U.P.

LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

[Sec. 2, Rule 128]

VIII.EVIDENCE 3. SC issuances [e.g., Judicial Affidavit Rule, Rules
on Procedure for Environmental Cases, Child
Witness Rule, Rules on Electronic Evidence,
A. General Principles Rules on DNA Evidence]

1. Concept of Evidence No Vested Right of Property in Rules of

Evidence
The means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining The general rule is that there is no vested right of
in a judicial proceeding, the truth respecting a matter property in rules of evidence [Aldeguer v. Hoskyn, G.R.
of fact [Sec. 1, Rule 128] No. 1164 (1903)] Any evidence inadmissible
according to the laws in force at the time the action
accrued, but admissible according to the laws in force
2. Scope and Applicability of at the time of trial, is receivable [Francisco 8, 1996 Ed.,
the Rules of Evidence citing Aldeguer v. Hoskyn, G.R. No. 1164 (1903)]

a. Scope of Application Rules of Evidence May be Waived

According to Francisco [9, 1996 Ed., citing American
cases], there are rules of evidence established merely
Under the Rules of Court (ROC), the rules of
for the protection of the parties. If, according to the
evidence are specifically applicable only to judicial
well-established doctrine, the parties may waive such
proceedings [Sec. 1, Rule 128]
rules during the trial of a case, there is no reason why
they cannot make the waiver in a contract (ex. a
This rule must be read as referring to the rules of
contract of insurance requiring the testimony of
evidence AS CONTAINED in the ROC, because
eyewitness as the only evidence admissible concerning
obviously constitutional evidentiary rules permeate
the death of the insured person' is valid or a contract
ALL proceedings and is the constant, bottomline
waiving the privilege against the disclosure of
yardstick for the validity of ALL acts in Philippine
confidential communications made by a patient to
territory [Prof. Avena]
physician). However, if the rule of evidence waived by
the parties has been established on grounds of public
Judicial proceedings are of THREE KINDS
policy, the waiver is void (ex. waiver of the privilege
ONLY
against the disclosure of state secrets).
1. Civil action which is of two kinds
a. ordinary civil action, and
b. special civil action 3. Evidence in Civil Cases v.
2. Criminal action Evidence in Criminal Cases
3. Special Proceeding
[Sec. 3, Rule 1]
Preponderance of Proof beyond
Note: All other proceedings are NON-JUDICIAL, evidence reasonable doubt
hence, application of the rules of evidence in the ROC [Sec Rule ] [Sec Rule ]
is not mandatory unless provided to be so by law or Offer of compromise
Offer of compromise
regulation [see Sec. 4, Rule 1] NOT an admission of
by the accused may be
any liability, and is not
received in evidence as
admissible in evidence
b. Uniformity of Application against the offeror
an implied admission of
guilt.
[Sec. 27, Rule 130], as a
General rule: The rules of evidence shall be the same in general rule [Tan v.
all courts and in all trials and hearings [Sec. 2, Rule Exceptions:
Rodil Enterprises, G. R.
128] a. for quasi-offenses
No. 168071 (2006)]
or
Exceptions: b. those allowed by
Exceptions: The party
If otherwise provided by: law to be
making the offer
1. Law [e.g. 1987 Constitution, statutes] compromised,
admits the existence of
2. Rules of Court examples:
an indebtedness

Page 403 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

Preponderance of Proof beyond Preponderance of Proof beyond

evidence reasonable doubt evidence reasonable doubt
[Sec Rule ] [Sec Rule ] [Sec Rule ] [Sec Rule ]
combined with a 1. Sec 204, RA inserted by
proposal to settle the 8424 (Tax R.A. 8353]
claim amicably. In Tan, Reform Act of
petitioner made 1997), which A plea of guilty later
categorical judicial provides that withdrawn or an
admissions, not only as payment of unaccepted offer of a
to his liability, but also, any internal plea of guilty to a lesser
as to the amount of revenue tax offense, is not
indebtedness in the and all criminal admissible in evidence
form of rentals due: violations may against the accused who
a. Petitioner agreed be made the plea or offer
in open court to compromised, [Sec. 27, Rule 130]
pay the amount of except those Constitutional
P440,000.00, already filed in presumption of
representing Court and innocence does NOT
those apply [Sec. 14, Art. III,
rentals from involving Constitution refers
September 1997 to fraud;
June 2000; and 2. In rape cases,
that petitioner will the subsequent
pay the monthly valid marriage However, the ROC
rentals computed between the requires meeting the
Presumption of
at P13,750.00 on offended party burden of proof [Sec.
innocence a
or before the 5th shall 1, Rule 131] of
constitutional guarantee
day of each month extinguish the preponderance of
on the accused [Sec. 14,
after 30 June 2000, criminal action evidence [Sec. 1, Rule
Art. III, Constitution]
as detailed by the or the penalty 133]. Note also the
Order of the imposed. In disputable
MeTC; and case it is the presumption that a
b. In his Motion to legal husband person is innocent of
Allow Defendant who is the wrong [Sec. 3(a), Rule
to Deposit offender, the 131]. See also Sec. 3(m),
Rentals, petitioner subsequent (p), (x), (aa), and (ff),
stated that the forgiveness by Rule 131; Sec. 3(4),
rentals due on the the wife as the Rule 132; and Sec. 5,
premises in offended party Rule 133.
question from shall
September 1997 extinguish the An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital
up to the present criminal action or other expenses occasioned by an injury is NOT
amounted to or the penalty: admissible as proof of criminal or civil liability for the
P467,500.00, as of Provided, That injury [Sec. 27, Rule 130]
the date of filing the crime shall
the Motion. not be The following distinctions may also be noted
extinguished a. In terms of evidence in connection with
or the penalty constitutional law doctrines e.g., under par. 4,
shall not be Sec. 12, Art. III, Constitution, an uncounseled
abated if the extra-judicial confession elicited during custodial
marriage is investigation will be inadmissible in any criminal
void ab initio case against the accused, but will be admissible in
[Art. 266-C, a civil case for damages by the latter against the
RPC, as violator

Page 404 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC
b. In terms of evidence arising from procedure
e.g.:
1. Judicial Affidavit Rule [A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC]
does not apply to criminal case where
penalty exceeds six years)
2. Guidelines in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and
Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures
[A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC]
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 Rule 118
8, Part
B)
c. The rules on search and seizure in
constitutional law in connection with
criminal procedure do not apply in civil
actions involving infringement of intellectual
property, where the applicable rule is A.M.
No. 02-1-06-SC (Rule on Search and Seizure
in Civil Actions for Infringement of
Intellectual Property Rights)
4. Proof v. Evidence
Proof Evidence
Result or
Mode and manner of proving
effect of
competent facts in judicial
evidence [2
proceedings [Bustos v. Lucero,
Regalado 698,
G.R. No. L-2068, (1948)]
2008 Ed.]
The end result The means to an end
5. Factum Probans v. Factum
Probandum
Evidentiary fact Ultimate fact
Fact by which the factum
Fact sought to
probandum is to be
be established
established
Materials which establish that
Proposition
proposition
[2 Regalado 698-699, 2008 Ed.]
One must adduce during trial the factum probans or
the evidentiary facts by which the factum probandum
Page 405 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
or the ultimate fact can be established. [Dela Llana vs.
Biong, G.R. No. 182356 (2018)]
6. Classes of Evidence
According to Form
a. Object - those addressed to the senses of the
court [Sec. 1, Rule 130]
b. Documentary - consists of writings or any
material containing letters, words, numbers,
figures, symbols or other modes of written
expressions offered as proof of their contents
[Sec. 2, Rule 130]
c. Testimonial - evidence elicited from the mouth
of a witness [Riano 180, 2016 Ed., citing
Law Dictionary] It involves two levels of
perception: that of the witness perceiving the
event, and that of the judge evaluating the witness
There is no hierarchy with respect to the physical
forms of evidence. A fact may be proved by any kind;
the court may admit. There is no rule (in general) that
prefers one form rule as against another [Adzuara v.
C.A., G.R. No. 125134 (1999)]
In Adzuara, the petitioner claimed that the medical
certificate presented by the prosecution was
uncorroborated by actual testimony of the physician
who accomplished the same and as such has no
probative value insofar as the physical injuries
suffered by the victim are concerned. The SC
disagreed, ruling that the fact of the injury resulting
from the collision may be proved in other ways such
as the testimony of the injured person.
7. Cumulative and
Corroborative Evidence
Note: This distinction refers to the uniformity of
evidentiary form, not the distinction between forms
of evidence per se [Prof. Avena]
Cumulative Corroborative
evidence evidence
Evidence of the same Additional evidence of a
kind and to the same different character to
state of facts the same point
[2 Regalado 702, 2008 Ed.]
Cumulative evidence refers to pieces of evidence of
the same form, e.g. testimonies. Corroborative
evidence refers to pieces of evidence of different
forms, e.g. object and testimonial.
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

8. and Conclusive Evidence

Conclusive
Class of evidence which the law does not allow
to be contradicted [2 Regalado 703, 2008 Ed.]

Note: This statement refers only to the second

Standing alone, unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient
to maintain the proposition affirmed [2 Regalado 703, 2008
Ed.]
e.g. official records such as Police blotter [Sec. 44, Rule 130;
public documents such as notarial register [Sec. 23, Rule
132]
part of the definition of conclusive evidence (i.e.,
its exclusionary feature).
The first part refers to the fact that a rule of law
has provided that it constitutes factum probans
that sufficiently establishes the factum
probandum without need of any other evidence
[Prof. Avena]
e.g. (1) The decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued shall become
incontrovertible, upon the expiration of the one-
year period within which any person deprived of
land or of any estate or interest therein by such
adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by
actual fraud, to file in the proper court a petition
for reopening and review of the decree of
registration [Sec. 32, P.D. 1529]; (2) The child
shall be considered legitimate although the
mother may have declared against its legitimacy
or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.
[Art. 167, FC]. Factum probans that the child
was conceived or born during the marriage of its
parents conclusively establishes the factum
probandum of the legitimate status of that child,
and by providing that this factum probandum
the mother may have declared
against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced

any factum probans presented and offered to

prove the truth of the latter declaration (of the
mother) will be inadmissible in evidence.

9. Disputable and Conclusive b. Sources of above presumptions other than the

Rules of Court:
Presumption 1. law
2. SC issuances
a.
- 10. Primary and Secondary
Evidence
of Court (the latter being a presumption that is
satisfactory if uncontradicted, but which may be Primary evidence is that which the law regards as
contradicted and overcome by other evidence). affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question
[1 Regalado 703, 2010 Ed.]

Page 406 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
Examples of primary evidence
The filiation of legitimate children is established by
any of the following
a. The record of birth appearing in the civil register
or a final judgment; or
b. An admission of legitimate filiation in a public
document or a private handwritten instrument
and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the
legitimate filiation shall be roved by:
a. The open and continuous possession of the
status of a legitimate child; or
b. Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court
and special laws
[Art. 172, FC]
Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate
filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as
legitimate children [Par. 1, Art. 175, FC]
G.R. No. 177728, July 31,
2009
1) Where the private handwritten instrument is
the lone piece of evidence submitted to
prove filiation, there should be strict
compliance with the requirement that the
same must be signed by the acknowledging
parent; and
2) Where the private handwritten instrument is
accompanied by other relevant and
competent evidence, it suffices that the claim
of filiation therein be shown to have been
made and handwritten by the acknowledging
parent as it is merely corroborative of such
other evidence.
Best Evidence Rule: When the subject of inquiry is
the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document itself
[Sec. 3, Rule 130]
Secondary evidence
In the context of the Best Evidence rule in Sec. 3,
Rule 130, secondary evidence may be admitted
a. 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
Page 407 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
authentic document, or by the testimony of
witnesses in the order stated [Sec. 5, Rule 130]
b. If the document is in the custody of under the
control of the 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 [Sec. 6, Rule 130]
c. When the original of a document is in the custody
of a 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 [Sec. 7, Rule 130]
Generic, non-
used in
A receipt, which is a written and signed
acknowledgment that money and goods have been
delivered, is the best evidence of the fact of
payment although not exclusive [Vitarich v. Losin,
G.R. No. 181560 (2010)]
Vitarich
is referring to probative weight, not to admissibility.
Vitarich means that the
to be exclusionary.
Lastly, in another case, the SC ruled that a statement
in a written instrument regarding the payment of
consideration is merely in the nature of a receipt and
may be contradicted [Philippine Banking Corporation v.
C.A., G.R. No. 133710 (2004)]. The receipt in the
Philippine Banking case was not excluded as evidence,
but was not given much weight. The respondent-
defendant in Philippine Banking denied receiving the
loan proceeds and presented evidence that on the day
the bank claimed to have credited the subject amount,
it was again debited or withdrawn by the bank,
admittedly upon the instruction of the officials from
head office.
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
B. Admissibility of Evidence
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of
whether or not the circumstance (or evidence) is to be
considered at all. On the other hand, the probative
value of evidence refers to the question of whether or
not it proves an issue [PNOC Shipping and Transport
Corporation v. C.A., G.R. No. 107518 (1998)]
Admissibility does not concern weight
Admissibility of evidence should not be equated with
weight of evidence. The admissibility of evidence
depends on its relevance and competence, while the
weight of evidence pertains to evidence already
admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.
Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible,
but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial
evaluation within the guidelines provided by the Rules
of Court [Dela Llana v. Biong, G.R. No. 182356 (2013)]
Weight involves the effect of evidence admitted, its
tendency to convince and persuade. It is not
determined mathematically by the numerical
superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact,
but depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief
on the part of the judge trying the case [Francisco 11,
1996 Ed.]
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue
and is not excluded by the law or the rules or is
competent [Sec. 3, Rule 132]. Since admissibility of
evidence is determined by its relevance and
competence, admissibility is, therefore, an affair of
logic and law. On the other hand, the weight to be
given to such evidence, once admitted, depends on
judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided in
Rule 133 and the jurisprudence laid down by the
Court. Thus, while evidence may be admissible, it may
be entitled to little or no weight at all. Conversely,
evidence which may have evidentiary weight may be
inadmissible because a special rule forbids its
reception. [People v. Turco, G.R. No. 137757, (2000)]
The admissibility of evidence cannot be ruled
upon in a preliminary investigation.
In a preliminary investigation, ... the public
prosecutors do not decide whether there is evidence
beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the person
charged; they merely determine whether there is
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed and that respondent
is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
Page 408 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
the information in court the prosecutor would have
already presented all the evidence necessary to secure
inadmissibility of evidence cannot be ruled upon in a
preliminary investigation. [Maza v. Judge Turla, G.R.
No. 187094 (2017)].
1. Requisites for Admissibility
a. Relevant to the issue; and
b. Not excluded by law or the ROC [Sec. 3, Rule 128]
Regalado
704, 2008 Ed.]
The Importance of Offer In Relation To
Admissibility
Parties are required to inform the courts of the
purpose of introducing their respective exhibits to
assist the latter in ruling on their admissibility in case
an objection thereto is made [Star Two v. Ko, G.R. No.
185454 (2011)]
Objection
a. Objection to evidence offered orally must be
made immediately after the offer is made.
1. As regards the testimony of a witness, the
offer must be made at the time the witness is
called to testify.
2. Documentary and object evidence shall be
testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be
done orally unless allowed by the court to be
done in writing.
[Sec. 35, Rule 132]
b. 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.
c. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected
to within three (3) days after notice of the offer
unless a different period is allowed by the court.
d. In any case, the grounds for the objections must
be specified.
[Sec. 36, Rule 132]
Every objection to the admissibility of evidence shall
be made at the time such evidence is offered, or as
soon thereafter as the objection to its admissibility
have become apparent, otherwise the objection shall
be considered waived [Abrenica v. Gonda, G.R. No. L-
10100 (1916)]
U.P. LAW BOC
Form When objection made
Objection to the qualification of
the witness must be made at the
time he is called to the stand
If the witness is qualified, the
objection should be raised when
the objectionable question is
asked or after the answer is
given if the objectionable
feature became apparent by
reason of such answer
Must be made either:
a. At the time it is presented
in ocular inspection or
demonstration, or
b. When it is formally offered
At the time it is formally offered
[2 Regalado 705, 2008 Ed.]
2. Relevance of Evidence and
Collateral Matters
Relevancy
the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or
non- . 4, Rule 128] e.g., Evidence as to
the age of a person who has been raped is relevant in
a situation where the age would qualify the offence to
statutory rape
Determinable by the rules of logic and human
experience [2 Regalado 704, 2008 Ed.]
Collateral matters
Matters other than the fact in issue and which are
offered as a basis for inference as to the existence or
non-existence of the facts in issue [2 Regalado 708,
2008 Ed.]
General rule: Evidence on collateral matters is NOT
allowed [Sec. 4, Rule 128]
Exceptions: When it tends in any reasonable degree to
establish the probability or improbability of the fact
in issue [Sec. 4, Rule 128]
Note: What the Rules prohibit is evidence of
irrelevant collateral facts [2 Regalado 708, 2008 Ed.]
Page 409 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
Example
In an administrative case for sexual harassment, the
respondent did not offer evidence that has a bearing
charges for grave oral defamation, grave threats,
unjust vexation, physical injuries, malicious mischief,
etc. filed against her. These pieces of evidence do not
establish the probability or improbability of the
offense charged [Civil Service Commission v. Belagan,
G.R. No. 132164 (2004)]
Note: The SC in this case discussed Sec. 51(a), Rule
130 (character evidence in criminal cases) in relation
to relevance but after the above-quoted statement
what respondent was trying to establish is
or the improbability of the charge. In this regard, a
11, Rule 132). .
3. Multiple Admissibility
Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two
or more purposes, such evidence should be admitted
for any or all the purposes for which it is offered,
provided it satisfies all the requisites of law for its
admissibility therefor [2 Regalado 706, 2008 Ed.]
When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is
admissible insofar as it satisfies all rules applicable to
it when offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy
some other rule which would be applicable to it if
offered for another purpose does not exclude it. Thus,
a confession of an accused may not be competent as
against his co-accused, being hearsay as to the latter,
or to prove conspiracy between them without the
conspiracy being established by other evidence,
nonetheless, the confession of the accused may be
admitted as evidence of his own guilt [Francisco 11,
1996 Ed.]
4. Conditional Admissibility
Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to
be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with
the other facts to be subsequently proved, such
evidence may be received on condition that the other
facts will be proved thereafter; otherwise, the
evidence already given shall be stricken out [2 Regalado
705, 2008 Ed.]
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

beyond reasonable doubt [People v. Matito, G.R. No.

