REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
CHAPTER 1 – PRELIMINARY
CONSIDERATIONS
A. BASIC PRINCIPLES
CONCEPT OF “EVIDENCE”; TRUTH AS A PURPOSE
Rule 128, Rules of Court
“Section 1. Evidence defined. – Evidence is the means,
sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.”
 To be considered evidence, the same must be
sanctioned or allowed by the ROC
 It is not evidence, if it is excluded by law or by
the ROC, even if it proves the existence or non-
existence of a fact in issue
 Evidence is not an end in itself but merely as a
means of ascertaining the truth of the matter of
fact (in a judicial proceeding)
 Courts are not authorized to consider evidence
that has not been formally offered
WIRE-TAPPING CASES
Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA
Tape recordings of telephone conversations obtained
through wiretapping are inadmissible.
Gaanan v. IAC
The use of a telephone extension does not violate
RA 4200 because a telephone extension devise is not
among those devices or arrangements enumerated
therein.
Ramirez v. CA
Even a person privy to a communication who
records his private conversation with another
without the knowledge of the latter will qualify as a
violator under RA 4200.
SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY OF THE RULES ON
EVIDENCE
 Principle of uniformity – ROE shall be the same
in all courts and in all trials and hearings (Sec. 2,
Rule 128, ROE)
XPN: “Except as provided by law”
In what cases not applicable: (Sec. 4, Sec. 128, ROE):
1. Election cases
2. Cadastral
3. Naturalization and insolvency proceedings
4. Other cases not herein provided for, except by
analogy or suppletory character and whenever
practicable and convenient
GR: Administrative agencies are not bound by the
technical rules on evidence
SRA v. Tormon
It can accept documents which cannot be admitted in
a judicial proceeding where the ROC are strictly
observed. It can choose to give weight or disregard
such evidence, depending on its trustworthiness.
Reyes v. CA
Rules on evidence are not applicable to agrarian
cases even in suppletory manner.
Manalo v. TNS Philippines Inc.
The technical Rules on Evidence are not applicable in
labor tribunals.
Castillo v. Prudentialife Plans
Thus, the argument, that the written statements of
certain employees are hearsay because such
employees were not presented for cross-
examination, is not persuasive. The ROE are not
strictly observed in proceedings before the NLRC
which are summary in nature.
Ong Chia v. Republic
The rule on formal offer of evidence is not applicable
in a petition for naturalization.
Sasan v. NLRC
Documents presented to NLRC which were not
presented to the Labor Arbiter were admitted. NLRC
is not precluded from receiving evidence for the first
time on appeal. Documentary evidence submitted
that were mere photocopies were also admitted.
Page 1 of 55
 REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA

Technical ROE do not apply if the decision to grant Offer of compromise not Offer of compromise may
the petition proceeds from an examination of its an admission of any be received in evidence
sufficiency as well as a careful look into the liability, not admissible in as an implied admission
arguments contained in position papers and other evidence as against the of guilt
documents. offeror
Presumption of Accused enjoys
innocence does not apply constitutional
presumption of
WHEN EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED; WHEN NOT REQUIRED innocence
 The basic rule is that a mere allegation is not “Admission” “Confession”admission
evidence and is not equivalent to proof Evidence of the moral Prosecution not allowed
 Evidence is the means of proving a fact character of a party is to prove bad character; It
 Evidence is needed when the court has to admissible as long as it is can only do so in rebuttal
resolve a question of fact pertinent to the issue of
character involved
Evidence is no longer needed to prove an assertion in Rule on disqualification Does not apply because it
the following: by death or insanity involves a claim or
1. When the pleadings in a civil proceeding do not applies demand against the
tender an issue or fact estate
2. Agreement in writing by parties Privileged Does not apply
3. Matters of judicial notice and on matters communication rule on
judicially admitted patient-physician
4. When the law presumes the truth of a fact relationship
(presumptive negligence of common carriers, Rule on extrajudicial Rule on extrajudicial
presumption of innocence of the accused) confession does not confession applies
5. When a rule presumes the truth of a fact apply
(presumption of regular performance of an
official duty (Sec. 3(m), Rule 131, ROC)
DISTINCTION BETWEEN EVIDENCE AND PROOF
 Proof is merely the probative effect of evidence
APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
and is the conviction or persuasion of the mind
Sec. 2, Rule 1, Rules of Electronic Evidence resulting from a consideration of the evidence
 Proof is the effect or result of evidence;
“Sec. 2. Cases covered. – these Rules shall apply to all evidence is the medium of proof
civil actions and proceedings, as well as to quasi-judicial
and administrative cases.” FACTUM PROBANDUM AND FACTUM PROBANS

 Ephemeral communications (telephone, text, Factum Probandum Factum Probans

chatroom sessions, streaming audio/video, and The fact of proposition to The facts or material
other forms of communication, the evidence of be established evidencing the fact or
which is not retained) are now admissible in proposition to be
evidence, subject to certain conditions. established
The fact to be proved; The probative or
SOME DISTINCTIONS BET. EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES which is in issue in a case evidentiary fact tending
AND CRIMINAL CASES to which the evidence is to prove the fact in issue
CIVIL CASES CRIMINAL CASES directed
Preponderance of Beyond reasonable May be affected by
evidence doubt judicial admissions

Page 2 of 55
 REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA

Refers to the elements of  If the evidence induces belief as to the

a cause of action (Ex. In a existence or non-existence of the fact in issue; if
collection for sum of it does no induce such belief, it is irrelevant
money – existence of  The fact may either be the immediate fact or an
debt, maturity of the ultimate fact in issue
debt, demand, failure to
pay) – those only People v. Galleno
specifically denied
“There is no precise and universal test of relevancy
provided by law. However, the determination of
The mere filing of an
information does not whether a particular evidence is relevant rests largely
at the discretion of the court, which must be
automatically give rise to
a factum probandum; it exercised according to the teachings of logic and
everyday experience.”
only arises when the
accused enters a plea of
not guilty WHEN COLLATERAL MATTERS ARE ALLOWED
Guilty plea: it refers to a
matter that the  A matter is collateral when it is on a parallel or
prosecution must prove diverging line, merely additional or auxiliary; it
to justify a conviction connotes the absence of a direct connection of
WAIVER OF THE RULES ON EVIDENCE the evidence and the matter in dispute
 A collateral matter may be admitted if it tends
1. When an objectionable evidence is not objected in any reasonable degree to establish the
to (Ex. When hearsay evidence is not objected probability or improbability of the fact in issue
to)  While the collateral evidence may not bear
2. Stipulated in writing unless contrary to law, directly on the issue, it will be admitted if it has
public order, public policy, morals, or good the tendency to induce belief as to the
customs or prejudicial to a third person with a probability or improbability of the issues as
right recognized by law. when it would have the effect of corroborating
or supplementing facts previously established
B. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE by direct evidence
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE ON THE CREDIBILITY OF A
Sec. 3 of Rule 128:
WITNESS
“Sec. 3. Admissibility of evidence. – Evidence is
 An accused may testify as a witness on his own
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
behalf but subject to cross-examination on
excluded by the law or these rules.”
matters covered by direct examination
a. Relevant (Sec.1(d), Rule 115)
b. Competent (Not excluded by the law or the  A hostile witness may be impeached and cross-
rules) examined but such cross-examination must only
be on the subject matter of his examination-in-
RELEVANT EVIDENCE chief (Sec.12, Rule 132)
 Evidence adduced should be directed to the COMPETENT EVIDENCE
matters in dispute
 Where there is no issue as to a matter of fact,  If the test of relevance is LOGIC and COMMON
there exists no purpose for an item of evidence SENSE, the test of competence is the LAW or
RULES

Page 3 of 55

 If evidence offered is objected to on the ground
that it is incompetent, such objection is not an
accepted form because it is a general objection.
The objection should specify the ground for its
incompetence such as leading, hearsay or parol.
ADMISSIBILITY AND WEIGHT (PROBATIVE VALUE) OF
THE EVIDENCE
 Admissibility of evidence refers to the
question of whether or not the evidence is
to be considered at all.
 The probative value of the evidence refers
to the question of whether or not it proves
an issue (weight/tendency to convince and
persuade)
MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY
1. When a proffered evidence is admissible for
two or more purposes (Ex. dying declaration,
part of the res gestae)
2. Evidence is admissible for one purpose but
inadmissible for another or vice versa. (Ex. Bad
reputation)
3. Evidence may also be admissible against one
party but not against another (extrajudicial
statement not admissible against co-accused)
CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY
 Relevance of a piece of evidence is not apparent
at the time that is offered but will readily be
seen when connected to other pieces of
evidence not yet offered
CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY
 This allows a party to introduce otherwise
inadmissible evidence to answer the opposing
party’s previous introduction of inadmissible
evidence.
 A party who first introduces either irrelevant or
incompetent evidence into the trial cannot
complain of the subsequent submission of
similar evidence from the adverse party relating
to the same subject matter (Ex. Hearsay
evidence)
DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
 Direct evidence proves a fact without the need
to make an inference from another fact
 Circumstantial or indirect evidence is that
evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue
through an inference which the fact finder
draws from the evidence established
CONVICTION BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
 Circumstantial evidence is the rule of evidence
that applies when no witness saw the
commission of a crime. Requisites: a.) there is
more than one circumstance b.) the facts from
which the inference are derived are proven c.)
the combination of all the circumstances is such
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.
CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE AND CORROBORATIVE
EVIDENCE
 Cumulative evidence refers to evidence of the
same kind and character as that already given
which tends to prove the same proposition
 Corroborative evidence is one that is
supplementary to that already given tending to
strengthen or confirm it. It is additional
evidence of a different character to the same
point
C. MISCELLANEOUS DOCTRINES
FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMNIBUS
 It is not a positive rule of law; not strictly
applied
 Before this maxim can be applied, the witness
must be shown to have willfully falsified the
truth on one or more material points
 The principle presupposes the existence of a
positive testimony on a material point contrary
to subsequent declarations
ALIBI; DENIAL
 The defense of alibi is inherently weak and must
be rejected when the identity of the accused is
satisfactorily and categorically established by
the eyewitnesses, especially when the
eyewitnesses have no ill-motive to testify falsely
Page 4 of 55
 REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA

 Denial is an inherently weak defense and must assumed from another fact of group of facts
be buttressed by other persuasive evidence of found or otherwise established in the action.
non-culpability to merit credibility
INFERENCE DISTINGUISHED FROM A PRESUMPTION
 Alibi may serve as basis of acquittal is it can
really be shown by clear evidence that it was Inference Presumption
indeed physically impossible for the accused to A factual conclusion that An inference which is
be at the scene at the time of commission of can rationally be drawn mandatory unless
the crime from other facts; it is a rebutted (Ex. Sale-
result of the reasoning presumption that it was
process entered into with
sufficient cause or
CHAPTER 2: BURDEN OF PROOF, consideration
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE AND
PRESUMPTIONS KINDS OF PRESUMPTIONS
A. BURDEN OF PROOF
Burden of proof or “onus probandi” 1. Presumption of law – either conclusive or
disputable
-the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in 2. Presumption of fact – arises because reason
issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the itself allows a presumption from the facts; in
amount of evidence required by law (Sec. 1, Rule 131) effect, it is a mere inference because it does not
necessarily give rise to a legal effect
 He who alleges a fact has the burden of proving
the same MEANING OF CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
 In civil cases, the party making allegations has
the burden of proving them by preponderance Rule 131, Rules of Court
of evidence a. Conclusive (juris et de jure) – when the
Preponderance of evidence presumption becomes irrebuttable upon the
presentation of the evidence and any evidence
-the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, tending to rebut the presumption is not
superior to that of the other side admissible
b. Disputable (juris tantum) – if it may be
 In administrative cases, the complainant bears
contradicted or overcome by other evidence
the onus in proving the averments of his
complaint by substantial evidence CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS UNDER ROC
 If one claims a right granted by law, he must
prove his claim by competent evidence, relying 1. Sec. 2, Rule 131
on the strength of his own evidence, not upon a. Estoppel in pais or estoppel by conduct
the weakness of that of his opponent. b. Tenant cannot deny the title of his landlord

EQUIPOISE RULE OR EQUIPONDERANCE DOCTRINE DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS UNDER ROC

 In a situation where the evidence of the parties
is evenly balanced, the decision should be
against the party with the burden of proof
B. PRESUMPTIONS
CONCEPT OF PRESUMPTIONS
 A presumption is an assumption of fact resulting
from a rule of law which requires such fact to be
1. Sec. 3(m), Rule 131 – “official duty has been
regularly performed” -this obtains only when
there is no deviation from the regular
performance of duty. It is rebuttable by
affirmative evidence of irregularity or of a
failure to perform a duty
2. That a person is innocent of a crime or wrong
3. That an unlawful act was done with unlawful
intent
Page 5 of 55

4. That evidence willfully suppressed would be
adverse if produced
5. That money paid by one to another is due to
the latter
6. That prior rents or installments had been paid
when a receipt for the later ones is produced
7. A person takes ordinary care of his concerns
(signing of documents)
c. QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE (WEIGHT
AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE)
1. PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
-the degree of proof as to the guilt of the proof that,
after investigation of the whole record, produces moral
certainty in an unprejudiced mind of the accused’s
culpability; it does not mean such a degree of proof
that excludes all possibility of error, only a moral
certainty is required.
 The evidence of the prosecution must stand on
its own strength and not rely on the weakness
of the evidence of the defense
2. PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
-the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence
on either side and is usually considered to be
synonymous with the term “greater weight of the
evidence”
-probability of the truth
-evidence which is more convincing to the court as
worthier of belief than that which is offered in
opposition thereto.
How preponderance of evidence is determined by the
courts:
1. All facts and circumstances of the case
2. The witnesses’ manner of testifying, their
intelligence, their means and opportunity of
knowing the facts to which they are testifying,
the nature of the facts to which they testify, the
probability or improbability of their testimony
3. The witnesses’ interest or want of interest, and
also their personal credibility so far as the same
may ultimately appear in the trial
4. The number of witnesses, although it does not
mean that the preponderance is necessarily
with the greater number
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
3. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
-such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion
-used in cases filed before administrative or quasi-
judicial bodies; also used in petition for writ of amparo
4. CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
-it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief
or conviction as to allegations sought to be established.
-it is intermediate, being more than preponderance, but
not to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond
reasonable doubt
EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
 All matters relating to the admissibility and
evidentiary weight of an electronic document
may be established by an affidavit stating facts
of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or
based on authentic records. The affidavit must
affirmatively show the competence of the
affiant to testify on the matters contained
therein.
 The affiant shall be made to affirm the contents
of the affidavit on open court and may be cross-
examined as a matter of right by the adverse
party
CHAPTER 3: JUDICIAL NOTICE
AND JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
FUNCTION OF JUDICIAL NOTICE
Judicial notice takes the place of proof and is of equal
force. It makes evidence unnecessary. When the court
takes judicial notice of a matter, the court accepts and
recognizes the same without necessity of formal proof.
Evidence shall be dispensed with because the matter is
so well-known and is of common knowledge not to be
disputable.
WHEN JUDICIAL NOTICE IS MANDATORY
a. Existence and territorial extent of states
b. Political history, forms of government and
symbols of nationality of states
c. Law of nations
d. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and
their seals
Page 6 of 55

e. Political constitution and history of the
Philippines
f. Official acts of the legislative, executive and
judicial departments of the Philippines
g. Laws of nature
h. Measure of time
i. Geographical divisions
Siena Realty v. Gal-lang
It would ne error for a court not to take judicial
notice of an amendment to the ROC. A court shall
take judicial notice, among others, of the official
acts not only of the legislative and executive
departments but also of the judicial department
DENR v. DENR Region 12 Employees
A court clearly cannot disregard decisions
material to the proper appreciation of the
questions before it. In resolving the MD, the trial
court should have taken cognizance of the official
acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
departments because they are proper subjects of
mandatory judicial notice.
RP v. Rosario
Lower courts should take judicial notice of the
fact that Congress and the SC have both officially
recognized UP’s indefeasible title to its
landholdings.
WHEN JUDICIAL NOTICE IS DISCRETIONARY
a. Matters of public knowledge (and public
notoriety)
b. Matters capable of unquestionable
demonstration
c. Matters ought to be known to judges because
of their judicial functions
 Things of common knowledge, of which courts
take judicial notice of, are matters coming to
the knowledge of men generally in the course
of the ordinary experiences of life, or matters
generally accepted by mankind as true and are
capable of ready and unquestioned
demonstration
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
 Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge; the
mere personal knowledge of the judge is not
judicial knowledge of the court.
 Judicial notice is not limited by the actual
knowledge of the individual judge or court; a
judge may not take judicial notice of a fact
which he personally knows if it is not part of the
evidence or not a fact generally known within
its territorial jurisdiction
 Judicial notice may be taken during and after
the trial
 Judicial notice may also be taken after the trial,
before the judgment, also on appeal.
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS; DOCTRINE OF
PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION
Foreign laws must be alleged and proved. In the
absence of proof, the foreign law will be presumed to
be the same as the laws of the jurisdiction hearing the
case
XPN: If foreign law is generally well-known, had been
ruled upon in previous cases and none of the parties
claim otherwise, the court may take judicial notice
(PCIB v. Escolin)
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE LAW OF NATIONS
When foreign law refers to the law of nations, said law
is subject to mandatory judicial notice
 Judicial notice of proprietary acts of GOCC’s –
not allowed because it cannot be considered an
official act of the executive department (Asian
Terminals v. Malayan Insurance)
C. JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
Sec. 4, Rule 129
“Sec. 4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, verbal or
written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.
The admission may be contradicted only by showing of
that it was made through palpable mistake or that no
such admission was made.”
Page 7 of 55

