GROUP 6

MEMBERS: DEPOSITIONS

DULAY, ROBERT -Need not to be taken in open court, may be taken before the notary public
LALU, GIANINA (Section 10, Rule 23) or before any person authorized to administer oaths.
NAVARRO, BRYAN
MENDOZA, EMIAJ FRANCINNE OATH OR AFFIRMATION
RESENTES, DENZ CHRISTIAN
RUIZ, KIMBERLY JOY -Oath is an outward pledge made under an immediate responsibility to God
or a solemn appeal to the Supreme Being in attestation of the truth of some
RULE 132 statement.
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE -Affirmation is a substitute for an oath and is a formal declaration that the
witness will tell the truth.

A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. — The examination of
witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court, and
under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or
the questions calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the
witness shall be given orally.
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
-The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done
in OPEN COURT, and UNDER OATH or AFFIRMATION. Unless the
witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode
of answer, the ANSWERS OF THE WITNESS SHALL BE GIVEN
ORALLY.
Note: Option is given to the witness and not the court. A witness who
refuses to take an oath or affirmation may be barred.
Section 2. Proceedings to be recorded. — The entire proceedings of a trial
or hearing, including the questions propounded to a witness and his or her
answers thereto, the statements made by the judge or any of the parties,
counsel, or witnesses with reference to the case, shall be recorded by means
of shorthand or stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable by
the court.
A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official
stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and certified as correct by him or her
shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings.

OPEN COURT PROCEEDINGS TO BE RECORDED

-This method allows the court the opportunity to observe the demeanor of
the witness and also allows the adverse party to cross-examine the witness.
ORALLY
-Except when the questions calls for another mode (persons with
disabilities), Testimonies which need not to be given orally in open court.
The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, including the questions
propounded to a witness and his answers thereto, the statements made by
the judge or any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference to the
case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand or stenotype or by other
means of recording found suitable by the court.

1
Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. — A witness must answer
questions, although his or her answer may tend to establish a claim against
him. However, it is the right of a witness:
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions,
and from harsh or insulting demeanor;
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
-Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to penalty for an
offense unless otherwise provided by law –This provision gives meaning to
the right of the person against self-incrimination.

(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require; WHEN THE WITNESS IS THE ACCUSED

(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue; -He may totally refuse to take the stand.

(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him or her to a ORDINARY WITNESS
penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law; or
A mere/ordinary witness cannot altogether refuse to take the stand. Before
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his or her he refuses to answer, he must wait for the incriminating question.
reputation, unless it to be the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the
fact in issue would be presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of
his or her previous final conviction for an offense. ROLE OF COUNSELS

-Counsels must always come to the aid of his witness being subjected to
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS intimidation, harassment, and embarrassment. Such acts are objectionable
and a timely objection should be raised.
A witness must answer questions, although his answer may tend to establish
a claim against him. However, it is the right of the witness: Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness. — The order
in which the individual witness may be examined is as follows;
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper or insulting questions, and
from harsh or insulting demeanor; (a) Direct examination by the proponent;
2. Not to be detained longer that the interests of justice require;
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue; (b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to penalty for an
offense unless otherwise provided by law; or (c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it
be to the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be (d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent.
presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous conviction
for an offense.
Section 5. Direct examination. — Direct examination is the examination-in-
chief of a witness by the party presenting him or her on the facts relevant to
the issue.

2

DIRECT EXAMINATION
-It is a procedure for obtaining information from one’s own witness in an
orderly fashion. It is information which the counsel wants the court to hear.
The purpose is to elicit facts about the client’s cause of action or defense.
SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
Section 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of
direct testimonies. –
(a) The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party,
personally or by licensed courier service, not later than five days before
pretrial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to
motions and incidents, the following:
(1) The judicial affidavits of their 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 as 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.
This is without prejudice to the introduction of secondary evidence in place
of the original when allowed by existing rules.
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.
Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. — Upon the
termination of the direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined
by the adverse party on any relevant matter, with sufficient fullness and
freedom to test his or her accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from
interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing
upon the issue.
SCOPE OF EXAMINATION
-It is not confined to the matters stated by the witness in the direct
examination. The above mentioned is only a general rule, where the witness
is unwilling or a hostile witness as so declared by the court, he may be
cross-examined only as to the subject matter of his examination-in-chief
(Section 12, Rule 132).
-The same limited scope of a cross-examination is imposed upon the cross-
examiner where the witness examined is an accused because he is subject to
3
cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination (Section 1(d),
Rule 115)
-The purposes of the cross-examination are:
(1) To bring out facts favorable to counsel’s client not established by direct
testimony, and
(2) To enable counsel to impeach or impair the credibility of the witness.
DEATH OR ABSENCE OF A WITNESS
-If the witness dies before his cross-examination is over, his testimony on
the direct may be stricken out only with respect to the testimony not
covered by the cross-examination. The absence of a witness is not enough
to warrant the striking out of his testimony for failure to appear for further
cross-examination where the witness has already been sufficiently cross
examined and the matter on which the cross examination is sought us not in
controversy. (People v Seneris, 99 SCRA 92)
-If the witness was not cross-examined because of causes attributable to the
cross-examining party and the witness had always made himself available
for cross-examination, the direct testimony if the witness shall remain in the
record and cannot be ordered stricken out because the cross-examiner is
deemed to have waived the right to cross examine the witness. (De la Paz
Intermediate Appellate Court, 154 SCRA 65)
Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent. — After the cross-
examination of the witness has been concluded, he or she may be re-
examined by the party calling him or her, to explain or supplement his or
her answers given during the cross-examination. On re-direct-examination,
questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination, may be
allowed by the court in its discretion.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
To prevent injustice to the witness and the party who has called him by
affording an opportunity to the witness to explain or amplify the testimony
which he has given on cross-examination or to explain any apparent
contradiction or inconsistency in his statements, an opportunity which is not
ordinarily afforded him during his cross –examination.
It is a matter of right, but the time at which it may be had is discretionary on
the court. The witness may be allowed to reaffirm or explain his statements,
their meaning or import and to minimize or destroy discrediting tendencies.
If in the existence of discretion, the court admits matters not dealt with
during the cross-examination or if explanation of the answers given is
necessary, the court may permit a re-cross examination.
Section 8. Re-cross-examination. — Upon the conclusion of the re-direct
examination, the adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on
matters stated in his or her re-direct examination, and also on such other
matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION
To overcome the other party’s attempt to rehabilitate a witness or to rebut
damaging evidence brought out on cross-examination.
It is not a matter of right on re-cross examination for counsel to touch on
matters not brought on the redirect examination of the witness.
Re-cross examination of the witness is limited to new matters brought out
on the re-direct examination of the witness and also on such other matters as
may be allowed by the court in its discretion.
Section 9. Recalling witness. — After the examination of a witness by both
sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of
the court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as the
interests of justice may require.
RECALLING WITNESS
GR: After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded
the witness cannot be recalled without leave of court.
XPN: Recall has been expressly reserved with the approval of court.
4

