EVIDENCE On Factum Probandum (Riano)
• May be affected by judicial admission of a party – If person admits negligence in culpa
RULE 128
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)
Section 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)
NATURE OF EVIDENCE – Distinguished from PROOF
EVIDENCE – Supports a certain truth; Means of proving a fact. Medium of proof. (Riano)
PROOF – Evidence sufficient to establish a thing is true; Effect or result of evidence
• Proof is not evidence itself – There is proof only because of evidence; Merely the probative
effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from a
consideration of evidence (29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence Sec. 2 – Riano)
• Evidence is not an end of itself but merely as a "means" of ascertaining the truth of a matter
of fact. Not used in all proceedings but only in "judicial proceedings"
• Not every fact having conceivable connection to the issue of a case, or that which provides a
reasonable inference as to the truth or falsity of a matter alleged is considered evidence
• To be considered EVIDENCE – Must be sanctioned by the Rules of Court
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS – Article VIII, Section 5 (5) of the Constitution
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar,
and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the
same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure
of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the SC.
FACTUM PROBANDUM v. FACTUM PROBANS – Evidence signifies a relationship between 2 facts:
Factum Probandum Factum Probans
Facts or material evidencing the fact or
Ultimate fact to be proven, or the proposition
proposition to be established
to be established
Probative or evidentiary fact tending to prove
That which a party wants to prove to the court
the fact in issue
Ex. Guilt or innocence, existence of breach of
Ex. The written contract, the promissory note to
contract, existence of obligation, fact of
prove the existence of an unpaid debt
payment, injury or damage incurred
aquiliana case, there is no need to prove negligence, hence no longer factum probandum
• Matters of Judicial notice, conclusive presumptions, and judicial admissions CANNOT qualify
as parts of the factum probandum since they need not be established or proven
• Practical Terms – Factum Probandum in a civil case refers to the elements of a COA alleged
in the complaint which is denied by the defendant
EVIDENTIARY RULES IN THE CONSTITUTION AND OTHER LAWS, PROCEDURAL ISSUANCES –
Article III of the Philippine Constitution
1. Unlawful Search and Seizures
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
2. Privacy of Communication and Correspondence
Section 3.
(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful
order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by
law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.
3. Inadmissible Confessions and Admissions
Section 12.
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to
be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence
of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free
will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this Section as well as
compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their
families.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 1
 4. Right Against Self-Incrimination
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
GUTANG v. PEOPLE – Signature on Receipts
FACTS - Petitioner insists that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence Exhibits I and R, which are
the Receipts of Property Seized, considering that it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.
The said Receipts for Property Seized, which described the properties seized from the petitioner by
virtue of the search warrant, contain his signature. According to petitioner, inasmuch as the said
evidence were obtained without the assistance of a lawyer, said evidence are tantamount to having
been derived from an uncounselled extra-judicial confession and, thus, are inadmissible in evidence for
being fruits of the poisonous tree.
RULING - We agree. It has been held in a long line of cases that the signature of the accused in the
Receipt of Property Seized is inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of
counsel. The signature of the accused on such a receipt is a declaration against his interest and a tacit
admission of the crime charged for the reason that, in the case at bar, mere unexplained possession of
prohibited drugs is punishable by law. Therefore, the signatures of the petitioner on the two (2) Receipts
of Property Seized (Exhibits I and R) are not admissible in evidence, the same being tantamount to an
uncounselled extra-judicial confession which is prohibited by the Constitution.
MARCELO v. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS - The unsorted mail seized from Marcelo and Romero consisted of 622 letters. The names of the
addressees were listed. They were subsequently notified by the Bureau of Posts to claim their letters.
Many of them, after proper identification, were able to claim their letters. Some letters contained
money.
Romero, Marcelo, and Pasicolan were asked to affix their signatures on the envelopes of the letters.
They did so in the presence of the members of the NBI Administrative and Investigative Staff and the
people transacting business with the NBI at that time. According to Director Ranin, they required the
accused to do this in order to identify the letters as the very same letters confiscated from them.
RULING - To be sure, the use of specimen handwriting in Beltran is different from the use of petitioners
signature in this case. In that case, the purpose was to show that the specimen handwriting matched
the handwriting in the document alleged to have been falsified and thereby show that the accused was
the author of the crime (falsification) while in this case the purpose for securing the signature of
petitioner on the envelopes was merely to authenticate the envelopes as the ones seized from him and
Ronnie Romero. However, this purpose and petitioners signatures on the envelope, when coupled with
the testimony of prosecution witnesses that the envelopes seized from petitioner were those given to
him and Romero, undoubtedly help establish the guilt of petitioner. Since these signatures are actually
evidence of admission obtained from petitioner and his co-accused under circumstances contemplated
in Art. III, 12(1) and 17 of the Constitution, they should be excluded. For indeed, petitioner and his co-
accused signed following their arrest.
HOFFMAN v. UNITED STATES
The witness is not exonerated from answering merely because he declares that, in so doing he would
incriminate himself -- his say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination. It is for the
court to say whether his silence is justified, and to require him to answer if "it clearly appears to the
court that he is mistaken."
However, if the witness, upon interposing his claim, were required to prove the hazard in the sense in
which a claim is usually required to be established in court, he would be compelled to surrender the
very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee. To sustain the privilege, it need only be
evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive
answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because
injurious disclosure could result.
But of the seven questions relating to Weisberg (of which three were answered), three were designed
to draw information as to petitioner's contacts and connection with the fugitive witness, and the final
question, perhaps an afterthought of the prosecutor, inquired of Weisberg's whereabouts at the time.
All of them could easily have required answers that would forge links in a chain of facts imperiling
petitioner with conviction of a federal crime.
PEOPLE v. LAUGA – Bantay-Bayan
This Court is, therefore, convinced that barangay-based volunteer organizations in the nature of watch
groups, as in the case of the "bantay bayan," are recognized by the local government unit to perform
functions relating to the preservation of peace and order at the barangay level. Thus, without ruling on
the legality of the actions taken by Moises Boy Banting, and the specific scope of duties and
responsibilities delegated to a "bantay bayan," particularly on the authority to conduct a custodial
investigation, any inquiry he makes has the color of a state-related function and objective insofar as the
entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights provided for under Article III, Section 12 of the
Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is concerned.
We, therefore, find the extrajudicial confession of appellant, which was taken without a counsel,
inadmissible in evidence.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 2
CONSTITUTIONAL SEARCH NORM RA 4200 does not prohibit the recording of open and public communications. What the law protects
are PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS
Moncado v. People's Court (supra) – Old Rule on Curative Admissibility of Illegal Search Warrant.
• It is therefore UNLAWFUL to:
Admissibility Not Affected by Illegality of Means - England and Canada that the admissibility test is o Secretly overhear
not affected by the illegality of the means that the party has used to obtain it. If the documents prove o Intercept
his guilt in the crime of treason, why should the state have to return and save him from the accusation? o Record private communications or spoken word
Does this not validate the crime? Would it not result in the courts approval of commission of the crime?
• If doing so is without authority of all the parties to such private communication.
Manner of Seizure Does NOT Alter Probative Value - Such practices encourage crime rather than
prevent its commission. The seizure of the documents does not alter its probative value. If it came from • If only ONE party authorizes the recording and the other DOES NOT, it is violative of the law
a valid search warrant, those documents would be admissible. There is no constitutional provision or
statutory rule which releases the accused from criminal responsibility because there was no warrant. Modes of Recording Private Conversations under RA 4200
(a) Tapping any wire or cable
Stonehill v. Diokno - CURRENT RULING re: Admissibility of Evidence Pursuant to Illegal Search (b) Using a Dictaphone, dictagraph, detectaphone, walkie-talkie, tape recorder or any device
otherwise described
As to those Seized from the Corporation's Premises – ADMISSIBLE. Petitioners (natural persons)
have no cause of action to challenge the search warrants on such premises. The COA beliongs ot the It is UNLAWFUL to knowingly possess any of the things mentioned (Dictaphone, tape recorded, etc.)
corporations to whom the effects belong – they have separate and distinct personalities. which was secured or obtained in a manner violative of the law

As to those seized from residences – INADMISSIBLE. They were seized pursuant to void "general It is also UNLAWFUL to replay the same to any other person or to communicate the contents thereof
warrants" and did not satisfy the requirements of Art. III, Sec 1(3) of Constitution. Impossible to whether verbally or in writing. Law prohibits transcribing such illegally obtained recordings and its
determine probable cause as no offense was alleged + failed to describe with particularity. distribution.

Moncado Abandoned – Instead, the EXCLUSIONARY RULE applies. As we understand it, the reason for The law imposes a penalty on those who knowingly aid, permit, or cause to be done the prohibited acts
the exclusion of evidence competent as such, which has been unlawfully acquired, is that exclusion is mentioned
the only practical way of enforcing the constitutional privilege. In earlier times the action of trespass
against the offending official may have been protection enough; but that is true no longer. Only in case In RE: Illegally write-tapped recordings in impeachment proceedings
the prosecution which itself controls the seizing officials, knows that it cannot profit by their wrong will
that wrong be repressed. • CJ Puno – Impeachment proceedings are sui generis and its therefore NOT among the
proceedings mentioned above, hence there is no reason to prevent its admissibility
ANTI-WIRE-TAPPING ACT – RA 4200
Human Security Act: Law enforcement officer may LISTEN or INTERCEPT to any communication of:
TOTO: What are the forms of communication which are covered under the Wiretapping act? (a) Judicially declared terrorists
(b) Any person charged with commission or suspected of conspiracy of terrorism
Evidence obtained in violation of Anti-Wire Tapping Act shall NOT be admissible in:
Ganaan v. IAC – Extension Phone
(a) Judicial proceedings An extension telephone is an instrument which is very common especially now when the extended unit
(b) Quasi-judicial proceedings does not have to be connected by wire to the main telephone but can be moved from place ' to place
(c) Legislative proceedings within a radius of a kilometer or more. A person should safely presume that the party he is calling at
(d) Administrative hearings or investigation the other end of the line probably has an extension telephone and he runs the risk of a third party
listening as in the case of a party line or a telephone unit which shares its line with another.
The following are INADMISSIBLE if obtained in violation of RA 4200
In the same case, the Court further ruled that the conduct of the party would differ in no way if instead
(a) Any communication or spoken word of repeating the message he held out his hand-set so that another could hear out of it and that there is
no distinction between that sort of action and permitting an outsider to use an extension telephone for
(b) Existence, contents, substance, or meaning of the communication or spoken word or any part the same purpose.
thereof
Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA - Clearly, respondents trial court and Court of Appeals failed to consider the
(c) Any information contained, obtained, or secured in violation of Sec. 1, 2, 3 of RA 4200 afore-quoted provisions of the law in admitting in evidence the cassette tapes in question. Absent a
clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same, the
inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200.

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 3
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT OF 2004 – Section 9 & 10 in rel. to Section 3 (h) CONFIDENTIALITY RULE IN ADOPTION CASES

Section 3 (h). "Confidential information" means any information, relative to the subject of
mediation or arbitration, expressly intended by the source not to be disclosed, or obtained
under circumstances that would create a reasonable expectation on behalf of the source that
the information shall not be disclosed. It shall include:
(1) communication, oral or written, made in a dispute resolution proceeding, including any
memoranda, notes or work product of the neutral party or non-party participant, as
defined in this Act;
(2) an oral or written statement made, or which occurs during mediation or for purposes of
considering, conducting, participating, initiating, continuing of reconvening mediation or
retaining a mediator; and
(3) pleadings, motions manifestations, witness statements, reports filed or submitted in an
arbitration or for expert evaluation;
Section 18. Confidential Nature of Proceedings and Records . – All hearings in
adoption cases, after compliance with the jurisdictional requirements shall be
confidential and shall not be open to the public. All records, books and papers
relating to the adoption cases in the files of the court, the Department, or any other
agency or institution participating in the adoption proceedings shall be kept strictly
confidential.
If the court finds that the disclosure of the information to a third person is
necessary for security reasons or for purposes connected with or arising out of the
adoption and will be for the best interests of the adoptee, the court may, upon
proper motion, order the necessary information to be released, restricting the
purposes for which it may be used.

SEC. 9. Confidentiality of Information. - Information obtained through mediation

proceedings shall be subject to the following principles and guidelines:

(a) Information obtained through mediation shall be privileged and confidential.

(b) A party, a mediator, or a nonparty participant may refuse to disclose and may prevent any
other person from disclosing a mediation communication.

(c) Confidential Information shall not be subject to discovery and shall be inadmissible if any
adversarial proceeding, whether judicial or quasi-judicial, However, evidence or information
that is otherwise admissible or subject to discovery does not become inadmissible or protected
from discovery solely by reason of its use in a mediation.

(d) In such an adversarial proceeding, the following persons involved or previously involved in
a mediation may not be compelled to disclose confidential information obtained during
mediation: (1) the parties to the dispute; (2) the mediator or mediators; (3) the counsel for the
parties; (4) the nonparty participants; (5) any persons hired or engaged in connection with the
mediation as secretary, stenographer, clerk or assistant; and (6) any other person who obtains
or possesses confidential information by reason of his/her profession.

(e) The protections of this Act shall continue to apply even of a mediator is found to have failed
to act impartially.

(f) a mediator may not be called to testify to provide information gathered in mediation. A
mediator who is wrongfully subpoenaed shall be reimbursed the full cost of his attorney's fees
and related expenses.

SEC. 10. Waiver of Confidentiality . - A privilege arising from the confidentiality of information
may be waived in a record, or orally during a proceeding by the mediator and the mediation
parties.

A privilege arising from the confidentiality of information may likewise be waived by a nonparty
participant if the information is provided by such nonparty participant.

A person who discloses confidential information shall be precluded from asserting the privilege
under Section 9 of this Chapter to bar disclosure of the rest of the information necessary to a
complete understanding of the previously disclosed information. If a person suffers loss or
damages in a judicial proceeding against the person who made the disclosure.

A person who discloses or makes a representation about a mediation is preclude from asserting
the privilege under Section 9, to the extent that the communication prejudices another person
in the proceeding and it is necessary for the person prejudiced to respond to the representation
of disclosure.

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 4
RULE ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE – In relation to RA 8792 (E-COMMERCE ACT)
1. E-COMMERCE ACT
Section 12. Admissibility and Evidential Weight of Electronic Data Message or Electronic
Document. –
In any legal proceedings, nothing in the application of the rules on evidence shall deny the admissibility
of an electronic data message or electronic document in evidence -
(a) On the sole ground that it is in electronic form; or
(b) On the ground that it is not in the standard written form, and the electronic data message or
electronic document meeting, and complying with the requirements under Sections 6 or 7
hereof shall be the best evidence of the agreement and transaction contained therein.
In assessing the evidential weight of an electronic data message or electronic document, the reliability
of the manner in which it was generated, stored or communicated, the reliability of the manner in which
its originator was identified, and other relevant factors shall be given due regard.
Section 14. Proof by Affidavit. –
The matters referred to in Section 12, on admissibility and Section 9, on the presumption of integrity,
may be presumed to have been established by an affidavit given to the best of the deponent's
knowledge subject to the rights of parties in interest as defined in the following section.
Section 15. Cross - Examination.
A deponent of an affidavit referred to in Section 14 that has been introduced in evidence may be cross-
examined as of right by a party to the proceedings who is adverse in interest to the party who has
introduced the affidavit or has caused the affidavit to be introduced.
Any party to the proceedings has the right to cross-examine a person referred to in section 11,
paragraph 4, sub paragraph c.
2. RULE ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
Rule 3, Section 2
Admissibility. – An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on
admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner
prescribed by these Rules.
Rule 4, Section 2
Copies as equivalent of the originals. – When a document is in two or more copies executed at or
about the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as
the original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical
reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original, such copies
or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the
original if:
(a) A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
(b) In the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the original.
Rule 6, Section 1
Electronic signature. – An electronic signature or a digital signature authenticated in the manner
prescribed hereunder is admissible in evidence as the functional equivalent of the signature of a person
on a written document.
Rule 9, Section 1
Affidavit evidence. – All matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic
document may be established by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiant
or based on authentic records. The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to
testify on the matters contained therein.
Rule 11, Section 1
Audio, video and similar evidence. – Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or
transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court and
shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some other
person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 5
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS – Section 6 to 32, AM 004-07-SC Live-Link Television Testimony of a Child Witness – A guardian ad litem, prosecutor or counsel may
apply for a court order:
Applicability of the Rule – Shall govern examination of the following witnesses:
(a) That would allow child witness to take his testimony outside the courtroom, and
(a) Child witness who are victims of a crime (b) Televised to the courtroom by live-link television
(b) Child witness accused of a crime
(c) Child witness to a crime • Guardian ad litem shall also consult with prosecutor/ counsel about necessity of applying for
such order. HOWEVER – if GAL is convinced that decision of prosecutor/ counsel not to apply
Applies not only to criminal proceedings but also to other proceedings as long as it involves CW for the order would cause the child serious emotional trauma, the guardian himself may
apply for the order
Child Witness – Any person who is below 18 years of age at the time of testimony
• The court may motu proprio hear and determine with notice to the parties the need for taking
Competency of Child Witness – Every child is presumed to be qualified. BUT, it does not preclude the the testimony of the child through Live-link television
court from conducting an examination to determine the child witnesses' competency
• Order granting or denying the application shall state the reasons for such order and would
When Examinations Should be Conducted – If there is substantial doubt as to the following: have to consider the following:
o Age
(a) Ability of child to perceive o Level of development
(b) Ability of child to remember o Physical/mental health
(c) Ability of child to communicate
(d) Ability of child to distinguish truth from falsehood • The court may also order that testimony be taken by live-link television in the presence of the
accused. Such trauma should be one that could impair the:
• Examination may be conducted (1) upon motion of a party or (2) motu proprio by court o Completeness
o Truthfulness of the testimony of the child
Examination of a Child Witness –
Manner of Taking Live-Link Television Testimony of a Child Witness
• Shall be done in open court
(1) Child shall testify in a room separate from the courtroom in the presence of the guardian ad
• Answer of the witness shall be given orally EXCEPT if: litem and other persons determined by the court to be necessary to welfare and well-being
of the child
o Incapacitated to speak
(2) Judge/prosecutor/accused and counsel for the parties shall be inside the courtroom. The
o Question calls for different mode of answer testimony shall be transmitted via live-link into the courtroom for viewing and hearing of the
parties and public except if excluded by the court.
o Interpreter may be appointed by court upon motion/motu proprio by court if child:
▪ Does NOT speak English or Filipino (3) If it is necessary for the child to identify the accused at trial, the court may allow the child to
▪ Unable to communicate in said language due to enter the courtroom for the limited purpose of identifying the accused
• Developmental level
• Fear Alternatively, the court may allow the child to identify the accused by observing the image of
• Shyness the latter on a television monitor.
• Disability
• Similar reasons Videotaped Deposition of a Child Witness – The prosecution/counsel/GAL may apply for an order
that a deposition be taken of testimony of the child and that it be recorded and preserved on videotape.
o Child testifying at a judicial proceeding or making a deposition shall have the right
to be accompanied by ONE or TWO persons to provide him emotional support • Court shall issue such order if it founds out that the child will NOT be able to testify in open
court at the trial
Leading Questions –
• Judge shall preside at the videotaped deposition of the child.
• GR – Not allowed in direct examination
• Objections and the grounds thereto shall be stated and ruled upon at the time of the taking
• EXC – Sec. 20: Allowed in all stages of examination of a child witness if it would further the of the deposition (Sec. 27(c) – Person permitted to be present in the deposition
interests of justice
• Rights of the accused during trial (Right to Confront / Cross-examine) is NOT violated during
the deposition.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 6
 • Court may direct the accused to be excluded from the room where the deposition is being Confidentiality of the Records – Any record regarding a child shall be confidential and kept secret
conducted if there is basis that the child is unable to testify in the physical presence of the under seal
accused
Records are released only
• Videotaped deposition shall be preserved and stenographically recorded. Transmit to clerk of
court for safe keeping. (a) Upon written request

• After original videotaping of the deposition but before or during trial, any party may file any (b) Order of the court on the following specified persons:
motion for additional videotaping on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
a. Members of the court staff for admin use
Exception to the Hearsay Rule in Child Abuse Cases – Hearsay statement of a child may be admitted b. Prosecuting attorney
in evidence in any criminal or non-criminal proceedings c. Defense counsel
d. Guardian ad litem
• PROVIDED – Statement be offered in child abuse cases and is one that describes any act or e. Agents of investigating law enforcement agencies
attempted act of child abuse. f. Other persons as determined by the court

Other Requisites Under the Exception to the Hearsay Rule
• Proponent shall make known to adverse party the intention to offer such statement so that
there is a fair opportunity for the latter to object before it is admitted.
Protective Orders Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
• If the child s available – court upon motion of adverse party require the child to be present
for cross-examination.
• IF the child is unavailable, the fact of such circumstance/hearsay statement must be
corroborated by other admissible evidence.
Factors in Considering the Admissibility of the Hearsay Statement
(a) Time
(b) Content
(c) Circumstances surrounding the making of the statement which would provide sufficient
indicia of reliability
The Sexual Abuse Shield Rule / Character Evidence in Child Abuse Cases – Following are NOT
admissible in any criminal proceeding involving sexual child abuse
• Confidentiality of such records is protected by the contempt powers of the court.
Unauthorized disclosure of such records is considered as contemptuous conduct punishable
by the court.
• The video / audio tape of a child provided that it is part of the court record is under the
protective order of the court
• It does NOT preclude the viewing of such tape and may be viewed by the:
o Parties
o Expert Witnesses
o Guardian ad Litem
• Conditions to be Granted Access to the TAPE
o Written affirmation that he has received and read a copy of the protective order
o Submits to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the protective order
o In case of violation, he will be subject to contempt powers of the court

(a) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior
(b) Evidence offered to prove sexual disposition of the alleged victim

• EXCEPTION – Specific instances of sexual behavior of the victim may be admissible if it was
proven that a person other than the accused was the source of the semen, injury, or other
physical evidence.

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 7
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE – AM 06-11-5-SC
Sec. 1. Scope. – This Rule shall apply whenever DNA evidence, as defined in Section 3 hereof, is offered,
used, or proposed to be offered or used as evidence in all criminal and civil actions as well as special
proceedings.
Sec. 2. Application of other Rules on Evidence. – In all matters not specifically covered by this Rule,
the Rules of Court and other pertinent provisions of law on evidence shall apply.
Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. – For purposes of this Rule, the following terms shall be defined as follows:
“Biological sample” means any organic material originating from a person’s body, even if found in
inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva and other body fluids,
tissues, hairs and bones;
“DNA” means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of
the body. The totality of an individual’s DNA is unique for the individual, except identical twins;
“DNA evidence” constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results and other genetic information
directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples;
“DNA profile” means genetic information derived from DNA testing of a biological sample obtained
from a person, which biological sample is clearly identifiable as originating from that person;
“DNA testing” means verified and credible scientific methods which include the extraction of DNA from
biological samples, the generation of DNA profiles and the comparison of the information obtained
from the DNA testing of biological samples for the purpose of determining, with reasonable certainty,
whether or not the DNA obtained from two or more distinct biological samples originates from the
same person (direct identification) or if the biological samples originate from related persons (kinship
analysis); and
“Probability of Parentage” means the numerical estimate for the likelihood of parentage of a putative
parent compared with the probability of a random match of two unrelated individuals in a given
population.
Sec. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order. – The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu
proprio or on application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA
testing.
Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the following:
A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested; or (ii)
was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may require confirmation for good reasons;
The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper
resolution of the case; and
The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy
of integrity of the DNA testing.
This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court order, at the behest of any
party, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced.
Sec. 5. DNA Testing Order. – If the court finds that the requirements in Section 4 hereof have been
complied with, the court shall –
Order, where appropriate, that biological samples be taken from any person or crime scene evidence;
Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing designed to protect the integrity of the biological sample,
the testing process and the reliability of the test results, including the condition that the DNA test results
shall be simultaneously disclosed to parties involved in the case; and
If the biological sample taken is of such an amount that prevents the conduct of confirmatory testing
by the other or the adverse party and where additional biological samples of the same kind can no
longer be obtained, issue an order requiring all parties to the case or proceedings to witness the DNA
testing to be conducted.
An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately executory and shall not be appealable. Any
petition for certiorari initiated therefrom shall not, in any way, stay the implementation thereof, unless
a higher court issues an injunctive order. The grant of DNA testing application shall not be construed
as an automatic admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that may be obtained
as a result thereof.
Sec. 6. Post-conviction DNA Testing. – Post-conviction DNA testing may be available, without need of
prior court order, to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment provided
that (a) a biological sample exists, (b) such sample is relevant to the case, and (c) the testing would
probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction.
Sec. 7. Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence. – In assessing the probative value of the
DNA evidence presented, the court shall consider the following:
The chair of custody, including how the biological samples were collected, how they were handled, and
the possibility of contamination of the samples;
The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the
advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with the scientifically valid standards
in conducting the tests;
The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable standards-setting institution and
the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant
experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be properly established; and
The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.
The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation of evidence shall apply suppletorily.
Sec. 8. Reliability of DNA Testing Methodology. – In evaluating whether the DNA testing methodology
is reliable, the court shall consider the following:
(a) The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, that is, whether the theory or technique
can be and has been tested;
(b) The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or methods;
(c) The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant scientific community;
(d) The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the correctness of data
generated;
(e) The existence of an appropriate reference population database; and
(f) The general degree of confidence attributed to mathematical calculations used in comparing
DNA profiles and the significance and limitation of statistical calculations used in comparing
DNA profiles.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 8
Sec. 9. of DNA Testing Results. – In evaluating the results of DNA testing, the court shall consider the
following:
The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance of mismatching DNA evidence;
The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other evidence presented in the case;
and that DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive proof of non-
paternity. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA testing
shall be considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or
higher there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity.
Sec. 10. Post-conviction DNA Testing – Remedy if the Results Are Favorable to the Convict. – The
convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin if the
results of the post-conviction DNA testing are favorable to the convict. In the case the court, after due
hearing finds the petition to be meritorious, if shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and
order the release of the convict, unless continued detention is justified for a lawful cause.
A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with any member
of said courts, which may conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the court of origin and
issue the appropriate orders.
Sec. 11. Confidentiality. – DNA profiles and all results or other information obtained from DNA testing
shall be confidential. Except upon order of the court, a DNA profile and all results or other information
obtained from DNA testing shall only be released to any of the following, under such terms and
conditions as may be set forth by the court:
(a) Person from whom the sample was taken;
(b) Person from whom the sample was taken;
(c) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action;
(d) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and
(e) Other persons as determined by the court.
Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in any form any information concerning a DNA profile without
the proper court order shall be liable for indirect contempt of the court wherein such DNA evidence
was offered, presented or sought to be offered and presented.
Where the person from whom the biological sample was taken files a written verified request to the
court that allowed the DNA testing for the disclosure of the DNA profile of the person and all results or
other information obtained from the DNA testing, he same may be disclosed to the persons named in
the written verified request.
Sec. 12. Preservation of DNA Evidence. The trial court shall preserve the DNA evidence in its totality,
including all biological samples, DNA profiles and results or other genetic information obtained from
DNA testing. For this purpose, the court may order the appropriate government agency to preserve the
DNA evidence as follows:
(a) In criminal cases:
(b) for not less than the period of time that any person is under trial for an offense; or
(c) in case the accused is serving sentence, until such time as the accused has served his
sentence;
(d) In all other cases, until such time as the decision in the case where the DNA evidence was
introduced has become final and executory.
The court may allow the physical destruction of a biological sample before the expiration of the periods
set forth above, provided that:
(a) A court order to that effect has been secured; or
(a) The person from whom the DNA sample was obtained has consented in writing to the
disposal of the DNA evidence.
NOTES
When does the RDE Apply? – When DNA evidence is offered, used, or proposed to be offered or used
as evidence in the following:
(a) Criminal Actions
(b) Civil Actions
(c) Special Proceedings
If not governed by the RDE, Rules of Court + Other laws shall apply
What is DNA, DNA Profile, and DNA Evidence?
• DNA – Deoxyribonucleic Acid which is the chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of
the body
• DNA PROFILE – Genetic information derived from DNA testing of biological samples obtained
from a person where such sample is clearly identifiable as originating from that person
• DNA EVIDENCE – Totality of the DNA profile; results and other genetic information generated
from DNA testing of biological samples
Significance of DNA – Every person's DNA, except for identical twins, is UNIQUE – It serves an
important tool to help in identifying a person.
• Person from whom the biological sample was taken may request that his DNA profile and
results be disclosed to the person designated in his request.
• The court has the duty to preserve the DNA evidence in its totality
How may an order for DNA testing be obtained – Person with legal interest in the litigation may file
for an application and a further showing that
(a) Biological sample exists that has relevance to the case
(b) Biological Sample
o Was not previously subjected to the DNA testing requested
o If it was previously subjected, results may require confirmation for good reasons
(c) Uses scientifically valid technique
(d) Has scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution
of the case
(e) Existence of other factors which could potentially affect the accuracy and integrity of the DNA
testing
If the above are complied with, the Court may issue an order to:
(a) Take biological samples from any person or crime scene evidence
(b) Impose reasonable conditions on testing to protect integrity of samples + liability of results
NOTE - The court may, motu proprio, issue an order for DNA testing.
Is a court order ALWAYS required? – NO. the rules allow testing without prior court order if before a
suit or proceeding is commenced at the request of any party or law enforcement agency.
• Court order required if there is pending litigation already
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 9
Is the court order granting DNA testing Appealable? – NO. Immediately executory.
• HOWEVER – One remedy is to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
• BUT this will not stay the implementation of the order unless higher court issues injunction
Would DNA Evidence obtained from the test be automatically admitted in evidence?
• NO. Court order is not to be construed as automatically admission –
The court still has to evaluate the probative value of the proposed evidence before its admission. The
court shall consider the following matters to determine its probative value:
(a) Chain of Custody
(b) DNA Testing Methodology
(c) Forensic DNA laboratory accreditation of the facility and qualification of analyst
(d) Reliability of the testing result
If a person has already been convicted under a final and executory judgment, may he still avail
of DNA testing?
YES – Test after his conviction is Post-Conviction DNA Testing. RDE allows such and is available to:
(a) The prosecution
(b) Person convicted by final and executory judgment
PROVIDED – The following requisites are met:
(a) A biological sample exists
(b) Sample relevant to the case
(c) Testing would probably result in reversal or modification of judgment of conviction
Is a court order REQUIRED for Post-DNA testing? – NO. Available without need of prior court order.
What is the REMEDY available to the convict if the results of the DNA test is favorable to him?
• File a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the court shall determine whether it would
reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the convict's release
• Where to file? - IN the court of origin as a general rule but may also be filed in CA or SC
Are the DNA profiles of a person open to the public? –
NO. Information obtained in DNA tests are CONFIDENTIAL. Any person who discloses such information
without the proper authorization shall be liable for indirect contempt.
Except upon order of the court, such information may be released only upon court order under the
following circumstances
(1) Person from whom the sample was taken
(2) Lawyers representing the parties where DNA evidence is presented
(3) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action
(4) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies
(5) Other persons as determined by the court
Duty of Preservation by Trial Court – The trial court is mandated to preserve the DNA evidence in its
totality, including all biological samples, DNA profiles and results, or other genetic information obtained
from DNA testing in accordance with Sec. 12 of the DNE.
VALLEJO STANDARD – People v. Vallejo
The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an association exists between the evidence sample
and the reference sample. The samples collected are subjected to various chemical processes to
establish their profile.
The test may yield 3 possible results:
(1) The samples are different and therefore must have originated from different sources
(exclusion). This conclusion is absolute and requires no further analysis or discussion;
(2) It is not possible to be sure, based on the results of the test, whether the samples have similar
DNA types (inconclusive). This might occur for a variety of reasons including degradation,
contamination, or failure of some aspect of the protocol. Various parts of the analysis might
then be repeated with the same or a different sample, to obtain a more conclusive result; or
(3) The samples are similar, and could have originated from the same source (inclusion). In such
a case, the samples are found to be similar, the analyst proceeds to determine the statistical
significance of the Similarity.
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider, among others
things, the following data:
(a) How the samples were collected
(b) How they were handled
(c) The possibility of contamination of the samples
(d) The procedure followed in analyzing the samples
(e) Whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and
(f) The qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
LUCAS v. LUCAS
In some states, to warrant the issuance of the DNA testing order, there must be a show cause hearing
wherein the applicant must first present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case or a
reasonable possibility of paternity or "good cause" for the holding of the test.
Although a paternity action is civil, not criminal, the constitutional prohibition against
unreasonable searches and seizures is still applicable, and a proper showing of sufficient
justification under the particular factual circumstances of the case must be made before
a court may order a compulsory blood test. Courts in various jurisdictions have differed
regarding the kind of procedures which are required, but those jurisdictions have almost
universally found that a preliminary showing must be made before a court can constitutionally
order compulsory blood testing in paternity cases. We agree, and find that, as a preliminary
matter, before the court may issue an order for compulsory blood testing, the moving party
must show that there is a reasonable possibility of paternity.
The same condition precedent should be applied in our jurisdiction to protect the putative father from
mere harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on the motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must
present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.
Notwithstanding these, it should be stressed that the issuance of a DNA testing order remains
discretionary upon the court. The court may, for example, consider whether there is absolute necessity
for the DNA testing. If there is already preponderance of evidence to establish paternity and the DNA
test result would only be corroborative, the court may, in its discretion, disallow a DNA testing.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 10
RULES FOR PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES – AM 09-6-8-SC
1. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE – Rule 20
Section 1. Applicability. - When there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal
link between human activity and environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary
principle in resolving the case before it.
The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology shall be
given the benefit of the doubt.
Section 2. Standards for application. - In applying the precautionary principle, the following
factors, among others, may be considered: (1) threats to human life or health; (2) inequity to
present or future generations; or (3) prejudice to the environment without legal consideration
of the environmental rights of those affected.
2. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – Rule 21
Section 1. Photographic, video and similar evidence . - Photographs, videos and similar
evidence of events, acts, transactions of wildlife, wildlife by-products or derivatives, forest
products or mineral resources subject of a case shall be admissible when authenticated by the
person who took the same, by some other person present when said evidence was taken, or
by any other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.
Section 2. Entries in official records. - Entries in official records made in the performance of
his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in performance of a duty specially
enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
SUPPLETORY OR ANALAGOUS APPLICATION IN ADMIN OR QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS –
Rules 1, Section 4. In what case not applicable. —
These Rules shall not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and
insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a
suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.
GSIS et. al. v. Dinah Villaviza – GSIS Rules Explicitly Clear; No room to apply Rules of Court
It is true that Section 4 of the Rules of Court provides that the rules can be applied in a “suppletory
character.” Suppletory is defined as “supplying deficiencies.” It means that the provisions in the Rules
of Court will be made to apply only where there is an insufficiency in the applicable rule. There is,
however, no such deficiency as the rules of the GSIS are explicit in case of failure to file the required
answer. Even if Rule 8, Sec 11 may be applied,
Reyes v. CA – Inapplicability of Rules of Court in Agrarian Cases
Finally, we rule that the trial court did not err when it favorably considered the affidavits of Eufrocina
and Efren Tecson (Annexes "B" and "C") although the affiants were not presented and subjected to
cross-examination. Section 16 of P.D. No. 946 provides that the "Rules of Court shall not be applicable
in agrarian cases even in a suppletory character." The same provision states that "In the hearing,
investigation and determination of any question or controversy, affidavits and counter-affidavits may
be allowed and are admissible in evidence".
First United Construction Corporation v. Valdez – Burden of Proof in Administrative Proceedings
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving with substantial evidence
the allegations in the complaint. While rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not
be controlling, this assurance of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go as far as
to justify orders without basis in evidence having rational probative force.
TOTO: Only when there is a gap do we apply the Rules of Court. If there is no gap, do not follow.
WHEN EVIDENCE NOT REQUIRED
(1) No Factual Issue / Question of Law
(2) QL v. QF
(3) Pleadings in a Civil Case do NOT tender issue or fact
(4) Parties agree to stipulate on facts
(5) Matters of Judicial Notice
(6) Matters Judicially Admitted
Basic Rule: A mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges of mere suspicion
and speculation cannot be given credence (Agdeppa v. Office of the Ombudsman)
1. No Factual Issue / Question of Law
Where no factual issue exists in a case, there is NO NEED to present evidence because when the case
presents a QUESTION OF LAW, it can be resolved by mere application of relevant statutes.
2. Question of Law v. Question of Fact
Eastern Shipping v. BPI/MS Insurance – Question of Law v. Fact
SC Entertains Only QL - Well entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that factual questions may not
be raised before this Court in a petition for review on certiorari as this Court is not a trier of facts. This
is clearly stated in Section 1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
• Question of Law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law
or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts, or when the issue does not call for an examination of
the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted.
• Question of Fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts
or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of
the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their
relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.
Inquiry As to Who is Liable is FACTUAL - In this petition, the resolution of the question as to who
between petitioner and ATI should be liable for the damage to the goods is indubitably factual, and
would clearly impose upon this Court the task of reviewing, examining and evaluating or weighing all
over again the probative value of the evidence presented – something which is not, as a rule, within the
functions of this Court and within the office of a petition for review on certiorari.
3. Pleadings in Civil Case do NOT tender issue of fact
4. Parties agree to stipulate on facts – Sec. 6, Rule 30 (ROC)
Section 6. Agreed statement of facts. — The parties to any action may agree, in
writing, upon the facts involved in the litigation, and submit the case for judgment
on the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence.
If the parties agree only on some of the facts in issue, the trial shall be held as to
the disputed facts in such order as the court shall prescribe.
Parties to any action are allowed by the Rules to agree in writing upon the acts involved in the litigation
and to submit the case for judgment upon the facts agreed upon, without introduction of evidence.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 11
 5. Matters of Judicial Notice – Sections 1 to 3, Rule 129 A. As to FORM: OBJECT, DOCUMENTARY, TESTIMONIAL

Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice,
without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of
states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the
law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the
political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative,
executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the
measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a)
Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take judicial notice of
matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable
demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.
(1a)
Object – Addressed to the senses of the court. Covers entire range of human senses.
• EX – Object evidence is the real thing itself, such as the knife used to kill a victim
• Requisites to be Admissible Object Evidence
o Evidence is relevant
o Evidence is authenticated
o Authentication made by competent witness
o Object is formally offered in evidence
Documentary – Consists of writing or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures,
symbols, or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents.

Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the trial, the court, on • Requisites to be Admissible Documentary Evidence
its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take o Document is relevant
judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon. o Evidence authenticated
o Authenticated by competent witness
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own o Document formally offered in evidence
initiative or on request of a party, 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 Testimonial – Consisting the narration made under oath by a witness; elicited from the mouth of the
case. (n) witness as distinguished form real and documentary evidence. (Viva Voce Evidence)

6. Matters Judicially Admitted – Sec. 4, Rule 129 • Qualification of a Witness

o Can perceive
Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by the party o In perceiving, can make known his perception to others
in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The o Must take an oath or affirmation
admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable o Must NOT possess any disqualifications imposed by the law
mistake or that no such admission was made. (2a)
B. RELEVANT, MATERIAL, COMPETENT
Evidence is not required when the law presumes the truth of a fact (Presumption of Law)
Relevant Evidence Competent Evidence
✓ EX: Death or injury to a passenger in a contract of carriage Must have such relation to the fact in issue as to Not excluded by law or rules in a particular case;
induce a belief in its existence or non-existence. Matter of law or rules
Evidence is also not required when a rule presumes the truth of a fact – Conclusive and Disputable
Presumptions under ROC Requires existence of a fact in issue and such
Eligibility of evidence to be received as such.
fact is therefore disputed.
KINDS OF EVIDENCE
Evidence prohibited by law to be offered is
Evidence offered for an undisputed fact is
(1) Form - Object (real), Documentary, Testimonial incompetent and must be ignored.
irrelevant and inadmissible.
(2) Relevant, Material, Competent
(3) Direct and Circumstantial TEST – LOGIC, Common Sense, and Experience; TEST – Would the evidence be admissible based
(4) Cumulative and Corroborative Admissibility is discretionary upon the court on the law / rules?
(5) Prima Facie and Conclusive
(6) Primary and Secondary Credibility of Witness Qualifications / Eligibility of Witness
(7) Positive and Negative
(8) Expert Evidence
(9) Preponderant Evidence – Rule 133, Sec. 1; for civil cases)

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 12
 C. DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL E. CONCLUSIVE and PRIMA FACIE

Direct – That which proves a fact in issue or dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption. Conclusive – Can either be:
It is evidence to the precise point.
(a) That which the law does not allow to be contradicted as in judicial admissions, or
• EX: Eye witness account; Scar to show the wound (b) That the effect of which overwhelms any evidence to the contrary as the DNA Profile of a
person as the natural father over a denial
Circumstantial – Proof of facts or fact from which taken singly or collectively, the existence of the
particular fact in issue may be inferred or presumed as a necessary or probable consequence • When something is Conclusive, it becomes irrebuttable upon presentation of evidence
showing such fact. Any evidence to rebut is INADMISSIBLE as this is based on estoppel.
• Applies only in criminal cases and is governed by Rule 133 (4) which for purposes of
supporting a finding of guilt requires: Prima Facie – That which, standing alone and uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the proposition
affirmed. It is sufficient to establish a fact until it has been disproved, rebutted, or contradicted or
(1) More than one circumstance overcome by contrary proof.
(2) Facts from which inference are derived are proven
(3) Combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt F. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY

• SC Ruling – It is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an
unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused,
to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.
• Guidelines in the Appreciation of the Probative Value of Circumstantial Evidence
(1) Acted upon with caution
(2) All essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt
(3) Facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt
(4) Facts must establish such certainty of guilt as to convince the judgment BRD that accused is
the one who committed the offense
Primary – That which the law regards as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question
• EX – Original of a contract is best evidence as to its content; Marriage contract as to the fact
of marriage; receipt as to fact of payment; birth certificate as to filiation
Secondary – That which is necessarily inferior and shows on its face that better evidence exists
• Admissible as an exception to the general rule if the original writing has been lost, destroyed,
or cannot be produced in court without bad faith on the part of the party offering the
secondary evidence.
• EX – Xerox copies of documents; narration of witnesses as to a written contract

D. CUMULATIVE AND CORROBORATIVE Requisites for Admissibility of Secondary Evidence – Secondary Evidence may be admitted if the offeror
lays the basis for its production:
Cumulative – Evidence of the same kind and character as that already given which tends to prove the
same proposition (a) Offeror proves the execution and existence of the original document
(b) Offeror shows cause of its unavailability
• EXAMPLE – Testimonies of several eyewitnesses to the same incident (c) Offer shows that unavailability was not doe to his bad faith

Corroborative – Additional evidence of a different kind or character but tending to strengthen or Order to be STRICTLY followed in presentation of secondary evidence:
confirm the same point. Supplements evidence already given.
(1) Copy of the Original
• EXAMPLES: (2) Recital of the Contents of the document in some authentic document
o Medico-legal certificate describing injuries to have been caused by a sharp (3) Testimony of the witness
instrument corroborates statement that accused used a knife to stab the victim

o Positive results of a paraffin test corroborate the allegation that person fired a gun

o Ballistics examination on the gun of the suspect corroborates statement that he

fired his gun at the victim

• Corroborative Testimony is NOT ALWAYS required to determine the value and credibility of
evidence as witnesses are to be weighed, NOT numbered.

• Necessary only when there are reasons to suspect that the witness falsified the truth or that
his observations are inaccurate

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 13
 G. POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE • When NOT Applicable – The rule is not applicable where evidence is not equally weighty such
as where the evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming.
Positive Evidence – Affirms occurrence of an event or existence of a fact, as when a witness declares
that there was no fight which took place Yuchengco et. al. v. Sandiganbayan (read dissent of Sandoval-Guiterrez)

Negative Evidence – Denies or negates occurrence of an event or existence of a fact. SC Ruling - The degree of proof required in this case is preponderance of evidence, in accordance with
EO No. 14-A. The SC held that the Sandiganbayan committed a gross misappreciation of the facts; the
• NOTE – Denials and alibi are negative evidences evidence preponderated in favor of the Republic’s case that the Marcoses owned PHI.

• GENERAL RULE – Positive evidence prevails over negative evidence; Positive assertion is given Sandoval-Gutierrez' Dissent in Yughengco et. al. v. Sandiganbayan
more wait than a plain denial as the court views denials as too weak and convenient for the
guilty to make (People v. Reyes, People v. Salahuddin) There is evidence on record contradicting the finding that the Marcoses owned PHI.

• EXC – Denial can prosper as a defense when substantiated by clear and convincing evidence • Campos named PHI as one of the companies he organized for former President Marcos, but
(People v. Colentava) denies that he ever communicated with Marcos regarding the ownership of shares.

• EXC 2 – Prosecution's evidence does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt • Atty. De Guzman, another witness for the Republic, testified that the blank Deeds of Trust or
(Franco v. People) Assignment covering PHI shares were delivered not to Marcos but to Cojuangco.

H. EXPERT EVIDENCE - Based on formal and/or special study, training, experience imparting
competency to form an opinion upon matters associated with the subject.
When the opinion of a witness requires special knowledge, skill, experience, or training which he is
shown to possess, it may be received in evidence.
• Gapud testified that he assigned his PHI shares to Cojuangco and NOT Marcos.
The dissent stated that there was actually no evidence of delivery of blank Deeds of Assignment to
Marcos. These were placed in the custody of the Legal Department and thereafter delivered to
Cojuangco together with the records of PHI.

Not Binding, Nor Conclusive on Court – Expert Evidence is not binding on the court and would be It also appeared that Marcos allowed the execution of the Deeds of Assignment specifically in favor of
considered in light of any other testimony the Cojuangcos.

I. PREPRONDERANT EVIDENCE Under the Equipose Rule principle, the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on
the weaknesses of defendant’s claim. Even if the evidence of the plaintiff may be stronger than that of
Evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in the defendant, there is no preponderance of evidence on his side if such evidence is insufficient in itself
opposition thereto to establish his cause of action.”

• Means "Probability of the Truth" and where the evidence is taken qualitatively rather than On this principle, the dissent argued that the Republic’s claim must fail as a matter of law.
quantitatively (More is NOT better)
Abarquez v. People – Equipose Rule applies in Criminal Cases pursuant to Presumption of Innocence
Based on the more convincing evidence + its probable truth/accuracy, and not on amount of evidence.
Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in issue or there is doubt on which side the evidence
Factors that the Courts Consider: preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses.
Hence: “The equipoise rule finds application if, as in this case, the inculpatory facts and circumstances
(a) Facts and circumstances of the case are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused
(b) Manner in which the witness testified and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty,
(c) Interest or lack thereof the witnesses and does not suffice to produce a conviction. Briefly stated, the needed quantum of proof to convict
(d) Witness Credibility the accused of the crime charged is found lacking.”
(e) Number of witnesses

EQUIPOISE RULE – Situation where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced OR when there is
doubt on which side the evidence preponderates. In such cases, the decision should be against the
party with the burden of proof.

