Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Page
Sec. 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to
suppress evidence, where to fi le ............. 689
Rule 127. Provisional Remedies in Criminal Cases
Sec. 1. Availability of provisional rem ed ies..... 695
Sec. 2. A ttachm ent................................................ 695
IV. EVIDENCE
A. Preliminary Considerations
Kule 128. General Provisions
Sec. 1. Evidence d efin ed ........................................ 698
Sec. 2. S cop e............................................................. 698
Sec. 3. Admissibility of evidence.......................... 703
Sec. 4. Relevancy; collateral m a tters ................. 704
B. Adm issibility of Evidence
Rule 130. Rules of Admissibility
A. Object (Real) Evidence
Sec. 1. Object as e v id e n ce ..................................... 715
B. Documentary Evidence
S ec. 2. Documentary E viden ce............................. 718
1. Best Evidence Rule
Sec. 3. O riginal docum ent m ust be produced;
excep tion s.................................................... 718
Sec. 4. Original of docum ent................................. 719
2. Secondary Evidence
Sec. 5. When original document is unavailable 723
Sec. 6 . When original document is in adverse
party’s custody or con tro l......................... 726
Sec. 8 . Party who calls for document not bound
to offer i t ...................................................... 726
3. Parol Evidence Rule
Sec. 7. Evidence admissible when original docu
ment is a public re co rd .............................. 728
xlvii
REMEDIAL I-AW COMPENDIUM
Page
Sec. 9. Evidence of written agreem ents............ 729
4. Interpretation of Documents
Sec. 10. Interpretation of a writing according to
its legal m eaning......................................... 735
Sec. 11. Instrument construed so as to give effect
to all provisions..................... ..................... 735
Sec. 12. Interpretation according to intention;
general and particular p rovision s.......... 735
Sec. 13. Interpretation according to circu m
s t a n c e s ......................................................... 736
Sec. 14. Peculiar signification of term s............... 736
Sec. 15. Written words control p rin ted ............... 736
Sec. 16. Experts and interpreters to be used in
explaining certain w ritin gs..................... 736
Sec. 17. Of two constructions, which preferred .. 736
Sec. 18. Construction in favor of natural rig h t... 737
Sec. 19. Interpretation according to u sa g e ......... 737
C. Testimonial Evidence
1 . Qualification of Witnesses
Sec. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications.............. 737
Sec. 2 1 . D isqualification by reason of mental
incapacity or im m aturity.......................... 738
Sec. 22. D isqualification by reason of marriage 740
Sec. 23. D isqualification by reason of death or
insanity of adverse p a rty .......................... 743
Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
com m unication............................................ 746
2. Testimonial Privilege
Sec. 25. Parental and filial privilege................... 753
3. Admissions and Confessions
Sec. 26. Admissions of a p a rty ............................... 754
Sec. 27. Offer of compromise not adm issible...... 756
Sec. 28. Admission by third p a rty ......................... 758
Sec. 29. Admission by co-partner or a g e n t......... 759
xlviii
TAHI,® OK CONTENTB
Page
Sec. 30. Admission by con spirator........................ 760
Sec. 31. Admission by p riv ie s ................................ 762
Sec. 32. Admission by sile n ce ................................ 762
Sec. 33. Confession.................................................... 764
4. Previous Conduct as Evidence
Hqc. 34. Similar acts as ev id en ce.......................... 774
Sec. 35. Unaccepted o ffe r ........................................ 775
5. Testimonial Knowledge
Hoc. 36. T estim ony gen era lly con fin ed to p e r
sonal knowledge; hearsay ex clu d ed ...... 775
6 . Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule
Sec. 37. Dying decla ra tion ...................................... 778
Sec. 38. Declaration against in te re st................... 782
Sec. 39. Act or declaration about p ed ig ree ......... 784
Sec. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding
p edigree........................................................ 784
Sec. 41. Common reputation................................... 786
Sec. 42. Part of the res g es ta e................................. 787
Sec. 43. Entries in the course of b u sin ess........... 791
Sec. 44. Entries in official record s........................ 792
Sec. 45. Commercial lists and the lik e ................. 795
Sec. 46. Learned treatises....................................... 796
Sec. 47. T estim on y or d e p osition at a form er
proceeding.................................................... 796
7. Opinion Rule
Sec. 48. General ru le................................................. 800
Sec. 49. Opinion of expert w itnesses.................... 800
Sec. 50. Opinion of ordinary w itn esses................ 800
xlix
REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM
Page
S ec. 2 . Conclusive presum ptions......................... 820
Sec. 3. Disputable presum ptions......................... 820
S ec. 4. No p resu m p tion o f le g itim a cy or i l
legitim acy..................................................... 831
Rule 129. What Need Not Be Proved
Sec. 1. Judicial notice, when m an datory. 832
S e c. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary.. 832
Sec. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary 832
S ec. 4. Judicial adm issions......................... 836
D. Presentation of Evidence
Rule 132. Presentation of Evidence
A. Examination of Witnesses
Sec. 1 . Examination to be done in open co u rt... 839
S ec. 2. Proceedings to be recorded...................... 839
Sec. 3. Rights and obligations of a w itn e ss ...... 841
Sec. 4. O rder in the exam in ation o f an in d i
vidual w itn e ss ............................................ 844
Sec. 5. Direct exam ination.................................... 845
Sec. 6 . C ross-ex a m in a tion ; its p u rp ose and
extent............................................................ 845
Sec. 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and
exten t............................................................ 845
Sec. 8 . Re-cross-exam ination................................ 845
Sec. 9. Recalling w itn ess....................................... 847
Sec. 10 . Leading and misleading questions......... 848
Sec. 11 . Impeachment of adverse party’s witness 848
Sec. 12 . Party may not impeach his own witness 849
Sec. 13. How witness impeached by evidence of
inconsistent statem ents............................ 849
Sec. 14. Evidence of good character of w itn ess... 852
Sec. 15. Exclusion and separation of w itnesses.. 853
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Sec. 16. When witness may refer to memoran
dum ................................................................ 854
Sec. 17. When part of transaction, writing or
record given in evidence, the remainder
adm issible.................................................... 855
Bee I K. Right to inspect w riting shown to w it
ness ................................................................ 855
It Authentication and Proof of Documents
Bor. 19. Classes of docu m en ts................................ 856
Hoc. 20. Proof of private d ocu m en t....................... 858
Sec. 2 1 . When evidence of authenticity o f pri
vate document not necessary.................. 858
Sec. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved 858
Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence................. 860
Sec. 24. Proof of official record ............................... 860
Sec. 25. What attestation of copy must s ta te ..... 861
Sec. 26. Irremovability o f public record ............... 861
Sec. 27. Public record of a private docu m en t..... 862
Sec. 28. Proof of lack of r e c o r d ............................... 862
Sec. 29. How judicial record im peached............... 862
Sec. 30. Proof of notarial docum ents.................... 863
Sec. 31. Alterations in document, how to explain 866
Sec. 32. S e a l................................................................ 866
Sec. 33. Docum entary evidence in an unofficial
language ...................................................... 867
C. Offer and Objection
Sec. 34. Offer of eviden ce........................................ 867
Sec. 35. When to make o ffe r ................................... 868
Sec. 36. O bjection...................................................... 869
Sec. 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary 869
Sec. 38. R u lin g ........................................................... 869
Sec. 39. Striking out answer................................... 870
Sec. 40. Tender of excluded eviden ce................... 870
li
HK.MI'-IWAI. I;AW C O M P E N D I U M
Page
E. W eight and Sufficiency of Evidence
Rule 133. W eight and Sufficiency of Evidence
Sec. 1 . Preponderance of evidence, how deter
mined .......................................................... 876
S ec. 2 . Proof beyond reasonable d ou bt............. 876
Sec. 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient
ground for conviction............................... 896
Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient 898
Sec. 5. Substantial evid en ce............................... 900
Sec. 6 . Power o f the court to stop further evi
dence ........................................................... 901
Sec. 7. Evidence on m otion ................................. 901
APPENDICES
lii
IV. EVIDENCE*
RULE 128
GEN ER AL PR O VISIO N S
NO TES
mm
RULE 128 GENERAL PROVISIONS SECS. 1-2
<;«)!)