CASE STUDY:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LEONARDO FABRE y VICENTE
G.R. 146697, July 23, 2002
DOCTRINE:
The cross-examination of a witness is a prerogative of the party against
whom the witness is called. The purpose of cross-examination is to test the
truth and accuracy of the statements of a witness made on a direct
examination. The party against whom the witness testifies may deem any
further examination unnecessary and instead rely on any other evidence
therefore adduced of thereafter to the adduced or on what would be believed
is the perception of the court thereon. Certainly, the trial court is not bound
to give full weight to the testimony of a witness on direct examination
merely because he is not cross-examined by the other party.
FACTS:
Leonardo Fabre was accused of rape by his daughter, Marilou Fabre.
During the trial, the prosecution presented Marilou Fabre, Adela Fabre, her
mother and the wife of the accused and Dr. Jalalon, the doctor who
examined Marilou Fabre. The defense presented Leonardo Fabre and also
called Adela Fabre to the witness stand. The trial court gave credence to the
evidence presented by the prosecution particularly the narration of the
young complainant thus Leonardo Fabre was convicted of rape and
sentenced to death. Upon automatic review, the accused argues that the
testimony of the Fabre, should acquire more strength for the failure of the
prosecution to conduct cross-examination on him and to present any
rebuttal evidence.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the testimony of Fabre should acquire more strength
because of failure of the prosecution to cross examine him.
HELD:
The cross-examination of a witness is a prerogative of the party against
whom the witness is called. The purpose of cross-examination is to test the
truth and accuracy of the statements of a witness made on a direct
examination. The party against whom the witness testifies may deem any
further examination unnecessary and instead rely on any other evidence
therefore adduced of thereafter to the adduced or on what would be believed
is the perception of the court thereon. Certainly, the trial court is not bound
to give full weight to the testimony of a witness on direct examination
merely because he is not cross-examined by the other party.
Section 10. Leading and misleading questions. — A question which
suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a
leading question. It is not allowed, EXCEPT:
(a) On cross examination;
(b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from
a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or
a deaf-mute;
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(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.
A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified
to by the witness, or contrary to that which he or she has previously stated.
It is not allowed.
LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS
Those which suggest to the witness the answer which the examining party
desires.
Additional exception:
1. In all stages of examination of a child if the same will further the interests
of justice (Sec. 20, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, A.M. No. 004-
07-SC.)
5