• In Criminal Cases – Presumption of Innocence triumphs; Favors accused

• In Labor Cases – Scales of justice must tilt in favor of the employee

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 14
 QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE THAT IS BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT (Rule 133, Sec. 2 for criminal cases)
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt . — In a criminal case, the accused is
entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding
possibility of error, produces absolute certainly. Moral certainty only is required, or
that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
Reasonable Doubt is that state of the case which after comparison of all the evidence does not lead
the judge to convict the accused of the crime charged.
Strength of Prosecution's Evidence - The finding of guilt must rest on the evidence of the prosecution,
not on the weakness or absence of evidence for the defense.
Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus – "False in one thing, false in everything."
• If the testimony of a witness on a material issue is willfully false and given with intent to
deceive, the jury may disregard all the witness' testimony
• HOWEVER – This is not an ABSOLUTE rule and is rarely applied in modern jurisprudence
• Must be on Material Points - Before applicable, it must be shown that the witness willfully
falsified the truth on one or more material points
People v. Pacis – On inconsistencies, no universal application of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which
deals with the weight of evidence.
Facts - Counsel for the appellant now contends that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant on
the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution which the lower court itself considered to be
incredible and unworthy of belief.
Counsel argues that all the witnesses for the prosecution implicated Gines Dominguez in the shooting
of Basco and Franco but' the trial court gave no credence to their testimonies and acquitted Gines
Domingez; however, the trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the same witnesses in convicting
the appellant for the shooting of Basco. Counsel cites the maxim of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus."
Ruling - The maxim of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus," however, is not a positive rule of law. Neither
is it an inflexible one of universal application. If a part of a witness' testimony is found true, it cannot
be disregarded entirely. The testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part.
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE – Produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or
conviction as to allegations sought to be established.
• It is intermediate, being more than preponderance, but not to the extent of moral certainty
as required in criminal cases.
• Levels = Substantial → Preponderance → Clear and Convincing → Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Pesole v. Rodriguez - For charges to be filed against judges; More probable than true
Facts – Lucio L. Rodriguez was charged with Misconduct and Misbehavior for having acted as counsel
for one Pedro Apa in the preliminary investigation for falsification, and for having notarized such
documents which became the basis for charge of falsification. Judge argues that he acted not as counsel
but merely as amicus curiae.
Ruling - The rule is that charges of misconduct against judges should be proven by clear and convincing
evidence, otherwise they should be dismissed. Considering that in the present case complainant not
only failed to present any evidence to substantiate his complaint but, on the other hand, respondent
has presented proofs which show the falsity of the charges, we can do no less than approve the
recommendation of the Investigating Judge.
Acceptance by the President of respondent’s courtesy resignation does not necessarily render the case
moot or deprive the Courts the authority to investigate the charges. The rule that the resignation or
retirement of the respondent in an administrative case renders the case moot and academic is not a
hard and fast rule. Each case is to be resolved in the context of the circumstances present thereat.
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – Rule 133, Sec. 5
Section 5. Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before administrative or quasi-
judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial
evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Biak na Bato Mining Co v. Tanco – Finality of Administrative Decisions based on Substantial Evidence
Admin Decisions Not Distrubable - As a general rule, under the principles of administrative law in
force in this jurisdiction, decisions of administrative officers shall not be disturbed by the courts, except
when the former have acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.
Findings of administrative officials and agencies who have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction
is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such
findings are supported by substantial evidence and are controlling on the reviewing authorities because
of their acknowledged expertise in the fields of specialization to which they are assigned.
Substantially Proven - There is no question that the decision of the Director of Mines as affirmed by
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources is substantially supported by evidence. Substantial
evidence has been defined or construed to mean not necessarily preponderant proof as required in
ordinary civil cases but such kind of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion
--- BACK TO REGULAR PROGRAMMING (RULE 128), Sec. 3 and 4 ----
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 15
Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the
issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules. (3a)
Elements for Admissibility of Evidence:
(1) Relevant – Has such relation to the fact in issue
(2) Competent – Not excluded by the law / rules
Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence must have such a relation to the fact
in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be
allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of
the fact in issue. (4a)
Concept of Relevance – Deals with rational relationship between evidence and the fact to be proved.
Evidence adduced should be directed to matters in dispute and any evidence which has neither direct
nor indirect relationship to such matters must be set aside as IRRELEVANT.
Matter of Relevance – Requires the existence of a fact in issue. If there is NO ISSUE in dispute, there
exists no purpose for an item of evidence.
Must Be Ultimate Fact – Fact to be proved by evidence may be an immediate or ultimate fact
EXAMPLE: In CAR ACCIDENTS –
• Immediate Fact – Fact that the other party was speeding
• Ultimate Fact – The other party, through his negligent operation of the car, caused damaged
Knapp v. State – 1907 US Case; Self-defense
FACTS - Appellant, as a witness in his own behalf, offered testimony tending to show a killing in self-
defense. He afterwards testified, that before the killing he had heard that the deceased, who was the
marshal of Hagerstown, had clubbed and seriously injured an old man in arresting him, and that he
died a short time afterwards. On appellant’s being asked, on cross-examination, who told him this, he
answered: “Some people around Hagerstown there. I can’t say as to who it was now.”
The State was permitted, on rebuttal, to prove by a physician, over the objection and exception of the
defense, that the old man died of senility and alcoholism, and that there were no bruises nor marks on
his person. Counsel for appellant contend that it was error to admit this testimony; that the question
was whether he had, in fact, heard the story, and not as to its truth or falsity.
RULING - While it is laid down in the books that there must be an open and visible connection between
the fact under inquiry and the evidence by which it is sought to be established, yet the connection thus
required is in the logical processes only, for to require an actual connection between the two facts
would be to exclude all presumptive evidence.
Competent! While appellant’s counsel are correct that the question was whether appellant had heard
a story to the effect that the deceased had offered serious violence to the old man, it does not follow
that the testimony complained of did not tend to negative the claim of appellant as to what he had
heard. The fact proved by the state tended to discredit appellant, since it showed that somewhere
between the fact and the testimony was a person who was not a truth speaker, and appellant, being
unable to point to his informant, it must at least be said that the testimony complained of had a
tendency render his claim as to what he had heard less probable.
TOTO: What of those that directly pertain to the fact in issue BUT has a bearing?
• EX: Murder committed in nighttime or alley corner where there is no other person there but
the victim and assailant. CCTV of person walking can establish
• Deductive Reasoning – If all elements are present, there is an outcome defined by law
Conditional Admissibility – Evidence which appears to be immaterial is admitted by the court subject
to the condition that its connection with another fact subsequent to be proved will be established.
Otherwise, such fact already received will be stricken off the record at the initiative of the adverse party.
• Admission of evidence not yet victory; Consider the sufficiency and weight
• See: Prats Co. v. Phoenix Assurance
Multiple Admissibility – Evidence that is plainly relevant and competent for 2 or more purposes will
be received if it satisfies all the requirements prescribed by law in order that it may be admissible for
the purpose for which it is presented, even if it does not satisfy the other requisites of admissibility for
other purposes. (See People v. Yatco)
People v. Yatco – Admissibility of a Co-Conspirator's Confession Against the Other
Facts – Juan Consunjui, Alfonso Panganiban, and another unknown conspirator were charged with
having conspired together with the murder of Jose Ramos. While Prosecution was questioning on of its
witnesses (Atty. Xavier of NBI) in connection with the making of a certain EJC made before him by Juan
Consunji, counsel for defendant Alfonso interposed a general objection to any evidence on such
confession on the ground that it was hearsay and incompetent against the other accused (Alfonso).
The court ordered the exclusion of the evidence, but on the ground that the prosecution could
not be permitted to introduce the confessions of defendants Consunji and Alfonso to prove conspiracy
between them, without prior proof of such conspiracy by a number of definite acts, etc.
Multiple Admissibility - Under the rule of multiple admissibility of evidence, even if Consunji's
confession may not be competent as against his co-accused Panganiban, being hearsay as to the latter,
or to prove conspiracy between them without the conspiracy being established by other evidence, the
confession of Consunji was, nevertheless, admissible as evidence of the declarant's own guilt
Conspiracy Statements – "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 or declaration." Manifestly, the rule refers to "statements made by one
conspirator during the pendency of the unlawful enterprises (during its existence) and in furtherance
of tis object, not to a confession made long after the conspiracy had been brought to an end.
Besides, the prosecution had not yet offered the confessions to prove conspiracy between the
two accused, nor as evidence against both of them. In fact, the alleged confessions (both in writing
and in tape recordings) had not yet even been identified (the presentation of Atty. Xavier was precisely
for the purpose of identifying the confessions), much less formally offered in evidence. For all we know,
the prosecution might still be able to adduce other proof of conspiracy between Consunji and
Panganiban before their confessions are formally offered in evidence.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 16
Prats Co. v. Phoenix Assurance – Conditional Admissibility
Exclusion of Evidence Not Favored - In the course of long experience, we have observed that justice
is most effectively and expeditiously administered in the courts where trial objections to the admission
of proof are received with least favor. The practice of excluding evidence on doubtful objections to its
materiality or technical objections to the form of the questions should be avoided.
Conditional Admissibility – In a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of first instance, in
the early stages of the development of the proof, to know with any certainty whether testimony is
relevant or not; and where there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the Attorney offering the
evidence, the court may as a rule safely accept the testimony upon the statement of the attorney that
the proof offered will be connected later.
Moreover, it must be remembered that in the heat of the battle over which the presides, a judge of first
instance may possibly fall into error in judging of the relevancy of proof where a fair and logical
connection is in fact shown. When such a mistake is made, and the proof is erroneously ruled out, the
Supreme Court, upon appeal, often finds itself embarrassed and possibly unable to correct the effects
of the error without returning the case for a new trial, — a step which Court is always very loath to take.
On the other hand, the admission of proof in a court of first instance, even if the question as to its form,
materiality, or relevancy is doubtful, can never result in much harm to either litigant, because the trial
judge is supposed to know the law; and it is duty, upon final consideration of the case, to distinguish
the relevant and material from the irrelevant and immaterial. If this course is followed and the cause is
prosecuted to the Supreme Court upon appeal, this Court then has all the material before it necessary
to make a correct judgment.
Curative Admissibility - Allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to answer the
opposing party's previous introduction of inadmissible evidence if it would remove any unfair prejudice
caused by the admission of the earlier inadmissible evidence. (Quid pro quo? Quits lang!)
• See: Moncado v. People's Court – Even if the search and seizures were unconstitutional, they
were still admissible in evidence
• NOW = Exclusionary Rule! No more curative admissibility. It is the ONLY WAY to enforce the
constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure
What about Waiver? - The principle of Curative Admissibility SHOULD NOT be made to apply where
the evidence was admitted without objection because the failure to object constitutes WAIVER Of
inadmissibility. NOTE that inadmissible evidence which is not objected to becomes ADMISSIBLE.
Limitations of Curative Admissibility – Trial court should be without discretion to apply the Doctrine
if it appears that the party seeking to invoke it intentionally or negligently failed to object to the
inadmissible evidence in order gain admission later of his inadmissible evidence.
• American Rule – The admission of such incompetent evidence, without objection by the
opponent, does NOT justify such opponent in rebutting it by similar incompetent evidence.
• English Rule – IF a party has presented inadmissible evidence, the adverse party MAY resort
to similar inadmissible evidence.
• Massachusetts Rule – The adverse party may be permitted to introduce similar incompetent
evidence in order to avoid a plain and unfair prejudice caused by the admission of the other
party's evidence.
Moncado v. People's Court (supra) – Old Rule on Curative Admissibility of Illegal Search Warrant.
Admissibility Not Affected by Illegality of Means - England and Canada that the admissibility test is
not affected by the illegality of the means that the party has used to obtain it. If the documents prove
his guilt in the crime of treason, why should the state have to return and save him from the accusation?
Does this not validate the crime? Would it not result in the courts approval of commission of the crime?
Manner of Seizure Does NOT Alter Probative Value - Such practices encourage crime rather than
prevent its commission. The seizure of the documents does not alter its probative value. If it came from
a valid search warrant, those documents would be admissible. There is no constitutional provision or
statutory rule which releases the accused from criminal responsibility because there was no warrant.
Stonehill v. Diokno – (supra) - Admissibility of Evidence Pursuant to Illegal Search
As to those Seized from the Corporation's Premises – ADMISSIBLE. Petitioners (natural persons)
have no cause of action to challenge the search warrants on such premises. The COA beliongs ot the
corporations to whom the effects belong – they have separate and distinct personalities.
As to those seized from residences – INADMISSIBLE. They were seized pursuant to void "general
warrants" and did not satisfy the requirements of Art. III, Sec 1(3) of Constitution. Impossible to
determine probable cause as no offense was alleged + failed to describe with particularity.
Moncado Abandoned – Instead, the EXCLUSIONARY RULE applies. No other way to protect Search
Norm other than Exclusionary Rule.
COLLATERAL MATTERS – Basis for Interference as to the Existence or Non-Existence of Facts in Issue
When Collateral – If it is merely parallel, on a diverging line, additional, or auxiliary to the relevant
issues. Connotes an absence of a direct connection between the evidence and mater in dispute.
• Example: Bad reputation of the accused is merely collateral in a homicide case.
When Collateral Matters are Allowed – Admitted if it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
• Example: Character Evidence – Evidence of the good character of a witness is admissible if his
character has been previously impeached.
Admissible if Supplementary – While the evidence may not bear directly on the issue, it will be admitted
if it has the tendency to corroborate or supplement facts established previously by direct evidence, or
to induce belief as to the probability or improbability of a fact in issue.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 17
EPHEMERAL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION – refers to telephone conversations, text messages,
chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of communication
the evidence of which is not recorded or retained.
• NOTE – Messenger, Viber, E-Mail are not in the same level as TEXTS hence NOT ephemeral.
Can already be considered E-Documents in itself
TOTO: Difference of electronic data message, e-documents, ephemeral
“Electronic data message” refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic,
optical or similar means.
“Electronic document” refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is
established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is
received, recorded, transmitted, stored processed, retrieved or produced electronically.
It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, readable by sight or other means,
which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document.
For purposes of these Rules, the term “electronic document” may be used interchangeably with
electronic data message”.
“Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom
sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of communication the evidence
of which is not recorded or retained.
• Fax is not an electronic communication
• TOTO - In PDFs, technology of the internet is used not of the phone.
Nuez v. Cruz-Apao – Sending "Lugeh Pics" to Girlfriend
Under Section 2, Rule 11 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, “Ephemeral electronic
communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or who has
personal knowledge thereof . . . .” In this case, complainant who was the recipient of said messages
and therefore had personal knowledge thereof testified on their contents and import. Respondent
herself admitted that the cellphone number reflected in complainant’s cellphone from which the
messages originated was hers.
Moreover, any doubt respondent may have had as to the admissibility of the text messages had been
laid to rest when she and her counsel signed and attested to the veracity of the text messages between
her and complainant. It is also well to remember that in administrative cases, technical rules of
procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. We have no doubt as to the probative value of the text
messages as evidence in determining the guilt or lack thereof of respondent in this case.
People v. Enojas – Testifying on Text Messages in Criminal Cases; Taxi Driver's Cell Phone
Facts – Police conducted entrapment operation against accused. The police used the cell-phone of
conspirator cab-driver to text the accused, who sent incriminating messages to the police through such
cellphone. As a result, he was caught.
How Text Messages are Proven - Text Messages are to be proved by the testimony of a person who
was a party to the same or has personal knowledge of them.
Entrapment Valid - Here, PO3 Cambi, posing as the accused Enojas, exchanged text messages with the
other accused in order to identify and entrap them. As the recipient of those messages sent from and
to the mobile phone in his possession, PO3 Cambi had personal knowledge of such messages and was
competent to testify on them.
Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud – Naughty Court Employee
The respondent’s claim that the admission of the text messages as evidence against him cons titutes a
violation of his right to privacy is unavailing. Text messages have been classified as "ephemeral
electronic communication" under Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence,45 and "shall
be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge
thereof." Any question as to the admissibility of such messages is now moot and academic, as the
respondent himself, as well as his counsel, already admitted that he was the sender of the first three
messages on Atty. Madarang’s cellphone.
"Nakikipaglokohan Defense" Unnatural - As pointed out by the Investigating Officer, the
respondent’s claim of "joking around" ("nakipaglokohan") with an unknown sender of a text message
by replying thereto is contrary to a normal person’s reaction. This is made even more apparent by the
fact that the respondent even admitted that he called Atty. Madarang twice, and when asked why, gave
a vague answer, and, when further questioned, even broke down in tears
Admissibility of Void Document
While the terms and provisions of a void contract cannot be enforced since it is deemed inexistent, it
does not preclude the admissibility of the contract as evidence to prove matters that occurred in the
course of executing the contract, i.e., what each party has given in the execution of the contract.
TAN JR. v. HOSANA – Purpose of Electric Deed of Sale as Object Evidence
Purpose is to Prove Fact of Sale; Not to Enforce – The deed of sale as documentary evidence may be
used as a means to ascertain the truthfulness of the consideration stated and its actual payment. The
purpose of introducing the deed of sale as evidence is not to enforce the terms written in the contract,
which is an obligatory force and effect of a valid contract. The deed of sale, rather, is used as a means
to determine matters that occurred in the execution of such contract, i.e., the determination of what
each party has given under the void contract to allow restitution and prevent unjust enrichment.
No Prohibition in Admission of Void Document - Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the
issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules. There is no provision in the Rules of Evidence which
excludes the admissibility of a void document. The Rules only require that the evidence is relevant and
not excluded by the Rules for its admissibility.
Hence, a void document is admissible as evidence because the purpose of introducing it as evidence is
to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact, not to enforce the terms of the document itself.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 18
MCC Industrial v. Sangyong
Is an original printout of a facsimile transmission an electronic data message or document?
International Origin – UNCITRAL Definition of "Data Message" - information generated, sent,
received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means including, but not limited to, electronic data
interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex or telecopy.
"But not Limited to…" Was Deleted in Our Law - However, Congress deleted the phrase, "but not
limited to, electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex or telecopy," and replaced
the term "data message" (as found in the UNCITRAL Model Law ) with "electronic data message."
Congress Changed its Meaning - Furthermore, the term "electronic data message," though
maintaining its description under the UNCITRAL Model Law, except for the aforesaid deleted phrase,
conveyed a different meaning, as revealed in the following proceedings:
This definition of "data" as it is now fashionably pronounced in America - - the definition of
"data" ensures that our bill applies to any form of information in an electronic record,
whether these are figures, facts or ideas.
Electronic Data Message Not Applicable to Faxes – Thus, when the Senate consequently voted to
adopt the term "electronic data message," it was consonant with the explanation of Senator Miriam
Defensor-Santiago that it would not apply "to telexes or faxes, except computer-generated faxes, unlike
the United Nations model law on electronic commerce."
In explaining the term "electronic record" patterned after the E-Commerce Law of Canada, Senator
Defensor-Santiago had in mind the term "electronic data message." This term then, while maintaining
part of the UNCITRAL Model Law's terminology of "data message," has assumed a different context, this
time, consonant with the term "electronic record" in the law of Canada. It accounts for the addition of
the word "electronic" and the deletion of the phrase "but not limited to, electronic data interchange
(EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex or telecopy.
Conclusion - While "data message" has reference to information electronically sent, stored or
transmitted, it does not necessarily mean that it will give rise to a right or extinguish an obligation,
unlike an electronic document. Evident from the law, however, is the legislative intent to give the two
terms the same construction.
EDM = Electronic Record – There is no question then that when Congress formulated the term
"electronic data message," it intended the same meaning as the term "electronic record" in the Canada
law. This construction of the term "electronic data message," which excludes telexes or faxes, except
computer-generated faxes, is in harmony with the Electronic Commerce Law's focus on "paperless"
communications and the "functional equivalent approach" that it espouses. In fact, the deliberations of
the Legislature are replete with discussions on paperless and digital transactions.
Fax is Not an Authentic Pleading in Itsel - A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It is,
at best, an exact copy preserving all the marks of an original. Without the original, there is no way of
determining on its face whether the facsimile pleading is genuine and authentic and was originally
signed by the party and his counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham pleading.
IRR Went Beyond Parameters of Law - Clearly then, the IRR went beyond the parameters of the law
when it adopted verbatim the UNCITRAL Model Law's definition of "data message," without considering
the intention of Congress when the latter deleted the phrase "but not limited to, electronic data
interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex or telecopy." The inclusion of this phrase in the IRR
offends a basic tenet in the exercise of the rule-making power of administrative agencies.
MCC DOCTRINE - Facsimile transmission is not an "electronic data message" or an "electronic
document," and cannot be considered as electronic evidence by the Court, with greater reason is a
photocopy of such a fax transmission not electronic evidence.

"Electronic record" fixes the scope of the Act. The record is the data. The record may be any
medium. It is "electronic" because it is recorded or stored in or by a computer system or similar
device. The Act is intended to apply, for example, to data on magnetic strips on cards, or in
smart cards. As drafted, it would not apply to telexes or faxes (except computer-generated
faxes), unlike the United Nations Model Law on Electronic Commerce. It would also not apply
to regular digital telephone conversations, since the information is not recorded. It would apply
to voice mail, since the information has been recorded in or by a device similar to a computer.
Likewise video records are not covered, though when the video is transferred to a Web site it
would be, because of the involvement of the computer. Music recorded by a computer system
on a compact disk would be covered.

In short, not all data recorded or stored in "digital" form is covered. A computer or similar
device has to be involved in its creation or storage. The term "similar device" does not extend
to all devices that create or store data in digital form. Although things that are not recorded or
preserved by or in a computer system are omitted from this Act, they may well be admissible
under other rules of law. This Act focuses on replacing the search for originality, proving the
reliability of systems instead of that of individual records, and using standards to show systems
reliability.

Paper records that are produced directly by a computer system, such as printouts, are
themselves electronic records, being just the means of intelligible display of the contents of the
record. Photocopies of the printout would be paper records subject to the usual rules about
copies, but the "original" printout would be subject to the rules of admissibility of this Act.

However, printouts that are used only as paper records, and whose computer origin is never
again called on, are treated as paper records. See subsection 4(2). In this case the reliability of
the computer system that produced the record is relevant to its reliability.

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 19
 RULE 129 WHEN JUDICIAL NOTICE IS DISCRETIONARY

WHEN JUDICIAL NOTICE IS MANDATORY Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. —

A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable to
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. —
unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. (1a)
A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the

(1) Existence and territorial extent of states, Principal guide in determining what may be assumed to be judicially-known is NOTORIETY

(2) Their political history, • Judicial Notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety
• Must be one not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is either:
(3) Forms of government and symbols of nationality, o Generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court
o Capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources whose
(4) The law of nations, accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned

(5) The admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, 3 TYPES OF DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE
(1) Public Knowledge
(6) The political constitution and history of the Philippines, (2) Capable of unquestionable demonstration
(3) Ought to be known by judges due to the performance of their functions and duties
(7) The official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines,
JUDICIAL NOTICE AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE JUDGE
(8) The laws of nature,
Judicial notice may be taken of a fact which judges ought to know because of their judicial functions
(9) The measure of time, and
• BUT – Judicial Notice is NOT Judicial Knowledge; Mere personal knowledge of the judge is not
(10) The geographical divisions. (1a) the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge
of a fact, not generally or professionally known, as the basis of his action
Based on the maxim "What is known need not be proven."
• Not limited by the actual knowledge of the individual judge or court; Judge must take judicial
• Matter of judicial expediency and convenience; fulfills purpose of evidence and is = to proof notice of a fact if it is one which is the proper subject of judicial cognizance even if it is not
• Evidence is dispensed with because the matter is well known and is of common knowledge within his personal knowledge.

No judicial notice can be taken of foreign laws which must be proven in our COURTS
• If not pleaded and proven, Foreign law is DEEMED THE SAME as domicile law
Even if petitioners did not raise or allege the amendment of the Rules of Court in their MR, the CA
should have taken mandatory judicial notice of the SC's resolution in A.M. No. 00-02-03-SC amending
Section 4 of Rule 65, effective September 1, 2000. A court shall take judicial notice, among others, of
the official acts of not only of the legislative and executive departments but also of the judicial dept.
- Siena Realty Corporation v. Gal-lang
SC ruled that the lower courts should take judicial notice of the fact that Congress and the SC have both
officially recognized the university's indefeasible title to its landholdings. The official acts of the
legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Philippines are matters of mandatory judicial
notice.
- Republic of the PHP v. Rosario
• CONSEQUENTLY – Judge may not take judicial notice of a fact which he personally knowns if
it is not part of the evidence or nor a fact generally known within his territorial jurisdiction
STAGE WHEN JUDICIAL NOTICE MAY BE TAKEN
Court can take judicial notice of a fact during or after trial pursuant to the procedure in Sec. 3 of Rule
129 of the Rules of Court.
Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. —
During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to
take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon.
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on request
of a party, 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. (n)
• Court may announce intent during trial to take JN of any matter
• Can do so on its own initiative or upon request of any party and allow them to be heard
• Can also be taken after trial and before judgment.
• Can also be on appeal – own initiative or upon request if it is decisive to the issue

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 20
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF LAWS V. ORDINANCES
Municipal Trial Courts SHOULD take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the municipality
in which they sit (U.S. v. Blanco)
The RTC should also take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the municipalities within
their jurisdiction but only when so required by the law.
• Charter of the City of Manila requires all courts sitting therein to take judicial notice of all
ordinances passed by the city council (City of manila v. Garcia)
• The RTC MUST take judicial notice also of municipal ordinances in cases on appeal to it from
the inferior court in which the latter too judicial notice of. (U.S. v. Hernandez)
Court of Appeals MAY take judicial notice of municipal ordinances because nothing in the Rules
prohibits it from taking cognizance of an ordinance which is capable of unquestionable demonstration.
- Gallego v. People
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF COURT RECORDS, PENDING CASES
A court will TAKE judicial notice of its own acts and records in the SAME CASE
- Republic v. CA, 277 SCRA 633
No judicial Notice of Records of OTHER CASES; Exceptions
GR - While courts may take judicial notice of its OWN acts and records in the same case, courts are NOT
authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases
have been TRIED or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may
have been heard or are actually pending before the same judge. (See Land Bank)
EXC – The following are exceptions to the above
(a) In the absence of any objection and with knowledge of the opposing party, the contents of
said other case are clearly referred to by title and number in a pending action.
(b) When the original record of the other case or any part of it is actually withdrawn, form the
archives at the court's discretion upon the request or consent of the parties AND admitted as
part of the record of the pending case.
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND PRACTICES
(1) Proprietary Acts of GOCCs
A management contract entered into by a government owned ang controlled corporation like that
involving the Philippine Ports Authority is NOT among the matters which the courts can take judicial
notice of. It cannot be considered an official act of the executive department because it was entered
into while performing a proprietary function (Asian-Terminals Inc v. Malayan)
(2) Post Office Practices
Post Office practices are not covered by any of the instances under the Rules and is not of
unquestionable demonstration. The court is not obliged to take judicial notice thereof.
- Republic v. CA, 107 SCRA 504
(3) Banking Practices
While a court is NOT mandated to take judicial notice of this practice, it may do so under Discretionary
Judicial Notice. Court has taken notice of the practices of banks and other financial institutions and has
noted that it is their uniform practice, before approving a loan, to investigate, examine, and assess
would-be borrowers' credit standing or real estate offered as security for the loan applied for.
- Solidbank Corporation v. Mindanao Ferroalloy Corporation
(4) Financial Condition of the Government
Notice could be taken of the fact that the government is and has for many years been financially
strapped, to the point that even the most essential services have suffered serious curtailment.
- La Bugal-B'laan Tribal Association v. Ramos
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS
It is well settled in our jurisdiction that our courts CANNOT take judicial notice of foreign laws, like any
other facts, they must be alleged and proved. Australian marital laws are not among those matters that
judges are supposed to know by reason of their judicial functions (Garcia v. Garcia-Recio)
BUT - Where the foreign law is within the actual knowledge of the court, such as when the law is
generally well-known, had been ruled upon in previous cases before it, and none of the parties claim
otherwise, the court may take judicial notice of the foreign law. (PCIB v. Escolin)
PROVING FOREIGN LAW – Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132
Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of
Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or
by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the
custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by
a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is
kept and authenticated by the seal of his office.
Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or record is
attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct
copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the
official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under
the seal of such court.
Section 46, Rule 130
Section 46. Learned treatises. — A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history,
law, science, or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court
takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the
treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject.
Doctrine of PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION
In general and in the absence of statutory requirement to the contrary, the courts of the forum will not
take judicial notice of the law prevailing in another country. Foreign laws must be ALLGED and PROVED.
In the absence of proof, the foreign law will be presumed to be the same as the laws of the jurisdiction
hearing the case. (Northwest Orient Airlines v. CA)
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 21
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE LAW OF NATIONS
Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution – The Philippines adopts the generally-accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land. As laws of the land, they are in the nature of LOCAL laws
and hence, subject to mandatory judicial notice
Universal Textile Mills v. CIR –
Judicial Notice of Pending Case Before It - It is a settled rule that a tribunal may at any time take
judicial notice of the records of a case pending before it and satisfy itself that copies of the pleadings
filed by the parties are in the numbers required by its rules. The failure of a pleading to comply with
such procedural imperative set by the court, leaves the latter the discretion either to reject that pleading
or order completion of the number of copies thereof. Where, however, the party whose pleading has
been shunted aside offers to show that it has fully complied with the requirements of the rules and that
the records kept by the tribunal contain inaccurate entries, the latter body should pause and listen, and
give that party a day in court.
GADALEJ to Deny Pleadings Without Hearing Explanation of Parties - In denying the two petitioners
the opportunity to be heard on the matter of the sufficiency of copies of the pleadings filed by them,
the respondent CIR en banc clearly acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing its resolution of June
14, 1969. The court’s strict adherence to the letter of its procedural rules may have been imbued with
laudable intention bearing upon the discouragement of unwarranted delay in labor cases. The
respondent CIR should remember, however, that the adjudication of substantial justice remains the
paramount consideration in every litigation before it. As it is, the delay in the disposition of the principal
case has been compounded by these two suits brought by the petitioners to correct the precipitate
actuations of that tribunal.
Baguio v. De Jalagat - Finality of judgment in case once pending
Judicial Notice of Final Judgment - It ought to be clear even to appellant that under the circumstances,
the lower court certainly could take judicial notice of the finality of a judgment in a case that was
previously pending and thereafter decided by it. That was all that was done by the lower court in
decreeing the dismissal. Certainly, such an order is not contrary to law. A citation from the comments
of former Chief Justice Moran is relevant. Thus: "Courts have also taken judicial notice of previous cases
to determine whether or not the case pending is a moot one, or whether or not a previous ruling is
applicable in the case under consideration.
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises – Elements of JN of Other Case
The taking of judicial notice is a matter of expediency and convenience for it fulfills the purpose that
the evidence is intended to achieve, and in this sense, it is equivalent to proof. Generally, courts are not
authorized to "take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when said cases
have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge."
They may, however, take judicial notice of a decision or the facts prevailing in another case sitting in
the same court if:
(1) the parties present them in evidence, absent any opposition from the other party; or
(2) the court, in its discretion, resolves to do so.
In either case, courts must observe the clear boundary provided by Sec. 3, Rule 129 of Rules of Court.
Board of Liquidators v. Ricma Trading – Official Receipts; Transactions of Government
Not to speak of the official receipts issued for the payment of the articles in question, constitute written
evidence of the agreement because these documents, although actually separate ones, if taken
together, embody not only all the elements of a contract but even all the terms and conditions of the
agreement of purchase and sale between the appellant and appellee.
Besides, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that contractual transactions with government or any
of its instrumentalities are invariably in writing.
People v. Mapa – Judicial Notice of Bad Cops
JN of Presumption that Drug User = Drug Dealer - It would be noteworthy to mention though, that
accused-appellant was subjected to a drug test to find out whether he was likewise a drug user. It is
often observed that a drug pusher usually, if not all the time is also a drug user. The act of pushing
drugs is a means to support his being a drug dependent. For whatever its worth, accused-appellant was
found to be drug free. In the NBI Toxicology Report No. TDD-86-646, 20 blood and urine specimens of
Elmer Mapa showed negative results for the presence of prohibited and or regulated drugs. Though
this report was not presented during trial, such is made part of the records.
Records Indicate Falsity - The evident falsehood spread on the records before Us creates a nagging
doubt on the culpability of the accused-appellant. It is sad to state that many innocent people become
victims of physical violence and/or harassment from police officers who are supposed to be the
protectors of the citizenry. We cannot condone such practices to continue in a civilized society.
JN of Bad Cops Who Plant Evidence - While this Court commends the efforts of law enforcement
agencies who are engaged in the difficult and dangerous task of apprehending and prosecuting drug-
traffickers, it cannot, however, close its eyes nor ignore the many reports of false arrests of innocent
persons for extortion purposes and blackmail, or to satisfy some hidden personal resentment of the
"informer" or law enforcer against the accused. Courts should be vigilant and alert to recognize trumped
up drug charges lest an innocent man, on the basis of planted evidence, be made to suffer the unusually
severe penalties for drug offenses.
Heirs of Felicidad Canque v. CA – CA Should take JN of SC Decisions
In the case at bar, the Sheriffs Certificate of Sale was registered on September 9, 1983. Thus, based on
the foregoing dictum, the petitioners, whose land was mortgaged to and foreclosed by a rural bank,
had a period of two years or until September 9, 1985 to exercise their right of redemption. And in line
with the mandate of Sec. 119 of the Public Land Act, they had an additional period of five years from
the latter date or until September 9, 1990 to exercise their right to repurchase.
JN of Supreme Court Decisions - Clearly, the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error because
it palpably failed to consider in its August 25, 1994 Decision the aforementioned ruling of the Supreme
Court promulgated twenty months earlier on January 27, 1993. Unfortunately, this is not the first time
for this Court to come upon such a slip. Peltan Development vs. Court of Appeals ruled that every court
must take cognizance of decisions this Court has rendered because they are proper subjects of
mandatory judicial notice xxx [and] more importantly form part of the legal system. We stress
that members of the bench have a responsibility to know and to apply the latest holdings of the
Supreme Court. The nature of their calling requires no less.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 22
People v. Bersamin – Judicial Notice of 2 Cases: One convicted already, another pending PI.
There is one other proof of moral perversity which, added to the circumstances mentioned, compels
the Court to deal with appellant with utmost severity. When Bersamin pretreated the crime at bar, he
had been the ringleader in the case for murder and another case for double murder and was in hiding
to avoid arrest prosecution in those cases. In the case for double murder, docketed in this court on
appeal as G.R. No. L-3098, he has been found guilty in decision which affirmed that of the Court of First
Instance sentencing him to life imprisonment, and which is being promulgated with this decision. In
the other case, one of the defendants, Crispin Licuanan, was found guilty and sentenced to prison for
life by the Court of First Instance and by this Court (G.R. No. L-2960). As far as can be gathered from the
record of the present appeal, that case was pending preliminary investigation with reference to
Casimiro Bersamin at the time of the trial of the instant case for robbery with homicide.
“G” Holdings, Inc. v. National Mines and Allied Workers – JN to determine w/n pending case is moot.
It is essential to take judicial cognizance of cases intimately linked to the present controversy which had
earlier been elevated to and decided by this Court.
Courts have taken judicial notice of previous cases to determine WON the case pending is a moot one
or WON a previous ruling is applicable to the case under consideration. Courts have also taken judicial
notice of proceedings in other cases that are closely connected to the matter in controversy. These
cases may be so closely interwoven, or so clearly interdependent, as to invoke a rule of judicial notice.
Vi Ve Chemical Products Products v. Commisioner of Customs – No Chemistry Book Shown for JN
The lower court was correct in stating that the chemical components of these articles are technical in
nature and only persons possessed of the required knowledge know their similarity or difference.
Neither did appellant show that the chemistry book shows the chemical components of propionic
glycine and glutamic acid are the same. This being so, it cannot be said that these objects are of public
knowledge or of unquestionable demonstration to be the proper subject of judicial notice by the Court.
Fluermer v. Hix – Must Prove Laws of West Virginia; JN of Foreign Laws Not Allowed without Proof
Foreign Laws Must be Alleged + Proven - The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves
in our courts. The courts of the Philippine Islands are not authorized to take judicial notice of the laws
of the various States of the American Union. Such laws must be proved as facts.
No Showing of Authority - There was no showing that the book from which an extract was taken was
printed or published under the authority of the State of West Virginia, as provided in the Civil Code. Nor
was the extract from the law attested by the certificate of the officer having charge of the original, under
the seal of the State of West Virginia, as provided in Section 301 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No
evidence was introduced to show that the extract from the laws of West Virginia was in force at the time
the alleged will was executed
PCIB v. Escolin, etc. et al. – Exception to Rule of Foreign Laws being Alleged and Proven
GR – Foreign Law, as a matter of fact, must be alleged and proven.
EXC - Where the foreign law is within the actual knowledge of the court, such as when the law is
generally well-known, had been ruled upon in previous cases before it, and none of the parties claim
otherwise, the court may take judicial notice of the foreign law.
Sy Joc Lieng v. Encarnacion – Chinese Law Testified by Opinion of Non-Expert
"Whenever a foreign law is invoked in our tribunals, its existence must be satisfactory established as
any other fact.’
The testimony of the witness Ly Ung Bing, the interpreter, as to the written and unwritten laws of China,
does not show, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure, that he knew such laws or that he was
acquainted with the nature of the laws alleged to be contained in the said books. He merely confined
himself to expressing his own opinion with reference to the two classes of laws. He, not being an expert
on the subject throughly conversant with the laws of China, his testimony, considering the manner in
which laws of China, his testimony, considering the manner in which he testified, cannot even be
accepted as a partial evidence that the said four books really contain the written/unwritten China laws.
CIR v. Fisher – California Law Testified by Californian Lawyer; Testimony as Other Competent Evidence
To prove the pertinent California law, Attorney Allison Gibbs, counsel for herein respondents, testified
that as an active member of the California Bar since 1931, he is familiar with the revenue and taxation
laws of the State of California. When asked by the lower court to state the pertinent California law as
regards exemption of intangible personal properties, the witness cited article 4, section 13851 (a) and
(b) of the California Internal and Revenue Code as published in Derring's California Code, a publication
of the Bancroft-Whitney Company inc. And as part of his testimony, a full quotation of the cited section
was offered in evidence as Exhibits "V-2" by the respondents.
Testimony Can Serve as Other Competent Evidence to Prove Foreign Law - Section 41, Rule 123 of
our Rules of Court prescribes the manner of proving foreign laws before our tribunals. However,
although we believe it desirable that these laws be proved in accordance with said rule, we held in the
case of Willamette Iron and Steel Works v. Muzzal, that "a reading of sections 300 and 301 of our
Code of Civil Procedure (now section 41, Rule 123) will convince one that these sections do not exclude
the presentation of other competent evidence to prove the existence of a foreign law."
In that case, we considered the testimony of an attorney-at-law of San Francisco, California who quoted
verbatim a section of California Civil Code and who stated that the same was in force at the time the
obligations were contracted, as sufficient evidence to establish the existence of said law.
Manufacturers Hanover Trust v. Guerrero – Walden Affidavit was Ex-Parte
No Testimony; Ex Parte - The Bank, cannot rely on Willamette Iron and Steel Works v. Muzzal or CIR
v. Fisher to support its cause. These cases involved attorneys testifying in open court during the trial in
the Philippines and quoting the particular foreign laws sought to be established. On the other hand, the
Walden affidavit was taken abroad ex parte and the affiant never testified in open court.
Self-Serving - The Walden affidavit cannot be considered as proof of New York law on damages not
only because it is self-serving but also because it does not state the specific New York law on damages.
The Walden affidavit states conclusions from the affiant’s personal interpretation and opinion of the
facts of the case vis a vis the alleged laws and jurisprudence without citing any law in particular. The
citations in the Walden affidavit of various U.S. court decisions do not constitute proof of the official
records or decisions of the U.S. courts. While the Bank attached copies of some of the U.S. court
decisions cited in the Walden affidavit, these copies do not comply with Sec. 24 of Rule 132 on proof of
official records or decisions of foreign courts. Because of the failure to comply with Sec. 24 of Rule 132,
the Walden affidavit did not prove the current state of New York law and jurisprudence.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 23
Wildvalley Shipping v. CA – Requirement of Officer with Custody + Certificate
For a copy of a foreign public document to be admissible, the following requisites are mandatory:
(1) It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by his deputy; and
(2) It must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general,
consul, vice consular or consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of his office.
The latter requirement is not a mere technicality but is intended to justify the giving of full faith and
credit to the genuineness of a document in a foreign country.
The second requirement is lacking. It is not enough that the Gaceta Oficial, or a book published by
the Ministerio de Comunicaciones of Venezuela, was presented as evidence with Captain Monzon
attesting it. It is also required by Section 24 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court that a certificate that
Captain Monzon, who attested the documents, is the officer who had legal custody of those records
made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul or consular agent
or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in Venezuela, and authenticated by
the seal of his office accompanying the copy of the public document. No such certificate could be found
in the records of the case.
ATCI Overseas v. Echin – Submitted Translations of Kuwait MOA and Letters
Submitted Mere Translations - Instead of submitting a copy of the pertinent Kuwaiti labor laws duly
authenticated and translated by Embassy officials thereat, as required under the Rules, what petitioners
submitted were mere certifications attesting only to the correctness of the translations of the MOA and
the termination letter which does not prove at all that Kuwaiti civil service laws differ from Philippine
laws and that under such Kuwaiti laws, respondent was validly terminated.
Jordan v. Mace – Submission of Blood Testing Results
By the examination of the blood of the mother, the child, and the putative father, non-paternity may be
conclusively proved in a certain proportion of cases. The statute in question accepts this verdict of
science, — that even though such tests cannot prove paternity, they may in certain instances disprove
it. The possibility of error was minimized by the making of two complete blood tests at intervals of time.
Eleven tests by or under the direction of Dr. Hooker produced identical results.
BOP on Person Assailing Blood Test - The blood grouping test statute was enacted to provide, in our
view, for the very situation in which a Mace, as a matter of ordinary proof without the tests, can do no
more than create a doubt about the paternity of a child. Exclusion of paternity by blood grouping tests
under biological law is scientific proof that a Mace is not the father. It is the burden of the complainant
to show medical error in these cases to counter results of medical advances.
Jao v. CA - There is now almost universal scientific agreement that blood grouping tests are conclusive
as to non-paternity, although inconclusive as to paternity — that is, the fact that the blood type of the
child is a possible product of the mother and alleged father does not conclusively prove that the child
is born by such parents; but, if the blood type of the child is not the possible blood type when the blood
of the mother and that of the alleged father are crossmatched, then the child cannot possibly be that
of the alleged father.
Although the presence of the same type of blood in two persons does not indicate that one was
begotten by the other, yet the fact that they are of different types will indicate the impossibility of one
being the child of the other. Thus, when the supposed father and the alleged child are not in the same
blood group, they cannot be father and child by consanguinity.
People v. Madera – Moon was shining on a particular night.
Under some circumstance, however, excitement may whet the attention to a keen edge. In some other
cases, it has been observed, in effect, that the emotion incident to the impending peril may not be the
kind of excitement which confuses, but that which focalizes the faculties to scrutinize. the circumstance
of the threatened danger in order to avoid it.
The Court can take judicial notice of the "laws of nature" and, under this rule, of the time when the
moon rises or sets on a particular day. Examining a certification from the Weather Bureau shows that
the moon was bright at the time of the shooting incident. According to the certification, the moon rose
at 4:11 P.M. on April 19, 1970 and set the following day, April 20, at 4:27 A.M. and that, among others,
the moon was illumined 97% at 2:00 A.M. on April 20, 1970, full moon having occurred at 00.21 A.M. on
April 22,1970.
People v. Dumananon – Judicial Notice of Down Syndrome of Person through Physical Observation
It has been held that mental retardation can be proved by evidence other than medical evidence. Thus,
it is our considered opinion that for purposes of determining whether ANACURITA is mentally normal
or does not have the mental capacity of a normal person, the personal observation of the trial judge
would suffice as a measure of determining the impact on her of the force and intimidation foisted by
MARIO and RICARDO vis-a-vis the legal requirement to prove the commission of the crime of rape.
Mongolism is a condition characterized by a small, anteroposteriorly flattened skull, short, flat-bridged
nose, epicanthus, short-phalanges, and widened space between the first and second digits of hands
and feet, with moderate to severed mental retardation and associated with a chromosomal
abnormality. It is known as mongolism because its physiognomic features are suggestive of those
normally exhibited by the Mongolian race. It is also known as Down's Syndrome. Hence, the courts can
take judicial notice of the appearance and features of those suffering from mongolism and based
thereon, conclude that a victim, like ANACURITA, is a mongoloid.
Gener v. De Leon – Absence of Objection + For Convenience in Records of Other Cases
GR: Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even
when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that
both cases may have been tried or are actually pending before the same judge….
EXC: ….In the absence of objection and as a matter of convenience to all parties, a court may
properly treat all or any part of the original record of the case filed in its archives as read into the
records of a case pending before it, when with the knowledge of the opposing party, reference is made
to it, by name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated."
Respondents did not impugn nor object to the evidence of petitioner on the existence of the said
criminal cases of malicious mischief that sprung from the alleged forcible entry of petitioner’s alleged
property. Thus, the said Municipal Trial Court should have taken judicial notice of these facts in resolving
the issue of prior possession.
TOTO
• In the absence of objection, can treat all or part of the original record of the case
before it as judicial notice.
• Judicial notice can be made even of court personnel
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 24
Republic v. CA – Judicial Notice of Court-Related Proceedings, Personnel, etc.
A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same case, of facts established in prior
proceedings in the same case, of the authenticity of its own records of another case between the same
parties, of the files of related cases in the same court, and of public records on file in the same court.
In addition, judicial notice will be taken of the record, pleadings or judgment of a case in another court
between the same parties or involving one of the same parties, as well as of the record of another case
between different parties in the same court. Judicial notice will also be taken of court personnel.
The remand of the case would likewise seem to be unavoidable. The area of the claimed and awarded
to the late Josefa had not been specified in the records. Indeed, on the basis of the Certification of the
Forest Management Services of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Lot No. 5367,
per Land Classification (LC) No. 1246 of 15 January 1936, would appear to contain an area of 394,043
sqm, 300,000 sqm of which were classified as Alienable and Disposable land and 94,043 square meters
as Timberland, which under Proclamation No. 2152, dated 29 December 1981, had been included to
form part of the Mangrove Swamp Forest Reserve, closed for entry, exploitation and settlement.
Marcelo Steel v. CA - What has been judicially admitted in a related certiorari
But, as illustrated in the circumstances of the case at bar, there could be instances when the timeliness
of an appeal is a matter which the court can take judicial notice of and, consequently, it would be
inconceivable that any controversy between the parties in respect thereto could arise. In such instances,
the court is no longer supposed to receive any conflicting evidence. It would be bound by what it has
judicial notice of and none of the parties may be permitted to prove the contrary. In the words of Chief
Justice Moran, "Where a fact is one of which the court may judicially take notice, no proof thereof is
necessary. The maxim is "what is known need not be proved." Judicial notice takes the place of proof
and is of equal force.
Should a record on appeal which does not state on its face that the appeal bond was filed on
time but contains in its Annex a certification of the City Treasurer be properly dismissed?
NO, it cannot be dismissed despite the fact that the record on appeal does not state on its face that the
appeal bond was filed on time as required by Rule 41, Sec. 6.
When a matter of fact supposed to be proven to the court is one capable of being taken judicial notice
of, being already known to the court because it has already been proven or was undisputed or judicially
admitted in a related proceeding before it, it would be the height of absurdity and contrary to one's
sense of justice and propriety to still require the parties to reopen the issue and litigate relative to the
same matter all over again.
Both upon principle and pragmatic considerations, courts are not supposed to ignore facts that the
same parties have in a related case considered as beyond dispute or no longer subject to proof. Any
other ruling would only give occasion to the court to arrive at contradictory findings on points which
the parties themselves may not controvert without being inconsistent and unfair. In other words,
Section 6 of Rule 41 and the jurisprudence cited by petitioners have no application to the situation
obtaining in this case.
Can the court take judicial notice of the record of the case where the fact of the payment of the
appeal bond was made?
YES, the court may take judicial notice. It is to be noted that in the petition for certiorari
abovementioned the private parties were the same as appellants and appellees herein. Paragraph 9
thereof contained the following allegation: "9) That on October 30, 1970, petitioner filed their Notice of
Appeal, from the said decision, together with their Appeal Bond and Record on Appeal.”
People v. Bernabe – Baptismal Certificate; JN of How Girls look like now
In the case at bar, while the Information alleged both the minority of the victim and her relationship
with appellant, the prosecution failed to prove the victims age when it presented only the baptismal
certificate of Maria Esnelia and not her birth certificate.
It is elementary that a baptismal certificate only proves the fact of baptism but not the circumstances
of birth. Without essential proof on the matter of the date of birth of complainant, or other convincing
evidence in the absence thereof, we cannot rule with certainty whether Maria Esnelia was indeed a
minor at the time of the commission of the crime, especially so because she does not appear to be
obviously a minor, as she allegedly was already 17 years old at the time of the assault.
Verily, with our young girls now looking, acting, and dressing up more maturely, one would be hard
put to conclude with any measure of certainty, that a budding lass is 13 or 18 years of age.
In re Siemen’s Estate – Judicial Notice of the Abbreviation Penna. SPCA
‘Judicial notice will be taken of such ordinary abbreviations as by common use may be regarded
as universally understood.’'
Judge Crichton further aptly said: ‘The court may inform itself from books of authority, though not
introduced in evidence, or may admit such works to aid it in the exercise of its judicial function. “Judicial
notice’ does not depend on the actual knowledge of the judges. When the fact is alleged, they
must investigate and may refresh their recollection by resorting to any means which they may
deem safe and proper.” ‘And, further, evidence is admissible to show that a corporation is ordinarily
known by the name used in the bequest or devise
The test is whether the abbreviation used in this will is ‘of such general and public notoriety that
everyone within the limits of the jurisdiction may fairly be presumed to be acquainted with it.’
The court in aid of its ‘judicial knowledge’ quoted definitions of the abbreviation ‘S.P.C.A.’ from many
standard encyclopedias and dictionaries, such as Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the
English Language, and The Encyclopedia Americana, 1940 Ed., and the Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th
Ed., Vol. 1, showing that the initials ‘S.P.C.A.’ have become a part of the English language as symbols of
the ‘Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals'.
In re Marriage of Tresnak – Law Studies and how it affects Custody of Kids
What is Capable of Judicial Notice - To be capable of being judicially noticed a matter must be of
common knowledge or capable of certain verification. Court are permitted to dispense with formal
proof of matters which everyone knows.
Limitation on JN - However, judicial notice is limited to what a judge may properly know in his judicial
capacity, and he is not authorized to make his personal knowledge of a fact not generally or
professionally known as the basis of his action.
Assumed facts are not matters subject to judicial notice - It is common knowledge in the legal
profession that law school studies are demanding and time-consuming, but the requirements of a
specific law school curriculum are not generally or professionally known.
The trial court's statements about the necessity of extensive library study and likelihood of Linda's work
on the law review at the University of Iowa law school are not matters of common knowledge or capable
of certain verification within the meaning of the judicial notice principle.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 25

Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio – No JN of Trade Journals; Price Lists
'The trend of land valuation was ascertained', according to the findings, 'from examination of the
tax value in communities where the company had its largest real estate holdings.' 'For building trends
resort was had to price indices of the Engineering News Record, a recognized magazine in the field of
engineering construction.' 'Labor trends were developed from the same sources.' Reference was made
also to the findings of a federal court in Illinois (Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Gilbert (D.C.) as to the price
levels upon sales of apparatus and equipment by Western Electric, an affiliated corporation.
Matters Herein Not Common Knowledge - Though Courts have been allowed to take judicial notice
of common knowledge, such is not the case here presented. They take judicial notice that there has
been a depression, and that a decline of market values is one of its concomitants. How great the decline
has been for this industry or that, for one material or another, in this year or the next, can be known
only to the experts, who may even differ among themselves.
Can't JN valuation - Judicial notice may be taken of the fact that there has been an economic
depression, with decline of market values, but judicial notice cannot be taken of the values of land,
labor, buildings, and equipment, with their yearly fluctuations. This distinction is the more important in
cases where the extent of the fluctuations is not collaterally involved but is the very point in issue.
Opponent Can Contest JN-Evidence - Taking of judicial notice has no other effect than to relieve one
of the parties to a controversy of the burden of resorting to the usual forms of evidence; his opponent
is at liberty to dispute the matter by evidence. When price lists or trade journals or even government
reports are put in evidence upon a trial, the party against whom they are offered may see the evidence
or hear it and parry its effect. This was not done in this case.
Catungal v. Hao (2001) – Material Requisites to be of Judicial Notice
Matters of judicial notice have three material requisites:
(1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
(2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and
(3) It must be known to be within the limits of jurisdiction of the court.
JN of Nature of Leased Property - The RTC correctly took judicial notice of the nature of the leased
property subject of the case at bench based on its location and the commercial viability. The above
quoted assessment by the RTC of the Baclaran area, where the subject property is located, is fairly
grounded. Furthermore, the RTC also had factual basis in arriving at the said conclusion, the same being
based on testimonies of witnesses, such as real estate broker Divina Roco and the petitioner Catungal.
JN of General Increase in Rental Prices- The RTC rightly modified the rental award from P13,000.00
to P40,000.00, considering that it is settled jurisprudence that courts may take judicial notice of the
general increase in rentals of lease contract renewals much more with business establishments.
Corinthian Gardens v. Spouses Tanjangco – Realty Prices are Factual Matters Not JN-able
In Herrera v. Bollos, the trial court awarded rent to the defendants in a forcible entry case. Reversing
the RTC, this Court declared that the reasonable amount of rent could be determined not by mere
judicial notice, but by supporting evidence:
A court cannot take judicial notice of a factual matter in controversy. The court may take judicial
notice of matters of public knowledge, or which are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought
to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. Before taking such judicial notice, the court
must allow the parties to be heard thereon. Hence, there can be no judicial notice on the rental value
of the premises in question without supporting evidence.
On the second issue, the Court cited an earlier case (SIA v. CA) and said that the reasonable amount of
rent may not be determined by judicial notice but by supporting evidence, such as: 1) the realty
assessment of the land, 2) the increase in realty taxes, and 3) the prevailing rate of rentals in the vicinity.
A court may fix the reasonable amount of rent, but it must still base its action on the evidence adduced
by the parties.
Social Justice Society v. Atienza – Generally, Ordinance is not JN-able
Failure to JN Ordinance Due to Lack of Notice - The March 7, 2007 decision did not take into
consideration the passage of Ordinance No. 8119 entitled "An Ordinance Adopting the Manila
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations of 2006 and Providing for the Administration,
Enforcement and Amendment thereto" which was approved by Atienza on June 16, 2006. The simple
reason was that the Court was never informed about this ordinance.
Ordinances Not JN – While courts are required to take judicial notice of the laws enacted by Congress,
the rule with respect to local ordinances is different. Ordinances are not included in the enumeration
of matters covered by mandatory judicial notice under Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.
Although, Section 50 of RA 409 provides that :. — "All courts sitting in the city shall take judicial notice
of the ordinances passed by the." This cannot be taken to mean that this Court, since it has its seat in
the City of Manila, should have taken steps to procure a copy of the ordinance on its own, relieving the
party of any duty to inform the Court about it.
Must Supply Text of Ordinance to JN it - The party asking the court to take judicial notice is obligated
to supply the court with the full text of the rules the party desires it to have notice of. Counsel should
take the initiative in requesting that a trial court take judicial notice of an ordinance even where a statute
requires courts to take judicial notice of local ordinances.
The intent of a statute requiring a court to take judicial notice of a local ordinance is to remove any
discretion a court might have in determining whether or not to take notice of an ordinance. Such a
statute does not direct the court to act on its own in obtaining evidence for the record and a party must
make the ordinance available to the court for it to take notice.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 26
Spouses Latip v. Chua (2009) – Payment of Goodwill in an Area as Practice not subject to JN
The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of
notoriety. Things of "common knowledge," of which courts take judicial notice, may be matters coming
to the knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be
matters which are generally accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready and unquestioned
demonstration.
Moreover, a judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is either:
(1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or
(2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questionable.
Only CA took JN of Practice - Only the CA took judicial notice of this supposed practice to pay goodwill
money to the lessor in the Baclaran area. Neither the MeTC nor the RTC, with the former even ruling in
favor of Rosalie, found that the practice was of "common knowledge" or notoriously known.
Republic v. Segundina Rosario, joined by Zuellig – Ownership of UP JN-ed already
In the case at bar, the Republic and UP were able to establish that Rosario’s TCT overlaps with two valid
and existing certificates of title in the name of UP. These reports were duly offered in evidence; thus,
the RTC and CA should have taken judicial notice of various jurisprudence upholding UP's indefeasible
title over its landholdings.
UP Ownership Already Settled - It is judicial notice that the legitimacy of UP's title has been settled in
several other cases decided by this Court. Thus, as both Congress and this Court have repeatedly and
consistently validated and recognized UP's indefeasible title over its landholdings, the RTC and the Court
of Appeals clearly erred when it faulted the Republic and UP for presenting certified true copies of its
titles signed by its records custodian instead of either the duplicate originals or the certified true copies
issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City. Indeed, the RTC and the CA should have taken judicial
notice of UP's title over its landholdings, without need of any other evidence.
People v. Tundag – Cannot take Judicial Notice of Age; Need Independent Proof of Age
In several recent cases, we have emphasized the need for independent proof of the age of the victim,
aside from testimonial evidence from the victim or her relatives.
Melo, J - Independent proof of the actual age of a rape victim becomes vital and essential so as to
remove an ‘iota of doubt’ that the case falls under the qualifying circumstances" for the imposition of
the death penalty set by the law
As required by Section 3 of Rule 129, as to any other matters such as age, a hearing is required before
courts can take judicial notice of such fact. Generally, the age of the victim may be proven by the birth
or baptismal certificate of the victim, or in the absence thereof, upon showing that said documents
were lost or destroyed, by other documentary or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose.
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (A.M. No. 06-11-5-C) - CASES
Vallejo Case, supra
Lucas v. Lucas, supra
Estate of Ong v. Diaz, G.R. No. 171713, 17 December 2007
Death does not negate the application of DNA Testing as long as exist appropriate biological DNA
samples exist. Estate of Ong’s argument is without basis as the New Rules on DNA Evidence allows the
conduct of DNA testing, either motu proprio or upon application of any person who has a legal interest
in the matter litigation.
Biological sample means any organic material originating from a person's body, even if found in
inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva, and other body fluids,
tissues, hairs and bones.
No showing that impossible to obtain samples from Rogelio to negate DNA Testing - Thus, even
if Rogelio already died, any of the biological samples as enumerated above as may be available, may be
used for DNA testing. In this case, Joanne has not shown the impossibility of obtaining an appropriate
biological sample that can be utilized for the conduct of DNA testing.
Agustin v. Hon. Court of Appeals – Compare to Estate of Ong Case
In People vs. Yatar, SC held that the right against self-incrimination does not apply where the evidence
sought to be excluded is not an incrimination but as part of object evidence. In that case, DNA samples
from semen recovered from a rape victims vagina were used to positively identify the accused Joel Kawit
Yatar as the rapist.
Over the years, the Court have expressly excluded several kinds of object evidence taken from the
person of the accused from the realm of self-incrimination. These include photographs, hair, and other
bodily substances. We have also declared as constitutional several procedures performed on the
accused such as pregnancy tests for women accused of adultery, expulsion of morphine from one’s
mouth and the tracing of one’s foot to determine its identity with bloody footprints. In Jimenez v.
Caizares, we even authorized the examination of a womans genitalia, in an action for annulment filed
by her husband, to verify his claim that she was impotent, her orifice being too small for his penis.
[Ople v. Torres] The right to privacy does not bar all incursions into individual privacy. The right is not
intended to stifle scientific and technological advancements that enhance public service and the
common good.
Privacy Relates to Communication, Not DNA Evidence - Historically, it has mostly been in the areas
of legality of searches and seizures, and the infringement of privacy of communication where the
constitutional right to privacy has been critically at issue. Petitioners case involves neither and, as
already stated, his argument that his right against self-incrimination is in jeopardy holds no water. His
hollow invocation of his constitutional rights elicits no sympathy here for the simple reason that they
are not in any way being violated. If, in a criminal case, an accused whose very life is at stake can be
compelled to submit to DNA testing, we see no reason why, in this civil case, petitioner herein who does
not face such dire consequences cannot be ordered to do the same.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 27
 SECTION 4 (JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS)
Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of
the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
A judicial admission requires NO PROOF – they are legally binding on the party making the admission
- Eastern Shipping Lines v. BPI/MS Insurance Corporation
ELEMENTS OF JUDICIAL ADMISSION
(1) Made by a party to the case
(2) Made in the course of the proceedings in the same case
(3) Either verbal or written
• Admissions of a NON-PARTY do NOT fall within the definition
• An admission will not be deemed a judicial one in another case where the admission was not
made; it will be considered an extrajudicial admission
The stipulation of facts at the pre-trial of a case constitutes JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS (Cuneco v. Talisay)
A party may make judicial admissions in
(a) The pleadings
(b) During trial, either by verbal or written manifestation / stipulation
(c) Other stages of the judicial proceedings
ADMISSIONS IN PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS
Admissions made in the pleadings of a party are deemed JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS (Ching v. CA)
An admission in the answer to the complaint takes on the character of a judicial admission
contemplated in Sec. 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court (Heirs of Pedro Clemena v. Heirs of Irene b. Bien)
An admission made in a pleading may be an actual admission as when a party categorically admits a
material allegation made by the adverse party. An admission may, likewise, be inferred from the failure
to specifically deny the material allegations in the other party's pleadings.
REMEMBER, Rule 8, ROC:
Section 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted. —
Material averment in the complaint, other than those as to the amount of
unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied.
Allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest are deemed
admitted if not denied under oath.
• BUT – Admissions made in DRAFTS of pleadings not yet filed are NOT judicial admission as
they are not part of the records of the case.
Averments in Pleadings Which are NOT Deemed Admissions
(1) Immaterial Allegations
(2) Conclusions
(3) Non-ultimate facts in the pleading
(4) Unliquidated damages
VERSUS ADMISSIONS BY AN ADVERSE PARTY (SECTION 3, RULE 26)
Section 1. Request for admission. — At any time after issues have been joined, a
party may file and serve upon any other party a written request for the admission
by the latter of the genuineness of any material and relevant document described
in and exhibited with the request or of the truth of any material and relevant matter
of fact set forth in the request. Copies of the documents shall be delivered with the
request unless copy have already been furnished. (1a)
Section 2. Implied admission. — Each of the matters of which an admission is
requested shall be deemed admitted unless, within a period designated in the
request, which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after service thereof, or within
such further time as the court may allow on motion, the party to whom the request
is directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn
statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is
requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either
admit or deny those matters.
Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to the court by the party
requested within the period for and prior to the filing of his sworn statement as
contemplated in the preceding paragraph and his compliance therewith shall be
deferred until such objections are resolved, which resolution shall be made as early
as practicable.
Section 3. Effect of admission. — Any admission made by a party pursuant to
such request is for the purpose of the pending action only and shall not constitute
an admission by him for any other purpose nor may the same be used against him
in any other proceeding.
Admissions obtained through depositions, written interrogatories, or requests for admission are also
considered JUDICIAL admissions.
• BUT – For Sec. 3; The admission shall be valid pursuant to the request for admission in the
pending action ONLY. It cannot be considered for any other purpose in any other proceeding.
RELATE TO SECTION 8, RULE 8
Section 8. How to contest such documents. — When an action or defense is
founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding
pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution
of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath
specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts, but the
requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to
be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection
of the original instrument is refused. (8a)
Failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document does NOT preclude a
party from arguing against the document by evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise, payment, statute
of limitations, estoppel, and want of consideration. (Acabal v. Acabal)
• BUT – He is PRECLUDED from arguing that the document is a forgery, because the
genuineness of the document has been impliedly admitted by his failure to deny the same
under oath.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 28
Admissions in the Pre-Trial of Civil Cases
• Purpose of Pre-Trial in Civil Case is for court to consider possibility of obtaining stipulations
or admissions of facts. It is MANDATORY.
• Admissions in the pre-trial + during depositions, interrogatories, requests for admission are
all deemed judicial admissions because they are made in the course of the proceedings of
the case.
• Admissions made in a stipulation of facts by the parties in the pre-trial are treated as judicial
admissions. (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. BPI/MS Insurance Corp.)
Admissions in the Pre-Trial of Criminal Cases
• NOT necessarily admissible against the accused.
• To be admissible, the conditions set forth by Sec. 2 of Rule 118 MUST BE complied with.
Section 2. Pre-trial agreement. — All agreements or admissions made or entered
during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the
accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused. The
agreements covering the matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be
approved by the court.
Does the above rule apply to stipulation of facts made during trial?
• People v. Hernandez – A stipulation of facts entered into by the prosecution and defense
counsel during trial in open court is automatically reduced in writing and contained in the
official transcript of proceedings held in court. The conformity of the accused in the form of
his signature affixed thereto is UNNCESSARY in view of the fact that an attorney who is
employed to manage a party's conduct of a lawsuit has prima facie authority to make relevant
admission by pleadings, by oral or written stipulation.
• Hence, when such admissions are made, they BIND THE CLIENT.
Admissions in Amended Pleadings
• When a pleading is amended, the amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends
and the admissions in the superseded one may be received in evidence against the pleader
• Nature of Admissions in Superseded Pleadings – Extrajudicial Admissions; must be proven
• WHY? – The pleading was in the course of proceedings, hence still accountable.
Admissions in Dismissed Pleadings – Extrajudicial admissions!
• Torres v. CA – Pleadings that have been amended disappear from the record, lose their status
as pleadings, and cease to be judicial admissions, and to be utilized as extrajudicial
admissions, they must, in order to have such effect, be formally offered in evidence.
Sworn Statement of a Proposed State Witness - If the motion to discharge an accused as a state
witness is denied, his sworn statement, submitted to support the motion, shall be inadmissible in
evidence. (Sec. 17, Rule 119)
Admissions by COUNSEL – Generally conclusive upon a client. Even the negligence of a lawyer binds
the client. (De Garcia v. Court of Appeals)
EFFECT OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
(a) Do not require proof
(b) Cannot be contradicted as they conclusive upon the party making it
• RELATE TO ARTICLE 1431, NEW CIVIL CODE
Article 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered
conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against
the person relying thereon.
Judicial Admissions are LEGALLY BINDING on the party making the admissions; They cannot be
contradicted by the admitter (party himself) and bind the person who makes the same.
• Eastern Shipping Lines v. BPI/MS Insurance Corp. – A party who judicially admits a fact
CANNOT later challenge that fact, as judicial admissions are a waiver of proof; production of
evidence is DISPENSED with. They are conclusive to such party, and all proofs to the contrary
or inconsistent therewith should be IGNORED, whether objections is interposed or not.
• Based on Doctrine of Estoppel – Admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon
the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying on it.
• Reject Evidence Contrary to Admission: Josefa v. MERALCO – The Trial Court may REJECT
evidence that a party adduces to contradict a judicial admission he made in his pleading since
such admission is CONCLUSIVE as to him. The admission removes an admitted fact from the
field of controversy.
• Documentary Evidence Can Still Overcome - Santos v. Lumbao – Despite the presence of
judicial admissions in a party's pelading, the trial court is still given leeway to consider other
evidence presented, because said admissions may not necessarily prevail over documentary
evidence.
HOW MAY BE CONTRADICTED
(a) Palpable Mistake
(b) No such admission was made
Palpable – Mistake that is clear to the mind or plain to see; readily perceived by the senses or mind
No Such Admission – Statement of party is taken out-of-context. He does NOT deny making the
statement but denies the meaning attached to the statement.
• FYI: The word "such" was added because if it was not, it would mean that a mere denial would
suffice to contradict the provision (Riano)
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 29
 CASES
Cuenco v. Talisay Tourist Sports Complex – No Inventory Admission in Pre-Trial Order
The stipulation of facts at the pre-trial of a case constitutes judicial admissions. The veracity of judicial
admissions requires no further proof and may be controverted only upon a clear showing that the
admissions were made through palpable mistake or that no admissions were made.
At pre-trial Talisay made an admission that NO INVENTORY was made on the leased premises, at least
up to that time. The admission was confirmed in the Pre-Trial order issued by the RTC on March 8, 1999,
after the lease expired on May 8, 1998. Yet, witness Conrado testified he conducted one. His testimony,
and the documentary evidence of an alleged property inventory conducted was the basis for the CA's
conclusion and contradicts the judicial admission made.
Respondents did NOT deny the admission made by their counsel, neither did they claim that it was
made through palpable mistake. Hence, it is incontrovertible and may be relied upon the courts.
Toshiba Information v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue – Joint Stipulation as Admission
In the instant case, among the facts expressly admitted by the CIR and Toshiba in their CTA-approved
Joint Stipulation are that Toshiba: (1) is duly registered VAT tax entity under Section 107 of the Tax Code,
and (2) that it is subject to 0% VAT tax.
The CIR was bound by these admissions, which he could not eventually contradict in his Motion for
Reconsideration of the CTA Decision dated October 16, 2000, by arguing that Toshiba was actually a
VAT-exempt entity and its export sales were VAT-exempt transactions, as Toshiba cannot be both VAT-
exempt and zero-rated at the same time.
Ching v. CA – Amended Complaint Not Accepted if Bad Faith
In its amended complaint, which notably was filed only after the CA rendered its assailed decision,
Ching urges that the transaction entered into between the parties was one of "pure loan without any
trust receipt agreement". According to Ching, the trust receipt documents were intended merely as
"additional or side documents covering the said loan" contrary to Ching’s allegation in his original
complaint that the trust receipts were executed as collateral or security.
Perhaps, realizing such flaw, Ching, in a complete turnaround, filed a motion to admit amended
complaint before the RTC Manila. Among others, the amended complaint alleged that the trust receipts
stood as additional or side documents, the real transaction between the parties being that of a pure
loan without any trust receipt agreement.
In an order dated Nov. 19 1993, the RTC Manila, admitted the amended complaint. Accordingly, with
the lower court's admission of the amended complaint, the judicial admission made in the original
complaint was, in effect, superseded.
Applying the foregoing rules, Ching, by filing the amended complaint, in effect, altered the theory of his
case. Likewise, the allegations embodied in the amended complaint are inconsistent with that of the
original complaint. Original complaint alleged that trust receipts were mere securities, the principal
transaction was a loan. Amended complaint alleged that trust receipts were mere additional or side
documents, the principal transaction not having trust receipt arrangement. These allegations are in
discord in relation to each other and therefore cannot stand in harmony.
SC did not accept the amended complaint as it was in bad faith.
Sps. Antazo v. Doblado, et al. – Letter to Vacate an Admission of Prior Possession
We also note that the Sps. Antazo did not deny in their Answer the Dobladas’ allegation that they
constructed a concrete fence on the subject property. Failure to specifically deny the allegation amounts
to a judicial admission. Unlawfully entering the subject property, erecting a structure thereon and
excluding therefrom the prior possessor would necessarily imply the use of force. In order to constitute
force, the trespasser does not have to institute a state of war. No other proof is necessary.
Sending of a demand letter alleging forcible entry is an admission of the prior possession of defendant.
Construction of concrete fence are considered judicial admission and proof of the unlawful use of force
in forcible entry.
PLDT v. Robert Pingol – Declaration under oath of Date of Dismissal is Judicial Admission
PLDT argues that the declaration under oath made by respondent Pingol in his complaint before the LA
stating January 1, 2000 as the date of his dismissal, should have
been treated by the NLRC and the CA as a judicial admission pursuant to Section 4, Rule 129 of the
Revised Rules of Court.
In the case at bench, Pingol himself alleged the date January 1, 2000 as the date of his dismissal in his
complaint filed on March 29, 2004, exactly four (4) years and three (3) months later. Respondent never
denied making such admission or raised palpable mistake as the reason therefor. Thus, the petitioner
correctly relied on such allegation in the complaint to move for the dismissal of the case on the ground
of prescription.
Theresita, et al., all surnamed Dimaguila v. Jose and Sonia Monteiro – First Answer Admitted
Partition; Second answer did not.
In their original answer to the complaint for partition, their claim that there was already a partition into
northern-half and southern-half portions, was the very essence of their defense. It was precisely this
admission which moved the respondent spouses to amend their complaint. The petitioners cannot now
insist that the very foundation of their original defense was a palpable mistake.
The respondent spouses had clearly relied on the petitioners' admission and so amended their original
complaint for partition to one for recovery of possession of a portion of the subject property. Thus, the
petitioners are now estopped from denying or attempting to prove that there was no partition of the
property. Considering that an admission does not require proof, the admission of the petitioners would
actually be sufficient to prove the partition even without the documents presented by the respondent
spouses. If anything, the additional evidence they presented only served to corroborate the petitioners'
admission.
Torres v. CA – Amended Complaint Converts Original Complaint as Extrajudicial Admission
In the original complaint made by the respondents, the phrase “the plaintiffs and the defendant Macaria
A. Bautista are the legal heirs and nearest of kin of Margarita Torres,” was placed. However, the
respondents then amended their complaint to exclude the italicized phrase. extrajudicial admission;
the admissibility of which, as evidence required its formal offer.
Having amended the complaint, the original complaint lost its character as a judicial admission which
would have required no proof and became merely an extrajudicial admission; the admissibility of which,
as evidence required its formal offer.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 30
 RULE 130 - RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY Object Evidence v. Right Against Self-Incrimination

• The right against self-incrimination CANNOT be invoked against object evidence. The
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE admission of such evidence DOES NOT involve testimonial compulsion as to warrant
invocation of the right (People v. Malimit).
Section 1. Object as evidence. —
Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the AUTOPTIC PROFERENCE
fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.
• Sec. 1, Rule 130 – When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to,
OBJECT AS EVIDENCE examined or viewed by the court.

• Addressed to the Senses – Does not mean perception or recollection of past events. It is the • Autoptic evidence is physical evidence that can be seen and inspected (USLegal.Com)
real thing itself like the knife used to slash the victim's throat, the ring stolen, the drugs, etc.
OCULAR INSPECTION
• View of the Court – If object evidence is relevant but cannot be brought to court, can be
inspected and viewed by the court with proper notice or in the presence of the parties • If Can't Exhibit Evid. – Courts have recognized that there are times when a party CANNOT
bring an object to the court for examination. Hence, the court may take a view of an object.
REMEMBER: Requisites for Admissibility of Evidence
• How to VIEW – Court may make an ocular inspection of a contested land to resolve
(a) It is relevant – relationship to the fact in issue questions of fact OR inspect a crime scene to clarify itself with certain matters.
(b) It is competent – not exclude by the rules or by law
• Legal Basis – Though not expressly provided, court has inherent power to order a view when
For it to be competent, the same must pass a Test of Authentication there is a need to do so pursuant to Rule 135, Sec. 5.

• Authenticate? – Show that the very thing is either the subject matter of the suit OR very one
involved to prove an issue in the case
• How? – There must be someone who should identify the object to be the actual thing involved
in the litigation (Witness).
• Every evidence, whether documentary or object, needs a witness. Testimonial evidence
provides the foundation for all types of evidence.
• The witness must have capacity to identify the object as the very thing involved in the litigation
+ must have actual and personal knowledge
Inside or Outside the Courtroom – Inspection MAY be made inside or outside the courtroom.
• If OUTSIDE – Must be made in the presence of the parties or with previous notice to them
• Cannot Go Alone – It is error for the judge to go alone as it is part of the trial proceedings
DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE – Not the actual thing but represents or demonstrate the real thing.
• Not strictly real as it is NOT the very thing involved in the case
• TEST – Does it accurately and sufficiently represent the object it seeks to demonstrate?
• Ex: Map, diagram, photograph, or model figure – Relevance + Identified by witness who is
familiar with what the evidence depicts, and that the same is an accurate representation

People v. Larannaga – Object evidence is not taken in isolation. It is weighed in relation to the testimony PHOTOGRAPHS
of a witness. Also, in giving credence to a testimony, the court takes into consideration the physical
evidence – if testimony bears striking similarity with physical evidence, testimony is worthy of belief. • Photographs of persons, things, and places, when instructive to the understanding of the
case, will be admitted in evidence. For it to be admitted, it must be relevant and competent.
Requisites for Admissibility of OBJECT or REAL EVIDENCE
• COMPETENT when properly authenticated by a witness who is familiar with the scene/person
(a) It is relevant portrayed and testifies that the photograph faithfully represents what it depicts.
(b) It is authenticated
(c) Authentication made by competent witness Requisites for Admissibility of Photographs – Rules on Electronic Evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 11)
(d) Object is formally offered in evidence – As required by Rule 132, Sec. 34
(1) Presented, displayed, and shown to the court
Categories of Object Evidence (2) Identified, explained, or authenticated by either:
a. Person who made the photograph
(1) Unique Objects – have readily identifiable marks (Gun with serial number) b. Some other person competent to testify on accuracy thereof
(2) Objects Made Unique – made readily identifiable (House knife which owner put marks)
(3) Non-Unique – No identifying marks (Drops of blood or oil, drugs in powder form, fiber, etc.) Discretionary- The admissibility of photographs is within the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling
in this respect will not be interfered with, except upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. (Am Jur).

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 31
MOTION PICTURES and TAPE RECORDINGS
Authentication of Motion Pictures Includes: (Balian v. General Motors, Bautista)
(a) Evidence as to circumstances surrounding the taking of the film
(b) Manner and circumstances surrounding development of film
(c) Evidence in regard to projection
(d) Testimony by person present at time of motion picture that they accurately depict the events
has he saw them when they occurred.
(e) Prior notice to other party
Requirement of Prior Notice – Balian v. General Motors, Bautista
A motion picture in the eyes of the jury is one of most spectacular forms of evidence. It is cumulative in
nature. There are inherent dangers in its preparation and presentation. Effective rebuttal can only be had
if opposing counsel and his expert are given an adequate opportunity to meet such evidence. We do not
consider that cross-examination alone would ordinarily provide a sufficient avenue of rebuttal to the
adverse party. Consequently, as a prerequisite to the admission into evidence of motion pictures of
a reconstructed event or a posed demonstration taken during the pendency of an action,
fundamental fairness dictates that the party proposing to offer such evidence give notice thereof
and an opportunity to his adversary to monitor the experiment and the taking of the film.
Factors to Consider in Admitting Motion Pictures and Tape Recordings (Riano)
(a) Detailed testimony as to qualifications of operator
(b) Detailed testimony as to equipment used
(c) Conditions under which it was taken.
• BUT - Courts have taken judicial notice of how they work, as well as their general reliability
and prevalent use.
• Rules of Electronic Evidence - Testimony of person present when the activities of taking the
picture and recording have been held sufficient. Witness must testify that MP accurately and
faithfully represents the place or person it purports to portray. Need not be the person who
made the recording or motion picture.
• Must still be shown, presented, or displayed to the court (Same as photographs)
For Tape Recordings – Witness should identify:
(a) Speakers
(b) How he recognizes their voices
(c) That the recording was not taken in violation of the Anti-Wire-Tapping Law
TOTO: When it comes to Radio Evidence - Ask for TAPE ON AIR (TOA)
EXPERIMENT RESULTS – Scientific Tests, Demonstrations, and Experiments
• Identity + Similarity of Conditions – The conduct of experiments in court is allowed by the
court in its exercise of its judicial discretion, but there must first be testimony as to the
identity and similarity of conditions.
• Out-Of-Court Experiments – Admissibility of results conducted outside of court has same
requirement of substantial similarity to conditions of what is being proven.
PARAFFIN TEST
• Inconclusive – Has generally been considered inconclusive because scientific eperts concur
in the view that paraffin tests have proved to be unreliable
• Scope of Test - The test can only establish the presence of nitrates on the hand, but it
CANNOT determine whether the source of the nitrates came from the discharge of a firearm.
• Determines Mere Possibility - Presence of nitrates should be taken only as an indication of
a possibility but not of infallibility that a person has fired a gun.
• Negative Findings Inconclusive – Negative findings of nitrate do NOT mean no gun fired.
• Take as Corroborative – Paraffin tests must be taken merely as corroborative evidence
which neither disproves or proves that a person did indeed fire a gun.
“SILENT WITNESS” THEORY – When an adequate foundation is provided to assure the accuracy of the
process producing a photograph, the photograph can be admitted to speak for itself, even though no
witness has vouched for its accuracy.
• People v. Bowley – Photographs may be used to aid a witness in explaining his testimony in
which case they are nothing more than illustrated testimony of the witness. But these
photographs may also be used as probative evidence of what they depict and when sued in
this manner, they take on the status of "independent silent witness."
• Riano Basis - Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth and ranks high
in the hierarchy of trustworthiness; and if the physical evidence runs counter to the
testimonial evidence, the physical evidence should prevail.
USLegal.Com –
• It is a method of authenticating and admitting evidence like photographs, without the need
for a witness to verify its authenticity. This theory is based on the notion that a photograph is
reliable enough to be admitted into evidence.
• The silent witness theory allows authentication of photographs by the reliability of the
process that created them, without the need of a human witness to the events shown by the
film. (U.S. v. Harris)
Manner of Authenticating a Photograph – US Case of People v. Bowley
No photograph or film has any value in the absence of a proper foundation. It is necessary to
know when it was taken and that it is accurate and truly represents what it purports to show.
It becomes probative only upon the assumption that it is relevant and accurate.
This foundation is usually provided by the testimony of a person who was present at the time
the picture was taken, or who is otherwise qualified to state that the representation is
accurate. In addition, it may be provided by the aid of expert testimony, as in the Doggett
case, although there is no one qualified to authenticate it from personal observation. When
authenticated by a witness from personal observation its admission into evidence presumes
confidence in that witness' veracity.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 32
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
The purpose of establishing the Chain of Custody is to guaranty the integrity of the physical evidence
and prevent introduction of unauthentic evidence so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the
evidence are REMOVED.
Since it's called a chain, there must be links to the chain – people who handled custody of it
What must links do – Links must show:
(a) How he received the object
(b) How he handled it to prevent substitution, and
(c) How it was transferred to another
Each Link Must Testify – Each of the handlers must testify to make foundation complete
• NOTE – There is authority to the view that it is NOT required to elicit testimony from every
custodian who handle the evidence as long as one of the "links" testifies and his testimony
negates the possibility of tampering + affirms preservation of integrity
CHAIN OF CUSTODY FOR DRUGS – Sec. 21 of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002
Drugs are Non-Unique – Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable, hence, in authenticating the
same, a more stringent standard than that applied to readily-identifiable objects is necessary.
Chain of Custody – Definition under RA 9165
• Duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs (and other similar
substances) from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
• Includes the following:
o Identity and Signature of person who held custody
o Date and Time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence
o Date and time of final disposition and use in the court
Malilin v. People – As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in
question is what the proponent claims to be.
• Includes the testimony about every link in the chain from the moment it was picked up to the
time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit
would describe
o How and from whom it was received
o Where it was and What happened to it while in the witness' possession,
o The condition in which it was received, and
o The condition in which it was delivered to the next link of the chain.
• Describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of
the time and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
When Perfect Chain Required – While testimony of a perfect chain is not required as this is nearly
impossible, it becomes indispensable when the item is (Still in Malilin v. People)
(a) Not distinctive / identifiable or
(b) When its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or
(c) When witness has failed to observe its uniqueness.
• Fajardo v. People – It is the exhibit's susceptibility to fungibility, alteration, or tampering
– without regard to whether the same is inadvertent or otherwise not – dictates the level of
strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule.
PROCEDURE IN SEC. 21 OF CDDA
STEP 1 – Apprehending team (initial custody) shall immediately conduct physical inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of:
(a) Accused/Person Confiscated from OR Representative / Counsel
(b) Elected public official
(c) Representative of National Prosecution Service OR Media
…who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory + given a copy thereof
MUST conduct inventory + photograph where:
(a) Search warrant was served
(b) Nearest office / station of apprehending officer / team if warrantless search
STEP 2 – Within 24 hours upon confiscation and seizure, submit to PDEA Forensic Lab for qualitative
and quantitative examination.
STEP 3 – Within 24 hours after receipt of drugs: Forensic Lab issues certification of results which shall
be done under oath
STEP 4 – After filing of criminal case + Within 72 hours: Court conducts ocular inspection of item and
through the PDEA shall within 24 hours proceed with the destruction of the same in the presence of:
(a) Accused / Person confiscated from OR his representative / counsel
(b) Representative from Media
(c) Representative of DOJ
(d) Representative of Civil Society Group
(e) Any elected public official
STEP 5 – Dangerous Drugs Board shall issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning
of the dangerous substances + submit this certification and sample of substances in the custody of the
PDEA to the court. Samples should be minimum quantity as determined by the Board.
Examinable by the Accused – Alleged offender or his representative or counsel shall be allowed to
personally observe all of the above proceedings. His presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt.
• HOWEVER – If after being duly notified in accordance with law and said offender refuses to
or fails to appoint a representative within 72 hours before destruction, the DOJ Secretary shall
appoint a member of the PAO to represent the former.
Links that Prosecution must ESTALBISH in Buy-Bust Situation
(1) Seizure and marking of drugs recovered from accused
(2) Turnover by apprehending officer to investigating officer
(3) Turnover by investigating officer to forensic chemist for lab examination
(4) Turnover and submission by forensic chemist to court
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 33
Implication of Definition of "Custody" under DDB Regulation No. 1, Series 2002
Chain of Custody – Duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each
stage. The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent
claims it to be.
Importance of Marking the Evidence
NOTE – "Marking" is NOT found in RA 9165. Different from inventory taking + photographing. But failure
of authorities to immediately mark the drugs would cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity.
• Marking – Placing by the apprehending officer or poseur-buyer of initials and signature on
the items seized.
• Starting Point of Link – Marking is the starting point in the custodial link, hence it is vital that
seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens
will use the markings as reference.
• Purpose – Marking serves to separate the evidence from all other similar/related evidence.
HENCE – The marking should be made immediately and in the presence of accused upon arrest. This
is indispensable to the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value.
Effect of Non-Compliance with Sec. 21, RA 9165
IN case of failure to comply with requirements, the authorities must show the following:
(a) Non-compliance due to justifiable grounds
(b) Apprehending officer / team must have properly preserved integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items.
GR: Strict compliance with 9165 is required.
EXC: When evidentiary value and integrity of the drug is preserved.
SELF-QUESTION – From apprehending to investigating, and the latter to forensic, should it be
marked by each person in the link?
CHAIN OF CUSTODY CASES
Reyes v. CA – Failure to Mark With Required Witnesses
To start with, the fact that the dangerous drugs were inventoried and photographed at the site of arrest
upon seizure in the presence of petitioner, a representative of the media, a representative of the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official, was not shown. Instead, the records show
that PO2 Payumo placed the markings at the police station with only petitioner present.
People v. Freddie Ladip – Preservation of Integrity
Non-compliance explained – By way of reiteration, although this Court finds that the police officers
did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of the IRR implementing R.A. No.
9165, the noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from the accused,
because the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances.
As correctly found by the appellate court, the drugs confiscated from the accused were properly
accounted for and forthrightly submitted to the Crime Laboratory for its extensive examination. The CA
further ruled that nothing invited the suspicion that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
articles were jeopardized.
People v. Hermanos Constantino, Jr. – Effect of Failure to Mark + Lack of Explanation for Failure
The inconsistent testimonies of PO3 Domingo, PO3 Hernandez, and P/SInsp. Tulauan as to who, when,
and where the two plastic sachets of shabu were marked lead the Court to question whether the two
plastic sachets of shabu identified in court were the very same ones confiscated from Constantino. The
doubtful markings already broke the chain of custody of the seized shabu at a very early stage.
People v. Fernando Ranche Havana – Error in Turnover
Error in Turnover Fatal - While both witnesses testified that after the sale and apprehension of the
appellant, the poseur-buyer turned over the subject pack of shabu to their team leader SPO1 Espenido,
there is no record as to what happened after the turn-over. SPO1 Espenido to whom the specimen was
allegedly surrendered by the poseur-buyer was not presented in court to identify the person to whom
it was given thereafter and the condition thereof while it was in his possession and control.
People v. Abetong – Lone Key Holder Did Not Testify
As the lone key holder and consequentially a link in the chain, Inspector Lorilla’s testimony became
indispensable in proving the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Only he could have
testified that from August 22 to 25, 2003 no one else obtained the key from him for purposes of
removing the items from their receptacle. Only he could have enlightened the courts on what safety
mechanisms have been installed in order to preserve the integrity of the evidence acquired while inside
the locker.
Key Holder's Testimony Violates 24-Hour Rule - While the delay in itself is not fatal to the
prosecution’s case as it may be excused based on a justifiable ground, it exposes the items seized to a
higher probability of being handled by even more personnel and, consequently, to a higher risk of
tampering or alteration.
Inconsistency as to Amount Seized - As can be recalled, the Information charges accused-appellant
of selling 0.02 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Relative to the crime charged, Inspector
Ompoy, on the other hand, testified [that they recovered 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance.]
Discrepancy in the weight of the substance is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 34
 CASES
U.S. v. Tan Teng – Taking of Specimen of Gonorrhea Not Self-Incriminating
The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself, is a prohibition
of the use of physical or moral compulsion, to extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his
body as evidence, when it may be material.
In cases of rape the courts of law require corroborative proof, for the reason that such crimes are
generally committed in secret. In consideration of the credibility and number of witnesses, their interest
and attitude on the stand, and the general circumstance surrounding them, including the fact that both
victim and accused are suffering from the disease, Tan Teng is liable.
U.S. v. Ong Siu Hong – Forcing Morphine from the Mouth of Accused
To force a prohibited drug from the person of an accused is along the same line as requiring him to
exhibit himself before the court; or putting in evidence papers and other articles taken from the room
of an accused in his absence; or, as in the Tan Teng case, taking a substance from the body of the
accused to be used in proving his guilt. It would be a forced construction of the paragraph of the
Philippine Bill of Rights in question to hold that any article, substance, or thing taken from a person
accused of crime could not be given in evidence.
Phil. Movie Pictures Workers Association v. Premiere Productions, Inc. – Ocular Inspection
An ocular inspection was done by Judge Roldan and interrogated the laborers who were present. On
the strength adduced from such inspection they allowed the lay-offs.
Cannot Affirm Lay-Offs Merely From Inspection - The petition for lay-off was predicated on the lack
of work and of the further fact that the company was incurring financial losses. These allegations cannot
be established by a mere inspection of the place of labor specially when such inspection was conducted
at the request of the interested party. As counsel for petitioner says, such inspection could at best
witness "the superficial fact of cessation of work but it could not be determinative of the larger and
more fundamental issue of lack of work due to lack of funds."
Balian v. General Motors – Motion Picture of Car-Crash Test; Notice to Parties
Admissibility of Experiments Discretionary on Court - So far as experiments or tests are concerned,
admissibility of evidence concerning them would appear to be within the area of judicial discretion and
turns on whether the experiment was conducted under conditions and circumstances are substantially
similar to those actually existing in the case.
Admissibility of Motion Pictures - Motion Pictures of an experiment as evidence is admissible and
proper when relevant and its probative value is not offset by undue prejudice, unfair surprise, undue
consumption of trial time, or possible confusion of issues due to the introduction of collateral matters.
Must Notify Parties - Consequently, as a prerequisite to the admission into evidence of motion
pictures of a reconstructed event or a posed demonstration taken during the pendency of an action,
fundamental fairness dictates that the party proposing to offer such evidence give notice thereof and
an opportunity to his adversary to monitor the experiment and the taking of the film.
No Notice Given - In this case defendant significantly gave no notice to plaintiffs of its intention to
conduct the first experiment and to take moving pictures of it, nor of its subsequent plan to conduct
another test in order to remedy deficiencies in the first one and to exhibit motion pictures of that test
in conjunction with Spalding's already completed direct testimony.
People v. Bowley – Effect of Accomplice on Testimony on Film (Medj di ko gets case na ito…)
Accomplice Does Not Affect Credibility - The fact that a witness is an accomplice does not affect the
admissibility or competency of his testimony; it goes only to its weight and credibility.
Joan was an accomplice. Her testimony must be corroborated. It is based on the fear that an accomplice
may be motivated to falsify his testimony in the hope of securing leniency for himself. They may not
convict without the requisite corroborative evidence.... The only evidence offered to corroborate Joan's
testimony was the film, and her testimony was the only foundation offered for its admission into
evidence.
But because the film was properly admitted into evidence, and because that film, if properly
authenticated is of itself evidence of what it depicts, it does not follow that the film can corroborate the
testimony of the sole authenticating witness when she is an accomplice.
Jose v. CA – Photographs of Bus Accident
In this case, the positions of the vehicles, as shown in the photos taken by the bus company line
inspector Jesus Custodio about 1 hr and 15 mins after the collision disputes Abraham’s self-serving
testimony that the 2 vehicles collided because the bus invaded the lane of the For. It clearly shows that
the case is exactly the opposite of what he claimed happened. The photographs show clearly that the
bus was in its proper lane and the Ford was the one which usurped a portion of the opposite lane.
Tangan v. CA - Physical evidence has a higher value than testimonial evidence.
Physical Evidence - The medical examiner testified that the distance between the muzzle of the gun
and the target was about 2 inches but definitely not more than 3 inches. Based on the point of exit and
trajectory transit of the wound, the victim and the alleged assailant were facing each other when the
shot was made and the position of the gun was almost perpendicular when fired. These findings
disprove Tangan's claim of accidental shooting. A revolver is not prone to accidental firing because of
the nature of its mechanism, unless it were uncocked, then considerable pressure had to be applied on
the trigger to fire the revolver.
The physical evidence is amply corroborated by the eyewitness accounts of Rosalia dela Cruz and Mary
Ann Borromeo to the effect that Tangan took a gun from his car and suddenly fired it at the deceased.
Physical evidence trumps the testimonial evidence.
State v. Tatum – Regiscope in Bank
Testimony Needed for Admitting Demonstrative Evidence - The photograph need only be
sufficiently accurate to be helpful to the court and the jury. That some witness, not necessarily the
photographer, be able to give some indication as to when, where, and under what circumstances the
photograph was taken, and that the photo accurately depicts the subjects illustrated.
Witness Pentecost testified that she recognized the background shown in the picture as that of the food
store, and, as mentioned previously, she also testified as to the store's standard procedure of
"regiscoping" each individual who cashed a check at the store. Phillip Dale testified at length concerning
the Regiscope process. The testimony of these two witnesses taken together amounted to a sufficient
authentication to warrant the admission of the photograph (both the print and the negative) into
evidence.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 35
Sison v. People – Photographer is no longer required

Photographs when presented in evidence, must be:

(1) Identified by the photographer as to its production; and

(2) Testified as to the circumstances under which they were produced

Photographer Not Sole Person That Can Testify - A photographer, however, is not the only witness
who can identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness of the photograph as a faithful
representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie:

(1) By testimony of the person who made it; or

(2) Other competent witnesses – (those present in the picture itself or in its making)

We rule that the use of these photographs by some of the accused to show their alleged non-
participation in the crime is an admission of the exactness and accuracy thereof. That the photographs
are faithful representations of the mauling incident was affirmed when appellants Richard de los
Santos, Nilo Pacadar and Joel Tan identified themselves therein and gave reasons
for their presence thereat.

People v. Amestuzo

In resolving the admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identifications, we have applied the totality
of circumstances test enunciated in the case of People vs. Teehankee which lists the following factors:

1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime;
2) the witness’ degree of attention at that time;
3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness;
4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification;
5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and
6) the suggestiveness of the identification process.

OOCI Suggested By Police; Invalid - Even before complainants had the opportunity to view accused-
appellant face-to-face when he was brought out of the detention cell to be presented to them for
identification, the police made an announcement that he was one of the suspects in the crime and that
he was the one pointed to by accused Ampatin as one of culprits. The fact that this information came
to the knowledge of the complainants prior to their identification based on their own recall of the
incident detracts from the spontaneity of their subsequent identification and therefore, its objectivity.

Maturillas v. People – Paraffin Test Inconclusive; Discretion of Prosecutor

Paraffin Test Inconclusive of Innocence or Guilt - While they were negative, that fact alone did not
ipso facto prove that he was innocent. Time and time again, this Court has held that a negative paraffin
test result is not a conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun.

Corpus Delicti Sufficiently Proven - The prosecution was able to give sufficient proof of the corpus
delicti -- the fact that a crime had actually been committed.

To undermine the case of the prosecution against him, Marturillas depends heavily on its failure to
present the gun used in the shooting and on the negative paraffin test result. Unfortunately for him, we
have previously held that ‘the choice of what evidence to present, who should testify as a witness
is within the discretionary power of the prosecutor and definitely not of the courts to dictate.’

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 36
 B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1. BEST EVIDENCE RULE

Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. —

Documents as evidence consist of writing or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than
symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents. the original document itself, except in the following cases:

* DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith
on the part of the offeror;
• Does not exclusively refer to writings.
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence
• Can refer to any other material like objects as long as it contains letters, words, numbers,
is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
figures, symbols, or other modes of written expression, and offered as proof of their contents.
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined
Two Categories of Documents as Evidence
in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the
(1) Writings
general result of the whole; and
(2) Other material containing modes of written expression
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public
What are considered as Writings
office.
(a) Written Contracts
(b) Wills
Not Applicable to All Evidence – The Best Evidence Rule applies only with Documentary Evidence and
Requirement to be Documentary Evidence – They must be offered as proof of their contents. If not, does not comprehend object and testimonial evidence.
they are considered as object evidence.
• Subject of Inquiry – Contents of the Document. Subject to certain exceptions, when the
• Ex: When contract is presented in court to show that it exists or simply to establish its inquiry is to the contents, no other evidence other than the original shall be admitted.
condition, it is not offered to prove its contents.
• If purpose is to offer document for other purpose – When the issue is the execution or
* “FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT” existence of the document, or circumstances surrounding execution, Best Evidence Rule NOT
necessary. Testimonial evidence and others may be admitted.
Electronic Documents are the functional equivalents of Paper-based documents
Purpose of the Rule – Acts as insurance against FRAUD (Republic v. Mupas) Presumption naturally
arises that better evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes if in possession of best evidence.
SECTION 1. Electronic documents as functional equivalent of paper-based documents.
– Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term of writing, document, record, instrument,
• The only actual rule that the term "best evidence" denotes is the rule requiring that the
memorandum or any other form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an
original of a writing must, as a general proposition, be produced. (Shang v. BF Corp.)
electronic document as defined in these Rules.
Waiver of the Rule – Can be waived if not raised in the trial.
Whenever a rule of evidence makes reference to the terms of a writing, document, record, instrument,
memorandum or any other form of writing, such terms are deemed to include electronic documents.
• Although the marriage certificate, license, and other pieces of documentary evidence were
only photocopies, the fact that these have been examined and admitted without objection as
to their authenticity and due execution means they are sufficient proof (Sy. v. CA).

How to Apply Best Evidence Rule –

(1) Determine matter inquired into – Is it the contents of a document?

(2) If it cannot be presented –
a. Find legal excuse for failure to present the original
b. Present secondary evidence allowed by Rules of Court

Excuses for Not Presenting the Original Document (See Codal above)

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 37
WHAT IS CONSIDERED "ORIGINAL" OF A DOCUMENT 2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE

Section 4. Original of document. — Secondary Evidence – Evidence other than the original instrument or document itself (Shang v. BF)

(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical
contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals.
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at or
near the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals.
Section 5. When original document is unavailable. —
\When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror,
upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part,
may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the
testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
Requisites for Admitting Unavailable Original Document –

What is original may depend upon the: (Bautista) (a) Offeror must prove the existence and execution of original document
(b) Offeror must show cause of its unavailability such as loss or destruction of the original
(a) Nature of the claim or defense asserted, (c) Offeror must show that the unavailability was not due to his bad faith.
(b) The surrounding circumstances
(c) The intention of the parties and REQUIREMENT OF HIGH-INTENSITY OR DILIGENT SEARCH
(d) Controlling legal problems
Before the admission of secondary evidence, courts require prior proof of high-intensity or diligent
TEST – Is this the very document whose contents are desired to be, and, in the now state of the issues, search to establish the loss of the original.
by the substantive law may be proved? (Bautista, Citing Wigmore)
• Government v. Martinez – As it was not shown that the party interested in the presentation
Guidelines for Original Documents: Sec. 4, Rule 130 of said document, who is Julio Salvador, had made a diligent and proper, but fruitless search
for said document in any place where it could probably be found – secondary evidence
(1) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical presented was of no value.
contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals.
Witness = Person who Knew Fact of Loss – Destruction of the original may be proved by any person
(2) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another knowing the fact, whereas its loss may be established by any person who knew the fact of its loss or by
at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. anyone who has made a sufficient examination of the place or places where the original is kept by the
person in whose custody it was lost and has been unable to find it (Paylago v. Jarabe)
• There can therefore be multiple originals depending on what parties intend as where parties
to a contract manifest their intention to accord equal status to all identical writings regardless ORDER OF PREFERENCE - ACCEPTABLE TYPES OF SECONDARY EVIDENCE
of their mechanical characteristics.
Order of Preference under Sec. 5, Rule 130 -
Requisites for Sec. 4(c), Rule 130 – Business Entries (Riano)
(1) Copy of original
(a) Entries made and repeated in regular course of business (2) A recital of contents of the document in some authentic document; or
(b) Entries made at or near the time of the transaction (3) Testimony of witnesses

EX: If a lawyer writes a pleading in two or more copies which are executed at the same time, with Correct Order of Proof – Riano, citing Citibank v. Teodoro
identical contents, each document is an ORIGINAL.
(a) Existence
Signed Carbon Copy Original? – A signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document if executed at the (b) Execution
same time as the original is known as a duplicate original and may be introduced in evidence without (c) Loss
accounting for non-production of the original. (Skunac v. Sylianteng) (d) Contents

Originals under the Rule on Electronic Evidence – See page 42 …but at the discretion of the court, this order may change if necessary

Original Printout of Facsimile Transmissions – MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. Sasangyong Corp.
• Garvida v. Sales – A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It is, at best, an exact
copy preserving all the marks of an original. Without the original, there is no way of
determining on its face whether the facsimile pleading is genuine and authentic and was
originally signed by party and his counsel. It may be a sham pleading.
Municipality of Victorias v. CA – A photostatic or Xerox copy of a lost or destroyed holographic will has
been held to be admissible to probate, but the contents of such lost or destroyed holographic will
CNANOT be proved by testimonies of witness. It would appear that to qualify as secondary evidence, a
copy of the original must be an exact copy and not just a substantial copy.

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 38
WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS IN CUSTODY OF ADVERSE PARTY WHEN IT CONSISTS OF NUMEROUS RECORDS – Sec. 3(c), Rule 130

Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. —
If the document is in the custody or under the control of adverse party, he must have reasonable notice
to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the
document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss.
Not Ipso Facto - A showing that the original document is in custody or control of adverse party does
not ipso facto authorize the introduction of secondary evidence.
Requisites for Presenting Secondary Evidence – Under Custody of Adverse party
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; and
Impossibility Not Required but Inconvenience – The Rule DOES NOT require that it be impossible to
examine the original in court but only that t would be an inconvenience. (Bautista)
Not only Number, but Complexity – In deciding whether the original can be conveniently examined
in court, it is appropriate for the judge to consider not only the number of originals, but it's complexity.

(a) Original exists Requisites for Admissibility of Secondary Evidence for Numerous Accounts
(b) Document is under custody / control of adverse party
(c) Given the adverse party reasonable notice to produce the original document (a) Original consists of numerous accounts or other documents
(d) Adverse party failed to produce OG document despite notice (b) Such cannot be examined in court without great loss of time
(c) Fact sought to be established is only the general result of the whole
Magdayao v. People – The offeror must prove that he has done all in his power to secure the best
evidence by giving notice to the said party to produce the document. Does Away of Burden and Tedious Process – Trial court can admit summary of voluminous original
documents if the party has shown that the underlying writings are numerous and that an in-court
The notice may be in the form of: examination would be inconvenient. The ruled does away with item-by-item court identification of
(1) Motion for Production of Original voluminous exhibits which would only be burdensome and tedious for the parties of the court.
(2) One made in open court in presence of adverse party
(3) Subpoena Duces Tecum Allow Adverse Party to Examine Original – Source documents must be shown to be original and not
secondary and must be made accessible to the opposing party so that he may cross-examine the
PROVIDED – The adverse party had sufficient time to produce the same. correctness of the summary which may be refuted in the pleadings . (Republic v. Mupas).

EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE IF ORIGINAL IS PUBLIC RECORD Witness who Made Summary or Supervised – Proper foundation may be established by the person
who made the summary or the person who supervised the making of such.
Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. —
When the original of document is in the custody of public officer or is recorded in a public office, its
contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.

To Avoid Inconvenience to Public and Custodian - Non-production of original public records is

justified by the need to avoid inconvenience of the public and to the custodian.

• Danger if OG Required – Danger of loss, damage, or destruction, and their absence could
impede the functioning of the public agencies or offices that rely on such documents or are
entrusted with their safekeeping (AM. Jur)

• Certified Copy – The Certified Copy, for purposes mentioned, acts as original if issued by the
person who has custody of the original public record.

CALLING FOR DOCUMENT; NOT BOUND TO OFFER

Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. —
A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as
evidence.

If the party who calls for the production of a document does NOT offer the same in evidence, no
unfavorable inference may be drawn from such failure.

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 39
Theresita, et al., all surnamed Dimaguila v. Jose and Sonia Monteiro, G.R. No.
201011, 27 January 2014
Municipality of Victorias v. CA, 149 SCRA 32 (1987)

Atienza v. Board of Medicine, G.R. No. 177407, 09 February 2011

Rodelas v. Aranza, 119 SCRA 16 (1982)

Compania Maritima v. Allied Free Workers, G.R. No. L-289999, 1977

Seiler v. Lucas Film Ltd., 797 F.2d 1504, 1986

Edsa Shangrila v. BF Corporation, G.R. 145842, 27 June 2008

Citibank NA v. Sabeniano, 504 SCRA 378

Michael & Co. v. Enriquez, G.R. No. L-10824, 1915.

DECS v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 146596, 26 January 2005

Chua Gaw v. Chua, G.R. No. 160855, 16 April 2008

Ebreo v. Ebreo, 483 SCRA 583 (2006)

Asuncion v. NLRC, 362 SCRA 56

Government v. Martinez, 44 Phil. 817

Paylago v. Jarabe, 22 SCRA 1247

Baroda v. State Bank v. Peck, 209 NW 827

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 40
 3. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. —
When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the
terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence
of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written agreement if
he puts in issue in his pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills.
DEFINITION OF PAROL EVIDENCE
"Parol" = Means "Oral," but also excludes written evidence such as letters and telegrams, conversations
Evidence Aliunde = Extrinsic Evidence
Known as the "Integration Rule" – Based on the presumption that the parties to a written contract
intended it to integrate all the terms of the agreement.
• In the absence of fraud, mistake, or accident, the exclusion of parol or extrinsic evidence by
which a party seeks to contradict, vary, add to or subtract from the terms of a valid written
agreement or instrument.
• Prevent Addition of Terms - Forbids addition or contradiction of the terms of a written
instrument by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that, at or before the
execution of the parties' written agreement, other or different terms were agreed upon by
the parties, varying the purport of the written contract.
• Prevent Perjury – Rule intended to give stability to written agreements and to remove the
temptation of perjury, which would be afforded if parol evidence was admissible.
Rule Applies to Contracts Only – While the Best Evidence Rule applies to ALL documentary evidence,
the Parol Evidence Rule applies to such documents which are contractual in nature only.
• Augustin v. Ziemer – Parol evidence is NOT excluded to vary or contradict a writing which is
a mere receipt and not a contract.
APPLICATION TO CONTRACTING PARTIES AND PRIVIES; APPLICATION TO “STRANGER”
Only to Parties and their Successors – The Parol Evidence Rule DOES NOT APPLY to persons who are
NOT parties to a deed and do not base their claim on it. (Riano)
The rule does NOT bind suits involving strangers to the contract. It applies only to parties to a written
agreement and those who are privy to a party or successor-in-interest.
• Lechugas v. CA – A total stranger to the writing is not bound by its terms and is allowed to
introduce extrinsic or parol evidence against the efficacy of the writing.
• The Parol Evidence Rule may not properly be invoked by either party to the litigation against
the other where at least one of the parties to the suit is NOT a party or a privy of a party to
the written document in question and does not base a claim on the instrument or assert a
right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby.
• Martin v. Setter – It may apply to a stranger when he seeks to enforce his rights based on the
contract. The rule will apply to exclude extrinsic utterances even as against other parties,
provided it is sought to use those utterances for the very purpose for which the writing has
superseded them as the legal act.
• Bautista, citing Jones – A stranger to the writing is NOT affected by the rule, the reason being
that, since the stranger had no part in making the writing, he should not be prejudiced by
matters appearing therein and should not be precluded from showing the truth even though
it tends to vary or contradict the terms of the instrument.
As the rule applies only in controversies involving rights and obligations which arise out of
the contract, it follows that the rule does not apply as between parties or their privies who
are on the same side of the contract and whose interests under the contract are the same.
COLLATERAL/INTEGRATED AND UNINTEGRATED AGREEMENTS
Intent of Parties not always Clear – The intent of the parties may not always be clearly embodied in
a single instrument. Factors to Consider When Not Integrated (Bautista, citing Wigmore)
(1) Whether a particular subject of negotiation is embodied by the writing depends upon the
intent of the parties thereto – Did they intend to put the whole agreement in ONE instrument?
(2) Intent must be sought in the conduct and language of the parties + surrounding
circumstances. What the instrument was intended to cover cannot be known until we know
what there was to cover.
(3) Determine whether or not the particular element of the alleged extrinsic negotiation is dealt
with at all in the writing
a. If mentioned or covered – Writing was meant to represent ALL of the transaction
b. If not mentioned – The writing was NOT intended to embody that element
Robles v. Lizarraga Hermanos - …and all authorities are agreed that proof is admissible of any
collateral, parol agreement that is not inconsistent with the terms of the written contract, though it
may relate to the same subject matter.
• The rule does not extend so far as to preclude the admission of extrinsic evidence to show
prior or contemporaneous collateral parol agreements agreed between the parties, but
such evidence may be received, regardless of whether or not the written agreement contains
any reference to such collateral agreement, and whether the action is at law or in equity.
• Parol Evidence Rule Not Applicable to Collateral Matters - The rule that a preliminary or
contemporaneous oral agreement is not admissible to vary a written contract…has never
been interpreted as being applicable to matters of consideration or inducement
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 41
Bautista, citing Mitchill v. Lath – Three conditions MUST exist before collateral agreement presented:
(1) The agreement must in form be a collateral one
(2) It must not contradict express or implied provisions of the written contract
(3) It must be one that parties would not ordinarily be expected to embody in writing
• Explanation of (3) – An inspection of the written contract read in light of surrounding
circumstances must NOT indicate that the writing appears to contain the engagement of the
parties, and to define the object and measure the extent of such engagement.
• Must NOT be so clearly connected with the principal transaction as to be part or parcel of it.
CONDITIONAL AGREEMENTS
Conditional Agreements Admissible - Parol evidence to prove a condition precedent before the
written contract would come into force has been held to be admissible as not varying the written
contract because without the extrinsic agreement, there would no contract at all. (LASEDECO v. Garcia)
• BUT – Yu Tek & Co v. Gonzales: Parol evidence is not admissible to show that a written contract
for the sale of sugar referred only to sugar to be procured from the seller's growing crop,
because such evidence would definitely vary the terms of the written contract of sale.
What about Subsequent Agreement? – ADMISSIBLE. The Parol Evidence Rule does not apply to
exclude evidence of conditions subsequent in a deed of sale where such conditions were not stated in
the agreement, not does it exclude parol evidence of subsequent agreements to written contracts.
INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY
Exceptions to Parol Evidence (Rules of Court) – Party may present evidence to modify, explain, or
add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
(1) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the written agreement
(2) Failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
(3) Validity of the written agreement
NOTE – Mere existence of intrinsic ambiguity will NOT authorize the admission of parol evidence. It is
essential that it must be put into issue in the party's pleading (Riano).
Intrinsic of Latent Ambiguity – One which is not apparent on the face of the document but which lies
in the person or thing that is the subject of the document or deed.
• It is intrinsic or latent when the language of the writing is clear and intelligible and suggests
but a single meaning, but some matter extraneous to the writing creates the ambiguity.
• EXAMPLE – The testator's will bequeaths to grandson a parcel of lan. It was found after his
death that testator owns actually 2 parcels of land in the same place with same description.
• By implication – PE cannot be introduced to explain Patent or Extrinsic Ambiguity which
appears on the face of the instrument and arises from obscure, insensible language.
Waiver of Parol Evidence Rule - The parol evidence rule can be waived by failure to invoke the benefits
of such rule. This waiver may be made by the failure to object to the introduction of evidence aliunde.
Probative Value – Even if parol evidence is admitted, such admission would NOT mean the court would
give probative value to the parol evidence. Admissibility is NOT EQUIVALENT of Credibility / PV
MISTAKE OR IMPERFECTION IN THE WRITING + FAILURE TO EXPRESS TRUE AGREEMENT
Need not use the words "mistake" or "imperfection – The pleading does NOT need to specifically
state the words "mistake" or "imperfection" or "failure to express…" When the other party responds to
the allegations by making the proper denial, such matters have already been put in issue (RIano)
Failure of the Writing to Express True Agreement – Mistake or Imperfection can mean there is a
failure to express the true intent; BUT it does NOT always mean that there was no meeting of the minds,
instead there was failure of the true agreement to be reflected in the instrument (RIano).
Civil Code Provisions Equivalent to Failure to Express Intent
Article 1359. When, there having been a meeting of the minds of the parties to a contract, their true
intention is not expressed in the instrument purporting to embody the agreement, by reason of mistake,
fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, one of the parties may ask for the reformation of the instrument
to the end that such true intention may be expressed.
If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident has prevented a meeting of the minds of the parties, the
proper remedy is not reformation of the instrument but annulment of the contract.
Article 1360. The principles of the general law on the reformation of instruments are hereby adopted
insofar as they are not in conflict with the provisions of this Code.
Article 1361. When a mutual mistake of the parties causes the failure of the instrument to disclose their
real agreement, said instrument may be reformed.
Article 1362. If one party was mistaken and the other acted fraudulently or inequitably in such a way that
the instrument does not show their true intention, the former may ask for the reformation of the
instrument.
Article 1363. When one party was mistaken and the other knew or believed that the instrument did not
state their real agreement, but concealed that fact from the former, the instrument may be reformed.
Article 1364. When through the ignorance, lack of skill, negligence or bad faith on the part of the person
drafting the instrument or of the clerk or typist, the instrument does not express the true intention of the
parties, the courts may order that the instrument be reformed.
Article 1365. If two parties agree upon the mortgage or pledge of real or personal property, but the
instrument states that the property is sold absolutely or with a right of repurchase, reformation of the
instrument is proper.
Article 1366. There shall be no reformation in the following cases:
(1) Simple donations inter vivos wherein no condition is imposed;
(2) Wills;
(3) When the real agreement is void.
Article 1367. When one of the parties has brought an action to enforce the instrument, he cannot
subsequently ask for its reformation.
Article 1368. Reformation may be ordered at the instance of either party or his successors in interest, if
the mistake was mutual; otherwise, upon petition of the injured party, or his heirs and assigns.
Article 1443. No express trusts concerning an immovable or any interest therein may be proved by parol
evidence.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 42
FALSA DEMONSTRATIO NON NOCET CUM DE CORPORE CONSTAT Martin v. Setter – Release of Agent; Enforcement of Rights in Contract by Stranger

• "False description does NOT void a document if the intent is clear." (B2016 Reviewer) To vary a written contract by parol is limited to rights independent of the instrument. As to rights which
• Legal Maxim used to correct an obvious mistake. originate in the relation established by the written contract, or are founded upon it, the rule against
varying it by parol applies.
SUMMARY – Best Evidence v. Parol Evidence
It seems clear that when for a consideration, the Setters settled and compromised their cause of action
for damages against Rieger and the release was executed and delivered, it at once discharged not only
BEST EVIDENCE RULE PAROL EVIDENCE
Rieger but his joint tortfoasors, the Martins, from the same cause of action pending against them; and
Not concerned with primacy of evidence but parol evidence was inadmissible to vary the legal effect of that stipulation and release as to anyone
Preference for original document
presupposes that the original is available already discharged thereunder. In the absence of fraud, mistake, or other ground for invalidating the
release, parol evidence is inadmissible to change the legal effect of the written instruments.
Precludes admission of other evidence to prove
Precludes admission of secondary evidence if
the terms of a document other than contents of
original document is available Land Settlement and Dev. Corp. v. Garcia Plantation – Conditional Agreements
document itself for purpose of varying terms
Conditional Agreements - When the operation of the contract is made to depend upon a condition
Invoked by any litigant to an action W/N said Invoked only by parties to document +
precedent, such may be established by parole evidence. This is not varying the terms of the written
litigant is a party to the document to involved successors-in-interest
contract by extrinsic agreement, for the simple reason that there is no contract in existence.
Applies to all forms of writing Contracts and Wills only The rule does not extend so far as to preclude the admission of extrinsic evidence, to show prior or
contemporaneous collateral parol agreements between the parties.
Riano's Tip – If the subject of inquiry are the terms of the written agreement; one must read the
agreement itself and not seek guidance on sources outside (Parol Evidence Rule). Should've Admitted Cond. Agg. - The subject of agreement alluded to in the second paragraph of the
above letter, was the condition to be complied with or the consideration given for the extension of time,
However, one should not look into just any writing. He must look at ORIGINAL writing (Best Evidence) within which the Garcia spouses pay their account. The lower court should have admitted the parol
evidence sought to be introduced to prove the failure of the document in question to express the true
intent and agreement of the parties. It should not have improvidently and hastily excluded said parol
Augustin v. Ziemer – Parol Evidence Rule does not bar admission of mere receipts
evidence, knowing that the subject-matter treated therein, was one of the exceptions.
As a general rule, parol evidence [rule] is not applicable to a mere receipt. The exception is if the
receipt is contractual in nature. PNB v. Seeto – Extrinsic Agreement of Endorser and Endorsee

Receipts were NOT Contractual - The receipts in question are mere receipts. They are not contractual. An extrinsic agreement between indorser and indorsee which cannot be embodied in the instrument
The evidence offered by Augustin was therefore properly received. without impairing its credit is provable by parol evidence…

In Theopold case, the court held that a memorandum of payment is merely evidence against the holder
of the fact of the payment and is of no more effect than if made on a separate piece of paper (apart
from the main instrument or contract). It is neither a contract nor any part of a contract, but a mere
acknowledgment, in the nature of a receipt of payment, which is open to contradiction or explanation
by parol.
Lechugas v. CA – Wrong Land Sold; Testimony of 3rd Person Offered
PER Inapplicable to Non-Parties - The parol evidence rule may not be invoked by either party where
at least one of the parties to the suit is not party or a privy of a party to the written instrument in
question and does not base a claim on the instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument or
the relation established thereby
Dispute was from Stranger - The rule is not applicable where the controversy is between one of the
parties to the document and third persons. The deed of sale was executed by Lasangue in favor of
Lechugas. The dispute over what was actually sold is between Lechugas and Lozas.
PROVIDED – that the assurances or inducements offered would not vary, alter, or destroy the
obligations attached by law to the indorsement.
If, therefore, the supposed assurances that the drawer had funds and that the Seeto would refund the
amount of the check if the drawer had no funds, were the considerations or reasons that induced the
branch agency of the petitioner to go out of its ordinary practice of not cashing out of town checks and
accept the check and to pay its face value, the same should be provable by parol evidence.
The assurances of refund are merely expression of the ordinary obligations of an endorser under
Section 66 of Nego. Thus, there was no express obligation assumed by Seeto herein that the drawer
would always have funds, or that the endorser would refund the amount of the check even if there was
delay in its presentation. (Still held bank liable because of delay) .
Robles v. Lizarraga Hermanos – Prior or Contemporaneous agreements in lease
In case of a written contract of lease, the lessee may prove an independent verbal agreement on the
part of the landlord to put the leased premises in a safe condition; and a vendor of realty may show by
parol evidence that crops growing on the land were reserved, though no such reservation was made in
the deed of conveyance.