5. Curative Admissibility 144405 (2004)]

Note: Circumstantial evidence is not a weaker form of

A party has the right to introduce incompetent
evidence vis-a-vis direct evidence [People v. Matito,
evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted
G.R. No. 144405 (2004)]
incompetent evidence adduced by the adverse party,
[2 Regalado 706, 2008 Ed.]
7. Positive and Negative
What determines the rule of curative Evidence
admissibility
a. Whether the incompetent evidence was
seasonably objected to - Lack of objection to Positive
Negative evidence
incompetent evidence constitutes waiver by the evidence
party against whom it was introduced but the Witness affirms Witness states he/she did
opposing party is not deprived of his right to that a fact did or not see or know of the
similar rebutting evidence; and did not occur occurrence of a fact
b. Whether the admission of such evidence will [2 Regalado 703, 2008 Ed.]
cause a plain and unfair prejudice to the party
against whom it was admitted 8. Competent and Credible
[2 Regalado 707, 2008 Ed.]
Evidence
6. Direct and Circumstantial Competence
Evidence Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by (i)
law or (ii) the ROC [Sec. 3, Rule 128; 2 Regalado 704,
Direct evidence Circumstantial evidence 2008 Ed.]
Proof of facts from which,
Proves the fact in Determined by the prevailing exclusionary rules of
taken collectively, the
dispute without evidence [2 Regalado 704, 2008 Ed.]
existence of a particular fact
the aid of any
in dispute may be inferred as
inference or Note: Exclusionary rules may affect due process. To
a necessary or probable
presumption the extent that they might prejudice substantive
consequence
rights, therefore, they cannot be made to apply
[Francisco 2, 1996 Ed.]
retroactively.
Circumstantial evidence is the evidence of
EXCLUSIONARY RULES OF EVIDENCE
collateral facts or circumstances from which an
a. Constitutional exclusionary rules
inference may be drawn as to the probability or
1. Unreasonable searches and seizures [Sec. 2,
improbability of the fact in dispute. They are evidence
Art. III]
of relevant collateral facts [2 Regalado 708, 2008 Ed.]
2. Privacy of communication and
correspondence [Sec. 3, Art. III]
Requisites to warrant a conviction based on
3. Right to counsel, prohibition on torture,
circumstantial evidence
force, violence, threat, intimidation or other
a. there is more than one circumstance;
means which vitiate the free will; prohibition
b. the facts from which the inferences are derived
on secret detention places, solitary,
are proven; and
incommunicado [Sec. 12, Art. III]
c. the combination of all the circumstances is such
4. Right against self-incrimination [Sec. 17, Art.
as to produce conviction beyond reasonable
III]
doubt
[Sec. 4, Rule 133]
It is settled that for an extrajudicial confession to be
admissible in evidence against the accused, the same
The totality of the evidence must constitute an
unbroken chain showing the guilt of the accused
of a competent and independent counsel, (c) express,

Page 410 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

Moreover, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7438
requires that "any person arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by
G.R. No. 218130 (2018)
Fernandez testified that he was brought to the
Binmaley Police Station at 6:00 a.m. on June 16,
2011 and was asked if he was the one responsible
for the crime and if he would rather admit the
same. Despite the fact that he was already
considered as a suspect of the crime, Fernandez
was not assisted by a lawyer at that time. Atty.
Francisco only arrived past 1:00 p.m. after
Fernandez had already been subjected to
questioning by the police officers starting 6:00 a.m.
Thus, prior to 1:00 p.m., while Fernandez was in
the custody of the Binmaley police and under
investigation as a suspect, he was not able to confer
with any lawyer.
Moreover, Atty. Francisco was not an independent
counsel. Atty. Francisco was a legal consultant in
the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Binmaley. As
such, his duty was to provide legal advice to the
Mayor whose duty, in turn, is to execute the laws
and ordinances and maintain peace and order in
the municipality.
device/arrangement to secretly
overhear/intercept/record such information
by using any device, shall not be admissible
in evidence in any judicial/quasi-
judicial/legislative/administrative hearing or
investigation [Secs. 1 and 4, R.A. 4200 (Wire-
Tapping Act)]
The use of a telephone extension for the
purpose of overhearing a private
conversation without authorization did not
violate R.A. 4200 because a telephone
extension devise was neither among those
therein, following the principle that "penal
statutes must be construed strictly in favor of
Ganaan v. IAC, 145 SCRA
112]
c. Under the ROC, Rule is the applicable
rule in determining the admissibility of
evidence.
d. Court issuances, such as
1. Rule on Electronic Evidence, e.g.
compliance with authentication
requirements for electronic evidence
2. Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, e.g.
sexual abuse shield rule
3. Judicial Affidavit Rule

Atty. Francisco cannot be considered as an Competence Credibility

independent counsel since protecting the rights of Eligibility of evidence to Worthiness of belief;
Fernandez as a suspect is in direct conflict with his be received as such
duty to the Municipal Mayor and the local
government of the Municipality. Note: Credibility does not, per se, exclude. It only does
in so far as it makes the piece of evidence irrelavant
Atty. Francisco was not vigilant in protecting the to the fact in issue. (e.g. the cross-examination of a
rights of Fernandez during the course of the witness is primarily about his credibility)
custodial investigation. Atty. Francisco allowed
Fernandez to answer each question without
reminding him that he can refuse to answer them
and/or remain silent.

b. Statutory exclusionary rules

1. Lack of documentary stamp tax to
documents required to have one makes such
document inadmissible as evidence in court
until the requisite stamp/s shall have been
affixed thereto and cancelled [Sec. 201,
NIRC];
2. any communication obtained by a person,
not being authorized by all the parties to any
private communication, by tapping any
wire/cable or using any other

Page 411 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
C. Burden of Proof and
Burden of Evidence
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish
his claim or defense by the amount of evidence
required by law [Sec. 1, Rule 131]
In civil cases, the quantum of evidence required to
sustain the proponent of an issue is preponderance of
evidence [Sec. 1, Rule 133] The burden of proof is on
the party who would be defeated if no evidence were
given on either side [2 Regalado 816, 2008 Ed.], the
plaintiff with respect to his complaint, the defendant
with respect to his counterclaim, and the cross-
claimant, with respect to his cross-claim.
In criminal cases:
For the issuance of warrant of arrest - evidence
of probable cause that there exist a reasonable
ground that the accused has committed an
offense [Algas v. Garrido, A.M.289-MJ, (1974))
To warrant the filing of an information if
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed
and the respondent is probably guilty thereof,
and should be held for trial [Sec. 1, Rule 112]
To sustain a conviction - evidence of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt [Sec. 2, Rule 133]
To deny bail when discretionary when the
evidence of guilt is strong
To accept a plea of guilty to a capital offense
that the accused voluntarily and fully
comprehended the consequences of his plea [Sec.
3, Rule 116]
To grant demurrer to evidence the evidence is
insufficient to sustain a conviction [Sec. 23, Rule
119]
The burden of proof rests on the prosecution [Boac v
People, G.R. No. 180597 (2008)]
A party will have the burden of evidence only (i.e.,
will have to be a proponent) if there is any factum
probandum (whether evidentiary or otherwise) that
the adverse party has already established (whether by
law, rule, or by virtue of evidence that he has
presented) that he (the potential proponent) has to
overcome. That factum probandum may, but does
not have to be, nor is limited to a "prima facie
presumption." Likewise, a party will not have any
burden of evidence at all if the adverse party has not
Page 412 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
established any factum probandum in the first place
[Prof. Avena]
The burden of proof does not shift as it remains
throughout the trial with the party upon whom it is
imposed; the burden of evidence shifts from party
to party depending upon the exigencies of the case in
the course of the trial [2 Regalado 816, 2008 Ed., see
Bautista v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. L-45137 (1985)]
The burden of proof is generally determined by the
pleadings filed by the party; the burden of evidence
is generally determined by the developments at the
trial, or by the provisions of the substantive law or
procedural rules which may relieve the party from
presenting evidence on the fact alleged, i.e.,
presumptions, judicial notice and admissions [2
Regalado 816-817, 2008 Ed.]
In both civil and criminal cases, the burden of
evidence lies with the party who asserts an affirmative
allegation [2 Regalado 817, 2008 Ed.]
Example
In a case for collection of a sum of money, if the
defendant asserts that she has paid, then she has the
burden of proving that she had, not on the creditor
that she had not. While the creditor had needed to
prove the existence of a debt, the burden shifts to the
debtor because she alleged an affirmative defense,
Vitarich v.
Losin, G.R. No. 181560 (2010)]
Equipoise Rule or Equipoise Doctrine
The doctrine refers to the situation where the
evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or there is
doubt on which side the evidence preponderates. In
this case, the decision should be against the party with
the burden of proof [Rivera v. C.A., G.R. No. 115625
(1998); Marubeni v. Lirag, G.R. No. 130998, (2001)]
In criminal cases, the equipoise rule provides that
where the evidence is evenly balanced, the
constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the
scales in favor of the accused [Malana v. People, G.R.
No. 173612, (2008)]
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

Realty, G.R. No. 144268

D.Presumptions
Presumptions are inferences as to the existence of a
fact not actually known, arising from its usual
connection with another which is known, or a
conjecture based on past experience as to what course
human affairs ordinarily take. Presumptions embody
values and revealed behavioral expectations under a
given set of circumstances [University of Mindanao, Inc.
v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 194964-65
(2016)]
A rule of law that attaches probative value to specific
facts, or directs that an inference be drawn as to
existence of a fact, not actually known, arising from
its usual connection with other particular facts which
are known or established [Francisco at 51]
A presumption can rest only upon ascertained facts.
It cannot be based on other presumptions,
assumptions, probabilities or inferences [ibid. At 52]
Presumptions are not allegations, nor do they supply
their absence. Presumptions are conclusions. They do
not apply when there are no facts or allegations to
support them [University of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 194964-65 (2016)]
(2006)]
1. Conclusive Presumptions
a. A party is not permitted falsify a thing whenever:
1. By his own declaration, act or omission;
2. He intentionally and deliberately led another
to believe a particular thing is true;
3. To act upon such belief; and
4. The litigation arises out of such declaration
act or omission.
b. A 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
[Sec. 2, Rule 131]
These conclusive presumptions are based upon the
doctrine of estoppel in pais, see Arts. 1431-1439, Civil
Code [2 Regalado 820, 2008 Ed.]
Once a contract of lease is shown to exist between the
parties, the lessee cannot by any proof, however
strong, overturn the conclusive presumption that the
lessor has a valid title to or a better right of possession
to the subject premises than the lessee [Santos v.
National Statistics Office., G.R. No. 171129, (2011)]

Presumption of fact Presumption of law What a tenant is estopped from denying is the title of
Praesumptiones hominis [2 Praesumptiones juris [2 his landlord at the time of the commencement of the
Regalado 819, 2008 Ed.] Regalado 819, 2008 Ed.] landlord-tenant relation. If the title asserted is one
Those which the law that is alleged to have been acquired subsequent to the
Those which the commencement of that relation, the presumption will
requires to be drawn
experience of mankind not apply. Hence, the tenant may show that the
from the existence of
has shown to be valid, landlord's title has expired or been conveyed to
established facts in the
founded on general another or himself; and he is not estopped to deny a
absence of contrary
knowledge and claim for rent, if he has been ousted or evicted by title
evidence; derived from
information; essentially paramount [Ermitaño v Paglas, G.R. No. 174436
the law itself rather
an inference (2013)]
from common logic or
probability
e.g. Inference of guilt
upon discovery of 2. Disputable Presumptions
e.g. Presumption of
bloodied garment in
innocence in favor of a. Person is innocent of crime or wrong;
possession of accused
the accused b. Unlawful act is done with an unlawful intent;
c. Person intends the ordinary consequences of his
Conclusive Disputable voluntary act;
Satisfactory if d. Person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
Inferences which the law
uncontradicted, e. Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse
makes so peremptory that it
but may be if produced;
will not allow them to be
contradicted and f. Money paid by one to another was due to the
overturned by any contrary
overcome by latter;
proof however strong
other evidence g. Thing delivered by one to another belonged to
[Datalift Movers v. Belgravia
[Sec. 3, Rule 131] the latter;

Page 413 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
h. Obligation delivered up to the debtor has been
paid;
i. Prior rents or installments had been paid when a
receipt for the later ones is produced;
j. A person found in possession of a thing taken in
the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and
doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things
which a person possesses or exercises acts of
ownership over are owned by him;
k. Person in possession of an order on himself for
the payment of the money, or the delivery of
anything, has paid the money or delivered the
thing accordingly;
l. Person acting in a public office was regularly
appointed or elected to it;
m. Official duty has been regularly performed;
n. A court, or judge acting as such, whether in the
Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful
exercise of jurisdiction;
o. All the matters within an issue raised in a case
were laid before the court and passed upon by it;
and in like manner that all matters within an issue
raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were
laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by
them;
p. Private transactions have been fair and regular;
q. Ordinary course of business has been followed;
r. There was a sufficient consideration for a
contract;
s. Negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for
a sufficient consideration;
t. An indorsement of a negotiable instrument was
made before the instrument was overdue and at
the place where the instrument is dated;
u. A writing is truly dated;
v. Letter duly directed and mailed was received in
the regular course of the mail;
w. Presumptions concerning absence:
1. Ordinary but continued absence of:
a. 7 years, it being unknown WON the
absentee still lives, he is considered
dead for all purposes, except for those
of succession
b. 10 years the absentee shall be
considered dead for the purpose of
opening his succession; but if he
disappeared after the age of 75 years,
an absence of 5 years shall be sufficient
to open his succession
c. 4 consecutive years the spouse
present may contract a subsequent
marriage if s/he has a well-founded
belief that the absent spouse is already
dead; but where there is danger of
Page 414 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
death, an absence of only 2 years shall
be sufficient for remarriage
2. Qualified absence The following shall be
considered dead for all purposes including
the division of the estate among the heirs
i. A person on board a vessel lost during
a sea voyage, or an aircraft which is
missing, who has not been heard of for
4 years since the loss of the vessel or
aircraft
ii. A member of the armed forces who
has taken part in armed hostilities, and
has been missing for 4 years
iii. A person who has been in danger of
death under other circumstances and
whose existence has not been known
for 4 years
x. Acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing
acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact
y. Things have happened according to the ordinary
course of nature and the ordinary habits of life
z. Persons acting as co-partners have entered into a
contract of co-partnership;
aa. A man and woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife have entered into a lawful
contract of marriage;
bb. Property acquired by a man and a woman who
are capacitated to marry each other and who live
exclusively with each other as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage or under a void
marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts,
work or industry;
cc. In cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman
who are not capacitated to marry each other and
who have acquired property 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. Presumptions governing children of women who
contracted another marriage within 300 days after
termination of her former marriage (in the
absence of proof to the contrary):
When Child was
Presumption
Born
Considered to have
been conceived during
Before 180 days after
the former marriage,
the solemnization of
provided it be born
the subsequent
within 300 days after
marriage
the termination of the
former marriage
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

Considered to have
been conceived during No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy
After 180 days the subsequent There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy
following the marriage, even though of a child born after 300 days following the
celebration of the it be born within the dissolution of marriage or the separation of spouses.
subsequent marriage 300 days after the Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such
termination of the child must prove his allegation [Sec. 4, Rule 131]
former marriage.
The application of disputable presumptions on a
ee. A thing once proved to exist continues as long as given circumstance must be based on the existence of
is usual with things of the nature; certain facts on which they are meant to operate
ff. The law has been obeyed; [University of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,
gg. A printed/published book, purporting to be G.R. No. 194964-65 (2016)]
printed/published by public authority, was so
printed/published; MCMP contends that the Contract presented by
hh. A printed/published book, purporting to contain Monark is not the contract that they entered into. Yet,
reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the it has failed to present a copy of the Contract even
country where the book is published, contains despite the request of the trial court for it to produce
correct reports of such cases; its copy of the Contract. Normal business practice
ii. A trustee or other person whose duty it was to dictates that MCMP should have asked for and
convey real property to a particular person has retained a copy of their agreement. Thus, MCMP's
actually conveyed it to him when such failure to present the same and even explain its failure
presumption is necessary to perfect the title of gives rise to the disputable presumption adverse to
such person or his successor in interest; MCMP that "evidence willfully suppressed would be
jj. Presumptions regarding survivorship: adverse if produced [MCMP Construction v. Monark
(Applicable for all purposes except succession) Equipment, G.R. No. 201001 (2014)]
1. When 2 persons perish in the same calamity
2. It is not shown who died first; and The adverse presumption of suppression of
3. There are no particular circumstances from evidence is not applicable when:
which it can be inferred, a. The suppression is not willful;
b. The evidence suppressed or withheld is merely
The survivorship is determined from the probabilities corroborative or cumulative;
resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes: c. The evidence is at the disposal of both parties;
Person and
Situation presumed to d. The suppression is an exercise of a privilege
have survived [Tarapen v. People, G.R. No. 173824 (2008)]
Both < 15 y/o The older
Both > 60 y/o The younger The presumption of regularity in the performance of
One < 15 y/o, official duty obtains only when there is no deviation
The one < 15 from the regular performance of duty. Where the
the other > 60 y/o
Both > 15 and < 60 y/o, of official act in question is irregular on its face, no
The male presumption of regularity can arise [People v.
different sexes
Both > 15 and <60 y/o, of Casabuena, G.R. No. 186455 (2014)]
The older
the same sex
One < 15 or > 60 y/o, and The one between When there is gross disregard of the procedural
the other between those ages those ages safeguards set forth in Republic Act No. 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002),
kk. As between 2 or more persons called to succeed serious uncertainty is generated as to the identity of
each other: If there is a doubt as to which of them the seized items that the prosecution presented in
died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior evidence. Such doubt cannot be remedied by merely
to the other, shall prove the same. In the absence invoking the presumption of regularity in the
of proof, they shall be considered to have died at performance of official duties [People v. Lagahit, G.R.
the same time. No. 200877 (2014)]
[Sec. 3, Rule 131]

Page 415 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

There is a disputable presumption that things have

happened according to the ordinary course of nature
and the ordinary habits of life. 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. That probability and
the evidence on which it is based are admissible under
Rule 128, Section 4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
[Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697
(2016)]
E. Liberal Construction of
the Rules of Evidence
The Rules of Court, including the Revised Rules on
Evidence, shall be liberally construed in order to
promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding [Sec. 6, Rule 1]
Rules on Electronic Evidence shall likewise be
liberally construed [Sec. 2, Rule 2, Rules on Electronic
Evidence]