Leading Questions
These are questions which suggest to the witness the answer which the
examining party desires. The test whether a question is leading or not is the
suggestiveness of its substance.
Misleading Questions
One which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is not allowed in any type
of examination.
CASE STUDY:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JESUS PEREZ y SEBUNG
G.R. No. 142556, February 5, 2003
DOCTRINE:
Leading questions in all stages of examination of a child are allowed if the
same will further the interest of justice. The revelation of an innocent child
whose chastity was abused deserves full credit, as the willingness of
complainant to face police investigation and to undergo the trouble and
humiliation of a public trial is eloquent testimony of her complaint.
FACTS:
For automatic review is the Decision of the Regional Trial Court finding
appellant Jesus S. Perez guilty of raping Mayia P. Ponseca and imposing on
appellant the death penalty. On appeal, Appellant contends that his
identification in open court by Mayia was highly irregular. Appellant points
out that the prosecutor had already identified him as the man wearing an
orange t-shirt when the prosecutor asked Mayia to identify her alleged
rapist. Appellant stresses that when Mayia identified him in open court, she
referred to him as a man named "Johnny" and did not give any description
or any identifying mark. Moreover, appellant claims he was alone in the cell
when Mayia identified him after the police arrested him. Appellant bewails
that the identification was not done with the usual police line-up.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the testimony of the minor-victim should be expunged on
the ground that leading questions were asked during her testimony in court.
HELD:
No. As a rule, leading questions are not allowed. However, the rules
provide for exceptions when the witness is a child of tender years as it is
usually difficult for such child to state facts without prompting or
suggestion. Leading questions are necessary to coax the truth out of their
reluctant lips. In the case at bar, the trial court was justified in allowing
leading questions to Mayia as she was evidently young and unlettered,
making the recall of events difficult, if not uncertain. The trend in
procedural law is to give wide latitude to the courts in exercising control
over the questioning of a child witness. The reasons are spelled out in our
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, which took effect on December
15, 2000, namely, (1) to facilitate the ascertainment of the truth, (2) to
ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate to the developmental
level of the child, (3) to protect children from harassment or undue
embarrassment, and (4) avoid waste of time.
Leading questions in all stages of examination of a child are allowed if the
same will further the interests of justice
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. — A witness may be
impeached by the party against whom he or she was called, by
contradictory evidence, by evidence that his or her general reputation for
truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he or she has made
at other times statements inconsistent with his or her present testimony, but
not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by
the examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he or she
has been convicted of an offense.
IMPEACHMENT
6
To impeach a witness means to discredit the witness’ testimony. It is a
fundamental right on cross-examination. Since the witness’ credibility is
always in issue, it is never beyond the permissible scope of cross-
examination.
Ways of Impeaching Adverse Party’s Witness:
1. By Contradictory Evidence
2. By Evidence that the general reputation for truth, honesty, or
integrity of the witness is bad
3. By Prior inconsistent statements
Prior Convictions
The theory here is that the credibility of the witness is affected by his
having been convicted of a crime. It does not matter if the crime is serious
or a light or a minor offense.
Section 12. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime. — For the
purpose of impeaching a witness, evidence that he or she has been
convicted by final judgment of a crime shall be admitted if (a) the crime
was punishable by a penalty in excess of one year; or (b) the crime involved
moral turpitude, regardless of the penalty.
However, evidence of a conviction is not admissible if the conviction has
been the subject of an amnesty or annulment of the conviction.
NEW PROVISION
This is a new insertion. A witness may now be impeached by evidence that
the witness was previously convicted by final judgment involving: (1) a
punishable penalty exceeding 1 year, regardless of whether the crime
involves moral turpitude, or (2) a crime of moral turpitude, regardless of the
penalty.
Section 13. Party may not impeach his or her own witnesses. – Except with
respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Sec. 10 of this
Rule, the party presenting the witnesses is not allowed to impeach his or
her own credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by
the court upon adequate showing of his or her adverse interest, unjustified
reluctance to testify, or his or her having misled the party into calling him
or her to the witness stand.
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an
adverse party, may be impeached by the party presenting him or her in all
respects as if he or she had been called by the adverse party, except by
evidence of his or her bad character. He or she may also be impeached and
cross-examined by the adverse party, but such cross examination must only
be on the subject matter of his or her examination-in-chief.
PARTY MAY NOT IMPEACH A WITNESS
GENERAL RULE: A party is forbidden to impeach his own witness.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Witness required by law
2. Witness is an adverse party
3. Witness is an unwilling or hostile witness.
This principle is only applicable in civil cases and not in criminal cases
because of the principle of self-incrimination.
Section 14. How witnesses impeached by evidence of inconsistent
statements. Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he or she
has made at other times statements inconsistent with his or her present
testimony, the statements must be related to him or her, with the
circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he or
she must be asked whether he or she made such statements, and if so,
allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing, they must be shown
to the witness before any question is put to him or her concerning them.
IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES; INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS
Requisites:
1. Prior statement of witness must be materially inconsistent with his
testimony;
2. Such inconsistent statement must have a reasonable tendency to
discredit the testimony on a material fact; and
7
3. To impeach by extrinsic proof of prior inconsistent statements,
such must have as their subject:
a. Facts relevant to the issue of the case
b. Facts which are by themselves probable by extrinsic evidence to
discredit the witness
LAYING OF THE PREDICATE
A witness is impeached by prior inconsistent statements by laying the
predicate:
1. By confronting him with statements with the time, place, and
circumstances under which they were made;
2. If the witness admits the making of such contradictory statements,
the accused has the benefit of admission, while the witness has the
opportunity to explain the discrepancy, if he can; and
3. If the witness denies, the accused has the right to prove that the
witness did not make such statement.
NOTE: this rule applies to out-of-court statements
CASE STUDY:
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JAIME CASTILLANO, SR. et al
G.R. No. 139412, April 2, 2003
DOCTRINE
Before the credibility of a witness and the truthfulness of his testimony can
be impeached by evidence consisting of his prior statements which are
inconsistent with his present testimony, the cross-examiner must lay the
predicate or the foundation for impeachment and thereby prevent an
injustice to the witness being cross-examined. The witness must be given a
chance to recollect and to explain the apparent inconsistency between his
two statements and state the circumstances under which they were made.
FACTS:
Diosdado Volante owns a farmland 200m away from Jaime Castillano Sr.’s
farmhouse. Sometime in 1996, Jaime Sr. fired his gun indiscriminately
which prompted an altercation between Diosado. Jaime Sr then fired his
gun pointed at Diodado’s house that germinated deep animosity between
the two and their respective families.
Jaime Sr along with his two sons, Jaime Jr and Ronald, fired at Diosdado’s
house and barged thereafter and took turns stabbing him. Diosdado’s wife
Luz ran into the rice fields and sought for their neighbor’s help.
Several items were retrieved from the crime scene including, a bolo in the
house, a scabbard a meter away from Diosdado’s house, and a bullet hole
inside the house. The three main suspects were apprehended riding a
jeepney.
The defense claimed was self-defense. It was said that the victim was acting
aggressively outside his home while the accused were passing by and
Ronald was forced to defend himself when the victim came at him w/ a
bolo.
On appeal, Appellant Jaime, Jr. avers that the prosecution failed to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. He asserts that the
testimony of Luz Volante, the widow of Diosdado, was inconsistent with
her testimony during the preliminary examination in the municipal trial
court and her sworn statement before the police investigators as well as the
