The rules on evidence and precedents sustain
The official acts of the legislative, executive
the conviction of an accused through
circumstantial evidence, as long as the following
requisites are present:
(1) there must be more than one circumstance;
(2) the inference must be based on proven facts;
and
(3) the combination of all circumstances
produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt
of the guilt of the accused.
Evidence not formally offered can be considered
by the court as long as they have been properly
identified by testimony duly recorded and they
have themselves been incorporated in the
records of the case.
All the documentary and object evidence in this
case were properly identified, presented and
marked as exhibits in court, including the bricks
of marijuana. Even without their formal offer,
therefore, the prosecution can still establish the
case because witnesses properly identified those
exhibits, and their testimonies are recorded.
Judicial notice, when mandatory. - A court shall
take judicial notice without the introduction of
evidence,
1. The existence and territorial extent of states,
their political history, forms of government and
symbols of nationality
2. The law of nations
3. The admiralty and maritime courts of the
world and their seals,
4. The political constitution and history of the
Philippines
5.
and judicial departments of the Philippines
6. The laws of nature
7. The measure of time
8. and the geographical divisions.
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.
As required by Section 3 of Rule 129, as to any
other matters such as age, a hearing is required
before courts can take judicial notice of such
fact. Generally, the age of the victim may be
proven by the birth or baptismal certificate of
the victim, or in the absence thereof, upon
showing that said documents were lost or
destroyed, by other documentary or oral
evidence sufficient for the purpose.
Independent proof of the actual age of a rape
victim becomes vital and essential so as to
remove an iota of doubt that the case falls under
the qualifying circumstances for the imposition
of the death penalty set by the law.
Accordingly, petitioner's admission in the
stipulation of facts during the pre-trial of the
criminal amounts to a waiver of his defense of
forgery in the civil case
The rule that no proof need be offered as to any
facts admitted at a pre-trial hearing applies.
Under Section 34, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules
of Court, evidence that one did a certain thing at
one time is not admissible to prove that he did
the same or similar thing at another time,
although such evidence may be received to
prove habit, usage, pattern of conduct or the
intent of the parties.
Secondary evidence is admissible when the
original documents were actually lost or
destroyed. But prior to the introduction of such
secondary evidence, the proponent must
establish the former existence of the instrument.
The correct order of proof is as follows:
Existence; execution; loss; contents although this
order may be changed if necessary in the
discretion of the court
It is a hornbook doctrine that as between bare
denials and positive testimony on affirmative
matters, the latter is accorded greater
evidentiary weight.
Hearsay rule
Section 36, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence, states that a witness can testify only to
those facts which he knows of or comes from his
personal knowledge, that is, which are derived
from his perception.
It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that actual or
compensatory damages is not presumed, but
must be duly proved with reasonable degree of
certainty. The party alleging a fact has the
burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not
evidence.
It has been held that a dying declaration to be
admissible must be complete in itself. To be
complete in itself does not mean that the
declarant must recite everything that
constituted the res gestae of the subject of his
statement, but that his statement of any given
fact should be a full expression of all that he
intended to say as conveying his meaning in
respect of such fact.
In the absence of governmental interference, the
liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot
be invoked against the State.
The constitutional proscription against unlawful
searches and seizures therefore applies as a
restraint directed only against the government
and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of
the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against
the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary
and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.
In People v. Mate, the Court ruled that “even
without the exhibits which have been
incorporated into the records of the case, the
prosecution can still establish the case because
the witnesses properly identified those exhibits
and their testimonies are recorded."
The Revised Rules on Evidence do not require
that a dying declaration must be made in writing
to be admissible. In only requires that
a) it must concern the crime and the
circumstances of the declarant’s death,
b) at the time it was made, the declarant was
under a consciousness of impending death,
c) the declarant was competent as a witness and
d) the declaration was offered in a criminal case
for homicide, murder or parricide where
declarant was the victim.
Under Rule 119, Section 23 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure, as amended, the trial
court may dismiss the action on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence upon a demurrer to
evidence filed by the accused with or without
leave of court.
Prescinding from the above, the rule on formal
offer of evidence (Rule 132, §34) now being
invoked by petitioner is clearly not applicable to
the present case involving a petition for
naturalization. The only instance when said rules
may be applied by analogy or suppletorily in such
cases is when it is "practicable and convenient.
Technical rules of evidence are not binding in
labor cases. Labor officials should use every
reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each
case speedily and objectively, without regard to
technicalities of law or procedure, all in the
interest of due process.
The above provision explicitly mandates that