Page 416 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
F. Quantum of Evidence
(Weight and Sufficiency
of Evidence)
1. 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 as, excluding possibility of
error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty
only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind [Sec. 2,
Rule 133]
The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, NOT on the accused to
prove his/her innocence [Boac v People, G.R. No.
180597, (2008)]
The prosecution must not rely on the weakness of the
evidence of the defense [Ubales v People, G.R. No.
175692, (2008); People v. Hu, G.R. No. 182232, (2008)]
2. Preponderance of Evidence
Applicable quantum of evidence in civil cases [Sec. 1,
Rule 133]
Means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a
whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of
the other [Habagat Grill v. DMC-Urban Property
Developer, Inc., G.R. No. 155110, (2005); Bank of the
Philippine Islands v. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177, (2008)]
In determining preponderance of evidence, the court
may consider:
a. All the facts and circumstances of the case;
b.
intelligence, their means and opportunity of
knowing the facts to which they testify, 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;
c. Number of witnesses (although preponderance is
not necessarily with the greater number) [Sec. 1,
Rule 133]
Page 417 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
3. Substantial Evidence
a. Degree of evidence required in cases filed before
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies
b. Definition: Amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion.
[Sec. 5, Rule 133]
Also applies to petitions under the Rule on the Writ
of Amparo [Sec. 17, Rule on the Writ of Amparo] and
the Rule on the Writ of Habeas data [Sec. 16, Rule on
the Writ of Habeas data]
Substantial Evidence Rule
Factual findings, especially when affirmed by the
Court of Appeals, are accorded not only great respect
but also finality, and are deemed binding upon this
Court so long as they are supported by substantial
evidence [Tan Brothers Corp. v. Escudero, G.R. No.
188711 (2013)]
4. Clear and Convincing
Evidence
The standard of proof required in granting or denying
onvincing
risk and will abide with all the orders and process of
the extradition court [Government of Hongkong Special
Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr., G.R. No. 153675,
(2007)]
It must be added that the defenses of denial and
improper motive can only prosper when
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence [People
v. Colentava, G.R. No. 190348 (2015)]
It is used for overturning disputable presumptions,
such as the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties [Portuguez v. People, G.R.
No. 194499, (2015)] or the existence of a valuable
consideration [Tolentino v. Sps. Jerera, G.R. No. 179874
(2015)]
Note direct denial
receipt of mail alleged to have been mailed to it
defeats the presumption in Sec. 3(v), Rule 131 and
shifts the burden upon the party favored by the
presumption to prove that the mailed letter was
indeed received by the addressee [Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Metro Star, G.R. No. 185371 (2010)]
U.P. LAW BOC
It is also the standard of proof for invoking the
justifying circumstance of self-defense for the defense
and proving the aggravating circumstance of
treachery for the prosecution [People v. C.A.sas, G.R.
No. 212565 (2015)] The former is because having
admitted the killing requires the accused to rely on the
strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of
not be disbelieved in view of his admission [People v.
Mediado, G.R. No. 169871 (2011)]
Clear and convincing evidence is more than mere
preponderance, but not to extent of such certainty as
is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal
cases [Manalo v. Roldan-Confesor, G.R. No. 102358
(1992)]
Page 418 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
G. Judicial Notice and
Judicial Admissions
1. What Need Not Be Proved
a. Facts of Judicial Notice
b. Judicial Admissions
c. Conclusive Presumptions
Note: Evidence is also not required when the issue is
in Sec. 1, Rule 128
2. Matters of Judicial Notice
Judicial Notice
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that
judges may properly take and act on without proof
because these facts are already known to them. Put
differently, it is the assumption by a court of a fact
without need of further traditional evidentiary
support. The principle is based on convenience and
expediency in securing and introducing evidence on
matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute
and are not bona fide disputed [Republic v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166859, (2011)]
a. When Mandatory
1. Existence and territorial extent of states;
2. Their political history, forms of government, and
symbols of nationality;
3. Law of nations;
4. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and
their seals;
5. Political constitution and history of the
Philippines;
6. Official acts of the legislative, executive and
judicial departments of the Philippines;
7. Laws of nature;
8. Measure of time; and
9. Geographical divisions [Sec. 1, Rule 129]
Note: Even if not raised or alleged by petitioner, courts
should take mandatory judicial notice of an
amendment to the Rules of Court [Siena Realty v. Gal-
lang, G.R. No. 145169 (2004)]
The Management Contract entered into by petitioner
and the PPA is clearly not among the matters which
the courts can take judicial notice of. It cannot be
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
considered an official act of the executive department.
The PPA was only performing a proprietary function
when it entered into a Management Contract with
petitioner. As such, judicial notice cannot be applied
[Asian Terminals v. Malayan Insurance, G.R. No. 171406
(2011)]
The RTC declared that the discrepancy arose from the
fact that Barrio Catmon was previously part of Barrio
Tinajeros. The RTC has authority to declare so
because this is a matter subject of mandatory judicial
notice. Geographical divisions are among matters that
courts should take judicial notice of [B.E. San Diego,
Inc. v. C.A., G.R. No. 159230 (2010)]
b. When Discretionary
1. Matters of public knowledge;
2. Matters capable of unquestionable
demonstration; and
3. Matters ought to be known to judges because of
their judicial functions [Sec. 2, Rule 129]
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;
3. It must be known to be within the limits of the
jurisdiction of the court
[State Prosecutors v, Muro, A.M. No. RTJ-92-876 (1994)]
Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere
personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial
knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to
make his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally
or professionally known, the basis of his action.
Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters
which are "commonly" known [State Prosecutors v,
Muro, A.M. No. RTJ-92-876 (1994)]
With Respect to Ordinances
Municipal trial courts are required to take judicial
notice of the ordinances of the municipality or city
wherein they sit [2 Regalado 833, 2008 Ed.]
Regional Trial Courts must take judicial notice of
such ordinances only:
1. When required to do so by statute e.g. in Manila
as required by the city charter [City of Manila v.
Garcia, et al., G.R. No. L-26053 (1967)]; and
2. In a case on appeal before them and wherein the
inferior court took judicial notice of an ordinance
involved in said case [U.S. v. Blanco, G.R. No.
Page 419 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
12435 (1917); U.S. v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 9699
(1915)]
Note: The principal guide in determining what facts
may be assumed to be judicially-known is that of
notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is
limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts
of general notoriety. Morever, 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 [Riano 76-77, 2016 Ed.]
c. 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 [Sec. 3, Rule 129]
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 [Sec. 3, Rule
129]
Records
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
[Republic v. C.A., G.R. No. 119288 (1997)]
d. With Respect to Records of
Other Cases
General rule: Courts are not authorized to take judicial
notice of the contents or records of other cases even
if both cases may have been tried or are pending
before the same judge [Prieto v. Arroyo, G.R. No. L-
17885 (1965)]
Exceptions:
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 a case filed in
U.P. LAW BOC
its archives as read into the record of a case pending
before it, when:
1. With the knowledge of the opposing party,
reference is made to it for that purpose, by name
and number or in some other manner by which it
is sufficiently designated; or
2. The original record of the former case or any part
of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by
the court's direction, at the request or with the
consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of
the record of the case then pending
[US v Claveria, G.R. No. G.R. No. 9282 (1915)]
Courts may also take judicial notice of proceedings in
other causes because of their:
1. Close connection with the matter in controversy.
Ex: In a separate civil action against the
administrator of an estate arising from an appeal
against the report of the committee on claims
appointed in the administration proceedings of
the said estate, the court took judicial notice of
the record of the administration proceedings to
determine whether or not the appeal was taken
on time,
2. 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.
3. The other case had been decided by the same
court, involving the same subject matter, with the
same cause of action, and was between the same
parties (which was not denied), and constituted
res judicata on the current cause before the court
[Tiburcio v. PHHC, G.R. No. L-13479, (1959)]
Courts cannot take judicial notice that vehicular
accidents cause whiplash injuries [Dela Llana v Biong,
G.R. No. 182356 (2013)]
The classification of the land is obviously essential to
the valuation of the property. The parties should thus
have been given the opportunity to present evidence
on the nature of the property before the lower court
took judicial notice of the commercial nature of a
portion of the subject landholdings [LBP v. Honeycomb
Farms, G.R. No. 166259 (2012)]
It can be considered of public knowledge and
judicially noticed that the scene of the rape is not
always nor necessarily isolated or secluded for lust is
no respecter of time or place. The offense of rape can
and has been committed in places where people
congregate, e.g. inside a house where there are
occupants, a five (5) meter room with five (5) people
inside, or even in the same room which the victim is
Page 420 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
sharing with the accused's sister [People v. Tundag, G.R.
Nos. 135695-96. (2000)]
Laws of nature involving the physical sciences,
specifically biology, include the structural make-up
and composition of living things such as human
beings. The Court may take judicial notice that a
locations [Atienza v. Board of Medicine, G.R. No. 177407
(2011)]
The distance between places may be taken as a matter
of judicial notice [Maceda v. Vda. De Macatangay, G.R.
No. 164947 (2006)]
The Court may take judicial notice of the assessed
value of the property. Considering that the subject
land was more than 4 million square kilometers, RTC
acted properly when it took judicial notice of the total
area of the property involved and the prevailing
assessed value of the titled property, and it would also
be at the height of absurdity if the assessed value of
the property with such an area is less than P20,000
[Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 205966
(2016)]
The Court may not take judicial notice of contracts
entered into by GOCCs in the exercise of their
proprietary function. These cannot be considered an
official act of the executive department [Asian
Terminals v. Malayan Insurance, G.R. No. 171406 (2011)]
3. Judicial Admissions
In General
To be a judicial admission, the same:
a. Must be made by a party to the case;
b. Must be made in the course of the proceedings in
the same case; and
c. May be verbal or written
[Sec. 4, Rule 129]
Note: The admission, to be judicial, must be made in
the course of the proceedings in the same case. Thus,
an admission made in another judicial proceeding will
not be deemed a judicial admission in another case
where the admission is not made. Instead, it will be
considered an extrajudicial admission for purposes of
the other proceeding where such admission is offered
[Riano 87, 2016 Ed.]
Judicial admissions may be made in
a. the pleadings filed by the parties,
U.P. LAW BOC
b. in the course of the trial, either by verbal or
written manifestations or stipulations, or
c. in other stages of the judicial proceeding; as in the
pre-trial of the case.
Admissions obtained through depositions, written
interrogatories or requests for admission are also
considered judicial admissions [2 Regalado 836-837,
2008 Ed.]
Examples of item (c) above are
1. Stipulations of facts by the parties in a pre-trial
conference. See People v. Hernandez [G.R. No.
108028 (1996)]
2. Motions, see Republic v. de Guzman, G.R. No.
175021 (2011), where allegations made in a
motion to dismiss were considered to be, among
others requiring denial by the adverse party and
absence of such led to the application of Sec. 4,
Rule 129
Note:
a. Sec. 8, Rule 10
pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends.
However, admissions in superseded
pleadings may be received in evidence
against the pleader
evidenc
judicial in nature the moment the pleading
containing them are superseded by virtue of
amendment. See Bastida v. Menzi & Co, Inc [G.R.
No. L-35840 (1933)], cited in 2 Regalado 837, 2008
Ed.
b. Admissions made by a party pursuant to a request
for admission is for the purpose of the pending
action only [Sec. 3, Rule 26]
c. In criminal cases, 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 [Sec. 2, Rule 118]
However, in the civil case instituted with the
criminal case, such admission will be admissible
against any other party.
There are averments made in pleadings which are not
deemed admissions even if the adverse party fails to
make a specific denial of the same like immaterial
allegations [Sec. 11, Rule 8], conclusions, non-
ultimate facts in the pleading [Sec. 1, Rule 8] as well
as the amount of liquidated damages [Sec. 11, Rule 8]
[Riano 89, 2016 Ed.]
Page 421 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
Note: The theory of adoptive admission has been
adopted by the court in this jurisdiction. An adoptive
by another person when it is reasonable to treat the
or implied by the other person. The basis for
admissibility of admissions made vicariously is that
arising from the ratification or adoption by the party
of the statements which the other person had made.
In the Angara Diary
dwindle when the armed forces withdrew its support.
Thus, Executive Secretary Angara had to ask Senate
President Pimentel to advise petitioner to consider
the option of dignified exit or resignation. Estrada
did not object to the suggested option but simply said
he could never leave the country. His silence on this
and other related suggestions can be taken as an
admission by him [Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos.
146710-15 (2001)]
Judicial Proceeding [Sec. 3, Rule 1]
a. Civil includes special civil actions
b. Criminal
c. Special Proceeding
Examples of statements made that are not judicial admissions
a. Statements made during preliminary
investigation
- b. Statements during Court-Annexed Mediation
Note: Execution of judgment is part of a judicial
proceeding. The Court retains control over the case
until the full satisfaction of the final judgment [People
v. Gallo, G.R. No. 124736 (1999)]
a. Effect of Judicial Admissions
It does not require proof and CANNOT be
contradicted [Sec. 4, Rule 129]
An original complaint, after being amended, loses its
character as a judicial admission, which would have
required no proof. It becomes merely an extra-judicial
admission requiring a formal offer to be admissible
[Torres v. C.A., G.R. No. L-37420, (1984)]
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
[Alfelor v. Halasan, G.R. No. 165987 (2006)]
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. A
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
judicial admission also removes an admitted fact from
the field of controversy.
Consequently:
1. an admission made in the pleadings cannot be
controverted by the party making such admission
and are conclusive as to such party, and all proofs
to the contrary or inconsistent therewith should
be ignored, whether objection is interposed by
the party or not;
2. The allegations, statements or admissions
contained in a pleading are conclusive as against
the pleader.
3. A party cannot subsequently take a position
contrary of or inconsistent with what was
pleaded. [Florete, Sr. v. Florete, Jr., G.R. No.
223321, (2018)]
b. How Judicial Admissions May
be Contradicted
As an exception to the general rule, judicial
admissions may be contradicted only by showing that:
1. It was made through palpable mistake; or
2. No such admission was made
[Sec. 4, Rule 129]
3. In the case of a pre-trial admission in civil cases,
to prevent manifest injustice [Sec. 7, Rule 18]; or
4. In criminal cases, if the pre-trial admission was
reduced to writing and signed by the accused and
his counsel [Secs. 2 and 4, Rule 118]
This may be invoked when the statement of a party is
taken out of context or that his statement was made
not in the sense it is made to appear by the other party
[Phil. Health Care Providers v. Estrada, G.R. No. 171052,
(2008), citing Atillo, III v. C.A. (1997)]
An admission against interest binds the person who
makes the same, and absent any showing that this was
made through palpable mistake, no amount of
rationalization can offset it, especially so in this case
where respondents failed to present even one piece of
evidence in their defense. [Heirs of Donton v. Stier, G.R.
No. 216491 (2017)]
Page 422 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
4. Judicial Notice of Foreign
Laws, Law of Nations and
Municipal Ordinance
FOREIGN LAWS
General rule: Courts cannot take judicial notice of
foreign laws. They must be alleged and proved as any
other fact [Yao-Kee v. Sy-Gonzales, G.R. No. L-55960
(1988)]
Written foreign law may be proved by:
a. An official publication; or
b. A duly attested and authenticated copy
[Sec. 24, Rule 132]
Attested copy
a. Attestation must be made by the officer having
legal custody of the record or by his deputy [Sec.
24, Rule 132]
1. It must state, in substance, that the copy is a
correct copy of the original, or a specific part
thereof [Sec. 25, Rule 132]
2. It must be under the official seal of the
attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be a
clerk of court having a seal, under the seal of
such court [Sec. 25, Rule 132]
b. It must be accompanied by a certificate that
attesting officer has custody. 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 [Sec. 24, Rule 132]
Unwritten foreign law
Where the foreign law sought to be proved is
"unwritten," the oral testimony of expert witnesses is
admissible, as are printed and published books of
reports of decisions of the courts of the country
concerned if proved to be commonly admitted in
such courts [Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. v. C.A., G.R.
No. 119602 (2000)]
Doctrine of Processual Presumption
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. C.A., G.R. No. 112573 (1995)]
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
The court may take judicial notice of the foreign
law
a. Where the foreign law is within the actual
knowledge of the court such as when the law is
well and generally known such as when they are
well and generally known or they had been ruled
upon in other cases before it and none of the
parties claim otherwise [PCIB v Escolin G.R. L-
27860 and L-27896 (1974], citing Moran]
b. When the foreign law is part of a published
treatise, periodical or pamphlet and the writer is
recognized in his/her profession or calling as
expert in the subject [Sec. 46, Rule 130]
Law Of Nations
The Philippines adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the
land [Sec. 2, Art. II, Constitution]
Being part of the law of the land, they are therefore in
the nature of local laws, and hence, subject to
mandatory judicial notice under Sec. 1 of Rule 129.
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE
Municipal trial courts are required to take judicial
notice of the ordinances of the municipality or city
wherein they sit [2 Regalado 833, 2008 Ed.]
Regional Trial Courts must take judicial notice of
such ordinances only:
a. When required to do so by statute e.g. in Manila
as required by the city charter [City of Manila v.
Garcia, et al., G.R. No. L-26053 (1967)]; and
b. In a case on appeal before them and wherein the
inferior court took judicial notice of an ordinance
involved in said case [U.S. v. Blanco, G.R. No.
12435 (1917); U.S. v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 9699
(1915)]
Page 423 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
H. Object (Real) Evidence
1. Meaning of Object Evidence
Object Evidence
Those addressed to the senses of the court [Sec. 1,
Rule 130]
as object evidence, the same being addressed to the
senses of the court [People v. Rullepa y Guinto, G.R. No.
131516 (2003)]
An ocular inspection of the body of the accused is
permissible [Villaflor v. Summers, G.R., No. 16444
(1920)]
The right against self-incrimination cannot be
invoked against object evidence [People v. Malimit,
G.R. No. 109775 (1996)]
2. Requisites for Admissibility
Basic requisites for admissibility
a. Evidence must be relevant;
b. Evidence must be authenticated;
c. Authentication must be made by a competent
witness; and
d. Object must be formally offered [Sec. 34, Rule
132]
[Riano 101, 2016 Ed.]
Requisites for the admissibility of tape recording
a. A showing that the recording was capable of
taking testimony
b. A showing that the operator of the recording
device is competent
c. Establishment of the authenticity and correctness
of recording
d. A showing that no changes, deletions, or
additions have been made on the recordings
e. A showing of the manner of preservation of the
recording
f. Identification of speakers
g. A showing that the testimony elicited was
voluntarily made without any kind of inducement
[Torralba v. People, G.R. No. 153699 (2005))
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

RELEVANT Objects with no

Non-
General rule: When an object is relevant to the fact in identifying marks E.g., narcotic
unique
issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by and cannot be substances
objects
the court [Sec. 1, Rule 130] marked

Exceptions: Court may refuse exhibition of object

evidence and rely on testimonial evidence alone if
a. Exhibition is contrary to public policy, morals or
decency;
b. It would result in delays, inconvenience,
unnecessary expenses, out of proportion to the
evidentiary value of such object; [People v. Tavera,
G.R. No. L-23172 (1925)]
c. Evidence would be confusing or misleading.
d. The testimonial or documentary evidence already
presented clearly portrays the object in question
as to render a view thereof unnecessary
COMPETENT AND AUTHENTICATED
Evidence must be authenticated
To authenticate the object is to show that the object
is the very thing that is either the subject matter of the
lawsuit or the very one involved to prove an issue in
the case
Authentication must be made by competent
witness
To authenticate the object, the witness must have the
capacity to identify the object as the very thing
involved in the litigation
A witness can testify to those facts which he/she
knows of his/her personal knowledge [Sec. 36, Rule
130]
3. Categories of Object
Evidence
As a general rule, four links in the chain of custody of
the confiscated item must be established:
a. first, the seizure and marking, if practicable,
of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer;
b. second, the turnover of the illegal drug
seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer;
c. third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and
d. fourth, the turnover and submission of the
marked illegal drug seized from the forensic
chemist to the court. [People v. Gayoso, G.R.
No. 206590 (2017)]
4. Demonstrative Evidence
Not the actual thing, rather it represents or
motion pictures and recordings [Riano 102, 2016 Ed.]
Audio, photographic and video evidence of events,
acts or transactions shall be admissible provided it
shall be:
a. shown, presented or displayed to the court,
and
b. identified, explained or authenticated
1. by the person who made the recording,
or
2. by some other person competent to
testify on the accuracy thereof
[Sec. 1, Rule 11, Rules on Electronic Evidence]

(according to means of authentication)

E.g., a caliber
5. View of an Object or Scene
Objects that have
Unique 45 pistol by
readily identifiable When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may
objects virtue of its
marks be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court [Sec.
serial number
E.g., a typical 1, Rule 130]
Objects with no
kitchen knife
Objects unique 1, Rule 130
with identifying
made characteristic but but even without this express provision, it is well-
marks placed
unique are made readily recognized that the court has an inherent power to
on it by the
identifiable order a view when there is a need to do so (See Sec. 5,
witness
Rule 135.) [Riano 106, 2016 Ed.]

Page 424 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC
The inspection or view outside the courtroom should
be in made in the presence of the parties or at least
with previous notice to them in order that they may
show the object to be viewed [5 Moran 81, 1970 Ed.,
cited in In re Climaco, A.C. No. 134-J (1974),
Teehankee, J.]
Page 425 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
I. Documentary Evidence
1. Meaning of Documentary
Evidence
Consist of writings or any material containing letters,
words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of
written expressions offered as proof of their
contents [Sec. 2, Rule 130] If offered for some other
purpose, they constitute object evidence.
2. Requisites for Admissibility
a. The document must be ;
b. The evidence must be ;
c. The document must be authenticated by a
competent ;
d. The document must be formally in
evidence
[Riano 132, 2016 Ed.]
a. Rules on Electronic Evidence
(A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)
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. 2, Rule 3]
3. Best Evidence Rule
a. Meaning of the Rule
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, no evidence shall be admissible other
than the original document itself [Sec. 3, Rule 130]
b. When Applicable
When applicable (General Rule)
Only when the subject of inquiry is the contents of
a document [Sec. 3, Rule 130]
When not applicable
When the issue is only as to whether or not such
document was actually executed or in the
circumstances relevant to its execution [People v
Tandoy, G.R. No. 80505, (1990)]
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
Hence, the Best Evidence Rule applies only when the
terms of a writing are in issue. When the evidence
sought to be introduced concerns external facts, such
as the existence, execution or delivery of the writing,
without reference to its terms, the Best Evidence Rule
cannot be invoked. In such a case, secondary evidence
may be admitted even without accounting for the
original. The Best Evidence Rule was not applicable
because the terms of the deed of sale with right to
repurchase were not the issue [Heirs of Prodon v.
Alvarez, G.R. No. 170604 (2013)]
Where the issue is only as to whether such document
was actually executed, or exists, or on the
circumstances relevant to or surrounding its
execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and
testimonial evidence is admissible. [Republic v. Gimenez,
G.R. No. 174673 (2016)]
Where the issue is only as to whether such document
was actually executed, or exists, or on the
circumstances relevant to or surrounding its
execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and
testimonial evidence is admissible.
Affidavits and depositions are considered as not being
the best evidence, hence not admissible if the affiants
or deponents are available as witnesses [2 Regalado
721, 2008 Ed., citing 4 Martin 82]
c. Meaning of Original Document
1. The original of a document is one the contents of
which are the subject of inquiry.
2. 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.
3. 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.
[Sec. 4, Rule 130]
Carbon copies are deemed duplicate originals. [People
v Tan, G.R. No. L-14257 (1959); Skunac v. Sylianteng,
G.R. No. 205879 (2014)]
The picture images of the ballots, as scanned and
that faithfully capture in electronic form the votes cast
by the voter, as defined by Sec. 2(3) of RA 9369. As
such, the printouts thereof are the functional
equivalent of the paper ballots filled out by the voters
Page 426 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
and, thus, may be used for purposes of revision of
votes in an electoral protest [Vinzons-Chato v. House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 199149
(2013)]
d. Requisites for Introduction of
Secondary Evidence
1. When the original has been lost or destroyed,
or cannot be produced in court
a. When the original has been lost or destroyed,
or cannot be produced in court;
b. Upon proof of its execution or existence;
c.
[Sec. 5, Rule 130]
Proponent must prove due execution or
existence, and the cause of the loss, destruction
or unavailability of the original [Sec. 5, Rule 130]
and reasonable diligence and good faith in the
search for/attempt to produce the original [Tan
v. C.A., G.R. No. L-56866 (1985)]
A photocopy, being merely secondary evidence,
is not admissible unless it is shown that the
original is unavailable.
Pursuant to Sec. 5, Rule 130, before a party is
allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove
the contents of the original, it is imperative that
the offeror must prove:
the existence or due execution of the
original;
the loss and destruction of the original or the
reason for its non-production in court; and
on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad
faith to which the unavailability of the
original can be attributed.
Hence, the correct order of proof is existence,
execution, loss, and contents. [Republic v. Cuenca,
G.R. No. 198393 (2018)]
ALL duplicates or counterparts must be
accounted for before using copies [De Vera v.
Aguilar, GR. No. 83377 (1993)]
Due execution of the document should be
proved through the testimony of either:
a. the person or persons who executed it;
b. the person before whom its execution was
acknowledged; or
c. any person who was present and saw it
executed and delivered, or who, after its
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
execution and delivery, saw it and recognized
the signatures, or by a person to whom the
parties to the instruments had previously
confessed the execution thereof
[Director of Lands v. C.A., G.R. No. L-29575
(1971))
What to present instead (in this order)
a. By a copy
b. By a recital of its contents in some authentic
document
c. By the testimony of witnesses [Rule 130, Sec.
5]
2. When the original is in the custody or under
the control of the party against whom it is
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice
What to present instead
Same as when lost, destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court [Sec. 6, Rule 130]
3. When the original consists of numerous
accounts or other documents which cannot
be examined in court without great loss of
time, and the fact sounds to be established
from them is only the general result of the
whole
4. When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office
What to present instead
Certified copy issued by the public officer in
custody thereof
5. When original is outside the jurisdiction of
the court
When the original is outside the jurisdiction of
the court, secondary evidence is admissible
[Regalado 784, 2008 Ed., citing PNB v. Olila, G.R.
No. L-8189 (1956), unreported]
4. Parol Evidence Rule
Parol evidence
Any evidence aliunde, whether oral or written, which
is intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete
and enforceable agreement embodied in a document
[2 Regalado 730, 2008 Ed.]
Page 427 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
a. Application of the Parol
Evidence Rule
General Rule
When the terms of an agreement (including wills)
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 [Sec. 9, Rule 130]
Where not applicable
It does not apply when third parties are involved or
those not privy to the written instrument in question
and does not base a claim or assent a right originating
in the instrument [Lechugas v. C.A., G.R. No. L-39972
& L-40300 (1986)]
The parol evidence rule does not apply to those who
are not parties to the deed and do not base a claim on
it. Hence, the party cannot be prevented from seeking
evidence to determine the complete terms of the deed
of assignment. [Eagleridge Development Corp. v. Cameron
Granville, G.R. No. 204700 (2014)]
The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to 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. [Felix Plazo Urban Poor Settlers v. Lipat, G.R.
No. 182409 (2017)]
b. When Parol Evidence Can Be
Introduced
How Parol Evidence Can Be Introduced
General rule: Ground/s for presenting parol evidence
is put in issue in the pleading [Sec. 9, Rule 130]
Exception: Even if it is not explicitly stated in the words
of the law, if the facts in the pleadings all lead to the
fact that it is being put in issue then the Parol
Evidence exception may apply [Sps. Paras v. Kimwa
Corporation, G. R. No. 171601 (2015)]
When Can Parole Evidence Can Be Introduced
1. Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in
the written agreement
2. Failure of the written agreement to express the
true intent and agreement of the parties thereto
3. Validity of the written agreement
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

4. Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST AFTER THE
or their successors in interest after the execution EXECUTION OF THE WRITTEN
of the written agreement. AGREEMENT.

INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY, MISTAKE OR c. Distinction between the Best

IMPERFECTION IN THE WRITTEN
AGREEMENT Evidence Rule and Parol
Evidence Rule
Intrinsic ambiguity writing admits of two
constructions both of which are in harmony with the Best Evidence Rule Parol Evidence Rule
language used [Ignacio v. Rementeria, 99 Phil. 1054 Contemplates the
(Unrep.)] situation wherein the
original writing is not Presupposes that the
American jurisprudence also refers to a situation. available and/or there is original document is
where an ambiguity partakes of the nature of both a dispute as to whether available in court
patent and latent ambiguity, that is, an intermediate said writing is the
ambiguity, because the words of the writing, though original
seemingly clear and with a settled meaning, is actually Prohibits the
equivocal and admits of two interpretations. Parol introduction of
evidence, in such a case is admisaible to clarify the substitutionary evidence Prohibits the varying
ambiguity [2 Regalado 734, 2008 Ed., citing 20 Am. Jur in lieu of the original of the terms of a
1011] document regardless of written agreement
WON it varies the
Mistake refers to mistake of fact which is mutual to contents of the original
the parties [BPI v. Fidelity and Surety, Co., G.R. No. L- Applies only to
26743 (1927)] Applies to all kinds of documents
writings contractual in nature
Imperfection includes an inaccurate statement in the and to wills
agreement or incompleteness in the writing, or the Can be invoked only
presence of inconsistent provisions [2 Regalado 732, when the controversy
2008 Ed.] Can be invoked by any
is between the parties
party to an action
to the written
FAILURE OF THE WRITTEN regardless of WON such
agreement, their
AGREEMENT TO EXPRESS THE TRUE party participated in the
privies or any party
INTENT AND AGREEMENT OF THE writing involved
directly affected
PARTIES THERETO thereby
[2 Regalado 731, 2008 Ed.]
Purpose
To enable court to ascertain the true intention of the COLLATERAL AGREEMENTS
parties [Tolentino v. Gonzales Sy Chiam, G.R. No. 26085
(1927)] General rule: Parol Evidence Rule applies (i.e., no
evidence of such terms other than the contents of the
VALIDITY OF THE WRITTEN written agreement) [Sec. 9, Rule 130]
AGREEMENT Exceptions:
Parol evidence may be admitted to show: 1. Collateral agreement is not inconsistent with the
1. True consideration of a contract terms of the written contract [Robles v. Lizarraga
2. Want/Illegality of consideration Hermanos, G.R. No. 26173 (1927)]
3. Incapacity of parties 2. Collateral agreement has not been integrated in
4. Fictitious/absolutely simulated contract and is independent of the written contract
5. Fraud in inducement 3. Collateral agreement is subsequent to [Filpinas
[2 Regalado 733, 2008 Ed.] Manufacturers Bank v. Eastern Rizal Fabricators, G.R.
No. 62741 (1987)] or novatory of the written
EXISTENCE OF OTHER TERMS AGREED contract [Canuto v. Mariano, G.R. No. 11346
TO BY THE PARTIES OR THEIR (1918)]

Page 428 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC
4. Collateral agreement constitutes a condition
precedent which determines whether the written
contract may become operative or effective
[Peabody & Co. v. Bromfield, G.R. No. 13510
(1918)], but this exception does not apply to a
condition subsequent not stated in the agreement
[2 Regalado 730, 2008 Ed.]
5. Authentication and Proof of
Documents
a. Meaning of authentication
The preliminary step in showing the admissibility of
evidence
Proving that the objects and documents presented in
evidence are not counterfeit
b. Public and Private Documents
Private Documents Public Documents
When offered as
authentic, due Admissible without
execution and further proof of its due
authenticity must be execution and
proved [Sec. 20, Rule authenticity
132]
Public Documents
1. 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
2. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private
documents required by law to be entered therein
3. Notarial documents (except last wills and
testaments)
[Sec. 19, Rule 132]
All other writings are private [Sec. 19, Rule 132]
A public document enjoys the presumption of
regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of the
facts stated therein and a conclusive presumption of
its existence and due execution. To overcome this
presumption, there must be clear and convincing
evidence [Chua v. Westmont Bank, G.R. No. 182650
(2012)]. Note: Compare this statement with:
1. Documents consisting of entries in public
records made in the performance of a duty by a
public officer are prima facie evidence of the
Page 429 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
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 [Sec. 20, Rule 132]
2. 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 [Sec. 30, Rule 132]
A public document is self-authenticating and requires
no further authentication in order to be presented as
evidence in court [Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457
(2012)]
Private Documents
A private document is any other writing, deed, or
instrument executed by a private person without the
intervention of a notary or other person legally
authorized by which some disposition or agreement is
proved or set forth [Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457
(2012)]
c. When a Private Writing Requires
Authentication; Proof of Private
Writing
General rule: Before any private document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its due execution
and authenticity must be proved [Sec. 20, Rule 132]
How to Prove Due Execution and Authenticity
1. By anyone who saw the document executed or
written; or
2. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature
or handwriting of the maker [Sec. 20, Rule 132]
Before a private document is admitted in evidence, it
must be authenticated either by:
1. the person who executed it,
2. the person before whom its execution was
acknowledged,
3. any person who was present and saw it executed,
or
4. who after its execution, saw it and recognized the
signatures, or
5. the person to whom the parties to the
instruments had previously confessed execution
thereof
[Malayan Insurance v. Phil. Nails and Wires Corp., G.R.
No. 138084 (2002)]
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
Private documents in the custody of PCGG are not
public documents. What became public are not the
private documents (themselves) but the recording of
it in the PCGG. If a private writing itself is inserted
officially into a public record, its record, its
recordation, or its incorporation into the public
record becomes a public document, but that does not
make the private writing itself a public document so
as to make it admissible without authentication
[Republic v Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188881 (2014)]
Additional Modes of Authentication under
American Jurisprudence
1. Doctrine of Self-Authentication Where the
facts in writing could only have been known by
the writer
2. Rule of Authentication of the adverse party
Where the reply of the adverse party refers to and
affirms the transmittal to him and his receipt of
the letter in question, a copy of which the
proponent is offering as evidence
[2 Regalado 859, 2008 Ed.]
d. When Evidence of Authenticity
of a Private Writing is Not
Required (Ancient Documents)
The requirement of authentication of a private
document is excused only in four instances,
specifically:
1. when the document is an ancient one which is:
a. More than 30 years old;
b. Produced from a custody in which it would
naturally be found if genuine; and
c. Unblemished by any alterations or
circumstances of suspicion [Sec. 21, Rule
132]
2. when the genuineness and authenticity of the
actionable document have not been specifically
denied under oath by the adverse party;
3. when the genuineness and authenticity of the
document have been admitted; or
4. when the document is not being offered as
genuine.
OTHER INSTANCES WHEN
AUTHENTICATION IS NOT REQUIRED
1. Writing is a public document/record [Sec. 19,
Rule 132]
2. Notarial document acknowledged,
proved/certified [Sec. 30, Rule 132]
Page 430 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
3. When authenticity and due execution has been
admitted as in the case of actionable documents
under Sec. 8, Rule 8
4. That which it is claimed to be: Authentication not
necessary [Sec. 20, Rule 132]
e. How to Prove Genuineness of a
Handwriting
1. By any witness who believes it to be the
handwriting of such person because:
a. he has seen the person write; or
b. he 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 [Sec. 22,
Rule 132]
2. A comparison by the witness or the court of the
questioned handwriting, and admitted genuine
specimens thereof or proved to be genuine to the
satisfaction of the judge [Sec. 22, Rule 132]
3. Expert evidence [Sec. 49, Rule 130]
f. Public Documents as Evidence;
Proof of Official Records
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 [Sec. 23, Rule
132]
Proof of official record referred to in Sec. ,
Rule
1. By an official publication thereof; or
2. By an attested copy of the document
Note: Documents without documentary stamp affixed
thereto, unless specifically exempted by law, may not
be admitted or used in evidence in any court until the
requisite stamp shall have been affixed [Sec. 201,
NIRC] Also, there is a presumption that the requisite
stamps have been affixed in the original copy when
only the carbon copies of the same is available
[Mahilum v. C.A., G.R. No. L-17666 (1966))
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

g. Attestation of a Copy of a h. Public Record of Private

Document or Record Documents
1. Must be made by the officer having the legal 1. By the original record; or
custody of the record, or by his deputy [Sec. 24, 2. By a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian
Rule 132] of the record, with an appropriate certificate that
2. Must state that the copy is a correct copy of the such officer has the custody [Sec. 27, Rule 132]
original or a specific part thereof, as the case may
be [Sec. 25, Rule 132] See Sec. 25, Rule 132
3. Must be under the official seal of the attesting
officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a i. Proof of Lack of Record
court having a seal, under the seal of such court
[Sec. 25, Rule 132] 1. Written statement
a. Signed by an officer having the custody of an
If the record is not kept in the Philippines, attested official record or by his deputy
copy must be accompanied with a certificate, which: b. Must state that after diligent search, no
1. May be made by a secretary of the record or entry of a specified tenor is found
embassy/legation, consul-general, consul, vice- to exist in the records of his office
consul, consular agent or any officer in the 2. Certificate
foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the a. Accompanying the written statement
foreign country in which the record is kept; b. Must state that that such officer has the
2. Must state that such officer has the custody; and custody
3. Must be authenticated by the seal of his office [Sec. 28, Rule 132]
[Sec. 24, Rule 132]

Exception: The United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) is the principal United States
agency to extend assistance to countries recovering
from disaster, trying to escape poverty, and engaging
in democratic reforms. It is an independent federal
government agency that receives over-all foreign
policy guidance from the Secretary of the State. Given
this background, it is highly improbable that such an
agency will issue a certification containing unreliable
there exists a presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed. Absent any showing to the
contrary, it is presumed that Cruz, as Chief of Human
Resources Division of USAID, has regularly
performed his duty relative to the issuance of said
certification and therefore, the correctness of its
contents can be relied upon. This presumption
remains especially so where the authenticity, due
execution and correctness of said certification have
not been put in issue either before the trial court or
the CA [Heirs of Ochoa v. G&S Transport, G.R. No.
170071 (2011)]
j. How Judicial Record is
Impeached
Establish:
1. Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial
officer;
2. Collusion between the parties; or
3. Fraud in the party offering the record, with
respect to the proceedings
[Sec. 29, Rule 132]
k. Proof of Notarial Documents
Notarial Documents
Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and
certified as provided by law which 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
[Sec. 30, Rule 132]
Such notarized documents are evidence, even against
3rd persons, of the facts which gave rise to their
execution and of the date of execution [Sec. 23, Rule
132]

Page 431 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
Note: Last wills and testaments are not public
documents [Sec. 19, Rule 132]
l. How to Explain Alterations in a
Document
When Applicable and Whose Burden of Proof
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. If he fails
to do that, the document shall not be admissible in
evidence [Sec. 31, Rule 132]
How to Account for Alteration
Party producing a document as genuine may show
that the alteration
1. Was made by another, without his concurrence;
2. Was made with the consent of the parties
affected by it;
3. Was otherwise properly or innocently made; or
4. Did not change the meaning or language of the
instrument.
[Sec. 31, Rule 132]
m. Documentary Evidence in an
Unofficial Language
Not admissible unless accompanied by a translation
into English or Filipino. Parties or their attorneys are
directed to have the translation prepared before trial
[Sec. 33, Rule 132]
The OCT written in the Spanish language already
formed part of the records of the case for failure of
the adverse parties to interpose a timely objection
when it was offered as evidence. Any objection to the
admissibility of such evidence not raised will be
considered waived and said evidence will have to form
part of the records of the case as competent and
admitted evidence [Heirs of Doronio v. Heirs of Doronio,
G.R. No. 169454 (2007)]
Page 432 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
J. Testimonial Evidence
1. Qualifications of a Witness
Witness
A witness is one who, being present, personally sees
or perceives a thing, a beholder, spectator or
eyewitness. One who testifies to what he has seen or
heard, or otherwise observed [Herrera citing
Law Dictionary]
Qualifications of a Witness
All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can
make known their perception to others, may be
witnesses.
Religious/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 [Sec. 20, Rule 130]
Qualifications of a Witness
a. To observe, the testimonial quality of perception;
[Sec. 20, Rule 130]
b. To remember, the testimonial quality of memory;
c. To relate, the testimonial quality of narration;
[Sec. 20, Rule 130]
d. To recognize a duty to tell the truth, the
testimonial quality of sincerity; [Sec. 1, Rule 132]
e. He must not possess any of the disqualifications
imposed by the law or rules [Sec. 20, Rule 130]
[Herrera]
A deaf-mute is competent to be a witness so long as
he/she has the faculty to make observations and
he/she can make those observations known to others
[People v. Aleman y Longhas, G.R. No. 181539 (2013)]
Parties declared in default are not disqualified from
taking the witness stand for non-disqualified parties.
The law does not provide default as an exception
[Marcos v. Heirs of Navarro, G.R. No. 198240 (2013)]
There is no substantive or procedural rule which
requires a witness for a party to present some form of
authorization to testify as a witness for the party
presenting him or her [AFP Retirement and Separation
Benefits System v. Republic, G.R. No. 188956 (2013)]
When determined
Qualification of a witness is determined at the time
the said witness are produced for examination or at
the taking of their depositions.
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

With respect to children of tender years, competence Competency Distinguished from Credibility
at the time of the occurrence is also taken into Competence Credibility
account. A matter of law and of Has nothing to do
rules with the law or rules
In case person is convicted of a crime Refers to the basic
General rule: Not disqualified qualifications of a witness Refers to the weight
The fact that a witness has been convicted of felony as his capacity to perceive and trustworthiness
is a circumstance to be taken into consideration as and his capacity to or reliability of the
affecting his character and credibility [Enrile, et al. v. communicate his testimony
Roberto, et al. G.R. No. L-42309 (1935)] perception to others

Exception: Otherwise provided by law, e.g. under Art. Two Kinds of Incompetency to Testify
821 of the Civil Code, a person convicted of any of Absolute Partial
the following crimes cannot be a witness to a will: Forbidden to testify
a. Falsification of documents, only on certain matters
b. Perjury; or specified under Secs.
c. False testimony Forbidden to testify on
22-23, Rule 130 due to
any matter
interest or relationship,
2. Competency v. Credibility of or to privileges of the
parties
a Witness [Herrera]
COMPETENCY Incompetence and Privilege
Incompetence Privilege
Competency of a Witness Excuses a witness from
One is qualified to take the witness stand if: Disqualifies a witness
testifying
a. He is capable of perceiving at the time of the [Herrera]
occurrence of the fact; and
b. He came make his perception known
[Sec. 20, Rule 130] 3. Disqualifications of
Witnesses
Competency Presumed
A person who takes the witness stand is presumed to Effect of Interest In The Subject Matter
possess the qualifications of a witness. His A person is not disqualified (except if covered by the
competence may be questioned by the other party by
interposing an objection [Herrera]
Interest only affects credibility, not competency.
Remedy for Errors or Questions on Competence
Appeal, not certiorari, is the proper remedy for the EFFECT OF RELATIONSHIP
correction of any error as to the competency of a
witness committed by an inferior court in the course General rule: Mere relationship does not impair
of the trial [Icutanim v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-1709, credibility [People v. De Guzman, G.R. 130809 (2000)]
June 8, 1948]
Exception:
Credibility To warrant rejection, it must be clearly shown:
Credibility of a witness is a question of fact, which is a. Testimony was inherently improbable or
not reviewable by the Supreme Court [Addenbrook v. defective
People, G.R. No. L-22995 (1967)] b. Improper/evil motives had moved the witness to
incriminate falsely
[People v. Daen Jr., G.R. No. 112015 (1995)]