testimonies of SPO1 Fornillos and SPO4 Jaime Favier, and the physical
evidence on record.
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General asserts that the
credibility of the testimony of Luz, the prosecution’s principal witness,
cannot be impeached via her testimony during the preliminary examination
before the municipal trial court nor by her sworn statement given to the
police investigators for the reason that the transcripts and sworn statement
were neither marked and offered in evidence by the appellants nor admitted
in evidence by the trial court. Moreover, the appellants did not confront Luz
with her testimony during the preliminary examination and her sworn
statement to the police investigators. Luz was not, therefore, accorded a
chance to explain the purported inconsistencies, as mandated by Section 13,
Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Evidence
ISSUE: Whether or not a testimony made in open court may be impeached
by asserting that the said testimony is inconsistent with those made by the
witness in the preliminary examination.
HELD:
The answer is in the negative. Before the credibility of a witness and the
truthfulness of his testimony can be impeached by evidence consisting of
8
his prior statements which are inconsistent with his present testimony, the
cross- examiner must lay the predicate or the foundation for impeachment
and thereby prevent an injustice to the witness being cross-examined. The
witness must be given a chance to recollect and to explain the apparent
inconsistency between his two statements and state the circumstances under
which they were made. This Court held in People v. Escosura that the
statements of a witness prior to her present testimony cannot serve as basis
for impeaching her credibility unless her attention was directed to the
inconsistencies or discrepancies and she was given an opportunity to
explain said inconsistencies. In a case where the cross-examiner tries to
impeach the credibility and truthfulness of a witness via her testimony
during a preliminary examination.
In this case, the appellants never confronted Luz with her testimony during
the preliminary examination and her sworn statement. She was not afforded
any chance to explain any discrepancies between her present testimony and
her testimony during the preliminary examination and her sworn statement.
The appellants did not even mark and offer in evidence the said transcript
and sworn statement for the specific purpose of impeaching her credibility
and her present testimony. Unless so marked and offered in evidence and
accepted by the trial court, said transcript and sworn statement cannot be
considered by the court.
Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. The court, motu proprio
or upon motion, shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the
testimony of other witnesses. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (a) a
party who is a natural person, (b) a duly designated representative of a
juridical entity which is a party to the case, (c) a person whose presence is
essential to the presentation of the party’s cause, or (d) a person authorized
by statute to be present.
The court may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented
from conversing with one another, directly or through intermediaries, until
all shall have been examined.
SEPARATION OF WITNESSES
The testimony of a witness shall not be influenced by the statements of
other witnesses or suggestions of counsel as well as to prevent collusion and
concert testimony among witnesses.
Persons not subject to the Rule:
1. An accused in a criminal case as it is his constitutional right to be
present at all stages of the proceedings;
2. Parties to the litigation will generally not be excluded, their
presence usually being necessary to the proper management of the case;
3. Party in interest though not a party to the record and an agent of
such party, if the presence of such agent is not necessary;
4. Officers and complaining witnesses are customarily exempted
from the rule unless the circumstances want otherwise; and
5. Expert witnesses are not excluded until production of evidence
bearing upon the question or subject as to which they have been called or
unless liable to be influenced by the testimony of other witnesses.
Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. - A witness may be
allowed to refresh his or her memory respecting a fact by anything written
or recorded by himself or herself, or under his or her direction at the time
when the fact occurred or immediately recorded, or immediately thereafter,
or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his or her memory and he or
she knew that the same was correctly written or recorded; but in such case,
the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the
adverse party, who may, if he or she chooses, cross-examine the witness
upon it and may read it in evidence. A witness may also testify from such a
writing or record, though he or she retains no recollection of the particular
facts, if he or she is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated
the transaction when made; but such evidence must be received with
caution.
REVIVAL OF PRESENT MEMORY
A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by:
1. Anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at
the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other
time when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew that the same was
correctly written or recorded;
2. 2. In such case that writing or record must be produced and may be
inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he chooses, cross examine the
witness upon it, and may read in in evidence.
9
This rule applies if the witness remembers the facts regarding his entries
and is entitled to greater weight.
CASE STUDY:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO PLASENCIA y
DESAMPARADO, et.al
G.R. No. 90198, November 7, 1995
CASE DOCTRINE: The initial assessment on the testimony of a witness is
done by the trial court, and its findings still deserve due regard
notwithstanding that the presiding judge who pens the decision is not the
one who personally may have heard the testimony; Reliance on the
transcript of stenographic notes should not, for that reason alone, render the
judgment subject to challenge. The use of memory aids during an
examination of a witness is not altogether proscribed. Section 16, Rule 132,
of the Rules of Court states: “Sec. 16. When witness may refer to
memorandum.—A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory
respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or under his
direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at
any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the
same was correctly written or recorded;but in such casethe writing or record
must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if
he chooses, cross-examine the witness upon it and may read it in evidence.
So, also, a witness may testify from such a writing or record, though he
retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to swear that the
writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such
evidence must be received with caution.” Allowing a witness to refer to her
notes rests on the sound discretion of the trial court.
FACTS:
Antonio Plasencia, Roberto Descartin and Joelito (Julito) Descartin were
accused of robbery with homicide. The Regional Trial Court did not give
credence to the defense of alibi. It convicted the three accused of murder.
The instant appeal was interposed by the three convicted appellants.
Appellants attack the credibility of the prosecution's lone eyewitness. It is
asserted that the testimony of Francisca Espina should not be given worth
since, while testifying, she would at times be seen reading some notes
written on her left palm.
ISSUE: Whether or not testimony of a witness, who during her testimony
was seen looking at some notes written on her palm, should not be given
credence
HELD:
The answer is in the negative. The use of memory aids during an
examination of a witness is not altogether proscribed. Section 16, Rule 132,
of the Rules of Court states: A witness may be allowed to refresh his
memory respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or
under his direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately
thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and
he knew that the same was correctly written or recorded; but in such case
the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse
party, who may, if he chooses, cross examine the witness upon it and may
read it in evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such a writing or
record, though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is able
to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when
made; but such evidence must be received with caution.
Allowing a witness to refer to her notes rests on the sound discretion of the
trial court. In this case, the exercise of that discretion has not been abused;
the witness herself has explained that she merely wanted to be accurate on
dates and like details.
RECORDED PAST RECOLLECTION
A witness may testify from such writing or record, though he retained no
recollection of particular facts, if he is able to swear that the writing or
record correctly stated the transaction when made, but such evidence must
be received by caution.
This rule applies where the witness does not recall the facts involved, and is
entitled to lesser weight.
Sec. 16 applies when it is shown that there is a need to refresh the memory
of the witness. The memorandum used does not constitute evidence and
may not be admitted as such.
CASE STUDY:
10