when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, no evidence shall be admissible other
than the original document itself. Notably,
certified true copies of these documents,
acceptable under the Rules of Court were
furnished to the petitioners. Even assuming that
petitioners were given mere photocopies, again,
we stress that proceedings before the NLRC are
not covered by the technical rules of evidence
and procedure as observed in the regular courts.
Technical rules of evidence do not apply if the
decision to grant the petition proceeds from an
examination of its sufficiency as well as a careful
look into the arguments contained in position
papers and other documents.
In administrative proceedings, only substantial
evidence or that amount of relevant evidence
that a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion is required.
Thus, findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies
are generally accorded respect and even finality
by the Supreme Court, if supported by
substantial evidence, in recognition of their
expertise on the specific matters under their
consideration.
The admission having been made in a
stipulation of facts at pre-trial, it must be
treated as a judicial admission. Under Section 4,
Rule 129, a judicial admission requires no proof.
As a rule, hearsay evidence is excluded and
carries no probative value. However, the rule
does admit of an exception. Where a party
failed to object to hearsay evidence, then the
same is admissible
HEARSAY RULE
A witness can testify only to those facts which he
knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which
are derived from his own perception, except as
otherwise provided in these rules
Respondent SIHI had no need to present the
original of the documents as there was already
a judicial admission by petitioner at pre-trial of
the execution of the promissory note and
receipt of the demand letter.
The Constitution lays down the general rule that
a search and seizure must be carried on the
strength of a judicial warrant. Otherwise, the
search and seizure is deemed "unreasonable."
Evidence procured on the occasion of an
unreasonable search and seizure is deemed
tainted for being the proverbial fruit of a
poisonous tree and should be excluded. Such
evidence shall be inadmissible in evidence for
any purpose in any proceeding.
The documents and papers are inadmissible in
evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring
“the privacy of communication and
correspondence to be inviolable is no less
applicable simply because it is the wife who
thinks herself aggrieved by her husband’s
infidelity, who is the party against whom the
constitutional provision is to be enforced. The
only exception to the prohibition in the
Constitution is if there is a lawful order from a
court or when public safety or order requires
otherwise, as prescribed by law. Any violation of
this provision renders the evidence obtained
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
For circumstantial evidence to suffice,
(1) There should be more than one circumstance;
(2) The facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and
3) The combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
The test to determine whether or not the
circumstantial evidence on record are sufficient
to convict the accused is that the series of the
circumstances proved must be consistent with
the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with
his innocence.
Rep. Act No. 4200 entitled “An Act to Prohibit
and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related
Violations of the Privacy of Communication, and
for other purposes” expressly makes such tape
recordings inadmissible in evidence thus:
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not
being authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire
or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or
record such communication or spoken word by
using a device commonly known as a dictaphone
or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie
or tape-recorder, or however otherwise
described. . . . Sec. 4. Any communication or
spoken word, or the existence, contents,
substance, purport, or meaning of the same or
any part thereof, or any information therein
contained, obtained or secured by any person in
violation of the preceding sections of this Act
shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial,
quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative
hearing or investigation.
Statements and/or agreements made at
conciliation proceedings are privileged and
cannot be used as evidence.
It must be remembered that the purpose for
which evidence is offered must be specified
because such evidence may be admissible for
several purposes under the doctrine of multiple
admissibility, or may be admissible for one
purpose and not for another; otherwise the
adverse party cannot interpose the proper
objection.
Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be
considered for any other purpose.
In assessing the probative value of DNA
evidence, courts should consider, inter alia, the
following factors: how the samples were
collected, how they were handled, the possibility
of contamination of the samples, the procedure
followed in analyzing the samples, whether the
proper standards and procedures were followed
in conducting the tests, and the qualification of
the analyst who conducted the tests.
The trial court should have taken judicial notice
of R.A. No. 6734, as implemented by E.O. No.
429, as legal basis of the President’s power to
reorganize the executive department,
specifically those administrative regions which
did not vote for their inclusion in the ARMM. It
Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice
have three material requisites: (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.
In this case, however, the Court is not convinced
that one was conducted. And even if there had
been one, the Court is not inclined to believe that
a board resolution was duly passed specifically
authorizing Atty. Aguinaldo to file the complaint
and execute the required certification against
forum shopping. The respondent’s allegation
that its board of directors conducted a
teleconference and approved the said resolution
is not credible, given the additional fact that no
such allegation was made in the complaint.