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 43
Mitchell v. Lath – Refer to Requisites Under Notes on Parol Evidence (Above)
Intent Must Be Ambiguous - For admission of extrinsic evidence, an inspection of the written contract
read in light of the surrounding circumstances must not indicate that the writing appears to contain the
engagement of the parties, and to define the object and measure of the extent of such engagement.
An inspection of this contract shows a full and complete agreement, setting forth in detail the
obligations of each party. On reading it one would conclude that the reciprocal obligations of the parties
were fully detailed. The presence of the ice house, even the knowledge that Mrs. Mitchill thought it
objectionable would not lead to the belief that a separate agreement existed with regard to it. Were
such an agreement made it would seem most natural that the inquirer should find it in the contract.
Collateral in form it is found to be, but it is closely related to the subject dealt with in the written
agreement.
Laureano v. Kilayco – Purpose of Parol Evidence to Reinforce Collateral Considerations.
The purpose of the introduction of parol evidence to show a lack of consideration is not for the purpose
of showing the invalidity of the conveyance but is, rather, to reinforce the claim that there was an
agreement to reconvey, it being urged that, if the transfer was utterly without consideration, it would
lend more color to the contention of the appellant that there was an agreement to reconvey.
Yu Tek v. Gonzales – Adding terms to the contract; Sugar source
While parol evidence is admissible in a variety of ways to explain the meaning of written contracts, it
cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions
which are not mentioned at all in the writing, unless there has been fraud or mistake.
Could've Gotten Sugar Anywhere - The defendant undertook to deliver a specified quantity of sugar
within a specified time. The contract placed no restriction upon the defendant in the matter of obtaining
the sugar. He was equally at liberty to purchase it on the market or raise it himself. It may be true that
defendant owned a plantation and expected to raise the sugar himself, but he did not limit his obligation
to his own crop of sugar. The condition which defendant seeks to add to the contract by parol evidence
cannot be considered [adds to the terms of the contract].
Palanca v. Fred Wilson & Co. – Ambiguity of "Capacity" is Intrinsic
Facts - Wilson and Co. in their offer to Song Fo and Co. on June 9, 1913, while mentioning capacity, only
did so in express connection with the name and description of the machine as illustrated in the
catalogue. They furnished Song Fo and Co. with plans and specifications of the distilling apparatus; and
these describe a capacity of 6,000 liters of jus (ferment). Wilson and Co.'s order to manufacturer, while
mentioning a capacity of 6,000 liters per day, does so again in connection with the description in the
maker's catalogue. And, finally, it was stated during the trial, and it has not been denied, that a machine
capable of producing 6,000 liters of rectified alcohol every 24 hours from nipa ferment would cost
between P35,000 and P40,000.
"Capacity" is Ambiguous – The term capacity is held to be ambiguous, because it could refer either to
the "working capacity" or "producing capacity" as per dictionary definitions.
We are accordingly constrained to hold that the proper construction of clause 1 of the contract, in
question in connection with the conduct of the parties and surrounding circumstances, is that Wilson
and Co. were to furnish Song Fo and CO. a distilling apparatus, type C (Agricola), as described on page
30 of the maker's catalogue, capable of receiving or treating 6,000 liters every 24 hours of work and of
producing alcohol of a grade 96-97 Gay Lussac.
ACI Phil.Inc. v. Coquia – Cullets; Failure to Express True Intent
Remedied by raising failure of agreement to express true intent - However, ACI remedied the
silence of the Purchase Orders by raising the failure of the purchase order to express the true intent of
the parties as an issue in its Answer, i.e., that ACI entered into a contract with respondent conditioned
upon the latter’s prompt delivery of flint cullets, as an issue in its Answer with Counterclaims.
Testimonies showed that fast delivery was a consideration - Sifting through the testimony of
Coquia, we find that although she was not given definite days during which she should deliver the flint
cullets, she was indeed apprised of petitioner’s urgent need for large quantities thereof. Furthermore,
ACI presented the unrebutted testimony of Ermilinda Batalon, its materials control manager, to prove
that it agreed to the ₱4.20 per kilo purchase price only because Coquia assured it of prompt deliveries
sufficient for ACI’s production requirements.
Seaoil Petroleum Corporation v. Autocorp Group – When terms of agreement are clear
Limitations of Admitting Parol Evidence on Prior or Contemporaneous Agreements
Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a contract, it cannot serve the purpose
of incorporating additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in the writing
unless there has been fraud or mistake.
Terms were Clear and Signed - They show that Autocorp sold to Seaoil one unit Robex 200 LC
Excavator paid for by checks issued by one Romeo Valera. This does not, however, change the fact that
Seaoil Petroleum Corporation, as represented by Yu, is the customer or buyer. The moment a party
affixes his or her signature thereon, he or she is bound by all the terms stipulated therein and is subject
to all the legal obligations that may arise from their breach.
Marquez v. Espejo – Mixing of Lantap and Murong Property
There was Intrinsic Ambiguity - The dispute reflects an intrinsic ambiguity in the contracts, arising
from an apparent failure of the instruments to adequately express the true intention of the parties. To
resolve the ambiguity, resort must be had to evidence outside the instrument.
Stranger Not Affected by Parol Evidence Rule - However, even the application of the Parol Evidence
Rule is improper in the case at bar. This is because Nemi isn’t a party to the VLTs executed between
RBBI and Marquez. Applying the foregoing rules, it is clear that the DOS was intended to transfer the
Lantap property to Nemi, while the VLTs were intended to convey the Murong property to Marquez.
This may be seen from their contemporaneous and subsequent acts.
Lequin v. Sps. Vizconde -
We agree with the trial courts finding that this is a simulated sale and unsupported by any consideration,
for Vizcondes never paid the PhP 15,000 purported purchase price.
The second exception provided for the acceptance of parol evidence applies to the instant case. Lack of
consideration was proved by petitioners evidence aliunde showing that the Kasulatan did not express
the true intent and agreement of the parties. As explained above, said sale contract was fraudulently
entered into through the misrepresentations.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 44
 4. INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
Section 10. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning. —
The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its
execution, unless the parties intended otherwise.
Section 11. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. —
In the construction of an instrument, where there are several provisions or particulars, such a
construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.
Section 12. Interpretation according to intention; general and particular provisions. —
In the construction of an instrument, the intention of the parties is to be pursued; and when a general
and a particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent
will control a general one that is inconsistent with it.
Section 13. Interpretation according to circumstances. —
For the proper construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was made, including
the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be
placed in the position of those who language he is to interpret.
Section 14. Peculiar signification of terms. —
The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation, but
evidence is admissible to show that they have a local, technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, and
were so used and understood in the particular instance, in which case the agreement must be construed
accordingly.
Section 15. Written words control printed. —
When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form, and the two are
inconsistent, the former controls the latter.
Section 16. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings. —
When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered, or the language is
not understood by the court, the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who
understand the language, is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language.
Section 17. Of Two constructions, which preferred. —
When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it,
that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it, and 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.
Section 18. Construction in favor of natural right. —
When an instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the
other against it, the former is to be adopted.
Section 19. Interpretation according to usage. —
An instrument may be construed according to usage, in order to determine its true character.
RULE ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
RULE 1 - COVERAGE
SECTION 1. Scope. - Unless otherwise provided herein, these Rules shall apply whenever an electronic
data message, as defined in Rule 2 hereof, is offered or used in evidence.
SEC. 2. Cases covered. - These Rules shall apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-
judicial and administrative cases.
SEC. 3. Application of the other rules on evidence. - In all matters not specifically covered by these
Rules, the Rules of Court and pertinent provisions of statues containing rules on evidence shall apply.
RULE 2 - DEFINITION OF TERMS AND CONSTRUCTION
SECTION 1. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of these Rules, the following terms are defined, as
follows:
(a) “Asymmetric or public cryptosystem” means a system capable of generating a secure key pair,
consisting of a private key for creating a digital signature, and a public key for verifying the digital
signature.
(b) “Business records” include records of any business, institution, association, profession, occupation,
and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit, or for legitimate purposes.
(c) “Certificate” means an electronic document issued to support a digital signature which purports to
confirm the identity or other significant characteristics of the person who holds a particular key pair.
(d) “Computer” refers to any single or interconnected device or apparatus, which, by electronic, electro-
mechanical or magnetic impulse, or by other means with the same function, can receive, record,
transmit, store, process, correlate, analyze, project, retrieve and/or produce information, data, text,
graphics, figures, voice, video, symbols or other modes of expression or perform any one or more of
these functions.
(e) “Digital Signature” refers to an electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an electronic
document or an electronic data message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a
person having the initial untransformed electronic document and the signer’s public key can accurately
determine:
(i) whether the transformation was created using the private key that corresponds to the
signer’s public key; and
(ii) whether the initial electronic document had been altered after the transformation was
made.
(f) “Digitally signed” refers to an electronic document or electronic data message bearing a digital
signature verified by the public key listed in a certificate.
(g) “Electronic data message” refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic,
optical or similar means.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 45
(h) “Electronic document” refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is
established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is
received, recorded, transmitted, stored processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes
digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, readable by sight or other means, which
accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules,
the term “electronic document” may be used interchangeably with electronic data message”.
(i) “Electronic key” refers to a secret code which secures and defends sensitive information that crosses
over public channels into a form decipherable only with a matching electronic key.
(j) “Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark, characteristics and/or sound in electronic
form. Representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic
data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a
person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating, signing or
approving an electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, an
electronic signature includes digital signatures.
(k) “Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone conversations, text messages,
chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of communication
the evidence of which is not recorded or retained.
(l) “Information and Communication System” refers to a system for generating, sending, receiving,
storing or otherwise processing electronic data messages or electronic documents and includes the
computer system or other similar devices by or in which data are recorded or stored and any procedure
related to the recording or storage of electronic data message or electronic document.
(m) “Key Pair” in an asymmetric cryptosystem refers to the private key and its mathematically related
public key such that the latter can verify the digital signature that the former creates.
(n) “Private Key” refers to the key of a key pair used to create a digital signature.
(o) “Public Key” refers to the key of a key pair used to verify a digital signature.
SEC. 2. Construction. – These Rules shall be liberally construed to assist the parties in obtaining a just,
expeditious, and inexpensive determination of cases.
The Interpretation of these Rules shall also take into consideration the international origin of Republic
Act No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act.
RULE 3 - ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
SECTION 1. Electronic documents as functional equivalent of paper-based documents. –
Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term of writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum
or any other form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an electronic document as defined
in these Rules.
SEC. 2. Admissibility. – An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules
on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner
prescribed by these Rules.
SEC. 3. Privileged communication. – The confidential character of a privileged communications is not
solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic document.
RULE 4 - BEST EVIDENCE RULE
SECTION 1. Original of an electronic document. – An electronic document shall be regarded as the
equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable
by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately.
SEC. 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. – When a document is in two or more copies executed
at or about the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same impression
as the original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical
reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which is accurately reproduces the original, such
copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the
original if:
(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
(b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit a copy in lieu of the original.
RULE 5 - AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
SECTION 1. Burden of proving authenticity. – The person seeking to introduce an electronic
document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner provided in
this Rule.
SEC. 2. Manner of authentication. – Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same;
(b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the
Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the
document; or
(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.
SEC. 3. Proof of electronically notarized document. - A document electronically notarized in
accordance with the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be considered as a public document
and proved as a notarial document under the Rules of Court.
RULE 6 - ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES
SECTION 1. Electronic signature. – An electronic signature or a digital signature authenticate din the
manner prescribed hereunder is admissible in evidence as the functional equivalent of the signature of
a person on a written document.
SEC. 2. Authentication of electronic signatures. – An electronic signature may be authenticated:
(a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital signature and verity the
same;
(b) By any other means provided by law; or
(c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the genuineness of the electronic
signature.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 46

SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions relation to electronic signature. – Upon the authentication of an
electronic signature, it shall be presumed that:
(a) The electronic signature is that of the person to whom it correlates;
(b) The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of authenticating or
approving the electronic document to which it is related or to indicate such person’s consent to
the transaction embodied therein; and
(c) The methods or processes utilized to affix or verity the electronic signature operated without
error or fault.
SEC. 4. Disputable presumptions relating to digital signatures. – Upon the authentication of a digital
signature, it shall be presumed, in addition to those mentioned in the preceding section, that:
(a) The information contained in a certificate is correct;
(b) The digital signature was created during the operational period of a certificate;
(c) The message associated with a digital signature has not been altered from the time it was signed;
(d) A certificate had been issued by the certification authority indicated therein
RULE 7 - EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
SECTION 1. Factors for assessing evidentiary weight. - In assessing the evidentiary weight of an
electronic document, the following factors may be considered:
(a) The reliability of the manner or method in which it was generated, stored or communicated,
including but not limited to input and output procedures, controls, tests and checks for accuracy and
reliability of the electronic data message or document, in the light of all the circumstances as well as
any relevant agreement;
(b)
The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified;
(c) The integrity of the information and communication system in which it is recorded or stored,
including but not limited to the hardware and computer programs or software used as well as
programming errors;
(d) The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the communication and
information system;
(e) The nature and quality of the information which went into the communication and information
system upon which the electronic data message or electronic document was based; or
(f) Other factors which the court may consider as affecting the accuracy or integrity of the electronic
document or electronic data message.
SEC. 2. Integrity of an information and communication system. – In any dispute involving the
integrity of the information and communication system in which an electronic document or electronic
data message is recorded or stored, the court may consider, among others, the following factors:
(a) Whether the information and communication system or other similar device was operated in a
manner that did not affect the integrity of the electronic document, and there are no other reasonable
grounds to doubt the integrity of the information and communication system;
(b) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored by a party to the proceedings with interest
adverse to that of the party using it; or
(c) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored in the usual and ordinary course of
business by a person who is not a party tot he proceedings and who did not act under the control of
the party using it.
RULE 8 - BUSINESS RECORDS AS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
SECTION 1. Inapplicability of the hearsay rule. – A memorandum, report, record or data compilation
of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by electronic, optical or other similar means
at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge
thereof, and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such was the regular
practice ot make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by electronic, optical or similar
means, all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is
excepted from the rule or hearsay evidence.
SEC. 2. Overcoming the presumption. – The presumption provided for in Section 1 of this Rule may
be overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source of information or the method or
circumstances of the preparation, transmission or storage thereof.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 47
 RULE 9 - METHOD OF PROOF
SECTION 1. Affidavit of evidence. – All matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight of
an electronic document may be established by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal knowledge of
the affiant or based on authentic records. The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the
affiant to testify on the matters contained therein.
SEC. 2. Cross-examination of deponent. – The affiant shall be made to affirm the contents of the
affidavit in open court and may be cross-examined as a matter of right by the adverse party.
RULE 10 - EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
SECTION 1. Electronic testimony. – After summarily hearing the parties pursuant to Rule 9 of these
Rules, the court may authorize the presentation of testimonial evidence by electronic means. Before so
authorizing, the court shall determine the necessity for such presentation and prescribe terms and
conditions as may be necessary under the circumstance, including the protection of the rights of the
parties and witnesses concerned.
SEC. 2. Transcript of electronic testimony. – When examination of a witness is done electronically,
the entire proceedings, including the questions and answers, shall be transcribed by a stenographer,
stenotypes or other recorder authorized for the purpose, who shall certify as correct the transcript done
by him. The transcript should reflect the fact that the proceedings, either in whole or in part, had been
electronically recorded.
SEC. 3. Storage of electronic evidence. – The electronic evidence and recording thereof as well as the
stenographic notes shall form part of the record of the case. Such transcript and recording shall be
deemed prima facie evidence of such proceedings.
RULE 11 - AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC. VIDEO AND EPHEMERAL EVIDENCE
SECTION 1. Audio, video and similar evidence. – Audio, photographic and video evidence of events,
acts or transactions shall be admissible provided is shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court
and shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some
other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.
SEC. 2. Ephemeral electronic communication. – Ephemeral electronic communications shall be
proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof.
In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses, other competent evidence may be admitted.
A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral electronic communication shall be covered by
the immediately preceding section.
If the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in an electronic document, then the
provisions of Rule 5 shall apply.
RULE 12 - EFFECTIVITY
SECTION 1. Applicability to pending case. – These Rules shall apply to cases pending after their
effectivity.
SEC. 2. Effectivity. – These Rules shall take effect on the first day of August 2001 following their
publication before the 20th day of July 2001 in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
Where Applicable - ROEE applies to quasi-judicial, administrative, and judicial proceedings (ROC only
judicial)
Section 2. Cases covered. – These Rules shall apply to all civil actions and
proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases.
• Provisions of the Rules on Electronic Evidence do not apply to criminal actions (Ang v. CA) BUT
NOW in People v. Enojas – Text messages were admitted as evidence in a criminal case
pursuant to AM 01-7-01 SC which amended the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
• FUN FACT – Bartolome v. Maranan: Ephemeral Communications are now admissible subject
to certain conditions. This includes telephone conversations, chatroom sessions, streaming
audio and video, and other forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or
retained.
Competence of Electronic Evidence – Sec. 2, Rule 3. Electronic evidence is competent evidence and
is admissible if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the ROC and related laws, and
is authenticated in the matter prescribed by the Rules on Elec. Evid.
Factors that are considered in assessing evidentiary weight of electric evidence
(a) Reliability of manner in which it was generated, stored, or communicated
(b) Reliability of manner in which its originator was identified
(c) Integrity of the information and communication system
(d) Familiarity of the witness or person who made the entry with the communication and
information system
(e) Nature and quality of information which went into communication and information system
(f) Other facts which the court may consider
The matter relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic document may be
established by an affidavit
• Affiant shall be made to AFFIRM contents of affidavit in open court + may be cross-examined
Documents Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence
• Electronic Document – Information or the representation or information, data, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which
a right is established, or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and
affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored processed, retrieved or produced
electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, readable by
sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic
document. For purposes of these Rules, the term “electronic document” may be used
interchangeably with electronic data message”.
An electronic document does not only refer to information itself but to representation of that info
• It is important that to be deemed electronic, the document must be received, recorded,
transmitted, retrieved, or produced ELECTRONICALLY
• HOWEVER – it DOES NOT require that such document be initially ggenerated or produced
electronically (Kahit scan lang, electronic document na yan!)
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 48
An electronic document MAY BE used to: MCC v. Ssangyong, supra

(a) Establish a right NAPOCOR v. Codilla – Photocopies Not Admissible; Must be Original
(b) Extinguish an obligation
(c) Prove or affirm a fact Merely Photocopies - The pieces of documentary evidence were merely photocopies of purported
documents or papers. Section 3 of rule 130 of the rules of court of the Philippines is very explicit in
HENCE – Electronic documents are functional equivalents of paper-based documents. providing that, when the subject of inquiry are the contents of documents, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original documents themselves, except in certain cases specifically
Requisites for Admissibility of Electronic Documents – Same as any other documentary evidence enumerated.

(a) Document is relevant Evidence was not Electronic – The pieces of documentary evidence do not actually constitute as
(b) Evidence is authenticated electronic evidence as defined in the Rules on Electronic Evidence. The informations therein were not
(c) Document is authenticated by competent witness received, retrieved or produced electronically. The petitioner has not adequately established that its
(d) Document is formally offered into evidence documentary evidence was electronic evidence. It has not properly authenticated such evidence as
electronic documents, assuming arguendo that they are. Further, info contained therein was not all
The person offering the electronic document in evidence has the burden of proving its authenticity were recorded or produced electronically, such as the signatures of the persons who signed them.

Manner of Authentication – Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud, supra

(a) Having it digitally signed
Aznar v. Citibank NA – Did not Authenticate According to Rule 132 or Rule on Electronic Evidence
(b) By evidence that other appropriate security procedures / devices were applied to the
document (as authorized by the SC)
Aznar, who testified on the authenticity of Exh. "G," did not actually see the document executed or
(c) By other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to satisfaction of the judge
written, neither was he able to provide evidence on the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of
Nubi, who handed to him said computer print-out.
NOTE – Manner of Authentication section applies only when the document is a private electronic
document and the same is offered as an electronic document
Failed to Authenticate - Even if examined under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, which took effect
on August 1, 2001, and which is being invoked by Aznar in this case, the authentication of Exh. "G" would
If the electronic document is being offered for simply what it is without regard as to whether it is
still be found wanting. Indeed, Aznar failed to demonstrate how the information reflected on the print-
authentic or not, then Rule 132, Sec. 20 of ROC shall apply suppletorily.
out was generated and how the said information could be relied upon as true.
• ALSO – IF Electronic Document is notarized, in turns into a public document and the manner
of authentication provided under the rule does not apply Ang v. CA – Rule on Electronic Evidence NOT Applicable in Criminal Cases

Originals under the Rules on Electronic Evidence – The original of the electronic document is its
printout or output readable by sight or other means, provided it is shown to reflect the data accurately.
• It is also deemed t be an original if the document were executed or about to be executed at
the same time or is a counterpart of the original
• For the court NOT to consider copies of the e-doc as = to original, there must be:
o Genuine question raised as to authenticity of original
o It would be unjust or inequitable to admit a copy in lieu of the original
Privileged Communications under Rules of Elec-Evid – The confidential character of a privileged
communication is not lost solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic document.
Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish through a text message constitutes an electronic
document. Thus, it should be authenticated by means of an electronic signature, as provided under
Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
But, firstly, Rustan is raising this objection to the admissibility of the obscene picture, Exhibit A, for the
first time before this Court. The objection is too late since he should have objected to the admission of
the picture on such ground at the time it was offered in evidence.
Besides, the rules he cites do not apply to the present criminal action. The Rules on Electronic Evidence
applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings.
People v. Enojas, et al., supra

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 49
 (c) TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE RULE ON DISQUALIFICATION OF CLASS OF PERSONS

1. Qualification of Witnesses • Sec. 20 - Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a
crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification.
Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. —
Washington v. Texas – Disqualifications Should NOT Run afoul Constitutional Rights
Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can
The rule disqualifying an alleged accomplice from testifying on behalf o the decedent cannot even be
make their perception known to others, may be witnesses.
defended on the ground that it rationally sets apart a group of persons who are likely to commit perjury.
TO think that criminals will lie to save their fellows but not to obtain favors from the prosecution
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise themselves is indeed to clothe the criminal class with more nobility than one might expect to find in the
provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification. (18a) public at large.

COMPETENCY – Witness is qualified to take the stand and testify; he is fit or eligible to testify on a Moreover, under the Texas statutes, the accused accomplice is no longer disqualified if he is acquitted at
his own trial. Presumably, he would then be free to testify on behalf of his comrade, secure in the
particular matter in a judicial proceeding. knowledge that he could incriminate himself as freely as he liked in his testimony, since he could not again
be prosecuted for the same offense.
• If he can perceive but not remember, incompetent!
• If he has no personal knowledge of event the truth of which he wants to prove, incompetent! Jackie as denied his right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. Fuller was
• Refers to qualifications to testify + absence of any factor that would disqualify physically and mentally capable of testifying to events that he had personally observed. and whose
testimony would have been relevant and material to the defense.
Basic Qualifications of a Witness
OATH AS A PRE-QUALIFICATION
(1) He can perceive
Section 1, Rule 132 requires that the examination of a witness in a trial or hearing shall be done under
(2) He can make known his perception to others
oath or affirmation.
(3) He must take an oath or affirmation (Sec. 1, Rule 132)
(4) Must NOT possess any of the disqualifications
• This is an ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION of a witness. A person is NOT qualified to be a witness
if he is incapable of understanding the duty to tell the truth.
COMPETENCY CREDIBILITY
• Usual Form: Swears to the Creator "to tell the truth and nothing but the truth" and that if he
Qualification of a person to testify in Weight and trustworthiness or reliability of a does not, he will later on answer for all the lies he is guilty of.
accordance to the rules of law testimony; Not governed by the law
• HOWEVER – There is no prescribed form for an oath or affirmation, as there is even no
Basic qualifications of a witness as his capacity Believability of a witness and has nothing to do need for such oath or affirmation to include an appeal to God or involve the raising of a hand.
to perceive and communicate his perception with the law or rules (Bautista) – As long as he is capable of consequences for not telling the truth. (Zheng Bai Hui)

Judge's issue before allowing a witness: Whether the witness:

Drug abuse has no effect Drug abuse affects credibility
(a) Understands the nature of an oath
Governed by law Governed by discretion of trial court (b) Realizes the moral duty to tell the truth
(c) Understands the prospects of being punished for a falsehood
Can be questioned as a matter of law Findings on credibility are conclusive
Ability to Perceive – Witness is able to perceive an event + have personal knowledge as derived form
his own perception.
Factors Not Affecting the Competency of a Witness
Ability to Make Known the Perception to Others –
(a) Religious belief
(b) Political belief (a) Ability to remember what has been perceived
(c) Interest in the outcome of the case; or (b) Ability to communicate the remembered perception
(d) Conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided by law (Ex: False Testimony)
WAIVER OF OATH - U.S. v. Looper –
Northwest Airlines v. Chiong – The relationship of a witness with a party does not ipso facto render Common law requires neither an appeal to God nor the raising of a hand as a prerequisite to a valid
him a biased witness in criminal cases where the quantum of evidence is proof beyond reasonable oath. All it requires is a form of statement which impresses upon the mind and conscience of a witness
doubt. There is no reason why the same principle should not apply to a civil case where the quantum the necessity for telling the truth.
of evidence is only preponderance of evidence.

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 50
MENTAL INCAPACITY / IMMATURITY RULE ON EXAMINATION OF CHILD WITNESS

Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. —
The following persons cannot be witnesses:
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that
they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others;
(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. (19a)
Section 6. Competency. - Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness.
However, the court shall conduct a competency examination of a child, motu
proprio or on motion of a party, when it finds that substantial doubt exists
regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish
truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court.
(a) Proof of necessity. - A party seeking a competency examination must present
proof of necessity of competency examination. The age of the child by itself is not
a sufficient basis for a competency examination.

To be disqualified for mental incapacity, the following MUST CONCUR: (Riano, Rules of Court) (b) Burden of proof. - To rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by a child,
the burden of proof lies on the party challenging his competence.
(a) Person must be incapable of intelligently making known his perception to others; and
(b) His incapability must exist at the time of his production for examination (c) Persons allowed at competency examination. Only the following are allowed
to attend a competency examination:
Another set of requirements under American Jurisprudence (Bautista, citing Jones)
(1) The judge and necessary court personnel;
(a) Capacity to observe
(b) Capacity to remember (2) The counsel for the parties;
(c) Capacity to communicate
(d) Appreciation of duty to tell the truth (3) The guardian ad litem;

The incompetence of the witness must exist at the time he is produced for examination and consists in
his inability to intelligently make known what he has perceived. It is NOT at the time of his perception
of the facts.
For immaturity, the incompetence of the witness must occur at the time he perceives the event
including his incapability to relate his perceptions truthfully. (Riano)
• In the competency examination, the questions should eventually determine the capacity of
the child to know between good and evil
(4) One or more support persons for the child; and
(5) The defendant, unless the court determines that competence can be fully
evaluated in his absence.
(d) Conduct of examination. - Examination of a child as to his competence shall
be conducted only by the judge. Counsel for the parties, however, can submit
questions to the judge that he may, in his discretion, ask the child.
(e) Developmentally appropriate questions. - The questions asked at the
competency examination shall be appropriate to the age and developmental level
of the child; shall not be related to the issues at trial; and shall focus on the ability
of the child to remember, communicate, distinguish between truth and falsehood,
and appreciate the duty to testify truthfully.

(f) Continuing duty to assess competence. - The court has the duty of
continuously assessing the competence of the child throughout his testimony.

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 51
 DISQUALIFICATIONS
Section 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. —
During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the
consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for
a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. (20a)
Rationale – Society's intent to preserve the marriage relations and promote domestic peace. Spouse
testifying against the other is an ugly sight inimical to society's interests + discourage perjury.
(1) There is identity of interests
(2) Consequent danger of perjury
(3) Guard the security and confidence of private life even at the risk of failure of justice and
prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness
(4) Where there is want of domestic tranquility, there is danger of punishing one spouse through
the hostile testimony of the other (Alvarez v. Ramirez)
Favorable or Not - Whether favorable or not, testimony is PROHIBITED
Valid Marriage Existent at Time of Testimony - There must be a valid marriage at the time of the giving
of testimony; If DISSOLVED at the time of testimony, it is allowed.
Witness-Spouse Need Not be a Party - Applies whether or not the witness-spouse is a party to the case
but the other spouse must be a party.
When Acquired Irrelevant - Whether the facts subject of the testimony were acquired before the
marriage is irrelevant – as long as the testimony was given while the marriage was valid and existing
Right is Waivable – Can be WAIVED impliedly or expressly
EXCEPTIONS
(1) In a civil case by one against the other
(2) In a criminal case for crime committed by one against the other, or the latter's direct
descendants or ascendants
• Ordono v. Daquigan – "The better rule is that when an offense directly attacks or directly
and vitally impairs the conjugal relations, it comes within the exception to the statute."
• NOTE – If CIVIL, only against each other. If CRIMINAL, descendants and ascendants included.
Nephews and nieces and other collateral relatives not included.
Testimony Where Spouse is Accused with Others
People v. Guidato – May the wife testify in the proceedings against ALL the accused? - The wife may
proceed and testify in the murder case against the brothers who were jointly tried with her husband,
but the testimony cannot be used against the husband through the guise of taking judicial notice of the
proceedings in the murder case without violating the rule. What cannot be done directly cannot be done
indirectly.
Testimony by Estranged Spouses
• GR – Testimony of an estranged spouse is COVERED by the rule, because a de facto separation
does not sever the marriage spouses and the spouses remain legally married.
• EXC – Alvarez v. Ramirez – Where the marital and domestic relations have become so
strained that there is no more harmony, peace, or tranquility to be preserved. Identity of
interests disappears and danger for perjury is non-existent.
DEAD MAN’S STATUTE / INSANITY OF ADVERSE PARTY
Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. —
Parties or assignor of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an
executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound
mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of
unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased
person or before such person became of unsound mind. (20a)
Applies only to CIVIL CASES or SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS over the estate of a deceased or insane person
Elements for the Dead Man's Statute
(1) Parties - The suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against the estate of said deceased or insane
person
(2) Defendant - Defendant is the executor, administrator, or representative of the deceased or
insane person
(3) Witness - Witness is the plaintiff, assignor of that party, or a person in whose behalf the case
is prosecuted, and
(4) Subject - Subject of the testimony is any matter of fact occurring before the death of such
deceased person or before becoming of unsound mind
Rationale – Guard against temptation to give false testimony for fictitious claims + put parties in a suit
on equal standing regarding opportunity to produce evidence.
How to Apply Rule
(1) Who are the Parties involved?
Plaintiff = Person with a claim against the estate of the decedent or insane person
Defendant = Representative of the deceased or insane person (administrator or executor, etc.)
• If VICE VERSA, the rule DOES NOT apply
• Razon v. IAC – Rule contemplates a suit against the ESTATE. A defendant who opposes the suit field by the
administrator recover alleged shares of stock belonging to the deceased is NOT barred from testifying as
this transaction with the deceased with respect to the shares.
• Sunga-Chan v. Chua – When a counterclaim is set up by the administrator of the estate, the case is
removed from the operation of the DMS. Plaintiff may testify to occurrences before the death of the
deceased to defeat the counterclaim.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 52
 (2) Nature of the Case – Claim or demand against the estate SPOUSAL IMMUNITY (Marital Disqualification) v. MARITAL PRIVILEGE

Rule will not apply if the claim is not against the estate. Will not apply to criminal cases. SPOUSAL IMMUNITY MARITAL PRIVILEGE

(3) Persons prohibited from testifying + Subject Matter of Testimony Examination of a spouse as to matters received
Testimony for or against the other
in confidence by one from the other
"Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted." No Confidential Communications Refers to Confidential Communications
Facts, occurrences, info prior to marriage Information during marriage
• Disinterested Witness - Does not prohibit a testimony by a mere witness to the transaction
between plaintiff and the deceased and who has no interest in such transaction. Applicable only during validity of marriage Applicable even after dissolution of marriage
Non-testifying Spouse must be a party in suit Non-testifying spouse need not be a party
• Matters After Death - If the subject of the testimony is on some other matter not before
death or insanity, witness may testify on such matter (matters after death)
SPOUSAL / MARITAL PRIVILEGE
• Beneficial Matters – Testimonies favorable to the estate are NOT barred (Icard v. Masigan)
The husband or wife CANNOT be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication
• Knowledge of Dealings – Witnesses who testify on the basis of their knowledge of a received in confidence by one form the other during the marriage.
transaction, not based on their dealings with the deceased, are NOT barred. (Bordalba v. CA) Elements of Marital Privilege
(1) Valid marriage between husband and wife
Santos v. Santos – DMS is intended to benefit the estate of the deceased, hence this protection may (2) Communication received in confidence by one from the other;
be WAIVED by: (3) Confidential communication received during the marriage.

(a) Failing to object to the testimony • Zulueta v. CA – Neither may be examined without the consent of the other as to any
(b) Cross-examining the witness on the prohibited testimony communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage. But one
(c) Offering evidence to rebut the testimony thing is freedom of communication. Quite another is a compulsion for each one to share what
one knows with he other and this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each owes
When there is Fraud: Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho – The survivor may testify against the deceased's estate to the other.
where the deceased was guilty of fraud, although this fraud must first be established by evidence other
than the testimony of the survivor Acquired Before Marriage Uncovered - Information acquired by spouse BEFORE the marriage, even if
in confidentiality, is NOT covered by the rule
When Disinterested Party Testifying - The object of the statute is to prevent one interested party
from giving testimony when the other party's lips are sealed by death. But when the above stated • BUT – Rule does not dictate as to when the facts occurred – As long as the information was
reasons for the rule do not appear, this court has not hesitated to admit in evidence the testimony of acquired during marriage
an interested party. (Ziegler v. Moore)
3rd Person - Confidential information received from a third person is Not covered by the privilege
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
To be Confidential – must be made during AND by reason of the marital relations and is intended not
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. — to be shared with others.

The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases: • US v. Antipolo – Wife can testify regarding husband's dying declarations as to the identity of
the assailant, because there was no intent of confidentiality in the information.
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the
consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other • Communications = Does NOT cover observations of acts, UNLESS they were means to convey
during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a communications to the observing spouse
crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants;
The Marital Privilege Rule can be waived

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 53
Sec. 24 (b). ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by
the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional
employment, nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent
of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such
capacity;
Rationale – Promote freedom of consultation of the client; Benefits the client more. Without it, they
would be deterred from seeking legal assistance in the first instance or at least inhibited from making
full and candid disclosure of the relevant facts bearing upon their case.
Contrast with WORK-PRODUCT DOCTRINE - Rule 26 (b) (3) of the US Rules on Civil Procedure
(A) Documents and Tangible Things. Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and
tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party
or its representative (including the other party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor,
insurer, or agent). But, subject to Rule 26(b)(4), those materials may be discovered if:
(i) they are otherwise discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1); and
(ii) the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case
and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other
means.
(B) Protection Against Disclosure. If the court orders discovery of those materials, it must
protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories
of a party's attorney or other representative concerning the litigation.
• Work-Product Doctrine – Tangible material or its intangible equivalent that is collected or
prepared in anticipation of litigation is NOT discoverable UNLESS party unable to obtain the
information has no other means of obtaining the information without undue hardship.
• Attorney-Client Privilege – Prohibits communications between attorney and client ONLY.
Under the WPD, even materials, tangible or not, made by other persons are covered. Includes
materials collected for the attorney such as interrogatories, signed statements, other
information required for the prosecution or defense of a case.
Elements for Attorney-Client Privilege
(1) Communication made by client to attorney, or advice given by attorney to client
(2) Given in confidence
(3) Given either:
a. In the course of professional employment
b. With a view to professional employment
Present rules DOES NOT require perfected attorney-client relationship – can exist in view of such
Oral or Written – Communication may be ORAL or WRITTEN – Deemed to extend to other forms of
conduct, like physical demonstration as long as it is intended to be confidential
Future Crimes Not Covered – Privilege does NOT extend to communications where the client's purpose
is the furtherance of a future intended crime or fraud. Only past conduct is covered.
Extends to Attorney's Employees – Those made to the secretary, clerk, stenographer for transmission
to the attorney for the purpose of professional relationship or with such view of it, or those knowledge
acquired by such employees in such capacity are COVERED by the privilege.
Canon 21, Code of Professional Responsibility – A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and
secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.
Sec. 24 (c). PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE
A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the
consent of the patient, 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, which information
was necessary to enable him to act in capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the patient;
Applies to CIVIL CASE – whether patient is a party or not. Implies that the privilege cannot be claimed
in a criminal case presumably because the interest of the public in criminal prosecution should be
deemed more important than the secrecy of the communication.
Protect Interest of Patient – Designed to promote health, not truth. Encourages free disclosure in the
sickroom by preventing disclosure in the courtroom.
Person Against Whom = Duly authorized practitioner of medicines, surgery, obstetrics
Information which CANNOT be Disclosed:
(a) Advice given to client
(b) Treatment given to client
(c) Information acquired in attending to patient PROVIDED advice was made or acquired in a
professional capacity + necessary to enable him to act in such capacity
(d) Information sought to be disclosed would tend to blacken the reputation of the patient
No Need for Contract – Rule does NOT require that the relationship between the physician and the
patient be a result of a contractual relationship. It would be the result of a quasi-contractual relationship
as when the patient is seriously ill, and the doctor treats him even if he is not in a condition to consent.
Inapplicable to Commission of Crime – Privilege does NOT apply to shield the commission of a crime
or when the purpose is an unlawful one as to obtain narcotics or prohibited drugs in violation of law
because there is no treatment involved. (Ex: plastic surgery to evade authorities, since operation is not
for the treatment of injuries or disease).
Privilege Survives Death – The privilege survives DEATH. Death does NOT permit the living to impair the
dead's name, by disclosing communications held confidential by law. (Gonzales v. CA)
Privilege is WAIVABLE – Privilege may be waived by the PATIENT, expressly or impliedly.
• Can be done through a contract of life or medical insurance.
• When there is disclosure of the information by the patient, it is necessarily a waiver.
• Also by operation of law – Rule 28, Section 1
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 54
 Section 1. When examination may be ordered. — In an action in which the mental or physical
condition of a party is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may in its
discretion order him to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician.
Section 2. Order for examination. — The order for examination may be made only on motion
for good cause shown and upon notice to the party to be examined and to all other parties,
and shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions and scope of the examination and the
person or persons by whom it is to be made.
Section 3. Report of findings. — If requested by the party examined, 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. After such request and delivery, 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, previously or thereafter made, of the same mental
or physical condition. If the party examined refuses to deliver such report, the court on motion
and notice may make an order requiring delivery on such terms as are just, and if a physician
fails or refuses to make such a report the court may exclude his testimony if offered at the trial.
Section 4. Waiver of privilege. — By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so
ordered or by taking the deposition of the examiner, the party examined waives any privilege
he may have in that action or any other involving the same controversy, regarding the
testimony of every other person who has examined or may thereafter examine him in respect
of the same mental or physical examination.
Sec. 24(d). PRIEST/MINISTER – PENITENT PRIVILEGE –
A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, 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;
PRIEST-PENITENT PRIVILEGE - The person making the confession holds the privilege; and the priest
or minister hearing the confession in his professional capacity is PROHIBITED form making a disclosure
of the confession without the consent of the person confessing.
• Extends not only to confession by a penitent but any advice given by minister or priest
pursuant to the course of discipline of the denomination or sect which the priest belongs
• Priest or Minister must be ordained or consecrated by his sect.
Must be Pursuant to Sins – Not all communication is privileged. Must be pursuant to confession of sins
+ character of advice given pursuant to professional or spiritual capacity.
• If discussed mere "business arrangements" with the priest, not privileged.
Sec. 24(e). PUBLIC OFFICER –
A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to communications made
to him in official confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
Public Officer Privilege – Communications made to a public officer in official confidence are
PRIVILEGED when the court finds that the disclosure would adversely affect the public interest.
• Not dependent on the will of the officer but of the COMPETENT COURT
• Invokable during term of office AND afterwards
* Right Against Self-Incrimination, Supra
EXECUTVE PRIVILEGE - The power of the executive branch of government to withhold information
from the public, the courts, and Congress
• Almonte v. Vasquez – The president and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the
process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in way many would be unwilling to express
except privately
Public Interest for Non-Disclosure - At common law a governmental privilege against disclosure is
recognized with respect to state secrets bearing on military, diplomatic and similar matters. This privilege
is based upon public interest of such paramount importance as in and of itself transcending the individual
interests of a private citizen, even though, as a consequence thereof, the plaintiff cannot enforce his rights.
• Chavez v. PCGG – Privilege exists against disclosure on certain matters involving state secrets regarding
the following :
o Military
o Diplomatic
o Other national security matters
• Chavez v. PEA – The right to information does NOT extend to presidential conversations, correspondences,
and discussions in closed-door cabinet meetings.
NOTE – The privilege must be invoked by the proper officer (U.S. v. Nixon) Court determines this.
Doctrines from the NERI v. SENATE case
2 Kinds of Executive Privilege –
(1) Presidential Communication Privilege – Pertains to communications, documents, or other
materials that reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations and that which the
President believes should remain confidential.
(2) Deliberative Process Privilege – Includes advisory opinions, recommendations, and
deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are
formulated.
Elements of PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE
(1) The protected communication must relate to a quintessential and non-delegable power
(2) The communication must be authored or solicited and received by a close advisor of the
President or the President himself.
(3) The PCP remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need,
such that the information sought likely contains important evidence and by the unavailability
of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
Operational Proximity Test – An advisor must be in operational proximity with the President.
Exception to PCP – The 3rd requirement: If there is adequate need + unavailability
Privileged Communications under Rules on Electronic Evidence
Sec. 3 on the Rules on Electronic Evidence – Confidential character of a privileged
communication is NOT lost solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic document.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 55
JUDICIAL PRIVILEGE
Protection of any statement made in the course of a judicial proceeding by any judge, juror, party,
witness, or advocate, in relation to a given case. (Riano)
• Parties CANNOT be held liable for things mentioned or stated in the case, whether oral or
written, so long as it is relevant, pertinent, or material to the legal issue at hand.
• Although primarily meant to protect lawyers from defamatory suits, judicial privilege covers
justices and judges on what they say or write in the course of the legal proceedings, regardless
of defamatory tenor or presence of malice.
• Develop free discourse of thoughts and ideas. BASICALLY – A judge or justice cannot be held
liable for what he says or writes in relation to a pending case
Per Curiam Supreme Court Decision in Connection with Subpoeana of Justices
As to Court Records:
GR - In line with the public's constitutional right to information, the Court has adopted a policy of transparency with
respect to documents in its possession or custody, necessary to maintain the integrity of its sworn duty to adjudicate
justiciable disputes.
EXCEPTIONS
(1) Results of Raffle of Cases,
(2) Actions taken by court on each case included in agenda of court session,
(3) Deliberations of Members in court sessions on cases and matters pending before it
P + D Requirement - To qualify for protection under the Deliberative Process Privilege , the agency must show that
the document is both pre-decisional and deliberative.
• Pre-decisional – Precedes, in temporal sequence, the decision to which it relates; made in attempt to
make final decision
• Deliberative – Whether disclosure of the information would discourage candid discussion within the
agency
Two other grounds for denying access to court records + compulsory process
(1) DQ by reason of Privileged Communication
(2) Pendency of an Action or Matter
Court Deliberations - Court deliberations are confidential and shall not be disclosed to outside parties, except as may
be provided herein or as authorized by the Court. Enables the court to "freely discus the issues without fear of criticism
for holding unpopular decisions, or fear of humiliation for one's comments
(Purpose of Deliberative Process Privilege) = Prevent chilling effect of deliberative communications.
Documents related to Deliberations – Same rule as above. Deliberative Process Privilege protects from disclosure
documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations that are component parts of the process
for formulating governmental decisions and policies.
• Court records which are P and D in nature are thus protected and cannot be the subject of a subpoena if
judicial privilege is to be preserved. The privilege in general insulates the Judiciary from an improper
intrusion into the functions of the judicial branch and shields justices, judges, and court officials and
employees from public scrutiny or the pressure of public opinion that impairs a judge's ability to render
impartial decisions.
• RPC, Graft and CP Act, Judicial Ethics – Members of the Court may not be compelled to testify in the
impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice or other Members of the Court about information they
acquired in the performance of their official function of adjudication, such as information on how
deliberations were conducted or material inputs that the justices used in decision-making.
On Compulsory Process - Justices of the Court cannot be compelled to testify on matters relating to the internal
deliberations and actions of the Court in the exercise of their adjudicatory functions and duties. This is to be
differentiated from a situation where the testimony is on a matter which is external to their adjudicatory functions.
GOVERNMENT PRIVILEGE – Deliberative Process Privilege (?)
Holds as confidential what a government decision maker thinks while a case is pending. It also protects
from disclosure documents reflecting communications, advisory opinions, recommendations and
deliberations that are part of a process by which government decisions and policies are formulated.
• The privilege is meant to enhance the quality of decisions, by protecting from inquiry open
and frank discussion among those who make them within the government. (Riano)
• Am. Jur: Applies to Executive Officials Outside President's Circle –
This privilege CAN apply to executive branch officials outside the President's inner circle, BUT
it is both more limited in scope and easier to overcome
JOURNALIST’S PRIVILEGE NOT TO REVEAL SOURCE (RA53, as amended RA1477) (Newsman’s privilege)
Section 1. Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws, the publisher,
editor, columnist or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, 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, 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.
Rationale – The privilege is not designed primarily for the protection of the communicant but is justified
by public policy which requires that the right of the people to information should be protected. In the
absence of a privilege protecting the informant's identity, the information would probably not be
volunteered because of the informant's natural fear of reprisal.
Subordinate to Constitution – The Newsman's Privilege is subordinate to the Right to Compulsory
Process. (Matter of Farber)
INFORMATION AND STATEMENTS AT LABOR CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS (LABOR CODE)
Article 233. Privileged communication. Information and statements made at conciliation
proceedings shall be treated as privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in
the Commission. Conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body
regarding any matters taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted by them.
SECRECY OF THE BALLOT -
PHIL. CONSTI., ARTICLE V, SECTION 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the
secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos
abroad.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote without
the assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws
and such rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the
ballot.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 56
TRADE SECRETS (CF. ARTICLES 291 AND 292, REVISED PENAL CODE) 2. Testimonial Privilege

Article 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. —
500 pesos shall be imposed upon any manager, employee, or servant who, in such capacity, shall learn the
secrets of his principal or master and shall reveal such secrets.
No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other
Article 292. Revelation of industrial secrets. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and direct descendants.
medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon the person in charge, employee or
workman of any manufacturing or industrial establishment who, to the prejudice of the owner thereof, shall
reveal the secrets of the industry of the latter. Parental Privilege – Parent cannot be compelled to testify against his child or other direct descendants

Trade Secret – Plan, process, tool, or mechanism or compound known only to its owner and those of
his employees to whom it is necessary to confide it. It is:
(a) Used in one's business
(b) Gives employer opportunity to obtain an advantage over its competitors who do not have it.
Air Philippines v. PENSWELL - The Chemical Composition, Formulation, And Ingredients Of Penswell’s Special
Lubricants Are Trade Secrets Within The Contemplation Of The Law.
Filial Privilege – A child may not be compelled to testify against his parents or other direct ascendants.
A person, however, MAY testify against his parents or children VOLUNTARILY; but if REFUSES to do so,
the rule protects him from any compulsion. Said rule applies to both criminal and civil cases since the
rule makes no distinction.
Article 215, Family Code

PENSWELL was established to engage in the business of general manufacturing and selling of, and to deal in, distribute,
sell or otherwise dispose of goods, wares, merchandise, products, including but not limited to industrial chemicals,
solvents, lubricants, acids, alkalies, salts, paints, oils, varnishes, colors, pigments and similar preparations, among
others. It is unmistakable to our minds that the manufacture and production of PENSWELL’S products proceed from
a formulation of a secret list of ingredients. In the creation of its lubricants, PENSWELL expended efforts, skills,
research, and resources.
BANK DEPOSITS / BANK SECRETS – RA 1405
Art. 215. No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his parents and
grandparents, except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by
one parent against the other.
EXCEPTIONS:
(a) Testimony is indispensable in a crime committed against a descendant, or
(b) In a crime committed by one parent against the other

Section 1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government to give encouragement to the people to
People v. Invencion – 13 Counts of Rape Against Daughter; Testimony of Son
deposit their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding so that the same may be
properly utilized by banks in authorized loans to assist in the economic development of the country.
When he voluntarily testified against Artemio, Elven declared that he was testifying as a witness against
Section 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including
investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its
his father of his own accord and only to tell the truth. He was NOT compelled, and willingly chose to
instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, WAIVE the filial privilege. Since he was a child of tender years, leading questions were allowed, pursuant
inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office, except upon written permission to the Rules of Court.
of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or
dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter
of the litigation. Merely a PRIVILEGE, not a Rule of Disqualification - Filial Privilege is not a rule on disqualification
because a descendant is not incompetent to testify against an ascendant. The rule is rather a PRIVILEGE
Section 3. It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of a banking institution to disclose to any person
other than those mentioned in Section two hereof any information concerning said deposits.
not to testify, which is invoked or waived like other privileges.

Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board – Records of MB Deliberations Not Confidential Lee v. CA – Testimony of a Stepdaughter against a Stepmother

There is no specific provision in the Central Bank Act, even in Sections 13 and 15 thereof, which prohibits absolutely Cannot Be Invoked by Stepmother - The direct line is either descending or ascending. The former unites
the courts from conducting an inquiry on said deliberations when these are relevant or material to a matter subject the head of the family with those who descend from him. The latter binds a person with those form
of a suit pending before it. There is no indication that such disclosure would cause detriment to the government, to whom he descends.
the bank or to third parties.

Significantly, it is the bank itself here that is interested in obtaining what it considers as information useful and
The stepmother cannot invoke the filial privilege in testifying against her stepdaughter
indispensably needed by it to support its position in the matter being inquired to by the court below. The privilege cannot apply to Tiu because it applies only with direct descendants and ascendants, a
family connected by common ancestry.
RA 6981 (Witness Protection Security and Benefit Act)
Tiu, who invokes the filial privilege, claims that she is the stepmother of Emma Lee. A stepdaughter has
no common ancestry by her stepmother. Consequently, Tiu can be compelled to testify against
Section 7. Confidentiality of Proceedings. - All proceedings involving application for
admission into the Program and the action taken thereon shall be confidential in nature. No petitioner Emma Lee.
information or documents given or submitted in support thereof shall be released except upon
written order of the Department or the proper court.

--- See CASE NOTES FILE for List of Cases and Doctrines ---

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 57
 3. Admissions and Confessions ADMISSIONS – Declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact.

Section 26. Admission of a party. — • Voluntary acknowledgment made by a party of the existence of the truth of certain facts which
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. are inconsistent with his claims in an action.

Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. — • Can be judicial or extrajudicial

In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability and is not admissible in
evidence against the offeror. • Can be express or implied

In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law 3 Forms of Admissions
to be compromised, an offer of compromised by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied (1) Act or conduct
admission of guilt. (2) Declaration or statement
(3) Omission
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense, is not
admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. ADMISSION VERSUS DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST

An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not Declarations Against Interest – No man would make any declaration against himself, unless it is true.
admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
Admission Declarations Against Interest
Section 28. Admission by third party. — Admissible in evidence even if the person To be admitted as DAI, declarant must be DEAD
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as making such is alive and is in court or unable to testify
hereinafter provided.
Admissible as long as it is inconsistent with this
Section 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. — present claim or defense and need not be Made against one's pecuniary or moral interest
The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and during against one's pecuniary or moral interest
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 Made at any time, even during trial Made before controversy arises
to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party.
Admissible only against the party making the
Admissible even against 3rd persons
admission
Section 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 Not an exception to the hearsay rule and is
Exception to the hearsay rule
declaration. admissible not as an exception to any rule

Section 31. Admission by privies. — CONFESSIONS - Declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any
Where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while offense necessarily included therein.
holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former.
ADMISSION CONFESSION
Section 32. Admission by silence. —
Acknowledgement of some fact or circumstance
An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does Acknowledgement in express terms, of his guilt
which in itself is insufficient to authorize a
or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, of the crime charged
conviction
and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him.
Cannot be implied, but must be a direct and
Express or Implied
positive acknowledgement of guilt.
Section 33. Confession. —
The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense Express – Positive statement or act
Connotes affirmative statement from the
necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him. Implied – Declarations or acts of a person
person making the confession.

Extrajudicial or Judicial Extrajudicial or Judicial

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 58
CONFESSION DURING RE-ENACTMENT - A confession during and in open court is a JUDICIAL OFFER OF COMPROMISE
CONFESSION – it need NOT be corroborated by other evidence. Extrajudicial confessions repeated in
open court turn into judicial confessions. In Civil Cases – Not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror

EXCLUSIONARY RULE v. FOREIGN NATIONALS In Criminal cases – Offer by accused MAY be received in evidence as implied admission.

People v. Wong Chuen Ming – Signatures on Alpen Cereals Containing Shabu
• The fact that they are all foreign nationals does not exclude them from the application of the
exclusionary rule because the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are
given and extend to all persons, both aliens and citizens.
INTERLOCKING CONFESSIONS - Confessions made by two or more suspects whose statements are
substantially the same and consistent concerning the elements of a crime. (Am Jur)
GR – An extra-judicial confession is evidence only against the person making it.
EXCEPTION – INTERLOCKING CONFESSION
(1) Several EJS + No Collusion + Identical - Several extra judicial statements had been made by
several persons charged with an offense and there could have been no collusion with
reference to the several confessions, the fact that the statements are in all material respects
identical is confirmatory of the confession of the co-defendants and is admissible against
other persons implicated therein.
(2) They are also admissible as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated therein to
show the probability of the latter's actual participation in the commission of the crime and
may likewise serve as corroborative evidence if it is clear from other facts and circumstances
that other persons had participated in the perpetration of the crime charged and proved.
These are known as "interlocking confessions".
CONFESSIONS AND THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
Confrontation Clause – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted
with the witness against him.
Parker v. Randolph – Cheating in Gambling Game; Confrontation
EX – Although the marriage of the accused in a rape extinguishes the crime, an offer of marriage is,
generally speaking, an admission of guilt.
There is NO implied admission if the offer of compromise is in relation to:
(a) Quasi-offenses (criminal negligence)
(b) Cases allowed by law to be compromised
Plea of Guilty Withdrawn - If accused withdraws his guilty plea, it is not admissible against the accused
Unaccepted Plea of Guilt to Lesser Offense – If plea of guilty to lesser offense not accepted, rule
does Not provide for an adverse consequence for the unaccepted plea. On the contrary, rule provides
that an unaccepted plea is NOT admissible in evidence against accused who made the plea or offer.
GOOD SAMARITAN RULE – An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital, or other expenses
occasioned by an injury is NOT admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
"Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet ” - A transaction done between strangers ought not to
injure those who are not parties to them. (Direct Latin Translation)
Has 2 branches (Riano) –
(1) Admission by a 3rd party – Affecting declarant only, not others (Sec. 28)
(2) Testimony of Prior Conduct (Sec. 34)
ADMISSION BY A THIRD PARTY (Vicarious Admissions)
• A man's actions and declarations should affect him alone and should not affect others
• Applies only to extrajudicial declarations – Statements made in open court by a witness
implicating persons, aside from his own judicial admissions, are admissible as declarations
form one who has personal knowledge of the facts testified to.

• The right of confrontation conferred by the Sixth Amendment is a safeguard to ensure the EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION JUDICIAL CONFESSION
fairness and accuracy of criminal trials, and its reach cannot be divorced from the system of
trial by jury contemplated by the Constitution. A crucial assumption underlying that system Not admissible against co-accused
is that juries will follow the instructions given them by the trial judge. Were this not so, it Admissible since the co-accused is afforded the
would be pointless for a trial court to instruct a jury, and even more pointless for an appellate NOTE: If repeated in court, can be admitted opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
court to reverse a criminal conviction because the jury was improperly instructed. against the co-accused.

The Confrontation Clause has never been held to bar the admission into evidence of every Exceptions to the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule (First Branch)
relevant extrajudicial statement made by a non-testifying declarant simply because it in some
way incriminates the defendant. And an instruction directing the jury to consider a (a) Admission by a co-partner or agent
codefendant's extrajudicial statement only against its source has been found sufficient avoid (b) Admission by a co-conspirator
offending the confrontation right of the implicated defendant in numerous decisions of this (c) Admission by privies
Court.
BASIS – Person making the statement is under the same circumstances as the person against whom it
is offered. Such circumstances give him substantially the same interest and motive to make a statement
about certain matters.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 59
 a. Admission by co-partner or agent ADMISSION BY SILENCE

An agent performs some service in representation or on behalf of a principal (Civil Code, Art. 1868)
• He is a mere extension of the personality of the principal
• Unless he acts in his own name, the principal must comply with all the obligations which the
agent may have contracted within the scope of his authority.
• Whatever is said by an agent to a 3rd person, during the course of the agency and within the
scope of his actual or apparent authority, relative to the business contemplated by the agency
is also the statement of the principal hence admissible against said principal.
Elements of co-partner or agent to be admissible:
(a) Declaration made or done within scope of his authority
(b) Declaration made during existence of partnership or agency
(c) Existence of partnership or agency is proven by evidence other than declaration or act
b. Admission by a conspirator
Involves a statement by a person in the presence of a party in an action (criminal or civil),wherein the
statement contains assertions against the party which, if untrue, would be sufficient cause for the
person to make a denial. Failure to speak against the statement makes it admissible against him.
• Not every silence is implied admission – Silence of a person under investigation for the
commission of an offense should not be construed as an admission by silence due to
constitutional reasons. [ Sec. 2(b), RA 7348 ]
For silence to be an admission, it is necessary that: [ People v. Paragasa ]
(a) He heard and understood the statement
(b) Was at liberty to make a denial
(c) Statement was about a matter affecting his rights or in which he was interested, and which
naturally calls for a response

Conspiracy – 2 or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony (d) Facts were within his knowledge
(Art. 8, RPC)
(e) Fact admitted from silence is material to the issue
• Once proven, the act of one is the act of all
• HENCE – Statement of one may be admitted against the other co-conspirators ADOPTIVE ADMISSION – Person manifests his assent to the statements of another person.

Elements of Admission by a Conspirator • The admission may be received in evidence if t can be shown that a party adopted the
statements as his own.
(a) Declaration or act made or done during existence of conspiracy
(b) Declaration or act must relate to conspiracy • It is a party's reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to
(c) Conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than such declaration treat the party's reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by other person.

• Incriminating declarations of co-conspirators made in the absence of or without the Adoptive Admission may occur when a party:
knowledge of the others after the conspiracy has come to an end is inadmissible.
(a) Expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement made by another
• There must be independent evidence aside from the EJC to prove conspiracy
(b) Hears a statement and later on essentially repeats it
c. Admission by privies
(c) Utters acceptance or builds upon assertion of another
Privies – Persons who are partakers or have an interest in any action or thing, or any relation to another.
(d) Replies by way of rebuttal to some specific points raised by another but ignores further points
Examples: which he or she has heard the other make

(a) Lessor & lessee, grantor & grantee, assignor & assignee – Privies in an estate or contract (e) Reads and subsequently signs a written statement made by another
(b) Executor / Administrator and Estate of Deceased – Privies in representation
(c) Heir and his ascendant – Privies in blood or succession

Elements of Admission by Privies

(a) Act, declaration, or omission by a predecessor-in-interest

(b) ADO occurred while he was holding (not after) title to the property
(c) ADO was in relation to the property

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 60
 CASES
People v. Gaudia – Compromise made by the parents of the accused without the accused's presence
is NOT binding as an admission on the accused.
Compromise to Rolando (father) HEARSAY – The offer allegedly made by Guadia himself to Amalia's
husband is hearsay. It was only Amalia who testified as to the alleged offer, and she was not even a
party to the conversation which allegedly transpired at the Hagonoy Municipal Jail.
Compromise by parents Not Binding - The offer of compromise allegedly made by the Gaudia’s
parents to Amalia may have been the subject of testimony of Amalia. However, following the principle
of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet, the actions of his parents cannot prejudice the appellant,
since he was not a party to the said conversation, nor was it shown that he was privy to the offer of
compromise made by them to the mother of the victim. They cannot be considered as evidence against
appellant but we reiterate that these errors are not enough to reverse the conviction of the Gaudia.
People v. Lising – Chochise and Beebom
GR – Extrajudicial statements are admissible against the declarant only.
EXCEPTIONS:
(1) Made by several persons with no evidence of collusion (identical)
(2) Interlocking Confessions - Circumstantial evidence against person implicated
Testimonies and Statements are Admissible – The admissions and statements were made voluntarily
and with assistance of counsel. Nothing appears in the records that the statements were taken under
compulsion, duress, or violence on their person. They did not present themselves for physical
examination, nor did they file admin charges against them. Factors:
(a) Testimonies contain details which the officers could not have known or supplied
(b) Bears corrections duly initiated by Lising
(c) Explains or justifies his conduct and shifts blame to Manalili.
Applicable to other accused – There is no doubt that the statements were independently executed
and rather identical with each other in their material details. There are also distinct similarities in the
narration of events leading to the killings of Cochise and Beebom.
People v. Muit – Kidnapping for Ransom
The extra judicial confessions of Pancho, Jr., Dequillo, and Muit strengthened the case against them.
There is nothing on record to support appellants' claim that they were coerced and tortured into
executing their extra judicial confessions. One of the indicia of voluntariness in the execution of
appellants' extra judicial statements is that each contains many details and facts which the investigating
officers could not have known and could not have supplied, without the knowledge and information
given by appellants.
Republic v. Bautista – DOH + Rescue Security
Liangco, Personnel Officer testified that he went to the DOH Premises after he received a call regarding
the break-in. He then made an ocular inspection of the storeroom and conveyed to the personnel that
the drugs were missing. This declaration is considered an admission.
Palma, Branch Manager of Rescue Security, corroborated Liangco's testimony as she confirmed the
ocular inspection conducted by Liangco.CA erroneously ignored Liangco's testimony and was
persuaded more by Macabulos' rebuttal arguing that she never spoke to Liangco about the incident.
People v. Sabagala - Offer of Marriage in a rape case is considered an admission of guilt by the
defendant.
Offer of Marriage is an Admission of Guilt – Sabagala offered to marry private complainant in his
desperate attempt to free himself from any liability. In a number of cases, we have held that an offer
of marriage is considered an admission of guilt by the accused. If it were true that he did not commit
the crime, there is no reason why Sabagala would go to the extent of offering to marry the woman who
supposedly fabricated false charges against him. This is not in accord with ordinary human experience.
He would have stood his ground and defended his innocence.
People v. Satorre – Farmer Confession; Conscience and Voluntariness
Basic test for validity of confession:
Voluntariness – of free will and consent without inducement + full knowledge of the nature and
consequences of such confession.
ALSO – If he was prompted by his conscience and respect for the truth.
An EJC forms only a prima facie case against the party who confessed.
Satorre's Declaration before Brgy. Captain is an Extrajudicial Confession
Satorre's alleged declaration owning up to the killing before the Brgy. Captain was a CONFESSION and
since it was not put in writing and made out of court, it was extrajudicial. This was admissible as Section
33, Rule 130 does not distinguish between judicial or extrajudicial.
Confession was not voluntary based on the circumstances – Satorre was a 19-year old farmer who
did not even finish 1st grade. If he did make such confession, he may not have realized the full import
of his confession and its consequences. This is not to say that he is not capable of confessing validly,
especially if prompted by conscience and respect for the truth.
Extrajudicial Confession was Uncorroborated – The main prosecution witness was Brgy. Captain
Catanares who brought the accused to the police station for the oral confession. However, his statement
was not taken into writing. Neither was there any evidence supporting and corroborating the
confession. Ownership of gun not established. No head wound also.
People v. Bernal: Is Openda's declaration to Enriquez of his affair with Bernal admissible? – YES.
With the deletion of the phrase "pecuniary or moral interest" from the present provision, it is safe to
assume that "declaration against interest" has been expanded to include all kinds of interest, that is,
pecuniary, proprietary, moral or even penal.
Openda, Jr., having been missing since his abduction, cannot be called upon to testify. His confession
to Enriquez, definitely a declaration against his own interest, since his affair with Naty Bernal was a
crime, is admissible in evidence because no sane person will be presumed to tell a falsehood to his own
detriment.
People v. Erguiza – Compromise Without Accused Present
An offer of compromise from an unauthorized person cannot amount to an admission of the party
himself. For a compromise to amount to an implied admission of guilt, the accused should have been
present or at least authorized the proposed compromise.
The alleged offer of the parents of appellant to settle the case cannot be used against appellant as
evidence of his guilt. Appellant testified that he did not ask his parents to settle the case. Moreover,
appellant was not present when the offer to settle was allegedly made.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 61
Tamargo v. Awigan – Recanted Conspirator Confession
Facts - Atty. Tamargo and his 8-year old daughter were killed. The police had no leads until Lucio
Columna executed an affidavit, saying that he was a "look out" and implicated Romulo Awingan as
gunman and the Antipordas who were the principals.
Conspirator's Confession was Recanted - Aside from the extrajudicial confession, which was later on
recanted then reinstituted, no other piece of evidence was presented to prove conspiracy. There was
no other prosecution evidence, direct or circumstantial which the extrajudicial confession could
corroborate. Therefore, the recanted confession of Columna, which was the sole evidence against
respondents, had no probative value and was inadmissible as evidence against them.
Lejano v. People/People v. Hubert Jeffrey Webb, et al. – Jessica Alfaro's Testimony Fallible
Must Acquit the Others Too - Webb’s documented alibi altogether impeaches Alfaro's testimony, not
only with respect to him, but also with respect to Lejano, Estrada, Fernandez, Gatchalian, Rodriguez,
and Biong. For, if the Court accepts the proposition that Webb was in the U.S. when the crime took
place, Alfaro’s testimony will not hold together. Webb’s participation is the anchor of Alfaro’s story.
Without it, the evidence against the others must necessarily fall.
People v. Maqueda – State Witness Application was Admission
Admission to Prosecutor (for state witness) + Salvosa (Private Person) ADMISSIBLE.
The admissions made to Prosecutor Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa are not governed by the exclusionary
rules under the Bill of Rights. They were made voluntarily and freely not in the course of an investigation
but in connection with his plea to be utilized as a state witness. Further, the admission was also made
to a PRIVATE PERSON, hence admissible.
The application for bail stated that he was the LEAST GUILTY. Admissible. Defense of alibi is futile,
because by his own admission of his participation in the crime, he is also guilty.
People v. Alegre – Silence of Accused
Cudillan's EJC are NOT admissible against co-accused – The confession cannot be competent proof
against appellants Ramiro Alegre and Jesus Medalla, under the principle of res inter alios acta alteri
nocere non debet" (Rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by n act, declaration, or omission of another."
Accused's Silence CANNOT be Used Against them – It was error for the trial court to draw from
appellant's silence while under police custody, in the face of incriminatory statements of Melecio
Cudillan, the conclusion that the aforesaid appellants had tacitly admitted their guilt.
People v. Yip Wai Ming -
Destreza's Testimony Unreliable – Destreza, 19-year old cultural dancer, testified that she heard
banging sounds from 9:15 to 9:45. The court believes that was too long to kill a woman. Further, her
memory was unreliable, given the fact that she could not remember her Australian boyfriend's arrival
in the Philippines. How could she remember the banging sounds then?
Custodial Investigation Violative of Yip's Rights – Yip stated that 5 policemen beat him up, forced
him to undress, forced beer and water onto this face until he confessed to the crime. He was not even
informed of his Miranda rights. Admission is inadmissible.
People v. Wong Chuen Ming – Signature on Drugs is a Confession
Not informed of Miranda rights – A study of the records reveal that the accused were never informed
of their fundamental rights during the entire time they were under investigation. They were not
informed of their Miranda rights but were made to affix their signatures on the Alpen Cereals while
they were at NAIA and at Camp Crame. Danilo Gomez admitted this fatal lapse, so did Captain Francisco.
Signatures amount to uncounseled EJC – The signatures amounting to uncounseled extrajudicial
confession not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights, they are inadmissible as evidence. The fact that they are
all foreign nationals does not exclude them from the application of the exclusionary rule because the
constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and extend to all persons, both aliens
and citizens.
Parker v. Randolph – Confrontation Clause
The Confrontation Clause has never been held to bar the admission into evidence of every relevant
extrajudicial statement made by a non-testifying declarant simply because it in some way incriminates
the defendant.
The right of confrontation does not preclude the admission of a co-defendant’s admission. It is enough
that jury is instructed to consider the statement against the source is enough safeguard. Incriminating
statements of a co-defendant will seldom, if ever, be of "devastating" effect when the incriminated
defendant has already admitted his own guilt.
TOTO'S RECOMMENDATION - People v. Andan
Confession to Police + Bags of AAA Inadmisslbe - Appellant was already under custodial investigation
when he confessed to the police. It is admitted that the police failed to inform appellant of his
constitutional rights when he was investigated and interrogated. His confession is therefore
inadmissible in evidence. So too were the two bags recovered from appellant's house. SPO2 xxx, a
member of the investigating team testified. The victim's bags were the fruits of appellant's uncounselled
confession to the police. They are tainted evidence, hence also inadmissible.
Confession to Mayor ADMISSIBLE - It is true that a municipal mayor has "operational supervision and
control" over the local police and may arguably be deemed a law enforcement officer for purposes of
applying Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution.
However, appellant's confession to the mayor was not made in response to any interrogation by the
latter. In fact, the mayor did not question appellant at all. No police authority ordered appellant to talk
to the mayor. It was appellant himself who spontaneously, freely and voluntarily sought the mayor for
a private meeting. When appellant talked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement
officer, his uncounselled confession to him did not violate his constitutional rights.
Thus, it has been held that the constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a
spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary
manner whereby appellant orally admitted having committed the crime. What the Constitution bars is
the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions.
Appellant's confessions to the media were likewise properly admitted. The confessions were made in
response to questions by news reporters, not by the police or any other investigating officer. We have
held that statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are
deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 62
 4. Previous Conduct as Evidence
Section 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.
GR – The law will not consider evidence that a person has done a certain act at a particular time as
probative of a contention that he has done a similar act at another time.
• Similar conduct which does not even sufficiently establish a plan or scheme is NOT admissible
PROPENSITY EVIDENCE – Evidence that tends to show that what a person has done at one time is
probative of the contention that he has done a similar act at another time.
• Evidence of similar acts or occurrences compels the defendant to meet allegations that are
not mentioned in the complaint, confuses him in his defense, raises a variety of relevant
issues, and diverts the attention of the court from the issues immediately before it.
• Despite previous conviction of similar offenses, the court commits an error if it considers such
circumstance for the purpose of showing that he was likely to commit the crimes charged in
the indictment.
EXC – When is evidence of similar acts or previous conduct admissible? Following purposes:
(a) Specific Intent
(b) Knowledge
(c) Identity
(d) Plan
(e) System
(f) Scheme
(g) Habit
(h) Custom
(i) Usage
(j) And the like
• Evidence of similar acts may frequently become relevant, especially in actions based on fraud
and deceit, because it sheds light on the state of mind or knowledge of a person, his motive
or intent, or they may uncover a scheme, design, or plan.
• Admissibility of similar acts or previous conduct would depend on the purposes for which
such acts or conduct are offered
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; but it may be received to prove a specific intent
or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.
To determine numerous enough, criteria is –
(1) Adequate Sampling
(2) Uniformity of Response
Section 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)
Unaccepted offer; relate to tender of payment (Article 1256, New Civil Code; also the law on
consignation)
Article 1256. If the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made refuses without just cause to
accept it, the debtor shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the thing or sum due.
Consignation alone shall produce the same effect in the following cases:
(1) When the creditor is absent or unknown, or does not appear at the place of payment;
(2) When he is incapacitated to receive the payment at the time it is due;
(3) When, without just cause, he refuses to give a receipt;
(4) When two or more persons claim the same right to collect;
(5) When the title of the obligation has been lost.
Article 1257. In order that the consignation of the thing due may release the obligor, it must first be
announced to the persons interested in the fulfillment of the obligation.
The consignation shall be ineffectual if it is not made strictly in consonance with the provisions which
regulate payment.
Article 1258. Consignation shall be made by depositing the things due at the disposal of judicial authority,
before whom the tender of payment shall be proved, in a proper case, and the announcement of the
consignation in other cases.
The consignation having been made, the interested parties shall also be notified thereof.
Article 1259. The expenses of consignation, when properly made, shall be charged against the creditor.
Article 1260. Once the consignation has been duly made, the debtor may ask the judge to order the
cancellation of the obligation.
Before the creditor has accepted the consignation, or before a judicial declaration that the consignation
has been properly made, the debtor may withdraw the thing or the sum deposited, allowing the obligation
to remain in force.
Article 1261. If, the consignation having been made, the creditor should authorize the debtor to withdraw
the same, he shall lose every preference which he may have over the thing. The co-debtors, guarantors
and sureties shall be released.
Gang of 5 was apprehended after ambushing an armored car and took away money and fired at the
guards inside the armored car. They are brought to Camp Crame and detained. 3 of them do not have
lawyers. They all want to make their statements. Lawyer arrives, drinking buddies of the police, and the
police asked if they can be represented by the lawyer-friend. They said yes. Statements written turn out
to be virtual confessions.
• Not admissible – It must be counsel of accused's CHOICE.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 63
Boston Bank v. Manalo – Business Usage, Sale of Xavierville Lots * SECTION 28, RULE ON EXAMINATION OF CHILD WITNESS

No evidence of Business Usage - The Spouses Manalo failed to allege and prove that as a matter of
business usage, habit, or pattern of conduct, XEI granted all lot buyers the right to pay the balance of
the purchase price in installments of 120 or 180 months with pre-computed interests and that XEI and
respondents had intended to adopt such terms of payment relative to the sale. While they provided 3
contracts of other lot buyers, only proves XEI continued to sell lots but not prove usage, habit or pattern.
No evidence was presented that XEI or OBM and all the lot buyers had executed contracts of conditional
sale containing uniform terms and conditions. There is no evidence on record that XEI granted the same
right to buyers of 2 or more lots.
Section 28. Hearsay exception in child abuse cases. - A statement made by a child describing any act or attempted act of
child abuse, not otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in evidence in any criminal or non-criminal
proceeding subject to the following rules:
(a) Before such hearsay statement may be admitted, its proponent shall make known to the adverse party the intention to
offer such statement and its particulars to provide him a fair opportunity to object. If the child is available, the court shall,
upon motion of the adverse party, require the child to be present at the presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-
examination by the adverse party. When the child is unavailable, the fact of such circumstance must be proved by the
proponent.
(b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall consider the time, content and circumstances
thereof which provide sufficient indicia of reliability. It shall consider the following factors:

(1) Whether there is a motive to lie;

Dallas Railway & Terminal v. Farnsworth – Testimony on Prior Conduct
(2) The general character of the declarant child;

In the case before us testimony that the operator of the street car hurried his starting of the car, after (3) Whether more than one person heard the statement;
making three stops a short time before the accident in which Farnsworth was injured, tended to prove
(4) Whether the statement was spontaneous;
the state of his mind or the condition of his nerves, that is, that he was in a hurry, and so was relevant
and of some probative value on the issue as to whether he failed to give Farnsworth an opportunity to (5) The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant child and witness;
get beyond the overhang of the car before starting it.
(6) Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant child;

The 3 stops testified about were made on the same rune as that on which Farnsworth was injured within
7 to 10-minute intervals and not more than 3 or 4 miles. Hence, they were not so far removed either in
time or place as to be considered "conduct on other occasions" but were closely related to the
occurrence on which this suit is based that they may be considered as part of the conduct of the
operator resulting in the injury of Farnsworth.
(7) The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is remote; and
(8) The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason to suppose the declarant child
misrepresented the involvement of the accused.
(c) The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following situations:

(1) Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness, or will be exposed to severe psychological
People v. Villacorta - Is the written confession admissible? – YES. injury; or

(2) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by process
The factual circumstances are similar to that of People v. Andan. or other reasonable means.

"It is true that a municipal mayor may arguably be deemed a law enforcement officer for purposes of
applying Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution. However, appellant’s confession to the
mayor was not made in response to any interrogation by the latter. In fact, the mayor did not question
appellant at all. No police authority ordered appellant to talk to the mayor. It was appellant himself
who spontaneously, freely and voluntarily sought the mayor for a private meeting. The mayor did not
know that appellant was going to confess his guilt to him. When appellant talked with the mayor as a
confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his uncounseled confession to him did not violate his
constitutional rights."
(d) When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other admissible
evidence.
The testimony is admissible PROVIDED the same be offered in child abuse cases and the statement
made by the child is one describing any act or attempted act of child abuse
(a) Proponent shall make known to adverse party the intention to offer such statement to
provide him fair opportunity to object before hearsay statement may be admitted
(b) If child is available, court shall, upon motion of adverse party, require the child to be present
at the presentation of hearsay statement for cross-examination by adverse party

(c) When child is unavailable, the fact of such circumstance must be proved by the proponent
and the hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other admissible
evidence

In ruling on admissibility of hearsay statement, the court shall consider the:

(a) Time
(b) Content
(c) Circumstances surrounding the making of the statement

Which would provide sufficient indicia of reliability

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 64
 5. Testimonial Knowledge
Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. —
A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are
derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.
HEARSAY – When a witness testifies on the basis of what others have told him, and not on facts which
he knows of his own personal knowledge.
Bautista's Definition – Out-of-court Statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
Am. Jur Definition – Statement, other than the one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or
hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
• Basis – There is no opportunity to cross-examine the person to whom statements, or writings
are attributed. Court is without opportunity to test the credibility of hearsay statements by
observing the demeanor of the person who made them.
• Considered hearsay when the probative force of the testimony depends on the competency
and credibility of some other person other than the witness himself.
To constitute hearsay, there must be:
(1) An out-of-court statement, oral, written, or non-verbal conduct, made by one other than the
one made by the declarant or witness testifying at the trial.
(2) The out-of-court statement must be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the
out-of-court statement.
Why exclude Hearsay? – Since it is an out-of-court statement, it is not subject to cross-examination and
there is a chance that the speaker might shade the truth or blatantly falsify (Bautista)
• Out-of-court statements precisely because they lack these trial safeguards attending in-court
statements, may easily be fabricated.
• Also, there is in hearsay the inherent dangers of errors in transmission (Morgan & Maguirre)
Elements of Hearsay
(a) Out-of-Court Statement – Oral, Written, Nonverbal conduct intended to be an assertion
(b) Repeated and offered by witness in court to prove the truth of the matters asserted by OCS
* VERBAL OR NON-VERBAL (CONDUCT, ASSERTIVE OR NON-ASSERTIVE) - Hearsay is NOT limited to
oral testimony but also applies to written statements
* INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENT - Statements that are admissible for some relevant reason
independent of their truth or falsity
(1) First Class –
a. Statements which are the very facts in issue.
b. Statements which are circumstantial evidence of the fact in issue
(2) Second Class – Statements of a person
a. Showing his state of mind, mental condition, knowledge, belief, intention, ill-will
and other emotions
b. Which shows his physical condition
c. From which an inference may be made as to the state of mind of another
d. May identify the date, place, person in question
e. Showing the lack of credibility of a witness
* DOUBLE / MULTIPLE HEARSAY – Hearsay statement that contains another hearsay statement
• Double Hearsay – Hearsay within hearsay
• Multiple Hearsay – Hearsay which is more than two levels deep
• EX – Witness Pastor testifies that defendant told him what plaintiff allegedly told defendant.
* NEGATIVE HEARSAY – Hearsay by silence
• Negative Testimony – Silence, absence of testimony as testimony in itself
• EX – "My wife L had not paid anything because she was poor." Without a showing that a
witness would have known of the event had it occurred, his negative statement is based on
insufficient testimonial knowledge and is disregarded or excluded. [ UNC, Murchison ]
• Silver v. New York – Other passengers did not complain
"Evidence of no complaint is too remote and should not be admitted unless, in addition to
the fact that no complaints were made, there is evidence of circumstances indicating that
others similarly situated ate and had opportunity for complaining."
Should the circumstances of the plaintiff and the other passengers as to exposure to the cold
be shown to be substantially the same, the negative evidence that one of the others spoke of
it to the porter might properly be admitted
REMEMBER - Similar-Acts Rule – To admit the negative testimonies of the non-complainants, there
must be a preliminary showing that the they were all similarly situated as the plaintiff.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 65
 6. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule
Section 37. Dying declaration. —
The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death, may be
received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and
surrounding circumstances of such death.
Section 38. Declaration against interest. —
The declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to testify, against the interest of the declarant,
if the fact is asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant's own
interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed
it to be true, may be received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third
persons.
Section 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. —
The act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of another
person related to him by birth or marriage, may be received in evidence where it occurred before the
controversy, and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act
or declaration. The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the
dates when and the places where these fast occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also
facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree.
Section 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. —
The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree
of any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a
member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family books
or charts, engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree.
Section 41. Common reputation. —
Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, respecting facts of public or general interest
more than thirty years old, or respecting marriage or moral character, may be given in evidence.
Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation.
Section 42. Part of res gestae. —
Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res
gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.
Section 43. Entries in the course of business. —
Entries made at, or near the time of transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable
to testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie
evidence, 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.
Section 44. Entries in official records. —
Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or
by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated.
Section 45. Commercial lists and the like. —
Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list,
register, periodical, 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.
Section 46. Learned treatises. —
A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible as
tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert
in the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is
recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject.
Section 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. —
The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, may be given in
evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him.
* DYING DECLARATIONS
Elements of a Dying Declaration
(a) Concerns cause and surrounding circumstances of death
(b) Made when death is imminent and declarant under consciousness of impending death
(c) Declarant would've been competent to testify if he survived
(d) Declaration offered in a case where subject of inquiry involves the declarant's death
People v. Villariez – Rationale for Admitting Dying Declarations
"Statements identifying the assailant, if uttered by a victim on the verge of death, are entitled to the highest
degree of credence and respect. Persons aware of an impending death have been known to be genuinely
truthful in their words and extremely scrupulous in their accusations. The dying declaration is given on the
premise that no one who knows of one's impending death will make a careless and false accusation."
When Admissible -To admit a dying declaration, it must be shown that the declarant believed, at the
time the statement was made, that he was in a dying condition and had given up the hope of surviving.
[ People v. Brioso ]
In Favor and Against – Dying declarations are admissible in favor of the accused as well as against him.
[ U.S. v. Antipolo ]
Possible Test for Admissibility – It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of death
in point of fact that renders a dying declaration admissible. The test is whether the declarant has
abandoned all hopes of survival and looked on death as certainty. (People v. Gatarin)
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 66
* DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST – Declaration made by a person who, at the time his declaration
is presented in evidence, is already dead or unable to testify.
Elements of DAI
(a) Declarant is dead or unable to testify
(b) Declaration known to declarant as against his own interest (pecuniary or moral) + would not
have made it unless he believed it to be true
NOTE – if FAVORABLE to declarant it is self-serving and does not fall under the exception.
Rationale – People normally speak freely and even with untruth when the statement is in their interest
but are usually unwilling to speak falsely against their interest.
* PEDIGREE / FAMILY HISTORY
Pedigree – Relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places where
these facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. Also embraces facts of family history intimately
connected with pedigree.
Elements of Pedigree (Sec. 39)
(a) Declarant is dead or unable to testify
(b) Declarant related by birth or marriage to person whose pedigree is in issue
(c) Declaration made before controversy (ante litem motam)
(d) Relationship between 2 persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration
TIson v. CA – The requirement that there be other proof than the declarations of the declarant as to relationship, does
not apply where it is sought to reach the estate of the declarant himself and not merely to establish a right through
his declarations to the property of some member of the family.
People v. Alegado - All requisites apply in this case. Cornelio Villarosa, the victim’s grandfather, testified as to his
granddaughter’s age. The date of birth of the rape victim is being put in issue; that the declaration of the victim's
grandfather relating to tradition (sending a child to school upon reaching the age of seven) existed long before the
rape case was filed; and that the witness testifying to the said tradition is the maternal grandfather of the rape victim
Family History, Reputation, or Tradition Regarding Pedigree – Involves:
(a) Statement by a member of the family either by consanguinity or affinity
(b) Statement is about the reputation or tradition of the family in respect to the pedigree of any
member of the family
(c) Reputation or tradition is one existing previous to the controversy
Other Evidence – Entries in family bibles or other family books or charters, engravings on rings, family
portraits and the like, MAY be received in evidence of pedigree aside form family tradition or reputation.
* RES GESTAE IN GENERAL
Res Gestae – "Thing having been done"; Statement relating to a startling event or condition made while
the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition…
• Circumstances, facts, and declaration that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its
character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the
idea of deliberation and fabrication.
• Statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the
occasion, without opportunity for declarant to deliberate or fabricate a false statement
• Test - An important consideration is whether there intervened, between the occurrence and
the statement, any circumstance calculated to divert the mind and thus restore the mental
balance of the declarant; and afford an opportunity for deliberation.
• Test – Whether the act, declaration, exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected
with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a party of the
transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to
manufacture testimony. (Schmidt v. Pittsburgh Paper Glass Co.)
• Encompasses exclamations and statements made by either the participants, victims, or
spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or immediately after the commission of the
crime when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous
reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no
opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and fabricate a false statement
Types of Res Gestae – (Bautista – Note that 3 – 5 have no statutory basis)
(1) Verbal Acts
(2) Spontaneous Statements (Excited Utterances)
(3) Present-sense impressions
(4) Declarations of Present State of Mind
(5) Declarations of Present Physical Condition
(1) Verbal Acts
Statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue and giving it a legal significance. (Riano)
• Where the out-of-court statements are not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted
therein, but the fact that the statements themselves were made, they may be provide without
violation of the Hearsay Rule (Bautista)
Requisite Characteristics of Verbal Acts
(a) Principal act to be characterized must be equivocal
(b) Equivocal act must be material to the issue
(c) Statement must accompany the equivocal act
(d) Statement gives a legal significance to the equivocal act
(2) Excited Utterances
Spontaneous statements, to be admitted in evidence, must have the following characteristics:
(a) Startling event / occurrence taking place
(b) Statement made while event is taking place, or immediately prior / subsequent thereto
(c) Statement made before the declarant had the time to contrive a falsehood
(d) Statement relates to circumstances of startling vent or occurrence, or concerns the
occurrence in question and its immediate attending circumstances
Basis for Admissibility – Admissibility of a spontaneous statement is anchored on the theory that the
statement was uttered under circumstances where opportunity to fabricate is absent. The principle
results upon common experience that utterances made under such circumstances are devoid of self-
interest and are in the same category as exclamations. Probability of falsehood is too remote as to be
negligible (People v. Ricaplaza, 23 SCRA 374).
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 67
Factors for Consideration in the Spontaneity of Out-of-Court Statements (People v. Palmores)
(1) Time lapsed between occurrence of act or transaction and making of statement
(2) Place where statement was made
(3) Condition of declarant when he made the statement
(4) Presence or absence of intervening events between occurrence and statement relative to it
(5) Nature and circumstance of statement itself
United States v. Napier – Spontaneous event not always a sudden attack; Newspaper photo!
Newspaper Shocked Victim – The excited utterance was made by the assault
victim upon being shown a newspaper photograph of her assailant whereupon she
immediately exclaimed "He killed me, he killed me!" The exclamation was held to
be spontaneous because it related to a startling event or condition made while the
declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition. The
display of the photograph qualified as a sufficiently startling vent.
(3) Present Sense Impressions
Statement describing or explaining an event or condition, or immediately thereafter (Bautista)
Houston Oxygen Co. v. Davis – Admitted as evidence was the testimony that the
decedent's car passed them about 4 or 5 miles from the scene of the accident, that
it was travelling about 60 or 65 MPH, and was "bouncing up and down in the back
and zig zagging" and that one of them said at the time that "they must have been
drunk, that we would find them somewhere on the road wrecked if they kept the
rate of speed up."
Court accepted the above testimony because they have "exceptional reliability due
to their spontaneity even if they were not triggered by any startling or shocking
event."
Commonwealth v. Coleman – The declaration is "instinctive, rather than
deliberative – in short, the reflex product of immediate sensual impressions,
unaided by retrospective mental action.
(4) Declaration of Present State of Mind
Statements describing a persons then existing state of mind
• "Then existing" Requirement – Eliminates memory problems and the declarant is presumed
to have no difficult in perceiving his own feelings.
Estrada v. Desierto – Statements of a person showing his state of mind are excepted from the Hearsay
Rule as they re independently relevant statements, which are relevant whether they are true or not
because they are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue.
• The published diary of Angara, Estrada's Executive Secretary, containing statements of
Estrada as "Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na, masyado nang masakit. Pagod na ako sa red
tape, bureaucracy, intriga…I just want to clear my name and go…" was admitted as they
reflected Estrada's state of mind and is circumstantial evidence of his intent to resign.
Consumer Surveys are admitted under this exception and proof of truth therein (Am. Jur)
(5) Declaration of Present Physical Condition
Statements usually involving pain. BUT – should not be an "opinion" regarding pain (Bautista)
• Declaration may be an exclamation or a narration. The expression need not be of an
involuntary nature such as a scream, grimace, or groan. Can relate to symptomology,
including the existence of pain, but past symptoms are excluded.
Casualty Insurance v. Salinas – 2 doctors testified for the defendant insurance carrier that plaintiff
suffered little or no pain except for a short period after his injury and was in effect malingering.
• Plaintiff's 3 lay witnesses to whom he complained of present existing pain at various times
subsequent to the injury, were allowed to testify to such complaints.
• Justified by probable spontaneity and absence of memory and perception problems. The out-
of-court statement may be testified to by any witness who overheard it, and there is no
requirement that the person overhearing it be a physician.
* BUSINESS ENTRIES – To be admissible, following must concur:
Requisites for Business Entries
(a) Entrant is dead or unable to testify
(b) Entry made at or near the time of the transactions which they refer
(c) Entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries (Personal Knowledge)
(d) Entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty, whether
legal, contractual, moral, or religious
(e) Entries made in ordinary course of business
Must be through a Duty – If the entrant or his informer was not acting under a business or professional
duty, the entry will be rejected (Bautista, citing Johnson v. Lutz)
"Business" – Any regular, systematic activity, and this would include business concerns and related
enterprises such as hospitals and educational institutions.
• Entry must have been made in the way of business –
• Excludes a diary of doings for one's personal satisfaction and not as a means of livelihood
(Bautista, citing Wigmore)
TOTO: Statement of Accounts – Admissible, since the court only wants a general summary of all
accounts involved. However, it must be testified by one who had position to know how it was made.
* OFFICIAL RECORDS – Imbued with trustworthiness because of the duty that comes with public
service. It is presumed that public servants perform their tasks regularly.
Requisites:
(a) Made by public officer or person enjoined by law to do so
(b) Made in the performance of a duty enjoined by law
(c) Recorder had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him or her stated, which were acquired
through official information
Africa v. Caltex – To qualify their statements as "official information" acquired by the officers who
prepared the reports, the persons who made the statements not only must have personal knowedge of
the facts but must have the duty to give such statements for record. (See full case later)
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 68
* COMMERCIAL LISTS – Certain lists and reports of matters of interests to persons engaged in a Requirement of Identity of Parties – "Privity Test:" Where the party in the former case is in privity
particular occupation are admissible in evidence as exception to the hearsay rule with, or is substantially the same as, a party in the present case.

• PROVIDED – Made by persons engaged in that occupation and are generally used and relied • Privity – Mutual or successive relationships to the same rights or property, and prives are
upon by them and those lists and reports are published. distributed into several classes, according to the manner of the relationship.

• Rationale – It would be impracticable to locate and summon the authors, compilers or
publishers to court.
PNOC Shipping & Transport Corp. v. CA – Price quotations issued personally to an individual, who
requested for them, but which are not published in any list, register, or other compilation on the
relevant subject matter, do NOT qualify under the "commercial list" exception.
Requisites for Commercial List Exception
(a) Statement of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation
(b) Statement contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published compilation
(c) Compilation is published for use of persons engaged in such occupation
(d) Generally used and relied upon by persons in the same occupation
Examples (Bautista, citing Wigmore) – Market quotations, tabulations, price lists, professional, city, and
phone directories, mortality tables, and the like generally used and relied on by the public.
• Credit Reports NOT included – they reflect rumors and other rank hearsay; "opinionated"
* LEARNED TREATISES – Self-explanatory; read Sec. 46
* OTHER EXCEPTIONS
1. Circumstantial Guarantees of Trustworthiness
Federal Rules of Evidence (U.S.) – Has "catch-all" provisions which allow admission of statements
having "circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness" that are equivalent to those in the categorical
or specific exceptions. (Bautista, citing Mueller & Kirkpatrick)
2. Ancient Documents (aside from the exception to the Authentication Rule)
Recitals in these documents are received in proof of their truth. (Bautista, id)
3. Prior Judgments as Evidence of Facts Supporting Them
Growing tendency to hold admissible in a civil action a judgment of conviction in a criminal action as
proof of the facts on which the conviction was obtained. (more of res judicata or collateral estoppel)
• Ex: Conviction for arson against a criminal and the finding that he purposely burned the hosue
down might be conclusive fact in a subsequent civil case.

REQUIREMENT –The matter stated in the treatise itself is of unquestioned authority. • BUT – Applies only to those facts that were actually and necessarily litigated (Bautista, id)

• History books and published findings of scientists fall under this exception
• PROVIDED that an expert on the subject testifies to the expertise of the writer or the court
takes judicial notice of such fact.

(Wigmore) Reasons for Trustworthiness

(1) Learned writers are generally sincere and devoid of any motive to misrepresent
(2) Writer of a learned treatise publishes primarily for his profession and knows that his
conclusions will be subject to professional scrutiny
(3) Probabilities of accuracy are at least greater than the testimony of expert witnesses on stand

* FORMER TESTIMONY ON DEPOSITION – Testimony given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or

administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter.

• Given by one who is deceased or unable to testify.

• Can be given in evidence against the adverse party provided the latter had opportunity to
cross-examine the witness who gave the previous testimony

Elements of Former Testimony on Deposition

(a) Witness is dead or unable to testify
(b) Testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative,
between same parties or those representing the same interests
(c) Former case involved same subject as the present case, though on different causes of action.
(d) Issue testified to by witness in former trial is the same issue involved in present case
(e) Adverse party had chance to cross-examine the witness in the former case

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 69
Estrada v. Desierto – The ban on hearsay does NOT include statements which are relevant
independently of whether they are true or not, like statements of a person to show, among others, his
state of mind, mental condition, knowledge, belief, intention, ill-will and other emotions.

3-7-12-18 Rule (People v. Villarama)

• Best evidence to prove age – Birth Certificate

• Alternative – Other similar documents: Baptismal certificate, Report Card
• If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is lost – testimony of victim's mother

If victim is alleged to be 3, and is sought to be proven is 7

If the victim is alleged to 7, and is sought to be proven is 12

Silver v. New York Central Railroad – Negative Testimony; Non-complainants in Cold car

Facts – Plaintiff woman suffered ill effects while a passenger in defendant's train because the
temperature in her car became too cold for her. The porter in plaintiff's car was allowed to testify as to
the temperature conditions in that car, but he was not permitted to give evidence that the eleven other
passengers in that car made no complaint to him as to the temperature.

Held – In Landfield v. Albiani Lunch Co., the plaintiff alleged that he had been made ill by eating beans
purchased at the defendant's restaurant. Subject to exception, evidence was admitted that on that day
and on the day preceding, no complaint as to the beans was made by any other customer.

"The fact that people other than the plaintiff ate of the food complained of without ill effects is
competent evidence that it was not unwholesome….There is a reasonable inference based on common
experience that one who ate and suffered as he believed in consequence would make complaint."

Should the circumstances of the plaintiff and the other passengers as to exposure to the cold be shown
to be substantially the same, the negative evidence that one of the others spoke of it to the porter might
properly be admitted.

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 70
 7. Opinion Rule * EXPERT OPINION - The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience or training which he shown to possess, may be received in evidence. (S-KSET)
Section 48. General rule. —
• Issue – Whether or not a matter is "technical" as to require expert testimony
The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as indicated in the following sections. • Due to his expertise, an expert need not have personal knowledge. (Toto)

Section 49. Opinion of expert witness. — What may ot be technical may actually be so – What may not obviously be technical may actually be so,
as where the parties cannot agree on the basis of the physical facts as to which side of the highway the
The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he collision occurred. (Een v. Consolidated Frieghtways)
is shown to possess, may be received in evidence.
Examination of Experts – Before expert testifies, must be pre-qualified on "Voir Dire" Examination
to establish his expertise on the subject on which he is proposed to testify.
Section 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. —
• Voir Dire – "To Qualify;" it must be seen that way. Preliminary examination of a witness by
The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding — judge or counsel (Possess + Special) - - Bautista
(a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge; Hypothetical Question - Where the opinion is to be premised partly or wholly on unproved or disputed
facts, the customary method is to pose the question to the expert in a hypothetical form;
(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
• But question cannot incorporate the opinion of other expert witnesses (opinion on opinion)
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
• NOT required to do HQ – As long as premises for expert opinion can be tested on cross-
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a
examination.
person.
• Elicitation of expert opinion by direct, as contrasted to hypothetical question, is permissible
GENERAL RULE – Opinions of witnesses are NOT admissible where the facts upon which the questioner relies are either undisputed or are the result of
firsthand knowledge.
EXCEPTIONS – 3 Types of Exceptions for Admitting Opinions
* CONCURRENT EXPERT EVIDENCE – "Hot Tub" Method
(1) Technical Matters – Expert Opinion with special knowledge, skill, experience, or training
• ISAA v. Greenpeace – In a "hot tub" hearing, the judge can hear all the experts discussing
(2) Non-Technical Matters – Lay opinion may be received referring to:
the same issue at the same time to explain each of their points in a discussion with a
a. Identity of a person whom he has adequate knowledge of
professional colleague. The objective is to achieve greater efficiency and expedition, by
b. Handwriting which he has sufficient familiarity
reduced emphasis on cross-examination and increased emphasis on professional dialogue,
c. Mental Sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted
and swifter identification of the critical areas of disagreement between the experts.
(3) Impressions – Lay opinion on subject's emotion, behavior, condition, or appearance
* ADMISSIBILITY OF POLYGRAPH RESULTS
* FACT-OPINION DICHOTOMY - The difference between the statement "He was driving on the left-
POLYGRAPH - electromechanical instrument that simultaneously measures and records certain
hand side of the road," which is a fact, and "he was driving carelessly," which would be called an opinion,
physiological changes in the human body that are believed to be involuntarily caused by an examinee's
is merely a difference between a more concrete and specific form of descriptive statement and a less
conscious attempt to deceive the questioner.
specific and concrete form. The difference between fact and opinion is no difference between opposites
or contrasting absolutes, but a mere difference in degree with no recognizable line to mark the
• Operates on the principle that stress causes physiological changes in the body which can
boundary. (Bautista, citing Wigmore and McCormick)
be measured to indicate whether the subject-person is telling the truth

FACTS
Something that is true about a subject
and can be tested or proven.
Objective situations or happenings
Readily available and observable
OPINION However, courts accordingly and uniformly reject the results of polygraph tests when offered in
What something thinks, evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence of one accused of a crime, whether the
feels, or believes accused or the prosecution seeks its introduction, for the reason that polygraph has not as yet attained
scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception.
Subjective description
The rule is no different in this jurisdiction. Thus, in People v. Daniel, stating that much faith and credit
Superfluous; unneeded should not be vested upon a lie detector test as it is not conclusive. Appellant, in this case, has not
advanced any reason why this rule should not apply to him. (People v. Adoviso)

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 71
* LAY OPINION • Refers to: Evidence of common observers, testifying to the results of their observation made
at the time in regard to common appearances of facts, and a condition of things which cannot
4 Matters which a Lay Witness Can Testify on as to Opinion: be reproduced and made palpable to a jury.
(1) Identity
(2) Handwriting SHORT HAND DESCRIPTIONS – Where it is not possible to break an opinion into its rudimentary
(3) Sanity components, lay opinion in "short-hand" form may be admitted.
(4) Emotion, behavior, condition, or appearance of a person.
• If their inferences, drawn from their observation of the facts, are such as to justify confidence,
In the first 3 – Witness has enough firsthand knowledge of the pertinent facts and data so that his and the facts and proper inferences therefrom are so blended as to make separation difficult,
inference or opinion is rationally based on his perception. they may generally state their conclusions.

• People v. Duranan – Mother of an offended party in a case of rape, though not a psychiatrist, • EX: "such terrible shape" and "physically ill"
if she knows the physical and mental condition of the party, how she was born, what she is
suffering from, and what her attainments are, is competent to testify. • Rationale - It would be hard to describe the matter in any other way, and anyway, cross-
examination removes the likelihood of any harm from admission of such testimony.
• Where it is not possible to break an opinion into its rudimentary components, lay opinion in
Short-hand form may be admitted (See below)

How Related to Rule 132 on Authentication and Proof of Documents

Section 20. Proof of private document. — Before any private document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:

(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. (21a)

Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. — Where a
private document is more than thirty years old, is produced from the custody in which it would naturally
be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other
evidence of its authenticity need be given.

Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The handwriting of a person may be
proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person
write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has
thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also
be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine
by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.

Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The handwriting of a person may be proved by
any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write or
has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be
given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by
the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.

* "COLLECTIVE FACTS" RULE - Impressions which are based upon a great variety of circumstances and
a combination of appearances, which because either of the witness' infirmity or the infirmity of our
language cannot be adequately or better expressed, may be testified to by those who have personally
observed the facts.

• Answers which relate to a matter not requiring expert knowledge, are admissible. Such
statements are not mere opinions, but impressions drawn from observed fact, sometimes
called the "collective facts rule."

