 1] Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding xxx (emphasis supplied)
o What does it mean of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding?
Page | 1
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

Rules of Evidence is actually applicable to judicial proceedings only, in a strict sense.


Because there exists non-judicial proceedings (administrative, quasi-judicial) and so, how
does the law treat of evidence presented in non-judicial proceedings?

o GENERAL RULE:
When the proceedings are administrative or quasi-judicial, the rules on evidence are not strictly
applicable.
Case:
Samar Electric vs. NLCRC [3]
Morales vs NLRC [4]
QUALIFIED:
But, such liberality in the application of the rules of evidence does not mean that the
hearing officer himself can also disregard the rules.
Case
Kanlaon Construction v. NLRC [5]
Baguio Country Club vs NLRC [6]
[CODAL R128, Sec. 1] Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding,
the truth respecting a matter of fact.
o What are the different types of facts:
(1) Ultimate Facts (Factum Probandum)- are principal, determinate and constituted facts upon
which the existence of the plaintiffs cause of action or defendants defense rests; factum
probandum are simply propositions
Example:
A killed B (proposition)

(2) Evidentiary Facts (Factum Probans) - these are facts necessary for the determination
of the ultimate facts. As in the law of pleadings, evidentiary facts are not supposed to be included.
In re the FACTUM PROBANDUM above, the factum probans may be:
(1) Body of the victim
(2) Stab wound
(3) murder weapon, etc.

Ultimate Facts vs Evidentiary Facts

Ultimate Facts Evidentiary Facts


Represent Propositions to be established Constitute the material in evidencing the
proposition
HYPOTHETICAL Hence, EXISTENT

o In legal contemplation
FORMULA: MATTER OF FACT = QUESTION OF FACT
In words: When you say matter of fact, you are actually saying question of fact
So, Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a
judicial proceeding the truth respecting a QUESTION OF FACT.
Question of Fact vs Question of Law
Case: Cano vs Chief of PNP
Question of Fact
when doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the
alleged fact.
By Sir E: You use the rules on evidence to ascertain the truth
respecting that matter or question of fact.
o Example: W/N the accused is responsible for the murder
Question of Law
when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a
certain set of facts

Page | 2
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

By Sir E: You apply the law involved, the law from which the
question arose
o Example: W/N the following set of facts lead to the
application of the law

o In order to DETERMINE A MATTER OF FACT (or question of fact), evidence must be provided, thus,
important to determine the following concepts on evidence:

DIFFERENT CLASSES OF EVIDENCE


(A) As to TYPES:
(1) Object/Real Evidence
Ref: R130, Sec. 1
those addressed to the senses of the court, those exhibited to,
examined and viewed by the Court
This evidence consists in tangible evidence, that which can be
appreciated by the exercise of your senses.
Examples: a murder weapon, an injury (scar), other matters
relating to the physical appearance of an object.
Therefore, when a court appreciates object evidence, it exercises its sense
of sight, touch, hearing, taste and smell.
(2) Documentary Evidence
Ref: Rule 130, Sec 2
Documents as evidence consists of writings or any material
containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other
modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents
the court exercises intelligence
Example- OBJECT EVIDENCE vis--vis DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE
o color of this class card exercising sense of sight, relating
to physical characteristic then object evidence; but if it
relates now to the contents of the class card then it
becomes documentary evidence.
(3) Demonstrative Evidence
may still be in the form of objects; Such as: maps, scales, models,
symbols, diagrams or objects
by itself, no probative value but is used to illustrate and clarify a factual
matter in issue or aid a testimony;
court still exercises INTELLIGENCE
(4) Testimonial/Oral Evidence
These are oral or written assertion offered in a court as a proof of the truth
of what is being stated
By a witness who:
(1) Can PERCEIVE
(2) If perceiving, CAN MAKE KNOWN HIS PERCEPTION
There is requirement of:
o Recollection; and
o Communication
Types of Testimonial Evidence (People vs Balleno[7] ):
(1) Oral made in open court before the judge
(2) Written affidavits, depositions
If there is CONFLICT between the two, it is the ORAL TESTIMONY that
prevails.
o Why? Sir E: Since affidavits are products of lawyers
OBJECT EVIDENCE vs DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE vs TESTIMONY
Hierarchy of the 3 types:
Case: People vs Lavapie

Page | 3
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

o The SC held that greater credence is given to physical


evidence as evidence of the highest order because it
speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.
This is because object evidence is self-evident.
GSIS vs CA
o The SC held that testimonial evidence is easy of
fabrication and there is very little room for choice
between testimonial evidence and documentary
evidence. Generally, therefore, documentary evidence
prevails over testimonial evidence.
Sir E:
But in order to be appreciated by the court, there has to be
somebody who will identify, authenticate or give legal significance
to them in relation to the fact in issue.
Therefore, even if they ran very high in the hierarchy of evidence,
these objects cannot present themselves without the witness and
thus the testimonial evidence, even if so unreliable, is the only way
by which the object and documentary evidence can be presented.
THUS, despite the hierarchy, testimonial seems to be the
most important one.

(B) As to WHETHER IT AFFIRMS OR NEGATES


(1) Positive Evidence when a witness AFFIRMS that a fact occurred or did
not occur

(2) Negative Evidence when the witness AVERS that he did not see or know
the occurrence of fact.
Example:
Alibi neither confirming nor denying.
Negative Pregnant / Pregnant Denial
Is a form of negative expression which carries with it an
affirmation or an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse
party.
It is a denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial facts
alleged in the pleading.

For Further Explanation:

(1) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Negative+pregnant

A negative pregnant is a denial of an allegation in which a person actually admits more than he/she denies by denying
only a part of the alleged fact. Example: Plaintiff alleges Defendant "misused more than a hundred thousand dollars
placed in his trust in 1994." Defendant denies the amount was more than a hundred thousand, and denies it was
given to him in 1994." Thus, the defendant did not deny the misuse, just the amount and the date.

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_pregnant

A negative pregnant (sometimes called a pregnant denial) refers to a denial which implies its affirmative opposite by
seeming to deny only a qualification of the allegation and not the allegation itself. For example, "I deny that I owe the
plaintiff five hundred dollars" might imply that the person making the statement owes some other sum of money,
and was only denying that they owe that particular amount.

Effect by using NEGATIVE PREGNANT:

Page | 4
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

o Effect of negative pregnant denial in civil procedure is


ADMISSION.

Case on POSITIVE EVIDENCE vs NEGATIVE EVIDENCE:


People vs Macalaba [8]
Positive Evidence prevails over a Negative Evidence
(C) As to MATERIALITY
(1) Material Evidence
when it tends to prove or disprove the fact in issue in a case;
What is a fact in issue then? And how do you determine it?
Fact in issue
o WHEN THE PARTIES HAVE CONFLICTING
VERSIONS OF THE FACTS
By examining the pleadings (joinder of issues)
Example of material evidence(by Sir E):
Allegation: There is non-payment of loan
For plaintiff: promissory note
o the material evidence from plaintiffs point of view
For defendant: receipt
o the material evidence from defendants point of view
Is SELF-EVIDENT When you look at a particular piece of evidence,
there is no need to draw inferences from the evidence.
(2) Immaterial Evidence
One which does not tend to prove a fact or issue.
The offered evidential fact is directed to prove some probandum which is
not proper in issue.
The rules of substantive law and of pleading are what determine
immateriality.

(D) As to ADMISSIBILITY
(1) Competent Evidence
Offered evidence is not excluded by some rule of evidence; Hence,
ADMISSIBLE.
The opposite of competent evidence is NOT INCOMPETENT evidence, it
denotes of a different meaning in evidence
Sir E: You say that when a witness is not qualified, therefore
incompetent to give evidence. When you say competent
evidence (used to describe objects), it is not excluded by the
Rules of Court, it means that the evidence is admissible.

(2) Inadmissible Evidence


Offered evidence is excluded by some rule of evidence

Examples of rules not provided by the Rules that provide for competent
evidence:
Bill of Rights Article III. Section 2.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to
be seized.

Page | 5
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

Bill of Rights Article III. Section 3.


(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall
be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public
safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.

Rule 26. Admission of parties. Sec. 5.


Effect of failure to file and serve request for admission. Unless
otherwise allowed by the court for good cause shown and to
prevent a failure of justice, a party who fails to file and serve a
request for admission on the adverse party of material and
relevant facts at issue which are, or ought to be, within the
personal knowledge of the latter, shall not be permitted to
present evidence on such facts.

(E) As to RELEVANCY
(1) Relevant Evidence
Evidence which has a tendency in reason to establish a probability or
improbability of the fact in issue.
Relevant evidence is tending to prove or disproves a material fact.
Evidence having a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of
consequence to the determination of any action more or less probable
than it would be without the evidence.
Example:
Example of Dean Inigo: So there was a shooting of a person. He
was shot right between the eyes from a far distance. A was the
suspect. During the trial of A, prosecution presented evidence
tending to prove that A was a former Olympic gold medalist in
shooting.
Q: Is the evidence material?
o No.
Does it tend to prove that A killed the victim?
o It does not.
Q: But even if it is not material, is it relevant? It may be
relevant, why?
o Because his ability as a sharp shooter. It may not be
MATERIAL but it is RELEVANT. So that evidence in all
probability will be admitted.

(2) Irrelevant/Unrelated Evidence


It is the opposite; not related
therefore objectionable and can properly be ruled to be excluded by the
court

Analysis: What is the distinction between materiality and relevancy?


As to materiality, evidence is offered to prove or disprove a specific fact
in issue. Relevancy, on the other hand, evidence has the tendency in
reason to establish the probability or the improbability of the fact claimed.
Materiality is a direct proof; in relevancy, evidence may either be direct
or circumstantial. Material, self-evident; relevancy, may require
reasoning and inference. Material evidence is always relevant but
relevant evidence is not always material.

THUS:
Page | 6
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

MATERIAL RELEVANT
Offered to prove or disprove a Evidence has the tendency in
specific fact in issue reason to establish the probability
or improbability of the fact claimed.
DIRECT proof Either be DIRECT or
CIRCUMSTANTIAL
Self-evident May require reasoning and
inference
ALWAYS relevant NOT ALWAYS material

(F) As to the NEED TO INFER OR PRESUME


(1) Direct Evidence
It is proof that if belief establishes the truth or falsity of the fact in issue and
therefore does not arise from mere presumption;
Is that which proves a fact in dispute, directly, without an inference or
presumption, and which in itself, if true, conclusively establishes that
fact.
Example:
direct testimony that the victim was shot.

(2) Circumstantial Evidence


It is evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various
attendant circumstances from which the judge might infer the
occurrence of the fact in dispute;
Merely collaterally relevant to the fact in issue.
Example:
Witnessing the running of the accused away from the crime
scene.

Case: People vs Ramos [9]


The SC held that the evidence is either direct or circumstantial.
Under our Rules of Court, conviction based on circumstantial evidence
is sufficient if:
(1) There is more than one circumstance;
(2) The facts from which the inference are derived are proven;
and
(3) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

(G) As to SUPPORTING EVIDENCE


(1) Cumulative
Is additional evidence of the same kind and character as that already given
and tends to prove the same proposition.
Example of Cumulative Evidence:
Lets say youre trying to prove that A shot B, that is your factum
probandum (proposition) and your facti probans (evidentiary
facts) would be:
o (i) C testifying A shot B,
o (ii) D testifying that A shot B,
o (iii) E testifying that A shot B.
That is merely cumulative evidence(C, D and E testimonies). It
is the same kind - testimonial evidence; and tending to prove the
same thing that A shot B.

(2) Corroborative

Page | 7
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

is additional evidence of a different kind and character tending to prove


the same point but different types of evidence.
Example of Corroborative Evidence:
(1) Your testimonial evidence tending to prove A shot B
(2) You also have object evidence in the form of photograph
showing A shot B.
(3) You also have an affidavit of the confession of A saying he
shot B.
These are different types of evidence proving that A shot B.
Corroborative evidence is only necessary when there are reasons to
suspect that the witness did not tell the truth or that his observation had
been inaccurate; because normally the testimony of a lone witness is
sufficient.

