PART IV RULES OF EVIDENCE

RULE 128 General Provisions 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. (1) Evidence is a part of a proceeding (i.e. civil, crim, spec pro), NOT a proceeding Proof is the result. Evidence is the means to prove the facts. Facts + Evidence = Truth (proven) Court has no choice but to rely on evidence with the hope that truth shall be ascertained. There is a need to qualify. When you handle a case, you always talk of propositions. Then, to establish your allegations, you always use and say evidence. So, evidence is the means to prove the facts. If you are able to connect your fact in relation to the evidence you will present, then you are able to prove it, you were able to ascertain the truth of it. So, in all cases there should be a fact or an allegation to fortify evidence, but that is not as simple as that because under Section 3, evidence is admissible when (1) it is relevant to the issue and (2) not excluded by the law or the Rules. Evidence may be relevant but is excluded all together by the rules. SO, you are not able to prove anything. You are not able to ascertain the truth that you would want to ascertain. Evidence generally are Object, Documentary, Testimonial Evidence. Under Rule 130, it is object, documentary and testimonial evidence. Direct evidence is that which tends to establish a fact without any inference or presumption. Example: I saw Mr. X stab B. That is a direct evidence. Do you need to infer from it? Do you need to presume from

it? No, that is clear circumstantial evidence.

direct

evidence

as

distinguished

from

Circumstantial evidence is that wherein there is one set of circumstances and based on those circumstances, you will derive a conclusion. Although, maybe, you haven’t seen a person stab B but because you saw Mr. X in possession of a murder weapon and that his shirt is bloody and that he came from where Mr. B was found thereafter, the circumstances would point to that fact that he assaulted the person. That is direct as distinguished from circumstantial evidence. Primary evidence is that would force the greatest certainty of the fact in question. Example of primary evidence on document is the original. When the content of the document is the subject of the inquiry then the original should be presented for the primary evidence there is the original. If the original document is not available could you present a copy, a recital of contents of some documents or witnesses in that order? Yes you could, but not so fast. You will have to establish first either that it was lost or destroyed without bad faith on the part of the offeror or number two that it is in the possession of the adverse party and despite notice he refuses to surrender. So, the rule is primary is the best evidence that you could present to prove a fact, in case of a document, the original. But for testimonial evidence like the witnesses, the primary evidence there is the person who had personal knowledge. He, first and foremost is competent, he is able to perceive and in perceiving he could make known his perception to another and more than his competency is that he has personal knowledge. As distinguished from secondary evidence on testimonial evidence, secondary evidence is any of the exemptions under the hearsay rule like a dying declaration that is really a secondary evidence, why? The dying person did not sit on the stand, it was the person who received the information or the recipient who will testify on the witness stand. So, that it is a requirement that the dying man be competent if he were alive. If he was brought to the witness stand, he was able to perceive and in perceiving he could make known his perception to others. That’s just an example of secondary evidence. The rest of the exemption on hearsay would fall under that. Positive evidence is when the witness affirms that the fact did or did not occur. So, he is quite categorical to say that it did or did not occur. As distinguished from negative, when the witness states that he did not see or know the occurrence of the fact. Meaning that he was there at the place where the crime happened, he wouldn’t say that I didn’t see but says that he did not notice anything.

Page 1 of 88

Corroborative evidence is an evidence of a different kind and character tending to prove the same fact. Example: To establish the death of Mr. B, I could present testimonial witnesses of persons who saw the commission of the death, that’s one kind of evidence. What’s the other kind of evidence under that you would present, the death certificate. It is of a different kind and nature but it would establish one and the same fact which is the death. Cumulative is that the nature of evidence is of the same kind and character. Example: Mr. X barged into this auditorium and stabbed one of the students. Could Ms. Aquitaña testify? Could Ms. Saldaña testify? Could Mr. Ong testify? All those are cumulative because they are of the same nature and character. Now, what is the difference between relevant and irrelevant evidence? Evidence is relevant when it tends to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. However, some authorities use relevancy and materiality interchangeably. What do you mean by competent evidence? Competent means that it is not excluded by the rules. So, it applies to testimonial, documentary or object. Sir, how is that? Let us say object, if it was obtained from an illegal search. Although it is relevant, if it was obtained from an illegal search could it be presented in evidence? It could be relevant but it is excluded by the Rules. In testimonial evidence, it is the same. I may be able to testify. I could testify but I may not be competent because when I allegedly perceived the commission I was insane. So, it is excluded by the Rules. The same way as in documentary. The contents of which are the subject of the inquiry and you are presenting a photocopy without establishing the need for presenting the secondary evidence, then even if it is relevant, it cannot be accepted because it is not competent evidence. Now, what is rebuttal and sur-rebuttal? When do you do a rebuttal evidence or a sur-rebuttal? A rebuttal is made after the defendant closes his presentation of evidence. And who will conduct the rebuttal? It will be the plaintiff on the new matters presented by the defendant. So, why is there a need for rebuttal? Because the plaintiff who has the opportunity to present his evidence on the first instance cannot now meet the new matter presented by the defendant. For example, alibi, so he presented different documents, different witnesses. Of course, the plaintiff wants to meet those new matters in a rebuttal. Is rebuttal a matter of right? No, it is subject to the discretion of the court, if the court deems it fit for you to conduct a rebuttal evidence. Based on experience, judges don’t usually allow a rebuttal so that if you could do a good cross-examination of the defendant’s witnesses, do so. Aside from impeaching him, you should also try to elicit facts during cross examination. Now, what is sur-

rebuttal? If the plaintiff has rebuttal, the defendant will have to meet the rebuttal of the plaintiff; that is sur-rebuttal. What is an expert evidence? Expert evidence is the testimony of a person who has special skill, experience, training, and the like. Now, does it mean that for a person to be an expert, he should be a graduate of a school or have reached a master’s degree? No. That’s why the law says that there should be a certain level of expertise arising from experience, training, or special skill. The law gives premium on these things. Documentary evidence are writings or words, numbers, figures, letters contained in a material. That blank wall, there are writings on that wall about the activities for next month, let us say, of Mr. Ong. Is that a documentary evidence? If is intends to establish the contents thereof or the writings, even if it was in the wall, it is a documentary evidence. But if it intends to establish that there is a graffiti, the wall is merely an object evidence. What about testimonial evidence? If you are to read the Rules, this starts from section 20 of Rule 130. Although, of course, the previous provisions would have discussed the concept of testimonial evidence in the light of evidence. Testimonial evidence is the testimony of a witness who sits on the stand. Now, should the witness be competent? Yes. Although if he is competent but he does not have personal knowledge of the facts that he would testify on, would you object to his being presented? Yes, because his testimony would be hearsay. So long as it would not fall under any of the exemption. What is substantial evidence? Substantial evidence is that amount of evidence which a reasonable mind would accept. Substantial evidence applies mostly in administrative cases. Because in criminal cases, we have proof beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases, we have preponderance of evidence. Although in civil cases, the number of witnesses would not tilt the scale of justice, but it has certain significance in terms of persuasive effect to the court. What about disputable evidence as against conclusive evidence? Disputable is that you will present an evidence to contradict or controvert while a conclusive evidence is that which you do not have to contradict or controvert. Distinguish: Admissibility of evidence Pertains to the ability of the evidence to be allowed and Weight of evidence Pertains to the effect of evidence admitted

Page 2 of 88

accepted subject to its relevancy and competence Substantive essence or characteristic feature of evidence as would make it worthy of consideration by the court before its admission Proof Effect and result of evidence End Result

+ did/did not happen; better - I don’t know, I didn’t see; use it if it contradicts + evidence The probative value of evidence which the court may give to admit after complying with the rules of relevancy and competency Evidence Medium of proof Means to the end Primary v Secondary Primary is the best; original Secondary is inferior; substitute; lost or in possession of adverse party Presumption – facts give rise to an inference e.g. commission of an offense gives rise to the presumption of innocence Conclusive – incontrovertible; once facts (circumstances established) are not destroyed, becomes conclusive evidence are

Factum probans – the evidentiary fact by which the factum probandum is to be established; material evidencing the proposition, existent, and offered for the consideration of the tribunal Factum probandum – the ultimate fact sought to be established; proposition to be established, hypothetical, and that which one party affirms and the other denies Factum probandum Proposition to be established Conceived of as hypothetical; that which one party affirms and the other denies Notes: Direct Evidence – actual perception People v Aguinaldo – rape case; daughter charged his father with rape during night time when they slept beside each other; defense: denial, brother’s testimony that sister is 100% liar, medical report from the PNP that hymen was intact Physical v Testimonial – what should prevail? (what is important is the result) Physical Evidence prevails. Object Evidence – wall, photograph of the wall Documentary Evidence – graffiti on the wall since the inquiry is on the writings Positive v Negative Factum Probans Material evidencing the proposition Conceived of for practical purposes as existent, and is offered as such for the consideration of the court

Corroborative – additional evidence of a different kind and character tending to prove the same point Cumulative – evidence of the same kind and character as that already given, and tends to prove the same proposition Fact – thing, event, occurrence Facts in issue – disputed; no agreement Factual issue v Legal issue e.g. did x stab y? (factual) is he liable for homicide? (legal) Competent – relevant + not excluded by law/Rules; very CORE of evidence Material – may not be directly related to the fact in issue, but material e.g. whether x purchased a knife in relation to a case of stabbing Rebuttal – explain, repel, counteract/disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party Sur-rebuttal – usually available when rebuttal is allowed in the court’s discretion Presentation of Evidence: Prosecution Witnesses: 1. police officer 2. eye witness 3. medico-legal Accused Witnesses: 1. accused 2. person who affirms alibi that accused stayed at his

Page 3 of 88

Since alibi is a new matter, prosecution asks that it may be allowed to present rebuttal evidence. It is new to the theory of the prosecution. It is NOT a matter of right; subject to the exercise of court’s discretion so you have to convince it that it is a NEW matter!

house SC Circular: Records of PI may be elevated (Modes of Discovery)

CA – original action, new trial (ground: NDE) -> exception: conducts hearing What varies is the quantum of proof R133 Rules of evidence distinguished Civil Case Party attends by accord No presumption as to either party An offer of compromise does not, as a general rule, amount to an admission of liability Preponderance of evidence Criminal case Accused attends by compulsion Presumption of innocence attends the accused An offer of compromise is an implied admission of guilt Proof beyond reasonable doubt

Sur-rebuttal of defense is a matter of right once rebuttal is given. Example: civil action: contract of sale of a car @ P1M Seller There’s a new matter presented as to the absence of sale. But sur-rebuttal NOT available if NOT raised in the pleadings! Remedy? S5 R10 Amend pleadings to conform with evidence Object – addressed to the senses of the court Documentary – writing, NOT material Testimonial – witness S20 R130 Substantial – degree of evidence before quasi-judicial bodies Expert – knowledge, skill, experience, training S48 R130 Sec. 2. Scope. — The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (2a) e.g. Best Evidence Rule Buyer failed to pay that there was NO sale, only a loan

Compromise S27 R130 civil case: any stage; quasi-delict can be compromised offer to pay hospitalization – encouraged but NOT admissible quasi-judicial bodies: Rules of Evidence NOT strictly applied (HLURB, DARAB, NLRC) Sec. 3. Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. (3a) This is one of the provisions which has been so abused. If it is to be admissible, it should be relevant and not excluded by the rules. The fact of relevancy is one, the fact that it is excluded by the rules, you have to contend with Rule 130 and other pertinent rules like other Constitutional provisions on searches and arrest on custodial investigation. If you do not follow the requirements of custodial investigation on an in-custody procedure, even if it is relevant, if he admitted that he committed the offense but in the absence of counsel is it relevant? Yes, it may be relevant but it is excluded by the Rules. Custodial interrogation means questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in some significant way so if there is some restriction on his freedom to do, then it is already a custodial investigation. And if he is invited, will it still fall under custodial investigation? Take note of Republic Act 7438, an act defining certain rights of persons arrested, detained or under custodial investigation as well as the duties of the arresting detainee or arresting officers. Thus, an accused on board a police vehicle on the way to the police station is already under custodial investigation and therefore should be accorded his rights under the constitution. So even in a situation

premise: like the car? buy it!

Page 4 of 88

disc record. then it is excluded by law. either verbally or in writing. Siguro. disc record. permit. they are actually discussing how the crime will be committed but the manner by which it was secured is not in accordance with the requirement of RA 4200. you are already in custody. Although it is relevant.) How do they do it before? (Colonel: Before. That’s even more decent but for ordinary criminals what they do is they knock on their door. to tap any wire or cable.that you are inside a police car so long as your freedom to move has been restricted. That’s why if you get invited. criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof. class what do I want to drive at at this point in Section 3. or however otherwise described: It shall also be unlawful for any person. or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding section or who violates the provisions of the following section or of any order Page 5 of 88 . 2002. then custodial investigation has set in. whether complete or partial. wire record. “Hindi ho pwede may lakad ho ako ngayon eh. when they are already in the police station. if you were invited and the question is such that it is no longer as to a general questioning on event or circumstances but is now pointing into a particular person as to his commission of the offense. It shall be unlawful for any person. what happened? The aggrieved party is already there. or to replay the same for any other person or persons. then “magandang hapon po. Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or who shall aid. wire record. to any other person: 2) 3) 4) 5) The use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil. What is this invitation? You get a letter from the police station. or any person to furnish transcriptions thereof. or to communicate the contents thereof. Sec. they came up with this law. or copies thereof. 1. That is another most abused provision of law. criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof. July 30. to any other person: Provided. So. GR No. intercept. I am a police officer. with all due respect…I don’t know if your classmate would agree with me. Is that part of custodial investigation? Yes. either verbally or in writing. Who has been invited by the police? We have a colonel? Oh. of any communication or spoken word secured in the manner prohibited by this law. or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder. to tap any wire or cable. they usually write letters inviting person. or by using any other device or arrangement. shall not be covered by this prohibition. be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence. Because of this practice. or any other such record. to knowingly possess any tape record. up to that point because you are only being invited but the problem is. What would the policeman. People v. Another sample that we would give under this Rule is RA 4200. Pwede ho ba namin kayong maimbitahan sa istasyon?” That’s okay. intercept. or any person to replay the same for any other person or persons any person to communicate the contents thereof. what can you say colonel? What do you do when you invite? (Colonel: We are no longer allowed to do that. or to furnish transcriptions thereof. or by using any other device or arrangement. to secretly overhear. what would they do? Okay.” What if it is an admission of guilt to the baranggay captain in response to the query of the brgy captain as to why he committed the offense charged in the presence of the Chief of Police. RA 7438 has expanded the definition of custodial investigation into the practice of issuing invitations to a person.” Then they arrest him and charges him. RA 4200: Wire-tapping Sec. what matters here is your restriction to move. So. sir. So. An evidence may be relevant but if it is excluded by the Rules. 127154. Unlawful acts: 1) any person. or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder. “Is he the one?” “Yan nga ho. next time. That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil. shall not be covered by this prohibition. Ochate. you could decline. it is worthless. not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word. or however otherwise described: any person to knowingly possess any tape record. or any other such record. You can no longer invite. of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law. not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word. 2. That is what the law wants to remind us. the anti-wiretapping law. or copies thereof. whether complete or partial. to secretly overhear.

upon conviction thereof. there’s a need to formally offer it so other party may object then judge rules on its admissibility Documentary Evidence Testimonial Evidence – offered when witness is presented. xxx Conditions for valid wiretapping 1) Any peace officer 2) Authorized by a written order of the Court 3) In cases involving the crimes of treason. kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code. conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion. effect. to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the two preceding sections in cases involving the crimes of treason. kidnapping. sedition. inciting to rebellion. inciting to rebellion. substance. inciting to rebellion. quasi-judicial. Any communication or spoken word. rebellion. who is authorized by a written order of the Court. and violations of Commonwealth Act No. however. rebellion. or causes such violation shall. piracy. identify everything) Branch Clerk of Court – preliminary conference Anti-Wire Tapping Act – knowingly possesses tape with information: prohibited under RA 4200. any of such crimes. piracy. conspiracy to commit sedition. Extension lines – NOT a violation Cellphones – covered by wire tapping Text message – electronic evidence Before a recording of conversation can be given probative value. as the case may be. sedition. Information obtained in violation of the anti-wiretapping act is absolutely inadmissible. (2) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for. or to the solution of. permits. intent to tap into the privacy of an individual. have actually been or are being committed. legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. or to the prevention of. 616. or aids. conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion.issued thereunder. espionage. contents. conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion. Relevancy v Materiality R: Fact in dispute M: Fact may shed light to the case “fruit of the poisonous tree” Admissibility ≠ Substance Look into the manner and process by which it is taken. conspiracy to commit sedition. be punished xxx. purport. punishing espionage and other offenses against national security: Provided. such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition. the following requisites must first be established: Page 6 of 88 . Nothing contained in this Act. mutiny in the high seas. sedition. Mere fact of pre-marking/identified as an exhibit – NOT yet admissible. shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer. 3. That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed: Provided. conspiracy to commit sedition. espionage. That in cases involving the offenses of rebellion. however. provoking war and disloyalty in case of war. and (3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence. use of device to tamper a communication line. mutiny in the high seas. Sec. provoking war and disloyalty in case of war. or the existence. or meaning of the same or any part thereof. and inciting to sedition. inciting to sedition. 4. espionage and other offenses against national security: Sec. or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial. objected to that instant Admin Matter Re: Pre-trial and Deposition – all evidence should be marked during pre-trial. inciting to sedition.

3 months ago you attend the party with the accused and the victim. 4. you could already establish that there is animosity among them and that it may result for the offense by reason of such animosity. an example of a collateral matter which would be irrelevant would be a case for murder and the witness on the stand is Mr. Judicial notice. (1a) Mandatory Judicial Notice )1 existence and territorial extent of states. So. or deletions have not been made 5) Showing of the manner of preservation of the recording 6) Identification of the speakers 7) Showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made  chain of custody. additions. — A court shall take judicial notice. proven) RULE 129 What Need Not Be Proved SECTION 1. the measure of time.1) Showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony 2) Showing that the operator of the device was competent 3) Establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording 4) Showing that changes. the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals. executive and judicial departments of the Philippines. their political history. As a rule. forms of government and symbols of nationality. Alibi is the weakest defense. without the introduction of evidence. Sandoval and he is being asked of the circumstances based on his personal knowledge on how the accused killed the victim. there may be a conviction. Relevancy – fact in issue Collateral matters NOT allowed. when mandatory. (4a) Relevance – relation to the facts in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence Evidence on collateral matters allowed only when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. of the existence and territorial extent of states. Identification: GR: positive and direct evidence EXC: circumstantial evidence could be enough to identify/convict (basis: S4 R133 Circumstantial Evidence – more than 1 circumstance. except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. their political history. collateral matters. Relevancy. Can you tell us what happened in the party?” That is irrelevant and not a collateral matter unless of course you can establish that prior to that day. physical evidence Admissibility of a radio broadcast: Evidence of a message or a speech by means of radio broadcast is admissible as evidence when the identity of the speaker is established either by: 1) Testimony of a witness who saw him broadcast his message or speech 2) Witness’ recognition of the voice of the speaker Sec. the law of nations. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed. and the geographical divisions. Evidence is relevant when it is related to the fact in issue. preservation Weapon – even if NOT presented. the official acts of legislative. forms of government and symbols of nationality )2 the law of nations )3 the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals )4 the political constitution and history of the Philippines Page 7 of 88 . — Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence. the political constitution and history of the Philippines. collateral matters are not allowed unless to a certain extent it would establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. the laws of nature. EXCEPT when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue Physical Evidence is superior than testimonial evidence. The counsel asks “Well.

on request of a party c) takes judicial notice of any matter. or 3) ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions Sec. 3) Hearing is Required Court takes judicial notice: cases within sala: GR: NO EXC: matters of expediency. Kinds of Judicial Notice: 1) Mandatory – exclusive enumeration. on its own initiative or on request of a party. and before judgment or on appeal – any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case Hearing is necessary when: 1) During the trial. etc. and before judgment or on appeal. or on request of a party. If trial is already over. e.)5 the official acts of the legislative. or are capable to unquestionable demonstration. and the geographical divisions b) motu propio. the court can take judicial notice of any matter during the trial as long as there is a hearing. the proper court. publicly known: Yes High tide S1 3rd kind of JN Sec. and these are matters of judicial notice by the judges. 3. (1a) Discretionary Judicial Notice – matters which are: 1) of public knowledge. the court a) motu propio. — During the trial. judge has NO discretion. After the trial. on any matter – allow the parties to be heard thereon 2) After trial. and d) if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case Hence. Judicial notice. like encyclopedia. when discretionary. may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. on request of a party b) announces its intention to take judicial notice of any matter 2) After trial a) before judgment or on appeal Page 8 of 88 . almanac. or 2) are capable of unquestionable demonstration. the court can take judicial notice only of matters decisive of a material issue in the case as long as there is a hearing.g. Judicial notice. he has NO choice These are matters of judicial notice. NOT bills. Laws of nature---gravity. 2. on its own initiative. highlights of Philippine history 2) Discretionary Judge has discretion and NO hearing is required. matters already settled. (n) When court takes judicial notice: 1) During trial. Proposition + Judicial Notice = Proof Resolutions. relativity. executive and judicial departments of the Philippines )6 )7 )8 the laws of nature the measure of time. dictionary. the court. — A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge. in the interest of justice cases with another branch: NO SC as to other cases: NO SC Circulars: Yes Judicial notice takes the place of evidence. or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. when hearing necessary. may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon. All of these can be verified from source materials.

S1 R36 judgment based upon facts and law JN is only a rule. Rotonda. Nature of injury: NO JN That it will injure: Yes (b) unquestionable demonstration – Result. It should be something that could probably alter the result or something that is so material or decisive that it might change the outcome of the case. meaning it is of common or general knowledge at the standpoint of the judge. 4. you will not present it. does not require proof. Here. (a) matter of public knowledge It is subject to the discretion of the judge if it is of public knowledge. hearing is conducted to ventilate information to the court as to the propriety of JN Notoriety is a question of fact. (2a) Requisites for judicial admission: 1) Made by a party 2) In the course of the proceedings Page 9 of 88 . you were already given the time. before judgment. made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case. You have to convince the court that they have to take judicial notice of this fact. decisive Sec. may change outcome of the case) e. at the instance of the court or the party. Is it the same as newly discovered evidence? NO. call court’s attention under S3 where hearing is required. of decisive matter That P/N issued on a Sunday settled. survey itself: NO JN Census: Either: Judicial Notice Presumption of Regularity – better option for a reasonable judge (c) by virtue of judicial functions JN – NO need for declaration that he shall take JN S3 party knows. Newly discovered evidence is that there is a document or an evidence of a witness who was discovered or produced after trial. death of judge’s schoolmate: NO JN España.Judge CANNOT rely on personal knowledge beyond S1 S2 is discretionary. Court CANNOT take JN completely and dispense with evidence. subject of fact. Judicial admissions. may happen even before judgment (through an order  certiorari since it is an interlocutory order) or on judgment ( appeal) S3 Hearing Necessary You have completed the trial and you would like the court to take judicial notice. verbal or written.g. there will be presentation of evidence. If judge does NOT know. it is not. you would want the court’s attention and you would want for the court to take judicial notice. NO hearing required S3 “hearing” – do NOT be misled. NO presentation of evidence. like those in statistical processes and methods Methodology: Yes Variables (questions. — An admission. 1st ANY matter during trial 2nd matter DECISIVE after trial. on appeal (trial already terminated. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. just look at the calendar to check Homicide case eyewitness saw accused because of the light of the full moon. subject of inquiry). Erap is now history under S1 – political history Can judge render decision solely on JN? NO. Manila City Hall: Yes Factors considered as to public knowledge  notoriety  knowledge of the judge If judge refuses to notice. a means. people surveyed.

reply). the situation or condition of objects or premises. admissible in evidence as aids to it in arriving at an understanding of the evidence. the intervenor must have own cause of action RULE 130 Rules of Admissibility A.During trial (witness stand) Mediation – confidential. (1a) Object – addressed to the senses of the court. . has mortgage lien. The fact will be enough because the evidence has already been admitted. Extrajudicial admission is an admission out of court. admission by silence (Rule 130 §32) Judicial admissions are verbal or written admissions by a party in the course of the proceedings without proof. act. crew of vessel filed an action to recover unpaid salaries). examined or viewed by the court.3) In the same case If the admission was made in outside the proceedings or in another case. experiment . SC: intervention IMPROPER. material allegations in the complaint. answer. — Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE SECTION 1. except quasi-offenses and those allowed by law to be compromised (Rule 130 §27) vi.other people may testify (present during shoot) first establish and lay foundation/basis:  operator Page 10 of 88 .Motion to Intervene Nordic Asia case: extended loan to debtor w/c mortgaged is vessel under the Ship Mortgage Decree. when the other party fails to specifically deny under oath (Rule 8 §8) ii. Judicial admission is made at any time in the course of the proceedings. Nordic intervened. it is also admissible under admissions of a party (Rule 130. 26). pre-trial Confession – acknowledgment of fault . in the discretion of the trial court. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that a) It was made through palpable mistake or b) NO such admission was made Instances of Judicial admissions: i.extends to real properties Photographs: Photographs of persons. NOT admission Default ≠ Admission Preliminary Marking during pre-trial ≠ Admission . and places. inspection. default  extrajudicial foreclosure (while pending. persons.ideal: photographer . it could be viewed. either: NOT material or admitted and NOT disputed Judicial admissions – material and relevant fact When made? Pleadings (complaint. or the condition or identity of a person when any such matter is relevant to the issues being litigated. Sec. admissions in superseded pleadings. articles. it may be exhibited to. examined and inspected by the court. things. declaration. the circumstances of an accident. Object as evidence. when duly verified and shown by extrinsic evidence to be faithful representations of the subjects as of the time in question. e. do you still need to present evidence? NO more because there is already an admission. Only similarity with JN: withOUT presentation/introduction of evidence (NO need for proof) NOT in issue. when the other party fails to specifically deny it (Rule 8 §11) iii. are. implied admission of guilt in an offer of compromise by the accused in criminal cases. or omission of a party as to a relevant fact (Rule 130 §26) v. represented by the judge Being subject to the senses of the court.g. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue. when offered in evidence (Rule 10 §8) iv. And this is judicial admission as distinguished from extrajudicial admission. genuineness and due execution of an actionable document copied or attached to a pleading. If you admit.Request for admission under R26 . not in the judicial proceedings.