Page 433 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
a. DQ by Reason of Mental
Capacity or Immaturity
The following persons cannot be witnesses:
1. 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;
2. 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 [Sec. 21, Rule 130]
When incapacity matters for disqualification
In case of Sec. 21(a): At the time of their production
for examination
In case of Sec. 21(b): At the time of perception
Presumption of sanity
General rule: The law presumes that every person is of
sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary
[Art. 800, Civil Code]
Exception: if the witness is a lawful inmate of an asylum
for the insane [Herrera citing Torres v. Lopez (1926)]
A mental retardate is not therefore, per se, disqualified
from being a witness. As long as his senses can
perceive facts and if he can convey his perceptions in
court, he can be a witness [People v. Española, G.R. No.
119308 (1997), citing People v. Salomon, G.R. No. 96848
(1994)]
Unsound mind
1. Includes any mental aberration
(organic/functional), induced by drugs/hypnosis
2. Not disqualified as long as the witness can convey
ideas by words/signs
Deaf-Mutes
Deaf-mutes are competent witnesses where they have
sufficient knowledge to understand and appreciate
the sanctity of an oath and comprehend the facts as
to which they wish to speak, and are capable of
communicating their Ideas with respect thereto [People
v. Hayag, G.R. No. L-38635 (1980)]
They may give evidence by signs, or through an
interpreter or in writing, and such testimony, through
an interpreter, is not hearsay. But sign language must
Page 434 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
be capable of verification [People v. Hayag, G.R. No. L-
38635 (1980)]
Child Witness
The competency of a child witness is determined by
his capacity for observation, recollection and
communication [People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 113791
(1996)]
Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
(A.M. No. 004-07-SC, 15 December 2000), every
child is now presumed qualified to be a witness. To
rebut this presumption, the burden of proof lies on
when 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 will the court, motu
proprio or on motion of a party, conduct a
competency examination of the child. [People v. Esugon,
G.R. No. 195244 (2015)]
b. DQ by Reason of Marriage
Also known as Martial Disqualification Rule
[Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439 (2005)] or
Spousal Immunity
Elements
1. During their marriage
2. Neither the husband nor the wife
3. May testify for or against the other
4. Without the consent of the affected spouse
[Sec. 22, Rule 130]
Except: Spouse may testify for or against the other
even without the consent of the latter
1. In a civil case by one against the other; or
2. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one
against the other or the latter's direct
descendants/ascendants
[Sec. 22, Rule 130]
Rationale
1. There is identity of interests between husband
and wife;
2. If one were to testify for or against the other,
there is a consequent danger of perjury;
3. Policy of the law is to guard the security and
confidence of private life, and to prevent
domestic disunion and unhappiness; and
4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility, there
is danger of punishing one spouse through the
hostile testimony of the other
U.P. LAW BOC
[Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439 (2005)]
Duration
General rule: During the marriage [Sec. 22, Rule 130]
Exception: Where the marital and domestic relations
are so strained that there is no more harmony to be
preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be
disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony and
tranquility fails. In such a case, identity of interests
disappears and the consequent danger of perjury
based on that identity is non-existent [Alvarez v.
Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439 (2005)]
Compare the occasions in which the exception was
applied:
1. People v. Francisco [G.R. No. L-568 (1947)]: The
wife testified against her husband after the latter,
testifying in his own defense, imputed upon her
the killing of their little son.
2. Alvarez v. Ramirez [G.R. No. 143439 (2005)]: The
wife testified against her husband as the first
witness of the prosecution.
Scope of Rule
The rule also includes utterance as to facts or mere
production of documents. It does not only prevent
disclosure of matters communicated in nuptial
confidence but is an absolute prohibition against the
however these facts may have been acquired [Herrera]
Waiver of Disqualification
If one spouse imputes the commission of a crime
against the other, the latter may testify against the
former [People v. Francisco, G.R. No. L-568 (1947)]
Spouses as Co-Accused
The other cannot be called as an adverse party witness
under this Rule
c. DQ by Reason of Death or
Insanity of Adverse Party
Also known as D or Survivorship
Rule [Sunga v. Chua, G.R. No. 143340 (2001)]
Elements
1. Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or
persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted
2. Against:
a. An executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person, or
Page 435 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
b. A person of unsound mind
3. Upon a claim or demand against
a. The estate of such deceased person, or
b. Such person of unsound mind
4. Cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring
before
a. The death of such deceased person
b. Such person became of unsound mind
[Sec. 23, Rule 130]
Applicability
This rule is applied only to civil cases.
It is still applicable even if the property has already
been judicially adjudicated to the heirs regardless
whether the deceased died before or after the suit
Rationale
To close lips of the plaintiff when death has closed
the lips of the defendant in order to discourage
perjury and protect the estate from fictitious claims
[Icard v. Masigan, G.R. No L-47442 (1947)]
Scope
Facts favorable to the deceased are not
prohibited
The rule does not operate to exclude testimony
favorable to the deceased because the rule seeks to
protect his interests [Herrera, citing Go Chi Gun v. Co
Cho, G.R. No. L-13342 (1962), which cited Jones on
Evidence]
1. The survivor may testify against the estate of the
deceased where the latter was guilty of fraud
which fraud was established by evidence other
than the testimony of the survivor [Ong Chua v.
C.A.rr, G.R. No. L-29512 (1929))
2. He may also testify where he was the one sued by
against the estate [Tongco v. Vianzon, G.R. No.
27498 (1927))
3. He may likewise testify where the estate had filed
a counterclaim against him or where the estate
cross-examined him as to matters occurring
during the lifetime of the deceased [Goñi v. C.A.,
G.R. No. L-27434 (1986)]
4. No application to a mere witness
5. No application to nominal parties, officers and
stockholders against corporations [Lichauco v.
Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., G.R. No. L-2016
(1949)]
6. Cannot be used in a negative testimony
[Mendezona v. Vda. De Goitia, G.R. No. L-31739]
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

7. If the defendant did not object 2. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one
8. When the party cross-examines the witness [Goni
v. C.A., G.R. No. L-27434 (1986)] or ascendants
9. Where the purpose of the oral testimony is to [Sec. 24(a), Rule 130]
prove a lesser claim than what might be
warranted by clear written evidence, to avoid A widow of a victim allegedly murdered may testify as
prejudice to the estate of the deceased [Icard v.
Marasigan, G.R. No. L-47442 (1941)] the since the same was not intended to be confidential
10. Agent of the deceased as to transactions or [US v. Antipolo, G.R. No. L-13109 (1918)]
communications with the deceased or
incompetent person which were made with an Scope:
agent of such person in cases in which the agent Includes utterances, either oral or written, or acts
is still alive and competent to testify [Goñi v. C.A., [Herrera]
G.R. No. L-27434 (1986)]
When not applicable
1. When the communication was not intended to be
admission of testimonial evidence upon a claim kept in confidence
which arose before the death of the deceased. The 2. When the communication was made prior to the
incompetency is confined to the giving of testimony marriage
[Sanson v. C.A., G.R. No. 127745 (2003)] 3. When the communication was overheard/comes
into the hands of a third party whether legally or
d. DQ by Reason of Privileged not [People v. C.A.rlos, G.R. No. 22948 (1925)]
4. Waiver of the privilege
Communications [Herrera]
Privilege Waiver
A privilege is a rule of law that, to protect a particular 1. Failure of the spouse to object; or
relationship or interest, either permits a witness to 2. Calling spouse as witness on cross examination
refrain from giving testimony he otherwise could be 3. Any conduct constructed as implied consent.
compelled to give, or permits someone usually one of [Herrera]
the parties, to prevent the witness from revealing
certain information [Herrera] The objection to the competency of the spouse must
be made when he or she is first offered as a witness.
HUSBAND AND WIFE The incompetency is waived by failure to make a
Also known as marital privilege testimony [People v. Pasensoy, G. R. No. 140634 (2002)]
Rationale Marital
Confidential nature of the privilege; to preserve Marital Privilege
Disqualification [Sec.
marital and domestic relations [Sec.
]
One spouse should be Neither of the spouses
Elements a party to the case; need to be a party;
1. The husband or the wife
Applies only if the
2. During or after the marriage Does not cease even
marriage is existing at
3. Cannot be examined after the marriage is
the time the testimony
4. Without the consent of the other dissolved; and
is offered; and
5. As to any communication received in confidence
Constitutes a total Prohibition is limited
by one from the other during the marriage
prohibition on any to testimony on
[Sec. 24(a), Rule 130]
testimony for or against confidential
the spouse of the communications
Except: Spouse may testify for or against the other
witness between spouses
even without the consent of the latter
1. In a civil case by one against the other, or

Page 436 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT Identity of Client

General rule The attorney-client privilege may not be
Elements invoked to refuse to divulge the identity of the client.
As regards an attorney
1. Without the consent of his client Exceptions:
2. Cannot be examined as to 1. When a strong probability exists that revealing
a. Any communication made by the client to the name would implicate that person in the very
him, or same activity for which he sought the
b. His advice given thereon in the course of, or advice;
with a view to, professional employment 2. When disclosure would open the client to
[Sec 24(b), Rule 130] liability;
3. When the name would furnish the only link that
would form the chain of testimony necessary to
or clerk convict
1. Without the consent of the client and his [Regala v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938 and G.R.
employer No. 108113 (1996)]
2. Cannot be examined
3. Concerning any fact the knowledge of which has Duration of the privilege
been acquired in such capacity In the absence of a statute, the privilege is permanent.
[Sec. 24(b), Rule 130]
Herrera]
Subject-matter of the privilege
1. Communications PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT
2. Observations by the lawyer (regardless of
medium of transmission which may include oral Elements
or written words and actions) 1. A person authorized to practice medicine,
3. Tangible evidence delivered to a lawyer surgery or obstetrics
4. Documents entrusted to a lawyer 2. In a civil case
[Herrera] 3. Without the consent of the patient
4. Cannot be examined as to
When not applicable a. Any advice or treatment given by him or
1. When the communication made was not for the b. Any information which he may have
purpose of creating relationship (even if acquired in attending such patient in a
afterwards he become counsel) professional capacity, which information
2. When the communication was intended to be was necessary to enable him to act in that
made public capacity, and
3. When the communication was intended to be 5. Which would blacken the reputation of the
communicated to others patient
4. When the communication was intended for an [Sec. 24(c), Rule 130]
unlawful purpose
5. When the communication was received from Physician-patient relationship need not be entered
third persons not acting in behalf/as agents of into voluntarily.
clients
6. When the communication was made in the When not applicable
presence of third parties stranger to the attorney- 1. Communication was not given in confidence
client relationship 2. Communication was irrelevant to the
7. When the communication has something to do professional employment
People v. 3. Communication was made for an unlawful
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 115439-41 (1997)] purpose
8. When there is a controversy between the client 4. Communication was intended for the
and attorney commission/concealment of a crime
[Herrera] 5. Communication was intended to be made
public/divulged in court
6. When there was a waiver

Page 437 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC
7. When the doctor was presented as an expert
witness and only hypothetical problems were
presented to him [Lim v. C.A., G.R. No. 91114
(1992)]
Waiver
1. Express waiver may only be done by the
patient
2. Implied waiver
a. By failing to object
b. When the patient testifies
c. A testator procures an attending doctor to
subscribe his will as an attesting witness
d. Disclosure of the privileged information
either made or acquiesced by the privilege
holder before trial
e. Where the patient examines the physician as
to matters disclosed in a consultation
f. Also check Rule 28 on Mental or Physical
Examination [Rules on Civil Procedure]
[Herrera]
Professional capacity
When the doctor attends to a patient for curative
treatment, or for palliative or preventive treatment
[Herrera]
Extent of rule
The privilege extends to communications which have
[Herrera]
Physician allowed to testify as an expert
A doctor is allowed to be an expert witness when he
does not disclose anything obtained in the course of
his examination, interview and treatment of a patient
[Lim v. C.A., G.R. No. 91114 (1992)]
Autopsical information
If the information was not acquired by the physician
in confidence, he may be allowed to testify thereto.
But if the physician performing the autopsy was also
either directly or indirectly to disclose facts that came
to his knowledge while treating the living patient
[Herrera, citing US Case Tra
Bergeron]
Duration of privilege
The privilege continues until the death of the patient.
It may be waived by the personal representative of the
decedent [Herrera]
Page 438 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
Essential factors to establish the existence of the
attorney-client privilege communication
1. Where legal advice of any kind is sought
2. from a professional legal adviser in his capacity
as such,
3. the communications relating to that purpose,
4. made in confidence
5. by the client,
6. are at his instance permanently protected
7. from disclosure by himself
[Haduja vs. Madianda, A.C. No. 6711 (2007) citing
Wigmore]
Hospital Records during discovery procedure
To allow the disclosure during discovery procedure of
the hospital records would be to allow access to
evidence that is inad
consent. Disclosing them would be the equivalent of
compelling the physician to testify on privileged
matters he gained while dealing with the patient,
Chan v. Chan, G.R.
No. 179786 (2013)]
PRIEST AND PENITENT
Elements
1. A minister or priest
2. Without the consent of the person making the
confession
3. Cannot be examined as to any
a. confession made to or
b. advice given by him
4. in his professional character
5. in the course of discipline enjoined by the church
to which the minister or priest belongs
[Sec. 24(d), Rule 130]
This disqualification only applies if the confession is
given in the context of penitence [Prof. Avena].
PUBLIC OFFICERS
Elements
1. A public officer
2. During his term of office or afterwards
3. Cannot be examined as to communications made
to him in official confidence
4. When the court finds that the public interest
would suffer by the disclosure
[Sec. 24(e), Rule 130]
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

1. - a common ancestry. A stepdaughter has no common

ancestry by her stepmother [Lee v. C.A., G.R. No.
2. 177861 (2010)]
a close advisor of the President or the President
himself; and A child can waive the filial privilege and choose to
3. Privilege may be overcome by a showing of testify against his father. The rule refers to a privilege
adequate need such that the information sought not to testify, which can be invoked or waived like
other privileges [People v. Invencion y Soriano, G.R. No.
unavailability of the information elsewhere [Neri 131636 (2003)]
v. Senate, G.R. No. 180643 (2008)]
OTHER PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
Purpose NOT IN THE RULES OF COURT
The privilege is not intended for the protection of
public officers but for the protection of the public 1.
interest. When no public interest would be prejudiced,
this privilege cannot be invoked [Banco Filipino v. General rule: Publisher, editor or duly accredited
Monetary Board, G.R. No. 70054 (1986)). reporter of any newspaper, magazine or
periodical of general circulation cannot be
Parental and Filial Privilege Rule compelled to reveal the source of any news-
Art. , report or information appearing in said
CC publication which was related in confidence to
Sec. , Rule Art. , FC
(repealed such publisher, editor or reporter
by FC)
No Exception: Court or a House/Committee of
descendant Congress finds that such revelation is demanded
No person may by security of the State
No descendant can be
be compelled to
shall be compelled,
testify against his Note: This is without prejudice to his liability
compelled, in a in a
1. Parents under the civil and criminal laws
criminal case, criminal
2. other direct [R.A. 53, as amended by R.A. 1477]
to testify case, to
ascendants
against his testify
3. children or 2. Information in Conciliation Proceedings
parents and against his
4. other direct All information and statements made at
grandparents parents
descendants conciliation proceedings shall be treated as
and
ascendants privileged communications [Art. 233, Labor
Except when Code]
such testimony
is indispensable 3. Data Privacy Act
in a crime Personal information controllers may invoke the
1. against the principle of privileged communication over
NONE descendant NONE privileged information that they lawfully control
or or process. Subject to existing laws and
2. by one regulations, any evidence gathered on privileged
parent information is inadmissible [Sec. 15, RA 10173]
against the
other 4. Food and Drug Administration Act
Prohibits the use of a person to his own
Applicability advantage, or revealing, other than to the
The rule is applied to both civil and criminal cases Secretary of Health or officers or employees of
[Herrera] the Department of Health or to the courts when
relevant in any judicial proceeding under this Act,
The privilege cannot apply between stepmothers and any information acquired under authority Board
stepchildren because the rule applies only to direct of Food Inspection and Board of Food and
ascendants and descendants, a family tie connected by Drug, or concerning any method or process

Page 439 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
which as a trade secret is entitled to protection
[Secs. 9, 11 (f) and 12, RA 3720]
5. TRIPS Agreement
Undisclosed information or trade secrets are
considered privileged communication [Air Phils.
Corp. v. Penswell Inc., G.R. No. 172835 (2007)]
It is protected information if it complies with 3
requisites:
a. A secret in a sense that it is not generally
known among or readily accessible to
persons within the circles that normally
deal with the kind of info in question,
b. Has commercial value because it is a
secret;
c. Has been subject to reasonable steps,
under the circumstances by the person
lawfully in control of the information, to
keep it a secret [Art. 39, TRIPS
Agreement]
Electronic Document as Privileged
Communication
The confidential character of a privileged
communication is not solely on the ground that it is
in the form of an electronic document [Sec. 3, Rule 3,
Rules on Electronic Evidence]
4. Examination of a Witness
Shall be done
a. in open court, and
b. under oath or affirmation.
Answers shall be given orally, unless the
a. witness is incapacitated to speak, or
b. question calls for a different mode of answer
[Sec. 1, Rule 132]
Proceedings to be recorded, including
a. the questions propounded to a witness and his
answers thereto
b. the statements made by the judge or any of the
parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference to
the case
by means of shorthand or stenotype or by other
means of recording found suitable by the court [Sec.
2, Rule 132]
Transcript deemed correct
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
Page 440 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
a correct statement of such proceedings [Sec. 2, Rule
132]
Exclusion and separation of witnesses
The judge may
a. On any trial or hearing, exclude from the court
any witness not at the time under examination, so
that he may not hear the testimony of other
witnesses
b. Cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be
prevented from conversing with one another
until all shall have been examined
[Sec. 15, Rule 132]
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. Since there was no order of exclusion
from the RTC, there was nothing to prevent the
witness from hearing the testimony of the other
witness. [Eristingcol v. Design Sources International, G.R.
No. 193966 (2014)]
When witness may refer to memorandum
a. A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory
respecting a fact
1. by anything written or recorded
2. by himself or under his direction
3. at the time when the fact occurred, or
immediately thereafter, or at any other time
when the fact was fresh in his memory and
4. he knew that the same was correctly written
or recorded
5. the writing or record must be produced and
may be inspected by the adverse party, who
may, if he chooses, cross-examine the
witness upon it, and may read it in evidence.
b. A witness may also testify from such a writing or
record, though he retain no recollection of the
particular facts, if he is able to swear that the
writing or record correctly stated the transaction
when made; but such evidence must be received
with caution.
[Sec. 16, Rule 132]
When part of transaction, writing or record given
in evidence, the remainder admissible.
a. When part of an act, declaration, conversation,
writing or record is given in evidence by one
party, the whole of the same subject may be
inquired into by the other
b. When a detached act, declaration, conversation,
writing or record is given in evidence, any other
act, declaration, conversation, writing or record
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
necessary to its understanding may also be given
in evidence
[Sec. 17, Rule 132]
Right to inspect writing shown to witness
Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be
inspected by the adverse party [Sec. 18, Rule 132]
a. Judicial Affidavit Rule [A.M.
] [Sec. 3]
SCOPE AND WHERE APPLICABLE
Where Applicable
Applies to all actions and proceedings, and incidents
requiring the reception of evidence before:
1. Courts (but not to small claims cases)
2. Investigating officers and bodies authorized by
the SC to receive evidence, including the IBP
3. 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
[Sec. 1]
Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in
Lieu of Direct Testimonies
1. 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
a. The judicial affidavits of their witnesses,
which shall take the place of such witnesses'
direct testimonies; and
b. The parties' documentary or object evidence,
if any, shall be marked and attached to the
judicial affidavits
2. 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
Page 441 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
secondary evidence in place of the original when
allowed by existing rules.
[Sec. 2]
CONTENTS AND PROCEDURE
Contents
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
1. The name, age, residence or business address,
and occupation of the witness
2. 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
3. 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
4. Questions asked of the witness and his
corresponding answers, consecutively numbered,
that
a. Show the circumstances under which the
witness acquired the facts upon which he
testifies
b. Elicit from him those facts which are
relevant to the issues that the case presents;
and
c. Identify the attached documentary and
object evidence and establish their
authenticity in accordance with the Rules of
Court
5. The signature of the witness over his printed
name
6. 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
[Sec. 3]
7. A sworn attestation at the end, executed by the
lawyer who conducted or supervised the
examination of the witness, to the effect that:
a. He faithfully recorded or caused to be
recorded the questions he asked and the
corresponding answers that the witness gave;
and
b. Neither he nor any other person then
present or assisting him coached the witness
regarding the latter's answers.
A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned
to disciplinary action, including disbarment.
[Sec. 4]
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
PROCEDURE
Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial
affidavit
1. The party presenting the judicial affidavit of his
witness in place of direct testimony shall state the
purpose of such testin1ony at the start of the
presentation of the witness.
2. 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.
3. 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.
[Sec. 6]
Examination of the witness on his judicial
affidavit
1. The adverse party shall have the right to cross-
examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and
on the exhibits attached to the same.
2. The party who presents the witness may also
examine him as on re-direct.
3. In every case, the court shall take active part in
examining the witness to determine his credibility
as well as the truuth of his testimony and to elicit
the answers that it needs for resolving the issues.
[Sec. 7]
Oral offer of and objections to exhibits
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 n1arkings during
the offers, the objections, and the rulings,
dispensing with the description of each exhibit.
[Sec. 8]
Page 442 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
APPLICATION TO CRIMINAL ACTIONS
This Judicial Affidavit 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
[Sec. 9]
Procedure
1. The prosecution shall submit the judicial
affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days
before the pre-trial, serving copies ·of the same
upon the accused.
2. 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.
3. No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or
object evidence shall be admitted at the trial.
4. 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 fron1
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.
[Sec. 9]
EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE
Non-compliant
Consequence
behavior
Deemed to have waived
their submission
Note: Court may allow, only
once late submission,
provided
1. the delay (a) is for a
valid reason, (b) would
not prejudice the
opposing party and
2. the defaulting party pays
a fine.
U.P. LAW BOC
Affidavit shall not be
considered by the court
Deemed to have waived his
- insofar as these are inconsistent with the provisions
examine the witnesses there
present
Judicial affidavit cannot be
admitted as evidence
The court may, however,
allow only once the
subsequent submission of
the compliant replacement
affidavits before the hearing
or trial provided
1. the delay (a) is for a
valid reason, (b) would
not prejudice the
opposing party and
2. the defaulting party pays
a fine.
[Sec. 10]
Issuance of 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
shall be understood to be ex parte [Sec. 5]
Adverse party witnesses and hostile witnesses are
excluded since they are not covered by Sec. 5 [Tam v.
China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 214054 (2015)]
There is nothing in the provisions of the Judicial
Affidavit Rule, which prohibits a defendant from
filing a demurrer to evidence, if he truly believes that
the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is insufficient.
[Lagon v. Velasco, G.R. No. 208424 (2018)]
Page 443 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
EFFECT ON OTHER RULES
The provisions of the Rules of Court and other rules
of procedure in the investigative or quasi-judicial
bodies covered by this rule are repealed or modified
of this Rule [Sec. 11]
5. Rights and Obligations of a
Witness
Obligation
To answer questions, although his answer may tend
to establish a claim against him.
Rights
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
demeanor
2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of
justice require
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters
pertinent to the issue
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject
him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise
provided by law
Example of this right: Sec. 8, R.A. 1379 and other
immunity statutes which grant the witness
immunity from criminal prosecution for offenses
admitted
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 answer to the fact
of his previous final conviction for an offense
[Sec. 3, Rule 132]
One-Day Examination of Witness Rule
A witness has to be fully examined in one (1) day only.
It shall be strictly adhered to subject to the courts'
discretion during trial on whether or not to extend the
direct and/or cross-examination for justifiable
reasons [A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC]
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
6. Order of Examination of an
Individual Witness
a. Direct Examination
Examination-in-chief of a witness by the party
presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue [Sec.
5, Rule 132]
b. Cross-Examination
The witness may be cross-examined by the adverse
party as to any matters stated in the direct
examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient
fullness and freedom
1. to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom
from interest or bias, or the reverse, and
2. to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue
[Sec. 6, Rule 132]
Right to cross-examination
Cross-examination is the most reliable and effective
way known of testing the credibility and accuracy of
testimony. This is an essential element of due process
[Herrera, citing Alford v. US (1931)]
The right to cross-examine under the constitution is
superior to technical rules on evidence [Herrera, citing
People v. Valero, G.R. No. L-45283-84 (1982)]
Partial cross-examination is sufficient where the
witness was cross-examined on material points, and
full cross-
fault but that of the defense who repeatedly moved
for postponement, direct examination cannot be
thrown off the case [Herrera, citing People v. Caparas,
G.R. No. L-47411 (1981)]
Effect of denial of right to cross-examine
Most courts require that the testimony given on direct
examination be stricken off provided the
unavailability of the witness is through no fault of the
party seeking to cross-examine [Herrera]
Cross-examination must be completed or finished.
When cross-examination is not and cannot be done
or completed due to causes attributable to the party
offering the witness, the uncompleted testimony is
thereby rendered incompetent [Herrera, citing Ortigas,
Jr. v. Lufthansa German Airlines, G.R. No. L-28773
(1975)]
Page 444 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
c. Re-Direct Examination
The witness may be re-examined by the party calling
him, to explain or supplement his answers given
during the cross-examination. Questions on matters
not dealt with during the cross-examination, may be
allowed by the court in its discretion [Sec. 7, Rule 132]
d. Re-Cross 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 [Sec. 8, Rule 132]
e. Recalling the Witness
After the examination of a witness by both sides has
been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled
without leave of the court. The court will grant or
withhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of
justice may require [Sec. 9, Rule 132]
Why conducted
1. Particularly identified material points were not
covered in cross-examination
2. Particularly described vital documents were not
presented to the witness
3. Cross-examination was conducted in so inept a
manner as to result in a virtual absence thereof
[People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 98376 (1991)]
7. Leading and Misleading
Questions
Leading question: A question which suggests to the
witness the answer which the examining party
General rule: Not allowed
Except:
a. On cross examination;
b. On preliminary matters;
c. When there is difficulty in getting direct and
intelligible answers from a witness who is
ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble
mind, or a deaf-mute;
d. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
e. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer,
director, or managing agent of a public or private
U.P. LAW BOC
corporation or of a partnership or association
which is an adverse party
[Sec. 10, Rule 132]
Misleading question: 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
[Sec. 10, Rule 132]
When witness considered unwilling or hostile
Only if so declared by the court upon adequate
showing of his
a. adverse interest
b. unjustified reluctance to testify, or
c. having misled the party into calling him to the
witness stand
[Sec. 12, Rule 132]
Party may not impeach his own witness
EXCEPT with respect to
a. An unwilling or hostile witness; or
b. A witness who is an adverse party or an officer,
director, or managing agent of a public or private
corporation or of a partnership or association
which is an adverse party
How impeached: 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 evidence of his bad character. He may also
be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse
party, but such cross-examination must only be on the
subject matter of his examination-in-chief.
[Sec. 12, Rule 132]
8. Methods of Impeaching an
a. By contradictory evidence;
b. By evidence that his general reputation for truth,
honesty or integrity is bad;
c. By evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present
testimony
But NOT by evidence of particular wrongful acts,
EXCEPT that it may be shown by the examination
of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he
has been convicted of an offense
[Sec. 11, Rule 132]
Page 445 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
Note: Before a party may be qualified under Section
12, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the party
presenting the adverse party witness must comply
with Section 6, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court which
provides:
SEC. 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.
[Ng Men Tam v. China Banking Corp., G.R. No. 214054
(2015)]
In civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse
party to the witness stand is not allowed, unless
written interrogatories are first served upon the latter.
9. How the Witness is
Impeached by Evidence of
Inconsistent Statements
(Laying the Predicate)
a. The statements must be related to him, with the
circumstances of the times and places and the
persons present, and
b. He must be asked whether he made such
statements, and if so, allowed to explain them.
c. If the statements be in writing they must be
shown to the witness before any question is put
to him concerning them
[Sec. 13, Rule 132]
10. Evidence of the Good
Character of a Witness
NOT admissible until such character has been
impeached [Sec. 14, Rule 132]
Because a witness is presumed to be truthful and of
good character, the party presenting him does not
have to prove he is good because he is presumed to
be good.
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