H U lil< iv.H KICMBDIAI. I,AW C o M I'K N D IllM m i -v h i ■
700
HIMiK ivti HEMKDIAL I.AW COMPBNPIUM SECS. 1-2
701
HULK 128 REMEDIAL IjAW COMPENDIUM i * , i •
702
It 111, M 12H ( IE N K K A I, P R O V IS IO N S SEC. :i
703
H U LK 128 UK,MEDIAL I,AW COMPENDIUM ■ E l1 4
N O TES
704
ifiM.iv r'H U EN KHAT, P R O V IS IO N S S K O S. 3-4
705
lUll.rc 128 REMEDIAL I,AW COMPENDIUM HRCH i 4
706
HUM'', 128 O K N K H A I, I’UOVI.MIONS H 10( \M a I
707
RU1/K IZH R E M E D I A L I,AW C O M P E N D I U M S E t'H 3 4
708
MJLE 128 (IKNKItAL PROVISIONS SECS. :i 4
709
RULE 12H REMEDIAL I,AW COMPENDIUM HIJCS 8-4
710
Kill I'. I/H O K N K U A L I’lIO V IH IQ N H MKCM ;t 1
711
R U L E 12H I t K M K M A L i.AW C O M P E N D I U M
712
HUI.lt r.'H (IIC N K R A I, I'lt O V IH lO N S MUCH :t 1
713
RULE 128 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM HBCS. 3 4
d ra fte d th e la w , it e x clu d e d th e e a r ly fo r m s o f
technology, like telegraph, telex, and telecopy (except
c o m p u t e r g e n e r a t e d fa x e s , w h ic h is a n e w e r
developm ent as com pared to the ordinary fax m achine
to fax machine transm ission), when it defined the term
“electronic data m essage.”
x x x
We, therefore, conclude that the term s “electron ic
data m essage” and “electronic d ocu m en t,” as defined
in the E lectronic Com m erce A ct o f 2000, do not include
a fa csim ile transm ission. A ccordingly, a fa csim ile
tra n s m iss io n ca n n o t be co n s id e r e d as e le c tr o n ic
ev id e n ce. It is not the fu n c tio n a l e q u iv a le n t o f
an o rig in a l u n d er the B est E viden ce R ule and is
not adm issible as electronic evidence.
Since a facsim ile transm ission is not an “electronic
data m essage” or an “electronic docum ent,” and cannot
be considered as electron ic evidence by the C ourt,
w ith grea ter rea son is a p h otocop y o f such a fax
transm ission not electronic evidence. In the present
case, th erefore, the Pro F orm a In voice N os. ST2-
PO STS0401-1 and ST2-PO STS0401-2 (E xhibits “ E”
and “F”), w hich are mere photocopies o f the original
fax transm ittals, are not electronic evidence, contrary
to the position o f both the trial and the appellate
courts.
714
B. A D M ISSIB ILITY OF EVID EN C E
RULE 130
RULES OF A D M ISSIB IL IT Y
S e c tio n 1. O b je c t as e v id e n c e . — O b je c t s as
evidence are those addressed to the senses o f the
court. W h en an object is relevant to the fact in
issue, it m ay be exhibited to, exam ined or view ed
by the court, (la )
NO TES
715
HIM,!'; I.'KI REMEDIAL I,AW COMPENDIUM SBC I
716
HIM ,K 181) HI M jKH O K A D M 1HHI HI 1,1'I'Y HKC. I
717
R U L E 130 r e m e d ia l l a w C O M P E N D IU M SECS, 2-B
his fa cia l fea tu res to determ ine his resem b lan ce and
possible relationship to another (Chua Yeng vs. Collector
o f Custom s, 28 Phil. 591), or his racial origin (Leong vs.
Collector o f Customs, 31 Phil. 417), his probable age (U.S.
vs. A g a d a s et al., 3 6 Phil. 246; B raca vs. C ollector o f
Customs, 36 Phil 929; Lim Cheng vs. Collector o f Customs,
42 Phil. 876)\ or, in the case of a wom an, to establish the
fact o f pregnancy (V illaflor vs. Sum m ers, 41 Phil. 62).
Sec. 3. O r ig in a l d o c u m e n t m u st be p r o d u c e d ;
excep tion s. — W h en the su b ject o f in q u iry is the
c o n te n ts o f a d o c u m e n t, no e v id e n c e s h a ll be
adm issible other than the original docum ent itself,
except in the follow in g cases:
(a) W h e n th e o r ig in a l h a s b e e n lo s t or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, w ithout
bad faith on the part o f the offeror;
(b) W hen the original is in the custody or under
the control o f the party against w hom the evidence
is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;
(c) W h en the o rig in a l c o n sists o f n u m erou s
a c c o u n ts or o th e r d o cu m e n ts w h ich c a n n o t be
exam ined in court w ithout great loss o f tim e and
the fact sought to be established from them is only
718
Hu i . k i mo Kill .KM OK AIJM1HH1HIUTY HttC 1
N O TES
719
i t m , i ' ; i .10 R K M B D I A l . I,AW C O M P E N D I U M NICC 4
720
H U I.K UK) RULES OF AD M ISSIB ILITY SliO . 4
721
HU1,10 130 R IM I1',DIAL LAW COMPENDIUM iftC -i
722
HUI.K l:I0 HIII.KK O K A D M I H S I I I I M ' I ’Y HKC r.
2. Secondary Evidence
NOTES
723
RULE 130 REMEDIAL I,AW COMPENDIUM HISC ft
724
IU II.K M O K A D M I H H I M U T Y SKC. I)
725
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM HUC8 . 0 , H
Sec. 6. W h en o r ig in a l d o c u m e n t is in a d v e r s e
p a r ty ’s custody or control. — I f the d ocu m en t is in
the cu stod y or u n d er the con trol o f the ad verse
party, he m ust have reasonable notice to produce
it. I f a fte r su ch n o tic e and a fte r s a tis fa c to r y
p r o o f o f its e x is te n c e , he fa ils to p r o d u c e th e
docu m ent, second ary evidence m ay be presented
as in the case o f its loss. (5a)
NOTES
726
miu<; i:to H U L K S O F ADM1HHIHILJTY iE C S (I, H
727
RULE 180 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM HE Cl 7
NOTES
728
KUI.I'i 1MO III11,KM O P A D M t H S IIIlM T Y HKC f)
NO TES
1. T h e p a r o l e v id e n c e r u le is b a s e d u p o n th e
con sideration that w hen the parties have reduced their
agreem ent on a particular m atter into w riting, all their
previous and contem poraneous agreem ents on the m atter
are m erged therein (De Guzm an vs. Calma, et al., 100
Phil. 1088), hence evidence o f a prior or contem poraneous
v erb a l agreem en t is g en era lly not adm issible to vary,
contradict, or defeat the operation o f a valid instrum ent
(D e la R anza vs. Ledesm a, L-28498, July 14, 1986).