action CANNOT be recorded Demonstrative Evidence v Demonstration DE made for visualization purposes (weapon. existence of TSN – object * Autopsy Report – makes reference to a body 1. such as a map Is it the actual object presented in court? Demonstrative  map – made by experts. evidence: NO need to exhibit. what would happen “Exhibited” – viewed by the court and duly marked Inspect. other authorities consider it documentary * TSN 1. court appreciates it as it sees it Judge must view in the presence of the witnesses so they will be given the opportunity. may be marked as evidence. Authentic – who must authenticate? Witness – depends: o last in possession o anytime in possession o owner o sold to him . recorded in the TSN by description (motions are NOT recorded) Even in the absence of weapon. lapse of time. findings – documentary 2. witness narrates 2. Medical Report – documentary * Person dead. speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses * Intact hymen – physical (preferred) What was taken based on examination – physical Experiment – demonstrative. inquiry as to the contents – documentary 2. Relevant 2. Wounds suffered – physical Exhibited to in court: personal property  fruit of the crime  weapons used  item assists in the just resolution of the case  weapons for demonstration (visual purposes) – treated differently with actual object because of weight of evidence Requisites for Competency of Real Evidence: 1. homemade gun/paltik) Page 11 of 88 .g. body may be recovered so it raises a doubt if truly there was killing. can there be a conviction for homicide? NO. View – scene of the crime. contents – testimonial evidence. * Autopsy. map) Map – location Sketch – draw location of parties. If body (corpus delicti) NOT recovered.authentication NOT required in demonstrative evidence. But you can charge illegal detention if accused last seen with the victim. Paraffin test – NOT conclusive according to jurisprudence (use of gloves. object evidence. civil case – procedure for making a computer chip) Re-enactment – a demonstration. accused may be convicted if personally identified and proved as perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt. locational  sketch – NOT as accurate as a map  diagram – process/procedure (e. different nature from actual evidence * Casette 1. body as examined (injuries) – physical. presents graphical locations of an area. described in the TSN.   machine chain of custody changes Then go to the circumstances of time and place. Death certificate would suffice as to the fact of death. * Demonstration – show.

so long as you are familiar. 2002). Gone were the days wherein it is required that the doctor has to insert a finger to the organ of the child. SC came out with a child-sensitive approach: NO doctor can examine a child by inserting his finger. SC case: wounds in the body and 1 in the throat: during trial. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable. DNA Testing. Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances: a. EXCEPTIONS in a jury system. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years  Page 12 of 88 . when there’s a relative distance (70-100 m). in the case of People vs.      relative distance of accused to the victim (if short distance) relative size of wound nature of bullet/gun (depending on the distance) stabbing – bolo (hacking). either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance. Here. Why? They understand that if the child were at the stage of puberty. Powder burns may indicate relative distance of the victim and accused. 2. 2) inconclusive – it is not possible to be sure based on the results of the test whether the samples have similar DNA types. flashlight (accused could be properly identified. DNA testing has now been adopted. indecent/improper. No. a visual examination with good lighting plus a magnification of the area would be enough to make a conclusion whether there was sexual contact. In the absence of a certificate of live birth. number of wounds shows the existence of self-defense. certain rules were laid down. In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence the court should consider the following: 1) the collection of the samples 2) how the samples were handled 3) the possibility of contamination 4) procedure followed in analyzing the samples. 1) visual. inconclusive or inclusion. 3. sound travels through waves so see distance physical examination of a child in a rape case. NOT so much in our system (person presented – demonstrative): prejudice/undue bias. NOT on his face/his companions’ faces voice – fact of you being able to recognize it will vary according to case law. Pruna (G. if clear and credible. there will be NO need to make a physical insertion of the finger of the doctor inside the organ of a child victim. lay the basis. DNA testing goes into the genes of the individual.R. the samples that were collected were subject to various chemical processes established so far. similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age. and 2) expert testimony (won’t speak after suffering. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.   The matter of appreciating the age of the victim. There are three (3) possible results: exclusion. In People v. laid down the following guidelines:  1.Relative measurements NOT considered in the case of a paltik because jurisprudence says that there is NO scientific explanation for its trajectory. There are tests to be conducted in order ensure that the DNA  testing or the samples are not contaminated. 138471. you have a comparison – a comparison of the sample which is taken from the scene of the crime let’s say a sample of a blood and then a sample from the plaintiff and there will be a comparison of the sample taken at the scene of the crime and that of the victim or the accused. balisong (long cuts) gravity of the wound – physical evidence of the intent to kill. Vallejo. only a mode can be made) relative distances – near: powder burns on victim. was settled when the Court. light. This would normally appear in situations wherein DNA procedure was not followed or there was contamination of the samples. October 10. the testimony. it was physical evidence and NOT dying declaration. The tests may yield three possible results: 1) exclusion – meaning the samples are different and therefore must have originated from different sources. night time. moon. now. held by witness’ victim. The Supreme Court understood that because of medical technology. voice range may vary according to jurisprudence. victim’s brother narrated who the perpetrator was. and 3) samples are similar and could have originated from the same source – this is inclusion. In this case. of the victim’s mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40. humiliate. different is it is the accused who holds the flashlight because then the court raises doubt since accused points it on the ground to guide them.

Now. exceptions. take note what are the examples of this? There could be a memorandum of agreement or there could be an exchange of correspondence wherein portions of the terms and conditions have been recited. in actuality. 5. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old. In the absence of a certificate of live birth. In terms of showing to the court that it was actually lost. and 4) the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed. At some point they could agree on this particular provision and this could be a recital of some c. authentic document. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document. no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself.of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old. only when the contents thereof are subject of the inquiry do you need to present the original. If you could establish and convince the court that it was lost without presenting other witnesses then it is acceptable. 3) 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. figures. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him. numbers. 3. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sec. There are exceptions to this rule on presenting the original. S19-33 R132 Best Evidence Rule – When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document. or the testimony of the victim’s mother or relatives concerning the victim’s age. this is the GR. This normally happens when lawyers draft voluminous contracts and there is an exchange of correspondence between the lawyers. it is in the possession of the adverse party and third that there are long accounts and that there is great waste of time to present it and the only thing to establish is a general fact or that the documents are in the custody of a public officer and it is recorded. There is difference in authentication. Second. 4. 2. there is no need to present the original. B. no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself Exceptions: When the original 1) has been lost or destroyed. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim. treated as an object. So. except in the following cases: There’s only a requirement of presenting the original if the contents of the document is subject of the inquiry. So read the contents to highlight the same. First. the complainant’s testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. would you need to present another witness? If that is necessary then you could present another witness. — Documents as evidence consist of writing or any material containing letters. without bad faith on the part of the offeror. Original document must be produced. without bad faith on the part of the offeror. If it is not subject of the Page 13 of 88 . when it has been lost. BEST EVIDENCE RULE Sec. and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice. or cannot be produced in court. 1. or cannot be produced in court. Then on the order of presenting authentic documents where the contents of the subject document are being recited. (n) Ultimate test: “material” on which these are written Photograph of writing – subject of inquiry  documentary (Francisco). words. inquiry. Original document may either be private or public. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old. destroyed without bad faith on the part of the offeror. 2) is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered. b. Documentary evidence. let’s take note of loss or destruction.

Considering that you cannot remove a public record except upon order. that there was notice given to the adverse party to produce the same and that despite notice there was failure to surrender or deliver or despite notice there was refusal to surrender the document. Section 2 when the parties could not agree. Without such notice even if you believe the fact that it is in the possession of the other party. And when did you first meet long accounts as a provision of law? On the rule on commissioners under Rule 32. and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice. A simple piece of paper reciting the general structure of an agreement may be a basis to establish that this is truly the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. Because you cannot present the original. then it would be enough for you to present a certified true copy of the document. Just like the other exceptions. (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. let’s say it is lost. The notice is that which initiates this secondary evidence. It is also possible that there is a memorandum of agreement or a written agreement for that matter. Without the court order. In a scenario under the first exception that it has been destroyed or lost. this is one of the grounds.” You will have to lay a basis first of the following: that it actually existed and second that it has been lost or destroyed. So if you could lay those bases then you could present not the original because the original could no longer be presented but you will present a copy. voluminous invoices. The second exception is when the same is in the possession of the adverse party. But when do I need to present an original which is recorded in the public office? When its authenticity is being disputed. Admission that photocopy is a faithful representation – proceed after comparison You could initiate an action in the absence of an original S7 R8 (original/copy is attached) and you could present secondary evidence during trial. then it’s useless. you give a notice for production or even motion for production or inspection of paper. Let us take this one at a time. and The third is long accounts. ledgers. These are examples of long accounts. Under Rule 27 if you want to avail of the mode of discovery. BER – to prevent fraud and avoid inaccuracy and falsification S8 R8 How to contest such document (genuineness and due execution) S2 R32 (Commissioners for long accounts) Present originals:  Misappropriation case of public funds Page 14 of 88 . it is lost. When the entries therein are being disputed but of course there should be a court order. you see here a situation wherein you cannot present the original. (b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered. “Your Honor. you don’t give the notice. When it comes to this. a recital of the same in some authentic record or document and third presentation of a witness or testimonial evidence. And third that there is no bad faith on the part of the person offering the same. reason why original is presented Prudent lawyer keeps the original of an actionable document and present it when called for during examination. could you immediately present a copy or a recital of its contents in some authentic document or present a witness in that order? No. However do not confuse the notice here with the notice under Rule 27.Rule: it should be presented. voluminous delivery receipts. you have to establish existence but I think the most important thing that you have to establish here is that there was notice. books and documents. 1) relevant 2) NOT excluded by law/Rules 3) Authenticated – identified Drugs . (2a) The court is in possession of a public document. all you need to present is a certified true copy. (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole. If the same is in the possession of a public officer there is this rule on Rule 132 on irremovability of a public record. when they do not consent or the court says that the matter should be referred to the commissioners.authentic document. that it was the same drug/s taken when apprehended Best Evidence – opportunity to examine it: where right depends. Even if. you just don’t say. What are examples of long accounts? Balance sheets. the person in custody of the document will not present the original.

take note at or about the same time with identical contents. with identical contents. it becomes an original? No. 4. Now let us not strain our imagination in pushing it that let us say because of so many copies. with identical contents. they are duplicate originals. yes. courts still use typewriters and they too use carbon paper. one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction. it doesn’t appear that it was executed at or about the same time? But it has identical contents and I tell you. Does it mean that even if it is a photocopy but the contents thereof are subject of an inquiry. copies and oral testimony more prone to inaccuracy and subject to fraud 2. Could it be disputed? Yes. I signed 6 at this time and because I had a meeting I forgot all about it and I signed the rest the following day. 2) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time. all such copies are equally regarded as originals. with identical contents. all such copies are equally regarded as originals. That entry was made at or near the time of the transaction. — (a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry. Now you have item c: when an entry is repeated in the regular course of business. act of execution includes signing. Take note of entry. But could it be fabricated. around 12 copies of a document. Will it still be regarded as an original? Yes. They insert in between the papers carbon papers to produce 3 or 4 or 5 copies. It is not the fact of an agreement or that the contents of which are subject of an inquiry that makes it the original. It is still regarded as an original. Now aside from that on Rule 130 there is also another definition of an original. (3a) Original documents 1) One the contents of which are the subject of inquiry. But then sir. To give you an example of this let us say I am a trader. All these will be imputed at or near the time of the transaction. 3) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business.by the very nature and NOT inquiry which makes it original Document is in 2/more copies executed “at/about the same time. (b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time. 1. How about a duplicate copy or a duplicate original? In the past or even today. appearance furnishes information: authenticity Private document S20 onwards Sec. Original is best evidence . yes. The witness may be subjected to crossexamination. 3. there are releases to the customers and there will be official receipts or invoices. And why is it an exception? The person who made the entry is either dead or unavailable such that reliance is made on the document because it was made in the regular course of business. It could be disputed. all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. Of course there are delivery receipts to my warehouse. What the law says is that it should be executed at or about the same time and that its contents are the same. one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction. item b: when a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time. that is why in exception to hearsay rule is entries made in the ordinary course of business. Original of document. (c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business. near time as it was executed. It may be executed at or about the same time but does not have identical contents. that’s your problem because your opponent would say. could it be tampered with. But there is apparently no rule in that way. Are these duplicate originals? Yes. Counterparts Page 15 of 88 . 2. What is important here is entry.” with identical contents – executed more or less at the same time Entry repeated in the regular course of business “at/near the time of the transaction” – fairly contemporaneous with the transaction Court orders stamped with “original signed” – NOT originals Secure a certified true copy or duplicate copy. all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals When the contents are the subject of the inquiry. that is the concession. What is the reason for this? Why is this regarded as an original? Because there is no room for you to fabricate. If you do not put in the same date. All of those exceptions under the hearsay rule are not absolute. it is an original. how come there are two sets of documents executed with identical contents? So that is an example of item b. one being copied at or near the time of the transaction. then the other one cannot be considered as an original. it could be subjected to cross examination. BP 22 (several counts) Irremovability of public record S26 R132 Rationale for Originals: 1. it will still carry the same date. An original should be an original.

If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence. the subject of inquiry (3) withOUT bad faith. — If the document is in the custody or under the control of adverse party. EXC: destruction in the ordinary course of business. NO need for SE. secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. by mistake.” Entries are repeatedly copied. or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document. less room for error. NOT doubtful but could still be disputed. but there must be entries If NOT logged in (dispatch and receive) – NO longer in the regular course of business 2. NOT executed at/near the time of the transaction – attained a certain level of trustworthiness. A peace and order problem HK B sars document executed in counterparts – NOT originals from the definition but authorities consider them as originals (Wigmore.unlike an actionable document where the court gives order of inspection S8 R8 (3) failure to produce (4) existence (satisfactory proof) If original was NOT produced. What if original contradicts SE? Court weighs evidence. he fails to produce the document. When original document is unavailable. otherwise.separate and apart from secondary evidence (copy. the fact that the original document is later produced does NOT render erroneous the previous admission of SE. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. 5. sufficient to state it in substance) There’s a hierarchy of SE because memory may betray you. Instant demand sufficient where document is at hand in the court room.cause of loss of destruction. falsification and inaccuracy . To be later expounded on by the lawyer: Memorandum of Agreement – skeleton REM on loan obligation “testimony” – signed. or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. there is a duty to comply. object or testimonial evidence (any form acceptable under the law). judge appreciates “copy” – reproduction of original K photocopy before signing – original K photocopy after signing – copy “some authentic document” – either private or public Proponent must know that he has done all in his power to secure the best evidence by giving to the adversary notice to produce it. NO reasonable suspicion of fraud . Warton) How? Clause that “this agreement could be signed in counterparts. 6. even without signatures. NO need for previous notice Page 16 of 88 . the offeror. (5a) Adverse Party may be the plaintiff or defendant in custody/control Requisites: (1) custody/control of AP (2) reasonable notice to produce it .reasonable probability of loss is sufficient. read or heard it read (verbal accuracy NOT required. If original was produced. dispensed with by admission (2) existence . presumption under R131 on suppression of evidence Sec. (4a) Requisites: (1) loss. testimony)  contents. may prove its contents by a copy. — When the original document has been lost or destroyed.Phils.proven by documentary. upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part. recital. SECONDARY EVIDENCE Sec. or cannot be produced in court. Once notice is given. it will breed fraud. unavailability . he must have reasonable notice to produce it. destruction.

Notarized Deed of Sale )1 Vendor )2 Vendee )3 Notary public )4 Clerk of the court which gave the notary public commission )5 Bureau of Archives Requisites for admission of secondary evidence. an official copy of which is admissible in evidence. or a specific part thereof.i Rule 132 §27: Public record of a private document . if there be any. under the seal of such court . must not be removed from the office in which it is kept. attested by the legal custodian of the record. as the case may be. or by a copy thereof. that:  correct copy  under official seal  with authority to certify  duly signed NO need to employ “certify” or “certificate” cf Rule 132 §25-27 Sec. under the seal of such court. its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (2a) Certification – “in substance” is all that is required. and )4 Original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office – contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof . 25.f . (28a) To prove loss. .Any public record. What attestation of copy must state.e . 27. — When the original of document is in the custody of public officer or is recorded in a public office. or Testimony of witnesses )2 Original is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party Prove execution or existence Prove cause of unavailability without bad faith of the offeror Proof of contents in the following order . according to grounds: )1 Original has been lost or destroyed. 26.d . or a specific part thereof Under the official seal of the attesting officer.Title to land: a) owner’s b) original at the RD .Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence.h Rule 132 §25: What attestation of copy must state Copy is a correct copy of the original. Irremovability of public record. that the copy is a correct copy of the original. in substance. 7. the attestation must state. get affidavits of loss from all the people who possibly has a copy of the original.a .c Copy Recital of its contents in some authentic document.An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the original record.may be proved by Page 17 of 88 . The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer. or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal. e. (26 a) Sec. with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. or cannot be produced in court . Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. Public record of a private document.g Copy Adverse party had reasonable notice to produce the original (Subpoena duces tecum) Proof of the original’s existence Adverse party fails to produce the original Proof of contents in the following order Recital of its contents some authentic document. or Testimony of witnesses )3 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.encumbrance NOT found in owner’s copy. (27 a) Sec. .b . or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal.g. except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case. if there be any. . attack the original but it CANNOT be removed under S26 R132 Sec.

need NOT be a public document)  Testimony Laying the basis/foundation – When made? During trial (witness on the stand) Proof of non-production in court: In order to introduce secondary evidence of a writing. However. Possession of adverse party . it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be. it is not necessary to show that the original has been lost or destroyed. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. NO intention to suppress document. between the parties and their successors in interest. destroyed – NO longer exists. — When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing. loss or destruction of the original must be established first. present the copy.NO bf. (c) The validity of the written agreement. To use Secondary evidence. The term "agreement" includes wills. fruitlessly made in the place where it is most likely to be found. recital by witness. 8. or By a copy thereof )a )b Attested by the legal custodian of the record With an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody Reasonable certainty is sufficient. old – NO need for proof of execution 2) Lost.Notice to the said adverse party is very important. If copy is available. destroyed/CANNOT be produced lost – CANNOT be discovered. or that it is not in the possession or under the control of the party seeking to show the facts and that he is unable to produce it within a reasonable time after the exercise of reasonable diligence. need NOT be proved beyond the possibility of error/mistake Lay the basis then present secondary evidence:  Copy  Recital (authentic – genuine. but it is sufficient to show that it is deposited in a place from which it cannot be removed for the purpose of being produced in court. (b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto. NO secondary. Reasonable suspicion is NOT enough. no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. e. house burned down – some reasonable certainty that the document is in such house so the court may be convinced for the presentation of secondary evidence. Docs > 30 yrs. presumption: detrimental to his cause 4) Diligent search – bona fide.Original record. a party may present evidence to modify. if not. Secondary Evidence – first show that the primary evidence is NOT obtainable Requisites: LAYING THE BASIS 1) Proof of Existence/Execution Reason: if NO original. 3.g. mistake or imperfection in the written agreement. explain or add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading: (a) An intrinsic ambiguity. exhausted all sources of information and means of discovery Page 18 of 88 . cannot be produced – unavailable 3) Cause of unavailability withOUT bad faith . (6a) Similar rule under R23 Depositions (Written Interrogatories) Documentary evidence or the Best evidence. — A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. (7a) Sec. It must be the original. execution is the accomplishment of a thing State events and circumstances surrounding execution to prove existence. 9. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE Sec. Evidence of written agreements. or (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. Only when the contents is the subject of the inquiry.

It does not apply where PER is invoked against a litigant who is a stranger to the agreement. at a price not less than P500. could you do it? NO. If the evidence sought to be admitted refers to matters other than the terms of the agreement (e. The rule applies only to the terms of an agreement. NO substitute. it being the repository/memorial of what has been agreed upon. agreement for the sale of goods. subtract. representation as to the credit of a 3rd person. or explain the contents Invoked only if the controversy is between parties to the agreement Applies only to agreements and wills Best Evidence Rule Look at the original Issue is contents of a writing Secondary evidence is offered Applies when the original is not available Effect is can not present any evidence on the contents other than the original Invoked by anybody. whether a party to the instrument or not Applies to all kinds of writing In the best evidence rule. it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be. Statute of Frauds: If the following agreements are not in writing and subscribed. Exceptions: a party may present evidence to modify. acceptance of benefit under the agreement Distinguish Parole Evidence Rule No original involved No issue as to the contents of a writing Parol evidence is offered Presupposes that original is in court Effect is can not add. PER applies only to the parties to the agreement. iv. Exceptions i.g. as a rule. or miscarriage of another. or the evidences. So if you try to introduce extrinsic evidence or parole evidence. special promise to answer for the debt. v. or ii. there is already a dispute. Parties bound by the written agreement. default. failure to object to the presentation of oral evidence. no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. evidence The rule on self-defense also requires that the circumstances of selfdefense be proven by clear and convincing evidence. then the PER does not apply. or some of them. In parole evidence rule. explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading 1) An intrinsic ambiguity. other than a mutual promise to marry. mistake or imperfection in the written agreement 2) failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties 3) validity of the written agreement. chattels or things in action. such evidence is admissible. not of law c) alleged and put in issue in the pleadings d) proved by clear and convincing. vi. which says that the agreement will be the repository of what the parties and their successors-in-interest have agreed upon. of such things in action or pay at the time some part of the purchase money. it is unenforceable and evidence thereof is inadmissible i. not to be performed within a year from the making thereof ii. Page 19 of 88 . because that will be in violation of the parole evidence rule. you have to present the original because the contents thereof are the subject of the inquiry. agreement have been reduced to writing.Parol Evidence Rule: When the terms of an. lease for more than 1 year. the subsequently-agreed terms must also be put in issue in the pleadings. or 4) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement If the ground is subsequently-agreed terms. Requisites for mistake as exception to PER: a) mutual between the parties b) of fact. between the parties and their successors in interest. unless the buyer accept and receive part of such goods and chattels. iii. agreement made in consideration of marriage. not merely preponderance of. or sale of real property or of an interest therein. it only states that the agreement is the repository of what the parties had agreed upon. statement of facts).

explain or add. can you still amend it? Yes. that is termed parole evidence and NOT the parole evidence rule. And therefore let us say. Is there a remedy if by chance I did not put it in issue? Yes. c. you amend the pleadings to conform with the evidence under S5 R10 because under that category of Rule 10. On the face of the agreement or document. So it is very important that you put it in issue. mistake of fact mutual alleged and proven by clear and convincing evidence Page 20 of 88 . an explanation? Could we present parole evidence? NO because we are going into the intent of a person which we CANNOT do. Is it something that could be subject to a modification. One CANNOT produce extraneous evidence. put it in issue in the answer. you can still amend. clear words but doubtful application e. If you are the defendant and you would want to raise it as one of your defenses. intrinsic ambiguity. according to the provisions of the second paragraph. PER gives certainty to a transaction which has been reduced to writing. You have to put it in issue in the pleadings. I am giving my 1987 Mitsubishi Lancer to ___. b. PER Exceptions: conditions for presentation of parole evidence: a. Could you just present at any given time? NO. there appears to be no ambiguity. However. mistake of fact a. unless you put it in issue.000 loan for 6 months with 6% interest default sued for recovery of amount debtor now says that loan is for 5 yrs. mistake or imperfection in the written agreement. more certain and accurate than fleeting memory. there is already a problem. put forth such issue. It is the expositor of the parties’ intentions and the only instrument of evidence in respect of that agreement. if you were able to present the evidence. then put it there. And there are two Mr.g. Ongs in my class. i. you cannot. 2002 case in PER Bank Manager approached by Spouses for a P800. What do you mean by that? If you are the complainant. if the other party doesn’t object. On the face of the document. put it as an issue in the complaint. Ong.change NOR alteration allowed. But if you start to implement or enforce the same then apparently there is an ambiguity. The first paragraph is the parole evidence rule. amend it in accordance with evidence presented. Because you can amend as a matter of right before an answer is filed and after an answer is filed with leave of court. could you introduce parole evidence? Not the parole evidence rule but could you introduce parole or extrinsic evidence? No. with 3% interest SC: NO PER. Or the plaintiff after receiving the answer might want to introduce a new matter in a reply. you cannot modify. Put in issue is to allege and make an issue. I am giving my 1987 Mitsubishi Lancer color yellow to Mr. intrinsic/latent ambiguity – discoverable only when applied to the circumstances. The second paragraph provides the instances when you could present parole evidence. effect: changes agreement The document is the embodiment of the agreement and those NOT written are considered waived and abandoned. Parol admissible on collateral matter/s ii. It was left blank. with leave of court. you file a motion to amend your pleadings to conform with the evidence already presented. You can only amend it. if you introduce extrinsic evidence. if you are allowed to introduce extrinsic evidence. court can still render valid judgment even if NOT amended so long as it is proven by evidence. What if you were not able to present the evidence because the other party objected it. already existing. put it in issue in the pleadings. If you don’t put it in issue in the pleadings. you do NOT create. you can amend the pleadings or if the other party objects. Let us say you were successful in presenting it and no other objection. Under the second paragraph.