 A judicial admission requires no proof. They are
legally binding to the party making the
admission
JUDICIAL NOTICE CASES (RULE 129)
Barioquinto v. Fernandez
Pardon is a private act which must be pleaded and
proved by the person pardoned because the courts
take no notice thereof; while amnesty by
proclamation of the President with the concurrence
of Congress is a public act of which the courts should
take judicial notice of.
Torres v. CA
Admissions in superseded pleadings are considered
extrajudicial admissions which have to offered in
evidence.
If petitioner had desired to utilize the original
complaint, she should have offered it in evidence.
Having been amended, the original complaint lost its
character as a judicial admission, which would have
required no proof, and became merely an
extrajudicial admission, the admissibility of which, as
evidence, required its formal offer. Contrary to
petitioner's submission, therefore there can be no
estoppel by extrajudicial admission made in the
original complaint, for failure to offer it in evidence.
Tabuena v. CA
The court shall consider no evidence that has not
been formally offered. The purpose for which
evidence is offered shall be specified. The mere fact
that a particular document is marked as an “exhibit”
does not mean it has been offered as part of the
evidence of a party.
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 records of other
cases, even when such cases have been tried or are
pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the
fact that both cases may have been heard or are
actually pending b before the same
judge. Nevertheless, it applied the exception that:….
….It is clear, though, that this exception is applicable
only when, "in the absence of objection," "with the
knowledge of the opposing party," or "at the
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
request or with the consent of the parties," the case
is clearly referred to or "the original or part of the
records of the case are actually withdrawn from the
archives" and "admitted as part of the record of the
case then pending." These conditions have not been
established here.
Courts may take judicial notice of the proceedings of
another case only when certain conditions have been
established.
Baguio v. Vda de Jalagat
When the ground of a motion to dismiss is a prior
judgment rendered by the same court, the taking of
judicial notice of said prior judgment by the same
court is proper.
BPI Family Savings v. CA
As a rule, "courts are not authorized to take judicial
notice of the contents of the records of other cases,
even when such cases have been tried or are pending
in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that
both cases may have been heard or are actually
pending before the same judge." 20
Be that as it may, Section 2, Rule 129 provides that
courts may take judicial notice of matters ought to be
known to judges because of their judicial functions. In
this case, the Court notes that a copy of the Decision
in CTA Case No. 4897 was attached to the Petition for
Review filed before this Court. Significantly,
respondents do not claim at all that the said Decision
was fraudulent or nonexistent. Indeed, they do not
even dispute the contents of the said Decision,
claiming merely that the Court cannot take judicial
notice thereof.
Courts may take judicial notice of a decision in
another case attached to the petition as provided in
Section 2 that courts take judicial notice of matters
ought to be known by the judges by reason of their
judicial functions.
Calamba Steel Center v. CIR
As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take
judicial notice of the contents of records in other
cases tried or pending in the same court, even when
Page 8 of 55

those cases were heard or are actually pending
before the same judge. However, this rule admits of
exceptions, as when reference to such records is
sufficiently made without objection from the
opposing parties.
Contrary to the contention of petitioner, BPI-Family
Savings Bank v. CA31 (on which it rests its entire
arguments) is not on all fours with the facts of this
case.
Moreover, in BPI-Family Savings Bank, petitioner was
able to show "the undisputed fact: that petitioner
had suffered a net loss in 1990 x x x."32 In the instant
case, there is no such "undisputed fact" as yet. The
mere admission into the records of petitioner's
1996 final adjustment return is not a sufficient proof
of the truth of the contents of or entries in that
return. In addition, the BIR in BPI-Family Savings
Bank did not controvert the veracity of the return or
file an opposition to the Motion and the return
In this case, however, the BIR has not been given the
chance to challenge the veracity of petitioner's final
adjustment return. It would not be proper to allow
petitioner to simply prevail and compel a refund in
the amount it claims, without affording the
government a reasonable opportunity to contest the
former's allegations.   The failure to deny the genuineness and due
Finally, even in the absence of a final adjustment
return or any claim for a tax refund, respondent is
authorized by law to examine any book, paper,
record or other data that may be relevant or material
to such inquiry.
Elements to be considered under Sec. 4 of Rule 129:
1. The same must be made by a party to the case
2. The admission must be made in the course of
the proceedings in the SAME case (If made in
another case, it will be considered an
extrajudicial admission for purposes of the
proceeding where such admission is offered)
3. Form of a judicial admission is immaterial
(verbal or written)
4. The stipulation of the facts at the pre-trial of a
constitutes judicial admissions.
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
5. A party may make judicial admissions in:
a. The pleadings
b. During trial
c. In other stages of the judicial proceedings
ADMISSION IN PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS
 Those made in the pleadings, answer, motions,
those inferred from the failure to deny the
material allegations in the other party’s
pleadings
AVERMENTS IN PLEADINGS NOT DEEMED ADMISSIONS
1. Immaterial allegations
2. Conclusions
3. Non-ultimate facts in the pleading
4. Amount of unliquidated damages
IMPLIED ADMISSIONS OF ALLEGATIONS OF USURY
 Allegations of usury must be specifically denied
under oath
IMPLIED ADMISSIONS OF ACTIONABLE DOCUMENTS
 The genuineness and due execution of the
written instrument shall be deemed admitted
unless the adverse party, under oath,
specifically denies them and sets forth what he
claims to be the facts (Sec.8, Rule 8)
execution does not preclude a party from
arguing against the document by evidence of
fraud, mistake, compromise, payments,
statute of limitations, estoppel and want of
consideration (except forgery because the
genuineness of the document was impliedly
admitted) (Acabal v. Acabal)
ADMISSIONS IN THE PRE-TRIAL OF CIVIL CASES
 Includes those made in during the depositions,
interrogatories or requests for admission
because they are made in the course of the
proceedings of the case
ADMISSIONS IN THE PRE-TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES
 Must be reduced in writing and signed by the
accused and counsel
ADMISSIONS IN SUPERSEDED PLEADINGS
Page 9 of 55

 Considered as extrajudicial admissions which
must be proven and must be formally offered as
evidence (Torres v. CA)
ADMISSIONS BY COUNSEL
 Generally conclusive upon a client
Except where reckless or gross negligence/palpable
mistake of counsel:
a. Deprives the client of due process of law
b. When its application will result in outright
deprivation of the client’s liberty or property
c. When the interests so require
Effects of judicial admissions: (Sec. 4, Rule 129)
1. They do not require proof
2. They cannot be contradicted because they are
conclusive upon the party making it
Two ways to contradict a judicial admission:
1. By showing that the admission was made
through palpable (clear to the mind or plain to
see) mistake, or
2. By showing that no such admission was made
(taken out of context or made not in the sense
it is made to appear by the other party)
CHAPTER 4: OBJECT AND
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
A. OBJECT EVIDENCE (RULE 130)
NATURE OF OBJECT (or REAL) EVIDENCE
“Sec. 1. Object as evidence – objects as real 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.”
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
1. Relevant
2. Authenticated
3. Authentication must be made by a competent
witness
4. Must be formally offered in evidence
OBJECT EVIDENCE CASES
Sison v. People
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
The correctness of a photograph as a faithful
representation of the object portrayed can be proved
prima facie, either by the 1) photographer or by any
other 2) competent witness who can testify to its
exactness and accuracy.
Washington v. Tatum
The monthly welfare check of Williams was cashed by
Tatum. A photograph of the check and Tatum was
submitted to evidence which was admitted by the
court.
The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a
correct representation or reproduction of the original
(the actual thing that happened) because what is in
the photographs is only a reproduction. Its
admissibility is determined by its accuracy of the
representation of the scene.
The quantum of authentication courts requires
before a photograph may be admissible in evidence is
that that some witness be able to give some
indication as to when, where, and under what
circumstances the photograph was taken, and that
the photograph accurately portrays the subject/s
illustrated.
Schook v. Holloway
An action for personal arising from a collision
wherein a photograph was submitted as evidence. No
proof was presented as to who took the photo. No
competent witness to testify whether or not the
photo correctly represents the original.
OBJECT EVIDENCE AND THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-
INCRIMINATION
 Right has no application because no testimonial
compulsion was involved (People v. Malimit)
DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE
 It is not the actual thing but it represents or
demonstrates the real thing (map, diagram,
photograph, model, motion pictures and
recordings, x-ray pictures, scientific tests,
demonstrations and experiments, text
messages)
CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
Page 10 of 55

1. Objects that have readily identifiable marks
(unique objects)
2. Objects that are made readily identifiable
(made unique)
3. Objects with no identifying marks (non-unique
objects)
CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN GENERAL
 Refers to those NOT readily identifiable, were
not made readily identifiable or cannot be made
identifiable
 The purpose is to ensure that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are
preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts
as to the identity of the evidence are removed
Guidelines in assessing probative value of DNA
evidence: (People v. Vallejo)
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
5. Whether the proper standards and procedure
were followed in conducting the tests
6. The qualification of the analyst
Agustin v. CA (Admissibility of DNA Test)
DNA test is admissible in proving paternity and is not
a violation of the right against self-incrimination
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (RULE
130)
MEANING OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
 Documents as evidence, consists of writings or
any material containing letters, numbers,
figures, symbols or other modes of written
expressions offered as PROOF OF THEIR
CONTENTS
2 Categories of Documents as Evidence:
a. Writings; (written contracts and wills)
b. Any other material containing modes of written
expressions (objects which contain modes of
written expressions)
 Documentary evidence must be offered as
proof of their contents
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
 If offered for some other purpose, the writings
or materials would not be deemed
documentary evidence but merely object
evidence
DOCUMENTS UNDER THE RULES ON ELECTRONIC
EVIDENCE
 Whether it be the information itself or its
representation, for the document to be
deemed ‘electronic’, it is important that it
be received or produced electronically
 The rule does not absolutely require that
the electronic document be initially
generated or produced electronically
 An electronic document is the functional
equivalent of a paper-based document
 A document electronically notarized in
accordance with the Rules shall be
considered as a public document under the
ROC (may be presented without further
proof)
EVIDENTIARY CONCEPTS IN PRESENTATION OF
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
 Must be both relevant and competent
 It is also subject to exclusionary rules
(hearsay, BER, PER)
 Where the evidence is offered as an object
evidence, BER, PER and hearsay rule do NOT
apply.
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
1. Relevant
2. Authenticated
3. The document must be authenticated by a
competent witness
4. The document must be formally offered in
evidence
C. BEST EVIDENCE RULE
MEANING OF BEST EVIDENCE
 It is more accurately, the “original document”
or “primary evidence rule”
Page 11 of 55

GENERAL RULE: When the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, the best evidence id the
original itself and no other evidence (such as
reproduction, photocopy or oral evidence) is admissible
EXCEPTION:
1. When the original has been lost, or destroyed,
or cannot be produced in court, without bad
faith on the part of the offeror
2. 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;
3. 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;
4. When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office;
 The BER only applies to documentary evidence
AND only where the subject of inquiry is the
contents of the document.
 Where the issue is the EXECUTION or
EXISTENCE of a document or the circumstances
surrounding its execution, the BER does NOT
apply and testimonial evidence is admissible
(Arceo v. People)
People v. Tandoy
Where the marked money was presented solely for
the purpose of establishing its existence and not its
contents, other substitutionary evidence, lie a xerox
copy thereof, is admissible without the need of
accounting for the original.
BER does not apply because the contents of the
document are not the subject of inquiry.
People v. Tan
Carbon copies (duplicate/triplicate) are considered as
originals within the meaning of the BER. Also, there is
no need to account for the non-production of the
others.
Seiler v. Lucasfilm (Star Wars)
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
Drawings are covered by the BER. The originals were
presumed to have been lost in bad faith. The
drawings of Seiler were “writings” within the
meaning of Rule 1001(1) they consist not of letters,
words or numbers but of the EQUIVALENT.”
Since the contents are material and must be proved,
Seiler must either produce the original or show that it
is unavailable through no fault of his own. His
secondary evidence was not a reproduction of the
original but of “reconstructions” made after the
movie.
US v. Meyers
This was a case of perjury. Where the issue was not
the contents of the transcript but what the testimony
had been, the BER was NOT applicable.
How to prove perjury?
1. By stenographic notes (but not the only
evidence to perjury)
2. By the testimony of one who has heard the
perjured statement
A TSN can be used as an evidence but it NOT
indispensable because a witness can also prove
perjury.
US v. Gregorio and Balistoy
Balistoy changed the date of the sale. Only a copy of
the Memorandum of the Sale was presented which
was rejected by the court.
In a criminal case of falsification of a document, it is
INIDSPENSABLE that the ORIGINAL document alleged
to have been simulated, counterfeited or falsified be
presented in evidence. This should be done to enable
the judge to determine W/N the crime was
committed, and also for the judge to determine the
extent of the defendant’s liability.
Compania Maritima v. Allied Free Workers Union
GR: An audit made by, or the testimony of a private
auditor is inadmissible in evidence as proof of the
original records, books of accounts, reports, etc.
Requisites to apply exception:
1. Voluminous character of the records
2. The records should be made accessible to the
adverse party (so that correctness of the
summary may be tested on cross-exam)
3. There should be a preliminary showing of the
Page 12 of 55

difficulty of producing the records in court
Villarey Transit v. Ferrer
For the exception under 3b, it is NOT necessary for a
party seeking to introduce secondary evidence to
show that the original is in the actual possession of
the adverse party.
NOT REQUIRED:
a. To prove actual possession by adverse party –
party asking may present secondary evidence
(admitted as LOST)
b. Party offering evidence to produce original
document
It is enough that circumstances are such that indicate
that the writing is in the possession/control of the
adverse party. There is also no need for admission by
the adverse party.
De Vera v. Aguilar
For the exception under 3a to apply, ALL duplicates or
multiplicate must be unavailable and should be
accounted for. The former existence of the document
must be established (ex. Photocopy).
Order of Proof:
1. Existence
2. Execution
3. Loss
4. Contents
Hutchinson v. Buscas
Failure to adduce in evidence the original document
is or produce secondary evidence after proof of its
loss, destruction or unavailability, in order to prove
the identity of the land is FATAL in an action for
recovery of ownership of RP. The survey of the
engineer was based on the self-serving so it was not
admitted. The quitclaim was not enough to identify
the metes and bounds of the land. Annex A
(describing metes and bounds) was not presented.
Magdayao v. People
When the adverse party has the original of the
writing and does not voluntarily offer to produce it,
secondary may be admitted. The original check
bounced and was returned to the accused. Notice to
present was done (efforts to obtain it). There was
failure (accused was always postponing).
How to give notice:
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
1. Motion to present
2. Open court
3. Sub duces tecum
Ebreo v. Ebreo
Annotation of the disputed DOS in a tax declaration is
NOT sufficient proof of the transfer of property
where the party failed to prove the loss of the
originals. Therefore, the SALE was not proven. The
loss of the DOS was not proven. Loss of all copies of
the document was not accounted for. It also did not
follow order of proof.
Requisites before a party is allowed to adduce S.E.
to prove the contents of the original:
1. Execution and existence of the original
2. The loss and destruction of the original or its
non-production in court
3. Unavailability of the original is not due to bad
faith on the part of the offeror.
Michael & Co. v. Enriquez
Who may establish execution of a document:
1. The person/s who executed it
2. The person before whom the execution was
acknowledge
3. Any person who was present and saw it
executed
4. A person who, after its execution, saw it and
recognized the signatures
5. Person to whom the parties to the
instrument had previously confessed the
execution thereof.
Municipality of Victorias v. CA
In lieu of DOS, a certification of a notarial register is
admissible. Contents may be proved by a copy, recital
of the contents in some authentic document (DOS,
subject property, witnesses, and testimony, parties,
consideration, substance, form)
Vda de Corpus v. Trabanco
DOS was lost during the war. Heirs made efforts to
trace notary public. Testimony of Corpus’ widow,
Councilor Ableza were sufficient. Proof of due
execution and delivery of instrument, proof of
loss/destruction. The oral testimony may be given by
any of the persons who red and signed the
document.
Page 13 of 55

WAIVER OF THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Documentary evidence presented were merely
photocopies. The BER may be waived if not raised in the
trial (Sy v. CA)
WHEN DOCUMENT IS MERELY COLLATERALLY IN ISSUE
 When the purpose of introducing the document
is NOT to establish its terms, but to show facts
that have no reference to its contents like its
existence, condition, execution or delivery
HOW TO APPLY THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE
1. Determine the matter inquired into – it should
be a DOCUMENT and its CONTENTS are the
subject of the same inquiry. No other evidence
shall be presented except for the ORIGINAL.
2. If the original cannot be presented in evidence:
a. Find a LEGAL EXCUSE for the failure to
present original
b. Present SECONDARY evidence allowed by
the ROC
REQUISITES FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF SECONDARY
EVIDENCE IN CASE OF LOSS, DESTRUCTION, OR
UNAVAILABILITY OF THE ORIGINAL
a. The offeror must prove the existence and
execution of the original document
b. The offeror must show the cause of its
unavailability such as the loss or destruction of
the original; and
c. The offeror must show that the unavailability
was not due to his bad faith
Order in the presentation of secondary evidence:
(must lay the basis for its introduction)
a. A copy of the original
b. A recital of the contents of the document in
some authentic document
c. By the testimony of witnesses
Correct order of proof:
a. Existence
b. Execution
c. Loss
d. Contents
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
 This may be changed at the sound discretion of
the court
REQUISITES FOR SECONDARY EVIDENCE WHEN
ORIGINAL IS IN THE CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE
ADVERSE PARTY
1. Proof that the original exists;
2. Proof that said document is under the custody
or control of the adverse party;
3. Proof that the proponent of the secondary
evidence has given the adverse party
reasonable notice to produce the original
document; and
4. Proof that the adverse party failed to produce
the original document despite the reasonable
notice.
Magdayao v. People
The mere fact that the original of the writing is in the
custody of the adverse party against whom it is
offered does not warrant the admission of secondary
evidence.
The offeror must prove that he has done all in his
power to secure the best evidence by giving notice
to the said party to produce the document. The
notice may be in the form of a motion for the
production of the original, or made in open court in
the presence of the adverse party, or via a subpoena
duces tecum, provided the party in custody of the
original has sufficient time to produce the same.
 After complying with the requirements, the
contents of the document may now be proven
by a copy of the original, a recital of the
contents in some authentic document, or by
testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
REQUISITES WHEN ORIGINAL CONSISTS OF
NUMEROUS ACCOUNTS
1. If the original consists of numerous accounts or
other documents;
2. Such accounts or documents cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time,
and
3. The fact sought to be established from them is
only a general result (summary) of the whole.
 The source documents must be shown to be
original and not secondary and must be made
accessible to the opposing party
Page 14 of 55