With regard to SUPPORTING EVIDENCES [so, under (G). As to SUPPORTING


EVIDENCES], the SC said that:

EVIDENCE is assessed in terms of QUALITY, NOT QUANTITY

Sir E discussion:
See the court may consider the number of witness though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. What
Im trying to point out that fact that the number of evidences are
not the determining factor in arriving to the conclusion of the
court. Can you win a case without introduction of evidence? Yes
under Rule 9 when you are declared in default, the court can
decide the case based on the prayer of the complaint. What about
in a criminal case? A rape case. Yes, if there is no prima facie
evidence against the accused.

What is PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE?


It is evidence sufficient to establish a fact and if not rebutted becomes
conclusive of a fact.

Example:
In cases of bribery, the acceptance of a gift of a public officer is
deemed prima facie evidence of bribery.

What is BURDEN OF PROOF?


Is the duty to present evidence on the disputed facts of the case necessary
to establish ones claim of defense by the AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE
required by law.
Burden of proof is the opposite of BENEFIT OF ASSUMPTION.
For example:
In a criminal case, there is Presumption of Innocence (in the case,
it is the benefit of assumption), meaning, if no evidence is
presented, the person who has this benefit of assumption must
prevail.
Has two(2) meanings:
(1) BURDEN OF PERSUASION burden of establishing a
PRIMA FACIE CASE; burden of convincing the judge that all the
elements of a cause of action is present;
(2) BURDEN OF PROOF GOING FORWARD when a party has
already established a prima facie case or defense by evidence of
such character, then it is incumbent upon the other party to
REBUT IT or CONTRADICT; The burden is shifted from one party
to the other.
Page | 8
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

Examples [not actual case, example only]:


Criminal Case:
o Example in People vs Lao. It is the burden of the
prosecution to prove that Lao is guilty of acts of
lasciviousness. So it has to present evidence why? In the
meantime Lao is entitled to the benefit of the assumption,
why? Remember in the 1987 Consti, you are still innocent
until the contrary is proved. What if the prosecution was
able to present evidence, it means that it was able to
establish what is known as prima facie case. So now
it shifted, it is the duty of Lao to defeat the prima facie
evidence, the burden of proof has already shifted to Lao.
Civil Case:
o Juyo vs Lao. Collection for sum of money. There is
evidence of a promissory note. What would be the effect
of burden of proof and benefit of assumption in a civil
case? Who has the burden of proving and who has the
benefit of assumption? The law in evidence is that
whoever alleges has the burden of proof. So its Juyo
who has the burden of proof to establish a prima facie
case.
o What if Juyo was able to present a prima facie case? So
she wins the case.

What if she was not able to present a prima facie


case? Will Lao have to present evidence? No,
because the benefit of assumption that was
with you at the beginning of the case remains
with you since Juyo was not able to present a
prima facie case.

(H) As to CONTROVERSION
(1) Prima Facie Evidence evidence that is sufficient to establish a fact and if
not rebutted, becomes a CONCLUSIVE FACT
Example:
BP 22 Cases there is a prima facie evidence that the offense
was committed that the offender has a PRIMA FACIE knowledge
of the insufficiency of funds.
Prima Facie evidence can still be REFUTED.

(2) Conclusive Evidence it is no longer susceptible of contrary proof.


It is a legal proposition which no controversion or contestation is allowed.
Example:
A child below 9 years old is exempt from Criminal Liablity; Why?
Because the law CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMES that a child below
9 years old is INCAPABLE OF DISCERNMENT.
o What do you present then in this case for the conclusive
presumption to set in?
The BIRTH CERTIFICATE showing that the
accused child is below that 9 years of age.
(3) Rebuttal Evidence
Is simply the evidence that you present to combat the effects of a prima
facie case established against you.

Sir E discussion of shifting of BURDEN OF PROOF and BENEFIT OF


ASSUMPTION:
Page | 9
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

Now mas importante ang prima facie evidence. Once there is a prima
facie evidence, burden of proof is shifted. The benefit of assumption is
transferred from one party to another. Prima facie evidence if established
and unrebutted would be sufficient to produce a conviction

Page | 10
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

Illustration[correct me if wrong]:

SHIFTED to Party A: SHIFTED to PARTY B:


BENEFIT OF ASSUMPTION BURDEN OF PROOF

But in cases where it is a JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE different


situation of burden of proof and benefit of assumption shifting.
Now in practice, is there a way where you can determine before you
present any evidence if a prima facie evidence has been established?
Now what is Rule 33 in civil procedure? You file a demurrer to evidence.
What is the nature? Is a motion to dismiss except that it is not a motion to
dismiss under Rule 16 but under Rule 33. And what it your only ground?
That the evidence presented is that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief. That
is like saying that there is no establish prima facie evidence. Diba a
demurrer of evidence you file it after the presentation of evidence in chief.
If the court grants your demurrer, you win. If the court does not grant it, the
plaintiff was able to establish a prima facie case. Remember that
demurrer can be in civil or criminal cases. Remember also the
difference of demurrer in civil or criminal. (Always asked in the bar)

(I) As to the TENOR OF TESTIMONY we are talking here about TESTIMONIAL


EVIDENCE
(1) ORDINARY TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
Testimony of witness must be based on his PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
Personal Knowledge derived from his own perception; what he
saw, heard, felt, smelled, touched, etc.
Any testimony that is not derived from ones own personal knowledge is
considered HEARSAY.
REQUIREMENT FOR ORDINARY TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE:
(1) Perception
(2) Recollection
(3) Communication
You experienced, perceived it. You remember it.

Page | 11
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

(2) OPINION EVIDENCE


An opinion as testimonial evidence is one which is not based on your
perception but based on your beliefs and prejudices
Is opinion as testimonial evidence allowed in court? As a general
rule, it is not allowed. Why? Because every fact in issue will simply not
be a fact finding effort but becomes a mere survey or popularity.
But there is are exceptions to this rule:
(i) Expert Opinion
o It is presented in court which is beyond the knowledge of
the court
o For example: you present the medico legal officer who
conducted the autopsy of the victim
(ii) Ordinary Opinion
o When it would be admissible? For example in a case you
are the witness of a hit and run. Then you are examined
in court. That is a valid opinion because you testifying on
your perception to the facts what you saw in the accident.
That is ordinary opinion.

(3) CHARACTER OR REPUTATION EVIDENCE


Generally, not acceptable.
Evidence which attests to ones character and moral standing in
community; generally, ones character of a party is legally irrelevant in
determining the controversy
It is not acceptable for 2 reasons:
(1) Immaterial
(2) Irrelevant
Examples:
(1) One is charged with falsification; then you present evidence
that he falsified his drivers license.
(2) For example there is this guy who is accused of estafa. Then
a former classmate testifies, that when they were younger, he
used to steal baon from you. Is that admissible in court? Is not
admissible because of the 2 reasons: It is immaterial and it is
irrelevant.
o Why immaterial? Would that character evidence prove
that he really stole from the employer- the fact in issue?
o In fact you are violating another rule called the RES
INTER ALIUS ACTA
the rule provides evidence of one did or did
not do nothing at a particular time is not
evidence that he did another thing at a
different time.

The rule on res inter alios acta provides that the


rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another.

(3) Simply put, A rape B, A rape C therefore A rape D? You cannot


conclude that. You have to prove each particular instance. That is
immaterial and irrelevant

Now you can see it is not relevant based on your premises. We are not
talking proofs here, we are only talking of probabilities.
So character evidence is evidence attesting to ones character and
moral standing in the community.

Page | 12
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

Generally a character of a party is regarded as legally irrelevant in


determining a controversy. When allowed the character evidence shall be
limited to traits and characteristics involved in type of defense.

(J) As to THE SOURCE OF EVIDENCE


(1) Intrinsic or Parole Evidence Rule
It is information necessary for the determination of an issue that is
gleamed from the provisions of the document itself.
Example:
Lets say A and B entered into a contract of sale which reduced to
writing. Is B allowed to say that it is a lease contract? No, because
based on the intrinsic evidence which is the provisions of the
contract it can be gleamed that it is a contract of sale.

Example of a rule that applies this is under:

Rule 130. Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. When


the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there
can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written
agreement

(2) Extrinsic Evidence/ Evidence Aliunde


It is a source outside the subject document itself. If you are trying to prove
something that is outside the document, that is not allowed. What do you
mean by evidence aliunde? It means evidence from other sources other
than the document itself.

(K) As to ORIGINALITY
(1) Primary evidence
Is the evidence which the law regards as affecting the greatest certainty
of the fact in question.
For example, in a crime of murder. What would be primary evidence?
Perhaps an eyewitness account that A shot B or it can be photographic
evidence clearly showing A shooting B.

(2) Secondary evidence


Is evidence of inferior or substitutionary nature.
Its not the best one. Its not the genuine original. It is only a copy of the
original. It merely indicates an existence of a more original source of
information.
For example you have photocopy of a contract you present in court. What
does it mean? It means there is an original of the photocopy making it
merely secondary or substitutionary.
Now we will learn later on under rule 130 sec 3, we have there the best
evidence rule which provides that when the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the
original document itself. It tells you it has to be the original but sec 3 also
tells you of exceptions to the rule.
Case: People vs Ayupan
That a testimony of a lone witness, if found by the trial court to be positive,
categorical, or credible is sufficient to support a conviction.
Page | 13
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

Rule 128. Section 2. Scope. The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and
hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules.

[CODAL R128, Sec. 2] The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings xxx
o What does it mean in all trials and hearings?
It is applicable to all:
(1) CIVIL CASES
(2) CRIMINAL CASES

[CODAL R128, Sec. 2] The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearing, except
as otherwise provided by law or these rules.
o What does it mean except as otherwise provided by law or these rules?
Are there types of cases that would be governed by other rules of evidence? Yes.
There are, like in the following cases:
(1) When you talk about the examination of child witness.
o Before that, I want you to be acquainted with the concept of leading question.
A leading question is a question that is suggesting the answer to the
witness which the proponent wants to hear.
A non-leading question begins with who, what, where, why, how. It
requires a specific answer. In usual direct examination, it should be who,
what, where, why, how.
Leading questions are objectionable.

o Now that rule against leading questions does not apply to rule in examining
child witness.
o Case:
People vs Santos [10]
children have problems in providing accounts of events because
they dont understand everything they experience. They have
limited vocabulary, limited comprehension that they have been
sexually abused. Most of the times they dont know what happen
to them

(2) The rules on summary procedure where affidavits take the place of actual
testimonies.

(3) The rules on small claims-procedure. In these cases, there is no direct


examination, cross examination or redirect. In fact you dont submit any affidavits. You
simply fill up forms there. It is recognizable in the courts of justice but it does not follow the
rules on evidence.

(4) Now there is this JA (judicial affidavit) which has already been accepted. The usual
interrogatories are reduced into writing prior to the introduction of the witnesses.

(5) d There is a rule of procedure by the Dept. of Agrarian Reform and Adjudication

Rule 128. Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue
and is not excluded by the law of these rules.

Page | 14
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

Rule 128. Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in
issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be
allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the
fact in issue.

THE TWO REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

o (1) RELEVANCY
Sec. 4:
Those with DIRECT RELATION to the fact in issue which may INDUCE BELIEF in its
existence or non-existence; and
Those COLLATERAL MATTERS which tends to establish THE PROBABILITY OR
IMPROBABILITY of a fact in issue
Sir E Explanation:
o Let us suppose this eraser is an object evidence. Five senses may be used to
appreciate this evidence. In relevancy, what is used is common sense. e.g. In
a murder case, you need to prove your factum probandum (ULIMATE FACTS)
otherwise you will lose your case. At the crime scene, possible evidence would be
a gun, cigarette, blood stained clothes. An ID is not directly answering the question
on murder but may be relevant also.

o Now how do we ensure that the things will establish murder. For example the gun?
An expert witness may be used. Or an autopsy may be made to link the gun and
the bullet.

o Each of the evidence must be proved (factum probans). Everything here would
place the accused in the scene of the crime. All these evidence are relevant
evidence.

o This is what we call as evidence on collateral matters. They do not directly


prove the fact in issue, but they tend to advance the inquiry into the factum
probandum. What the treatment is under the rules is that they are made
admissible. Not directly material but since it forwards an inquiry into the
factum probandum to establish of probability or improbability of the fact in issue,
they are made admissible.

o Keyword: TEND TO ADVANCE THE INQUIRY

o (2) COMPETENCY
Sec. 3
NOT EXCLUDED by the law or these rules.