729
1
730
HUM'; iHo HWI.KH OK A D M I H H ID IM 'I 'Y HKC ti
731
H U L K 130 R E M E D IA L L A W G O M I’ E N D IU M HK G li
732
HI 11,10 130 HULKS OF ADMISSIBILITY SEC. 0
733
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. (I
734
UU 1 .K 1:10 HULKS O F A D M ISSIB IL IT Y SECS. I ()-!?,
735
R U L E 180 R E M E D IA L LAW CO M P E N D IU M SECS. 1 a -17
736
HULK 130 R ULES OP AD M ISSIB ILITY SECS. IM ID, 2 0
N O TE
1. Q ualification o f W itnesses
737
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. 21
N O TES
738
1(111.K ISO RUKKK O K A D M 1 S 8 I1 1 IU T Y • I • -i
739
RU L E 130 R E M E D IA L L A W C O M P E N D IU M 8 K<' <n
740
HUI.K UK) R U I.K S OK A D M L SK IB IM 'I'Y sa<....
N O TES
741
RULE 130 REMEDIAL IAW COMPENDIUM HKC T l
742
HUI.K I MO RULES OF ADM ISSIB IL IT Y NICC an
NO TES
743
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. 2.1
744
H U LK i:u> ItULKH OK AD M 1 SH 1 IIIU T Y HKi' T.\
745
HULK 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 8 EC, 24
746
Kill,!', 130 HUI.IOH 01-' A U M I.SSIIU I.IT Y SEC 24
N O TES
747
uuu<: iso K K M H U 1 A I . I’A W C O M I ’ K N D I U M HKC '.M
expressly or im pliedly.
2. For the disqualification by reason o f the m arital
privilege to apply, it is necessary that: (a) There w as a
valid m arital relation; (b) The privilege is invoked with
resp ect to a con fid en tia l com m u n ica tion b etw een the
spouses during said m arriage; and (c) The spouse against
whom such evidence is being offered has not given his or
her consent to such testim ony.
748
HUM'; I III) BULKS OF ADM ISSIBILITY Hific:. 24
749
HUL1« 1.30 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. U
750
Htil.io 1:10 RULES OK ADMISSIIHI.ITY SICC, 24
751
RUM'S iao REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM HKC ''1
752
RULE 130 HULKS OK ADMISSIBILITY SKO. 25
NO TES
753
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC, 26
NOTES
754
H U M '’, 130 RULES OK ADM ISSIBILITY HEC 26
755
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. 27
756
ItULIC I MO If HI,ICS OK ADMISHIIil I.ITY SIOC "7
N O TES
757
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC, 28
NOTES
758
kulk mo Hill,ICS OK ADM1SHI HI I ,ITY O',I' '4H
NOTES
759
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM BBC. 30
agent o f the client, subject to the lim itation that the same
should not am ount to a com prom ise [Sec. 23, R ule 138]
or confession o f judgm ent (Acenas, et al. vs. Sison, et al.,
L -17011, Aug. 30, 1963).
5. The phrase “join t debtor” does not refer to mere
com m unity o f interest but should be understood according
to its m eaning in the com m on law system from w hich the
p r o v is io n w a s ta k e n , th a t is, in so lid u m , a n d n ot
m ancom unada (Jaucian vs. Querol, etc., 88 Phil. 707; cf.
A goncillo, et al. vs. Javier, etc., 38 Phil. 424).
N O TES
760
Kill, Is 130 Kill,ICS O F A D M IS S IIIIU T Y Mice :ki
761
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. 31. 32
NO TES
Sec. 32. A d m is s io n by s i le n c e . — A n a c t or
declaration m ade in the presence and w ithin the
h earin g or observation o f a party who does or says
n o th in g w hen the act or d e c la r a tio n is su ch as
naturally to call for action or com m ent if not true,
and w hen proper or possible for him to do so, m ay
be given in evidence against him . (23a)
N OTES
762
HUM1', 1ao IIUI.KH OK A D M IS S I III I .ri’Y si'ii i. 32
763
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SBC. 33
NO TES
764
m u .K i;m R U L E S 01*' A D M IS S IB IL IT Y S E C . aa
765
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. 33
766
1(111,1'. 1,10 HULKS OK ADMIHHIltll.ITY HKc ■ :t;i
767
HU 1,1C 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM sice :i;i
768
HWI.K I III) H U LK S OK A D M IS S I HI LITY HKC 311
769
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. an
770
11111,15 i:to RULES OK ADMISSIBILITY HKC II!l
771
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 8 ICC. :i;l
772
KUI.I'', 130 HULKS OF ADM ISSIBILITY SEC. 33
773
R U L E 130 R E M E D IA L LAW C O M P E N D IU M SEC, 34
N O TES
774
RU LE i a o B U LKS O P A D M IS S IB IL IT Y S E C S . JIB, 30
NO TE
775
RULE i:$o REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC HO
NOTES
776
hum -; i;m ItlII.UN OI1' ADMISSIBILITY SR C M0
Ill
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. 37
( 1) D ying D eclaration
778
HUI.K 130 Htll.KH O P A D M1 S H I H 1 MT Y HUG. M7
NOTES
779
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM HICC'. 37
780
h i i i .io ian HULKS OF ADM ISSIBILITY SEC. 37
781
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. :ih
requisites concur.
8 . A dying declaration may be oral or w ritten or made
by signs w hich could be interpreted and testified to by a
w itness thereto. The wife o f the declarant may testify to
the sam e, either for the prosecution or as a w itness for the
defense, and this does not violate the m arital privilege as
a d y in g d e cla ra tio n is not co n sid e re d a co n fid e n tia l
com m unication betw een the spouses (U.S. vs. A ntipolo,
supra). I f the ante mortem statem ent w as m ade orally,
the w itness who heard it m ay testify thereto, w ithout
necessarily reproducing the exact words as long as he can
give the substance thereof, and if the deceased had an
unsigned dying declaration, the same may be used as a
m em orandum by the w itness who took it dow n (People vs.
Odencio, et al., L -31961, Jan. 9, 1979).
9. A d y in g d e cla ra tio n m ay be a tta ck e d on the
ground that any o f the requisites for its adm issibility are
n ot p resen t, and the sam e m ay be im p ea ch ed in the
sam e m anner as the testim ony o f any other w itness on
the stand (see U.S. vs. Castellon, 12 Phil. 160; P eople vs.
M alacon , [C A ], 67 O.G. 9024; P eop le vs. A n iel, et al.,
L-34416, Feb. 21, 1980). A m erican jurisprudence is to
the effect that dying declarations are on the sam e footing
as testim ony o f a witness on the stand and w hatever would
disqualify such w itness would also make such declarations
in com p eten t evidence (P eople vs. Sanchez, 24 Cal. 17;
D onnelly vs. State, 26 N .J.L. 601).