ROSELLA D. CANQUE v. THE COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 96202, April 13, 1999
DOCTRINE: Where the witness has testified independently of or after his
testimony has been refreshed by a memorandum of the events in dispute,
such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative evidence.
FACTS: Petitioner entered into two contracts with private respondent Socor
Construction Corporation. Due to Petitioner’s refusal to pay the amount
billed by the Respondent, the latter brought a suit to recover from the
former the sum of P299, 717.75, plus interest at the rate of 3% a month. To
prove the unpaid bills of the petitioner, private respondent presented its
Book of Collectible Accounts and their bookkeeper, Dolores Aday to testify
on the entries of the said book. During the trial, Aday admitted that she had
no personal knowledge of the facts constituting the entry. She said she made
the entries based on the bills given to her, but she has no knowledge of the
truth or falsity of the facts stated in the bills. The deliveries of the materials
stated in the bills were supervised by "an engineer for such functions. The
trial court, giving due weight to the plaintiff’s Book of Collectible
Accounts, as well as Aday’s testimony, ruled in favor of respondent.
On appeal, said decision was affirmed by the CA. Petitioner contends that
Aday’s testimony is considered a hearsay for lack of personal knowledge of
the entries made as the information entered was merely provided to her by
the engineers of the respondent. It is nonetheless argued by private
respondent that although the entries cannot be considered an exception to
the hearsay rule, they may be admitted under Rule 132, Section 10 of the
Rules of Court. On the other hand, petitioner contends that evidence which
is inadmissible for the purpose for which it was offered cannot be admitted
for another purpose.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not testimony of a witness as to entries made by her based
on bills provided to her is inadmissible on the ground of hearsay evidence
rule.
(2) Whether or not the testimony of a witness as to entries made by her
based on information provided to her may be admissible as memorandum
used to refresh the memory of the witness
HELD:
(1) The answer is in the affirmative. When the witness had no personal
knowledge of the facts entered by him, and the person who gave him the
information is individually known and may testify as to the facts stated in
the entry which is not part of a system of entries where scores of employees
have intervened, such entry is not admissible without the testimony of the
informer.
(2) The answer is in the negative. Assuming that the book of collectible
accounts presented by the respondent would qualify as a memorandum, the
memorandum used to refresh the memory of the witness does not constitute
evidence, and may not be admitted as such, for the simple reason that the
witness has just the same to testify on the basis of refreshed memory. In
other words, where the witness has testified independently of or after his
testimony has been refreshed by a memorandum of the events in dispute,
such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative evidence. It is self-
evident that a witness may not be corroborated by any written statement
prepared wholly by him. He cannot be more credible just because he
supports his open-court declaration with written statements of the same
facts even if he did prepare them during the occasion in dispute, unless the
proper predicate of his failing memory is priorly laid down. What is more,
even where this requirement has been satisfied, the express injunction of the
rule itself is that such evidence must be received with caution, if only
because it is not very difficult to conceive and fabricate evidence of this
nature. This is doubly true when the witness stands to gain materially or
otherwise from the admission of such evidence.
Sec. 17 – When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the
remainder admissible. – When part of an act, declaration, conversation,
writing or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same
subject may be inquired into by the other, and when a detached act,
declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence, any other
act, declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary to its
understanding may also be given in evidence.
RULE OF COMPLETENESS OR RULE OF INDIVISIBILITY
1. When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is
given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be
inquired by the other; and
11
2. When a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or record
is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, writing or
record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence.
Sec. 18 – Right to inspect writing shown to witness. – Whenever a writing is
shown to a witness, it may be inspected by the adverse party.
RIGHT TO INSPECT WRITING
When part of a writing is introduced in evidence, his adversary is entitled to
use other parts relevant to the issues in the case and has the right to inspect
the writing and to require its production in court.
B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
Sec. 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of their presentation
evidence, documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the
sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers,
whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b)Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last
wills and testaments;
(c) Documents that are considered public documents under
treaties and conventions which are in force between the Philippines and the
country of source; and
(d)Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents
required by law to the entered therein.
All other writings are private.
CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS
Public document are - written official acts, or records of the official acts of
the sovereign authority, official bodies, tribunals, public officers, whether of
the Philippines or of a foreign county. Also documents acknowledged
before a notary public (except last wills and testaments).
- Affidavits are not public documents because they only require
jury
Private when - is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a
private person without the intervention of a notary or other person legally
authorized by which some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth.
- If a document is intended by law to be a part of public or official
record, then such private document becomes a public one (e.g. civil registry
books).
- As public documents, they are admissible in evidence without
further proof.
DISTINCTION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
Public Documents: genuineness and authenticity presumed and binding
against the parties and 3rd persons
Private Documents: Must prove genuineness and due execution and binds
only parties to the document.
.
CASE STUDY:
YASUO IWASAWA v. FELISA CUSTODIO GANGAN
G.R. No. 204169, September 11, 2013
DOCTRINE: As public documents, they are admissible in evidence even
without further proof of their due execution and genuineness.
FACTS: Petitioner, a Japanese national married Private respondent in 2002.
Private respondent confessed to him that she received news that her
previous husband passed away. This prompted petitioner to file a petition
for the declaration of his marriage to private respondent as null and void on
the ground that their marriage is a bigamous one.
During trial, aside from his testimony, petitioner also offered the following
pieces of documentary evidence issued by the NSO: (1) Certificate of
Marriage between petitioner and private respondent to prove the fact of
12
marriage between the parties on November 28, 2002; (2) Certificate of
Marriage between private respondent and Raymond Maglonzo Arambulo to
prove the fact of marriage between the parties on June 20, 1994 Certificate
of Death of Raymond Maglonzo Arambulo; (3) Certification from the NSO
to the effect that there are two entries of marriage recorded by the office
pertaining to private respondent.
ISSUE: Whether or not the testimony of the NSO records custodian
certifying the authenticity and due execution of the public documents issued
by said office was necessary before they could be accorded evidentiary
weight.
HELD: The answer in the negative. There is no question that the
documentary evidence submitted by petitioner are all public documents.
Art. 410 of the Civil Code provides that “the books making up the civil
register and all documents relating thereto shall be considered public
documents and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained.”
As public documents, they are admissible in evidence even without further
proof of their due execution and genuineness.
ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. vs. PHILAM INSURANCE CO., INC.
G.R. No. 181163, July 24, 2013
CASE DOCTRINE: The nature of documents as either public or private
determines how the documents may be presented as evidence in court.
Public documents, as enumerated under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules
of Court, are self-authenticating and require no further authentication in
order to be presented as evidence in court. In contrast, a private document
is any other writing, deed or instrument executed by a private person
without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by
which some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the
official or sovereign character of a public document, or the solemnities
prescribed by law, a private document requires authentication in the manner
prescribed under Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules: 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; or (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. The requirement of authentication of a private document is
excused only in four instances, specifically: (a) when the document is an
ancient one within the context of Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules; (b)
when the genuineness and authenticity of the actionable document have not
been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party; (c) when the
genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted; or (d)
when the document is not being offered as genuine.
FACTS: Nichimen Corporation shipped to Universal Motors 219 packages
containing 120 units of brand new Nissan Pickup Truck on board the vessel
S/S "Calayan Iris" from Japan to Manila. The shipment was insured with
Philam against all risks. When the package arrived and was unloaded by
ATI, it was found that the package marked as 03-245-42K/1 was in bad
order. The shipment was withdrawn by R.F. Revilla Customs Brokerage,
Inc., the authorized broker of Universal Motors, and delivered to the latter’s
warehouse. Owing to the extent of the damage to said cargoes, Universal
Motors declared them a total loss.
Universal Motors filed a formal claim for damages against Westwind,
ATI10 and R.F. Revilla Customs Brokerage, Inc. When Universal Motors’
demands remained unheeded, it sought reparation from and was
compensated by Philam. Accordingly, Universal Motors issued a
Subrogation Receipt in favor of Philam.
RTC rendered judgment in favor of Philam and ordered Westwind and ATI
to pay Philam. On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the ruling of
the RTC. When the case was elevated to the SC, Asian Terminal objected to
the admission of Marine Certificate and the Subrogation Receipt for being
hearsay as they were not authenticated by the persons who executed them.
ISSUE: Whether or not certificates and/or receipts offered as evidence
required authentication.
HELD: NO. The nature of documents as either public or private determines
how the documents may be presented as evidence in court. Public
documents, as enumerated under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court, are self-authenticating and require no further authentication in order
to be presented as evidence in court.
13
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 by any if the following means:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written;
(b)By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting
of the maker; or
(c) By other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it
is claimed to be.
REQUIREMENTS AND PROOF
The requirement of authentication of a private document is excused only in
four instances, specifically:
(a) When the document is an ancient one within the context of Section 21,
Rule 132 of the Rules;
(b) When the genuineness and authenticity of the actionable document have
not been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party;
(c) When the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been
admitted; or
(d) When the document is not being offered as genuine.
PROOF OF PRIVATE WRITING
(a)By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b)By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the
maker.
Private Documents are:
- Unverified and unidentified private document cannot be accorded
probative value.
- A Defective Notarization will strip the document of its public character
and reduce it to a private instrument and would not invalidate the
transaction evidence therein.
- In determining the genuineness of a signature, the testimony of the very
person whose signature is disputed is a competent proof on the genuineness
of such signature, otherwise (if the testimony of the writer is not available)
the testimony of a witness who has seen the writer sign his name or actually
make the writing.
- The requirement of authentication only pertains to private documents and
does not apply to public documents, these being admissible without further
proof of their execution or genuineness, it is already presumed.
Two reasons in support of this rule:
1. Said documents have been executed in the proper registry and are
presumed to be valid and genuine until the contrary is shown by clear and
convincing proof; and,
2. Public documents are authenticated by th official signature and seals
which the bear and of which seals, courts may take judicial notice. (G.R.
No. 170125, July 16, 2012)
Sec. 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary.
— Where a private document is more than thirty (30) years old, is produced
from the custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and is
unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other
evidence of its authenticity need be given.
ANCIENT DOCUMENTS
1. When writing is an ancient document
Requisites to be considered an ancient document:
a. More than 30 yrs old
b. Produced from the custody in which it would naturally be found
if genuine; and
c. Unblemished by alterations or circumstances of suspicion
2. When writing is a public document or public record
3. Notarial document acknowledged, proved, or certified.
4.Express or implied admission of authenticity and and due execution of an
actionable document.
- Ancient documents are considered from proper custody if they come from
a place from which they might reasonably be expected to be found.
Sec. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The handwriting of a
person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting
of such person because he or she has seen the person write, or has seen
14
writing purporting to be his or hers upon which the witness has acted or
been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such
person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a
comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or
treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or
proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING
1. By any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such
person because:
a. He has seen the person write;
b. Has seen the writing purporting to be his upon which the witness
has acted or been charged.
c. Has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.
2. By a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with the writings
admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is
offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
3. By expert evidence.
Sec. 23 . Public documents as evidence. — Documents consisting of entries
in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. 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.
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE
- Public document cannot be given probative weight in view of the
fact that the public officers who issued the same did not testify in court to
prove the facts stated therein, at best, they may be considered only as prima
facie evidence of their due execution and date of issuance.(G.R.No. 215009,
January 23, 2017)
- Documents consisting of entries In public records made in the
performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even against a
3rd person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of
the latter.
Sec. 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents
referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any
purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy
attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his or
her deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines,
with a certificate that such officer has the custody.
If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, which is a
contracting party to a treaty or convention to which the Philippines is also
a party, or considered a public document under such treaty or convention
pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section 19 hereof, the certificate or its
equivalent shall be in the form prescribed by such treaty or convention
subject to reciprocity granted to public documents originating from the
Philippines.
For documents originating from a foreign country which is not a
contracting party to a treaty or convention referred to in the next preceding
sentence, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
office.
A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent
may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate or its
equivalent being prima facie evidence of the due execution and genuineness
of the document involved. The certificate shall not be required when a
treaty or convention between a foreign country and the Philippines has
abolished the requirement, or has exempted the document itself from this
formality.
PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD
- Such official publication or copy must be accompanied, if the record is not
kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that the attesting officer has the
legal custody thereof. The certificate may be issued by any of the authorized
Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country in
which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
- Certification is not required in case of Special Power of Attorney
notarized abroad in order to institute a petition before the court, what is
importantn is that it was certified before a commissioned officer clothed
with powers to administer an oath that he is authorizing the persons to
institute the petition before the court a quo on his behalf.
15