Laws that would affect the competency of evidence during trial:


(1) Constitutional Provisions that would affect COMPETENCY OF EVIDENCE are the
following:
o (1) Section 2, Article III (unlawful search and seizure). Talks about the fruit of the
poisonous tree (may refer to documentary or object evidence).
o (2) Section 3, Article III (privacy of communication)
o (3) Section 12, Article III (Miranda doctrine). Talks about testimonial evidence.
o (4) Section 17, Article III (right against self-incrimination). Talks about
testimonial evidence.
(2) RA 4200 THE ANTI-WIRETAPPING LAW
o It is grounded upon the privacy of persons protected under the constitution
o Exceptions to non-admissibility of wire-tapped conversations:
(i) Where there is consent between the parties

Page | 15
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

Case: Salcedo Case


o Involves declaration of nullity of marriage. The husband
instructed military operatives to wiretap conversation of
his wife. The issue here is WON the wiretap conversation
may be used as evidence to declare the marriage a nullity.
SC declared that the wiretap was not admissible. No
consent by the TWO PARTIES.
(ii) It is not private
Even without consent is not covered by the anti-wiretapping law
because there is no reservation of expectation of my privacy.
o Example, I shouted that I will kill Mateo. You can use that
against me because I did not reserve an expectation to
privacy.

TO REMEMBER AND TAKE NOTE!!!


Remember that materiality is different from relevancy. Materiality is the ability of evidence to
point the fact in issue in the case. Relevancy is that evidence must have such a relation to the
fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. We are not talking here of certainly
but merely probability or improbability based on the shirt, gun or ID.
John Henry Wigmore advances two requirement for admission of evidence:
1. Axiom of Relevancy those facts with RATIONAL PROBATIVE VALUE
2. Axiom of Competency all facts having rational probative value are admissible unless prohibited
by some specific rule.

Thus, only those facts which have rational probative value are admissible.
When you say rational probative value, you are talking about whether it advances the inquiry or
not. If it does, then it is relevant.
Probative value means the tendency of evidence to make a fact of consequence more or less
probable than it would be without evidence. It has probative worth whether affirmative or
negative. If it makes you believe or not believe, it still has probative worth. In laymans terms, it refers
to the believability. Or in a court of law, it refers to credibility, katuohan ba siya whether you are in
(3) RA 9372 THE ANTI TERRORISM LAW
the negative or affirmative side of the issue.
o RA 9372. Section 7. A police or law enforcement official and the members of his
team may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and
record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other
surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of any
other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any communication, message,
conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words between members of a
judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group
of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism

o Sir E: You ask me, this is a very, very weak law. Why? Because it does not
really specifically define what terrorism is all about. It cites or lists down
provisions of RPC and uses them as terrorism acts.

o RA 9372. Section 3. Terrorism

Page | 16
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

RA 9372. Section 3. Terrorism. Any person who commits an act


punishable under any of the following provisions of the Revised Penal
Code:
a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the
Philippine Waters);
b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
c. Article 134-a (Coup d' Etat), including acts committed by private
persons;
d. Article 248 (Murder);
e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);
f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction), or under
g. Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);
h. Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear
Waste Control Act of 1990);
i. Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of
1968);
j. Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);
k. Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery
Law of 1974
l. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws
on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition
or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives);

Thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary


fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to
give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism
and shall suffer the penalty of 40 years of imprisonment, without the
benefit of parole as provided for under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended

(4) RA 1405 Bank Secrecy Law


o RA 1405 in relation to Section 27 of RA 9372

RA 9372. Section 27. Judicial Authorization Required to Examine Bank Deposits, Accounts, and
Records. The provisions of Republic Act No. 1405 as amended, to the contrary
notwithstanding, the justices of the Court of Appeals designated as a special court to handle
anti-terrorism cases after satisfying themselves of the existence of probable cause in a
hearing called for that purpose that: (1) a person charged with or suspected of the crime of
terrorism or, conspiracy to commit terrorism, (2) of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist
organization, association, or group of persons; and (3) of a member of such judicially declared
and outlawed organization, association, or group of persons, may authorize in writing any
police or law enforcement officer and the members of his/her team duly authorized in
writing by the anti-terrorism council to: (a) examine, or cause the examination of, the
deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records in a bank or financial institution;
and (b) gather or cause the gathering of any relevant information about such deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets, and records from a bank or financial institution. The bank
or financial institution concerned, shall not refuse to allow such examination or to provide the
desired information, when so, ordered by and served with the written order of the Court of
Appeals.

Page | 17
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

o Nobody is allowed to inquire into your bank deposits because no person is


compelled to disclose information about his wealth
EXCEPT:
(1)You do it every year when you pay taxes so that the
government would know whether you pay the right amount of
taxes
(2) When you enter public service through SALN.
o Again under RA 9327, the Court of Appeals may order you to open your accounts.
o Anti-money laundering council may also order you to open your accounts.

(5) RA 9165 DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972


o ***Insert RA 9165 Sec.21 here****
o Why is CHAIN OF CUSTODY important?
The Chain of Custody is important because it is to preserve the evidence
WITHOUT ANY TAMPERING.
o Why preserve the evidence?
It is important to preserve the evidence because the PENALTY IS BASED
ON the WEIGHT of the drugs discovered.

o In regard to COMPLIANCE with the CHAIN OF CUSTODY:


People vs Eugenio[11]
Failing to comply with the provision of Section 2 of R.A. No. 9165
does not necessarily doom the case for the prosecution, however.
People v. Pringas enlightens:
o Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with
Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground
therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the confiscated/seized items, are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Its non-
compliance will not render an accused's arrest illegal or
the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What
is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
Failing to comply with the provision of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165
does not necessarily doom the case for the prosecution.

Sir E:
So if you dont follow Section 21, it does not automatically
render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible. So
if you dont follow Section 21, the items may not automatically be
rejected as evidence.
People vs Macatinag Non-compliance with the CHAIN OF CUSTODY
does not affect admissibility but the believability of evidence

People vs Almorfe [12]


The accused in Almorfe was acquitted because SC didnt
appreciate the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Considering the Eugenio ruling, why did the SC rule differently


in Almorfe and acquitted the accused?

The Supreme Court said: While a perfect chain of custody is


almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain
becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of
drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering,
Page | 18
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

contamination and even substitution and exchange. Hence, every


link must be accounted for.

In fine, the prosecution failed to account for every link of the


chain starting from its turn over by Janet to the investigator, and
from the latter to the chemist.

In the case of Almorfe, the SC did not exclude the items as


evidence. It only declared that the integrity of evidence
(credibility) is questionable such that the chain of custody was
not followed. That is what the SC was saying.

The State argued that there was presumption of regularity. But


the SC said there were two presumption involve in this case. The
presumption of regularity and the other one is the presumption of
innocence. When there are two presumption involve, the weaker
presumption yields to the stronger presumption. In this case, the
presumption of innocence prevails over the presumption of
regularity.

Sir E:
There is NO CONFLICT between EUGENIO RULING and that
of the ALMORFIE RULING

By the reason that Secs. 3 and 4 talks about the ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, it is important to take note of the
TYPES OF ADMISSIBILITY:
o (1) Multiple Admissibility
PRINCIPLE No. 1: When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is admissible in so far as it satisfies
all rules applicable to it when offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy some other rule which
would be applicable to it offered for another purpose does not exclude it.
In other words, one piece of evidence can be admissible in different characters.
Examples:
o (1) A private document may be offered and admitted in evidence both as
documentary evidence and as object evidence depending on the purpose for which
the document is offered. private document can be both object and documentary
evidence. If private document is offered to prove its existence for any purpose
other than the contents of a document, the same is considered as object evidence.
When private document is offered as proof of its contents, the same is considered
as documentary evidence.

PRINCIPLE No. 2: This refers to a situation where a fact is offered for one purpose and is
admissible in so far as it satisfies all rules applicable to it if offered for such purpose and is able to
satisfy the rules applicable to it if offered for another purpose.
Example:
o Birth certificate required in bar examinations. It proves the age. But it proves
something else like place of birth, parents. That is multiple admissibility.
For example, hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is not admissible because testimonial
evidence must come from a witness who personally witnessed something (personal knowledge
dapat). But is it admissible for some other purpose. It is admissible to prove that it was
spoken. OK? Why would it be admissible? Because it would be the very fact in issue in the
case or it is circumstantial evidence of the fact in issue in the case. Medyo lisod pa ni siya ha.
Basta the evidence may not be admissible for one purpose but may be admissible in another
purpose.

For example: Bagundang, buang ka buang ka buang ka. And Marlie heard it.

Page | 19
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

It is inadmissible that Marlie heard Atty. Espejo was saying that Bagundang is buang
because she is testifying what other person was saying, because it is hearsay. You cannot
present what you heard from me.

But if the fact in issue in the case is that I said buang buang buang the testimony of
Marlie is admissible that in the fact Atty. Espejo said that Bagundang is buang.

It doesnt matter if she is buang or not. What matters is that I said that she is buang.
OK? That is Multiple Admissibility.

BQ: May a private document be offered and admitted as documentary evidence and object
evidence?
o Answer: YES!!! for the simple reason that for example that if my evidence is this
class card and the fact in issue is what is stated in the class card then yes it is
admissible as documentary evidence in the absence of other documents.
However, if the fact in issue is the shape or color of the classcard, then the
rectangular shape and green color is object evidence and also admissible.

o (2) Conditional Admissibility


Evidence is admissible only depending on other facts
It is received on expressed assurance of the counsel when objection is manifested that other facts
will be truly presented at a suitable opportunity before the case is closed.
In other words, the evidence may not be apparent by mere presentation but later on the party will
supply the relation. So it is conditionally admitted.
Example:
Cigarette during the murder of Gerard by Matteo. Is it admissible per se? It is not. What is
the relation? Even if you prove that the cigarette belongs to the killer. You only prove that
he smoked. Right now it may not be admitted because it has no relation but when you
prove the connection that Matteo actually used that cigarette later then the evidence
may be admitted. You must make the connection between your factum probans and
your factum probandum. Then that is conditional admissibility.

o (3) Curative Admissibility (PRINCIPLE OF CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY)


A party is allowed to introduce evidence on his behalf where the court has admitted the same
evidence adduced by other party to avoid manifest injustice.
Under summary rules, if you failed to submit affidavit, your witness is not allowed to testify. Only
when you previously submit affidavit then you are allowed to testify.
Under Judicial affidavit rule, the same rule applies.
Example:
Going back, I presented object evidence under summary rules which I didnt previously
mark. That is prohibited in summary rules or in pre-trial. If there is an objection, the court
must sustain it. But I pushed my luck. The court allowed it. Later on if my adverse
counsel will present evidence which is not also admissible to counteract the effects of
the inadmissible evidence I presented, I cannot object because that would be admitted
under the principle of curative admissibility to avoid manifest injustice

[RULE 128, Sec. 4] xxx Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends
in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
o COLLATERAL FACTS RULE
A document or writing which is merely collateral to the issue involved in the case on trial need not
be proved.
It may not relate to the FACT IN ISSUE but it has RELEVANCE because it tends to establish the
probability or improbability of a fact in issue.
Its a collateral matter circumstantial to the fact in issue.
It is not a DIRECT PROOF, but it is RELEVANT nonetheless
Page | 20
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

RULE 129 What need not be proved


Rule 129 WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVEN

Concepts in relation to Rule 129:


o (I) PRESUMPTIONS
Found in Rule 131
Presumption need not be proved.
Why?
o It is because precisely that the effect of a presumption a prima facie fact or a prima
facie case is established.
Sir E:
Perfect example would be in QUASI-DELICTS; effects of a presumption of a prima facie
evidence or a prima facie case.
The cornerstone of liability for Quasi-delicts would be proving negligence.
The defendant cannot be made liable without the plaintiff proving first or discharging first
that the defendant was negligent. Without any negligence there could be no liability.
If the plaintiff already establishes prima facie evidence of the defendants
negligence, thereby discharging the plaintiffs burden of proof appurtenant to such
case, and it is now the defendants turn to present evidence to disprove the
negligence the law or the evidence establishes.
But the law sometimes, such as in quasi-delicts, dispenses with the plaintiffs burden
to prove negligence, because the law now provides for the presumption. [This is
where the concept of PRESUMPTIONS come in]
o One example of this presumption is the presumption of the RES IPSA LOQUITOR
(The thing speaks for itself)
Case:
REPUBLIC VS LUZON STEVEDORING [2]
AFRICA vs CALTEX [13]

EFFECT of Presumptions (e.g. RES IPSA LOQUITOR)


It is not anymore the burden of the plaintiff to prove that there is negligence and that
is the effect of the presumption. So when a presumption is applied in case, it creates the
burden of disproving.
o For example, when the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies, the defendant now
has the burden of proving that there was no negligence.