Sec. 38. D e c la r a t io n a g a in s t in t e r e s t. — T h e
declaration made by a person deceased, or unable
to testify, against the interest o f the declarant, if
the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time
it w as m ade so far co n tra ry to d e c la r a n t’s ow n
782
HULK nil) lUIl,KM OK A D M IS S IB IL IT Y -IICO I1H
in te r e st, th a t a r e a so n a b le m an in h is p o sitio n
w ould not have m ade the d ecla ra tio n u n less he
believed it to be true, m ay be received in evidence
again st h im se lf or his successors in in terest and
against third persons. (32a)
NOTES
783
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM HEC8, HtJ 40
784
H U L K UK) UUI.ICS O F A D M I S S I B I L I T Y SECS. Mil 40
NO TES
785
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. 41
NOTES
1. C o m m o n r e p u t a t io n , w h ich m e a n s g e n e r a l
reputation, is adm issible to prove (a) facts o f public or
general interest m ore than thirty years old, (b) m arriage,
and (c) m ora l ch a ra cte r. M a tters o f p u b lic in te re st
are those o f national interest, w hile m atters o f general
in terest are those affecting inhabitants o f a particular
region or com m unity. In any o f the three cases, it is
necessary that the com m on reputation existed ante litem
motam.
786
H U L K iao HULKS OK ADMIMHIIIIL1TY H1C(‘
( 6 ) Res Gestae
787
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. 42
NO TES
788
ifiii.i'', in o RUI.KS O F AO M iSH lB H .n’Y Hind ia
im pen din g death, w hile the rule o f res g esta e has its
ju stifica tion in the spontaneity o f the statem ent.
Consequently, while the statem ents o f the victim may
not qualify as a dying declaration because it was not m ade
under the consciousness o f im pending death (P eople vs.
P alam os, et al., 49 Phil. 601), it may still be adm issible as
part o f the res gestae if it w as m ade im m ediately after the
in ciden t (People vs. R eyes, 52 Phil. 538; P eople vs. Abboc,
et al., L-28327, Sept. 14, 1973, and cases therein cited;
P eople vs. Pascual, et al., L -29893, Feb. 23, 1978; People
vs. A raja, et al., L-24780, June 29, 1981) or a few hours
thereafter (People vs. Tum alip, et al., L -28451, Oct. 28,
1 974; P eo p le vs. L an za, su p ra ; cf. P eo p le vs. B a ib a s
L-47686, June 24, 1983). H ow ever, w here the elem ents
o f both are present, the statem ent m ay be adm itted both
as a d y in g d e cla ra tio n and as p a rt o f th e res g es ta e
(P eo p le vs. B aibas, su p ra ; P eop le vs. C ortezan o, G.R.
No. 140732, Jan. 29, 2002).
Form erly, a dying declaration was adm issible only in
a crim inal case w herein the declarant’s death w as the
subject o f the inquiry, w hereas a statem ent as part o f the
res gestae w as adm issible in both crim inal and civil cases.
T h is d is tin ctio n has been e lim in a te d by th e p resen t
am endm ent o f the Rule (see Note 7 under Sec. 37).
4. To be adm issible as part o f the res gestae, the
statem ent m ust (a) be spontaneous, (b) be m ade w hile a
startlin g occurrence is taking place or im m ediately prior
or subsequent thereto, and (c) relate to the circum stances
o f th e s ta rtlin g occu rren ce. F u rth erm ore, on ly such
sta tem en ts as appear to have been in v olu n ta rily and
sim u ltan eou sly w rung from the w itn ess by the im pact
o f the occurrence are adm issible (P eople vs. Tulagan,
et al., G.R. No. 68620, July 22, 1986).
789
R U L E 130 R E M E D IA L LAW C O M P E N D IU M HEO 42
5. T h e in te r v a l o f tim e b e tw e e n th e s t a r t lin g
occurrence and the statem ent depends upon the circum
stances; but such statem ent m ust have been made w hile
the declarant was under the im m ediate influence o f the
startling occurrence, hence it is generally required to have
been made im m ediately prior or subsequent to the event.
How ever, if the declarant w as rendered unconscious after
the startling occurrence, his statem ents relative thereto
upon regaining consciousness are still part of the res gestae
regardless o f the tim e that intervened in between.
If the statem ent w as m ade under the influence of
a sta rtlin g event and the d ecla ra n t did not have the
opportu nity to concoct or contrive a story, even if made
9 hours after the k illing, the statem ent is adm issible
as part o f the res gestae (P eople vs. B eram e, L -27606,
July 30, 1976).
6 . Statem ents or outcries as part o f the res gestae
h ave b e e n a d m itted to e sta b lish the id e n tity o f the
a ssa ila n t (P eop le vs. A lb a n , L -15203, M ar. 29, 1961;
P eople vs. Diva, et al., L-22946, A pril 29, 1968), to prove
the com plicity o f another person in the crim e (U.S. vs.
D avid, 3 P hil. 128), and to establish an adm ission o f
liability on the part o f the accused (People vs. Reyes, et al.,
82 P h il. 5 6 3 ; P eo p le vs. G on d a ya o, et a l., L -2 6 2 4 0 ,
Oct. 31, 1969).
7. For verbal acts to be admissible, it is required that
(a) the res gestae or principal act to be characterized must
be equivocal, (b) such act m ust be m aterial to the issue,
(c) the statem ents m ust accom pany the equivocal act, and
(d) the statem ents give a legal significance to the equivocal
act. Such verbal acts m ust have been made at the time,
and not after, the equivocal act w as b ein g perform ed,
unlike spontaneous exclam ations which may have been
m ade before, during or im m ediately subsequent to the
startling occurrence. The term “verbal act” is, therefore,
790
KUI.K 1M0 RU LES O P AD M ISH IIIILITY i r 11
Sec. 43. E n tr ie s in th e c o u r s e o f b u s in e s s . —
Entries m ade at, or near the time o f the transactions
to w hich they refer, by a person deceased, or unable
to testify, who was in a position to know the facts
th e r e in s ta te d , m ay be re ceiv ed as p r i m a f a c i e
e vid en ce, if such person m ade the en tries in his
p rofession al capacity or in the perform an ce of a
d u ty and in th e o r d in a r y or r e g u la r c o u r se o f
business or duty. (37a)
NOTES
791
HULK 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC, 44
792
H U L K mi) R U I. K S 01'' A D M I S S I 111 I ,ITY 8HC. 41
NOTES
793
RULE 130 REM EDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC -4 4
794
HULK 180 H U L E 8 O F A D M IS S IB IL IT Y SBC *ft
NOTE
795
HULK 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM S K I'S Hi, 47
S e c . 46. L e a r n e d t r e a t is e s . — A p u b l i s h e d
t r e a t i s e , p e r i o d i c a l o r p a m p h le t o n a s u b j e c t o f
h is t o r y , la w , s c ie n c e o r a r t is a d m is s ib le a s t e n d in g
t o p r o v e th e t r u t h o f a m a t t e r s ta te d t h e r e in i f th e
c o u r t t a k e s ju d i c i a l n o t ic e , o r a w it n e s s e x p e r t in
th e s u b je c t te s tifie s , th a t th e w r it e r o f th e s ta te m e n t
in th e t r e a tis e , p e r i o d i c a l o r p a m p h le t is r e c o g n i z e d
in h is p r o f e s s io n o r c a l l i n g as e x p e r t in t h e s u b je c t .