 A proper foundation for the introduction of a
summary may be established through the
testimony of the person responsible for the
summary’s preparation, or the person who
supervised the preparation.
REQUISITES WHEN ORIGINAL IS A PUBLIC RECORD
The proof of the contents of a document, which forms
part of a public record may be done by secondary
evidence. This evidence is a certified true copy of the
original. It is to be issued by the public officer in
custody of the public records.
Sec. 8, Rule 130
“Sec. 8. Party who calls for document not bound to
offer it. – a party who calls for the production of a
document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer
it as evidence.”
MEANING OF “ORIGINAL”
Sec. 4, Rule 130
“Sec. 4. Original of document. –
a. The original of a document is one the contents
of which are the subject of inquiry.
b. When a document is in two or more copies
executed at or about the same time, with
identical contents, all such copies are equally
regarded as originals.
c. When an entry is repeated in the regular course
of business, one being copied from another at
or near the time of the transaction, all the
entries are likewise equally regarded as
originals.”
 Writings with identical contents made by
printing, mimeographing, lithography and other
similar methods executed at the same time.
 Documents executed in duplicate or triplicate
form are all primary evidence of the contents of
the document. Each is deemed an original
(Anglo-American Packing v. Cannon)
ORIGINALS UNDER THE RULES ON ELECTRONIC
EVIDENCE
Sec. 1, Rule 4 of the ROEE
“Sec.1. Original of an electronic document. – an
electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
of an original under the BER if it is a printout or output
readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the
data accurately.”
 The copies of the printout or output readable
by sight are also deemed originals where the
copies were executed at or about the same time
with identical contents, or is a counterpart
produced by the same impression as the
original or from the same matrix, or by other
means and which accurately reproduces the
original.
Sec. 2 Rule 4 of the ROEE
“Sec. 2. Copies as equivalent of originals. – not
admissible if:
a. A genuine question is raised as to the
authenticity of the original; or
b. In the circumstances it would be unjust or
inequitable to admit a copy in lieu of the
original.”
Original printout of facsimile transmissions
MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp.
“Electronic data message” and “electronic document”
do not include facsimile transmission and CANNOT be
considered as electronic evidence. It is not the
functional equivalent of an original under the BER
and is not admissible as electronic evidence.
Garvida v. Sales
“A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading.
It is at best and exact copy preserving all the marks of
an original. Without the original, there is no way of
determining on its face whether the fax pleading is
genuine and authentic and was originally signed by
the party and his counsel.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
 This rule applies only to contracts which the
parties decided to set forth in writing
 The nature of this rule is of substantive law
 Literally, parol evidence means oral or verbal
testimony of the witness
 Also “extrinsic evidence” or “evidence aliunde”
(other than the writing itself)
Page 15 of 55

 Becomes operative when the issues in the
litigation are TERMS of a written agreement
Section 9, Rule 130
“Sec.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.”
However, a party may present evidence to modify,
explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if
he puts in issue in his pleading:
a. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection
in the written agreement;
b. The failure of the written agreement to express
the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto;
c. The validity of the written agreement;
d. The existence of other terms agreed to by the
parties or their successors-in-interest AFTER the
execution of the written agreement.
Yu Tek v. Gonzales
While parol evidence is admissible in a variety of
ways to explain the meaning of contracts, it cannot
serve the purpose of incorporating in the contract
additional contemporaneous conditions which are
not mentioned at all in the writing, unless there has
been fraud or mistake. The rights of the parties must
be determined by the writing itself. There is no clause
which even remotely suggests that such condition
exists.
Ortanez v. CA
Parol evidence showing that the sale was subject to
several conditions was not admitted. Records also
show that it was not expressly pleaded that the DOS
did not reflect the intention of the parties. Such issue
must be “squarely presented”. Since they did not
plead any of the exceptions, the case GR applies.
LASEDECO v. Garcia Plantation
Parol evidence was allowed because there is an
imperfection in the original document. This is not
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
varying the terms of the contract by extrinsic
agreement because there is NO contract in existence.
There is nothing to which to apply the excluding rule.
This rule does not prevent the introduction of
extrinsic evidence to show that the contract never
became effective because of the failure of some
collateral condition, pre-requisite to liability.
Reference was made to a previous agreement in the
letter (about the extension given). It was not
indicated in the contract therefore, there was an
imperfection.
Pastor v. Gaspar
The written agreement was a loan but the buyer
claims that is one for partnership. Parol evidence was
not admitted because the written agreement’s nature
cannot be varied by the testimony of the debtor.
Eveland v. Eastern Mining
Parol evidence showing that the payment of salary
depended upon the success of the business is not
admissible.
Chiu Chiong v. National City Bank
PE showing that there was an agreement that should
payments made during the Japanese occupation be
declared valid, the payments would be refunded if
not admissible. There was no such evidence of this
agreement to refund. PE was not admitted in this
case.
Robles v. Lizarraga Hermanos
PE showing that there was an agreement on the
compensation for improvements and other property
acquired by lease or purchase is admissible because it
is a COLLATERAL agreement which constituted an
INDUCEMENT to the making of the sale. The court
admitted evidence different from that expressed in
the DOS because the verbal contract (compensation)
is INDEPENDENT of the main contract of conveyance.
Evidence of such verbal contract is admissible under
this doctrine.
Doctrine: the rule excluding PE to vary or contradict a
writing does not extend so far as to preclude the
admission of extrinsic evidence to show PRIOR or
CONTEMPORANEOUS COLLATERAL parol.
Page 16 of 55

PNB v. Seeto
PE showing that assurances were made that the
amount will be refunded should the check be
dishonored is admissible because it is a COLLATERAL
AGREEMENT that induced the petitioner to cash the
check.
Tests for Separability
1. Subject matter is different
2. Even is subject is the same, nonetheless it is
separable (in this case, the indorsement)
A collateral agreement is separate from the
agreement from the original agreement. PER does
NOT apply to collateral agreements.
Woodhouse v. Halili
PE is admissible because it does not vary the terms of
the agreement. The purpose of considering them is
NOT to alter, modify the agreement, but to discover
the intent of the parties and the surrounding
circumstances of the execution of the contract.
Canuto v. Mariano
PE showing that the parties verbally agreed to extend
the period of redemption is admissible because it was
made subsequent to the time when the written
agreement was executed.
PE only applies to contemporaneous agreements, not
subsequent agreements between parties.
Evil sought to be prevented by PER
 Unilateral varying the terms of the contract
by one of the parties.
Enriquez v. Ramos
PE to prove the promise of the sellers to construct
roads on the lots sold is admissible because it was
properly put in issue in the pleadings that the written
agreement did not express the true intention of the
parties. (contemporaneous oral agreement)
Madrigal v. CA
The contract was not a sale but an equitable
mortgage. PE was admitted because it was properly
put in issue and the written agreement did not
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
express the true intention of the parties.
Inciong v. CA
PE to show that the makers agreed to a different loan
amount was admitted because fraud was properly
alleged in the pleading.
For the PE to apply, a written contract need not be in
any particular form of be signed by both parties.
Cruz v. CA
A receipt is not a contract. PE does not apply. It did
not contain any written agreement. A receipt is
merely an acknowledgment of a transaction.
Lechugas v. CA
PE does not apply when at least one of the parties is
not a party or privy of a party to the written
agreement and does not base a claim on the
instrument or assert a right originating in the
instrument.
Pioneer Savings v. CA
PE showing that the DOS merely served as security
for the TD placement is not admissible.
Maulini v. Serrano
PE showing that the indorsement was wholly without
consideration is admissible because the purpose of
presenting such evidence is to show that NO contract
of indorsement ever existed. PE was admitted
because it was to attack the validity of the contract.
Bough v. Cantiveros
The sale was simulated. PE was admitted because she
was attacking the very validity of the instrument.
Such evidence shows that there was no contract at
all.
Parol evidence inadmissible for the ff. purposes:
a. Modify
b. Explain
c. Add to the terms of the agreement
 “Written agreements” includes WILLS
Page 17 of 55

 Only the parties and successors-in-interest are
bound by the PER
 A stranger to the writing may introduce
extrinsic evidence against the efficacy of the
writing
 Unless duly pleaded, a party will be barred from
offering extrinsic evidence over the objection of
the adverse party
PRIOR, CONTEMPORANEOUS AND SUBSEQUENT
AGREEMENTS
 Traditional rules limit the INADMISSIBILITY of PE
to prior or contemporaneous stipulations.
 Under traditional rules, subsequent
agreements are NOT barred by PER (even if
such agreement may have the effect of adding
to, changing or modifying the written
agreement of parties.
 Under the new rules, subsequent agreements
now need to be put in issue in the pleadings.
INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY IN THE WRITING
 The raising of the issue of the intrinsic
ambiguity in the pleading will authorize the
introduction of parol evidence
 Intrinsic or Latent Ambiguity is one which is not
apparent on the face of the document but
which lies in the person or thing that is the
subject of the document or deed.
 It is when the language or writing is clear and
intelligible and suggests but a single meaning,
but some matter extraneous to the writing
creates the ambiguity.
 When ambiguity is patent or extrinsic, PE will
not be admitted even if it is put in issue in the
pleading
MISTAKE OR IMPERFECTION IN THE WRITING AND
FAILURE TO EXPRESS THE TRUE AGREEMENT OF THE
PARTIES
 Aside from mistake, other reasons for the
failure of the instrument to express the true
intention of the parties are fraud, inequitable
conduct or accident, ignorance, lack of skill,
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
negligence or bad faith on the part of the
person drafting the instrument.
 If there is no meeting of the minds, the proper
remedy is NOT reformation but ANNULMENT
because the instrument is voidable by the
vitiation of the consent of one of the parties.
 Reformation of the instrument is NOT allowed
in:
a. Simple donations inter vivos where no
condition is imposed
b. Wills
c. When the real agreement is void
WAIVER OF THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
 By failure to invoke the benefits of the rule (like
by failure to object to the introduction of
evidence aliunde)
PROBATIVE VALUE
 Even if PE is admitted, such would not mean
that the court would give probative value to the
PE
 ADMISSIBILITY is not the equivalent of
PROBATIVE VALUE or CREDIBILITY
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN BER AND PER
BEST EVIDENCE RULE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Preference for theNOT concerned with the
original document overprimacy of evidence but
the secondary evidencepresupposes that the
thereof original is available
Precludes admission ofPrecludes the admission
SE if the ORIGINAL is of other evidence to
available prove the terms of a
document other than the
document itself for the
purpose of varying the
terms of the writing
Can be invoked by ANY Can only be invoked by
litigant to an action the parties to the
document and their
successors-in-interest
Page 18 of 55

Applies to all forms of Applies to written
writing agreements and wills
D. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS
 In presentation of documentary evidence, the
term DOCUMENTARY must be taken in its
generic sense (not strictly within the meaning of
the documentary evidence rule)
 An evidence is documentary if the issue is the
CONTENTS
 But here, it can also be object evidence. You
present the document not necessarily to prove
its contents but also to prove its existence.
MEANING OF AUTHENTICATION
 The presumption is: Objects and documents
presented in evidence are, as a rule,
counterfeit.
 Therefore, it is incumbent upon the proponent
of the evidence to prove its authenticity
CONCEPT OF A DOCUMENT
 As documentary evidence – document must be
offered as proof of its contents
 As object evidence – when the purpose is
merely to prove its existence
 Wills are private documents even if notarized
PROOF OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT
Sec. 20 of Rule 132
“Sec. 20. Proof of private document. – Before any
private document offered as authentic is received in
evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be
proved either:
a. By anyone who saw the document executed or
written
b. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature
or handwriting of the maker
Any other private document need only be identified as
that which it is claimed to be.”
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
 There is only a need to prove its due execution
and authenticity when it is being offered in
evidence as AUTHENTIC
WHEN AUTHENTICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT NOT
REQUIRED:
a. When document is an ancient one
b. When the genuineness and authenticity is NOT
specifically denied
c. When the genuineness and authenticity have
been admitted under Sec.4 of Rule 129
d. When not being offered as authentic
ANCIENT DOCUMENTS
a. More than 30 years old
b. Produced from a custody in which it would
naturally be found if genuine
c. Unblemished by alterations or circumstances of
suspicion
Bartolome v. IAC
The document was at least 30 years old and it was
presented by the custodian but the last requirement
was not fulfilled. Because the last page is missing
where the signature is found. Such affects the
authenticity of the deed of sale.
Heirs of Lacsa v. CA
The ancient document rule was complied. The last
requirement that a document must be unblemished
by any alteration or circumstances of suspicion refers
to the EXTRINSIC QUALITY of the document itself.
The lack of signatures on the first pages, therefore,
absent any alterations or circumstances of suspicion
cannot be held to detract from the fact that the
documents in question, which were certified copies
of the original from the RD of Pampanga are genuine
and free from any blemish or circumstances of
suspicion.
HOW TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING
 No need for expert testimony
1. He has seen the person write
2. He has seen writing purporting to be his upon
which the witness has acted or been charged,
Page 19 of 55

and has thus acquired knowledge of the
handwriting of such person
3. By a comparison made by the witness or the
court, with writings admitted or treated as
genuine by the party against whom the
document is offered, or proved to be genuine to
the satisfaction of the judge.
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE
PROOF OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Documents consisting of entries made in public
records made in the performance of a duty by
a public officer are prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated (ex. police report – entries
within personal knowledge; sheriff return –
should state efforts made to serve it)
 In order for it to be considered as prima facie
presumption, the facts upon which they are
presumed must be established.
 All other public documents are evidence, even
against a third person, of the fact which gave
rise to their execution and of the date of the
latter.
 They are hearsay but they are still prima facie
evidence because they are public documents
Angpin v. CA
The presumption of the regularity in the performance
of public functions finds no application in this case.
The process server did not file any proof of service
and since substituted service was resorted to, there
should have been a report indicating that the person
who received the summons in Angpin’s behalf was
one with whom petitioner had a relation of
confidence that would ensure the latter will receive
or will be notified of the summons issued in his name.
There is no showing of substantial compliance with
the requirements of the Rules.
BPI v CA
Sheriff’s return does not state the efforts he made to
serve the summons. The other party can examine the
sheriff.
Public documents are:
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
1. The written official acts or records of the official
acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies
and tribunals, public officers, whether of the
Philippines or a foreign country
2. Documents acknowledged before a notary
public EXCEPT for WILLS
 The issue in the probate of a will is its due
execution
3. Public records, kept in the Philippines of private
documents required by law to enter therein.
Ex. Financial statement of a corporation should be
submitted to the SEC annually
Vano v. Vda. De Gonces
If the oppositor did not comply with the formalities of
the law, it will prevent the oppositor in presenting
proof that there was forgery even if not raised in the
pleadings.
Unlike in an ordinary civil action, the parties are the
ones who determine the issues in a case but in a
probate of the will, the law is the one that
determines the issues.
PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD
1. An official publication thereof
2. A copy of the document attested by the officer
having legal custody of the record or his deputy;
if record not kept in the Philippines –
attestation and;
3. accompanied with a certification that such
officer has the custody; if office is in a foreign
country – the certificate must be made by a
secretary if the embassy or legation, etc. and
authenticated by the seal of his office.
SEC. 25 WHAT ATTESTATION OF COPY MUST STATE
a. that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or
a specific part thereof;
b. It must be under the official seal of the attesting
officer, if any; or seal of the court;
c. If the official record is in a FOREIGN COUNTRY –
a CERTIFICATION in addition, must state that
the one who certified it is indeed the custodian
Page 20 of 55

of the foreign document and it is issued by a
CONSULAR OFFICE of the RP stationed in that
foreign country, authenticated by the SEAL OF
THAT FOREIGN COUNTRY
PASCORP v. NLRC
The Dubai judgment was not properly proved.
Respondent failed to submit the attestation of the
proper Dubai official having legal custody of the
original of the decision.
Zalamea v. CA
The US law allegedly allowing overbooking of
passengers was NOT proved. Foreign laws must be
alleged and proved.
Wild Valley Shipping v CA
The evidence to prove the foreign law was not
sufficient. If you are proving a foreign law, you need
ATTESTATION and CERTIFICATION. In this case, there
was no certification.
When a foreign law is involved, the BER requires that
it be proved by a duly authenticated copy of the
statute.
SEC. 26 IRREMOVABILITY OF PUBLIC RECORD
Any public record, an official copy of which is admissible
in evidence, must not be removed from the office in
which it is kept, except upon order of a court where the
inspection of the record is essential to the just
determination of the pending case.
SEC. 27 PUBLIC RECORD OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT
How may an authorized public record of a private
document be proved?
a. By the original record
b. By a copy attested by the legal custodian
c. Attestation and certification if record is found in
a foreign country
PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD
a. A written statement signed by an officer having
the custody of an official record or by his deputy
that after diligent search, no record or entry of
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
a specified tenor is found to exist in the records
of his office;
b. A certificate as above provided
c. For public records, you can also prove its
nonexistence by asking for a certification that
no such record exists
SEC. 31 EXPLAINING ALTERATIONS IN A DOCUMENT
a. That the alteration was made by another
without his concurrence
b. That the alteration was made with the consent
of the parties affected by it
c. That the alteration was otherwise properly or
innocently made
d. That the alteration did not in any way change
the meaning or language of the instrument
 Failure to do any of these will make the
document inadmissible in evidence
SEC. 33 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN AN UNFFICAL
LANGUAGE
 Document should be translated in English or
Filipino before trial
Chua v. CA
Only private documents require proof of their
execution and authenticity before they can be
received as evidence.
There is also no need for proof of execution and
authenticity with respect to documents the
genuineness and due execution of which are
admitted by the adverse party.
The petitioner admitted the allegations in the
complaint with respect to the existence and due
execution of the Term Loan Agreement and
Comprehensive Surety Agreement to which he is one
of the signatories. Because of this JUDICIAL
ADMISSION, there is no more need to present
witnesses to testify on the genuineness of the
documents.
Further, the documents are NOTARIZED so the due
execution of which is already presumed and need not
be proven.
Loan agreement is an ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT so it
is enough that you specifically deny them, it must be
under oath.
Page 21 of 55