- Private International law, a foreign law must be properly pleaded and
proved as a fact.(Doctrine of Processual Presumption) - Foreign law may be
proven by the following:
1. Publication of the said foreign laws;
2. By a copy duly attested by the officer in custody thereof.
The record pf public documents of the official acts may be evidenced by:
1. An official publication thereof.
2. A copy attested by the other officer having the legal custody of the
record, or deputy, and if the record is not kept on the Philippines
accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody made by
allowed and authorized officers.
While a public document does not require the authentication imposed upon
a private document, there is a necessity for showing to the court that indeed
a record of the official exists.
Sec. 25. What attestation of copy must state.
- Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of
evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct
copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The
attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be
any, or if he or she be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of
such court.
ATTESTATION
Attestation of Copy is valid if:
1. The copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part
thereof, as the case may be.
2. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting
officer, if there be any.
3. If he or she be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of
such court.
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 a pending case.
COURT ORDER IS NEEDED
- Upon the order of the Court, a public record may only be allowed
to be removed from the office where it is being kept.
Sec. 27. Public record of a private document
- An authorized public record of a private document may be provided by the
original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the
record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.
Sec. 28. Proof of lack of record.
- A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official
record or by his or her deputy that, after diligent search, no record or entry
of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his or her office,
accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence
that the records of his or her office contain no such record or entry.
Sec. 29. How judicial record impeached.
- Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
(a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer;
(b) collusion between the parties; or
(c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.
EXTRINSIC FRAUD
Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in
litigation committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated
party is prevented from fully exhibiting his side of the case by fraud or
deception practiced on him by his opponent, such as by keeping him away
from court, by giving him a false promise of a compromise, or where the
defendant never had the knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by
the acts of the plaintiff, or where an attorney fraudulently or without
authority connives at his defeat. (G.R. No. 180819, July 5, 2010)
16
The remedy is an action to annul judgment under Rule 47 or petition from
relief from judgment under Rule 38 of Rule of Civil Procedure.
Sec. 30. Proof of notarial documents.
- Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided
by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate
of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the
instrument or document involved.
NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS
- A notarized documents is merely an evidence of the fact which gave rise
to their execution and of the date of the latter.
- Notarized documents enjoys presumption of regularity, but not to its
validity.
- Improperly notarized document is not public document and will not enjoy
the presumption of its due execution and authenticity.
Sec. 31. Alteration in document, how to explain.
The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and
appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the
question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He must show that:
1. The alteration was made by another, without his concurrence;
2. Was made with the consent of the parties affected by it;
3. Was otherwise properly or innocently made; or
4. That the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the
instrument.
If the party fails to do that, the document shall not be admissible in
evidence.
PRESUMPTION AS TO AUTHOR OF ALTERATION
It is presumed that a party producing it or with his privity caused the
alteration. The burden is upon him to show that the same was not made by
him or his privies.
MATERIAL ALTERATION
The alteration is material if it alters the terms or language of the instrument
or changes the rights interests, or obligations of the parties.
Sec. 32. Seal
There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private
documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SEAL
Seal refers to a device for affixing a mark image or impression on all papers
officially signed by the notary public.
If the document is required by law to be stamped, it cannot be recorded or
admitted in evidence if not stamped.
Sec. 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language.
Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as
evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino.
To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their attorneys are directed
to have such translation prepared before trial.
UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE
If an affidavit is executed in an unofficial language, the court has the
discretion to deny or give the party an opportunity to secure a translation of
the affidavit (People vs Tomaquin, GR no. 133188, July 23, 2004).
C. OFFER AND OBJECTION
Sec. 34. Offer of evidence.
The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.
The purpose of which the evidence is offered must be specified.
OFFER OF EVIDENCE
Exceptions:
1. Evidence not formally offered can be considered by the court as
long as they have been properly identified by the testimony duly recorded;
and
17
2. They have been incorporated in the records of the case (People vs
Libnao, GR no. 13860, 2003) TESTIMONIAL DOCUMENTARY AND
EVIDENCE OBJECT EVIDENCE
When formal offer of evidence not required:
1. Summary Proceedings;
2. Documents, affidavits and depositions used in rendering summary
judgments; The offer must be It shall be made/offered after the
3. Documents judicially admitted or taken judicial notice of; made at the time the presentation of the party’s testimonial
4. Documents whose contents are admitted by the parties; witness is called to evidence.
5. Documents or affidavits used in deciding quasi-judicial or testify.
administrative cases; and
6. In naturalization, insolvency proceedings, cadastral land
registration cases, election cases and other cases where the Rules on WHEN TO OFFER EVIDENCE
Evidence do not apply.
The offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify.
NECESSITY OF OFFER OF EVIDENCE
It shall be made/offered after the presentation of the party’s testimonial
It is the duty of the court to rest its findings of fact and its judgment only evidence.
and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties. Unless and until
admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose/s for which such Documents which may have been marked as exhibits during the hearing but
document is offered, the same is merely a scrap of paper barren of probative which were not formally offered in evidence cannot be considered as
weight (Aludos v. Suerte, GR no. 165285, June 18, 2012). evidence nor can they be given any evidentiary rule (Barut v. People, GR
no. 167454, September 24, 2014).
Why purpose of offer must be specified:
1. To determine whether that piece of evidence should be admitted or
not. Because such evidence may be admissible for several purposes under
the doctrine of multiple admissibility, or may be admissible for one purpose
and not for another, otherwise the adverse party cannot interpose the proper
objection. Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be considered for CASE STUDY:
any other purpose by the judge.
Lomides Aludos, Deceased, Substituted by Flora Aludos vs. Johnny M.
2. Opposition parties will be deprived of their chance to examine the Suerte
document and to object to its admissibility. On the other hand, the appellate GR. No. 165285, June 18, 2012
court will have difficulty reviewing documents not previously scrutinized
by the court below. DOCTRINE:
The CA has already rejected the evidentiary value of the May 1, 1985 lease
contract between the Baguio City Government and Lomises, as it was not
formally offered in evidence before the RTC; in fact, the CA admonished
Sec. 35. When to make offer. Lomises’ lawyer, Atty. Lockey, for making it appear that it was part of the
All evidence must be offered orally. records of the case. Under Sec. 34, Rule 134 of the Rules of Court, the court