TWO TYPES OF PRESUMPTIONS


(i) Conclusive Presumptions
o Is that which the LAW DOES NOT ALLOW TO BE CONTROVERTED.
o Example:
A tenant CANNOT DISPUTE the title of a landlord
The land lord therefore would already have in his favour the
presumption that he has good title to the property he is leasing
out.
A child below 9 years old is conclusively presumed to be incapable of
contributory negligence
Case: JARCO MARKETING vs CA [14]
In the same vein, the Revised Penal Code also provides that a
child below 9 years old is incapable of discernment

(ii) Disputable Presumptions

Page | 21
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

o Those which are satisfactory if uncontradicted but which may be contradicted


when overcome by other evidence.

o (II) JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS


Why are JUDICIAL ADMISSION CONCLUSIVE?
It is because an ADMISSION is GREATER THAN ALL PROOF.
Sir E:
o Why do you need to prove or disprove something when there is already an
admission? If you are the prosecutor for example, you burden is to prove that the
accused is the one who committed the crime. That is your burden. Do you need
to prove with evidence when there is an admission of confession that the
accused committed the crime? No need. That is judicial admission.

o (III) MATTER WHICH FALL WITHIN THE REALM OF JUDICIAL NOTICE


This is what is talked about in RULE 129
JUDICIAL NOTICE
Is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof
because they are ALREADY PROVEN.
It is a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of
the fact is so obvious or notorious or well-known that it cannot be refuted.
It is the cognizance of certain fact:
(i) by the court
(ii) without proof because;
(iii) they are facts which by common experience;
(iv) are of universal knowledge among intelligent persons;
(v) within a country or locality.
This is in line with the latin maxim:
Case RP vs SANDIGANBAYAN
o MANIFESTA PROBATIONE NON INDIGENT [I-remember nato para CHUY!]
Manifest things require no proof
Rationale why judicial notice is allowed:
(1) CONVENIENCE
(2) EXPEDIENCY
It will be superfluous to require proof; it would be inconvenient and expensive for both
parties and the court to require proof in the ordinary way of facts which are already known
to courts.
Insistence on not taking judicial notice will lead to absurdity
Example:
o Sir E:
For example, there is an American who is a witness in court. Of course,
he starts out by saying his name and personal circumstances for the
record. My name is lets say, Gerald Anderson, originally from Detroit,
Michigan. Can the court say What is that Detroit, Michigan? Of course,
it is in the United States. Where is this United States? It is in North
America. Where is this North America? Wouldnt that be absurd. And
that is why judicial notice is mandated for existence and territorial
extent of states as well of the geographical divisions.

Another witness for example: I saw A push B from the 100th story of the
building. And then what happened? Unsa pa man diay mahitabo ana?
Nahulog, sya splat, patay. You can of course, take judicial notice that if
you are pushed from the top of a 100 story building that the law of
gravity will take place. That is the law of nature. You do not need ocular
inspection. You do not say Okay judge. I will push you, lets see if you will
fall. Diba? It will lead to absurd result if you do not take mandatory judicial
notice.

Page | 22
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

REQUISITES FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE [as held in the case of PIGAO vs RABANILLO]:
(1) The matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
(2) It must be well and authoritatively settled, and not doubtful or uncertain; and
(3) It must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.

The power of taking judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with CAUTION


Therefore:
GR: PROOF is always required
o Exception: JUDICIAL NOTICE
Thus, aside from laying down the material requisites, is that TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE
is the EXCEPTION rather than the general rule.
Case:
SALUDO vs AMERICAN EXPRESS INTL [15]
o The concept of facts of common knowledge in the context of judicial notice has
been explained as those facts that are so commonly known in the community as
to make it unprofitable to require proof, and so certainly known to as to make
it indisputable among reasonable men. (VIP. Memorize this phrase).
o Sir E:
The word that I want to emphasize there is unprofitable. Requiring
proof for facts which are of general knowledge would lead to futile results
because such would be superfluous. No need to present proof diba? If you
say that in the barunprofitable to require proof , you
will be given full point. Allow me to be a Judge Canete to you, because
Judge Canete would sometimes say This is the only way youre supposed
to answer this particular question. So remember na ninyo ha?
Unprofitable to require proof. If I ask this in the exam and you do not put
there unprofitable to require proof, then I will not give you points. I will
give you zero if you do not write this phrase.

TYPES OF JUDICIAL NOTICE


(1) Mandatory Judicial Notice
o When you talk about the first one, the court does not have any choice.
(2) Discretionary Judicial Notice
o It is the type of judicial notice where the judge has an option, whether to take
judicial notice of a particular fact or allow the parties to present their respective
claims.
(3) Judicial Notice when HEARING necessary
o The third one, judicial notice when hearing necessary, is not actually judicial
notice. Why do I say that judicial notice when hearing necessary, is not actually
judicial notice? It is the essence of judicial notice to not require hearing; to not
require the parties to submit evidence. What happens when there is a hearing?
Under Civil Procedure, you have to be ready with you supporting affidavits and
evidence when necessary. So to my mind under Section 3, that is actually not
judicial notice; it is repugnant to the essence of judicial notice.

Rule 129. Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of
government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world
and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative,
executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the
geographical divisions.

Section Title MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE


Scope
Page | 23
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

o If it is not found in Section 1 then that matter is not a matter of mandatory judicial notice.
Although, we will find later, that there is judicial notice on certain matters beyond Section 1.

[CODAL R129, Sec. 1] A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and
territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality xxx
o The purpose here would be expediency. It would be absurd to require evidence on these matters. Besides,
judges should not be more ignorant than the rest of the people.
o Sir E:
Where is this China? Prove to me where China is. That is not anymore needed!

o Xxx their political history xxx


Can we take notice of matters of history? It depends. We can if that part of history is a matter of
international interest.
If it is purely local interest of the foreign state, we cannot take judicial notice.
Example:
The assassination of John F. Kennedy. That is a matter of international interest.
Judges are expected to know that, thus, a judge is wrong if he requires evidence to
prove the death of John F. Kennedy.

[CODAL R129, Sec. 1] A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and
territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations,
xxx
o This refers to INTERNATIONAL LAW
o How about treaties?
case: HALAGUENA vs PAL [16]
How does international law become part of the law of the land, or how does it become part
of domestic law or national law?
o By virtue of Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts
the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the
law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice,
freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
o By virtue of that clause, for example, the CEDAW becomes a part of the national
law because it adheres to the generally accepted principles. This is by virtue of
the incorporation clause in the Philippine Constitution, which other countries
also have a similar clause. International law is given an equal but not superior
standing than domestic laws.

o Now, what then is Transformation?


Where international law becomes part of the law of the land when we transform a convention or a
treaty into a domestic law.
We make our own version.
Example:
Anti-Terrorism Act and Crimes against International Humanitarian Act. We have our own
laws for those. We transform that into domestic law.

o What about generally accepted principles of international law that are not found in conventions, how
do they form part of the law of the land?
In Public International Law, what are these two elements:
First is widespread state practice; and
Second is opinio juris which means you follow this act because you believe it is right;
o That is the psychological aspect of international law.

o What about laws of other states? (e.g. Laws of United States)


Are courts required to take judicial notice of that?
NO! That is not part of mandatory judicial notice.

Page | 24
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

What happens when there is a mention of the foreign law but there is no attempt to prove the law
as a fact?
There is a presumption that actually applies which is processual presumption, where
the presumption is our law is same as ours.

[Rule 129, Sec. 1] A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and
territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations,
the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the
Philippines, xxx
o As a rule, the political constitution and history of the Philippines is subject to mandatory judicial notice.
o The requirement here is mere notoriety; the judge should know them.
o In other words, it must be a matter that is known to the whole country and not limited to a single town
or province.
o Therefore, you do not need a historian or a history book to prove matters known to the nation.
o Case: Municipal Board of Manila versus Segundo Agustin[17]

[Rule 129, Sec. 1] A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and
territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations,
the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines,
the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, xxx
o (A) OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
(I) It refers to LAWS
Every judge must take judicial notice of every statute.
So if it is a NATIONAL LAW, every judge in the country must know such law.
o No litigant should have to present proof as to whether a Republic Act exists
or does not exist;
o The judge is presumed to know that already, including the status of the law of
whether or not it is a good law or it has been repealed or has it been amended and
so on and so forth.
If it is a MUNICIPAL LAW
o It is a different matter if it is a municipal law.
o Judges are not expected to know that.
o If MTC:
The rule is that if you are a judge of a Municipal Trial Court, then you are
expected to know the laws and ordinances within that particular
municipality or city within you sit.
Remember that there can be an MTC in a city.
o If RTC, must take judicial notice on:
(1) When required to do so by statute
(2) In a case on appeal before them where the inferior court took judicial
notice of an ordinance involving the same case
(3) When capable of unquestionable demonstration.
Ordinances are not covered in the matters covered by mandatory judicial notice under
Sec. 1 of Rule 129
o Case: SJS vs Atienza(2008)
o When an ORDINANCE is subject to judicial notice
(1) MTC: it is required to take judicial notice of the ordinances of the
municipality or city where it sits.
(2) RTC: must take judicial notice of ordinances only when required to do
so by the statute.
(3) In the case of appeal before them, they should also take judicial
notice (see above for clearer statement on this)
(4) When an ordinance is capable of unquestionable demonstration.

(II) Reports or minutes of investigations and public hearings conducted by Senate


Committees are subject of mandatory judicial notice

Page | 25
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

Why?
o Because they are considered official acts of the legislature.
o So therefore, also, congressional debates and other records that predicate a
passage of a law are official acts of the legislature which the court must take
judicial notice of. (case: CHAVEZ vs PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY[18])

(III) Foreign Laws


Present a question of fact
They have to be proven in court
o Otherwise Processual Presumption in re Rule 132, Secs. 24 and 25
o Exception:
If the other Party admits them; need not be proven it will be considered
as judicial admission that need not be proven.
Case: Teodora Sobejano Condon vs COMELEC [19]

o (B) OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT


Consists of:
Presidential decrees, presidential declarations, Executive orders and so on and so forth.
Cabinet secretaries being the alter egos of the President, their acts are also considered official acts
of the executive department. So when there is a department circular, administrative order,
administrative circular, courts should take judicial notice of it.
Now, one such matter which the president can exercise as an official act of executive department
is executive clemency.
Amnesty and pardon also falls under the acts of the executive.
o But how do you distinguish them?
Case: People vs Casido [20]
Pardon private act; need to be proven
Amnesty public act, with the concurrence of Congress; courts
are required to take judicial notice.
Case: Sanaga vs CA
Decisions of the office of the president are official acts and those acts exercising quasi-
judicial power by the executive department are within the realm of mandatory judicial
notice which courts are mandatorily task to take judicial notice under Sec 1 of Rule 129.

Case: RP vs Southside Homeowners Assoc


However, SC said that application for titling (PD 1529), or the presidential decree providing
for lands covered under military reservation is a matter cognizable by the court pursuant to
Sec 1 Rule 129. Hence the same is within the realm of mandatory judicial notice.