11. Admissions and Confessions Flight from justice is an admission by conduct and
circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt [US
v. Sarikala, G.R. No. L-12988 (1918)]
a. Res Inter Alios Acta Rule
Rationale
Things done between strangers ought not to injure No man would make any declaration against himself
those who are not parties to them [ unless it is true [Republic v. Bautista, G.R. No. 169801
Dictionary] (2007)]

Two Branches
1. First branch: Admission by a third party [Sec. Admission Must be Made in Context
28, Rule 130] It is a rule that a statement is not competent as an
2. Second branch: Similar acts as evidence [Sec. 34, admission where it does not, under reasonable
Rule 130] construction, appear to admit or acknowledge the fact
[2 Regalado 758, 774, 2008 Ed.] which is sought to be proved by it [CMS Logging, Inc.
v. C.A., G.R. No. L-41420 (1992)]
b. Admission by a Party
Lacbayan v. Samoy, Jr. [G.R. No. 165427 (2011)]:
Elements Issue: WON a Partition Agreement between partners
1. The act, declaration or omission having an extramarital affair is an admission against
2. Of a party interest such that a party to it who admitted the
3. As to a relevant fact existence of co-ownership can no longer assail the
[Sec. 26, Rule 130] agreement.
4. Against his interest (Sec. 26, Rule 130 Held: No. The question on the Partition Agreement
indicates a question of law to determine whether the
5. Made out of court (Those made in court are parties have the right to freely divide among
governed by Sec. 4, Rule 129.) [2 Regalado 754, themselves the subject properties. An admission must
2008 Ed.] involve matters of fact and not of law.
6. Offered and presented in court in an admissible
manner (e.g. non-hearsay) Judicial and Extrajudicial Admissions
Judicial Extrajudicial
EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS Made in connection
Any statement of fact made by a party against his with a judicial Any other admission
interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for which he proceeding in which it [Secs. 26 and 32, Rule
contends or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by is offered [Sec. 4, Rule 130]
him. [2 Regalado 754, 2008 Ed., citing 31 C.J.S. 1022] 129]
Must still be formally
A statement by the accused, direct or implied, of facts offered in evidence
Does not require proof
pertinent to the issue, and tending in connection with (Note language of Sec.
[Sec. 4, Rule 129]
proof of other facts, to prove his guilt [People v. 26, Rule 130
Lorenzo, G.R. No. 110107 (1995)]
May be conclusive
Requisites for Admissibility unless contradicted Rebuttable
1. They must involve matters of fact; [Sec. 4, Rule 129]
2. They must be categorical and definite; May be written, oral express or implied [Sec. 4,
3. They must be knowingly and voluntarily made; Rule 129; Sec. 26, Rule 130]
and
4. c. Admission by a Third Party
[2 Regalado 754, 2008 Ed.]
General rule: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced
Effect of an Admission by an act, declaration, or omission of another [Sec. 28,
It may be given in evidence against the admitter [Sec. Rule 130]
26, Rule 130]

Page 446 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC
Admission by a third party is inadmissible as against
another. The act, declaration or omission of another
is generally irrelevant, and that in justice, a person
should not be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized
strangers
The rule is well-settled that a party is not bound by
any agreement of which he has no knowledge and to
which he has not given his consent and that his rights
cannot be prejudiced by the declaration, act or
omission of another, except by virtue of a
particular relation between them
Exceptions:
1. 29, Rule
130]
2. Admission by conspirator [Sec. 30, Rule 130]
3. Admission by privies [Sec. 31, Rule 130]
Basis of exception
A third party may be so united in interest with the
party-
may be receivable against the party himself. The term
he relation.
d. Admission by a Co-Partner or
Agent
Requisites for Admissibility
1. The act or declaration
2. Of a partner or agent of the party
3. Within the scope of his authority
4. During the existence of the partnership or
agency,
5. May be given in evidence against such party
6. After the partnership or agency is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration
[Sec. 29, Rule 130]
This rule also applies to the act or declaration of a
joint owner, joint debtor, or other persons jointly
interested with the party [Sec. 29, Rule 130]
Statements made after partnership is dissolved
As a rule, statements made after the partnership has
been dissolved do not fall within the exception, but
where the admissions are made in connection with
the winding up of the partnership affairs, said
admissions are still admissible as the partner is acting
as an agent of his co-partners in said winding up [2
Regalado 759, 2008 Ed.]
Page 447 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
Admissions by counsel
Admissions by counsel are admissible against the
client as the former acts in representation and as an
agent of the client, subject to the limitation that the
same should not amount to a compromise [Sec. 23,
Rule 138] or confession of judgment [Acenas, et al. v.
Sison, et al., G.R. No. L-17011 (1963)]
Joint interests
1. The joint interest must be first made to appear by
evidence other than the admission itself
2. The admission must relate to the subject-matter
of joint interest [Herrera]
meaning in the common law system, that is, in solidum
for the whole [Jaucian v. Querol, G.R. No. L-11307
(1918)]
A mere community of interests between several
persons is not sufficient to make the admissions of
one admissible against all [Herrera]
Just like in partnership and agency, the interest must
be a subsisting one unless for the admission to be
admissible [Herrera]
e. Admission by a Conspirator
Requisites for Admissibility
1. The act or declaration
2. Of a conspirator
3. Relating to the conspiracy and during its
existence,
4. May be given in evidence against the co-
conspirator
5. After the conspiracy is shown by evidence other
than such act or declaration
[Sec. 30, Rule 130]
An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an
admission made by a conspirator under Sec. 30, Rule
130. This provision states that 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 [People v. Cachuela,
G.R. No. 191752 (2013)]
Existence of the conspiracy may be inferred from acts
of the accused [People v. Belen, G.R. No. L-13895
(1963)).
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
Applies only to extra-judicial statements, not to
testimony given on the stand [People v. Serrano, G.R.
No. L-7973 (1959)] or at trial where the party
adversely affected has the opportunity to cross-
examine [People v. Palijon, G.R. No. 123545 (2000]
As regards extrajudicial admissions AFTER
termination of conspiracy, BEFORE trial
General rule: Not admissible [People v. Badilla, G.R. No.
23792 (1926); People v. Yatco, G.R. No. L-9181 (1955)]
Exceptions:
1. Made in the presence of the co-conspirator who
expressly/impliedly agreed (tacit admission)
2. Facts in admission are confirmed in the
independent extrajudicial confessions made by
the co-conspirators after apprehension [People v.
Badilla, G.R. No. 23792 (1926)]
3. As a circumstance to determine credibility of a
witness [People v. Narciso, G.R. No. L-24484
(1968)]
4. Circumstantial evidence to show the probability
[2 Regalado 761, 2008 Ed.]
Doctrine of interlocking confessions
Extrajudicial statements of co-accused may be taken
as circumstantial evidence against the person
actual participation, provided that the statements
are made by several accused are:
1. Made without collusion
2. Identical with each other in their essential details;
3. Corroborated by other evidence on record
[People v. Molleda, G.R. No. L-34248 (1978), People v.
Tuniaco, G.R. No. 185710 (2010)]
Applicable to extrajudicial statements
The evidence adduced in court by the conspirators as
witnesses are not declarations of conspirators, but
direct testimony to the acts to which they testify. This
is applicable only when it is sought to introduce
extrajudicial declarations and statements of the co-
conspirators [Herrera, citing People v. Vizcarra, G.R.
No. L-38859 (1982)]
f. Admission by Privies
Privies
Persons who are partakers or have an interest in any
action or thing, or any relation to another [Riano 262,
2016 Ed., citing ] opportunities afforded him constituted a waiver of his
Page 448 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
It denotes the idea of succession, not only be right of
heirship and testamentary legacy, but also that of
succession by singular title, derived from acts inter
vivos, and for special purposes. (example: assignee of a
credit and one subrogated to it are privies.) [Alpuerto
v. Perez Pastor and Roa, G.R. No. L-12794 (1918)]
Requisites for Admissibility
1. One derives title to property from another
2. The act, declaration, or omission
a. of the latter (the person from whom title is
derived)
b. while holding the title
c. in relation to the property
3. is evidence against the former (one who derives
title from another)
[Sec. 31, Rule 130]
g. Admission by Silence
Requisites: When silence is deemed an admission
1. Person heard or understood the statement;
2. That he was at a liberty to make a denial;
3. That the statement was about a matter affecting
his rights or in which he was interested and which
naturally calls for a response;
4. That the facts were within his knowledge; and
5. That the fact admitted from his silence is material
to the issue
[People v. Paragsa, G.R. No. L-44060 (1978); Sec. 32,
Rule 130]
This rule applies even when a person was surprised in
the act [US v. Bay, G.R. No. 9341 (1914)] or even if he
was already in the custody of the police [People v.
Ancheta, G.R. No. 143935 (2004)]
When not applicable
1. Statements adverse to the party were made in the
course of an official investigation [U.S. v. De la
Cruz, G.R. No. 4740 (1908)], as where he was
pointed out in the course of a custodial
investigation and was neither asked to reply nor
comment on such imputations [People v. Alegre,
G.R. No. L-30423 (1979)]
2. Party had justifiable reason to remain silent, e.g.
acting on advice of counsel
[2 Regalado 763, 2008 Ed.]
Failure to file a comment
right to defend himself. In the natural order of things,
a man would resist an unfounded claim or imputation
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

against him. It is generally contrary to human nature him. Plainly, the admissibility of a confession in
to remain silent and say nothing in the face of false evidence hinges on its voluntariness [People v. Satorre,
accusations. As such, respondents silence may be G.R. No. 133858 (2003)]
construed as an implied admission and
acknowledgement of the veracity of the allegations An extrajudicial confession may be given in evidence
against him [OCA v. Amor, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2140 against the confessant but not against his co-accused
(2014)] (since) they are deprived of the opportunity to cross-
examine him. A judicial confession is admissible
h. Confessions -accused since the latter are
afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the former
The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt [People v. Palijon, G.R. No. 123545 (2000), cited in
of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily People v. Janjalani, G.R. No. 188314 (2011)]
included therein, may be given in evidence against
him [Sec. 33, Rule 130] Effect of Extrajudicial Confession of Guilt
General rule: An extrajudicial confession made by an
An acknowledgment in express words or terms, by a accused, shall not a sufficient ground for conviction
party in a criminal case, of his guilt of the crime
charged [People v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 110107 (1995)] Exception: When corroborated by evidence of corpus
delicti
Requisites [Sec. 3, Rule 133]
1. Express and categorical acknowledgement of
guilt [U.S. v. Corrales, G.R. No. 9230 (1914)]
2. Facts admitted constitutes a criminal offense Substance of the crime; the fact that a crime has
[U.S. v. Flores, G.R. No. 9014 (1913)] actually been committed [People v. De Leon, G.R. No.
3. Given voluntarily [People v Nishishima, G.R. No. 180762 (2009)]
35122 (1932)]
4. Intelligently made [Bilaan v Cusi, G.R. No. L- As Distinguished from Admissions of a Party
18179 (1962)], realizing the importance or legal Admission of a Party Confession
significance of the act [U.S. v. Agatea, G.R. No. Acknowledgment of
A statement of fact [2
15177 (1919)] guilt or liability [2
Regalado 754, 2008 Ed.]
5. No violation of Secs. 12 and 17, Art. III of the Regalado 754, 2008 Ed.]
Constitution Maybe express or tacit
Must be express [2
[2 Regalado 765, 2008 Ed.] [2 Regalado 754, 2008
Regalado 754, 2008 Ed.]
Ed.]
If the accused admits having committed the act in Can be made only by
Maybe made by 3rd
question but alleges a justification therefore, the same the party himself, and
parties, and in certain
is merely an admission [Ladiana v. People, G.R. No. admissible against his
cases, admissible
144293 (2002)] co-accused in some
against a party [2
instances [2 Regalado
Regalado 754, 2008 Ed.]
Any confession, including a re-enactment, without 754, 2008 Ed.]
admonition of the right to silence and to counsel, and Acts, declarations or
Declarations [Sec. 33,
without counsel chosen by the accused is inadmissible omissions [Sec. 26,
Rule 130]
in evidence [People v. Yip Wai Ming, G.R. No. 120959 Rule 130]
(1996)] May be in any
proceeding
[T]he basic test for the validity of a confession is Criminal case (Sec. 33,
was it voluntarily and freely made. The term (Sec. 26, Rule 130
Rule 130 refers to
"voluntary" means that the accused speaks of his free refers to a party
will and accord, without inducement of any kind, and without distinction as
with a full and complete knowledge of the nature and to nature of
consequences of the confession, and when the proceeding)
speaking is so free from influences affecting the will
of the accused, at the time the confession was made,
that it renders it admissible in evidence against

Page 449 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

i. Similar Acts as Evidence 12. Hearsay Rule

General rule: Evidence that one did or did not do a
certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove
a. Meaning of Hearsay
that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at
It is an out-of-court statement which is offered by the
another time
witness in court to prove the truth of the matters
asserted by the statement
Exceptions: Said evidence may be received to prove a
1. specific intent or knowledge
It is any evidence, whether oral or documentary, if its
2. identity
probative value is not based on personal knowledge
3. plan, system, or scheme
of witness but on knowledge of some other person
4. habit
not on witness stand [2 Regalado 776, 2008 Ed.]
5. custom or usage and the like
[Sec. 34, Rule 130]
Elements
1. Declarant is out of court
2nd Branch of res inter alios acta rule [2 Regalado 774,
2. Out of court declaration is offered as proof of its
2008 Ed.]
contents
3. Absence of opportunity for cross-examination
Reason for General Rule
The rule is founded upon reason, justice and judicial
convenience. The lone fact that a person committed
the same or similar act at some prior time affords, as
General Rule on Hearsay
a general rule, no logical guaranty that he committed
A witness can testify only as to those facts which he
knows of his personal knowledge, that is, which are
of life may change; and objectively, the conditions
derived from his own perception [Sec. 36, Rule 130]
which he may find himself at a given time make
likewise change and induce him to act a different way
The hearsay rule is not limited to oral testimony or
[Herrera, citing Moran]
statements; it applies to written, as well as oral
statements [Consunji v. C.A., G.R. No. 137873 (2001)]
Metrobank v. Custodio [G.R. No. 173780 (2011)]:
Facts: Respondent was accused of being responsible
If a party does not object to hearsay evidence, the
for cash sho
same is admissible, as a party can waive his right to
cross-examine [People v. Ola, G.R. No. L-47147 (1987)]
involvement in a cash shortage in its Cubao branch is
admissible as evidence to prove a scheme or habit on
Repeated failure to cross-examine is an implied waiver
her part.
[Savory Luncheonette v. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino,
G.R. No. L-38964 (1975)]
shortage
conclusively prove that she is responsible for the loss
of PhP600,000 in the Laoag City branch, subject of b. Reason for Exclusion of Hearsay
the instant case. If the prior cash shortage in Cubao Evidence
showed a reasonable intent or habit on her part, then
there was no reason for Metrobank to continue to The underlying rule against hearsay are serious
employ her, considering the degree of trust and concerns about the worth (trustworthiness, reliability)
confidence required of a bank teller. Nevertheless, of hearsay evidence. Because such evidence:
Custodio continued to serve the bank even after the 1. was not given under oath or solemn affirmation;
and
2. was not subject to cross-examination by
opposing counsel to test the perception, memory,
veracity and articulateness of out-of-court
declarant or actor upon whose reliability on
which the worth of the out-of-court testimony
depends

Page 450 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

[Herrera] that which is imposed by an oath administered by the

court. [People v. Cerilla, G.R. No. 177147 (2007)]
Jurisprudence instructs that evidence of statement
made or a testimony is hearsay if offered against a The foreboding may be gleaned from surrounding
party who has no opportunity to cross-examine the
witness. Hearsay evidence is excluded precisely injury and conduct that would justify a conclusion
because the party against whom it is presented is that there was consciousness of impending death
deprived of or is bereft of opportunity to cross- [People v. Latayada, G.R. No. 146865 (2004)]
examine the persons to whom the statements or
writings are attributed [Philippines Free Press v. C.A., The admissibility of an ante mortem declaration is not
G.R. No. 132864 (2005)] affected by the fact that the declarant died hours or
several days after making his declaration. It is
c. Exceptions to the hearsay rule sufficient that he believe himself in imminent danger
of death at the time of such declaration [Herrera, citing
1. Dying declaration People v. Ericta 77 SCRA 199]
2. Declaration against interest
3. Act or declaration about pedigree [G.R. No. 198022 (2014)]:
4. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
5. Common reputation Victim Januario was stabbed by respondents
6. Part of the res gestae on his way home. Policemen patrolling the area saw
7. Entries in the course of business Januario lying on the street. He was brought by the
8. Entries in official records policemen to the hospital. While in the vehicle, the
9. Commercial lists and the like police asked him who hurt him. He answered that it
10. Learned treaties was the respondents. He eventually died because of
11. Testimony or deposition at a former trial the stab wounds.