Could parole evidence be presented? Yes. What was the true intent of the parties? To execute a mortgage. c. intermediate. On the face it appears to be clear however. if there was fraud. What is that? Sir. NOT validate the agreement d. could you present parole evidence? There was this written contract presented with all the formalities and showing that I signed it but I never signed it. validity of the written agreement . not unequivocal but equivocal which gives two meanings. I was referring to an equipment or machine. I need to give the details of the same. In which case. that is an intermediate ambiguity.tangible evidence: supplement memorandum. intrinsic.There was an agreement embodied but was imperfectly worded. due to poor drafting. fraud. you could present witnesses who saw how the document was executed. it could be capacity in terms of working capacity or capacity in terms of production. there is an issue as to how you describe a particular subject matter or item. Could parole evidence be presented to legalize an otherwise illegal contract? No. Page 21 of 88 . Does it mean that if we are to present parole evidence it is only limited to written documents? No. misrepresentation  to establish. if there was misrepresentation. The same example could be given. You could also present testimonies of witnesses. And could you prove it? Yes. in questioning. iii. illegality. Let us say I am giving my property in Bulacan. failure of written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties e. parole evidence may be presented inducement. incapacity. If I was induced. imperfection . b. Intrinsic ambiguity falls under this.000 capacity. take note that there are 3 kinds of ambiguities: extrinsic. they could sit on the stand. witnesses who heard how the agreement was negotiated.There was a previous agreement which was NOT reflected in the instrument and it was a common agreement. Reformation may be had. Ong and me but let’s say tomorrow Mr. I only placed deed of sale. whether valid/NOT. is it clear? No. then you could present parole evidence. So you see here an agreement executed at some particular date and there maybe subsequent agreement between the parties and their successors-in-interest after the agreement. So long as it is after the execution of the agreement. I was referring to 16. Ong said that was not really his intention. My intention only was to place a mortgage but because I do not know the legal implications. Even if there is an agreement but that is not the intent of the parties. But it was a simple correspondence? Could we enter into a separate agreement? Yes. includes an inaccurate statement e. It only means that let us say an agreement has been executed today between Mr. Could parole evidence be presented? Yes.An illegal contract could not be validated by parole evidence. my wording is equivocal. amendment. So could we execute another agreement? Yes. the agreement was for me to deliver on a weekly basis 400 dozens of eggs and he said that it’s too much for my production of eggs so I think the general intention was only for 200 dozens of eggs. the agreement was titled deed of sale. A void contract cannot be validated by parole evidence. Could parole evidence validate an otherwise void agreement? No. existence of other terms agreed upon by the parties subsequent to the agreement or after the execution of the document . Take note that the agreement here would include wills. Now. On introduction of parole evidence in the second paragraph. Extrinsic ambiguity doesn’t fall under parole evidence. If there is this agreement and because I am not schooled.g. It’s not limited to paper. written: sale but the intent: truly a mortgage Let us say that there was really no contract. So take note that it goes to the intent of the parties. Intermediate ambiguity would also fall under parole evidence.g. could parole evidence be presented? Yes.

that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it. (10) intention pursued as to unclear provisions (equivocal). but evidence is admissible to show that they have a local. e.g. (9) .if parties CANNOT agree. — When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form. 11. and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper. harmonize. a stipulation provides: “payment of the monthly amortization shall be made by the other party once the mortgaged property is taken out from I Bank” who is the other party? MoA executed November 2003 Takeout December 2004 . the circumstances under which it was made. — When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered. 14. (17) . — In the construction of an instrument. to be adopted as will give effect to all. you may add or modify based on any of the grounds. such a construction is. the former is to be adopted. unless the parties intended otherwise. — When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it. Lease agreement but with option to purchase made by oral discussion – this can be presented as there is subsequent agreement In the presentation of parole evidence. (13) Sec. in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly. if possible. Of Two constructions. Interpretation according to intention. may be shown. — The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation. general and particular provisions. “labor dispute. e. Written words control printed. one in favor of natural right and the other against it. to be able to interpret it better Page 22 of 88 . in order to determine its true character. and were so used and understood in the particular instance. the court shall decide Sec. (11) situation of the subject and parties. 15. or who understand the language. INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS Sec. — In the construction of an instrument. the intention of the parties is to be pursued. “kristo” in cockfights (accuracy of bets) Sec. which preferred. and when a general and a particular provision are inconsistent. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings. (12) word has a general and technical meaning. 18. — For the proper construction of an instrument. the former controls the latter. particular provision prevails Sec. 4. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. Peculiar signification of terms. and the two are inconsistent. 13. (8) Interpret – give meaning Construe – ascertain intent (go beyond) Matters of substance – you can agree Matters of form – you CANNOT agree (solemnities) Matters of procedure – you CANNOT agree (law of the forum) Sec. technical.g.instrument is construed. — When an instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations. — The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution. or the language is not understood by the court. 12. Interpretation according to circumstances. 19.” “demand. 17. the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters. 10.g. so that the judge may be placed in the position of those whose language he is to interpret. or otherwise peculiar signification. where there are several provisions or particulars.give effect. including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it. the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. 16.g. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning. (14) Sec.” “mouse” Sec. (15) e. —An instrument may be construed according to usage. is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language.e. Construction in favor of natural right. Interpretation according to usage. separability clause Sec. that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made. (16) Sec.

Words which may have different significations shall be understood in that which is most in keeping with the nature and object of the contract. their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered. civil and criminal cases electronic document may either be public or private “electronic signature” R3 electronic evidence R4 best evidence R5 authentication R8 exception to the hearsay rule Digital signature R9 method of proof Statutory rules of interpretation ⇒ If the terms are clear. that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it When different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper. that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made preference for natural right usage may be considered ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ o o ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly. evidence of local. technical. and shall fill the omission of stipulations which are ordinarily established. ⇒ If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties. The usage or custom of the place shall be borne in mind in the interpretation of the ambiguities of a contract. The principles of interpretation stated in the Rules of Court shall likewise be observed ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE          applies to administrative. or the language is foreign. it shall be understood as bearing that import which is most adequate to render it effectual. The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity. authenticated) Page 23 of 88 . attributing to the doubtful ones Highlights:  Admissibility – go back to S3 R128 (relevant and NOT excluded. the least transmission of rights and interests shall prevail an onerous contract. When it is absolutely impossible to settle doubts by the rules established in the preceding articles the doubts refer to incidental circumstances of a gratuitous contract. the intention shall prevail ⇒ In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties. the contract shall be null and void. the literal meaning shall control. ⇒ terms of a contract shall not be understood to comprehend things that are distinct and cases that are different from those upon which the parties intended to agree ⇒ If some stipulation of any contract should admit of several meanings.Rules of interpretation of documents: ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning in the place of execution Instrument construed so as to give effect to more provisions Interpretation according to intention of the parties particular over general Interpretation according to circumstances of the parties and the subject Terms presumed to be used in primary and general acceptation. the evidence of experts and interpreters is admissible When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it. or peculiar signification use admissible Written words control printed When the characters are difficult to decipher. the doubt shall be settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity of interests If the doubts are cast upon the principal object of the contract in such a way that it cannot be known what may have been the intention or will of the parties. ⇒ The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together.

e. printout of a physical exam at NKI Ephemeral communication – NOT stored (nature of information). but Business Record as Hearsay Exception (Entries) R130 S43 . email. in witness stand. a) State witness must not have been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude [Rule 119. or 4) Conviction of a crime. A witness can perceive now.mere knowledge of the acts sufficient. e. include printouts and outputs readable by sight and other means.such was the regular practice to make the memorandum. Witnesses. or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law. How should you put this on record: The counsel or the interpreter should record that the witness with his right hand struck the victim towards his cheek.g. text) Photographs – audio and video recording. How will you know if a witness is qualified. who? person with personal knowledge or person of competence. NOT personal knowledge .competency of the witness and ability to pass on info/relay info to the court.in a position to know the facts therein stated . 17 (e)] b) Person who has been convicted of falsification of a document. unless otherwise provided by law. 20. 821 NCC) Demonstration – demonstrate in court.e. (18a) Qualifications of witnesses: 1) Can perceive 2) Perceiving 3) Can make known their perception to others NOT grounds for disqualification: 1) Religious belief 2) Political belief 3) Interest in the outcome of the case. data may be expected to be reliable. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE 1. all persons who can perceive. One may be very intelligent. — Except as provided in the next succeeding section. subject to question Definition of electronic signature and digital signature. I can demonstrate this is how I slapped the victim. perjury or false testimony is disqualified from being a witness to a will (Art. Testimonial evidence . need to lay the basis. For example. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES Sec. public and private key Electronic ID – each computer as its own ID. who testifies? a person with personal knowledge or a competent individual who knows the facts and circumstances. optical or other similar means . can make known their perception to others. Sec. it could be stored (i. shall not be ground for disqualification. rules in laying the basis with respect to audio recording is more stringent under R128 .in the ordinary/regular course of business/duty R8 S1 (Rules on Electronic Evidence ) .made in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty .NO such requirement . interest in the outcome of the case. but by its very nature. signature is NOT used as much Presumptions – relate with R131 Authenticity – reliance on source and preparation.g. report.at or near the time of/from transmission/supply of information . their qualifications. judge weighs evidence (through resolution) Hearsay exception – entries made “in the regular course of business” because of a certain level of regularity and repetition observing the regular course of business.        BER – original electronic data/information. may be witnesses. record or data compilation * all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian/other qualified witnesses C. If people perceive and perceiving and can make known his perception.made by electronic. but tomorrow he cannot --such is not competent witness. transmission & storage.kept in the regular course/conduct of a business activity Page 24 of 88 . Religious or political belief. and perceiving.entrant must be deceased or unable to testify . Demonstration is different from demonstrative evidence.

vii. The parameter is that he should know what is good and bad. Conviction – unless otherwise prevented e. Mental condition. at the time of his production as a witness – cannot be a witness Mental immaturity – a child/minor CHILD WITNESS EXAMINATION RULE If placed on the stand. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity 1. consequences of telling a lie. at the time of their production for examination. witnesses convicted of falsification of document. Mentally incapacitated at the time perceived.cannot perceive – such is not competent a competent witness as he only testifies on merely hearsay and not on his personal knowledge. Relative disqualifications: i. free from bias or interest. vi. reason why he is placed on oath. or clerk concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity Physician-Patient Privilege Priest-Penitent Privilege State Secrets v. iii. A child must be mentally mature both at the time of perception and at the time of production. Objections based on absolute disqualifications may be raised upon the calling of the disqualified witness. It is his perception. ii. at the time of their production for examination. state witness under S17 R119 Sec. he must be mentally capable at the time of production. age is NOT really considered. ii. item Page 25 of 88 . even if he was not so at the time of perception. With regard to the subject matter of the testimony. Do you know what it is like to tell a lie? Its consequences? Etc. Objections based on relative disqualifications may be raised when it becomes apparent that the subject matter of the testimony covers inadmissible matters. stenographer. Witnesses: qualifications. vii. Cross examination is to impeach. iv. is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others. Dead man’s statute Marital communication privilege Attorney-client privilege Attorney's secretary. minimum requirements: (1) Can perceive – senses (2) Can make known his perception Witnesses can be impeached on cross examination by reason of interest or bias. (19a) For a mentally defective person to be a witness. — The following persons cannot be witnesses: (a) Those whose mental condition. render them incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others Mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and relating them truthfully Marital disqualification Parental and filial privilege v.g. 2. (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully. perjury or false testimony CANNOT be made witnesses to a will. and to elicit facts bearing upon the issue. Absolutely disqualified witnesses: i. Competency examination determined/assessed by the judge through his question. Expanded – can bring support personnel. vi. to test truthfulness or accuracy of testimony. iii. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. we must make a distinction between absolute disqualifications and relative disqualifications. Can’t perceive Not perceiving Can’t make known their perception to others iv.

When the spouse-litigant Rule on child examination applies to both civil and criminal cases. This is a testimonial disqualification. It can be invoked only if one spouse is a party to the action. the witness has no say whether the objection is to be raised or not. if absolute. neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse. destroyed after a certain period deaf-mute – only a limitation to perception. Can be asked leading questions. also provided under R132 S10 (5 exceptions) Sec. ⇒ Child knows what is good and bad Page 26 of 88 . GR: During their marriage. media interview while an event is occurring) drug use – must be established during examination if insane when you saw – NOT admissible.g. e. sign language. The holder of the privilege is the spouse-litigant. NO fear witness – placed on oath regardless of belief on a God credibility – determined later idiot – CANNOT testify mental retardate – distinguish: if slight. (20a) Requisites for marital disqualification rule: 1) Marriage subsists 2) Spouse is a litigant 3) No consent from the spouse-litigant 4) Not a civil case by one against the other. or a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. he CANNOT synthesize. or 2) Criminal case for a crime committed by one against )a The other or )b Other’s direct descendants or ascendants The marital disqualification rule refers to all matters and applies only during the existence of the marriage. Alzheimer’s how are NON-believers of God sworn? through an affirmation – a confirmation that he will tell the truth withOUT relying on a God. as opposed to the testimonial privilege of ascendants and descendants (Rule 130 §25). Confidential documents. deposition. or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. hearsay so long as complies with certain requirements. the verbal statements of such expert are recorded what if such interpreter is a family member or someone who knows the sign language? there’s still a need to qualify insane – may be a witness person previously placed in an institution – insanity is presumed to continue under R131. Disqualification by reason of marriage. he CANNOT testify autistic – determine level of autism • • mental capacity – material (mental condition) mental immaturity ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ Child tells the truth and knows the consequences of false testimony Knowing the oath (why he is placed at the stand) + can perceive and make known his perception (competency exam) Guardian is entitled to notices. — During their marriage. when he sits at the stand. must be sane at the time of production so he can make known his perception to others what about an interview made immediately? admissible as res gestae. except in a civil case by one against the other. hearsay exception (e. can be a witness. Hence. similar rule in case of default Leading questions may be asked.There can be video recording. can be a witness because he can perceive.g. but CANNOT participate. 22. use an expert (interpreter) to verbalize the signs and communication. spouses may not testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse Exceptions: 1) Civil case by one against the other. It is an absolute disqualification and can be invoked the moment that one spouse is called to testify.

24. documents may be produced (contracts) Why is it called the Dead Man’s Statute? It pertains only to that portion referring to death. thus.consents to the testimony. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. (20a) Requisites for dead man’s statute: 1) The witness sought to be disqualified is the plaintiff 2) Executor. or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. 23. — The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases: Privileged Communications: 1) marital 2) attorney-client 3) physician-patient 4) priest-penitent 5) state secrets   Relationship is a consideration. or the person of unsound mind is the defendant Page 27 of 88 . cf Rule 130 §24 (a). makes it a disqualification Note that the exceptions under the marital disqualification and marital communications rule are the same. cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. – The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases: (a) The husband or the wife. 24. — Parties or assignor of parties to a case. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. witnesses are NOT parties checks allowed. Sec. NOT insanity. the spouse-witness must testify whether he wants to or not. Marital Communications Sec. cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other. administrator or representative of a deceased person. during or after the marriage. 3) Upon claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind 4) As to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind 5) [NO counterclaim is filed]     Parties. inaccurate as the prohibition covers both death and insanity Sec. against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person. though NOT primary Nature of communication: confidential. upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind. or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. only against the estate Witnesses to a contract NOT covered by prohibition: recent SC case only witnesses as they only attest. or against a person of unsound mind. Assignors or Persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted There’s action being prosecuted Against an Executor/Administrator/other Representative of a deceased person or Against a person of Unsound mind Nature of action: claim against the estate/person of unsound mind Marital Disqualification Covers all matters regardless of source Applies during the marriage A spouse must be a litigant Invoked when a spouse is called to testify Marital Communications Covers only those communicated by one spouse to another Applies during and after the marriage A spouse need not be a litigant Invoked when the testimony appears to cover privileged matters Can a NON-party testify? NOT an absolute bar.

In such a case. Consent of the other party in the privileged communication is an act that needs to be proved for the testimony to be admitted. Disqualification by reason of marriage. It is an absolute disqualification and can be invoked the moment that one spouse is called to testify. One must wait until it becomes apparent that their testimony covers matters that are privileged (e. The exceptions to the rule are: 1) Civil case by one against the other. It is a relative disqualification and can be invoked only when it is apparent that the testimony would cover privileged matters. Hence. [careful not to be confused in the multiple meanings of the word “privilege”] Hence.g. or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. Each of those enumerated is disqualified to testify as to specific matters only. the privilege may not be invoked at all. or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. Where the other party in the privileged communication is a litigant. the witness has no say whether the objection is to be raised or not. neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse. the litigant against whom the testimony is offered may object to its admission on the ground of privileged communication. the witness must testify. (a) The husband or the wife. When the holder of the privilege (not necessarily the opposing party) consents to the testimony. Page 28 of 88 . upon asking of a question that covers privileged matters. It can be invoked only if one spouse is a party to the action. and privileged communication is offered in evidence without the consent of such party. This is not to say that failure of a such a party to object will never render such testimony admissible. then his failure to object will be taken as a consent to the testimony or a waiver of a privilege. It does not disqualify them from testifying on matters not privileged. The communication that is privileged need not be in any form. during or after the marriage. The communication ceases to be privileged if knowingly communicated in the presence of 3rd persons. However. The wording of the law is to the effect that an objection of the other party in the privileged communication is not necessary for the privilege to hold.This is a rule of relative disqualification. – During their marriage. It does not cover knowledge of matters that a spouse obtains from a source other than other spouse. cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other. the privilege can not be invoked if the 3rd person is called to testify. or 2) Criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants cf Rule 130 §22: Marital Disqualification Rule Sec. It applies only to matters communicated by one spouse to another in confidence. This is to say that where the other party to the privileged communication is not a litigant in the case. except in a civil case by one against the other. it is improper to object to their testimony upon mere subpoena.” The law does not say that one can not testify or be examined over the objection of another. ⇒ communication received in confidence Requisites for Marital Communications Rule: 1) Communication received a) b) c) From the spouse In confidence During the marriage 2) Without the consent of the spouse Note that the marital communication rule applies even after the marriage. It can be invoked even if neither spouse is a party to the action. (20a) The marital disqualification rule refers to all matters and applies only during the existence of the marriage. It can be oral or written. it is nevertheless a testimonial disqualification. However. if the privileged communication was within the surreptitious observation of a 3 rd person. when the purpose of their testimony as admitted by the offeror covers privileged matters) before one may properly object. then the communication can be invoked if either the communicator or communicatee called to testify. Though a relative disqualification. 22. Note that the wording of the law is to the effect that “(someone) may not be examined without the consent of (another). as opposed to the testimonial privilege of ascendants and descendants (Rule 130 §25).

single practitioners and small firms Invoked by spouse Exceptions: (1) civil case between 1 spouse against the other (2) criminal case between 1 spouse against the other/latter’s direct ascendants and descendants Requisites: 1) Valid marriage – a de facto marriage is NOT a valid one. NOT intention 3) Privilege is claimed with regard to a communication. without the consent of his client. clerk of the atty. but also in view of professional engagement (giving advise when client went to the office). and (2) in the course of professional employment Lawyer gives advice. or with a view to professional employment The privilege extends to the attorney's secretary. or with a view to. 2. or clerk to testify. Joinders can share info     By reason of communication. be examined as to any communication made by the client to him. now limited: (1) in view to professional employment. the consent of both the attorney and the client is necessary for the attorney's secretary. S22 Marriage During marriage Any matter Case of 1 spouse against the other (testify) S24 (a) Privilege During and after marriage Confidential Any case. NO distinction 1) Existence of an attorney-client relationship 2) Witness is an attorney 3) As to communication made by the client to him. stenographer.1.-Client relationship – NOT just the course of employment (existing relationship). nor can an attorney's secretary. or his advice given thereon in the course of. NOT legal 2) Confidential communication by nature. The attorney-client privilege does NOT apply if the attorney was sued by his client. NO advice “with a view to” – NO relationship yet and communication is relayed/disclosed. regardless of the consummation of the attorneyclient relation Requisites for attorney-client privilege: Page 29 of 88 . or clerk concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity. sec 22). The difference being consent of only the client is needed for the attorney to testify. client gives communication NO written agreement required Engagement letter is ideal Private practitioners. professional employment. intended to be for public consumption Person who overhears can testify – NO agency * How parties desire to treat the communication related (b) An attorney cannot. subject to waiver by both client and lawyer.g. stenographer. must be lawful Attorney-client relationship is important Any communication in the light of the relationship NOT just any communication. Atty. NOT yet privileged communication. concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity. oral or written e. sec. ⇒ communication made by the client to an attorney or advice given by the attorney     “in the course of” – a question of fact if merely exploratory – NO relationship yet.Info received in confidence (vs. except in civ/crim case by one against the other or involving their ascendants or descendants. without the consent of the client and his employer. husband’s letter to his wife read to a close friend by her – there’s agency husband’s letter to his wife read before an audience/in class – NO agency. or his advice given thereon 4) Communication was made in confidence 5) Communication was made in the course of. stenographer. or clerk be examined. However. need NOT be a case of 1 spouse. Marriage . Legally married. likewise applies to the steno.

4. and which would blacken the reputation of the patient. 3. After such request and delivery. previously or thereafter made. without the consent of the patient. ⇒ advice or treatment given by the doctor or information doctor may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity (necessary to enable him to act in that capacity + would blacken client’s reputation) 1) Civil case 2) Witness is a person authorized to practice medicine. the court on motion and notice may make an order requiring delivery on such terms as are just. — By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so ordered or by taking the deposition of the examiner.Involves a civil case (i. If the party examined refuses to deliver such report. surgery or obstetrics 3) As to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity 4) Information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity 5) Information would blacken the reputation of the patient The old rule used the word “character” (what the person actually is).this should be a civil case and the info received is in a professional relationship that if such is disclosed. Waiver of privilege. need consent of both lawyer and client (e. evidence) (c) A person authorized to practice medicine. includes patients who have no freedom of choice/insane/child/mentally immature . be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity. advice given at the time relationship exists.g. the party causing the examination to be made shall be entitled upon request to receive from the party examined a like report of any examination. surgery or obstetrics are covered by the privilege. — If requested by the party examined. The privilege does NOT cover expert opinion as long as the witness does NOT testify to matters specifically referring to the patient. medico-legal. 3.Requisites:  Attorney-client relationship  Communication made with a view to (courtship stage) or in the course of professional employment  Covers lawyer’s secretary. There is NO physician-patient privilege in criminal cases. T. Doctor-patient privilege . could blacken reputation Requisites:  physician-patient relationship created  civil case  advice. cf Rule 28. (4) Requisites for physician-client privilege: Page 30 of 88 . Sec. Note that the patient need not be the source of the information. regarding the testimony of every other person who has examined or may thereafter examine him in respect of the same mental or physical examination. Only persons authorized to practice medicine. treatment or information is acquired in a professional capacity Waivers of the physician-patient privilege. which information was necessary to enable him to act in capacity. facts of the case.Privilege applies if disclosure would blacken reputation of the patient. stenographer. and if a physician fails or refuses to make such a report the court may exclude his testimony if offered at the trial. of the same mental or physical condition. surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case.such would not blacken my reputation but SARS.g. The new rules use the word “reputation” (what people think of the person). clerk – information is received in such capacity. the party examined waives any privilege he may have in that action or any other involving the same controversy.B. nurses. if I visited MMC because of hypertension .e. (3a) Sec. 3 and 4 Sec. midwives and other people who attend to the ill can be called to testify as to any matter. Report of findings. it would blacken reputation of the patient e. Hence. the party causing the examination to be made shall deliver to him a copy of a detailed written report of the examining physician setting out his findings and conclusions. autopsy report). info acquired during relationship and there is a necessity to give advice .

then the “OIC Mayor” and a candidate for the position of Mayor in the Municipality (now City) of Makati. NOT covered . TB. discredit or contempt of a natural or juridical person. medical technicians? NO. questions his convictions for libel for writing and causing to be published in 1988 an open letter addressed to then President of the Republic of the Philippines Corazon C.“father of child” – pregnancy test: NOT covered    outside of doctor’s concern (e. In the course of the press conference.. the following elements must be shown to exist: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning Requisites for Priest-Penitent Privilege: 1) Witness is a minister or priest 2) As to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional character 3) In the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs 4.look at the discipline (whether enjoined by the church) .laboratory report – if with request from doctor. or of a vice or defect. Priest/minister and penitent – If Mr.g. Jejomar Binay (Binay). without the consent of the person making the confession. or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor. People.confidential nature of confession * Do NOT confuse with communication in libel. G. frigidity.relationship is created thru medical record. Obstetrics). another candidate for Mayor of Makati at that time. STD. 2004. the rule with respect to privileged  (d) A minister or priest cannot. impotency. NOT covered Requisites:  confession made or advice given in a professional character  in the course of discipline enjoined by the church of the minister/priest . only incidents but bound by ethical standards information necessary to attend to the patient would blacken the reputation of the patient (e. midwife. this is covered by the privilege. 1988.R.interns. Libel is defined under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code as “a public and malicious imputation of a crime.Mike Velarde and Pastor NOT covered. status. then President of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. On January 7. Brillante accused Binay of plotting the assassination of Syjuco. NOT covered . or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. be examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs. staff. Doctor of Medicine (Medicine. why it happened).civil case – reputation v. October 19. Brillante. if by patient’s initiative alone. or any act. priest/minister must be enjoined by the discipline to which they belong Page 31 of 88 . real or imaginary.” To be liable for libel. then a candidate for the position of Councilor in Makati. Nemesio Prudente (Prudente). ⇒ confession made to a minister/priest or advice given by such minister/priest in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by his church In Brillante v. psychiatrists included. Brillante also circulated among the journalists copies of an open letter to President Aquino which discussed in detail his charges against Binay. Ong shared his deepest darkest secrets to the priest who later gave him advise.public confession at Luneta – if NOT enjoined. omission. 118757 & 121571. Aquino discussing the alleged participation of Atty. He further accused Binay of terrorism. in an assassination plot against Augusto Syjuco (Syjuco). hilot. optometrists. intimidation and harassment of the Makati electorate. held a press conference at the Makati Sports Club which was attended by some 50 journalists. only Catholic religion enjoins you to confess . condition. nervous breakdown. Surgery. and Dr. dentists NOT included but bound by their ethical standard . the greater interest of justice. Bobby Brillante. Nos. why? Autopsy report used in a criminal case . it is covered. drug dependence and rehabilitation [in the Philippines]) Does privilege extend to nurses. iridology NOT included .g.criminal case NOT covered .

although containing defamatory imputations. even if true. Our laws on defamation provide for sanctions against unjustified and malicious injury to a person’s reputation and honor.another. People of the Philippines. Unfounded and malicious statements made by one against another in the course of an election campaign. However. without any comments or remarks. (c) identity of the person defamed. or speech delivered in said proceedings. to the persons who could furnish the protection asked for. As an exception to the rule. The plainest principles of natural right and sound public policy require that the utmost possible freedom should be accorded every citizen to complain to the supervising. Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code. and (d) existence of malice. and the answers are responsive or pertinent to the questions propounded to said witnesses. Manifestly. or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature. As was explained by the Court in U. This class includes statements made by members of Congress in the discharge of their functions as such. and 2. or of any act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions. 38 Phil. 519 (1969). to wit: 1. or social duty. conditionally or qualifiedly privileged communications are those which. The fact that a communication is privileged does not mean that it is not actionable. even if its author acted in bad faith. with immunity. A private communication made by a person to another in the performance of any legal. and may not with impunity be made the occasion for the venting of private spite. provided that said allegations or statements are relevant to the issues. However. moral. Upon the other hand. and allegations or statements made by the parties or their counsel in their pleadings or motions or during the hearing of judicial proceedings. 1988 press conference are defamatory and do not qualify as conditionally privileged communication. since the open letter and the statements uttered by Brillante during the January 7. of any judicial. that they must be made in good faith and that they must not be actuated by malice. Conditionally or qualifiedly privileged communications are those mentioned in. legislative. Although wider Page 32 of 88 . and the plaintiff has to prove the fact of malice in such case. then the author thereof cannot seek protection under the law. A fair and true report. malice is presumed and need not be proven separately from the existence of the defamatory statement. differentiated absolutely privileged communication from conditionally privileged communication in this manner: …A communication is said to be absolutely privileged when it is not actionable. Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code states. 253 (1918). removing and appointing authorities of the misconduct of the public officials with whom he comes into contact. 141 Phil. The purpose of affording protection to privileged communication is to permit all interested persons or citizens with grievances to freely communicate. the presumption of malice is done away with when the defamatory imputation qualifies as privileged communication. If it is established that the communication was made maliciously or to persons who could not furnish the protection sought. (b) publication of the charge.S. the privileged character of the communication simply does away with the presumption of malice. v. made in good faith. Privileged communication may either be absolutely privileged or conditionally privileged. and like considerations make it equally proper that members of a religious organization should enjoy equal freedom in bringing to the attention of the church authorities the misbehavior of their spiritual leaders or of fellow-members. or of any statement. It is subject to the limitation and restriction that such complaints must be made to a functionary having authority to redress the evils complained of. that every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious. as a general rule. to shield such privilege from abuse. or by reason of differences in political views are not per se constitutionally protected speech. as well as the answers given by witnesses in reply to questions propounded to them. report. in the course of said proceedings. the law itself requires at all times that such petitions or communications shall be made in good faith or with justifiable motives. if no good intention and justifiable motive is shown. Cañete. the right must be exercised in good faith. The Court in Orfanel v. would not be actionable unless made with malice or bad faith. official communications made by public officers in the performance of their duties.