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 72
Domingo v. Domingo, G.R. No. 150897, 11 April 2005
Tijing v. CA, 345 SCRA 17, relate to (other) DNA cases, supra
ISAAA v. Greenpeace (and related cases), G.R. No. 209271, 08 December 2015
Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission, etc., 383 SCRA 326 (2002)
People v. Duranan, 349 SCRA 181 (2001)
Virginia Ry. & Power Co. v. Burr, 145 Va. 338, 133 S.E. 776
Hernandez v. Juan-Santos, 595 SCRA 464 (2009)
People v. Adovisio, 309 SCRA 1
State v. Garver (US Case) – On Short Hand Descriptions
The general rule, of course, is that a lay witness may testify only to facts and not to opinions or
conclusions.
But lay witnesses are frequently permitted to use so-called "short hand" descriptions, [which] in reality
[are considered] opinions, in presenting to the court their impression of the general physical condition
of a person.
This court has held it proper in a personal injury case to permit laymen, who were intimately
acquainted with the plaintiff prior to her injury and observed her condition thereafter, to testify that
her health and general physical condition had materially changed for the worse.
This seems to us to be a commonsense view of the matter. It leaves the witness free to speak his
ordinary language, unbewildered by admonitions from the judge to testify to facts, when all the while
the witness is sure in his own mind that he is testifying to facts. The jury understands what the witness
means, and the right of cross-examination removes the likelihood of harm to the other side. Too strict
an adherence to the "opinion" rule is undesirable.
When a witness of less than ordinary education and powers of expression is on the stand, technical
rulings not infrequently result in bickerings between counsel and vain attempts of the court to make
the witness comply with its rulings; while in the end the opinion of the witness usually comes out
anyway, and nothing whatever is gained.
U.S. v. Stifel, F. 2d 431, 1970
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 73
 8. CHARACTER EVIDENCE

Section 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; 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.

(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is pertinent
to the moral trait involved in 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.

(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.

(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14,

Rule 132, Section 14

Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness. — Evidence of the good

character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached.

Rape Shield Law

Section 6. Rape Shield. - In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant's past

sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted
unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is material
and relevant to the case.

RATIONALE – Confuses the court. There can be inherent bias. Court interested in proving facts at hand,
not things subjective in character.

Before a witness may be impeached on inconsistent statements, it must relate to him, and asked
whether he made it and allowed to explain.

VAWC –

RAPE SHIELD – Section 6

xxxxx

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 74
 BONUS LECTURE - PROCESS; PERPETUATION OF TESTIMONY; Section 6. Service. — Service of a subpoena shall be made in the same manner as personal
or substituted service of summons. The original shall be exhibited and a copy thereof delivered to the
DISCOVERY; EXAMINATIONS person on whom it is served, tendering to him the fees for one day's attendance and the kilometrage
allowed by these Rules, except that, when a subpoena is issued by or on behalf of the Republic of the
RULE 21 – SUBPOENA Philippines or an officer or agency thereof, the tender need not be made. The service must be made so
as to allow the witness a reasonable time for preparation and travel to the place of attendance. If the
Section 1. Subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. — Subpoena is a process directed to a subpoena is duces tecum, the reasonable cost of producing the books, documents or things demanded
person requiring him to attend and to testify at the hearing or the trial of an action, or at any shall also be tendered. (6a, R23)
investigation conducted by competent authority, or for the taking of his deposition. It may also require
him to bring with him any books, documents, or other things under his control, in which case it is called Section 7. Personal appearance in court. — A person present in court before a judicial
a subpoena duces tecum. (1a, R23) officer may be required to testify as if he were in attendance upon a subpoena is sued by such court or
officer. (10, R23)
Section 2. By whom issued. — The subpoena may be issued by —
Section 8. Compelling attendance. — In case of failure of a witness to attend, the court or
(a) the court before whom the witness is required to attend; judge issuing the subpoena, upon proof of the service thereof and of the failure of the witness, may
issue a warrant to the sheriff of the province, or his deputy, to arrest the witness and bring him before
(b) the court of the place where the deposition is to be taken; the court or officer where his attendance is required, and the cost of such warrant and seizure of such
witness shall be paid by the witness if the court issuing it shall determine that his failure to answer the
(c) the officer or body authorized by law to do so in connection with investigations conducted by subpoena was willful and without just excuse. (11, R23)
said officer or body; or
Section 9. Contempt. — Failure by any person without adequate cause to obey a subpoena
(d) any Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals in any case or investigation served upon him shall be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena is issued. If the
pending within the Philippines. subpoena was not issued by a court, the disobedience thereto shall be punished in accordance with the
applicable law or Rule. (12a R23)
When application for a subpoena to a prisoner is made, the judge or officer shall examine and study
carefully such application to determine whether the same is made for a valid purpose.
Section 10. Exceptions. — The provisions of sections 8 and 9 of this Rule shall not apply to a
No prisoner sentenced to death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment and who is confined in any witness who resides more than one hundred (100) kilometers from his residence to the place where he
penal institution shall be brought outside the said penal institution for appearance or attendance in is to testify by the ordinary course of travel, or to a detention prisoner if no permission of the court in
any court unless authorized by the Supreme Court (2a, R23) which his case is pending was obtained. (9a, R23)

A subpoena duces tecum may be quashed upon motion if:

Section 3. Form and contents. — A subpoena shall state the name of the court and the title
of the action or investigation, shall be directed to the person whose attendance is required, and in the
a) Issuance is unreasonable or oppressive
case of a subpoena duces tecum, it shall also contain a reasonable description of the books, documents
b) Relevancy of books, documents does not appear
or things demanded which must appear to the court prima facie relevant. (3a, R23)
c) Persons in whose behalf subpoena is issued fails to advance reasonable cost of production
for the objects sought
Section 4. Quashing a subpoena. — The court may quash a subpoena duces tecum upon
motion promptly made and, in any event, at or before the time specified therein if it is unreasonable A Subpoena AD TESIFICANDUM may be quashed: Witness is not bound thereby
and oppressive, or the relevancy of the books, documents or things does not appear, or if the person
in whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the reasonable cost of the production thereof. For BOTH – Can be quashed if witness fees and kilometrage allowed by these Rules were not tendered
when subpoena was served.
The court may quash a subpoena ad testificandum on the ground that the witness is not bound thereby.
In either case, the subpoena may be quashed on the ground that the witness fees and kilometrage Subpoena Ad Testificandum - Directive to the addressee to appear in the court at the date and time
allowed by these Rules were not tendered when the subpoena was served. (4a, R23) place specified and to testify

Section 5. Subpoena for depositions. — Proof of service of a notice to take a deposition, as Subpoena DUCES Tecum – Directive to bring documents; must be specific and pass what is called
provided in sections 15 and 25 of Rule 23, shall constitute sufficient authorization for the issuance of “Test of Sufficiency” and “Description”
subpoenas for the persons named in said notice by the clerk of the court of the place in which the
deposition is to be taken. The clerk shall not, however, issue a subpoena duces tecum to any such REMEDY AGAINST SUBPOENA – Motion to Quash
person without an order of the court. (5a, R23)
Who can issue? – Sec. 2

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 75
What is REASONABLE? - Must submit proof and substantiation
PERSONAL APPERANCE
• If you get a SAT, must appear when attendance is required, regardless of the fact if you have
a reason not to testify (Ex: Right against Self-incrimination)
• Cannot merely say “I don’t want to attend” – If you refuse, Warrant of Arrest can be issued.
• Do Not ignore the subpoena, you must at the very least APPEAR and show cause as to why
you won’t testify.
PAGDILAO v. ANGELES – Addresees of the subpoena were POLICEMEN
How to Serve
(1) Mail
(2) Courier – Date of actual receipt will control, NOT date of mail
UNIVERSAL RUBBER PRODUCTS V. CA - As a general rule, when an injunction is awarded for
infringement of trademark, complainant is entitled to an accounting and recovery of defendant’s profits
on the goods sold, as an incident to complainant’s property right. This applies to unfair competition.
The infringer/unfair trader is required to account for the gains similar to how a trustee is charged to
account for the wrongful use of his trustor’s property, the profits being regarded as equitable measure
of compensation for complainant.
RULE 22 – COMPUTATION OF TIME
Section 1. How to compute time. — In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed
by these Rules, or by order of the court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act or event from
which the designated period of time begins to run is to be excluded and the date of performance
included. If the last day of the period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday a Sunday, or a legal holiday
in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the next working day. (a)
Section 2. Effect of interruption. — Should an act be done which effectively interrupts the
running of the period, the allowable period after such interruption shall start to run on the day after
notice of the cessation of the cause thereof.
The day of the act that caused the interruption shall be excluded in the computation of the period. (n)
Nothing complicated – Include first day, exclude last day. That’s it…
If the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday in the place where the court is, the period
will NOT RUN until the next working day.
• Hence, number of days do not run on the holidays and pauses
• NACTOR v. IAC
• LUZ v. NAC – Saturdays included (ROC says so too)
If you’re filing an ORIGINAL PETITION (Notice of Appeal), period is computed from the 2 nd day from
receipt of the judgment
If you’re filing a MOTION FOR EXTENSION or any petition subject to review or extension, and if the 15 th
day falls on a Sat, Sun, or Legal Holiday, it must be filed BEFORE such day.
• Unlike the original petition rule, the 15 day should not be used fully
• WHY? – There is no certainty that your extension will be granted.
• The Motion must be filed within the original 15-day period to file the respective petition asked
by the court. Do not let the 15 days’ lapse.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 76
 MODES OF DISCOVERY
RULE 23 - Depositions Pending Action
Section 1. Depositions pending action, when may be taken. —
By leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over property which is the
subject of the action, or without such leave after an answer has been served, the testimony of any
person, whether a party or not, may be taken, at the instance of any party, by deposition upon oral
examination or written interrogatories. The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by the use of a
subpoena as provided in Rule 21. Depositions shall be taken only in accordance with these Rules. The
deposition of a person confined in prison may be taken only by leave of court on such terms as the
court prescribes. (1a, R24)
Section 2. Scope of examination. —
Unless otherwise ordered by the court as provided by section 16 or 18 of this Rule, the deponent may
be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject of the pending action,
whether relating to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature,
custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and
location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts. (2, R24)
Section 3. Examination and cross-examination. — Examination and cross-examination of
deponents may proceed as permitted at the trial under sections 3 to 18 of Rule 132. (3a, R24)
Section 4. Use of depositions. — At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an
interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of
evidence, may be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition
or who had due notice thereof, in accordance with any one of the following provisions;
(a) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the
testimony of deponent as a witness;
(b) The deposition of a party or of any one who at the time of taking the deposition was an officer,
director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation, partnership, or association
which is a party may be used by an adverse party for any purpose;
(c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose
if the court finds: (1) that the witness is dead, or (2) that the witness resides at a distance
more than one hundred (100) kilometers from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the
Philippines, unless it appears that his absence was procured by the party offering the
deposition, or (3) that the witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, sickness,
infirmity, or imprisonment, or (4) that the party offering the deposition has been unable to
procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena; or (5) upon application and notice, that
such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the interest of justice and
with due regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open
court, to allow the deposition to be used; and
(d) If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, the adverse party may require
him to introduce all of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce
any other parts. (4a, R24)
Section 5. Effect of substitution of parties. — Substitution of parties does not affect the
right to use depositions previously taken; and, when an action has been dismissed and another action
involving the same subject is afterward brought between the same parties or their representatives or
successors in interest, all depositions lawfully taken and duly filed in the former action may be used in
the latter as if originally taken therefor. (5, R24)
Section 6. Objections to admissibility. — Subject to the provisions of section 29 of this Rule,
objection may be made at the trial or hearing, to receiving in evidence any deposition or part thereof
for any reason which would require the exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then present and
testifying (6, R24)
Section 7. Effect of taking depositions. — A party shall not be deemed to make a person his
own witness for any purpose by taking his deposition. (7, R24)
Section 8. Effect of using depositions. — The introduction in evidence of the deposition or
any part thereof for any purpose other than that of contradicting or impeaching the deponent makes
the deponent the witness of the party introducing the deposition, but this shall not apply to the use by
an adverse party of a deposition as described in paragraph (b) of section 4 of this Rule. (8, R24)
Section 9. Rebutting deposition. — At the trial or hearing any party may rebut any relevant
evidence contained in a deposition whether introduced by him or by any other party. (9, R24)
Section 10. Persons before whom depositions may be taken within the Philippines. —
Within the Philippines depositions may be taken before any judge, notary public, or the person referred
to in section 14 hereof. (10a, R24)
Section 11. Persons before whom depositions may be taken in foreign countries. — In a
foreign state or country, depositions may be taken (a) on notice before a secretary of embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines, (b)
before such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or under letters rogatory; or (c) the
person referred to in section 14 hereof. (11a, R24)
Section 12. Commission or letters rogatory. — A commission or letters rogatory shall be
issued only when necessary or convenient, on application and notice, and on such terms, and with such
direction as are just and appropriate. Officers may be designated in notices or commissions either by
name or descriptive title and letters rogatory may be addressed to the appropriate judicial authority in
the foreign country. (12a, R24)
Section 13. Disqualification by interest. — No deposition shall be taken before a person who
is a relative within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or employee or counsel of any of the
parties, or who is a relative within the same degree, or employee of such counsel; or who is financially
interested in the action. (13a, R24)
Section 14. Stipulations regarding taking of depositions. — If the parties so stipulate in
writing, depositions may be taken before any person authorized to administer oaths, at any time or
place, in accordance with these Rules and when so taken may be used like other depositions. (14a, R24)
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 77
Section 15. Deposition upon oral examination; notice; time and place. — A party desiring
to take the deposition of any person upon oral examination shall give reasonable notice in writing, to
every other party to the action. The notice shall state the time and place for taking the deposition and
the name and address of each person to be examined, if known, and if the name is not known, a general
description sufficient to identify him or the particular class or group to which he belongs. On motion of
any party upon whom the notice is served, the court may for cause shown enlarge or shorten the time.
(15, R24)
Section 16. Orders for the protection of parties and deponents. — After notice is served for
taking a deposition by oral examination, upon motion seasonably made by any party or by the person
to be examined and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending may make an order
that the deposition shall not be taken, or that it may be taken only at some designated place other than
that stated in the notice, or that it may be taken only on written interrogatories, or that certain matters
shall not be inquired into, or that the scope of the examination shall be held with no one present except
the parties to the action and their officers or counsel, or that after being sealed the deposition shall be
opened only by order of the court, or that secret processes, developments, or research need not be
disclosed, or that the parties shall simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in
sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court or the court may make any other order which
justice requires to protect the party or witness from annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression.
Section 17. Record of examination, oath; objections. — The officer before whom the
deposition is to be taken shall put the witness on oath and shall personally, or by some one acting under
his direction and in his presence, record the testimony of the witness. The testimony shall be taken
stenographically unless the parties agree otherwise. All objections made at the time of the examination
to the qualifications of the officer taking the deposition, or to the manner of talking it, or to the evidence
presented, or to the conduct of any party, and any other objection to the proceedings, shall be noted
by the officer upon the deposition. Evidence objected to shall be taken subject to the objections. In lieu
of participating in the oral examination, parties served with notice of taking a deposition may transmit
written interrogatories to the officers, who shall propound them to the witness and record the answers
verbatim.
Section 18. Motion to terminate or limit examination. — At any time during the taking of
the deposition, on motion or petition of any party or of the deponent, and upon a showing that the
examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass,
or oppress the deponent or party, the court in which the action is pending or the Regional Trial Court
of the place where the deposition is being taken may order the officer conducting the examination to
cease forthwith from taking the deposition, or may limit the scope and manner of the taking of the
deposition, as provided in section 16 of this Rule. If the order made terminates the examination, it shall
be resumed thereafter only upon the order of the court in which the action is pending. Upon demand
of the objecting party or deponent, the taking of the deposition shall be suspended for the time
necessary to make a notice for an order. In granting or refusing such order, the court may impose upon
either party or upon the witness the requirement to pay such costs or expenses as the court may deem
reasonable.
Section 19. Submission to witness; changes; signing. — When the testimony is fully
transcribed, the deposition shall be submitted to the witness for examination and shall be read to or
by him, unless such examination and reading are waived by the witness and by the parties. Any changes
in form or substance which the witness desires to make shall be entered upon the deposition by the
officer with a statement of the reasons given by the witness for making them. The deposition shall then
be signed by the witness, unless the parties by stipulation waive the signing or the witness is ill or cannot
be found or refuses to sign. If the deposition is not signed by the witness, the officer shall sign it and
state on the record the fact of the waiver or of the illness or absence of the witness or the fact of the
refusal to sign together with the reason be given therefor, if any, and the deposition may then be used
as fully as though signed, unless on a motion to suppress under section 29 (f) of this Rule, the court
holds that the reasons given for the refusal to sign require rejection of the deposition in whole or in
part. (19a, R24)
Section 20. Certification, and filing by officer. — The officer shall certify on the deposition
that the witness was duly sworn to by him and that the deposition is a true record of the testimony
given by the witness. He shall then securely seal the deposition in an envelope indorsed with the title
of the action and marked "Deposition of (here insert the name of witness)" and shall promptly file it
with the court in which the action is pending or send it by registered mail to the clerk thereof for filing.
Section 21. Notice of filing. — The officer taking the deposition shall give prompt notice of its
filing to all the parties. (21, R24)
Section 22. Furnishing copies. — Upon payment of reasonable charges therefor, the officer
shall furnish a copy of the deposition to any party or to the deponent. (22, R24)
Section 23. Failure to attend of party giving notice. — If the party giving the notice of the
taking of a deposition fails to attend and proceed therewith and another attends in person or by counsel
pursuant to the notice, the court may order the party giving the notice to pay such other party the
amount of the reasonable expenses incurred by him and his counsel in so attending, including
reasonable attorney's fees. (23a, R24)
Section 24. Failure of party giving notice to serve subpoena. — If the party giving the notice
of the taking of a deposition of a witness fails to serve a subpoena upon him and the witness because
of such failure does not attend, and if another party attends in person or by counsel because he expects
the deposition of that witness to be taken, the court may order the party giving the notice to pay to such
other party the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred by him and his counsel in so attending,
including reasonable attorney's fees. (24a, R24)
Section 25. Deposition upon written interrogatories; service of notice and of
interrogatories. — A party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon written interrogatories
shall serve them upon every other party with a notice stating the name and address of the person who
is to answer them and the name or descriptive title and address of the officer before whom the
deposition is to be taken. Within ten (10) days thereafter, a party so served may serve cross-
interrogatories upon the party proposing to take the deposition. Within five (5) days thereafter, the
latter may serve re-direct interrogatories upon a party who has served cross-interrogatories. Within
three (3) days after being served with re-direct interrogatories, a party may serve recross-
interrogatories upon the party proposing to take the deposition. (25, R24)
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 78
Section 26. Officers to take responses and prepare record. — A copy of the notice and
copies of all interrogatories served shall be delivered by the party taking the deposition to the officer
designated in the notice, who shall proceed promptly, in the manner provided by sections 17, 19 and
20 of this Rule, to take the testimony of the witness in response to the interrogatories and to prepare,
certify, and file or mail the deposition, attaching thereto the copy of the notice and the interrogatories
received by him.
Section 27. Notice of filing and furnishing copies. — When a deposition upon interrogatories
is filed, the officer taking it shall promptly give notice thereof to all the parties, and may furnish copies
to them or to the deponent upon payment of reasonable charges therefor. (27, R24)
Section 28. Order for the protection of parties and deponents. — After the service of the
interrogatories and prior to the taking of the testimony of the deponent, the court in which the action
is pending, on motion promptly made by a party or a deponent, and for good cause shown, may make
any order specified in sections 15, 16 and 18 of this Rule which is appropriate and just or an order that
the deposition shall not be taken before the officer designated in the notice or that it shall not be taken
except upon oral examination. (28a, R24)
Section 29. Effect of errors and irregularities in depositions. —
(a) As to notice. — All errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition are waived
unless written objection is promptly served upon the party giving the notice.
(b) As to disqualification of officer. — Objection to taking a deposition because of disqualification
of the officer before whom it is to be taken is waived unless made before the taking of the
deposition begins or as soon thereafter as the disqualification becomes known or could be
discovered with reasonable diligence.
(c) As to competency or relevancy of evidence. — Objections to the competency of witness or
the competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony are not waived by failure to make
them before or during the taking of the deposition, unless the ground, of the objection is one
which might have been obviated or removed if presented at that time.
(d) As to oral examination and other particulars. — Errors and irregularities occurring at the oral
examination in the manner of taking the deposition in the form of the questions or answers,
in the oath or affirmation, or in the conduct of the parties and errors of any kind which might
be obviated, removed, or cured if promptly prosecuted, are waived unless reasonable
objection thereto is made at the taking of the deposition.
(e) As to form of written interrogatories. — Objections to the form of written interrogatories
submitted under sections 25 and 26 of this Rule are waived unless served in writing upon the
party propounding them within the time allowed for serving succeeding cross or other
interrogatories and within three (3) days after service of the last interrogatories authorized.
(f) As to manner of preparation. — Errors and irregularities in the manner in which the
testimony is transcribed or the deposition is prepared, signed, certified, sealed, indorsed,
transmitted, filed, or otherwise dealt with by the officer under sections 17, 19, 20 and 26 of
this Rule are waived unless a motion to suppress the deposition or some part thereof is made
with reasonable promptness after such defect is, or with due diligence might have been,
ascertained. (29a, R24)
RULE 24 Depositions Before Action or Pending Appeal
Section 1. Depositions before action; petition. — 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 may file a verified petition in the court of the place of the residence of any expected
adverse party. (1a R134)
Section 2. 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; (b) the subject matter of the expected action
and his interest therein; (c) the facts which he desires to establish by the proposed testimony and his
reasons for desiring to perpetuate it; (d) the names or a description of the persons he expects will be
adverse parties and their addresses so far as known; 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, 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. (2, R134)
Section 3. Notice and service. — The petitioner shall serve a notice upon each person named
in the petition as an expected adverse party, together with a copy of the petition, stating that the
petitioner will apply to the court, at a time and place named therein, for the order described in the
petition. At least twenty (20) days before the date of the hearing, the court shall cause notice thereof to
be served on the parties and prospective deponents in the manner provided for service of summons.
Section 4. Order and examination. — If the court is satisfied that the perpetuation of the
testimony may prevent a failure or delay of justice, 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. The
depositions may be taken in accordance with Rule 23 before the hearing. (4a, R134)
Section 5. Reference to court. — For the purpose of applying Rule 23 to depositions for
perpetuating testimony, 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. (5a, R134)
Section 6. Use of deposition. — If a deposition to perpetuate testimony is taken under this
Rule, or if, although not so taken, it would be admissible in evidence, it may be used in any action
involving the same subject matter sub-sequently brought in accordance with the provisions of sections
4 and 5 of Rule 23. (6a, R134)
Section 7. Depositions pending appeal. — If an appeal has been taken from a judgment of
a court, including the Court of Appeals in proper cases, or before the taking of an appeal if the time
therefor has not expired, the court in which the judgment was rendered may allow the taking of
depositions of witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for in the event of further proceedings in the
said court. 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, upon the same notice and service thereof as if the action
was pending therein. 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, and (b) the reason for
perpetuating their testimony. If the court finds that the perpetuation of the testimony is proper to avoid
a failure or delay of justice, it may make an order allowing the deposition to be taken, 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, R134)
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 79
 NOTES FROM RIANO EXAMINATION OF THE DEPONENT

DISCOVERY – device employed by a party to obtain information about relevant matters on the case
from the adverse party in preparation for trial.
• PURPOSE – Permit mutual knowledge before trial of all relevant facts gathered by both parties
so that either party may compel the other to disgorge facts whatever he has in his possession.
A party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon oral examination shall give reasonable notice
in writing to every party to the action stating the time and place for the deposition and the name and
address of each person to be examined.
After notice is served, court may make any order for the protection of parties/deponents.
Attendance of the witnesses may be compelled by subpoena

MODES OF DISCOVERY UNDER RULES OF COURT Deponent may be examined or cross-examined following procedures for witnesses in trial. He has the
(1) Depositions Pending Action same rights as a witness and may be impeached like a court witness.
(2) Depositions before action or pending appeal
(3) Interrogatories to Parties SEC. 2 – Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the deponent may be examined regarding any matter
(4) Production or inspection of documents not privileged, which is relevant to the pending action, whether relating to the claim or defense of any
(5) Physical and mental examination of persons. party.

Duty of Court – The court is required to issue an order requiring the parties to avail of the various • Includes existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books
Modes of Discovery. documents or other tangible things.

Deposition – Taking of the testimony of any person, whether he be a party or not, but at the instance
of a party to the action. This is taken out of court.
Two Methods
(1) Oral examination
(2) Written interrogatory
A deposition may be sought for the use in a pending action, future action, or for use in a pending appeal.
DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION; LEAVE OF COURT WHEN REQUIRED
SEC.1, RULE 23 – Leave of court is NOT REQUIRED after an answer has been served, but leave of court
is REQUIRED before the service of an answer but after jurisdiction has been acquired over any
defendant or over the property subject of the action.
• Includes identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts.
SEC. 17 – Officer before whom the deposition is taken has NO AUTHORITY to rule on the objections
interposed during the course of the deposition
• ALTHOUGH – any objections shall be noted by the officer upon the deposition. Any evidence
that is objected to shall still be taken but subject to the objection.
USE OF DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION
SECTION 4 - Any part or all of the deposition as far as admissible under the rules on evidence may be
used:
(a) Against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition, or

DEPOSITION OF A PRISONER – May be taken only with leave of court and upon such terms as the court (b) Against one who had due notice of the deposition.
may prescribe.

BEFORE WHOM TAKEN

SEC. 10 – Within the Philippines, need not be before judge but may be so. Can also be taken before
notary public or any person authorized to administer oaths if the parties so stipulate in writing.

SEC. 11 – Outside the Philippines, deposition may be taken before:

(a) Secretary of an embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul or consular agent of
the Republic
(b) Such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or letters rogatory;
(c) Person authorized to administer oaths by written stipulation.

SEC. 13 – No deposition shall be taken before a person who is:

(a) Relative within 6th degree of consanguinity or affinity, OR employee or counsel of any of
the parties
(b) Relative within same degree or employee of such counsel
(c) One financially interested in the action

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 80
DEPOSITION MAY BE USED FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:
(a) Contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness
(b) Any purpose by the adverse party where the deponent is a party or, at the time of taking
the deposition, was an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private
corporation, which is a party.
(c) For any purpose by any party, where the deponent is a witness, whether or not a party,
if the court finds that:
a. Witness is dead
b. Witness resides more than 100 KM from place of trial OR is out of the Philippines,
unless it appears that his absence was procured by the party offering the
deposition.
c. Witness is unable to attend or testify due to age, sickness, infirmity, or
imprisonment.
d. Party offering the deposition has been unable to procure the attendance of
witnesses by subpoena;
e. Exceptional circumstances exist, upon application and notice.
EFFECT OF SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES
DOES NOT affect right to use the depositions previously taken (Section 5).
Same rule also provides that when an action has been dismissed and another action involving the same
subject and between the same parties, or their representatives or successors in interest, is afterwards
brought, all the depositions lawfully taken and duly filed in the former action may be used in the latter
as if originally taken.
EFFECT OF TAKING DEPOSITION OF A PERSON (SECTION 7)
Person whose deposition is taken by party DOES NOT make such person the witness of said party.
EFFECT OF USING THE DEPOSITION (SECTION 8)
Introduction of the deposition, or any part thereof, makes the deponent a witness of the party
introducing the deposition if used for purpose other than contradicting the testimony of the deponent.
• This rule DOES NOT APPLY to the use by an adverse party of a deposition under paragraph
(b) of Sec. 4 of Rule 23.
ORAL DEPOSITION
SECTION 15 – A party desiring to take deposition of any person upon oral examination shall give to
every party to the action a reasonable notice in writing containing:
(a) Time and place for taking the deposition
(b) Name and address of each person to be examined – if unknown, there must be general
description sufficient to identify him or particular class or group to which he belongs.
SECTION 17. Guidelines for Oral Depositions
(a) Officer must put witness on oath
(b) Testimony must be recorded and taken stenographically
(c) All objections must be noted
(d) Evidence objected to shall be taken but subject to objections
In lieu of participating in the oral examination, parties served with notice of taking deposition may
transmit written interrogatories to the officers who shall propound them to the witness and record the
answers verbatim.
SECTION 19 - When the testimony is fully transcribed
• Deposition shall be submitted to the witness for examination, unless such examination by
him is waived.
• Witness may desire some changes in form and substance which shall be entered upon the
deposition
• Deposition shall be signed by the witness, unless the signing is waived by the parties by
stipulation, or the deposition cannot be signed because the witness is ill, cannot be found, or
if refuses to sign.
DEPOSITION UPON WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES
Deposition NEED NOT BE oral. It may be conducted through written interrogatories
DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION
Type of deposition n is availed of when a person desires to perpetuate his own testimony or that of
another person regarding any matter that may be cognizable in any court of the Philippines.
PERPETUATION OF TESTIMONY BEFORE ACTION – Verified petition in the place of the resident of any
expected adverse party.
• Deposition taken here is admissible in evidence in any action subsequently brought involving
the same subject matter.
DEPOSITIONS PENDING APPEAL
• If an appeal has been taken from a judgment of a court, the court which the judgment was
rendered ay allow the taking of deposition of witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for use
in the event of further proceedings in said court.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 81
 RULE 25 - Interrogatories to Parties
Section 1. Interrogatories to parties; service thereof. — Under the same conditions
specified in section 1 of Rule 23, any party desiring to elicit material and relevant facts from any adverse
parties shall file and serve upon the latter written interrogatories to be answered by the party served
or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association, by any officer
thereof competent to testify in its behalf. (1a)
Section 2. Answer to interrogatories. — The interrogatories shall be answered fully in
writing and shall be signed and sworn to by the person making them. The party upon whom the
interrogatories have been served shall file and serve a copy of the answers on the party submitting the
interrogatories within fifteen (15) days after service thereof unless the court on motion and for good
cause shown, extends or shortens the time. (2a)
Section 3. Objections to interrogatories. — Objections to any interrogatories may be
presented to the court within ten (10) days after service thereof, with notice as in case of a motion; and
answers shall be deferred until the objections are resolved, which shall be at as early a time as is
practicable. (3a)
Section 4. Number of interrogatories. — No party may, without leave of court, serve more
than one set of interrogatories to be answered by the same party. (4)
Section 5. Scope and use of interrogatories. — Interrogatories may relate to any matters
that can be inquired into under section 2 of Rule 23, and the answers may be used for the same
purposes provided in section 4 of the same Rule. (5a)
Section 6. Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories. — Unless thereafter allowed
by the court for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party not served with written
interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to give a
deposition pending appeal. (n)
SEC. 1 – This mode is availed of by a party to the action for the purpose of eliciting material and relevant
facts from any adverse party.
DISTINGUISHED FROM WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES IN A DEPOSITION
Written interrogatories are not served upon the adverse party directly but on the officer designated in
the notice.
• It is a mode separate and distinct from interrogatories to parties.
PROCEDURE – Availed of by filing and serving upon the adverse party written interrogatories
• If the party is a juridical entity, the written interrogatories shall be answered by an of its
officers competent to testify in its behalf.
• No party may, without leave of court, serve more than one set of interrogatories to be
answered by the same party.
• The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall file and serve a copy of the
answers on the party submitting the interrogatories within 15 days after service thereof.
• The filing of the objections shall have the effect of deferring the filing and service of the
answer to the interrogatories until the objections are served.
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO SERVE WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES
SEC. 6 – Party not served with written interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse party to
give testimony in open court, or give deposition pending appeal, unless allowed by the court for good
cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 82
 RULE 26 - Admission by Adverse Party EFFECT OF NOT FILING A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR ADMISSION (SEC. 5)

Section 1. Request for admission. — At any time after issues have been joined, a party may
file and serve upon any other party may file and serve upon any other party a written request for the
admission by the latter of the genuineness of any material and relevant document described in and
exhibited with the request or of the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the
request. Copies of the documents shall be delivered with the request unless copy have already been
furnished. (1a)
Section 2. Implied admission. — Each of the matters of which an admission is requested
shall be deemed admitted unless, within a period designated in the request, which shall not be less
than fifteen (15) days after service thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow on motion,
the party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a
sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting
forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.
Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to the court by the party requested within
the period for and prior to the filing of his sworn statement as contemplated in the preceding paragraph
and his compliance therewith shall be deferred until such objections are resolved, which resolution
shall be made as early as practicable. (2a)
Section 3. Effect of admission. — Any admission made by a party pursuant to such request
is for the purpose of the pending action only and shall not constitute an admission by him for any other
purpose nor may the same be used against him in any other proceeding. (3)
• As a consequence, for failure to avail of this mode, the party shall not be permitted to present
evidence on facts that are material and relevant and which or ought to be within the personal
knowledge of the other party, unless otherwise allowed by the court.
• Within one day from receipt of the complaint, the rule mandates not only the preparation of
the summons but also the issuance of an order requiring the parties to avail of
interrogatories.
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE AND SERVE A SWORN STATEMENT OF DENIAL
Advisable for party to whom the written request is directed to file and serve upon the party requesting
a sworn statement either:
(a) Specifically denying the matters of which admission is requested
(b) If he does NOT deny the same, set forth in the detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully
admit or deny those matters.
SEC. 2 - If the party to whom the written request for admission is directed DOES NOT FILE the required
sworn statement, each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted.
SECTION 3. EFFECT OF ADMISSION –

Section 4. Withdrawal. — The court may allow the party making an admission under the Rule, • Any admission made by a party as a consequence of the failure to comply with the request is
whether express or implied, to withdraw or amend it upon such terms as may be just. (4) only for the purpose of the pending action and not deemed an admission for any other
purpose. Admission CANNOT BE USED against admitting party in any other proceeding.
Section 5. Effect of failure to file and serve request for admission. — Unless otherwise
DEFERMENT OF COMPLIANCE – To avoid implied admission, party requested may have compliance of
allowed by the court for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice a party who fails to file
filing and service of the sworn statement DEFERRED.
and serve a request for admission on the adverse party of material and relevant facts at issue which
are, or ought to be, within the personal knowledge of the latter, shall not be permitted to present
• Deferment may be effected by the filing with the court objections to the request for
evidence on such facts. (n)
admission.
PURPOSE OF ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY
• Compliance shall be deferred until such objections are resolved by the court.
To allow one party to request the adverse party, in writing, to admit certain material and relevant
WITHDRAWAL OF ADMISSION
matters which will not be disputed during the trial.
SECTION 4.
To avoid unnecessary inconvenience to the parties in going through the rigors of proof before the trial,
party may request the other to:
• Admissions made under this mode are NOT FINAL. Court may allow the party making the
admission to WITHDRAW or AMEND the admission upon such terms as may be just.
(a) Admit genuineness of any material document described in and exhibited with the request,
or;
• To effect withdrawal, admitting party should file a motion to be relieved of the effects of his
(b) Admit the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request. admission.

When Request is Made - A party may file and serve the written requires at any time after issues have
been joined.

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 83
 RULE 27 - Production or Inspection of Documents or Things FILING OF A MOTION; ORDER OF THE COURT –

Section 1. Motion for production or inspection; order. — Upon motion of any party • Motion must be filed by the party seeking the production or inspection of documents and
showing good cause therefor, the court in which an action is pending may (a) order any party to produce things, and the motion must show good cause supporting the same.
and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any
designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, not • Order shall specify the time, place, manner of making the inspection and taking copies and
privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which photographs and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just.
are in his possession, custody or control, or (b) order any party to permit entry upon designated land
or other property in his possession or control for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or In Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, this court held that since the rules are
photographing the property or any designated relevant object or operation thereon. The order shall silent as to the period within which modes of discovery (in that case, written interrogatories) may still
specify the time, place and manner of making the inspection and taking copies and photographs, and be requested, it is necessary to determine:
may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just. (1a)
(1) the purpose of discovery;
PURPOSE – Allow party to seek an order from the court in which the action is pending:
(2) whether, based on the stage of the proceedings and evidence presented thus far, allowing it
is proper and would facilitate the disposition of the case; and
(a) Order any party to produce and permit inspection and copying of any designated documents
or other things not privileged which contain evidence material to any matter involved in the
(3) whether substantial rights of parties would be unduly prejudiced.
action and which are in his possession.
This court further held that "[t]he use of discovery is encouraged, for it operates with desirable flexibility
(b) Order any party to permit entry upon designated land or other property in his possession or
under the discretionary control of the trial court."
control to inspect, measure, survey, photograph.

"A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS (SEC. 24, RULE 130)
the subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other. It is, rather a contest
in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then, Privileged Documents CANNOT be compelled to be produced under Rule 27
brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of
procedure, asks that justice be done on the merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by Some examples of privileged documents:
a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes (a) Communication between husband and wife
its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. There should
(b) Between attorney and client
be no vested right in technicalities. . . ." (Alonzo v. Villamor)
(c) Between physician and patient
(d) Between priest and penitent
Elements for Allowance of Documents (Security Bank v. CA, G.R. 135874)
(e) Public officers involving public interest
(a) The party must file a motion for the production or inspection of documents or things,
Examples of those not mentioned in Rule 130
showing good cause therefor;
(a) Editors may not be compelled to disclose source of published news
(b) Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted
(b) Notice of the motion must be served to all other parties of the case;
(c) Trade secrets
(d) Information contained in tax census returns
(c) The motion must designate the documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs,
(e) Bank deposits
objects or tangible things which the party wishes to be produced and inspected;

(d) Such documents, etc. are not privileged;

(e) Such documents, etc. constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in
the action; and

(f) Such documents, etc. are in the possession, custody or control of the other party.

Eagleridge Dev’t v. Cameron Granville – While the grant of a motion for production is admittedly
discretionary, it should not be denied arbitrarily because to do so would bar access to relevant evidence
that may be used by a party-litigant and, hence, impair his fundamental right to due process.

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 84
 RULE 28 - Physical and Mental Examination of Persons
Section 1. When examination may be ordered. — In an action in which the mental or
physical condition of a party is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may in its
discretion order him to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician. (1)
Section 2. Order for examination. — The order for examination may be made only on
motion for good cause shown and upon notice to the party to be examined and to all other parties, and
shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions and scope of the examination and the person or
persons by whom it is to be made. (2)
Section 3. Report of findings. — If requested by the party examined, 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. After such request and delivery, 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, previously or thereafter made, of the same mental or physical condition. If
the party examined refuses to deliver such report, the court on motion and notice may make an order
requiring delivery on such terms as are just, and if a physician fails or refuses to make such a report
the court may exclude his testimony if offered at the trial. (3a)
Section 4. Waiver of privilege. — By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination
so ordered or by taking the deposition of the examiner, the party examined waives any privilege he may
have in that action or any other involving the same controversy, regarding the testimony of every other
person who has examined or may thereafter examine him in respect of the same mental or physical
examination.
This mode applies to where the mental or physical condition of a party is relevant
(a) Action for Annulment of contract where ground relied upon is insanity
(b) Petition for Guardianship of person alleged to be insane
(c) Action to recover damages for personal injury where extent of injuries of the plaintiff is in
issue.
PROCEDURE
Motion must show good cause for examination with notice to other parties of the time, place, manner,
conditions, scope of examination.
Party examined may request the party causing the examination to be made to deliver to him a copy of
a detailed report of the examining physician.
• After request and delivery, 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, previously
or thereafter made of the same mental or physical condition.
• If the party examined REFUSES, court may make an order requiring the delivery on such terms
as are just. If it is the physician who fails or refuses, the court may exclude his testimony if
offered at trial.
SEC. 4 - WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE – By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination OR by taking
the deposition of the examiner, the party examined waives any privilege he may have in that action or
any other involving the same controversy, regarding the testimony of every other person who has
examined or may thereafter examine him in repsect of the same mental or physical examination.
RULE 29 Refusal to Comply with Modes of Discovery
Section 1. Refusal to answer. — If a party or other deponent refuses to answer any question
upon oral examination, the examination may be completed on other matters or adjourned as the
proponent of the question may prefer. The proponent may thereafter apply to the proper court of the
place where the deposition is being taken, for an order to compel an answer. The same procedure may
be availed of when a party or a witness refuses to answer any interrogatory submitted under Rules 23
or 25.
If the application is granted, the court shall require the refusing party or deponent to answer the
question or interrogatory and if it also finds that the refusal to answer was without substantial
justification, it may require the refusing party or deponent or the counsel advising the refusal, or both
of them, to pay the proponent the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order,
including attorney's fees.
If the application is denied and the court finds that it was filed without substantial justification, the
court may require the proponent or the counsel advising the filing of the application, or both of them,
to pay to the refusing party or deponent the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing
the application, including attorney's fees. (1a)
Section 2. Contempt of court. — If a party or other witness refuses to be sworn or refuses
to answer any question after being directed to do so by the court of the place in which the deposition
is being taken, the refusal may be considered a contempt of that court. (2a)
Section 3. Other consequences. — If any party or an officer or managing agent of a party
refuses to obey an order made under section 1 of this Rule requiring him to answer designated
questions, or an order under Rule 27 to produce any document or other thing for inspection, copying,
or photographing or to permit it to be done, or to permit entry upon land or other property or an order
made under Rule 28 requiring him to submit to a physical or mental examination, the court may make
such orders in regard to the refusal as are just, and among others the following:
(a) An order that the matters regarding which the questions were asked, or the character or
description of the thing or land, or the contents of the paper, or the physical or mental
condition of the party, or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the
purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;
(b) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or
defenses or prohibiting him from introducing in evidence designated documents or things or
items of testimony, or from introducing evidence of physical or mental condition;
(c) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order
is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment
by default against the disobedient party; and
(d) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order directing the arrest of
any party or agent of a party for disobeying any of such orders except an order to submit to
a physical or mental examination. (3a)
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 85
Section 4. Expenses on refusal to admit. — If a party after being served with a request under
Rule 26 to admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter of fact serves a sworn
denial thereof and if the party requesting the admissions thereafter proves the genuineness of such
document or the truth of any such matter of fact, he may apply to the court for an order requiring the
other party to pay him the reasonable expenses incurred in making such proof, including attorney's
fees. Unless the court finds that there were good reasons for the denial or that admissions sought were
of no substantial importance, such order shall be issued. (4a)
Section 5. Failure of party to attend or serve answers. — If a party or an officer or
managing agent of a party wilfully fails to appear before the officer who is to take his deposition, after
being served with a proper notice, or fails to serve answers to interrogatories submitted under Rule 25
after proper service of such interrogatories, the court on motion and notice, may strike out all or any
part of any pleading of that party, or dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or enter a
judgment by default against that party, and in its discretion, order him to pay reasonable expenses
incurred by the other, including attorney's fees. (5)
Section 6. Expenses against the Republic of the Philippines. — Expenses and attorney's
fees are not to be imposed upon the Republic of the Philippines under this Rule. (6)
A. Refusal to Answer Question Upon ORAL EXAMINATION
(1) Proponent may apply for court order to compel an answer. Same procedure applies when
witness refuses to answer any interrogatory submitted pursuant to Modes of Discovery.
a. If granted, court shall order deponent to answer the question, if refusal is
unjustified, court may require the deponent to pay the proponent the amount of
reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order.
b. Refusal to answer after being directed considered contempt.
(2) If DENIED due to absence of substantial justification, court may require proponent to pay
refusing party amount of reasonable expenses.
B. Refusal to Answer Designated or Particular Questions or Refusal to Produce
DOCUMENTS or THINGS or to Submit to Physical or Mental Examination.
(1) Court may order that matters regarding which the questions were asked shall be taken as
established (deemed admitted) for purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the
party obtaining them.
(2) Court may issue order refusing to allow disobedient party to support or oppose designated
claims or defenses or prohibiting him from introducing in evidence designated documents.
(3) Court may issue an order
a. Striking out pleadings or parts thereof.
b. Staying further proceedings until order is obeyed.
c. Dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof.
d. Rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party.
(4) Court may direct the arrest of any party for disobeying any of the orders of the court, except
an order to submit to physical examination.
C. Refusal to be SWORN - Refusal of party to be sworn after being directed is considered
CONTEMPT OF COURT.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
RULE 116 – Arraignment and Plea
Section 10. Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of prosecution.
Upon motion of the accused showing good cause and with notice to the parties, the court, in order to
prevent surprise, suppression, or alteration, may order the prosecution to produce and permit the
inspection and copying or photographing of any written statement given by the complainant and other
witnesses in any investigation of the offense conducted by the prosecution or other investigating
officers, as well as any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects
or tangible things not otherwise privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter
involved in the case and which are in the possession or under the control of the prosecution, police, or
other law investigating agencies.
RULE 119 – Trial
Section 12. Application for examination of witness for accused before trial. —
When the accused has been held to answer for an offense, he may, upon motion with notice to the
other parties, have witnesses conditionally examined in his behalf. The motion shall state: (a) the name
and residence of the witness; (b) the substance of his testimony; and (c) that the witness is sick or infirm
as to afford reasonable ground for believing that he will not be able to attend the trial, or resides more
than one hundred (100) kilometers from the place of trial and has no means to attend the same, or that
other similar circumstances exist that would make him unavailable or prevent him from attending the
trial. The motion shall be supported by an affidavit of the accused and such other evidence as the court
may require.
Section 13. Examination of defense witness; how made. —
If the court is satisfied that the examination of a witness for the accused is necessary, an order will be
made directing that the witness be examined at a specified date, time and place and that a copy of the
order be served on the prosecutor at least three (3) days before the scheduled examination. The
examination shall be taken before a judge, or, if not practicable, a member of the Bar in good standing
so designated by the judge in the order, or if the order be made by a court of superior jurisdiction,
before an inferior court to be designated therein. The examination shall proceed notwithstanding the
absence of the prosecutor provided he was duly notified of the hearing. A written record of the
testimony shall be taken. (5a)
Section 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution. —
When it satisfactorily appears that a witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear at the
trial as directed by the order of the court, or has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of
returning, he may forthwith be conditionally examined before the court where the case is pending. Such
examination, in the presence of the accused, or in his absence after reasonable notice to attend the
examination has been served on him, shall be conducted in the same manner as an examination at the
trial. Failure or refusal of the accused to attend the examination after notice shall be considered a
waiver. The statement taken may be admitted in behalf of or against the accused. (7a)
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 86
 CASES
Security Bank Corp. v. CA – "Good Cause" for Producing Documents under Rule 27
Facts – Spouses Agustin Uy and Pacita ang Sioc Ten sought to enjoin Security Bank from proceeding
with the extrajudicial foreclosure of a mortgage over a piece of property registered under the
respondent spouses' names located at Cubao. Before filing his answer to SBC's cross-claim, Domingo
Uy filed an Omnibus Motion for the Production of Documents (Rule 27) on the ground that all
documents made and executed by SBC on the evaluation and processing of the loans of Jackivi Trading,
the REM, and the SPA themselves must be produced before he could file an answer. The spouses did
this as well. It was granted by the lower court, but it ruled that the filing of the answer need not wait
the production of the documents.
SBC contested the order, arguing that CA focused only on "good cause" and not on relevance. The good
cause was negated by the court's ruling that he should still file an answer without awaiting documents.
Though Not Indispensable for Answer, Can Still Avail of the Mode - The latter's holding that the
documents were not indispensable to the preparation of the answer of Uy to the cross-claim did not
militate against respondents' availment of this important mode of discovery. As he himself averred in
his Motion, the subject documents were "material and important to the issues raised in the case in
general, and as between defendant and SBC in particular."
Needed to Prepare Defenses - Verily, the CA noted that the documents would enable Respondent Uy
to "intelligently prepare his defenses against the cross-claim of petitioner SBC," and not merely to
formulate his answer. Likewise, we agree with the appellate court that the Motion of Spouses Agustin
Uy and Pacita Tang Sioc Ten was for a good cause, because the said documents were "necessary for a
determination of the issues raised in Civil Case No. Q-97-30330."
The trial court's ruling that he could file his answer without examining those documents does not prove
that they are immaterial to the present action. The CA has held that those documents would enable
him to "intelligently prepare his defenses against the cross-claim of Petitioner SBC.
Materiality of Subject Documents - Indeed, the factual backdrop of the case strengthens
respondent's cause. The civil action instituted by the Spouses Uy sought the annulment of two deeds of
Real Estate Mortgage between Jackivi and petitioner. They allegedly issued a Special Power of Attorney
to Respondent Uy to mortgage their property only for their benefit, not for that Jackivi. Because he
mortgaged the property as security for Jackivi's loan, they contend that he exceeded his authority and
that the contracts of real estate mortgage were consequently invalid. Petitioner, on the other hand, filed
a cross-claim against him, because it "relied on the representations and documents submitted by [the
latter] that he was duly authorized to mortgage the subject property."
So also, the additional mortgage contracts executed by Jackivi are material to the present action.
Because a witness of petitioner admitted in court that there was a third mortgage contract between
Jackivi and the bank, fair play demands that herein respondents must be given the chance to examine
such additional mortgage contracts. In so doing, they can determine why petitioner was going after
their property which was invalidly mortgaged by Respondent Uy, while the properties of the actual
borrower, Jackivi, have not been touched or foreclosed by the bank.
Liberality and Fair Play - Indeed, the rule is that courts, in passing upon a motion for discovery, should
be liberal in determining whether the documents in question are relevant to the subject matter of the
action. To repeat, the rule on discovery " requires the parties to play the game with cards on the table
so that the possibility of fair settlement before trial is measurably increased ."
Republic v. Sandiganbayan – Interrogatories against PCGG
Facts – Private Respondents Bienvenido Tantoco and Dominador Santiago are defendants in a Civil case
before the Sandiganbayan along with Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos. The complaint was for
reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages.
After being served summons, defendants filed for Motion to Strike Out Portions of Complaint and Bill
of Particulars on other portions. The main query was to determine "Who were the Commissioners of
the PCGG who approved or authorized the inclusion of defendants in the case?" SB denied the Motion
after PCGG's answer calling them "queer" and "weird," as the complaint sufficiently describes their
alleged involvement in the suit.
After PCGG filed their Pre-Trial Brief, defendants filed a pleading denominated "Interrogatories to
Plaintiff" and "Amended Interrogatories to Plaintiff." They sought to determine what specific properties
does the RP claim, what specific acts had the defendants done, etc. They also sought documents
intended as evidence + the minutes of the meetings of the PCGG regarding the suit. SB allowed.
PCGG's Contentions – PCGG contends that (1) interrogatories are defective as they do not (a) name
the particular individuals to whom they are propounded, simply being for the "PCGG" (b) same matters
to be clarified in the previously denied Bill of Particulars, (2) no good cause to require documents.
RE: 1(a) – If Corporation, Any Officer Can Testify - The first part of petitioner's submission is
adequately confuted by Section 1, Rule 25 which states that if the party served with interrogatories is a
juridical entity such as "a public or private corporation or a partnership or association," the same shall
be "answered… by any officer thereof competent to testify in its behalf." That the interrogatories are
addressed only to the PCGG, without naming any specific commissioner or officer thereof, is utterly of
no consequence, and may not be invoked as a reason to refuse to answer.
RE: 1(b) – Bill of Particulars Elicits Ultimate Facts, Not Evidentiary Facts. That the matters on which
discovery is desired are the same matters subject of a prior motion for bill of particulars is beside the
point. A bill of particulars may elicit only ultimate facts, not so-called evidentiary facts. The latter are
without doubt proper subject of discovery. Neither may it be validly argued that the amended
interrogatories lack specificity. The interrogatories are made to relate to individual paragraphs of the
PCGG's expanded complaint and inquire about details of the ultimate facts therein alleged.
What PCGG Should've Done - What the PCGG may properly do is to object to specific items of the
interrogatories, on the ground of lack of relevancy, or privilege, or that the inquiries are being made in
bad faith, or simply to embarrass or oppress it. But until such an objection is presented and sustained,
the obligation to answer subsists.
Mutual Knowledge of Facts is the Purpose - It is the precise purpose of discovery to ensure mutual
knowledge of all the relevant facts on the part of all parties even before trial, this being deemed
essential to proper litigation. This is why either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts
he has in his possession; and the stage at which disclosure of evidence is made is advanced from the
time of trial to the period preceding it.
RE: 2 – Must Allow Documents; No Valid Objection - No serious objection can be presented to the
desire of the private respondents to have copies of those documents in order to study them some more
or otherwise use them during the trial for any purpose allowed by law. Some of the documents are,
according to the verification of the amended complaint, the basis of several of the material allegations
of said complaint. Others, admittedly, are to be used in evidence by the plaintiff. It is matters such as
these into which inquiry is precisely allowed by the rules of discovery, to the end that the parties may
adequately prepare for pre-trial and trial. This disclosure may NOT be opposed.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 87
Eagleridge Development Corporation v. Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc.
Facts – Respondent Cameron is being asked by the CA to produce the Loan Sale and Purchase
Agreement to allow the other party to inspect and photocopy the same. It is argued that production of
the LSPA would violate the rule on parol evidence, and that it is a confidential document. Further, they
argue that it was field out of time as the motion was made after pre-trial. Petitioner argues that there
is no prescriptive period for such motion under the rules.
Issue – Can Rule 27 be availed of even beyond pre-trial? (YES).
No Prescription - The availment of a motion for production, as one of the modes of discovery, is not
limited to the pre-trial stage. Rule 27 does not provide for any time frame within which the discovery
mode of production or inspection of documents can be utilized. The rule only requires leave of court
"upon due application and a showing of due cause.”
In Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. v. Reyes, this court declared that depositions, as a mode of discovery,
"may be taken at any time after the institution of any action [as there is] no prohibition against the
taking of depositions after pre-trial."
"Depositions may be taken at any time after the institution of any action, whenever necessary or
convenient. There is no rule that limits deposition-taking only to the period of pre-trial or before it; no
prohibition against the taking of depositions after pre-trial. Indeed, the law authorizes the taking of
depositions of witnesses before or after an appeal is taken from the judgment of a Regional Trial Court
"to perpetuate their testimony for use in the event of further proceedings in the said court" (Rule 134,
Rules of Court), and even during the process of execution of a final and executory judgment (East Asiatic
Co. v. C.I.R., 40 SCRA 521, 544)."
Eagleridge Has NO Reason to Deny Production of LSPA - We have determined that the LSPA is
relevant and material to the issue on the validity of the deed of assignment raised by petitioners in the
court a quo and allowing its production and inspection by petitioners would be more in keeping with
the objectives of the discovery rules. We find no great practical difficulty, and respondent continuously
fails to allege any, in presenting the document for inspection and copying of petitioners. On the other
hand, to deny petitioners the opportunity to inquire into the LSPA would bar their access to relevant
evidence and impair their fundamental right to due process.
Not Privileged - At any rate, respondent failed to discharge the burden of showing that the LSPA is a
privileged document. Respondent did not present any law or regulation that considers bank documents
such as the LSPA as classified information. Its contention that the Special Purpose Vehicle Act only
requires the creditor-bank to give notice to the debtor of the transfer of his or her account to a special
purpose vehicle, and that the assignee-special purpose vehicle has no obligation to disclose other
financial documents related to the sale, is untenable.
The Special Purpose Vehicle Act does not explicitly declare these financial documents as privileged
matters. Further, as discussed, petitioners are not precluded from inquiring as to the true consideration
of the assignment, precisely because the same law in relation to Article 1634 allows the debtor to
extinguish its debt by reimbursing the assignee-special purpose vehicle of the actual price the latter
paid for the assignment.
Vda. De Manguerra Ruling (cited by Go v. People Case) – "While we recognize the prosecution's right to
preserve the testimony of its witness in order to prove its case, we cannot disregard the rules which are
designed mainly for the protection of the accused's constitutional rights. The giving of testimony during
trial is the general rule. The conditional examination of a witness outside of the trial is only an exception,
and as such, calls for a strict construction of the rules."
Harry Go, et al. v. People, et al. – Depositions under Criminal Procedure; Old Man Li Puen Ping.
Facts – Harry Go et. al. are being charged with defrauding Highdone Company represented by Li PUen
Ping, an elderly and sickly man. Li Puen, prosecution's witness, traveled to hear the initial hearing in the
PHP but had to go back due to surgery on his lungs, pushing back further trial hearings. The private
prosecutor filed for Motion to Take Oral Deposition and was required to submit MedCert. RTC declared
this void, arguing that the taking of depositions abroad under CivPro cannot apply suppletorily in
Crimpro, and that he had to be presented before the trial judge and in front of accused. CA reversed.
In dismissing petitioners' apprehensions concerning the deprivation of their constitutional rights to a
public trial and confrontation, the CA opined that petitioners would still be accorded the right to cross-
examine the deponent witness and raise their objections during the deposition-taking in the same
manner as in a regular court trial.
Must be Open Court Due to Right of Confrontation - The examination of witnesses must be done
orally before a judge in open court. This is true especially in criminal cases where the Constitution
secures to the accused his right to a public trial and to meet the witnessess against him face to face.
The requirement is the "safest and most satisfactory method of investigating facts" as it enables the
judge to test the witness' credibility through his manner and deportment while testifying.
Certainly, to take the deposition of the prosecution witness elsewhere and not before the very same
court where the case is pending would not only deprive a detained accused of his right to attend the
proceedings but also deprive the trial judge of the opportunity to observe the prosecution witness'
deportment and properly assess his credibility, which is especially intolerable when the witness'
testimony is crucial to the prosecution's case against the accused.
Difference of Cross-Ex - There is a great deal of difference between the face-to- face confrontation in
a public criminal trial in the presence of the presiding judge and the cross-examination of a witness in
a foreign place outside the courtroom in the absence of a trial judge. The right of confrontation, on the
other hand, is held to apply specifically to criminal proceedings and to have a twofold purpose: (1) to
afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of witnesses by cross-examination, and (2) to
allow the judge to observe the deportment of witnesses.
Li Puen Attended First Trial - Finally, the Court takes note that prosecution witness Li Luen Ping had
managed to attend the initial trial proceedings before the MeTC of Manila on September 9, 2004. At
that time, Li Luen Ping's old age and fragile constitution should have been unmistakably apparent and
yet the prosecution failed to act with zeal and foresight in having his deposition or testimony taken
before the MeTC pursuant to Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court.
In fact, it should have been imperative for the prosecution to have moved for the preservation of Li
Luen Ping's testimony at that first instance given the fact that the witness is a non-resident alien who
can leave the Philippines anytime without any definite date of return. Still, even after failing to secure
Li Luen Ping's conditional examination before the MeTC prior to said witness' becoming sick and
unavailable, the prosecution would capitalize upon its own failure by pleading for a liberal application
of the rules on depositions.
It must be emphasized that while the prosecution must provide the accused every opportunity to take
the deposition of witnesses that are material to his defense in order to avoid charges of violating the
right of the accused to compulsory process, the State itself must resort to deposition-taking sparingly if
it is to guard against accusations of violating the right of the accused to meet the witnesses against him
face to face. Great care must be observed in the taking and use of depositions of prosecution witnesses
to the end that no conviction of an accused will rely on ex parte affidavits and deposition.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 88
 CLASS NOTES
MUSINGS ON DISCOVERY
DISCOVERY – Procedure by which one party in an action is enabled to obtain before trial
knowledge of relevant facts and of material evidence peculiarly in the possession
of the adverse party (Barredo).
PURPOSE – Serves to:
(1) Narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties (along with pre-trial hearing)
(2) Ascertain the facts relative ot the issues
• AGAINST – Doing trial "in the dark" (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 312)
OBJECTIVE – to level the playing field
• Civil Procedure – Promotes reciprocity and equal access to evidence
• Criminal Procedure – Protection of a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial;
prosecution's corresponding right is consequently limited → this difference affects trial
strategy, particularly from the perspective of the party that bears the Burden of Proof
Strategical Perspective
• Both civil and criminal litigants bear burden of proof
• Civil plaintiff is aware of defense evidence and is able to criticize the defense's position.
• Prosecutor may NOT be fully aware of metes and bounds and character of defense evidence
• BUT – Prosecution can also oversell the People's case
SCOPE – All RELEVANT facts, whether ultimate or evidentiary
• EXCEPT – All matters which are privileged (Republic, supra)
DISCOVERING "DISCOVERY"
LIBERAL APPROACH – Object is to give a party fullest possible information as to all relevant facts
• To objections based on fear of any "fishing expedition"
• Mutual knowledge of all relevant facts essential to proper litigation; prevent surprise
"GOOD CAUSE" – Liberally appreciated
• As long as "material and important to the issues raised (Security Bank v. CA, 2000)
• Litigation – Essentially an "abiding quest for truth," undertaken by not only by the judge, but
by the parties themselves
UNRAVELING "DISCOVERY"
Litigation Must be in Good Faith – Litigants must act in good faith to reveal documents and other
pieces of evidence material to the controversy (Security Bank, supra)
• Alonzo v. Villamor – "Litigation is not a game of technicalities. It is rather (where) each
contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue. Lawsuits, unlike duels,
are not be won by a rapier's thrust…."
A MATTER OF EMPOWERMENT
In line with this principle of according liberal treatment to the deposition-discovery mechanism, such
modes of discovery as
(a) depositions (whether by oral examination or written interrogatories) under Rule 24,
(b) interrogatories to parties under Rule 25, and (c) requests for admissions under Rule 26,
may be availed of without leave of court, and generally, without court intervention.
When Leave of Court Required - It is only when an answer has not yet been filed (but after
jurisdiction has been obtained over the defendant or property subject of the action) that prior leave of
court is needed to avail of these modes of discovery, the reason being that at that time the issues are
not yet joined and the disputed facts are not clear.
On the other hand, leave of court is required as regards discovery by
(a) Production or inspection of documents or things in accordance with Rule 27, or
(b) Physical and mental examination of persons under Rule 28, which may be granted upon
due application and a showing of due cause.”
SANCTIONS
(a) Dismissing the action or proceeding or part thereof, or rendering judgment by default against
the disobedient party;
(b) Contempt of court, or arrest of the party or agent of the party;
(c) Payment of the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining a court order to compel
discovery;
(d) Taking the matters inquired into as established in accordance with the claim of the party
seeking discovery;
(e) Refusal to allow the disobedient party support or oppose designated claims or defenses;
Striking out pleadings or parts thereof; staying further proceedings.
(Republic, supra; Bautista, A.R.)
"REACH" of DISCOVERY
Depositions NOT Limited to Pre-Trial Stage - “The availment of a motion for production, as one of
the modes of discovery, is not limited to the pre-trial stage. Rule 27 does not provide for any time frame
within which the discovery mode of production or inspection of documents can be utilized. The rule
only requires leave of court "upon due application and a showing of due cause.”
- (Eagleridge Dev. Corp, et al. v. Cameron Granville, GR No. 204700, 24 November 2014)
• “In Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, this court held that since the rules
are silent as to the period within which modes of discovery (in that case, written
interrogatories) may still be requested, it is necessary to determine: (1) the purpose of
discovery; (2) whether, based on the stage of the proceedings and evidence presented thus
far, allowing it is proper and would facilitate the disposition of the case; and (3) whether
substantial rights of parties would be unduly prediced. This court further held that ‘[t]he use
of discovery is encouraged, for it operates with desirable flexibility under the discretionary
control of the trial court.”
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 89
 LIMITATIONS