Case: Asian Terminals vs Malayan Insurance


The PPA, which was created by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 857, as amended, is a
government-owned and controlled corporation in charge of administering the ports in the
country. Obviously, the PPA was only performing a proprietary function when it entered
into a Management Contract with petitioner. As such, judicial notice cannot be applied.

o (C) OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE JUDICIARY


These refer to cases decided by the Supreme Court of jurisprudence.
So judges must not rely on the codal provisions but be updated in the jurisprudence
as well.
Judges are also supposed to take judicial notice of Rules of Court
Issuances by the Supreme Court such as Rules on Electronic Evidence issued by the Supreme
Court or Rules on the procedure of environmental cases issued by the Supreme Court.
Courts must take judicial notice of these matters.
The decisions that pertain to mandatory judicial notice are only decisions of the Supreme
Court.
How do you prove a decision of the Court of Appeals or the lower courts?
Page | 26
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

o You have to give the court a copy, if they do not have a copy yet of the record
or order of the lower court.
Sir E:
Question:
o Question 1: Can the court take judicial notice of matters pending in another case?
o Question 2: Can a court be allowed to take judicial notice of records in different
courts for a purpose of a particular case?
o Can the judge say, You dont need to present evidence on that fact; that is
already established in a case that I tried a year ago and I will take judicial notice
that the owner of the gun is X. Can the court do that?
General Rule: NO!
Why?
The court cannot take judicial notice of the decisions of the
coordinate courts not even the decision or the facts of a similar
case tried by the same court. Even if the judge has personal
knowledge, the court does not have personal knowledge thus the
court cannot take judicial notice. It emphasizes the difference of
a court and a judge.
o In Civil Procedure, you learned the difference of a court
and a judge. So whatever is within the personal
knowledge of the judge, being an officer of the court, does
not equate to judicial notice. There is a dichotomy
between the judge and the court.
o Cases on this matter:
Judge Espaol vs Formoso [21]
Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of
records of other cases even when such cases have been tried
or pending in the same court.
However, there are instances when the court may take judicial notice
Republic versus Court of Appeals [22]
A court will take judicial notice:
o (1) of its own acts and records in the same case
o (2) of facts established in prior proceedings in the same
case,
o (3) of the authenticity of its own records of another case
between the same parties,
o (4) of the files of related cases in the same court, and;
o (5) of public records on file in the same court.

o However, this is QUALIFIED by a previous ruling, in order


for a court to take judicial notice - Occidental Land
Transportation versus Court of Appeals[23]
In order for the court to take judicial notice of the
instances above, there should be concurrence of
two requisites:
(1) Absence of objection parties agree as a
matter of convenience
(2) Consent of the parties

[Rule 129, Sec. 1] A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and
territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations,
the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines,
the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, xxx

o The most celebrated use of the laws of nature in judicial notice is in a very old case in 1800s involving
Abraham Lincoln.

Page | 27
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

There is a brawl during one night and there is an eyewitness from afar of the assailant from a
distance of 150 feet. You have to remember that during this time there was still no light posts or
wide spread used of electricity. Therefore, because of the poor visibility it makes the
identification of the assailant from afar questionable. One witness said that he was able to see
the assailant because of the light of the moon. What Abraham Lincoln did was take a farmers
almanac and prove that the moon has already set during that night and therefore visibility of
the assailant would have been impossible. And the assailant was indeed acquitted.
o Cases:
(1) People vs Meneses
Where the Supreme Court took judicial notice that at around three in the morning during
the Christmas season, it is still quite dark and that daylight comes rather late in this
time of year. That is taking judicial notice of the laws of nature:
o At three oclock in the morning, it is still dark.
(2) Gabriel vs CA
The testimony of the star witness was like this: I stepped out to see what was going on.
And then I heard the sound of two vehicles colliding with one another.and then I saw the
vehicles colliding with one another. In other words, the sound came before the actual
collision. What is correct? The sound occurs immediately after the collision. The
Supreme Court said that we have to take judicial notice of the laws of nature. If true, the
Supreme Court said: If true, this would rate as one of the greatest scientific revelations of
all time. But since courts are obliged to take judicial notice of the laws of nature, this
Court prefers to side with prudence. So the Supreme Court can be sarcastic at times.

[Rule 129, Sec. 1] A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and
territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations,
the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines,
the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure
of time, and the geographical divisions.

o In the case of People of the Philippines versus Sevilleno (1999), the Supreme Court said that the
geographical divisions of barangays and cities, that is something that the Supreme Court should take
judicial notice of.
That is Geographical divisions.

o Not only that but also the characteristics of these municipalities and cities, like for example, that the court
properly took judicial notice that Talamban, Cebu City is an urban area. Therefore, every barangay in the
city would also be highly urbanized as well.
That was in the case of Doris Chongbian-Oliva vs. Republic

o In Banatao vs Dabbay (1918), the court can also take judicial notice of rivers and whether they are
navigable or not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take note:
o In People vs Pacabes
The Supreme Court also said: The failure of a witness to report at once to the police authorities
the crime they had witnessed should not be taken against them. It is not uncommon for a witness
to a crime to show some reluctance about getting involved in a criminal case. The natural restraint
of most people to get involved in a criminal case is of judicial notice. That is natural, when
there is a case being filed, we do not want to be a witness.

Page | 28
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

Rule 129. Section 2.Judicial notice, when discretionary. A court may take judicial notice of matters which
are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions.

Section Title DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE


In applying RULE 129, Sec. 2, Courts must be VERY CAREFUL to ensure that the requisite of NOTORIETY exists.
o It must be one of:
(1) Common or public knowledge
(2) That it would be UNPROFITABLE to require proof
In contrast with R129, Sec.1(Mandatory Judicial Notice):

MJN (Sec. 1) DJN (Sec. 2)


Court has no discretion whether or not The court has the choice whether to
to require proof take judicial notice or not
If a court requires proof within the
realm of mandatory judicial notice,
that court is ignorant of the law.
Therefore, that court can be subjected
to administrative disciplinary action.
Court has no choice Court has absolute choice

This is termed discretionary under Sec. 2 because of its very nature;


o It depends wholly on the judgment of the court
Unless the matter falls within Section 1 of the Rule 129.

No party can compel a judge to take judicial notice of the same.


o Can you therefore file an action for mandamus to compel the Judge to take judicial notice of a matter?
NO!
Mandamus does not lie to compel the performance of a non-ministerial or discretionary act;
Only when it is purely ministerial that you can actually compel a judge by mandamus to
do something.
Case:
o Saludo vs American Express International [24]

Section 2 tells you about facts of common knowledge:


o (1) Those facts that are so commonly known in the community as to make it unprofitable to require
proof, and;
o (2) So certainly known to as to make it indisputable among reasonable men.

o Moreover, though usually, facts of 'common knowledge' will be generally known throughout the country, it
is sufficient as a basis for judicial notice that they be known in the local community where the trial
court sits.
Thus, if it is a matter of common knowledge in a common locality, do not apply Section 1,
apply section 2 relating to discretionary judicial notice.
Case:
o State Prosecutors vs Muro [25]
Requisites of DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE:
(1) The matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
(2) It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and
(3) It must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.

Page | 29
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

SC said judicial notice is not equivalent to judicial knowledge. The mere personal knowledge
of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his individual
knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis of his action.
Judicial notice cannot be taken of a statute before it becomes effective. A law not yet enforced and
hence, still inexistent cannot be of common knowledge capable of ready and unquestionable
demonstration. And therefore, the State Prosecutors are correct that the dismissal of the case was
actually premature.
o Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago vs COMELEC
COMELEC took judicial notice of the fact that Magdalo was the one responsible for the Oakwood
Mutiny.
SC: It was proper for COMELEC to take judicial notice of such fact.
It is of public knowledge or are capable of unquestionable demonstration.
Further, Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Revised Administrative Code,
specifically empowers administrative agencies to admit and give probative value to
evidence commonly acceptable by reasonably prudent men, and to take notice of
judicially cognizable facts.

What actually happens in section 2 when you apply discretionary judicial notice?
o The judge announces his intention. The Judge tells the parties that I am going to take judicial notice of
this.
o But the parties cannot object; which is the difference between section 2 and section 3.

Rule 129. Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. During the trial, the court, on its own
initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow
the parties to be heard thereon.

After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on request
of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is
decisive of a material issue in the case.

In relation to Sec. 2

DJN (Sec. 2) JN-WHN (Sec. 3)


The Judge tells the parties that he is going to take The Judge tells the parties that he is going to take
judicial notice of this particular fact.(same) judicial notice of this particular fact. (same)
In section 2, parties cannot do anything if the Judge
already exercises his discretion.

[R129, Sec. 3, 1st Par] During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce
its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon. xxx
o Sir E:
I was handling a case of my own cousin (17 years old), a criminal case before the MTC. But
because he was 17, it has to be referred to a family court. During pre-trial, I ask the court Your
Honor can you take JN that my client was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime?
That is how you propose. So you dont have to present evidence. So that it can be dispensed
already.

[R129, Sec. 3, 2nd Par] xxx After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own
initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard
thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.
o Just try to remember how it happens. During trial or what happens if its already after trial, before judgment
or on appeal because theres a slight variation on how it happens.
Page | 30
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

Case:
o Landbank vs Wycoco [26]
This is a case for expropriation. The court took JN of the prevailing market value of agricultural
lands in a particular locality.
According to the SC, actually the court can do so but he cannot do so under number 1 and 2.
He has to do it under number 3. Allow the parties to be heard thereon. In other words, it will entail
the need for presentation of evidence.

JUDICIAL NOTICE ON APPEARANCE


o AUTOPTIC PROFERENCE
The extent of bodily injury that you suffered in the hands of an abuser. You are asking the court to
use its sense of sight to determine the extent of your injury. When the court does that, can the
court actually takes judicial notice of your appearance and bodily injury? You are not taking JN!
What you are doing is called autoptic proference - using your senses to observe the physical
appearance and condition of an object.

Sir E:
Dean Inigo calls object evidence as autoptic proference.
When you appreciate the physical appearance or condition by the use of your senses, you are
not taking judicial notice but you are exercising AUTOPTIC PROFERENCE.

JUDICIAL NOTICE ON AGE


o Nobody has personal knowledge of his or her age. Age becomes a factor in criminal cases or is an element
of an offense. It is the fact in issue.

o When does age become an issue:


LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGE IN CRIMINAL CASES
Age is important because it may be an:
o Exempting Circumstance
Person under 9 or person over 9 but under 15 who acted without
discernment
o Mitigating Circumstance
Person under 18 or over 17 who commits a criminal offense, age may be
appreciated as mitigating
o Aggravating Circumstance
o Qualifying Circumstance
If victim is under 18 and the offender is a relative or if the victim is child
below 7 years old
o Element of a Crime
In Statutory Rape
If victim is 12 years old or below, statutory rape.

LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGE IN CIVIL CASES


Custody of the child
o Child below 7 years of age, if parents separate or marriage declared void, custody
shall go to the mother
In Making WILLS
o Testator must be at least 18 yrs of age
In Marriage
o Also, must be at least 18 yrs of age

AGE AND APPEARANCE/ APPEARANCE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE AGE


Page | 31
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

o Remember when the court take Judicial Notice or examines the appearance of the person to determine
his or her possible age;
The court is no longer is undertoing the process of Judicial Notice but rather the court is undergoing
the process of autoptic preference
AUTOPTIC PROFERENCE which is the presentation of evidence
Therefore:
o Appreciation of age and appearance; and
o Appreciation of appearance
In order to determine the PROBABLE AGE is REPUGNANT to the concept
of Judicial Notice
So the court militates the very concept of JN, the object of which is to do away with the
presentation of evidence.
o Case: People vs Villarama
Judicial Notice can be had under Rule 129, Sec. 3
But, Court decisions on rape of minors, in order to justify the imposition of death penalty, there must
be INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE showing the age of the victim.

o Case: People vs Pruna [27]


So, based on People vs Villarama above, in order for the court to take JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
AGE under R129, Sec. 3, the INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE must be shown, as provided then in this
case of PEOPLE vs. PRUNA, based on the guidelines provided.
What are the guidelines in the matter of appreciating the age of victim either as an element of crime
or a qualifying circumstance?
(1) 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.
(2) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as
baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would
suffice to prove age.
(3) If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or
destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victims
mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified
to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the
offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient
under the following circumstances:
o (a) 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;
Atty. Espejo: It means that if testimony tends to show that the child is below
3, the court may believe that she is below 7 through the testimony.
o (b).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;
Atty. Espejo: If the testimony tends to show that the child is below 7, the
court will instead believe that the testimony is below 12. You will not get
that precision. What you can prove is that she is below 12. That is what
the court will believe.
o (c) 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.
Atty. Espejo: If the testimony tends to show that the child is below 12 years
old, the court will believe that the child is below 18 years old.
[intermission] Sir E on no. 3: These are the conditions kay wala kay
birth certificate and secondary evidences. What you only have is a
testimony.