as to communications made to him in official confidence.latitude is given to defamatory utterances against public officials in connection with or relevant to their performance of official duties. GR: All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines. a. government official. (21a) ⇒ Communications made to a public officer in confidence whose disclosure shall make the public interest suffer Requisites for the State Secrets rule: 1) Witness is a public officer 2) As to communications made to him in official confidence 3) The court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure 5. Exceptions: 1) Written permission of the depositor 2) Impeachment 3) Order of a competent court in cases of a) b) bribery dereliction of duty of public officials     (e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards. not the public officer. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines. Page 33 of 88 . (RA 8791) b. bureau or office. such defamatory utterances do not automatically fall within the ambit of constitutionally protected speech. or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials. when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. CANNOT disclose details. except upon written permission of the depositor. RA 1477 – GR: Publisher. editor. are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined. dereliction of a public officer. Public officer couldn’t be examined during and after his term on matters he received on official confidence/capacity. inquired or looked into by any person. or against public figures in relation to matters of public interest involving them. The court determines if fit to be disclosed or not. Other Privileged Communication 4) Where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation The privilege applies only to bank deposits. NOT intended to malign/mislead. Therefore. EXC: court order. If the utterances are false. refer to this case in relation to libel. NOT evidence. Requisites: 1) Public officer 2) Communications made to him in confidence 3) Court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure 6. EXC: Court. its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities. are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined. it was held that it was NOT privileged communication. its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities. the same may give rise to criminal and civil liability. government official. how much you have. inquired or looked into by any person. impeachment case (can be disclosed) RA 1405: Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits Sec. or in cases of impeachment.Secrecy of bank deposits. RA 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law) . duly accredited reporter CANNOT reveal source of their data or info. general intention was to reform Prescription: how interrupted? Filing with the fiscal Venue: place of publication/residence In this case. House/Committee of Congress finds such revelation is demanded by the security of the State. or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. malicious or unrelated to a public officer’s performance of his duties. As to other property being held by a bank. bureau or office. bank personnel may be examined upon order of a court. 2.  Privileged communication is a defense in libel because the nature of the information is privileged so it is protected.

d. This is to preserve family cohesion and maintain harmony of the family as a whole. other direct ascendants. 22 case. RA 8791. employee. a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State. corporations. 2. you can because you need to establish that the checks were drawn against insufficient funds. B. need to register to be protected  Patent applies to inventions  Copyright – author of literature. That with respect to bank deposits. RA 8791 (General Banking Act of 2000) General Banking Act of 2000. 55. disclose to any unauthorized person any information relative to the funds or properties in the custody of the bank belonging to private individuals. exception: to know who really owns it (dispute).1) Director. §55. Pretend I sued Mr.1 (b) Sec. officer. Ong because his checks bounced. disenfranchisement results)  to know who perpetrated the fraud e. magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher. 25. Qualified voter as to whom he voted for. This is NOT a prohibition to sue. or agent of any bank RA 53 as amended by RA 1477 Sec. otherwise. or any other entity 4) WithOUT a court order  This provision covers only property in the custody of the bank other than bank deposits. publication. No director. movie Disclosure of info during census? Census is when somebody goes to your house asking how many you are in the house. 55. Prohibited Transactions. columnist or duly accredited reporter 2) Of any newspaper. (20a) There is NO distinction between legitimate or illegitimate relations. Elements of the exclusion Page 34 of 88 . c. employee. corporations. officer. This should be invoked. editor. You have to be careful of those persons. editor or reporter unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State. the provisions of existing laws shall prevail. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE Sec. unless a tool of fraud (flying voter can be compelled because he is NOT qualified. Trade Secrets – formulas. upon a court order  Trademark is NOT a trade secret (Property Law). — No person may be compelled to testify against his parents. or agent of any bank shall – (b) Without order of a court of competent jurisdiction.1.P. Parental and filial privilege. editor. children or other direct descendants. or any other entity: Provided. columnist or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper. RA 1405 governs. Can prosecution call on/subpoena bank officer to testify on the details of his accounts? Yes. it is waived. but only that you are prevented from testifying on these matters. Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws. circulation magazine or periodical of general 2) Disclosure to unauthorized person 3) Information relative to the funds or properties in the custody of the bank belonging to private individuals. 1. the publisher. (why/why NOT you can testify  testimonial evidence) 3) CANNOT be compelled to reveal 4) As to the source of any news report or information appearing in said publication 5) Related in confidence Exception: Court. Requisites of newsman’s privilege: 1) Publisher. few more details. For bank deposits.

to testify against his parents and grandparents. Confession Admission Confession Page 35 of 88 .” However. This is not allowed while being examined in court. 215. It allows evidence of AODs prejudicial to the AODer. the witness is the holder of the privilege and has the power to invoke or waive the privilege. Any doubt as to such evidence refers to its weight or probative value and not to its admissibility. Admission vs. Person who material fact. The relative against whom he is testifying cannot invoke nor waive the privilege.This is a testimonial privilege. Partner’s/Agent’s admissions Co-conspirator’s statements Admission by Privies 4) Admissions by silence Admission vs. plea for lesser offense. In confessions. §26 is only a rule of admissibility. – may be judicial or extrajudicial – may be in and out of court (judicial and extrajudicial as well). admits secondary evidence. or Descendant-witness’s parent commits a crime against the descendant-witness’s other parent. declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. otherwise explain why commit the offense) Self-serving statement is one made out of court. There being no express prohibition. any evidence on AODs favorable to the AODer falls under the general rule that evidence not excluded by law or the Rules is admissible (Rule 128 § 3). (315a) Hence. However. Declaration against Interest Admission Declaration against interest party sits on stand. you should comply with requirements of custodial investigation. Primary evidence declared is unavailable or dead The general rule is evidence as to extra-judicial acts. Here. The ascendant-witness may testify voluntarily though. NOT a testimonial disqualification. These evidence can either be favorable or unfavorable to a party. Art. 26. §26 expressly allows evidence of AODs prejudicial to the AODer. b. (22) Admissions Admissions that are admissible against a party: 1) Admissions against interest 2) Compromises 3) Exceptions to Res Inter Alios Acta a. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS Sec. this must be construed in the light of Art. Self-serving statements = hearsay? Declaration against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule only applies if the declarant is deceased or unable to testify. omissions. The argument is “Rule 130 §26 only allows evidence of AODs prejudicial to the AODer. a descendant may be compelled to testify in a criminal case where i. an objection may be raised as to the admissibility of AODs favorable to the AODer on the grounds of that these are self-serving AODs. Admission of a party. except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by one parent against the other. found in §22-24 of Rule 130 [careful not to be confused in the multiple use of the word “privilege”]. ii. No descendant shall be compelled. c. 3. and declarations (AODs) of a party is admissible. Descendant-witness himself is the victim. on the stand confessed commission of the offense (withdrawal of previous plea of not guilty. 215 of the Family Code. Rule 130. Examples of judicial confessions: at arraignment. but does not prohibit evidence on AODs favorable to AODer. in a criminal case. — The act. Note that an ascendant may not be compelled to testify even if it is a crime by the descendant against the ascendant-witness. However. Self-defeating statements cannot be excluded by the hearsay rule because it is expressly admissible by the rules.

an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability. In criminal cases. In civil cases. (24a) Judicial Offer of compromise (sec 27) 1) Offer of a party cannot be taken against him 2) In a criminal case. S4 is a judicial admission 2 Kinds of Admission: Extra-judicial Before whom made 1. expenses is not to be taken as an admission of guilt or liability so as not to restrain people to help victims while they are suffering. Further note that an offer to pay for expenses other than those occasioned by an injury is inadmissible in civil cases. 1. offers to pay for other expenses fall under the general rule that an offer to compromise in civil cases is not Page 36 of 88 . BIR can compromise tax cases) 3) Plea of guilty later withdrawn 4) Unaccepted offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense 5) Offer to pay or payment of expenses occasioned by an injury [The offer is made only to avoid the consequences of litigation. and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. an offer of compromise is inadmissible regardless of the cause of action. Detained or under Custodial Investigation) * self-serving declarations are 2. — In civil cases. it is inadmissible under the following cases: 1) Quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) 2) Cases allowed by law to be compromised (e. Public officer charged with law trial.g. is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. A plea of guilty later withdrawn. Offer of compromise not admissible. ordinary declarant out of court and which person can testify as to the fact are favorable to his interests that he narrated (an Independent Relevant Statement) but NOT as to the narration’s truthfulness as this would be hearsay  merely to establish the fact that the statement was made/the tenor of such statement Confession: crime charged. Assistance in hospitalization. deposition. If the offer of compromise is offered as evidence on other matters (e. GR: statement of a material and relevant fact of a person cannot affect 3rd party R129. can be taken as admission of guilt. Ergo. guilt/liability Admission: material or relevant fact Sec. Compromise – amicable settlement. hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense. pleadings. offer of compromise by the accused. then the evidence is admissible. Ordinary person unsworn statements made by  NO need to comply. to avoid waste of time. It does not include offers to pay other expenses. amount of liability). NOT the full relief as there is a need to adjust.] Note that the inadmissible offer to pay refers only to expenses occasioned by an injury. An offer to pay or the payment of medical. 27. the general rule is an offer of compromise is admissible. enforcement/peace officer request for admission) (custodial investigation)  comply with the constitution.S26 is the general concept of an admission and it covers both judicial and extra-judicial. except quasi-offenses (reckless offenses) and crimes specifically stated by law cannot to be not subject to compromise. set an amount and negotiate on terms The offer of compromise in civil cases is not admissible only as evidence of liability. Court (made during pre-trial. except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised. an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. In criminal cases. Miranda doctrine and RA 7438 (An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested. However. an offer to pay for damages to property is admissible in criminal cases.g. Though the 3rd paragraph of §27 excludes in civil cases offers to pay only for expenses occasioned by an injury.

admissible. The exclusion in civil cases of offers to pay for expenses occasioned by an injury is merely a superfluity. Even if the exclusion was expressly applied to only criminal cases, an offer to pay for expenses occasioned by an injury is in the nature of an offer to compromise which is undoubtedly inadmissible in civil cases. The bottomline is: an offer to pay for any expense in civil cases is inadmissible. Criminal case NOT subject of compromise but you could file: 1) Affidavit of desistance 2) Motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute  dismissal with prejudice   affidavit of desistance with fiscal (DOJ) is “pabuya” and is NOT recorded with the fiscal if in court, could you compromise? NO as there is an information and the offended party is only a prosecuting witness offer from accused can be taken against him because the law presumes that persons would not compromise for a wrong deed/crime  affidavit of desistance with fiscal’s consent and then the fiscal examines its voluntariness and due execution what if there’s an affidavit of desistance but NO arraignment? Arraign so jeopardy would attach (with prejudice); Rules would NOT apply at the prosecutor’s level Plea Bargaining ≠ Compromise

Offer to pay/payment of medical, hospital, or other expenses – so as NOT to prevent people from giving assistance Sec. 28. Admission by third party. — The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided. (25a) The general rule is extra-judicial acts of a person other than a party are inadmissible against such party. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by the act, omission or declaration of another, except joint interest. Admission of a party – admissible However, the rules also provide for exceptions Admission of a third party – inadmissible except in the following instances: 1) 2) Partner’s admissions Agent’s admissions

3) Admissions by a joint debtor, joint owner or other person jointly interested with the party. 4) 5) Co-conspirator’s statements Admission by privies

Civil case: In practice, may be compromised before judgment becomes final and executory; consider satisfaction of judgment under R39 and relase/quitclaim if you could settle before there is a judgment Pending action: compromise? Better file a joint motion to dismiss (with or without prejudice); compromise is NOT disclosed to the court; closest R17 Dismissal and internal agreement – is there a need to refile? Yes, if without prejudice Thus, it is best to have a Compromise Agreement approved by the court because it becomes the judgment; if this is violated, move for execution. Exception: Criminal Negligence (Quasi-offenses) can be compromised; insurance adjuster

All the exceptions to res inter alios acta require that the relationship be proven by evidence independent of the act or declaration sought to be admitted. Sec. 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. — The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party. (26a) Requisites for admission by co-partner or agent: 1) Act or declaration of a partner, agent, or person jointly interested with the party 2) Within the scope of authority 3) Made during the existence of the partnership, agency or joint interest

Page 37 of 88

4) Partnership, agency, or joint interest is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration partner or agent – establish partnership by fact other than the admission of the partner such as the certificate of registration of partnership, document (agreement/contract stating such partnership [ex. Bank loan]), or testimony (as to its dealings); partner acting within scope of authority; and during the existence of the relationship. Take note of those requisites as they more or less apply to the rest, save for certain words. Agency – agency must be established by facts other than the admission. How constituted? Through a GPA (admi), specific/ownership (SPA). Show authority. Act was made during the existence of the agent-principal relationship. Same as in joint debtor, interest, owner (they have commonality of interest in all) Agent – unity of interest because he affirms and confirms principal’s acts; during agency’s existence and within the scope of his authority (otherwise, ultra vires; subject to ratification subsequent to the act) Sec. 30. Admission by conspirator. — The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration. (27) This is an extra-judicial admission. Requisites for co-conspirator’s statements: 1) Act or declaration of a conspirator 2) Relating to the conspiracy 3) Made during its existence 4) The conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration. Conspiracy is NOT a state of mind; there’s an overt act; there’s unity of purpose/object and acts in furtherance of the common object GR: NOT punishable Exc: causes provided by law (treason, sedition) R119 S17 Discharge of the accused to be a state witness; 5 requisites: 1) Absolute necessity for the testimony

2) NO other direct evidence available 3) Testimony can be substantially corroborated in its material points 4) Accused does NOT appear to be the most guilty 5) Accused has NOT at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude If you ask “Did you admit an extra-judicial confession made?” at the witness stand – NOT admissible because what is sought is to establish conspiracy itself; conspiracy should be established by acts in its furtherance  if in court, prohibition does NOT apply; judicial admission of conspiracy is admissible Co-conspirators – conspiracy established by facts other than the admission; common object; testify on matters taken during the conspiracy. Ex. Mr. Ong was with me when I robbed the bank – not allowed. Our relationship should as co-conspirators be established by others/other circumstances. Like by persons who can testify on certain circumstances: Mr. Ong purchased a gun from Mr. Sandoval’s gun shop – Mr. Sandoval can testify that at a certain point Mr. Ong bought a gun. Ms. Aquitania can testify against Mr. Ong and myself that she went to my condo unit at this particular time of the day. Maid can testify she heard exchange of info bet us. What is that Common object? Crime committed. Let’s say we robbed Equitable Bank Paseo de Roxas. Can I testify on the robbery that we made on Equitable Ayala Avenue two months ago? Under this provision, no because it is not part of common object but yes, under section 34: similar acts as evidence to establish we have scheme, knowledge, intent, pattern. A previous act cannot be presented to convict them of a different offense, such a robbery of Equitable Paseo. Evidence can be presented to establish we have scheme, knowledge, intent, or pattern, but not for purposes of convicting us of a crime for which we are charged for this particular time (Equitable Ayala). Some of the circumstances surrounding the conspiracy may include buying, disposing of the fruit of the crime, and our meetings. Sec. 31. Admission by privies. — Where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former. (28) Requisites for admission by privies: 1) Party derives title to property from another

Page 38 of 88

2) Act, declaration, or omission of the transferor 3) Made while holding the title 4) In relation to the property There is successional interest. e.g. seller told buyer, while holding title, that usufruct exists [act, declaration or omission affects the buyer so buyer presents seller’s admissions] This is a situation where Mr. Ong derived title from me. Thus, my acts/declarations have significance only as to the title as to the time I am holding the property, not after because at that moment, I was still in possession of the property and has title over it. After I disposed of the property, my declarations can no longer affect the said property. Exceptions: 1) Declaration made in the presence of the transferee and he acquiesce to the statement 2) Continuing conspiracy to defraud as between the vendor and the vendee 3) Prima facie case of fraud established such that the property remains to be with the possession of the seller or the transferor even after the sale was effected Sec. 32. Admission by silence. — An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him. (23a) Requisites for admission by silence: 1) Act or declaration is made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party 2) Party does or says nothing 3) Act or declaration naturally calls for action or comment if not true 4) Such action or comment is proper and possible on the part of the party.  action or comment “when proper”  presence within hearing/observation  prejudicial to recipient Your character can be questioned and reputation doubted/affected. e.g. big conference room and X used a microphone Loose application: Erap failed to comment/act as to those statements made during the hype of the impeachment – NOT in his presence Admission by silence is another rule which is not properly applied. It is very important to take note that in admission by silence that a statement was made in your presence or within your hearing and understanding such that you understand the statement or declaration. And while hearing the statement or declaration, it naturally calls for a comment or answer if not true. But you never gave a comment. In addition, take note that your giving a comment or answer if not true is under the condition that a comment is proper under the circumstances. Let’s say, we are in this auditorium and I made a statement as against one of your classmates. Considering of course, as a matter of respect to the professor, even if it was a statement against that person, it might not be proper for him to react at the very moment in the presence of the classmates. So it does not necessarily mean that you have to comment immediately if the same is not true. The circumstances under which such statement had been made should be that it is proper for you under the circumstances to make a comment or an answer. And because of the silence, there is some inference as to the fact being referred to. It is that silence that leads to some inference. Sec. 33. Confession. — The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him. (29a) Confession is an admission of guilt. This rule is applicable only in criminal cases. A confession need not be in writing in order to be admissible in evidence. If it is in writing, it is NOT required to be under oath. However, if it is not in writing, the prosecution may find difficulty in proving it. 2 Kinds of Confession: Judicial Before whom made Extra-judicial

Page 39 of 88

1. Court – made during arraignment, trial e.g. change of plea during questioning  terminate cross examination unless there shall be a need for proving mitigating circumstance  clerk reads information; judge renders sentence

1. Private Individual – NO need to comply; Independent Relevant Evidence

 due process (you can only be convicted of offense charged or that necessarily included therein)  evidence admissible to establish modus operandi but this is only to show manner of committing offense (pattern) and NOT to convict This is available to both the accused and prosecution. [“did/did NOT do”]

2. Police/Public Officer – comply with the requirements (custodial investigation) e.g. accused convicted of rape in court under the “sweetheart theory” – NOT admission by silence, but there is failure to refute 4. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE Sec. 34. Similar acts as evidence. — Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge; identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like. (48a) GR: Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time. Exceptions: It may be received to prove a specific 1) intent 2) knowledge 3) identity 4) plan 5) system 6) scheme 7) habit 8) custom or 9) usage, and 10) the like.

e.g. factory worker’s time card to show that it was impossible for him to be at the crime scene Similar Acts as Evidence. Just take note that the fact that you did or did not do a thing or a particular act cannot be proven by the fact that you did or did not do another thing at some other time. Let’s say a robbery was committed in Equitable-Paseo de Roxas. It does not necessarily mean that in the constitution of the said robbery, you can present the robbery committed in Ayala although to establish particular intent or knowledge because there is some sort of modus operandi. Take note that the law says that although it would not be used to establish the existence of the thing or a fact, it would be used to establish specific intent, knowledge, scheme or plan. Other examples. Let’s say that my caha de jero was opened and previously it was established that Mr. Ong was trying to open my vault. Therefore it will establish some knowledge that he knows the combination of the vault. Another example is the Rizal Day Bombing. There were items or fragment taken at the scene of the crime. In the QC house of Mr. Ong, it was discovered that he was keeping fragments or bombs of similar nature. It would show some intent on his part. Another example is I’m uttering or using a counterfeit P200 bill. I am being charged with using a counterfeit bill. The fact that I have been uttering that to Fornier, Aquitania or Sandoval at a previous time may not be enough to convict me on my uttering to Ong but those particular acts could be established to show that there is a pattern as to how I intend to commit such _______. Similar acts are used as some sort of a guide to establish intent, knowledge, negligence, plan or scheme. Sec. 35. Unaccepted offer. — An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or property. (49a) This involves personal property. Tender – NO delay/violation e.g. R67 tender of just compensation Consign!

Page 40 of 88

So if A is the dying man. So if the dying person eventually survives. numbness. Page 41 of 88 . So he should be able to perceive and perceiving. Both declarant and recipient must be competent to testify. which are derived from his own perception. If the same was rejected what is the effect? The effect is production or tender of money. he can testify on res gestae.e.e. victim’s condition (breathing. cut at the throat – bloodied. felt the happening of event. hearsay excluded. as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. recipient may testify on res gestae. Note also that the declaration should be limited to the facts and circumstances regarding the death of the person. an admission.g. TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE Sec. B was the recipient of info. could make known his perception to whom? To another. movement)] e. But the fact is he’s a dying man so he only related info to B but B should also be competent to what? On the fact that he perceived the declaration of A and that he could make this perception known in court. seriousness of the wound. — A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge. made under the consciousness of an impending death. B testified. heard. property or instrument. Let’s say that S is in the brink of All such exceptions are NOT absolute. Let’s analyze. personal knowledge – experienced. So both of them should be competent. Dying declaration. perceiving and perceiving can make known perception to another 3. This applies to both civil (e. note 3 requirements: 1. (30a) Personal knowledge is derived from witness’ perception. personal knowledge 6. (31a) Requisites for admissibility of a dying declaration: 1) 2) 3) 4) Declaration of a dying person Made under the consciousness of an impending death Death is the subject of inquiry As evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death [i. 3 months to live) Dying declaration – person who is the recipient of declaration will testify. still subject to cross examination. 36.g. If you are to put somebody on the witness stand. nature of the wound. If declarant does not die. There are some who say that only dying man must be competent. Independent Relevant Statement – in an sense. except as otherwise provided in these rules. 20) 2. cannot speak so it is impossible! (object and physical evidence) This is a question of fact and may be refuted thru cross examination. If A survives. saw. Who should be competent? Both dying man and recipient must be competent. may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge. — The declaration of a dying person. only testimonies so they may NOT be credible.What is an accepted offer? That there is an offer in writing to pay money or delivery of written instrument or specific thing. 37. talking. Dying man who knew of facts and circumstances surrounding his death should have actually perceived and knew who assaulted or killed him. thing or circumstance. competent (sec. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE Exceptions to the hearsay rule: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) Waiver Independently relevant evidence Dying declaration Declaration against interest Act or declaration about pedigree Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree Common reputation Part of the res gestae Verbal acts Entries in the course of business Entries in official records Commercial lists and the like Learned treatises Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding Sec. Recipient testifies. that is. lingering illness (i. NOT possible if unconscious. A could testify and this would fall under res gestae. cold body. R39 S47 (a) probate of a will/granting of letters of administration only prima facie evidence of the death of the testator/intestate) and criminal cases. 5. perceived thru senses – he actually witnessed it within the sphere of his perception.

38. 3. may be received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons. Circumstances. P vs. But as to the truth or falsity of WON I indeed robbed a bank is a matter that has to be established by independent evidence. time. or unable to testify. Independent Relevant Statement – NOT fall under exception but still allowed if presented in court. Note the following cases: P vs Bartolo (Sept. It applies to any case wherein the declarant’s death is the subject of inquiry. Pertaining to circumstances in connection to fact in issue Example: I talked to F and told him that I robbed a bank. take care of distribution of his property. but he wrote something. (32a) Requirements for hearsay testimony on declaration against interest: 1) Declaration made by a person deceased. the act. he would have been competent to testify in court as there is no evidence to the contrary. S unable to prepare his will so told Ong to “take care of his family. An unsigned dying declaration may be used as a memorandum by the witness who took it down. let us say I am the dying man and Mr. if. name of attacker. Is this limited to criminal cases for homicide. But the fact of my sharing the info. 2003) – reiterates the requirement that had the victim survived. based on what I am declaring and narrating he was making and preparing a memorandum in which case that memorandum could be used as his memory aid if he sits on the witness stand in the nature of present recollection revival. Can F testify as to fact that I narrated to him my having robbed a bank? YES. 27. — The declaration made by a person deceased. “I know that I’m dying” or “Mamamatay na ako”) NO! Circumstances that will lead to such conclusion that he is dying would be enough and the declaration made in connection thereto will or can be used as a dying declaration.” NOT dying declaration. Norodin – a dying declaration made in the form of answers to questions proved by the person to whom the declaration is made is admissible in court and may be proved by the testimony of the witness who heard the same or to whom it was made. 31 Sec. or Page 42 of 88 .death. P vs. 2002) – a dying declaration may be oral or written. that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true 4) As evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons cf Rule 130 Sec. if the fact is asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant's own interest. because the contents of which are the subject of the inquiry. Declaration against interest. 31. However. 2 Kinds: a. the fact of my ____ declaration to F would be an independent relevant statement. that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true. Ong was taking a memorandum of my statement. It is not important that he has to use the exact words of the decedent. place. counsel should establish the preliminary facts and circumstances. Pertaining to fact in issue b. murder or parricide? P vs Norodin says yes but codal provision does not limit this to criminal cases. Another thing to note is that before you present the dying declaration. It is enough that the substance thereof was given. the witness who heard it may testify thereto w/o the necessity of reproducing the word of the decedent if he is able to give the substance thereof. Do you need to present the original? Yes. against the interest of the declarant. In oral. Admission by privies. This is practically laying the basis for the presentation of a dying declaration. Sec. Dying declaration by the dying man himself… let us say that he can no longer speak. (in relation to R 132) Does it mean that a person would have to use words to the effect that he knew he was dying? (eg. – Where one derives title to property from another. situation. declaration. or unable to testify 2) Against the interest of the declarant (contrary/prejudicial) 3) Fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant's own interest. Boller (Apr.