DYING DECLARATION WON the testimony of the accused was a

dying declaration.

articulo mortis People v. Mendoza, G.R.
No. 142654 (2001)]
Requisites for Admissibility
a. Declaration of a dying person
b. Declaration was made under the consciousness
of an impending death
c. Declaration 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
[Sec. 37, Rule 130]
d. Declarant is competent as a witness had he
survived [Geraldo v People, G.R. No. 173608
(2008)); and
e. Declarant should have died [People v. Macandog,
G.R. No. 129534 and 1411691 (2001)]
Rationale for Admissibility
As a general rule, when a person is at the point of
death, every motive to falsehood is silenced [People v
Bacunawa, G.R. No. 136859 (2001)]
The law considers the point of death as a situation so
solemn and awful as creating an obligation equal to
No. It does not appear that the declarant was
under the consciousness of his impending death when
he made the statements. No questions relative to the
second requisite was propounded to Januario. The
rule is that, in order to make a dying declaration
admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent
death must be entered by the declarant. 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 certainly impending. Thus, the utterances made by
Januario could not be considered as a dying
declaration.
However, the Court appreciated the testimony as part
of res gestae. Conviction of accused was sustained.
Objections to the dying declaration
May be premised on any of the requisites for its
admissibility embodied in Sec. 37, Rule 130. Counsel
who wants a dying declaration excluded must have to
deal with the primary question of whether or not the
evidentiary foundations for the introduction where
met [Riano 302, 2016 Ed.]

Page 451 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

Dying declarations are admissible in favor of the Can be made any time, Must have been made
defendant as well as against him [US v. Antipolo, 37 even during trial ante litem motam
Phil. 726 (1918)] Admissible only against Admissible even
the admitter against 3rd persons
DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST Admissible as an
Admissible not as an
exception to the
Requisites for Admissibility exception to any rule
hearsay rule
a. Declarant is dead or unable to testify;
b. Declaration relates to a fact against the interest of claim or defense,
the declarant; pecuniary or moral
although not moral or
c. At the time he made said declaration, declarant interest
pecuniary interest
was aware that the same was contrary to his Primary evidence Secondary evidence
interest; and [Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15 (2001)]
d. Declarant had no motive to falsify and believed
such declaration to be true [Sec. 38, Rule 130] ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT
PEDIGREE
Inability to testify means that the person is dead,
mentally incapacitated or physically incompetent. Requisites for Admissibility
Mere absence from the jurisdiction does not make a. The act or declaration
him ipso facto unavailable. [Fuentes v. C.A., G.R. No. b. Of a person deceased or unable to testify
111692 (1996)] c. In respect to the pedigree of another person
related to him by birth or marriage
Declaration against interest made by the deceased, or d. May be received in evidence where the
by one unable to testify, is admissible even against the act/declaration occurred before the controversy;
-in-interest or even against third and
persons [Sec. 38, Rule 130] e. Relationship between the declarant and the
person whose pedigree is in question must be
Actual or real interest shown by evidence other than such act or
It is essential that at the time of the statement, the declaration [Sec. 39, Rule 130]
,
real or apparent, not merely contingent, future or, Pedigree includes
conditional; otherwise the declaration would not in a. Relationship;
reality be against interest. (example: declarations b. Family genealogy;
c. Birth;
because these are future interests) [Herrera] d. Marriage;
e. Death;
Admissible against third persons f. Dates when these facts occurred;
If all the requisites for admission of a declaration g. Places where these facts occurred;
against interest are present, the admission is h. Names of relatives; and
admissible not only against the declarant but against i. Facts of family history intimately connected with
third persons [Herrera, citing Viacrusis v. C.A., 44 pedigree [Sec. 39, Rule 130]
SCRA 176]

As Distinguished from Admissions General rule: Proof of relationship must be shown in

Declaration against evidence other than the declaration.
Admission by a party
Interest [Sec. ,
[Sec. , Rule ]
Rule ] Exception: The general rule does not apply where the
Admitter is a party Declarant is neither a claim is sought to reach the estate of the declarant
himself, or in privity party nor in privity with himself, and not merely to establish a right through
with such party a party his declarations to the property of some other
Admissible whether or Admissible only when member of the family [Tison v. C.A., G.R. No. 121027
not admitter is available declarant is unavailable (1997)]
as a witness as a witness

Page 452 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

The witness may testify

Pedigree declaration by conduct Independent evidence on the relationship
This rule may also consist of proof of acts or conduct is needed to establish between such
of relatives and the mode of treatment in the family relationship between relationship himself.
of one whose parentage is in question [Herrera 649] declarant and person The author of the
whose pedigree is in reputation need not be
Not applicable to adoption issue established by
The rule allowing proof of pedigree is not applicable independent evidence.
to adoption. The absence of proof of an order of [Herrera]
adoption by the court, as provided by statute, cannot
be substituted by parol evidence that the child has COMMON REPUTATION
lived with a person, not his parent, and was treated as
Herrera, citing Lazatin Definition: the definite opinion of the community in
v. Campos, G.R. No. L-43955-56 (1979)] which the fact to be proved is known or exists. It
means the general or substantially undivided
FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION reputation, as distinguished from a partial or qualified
REGARDING PEDIGREE one, although it need not be unanimous [2 Regalado,
787, 2008 Ed.]
Requisites for Admissibility
a. Witness must be a member, by consanguinity or Requisites for Admissibility
affinity, of the same family as the subject; and a. Common reputation existed ante litem motam
b. Such reputation or tradition must have existed in b. Reputation pertains to:
that family ante litem motam [Sec. 40, Rule 130] 1. facts of public or general interest more than
30 years old,
Other Admissible Evidence 2. marriage, or
a. Entries in family bibles or other family books; 3. moral character
b. Charts; [Sec. 41, Rule 130]
c. Engravings on rings;
d. Family portraits and the like Other Admissible Evidence
[Sec. 40, Rule 130] a. Monuments
b. Inscriptions in public places
This enumeration, by ejusdem generis, is limited to [Sec. 41, Rule 130]
"family possessions," or those articles which
represent, in effect, a family's joint statement of its Pedigree may be established by reputation in the
belief as to the pedigree of a person [Jison v. C.A., G.R. family, but not in the community [Secs. 40-41, Rule
No. 124853. (1998)] 130]

Common reputation is hearsay like any other

as he learned of these from his parents or relatives, is exception to the hearsay rule, but is admissible
an ante litem motam declaration of a family tradition because of trustworthiness [Riano 327, 2016 Ed.,
[Gravador v. Mamigo, G.R. No. L-24989, (1967)] citing Reg. v. Bedforshire, 4 E & B 535, 82 ECL 535,
542]
Distinguished from Declaration about Pedigree
Sec. Family The character of a place as an opium joint may be
Sec. Declaration
Reputation or proved by its common reputation in the community
about Pedigree
Tradition [U.S. v. Choa Chiok, G.R. No. 12423, (1917)]
There must be a The witness testifying
declarant and a witness to the family reputation Reputation has been held admissible as evidence of
The witness need not and tradition must be a age, birth, race, or race-ancestry, and on the question
be a relative of the member of the family of whether a child was born alive [In re: Florencio
person whose pedigree member of the person Mallare, A.M. No. 533 (1974)]
is in question, it must whose pedigree is in
be the declarant. controversy. Unlike that of matters of pedigree, general reputation
of marriage may proceed from persons who are not

Page 453 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

members of the family the reason for the question and its significance to the
distinction is the public interest that is taken in the attending equivocal act
question of the existence of marital relations [In re: circumstances [Talidano v. Falcon
Florencio Mallare, AM No. 533 (1974)] [Talidano v. Falcon Maritime, G.R. No.
Maritime, G.R. No. 172031 (2008)]
PART OF THE RES GESTAE 172031 (2008)]] [2 Regalado 790, 2008
Ed.]
[2 Regalado 788, 2008
Ed., citing People v.
Siscar, G.R. No. 55649
the circumstances which are automatic and (1985)]
undersigned incidents of the particular act in issue, Spontaneous
and which are admissible in evidence when illustrative Verbal act must have
exclamations may have
and explanatory of the act [Herrera] been made at the time,
been made before,
and not after, the
during or immediately
Res gestae, as an exception to the hearsay rule, refers to equivocal act was being
after the startling
those exclamations and statements made by either the performed equivocal
occurrence equivocal
participants, victims, or spectators to a crime act
act
immediately before, during, or after the commission [2 Regalado 790, 2008
[2 Regalado 790, 2008
of the crime, when the circumstances are such that the Ed.]
Ed.]
statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or
utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion Sec. . Dying
and there was no opportunity for the declarant to Sec.
Declaration
deliberate and to fabricate a false statement [DBP Pool Statement may be
of Accredited Insurance Companies v. Radio Mindanao made by the killer
Network, Inc., G.R. No. 147039 (2006)] himself
after or during the Can be made only by
A dying declaration can be made only by the victim, killing [People v. Reyes, the victim
while a statement as part of the res gestae may be that G.R. Nos. L-1846 48
of the killer himself after or during the killing [2 (1949)] OR that of a
Regalado 788, 2008 Ed., citing People v. Reyes, G.R. Nos. 3rd person.
L-1846 48 (1949)] May precede,
accompany or be made Made only after the
A statement not admissible as dying declaration after the homicidal attack has
because it was not made under consciousness of homicidal attack was been committed
impending death, may still be admissible as part of res committed
gestae if made immediately after the incident [People v. Trustworthiness based
Gueron, G.R. No. L-29365 (1983)] Justification in the upon in its
spontaneity of the being given in
Requisites for statement. awareness of
Spontaneous impending death
Verbal Acts
Statements [2 Regalado 788-789, 2008 Ed.]
a. The principal act, a. The res gestae or
the res gestae, be a principal act or to ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS
startling be characterized
occurrence must be equivocal; Requisites for Admissibility
b. The statements b. Such act must be a. Entries were made at, or near the time of the
were made before material to the transactions referred to;
the declarant had issue b. Such entries were made in the ordinary or regular
the opportunity to c. The statements course of business or duty;
contrive must accompany c. Entrant was in a position to know the facts stated
c. The statements the equivocal act. in the entries;
must refer to the d. The statements
occurrence in give a legal

Page 454 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
d. Entrant did so in his professional capacity, or in
the performance of duty and in the regular course
of business; and
e. Entrant is now dead or unable to testify.
[Northwest Airlines v. Chiong, G.R. No. 155550
(2008); Sec. 43, Rule 130]
If the entrant is available as a witness, the entries will
not be admitted, but they may nevertheless be availed
of by said entrant as a memorandum to refresh his
memory while testifying on the transactions reflected
therein [Cang Yui v. Gardner, G.R. No. L-9974 (1916)]
Business records as exception to the hearsay rule
under the Rules on Electronic Evidence
a. A memorandum, report, record or data
compilation
b. Of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or
diagnoses,
c. Made by electronic, optical or other similar
means
d. At or near the time of or from transmission or
supply of information by a person with
knowledge thereof, and
e. Kept in the regular course or conduct of a
business activity, and
f. Such was the regular practice to make the
memorandum, report, record, or data
compilation by electronic, optical or similar
means,
g. All of the preceding items are shown by the
testimony of the custodian or other qualified
witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay
evidence
[Sec. 1, Rule 8, Rules on Electronic Evidence]
This presumption (more accurately, exception),
however, 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 [Sec. 2, Rule 8, Rules
on Electronic Evidence]
Entries in the payroll, being entries in the course of
business, enjoy the presumption of regularity [Sapio v.
Undaloc Construction, G.R. No. 155034 (2008)]
Reason for rule
The duty of the employees to communicate facts is of
itself a badge of trustworthiness of the entries [Security
Bank and Trust Company v. Gan, G.R. No. 150464
(2006)]
These entries are accorded unusual reliability because
their regularity and continuity are calculated to
Page 455 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
discipline record keepers in the habit of precision
[ , G.R.
No. 184971 (2010)]
ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
Requisites for Admissibility
a. Entries in official records were made by a public
officer in the performance of his duties or by a
person in the performance of a duty specially
enjoined by law [Sec. 44, Rule 130];
b. Entrant must have personal knowledge of the
facts stated by him or such facts acquired by him
from reports made by persons under a legal duty
to submit the same [Barcelon, Roxas Securities v.
CIR, G.R. 157064 (2006)]; and
c. Entries were duly entered in a regular manner in
the official records [People v. Mayingque, G.R. No.
179709 (2010)]
The trustworthiness of public documents and the
value given to the entries made therein could be
grounded on :
a. the sense of official duty in the preparation of
the statement made;
b. the penalty which is usually affixed to a breach of
that duty;
c. the routine and disinterested origin of most such
statements; and
d. the publicity of record which makes more likely
the prior exposure of such errors as might
have occurred
[Herce, Jr. v Municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna, GR. No.
166645 (2005)]
A sher
official in the performance of a duty specially enjoined
by law and is prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated. Being an exception to the hearsay rule, the
sheriff need not testify in court as to the facts stated
in said return [Manalo v Robles Trans.Co., GR. No. L-
8171, (1956)]
Entries in official records, just like entries in the
course of business, are merely evidence
of the facts therein stated [Secs. 43-44, Rule 130]
Entries in a police blotter are not conclusive proof of
the truth of such entries [People v. C.A.buang, G.R. No.
103292 (1993)]
Baptismal certificates or parochial records of baptism
are not official records [Fortus v. Novero, G.R. No. L-
22378 (1968)]
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE
Requisites for Admissibility
a. Evidence of statements of matters of interest to
persons engaged in an occupation
b. Such statements are contained in a list, register,
periodical, or other published compilations
c. Compilation is published for use by persons
engaged in that occupation; and
d. It is generally used and relied upon by them
[Sec. 45, Rule 130]
Need of preliminary proof of trustworthiness
There should be requirements of preliminary proof of
trustworthiness before such lists are rendered
admissible. Some proof must be shown how or in
what manner it was made up, where the information
it contained was obtained, or whether the quotation
of prices made were derived from actual sales or
otherwise [Herrera]
LEARNED TREATISES
Requisites for Admissibility
a. Published treatise, periodical or pamphlet is on a
subject of history, law, science, or art; and
b. Court takes either:
1. judicial notice of it, or
2. 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
[Sec. 46, Rule 130]
Scientific studies or articles and websites which were
culled from the internet, attached to the Petition, and
were not testified to by an expert witness are basically
hearsay in nature and cannot be given probative
weight. [Paje v. Casiño, G.R. No. 207257 (2015)]
TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A 1. Statements which are the very facts in issue, and
FORMER TRIAL
Requisites for Admissibility
a. Witness is dead or unable to testify;
b. His testimony or deposition was given in a
former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, between the same parties or those
representing the same interests;
c. Former case involved the same subject as that in
the present case although on different causes of
action;
Page 456 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
d. Issue testified to by the witness in the former trial
is the same issue involved in the present case; and
e. Adverse party had the opportunity to cross-
examine the witness in the former case
[Sec. 47, Rule 130; Manliclic v. Calaunan, G.R. No.
150157 (2007)]
Inability to testify (meaning and standard)
The inability of the witness to testify must proceed
from a grave cause, almost amounting to death, as
when the witness is old and has lost the power of
speech. Mere refusal shall not suffice [Tan v. C.A.,
G.R. No. L-22793 (1967)]
OTHER EXCEPTIONS OUTSIDE THE
RULES OF COURT
a. Affidavit in the Rules of Summary Procedure -
shall not be considered as competent evidence
for the party presenting the affidavit, but the
adverse party may utilize the same for any
admissible purpose [Sec. 14, Rules on Summary
Procedure]
b. Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness,
hearsay exception in child abuse cases [see Sec.
28]
Doctrine Of Independently Relevant Statements
Statements or writings attributed to a person not on
the witness stand, which are being offered not to
prove the truth of the facts stated therein, but only to
prove that such were actually made.
These are not covered by the hearsay rule [People v.
Cusi, G.R. No. L-20986 (1965)]
These are statements which are relevant
independently of whether they are true or not [Estrada
v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710 (2001)]
Two classes of independently relevant
statements:
2. Statements which are circumstantial evidence of
the facts in issue. They include the following:
a. Statement of a person showing his state of
mind, that is, his mental condition,
knowledge, belief, intention, ill will and other
emotions;
b. Statements of a person which show his
physical condition, as illness and the like;
c. Statements of a person from which an
inference may be made as to the state of
mind of another, that is, the knowledge,
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the
latter;
d. Statements which may identify the date,
place and person in question; and
e. Statements showing the lack of credibility of
a witness [Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No.
146710 (2001)]
13. Opinion Rule
Opinion
Opinion is an inference or conclusion drawn from
General rule: The opinion of witness is not admissible
[Sec. 48, Rule 130]
Exceptions:
a. Expert witness [Sec. 49, Rule 130]
b. Ordinary witness [Sec. 50, Rule 130]
a. Opinion of Expert Witness
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 [Sec.
49, Rule 130]
Expert witness is one who has made the subject
upon which he gives his opinion a matter of particular
study, practice or observation and he must have
particular and special knowledge on the subject [People
v. Dekingco, G.R. No. 87685 (1990)]
ADMITTING EXPERT TESTIMONY
Question in admitting expert testimony
Whether the opinion called for will aid the fact finder
in resolving an issue, or whether the jury or the judge
is as well qualified as the witness to draw its own or
his own deductions from the hypothetical facts
[Herrera]
Court discretion to exclude or include expert
evidence
If men of common understanding are capable of
comprehending the primary facts and drawing correct
conclusions from them, expert testimony may be
excluded by the Court [Herrera]
Competency of witness is a preliminary question
before testimony is admitted
Page 457 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
It must be shown that the witness is really an expert;
determination of competency is a preliminary
question [Herrera]
HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS
Test
Fairness is the ultimate test of hypothetical questions.
The Court shall reject a question which unfairly
selects parts of the facts proved or omits material
facts. If it omits facts, it may be opposed on the
ground that it is misleading [Herrera]
Admissibility of hypothetical question
Admissibility of hypothetical questions depends on
whether it furnishes the tribunal with the means of
knowing upon what premises of fact the conclusion
is based [Herrera, citing Magiore v. Sheed (195 A. 392,
173 Md 33)]
EXAMINING AN EXPERT WITNESS
Mode of examination of expert witness
He may base his opinion either on a first-hand
knowledge of the facts or on the basis of hypothetical
questions where the facts are presented to him
hypothetically, and on the assumption that they are
true, formulates his opinion on this hypothesis
[Herrera]
The lack of personal examination and interview of the
respondent, or any other person diagnosed with
personality disorder, does not per se invalidate the
testimonies of the doctors. Neither do their findings
automatically constitute hearsay that would result in
their exclusion as evidence. Within their
acknowledged field of expertise, doctors can diagnose
the psychological make up of a person based on a
number of factors culled from various sources. A
person afflicted with a personality disorder will not
necessarily have personal knowledge thereof
[Camacho-Reyes v Reyes, G.R. No. 185286 (2010)]
How to present an expert witness
1. Introduce and qualify the witness;
2. Let him give his factual testimony, if he has
knowledge of the facts;
3. Begin the hypothetical question by asking him to
assume certain facts as true;
4. Conclude the question, by first asking the expert
if he has an opinion on a certain point
5. assuming that these facts are true and secondly,
asking him, after he has answered affirmatively,
to give his opinion on the point;
U.P. LAW BOC
6. After he has stated his opinion, ask him to give
his reasons.
Despite the fact that petitioner is a physician and even
assuming that she is an expert in neurology, she was
not presented as an expert witness. As an ordinary
witness, she was not competent to testify on the
nature, and the cause and effects of whiplash injury
[Dela Llana v. Biong, G.R. No. 182356 (2013)]
b. Opinion of Ordinary Witness
The opinion of an ordinary witness is admissible
when:
1. If proper basis is given, and
2. Regarding:
a. Identity of a person about whom he has
adequate knowledge;
b. Handwriting with which he has sufficient
familiarity;
c. Mental sanity of a person with whom he is
sufficiently acquainted; and
d. Impressions of the
i. emotion,
ii. behavior,
iii. condition, or
iv. appearance of a person
[Sec. 50, Rule 130]
IDENTITY OF A PERSON ABOUT WHOM
HE HAS ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE
Statements of a witness as to identity are not to be
rejected because he is unable to describe features of
the person in question [Herrera]
Identification by voice is recognized by the courts,
especially in a case where it was impossible to see the
accused but the witness has known the accused since
their childhood [Herrera, citing US v. Manabat]
HANDWRITING WITH WHICH HE HAS
SUFFICIENT FAMILIARITY
The ordinary witness must be acquainted with the
characteristics of the handwriting of a person. He may
only draw on the knowledge which he already has and
which enables him to recognize the handwriting.
Only experts are allowed to give conclusions from the
comparison of samples of handwriting of a person
whose handwriting he is not familiar with [Herrera]
Page 458 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
MENTAL SANITY OF A PERSON WITH
WHOM HE IS SUFFICIENTLY
ACQUAINTED
These are allowed where the witness can adequately
sanity or insanity which is impossible for the court to
determine [Herrera]
IMPRESSIONS OF THE EMOTION,
BEHAVIOR, CONDITION OR
APPEARANCE OF A PERSON
The rule recognizes instances when a witness may be
permitted to state his inferences that are drawn from
minute facts and details which the witness cannot
fully and properly describe in court. Such expressions
are expressed to the countenance, the eye and the
general manner and bearing of the individual;
appearance which are plainly enough recognized by a
person of good judgment, but which he cannot
otherwise communicate by an expression of results in
the shape of an opinion [Herrera, citing US case Hardy
v. Merill]
14. Character Evidence
Character distinguished from reputation
'Character' is what a man is, and 'reputation' is what
he is supposed to be in what people say he is.
'Character' depends on attributes possessed, and
'reputation' on attributes which others believe one to
possess. The former signifies reality and the latter
merely what is accepted to be reality at present [Lim v.
C.A., G.R. No. 91114 (1992)].
General rule: [Sec. 51, Rule 130]
Character evidence is not admissible.
Exceptions:
a. Criminal cases [Sec. 51(a), Rule 130]
b. Civil case [Sec. 51(b), Rule 130]
c. In the case provided for in Sec. 14, Rule 132
(Evidence of good character of witness is not
admissible until such character has been
impeached).
a. Criminal Cases
1. Accused May prove his good moral character,
which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in
the offense charged.
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