18
shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. “The offer
of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the court to rest its
findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered
by the parties. Unless and until admitted by the court in evidence for the
purpose or purposes for which such document is offered, the same is merely
a scrap of paper barren of probative weight.
FACTS:
In this case, the respondent Johnny M. Suerte filed an action for specific
performance and damages against the petitioner Lomides Aludos; Johnny
seeks the execution of the contract of sale between him and the petitioner.
Johnny alleges that the petitioner and him executed a contract whereby the
petitioner agreed to sell his Market Stall (with improvements) and lot in the
Baguio Public Market. However, the petitioner contends that the contract
was actually for a loan, with the market stall and lot used as a security for
the loan; in fact, the petitioner already paid the alleged loan amounting to
Php 68,000.00 to the respondent.
The petitioner argues further that there can never be a valid contract of sale
over the market stall/lot as well as the improvements therein, because the
petitioner does not own such market lot and he is just a lessee, with the
Baguio Government as owner of the lot. As evidence, the petitioner
presented Exhibit “A” (lease contract between the petitioner and the Baguio
City Government) which shows the agreement of lease between petitioner
and the Baguio City Government, and also provides that “all improvements
introduced shall ipso facto become properties of the City of Baguio.”.
However, the CA found that the said “Exhibit A” was not actually the
governing lease contract between the petitioner and the Baguio City
Government. In fact, the said exhibit was merely a permit issued by the City
Treasurer in favor of the Lomises. The actual contract of lease dated May 1,
1985 was never formally offered in evidence before the RTC and could thus
not be considered pursuant to the rules of evidence. Thus, the CA ruled that
while the sale of the market lot cannot be valid as this is the government’s
property, the market stall and its improvements can be a valid subject of the
contract of sale as this is the personal property of the petitioner. The
petitioner now questions the said resolution demanding him to sell his
market stall and improvements to the respondent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is a valid contract of sale regarding the Market Stall
and its improvements?
HELD:
The Court ruled that there is indeed a valid contract of sale regarding the
Market Stall and its improvements, because these were personal properties
of the petitioner. The actual contract of lease (dated May 1, 1985) was never
formally offered in evidence. Allegedly, the contract could have supported
petitioner’s claim that the market stall and improvements cannot be a valid
subject of sale due to the provision in the contract saying “all improvements
introduced shall ipso facto become properties of the City of Baguio.”.
However, since it was not formally offered in evidence, it cannot be
considered by the Court. Therefore the Court affirms the ruling of the CA
and remands the case to the RTC for the determination of the value of the
improvements on the market stall of the petitioner and for the parties to
proceed with the contract of sale therein.
WESTMONT INVESTMENT CORPORATION vs. AMOS P. FRANCIA,
JR. et al. G.R. No. 194128, December 7, 2011
DOCTRINE: The offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the
court to rest its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly upon the
evidence offered by the parties. It is elementary that objection to evidence
must be made after evidence is formally offered.
FACTS: Respondents filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money
and Damages arising from their investments against Westmont Investment
Corporation (Wincorp) and respondent Pearlbank Securities Inc. the case
was set for the presentation of the defense evidence of Wincorp.
On March 7, 2003, three (3) days before the scheduled hearing, Wincorp
filed a written motion to postpone the hearing. The RTC denied Wincorp’s
Motion to Postpone and considered it to have waived its right to present
evidence. The Motion for Reconsideration of Wincorp was likewise denied.
On September 27, 2004, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of the
Francias and held Wincorp solely liable to them. The CA affirmed with
modification the ruling of the RTC. Wincorp filed an MR with the CA
attaching to the said motion evidentiary evidence which it was not able to
present during trial.
19
 Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a formal offer must be
ISSUE: Whether or not documents attached to a motion for reconsideration made as soon as the witness begins to testify. Objection to a question
made before the appellate court may be considered for purposes of propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness must be
adjudicating the merits of the case. made as soon as the grounds therefor become reasonably apparent.