Page | 32
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

(4) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of
the victims mother or relatives concerning the victims age, the complainants
testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.
o Atty. Espejo: You dont have any school records. Can you prove your own age
before the court? General rule : Your testimony cannot prove that your age. When
will it be admitted? Only if the accused EXPRESSLY AND CLEARLY ADMITS
that you are below 18. If you are the accused, why will you admit?
(5) It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party.
The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be
taken against him.

Rule 129. Section 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the
course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted
only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

Section title JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS


o Sir E: Admission in JUDICIO
Admission can be either of TWO KINDS:
o (1) Judicial Admission
Rule 129, Sec. 4
Made by the party in the course of the proceeding in the same case (emphasis supplied) where
the admission has been offered to prove something.
NO NEED TO BE PROVEN because he is PRECISELY the one making an ADMISSION
o (2) Extra-judicial Admission
Rule 130
In order for it to be received as evidence, it must be PLEADED and PROVEN.
So you plead it in pleadings and then later, prove it.
What is a judicial admission or an admission in judicio?
o It is a DELIBERATE, CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL statement by A PARTY about a CONCRETE FACT
within THAT PARTYS KNOWLEDGE
o Breakdown:
(1) It is a DELIBERATE, CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL
(2) STATEMENT BY A PARTY
(3) about a CONCRETE FACT within THAT PARTYS KNOWLEDGE

o (1) IT MUST BE DELIBERATE, CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL


It must be deliberate
Because an admission will not bind a party making it if it was made thru mistake.
In other words, a party making admission must HAVE MEANT TO MAKE THE ADMISSION
It must be clear and unequivocal
Therefore, shall not admit of two or more interpretations
A supposed admission that is susceptible of several interpretations cannot be considered
an admission because at most it is a vague statement, it is equivocal.
o (2) STATEMENT BY A PARTY
o (3) about a CONCRETE FACT within that PARTYS KNOWLEDGE
If not within his personal knowledge and he makes a statement that seems to imply an
admission, then that will not anymore be treated as an admission because he has no personal
knowledge, therefore there cannot be any admission on a matter that is clearly hearsay
statement. It has to be of a party personal knowledge.

Judicial Admissions may also mean FORMAL CONCESSIONS

Page | 33
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

o Meaning: You proposed one fact, I concede to it, I do not confess it, I do not take issue as to that fact.
o It is a formal concession in the pleadings or stipulations by a party or counsel that is binding to the
party making them.
o Concession You are no longer controverting a fact.
o 2016 Transcription:
Sir E:
When you say concession it means that you are surrendering, you concede! You are
no longer controverting a fact. When the party says naa kay utang and then you say
yes naa koy utang thats an admission. You concede already. It can be proved a
concession through the pleadings (FORMAL CONCESSION na ni!) where for example
the party in its answer admits to particular allegations in the complaint of the
plaintiff. Or it can be stipulations.

Although a judicial admission itself is not evidence, it has the effect of withdrawing a particular fact from
contention.
o Sir E:
So dili na nato kinahanglan lalisan, dili na kinahanglan debatihon kay gi-angkon naman nako.
Thats the concept of admission.

LATIN MAXIM ADMISSIBLE in JUDICIAL ADMISSION [memorize napud para CHUY!]:


o Confessio Facta in judicio omni probatione major est
Confession made in a trial is stronger than all proof.

Judicial Admission vis--vis Judicial Notice


o In Secs. 1 and 2, court takes judicial notice of facts because such fact may be of so common knowledge
that it would be UNPROFITABLE TO REQUIRE PROOF.
o Same thing applies here in judicial admission, when you require proof of something that has already been
admitted by the adverse party, then what you are actually doing is a SURPLUSAGE.

SOURCES OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS


o (1) PLEADINGS, DURING TRIAL, and OTHER STAGES OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Case: Banarao v Plus Builders Inc [28]
In this case, the SC said that a party may make judicial admissions in:
o (1)The pleadings
o (2) During the trial, either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations;
or
o (3) In other stages of the judicial proceedings.

In Re: ADMISSIONS DERVIED FROM OTHER STAGES OF PROCEEDINGS


(1) It can be by filing of initiatory or responsive pleadings
(2) It can be during pre-trial or trial during presentation of witneses
o Example:
The counsel asks question during coss-examination, the party admits
then that is already considered a judicial admission.
(3) Admissions made when you file motions and other submissions before the court.
o Motion vs Pleading
Form they are the same;
Pleading asking for a final judgement in you favor
Motion asking something which is INTERLOCTORY; you are not asking
for final judgement in you favor
Exception:
o Motion to dismiss by defendant

Page | 34
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

Effect? Complainant can still amend his


complaint AS A MATTER OF RIGHT because a
motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading.

o (2) MATTER OF ACTIONABLE DOCUMENTS


Rule 8, Sec. 8
An actionable document is one which is the very basis of a partys cause of action or defense.
Codal:

Section 8. How to contest such documents. When an action or defense


is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the
corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the
genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed
admitted unless the adverse party, under oath specifically denies them,
and sets forth what he claims to be the facts, but the requirement of an
oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to
the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the
original instrument is refused. (8a)

How do you deny UNDER OATH?


There must be a requirement of verification- an affidavit under oath
o (1) That you have caused the preparation of the ANSWER (or a REPLY)
o (2) That you have read the contents of the ANSWER (or a REPLY)
o (3) That the allegations thereon are true and correct based on your personal
knowledge or authentic records

Now, what happens if the other party does not deny under oath the genuineness and due
execution of such actionable document?
The GENUINESS AND DUE EXECTION of such document shall be deemed admitted.
Example:
Party A files a COMPLAINT, attached therewith a promissory note, which is the actionable
document.
If Party B files an ANSWER but DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY DENY UNDER OATH the
genuineness and due execution of such promissory note, such document is DEEMED
ADMITTED.
If Party B, however, files an ANSWER and SPECIFICALLY DENIES UNDER OATH the
genuineness and due execution of such promissory note, the document is NOT DEEMED
ADMITTED. In effect the due execution and genuineness of such document still NEEDS
TO BE PROVEN.
If the ANSWER of a defendant contains an actionable document, then a REPLY, although not
mandatory, becomes mandatory in order not to make the actionable document admitted.
Case:
o Casent Realty vs PhilBanking Corp [29]
Here the respondent failed to file a reply and in effect he had admitted
already the genuineness and due execution of the actionable
document attached in the answer. The SC went on to say that Rule 129
Section 4 now apply, an admission, verbal or written, made by the party in
the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.
Take note of that case where the defense and the action is based on an
actionable document.

o (3) ALLEGATIONS NOT SPECIFICALLY DENIED; DEEMED ADMITTED

Page | 35
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

Rule 8, Sec. 11

Section 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted. Material


averment in the complaint, other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages,
shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. Allegations of usury in a
complaint to recover usurious interest are deemed admitted if not denied under oath.
(1a, R9)

In other words, if you are going to deny a particular allegation in the complaint, for example
your answer must clearly spell out you own version of facts,
So you have to say why you are not admitting.
If you simply make a general denial that will have the effect of an admission
Also, take note of allegations of usury, need to be denied under oath.
Courts will not hesitate to strike down usurious interest if:
o (1) It leads to hemorrhaging of assets of the debtor
o (2) When it is shocking to the morals or unconscionable

o (4) ADMISSION OF FACTS AND OF DOCUMENTS BY AGREEMENT OF PARTIES


Rule 18, Sec. 4

Section 4. Appearance of parties. It shall be the duty of the parties


and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial. The non-appearance of a
party may be excused only if a valid cause is shown therefor or if a
representative shall appear in his behalf fully authorized in writing to
enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to alternative modes of
dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or admissions of
facts and of documents. (n)

During pre-trial there is a valid subject, stipulation of facts, possibility of making amicable
settlement, stipulations of facts and evidence.

WRITTEN JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS


o Can be in:
(1) Pleadings;
In connection with the right to amend pleading mentioned above, what is the effect of
a filing an amended pleading?
o Amended pleading precedes the pleading that it amends
o EFFECTS:
1st Effect:
That the amended pleading supersedes the original one which
it amends. So it abrogates it, in legal contemplation thats no
longer a pleading appurtenant to the case.
2nd Effect:
Admissions made in the original pleadings that is amended
cease to be judicial admissions.
o In other words in your answer you admitted that you have
a liability to the plaintiff, but you realized I should not
have admitted it and so I filed an amended answer as a
matter of right this time contesting the basis of his cause
of action saying that I dont have a debt.
Page | 36
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

o Can you now forget about the admission that you


made in the answer saying that he is liable?
Remember that the amended pleadings supersedes the
original in legal contemplation that original no longer exist
in that particular case.
o Can we say that the admissions made on the
ORIGINAL PLEADING is of no value?
No. It still has value.
It ceases to be a judicial admission but it can
still be presented, pleaded and proved as an
extrajudicial admission, you can still use it but
you have to present it in evidence. (Case:
Bastida vs Menzi[31])
Case: Ching vs CA[32] in order to be utilized
as extrajudicial admission they must in order to
have such an effect be formally offered in
evidence
(2) Motions; -
(3) Written Manifestations of parties;
(4) Briefs;
(5) Memoranda;
(6) Affidavits; or even in
(7) In a submission in an Answer for request of an admission

RULE TO REMEMBER:
o JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS ARE CONCLUSIVE ON THE PARTY MAKING THEM
Why should it be CONCLUSIVE?
Because of the equitable principle of ESTOPPEL
o When you say something clearly and unequivocally you are not to be permitted to
later on contradict it, thats the basic rule of estoppel.
An admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such
admission and are conclusive as to him and all proofs submitted by him contrary
thereto or inconsistent with the admission should be ignored whether an objection is
interposed by the party.
Case:
Alfelor vs Halasan [30]
o It talks about standing to intervene in a case. If you already admit that a party who
seems to intervene in the case is an heir of the person whose estate is under
consideration then you are already estopped from contesting that he has no right
to intervene. Remember that the of the requirement of intervention would be that
the person must have a legal interest in the subject matter in litigation or the
success of any of the parties or interest against the parties or when so situated as
to be adversely affected by a distribution or disposition of property in custody of
the court or officer thereof.
Cases:
o SANTIAGO vs DELOS SANTOS
An admission cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are
conclusive as to him and that all proofs submitted by him contrary thereto or inconsistent
therewith shall be ignored whether objection is interposed

o REPUBLIC GLASS vs QUA

Page | 37
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

To constitute a judicial admission, it must be made in the same case in which it is offered. If
made in another case or court, the fact of such admission must be proved as in the case of any
other fact.

IMPORTANT TO TAKE NOTE:


o If admission made in the same case - JUDICIAL ADMISSION
o If admission made in another case - EXTRA-JUDICIAL ADMISSION, thus, it has to be pleaded and
proven as in the case of any other fact.

WITHDRAWAL OF ADMISSION [2 MODES]


o [Rule 129, Sec. 4] xxx The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

o The law provides for TWO EXCEPTIONS:


(1) BY SHOWING THAT THE ADMISSION WAS MADE THROUGH PALPABLE MISTAKE
Palpable mistake it means the mistake is so obvious to all sides, these are mistakes that
are glaring, that the judge or the adverse party can see that there was really no judicial
admission was made by the party.
Under the old rules of evidence this palpable mistake exception was the only exception
that binds the party making the admission but the new rules they added one more
(2)THAT NO SUCH ADMISSION WAS MADE
What do you mean when no such admission was made?
o It means that:
(1) no admission was made at all by the parties; or
(2) the admission was taken out of context or not in the sense that the
admission was made to by the party.
Case: Atillo vs CA [33]
o The SC said that an admission made out of context
the one making the admission may show that he made
no such admission or that his admission was taken
out of context, this is interpreted to be not in the sense
in which the admission is made to appear.
o Sir E:
Mao daw nah ang meaning anang no such
admission was made.
Cases on JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS:
o (1) Aguenza vs MBTC [34]
o (2) Conahap vs Heirs of Regana [35]
In these two cases, the SC said that the admissions of the parties during pre-trial as embodied
in the pre-trial order, are binding and conclusive on them, unless [take note] there is a clear
showing that the admission was entered through palpable mistake. Such admissions cannot be
contradicted by the parties reason again would be estoppels.