2. Prosecution May not prove the bad moral
character of the accused, except in rebuttal.
3. Offended Party His/her good or bad moral
character may be proved if it tends to establish in
any reasonable degree the probability or
improbability of the offense charged.
[Sec. 51, Rule 130]
Good moral character of accused
The purpose of presenting evidence of good moral
character is to prove the improbability of his doing
the act charged. The accused may prove his good
moral character only if it is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged [Herrera]
Bad moral character of accused in rebuttal
Unless and until the accused gives evidence of his
good moral character the prosecution may not
introduce evidence of his bad character [Herrera, citing
People v. Rabanes, G.R. No. 93709 (1992)]
Good or bad moral character of offended party
This is usually offered in rape cases and where the
accused invokes the defense of self-defense.
In rape cases, the character of a woman may be
relevant and admissible on the question of the
presence or absence of her consent. While in
homicide and assault cases, it may be used as evidence
Rape Shield Rule
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 [Sec 6, R.A. 8505]
Sexual Abuse Shield Rule
The following evidence is not admissible in any
criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual
abuse:
1. Evidence to prove that the alleged victim
engaged in other sexual behavior; and
2. Evidence offered to prove the sexual
predisposition of the alleged victim [Sec 30, Rule
on Examination of a Child Witness]
b. Civil cases
Moral character is admissible only when pertinent to
the issue of character involved in the case [Sec. 51(b),
Rule 130]
admissible until such character has been impeached
[Sec. 14, Rule 130]

warranting the response of the accused [Herrera]

Note: Rape is no longer a crime against chastity (R.A.

8353).

Character evidence must be limited to the traits and

characteristics involved in the type of offense
charged. Thus:
on a charge of rape : character for chastity
on a charge of assault: character for
peaceableness or violence
on a charge of embezzlement : character for
honesty [CSC v. Belagan, G.R. No. 132164 (2004)]

Proof of the bad character of the victim is not

admissible:
In a murder case: If the crime was committed
through treachery and evident premeditation
[People v. Soliman, G.R. No. L-9723 (1957)]
In a rape case: If through violence and
intimidation [People v. Blance, G.R. No. 20063,
(1923)]

Page 459 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC
K. Offer and Objection
1. Offer of Evidence
General rule: The court shall consider no evidence
which has not been formally offered. The purpose for
which the evidence is offered must be specified [Sec.
34, Rule 132]
Exception:
Evidence not formally offered may be admissible
when two essential conditions concur:
a. the same must have been duly identified by
testimony duly recorded and,
b. the same must have been incorporated in the
records of the case
[Star Two v. Ko, G.R. No. 185454 (2011)]
As Distinguished from Identification of
Documentary Evidence
Identification of
Formal Offer of
Documentary
Evidence
Evidence
Done in the course of
the trial and
Done only when the
accompanied by the
party rests his/her case
marking of the
evidence
[Interpacific Transit v. Aviles, G.R. No. 86062 (1990)]
Why Formal Offer is Necessary
Parties are required to inform the courts of the
purpose of introducing their respective exhibits to
assist the latter in ruling on their admissibility in case
an objection thereto is made. Without a formal offer
of evidence, courts are constrained to take no notice
of the evidence even if it has been marked and
identified [Star Two v. Ko, G.R. No. 185454 (2011)]
No evidentiary value can be given to pieces of
evidence not formally offered [Dizon v. CTA, G.R.
No. 140944 (2008)]
However, where the absence of an offer of a
testimonial evidence was not objected to as when the
witness was cross-examined by the adverse party
despite failure to make an offer of the testimony, the
court must consider the testimony.
The provisions of the ROC on the inclusion on
appeal of documentary evidence or exhibits in the
records, cannot be stretched as to include such
Page 460 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
pleadings or documents not offered at the hearing of
the case [Candido v. C.A., G.R. No. 107493 (1996)]
When Formal Offer is NOT Required
a. In a summary proceeding because it is a
proceeding where there is no full-blown trial;
b. Documents judicially admitted or taken judicial
notice of;
c. Documents, affidavits, and depositions used in
rendering a summary judgment;
d. Documents or affidavits used in deciding quasi-
judicial or administrative cases [Bantolino v. Coca
Cola Bottlers, G.R. No. 153660 (2003)]
e. Lost objects previously marked, identified,
described in the record, and testified to by
witness who had been subjects of cross-
examination in respect to said objects [Tabuena v.
C.A., G.R. No. 85423 (1991), citing People v.
Napat-a, G.R. No. 84951 (1989)]
[Riano 343, 2016 Ed.]
f. When duly identified in a testimony duly
recorded and it was incorporated in the records
of the case [Vda. de Oate v. C.A., G.R. No. 116149
(1995)]
The Republic offered the negotiated contracts solely
to prove that the Bakunawas had been incorporators
or owners, or had held key positions in the
corporations that entered into the contracts. The
Sandiganbayan correctly ruled, therefore, that the
contracts could be considered and appreciated only
for those stated purposes, not for the purpose of
proving the irregularity of the contracts. Evidence can
be considered only for the purposes it was specifically
offered [Republic v Reyes-Bakunawa, G.R. No. 180418
(2013)]
Waiver of Right to Make Formal Offer
It is deemed waived by a party if it fails to submit
within a considerable period of time its formal offer
[Heirs of Pasag v. Parocha, G.R. No. 155483 (2007)]
In this case, the court did not allow the petitioners to
present their formal offer 10 years after resting its
case. In an earlier case of Constantino v. C.A. [G.R. No.
116018 (1996)], the Court did not allow a formal offer
even only after three months because such would,
xcusable laxity if not non-compliance
with a court order which, in effect, would encourage
needless delays and derail the speedy administration
A party is not deemed to have waived objection to
admissibility of documents by his failure to object to
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
the same when they were marked, identified and then
introduced during the trial. This is because objection
to documentary evidence must be made at the time it
is formally offered and not earlier [Interpacific Transit v.
Aviles, G.R. No. 86062 (1990)]
a. When to Make an Offer
Kind of
When to offer
evidence
At the time the witness is
Testimonial
called to testify
Documentary and After the presentation of a
Object
[Sec. 35, Rule 132]
The party who terminated the presentation of
evidence must make an oral offer of evidence on the
very day the party presented the last witness.
documentary or object evidence waived [Heirs of Pasag
v. Sps. Parocha, G.R. No. 155483 (2007)]
Manner of Offer
General rule: Offer shall be done orally
Exception: Allowed by the court in writing
[Sec. 35, Rule 132]
While the trial court may allow the offer to be done
in writing, this can only be tolerated in extreme cases
where the object evidence or documents are large in
number say from 100 and above, and only where
there is unusual difficulty in preparing the offer [Heirs
of Pasag v. Sps. Parocha, G.R. No. 155483 (2007)]
Absence of an offer is a defect which is waived when
a party fails to object when the ground became
reasonably apparent, as when the witness is called to
testify without any prior offer [Catuira v. C.A., G.R.
No. 105813 (1994)]
The defect caused by the absence of formal offer of
exhibits can be cured by the identification of the
exhibits by testimony duly recorded and the
incorporation of the said exhibits in the records of the
case [People v. Mate, G.R. No. L-34754 (1981)]
The defendant cannot offer his evidence before the
plaintiff has rested [Herrera, citing Engersail v. Malabon
Sugar Co., 53 Phil. 7450]
The Court shall consider the evidence solely for the
purpose for which it is offered, not for any other
Page 461 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
purpose [Spouses Ragudo v Fabella Estate Tenants
Association, Inc., G.R. No. 146823, (2005)].
b. Objection
Concept
A party (e.g. the defendant) has a right to object to
evidence which he considered not admissible under
the complaint, even if the questions were asked by the
judge and it was his duty to do so [Loper v. Standard Oil
Company, G.R. No. 2345 (1906)]
When a party desires the court to reject the evidence
offered, he must so state in the form of objection.
Without such objection, he cannot raise the question
for the first time on appeal [People v. Diaz, G.R. No.
197818 (2015)]
MANNER
Excluding inadmissible evidence
1. One has to object to inadmissible evidence;
2. The objection must be timely made; and
3. The grounds for the objection must be specified
[Herrera]
Purposes Of Objection
1. Made to keep out inadmissible evidence that
would cause harm to
evidence are not self-operating);
2. To protect the record (for future appeal);
3. To protect witness from being embarrassed or
harassed;
4.
5. To give trial court an opportunity to correct its
own errors and at the same time warn the court
that a ruling adverse to the objector may supply a
jurisdiction; and
6. To avoid a waiver of inadmissibility
[Riano]
Objections must be specific enough to adequately
inform the court the rule of evidence or of substantive
law that authorizes the exclusion of evidence [Riano]
CLASSIFICATION OF OBJECTIONS
General Objections
Do not clearly indicate to the judge the ground upon
which the objections are predicated [Riano 348, 2016
Ed.]
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

In cases where the incompetency of the evidence is so Without such objection, he cannot raise the question
palpable that a mere general objection is deemed for the first time on appeal [People v. Hernandez, G.R.
sufficient and where the portion of the evidence No. 184804, 2009]
objected to is clearly pointed out, and its illegality is
apparent on its face, then the objection must be Waiver of Objection
allowed [Riano 349, 2016 Ed., citing 75 Am Jur 257 When there is failure to point out some defect,
citing Scott v. Times-Mirro Co., 181 Cal 345, 184 P 672, irregularity or wrong in the admission or exclusion of
12 ALR 1007; Sparf v. United States, 156 US 51, 39 L evidence. Such failure may take various forms and
Ed 343, 15 S. Ct. 273] may either be expressed or implied [Riano 353, 2016
Ed.]
Specific Objection
States why or how the evidence is irrelevant or Effect of waiver
incompetent. Although hearsay evidence may be admitted because
of lack of objection, it is nonetheless without
Formal Objection probative value, unless the proponent can show that
Directed against the alleged defect in the formulation the evidence falls within the exception to the hearsay
of the question evidence rule [Bayani v. People, G.R. No. 155619
(2007)]
Substantive
Made and directed against the very nature of the c. Repetition of an Objection
evidence
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course
When to Object of examination of a witness that the questions being
What to object to When to object propounded are of the same class as those to which
Immediately after offer objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be
is made necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient
for the adverse party to record his continuing
As soon as the grounds objection to such class of questions [Sec. 37, Rule 132]
become reasonably
apparent A court may, motu proprio, treat the objection as a
continuing one [Keller v. Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship,
Within 3 days after G.R. No. L-12308 (1918)]
notice of the offer,
unless a different An objection must be seasonably made at the time it
period is allowed by the is formally offered. Objection prior to the formal
court offer is premature and could not be considered by the
The grounds for objection must be specified in Court as basis for a continuing one [Interpacific Transit
any case. v. Aviles, G.R. No. 86062 (1990)]
[Sec. 37, Rule 132]
Where a continuing objection had been interposed on
The issue of the admissibility of documentary prohibited testimony, the objection is deemed waived
evidence arises only upon formal offer thereof. This where the objecting counsel cross-examined the
is why objection to the documentary evidence must witness on the very matters subject of the prohibition
be made at the time it is formally offered, and not [De Abraham v. Recto-Kasten, G.R. No. L-16741 (1962)]
earlier [Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188881
(2014)] A Comment/Opposition to a formal offer of
evidence, when objected to as being "immaterial,
Objection to a question propounded in the course of irrelevant and impertinent," is an admission of the
the oral examination of a witness shall be made as authenticity of the entries in the passport [Dycoco v.
soon as the ground therefor becomes reasonably Orina, G.R. No. 184843 (2010)]
apparent [Bayani v. People, G.R. No. 155619 (2007)]

When a party desires the court to reject the evidence

offered, he must so state in the form of objection.

Page 462 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
d. Ruling
General rule: The ruling of the court must be given
immediately after the objection is made
Exception: 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.
[Sec. 38, Rule 132]
In that event it is perfectly proper for the court to take
a reasonable time to study the question presented by
the objection; but a ruling should always be made
during the trial [Lopez v. Valdez, G.R. No. L-9113
(1915)]
A reasonable time must not extend beyond the ninety
(90)-day reglementary period from the date of
submission of the formal offer of evidence [Beltran v.
Paderanga, AM No. RTJ-03-1747 (2003)]
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/s relied upon [Sec. 38, Rule 132]
Reservation of a ruling by the court on an objection
to the admissibility of evidence, without subsequently
excluding the same, amounts to a denial of an
objection [People v. Tavera, G.R. No. L-23172 (1925)]
Principle
The Supreme Court encourages the admission or
borderline evidence for whatever it is worth or por lo
que puedo valer [Prats & Co. v. Phoenix Insurance, 52 Phil.
807 (1930)]
No Express Ruling Needed
The trial court need not make an express ruling
admitting the exhibits if there is no objection
interposed to their admission [Herrera, citing Boix v.
Rivera, CA Rep. 2d 104]
The ruling of the court is required only when there is
an objection to a question or to the admission of an
exhibit [Herrera]
The ruling on an objection must be given immediately
after an objection is made. However, objections based
Page 463 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
on irrelevancy and immateriality need no specification
or explanation. Relevancy or materiality of evidence is
a matter of logic, since it is determined simply by
ascertaining its logical connection to a fact in issue in
the case [Cruz-Arevalo v. Querubin-Layosa, AM No.
RTJ-06-2005 (2006)]
e. Striking Out an Answer
Motion to Strike
A motion to strike out goes to admissibility and not
to weight; evidence should not be stricken out
because of its little probative value [Herrera]
1. Court may sustain an objection and order the
answer given to be stricken off the record if:
a. witness answers the question before the
adverse party had the opportunity to object,
and
b. such objection is found to be meritorious.
2. The court may also, upon motion, order the
striking out of answers, which are
a. incompetent,
b. irrelevant or
c. otherwise improper
[Sec. 39, Rule 132]
Other cases when motion to strike is proper
1. When the answer is premature
2. When the answer of the witness is unresponsive;
3. When the witness becomes unavailable for cross-
examination through no fault of the cross-
examining party;
4. When the testimony is allowed conditionally and
the condition for its admissibility was not
fulfilled; [Riano]
5. Where evidence has been properly received, and
its effect has been destroyed by other evidence,
or its admissibility has afterward become
apparent; [Herrera]
Motion to strike out should specify objection
A motion to strike out should specify the objection as
well as the portion of the evidence which is objected
to [Herrera]
f. Tender of Excluded Evidence
The procedure in Section 40 is known as offer of
proof or tender of excluded evidence and is made for
purposes of appeal. If an adverse judgment is
eventually rendered against the offeror, he may in his
appeal assign as error the rejection of the excluded
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

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 [Cruz-
Arevalo v. Querubin-Layosa, AM No. RTJ-06-2005
(2006)]
If an exhibit sought to be presented in evidence is
rejected, the party producing it should ask the courts
permission to have the exhibit attached to the record.
Any evidence that a party desires to submit for the
consideration of [a higher] court must be formally
offered by him otherwise it is excluded and rejected
and cannot even be taken cognizance of on appeal
[Catacutan v. People, G.R. No. 175991 (2011)]
[Riano 361-362, 2016 Ed.]
Erroneous Way of Making Tender
To
producing the witness or stating the evidence where
by the fact in issue is to be proved [Riano 364, 2016
Ed., Douillard v. Wood, 20 C2d 670, 128 P2d 6 (1942)]
The SC had advised trial courts to allow the rejected
[documentary] evidence to be attached to the record
to enable the appellate court to examine the same and
determine whether the exclusion of the same was
proper or not [Herrera, citing Banez v. C.A., G.R. No.
L-30351 (1974)]

Before tender of excluded evidence is made, the Harmless error rule

evidence must have been formally offered before the In dealing with evidence improperly admitted in trial,
court. And before formal offer of evidence is made, we examine its damaging quality and its impact to the
the evidence must have been identified and presented substantive rights of the litigants. If the impact is
before the court [Yu v. C.A., G.R. No. 154115 (2005)] slight and insignificant, we disregard the error as it will
not overcome the weight of the properly admitted
Documents marked as exhibits during the hearing but evidence against the prejudiced party [People v.
which were not formally offered in evidence cannot Teehankee, G.R. No. 111206 (1995)]
be considered as evidence nor shall they have
evidentiary value [ The Rules of Court does not prohibit a party from
Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-43316 (1977)] requesting the court to allow it to present additional
evidence even after it has rested its case. Any such
How to Tender Evidence opportunity, however, for the ultimate purpose of the
Kind of admission of additional evidence is already addressed
How to tender the evidence
evidence to the sound discretion of the court [Republic v.
Offeror may have the same Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152375 (2011)].
attached or made part of the
record
Offeror may state for the record
the name and other personal
circumstances of the witness
and the substance of the
proposed testimony
[Sec. 40, Rule 132]

Rationale
1. to allow the court to know the nature of the
testimony or the documentary evidence and
convince the trial judge to permit the evidence or
testimony; and
2. even if he is not convinced to reverse his earlier
ruling, the tender is made to create and preserve
a record for appeal
[Riano 360, 2016 Ed.]

Two Methods of making the Tender

1. Where the counsel tells the court what the
proposed testimony would be;
2. By using the question and answer form

Page 464 of 481