What evidence need not be proved?
a. Presumptions
b. Judicial admissions
c. Those which the court can take judicial notice
of
Bunag v. CA
The Deed of Sale was not signed by the vendor, it was
merely a thumbmark. There was also no witness to
prove otherwise.
The authenticity of the document was NOT
satisfactorily established. Because the document is in
English and the vendor is illiterate. There is no
showing that the document was read and explained
and translated to him before he affixed his
thumbmark.
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDICIAL RECORD
Authorized upon evidence of existence of the ff
grounds:
a. Lack of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer
b. Collusion between the parties
c. Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect
to the proceedings
SEC. 30 PROOF OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS
Every instrument DULY ACKNOWLEDGED OR PROVED
AND CERTIFIED AS PROVIDED BY LAW, may be
presented in evidence without any further proof, the
certificate of acknowledgement being prima facie
evidence of the execution of the document involved.
Notarial document is in itself the proof of
authentication, that is why there is no need to
authenticate it.
FOREIGN JUDGMENTS; DIVORCE
Proven as a public or official record of a foreign country
by:
a. Official publication
b. Copy thereof attested by the officer having legal
custody of the document.
-if not kept in the Philippines, such must be:
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
i. accompanied by a certificate issued by the
proper diplomatic or consular officer in the
Philippine foreign service stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is kept
ii. authenticated by the seal of his office
CHAPTER 5: TESTIMONIAL
EVIDENCE
A. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
NATURE OF TESTIMONIAL OR ORAL EVIDENCE
 It is elicited from the mouth of a witness as
distinguish from real and documentary evidence
 Being inanimate, a document or an object
cannot speak for itself, a witness is needed to
identify and authenticate it
QUALIFICATION OF A WITNESS
1. He can perceive
2. He can make known his perception to others
To these the ff may be added:
a. He must take either an oath or an affirmation
b. He must not possess any of the disqualifications
imposed by law or the rules
ABILITY TO PERCEIVE
 Corollary to this is the requirement that the
witness must have personal knowledge of the
facts surrounding the subject matter of his
testimony (from his own perception)
 Without this personal knowledge, a witness is
INCOMPETENT to testify
 A witness must be able to perceive and have
personal knowledge to be competent
ABILITY TO MAKE KNOWN THE PERCEPTION TO
OTHERS
2 Factors:
a. Ability to remember what has been perceived
b. Ability to communicate the remembered
perception
COMPETENCY AND CREDIBILITY
Page 22 of 55

 Competency is a matter or law/rule.
 Competency of a witness has reference to the
basic qualifications of a witness as his capacity
to perceive and communicate his perception to
others. It also includes the disqualification of
the disqualifications imposed on a witness.
 Credibility has nothing to do with the rules. It
refers to the weight or reliability of the
testimony.
FACTORS THAT DO NOT AFFECT THE COMPETENCY OF
A WITNESS
a. Religious belief
b. Political belief
c. Interest In the outcome of the case
d. Conviction of a crime, unless otherwise
provided by law
B. DISQUALIFICATIONS OF
WITNESSES
DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MENTAL
INCAPACITY
1. By reason of mental incapacity
a. The person must be incapable of intelligently
making known his perception to others;
b. His incapability must exist at the time of his
production for examination
2. By reason of mental immaturity
a. The mental maturity of the witness must render
him incapable of perceiving the facts respecting,
which he is examined;
b. He is incapable of relating his perception
truthfully
 Mental incapacity must exist at the time he is
produced for examination
 Mental immaturity must occur at the time he
perceives the event including his incapacity to
relate his perceptions truthfully
CHILD WITNESS
 Any person who, at the time of giving
testimony, is below the age of 18 years
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
 A person over 18 years old may be considered a
child if found by the court as unable to fully take
care of himself or protect himself from abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination
because of a physical or mental disability or
condition.
 Every child is presumed qualified to be a
witness
 A competency examination may be done by the
court motu propio or on motion of a party,
upon presentation of proof of necessity
SURVIVORSHIP DISQUALIFICATION RULE OR THE DEAD
MAN’S STATUTE
 Applies only to a civil case or a special
proceeding over the estate of a deceased or
insane person
Dead Man’s Statute
Reyes v. Wells
The DMS does not apply to the testimony of a
witness who has NO INTEREST in the case
Guerrero v. St. Clare’s Realty
The DMS does not apply because:
a. The witnesses are not parties or assignors of
the parties to the case, or persons in whose
behalf a case is being prosecuted
b. The defendants are not executors or
administrators or other representatives of
the deceased person
Only those specifically mentioned in the rules are the
ones who are prohibited from testifying. Also, the
defendants are NOT executors or administrators.
They are being sued as claimants of ownership in
their individual capacities (not in a representative
capacity for the estate) of the disputed lot.
Abraham v. Recto-Kasten
Cross-examination of the witness by the defendant
amounts to waiver of prohibition of testimony. There
was waiver when the counsel for the administratrix
extensively cross-examined the witness on the very
matters subject of the prohibition
Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf
President and accountant of the corporation testified
Page 23 of 55

on the advances made by Simons while he was
president. One of the claims against the estate of
Simons. The president and accountant are NOT
disqualified because prohibition only applies to the
plaintiff. They are persons merely employed by the
plaintiff.
Goni v. CA
While there is a prohibition against the estate:
a. Vicente is also testifying against the
counterclaim filed by the estate against him
(dual capacity)
b. There is already a waiver of the prohibition.
The estate procured Vicente’s deposition and
cross-examined him. That constitutes waiver
c. Goni could have, but did NOT negate the
binding effect of the contract
Razon v. IAC
Estate of Chuidian is one who claims against the
estate of Irazon, the latter’s lips are not sealed. The
claimant is the estate. DMS is only applied if the claim
is AGAINST the estate.
The matters covered by the prohibition are those
occurring before the death of the deceased or before
the person became insane (Survivor’s
disqualification).
Tongco v. Liangson
DMS does not apply to cadastral proceedings, only in
ordinary civil proceedings. There is no plaintiff and
there is no defendant.
Elements for the application of this rule:
1. The suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against
the estate of said deceased or person of
unsound mind;
2. The defendant in the case is the executor or
administrator or a representative of the
deceased or the person of unsound mind;
3. The witness is the plaintiff, or an assignor of
that party, or a person in whose behalf the case
is prosecuted;
4. The subject of the testimony is as to any matter
or fact occurring before the death of such
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
deceased person or before such person became
of unsound mind.
 The survivor with the motive to lie is
disqualified from testifying
 The purpose is to close the lips of the plaintiff
when death has closed the lips of the
defendant, in order to remove from the
plaintiff, the temptation to do falsehood and
the possibility of fictitious claims against the
deceased.
 Those qualified to invoke the protection of DMS
are the executor, administrator and any other
representative of deceased or insane person,
also by the insane person.
 The rule will not apply where the plaintiff is the
executor or administrator as representative of
the deceased or if the plaintiff is the person of
unsound mind.
 “disinterested witness” can be offered by
plaintiff
The benefit of the DMS May be waived by:
a. Failing to object to the testimony
b. Cross-examining the witness on the prohibited
testimony
c. Offering evidence to rebut the testimony
MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE
 Forbids the husband or the wife to testify for or
against the other without the consent of the
affected spouse except in those cases
authorized by the rule
 There should be a VALID marriage at the
moment when the spouse gives the testimony
 The prohibition extends also to testimony IN
FAVOR of the spouse
Marital Disqualification Rule
Ordono v. Daquigan
When an offense directly attacks, or directly and
vitally impairs the conjugal relations, it comes within
the exception of the rule.
People v. Castaneda
The criminal case for falsification of a public
Page 24 of 55

document by the husband is considered as a criminal
case for a crime committed by a spouse against the
other and therefor an exception to the rule. There is
no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and
tranquility which may be disturbed
Lezama v. Rodriguez
A wife, who is a co-defendant of her husband may
NOT be examined as a hostile witness by the adverse
party applying the marital disqualification rule.
2 Conflicting principles in this case:
a. Right of a party to call on a witness by
subpoena (even a hostile witness)
b. Marital disqualification rule
People v. Francisco
The defendant, on testifying on a new matter
consisting in the imputation of the crime upon his
wife, is considered to have waived the objections to
the wife’s testimony.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION
RULE
a. In a civil case by one against the other
b. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one
against the other, or the latter’s direct
descendants or ascendants
TESTIMONY WHEN SPOUSE IS SUED WITH OTHERS
 Can testify against the spouse’s co-accused only
TESTIMONY BY THE ESTRANGED SPOUSE
 A separation de facto does not sever the
marriage bonds and the spouses remain legally
married to each other.
 But in the Ramirez case: the testimony against
the estranged husband who committed arson
was admitted.
 Where the marital relations are so strained that
there is no more harmony to preserve not
peace and tranquility to be disturbed.
MARITAL PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
People v. Carlos
Where the privileged communication from one
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
spouse to another comes into the hands of a third
party, the privilege is thereby extinguished and the
communication becomes admissible.
Elements required for the application of this rule:
a. VALID marriage
b. Communication received IN CONFIDENCE by
one from the other
c. The confidential communication was received
DURING THE MARRIAGE
 Marital disqualification under Sec. 22 includes
those prior to the marriage unlike in Sec. 24
(privileged) which applies only to confidential
information received during marriage
 The marital privileged communication may be
invoked even after the marriage; the marital
disqualification rule cannot be invoked after the
marriage is dissolved.
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Requisites:
a. There must be communication made by the
client to the attorney, or an advice given by the
attorney to his client;
b. The communication or advice must be given in
confidence;
c. The communication or advice must be given
either in the course of the professional
employment or with a view to professional
employment.
 No need for a perfected attorney-client
relationship for the privilege to exist
 The privilege does NOT extend to
communications where the client’s purpose is
the furtherance of a future intended crime or
fraud
Attorney-Client Privilege
Barton v. Leyte Asphalt
Communications between the attorney and the client
which came to the hands of the adverse party are
not covered by the privilege.
Orient Insurance v. Revilla and Teal Motor Co.
Page 25 of 55

Teal presented a part of a letter that shows their
lawyers urged them to file a case.
The presentation in evidence of a part of a letter
containing communications between the lawyer and
his client amounts to waiver of the privilege which
will permit the other party to examine the entire
letter; contract for fees not privileged because it does
not in any way pertain to any case
Hickman v. Taylor
Information obtained from witnesses (not from a
client) in anticipation of litigation are not covered by
the privilege. In Upjohn, information was given by
client (although through employees)
Upjohn v US
Communications by employees to counsel are
covered by the attorney-client privilege. Privilege
exists not only to protect the giving of advice but also
giving of information to the lawyer to enable him to
give a sound legal advice. The communications
concerned of matters within the scope of employees’
corporate duties and the employees themselves were
sufficiently aware that they were being questioned in
order that the corporation obtain legal advice.
Therefore, it is covered by the privilege.
People v. Sandiganbayan
Communications between attorney and client
regarding client’s contemplated criminal acts, or in
aid or furtherance thereof, are not covered by the
privilege. A lawyer may be required to testify on
matters relating to a future crime, but NOT a past
crime.
Uychico v. Union Life Insurance
Client asked lawyer to surrender insurance policy to
insurance company for a compromise agreement
then later on client wants to get other half of the
value of the policy. Communications to his attorney
for the purpose of being communicated to others is
not covered by privilege. It is plain that after it
reaches the party from whom it was intended at
least, is a communication between the client and a
third person, and that the attorney simply occupies
the role of intermediary or agent.
Regala v. Sandiganbayan
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
Disclosure of the identity of clients in this case is a
violation of the privilege because it would lead to
establish said client’s connection with the very fact in
issue of the case and would provide the necessary
link for the prosecution to build its case, where none
otherwise exists.
Information relating to the identity of a client may fall
within the ambit of the privilege when the client’s
name itself has an independent significance, such
that disclosure would then reveal client confidences.
The logical nexus between name and nature of
transaction is so intimate in this case that it would be
difficult to simply dissociate one from the other. In
this sense, the name is as much “communication” as
information revealed directly about the transaction in
question itself, a communication which is clearly and
distinctly privileged. A lawyer cannot reveal such
communication without exposing himself to charges
of violating a principle which forms the bulwark of
the entire attorney-client relationship.
Disini v. Sandiganbayan Bersamin
For the attorney-client privilege to apply, the
following requisites must be present:
1. Relationship of lawyer and client;
2. Communication made by the client to the
attorney, or advice given by the latter to the
former;
3. Communication or advice must have been
made confidentially.
4. Such communication must have been made
in the course of professional employment.
The relationship between the petitioner and
Herminio was one between an employee and his
employer; hence, no lawyer-client relationship
existed between them. There are many cases,
indeed, in which attorneys are employed in
transacting business, not properly professional, and
where the business may be transacted by another
agent.  In such cases, the fact that the agent sustains
the character of an attorney does not protect the
communications attending the transactions with the
privilege; hence, the communications may be
testified to by him as by any other agent.
Secondly, assuming that he then acted as a lawyer of
Page 26 of 55

Herminio, the petitioner did not show that the
communications between him and Herminio had
been made in confidence by a client to a lawyer, or
that the communications had been specifically made
in the course of a professional relationship between
them.
PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE
 Applies to a civil case, whether the patient is a
party or not
 Cannot be invoked in a criminal case due to
public interest
 The patient is the person protected; it is
claimed against a person duly authorized to
practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics
 Privilege survives the patient
 If the purpose is not for treatment or
prevention of disease or injury, it is not covered
under this privilege
Physician-Patient Privilege
Krohn v. US
Where the person against whom the privilege is
claimed is not one duly authorized to practice
medicine, surgery, or obstetrics, (the husband in this
case) the privilege does not apply. You can only
invoke this privilege against a doctor. The one
testifying is the husband, not the doctor. Note: You
can object the testimony on the ground of hearsay.
Lim v. CA
The husband filed for annulment and offered the
testimony of his wife’s psychiatrist. The privilege is
not violated by permitting a physician to give expert
opinion testimony in response to a strictly
hypothetical question in a lawsuit involving the
physical mental condition of a patient whom he has
attended professionally. The facts and conditions
alleged in the hypothetical problem did not refer to
and had no bearing on whatever information of
findings the doctor obtained while attending to the
patient.
The mere fact of making a communication, as well as
the date of a consultation and the number of
consultations are therefore not privileged from
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
disclosure, so long as the subject communicated is
not stated.
Information which cannot be disclosed refers to:
a. Any advice given to client;
b. Any treatment given to the client;
c. Any information acquired in attending such
patient provided that the advice, treatment or
information was made or acquired in a
professional capacity and was necessary to
enable him to act in that capacity; and
d. The information sought to be disclosed would
tend to blacken the reputation of the patient
PRIEST/MINISTER – PENITENT PRIVILEGE
a. the CONFESSION and ADVICE must be made or
given pursuant to the course of discipline of the
denomination or sect to which the
priest/minister belongs
b. the communication must be made pursuant to
confessions of sins
c. the advice given must be made in the minister’s
professional character or in his “spiritual”
capacity
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS
a. Communications made to a public officer in
official confidence
b. When the court finds that the disclosure would
adversely affect the public interest. (also
national security)
c. May not only be invoked during the term of
office of the public officer but also afterwards
US v. Nixon
A generalized claim of public interest is not within
the ambit of the privilege. When the ground for
asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought
for use in a criminal trial is based only on the
generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot
prevail over the fundamental demands of due
process of law in the fair administration of criminal
justice. 
Page 27 of 55

Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board
Where public interest has not been established, the
documents are not covered by the privilege. The
court decides whether or not it is public interest, in
this case, it is not. The bank has long been closed.
What the privilege protects is NOT the public
officers, but PUBLIC INTEREST
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE; PRESIDENTIAL
COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE
Matters involving state secrets about:
a. Military;
b. Diplomatic; and
c. Other national security matters
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS UNDER ROEE
 Confidential character of a privileged
communication is not lost solely on the ground
that it is in the form of an electronic document.
PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE
1. A parent cannot be compelled to testify against
his child or other direct descendants
2. Under the filial privilege rule, a child may not be
compelled to testify against his parents or other
direct ascendants
A person may testify against his parents or children
voluntarily but if he refuses to do so, the rule protects
him from any compulsion.
XPN: The descendant may be compelled in the
following instances:
a. When such testimony is indispensable in a
crime committed against said descendant;
b. In a crime committed by one parent against the
other
OTHER PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
a. Editors as to the source of published news
b. Voters as to whom they voted
c. Trade secrets
d. Information contained in tax census returns
e. Bank deposits
Other Privileged Communication
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
People v. Ong
Informer’s privilege: Where the disclosure of an
informant’s identity or the contents of his
communication, is relevant and helpful to the
defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair
determination of a cause, the privilege must give
way.
NYT v. Jascalevich
Farber’s investigation as a reporter; right of reporter
not to disclose vis-à-vis right of accused to present a
witness, the latter prevails.
C. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
OPEN COURT EXAMINATION
 This method allows the court to observe the
demeanor of the witness and also allows
adverse party to cross-examine the witness
Exceptions:
a. Under the Rules on Summary Procedure in
criminal cases, affidavits of the parties
constitute the direct testimonies of the
witnesses
b. In civil cases, the parties are merely required to
submit the affidavits of their witnesses and
other pieces of evidence on the factual issues
c. Depositions need not be taken in open court
d. In a criminal case, either party may use the
testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of
the country, unavailable, unable to testify, even
if the testimony was used in another
proceeding (same parties, same subject matter,
cross-examination)
e. The judicial affidavit shall take the place of
direct testimonies of witnesses.
OATH OR AFFIRMATION
 An OATH is an outward pledge made under
made under the immediate sense of
responsibility to God or a solemn appeal to the
Supreme Being in attestation of the truth of
some statement
 An ATTESTATION is a substitute for an oath,
and is a solemn and formal declaration that the
witness will tell the truth
Page 28 of 55