HELD: NO. Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence states that: "The The grounds for the objections must be specified.
court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The
purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified." CLASSIFICATION OF OBJECTION

1. General Objection – It does not go beyond declaring the evidence

A formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their
findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence
offered by the parties at the trial. Its function is to enable the trial judge to
know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the
evidence. On the other hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the
evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as
the appellate court will not be required to review documents not previously
scrutinized by the trial court. Evidence not formally offered during the trial
cannot be used for or against a party litigant. Neither may it be taken into
account on appeal.
as immaterial, incompetent, irrelevant or inadmissible. It does not specify
the grounds of objection.
2. Specific Objection – It states why or how the evidence is irrelevant
and incompetent. (E.g. objection to the question for being leading)
3. Formal Objection – is one directed against the alleged defect in the
formulation of the question. (e.g. ambiguous question)
4. Substantive Objection – objections made and directed against the
very nature of the evidence. (e.g. hearsay evidence)
WHEN TO MAKE OBJECTION

The rule on formal offer of evidence is not a trivial matter. Failure to make Offer Time to Object
a formal offer within a considerable period of time shall be deemed a Offered orally Made immediately after the offer
waiver to submit it. Consequently, any evidence that has not been offered is made
shall be excluded and rejected. Question propounded in the course Made as soon as the grounds
of the oral examination of a witness thereof shall become reasonably
Prescinding therefrom, the very glaring conclusion is that all the documents apparent
attached in the motion for reconsideration of the decision of the trial court
and all the documents attached in the defendant-appellant’s brief filed by
defendant- appellant Wincorp cannot be given any probative weight or Sec. 37. When Repetition of Objection Unnecessary. — When it becomes
credit for the sole reason that the said documents were not formally offered reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the
as evidence in the trial court because to consider them at this stage will questions being propounded are of the same class as those to which
deny the other parties the right to rebut them. objection has been made, whether such objection was sustained or
overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the objection, it being
sufficient for the adverse party to record his or her continuing objection to
Sec. 36. Objection. such class of questions.
Objection to offer of evidence must be made orally immediately after the
offer is made.
RULE ON CONTINUING OBJECTIONS

20
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a
witness that the question being propounded are of the same class as those to
which objection has been made, whether such objection was sustained or
overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the objection, it being
sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to such
class of questions.
Sec. 38. Ruling. - The ruling of the court must be given immediately after
the objection is made, unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to
inform itself on the question presented; but the ruling shall always be made
during the trial and at such time as will give the party against whom it is
made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated.
However, if the objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling
sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or
grounds relied upon.
WHEN IS THE RULING OF THE COURT GIVEN
General Rule: The ruling must be given immediately after the objection is
made.
Exception: Unless the court desires to take reasonable time to inform itself
on the question presented.
The ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will
give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation
presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated.
However, if the objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling
sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or
grounds relied upon.
Sec. 39. Striking out of Answer. — Should a witness answer the question
before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to
the same, or where a question is not objectionable, but the answer is not
responsive, or where a witness testifies without a question being posed or
testifies beyond limits set by the court, or when the witness does a narration
instead of answering the question, and such objection is found to be
meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order such answer,
testimony or narration to be stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers
which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper.
STRIKING OUT OF ANSWER
General Rule: An objection to questions propounded in the course of oral
examinations must be interposed as soon as the grounds become evident.
Failure to interpose a timely objection may be taken as a waiver of the right
to object and the answer will be admitted.
Exceptions: A motion to strike out the answer is available as a remedy
where:
1. A witness answers the question before the adverse party had the
opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same; or
2. Where a question is not objectionable, but the answer is not
responsive; or
3. Where a witness testifies without a question being posed; ore
4. When the witness does a narration instead of answering the
question.
An answer may be Stricken off the Record By:
1. The court - Should the court find the objection to be meritorious,
the court shall sustain the objection and order such answer, testimony or
narration to be stricken of the record.
2. On motion of a party – Of answers which are incompetent,
irrelevant, or otherwise improper.
Sec. 40. Tender of excluded evidence. - If documents or things offered in
evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same attached
to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror
21
may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the
witness and the substance of the proposed testimony.
TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE
Where the court refuses to permit the counsel to present testimony which he
thinks is competent, material and necessary to prove his case, the method to
properly preserve the record to the end that the question may be saved for
the purposes of review, is through the making of an offer of proof.
Purpose:
1. To inform the court what is expected to be proved.
2. So that a higher court may determine from the record whether the
proposed evidence is competent.
Rule on Tender of Excluded Evidence:
1. If the excluded evidence is documentary or object – the offeror
may have the same attached or made part of the record.
2. If the evidence excluded is oral – the offeror may state for the
record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the
substance of the proposed testimony.
An offer of proof may be made:
1. Before the court has ruled on the objection, in which case its
function is to persuade the court to overrule the objection or deny the
privilege invoked;
2. After the court has sustained the objection, in which case its
function is to preserve for the appeal the evidence excluded by the privilege
invoked;
3. Where the offer of proof includes the introduction of documents or
any of the physical evidence the same should be marked for identification
so that they may become a part of the record.
CASE STUDY:
FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE
G.R. No. 192024 July 1, 2015
CASE DOCTRINE: It has been repeatedly ruled that where documentary
evidence was rejected by the lower court and the offeror did not move that
the same be attached to the record, the same cannot be considered by the
appellate court, as documents forming no part of proofs before the appellate
court cannot be considered in disposing the case. For the appellate court to
consider as evidence, which was not offered by one party at all during the
proceedings below, would infringe the constitutional right of the adverse
party. Failure to seasonably avail of the proper remedy provided under
Section 40, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, petitioner is precluded from
doing so at this late stage of the case. Clearly, estoppel has already stepped
in.
FACTS: Fortune Tobacco Corp. is the manufacturer and producer of its
cigarette brands and prior to 1997 were subject to ad valorem tax. However
on Jan. 1, 1997 R.A. 8240 took effect and caused a shift from ad valorem
tax to specific tax. As a result of such shift, the aforesaid cigarette brands
were subjected to specific tax. Fortune Tobacco Corp. later on filed a claim
for tax credit or refund under Sec. 229 of the NIRC for illegally collected
specific taxes. After trial on the merits the Court ruled that it was contrary
to law and that there is insufficiency of evidence on the claim for refund.
Fortune Tobacco Corp. elevated the case to the CTA but the latter found no
cause to reverse the decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to warrant or grant the
Fortune Tobacco Corp.’s claim for tax refund.
HELD: NO. The denial of Fortune Tobacco Corp.’s claim for tax refund in
this case is based on the ground that it failed to provide sufficient evidence
to prove its claim and amount thereof. As a result, Fortune Tobacco Corp.
seeks the Court to re-examine the probative value of its evidence and
determine whether it should be refunded the amount of excise taxes it
allegedly overpaid.
This cannot be done. The settled rule is that only questions of law can be
raised in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It is not the
function of the SC to analyze or weight all over again the evidence already
considered in the proceedings below. The Court’s jurisdiction being limited
22
to reviewing only the errors of the law that may have been committed by
the lower court. The resolution of the factual issues is the function of the
lower court whose findings on these matters are received with respect. A
question of law which the Court may pass upon must not involve an
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the
litigants.

23