An admission is not necessarily a declaration against interest but a declaration against interest is always against one’s interest. the person who testifies is the person making such an admission. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. marriage. it could be used even as against 3rd persons. So it is the RECIPIENT who would testify as to such declaration. — The act or declaration of a person deceased. Self-serving declaration is made out-of-court and is generally not admissible. In admission. therefore. could be considered by the court. This is secondary evidence. (211) Admission by privies One of 3 exceptions to res inter alios acta Evidence against the successor in interest of the admitter Admitter need not be dead or unable to testify Relates to title to property Admission need not be against the admitter’s interest Declaration against interest Exception to hearsay Evidence against even the declarant. birth. The word "pedigree" includes relationship. The person being presented to narrate a declaration of a dying man or to narrate the declaration of person who admitted an interest against himself could be subjected to cross-examination. family genealogy. NOT the person who made such declaration against interest. While in Page 43 of 88 . These exceptions to the hearsay rule are not absolute and they could be contested and objected to. This is against human nature. there’s a certain degree of reliability The primary evidence is the witness who testifies. To make it admissible is to promote perjury and fraud. while holding the title. death. his successor in interest. and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. another person or a recipient will have to testify. Declaration against Interest. Admissions used only against admitter and those who have legal interest arising therefrom. his declaration may be used to impeach him under R132 S13. Self-serving declaration vs. or 3rd persons Declarant is dead or unable to testify Relates to any interest Declaration must be against the interest of the declarant declaration against interest the person is dead or unable to testify and it is admissible in its entirety. Note 3    things on declaration against interest: Declarant is dead or unable to testify Declaration must on a fact cognizable by the declarant No motive to falsify. It is just that the person who made such declaration against interest is either dead or unable to testify. Anything that was stated that is in connection with the declaration against interest is likewise admissible. or unable to testify 2) In respect to the pedigree of another person 3) Related to him by birth or marriage 4) Where it occurred before the controversy 5) Relationship between the 2 persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. it is a primary evidence. If it is established later on that there is a motive to falsify. the dates when and the places where these fast occurred. or extrajudicial under S32 – admission by silence) Admission vs. therefore. Declaration against Interest. In a declaration against interest. in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage. Who would testify? Another person. including the points not against interest. in relation to the property. Act or declaration about pedigree. (33a) Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to pedigree: 1) Act or declaration of a person deceased. (inconsistent with his interest) Admissions may be express or implied (judicial under R8 S11 wherein allegations NOT specifically denied are deemed admitted. Declaration against Interest. unlike an admission which is primary – because declarant is dead or unable to testify. In declaration against interest. and the names of the relatives. the person who made the declaration is deceased or unable to testify. the declaration against interest cannot be admitted. is evidence against the former. Such cross-examination may touch on these matters: What was your condition at the time you met the person? Was he able to speak or could he hardly speak? How did he know that he was dying? Was he surely dying at that point in time? Sec. 39. But if declarant is still alive. or unable to testify.omission of the latter. may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy.

NO need to identify the source. This should be before controversy. in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. Sec. the relationship would be questionable/spurious. — The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy. prior to the controversy (NO Page 44 of 88 . to the person whose pedigree is in issue and the relationship does not need to be legitimate because the law makes no distinction Declarant’s relationship to the family to which he claims to be related to should be legitimate in character Note:      Act or declaration about pedigree. otherwise. public instrument. death and dates and places where these facts occurred. which may be inaccurate. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts. birth. genealogy. 40. But what is to be established need NOT be genuine (declarant’s relationship with X). is in question Recipient testifies Witness need not be a relative Declarant should be related.g. either by consanguinity or affinity. Declarant relays information to Witness relating to a Person whose pedigree is in question – involves 3 persons. includes written NO need to establish relationship. family tree). not the declarant. by birth or marriage. there is a certain level of indifference Witness who is a family member testifies so it is reliable. It is declarant’s claimed family which should be genuine because otherwise. The declarant’s relationship to his family must be legitimate. D as pedigree’s source is in a sense. family. either by consanguinity or affinity Reputation is others’ perception of who you are. may be received as evidence of pedigree."Pedigree" includes: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) relationship family genealogy birth marriage death dates when and the places where these facts occurred names of the relatives facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. and NOT is relationship to X (person whose pedigree is in question). It includes: relationship.e. may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family. tradition: reunions. Witness should be competent on his own to testify on the relationship. declarant is related birth/marriage to the person whose pedigree is in question -  family genealogy (family history. engravings on rings. confirmation). It is reliable in family reputation. (i. it may not be reliable as there may be reason to falsify. making an admission Pedigree is the history of family descent which is transmitted from a generation to another generation by oral or written declaration and by tradition. (34a) Requisites for admissibility of hearsay reputation or tradition regarding pedigree: evidence as to family 1) Reputation or tradition existing in a family 2) Previous to the controversy 3) In respect to the pedigree of any one of its members 4) Witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family. marriage. family history is created why not include non-family members? Filipinos are clannish. passed on from generation to generation. NOT limited to oral. private document)  only if no other superior evidence available Person is dead or unable to testify Pedigree of another person. family portraits and the like. by - relationship cannot be established by other evidence (birth certificate. oral transmission of information. witness is merely a recipient e.

there’s room to fabricate. there is not even a declarant to speak of. A member of the same family testifies because only members of the same family would know the acts or declarations of their ancestors although they cannot really pinpoint as to who among their ancestors made such acts or declaration. no bias and interest (i. facts of public or general interest more than 30 years old. weaving. Reputation is only as against one’s ancestors who because of declarations and statements that has been generation to generation. the declarant must be dead or unable to testify. dress)   There should be a controversy with respect to the pedigree of a member of the family so what is in issue here is the pedigree of a member of the family. far back to see the line and becomes relevant in cases of succession to the throne. only for purposes of testimony . What is reputation? It is how other people perceive us to be. as defined. weapons. may be given in evidence. reputation: blacksheep. Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation. NOT including 5 years under the Family Code as to the absence of legal impediment to marry  NO need to have a marriage license NO declarant Moral character – social norms. 1945 Philippine history as to independence is subject to judicial notice and NOT common reputation e. or respecting marriage or moral character.     Student activities went to the mountains because they were disgruntled.” That is Chances are I might not be telling the truth. NOT accurate Character – person himself. Examples: “yung lolo heneral ‘yan dito”. If I’m mad at O. there’s already bias and interest. Reputation or tradition of the person concerned existed before the controversy so there’s no room to fabricate. is declaration and statements passed down from generation to generation coming from deceased relatives though it cannot be identified as to who they tell. b. only family members are placed in the bible but now. or marriage or moral character Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation. spontaneous declaration (i. Legal marriage NOT required.NOT conclusive. family portraits and the like. trustworthy because the public is presumed to be conversant Page 45 of 88 . playboy. but 1st Quarter Storm is history! Farmers joined Hukbalahap Fact: Josons of Nueva Ecija (lolo was a guerilla) Culture of the Tausugs (cooking. Reputation. In family reputation or tradition. 41. breadwinner) NO declarant. and this could be regarded as family history. not so much in the Philippines. In family tradition. witness received (passed on from one generation to another) Family pictures Family Bibles – common in Royalties who have family historians. c. Do we have here a recipient of a declaration or an act? NO. this is no longer true. may be received as evidence of pedigree. just a witness who was aware of an exiting family reputation or tradition. reliable because it is difficult to obtain evidence. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree.e. (35) Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to Common reputation: 1) Common reputation 2) Existing previous to the controversy 3) Respecting either a. Common reputation. respecting facts of public or general interest more than thirty years old.) Sec. engravings on rings.g. It is how the community perceives us to be. Note:  only we know passed on from ko gobernador ‘yon.reason/motive to falsify).e. now unreliable Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts. only a perception NO requirement of 30 years. NO document. — Common reputation existing previous to the controversy. “’yung lolo ko provincial auditor family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. What is the reason for this? Necessity and trustworthiness.

common knowledge of more than 30 years fall under common reputation. Verbal acts – What is the evidence here? It is the statements accompanying an equivocal act. Part of res gestae. What amplified the equivocal act? The statement amplifies or gives significance Sec. it’s famous as “rumor. b. no room to falsify/fabricate. What is the trustworthiness of this evidence? Most of the time. Because what is to be testified on here is the statement which was initiated or generated by that startling occurrence. In these cases. may be received as part of the res gestae. If it’s unequivocal. So. It will also include marriage and related facts and individual moral character. b. it has reached a certain level of reliability. 42. S reacted. Who will testify then? If I threw this away. the public is conversant of what the true facts are. Common Reputation. While a startling occurrence is taking place or Immediately prior or Immediately subsequent thereto 2) With respect to the circumstances thereof Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to verbal acts: 1) Statements accompanying an equivocal act 2) Material to the issue 3) Giving it a legal significance 2 Kinds of Res Gestae: a.o o Note: Spontaneous information From class of persons within that circle equivocal act material to the issue. If there’s already a gap. — Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof. consider or elaborate certain facts. a space for you to think. Documents existing for more than 30 years which have been unblemished by alterations and beyond suspicion and is in possession of the person who should be in custody of the same are called ancient documents.” “chismis. Let’s say A was not looking at me and she heard ________. it’s not clear. and giving it a legal significance. It is not that S and O saw me threw the chair. Who will testify? Is it O who saw me throw this in the middle of the room? If O testifies. also.” But because it has been existing for more than 30 years. will she testify on the immediate reaction of S? YES. S shouted _______.” “haka-haka. I could give as many meanings and interpretation. may be given in evidence as part of res gestae. Example: I throw this is the middle of the room. c. statements accompanying an Page 46 of 88 . the law requires more than 30 years so that it will have a certain level of reliability. It is the statement which was the reaction to that startling occurrence. Note that if it’s fact of public or common knowledge. persons who made declaration is identifiable: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Dying declaration with declarant Declaration against interest with declarant Pedigree with declarant Family Reputation with NO declarant Common Reputation with NO declarant Res gestae with declarant 1) Statements made by a person either a. The reason for this is that it is very difficult to obtain evidence. If you see me with this hand. immediately prior or subsequent thereto – reason: spontaneous. Statements made from a startling occurrence while it is taking place. Otherwise. then there’s room to fabricate. it does not fall under this. That’s res gestae. What are those which will fall under common reputation? Public or general interest for more than 30 years. he’ll testify on his personal knowledge NOT res gestae. That’s why it’s equivocal. Facts. That’s an immediate and spontaneous reaction. (36a) Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to res gestae  Facts must be of public or general interest for more than 30 years  Common reputation must be ancient  Reputation has been formed among persons who have some sort of information and could intelligently make an opinion of such information  Common reputation exists previous to the controversy – the law understands that there’s room to fabricate so common reputation should have existed prior to the controversy.

or near the time of transactions to which they refer. a relevant matter. Y saw killing. isn’t that a matter of personal knowledge of O? It is but it falls under res gestae. by a person deceased. reliable because NO time to concoct and NO opportunity to fabricate       While taking place Immediately prior Subsequent (lapse of time depends on the circumstances) You do NOT testify on the occurrence but on statements heard X – startling occurrence. That is an equivocal act of me building a fence. only in support. For now. a question of fact (how he narrated: before. If O heard you say that you’re building a fence. But if it’s accompanied by a statement: “I’m building this fence because I purchased this from F. what’s important is that it is the statement which gives legal significance to the equivocal act. it is the act which gives it legal significance e. but heard (res gestae)  If sees and hears (personal knowledge) Scenarios: a) X and Y only – Y heard b) X killed. It is the statement that gives significance to the equivocal act that has to be submitted in court. statement need not be so close to the event. Let’s say you see me building a fence around my house. or near the time of the transactions to which they refer 2) By a person deceased.g. (37a) Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to Entries in the course of business: 1) Entries made at. symbolic act of thumbs down made by A and B heard A’s statement while C saw such act but did not hear the statement  B can testify on personal knowledge as to what he heard. W/o the statement. This will give you a number of meanings: that I am a tenant or owner or legitimate successor. C can testify on res gestae as to the equivocal act  B’s testimony amplifies  act is testified on by another individual 2) Equivocal act  Given legal significance by statements which are testified on  e.to the equivocal act. who was in a position to know the facts therein stated. Y – witness (personal knowledge). it’s only an act. this equivocal act is useless. 43. O heard a statement which amplifies my act but as to A. if Y did not see. It’s also possible that A saw me build the fence and O heard me say the reason why I built the fence. NO hard and fast rule in terms of time. — Entries made at. These matters are concerns when you’re handling actual trial. may be received as prima facie evidence. Z – X relayed it to him when X arrived home (res gestae) Independent Relevant Evidence need arise from a startling occurrence Witness testifies on the statement which is NOT confined to those made by X.g. Res gestae is NOT sufficient to convict. The equivocal act is coupled with a statement. the person who experienced the startling occurrence Subject to judge’s discretion if cumulative evidence Spontaneous o o o 1) Person who heard the statement which is the result of startling occurrence testifies  testified on by another individual. or unable to testify 3) Who was in a position to know the facts therein stated 2) Res Gestae: Types 1) Startling occurrence  Triggers the statements made as a reaction Page 47 of 88 . The 1st kind of res gestae refers to spontaneity while the 2nd kind refers to contemporaneous statements with the act. or unable to testify. Z “naku patay!”  Y has personal knowledge. res gestae Sec.” Is that clear? YES. clenched fist  Person who sees act and does not hear testifies (personal knowledge)  If he did not see. Entries in the course of business. if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. during or after) Spontaneous statements contemporaneous with an equivocal act  statement is material to the issue.

the person making the entry must be deceased or unable to testify. the entries. Both official and business records are only prima facie evidence. Sec. Who will testify then? Another person who has knowledge of how the entries were made NOT the person who made entries. b. R130 S4 (original: documentary)  NO question as to who made the entry. the person making the entry need not be deceased or unable to testify (Rule 130. I must be an accountant or I may not be an accountant but because of a duty mandated upon my by my employer. made “at/near the time of the transaction” so reliable. the document cannot speak for itself. Because these are made at or near the time of transaction. are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. (38) Page 48 of 88 . or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. Is the person who made such entries available to testify? NO. 44. In official records. the person making the entry must be deceased or unable to testify. The entrant must either be dead or unable to testify. That’s why those who falsify entries appearing in these documents would normally falsify/tamper/alter as they follow the regular course of business because there’s such presumption. Entries in official records. But could it be refuted? Could it be established that it is not accurate? YES. or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law    Certified true copy suffices Another person who did not prepare the document testifies But public officer may be ordered to testify upon order of court Note that in official records. 44). If the person making the entry is still alive. If those are financial entries. the data. use the record to refresh his memory. Entries: Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to Entries in official records: 1) Made in the performance of his duty 2) By either a. 16) We first heard of this in best evidence. Sec. must be relevant. a public officer of the Philippines. not excluded and authenticated Prima facie evidence: made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business Hearsay because the person in a position to know is deceased or unable to testify Reason: necessity and trustworthiness Who testifies? Competent witness who may be the supervisor or his subordinate Still needs authentication R130 S19 (classes of documents) Sec. but he must be a public officer or a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. then it will fall under this exception. The entrant must have been in the position to know the facts. The entries must be made in professional capacity or in the performance of a duty. the presumption is there’s no room to fabricate because these were made at the regular course of business. I have to make an entry in the regular course of business. — Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines.4) If such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty Note that in business records. (Rule 132. In business records. the person making the entry need not be deceased or unable to testify. Both official and business records are only prima facie evidence. There are two types here: 1) Entries made by public officer in the performance of his duty 2) Entries made by a public officer in the performance of his duty as enjoined by law Note:    Made by a public officer or a person enjoined by law In the performance of his duty or a duty enjoined by law Public officer or the person enjoined by law has sufficient knowledge of the facts acquired by him personally or through his official information       In issue.

Learned treatises. Why? Its really hearsay. or witness expert in the subject testifies Generally used and relied upon by them therein e.    Witness did not prepare Used and relied upon by persons in such occupation Member of the occupation testifies DECLARATIONS:  Dying declaration  Declaration against interest  Pedigree  Res gestae REPUTATIONS:  Family Reputation  Common Reputation ENTRIES:  Regular course of business  Entries of pubic officer Sec. Published for use occupation and by persons engaged in that list of lawyers or the lex mundi listing of firms or organization Thus. register. or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice. 46. If it is used but not generally relied upon by the persons engaged in that occupation then it is useless. or other published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein. What we want to prove is the fact or the matter stated in that publication or the list and for that compilation or publication to be reliable. periodical. court takes judicial notice. register or other published compilation. law. b. science. It is only because it is used by persons engaged in that occupation and relied upon that is why it falls under the exception.g. the use and reliance of the compilation is important and that which makes it an exception on the hearsay rule. — A published treatise. science or art 3) Either a. — Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list. (39) Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to Commercial lists 1) Statements of matters of interest 2) To persons engaged in an occupation 3) Contained in a list. e. law. register. Commercial lists and the like. 45. periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. there are two important requirements: usage and reliance. periodical. b. there are persons who are engaged in an occupation and that there is a list. It must be a compilation which has attained certain level of reliability. or other published compilation 4) As tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated 5) Compilation is a. periodical or pamphlet 2) On a subject of history.g. NEDA reports. part of the newspaper which reports the prices of shares In commercial lists. that the writer of the statement in the treatise. (40a) Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to Learned treatises (used to prove unwritten foreign law) 1) Published treatise. periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history.When did we first hear this? Also in best evidence wherein you could submit a certified true copy of private documents in the custody of a public officer or a public office Sec. What does the published compilation tend to establish? Truth as to a relevant matter stated in the publication. or a witness expert in the subject testifies. Page 49 of 88 . you don’t know who prepared it and how they collated the matter of information.

and. LRA    Courts can take judicial notice of treatise of lawyers because these are secondary sources Authors would not testify and general recognition of authors as experts makes it reliable How presented? Can be sourced out (judicial notice) or an expert in the field of the author testifies If it is a written law that is sought to be proven.4) Writer of the statement in the treatise. If it is discretionary. or by his deputy. by an expert. E. Once it is established. what are the modes by which the fact appearing on the treaties: 1. which you want the court to take judicial notice of. law. of writers of treatises acknowledged as experts: Corpus juris. he will in court) …so what will be presented to prove a matter the treaties would be…. This provision is useful to prove an unwritten law. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country. There should be an expert in the same subject. consul. – The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19. Corpus juris secundum. whether of the Philippines. and authenticated by the seal of his office. or 2) copy a. Again. 19.. Is it by ordinary witness? No. periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject What are treaties? These are dissertations. when admissible for any purpose. All he needs to establish is that the person is an expert. executive orders. or by his deputy. there are certain instances when an official copy of the written official act is required to be presented. attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record. the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation. and if the record is not kept in the Philippines i. 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. However. vice consul. of written official acts: Judicial decisions. accompanied with a certificate that such officer has the custody made by    a secretary of the embassy or legation consul general. the matter stated in the treaties will be admissible. or consular agent or by any Philippine officer in the foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept By judicial notice – you don’t really need to do anything… if it is mandatory of course. the judge will take mandatory judicial notice. prepared the never appear appearing on you establish (a) The written official acts.g. learned treatises on unwritten law which the court has taken judicial notice: Manresa. Sec. this is hearsay! Why? There is a person who material… the person will appear in court… (no. Public documents are: ii. xxx E. or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority. – For the purpose of their presentation in evidence.g. make it by an expert. But if its other matters. you have to call the court’s attention after notice and hearing of such matter. and accompanied. 24 Sec. (25 a) Ways to prove written foreign official acts 1) official publication. Sanchez-Roman. Classes of documents. and public officers. documents are either public or private. it would depend upon his discretion.g. if the record is not kept in the Philippines. 19 Sec. vice consul. consul. official bodies and tribunals. science and the arts [limited fields]. e. cf Rule 132. cf Rule 132. Our courts take judicial notice of local laws. 24. papers or scholarly articles… prepared by persons in the field of history. he will testify as to the expertise of the person who prepared the material. may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record. or of a foreign country. consul general. b. Will he testify on the contents of the treaty? No. authenticated by the seal of his office Page 50 of 88 . 2. with a certificate that such officer has the custody. Proof of official record. Sec. If you cannot make it by judicial notice.

Experts testify in either of 2 ways: a) Within his personal knowledge  Identify his own report or findings b) NOT within his personal knowledge  Facts are presented to him and he is to make an opinion or assessment (hypothetically) Sec. If there was no cross examination. General rule. (43a) Page 51 of 88 . knowledge. But note that ejectment cases fall on summary procedure. — The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge. The cases involve the same fact and subject matter. 47. — The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify. experience or training which he shown to posses.    Relate with R23 S5 Stricter under this rule because there is a need for an opportunity to cross-examine. handwriting. OPINION RULE Sec. a case of ejectment and a case of ownership. training) Exc: witnesses can testify on identity. — The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given. 49. then it can be presented. same with S47 (subject to cross examination)  GR: Experts can give opinion (with knowledge. Is it required that he is a college degree holder? Is it required that he’s schooled? What is important is that you could establish that he has special skill. — The opinion of witness is not admissible. Ex. So an expert could give an opinion on matters that he has special knowledge. knowledge.Sec. medico legal officer who conducted an autopsy. except as indicated in the following sections. Example. then it could not be used or be admissible as against the adverse party. given in a former case or proceeding. Unless the court calls for a clarificatory hearing. meaning that the hypothetical facts are not foreign and irrelevant. may be received in evidence. (41a) Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to prior testimony: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Testimony or deposition Of a witness deceased or unable to testify Given in a former case or proceeding Involving the same parties and subject matter As evidence against the adverse party Adverse party had the opportunity to cross-examine him An expert witness is a person who has special skill. the expert can give an opinion. the facts are hypothetically presented to me but those facts have a relation on the facts in issue. S26-33) and interrogatories (R24) There are two cases. He can give an opinion on the fatality of the wound. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. If there was a testimony on the case for ownership and it was subjected to cross examination. (b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity. What if only a portion was subjected to a cross-examination? Only the portion that was subjected to a cross-examination. there is a victim and the person who conducted the autopsy is already dead. skill. 48. mental sanity and impressions    It is best to have bio-data marked. experience and training that could qualify him as an expert. 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. such right may be waived R115 s1 (f) rights of the accused. and 7. experience. may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him. although he doesn’t have personal knowledge of the facts. Could the autopsy report be examined by another expert in order to give an opinion on whether the facts as presented to him can produce a reasonable opinion based on the facts cf with the rules on admissions (R130. Opinion of expert witness. then there is no need to present another witness. involving the same parties and subject matter. Qualification of an expert may be dispensed with through stipulation of the parties and then proceed with questioning. And based on the facts presented. But what is the most important thing that you have to take note so that the testimony or deposition taken in another proceeding can now be used in a simple proceeding? The testimony or deposition was subjected to cross-examination. may be received in evidence regarding — (a) The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge. Ex. skill. judicial or administrative. What are matters that an expert could testify on?  those that he will give an opinion on matters that he has personal knowledge of. training. experience. (42) Sec.

where you want to elicit testimony from ordinary witnesses.) 3) Sufficiently acquainted with the sanity of the person. he is my next witness. Is this the document that was signed? Yes. (i. Exceptions: Admissible opinion evidence: 1) Matter requiring special knowledge. experience or training which he is shown to possess. 4) Ordinary witness can testify on behaviors. emotions.) Could you do away with the qualification? No but you can stipulate on the qualifications. Why familiar? If you saw him sign. Is this the signature of Mr. Mr. Ong. Is it enough that I say. Who were you with? Mr. gesture. conditions. identity needed is one that is enough for me to identify.(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. a doctor – his degree. 3) Handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity 4) Mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. ask how did know? Was it the first time you saw him? Is your recollection accurate? “sufficient familiarity”  handwriting  familiarity is a question of fact  NO relationship required  Same repetition  The signatures of GMA and Marcos on our currency are NOT covered  Statement of familiarity. (44a) GR: The opinion of a witness is not admissible. He is an expert in handwriting. In these cases. (i. behavior. Ex. 2) Sufficient familiarity as to handwriting. special training. Do you need to qualify an expert witness? Yes. 5) Impressions of the a) Emotion b) Behavior c) Condition or d) Appearance of a person Ordinary witnesses on matters on identity where he has adequate knowledge can testify on the following: 1) Identity. Lay the basis of the execution of the document.  “adequate knowledge”  identity  enough to identify. Ong do? He signed the document. This is a matter of strategy on whether to stipulate or not. o. Saguisag. Where were you during that time? We were in Rockwell. What did Mr. I am in charge with the documents because the person who wrote the handwriting is my boss. etc. It does not need a relationship with the person but you need a certain degree of exposure to the person to make such a conclusion as to his mental sanity.  Second. Ong? Yes. is she beautiful? This is useful in criminal cases in order to identify the accused in order for the judge to visualize or to paint a picture for the judge because he has no personal knowledge of the incident. you must lay the bases first so the witness can identify the handwriting. The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion. behavior. moves from which the court makes inference (opinion)  NO need for repetition  A question of fact  Sufficient enough to make an opinion  How do you know? o Emotion o Behavior o Condition o Appearance   Page 52 of 88 . appearance Ex. Does it mean that I see him everyday? No. show adequate knowledge.e. includes notice  First. skill. this is NOT opinion as this is based on personal knowledge “sufficiently acquainted”  mental sanity  demeanor. may be received in evidence. If the expert witness is so good. Will the court allow him to sit to testify? No because he has not yet been qualified. 2) Identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge. I saw the person write and the document is the subject of the inquiry so I could give an opinion.e. it is better to stipulate.Does it mean that I should have a relationship with the person? No. condition or appearance of a person. How do you qualify an expert witness? Either the court asks him some questions or the counsel who is presenting him as witness will ask him some questions as to his background.