 If the witness refuses, the testimony may be
barred
RIGHTS OF A WITNESS
a. Right against self-incrimination. He may refuse
to answer not only to the fact of guilt but also
to other facts, which if taken together, may
establish his guilt
b. Right NOT to give an answer that will tend to
degrade his reputation. However, he must still
answer if the degrading answer:
1. Is the very fact in issue
2. Refers to a fact from which the fact in issue
would be presumed
c. If accused, he may totally REFUSE to take the
stand
d. Counsel must always come to the aid of a
witness being subjected to intimidation,
harassment and embarrassment.
OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS
a. GR: answer questions, although the question
may establish a claim against him
b. Must answer to the fact of his previous
conviction for an offense
KINDS OF EXAMINATION
1. Direct examination – this is the examination-in-
chief of a witness by a party presenting him on
the facts relevant to the issue
2. Cross-examination- examination of the witness
by the adverse party after said witness has
given the testimony on direct examination
 Where the witness is a hostile witness or
unwilling witness as so declared by the court, he
may be cross-examined only as to the subject
matter of his examination-in-chief; same with
accused
 2 Purposes: 1. Bring out the facts favorable to
counsel’s client 2. To enable counsel to impeach
or to impair the credibility of the witness
3. Re-direct examination – conducted after the
cross-examination
4. Re-cross-examination – after re-direct
DEATH OR ABSENCE OF A WITNESS
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
 If a witness dies before cross-exam is over, his
testimony on the direct may be stricken out
only with respect to the testimony not covered
by the cross-examination
 If the witness was not cross-examined because
of causes attributable to the cross-examining
party, the direct testimony shall remain in the
record and cannot be stricken off (waived)
RECALLING OF A WITNESS
 If examined by both sides, witness cannot be
recalled without leave of court
People v. Rivera
When you file a motion to recall a witness, it must
not be based on grounds that are general. It must be
SPECIFIC for the court to determine if it can be
allowed in the interest of justice. The discretion to
recall a witness is NOT properly invoked by a mere
general statement of “interest of justice”, or “in order
to afford a party full opportunity to present his case”,
or that as in this case, “there seems to be many
points and questions that should have been asked”.
This would make the recall of witness no longer
discretionary but ministerial.
LEADING QUESTIONS
Leading question – one that is framed in such a way that
the question indicates to the witness the answer
desired by the party asking the question.
Examples:
“Your name is Juan Dela Cruz, isn’t it?”
“Is it not correct that during this date you were in that
place?”
Leading questions are NOT allowed except:
a. On CROSS-EXAMINATION – leading questions
are NOT allowed if you are the proponent of the
witness
b. On PRELIMINARY MATTERS – it means that it is
not yet the fact in issue; you are just laying the
premise
Ex. “Around 10pm, you were at this bar?”, but if
you ask, “You saw the accused stab the victim,
right?” -this is NOT allowed
Page 29 of 55

c. When there is difficulty in getting direct and
intelligible answers from a witness who is
IGNORANT, a CHILD of tender years, is FEEBLE-
MINDED, or a DEAF-MUTE
d. Of an UNWILLING OR HOSTILE witness
e. Of a witness who is an ADVERSE PARTY or an
officer, director, or managing agent of a public
or private corporation or of a partnership or
association which is an adverse party
MISLEADING QUESTIONS
 One which ASSUMES AS TRUE A FACT NOT YET
TESTIFIED TO BY THE WITNESS (not yet proven;
no basis), or CONTRARY TO THAT WHICH HE
HAS PREVIOUSLY STATED (“when you see the
color black..”, when the witness actually said
blue)
D. IMPEACHMENT OF A WITNESS
Impeachment is a technique to discredit a witness by
ATTACKING HIS CREDIBILITY
 The impeachment of a witness is to be done by
the party against whom the witness is called
 Party producing witness is barred from
impeaching his own witness; there is a tacit
declaration that your witness is credible
 A party may impeach his own witness when said
witness is an adverse party
HOW TO IMPEACH A WITNESS
3 Modes to impeach a witness
a. By CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE;
b. By evidence that his GENERAL REPUTATION for
truth, honesty or integrity is bad;
c. By evidence that he has made at other times
STATEMENTS INCONSISTENT with his present
testimony
 A witness cannot be impeached by evidence of
wrongful acts except evidence of his conviction
of an offense (Ex. perjury, falsification)
 An unwilling or hostile witness cannot be
impeached by evidence of his bad character
IMPEACHMENT BY CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
IMPEACHMENT BY EVIDENCE OF INCONSISTENT
STATEMENTS
 Such evidence may come from the same
witness or from the other party
 Contradictory statements were made during the
cross
 You can also impeach the witness by showing
his bias or hostile feelings toward to other party
 You can also impeach the witness by showing
the IMPOSSIBILITY OF HIS TESTIMONY; the
witness, as well as the TESTIMONY MUST BE
CREDIBLE; it must always be in accord with
human nature/experience
 You may also show acts or conduct inconsistent
with his testimony
Requirements to impeachment of witness by prior
inconsistent statements:
1. The previous statements must be related to
him, with the circumstances of the times, places
and persons present
2. He must be asked whether he made those
statements at that prior time
3. If answer is YES in number 2, he must be
allowed to explain them
4. If the statements be in writing, they must be
shown to the witness before any question is put
to him concerning them
 This requires “laying the predicate” (laying the
foundation
 The purpose for laying the predicate is to allow
the witness to admit or deny the prior
statement and afford him an opportunity to
explain the same.
 Objection: “improper impeachment”
People v. Resabal
The defense claimed that the witness was not
credible because of the contradictions in his
testimonies made during the preliminary
investigation in one hand and his testimony during
the trial
Ruling: Mere declarations before the justice of peace
would not suffice to destroy the credibility of the
witness because the witness was not given the
ample opportunity by reading to him of his
declarations to explain the discrepancies noted by
Page 30 of 55

the counsel for the accused. Witness must be given
the chance to explain the contradiction.
 LAYING THE PREDICATE is a prerequisite to the
impeachment of a witness by prior inconsistent
statements
 an impeached witness may be rehabilitated
(restoring the credibility of the witness who has
been impeached) by:
1. Making the witness explain his
contradiction
2. If he was impeached because of bad
character, show evidence of his good
character
3. If impeached by prior inconsistent
statement, he can be rehabilitated by
showing prior consistent statements
IMPEACHMENT BY SHOWING BAD REPUTATION
It should only refer to the following specific aspects of
his reputation:
a. For truth
b. For honesty
c. For integrity
 This does not allow impeachment by evidence
of BAD CHARACTER but by BAD REPUTATION
 CHARACTER is made up of the things an
individual actually is
 REPUTATION is what people think an individual
is and what they say about him
 The EVIDENCE OF THE GOOD CHARACTER OF
THE WITNESS IS NOT ADMISSIBLE until such
character has been impeached; because the
good character of the witness is already
PRESUMED
 But in a criminal case, an ACCUSED may prove
his good moral character even before his
character is attacked
 Prosecution cannot present evidence of his bad
character, only if the accused had presented
evidence of his good character
WHEN IS A PARTY A HOSTILE OR UNWILLING
WITNESS?
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
Upon is so declared by the court upon showing of:
a. His adverse interest
b. Unjustified reluctance to testify
c. His having misled the party into calling him to
the witness stand (iba yung sinabi)
 If the witness is hostile, you impeach him by 1
and 3, not 2 (reputation)
 Reason: you cannot impeach him on the ground
of bad character because that is tantamount to
contradiction on your part. It is like telling the
court, “ Believe him if testifies in my favor”
 Cross-examination of a hostile witness ,must
only be on the subject matter of the evidence-
in-chief (American rule)
NO IMPEACHMENT BY EVIDENCE OF PARTICULAR
WRONGFUL ACTS
 But a prior conviction of an offense is admissible
in evidence (witness)
E. ADMISSIONS, CONFESSIONS AND
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE
Confession
People v. Compil
An extrajudicial confession obtained without the
assistance of counsel is inadmissible even if a counsel
was present prior to the signing.
People v. Wong Chuen Ming
An act amounting to a tacit admission of the crime
charged, such as the affixing of signature of the
accused on the bags containing the illegal drugs is
INADMISSIBLE as an extrajudicial confession is the
accused were not informed of their Miranda rights
People v. Yip Wai Ming
Any confession, including a reenactment without
admonition of the right of silence and to counsel, and
without counsel chosen by the accused is
INADMISSIBLE in evidence.
People v. Endino
Videotaped confession to the media is ADMISSIBLE
because it does not form part of the custodial
investigation. Miranda rights only apply to the police,
not individuals (like the media in this case)
Page 31 of 55
 REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA

People v. Abulencia 2 Elements of Corpus Delicti

A confession to a radio reporter is ADMISSIBLE
where it was NOT SHOWN that said reporter was
acting for the police or that the interview was
conducted under circumstances where it is apparent
that the suspect confessed to the killing OUT OF
FEAR.
People v. Maqueda
Admissions obtained not in the course of an
investigation but in connection with a plea to be
utilized as a STATE WITNESS are ADMISSIBLE. The
prosecutor was considered a “private person”, not
the police. Maqueda voluntarily and freely made
them, NOT in the course of investigation.
People v. Marra
His confession to the police was held ADMISSIBLE
because he was NOT YET in custodial investigation,
even if he was not yet read his Miranda rights. It was
just a GENERAL INQUIRY, he was not yet made a
suspect. There was also no coercion when he made
the confession.
Custodial investigation involves questioning initiated
by law enforcement officers after a person has been
taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
freedom of action in any significant way.
ADMISSIBLE even if HEARSAY UNDER RES GESTAE
(you said it immediately after a startling occurrence)
a. That certain results were produced
b. That someone is criminally responsible
Ex. Murder – body (fact of death)
Theft – fact of loss
Arson – burning
An extrajudicial confession AND proof of corpus
delicti is SUFFICIENT; no need for independent
evidence
If the crime is COMPLEX, it is ENOUGH that the
corpus delicti of one component offense is proved.
Probative value of a confession
a. Judicial – enough to sustain a judgment of
conviction; evidence of guilt
b. Extrajudicial – NOT sufficient; it must be
CORROBORATED by evidence of CORPUS
DELICTI.
Quiel case
The agreement on partnership was not put in writing.
Testimony of plaintiff about the partnership not
competent. It was not made during the existence of
the partnership. The partnership MUST BE
ESTABLISHED BY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE other than
the declaration.
CONCEPT OF ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS

ADMISSION CONFESSION
Interlocking confession is when the conspirators
An act, declaration or The declaration of an
make their own confessions and it is the same on
omission of a party as to accused acknowledging
material points. Even if it is extrajudicial, even if
a relevant fact his guilt of the offense
inadmissible, it is considered as corroborating
evidence under the INTERLOCKING CONFESSION
An acknowledgment A statement that he
RULE.
made by a party of the engaged in conduct
existence of the truth of which constitutes a crime
People v. Mones
certain facts which are
On corpus delicti, criminal connection of the accused
inconsistent with his It cannot be implied; it
with the crime charged link not necessarily furnished
claims in an action should be a direct and
by the extrajudicial confession, corpus delicti of one
positive
component offense
Not directly involving an acknowledgement of
acknowledgement of guilt
People v. Sumayo
guilt or the criminal
Group of persons robbed and killed a taxi driver. The
intent to commit the
extrajudicial confessions of the accused are
offense with which one is
ADMISSIBLE as CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE of corpus
charged
delicti (actual commission of the crime charged)
EFFECTS OF ADMISSIONS
Page 32 of 55

 May be used as evidence ONLY against the
party making the admission
CLASSIFICATION OF ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
Express admission - positive statement or act
Implied admission – may be inferred from the
declarations or acts of a person (not absolute; subject to
explanation; example when accused threatens victim;
rape victim)
a. Offer of compromise
b. Admission by silence
c. Laches – unreasonable delay to pursue case
(lack of merit)
d. Flight and concealment of an accused
e. Attempt to influence witnesses (implied
admission that one has no case); to suppress
evidence or influence testimony
Judicial admission – made in the course of a judicial
proceeding
Extrajudicial admission – made out of court or even in a
proceeding other than the one in consideration
Adoptive admission – occurs when a person manifests
his assent to the statements of another person:
a. Expressly agrees or concurs in an oral statement
made by another;
b. Hears a statement and later on essentially
repeats it;
c. Utters an acceptance or builds upon the
assertion of another
d. Replies by way of rebuttal to some specific point
raised by another but ignores further points
which he has heard the other make; or
e. Reads and subsequently signs a written
statement made by another
EFFECT OF EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF GUILT;
CORPUS DELICTI
People v. Mara
Mara led the police to his house and surrendered gun
used in the commission of the offense. The accused
was NOT yet under custodial investigation. Miranda
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
rights not yet applicable.
Custodial investigation – involves questioning after
the person has been taken into custody; deprived of
any action; focuses on a particular suspect; Miranda
Rule begins to operate
 If judicial – plea of guilty na yun
 An extrajudicial confession is NOT SUFFICIENT
for conviction, the confession must be
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti
 CORPUS DELICTI is the “body of the crime” or
the offense; it means the actual commission of
the crime and someone criminally responsible
therefor; it may be proved by circumstantial
evidence
2 Elements of Corpus Delicti
a. Proof of the occurrence of a certain event
b. Some person’s criminal responsibility for the act
ADMISSION BY SILENCE
For silence to be deemed an admission, it is necessary
that: (People v. Paragsa) – REQUISITES TO APPLY
ADMISSION OF SILENCE
a. He heard and understood the statement
b. He was at liberty to make a denial
c. The statement was about a matter affecting his
rights or in which he was interested and which
naturally calls for a response
d. The facts were within his knowledge
e. The fact admitted from his silence is material to
the issue
 The silence of a person under investigation for
the commission of a crime should not be
construed as an admission by silence because of
constitutional reasons.
 VICTIM KEPT SILENT about the “sweetheart
theory”
 The accused was ACQUITTED because the victim
did not deny the theory of the defense
RES INTER ALIOS; BRANCHES (Sec. 29) – ADMISSION BY
THIRD PARTY
Page 33 of 55

 “things done between strangers ought not to
injure those who are not parties to them”
 Refers only to extrajudicial confessions
 A judicial confession is admissible against the
declarant’s co-accused since the latter are
afforded opportunity to cross-examine the
former
Rationale: it would not be convenient; manifestly
unjust; an extrajudicial confession usually made
during custodial investigation; it could only bind
himself, not against strangers because that is
HEARSAY, no opportunity to cross-examine. The one
testifying is the police; the exception against
conspiracy was NOT applied because the conspiracy
was NOT proven by evidence other than confession
itself; NOT made during existence of conspiracy.
People v. Tena
Suspect executed an extrajudicial confession and
pointed to other co-accused as his companions in the
commission of the crime. No eyewitness was
presented and the conviction was based exclusively
on the extrajudicial confession of Camota. SC said
apply Sec. 29.
Right of Tena must NOT be affected by Camota’s
confession.
2 Branches of the Res Inter Alios Rule
a. Admission by a third party - The rights of a
party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration or omission of another
b. Similar acts as evidence - Evidence of previous
conduct or similar acts at one time is not
admissible to prove that one did or did not do
the same act at another time
Exceptions to Res Inter Alios Rule (First rule)
a. Admission by a co-partner or agent, joint
interest
b. Admission by a co-conspirator
c. Admission by privies
d. Interlocking confession (jurisprudence)
ADMISSIONS BY A CO-PARTNER OR AGENT /JOINT
INTEREST (Sec. 30)
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
- Extends to lawyer-client, husband and wife in
property relations
- Joint interest contemplated is interest in
solidum (ex. principal and surety) it does NOT
apply to joint tortfeasors (vehicular accident) –
any declaration made by one cannot bind the
other.
Requisites to be admissible:
a. The declaration or act must have been made or
done within the scope of his authority (must be
authorized by principal or it must refer to a
matter within the scope of his authority)
b. Statement must have been made or done
during the existence of the agency
c. The existence of the partnership or agency is
proven by evidence other than the declaration
by the partner or agent (Agency must be
established by INDEPENDENT evidence)
ADMISSIONS BY A CO-CONSPIRATOR (Sec. 31)
To be admissible against co-conspirators:
a. The declaration or act be made or done during
the existence of the conspiracy
b. The declaration or act must relate to the
conspiracy (must refer to the object of the
conspiracy)
c. The conspiracy must be shown by evidence
other than the declaration
ADMISSION BY PRIVIES (Sec. 32)
 Privies are persons who are partakers or have
an interest in any action or thing, or any relation
to another
a. Lessor-lessee, assignor-assignee, grantor-
grantee are privies in an estate or a contract
b. An executor or administrator and the estate
are privies in representation
c. An heir and his ascendant are privies in
blood and succession
 When the former owner of the property made
the declaration after he ceased to be the owner,
the rule on admission by privies does NOT
apply.
Page 34 of 55