(40a)
NOTES
S e c . 47. T e s tim o n y o r d e p o s it io n a t a fo r m e r
p r o c e e d in g . — T h e t e s t i m o n y o r d e p o s i t i o n o f a
w it n e s s d e c e a s e d o r u n a b le t o t e s t ify , g i v e n in a
f o r m e r c a s e o r p r o c e e d i n g , ju d i c i a l o r a d m in is t r a
t iv e , i n v o l v i n g th e sa m e p a r t ie s a n d s u b je c t m a tte r ,
m a y b e g iv e n in e v id e n c e a g a in s t th e a d v e r s e p a r t y
w h o h a d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c r o s s - e x a m i n e h im .
(41a)
796
H U LK 1BO H U L IiN O K A I) M LSI WHI M T V NEC it
NOTES
797
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. 47
How ever, under the form er Sec. 1(f) o f Rule 115 (as
am ended in the 1985 Rules on Crim inal P rocedure) either
party could utilize the testim ony o f a w itness who is no
longer available, w hether the sam e was given in another
798
KUl.K I MO R U L E S O F A D M IS S IB IL IT Y SBC. 47
799
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. 48-50
7. O pinion Rule
Sec. 49. O p in io n o f e x p e r t w it n e s s e s . — T h e
opinion o f a w itness on a m atter requ irin g special
know led ge, skill, experience or train in g w hich he
is show n to possess, m ay be received. (43a)
800
H U M S i;io R ill,U S O F ADMINSJ111 1,1'1'Y H Kt’M i m ho
NO TES
(d) O n th e e m o tio n , b e h a v io r , c o n d i t i o n or
appearance o f a person w hich he has observed; and
801
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS 'IH r>0
802
HUliK mo R tJU IS OP A D M IS S IB IL IT Y SHCS, 48-60
I). 11 has also been held in our ju risd iction that, w ith
respect to a handw riting expert, the value o f his opinion
deponds not upon his m ere statem ent w hether a w riting
is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he m ay afford
in pointing out distinguishing m arks, characteristics and
discrepancies in and betw een genuine and false specim ens
o f w r itin g w h ich w o u ld o r d in a r ily e sca p e n o tic e or
detection by an untrained observer (U.S. vs. Kosel, 24 Phil.
594; People vs. Florendo, 40 O.G. [2nd S upp.] 224).
c. W hether or not courts are bound by the testim ony
o f an expert depends greatly upon the nature of the subject
o f inquiry. I f the same is one that falls w ithin the general
k n o w le d g e o f ju d g e s , c o u r ts a re n ot b o u n d b y th e
conclusions o f even a real expert along such line (Paras
vs. N arciso, 35 Phil. 244; D olar vs. D iansin, et al., 55 Phil.
479). It is only w here the subject o f inquiry is o f such a
te ch n ica l nature th a t a laym an can p ossib ly have no
know ledge th ereof that courts must depend and rely upon
expert evidence (Raym undo vs. Legaspi, 47 O.G. 807, cited
in N A R IC vs. F irst N ational Security & A ssu rance Co.,
Inc., et al., [CA], 64 O.G. 10607).
803
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. 48-50
804
Kill ,14 KID K U L E 8 OK A D M IS S IB IL IT Y S E C S . 4 8 -5 0
805
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. 48-60
806
lUH.K I HO IUII.MS ()K A D M IS S IB IL IT Y SEC S. <1H 50
T h is (D ip h e n a lin e or P a r a ffin ) te st h a s p ro v e d
extrem ely unreliable in use. The only thing that it can
d e fin it e ly e s t a b lis h is th e p r e s e n c e o r a b s e n c e o f
nitrates or nitrites on the hand. It cannot be definitely
established from this test alone that the source o f the
n itra tes or n itrites w as d isch a rge o f a firea rm . T he
person m ay have handled one or m ore o f a num ber o f
su b stan ces w h ich give the sam e p ositiv e rea ction for
n itr a te s or n it r it e s , su ch as e x p lo s iv e s , fir e w o r k s ,
fertilizers, pharm aceuticals and legum inous plants such
as peas, beans, and alfalfa. A person who uses tobacco
m ay also have nitrate or nitrite deposits on his hands
since these su bstan ces are presen t in the prod u cts o f
com bustion o f tobacco. As a result, the usefulness o f this
test as evidence is very sm all, although it does have some
in vestigative value (5 Am. Jur. 119-120 [I960]).” See also
P eople us. Pascua, Jr. (G.R. No. 130963, Nov. 27, 2001).
807
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. 48-GO
808
HUI.K 1MO RULES OK ADM ISSIBILITY SECS. 48-50
809
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SliCS. 48-BO
W h ile w e h a v e c o m p a r a t iv e ly lib e r a l r u le s on
adm issibility, the persuasion is that the probative value
or w eight o f the DNA analysis should be subjected to the
exa ctin g requisites o f evaluation. Thus, adopting the
h ighest standard follow ed in an A m erican jurisdiction ,
trial courts should require at least 99.9% as the m ini
mum num erical estim ate for the likelihood or probability
o f paternity. DNA analysis that excludes the putative
810
H U I.H iao RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY SECS. -I8 60
811
RULE 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. 51
8. Character Evidence
812
HU LK 180 IU ILK 8 UK A D M IS S IB IL IT Y SEC . 61
NO TES
813
R U L E 130 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM skc r.i
814
B. BURDEN OF PROOF AND
W H AT NEED NOT BE PROVED
RULE 131
1. Burden o f P roof
NOTES
815
R U L E 131 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC I
C h a r g e s o f m is c o n d u c t a g a in s t ju d g e s r e q u ir e
clear and convincing evidence (Pesole vs. R odriguez, A.M .
No. 755-MJ, Jan. 31, 1978), w hile the ground for their
rem oval should be established beyond reasonable doubt
(R a qu iza vs. C astaneda, Jr., etc., A .M . No. 1312-CF1,
Jan. 31, 1978). In agrarian cases, all that is required is
“substantial evidence” (Sec. 18, P.D. 946). S ubstantial
evidence does not necessarily im port preponderance o f
evidence, as in civil cases, but only such relevant evidence
as a re a s o n a b le m in d m ig h t a cce p t as s u ffic ie n t to
support a conclusion (Tolentino, et al. vs. CA, et al., G.R.
No. 56265, M ay 20, 1987). This definition and quantum
o f evidence has now been adopted for cases filed before
adm inistrative or quasi-judicial bodies (Sec. 5, R ule 133).
2. In civil cases, the burden of p roof is on the party
who w ould be defeated if no evidence were given on either
side; in crim inal cases, the burden o f p roof is alw ays on
the prosecution. Thus, in civil cases, the burden o f p roof
is generally on the plaintiff, w ith respect to his com plaint;
on the defendant, w ith respect to his counterclaim ; and
on the cross-claim ant, w ith respect to his cross-claim .