However, while a trial court focuses on the

factual allegations in a complaint, it cannot
In this case, judicial notice of the age of the
disregard statutes and decisions material and
victim is improper, despite the defense counsels
relevant to the proper appreciation of the
admission, thereof acceding to the prosecutions
questions before it. In resolving a motion to
motion. As required by Section 3 of Rule 129, as
dismiss, every court must take judicial notice of
to any other matters such as age, a hearing is
decisions this Court has rendered as provided by
required before courts can take judicial notice of
Section 1 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court
such fact.

Under the Section 1 Rule 129, it is mandatory

Jurisprudence dictates that judicial notice cannot
and the Court has no alternative but to take
be taken of a statute before it becomes effective.
judicial notice of the official acts of the President
The reason is simple. A law which is not yet in
of the Philippines, who heads the executive
force and hence, still inexistent, cannot be of
branch of our government.
common knowledge capable of ready and
unquestionable demonstration, which is one of
the requirements before a court can take judicial
A document, or any article for that matter, is not notice of a fact.
evidence when it is simply marked for
identification. It is settled that courts will only
consider as evidence that which has been
Inasmuch as the valuation of the property of
formally offered. A formal offer is necessary
Wycoco is the very issue in the case at bar, the
since judges are required to base their findings
trial court should have allowed the parties to
of fact and judgment only and strictly upon the
present evidence thereon instead of practically
evidence offered by the parties at the trial.
assuming a valuation without basis. While Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides in Section
market value may be one of the bases of 35 thereof as follows:
determining just compensation, the same
Sec. 35. Offer of evidence.—The court shall
cannot be arbitrarily arrived at without
consider no evidence which has not been
considering the factors to be appreciated in
formally offered. The purpose for which the
arriving at the fair market value of the property
evidence is offered must be specified.
e.g., the cost of acquisition, the current value of
like properties, its size, shape, location, as well as
the tax declarations thereon.
as a general rule "courts are not authorized to
take judicial notice, in the adjudication of cases
pending before them, of the contents of the
Before a foreign judgment is given presumptive
records of other cases, even when such cases
evidentiary value, the document must first be
have been tried or are pending in the same court,
presented and admitted in evidence.
and notwithstanding the fact that both cases
may have been heard or are actually pending
before the same judge. It is clear, though, that
Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of
this exception is applicable only when, "in the
the laws of Singapore. SAL has the burden of
absence of objection,"
proof. SAL failed to prove such law hence
Philippine law shall apply.

The post office practice of which the lower court

took judicial notice is not covered by any of the
Elementary is the rule that foreign laws may not
instances provided by the Rules. Neither can it be
be taken judicial notice of and have to be proven
classified under “matters which are of public
like any other fact in dispute between the parties
knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable
in any proceeding, with the rare exceptional n
demonstration, or ought to be known to judges
instances when the said laws are already within
because of their judicial functions.”
the actual knowledge of the court, such as when
they are well and generally known, or they have
been actually ruled upon in other cases before it
While a court is not mandated to take judicial
and none of the parties concerned claim
notice of this practice under Section 1 of Rule
otherwise.
129 of the Rules of Court, it nevertheless may do
so under Section 2 of the same Rule. The latter
Rule provides that a court, in its discretion, may
A court will take judicial notice of its own acts
take judicial notice of "matters which are of
and records in the same case, of facts established
public knowledge, or ought to be known to
in prior proceedings in the same case, of the
judges because of their judicial functions."
authenticity of its own records of another case
between the same parties, of the files of related
cases in the same court, and of public records on
Well-settled is the rule that courts are not
file in the same court.
authorized to take judicial notice of the contents
of the records of other cases even when said
cases have been tried or are pending in the same
court or before the same judge.24 They may only A person‘s appearance, where relevant, is
do so "in the absence of objection" and "with the admissible as object evidence, the same being
knowledge of the opposing party,"25 which are addressed to the senses of the court.
not obtaining here.

People v. Pruna laid down the guideline.

A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later
Under the guideline, the testimony of a relative
challenge that fact as judicial admissions are a
with respect to the age of the victim is sufficient
waiver of proof;22production of evidence is
to constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt in
dispensed with.
cases (a) and (b) above. In such cases, the
disparity between the allegation and the proof of
age is so great that the court can easily
Such admission is binding on them and no
determine from the appearance of the victim the
amount of contradictory evidence can offset it.
veracity of the testimony. The appearance
Judicial admissions, verbal or written, made by
corroborates the relative‘s testimony.
the parties in the pleadings or in the course of
the trial or other proceedings in the same case,
are conclusive on them,. No evidence being is
The circumstances of force and intimidation
required needed to prove the same and it cannot
attending the instant case were manifested
be contradicted unless it is shown to have been
clearly not only in the victim’s testimony but also
made through palpable mistake or that no such
in the physical evidence presented during the
admission was made.
trial consisting of her torn dress and underwear
as well as the medico-legal report. Such pieces of
evidence indeed are more eloquent than a
A judicial admission conclusively binds the party
hundred witnesses.
making it. He cannot thereafter take a position
contradictory to, or inconsistent with his
pleadings.
Anent the paraffin test, it is true that it produced
a negative result but such fact does not Ipso
facto merit A’s acquittal. The absence of powder
A "genuine issue" is an issue of fact which
burns in a suspect’s hand is not conclusive proof
requires the presentation of evidence. When the
that he has not fired a gun.
facts as pleaded appear uncontested or
undisputed, then there is no real or genuine
issue or question as to the facts.
The constitutional proscription against
warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute
but admits of certain exceptions, namely:
Resemblance between a minor and his alleged
parent is competent and material evidence to (1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful
establish parentage. Needless to stress, the trial arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of
courts conclusion should be given high respect, the Rules of Court and by prevailing
it having had the opportunity to observe the jurisprudence;
physical appearances of the minor and petitioner
(2) seizure of evidence in plain view;
concerned.
(3) search of moving vehicles;

(4) consented warrantless search;

(5) customs search;

(6) stop and frisk situations (Terry search);and

(7) exigent and emergency circumstances.

Search of a moving vehicle is one of the five

doctrinally accepted exceptions to the
constitutional mandate that no search or seizure
shall be made except by virtue of a warrant
issued by a judge after personally determining
the existence of probable cause.

A stop-and-frisk was defined as the vernacular

designation of the right of a police officer to stop
a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat
him for weapon(s).