“(T)here are limitations to discovery, even when permitted to be undertaken without leave and without
judicial intervention. "As indicated by (the) Rules . . ., limitations inevitably arise when it can be shown
that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such a manner as to annoy, embarass, or
oppress the person subject to the inquiry. And . . . further limitations come into existence when the
inquiry touches upon the irrelevant or encroaches upon the recognized domains of privilege.”
(Republic, supra)

PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS (SEC. 24, RULE 130) (Air PHP v. Pennswell)

Privileged Documents CANNOT be compelled to be produced under Rule 27

Some examples of privileged documents:

(a) Communication between husband and wife
(b) Between attorney and client
(c) Between physician and patient
(d) Between priest and penitent
(e) Public officers involving public interest

Examples of those not mentioned in Rule 130

(a) Editors may not be compelled to disclose source of published news
(b) Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted
(c) Trade secrets
(d) Information contained in tax census returns
(e) Bank deposits

WORK PRODUCT AS LIMITATION

“(S)tatements, memoranda and impressions gotten by a lawyer in the course of preparing for litigation
cannot be inquired into via the discovery process without showing absolute necessity to avoid hardship
or injuries.” “This rule is founded on the need to protect the legal profession so that lawyers do not
work with wits borrowed from their brother lawyers who otherwise would be discouraged from
performing their personal best.”

- (Hickman v. Taylor, 329 US 495; Bautista, A.R., Basic Civil Procedure, 2003, pp. 127-128)

“The work product doctrine is broader than the attorney-client privilege xxx. (It covers) materials that
are not based on confidential information from the client. It covers even materials prepared by non(-
)lawyers when they are acting on behalf of the party or lawyer in preparing for litigation.

“The work product doctrine operates primarily as a limitation on pre-trial discovery, whereas the
attorney-client privilege applies more broadly at all stages of legal proceedings.”

- (Mueller & Kirkpatrick, pp. 460-461; Bautista, Basic Evidence, 2004, p. 71)

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 90
 RULE 131 – BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS (q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
Section 1. Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts (r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:
(t) That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately and at the place where the instrument is dated;
led to another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any
litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it: (u) That a writing is truly dated;

(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of commencement of (v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail;
the relation of landlord and tenant between them. (3a)
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives,
Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if he is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an
absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft with is missing, who has
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;
not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been missing
for four years;
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
has not been known for four years;
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
(4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse present may
contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
is already death. In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death the
circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the
(i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is produced;
purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any case, before marrying again,
the spouse present must institute a summary proceedings as provided in the Family Code
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the
and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to
taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possess, or
the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the money, or the
law or fact;
delivery of anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly;
(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature
(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it;
habits of life;
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
(z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartneship;
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in
(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful
the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
contract of marriage;
(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed
(bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and
upon by it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted
who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or
for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them;
under void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry.
(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular;

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 91
(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each
other and who have acquire properly through their actual joint contribution of money,
property or industry, such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint
deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal.
(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within three
hundred days after such termination of the former 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, even though it
be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage.
(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, even though it
be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage.
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of the nature;
(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by public authority,
was so printed or published;
(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals
of the country where the book is published, contains correct reports of such 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;
(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in the same calamity, such
as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are no
particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined from
the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes, according to the
following rules:
(1) If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have survived;
(2) If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived;
(3) If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed to have survived;
(4) If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the male is deemed to
have survived, if the sex be the same, the older;
(5) If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the latter is
deemed to have survived.
(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each
other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall
prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at the same
time.
Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. — 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. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation.
* ONUS PROBANDI (BURDEN OF PROOF) – Obligation of a party to a litigation to persuade the court
that he is entitled to relief. (Riano)
• BOP imposed on the party who seeks to change the "status quo." (Bautista).
• "He who alleges a fact has the burden of proof of proving the same."
• Can be Plaintiff or Defendant – Sec. 1, Rule 131 imposes the duty of a party to present
evidence not only to establish a claim but also a defense.
Test to Determine Where BOP Lies –
• Who fill fail? : Which party to an action or suit will FAIL if he offers NO evidence competent to
show the facts averred as the basis for the relief he seeks to obtain. (Riano)
• Legal Right - Rests with the party who wants to establish a legal right in his favor. (Riano)
Burden of Proof Fixed in PLEADINGS
• Plaintiff → Complaint
• Defendant → Answer
• BOP does NOT shift during course of trial.
* BURDEN OF PROOF VERSUS BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE
Burden of Evidence – Duty of a party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow prima facie
evidence established against him.
Occurs when a party, through evidence, is able to establish a prima facie
case against him.
• EX – Illegal Possession of Firearms. After the prosecution established that the defendant had
no license to own firearms, the burden of evidence shifted to accused to prove his authority
to possess a firearm. (People v. Salahuddin)
• EX – In criminal cases, the burden lies with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. BUT if the accused admits to the killing and pleads self-defense,
the burden of evidence shifts to him to prove such defense by clear, convincing evidence.
Equipose Rule – Situation where evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, or there is doubt on
which side the evidence preponderates (weights more heavily). Hence, the decision
should be against the party with the burden of proof.
(Also called Equiponderance)
In criminal cases, the rule favors accused if equally weighty (Riano).
Not applicable if the evidence is not equally weighty (Malana v. People).
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 92
 BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
Obligation of a party to a litigation to persuade Duty of party to go forward with evidence to
the court that he is entitled to relief. overthrow prima facie case est. against him.
Burden of Persuasion Production Burden
Continues throughout the case and never shifts Shifts from time to time during the trial
Preponderance of Evidence POE or Equal Weight
* NATURE OF PRESUMPTION
PRESUMPTION – Assumption of a 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 an
action (Black's Law Dictionary).
Inference of the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are permitted to
draw form proof of other facts. (In the Matter of Intestate Estate of Delgado).
Lee v. Court of Appeals – Nature of Presumptions and what it does.
A presumption may operate against his adversary who has not introduced proof to rebut the
presumption. The effect of a legal presumption upon a burden of proof is to create the
necessity of presenting evidence to meet the legal presumption or prima facie case created
thereby, and which if no proof to the contrary is presented and offered, will prevail.
Burden of proof remains where it is, but by the presumption the one who has that burden is
relieved for the time being from introducing evidence in support of his averment, because the
presumption stands in the place of evidence unless rebutted.
Presumptions have at least the effect of shifting the burden of production to the party who would be
disadvantaged by a finding of the presumed fact. Presumption controls the decision on the presumed
fact UNLESS there is counterproof that the presumed fact is not so.
Two Elements for Presumption to Work (Toto Villareal)
(1) Fact to be proven
(2) Separately established fact or group of fact (?)
Inference v. Presumption
• Inference – Factual conclusion that can rationally be drawn from other facts. Result of the
reasoning process which need not have legal effect as it is NOT mandated by law. (Am. Jur)
• Presumption – Rule of law directing that if a party proves certain (basic) facts at trial or
hearing, the factfinder must also accept an additional fact (the presumed fact) as proven
unless sufficient evidence is introduced tending to rebut the presumed fact. MANDATORY.
Kinds of Presumptions
(1) Presumption of Fact
(2) Presumption of Law – Either
a. Conclusive
b. Disputable
An assumption of fact does NOT arise from any direction of law. It arises because reason itself allows a
presumption from the facts. If A attacks B, means that A does not like B. (Riano).
Effect of Presumptions – A party in whose favor the legal presumption exists may rely on and invoke
such legal presumption to establish a fact in issue. He NEED NOT introduce evidence to prove the fact
for a presumption is prima facie proof of the fact presumed (Diesel Construction v. UPSI Property).
* CONCLUSIVE AND DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS
(1) Conclusive – Presumptionis juris et de jure
(2) Disputable – Presumptionis juris tantum
CONCLUSIVE - Presumption becomes irrebuttable upon presentation of evidence and any
evidence tending to rebut the presumption is inadmissible.
Datalift Movers v. Belgravia Realty – Inferences which the law makes so peremptory
that it will NOT allow them to be overturned by any contrary proof, however strong.
DISPUTABLE - May be contradicted or overcome by other evidence. Satisfactorily accepted if
uncontradicted but may be overcome by sufficient evidence.
Effect – Create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case
created by the presumption. If none offered, presumption prevails (Diaz v. People)
Doctrine of Estoppel - An admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person
making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person
relying thereon (Spouses Manzanilla v. Waterfields Industries Corp.)
US Jurisprudence from Manila Bay v. CA – (Toto Villareal)
Even if a party's testimony is improbable, the failure of the opposite party to contradict it, although it
was entirely within his power to do so if it were false, fully entitles it to belief.
Weak evidence becomes strong by the neglect of the party against whom it is put in, in not showing by
means within the easy control of that party that the conclusion drawn from such evidence is untrue.
As weak evidence is often strengthened by failure of an opposing party to contradict by evidence within
his power, so the trier of facts may infer that testimony in chief is worth its full face value when the
other party is content to let it stand without cross-examination or contradiction by other evidence.
* PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE - RES IPSA LOQUITUR
Inference of Negligence - In some cases where negligence is difficult to prove, the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur permits an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant where the thing or transaction
speaks for itself. It establishes a presumption of negligence against the defendant and furnishes a
substitute for a specific proof of negligence.
When Invoked - The doctrine can be invoked only when, under the circumstances, direct evidence is
ABSENT and not readily available.
Elements of Res Ipsa Loquitur (Ramos v. CA)
(a) Accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence
(b) Caused by instrumentality within exclusive control of defendant or defendants
(c) Possibility of contributing conduct which would make plaintiff responsible is eliminated
• Diaz v. People – The legal presumption is that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns.
To this, case law dictates that the natural presumption is that one does not sign a document
without first informing himself of its contents and consequences.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 93
 CASES
Manonsong v. Estimo (2003) – Kasulatan as Public Document (Deed of Sale of Land)
As Notarized Document, Presumed Valid - The Kasulatan, being a document acknowledged before a
notary public, is a public document and prima facie evidence of its authenticity and due execution. To
assail the authenticity and due execution of a notarized document, the evidence must be clear,
convincing and more than merely preponderant. Otherwise the authenticity and due execution of the
document should be upheld. Did not prove it was acquired during marriage of Navarro, hence cannot
be named as conjugal property of the family.
Even if Not Notarized, Ancient Document! - Even if the Kasulatan was not notarized, it would be
deemed an ancient document and thus still presumed to be authentic. The Kasulatan is: (1) more than
30 years old, (2) found in the proper custody, and (3) unblemished by any alteration or by any
circumstance of suspicion. It appears, on its face, to be genuine.
Public Documents is prima facie evidence of its authenticity and due execution. Need clear and
convincing evidence to assail authenticity.
Datalift Movers v. Belgravia Realty (2003) – Tenant-Landlord conclusive relationship
Cannot Present Evidence to Rebut Conclusive Presumption - As long as the lessor-lessee
relationship between Datalift and Belgravia exists as in this case, the former, as lessee, cannot by any
proof, however strong, overturn the conclusive presumption that Belgravia has valid title to or better
right of possession to the subject leased premises than they have. So long as there is no showing that
the lessor-lessee relationship has terminated, the lessor's title or better right of possession as against
the lessee will eternally be a non-issue in any proceeding.
Conclusive presumptions – Inferences which the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow them
to be overturned by any contrary proof however strong.
The 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.
Davao Light and Power v. Operia (2005) – Tampered Electric Meters
Tampered Meters Built in Conspicuous Places; Improbable That Nobody Saw Tampering As
established by DLPC’s witnesses Sardinia and Lucero, the allegedly tampered electric meters were
installed in conspicuous portions of respondent Ramos, Jr.'s residence and office. This being the case,
it becomes highly inconceivable that no one witnessed the alleged tampering of the subject electric
meters considering the surroundings where they were set up. Indeed, any person tinkering with the
meters could have easily attracted the attention and suspicion of neighbors and passers-by.
US v. Luling – No constitutional provision is violated by a statute providing that proof by the state of
some material fact/facts shall constitute prima face evidence of guilt. BUT – must still prove certain
facts before prima facie case of guilt is established (Jison Doctrine).
Bautista v. Sarmiento (1985) - When BOE Shifts to Defendant
When Demurrer Denied, BOE Shifts – When the trial court denies a motion to dismiss by way of
demurrer to evidence on the ground that the... prosecution had established a prima facie case against
them, accused assumes a definite burden
Refusal to Present Evidence = Guilt. In the case at bar, the order denying petitioners' motion to
dismiss, required them to present their evidence. They refused and/or failed to do so. This justified an
inference of their guilt. The inevitable result was that the burden of evidence shifted on them to prove
their... innocence, or at least, raises a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
People v. Navaja (1993) – Adverse presumption from a suppression of evidence is not applicable when:
(a) Suppression is not willful
(b) evidence suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative,
(c) evidence at the disposal of both parties
(d) suppression is exercise of a privilege.
Manila Bay Club v. CA (1995) – Failure to Rebut Evidence Imposes Implied Liability
It is a well-settled rule that when the evidence tends to prove a material fact which imposes a liability
on a party, and he has it in his power to produce evidence which from its very nature must overthrow
the case made against him if it is not founded on fact, and he refuses to produce such evidence, the
presumption arises that the evidence, if produced, would operate to his prejudice, and support the case
of his adversary.
People v. Sendaydiego (1978) – Possession of False Documents is a Presumption of Guilt
In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of a forged document and
who used or uttered it is presumed to be the forger.
Elements of the Presumption
(1) Possession
(2) Use or uttered
(3) Took advantage and profited
Presumption is created that he is the material author of the falsification
DM Consunji v. CA (2001)
Res Ipsa Loquitur – "The thing speaks for itself." Where it is shown that the thing or instrumentality
which caused the injury complained of was under the control or management of the defendant, and
that the occurrence resulting in the injury was such as in the ordinary course of things would not happen
if those who had its control or management used proper care, there is sufficient evidence, or, as
sometimes stated, reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the injury
arose from defendant's want of care.
Ramos v. CA (1999) – Presumption of Medical Negligence
Res Ipsa in Medical Malpractice – Where common knowledge and experience teach that a resulting
injury would not have occurred to the patient if due care had been exercised, an inference of negligence
may be drawn given rise to an application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur without medical evidence,
which is ordinarily required to show not only what occurred but how and why it occurred.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 94
Estate of Ong v. Diaz (2007) – Presumption of Legitimacy of a Child
Child born during valid marriage presumed legitimate – Declaration of legitimacy arises not out of
law but from natural justice of the mother. Presumption grounded on policy to protect innocent
offspring from odium of illegitimacy.
BOP for Proving Paternity – Burden of proving paternity is on the person who alleges that the putative
father is the biological father.
Not Conclusive – Presumption of legitimacy is NOT CONCLUSIVE. Can be disputed through physical
impossibility such as (1) impotence, (2) separately living, or (3) Serious illness.
Del Carmen v. Bacoy (2012) – Jeep Drives Without a Key
Res Ipsa is merely "evidentiary, a mode of proof," or a mere procedural convenience. Parties may
establish prima facie negligience without direct proof, thus, it allows plaintiff to substitute for specific
proof of negligence. Allows plaintiff to create an inference as to the negligence of defendant and shifts
BOP to him to prove no negligence on his part. Strictly scrutinize on a case-to-case basis.
FIRST, no person walking along the road would suddenly be sideswiped and run over by an on-rushing
vehicle unless the one in charge of the vehicle had been negligent.
SECOND, the jeep which caused the injury was under the control of Oscar Jr. as its owner. he had the
power to instruct Rodrigo to the specific restrictions of the jeep's use, including who or who may not
drive it. As he is aware that the jeep can run without the key, he has the duty to park it safely and to
instruct driver to do the same.
LASTLY, there is no showing that there was contributory negligence on the victims.
People v. Caranto (2014) – Presumption of Innocence v. Presumption of Regularity in Official Duty
There Were Lapses – The regularity of the performance of the police officers' duties leaves much to be
desired in this case given the lapses in their handling of the allegedly confiscated shabu. The totality of
all the aforementioned procedural lapses effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and
identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up.
Innocence Prevails over Regularity of Duty – The presumption of regularity in the performance of
an official duty CANNOT by itself overcome the presumption of innocence, nor constitute proof beyond
reasonable doubt. It should be noted that the presumption is precisely just that – a presumption. Once
challenged by evidence, as in this case, it cannot be regarded as binding truth.
Juana Vda. De Rojales, (2016) – Absent Irregularity, Notarized Document is Presumed Valid
Absent clear and convincing proof to the contrary, notarized document enjoys presumption of
regularity and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents. Irregularities in notarization of the
document may be established by oral evidence of persons present in said proceeding.
VDR submitted the specimen signature of the notary public but the same was never presented during
the trial nor was authenticated. Records disclose that after she admitted to being bound with conclusion
of the NBI regarding the issue on the thumbmark, VDR did not present any evidence to rebut the due
execution of the notarized contract of sale con pacto de retro. Instead, she presented her testimony
and the testimony of her daughter Josefma Rojales to prove that she never intended to sell her property.
Teng v. SEC, et al. (2016) – What Certificate of Stock Constitutes
Certificate of Stock as Presumption of Ownership – It is a written instrument signed by the proper
officer of a corporation acknowledging that the person named in the document is the owner of a
designated number of shares. It is prima facie evidence that the holder is a shareholder of a
corporation. BUT it is only tangible evidence of stock ownership and is not itself the stock of the
corporation. Merely expresses the contract between stockholder and corporation.
Corp Code Does Not Require Surrender – It is delivery, endorsement, and registration which
operates to transfer stock to a transferee. That Ting Ping must first surrender Chiu and Maluto's
certificates before the transfer may be registered does NOT have legal basis. To compel surrender is to
limit the right of Ting Ping to have the stocks transferred to his name. Secretary acts in ministerial
capacity in registering the same, hence cannot question ownership. Mandamus applies. Registration is
a mere formality as provided by the by-laws.
University of Mindanao v. BSP (2016) – When corporate powers presumed valid; exception
GR: Contracts executed within corporate powers presumed valid.
EXC: Clearly beyond powers of corporation or when evidence contradicts the presumption.
AOI and By-Laws Govern – Parties dealing with corporations cannot simply assume that their transaction is within
the corporate powers. The acts of a corp. are still limited by its powers and purposes as provided in law and articles
of incorporation.
Ultra Vires – Contracts entered into by persons without the authority of the corporation.
Knowledge Only When Within Authority – Knowledge of officer, to be considered also as knowledge of corporation,
applies only when officer is acting within authority give to him.
Notarial Ack. Disputed – While notarial acknowledgment attaches full faith and credit to the document concerned, it
does not give the document its validity or binding effect. When there is evidence showing that the document is invalid,
the presumption of regularity or authenticity is not applicable.
Securing Mortgage Not University Purpose - Securing third party loans is not connected to the University’s purposes
as an educational institution. It does not have the power to mortgage its properties in order to secure loans of other
persons. As an educational institution, it is limited to developing human capital through formal instruction. It is not a
corporation engaged in the business of securing loans of others.
University Merely a FISLAI Shareholder - University was presumably a FISLAI shareholder there being an interlock
between the officers and shareholders of FISLAI. Acquiring shares in another corporation is NOT meant to create new
powers. Being a SH does not change purpose. Having interlocking officers and stockholders DOES NOT mean that
school interested in FISLAI.
Sps. Knowledge NOT Knowledge of UOM - While public should be able to reply on and protected from corporate
representation, the corp. must also be able to expect that they will not be bound by unauthorized actions. There can
be no implied ratification without actual communication. Must be brought to corporation's rep. who has authority to
ratify it. Spouses knowledge CANNOT be interpreted as knowledge of UoM. It was NOT shown that the spouses were
acting for and within authority given by University.
Saturnino's Authority Not Presumed from Sec. Cert. – Sec. Cert + Excerpt of minutes of meeting: These documents
cannot be considered as the corporate acts that held out Saturnino Petalcorin as University’s authorized representative
for mortgage transactions. They were not supported by an actual board meeting.
Can BSP Invoke Presumption as Sec. Cert notarized? – NO. In this case, since the notarized Secretary’s Certificate
was found to have been issued without a supporting board resolution, it produced no effect. It is not binding upon
the University. It should not have been relied on by BSO especially given its status as a bank
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 95
Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, et al. (2016) – Foundling Doctrine; Natural Course of Life

Party Seeking Paternity has BOP; Fact of Founding Does Not Shift BOP – Presumptions regarding
paternity is neither unknown nor unaccepted. The one seeking to establish paternity has burden of
proof. The declaration of being a foundling does not shift the burden of proof on her.

Natural Course of Life Presumption – There is a disputable presumption that things have happened
according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary habits of life.

BOP on COMELEC – That said, there is more than sufficient evidence that petitioner has Filipino parents
and is therefore a natural-born Filipino. Parenthetically, the burden of proof was on private respondents
to show that petitioner is not a Filipino citizen. The private respondents should have shown that both
of Grace Poe's parents were aliens. Her admission that she is a foundling did not shift the burden to
her because such status did not exclude the possibility that her parents were Filipinos, especially as in
this case where there is a high probability, if not certainty, that her parents are Filipinos.

Grace Poe Presumed Filipino Due to all of the foregoing evidence, that a person with typical Filipino
features is abandoned in Catholic Church in a municipality where the population of the Philippines is
overwhelmingly Filipinos such that there would be more than a 99% chance that a child born in the
province would be a Filipino, would indicate more than ample probability if not statistical certainty, that
petitioner's parents are Filipinos.

Olaño, et al. v. Lim Eng Co. (2016) – Patent Protection v. Copyright Protection

"Unlike a patent, a copyright gives no exclusive right to the art disclosed; protection is given
only to the expression of the idea — not the idea itself."

Ownership of copyrighted material is shown by proof of originality and copyrightability. While it is true
that where the complainant presents a copyright certificate in support of the claim of infringement, the
validity and ownership of the copyright is presumed. This presumption, however, is rebuttable and it
cannot be sustained where other evidence in the record casts doubt on the question of ownership.

Protection Covered the Sketches, Not the Hatch Door Itself - Certificate of Registration pertaining
to class work "I" under Section 172 of R.A. No. 8293 covers "illustrations, maps, plans, sketches, charts
and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science.” As such, LEC's
copyright protection there under covered only the hatch door sketches/drawings and not the actual
hatch door they depict.

Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Unchuan (2016) – No Consideration for Sale

Section 3, Rule 131 – The following are disputable presumptions:

(1) Private transactions have been fair and regular
(2) Ordinary course of business followed
(3) There was sufficient consideration for a contract.

Atanacio's Signature Made Sale Presumably Valid - Atanacio, by affixing his signature on the deed
of absolute sale, a disputable presumption arose that consideration was paid. A mere allegation that
no payment was received is not sufficient to dispel such legal presumption.

Official Communication That Payment Made – Furthermore, the record shows an official
communication, dated October 8, 1958, from the District Land Office of Cebu to the Provincial Treasurer
of Cebu stating that Provincial Voucher No. 05358 was disbursed in favor of Atanacio.

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 96
 RULE 132 – PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE Section 5. Direct examination. —

Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts
A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES (SECTIONS 1 TO 18) relevant to the issue.

Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. —

Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. — Upon the termination of the direct
examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to many matters stated in the
The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court, and under
direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy
oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the questions calls for a different
and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts
mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally. (1a)
bearing upon the issue. (8a)

Section 2. Proceedings to be recorded. —

The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, including the questions propounded to a witness and his
answers thereto, the statements made by the judge or any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses with
reference to the case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand or stenotype or by other means of
recording found suitable by the court.
A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official stenographer, stenotypist or recorder
and certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings.
Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent. — After the cross-examination of the
witness has been concluded, he may be re-examined by the party calling him, to explain or supplement
his answers given during the cross-examination. On re-direct-examination, questions on matters not
dealt with during the cross-examination, may be allowed by the court in its discretion. (12)
Section 8. Re-cross-examination. — Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse
party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination, and also on
such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. (13)

Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. — Section 9. Recalling witness. — After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded,
the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its
A witness must answer questions, although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him. discretion, as the interests of justice may require. (14)
However, it is the right of a witness:
Section 10. Leading and misleading questions. —
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
demeanor; A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a leading
question. It is not allowed, except:
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
(a) On cross examination;
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;
(b) On preliminary matters;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless
otherwise provided by law; or (c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is
ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it to be the very fact
at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a witness must (d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense. (3a, 19a)
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or
Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness. — private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.

The order in which the individual witness may be examined is as follows; A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary
to that which he has previously stated. It is not allowed. (5a, 6a, and 8a)
(a) Direct examination by the proponent;
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. —
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent; evidence that his general reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has
made at other times statements inconsistent with his present, testimony, but not by evidence of
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent. (4) particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the record
of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense. (15)

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 97
Section 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. — * OPEN COURT AND UNDER OATH, ON RECORD (B2016 Reviewer)

Except with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party producing Open Court Examinations; Exceptions – Sec. 1 provides for the examination of the witness in open
a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility. court and unless the question calls for a different mode, the answer of the witness shall be given orally.

A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate This method allows the court the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness and allows the
showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having misled the party into adverse party to cross-examine the witness.
calling him to the witness stand.
Exceptions:
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached
by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by (a) Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the affidavits of the parties shall be considered the
evidence of his bad character. He may also be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party, direct testimonies of the witness
but such cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his examination-in-chief. (6a, 7a)
(b) Depositions need not be taken in open court. They may be taken before a notary public or
before any person authorized to administer oaths.
Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. —
(c) Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the judicial affidavit shall take the place of direct testimonies
Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements
of the witnesses.
inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances
of the times and places and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such
Oath or Affirmation – The witness must take either an oath or affirmation, but the option to do so s
statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to
given to the witness and NOT to the court.
the witness before any question is put to him concerning them. (16)

OATH AFFIRMATION
Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness. —
Outward pledge made under an Substitute for an oath is a solemn
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached. immediate sense of responsibility to God
in attestation of the truth
and formal declaration that the
of some statement witness will tell the truth.
Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. — On any trial or hearing, the judge may
exclude from the court any witness not at the time under examination, so that he may not hear the
testimony of other witnesses. The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be NOTE – If the witness refuses to take an oath or affirmation, the testimony may be barred.
prevented from conversing with one another until all shall have been examined. (18)
* DIRECT EXAMINATION – Examination in chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts
Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. — relevant to the issue.

A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by Procedure for obtaining information from one's own witness in orderly
himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any fashion
other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew that the same was correctly written or
recorded; but in such case the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse Information which counsel wants the court to hear
party, who may, if he chooses, cross examine the witness upon it, and may read it in evidence. So, also,
a witness may testify from such writing or record, though he retain no recollection of the particular PURPOSE – To elicit facts about the client's cause of action or defense. (Now subject to Judicial Aff. Rule)
facts, if he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made; but
such evidence must be received with caution. (10a) * CROSS-EXAMINATION; ENGLISH RULE VERSUS AMERICAN RULE

Cross Examination - Examination of the witness by the adverse party after said witness has
Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the remainder, the
given his testimony on direct examination
remainder admissible. —
• GR – Scope of the cross examination is not confined to the matters stated by the witness in
When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by one party, the
the direct examination
whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and when a detached act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, writing or
record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence. (11a) • EXC – When witness is an unwilling or a hostile witness as so declared by the court, he may
be cross examined only as to the subject matter of his examination-in-chief.

Section 18. Right to respect writing shown to witness. — Whenever a writing is shown to a witness,
it may be inspected by the adverse party.

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 98
 ENGLISH RULE AMERICAN RULE * WITNESS CREDIBILITY - Credibility of a witness has nothing to do with the law or the rules. It
refers to the weight and trustworthiness or reliability of the testimony.
Where a witness is called to testify to a
particular fact, he becomes a witness for all Cross-Ex is restricted to facts and • Prevaricating Witness or one who has given contradictory testimonies is still a competent
purposes and may be fully cross-examined circumstances which are connected with witness BUT his testimony may not be given much weight by the court or no weight at all if
upon all matters material to the issue, the the matters that have been stated in the
examination not being confined to the matters
the court deems him not worthy of belief (competent, but not credible).
direct examination of the witness
inquired about in the direct examination.
• Questions concerning the credibility of a witness are best addressed to the sound discretion
of the trial court as it is in the best position to observe his demeanor and bodily movements.
Purposes of Cross-Examination:
(1) To bring out facts favorable to counsel's client not established by direct testimony * IMEACHMENT OF ADVERSE PARTY’S WITNESS
(2) To enable the counsel to impeach or impair the credibility of the witness
• Technique employed as part of the cross-examination to discredit a witness by attacking his
* RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION - Examination is conducted after the cross of the witness
credibility.
• Party who called the witness on direct examination may re-examine the same witness to
• Destroying a witness' credibility is vital because it is linked with a witness' ability and
explain or supplement his answers given during the cross-examination
willingness to tell the truth
• In re-direct, the counsel may elicit testimony to correct or repel any wrong impression or Impeachment may be done through the following modes
inferences that may have been created in the cross-examination. (a) Contradictory Evidence
(b) Evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad
• Also an opportunity to rehabilitate the witness whose credibility has been damaged. (c) Evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony
* RE-CROSS EXAMINATION - Examination conducted upon conclusion of the re-direct ex. A witness CANNOT be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts EXCEPT evidence of his
conviction of an offense as disclosed by his examination or the record of the judgment/
• Adverse party may question the witness on matters stated on his re-direct examination and
also on other matters as may be allowed by the court in is discretion. An unwilling or hostile witness so declared by the court OR the witness who is an adverse party CANNOT
be impeached by evidence of his bad character (Sec. 12) – kailangan iba gamitin mo, not bad character
* LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS
* EVIDENCE OF PAST CRIMES OR MISCONDUCT
Leading Question - One that is framed in such a way that the question indicates to the witness the
answer desired by the party asking the question. RULE – Character CANNOT be proved by evidence of particular wrongful acts. (Sec. 11)

• GR – It is not appropriate in direct or re-direct examination particularly when the witness is asked
to testify about a major element of the cause of action or defense. BUT it is allowed in cross or
re-cross examination.
EXC – When leading questions allowed in re/direct examination:
(a) Preliminary matters
(b) Witness is ignorant or a child of tender years, feeble-minded, deaf-mute, and there is
difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from such witness
(c) When witness is a hostile witness
(d) When the witness is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a
corporation, partnership or corporation which is an adverse party.
Misleading Question – Assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness or contrary to that
which he has previously stated. It is not allowed in any type of examination.
• BUT – Issue is different when the evidence of past misconduct is offered not to prove bad
character but to prove commission of a crime/offense
• Similar Acts Rule – Evidence of past or other crimes may be justified by grooving the
evidence to prove state of mind, knowledge, identity, etc. (Bautista)
• REMEMBER: Rape Shield Law – In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant's past
sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his / her reputation shall not be admitted unless, and
only to the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is material and relevant to the case.
When Allowed – Inquiry into prior bad acts is more generally allowed on cross-examination for
impeachment purposes as test of credibility. (People v. Sorge, U.S. Case)
• Impeachment by Showing Bad Reputation – Impeachment by evidence that he has a bad
general reputation is allowed to test credibility of the person (Riano). Should ONLY refer to
the following:
(a) For truth
(b) For Honest
(c) For integrity

• He CANNOT be impeached for his reputation on other grounds.

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 99
Reputation v. Character – Sec. 11 does NOT allow impeachment by evidence of bad character but only
bad reputation.
• CHARACTER – Made up of the things an individual actually is and does
• REPUTATION – What people think an individual is and what they say about him
EXCEPTION to GR – Prior Conviction is a particular wrongful act which is ADMISSIBLE in evidence to
impeach a witness. Shown either:
(a) By his examination, i.e. by cross examining him
(b) By presenting the record of his prior conviction.
* EVIDENCE OF SUBSEQUENT ACTS = ADMISSIBLE – The mere subsequency of an act to that charged
in an indictment DOES NOT on that ground alone make it incompetent to establish intent or motive."
(U.S. v. Riley, 1983).
* NON-IMPEACHMENT ONE’S OWN WITNESS, EXCEPT PARS. “D” AND “E,” SECTION 10, RULE 132
RATIONALE – Calling a witness implies "endorsing or vouching" for what he/she says which suggests
that the calling party is morally bound by what the witness has to say. (Bautista, citing Lilly)
GR - Cannot impeach one's own witness.
EXC - Surprise Witness – Unwilling or Hostile Witness OR Subscribing witness to a deed or an
attesting witness to a will whom the party is bound to call. Must be allowed to impeach the
"turncoat" witness' testimony.
* WITNESS IMPEACHED BY PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS
Prior Inconsistent Statements - Statements made by a witness on an earlier occasion which
contradict the statements he later made during trial.
Elements for Impeaching Witness through Prior Inconsistent Statements
(a) Alleged statements are related to witness including the circumstances of the times and places
and the persons present. If in writing, must be shown to him.
(b) Must be asked whether he made such statements + Explain them if he admits making them
• Mere Presentation of Declarations Insufficient – Mere presentation of prior declarations
of the witness without the same having been read to him while testifying in court is
insufficient for the desired impeachment of his testimony, if he wasn't given ample
opportunity to explain the supposed discrepancy (Founded on Common Sense + Protect
Character of the witness (People v. De Guzman)
GR: No Rehabilitation Evidence Allowed After Impeachment – Where the witness has been
impeached by PIS, his credibility may NOT be redeemed by evidence of statements he has
made which are consistent with his testimony (Bautista).
EXC: Recent Fabrication Rule (US Doctrine) – Where the testimony of a witness is assailed as a
recent fabrication, it may be confirmed by proof of declaration of the same tenor before the
motive to falsify existed. (People v. Singer, 300 NY 120, 1949)
• When the veracity of a witness is subject to challenge because of motive to fabricate, it is
competent to put in evidence statements made by him consistent with what he says on the
stand, made before the motive arose.
• JGPS Commentary: Let us say that prosecution presents Witness A to testify against the
accused. The defense then presents evidence of PIS made by Witness A to impeach his
testimony, and the judge then discredits Witness A. AT this point, the GR rule applies (i.e. the
witness has been impeached by valid PIS, hence cannot be redeemed by consistent ones).
To apply the Recent Fabrication Rule, the prosecution presents evidence that the PIS alleged
by the defense to impeach Witness A are "recent fabrications" made by Witness A because he
was in a situation where there was motive to lie (i.e. in the US, making yourself look good to
the jury to obtain their sympathy). Once proven, he can now present prior CONSISTENT
statements to make him credible again. (Sana na gets niyo hahah hirap intindihin yung
original pero I think that's the gist).
• TOTO'S WORDS – "If you can show that the inconsistent statements were made BEFORE that
motive for fabrication arose, you MAY introduce the statement during re-direct."
* EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER
GR – Evidence of good character of a witness is NOT admissible. Witness is PRESUMED in GF hence
no evidence of his good character is needed.
EXC – When such character is impeached. Must first be discredited before reputation is bolstered.
• NOTE – This rule refers to WITNESSES, not of the parties in the case. (Rule 130 would apply)
* REFERRAL TO MEMORANDUM - REVIVAL OF PRESENT MEMORY, REVIVAL OF PAST RECOLLECTION
• During testimony, witness may refer to a memorandum or anything written or recorded by
himself or by someone acting under his direction to refresh his memory.
• Should be written at the time the fact occurred or immediately thereafter or at any time when
the event or fact was fresh in his memory. Must produce + be available for inspection.
• Witness MUST affirm that the fact was correctly written or recorded.
2 SITUATIONS where memory may be refreshed by memorandum (Bautista)
Present Recollection Revived – Where the witness' recollection is stimulated by the memo but
basically it is the witness' recollection not the memo which is being
introduced into evidence
Memo serves merely to refresh + not independent evidence
Past Recollection Recorded – Witness has NO RECALL whatsoever of the matters to which he is
testifying except that he can attest that the memorandum of such
matters is truthful and accurate;
Memorandum itself is the evidence and proper foundation needed
for its introduction into evidence. (i.e. best evidence rule)
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 100
 JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE (A.M. NO. 12-8-SC)
Section 1. Scope. - (a) This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the reception of
evidence before:
(1) The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, the Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts, and the Shari' a Circuit Courts but shall not apply to small claims cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC;
(2) The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari'a District Courts;
(3) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals, and the Shari'a Appellate Courts;
(4) The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence, including the Integrated
Bar of the Philippine (IBP); and
(5) The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject to disapproval of the Supreme
Court, insofar as their existing rules of procedure contravene the provisions of this Rule.1
(b) For the purpose of brevity, the above courts, quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating officers shall be uniformly
referred to here as the "court."
Section 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer. - (a) The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the end,
executed by the lawyer who conducted or supervised the examination of the witness, to the effect that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding answers that the
witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the witness regarding the latter's answers.
(b) A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to disciplinary action, including disbarment.
NOTE – Separate from the jurat of the witness
Section 5. Subpoena. - If the government employee or official, or the requested witness, who is neither the witness
of the adverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without just
cause to make the relevant books, documents, or other things under his control available for copying, authentication,
and eventual production in court, the requesting party may avail himself of the issuance of a subpoena ad
testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena to
the witness in this case shall be the same as when taking his deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit
shal1 be understood to be ex parte.

Section 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of direct testimonies. - (a) The parties shall file
with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later than five days before
pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents, the following:
(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such witnesses' direct testimonies; and
(2) The parties' docun1entary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached to the judicial affidavits and marked
as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the
case of the respondent or the defendant.
(b) Should a party or a witness desire to keep the original document or object evidence in his possession, he may, after
the same has been identified, marked as exhibit, and authenticated, warrant in his judicial affidavit that the copy or
reproduction attached to such affidavit is a faithful copy or reproduction of that original. In addition, the party or
witness shall bring the original document or object evidence for comparison during the preliminary conference with
the attached copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing which the latter shall not be admitted.
This is without prejudice to the introduction of secondary evidence in place of the original when allowed by existing
rules.
Section 3. Contents of judicial Affidavit. - A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the witness
and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino, and shall contain the following:
(a) The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;
(b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness and the place
where the examination is being held;
Section 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial affidavit. - The party presenting the judicial affidavit of
his witness in place of direct testimony shall state the purpose of such testimony at the start of the presentation of
the witness. The adverse party may move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers
found in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall cause the
marking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of an authorized court personnel, without
prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Section 7. Examination of the witness on his judicial affidavit. - The adverse party shall have the right to cross-
examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same. The party who presents the
witness may also examine him as on re-direct. In every case, the court shall take active part in examining the witness
to determine his credibility as well as the truth of his testimony and to elicit the answers that it needs for resolving the
issues.
Section 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits. - (a) Upon the termination of the testimony of his last witness, a
party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece, in their
chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit.
(b) After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal ground for his objection, if any, to its
admission, and the court shall immediately make its ruling respecting that exhibit.
(c) Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that describe and authenticate them, it
is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their markings during the offers, the objections, and the rulings,
dispensing with the description of each exhibit.

(c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does so under oath,
and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;

(d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that:

(1) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies;
(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and
(3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity in accordance with the
Rules of Court;

(e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and

(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who is authorized by law to
administer the same.

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 101
Section 9. Application of rule to criminal actions. – (a) This rule shall apply to all criminal actions:

(1) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;

(2) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or

(3) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.

(b) The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days before the pre-trial,
serving copies if the same upon the accused. The complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to the affidavits such
documentary or object evidence as he may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on. No further judicial
affidavit, documentary, or object evidence shall be admitted at the trial.

(c) If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the prosecution, he shall
have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses to the court within ten days from receipt
of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public and private prosecutor, including his documentary and object
evidence previously marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on. These affidavits shall serve as direct testimonies of the
accused and his witnesses when they appear before the court to testify.

Section 10. Effect of non-compliance with the judicial Affidavit Rule. –

(a) A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived
their submission. The court may, however, allow only once the late submission of the same provided, the delay is for
a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P
1,000.00 nor more than P 5,000.00 at the discretion of the court.

(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the scheduled hearing of the case as
required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause despite notice shall be deemed to have waived his client's
right to confront by cross-examination the witnesses there present.

(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the content requirements of Section
3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4 above. The court may, however, allow only once the subsequent
submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial provided the delay is for a valid reason
and would not unduly prejudice the opposing party and provided further, that public or private counsel responsible
for their preparation and submission pays a fine of not less than P 1,000.00 nor more than P 5,000.00, at the discretion
of the court.

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 102
 B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS (SECTIONS 19 TO 33)
Section 19. Classes of Documents. —
For the purpose of their presentation evidence, documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official
bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to the entered
therein.
All other writings are private. (20a)
Section 20. Proof of private document. —
Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. (21a)
Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. —
Where a private document is more than thirty years old, is produced from the custody in which it would
naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no
other evidence of its authenticity need be given. (22a)
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. —
The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of
such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which
the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such
person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness
or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is
offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (23a)
Section 23. Public documents as evidence. —
Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer
are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even
against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. (24a)
Section 24. Proof of official record. —
The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any
purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having
the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept
is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul
general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. —
Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must
state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case
may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he
be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)
Section 26. Irremovability of public record. —
Any public record, an official copy of which is admissible in evidence, must not be removed from the
office in which it is kept, except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to
the just determination of a pending case. (27a)
Section 27. Public record of a private document. — An authorized public record of a private
document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian
of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. (28a)
Section 28. Proof of lack of 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,
accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office
contain no such record or entry. (29)
Section 29. How judicial record impeached. —
Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: (a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial
officer, (b) collusion between the parties, or (c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the
proceedings.
Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. — Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved
and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved.
Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. —
The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered
after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He may
show that the alteration was made by another, without his concurrence, or was made with the consent
of the parties affected by it, or was otherwise properly or innocent made, or that the alteration did not
change the meaning or language of the instrument. If he fails to do that, the document shall not be
admissible in evidence. (32a)
Section 32. Seal. — There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private
documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. (33a)
Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. —
Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied
with a translation into English or Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their attorneys
are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. (34a)
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 103
DOCUMENTS - Deed, instrument, or other duly authorized paper by which something is proved, * ANCIENT PRIVATE DOCUMENT – Elements of Ancient Private Document
evidenced, or set forth. (1) More than 30 years old
(2) Produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine
To be considered documentary evidence, it must be offered as PROOF of their (3) Unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion
contents (Sec. 2, Rule 130).
* PROVING GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING
* PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
DOES NOT require expert testimony – can be proven by ANY WITENSS who believes it to be the HW
(1) Written official acts, records of official acts of sovereign authority, official bodies and of the person concerned because:
tribunals, and public officers whether PHP or Foreign
(1) Personal Knowledge – He has seen the person write
(2) Documents acknowledged before NP (except last wills and testaments)
(2) Acted on Writing – Has seen writing purporting to be his, upon which the witness has acted
(3) Public Records kept in the PHP of private documents required by law to be entered therein or been charged (thus acquiring knowledge)

* PRIVATE DOCUMENTS – All other documents not enumerated as public (3) Comparison – Comparison made by witness OR the court with writings admitted/treated as
a. Genuine by the party against whom the document is offered or
Proof of a Private Document (Sec. 20, Rule 132) – Due execution and authenticity must be proven: b. Proven to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge

(a) Personal Knowledge – Anyone who saw the document executed or written Other Ways as provided by Lopez v. CA (1978)

(b) Other Evidence – Evidence of genuineness of signature/handwriting of maker (PK not needed) (1) Admission of the person sought to be charged with the disputed writing

What does "any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be" mean? (2) By witnesses who saw the standards written OR to whom or in whose hearing the person
sought to be charged acknowledged the writing thereof
• When Authenticity is Offered – Due execution and authenticity must be proven (i.e. "This
is the document that the defendant executed.") (3) By evidence showing that the reputed writer has acquiesced in or recognized the same, or
that it has been adopted and acted upon by him in his business transactions or other
• When Not Offered As Authentic – Only proving its existence; as "object evidence" (i.e. "I concerns
found this document in my drawer," need only prove identification and not authentication)
* PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD
When Authentication of Private Document NOT Required
Entry of PO Prima Facie Fact – Entry made by public officer in public record makes document of such
(1) Ancient Document (Sec. 21, Rule 132) entry only prima facie evidence of the fact stated in the entry (Sec. 23)
(2) Not Denied – G & A of actionable document have not been specifically denied under oath
(3) Admitted – G &A have been admitted • BUT for all other documents – Facts stated only constitute evidence of the fact that gave
(4) Object Evidence – Document not offered as authentic but only to prove existence (ID) rise to the execution of such documents and of the date of execution. (Kummer v. People)

* “REPLY LETTER” RULE PROVING OFFICIAL RECORD; ATTESTATION OF COPY – Need to show EXISTENCE of official record by:

With respect to a letter received thus in due course of mail and purporting to come from a person to (a) Official publication
whom a letter has previously been sent and to be in reply thereto, a presumption of fact is indulged in
favor of the genuineness of the signature and the letter is admissible in evidence without further (b) Copy of document attested by officer having legal custody OR by attestation of his deputy
authentication.
a. If NOT KEPT in the PHP – Attestation must be accompanied with cert. that such
• To obtain the benefit of this presumption, it must first be proven that a letter was written and officer has the custody
mailed, to which the letter offered is an answer. Applies to a letter signed in typewriting or by
rubber stamp. b. If office where record is kept is in a FOREIGN COUNTRY – Cert. may be made by:
i. Secretary of the embassy or legation
• Where a letter is sent in the ordinary course of business and is answered by an agent of the ii. Consul-general
individual or corporation addressed, authority of such person is PRESUMED and the latter is iii. Consul
ADMISSIBLE against the alleged principal without preliminary proof of authority. iv. Vice-consul or consular agent
v. Any officer in the foreign service of the PHP stationed in the foreign
country where record is kept + authenticated by the seal of his office

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 104
What Attestation Must Provide: * DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE
(1) Copy is a correct copy of the original or specific part thereof
(2) Under the official seal of Because the rule provides that a document written in an unofficial language shall NOT be admitted as
a. the attesting officer OR evidence, it must be accompanied by a translation into English or Filipino.
b. the court, if he be the clerk of a court having a seal
To avoid interruption of court proceedings, required to have translation prepared BEFORE trial.
PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD – Consists of a written statement signed by the officer having custody of
an official record or by his deputy. Statement must contain:
(a) That there was diligent search of the record
(b) Despite such search, no record of entry is found to exist in his office

* PROOF OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENT – Determination of PRIVATE or PUBLIC nature of document

determines how it may be presented

• PUBLIC – No need for proof of due execution and authentication

• PRIVATE – need proof of execution and authentication as it lacks solemnities of official or

public character provided by law

Effect of Notarial Seal – The certificate of acknowledgement of a Notary Public is prima facie evidence
of the due execution and authentication of the instrument.
• Converts PRIVATE document into a PUBLIC document.
• Entitled to full faith and credit upon its face; must be able to rely on NP's acknowledgment
• NOTE – Notary Public must be duly authorized to perform function; if not, NOT public.

DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESMUPTION – To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must
present a copy thereof and comply with Sec. 24 and 24 of Rule 132. Where a foreign law is NOT pleaded,
or pleaded but NOT PROVEN, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as PHP Law.

WHY ARE LAST WILLS NOT PUBLIC DOCUMENTS – They must undergo authentication process (even
if notarized) which can only be done by the PROBATE COURT (Sec. 1, Rule 75) .

* IRREMOVABILITY OF PUBLIC RECORD – Certificate and attestation are REQUIRED because public
records are generally irremovable from where they are kept, except upon order of a court when
essential to a just determination of a pending case (Sec. 26, Rule 132)

Impeaching Judicial Records (Judicial Proceedings) –

(a) Lack of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer
(b) Collusion between parties
(c) Fraud in the party offering the record in respect to the proceedings

* ALTERATIONS IN DOCUMENT - Part producing the document as genuine but bears alterations after
execution has the duty to account for any alteration found in document.

How to Explain Alterations (Riano):

(a) Without Concurrence – Alteration was made by another without his concurrence

(b) With Consent – Alteration made with the consent of parties affected by it

(c) Innocent -Alteration was otherwise properly or innocently made

(d) No Change in Meaning – Alteration DID NOT in anyway change the meaning or language of
the instrument

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 105
 C. OFFER AND OBJECTION (SECTIONS 34 TO 40)
Section 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally
offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (35)
Section 35. When to make offer. — As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at
the time the witness is called to testify.
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial
evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. (n)
Section 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the
offer is made.
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.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)
Section 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary. — When it becomes reasonably apparent in
the course of the examination of a witness that the question being propounded are of the same class
as those to which objection has been made, whether such objection was sustained or overruled, it shall
not be necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his
continuing objection to such class of questions. (37a)
Section 38. Ruling. — The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made,
unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented; but the
ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the party against whom it is
made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. However, if the objection is
based on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify
the ground or grounds relied upon. (38a)
Section 39. Striking out answer. —
Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its
objection to the same, and such objection is found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the
objection and order the answer given to be stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent,
irrelevant, or otherwise improper. (n)
Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. — If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded
by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence
excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of
the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony.
• Relate this to Section 6 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule
* OFFER OF EVIDENCE; WHEN
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE – At the time the witness is called to testify (Sec. 35, Rule 132)
DOCUMENTARY & OBJECT – After presentation of party's testimonial evidence. The offer is made
ORALLY unless allowed by the court to be in writing (Sec. 35, Rule 132)
• HENCE – Presentation of documentary or object evidence for marking and identification IS
NOT the offer contemplated in the Rules
• Failure to object to the evidence at this time should NOT be construed as a waiver of the
objection of evidence.
GR: The court shall NOT consider evidence which has not been formally offered. Necessary for
duty of the court to rest its findings of fact and judgment strictly upon evidence offered.
Marking of a Document Not a Formal Offer – Evidence is not formally offered when it is
merely marked for identification. It must be formally offered and opposing counsel given
opportunity to object to it or cross-examine the witness called.
Identification is done in the course of the trial and accompanied by marking. Formal offer is
done only when party rests its case.
EXC: Formal offer is NOT REQUIRED in the following:
(1) Summary Proceeding – Because it is a proceeding where there is NO full-blown trial
(2) Documents Judicially Admitted or Judicial Notice
(3) Documents, affidavits, depositions used in summary judgment
(4) Documents or affidavits used in deciding quasi-judicial or admin cases (Bantolino v. Coca
cola Bottlers Inc.)
(5) Lost objects previously marked, identified, described in the record and testified to by the
witnesses who had been subjects of cross-examination in respect to said objects
When Evidence Not Formally Offered was Allowed (People v. Mate)
(a) Evidence must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded; AND
(b) Incorporated in records of the case
Evidence Offered by Petitioner but not by Respondent Allowed – Delivery receipts and sale invoices
did not form part of respondent's formal offer but the same formed part of petitioner's. P insisted that
since they did not form part of responden'ts offer, RTC and CA had no legal basis to award damages in
favor of respondent. SC: No error. Can still be considered since it formed part of petitioner's
- Titan Construction Company v. Uni-Field Enterprises
How an Offer of Evidence is Made – Sec. 34, Rule 132
(1) State the nature or substance of the evidence AND
(2) Specific purpose for which it is offered.
Court will consider it only for such stated purpose and not any other. (Sps. Ragudo v. Fabella Estate)
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 106
* OBJECTIONS – Must be made at the time of the offer of such evidence. Otherwise, WAIVED.
Purpose of Objection
(a) Keep out inadmissible evidence that would harm client's cause. (ROE not self-operating; must
be invoked by way of objection)  IMPORTANT TO NOTE
(b) Protect the record (i.e. to present the issue of inadmissibility in a way that if the trial court
rules erroneously, error can be riled upon as a ground for future appeal)
(c) Protect witness from embarrassment or harassment
(d) Expose adversary's unfair tactics (i.e. kept on asking leading questions)
(e) Give trial court chance to correct its own errors and warn the court that a ruling adverse to
objector may supply a reason to invoke appellate jurisdiction of higher court
(f) Avoid wavier of inadmissibility of otherwise inadmissible evidence
WHEN OBJECTION SHOULD BE MADE (TIMELY) – Cannot be for the first time on appeal
For ORAL EVIDENCE – Immediately after the offer is made (Sec. 36, Rule 132)
For QUESTIONS – When propounded in the course of examination, object as soon as the
grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent
For WRITTEN EVIDENCE - Within 3 days after notice of the offer unless diff. period allowed by court
RULING ON OBJECTIONS –
• GR – Ruling of the court must be given IMMEDIATELY after the objection is made
• EXCEPT when the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question
presented.
• BUT – Court must give its ruling during the trial and at such time as will give a party an
opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling (Sec. 38, Rule 132)
Need Not be Stated Unless… - The ruling of the court sustaining or overruling the objection NEED NOT
be stated except if the objection is based on 2 or more grounds. Must specify if so. (Sec. 38, Rule 132)
* CONTINUING OBJECTION –
It is NOT NECESSARY to repeat an objection when it becomes reasonably apparent that the witness is
being asked questions which are of the same class as those to which an objection has already been
made whether sustained or overruled. Can make a continuing objection.
* STRIKING OUT ANSWER - Technique which lawyer avails of when he does not have opportunity to
object before the witness responds.
Where witnesses are quick to answer even before the question is over
and before adverse counsel can react and object to the question, counsel
may state his reasons and move to strike out the answer. (Sec. 39, R.132)
A Motion to Strike Out an Answer MAY BE AVAILED in the following instances
(1) Answer is premature
(2) Answer is irrelevant, incompetent, improper
(3) Answer is unresponsive
(4) Witness becomes unavailable for cross-examination through no fault of the cross-examiner
(5) Testimony was allowed conditionally, and condition was not fulfilled
For Disqualification of Witness – Objection must be made as soon as he is called to the stand
PROVIDED his ground for DQ is already known. (Ex. Spousal Immunity Rule)
* GENERAL V. SPECIFIC OBJECTION
RULE – An objection must point out the specific ground of the objection and if it does not do so, no
error is committed in overruling it (the objection).
Examples of General Objections (which may be overruled) – no specific ground is provided in the ff:
(a) Evidence is incompetent!
(b) Inadmissible!
(c) Irrelevant and immaterial!
(d) Improper!
How to be Specific – State WHY and WHAT GROUND it is incompetent, inadmissible, immaterial, etc.
FORMAL OBJECTION - Directed against the alleged defect in the formulation of the question
(Ex: ambiguous, leading and misleading questions; repetitious questions)
SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTION - Made and directed against very nature of evidence
(Ex: Inadmissible due to irrelevancy or incompetency; opinionated)
* WAIVER OF OBJECTION – There is waiver when there is failure to point out some defect, irregularity,
or wrong in the admission or exclusion of evidence. Can be express or implied.
• Failure to timely object to certain evidence offered is WAIVER.
• Where a continuing objection had been interposed on prohibited testimony, the objection is
DEEMED WAIVED where the objecting counsel cross-examined the witness on the very
matters subject of the prohibition.
Extent of Waiver – Essentially waives objections to admissibility.
• Not Equal to Weight – Hence, the evidence becomes admissible but the waiver does not
admit that the evidence possess the weight attributed to it. Admissibility NOT SAME as Weight.
• Not Admission of Credibility / Controverting – Waiver NOT construed as admission it is
credible. Also, not a waiver to present controverting evidence.
• Waiver extends only to (1) relevance and (2) competence (sec. 3, Rule 128) provides that
Evidence is admissible when RELEVANT to the issue and NOT EXCLUDED by law or Rules)
* TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE (OFFER OF PROOF)
When evidence is excluded by the court and motion to contest them is denied, may have the same
attached to or made part of the record (Sec. 40, Rule 132) (1) to allow the court to know the nature of
the testimony or documentary evidence and convince trial judge to permit it and (2) preserve for appeal
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 107
 • If DOCUMENTARY or OBJECT – Have document or object attached to or made part of record * DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE (Rule 33, Section 1, and Rule 119, Section 23)

• If TESTIMONIAL – State for the record the name and other personal circumstances or the RULE 33. Demurrer to Evidence
witness and the substance of the proposed testimony
Section 1. Demurrer to evidence. — After the plaintiff has completed the
Formal Offer of Evidence v. Offer of Proof presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground
that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his
motion is denied he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is
Formal Offer of Evidence Offer of Proof
granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to
Offer of a testimony of a witness prior to the have waived the right to present evidence.
Process where proponent of
latter's testimony, or offer of D&O after a party
excluded evidence tenders the same.
has presented his testimonial evidence Rule 119, Section 23. Demurrer to evidence. — After the prosecution rests its
case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence
(1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or
* NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE (Rule 121, Sections 2[b] and 6[b])
(2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court.
Section 2. Grounds for a new trial. — The court shall grant a new trial on any of If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused
the following grounds: may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed
without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and
(a) The errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution.
the accused have been committed during the trial; (15a)
(b) The new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its
could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the grounds and shall be filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) days after the
trial and which if introduced and admitted would probably change the prosecution rests its case. The prosecution may oppose the motion within a non-
judgment. extendible period of five (5) days from its receipt.
Section 6. Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration. — The effects of If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to evidence within
granting a new trial or reconsideration are the following: a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may oppose
the demurrer to evidence within a similar period from its receipt.
(a) When a new trial is granted on the ground of errors of law or
irregularities committed during the trial, all proceedings and evidence The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the
affected thereby shall be set aside and taken anew. The court may, in the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.
interest of justice, allow the introduction of additional evidence.

(b) When a new trial is granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence,

the evidence already adduced shall stand and the newly-discovered and
such other evidence as the court may, in the interest of justice, allow to
be introduced shall be taken and considered together with the evidence
already in the record.

(c) In all cases, when the court grants new trial or reconsideration, the
original judgment shall be set aside or vacated and a new judgment
rendered accordingly.

Additional Evidence After Case is Rested – Rules of Court DOES NOT PROHIBIT a party from
requesting the court to allow it to present additional evidence even after it has rested its case (Republic
v. Sandiganbayan, 2011)

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 108
 CASES
Rosete v. Lim (2006) – Ex Abudanti Cautela
Facts – Lims filed a civil case against the petitioners and others asking that certain lands be reconveyed
to them. Lims filed a Notice to Take Deposition of Mapalo and Chito. They argued that the deposition
may not be taken without leave of court as no answer has yet been served and the issues have not yet
been joined since their Answer was filed ex abudanti cautela, pending resolution of the Petition for
Certiorari.
Moreover, they contend that since there are two criminal cases pending involving the same set of facts
as in the present case, to permit the taking of the deposition would be violative of their right against
self-incrimination because respondents would seek to establish the allegations of fact in the complaint
which are also the allegations of fact in the complaint-affidavits in the said criminal cases.
Is the deposition valid? – YES.
Defendant in Criminal Case v. Ordinary Witness – Unlike an ordinary witness (or a party in a civil
action) who may be compelled to testify by subpoena, having only the right to refuse to answer a
particular incriminatory question at the time it is put to him – the defendant in a criminal action can
refuse to testify altogether. He can refuse to take the witness stand, be sworn, answer any question.
Ex Abudanti Still an Answer – Ex abudanti cautela means "out of abundant caution" or "to be on the
safe side." An answer ex abudanti cautela does not make their answer less of an answer. A cursory look
at the answers filed by petitioners shows that they contain their respective defenses. An answer is a
pleading in which a defending party sets forth his defenses and the failure to file one within the time
allowed may cause a defending party to be declared in default.
Current Case Not Criminal. The case on hand certainly cannot be categorized as a criminal one. The
fact that there are two criminal cases pending which are allegedly based on the same set of facts as that
of the civil case will not give them the right to refuse to take the witness stand and to give their
depositions. They are not facing criminal charges in the civil case. They can simply refuse to answer a
question but cannot refuse to testify.
People v. J. Ayson (1989) – Voluntary Questioning
Before Case is Filed – Right to remain silent, to counsel, against torture.
After Case is Filed – To refuse to be a witness, not to have prejudice for refusal, to testify on his own
behalf, subject to cross-examination.
Ramos was not in any sense under custodial interrogation, as the term should be properly
understood, prior to and during the administrative inquiry into the discovered irregularities in ticket
sales in which he appeared to have had a hand. The constitutional rights of a person under custodial
interrogation under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution did not therefore come into play,
were of no relevance to the inquiry.
Ramos had voluntarily answered questions posed to him on the first day of the administrative
investigation, and agreed that the proceedings should be recorded the record having thereafter been
marked during the trial of the criminal action subsequently filed against him as Exhibit A. Exhibit K is a
note that he sent to his superiors the day before the investigation, offering to compromise his liability
in the alleged irregularities. These were free spontaneous acts.
Capitol Subdivision v. Prov. of Negros Occ., 99 Phil. 633 –
While the granting or refusal of motions for continuance is discretionary, that discretion must be
exercised wisely (liberality) with a view to substantial justice.
Adverse party may cross-examine a witness for the purpose of eliciting all important facts bearing upon
the issue. BUT this DOES NOT mean that a party by doing so is making the witness his own.
Dans, Jr. v. People – Denial of Demurrer Based on Defense's Evidence (Deemed Read Into Doctrine)
No Rule Against Basing Denial of Demurrer on Defense's Evidence - SC ruled that although a
demurrer to evidence must be resolved based on the prosecution’s evidence, there is nothing in the
rules which would bar the court from taking cognizance of any matters TAKEN UP DURING THE TRIAL
OR WHICH HAVE BECOME PART OF THE RECORDS OF THE CASE. In this instance, the disputed evidence
was taken in advance at the request of the defendant Dans himself.
Reasons – FIRST, Judicial Notice, Cuervo testimony was already part of the records. SECOND, Judicial
Admission, having been given in court, it forms part of the record. THIRD, advance testimony was given
in open court and duly recorded as formally offered. Even if it were to be excluded, there was enough
evidence offered by prosecution to justify denial (lease agreement).
Chua Gaw v. Chua (supra) – Calling Party Bound by His Witness' Testimony
That the witness is the adverse party does not necessarily mean that the calling party will not
be bound by the former’s testimony. The fact remains that it was at his instance that his adversary
was put on the witness stand. Unlike an ordinary witness, the calling party may impeach an adverse
witness in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of his bad
character. Under a rule permitting the impeachment of an adverse witness, although the calling party
does not vouch for the witness’ veracity, he is nonetheless bound by his testimony if it is not
contradicted or remains unrebutted.
Canque v. CA, supra – Memo as Memory Refresher v. as Independent Evidence
Memorandum - Considered as a memorandum, said copies of the Book of Collectible Accounts does
not itself constitute evidence. As explained in Borromeo v. CA –
"In other words, where the witness has testified independently of or after his testimony has been
refreshed by a memorandum of the events in dispute, such memorandum is not admissible as
corroborative evidence. It is self-evident that a witness may not be corroborated by any written
statement prepared wholly by him. He cannot be more credible just because he supports his open-
court declaration with written statements of the same facts even if he did prepare them during the
occasion in dispute, unless the proper predicate of his failing memory is priory laid down. What is more,
even where this requirement has been satisfied, the express injunction of the rule itself is that such
evidence must be received with caution, if only because it is not very difficult to conceive and fabricate
evidence of this nature.
As the entries in question were not made based on personal knowledge, they could only corroborate
Dolores Aday's testimony that she made the entries as she received the bills.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 109
People v. Plasencia – Nervousness and Anxiety; Notes at Hand
On Minor Inconsistencies: Does not Detract Credibility. Minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of
witnesses do not detract from their credibility; on the contrary, they serve to strengthen their credibility.
Notes Discretionary – Allowing a witness to refer to her notes rests on the sound discretion of the trial
court. In this case, the exercise of that discretion has not been abused; the witness herself has explained
that she merely wanted to be accurate on dates and like details. Pursuant to Rule 132, Sec. 16 – A
witness may refer to a memorandum to refresh memory respecting a certain fact.
Delay in Reporting Out of Fear Allowed – Francisca did fail in immediately reporting the killing to the
police authorities. BUT - Francisca, in her case, has expressed fears for her life considering that the
assailants, being her neighbors, could easily exact retribution on her. Also, the hesitancy in reporting
the occurrence of a crime in rural areas is not unknown. Delay in making an accusation does not
adulterate the credibility of the witness.
Nervousness & anxiety of a witness is a natural reaction. The real concern, in fact, should be when
they show no such emotions. Appellants see inadvertency on Francisca's appearing to be "jittery" on
the witness stand. Nervousness and anxiety of a witness is a natural reaction particularly in the case of
those who are called to testify for the first time. The real concern, in fact, should be when they show no
such emotions
People v. Sherwin Bis (2014) – Inconsistencies were explained with ID
It is now too well-settled to require extensive documentation that "inconsistencies in the testimonies
of witnesses, which refer only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect the veracity and
weight of their testimonies where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and the
positive identification of the accused."
Minor Inconsistencies Only – While there are indeed minor contradictions in Espejo and Arce's
testimonies, the same are nevertheless inconsequential and do not detract from the proven elements
of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The foregoing inconsistencies, relate only to minor
matters and do not touch on the essence of the crime.
In harmony with Identification – The testimonies of the said witnesses for the prosecution were in
harmony with respect to their positive identification of Bis as the one who sold the illegal drugs to
Espejo, the poseur-buyer, in a planned buy-bust operation, as well as to the other surrounding
circumstances that transpired during the said operation.
Suerte-Felipe v. People (2008) – Sincerity in Minor Inconsistencies
Inconsistencies Strengthen Sincerity – We have held that inconsistencies in the testimonies of
witnesses on minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their
declarations, their veracity, or the weight of their testimonies; slight contradictions in fact serve to
strengthen the sincerity of a witness and prove that his testimony is not rehearsed.
Slight Divergence = Testifying on Own Perceptions – It is settled that so long as the witnesses’
testimonies concur on substantial matters, the inconsistencies and contradictions do not affect the
witnesses’ credibility or the verity of their testimonies. The aforesaid alleged contradictory statements
are but minor inconsistencies when a witness is testifying in court, which only shows that both men
witnessed the unfolding of the shooting incident from different vantage points. The slight divergence in
their testimonies also goes to show that both men were not rehearsed before they testified at the trial,
but testified based on their own perceptions.
Siguan v. Lim (1999) – Antedating Deed of Donation
The phrase "all other public documents" in the second sentence of Section 23 means those public
documents other than the entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public
officer.
It bears repeating that notarial documents, except last wills and testaments, are public documents and
are evidence of the facts that gave rise to their execution and of their date.
No Antedating Proven – In the present case, the fact that the questioned Deed was registered only on
2 July 1991 is not enough to overcome the presumption as to the truthfulness of the statement of the
date in the questioned deed, which is 10 August 1989. Siguan's claim against Lim was constituted only
in August 1990, or a year after the questioned alienation. Thus, the first two requisites for the rescission
of contracts are absent.
Antillon v. Barcelon, 37 Phil. 148 – Notarized Document
A document duly acknowledged before a notary public under his hand and seal, with his certificate
thereto attached, is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution and delivery,
unless and until some question is raised as to the verity of said acknowledgment and certificate.
Purpose of requiring documents to be notarized is (a) to give solemnity which surround execution and
delivery, and (b) authorize documents to be given in evidence without proof of their execution and
delivery.
Were there no exception for official statements, hosts of officials would be found devoting the greater
part of their time to attending as witnesses in court or delivering their depositions before an officer.
The work of administration of government and the interest of the public having business with official
would alike suffer in consequence.
Lopez v. CA (1978) – Rule 132, Sec. 23 has no preference to prove Handwriting
The rule merely enumerates the means by which the HW of a person may be proven. The law makes
no preference, much less distinction among and between the different means stated above proving the
handwriting,
Under Sec. 23, Rule 132 it must be noted that the court may also make a comparison between the
questioned and standard signatures before it, and since the Judge or the Magistrates must make use of
their physical senses to conduct an ocular inspection of the signatures where the signatures appear as
they are, and not merely described by witnesses testifying about them, the result of such inspection by
the Judge or the Magistrates becomes the ultimate judgment of the Court. Plainly, the signatures speak
for themselves. Res ipsa loquitur.
Security Bank v. Triumph Lumber (1999) – 3 Forged Checks
Knowledge of the genuineness of the questioned signatures could be obtained either by:
(1) Ex visu scriptionis – Seeing the person write some other documents or signatures;
(2) Ex scriptis olim visis – Seeing documents otherwise known to him to have been written by
the person in question; or
(3) Ex comparatione scriptorum Examining, in or out of court, for the express purpose of
obtaining such knowledge, the documents said to have been written by the person"
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 110
Anstine v. McWilliams, 24 Wash. 2d 230, 163 P.2d 816 – Letterhead Presumption
The ordinary conduct of men, and the inherent improbability of the given act occurring if it were
not authorized, may also furnish prima facie evidence.
McWilliams – Anstine had to show that Schooler had the authority to make the letter.
SC - The trial court correctly ruled that the letter offered by Ms. Anstine was admissible in evidence;
and, as the letter was nowise impeached by Mr. McWilliams, it stands as competent evidence in the
case.
Letter coming from a person to whom a letter has previously been sent, presumption of
genuineness of signature & letter admissible.
With respect to a letter received thus in due course of mail and purporting to come from a person to
whom a letter has previously been sent and to be in reply thereto, a presumption of fact is indulged in
favor of the genuineness of the signature and the letter is admissible in evidence without further
authentication; although, in order to obtain the benefit of this presumption, it must first be proven that
a letter was written and mailed, to which the letter offered is an answer.
Malayan v. Phil. Nail and Wires (2002) – Unauthenticated Documents
Documents Presented Not Public Documents – Here, Philippine Nails’ documentary exhibits are
private documents, thus needs to be authenticated They are not among those enumerated in Section
19, thus, their due execution and authenticity need to be proved before they can be admitted in
evidence. With the exception concerning the summary of the weight of the steel billets imported,
respondent presented no supporting evidence concerning their authenticity.
Consequently, they cannot be utilized to prove less of the insured cargo and/or the short delivery of the
imported steel billets. In sum, we find no sufficient competent evidence to prove Malayan’s liability.
Heirs of Lacsa v. CA (1994) – Elements of Ancient Documents
(1) More than 30 years old
(2) Produced from custody in which it would be naturally found if genuine
(3) Unblemished by any alteration or circumstances of suspicion
Both Documents More than 30 Years Old - The first document, Exhibit "3", entitled 'Traduccion Al
Castellano de la Escritura de Particion Extrajudicial" was executed on 7 April 1923 whereas the second
document, exhibit "7", entitled "Escritura de Venta Absoluta" executed on 20 Jan 1924.
Certified as Exact Copies with Original File of ROD Pampanga - Both copies of the aforementioned
documents were certified as exact copies of the original on file with the Office of the Register of Deeds
of Pampanga, by the Deputy Register of Deeds. There is a further certification with regard to the
Pampango translation of the document of extrajudicial partition which was issued by the Archives
division, Bureau of Records Management of the Department of General Services. Being certified copies
of originals, they meet the first 2 requirements.
No Evidence Presented to Contradict Genuineness - They merely alluded to the fact that the lack of
signatures on the first two (2) pages could have easily led to their substitution. We cannot uphold this
surmise absent any proof whatsoever. Moreover, the last requirement of the "ancient
document rule" that a document must be unblemished by any alteration or circumstances of suspicion
refers to the extrinsic quality of the document itself. Lack of signatures absent alterations or
circumstances of suspicion cannot detract from the genuineness of documents.
Sanson v. CA (2003) – Failed to Controvert Signatures on Checks; Naked Eye Comparison (supra)
Sanson and Celedonia testified that they KNOW the signature of the deceased. However, their
testimonies, taken alone, have not faithfully discharged the quantum of proof under the Rules.
BUT - Not only did the administratrix fail to controvert the same; from a comparison with the naked eye
of the deceased’s signature appearing on each of the checks exhibits of the Montinolas with that of the
checks-exhibits of the Sanson siblings all of which checks were drawn from the same account, they
appear to have been affixed by one and the same hand. As the siblings have, by their evidence,
substantiated their claims against the estate of the deceased, the burden of evidence had shifted to the
administratrix who, however, expressly opted not to discharge the same when she manifested that she
was dispensing with the presentation of evidence against the claims.
Mariano v. Roxas (2002) – Testimony of 5-year Officemate
Naked Eye Comparison Reveal Forgery – As correctly found by the CA, Mariano has still an unpaid
balance of P12,110.00. The receipts she presented to prove that she overpaid complainant P6,425.00
were forged. There are marked differences between the signatures in the receipts and complainants
specimen signature which are easily discernible by the naked eye.
Caraga 5-years Officemate Familiar with Signature – That the receipts are not genuine was
confirmed by Lorna Caraga. She testified that she is familiar with the signature of complainant who was
her officemate for a period of 5 years in the RTC. In many occasions, complainant signed documents in
her presence. Her opinion as to complainant's genuine signature is admissible in evidence pursuant to
Section 50, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence (opinion rule).
Lazaro v. Agustin (2010) – Presumption of Notary Inapplicable; Sketchy
Do Not Notarize Unless Personally Appeared – A notary public should not notarize a document
unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.
Notary Admitted Document Already Marked Upon Presentation – The testimony of [the notary
public] Atty. Angel Respicio did not suffice to rebut the evidence of the appellees considering his
admission that the affidavit was already thumbmarked when presented to him by one who claimed to
be Basilisa Santos and whom, the witness said he did not know personally. Further, what makes the
documents suspect is the fact that it was subscribed on the same date as the financial statement of
Alejandra Santos. Also, Basilisa was bedridden on execution.
Patula v. People (supra) – Unauthenticated Ledgers and Receipts
Go Failed to Authenticate Patula's Signature. Receipt was Mere Machine Copy – Prosecution
attempted to have Go authenticate the signature of Patula in various receipts but this attempt failed
when the Prosecution admitted the documents were mere machine copies. Tried to offer originals but
then presented a different unnamed witness to authenticate. While an original receipt was eventually
presented, failed to establish that signature thereon was the same it was trying to identify before.
Auditor Guivencan Had No Familiarity with Signature – Her identification of Patula's signature on 2
receipts based alone on the fact that it contained the legible family name was ineffectual, as she was
neither familiar with such signature or never seen her affix the same.
Ledgers Not Authenticated – Ledgers offered to prove discrepancies from amounts received and
those actually remitted were unauthenticated. G relied solely on this, revealing lack of independent
knowledge of the veracity of entries.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 111

Pan Pacific v. CA (2006) – Advanced Deed of Sale + Marital Consent
On Deed of Sale: Capistrano merely relied on his heavy denial but did not present corroborative or
expert witness to declare signatures forged. He has BOP to prove forgery by presenting NBI or other
proof after Cruz presented notarized documents. Also, no evidence that notarization did not take place.
Outstanding balance does not preclude execution of a deed of sale as a vendor may agree to a deed of
absolute sale even before full payment of the purchase price. The (1) letter agreement, (2) Statement
of Account, and Amended Complaint all prove due execution.
On Marital Consent: Fact that document contains a jurat and not an acknowledgment should not affect
its genuineness. In this instance, a jurat suffices as the document only embodies the manifestation of
the spouse's consent, which a mere appendage to the main document. Further, while Marital Consent
is a private document that needs proving, this was sufficiently done when Cruz testified that together
with the other witnesses he was present when wife affixed signature before notary public Benedicto.
That it was executed before DAS does not mean its fake, as it could mean it was in anticipation of the
DAS (6 days later). That Wife was somewhere else and was on natal day is unworthy of belief.
Delfin v. Billones (2006) – How to Prove Death Certificates; Certifications Not as Independent Evid.
Death Certificate Disputed – The documents presented by Billones were mere certifications and not
the certified true copies or duly authenticated reproductions of the purported death certificates of
Daradar and Degala. Not public documents. Civil Registrar not even presented to authenticate and
identify the death certificates, nor could they find out how obtained.
EFFECT – Trial court did not admit the certifications as independence pieces of evidence but merely as
part of the testimony of respondent (see doctrine). Clearly, no probative value.
Cruz v. Cristobal (2006) – Proving Filiation
"Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and Special Laws," may consist of the child’s baptismal
certificate, a judicial admission, a family bible in which the child’s name has been entered, common
reputation respecting the child’s pedigree, admission by silence, the testimony of witnesses, and other
kinds of proof of admission under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
People v. Yap (1994) – Offer of Evidence v. Presentation of Evidence
Presentation of Evidence – Putting in as evid. testimony of the witnesses or the documents relevant
to the issue.
Offer of Evidence – Statement counsel makes as to what he expects to prove with witnesses. Offer of
evidence under Sec. 34 must be understood to include presentation or intro of evidence. To be valid,
witness must be Cross examined.
All the prosecution witnesses were presented and examined before the court a quo, the questions
and answers being taken down in writing, and such testimonies were offered thereafter to the trial
court. Had the accused wanted the trial court to reject the evidence being introduced, they should have
raised an objection thereto. They cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. What is essential
in order that an offer of testimony may be valid, therefore, is that the witness be called and asked
appropriate questions. (CrEx)
The right to object is a privilege which the party may waive. It is not consistent with the ends of
justice for a party, knowing of a supposed secret defect, to proceed and take his chance for a favorable
verdict, with the power and intent to annul it as erroneous if it should be against him
Pacific Asia v. NLRC – Dubai Judgment Not Proven; Processual Presumption
Did Not Comply with Section 5 – Rances failed to submit any attestation issued by the proper Dubai
official having legal custody of the original of the decision of the Dubai Court that the copy presented
by said respondent is a faithful copy of the original decision, which attestation must furthermore be
authenticated by a Philippine Consular Officer having jurisdiction in Dubai. The transmittal letter, dated
23 September 1984, signed by Mohd Bin Saleh, Honorary Consul for Philippines' does not comply with
the requirements of either the attestation under Section 26 nor the authentication envisaged by Section
25.
Translation Also Not Compliant (Sec. 34) – There is no showing of who effected the English translation
of the Dubai decision which respondent Rances submitted to the POEA. The English translation does
not purport to have been made by an official court interpreter of the Philippine Government nor of the
Dubai Government. Neither the Identity of the translator nor his competence in both the Arabic and
English languages has been shown. The English translation submitted by the respondent is not sworn
to as an accurate translation of the original decision in Arabic. Neither has that translation been agreed
upon by the parties as a true and faithful one.
Sps. Zalamea v. CA – Overbooking Law Not Proven
Foreign laws do not prove themselves nor can the courts take judicial notice of them. Like any other
fact, they must be alleged and proved.
Written law may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer
having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied with a certificate that such
officer has custody.
US law or regulation not proven - Transworld relied solely on the statement of Ms. Gwendolyn Lather,
its customer service agent, in her deposition that the Code of Federal Regulations of the Civil
Aeronautics Board allows overbooking. Aside from said statement, no official publication of said code
was presented as evidence.
People v. Salison – Written Dying Declaration in Bisaya; Translator Testified
GR – Section 33 prohibits the admission of a document in an unofficial language.
EXC – If in the interest of justice, it should be allowed when no objection was interposed.
In certain cases, courts merely had the document translated. Person who translates should testify.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 112
Bloodgood v. Lynch (1944) – State Trooper Testimony as to Convo in Hospital
When evidence is excluded upon a mere general objection, the ruling will be upheld, if any ground in
fact existed for the exclusion. It will be assumed, in absence of any request by the opposing party or
court to make the objection definite, that it was understood, that the ruling was placed upon the right
ground. If in such a case a ground be specified, the ruling must be sustained upon that ground unless
the evidence excluded was in no aspect of the case competent, or couldn't be made so.
Sec. Not Applicable to Police Performing Duty – The purpose of the police inquiry is to ascertain facts
which may indicate the commission of a crime. The purpose of section 270-b is to prevent the
negotiating of settlements or the obtaining of general releases or statements with reference to personal
injuries sustained by a patient in connection with a personal injury action or claim until a decent interval
has elapsed.
HENRIETTA CLAIM– Henrietta claims that the statement is inadmissible against her as she was NOT
present in the hospital when the State Trooper was there. Claims that objection based on violation of
270 B included an objection upon the ground alleged by Henrietta. [BUT SEE DOCTRINE]. Therefore, if
the objection in the instant case is a general one, the ruling sustaining it will be upheld on the ground
that the evidence was inadmissible against the defendant Henrietta Lynch. However, if the objection is
a specific one, the ruling cannot be upheld.
Objection was SPECIFIC – Incompetency was based on violation of Section 270 B and not on any other
ground. Nothing was said by court or counsel which indicates general exclusion. Where a specific
objection is made on one ground, other grounds cannot be considered on appeal.
Faden v. Estate of Midcap, 112 Colo. 573, 152 P.2d 682 – Failure to Object to Competency
Failure of persons represented in the cause and having the power to object and knowledge of facts
which render an objection untenable to make such objection in adequate form and at the first
opportunity can only be construed as a waiver by such persons.
Objection to competency must be made, if known, before his examination in chief as to matter which
he's alleged to be incompetent. When the question is put, make objection.
Cross-Examination is Waiver of Objection to Competency – Competency also attends where,
proceeding without objection, claimant voluntarily testifies in that behalf. The latter consideration is
emphasized when the representative of the estate has conducted an exhaustive cross-examination of
claimant on the merits of the claim
Atlas Consolidated v. CIR (2008) – Export Sales Receipts Best Evidence for Tax Credit
Most Competent Evidence Needed – Rule 132, Sec. 34 is clear that no evidence which has not been
formally offered shall be considered. Most competent evidence must be adduced. If none, secondary
evidence may be presented. Here, the pertinent documents were NOT presented. The invoices or
receipts evidencing VAT were NOT submitted. Export documents proving export sales with due
certification from banks on export proceeds in foreign currency were not presented, hence CTA could
not determine veracity of export sales indicated in VAT return.
Summary + Testimony Merely corroborative – The summary presented by Atlas does not replace the
pertinent invoices, receipts, and export sales documents as competent evidence. That plus the
certification and testimony by CPA and Atlas' A/F Manager merely corroborative. Mere allegations of
figures in amended VAT as well as petition before CTA not sufficient proof. Further, Tax refunds are
construed strictly against the TP.
Dizon v. CA (2008) – ID v. Formal Offer; BIR Failure was Fatal
Vda. De Onate Doctrine – The mere fact that a particular document is identified & marked as an exhibit
does NOT mean that it is already been offered as part of evidence of a party.
ID – Done in the course of trial and done with marking of evidence as exhibit.
Formal Offer – Only when party rests its case and not before. May opt to offer if he believes it will
advance his case or not do so at all.
Cruz-Arevalo v. Layosa (2006) – Offer of Proof (Tender of Excluded Evidence)
Offer of Proof or Tender of Excluded Evidence for Purposes of Appeal –
If a party's offered documentary or object evidence is excluded, he may move or request that it be
attached to form part of the record of the case. If excluded evidence is ORAL, he may state for the
record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and substance of proposed
testimony.
If an adverse judgment is eventually rendered against the offeror, he may in his appeal assign as error
the rejection of the excluded evidence. The appellate court will better understand and appreciate the
assignment of error if the evidence involved is included in the record of the case.
People v. Godoy (1995) – Love Letters
Handwriting experts, while probably useful, are not indispensable in examining or comparing
handwriting
Former Teachers ID'ed Handwriting – The defense witnesses were able to identify Mia’s handwriting
on the basis of the examination papers submitted to them in their subjects. Aside from Danny, two
other defense witnesses identified the handwriting on the letters as belonging to Mia Taha. They are
Filomena Pielago and Erna Baradero who were admittedly the former teachers of complainant and
highly familiar with her handwriting.
Luzon Hydro v. CIR (2013) – Newly Discovered Evidence of Lost VAT Receipts
CTA cannot accept newly discovered evidence as it would require examination of such on appeal. CTA
not a trier of facts.
Elements for Admission of NDE –
(1) Discovered after trial
(2) Could not have been discovered even with reasonable diligence
(3) Material – not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching
(4) Would probably alter judgment
Design Resources International v. Eristingcol (2014) – Exclusion of a Witness
Purpose of Sec. 15 is to prevent collusion. BUT without any motion from the opposing party or order
from the court, there is nothing in the rules that prohibits a witness from hearing the testimonies of
other witnesses.
It is the responsibility of opposing counsel to protect interest of his client during trial.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 113
 RULE 133 – WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE * BURDEN OF PROOF

Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. —
In civil cases, the party having burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.
In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the
court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their
intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are testifying, the nature
of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or
want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the
trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily
with the greater number.
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. —
CRIMINAL CASE – Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Degree of proof that, after investigation of the
whole record, produces moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind of the accused's
culpability. Does not mean that such degree excludes all possibility of error, but
only moral certainty is required.
Presumption of innocence of an accused is a basic constitutional principle which
place on the prosecution the BOP that the accused is guilty of the offense charged
BRD. Must stand on its own strength and not rely on the weakness of the evidence
of the defense. (People v. Bontuyan).
CIVIL CASE – Preponderance of Evidence - It is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term
"greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence."

In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable Means "probability of truth." More convincing to the court as worthier of belief that
doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of that which is offered in opposition thereto. (PHP Jurisprudence)
error, produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (2a) Evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole superior to or has greater weight than
that of the other. (BJDC Construction v. Lanuzo).
Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. —
In determining whether or not there is POE, the court may consider the following:
An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3) (1) All the facts and circumstances of the case

(2) The following:

Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — a. Witnesses' manner of testifying,
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: b. Intelligence
c. Means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying,
(a) There is more than one circumstances; d. Nature of the facts to which they testify,
e. Probability or improbability of their testimony
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(3) Witnesses' interest or want of interest + personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond appear in the trial
reasonable doubt. (5)
(4) Number of witnesses, although it does not mean that POE is necessarily with the greater
Section 5. Substantial evidence. — number

In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is
supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (n)
Section 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. —
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. But this power should be exercised with caution. (6)
Section 7. Evidence on motion. —
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, but the court may direct that the matter be heard
wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. (7)
ADMIN CASE – Substantial Evidence – Such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion (Montinola v. PAL).
It does NOT require that evidence is overwhelming or even preponderant.
Understood to be more than just a scintilla or such amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion
(Morales v. Harbour Centre Port Terminal)
Applies also: Quasi-judicial proceeding, NLRC, Agrarian cases, workmen's
compensation act.
Failure to offer substantial evidence to establish administrative liability does not
bar criminal prosecution (and vice versa) (Paredes v. Court of Appeals).
Basically = LOGIC; To counter, look for fallacies
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 114
SPECIAL CASES - Clear and Convincing Evidence – Produces in the mind of the trier of fact a * EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION; CORROBORATED BY CORPUS DELICTI FOR CONVICTION
firm belief or conviction as to allegations sought to be established. It is
intermediate, being more than preponderance, but not to the extent of such Corpus Delicti - Body (material substance) upon which a crime has been committed. It is the
certainty as is required BRD in criminal cases. substantial fact that a crime was committed.

HKSAR v. Olalia – Standard of Proof in Extradition Cases Elements of Corpus Delicti

(1) Certain result has been proved (e.g. man has died or building has burned)
An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of proof required in granting or denying bail (2) Some person is criminally responsible for the act
can neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the standard of proof of
preponderance of evidence in civil cases. It is NOT however required that every element of the crime charged must be established by
independent evidence apart from the confession, but this other evidence must establish the corpus
While administrative in character, the standard of substantial evidence used in administrative cases delicti beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Lorenzo)
cannot likewise apply given the object of extradition law which is to prevent the prospective extraditee
from fleeing our jurisdiction. * POWER OF THE COURT TO STOP FURTHER EVIDENCE (Section 6)

In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, • Court hast the power to stop the further presentation of evidence on the same point as when
proposed that a new standard which he termed "clear and convincing evidence" should be used in additional evidence would only be:
granting bail in extradition cases. According to him, this standard should be lower than proof beyond o Corroborative
reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence. The potential extraditee must prove by o Point is already established OR
"clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and o When it results in unnecessary delay
processes of the extradition court.
• BUT – Power must be used with great caution
In this case, there is no showing that private respondent presented evidence to show that he is not a
flight risk. Consequently, this case should be remanded to the trial court to determine whether private * EVIDENCE ON MOTION (Section 7)
respondent may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence."
When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits
* EQUIPOISE RULE – Situation where evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, or there is doubt on or depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard
which side the evidence preponderates (weights more heavily). Hence, the wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions.
decision should be against the party with the burden of proof

* ENGLISH – A trial court's error as to the admission of evidence was presumed to have
EXCHEQUER caused prejudice and therefore, almost automatically required new trial.

Present Rule - In dealing with evidence improperly admitted in trial, we

examine its damaging quality and its impact to the substantive rights of the
litigant. If the impact is slight and insignificant, we disregard the error as it will
not overcome the weight of the properly admitted evidence against the
prejudiced party. (People v. Teehankee)

* CIRCUMSTANTIAL– Based on inferences from facts, and indeed, under well-defined ***READ: People v. Sebano - ??? 168 SCRA 885
EVIDENCE circumstances, from other inferences as well.

While an inference may be based on a fact which itself is based on an inference

justifiably drawn from circumstantial evidence.

Elements for Admission of Circumstantial Evidence

(a) There is more than one circumstance
(b) Facts from which the inferences are derived are proven
(c) Combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction BRD

New York Life Insurance v. McNeely – Inference drawn from another inference

Prior inferences must be established to the exclusion of any other reasonable theory than merely by a
probability, in order that the last inference of the probability of the ultimate fact may be based thereon.

EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 115
 CASES
Land Bank v. Oñate (2014) – Miscredit Unproven
For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of
the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. Resolution must rely solely on what the law
provides on the given set of circumstances.
Business Entries Do Not Establish Fraud – Land bank has neither identified the persons who made
the entries in the passbooks nor established that they are already dead (Rule 130, Sec. 43) or unable to
testify. The entries enjoy a degree of presumption of regularity but the same DO NOT indicate or explain
the source of the funds. Merely prima facie proof of date of entries, amounts included, and outstanding
balances, but not the source of deposits
Laborte v. Pagsanjan (2014) – Exception for Allowing Evidence Not Formally Offered
Exception Applies – As can be seen in the records of the case, the petitioners were able to present
evidence that have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded. Undeniably, these pertinent
evidences were also found in the records of the RTC, namely (a, b, d, f, g, and j of annex).
No Objections Made – To identify is to prove the identity of a person or a thing. Identification means
proof of identity; the proving that a person, subject or article before the court is the very same that he
or it is alleged, charged or reputed to be. In all these, the respondents had all the chance to object to
the documents which Laborte properly identified and marked and which are found in the records of
the trial court. Considering that no objections were made by the respondents to the foregoing
documents, these documents should be admitted.
Raymundo v. Lunaria (2008) – Unproven Subsequent Verbal Agreement on Agent's Commission
By preponderance of evidence is meant that the evidence as a whole adduced by one side is superior
to that of the other. It refers to the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence on either side
and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of evidence" or "greater
weight of the credible evidence". It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief
than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
Go v. CA (2001) – Factors for Consideration for Sufficiency
In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies
the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying,
their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the
nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest
or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same legitimately appear upon trial.
Merely Have Not Met Robert Santos – Go's failure to get in touch with Robert Santos is a not proof
that the latter is a fictitious person. Further, that they have not seen him at all nor possess any
knowledge about his existence does not prove non-existence but only that they haven't met.
It's Hulinganga Who Had Access – It was the accounts clerk who had access to open the account. She
had custody of the signature cards, application forms, and control cards necessary for the opening of
the new accounts of depositors.
Go's Oral Testimony Corroborated – Go's testimony that he met Robert Santos in person and that it
was Hulinganga who opened the account is corroborated by documentary evidence which were
identified and admitted by Hulinganga herself. DOCU prevails over TESTIMONY. Dick's role was in line
with his duties as assistant manager + alleged siphoning is HEARSAY.
Sabili v. COMELEC (2012) – COMELEC Findings on Residency
Substantial Evidence – Degree of evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a
conclusion. Applicable in quasi-judicial and administrative tribunals.
On Certificates of Ownership of Real Property – It is not required that a candidate should have his
own house in order to establish his residence/domicile in a place. It is enough that he should live in the
locality even in a rented house or that of a friend or relative. Intent to return is the important factor.
On certifications Re: Sabili's Family Members – At issue is Sabili's residence, and not the education
or voting record of his family. Hence, registration and school records inadmissible.
On Affidavits of Lipa Residents – That he was rarely seen does not preclude the possibility of his
residence therein. The law does not require a person to be in his home 24-hours a day.
People v. Teehankee (1995) – Exchequer Rule; Harmless Error Rule
English Exchequer Rule – A trial court's error as to the admission of evid is presumed to have caused
prejudice and automatically requires new trial.
Harmless Error Rule – In dealing with evidence improperly admitted in trial, we examine its damaging
quality and its impact to the substantive rights of the litigant.
New York Life Insurance v. McNeely, 52 Ariz. 181, 79 P.2d 948 – Inference Upon Inference
Inference Upon Inference – When an inference on the probability of the ultimate fact must be drawn
from facts whose existence is itself based only on an inference or a chain of inferences, it will be found
that the courts have, with very few exceptions, held in substance, although usually not in terms, that all
prior links in the chain of inferences must be shown with the same certainty as is required in criminal
cases, in order to support a final inference of the probability of the ultimate fact in issue.
In CIVIL CASES, courts do not mean that under no circumstances may an inference be drawn from
another inference, but rather that the prior inferences must be established to the exclusion of any other
reasonable theory than merely by a probability, in order that the last inference of the probability of the
ultimate fact may be based thereon.
People v. Quizon (2003) – Attendance at Wake
A person may be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence; but the proven circumstances
should inexorably lead to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused as the guilty
person, to the exclusion of all others.
Mere Presence Does Not Mean Guilt – Quizon's mere presence at the locus criminis would be
inadequate to implicate him. No evidence adduced that Quizon was the last person to see or talk to the
victim before death. Prosecution failed to show that Sicangco had good reason to lie re: other people
leaving the office. No proof that Quizon had the money and jewelry.
Non-Attendance of Wake Not Sign of Guilt – Nimfa Quizon appears to have warned him not to attend
the wake due to the allegations that he was the culprit. No-ill motive behind this.
Suspicion Not Enough To Warrant Conviction – Circumstances recited by the trial court might be
enough to create suspicion, but that is not enough to convict. Evidence of prosecution must stand or
fall on its own weight and not allowed to draw strength from weakness of the defense.
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 116
People v. Coderes, 414 SCRA 134 (2003) – Tapestry JJ
In a criminal case, every circumstance or evidence favoring a man's innocence must be taken into
account. If the facts are capable of 2 or more interpretations, one consistent with innocence and the
other with guilt, then the evidence does not pass the test of moral certainty.
Like a tapestry made of strands which create a pattern when interwoven, a judgment of conviction
based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the circumstances proved constitute an
unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the
exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.
People v. Lorenzo, 240 SCRA 625 (1995) – Corroboration of Confession
What must be corroborated is the EJC and not the testimony of the person to whom the confession is
made, and the corroborative evidence required is not the testimony of another who heard it but the
evidence of the corpus delicti. Witnesses are to be weight, not numbered.
People v. Base (2000) – Getaway Green Jeep; Corroborated Confession
An extrajudicial statement satisfies the requirements of Constitution, and it constitutes evidence of a
high order because of the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and
knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience. "The defense has the burden
of proving that it was extracted by means of force, duress, promise or reward."
Sinumpaang Salaysay Shows Involvement – The salaysay shows how Base and his co-accused
planned the killing of the deceased as well as the sequence of events before and after the occurrence
of the incident. These could not have been supplied by any of those interviewed by the peace officers
nor the officers themselves as the statement is replete with details which only one has intricate
knowledge of can supply.
Confession was Corroborated – Other evidence + he was seen by the prosecution witnesses in the
company of his other co-accused. Furthermore, Atty. Romeo T. Reyes and the interrogator, Sgt. Romulo
Mercado, testified to the voluntariness of his confession. In this regard, it must be stressed that the
aforementioned rule merely requires that there should be some other evidence "tending to show the
commission of the crime apart from the confession."
Rimorin v. People (2003) – Corpus Delicti; Blue Sealed Cigarettes
Corpus Delicti – Fact of the commission of the crime charged or to the body or substance of the crime.
It does not refer to the object of the crime (ransom money, body of person, etc.)
To prove CD, it is sufficient to show that:
(1) Certain fact has been proven;
(2) Particular person is responsible for the act
Single witness uncorroborated testimony if credible may suffice to prove the fact of com.
Lacson's Testimony Clear – Col. Lacson's testimony on the apprehension of Rimorin and on seizure of
the cigarettes was clear and straightforward. Told them that he saw the blue seal cigarettes, the
occupants, the escaping driver, Rimorin et. al.
Storekeeper Testified on Turnover of Blue Seal Cigarettes – Storekeeper of Customs also
categorically testified that the MISG had turned over to him the seized blue seal cigarettes, for which
he issued a custody receipt.
Zabala v. People (2015) – Circumstantial Evidence Must Prove that Nobody Else Did it
To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence
presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion
pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. The circumstantial evidence
must exclude the possibility that some other person has committed the crime.
Circumstantial Evidence is allowed – Due to the inherent reality that in certain instances there is
deliberate concealment of a crime, it is not always possible to obtain direct evidence. Lack or absence
of such evidence does not mean that guilt cannot be proven as it is not the sole means for proving such.
It may be proven through CE, sometimes called Indirect or Presumptive Evid. Circumstantial Evidence
– That which goes to prove a fact or series of facts other than the facts in issue, which, if proved, may
tend to, by inference, establish a fact in issue.
Prosecution Failed to Establish Sufficient CE – Fact that victim hides his cash in a closet inside their
house and that accused is aware of such not enough. Nobody saw him climb, nobody saw him leave
with the envelope with the cash (merely a bulge in the pocket), or that bulge was money. The
prosecution failed to adduce evidence that at the time the theft was committed, there was no other
person inside the house of Alas, or that no other person could have taken the money from the closet.
First United Construction v. Valdez, supra (relate to Sec.2, Rule 128) – SE in Admin Cases
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving with substantial evidence
the allegations in the complaint. While rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not
be controlling, this assurance of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go as far as
to justify orders without basis in evidence having rational probative force.
SC: No Evidence Substitution was Allowed –FUCC claims that NHA approved the substitution of CTBC
for conventional base course and subbase. However, FUCC showed no evidence of such approval other
than its own letters to the NHA stating its intention to use CTBC instead of the conventional base course
and subbase required by the contract.
No Proof of Personal Use of Cars – Valdez' signature on the logbook on the entries in the logbook
reflecting the trips does not indicate that they took personal trips on leased vehicles. Could only indicate
the authenticity of the trips. Failed to refute claims of other instances where other NHA personnel used
the vehicles.
HKSAR v. Hon. Olalia and Juan Antonio Muñoz (2007) – Clear and Convincing Evidence
Clear and Convincing Evidence Produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as
to allegations sought to be established. It is intermediate, being more than preponderance, but not to
the extent of such certainty as is required BRD in criminal cases. Only for BAIL and EXTRADITION cases.
BOP on Extradite – Applicable standard for due process should not be the same as criminal
proceedings. The standard is based on the presumption of innocence of the accused. Here, it is whether
or not applicant is a flight risk. Hence, the onus probandi is on the extradite.
Clear and Convincing Evidence is the Standard – Should not be BRD nor substantial evidence as in
admin cases as this case is sui generis. This standard is lower than BRD but higher than preponderance
of evidence. He must prove with clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk and will abide
with all the orders and processes of the extradition court. Case remanded to determine entitlement.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
EVIDENCE – ATTY. TOTO EUGENIO VILLAREAL – Reviewer by JGP Santos ALS B2019 – Page 117