3. The burden o f p roof and the burden o f evidence
im posed upon the parties m ay be distinguished as follow s:
a. The burden o f p roof does not shift as it rem ains
th rou g h ou t the tria l w ith the p a rty upon w hom it is
im posed; the burden o f evidence shifts from party to party
depending upon the exigencies o f the case in the course
o f the trial (see B autista, et al. vs. Sarm iento, etc., et al.,
L-45137, Sept. 29, 1985).
b. The burden o f p ro o f is generally determ ined by
the pleadings filed by the party; the burden o f evidence is
generally determ ined by the developm ents at the trial, or
by the provisions of the substantive law or procedural rules
w hich m ay relieve the party from presenting evidence on
816
H U I.K I .'I I B U R D E N OK P R O O F SEC. I
A N D P R E S U M P T IO N S
817
r
818
HUM'. I.II BURDEN O F PROOF SEC. I
A N D P R E S U M P T IO N S
819
RULE 131 REMEDIAL LAW C O M P E N D I U M 8K0B. 2, II
NOTE
820
R U tl 181 B U R D IN OP PROOF SBC. 3
A N D P R E S U M P T IO N S
evidence:
(u) That a person is innocent o f crim e or w rong;
(b) T h a t an u n la w fu l act w as done w ith an
unlaw ful intent;
(c) T h a t a p e r s o n in t e n d s th e o r d in a r y
consequen ces o f his voluntary act;
(d) T h at a p erson tak es o rd in ary care o f his
co n ce rn s;
(e) That evidence w illfully suppressed would be
adverse if produced;
NOTES
821
R U L E 131 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. 3
822
H U L K 101 BURDEN OP PROOF SBC. 8
A N D P R E S U M P T IO N S
NOTE
823
RULE 131. REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 8 1 0 ,8
(t) T h a t an e n d o r s e m e n t o f a n e g o t i a b le
in stru m en t was m ade before the instrum ent was
overdue and at the place where the instrum ent is
dated;
NO TES
824
RUL1C 181 BURDEN OP PROOF SEC. 3
A N D P R E S U M P T IO N S
825
R U L E 1:t 1 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SE C . :i
826
H U L K 111 UU RD EN OK PROOF SEC. 3
A N D P R E S U M P T IO N S
NOTE
(y) T h at th in gs have h ap p en ed a c co rd in g to
the o rd in a ry course o f nature and the ord in a ry
habits o f life;
827
HULK 131 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC, 3
(2) A c h ild b o rn a ft e r on e h u n d r e d e ig h ty
days fo llow in g the celebration o f the su bsequ en t
m a rria g e is co n sid ered to h ave been c o n c e iv e d
d u r in g su ch m a r r ia g e , ev en th o u g h it be b o rn
w ithin the three hundred days after the term ination
o f the form er m arriage.
NO TE
1. Par. (dd) was taken from Art. 259 o f the Civil Code,
w hich provided for presum ptions o f paternity, except that
the form er now includes term ination of the prior marriage
for causes other than the death o f the husband, in line
w ith Art. 168 o f the Fam ily Code.
828
U U L a la i B U R D E N 01*' P R O O E SEC. 3
A N D P R E S U M P T IO N S
(ii) T h a t a tr u s te e or o th e r p e r s o n w h o se
d uty it w as to convey real property to a p articu lar
person has actually conveyed it to him w hen such
p re su m p tio n is n ec essa ry to p e rfe c t the title o f
such person or his successor in interest;
2. I f b o th w ere a b o v e th e age o f s ix ty , th e
younger is deem ed to have survived;
829
RULE 131 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM S IC , 3
NO TE
NOTES
830
R tJLK 1 8 1 BURDEN OF PROOF SEC. 4
A N D P R E S U M P T IO N S
NO TE
831
RULE 129
A ft e r th e t r ia l, an d b e fo r e ju d g m e n t or on
ap peal, the proper court, on its ow n initiative or
on request o f a party, m ay take ju d icial notice o f
any m atter and allow the parties to be heard thereon
832
HU LB liiWWHAT NICHU NOT UE PROVED SEC. 3
NOTES
833
R U L E 129 R E M E D IA L LA W C O M P E N D IU M •SEC :i
834
ittu.it; i 2ii WHAT NEED NOT UK PROVED SEC. 3
otherw ise (Phil. Com m ercial & Industrial Bank, etc. vs.
Escolin, etc., et al., L-67896, Mar. 29, 1974).
To prove a w ritten foreign law, the requirem ents of
Secs. 24 and 25, Rule 132 m ust be com plied with, that is,
by an o ffic ia l p u b lica tio n or by a du ly a tte ste d and
authenticated copy thereof. The provisions o f the foreign
law may also be the subject o f ju d icia l adm ission under
Sec. 4 o f this Rule. Absent any o f the foregoing evidence
or adm ission, the foreign law is presum ed to be the same
as that in the Philippines, under the so-called doctrine o f
p rocessu al presu m ption (In R e Testate E state o f Suntay,
50 O.G. 5321; Collector o f Internal R evenue vs. Fisher,
et al., L-11622, Jan. 28, 1961). To prove an unw ritten
foreign law, the provisions o f Sec. 46, Rule 130 supply the
evidential sources or rem edies (see W ildvalley S hipping
Co., Ltd. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 119602, Oct. 6, 2000).
8. In M a n u fa ctu rers H a n ov er T rust Co., etc. vs.
G uerrero (G.R. No. 136804, Feb. 19, 2003), the Suprem e
C o u r t n o t e d th a t w h ile c e r t a in e x c e p t io n s to th e
requirem ents laid down in Secs. 24 and 25 of this Rule for
p ro o f o f foreign law have been recognized, the evidence
presented for that purpose in this case is unacceptable.
H ere, the petitioner subm itted an affidavit o f a New Y ork
attorney w hich does not even state the specific N ew Y ork
law on the issue o f damages involved, but m erely contained
the affiant’s interpretation and opinion o f the facts o f the
case vis-a -vis the alleged law and ju risp ru d en ce cited
therein. Further, said affidavit was taken ex parte abroad
and the affiant never testified in court.
In the cases w herein testim ony on the foreign law
w as accepted by the Suprem e Court, such as C ollector o f
Internal R evenue vs. Fisher, et al., supra, the w itness, who
w as an active m em ber o f the C alifornia Bar, testified that
he was fam iliar with the C alifornia revenue and tax laws
in question, and, as part o f his testim ony, a fu ll quotation
835
R U L E 129 R E M E D IA L L A W C O M P E N D IU M SEC. <1
Sec. 4. J u d ic ia l a d m issio n s. — A n a d m is s io n ,
verbal or w ritten, m ade by a party in the course of
the proceedings in the same case, does not require
proof. The adm ission m ay be contradicted only by
show ing that it was made through palpable m istake
or that no such adm ission was m ade. (2a)
NO TES
836
K II I .K 129 W H A T N E E D N O T HE P R O V E D SEC. A
837
RULE 129 WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED SEC. 4
838
I). PRESEN TATIO N OF EVID EN C E
RULE 132
N O TES
839
RULE 132 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. 2
840
RULE 132 PRESENTATION OP EVIDENCE SEC. 3
N O TES
841
RULE 132 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC.
842
i n u , i c i : ta l'HEHENTATION <)!'■ EVIDENCE SEC. 3
843
RULE 132 REMEDIAL LAW C O M P E N D IU M SEC I
In G a lm a n , et a l. vs. P a m a r a n , et a l. (G .R .
N os. 7 1 2 0 8 -0 9 , A u g . 30, 1985), th e S u p re m e C ou rt
noted the classes and application o f im m unity statutes.