OTHER IMPORTANT MATTERS IN RE JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS


o (I) OTHER PERSONS WHO MAY BIND A PARTY
If youre a party to a case (e.g. PLAINTIFF), who are allowed to make admissions in your
behalf?
Your LAWYER/COUNSEL
o Admission made by your lawyer would be binding on you as a general rule,
subject to certain exceptions. [case: SILOT vs DELA ROSA]
o Exceptions:
Research!!!- sir was not able to mention.
Page | 38
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

o (II) STIPULATION OF FACTS PROPOSED DURING TRIAL


Case: People vs Hernandez [36]
A stipulation of facts proposed during trial by prosecution and admitted by the defense
counsel is tantamount to a judicial admission of the facts stipulated upon.
This case was QUALIFIED by TECHNICALITIES [take note] in the case of Fule vs CA[see
below]
o In the case of FULE vs CA [37] (a.k.a FULE DOCTRINE)
Sir E: It became quite doctrinal that it affected the rules on criminal
procedure. The 1985 rules of criminal procedure specifically with respect
to pre-trial agreement, the rule was no agreement or admissions made
or entered during the pre-trial shall be used in evidence against the
accused unless introduced into writing and signed by him and
counsel(emphasis supplied). Therefore the omission of the signature the
accused and his counsel as mandatorily required by the rules renders
the stipulation of facts inadmissible as evidence.

Now what if you are the prosecution and you simply rely on the admission
made by the accused during pre-trial? Therefore wala naka nag present
ug evidence, because remember the effect of an admission, it withdraws
a particular fact from contention, no more need to present any evidence if
it is already subject to a stipulation of facts specifically if made during pre-
trial. The SC said: If that is the case you should not simply rely simply on
that admission which later on was invalidated by the SC. What the
prosecution should have done upon discovering that the accused did not
sign the stipulation of facts as required by rule 118 was to submit an
evidence to establish the element of the crime instead of relying solely on
the supposed admission of the accused in the stipulation of facts without
said evidence independent of the admission the guilt of the accused
cannot be deemed established beyond reasonable doubt and therefore
in this case Fule was acquitted because of that technicality.

o It is sort of unfair because the 1985 rules did not say anything about the effect
if it was not signed. Now it already provides the effect under:

Rule 118. Section 2.Pre-trial agreement. All agreements


or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial
conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the
accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used
against the accused. The agreements covering the matters
referred to in Section 1 of this Rule shall be approved by the
court.

The product of the pre-trial conference is the PRE-TRIAL ORDER

o Sir E:
So kinahanglan ug court approval, and also states that otherwise they
cannot be used against the accused if the agreement entered or
made during the pre-trial is not reduced in writing and signed by the
accused and counsel.

Compare the FULE case with this case: KING vs PEOPLE [45]
Page | 39
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

o In the present case, petitioner's conviction was based on the evidence


presented during trial (by the prosecution), and not on the stipulations made
during the pretrial. Hence, petitioner's admissions during the trial are governed not
by the Fule ruling or by Section 4 of Rule 118, but by Section 4 of Rule 129.

RULE 130 Rules of Admissibility


Rule 130. Section 1. Object as evidence. Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of
the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the
court.

Remember:
o OBJECT is synonymous with REAL evidence [object=real]
Why REAL?
Real comes from the latin word res which is the latin word for object
o OBJECT EVIDENCE is also called AUTOPTIC PROFERENCE
The ACT of the tribunal or or a magestry in exercising its senses to determine the probative value
of a particular object.
When the court examines the APPEARANCE of a person or the age of a person for the purpose
of probably taking judicial notice.
Actually, it is not only judicial notice, it become Autoptic Proference
When Autoptic Evidence is introduced in trial the fact finder will now decide what way it
should be accorded the same, in this class of evidence the ascertainment of the
uncontroverted acts is made through demonstration involving the direct use of senses of
the presiding magistrate. So when you are presenting an object in court by itself is the
evidence. You are talking here about a court being asked to appreciate the evidence using
the five senses (sight, smell, touch, hearing, taste).
Case: CALDE vs CA
It actually paved the way for autoptic proference over positive testimony. There was a
testimony that they signed in the presence of one another. But, by reason of autoptic
proference, by the initiative of the court itself, they invalidated the will for the reason that
there might have been non- compliance with the requirements of article 805 of the Civil
Code.

OBJECT evidence vs DOCUMENTARY evidence

OBJECT DOCUMENTARY
You observe what is the condition and the When you look at documentary evidence to a certain extent
appearance of the object that would now consist you are also looking at physical appearance, what is written
the evidence. That will now be the one given in that documentary evidence. But rather than taking stop
weight in a particular case. in the appearance of the document you are actually
trying to appreciate what the contents of the
document are. In order to do that you use a different
sense, thats the sense of intelligence no longer limited
to the five senses. Kailangan man nah nimo basahon and
whatever you understand from what you have read,
that will be the one that will be given weight by the
court.

OBJECT EVIDENCE vs DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE vs TESTIMONY

Page | 40
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

o Hierarchy of the 3 types:


Case: People vs Lavapie
The SC held that greater credence is given to physical evidence as evidence of the
highest order because it speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses. This is
because object evidence is self-evident.

THREE(3) CLASSIFICATIONS OF OBJECT EVIDENCE according to MORAN:


o (I) Those object evidence which consist in the exhibition or production of the evidence inside the
court room.
Ex. The effects of the crime or the means to perpetrate the crime, the murder weapon that is
exhibited and produced inside the court room and appreciated in that manner.

o (II) Those object evidence which consist in the inspection of an object outside of the court room.
Does the court do that examine an object outside of the court room or should it always be placed
inside the court room or the court vicinity?
OCULAR INSPECTION
What you do not know is this is actually a very common practice where the court
examines the object outside the court room through the process of OCULAR
INSPECTION.
o You cannot bring the land to the court but you can bring the court to the land.
o So what usually happens is the court will be there or the clerk of court, remember
you can delegate the inspection of evidence to the clerk of court
The clerk of court can make objections;
But he has no power to rule on the objections;
I-note lang niya ang objections and bring it to the attention of the court
The court will make the ruling.
The stenographer will also be there.
Then a report about the ocular inspection. So it can be done.

o (III) Object evidence can also consist in those of experimentation


Sir E:
Best example I can give you is the OJ SIMPSON Case [39]
o In American criminal law remember important ang motive and opportunity. They
already establish the motive that OJ was angry with Nicole Brown she has already
move on and she has a new boyfriend so you killed both of them in a fit of jealous
rage but you need to put OJ in the scene of the crime and therefore if the gloves
would fit OJ Simpson, it could prove that in all probability he was there in
the crime scene and in all probability, if the gloves were his then he was the
one who committed the double murder.
o The defense, led by Robert K. , objected because that might violate their right
against self-incrimination but eventually the judge allowed OJ to try on the
gloves but the gloves did not fit and that caused the case to fall.
So that is an object evidence in the form of experimentation.

o ON RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION [in relation to Object evidence can


also consist in those of experimentation and in relation to EVIDENCE]
Does this not violate OJ Simpsons right against self-incrimination?
The right against self-incrimination covers only compulsion to
confess guilt
o But it does not exclude purely mechanical acts.
Example you wear a gloves, that is purely mechanical,
and therefore it is not covered.
What else is not covered in the right against self-incrimination? When you
are subjected to a paraffin test thats purely mechanical and because it is
purely mechanical you cannot object to the conduct of the test on the
ground of violation of the right against self-incrimination.

Page | 41
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

DNA TEST, would the taking of DNA sample from the body of the accused
constitute a violation of the right against self-incrimination?
The correct legal answer there is NO, because that is purely
mechanical.

Case: People vs Romero [40]


This is too much. This case of People vs. Romero actually pubic
hair ang gikuha to analyze the pubic hair left in that area after the
act of sexual intercourse, so i-match ang daw ang pubic hair and
it was a match. According to the SC even if the hair samples
were forcibly taken for forensic examination the hair samples
may be admitted against him for what is proscribed [under the
right against self-incrimination] is the use of testimonial
compulsion or any evidence communicative in nature acquired
from the accused under duress.
Thats the right against self-incrimination in relation to object
evidence.

People vs VALLEJO (decided: 2002)


DNA test may yield 3 possible results:
o (1) EXCLUSION
The samples are different and therefore must
have originated from different sources. This
conclusion is absolute and requires no further
analysis or discussion;
o (2) INCONCLUSIVE e.g. contamination, degradation
It is not possible to be sure, based on the results
of the test, whether the samples have similar
DNA types. This might occur for a variety of
reasons including degradation, contamination, or
failure of some aspect of the protocol. Various
parts of the analysis might then be repeated with
the same or a different sample, to obtain a more
conclusive result; or
o (3) INCLUSION
The samples are similar, and could have
originated from the same source. In such a case,
the samples are found to be similar, the analyst
proceeds to determine the statistical significance
of the similarity.
Atty. Espejo: If it is a result of exclusion, you do nothing further. If
inconclusive, it calls for additional testing. If inclusion, for example,
the semen taken from the scene matches that of the sample given
by the accused, does not mean automatic conviction. It has to go
through further analysis. The possible margin of error should be
[accounted to?].
o In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence,
therefore, courts should consider, among others things,
the following data:
1. How the samples were collected;
2. How they were handled;
3. The possibility of contamination of the
samples;
4. The procedure followed in analyzing the
samples, whether the proper standards and
procedures were followed in conducting the tests;
and
Page | 42
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

5. The qualification of the analyst who conducted


the tests

OBJECT EVIDENCE in RELATION TO TWO REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE [RULE
128, Sec. 4]
o See SECTION 128, Sec. 4
o Take note that in order for object evidence to be admissible you must pass the test of relevancy and
competency.
o Test of Relevancy and Test of Competency
(1) Test of Relevancy
If it not relevant to the fact in issue or not even collaterally relevant then it will also not be
admitted in court.
Remember also that Autoptic Proference must also be relevant and its relevant only
when it makes a pack of consequence more or less probable than in the absence of
Autoptic Proference.
(2) Test of Competency
If it excluded by the law or the rules of court such an object will not be allowed in court
Thus, when an object is excluded by the law or the rules lets say on the ground that it is a
fruit of a poisonous tree such as search incident to an arrest and then lifted from your body
lets say sachets of shabu. That cannot be used against you if the arrest in the first place
is not lawful, there was no probable cause to make a stop and frisk.

OBJECT EVIDENCE in RELATION TO (A)DIFFERENT TYPE OF FACTS and (B)TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE


o Different Types of Facts:
(1) Factum Probandum; and
(2) Factum Probans
o Testimonial Evidence - These are oral or written assertion offered in a court as a proof of the truth of what
is being stated

o (A) Object Evidence in relation to factum probandum and factum probans


Sir E:
Take note object evidence itself does not establish the factum probandum, there is no
factum probandum solely provable by object evidence.

Do you agree? Lets say:

The factum probandum would be A killed B. How could object evidence prove
that factum probandum?
What are the objects that would be relevant [factum probans]? So the body of
the victim, the stab wound, the murder weapon, and there are photographs of the
deceased. Let us suppose that there all admitted in court.

Would that prove all by itself the factum probandum? No, it must first be supported by other
propositions and in the ultimate analysis, it must be proven to have a logical relationship
to the ultimate fact in issue.
How to you give the propositions and ultimate analysis to PROVE A LOGICAL
RELATIONSHIP with your:
(a) factum probandum That A killed B; and
(b) factum probans object evidences:
Body of the victim
Stab wounds
Murder weapon
Photograph of the deceased

Here now comes the importance of TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE


(B) OBJECT evidence in relation to TESTOMINAL evidence

Page | 43
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

You can only do that by means of testimonial evidence.