 Refers to all kinds of property
 The act, declaration or omission of the
predecessor in respect of his property and the
act declaration or omission is made WHILE
(DURING) HOLDING TITLE TO THE PROPERTY is
admissible against his successor-in-interest to
the said property
Admissions by third-party (co-conspirator)
People v. Alegre
THE SILENCE OF AN ACCUSED UNDER CUSTODY
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A TACIT CONFESSION OF
HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMISSION OF THE
CRIME BECAUSE OF HIS RIGHT AGAINST SELF-
INCRIMINATION. They were present when co-
accused was implicating them. The extrajudicial
confession of one implicating his co-accused may
NOT be used against the latter, there being no
independent evidence of conspiracy. ADMISSION BY
SILENCE cannot be applied. They were exercising
their constitutional right so it was NOT proper to
make a denial for the other accused.
People v. Raquel
The extrajudicial statements of an accused
implicating a co-accused may NOT be utilized against
the latter, unless these are repeated in open court.
The statements made during the custodial
investigation are considered HEARSAY because there
was NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE. The
statement must also be made DURING THE
EXISTENCE OF THE CONSPIRACY. Extrajudicial
confession must be in presence of counsel including
waiver
People v. Cabrera
A statement not made during the existence of the
alleged conspiracy, such as when the co-conspirator
was already in the HANDS OF THE AUTHORITIES, is
not admissible in evidence. There was a timely
objection to the statement.
PEOPLE V. YATCO
Under the rule of MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE (evidence may be admitted for different
purposes, in this case, the evidence is only
objectionable by the others; it is competent evidence
against the declarant), even if the confession may not
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
be competent as against co-accused, being hearsay as
to the latter, or to prove conspiracy between them
without the conspiracy being established by other
evidence, the confession is, nevertheless,
ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE OF THE DECLARANT’S
OWN GUILT.
The testimony of the NBI agent should have not been
completely disregarded. Against co-conspirator it is
not admissible but it is admissible against the one
who made it.
SC said that while it is not admissible against
Panganiban, it is admissible against Consunji who
made the confession.
People v. Chaw Yaw Shun (no independent evidence
of conspiracy)
Conspiracy was not proven by INDEPENDENT
EVIDENCE. Conspiracy must be real and NOT
presumptive. It must be proved as the CRIME ITSELF,
independent from the confession.
PEOPLE V. SERRANO (confession made in open
court)
The rule on admission by conspirator applies only to
extrajudicial acts or declaration, but NOT to
testimony given on the stand at the trial where the
defendant has the OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-
EXAMINE the declarant.
If the declarant himself is put on the witness stand,
do not consider the requisites to determine WON it is
admissible. It is no longer hearsay. RES INTER ALIOS
ACTA RULE ONLY APPLIES TO EXTRAJUDICIAL
CONFESSIONS WHERE THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY TO
CROSS-EXAMINE.
The JUDICIAL testimony of REYES was made
admissible against his co-conspirators
Admission by privies
Alpuerto v. Pastor
Privy denotes the idea of succession, NOT only by
right of heirship and testamentary legacy, but also
that of succession by title derived from acts inter
vivos and for special purposes.
“Privy” covers:
Page 35 of 55

a. Succession inter vivos/mortis causa (as an
heir)
b. Onerous/gratuitous title
While the ACT of selling (admitting that he was still
the owner) was binding upon the successor-in-
interest; bound by the instrument executed by the
successor which conveyed the property to Alpuerto.
City of Manila v. Del Rosario
Manila claims to be the owner of the land. One of the
evidences presented were two letters issued by the
predecessor-in-interest (Lorenzo). Letter addressed
to City of Manila offering to buy the property (Sept.
26, 1891). Second letter addressed to Municipal
Court of Manila offering to buy the property from the
city (1901). Lorenzo sold land to Jacinto in Feb 23
1893. The offer to buy the property is an admission
that the City of Manila is the owner of the properties.
But the admission of Lorenzo in his letter was NOT
made while he was holding title to the property.
Declarations made by the predecessor-in-interest
during the time when he is not holding title to the
property in question are NOT ADMISSIBLE.
To be admissible under the rules concerning privy,
the act or declaration must be made while holding
title to the property. “WHERE ONE DERIVES TITLE TO
RP FROM ANOTHER, THE DECLARATION, ACT OR
OMISSION OF THE LATTER, IN RELATION TO THE
PROPERTY, IS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE former ONLY
WHEN MADE WHILE THE LATTER HOLDS THE TITLE”
OFFER OF COMPROMISE IN CIVIL CASES
 NOT an admission of any liability, and is not
admissible in evidence against the offeror
OFFER OF COMPROMISE IN CRIMINAL CASES
 May be received in evidence as an implied
admission of guilt (except in quasi-offenses or
cases allowed by law to be compromised and
plea of guilty to a lesser offense)
Offer of Compromise
People v. Godoy
No implied admission can be drawn from the
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
EFFORTS TO ARRIVE AT A SETTLEMENT OUTSIDE THE
COURT, WHERE THE ACCUSED DID NOT TAKE PART
IN ANY OF THE NEGOTIATIONS (the mother of the
accused offered the victim 30k); the accused is
permitted to show that the offer was not made under
a consciousness of guilt, but MERELY TO AVOID THE
INCONVENIENCE OF IMPRISONMENT.
People v. De Guzman
A PLEA FOR FORGIVENESS may be considered as
analogous to an ATTEMPT TO COMPROMISE. The
offer of compromise was ADMISSIBLE because it was
with the consent of the accused.
People v. Yparraguirre
An offer to compromise does NOT require that a
criminal complaint be filed first before the offer can
be received as evidence against the offeror.
US v. Maqui
People v. Torres
These 2 cases appear to have been overturned by the
previous 3 cases
Edward A. Keller and Co. v. COB Group
A second mortgage, although did not become
effective, may serve the purpose of being admissions
of the liability (the documentary evidence)
PLEA OF GUILTY LATER WITHDRAWN
 The plea of guilty later withdrawn is NOT
admissible in evidence against the accused who
made the plea
UNACCEPTED PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE
 Not admissible in evidence against the accused
who made the plea
“GOOD SAMARITAN RULE”
 Offer to pay or payment of medical, hospital or
other expenses occasioned by an injury is not
admissible in evidence as proof of civil or
criminal liability for the injury and ACTUAL
PAYMENT
SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES
Page 36 of 55
 REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA

 Cannot be used as evidence; it is based on the
policy of encouraging potential defendants to
remedy hazardous conditions without fear that
their actions will be used as evidence against
them. (Pau v. Yosemite Park)
EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR CONDUCT
GR: The law will NOT consider in evidence that a person
has done a certain act at a particular time as probative
of a contention that he has done a similar act at another
time.
This rule prohibits the admission of “propensity
evidence”.
WHEN EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR ACTS OR PREVIOUS
CONDUCT IS ADMISSIBLE
To prove any of the following purposes:
If the defendant has on more than one occasion
performed similar acts, accident in good faith is
possibly excluded, negligence is intensified, and
fraudulent intent may be established.
The effort is NOT to convict the accused but the
purpose is to ascertain knowledge and intent. Then
accident in GF is possibly included; negligence is
intensified. The purpose was to establish negligence.
People v. Lira
Neighbor of victim claimed that she was also robbed
and assaulted by the same man on the same night.
The evidence is ADMISSIBLE when it tends to
IDENTIFY the perpetrator or ESTABLISH his presence
on the vicinity when the crime was done.
Testimony was not to prove guilt of perpetrator but
to the identity.

a. Specific intent
b. Knowledge ACCEPTED OFFER (SEC. 36)
c. Identity
Santos v. Fernando
d. Plan
No need for actual tender of money. Offer in writing
e. System is equivalent to tender. The offer to repurchase was
f. Scheme made in writing but it was rejected without a valid
g. Habit cause. This is considered an equivalent to ACTUAL
h. Custom tender of payment/instrument/property
i. Usage
j. The like

Previous Conduct CHAPTER 6: HEARSAY

US v. Evangelista EVIDENCE, OPINION EVIDENCE
Evidence relating to the fire in the adjacent building 3
days before was admitted, but only to PROVE the
AND CHARACTER EVIDENCE
INTENT of the accused in setting the fire which was PRELIMINARIES
charged for the information HEARSAY RULE

US v. Pineda  Hearsay Evidence is a statement (oral or

Violation of Pharmacy Law. Two chemists went to the
same drugstore to buy the potassium chlorate and it
was found to be barium chlorate.
Evidence as to the other offenses committed is
ADMISSIBLE where the purpose is to ascertain
KNOWLEDGE OR INTENT. The effort is not to convict
the accused but to ascertain knowledge and intent
and to establish his NEGLIGENCE. (to prove habit)
written assertion or nonverbal conduct intended
by the person as an assertion), other than the
one made by the declarant while testifying at
the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove
the truth of the matter asserted.
 HEARSAY is an out of court statement offered
for the truth of the matter asserted. (People v.
De Marco)

Page 37 of 55

 (Sec. 36) A witness can testify only to those
facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his
own personal perception, except as otherwise
provided in the rules
 It applies to both oral and written statements
SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE
1. Must be an out of court statement (oral or
written); it may even be a conduct intended by
the actor as an assertion.
2. The statement is repeated and offered by the
witness in court to prove the truth of the
matters asserted by the statement (it should be
relevant).
Purpose: Establishing the truth of the fact asserted in
the statement (Espineli v. People)
 A witness can testify only to those facts which
he knows of his PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE (those
derived from his OWN PERCEPTION)
 Where a statement is NOT offered for the truth
of the matter asserted BUT it is offered for an
EVIDENTIARY PURPOSE, not dependent on the
truth of the matters asserted, the statement is
NON-HEARSAY.
 If an extrajudicial utterance is offered, NOT AS
AN ASSERTION but without reference to the
truth of the matter asserted, the HEARSAY
RULE DOES NOT APPLY
INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS
 The statements are admissible for some
relevant reason independent of their truth or
falsity
 They are relevant because they are either
a. The very fact in issue; or
b. A circumstantial evidence of a fact in issue
 Their relevance lies in the FACT THAT THEY
WERE SAID
 May also be used to impeach a witness; the
credibility of a witness is always in issue
2 Classes of Independently Relevant Statements
(Estrada v. Desierto)
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
1. First class includes the following:
a. Statements which are the very facts in issue
b. Statements which are circumstantial
evidence of the fact in issue
2. Second class includes:
a. Statements of a person showing his state of
mind (mental condition, knowledge, belief,
intention, ill-will and other emotions)
b. Statements of a person showing his physical
condition, as illness and the like
c. Statements of a person from which an
inference may be made as to the state of
mind of another; that is knowledge, belief,
motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the latter
d. Statements which may identify the date,
place, and person in question
e. Statements showing the lack of credibility
of a witness
EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
a. Dying declarations
b. Declaration against interest
c. Act or declaration about pedigree
d. Family reputation or tradition regarding
pedigree
e. Common reputation
f. Part of the res gestae
g. Entries in the course of business
h. Entries in official records
i. Commercial lists and the like
j. Learned treatises
k. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
DYING DECLARATION
 The reasons for its admissibility is NECESSITY
(impossible to take the witness stand and no
other equally satisfactory proof of the crime)
and TRUSTWORTHINESS declaration is made in
extremity).
 Sec. 37 of Rule 130 provides that the
declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be
received in ANY CASE where his death is the
subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and
surrounding circumstances of such death.
Page 38 of 55

 Dying declarations IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED
as well as AGAINST HIM are admissible.
 The probative value: it must be received with
utmost care and received in the SAME WEIGHT
AS THE TESTIMONY OF A LIVING WITNESS
ELEMENTS OF A DYING DECLARATION
a. The declaration, concerns the CAUSE and the
SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES of the
declarant’s death;
b. It is made when death appear to be imminent
and the declarant is under the consciousness of
impending death;
c. The declarant would have been competent to
testify had he survived; (not insane; can make
known his perceptions)
d. The dying declaration is offered in a case in
which the subject of inquiry involves the
declarant’s death.
 It is the belief in impending death and NOT the
rapid succession of death in point of fact that
renders a dying declarant admissible. The TEST
is whether the declarant has abandoned all
hopes of survival and looked on death as
certainly. (People v. Gatarin)
Dying Declaration
People v. Sabio
The fact that death did not ensue till 3 days after the
declaration was made will not alter its probative
force since it is not indispensable that a declarant
expires immediately thereafter. It is the BELIEF IN
IMPENDING DEATH and NOT THE RAPID SUCCESSION
OF DEATH, in point of fact, that renders the dying
declaration admissible. The admission of dying
declarations has always been strictly limited to
criminal prosecutions for homicide or murder as
evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances
of death
People v. Laquinon
The dying declaration is NOT admissible where the
deceased said, “I don’t know” when asked whether
he would survive from the gunshot wounds he
suffered because the same was not made under the
consciousness of an impending death. The
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
declaration fails to show that the deceased believed
himself in extremis, “at the point of death when
every hope of recovery is extinct, which is the SOLE
BASIS for admitting this kind of declaration as an
exception to the hearsay rule.
It is, however, admissible as part of the res gestae
(“things done”; the events, circumstances, remarks,
etc. which relate to a particular case, especially as
constituting admissible evidence in a court of law),
since the statement was made immediately after the
incident and the deceased had NO sufficient time to
concoct a charge against the accused.
People v. Agripa
The statement is NOT admissible where it does not
show that it was made by the declarant under the
consciousness of impending death although it is true
that the declarant was near death at the time. It is,
however, admissible as RES GESTAE, having been
made soon after the starting occurrence of the
multiple stabbing of Jose and Adelfa. But the
evidence, even if admissible, is NOT credible, even if
relevant.
CREDIBILITY depends on the evaluation given to the
evidence by the court in accordance with the
guidelines provided. In this case, the accused was no
longer competent.
People v. De Joya
Under the doctrine of COMPLETENESS, a dying
declaration to be admissible must be a full
expression of all that a declarant intended to say. “Si
Paqui” – the statement was not related to the
question asked.
People v. de Barras
Admissibility is NOT affected by death occurring
hours or days afterwards. It is sufficient that the
declarant did not expect to survive.
NEW RULE: Dying declaration applies to BOTH civil
and criminal cases.
PARTS OF THE RES GESTAE
 ‘excited utterances’, ‘present sense impression’,
statements of then existing mental or
Page 39 of 55
 REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA

emotional, physical condition’ and ‘statements

made for purposes of medical diagnosis or The res gestae rule embraces (a) spontaneous
treatment’; ‘spontaneous statements’, exclamations and (b) verbal acts. The trial court
‘contemporaneous statements’ – Concepts admitted Panimdim's statement as a spontaneous
derived from the res gestae doctrine statement made after the commission of a felony.
RES GESTAE UNDER THE ROC
A declaration made by a person immediately after
A. Spontaneous statements (characteristics) being wounded, pointing out or naming his
1. There is a STARTLING EVENT OR OCCURRENCE assailant, may be considered as part of the res
taking place; gestae and is admissible in evidence. A statement
was given sometime after the stabbing while the
2. A statement was made while the event is taking
declarant was undergoing treatment at a medical
place or IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO, OR
clinic, where he had no time to concoct a falsehood
SUBSEQUENT THERETO; or to fabricate a malicious charge against the
3. The statement was made before the declarant accused and no motive has been shown as to why
had the TIME TO CONTRIVE OR DEVISE A he would frame-up the accused would render the
FALSEHOOD statement admissible as a part of the res gestae
4. The statement RELATES TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES of the startling event or People v. Peralta
occurrence The preliminary investigation was more credible
B. Verbal Acts (to be admissible) because it was made shorty after the occurrence of
 Statements accompanying an the killing. The first statement she made when she
equivocal/ambiguous act material to the issue, rushed to inform her grandmother of her father’s
and giving it a legal significance; it does not attack on her mother was part of the res gestae.
signify anything if taken separately
Res gestae refers to those statements and
 It is the statement contemporaneous with the
exclamations made by either the participants, victim
act that identifies or indicates the character, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during,
purpose or motive of the act or immediately after the commission of the crime,
1. The principal act to be characterized must be when the circumstances are such that the statements
EQUIVOCAL were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance
2. The equivocal act must be MATERIAL to the inspired by excitement of the occasion and there was
issue no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to
3. The STATEMENT must accompany the equivocal fabricate a false statement.
act
4. The statement gives LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE to the
ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS
equivocal act (must explain the equivocal act)
Requisites to be admissible:
Part of the res gestae
a. The person who made the entry must be dead
People v. Putian
or unable to testify
Although a declaration does not appear to have been b. The entries were made at or near the time of
made by the declarant under the expectation of a the transactions to which they refer
certain and impending death, and for this reason, is
c. The entrant was in a position to know the facts
not admissible as a dying declaration, such
stated in the entries
declaration can fall squarely in the rule on res
gestae.” d. The entries were made in his professional
capacity or in the performance of a duty,