It explain ed that im m unity statu tes m ay be generally
classified into those which grant “use immunity” and others
w hich grant “transactional im m unity.” “Use im m unity”
prohibits the use o f the w itness’ com pelled testim ony and
its fruits in any m anner in connection with the crim inal
p r o s e c u t io n o f th e w it n e s s . O n th e o t h e r h a n d ,
“transactional im m unity” grants im m unity to the w itness
from prosecution for an offense to w hich his com pelled
testim ony relates. Thus, w here the statute grants only
“ use im m u n ity ,” m e re ly te s tify in g a n d /o r p ro d u cin g
e v id e n ce d oes n ot re n d e r th e w itn ess im m u n e from
prosecution despite his invocation o f the right against
se lf-in crim in a tion . He is m erely saved from the use
again st him o f such statem ents or evidence w h ich he
h a d b e e n co m p e lle d to p rod u ce n o tw ith s ta n d in g his
h a v in g s e a s o n a b ly in v o k e d sa id rig h t a g a in s t s e l f
incrim ination.
5. The right against self-in crim in ation is granted
only in favor o f individuals, hence, a corporation cannot
invoke that privilege as the questioned testim on y can
com e only from a corporate officer or em ployee who has
a personality distinct from that o f the corporation (Hale
vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43).
6. The right against self-in crim in ation extends to
adm inistrative proceedings with a crim inal or penal aspect,
e.g., proceedings before the Board o f M edical Exam iners
(P a scu al, Jr. vs. B oard o f M ed ica l E xa m in ers, et al.,
L -25018, M ay 26, 1969).
844
MULE l;r,' PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE S E C S . 5-8
845
RULE 132 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. r. n
NOTES
846
HUM? I IB I’ llESKNTATION OK EVIDENCE 8KO. H
847
RULE 132 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. 10 11
NO TE
1. W h e re a ll s id e s in th e ca s e h a v e c o n c lu d e d
th eir exam ination o f the w itness, his recall for further
exam ination is discretionary w ith the court as the interest
o f ju stice requires. H ow ever, w here such exam in ation
has not been concluded, or if the recall o f the w itness was
expressly reserved by a party w ith the approval o f the
court, then his recall is a m atter o f right.
848
U U I.K lay I’ RICHENTATION OF KVIDKNCIC SECS. 1 2 -lit
849
RULE 132 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM sac, I!)
NOTES
850
B U I .10 1:12 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE SBC. 13
851
R U L E 132 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC, I'I
N O TE
852
H U L E i ; i•«’, PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE SEC. 15
N O TES
1. T h e p o w e r o f e x c lu s io n a p p lie s o n ly to th e
w itnesses and not to the parties in a civil case. P arties
have a right to be present at the trial either by them selves
or by th eir attorneys, as w ell as to reasonable notice o f
the tim e fixed therefor (M uerteguy, et al. vs. D elgado,
22 Phil. 109). Since they have such right, by necessary
im plication they cannot be divested thereof by an exclusion
order. T his is a reiteration o f an earlier ruling o f the
Suprem e Court that “(a) party to an action has a right to
be present in court w hile his case is being tried, and the
rule authorizing the exclusion o f witnesses during the trial
cannot be understood to extend to him” (Paez vs. Berenguer,
8 Phil. 457, citing S treeter vs. Evans, 44 Vt. 27).
853
RULE 132 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. 16
also been held that it is w ithin the pow er o f the trial judge
to refuse to order the exclusion of the principal w itness of
the governm ent during the hearing o f a crim inal case and
it may not, on that count alone, be considered as an abuse
o f his discretion (People vs. Lua Chu, et al., 56 Phil. 44).
N O TES
2. T h e p ro v is io n a p p lies on ly w h en it is sh ow n
beforehand that there is a need to refresh the m em ory o f
854
i u i i .k la y PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE SECS. 17, 1H
NO TE
1. A s im ila r ru le is p r o v id e d fo r in th e u se o f
depositions (see Sec. 4[d], R ule 23).
855
R U L E 132 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC . Ill
N O TES
1. T h e c la s s ific a t io n o f d o cu m e n ts in to o ffic ia l,
public, com m ercial and private under the R evised Penal
Code is different. Under the rules o f evidence, official
d ocu m en ts are “p u b lic d o cu m e n ts” (S ec. 19). T h ose
acknow ledged before persons authorized to adm inister
oaths are p u b lic docum ents b u t are fu rth er governed
by Sec. 30, w h ile com m ercia l and p riva te d ocu m en ts
w ould fall under “private docum ents.” H ow ever, private
docum ents required by law to be entered in public records
are considered as public docum ents and are subject to
the provisions o f Sec. 27.
2. P u b lic d o cu m e n ts g e n e r a lly in clu d e n o ta r ia l
docum ents and are adm issible in evidence w ithout the
necessity o f prelim inary proof as to its authenticity and
856
H ULK I M2 I’HICSKNTATION OK KVIIJKNC10 SKC. I!)
857
RULE 132 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM S E C S . 20 2Z
(b) By e v id e n c e o f th e g e n u in e n e s s o f th e
signature or handw riting o f the m aker.
A n y o th e r p r iv a te d o c u m e n t n eed o n ly be
identified as that w hich it is claim ed to be. (21a)
858
HULK 182 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE SECS. 20-22
NO TES
859
RULE 132 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. 23-24
860
HULK 1112 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE SECS. 25-20
N O TES
861
RULE 132 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. 27-26
NO TE
862
RULE 132 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE SEC. 30
NOTES
863
RULE 132 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM S E C . IK)
864
R U L I 132 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE SEC. 30
865
RULE 132 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. 81-32
866
H U til 132 P R E S E N T A T IO N O F E V ID E N C E SECS. 33, 34
NO TE
867
R U L E 132 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. ;u.
D o c u m e n ta r y and o b je c t e v id e n c e sh a ll be
o f f e r e d a f t e r th e p r e s e n t a t io n o f a p a r t y ’ s
te stim o n ia l ev id en ce. Su ch offer sh a ll be done
o rally unless allow ed by the court to be done in
w riting (n).
NOTE
868
tit 11<10 ur.1 I ' l i l C H i i N T A T I O N O K K . V I D K .N C H SI'ICS. ae-38
869
RULE 132 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM HE (IS. :i!) 40
NO TES
870
HULK 1M2 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE SECS. 30-40
871
RULE 132 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. 80-40
872
RU L E 132 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE SECS. 39-40
873
RULE 132 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. 39-40
874
IUH,1C I:ia P R E SE N T A T IO N O F EVIDENCE SECS. 39-40
Co., I Ltd. I us. Ellerm an & Bucknall Steam ship Co., [Ltd.],
et a I., 38 Phil. 514).
11. An erroneous adm ission or rejection o f evidence
by the trial court is not a ground for a new trial or reversal
o f the decision if there are other independent evidence to
sustain the decision, or if the rejected evidence, if it had
b een a d m itted , w ould not h a ve ch a n ged the d ecision
(People vs. Bande, et al., 50 Phil. 37); otherw ise, a new
trial is warranted by reason o f such erroneous ruling which
goes into the m erits of the case and w ould have affected
th e d e cis io n (U .S . vs. V illa n u ev a , 18 P h il. 593). If
the trial court erroneously ruled out the evidence and
discovered such error before the judgm ent had becom e
final or before an appeal therefrom had been perfected,
it may re-open the case (Tinsay vs. Yusay, et al., 47 Phil.
639).