(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132. How about the victim’s good or bad character? Yes.if it would establish the probability and improbability of the commission of the crime. prosecution only uses bad character during rebuttal since good character is a new matter Fact of being a prostitute does not indicate she cannot be raped – a settled doctrine e. 14. 47a) cf Rule 132. perversion Moral character of the accused is considered if there is a moral trait involved in the offense. Evidence of good character of witness. Character evidence not generally admissible. If there is no moral trait in the offense charged. 14 Sec. (2) Unless in rebuttal. could the accused present his good moral character? If there is a moral trait on the offense charged. (3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. c) Moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. there is a need to justify. By any party if character is an issue in the case. – Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached. there are 3 persons to take note of: accused. (b) In Civil Cases: Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. If it is criminal. used by the defense. b) In rebuttal. 2) In Civil Cases – only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case 3) impeached witness Good character of an When you are confronted with a question of character evidence. Consider the moral trait of the offense charged if you want to present the good moral character of the accused. common reaction so you could give an opinion 8. In the same manner of recalling of witnesses. Ex of a moral trait: rape . Can the prosecution present the bad character of the accused? Yes but only on rebuttal after the defense has rested its case. exceptions: — (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. CHARACTER EVIDENCE Sec. estafa. If you are confronted with character evidence. Because the fact that he is a good person doesn’t mean that he cannot commit a crime. When character evidence is irrelevant. R128 S4: probability or improbability of a fact in issue   Page 53 of 88 . under offended party: modus operandi  honesty in claims.      Robbery.g. homicide. damage suits. break it to civil and criminal. Sec. promiscuity. you cannot present as to his good character. 51.chastity. (17) GR: Character evidence not generally admissible Exceptions: 1) In Criminal Cases – a) Accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. This is not a matter of right and is subject to the court’s discretion. prosecution. (46a. do not present it if it will not present or resolve any fact in issue or any circumstance arising from those facts in issue. How about the character of the witness? That applies to both criminal and civil cases. sexual conduct. Estafa: honesty (virtue) Murder: violence/peacefulness (virtues) Libel: dishonesty Rape: lust. You have to make a cross-reference with section 14 of Rule 132 where it states that the witness cannot present his good character unless his character be impeached. victim. Section 14. Theft. the prosecution may prove the bad moral character of the accused which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. Then you have civil. physical injury – attitude for peacefulness and violence. important in criminal cases. the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.

for the case is then found in exactly the same position at the conclusion as it was at the beginning.g. You have inferences from conclusions arising from facts. shifts. you have presumptions as distinguished from inferences. duty of producing evidence. Nature of case in a contract of loan Parties CIVIL Application: Evidence presented: Burden of Proof Plaintiff Cause of action (allegations in the complaint) Cause of action: Debt obligation (1) P/N. 2a) Under Rule 131. (1a. — Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.     RULE 131 Civil case: there should be an issue of “character”  “any party” (so make an issue) Character evidence is evidence. make it an issue by placing it in the pleading good character of the witnesses is inadmissible unless impeached 3) Those which are the subject of an agreed statement of facts between the parties as well as those admitted by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case 4) Facts which are the subject of judicial notice 5) Facts which are legally presumed 6) Facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the opposite party Burden of proof: never shifts. The only difference is that there is only a presumption when it is laid down by law. the burden on the adverse party Matters which need not be proved by a party to an action: 1) Allegations contained in the complaint or answer immaterial to the issues 2) Facts which are admitted or which are not denied in the answer. the burden of persuasion Test for determining burden of proof: The result of the inquiry as to which party would be successful if no evidence at all were given. plaintiff should be able to meet Defendant Payment Defense: Payment (1) Payment was made to the person who follows up and supported by a receipt Burden of Proof and Presumptions SECTION 1. You have a set of facts and you establish an inference. it must be decided against the party who has the burden of proof. stays until the end of the case 1) Plaintiff 2) Defendant If the evidence in a case is evenly balanced. you make a conclusion Burden of proof – the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. Presume – make an inference from established facts Assume – you lay the premise first and from those assumptions. happens in rebuttal e. Exc: prosecution during rebuttal to meet the new matter “any party” – a character issue. demand letter (2) Testimony of the person who follows up payment (3) Interest is stipulated (4) That receipt of payment was falsified or fabricated  Since receipt is a new matter. Burden of proof. provided they have been sufficiently alleged Page 54 of 88 . there is also an inference from established facts. NOT an objection Criminal case: GR: accused . Burden of evidence: production burden to meet the evidence. In presumption. burden of coming forward with the evidence. So only those presumptions that are laid down by law are legitimate presumptions.

with each other an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such fact to be assumed from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action Homicide Witnesses presented Prosecution (1) Eyewitness (2) Fact of death (doctor) (3) Police report (police) (4) Eyewitness The aggravating circumstances are burdened on the prosecution who shall present testimonies. relations. he may plead an alibi. 2) He may deny the truth of some particular ingredient in the criminal transaction as shown by the state. the accused may meet the case thus made out against him in three (3) different ways: 1) He may deny the truth of all the evidence which may be offered against him. including the intent. Another defense would be payment. the case as made out by the state must go to the court. or make an affirmative defense such as insanity or license) 3) He may put in a defense not traversing the allegations of the indictment.If defense is there is no note. weapon. in any litigation arising out of such declaration. and coincidence of facts and circumstances. and to act upon such belief. 2. an inference which common sense. present testimonies. Conclusive presumptions.e. or proof that the p/n was returned and there was no loan. Page 55 of 88 . (3a) Presumption – an inference of the existence or non-existence of some fact which courts are required or permitted to draw from the proof of other facts. be permitted to falsify it: (b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. * Rebut: (1) Present certification that accused was here and not abroad (2) Pictures Accused (1) Accused himself (that he is not the assailant and that he was out of the country)  alibi (2) Immigration papers (3) Certification from abroad The defense may present an alibi and tickets and certifications may be shown. he cannot. the state must produce such evidence as will overcome the presumption of innocence and convince the court of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. body of the crime. enlightened by human knowledge and experience. draws from the connection.Parties: CRIMINAL this by presenting evidence that such is falsified Accused Cause of accusation found in the information (elements of the crime) R 120 Alleged: estafa Proved: other deceits Prosecution Defenses to free him from liability . act or omission. or omission. intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing true. After the state has introduced all the proof which it regards as sufficient to convict the accused. but involving some matters or facts which are entirely separate from and independent of the original transaction set forth therein. admit the doing of the act charge and deny the presence of intent. bloodied shirt. (i. by his own declaration. Facts: in the pleading Evidence: during trial Sec. (1) That certification of his presence here was falsified (2) That my certification from abroad is true The burden of proof in a criminal case requires the prosecution in the first instance to make out a prima facie case proving the essential facts embraced in the criminal actions alleged. If this is done and the accused offers no evidence. In thus complying with the requirement that it shall sustain the burden of proof. act. — The following are instances of conclusive presumptions: (a) Whenever a party has.

It is a deduction directed to be drawn by law. or presumptions juris tantum. intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true. which is not permitted to be overcome by any proof that the fact is otherwise a rule of substantive law Disputable presumption – a species of evidence that may be accepted and acted on when there is no other evidence to uphold the contention for which it stands rebuttable presumption may be overcome by other evidence a rule of evidence.Presumptions juris or of law are classified into conclusive presumptions. or omission. until conflicting facts on the point are shown  Conclusive presumptions are NOT absolute. the law requires to be drawn from the existence of certain established facts . by means of data found upon common experience. but the moment the facts are settled and presumption is established. would naturally lead to it. by reason of the same human experience and knowledge. natural reason draws from which facts are proved. It is a conclusion which.     Attack facts which would lead to the presumption NOT absolute. omissions  inaction NO estoppel if other party knows It is a rule which the law makes upon a given state of facts. or presumptions juris et de jure and rebuttable presumptions. which. as distnguished from admission by silence wherein the burden is on the silent person and no one is prejudiced Instances of conclusive presumptions: 1) Party has. tenant affirms landlord’s title (only at the commencement since title may be questioned during the relation) There may be prescription (ownership is attained) Presumption of fact – mental process by which the existence of one fact is inferred from proof of some other fact or facts with which experience shows it is usually associated by succession or coexistence Presumption of law – an inference which. and will therefore sustain the burden of evidence. by his own declaration. he cannot.Estoppel by silence arises in a case wherein another person who relied on silence is prejudiced. Estoppel: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Equitable estoppel By deed By record or judgment By laches Promissory estoppel By silence . in any litigation arising out of such declaration.an assumption made by law that a strong inference of fact is prima facie correct. declarations  representation. act. then they become conclusive Facts from which conclusive nature would arise Do NOT attack the conclusion (end result) since it cannot be overturned Page 56 of 88 . 2) Tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them   Estoppel by deed At the onset. act or omission. Conclusive presumption – inference which the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow them to be overturned by any contrary proof however strong absolute presumption of law rules determining the quantity of evidence requisite for the support of any particular averment. be permitted to falsify it    Equitable estoppel (reliance as true) Acts. in the absence of direct evidence on the subject. and to act upon such belief. It is a permissive deduction. Inference An inference is the conclusion drawn from the proof or admission of circumstances. a species of evidence Presumption A presumed fact is one taken for granted and accepted as a result of human experience and general knowledge.

intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true. both in law and in equity. he acted on it 3) Estoppel on the question of jurisdiction – there is estoppel if you failed to raise the issue of jurisdiction within a reasonable time 4) Estoppel by laches – failure to act on an unreasonable period of time. been established as the truth. he cannot. The most important thing: the person claiming  the estoppel does not know of the facts because if he knew the facts. by his own declaration. changing his position in such a way that he would suffer injury if such denial or contrary assertion were allowed. you may not have acted on such promise 2) Estoppel by silence – person relied on your omission because you did not act. or at least. cannot be disputed.  3) By record or judgment – the preclusion to deny the truth of matters set forth in a record. be permitted to falsify it. either express or implied Kinds or Classifications of Estoppel: 1) By matter in pais – equitable estoppel. and having relied on your omission as true. It may conclude a party without reference to the moral qualities of his conduct. or from denying the truth of any material fact asserted in it  Estoppel by deed appears from the face of the deed and does not require all of the elements of estoppel in pais. a term applied to a situation where. Action based thereon of such character as to change his position prejudicially Elements of estoppel in pais as related to the party estopped: 1. But the facts which created the presumption. he has induced another. It pertains to a contract as to an owner of a property and a tenant. Reliance upon the conduct of the party estopped 3. and inconsistent with. which is calculated to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than. to believe and act upon them thereby. as a consequence reasonably to be anticipated. Page 57 of 88 . The source of the right to possess is the landlord so the tenant has no right to contest the title of the landlord. Estoppel – a bar which precludes a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has. Once created. in contemplation of law. act. affirmative or negative. declaration or omission. or at least expectation. or omission. act or omission. Knowledge. those which the party subsequently attempts to assert 2. He is ignorant of the facts. he cannot claim estoppel. What are the kinds of estoppel which are akin to equitable estoppel? 1) Promissory estoppel – if not for the declaration or promise which was relied upon by the other person as true. sleeping on one’s rights  A party who knows or should know the truth is absolutely precluded.   2) By deed – a bar which precludes a party to a deed and his privies from asserting as against the other and his privies any right or title in derogation if the deed. intentionally or through culpable negligence. a person relied on that representation as true and heavily relied on such representation and acted based on such representation. a party is denied the right to plead or prove an otherwise important fact  Whenever a party has. in any litigation arising out of such declaration. that such conduct shall be acted upon by the other party 3. from denying or asserting the contrary of any material fact which. Conduct which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material facts. by his own words or conduct. it is an intentional representation and because of that representation. Elements of estoppel in pais as related to the party claiming it: 1. you make a representation. and to act upon such belief. of the real facts Estoppel in pais or equitable estoppel. because of something which he has done or omitted to do so. Lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as to the facts in question 2. either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers or by his own deed or representations. Because of an act. who was excusably ignorant of the true facts and who had a right to rely upon such words or conduct. Intention.Conclusive presumption cannot be disputed? Yes. you can dispute in order that the conclusive presumption will not arise. actual or constructive. whether judicial or legislative.

fact: performance of an act (e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. 2. 1434 NCC) ii. made by the other to a pledgee who received the same in good faith and for value. or the suit is not held to be barred party defrauded must have acted in accordance with the misrepresentation. the latter is precluded from asserting his legal title or interest therein. Conduct on the part of the defendant or of one under whom he claims. if he received the sum for which a pledge has been constituted. fact: payment (g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter. Contract between 3rd persons concerning immovable property. set up his own title to defeat the pledge of the property. (j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act. (Art. Laches – unreasonable delay to seek or to enforce a right at a proper time Estoppel by laches – a neglect to do something which one should do or to seek to enforce a right at a proper time Elements of estoppel by laches: 1. fact: possession of a thing Statutory instances of estoppel: i.and also to deny the facts adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction v. 3. but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: (a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong.  Estoppel by record is limited to judicial and legislative records. or exercises acts of ownership over. 4. as against the lessor or bailor. fact: suppression of evidence (f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter. 3. fact: delivery (h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid. are owned by him. fact: voluntary act (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. 1437 NCC) One who has allowed another to assume apparent ownership of personal property for the purpose of making any transfer of it. 1435 NCC) iii. one of them is misled by a person with respect to the ownership or real right over the real estate. the complainant having had knowledge or notice of the defendant’s conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute suit Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit Injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant. indicate coverage to be safe) (i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for (ii) the later one is produced. Agent who alienates can not claim title against the transferee (Art. cannot.  party misled must have been unaware of the true facts. Non-owner transferor who later acquires title passes ownership to the transferee by operation of law (Art. Disputable presumptions. Lessee or a bailee is estopped from asserting title to the thing leased or received. (Art. otherwise. fact: payment and issuance of a receipt (most recent receipt. provided all these requisites are present:  fraudulent representation or wrongful concealment of facts known to the party estopped. 1438 NCC)  Sec. (Art. that things which a person possess. 1436 NCC) iv.  party precluded must intend that the other should act upon the facts as misrepresented. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted. giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made and for which the complainant seeks a remedy Delay in asserting the complainant’s rights. and Page 58 of 88 . fact: unlawful act (c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act. fact: unlawful act (b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent.

and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them. or an aircraft with is missing. the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead. it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives. fact: decision or judgment of court or arbitrators (p) That private transactions have been fair and regular. whether in the Philippines or elsewhere. . .has not been “heard” of includes both communication and knowledge (2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities.law promotes lawful union. in any case. fact: acquiescence/conformity (y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life. who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft. fact: contract (s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration. and has been missing for four years. or the delivery of anything. fact: happening of a thing Page 59 of 88 . fact: possession of an order for payment or delivery (l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it. has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly. fact: exercise of judicial function (o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by it. the spouse present must institute a summary proceedings as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee. The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among the heirs: (1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage. fact: indorsement/drawing of a negotiable instrument (t) That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated. However. was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years. except for those of succession. fact: transaction (q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed. before marrying again. fact: discharge of public office (m) That official duty has been regularly performed. fact: absence The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. fact: indorsement/datng of a negotiable instrument (u) That a writing is truly dated. fact: doing of business or acts in pursuance of the business (r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract. an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened. NOT illicit relationships. fact: writing/dating (v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail. . he is considered dead for all purposes. or judge acting as such. In case of disappearance. fact: letter sent/mailed (w) That after an absence of seven years. where there is a danger of death the circumstances hereinabove provided. fact: performance of official duty (n) That a court. an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. human nature: longing of the spouse for affection (who was alone) (x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact. without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.includes a chaplain who gives moral support (3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four years.(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the money. (4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years.

or his heirs in proper cases.  This presumption can be overthrown only when the husband presumed to be the father.(z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartnership.300 days after termination of the former marriage o belongs to the subsequent marriage Presumptions: only disputable 1) If born before 180. . such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal. Page 60 of 88 .  Child born after 180 days following the celebration of the second marriage  If the child is born after 180 days following the celebration of the 2nd marriage.300 days ----.must be legally dissolved (2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage.child born ----. even though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage. the status of the child is fixed.facts: 1) NOT capacitated to marry each other 2) Lived exclusively each other as husband and wife 3) Property has been acquired through their actual joint contribution of money. even within 300 of the former marriage. NO presumption (R131 S4) belongs to the subsequent marriage o o o 300 days is the period of gestation of a woman. and the child cannot choose to be the child of the other husband. work or industry. brings an action to impugn the legitimacy of the child. it is of the subsequent marriage 3) If after 300. .facts: 1) Capacitated to marry each other 2) Lived exclusively each other as husband and wife without benefit of marriage or under a void marriage 3) Property has been obtained by their joint efforts. even though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage. . Marriage terminated ----. work or industry (cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other and who have acquired properly through their actual joint contribution of money. within 300 of the former marriage. If the husband presumed to be the father does not impugn.child born ----.Subsequent marriage ----. with more reason it is of the subsequent marriage  Child born before 180 days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage  If born within 180 days following the 2nd marriage. has been obtained by their joint efforts. Marriage terminated ----. full term: 9 months child should be born within 300 days “terminated” . property or industry.180 days after subsequent marriage o o if NO subsequent marriage. it is the child of the 2nd husband. it is of the former marriage 2) If born after 180.deportment as husband and wife.  The child himself cannot choose his own filiation. it is the child of the 2nd husband.180 days ----. considering a number of circumstances (bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under void marriage. these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary: (1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage. fact: acting as co-partners (aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. property or industry (dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within three hundred days after such termination of the former marriage.

. when two persons perish in the same calamity. that there are witnesses).g. embarrassment. as to which of them died first. contains correct reports of such cases. purporting to contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is published. If both be over fifteen and under sixty. and D as the child of C A and C died in a plane crash.  Love descends. NOT applicable . because such notice shall be deemed to be true 3) Proving that the 1st husband has left some document expressly acknowledging the pregnancy of the wife at the time of his death 4) Utilizing blood test exclusions. . A cannot inherit. or conflagration. the older is deemed to have survived.could be refuted. and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred. criminal case with civil aspect. purporting to be printed or published by public authority.publication purportedly published by a public authority (hh) That a printed or published book. and the other between those ages. battle. 3. (kk) That if there is a doubt. .g. was so printed or published. only applicable if NO facts to rely on (e. there is D. or upon annulment of her marriage. 2. C can inherit.  D can inherit by representation Miscellaneous Presumptions: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n) o) Love of life and avoidance of danger Suicide Virility of men Capacity of women for childbearing Flight Attempts to escape Concealing the body of the victim Surrendering to authorities or resisting arrest Confusion. If one be under fifteen or over sixty. gave notice of pregnancy as required under Article 260.applicable to succession e. the male is deemed to have survived. disputable presumptions are only good if NOT rebutted . If C dies first. such as wreck. If both were above the age sixty. .law (gg) That a printed or published book. A married to B with C as their child. but if with self-defense. insurance claim (if beneficiary dies first.if both 35 and male. the younger is deemed to have survived. claims redound to his heirs). If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty. If both were under the age of fifteen years. consider factors such as lifestyle and health 1. etc.trustee with duty to convey to perfect title (jj) That except for purposes of succession. whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other. 5. 4. only to other purposes than succession. the latter is deemed to have survived. (5a) . e. the older. Demeanor subsequent to the crime Falsehood by accused or suspected persons Constitutionality Waiver of constitutional rights Voluntariness Res ipsa loquitor Page 61 of 88 . to show that the child and the 2nd husband belong to different blood groups (ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of the nature. condition that property is conveyed if X survives. if the sex be the same. If A dies first. they shall be considered to have died at the same time.printed/published book containing reports of cases (ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his successor in interest. the former is deemed to have survived.a thing of a similar nature exists (ff) That the law has been obeyed. NOT necessary. and the sex be different. upon the death of the 1st husband. and it is not shown who died first. as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other. the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes. This presumption may be overthrown by: 1) Proving physical impossibility of access by the husband to the wife during the period of conception of the child 2) Showing that the wife. in the absence of proof. shall prove the same. according to the following rules: . .g.NOT applicable to succession.

Page 62 of 88 . (6) . Witness is incapacitated to speak. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation.p) Foreign law same as law of forum (processual presumption) Sec. etc. The court may commit for contempt a witness who refuses to be sworn or to affirm. (1a) Examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing: 1) Done in open court 2) Under oath or affirmation 3) Answers of the witness shall be given orally. the wording of the oath is: “Do you swear to tell the truth. signals Japanese. if witness cannot speak. provided it is a form which in the witness’ belief invokes the fear of supernatural punishment (In this jurisdiction. Examination to be done in open court. Recalled witness need not be sworn again.” Affirmation – a solemn and formal declaration or assertion that the witness will tell the truth. one affirms being a man of integrity if untrue. judge would not normally rely on an outsider  Generally. Question calls for a different mode of answer Witness – one who testifies in a cause or gives evidence before a judicial tribunal Open court – a court formally opened and engaged in the transaction of judicial affairs. includes any form of attestation by which a party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully an outward pledge given by the person taking it that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of responsibility to God - Purpose: to affect his conscience and thus compel him to speak the truth. — There is no presumption of legitimacy of a child born after three hundred days following the dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the spouses. one may be held liable for false testimony under the RPC  The right to have a witness sworn may be waived either expressly or by going forward in the matter without inquiry or objection. or b. pool of interpreters or referrals from the embassy. the testimony should not be given in a narrative form. the answers of the witness shall be given orally. and also to lay him open to punishment for false testimony in case he willfully testifies Form: immaterial. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak. this being substituted for an oath in certain cases a solemn declaration without oath does NOT implore the guidance of a supreme being. unless a. and nothing but the truth? So help you God. applies to both oath and affirmation  Testimony is made orally. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. Korean. 4.child born after 300 days RULE 132 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE A. an interpreter for the sign language may be availed of. — The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court. or the questions calls for a different mode of answer. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES SECTION 1. the whole truth. and under oath or affirmation.   Perjury – preparation of a document under oath. write.. The danger is that irrelevant and other improper evidence may be interjected and a motion to strike out may become necessary. (testimony is recorded after the sign is verbalized) Blind Blind and Deaf – Braille. to which all persons conduct themselves in an orderly manner are admitted Oath – an appeal by a person to God (Supreme Being) to witness the truth of what he declares and an impreciation of Divine punishment or vengeance upon him if what he says is false in its broadest sense. Russian – person proficient in the language.

counsel. it is the right of a witness: (1) To be protected from irrelevant. improper (not material). as in the case of a witness allowed to describe a transaction from the beginning once his attention has been drawn to the time and place of the scene of action (3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue. including the questions propounded to a witness and his answers thereto. (4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law. and from harsh or insulting demeanor. “Now you’re telling me you read the communication. Ideally. or insulting questions. record the “meat” of the proceedings. Proceedings to be recorded. — A witness must answer questions. only those with reference to the case are recorded. Page 63 of 88 . (3a. stenotypist or recorder and certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings. even degrading) 2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require. (2a) Requisites for transcript to be deemed prima facie a correct statement of the proceedings: 1) Made by the official stenographer. (2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require. improper. 19a) The object of all examination of witnesses is to elicit facts to show the truth. Can you really read? Any formal schooling?”.  Irrelevant (fact in issue). unless it to be the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. or insulting questions.  Question need not be actually incriminating.  The privilege is not limited to facts constituting an element of a crime. and the power to invoke it is when a question calling for an incriminating answer is propounded. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense. The testimony of a witness may be given in a continuous uninterrupted narrative: 1) Where a party witness is his own counsel 2) When allowed by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion. jokes and comments of the judge are recorded but not transcribed. stenotypist or recorder 2) Certified as correct by him Records – law makes no qualification. the “meat” “Recorded”  TSN. or  “offense” – pertains to self-incrimination which right is available only if it gives rise to a civil case.g. Obligation of a witness – answer questions. — The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing. Rights and obligations of a witness. the tape recorder is only a back-up   Clerks know the attitude of the judge.  in practice. insulting (e. and from harsh or insulting demeanor.2. improper. discretionary Stories. Sec.  Holding the witness under the court’s control for him to testify 3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue.  Irrelevant 4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense. A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official stenographer. However. 3. or witnesses with reference to the case. and not a criminal case  The privilege against self-incrimination must be invoked at the proper time. It extends to any fact which tends Sec. the statements made by the judge or any of the parties. It is enough if the question has a tendency to incriminate. or (5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation. shall be recorded by means of shorthand or stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable by the court. unless otherwise provided by law. although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him Rights of a witness: 1) To be protected from irrelevant. although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him.

including investigation by legislative bodies. or having been entitled to examine. and not because of an illness women aged 30-45 are sexually active case for serious physical injuries where the penis was castrated questions on feeling. The direct examination should build up the theory of the case and nothing more. or connected therewith. — Upon the termination of the direct examination. such witness in chief  Evidence elicited on cross-examination is regarded as testimony on the part of the party calling the witness. Sec. (4) Sec. 6. medical officer on direct examination to establish the fact of death) Indicate purpose for which the witness is presented Facts relevant to the issue are facts from the existence of which inference as to the truth or existence of the right or liability to be ascertained may logically be drawn.g.  Generally. (d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent.g. The privilege extends to inculpatory documents. Direct examination. consequence of castration are allowed STD – question asked to a woman. the latter party having examined. unless it be to the fact a. and not as evidence of the party cross-examining. the pleadings of the parties must first be looked to for the purpose of ascertaining the issue. its purpose and extent. At issue or b. (a) Direct examination by the proponent. 4. rape case – Is she a prostitute? (character evidence of offended party) annulment of marriage on the ground of impotence (to give a “window” and to prevent adultery) sex is a biological need. He must tell the whole. the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to many matters stated in the direct examination. It may be invoked in all kinds of proceeding where testimony is to be taken. part of marriage since woman’s need is not satisfied. he cannot hold back the rest. the privilege may be waived by a witness and. (8a) Cross-examination – examination of a witness by the party opposed to the party who called such witness. 5. (c) Re-direct examination by the proponent. — The order in which the individual witness may be examined is as follows. fact in issue may be presumed Witness saw from the window the commission of the crime but witness’ legs are amputated and the window is even higher that the witness himself     Sec. with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias. Order in the examination of an individual witness. and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (b) Cross-examination by the opponent. From which the fact in issue would be presumed c. or connected therewith Page 64 of 88 . not degrading to a man AIDS – question relating to blood transfusion and various sexual partners are allowed e. when waived by him. — Direct examination is the examination-inchief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. Cross-examination. To determine the relevancy of evidence. Since it is a personal right to be exercised by him alone. If the witness discloses part of a transaction in which he was criminally concerned. 5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation. cannot thereafter be asserted. Witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party: 1) As to any matters stated in the direct examination.g. Of his previous final conviction for an offense. reaction. or the reverse.   to establish a criminal offense. (5a) Direct examination – the examination-in-chief or initial examination of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue  Only 1 requisite of the cause of action/element of the crime is enough (e. not allowed  3 Exceptions: when degrading questions are allowed e.