Page 40 of 55

whether legal, contractual, moral or religious;
and
e. The entries were made in the ordinary or
regular course of business
 These are prima facie evidence; not conclusive;
can be rebutted
 Public writing – you need NOT prove its due
execution and authenticity
 Private writing – authenticity must be
established (verify handwriting)
 ROEE expressly exempt business records from
the application of the hearsay rule provided the
mechanics of record-keeping of such records
are shown by the testimony of the custodian or
other qualified witnesses.
DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST
 It is necessary that the declarant knew that the
statement was against his interest and which he
would not have made had it not been true.
Requisites to be admissible:
a. The declarant is dead or unable to testify
b. The declaration is against the declarant
c. Declarant has sufficient knowledge on matters
in his declaration
d. The interest declared was actual or real
Differences of Admission under Sec. 26 v. Sec. 38
Admission under Sec. 26 Sec. 38
Declarant need not be aware Declarant must be
or consider his declaration as aware or that he
opposing to his interest at considers his
the time he made the declaration or be
declaration opposed to his
interest.
Admission is receivable even Declarant must be
if the admitter is still alive or dead or unable to
available to testify testify to be an
exception to the
hearsay rule
Admission is receivable only Declaration is
against the one who made receivable even
admission and those against third persons
identified with him to have
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
legal interest (like a co-
conspirator)
Declaration Against Interest
People v. Toledo
Where, however, the declarant is dead or has
disappeared, his previous statements, out of court, if
not inadmissible on other grounds, are the best
evidence. But they are not rendered inadmissible by
the mere fact that the declarant is unavailable, -
something else is necessary. One fact which will
satisfy this necessity is that the declaration is or was
against the declarant's interest, and this is because
no sane person will be presumed to tell a falsehood
to his own detriment.
Viacrucis v. CA
Such admission that he is NOT the owner of the
property, may be received in evidence, not only
against the party who made it or his successors-in-
interest but also to third parties.
DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE
Requisites to be an exception to the Hearsay Rule:
a. The declarant is dead or unable to testify
b. The declarant is related by birth or marriage to
this person whose pedigree is in issue
c. The declaration was made before the
controversy
d. The relationship between the two persons is
shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration
 “Pedigree” includes relationship, family
genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates
when and the places where these facts
occurred, and the names of the relatives, facts
of family history intimately connected with
pedigree
Act of Declaration About Pedigree
People v. Alegado
All these preconditions are obtaining in the case at
Page 41 of 55
 REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA

bar considering that the date of birth of the rape

victim is being put in issue; that the declaration of the
victim's grandfather relating to tradition (sending a COMMON REPUTATION
child to school upon reaching the age of seven) Requisites to be admissible:
existed long before the rape case was filed; and that
the witness testifying to the said tradition is the a. A matter of public or general interest (and said
maternal grandfather of the rape victim. matter is more than 30 years old) or respecting
marriage or moral character
Although a person can have no personal knowledge b. One existing prior to the controversy (ante lite
of the date of his birth, he may testify as to his age as motam)
he learned it from his parents and relatives and his c. Reputation must be ancient
testimony in such case is an assertion of a family
d. Formed in the community interested
tradition.
 Also includes monuments and inscriptions
FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION REGARDING  It is admissible because of its trustworthiness
PEDIGREE because reputation has existed a long time
 Also because of NECESSITY – witnesses may no
Requisites to be admissible:
longer be available
a. A statement by a member of the family, either  COMMON REPUTATION is the general or
by consanguinity or affinity undivided reputation in the community. It need
b. The statement is about the reputation or not be unanimous, but it must be the consensus
tradition of the family in respect to the pedigree of the community
of any member of the family  PEDIGREE CANNOT be proven by reputation
c. The reputation or tradition is one existing (only by reputation in the family)
previous to the controversy  “Interest” means pecuniary interest or some
interest by which some legal right of the
What may be admitted? community is affected
a. Entries in family bibles or books or charts Public Interest General Interest
b. Engravings on rings Concerns all the Concerns a community
c. Family portraits and the like members of the State only (existence or
character of public roads,
Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
highways, waterways,
Ferrer v. Inchausti
limits of towns, parishes,
Reputation is a definite and final formation of etc.)
opinion; Rumor merely implies an opinion not finally
credited.
Evidence may be given upon trial of monuments and When is evidence of common reputation NOT
inscription in public places as evidence of common considered as hearsay?
reputation; and entries in family bibles or other
When it is the fact in issue or part thereof (Prosecution
family books or charts; engravings on rings; family
of ill-repute/gambling house or opium joint, such
portraits and the like, as evidence of pedigree.
concerns common reputation)

The law does not require that the entries in the said Requisites for evidence of common reputation
booklet be made at the same time as the occurrence involving MORAL CHARACTER:
of those events

Page 42 of 55
 REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA

a. Formed in the place where the person in evidence under Sec. 44,
question is best known the one who made the
b. Formed ante lite motam entry must have
- It is admissible because the good or bad sufficient knowledge of
character of a man is quite accurately the fact acquired by him
determined according to his reputation in the personally or through
official information
place where he is best known.

Ex. In self-defense, you can show that the victim was

violent by presenting witnesses who will testify to his
bad reputation (no need to be 30 years)
ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
Requisites for admissibility:
a. The entry was made by a PUBLIC OFFICER or by
another person specially enjoined by law to do
so;
b. It was made by a public officer, or by such other
person in the PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY
SPECIALLY ENJOINED BY LAW;
c. The public person or other person had
SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS by him
or her stated, which must have been acquired
by the public officer or other person
PERSONALLY OR THROUGH OFFICIAL
INFORMATION
Examples:
Entries in official records
Barcelon Roxas Security v. CIR
It was not stated how and from whom the witness
obtained the pertinent information. The witness did
not attest to the fact that the BIR report was acquired
from persons under a legal duty to submit the same.
The evidence offered does NOT qualify as an
exception to the rule against hearsay evidence.
Estonina v. CA
The presumption that all property of the marriage
belong to the conjugal partnership applies only when
there is PROOF that the property was acquired
DURING the marriage. Proof of acquisition during the
marriage is a SINE QUA NON for the presumption.
The petitioners were not able to present any proof
that the property was acquired during the marriage.
The words “married to” are merely descriptive of the
the civil status of x. Acquisition of title and
registration are two different acts.
X married to W is merely descriptive. The one who
entered such has no personal knowledge.

a. Police report – like in car collision cases Belen Angeles v. Aleli Angeles
b. Sheriff’s return – submitted to the court; this is The mere facts stated in a birth certificate does NOT
prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein immediately establish the proof or the prima facie
c. Entire in the Register of Deeds presumption that the child is legitimate UNLESS there
d. Minutes of the clerk of court is proof that the child was born during wedlock.
e. Assessor’s office
f. Notaries public A birth certificate, to be considered as validating
proof of paternity and as an instrument of
Entries by Civil Registrar Entries by priest recognition, must be SIGNED by the father and the
Public record Private writing which mother jointly, or by the mother alone, if the father
needs to be refuses.
authenticated
Prima facie evidence of Only an evidence of the For the contents of the certificate of live birth to be
the facts stated therein facts celebrated and the considered as prima facie evidence of the facts stated
date thereod; in order to therein, the requirement that the PUBLIC OFFICER
have prima facie WHO MADE THE ENTRY MUST HAVE SUFFICIENT

Page 43 of 55

KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS entered by him or
acquired by him personally must be complied.
COMMERCIAL LIST AND THE LIKE
 Certain commercial lists and reports of matters
of interest to persons engaged in a particular
occupation are admissible in evidence as
exceptions to the hearsay rule, provided, they
are made by persons engaged in that
occupation and are generally used and relied
upon by them and those lists and reports are
published (Sec. 45, Rule 130)
Examples:
a. Encyclopedias and dictionaries
b. Almanacs
c. Standard pricelist and stock market quotations
d. Mortality tables
e. Tables of logarithm, weights and measures
Why are they admissible?
a. NECESSITY because of the inconvenience of
calling the person who prepared the list
b. TRUSTWORTHINESS because these persons
have no motives to falsify and because of the
long use in the practical affairs of life come to
be accepted as unvarying authority
LEARNED TREATISES
 a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on
a subject of history, law, science, or art is
admissible as tending to prove the truth of a
matter stated therein if the court takes
JUDICIAL NOTICE, or a WITNESS EXPERT IN THE
SUBJECT TESTIFIES, that the writer of the
statement is recognized in his profession or
calling as expert in the subject.
Why admissible?
a. NECESSITY because the author is no longer
available as witness
b. TRUSTWORTHINESS because the author had no
motive to misrepresent
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
When are they admissible?
If the fact stated therein can be judicially noticed or
another expert testifies that the author is a recognized
expert on the topic
Learned Treatises
Yao Kee v. Sy-Gonzales
An unwritten foreign law is proved by testimony of
expert witness under Section 45 of Rule 130 while a
written foreign law is proved in accordance with
Section 24 of Rule 132
Section 45 of Rule 130
Unwritten foreign law – the oral testimony of
witnesses, skilled therein, is admissible as evidence of
the unwritten law of a foreign country, as are also
printed and published books of reports of decisions
of the courts of the foreign country, if proved to be
commonly admitted in such courts
Proof of written foreign law – Sec. 25, Rule 132
In the case, no competent evidence relative to the
law and custom of China on marriage was presented.
The testimonies were self-serving and there is no
showing that they are competent to testify on the
subject matter.
RULE: to establish a valid foreign marriage, 2 things
must be proved:
a. Existence of the foreign law (prove it as
matter of fact)
b. The alleged foreign marriage (prove it by
sufficient evidence)
Portus v. Novero
A baptismal certificate is proof only of the baptism
administered in conformity with the rites of the
Church but it does not prove the veracity of the
declaration and statements contained in the
certificate that concerned the relationship of the
person baptized. It is not a proof of filiation.
In order for such statements and declaration to be
admitted, it must indispensably shown by some proof
recognized by law.
Page 44 of 55

TESTIMONY OR DEPOSTIION AT A FORMER
PROCEEDING
Requisites to be admissible:
a. The witness is DEAD OR UNABLE to testify
b. His testimony or deposition was given in a
FORMER CASE or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, between the SAME PARTIES or
those representing the same interests
c. The former case involved the SAME SUBJECT as
that in the present case, although on different
causes of action
d. The issue testified by the witness in the former
trial is the SAME ISSUE involved in the present
case
e. The adverse party had an OPPORTUNITY TO
CROSS-EXAMINE the witness in the former case
 Admission made in a former proceeding will be
considered as EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
 Due process does not mean that you are
actually heard. It only requires that there was
an opportunity to be heard
 Taking of deposition may be used in evidence
but it will not make the person you are
deposing as your witness.
Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
Tan v. CA
This was a case for acknowledgment and support.
They cannot be categorized as witnesses of the class
unable to testify. The witnesses in question were
available. Only, they refused to testify. No other
person that prevented them from testifying, is cited.
Certainly, they do not come within the legal purview
of those unable to testify.
To emphasize, subsequent failure or refusal to appear
thereat [second trial] or hostility since testifying at
the first trial does not amount to inability to testify.
To be qualified, such inability should proceed from a
grave cause, almost amounting to death, as when the
witness is old and has lost the power of speech.
People v. Liwanag
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
The one testifying is NOT testifying on the truth made
by the declarant out of court rather, the fact that he
uttered those words.
Here, the testimony sought to be made part of the
evidence in chief are not ex-parte  affidavits, but
testimony of witnesses taken down by question and
answer during the preliminary investigation in the
presence of the accused and his counsel who
subjected the said witnesses to a rigid and close
cross-examination. The inclusion of said testimony
was made subject to the right of the defendant to
further cross-examine the witnesses whose
testimony are sought to be reproduce and, pursuant
to said order, the witnesses were recalled to the
stand during the trial and again examined in the
presence of the appellant. Upon the fact, there was
no curtailment of the constitutional right of the
accused to meet the witnesses face to face.
C. OPINION EVIDENCE
GR: The opinion of a witness is INADMISSIBLE
Exceptions to the opinion rule:
1. Expert Testimony
Requisites:
a. The fact to be proved is one requiring SPECIAL
KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, TRAINING or SKILL
b. The witness is an EXPERT (he should be shown
to possess such)
Probative value of an expert witness
For matters which come in the general knowledge of
the judge, expert evidence has little weight. The
greatest consideration against the testimony of an
expert is that he is a PAID witness.
But where the subject of inquiry is highly technical, the
court must rely on expert evidence.
2. Opinion of ordinary witness
It may be received regarding:
a. The IDENTITY of a person about whom he has
adequate knowledge
Page 45 of 55

b. The handwriting of the person with which he
has sufficient familiarity
c. The impressions of the witness of the emotion,
behavior, condition or appearance of a person
d. The MENTAL SANITY of a person with whom he
is sufficiently acquainted
 The witness may testify on how does he walk, is
speech slurred, if sad: crying, how does he look,
if happy: smiling?)
 Before the witness can give his opinion, you
must first lay the predicate/basis as to why he is
qualified
D. CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Character is the aggregate of the moral, qualities which
belong to and distinguish an individual person; the
general results of one’s distinguishing attributes.
Reputation depends on the attributes which others
believe one to possess.
 The rule is that the character or reputation of a
party is regarded as legally IRRELEVANT, in
determining a controversy.
GR: Character evidence is INADMISSIBLE
Exceptions:
a. In certain criminal cases
b. In certain civil cases
c. Rule 132, Section 14
Section 51. Character evidence generally inadmissible,
except:
a. In criminal cases:
1. The accused may prove his good moral
character which is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged (estafa – may
prove honesty in dealings)
 It should be pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense
2. Unless in REBUTTAl, the prosecution may not
prove his BAD MORAL CHARACTER which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offence charged; you can prove bad moral
character by common reputation
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
 This rule discourages the presentation of
PROPENSITY EVIDENCE (the evidence that one
acts in accordance with one’s character)
3. The good or bad moral character of the
offended party may be proved IF IT TENDS TO
ESTABLISH IN ANY REASONABLE DEGREE OF THE
PROBABILITY OR IMPROBABILITY OF THE
OFFENSE charged.
b. In civil cases:
Evidence of the moral character of the party is
admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character
involved in the case.
EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER OF WITNESS
It is not admissible until such character has been
impeached.
Who may assail or impeach the character of a
witness?
You cannot impeach the character of your own witness
unless he becomes a HOSTILE WITNESS or when he is an
ADVERSE PARTY.
US v. Suan
The crime of seduction presupposes that you are
chaste. If prior to that time, she voluntarily had sex
with other men, the defendant cannot be convicted
of seduction.
CHAPTER 7: OFFER OF EVIDENCE
AND TRIAL OBJECTIONS
 A formal offer is necessary because judges are
required to base their findings of fact and
judgment only upon evidence offered by the
parties at the trial
 The identification of documentary evidence is
done in the course of the trial and is
accompanied by the marking of the evidence as
an exhibit, while the second is done only when
the party rests its case (Dizon v. CTA)
WHEN TO MAKE OFFER OF EVIDENCE
Page 46 of 55

a. Object – after the presentation of the party’s
testimonial evidence
b. Documentary – after the presentation of the
party’s testimonial evidence
c. Testimonial – at the time the witness is called
to testify
 Under the JAR, you must first still offer before
you present the witness
 One of the purposes of the preliminary
conference period is to present your
documentary evidence for marking
 You also enumerate who your witnesses are
together with their judicial affidavits
 Then you state the purpose of presenting them
One Day Witness Rule : Everything must be done in one
day
RULE: Documents and witnesses not identified/listed
during the pre-trial cannot be admitted in evidence
unless it is in the interest of justice
WHEN FORMAL EVIDENCE IS NOT REQUIRED
a. Summary proceedings
b. Documents judicially admitted or taken judicial
notice of
c. Documents, affidavits or depositions used in
rendering summary judgment
d. Documents or affidavits used in deciding quasi-
judicial or administrative cases
e. Lost objects previously marked, identified,
described in the record and testified to by
witnesses who had been subjects of cross-
examination in respect to said objects.
 It is when the accused fails to object to the
admissibility of evidence DURING THEIR
FORMAL OFFER, that he is deemed to have
WAIVED his right against their admissibility
HOW AN OFFER OF EVIDENCE IS MADE
1. He must state the NATURE OR SUBSTANCE of
the evidence, and the SPECIFIC PURPOSE for
which the evidence is offered
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
2. The COURT SHALL CONSIDER the evidence
solely for that purpose
OBJECTIONS; PURPOSES OF OBJECTIONS
a. To keep out inadmissible evidence that would
cause harm to a client’s cause
b. To protect the record
c. To protect a witness from being embarrassed
on the stand or from being harassed by the
adverse counsel
d. To expose the adversary’s unfair tactics like his
consistently asking obviously leading questions
e. To give the trial court an opportunity to correct
its own errors
f. To avoid a waiver of the inadmissibility of an
otherwise inadmissible evidence
GENERAL AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS
 An objection must point out the specific ground
of the objection, otherwise it MAY be correctly
overruled
Examples of general objections:
a. The evidence is incompetent
b. Inadmissible
c. Incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial
d. Improper
Examples of specific objections:
a. Question calls for a hearsay answer
b. Witness cannot testify on a privileged
communication
c. The question calls for a conclusion
d. The question is beyond the scope of the direct
examination
e. Impeachment is improper
FORMAL AND SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS
Formal objection – one directed against the alleged
defect in the formulation of the question
Substantive objection – against the very nature of the
evidence (irrelevant, incompetent, etc)
OBJECTIONS MUST BE TIMELY
Page 47 of 55