12. T he ru lin g s o f the tria l cou rt on p ro ce d u ra l
qu estion s and on adm issibility o f evidence du rin g the
course o f a trial are interlocutory in nature and m ay not
be the subject o f separate appeals or review on certiorari.
T hese are to be assigned as errors and review ed in the
appeal taken from the trial court on the m erits o f the case
(G atd u la vs. P eople, G.R. No. 140688, Jan. 26, 2001,
citin g cases).
875
E. W E IG H T AND SU FFIC IEN C Y OF EVID EN C E
RULE 133
Sec. 2. P r o o f b eyon d re a so n a b le d o u b t. — In a
crim inal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal,
u n le s s h is g u ilt is sh o w n b ey o n d a r e a so n a b le
d o u b t. P r o o f b ey o n d a r e a so n a b le d o u b t d oes
n ot m ean such a d egree o f p r o o f as, e x c lu d in g
p ossib ility o f error, produces absolute certainty.
M oral certainty only is required, or that degree of
p roof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced
m ind. (2a)
RULE I.'IH WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY SECS. 1-2
OF EVIDENCE
NOTES
877
RULE 133 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. I
878
BULK 133 WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY SECS. 1-2
OF EVIDENCE
879
R U L E 133 R E M E D IA L LA W C O M P E N D IU M SECS, 1-n
880
RULE 133 W E IG H T A N D SU F F IC IE N C Y S E C S . 1-2
OF E V I D E N C E
881
RULE 133 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. 1-2
882
HULK ia:i W E IG H T A N D S U F F IC IE N C Y S E C S . 1-2
OF EVIDENCE
883
RULE 133 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. 1-2
884
HULK IMS WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY SECS. 1-2
OF E V ID E N C E
other may not have observed or may not rem em ber. The
apparent conflict may be due to differences in observation
or m em ory w hich does not necessarily im ply falsehood on
their part (People vs. Tuason, 47 O.G. 6177).
28. D elay o f a w itness in revealing to the authorities
what he knows about a crime does not render his testim ony
fa lse, for the delay m ay be exp la in ed b y the n atural
re ticen ce o f m ost people and th eir a b h orren ce to get
in volved in a crim inal case (P eople vs. U ntalasco, Jr.,
et al., G.R. No. 61105, Oct. 25, 1983; People vs. Pacabes,
et al., G.R. No. 55417, June 24, 1985; People vs. Punzalan,
et al., G.R. No. 54562, Aug. 6, 1987). But m ore than this,
there is always the inherent fear o f reprisal, w hich is quite
understandable especially if the accused is a m an o f power
and influence in the com m unity (People vs. Catao, et al.,
1 0 7 Phil. 8 6 1 ;People vs. Estocada, L-31024, Feb. 28, 1977).
The delay o f a w itness in divulging w hat she knows
about the crim e, if satisfactorily explained at the trial as
where it w as due to her intense grief, does not underm ine
her credibility (People vs. Castillo, L - l l 793, M ay 19, 1961;
People vs. Provo, et al., L-28347, Jan. 20, 1971; P eople
vs. G u eva rra , L -3 2 1 4 7 -4 9 , M ar. 17, 1978; P eo p le vs.
Cuadra L-27973, Oct. 23, 1978; People vs. Tamayao, G.R.
No. 56699, Jan. 28, 1983). A lso, w here the failure o f a
w itn ess to revea l all that she k now s about the crim e
com plained o f was satisfactorily explained by her during
the trial, and was attributed to her fear o f reprisal and
actual threats made upon her, such failure can not w eaken
the credibility o f her testim ony (People vs. Bulan, 108 Phil.
932). The refusal o f a person to subm it to in vestigation to
explain the innocent role he professes is inconsistent with
the norm al reaction o f an innocent man (People vs. Bunsol,
et a l , L-33344, Mar. 25, 1975).
29. The mere relationship o f the witness to the victim
does not im pair his positive and clear testim ony nor render
885
RULE 133 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. 1-2
886
HtH.K la.'l WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY SECS. 1-2
OF EVIDENCE
887
R U L E 133 R E M E D IA L LA W C O M P E N D IU M SECS, I 2
888
HULK 133 WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY SECS. 1-2
OF EVIDENCE
889
R U L E 133 R E M E D IA L L A W C O M P E N D IU M SECS. 12
890
HULK 133 W E IG H T AN D S U F F IC IE N C Y SE C S. 1-2
OF EVIDENCE
891
HULK 133 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. I 2
892
HULK HIM W E IG H T A N D S U F F IC IE N C Y S E C S . 1-2
OF EVIDENCE
893
RULE 133 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. 1-2
894
HUI.K 133 WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY SECS. l-'2
OF EVIDENCE
m o tiv e o f th e co n d u ct o f th e a ccu s e d e x p la in s a n d
su p p lies the elem en t o f m alice and, corresp on d in g ly ,
proves his crim inal intent.
43. D raw ing from N eil us. Biggers (409 U.S. 188),
the Suprem e Court has held that on the adm issibility
and reliability o f out-of-court identification o f suspects,
courts have adopted the “totality o f circum stances” test
w hich utilizes the follow ing factors, uiz.: (1) the w itn ess’
opportunity to view the crim inal at the tim e o f the crim e;
(2) the w itn ess’ degree o f attention at that tim e; (3) the
accuracy o f any prior description given by the w itness;
(4) the level o f certainty dem onstrated by the w itness at
the id e n tifica tion ; (5) the len gth o f tim e b etw een the
crim e and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness
of the identification procedure (People us. Teehankee, Jr.,
G.R. Nos. 111206-08, Oct. 6, 1995; P eople us. Verzosa,
et al., G.R. No. 118944, Aug. 20, 1998).
44. The foregoing ruling w as reiterated in P eople vs.
P ineda, et al. (G.R. No. 141644, M ay 27, 2004) w hich
furth er provided a list, adm ittedly not exhaustive, o f 12
danger signals that the identification may be erroneous
even though the m ethod used is proper, to wit: (1) the
witness originally stated that he could not identify anyone;
(2) the w itness knew the accused before the crim e but
m ade no a ccu sa tion against him w hen q u estion ed by
the police; (3) a serious discrepancy exists betw een the
w itn ess’ original description and his actual description
o f the a ccu sed ; (4) b efore id e n tify in g the a ccu sed at
the trial, the w itness erroneously identified som e other
person; (5) other w itnesses o f the crim e fail to identify the
accused; (6) before trial, the w itness sees the accused but
fails to identify him; (7) before the com m ission o f the crime,
the w itness had lim ited opportunity to see the accused;
(8) the w itness and the person identified are o f different
racial groups; (9) during his original observation o f the
895
r
RULE 133 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC, :t
Sec. 3. E x tr a ju d ic ia l c o n fe s s io n , n ot s u f fic ie n t
grou n d for conviction. — An extrajudicial confession
m ade by an accused, shall not be sufficien t ground
for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of
c o r p u s d e l ic t i. (3)
896
HULK 138 WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY SEC. 3
OF EVIDENCE
NOTES
897
RULE 133 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. 4
898
RU TJ 183 W 1IQ H T AND SUFFICIENCY NKC 4
OF EVIDENCE
NO TES
899
RULE 133 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC, r>
NOTES
900
RULE 133 WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY SECS. 6, 7
OF EVIDENCE
NOTE
901
RULE 133 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. fi. 7
NO TE