why? surprise. Test his  accuracy and  truthfulness and  freedom from interest or bias. The court has no power to compel either party to recall his witness against his will. A party who has examined a witness is not entitled as a matter of right to recall him. as the interests of justice may require.2) With sufficient fullness and freedom to a.  On re-examination. questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination. dangerous. its purpose and extent. Permission to recall a witness should be sought by special application. except: (a) On cross examination. and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. he may be re-examined by the party calling him. or the reverse b. the adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination.g. Leading and misleading questions. how many hours will a person with a stab wound on his chest survive? (there is a relation) Sec. — After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded. Re-cross-examination. without the consent of the opposing party. on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination in the court’s discretion  The main object of re-examination is 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 and to explain any apparent  contradiction or inconsistency in his statements. their meaning or import. Elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue Dual function of cross examination: 1) To impeach (test accuracy. more or less. and to minimize or destroy discrediting tendencies. (14)   A witness can be recalled only with leave of the court. On re-direct-examination. — Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination. e. 10. the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court. at direct: witness answered that he was at the scene of the crime at re-direct: witness explains that he was there to buy something Sec. an opportunity which is not ordinarily afforded to him during his cross-examination. and 2) With leave of court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion. It is not allowed. or may a party reserve the right to recall a witness for re-examination. The matter of recalling rests in the court’s discretion and is available to both sides. 7. the counsel know the answers to the questions  difficult if the witness describes because there is a tendency to narrate (favorable to the witness)  what is important is that there is an opportunity to cross. (13) Re-cross-examination: 1) On matters stated in his re-direct examination.  Sec. truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias or the reverse) 2) To elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue  opportunity to get information. may be allowed by the court in its discretion. 9. may be waived or forfeited. Re-direct examination. other matters in the court’s discretion Sec. R115 (F) and R130 S47 Scope of cross examination: Matters 1) Stated in the direct examination – how autopsy conducted 2) Connected therewith – Based on your experience. to explain or supplement his answers given during the cross-examination. Page 65 of 88 . (12) Re-direct examination: 1) To explain or supplement his answers given during the crossexamination 2) With leave of court. the witness may be allowed to reaffirm or explain his statements. (b) On preliminary matters. Recalling witness. 8. — After the crossexamination of the witness has been concluded. — A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a leading question.

but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts. Ignorant b. and 8a) Leading questions – a question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires. Sec. (5a. director. except that it may be shown by the examination of the Page 66 of 88 . or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party. Child of tender years c. Sec. or a child of tender years. Deaf-mute 4) Unwilling or hostile witness (cf Rule 132. – xxx A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest. by contradictory evidence. or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party. or his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. test: suggestiveness of the question’s substance not confined to those answerable by yes/no e.g.g. A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness. Defendant Misleading question – one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness. It is not allowed.(c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant. “Who is the accused?” “Why do you know him?” “Was he in the church?” “Is it correct to say that you were employed by the company?” This may also be done for purposes of qualification of a witness 3) Difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is: a. No exceptions. P won’t be expected to answer Why present P? purposes may be different when P presents P and D presents P  A declaration of being hostile made by the court does not preclude his being subject to cross-examination. Mesa. If there is no basis and this is asked: “Could you tell us why you were in Sta. 6a. 12) Sec. or is of feeble mind. Feeble mind – cannot make a decision. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. Adverse party witness – adverse party himself Adverse party’s witness – witness of the adverse party Plaintiff Witnesses: 1 (P)  offer of testimonial evidence varies Witnesses: 1 2 3 (P) Adverse party makes the plaintiff as his 3rd witness. or contrary to that which he has previously stated. or (e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer. what did you do?”  Misleading questions are never allowed. — A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called. (d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness. e. honestly. Mesa?” or “While in Sta. director. or integrity is bad. Mesa?” GR: Leading questions not allowed. testimony. “Were you in Sta. confused d. 11. Exceptions: 1) Cross examination 2) Preliminary matters – not applicable to documents which need the laying of the basis e. 12. or a deaf-mute. by evidence that his general reputation for truth. Party may not impeach his own witness. or by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present. or contrary to that which he has previously stated. unjustified reluctance to testify.g. 5) Witness is an adverse party or an officer.

or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party. but such cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his examination-in-chief. (6a. the impeachment of a witness should take place either during the cross-examination or during the presentation of the other party’s case. A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest. Ways to impeach: 1) General reputation for truth. 7a) GR: The party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility. or has been or shall be Honesty – signifies the quality or state of being. or the record of the judgment. trusts. especially the accused. especially strictness in the fulfillment of contracts. the discharge of agencies. (15) Impeachment – right of a party to impeach the credibility of a witness whom he did not call. may be impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party. interest or hostile feeling against the adverse party  Usually. exact accordance with that which is. honesty. unjustified reluctance to testify. — Except with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10. and a party. and a party desiring to impeach his own witness must do so before closing his case. director. uprightness. but only by the usual methods and by questions properly framed. freedom from corrupting influence or practice. Exceptions: When party may impeach his own witness (except evidence of bad character) 1) Unwilling or hostile witness. except by evidence of his bad character.witness. any fact or circumstance tending in the least to discredit a witness is admissible to impeach him. that he has been convicted of an offense. honesty. or 2) Witness who is an adverse party or an officer. 12. integrity is bad – refers to character 2) Prior inconsistent statements – does not refer to character a) Oral b) Written Impeachment of adverse party's witness: 1) Contradictory evidence 2) Evidence that his general reputation for truth. or integrity is bad 3) Evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony 4) Evidence of conviction of an offense shown by the examination of the witness or the record of the judgment Other modes of impeachment: 1) By involving him during the cross-examination in contradictions 2) By showing the impossibility or improbability of his testimony 3) By proving acts or conduct of the witness inconsistent with his testimony 4) By showing bias.  The credit of a witness cannot be impeached after the hearing and decree. The unwilling or hostile witness so declared. Party may not impeach his own witness. etc. rectitude  The impeaching testimony must be confined to the general reputation of the witness as to truth. honesty or integrity. Grounds for declaring a witness unwilling or hostile: Page 67 of 88 . or the witness who is an adverse party. straightforwardness of conduct. the party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility. and the like. or his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand.  Generally. Impeaching witnesses may themselves be impeached. Integrity – defined as moral soundness.  Sec. thought. He may also be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party. speech. Truth – means conformity to fact or reality. honesty. is entitled to all the evidence in the case legitimately bearing upon the question of the veracity of a witness of the prosecution.

and if so. or opposing a recovery by such party. Requisites for impeaching a witness by prior inconsistent statements which may be oral or in writing: 1) If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them 2) Statements must be a.g. with respect to prior statements showing the existence of bias. hostile. or interest denied by the witness. Related to him b. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. the statement which it is intended to contradict must involve facts in evidence. present someone who can testify that the recording of the prior statement was accurate (e. its effect is merely to discredit him as witness. that a witness who has been examined is unworthy of credit Credibility of a witness – their disposition and intention to tell the truth in the testimony they have given Hostile witness – one who manifests so much hostility or prejudice under examination-in-chief that the party who has called him. that is to treat him as though he had been called by the opposite party Adverse party – adverse to the party calling him and actively seeks a recovery against. With the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present 3) He must be asked whether he made such statements 4) If so. the prior testimony must not only be contradictory. — Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony. (16)   Page 68 of 88 . 13. only on the subject matter of his direct examination 4) Proponent may ask leading questions Impeach – is applied to testimony to indicate that it is erroneous To impeach – to call into question the veracity of a witness by means of evidence offered for that purpose. which are admissible as independent evidence may be shown without laying the foundation for their admission. When a witness is impeached by proof of prior inconsistent statements. To be impeaching. or by showing that the witness is unworthy of belief Impeachment – an allegation. Statements of a witness. in which case. nor yet is an absolute oppositeness essential. The proper foundation for impeachment depends upon whether the inconsistent statement is oral or written. former statements are incompetent for any other purpose. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them. is allowed to cross-examine him. the statements must be related to him. supported by proof. except by evidence of bad character 2) May also be impeached by the opponent 3) May be cross-examined by the opponent. or a person for whose immediate benefit the action was brought or defended  A proper foundation should be laid in order to impeach a witness. or adverse witness: 1) May be impeached by the proponent. it is an inconsistency that is required. It is not a mere difference of statement that suffices. stenographer. and the varying statements sought to be shown must be relevant to the issues. To this rule. although they are contradictory to the testimony of the witness and hence tend to impeach him. prejudice. and he must be asked whether he made such statements. there is an exception. but must also have reference to matters relevant to his testimony and the case. or 3) Misled the party into calling him to the witness stand Consequences of being an unwilling. There must be a real inconsistency between the two assertions of the witness. the statement is prima facie evidence of the fact stated therein).1) Adverse interest 2) Unjustified reluctance to testify. allowed to explain them.     Sec. with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present. In other words. allowed to explain them  If the witness refuses to acknowledge the prior inconsistent statement. or his representative.

— Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached. the judge may exclude from the court any witness not at the time under examination.  GR: This rule applies to any witness Exc: Character evidence where specific provisions apply Does this apply to a party who is a witness? No but character of such witness may be attacked in offenses where character is involved. Sec. but it is not necessary that character witnesses for impeachment purposes should first be introduced if the veracity or character of the witness has been substantially impeached in other ways. and it would be within that discretion to order the party to be called first. Immediately thereafter. Sec. so that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses. but in such case the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party. or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew that the same was correctly written or recorded. It bears on the witness’ credibility. At the time when the fact occurred. or other police officers in criminal cases in the court’s discretion 7) Party in interest. – xxx (c) In the case provided for in Rule 132. Sec. and may read it in evidence  Sec. 51. 14. Character evidence not generally admissible. (46 a. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. cross-examine the witness upon it. The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented from conversing with one another until all shall have been examined. estafa)  The character or reputation of a witness must be attacked or impeached before testimony sustaining his character or reputation can be admitted. 16. by anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred. as when the agent has gained such familiarity with the facts that his presence is necessary for the proper management of the action or defense 5) Witnesses called to testify to another witness’ character for truth and veracity 6) Policemen. Any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory 3) Knew that the same was correctly written or recorded 4) Memorandum must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party. 47 a)  Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached. if he chooses. though he retain no recollection of the particular facts. cross examine the witness upon it. So. or immediately thereafter. when the presence of such agent is necessary. or b. who may. (10a) Requisites for a witness to refer to a memorandum: 1) Memorandum must have been written or recorded by himself or under his direction 2) Either: a. detectives. or c. if he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made. and may read it in evidence. as such. exceptions. though not a party to the record  The court has wide discretion as to the order of proof. (i.and do not constitute evidence of truth of facts stated. if he chooses. — A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact. (17) cf Rule 130. who may. — On any trial or hearing. Evidence of good character of witness. There is a distinction between an attack on the character of a witness. (18)  This rule applies to the trial of civil and criminal cases.  because other witnesses may attune their testimony to that of the witness on the stand Page 69 of 88 . Section 14. 51 Sec. 15.e. but such evidence must be received with caution. also. When witness may refer to memorandum. a witness may testify from such writing or record.  cf R119 S21 Exclusion of the public if the evidence to be produced during the trial is offensive to decency or public morals (motu proprio or upon motion of the accused)  The rule does not apply to the following: 1) Party to an action 2) Expert witnesses 3) Witnesses in rebuttal 4) Agent of the party. for credibility and an attack on the nature of the testimony given for belief.

If document is presented. writing or record is given in evidence by one party. — When part of an act. a recreative stimulus may properly be applied. having grown hazy through lapse of time.5) If the witness retains no recollection of the particular facts. conversation. other party may examine and inspect. or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was correctly written or recorded” applies to both present recollection revived and past recollection recorded. he must swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made  While the general rule requires that a witness should testify only to such facts as are within his personal knowledge and recollection. Authentication does not usually happen if the document is public. conversation. It must be shown that the witness has no present independent recollection.”  A memorandum used as a record of past recollection must be made available to the other side for inspection and use on cross-examination. but can swear from his habits and course of business or action that the memorandum would not have existed or been approved by him unless it was correct The last two (2) are termed “past recollection. the remainder admissible. declaration. the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other. any other act. 17. a proper foundation must be laid by showing that the witness once knew the facts narrated in the memorandum. The theory is simply that the knowledge or recollection is that of the witness. (irremovability of public record and the public officer would not testify) If it is testimony.      Sec. writing or record given in evidence. but that. resting on his original personal observations.   If document is false. It still has to be authenticated in both cases. this requirement is not violated by permitting him to refresh such knowledge. When part of transaction. writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence. but where he recalls from his state of mind at the time a memorandum was made and checked up by him and that he then determined that it was a correct memorandum in view of his then recollection 3) Instances where the witness can neither recall his original memory of the event or his state of mind when the memorandum was made or checked up by him. “By anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred or immediately thereafter. declaration. The memorandum is the document itself and should not be a summary brief. (11a) Page 70 of 88 . writing or record is given in evidence. that he recollects the making of the memorandum. declaration. conversation. and that it was truly made so that he can swear that it is correct. “So also…”  In order that a writing may be admissible as a record of the witness’ past recollection. The rule contemplates two situations: 1) Present recollection revived – evidence is the testimony 2) Past recollection recorded – evidence is the document. testimony is also false. no independent recollection of fact.  3 Phases of practice: “Refreshment of memory” 1) Instances where the witness’ faded memory is actually refreshed so that he testifies from independent resensing or revisualization of the event itself otherwise termed present recollection of facts which is revived or refreshed by reading of the memorandum 2) Instances where the witness can no longer recall the event itself in spite of the stimulations. mark as an exhibit and also authenticate. and when a detached act.

these are personal 3) Public records. — Whenever a writing is shown to a witness. writing or record is given in evidence by one party. it may be inspected by the adverse party. or (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. kept in the Philippines.g. assign rights and interests Sec. documents are either public or private.  The presentation of a certified true copy is available in cases of official acts and public records. and public officers. except last wills and testaments – acknowledged  Transfer. Right to respect writing shown to witness. official bodies and tribunals. No. Classes of Documents. (9a)  Where a party has a document which he desires to introduce in evidence. 19. cede.M. Proof of private document. writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence.  Wills and last testaments are not included. declaration. whether of the Philippines. B. conversation. declaration. (b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments.g. donation of real property) Private documents Must prove genuineness and due execution Binds only parties to the document Public documents: 1) Written official acts. Public documents are: (a) The written official acts. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS Sec. the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other. of private documents required by law to the entered therein. (21a) Requisites for admissibility of private document: 1) Offered as authentic – due execution and authenticity must be proved either  If lost: present either secondary evidence or certified true copy from the clerk of the court which appointed or commissioned the notary (better option) Page 71 of 88 . (20a)  Documents are either public or private. any other act. 2004)  Sec. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. whether of the Philippines. When a detached act. or of a foreign country. and (c) Public records. of private documents required by law to be entered therein  e. conversation. official bodies and tribunals. or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority. declaration. 20. notice of lis pendens (simple letter) and affidavit of adverse claim (with jurat) recorded at the RD birth certificate becomes public by reason of the recording of the private document in a public office  cf 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A. Private documents: by exclusion Public documents Genuineness and authenticity presumed Binding against the parties and 3rd persons Certain transactions are required to be in a public document (e. 02-8-13SC effective August 1. for the purpose of their presentation in evidence. — Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence. the adverse party has a right to inspect it to enable him to cross-examine the witness. When part of an act. conversation. or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority. All other writings are private. and public officers. — For the purpose of their presentation evidence. kept in the Philippines. or of a foreign country 2) Notarized documents. writing or record is given in evidence. its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written. 18.

made by the witness or the court. the instrument proves itself. ii.a. and o Has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person b) Comparison. — Where a private document is more than thirty years old.e. and Unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion  2) Not offered as authentic – identified as that which it is claimed to be  Page 72 of 88 . The competency of the evidence is to be determined by the state of things at the time when it is offered. no other evidence of its authenticity need be given. party to an agreement usually has a copy of the same 2) Produced from the custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine 3) Unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion  This is on the theory that under such circumstances. with writings  Admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered. and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion. is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine.g. anonymous letter (document is not offered as an authentic document) Sec. a) Any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because  He has seen the person write. ii. iii. evidencing the genuineness of the thing. b. or of different import on its face from the one executed (its having been made by the purporting person) Cases where authenticity of a private document is not necessary: 1) When the document is ancient 2) When the due execution or genuineness of the document is admitted 3) When the due execution or genuineness of the document is immaterial 4) When the document need only to be identified e. Unless it is an ancient document. or  Proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge Authentication – process of evidencing the connection. By i. requisites i. counterfeit. 21. or evidencing that the thing here shown did come from the very person or place testified to by the witness Genuineness and Due Execution of the document – that it is not spurious. More than 30 years old Produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine. the time is to be reckoned from the date of execution to the day when the instrument is to be offered in evidence. i. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. In computing the age of an ancient document. Anyone who saw the document executed or written – personal knowledge Evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.g. or  Has seen writing purporting to be his o Upon which the witness has acted or been charged. (22a) Requisites for private documents to be exempt from authentication: 1) Ancient documents – those which have been in existence for more than 30 years e.

Public documents as evidence. and where the records are essentially private in character. or b) He has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness acted or been charged. Attested by  Officer having the legal custody of the record. or the b) Court Sec. consul general. 23. with a certificate that such officer has the custody. made by the: a) Witness. or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. Proof of official record. 24. (25a) The record of public documents of official acts may be evidenced by: 1) Official publication thereof or 2) Copy a. of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. and b. as where they were Page 73 of 88 . may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record. or o Consular agent or o Any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept  Authenticated by the seal of his office Procedure in obtaining copy of foreign official acts: 1) Get a copy from the legal custodian 2) Have the legal custodian attest that the copy is correct 3) Have the Philippine consul certify that the person in #2 is the legal custodian of a copy of official act  The test of the admissibility of an official record or document is its public character. of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter  The rule is not absolute. Their probative value may be either substantiated or nullified by other competent evidence. Sec. How genuineness of handwriting proved. If the record is not kept in the Philippines  Accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody made by o Secretary of the embassy or legation o Consul general o Consul o Vice consul. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19. even against a third person. even against a 3rd person. if the record is not kept in the Philippines. — The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write. 22. because: a) He has seen the person write. and authenticated by the seal of his office. 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. when admissible for any purpose. Sec. and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person 2) By a comparison with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered. (24a) Documents consisting of: 1) Entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer – prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. 2) All other public documents – evidence. Document must be found in the proper custody and must on its face appear to be genuine. or by his deputy. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country. or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. — 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. made by the witness or the court. consul. vice consul. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison. with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered. they may not be admitted as public records. or  His deputy. or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged. (23a) The handwriting of a person may be proved: 1) By any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person. and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. All other public documents are evidence. and accompanied. the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation.

they have a common repository. under the seal of such court. social. as the case may be. or a specific part thereof. the attestation must state. 25. accompanied by a certificate as above provided. 28. The seal is very important. consular office (civic. 2) Certified true copy a) If foreign. that the copy is a correct copy of the original. under the seal of such court  It is not necessary that particular words be used to make effective a certificate attesting a paper as a certified copy. from where they ought not to be removed. or a specific part thereof. as the case may be 2) Be under the official seal of the attesting officer. — Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence. Proof of lack of record. should be admissible in evidence the same as the original writing. or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal. — Any public record. to which every man has a common right to have recourse. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer. (27a) GR: Any public record. — 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 a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office. or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal. 26. or by a copy thereof. must not be removed from the office in which it is kept. Exception: Upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case  Records. the certificate need state no more than that the paper bearing it is a copy of a specified document in the certifier’s custody. cannot be transferred from place to place to serve a private purpose. Public record of a private document. There must be showing that the person has authority.  Sec. an official copy of which is admissible in evidence. except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case. 27. What attestation of copy must state. is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. attested by the legal custodian of the record. if there be any. Include the position of the person attesting. It has no embassy MECO-TECO (One-China policy) – go here for documents Sec. The court can require the presence of the legal custodian through the issuance of a subpoena. S24: 1) a) b) Official publication Official Gazette Newspaper of general circulation Sec. (29) Page 74 of 88 . or 2) Copy thereof a) Attested by the legal custodian of the record b) With an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody  Public records kept in the Philippines of private writings are public writings. Taiwan only has a consular office. go to the facilities of the DFA. with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. in substance. — An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the original record. (26a) Attestation of copy must: 1) State the copy is a correct copy of the original. Irremovability of public record.not kept by a public officer in the regular course of business. if there be any. (28a) Public record of a private document may be proved by: 1) Original record. economic functions) If there is no embassy. On principle. being the precedent of the demonstration of justice. an official copy of which is admissible in evidence. and therefore. must not be removed from the office in which it is kept. duly certified to be true.    To certify – to affirm or to assert in writing the correctness or identity of the designated instrument Sec. and a copy of the same.

production of the record of conviction to impeach a witness 2) Show a course of conduct previously taken by a party to a principal case Collusion in judicial proceedings – agreement between two persons that the one should institute a suit against the other. whose nullity is sought. (30a) Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: 1) Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer 2) Collusion between the parties. in order to obtain the decision of a judicial tribunal for some sinister purpose  An action to annul a judgment based on fraud cannot prosper unless the fraud be extrinsic or collateral or unless the fraud refers to the jurisdiction of the court.Proof of lack of record: 1) Written statement a) Signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy b) That after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office.g. may be presented in evidence without further proof. — Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law.g. and not fraud in the cause of action or matter put in issue and present for adjudication. and that the facts constituting it have not been in controversy nor resolved in the case wherein the judgment. 2) Accompanied by a certificate that such officer is supposed to have custody  Certificate is enough but could still be questioned. the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. actions on judgments and actions involving property sold under a writ of execution 4) Show that an issue involved in the principal case was previously adjudicated e.g. has been obtained. official entry. judgment of conviction or acquittal of the defendant in a criminal case may be offered under a plea of double jeopardy by the same defendant in a subsequent prosecution of the offense charged in the first case  A judgment void for want of jurisdiction is open to contradiction or impeachment in a collateral proceeding. If a notarized document is lost. or proceeding A judgment may be used as evidence to prove its own existence and is generally used for one of four purposes: To 1) Prove a fact collateral to the issues involved in the principal case e. or 3) Fraud in the party offering the record.g. or files of the proceedings in a court of justice. or of the official act of a judicial officer. not appearing on the pleadings e. get certifications of loss from: 1) Notary public 2) Bureau of archives 3) Clerk of court who commissioned the notary public Sec. 3) Show the divestiture or acquisition of certain legal rights through the rendition of the judgment e. Extrinsic fraud – fraud in the means whereby the judgment was procured. suit. in respect to the proceedings Judicial record – record. 29. or (c) fraud in the party offering the record. — Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: (a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer. How judicial record impeached. (31a) Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law: 1) May be presented in evidence without further proof Page 75 of 88 . convince the other party not to participate in the proceedings with the promise of withdrawal of the suit but such withdrawal was not eventually made Sec. in respect to the proceedings. Proof of notarial documents. 30. in an action. (b) collusion between the parties.