Testimonial evidence is that method by which you are able to
authenticate object evidence to identify object evidence.
While your evidence is consisted of object evidence these
evidence must first be identified and authenticated by
competent witness, sponsored by a witness.
o Sponsored thru TESTIMONY of witnesses
So, after sponsoring the object evidences, you may already give
the LOGICAL RELATIONSHIP, again, thru TESTIMONY OF
WITNESSES:
o In the witness stand, C, witness, TESTIFIED that:
o I saw the deceased B, as shown in the PHOTOGRAPHS,
whom A killed using the MURDER WEAPON [knife], of
course, creating the STAB WOUNDS. A is killed
obviously, the body here is the BODY OF THE VICTIM B,
the corpse [factum probans]. Therefore, A killed B
[factum probandum].

o So the logical relationship between the FACTUM


PROBANDUM (object evidences in this case) and the
FACTUM PROBANS is produced thru the TESTIMONY.

CASES AND EXAMPLES OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIBILITY


o Money; Multiple Admissibility
Is money OBJECT or DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE?
It depends on the fact in issue:
(i) If the fact in issue relates to any PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTE relative to
APPEARANCE AND CONDITION, then:
It is AN OBJECT EVIDENCE
Ex. If the fact in issue is the color of the money ube color
(ii) If the fact in issue relates to whatever is WRITTEN there, then:
It is A DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Question: What if it is a special money a marked money? Is it OBJECT OR DOCUMENTARY


evidence?
Case: People vs Reyes [41]
Marked money is OBJECT EVIDENCE.
It is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined and viewed
by the court, making marked money object evidence, despite the fact that what
really identifies a marked money would be the mark, you simply have to take note
of the serial numbers and that will now be matched during trial.

o MARIJUANA CASE
Case: People vs William [42]
In a prosecution for possession of marijuana.
The accused was charged under dangerous drugs act and;
Hs defense was the object evidence the marijuana taken from me is not admissible
in evidence on the ground that it is beyond the commerce of men.
If it is beyond the commerce of men it cannot be a valid object it is illicit subject
matter.
But would that have a bearing under the laws of evidence the fact that it was beyond the
commerce of men? The SC said that is absurd. The transfer marijuana was incidental to
the arrest of the appellant and a confiscation of the subject matter of the crime.
SC: The probative value of object evidence is not affected by the fact that it is beyond
the commerce of man.

Page | 44
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

PROBATIVE VALUE - the tendency of evidence to make a fact of consequence


more or less probable than it would be without evidence

o PERSONS APPEARANCE
Case: People vs Rullepa
A persons appearance, where relevant, is admissible as object evidence, the same being
addressed to the senses of the court.

o OBJECTIVE TEST in BUY-BUST OPERATIONS


Case: People vs Adulay
"Objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported
transaction must be clearly and adequately shown.
Atty JZE:
If you look at it, it is like the Supreme Court is trying to establish the elements of a
sale. There is an offer; there is acceptance of the price, until consummated by the
transfer of the illegal drugs. Imporatante nimu ipakita ng consideration, the drug
money and the drugs itself.
o PARRAFIN TEST
Case: People vs Brecinio
Stated otherwise, it is possible to fire a gun and yet be negative for nitrates, as when the
culprit is wearing gloves or he washes his hands afterwards. Since appellant submitted
himself for paraffin testing only two days after the shooting, it was likely he had already
washed his hands thoroughly, thus removing all traces of nitrates therefrom.
Atty JZE:
Kanang result sa paraffin test unsa man na? That is experimentation. The fact that
you are subjected to paraffin test and result ingun ana is an object evidence by
experimentation. Remember that case.

REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT EVIDENCE


o (1) It must be relevant to the fact in issue to the case
Case: People vs delos Reyes
The admissibility of the marked money in evidence is governed by Section 1, Rule 130 of
the 1989 Rules on Evidence, which provides that when an object is relevant to the fact in
issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. The marked money, being
the consideration paid for the shabu, was relevant to the fact in issue the sale of
shabu.

o (2) It must be authenticated


Authentication only means that the genuineness of the object must be proven. It requires that
the admission of an object must be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
object in question is what it purport or claims to be.
Ex.
So if it is a knife used in an unlawful killing, you are going to authenticate it by trying
to prove that it was used in the killing, that it was the very murder weapon. That is
authentication.

By the way, why do we need to authenticate something?


a.) To prevent the introduction of an object different form the one being testified about.
b.) To ensure that there has been no significant changes in the objects original condition.

Process of authenticating an object:


(1) Produce proof of the identity of object
(2) Proof of integrity of object

Cases:
(1) With regard to PHOTOGRAPHS

Page | 45
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

Sison vs People
Here the photographs are admissible as the correctness thereof is testified
thereto by the companions of the victim. So nakita nila na uy ako ni, akoa
na kauban kanang naa sa picture. So according to the Supreme Court,
that is enough authentication, no need to present the photographer.

(2) With regard to TAPE RECORDINGS


Case: Torralba vs People
In our jurisdiction, it is a rudimentary rule of evidence that before a tape
recording is admissible in evidence and given probative value, the
following requisites must first be established, to wit:
(1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking
testimony;
(2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent;
(3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the
recording;
(4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been
made;
(5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording;
(6) identification of the speakers; and
(7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made
without any kind of inducement
(3) With regard to VIDEOS
Apply Sison vs People ruling

For purposes of authentication, object evidence can be of three classes:


(1) Unique Objects
(2) Objects made unique
(3) Non-unique objects needs the proof of CHAIN OF CUSTODY

o (3) It must not be hearsay


The witness who testified about the object must have personal knowledge of it.
o (4) Not privileged or otherwise excluded by the law or these rules
Object evidence, like any other evidence must pass the Test of Admissibility or Relevance, and
Test of Competency.
Means, that the object must pass the AXIOM OF COMPETENCY
o (5) It must meet any additional requirements set by the law
Example:
Sec. 21 of RA 9165 Chain Custody of Drugs

WHEN CAN THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE BE DISPENSED WITH AND REPLACED BY MERE
TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTS:
o (A) If its exhibition is contrary to public morals or decency.
o (B) To require being viewed in court or in ocular inspection would result in delays, inconvenience, or
unnecessary expenses which is not in proportion to the evidentiary value of such object.
o (C) Such object evidence would be confusing or misleading as when the purpose is to prove the
former condition of the object and there is no preliminary showing that there has been no
substantial change in the said condition; which is applicable to ocular inspections; or
o (D) The testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays the object in
question as to render the view thereof unnecessary.
o (E) Where the existence of the object is not very the fact in issue but is merely a collateral fact, or is
merely used as reference.

o Examples:
1. When a witness testifies that the accused was drinking a bottle of gin. When he threatened to
shoot the witness, it is not necessary to produce the bottle.

Page | 46
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

2. The witness claims that the accused threw a stone at his car, the presentation of the stone is not
anymore necessary.
3. Where the article cannot be recovered or outside the coercive jurisdiction of the court.

o (F) OTHER LIMITATIONS


The admission of the object evidence is subject to the demands of decency and propriety,;
UNLESS the admissions is extremely necessary or in the interests or justice

Rule. 130. Section 2. Documentary Evidence. Documents as evidence consists of writings or any material
containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof
of their contents.

Section 2 cover two types of evidence:


o (1) Writing per se
xxx consists of writings xxx

o (2) Any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions.
xxx or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other
modes of written expressions xxx

In both types of documentary evidence, the requirement is that the writing or material must be offered as
proof of its contents.
o Remember:
That the subject of inquiry would be what is contained in such writing;
If is, otherwise, offered as proof of execution of the document, it now becomes object evidence.

BQ 1994: How do you characterize marked money in a buy-bust operation? Can a


person, the accused, object to the presentation of a mere photocopy of the marked
money? It being a photocopy implies there is a greater source. Can you present that
secondary evidence? It depends. Is it offered as proof of their contents?
Answer:
NO. It was offered as an object evidence of the transaction. Thus, the best
evidence rule does not apply it being non-documentary evidence, but an object
evidence.

BQ 2005: A question was asked relating to the multiple admissibility of evidence


application: May a private document be presented and admitted as both documentary
and object evidence?
Answer:
It can be both object and documentary evidence. Remember, if the fact in
issue here is the content of a document, you apply the rule relating to
documentary evidence, but if the purpose of presenting the evidence would simply
be for the sake of testifying as to its appearance (other than its contents), as to its
form and then it is an object evidence.

The SC has already pronounced the A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC or the Rules on Electronic Evidence:

Page | 47
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

Rule 2. Section 1. An Electronic Document refers to information or the representation of


information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, described or
however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by
which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored,
processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and
any print-out or output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the
electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, the term
electronic document may be used interchangeably with electronic data message.

o Under these Rules an electronic document is considered, in certain situations, as functional equivalent
of paper-based documents. The law provides whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term writing,
instrument, document, memorandum or any form of writing such term shall be deemed to include
an electronic document.

o Thus, electronic evidence are now deemed covered under the Rules of Court pertaining to
documentary evidence.

So any reference to a document in the Rules of Court is deemed to include already electronic
evidence.

GENERAL REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE


o (1) Documentary evidence must be relevant;
o (2) It must be competent and, in addition;
o (3) It must not be subject to exclusionary rules under the rules of court such as the hearsay rule, the best
evidence rule and parole evidence rule; and
o (4) It must be authenticated by a competent witness.
o (5) Must be formally offered in evidence.

Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. When the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in
the following cases:
(a)When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith
on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence
is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only
the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office.

Sec. 3 BEST EVIDENCE RULE


Simplest way to articulate the rule
o ORIGINAL DOCUMENT MUST BE PRODUCED
No evidence must be produced other than the original document itself
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Page | 48
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

o Sir E:
Best Evidence Rule (BER) appears to be a misnomer. Why? It does not purport to be a
declaration of the Rules of Court that the documents are the best or superior evidence but
rather refers to the fact that the original is the best evidence. And so it should have been
Original of the Document Rule or Primary Evidence Rule. It does not also mean that weaker
evidence is substituted by stronger evidence.
ESSENCE: [MEMORIZE!!!]

The SC held that the underlying purpose of the rule is the prevention of fraud
or mistake in the proof of the contents of a document. Requiring the original
of the document would actually prevent that. Otherwise, if a duplicate or
photocopy is allowed, it will pave the way or will allow an unscrupulous party
to present spurious evidence. It will be easy to perpetrate fraud.

Cases:
o Lee vs People [43]
o Solidbank vs Del Monte [44]

[RULE 130, Sec 3] When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall
be admissible other than the original document itself xxx
o Again, the rule was designed to guard against fraud, the introduction of altered copies and the withholding
of the originals. But the modern justification has expounded the rule to the recognition that writings occupy
a certain position in the law.

o WHEN APPLICABLE
(1) The subject matter must INVOLVE A DOCUMENT;
(2) The subject of inquiry is the CONTENTS OF A DOCUMENT

The rule therefore applies only when the purpose is to establish the terms or contents of a
writing.
When the evidence produced concerns some external fact about the writing like:
(a) its existence;
(b) its execution; and
(c) delivery,
without reference to its terms [of the document], the BEST EVIDENCE RULE cannot
be invoked

o WHEN NOT APPLICABLE


As held in the case of LEE vs PEOPLE [43]
In Lee vs People, the SC said the Best Evidence Rule does not apply to:
(1) Proof of facts collateral to the issues
o Such as:
Nature
Appearance
Condition of Physical Objects

Page | 49
EVIDENCE REVIEWER 1ST EXAM | LANDO NOTES 802

Such as when evidence is presented as an OBJECT and NOT as a


document from which we read
o See COLLATERAL FACTS RULE under Rule 128, Sec. 4

(2) Evidence relating to a matter which does not come from the foundation of the cause
of action or defense;
o Its a document but is it really the foundation of your cause of action?
No. It can be presented despite the fact that it is not the original.

(3) When a party uses a document to prove the existence of an independent fact, as to
which the writing is merely collated or incidental
(4) When the original disappeared.

o WAIVABILITY
The Best Evidence Rule may be WAIVED if:
(1) NOT RAISED in the trial; or
(2) For failure of the other party to OBJECT
All the rules of admissibility CAN BE WAIVED. So if you do not know the rule to apply in order
for you to properly object, you therefore waive it.

o Is there a way to restate the Best Evidence Rule so as to remove the misnomer?
The original must be presented except when the proponent can justify the unavailability of
the original in a manner provided by the rules.

Page | 50