It must be made at the earliest opportunity,
a. If orally -objection must be made immediately
after the offer is made
b. An objection to a question propounded in the
course of the oral examination shall be made as
soon as the grounds therefor shall become
reasonably apparent.
c. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected
within three (3) days after notice, unless
otherwise provided by the court.
SEC. 37 WHEN REPETITION OF OBJECTION
UNNECESSARY
When it becomes apparent that the question being
propounded are of the same class as of those to which
objection has been made, whether such objection was
overruled or sustained. It shall NOT be necessary to
repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the party to
record his continuing objection to such class of
questions.
SEC. 38 RULING ON THE OBJECTION
It must be immediately given after the objection is
made, unless the court decides to take a reasonable
time to inform itself on the question presented.
GR: the reason for sustaining or overruling an objection
need not be stated
XPN: if the objection is based on two or more grounds,
a ruling sustaining the objection or one or some of them
must specify the ground or grounds relied upon.
STRIKING OUT AN ANSWER OR A TESTIMONY
A motion to strike may be availed in the following
instances:
a. When the answer is premature
b. When the answer of the witness is irrelevant,
incompetent, or otherwise improper
c. When the answer is unresponsive
d. When the witness becomes unavailable for
cross-examination through no fault of the cross-
examining party
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
e. When the testimony was allowed conditionally
and the condition was not fulfilled
 When witness was already able to answer
before an objection that was sustained
 On proper motion, the court may also order the
striking out of answers which are
INCOMPETENT, IRRELEVANT or otherwise
IMPROPER.
EXTENT OF WAIVER FOR FAILURE TO OBJECT
 It should NOT be construed as an admission
that the evidence is credible
 It also does not mean that the non-objecting
party waives his right to the presentation of
controverting evidence
 It is only waiver to RELEVANCE AND
COMPETENCY of the evidence
TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE
 Offer of evidence is done because the court
shall not consider any evidence that has not
been formally offered
 Evidence, although incompetent, if relevant and
not objected to must be admitted.
People v. M
An appellant convicted for violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act contended on appeal that the testimonies
of certain witnesses were not formally offered.
Ruling: The records reveal that the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses were offered during the
formal offer of documentary evidence and the
appellant did not object. The formal offer was made
together with the offer of documentary evidence.
People v. Java
Under the new rule the offer of the testimony of the
witness must be made at the time the witness is
called to testify. With this innovation, the court is put
on notice whether to presented is material and
should be heard, or a witness who will be testifying
on irrelevant matter or facts already testified to by
other witnesses.
In this case, the witness was not one of those
originally intended to be presented by the
Page 48 of 55

prosecution. However, despite that his testimony was
not formally offered, it was not objected to either.
Section 36 requires that an objection should be
made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become
apparent.
Since no objection to the admissibility of evidence
was made, an objection made for the person on
appeal will not be considered.
Catuira v. CA
The testimony of the complainant was not formerly
offered but it was nevertheless admitted because
there was WAIVER ON THE PART OF THE DEFENSE BY
FAILING TO OBJECT ON TIME. The proper time was
when the ground for the objection became apparent
which is when the complainant was called to testify
without any prior formal offer having been made by
the proponent.
People v. Yap
Appellant was found guilty for violating the DDA
based on the testimonies of the officers who
conducted the buy-bust operation. Appellant
questions the admissibility of the testimonies as they
were not formally offered in evidence and the PC
team did not obtain a warrant when he was arrested.
Presentation of Evidence Offer of Evidence
Putting in as evidence the The statement made
testimony of the witness by the counsel as to
or the documents what he expects to
relevant to the issue prove from the
witness
Therefore, the term “offer of evidence” is understood
to include the presentation and introduction of
evidence. What is essential in order for the offer of
evidence to be valid is that the witness is called and
asked the appropriate questions.
In the old rule, there is a distinction between
presentation and formal offer of evidence.
Under the present rule, you must make a formal offer
and state the purpose. Formal offer includes the
presentation of evidence. If the witness is already
testifying, that is already a formal offer.
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
NEW RULE: Presentation of evidence is also a
FORMAL OFFER.
People v. Franco
Accused was convicted on the basis of an
extrajudicial confession thaw was not formally
offered in evidence.
There is a significant distinction between
identification of documentary evidence and its formal
offer. IDENTIFICATION is done in the course of the
trial and is accompanied by the marking of the
evidence as an exhibit while the FORMAL OFFER is
done only when the party rests its case.
The mere fact that a particular DOCUMENT is
identified and marked as an exhibit does NOT mean
that it has been offered as evidence.
Tabuena v. CA
GR: Offer of evidence is necessary
XPN: Even if there is no formal offer, it may still be
admitted against the adverse party if:
1. It has been duly identified by testimony DULY
RECORDED
2. It has itself been INCORPORATED in the
records of the case
It is clear, though, that this exception is applicable only
when, "in the absence of objection," "with the knowledge
of the opposing party," or "at the request or with the
consent of the parties," the case is clearly referred to or
"the original or part of the records of the case are actually
withdrawn from the archives" and "admitted as part of the
record of the case then pending." These conditions have
not been established here.
“The mere fact that a particular document is marked
as an exhibit does not mean it has thereby already
been offered as part of the evidence of the party.”
PBCOM v CA
Offer of proof is done because:
a. To allow the court to know the nature of the
testimony or the documentary evidence and
convince the trial judge to permit the evidence
or testimony
Page 49 of 55
 REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA

b. Even if he is not convinced to reverse his earlier a. Those which will tend to subject him to penalty
ruling, the tender is made to create and for an offense unless otherwise provided by law
preserve a record for appeal (right against self-incrimination)
b. Those which will tend to degrade his
FORMAL OFFER OF OFFER OF PROOF
reputation, unless it to be the very fact at issue
EVIDENCE
or to a fact from which the fact in issue would
Refers either to the offer The process by which a
be presumed
of the testimony of a proponent of an
witness prior to the excluded evidence
latter’s testimony, or the tenders the same  A witness may be compelled to answer when
offer of the documentary the answer tends to establish a claim against
and object evidence after him
the party has presented
SECTION 3. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF WITNESSES
his testimonial evidence
a. To be protected from IRRELEVANT, IMPROPER,
or INSULTING questions and from harsh or
RULE 132
insulting demeanor
HOW THE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS IS GIVEN
b. Not to be detained longer than the interests of
a. In open court – nobody is prevented from justice require
entering inside the courtroom to give the c. Not to be examined except as to only
accused due process PERTINENT MATTERS on the issue
b. Under oath or affirmation d. Not to give an answer which will subject him to
c. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or an offense except otherwise provided by law
the questions calls for a different mode of e. Not to give an answer which will tend to
answer, the answers of the witnesses shall be degrade his reputation…
given orally
3 KINDS OF EVIDENCE
 “or by other means of recording found suitable
by the court” 1. Object
 It is proved by exhibiting it to the court, by
PROCEEDINGS TO BE RECORDED
experimentation and the viewing, touching etc.
2 Ways to Record it can also be by testimonial evidence
 It is subject to the Best Evidence Rule
1. Short hand – done manually
2. Documentary
2. Steno type – steno machine (no longer used)
3. Testimonial

 A transcript of the record of proceedings made SEC. 6. CROSS-EXAMINATION

by the official stenographer, steno typist or
Purpose of cross-examination:
recorder and certified as correct by him shall be
deemed prima facie a correct statement of such a. To test the accuracy and truthfulness and
proceedings because it is a PUBLIC RECORD freedom from interest or bias of the witness, or
the reverse; and
GR: A witness must answer ALL questions pertinent to
b. To elicit all IMPORTANT FACTS bearing upon the
the issue
issue
XPN:
2 Rules Regarding the scope of cross-examination:

Page 50 of 55

a. English Rule – you may ask questions even if it
was NOT taken up during the direct; provided, it
is connected with it
b. American Rule – you can only ask the witness a
question provided that it was taken up during
the direct
Instances where we strictly follow the American Rule:
1. Under Rule 115 (d) Rights of the Accused
- The right of the accused to testify as witness in
his own behalf BUT subject to cross-
examination on matters covered by the direct
examination
- Only those connected with the direct are
allowed to be asked
2. Under Rule 132, Section 12
- Hostile or unwilling witness may be impeached
and cross-examined by the adverse party, but
such must only be on the subject matter of his
examination-in-chief
 If the witness dies or becomes unable to testify
before he is cross-examined, you can ask the
court to have his testimony in the direct
examination be stricken off the record EXCEPT if
the other party WAIVES his right to cross-
examine
 Why? Because cross-examination is part of the
testimony, therefore, it would be INCOMPLETE
Cross-examination of witness
Dela Paz v IAC
The cross-examination was deferred 4 times. Then
the plaintiff dies.
“THE RIGHT OF A PARTY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE
WITNESS OF HIS ADVERSARY IS INVALUABLE AS IT IS
INVIOLABLE in civil cases, no less than the right of the
accused in criminal cases. The express recognition of
such right of the accused in the Constitution does not
render the right thereto of parties in civil cases less
constitutionally-based, for it is an indispensable part
of the due process guaranteed by the fundamental
law…xxx..Unless such cross-examination has been
finished, the testimony of the witness cannot be
considered as complete, and may not be allowed to
form part of the evidence to be considered by the
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
court in deciding the case”
BUT IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT, it is a PERSONAL
one which may be waived expressly or impliedly.
Thus, when a party has had the opportunity to cross-
examine but failed to avail himself of it, he
necessarily FORFEITS the right to cross-examine and
the testimony given on direct examination will be
received or allowed to remain in court.
“The conduct of a party which may be construed as
an IMPLIED WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO CROSS-
EXAMINE may take various forms. But the common
basic principle underlying the application of the rule
on implied waiver is that the party was given the
opportunity to confront and cross-examine the
opposing witness but failed to take advantage of it
for reasons attributable to himself alone.”
Fulgado v. CA
The principle requiring a testing of testimonial
statements by cross-examination has always been
understood as requiring, not necessarily an actual
cross-examination, but merely an opportunity to
exercise the right to cross-examination. The
defendants are said to have waived the right.
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
SECTION 1. SCOPE
a. It shall apply to ALL actions, proceedings and
incidents requiring the reception of evidence
before:
1. The MetC, MTC, MCTC, and the Shari’ah Courts
but shall NOT apply to small claims cases (AM
08-8-7-SC; (this applies to Summary Procedure)
2. RTC and Shari’ah District Courts
3. SB, CTA, CA, Shari’ah Appellate Courts;
4. The investigating officers and bodies authorized
by the SC to receive evidence, including the IBP;
5. The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies,
whose Rules of Procedure are subject to
disapproval of the SC, insofar as their existing
rules contravene the provisions of this Rule
b. For the purpose of brevity, the above courts,
quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating officers
Page 51 of 55

shall be uniformly referred too here as the
“court”
SECTION 2. SUBMISSION OF JUDICIAL AFFIDAVITS AND
EXHIBITS IN LIEU OF DIRECT TESTIMONIES:
When should they submit the affidavits of their
witnesses?
a. The party shall file with the COURT and serve on
the adverse party, PERSONALLY or by LICENSED
COURIER SERVICE, not later than 5 days before
pre-trial or preliminary conference or the
scheduled hearing with respect to motions and
incidents, the following:
1. The judicial affidavits of the witnesses, which
shall take the place of such witnesses’ direct
testimonies; and
2. The parties’ documentary or object evidence, if
any, which shall be attached to the judicial
affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so
on in the case of the complainant or the
plaintiff, and Exhibits 1,2, 3, and so on, in the
case of the respondent or the defendant.
b. Should a party or a witness desire to KEEP THE
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT OR OBJECT EVIDENCE in
his possession, he may, after the same has been
identified, marked as exhibit, and
authenticated, warrant in his judicial affidavit
that the copy or reproduction attached to such
affidavit is a faithful copy or reproduction of
that original. In addition, the party or witness
shall bring the original document or object
evidence for comparison during the
PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE with the attached
copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing which
the latter shall not be admitted.
 During pre-trial, you must compare the copy
with the original to establish that it was a
faithful copy, so you can keep the original.
This is without prejudice to the introduction of
secondary evidence in place of the original when
allowed by existing rules.
 During direct, you must already establish the
existence of your secondary evidence
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
 Lay the basis why your witness cannot present
the original (lost, etc.)
 The burden of proof is shifted due to JAR. You
usually present evidence when the adverse
party is able to establish a prima facie case.
 Due to JAR, everything is simultaneous.
Section 3. Contents of judicial Affidavit. - A judicial
affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the
witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by
a translation in English or Filipino, and shall contain the
following:
(a) The name, age, residence or business
address, and occupation of the witness;
(b) The name and address of the lawyer who
conducts or supervises the examination of the
witness and the place where the examination is
being held;
(c) A statement that the witness is answering
the questions asked of him, fully conscious that
he does so under oath, and that he may face
criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;
(d) Questions asked of the witness and his
corresponding answers, consecutively
numbered, that:
1. Show the circumstances under which the
witness acquired the facts upon which he
testifies
2. Elicit from him those facts which are relevant
to the issues that the case presents; and
3. Identify the attached documentary and
object evidence and establish their authenticity
in accordance with the Rules of Court;
(e) The signature of the witness over his printed
name; and
(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary
public who administers the oath or an officer
who is authorized by law to administer the
same.
Page 52 of 55

Section 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer. - (a) The
judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the
end, executed by the lawyer who conducted or
supervised the examination of the witness, to the effect
that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to
be recorded the questions he asked and
the corresponding answers that the
witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person
then present or assisting him coached
the witness regarding the latter's
answers.
(b) A false attestation shall subject the lawyer
mentioned to disciplinary action, including
disbarment.
Section 5. Subpoena. - If the government employee or
official, or the requested witness, who is neither the
witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness,
unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or
refuses without just cause to make the relevant books,
documents, or other things under his control available
for copying, authentication, and eventual production in
court, the requesting party may avail himself of the
issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces
tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. The rules
governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in
this case shall be the same as when taking his
deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit
shal1 be understood to be ex parte.
 If the government employee or official, or the
requested witness, who is neither the witness
of the adverse party not a hostile witness,
unjustifiably declines to execute a JA or refuses
without just cause to make the relevant books,
documents, or other things under his control
available for copying, authentication and
eventual production in court, the requesting
party may avail himself of the issuance of a
subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum
under Rule 21 of the ROC. The rules governing
the issuance of subpoena in this case shall be
the same as when taking his deposition except
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
that the taking of a JA shall be understood to be
ex parte.
 The taking of JA is ex parte because there is an
opportunity to cross-examine.
Section 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in
judicial affidavit. –
There are 3 Kinds of Evidence:
1. Object – offer this at the end
2. Documentary – offer this at the end
3. Testimonial – this should be presented from the
start
The party presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness
in place of direct testimony shall STATE THE PURPOSE
OF SUCH TESTIMONY AT THE START of the presentation
of the witness.
The adverse party may move to disqualify the witness
or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found
in it on ground of inadmissibility.
 Competency does not only relate to the person,
it can also relate to the answers
 If a particular portion is hearsay, you should
object
The court shall promptly rule on the motion and, if
granted, shall cause the marking of any excluded
answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of an
authorized court personnel, without prejudice to a
tender of excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule
132 of the Rules of Court.
 Without the JAR, you object when the ground
for the objection becomes EVIDENT.
 TENDER OF EVIDENCE -if you are excluding the
witness entirely on the ground of privileged
communication, you say, “Your honor, we wish
to have the tender of evidence”
 It means that I have been allowed to present
this witness, we would be able to prove the
following points. Enumerate those and put
them on record.
Page 53 of 55

Section 7. Examination of the witness on his judicial
affidavit. - The adverse party shall have the right to
CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS on his judicial affidavit
and on the exhibits attached to the same. The party
who presents the witness may also examine him as ON
RE-DIRECT. In every case, the COURT shall take active
part in examining the witness to determine his
credibility as well as the truth of his testimony and to
elicit the answers that it needs for resolving the issues.
Section 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits. –
(a) Upon the termination of the testimony of his last
witness, a party shall immediately make an oral offer of
evidence of his documentary or object exhibits, piece by
piece, in their chronological order, stating the purpose
or purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit.
(b) After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse
party shall state the legal ground for his objection, if
any, to its admission, and the court shall immediately
make its ruling respecting that exhibit.
(c) Since the documentary or object exhibits form part
of the judicial affidavits that describe and authenticate
them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited
by their markings during the offers, the objections, and
the rulings, dispensing with the description of each
exhibit.
Section 9. Application of rule to criminal actions. -
(a) This rule shall apply to all criminal actions:
1. Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does
not exceed six years;
2. Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial
affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or
3. With respect to the civil aspect of the actions,
whatever the penalties involved are.
(b) The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of
its witnesses not later than five days before the pre-
trial, serving copies if the same upon the accused. The
complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to the
affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he
may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on.
REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA
No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or object
evidence shall be admitted at the trial.
(c) If the accused desires to be heard on his defense
after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the prosecution,
he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit
as well as those of his witnesses to the court within
ten days from receipt of such affidavits and serve a
copy of each on the public and private prosecutor,
including his documentary and object evidence
previously marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on. These
affidavits shall serve as direct testimonies of the
accused and his witnesses when they appear before the
court to testify.
 Civil case – simultaneous submission
 Criminal case – prosecution will submit first.
After the defense receives a copy, he will have
10 days to submit.
Section 10. Effect of non-compliance with the judicial
Affidavit Rule. –
(a) A party who fails to submit the required judicial
affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed
to have waived their submission.
The court may, however, allow only once the
late submission of the same provided, the delay
is for a valid reason, would not unduly
prejudice the opposing party, and the
defaulting party pays a fine of not less
than P 1,000.00 nor more than P 5,000.00 at the
discretion of the court.
(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any
witness who fails to appear at the scheduled hearing of
the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear
without valid cause despite notice shall be deemed to
have waived his client's right to confront by cross-
examination the witnesses there present.
(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial
affidavits that do not conform to the content
requirements of Section 3 and the attestation
requirement of Section 4 above. The court may,
however, allow only once the subsequent submission
of the compliant replacement affidavits before the
hearing or trial provided the delay is for a valid reason
Page 54 of 55
 REMEDIAL LAW – EVIDENCE | CGA

and would not unduly prejudice the opposing party

and provided further, that public or private counsel
responsible for their preparation and submission pays a
fine of not less than P 1,000.00 nor more
than P 5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.

Section 11. Repeal or modification of inconsistent

rules. - The provisions of the Rules of Court and the
rules of procedure governing investigating officers and
bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive
evidence are repealed or modified insofar as these are
inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.

The rules of procedure governing quasi-judicial bodies

inconsistent herewith are hereby disapproved.

Other Purposes – during making compromise

(Exceptions in compromise being inadmissible)

1. To prove bias or prejudice of a witness

2. Denying claim that you are unduly delaying the
case
3. To prove an effort to obstruct criminal
investigation

In criminal cases – may be received in eve

Exceptions:

1. Law allows compromise (BIR)

2.

Page 55 of 55