— The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.  Sec. addition. one has to examine every document presented and manifest if there are alterations. or  Rights or obligations of the parties  In order that the change may constitute an alteration in this sense. or Made with the consent of the parties affected by it. 2) If he fails to do that. Offer of evidence.   Page 76 of 88 . OFFER AND OBJECTION Sec. (34a) Documents written in an unofficial language: 1) Shall not be admitted as evidence. the document shall not be admissible in evidence. — There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. or that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. how to explain.  Sec. To avoid interruption of proceedings. the document shall not be admissible in evidence Alteration in an instrument – a change in the instrument by a party thereto or one entitled thereunder or one in privity with such a person after the instrument has been signed or fully executed. 31. interlineations. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. or Alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument The term “alteration” imports some fraud or improper design on the part of the person entitled thereunder to change the effect of the instrument. Made by another. He may show that the alteration was made by another. d. Seal. b. Sec. The judge determines if evidence is excluded: Offer – Comment The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. Alteration in document. or was otherwise properly or innocently made. The presentation of the original suffices. without his concurrence. the act must be one by which the meaning or language of the instrument is changed. without his concurrence. (35)  The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. without consent of the party to it. or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it. — The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution. or substitution of material matter affecting the:  Identity of the instrument or contract. and if the act is done by a stranger. unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino 2) Parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial C. 32. If he fails to do that. but by which its identity is not otherwise destroyed. by an erasure. (33a)  This refers to private documents. without privity or consent of the parties. unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. c. it is ordinarily termed an “spoliation” or “mutilation” and its legal consequences are distinguishable with respect to the parties to the instrument from those of a technical alteration Therefore.2) Certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved   An affidavit with jurat is not public. or Properly or innocently made. (32a) The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution. 34. in a part material to the question in dispute. in a part material to the question in dispute: 1) Must account for the alteration. 33. — Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence. must account for the alteration. either as a.

give a gist of the proposed testimony and what it seeks to establish 2) Documentary and Object – after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. the implication is that there are no others. if there are others. the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify.  i. or. Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of the unless a different period is allowed by the court. it must be formally offered in evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. 35.  An objection to evidence cannot be made in advance of the offer of the evidence sought to be introduced (premature objection).  Question propounded in the course of the oral examination – as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent  Grounds for the objections should always be specified.  A specific objection overruled will be effective to the extent of the grounds specified. unless a different period is allowed by the court  The office of an objection is to stop an answer to a question put to a witness. vii. Grounds for objection: Hearsay Argumentative Leading Misleading Immaterial Incompetent Irrelevant Vague/confusing/ambiguous/unintelligible Self-serving Privileged communication Lack of foundation Sec. (n) When to make offer: 1) Testimony – the time the witness is called to testify. (36a) When objection to evidence offered must be made: 1) Orally – immediately after the offer is made 2) In writing – within 3 days after notice of the offer. Page 77 of 88 . specify the purpose for which they are being offered  Offer of evidence shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. the objection lays the foundation for an exception to an adverse ruling by the court. iii. 36.  The objection is limited to the ground or grounds specified and does not cover others not specified. v. iv. A document or article is not evidence when it is simply marked for identification. viii. the grounds for the objections must be specified. the court may properly admit the evidence over objection. Sec.  Where evidence is competent on any ground. that they are waived. Where specific grounds are stated.  A waiver as to the competency of a witness is not a waiver of the right to object to the competency of such person’s testimony. ix. xi.  Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. x. and the opposing counsel must have an opportunity of objecting to it or of cross-examining any witness called to prove or identify it. — As regards the testimony of a witness. and no further. When to make offer. warning both court and counsel that such adverse rulings may be the basis of appellate review. In any case. Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence.  Failure to object to evidence at the time it is offered is a waiver of objections to its admissibility. Objection. vi. — Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made. ii. or to prevent the receipt of a document in evidence until the court has had opportunity to make a ruling upon its admissibility.

it shall not be necessary to repeat the objection. 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. xv. even if the rules do not require the judge to so state.  The parties may ask for the ground for the ruling. — The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made. or the question asked of. Exception: If the objection is based on two or more grounds. Improper impeachment xix. The court may treat the objection as a continuing one. assumes a fact not established Sec. a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. Lack of basis. xiii. another witness. There is no need for the judge to rule. The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated.  Exceptions: Where 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Subsequent evidence is not of the same kind Question has not been answered Incompetency of evidence is later shown Objection refers to preliminary questions Objection to evidence was sustained but re-offered at a later stage of trial 6) Evidence admitted on condition 7) Court reserves ruling on objection Sec.Lack of authentication Question is repetitive (asked and answered) Question asks for a speculative answer Question is a compound question Question violates the witness’ rights under the Rules xvii. a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. whether such objection was sustained or overruled. xii. but the ruling shall always be made a) During the trial and b) Such time as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling GR: The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. Opinion evidence xxiv. Calls for a narrative xxv. if the objection is based on two or more grounds. xiv. xvi. Improper judicial notice xx. Self-incrimination xxii. Calls for a conclusion xxvi. Instead of repeating the objection to the same class of questions. it need not be repeated to the same class of evidence subsequently received. although the evidence is given by. 38. unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented. However. the adverse party may records his continuing objection thereto. — 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.  This is to highlight and put the appellate court on notice as to such objections. Violates the parole evidence rule xxviii.  Page 78 of 88 . Multiple questions xviii. When repetition of objection unnecessary. (38a) The ruling of the court on an objection: 1) Must be given immediately after the objection is made 2) Unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented. it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to such class of questions. 37. Violates the best evidence rule xxvii. (37a) Requisites for a proper continuing objection: 1) In the course of the examination of a witness 2) Objection has been made 3) Reasonably apparent that the questions being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made 4) Adverse party records his continuing objection to such class of questions  Where an objection to evidence is distinctly made and overruled. Ruling. Witness not properly qualified xxi. Beyond the scope of the previous examination xxiii.

it usually happens that despite the alertness of the counsel. If the evidence excluded is oral. Where only a part of the evidence is admissible. This is to remove it and that it should not appear on record. A motion to strike out evidence should be acted upon seasonably. purpose and substance of the testimony. the offeror may state for the record:   Page 79 of 88 . (n) Requisites for Striking out an answer: 1) Witness answers the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection 2) Objection is found to be meritorious 3) Court order that the answer given to be stricken off the record  On proper motion. the offeror may: 1) Have the same attached to or made part of the record. the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent. Where evidence is admitted subject to a future ruling. irrelevant. — Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same. it must be reoffered. if it finds the same to be meritorious. An offer of proof is made at the proper time when objection is made to the question put to the witness. the method of properly preserving the record to the end that the question may be saved for the purposes of review.  When witness is not allowed to testify. and the court has sustained the objection. and the witness ought not to answer it. unless the court indicates that a second offer would be useless. the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. On proper motion. 39. but thereafter becomes admissible. the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. a general motion to strike out without specifying the particular part objected to must be denied. or otherwise improper. and such objection is found to be meritorious. (n)  Where the court refuses to permit the counsel to present testimony which he thinks is competent. When an objection to a question is sustained. Rulings should be unequivocal and so definite in character as to leave no room for doubt as to what evidence is admitted and what is excluded. Striking out answer. Tender of excluded evidence. In that case. the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent. the offeror may state the circumstances. the objecting party must renew his objection and secure a ruling thereon.  A re-offer of proof once ruled out by the court must be timely made. or otherwise improper. a witness answers the question with alacrity (eagerness) before the adverse party has had the opportunity to voice fully his objection. is through the making of an offer of proof (tender of excluded evidence). Ideally. and shall order the striking out if such answer. it means that the court declares the question improper.    Sec. 40. Sec. If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court. material and necessary to prove his case. — If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court. an objection must be interposed as soon as the grounds therefor become evident.  Where evidence is inadmissible when offered and excluded. The court need not rule on objections to evidence until it is offered. the court shall sustain the objection. However. the court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be stricken off the record. if the evidence is object or documentary 2) If the evidence excluded is oral.   A motion to strike out evidence is properly denied if it is not sufficiently definite. irrelevant.

a) Name and other personal circumstances of the witness and b) Substance of the proposed testimony  The object is described and is eventually deposited with the court. The weight of evidence is not a question of mathematics. (1a)  Proof is confined to the issues raised in the pleadings. the court may consider: 1) All the facts and circumstances of the case 2) Witnesses' manner of testifying 3) Intelligence 4) Means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying Page 80 of 88 . Oral promises in relation to statute of frauds  In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies. the nature of the facts to which they testify. Fear. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies. their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are testifying. In civil cases. Observation: a) Opportunities for observation b) Capacity for observation c) Attention as a condition of correct observation d) Interest as a condition of observation e) Particular circumstances affecting the power of observation: i. RULE 133 Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence SECTION 1. Preponderance of evidence. Interest ii. the probability or improbability of their testimony. horror or excitement iv. the general rule in civil cases is that the party having the burden of proof of an essential fact must produce a preponderance of evidence thereon. Stated differently. etc. the party having burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. Observation of ignorant persons v. their interest or want of interest. but depends on its effect in inducing belief. Intoxication Memory: a) Memory in general b) Questions about the memory of witnesses that usually arise in the trial of the case c) The “Actor Rule” d) Particular circumstances affecting memory e) Memory of person making dying declarations f) Recently or remoteness of facts g) Effect of prior contradictory statements when memory was presumptively better h) Memory of important or trivial facts i) Striking incidence in transaction or event j) Matters inherently difficult to recollect k) Memory of events attended by excitement or commotions or inspiring fear l) Memory of rapid succession and of order and sequence of events m) Memory deceived by leading questions n) Memory of biased witnesses o) Memory revived by association of ideas p) Memory refreshed by memorandum q) Memory of dates r) Fixing dates by collateral facts s) Memory of time of day t) Estimates of periods of time u) Collateral facts constituting indicia of time v) Estimates of time by biased witnesses w) Influences affecting estimates of time x) Memory of oral statements. The court may also consider the number of witnesses. Conversation diverting attention iii. The same should be properly received to avoid getting misplaced. the witnesses' manner of testifying. under all of the facts and circumstances. the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. how determined. y) Whose memory of conversation is best? z) Memory of dead man’s statements i. — In civil cases. their intelligence. the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case. though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. conversations.

and the value of the aggregate evidence on either side. A cause of action on the ground of reformation of instrument must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. credit. means that which would lead a court to believe or disbelieve what the witness has said by reason of his appearance and manner before them while testifying 9) Number of witnesses. 3) Written evidence superior to oral 4) Positive testimony superior to negative Rules of construction of testimony: 1) Testimony must be considered as a whole. 2) The “admitted facts” rule: Evidence of whatever description must yield to the extent that it conflicts with admitted or clearly established facts. An improbable fact properly verified is not to be rejected because of such improbability.ii. 5) Nature of the facts to which they testify a) Dates b) Time of day c) Oral statements 6) Probability or improbability of their testimony Probability means consonance to reason. though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. and the true meaning of answers to isolated questions is to be ascertained by due consideration of all the questions propounded to the witness and his answers thereto. Preponderance of evidence does not consist merely in the greater numerical array of witnesses. and connotes or implies concern for the advantage or disadvantage of the parties to the cause. Attorneys testifying to oral stipulations or admissions Interested witness – may be a party to an action or a person directly interested in the event of a trial. it is the leaning of the mind. Credibility of a witness – their disposition and intention to tell the truth in the testimony they have given Personal credibility – as applied to a witness. and is not a reason for exclusion of his testimony. as affecting his credibility. assuming that he is competent to testify 8) Personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. to suppress the truth.as applied to a witness. 2) Courts must subordinate the literal terms used by a witness to the substance and effect of his testimony. Page 81 of 88 . In case of conflicting testimonies. Biased witness – one who has a motive to color his statements. the numerical factor may be given certain weight. Improbabilities are provable. signifies the specific inclination which is apt to be produced by the relation between the witnesses and the facts at issue in the litigation. but means the weight. or to state what is false. a mental prejudice or predilection Bias of a witness goes only to his credibility. a) b) c) d) e) f) g) Testimony inherently improbable Testimony contrary to natural laws Testimony contrary to the natural course of things Mathematical impossibilities Incredible coincidences Acts opposed to common sense Testimony contrary to common observation and experience h) Improbability of improvident business transactions i) Important contracts made without written evidence improbable j) Payments without taking receipt 7) Interest or want of interest Generally. Rules for weighing evidence: 1) The axiomatic rule: Evidence which is justly open to criticism derogating from its trustworthiness is inferior in weight to opposing evidence free from perceptible defects. the interest of a witness. Bias – that which excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are .

Sec. or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. alibi is a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive testimony of truthful witnesses. 11) Reading the typewritten report of the testimony as taken by a stenographer. Sec. 7) When the testimony of a party is self-contradictory. and there is doubt as to its correct application to the facts in question. shall not be sufficient ground for conviction. 4) If the meaning intended by the witness cannot safely be ascertained. or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind Moral certainty – a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it Presumption of Innocence Conclusion drawn by law in favor of a citizen Evidence introduced by law to be considered by the court  Reasonable Doubt Condition of the mind produced by proof resulting from evidence in the case Result of insufficient proof  A defense of self-defense must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. — An extrajudicial confession made by an accused. To establish an alibi. his testimony should be taken to its natural import and meaning. 6) Technical meaning of words is not necessarily controlling. (2a)  In a criminal case. unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. 3. 9) Where testimony is ambiguous. it must be construed least favorably to the party offering it. 10) Where a question addressed to a party by his own counsel is a composite one. that it was impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was committed. Extrajudicial confession. 2. Conflicting testimony must be reconciled. unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. The rule does not mean that all the elements of the crime must be clearly established by evidence independent of that confession. 2) Moral certainty only is required. unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. the accused is entitled to an acquittal. the common habit of witness to answer only the last point mentioned in the question. the promotion of truth and justice to the witnesses require that construction which will render it as consistent as possible with the opposing evidence. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. It only means that there should be some evidence tending to show the commission of the crime apart from the confession. and what the witness actually said may sufficiently appear from the context. Moral certainly only is required. unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. not sufficient ground for conviction. the court may well be satisfied that the stenographer made a mistake.3) The language of a witness must be construed in its ordinary sense. excluding possibility of error. and that meaning given to it which he evidently intended to convey. defendant must not only show that he was present at some other place about the time of the alleged crime. produces absolute certainly. should be taken into consideration in the construction of his testimony. shall not be sufficient ground for conviction. As a rule. 5) Where the question put to a witness is long and contains more than one point. if it can reasonably be done. it can hardly be considered as a categorical denial of an individual query. excluding possibility of error. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof. the accused is entitled to an acquittal. Alibi must be proved by positive. the courts are fully justified in taking against him that version of his testimony which is most unfavorable to him. clear and satisfactory evidence. but also that he was at such other place for so long a time. (3)  An extrajudicial confession made by an accused. produces absolute certainty Page 82 of 88 . Accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution. and the witness replies No. either before or after the time he was at such other place.  Proof beyond reasonable doubt: 1) Does not mean such a degree of proof as. — In a criminal case. 8) Where proof as well as pleading is of a doubtful or equivocal character.

ownership and conversion of principal’s money theft: taking of the property without the consent of the owner  Elements of corpus delicti: existence of a certain act of result forming the basis of the criminal charge. death Some person is criminally responsible for the act  fact that the end result was produced by a criminal act e. if believed. inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent. 4. and at the same time. and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. in the very nature of things. shooting caused such death Circumstantial evidence – that which relates to a series of other facts than that fact in issue. and the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of this act or result 1) 2) Certain result has been produced  end result of an act e. as the occurrence of injury or loss.  All the circumstances must be consistent with each other.  An inference cannot be based on another inference. Page 83 of 88 . when sufficient.   2) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. It is sufficient ground for conviction when the prima facie proof of corpus delicti and the confession.  Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy. consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty. (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. which by experience have been found so associated with that fact that in the relation of cause and effect. they lead to a satisfactory conclusion consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience evidence which tends to establish the fact to be proved through inference based on human experience that that fact exists when a certain circumstance or set of circumstances is present sometimes referred to as indirect or presumptive evidence Circumstantial Evidence Evidence which. Corpus delicti must be proved by evidence other than the accused’s confession to guard against convictions upon false confessions of guilt. without going directly to prove the existence of a fact. Proof of the locus of the crime is not necessary in order to establish the corpus delicti. control. means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged homicide: fact of death and the criminal agency of another person as the cause thereof embezzlement: agency. The facts upon which the inference may legitimately rest must be established by direct evidence. gives rise to a logical inference that such fact does exist Given of facts and circumstances from which the court may infer other connected facts which reasonably follow. proved the existence of the fact in issue without any inference or presumption Witnesses testify directly of their own knowledge as to the main facts to be proved Sec. according to the common experience of Direct Evidence Evidence which. a necessity. 3) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt  In criminal prosecutions. show the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (5) Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: 1) There is more than one circumstance  It is more like a rope composed of several cords. and to the same degree as the main fact. Corpus delicti – “the body of the offense.g. a resort to circumstantial evidence is.g. Circumstantial evidence. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstances. taken together. and  The circumstances are not themselves presumed. the substance of the crime” defined in its primary sense as the fact that a crime actually has been committed as applied to a particular offense.

lower than preponderance more than a mere scintilla does not necessarily import preponderant evidence as required in an ordinary civil case means such evidence which affords a substantial basis from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred Sec. restrict the number of witnesses to establish a particular fact. 7. in any stage of a case. When the fact in issue is collateral to the main issue. at least where the fact is sufficiently established and is not controverted. or before a commissioner appointed in accordance with R32 S2 (c): Reference to a commissioner ordered on motion when a question of fact. probandum towards or to the conviction that from it or them some other fact may be inferred Identical nature Sec.mankind Equally direct evidence of a minor Intended evidence which applies fact or facts of such a nature that directly to the fact which forms the mind is led intuitively. in its discretion. or for carrying a judgment or order into effect. limit the number of witnesses. Such facts alleged in a motion may be proved by affidavits and depositions.  This refers to facts put in issue in a motion. other than upon the pleading.     Sec. or by a the subject of inquiry. but the court. may order that oral testimony be presented before it. 5. — When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties. RULE 134 Perpetuation of Testimony Page 84 of 88 . arises upon motion or otherwise. — The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. the court may. The number of witnesses to give opinion evidence may also be limited. the factum conscious process of reasoning. a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence. Whether further evidence will be allowed after a party offering the evidence has rested his case lies within the discretion of the trial judge. (6)  The trial court may. or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (n)  In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies. Power of the court to stop further evidence. Substantial evidence. exercised in view of the special character and circumstances of the particular case. Applicable in the following: o Private employee’s violation of company rules o NLRC  o o doubt Not applicable in the following: Ombudsman – probable cause Sandiganbayan – beyond reasonable  The discretion must be an actual and judicial discretion. in its discretion. Evidence on motion. (7) When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record: 1) Court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties 2) But the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions Affidavit Always taken ex parte Deposition Opposite party has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness Substantial evidence – that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence. but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. 6. and not to facts alleged in the pleadings. But this power should be exercised with caution. — In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies. and this discretion will not be reviewed except in clear case of abuse. in its discretion.

together with a copy of a petition. for the order described in the petition. but only for the purpose of preserving known testimony against danger of loss. Page 85 of 88 . (c) the facts which he desires to establish by the proposed testimony and his reasons for desiring to perpetuate it. An affidavit setting forth the facts indicating the danger of the loss of the testimony is necessary. — The petition shall be entitled in the name of the petitioner and shall show: (a) that the petitioner expects to be a party to an action in a court of the Philippines by is presently unable to bring it or cause it to be brought. — The petitioner shall thereafter serve a notice upon each person named in the petition as an expected adverse party. at a time and place named therein.  A proceeding to perpetuate testimony cannot be ex parte. Contents of petition. Sec. 2. Kinds of petitions to perpetuate testimony: parties and their addresses so far as known. and shall ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to take the depositions of the persons to be examined named in the petition for the purpose of perpetuating their testimony. Perpetuation of testimony before action should be limited to the taking of depositions and may not properly include inspection. which is commonly brought after the commencement of a suit by a person out of possession to perpetuate testimony which is in danger of being lost before the matter to which it relates can be examined into by the proper tribunal  The perpetuation of testimony may not be used for framing or drafting of a complaint. either as part of the petition itself or as supplementary thereto. Material allegations of petition: 1) Expectancy of action 2) Subject matter of the expected action and petitioner’s interest therein 3) Facts which petitioner desires to establish by the proposed testimony and his reasons thereof 4) Names of expected adverse parties and their addresses so far as known 5) Identity of persons to be examined and substance or nature of their expected testimony 6) Prayer for relief  A petition for perpetuation of testimony should show plainly that the court would have jurisdiction of the contemplated action. any file a verified petition in the court of the province of the residence of any expected adverse party. It requires the filing of a petition and the service of process in the usual manner upon the defendants interested. (b) the subject matter of the expected action and his interest therein.[NOTE: This rule will be transposed to Part 1 of the Rules of Court on Deposition and Discovery] The Rules of Court contemplates three (3) different situations for the taking of depositions: 1) Depositions taken pending an action 2) Depositions taken pending an appeal 3) Depositions taken in contemplation of a forthcoming action The last 2 kinds are designated as perpetuation of testimony. (d) the names or a description of the persons he expects will be adverse Sec. Notice and service. 3. and (e) the names and addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit from each.   SECTION 1. 1) 2) To perpetuate the testimony or examine the witnesses in perpetuam rei memoriam To examine witnesses de bene esse. Petition. At least twenty (20) days before the date of hearing the notice shall be served in the manner provided for service of summons. The adverse party must be given an opportunity to be heard but the hearing must be confined to the issues involved therein. survey and photographing of property. stating that the petitioner will apply to the court. — A person who desires to perpetuate his own testimony or that of another person regarding any matter that may be cognizable in any court of the Philippines. in aid of which the testimony is to be contemplated.

but upon the situation of the party (petitioner). the interrogating party may normally select the mode of examination he prefers. or 2) Before the taking of an appeal if the time therefor has not expired Page 86 of 88 . or if.  The deposition to perpetuate testimony may be used in any action involving the same subject matter subsequently brought. The motion shall show (a) the name and the addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit from each. Order of examination.  The court must determine whether the necessity for entertaining the petition exists.  Since in perpetuation of testimony there is no action pending in court. it shall make an order designating or describing the persons whose deposition may be taken and specifying the subject matter of the examination. If the deposition is taken pending action. 7. if consisting only of the mere declarations of witnesses. although involving the same subject matter. the Regional Trial Court in which the judgment was rendered may allow the taking of depositions of witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for use in the event of further proceedings in the said court. The rules provide for either oral or written examination for discovery or deposition and for perpetuation of testimony. it may make an order allowing the depositions to be taken. it can refer to nothing but facts. the deposition may not be used against him in a subsequent action. — If a deposition to perpetuate testimony is taken under this rule. upon the same notice and service thereof as if the action was pending therein. unless he participates in the taking of the deposition and such participation can be construed as a waiver of notice of the petition for perpetuating testimony. and thereupon the depositions may be taken and used in the same manner and under the same conditions as are prescribed in these rules for depositions taken in actions pending in the Regional Trial Court. and (b) the reason for perpetuating their testimony. Sec. Sec. it may be used in any action involving the same subject matter subsequently brought in accordance with the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 24. but in perpetuating testimony. but not of the taking of a deposition. and in the same manner as deposition taken pending action in accordance with R24 S4 and S5. Where an expected adverse party is duly notified only of the taking of the deposition. 5. although not so taken. it would be admissible in evidence. The right to perpetuate testimony does not depend on the condition of the witness. — If the court is satisfied that the perpetuation of the testimony may prevent a failure or delay of justice. In such case the party who desires to perpetuate the testimony may make a motion in the said Regional Trial Court for leave to take the depositions. — For the purpose of applying Rule 24 to depositions for perpetuating testimony. as it can be controverted at the trial in the same manner as though no perpetuation of testimony was ever had. the choice is apparently with the court. — If an appeal has been taken from a judgment of the Regional Trial Court or before the taking of an appeal if the time therefor has not expired. Depositions pending appeal. the deposition may not be used against him in a subsequent action. The perpetuation of testimony in itself does not prove the existence of any right. Reference to court. and not of the petition proceeding. either of the existence of any right nor even of the facts to which they relate. 6. The depositions may then be taken in accordance with Rule 24 before the hearing. 4. and whether the depositions shall be taken upon oral examination or written interrogatories. Notice shall be served in the manner provided under R14 and the time of the serving of the notice must be at least twenty (20) days before the date of the hearing of the petition. and his power to bring his rights to an immediate investigation.  Where an expected adverse party is duly notified of the petition proceeding. each reference therein to the court in which the action is pending shall be deemed to refer to the court in which the petition for such deposition was filed. If the court finds that the perpetuation of the testimony is proper to avoid a failure or delay of justice. The testimony thus perpetuated is not in itself conclusive proof. Use of deposition. the court in which the petition for perpetuation of testimony has been filed may designate the officer before whom the perpetuation of testimony shall be taken upon oral examination or written interrogatories. (7a) The deposition referred to in this rule may be taken: 1) If an appeal has been taken from a judgment of a Regional Trial Court. Sec.     Sec. By reason of its very nature.

Indicate substance of perpetuating testimony and reason for perpetuating General procedure for depositions before action: 1) Petition filed by a party who expects to be a party in an action in the court of the residence of the expected adverse party 2) Notice of the petition served on expected adverse party 3) Court serves notice of hearing. (c) the facts which he desires to establish by the proposed testimony and his reasons for desiring to perpetuate it. regarding any matter that may be cognizable in any court of the Philippines. Depositions before action. to a) Parties and b) Prospective deponents 4) Court order a) Designating or describing the persons whose deposition may be taken and b) Specifying the subject matter of the examination and c) Specifying whether the depositions shall be taken upon oral examination or written interrogatories. (b) the subject matter of the expected action and his interest therein. (2. (1a. petition. similar to the hearing of any motion and would ordinarily be heard on affidavits. and shall ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to take the depositions of the persons to be examined named in the petition for the purpose of perpetuating their testimony. at least 20 days before. Before action 5) Deposition taken would be admissible in evidence. together with a copy of the petition. 3. Notice and service. — The petitioner shall serve a notice upon each person named in the petition as an expected adverse party. Contents of petition. — The petition shall be entitled in the name of the petitioner and shall show: (a) that the petitioner expects to be a party to an action in a court of the Philippines but is presently unable to bring it or cause it to be brought. R134) Venue of petition for depositions before action: court of the residence of any expected adverse party Sec. The hearing on the motion for leave to perpetuate testimony pending appeal or after judgment and before the expiration of the time for taking an appeal is summary. Indicate substance of adverse party to perpetuate testimony and reason for testimony. R134) Contents of petition for deposition before action: 1) Entitled in the name of petitioner 2) That the petitioner expects to be a party to an action in a court of the Philippines but is presently unable to a) Bring it or b) Cause it to be brought 3) Subject matter of the expected action and his interest therein 4) Facts which he desires to establish by the proposed testimony and his reasons for desiring to perpetuate it 5) Names or a description of the persons he expects will be adverse parties and their addresses so far as known 6) Names and addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit from each 7) Ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to take the depositions of the persons named to perpetuate their testimony Sec. and (e) the names and addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit from each. it may be used in any action involving the same subject matter subsequently brought Section 1. may file a verified petition in the court of the place of the residence of any expected adverse party. stating that the petitioner will apply to the RULE 24 Depositions Before Action or Pending Appeal Pending appeal How Instituted Verified petition in court with Motion for leave to take jurisdiction over residence of deposition. (d) the names or a description of the persons he expects will be adverse parties and their addresses so far as known. 2. — A person who desires to perpetuate his own testimony or that of another person Page 87 of 88 .

4. it shall make an order designating or describing the persons whose deposition may be taken and specifying the subject matter of the examination and whether the depositions shall be taken upon oral examination or written interrogatories. Depositions pending appeal. (4a. (6a. or before the taking of an appeal if the time therefor has not expired. In such case the party who desires to perpetuate the testimony may make a motion in the said court for leave to take the depositions. it may be used in any action involving the same subject matter subsequently brought in accordance with the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of Rule 23. Sec. each reference therein to the court in which the action is pending shall be deemed to refer to the court in which the petition for such deposition was filed. At least twenty (20) days before the date of the hearing. R134) Sec. Reference to court. (3a. R134) Sec. — For the purpose of applying Rule 23 to depositions for perpetuating testimony. — If a deposition to perpetuate testimony is taken under this Rule. R134). at a time and place named therein. 5. R134) Sec. and (b) the reason for perpetuating their testimony. and b) Reason for perpetuating their testimony 4) Service of notice of hearing on the motion 5) Court finds that the perpetuation of the testimony is proper to avoid a failure or delay of justice 6) Court order allowing the depositions to be taken and used as in depositions pending actions Page 88 of 88 . it would be admissible in evidence. although not so taken. or b) Before the taking of an appeal if the appeal period has not expired 2) Party moves for leave to take deposition pending appeal 3) Motion shall state a) Names and addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit from each. the court in which the judgment was rendered may allow the taking of depositions of witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for use in the event of further proceedings in the said court. or if. 7. If the court finds that the perpetuation of the testimony is proper to avoid a failure or delay of justice. — If the court is satisfied that the perpetuation of the testimony may prevent a failure or delay of justice. 6. — If an appeal has been taken from a judgment of a court. Use of deposition. R134) General procedure for depositions pending appeal: 1) Either a) Appeal has been taken from a judgment of a court (including CA). for the order described in the petition. it may make an order allowing the depositions to be taken. The motion shall state (a) the names and addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit from each. including the Court of Appeals in proper cases. (5a.court. The depositions may then be taken in accordance with Rule 23 before the hearing. and thereupon the depositions may be taken and used in the same manner and under the same conditions as are prescribed in these Rules for depositions taken in pending actions. (7a. the court shall cause notice thereof to be served on the parties and prospective deponents in the manner provided for service of summons. Order and examination. upon the same notice and service thereof as if the action was pending therein.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful